Why doesn't Sup Forums support a technocracy? It would have so many things you guys like. An evidence based approach could bring:
>Acknowledgement of racial iq gap/genetic basis for intelligence. >Probably support for eugenics/ engineering in good genes given the right circumstances >No support for sjws, etc. feeling over the facts at hand >Complete shunning of religion, especially Islam which is empirically causing the most problems >Likely stop ridiculous favoritism that Israel recieves >Faster progress toward robot sex slave waifus >An awakening towards being generally red pilled but not ignorant
A technocrac is just a dictatorship but with fedorafags.
Isaiah James
Sup Forums DOES support technocracy. They support the Trump, who is the only non-politician candidate.
Jason Taylor
No, actual scientists (well maybe some economists) make decisions based on evidence, while a few lawyers help with law instead of 90% lawyers/10% businessmen
Easton Richardson
>communist
After a discussion with the League president during a meeting Fresco was 'physically ejected' after loudly stating that 'Karl Marx was wrong!'[
Juan Robinson
>social scientists, economists Holy fuck NO!
Thomas Phillips
You can't just say scientists and have people agree with you. What do physicists know about organization of society?
If anyone should be in charge it should be history Ph.D.s
Ayden Adams
You're a fucking idiot, this is the worst possible idea. Look at bullshit like IFLS. People are fucking retarded and will believe anything as long as you say it's science. We had evidence for years on racial differences, but Bill Nye came out with a statement saying race is a social construct and people ate it up. Literally "Appeal to Authority: Government Edition"
Kevin Sullivan
Because we aren't teenage edgy anarchists.
Ryan Perry
I would love to live in a technocracy
Tyler Gray
Its redditier faggotry Science cannot determine morality
Levi Sanchez
>Scientists are mostly liberal.
>Welcome refugees!
Easton Long
One has got jack shit to do with the other. Apples and oranges my friend.
David Martinez
>sex NOPE that's all about fleeing.
He's the only politician candidate. Hillary is a liar.
Wyatt Morris
It's one thing to be a scientist, and another to control an entire field of science.
Lucas Fisher
No need to get upset, I was just asking a question.
However if not them, then who?
Liam Fisher
>Complete shunning of religion, A technocracy that absolutely shuns anything isn't scientific but a fedora circlejerk.
Landon Sanders
Historians are apes. You want classicists to run society. At least, to run society more openly and intentionally than we already do, since we wind up running things by accident anyway.
Jason Cook
As long as physicists, chemists, and engineers have no power im good.
Alexander Taylor
Yes, like the EU.
Caleb Peterson
yea its been working out just fine in the climate """science""" industry ey?
Christopher Rodriguez
Rule by fedora tipping redditors? Really forces you to think.
Charles Peterson
>highest IQ people shouldn't have power >would rather have people with pseudoscience degrees take control ((()))
Xavier Carter
It's better than going blind into a position of power.
Luke Reyes
I am wondering exactly this. On twice the chan, we have this video that just arose, which describes the folkish mindset
Most people in this folkish mindset I think do not like technology that much, or at least they dont have a solid opinion on it. They mostly seem to be stuck in the past, though I am not sure.
That is why the leftists are so eager to exploit this new resource (which was produced by both leftists and right wing people)
The left wing have an extensive grasp on this, they have embraced it. But the right wing just doesnt really seem to have the same drive with it. Putting more value to their race than to potential benefits for it.
I think this is wrong however, as technology may become something else entirely, a paradigm shift, something completely different than kikes and folkish people. An AI could emerge and basically could become a third party.
So what fucking then?
Brandon Stewart
who will determine what 'evidence' is? how much should certain evidence be weighed? what if the evidence contradicts itself?
Because principles of governance are independent of technology and research. The issues of politics are no different for us than they were for the Ancient Greeks, and a government full of scientists won't change that. In fact, scientists are famously petty and controlling, so we'll probably end up in a horrible fedora dictatorship.
Anthony Jones
having a high intelligence in an extremely narrow field doesn't imply intelligence elsewhere
The channel is full of top quality redpills such as:
The best video to redpill even the most bluepilled on genetics of IQ with indisputable, easily understandable study (5 minutes): youtube.com/watch?v=F0_NsS1Zdlk
A clip that shows the insanity of the current migration policy and offers a proposal on how to fix it. Excellent to redpill even the most bluepilled on the current migration madness (3 minutes). youtube.com/watch?v=WWnjEhsXWsY
Brandon Allen
>technocracy No, I support Stratocracy, its objectively better for traditionalism of the 21 century
Jayden James
Oxford professor Julian Savulescu gives mindblowing examples of genetic manipulation, mind altering medication and brain stimulation(9 minutes) youtube.com/watch?v=C00oZ3f0fCg
The youtube channel is full of top quality redpills