Is that not a false dichotomy?
It is true that change inevitably incurs chaotic discontinuity with order
Is it?
While I am not persuaded entirely by his arguments, Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes the case in Democracy: The God That Failed that the incentives of monarchy and the de facto oligarchy arising in support of de jure absolute rule did not tend to match your despotic caricature. Taxes tended to be lower, wars were less total, and both technology and philosophy objectively did progress. The present depredations by our modern political class suffer from a high time preference imposed in large part by terms of office and the need to pandering toward various voting blocs.
the vile overlords seizing power over the world today are not good people, and their legacy will be hell itself.
I do not disagree here.
I will risk, even raise on my shoulders, any Napolean, any rebellion against the coming dehumanization and eradication of good people.
I do disagree here. The same kind of revolutionary methods will likely bring the same kind of repressive despotism. Revolution merely for the sake of revolution perversely seems to reinforces the political class, even if that class is replaced with a new one.
It is a lot less glamorous, but I argue we are better served by undermining the powers-that-should-not-be than we are by trying to overthrow them. After all, why do you think violent revolution is the alternative they portray throughout their educational systems and media productions?
We are not actually in disagreement, believe it or not. Even a cursory examination of my back catalog will reveal that I constantly beat the drum of adoption of nascent technological advances that decentralize the means of production, and predict that eventually we can just ignore wannabe overlords.
However, despite that confidence and the economic fact that centralization cannot compete with decentralization, and that decentralization is a clinal boundary of extraordinary significance, and not just advance of technology that will continue to benefit parasitic overlords, I cannot vouchsafe that this ongoing transcendence should - or can - simply be purely economic. The potential of overlords to undertake violent genocide cannot be discounted. The necessity to counter that violence cannot either.
I do not believe differently from you that violent revolution could not result in our finally gaining benevolent overlords. However, I suspect, and am preceded by many that have predicted that this transition will occur with intolerable violence, and will needs must be met with the will to defend and protect good people. That is not something I reckon will result in a new set of overlords, but will protect the transcendence of centralization and maturation of decentralized means of production, distribution of those means, and the diaspora of humanity across the universe to where illimitable resources are available to develop.
In that interest, then, of blunting the savagery of psychopathic predators that are obviously willing, perhaps demonstrably bent, on genocidal eradication of the folks able to adopt and develop decentralized means of creating the blessings of civilization and rendering overlords obsolete, I am fully willing to fight and die, on that hill.