🗣 ‘Oligarchies…have always thought more of their own advantage than of that of the rest of the community. It’d be foolish to be morally indignant with them on this account; human nature, in the main and in the mass, is egoistic, and in most cases a fair dose of egoism is necessary for survival. It was revolt against the selfishness of past political oligarchies that produced the Liberal movement in favour of democracy, and it was revolt against economic oligarchies that produced Socialism.
But although everybody who was in any degree progressive recognised the evils of oligarchy throughout history…many were taken in by an argument for a new kind of oligarchy. “We, the progressives”—so runs the argument—“are the wise and good; we know what reforms the world needs; if we have power, we shall create a paradise.” And so, narcissistically hypnotised by contemplation of their own wisdom and goodness, they proceeded to create a new tyranny, more drastic than any before known.’ — Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1952
🗣 ‘The Singularity denotes an event that will take place in the material world, the inevitable next step in the evolutionary process that started with biological evolution and has extended through human-directed technological evolution. However, it is precisely in the world of matter and energy that we encounter transcendence, a principal connotation of what people refer to as spirituality…’ — Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near—When Humans Transcend Biology, 2005.
🗣’We’re going to become Gods. Period. If you don’t like it, get off. You don’t have to contribute, you don’t have to participate. But if you’re going to interfere with ME* becoming God, then we’ll have big trouble; we’ll have warfare. The only way to prevent me is to kill me. And [if] you kill me, I’ll kill you.’ — Dr. Richard Seed, a YouTube presentation: “Technocalyps Part II—Preparing for the Singularity”, 2006 (*Emphasis in original.)
🗣 ‘His mind is like that: always mired in a terrible future.’ ― Karen Thompson Walker, The Dreamers
🗣 ‘Resistance is futile’. — Klaus Schwab
Preamble: Along with similar observations [👉🗣] sprinkled throughout this narrative, the sentiments conveyed by the epigraphs portend a future for humanity that should unsettle even the most complacent, credulous and compliant amongst us. Each in its own way should further underscore the overarching themes of the exercise; considered in the context of recent events, no-one should be left in any doubt as to the grim legitimacy of their existential foreboding.
This article represents the second in an ongoing series aimed at laying bare the inherent evil of this ‘grand design for global dominion’, foisted as it’s been upon humankind by the most malignant, formidable forces our evolution thus far has arrayed against us, and—as imperfect as it may be—our whole way of life. Packing a brimful of fire n’ brimstone, Greg Maybury ascends the bully pulpit again to rail ‘full monty’ against the perpetual motion power machinery that’s held us in the crosshairs for decades. (For Part One: Click on link here.)
— A Small Cabal of Committed Psychopaths
Before considering further the possible future awaiting us which was in part chronicled in our first instalment, and because they’ll be central to the narrative going forward, it’s critical we grasp the concepts of technocracy, along with that of a more recent entrant into the power political lexicon, pathocracy. As we’ll see, these are not mere abstractions; oh that were the case.
Let’s begin with the former. An understanding of technocracy can be gleaned by asking simply: ‘what defines a “technocrat”’?, i.e. a card-carrying disciple of [the] technocracy. John Ralston Saul helps us out here. ‘A technocrat’, he states, ‘is a word which means what it says, but perhaps not as we normally understand it’. Its roots refer to someone with power (ergo “crat”), said “power” derived from their particular knowledge or specialist skills (“techne’). But as JRS cautions,
‘…observation of the technocrat at work is enough to tell us that the roots have been inverted. This is someone whose skill is the exercise of power. It follows quite naturally that there is no suggestion of purpose, direction, responsibility or ethics. Just power.’
Pathocracy by the same token (and they do share the “token”) is in essence, supreme (i.e. totalitarian) governance by a pathological cabal, one comprising a relatively small number of highly intelligent individuals, albeit of the evil genius, amoral kind. The term was coined by Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski in his seminal tome Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism*, to describe absolute rule by a “biologically low-conscience” collective, all having a psychopathic (natch) profile.
(*N.B.: Originally published with the subtitle: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. Now recently revised and updated.)
🗣 ‘[But] Humanity, in its desire for comfort, had over-reached itself. It had exploited the riches of nature too far. Quietly and complacently, it was sinking into decadence…progress had come to mean…progress of the Machine.’ ― E. M. Forster
A pathocracy then is a totalitarian form of government in which unyielding political power is held by a psychopathic elite. American political theorist Sheldon Wolin alluded to this phenomenon with the phrase “inverted totalitarianism": a no holds-barred merger of unaccountable state and corporate power, embracing a range of political, punitive, psychological, digital, pharmaceutical, and biological methods, means and technologies to create the ultimate dystopian (i.e. anti-democratic) state.
This then is where the entire social order is underpinned by purely pathological values, themselves determined by all that’s quantitative, and very little which is qualitative, unless of course it’s in the interests of the folks alluded to in the subtitle and their ilk. It can take variant forms and insinuate itself sub rosa into any seemingly just system or ideology. As such it can masquerade under the guise of a democracy or theocracy as well as more transparently oppressive regimes.
Though generally viewed as mutually exclusive ideologies by the less nuanced students of political philosophy, Lobaczewski held up both Fascism/Nazism and Communism as prime exemplars of ‘working’ pathocracies. For him, the respective doctrines have far more in common than not, a viewpoint which underpinned much of his thesis. (For this writer, Zionism also generally qualifies in this regard. I explore this premise in a separate series. See here, here, and here.)
Having lived under both, Lobaczewski saw first hand that the exercise of power by any political agency exclusively committed to the insatiable desire for maintaining its own primacy, could in essence be defined as a “pathocracy”. This includes any and all variant of tyrannies and dictatorships of a political, economical or religious disposition. These are themselves absolutely autarchic in nature, void of any level of probity, or in general, any sense of fealty to any single group, individual or known ideology.
— All out Walking Pavlov’s Dog
At its most extreme, a true pathocracy embraces as central to its brief nothing less than a total disavowal of common humanity. It has moreover little relationship per se with conventional ideological frameworks, such as the still popular left v right, liberal v conservative dichotomy. Such notions as these will be dispatched to the bottom of history’s landfill, having well served their ‘divide, confuse, n’ conquer’ purpose. Not unlike technocracy (per the definition above), a “pathocracy” seeks to wield power for power’s sake; it’s a political construct which cannot as it were tell its “left” from its “right”. Even if mindful of any such ‘handicap’, it would have no desire to remedy it. We’ll return to Lobaczewski’s work (and others of a similar mindset) in subsequent instalments. But for now a slight thematic detour is necessary to further prep the ground per the preamble.
Placing to one side for the moment her reported views on eugenics, climate change, population control and other Great Reset agendas (to say little of the controversial nature of her research and the company she kept), the famed anthropologist Margaret Mead’s much cited aphorism ‘Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world…In fact, it is the only thing that's ever done so’, [has] resonated strongly with many.
To the extent that I’d personally given Mead’s ‘mantra’ any deep thought as to how it might’ve played out over time (or for that matter, questioned the subtext of her message in any event), it wasn’t until the declaration of the “pandemic”—and along with it the unprecedented protocols that were arbitrarily implemented and which did so much to change the world as we know it—that I began to reassess just what new meaning it may present for us now.
All of which is to say, over three years since the onset of the phony pandemic and with it the effective launch of the WEF’s “Great Reset”, Mead’s meme has taken on a double-edged, far less rosy hue. It now seems the benign interpretation that might have previously been attached to it is not so self-evident. This was underscored by comments made by Dr Jaytana Bhattacharya, one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. As a prominent member of the medical establishment, his resistance to the Covid “pandemic” narrative has garnered considerable admiration from most folks otherwise unimpressed with the way the vast bulk of his colleagues in the medical establishment and scientific fields have—not unlike one suspects, Pavlov’s dogs—responded to the Covid “crisis”.
Beyond simply dispelling the notion there was a “universal consensus” on the science concerning the various mitigation measures deemed mandatory during the crisis, Dr Bhattacharya unambiguously stated in this clip that it was "all a lie". ‘There never was a scientific consensus’, he said. In fact, ‘the preexisting narrative…or idea of most scientists’ prior to the pandemic was quite the opposite’. With a nod (intentional or not) to Mead’s famous fashion statement about humanity, history, and the affairs of man, he noted further:
‘What happened was that a [relatively] small group—a cartel if you like—of very powerful scientific bureaucrats took over the whole apparatus of science as far as the public eye was concerned…[they] dominated the media, they dominated the message to politicians, and as a result we experienced a catastrophic outcome…one that we’ll all be paying the cost of for a very long time to come.’ [Emphasis added.]
With this in mind, one wonders what the estimable Mead herself would think of where we are today, and where it might all lead. Although space precludes a deeper analysis on such, given her views on eugenics and population control—and the now irrefutable reality that our power elites are hell-bent on targeting the broader swathe of humanity as the primary source of the CO2 they’re chomping at the bit to eliminate—perhaps the subtext of her message may have been misconstrued. Or to reiterate, at the very least it might now be viewed in a different light. It’s possible Mead was batting for the ‘bad guys’ from the off, and that what is unfolding now is more or less what she initially had in mind. (Perhaps she was wearing her “Freudian slip” at the time?)
At all events, that “small group of committed people” who wrought this most recent catastrophe upon us did indeed change the world, though few could argue it was for the better. Not unlike those folks alluded to in this instalment’s subtitle, the ones for example who plotted, precipitated, and then prolonged the Great War of 1914-18, just to take one of history’s most pivotal, consequential events. (**Spoiler alert 🚨: said folks were not the evil Huns. For more on this, see here.)
Regardless of what her original sentiments might’ve been, that’s not saying we can dismiss Mead’s statement as no longer pertinent to the times, or does not present us some valuable lessons for the road ahead. To be sure this “small group of committed people” might’ve changed the world. But that’s largely because we allowed them (admittedly some more reluctantly than others) to do so. And as Dr Bhattacharya has all but stated, we did so for patently misguided reasons, itself followed for so many by a criminally tragic outcome.
As of this writing, as noted earlier, these changes (some more obvious than others) are taking place at a rate of knots, and thus far, appear unstoppable. That they far transcend in scope and scale those changes wrought by the declaration of the pandemic and the collective response from those wielding power over us is—or should be—axiomatic. That this “small group of people” were able to wield so much power across such a broad swathe of humanity for so long and do so with impunity and under such false pretences, with little sign at this stage they will be called to account, is perhaps the most disconcerting outcome of all.
We now have two choices the way I see it. We can permit these misanthropic miscreants to get away with it—and much more, and much worse, if they continue to have their way. Which the "Great Resetters" most certainly will do if we allow them to keep scaling up their grand design. To the extent future generations will have access to past knowledge, in this case Mead’s sentiments will go down in history more as an existential warning to humanity (again, intended or otherwise), one we ignored or blithely dismissed at our collective peril. That said, the idiom I like to use that best describes where most of us are still at now is “whistling past the graveyard”, the very ones they’ve all done so much to help ‘populate’. (If anyone can think of a better metaphor, I’m all ears.)
🗣 ‘Those who imagine great errors of policy are not repeated in history haven’t learnt its chief lesson—that nothing is ever learnt for long. We are at present in the midst of an experiment in utopian social engineering whose outcome we can know in advance’. — John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998)
— Freedom for the Wolves (Death for the Sheep)
In a recent interview, the former high-level US government insider and publisher of the Solari Report Catherine Austin Fitts again reiterated her stern warnings about one key plank of the WEF’s Great Reset, one which she feels is the most pressing issue facing humanity. This is the introduction of the long mooted global central bank digital currency in conjunction with digital IDs via distributed ledger (ie. ‘blockchain’) technology. (More on this in later instalments.)
Now, if this goal becomes a reality, in her view it’s “game over Rover” for any future right to, or expectation of, self determination and/or independent sovereignty for nations, and along with that the personal freedom and privacy for the present and future citizens of said nations.
‘If you can move every human into a digital concentration camp’, Austin Fitts warns, ‘empty their bank account any time you want, and tell them what they can and cannot spend money on, you've got complete control.’ [Emphasis added].
Put another way, the One World Government under the New World Order will have arrived. We’ll be living and dying on what might best be called “Planet Panoptikon”. It is as difficult to imagine just how much of a game changer such an outcome would be for humanity as it’s difficult to recall in history when our predecessors might’ve even faced such dire, yet nonetheless, all too realistic prospects. Upon defining technocracy as a global system designed to implement ‘central resource management and control’ via ‘rules-based micromanagement’, Austin Fitts elaborated:
‘…The growth of technocracy is made possible by digital systems and software, artificial intelligence, and the “one way mirror” managed through 24/7 surveillance by intelligence and enforcement agencies—funded by our tax dollars. The beauty of technocracy is that it can be integrated into a wide variety of political and corporate systems…While the U.S. promotes the notion of markets and democratic process, our systems can be converted to technocracy with the integration of an endless stream of government, banking, and corporate rules and algorithms that manage and control our daily lives and infrastructure. The same process is rolling out in the one-party system of China and also via mind-numbing regulation by multiple coalition governments and institutions of the European Union.’ [Emphasis added.]
Even a cursory reflection on the Great Reset construct and the ambitions of its architects leads one to the conclusion there’s something beyond faintly Biblical about it all. In what might best be seen as a collective fit of megalomaniacal, narcissistic hubris, perhaps not since the master builders of the Tower of Babel have the ruling classes du jour deigned to give the “divine” one upstairs a run for his Mammon, in the process sticking their digitus medius to the Creator and exalting themselves above him/her/he/she* at the same time. (🤔Which makes one wonder, what is the Almighty’s preferred personal pronoun?)
Even to those of us for whom Sunday school wasn’t a regular thing, the Genesis fable of Babel still stands as one of the most evocative, portentous lessons the Good Book has on offer. Again, at least two of the epigraphs put us on notice that the Great Resetters with their transhumanist, technocratic, transgenic agenda and the ‘boffins’ of Babel would have much in common.
Rich in allegory for mirroring the less noble aspects of the human condition to which those in positions of power and control over others are especially prone, (omnipotence being the commodity that history has amply shown is, however paradoxically, one most aspiring potentates can never seem to accumulate enough of), we’d do well to contemplate the ‘moral’ of the ‘Babelian’ narrative. Its metaphorical significance to events unfolding now, and the dire portent it signposts for our future absent some divine (that word again) intervention on behalf of humanity is profound.
(One wonders why the irrepressible Mel Gibson hasn’t yet made a movie of it?)
Now along with the myriad interpretations that go with the territory, the lessons of this immortal parable are many and various. Some might also say they are obvious, though if the past three years have taught us anything, what’s “obvious” to some folks (as the song goes), “[it] ain’t necessarily so” for the rest of us. That said, there’s no need (nor space) for me to labor these lessons herein; readers can draw their own conclusions, as not a lot of heavy lifting is required.
In attempting to unveil the motivations driving the ambitions of the Davos divinity, Patrick Wood is one writer who’s alluded to this parable. In a 2015 piece titled “Rebuilding Babel – Toward The Endgame of Technocracy”, Wood identified the origins of the looming technocratic state as envisioned by Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari et. al. and their Great Reset manifesto. For Wood, the “dark horse” of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. That ‘nag’ is technocracy, less a horse than a dystopian wolf frocked-up in a utopian sheep’s clothing. (Which brings to mind Isaiah Berlin’s marvellous insight, ‘freedom for the wolves often means death to the sheep’ .)
In Wood’s definition, technocracy is ‘a utopian economic system that discards price-based economics in favor of energy or resource-based economics', he says. ‘[It is] so radically different from all current economic norms that it will stretch your mind to get a grasp of what it actually means and what it implies for a global society.’ [Emphasis added.] And this particular bespoke ideology—combining the very worst elements of all three of the more familiar ones mentioned and embracing all of their most ambitious goals and objectives—is as noted a toxic dogma that’s been incubating sub rosa for some time. In order to provide some essential context and perspective, in his article Wood takes us back half a century to 1973, with the establishment of the Trilateral Commission.
The bastard brainchild of pseudo-philanthropist and One World Government ‘cultist’ David Rockefeller—with protege and enabler Zbigniew Brzezinski riding shotgun—the “Tri-Com” from the get go set out its stall explicitly, unabashedly declaring its primary mission was to create a “New International Economic Order.” Of course, few people at the time understood what that actually meant or fully realised the scope and scale of this “mission” (with Wood himself ‘fessing up that he was one of them). As noted, just two years prior the first iteration of what would become the World Economic Forum (under the handle European Management Forum; the re-brand came in 1987) was spawned.
We’ll return again to the WEF again in the next instalment. Suffice to say here, the aims and objectives of both of these immensely powerful, unaccountable, and unelected institutions were far from mutually exclusive; it’s no coincidence that many of the same people occupied significant positions of power and influence in both organisations and/or were instrumental in setting the strategic policy agenda of each.
The ‘[as] ubiquitous as he’s iniquitous’ Henry Kissinger is perhaps the best known example of those folks with a foot in both camps, a man who—along with apparently having embalming fluid coursing through his venal veins—at now 100 years of age remains unerring in his willingness to lend a hand in the furtherance of humanity’s ennoblement and life’s enhancement. It will hardly surprise our diligent students of history that “Hank the Hunk” was also key mentor cum nursemaid to one Klaus “Resistance is Futile” Schwab.
The era of the so-called “Great Reset” into which we’ve been thrust in the past three years is an unprecedented psychological operation (‘psy-op’) and social engineering construct, no less. Launched under cover of an unheralded, arbitrarily declared, ludicrously exaggerated global public health emergency, as noted this plot is one whose dire portents only a relatively small group of people seem to get. How else does one begin to explain—after all this time and with all the evidence available—the truly frightening complacency and compliance with which most folks have responded to this dystopian agenda and its creeping and creepy dictates?
The Covid pandemic and the insanity and absurdity that accompanied it was the tip of the spear, albeit nevertheless a harbinger of what’s in store. One example will suffice at this point: the planned WHO pandemic treaty is just one of the Trojan horses in a stable full of them, and we’ll be looking at some of these in forthcoming instalments. For those amongst us attuned to this insidious ‘bill of goods’ and what it portends for our own and our family’s future, we must first ponder what in fact is the more disturbing:
Is it the agenda itself, as incomprehensible and unsettling as it must be for some to contemplate the manifest evil inherent therein and that we could have allowed certain people to slowly but surely manoeuvre themselves into what appear to be unassailable positions of power and control over our destinies? Or is it…
a) the same critical mass of folks who remain oblivious to, or unconcerned about, what lies ahead; and/or
b) those who simply aren’t prepared to imagine such a life being prepared for them under this “New Normal” regime and from there, respond in kind.
Because as it stands, our fight is their fight. Even if they don’t realise it as yet. At the least, the principal aims of the members of this self-anointed pathocracy—whilst not lacking in megalomaniacal ambition and being far more multi-faceted than the following might suggest—are two-fold.
First, it is the elimination of billions of ‘useless eaters’ from this mortal coil in what amounts to nothing less than a meticulously orchestrated “eugenocide”, under the guise of a confected pearl-clutching humanitarianism wrapped inside a facade of faux-philanthropy. What we’re told is the perceived need to drastically reduce via whatever means necessary, feasible and available, the earth’s population before we breed ourselves to death and eventual extinction.
Second, it is to corral those leftover from the big cull into a digital gulag of global scope and scale where all our actions, thoughts, choices, beliefs, desires, hopes—even our very dreams—and anything and everything else that renders us human and makes life worth living, will not just be monitored and regimented within what amounts to a planet-sized crypto-panopticon. Life and the way we live it will in effect be preordained, non-negotiable, a fait accompli.
And from there, transformed irreversibly. Beyond recognition. Think feudal servitude, oppression, disenfranchisement, alienation. Hyperbole? Exaggeration? Overstatement? We wish! Achievement of both these goals is well underway, a great deal of it done under the cover of the now three-year-old pandemic. This is not the same as saying the outcome is a fait accompli. If I thought that, I’d pick up my bat and ball now and meekly surrender to the inevitable. And this narrative would self destruct here.
To underscore the very real prospect of such a future awaiting us, let’s finally consider the following. How many folks back in 2019 would’ve believed we’d soon all be forced to submit ourselves and our families to an experimental, gene-altering, medical procedure—one that would turn out to be neither safe, effective, nor necessary? And that if we refused, or even hesitated, we’d be subjecting ourselves to gaslighting, social isolation, professional ostracism, family disunity, fines, loss of income, careers, and property, and possible imprisonment?
— Heads we Win, Tails you Lose
My guess is that few amongst us would’ve thought such a response possible to what was after all a dubiously declared public health state of emergency, or might’ve even been imagined it being perpetrated by our political leaders in a free society where informed choice and bodily autonomy are taken for granted.
Yet here we are.
And for those who might imagine the Great Resetters have learned a lesson or two from this debacle and they’ll think twice before any future attempts to impose upon us against our will any more outrageous social engineering projects that their hubris and pretensions to omnipotence might conjure, here’s some additional food for thought. In an article titled "How the Super-Rich Destroy Our Minds", Emanuel Pastreich paints a forbidding picture of what the future holds if we allow the elite classes—beyond that foreshadowed in Quigley’s epigraph or even hinted at in this article’s preamble—to continue to pursue their goals. Again, I shudder to think of this vision becoming a reality, even after my own 'ride' arrives. But it seems clear this is what we’re facing. And I’m generally an optimist. You know, a glass half full kinda guy.
It’s not going to happen all at once of course. To achieve their insidious—nay evil—endgame as laid out herein, incrementalism is the SOP being applied by these parasites, predators, and all round criminally psychotic misanthropes. They’re careful of course not to ‘scare the horses' too much too quickly, a fine balancing act in which thus far they seem be performing well.
And this agenda has nothing to do with making the world a better place. They are not planning all this for our individual or collective benefit. It’s got nothing to do with saving the environment or eliminating the perils of dangerous viruses or any other fatuous, ultimately illusory utopian pretext. Every attempt in any event at creating a utopia, whether on a small or large scale, has ended badly. Very badly! This is a coup d’état of the global political economy no less on the pretext of creating that. Their cure for the ills—perceived or real—of our 'warts n’ all' world will be far, far worse than any disease. Their “utopia” though will not be our “utopia”. We will not get a look in, much less a seat at the table.
A final point: To the extent I think about, if I was ever going to go (reasonably) gently into that good night, I'd hoped for three simple things on the day/moment of my passing. I would:
1. have my nearest and dearest close by;
2. be ‘compus’ enough to say my goodbyes and head for the exit with some dignity;
3. go with some confidence they’d all be heading into a brighter future.
Not so long ago that appeared to be a real possibility, a realistic hope….But now? To reiterate: If this is the kind of future we want or are seemingly prepared to accept so meekly then we have really, truly lost it. Maybe we never even deserved “it” from the off. Maybe we never had any right to expect “it”! But if we don’t want this kind of future, then “you” know what to do. For mine, give me the “warts n’ all world” we have now.
All that said, as a postscript to the preceding, in addition to exposing further the myriad ways and means the “Great Reset” is to be rolled out, we will explore in future instalments tactics and strategies whereby we can fight back against this monstrous tyrannical concoction, resist the seemingly inevitable, and/or plough our own path forward. Spoiler alert: I believe the key to successful resistance is at the grassroots community (i.e. local or municipal) level. It is there we will have to launch our counteroffensive. Time to break out the bugle.
©Greg Maybury, 6 June, 2023.
The so-called "elites"—their word, not ours—don't learn any better than the rest of us from history. If they did they'd learn to be satisfied with a villa on the French Riviera, in Martha's Vineyard and a Manhattan penthouse along with their private jets and yachts, and leave world domination to the real crazies. But as the great historian Arnold Toynbee makes plain in his magnum opus A Study of History, the terminal stage of a civilization or empire is always "in the nature of an act of suicide." Witness the UN, WHO and WEF funding the mass migration movements globally in an attempt to fulfill their ideology that "nation states are obsolete" and must be done away with. This is already leading to chaos as armed rival factions within immigrant groups erupt in violence in their adopted countries, and overwhelm civic infrastructure and social support systems.
Of course, the "elites"—let's call them what they are, global parasites—think this will work just fine and dandy as a precursor to offering their "solution" of a One World Government under Technocracy. (The problem/reaction/solution formula.) What they don't seem to understand is that chaos is not a horse anyone can ride, much less tame to one's own ends. Technocrats just can't seem to grasp, with their linear brains, that in Nature, the uncertainty principle rules, or what we might call the X Factor, where X = the unknown, unpredictable, uncontrollable.
Toynbee explains that once the parasite class stops ruling by consent—manufactured or otherwise—because it is bankrupt of innovative responses to novel challenges, it begins to rule by force. And once that starts, expect resistance. It's in the nature of the human animal. A normal human being is pretty forgiving, but once you cross the red line, it's over. The Million Person March in Canada brought together Muslims, Christians, agnostics, atheists, and most importantly parents from all cultures to resist the "woke" indoctrination of their children in school. I suspect this is an example of the X Factor in action, one our supposedly superior governors don't seem to have foreseen. Nor did they foresee the Truckers Convoy and how that became an inspiration for the Dutch farmers' protests. Nor do they seem to have foreseen that even the "normies" have grown so weary of endless booster shots that do nothing but make them sick repeatedly, booster uptake in the US is in the single digits.
So there's hope—and I don't mean the bullshit "hope" peddled by the likes of Obama. I mean hope in Nature at large and human nature in particular. As the Durants said in their magnum opus on history, both humans and history are remarkably predictable. The cycle plays out more or less the same, with variations, over and over again. This in fact may be where the gods and angels really live. Still, as you suggest, and to quote the old aphorism, "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."
Didn't billionaire transhumanist Musk assert just a few year ago that the capitalist class has the right to overthrow any elected government they want. So if you follow that notion to its "logical or illogical" conclusion then it inevitably means that technocratic transhumanist megalomaniacs, especially those who worship the WEF and Agenda 2030 believe they possess an "inalienable right" to control all people and resources on the entire planet. And as such, they can cavalierly eliminate or ruthlessly repress large swaths of the Earth's population in order to achieve this maniacal objective.