How the Future of India and USA, was determined by the inability of the Austrian Kings Joseph I and Charles VI, to produce male heirs..

When Joseph 1, died of smallpox in 1711, he had two daughters but no son. As a result, his brother Charles VI, succeeded him on the throne

Given that it was 1700s and the presence of a Son was considered paramount for succession, and the Salic law, in effect at that time barred women from inheritance, Charles VI was the last male heir to the throne, unless Charles VI had a son.

Which he didn't.
But he had 2 daughters, Maria Theresa & Maria Anna. Realizing that his kingdom would be divided on his death, he decided to change the law, and allowed his daughters to inherit the kingdom

Which was pretty sad for thhe daughters of his elder brother, Joseph, who he disinherited
Every other European power was smacking their lips in anticipation, of devouring the wonderful Austro Hungarian empire as a sweet desert, as it's division was imminent.

Things came to head in 1740, when Charles VI died and Maria Theresa became the Empress of Austria.
Half the Europen powers, Like France, Prussia and Spain, sided with the daughters of Joseph, because they wanted to takeover Austria

Britain, Dutch and Russia, sided with Maria Theresa.

This resulted in an 8 year war called the war of Austrian Succession, in which 3,00,000 died
Unfortunately, when the war ended in 1748, nobody was happy with the terms. As a result, in 1756, Everyone went to war again, in the Seven Years war.

This is where Things begin to get interesting.
As a part of the Seven Years war, England and France took opposite sides in a country, far away from Europe, where they were just getting their foot in.

The country was India.

First they started supporting local rulers against each other.

Then they dropped their pretence.
Things came to head, when French and British fought the Battle of Wandiwash in 1760.

Unfortunately for the French, they were annihilated.

British captured their Capital Pondicherry and Chandranagar in Bengal and French were effectively booted out of India.
Which did not go well with them and they were waiting for an opportunity to give England a bloody nose somewhere.

That opportunity came in 1777. In the United States of America.

French went all in on that one. So much so, that 75% of the US army's gunpowder, was French.
They even blockaded the American coast, so that no British ships reach out for help.

As a result, British went thru a humiliating surrender in Yorktown, and America was born.

Which made the British double down, in their other colony, India.
They put all their effort and focus to subjugate India, lest it become like America.

And because the local Indian rulers, could not turn to a European power like France for Support, the Brits succeded.
To summarize,

The Austrian King couldn't produce a male heir, which resulted in a war between France and Britain, which ensured India was colonized and America became independent.

More from World

Good question: what proofs has BDA provided of his authenticity?

Let's go through some of them.


- BDA predicted the Saudis would assassinate Suleimani. They did.
- He said the dog that got Badghadi's arm deserved a Medal Of Honor. The next day the President posted a joke image showing him giving the dog a MoH.

- He said one of his ops in Syria would severely disrupt a CIA drug trafficking operation. This was proved true within a few days:
https://t.co/Hranupwcxj
- He sent gold to Brazil to help pay for an anti-trafficking operation there. That op became public soon afterwards.

- On May 31 this year, he predicted the President would be giving a speech the next day. June 1, the President gives a surprise address at the Rose Garden.
- He predicted the US would be making diplomatic moves on Greenland. True.

- He said the US would be pulling all troops out of Afghanistan. This was confirmed within the month.
- He claimed earthquakes would be hitting Iran's nuclear facilities in December. Yep.
- There were FOUR facilities hit, not the three made public. Also true.

You May Also Like

Rig Ved 1.36.7

To do a Namaskaar or bow before someone means that you are humble or without pride and ego. This means that we politely bow before you since you are better than me. Pranipaat(प्राणीपात) also means the same that we respect you without any vanity.

1/9


Surrendering False pride is Namaskaar. Even in devotion or bhakti we say the same thing. We want to convey to Ishwar that we have nothing to offer but we leave all our pride and offer you ourselves without any pride in our body. You destroy all our evil karma.

2/9

We bow before you so that you assimilate us and make us that capable. Destruction of our evils and surrender is Namaskaar. Therefore we pray same thing before and after any big rituals.

3/9

तं घे॑मि॒त्था न॑म॒स्विन॒ उप॑ स्व॒राज॑मासते ।
होत्रा॑भिर॒ग्निं मनु॑षः॒ समिं॑धते तिति॒र्वांसो॒ अति॒ स्रिधः॑॥

Translation :

नमस्विनः - To bow.

स्वराजम् - Self illuminating.

तम् - His.

घ ईम् - Yours.

इत्था - This way.

उप - Upaasana.

आसते - To do.

स्त्रिधः - For enemies.

4/9

अति तितिर्वांसः - To defeat fast.

मनुषः - Yajman.

होत्राभिः - In seven numbers.

अग्निम् - Agnidev.

समिन्धते - Illuminated on all sides.

Explanation : Yajmans bow(do Namaskaar) before self illuminating Agnidev by making the offerings of Havi.

5/9
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?