So Paula Jedi informs us that John Titor is back.
I have always thought, that in retrospect, it would be great to pose questions to him concerning what he was referring to in his posts. I would bet that he is online in the forum and will see these questions which I will post here. The questions I have are considerably more well thought-out than the spur of the moment string of queries back in 2000/2001.
And so…………..Here we go!
My first question would be related to this past question and John Titor’s answer:
“(As far as how wonderfull your people are in the time after the war I’m very happy for you. Maybe they succeded in wiping out the RIGHT 3billion people.)”
“Yes, we did.” (John Titor)
My question (AnotherWorldlyDevice): -Planet Of The Hillbilly Farmers-
Where a global nuclear exchange occurs, it would be hardly necessary to add to this, Chemical and Biological weapons attacks-Unless, the intention is to cleanse the populations of the world, of certain genetic malcontents, targeted sterilization, and leave select genetics in place.
It is implied, by the above quoted John Titor post, that this does in fact happen, and that the “enemy” attack is the enemy of weakness.
Collectively, we would have a consensus in the developed world to use this nuclear exchange as a cover, to solve all our growing problems then.
Is This A Correct Interpretation John?
It would be no wonder then, if my previous post is correct that Australia would be as is commented on below, as Australia is proud of, and identifies as having a history of being a nation of convicts. A cleansing and purging would likely create a minimal population for that country. Ticked off indeed.
“Australia is sort of interesting in what is unknown. After the war, they were not very cooperative or friendly (can’t blame them really). It is known they did repulse a Chinese invasion and most of their cities were hit. They have a trading relationship with the U.S. but I would characterize them as reclusive and ticked off.”
Still would like to know why French Canadians (Quebec) have become ruthless killers.
As Socialism decays, people having to fend for themselves certainly wouldn’t be an easy challenge, but it seems to me to be some issue with the French people.
Care to clarify?
One of the things that John Titor posts, is that in his future world, the population is more in line with the military, as quoted at the bottom of the page:
It has always been in the back of my mind, that the founding fathers of the United States, had created our government based on the Roman form of government with one key exception-That the military was not the ruling force. They had learned from the Romans, what not to do.
For a very good very brief overview of this by ex CIA director James Woolsey see the following Youtube video (which is actually about EMP protection upgrades for the U.S.) Starting at 11:45
Where John Titor relates our future with the military having a stronger role in government, bothers me somewhat. Here is what John writes:
Not too much is different except the military is large part of people’s life and we spend a great deal of time in the fields and farms at the “University” or Fort. (John Titor)
My question would be to John Titor, How does this turn out in your own future, a good 250 years forward?
I have always thought, that in retrospect, it would be great to pose questions to him concerning what he was referring to in his posts. I would bet that he is online in the forum and will see these questions which I will post here. The questions I have are considerably more well thought-out than the spur of the moment string of queries back in 2000/2001.
And so…………..Here we go!
My first question would be related to this past question and John Titor’s answer:
“(As far as how wonderfull your people are in the time after the war I’m very happy for you. Maybe they succeded in wiping out the RIGHT 3billion people.)”
“Yes, we did.” (John Titor)
My question (AnotherWorldlyDevice): -Planet Of The Hillbilly Farmers-
Where a global nuclear exchange occurs, it would be hardly necessary to add to this, Chemical and Biological weapons attacks-Unless, the intention is to cleanse the populations of the world, of certain genetic malcontents, targeted sterilization, and leave select genetics in place.
It is implied, by the above quoted John Titor post, that this does in fact happen, and that the “enemy” attack is the enemy of weakness.
Collectively, we would have a consensus in the developed world to use this nuclear exchange as a cover, to solve all our growing problems then.
Is This A Correct Interpretation John?
It would be no wonder then, if my previous post is correct that Australia would be as is commented on below, as Australia is proud of, and identifies as having a history of being a nation of convicts. A cleansing and purging would likely create a minimal population for that country. Ticked off indeed.
“Australia is sort of interesting in what is unknown. After the war, they were not very cooperative or friendly (can’t blame them really). It is known they did repulse a Chinese invasion and most of their cities were hit. They have a trading relationship with the U.S. but I would characterize them as reclusive and ticked off.”
Still would like to know why French Canadians (Quebec) have become ruthless killers.
As Socialism decays, people having to fend for themselves certainly wouldn’t be an easy challenge, but it seems to me to be some issue with the French people.
Care to clarify?
One of the things that John Titor posts, is that in his future world, the population is more in line with the military, as quoted at the bottom of the page:
It has always been in the back of my mind, that the founding fathers of the United States, had created our government based on the Roman form of government with one key exception-That the military was not the ruling force. They had learned from the Romans, what not to do.
For a very good very brief overview of this by ex CIA director James Woolsey see the following Youtube video (which is actually about EMP protection upgrades for the U.S.) Starting at 11:45
Where John Titor relates our future with the military having a stronger role in government, bothers me somewhat. Here is what John writes:
Not too much is different except the military is large part of people’s life and we spend a great deal of time in the fields and farms at the “University” or Fort. (John Titor)
My question would be to John Titor, How does this turn out in your own future, a good 250 years forward?
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll get some kind of answer from him tonight, hopefully.