A symbol is “a mark, sign, or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship.” A road map is a symbolic relationship between elements.

In mathematics, a map is often used as a synonym for a function or morphism.

Morphology is the study of the forms of things. Morphology is a branch of mathematics, biology, or linguistics that deals with the form and structure of animals, words, objects, etc.

Group theory is a concept in mathematics that takes, for example, a static map of any kind, suppose every object or relationship depicted is dynamic, and then generalizes patterns that can be applied to many different subjects. It is therefore a concept in which various physical objects (humans, trees, fish, shapes) and non-physical elements (numbers, ideas) generate lots of different things within the system(s). We can say that morphism is the tool that helps us to preserve structure and operations within the structure, and representation theory is what gives a generalized idea of how the group is behaving within the system.

I believe that one of the most picture-perfect, straightforward elements from all the infinite numbers that exist in the group (i.e., the system) is one that can serve as a guide when we apply the topic of mathematics, mapping, morphisms, group theory, representational theory, etc. to help us understand how to be organized in the different communities or the international order: the sound or combination of sounds that we make when we speak, and we are all ready to accept that it has a meaning. This element is the letter or groups of letters that have meaning when spoken or written, and we call it the “word.”

The apostle John said in the Gospel of John that “In the beginning was the Word.” He then says that through “words” all things are made, and without them nothing would have been made from what has been made.

In fact, “words” seem to be a tool that operates just like numbers do.

For example, we are all prepared to put phonemes together and to convert them into syllables. We are also all prepared to put syllables together to form words, which we give a distinct meaning, add to a word, or remove from a word syllabus, just as we do in number theory when we add or multiply numbers. Most importantly, just as numbers are capable of preserving their own identity or structure, so do words. If we take the different words that exist, we find that each word is capable of preserving its own identity or structure either alone or when it combines with another syllable to form a new structure or a new meaning. Each word has a start and an end. Each word can be composed of many syllables or a small number. Actually, there is a lot of similarity between the way words function and the way atoms function. A morpheme is the smallest linguistic part of a unit (i.e., word, object) that can have a meaning (i.e., it cannot be divided further). In addition, a word can form a sentence with other words.

Hence, the study of logic (i.e., language, biology, math, art, etc.) would have not been possible without the study of words, or syllables, or phonemes (symbols) either independently or when combined to communicate or form sentences, which we use as a tool to solve many different kinds of problems. We can say that outcomes (forms and structure) are, for the most part, the product of the way we study how independent units of meanings (ideas) or objects (people) are interrelated or organized.

For example, as of 1945, the international rule-based postwar world order, which the victors of WW2 (i.e., the families/dynasties who won WW2) designed to depend on its principles to maintain their strength and stability and ensure lasting peace, has been progressing like a roller-coaster. The world has been shifting from one turmoil and political challenge to the next at record speed.

If, as of the last world reset (i.e., WW2 war aims), the world has become polarized to a level unheard of in its complexity, except when we read in the literature about the transformations that were happening before the collapse of the Greek Empire or the Roman Empire, this means that either the dogma that people are using as of 1945 (i.e., the liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy) is erroneous and its effect caused the turmoil that exists in the world today or the units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that the victors of WW2 created to secure the ends set forth in the UN Charter or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the problem.

It is important to mention that if we take the first thirty years after the creation of the United Nations and the last thirty years that elapsed so far since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we find that many societies (now nations) that were formerly administered by the old powers (i.e., western European nations) quarreled with one another or were engulfed in a civil war after the people of those societies (now countries) were freed, but none of the societies (now nations) that were part of the Soviet Union and then joined NATO have disagreed with one another or been involved in a civil war so far. This is because the victors of WW2 (i.e., the nations or families/dynasties who control NATO) could be correcting through this legal entity (NATO) the governance errors (failures) they encountered or stumbled upon with the societies that they freed and admitted into the United Nations, but later those new nations backed down from obeying the obligations of the UN charter. Actually, NATO could be the real organization that the victors of WW2 (the families/dynasties who control the international order or the money supply of the world) created and depend on to correct through its internal instruments the challenges that the United Nations is stumbling upon to make nations obey to ultimately create a single political authority for all humanity, as some conspiracy theorists claim is being built. All the units of authority that people create would collapse in the course of time and things, because humans appear to rival, by nature, each other to determine who could have a greater say in governance or when outcomes are not shared on equal rights. That is also to say, the nations that are members of NATO are not disputing with one another because they are capable till now of establishing balance, but when more nations join this legal entity, NATO’s performance will not be any different from the result the United Nations has achieved so far.

Hence, the dogma proposed by the victors of WW2 (i.e., the liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy) cannot be a culprit in this division that emerged in the world in the aftermath of WW2, mainly because it is a central parameter in the idea of freedom; then all the cultural or identity clashes, violence, and abnormal rise in corruption, irreligiosity, or intolerance that emerged so far in most UN member states can only be due to the policies that the victors of WW2 allowed the thinkers or administrators of the different new units of authority they created, such as UN agencies, NATO, the EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., to legitimize and enforce.

In other words, the decision of the victors of WW2 to create new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) and to task them with teaching people to prioritize democracy and human rights (i.e., preventing governments from doing their jobs), while governments need to be coming up always with regulations to maintain law and order (i.e., due to how people freeze social space, accumulate material things on a cumulative basis, and protect material interests that result from scientific production), has placed the international rule-based postwar world order (i.e., the liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy) on an irreparable path in the absence of a new political or economic reset such as a global war or the restructuring of the United Nations as happened to its predecessor, the League of Nations.

The Stations of the Cross are “a series of pictures or carvings portraying events in the Passion of Christ from his condemnation by Pontius Pilate to his entombment.”

The invasion of Russia of Ukraine is a major stop in this ongoing war that exists between governments (state actors) and international institutions (i.e., the families/dynasties who control those units of authority) to determine who would make the weakest surrender to the fittest.

That is to say, if the Russian regime collapses, the turn of the United States government to endure the same fate would not be something that the families/dynasties who control the United States could avoid occurring to them in the course of time and things. This is because those who are resisting the Russians in Ukraine are divided between those who are objecting to ensuring that their power, wealth, and status do not get stripped from them and those who are refusing to surrender freedom to the Russians because they want the Russians to treat them on an equal rights basis just as per the legal right that the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) told them they have a right to as of 1945.

Simply put, hence, we have no way of knowing how many people between those who are resisting the Russians in Ukraine are doing it because they are concerned over losing their power, wealth, and status, and how many are refusing to do it because they want the Russians to treat them on an equal rightsright basis exactly as per what the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) told people they have legal rights to as of 1945. This means that we have no way of knowing if Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine fails and the Russian regime collapses as most Western European countries are demanding happen, if this outcome would have occurred because of the resistance of those who were standing to lose the most if their power, wealth, and status would have been disintegrated in Ukraine, or because of the resistance or unpreparedness of those individuals who the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) told them they have legal rights to as of 1945. What did it? This situation is very serious and worrisome.

This is because it is not the people who are resisting the Russians because they are afraid of what they stand to lose if their power, wealth, and status are disintegrated who pose the real threat to the United States (the idea of freedom), but the people who are resisting the Russians because they are convinced that the Russians should start to cooperate with them based on equal rights who do. This is because if the number of people who are resisting the Russians based on convictions that the Russians should start to cooperate with them based on equal rights is greater than the number of people who are resisting because they are afraid of what they stand to lose if their power, wealth, and status were disintegrated, then mankind could be in the midst of a social revolution. This situation is very serious and worrisome.

To put it differently, humans do not cooperate based on equal rights. That is to say, the only way for the people who would be losing the most in Ukraine if Russia strips them of their power, wealth, and status to avoid their authority shrinking is to bunker under the idea of freedom, human rights, justice, etc. to muster support and keep their authority. Similarly, the people who administer the different units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that the victors of WW2 created and tasked with teaching people to prioritize democracy and equal rights do not cooperate based on the principles they are teaching others to prioritize. In other words, the people who are preaching democracy and equal rights at those different units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) are not doing it while abandoning mainstream society (i.e., living like monks do), but while pursuing the realization of the full development of their personality. In other words, the staff of those different units of authority are freezing social space and accumulating material things on a cumulative basis and handing them to designated individuals while preaching equal rights. This situation means that humans use the idea of freedom, human rights, justice, etc. to defeat with such concepts the strongest.

The United States possesses the world’s most powerful military, and this country is the custodian of the idea of freedom, human rights, justice, etc. around the world.

If the world is in the midst of a social revolution to improve democracy and human rights, then this mindfulness could only be stemming from people’s ardent need to create conditions of stability and well-being. On the other hand, if the world happens to be in the midst of a social revolution to improve democracy and human rights, the United States could be doomed. This is because, as I just said, humans use the idea of freedom, human rights, justice, etc. to defeat with such concepts the strongest.

That is to say, it makes no difference if the United States is using the idea of freedom (democracy and human rights) to serve the self-interests of its own citizens only or if this country is genuinely working to reduce fear and want around the world. In a race, all the runners want to defeat the fastest and not the slowest.

In addition, not all the people in the United States are cooperating according to the principles set forth in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If the world is in the midst of a social revolution, then it is highly likely that those who are in the United States and unhappy with the manner their leaders are increasing their happiness since 1945 plot to resize this country. The challenge that such a development poses to the idea of freedom is unquantifiable, because, as I just said, the United States is the real custodian of the idea of freedom, human rights, justice, etc. around the world. If the United States were resized, then mankind could lose all the milestones that were achieved to improve the idea of freedom till now. The United States is not just a country that is working to stop its own citizens from continuing to violate the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as of 1948, but the real force that is truly working to elevate democracy and human rights in the world, unlike other UN member states. Therefore, if the United States is resized, we cannot be sure that the new authority who would start to play the global policeman role would be in favor of prioritizing the idea of freedom instead of social hierarchy.

To put it differently, all the UN member states, with the exception of the United States, started practicing democracy and freedom as of 1945. The United States started practicing freedom and human rights in 1776.

In addition, from 1776 to 1945, the societies who lived in the social space that is now called the United States united voluntarily to form this one large country that exists today. Those who resisted initially, we now know on their behalf that they were wrong, because they would not have achieved the happiness they desire if they had not stayed part of this union. A good example is the happiness that the people who live in Mexico or Canada reached versus the happiness of the people who live in the United States. In addition, from 1776 to 2022, only once did the people who live in the United States become divided and prefer to split the country (American Civil War). Since 1945, the world has changed from having close to 60 sovereign nations in 1945 to 193 in 2022. If it were up to people to create new nations, membership in the United Nations would have reached 193,000, perhaps.

Therefore, hence, the United States is, at the same time, a country whose people use the idea of freedom, human rights, justice, etc. as a tool to get their way despite the resistance of others and a common denominator (platform) to elevate freedom. This means that if the United States were resized, mankind would not be only increasing the United Nations membership by another 50 new members but would be giving away the custodianship of the philosophical idea that people have been pursuing since time immemorial to the wrong people. This philosophical idea is how to increase freedom.

I have no way of knowing if the United States would be better off letting Russia annex Ukraine, thus going against the values that this country defends and acting as their custodian, or if the United States would be better off if it helped the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians, knowing that this formula could end up being very costly if the world is in the midst of a social revolution. What I do know is that if the United States supports the Ukrainians to resist falling to Russia, the United States would be strengthening the role that the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) would be playing to help the Ukrainians rebuild or to determine political, social, and economic solutions in the future. The more the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) play a role in helping societies to determine political, social, and economic solutions, the more the United States would be giving its non-objection to dynamism amplifying in the world rather than to shrinking. This is because the staff of those units of authority are not cooperating in accordance with the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This means that the United States would not be helping the world to strengthen the idea of freedom or its own power, wealth, and status for that matter, but the wealth, status, and power of the individuals who are making their living from the idea of democracy and human rights at those international and national human development institutions. Furthermore, hence, the legitimacy of any agreement is legit only to the extent that its executioners are fulfilling their part of the agreement, and we know that none of the UN system officials, NATO officials, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc. are cooperating based on the principles of equal rights (mind you, they are not from only one color, but they are of different colors); then the idea of freedom and the whole world in its entirety could be doomed.

If the aforesaid work contains any element of truth, this signifies that the United States would be better off if Russia annexed Ukraine to preserve its present wealth, power, or status, including remaining the custodian of the idea of freedom (i.e., preventing the world from being in the midst of a social revolution to push those who are not happy with the manner the US is ruling the world from developing power). Why did the United States’s attempt to annex Ukraine fail (i.e., applying sanctions against Russia and sending the Ukrainians weapons to fight the Russians)?

To put it differently, if the families/dynasties who control the United States believe that if Russia’s ongoing attempt to invade Ukraine is stopped, this action would solidify their power and prevent their power, status, and wealth from collapsing, this means that the way peace and security were evolving (i.e., unfolding) before Russia invaded Ukraine was solidifying the power of the United States around the world. This conclusion cannot be true. First, the 2021 United States Capitol attack supports the opposite. Second, the statements that many nations make against the interference of the United States in their own political status do not support that this country is liked.

In fact, the families/dynasties who control the United States do not know how many people in the US are bunkering under the idea of freedom, human rights, justice, etc. to keep their authority and how many are genuinely wanting that mankind cooperate on the basis of such principles so fear and want reduce in the world. The same can be said about the nations with whom the families/dynasties who control the United States maintain alliances.

For example, the polarization that has swept the US government in recent years can only be due to the people who are depending on the idea of freedom in the country to solidify their personal power (i.e., the rich) perceiving that the idea of equal rights and democracy is encroaching on their power, wealth, or status, or to the people who stand to gain the most (i.e., the poor) in the country if the rich cooperate with them based on the idea of democracy and rule of law being the ones who are provoking this division.

Likewise, the families/dynasties who control the United States know very well that whether Russia invades Ukraine or Ukraine mobilizes the whole world and invades Russia, this outcome will not have any bearing on improving peace and security. In other words, the families/dynasties who control the United States already know that the rulers and political class in Ukraine would not be practicing democracy and equal rights if this crisis turns out to be in their favor. The Russians are not practicing democracy and equal rights to start with.

All the questions I raised to understand why the United States is not in favor of Russia annexing Ukraine (i.e., going along with prolonging the agony of the Ukrainians) are leading me into believing that the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) are the only winners if Russia’s ongoing attempt to invade Ukraine is stopped.

In fact, if I consider that the only change that occurred in the world before WW2 was regarded to have started and after WW2 was regarded to have ended has been the creation of those new units of authorities (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.), which the founding fathers of the UN did not counsel be created, and only when those new units of authority started providing solutions in the social order to improve democracy and human rights did people around the world start to put into question the integrity of the United States to improve freedom. This means that the United States would be better off if Russia annexed Ukraine (and the whole world) for nothing more than to prevent the idea of freedom, democracy, and human rights from being prostituted, thus deepening the insecurity that exists in the world. This is because if rulers and the political class (judges and law enforcement officers) were prioritizing freedom, democracy, and human rights in the same way they are prioritizing their own self-interests, the world should have been a lot more peaceful by now (i.e., 3 generations have lapsed so far). But if rulers and the political class (judges and law enforcement officers) are only prepared to trickle down laws and not enough wealth, morality, jobs, etc., and are just busy financializing the world, are we not lucky that the international order has not collapsed already?

Once again, I have no way of knowing if the way peace and security were evolving around the world before Russia invaded Ukraine was solidifying the power and values of the United States or not. What I do know is that the idea of “good” and the idea of “evil” have been the parameters that made empires disintegrate and made petty kingdoms become empires. If the families/dynasties who control the United States believe that they can “preach” the idea of good and “fight” the idea of evil using people (rulers, political class, thinkers, judges, law enforcement officers, human development experts, etc.) in the United States and in UN member states who are practicing both ideas at the same time and win (i.e., improve justice and fairness), then the families/dynasties who control the US believe that “good” and “evil” are parameters that are equal. In other words, the families/dynasties who control the United States believe that the world lacks any supreme authority (i.e., God, natural force, etc.).

Till today, we cannot say that the world lacks any supreme authority because we have not yet finished interconnecting every member of the human family digitally so we can find out if the idea of good or evil that people manifest is natural or manmade. Therefore, until the date the victors of WW2 (the families/dynasties who control the international order and the money supply of the world) manage to interconnect every member of the human family digitally to know if the anarchic social order that we exist within was programmed or if it is manmade, we cannot say that we can create ordered relations between humans as rulers and political class (thinkers, judges, law enforcement officers, human development experts, etc.) are always assuring is happening. That is to say, humanity did not start as of 1945. If our thinkers today cannot be wiser than the philosophers that preceded them, especially since the thinkers of today are building on the knowledge or the conjectures of those ancestors, this means that all the models and studies that the thinkers of today are developing and are testing with them in the social order will produce the same result for as long as justice and fairness are applied to the poor only (i.e., increasing disenchantment).

This also means that for as long as the victors of WW2 (the families/dynasties who control the international order and the money supply of the world) allow rulers and political classes in UN member states to consider that anarchy provides a foundation for the chaos, disorder, or conflict that exists in the world, instead of attributing this anarchy to the unpreparedness of rulers and political classes to lead by example (i.e., considering themselves exempt from the appeal included in the work program set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), this signifies that the idea of liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy would be regarded as a threat to mankind rather than an opportunity. That is to say, for as long as rulers, the political class, thinkers, judges, law enforcement officers, human development experts, etc. continue to establish relations with the idea of freedom in UN member states without leading by example, the more inequality will rise. The more inequality rises, the more mistrust, disobedience, and tribalism rise. The more tribalism, disobedience, and mistrust rise, the more the cognitive abilities of people decline. The more the cognitive abilities of people decline, the more social cohesion declines. As social cohesion declines, so do the institutions that have helped us achieve our current level of organization. The more governments decline and fall, the more violence rises, thus destroying human progress.

This raises the question of what might have compelled Russia to invade Ukraine. It is important to recall that Russia has been the one who has been shuttling our astronauts to the International Space Station in recent years. This argument implies that Russia is a country that operates with a limited perspective. If the Russian soldiers risking their lives in Ukraine are not driven by their emotions, they must believe that the concept of freedom (rule of law and justice) poses a threat rather than an opportunity.

That is to say, if the regime in Russia, despite being autocratic (coercive), stopped being able to establish balance with the idea of freedom (rule of law, justice), which people who are living on the outside of this border are practicing, then either the Russians are not capable of preventing the changes that are happening around them from changing them for the worse, or they started perceiving the changes happening in the Ukraine as a threat to the dignity and worth of the human person and felt they have a moral responsibility to intervene in Ukraine to change things around.

I have no way of knowing which scenario between the aforesaid two pushed the Russians to invade Ukraine. What I do know is that throughout history “good” and “evil” have been creating balance. Hence, it is not possible to consider that Russia is invading Ukraine to increase “evil” pursuant to the broad rise of awareness and knowledge that exists around the world; then the Russian action has to have been provoked to increase moral responsibility.

Going back to the question of linguistic morphology, we seem to have managed to develop an understanding of where words begin and where words end, including knowing what is inside the word to understand both the internal structure of the word and its overall unit of meaning as a whole.

To my knowledge, humans have not managed to develop an understanding of where people’s perception starts and where those perceptions end in the same way they managed to put an end to words (i.e., put spaces), and therefore, this impediment could be the reason why those who want others to consider their opinion before taking action of their own resort to force to get their way despite the resistance of others or to moral values to make people agree to obey voluntarily.

Actually, if I integrate into my thinking the last attempt the United States (with NATO) made to make the Taliban, who are among the least modernized people in the world, surrender freedom to them, I find that the US, NATO, and their goodwill ambassadors (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) failed after 19 years and 10 months of trying to make the Taliban (and Afghans) abandon their values and traditions to embrace the democratic values they were being invited to uphold.

I have no way of knowing if rulers and the political class in the United States have constructed and tested mathematical models that show what is going on inside the mind of the Russians in the same way they are capable of understanding the internal structure of words, thus enabling them to avoid spending another 19 years and 10 months working along with their allies and goodwill ambassadors (UN agencies, NATO, the EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) to get their way despite the resistance of others in Ukraine and reap the return they achieved in Afghanistan and in the other 190 UN member states in the last 19 years and 10 months.

Likewise, I have no way of knowing if the rulers and political class in the United States believe that the changes that have occurred in the world since 1945 are reinforcing the concept of freedom. What I do know is that with words, people make sentences. A sentence is the sum of different units of meaning, which are separated by words that have a start and an end and which together form a complete set. People memorize certain sentences only. There is a reason for that. This is because there are infinite sentences but a finite number of words in any language.

I do not know why the victors of WW2 decided to take the work program that the founding fathers of the UN designed for them (a set) and began to create new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, the EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) to change its form or structure. In other words, attaching to the work program adds on after we spent the last ten thousand years developing units of meaning such as governments, languages, countries, religions, etc., which we managed to understand and accept their function. What I do know is that in math if you add two integers, you get another integer. Only when you add 0 to any integer do we get the same integer. That is to say the integer involved in this operation maintains its identity. In other words, it doesn’t affect the operation or the identity of the element (the integer) involved.

Therefore, since the victors of WW2 decided to take the work program that the founding fathers of the UN designed for them (i.e., a closed set) and began to create new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.), thus changing the principal reason for the coming together of the families/dynasties who won WW2 (the victors of WW2) with the societies that those powerful families/dynasties freed (i.e., to continue to solidify their power while ensuring lasting peace with the poor), we can say that we have been since 1945 working toward producing a social order that is different than the one set forth in the preamble of the UN Charter and for which the founding fathers of the UN suggested we use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to reach.

I have no way of knowing what the families/dynasties that won WW2 (the victors of WW2) are thinking or building. What I do know is that no matter what the victors of WW2 (the families/dynasties who won WW2) are thinking or building, the wealth, power, or status that they want to reap cannot be less than the power, wealth, or status that they were possessing at the end of WW2.

In abstract algebra, a homomorphism is a way to compare two groups for structural similarities. It’s a function between two groups that preserves the group structure in each group.

I do not know if the families/dynasties who won WW2 (the victors of WW2) were better off before 1945 or if they are better off post-1945. As I just said earlier, in theory, the power, wealth, or status of the families/dynasties who won WW2 should be worse post-1945.

To put it differently, if we take any integer and multiply it by 1, we will always end up with the integer. Let us assume the integer refers to the power, wealth, or status of the families/dynasties who won WW2 (the victors of WW2). This signifies that the goal of the families/dynasties who won WW2 after WW2 was regarded as that no matter what ± changes their own power, wealth, or status endure, the changes that people would be creating (competition, corruption, good, bad, etc.) would always remain unchanged (i.e., 1).

As I just said, the victors of WW2 cannot make their power not decline or increase (which is all the better to them) in the aftermath of WW2 because they decided to change the work program that the founding fathers of the UN suggested they remain faithful to its principles to secure the goals set forth in the preamble of the UN Charter and created new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) whose work since 1945 no one knows.

Said differently, there is no other work program that can produce the goals set forth in the preamble of the UN Charter besides the work program that the founding fathers of the UN suggested be used as depicted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is because humans cannot practice any other dogma to ensure lasting peace besides this operation, which is based on the principles of equal rights, and we reached this milestone in 1945. Therefore, since no one is cooperating based on the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since 1945 except a handful of people (monks, children, etc.), we have no way of knowing what the victors of WW2 are building with those new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that they created in the aftermath of WW2.

Hence, the families/dynasties who won WW2 (the victors of WW2) maintain their strength and stability when people are obeying and not when people are not doing it, and there is no need to dwell on how peace and security have been like since 1945; then we cannot say that those powerful families/dynasties are making lots of progress on whatever it might be that they are building with those new redundant units of authority to governments. Nor could we say that their power, wealth, or status has been improving since 1945, as I just said.

I have no way of knowing if the different religions, languages, numbers, societies, etc., that exist were invented by people or programmed by a supreme authority (i.e., their mapping is natural). What I do know is that since antiquity, people or societies have been staying separate (i.e., unable to find structural similarity), and instead of the victors of WW2 keeping people this way as counselled by the founding fathers of the UN, they decided to go against the recommendation of the founding fathers of the UN, grouped us together in one pot just because we have structural similarity, and began to apply on us a “theory of everything” as if we were objects. Mind you, physicists did not discover such a theory yet, despite all the research that was made so far in this area!

Therefore, since the victors of WW2 decided to use the idea of freedom differently than the way the American people used such a concept from 1776 to 1945 to help them practice tolerance (i.e., to develop the understanding necessary of themselves, thus permitting them afterwards to reap moral responsibility → becoming the happiest), and decided to jump the gun and invent a “theory for everything” before physicists even discover one for objects (i.e., began providing political and economic solutions across the board), we can say that the approach that the victors of WW2 could be using to help them to continue to transform the conditions that matter to them could be no different from the process that scientists use to iron out complex systems to transform them into simpler and richer systems.

In nature, when organic substances are mixed with worms, this process decomposes the organic substances in the mix and produces a new rich product that serves to help other organic substances like plants and trees grow healthier. Indeed, the explorations that humans undertake after birth are no different than the way organic substances break down to produce a finished product that can help improve the quality of the soil.

For example, if we let “human relations” refer to what organic substances in this natural process serve, and let the microorganisms that are working to help us decompose our complex relations refer to the different human organizations (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that have been, as of 1945, determining our actions, we can say the ways the two systems function are analogous to each other.

The scientists who study natural decomposition processes say that this operation involves chemical and biological reactions as well as physical criteria to make compost (i.e., a new rich material). Scientists say that sometimes things can go wrong, and when problems arise, they can change the decomposition process from being productive to detrimental.

I have no way of knowing if the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that the victors of WW2 created in the aftermath of WW2 are helping them to break down our complex relations and to make it simpler for newborns to be ready to surrender freedom to their government leaders—who serve the families/dynasties that won WW2—or if this abnormal rise in intolerance since 1945 around the world is because the relations that those new units of authority are persuading are complicating the political and economic order in a much more malicious way.

When complex processes lead to breakdown, numerous chemical and biological reactions occur simultaneously. The level of heat, oxygen, and other factors generated by the system also influence all those reactions.

If we create an analogy between the way chemical and biological reactions are breaking down materials and the decay that our social relations are compelling in the social order, we can build parallels.

For example, the faster the victors of WW2 let the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) who are maintaining relationships with them teach newborns to become unprepared to obey unless the rich share with them outcomes on equal rights (as happened during the Arab Spring), the more such a shock would be accelerating societal collapse, including increasing the odds of the families/dynasties who won WW2 (the victors of WW2) seeing their wealth, power, and status getting resized. Likewise, the more the victors of WW2 permit the UN agencies to be economic operators while preaching equal rights and democracy, the more corruption, betrayal, and irreligiosity will be on the rise in the world.

Finally, I have no way of knowing how the families/dynasties who won WW2 (the families/dynasties who control the international order or the money supply of the world) are planning to avoid their power, wealth, and status diminishing if they stop Russia from invading Ukraine (whose turn now is to pay the price) when Russia appears to be doing the powerful families/dynasties (and the world) a favor by stopping the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) from continuing to diminish their wealth, power, and strength. In other words, teach newborns to be unprepared to obey unless the rich share with them outcomes on equal rights, thus accelerating the collapse of the heirs of the families/dynasties who won WW2.

Again, the good news is it is not us (the common people) who stand to lose if Russia fails to annex Ukraine now that this unfortunate war has already started. This is because it is not going to be us (the common people) who are going to be putting Ukraine back the way it was before the Russian invasion but the victors of WW2 and their different authorities (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.). I have no way of knowing, in case Russia fails to annex Ukraine, if the victors of WW2 and their different authorities (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) would rebuild Ukraine in the same way they rebuilt Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq after those countries were engulfed in civil war thanks mainly to the policies that they were determining and enforcing, or if they would be rebuilding Ukraine in the same way the United States rebuilt Germany and Japan after WW2. What I do know is that whether Russia manages to annex Ukraine or not would not have any bearing on the way peace and security would be evolving in the world in the future. This is because we are already working toward converting the world into becoming an authoritarian world, just as people in Russia are governed (all the technological snooping that rulers in the Western world are carrying on with citizens in the name of peace and security is not any different from the one the government in the nations that are ruled autocratically are doing).

The phrase “rise like a phoenix from the ashes” means to emerge from a catastrophe stronger, smarter, and more powerful. No one can tell if technology and the new units of authorities (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.), which the victors of WW2 appear to be waging on their judgment to rise like a phoenix from the ashes (i.e., establish ordered relations), whose decision to deviate from the work program that the founding fathers of the UN counselled them to stay faithful to its principles to solidify their power has made them sink, or if they would be trapped forever. The truth can only be established at some time in the future!