Why Are The Young And Scientistic All Of The Sudden Declaring Democracy is "Mathematically Impossible" During THIS Election Fall?

Robert Sapolsky, Sabine Hossenfelder, Lawrence Krauss,. . . The list of materialist-atheist-true believers in scientism before the public who strenuously deny the possibility of free thought, free will is a long one.  It seems to be an inevitable result of that triad of beliefs, especially those of materialism and scientism, though I have to say I don't really know of any atheists who talk about it who aren't both materialists and true believers in scientism.  Even when one of those MASers want to claim to accept free will they have to do so through a logical disconnect between their inflexible materialist monism, which is ruled by the scientistic faith that physical causality as can be asserted through science rules everything and free thought or free will which would have to have some degree of non-causality within it or it would not be free.  For example, the loud-mouth MASer Sean Carroll holds the self-contradictory position of "compatablism" that, somehow, free-will is true even though it is a product of physical determinism, which strikes me as an evasion.  If it is because he knows that most People wouldn't welcome the results of an enforced, hegemonic rejection of free will and would choose to reject his faith in MAS, I think that's entirely more plausible than that someone who is aware enough of the problem to take the compatibalist dodge doesn't understand that it is logically incoherent.  The high priest of materialist-atheist-scientism and ultra-Drawinism, Richard Darwkins, has a similar logically disconnected, luke warm assertion that he believes we can, somehow, overcome the determinism of natural selection, though his own claims in his books and articles certainly would make that a logical impossibility. 

This is motivated by what I think is one of the most serious of those results in a belief in materialist-atheist-scientism has been having a bit of a flourish on Youtube and, I'd guess, in other such venues in the claim that democracy is mathematically impossible.  Go to Youtube and type "democracy is mathmatically impossible" into the search window and you'll see what I mean.  This seems to be something that the smug, young egotists of sciency atheism are pushing quite hard even as the real scientist MAS .  I can't, for the life of me, not think that it has some connection to the assault on democracy funded by tech-bros in league with the vulgar materialists who are bros without any tech, at least other than owning shares in tech businesses.  

I haven't had the time to write the second post on "Learning People" but when I came across these videos extending the denial of free thought, free will to the claim that democracy is mathematically impossible, during an election year which could be the end of America's imperfect democracy I couldn't not make a comment that their sciency style of argument, ignoring the reality of democratic government and society in real life, with all of its oddities and in-built corruptions (the anti-democratic Electoral College's effect on America's presidential elections, the anti-democratic practices of vote suppression and things like gerrymandering on other offices) ties in very well with Luke Timothy Johnson's observations about how you can't learn People like you can learn non-living things and my eternal slamming of the pseudo-social-sciences of which this is definitely a manifestation.

I have come to the conclusion that just as eugenics, scientific racism and everything from proposals for genocide to the actual practice of genocide is a consequence of the scientific hegemony of the theory of natural selection, the holding of materialism, of scientism, of atheism will inevitably lead to a disintegration of the intellectual prerequisites for democracy, especially egalitarian democracy, the only democracy worthy of the name in any modern language.  I think it's all an over-extension of scientific method, which is a human invention, not anything like an alleged law of nature, into things where scientific method can rather obviously not be practiced.   It is related to the declaration of Ernst Haeckel that attributed to Darwinism the final triumph of the materialist monism that was his favorite ideological position,  though I have always suspected the real motive behind that was the atheism that it is inevitably held to prove  when it is asserted that is where the real emotional force behind that assertion lies.