Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist who invented dynamite in 1867. Before his death in 1896, he bequeathed his fortune to institute the Nobel Prizes. Nobel wanted his fortune to be apportioned “to honour men and women from all corners of the globe for outstanding achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology, and literature and for work in peace”. Those who knew him claim that he was a pacifist and that his idea of wanting his wealth to be awarded in the form of a reward by those whom his prize awarders considered to have achieved the “greatest benefit to mankind” has an end to deepen fraternity.

Indeed, the fashion in which Nobel suggested achieving “the greatest benefit to mankind” is not how the American people, from the poorest to the wealthiest, deemed a path to deepen fraternity based on what Theodore Roosevelt moralised at the turn of the 20th century or other US presidents proclaimed in later years. The American people did not perceive that “life is like a game of cards” whereby to be eligible to improve one’s own life chances, a person needs to be “doing the most or the best work for fraternity” as if “the hand one is dealt is determinism” and “the way a person plays is free will”. When the Americans were contemplating if they should remain neutral during WW2 or take sides, the Americans did not propose to set up a fund to apportion a sum of money to whoever would be doing “the most or the best work for fraternity” in the aftermath of the war. Nor did the American connive to take advantage of the weakness of the other world powers to proclaim themselves the new rulers of the world. The American people conditioned their entry into the war only if they would have an equal role to play in any post-war peace that would follow. The condition that the American people, from the poorest to the wealthiest, put to enter the war was to programme in the aftermath of the hostilities how every member of the human family could start to collaborate in the economic field based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination and not based on positioning on a scale of achievement, how every person could get to improve his life chances. The social order the American people proposed be set up would make determinism and free will have no meaning. Birth would no longer signify an occasion to be devoted to “doing the best work for the fraternity” but rather a place where a person lives free from any “fear and want”.

If a vast number of people from 1945 to now have not grasped what the United States proposed people start with setting up so no newborn gets to perceive that he is not free and equal in dignity and rights; and if a vast number of people (ii) are acting toward one another post-1945 in a fashion that is more controversial than how relationships were structured, like pre-1945; (iii) appear to be devoted post-1945 to how to size each other and are ignoring the bigger picture; (iv) consider the United States a threat and on a mission to dominate the world when it was this country that negotiated with all the great powers to abandon colonialism and that called to collaborate in the economic field based on respect of the principles of equal rights so everyone can have a chance to be an Alfred Nobel no matter the status of the country or territory to which a person belongs; then one of three scenarios could explain this ongoing indisposition by so many people till now to subscribe to the only political order that is known to man to spare us from subsisting under compulsory domination: Either the US made a mistake by proposing that colonialism be abolished, or human nature changed post-1945, or the decision of the Swedish and the Norwegian governments to continue to award the Nobel Peace Prize to this day is what is inducing this rise in intolerance.

Peace is a concept that is contingent on perception – it is a state of mind. Colonialism does not make people believe that they are equal in dignity and worth. Human nature has not changed pre- and post-1945. Could the decision of the Swedes and the Norwegians to remain to this day in favour of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize be what is instigating this wave of intolerance that emerged in the world post-1945?

Nobel signed his will before his death in 1896. Humans are a species that exhibit actions in nature through their programmed body. On 24 October 1945, representatives on behalf of all the members of the human family ratified a pledge that “hypothetically” ascertained that from this date onwards all the actions that people prompt in the matter would have as their principal motive to achieve “the greatest benefit to mankind”. If the Swedes and the Norwegians are not awarding this peace prize to this day to keep our spirits high, the other purpose could only be to make people perceive deliberately that the world is violent because they have implicit gains from wanting everyone to maintain such a vivid state of mind.

When diplomacy fails, people resort to force. Nobel’s invention is among the manmade factors that people use to this day in warfare, and so the Swedes and the Norwegians do have implicit gains from people continuing to perceive that the world is violent to continue to profit. Let us check if those two countries gain from when the world is insecure.

From birth to death, all what people do is push the boundaries of their scientific and technical limits to the max to provide benefits to our society. This means that the challenge to achieve peace on earth is contingent on how we control human ingenuity and not the properties that are on the outside of the human boundaries – a person cannot prevail over his senses if science is at all the time weakening the ability of the former. [Maloof 2005] This signifies that only when people agree to return to living as per how our ancestors lived during the Stone Age without relying on human ingenuity could we have real peace on earth. It is highly unlikely that the Swedes and the Norwegians would be ready to give up everything they have so they could go back in time to live without depending on their human ingenuity to be the first sample of real peace on earth. Those two countries believe in hierarchy to this day. If the Swedes and the Norwegians do not gain from making people perceive that the world is violent, then those who would stop gaining when those two countries pause from asserting that the world is not safe are the ones who are “hypothetically” predestined to lose the most. The people who are bound to lose the most when the Swedes and the Norwegians pause from incentivising people to do the best work for fraternity to win a reward afterwards are “hypothetically” those who are working on preparing people to agree to voluntarily be more tolerant.

As of 1945, the United Nations (UN) is the principal intergovernmental organisation mandated to coordinate and orient people’s actions to stay on course with people’s determination to achieve “the greatest benefit to mankind”. When people agree to voluntarily prompt actions in a matter that has as a principal motive to deepen fraternity, “hypothetically” there would be no need to continue to award the Nobel Peace Prize or to have a United Nations working on orienting people’s actions to perceive that the world is safe. This signifies that the UN would lose the most when the Swedes and the Norwegians pause from making people continue to perceive that the world is not safe. Could this intergovernmental organisation be sabotaging the mission that all mankind delegated to it in 1945 to attain the common standards that were enunciated in the preamble of the UN Charter to save succeeding generations from the scourge of wars by persuading actions that challenge people’s willpower to be tolerable to weaken existing states to profit and grow?

In 1941, the United States proposed that existing nations use their own political status to figure out how to control and regulate the tolerance of their citizens using the self-determination ideology. The United Nations was not programmed to have a direct role to play in the day-to-day management of this relationship based on the constitutional makeup that was approved in 1945. In fact, the United States and the existing nations agreed to create a financial institution that the decolonised countries and any existing nation could go to in order to have access to resources post-1945 until the great powers figure out how to interconnect all people so no person perceives that he is living in fear and want.

“All roads lead to Rome” was a prevalent expression during the Roman Empire. It came to signify that there are numerous paths to achieve the same outcome or destination, but ultimately, all paths or activities lead to the centre of things.

The United Nations chose to make a name for itself post-1945 and decided to take separate action to attain the ideals aspired to in the preamble of the UN charter. Instead of the United Nations structuring the relationship of people based on the console or the road map that was handed to it in the preamble of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights until the great powers figure out how to interconnect people, this global council picked another route. The United Nations began to split nations into rich and poor and began to teach and counsel the citizens of the decolonised countries on why everyone should stop continuing to look inward as they were doing during colonialism in favour of looking outward, creating an economic bottleneck unheard of in the history of the world.

All that changed pre- and post-1945 on earth is that people began to use the self-determination ideology that the United States started observing as of 1776 so it could be practised over all the lands. It is this inward-looking teaching that had made the United States become a superpower before the Second World War and is what all people agreed to structure and set up in their different polarised areas post-1945 to benefit from. Yet instead of the United Nations letting the United States teach us how to make headway on its inward teaching to fix the self-bias that resides within each individual so every member of the human family becomes more independent in the performance of his civic duties as per what the self-determination ideology or Republicanism doctrine prompts, the UN began to take separate action to teach the people of the decolonised nations to perceive that the reason why their life chances are not better is due to factors that are aspects of human nature, overpopulation, environmental degradation, religious radicalism, and many other factors. Thus, expecting that people will use its teaching or the awareness raising it is leading to devote themselves to fighting injustice, inequality or ending poverty. In fact, the United Nations teaching created unquantifiable damages in the world now to the extent that it made some people perceive that the United States proposed to create the United Nations to rule the world as if no one in the United States were aware by 1945 that if the world could be dominated by one individual or a regime, we would not have had the United States today. Never mind what Adam Smith argued back in the year 1776.

One of two scenarios is true: either the United Nations officials continue to lack a complete understanding of their mission to this day or the nations with great powers, including the Swedes and the Norwegians, who are among the countries that finance a big chunk of the UN work, are underestimating the risks that this association is piling up ahead of everyone. It would be irrational to suppose that the United States could have proposed back in 1941 that the League of Nations be replaced with a new association that would be devoted in the aftermath of the war to teaching the people of the decolonised nations to focus on how to resize the economies of the nations that those same people split from, when the US and everyone know (minus the UN, apparently) that no person has power to prevail over the weakness of his senses. Likewise, it would be irrational to suppose that the Swedes and the Norwegians who finance a big share of the UN work would gain when this intergovernmental organisation teaches people why they should let the perceived benefits outweigh the costs when those two countries believe to this day in hierarchy. In other words, teaching people to improve their life chances by making them focus on how to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality and injustice, as the UN is doing, is a philosophy that sooner or later is bound to collapse aristocracy, no matter how some nations argue that this type of hierarchical stratification is for ceremonial purposes only, because the security of one person is the forgone security of the other.

The civilisation mission that the United Nations wants us to be devoted to reorienting our actions or relationships with one another to attain world peace is not any different from what Alfred Nobel proposed to man to focus on doing to deepen social cohesion, and the Swedish and the Norwegian governments, from 1901 to this date, agree with him. This route or work programme that the United Nations decided to take to attain the ideals stated in the UN Charter and the later goals that this intergovernmental organisation came up with to deepen fraternity require that we be devoted to “doing the most or the best work for fraternity” instead of being devoted to “doing the most to emphasise the importance of human reason over the unimportance of the senses”. If man knew how to prevail over the weakness of his will — i.e., doing wrong when he knows what is right — there would not be wars, and the nations with great powers would have not created an association of nations so we could all come together to use its machinery to avoid the worst excesses of power politics in relations between nations. Yet instead of the UN teaching people to exercise tolerance until the people who control the money supply of the world figure out how to regulate and control people’s relations after the tremendous technological breakthrough took away a big share of what people were programmed to be with their own body immersed doing, the UN is teaching people why everyone should be devoted to looking outward at accelerating actions to fight injustice and inequality, end poverty, combat climate change and many other ambitions as a means to improve one’s own life chances when two people cannot occupy the same void space.

Crises and conflicts can be classed into two categories: violent and non-violent. Let us classify the manner crises and conflicts manifest into two types: sparked and incubated. The incubated types undergo a transformation process: first, through a gestation period, and then they take shape and explode. This forward-looking policy that the UN is using to energise people to focus on how to expose the ineptness of their standing government to make it crumble in place instead of focusing on how to teach people to be tolerant has helped the United Nations to win a number of Nobel Peace Prizes from 1945 to now. This strategy, which operates on injecting resources to let the social and the economic changes make the respective beneficiaries start to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality and injustice to accelerate intolerance, has so far destabilised lots of poor nations and collapsed powerful alliances that were capable of controlling people’s behaviour, as the former Soviet Union is one such example. But as we all know, every coin has two sides. We know that we have created a massive machine to run this creative chaos approach that the UN has been promoting since 1945. Most importantly, we also know that the tool which the UN uses to push people to use their political, economic and social preparedness to self-destruct their progress instead of building on top is through the different ambitious “goals” that this association of nations comes up with to keep this creative chaos strategy operational.

If, so far, all the UN “goals” starting from the ones that were launched in 1945 to the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that the UN launched in the year 2000 and replaced in 2016 with the UN Sustainable Goals have transformed the economic and social standards in poor nations from worse to worst; and if we already know that it is impossible to satiate human imagination yet all the United Nations subsidiary organs are teaching and educating people on why they should all be striving to realize the full development of their personality instead of being tolerant; and if we already know that if religion was capable to satiate the full development of the personality of people, this guiding ideology would not have proposed to people to be tolerant so some realize what they are not able to achieve on earth in eternity; how do we know then that the UN is not going to accelerate the intolerance of the citizens of the nations that till now its populace did not yet have the privilege of benefiting from any one of the UN ambitious “goals” and plunge them in incertitude if under the new UN Sustainable Goals, this association of nations is programmed to eradicate poverty, injustice and inequality in all the UN members states?

In other words, if we already know that all the UN goals from 1945 to 2015 have achieved is that they have worn out the tolerance of the British people to the extent that this country decided to break from the European Union goals due to how all the UN goals were putting pressure on this country to make concessions that go contrary to what is in its best interests; and if we already know that technology and the financialisation of the world are plunging in deeper incertitude, the people whom this organisation has accelerated their intolerance and pushed to destruct their own progress using its creative chaos approach, and if people are not ready to agree to control reproduction, how do we know that when the UN subsidiary organs begin to work with the Swedish and the Norwegian governments, for instance, to implement the new UN Sustainable Goals, the tolerance of the Swedish and Norwegian people would not run out and those two countries would request to withdraw from the United Nations?

I do not know if the tolerance of the Swedish or the Norwegian people would run out to the extent of requesting to withdraw from the UN in the same way that Great Britain requested to break away from the European Union after the UN goals up to the year 2015 drove a large number of people in neighbouring countries to prefer to move to live in England / Europe, or if the people who live in Sweden or Norway would be fleeing for the same reasons that made others leave their own countries. What I do know is what the Swedish and the Norwegian people need to do to not have to deal with or face either condition, perhaps. I strongly believe that the measures that those two countries need to take include, first and foremost, stopping to finance the UN Sustainable Goals and depositing this destined money in the account of the World Bank so existing nations could access it at their pace; refusing to let the UN cooperate on their territories to implement those new UN goals; and most importantly, requesting that the Nobel Peace Prizes that were awarded to the United Nations be withdrawn, including requesting that this intergovernmental organisation be issued a corruption index. Here is the rationale on which I base my claim:

In 2013, UNOPS, which is one of the UN subsidiary organs that the United Nations created to operate as a self-financed entity, organised a meeting with the former Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to express the readiness of the United Nations to provide services to accelerate the reconstruction of the country. The prime minister requested UNOPS officials to meet with the administrators of the Congolese Road Authority in the DRC to look for synergy. In a lapse of a few days, UNOPS, which is the United Nations operational arm and whom the existing nations entrusted to aid with rebuilding war-torn countries, found a very creative way to have Transparency International reduce the corruption perception index of this country to go back to where it was in 1960 at 0, or let’s say before the UN began to implement any of its goals in this sovereign nation. UNOPS persuaded the Congolese Road Authority to use the services of the UN to implement a $25M project to open 2000 km of roads using the labour-intensive methods in a lapse of 2 years.

I have no way of knowing how the United Nations was planning to implement 2000 km of roads using the labour-based construction and maintenance method in such a short lapse of time in a country whose cities and villages have been depicted by the same UN to be islands due to the lack of a road network system connecting them to each other, which is a minimum requirement to bring the road construction material to where those 2000 km of roads would be constructed. The good news member states should be pleased to know that starting from 2013 the Congolese government, which the same UN ranks among the poorest, started to finance the UN’s ongoing operations in the country through its own resources, which by itself is a significant indicator to support that all the efforts the UN subsidiary organs depleted to stabilise this nation, along with the peace mission that the UN mounted 18 years ago, paid off. Surely, if violence had not been erupting coincidentally right before the mandate of the peace mission that the UN maintains in the DRC is set to expire, thus obliging the UN Security Council to extend its stay, this peace mission would have ended a long time ago.

The other good news, which for sure the awarders of the Nobel Peace Prize could find useful if they decide to award the UN this prize in the future due to its direct relevance to supporting how the UN is preparing people to secure the goals that are set forth in the UN Charter using the self-determination ideology that the United States proposed in 1945, is the following. The UN proposed to the Congolese Road Authority that the money for the construction of the roads be deposited in the bank account of the United Nations. Then, the United Nations proposed to the government to use its own solicitation method, which allows it to approve bypassing the use of formal methods of solicitation to deposit back the same money in the same bank account from which those funds were withdrawn so the same Congolese Road Authority implements the project with its own cadre minus a very hefty fee or income, of course. It is important to note that the UN procurement rules allow such a manoeuvre when it is in the best interests of the UN to bypass formal solicitation methods.

I strongly believe that the United States did not propose in 1945 to the Belgians to decolonise the people of the DRC so the United Nations takes over and starts to teach people a different self-determination ideology than the one the US is practising on its soil or if the United Nations is teaching the Congolese people a new ideology which has as its aim to keep this country unstable to justify the UN peace mission that costs more than a billion USD per year and the United States pays a big share of this cost to weaken the US. What I do know is that the UN employee who was against the UN rebuilding war-torn countries based on the method the UN is using to justify its presence in this country and who even proposed that this business be reported to the US government because he was an American national, the UN dealt with him strangely.

His supervisors, who hail from none other than Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other European countries, which Transparency International has ranked the corruption index of its populace to be in the teen digits, requested he transfer temporarily to Sudan and threatened him that if he decides to refuse, his contract would not be renewed. In Sudan, his supervisors accused him of being a threat to the best interests of the UN to distance him from continuing to resist their resolve to violate the UN financial rules and regulations. Most importantly, to distance him from the office because he refused to do what the Department for International Development (DFID) of Great Britain conditioned to work with the UN in the country, but this American national refused because it was against the UN financial rules and regulations and, most importantly, the self-determination ideology that Great Britain in 1941 was the first to sponsor and to subscribe to its doctrine. However, the DFID request fitted well with his European supervisors because they are not working on attaining the goals that are mentioned in the UN Charter but on how to put their hands on the income that the UN would derive from the money of DFID.

‘Power differential’ refers to when a person with no power crisscrosses people with lots of power, and the latter uses their power to distort the truth. In late 2017, the UN judicial system heard the UN investigators say that this American national was charged with being a threat to the UN’s best interests against their recommendation. The UN judicial system also heard from the immediate supervisors of this American national verbally and in writing that very senior UN officials who were also very senior former diplomats in their countries before joining the UN charged him to disguise impropriety. Yet despite all the evidence that was provided to support wrongdoing by those senior UN officials, the application of this US national was dismissed, perpetrating by this ruling one of the most blatant violations of human rights that the UN could have committed in its history. I should also mention that before the start of the hearings the UN made an offer to this American national to agree to drop the application he filed, but unfortunately his decision to rank the ideology of his country before his best interests and go against people with lots of power brought him nowhere. Now, he is with his government a hostage. They both cannot open a civil case in the US courts against the UN because this organisation maintains immunities.

Indeed, the objection that this American national raised in the DRC led to the United Nations and the Congolese government putting an end to their agreement on this project and the United Nations to return the money back to the Congolese government in 2014.

Could any nation achieve any one of the UN “Goals” that this intergovernmental organisation started peddling since 1945 in the name of making the world safer if it is using these goals to disguise improbity and to weaken the existing nations to defend their best interests so it could grow?

How can we be sure that Sweden and Norway, who finance a big share of the UN development work, are not providing all their financial aid to weaken the US ambition to make the world safer and to delay the poor nations from progressing? Those two nations know that all the UN officials discharge their responsibilities without receiving from any government or from any other authority external to the organisation instructions (article 100 of the UN charter).

Should the United Nations be allowed to be an economic collaborator who operates with privileges and immunities and while allowed to operate a judicial system that was set up without any checks and balances but with a mandate to protect the UN officials and not the people who stand up to stop its senior officials from confusing people? Or should this organisation be issued a corruption index since all that separates how we do business and the way UN officials do it is that every time when one of us on the other side of the fence commits any wrongdoing, he goes to prison and the UN is allowed to apologise on behalf of its officials, including promises to introduce stricter financial rules?

Should the UN continue to be privileged with the Nobel Peace Prizes that the Swedish and the Norwegian governments awarded to the United Nations, or should those two governments request that all the Nobel Peace Prizes that were awarded to the United Nations be withdrawn? In lieu of the financial aid that those two countries bequeath, go to request the UN Security Council to reopen the case of this US national that the UN judicial system has refused to rule over and dismissed in order to protect their former politicians and other senior DFID officials so the world does not know that they are corrupt.

The privileges and immunities of the United Nations have blocked this American national from opening a civil case against the UN in the US courts to uphold the self-determination ideology that every US citizen has pledged since 1945 to keep, not to trade, to make the world safer. However, I have no doubt that the power differentials that exist between all the nations and the UN would continue to crumble, and the UN would eventually be stopped from continuing to resize nations as it is now doing through its “goals”. In this way all the nations can be saved in the same way Great Britain was saved when this country announced that it was breaking away from the European Union to stop, indirectly, the UN or its goals from weakening the tolerance of its citizens before it would be too late.