Again, I have nothing but admiration and appreciation for this extensive and informative reply.
"If you read that comment post and dig into all the relevant linked information, it all fits together in a neat puzzle wherein I have figured out how the powers-that-be are going to destroy everyone who is hodling cryptocurrency at the May 14, 2020 halving event, yet simultaneously establish Bitcoin as their 666 global reserve currency asset exclusively for their subservient $billionaires."
It will take me time to undertake to assess this information, so please accept my apologies for being unable to address this claim at present. I can neither dismiss it, nor confirm it now. However it dovetails with my deliberately vague and pessimistic expectations, which, frankly, surprises me, despite being amorphous enough to not be linked to specific events, such as the halving.
"Everything was predictable for those whose model was holistic enough and included all the data that would have indicated such migration or whatever caused the population changes."
These included migrations, but also two world wars, and an attempted Communist revolution between them. At the time, the myriad inputs which could have enabled researchers to generate more precise estimates were simply not possible due to tech contstraints and extant belief systems. One of Wilson's most influential advisors, 'the Colonel', certainly was amongst the prime movers during that time, and one extra shot of good scotch may have changed history. Given the enormous potential 'butterfly effect' even one pivotal individual can introduce in such desperate political clashes, while the general outcome of these events may have been estimable, it is not very likely that they would have resulted in very accurate population figures. For example, after WWII Patton was very unhappy with the suffering of native Germans, and may have personally enabled tens of thousands of individuals to survive via various mechanisms. Later yet, Gen. Smedley Butler was clearly unpredictable and did change history by revealing 'The Business Plot'. It is these kind of pivotal influences, and how they may concatenate or interfere mutually and with others, that strikes me as central to my general thesis. Given BTCs relatively low numbers of influential individuals compared to WWII, those individual rogue factors become more affective of predictability.
"It’s possible but highly unlikely that black swan event will occur to disrupt the rather short-term plan of the powers-that-be. Two decades to accomplish their Bitcoin world domination plan, is a very small window of time relative to abnormal black swans which they could not predict well, e.g. a major asteroid impact on the earth. They also factored the probability of these events into their plans. Armstrong’s models have detected cycles in earthquakes, volcanos, global warming/cooling, etc.."
I cannot fault you for temporizing, nor neglecting such events in your consideration, as the above discussion makes it obvious you have considered as many as you may reckon likely, and I will assume you did so rationally, given your unassailable adherence to reason IME. I am a skeptic almost from birth, and having burned me more than once with hubris, perhaps have resorted to insuperable belief in my errancy, and as a result project that on everyone else. That native impulse I concede has no basis in fact other than reading your words here, which I also concede I interpret through my cynicism. That may not mean you're wrong, but I'm gonna look =)
"Scientists have now backtested a model of the sun’s magnetic fields which control the cycle in the sunspots which control our global cooling/warming (and this also appears to impact earthquakes and volcanos). This model indicates we are heading into a Maunder Minimum circa 2030."
Good. However, 
No AI or calculations could predict that, although deliberate matchmaking or something could. Greta's prominence may have precipitated such forethought, but I sure couldn't say so or no. Not sure Armstrong could either. I expect such variables are simply too many and low probability to be taken seriously. That is exactly the issue for me. Tens of thousands of individuals with potential to derange calculations to various degrees, like a flock of butterflies migrating early because some factory in Mexico has developed a new air freshener that unpredictably causes their pheromones to motivate them to do so. I simply can't accept all such variables could have been foreseen and nominally accounted for. If either of those variables comes up in the comments you recommend I read, I will concede only that I am incapable of being a better critic due to my personal lack of imagination, and then thank you for that valuable lesson.
"I’m playing 6D chess here. Wish you could get inside my mind."
Kudos. I am a crappy chess player. Another source of appropriate humility =p
"I need help, but who to trust? And who is skilled/smart enough to help?"
Personnel is the critical crux of my thesis. It's also a terrible weakness for me, and why I don't have any employees. I once fired and rehired a guy seven times in one day. Do not count on me for such a role LOL.
"The powers-that-be have economies-of-scale. How many 180 IQ people do you reckon they have in these think tanks?"
Thousands, all suffering from varying degrees of crippling hubris. Feynman was. I don't recall meeting any with that quality mental capacity that weren't.
"Can they compartmentalize people with that high of an IQ?"
Yes, but it definitely compromises their utility.
"...can they incentivize them to be diabolical?"
IME, it's not hard to do so with hubris impacted folks. This is why I consider criticism, shame, and regret to be my most valuable possessions.
"Or if your IQ is high enough do you come to the conclusion that there’s no other way forward anyway?"
I would not make that claim about me, but I am convinced that basic principles of physics render institutional power unsustainable, and utter freedom inevitable for our species. Decentralization is the cutting edge of all technological advance, because it increases the efficiency of tech. Every tech advance is an advance in decentralization, although there is a an ever decreasing lag time to disperse that tech. This results in temporary increases in the power of centralization, which has been advantaged as multiple advances across fields concatentate that power. However, the more advanced the tech, the shorter that lag time, and the greater the affect on power, so I also believe we have already passed peak centralization.
Eventually, however, the power of individuals is increased by every tech. Eventually decentralization renders centralization obsolete. It can only be prevented in one way: extinction of humanity. Anything short of that just changes the timeline.
Anyway, Imma look at the links above after business is handled tomorrow, God willing. I eagerly anticipate being schooled in the attempt. Nothing would please me more. In the likely event I am incompetent to reckon and address them, I'll thank you for that, and again commend you on your undertaking.
Every statement you make convinces me it is indeed commendable.
Thanks!
RE: McAfee’s Dick Math: illuminating Bitcoin’s ACCELERATING price