Let's simplify this equation a bit.

Game theory.

Good vs. Evil

Define game : A collection of rules that players agree to follow.

Good are the followers of the rules. Evil are rule breakers.

Examples of games with rules: nations-rule of law, religions - rules of the religion (I think braking rules actually became a religion), companies, families, cultural(geography). There are a number of different sets but let's not focus here for now because i think the same thing is happening in all these games.

One thing in common to all games is that if the rules are broken there have to be consequences for the rule breaker or no one will follow the rule. To break a rule is to gain an advantage over others in the group who follow the rules. Stealing has legal penalties that are suppose to make it less advantageous to steal than it is to earn something through merit. Important to note that once an advantage (money, power, etc.) is gained it becomes easier to leverage that advantage to break other rules. Seems like the rule breakers (if they don't get caught early) float to the top of most of these games and stay there. But it is critical for the rule breakers that the majority of the players follow the rules. They can't get caught. They must deceive. In fact they may not have any real skill beyond deceiving because deceiving is the only thing that matters for them to "win". Once they have enough wealth they can pay people with actual skills to work for them. Now this sort of works but is very inefficient as the rule breakers are really leaches on others in the game and lower the total productivity of the group. They also rely on there being many more rule followers than breakers because the can only steal a small portion from the each of the followers lest they get revealed.

People only agree to play the game if it is beneficial to be a part the game. People must believe they have a chance at winning or at least being better off by playing. If they know the game is rigged so they can't win or are disadvantaged they wont play.

Enter AI and high surveillance state of the world.

There have been a number of articles in the past few years about AI beating the world's best human players in chess and go. AI is being applied in many fields from medicine, law, finance and beyond. AI is used to understand and overcome inefficiencies. The rule breakers are very afraid of AI because it sees them and what they do and unveils them to the rule followers. If the penalties are not applied the AI knows the rule is not valid to this game and rationally disregards or circumvents it as well. I would assume Q has the latest and greatest in tech.

If they can't break the rules meritocracy returns and efficiency increases. All these resignations of top CEO positions and the economy is doing great? If they were really so good at their jobs the economy should feel the loss of these heads of industry, the best of the best (lol, they were there mostly because they could be controlled). This is why I'm not so worried about “new boss same as the old boss” thing. If cheating the rules becomes impossible the deceivers advantage evaporates. Yes it requires this high state of surveillance but at least you can know the rules are followed. We already had these major companies involved with surveillance and they would sell the data and do whatever shitty thing they wanted with it. This data could be sorted by an AI to keep the rules enforced instead of being used against the majority of the population.

They can't run and they can't hide. That's one reason why they want to burn it all down with a big war. They saw the writing on the wall. The latest tech they were using to spy on everyone and the AI tools used to interpret the massive amount of data brought too much exposure. Any thoughts?