Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Mabus_Zero
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:30 am UTC

Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Mabus_Zero » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:52 pm UTC

It suffices to say that we are dissatisfied by quite a bit of that which guides and contains the unbridled potential of mankind. I'm also certain that I'm not the only one that's fantasized on being a new Napolean, and a successful one, the next global dictator, tyrant or saint. I myself, if I had the means, would stretch muscles of glass, metal, and composites forward in a postmodern embrace of the existing social structure, the world over.

Give a brief abstract of who you'd be and what you'd do, if conquering the world. Who are your nations and armies, and how will you contend with, and conquer your foes? Do you win? Can you win? Win or lose, is it worth it?

This is a serious discussion, with a dash of absurdity and humor. Topic variance includes economics, weapons technology, social theory and motivation, inspiration, and justification.
Image

Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Gunfingers » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:03 pm UTC

I'd go the Peter Wiggin route. Hegemony in which a population may vote for membership. I prefer the idea of a federation to a true "one world government", given the vastly different cultures to be found around the world. There would be a general outline in the constitution of what guarunteed rights are which no lower government may restrict and besides that function in what used to be individual countries would change very little.

User avatar
Babam
the Nearly Deleted
Posts: 1170
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:05 am UTC
Location: A multiverse, wandering the couch
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Babam » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:12 pm UTC

I'd slowly take over the world, but after greenland is mine, all will be easy!
He who controls Greenland Controls the world!
At which point I'd an hero the planet
Spoiler:
crucialityfactor wrote:I KNEW he could club bitches!

SecondTalon wrote:Reality - More fucked up than Photoshop.

s/notwittysig/wittysig

User avatar
DaMullet
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:21 pm UTC
Location: Coming soon to a theatre near YOU!
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby DaMullet » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:15 pm UTC

The world is already under my control; This is exactly how I want it.

But in all seriousness, I think global thermonuclear war is the way to go.
Will wrote:Andrew Jackson was all kinds of badass.

SecondTalon wrote:Out in the wasteland
Driving cars of rusted steel
oh, look. Burma Shave.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:HACKS ARE STING OUR SYLLES AND SING THEM TO TERRISTS!

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:20 pm UTC

Generally I try and start with taking Africa, then pushing into South America. Once I've got that and can hold it, it's five free bonus armies a turn. If I can take North America from there, there are only four territories that I actually need to defend, and I have Europe surrounded. Ideally, once Europe is mine, Asia will be well fragmented and ripe for the taking. Australia at that point is a deathtrap.

(Don't we have this thread already?)
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Zug-Zug
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:53 pm UTC

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Zug-Zug » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Generally I try and start with taking Africa, then pushing into South America. Once I've got that and can hold it, it's five free bonus armies a turn. If I can take North America from there, there are only four territories that I actually need to defend, and I have Europe surrounded. Ideally, once Europe is mine, Asia will be well fragmented and ripe for the taking. Australia at that point is a deathtrap.

(Don't we have this thread already?)


You never played risk did you? :p
Image

User avatar
mrbaggins
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:23 am UTC
Location: Wagga, Australia

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby mrbaggins » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:49 pm UTC

I hacked the world and secretly put myself in charge. But I accidentally deleted the country of Bunitsland. I don't think anyone will notice.

<Not mine, but funny and appropriate>
Why is it that 4chan is either infinitely awesome, infinitely bad, or "lolwut", but never any intermediary level?

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby BoomFrog » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:02 am UTC

I wouldn't take over the whole world, only a small part of it, probably in Africa. Every major government in the world is just a social experiment to test a model of government. We still haven't established a solid set of starting parameters for a country to be self sustainably "good" indefinitely.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Firnagzen
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:29 am UTC

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Firnagzen » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:56 am UTC

Destroying it, for sure. See if I can't push this counter up at least once, eh?

I reckon that following up on Tesla's claim of cracking the Earth with carefully timed explosions is the way to go, really. Well maybe, I need to do some more experimenting.
Life may suck, but there's nothing else to do.

User avatar
Veracious Sole
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:05 pm UTC

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Veracious Sole » Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:54 pm UTC

First, I will take my path first through the US political system. On my way up the ladder I will befriend as many senators and representatives as I can. A dash of charisma mixed with promises and perceived nobility should be enough to persuade them to lend me support. Once I have obtained the presidency I will use my power to start up a new version of the U.N. One that can and will act as a police for the world. One that every nation will join and one that is considerably more inclined to wield it's power.

This new Collaboration will eventually wield a military that is capable of annihilating any of the current superpowers. Eventually it will reign as the government supreme of the world. Before this happens (and after I have relinquished control of the US presidency) I will put myself into position to take the lead of this new government.

That is the current plan, and of course it remains flexible. (Flexibility is the key to successful dictatorship after all.)
"I never knew words could be so confusing," Milo said to Tock as he bent down to scratch the dog's ear.
"Only when you use a lot to say a little," answered Tock. ~The Phantom Tollbooth~

DoomyDoom
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:58 pm UTC

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby DoomyDoom » Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:58 pm UTC

I will utilize my legion of robot assassins. They are the hunters of men's souls. I will declare myself God-Emperor of Earth. Anybody who disagrees has to deal with robots.

Also, all the robots will have the same voice and personality as HK-47.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

Veracious Sole wrote:First, I will take my path first through the US political system. On my way up the ladder I will befriend as many senators and representatives as I can. A dash of charisma mixed with promises and perceived nobility should be enough to persuade them to lend me support. Once I have obtained the presidency I will use my power to start up a new version of the U.N. One that can and will act as a police for the world. One that every nation will join and one that is considerably more inclined to wield it's power.

This new Collaboration will eventually wield a military that is capable of annihilating any of the current superpowers. Eventually it will reign as the government supreme of the world. Before this happens (and after I have relinquished control of the US presidency) I will put myself into position to take the lead of this new government.

That is the current plan, and of course it remains flexible. (Flexibility is the key to successful dictatorship after all.)


Barack Obama? On the fora?
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Gunfingers » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:16 pm UTC

You have no idea...

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Nomic » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:08 pm UTC

Everybody knows Obama is really Nyarlatothep. Still, he wouldn't be half as much of an asshole than the current precident...

Me, I plan to summon forth the demonic legions from beyond the void to set this world to flame and be revarded with demonic immortality. If only I could figure our how to summon said demonic legions. They seem to want me to figure out it by myself. Buying some nukes from the Russians and aiming them at strategic locations could work too.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:26 pm UTC

Nomic wrote:Everybody knows Obama is really Nyarlatothep. Still, he wouldn't be half as much of an asshole than the current precident...

Me, I plan to summon forth the demonic legions from beyond the void to set this world to flame and be revarded with demonic immortality. If only I could figure our how to summon said demonic legions. They seem to want me to figure out it by myself. Buying some nukes from the Russians and aiming them at strategic locations could work too.


I knew one guy who tried that. Now his world is an array of broken rocks drifting through the Twisting Nether. Be careful.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
DaMullet
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:21 pm UTC
Location: Coming soon to a theatre near YOU!
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby DaMullet » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:33 pm UTC

I prefer to buy my nukes from Palestinians, but the old guy I hire to build the bombs keeps giving me bomb casings filled with parts from pinball machines.
Will wrote:Andrew Jackson was all kinds of badass.

SecondTalon wrote:Out in the wasteland
Driving cars of rusted steel
oh, look. Burma Shave.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:HACKS ARE STING OUR SYLLES AND SING THEM TO TERRISTS!

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Philwelch » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:05 pm UTC

The US is probably the best bet in terms of ability, but in terms of will, Russia would be better. While it would be possible to give Russia the production and technology advantages to contend, I'd go with inciting America to the will to win.

To do that, you'd need to engineer repeated, vastly terrifying, yet not-too-destructive attacks on the US to maintain and heighten post-9/11 style hysteria. Active commission isn't necessary. Provocation (which the American public is generally blind to) combined with selective non-protection of targets should do the trick.

The obvious first target would be the Middle East. Selectively play countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey off each other until finally betraying each of them in sequence and defeating them utterly. In the meantime, win over ethnic groups like the Kurds, and small countries indebted to us like Kuwait, over to our cause. It would take bloodshed, significant bloodshed, to cow the Middle East into submission, but if it could be done to Japan it can be done to anyone. The reason Iraq and Vietnam didn't work is because we restrained ourselves. (At the same time, engineer the threats from that region so that they seem to justify this kind of response.) Incite a sustained Arab-Israeli conflict, then ultimately push a secular shared state idea on the Palestinian region, with Jerusalem as a separate city-state. Turn Gaza into a Hong Kong style free trade free market city state as well--it's strategically located at the Suez, and will form a good gateway to the new Middle East.

At the same time, we'd need to play Europe. Win Russia over by luring them into "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Meanwhile, use a Marshall Plan to rebuild the Middle East in our image. That will help win over western Europe by solving their immigration problems. They will appreciate their new, modernized cross-Mediterranean trade partners as well.

The next stage of the plan concerns Africa. The game plan here is similar: play factions against each other, incite humanitarian crises to justify intervention, and use "peacekeeping" occupations to justify more rebuilding and development in our own image.

By this point, China should, out of natural rivalry, be developing into a counterforce. Incite a Pearl Harbor incident, then respond with a total blockade. We should be on friendly enough terms with Russia to draw them into this, while extending our Africa and Middle East strategies far enough into Asia to isolate China by land to the south and west.

If Europe complains too much, apply the same strategy to them as to China. Tacitly allow Russian expansion through the east if necessary.

Both Europe and China may be able to sustain themselves independently. Europe is developed enough that the hardships of isolation would affect them first. In addition, they seem unlikely to sustain a long term conflict. They should capitulate quickly, especially if we offer enough imaginary concessions.

China will be more difficult, but eventually someone in China will recognize the value of joining the new world community.

On the North American side, work to destabilize existing governments to the point that annexation becomes a viable option. Direct absorption of Canada and, in the long run, Mexico will strengthen the home front. The rest of Latin America can be dealt with using the Africa strategy.

The ultimate structure would be that of a significantly bigger and stronger U.S. encompassing all of North America (with possible annexations of other American countries) and a network of occupied liberal democracies practicing unquestioned acceptance of American protocols for trade and diplomacy. As this network grows, any variation from the accepted form of government and economy will be universally seen as a crime against humanity, punished swiftly by the US-led new world order. Continental unions, like the EU and African Union, will be organs of this new world order as well.

It will also be essential to share leadership with the other continents. Sole US leadership is untenable—joint leadership between the US, EU, and newly-formed like-minded regional and continental unions will be a must. In fact, the end result will be a true world government.

At this point, of course, the state will consolidate its power everywhere. So for lack of anything to do, I'd use it as an opportunity to engineer a rebellion. Russia, with its long tradition of revolution, expansionism, and nationalism would be an obvious first choice to defect. At this point, a military defeat of Russia would be too great an undertaking for the new world order. Russia would have to force the issue by attempting expansion into eastern Europe. At this point one of two things could happen: either the new world order could abandon eastern Europe to Russia (at which point eastern Europe becomes a new hotbed of nationalism, working together to free themselves from the influence of both Russia and the NWO) or they could commit themselves to keeping eastern Europe in the NWO (at which point eastern Europe is the most loyal to the NWO). Far-flung NWO territories like North America and Oceania would lose interest in protecting eastern Europe. Breakaway movements would start, followed by complete Balkanization. Parts of Russia would lose interest in conquest, causing that empire to break up and fail to control eastern Europe after all.

There. Now none of you can conquer the earth after that.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:28 pm UTC

I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty of winning the Russians over.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Philwelch » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty of winning the Russians over.


In my defense, I *do* have them as the nation that incites the ultimate breakdown of the new world order.

The thing with Russia is, we just have to maintain the illusion that they are a liberal democracy, and part of the new world order. In reality they'll never be, but we can keep them friendly in the medium term. In the long term they will defect and cause the downfall of the new world order, though.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Nomic » Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:06 pm UTC

I think the only reason USA or Russia or China hasn't tried taking over the world yet is that there isn't really much to gain, and a lot to lose. All major powers today are in firendly or neutral terms with eachother. If they would go to war, one of them (probably China) would attempt to become the greates and only superpower in the world (and thus qualifying as world domination) by attacking and taking over the other 2. I say China is the most likely because their goverment seems the most willing to expand large amount of money into military production, even at the expanse of wellbeing of the people, and most likely to be willing to take the enormous losses required to destroy and conquer Russia and USA. Besides there's like 2 billion of em.

Slightly offtopic, but I find it fashinating how during the Cold War USA and USSR actually were making all sorts of superweapons and stuff you'd expect to find in comic books, most of them extremely inpractical for anythign but intimidating the enemy. Like USA contenplated on building a nuclear powered ramjet that would act as a unmanned bomber and/or missile, essentially a reactor that moves at mach 3 speed, dropping A-bombs as it goes before finally crashing somewhere and contaminating the entire area. And USSR built a 100megaton nuclear bomb that was so big that their biggest bomber could only carry it if it removes all extra fueltanks and bob-bay doors, essentially making it useless as there would've been no good way to deliver it to the target, but man did it make a big blast! They dropped it on an island in Siberia (with only half of the explosive material inside, so the plane that did the dropping could get out of the blast radius), and the explosion shattered windows in Southern Finland!

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Philwelch » Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 pm UTC

I think the best part is how, as soon as the US started exploring Mars, the USSR suddenly devoted themselves to exploring Venus, to make sure they could have a space colony, too, in the far future interplanetary cold wars.

I bet everyone felt very silly when the Soviet Union up and decided, "this communism isn't working out for us, let's give it up. Forty years building competing war machines and putting the world on the brink of destruction, and the communists just up and decide it's not working out, so let's tear down all the Lenin statues and act like none of this ever happened?
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Mensch
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Mensch » Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:47 pm UTC

Bah! Why bother taking over only the human world when the under water world makes up more than double that? After mobilizing the squid troops against the hated calamari chefs of the world it'll only be a matter of time before you'll be reffering to me as Queenlord-Overmagistratess Mensch, ruler of all and keeper of the dreaded Vampire Squid from Hell Army!

(those actually exist)

User avatar
Peregrine
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:57 pm UTC

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Peregrine » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:14 pm UTC

The main issue is thus: One person can not successfully be the absolute ruler of the world without a military advantage much greater than the combined forces of the US, Russia, China, Japan, India, and the EU. Too many people will reject any ruler who is a "foreigner". The only way a single person could realistically rule the world would be through political puppets.

Here is my 3-step plan for world domination:

1. Formation of Regions
It is easier to unify chunks of the world than all the individual countries/ factions, so first the "chunks" must be formed.
Regions must unify against a common enemy, or else there will be too much bickering. There are three possible choices:
a. Aliens/Non-Humans: If there's one thing that could make the world could unite, it is an attack from "someone else". Aliens, Skynet, hyper-evolved apes, zombies, whatever. People are easily (relatively speaking) united in "us against them" scenarios. However, this is a hard thing to produce, so can't be relied upon.
b. Evil Overlord: If someone is trying to take over the world, leading the resistance against them can lead to a rapid rise in power. Evil Overlord could be a plant, or someone else's genuine attempt. This is probably the best option.
c. Each Other: Not ideal, since it can make complete unification harder later on, but may be necessary if the other options fail.

2. Centralization of Control.
Placing the majority of the world's power in relatively few places, led by the leaders of the aforementioned regions. Again, the makes future unification easier. My list of probable locations of these Capitals:
Stockholm
Moskow
Beijing
Tokyo
Sydney
Cairo
Jerusalem
[Name of newly founded central African city]
Brasilia
New York City
Mexico City
New Delhi
Los Angeles
Paris

Jerusalem and New York City are the most important of the Capitals. Jerusalem, because it houses holy sites for three of the world's major religions, and New York City, because it houses the UN and the New York Stock Exchange. Religious, political, and economic power will all be necessary.
Africa will be a difficult one due to its economic and political instability. A strong, central African government would have to replace the current governments and dictatorships, and hopefully change the political boundaries put in place by Europe centuries ago that have led to the some of the major problems in Africa.

Ideally, I (or the person using my plan) would be in charge of one of the regions, preferably New York City. Your allies/underlings/puppets should control most if not all of the other regions.

3. Consolidation of Power

The regional leaders will start to lead their regions in the direction of peace treaties if option 1c was used. It must be handled delicately, since moving too fast may lead them to lose their position of power. Once the regions have begun to work together, the UN will be used to create, or be transformed into, a General Council, with myself (or whoever is using my plan) as "Head Councilor", a position that holds absolutely no more power than any of the other members, like the Chief Justice of the US, who is no more powerful than Associate Justices (ignoring the impeachment of presidents). The position of Head Councilor holds no more legal power than the other members of the council, but is seen as the leader of the leaders of the world, which is effectively the leader of the world. Since most, if not all, of the other councilors were hand selected as loyal followers, I hold supreme power over the world. Any disloyal members can be slowly replaced through well planned elections with people who are more loyal.

Ideally, step 3 will use elements of step 1(a or b only), as this will ease the conversion to a world government, just as it did with the individual regions.

Bam, world domination!
Never let yourself be drawn into false trichotomies.

User avatar
Edgar T Friendly
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:24 am UTC
Location: London, England

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Edgar T Friendly » Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:20 am UTC

"It is said, the true challenge of creation lies not in the engineering, but rather in the ability to control one's project. The Antarens understood this axiom well. Understood that it applied to the individual organism, as well as the body politic.



First, analyze the problem. Devise a solution that allows for managability.


Assemble the elements that comprise the whole



Combine them, allowing reactions to occur


Observe the reactions, and identify the cancerous elements, the elements that perform counter to the intended result. The Ones that gnaw away at the new creation.



And once identified, the rouge elements can be dealt with,


cast out,



eliminated.



Thus, the new creation can thrive and grow, evolve towards it's intended purpose



the Antarens now faced the challenge of control



Control is not a simple thing, it requires vigilence, discipline, and sometimes, intervention.



for when the new creation becomes strong enough,



Independant enough,



It can veer from it's intended destiny, and forge it's own



for only when control is firmly and finally established can one rightfully hold the title of 'Master'"


<Master Of Orion III>


Thank you Master of Orion, for teaching me that tyranny and oppression are tools and that it only takes the will.
All energy flows according to the whims of the Great Magnet. What a fool I was to defy him.

User avatar
souldelay
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:09 am UTC
Location: Second to the left and straight on 'til morning
Contact:

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby souldelay » Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:33 am UTC

I've found that chocolate/baked goods are a great way to make people more agreeable.
Which is exactly how I'll instate my leadership- feed people into ultimate submission.

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: Taking over the world (or destroying it, take your pick).

Postby Nomic » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:07 am UTC

Creating a fake ultimate enemy would work quite nicely. Easiests would be to start a war between an equally advance alien civilisation and quarantee mutally assured destruction if eighter side tried to use space-nukes or planet-busting deathrays. Now you can rule as the tyrannical overlord and justify anythign you do as necessary for the survival of human rage against the Space-Demons from Alpha Centauri. Should Space-Demons be unavaileable, juts create a massive conspiracy to convince people they exists. Ofcource fooling the whole planet into thinking there's an interstellar war going on might be a bit hard, but with enough fake news broadcasts and occasional attacks from "enemy drone fighters" (read: robots you'r own goverment manufactures at a secret moonbase and sends to attack earth) should do the trick. Another good way to rule the world is to become a leader of a worldwide religion and justify everything because the God-Emperor of Mankind says so. Ofcourse getting you'r religion to be accepted by everybody and removing the separation of goverment and religion might be hard.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MarkWaller and 31 guests