Quotations are “forms of expression that people use as a means of inspiration or as a way to invoke philosophical thoughts.” Generally speaking, quotations are also used to manipulate people and to invite those who come across them to act on the view being shared.

For example, Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Winston Churchill said, “Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Nelson Mandela believes differently. Mandela said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Jesus is another person who believes altogether differently. Jesus said, “Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic from him either.”

How do we know which of the above inspirations is right and which one is wrong?

Let us take this last case. John F. Kennedy once said, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction.”

If we apply John F. Kennedy’s inspiration to the way the United States, the international postwar world order, or peace and security have been evolving since Kennedy’s death in the 1960s, most people would be inclined to support the opposite of what John F. Kennedy’s conviction on risks and costs to action is.

The ongoing invasion of Ukraine by Russia has led many people to speculate and share their views on this situation, including providing advice to Ukraine and NATO countries, which would suffer the most if Ukraine is annexed by Russia, on how to stop this offensive.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” Lincoln also said: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln’s inspiration does not seem to be that far off from the conviction of Jesus.

Considering that it is possible to characterize people by their actions and most people appear to let their loyalty end where their benefits stop, I plan to form an opinion on whether the Ukrainians would be getting it right if they took Abraham Lincoln’s advice or if they would be better off fighting Putin as all the nations in Western Europe (i.e., the victors of WW2), including the United States, are compelling them to do.

In 2021, when the Afghan government chose not to confront the Taliban and instead handed over its authority to this outlawed faction (according to the international community), many people around the world criticized this action. The international community was in awe. Most importantly, the entire world was demanding explanations from the United States specifically. In fact, many people believe that the Afghans should have fought the Taliban and denied them the right to seize power.

Indeed, when we compare the way King Belshazzar (son of King Nebuchadnezzar) was removed from power by the Persians (refer to the book of Daniel in the Bible) and the way the families/dynasties who controlled Afghanistan were ousted by the Taliban, we find that both narratives have one thing in common and one thing in disagreement. They both happened unexpectedly. However, in the case of King Belshazzar, he was slain. The rulers and political class in Afghanistan successfully fled the country.

Again, whether we happen to be pro or against the Taliban seizing power in Afghanistan, we must tip our hats to them for managing to make the Afghan population (over 40 million) unprepared to resist them. If we add up the resistance they put up against the United States, NATO, and the international community during 19 years and 10 months to defend what they believe in, they could easily teach valor to the nations who serve as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

In fact, I strongly believe that the mere fact that the Taliban managed to make 40 million people in Afghanistan return to live in the stone age without any person raising a voice against such a backward step should make them either an honorary permanent member of the United Nations Security Council or invited to give lessons to this Council in the art of how to make people “patient.”

I have no way of knowing what type of magic the Taliban used to inebriate the population of Afghanistan to the point of making over 40 million people become prepared to accept going back to prioritizing traditional values instead of modern values such as direct democracy or liberalism, unless they were relying on the power of religion.

Indeed, mankind has not produced to date better governing principles than the values included in the Quran, the Bible (Judaic or Christian), or Asian philosophy such as Buddhism or Confucianism, especially as far as teaching people patience is concerned. If the Taliban were fighting to seize power to reinstitute Sharia law in Afghanistan, we cannot pass judgment on their intention, especially since the international rule-based postwar order that the founding fathers of the UN laid out at the end of WW2 and the victors of WW2 have so far veered off track has failed to reduce fear and want.

Said differently, if the faction (regime) that was ruling Afghanistan before it was ousted by the Taliban in 2021 had been cooperating in accordance with any one of the aforementioned religious values, they would not have been ousted (i.e., the Afghan people would not have agreed to betray them). Sure, people have a habit of bunkering under the idea of religion, goods, rights, laws, etc. all the time to seize power, and then when their authority becomes accepted, they begin to consider themselves exempt from obeying the values under which they bunkered to rise to power. Unfortunately, man was not granted the right to judge intentions or forecast the future, and therefore, no one can judge the intentions of the Taliban yet. Only time will tell if the Taliban will be as wise as the Rashidun Caliph or end up like the rest of the Muslim rulers who succeeded the Rashidun Caliph, to this day.

Again, even though no one can argue against the potential of religion to convert the world into becoming a lot safer if people were ready to cooperate with one another in accordance with religious values (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, and Buddhism), mankind’s failure to stop the fittest from using religious values as a tool to solidify self-interest over common interest propelled people to legitimize different values to improve morality.

Ever since people started to develop secular values (the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, socialism, communism, etc.) and to bunker under their principles to supposedly serve the common interest, the only dogma that was capable of making the strong develop understanding capable of serving the common interest and the personal interests of the individuals involved happened in the United States.

The power of the values enshrined in the US Constitution has withstood the test of time. Those values showed that they are capable of attracting people to develop the understanding needed to prioritize common interests over tribal and traditional interests in the same way two magnets of opposite poles do it. From 1776 until today, all societies around the world have failed to create a separation between common interests and tribal interests, except for the people who lived or live in the United States. In fact, despite the internal polarization that the US has experienced since the start of the 21st century, the leaders of this country continue to this day to make every effort to ensure that the disenchantment people are feeling remains aligned with their commitments to make a difference.

Again, magnets cannot retain their magnetism indefinitely; time, erosion, corrosion, heat, wear, etc. are all factors that make a magnet lose its magnetic properties. This means that in the course of time and things, the United States is bound to disintegrate, as some conspiracy theorists postulate. I do not subscribe to this type of thinking. I believe that the ideas enshrined in the US Constitution behave in the same way the law of conservation of matter says matter behaves. This law says that matter is neither created nor destroyed. I believe that in the same way new forms of matter (atoms) are always breaking and combining, so are the ideas enshrined in the US Constitution; they are also all the time doing the same. Thus, they can never be created or destroyed. In fact, I do believe that the ideas enshrined in the US Constitution have power over the idea of good and evil. The magic of the US Constitution is in its transcendent potential to make people relax the evil that resides in the human heart but without lowering its state of energy.

For example, in nature, the magnetic domains of ferrous materials are not aligned, and, therefore, those domains exhibit little magnetism. When a strong magnetic field is applied, this process forces the alignment, and the material becomes magnetic. In magnetism, two magnets at opposite poles attract each other, but those at the same pole repel each other. Until natural factors cause a ferromagnetic material (magnet) to lose its magnetic properties, two poles with the same magnetic field will repel each other.

The values enshrined in the US Constitution center on ideas that promote freedom, liberalism, and democracy and on a unique idea that pens that “all men are created equal.” All the conflicts that people get embroiled in on their web have centered on the refusal of men (for the exception of monks, children, and dying people) to surrender freedom voluntarily to similar values. The refusal of people to surrender freedom before 1776 to values that are similar to the ones enshrined in the US constitution (separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.) created a hierarchy (rich and poor). Let the rich and the poor refer to the distinct pole that exists in magnetism. Since antiquity, the rich and the poor have refused to pull together.

This means that the values enshrined in the US Constitution should have kept the rich and the poor (i.e., opposite poles) attracting each other in the United States from 1776 to 1945 in the same way the attraction was like in the rest of the world without the poor managing to increase their happiness.

If the people who lived in the United States managed to not stay confused and disoriented ever since those values, which were penned in the US Constitution in 1776, were legitimized in the same way, the people who were living outside the United States were not able to establish balance with similar ones. This means that the poor and the rich in the United States managed to consider themselves to be of the same pole (knowing that they are not) when they accepted to surrender freedom to the ideas penned. In other words, the rich and the poor in the US accepted to let the magnetic domain inherit in their character (i.e., evil) to become less active (i.e., tending to zero). In their natural state, ferrous materials that are not magnetized (i.e., do not have their magnetic domain aligned) exhibit little if any magnetism. If the rich and the poor in the United States managed to reduce the magnetic domain (i.e., evil) in their relations, this means that they were capable of creating balance. This also signifies that the values enshrined in the US Constitution possess transcendent power to make people relax their magnetic orientation but without losing or lowering their state of energy in the mind.

Simply put, if we take two integers and add them to each other, we produce a new integer (i.e., a new product). The US Constitution is the product of billions of operations (i.e., social, economic, and political operations) that our predecessors tested to reach, which was capable of making the rich narrow the gap with the poor.

In fact, to show the power of the magnetism weaved into the US Constitution, let us take the case of when rulers or political classes (including judges and law enforcement officers) of UN member states travel to the United States to review its effect. Most rulers or political classes (including judges and law enforcement officers) become prepared to voluntarily obey the political order when they visit the United States, something they are not prepared to do in their own native countries. This happens because rulers and the political class (including judges and law enforcement officers) consider themselves exempt from the appeal to obey the work program set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In other words, they view themselves as deputies of God on earth, which transforms the social order into a musical band where all the musicians play to their own tune.

Again, the US Constitution cannot contain any magnetism that would be any different than the magnetism codified in the laws and rules that the British, French, and the rest of the western European nations (i.e., the old powers) were using before WW2.

Why did the British, French, and the rest of the western European nations fail to be inebriated by the magnetism codified in their own laws and rules and treat their citizens and the citizens of the nations that they were dominating till 1945 hierarchically when they had to have known that the denial of freedom increased conflicts?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. People’s choices appear to stem from their pursuit of happiness. Let the word “happiness” refer to a circle. If I draw a circle and let the area that is located inside the circle represent the United States and all the area that is on the outside of the perimeter of the circle represent the rest of the societies that existed until 1945, I can say that the people who lived in the United States for the period 1776 to 1945 were the happiest despite all their internal problems.

The alterations between night and day have been constant (except for specific biblical narratives), and so has the way planets orbit each other. Nonetheless, everything on earth seems to shrink (converge) or break down after taking a form, except the human imagination (desires), which behaves inversely and diverges. The United States is regarded as a land of immigrants. If the people who were immigrating to the United States from 1776 to 1945 were prepared to voluntarily become neutral in the same way neutrons do inside the nuclei of an atom, but when they were living in their existing societies (i.e., outside the United States), they were dynamic and behaving in the same way electrons do it naturally, then only one operation could have created this condition on either side of the circle (i.e., inside the United States or in the societies that were located on the outside of the United States). This condition is heat.

Humans depend on distinction (race, color, sex, language, religion, political opinion, social origin, property, birth, or other status) to create heat (conflicts) or to make the weakest consider the opinion of the fittest. Rivalry is natural (i.e., division of labor). All the distinctions that people rely on to create conflicts are primarily motivated by the desire to determine who has a greater influence in governance.

Let the word “heat” refer to the ± change in people’s preparedness or unpreparedness to have a greater say in governance.

If the ± change in people’s preparedness or unpreparedness to have a greater say in governance alters the reliance of people on distinction (race, color, sex, language, religion, political opinion, social origin, property, birth, or other status) to determine who could be the fittest, then we could say that what helped the people in the United States to be prepared to obey from 1776 to 1945 and what prevented the people who were living in western Europe from obeying for the same period was the ± change in moral values that the leadership in the United States was prioritizing as compared to the values that the leadership in other societies were using. In other words, the widespread political, economic, and social reform that the leadership in the United States was prioritizing from 1776 to 1945 focused on addressing problems of political, economic, and social corruption as a means to have a greater say in governance, instead of focusing on how to use distinction (race, color, sex, language, religion, political opinion, social origin, property, birth, or other status) as a means to achieve the same. That is to say, the rulers and political class (and judges and law enforcement officers) in non-American societies were abusing their powers for private gain more than the case was progressing like in the United States. This was mainly due to rulers and the political class (and judges and law enforcement officers) in non-American societies making all associations (political and economic activities) take a vertical posture (become implicitly managed by the government), while all the actors involved are refusing to create a separation of powers between self-interest and common interest to enable proper accountability. When a government fails to make its representatives use their authority to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors, then the government becomes like a black hole. This scenario means that all the regulations or activism that would be determined and enforced (i.e., reforms) to improve democracy and morality would never be sufficient to take down the corrupt representatives in office because the fox becomes the one who is guarding the hen house. On the contrary, as the middle class and the poor strive to remove the corrupt representatives from office, the individuals involved become increasingly entangled in determining who should have a greater say in governance, thereby exacerbating the situation.

To give an example, the American Civil War (1861-1865) and the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990) necessitated a reconstruction era to address and fight against the corruption and behind-the-scenes power of entrenched, state political party organizations that resulted following each war. The United States managed, using its own progressive era, to rise from the ashes and become a leading global industrial power. The level of corruption in Lebanon has been growing exponentially since 1990. In 2019, many activists in Lebanon joined efforts to put an end to the endemic corruption that has engulfed the country since the start of the Lebanese civil war (i.e., the 17 October Revolution). Initially, the protests drew support, but then the protestors created a new political crisis in Lebanon. Since 2019, the social, political, and economic reformers who were against the ruling class shielding from accountability in Lebanon are now divided among themselves over who could have a greater say in governance.

Hence, the dynamism that the Lebanese have known since 1990 does not seem to be entangled in corruption, abuse of power, population increase, environmental degradation, or improved communication and transportation, as the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, the EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that the victors of WW2 created in the aftermath of WW2 and the representatives in office at those bodies or institutions tell us the problem is due to, but rather due to the victors of WW2 deviating away from the work program that the founding fathers of the UN counseled them to stay faithful to its principles to ensure lasting peace; this means that the dynamism that has engulfed the world as of 1945 is not mainly due to “change,” but rather to the decision of the victors of WW2 to extend the imperiling conduct of societies (governments or business corporations) that was prevailing before WW2 erupted to the interval of time that started beginning with when World War Two was regarded to have ended. This situation is very serious and worrisome.

Before the 17 October Revolution that engulfed Lebanon in 2019, the government’s conduct and the organization of business corporations in the country were at the lowest ethical level possible. After the 17 October Revolution, the conduct of the government and organization of business corporations in Lebanon became worse. This happened because the individuals who started the 17 October Revolution to take down the political bosses who were shielding from accountability became themselves divided among themselves over who could have a greater say in governance (in other words, the corruption in Lebanon deepened instead of shrinking).

The founding fathers of the UN did not counsel the victors of WW2 to make the war aims of the two back-to-back world wars be about creating new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) and to task them with offering political and economic solutions next to governments, but to extend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a universal version of the liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy that is enshrined in the US Constitution, so the rest of the world could start to use such philosophy as a tool to reduce fear and want.

That is to say, the founding fathers of the UN did not counsel the victors of WW2 to make the WW2 war aim to be about having new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, the EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) offer political and economic solutions next to governments, knowing already that because there were more people who wanted to have a greater say in governance than people who wanted to obey the codified laws and rules that existed before WW2 or WW1 erupted, the world was engulfed in two back-to-back global wars. The founding fathers of the UN counseled the victors of WW2 to let governments determine their own political and economic status.

If the challenge in the world today is tangled in the existence of more people who want to have a greater say in governance than people who want to obey the codified laws and rules, then we could be working on faltering our freedom and not reducing fear and want. This means that the staffs of those 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 and tasked with offering political and economic solutions next to governments are doing nothing since 1945 except increasing corruption and irreligiosity in the world, just as the activists who took the streets in Lebanon are doing as of 17 October 2019.

I have no way of knowing how the victors of WW2 (the families/dynasties who won WW2) reached that point: if they deviate away from the work program the founding fathers of WW2 proposed to them and create new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.), then we have corrupt representatives in government offices and corrupt representatives in new units of authority who offer political and economic solutions such that such a tactic does not accelerate corruption, betrayal, backstabbing, etc. in the world and shrink reciprocally the wealth, power, and status of those powerful families/dynasties (i.e., the victors of WW2). What I do know is that as of 1945, we now have governments violating the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the officials of the different units of authorities that the victors of WW2 created and tasked with offering political and economic solutions in UN member states are doing it (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.).

In addition, because the officials of those different new units of authorities are preaching democracy and equal rights while pursuing the realization of the full development of their personalities at the same time, we now have a situation in which the people who are establishing relations on the outside of the UN fence and the people who are doing it on the inside of the UN fence are both generating the same level of corruption, backstabbing, and betrayal.

Similarly, because the people who are determining and enforcing democracy and equal rights on UN grounds are doing their business while enjoying privileges and immunities, including operating their own judicial system, this means they are deteriorating peace and security in the world far faster than the people who are doing it on the outside of the UN fence (i.e., governments).

Furthermore, since we cannot expect that the different units of authority that were created in the aftermath of WW2 (i.e., the UN system, NATO, the EU, NGOs, development banks, etc.) will teach people how to be tolerant after those new bodies, institutions, etc. became mere economic operators and started to compete against governments to determine who is the fittest, we can say that the world would continue to be dynamic until the victors of WW2 resize those new units of authority that the founding fathers of the UN counselled be created to bring them back to serving their original purpose (those who were not approved stopped them to maintain a relationship with the UN) or resize governments so international institutions start to legitimize natural and legal rights.

This also means that if the accomplishments of the international intergovernmental organizations named United Nations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, etc., etc.) continue to be in everything except the gamut that the founding fathers of the UN said this organization should be established to serve (i.e., coordinate) so governments can become capable of teaching people tolerance, mankind is doomed.

If in theory the victors of WW2 cannot enjoy their power, wealth, or status except in periods of peace, and no matter in which way I dig to try to understand why the victors of WW2 decided to deviate away from letting states inebriate people in the aftermath of WW2, preferring instead to accommodate roles for non-state actors and international institutions, I find that the dynamism which we are knowing could be due to wrong choices; then only if the victors of WW2 were aspiring to form a single political authority for all humanity could such consideration compel them to make such a switch.

The last time humans prostituted the words of God (Jesus) to serve self-interests instead of common interests, this strategy cost the families/dynasties that controlled the Roman Empire their power, wealth, and status. If the victors of WW2 continue to let false teachers (i.e., the UN system, NATO, the EU, development banks, NGOs, etc.) disseminate to the poor why they should be unprepared to obey the leadership unless outcomes are shared on equal rights, it will not be the poor who are resized but the families/dynasties who won WW2 (i.e., the families/dynasties who control the international order or the money supply of the world).

I have no way of knowing why the victors of WW2 decided to deviate away from staying faithful to the blueprint that the founding fathers of the UN designed and counselled them to stay faithful to its principles in order to solidify their power and ensure lasting peace. What I do know is that there is only one way to go from one end to the other in a tunnel. However, if a person wants to do this journey through a different route (i.e., like scaling to the summit of the mountain and then descending down), the possibilities are unlimited. Most importantly, why is the United States going along and permitting the idea of freedom to be threatened?

To put it differently, the political and economic challenges that the world appears to have been entangled in its web since 1945 seem to be due to tests that a hiker encounters when he decides to go from one end of a tunnel to the other by making this journey through going first to the summit of a mountain and then going down, not what a person who decides to go from one end to the other in a tunnel encounters. This begs many questions. For example, why is the United States going along with deviating away from the work program that the founding fathers of the UN designed to preserve the idea of freedom or maintain its own strength and security and going along with the world creating, left and right, new units of authority (i.e., the UN system, NATO, the EU, development banks, NGOs, etc.) and tasking them with providing political and economic solutions in democracy and human rights when this country knows very well that such a strategy increases dynamism rather than reduces it?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. However, what I do know is that it is not possible to quantify the challenges that are preventing the victors of WW2 from securing the goals set forth in the preamble of the UN Charter after the victors of WW2 decided to deviate away from the work program that the founding fathers of the UN designed and counselled them to stay faithful to its principles in order to solidify their power and ensure lasting peace. This is because the number of variables are different when a person decides to go from point A to point B through the intermediary of a tunnel or when the person decides to do this journey by going first to the summit of a mountain and then going down instead. The number of variables when a person decides to go from point A to point B by going first to the summit of a mountain and then going down is unlimited as compared to making this journey through the intermediary of a tunnel.

Again, the United States was not operating an empire, as the old powers (the Western European powers) were busy doing until the middle of the 20th century. This means that we cannot say that the United States was a principal power broker until the start of WW2. If the United States was not a principal power broker before the start of WW2, the United States cannot be a global power in the aftermath of WW2 as people depict this country to be.

A country that controls the international order or the money supply of the world is not a great power. The country that controls the international order or the money supply of the world is a service provider. An empire denotes the capacity of an emperor to control vast social space under a single supreme authority. The United States could not make the Taliban (a group of outlawed characters) surrender freedom to it.

If the above analogy is true, then we need to separate the victors of WW2 into two groups. The real victors of WW2 and the benefactors of WW2. We can categorize the victors of WW2 into two groups: the real victors (such as Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the other western European nations) and the allies of these real victors (such as the United States, China, and others).

Why did the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) and the allies of the real victors of WW2 (the United States, China, and others) decide to deviate away from the work program that the founding fathers of the UN designed and counselled them to stay faithful to its principles in order to solidify their power and ensure lasting peace and begin creating, left and right, new units of authority (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, etc.) and to task them with providing political and economic solutions in democracy and human rights when they know very well that such a strategy increases dynamism rather than reduces it?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question. What I do know is that in real life, when two people fail to settle their dispute through negotiation or arbitration and end up quarreling, those who take sides or align with one person over the other do not become the de facto owners of the power, wealth, and status of the victor in that quarrel.

In addition, World War Two was not about two children who were fighting with one another and then an adult interfered, thus taking full responsibility into his own hands. Poland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations are monarchies that were ruling the world long before the United States was created.

If wars are fought in the same way quarrels are fought between two people in real life, the United States cannot be regarded as the entity that ended up becoming the principal victor of WW2 as most people promote, because in real life, when a person comes to the aid of another person in trouble, this act does not make him incarnate in the personhood of the person who started the dispute. The United States sided with the Poles, French, British, and Russians, rather than with the Germans, when this European dispute escalated into a global war..

A consolation prize is a prize given to a runner-up in a contest. The real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) could have appointed the United States to play the global policeman role just as a king or a president would appoint a judge or a law enforcement officer to maintain law and order in the realm. It is not the judge or the law enforcement officer who controls the realm but the king. The appointment of the United States as global policemen also helps to maintain balance between the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations).

Actually, it would be anti-logic to suppose that the United States is the one who started to determine how the international order and the money supply of the world should be organized in the aftermath of WW2, and then this country turned around and started creating UN agencies or human development agencies and dispatching them in the different societies to teach people about democracy and rule of law (i.e., to be prepared to obey their rulers and political class unless the leadership shares with them outcomes on equal rights), as the UN organizations and all other human development organizations are doing. The United States did not create new authorities before WW2 erupted and task them to spread to its own citizens why they should not be prepared to surrender freedom and to obey unless the leadership shares with them outcomes on equal rights. None of the old powers (i.e., the western European nations) practiced this tactic either.

In effect, if the United States created UN agencies and human development organizations and dispatched their agents in the different UN member states to teach people to refuse to cooperate with one another unless outcomes are shared on equal rights, and people refused to do it, then the societies that refused to cooperate based on the values in question deserve the insecurity they are experiencing!

I do not know how to isolate what compelled the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) and not the allies of the real victors of WW2 (the United States, China, and others) to deviate away from the work program that the founding fathers of the UN designed and counselled them to stay faithful to its principles to solidify their power and ensure lasting peace so we don’t find ourselves 70 years later with more than 7.8 billion people who want to be putting into question the international rules-based post-war order, which we all know is the only dogma to reduce fear and want. However, I believe I can draw two conclusions. The first is that the United States cannot be the country that destabilized the international order, as most people articulate, because this country cannot hold any goals other than for the idea of freedom to succeed, and the idea of freedom is an opportunity and not a threat. This means I can make the inferences that the United States is compelling in the social order, and whether they are positive or negative, as a constant. The second is that it is not possible anymore to quantify the variables that are compelling people to be dynamic, because there are so many people who are using the idea of freedom, democracy, and human rights as a tool to solidify their self-interest instead of the common interest. This situation is very serious and worrisome.

In other words, if the international order has not improved since 1945 and the changes we are observing indicate a decline in its quality, we can still assert that people’s behavior remains similar to that before World War II from a representational perspective; however, we cannot claim that the international order is maintaining its integrity from a structural (operational and organizational) standpoint.

For example, the integers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … are examples of ordered relations. The integers 0, 1, 8, 3, 4, 2, … are not ordered relations. That is to say, 1+2 = 3. If we want to achieve a sum of 3, we cannot combine any number greater than 2 with the integer 1.

This also means that even though peace and security did not improve in the aftermath of WW2 and we can say that nothing has changed in the world after WW2 was regarded to have ended (i.e., the same societies that were before WW2 erupted were not cooperating based on the idea that “all men are created equal” are still doing it to this day, maintaining social hierarchy), the mere fact that the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) and not the allies of the real victors of WW2 (the United States, China, and others) agreed to let rulers and political classes around the world prostitute the idea of freedom in the same way rulers and political classes were prostituting the ideas of Jesus, then we could all be doomed. Over 7.8 billion people refuse to be organized like integers, and everyone thinks they should have a say in how legal and natural rights are legitimized.

Said differently, if we add 5 + 0, we get 5. Another way of saying the above is that if we bring one group (i.e., 5) and we put it with another group (i.e., 0), no change takes place in the system, and the result will stay 5.

In the aftermath of World War II, when the victors introduced the principles codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—principles that are essentially a universal version of those enshrined in the US Constitution—the expected global changes aimed at reducing fear and want have instead resulted in a situation where the United States appears to need resuscitation or rescue; this indicates that the challenge involves not only preventing the resizing of the United States but also ensuring that the concepts of freedom and human progress do not collapse This situation is very serious and worrisome.

Simply put, it is possible to make an analogy between the ideas included in Jesus’s teachings and the ideas enshrined in the US Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a universal concept of it. Jesus’s teaching and the ideas that are included in the US Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promote good. Before Jesus was crucified, he was persecuted with his early followers. The same is happening today. The idea of freedom (i.e., good) and the United States (i.e., the followers of Jesus before he was crucified) are being persecuted.

After Jesus was crucified, his teaching continued to go on. Such events could happen again if the United States is resized. In other words, after Jesus’s death, the world did not evolve in accordance with his teaching but entered a dark age. Therefore, if UN member states around the world continue to refuse assistance from the United States in implementing its teachings (which have led citizens to become unprepared to value distinction), our successors could face the same fate as those who lived in the world after Jesus was crucified.

If we consider what John F. Kennedy once said about the difference between short- and long-range risks, we can say that the same scenario appears to be playing out in modern history. That is to say, the individuals who were opposing Jesus’s ideas did not know that a few hundred years later their wealth, status, and power would be disintegrated.

Human nature has not changed, and the unpreparedness of rulers and the political class in UN member states to surrender freedom to the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is evidence of that.

Again, humans were not programmed to forecast the future but were granted the right to draw lessons from the past. Surely, the dismantling and the destruction of the idea of freedom (democracy and human rights) is an opportunity for the majority of the rich (rulers and political class) around the world because it prevents the poor, especially, from using this concept to codify laws and norms that everyone, rich or poor, is not prepared to obey. But this aforesaid fact does not justify why the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) and not the allies of the real victors of WW2 (the United States, China, and others) appear to be in favor of letting people around the world dismantle the central idea that helped them to bring about the changes that led to the way we are organized the way we are (i.e., the idea of government).

Only two explanations can provide reasonable justification to support why the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) and not the allies of the real victors of WW2 (the United States, China, and others) have been exhibiting this apathy toward aiding the governments that are collapsing to stand up (i.e., not minding if they become authoritarian or stateless). The first is if the real victors of WW2 are working to set up a single political authority for all humanity. The second is if the international order is on autopilot (i.e., unmanned).

I have no way of knowing if the victors of WW2 are working to set up a single political authority for all of humanity. What I do know is that the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that the victors of WW2 created and granted the right to interfere in the social order and to provide political and economic solutions in the aftermath of WW2 are not cooperating in accordance with the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so I could say that if governments were replaced with international organizations, we would be better off, as I said before.

What I also do know is that even if the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) were working to set up a single political authority for all humanity, they would not be able to achieve their goal without destabilizing and dismantling all the standing governments, one after the other, including the government of the United States (the idea of freedom) to reach their goal. This is required to stop the idea of freedom (democracy and human rights) from challenging wealth, power, and status, and also because the majority of the people are not cooperating in accordance with the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to begin with.

Therefore, since it makes no difference whether or not the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) are working to set up a single political authority for all humanity because the longer insecurity polarizes people around the world, the more the force that people would be using to determine who is the fittest would be causing a possible societal collapse, then we can say that the more the real victors of WW2 embolden people to prioritize violence (i.e., focus on human rights) instead of making them focus on how to obey to help them to develop the understanding they need of themselves to be able to take down afterwards the rulers and political class (including judges and law enforcement) who are refusing to lead by example (practice the work program set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), the more those powerful families/dynasties are going to have to pick between two choices as a way to solidify their power. The first is to let the world order fall so our successors build it again or do as Marcel Proust suggested: “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.”

And so, since the challenge that seems to be confronting the real victors of WW2 (the western European nations) since 1945 is for them to not go back to square one, it is not about what we (the common people) need to be doing to reduce fear and want (because the founding fathers of the UN told us clearly the steps), but it is about them deciding among themselves on whether or not they want to continue to have international organizations (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) organize our complex relations to make them become ordered (and we know how the results that they obtained look like so far) or go back to letting governments do it as the founding fathers of the UN suggested; their options forward are straightforward. That is to say, if the real victors of WW2 continue to prioritize the financialization of the social order over human worth as they have been doing since 1945, they would need to disprove Mark Twain’s suggestion about “a person who won’t read having no advantage over one who can’t read.” Alternatively, they can start to implement the work program that the founding fathers of the UN designed, and they are counseled to stay faithful to its work program to solidify their power and ensure lasting peace.

I have no way of knowing which scenario between the aforementioned two the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) will choose. What I do know is that there are two ways the real victors of WW2 could organize us. They could continue to use the new units of authority (UN agencies, NATO, EU, development banks, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) to make us standardize political and social standards in the hope of people sharing outcomes on equal rights, which we know is a utopian aspiration. Alternatively, they could aid governments (the rich) to develop the understanding needed to start seeing the work program set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an opportunity instead of a threat, just as the leadership in the United States managed to make people see the US Constitution, especially before 1945.

Evidently, the parameter that will determine which option from the aforesaid two has a better chance of succeeding will be inversely proportional to the type of energy that the real victors of WW2 would be orienting people to muster to help build.

For example, a greater force is required to lift water waves as compared to much lesser forces to drive water that is being deformed under general step-flow conditions (horizontally). Now, even though a vertical posture (i.e., a wave) has a defined start and an end, the wave height (amplitude) is always undergoing changes as a function of the wind. The wave always resists in the hope of keeping its vertical posture, but then it later dissipates, and the water goes back to taking a horizontal form.

I have no way of knowing if the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) could manage to make people (societies) adopt a hierarchical political and economic polity, which accommodates roles for non-state actors and international institutions, when people do not seem to have been programmed with the same shared sense of belonging.

Indeed, there could be a lot for the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) to learn from studying the way words or sentences are ordered, since through them all things seem to be made. For example, each word has a start and an end, and there is a space between words (expand and contract horizontally instead of vertically). This space between words, which most people do not pay attention to, makes readability and the sound we make a lot easier, but it is the space that shrinks or expands when we add or remove a character to a word. It is not possible to do this when the posture is vertical. This is because when an element is taken out from a vertical posture, the entire structure collapses. In other words, we can place words next to each other indefinitely (with or without space) and still make sense of the characters we read.

Again, it is the families/dynasties who control the international order and the money supply of the world (i.e., the real victors of WW2), and the families/dynasties who are rivaling them to be the ones who would tell everyone else to consider their opinion need to be sure if it would be wiser to let non-state actors and international institutions organize our relations or if it is better to continue to let nation-states do it. We, the common people, can only draw lessons.

Earlier I said the ongoing invasion of Ukraine by Russia invited many people to speculate and to offer views on this incident, including offering the Ukrainians and the countries that stand to lose the most advice on what they need to be doing to stop this takeover.

In this last section of this work, I plan to make a comparison between the way the Syrians and the Afghans decided to handle their crises. Perhaps the Ukrainians can draw lessons. This analysis could also help the real victors of WW2 (i.e., the families/dynasties who control the international order and the money supply of the world) to better judge if non-state actors and international institutions could organize our relations better, thus enabling them to continue to solidify their power, or if our existing nation-states would do it better.

The Syrians (in 2011) and the Afghans (in 2021) are two societies that became victims of the international intergovernmental organization named the United Nations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.) intrusiveness not too long ago.

The rulers and political class in Syria decided to go against the true (false) teaching of the international intergovernmental organization named United Nations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.) and refused to surrender freedom to the values those units of authorities depend on to make people unprepared to obey (i.e., legal rights). This outcome resulted in the rulers of the political class in Syria staying in power as of 2011 (the date when the Syrian civil war started), but ruling over a mountain of rubble.

I will explain what I mean by true (false) teaching.

If we consider the way integers work, subtraction is just the addition of a negative number. For example, the equation 4 minus 10 is equivalent to 4 plus negative 10, which results in a negative value. This scenario means addition and subtraction are, in theory, one operation: addition. Put differently, “subtraction is nothing but addition in disguise.”

That is to say, the values that the agents of the new units of authorities (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) that the victors of WW2 created are true, but not the conduct of the staffs of those units of authorities. The conduct of the staff of those units of authority is false. In other words, the staff of those units of authorities (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) are not cooperating in accordance with the principles set forth in the UN Charter. The staff of those units of authorities steal, betray, backstab, deal in drugs, accept bribes, commit crimes, abuse their authority, and are involved in all kinds of corruption. The staff of those units of authority are adding evil to the world. They are “additions in disguise.”

In the case of the rulers and political class in Afghanistan, those individuals decided to go along with the true/false teachings of the international intergovernmental organization named the United Nations (i.e., the UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, the World Bank, the IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc.) and refused to disobey the values that those units of authority use to make people unprepared to obey when the Taliban threatened them. This outcome led to the loss of power for the political class in Afghanistan, but it also prevented the country from becoming a pile of rubble.

The action that the rulers and political class in those two countries decided to take made the people who live in those two countries (Syria and Afghanistan) lose their freedom. The rulers and political class in Syria have been protected (dominated) by the Russians since 2015, and the Afghans have been ruled (dominated) by the Taliban since 2021. Again, it is possible for the population in Afghanistan to co-exist with their new rulers and to increase their happiness together because the Sharia contains values that are not irrational and the people who are in roles of leadership are Afghans. In the case of the population in Syria, it would not be easily possible for the Syrians to co-exist with their protectors (rulers) and to assimilate in the same way the Afghans would be capable of doing, because they are being dominated by a country whose rulers do not obey the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the people who are supposed to be pledging allegiance to them are not of their own.

I have no way of knowing how the crisis in Ukraine will unfold. I strongly believe that the Ukrainians should resist and prevent the Russians from annexing their country. At the same time, when I compare the payoff the Syrians reaped when they refused to obey their rulers and political class and listened to the true (false) teaching of the international community and its various new units of authority (i.e., the UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.), I think it makes more sense to adopt the wisdom and prudence of the Afghan rulers and political class over the recklessness and foolishness of the Syrians. That is to say, it makes more sense to not resist the Russians and to surrender freedom to them, just as the rulers and the political class in Afghanistan did when the Taliban threatened them. This is because this strategy would forgo dignity (which is not made of material) and not power (i.e., progress). The Syrians listened to the international community and the intergovernmental organization named the United Nations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.) and allowed the idea of democracy and rule of law to divide them; thus, they were left with the opposite (i.e., their progress is a mountain of rubble).

Most importantly, the risk the Ukrainians are taking by allowing the international community and the intergovernmental organization named United Nations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.) to use the idea of democracy and rule of law to help them be ordered means that they would be allowing people from all walks of life to help them make decisions. If the agents of those units of authority were cooperating in accordance with the principles set forth in the UN Charter, the world would have been organized already, and Ukraine would not have been attacked by Putin.

To put it differently, when the population in Syria listened to the international community and the intergovernmental organization named the United Nations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.) and allowed the idea of democracy and rule of law to divide them, those who wanted the regime to be dismantled and those who were in favor of the regime staying in power placed themselves between a rock and a hard place.

Those who wanted the regime to be dismantled were using the protection that the international community and the intergovernmental organization named the United Nations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.) was providing them (weapons, ideas) to demolish their own progress. Likewise, those who wanted the regime to stay in power and sought protection from the Russians were giving their non-objection to the Russians to wreck their own progress as well. So far, the end result has been the rulers and political class in Syria who refused to relinquish control of the regime ruling over a mountain of rubble, as I said before, and the Syrian population living without shelter or any social amenities such as water, education, or health.

It looks as if the leadership (i.e., the rulers and political class) in Afghanistan were wise when the Taliban threatened them and agreed to relinquish control of the regime instead of resisting. This action spoiled the door ahead of the international community and the human development organizations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, development banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, foundations, charities, etc., etc.) to transform the proverb that says “when the cow falls down, the knives multiply” into becoming a truth.

That is to say, the rulers and political class in Afghanistan did not let greed and pride drive their actions. To avoid engulfing the country in a civil war and making the pool of blood that they have been living within since 2001 much bigger, they sought a diplomatic solution. Now, the Taliban must choose between their self-interest and the common good.

Therefore, since the real problem that persuaded the Russians to be intolerant, or the rule (virus) that prevented the Ukrainians from being unprepared to obey the work program specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does not seem to be tangled in the rates of growth of population, knowledge, or environmental degradation, in as much as it is tangled in the unpreparedness of the real victors of WW2 (Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the rest of the western European nations) to let the United States be the real global policemen and to stop from using human development organizations (i.e., UN system, NATO, EU, Development Banks, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, Foundations, Charities, etc., etc.) as a tool to divide and rule, it looks as if the suggestion of Abraham Lincoln or Jesus makes more sense than to give in to conviction of “honor or good sense.”

In conclusion, when King Belshazzar (son of King Nebuchadnezzar) was removed from power (refer to the book of Daniel in the Bible), the Bible tells us that God had warned King Belshazzar in advance that the days of his reign were numbered. The families/dynasties whom the Taliban ousted from Afghanistan now know how swift their own power was disintegrated. I have no way of knowing how the perils that are impacting the planet’s human communities are weighing on the real victors of WW2 (i.e., the families/dynasties who control the international order or the money supply of the world). What I do know is that the intolerance that people are exhibiting signals that their kingdom could be divided. All I can hope for is that the thinkers and writers, soldiers, politicians, administrators, or spokespeople whom the families/dynasties who control the international order or the money supply of the world are counting on for their wisdom to help them to solidify their power are telling them things the way Daniel was telling the Babylonian and the Persian kings he served before their empires collapsed!