I thought about making a thesis with several foundational points to prove out my theory but really I'd like to make 3 main points here. I would prefer it to be more of a discussion because I think the movement can lose sight of itself when these types of events happen. And people need to arrive at their own conclusions so hopefully one of these points will resound with you:

1) Military strategy I - An analogy, please observe the USA's failures in the Middle East and Vietnam. We lost to Guerilla Warfare because we failed to understand and truly breathe in the local culture. We failed to understand the nuances and simply painted the enemy in a Black and White manner. We were unable to convert neutral parties to our side and didn't come through with our bullshit "hearts and minds" rhetoric - We didn't walk the walk so we got walked all over. Terrorists LOVE when their enemy fails to notice these nuances because it makes them that much easier to manipulate. They can easily hide behind the face of a neutral party that looks the same. This is why many Terrorists are not even of Arab Muslim descent. They are converted White and Black American Christians! The enemy said they'll predictably paint a broad brush over Arab refugees from a particular country. That's what we did and now look what's happening. AWALT is no longer a realistic solution here if you would like to continue living in the West.

2) Biology - AWALT is inaccurate because no two humans are the same. This is because evolution commands genetic diversity. If all Women were the same we would not exist as a species today. NAWALT/Unicorns is also an inaccurate concept. Again it is a spectrum not a Black or White thing. All Women do share common traits but herein lies the difference: What is their unique PROPENSITY to EXPRESS these traits? I am not a certified biochemist or geneticist. However, there is a basic concept of recessive genes and environmental conditions that determine whether a gene is dominant or recessive. Just because all Women have the capability to be bi-polar blithering radical feminists does it mean that they will become them? No, because there is never 100% compliance with dominant traits. That is putting all of your eggs in one basket. There are varying levels of hormonal levels and correspondingly varying degrees of behavioral temperaments. I am willing to bet all of the Mitochondria on earth today have the ability to go rogue to a certain degree but originally this happened by chance. The Mitochondria in early organisms who displayed the ability to buck the trend were the ones to survive. The predictable species that operated with 100% predictable behavior died out. That is all there is to it. By virtue of this fact we cannot declare that all Women will follow the same script. At the core everything about the homo sapiens is rooted in the details located in your mitochondria which contain the genetic information of the entire species along with your individual blueprint. There will be a variance and even within the same organism you can't count on 100% consistency throughout life. Microevolution can and does happen within the same organism within the same lifespan. These microevolutions or changes add up to large variances over time. It is reflected in the sperm you produce and the egg it impregnates. There will be differences that do not manifest until the last minute you are conceived. Do you understand how profound this concept is? These are mainly caused by various and millions of exogenous environmental stressors you are not even aware or conscious of.

3) Military Strategy II - The enemy within. Feminism can't survive without male cooperation. If Chad Thundercock is only 10% of the population, take out another 10% for TFLers and maybe another 10% for Zeta Males or extreme Monk MGTOWs off the grid or those who quarantine themselves through a variety of means and degrees. We have anywhere from 60-70% of Males left. Not all of these are pure Beta Males or Male feminists with soggy titties and flappy putrid guts from excessive estrogen in the blood. At the same time we must recognize the attention should be 50% on other Males. These are Men with imbalanced hormonal profiles who can also behave like Women. I don't think we focus enough on strategies to deflect and neutralize Male feminists. I think the core enemy to look out for is other Men. The radical feminists already know the more Men they have on their side the more "legit" they appear to the neutral party (both Men and Women).

AWALT needs to be more refined and nuanced and maybe a better acronym/phrase needs to be developed to more accurately reflect that. If you operate with an AWALT mentality you are more vulnerable to attack than a guy who takes a measured calculated approach and considers multiple variables, including some mentioned in my 3 points above.

We need to place an emphasis on embracing individuality and formulate diverse strategic scenarios that more accurately reflect the type of Woman you are dealing with. There are insufferable beta chumps that will tolerate almost anything but that simply isn't the whole story. It would be facetious to believe that. There are Women who don't subscribe to the bullshit but they have no incentive to be loud enough by virtue of the fact that they are hormonally balanced and don't feel the need to validate themselves every 5 seconds on social media. So how would we know about them exactly and what their numbers are? We wouldn't and we don't. But they must be factored into the equation and our measured approach towards Women in general. Generalizations are convenient but specificity yields the greatest ROI in most endeavors in life.