The Collapse & The Evolution of Awareness

What would happen if the red pill ever became a mainstream intellectual framework? In my estimation society would either a: collapse or b: a sizeable number of redpillers would evolve into neoreactionaries as they begin to analyse the entire system and implement change at the political and legal levels. Essentially the state of affairs would devolve into all-out ideological warfare with sex-positive feminism, the prevailing hegemonic ideology in the west as it stands. Modern day contemporary feminism is but a shadowy figure of doublespeak and doublethink which stands defiant and omnipotent in what is a post-religious collection of societies, succeeding the role of religion as both moral and social arbitrator, espousing it’s radicalist rhetoric through various imperative and declarative assertions in a hysterically hyperbolic manner such as: “thou shalt not rape!” , “thou may judge man, not woman” , “keeping a home is slavery!”, “you can have it all!” (if you’re a woman) among other such asinine and societally dysfunctional beliefs. 

Feminism as the dominant societal ideology in the hearts and minds of the citizenry is much like the religion of past society, to openly disagree with feminist beliefs and to a wider extent, politically correct egalitarian belief systems is the west’s modern day equivalent of blasphemy, because if you’re not with them the dichotomous nature of their indoctrination leads them to believe you must be against them, inevitably leading to career blacklisting, libellous defamation/vilification and the harshest of social exclusion from the proverbial herd. This is why anonymity permeates the redpill community, nobody is willing to lose their livelihood and ability to subsist due to the opinions they keep being held in the wrong era, whilst I’m on the topic here’s a relevant law of power you should observe. In the modern west to be perceived as feminist friendly is not an ideological choice that the citizenry are free to make, but rather a requirement of anyone wishing to progress or at least sustain themselves in the corporatism of modern capitalism, especially should they happen to be male. Failure to tow this line will have such a man’s repute eviscerated via the public declaration he is a hateful misogynist (allowing him to be placed in the position of oppressor and thus justifiably punished whilst ironically it is he who is actually being oppressed), much like the church would previously denounce their blasphemers as heretics, accusing their detractors of all kinds of crazy shit “this motherfucker casts magic, a child of satan!” the day’s modern feminists are mutually always in the market for a good witch hunt. It’s the same shaming mechanism and same ideological hegemony but with a different ideology, funny how that works.

The de facto hegemony of radicalised feminism alongside the decline of religion is one of the main proponents (although not the sole proponent) owing to the increase in amorality/immorality and the decline of a moral and honour-bound culture. Increasing apathy, isolation, anxiety, desensitization, depression, distrust and ultimately sociopathy among other dysfunctional and detrimental human behaviours are all symptoms of the feminist induced collapse of the traditional family unit complemented by an increasingly impersonal and globalising world. In essence, feminism alongside other social engineering efforts such as multiculturalism as well as wage deflation through mechanisation and its outsourcing via globalisation has transformed western societies from homogeneously high-trust to low-trust multicultural socially unintegrated melting pots. The decline of the Anglo-American and European social and moral fabric is not sustainable, and neither is the red pill’s way of “playing the system” as “the system” will eventually change/evolve/devolve or crash entirely. This is not a criticism of TRP as much as it is a reality of it, as a civilization we are in a constant state of flux, by the time you have your own grandkids (assuming you choose to continue your genetic line) the things you learnt on the red pill would need to be calibrated for the environment that your grandkids will find themselves in should you choose to pass on red pill knowledge to them. The most basic and rudimentary maxims will hold, but the methodology of their application will more than likely, not. For example Arthur Schopenhauer’s 19th century German philosophy on women, as well as concepts such as hypergamy and female sexual plurality will remain largely static, however how such things are exemplified and interpreted will depend upon the political climate (the level of power and relevance that feminism will hold in that timeframe as a social ideology), as well as the effects of technological leaps influencing how people interact and socialise with one another. 

For example, an alpha grandpa would have no concept of tinder (no computers/internet existed) and as feminism was weaker/less radicalised marriage to him wasn’t automatically deemed a high-risk, low-reward investment. TRP is ultimately a pragmatic and contemporary philosophy, if “the system” (the dominant ideology, social policy and politics of society were to change) then TRP will either cease to be (out of obsolescence) or change with the system proving itself as an intellectual framework that is adaptive rather than maladaptive, having its history archived on the internet in relation to the-then contemporary issues of the time. Being a philosophy born on the internet, it will leave a fully transparent data trail that will allow all who dig through the depths of the internet to see in its entirety how the philosophy has evolved and progressed in line with its adherents understandings and deductions, deductions that will eventually culminate in taking red pill insights in their present day form to their natural conclusions, accounting for any significant shift in the political and ideological makeup of society along the way. This effectively leaves the red pill wide open to scrutiny, and should it ever stray down an incoherent path it will be possible to see where it went wrong or what effectively corrupted the philosophy and allow for correction where deemed fit.

The seduction movement better known as PUA evolved independently of the Men’s Rights movement and it was the consolidation of both of these areas of thought that gave birth to TRP through the increase in self-awareness that their entanglement entails, essentially the “consolidation” was a process of connecting all the dots between PUA and men’s rights with the supplementation of self-improvement thrown in for good measure, amounting to a perspective that looked to be a superior improvement upon its predecessors. In a way, one could say it was an industrial revolution of ideological gender philosophy within the masculine vein of neoreaction, bringing many separate ideas together under one umbrella and interpreting them with an anti-feminist, pro-male, amoral slant to give pragmatically useful and rational understanding to a multitude of social issues that the common man faces in the face of a contemporary paradigm where such a man would not have any other effective alternative avenue for recourse. Prior to this consolidation and concentration of consciousness, PUAs had “woken up” (to a limited extent) by learning that society was fucked up in ways that were previously inconceivable to them, and perhaps hilariously (or quite worryingly) the reason they “woke up” was because they couldn’t get laid. With an almost even gender ratio the men that began to form the demography of the seduction movement began the movement thinking “getting laid shouldn’t be this difficult”, “how can I make getting laid a lifestyle or something easily performed?” many of them having followed the poor advice mainstream society gives on relationships “happy wife, happy life” “get a good education, get a career, be nice, provide, have kids” and yadda yadda yadda to no avail.

Despite the prevailing social condition that a society of feminine primacy had endorsed, men who took to the seduction movement did so because initially they had begun to feel not only awkward and out-of-place in their everyday interactions, but socially and even morally wronged, women seemed intangible, confusing, as well as socially and legally superior to them despite the so-called egalitarian social standing that each gender supposedly enjoys (courtesy of the bullshit that is the mainstream academic elite’s progressive narrative.) It was thus that men of various ages, nations and races began to simultaneously feel disenchanted and out-of-place with their existence, finding themselves both socially and sexually unfulfilled across the globe in societies that valued feminine primacy, in locales where feminism is a state endorsed ideology, men in significant numbers were struggling to find romantic happiness because their needs and wants were vilified, ignored and largely unconsidered by their cultures. Having a harder time than their female counterparts whilst being unable to place their finger on exactly what was wrong with themselves and the culture they lived in, they began to irk that something was off, they just didn’t know what that something was. Ultimately it was the consolidation of knowledge gained about women through the trial and error of pickup artistry (the relearning of knowledge that feminism had suppressed about women through political correctness) and the growing visibility of feminine primacy via the increasingly obnoxious voice of radical feminism not to mention the light shone on male legal subjugation by the men’s rights movement that culminated in the eventual birth of the red pill.

The next step after fully internalising and understanding TRP is to become a neoreactionary, that is, to understand the culture you live in and why it is how it is in a more complete form, not simply master the understanding of intersocial behaviours people in your culture exhibit within a sociosexual dynamic, but to effectively dispel all the idealistic politically correct lies that compose the crux of “the progressive narrative.” Unlike TRP/PUA which are overwhelmingly male dominated (with RPW and fPUA being minor, if somewhat far less notable offshoots), neoreaction is far less gender exclusive as it is a reaction to the state of contemporary western civilization as a whole and not simply the gender dynamics of society which albeit central, are not wholesome of the entire paradigm we find ourselves living in. Neoreaction spans many different areas of academic ideology pertaining to modern civilization of which it criticises are the cause of its decline. It runs across race lines, economic lines, political lines, religious lines, as well as gender lines.

As I said prior TRP is the masculine vein of neoreaction along a gender line, whilst the institutionalisation of feminism was the female reaction fifty years prior. The neo-neo reaction to TRP has quite ironically been the vocalisation for more radical feminism, with the radfems exposing the ugliness of their disposition by trying to silence TRP by declaring it (and petitioning the US government to declare it) a hate movement, whilst also trying to use TRP as something they can use to validate their sexist, bigoted and misandrist beliefs rather than acknowledge feminism and it’s radicalisation had begun long before TRP was even an anxiously horny glint in the eye of the first PUA. In essence, feminism tries to paint TRP as the boogeyman to try and give itself legitimacy as a competing victim narrative in a civilization where it is not only becoming increasingly obsolete, but one where the ruling “progressive narrative” ensures that the bigger the perceived victimhood is of a particular group in society, the more power, privilege and politically correct social capital they are given to abuse to the detriment of the collective whole.

Unfortunately, not everyone will make the complete journey along the road of PUA to TRP to neoreaction (most progress in this order through their journey of continuing and increasing awareness) as the further you go along, the steeper the intellectual incline becomes. That is to say the further you go along the path of rational and intellectual enlightenment and self-discovery, the more brain power you need to comprehend just what the hell is going on among the complex intricacies of the diverse modern social fabric. Due to its breadth and vast area of focus neoreaction is infinitely more complex and arguably far less pragmatically applicable than the red pill is and for that reason alone, alongside the intellectual bell curve required to try and comprehend its arguments, it will find itself being far less popular than the red pill, the red pill in a way serving as a sort of gateway into neoreaction once the most intellectual redpillers feel they fully understand TRP and seek more in-depth and profound understanding in areas outside the sphere of gender dynamics. Neoreaction is not a direct evolution of the red pill, but more of a complement in overall awareness to it, that is to say, neoreaction will not override TRP in relevance in the way that TRP has overridden PUA, but it will complement TRP by exposing the delusional nature of various mainstream narratives and systems of prevailing academic thought much in the way that TRP exposes the fallaciousness of modern sociosexual dynamics from the masculine perspective.

Metaphorically speaking if PUA were a country, TRP is a continent and neoreaction would be the entire planet. If you do not want to do anything but get laid, PUA is enough, if you want to explore your neighbours and build a better-rounded successful life you’re going to want TRP, if you want to traverse the world, and add an in-depth understanding of the various prevailing economic, political, religious and other miscellaneous associated narratives and agendas of our time then you’re going to want to add neoreaction to your arsenal of understanding. Ultimately it is TRP that will give you the power to act and behave and instigate change physically whilst neoreaction will further amplify your understanding of the world, in essence, neoreaction in the metaphorical sense is a “second red pill”, not everyone needs it, not everybody wants it (letting go of all one’s ignorance is incredibly toilsome and has a tendency to induce existential nihilism) whilst if you simply don’t care about your genetic line or the state of civilization but desire to merely live a good life whilst you have your time on this Earth then TRP should be more than enough for you. Neoreaction isn’t for everyone, not everyone is an intellectual or budding revolutionary and that’s fine, but for those that are, there are definitely dots to be connected between TRP and neoreaction and I invite all the more veteran redpillers “looking to find further understanding” to add /r/darkenlightenment to their list of subscribed subreddits.

For all related thoughts use the comments box as usual, for unrelated thoughts, advice and questions contact me via the “about/contact page.” I do try to reply to all my messages although it is not always possible for me to do so considering the length of reply and effort required that some enquires warrant.

If you have a problem you wish to discuss with IM, you can [seek a consultation here]

12 thoughts on “The Collapse & The Evolution of Awareness

  1. Just stumbled upon.. Amazing insight and really deep understanding of the evolution of awareness. I have been practicing seduction for 5 years and I came across TRP lately. My Question to you is this:

    Do you believe that in order for someone to embrace neoreaction as an idea and lifestyle, he should go through the PUA and TRP stages first?

    I mean, do you see it as an evolutionary process or are these three areas explicitly unrelated to each other?

    1. I’m not the IllimitableMan, but I’ll throw in my two cents:

      > Do you believe that in order for someone to embrace neoreaction as an idea and lifestyle, he should go through the PUA and TRP stages first?

      >I mean, do you see it as an evolutionary process or are these three areas explicitly unrelated to each other?

      Most men find their way through the gateway to enlightenment through PUA because they’re just sexually frustrated, and looking for a way to get laid. Simple as that. But as a man begins to consider all the ramifications of increasing his own attractiveness and why some things are the way they are, the rabbit hole goes deeper and deeper as more philosophical and social aspects are considered, and the discourse becomes less shallow and one dimensional (i.e. just trying to get laid, get a girlfriend)

  2. When I want to introduce someone to the red pill in the smartest clearest way I point them towards Tomassi, I would not point them towards red pill reddit ( though it has it’s uses )

    If I am similaly curious about this dark enlightenment, who is it’s Tomassi?

    1. Rollo Tomassi = mind fucking epiphanies!

      His blog altered my life dramatically, I’ve also noticed any time I would try (in the past, not anymore) to introduce someone to TRP was not appreciated or comprehended the way some of us can. They don’t see it, they don’t want to see the weight and truth of what TRP has to unveil the ideologies they have been raised with. It’s sad but true. I discovered this shit through one of the most gruesome heart brakes/brake ups known to man.

      This shit is not for the faint of heart.

      It does take some dramatic chaotic situation in someone’s life to WANT to find this, if they can even handle it. Went off on a tangent here, but yah Rollo is the shit.

      I highly suggest to check out Shark’s blog at (the man in charge for my own unplugging)

      Stay up

  3. Trying to get laid or dealing with a spiteful woman might bring one to PUA and Red Pill blogs. Eventually, however, once the knowledge is applied and girls are no longer such an immediate threat and basic evolutionary psycho-social dynamics are understood, these blogs can get very repetitive and reading then does not spark much more intellectual curiosity. I’ve been reading and applying Red Pill intensely over the last year- first with girls, then my body through diet and weight training, now my mind and entire life.

    Illimitable Men is not for everyone. That is why I suspect that there are only a few comments per article, although it is BY FAR the superior blog in the Manosphere. Most men will never get past “dropping panties” and linking to ads for the masses on RofK. That’s fine, like the author says, not everyone is an intellectual and at least they are Red Pill to some extent.

    Additionally, quality in this blog far surpasses grammar, vocabulary and style of all other Manosphere blogs. Frankly, I find that terrible lazy editing in some blogs and even books should tell a man something about the author and their dedication to Truth in my opinion.

    My only fear regarding Illimitable Men is that the small readership will cause it to cease someday. However, when Red Pill goes mainstream, this blog will be uncovered and it’s radical ideas will be viewed as common sense. Very few such radical philosophers like IllimitableMan are valued and appreciated in their time. It is usually only in hindsight that they are celebrated for discovering and expounding the Truth when no one else had the courage.

  4. assuming you choose to continue your genetic line

    Is it truly a choice, or rather an imperative?

  5. We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive at an understanding of cultural marxism, it’s origins and the war on european culture waged by the international jew.

  6. IM…What is your opinion on TRP’s principle of ‘Enjoy the decline’?

    The world we live in right now is already a dystopia. If neoreactionaries don’t take any action, our world is simply going to become unbearable. Maybe we will be able to enjoy our lives but what about our kids? Our grandkids? After all, passing down our genetic lineage is a fundamental duty. No matter how shitty a proposition marriage is, I would probably marry just because I need someone decent to be the mother of my kids.

    Also let us not forget that the changing legal, sociocultural climate could curb our rights, directly limiting our own happiness and freedom. It is already happening. Even ‘Enjoy the decline’ is a difficult thing to do. So is ‘enjoy the decline’ the right approach? What could be done in your opinion to change the current scenario?

    1. It is not your “duty” to do anything. You sound indoctrinated. Remove your shackles and deprogram yourself.

      If you believe what you say about the world becoming unbearable (and you should, because the decline is real), then the logical choice is to not have kids. Even if all the world’s problems were to be solved overnight, the climate situation is past the point of no return. Having kids in this day with the information we have is beyond selfish.

  7. > whilst I’m on the topic here’s a relevant law of power you should observe.


    > Mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov lived in the Soviet Union at a time when true freedom of thought was impossible. He reacted by saying whatever the Soviets wanted him to say about politics, while honorably pursuing truth in everything else. As a result, he not only made great discoveries, but gained enough status to protect other scientists, and to make occasional very careful forays into defending people who needed defending. He used his power to build an academic bubble where science could be done right and where minorities persecuted by the communist authorities (like Jews) could do their work in peace.

    > It’s tempting to imagine a world where Servetus, Bacon, and Bruno followed Aaronson’s advice. They pursued their work in optics, astronomy, anatomy, or whatever other subject, but were smart enough never to go near questions of religion. Maybe they would give beautiful speeches on how they had seen the grandeur of the heavens, but the true grandeur belonged to God and His faithful servant the Pope who was incidentally right about everything and extremely handsome. Maybe they would have ended up running great universities, funding other thinkers, and dying at a ripe old age.

    > Armed with this picture, one might tell Servetus and Bruno to lay off the challenges. Catholicism doesn’t seem quite true, but it’s not doing too much harm, really, and it helps keep the peace, and lots of people like it. Just ignore this one good prosocial falsehood that’s not bothering anybody, and then you can do whatever it is you want.

    > But Kolmogorov represents an extreme: the politically savvy, emotionally mature scientist able to strategically manipulate tough situations. For the opposite extreme, consider Leonid Kantorovich.

    > Kantorovich was another Russian mathematician. He was studying linear optmization problems when he realized one of his results had important implications for running planned economies. He wrote the government a nice letter telling them that they were doing the economy all wrong and he could show them how to do it better. The government at this point happened to be Stalin during his “kill anybody who disagrees with me in any way” phase. Historians are completely flabbergasted that Kantorovich survived, and conjecture that maybe some mid-level bureaucrat felt sorry for him and erased all evidence the letter had ever existed. He was only in his 20s at the time, and it seems like later on he got more sophisticated and was able to weather Soviet politics about as well as anybody.

    > How could such a smart guy make such a stupid mistake? My guess: the Soviet government didn’t officially say “We will kill anyone who criticizes us”. They officially said “Comrade Stalin loves freedom and welcomes criticism from his fellow citizens”, and you had to have some basic level of cynicism and social competence to figure out that wasn’t true.

    > Even if the Soviet government had been more honest and admitted they were paranoid psychopaths, the exact implications aren’t clear. Kantorovich was a professor, he was writing about a very abstract level of economics close to his area of expertise, and he expressed his concerns privately to the government. Was that really the same as some random hooligan shouting “I hate Stalin!” on a street corner? Surely there were some highly-placed professors of unquestionable loyalty who had discussed economics with government officials before. Even a savvier version of Kantorovich would have to consider complicated questions of social status, connections, privileges, et cetera. The real version of Kantorovich showed no signs of knowing any of those issues even existed.

    > If you think it’s impossible to be that oblivious, you’re wrong. Every couple of weeks, I have friends ask me “Hey, do you know if I could get in trouble for saying [THING THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY GET IN TROUBLE FOR SAYING]?” When I stare at them open-mouthed, they follow with “Well, what if I start by specifying that I’m not a bad person and I just honestly think it might be true?” I am half-tempted to hire babysitters for these people to make sure they’re not sending disapproving letters to Stalin in their spare time.

Leave a Reply to johnpayne10Cancel reply