The Interdependent Alliance between Technocracy and Communitarianism

Why is it that so few people truly understand the systems by which we are governed? How can we encourage individuals to move beyond the distractions of the left-right paradigm and start to gain a genuine understanding of the system behind the systems, while also asking more critical questions of those who are misleading us?

The interdependent alliance between technocracy and communitarianism, two governance systems, seldom discussed in the media, are in fact components of the same overarching system. I believe that if the public were to understand them, and their mutually reinforcing relationship, the current structures of governance would begin to unravel rapidly.

So, how do we bring this about? What follows is an attempt to draw together the insightful work of others and present the information as clearly and concisely as possible, simply to open the door for those who are searching and ready to see.

Technocracy defined

According to Wikipedia; Technocracy is a form of government in which decision-makers appoint knowledge experts in specific domains to provide them with advice and guidance in various areas of their policy-making responsibilities. However, although correct in part this definition is misleading because it doesn’t communicate the essence of what technocracy is really about.

Patrick M. Wood, the most prominent researcher of technocracy, defines Technocracy as: "An economic system based on resource allocation and energy credits rather than price-based supply and demand mechanisms, managed by engineers, scientists, and technicians who claim to use data and science to control all aspects of society."

In his view, technocracy is not just a form of governance, but a replacement economic system originally proposed in the 1930s. He emphasises that; 1. It bypasses traditional democratic processes. 2. It relies on surveillance, data collection, and algorithms to manage society. 3. It seeks to centralise control over resources and behaviour in the name of efficiency, sustainability, and science.

Wood warns that technocracy is a neo-totalitarian system cloaked in the language of progress and sustainability, and he links it to modern movements like sustainable development, smart cities, and the Great Reset promoted by the World Economic Forum.

Iain Davis has built upon the work of Patrick M. Wood by highlighting its relevance to the emerging dynamics within the new Trump administration in the United States. In his article series, The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate - Part 1 & 2, Davis explores the concept of technocracy, which he defines not merely as governance by technical experts, but as a far-reaching system of social control orchestrated by powerful Big Tech oligarchs.

According to Davis, technocracy is marked by the scientific management of society, where decisions are driven by data and efficiency, rather than democratic deliberation. He describes it as a “governance of function,” with the objective of managing society as efficiently as possible. This vision entails the elimination of the price mechanism and private property, with all resources allocated by a centralised authority, often termed a “Technate” - or, as figures within the Trump administration have reportedly called it, “GovCorp”.

Davis cautions that such a system risks devolving into a deeply authoritarian model, where individual liberties are subordinated to the supposed collective good, and social behaviour is manipulated through pervasive surveillance and data-driven control.

The deception lies in the fact that the duplicitous advocates of the GovCorp Technate which includes figures such as Elon Musk, portray themselves as libertarians, when in reality they are anything but. While claiming to champion individual freedom, they are in fact establishing structures and systems that erode liberties and concentrate power in the hands of a select few, chiefly themselves.

Nick Land, a significant intellectual influence on Peter Thiel and others within the orbit of the Trump administration, is a proponent of Accelerationism. Land views capitalism as a driving force behind technological advancement, and sees technological innovation as the key to overcoming stagnation and unlocking new potential for the future. In his perspective, the rapid intensification of capitalist dynamics is achieved through vast investment in favoured sectors which they seek to dominate. This is a means of propelling society beyond its present constraints, even at the cost of social and economic stability. A telling example of this came just days after Donald Trump took office, when he announced $500 billion in funding for investment in AI infrastructure.

Trump announces private-sector $500 billion investment in AI infrastructure | Reuters

Accelerationists view technological and capitalist acceleration as a means of pushing society toward a more hierarchical, elitist, or even post-human future. They argue that the acceleration of technology, capitalism, and market forces will lead to the eventual breakdown of democratic systems and create a new, more authoritarian or even techno-feudal world. They would like to see the collapse of liberal, egalitarian, and democratic norms, which they view as obstacles to innovation and progress.

Communitarianism defined

Amitai Etzioni, one of the foremost advocates of communitarianism, played a key role in its adoption under the banner of “The Third Way” by political parties across the ideological spectrum during the 1990s. As a result, this largely unspoken 'ism' has since become embedded within the framework of global governance. Etzioni broadly defines communitarianism as a social philosophy that highlights the intrinsic link between the individual and the community. He writes: "Communitarianism seeks to shore up the moral, social, and political foundations of society by emphasising the importance of community values, social cohesion, and moral order, without abandoning individual rights…..The good society does not seek to maximize personal autonomy, but to balance it with the common good.”

Etzioni argued that modern liberal societies frequently place excessive emphasis on individual autonomy, often to the detriment of the common good. Communitarianism, in his view, seeks to correct this imbalance. However, he overlooks the fact that collective rights cannot exist without first upholding individual rights; ultimately, his model has caused a descension into moral relativism and the erosion of many rights altogether. This is evidenced by the demonstrable decline in Western society, with institutions and infrastructure failing. And absurdly, creating such mediocracy of leadership that politicians and CEOs are unable to define what a woman is.

Mark Windows, a broadcaster and researcher, is one of the most prominent critics to have examined the true nature of the communitarian agenda in the UK. Through his work, he has exposed communitarianism as a governance model that places collective objectives above individual rights, citing numerous examples from within the UK. He regards it as a framework that transfers power from elected officials to unelected stakeholders, all under the pretence of community engagement and sustainability.

Windows succinctly defines communitarianism as: “Communitarianism is an imposition from above masquerading as community.”

In his numerous broadcasts analysing the topic, Mark Windows highlights how communitarianism functions through mechanisms such as NGOs, Citizens’ Assemblies, and so called ‘grassroots’ groups. Although these entities are often presented as democratic innovations, they can in fact be used to implement policies aligned with global agendas, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, without obtaining direct public consent. He proves that this model fosters a form of governance in which decisions are made by a select few, using the appearance of traditional democratic processes as a façade to mask the true intentions of the global establishment.

Windows also exposes the influence of communitarianism in shaping public discourse and behaviour. By championing the notion of the “common good,” this framework can stifle dissent and create groupthink by casting opposition as antisocial or disruptive to community cohesion. He asserts that such dynamics have undermined individual freedoms and critical thinking, as policies are increasingly justified on the pre-decided sustainability of the community, rather than subjected to open, democratic debate.

Furthermore, attention must be drawn to the legal framework that underpins this communitarian model. Since the 1990s, laws throughout the Anglosphere have been subtly reshaped to place greater emphasis on collective rights rather than individual ones. A prominent example in the UK is the Localism Act 2011, introduced under David Cameron’s so-called ‘Big Society’ initiative. Although it appeared to devolve power to local communities, in practice it transferred authority to NGOs and infiltrated grass roots organisations, enabling them to pursue their own agendas. Communitarian principles are also embedded within European Union law, which is determined by the unelected European Commission rather than the elected Parliament. And despite the UK's departure from the EU, it remains subject to the European Convention on Human Rights which has clauses allowing limitations on individual rights in the interest of what ‘they’ decide as the wider community.

Psychological coercion masquerading as informed choice

Both communitarianism and technocracy make use of behavioural science, drawing on techniques outlined in the UK Government’s MINDSPACE document, which promotes the use of “nudge theory” to steer the public towards making the so-called “right” decisions. This unethical practice employs various methods, including what is known as “setting the choice environment”.

A clear example can be found in the energy sector, where utility providers are often required to present green energy options as the default for new customers, or make it significantly easier to switch to renewable sources. In the UK, some energy companies automatically assign new customers to renewable tariffs, while making it very inconvenient to opt out in favour of non-renewable alternatives. By structuring choices in this way, the default becomes the accepted norm, an example of psychological coercion masquerading as informed choice.

The Delphi Method, developed by the RAND Corporation, is another ethically questionable technique frequently employed in public consultations to manufacture consent for predetermined outcomes. The process, while presented as participatory and democratic, is often anything but. Here’s how it typically works:

1. Predefined Objectives Disguised as Open Dialogue
   The organisers establish the desired outcome in advance, such as the implementation of smart city policies or specific land use plans, but present the meeting as an open, consultative process.

2. Controlled Questioning and Framing
   Questions are carefully crafted to channel responses toward a preferred conclusion. Often, they are structured as “either/or” scenarios or employ false choices that limit meaningful alternatives.

3. Manipulation Through Facilitation
   Trained facilitators are used to steer discussions in a particular direction. Dissenting opinions may be side-lined, ignored, or subtly reframed. Groupthink is actively encouraged, and participants who express alternative views are often subject to social pressure or, in some cases, direct verbal challenge by planted individuals tasked with undermining opposition.

4. The Illusion of Consensus
   Feedback is selectively curated and summarised by the organisers, who then present the outcome as if a genuine democratic consensus was reached, even when significant disagreement existed among participants.

This approach forms the basis of Citizens’ Assemblies, which are poised to become increasingly common in the UK. While promoted as a tool for democratic engagement, their structure often ensures that the outcome serves established agendas rather than reflecting the true will of the people.

These psychological methods of coercion are, in fact, based on simple, fundamental principles of psychology. Nevertheless, the public continue to fall for them, which is why these strategies are repeatedly employed.

Censorship

Both ideologies employ censorship to suppress dissent, albeit in different ways. Communitarians tend to be relatively transparent in their efforts to curtail free speech, ostensibly for the “common good”, using public bodies such as OFCOM and legislation like the Online Safety Bill in the UK.

By contrast, GovCorp Technates adopt a more duplicitous approach. While publicly claiming to champion and preserve free speech, they often employ sophisticated algorithms behind the scenes to restrict dissenting voices. A revealing example of this can be found in a comment by Musk appointee Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X (formerly Twitter), who stated: “Freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.”

Indeed, even this very article may be subject to algorithmic suppression. It is therefore essential to exercise discernment when navigating the internet and social media by questioning not only the information that is amplified and promoted, but also that which is marginalised or censored, and asking: why?

National Governments are just Middle Management

The key to breaking free from the left/right paradigm is recognising that national (and local) governments are merely administrators of this system. While some individuals, knowingly or unknowingly, are complicit, the true power rests with the unelected figures who operate above governments. It is these global financiers and tech oligarchs who dictate policies to further their own goals.

This fact is not even concealed. All the evidence supporting this reality is readily available for those willing to look and think independently.

I wonder whether we will ever reach a critical mass of individuals who truly understand this?

Thank you for reading.

References

Davis, Iain. 2021. The “New Normal” & the Civil Society Deception

Davis, Iain. 2025. The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate - Part 1 & 2

Davis, Iain. 2025. Interview Paul Hellier from Fair Food Forager - Part 1 - Iain Davis

Davis, Iain. 2025. Interview Paul Hellier from Fair Food Forager - Part 2 - Iain Davis

Etzioni, Amitai. 1996. The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society

Willson, Rob. 2024. Communitarian Legislation in the UK since 1992

Willson, Rob. 2024. Communitarianism for the Distracted

Windows, Mark. The "Communitarian" Agenda - Windows on the World

Windows, Mark. How Communitarian UK Courts Operate - Windows on the World

Windows, Mark. Elephant in the Room - Community Steering - Windows on the World

Windows, Mark. Citizens Assemblies = End of Choice - Windows on the World

Wood, Patrick M. 2014. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation

Wood, Patrick M. 2018. Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order