Strategic Outflanking: Lessons from History on State Maneuvering and Legal Resistance
Introduction: The Federalist Dilemma and the Strategic Imperative for Lawful State Action
The American experiment was built on tension—a carefully structured balance of state and federal power. That balance is now under siege. Washington is no longer negotiating; it dictates. Courts are being ignored, funding is weaponized, executive power is unconstrained. States that resist are isolated, their autonomy eroded by a once-slow-motion consolidation of federal authority.
Yet history provides a roadmap for states confronting overbearing centralized regimes. From Richelieu’s calculated maneuvering to Atatürk’s legal reconstitution of the Turkish Republic, from Bolívar’s consolidation of political authority to Deng Xiaoping’s gradual subversion of central control, the lesson is clear: power is not taken by brute force alone, but by strategic maneuvering, legal cunning, and economic leverage.
For states seeking to reclaim true federalism, there is no need for illegal rebellion or futile lawsuits alone. The path forward is not merely resistance—it is strategic reordering. States must control their own financial futures, forge regional alliances, and enact legal structures that Washington cannot easily dismantle. This is how weaker powers reshape a centralized empire—by forcing it to accommodate, not by waiting for permission.
Warning : What follows is long, but a tl;dr will be provided at the end of each section.
I. Richelieu’s Raison d’État: Strategic Negotiation and Political Maneuvering
(Or skip to the tl;dr below the divider for the executive summary)
The France that Cardinal Richelieu (1585–1642) inherited as chief minister to Louis XIII was a kingdom on the brink of disintegration. The monarchy had become a mere shadow, shackled by an arrogant nobility, divided by religious wars, and hemmed in by the immense power of the Habsburg Empire on all sides. The very idea of a centralized French state seemed a fading dream, with rebellious nobles governing their fiefs like independent warlords and the Protestant Huguenots maintaining fortified strongholds as if they were a nation within a nation.
Yet, within two decades, Richelieu broke the feudal order, tamed the nobility, shattered Protestant military power, and set France on its path to become the dominant force in Europe. He did this not through brute force alone, but through a masterclass in strategic outflanking, political intrigue, and legal maneuvering. His doctrine of raison d’état (reason of state) declared that the survival and power of the French state must supersede all other considerations, whether personal loyalties, religious pieties, or even conventional morality.
How Richelieu Outflanked the Old Order
Richelieu was not born into royal favor. His rise was a gambit in itself, built on an unwavering loyalty to the monarchy at a time when France’s nobility was accustomed to ruling over, rather than under, their king. Recognizing that direct confrontation with France’s entrenched elites would be suicidal, Richelieu pursued a strategy of incremental consolidation, dismantling his enemies piece by piece, each time ensuring that the victory appeared as nothing more than the necessary defense of royal authority.
Crushing the Huguenots Without Inviting Religious War
The Huguenots, France’s Protestants, had long posed a dangerous challenge to the monarchy—not merely because of their religious beliefs, but because they controlled fortified cities, commanded their own militias, and engaged in open defiance of royal power. Yet, Richelieu did not move against them immediately. He spent years laying the groundwork, ensuring that the monarchy’s finances were stable, alliances were secured, and internal resistance was softened before acting.When the time came, he laid siege to the Protestant stronghold of La Rochelle (1627–1628)—but not with the indiscriminate cruelty that might have incited broader religious wars. Instead, he framed the campaign not as a war on Protestantism itself, but as the restoration of royal sovereignty over a rebellious faction. When La Rochelle fell, its fortifications were dismantled, its independent militia disbanded, and its political privileges revoked. Yet, Richelieu did something astounding—he allowed Protestants to continue practicing their faith. By ensuring that his victory was one of state authority rather than sectarian vengeance, he neutralized a major internal threat without sparking wider insurrection.
Taming the Nobility Without Civil War
France’s nobility had long held power independent of the crown, commanding private armies, enforcing their own laws, and frequently engaging in intrigue or rebellion to assert their dominance over the monarchy. The idea of a centralized state was anathema to them. But Richelieu understood that one does not simply attack a nest of vipers head-on—one must lure them into a trap, isolate them, and neutralize them one at a time.Instead of marching troops against noble families en masse, Richelieu used the levers of bureaucracy and espionage. He stripped rebellious nobles of their castles, revoked their military privileges, and slowly eroded their ability to defy the monarchy—but always under the justification of maintaining law and order. His network of spies ensured that plots were discovered before they could take root, and his legal mind ensured that those accused of treason were condemned by courts rather than battlefields. Nobles who thought themselves untouchable suddenly found themselves arrested, tried, and in some cases, executed—not by royal decree alone, but by the very legal system they had once used to protect their own power.
By turning royal justice against the aristocracy, Richelieu accomplished what his predecessors could not: he made disobedience not just dangerous, but legally indefensible.
Turning France’s Rivals Against Each Other
France in the early 17th century was surrounded by the Habsburg Empire, which controlled Spain, Austria, and much of the Holy Roman Empire. The Habsburgs were the dominant power in Europe, and without intervention, France risked becoming little more than a secondary kingdom at the mercy of this vast dynasty.Richelieu’s response was audacious: He allied with Protestant powers, including Sweden and the Dutch, despite being a Catholic cardinal himself. He saw the conflict not as a religious struggle, but as a war for dominance between rival empires. By supporting the enemies of the Habsburgs, Richelieu ensured that Spain and Austria were too occupied to focus on crushing France. His foreign policy was not one of reckless expansion, but of strategic entrapment—weakening his rivals by forcing them into endless, unwinnable wars, draining their resources while France strengthened its own position.
The Legacy of Richelieu’s Raison d’État
By the time of his death in 1642, Richelieu had redefined the French monarchy, setting the stage for Louis XIV’s absolute rule and France’s rise to European preeminence. His ability to outmaneuver instead of merely oppose his enemies remains a lesson for all who seek to dismantle centralized power without triggering outright collapse.
Lessons for States Today
The modern struggle between state and federal power mirrors Richelieu’s battle against feudal fragmentation. His success was not in resisting change, but in controlling it—shaping the legal, economic, and military order so that his vision became inevitable.
Like Richelieu’s careful dismantling of noble privilege, states today must legally redefine their autonomy, not simply demand it.
Interstate pacts and financial independence mechanisms must be established not as acts of defiance, but as acts of lawful governance.
The goal is to shift power incrementally, so that when the federal government finally recognizes the reality, it is already too late to reverse it.
Just as Richelieu formed unexpected alliances with Protestant powers against the Habsburgs, modern states must form coalitions even with unlikely partners.
Red and blue states share a common interest in resisting an overreaching federal bureaucracy—whether on financial independence, technological regulation, or economic autonomy.
Like Richelieu’s erosion of feudal strongholds, states must weaken Washington’s control not through direct confrontation, but through systematic decentralization.
Creating independent financial systems, regulatory bodies, and administrative networks ensures that state authority grows in parallel to federal decline.
Richelieu’s genius was not in opposing his enemies head-on, but in making their resistance obsolete. His lesson is clear: States that wish to reclaim their rightful powers must not simply demand them—they must maneuver to a point where Washington has no choice but to recognize their sovereignty.
tl;dr: Richelieu
Cardinal Richelieu (1585–1642) transformed France from a fractured, feudal mess into an emerging superpower by employing a strategy of outmaneuvering rather than confronting head-on. His concept of raison d’état (reason of state) dictated that state survival must override outdated political structures, entrenched elites, and even ideological loyalties.
How Richelieu Outflanked the Old Order
Exploiting Legal Authority: Richelieu strengthened the monarchy without violating the existing legal order, using bureaucratic restructuring rather than outright abolition of aristocratic power.
Coalition Building: He aligned with Protestant German princes despite being a Catholic cardinal, prioritizing strategic necessity over ideological purity.
Strategic Retrenchment: He used selective repression and selective tolerance, ensuring that no opposition group could consolidate against him.
Lessons for States Today
States must legally redefine their autonomy, not simply declare it. Creating interstate pacts and financial independence mechanisms forces the federal government into a negotiating stance.
Like Richelieu’s coalitions with unlikely allies, states must build strategic partnerships. Red and blue states can find common ground on resisting centralized economic control.
Just as Richelieu maneuvered within the monarchy while subverting feudalism, states must operate within constitutional structures while eroding federal overreach. The goal is to make radical federalism politically inevitable, not simply an ideological battle.
II. Atatürk and the Birth of the Turkish Republic: Legislating Power Into Reality
(Or skip to the tl;dr below the divider for the executive summary)
By the end of World War I, the once-mighty Ottoman Empire lay in ruins. Its territories were partitioned by foreign powers, its economy gutted, and its ruling elite subservient to outside influence. The victorious Allies had already drawn up plans to dismember Anatolia, leaving only a puppet state centered in Istanbul. The Sultan, meant to be the guardian of Ottoman sovereignty, was instead reduced to a client of the British and French, doing little to resist the empire’s final humiliation.
Yet from the ashes, one man—Mustafa Kemal Atatürk—refused to accept defeat. Much like Cardinal Richelieu’s quiet restructuring of France’s feudal order, Atatürk would rebuild the Turkish nation not through reckless rebellion but through strategic statecraft, maneuvering within legal frameworks, subverting institutions from within, and outflanking both foreign occupiers and domestic reactionaries.
Seizing Legitimacy from a Crumbling Regime
Atatürk understood a fundamental truth: raw military power alone could not secure sovereignty. To win the war was one thing—but to create a new, recognized political order was another. If he simply declared independence, Turkey would be dismissed as an illegitimate insurgency, a rogue state doomed to annihilation. Instead, Atatürk crafted a narrative of continuity, presenting his movement not as a revolution, but as the true guardian of Turkish sovereignty.
Rather than rejecting the existing Ottoman legal framework outright, he established the Grand National Assembly (GNA) in 1920, presenting it as a successor to the Ottoman state rather than a separate rebellion.
He did not immediately abolish the Sultanate, knowing that to do so too soon would alienate large portions of the population. Instead, he first secured military victories, then slowly shifted political authority from the Sultan to the new Assembly.
By the time he finally abolished the monarchy in 1922, the move was not an act of usurpation, but the logical conclusion of a state already being governed through a new legitimate order.
Atatürk’s masterstroke was not in declaring a new nation overnight, but in making the old order obsolete, ensuring that by the time the world realized what had happened, the new Turkey was already too entrenched to be undone.
Crushing Internal Resistance While Keeping Order
The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire did not merely leave Turkey vulnerable to foreign occupation—it also left behind powerful reactionary factions. Ottoman loyalists, religious clerics, and feudal landlords resented Atatürk’s reforms, seeing them as a betrayal of the empire’s traditions. Atatürk could not afford internal division, yet he also could not simply massacre opposition and risk alienating the population. Instead, he co-opted, outmaneuvered, and selectively neutralized his enemies.
He granted minor concessions to conservative factions at first, keeping them engaged in the new system long enough to prevent outright revolt.
Meanwhile, he used legal means—court trials, political appointments, and selective purges—to gradually sideline reactionaries.
By the time he launched his full-scale secularization reforms, his strongest enemies had already been rendered powerless.
Much like Richelieu’s piecemeal dismantling of the nobility, Atatürk understood that revolutions that happen too quickly often collapse under their own weight. His slow but relentless erosion of the old power structures ensured that when the final transformation came, it was irreversible.
Reshaping Identity: Atatürk’s Cultural and Economic Revolution
Atatürk did not just change Turkey’s government—he redefined what it meant to be Turkish. Recognizing that true independence required breaking from the Ottoman past, he initiated a sweeping cultural, legal, and economic transformation.
Abolishing the Caliphate (1924): For centuries, the Sultan had also served as the Caliph, the supreme religious leader of Islam. Atatürk saw this as a chain linking Turkey to the past—one that foreign powers might exploit to undermine Turkish nationalism. By separating religion from state, he ensured that Turkey’s sovereignty would not be undermined by external religious allegiances.
The Language Reform (1928): Atatürk replaced the Arabic script with the Latin alphabet, a move that was both practical and symbolic—it made literacy more accessible while severing Turkey’s deep cultural ties to its imperial past.
Economic Autonomy: Recognizing that economic dependency invited foreign control, Atatürk pursued a state-led development model, much like Deng Xiaoping would later do in China. By investing in Turkish industries and reducing reliance on foreign capital, he ensured that the country’s newfound political independence was not compromised by economic subservience.
Atatürk’s reforms were not just about governance—they were about changing the very soul of the nation. Much like Bolívar would do in Latin America, Atatürk ensured that his revolution was more than just a change of leadership—it was a complete restructuring of identity.
The Takeaway for Modern State Strategy
Atatürk’s success was not merely in rejecting an oppressive system—it was in methodically replacing it with a stronger one before its enemies could stop him. His lessons are directly applicable to states resisting overreach today.
Legitimacy is everything: Atatürk did not simply declare sovereignty—he structured it through a legal framework that the world could not easily dismiss. States today must use legislation, court rulings, and compacts to establish sovereignty within the existing constitutional order.
Win the long game: Just as Atatürk eroded his enemies piece by piece, modern states must ensure that every act of defiance is backed by long-term institutional restructuring. Laws, financial systems, and administrative policies must make independence a reality before the federal government even realizes what is happening.
Control the narrative: Atatürk framed his reforms not as rebellion, but as renewal. Likewise, states today must not frame their legal resistance as defiance, but as a necessary restoration of constitutional balance. The battle is not just for policy—but for public perception.
Atatürk’s genius was in understanding that revolutions that burn too hot often burn out—but revolutions that embed themselves in legal and economic reality endure. Modern states should heed this lesson well.
tl;dr: Atatürk
When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881–1938) faced a shattered legal system, foreign occupation, and a dysfunctional ruling class. Rather than declaring open revolution, he reconstituted power under legal pretenses, ensuring that his government appeared as the legitimate successor to the old order.
Key Lessons from Atatürk
Strategic Legalism: Atatürk convened a Grand National Assembly, positioning it as the rightful heir to Ottoman rule while abolishing the sultanate.
Economic Restructuring: He deployed a state-guided economic revival, much as states today can develop financial structures independent of federal control.
Cultural Reorientation: By modernizing education, language, and law, he prevented reactionary forces from undoing his gains.
Application for Modern States
States should frame their sovereignty efforts as legal restorations, not radical departures. The public must see states’ actions as a return to constitutional intent, not rebellion.
Like Atatürk’s economic independence strategy, states must sever reliance on federal funding. Public banks, infrastructure alliances, and alternative revenue sources should be developed.
Parallel governance structures—state courts, independent regulatory bodies—must be strengthened to reduce dependency on Washington’s institutions.
III. Simón Bolívar and Republican Imperialism: Asserting Authority Over a Fragmented System
(Or skip to the tl;dr below the divider for the executive summary)
When Simón Bolívar began his fight for independence in the early 19th century, he was not merely waging a war against Spanish rule—he was battling a deeper enemy: chaos. The Spanish Empire was crumbling, leaving behind a fractured, leaderless landscape where rival factions, warlords, and local elites clashed for power. Much like states today struggling against an unwieldy federal bureaucracy, Bolívar faced the monumental challenge of unifying disjointed entities under a single, coherent structure before they tore themselves apart.
His response was nothing short of visionary. Bolívar did not simply seek to break away from Spain—he sought to forge a new political order that could withstand both external threats and internal disintegration. His strategy blended bold military campaigns, strategic political maneuvering, and a paradoxical blend of democracy and authoritarianism, ensuring that his fledgling republics did not succumb to the very forces they had sought to escape.
Turning Weakness into Strength: Bolívar’s Mastery of Coalition-Building
Bolívar did not have the luxury of commanding a unified nation. He had to build one from scratch. Unlike Atatürk, who could at least claim continuity with the Ottoman state, Bolívar was attempting to govern a collection of disparate provinces, many of which had no historical precedent for self-rule.
Rather than trying to impose immediate, absolute unity, Bolívar used strategic pragmatism:
Gran Colombia as a Shield: Bolívar pushed for a federated model—Gran Colombia—which loosely united modern-day Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama. He recognized that while these regions were too weak to stand alone, together they could resist Spain’s attempts to reconquer them.
Selective Partnerships: Just as Richelieu had allied with Protestant princes to counterbalance Habsburg dominance, Bolívar forged unlikely alliances, enlisting local caudillos (warlords) and foreign mercenaries to bolster his forces. He even sought help from the British and Haitians, knowing that ideological purity mattered far less than survival.
A Balancing Act Between Local and Central Power: Bolívar granted temporary autonomy to regional leaders, ensuring their cooperation without ceding ultimate control. This mirrored Deng Xiaoping’s later approach in China—give local elites just enough power to keep them invested, but not enough to let them challenge the system itself.
His genius was in recognizing that resistance against Spain was only half the battle—resistance against fragmentation was the other. He did not merely overthrow colonial rule; he structured his victory in such a way that Spain could never regain a foothold.
The Dilemma of Republican Imperialism: Democracy vs. Stability
Bolívar spoke passionately about liberty, democracy, and republicanism, yet he was deeply aware of the dangers of unchecked popular rule. Unlike the American Revolution, which unfolded in a society with deep traditions of self-governance, Bolívar’s revolutions took place in a region still shaped by centuries of Spanish autocracy. He feared that without strong central leadership, Latin America would descend into lawlessness.
His solution? A "Republican Dictatorship."
The 1826 Bolivian Constitution: Bolívar drafted one of the most extraordinary constitutions in history, creating a president for life with the power to appoint his successor—a system that, while seemingly authoritarian, was designed to stabilize the fragile republics against internal collapse.
Democracy with Guardrails: He envisioned a government where executive power was strong enough to prevent anarchy, but still checked by legal institutions. Like Atatürk a century later, he was willing to sacrifice short-term democratic idealism for the long-term survival of the republic.
The Peril of Too Much Power: Bolívar’s later years were marked by his frustration with the very people he had liberated. As regional factions resisted his centralized vision, he lamented, "America is ungovernable. Those who have served the revolution have plowed the sea." He had won the war, but maintaining unity proved an even greater challenge.
Ultimately, Bolívar’s "Republican Imperialism" was a calculated gamble—could a strong hand guide a nation toward true self-rule, or would power inevitably corrupt? It was a dilemma echoed by other nation-builders like Richelieu, Atatürk, and Deng, all of whom understood that a state must be strong enough to survive before it can afford to be free.
Applying Bolívar’s Playbook Today
For modern states navigating federal overreach, Bolívar’s example is a masterclass in both coalition-building and strategic governance:
Confederations Make the Whole Greater Than the Parts
Just as Bolívar united warring provinces into a single front, states today must form multi-state compacts to push back against federal mandates.
By creating legal and economic alliances, they can ensure that an attack on one state is an attack on all—forcing Washington into a losing battle of attrition.
The Right Balance Between Centralization and Local Autonomy
Bolívar knew that too much local autonomy led to disorder, but too much centralization led to tyranny. States must fight for their sovereignty while still maintaining cooperation in areas of mutual benefit.
If Washington defunds resistant states, those states must immediately create publicized alternatives—state-run banking systems, regional tax pacts, and infrastructure projects independent of federal oversight.
Executive Authority as a Shield Against Chaos
Bolívar did not shy away from asserting strong executive control when necessary—modern governors must do the same.
State executives must ensure they retain maximum autonomy within the law, using every legal tool at their disposal to prevent federal encroachment.
Control the Narrative—Frame Resistance as a Moral Imperative
Bolívar’s genius was in wrapping hard power in the language of liberty. States must frame their legal battles not as defiance, but as the rightful restoration of constitutional balance.
They must win public opinion before they win in the courts.
Bolívar’s legacy is a reminder that freedom is not merely won on the battlefield—it is secured in governance, in strategy, and in the careful balancing of power. His struggle teaches that federal overreach is not merely about Washington imposing its will—it is about whether states can build a framework strong enough to resist it without falling into disorder.
The question facing states today is the same Bolívar faced two centuries ago: Can they unite before their opposition divides them?
tl;dr: Bolívar
Simón Bolívar (1783–1830) did not merely wage war for independence—he built a functioning political order out of chaos. Like modern states facing an increasingly centralized federal government, Bolívar understood that power could not simply be demanded—it had to be structured in a way that made reasserting old authority impossible.
The Bolívar Playbook
Confederation as a Weapon: He used Gran Colombia as a shield, preventing Spain from regaining control.
Legal Centralization of Authority: While proclaiming republicanism, he consolidated executive power to ensure stability.
Narrative Control: Bolívar justified strong action not as power-seeking, but as necessary to protect liberty.
How States Can Replicate Bolívar’s Strategy
Interstate Compacts Must Become Political Weapons. If enough states act together, they become too powerful to ignore—forcing the federal government into a no-win scenario.
Governors Must Wield Executive Power Boldly. The Bolívar model shows that strong, decisive leadership is required to reshape power dynamics.
Public Messaging Must Be Clear. States are not fighting the federal government—they are defending constitutional balance.
IV. Deng Xiaoping: Gradual Entrenchment of Irreversible Reforms
(Or skip to the tl;dr below the divider for the executive summary)
(or see here
for the longer version this summarizes)
When Deng Xiaoping took control of China’s Communist Party in the late 1970s, he inherited a nation in economic ruin. Mao Zedong’s radical centralization had plunged China into famine, political purges, and stagnation. But Deng did not attack the system head-on. Instead, he rewrote the rules from within, decentralizing economic power in a way that made re-centralization politically and practically impossible.
Deng did not abolish the Communist Party—he hollowed out its economic control, making the provinces, local officials, and business leaders the real centers of power. He allowed local governments to keep more tax revenue, reducing their dependence on Beijing. He introduced Special Economic Zones (SEZs) where capitalism could thrive, forcing the rest of the country to follow suit as their success became too great to ignore. Most importantly, he made sure the bureaucratic class benefited from reform, ensuring that any attempt to reverse decentralization would mean fighting the very people who now profited from it.
For states today, the lesson is clear: strategic decentralization is more effective than outright defiance. States can weaken federal overreach by:
Retaining economic power through state-run public banks, regional economic pacts, and independent infrastructure projects.
Encouraging legal and regulatory autonomy in ways that gradually force the federal government to adapt.
Aligning bureaucratic incentives with state authority, ensuring that local officials and agencies resist central control from within.
Deng’s strategy was simple but devastatingly effective: he made central control irrelevant rather than fighting it outright. States today can do the same—by reclaiming financial and legal independence in ways that the federal government cannot easily undo.
tl;dr: Deng
Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997) reshaped China without triggering revolution. Instead of a direct power struggle, he created economic conditions that forced the central government to accept decentralization.
Deng’s Strategy of Controlled Decentralization
He made provinces economically powerful, forcing Beijing to accept market reforms.
He incentivized local officials to support reform by tying success to their own autonomy.
He structured change so that reversing it would be more disruptive than allowing it to continue.
Lessons for State Resistance
Financial Independence is a Weapon. State-run banks, alternative funding sources, and tax policies can reduce federal leverage.
Bureaucratic Autonomy Weakens Federal Power. State agencies must be shielded from federal mandates through legal structuring.
Incremental Changes Become Irreversible. Just as Deng embedded reforms gradually, states should embed legal and economic autonomy step by step, making reversal politically impossible.
V. Conclusion: The No-Win Scenario for Washington
History does not favor the passive. The great strategists of the past—Richelieu, Atatürk, Bolívar, and Deng—did not win by merely resisting; they won by forcing stronger powers into untenable positions. They understood that direct defiance is rarely the path to victory. Instead, they restructured power from within, forged alliances that shifted the balance, and built new systems that made the old order obsolete.
The same strategy must apply today. If states are to reclaim their autonomy, they must not simply react to federal overreach—they must reshape the battlefield itself. The federal government must be placed in a no-win scenario, where its own actions either fuel resistance or concede power. We will see next week that this is exactly how Prussia outmaneuvered Austria, how Metternich preserved Austrian dominance, and how Bismarck restructured Europe.
What States Must Do Now
Sever Economic Dependence on Washington.
Establish state-run banks and alternative revenue models to eliminate federal financial control.
Encourage regional trade agreements that bypass federal influence.
Expand Legal Noncompliance.
Pass explicit state legislation preventing federal agencies from overstepping their bounds.
Establish whistleblower protections for state officials resisting unlawful federal orders.
Form a Multi-State Compact.
Create a legally binding alliance that commits states to collective action against unconstitutional mandates.
Coordinate regional legal defense funds to challenge federal overreach from multiple fronts.
The old strategy—lawsuits, protests, waiting for courts to intervene—isn’t enough. The federal government is already ignoring rulings, weaponizing funding, and escalating its consolidation of power. If states do not act now, they will be left with no options but compliance.
This is the moment of transformation. Those who hesitate will be consumed by Washington’s power. Those who act boldly, lawfully, and strategically will force the center to yield. The lessons of history are clear: Victory belongs to those who do not wait to be saved—but who force the hand of fate itself.