I'm engaging with a certain Russian community, and they think the whole world is rotten, full of pedophiles, and secret societies. Their solution is to make a government in such a way that its officials live in constant terror and under surveillance, with harsh penalties for the slightest offenses before the common good. Where all horizontal ties to other nations are banned (so no CIA working with the KGB against the good of the country). And no state secrets ever - everything in the government must be completely transparent to every citizen. Some variations also introduce a benevolent AI which dispassionately evaluates officials on the subject of treason.

The buzzwords I've heard them use are: meritocracy, transhumanism (eternal life, space exploration), scientism and cyberocracy.

My question is - to what extent is it feasible? Sounds close to anarchism, with the belief that power corrupts all the time, and that common people are holy and inherently good, innocents slaughtered by evil sadists in the secret CIA/KGB systems of oppression.

My obious objection would be that the one with power will inevitably recreate the old order anyway as "common people" never have any power (aside from maybe forming the culture where the elite dwells), so a structure to kill the officials must be empowered... which will eventually start resembling the old state apparatus all the same.

So I tend to circle back to the old argument that "democracy is the worst system, but there is none better". These folks tend to invent horror stories about the current system, too, because otherwise they will face the reality that it's not even that bad, and what they're proposing is anarchist blood letting which will lead to much more carnage and savagery than the current system (despite a random pedophile here and there). But maybe it's simply never been tried?

To give context, the empire of Charlemagne and his successors was supposedly split in the treaty of Verdun (843), creating the kingdom of Francia. The Carolingian dynasty eventually came to an end, and in the 10th century Hugh Capet was chosen king for being of little power. But eventually, the Capetian dynasty, starting from the vicinity of Paris, went on to unite all of the French Kingdom in the following centuries.

My question is - how plausible is it? If all the feuding fiefs were essentially independent, what are the chances it was the count of Paris who would come to unite them all, and it also just so happened that it's the true, real king of France exercising his legal right?

I tried asking this in a cobspiratorial fashion in another subreddit, but the mods were too low IQ to understand my point, and this is the wrong one to ask.. But what are thw chances the claim to royalty of the house of Capet was forged? We have precedent in the donation of Constantine with which the Papal authority claimed ownership of the entire Western Empire.

We could also compare that to the other lives of the other European kingdoms - Germany forever split after the Hohenstaufen, Italy with city-states, Iberia with dynastic unions, England centralized since William the conqueror, not sure about Poland, Hungary or Russia...