Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Theory What should the man of the future be like?

Iamnothere000

Iamnothere000

Veteran
★★★★
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Posts
1,310
Unlike women (who always had the mother role), men are forced to re-invent themselves every generation or so.

The definition of what a “real man” is changes constantly.

We were supposed to be protectors and providers until we built a civilization that took care of those needs. Then we were supposed to be diligent workers until automation makes us obsolete again. This wheel of constant crisis and re-invention of what a man is, is spinning faster and faster.

I notices that every definition of a “real man” is always associated with some kind of servitude and submission.

“A real man contributes to his community.”
“A real man knows how to treat a lady.”
“A real man fights for his country.”
“A real man protects the honor of XXX.”
“A real men does not judge people/women by XXX standard.”

No matter the definition, men are always expected to be, in one form or another, self-sacrificing for women/society. We are expected to use our physical and mental strength to provide for others.

Conveniently, complaining about this state of affairs has always been shamed as “unmanly”.


Now let’s assume there is a revolutionary man (or even many men) who uses his capabilities not for others, but only for his own advancement.

What attributes should such a man have?
What kind of life would he lead?

I propose that the man of the future, the final man, should be a selective sociopath:

He should be 100% opportunistic and convincing. Depending on who is asking and who is currently in power the final man would instantly switch between being a Feminist, a Nazi, a SJW, a republican, a Moslem… He would play each roll so perfectly, that, with enough anonymity, he could hold the favor of different opposing groups simultaneously.

He should not be above using (lethal) violence when he feels that it is beneficial to him.

He should maximally exploit the system he lives in. Ideally, he would not have to work at all and let the state provide everything for him. Instead he would tend to his “activism” or use the time to secretly acquire funds in not necessary legal ways.

He should judge people solely by how much they can support him and how easy he can exploit them.

Finally, he should be able to recognize others like himself and either avoid them or cooperate in order to gain synergetic benefits.
 
He should be mentally strong enough to unite with other men and topple the system.
 
Unlike women (who always had the mother role), men are forced to re-invent themselves every generation or so.

The definition of what a “real man” is changes constantly.

We were supposed to be protectors and providers until we built a civilization that took care of those needs. Then we were supposed to be diligent workers until automation makes us obsolete again. This wheel of constant crisis and re-invention of what a man is, is spinning faster and faster.

I notices that every definition of a “real man” is always associated with some kind of servitude and submission.

“A real man contributes to his community.”
“A real man knows how to treat a lady.”
“A real man fights for his country.”
“A real man protects the honor of XXX.”
“A real men does not judge people/women by XXX standard.”

No matter the definition, men are always expected to be, in one form or another, self-sacrificing for women/society. We are expected to use our physical and mental strength to provide for others.

Conveniently, complaining about this state of affairs has always been shamed as “unmanly”.


Now let’s assume there is a revolutionary man (or even many men) who uses his capabilities not for others, but only for his own advancement.

What attributes should such a man have?
What kind of life would he lead?

I propose that the man of the future, the final man, should be a selective sociopath:

He should be 100% opportunistic and convincing. Depending on who is asking and who is currently in power the final man would instantly switch between being a Feminist, a Nazi, a SJW, a republican, a Moslem… He would play each roll so perfectly, that, with enough anonymity, he could hold the favor of different opposing groups simultaneously.

He should not be above using (lethal) violence when he feels that it is beneficial to him.

He should maximally exploit the system he lives in. Ideally, he would not have to work at all and let the state provide everything for him. Instead he would tend to his “activism” or use the time to secretly acquire funds in not necessary legal ways.

He should judge people solely by how much they can support him and how easy he can exploit them.

Finally, he should be able to recognize others like himself and either avoid them or cooperate in order to gain synergetic benefits.
What you are describing above already exists. It is called a criminal.

There is no way a society composed of men like that can work. No one would produce anything and everyone would starve.
He should be mentally strong enough to unite with other men and topple the system.
You realize that what you are suggesting is incompatible with what @Iamnothere000 proposes, right?
 
What you are describing above already exists. It is called a criminal.

There is no way a society composed of men like that can work. No one would produce anything and everyone would starve.

You realize that what you are suggesting is incompatible with what @Iamnothere000 proposes, right?
He proposes to adapt and thrive in a rotten system. I propose to challenge it.
 
He proposes to adapt and thrive in a rotten system. I propose to challenge it.
What @Iamnothere000 proposes is an hyper-individualist. Such an individual cannot "unite" with others because he cannot be trusted and he cannot trust others.
 
Britains fattest man Carl Thompson 574236
 
He proposes to adapt and thrive in a rotten system. I propose to challenge it.
How do you propose to create the trust that would be necessary to "unite" in the scenario you imagine?
 
we built society. women should self-sacrifice for us. the man of the future should be able to reap all the benefits rather than women
 
he should stay in his tiny apartment with his anime pillows, figurines, and surf the web all day
 
What you are describing above already exists. It is called a criminal.

I am describing a man who uses all of his capabilities (including crime and honest work) for his own benefit.

There is no way a society composed of men like that can work. No one would produce anything and everyone would starve.

It would work through mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services.

Also, in the meantime, as long as there is a sizable population of wageslaving cuck, I see no problem.
we built society. women should self-sacrifice for us. the man of the future should be able to reap all the benefits rather than women
^This
 
I am describing a man who uses all of his capabilities (including crime and honest work) for his own benefit.
Criminals already do that (the smart ones). They do as much legit work as they can and as little crime. This is how organized crime operates

It would work through mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services.
Nobody trusts someone who behaves in the way you describe. An opportunist always elicits mistrust. And if you behave like an opportunist, it will show. You will not be able to hide it.

Also, in the meantime, as long as there is a sizable population of wageslaving cuck, I see no problem.
This is exactly what the criminal thinks.

Your thread talks about "the man of the future". Are you seriously imagining a world in which everyone behaves like a criminal? Do you think it is realistic?

we built society. women should self-sacrifice for us. the man of the future should be able to reap all the benefits rather than women
That is how Sand Nigger cultures work (Mali, Niger, ...) Women work and Men play cards, smoke, chat, ... or fight. They don't look very successful ...
 
Last edited:
He proposes to adapt and thrive in a rotten system. I propose to challenge it.
You can do both at the same time:
Drain this rotten system as much as possible with the lifestyle proposed above and use the gained resources to change the system or build a new one.

Criminals already do that (the smart ones). They do as much legit work as they can and as little crime. This is how organized crime operates

This is exactly what the criminal thinks.
Are they wrong? As long as you have a herd of people who work honest jobs and maintain an easily exploitable social system (you know, because that’s the decent thing to do, as they say), it is stupid not to take advantage of it.

It is stupid not to take advantage of a society that would like to make you just another self-sacrificing wageslave.



Nobody trusts someone who behaves in the way you describe. An opportunist always elicits mistrust. And if you behave like an opportunist, it will show. You will not be able to hide it.

Your thread talks about "the man of the future". Are you seriously imagining a world in which everyone behaves like a criminal? Do you think it is realistic?

Don’t you think it’s fair to say that our political and corporate overlords act exactly like this (towards us and towards each other)? It works and it is relatively stable. Such people do not cooperate with each other because they trust each other, but because they see mutual benefits in cooperation. They trust in each other’s greed.



That is how Sand Nigger cultures work (Mali, Niger, ...) Women work and Men play cards, smoke, chat, ... or fight. They don't look very successful ...
How do you measure success? In annual GDP? I would say the cards-playing sand niggers with decent wives are happier that the Incels in this forum or even the typical betabuxers.
 
This is exactly what the criminal thinks.

Your thread talks about "the man of the future". Are you seriously imagining a world in which everyone behaves like a criminal? Do you think it is realistic?
Don’t you think it’s fair to say that our political and corporate overlords act exactly like this (towards us and towards each other)? It works and it is relatively stable. Such people do not cooperate with each other because they trust each other, but because they see mutual benefits in cooperation. They trust in each other’s greed.
Many people imagine that it is how things work in the corporate world. Yet it is a mistake.

You cannot cooperate if there is not a minimum of trust. And you cannot "Trust in Greed" either. If Greed means "I take everything I can", then no one will sign a contract with you. Let us suppose you order a container full of computer parts and promise to pay 30 days after delivery (a common type of sales terms). Yet, when you have received the container, you vanish and never pay. That is what a 100% greedy opportunist would do. Of course, you are going to say : "this is stupid opportunism; a smart opportunist would not do that". Ok but then, when do you stop obeying the rules? Which rules do you chose to obey and which ones do you break? And when? There is no easy answer to these questions ...
 
Many people imagine that it is how things work in the corporate world. Yet it is a mistake.

You cannot cooperate if there is not a minimum of trust. And you cannot "Trust in Greed" either. If Greed means "I take everything I can", then no one will sign a contract with you. Let us suppose you order a container full of computer parts and promise to pay 30 days after delivery (a common type of sales terms). Yet, when you have received the container, you vanish and never pay. That is what a 100% greedy opportunist would do. Of course, you are going to say : "this is stupid opportunism; a smart opportunist would not do that". Ok but then, when do you stop obeying the rules? Which rules do you chose to obey and which ones do you break? And when? There is no easy answer to these questions ...
If there is no anonymity then I have to worry about my reputation or I will not be able to make business again.

I would obey the rules that promote long-term stability.

It would be stupid, for example, to abuse a trade agreement that generates a constant stream of revenue/benefit for me.

Again, that is just what politicians and CEO´s do.
 
He should be 100% opportunistic and convincing. Depending on who is asking and who is currently in power the final man would instantly switch between being a Feminist, a Nazi, a SJW, a republican, a Moslem… He would play each roll so perfectly, that, with enough anonymity, he could hold the favor of different opposing groups simultaneously.

He should not be above using (lethal) violence when he feels that it is beneficial to him.

He should maximally exploit the system he lives in. Ideally, he would not have to work at all and let the state provide everything for him. Instead he would tend to his “activism” or use the time to secretly acquire funds in not necessary legal ways.

He should judge people solely by how much they can support him and how easy he can exploit them.
Aren't you just describing women?
 
Aren't you just describing women?
Not quite.

But the final man should definitively have some traits that are traditionally feminine:

-emotional manipulation
-100% self-centered
-appearing harmless while being dangerous
 
He should be a fucking Chad: be tall and strong as fuck, be handsome, be very rich, have good health, and so on. Otherwise, he wouldn't survive in the future. The future will be way worse for men.
 
If there is no anonymity then I have to worry about my reputation or I will not be able to make business again.

I would obey the rules that promote long-term stability.

It would be stupid, for example, to abuse a trade agreement that generates a constant stream of revenue/benefit for me.

Again, that is just what politicians and CEO´s do.
All right. But then you start to look exactly like a law abiding citizen. What is the difference with a wageslaver?
 
All right. But then you start to look exactly like a law abiding citizen. What is the difference with a wageslaver?
The money/resources I produce would go exclusively into things that directly or indirectly benefit me.
 
How will you evade paying taxes?
I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes if I know that the money goes to things that benefit me. Defense, Infrastructure and reasonable healthcare, for example.

However, if I see that my money is misused by parasites, I will go into Parasite-mode myself (as described above) until the structures that support said parasitism rot away.
 
I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes if I know that the money goes to things that benefit me. Defense, Infrastructure and reasonable healthcare, for example.
Then you are just a proponent of limited government, like the US founding fathers for example.
However, if I see that my money is misused by parasites,
Which is the case now
I will go into Parasite-mode myself (as described above) until the structures that support said parasitism rot away.
What kind of parasite mode do you have in mind exactly. NEETbuxxing?
 
Then you are just a proponent of limited government, like the US founding fathers for example.
Yea, but I think the founding fathers appealed to the best in their fellow men whiles I think I’m more realistic.
For example, the founding fathers naively believed in an universal moral that is god given and innate to every human, therefore they did not predict the degeneracy we see today.

Which is the case now
Absolutely.

What kind of parasite mode do you have in mind exactly. NEETbuxxing?
Yes.
You could pretend to have crippling depression.
Feign a suicide attempt.
If you are part of any minority (or can pretend to be), exploit whatever charity caters to you.
Or (my personal favorite) find a Job where you can pretend to work while actually posting on Incel forums all day.
 
Yea, but I think the founding fathers appealed to the best in their fellow men whiles I think I’m more realistic.
For example, the founding fathers naively believed in an universal moral that is god given and innate to every human, therefore they did not predict the degeneracy we see today.


Absolutely.


Yes.
You could pretend to have crippling depression.
Feign a suicide attempt.
If you are part of any minority (or can pretend to be), exploit whatever charity caters to you.
Or (my personal favorite) find a Job where you can pretend to work while actually posting on Incel forums all day.
In that case, what you propose is not new.

You are a libertarian, limited government type + Incel NEETbuxx option as a form of "civil disobedience" (which many libertarians would agree to in principle)

Look at guys like Peter Thiel. This is pretty much what they advocate
 
In that case, what you propose is not new.

You are a libertarian, limited government type + Incel NEETbuxx option as a form of "civil disobedience" (which many libertarians would agree to in principle)
Ok, but I think for my kind of civil disobedience you will need a certain amount of moral flexibility that the typical libertarian does not have.

Look at guys like Peter Thiel. This is pretty much what they advocate
I will definitely look into that guy.
 
Last edited:
Ok, but I think for my kind of civil disobedience you will need a certain amount of moral flexibility that the typical libertarian does not have.
They do

What you are describing is similar in principle to what Ayn Rand described in Atlas Shrugged
 
Unlike women (who always had the mother role), men are forced to re-invent themselves every generation or so.

The definition of what a “real man” is changes constantly.

We were supposed to be protectors and providers until we built a civilization that took care of those needs. Then we were supposed to be diligent workers until automation makes us obsolete again. This wheel of constant crisis and re-invention of what a man is, is spinning faster and faster.

I notices that every definition of a “real man” is always associated with some kind of servitude and submission.

“A real man contributes to his community.”
“A real man knows how to treat a lady.”
“A real man fights for his country.”
“A real man protects the honor of XXX.”
“A real men does not judge people/women by XXX standard.”

No matter the definition, men are always expected to be, in one form or another, self-sacrificing for women/society. We are expected to use our physical and mental strength to provide for others.

Conveniently, complaining about this state of affairs has always been shamed as “unmanly”.


Now let’s assume there is a revolutionary man (or even many men) who uses his capabilities not for others, but only for his own advancement.

What attributes should such a man have?
What kind of life would he lead?

I propose that the man of the future, the final man, should be a selective sociopath:

He should be 100% opportunistic and convincing. Depending on who is asking and who is currently in power the final man would instantly switch between being a Feminist, a Nazi, a SJW, a republican, a Moslem… He would play each roll so perfectly, that, with enough anonymity, he could hold the favor of different opposing groups simultaneously.

He should not be above using (lethal) violence when he feels that it is beneficial to him.

He should maximally exploit the system he lives in. Ideally, he would not have to work at all and let the state provide everything for him. Instead he would tend to his “activism” or use the time to secretly acquire funds in not necessary legal ways.

He should judge people solely by how much they can support him and how easy he can exploit them.

Finally, he should be able to recognize others like himself and either avoid them or cooperate in order to gain synergetic benefits.
Such a man already existed.
800.jpeg


I know it's easy for Americans to think he was just a screaming retard but Hitler was extremely clever and charismatic and everyone who knew him confirms it. The screaming barbarian was just 1 of many personas he played.
 
(some) Libertarian pretend to have crippling depression in order to abuse an overblown welfare system?
In private they do.

In public,, those who still want to publish books and talk on TV don't. But it is what they all think
 
Such a man already existed.
800.jpeg


I know it's easy for Americans to think he was just a screaming retard but Hitler was extremely clever and charismatic and everyone who knew him confirms it. The screaming barbarian was just 1 of many personas he played.
Jup, people like to make a lot of fun of Hitler but few could do what he did, given the opportunity.
And I’m eternally grateful to the Führer for all the memes he gave us.:feelshaha:

In private they do.
May I ask how you know this?
 
Jup, people like to make a lot of fun of Hitler but few could do what he did, given the opportunity.
And I’m eternally grateful to the Führer for all the memes he gave us.:feelshaha:


May I ask how you know this?
I know Peter Thiel Personally. He is a business acquaintance of my Dad

What you said about faking a depression is exactly the kind of thing he says in private
 
I know Peter Thiel Personally. He is a business acquaintance of my Dad

What you said about faking a depression is exactly the kind of thing he says in private
Based if true.
 
We were supposed to be protectors and providers until we built a civilization that took care of those needs. Then we were supposed to be diligent workers until automation makes us obsolete again.

we still are the protectors, and providers.
,,society" isn't an entity on its own, we're what it is built upon, as a collective of course.

I notices that every definition of a “real man” is always associated with some kind of servitude and submission.

what does it mean other than semantics, you're either a biological male or female.
this is a term based off strength which is reduced to immutable physical characteristics, and of course a well made trap intended to make you adapt for xyz purpose otherwise you're considered ,,feminine".

we are expected to use our physical and mental strength to provide for others.
Conveniently, complaining about this state of affairs has always been shamed as “unmanly”.

yes but as you said ,,expected", doesn't go further than this, as an individual you don't need to.
nowadays rarely someone is shamed for being unmanly, really dependant of yours country or family culture, its traditions.

Now let’s assume there is a revolutionary man who uses his capabilities not for others, but only for his own advancement.

how's this ,,revolutionary"? such idea even a child could come up with it.
according to you; all males are working for others, if everyone's working for others then no one is.

exposing yourself further as a clueless fool without any awareness of how dynamics works while being delusional enough to think you've understood/rediscovered how this game works, and presenting ideas of how to cheat it as groundbreaking revelations is just hilarious.
everyone's selfish, people do things for themselves.

He should be 100% opportunistic and convincing. Depending on who is asking and who is currently in power the final man would instantly switch between being a Feminist, a Nazi, a SJW, a republican, a Moslem… He would play each roll so perfectly, that, with enough anonymity, he could hold the favor of different opposing groups simultaneously.

He should maximally exploit the system he lives in. Ideally, he would not have to work at all and let the state provide everything for him.

you just described perfectly how most people function, especially women which is ironic considering how your thread started.

He should judge people solely by how much they can support him and how easy he can exploit them.
Finally, he should be able to recognize others like himself and either avoid them or cooperate in order to gain synergetic benefits.

^again, you're acting as if everyone isn't really an adaptable predator chasing for comfort, and own self-pleasure.
 
we still are the protectors, and providers.
,,society" isn't an entity on its own, we're what it is built upon, as a collective of course.

Yes, the „real work“ is still done by men. But since the state is an institution and not an individual, the working men and the women they work for are disconnected.

For example:

A women today can treat men like shit for her whole life, but will still receive welfare/protection/infrastructure (provided by men) if she needs it.
This was not possible (to such an extend) before the creation of the state. Before that, women had to “cling to” an individual man to be protected and provided for.

what does it mean other than semantics, you're either a biological male or female.
this is a term based off strength which is reduced to immutable physical characteristics, and of course a well made trap intended to make you adapt for xyz purpose otherwise you're considered ,,feminine".
Fine, than let us call it “masculinity”.

yes but as you said ,,expected", doesn't go further than this, as an individual you don't need to.
nowadays rarely someone is shamed for being unmanly, really dependant of yours country or family culture, its traditions.
We are social beings and are subject to social pressure. A man who does not fulfill the ever shifting social expectations will suffer, psychologically at least. There are men who truly do not care, but they are outliners.


how's this ,,revolutionary"? such idea even a child could come up with it.
In our western culture (and I assume in most others), it is absolutely natural that men self-sacrifice for the benefit of women. There is even a biological reason why we are conditioned to this because women are weaker, dumber and helpless (while pregnant). In contrast, men are the disposable gender from a biological pov.

Therefore it is “revolutionary” to not fall in this role and use all your talent/aggression/productivity for your own gain.


according to you; all males are working for others, if everyone's working for others then no one is.
Men collectively work for the benefit of women collectively. Here is an example for what I mean:

everyone's selfish, people do things for themselves.
How do you explain simps and white knights?

Yes, yes, they do it in the hope to get pussy, but the chances for that are so small (and they know it) that those men are effectively self-enslaving themselves for the benefit of women.


you just described perfectly how most people function, especially women which is ironic considering how your thread started.
Yea, men should be as calculating and self-serving as women.

^again, you're acting as if everyone isn't really an adaptable predator chasing for comfort, and own self-pleasure.
Maybe they are on an instinctual level. But I am arguing that men should be like this on a conscious level.
 
The man of the future rejects egoism and embraces a return of social responsibility, the main effect of this is that strengths propagate through a community and the most attractive traits of a man will be an amalgam of social role, attractiveness, and honour
 
All men should share and fuck stacies only as a revenge against the foid hypergamy
 
They need to be psychopaths. To not fall under any bs spells of (((empathy)))
 
Blackpilled. Autistic. Local.
 

Similar threads

NotTheElliot
Replies
8
Views
441
Ron.Belgrade
Ron.Belgrade
THE TRUE DIGLET
Replies
29
Views
758
Dusk
Dusk
U
Replies
13
Views
704
MisfitPerson
MisfitPerson
Kina Hikikomori
Replies
8
Views
429
XDFLAMEBOY
XDFLAMEBOY
Gott _mit _uns94
Replies
15
Views
498
Jud Pottah
Jud Pottah

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top