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 prepared sometimes are devoted to quite long historical period (for example whole 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 (premises).

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 country?
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 that 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" in 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 exception, if 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 (although do not allows to predict future events), helps to predict future dangers and threats and to prepare for them. I will try to explain this using example of Al-Queda attack of September 11th 2001:

• In 1992 El Al Cargo airplane almost completely destroyed the apartment building in Netherlands. Since then it was obvious that sooner or later airplanes will be used by terrorists as a "bomb" to destroy buildings (terrorists watch TV too). You don't even need the Mechanics of History, but need just a little imagination.
• Mechanics of History lets us predict that globalzation process (the same as the world trade in the last decades of XIXth century) will start social and ideology strains that would be the reason for the explosion of terrorism (like anarchist terrorism in XIXth century, if you recall for example Leon Czolgosz).
• The basic understanding of the mechanisms of populistic ideologies of Islam (that Mechanics of History provides) and the history of Middle East in XXth century  that the long-lasted conflict between Palestinians and Israel in 2000-2001 would start the hate for America strong enough to produce an army of terrorists prepared for suicide attacks.
• The basic tactical analysis of ideologies of Islam terrorists would reveal that the obvious target for an spectacular terrorist attack in America are: White House, Pentagon, Congress and WTC - which were the symbols of American power.
• The basic knowledge of of Al-Queda (a man can find reading in newspapers) would that this group had enough  material resources to made an spectacular attack in America that Osama bin Laden threaten USA in July 2001 (as I recall).