What the Nash Equilibrium Teaches Us About the Fall of Elites

newsroom

Oct 14, 2025 - 06:27

0 1

What the Nash Equilibrium Teaches Us About the Fall of Elites

When institutions stop responding, they don’t just go silent—they architect that silence into a system of control. Luc Lelièvre knows this intimately. At 70, after careers in journalism and decades of autodidactic study, he brought questions about Quebec’s pandemic governance to Université Laval, proposing to examine it through Hannah Arendt’s framework on totalitarianism. The institution didn’t debate his ideas; it made him disappear. His supervisor suggested abandoning the PhD entirely, grading became weaponized despite AI tools rating his work as A-quality, and by June 2023, he was expelled—not for academic failure but for threatening the institutional narrative. Yet this erasure became the catalyst for something more profound than any dissertation: a comprehensive theory of how power maintains itself through calculated non-response, and why such systems, despite their apparent strength, contain the seeds of their own collapse.

In “Rogueness as Policy: The New Normal of Managed Consent,” Lelièvre maps this architecture of institutional silence with forensic precision. He identifies distinct typologies—bureaucratic non-response that wraps silence in process, judicial evasion that issues rulings without reasoning, scientific deflection that maintains consensus by avoiding debate. But his most penetrating insight is the “Grand Mute”: not just institutional deafness but the internalization of voicelessness, when people continue speaking but stop expecting to be heard, when participation becomes ritual rather than action. This connects directly to his analysis in “What the Nash Equilibrium Teaches Us About the Fall of Elites,” where he demonstrates how such systems create an unstable equilibrium. Elites pursue control through surveillance, censorship, and digital finance; populations defend security, freedom, and cultural identity. Neither can fully dominate without triggering backlash. The system hovers in mutual constraint, but this balance is volatile—and history shows that when such equilibriums break, they rarely reset quietly.

Lelièvre’s work reveals how these two phenomena—institutional silence and elite fragility—are fundamentally connected. Drawing on thinkers from Foucault to Agamben, from Miłosz and Havel’s exposure of how systems built on lies eventually crack, to Gustave Le Bon’s warning that crowds can turn on their idols with stunning speed, he shows that Agenda 2030-2050 and similar elite projects rest on three fragile assumptions: cultural uniformity that doesn’t exist, implicit consent that’s increasingly absent, and economic stability that’s already cracking. The more these systems rely on control rather than cooperation, the more resistance becomes rational. What makes his analysis essential isn’t just the diagnosis but the documentation itself—every unreturned email, every institutional evasion becomes evidence in what he calls a “civic archive,” transforming administrative violence into testimony that refuses to vanish. His declaration resonates: “This text isn’t written for those in power. They won’t read—but the text remembers.” In exposing how power maintains itself through engineered silence while simultaneously revealing that silence as evidence of its own fragility, Lelièvre offers both warning and weapon: these systems that seek to make dissent invisible are themselves creating the conditions for their own collapse.

With thanks to Luc Lelièvre.

An Essay by Luc Lelièvre

Why the Nash Equilibriu Predicts the Fall of Elites

Every great tyranny believes itself permanent. Yet history teaches us that no system built on coercion can endure. What collapses is never the ideal alone but the very machinery of power that sustains it. The elites of our age, armed with technocratic jargon and digital surveillance, imagine they can govern humanity as if it were an equation without remainder. They are wrong.

The truth, seen plainly, is that human beings resist. Nations do not dissolve into abstractions. Communities carry their own stubborn memories, their own irreducible loyalties. Again and again, systems which sought to erase them have perished — whether in Paris under the guillotine, in Berlin under the bombs, or in Bucharest before the firing squad.

In what follows, I attempt not merely to describe their violence but to explain their failure. I do so through the lens of the Nash Equilibrium (Britannica, 2003k) — a framework that shows why strategies of domination eventually trigger their opposite. The lesson is uncomfortable but inescapable (Orwell, 2008): those who imagine themselves architects of history will, in the end, be buried beneath it.

“Agenda 2030–2050 Rests on Fragile Assumptions” is a critical essay that examines the global project of societal transformation promoted by organizations such as the UN, WEF, BIS, and IMF, using historical comparisons and the concept of Nash Equilibrium (Britannica, 2003d).

Introduction
The Agenda 2030–2050 aims to create a decarbonized, digitized, inclusive, and sustainable society. The essay argues that this vision is essentially a global utopia that tries to reshape the entire world, while overlooking the cultural and political diversity of nations.

The ambition is sweeping. It seeks to redesign economies, rewire institutions, and recalibrate daily life — all under the banner of sustainability and inclusion. But beneath the polished language lies a troubling assumption: that humanity can be harmonized through centralized planning.

This vision treats the world as a single system, governed by metrics and milestones, rather than a mosaic of cultures, histories, and political realities. It assumes consensus where there is conflict, uniformity where there is diversity, and compliance where there is resistance.

Agenda 2030–2050 does not merely propose reforms. It proposes transformation — of how we live, what we value, and who decides. And in doing so, it risks repeating the oldest error of utopian design: ignoring the people it claims to serve.

Historical Lessons
Attempts to impose totalizing visions from above have repeatedly failed. Examples include:
- The fall of Robespierre (Boudoiseau, 2003) during the French Revolution (Britannica, 2003c).
- The collapse of Ceaușescu’s regime in Romania (Britannica, 2003b).
- The Nazi pursuit of Lebensraum (Britannica, 2003l), which ended in destruction.
- Mao’s Great Leap Forward (Britannica, 2003e) and the Cultural Revolution (Lieberthal, 2003), which caused massive human suffering. Each case shows that utopias enforced by elites end in failure, often violently.

Historical Lessons (continued)

History leaves little doubt: visions imposed from above always collapse.

Robespierre’s dream of virtue ended in the guillotine that once served him.

Ceaușescu’s fortress of fear fell in a single December week, the dictator and his wife shot by the very people they claimed to lead (Britannica, 2003b).

Hitler’s drive for “living space” brought not empire but ruin (Britannica, 2003h).

Mao’s schemes to remake China (Reynolds Schram, 2003) — the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution (Britannica, 2003e; Lieberthal, 2003)—left tens of millions dead and a nation scarred for decades.

And yet, the pattern repeats.

Each generation births new architects of destiny — technocrats, visionaries, committees — convinced that this time, the blueprint will hold. That this time, the people will follow. That this time, the outcome will be different.

But history is not kind to central planners. Grand designs imposed from above, no matter how noble their language, inevitably collide with the stubborn complexity of human life. People are not data points. Cultures are not spreadsheets. Societies do not bend neatly to metrics and milestones.

Agenda 2030–2050, like earlier initiatives, assumes global consensus is possible, centralized governance will surpass local challenges, and large-scale ecological and social changes can occur without resistance. These are not lessons learned — they are lessons ignored.

The past does not whisper. It warns.

In every case, the pattern is the same. Utopias enforced by elites do not build new worlds. They end in blood, rubble, and the silence of failure.

Analysis of the Agenda 2030–2050
Its main pillars are:
- Energy transition and decarbonization.
- Digitization of identity and currency (digital IDs, CBDCs).
- Global redistribution to reduce inequality.
- Restructuring of daily life (mobility, food, housing).

These goals raise several tensions:

Cultural: nations follow different paths and identities.
Political: democracies cannot impose radical change without debate.
Economic: debt, inflation, and deindustrialization make prosperity uncertain.

Socially, the plan underestimates resistance. People do not change because a summit declares it. Habits are resilient. Traditions run deep. When transformation is mandated rather than chosen, it breeds resentment, not renewal.

Legally, the framework lacks enforceability. Global declarations are not binding. Nations sign, then stall. Targets are missed, timelines slip, and accountability fades into diplomatic ambiguity.

Strategically, the agenda risks overreach. By trying to reshape everything — energy, economy, identity, culture — it stretches itself thin. Complexity multiplies. Coordination falters. And in the vacuum of results, trust erodes.

The Second World War offers the same warning. Nazi Germany did not merely wage war (Britannica, 2003l); it tried to reorder all of Europe at once — militarily, racially, economically, and culturally. In doing so, it stretched itself beyond capacity. Resources thinned, supply lines broke, and coordination faltered.

Overreach proved fatal. The Reich collapsed not only because it was defeated in battle, but because its own ambitions exceeded what any system could sustain (Britannica, 2003l).

The parallel is clear: when an agenda seeks to reshape everything at once, it risks the same fate — implosion under the weight of its own design.

The vision may be global, but the friction is local. And when local realities push back, even the most polished plans begin to crack:

Analysis of the Agenda 2030–2050

Agenda 2030–2050 is built on four central pillars. Each is framed as a solution to global crises. Each carries within it the seeds of disruption.

1. Energy Transition and Decarbonization

The push to eliminate fossil fuels and shift toward renewable energy is presented as urgent and non-negotiable. Yet the transition is not neutral — it redistributes power, wealth, and risk. Nations dependent on hydrocarbons face economic collapse. Populations face rising energy costs, unreliable grids, and forced lifestyle changes. The rhetoric of “green growth” masks a reality of energy scarcity, infrastructure fragility, and social unrest.

2. Digitization of Identity and Currency

Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) promise efficiency, inclusion, and transparency. But they also centralize control. Whoever governs the system governs access — to money, mobility, and rights. The shift from analog autonomy to digital dependency creates a surveillance architecture where dissent can be punished algorithmically. Privacy becomes a relic. Citizenship becomes conditional.

3. Global Redistribution to Reduce Inequality

The idea of transferring resources across borders — climate finance — see here, development aid, carbon credits — is noble in theory. In practice, it collides with sovereignty. Wealthier nations resist open-ended obligations. Poorer nations distrust conditional aid. Redistribution without reciprocity breeds resentment. No empire of redistribution has ever endured — because nations defend their own.

4. Restructuring of Daily Life

From how we travel to what we eat, the Agenda seeks to reshape daily habits in the name of sustainability. But these are not abstract metrics — they are intimate choices. Mobility restrictions, dietary mandates, and housing redesigns touch the core of personal freedom. The assumption that populations will comply quietly with lifestyle engineering is not just naive — it is politically combustible.

Tensions Beneath the Surface

These pillars generate friction across three fault lines:

Cultural Tension

Nations are not interchangeable. They carry distinct identities, values, and historical trajectories. What works in Stockholm may provoke outrage in Nairobi. The Agenda’s universalist framing ignores the pluralism of human experience. Cultural friction is not a side effect — it is a structural flaw.

Political Tension

Democracies require debate, consent, and legitimacy. Sweeping reforms imposed through global compacts or technocratic mandates bypass these processes. The result is polarization, populist backlash, and institutional fatigue. Radical change without democratic anchoring is unsustainable.

Economic Tension

The Agenda assumes prosperity will follow transformation. But the global economy is strained. Debt levels are historic. Inflation erodes trust. Deindustrialization weakens resilience. Promises of green jobs and inclusive growth ring hollow when households face rising costs and declining stability. Economic fragility undermines political will.

Conclusion of the Analysis

Agenda 2030–2050 is not just ambitious — it is brittle. Its pillars rest on contested ground. Its tensions are not transitional — they are existential. Without a shift toward bottom-up cooperation, cultural respect, and democratic dialogue, the Agenda risks becoming the latest in a long line of elite-driven visions that collapse under their own weight.

Nash Equilibrium Framework
- Global elites pursue their agenda with financial, media, and technological power.
- Populations defend security, freedom, and cultural identity.
- The result is an unstable balance: resistance versus state incentives.
- Forcing the Agenda risks disobedience, loss of trust, and political breakdown.

This dynamic creates a fragile standoff. Elites optimize control; populations optimize autonomy. Neither side can fully dominate without triggering backlash. The system hovers in a tense equilibrium — not peace, but mutual constraint.

State incentives — subsidies, surveillance, social scoring — aim to steer behavior. But when these incentives clash with core values like freedom, identity, and sovereignty, they lose traction. Compliance becomes brittle. Trust erodes.

The more the Agenda is forced, the more resistance becomes rational. Civil disobedience, political polarization, and institutional fatigue are not anomalies — they are predictable outcomes of a system stretched beyond its cultural limits.

In game theory terms, the Nash equilibrium here is not stable. It is volatile, prone to sudden shifts when one side overreaches. And history shows: when equilibrium breaks, it rarely resets quietly:

Nash Equilibrium Framework

At the heart of the Agenda 2030–2050 lies a strategic paradox. Global elites — institutions, governments, corporations, and transnational bodies — pursue a coordinated vision of transformation. They wield financial leverage, media narratives, and technological infrastructure to shape behavior and steer societies toward predefined goals.

But populations are not passive. They respond not with submission, but with defense — of security, autonomy, and cultural identity. Citizens resist when they sense erosion of their freedoms, dilution of their traditions, or manipulation of their choices. The result is a Nash equilibrium: a tense standoff where each actor maximizes its own interest, constrained by the anticipated reaction of the other.

Elite Strategy: Incentivize, Normalize, Enforce
Elites deploy a range of tools to advance the Agenda:
Financial incentives: subsidies for green energy, tax breaks for compliance, penalties for dissent.
Media framing: narratives of urgency, moral obligation, and inevitability — designed to delegitimize opposition.
Technological control: digital IDs, algorithmic governance, and centralized currencies that condition access to services and rights.
These mechanisms aim to shift behavior without overt coercion. But when incentives fail, enforcement escalates — through regulation, surveillance, and social pressure.
Popular Response: Resist, Adapt, Reassert
Populations respond strategically:
Resistance: protests, civil disobedience, electoral backlash — see here.
Adaptation: selective compliance, informal economies, cultural preservation.
Reassertion: revival of local governance, alternative media, and identity-based movements.

This is not chaos — it is rational defiance. People act to preserve what they value most, even when doing so contradicts official policy (Sherman, 2003).

The Unstable Balance

The Nash equilibrium here is not stable. It is volatile, held together by mutual constraint rather than mutual agreement. Elites cannot push too far without triggering rebellion. Populations cannot fully disengage without risking exclusion or punishment.

Populations remain bound to the system because withdrawal carries a price — exclusion, punishment, loss of rights. The equilibrium holds only so long as resistance is isolated. But once enough people disengage together, the balance shifts: punishment loses its sting, and the system itself begins to collapse.

This equilibrium produces friction:

Policy fatigue: as governments struggle to enforce unpopular measures.
Institutional erosion: as trust declines and legitimacy fades.
Polarization: as societies split between compliance and resistance.

Strategic Risk: Breakdown

When the Agenda is forced — without dialogue, without consent, without cultural sensitivity — the equilibrium collapses. The result is not transformation, but fragmentation:

Disobedience becomes widespread.
Trust evaporates.
Political systems fracture under the weight of their own contradictions.

This is not a hypothetical risk. It is a recurring pattern in history — from the fall of empires to the collapse of centralized regimes. The lesson is clear: sustainability cannot be achieved through control. It must be negotiated through cooperation.

Fragile Assumptions
The Agenda is based on three shaky premises:

1. Cultural uniformity (not realistic).

2. Implicit consent (increasingly absent).

3. Economic stability (threatened by debt and inflation).

Fragile Assumptions

Beneath the polished surface of Agenda 2030–2050 lie three foundational assumptions. Each is presented as self-evident. Each is, in reality, structurally unsound. These premises are not just optimistic — they are dangerously fragile.

1. Cultural Uniformity — The Mirage of Global Convergence

The Agenda presumes that societies across the globe can be harmonized under a shared set of values, behaviors, and priorities. This is a fiction. Cultures are not interchangeable. They are rooted in language, memory, geography, and struggle. They evolve organically, not by decree.

Attempts to standardize norms — whether through climate mandates, digital governance, or lifestyle redesign — ignore the deep pluralism that defines human life. What is celebrated in Copenhagen may be rejected in Kinshasa. What feels progressive in Montreal may feel invasive in Manila.

This assumption of cultural uniformity is not just unrealistic — it is imperial. It treats diversity as a problem to be solved, rather than a reality to be respected. And when policy collides with identity, resistance is not a glitch — it is a guarantee.

2. Implicit Consent — The Erosion of Trust

Agenda 2030–2050 operates on the belief that populations will accept sweeping changes without protest — that citizens will comply with new norms simply because they are told it’s necessary. This is a profound misreading of the political moment.

Trust in institutions is declining. Citizens are more informed, more skeptical, and more willing to challenge authority. From farmers resisting climate regulations to workers rejecting digital surveillance, the signs are clear: consent must be earned, not presumed.

Without genuine democratic engagement, the Agenda risks becoming a technocratic imposition — one that alienates the very people it claims to uplift. The more it bypasses debate, the more it fuels polarization. The more it demands obedience, the more it invites defiance.

3. Economic Stability — A Foundation Already Cracked

The Agenda assumes a stable economic base: predictable growth, manageable debt, and resilient supply chains. But the global economy is anything but stable. Inflation erodes purchasing power. Sovereign debt reaches historic highs. Industries face disruption from automation, geopolitical tensions, and ecological stress.

Redistribution, decarbonization, and digitization — the pillars of the Agenda — all require massive investment and public buy-in. Yet governments are stretched thin, and citizens are increasingly wary of promises that don’t match their lived reality.

The assumption of economic stability is not just fragile — it is already failing. And when the financial foundation crumbles, the entire structure of transformation collapses with it.

Conclusion of the Chapter

These three assumptions — cultural uniformity, implicit consent, and economic stability — form the backbone of Agenda 2030–2050. But they are not pillars. They are pressure points. And under strain, they fracture.

A vision built on fragile premises cannot endure. It may be well-intentioned. It may be eloquently framed. But without realism, humility, and respect for human complexity, it will join the long list of utopias that promised everything — and delivered collapse.

Prospects
- Elites may try to maintain control through surveillance, censorship (Marshall, 2025), and digital finance.
- But a complete global imposition is unlikely: it would require near-perfect control and zero resistance.
- Both history and game theory suggest such a uniform project cannot hold.

Prospects (continued)

As resistance grows and trust erodes, the future of Agenda 2030–2050 becomes less a question of implementation and more a test of endurance. Elites may attempt to maintain control through increasingly sophisticated mechanisms — surveillance, censorship, and digital finance — but the limits of these tools are already visible.

Surveillance and Control

Digital IDs, biometric tracking, and centralized currencies offer unprecedented visibility into individual behavior. But visibility is not the same as legitimacy. Surveillance breeds compliance only when paired with trust. Without it, it provokes evasion, subversion, and revolt.

History shows that regimes built on monitoring — from East Germany’s Stasi (Britannica, 2003o) to China’s social credit system (Chin & Lin, 2022; Rectenwald, 2019a, 2019b, 2023; Zuboff, 2022) — can enforce order, but not loyalty. The more control tightens, the more creativity emerges in resistance: encrypted networks, parallel economies, and cultural defiance.

Censorship and Narrative Management

Media ecosystems are increasingly curated to suppress dissent and amplify consensus. Yet censorship rarely eliminates opposition — it drives it underground. The rise of alternative platforms, citizen journalism, and decentralized communication channels makes total narrative control impossible.

Attempts to silence critique often backfire, turning skeptics into martyrs and fueling the very movements they aim to suppress. The digital age does not reward silence — it amplifies contradiction.

Digital Finance and Conditional Citizenship

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) promise efficiency and inclusion. But they also enable programmable money — where access can be conditioned, restricted, or revoked. This transforms citizenship from a right into a transactional privilege, governed by algorithms and policy thresholds.

Such systems may function in theory, but in practice they risk alienating entire populations here. Financial autonomy is a cornerstone of freedom. When it is replaced by conditional access, trust collapses.

The Impossibility of Total Imposition

For Agenda 2030–2050 to succeed as a global imposition, it would require:

Near-perfect coordination across governments, institutions, and technologies.
Zero resistance from populations with divergent values, interests, and identities.
A stable economic foundation immune to shocks, debt, and inflation.

None of these conditions exist. And none are likely to emerge.

Lessons from History and Game Theory (Britannica, 2003d)

History teaches that uniform projects fail — not because they lack ambition, but because they ignore complexity. From Napoleon’s continental system (Britannica, 2003j) to the Soviet Five-Year Plans (Dixon, 2003), centralized visions collapse under the weight of local realities.

Game theory reinforces this. In any system where actors pursue their own interests, equilibrium depends on mutual constraint — not domination. When one side overreaches, the system destabilizes. Resistance becomes rational. Breakdown becomes inevitable.

Conclusion of the Chapter

The prospects for Agenda 2030–2050 are not determined by its goals, but by its methods. If it continues to rely on control rather than cooperation, it will fracture. If it ignores diversity, it will provoke defiance. If it bypasses consent, it will lose legitimacy.

The future will not be shaped by declarations. It will be shaped by dialogue, dissent, and the irreducible complexity of the human condition.

Conclusion
The essay concludes that Agenda 2030–2050 is unrealistic and fragile. Like past utopias, it risks collapse. Only cooperation that respects human diversity and allows for dialogue could offer a sustainable path forward.

The Agenda 2030–2050 presents itself as a roadmap to salvation — decarbonized, digitized, inclusive, and sustainable. But as this essay has shown, the vision is built on fragile assumptions and enforced through top-down mechanisms that ignore cultural complexity, political pluralism, and economic volatility. Like past utopias, it risks collapse not because its goals are unworthy, but because its methods are unanchored from reality.

To understand this fragility, we must return to the anthropogenic hypothesis — the idea that human activity is the primary driver of planetary change, a claim explored here in the broader context of how narratives are managed and dissenting views suppressed. The hypothesis may be valid scientifically but is politically sensitive, as discussed here, where the implications of reducing or failing to reduce CO₂ emissions highlight how science collides with policy and power. It implies that humanity must change course. Yet it rarely asks how change happens — or who decides.

Agenda 2030–2050 treats the human species as a single actor, capable of coordinated transformation. But humanity is not a monolith. It is a constellation of cultures, histories, and identities. The anthropogenic hypothesis, when stripped of nuance, becomes a justification for centralized control — see here — a mandate for elites to redesign society in the name of planetary health — see here.

This is where the danger lies. When ecological urgency overrides democratic process, when sustainability becomes a pretext for surveillance, when global goals erase local voices — the result is not cooperation, but coercion.

True sustainability cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated — through dialogue, respect, and recognition of difference. The only viable path forward is one that embraces human diversity, not as a barrier to progress, but as its foundation.

The lesson of history is clear: utopias fail when they forget the human. Agenda 2030–2050 will be no exception — unless it learns to listen.

The Nash Equilibrium is not static. Globalist groups have captured institutions and driven policy in many fields. Yet every gain has sparked pushback. They hold sway in the short term, but they have squandered trust and now face opposition that crosses borders.

The balance is unstable. As elites press harder, resistance hardens. The field polarizes. Each new attempt at top-down control risks a larger backlash or a sudden shift in alignment.

If present trends hold, long-term success for the globalist project is doubtful. The future points not to a settled order, but to a rising contest with no clear victor.

History offers stark warnings. From the guillotine that silenced Robespierre in 1794 to the firing squad that ended Ceaușescu’s rule in 1989, utopias imposed from above have collapsed in violence. Hitler’s dream of empire through Lebensraum ended in national ruin (Lukacs, 2003). Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution left famine, chaos, and millions of dead. The record is consistent: when elites attempt to recast society by force, the result is not renewal but destruction.

Every regime that sought to remake society from the top down — revolutionary France, Nazi Germany, communist Romania, Maoist China — ended not in triumph but in collapse, ruin, or mass death.

Addendum: Miłosz and Havel on the Lie of Two Societies

Czesław Miłosz and Václav Havel, each in his own way, exposed the moral void at the center of twentieth-century systems. For Miłosz, writing in The Captive Mind, communism endured not because it convinced, but because it forced intellectuals to repeat the official falsehood until it sounded like truth. He called this surrender to the “New Faith” an act of spiritual self-mutilation: the lie became daily bread and silence the price of survival.

Havel, in The Power of the Powerless, described the same mechanism from another angle. A greengrocer hangs a slogan in his shop window, not because he believes it, but because he must. The ritual affirms the lie on which the system rests: obedience dressed as conviction. The citizen lives “within the lie,” until one day someone dares to live “within the truth” — and the façade cracks.

Both thinkers also saw the West’s consumerist model as a parallel deception. Where communism demanded belief in the Party, consumer society demanded belief in endless growth and personal gratification. In both cases, individuals were reduced to roles within an abstract system, asked to pretend that these systems fulfilled human dignity. Miłosz warned that the spell of comfort can enslave no less than the spell of ideology; Havel insisted that a society addicted to consumption may prove as hollow as one bound by fear.

Placed side by side, their reflections reveal a sobering symmetry. The communist lie promised justice and delivered terror. The consumerist lie promises freedom and delivers emptiness. Both expose the peril of systems built on illusion rather than truth. For Miłosz and Havel alike, genuine renewal begins only when individuals refuse to mouth the falsehood, reclaim their integrity, and insist on living in truth.

The insights of Miłosz and Havel fit squarely within the argument of this essay. Like the communist and consumerist systems they denounced, the Agenda 2030–2050 rests on a manufactured consensus — a story elites tell to justify their grip on power. It promises sustainability, equity, and progress, yet demands silence about its contradictions: cultural homogenization disguised as diversity, surveillance disguised as security, austerity disguised as virtue. As in the systems Miłosz and Havel described, citizens are expected to “live within the lie,” performing compliance without conviction.

But the lie cannot last. Just as communist regimes collapsed when enough people refused to repeat the slogans, the globalist project will fracture when populations cease to lend it even passive consent. The Nash Equilibrium here is unstable: elites may capture institutions, but they cannot command genuine belief. Once trust is gone, force alone is not enough. History shows, and Miłosz (Britannica, 2003i) and Havel (Britannica, 2003f) remind us, that systems built on illusions unravel. The 2030–2050 Agenda, like the utopias before it, contains within itself the seeds of elite downfall.

Gustave Le Bon (Britannica, 2003g), in his classic The Crowd, warned that public opinion is volatile. A crowd may first cheer a leader, lifting him to power with enthusiasm, yet the same crowd can turn on him with fury once it feels deceived or betrayed. Affection can quickly harden into hatred, and the idol of yesterday becomes the outcast of tomorrow. History has borne out Le Bon’s insight again and again — Robespierre (Boudoiseau, 2003), Ceaușescu (Britannica, 2003b), and countless others discovered that once trust is lost, no force can hold back the reversal.

The same danger shadows today’s elites. The Agenda 2030–2050 depends on public acquiescence, yet it demands sacrifices without delivering the promised gains. If citizens come to see its promises as lies, the very populations that once tolerated elite authority may rise against it. In that moment, the fragile equilibrium will shatter, and the fall will be swift.

Edward Bernays (Britannica, 2003a), the pioneer of modern propaganda, was blunt in his assessment of democracy. In Propaganda (1928), he argued that the public mind is too unruly to govern itself. In his words, “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.” Behind the scenes, a small and largely invisible group of men should shape the crowd, set its agenda, and determine what it thinks it desires.

This vision of control — a handful of engineers of consent guiding billions — is the very logic that underpins the 2030–2050 Agenda. Globalist elites have embraced Bernays’s creed, convinced that institutional capture, media narratives, and digital technologies will allow them to direct whole populations like an orchestra.

Yet history, and the logic of the Nash Equilibrium, suggest otherwise. A system that relies on perpetual manipulation eventually breeds suspicion and revolt. The more people sense that their choices are being engineered, the more they resist the engineers.

Bernays captured the ambition of elites. But Miłosz, Havel, and Le Bon remind us of the limits. The “invisible governors” may succeed for a season, but once trust is broken, their power proves as fragile as any other utopia imposed from above.

The dream of 2030–2050 is the oldest dream of power: to mold mankind from above. History teaches how such dreams end — in revolt, in ruin, in the sudden fall of those who thought themselves unshakable. The elites may write the script, but the crowd will always have the last word.

Every system of power depends not only on force but on belief. Bourdieu called this symbolic power: the ability of elites to make their worldview seem self-evident. The school textbook, the news bulletin, the economic forecast — all carry the same hidden message: “there is no alternative.”

Agenda 2030–2050 is built on this logic. Its language of “sustainability” and “inclusivity” functions as a form of symbolic violence, shaping how people think before they have the chance to resist. Yet symbolic power has limits. When daily life contradicts official narratives — when prices rise, freedoms shrink and promises fail — the mask slips. What once passed as common sense is revealed as an instrument of control.

For Bourdieu (1930-2002), this is the turning point. When the dominated cease to recognize the legitimacy of the dominant, the structure wavers. The same lesson applies here: an order that rests on symbolic consent is far more fragile than it appears (Ina, 1998).

The weakness of every utopia is the same. It demands that men believe what they can see with their own eyes to be false. The slogans change — “justice,” “progress,” “sustainability” — but the pattern does not. Sooner or later, the ration card, the empty shop, or the failed harvest breaks through the illusion. The lie may govern for a season, but reality always delivers the final verdict.

This is why the 2030–2050 Agenda is doomed. It asks populations to accept surveillance as freedom, austerity as prosperity, and uniformity as diversity. Such demands may be enforced, but they cannot be believed. And when belief dies, the system follows.

Another shadow looms over Western civilization. As Elaine Ellinger warns in Reckoning here, Islamic legal doctrines that conflict with basic freedoms — freedom of speech, equality before the law, the separation of religion and state — are quietly being accommodated across Western courts, schools — see here, and governments.

Even in France, where laïcité was once a proud shield of secular life, this influence is advancing unchecked. To ignore this is to repeat the same error made with other utopian systems: tolerating a framework that erodes liberties from within. If the West is to endure, it must recognize this threat with the same clarity it applies to other forms of domination and act to safeguard the principles on which free societies rest.

If Andrei Sakharov (Britannica, 2003m) were alive today, he would likely remind us that the struggle for rights is not abstract but immediate. In the Soviet Union, he learned that silence in the face of repression is itself a form of complicity. He would warn that new technologies of control, sold under the banner of progress, threaten to corrode liberty just as surely as secret police and censorship once did.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Britannica, 2003n) would press the lesson further. He would tell us that the first step toward freedom is to “live not by lies.” For him, the collapse of totalitarian power began when individuals refused to repeat what they did not believe. He would caution that the West is not immune: the lies may be different — spoken in the language of sustainability, safety, or inclusion — but the danger is the same.

Together, they would say that the defense of basic rights rests not on institutions alone but on moral courage. Elites may build their systems, but those systems endure only so long as people consent to repeat their falsehoods. Break the lie, and the structure falls.

We do not need bystanders who see the truth and stay silent. We need voices that burn. And we need them in numbers.

References

Boudoiseau, M. (2003). Robespierre, Maximililien. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003a). Bernays, Edward L. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003b). Ceausescu, Nicolae. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003c). French Revolution. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopeadia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003d). Game Theory. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003e). Great Leap Forward. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopeadia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003f). Havel, Vaclav. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003g). Le Bon, Gustave. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Britannica. (2003h). Mein Kampf. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003i). Milosz, Czeslaw. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003j). Napoleon I. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003k). Nash, John, Jr. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003l). National Socialism. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003m). Sakharov, Andrey Dmitriyevich. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003n). Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr Isayevich. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. (2003o). Stasi. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Chin, J., & Lin, L. (2022). Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control (St. Martin’s Press, Ed.). St. Martin’s Publishing Group.

Dixon, J. C. (2003). USSR. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Ina. (1998). Pierre Bourdieu [Broadcast]. In Ina Culture.

Lieberthal, K. (2003). Cultural Revolution. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Lukacs, J. (2003). Hitler, Adolf. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Marshall, W. (2025). Why The Left Worships Monsters Like Karl Marx - The Truth About Left-Wing Ideology | Greg Lukianoff [Broadcast].

Orwell, G. (2008). Orwell: Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Rectenwald, M. (2019a). Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom. New English Review Press.

Rectenwald, M. (2019b). Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom (E-Book Edi). New English Review Press.

Rectenwald, M. (2023). The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda. New English Review Press.

Reynolds Schram, S. (2003). Mao Zedong. In Britannica 2003 Ultimate Reference Suite CD-ROM (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Sherman, F. (2003). Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003 (2003rd ed.). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Zuboff, S. (2022). Une crise pour les démocraties - Ligue des droits et libertés. Revue Droits et Libertés. https://liguedesdroits.ca/une-crise-pour-les-democraties/

I appreciate you being here.

If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com