that you may be tempted to ask
If I can predict economic processes, why I am not rich
(why I haven't made money on a stock market)?
Answer is simple: To make money a man you need some
money. If you have no money to save, you cannot invest them. It's hard
to multiply zero.
Why I wasn't presented my work
The same answer: Because of the lack of money. And partially the lack
of skill, because presenting 4,000
pages work on 20 pages is a very sophisticated task. Of course,
I would like to write a heavy book about tools and laws
I am using, but this brings us back to the problem of money.
Why I suggest that history processes are so simple, if
everyone knows that things are more complicated
I agree. But if you are drawing a map of entire continent, there is no
chance to show a location of every single mountain
on it. You will mark only the most important mountain ranges. Here,
I am presenting only the VERY BASICS laws, so things have to be
simplified as possible.
Why the maps are so simplified?
There are two reasons. First, this work is written for people whose
history knowledge is not so deep (economists,
students, Americans), so countries have today's borders, and thus
you could always look at the map in world atlas to see what is the
name of the country I have marked orange (for example). It will be hard
if countries have their historical borders. Second, maps I have
sometimes are devoted to quite long historical period (for example
century). It would be hard to show for example exact borders of Venice
in XV century because they were changed many times.
Why I am not using a math in economic models?
There are two basic reasons. First, the same as Alfred Marshall
(british economist 1842-1924) I believe that every economic law could
be presented using simple words without using any math equation.
Second, use of mathematical apparatus often make us tempted to
complicate the scientific model over the real need, forgetting that the
major weakness of the model almost always are wrong assumptions
Why are so many grammatical mistakes here?
Well, I am very absent-minded, plus there are some important
differences between polish and english grammar. If you find one, let me
know. Or maybe I am using some words in a wrong context?
Why I am writing such a "bad things" about your
Not only about your country. History of every country is full of myths
or even outright lies if a country is populistic. When a country is
populistic, its history often becomes an important element of ideology
system that helps the ruling GPI to control other citizens. Very often
historic mythology created these times is so strong, that it lasts for
a very long time. Good example that kind of
myth is an Ancient Athens "democracy". Maybe it helps you, if I say
to build theory presented here, I have to "un-believe" in my mind many
myths from history of Poland, and a few times completely rebuild
my vision of history to finally unveil the truth.
Which elements of the Mechanics of History are with no
doubt my discoveries?
It is very hard to say. Generally this work is a compilation from many
different sources and authors. I think the 95% of laws
and observations presented here is taken from other authors, but
I will not present the bibliography here, because it could be longer
that this work. But the core systematic and laws is generally mine
(altough the classification of economic crises presented here was first
publically announced by a friend of mine in 1995, as I recall).
Why I am calling many losely-connected
classifications, laws and observations "The Theory"?
Only for your convenience. It is much easier to say: "I have read
Mechanics of History" (originally the History Mechanics, my mistake)
than "I have read the ideas of Sławomir
Dzieniszewski" - read: Swavomeer Tscheneeshavskee, if you can of
course. (Or something like that, sound of combination of letters "Dzie"
polish is hard to represent with english letters, because there is no
such sound in english. It is something like "Tsche", "Djhie", "Djye",
etc., depending on the emphasis location and your talent to speak the
unspeakable. You can also use the simplified form of my name:
"Swa-vo-meer Jenny-shav-ski" sounds good enough.)
Why this lecture is so simple?
I tried to write as simple as I can, so even the intelligent teenager
from highshool can understand. Well, Einstein was in highshool when he
started to think on his theory. And he was rather the rule than the
you study the history of science.
Why I am promoting this site?
Well, there are many reasons. Here is one of them: Mechanics of History
do not allows to predict future events), helps to predict future
and threats and to prepare for them. I will try to explain this using
of Al-Queda attack of September 11th 2001:
- In 1992 El Al Cargo airplane almost completely destroyed
apartment building in Netherlands. Since then it was obvious that
or later airplanes will be used by terrorists as a "bomb" to destroy
(terrorists watch TV too). You don't even need the Mechanics of
but need just a little imagination.
- Mechanics of History lets us predict that globalzation
same as the world trade in the last decades of XIXth century) will
social and ideology strains that would be the reason for the explosion
terrorism (like anarchist terrorism in XIXth century, if you recall for
- The basic understanding of the mechanisms of populistic
of Islam (that Mechanics of History provides) and the history of Middle
in XXth century that the long-lasted conflict between
and Israel in 2000-2001 would start the hate for America strong enough
produce an army of terrorists prepared for suicide attacks.
- The basic tactical analysis of ideologies of Islam
would reveal that the obvious target for an spectacular terrorist
in America are: White House, Pentagon, Congress and WTC - which were
of American power.
- The basic knowledge of of Al-Queda (a man can find reading
newspapers) would that this group had enough material resources
made an spectacular attack in America that Osama bin Laden threaten USA
July 2001 (as I recall).