/r/TheRedPill/comments/7d5z5n/schrödingers_nawalt_right_now_she_never_lovesd/

I've been trying to think recently about a way we can try to shepard men, that are failed unpluggings to understand why the logic behind vetting and the idea of the unicorn is false. Fundamentally, the idea of the unicorn is nAWALT. Yet these women exist. But with enough knowledge you know even if they "exist," they don't. The confusion here is not that these statements are false, but why they are true. And why there are true, I think is pretty deep and profound, not just to why the language of the community is too vague to understand this well enough, but because I think it shoots all the way down to our purpose, as a species.

This essay will be most helpful to men that believe that they can vet a woman to search for a unicorn, that do not understand yet why this doesn't matter, and that TRP is right. If you already have gotten past your unicorn stage, understand how difficult and painful it was for you to understand and digest this, and if it was easy for you, understand most men go through a divorce or many to digest this, and still not ever understand why.

This is a stepping stone for why you want an "internal locus of control."

This is just one example of many why having an external locus of control is a futile way to live your life. You don't know, what you don't know. Systems are infinitely complex, and here you're about to read about how and why, all you can do is love what she brings you. (right now)

Inspiration

After conversing with a woman in PPD it became clear as day that the fundamental conflict between men and women can be better understood, not in the results we see (which we may conflate as AWALT) but instead in differences in how men and women see the world around them. The woman I was conversing with could not possibly imagine a future where she wasn't attracted to her fiance. Yet also, recognized that she would be unwilling to sleep with a man she wasn't attracted to. And that she was essentially nAWALT. To any man that reads this, they'd think, what do you mean you'd never be that woman if you wouldn't sleep with a man you've lost attraction to?

This woman believes nAWALT because she, right now, is nAWALT.

Now let me be clear. This does not mean she is not subject to the results we know that are likely to occur in this situation. What I mean is this. Her mental attitude is naive. She has never lost attraction to a partner.

If I had to place a bet on whether this woman, right now, is capable of cheating, or whether she's living two lives and has a side man, I would bet the farm that she's a "good girl."

Before a woman has lost attraction to someone, and been forced to confront herself, she is in a state of naivety that absolutely could be seen, at the time, as nAWALT. This is the unicorn. I consider this to be the equivalent to a male natural. She is not yet able to understand her own true nature, because she hasn't yet confronted it.

I finally found one boys. But what does this even mean, what can we learn about this specimen? Well... like everything when you peal it apart, nothing good. We all know damn well how she behaves will be entirely determined by him maintaining attraction and nothing a couple SMV points higher showing its head.

But right now, she feels like that could never be true. And so right now, she could never imagine being that horrid, dishonest woman that is described as AWALT on TRP.

When we say "there are no unicorns" we are not commenting on her in this state, we are commenting on her end results, her outcome. Because we know "AWALT."

So here we can see that

  • n(AWALT) is TRUE
  • and AWALT is TRUE
  • and unicorns exist (nAWALT)
  • and unicorns don't exist (because AWALT).
  • and that she can love you (because she feels that right now)
  • and that she never loved you (because she feels that right now)

So this is somewhat a semantic debate, in so far as the language of TRP is part of the problem with the "purple pill" issue (red pill aware, blue pill users). But it also helps us understand the nature of the conflict between men and women without resorting to hyperbole (all women are shit) or doublespeek (enjoy the decline).

This really is the nature of women I believe that men can not rationalize. I do not believe women are inherently wicked like those that sling AWALT around want to state. I believe women are incapable of understanding their wicked nature until they confront themselves.

Confronting the beast within

Jordan Peterson has often brought up that inside, we are all at least Nazi prison camp guards. And until you are within the conflict of war, you can't really know yourself. I have met this man inside of myself. And I would say until you have fully accepted the teachings here, you can't say you know yourself any better than the subject of this essay.

What I believe, is that inside every woman is this equal beast, that we know as AWALT. As the woman you meet siting at the divorce table that says "I never loved you" and would tear your eyes out if such a thing were legally permissible.

At some point, this very same woman was a unicorn. She was nAWALT. At some point, she thought I will never love a man as much as this man.

Which to any of us, makes no god damn sense. But that's because the beast we confront in ourselves serves a different purpose.

WE COMPETE, SHE SELECTS.

So the beast within serves her purpose, selection, while ours serves ours, competition.

Solution

The only solution to this problem is to have an internal locus of control, which is aligned to the attraction mechanisms of a woman AND succificently accounts for the mercurial nature of a woman's being.

Vetting, controlling your SMV etc only get you so far as strictly rational thought. When she's confronted with an irrational desire that far exceeds her ability to deal with it, you will meet what lies inside of every woman.

So not all women are like that, until they have to be. And when she feels that she has to be, she will bring a woman out that I personally will assure you is pretty god damn close to you in the fire you bring. When you start a family, understand that when this woman comes out, she is equally as dangerous, without hyperbole, as the man marching towards you with a rifle and bayonet.

If you don't have kids, get the fuck out of the way. If you don't have kids and you got married... why, bloody god, why, you fucking moron.

These posts should make it excruciatingly clear, your efforts to "game the system" or find flaws in the content is nothing more than the manifestation of you not wanting to accept the truth. I make these posts not so you can find ways to use this knowledge to further your blue pill goals, but to understand, that it is clear as day, that these systems do not have a solution.

The proof I put all this against never betrays the truth.

How do you ensure ever increasing genetic fitness AND diversity?

I posit this is a related and corollary to Rollo's war bride dynamic. Because if a woman was not capable of holding contradictory feelings like this, she would not be able to execute her evolutionary purpose. So these contradictory states, and beliefs which don't make a whole lot of sense on their face, I believe serve a purpose. They are the grease for a woman's own internal mental friction to achieve the purpose of the species.

For you, it should serve as a stark warning of trying to plan your life around what amounts to a permanently unsolvable variable.

Because the only thing that matters to her, is how she feels, right now. Tingles uber alles then is supposition of the states of being attracted to and not attracted to a man at all times. What has transpired between you two is null the moment she's decided it.

So work on the only variable which you, 100.00% control. Your god damn self.