{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/4/2017 1:09:42 PM
15
I never really understood the pursuit for power.
Like, once they get their one-world government, what are they going to do then? Conquer the moon?
English
-
Run a world of slaves & profit from their suffering.
-
Edited by Cultmeister: 6/4/2017 4:09:32 PMProfit for what though? Currently they profit so they can grow their influence, but what happens when they can't have any more influence? A big number getting bigger is pointless if you can't do anything with it.
-
[quote]Profit for what though? Currently they profit so they can grow their influence, but what happens when they can't have any more influence? A big number getting bigger is pointless if you can't do anything with it.[/quote] It's already meaningless. All money is fiat anyway, so by definition it only has the value that we ascribe to it, and all central banks are controlled by the occult. (Except for three, in North Korea, Cuba, and Iran. Hey, what do all three of those countries have in common?) Don't think in terms of monetary profit. I'm talking about power.
-
But once they have all the power, what else can they gain?
-
Well, that's just basic psychology. Those with power seek to keep it. What they have to gain is a future for their children in which the balance of power remains in their favor.
-
That must be boring in a world where they already own everybody and everything so there is no competitive power. Their end goal is literally just to grow up and have children like everybody else.
-
Sure, except they also want to keep everyone else enslaved under their totalitarian rule. So I'd say that constitutes a pretty big point of difference.
-
My point is that doesn't sound very difficult. They've managed to get this far almost completely under the radar, any serious problems would mostly come either before they've completely taken over, or from infighting once they have.
-
Edited by car15: 6/4/2017 4:47:17 PM[quote]infighting[/quote] That's prosaic, whether you meant for it to be or not. Evil always wins in the short term because it exploits the weaknesses of the good. But evil always loses in the long term because it cannot sustain itself. It is selfish by nature & leaves no room for cooperation. Evil can cooperate with other evil when necessary, but as soon as that necessity is taken away, it loses that ability.
-
[quote]Evil always wins in the short term because it exploits the weaknesses of the good. But evil always loses in the long term because it cannot sustain itself. It is selfish by nature & leaves no room for cooperation.[/quote]'In the long term' both good and evil lose. When good dies evil is there to take its place, when evil dies good is there to take its place. It's not really about one triumphing over the other, because neither is a permanent state.
-
Good and evil are individual decisions, at any point in history, but we're talking about which one holds dominance over the aggregate of human consciousness.
-
That's not inconsistent with what I just said. The aggregate of human consciousness being evil may be temporary, but when the evil causes collapse and the aggregate becomes good (assuming humanity is still around) then that will be just as temporary. This is getting far too ideological for my liking.
-
Ahh, I misread. I thought you were talking about individual people. I think good and evil is probably cyclical, but the capacity for good always remains no matter how bad things get, just as the capacity for evil always remains no matter how good things get.
-
Exactly.
-
