Never going to occur as long as humans are free...to choose evil over good.

You are suggesting that people should not have the freedom to choose evil over good?

That's exactly what the PTB think. Their whole plan seems to be based on the thought that We The People are too stupid to choose for ourselves. That we will automatically choose poorly.

We The People need to be our own choosers. Here's how people work when not coerced to choose one way or another:

Given two choices with equal economic cost, a person will nearly always choose the option that has the greater benefit in some other field. For example, lets assume a gas car is "bad for the environment" and an electric car is "good for the environment" (I don't want to talk about the merits of those assumptions, I am just assuming these things for this hypothetical). If all other costs of those two options are the same (power, distance travelled, costs of use, looks, cost to buy etc.) a person will almost invariably choose the one that provides the larger benefit to society. Why? Because we are social creatures. We have an inherent understanding of gestalt. Deep down inside, once you get past all the fears that drive us towards bad decisions, people understand intuitively that the whole of humanity is greater than the sum of its parts (individual desires).

Restricting or coercing choice is never the option if "good" is the goal. People must understand that there are consequences for their actions. They must understand what those consequences are very clearly, and then they must be allowed to choose their own path. Some will fail. Some will harm others, but there will be consequences, and those consequences won't be "increased power in the Cabal." They will be fines, or community service or other restitution, or death (forfeiture of the right to live).

Everyone has a different idea of what is "Good" or "Evil". That is why we have laws (aka codified morality); to let us know what We The People have decided are universally agreed upon and put into the social contract. I don't want to get too into Social Contract Theory at this time, and what happens when one "opts out" (which must be an option), but the construction of a system of governance is not difficult, and good and evil must be very loosely defined for a "good leaning" society to emerge. For example, you really only need one basic law for a functioning society:

If you directly infringe upon the rights of another there will be consequences.

The details of that would need further elaboration, but that essentially is all you really need in a social contract as far as limitations on personal choice. Directly Infringing on another's rights is really the only "evil". The word "directly" means your actions were the direct and only possible reason for a "rights infringement." Most of our laws and "regulations" that feel stifling are indirect infringement, which is how you turn a free society into a slave state.

Though shalt not steal.

Though shalt not assault.

Though shalt not kill.

And done.