e-book How To Conquer A Nation

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online How To Conquer A Nation file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with How To Conquer A Nation book. Happy reading How To Conquer A Nation Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF How To Conquer A Nation at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF How To Conquer A Nation Pocket Guide.

Jan 05, Isaac Macfarlane rated it really liked it. It is a brilliant satire of our corrupt political system. This is one humor book I am likely to read again. May 27, Vikas Datta rated it it was amazing. This is a classic for our times Jay rated it really liked it Aug 03, Nick rated it it was amazing Jun 27, Voicu rated it liked it Apr 19, Jeff Burack rated it really liked it Oct 31, Jeff Gilmour rated it liked it Mar 19, Rosemary Nussear rated it it was ok Sep 21, Albert Sun rated it it was ok Jul 31, David Duong rated it liked it Dec 15, Paul M Williams rated it liked it Jun 23, Chris rated it liked it Nov 13, Charles rated it it was ok Aug 11, John rated it really liked it Sep 19, Deborah rated it it was ok Apr 24, Potwash rated it it was ok Dec 01, Dave rated it it was ok Jul 06, Michael Salzmann rated it it was ok Jul 26, Pop Bop rated it liked it May 11, Anthony Peterson marked it as to-read Jan 01, Sydney Holmes is currently reading it Jun 09, To see what your friends thought of this quote, please sign up!

Don 0 books view quotes. Jun 15, PM. John 1 book view quotes. Mar 31, AM. Mar 06, AM. Mahir 2 books view quotes. Dec 02, PM. Marie 44 books view quotes. Nov 03, PM. Tor 13 books view quotes.

China's Luckin Coffee Tries To Conquer A Nation Of Tea Drinkers | Georgia Public Broadcasting

Oct 27, AM. Caleb 0 books view quotes. Oct 16, AM. Abdussamad 0 books view quotes. Oct 06, PM. Cat 0 books view quotes. Sep 07, PM. Toni books view quotes. Aug 16, AM. Gary 0 books view quotes. May 24, AM. Jess books view quotes. May 12, AM. Emily books view quotes. Apr 29, AM. Apr 23, AM. Krypthing books view quotes. Mar 21, PM. Joe 2 books view quotes. Mar 03, AM. Abigail books view quotes. Feb 27, AM.

  • To Conquer a nation ,First disarm it's citizens.
  • The Board of Ed From a Brother’s Mind: Streetology:Elementary School?
  • How to Conquer a Nation??

Joy books view quotes. Sadman 9 books view quotes. Feb 22, AM. Blake 6 books view quotes. Feb 17, PM. Hunter 0 books view quotes. Feb 14, PM. Apurba 1 book view quotes. Feb 12, AM. Matthew 0 books view quotes. Feb 09, AM. Gracie 4 books view quotes. Jan 30, AM. Dillon 27 books view quotes. Jan 15, PM. Valerie books view quotes. Jan 13, AM. Santiago 2 books view quotes. Dec 31, PM.

  • Who said this? To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens.
  • Breadcrumb.
  • Disguising Hate: How Radical Evangelicals Spread Anti-Islamic Vitriol on Facebook.

Anna books view quotes. Oct 28, AM. Jay 0 books view quotes. Oct 05, PM.

See a Problem?

Deforest 10 books view quotes. Oct 02, PM. Rose books view quotes. Sep 29, PM. Jul 14, AM. Samina 39 books view quotes. Having close neighbors and allies that would be unwilling to trade with either nation separately would be extremely helpful. The ultimate goal militarily is to occupy blue as gently as possible difficult, to say the least until enough generations pass for some sense of general unity to begin replacing the forceful binding. Realistically, no one knows the best way to execute any of these steps.

In today's world, the correct answer to your question would win you the nobel prize. Perhaps the best example of "how its done" is to look at how China has managed to absorb the various invading nations and cultures that have attempted to conquer China. Essentially China's culture was not only far stronger than anything the invaders brought with them, but Chinese culture and material wealth essentially seduced the conquering Mongols into adopting Chinese manners and ways.

Even though they are "racially" different from the Han Chinese, in effect they have become like the Han. For your scenario, the issue is to make the "Red" culture and civilization so attractive to the "Blue" people that they will choose to assimilate. If you want to make this even more interesting, maybe the Blue culture is more attractive to the Reds, and the Reds gradually become culturally Blue Now the conquering nation will most likely have superiority in numbers, and will have the more aggressive or assertive culture, but turnabout has happened in the past; look at how Buddhism or Christianity prevailed in the far East or the Roman Empire despite disparity in numbers and even persecution against believers.

So "conquest" of physical territory is not enough, there needs to be some assimilation and something attractive enough to one side or the other to support the idea of assimilation.

Post navigation

Culture, religion or even social organizations which make achieving wealth easier are all attractors which could have one side or the other assimilate. Nothing is guaranteed to work in the real world, but some paths are believable in a story, some have historic precedent. Most of them work by establishing a common narrative or at least a shared onr to establish a popular sense of We. Introduce a common foe that can only be fought with joint forces, possibly combining skills from both sides. This may be a foreign aggressor, a disaster, an epidemic, a new cult etc.

Identify a small, everyday common problem that existed in both countries before and should have been fixed long ago. It should affect or concern most people and must not be associated with the war, politics, religion, culture or diet, but requires changes to the habits of everyone, e. Let the new leader make this their primary, even sole goal. Let them share an iconic common victory or heroic underdog battle. Many nations have such defining moments, e. I'll assume by "keep everyone happy" you genuinely mean keeping as much of the population happy as possible without 'reducing' the population.

I'll also assume the government and religious establishment are pretty much one entity, since you don't indicate otherwise. Allowing legal concessions for the minority blue religion. These could be related to definitions of marriage, labeling animal products appropriately, and allowing them control over their children's educations. Some more extreme Reds will be upset by this, but it should be fairly tolerable for most while increasing appreciation for the Blues.

Assimilating as much as possible of the Blue Religion into the Red Religion. More imperial religions are known for assimilating celebrations, important figures, and doctrines from smaller religions. Find ways to foster and raise up people from the Blue society who felt under-represented in the Blue regime.

Make these people more loyal to you and more powerful than other Blues. Try to give these people as much power over administering the Blue population as possible, so that it seems less like Red is dominating Blue. Perhaps the evilest solution. Phase out documents that remind people of the Red and Blue division, especially from schools.

Have scholars indicate that the Blue religion is derived from the Red religion. Most importantly, always make sure the terrorists are seen only as terrorists, not freedom fighters. Don't air their doctrines or justifications, only illustrate the damage they do. Emphasize especially any instance where a terrorist kills any Blues. Turn the "us" and "them" into "Citizens" and "terrorists" and people will start to see separatist ideas as dangerous. It has the advantage of being straightforward, since there is no doubt who is Red and who is Blue, unless there are some recessive genetic factors involved.

And all the survivors will be happy - except maybe the ones who had to do the dirty work. There will be plenty of cheap land and houses available to award to them in appreciation of their vital work. All this is predicated on the assumption that there are no other countries involved who might give shelter to Blue refugees and thereby prolong the struggle. Officially make a rule that a blue will have to marry a red and red will have to marry a blue. The offsprings will neither be red or blue. Over the period of time, the differences will be resolved.

There is a precedent in Europe, that genocide isn't the only answer. If you make the Red culture appear to be more desirable by Reds fulfilling all of Blue society's leadership roles and providing a new upper class and enforcing rules to make it difficult, if not impossible for Blues to be either of those , while removing the language and culture of the Blue by fair means or foul, then quickly the Red culture will be dominant, desirable even.

Throw in a few engineered famines and firm control is established. In Ireland's experience, that can buy you years of dominance, but even that isn't enough to prevent the inevitable rebellion. Slovakia is a good case study too. My example is, of course, very much simplified. Karl Marx had plenty to say about how all this is achieved. Switzerland has cantons with different official languages. South Africans more or less get along today. Amazingly, so do Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis. Belgium is more ambiguous. There are a number of small communities in the U.

But observe that, in all of those cases, the majority dropped its opposition to multinationalism. The Ottomans and Romans were mostly successful at being cosmopolitan and multinational for a long time, while still having one dominant tribe, but not forever. You might want to look at the emperors of Austria. Two of the criteria listed for each "country" seem philosophically illogical in their discrimination toward the other: That they believe their skin color is superior, and that they believe their religion is the indisputable truth, and all others heretical.

If either group examined their religious and racial beliefs, they may realize that they could get along with each other just fine, and be happier as a result. The Reds don't like terrorist attacks, and the Blues don't like being "conquered. I like Avernium's answer promoting tolerance, and it addresses both of those questions. But the question that follows is what it means to conquer another town if you tolerate the religion and racial differences of the people living there. If the Reds are plundering the resources of the Blues or oppressing them in any way, then the Blues have a legitimate grievance.

In this case, the solution is to no longer take economic advantage of the conquered country. In this scenario with the least details, it seems hard to imagine that the Reds are oppressing the Blues culturally, since the Blues have a more strict culture of veganism. Allow the Blues to continue practicing this, as it does not affect the Reds anyway.

If these points are followed strictly, the Blues have no specified grievance for which to terrorize the Reds. But this leaves little reason for the Reds to invade in the first place, if they have no desire to take advantage of the Blue's resources, push their religious beliefs on them, or diminish their rights because of their skin color.

Even if we omit the term "oppress," the only reason to conquer another locale would be either for economic or ideological "preference". If they don't wish to oppress the other group economically or ideologically, they would save resources by not invading. If they do wish to oppress the other group economically or ideologically, we're left with the more violent results that do reflect a lot of what we see on Earth.

The proper solution for the Reds is to create a separate state for the Blues, or find a way to integrate the groups so that the term "conquer" no longer seems appropriate. If we extrapolate the question to include an infinite number of social groups, even with overlapping racial, religious, and cultural traits, we would need to develop a perfectly cascading hierarchy of governing bodies that caters to the differences in each group with the least conflict and grievance possible.

The way governments operate on Earth, this is largely the goal whether an intentional goal or one evolved through the history of the social contract of breaking geographical regions down by country, province, municipality, and social community. However, geographical breakdowns will always be flawed when there is diversity throughout the planet, so it seems arguable that a strong, central, global leadership with fair-minded representatives from different groups should have the most power over world affairs, leaving geographical or other nation-based governments to create additional structures for their constituents, more so when it comes to purely practical governmental affairs, and less so when it comes to ideological limitations on the rights of the governed.

This would be like a more centralized version of what Woodrow Wilson and others envisioned as The League of Nations, and what the Constitutional Convention delegates envisioned when they designed the federalist government in the United States. Hold out a little bit longer. Say until three generations of Reds have lived in the formerly Blue land.

Then start start publicly re-evalutating your past actions: yes, the invasion was wrong, those were more barbaric times. And both sides did terrible things. And now, both sides have lived here for generations: the land belongs to everybody. Of course we can't just let the Blue into the government as is: they live in slums. They're terrorists. They're uneducated. They don't understand the complex business of government.

Tell you what: we'll set up a series of scholarships for promising Blue youths, to go to the finest schools in the land, and be educated about our system and our values. Of course, we realize that the blue way of life, the blue traditions and values are under threat. So we make a deal: we'll create reserves for them.

Pieces of land, that they can do with as they please, where they can live in their traditional ways, with none of our modern Red technologies. We'll purposely choose Blue traditionalists and ludditesas leader of these reserves. They'll get fertile lands, but no commercial, industrial or intellectual value, nothing close to any major city. The idea is to create small, isolated communities of technologically backwards people to buy off our guilt. Small communities that young people can't wait to leave to integrate into the Red society. Before long, the invasion will be a bad thing that happened in the past.

Something to remember, but not something you can blame the current government for.

How to Conquer a Nation Behind the Wheel of a Shriner's Cart

And they have reserves now, to preserve their way of life. And if they don't want to live there, they're welcome in the cities. They'll get the same chances as everybody else. Of course, if you want to make a promotion, it's not a good idea to rub your Blue religion in people's faces. It just makes them uncomfortable. You might even consider converting, if you really want to climb the ladder. Probably the most commonly used technique to achieve unity is by finding an external enemy. This is how much of daily politics keeps individuals of a country together. This is probably how the Reds and the Blue were kept together in the strong social bonds you have described.

They hated each other, so rebellion within the Reds or Blue is quite unlikely. In times of war, pragmatism dictates to drop internal conflicts. You can study this in many historical events, but take the world wars for instance. In any case, the Reds have to ensure not to cause a general uprising like the Russians saw in the first world war. Something I can see as a danger if the Blues are suppressed. Because they have a strong bond and probably a similar hate against the Reds as the Socialists had against the Tsar.

How To Conquer A Nation

This leads us to the question what it means to have a Big Red country. What does it mean? The Reds generally benefit from the Blue, who are supressed? That there shall be only a Red leader, but the lower ranks are equal? If you are asking on how to suppress an ethnic group for a long time, I would propose. A slave that has no rights and owns nothing is no threat. That is something that has worked for ages until moral consciousness recently led to the abolition of slavery. But before that it existed quite for a long time.

Because the superiority of the masters over the slaves was not only legal by law, but very often part of the mainstream ethics. It was normal, no one questions it. You would have to achieve that as the Red leader. There is no guarantee that it works, but since each of the races claims superiority by race anyway, the Red leader could try to to find "scientific" reasons, for why the Blue lost the war.

They are weaker, they are better in labour than in intellectual tasks, etc. However, the moment of repression of the Blue as result of their defeat would have to be used to completely disarm and disown them, and to assign them to a Red master.

If they are allowed to recover, they will resist immediately with all means. So it might be to late for the new Red leader to go this route. Keep a rigid control of your media, including but not limited to TV and Internet, keep showing them 24 hours red and blue skin people living together, doing things together and erase any kind of hate between then, pretend that the hate is a thing of the past, and the only people that are still "hating" is the extremist and criminals.

You can even create fake news of how a red man saved a poor blue woman from being raped by a red gang.