# How To Conquer The World In 21 Days Or Less



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Step 1)



entrepeneur said:


> actually, we should create a thread with the list of things we need to do to conquer the world, all the things that must come together for that to happen. Then work out a plan on how to do that.



You see, somebody posted in the INTJ forums about conquering the world, likely not being particularly serious about it.

Here was my post within that thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/167302-world-domination-4.html#post4289699

So the point of _this _thread, is to come up with ideas, and _actual _plans, for how we would unite, and then conquer the world. I like to think that this has a vein of positivity attached, rather than the evil overlord outlook.

The tricky part, to me, is the actual first step of the _uniting_ of the world. 

How would we unite the world with the _least_ amount of harm to people? That would mean: No natural or man-made disasters, no rebellions, warfare, meterites or mind control ray guns of damnation.

Is that even _possible? _

How would we tackle topics such as religious/cultural differences, in order to assure people will co-exist as team mates?

To make the right decisions for everyone, and our planet, it would seem that agreement won't come easy. Will we have to _force _people to do what needs to be done, in order to make the change necessary?

Is there a system we can implement worldwide that differs from our current social economic and political system?

There's always technocracy, and the Venus project, the zeitgeist movement, etc. Much of that is hype, but it _does _cause us to think about the system in different ways, and perhaps, to move forward in a more progressive direction.

I will check back on this thread often to add to the list, and to keep it comprehensive.

Please add your thoughts, NTs, and any other types who may be lurking and wish to contribute.
@ENTrePeneur


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Here I will post and continue to edit the list of things we must do to dominate the world by priority:

*Must Happen:
**-* One world leader
*-* A system to keep the leader in check
*-* A group consisting of more than one person that has at least some power

*Second Priority:
-* Someone in power is elected
*-* Common unit system (metric)
*-* Common currency 
*- *Free education
*- *Free enterprise

*Third Priority:*
*-* One world schooling system that includes telling the young that our world is the best...
*- *Free medicine
*-* Widespread transportation system

*Fourth Priority:
**-* One world religion (or all religions in coexistence)
*-* Freedom of expression

*Other Possibilities:*
*-* A group of people that selects the next world leader based on intelligence in schools and such.
*-* Establish fallout shelters across the globe and promptly nuke all major powers. In the post-apocalyptic world, the shelters will act as bases for you to exert influence over the whole world.
*-* One world leader is simply a symbol controlled by a team of specialists
*-* One world leader is replaced by a triumvirate (like in Rome)
_

Post below what you think we need to do and in what priority group it should be in._


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

*Must Happen: *
There would definitely need to be one huge world leader. However, that leader should be elected (to avoid any large upset due to "tyranny"), and there should still be Presidents/Kings/Rulers of the individual countries. The situation would be similar to the relationship between the President and state governors.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

aphinion said:


> *Must Happen: *
> There would definitely need to be one huge world leader. However, that leader should be elected (to avoid any large upset due to "tyranny"), and there should still be Presidents/Kings/Rulers of the individual countries. The situation would be similar to the relationship between the President and state governors.


Possible. This person could be a symbol that is run secretly by a board.


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> Possible. This person could be a symbol that is run secretly by a board.


That would probably be best. Maybe an oligarchy. Having one person in charge of the entire world would be horribly irresponsible.


----------



## asewland (Mar 5, 2012)

Establish fallout shelters across the globe and promptly nuke all major powers. In the post-apocalyptic world, the shelters will act as bases for you to exert influence over the whole world.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

asewland said:


> Establish fallout shelters across the globe and promptly nuke all major powers. In the post-apocalyptic world, the shelters will act as bases for you to exert influence over the whole world.


Added under "Other Possibilities"


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

In terms of what _*must happen:

*_I think that the leaders we think about today, ie. Politicians, are _not _the kind of people we want to _actually _be leading people. What do they actually _know _about the world they would be leading?

I propose that the leaders be knowledgeable on a wide array of subjects. Scientists, engineers, maybe even philosophers. It would have to be someone who is educated, has experience in their field, and who may or may not be a polymath. I don't think their social skills should matter, to be honest. Charismatic leaders in the past have been more likely to be the eel. It would just have to be an intelligent person who knows his or her way around complicated problems.

If a leader _is _necessary, then I think we would require something _similar _to the European Union.

As an example: There would be a board of technical, scientific, financial(*), educational and medical specialists who represent their team of experts, and those within these particular fields all across the globe. (With the internet, collaboration on decisions is _more _than possible, and should be implemented.)

The leader would be elected by these specialists, who excel in their field and are representing their particular area of expertise, voted in by other professionals in their field. (Kind of wishy washy, but that's the best I can do.)

When an important decision needs to be made, it's brought up in a meeting with the specialists and The World Leader, in question. There's a vote held, everyone gets to give advice who wants to, and then it's posited on the internet as a poll.

Ultimately, the leader decides what should be done.

Also: Resource tallying and distribution is necessary.

* Our economic system is not sustainable as it is, this perpetual need for growth causes destruction in many other areas. It also causes people who sell things to be dishonest and competitive in order to win money, instead of selling things for the benefit of the buyer.

I propose that this system be overhauled as well, but to what, I do not know. Perhaps there could be a system of value around the proportion of production an individual gives to society. A computer would decide and measure the amount automatically, and it would be checked by several people who don't know each other in order to ensure fairness, and that the machine isn't tampered with.

Education should be free. So, too, should medicine.

These areas should be given the resources needed without having to pay. Automatically. The same goes for promising research within these fields, and fields of sustainable energy and so forth, which can be decided by the team of specialists and leader, whether it is viable or not.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> In terms of what _*must happen:
> 
> *_I think that the leaders we think about today, ie. Politicians, are _not _the kind of people we want to _actually _be leading people. What do they actually _know _about the world they would be leading?
> 
> ...


So the one world leader would not be the final decision on anything. They would be more like the president. But I was thinking that maybe instead of one world leader we had a triumvirate. Also a parliament, and a supreme court. But the members of the triumvirate would "rule" for like 15 years, and have to be nominated by six out of the nine justices in the supreme court, and then seconded by a 2/3 majority in both houses of the parliament. In turn, the Justices would "rule" for life and have to be nominated by two of the triumvirate and seconded by 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament, all of whom would "rule" for five years and be elected by a popular vote in each region of the world.

As for the whole "european union" thing, you mean like a confederation? I think it could start as a confederation and over time grow into a single one-world nation.

I haven't posted any of what I said or what you said in the list because it's still up for debate..(not that the stuff in the list isn't..I just don't want to have to go back and edit a very large portion of it every time someone turns around and counters someone.)


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ENTrePeneur said:


> So the one world leader would not be the final decision on anything. They would be more like the president. But I was thinking that maybe instead of one world leader we had a triumvirate. Also a parliament, and a supreme court. But the members of the triumvirate would "rule" for like 15 years, and have to be nominated by six out of the nine justices in the supreme court, and then seconded by a 2/3 majority in both houses of the parliament. In turn, the Justices would "rule" for life and have to be nominated by two of the triumvirate and seconded by 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament, all of whom would "rule" for five years and be elected by a popular vote in each region of the world.
> 
> As for the whole "european union" thing, you mean like a confederation? I think it could start as a confederation and over time grow into a single one-world nation.
> 
> I haven't posted any of what I said or what you said in the list because it's still up for debate..(not that the stuff in the list isn't..I just don't want to have to go back and edit a very large portion of it every time someone turns around and counters someone.)


No. Not like a president. Currently, the president of the united states, as an example, has about as much power as any one seat in the senate.

If you think the team of specialists would be like the senate, that would be erroneous. 

The leader would be able to make a decision right away, based upon information and advice from the specialists. Similar to a dictator. We don't need people talking, with no changes being made.

He could go against their advice, ultimately, and everyone would have to deal with that, because he will decide what is best based on the information he's given.

Of course, there has to be a way for him to come down from leadership if he makes decisions that do _not _bode well with the country, if he's seen as incompetent, and the results of his decisions cause real problems. 

Then a new leader can be elected by the specialists once again, at _any_ time, based upon a majority vote. If there is a 50 % vote tie-breaker, then two representatives duel to the death in a cage match.

Just kidding on that last part. But, if there _is _a 50 % vote tie-breaker, I think that the 50 % that disagree should elect a co-leader who can oversee the leader's decisions, who they would want to be the leader in the event of their side winning. I dunno. Just throwing out an idea which might not work. :tongue:

Having to wade through and wait through incompetence for a number of years can have drastic effects. 

The ideal situation would be that there could _be _no underhanded, secret motivations. Everything _has_ to be done for the benefit of the civilization, and the earth (In terms of environment, sustainability, and animal treatment, etc.) No one will be able to gain an upper hand on anyone else, based upon what they're contributing to society. But, again, wishy-washy.

To me, I think of it like... The world leader is Picard, and then he has all these specialists who he consults on issues, but he ultimately makes the decision based on the advice he's given, and his own wise judgment.

Oh, and, of course, the world leader _could _be a woman, of course. I've been saying 'he', but this is a common English language problem of associating everyone as '_man_kind'. Just to clarify.

Another comparable example of how I envision world leadership is Wikipedia. Looking at the way it's run, and how it's open and free for everyone to edit and place down articles, it's also _surprisingly _accurate and trustworthy, for the most part. Something like that.


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

Other things:

-Same measurement system
-Same currency 
-Wide spread public transportation


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

aphinion said:


> Other things:
> 
> -Same measurement system
> -Same currency
> -Wide spread public transportation


Yes. I vote metric system.

And evac-tubes. Why ET3? | Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Yes. I vote metric system.
> 
> And evac-tubes. Why ET3? | Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies


Absolutely. Imperial units are beyond stupid. Even in America our science teachers make us use metric the second we walk through the doors, and it makes perfect sense. 

I definitely thought of the Jetsons when you mentioned the evac-tubes, but your example is better.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Everything up to here added...sort of...look at the list and tell me what you think..some of the things on the one world leader are under other options.


----------



## amuklewicz (Sep 23, 2013)

If we decided to install a world government today, the means of logistics, communication, and stability would be unrealistic in many parts of the world. Any contemporary world government would be dominated by Western nations, governments, and philosophies, while many other parts of the world, especially large parts of Asia, Africa, and Oceania will be almost out of the picture due to their lack of coherence, infrastructure, etc.

Therefore, in order to develop a stable world government, we will have to get these other parts of the world through true industrialization and independence in the economic and political fields. This occurs really according to the phases of the Malthusian Theory of Population Growth:







Most Western countries are in phase 4 or 3, while many African and Asian countries are in phases 2 and 3. As soon as population growth begins to stabilize in these poorer countries, we will see a corresponding growth in "societal benefits."

So Yeah. The world needs to be brought up and mature as a whole to be able to both provide and benefit from a world government.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

amuklewicz said:


> If we decided to install a world government today, the means of logistics, communication, and stability would be unrealistic in many parts of the world. Any contemporary world government would be dominated by Western nations, governments, and philosophies, while many other parts of the world, especially large parts of Asia, Africa, and Oceania will be almost out of the picture due to their lack of coherence, infrastructure, etc.
> 
> Therefore, in order to develop a stable world government, we will have to get these other parts of the world through true industrialization and independence in the economic and political fields. This occurs really according to the phases of the Malthusian Theory of Population Growth:
> View attachment 86804
> ...


HOw would we do that? If you can't think of how now, that's ok, we're just thinking of what needs to be done now.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Unfortunately you can only edit for 24 hours afterwards...so there's a new list every day...here's the current one.

Here I will post and continue to edit the list of things we must do to dominate the world by priority:

*Must Happen:
**- *One world leader*
- *A system to keep the leader in check*
- *A group consisting of more than one person that has at least some power*

Second Priority:
- *Someone in power is elected*
- *Common unit system (metric)*
- *Common currency *
- *Free education*
- *Free enterprise *

Third Priority:
- *One world schooling system that includes telling the young that our world is the best...*
- *Free medicine*
- *Widespread transportation system
*- *A similar level of development for all region of the world*

Fourth Priority:
- *One world religion (or all religions in coexistence)
*- *Freedom of expression*

Other Possibilities:
- *A group of people that selects the next world leader based on intelligence in schools and such.*
- *Establish fallout shelters across the globe and promptly nuke all major powers. In the post-apocalyptic world, the shelters will act as bases for you to exert influence over the whole world.*
- *One world leader is simply a symbol controlled by a team of specialists*
- *One world leader is replaced by a triumvirate (like in Rome)
_

Post below what you think we need to do and in what priority group it should be in._


----------



## amuklewicz (Sep 23, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> HOw would we do that? If you can't think of how now, that's ok, we're just thinking of what needs to be done now.


Okay, this is probably a bad way of going about it (As my own ideology will shine through in some parts here), but here goes.
You can't instantaneously transform a backwater country to a bustling urban metropolis overnight, so therefore, all we need to do is apply a long-term sort of pressure or force that would speed up their technological and societal growth.


_Essentially, what we need to do is reduce population growth rates and stabilize the inner political pressures within these countries. We have to promote ideas of equality for race (the most iffy part), class, and gender._
For example:
Women in these countries should have the means to access contraceptives, abortion services if possible...

The government should promote racial and sexual equality, even if to the detriment of some social extremists.

The Arabs in Israel deserve some level of rights and autonomy within their own nation...
Sri Lankans need to get over this clash of cultures somehow or someway...

Foreign aid to these poorer countries should greatly be increased, and we should promote hard-core consumerism, or some other means of efficiency and growth. For example we should incentivize benefits for lower classes (minimum wage, etc) while promoting economic exceptionalism and creation (technology, research, and industrialization). Sort of like a contemporary New Deal, if possible...

We have to stimulate growth and production from these people who do not have the means to do so; we have to provide grants, scholarships, etc, because so many people being born today in the fastest growing parts of the world will be capable of so much potential for improvements in our world, especially in technology.
* 



 RELEVANT TO ABOVE*

As time moves on, and as populations stabilize, society should move towards a Scandanavian-esque type of democratic socialism, as where it can apply efficiently...


We need to make everyone happy before we can decide that unity is the best option.
Sorry if still vague. 



*Edit: AND I realize that this is a thread about taking over the world in 21 days or less.
Not going to happen at all... Unless you're expecting major backlash.
As ENTP, it's my job to break the rules and tell you how you should do it.*


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ENTrePeneur said:


> Here I will post and continue to edit the list of things we must do to dominate the world by priority:
> 
> *Must Happen:
> **-* One world leader
> ...



Never thought I'd have to admonish an ENTP for not thinking outside the box.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

amuklewicz said:


> Okay, this is probably a bad way of going about it (As my own ideology will shine through in some parts here), but here goes.
> You can't instantaneously transform a backwater country to a bustling urban metropolis overnight, so therefore, all we need to do is apply a long-term sort of pressure or force that would speed up their technological and societal growth.
> 
> 
> ...


Ok...so blogging this post so we can use it later when we finish the list and decide how to do all of these things.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Never thought I'd have to admonish an ENTP for not thinking outside the box.


What? This is only the beginning. Don't worry, outside the box phase is coming. We'll want you too.

The reason we're not using the insanity of ENTP/INTP to code our messages is because we want the INTJs in on this one, and they help more with structure.


----------



## UsernametakenAgain (Nov 7, 2013)

I like world domination threads. 

If you really want to get into a position of power to where you can start controlling the world you have to take down the people already in charge WITHOUT making yourself look bad. Nuking all the major powers is definitely out of the question because that would create total anarchy among the masses and the sheer population drop would impede developments in the future. The best way to do it is to play sides against each other. The ruling party, I'm going to take the United States for example because it is one of the strongest pillars of world division, will be very controlling usually, and what do people like? People love to be ruled. They want to look up at their leaders and see confidence, morality, and justice, that way they can sleep knowing that someone is out there looking out for them. First, to build your organization to achieve world dominance, you need a person who is extremely scrupulous yet willing to do the things that need to be done to achieve world dominance. This person will be the face of the organization and the people will love his character, his charm, and his public appeal. But having a face isn't enough if the people still trust those already in power. You have to attack each of the supports of confidence, morality, and justice individually and the people will then be willing to accept your cause. Morality is the easiest pillar to crumble, as it has almost completely toppled in America. The way to topple it is to have a very vicious media company or hacktivist group such as Anonymous leak scandals on those in power, or in the shocking case there isn't one, forge a scandal. For confidence you have to break both sides of the support, the people's confidence in the government, and the government's overall confidence in its own abilities. To break confidence, you have to prove to the people that the government can't defend them. The Twin Towers on September 11 utterly destroyed the American confidence in our government momentarily, but the government responded with an almost sickening self-confidence that said "These people are going to DIE for what they did to us." That self-confidence rejuvenated the American confidence in our government. The best way to undermine the government's confidence is for political assassinations and subterfuge on the inside (remember, the organization is still working in the shadows so you have to convince another group to do this for you), then to shake up the public you have to have a group that's highly Anti-Government attack a government stronghold, one of significant importance. Once Morality and Confidence have shattered, Justice is the only pillar remaining, and if the people who did the crimes that shattered morality and confidence aren't caught, put on trial, and hanged, then the people realize that the government can't even execute Justice properly and can't protect them from these vicious killers. Once the pillars are in ruin, your organization needs to leap out of the shadows and declare "We can fix this because we fight for the people!" Your organization needs to adopt moderate stances on subjects and compromises between people still fretting over the two party system, much like the Libertarian Party does. Compared to the weakened face of the current government, people will begin to love the face of your organization because you hired him to get people on board. The government might get fearful that your organization will take power from them if their voter base begins voting for your organization, so your organization MUST stay scrupulous no matter what. When people begin to elect your organization to be the true ruling government and show that your organization can defend the people, act for the people, and rule the people justly then you will have control over that country (using the face as a puppet of course). But what of the rest of the world? That my friends is still up for debate, before you can conquer the world, however, you have to have a base.


----------



## amuklewicz (Sep 23, 2013)

Oh god. That huge @55 block of text.
Cannot into read, even though I want to.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

amuklewicz said:


> Oh god. That huge @55 block of text.
> Cannot into read, even though I want to.


Yeah, @UsernametakenAgain, could you try dividing it up into readable paragraphs? or smaller chunks at least?


----------



## UsernametakenAgain (Nov 7, 2013)

Fine, fine, here you go. (Breaks may be transition-less because I'm a lazy son of a gun)

If you really want to get into a position of power to where you can start controlling the world you have to take down the people already in charge WITHOUT making yourself look bad. Nuking all the major powers is definitely out of the question because that would create total anarchy among the masses and the sheer population drop would impede developments in the future. 

The best way to do it is to play sides against each other. The ruling party, I'm going to take the United States for example because it is one of the strongest pillars of world division, will be very controlling usually, and what do people like? People love to be ruled. They want to look up at their leaders and see confidence, morality, and justice, that way they can sleep knowing that someone is out there looking out for them.

First, to build your organization to achieve world dominance, you need a person who is extremely scrupulous yet willing to do the things that need to be done to achieve world dominance. This person will be the face of the organization and the people will love his character, his charm, and his public appeal. But having a face isn't enough if the people still trust those already in power. You have to attack each of the supports of confidence, morality, and justice individually and the people will then be willing to accept your cause. 

Morality is the easiest pillar to crumble, as it has almost completely toppled in America. The way to topple it is to have a very vicious media company or hacktivist group such as Anonymous leak scandals on those in power, or in the shocking case there isn't one, forge a scandal. 

For confidence you have to break both sides of the support, the people's confidence in the government, and the government's overall confidence in its own abilities. To break confidence, you have to prove to the people that the government can't defend them. The Twin Towers on September 11 utterly destroyed the American confidence in our government momentarily, but the government responded with an almost sickening self-confidence that said "These people are going to DIE for what they did to us." That self-confidence rejuvenated the American confidence in our government. The best way to undermine the government's confidence is for political assassinations and subterfuge on the inside (remember, the organization is still working in the shadows so you have to convince another group to do this for you), then to shake up the public you have to have a group that's highly Anti-Government attack a government stronghold, one of significant importance.

Once Morality and Confidence have shattered, Justice is the only pillar remaining, and if the people who did the crimes that shattered morality and confidence aren't caught, put on trial, and hanged, then the people realize that the government can't even execute Justice properly and can't protect them from these vicious killers. 

Once the pillars are in ruin, your organization needs to leap out of the shadows and declare "We can fix this because we fight for the people!" Your organization needs to adopt moderate stances on subjects and compromises between people still fretting over the two party system, much like the Libertarian Party does. Compared to the weakened face of the current government, people will begin to love the face of your organization because you hired him to get people on board. The government might get fearful that your organization will take power from them if their voter base begins voting for your organization, so your organization MUST stay scrupulous no matter what.

When people begin to elect your organization to be the true ruling government and show that your organization can defend the people, act for the people, and rule the people justly then you will have control over that country (using the face as a puppet of course). But what of the rest of the world? That my friends is still up for debate, before you can conquer the world, however, you have to have a base.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

UsernametakenAgain said:


> Fine, fine, here you go. (Breaks may be transition-less because I'm a lazy son of a gun)
> 
> If you really want to get into a position of power to where you can start controlling the world you have to take down the people already in charge WITHOUT making yourself look bad. Nuking all the major powers is definitely out of the question because that would create total anarchy among the masses and the sheer population drop would impede developments in the future.
> 
> ...


Blogging this post for when we figure out how to do this.


----------



## Caribe (Oct 24, 2013)

Uniting humanity:

_"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world" 

- Ronald Regan_

So you contact aliens and have them parade over every city on the planet in broad daylight.

Problem solved.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Caribe said:


> Uniting humanity:
> 
> _"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world"
> 
> ...


Yeah, pretty much. Though, I was thinking more along the lines of making these changes gradually, even, without the chaos, death and destruction that could ensue from some kind of catastrophic-like event.

@amuklewicz- Hey, I love your ideas. I think you're absolutely right. Before being able to control the world, and even before being able to unite the world, we have to secure _infrastructure_ in every country, to ensure we're all within the same level of means, working towards the same goal.

Of _COURSE. _I don't know why I didn't think of that.

So, we would have to have leaders in every country apart of our initiative with these goals in mind, to stabilize and promote growth appropriately, and ensure that all areas have access to basic necessities. That includes access to birth control, abortions, and education regarding it, while also encouraging productive behaviour.

Change would _have _to happen in these areas, I agree. And with that change, the leaders in our initiative would be ultimately working towards world unification, but _only _after all parameters are met.

Ah, and the title of the thread was satirical in nature. It was supposed to sound like a self-help bit of humour.

@UsernametakenAgain - Your ideas seem to actually directly oppose the idea of strengthening governments around the world.

I think that your method _may_ work, but I think that there are a few rather significant problems with this strategy:

A) There would be more expenditure of:
i) Human life 
ii) Resources 
iii) Energy

B) It would take longer to achieve ultimate stability, when opposing the gradual approach, and chances are, rather than being able to unite and control, there would anarchy everywhere.

C) It would encourage negative behavioural traits, such as greed... Thereby weakening the chance of ensuring a positive social economic structure to be put in place.


----------



## UsernametakenAgain (Nov 7, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Yeah, pretty much. Though, I was thinking more along the lines of making these changes gradually, even, without the chaos, death and destruction that could ensue from some kind of catastrophic-like event.
> 
> @amuklewicz- Hey, I love your ideas. I think you're absolutely right. Before being able to control the world, and even before being able to unite the world, we have to secure _infrastructure_ in every country, to ensure we're all within the same level of means, working towards the same goal.
> 
> ...


Addressing of A.) There would be more expenditure of:
i) Human Life : My stratagem only calls for the expenditure of lives in political assassinations and the attack of a GOVERNMENT stronghold, like the Pentagon, and if we wanted to minimize casualties the third party organization (the anti-government ones) would be persuaded by us to attack them at night, when most of the work populace is gone. The people dying besides the night shifts of the stronghold would be corrupt government officials that would be handpicked based on the most corrupt to least corrupt. Not many assassinations would be needed, it wouldn't be like Stalin's purges, only a few deaths of important yet corrupt people would do it. The modern revolution would in fact be peaceful if the organization presents itself as a political party and has the propaganda tools to negotiate its way up the social food chain. The trick to controlling a nation is having the people support you more than anyone else. 
ii.) Resources : Resources used in the revolution would be negligible as it would be a nonviolent revolution that takes place AFTER the humiliation of the former government at the INDIRECT HANDS of our organization. Our organization would stay in the shadows and manipulate other shadowy organizations so the blame for the attacks is blamed on them. The organization would only suffer resource loss in terms of currency, which would be temporary since the organization would receive donations from citizens once we leave the shadows.
iii.) Energy : Energy losses would also be negligible, as energy is a resource is it not?

B) It would take longer to achieve ultimate stability, when opposing the gradual approach, and chances are, rather than being able to unite and control, there would be anarchy everywhere. 
On the contrary actually, if we rise to power playing the political game as everyone else does then it would be a seamless transition that leaves the people mildly inconvenienced during the transition but has no direct, lasting effect on the masses. Once we climb to the seat of power and gain the trust of the people, we begin working like a well oiled machine. The government would function similarly to the previous one (as it is the same one technically if we rise to power as a political party), there would be no anarchy for the time being (transition to free communist (anarcho-communism) state after world domination anyone?). Also, an important thing to note is that the third party organizations we manipulated in the shadows would be taken down by us in an act of covering our tracks. Being in contact with the organizations prior allows us to know where they set up their operations and how they operate, giving us a severe advantage over the anti-government groups. Plus if any of the third party groups tried to accuse us it would be treated as a lie by the public who have become enamored with our political party. 

C.) Not anymore than today's society creates, remember that our organization has to maintain its scruples throughout the transition from the old government to the new one so avarice would be something that would be put down once it is sighted. A positive economic social structure would be virtually impossible to achieve in a country that is 17 billion dollars in debt, the best we can hope for is that it is still intact once we control America. 

I think you guys are confusing Uniting the World with Conquering the World. Uniting implies that everyone will come together peacefully and create an idealistic society. Conquering the World implies taking control of all other nations and imposing your will on the various populaces. We want to dominate the world don't we?


----------



## Olde Irish (Apr 5, 2013)

I think the best way to take over is like Peter Wiggin.
He became a sensation on the internet with his speaking and essays. He then started to give advice to those in power and exert his influence in a gentle and helpful manner. Eventually, he was elected Hegemon and simply inherited the leadership of the world government. Then he became all powerful. Also, Emperor Palpatine.
So the simple answer is that we have to work for the idiots of the current administration, then take over in a coup. After that, we mold the world to what we envision it should be.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Olde Irish said:


> I think the best way to take over is like Peter Wiggin.
> He became a sensation on the internet with his speaking and essays. He then started to give advice to those in power and exert his influence in a gentle and helpful manner. Eventually, he was elected Hegemon and simply inherited the leadership of the world government. Then he became all powerful. Also, Emperor Palpatine.
> So the simple answer is that we have to work for the idiots of the current administration, then take over in a coup. After that, we mold the world to what we envision it should be.


Peter Wiggin and Bean, you mean.


----------



## LordCoventry (Nov 2, 2013)

Inevitably the power of the world will be thrown around until the end of time, so as one will rise to power eventually they will fall. In all seriousness the trick to controlling the world is to control the controller, to influence from the outside. Therefore you aren't technically in complete control, so when your puppet gets thrown out, you can grab a new one.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

gavinvickery said:


> Inevitably the power of the world will be thrown around until the end of time, so as one will rise to power eventually they will fall. In all seriousness the trick to controlling the world is to control the controller, to influence from the outside. Therefore you aren't technically in complete control, so when your puppet gets thrown out, you can grab a new one.


Ooh ooh! Imagine the irony of we used an ENTJ as our puppet! lol no one would suspect in 2 million years


----------



## Olde Irish (Apr 5, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> Peter Wiggin and Bean, you mean.


You just love Bean don't you? Baked or string?


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Olde Irish said:


> You just love Bean don't you? Baked or string?


Only with a side of Peter or Petra...also Ender is cool.

But I need Bean to prove my point that you need me.


----------



## LordCoventry (Nov 2, 2013)

My plan was originally to become the president, then use the military to force congress to pass a bill which gave me ultimate control. That has to many possibilities to go wrong though, so I agree with the military coup idea. In all honesty look what happened with Nazi Germany, they went to war, lost, France and England gave Germany all kinds of crap and basically screwed the nation over. Debt, poverty, it was collapsing. Then Hitler came along, bringing with him a symbol of hope and a "solution" to their problems. He was a vivid speaker and brought spirit to the German people. He used what happened with WWI as an example and the people agreed with his ideas. Controlling the media is also mandatory, because people allegiance is with them ultimately.


----------



## LordCoventry (Nov 2, 2013)

> Ooh ooh! Imagine the irony of we used an ENTJ as our puppet! lol no one would suspect in 2 million years


 Ew! Never! I wouldn't dare involve myself with the likes of them 

Edit: Oh wait I have to, they're my relationship match ._.


----------



## UsernametakenAgain (Nov 7, 2013)

Food for Thought:
What new form of government should the revolution put in place after we conquer the world? Should we ride it out until the end like the Roman Empire? Should we go out in a fire that consumes civilization? Should we transition to a stateless society where everyone can do whatever the fuck he or she wishes? Or should we merely prove that we CAN take over the world and WILL do it again if the avarice and corrupt try and take over again after we've dismantled the current evils?


----------



## Olde Irish (Apr 5, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> Only with a side of Peter or Petra...also Ender is cool.
> 
> But I need Bean to prove my point that you need me.


At this point, I could use you just to be stubborn and wear my enemies down. But yes, you are in.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Olde Irish said:


> At this point, I could use you just to be stubborn and wear my enemies down. But yes, you are in.


Lol I have a feeling we'll be good friends.


----------



## Deductive Logic (Jun 19, 2013)

Get a biological weapon, unleash it on the world as your chosen people are in shelters, control the release of the cure after 21 days when everyone is half-dead and rule via control.


Humanity obviously needs a threat that does not discriminate, and a strong biological weapon becomes that threat pretty easily. Of course, you would have to be able to counter it, of course, and have some various political alliances to "save the world". You'd also need extreme amounts of training just in case politicians decide to murder you and take the cure yourself. The internal plan would take quite a few years but the 21 days of actual implementation will be extremely smooth.

ENTJs and ENFJs would be public leaders because both can sway the audience. ENTP would obviously be allowed to take SOME control of the army. INTP would control the education system, and INTJ can rule behind the ENTJ(with an ENTP behind that INTJ ofc). 

Money system's got to go, too easy for inflation to ruin the entire world, so force an actual trade system, with impartial judges. Healthcare should be one of the first priorities after establishing this GOVERMENT- they just went through a pandemic so they need to be reassured of their safety. Punishment system should be a somewhat simplistic system, which allows simple punishments and refuses corruption. Censor the internet at the very least, or utilize brainwashing so powerfully that there is no need to censor the internet. Too bad there isn't a pandemic which can hijack the mind for literal mind control......

(that's my Ne take on the situation. Simple, but deadly and effective)


----------



## ENTP_Guy (Nov 5, 2013)

Ok, I have an idea. Subliminal messages!
It is the fastest way to reach almost all the world, and pretty much 99.9% of the developed world and 100% of political leaders and figure heads of all organisations as all use technology and such. 
So what we do, we have a prelude to the whole plan (like any well organised magic trick)
We send in computer developers into all the main os areas, windows, apple and android (people that use Linux are good but they are more independent than we would like... besides no one listens to them due to stigma) and all media,
in plant a subliminal message showing our logo/emblem and that we are to be trusted with the world.
Let it run for a couple of weeks; mean while political leaders would have been targeted differently. They will have personal assistants of our grooming and been subliminally messaged to make a world organisation to bring total peace.

The major political leaders will form this group with a braun washed entj as a figure head.
Our figure head will give us funds to expand into what ever we want. We will have a spot away from the public view and every 2-5 years change it for another figure head to ensure the public opinions stay in our favour. 
Win win...
Also we would be able to improve the world anyway with efficient resource sharing and the ability to manipulate people. Our planet will be satisfied and we will be happy and free!


----------



## braided pain (Jul 6, 2012)

What are you all going to do about people like me who want smaller, more local governments, and would be out there working against your plans?


----------



## Olde Irish (Apr 5, 2013)

braided pain said:


> What are you all going to do about people like me who want smaller, more local governments, and would be out there working against your plans?


Simple, we have the ESFPs infiltrate then send in our ISTJ fanatics to destroy your cell :wink:


----------

