You could easily embed ads into your content instead of getting it via redirect and the ad blockers couldn't block it. I don't see how you will stop people from writing software that blocks content from some websites from being sent to their computers.
I think I know what you're trying to say but that's not technically how ad serving works. Displaying ads is a complex process that relies on a variety of tools, technical know-how and partnerships. Embedding ads into content and temporarily fooling ad blockers is not something that can be done on a scale that would produce even a minute result. It's also restrictive, time-consuming and will ultimately lead to broken content, expired content and mistakes.
The biggest issue with ad blockers is that they are promoted by browsers and this is something that legal experts are considering as a potential way to clamp down on their distribution. In Germany the biggest ad blocker is currently facing a lawsuit by several of the country's largest media companies. It'll be interesting to see what the courts decide there.
If ad blockers were "fair," as some people allege they are, they would require the user to pay for the content they receive while browsing a website. Want ad-free browsing? No problem, here's the rate you'll pay, otherwise you'll see the ads. Granted some websites go completely overboard and show incredibly insensitive, bothersome ads and it's those bad apples that caused the problem for everyone else. But ad blockers shouldn't automatically block ads, they should show them and allow users to manually shut down ads on websites which they don't want to see. But a blanket, no questions asked policy of blocking content (unless paid off to display it, which is what is happening) is wrong, destructive and will ultimately lead to an internet where pay-for-content is the norm ala cable television.