While I would rather be writing about purely economic or policy issues, I believe any political movement would be ineffective without tackling the problems generated from sexual repression. Freud’s theories may sound ludicrous to apply to political ideas, but the constant societal focus on issues like natalism, marriage, feminism, and even the rights of transgender people are just a socially acceptable way to have arguments about sexuality.

The economic issues play a very large role, but many people identify with ideologies that oppose socialism so they would not want programs to help them unless they were modified or presented in certain ways so they conform to their own ideological beliefs. This results in the economic issues going unaddressed in favor of the ones that resonate with emotional needs and sexual drives like the ones mentioned before. It also means that for Technocrats, our policy proposals and ideas may actually feel too distant and disconnected from the motivations of potential members and citizens of the future technate. For a Technocratic system to truly inspire a following, it may be a good strategy to emphasize how the abolishment of the price system would increase personal freedom and vastly improve the reproductive autonomy of the population.

The major increase in power and popularity of conservative ideas has been alarming, but when viewed from the angle of sexual frustration and as the real motivations behind them being related to reproductive autonomy, they all begin to make sense. Left-wing movements have struggled to tap into the population of sexually frustrated men because of their inability to handle and manage themselves through ideological deviation, which has resulted in a culture among socialists about proving their ideological alignment and purity. While this is not inherently a bad thing, the desire to perform and enforce conformity to an ideology leads to similar repression of true motivations and goals that is seen in religious groups. From a functional perspective, this is catastrophic if modern political problems are about sex and the population cannot relate a movement’s ideology to the fulfillment of their own personal needs.

While a Technocratic movement can tap into a population traditionally loyal to rightism, we will need to modify our approach and be flexible in accepting who calls themselves a Technocrat and what their goals are from participating. Depending on the political climate and the system of government that Technocrats are operating under, it may be more important to rally people around and have them identify with your party than to actually have them conform ideologically to your movement. The inability to understand political systems or understand policy decisions made by experts does not disqualify anyone from supporting a Technocratic party, and the willingness to accept support and identification from the masses is what can take a movement from theoretical to applied to a current world government.

At first I was going to just make it the colors of Technocracy, but that would not have made sense since the emblem was a symbol of a monarchy. Ultimately I opted to replace the coat of arms with a monad.

Social mobility as an idea is often used to create legitimacy for why people under capitalism have the positions they have. This is an American idea and it is one that creates legitimacy for capitalist systems while shifting responsibility for poverty, deprivation, and sometimes active starvation as was seen in the British Raj, where food aid was withheld under the pretense of not interfering with market forces. It also creates problems with the less fortunate, because social mobility as a narrative has intentional blind spots for people with disabilities, no access to education or jobs, or those in severe poverty.

For Technocrats, the adoption of social mobility is problematic as well because this means the capitalist system and its influence in who becomes an expert is ignored at best, or accepted as legitimate at worst. This means that many disabled, or economically disadvantaged people would never be able to become experts or access the education required to participate in the political system. People with unique expertise that exists outside of the educational system like activists or indigenous people would also be silenced due to the lack of official credentials. This kind of thinking is also disastrous for people in rural areas who have additional difficulties in accessing education or other infrastructure due to their remote locations.

A Technocratic party that only wants engineers and degree holders and claims that anyone who works hard enough can get those degrees regardless of economic realities, is just an elitist capitalist party. This kind of attitude is also an ideological threat to the entire Technocracy movement because it reduces our ideology from a true alternative system of government to a ruling caste chosen by academia, which is known for gatekeeping and reproducing existing systems.

A serious follower of Howard Scott’s ideas has to be able to recognize expertise beyond what the educational system of a capitalistic regime is willing to give degrees for. Technocrats need their own processes for evaluating competency and expertise outside of the tools the capitalist system uses whether this means tests, demonstrations, or other ways to measure someone’s ability. It must also be cognizant of the narratives and rhetoric used by the ruling class and their purchased politicians to justify their continued control of society. Without maintaining continuity with Howard Scott’s ideas and resistance to the price system in favor of energy accounting, Technocracy loses its entire reason for existing as a movement.

Rewilding as I call it, basically means that every province of every country should centralize its population into a single hub. This would allow the rest of it to grow nature back and reduce the environmental problems suburban sprawl has. There would be large incentives and support for people to move to the population hub of their state/province and the rest would be free from government oversight so nature and wildlife can continue unbothered.

There is an assumption built into every invitation to debate politics. The assumption is that both people accept the same underlying game. A debate assumes shared premises about what counts as a fair point, what evidence matters, and what outcome would even represent a win. Most people never notice this assumption because they already hold it. In recent times, the distance between what groups of people believe in regards to this has been widening so far that many well intentioned debates no longer function to provide any productive insight. Extremists come into debates and use the platform to spread extremist beliefs without any intention to engage with the intellectual aspect or defend the logic behind their positions.

Political debate also performs a function independent of persuasion. When a system allows visible arguments about its policies, it produces the appearance of responsiveness. Citizens argue, the media covers the argument, and the system absorbs the friction through spectacle rather than through structural change. The loud activist who demands a debate is participating in a ritual that reassures everyone watching that the system works as designed. Conflict gets staged, positions get aired, and the underlying arrangement of power continues untouched.

Refusing to debate is often read as apathy or defeat. This assumes that a debate is productive or everyone has a reason to defend their beliefs in a debate. Declining the ritual denies the system a performance it depends on. A person who will not argue removes a piece the system cannot easily replace. This is much more threatening to the system than a loud and vocal group of people because it gives them nothing to push back against. Bringing Technocratic policy into a debate means being the only adult in the room, with the positions that are the result of the best quality of epistemic data available. You would then be burdened into arguing against extremist opinions that completely reject the data or have no interest in epistemic facts.

Instead of wasting energy arguing with some radicals, Technocrats can simply share what experts have said, what decisions and policy choices hold up logically when given the facts, or even directly naming the real motivations and biases underneath policy decisions presented in rhetoric. Failure of someone to acknowledge or base their opinions on epistemically correct facts should not be treated as something to argue about but rather as the category error that it is. It also prevents hostile agents from using bots and trolls to distract us from more productive forms of activism and praxis.

In traditional Marxist-Leninist analysis, small businesses are seen as trying to become the oppressor and become similar to the mega corporations that control everything. On the other hand, many currently socialist countries have adopted a model focused on small businesses and this has helped many people be employed and not dependent on a corporate entity for work that only sees them as a number and could discard them at any time for no reason.

I've become more sympathetic to small business as I've become older because the economy is bad and there are genuinely no options, regardless of how it is traditionally seen. However the political situation would need to be very carefully managed around small businesses so the owners never drift into right-wing territory ideologically. Maybe subsidies given to small business in exchange for their vote or bailouts for small businesses instead of the mega corporations typically favored by the US government.

Either way, energy accounting would make many of these problems redundant. This only really matters for the transitionary period while a Technate establishes an economy based in thermodynamics.

The Technocratic argument for taxation has never been primarily moral. It is an argument about function. A governing class that extracts resources from a productive economy without returning value is a structural inefficiency that compounds over time. The postwar consensus justified tolerating extreme wealth concentration on the premise that wealthy individuals created employment and paid taxes that funded public infrastructure. This premise never described reality in any economy. Offshoring, tax havens, and financialization have allowed personal enrichment and impunity from the mechanisms that limit the wealth and power of the ruling class.

France’s wealth tax and the subsequent departure of Gerard Depardieu and others provides a case study in wealth flight as a political gesture. The Scandinavian experience with high taxation producing functional rather than collapsed economies complicates the flight narrative significantly. The question is not whether some wealthy individuals emigrate under high taxation but whether their departure is the desired effect of government policy.

A Technocratic state interested in optimal resource allocation has no obligation to harbor elites that produce nothing for the population they extract from. Simply expatriating (removing citizenship) of these individuals is a simple solution and follows the logic of class struggle to its ultimate nonviolent conclusion. In countries like America, this could be done through legal penalties for lobbying and corruption which can be charged as treason.

The elites are not a natural feature of advanced economies. They are a policy failure that Technocratic governance can correct through the same mechanisms any state uses to remove actors that undermine collective function. High taxation removes the incentive to extract without contributing. Expatriation removes the extractor entirely. Treason charges for corruption and lobbying remove the legal fiction that purchasing political outcomes is a protected activity. None of these are radical proposals. They are the logical endpoints of taking resource allocation seriously as a governing principle rather than a moral aspiration. A Technate has no need for a privileged upper class and should treat them accordingly.

Honor is the default human social operating system. It predates the state, the church, and the human rights framework by most of recorded history. Its displacement was not caused by progress in the way that people believe. The real motivation was the need of centralizing institutions such as the church and the secular state to become the sole arbiters of legitimate grievance. What we call human rights is the latest version of that project stripped of its Christian origins and made to sound secular and universal. It presupposes universal standards of conduct and morality and even justifies imperialism when necessary in a more sophisticated way than simple holy wars.

The default human social operating system before human rights was honor. Obligations ran to kin, community, those you have made promises to. Violations create legitimate claims to retaliation. Justice is taken proportionally by the wronged party and their community. This system is imperfect but honest about what it is. Power and reputation are the real currencies and everyone knows it. There is also less incentive to wrong people in poverty or without resources because they can retaliate with tools that are not possible for them to use now such as physical violence or blood feuds.

Christianity disrupted this. By positing a supreme moral authority whose judgment supersedes all particular obligations, it created the ideological infrastructure for universal morality. It proposed a single moral standard applicable to everyone regardless of group membership. An eye for an eye became a lawsuit for an eye. Retaliation was once legitimate and obligatory but became an aberration and unacceptable socially. Grievance had to be submitted to institutional arbitration rather than addressed directly. The church managed this arbitration first. The secular state inherited the architecture and this is what led to the current human rights framework. This means the church and state both have a degree of moral arbitration that both of these institutions exploit to abuse members and get away with heinous crimes.

Modern human rights frameworks are the same structure with the theology removed and replaced with the language of reason and universalism. The metaphysical foundation that all humans possess inherent dignity demanding institutional protection is direct Christian anthropology. The priests became lawyers. The church became the UN. The excommunication became sanctions. Nothing structurally changed except that the theological condemnations became political, which made them harder to challenge as long as the population believed in liberalism.

The problem is not that the framework fails occasionally but rather that it functions exactly as designed. When Western countries commit colonial genocide, brutalize their own citizens, enslave their prisoners, when the UN evacuates white nationals and leaves Rwandans to be slaughtered — these are not failures of the human rights framework. They are demonstrations of it being legitimizing language deployed after power has already determined the outcome. The framework does not constrain power. It explains and justifies retroactively whatever power has already decided to do.

This is most visible when oppressed people use human rights language to articulate their own grievances. The system does not respond or it responds by pathologizing the claim, demanding procedural compliance, routing the grievance into channels designed to exhaust rather than resolve it. The framework was never built to protect people without institutional power. It was built to frustrate any attempts by people without power to address grievances inflicted upon them by the ruling class.

As Technocrats we have to be honest about this while remaining functional within it. Rights language is a trade language that you learn because the institutions you have to navigate speak it, not because it reflects reality. The actual social currencies are power and honor. Power determines what gets done. Honor and personal credibility determines what relationships and coalitions are available to you.

The honor framework is more honest and more useful than the rights framework because it does not condemn retaliation against oppression. Rights frameworks are structurally pacifist. They require the wronged party to remain procedurally compliant while seeking redress from the same apparatus producing the harm. Honor frameworks locate the legitimate response in the aggrieved party and their community. Violation creates an obligation to respond. That is not unreasonable and is closer to how justice actually works when it works at all.

The honor framework is not only essential for having accurate understandings of power and how people operate, but also determining the real reason for grievances and laws that liberalism fails to explain or sufficiently justify. Honor explains many personal grievances and societal problems in ways that are honest, without pretense, and that are impossible to explain or articulate from a human rights framework. I have previously written about how the manosphere exists due to an inability of men to articulate their problems in the human rights framework because they are honor based, and this phenomenon will continue happening as long as we refuse to see honor and dignity as real motivations for human behavior whether it’s ultimately a good thing or not.

The goal is not to abandon the human rights vocabulary entirely. The goal is to use it instrumentally while thinking in the underlying reality it obscures. Speak rights when navigating institutions. Think power and honor when making actual decisions. The framework is a tool, not a truth.

Three times in less than two years, someone has attempted to kill the President of the United States. The political class has responded in the typical fashion: the right identifies the left's rhetoric as incitement; the left condemns the regime's authoritarianism as provocation. Both are treating political violence as a message to be decoded rather than a symptom of a failing political system. The Technocratic framework requires that we treat the behavior of individuals as a response to material conditions. The question is not what the assassins believed. The question is what structural condition makes assassination attempts a recurring feature of a political system rather than an aberration.

The answer is legitimacy collapse. Its cause is not simply the wickedness of one administration or the radicalization of one faction. It is the prior and deeper failure of democratic epistemology: the assumption that the preferences of an epistemically unqualified population constitute a valid basis for governance.

Legitimacy is not popularity. It is not inherent to electoral victory. It is not even constitutionality in the narrow procedural sense. Legitimacy is the widely held belief across the population of governed subjects that the authority exercising power over them is doing so through a process that is competent, just, and oriented toward collective welfare. When that belief erodes, governance becomes coercion. The subjects of coercion, absent organized collective remedies, tend toward individual remedies. Political violence is the retail market for people who have concluded that no institutional channel remains. Data tends to prove this correct, with studies showing that the US electoral system provides more weight to votes of wealthier citizens. Combined with a lack of social mobility and cuts to education and welfare, this turns a class society into a caste system.

This is not a commentary for support or condemnation on any class struggle event whether violent or nonviolent. It is a structural observation. Democratic theorists have long acknowledged that legitimacy is the precondition for peaceful political contestation. What they have been unwilling to examine is whether democracy, as actually practiced, is capable of sustaining legitimacy or systematically degrades it. Democracy does not produce competent governance. It produces popular governance. These are not the same thing, and their divergence is the engine of legitimacy collapse.

The Technocratic position is an epistemic claim at its foundation: that governance is a domain of applied expertise, that the problems of a complex industrial society require specialized knowledge to solve, and that decisions made without that knowledge tend toward outcomes that are worse than random choices because they are systematically shaped by bias, ignorance, and the manipulation of motivated actors. Democracy does not address this problem. It institutionalizes it and celebrates it.

A population that cannot or will not distinguish climate science from climate opinion, that cannot evaluate the actuarial logic of healthcare policy, that cannot parse the second-order effects of tariff structures or the tradeoffs in monetary supply management is a population that cannot meaningfully consent to governance on these questions. It can only be mobilized. And the parties that do the mobilizing are not constrained to use accurate information. They are constrained only to use effective information, which is a different thing entirely. The entire process is hijacked by perverse incentives because aspiring political leaders must play the game of a demagogue.

The result is a political system that selects not for competence but for the appearance of strength, clarity, and tribal alignment. Demagogues are not aberrations of democracy. They are its natural product. Democracy held up before an epistemically unprepared population does not select for the wise administrator. It selects for the man who can make the largest number of people feel that their fears are real and their enemies are named. It also turns the electoral system into a plutocratic game of what individual can lobby their politician the most.

The tyrant and the assassin are not opposites. They are both products of the same material conditions. The difference is that one ascends through it, and the other wants to resist it.

Once a demagogue reaches power through democratic means, the relationship between that demagogue and democratic legitimacy inverts. During the campaign, democracy was a mechanism of elevation. In office, democracy becomes a constraint or the appearance of a constraint, since a sufficiently dominant political coalition can strip democratic institutions of their countervailing function while retaining their ritual form. Courts are packed. Administrative agencies are purged of expertise and restaffed with loyalists. The press is delegitimized through sustained rhetorical assault. Oversight mechanisms are defunded or redirected. The formal apparatus of democratic governance persists. Its substantive content such as deliberation, accountability, countervailing power is abolished.

This is tyranny in the classical sense. It is not the caricature of a dictator who has abolished elections, but the Aristotelian figure who governs in his own interest rather than the common interest, who uses the instruments of the polis against the polis itself. The modern version is subtler. It retains elections. It retains the Constitution as a textual artifact. What it destroys is the institutional capacity for those mechanisms to function as checks. When citizens perceive that the formal remedies are captured or closed, the informal remedies such as protest, civil disobedience, and eventually political violence become the only effective solutions.

It is a profound irony (though one a Technocrat would find entirely predictable) that the individuals who have attempted to kill this president appear to have arrived at their decision through the same epistemic process that produced him. The consumption of politically saturated media, the absorption of a narrative that designates a single figure as the cause and cure of collective suffering, and the conclusion that individual action on that narrative is not only justified but urgent. The assassin is in some ways the intended product of the ideological system that produced the current US regime. He has internalized the terms of democratic mobilization and acted on them with a literalism that the sympathizers find inconvenient.

The White House response to the April 2026 Correspondents' Dinner attack was attributing it to Democratic Party rhetoric. This is not wrong in the narrow sense that the would-be assassin's apparent beliefs overlapped with oppositional political messaging. It is wrong in the deeper sense that it mistakes the medium for the cause. The cause is a political culture in which claims of existential threat or total warfare are normalized instruments of partisan mobilization with no regard to epistemic accuracy or even the humanity of marginalized citizens. That normalization predates any single administration. It is the condition of a democracy that has no mechanism for calibrating the epistemic quality of the claims it circulates.

A system that cannot distinguish between true claims and effective claims will eventually find that it cannot distinguish between legitimate grievance and murderous delusion either.

The solution is not better rhetoric. It is not electoral reform at the margins through ranked-choice voting, campaign finance limits, independent commissions for redistricting. These are adjustments within the democratic framework and therefore subject to the same epistemic failure that degrades everything within it. They treat the symptom. The Technocratic position is that the system requires different organizing principles. The will of the people is not a replacement for expert guidance, and rigged elections are not a replacement for scientific, epistemically correct government.

Legitimacy in this model does not derive from the fiction that the governed have chosen their governance but from the demonstrable fact that their governance works. A population that is housed, healthy, employed, and educated will extend legitimacy to the institutions that produced those conditions without requiring that it have voted on every policy mechanism involved. We extend legitimacy to surgical teams without electing surgeons. We extend legitimacy to engineering standards without holding popular referenda on load-bearing calculations. The question is why we believe that the vastly more complex domain of macrogovernance should be exempt from the same logic even after the massive amounts of human suffering and rights violations that it historically and presently produces.

Three attempts on a sitting president in eighteen months are not a political problem in the conventional sense. They are a diagnostic signal. They indicate a system in which the gap between governed experience and governing competence has become wide enough that a nontrivial number of individuals have concluded that institutional channels are either captured or irrelevant. That conclusion is not irrational given the evidence. The institutions have been degraded. The channels are narrower than they were. The sense that one's political agency has been structurally nullified. Whether this is because one's party lost, because policy outcomes are visibly disconnected from stated intentions, or because the mechanisms of accountability have been operationally disabled, this is a predictable and perhaps even logically sound response to a system whose epistemic failures have compounded over decades.

The Technocrat does not mourn this democracy. It does not believe the democracy that produced these conditions was ever functioning well enough to mourn. It recognizes the violence for the terminal expression of a legitimacy deficit that democratic theory promised to prevent and democratic practice has consistently deepened. What it proposes is not the continuation of a failed system under new management, but the construction of a different system whose legitimacy rests on competence, transparency, and measurable delivery rather than on the mobilization of an epistemically unprepared electorate into the service of power.

The assassin will keep appearing as long as the conditions that produce him persist. The conditions that produce him are structural. The structure is democracy as it actually functions, not democracy as it is theorized. condemning the assassin without addressing the structure is allowing the regime to abdicate from the logical consequences of its tyranny. This is a characteristically democratic response to a problem that democracy, by its nature, cannot solve from within.

Human society runs on two different levels. The first is the rhetoric. This is what people say in speeches, on social media, in manifestos, and during elections. It’s full of moral declarations and promises about how things should be. The second is the behavior. This is what people actually do, how they spend their money, who they vote for, and how they treat their neighbors. The idea of behavior revealing true opinions and motivations with rhetoric being an expression of what a person thinks they believe can be called behavioral realism for the purposes of discussion within Technocracy.

The biggest mistake we make is thinking these two levels are the same. In reality, the rhetoric is mostly just noise and statements made for self-expression. It’s how people signal to each other, show off their tribe, or try to look good. The behavior is the only thing that actually matters. If you try to run a country based on what people say they want, you’re like a pilot flying blind, trusting the clouds instead of the instruments. You’re going to crash. To fix society, we need to stop focusing on the noise and start looking at the data of what people actually do and how they feel about policies and systems. It is important to listen to the desires of the people to not become tyrannical, but it is also important to understand that they may not have as good of an idea of what they truly believe as they might think.

This gap causes huge problems in politics. Democracies usually run on the rhetoric which is campaign promises and polls. But when politicians try to pass laws based on what people say they want, it often backfires. For example, people might say they love “freedom,” but then demand strict rules to protect them. The result is a mess of laws that nobody follows.

We can see this clearly in places like Florida. A lot of the laws passed there are designed just to send a message or “virtue signal” to a specific group of voters, rather than to actually solve problems. These laws often end up being ineffective or getting blocked by courts because they don’t match the reality of how people live and take no account for the reality of how policy affects citizens in their real daily lives.

Take the idea of rhetoric as a form of self-expression. Lots of people call themselves socially conservative and say they want strict moral rules enforced. But if you watch what they actually do, they often just want to be left alone. They rarely bother their neighbors for having non-traditional lifestyles, and they might even watch the same movies or read the same books they claim to hate. They prioritize peace and harmony over being a moral police officer. The same phenomenon can also apply to the Left. Asking anarchists how the government should respond to certain behaviors causes them to state there should be punishment or vigilantism. Some socialists may believe that animals or children are exploited but action towards that belief can fall outside the scope of their activism focus. This is a universal human flaw that poses a challenge to Technocracy and scientific government if it is not known and managed.

A smart system wouldn’t try to enforce rules based on what these people say they believe, because they aren’t willing to pay the price to make it happen. Instead, we should look at the data: tax records, traffic patterns, and energy use. That tells us the truth. We need to stop asking people what they want and start watching what they do.

This same split happens in institutions. Institutions often cling to old rules written on paper, while the people inside them have already moved on. Think about big religious groups. Their official books might say certain things are forbidden, but in real life, those groups often welcome LGBTQ+ members, let them marry, and treat them like family. The “official rule” is just a leftover from the past; the real behavior is about keeping the community together.

If you only looked at the laws and social expectations of a society, you would think that people were living strict legalistic lives. But if you look at the people, you see they are adapting and surviving. When a culture cares more about looking virtuous than being virtuous, everyone starts lying to each other about their real motivations and beliefs. This creates a social game that cannot easily be opted out of or ignored, because it engenders social interaction within the society it happens in. It also disadvantages neurodivergent people or those who do not understand the dynamics of the social games they are playing.

The most dangerous part of this gap is when it comes to serious issues like domestic violence or child abuse. Everyone says they hate it and would become ballistic towards anyone doing it. But in reality? Most people stay silent. Neighbors hear screaming but don’t call the police. Coworkers suspect abuse but are afraid to get involved. Communities value family privacy more than the safety of a victim. The cost of stepping in feels too high. There can be a fear of getting sued, getting hurt, or making a scene which results in everyone doing nothing. This is not a condemnation because some of these issues are too complex and unpredictable for a random bystander to involve themselves and for it to be productive, but the stated rhetoric directly contradicts the real societal response. In some cases strong state interventions can actually cause the people involved to resent the state and intentionally distance themselves from it or disrupt its attempts to help.

This is a policy failure. We have a society that claims to have zero tolerance for abuse, but its actual behavior is an inability to stop it. A smart system would account for human behavior and use expert opinion to determine what will truly change in regards to any policy decisions. It would change the rules in ways that positively alter behavior rather than punish it or ineffectively criminalize it.

The reason our world feels so broken is that we keep trying to fix it with rhetoric. We pass laws based on feelings, and we expect institutions to follow rules that nobody actually believes in. This creates normative overload of violations that nobody could possibly enforce even if they wanted to. Technocrats need to stop taking rhetoric and stated beliefs at face value so the actual data that human behavior provides can be the basis of policy making.

The United Nations defines an internally displaced person as someone who has fled their home and sought refuge in another part of their country due to generalized violence, violations of human rights, or natural and human-made disasters. In the United States, this is exactly what is happening with transgender people in red states as well as scientists, journalists, activists, abortion seekers, or ethnic minorities in states that are politically repressive or outright hostile. International organizations do not operate within the US or document when human rights abuses cause citizens to flee their state or country because the US is theoretically a liberal democracy where this should not be happening, according to the worldview of Western liberalism. The United States has also traditionally controlled a lot of rhetoric around human rights which means many domestic violations go unpunished or even unnoticed by the rest of the world.

A displacement crisis that goes unmeasured is a displacement crisis that cannot be addressed. The failure to measure it is not a neutral oversight but a political choice. Technocrats, whose legitimacy derives from expertise and evidence rather than electoral coalition-building, are uniquely positioned to do what neither the federal government nor international organizations are currently willing to do: document internal displacement in the United States with the same rigor that NGOs apply to conflict zones in the Global South. This means developing standardized metrics that distinguish coercion-driven relocation from voluntary migration, cross-referencing policy changes with migration pattern shifts to establish causation rather than mere correlation, and producing state-level human rights condition indices analogous to how the CDC tracks disease burden. When a gender-affirming care ban passes in a given state and out-migration among transgender people and their families spikes in the following months, that is not an anecdote. that is actionable, documentable, reproducible evidence of displacement. The apparatus for this work already exists in embryonic form in the State Department’s annual human rights reports, which systematically document abuses abroad while the domestic equivalent remains entirely absent. Turning that apparatus inward is not a radical proposal. It is what competent governance actually requires.

Experts on refugee law have long advised against the assumption that any country is uniformly safe for all of its residents at all times. The legal fiction of the “safe country” has been challenged repeatedly by scholars and practitioners who recognize that safety is not a national characteristic but a local and personal one, contingent on identity, political position, and geography. The Internal Flight Alternative doctrine, which is used in asylum proceedings to argue that claimants could have relocated within their home country rather than crossing a border, already implicitly acknowledges this. If internal conditions are variable enough to constitute a meaningful alternative to international asylum, then no country can be treated as a monolithic zone of safety. The United States is not an exception to this principle, however much its own rhetoric insists otherwise. Edward Snowden could not safely remain in any US state after disclosing the scope of federal surveillance programs. His displacement became international only because no domestic refuge from federal prosecution existed. Undocumented people living in the United States experience differential safety by jurisdiction as a matter of explicit policy, navigating the difference between sanctuary cities and counties operating 287(g) agreements with ICE as a daily survival calculation. In some states, laws permitting civil suits against anyone who assists with out-of-state abortion access have effectively eliminated the internal flight alternative entirely for certain populations. Legal exposure in the origin state follows the person across state lines, collapsing the geographic logic that safe country assumptions depend on. Every country is not safe for every person all the time. The United States is not an exception.

Marx and Lenin were experts in the field of revolution and the analysis of class society, and as such they identified that the working poor are the most likely to have a desire to flip the system or tear it down entirely. Who else will fight for a Technate when the middle class is focused on maintaining its own position at the expense of those under them, or the elites who are doing the same to everyone else? The ruling and middle class do engage in class struggle, but that just looks like oppression of the poor and benefit for their social class at the expense of working class rights, liberties, luxuries, and even livelihoods. For a Technocrat who seriously wants to create a scientific and expert-led society, the ones most likely to support them are intellectuals as well as those who would benefit from energy accounting. Many of the people who would be willing to fight and die a revolution for our ideas are the ones who have no life under the current system. As much as Technocracy and scientific government should be universally appreciated ideas, the interests of people living in a class society dictate that the law of class struggle applies to us.

When a healthcare CEO is assassinated or a warehouse full of toilet paper is burned down, the correct move is not to condemn anyone because these are actions that the people can plausibly take to resist the systemic and totalizing oppression put on them by the ruling class. I understand that some are uncomfortable with the idea of violence or destruction as tools for political change, but the revolution that would be necessary for a regime change in the US or any class society would be so violent and radical that it would make these incidents look like dinner parties. There is also an obvious lack of legitimate non-violent channels for reform or liberation in a class society which means condemning this form of class struggle only enforces the regime of the ruling class. Because of this, we should simply refer to any act of resistance against the class system as a class struggle event, and not differentiate between peaceful and violent ones. It is illogical to try and make our movement seem legitimate and peaceful to a government we want to destroy or usurp. A person who is disturbed or is not willing to continue supporting the people through a revolution or other class struggle events should reflect on which social class and systems their allegiance belongs to.

Progressives and leftists like Technocrats are in a position where we are expected to do something or propose policies for increasing the birth rate. My response is to ask why we would ever do that. In a class society, reproduction has a class character and the child born will also inevitably have a class character and different rights, comforts, securities, and opportunities that reflect the social class they were born into. Should we encourage the workers to have children in poverty who will grow up to work in the mines, or the elites who will have a new generation of children to be the new exploiting class?

Parenthood in the modern times has yielded poor results for both the parents and child, and depending on the social class of the parents they may even be arrested or have their children taken away from them by authorities. Child support is the first thing many men think of, and it can be devastating and limit their ability to leave an unhappy marriage. The traditional male role as being a sole provider can also end in coercion for a woman with a child. In a society with no economy or social support, do you want to have a child knowing the regime may suspend your driver’s license, revoke a passport, or go as far as throw you in jail for not having money? Do you want to be dependent on someone else who can be fired at any time for no reason, because the state has no labor rights or protections? Or perhaps you may end up in an even worse situation as a single parent with no support and a regime that will extort money from you or throw you in jail for forced labor. We truly live in an interesting time to be a parent, and I say that very generously.

Besides the issues for the parents, the children will be born into an extremely dystopian and broken society. Infrastructure and its quality is completely dependent on the social class and income of residents of an area. A child that is neurodivergent or has any kind of mental or physical disability will also be outcast and unable to achieve success independently on top of the other constraints put on them to prevent social mobility. Education is an argument for why social mobility is still alive and the poor can theoretically be successful, but debt and admission constraints also reinforce the compounding disadvantages that these individuals face. A society without education or opportunities quickly becomes a caste system where there is no incentive for social cohesion or compliance with the established systems. It’s a hopeless society where anyone of the wrong class is doomed to exploitation and poverty for their entire lifetime.

So forget about progressive or Technocratic policies to increase the birth rate, because the society these people have created is so bad that no rational person would ever choose to live in it. We’re not going to help the billionaires replenish their population of serfs. If we helped the regime have more children, they would simply exploit and neglect those children and continue the cycles of oppression that we are currently experiencing. If our political leaders cannot listen to experts, revolutionaries, or even general progressives to improve the conditions of society, the population should continue to decline until they have no population left to exploit.

Freud gave us different psychological archetypes and while they may not be perfect, I believe that Technocrats should use them to try and understand what is going on in the minds of the people we hope to govern but can’t really understand from a purely logical perspective.

The first and most obvious archetype that I think fits cleanly into this is the conservative type. They are usually legalistic and rigid in regards to tradition, morality and cultural constraints, which means they are high in the superego. The superego is the part of the mind that represents morality and manages the ego (personality) and id (Primal pre-logical desires and drives). There is a spiritual component to many religions which means these people could also be high in primary process thinking (Dreamlike, pre-logical thinking) which would also explain the contempt that many have for modern, rationalist society that operates on secular logic and rationalism. In order to appease the superego of these people, we could theoretically develop some kind of moral philosophies or social etiquette rules that would be satisfying to them while also still being inclusive and secular enough that it does not alienate them from society. Freud believed that the superego would become tyrannical if it devoured a person’s entire personality and that is likely why we see religious fanaticism take off in some individuals. The same individuals drawn to fanaticism by the superego are the same ones drawn to tyrannical ideologies which means many of them inevitably take on religious characteristics.

The other main archetype we have in modern society is the liberal one, and this one is obviously driven by the id. Communists, Technocrats and other principled leftists are not as id-driven so our choices tend to better reflect the real philosophical and ideological systems we identify with, while Western liberalism tends to be about personal pleasure and liberation from rigid cultural norms. While a socialist wants to change the economic system and bring legitimate change, the average liberal in a Western society is preoccupied with desires and drives associated with the id, even to the extent of ignoring the economic side of politics entirely. The culture war from this perspective can be seen as a civilization-level clash between the Superego and the id, with many balanced individuals feeling that both sides are irrational or missing the point of the political system entirely. I have previously proposed a libertarian attitude towards cultural issues which would likely solve the problem of the id on a societal level, although this will likely be viewed negatively by the strict superego-driven people.

As Technocrats or generally leftists, we are probably operating from a balance of these two psychological drives meaning we are operating in a way that is more constructive and logically sound. Logical and rational thinking is an ego function which means a mediation between the id and superego. We can be viewed as having a superego that cares more about economic justice, fairness, and human progress rather than just tradition or legalism. We can also be said to channel the id into socially acceptable or constructive avenues such as rationalist activism even if there is strong emotional weight behind them.

However, there is an uncomfortable conclusion to be made here which is that pure logic is an awkward method to truly try and convince someone of our ideas when they operate from different purely primal drives. We should not alter expert opinions or make policies based on the id or superego of a society because this violates our core principle of scientific government, but rather we should consider the psychological state of the society when interacting with the public and look for methods of governing that resonate with id, ego, and superego heavy populations simultaneously. Learning to read an audience would give us clues on whether we should appeal to superego through tradition, justice, and morality or the id through enjoyment, fulfillment, and freedom of expression. Populations heavy in primary-process thinking are the hardest obstacle to overcome, but as a Technocrat I trust in our experts to find a solution.

People are burning down warehouses and responding violently to the current system as a result of the economic grievances they experience in society. From a class struggle perspective I don't really care because this is directed towards the ruling class that exploits us, but from a Technocratic perspective it may be necessary to find some kind of reconciliation for this if a Technocratic/ Howardist party ever came to power in the US. What are some policy proposals or ideas that you guys have in regards to maintaining social harmony around class lines? I think it's a common defense mechanism to burn everything down when it is oppressive and hopeless (In the case of the April 7th warehouse incident that's what he did literally, LMAO) but what are some other remedies to class-based grievance that a Technocratic government could institute proactively to prevent anger from reaching the point of social breakdown?

As much as I don’t like this to be the case, I believe that a society cannot organize itself without some sort of religion or unifying philosophy. Ancient China had Confucianism which was mostly etiquette and philosophy, but it was still the glue of Chinese society. Communist states base their civilization on class struggle which works as long as the people believe in it, but after decades of socialism the memory of capitalist oppression wanes and can possibly feel antiquated or falls into collective memory instead of lived experience. Even in the modern world, many people still go to churches that are toxic and full of theological issues and impractical moral systems. The reason isn’t always exclusively spiritual, but in my experience tends to be the result of humanity not knowing how to organize communities or societies without some sort of shared value set or collective ideology or identity. In a country that is based on a religion that is difficult to believe for a technologically advanced population, we see that those involved in the religion will even go as far to directly oppose science, education, or even human progress to hold on to their lifestyle and personal identity. This is playing out in the US with evangelical churches and Afghanistan with radical Islamists taking control of the government and directly countering the progress of their society to prevent their society from becoming secular.

As older belief systems become too alien for the people in the world to continue believing in, new belief systems should logically emerge and sub-plant them. However, the world has turned its back to philosophy or the asking of any deeper questions, because capitalism created conditions where money and production are valued over existential questions. This has led to a world where the economy is so bad that most people cannot even get jobs, and have no deeper spiritual, esoteric, or guiding philosophies to fall back on. The modern generation has reached a level of nihilism that should not be possible, with some even calling for the extinction of all life or the end of the universe because there appears to be no meaning or reason for existing in a profane capitalistic world. Others take the opposite approach and cling harder to Christianity or old religions, hoping that even with their inherent problems and contradictions they still provide some kind of meaning to a pointless life. Others even go as far as having children, and making parenthood their entire reason for existence. Capitalism historically gave people meaning by teaching them to identify with their labor and jobs, with unemployment and the inability to provide work to modern people undermining this entirely and leaving a void that subsequently is leading us into population decline, as well as personal, societal, and cultural collapse.

Modern people could theoretically organize a society based on secular principles like Science, Technocracy, or even political principles like human rights and non-oppression. However these ideas all become controversial in an economically unequal and uneducated society because class struggle dictates that any idea or political philosophy will serve the ruling class that has to implement it. Secular government means secular plutocracy. Human rights in the US means the rights of the ruling class to extract as much profits from everyone else and crush unions. Any belief system that does not consciously direct its efforts and attention towards the control of the ruling class and dismantles it is a dead ideology that will always be bastardized and replicate plutocracy. This is why Anarchist and Libertarian states become third world countries and Socialist states are the only real opposition to the established systems. The economic competition and enforced scarcity resulting from this also destroys the social bonds in communities, families, and even the entire country. Christian nationalism is taking off because an uneducated rural person who knows the church as a positive and caring community, may begin to think that a society resembling his religious organization is an improvement from the modern systems.

In conclusion, it seems that in order to organize a society without religion, the society must produce some sort of ideology or philosophy that improves material conditions for its people and that most people can agree with. Religion historically did this, and the charitable faiths were typically the ones that were able to unify society. Socialism did this for the same reasons and without necessitating any kind of supernatural belief or religious philosophy among its population. Technocracy can do this, but it will require education, positive social interactions, propagandizing, charity work, and an improvement to the material conditions of society that is genuinely felt among the majority of society. Technocracy is currently a niche ideology but it can become a lived experience for people through charity and activism. It must be implemented by the working class and activists with a strong sense of class struggle and who are vigilant against the capture of their ideas by the ruling class. Any ideology captured or hijacked by the capitalist class will fail to function as the organization for a successful, free, and scientific society.

As a Technocrat, my political stances must conform to scientific consensus and the declarations of appropriate experts. On the question of abortion, the science is not ambiguous. The World Health Organization recognizes abortion as a medical procedure necessary to public health — one that is demonstrably safe, with low risk. Scientists find no conclusive evidence of post-fetal depression, no indication that a fetus can feel pain before the third trimester, and no association with long-term infertility or breast cancer. The controversy surrounding abortion is not a scientific controversy. It is a political one, and that distinction matters enormously.

This is what I mean by the separation of science and state: in the absence of a requirement that policy be grounded in empirical consensus, private metaphysics and personal feeling become legally enforceable on an unwilling population. The conversation is oversaturated with opinions rooted in philosophy or religious conviction rather than testable evidence. This is not an accusation of bad faith. Some nurses have personally told me they were emotionally scarred by witnessing the procedure, and that is a valid human reaction. But emotional reactions, however genuine, are not policy instruments. From a consequentialist perspective, access to abortion produces measurably better outcomes for society than forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or driving them toward illegal procedures performed without medical supervision. The suffering prevented is concrete and documentable.

The philosophical and religious arguments against abortion tend to collapse under scrutiny precisely because they import assumptions that cannot survive contact with the scientific method. A religious argument against abortion requires, as a prior condition, some scientifically testable evidence that the religion making the argument is accurate, and then further evidence that abortion specifically violates its commandments in the way claimed. Neither burden has been met. The philosophical arguments are only slightly better. Most of them rest on an unexamined premise: that life and reproduction are inherently good regardless of material conditions regardless of poverty, of opportunity, of the actual circumstances into which a new life would arrive. That premise can inform personal choices, but cannot legitimately form the basis of policy that compels women to give birth against their will. Compelling behavior requires justification that goes beyond the unfalsifiable, and the scientific method remains our most reliable standard for what counts as justification at all. Technocrats, by definition, must categorically reject unscientific arguments or controversy.

Elections are assumed to represent the interests of the general public, but the income brackets of a person tend to correlate strongly with the effect their vote has on the political system. Working class people who vote were shown to have no correlation to influencing political outcomes to policies they prefer, while for the wealthy the correlation was very strong. I won’t be focusing on elections themselves as a flawed governing method because I have previously written about this, but instead focus on the idea of elites and counter-elites in the US and how the battle between these two groups are the real deciding factor in why the political parties behave the way they currently do.

For clarity, an elite is someone who holds a large amount of wealth and power within a society and is able to use that to control the systems of the society to create a desired outcome for themselves and their social class. A counter-elite is someone who is wealthy and powerful, but is not as influential as an elite who has deeper entrenched power and connections to the White House or other power structures. There are different reasons this can happen, but the end result is that capitalist society has a power struggle where the newer wealthy like millionaires and tech bros are fighting for power against the billionaires and the few families who own major infrastructure like oil and banking. The average middle class or working class person is an afterthought, treated like ants by the political system unless they can disrupt society enough to make the system unable to ignore them. Even in that case, they will deal with violent repression and a real risk of being assassinated or jailed for political reasons.

How this plays out in the current political system is that current elites are represented by the Democratic party because a strong middle class and tolerance are good for preserving the status quo of society and the existing power structures. The Republican party has policies that are nonsensical and intentionally destructive because instability and chaos would allow counter-elites to claim power and overthrow the entrenched ruling class. The atrocities and slavery the working class endures are just an afterthought to these people living in a different social class and fighting for power. We like to believe that policies enacted are the result of some sort of logic, but if we believe in elite theory, the behavior of US political systems begins to make a lot more sense.

For any Technocrat, engaging in politics means entering a war zone with no allies and no limits to what the people are willing to do to protect their money and power. A truly scientific government would be opposed by all kinds of elites who would need to justify policies to data and ultimately remain bound to it, likely at the expense of their own power. Ultimately though the most likely result is the creation of selective science with elite money funding research and running experiments until the data matches their class interests. It is because of this consequence that class struggle and a focus on working class interests and energy accounting is indispensable for any real Technocratic movement to succeed and stay true to its principles. It is also evident that engaging with a system designed for the elite class to fight for power amongst themselves is useless to anyone without the money and power to participate. Technocrats must find creative, disruptive, and perhaps even hostile methods of influencing the governments of countries where money and elite connections are the main political currency. Strikes, protests, propagandizing and perhaps even sabotaging the current system ideologically are all avenues worth exploring.