Summary

In a computing system, hardware comprises the physical components of a computer, whereas software consists of the intangible instructions that govern its operation. Because hardware upgrades involve significant cost and complex engineering, they occur slowly and infrequently. Software, by contrast, is updated regularly, as it is far easier to develop, modify, and manipulate.

The human physical body and the dogma that humans continually update functions in the same way computer hardware and software require each other, and neither is useful on its own. Accordingly, it would not be entirely inaccurate to suggest that the role the victors of World War II (the old powers) seek to play in the international order is analogous to a computer’s hardware, while the principles codified in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) function as the latest set of normative instructions—developed by humanity—to guide behavior toward achieving the standards articulated in the UN Charter’s preamble, much as software directs hardware in what to do and how to do it.

This paper argues that the insecurity that has spread across the world in recent years stems from the unpreparedness of the victors of World War II (the old powers) and their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) to support the work program suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR, as the latter produces outputs that are incompatible with the way those individuals involved rejuvenate their power. This glitch happens a lot when a person tries to translate an application (program) on older hardware, and the latter fails to produce the results expected because each system is supporting different instructions.

The objective of the paper is to show that if the heirs of the old powers continue to let their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) regard themselves as exempt from observing the appeal suggested in the UN Charter of the UDHR and to turn to reviving older doctrines (or “software”) to structure international relationships in the hope of such retreat preserving their relevance or, at the very least, buying time, they would render their utility increasingly hollow, much as computer hardware becomes dysfunctional when it no longer recognizes the instructions required to operate and is reduced to a mere collection of parts. Accordingly, as the relevance of the heirs of the old powers shrinks, their utility would be breaking, just as happens when an electronic device becomes unresponsive until it ultimately becomes completely dead.

Analysis

“Fatih” (or Fateh) is a word used across cultures that means “conqueror, warrior, victory, opening, beginning, start, commencement, or triumph.” In ancient times, Fatihs, or conquerors, were treated as gods among their people. For example, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, William the Conqueror, Sultan Mehmed II, the Ottoman ruler who conquered Constantinople and ended the Eastern Roman Empire, Napoleon Bonaparte, and many others are all historical figures that are hailed as “Fatih’s.”

All the aforementioned conquerors (Fatihs) share the commonality that their reliance on personal power and conscience to legitimize and enforce laws, rather than adhering to standards suggested in biblical and religious texts, hindered humanity’s moral development beyond the understandings exhibited by wildlife. The inability of individuals to accept and behave like domesticated animals or cultivated plant species in their natural habitats has had a significant impact on humanity. People only reflect on the meaning of life and accept their circumstances when faced with danger, illness, or old age. Additionally, people’s unpreparedness to cultivate good relations, such as tolerance—which most domesticated animals are capable of exhibiting—has led to individuals becoming invasive threats to one another, much like how rabbits, cats, and mice can easily get out of control and threaten other natural species.

In the animal kingdom, wild species rely on predation to sustain their survival needs and earthly desires, and, therefore, this commonly accepted understanding among animals about the winner taking it all makes it unnecessary for any beast to be devoted to freezing social space or to accumulating material things on a cumulative basis as humans do because it is always the fittest who gains everything.

Since humans began keeping written records, they have resisted relating to one another with the same laissez-faire attitude that animals exhibit; unfortunately, their unpreparedness to understand the mechanisms they endorse for treating strangers like loved ones ultimately leads them to interact with each other in ways similar to beasts.

However, the hubris and laissez-faire attitude of people have failed to produce outcomes better than predation. If those who harmed others could be resurrected to see what happened to their heirs after they died, they would learn that strangers, not their heirs, enjoyed the wealth and power they hoarded and denied others. If, since antiquity, all those who harmed others and did not observe the religious and philosophical laws legitimized their actions, did not lead to their heirs continuing to enjoy the wealth and powers they hoarded for them, then there is a good chance that the successors of the heirs of the old powers (the children of the victors of WW2) will endure the same fate.

For example, the old powers (the victors of WW2) counselled their heirs to rejuvenate their power in the aftermath of WW2 by ensuring that all their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) regard themselves as bound to observe the appeal or work program suggested in the UN Charter, so strangers do not reap their toil. However, instead of the heirs of the old powers acting on the advice of their fathers, they chose to have their global policeman, the United States, hurry into circulating false threats about the Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyans, and many others working to threaten the international order to justify use of force against them, as compared to acting as big brother and coaching those societies in question on the importance of observing the work program suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR to reduce enmities.

Hence, people, as I said before, do not live forever and cannot tell what will happen to the power, wealth, social space, or material things they accumulate after they are gone; then there is a good chance that the decision of the heirs of the old powers to have their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) regard themselves as exempt from observing the appeal or work program suggested in the UN Charter weighs heavily on them or their successors in the same way the toil of the various “Fatihs” or conquerors whose names were mentioned earlier weighed down heavily on them and their heirs when it stood up for a bad cause.

Additionally, if people across the world continue to be disenchanted with the way the heirs of the old powers are always standing on the side of their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) rather than on the truth or the standards suggested in biblical and religious textbooks, then we cannot be sure that the future will hold for them a better prospect than the fate that awaited those who let their pride or ego supersede wisdom. If the fittest could stop envy from ruining people, world history would be different.

For the heirs of the old powers to hand their power, wealth, and status to their children and not be gathering to hand it to their enemies as the various “Fatihs” whose names were suggested earlier ended up doing, the heirs of the old powers must ensure that the individuals to whom they transfer their power stay militarily superior because no one can contend or overpower the strong. However, since it is impossible to predict whether the individuals to whom the heirs of the old powers will transfer their power will be foolish or wise, it is prudent to establish a state model (or an ideal community) that people around the world can look to as an example, thereby encouraging them to remain loyal to their successors and allow them to wield more power than others.

I have no way of knowing which scenario between the aforementioned two the heirs of the old powers are relying on to depart this world, knowing that the individuals to whom they would be transferring their power would succeed in avoiding the fate of the successors of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, and others happening to them. If the heirs of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, and others had heeded warnings, their kingdoms or empires would not have fallen, and their power would not have passed to the heirs of the old powers. And so, if to take heed, it is better that the heirs of the old powers leave behind a state model (or an ideal community) that people around the world would perceive is headed by public officials (rulers, chiefs, judges, etc.) who would do for people what the judges that Moses appointed to hear disputes in antiquity were not doing so they would avoid the defeat that the Israelites lived when they left Egypt to go live in a new land, how are the heirs of the old powers concluding that if they have their global policemen, the United States, stand up for bad causes as a good number of the national and foreign policies this policeman legitimized since 1945 support, that such conduct would go well for them and make people want to stay with their successors and not put enmities between them and people so the opposition that brews throws them into confusion and results in their ruin as happened to the Israelites or the various “Fatih’s” whose name was mentioned earlier, when they did as they pleased and relied on their personal power and conscience to legitimize and enforce laws rather than on the standards suggested in biblical and religious textbooks, to rejuvenate their power?

The Bible does not explain why the Israelites rejected Moses’ commands when he delayed returning from the mountain, choosing corruption over fellowship. Most importantly, the Bible suggests that God helped the Israelites become a great nation after punishing them for disobedience. In contrast, the kingdoms and empires whose rulers relied on personal power and conscience to legitimize and enforce laws, rather than biblical and religious standards, never recovered.

It appears that the heirs of the old powers are underestimating the risks of allowing their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) to operate without restraint, which could jeopardize their strength and security. Put differently, people are not like a deck of disordered cards; to place them in order, a person must first increase their disorder. The more knowledge and wisdom people gain, the more sorrow and grief the person who transformed them reaps. If, whenever people are allowed to run wild and get out of control, corruption and wrongdoing always harm even the fittest, then the longer the heirs of the old powers let their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) regard themselves as exempt from observing the appeal suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR, the harder it will be to get ahead of the heirs of the old powers and prevent their collapse.

The force, disregard, deceit, and confusion that the heirs of the old powers are letting their global policeman, the United States, carry out to secure the goals suggested in the preamble of the UN Charter can be justified if humans were objects that behave in the same way objects such as numbers or a deck of cards behave. But humans are a mass whose hearts are full of evil and madness while they live, and only when they are dealt with fairly do they choose not to bring every deed into judgment. And so, while the UN Charter grants the heirs of the old powers rights to have their global policemen, the United States, act forcefully against any society that refuses to carry out the obligations contained in the UN Charter, how are the heirs of the old powers expecting that people around the world would be ready to fulfill in good faith the obligations contained in the UN Charter, including conforming to the measures that their global policemen take to maintain international peace and security, when the selective treatment that they are employing with their global policemen against violators does not support that they are treating offenders equally, or perverting justice and showing favoritism?

Throughout history, most philosophers have suggested that wisdom is the answer for everything and not money or force. I have no way of knowing why the heirs of the old powers have been getting it wrong since 1945, assuming that by treating societies selectively or perverting the international order, they would rejuvenate their power and prevent mistreated societies from uniting and humiliating them, as has happened to some of the world’s most powerful kingdoms. What I do know is that the work program that the victors of WW2 (the old powers) proposed—that all members of the human family come together to build in the aftermath of WW2 and sketched its blueprint in the UN Charter—was not mirrored in the work program that Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, William the Conqueror, Sultan Mehmed II, Napoleon Bonaparte, and many others used to solidify their power but the one that the Americans used.

The American way is not a religion, an ethnic race, a kingdom, or a family, but an idea. This idea is based on building a world where the self-determination of people or nations is respected, as stipulated or reflected in the US Constitution and the preamble of the UN Charter, and is not about using transnationalism, globalism, freedom, or democratic values to create a ruling class. Conquering and territorial expansion under the American way do not occur to enable a ruling family/dynasty to subjugate the conquered people to their autocratic culture but to improve democracy and reaffirm faith in human rights. If many young “Fatihs” throughout history succeeded in toppling well-established kingdoms or empires, such as when Alexander the Great defeated the vastly outnumbered Persian army of Darius III at the famous battle of Issus, how are the heirs of these old powers concluding that continuing to use the American idea to rejuvenate their power—without allowing the Americans to lead by example—would not ultimately weaken them and reduce them to a simpler form over time?

Most of the kingdoms and empires that collapsed faced such a humiliating fate not because the ruling families were weak or militarily inferior, but because the ideas they relied on lost their power to inspire.

For example, when the Islamic prophet and his companions were spreading Islam, they did not conscript new recruits and send them to military camps to train in courage or weapon use for killing those who refused to convert; instead, they first equipped them with words of wisdom and, later, with the Quran when drafted. By initially spreading their ideas verbally and later in writing, the Islamic prophet and his companions successfully built the world’s most successful community, second only to the one created by Americans since the beginning of recorded history.

At the same time, when we compare the families and dynasties that controlled Islam with those that later controlled the United States, we observe that the latter achieved their superiority by relying on a more effective idea than Islam for community building. Perhaps the best way to explain this analogy is to relate the point in question to when a user updates existing software on his computer with a newer version. The families and dynasties that controlled the United States successfully spread ideas that encouraged people of different nationalities to believe in the US Constitution, leading them to surrender some of their freedoms to one another in order to fulfill the promises of those political ideas, using freedom instead of religion as a common denominator.

Since 1945, the heirs of the old powers have been undermining the American idea globally, including efforts to diminish the role of real humans in order to restore their power, allowing artificial technology to take precedence. This apparent shift in how the heirs of the old powers are attempting to rejuvenate their power raises many questions. For one, how are the heirs of the old powers concluding that people would put up with them and agree to let them have more powers than others if they continue to perceive that they are sabotaging the American idea (or software) that they need to keep in use to increase their happiness? Most importantly, how are the heirs of the old powers concluding that people would put up with them—let them have more powers than others—and not gang up on them and betray them if they continue to infringe on their free will and take away from them (i.e., real people) their role in the natural world in order to place it in the hands of tools, but without gaining any dividend in return?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. What I do know is that the rulers of all the kingdoms and empires that collapsed organized elections before their fall to demonstrate to citizens how much they protected democratic control, even empowering outlaws to rebel against the rich in order to crack down on them and oust them from power, all while claiming to oppose citizens taking advantage of each other.

This strategy delayed the collapse of the kingdoms and empires because it took a long time for the societies that rebelled against their rulers (including officials, judges, and public officials) to improve democratic control in their relationships with those rulers and to restore their human progress to its previous level. If this strategy failed to help the fittest to understand power or exercise it wisely, how can the heirs of the old powers avoid their collapse, especially since exhausting others through conflicts, wars, hatred, ethnic violence, misery, and so forth only ensures a similar fate for themselves or their successors?

Once again, I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. What I do know is that people are all the time updating and replacing the old with the new. For example, most people recognize that the new software that is produced cannot be supported by the hardware they own and, therefore, consider themselves obliged to update their hardware regularly as well. And so, the question that once again begs answers is how can the heirs of the old powers keep themselves relevant so people do not become weary with them and opt to pledge loyalty to new families/dynasties when we already know that if authoritarianism continues to deepen, they would not be able to escape from stumbling on the same history that occurred before WW2 erupted, nor could they change the political landscape that emerged in the aftermath of WW2 after they started to weaken the American idea to prioritize ethnic grouping?

It looks as if the heirs of the old powers will be dying and leaving behind a big problem for their successors to maintain their superiority if people around the world continue to be dissatisfied with the policies that their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) are legitimizing to keep their dominant role. If all the critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) that the heirs of the old powers are counting on for their wisdom to tackle rigidities so tribute keeps flowing but without people or companies becoming taken aback by how much money they would be required to surrender to keep profiting from their protection to live in a world that is without any responsible political authority, then there is a good chance that the heirs of the old powers will fail to uncover the plots that people would be secretly devising or working on to defeat them or ruin them.

For example, from the 17th century to the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire managed to make the people who lived in the Middle East live with one another and with the Ottoman state, unlike in the case that transpired in this land after the old powers (the western European monarchs and republics) defeated the Ottomans during WW1, expelled them from their governing role, and created new kingdoms and republics, which they handed their formal political structure (i.e., government and state apparatus) to the local outlaws that betrayed and backstabbed the Ottomans, thus enabling them to defeat them. And so if the disregard that emerged in the Middle East in the aftermath of WW2 continues to spread across the globe, and the new border walls that the heirs of the old powers began to rebuild around each UN member state after they tore them all down in 1945 fail to control the political and social concerns that they expect to resolve from building such walls or barriers, then they would have no choice but to straighten what is already crooked, just as their global policeman, the United States, is doing in this territory on their behalf recently. The goal is to figure out how to make the societies that, with their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions), they converted into becoming stateless and without a formal, centralized government or state apparatus and, when this is not the case, autocratic and adaptable and incorrupt as the Israelites became when Moses turned toward them in antiquity. Accordingly, this state of affairs that exists in the Middle East today invites once again many questions. Can the heirs of the old powers or their global policeman, the United States, keep the Middle Eastern societies they partitioned into an unlimited number of religious and tribal segments with them and let them have more power than others while they are all defiling and prostituting each other’s gods and buying and selling justice? If, as of 1945, it appears that all humans are united, but in reality, they are full of malice and divided, can the old powers make their rivals and backers obey after corrupting the world with their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions)?

The Bible suggests that God kept the Israelites in power by confusing their enemies and forcing them to flee. If God does not assist them, and if the application of force does not yield the same results with humans as it does with inanimate objects like metals, can the heirs of the old powers stop people from desiring equal rights or pursuing that aspiration? In the case of metals, when force (heat) is applied, they become malleable, and two metals fuse. Humans do not become malleable and fuse when they are subjected to force, but rigid. In other words, force people apart rather than attracting them to one another. Can the heirs of the old powers or their global policeman, the United States, compel the various autocratic governments they rely on to sacrifice their lives on their behalf during serious crises and the societies they have engulfed in civil wars and destroyed human progress to do the same, despite the latter’s hatred towards them and the former’s observation of their masters and protectors perverting justice and relying on divide and rule to maintain their dominant role instead of adhering to the UN Charter or the UDHR?

I have no way of knowing if the heirs of the old powers and their global policeman, the United States, believe that people worldwide have lost their senses, leading them to perceive themselves as invincible. What I do know is that the families/dynasties that controlled the Soviet Union after WW2 were deluded into thinking that citizens in their territories were ignorant of their wrongdoing and that only good things would happen to them, especially since they were flourishing. In the 1990s, the world learned that the negligence of the families/dynasties controlling the Soviet Union had finally caught up with them, revealing that the abuse of power they exercised was itself what tricked them into believing that they were invincible.

Religions say that the ruins of those who defied the truth serve as monuments, reminding kings, rulers, and chiefs who pass by of the consequences they may face due to their heedlessness. I have no way of knowing if the heirs of the old powers and their global policeman, the United States, are using initiatives and increased international pressure to identify a formula to avoid the fate of those destroyed for acting wrongly. What I do know is that the political and social obstacles currently unfolding in Lebanon serve as a valuable example for the heirs of the old powers to follow and to reflect on; hence, it could very well reflect the challenges that the international order is facing right now. Humans cannot detect the transformation of the international order because the changes are impossible to quantify. Humans cannot detect the transformation of the international order because quantifying the changes is impossible.

Only two solutions could stabilize Lebanon. The first solution is for the Lebanese to become engulfed in an all-out war, allowing the strongest individuals to dominate and establish a single narrative of history. The second is whether God intervenes and wipes out the Lebanese as he did in Sodom and Gomorrah. And so, no matter what political solution the heirs of the old powers propose for Lebanon, it would not be possible for them to avoid the disappearance of the sectarian or ethnic model that they built in this very small country, which is roughly two-thirds the size of the state of Connecticut in the United States, unless they adopt any one of the two aforementioned solutions or make the Lebanese stop speaking for several months to stop questioning them, as the Bible suggests the angel Gabriel did to Zachariah when he disbelieved that his wife would bear a son. Can the heirs of the old powers prevent the anarchical entanglement that exists in Lebanon from reproducing around the world if their critical thinkers and servants (governments and intentional institutions) continue to regard themselves exempt from observing the appeal suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR and are teaching people to oppose them and be their enemies?

Again, I have no way of knowing how the heirs of the old powers plan to decrease the number of people rejecting the UN Charter or the UDHR work program (i.e., the majority) and increase the number willing to observe the standards included, especially since the number of people determined to do so has dwindled (the minority), contrary to what should have happened since 1945. What I do know is that all the kingdoms and empires that collapsed counted on buying time by either betting on force or on diplomacy before their collapse in the hope of such a strategy pushing citizens to observe the political order they were legitimizing or stopping them from questioning it. Unfortunately, the kings of the kingdom that collapsed believed that dreams come when there are many critical thinkers and servants (rulers, chiefs, judges, etc.) saying one thing and doing another, not when there are many cares.

In conclusion, literature often suggests that whoever loves money never has enough. It looks as if there is nothing that anyone could suggest or do to determine if the plans that the heirs of the old powers and their global policemen, the United States, are employing and constantly updating to rejuvenate their power would work or not except to observe if the latest “Fatih” that they empowered to oust the President of Syria in 2024 would manage to return them to living in the hearts of the Syrians or the Syrians returning to wanting to stay with them and to let them have more power than others so they (the heirs of the old powers) could go back to sleeping without having to worry about the hate, frustration, and anger that the Syrians are hoarding towards them in their hearts, ultimately pushing them to harm them. Then again, it seems as if reality were designed to function on the basis of the survival of the fittest. In other words, “A higher official scrutinizes one official, and even higher officials oversee both.” Even if the critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) of the heirs of the old powers manage to make the Syrians turn away from the past and accept the ideas being proposed to them, could the truth exonerate them instead of rejecting them as it did to many kings before them if they continue to delay rushing to remove those who violate the standards that they depend on to keep their dominant role, knowing that people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong?