However, the main "problem" with this approach is that it focuses too much on "bad actors" and by doing this you divert attention and potentially exculpate "THE SYSTEM" (namely, FEUDAL HIERARCHY).

I think it does both actually. By focusing on the bad actors (so they can reap their due karma) it also CAN expose the exact reasons they were able to function as they did. I believe strongly examples of this are the way they (government) hides the how under the banner of national security. That shtick is so overused now it is a good area to begin focusing on, demanding answers on why its in national security to protect the criminals.

It's obvious that many of these crimes taking place (such as Epstein/Maxwell) are done with government aid and cover. The more we expose the players, it sheds light on exactly how the system failed the people in favor of a select elite who have grown so arrogant in their operations they are sloppy now, feeling untouchable.

I'm still not sure what, if any, system can be implemented that will work for long. There will always be folks who want more and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it, no matter the expense to others. Coupled with how many prefer others to take responsibility it seems unavoidable that at some point, regardless of the system, we will work our way back to corruption in power, protecting their own as they offer the masses carrots to tolerate just a bit more.

Still working my way through the Golden Web part 2 (got through 2 hours of it last night) and among many thoughts it raises, is how can be people be led to whats best if they aren't willing to examine their own ignorance and take responsibility to change it (if its even possible)? It does seem to be an endless cycle from one side to the other (positive/negative).

I think the question in regards to your position on Holacracy for the masses is this. Would the masses accept such a system?