₦airaland Forum

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

For those who are interested in Machiavellian Tactics, I created a thread for you to read and enjoy. It's like a sequel to this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/6425951/phase-1-machiavellian-tactics-life

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Some of the undeleted posts you might find on this thread belong to other monikers. The main posts of this thread have been deleted. To understand the reason why I took this hard decision, read the post through the link below -

https://www.nairaland.com/6425951/1-deleted/8#125958189

A thread were complete decorum was maintained is now filled with pests, what went wrong? Well, we saw it coming, didn't we?

I saw it coming when I suggested that a moniker (which we all know) to open up another thread for his/her unrelenting arguments and which he/she blatantly refused, since then I stopped quoting or replying that moniker because something is not just adding up. After some time, he/she showed his/her real intentions by threatening to close down the thread and quoting some monikers here which invited more pests on this thread.

The best option now is to ignore these pests and treat them the same way as their predecessors. My concern is not for those already aware of TRP but for those still living in their fantasies and people searching for the Truth. This thread has been of great help to many people and it was a great success. We can't allow some moniker who was heartbroken and throwing tantrums online to cause distractions and make us lose focus on the purpose of this thread.

"There’s a lot of freedom in stupidity, playing dumb is oft profitable."

No veteran in the online men’s community believes in NAWALT, a NAWALT (meaning not all women are like that) implies there is a woman out there who behaves in none of the ways central to which AWALT claims. That is the unicorn, and the unicorn is a lie – an idealised mythological remnant of blue pill programming. The idea that a woman who is not hypergamous, Machiavellian, immature, solipsistic and all the rest exists out there.

Think of the NAWALT unicorn as El Dorado, you’ve heard all about it, a buddy of yours may have even been on an expedition to go and find it, but neither you nor anybody you know has ever found it.

AWALT doesn’t mean women can’t learn to be better partners given the right instruction, it means if they don’t receive and happily abide by such instruction, they will showcase the very worst aspects of AWALT (extreme hypergamy, immaturity, disloyalty etc). A woman in her natural, unsculpted state is prone to the very worst of AWALT, because women of substance are made not born.

Defying One Element of AWALT Doesn’t Make A NAWALT:

You may know a woman who often takes responsibility for her actions, but AWALT claims women are notorious blame shifters. That specific woman thus defies AWALT in this one aspect. This does not mean she doesn’t branch swing, isn’t hypergamous, or doesn’t friend zone men so she can enjoy boyfriend level commitment without actually dating. This one woman who defies this one aspect of AWALT does not disprove AWALT, she is merely the exception to one aspect of it.

Whilst different women may defy different aspects of AWALT, no woman defies all aspects of it. This woman is known by the mythical term ‘unicorn’ precisely because she doesn’t exist. A unicorn is effectively the idealised woman who has none of the negative qualities we identify women as having.

A “good woman”, such as one of those over at red pill women tries to suppress the aspects of her nature inherent to AWALT, the fact she need to suppress these aspects at all demonstrates the point – all women are like that. If they weren’t, there would be nothing for aware women to actively work to suppress.

Continuation on explanation of general misconception: (AWALT)

NB: I'm not the author of this write-up

Degrees of AWALT:

Humanity is diverse, so inevitably there’s going to be an exception in some form or another which disproves a certain aspect of the AWALT contention. And yet despite human diversity, there is incredible similarity among women. So much so that, we can qualitatively outline the “operating system of female behaviour” and to differing degrees, find conformity to the arguments made by AWALT. Sure not all women are gold diggers who will only date millionaires, but many won’t date a man of equal or lesser net worth.

Sure some women date poorer men, but such a man is likely to be highly popular or attractive. However you cut it, AWALT will contend women are hypergamous. Will hypergamy always manifest in one exact manner? No, of course not, it is not that “women are all the same” it’s more a case of “women all have the same instincts and are therefore predisposed to specific kinds of behaviour.”

Hypergamy can manifest as a desire for resources, superior genes, social status – any of these things. People tend to get caught up on the material when thinking of hypergamy, but to really distil it down to its fulcrum, hypergamy means “a woman will only date someone she believes to be superior to her”.

So the fact a woman dates a man poorer than her does not mean she isn’t hypergamous, he has something else going on either physically, socially or psychologically that makes her believe he is superior, if this wasn’t the case, she wouldn’t be with him. However you cut it, non-hypergamous women do not exist – hence AWALT.