The United States started employing the self-determination concept as a norm for setting policies in 1776. This country emerged as a superpower at the turn of the 20th century. The term means that it is possible when a distinct national entity practices self-determination as a guiding ideology to manage to improve the social and economic security of its community of people. Consequently, despite facing numerous internal challenges, the United States emerged as a superpower by applying the concept of self-determination, as evidenced by the transformation of its people.

All that changed in the social domain from 1776 to now, passing through WW1 and WW2, is that this self-determination doctrine began being observed over all the lands. In addition, in 1945, in the aftermath of WWII, world leaders created an international organization, which they named the United Nations, and tasked it with coordinating and promoting international cooperation to prevent future wars. This organization acted in direct opposition to its founding principles. Rather than adhering to its mandated coordination role of promoting tolerance as outlined in the preamble of the UN charter, the organization began creating new subsidiary organs aimed at teaching people why they should stop being content in order to increase their happiness.

The organization not only transformed into a large-scale economic rescue program to help major industrial powers maintain their assembly lines after deviating from its original purpose, but it has also become the single most significant obstacle to any concept of world peace. Presently, the organization maintains UN self-financed organizations that compete in the economic field like any private entities, except the aim is “of course” non-profit. Doing business with any one of the UN subsidiary organs contains lots of advantages as compared to doing business in the private sector. For instance, UNOPS, a self-financed organization that the UN mounted and allowed to be a one-stop shop for procurement, implementation, and auditing services, is one of the UN’s flagship machineries that runs the UN system’s dirty business. In fact, UNOPS has a special service that it offers to donors to transform clean money into profits without raising any suspicion that is not any different than what groups in organized crime do. UNOPS uses its “UN” rules to justify that the donor who deposited the money in the UN bank account was the best value for money to implement the program that the funds were destined to go. In this money laundering service that the UN offers, all that a donor has to do is deposit the money in the UN bank account, and as far as the accountability of the money itself afterwards, this part UNOPS would take care of and in partnership with the best accounting firms in the country.

During his speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2017, Donald Trump expressed the United States’ conviction and resolution to overcome the challenges that have been recognized since 1945, with the ultimate goal of achieving the stability and well-being outlined in the UN charter. But with United Nations subsidiary organs like UNOPS based in the principal American city that became known as the symbols of the United States ideals of liberty and peace (i.e., New York City), and who are involved in (i) money laundering, (ii) breaking the UN financial rules and regulations and getting away with murder, and (iii) converting US nationals who refuse to be criminals while working at those UN organizations from being individuals who used to know how to build a productive life for themselves, their family, and their country to people who are jobless and confused because they refuse to trade what the US pledged its citizen would be doing starting from 1945 to attain the United Nations’ Global Goals, can the United States manage to make progress on the pledges that this country is always making to make the world become a safer place? Likewise, if I add how the UN is employing retired US judges who are, instead of keeping the integrity and reputation that this country has known them for, passing the buck to protect senior UN officials instead of protecting the rule of law, what example are they setting? Most importantly, when the UN employs former senior US government officials to defend it in a case in which a former US judge refused to rule but one where there is no need to have more than two people to support that the UN is involved in acts of blunt violation of the UN charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and harboring criminals, and who would argue on appeal that “the appellant has modified descriptions of his claim on appeal” so blind and mercenary type UN judges who are nationals of countries that Transparency International ranked among the highest corrupt in the world later rule in favor of very senior UN officials who are from European countries but also who were former senior government officials in their country of origin to protect them, can the United States manage to avoid continuing to be marginalized? Throughout history, when an unknown individual with no power got caught in the big boys’ game, the powerful people gained, but there was always a price to pay. The only place where the United States and the other existing nations are heading if something is not done to stop this organized ring is toward a total global disorder. Here is the rational on which I base my claim:

In 1776, when the colonists and their representatives, who were all from different cultures, religions, philosophies, and organizations, decided to create the United States, those people who declared themselves to be American all had one language and a common speech. In 1945, the same thing happened; people and their representatives from all the lands agreed this time to be united to collaborate in the economic and social field to create world peace.

If despite all the tests that the American people from 1776 until 1945 crossed, the resolutions of the citizens of this country to maintain one language and a common speech to practice and defend self-determination didn’t change, but made this country become a superpower; and if the same doesn’t appear to be the case from 1945 till now; and if the only guiding ideology or polity that people could practice if mankind doesn’t want to go back to subsisting on subjecting one another to subjugation, domination and exploitation as was the case before 1945 is self-determination; and if until now or after 72 years of attempts to arrive at finding the common ground that would make everyone start to have one language and a common speech people are nowhere near; then, if from 1776 to 24 October 1945 the American people managed to have a grip on peace and security over their own territory and the citizens of this country continued to have one language and a common speech despite all their international challenges, which doesn’t seem to be the case post 1945; this means that if great and small states alike failed to curtail wars and do not appear to have one language and a common speech from 1945 to now, this could either be due to self-determination being an ideology that when its practice is amplified it collapse, or to the indoctrination of all the people in all the lands into this ideology including necessary reorganization being still on-going and not over until now, or to a rule that could be provoking this abnormal degree of intolerance. This conclusion is because human nature has not changed pre- and post-1945, and nothing changed on earth pre- or post-24 October 1945; other than after this date, all people in all the nations voluntarily came together and agreed to be united to prevent wars and to figure out how to collaborate in the economic field to secure better living standards for all.

I think all this abnormal rise in people’s intolerance as of 1945 in many countries is not due to self-determination being an ideology that collapses when it is amplified, nor the reorganization of people, nor overpopulation, environmental degradation, religious radicalism, etc., etc., because it would be irrational to argue that cooperating to secure better living standards for all could be erroneous for world peace. I think the challenge is in a rule that was not foreseen that the UN was doing post-1945. This rule is the UN’s move to teach all people to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc. This is because this teaching is the only coaching that the United States did not practice during its history from 1776 to 1945. I believe if the United States in 1776 was teaching its citizens to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc. As the UN started doing post-1945, this country would have stayed insecure as of the date it was founded, and it wouldn’t have become a superpower. Here is the rational on which I base this last claim:

“Social environment” refers to the physical and social setting in which people live. All concepts of the built environment are divided into city and rural settings. There is a wide difference between city or urban life and rural life. The setting for human activity is totally different between the two. For example, the people in the rural villages dedicate themselves to sustaining their survival needs more than satisfying their earthy desires. In city life, the setting is the total opposite. It is the people in the city who propose to replace for the people who live in rural villages what they see as an outdated thought process with one that is modernized.

Starting from 1945, the UN decided to make a name for itself and began to interfere in people’s lives, specifically in the poor countries. I have no way of knowing what the UN was expecting to get out of creating subsidiary organs to have them intervene in all the poor countries to teach people to go ahead and to replace their outdated thought process with one that is modernized, other than to suppose two ends: (i) to make the poor people abandon their way of living, traditions, etc., and replace it with current behaviors to be “supposedly” having access to better lives, and (ii) to keep the assembly lines of the major industrial powers up and running, thus enabling them to make money at the expense of ethics.

I suppose the UN officials who this organization began to dispatch to poor countries starting from 1945 and assigned to contribute to advance either one of the aforementioned programs did find the people who this council began to intervene in their lives alive; otherwise, the UN wouldn’t have become as massive as it did and practically reached to be like a shadow government in all existing nations for the exception of the developed ones.

I do not know what method the UN is using to have the poor people change their outdated thought process (i.e., way of living, traditions, etc.) with one that is modernized (i.e., roads, schools, markets, and the like) other than to suppose that its officials are relying on the only relationship available to man to carry out this task, and it is through “teaching.”

I do not know what the UN has been teaching the poor people since 1945, so no poor nation is stable now, but what I know is that teaching people to convert their outdated thought process with one that is modernized converts a person from continuing to be tolerant to intolerant. Moreover, in 2016, Ban Ki-moon, the former UN Secretary General, stated, “We do not have plan B because there is no planet B.” The UN began as of 2016 under the Sustainable Development Goals framework to teach the poor in the developed nations to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc., as well.

I could end this article at this point and let readers decide if the UN should continue to be allowed to have subsidiary organs be brought into a relationship with the United Nations that are teaching people why they should stop with being tolerant and others like UNOPS who are teaching people to be corrupt on top, and refer everyone to read the preamble of the United Nations, which clearly states that the purpose of this global council is to teach tolerance and not why everyone should invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc. as this organization started doing post-1945 to build a name for itself. But because I strongly believe that the US government (and even the countries that are permanent members of the UN Security Council) should instruct the UN Secretary General to reopen a legal case that the UN judicial dismissed against a US national, which clearly exposes how senior UN officials who are from European countries and who claim they are working to make the world safer and who occupied senior political positions in their countries before joining the UN are bluntly violating the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I will show how the UN subsidiary organs are driving mankind to more confusion, which could also lead to a world war due to the impact of burying this case by this organized ring that is operating inside the UN could pose on weakening the US’s ability to defend its best interests if those UN subsidiary organs are allowed to do business in the US.

We all know that there are two ways to enslave people. One method was practiced pre-1945, and it relied on keeping people away from education. Post-1945, this method to enslave people changed. It is now done through automation.

Automation is a much more effective method to keep people away from education and to suppress sources of information. The question that is worth asking is what do the rich expect to gain from letting the UN subsidiary organs teach the poor people to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc.? This teaching does keep conflicts ongoing to keep the liberal world order prosperous, but do the rich not know that automation challenges their security more than that of the poor and aligns them directly on a trajectory to have a date with none other than trouble after the UN awakens the imagination of their citizen!

Automation controls how ideas are transmitted, but imagination, on the other hand, influences everything we do, think about, and create. If automation controls ideas, this signifies that all that the United Nations subsidiary organs are teaching people to end poverty, inequality, and the like since 1945 (i.e., teaching to change outdated thought processes with one that is modernized) is doing is nothing but making people virtually rich but, in reality, poorer and more illiterate than they were initially, but at the same time, empowering their imagination more due to their access to all the virtual knowledge that they are getting. And so if automation distances people from developing know-how or ideas as I am saying and prevents people from using their programmed ingenuity or human bodies to learn how to sustain survival needs as people were doing pre-1945, I cannot envisage what people could put their imagination to achieve for them other than to orient it to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc., exactly as per what the UN is teaching and mobilizing people to be dedicated to doing, and the rich are facilitating the leisure time for it.

Traditionally, all wars are to fragment the power and the wealth of the rich, and therefore, if the rich continue to let more human bodies be free (i.e., technology is doing this work on behalf of humans), the more human imagination there would be free. During the progressive era after the American Civil War, it was the preoccupation with the ongoing industrial revolution that kept people’s imaginations busy and away from continuing to demand social reforms. Now, after humans in rich countries invited automation to cohabitco-habit on earth and delegated to technology the role the human body was programmed to be affecting in the natural world. I fail to understand how accelerating and shifting people from being devoted to being solely preoccupied with how to use their imagination to be creative and to look for the means from which to sustain survival needs to making them focus on ending poverty, inequality, injustice, etc., including teaching them how to be corrupt as the UN is doing, would help the rich in the long run. Indeed, for now, all the dynamics that the UN subsidiary organs are agitating are helping the liberal world order to prosper, but as more and more people in the developed countries start to delegate their actual industrial progress to post-industrial manufacturing and assembly, what I fail to understand is how the rich in the developed countries plan to control their own people from not challenging them when most of them would have nothing to do with their free time other than to invest it in nothing other than to develop conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc., especially after they approved that the UN teach in all the existing countries’ people to invest conscious efforts to achieve this goal.

Indeed, no one knows how peace and security will evolve in the future and/or if the people who control the money supply of the world would not replace standing governments in great and small states alike with UN task-oriented organizations, especially now that we are entering into a new phase to establish peace and security that relegates human reason and achieves this goal by force through technology, and therefore, we do not need the bureaucracy of large governments, and the shadow or backup UN operations that were mounted in each country could do this work easily.

In the Bible, in the Old Testament, it is reported that at one point, people had one language and a common speech. Some people said, “Let us come make bricks and bake them thoroughly and build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens so that we make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” The Bible later claimed that God came down and confused the language of the people so they would not understand each other.

Life is said to be full of hard choices, and the bigger they are, the harder they get. I have no way of knowing if in the years to come the different standing governments will manage to make their citizens be ready to surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for protection of their remaining rights when the different UN task-oriented organizations are teaching and educating their citizens on why they should be united to fight injustice and corruption to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere.” What I do know is that “no one can serve two masters,” and therefore, all that those UN subsidiary organs are teaching people is not how to be tolerant but how to be intolerant and corrupt as UNOPS is doing. They are all working on converting people from being citizens who used to know how to build productive lives for themselves, their families, and their communities into citizens who are confused, when according to the initial assumption it was the decolonized people and nations who were going to have to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. In fact, I believe this is the reason why the World Bank or IMF was created and brought into a relationship with the United Nations. It would be irrational to assume that Franklin Roosevelt suggested that the League of Nations be supplanted with a new organization that would become an economic collaborator while maintaining privileges and immunities and the right to operate its own judicial system so it becomes what it is now, an outlaw land with no checks and balances whatsoever. Roosevelt knew that it was the bias of leaders who were before 1941 doing business in the same way the UN is now operating that caused WWII, and so definitely he was not planning on creating another independent territory so 72 years later its community of people would be violating the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and be able to get away with murder in the name of making the world safer.

Indeed, the only way to stop this disguise and accompanying confusion is if all those subsidiary organs are abolished, the United Nations gets reformed so it goes back to doing what it was initially designed to serve, and national governments go back to doing their job based on the initial assumption of pre-1945 on how to maintain peace and security in the world.