What to do with NEETs?

Many philosophers have concluded that man is a social animal, who craves attention from his fellow man and worker. One thing that troubles me is a theorist such as Karl Marx believed that those who don't work, don't eat yet speak of alienation, a problem these folks endure everyday. That rare genius who sits in his room crafting figurines or spending time gaming or reading books can't usually stand the sight of another human being in his midst. Mostly a male phenomenon, considering men are more individualistic and not group-oriented like women are, many a sociologist and psychologist has claimed 'crowd mentality' is inherently feminine, the sheep who always fits in, follows orders. Hell I believe it was even Adolf Hitler who said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that if you win the hearts of the women, the men will follow, because men tend to question narratives much more than women do. Why are most conspiracy theorists and philosophers mostly men? well it lies in their eternal need to "get to the bottom of things", whereas considering mating rituals women will judge a man on first impressions, men will not, this also is why so many men are terminally single. Women have a sixth sense known as "initution" in which they judge within minutes of a conversation whether a man is worth his weight in gold. This dispararity leads to the NEET question. Why force these men to exit their comfort zones just so they can eat, own a home, a car or if they don't comply, deny them basic needs? First of all, Marx isn't alive anymore, and I would try and impose a basic minimum unemployment income that applies to all, and even extend social safety nets to the working class. The increased reliance on technology is both a burden and an advantage to the NEET, he doesn't have to face people in person due to preconcieved notions of his condition, yet it also poses the problem of alienating the man from his fellow people, a society of introverts is no society at all, and it wouldn't function well, as people would start to distrust one another and possibly destroy the fabric of their community's existence. But say we removed most of reliance on technology, we would have more of an incentivization to bring those alienated by technological progress into the fold, and put pressure on them to give society a chance. I'm not saying that force is a good option, let them come to their senses on their own, people don't like being controlled unless they have a fetish for power-play. Because if this world collapses, We might have to rely on each other much more. It also doesn't help that women are often implicit in bullying lesser men because they expect things out of men that not all men can provide and these NEETs could use more male friends and a sense of belonging, because what this world needs is more men supporting each other and giving emotional platforms for us to vent and help us along the way, because of women's in-group preferences towards their own gender, women cannot always provide the emotional backbone for men to lean on and will just implore the man is being weak, because we all know how women will never question the status quo or the given presumptions about men without society changing, and that will take more than a war or two to cause that, also its worth noting women are also known to backstab their own men in the case of defeat, "war bride syndrome". Thats why women must be depersonalized in dire cases (in a law sense, not literal murder, like restriction of voting rights temporarily, et al) so as to not allow interference with the dialectical mode of history, whether material or not. Oftentimes political quizzes will question personal safety over freedom, well I choose the former, just to be safe, in times of crisis. once its over, then society can try helping out workers rights and giving them the fruits of their labor, land taxes to develop the lands, and eventually re-open the market, considering women are more inclined to be consumers and most advertising is aimed at them, as "women are human beings, men are human doings" as Warren Farrell put it, lets stop to consider that some men have no stake in doing anything for women or greater society, so this basic income can help them afford finer things without having to please greater society and push them to integrate into the community, with their own houses. What remains to be seen if this can be restricted to food, shelter and transportation, which it should be to allow for quicker integration. They don't have to climb the social ladder to impress other people, their boss, their lady (if they have one) or greater society. co-existing without participation. the inherent Socialist problem of "work or starve" must be set aside for those who are unable to work or unable to socialize, and I think this is something we should all consider, the psychology of it, the social implications of it, and the state as a whole.

J./Adolf Stalin