That one group holds the most power is a sentiment which cannot be false. If a real number were used to gauge power, it would bifurcate from those who hold the least of it into a set of people who hold it most. It is an unavoidable fact of mathematics that a single group holds the most power at any given time. This group changes size and members in constant fluidity and interacts with and constructs the machinery of financial, media, economic, legal and academic institutions. Members of this group would be naive to not consider this fact mentioned herein. Ignorance is a luxury and these types live extravagantly...

The machinery of political systems is more important than its members, taken singular, as its composite units must adhere to the rules imposed by its design. A question then arises if the machinery of the political system has sufficient conscious design to prevent it from being harmful as an instrument of power. Consider that the designers are human beings. In history and in our current zeitgeist people are considered 'good' and 'evil' as consequences of their actions, which puts them as the reasons for massive amounts of suffering. Dare I say that my view is that these are greater problems than which could stem from an individual as being 'evil.' No such thing exists. The most wicked notion in history, the most torturous is that of 'good' and 'evil' which in lacking any power of explanation other than that of the moral character of an individual, it should be obvious that the complexity of the political and economic reasons behind wars be greater than the moral character even of small groups. This is where the machinery comes in.

Jokes require context: due to the controversial nature of the person who I am referring and also that it doesn't matter who he was. The point is, for any politician to wage war and to get laughs from his audience and have them on his side requires socially that his views are in alignment with those shared culturally at large. To then call the person 'evil' in what is really a more complex social and cultural issue than a single politician, serves actually to completely ignore the political, economic - media and academic machinery, whether or not this powerful group knew they were those that held the most power; it doesn't matter - the notions of 'good' and 'evil' serve only to destroy investigate of larger issues. That these wars keep happening isn't the result of 'evil' men. It is the result of machinery of the political, legal and economic, media and academia across Europe.

'Good' and 'evil' are themselves wicked labels which distort all information, like pouring acid over a crime scene and then being confused why you cannot find who is responsible. In the metaphor: 'who' is 'what.' Consider for a second that a single group does know that they are those who through their aristocratic position in society hold the most power. If the war happened as a consequence of their actions, would it not be easy to blame a single individual and to - through using them as a scapegoat, hold on to their earnings - war is profitable! What is it that the entire economy cares about: profit - not human lives! It's all about money!

This isn't 'evil' - if it is the natural equilibrium of human nature. Unless we are ruled by an alien species, who is controlling history, to assume reality 'evil' serves only to delegate its solutions to a 'good' God and then remove from ourselves any responsibility to fix or even consider it. God is not real! IT'S ON US!

REALITY IS BRUTAL: only the strong can stomach the facts. The weak naturally seek religion as an explanation for what his happening. Those who realise that the weak seek religion, naturally, the strong - create it!

The strong create the rules. The weak follow them.

That history is the accumulation of the decisions of many individuals, it cannot be ignored that those with more power have more of an impact on history. With graph theory by creating simple graphs one can create a map of power. Then, to see what is happening in the political sphere in relation to the positions of these nodes on this graph, their edges (connections) with one another - power can be easily shown in the hands of a small select group of the ultra-rich. It need not even be illustrated as the entire fabric of the political, economic, media and academic institutions relies on funding. Profit is what really dictates history. Put into other words: history is bought and paid for.

If this is true: to consider the history taught in schools as an accurate account, when already the student should know the saying 'to the victor the spoils' - that history is written by the victor. Can it not be seen by students of average wit that the schooling system itself might be pay-rolled by those who won in those wars? Even if by second hand proxy. To consider that a small group of people might hold in their grasp the machinery of the political, economic, media and academic institutions across Europe - and then to presume that they have no control over the dissemination of information would be absurd. Consider again my proof, which only requires mathematics: A real number is used to bifurcate between those who hold less and those who hold more control, with some arbitrary real number as the dividing line. Finding the point where this number cannot be raised any higher before it empties any one of the institutions for consideration of its members, we would find that of course, since the probability of choosing any real number which is larger or smaller than any other from the set of real numbers is 100% - it cannot be excused on any rational grounds. A select group of individuals holds the most power across Europe. Whether or not these individuals all know each other, consider that with higher education it might be a bit naive for such a group not to work together to maintain their position. Then: ask yourself WHAT IS WAR? And it is here that I most sincerely hope that I am incorrect.

The original point of this posting was to illustrate the simple principle of Murphy's law in the political sphere of the machinery: the machinery matters more than any single person in power when it creates the levers he can pull. Creating an infrastructure which gives any individual, since they change over time and who they are is not predictable; access to a multitude of levers which gives him too much power - and then to be surprised when these individuals fall into the trap of the malfunctioning machinery. My point is the notion of 'good' and 'evil' men throughout history is asinine. It is always the result of systemic failures of the machinery of the political, economic, media and academic institutions which fail: blaming a single individual for a massive event such as a world war is a cop-out which removes the real information of failures in these institutions. It's like throwing away the black box from an aircraft because you don't want the authorities to find out why it crashed!

Because I do not have absolute proof it has happened and do not myself understand every reason behind world wars - it would be dangerous for me to make this claim without first illustrating that it is just the affordance of a situation, which in the future any agent whose goal might align with it - result in its playing as a game theory move: War offers the ultra-rich and powerful a convenient way to dispose of the working class when they become sick and tired of being trodden on. With their hands on the machinery, they would able to - when they see the tide turning against them - create wars to cause sufficient confusion, like a magician-rapist using a smoke screen to leave behind his victim, confused and disorientated. This is precisely why the machinery itself is where the problems are: situations have affordances, agents have goals. When a situation has an affordance which aligns with an agent's goal, it results in a game theory move. This means that we can derive the set of all game theory moves into a situation - and the machinery of the political, economic, media and academic systems, form a situation. If the group who across Europe realise they are the most powerful - they then realise they can work together to pull the levers any way which they see fit to reach any end goal which they might share. This is why we must guard the machinery from corruption.

The question becomes: are they really dumb enough not to recognise each other when they keep bumping into each other at meetings...