894
895

Red Pill TheoryAll Guns Are Loaded (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT

TL;DR:

This post is about addressing the idea that AWALT is "unfair" or "inaccurate" from a scientific perspective. AWALT is an "unfair generalization", but the concept doesn't exist to be perfectly accurate or perfectly fair. It exists as a rule-of-thumb to keep you safe. Protect yourself, protect your interests, then go out there and have a good time with the people you love, you handsome devil you.


I was thinking a while ago about the phrase AWALT, and how (from a philosophical/scientific perspective), it can't possibly be an actually valid statement. So I started thinking about why that is, and why it persists.

And then I realized that there's another phrase like that, which is All Guns Are Loaded. It's a very simple concept to understand: If you have a gun, assume it's loaded. If somebody points a gun at you, assume it's loaded. It doesn't matter if you've personally unloaded it or witnessed somebody unloading it. All guns are loaded.

It's admittedly a little bit troublesome that we use the phrase AWALT, because it can be interpreted as oversimplifying women. It's annoying to have to explain to people. I've had someone come to me and say, "Okay, the truths about TRP seem to make sense, but I can't get past how they generalize a huge population. That's just unscientific."

I agree. And the important thing to realize here is this– AWALT isn't an attempt to come to a scientific, accurate assessment of an entire population. It's a heuristic meant to remind you to prepare for the worst.

Consider how we "oversimplify" guns. We assume that they're all loaded. Why? How come that's okay? Because it's better to be safe than sorry. The same logic applies with AWALT. And in any respectable relationship between equals, both parties will appreciate the fact that the other party is first and foremost responsible for their own interests.

Some people will say that that's not what relationships are about, that relationships should be about blind, passionate trust in the other person's absolute and total devotion to both parties' mutual interests. That's incredibly naive. It's a fairy tale. Even siblings kill each other. Why do we expect better from romantic love?

I believe that it's possible to love people deeply, to be kind, to be generous, to be warm, to be loving. (Sometimes I wish I saw more of that from TRP, but I respect that that's not what this forum is about. So I'll keep those fee-fees to myself.)

A leader doesn't impose discipline on his crew because he hates them and he thinks crews are necessarily unreliable. He does it because he wants them to achieve great things as a collective, and have great experiences along the way. That said, he also protects himself so that he might live to fight another day, should he find himself utterly compromised.

So it is with relationships. Be as warm, kind, and loving as you like. But protect your interests. Remember that you can't negotiate desire, you have to earn it. Remember that nobody truly cares about your suffering.

And remember that all guns are loaded.

PS: Also, you can also assume that 'AMALT' with regards to all sorts of negative and damaging behavior, too. You should assume, for instance, that any money you lend will never be returned. I'm sure you can think of all sorts of other such heuristics that are necessarily "unfair" or "imperfect" but are designed to save yo ass.

EDIT: When I say "troublesome", I don't mean "Aw, gee, it's not very nice that the boys at TRP are saying mean things about women." This is the Internet, who gives a shit. What I mean is this: If you're not careful about how you think and talk about a rule of thumb, you have a good chance of ending up in a nasty situation. This is a meditation on how to avoid getting into nasty situations. Think however you like, but consider the ramifications and act accordingly. (Or not. It's your life.)


[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 341 points342 points  (46 children)

A lot of dudes don't understand AWALT because they haven't had many if ANY serious relationships. I'll listen to a player when it comes to hooking up, but the dude knows fuck all about female psychology beyond the attraction stage and so he's not really qualified to understand AWALT outside a seduction context.

A dude that's been in an LTR with one chick for 5 years knows more about women than a guy who's been hooking up with chicks and briefly plating for 5 years. The latter has mastered seduction, the prior actually knows more about the nature of what he's dealing with beyond the initial bedding stage because he's around for the bad and not just the good.

I find dudes who don't commit and just have short flings all the time have a very rosy-perception of women because they've got their game down enough not to face that much bullshit when it comes to getting laid, and beyond that they're not subject to any of the relationship bullshit. So they enjoy the best of what women have to offer without being subject to any of the bullshit and this gives them a hugely positive bias, as if men aren't wired to pedestalise pussy anyway. They go around thinking "hey women are great, I love fucking em and flirting with em, those dudes saying AWALT on TRP are just bitter."

Maybe some dudes are bitter, bitter doesn't mean wrong.

If you put "all" in front of anything, you're wrong, there is going to be an exception somewhere, but the exception proves the rule.

AWALT is a quick way of saying a lot in a few words:

  • 99.9% of women 99.9% of the time prefer emotion to logic
  • 99.9% of women 99.9% of the time will betray you for a better option, loyal only to power
  • 99.9% of women 99.9% of the time have very little emotional self-control
  • 99.9% of women 99.9% of the time behave like children

No that list isn't exhaustive. And just because a chick doesn't betray you one time, or doesn't get overly emotional over nothing one time - doesn't mean she doesn't have a propensity to do this most of the time. If you literally hand pick a girl's best moments, you can disprove every fundamental of AWALT - but that's not intellectually honest nor representative. AWALT is imperfect, but it is representative.

Just because you're designed to put women on a pedestal and see them as greater than they are due to your biological imperative to fuck them, doesn't mean they aren't any of these things.

If you knew a dude who were these things, you'd hate him, cuss him out and mock him. But women get a free pass for commonly exhibiting traits we collectively hate. Why? We're literally hard-wired to give bitches a free pass and overlook their flaws. No matter how shitty women are, dudes just want to enjoy them, they JUST want to be happy, so they deny certain truths or EXEMPT one particular woman they wish to enjoy in order to facilitate this desire.

This is why people hate AWALT even if they know in their heart of hearts its absolutely fundamentally true. Instinct obscures truth when it comes to the study of women, men are overridden by idealism, lust and paternalism and feel if they accept the nature of women that they have to hate them as a result and then they won't be able to enjoy them. Not true at all, sometimes you just have to accept reality is not what you want it to be, that women are not angelic like you were taught they were, but in fact far more flawed than even you.

Then in spite of this knowledge, you have to make a commitment to your own happiness and make the best out of the flawed creatures that are women. AWALT means: hey, women possess a bunch of shitty traits we hate that vary only by degree rather than presence among women, but now you have to enjoy them in spite of this!

I know that isn't easy, I know it's hard, and I know the knowledge is painful - that's why dudes struggle with this. But your struggle doesn't alter her nature, you can sit on reddit until you pass out debating pedantic little points in regard to AWALT, but AWALT will remain a truism that persists.

On the topic of enjoying things that are fucked up, I know my tuna is polluted with mercury because these fucking third world countries dump all their factory waste into the ocean, yet I still enjoy my tuna. Not quite the same I know, but it's an example that something can be far from perfect yet still provide happiness. Ultimately the reason dudes are resistant to AWALT is because they see it as a threat to their happiness.

The inability to grasp and ACCEPT AWALT, instead choosing to REJECT AWALT out of autistic pedanticism is no more than a sign that the person in question has to lie about the nature of women to themselves in order to like and enjoy them. They are not at the stage where they can enjoy women WHILST ACCEPTING HOW FLAWED AND FUCKED UP THEY ARE.

If you don't think women are fucked up because your perception is clouded by idealism, you're not red pill. Likewise if you think you're going to be happy without any women in your life, chances are you won't be - at least not if you're family orientated. Love 'em or hate 'em, ya need 'em - and they need you even more.

It honestly bewilders me how autistic and retarded some people are as to take the word ALWAYS, miss the forest for the trees and fucking run with it.

Any time I've popped my head in purplepilldebate for a quick minute I've seen constant bickering over this.

How hard is it to understand?

AWALT is saying "women will be women, and this is what women are like."

Sometimes you will be surprised, but you shouldn't live like you expect to be surprised, you should live being aware of the nature of the creature you're dealing with. AWALT is a heuristic, an extremely accurate one at that, you can live by it and have a great life. You don't need to be right 100% of the time to enjoy life, being right the majority of the time is just as effective. You know what is less effective? constantly convincing yourself you're in possession of a woman who is part of the negligible .01% and that these are the only women you can give yourself permission to love. This is a recipe for misery!

Sometimes a women apologises to me and admits she is wrong for something she said or did, when this happens I am pleasantly surprised but this doesn't mean "oh, looks like this woman isn't part of the 99.9% of women who won't take responsibility for anything!" because most of the time, SHE DOES blame shift. The .1% of the women are those who, in this one particular facet RARELY BLAME SHIFT. And even if a woman is part of the .1% in that one aspect, she may be part of the 99.9% in all the other aspects, such as little emotional self-control, disloyal etc.

AWALT is immutable, I think most guys simply can't and don't want to accept it, somewhere in the back of their head they want to think their unicorn is out there, that they'll find a chick who is in the .1% of all the qualities we despise in women, lock her down and not have her leave. It's fucking bullshit.

[–]Casanova-Quinn 38 points39 points  (16 children)

miss the forest for the trees and fucking run with it.

Any time I've popped my head in purplepilldebate for a quick minute I've seen constant bickering over this.

I've observed this as well outside of this sub. I think it's the stem of all the misconceptions about TRP. People instantly jump to the conclusion that because we say AWALT that we are absolutists preaching dogma about all the ways women are "evil". They take no time to understand the context of AWALT and use flawed logic like "I know a girl who isn't like that, those RPs are delusional". The outliers do not represent the majority. BPs seem more concerned with the semantics of RP theory than the actual content behind it.

[–]BuddhistSC 33 points34 points  (3 children)

Not gonna lie, I assume any time anyone makes a universal statement about anything a posteriori, I assume they're an idiot. You see feminists do it all the time. "Average woman" means "All women" to them. "Average woman makes less than the average man, therefore any given woman would make less than a man at the same job." You can't take empirical evidence and draw a universal conclusion from it, that's logically invalid.

The "all guns are loaded" analogy, though, makes a lot of sense. It's not about making a logically valid conclusion, it's about being safe at no additional cost to yourself. If you always assume a gun is loaded until you've seen it unloaded and the chamber checked, then you're not at risk of someone getting shot, and you lose nothing. (PS: What OP said about it not mattering if you personally unloaded it is wrong. If that were the case, you'd never be able to clean a gun. You only assume a gun is loaded until you've seen the empty chamber.) If you assume any given woman you meet fits the negative criteria, you're protecting yourself without costing yourself or anyone anything.

But again, this assumes it's at no additional cost, and it also assumes that once you've seen that "the chamber is empty", you start treating the "gun as unloaded", otherwise you're going to miss out on a lot of opportunities.

[–]Modredpillschool 4 points5 points  (1 child)

If you always assume a gun is loaded until you've seen it unloaded and the chamber checked, then you're not at risk of someone getting shot,

And even then, you still don't point it at anybody you're not looking to kill.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (4 children)

PPD always involves them arguing over some retarded semantic because they really have no argument to their bullshit.

"Like you said AWALT, but what about mtf transgenders?"

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Whenever i get a contrary opinion to mine, and I see PPD in their history, conversation over.

I have no time to hear someone enjoy the sound of his own voice, I got a life to improve here

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Like they can't contradict themselves so they've said things like:

nobody really fears murder!

(because women fear rape, because we should all lose rights because women are irrationally scared of rape.)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

exactly, waste of time.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]BuddhistSC 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Anecdotes can debunk philosophical theories if they are actually relevant (which is usually the issue). You can even debunk scientific theories with anecdotes, depending on the theory. The thing you can't debunk is statistics.

    [–]systemshock869 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    BPs seem more concerned with the semantics of RP theory than the actual content behind it.

    I've also found this to be the case with most proponents of the blue flavor of politics (USA) that I have tried to discuss non-Progressive solutions with. Basically, if someone has already made their mind up to disagree with you or the side of the fence you're coming from, but don't have any actual theory or logic to debate you with, they shut down common intuition and condescendingly pick apart your wording in order to be able to respond while still appearing knowledgeable/intellectually superior/whatever. It's frustrating how many people aren't conscious enough to be able to recognize this and back you up when they see it happening. So instead of wasting 30 minutes defending my statements (losing frame) to mindless nitpicking, I've learned to just disengage.

    [–]ioncehadsexinapool 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    I'm not saying either of you are wrong. But, is .1% just trying to prove a point? Or does he/trp actually believe that it's .1%? I'm just wondering I dunno seems a little extreme to me

    [–]Casanova-Quinn 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Speaking only for myself, I think it's more so to prove the point; quantifying it with exact numbers is a bit silly. What's important is to assume AWALT and remain skeptical.

    [–]ioncehadsexinapool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I can agree with that. Guilty until proven innocent.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorThotwrecker 29 points30 points  (2 children)

    People also do not understand the full implications of women's dualistic nature. They do not extend AF/BB to it's logical conclusion which is that women behave and come across completely different when they are with alphas versus betas. She is literally a different person when she's with her beta fiance than she is when she's at DJ tiesto's backstage party. If you've ever been with a girl who seems nice and caring and flirty and sweet when she's with you, but is a completely twisted bitch to her BF or her beta orbiter, you've experienced this dualism.

    She is a loyal, dick-draining, motivated, supportive, non-nagging person WHEN she is with someone who is cleanly head and shoulders above her in value. When she starts to think she can do better, when that guy goes fat and soft, her character degrades and this "unicorn" with wonderful qualities starts to degrade too. She's going to then behave like AWALT.

    All women who seemingly beat the "AWALT" rule and are wonderful, supporting, loyal, and so and so... they are only like that because of the guy they are with. With a beta guy, their disdain will come out. Despite their best intentions, their contempt will corrupt their behavior and they will start to shit test incessantly, look for opportunities to branch swing, and get lazy themselves with fitness & diet.

    The women who seem perfect... they are made by the men they are with. I have what I consider to be as close to a unicorn that a non-celebrity guy can get... but if I degrade my own value and become a beta in her eyes, her dualistic nature WILL make her seek a branch to swing on. She'll gain weight, she'll nag, she'll cheat, she'll rationalize it as my fault.

    AWALT to me means women are as good as they have to be, no more than that. If she needs to maintain her fitness and feminity and make-up game and cooking and cleaning to keep her higher SMV BF, she will and will seem like a real prize. But the minute that dread is gone and she feels that she can relax into being an average woman, she will, and when that happens, it's a matter of time before her "AWALT" traits come out.

    [–]setzer_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    absolutely bang on. great post.

    [–]through_a_ways 19 points20 points  (0 children)

    Instinct obscures truth when it comes to the study of women, men are overridden by idealism, lust and paternalism and feel if they accept the nature of women

    In other words, emotion overrides logic, even in the minds of men.

    The only difference is that many men are lucid enough to acknowledge their biologically derived double standards, and are emotionally strong enough to embrace the hypocrisy of their actions. Women, almost without exception, are not.

    [–]1spicy_fries 16 points17 points  (0 children)

    This and OP's post needs to be sidebarred asap. There is nothing for bluepills to debate here... we just point them to this post.

    [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

    [deleted]

    What is this?

    [–]alanthemanofchicago 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Yeah, this reminds me of that bear getting put down in Yosemite (I think, might be wrong about the place) because it attacked a kid. Uhh no shit, the bear attacked the kid because he's a fuckin bear, and besides Yosemite is his house. You're coming into his house, you should know what's up.

    Can't really blame the bear.

    [–]thefisherman1961 9 points10 points  (1 child)

    AWALT is immutable, I think most guys simply can't and don't want to accept it, somewhere in the back of their head they want to think their unicorn is out there, that they'll find a chick who is in the .1% of all the qualities we despise in women, lock her down and not have her leave.

    Then you develop oneitis and she senses it, and begins to subconsciously resent you because of your beta behavior. Denying AWALT is a losing situation.

    [–]alanthemanofchicago 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Exactly. You can deny AWALT (and, by proxy, TRP) and you'll be happy for awhile until shit falls apart because you've gone beta. Or, you can accept AWALT (It's a tough process, no doubt) and experience the kind of happiness that only comes with true understanding.

    [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Likewise if you think you're going to be happy without any women in your life, chances are you won't be - at least not if you're family orientated. Love 'em or hate 'em, ya need 'em - and they need you even more.

    Agree with everything you said until this. I disagree that I need them to be happy. I don't need anything except what sustains my survival. Saying you need women to be happy to me is still being plugged in a bit. You don't. Society says you do, but you don't. You really don't.

    [–]Tarnsman4Life 11 points12 points  (3 children)

    99.9% of women 99.9% of the time will betray you for a better option, loyal only to power

    Emphasis added, POWER. Money in and of itself, or being ripped in and of itself while giving you some power is not the nature of the true power most women crave. You have to keep your A game up and remember AWALT.

    Look at that whole Dan Berzian , Ryan DeLuca situation. Ryans slut wife banged Dan because is at least as fit, he has more money but he has what women perceive as power because of his massive Social media following. AWALT, even if you look like Arnold from the 80's and hold perfect frame, she will fucking Arnold V2 in a heartbeat if he has 200,000 Instagram followers and you have like 2.

    [–]ioncehadsexinapool -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

    I make edm. Do you think it's a good idea to use my edm insta as my main insta and delete my old one? Or should I have a personalized one too?

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The simple answer is whatever makes you the most success.

    Everyone "hates" Nickleback but they are successful as fuck and don't give a shit about "public opinion" because the vocal minority doesn't give them money anyway.

    Is Mastodon a better band? Yes

    Do they make as much money? Hell No

    You gauge your success however you want but in the end what matter in any showmanship business is fans, money and notoriety. Everyone is a sell out which is the whole point of preforming.

    [–]1theoctopuss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The only reason you should use social media as a producer is to advertise your music. itherwise, leave that shit to the women.

    [–]FeeFeeFeaster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    ... women possess a bunch of shitty traits we hate that vary only by degree rather than presence among women, but now you have to enjoy them in spite of this!

    I do enjoy having sex with women in spite of that. But that's where it stops.

    [–]PM_Me_Yo_Tits_Grrl 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    women possess a bunch of shitty traits we hate that vary only by degree rather than presence among women, but now you have to enjoy them in spite of this!

    The Way of the Superior Man helped me to figure that one out. Great.

    I should re-read that.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    AWALT is immutable, I think most guys simply can't and don't want to accept it, somewhere in the back of their head they want to think their unicorn is out there, that they'll find a chick who is in the .1% of all the qualities we despise in women, lock her down and not have her leave. It's fucking bullshit.

    TRP aside, NAWALT & other delusions arise from peoples' inability to see: the core "points" of TRP are self-evident once the purpose of humanity (and most dual gender species) having genders is clearly recognized and understood.

    Women build human beings - deception, manipulation, malice and other similar traits are their evolved adoptions to build and raise (to a biologically self-sufficient age) humans in any environment, no matter how harsh it may be.

    Men build civilization - trust, camaraderie, honor and other similar virtues are our evolved adoptions to build & raise, much like a child, a society that will always outperform a prisoner's dilemma, every man for himself type wasteland.

    As a bonus, we eventually crush the wasteland, killing off the 90% "alpha" society & fucking their women, who are all the happier to successfully reproduce with their offspring enjoying a higher standard of living than they could imagine.

    People forget that the vast majority of humanity's time has been spent in strife and a lot of our baseline adoptions for when natural selection was constantly happening all around us are alive and well in most people of both genders - it's why the vast majority of human beings are such trash in today's world - their instincts evolved for one without such abundance and they lack the conscious capacity to override that and re-adjust their behavior to fit the current one.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    That was better than OP's post

    [–]LukesLikeIt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    AWALT means: hey, women possess a bunch of shitty traits we hate that vary only by degree rather than presence among women, but now you have to enjoy them in spite of this!

    This was a good explanation.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    AWALT = trust, but verify.

    the ruskies dismantled the nukes, so proud of them. still send inspectors over, because fuck are you stupid if you dont

    [–]dsade -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    If you knew a dude who were these things, you'd hate him, cuss him out and mock him. But women get a free pass for commonly exhibiting traits we collectively hate"

    Only if you're an insecure dick. Don't worry about other dudes' lives, just worry about yourself and your own traits.

    [–]enkae7317 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    Da fuq is this post longer than the OP?

    [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 74 points75 points  (5 children)

    Also, I just want to say that anybody that uses a heuristic as an accurate representation of reality is a moron. If you walk up to a colleague and say things like "yeah, all women are like that", it's no different from saying "You lent Bob your money? Wow, you're an idiot, nobody returns money!"

    That's stupid. Don't do that. Appreciate the utility of the concept without internalizing it as an accurate representation of reality.

    [–]Senior ContributorOmLaLa 20 points21 points  (4 children)

    Also, I just want to say that anybody that uses a heuristic as an accurate representation of reality is a moron.

    This could be a post all on it's own.

    Edit: It already is, apparently. Just noticed the AWALT v. NAWALT topic is back on the front page.

    [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 34 points35 points  (3 children)

    Don't get me started. Hahahaha. It's at the heart of practically all misunderstandings and fuckups: people mistake the map for the territory, and then think that they're arguing over territories when really they're arguing over maps.

    It would be hilarious if not for the fact that people literally murder one another over these things.

    (Well. It's still hilarious, but you won't catch me saying that in polite company.)

    [–]waylandertheslayer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    people mistake the map for the territory

    Are you by any chance a reader of lesswrong too?

    [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I've scanned through some of the essays, which are pretty good, but I find the community a bit pedantic so I don't really get involved.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    if you're thekind of guy who truly understands it, then you can deviate, because you know the system.

    if you don't follow the advice until you know better

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 59 points60 points  (14 children)

    All Guns Are Loaded - Very good idea.

    I'd add that just as now we realize that AWALT, in the past (with Marriage 1.0) the contract was reversed and women felt themselves as being limited in their actions because a divorce could put them out in the street and forced into prostitutuion or to become an Old Maid.

    The "big picture" needs to be understood for what it is.

    We live in a time when no one or no nation has sovereignty.

    So everything is decomposing into fluid and atomized little bits.

    In this chaotic environment all the pre-existing inhibitions to hypergamy have been lifted, so we have naked hypergamy.

    Assume "All Guns Are Loaded" and hypergamy is the default.

    Chaos rules these days, not order.

    Don't dream of order that doesn't exist anymore.

    .

    [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 22 points23 points  (12 children)

    Just for fun: I'd even go so far as to say that Order has never truly existed, at least not in the way that people would like to believe.

    The Church and State and other organizations were stronger in the past, but they too were ultimately just fragile scaffolding. Dig inside and you'll find marvellous displays of all manners of corruption and skullduggery. Read any history book, Order has always been incredibly fragile.

    And in the spirit of the heuristic underlying AWALT– even when it doesn't seem fragile, you should assume that it can and will disintegrate into chaos at any moment.

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 16 points17 points  (10 children)

    Order is very fragile.

    I started to study the old hebrew language and the Jewish way of thinking and the Torah (Old Testament) was in reality a very abstract and symbolic thing. They went so far as to say the Torah as the written word was the lessor than the Torah as an abstract concept.

    The "hidden meaning" of the Torah is the "hidden order" of the universe which is an abstract knowledge.

    So to the Jews "order" is just the derivative of something deeper and abstract.

    The Christians eroded this concept.

    In Christianity they created a mythical "ordered world" and hid the abstract knowledge from the people.

    "Have Faith !"

    ...the priests would say. "You are too stupid to understand the abstract hidden truths of the Torah", is what they thought.

    So now we have debunked the Christian myths and so they have lost their power. The Oligarchs can now give us the Blue Pill and call it "order" and no one is wise enough (except Red Pill) to see through it.

    Ultimately we must learn the hidden meaning of the Torah or what we call "Red Pill".

    In the Torah the symbolic "Red Pill" was a "Red Apple" and it meant the knowing of good and evil.

    Some things never change.

    .

    [–]1Snivellious 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    Can you help me with that you mean about Christian priests?

    Certainly, mainstream Christianity doesn't carry the same belief in 'deep' knowledge and secrets that Kabbalah (or, to a lesser degree, other Judiasm) does. But I don't see where you get the idea that the priests are demanding faith because they don't trust their congregations with secrets.

    It seems to me that most pastors and clergymen have no more involvement with 'hidden' truths than those they minister to. Christianity as a whole is not a mystery religion (nor is reform Judaism), and I have trouble accepting that ministers think "you're too stupid to understand". My experience is that Christian clergy is utterly sincere about "Have faith!" because the clergy is using the same technique.

    I suppose there are some rooms in the Vatican that we don't get to investigate, but if that's the level of the 'mystery religion' then only a few hundred people adhere to it. And more than likely, those are just records of the godawful things the Popes of old got up to.

    More broadly, are you suggesting deeper meaning for the Torah, or literal secrets in the Kabbalistic sense?

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    I've used the concept of the Rubik's cube.

    One can admire the surface with the colors mixed in some random way which defines a specific creed.

    Or one can spin the Rubik's cube into different configurations.

    The idea of the Torah is that the written Torah is just one configuration of the underlying symbolic Rubik's cube. The "hidden meaning" is your knowledge that the Rubik's cube can present an infinite number of combinations.

    The written word is less than the abstract knowledge.

    It's like math... the best mathematicians have an intuition beyond their texts.

    Christianity at it's worst is entirely literal and lacking any abstract symbolic manipulation.

    The true value in religion is the meditation on the symbols... the understanding of the "hidden meaning".

    .

    [–]1Snivellious 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Thanks, that analogy is an informative one. It's a powerful image to view the Torah (or religious text of your choice) as a work that contains every element of the truth, but offers only a single, less-than-perfect arrangement of those elements.

    Given this, do you give any weight to the Christian mystery cults and secret orders that are out there, scarce though they may be? I don't buy into the extensive conspiracies around the Masons, but some of the Gnostic orders have obviously gotten into examining 'non-approved' Biblical sources and extracting all kinds of subtle meanings from them. Plus, even the Masons have inspired some much more sincere mystery cults like the OTO.

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    What is a mystery?

    It's abstract knowledge you haven't mastered yet.

    I'm afraid that the true power works in ways that the Blue Pill masses simply cannot comprehend so it's a "mystery" to them and debunked as a "conspiracy theory".

    The usage of the term "conspiracy theory" is an emotional tool to keep you away from solving a mystery.

    .

    [–]ASAP_Bickle 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    There are many different denominations of Christianity and all vary very widely; so much so, that as a lifetime Anglican, I would not consider extremist Catholicism, for example, to even be associated with real Christianity anymore due to the liberties it takes.

    This is to say that, for example, that all of the Anglican pastors/ministers I have had in my experience are very sincere when they convey their message of 'have faith'. It is a very directly biblical-based denomination, so the minister doesn't really muddy the waters by spinning yarn, we just go straight to the holy book for our lessons.

    Not to pick on Catholics, but in some congregations I have been to the Bible is not read in the service. You just sit there and listen to the priest and assume he's telling the truth, and then do a bunch of weird stuff like pray to the Virgin Mary, which the Bible never says to do.

    There are Christian priests that still propagate an atmosphere of mystery and secrets around the religion, and there are others that are the complete opposite. It depends, I would say, on the denomination. Hope that answers your question.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I would argue that the Christians did not erode anything. The erosion began when the Romans adopted Christianity. Prior to that Christianity bore no resemblance to what we think of as Christianity today.

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I agree 100%.

    The early church was essentially gnostic and they would contemplate things in abstract and symbolic ways. Hebrew is a very symbolic language where each letter holds powerful symbolism. The translation from Hebrew to any other language destroys all symbolic meaning.

    So the christians essentially received the "Readers Digest" summary of things.

    The Catholic Church then made it worse by creating a gap between the bible and the people by putting the priest in between them.

    The whole thing became a Blue Pill indoctrination program.

    .

    Red Pill more closely resembles these "earliest writings" of the Hebrew Torah.

    This might be the true direction of the future... just a heads up on that. There are christians that hope that with the degenerate culture expanding that we will go back to the "middle religion", but I think we jump all the way back to the early church... Red Pill.

    .

    The countries, towns, cities, realms and provinces which will have abandoned their old customs to gain liberty, but which will in fact have enthralled themselves even more, will secretly have wearied of their liberty. Faith lost in their perfect religion, they will begin to strike to the left, only to return to the right. Holiness, for a long time overcome, will be replaced in accordance with the earliest writings.

    .

    [–]SpeakerToRedditors 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I would like to read about this do you have any book suggestions?

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Those are a collection of my own thoughts from a dozen sources.

    Hmmm... I can't help with a good reference.

    .

    [–]1Snivellious 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Thanks for this. I think a lot of the 'neoreaction' concept that "no one is in charge anymore" is based on a weirdly optimistic version of what Order meant in the past.

    Sure, the Church might have kept divorce rates down, but not in a competent manner. The poor would either stay miserable, or leave town without a formal divorce, and the rich would buy annulments from shady bishops.

    The State might have kept crime rates lower, but that was in large part because crime didn't count if it was against nonunion workers, minorities, or the poor. For all that we accuse the modern government of being 'weak' or incompetent, we no longer have the fucking Business Plot trying to outright overthrow the government.

    Any claim that we used to have Order and now we have Chaos seems to make one of two errors. It either whitewashes the chaos of the past, or it mistakes the lull before a storm for lasting stability.

    [–]franklyforthright 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It's so very sad and true

    [–]Code_Bordeauxx 6 points7 points  (3 children)

    Indeed. AWALT serves as a warning first and foremost: proceed cautiously. But it can't be said enough that the 'that' in AWALT 1) only speaks of tendencies, not actual outcome and 2) only applies to a limited set of traits that women share.

    In other words: no, it is not a statistical certainty that your girl will cheat on you. no, not all women are narcissistic brats (though they come in sheer numbers) and no, not all women are incapable of logical reasoning (far from it). I could continue.

    But the warning remains. Until you can reasonably verfiy that a girl is mentally well and has her disruptive tendencies under control, assume this is not the case. And even if you found a quality girl with whom you can lower your guard somewhat, never show weakness and never become so invested that you can't walk out on her. That should be the mentality, that should be the takeaway.

    [–]2Sepean 13 points14 points  (2 children)

    not all women are incapable of logical reasoning (far from it)

    AWALT never claimed that women were incapable of logical reasoning, but that they don't use logic when it comes to relationships.

    [–]Code_Bordeauxx 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    AWALT never claimed that women were incapable of logical reasoning, but that they don't use logic when it comes to relationships.

    I see what you mean and I know that. It's kind of the entire point I'm trying to make. People take the word and run with it. There's a difference between its intended use and the way I've seen people use it. That's why I said:

    only applies to a limited set of traits that women share.

    [–]through_a_ways 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    AWALT never claimed that women were incapable of logical reasoning, but that they don't use logic when it comes to relationships.

    Men don't use logic when it comes to relationships, either.

    The logic thing is more that men are able to use logic even when it means admitting their own double standards, while women are not. And even here, it's a minority of men who do so (but an even smaller minority of women)

    [–]RPTA9000 14 points15 points  (0 children)

    I agree with your post, good content. Would like to piggy back, provide an alternate interpretation of AWALT. It's not AWAT (all women ARE that), it's AWALT (all women are LIKE that). I make the distinction because we're not saying all women ARE lying cheating branch-swinging emotionally manipulative creatures. We're saying that due to their biology and evolutionary and cultural pressures, they all have the POTENTIAL to be those things, if placed in the right situation. It's the other side of the coin to "there are no unicorns". If you went full beta, got fat, lost your job, gave in to her every whim, poured out your emotions, became a vulnerable weak man in her eyes, and millionaire celebrity Chad started sniffing around, even the most red-pilled loyal, loving, unicorn-y woman in the world will do what her nature tells her to do. If you let down your end of the bargain, and/or she's in a situation where there is advantage for her to act like that, there is the potential in every woman to do so. All women are LIKE that.

    [–]Garconanokin 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    In the same vain-- there's no such thing as a woman on birth control. Not in my world.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    It's "in the same vein". Just for future reference.

    [–]Garconanokin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Thanks! I get those confused. But I never get the fact that no woman is on birth control confused!

    [–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 39 points40 points  (11 children)

    Another heuristic I see around the internet is "around blacks never relax." A few blacks are award winning genius astrophysicists, but a much larger number of them are low-IQ thugs who have spent time in prison and think playing the knockout game is just a hilarious use of their time. Protect yourself. Don't become a statistic.

    In healthcare, "every patient has HIV" is the safety heuristic. This might not be as shocking to the younger generation because treatments have gotten so much better, but for most of us growing up HIV == death sentence. In healthcare you learn proper safety procedures to minimize risk of exposure and accidental transmission.

    "AWALT" because I don't want to be another divorce statistic or family court victim.

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

    I'm in canada, what are these thugs you speak of.

    We screwed over the native americans, so they are the ones we watch for

    [–]vzhu 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I'm assuming you come into little contact with your indigenous population.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    I'm a generic brown guy from small town BC. I saw plenty, but only from the white folk in town who thoguht I was native or east indian (paki, or chug for those fluent in 80ese)

    funny how big a difference a tan can make

    [–]fakenate1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Parts of the USA the Indians can be pretty scary towards non-natives.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      Crazy how poverty behaviour concentrates

      [–]Born2Ball 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      Trump 2020! Keep America Great!!!!

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Yep, and groups naturally. Shit, I don't care if they're black, native or white, a group of young dudes dressed like hood rats is either scary or your squad.

      [–]TheMGhandi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Most 'thugs' get raised by single mothers. Not only that but they get tricked into gang life and end up selling drugs. None of that would happen if they had a culture promoting regular jobs.

      They end up with a record in their teens and a felony as adults. They're fucked. Either they start a business, work with their hands or sell drugs. Culture usually wins until they get a dose of reality.

      [–]Stythe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Sayings are sayings to remind the inexperienced to be careful, not necessarily to be taken literally

      [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Excellent post, OP... but...

      Why should I be afraid to overgeneralize or paint with too broad a brush when I literally can't think of one exception to AWALT? Not one.

      Part of blue pill conditioning is to get people (especially men) to disregard their own observations in favor of a larger, unrealistic narrative. Much of this is accomplished by film and television...we "observe" so much untruth in film and television... We "observe" the nice guy getting the hot girl. We "observe" women who are strong and decisive leaders. We "observe" that men who are strong leaders are the villains. These "observations" outnumber real life observations a thousand fold.

      But thinking about my actual life experience... I can't think of one girl or woman in my 40 plus years of life on this Earth to whom AWALT does not apply. Not a single one.

      This false idea of what women actually are and what they are capable of persists because all those countless observations of untruth add up to form an incorrect worldview. Sure we can look at a movie and go, "that's not real life" ...but when we stop thinking about it and move onto something else, the media bombardment continues.

      And the bombardment is everywhere...

      ...at home, when your family has the TV on too loud, and it's always people yelling and making noise, all those independent, smart, strong females who aren't real but the product of some screenwriter's imagination and some cute actresses performance,

      ...at work with all the female primary HR policies and programs that push the message of you-go-grrrlism, unrelated to the actual business of making widgets or whatever the business is,

      ...at the store...every store you go to...where the music is just a little too loud and it's always some emo mangina singing about how some bitch is "my everything,"

      ...at the gym, where you go to get swole but they are always trying to shill some pink female empowerment with the TV screens always on, while taking away the heavy equipment and demonizing strength,

      ...at the bar, when you just want to have a beer and watch the game and all the footballers are wearing pink, and all the ads cater to women,

      ...at Church, where you go seeking God and fulfillment and get nothing but the same milquetoast propaganda, and you look around at all the men and they are weak looking nice guys and there's not one alpha in the bunch,

      ...at the gas pump for crying out loud! They have those little TVs built into the pump!

      Always a little too loud ....always too persistent. Orwell's telescreen pales by comparison. All designed as a social brute force attack on your psyche to overwhelm and push out all of our real life observations that we should otherwise trust.

      Turning those messages off is part of unplugging from the Matrix. You need to stop and think...

      Think of every girl or woman you know in real life, ...that you have seen and spoken to in person. Is there any one of them to whom AWALT does not apply?

      [–]Tarnsman4Life 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      The consequences of assuming or toying with a gun like it is not loaded can be devistating and life altering. The consequences of assuming NAWALT can be the same, while you may not literally be shot you can be divorce raped, publicly humiliated, exposed to STD's, jailed for false abuse claims, ruined professionally by false accusations or just plain cucked.

      AWALT is an over simplification that works because assuming AWALT is a better life course than trying to carve out a special exemption for that one special little snow flake who ends up giving you the clap, leaving you, taking 3/4 of your money, the kids and having you locked up on false charges.

      [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      ♂ This is pretty solid. Stickied.

      [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Honored! I'll think about what else I can write that might be useful to the community.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      like you said, its not meant to describe all minute details of their behaviour.

      i see AWALT helping people in two ways

      firstly its to smash the commonly held belief that people have now that if you find a nice girl and are "good" to her, she will love you the same and never cheat. She will always cheat given the right circumstances, and she will always view beta behaviour (subconsciously at least) with disgust and lower her opinion of you

      second its to highlight the hypergamous nature of all women, and even if she is WITH you she won't hesitate to branch swing when she sees it as advantageous for her.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      More concisely put: It's about not putting any single woman on a pedestal.

      [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Also, you can also assume that 'AMALT' with regards to all sorts of negative and damaging behavior, too

      Of course. And society is full of AMALT and #yesallmen and blatant misandry. We are better than we are portrayed. Our positive attributes are downplayed, and masculinity itself has a bad rep.

      Women on the other hand (thanks to the Women Are Wonderful effect) are worse than they are portrayed, and we are setting the record straight on this. All women share exactly the same biological drives and have the same capabilities. There are variations of course (but they vary statistically less than men do - women have a narrower statistical deviation on all features except perhaps breast size). As you say - all guns are loaded.

      This is a meditation on how to avoid getting into nasty situations.

      AWALT itself is to avoid getting into nasty situation.

      It is important that men (yes, all men!) understand that women (yes, all women!) are pursuing an AF/BB strategy. This is not obvious nor credible to most men, because women hide and obscure it. They do not "grow up and realise what's good for them" as my mother always told me. They grow old and get scared and look for someone else to support them who they are not actually attracted to and will never appreciate. Not "some women", not "most women", not "most women but not my little ex-whore reformed-nicegirl unicorn snowflake", but AWALT.

      As with international diplomacy - respond to their capabilities, not what they say.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Good post OP, this is a good way to explain it to other people.

      [–]1PantsonFire1234 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      From what I learned over here love isn't a real thing. Infatuation is and this is why the first couple of months are incredible and the girl sticks around.

      You can love your family deeply, your children. Even your childhood friends are up there. You can trust these within reasonable parameters depending on their character. Again, you can trust men more than females (except for your mom).

      The sad truth is that if you love to deeply in your relationship you are setting yourself up for a train-wreck. An inevitable collision that a woman is far better equipped at to recover from than a men (War Brides, The Rational Male).

      Either your woman is so far bellow your SMV that she maintains the smoke and mirrors or she is close to your SMV and you will eventually hit a brick wall. Back in the day there used to be fail saves but with recent social media, mobile phones and the likes it's easier than ever for a girl to get in touch with a guy.

      Women have forced men into a corner and the only way to combat this is to put your emotional involvement on a low burner. Enjoy the sex and her presence and bail when your gut tells you to.

      [–]2Archterus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I would not include mothers in any category of exception to the rule. Some of the worst damage I have seen inflicted upon boys and young men has been from their mothers. Either covertly or overtly. So whilst we may, very understandably, long for the ideal of unconditional love, it remains an Platonic ideal. Society in general and women in particular would prefer to hold onto romantic notions, reality teaches otherwise.

      To OP, good post. Many thanks

      [–]Philhelm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I simply view AWALT to be like "kinetic energy" and "potential energy," like you all may have learned about in physics regarding gravity. An example of kinetic energy is when a ball on a shelf falls and is pulled to the ground by gravity. An example of potential energy is when a ball is simply resting upon a shelf while gravity is still exerted upon it.

      Sure, maybe not all women will do the things we talk about, but all women have it in them to do so under the right circumstances; a "gravitational force" pulls against them despite what they may or may not do.

      [–]IPayDoubleForThat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I think I saw a post about comments not contributing content or offering insight/good conversation being removed, but I would like to say insightful posts like this and the comments that follow instill the fact that TRP better arms men with knowledge that they need and must have. Hopefully this isn't view as a "awesome post bro" comment but it is. Thank you for imparting this on all of the TRP followers.

      [–]pooshhMao 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Glad to see a post here on TRP which doesn't boil down to 'lift, you slacker'

      [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

      Lifting is always a good idea, though! It's power as a game-changer is vastly underestimated.

      One thing it does that's underrated is this: As you begin to see results, you start to internalize and embody that hard work can and does pay off. It's not hard to appreciate this intellectually, but once you actually do it, you find yourself wondering what else you could kick ass at if you just put in the time and the work.

      That said, the other side of the coin I think is to think rigorously. That's my strongest asset and I'm happy to share it.

      [–]Rasalom72 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      We've seen this idea presented before, but a refresher for new guys is always nice.

      However, you have to realize that you can assume that AGAL, and AWALT, but each individual situation is different. Because we are talking about a wide range of situations, we use generalities.

      I know that MY gun is not loaded, because I unloaded it myself. I stripped it, cleaned it, reassembled it, and locked it up.

      The main difference between a gun and a woman is that the gun has no ability to act independantly of me. If I put it down, it's not going to rob a bank on it's own and leave me holding the bag.

      [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I know that MY gun is not loaded, because I unloaded it myself. I stripped it, cleaned it, reassembled it, and locked it up.

      Yes. The point I'd like to make though is that it's still healthy to get into the habit of treating your personally unloaded gun AS IF it were loaded, so that you never get complacent.

      [–]dicklord_airplane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      i understand the criticism of the red pill and PUA because whenever you open up these forums, you see a shit load of discussion about the absolute worst types of women in the world. hell, that's all that yall talk about on this particular subreddit. however, it's good for naive and young people to read because getting involved with the wrong type of woman could totally ruin your life.

      What people don't understand about the manosphere is that we are sharing info on how to avoid the absolute worst case scenarios. obviously, not all women have the kind of attitude that will cause them to ruin a man's life. however, some women are abusive and manipulative and they do go around fucking up other people's lives, and young men need to be taught how to identify them and how to deal with them.

      everyone knows that we should be wary of men for a variety of reasons, but so many people are indoctrinated with extremely starry-eyed sexist beliefs that cause them to deny that women are also capable of abuse, deceit, and negligence. to dispel those risky beliefs, men must discuss the uncomfortable experiences they've had with women so that other men might learn from their experience.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Why do we assume all guns are loaded? - Because it is a GUN

      Why do we assume all women are like that? - Because it is a WOMAN

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      my campus has rape phones all over. AMALT meet AWALT.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      OP writes like a Singaporean, username checks out too.

      [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      What about my writing would you say is "like a Singaporean"?

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Your manner of phrasing. Some of your sentences, when read, sound like a "lah" will fit right behind them

      [–]reddumpling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Can confirm, hangs out at r singapore too 😂 Source: saw user while lurking there

      [–]whenfoom 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Right. It's a question of "exposure." Let's say someone took the clip out of the gun and set it on a table and started pointing it at you, about to pull the trigger in play. (Isn't that how Bruce Lee's son died?) You could get a slight gain in fun by having a realistic prop. But you also have the exposure to death. Minimum upside, maximum downside.

      I'd say the reason some people don't like the AWALT perspective is because it doesn't offer the minimum upside that treating a women like a NAWALT does. NAWALTing a girl can give you a - what seems like - very high upside (all the great feelings that snare us in oneitis). Even though it exposes you to a very low downside.

      On the other hand, AWALT comes with what many would consider a minimum downside (not believing any woman is eternally in love with you, or even able to be), but limits exposure to greater loses.

      To recap: NAWALT has a greater positive exposure (finding a girl who you believe is the One who then doesn't cuck or divorce rape you) and a greater negative exposure (getting cuck'd and divorce raped). While AWALT doesn't give any positive exposure, but instead limits the exposure to substantial negative loss by imposing a "cold harsh reality" view on all women all the time - which many would describe as a cost.

      [–]O_Son 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Brandon Lee was killed by the bullet tip coming off of an actual bullet (which was used in place of a dummy cartridge bc they didn't have any left, so they removed the primer and gunpowder from an actual bullet) which lodged itself in the barrel, or cylinder, of a gun which was later used with blank rounds. The blank rounds have explosive powder but no bullet tip, so when they are fired they have a muzzle flash and sound but no bullet tip, just a wad of paper or cotton in most cases- this can still kill/hurt a person if close enough to them, probably within a few feet, but it doesn't have the mass/weight/energy transference to travel far. By combining these two rounds in the same gun they ended up creating a deadly weapon which fired the bullet with enough force to kill Brandon. It's my understanding that normally these two types of rounds can be used reasonably safely this way but that live ammunition should never be used in place of a dummy round by manually removing the gunpowder.

      As filming of The Crow finally neared completion, eight days from wrap to be exact, yet another accident would rock the slip-shod production. Several prop masters, in an attempt to save time and money, made a grave decision regarding some bullet cartridges that were to be used for a scene involving a close-up shot of a handgun fired at Brandon. During the scene, the gun was loaded with "dummy" cartridges, which are used for close-up shots because they contain the actual projectile on the end of the cartridge but contain no gunpowder. (It looks more realistic if the camera can see the bullet tips in the pistol's cylinders.) It seems that the prop department didn't have any of these "dummy" cartridges on hand, so rather than shut down the production for the night, some Bozo decided that he'd "rig" some of the live rounds. They removed the gunpowder from the cartridges and replaced the bullet tips, thereby giving them the "dummy' rounds that were needed for the close-up shots. At some point, one of the tips would unknowingly come detached from the cartridge and lodge itself within the barrel or cylinder of the handgun. (The subsequent investigation never conclusively determined how or why the bullet tip came dislodged.) This seemingly innocuous oversight would not only set up the tragic event that ended up shutting down production after all, but it would also provide Morbidly Hollywood® with its next fascinating tale of death and morbidity.

      As shooting of the close-up scenes finally wrapped, it was now time to move on to the scene in question. It would call for a wide shot of Brandon's character being shot with a handgun that was loaded with "blank" cartridges. These blanks were loaded into the handgun not knowing that somewhere in the barrel or cylinder, there was a whole or piece of a dislodged bullet. "Blank" cartridges are different from "dummy" cartridges in that the blanks are loaded with highly explosive powder to give the handgun the smoke and muzzle flash associated with having fired a live round.

      Filming was taking place in Eric (Brandon's character) and Shelley's apartment. The scene called for Brandon to enter a room where actor Michael Massee was to shoot him using a revolver loaded with blanks. Brandon, wearing black leather jacket and boots, and a t-shirt bearing the prophetic phrase "Hangman's Joke" entered the room carrying a sack of groceries. As the .44 caliber revolver fired from about 12-15 feet away, Brandon set off the "squib" which is supposed to simulate bullets hitting the grocery bag. Brandon then collapsed to the floor, bleeding profusely from his right side. Many later commented that they noticed he did not hit the floor in the same manner as he had in rehearsals. Brandon groaned and signaled with his arm that he was hit but everyone was too busy with their individual roles to notice. The director yells "cut" but Brandon doesn't get up.

      http://www.franksreelreviews.com/shorttakes/brandonlee/brandonlee.htm

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is a wonderful, exemplary post. And the comments are even better. I've never brought up this concept but I do know it is true. I've been in a relationship with the same girl for 4 years now with absolutely no problems. She's gotten angry once over some bullshit problem. I ignored her. I talked to other girls. I went to a Hollywood event with models and boasted about it. She was over it faster than I've ever seen her emotions move. The red pill taught me how to have a successful LTR, and reminded me that any decisions I make are mine. If this girl leaves me or cheats on me (though I know she knows she'd be an idiot to do so) then the emotional pain is on me, and with that in mind, I have absolutely no worries about where this will go. All previous girlfriends were so massively different. Then I found the red pill and AWALT, and I haven't looked back.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Saying NAWALT is the equivalent of saying that not all lions want to eat my face. Sure, maybe not, but I'm still not going to stick my head into a lion's mouth.

      [–]Hokuto199x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      AWALT is true enough to be useful in most situations, in a practical sense. The loaded gun is an interesting analogy because the goal is to say: it's more useful to you in your daily life to assume this is the case.

      [–]wittymore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Ultimately, and how AWALT makes sense to me personally, it's about preventing fear and vulnerability.

      You have to live fully, otherwise life doesn't make sense. That means loving fully when you love, enjoying fully when you enjoy. You can only do this coming from a place of strength, of personal power...otherwise the actions of others may take away from how you experience your life.

      AWALT teaches us there may be threats on the horizon. But it's only the first step. In order to live fully (and freely) you have to grow up to the point where the threat can no longer damage you. It no longer is a threat at all. AWALT, simply the way it is...so don't build your happiness on the actions of others.

      Do that. And nothing stands in the way between you and your happiness. Learn that when a woman acts according to her programming, it's not the end of the world. You can commit to a woman should you like, but don't make that commitment the highlight of your existence.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

      Nice post.

      My question to you is that, knowing what guns are capable of, why on earth would you have the incentive to play with one? Back when you were naive, had an ideal view of the world, you might see the value is playing with guns... But now that we know better, what's the point.

      As you say, better safe than sorry. Assuming that all guns are loaded and AWALT, why should we even bother?

      [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

      Same reason that we eat bacon even though it gives us cancer. Because delicious yums. Of course, your life is your own perogrative and you can do whatever you like with it.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      Sure.

      I suppose I don't see it the same way, sure I love bacon (honestly as long as it's in moderate amounts it won't give you cancer), but there's also other alternatives I'd rather spend my time on. Instead of women most people would rather invest their time and resources on themselves -- at least there's a higher ROI.

      I suppose I simply don't see the appeal of women after being exposed to the truth, much like how I don't see the appeal of McDonald burgers anymore after being exposed to the truth of how they make those beef pattys. That food inc documentary, much like TRP, has shown me that the things that I thought mattered and valued (McDonald's and women) are simply not worth it, and that I'm better off avoiding the indulgence.

      [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      That's fair. I eat a lot healthier these days than I did as an ignorant teenager, but I still occasionally eat McDonald's once in a while as an indulgence. But I can understand if somebody else finds it disgusting and never eats it again. To each his own.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Quite right. Thanks for your bacon analogy. At first I thought it might be an excuse for me not to approach women (or to even socialise in general with men OR women), but the analogy reassured me that my time is better spent investing on myself (career, body and charm) instead of external sources (social media, entertainment, acquaintances)

      [–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Absolutely. Do what YOU love, and take whatever measures you need to protect yourself so that you can keep doing what you love. (Assuming you're not murdering people or anything terrible like that)

      [–]PandaMania3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is Gold OP. It's one of the best reminder to guys who got burned before by Woman thinking that they have found a Unicorn.

      Sadly speaking on this Island we both come from, it's difficult for many to fathom it. Society still pushes more for Betabux to fulfill their agenda. You can't get the people to do what they want if there is no dream they can't pursue.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Excellent post. This analogy will stick with me.

      [–]BlueFreedom420 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Wasn't there a official TRP post that said that people who have a problem with AWALT are sperglords?

      [–]michael_wilkins 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Great post but let's not ditch AWALT, it's a great litmus test to distract people from looking closer at TRP.

      [–]1pluvoaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Oddly enough I made this same analogy 10 days ago & got scolded by some white knight who spends too much time playing League of Legends. The thread as whole got lots of love though.

      [–]Gawernator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      As an avid shooter and military man I loved your analogy!

      [–]Endorsed ContributorDoxasticPoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I disagree. When I think of AWALT I add a dimension for degree.

      Just like all men are horny. We're all like that. But it doesn't mean we'll all cheat on our wife and ruin our family... Some will, but not all.

      But we all would probably think about it. The difference is some of us have self-control and stop that sort of thing.

      AWALT means exactly what it says. Except SOME women aren't as bad as others. And SOME women have better self-control than others.

      I think in today's world what we're seeing is a lack of self-control, which is why AWALT seems more and more to be true.

      So, to use the gun analogy, all guns are loaded. But some have a self-controlled safety and some don't.

      [–]SexistFlyingPig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I've encountered guns that weren't loaded.

      I haven't encountered a woman for whom The Red Pill doesn't apply.

      [–]The_TRP_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      If you truly believe all guns are always loaded, you'll never be able to strip and clean it.

      [–]Borsao66 -1 points0 points  (4 children)

      As a firearms professional, I hate that fucking rule. IE: "All guns are loaded.". It caters to the lowest common denominator of firearms training.

      The way Pat McNamara explains his version of the infamous "Rule 1" is to say, "Know the status of YOUR weapon.". I can then treat everyone else's weapon as if it were loaded.

      For me, I try hard to remember that I can only worry about controlling the controllables. Which is me, and if I'm serious about a woman, verifying her "status" as it were.

      On a side note, I heard a great saying once. "Point a gun at me by accident once, I'll put you in your place. Point it at me again, and I'll assume you want to be in a gun fight with me.". LOL

      [–]flat6turbo 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      it's great that you're a firearms professional. i have no doubt you probably find a lot of what non-professionals do around guns to be silly.

      unfortunately, i'm not a firearms professional and almost certainly won't be one any time soon, so i treat all my guns as if they were loaded. the reason i do this is not because of some blind adherence to doctrine, but because i distinctly remember at least two incidents in which i thought there was NOT a round in the chamber, but upon double-checking as i always do, found one. one was after fixing a malfunction, the other had no distinct cause. i just didn't fire the final remaining round, maybe because i was distracted, or maybe because i just didn't.

      the incidents were both at the range on the firing line, not at home or when storing the guns, but the point is the brain just can't be trusted to remember what happened or didn't happen 2 seconds-2 hours ago with 100% accuracy 100% of the time.

      so let me ask you this. let's say i was shooting in a lane next to you at the range. would you prefer i, as a mere non-professional enthusiast, handle my guns around you as if they were always loaded, or not?

      [–]jaimewarlock 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Exactly, please treat your gun as if it is loaded. I actually come from a generation where children were allowed to play with guns, but only after serious indoctrination by my dad to never point it at anyone and to always treat it as loaded. I use to buy boxes of .22 shells at the local hardware store even though I was only 12.

      I do remember once when I was 12, thinking for sure I had removed all the bullets from a rifle and later discovering that I had missed the one in the chamber. Me and some friends had been messing around with it thinking it was not loaded. We did follow the rule of not pointing it at anyone, but I still remember the feeling of shock upon discovering my error.

      Treat all high voltage wires as hot, treat all women as AWALT, treat all guns as loaded. These are safety tips, not statements about the nature of reality.

      [–]Borsao66 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Oh, of course I'd prefer all unknowns to treat their weapons as if they were all loaded, but ideally I'd love it if people ingrained the "know the status of your weapon" even more. Realistically, there are only two ninja secrets of firearms safety and those are muzzle and trigger. You can break one or the other, but not both.

      [–]tallwheel -1 points0 points  (2 children)

      You could have at least waited longer than 3 months to reword /u/JP_Whoregan 's post.

      https://archive.is/cKLBN

      [–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Thanks. Not for nothing, but this was my idea. But I'mma not cry about it, so long as the message is true. Have a point for prudence.

      [–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      OP is absolutely right about everything he writes. The problem is that it is all regurgitated info from previous posts, yet it is upvoted above 700.

      It's a minor complaint, though, since most of the posts on this sub nowadays are like that. If you stick around here long enough you tend to see that history repeats itself. It's just that this time, I could swear I read the exact same post just a few months ago. I searched, and I was right.

      [–]SnickeringBear -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      AGALSGAC - All Guns Are Loaded, Some Guns Are Cocked

      AWALTSWAW - All Women Are Like That, Some Women Are Worse.

      AWALTIVID - All Women Are Like That, It Varies In Degree

      You can easily do similar for AMALTSMA?

      [–]Spidertech500 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      This is very well written, good job

      [–]diamondbutcher -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      You know what would be awesome? If you didnt assume the reader knew what awalt meant and had the ability to look it up in the side bar. Seems like a good post, but cant tell the context w.o this key piece of info bud