Seems as much a riddle as a question, but... How does one conquer the world? And I mean seriously, as if you were a Caesar or an Alexander. Looking at the world today, if one so chose to try, how would they conquer the entire world?
Through brute force and without mercy. That is the only way to conquer those who adamantly oppose being conquered. I think ISIS would be en example of this.
If you begin to conquer large parts of the world by force wouldn't the remaining part of the world ally against you?
you would trust a liberal like Obama to stand up and fight for us when we are attacked?...i dont think so...he would be playing golf with some wannabe rapper....and hiding....
Not Obama. You. What would you do? Give me some steps. How would you handle our enemies? How would you gain us more friends? You have to be confident in your plans. You're going to be greater than Caesar or Alexander. You have significant forces who are likely going to ally against you. How do you overcome this problem? LOL. I think there are certainly others who agree with you. Hopefully, you are the only ones with them...and hopefully you stay in control of them. I've heard some bad thngs about that operating system. I was trying to find a picture were the British brought terminators along with the Pilgrims to Indian America, lol. I laughed food out my nose. I can't find it though
Attempting to conquer the whole world would result in WWIII, and the near annihilation of the human race. In other words, it would be impossible.
First, I would have to get rid of the current rulers. So I would send assassins after members of the Rothschild, Rockefeller, DuPont, Astor, Kennedy, Bundy, Collins, Li, Russell, Onassis, Freeman, Van Duyn, and Reynolds families. Then I would get control of the money supply through central banks and buy up the media, for propaganda. In other words, I would follow the current plan for world domination, which seems to be working fine.
Amass a great deal of power (control of China or the US would do) and engage in a propaganda campaign to justify your position of conquest. Focus on the injustices in the third world and the poor leadership in the first world. Use political means as much as possible. Your propaganda campaign must stress your problem solving as infinitely superior to everyone elses. As you take over you must suppress all information about resistance and insurgence. Use diminutive words like "criminal" instead of "terrorist" or "rebel". You must instead keep a steady stream of information going about quality of life improvements due to your benign takeover. The goal will be to make populations willing to accept you as conqueror and not fear you. On the other hand world leaders must fear you as much as you can possibly make them. You must pile on propaganda about their incompetence and/or cruelty and/or corruption. On every hand distance them as much as possible from the public trust. Military actions need to be swift and brutal. The country attacked need to be completely broken. Express remorse and shift blame to the countries leadership. Make a call for global relief efforts to aid the shellshocked civilians. Then rebuild the country using industries already under your control. Thus the takeover can be made to seem a humanitarian effort, and the expense of the rebuilding a economic boom for your supporters. ...... Ya know though, we don't have and Alexander or Caesar on the world stage right now, without one this kind of planning is pretty pointless.
The easiest and surest methods would be by economics and ideology. The US has these methods well in hand, and for those that resist, we'vfe got the world's largest military.
You conquer the world by making them your allies, by convincing the able the lives they have are the ones they want and by convincing the needy to want the lives everyone else has. Everyone keeps thinking that brute force is the way when history has proven it's not. In order to conquer the world you just need to subtly help the people to conquer themselves.
Through violence and conformity. The violence is to conquer and subdue, and the conformity is to prevent any following conquest or subduing. Hitler had it right on this topic, although his method wasn't all encompassing. He targeted a small percentage of people to exploit a regional conquest, but not the entire world...he thought that would just be crazy. If your state is funding violence or conformity, then you should really take a hard look at your state. Especially if economic freedom gets primacy over all things. Monetary value shouldn't be leveraged for violence or conformity against another, I don't think.
To conquer is to imply violence/brute force. Is there also not an implication of violence to "help the people to conquer themselves"?...Kohlberg's stages of moral development and all. To avoid punishment is the base desire to not put one's self in harms way?
Money! I'm gonna quote Rotschild: "Give me control over a countries finances and I don't care who makes the laws." If you think some politician is running the planet, you must be dreaming. If you wanna run the planet you need control over 4 things: Dollar, Euro, Pound and Jen.
Jesus saw that ideas can change the world. The idea must be true, because people will always come down to that in their reasoning. But a truthful idea works even when a child says it, as explained in that fairy tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes." So, the world would be conquered by what Christ said, that Truth is the image and son of Reality.
Plan A give everyone a smart phone. take control while they are all habitually texting each other or watching porn and they won't even notice the change. Placate them with special low low low monthly rates, new phones every 18 months and free video on demand. Plan B Xanax the world.
When I say to "help the people to conquer themselves" I am suggesting that you find a way to get the people to want specific things, to have the perspective you want them to have. All of the rulers of the world, the people with the power, need to maintain the status quo because once that changes they lose their power. Every empire, kingdom or government that has tried to force it's will on its people to maintain that status quo have fallen and will always fall. When people suffer enough they will eventually have nothing left to lose and so the fear that the rulers used to maintain the status quo no longer has any power over them. In modern times the way to conquer the world is to tell people what they want and then give them just enough of it to mitigate their suffering or lessen their care for those that are. Free thinkers and progressives are detrimental to this way of control because they always seek to change the perspective, to question the reason for our current state of being. Incidentally the best way to counter this is with the right mixture of fear, anger and confusion. If you can get most of the people asking the wrong questions you don't have to worry about the answers. The term, "the greatest trick the "devil" ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist" to me is a bit short sighted because the focus is still on the "devil". It is far more likely that the greatest trick the "devil" ever pulled was to convince the world someone else was the "devil". Now of course I don't believe in the devil which is why I put it in quotes. I am simply using it as a placeholder for whatever negative influence is affecting the society in which one lives and I use this analogy to suggest that if you can get people looking in all the wrong directions you can rule them without them even knowing. You don't conquer the body, you conquer the mind.
I like that one That sounded really devilish and definitely implies the sort of technological/psychological revolutions that have aided conquerors ever since the beginning. The future is both wondrous and terrifying. I also like it because it proposes a new type of warfare taking the forefront other than the traditional warfare through means of physical force. Historically, the greatest conquerors who expanded the most did so by taking advantage of a novel method of fighting that no one could adapt to quickly enough. In this day and age where one can project military force even if unmanned) to the moon in a matter of ours, something akin to worldwide domination is possible. Rather than "violence" per se, I would have said force. Force can encompass a great range of actions- very little of it having to do with direct or physical force. In tyrannies and police states, the force is usually overt because their need be no pretense. In "free" socieities, the force is indirect. Massive amounts of propaganda, advertising, or methods that give only limited and controlled options and paths to a person are used to corral or force people along a certain path. Morality is one of these things. You might consider it more natural law than a construct of force, but that's exactly how propaganda works. Propaganda makes force seem like free will or natural law. Indirect force has proven to be the most effective method of control because direct force, as witnessed all over the world in all kinds of monarchies and such, breeds restlessness and violent uprisings. Indirect force and the consolidation of power and force and resources and wealth to central points have been the growing trend in the world. Perhaps the next great conqueror will expand on this, or think of something off-the-wall...
Did you know that most people in Africa have cell phones? http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/africa/mobile-phones-change-africa/ http://www.theafricareport.com/North-Africa/mobile-phones-revolutionise-youth-creativity.html Low internet rates, increasing connectivity and mobile apps have ushered in a new era for the continent, reshaping youth cultures and creativity. Today about 650 million Africans, particularly the youths, use mobile phones for both social and functional purposes.
This is fine, as long as we assume that not everybody is capable of rational thinking. While I don't think that everybody is capable of that, I still wouldn't counter with provocation of emotional triggers...which I would contend retard rational thinking. Fear, anger, and confusion is the LAST thing I would support in a made decision. This is what is problematic of the soul. A soul is not bound to material cause and effect. It transcends all of that and decides despite (aka predictions are impossible...despite years of psychological studies). A Soul is not a useful idea for understanding.
