Lessons learned are experiences distilled from an action to reinforce positive or negative results. The people who lived through the extreme aggression and destruction that occurred during WWII counselled us to practice “tolerance” to reduce or eliminate the potential for future failures. They also created an intergovernmental international organization, which they named the United Nations, so we could use its machinery to define policies that would orient our actions to become more tolerant.

The term “beating the drums of war” is a metaphor that signifies an atmosphere of intense intolerance, which often swells or rages before a catastrophic event is likely to occur. In 1989, the Soviet Union collapsed because the people who were cooperating on the basis of using the communist political ideology as a means to regulate their actions reached the conclusion that they were unable to continue to institute behavioral change that seeks to promote equality and to eliminate social classes using this doctrine. The permanent changes that the natural and built environment were undergoing were making people adapt differently and in turn forcing decisions that were distancing them from continuing to work toward the communal goal they were united initially to strengthen. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 clearly signaled the UN to stop teaching poor people in poor nations, through the subsidiary organs that this council created post-1945, that it is erroneous to prepare people to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc., because it accelerates people’s degree of intolerance and makes them revolt against their standing government; in 2016, the UN began to want the people who live in the rich nations to develop this same awareness. The unusual and abnormal rise in intolerance among people in industrialized nations in recent years signals a growing disenchantment that could become widespread. This frenzied atmosphere and false pretense that the UN and its subsidiary organs are fueling in the social order—its noise will continue to be louder and louder until eventually people become unable to accept each other’s views, beliefs, or behavior, culminating in gross breaches of peace and security that could eventually lead to a world war.

The period associated with reconstruction, known as the Gilded Age or the Progressive Era in United States history following the American Civil War, contributed to the elimination of social ills that were believed to be caused by political machines and their outdated practices. However, we do know that the different social or religious movements that had become the voice of the disenchanted class did not dispel the reluctance of people in this country to be tolerant about social ills and shortcomings. What created the shift and made people perceive that all the expressed criticism was creating change was the ongoing preoccupation of people with the widespread improvement in living standards that the industrial revolution was at the same time ushering. The opportunities that the ongoing enlightenment was creating made the disenchanted segment of the population perceive that all the problems causing corruption in industrialization or urbanization were being addressed, thus easing in this way demands for social justice.

In the present, after mankind began to delegate to post-industrial manufacturing and assembly type technology more and more the role the human body was programmed to be itself unnaturally changing in the natural world to sustain this living mass. Thus, not giving people enough space to use their programmed aptitude to imagine or to reason other than to orient this force to solely be devoted (i) to pushing for more scientific breakthroughs that distance the human body from making unnatural changes in matter, or (ii) to vilify corruption and social ills. The likelihood that the added advances that are continuously being made in science continuing to distance people from creating unnatural change in matter using their programmed body is not something that can be ignored. This signifies that the likelihood of ending up with a large segment of the population finding themselves becoming more susceptible to devoting their imagination to vilifying corruption and social ills is highly likely. How do we know that the United States and all of mankind are not on a direct collision course with confusion if we continue to allow the UN subsidiary organs to be an economic collaborator or an agent who prompts people to be intolerant by teaching them why they need to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc.? Are the United Nations’ subsidiary organs plunging man into an uncertainty that is surely but slowly leading us to confront another world war?

Max Weber claims that to have power, a person needs wealth, prestige, or a path to achieve his own way despite the resistance of others. The UN was designed to lack all the criteria that Max Weber claimed were necessary for a person to have power by the powerful nations in 1945. The money to finance the United Nations operation was planned with voluntary and assessed contributions only. In a few years from now, and if the UN is continued to be allowed to remain an economic collaborator as the case is now, this organization could become totally independent from depending on the financial aid of the powerful and rich nations. The UN has in-service, UN-self-financed organizations that operate like any private company except that they are non-profit from as far back as when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The UN subsidiary organs, including the self-financed ones that the UN created and uses to do business or generate wealth, are spreading corruption at an unprecedented rate in the history of the world. For instance, UNOPS is one of the self-financed organizations that the UN created and has been tasked with serving as a comprehensive platform for procurement, awarding, implementation, and auditing (i.e., a one-stop shop). The different UN subsidiary organs, including donors, go to such types of UN organizations to have them manage their business because their setup makes it very easy to launder money, extort people, and, most importantly, produce a desired outcome.

The challenge that all those UN subsidiary organs are now posing in the world is not about how to introduce stricter financial rules to make the most corrupt one in the pack or the one the UN made them to be a one-stop shop for all checks and balances to become more accountable, but rather about allowing the UN to continue to generate wealth and be brought into a relationship with the powerful nations. First, corruption is endemic, and the world has had lots of experience with monarchs who collaborated in the economic field while claiming divine rights, which is not any different from how the UN subsidiary organs are doing business after they were allowed to have rules and were granted immunities and privileges. The challenge is that wealth provides people power to achieve their own way despite the resistance of others, as I said earlier. When the means to generate wealth are levied by operators who obtain their income from offering services as per how the UN generates its revenues, the need by such operators to maximize all possible sources of income makes them use their biased or uncivilized behavior to exacerbate the political order, thus impacting significantly the power politics between nations. To illustrate the danger the UN subsidiary organs are posing, let us take this example:

In late 2014, the Department for International Development (DFID) of Great Britain was negotiating a business with UNOPS in Sudan. DFID wanted the UNOPS manager in the country, who was an American national, to violate the UN rules and regulations. Instead of UNOPS senior management, a good number of whom were former senior politicians in their countries, side-lining the UNOPS manager who rejected DFID’s request because it violates the ideology that the UN was created to protect, the next day he was charged with being a threat to the best interests of the UN to distance him from the office so DFID’s request is not turned down.

The former minister of justice of Norway heads UNOPS. Norway is a country that Transparency International ranks in the top tier of countries whose public officials are less likely to be corrupt. Based on the way this country projects itself as being a sample of democracy and the guardian of human rights in the world and how most nations want to emulate this country’s ethical standards. One would expect that this American national, whom the UN charged him with being a threat to its best interests, would be treated fairly by a person who is honorable and who hails from Norway, which the international community ranks number one every year on all ethics standards.

The former minister of justice of Norway, along with other UN officials who were also former politicians in their country before joining the UN, notified this US national while he was still under investigation that the UN was restructuring and, therefore, his contract would not be renewed. The UN then proceeded to notify this American national that this global council was proceeding with the investigation, and just a few days before the date when the contract of this charged person was set to expire, he was notified that the investigation was cancelled. On the date when the UN cancelled the investigation, this American national, who in good faith and based on the principle of fair dealing agreed to be charged, requested to know why the UN subjected him to this arbitrary interference and attack on his honor and reputation and then cancelled the investigation, which is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter. He also asked to know how the UN was going to help him to resume his normal career, especially since the UN cancelled the investigation and did not clear him from the charges. To his biggest surprise, the former minister of justice of Norway and her senior UN associates informed this American national that “he missed the deadline to challenge the decision of the UN to end his contract, to seek damages, or to seek help to resume his normal career because he did not do it within 60 days from the date when he was notified that his contract was not going to be renewed.” In other words, by going ahead and waiting until the date when the UN informed this American national that the investigation was cancelled to question why the UN interfered in his life and charged him or ended his contract, his request became time-barred.

That is not all; this American national filed an application against the UN to understand how when a person refuses to establish a relationship that is not up to standard or when he agrees to do exactly as what the founders of the UN proposed people start doing post-1945 (i.e., surrender freedom in exchange for protection of remaining rights), the organization that supposedly was created to be teaching people to be tolerant and that is working on even helping combatants integrate into society would deny a person rights to obtain help to resume his normal career or to seek damages after how, in good faith, he agreed to be charged. Indeed, during the UN tribunal, the UN investigators testified that the former minister of justice of Norway and all the other very senior UN officials who charged this American national with being a threat to the best interests of the UN acted against their own advice. All the testimonies that were made during the hearing, verbally and in writing, by the immediate supervisors of this US national highlighted that those very senior UN officials charged this person to disguise the anomaly. Behold, and against all odds, the UN judicial system dismissed the case on 27 October 2017 on the ground that it was time-barred. Those UN senior officials are free, and this American national and his entire country are blocked and cannot take any action against this organization for violating the UN charter because this association of nations maintains immunities.

President Donald Trump has pledged to keep America great and the world safe during his term. As the above just showed, if the former minister of justice of the country that people in all nations perceive its citizens to have reached a degree of ethics that is of high standard, but in reality it is not any different from the officials in the countries that Transparency International ranks them to be among the most corrupt; and if Great Britain, the country that along with the United States proposed the creation of the United Nations to make the world safer, is requesting that actions be taken that violate the ideology which the UN was created to preserve; and if the United Nations officials are using this organization to play power politics after the world powers allowed this council to become an economic collaborator, whereby UN officials are seeking to preserve the interests of their job security rather than the best interests of the ideology for which this global council was created, we do have a very serious problem indeed. Could President Trump manage to keep the American people and the citizens of the other nations, whom he promised to do everything possible to keep safe, perceiving that he succeeded if the UN subsidiary organs are interfering in how national governments need to determine their political status or to pursue economic, social, and cultural development not to look to preserve the best interests of the self-determination ideology that America proposed in 1945 but to preserve the best interests of the UN so this organization stays in business? In other words, when DFID proposed to violate the UN financial rules and regulations, what this organization was doing was nothing but preserving its best interests, and if the UN senior officials did not say no to DFID because they were working on preserving the best interests of their job security and the machinery from which they make their living and not the self-determination ideology, this situation signifies that those UN subsidiary organs are now the biggest threat to the United States, the ideology, and the entire world. The multilateralism or power politics that the UN officials used, beginning with those senior UN officials to its judicial system, weakened the US national and converted him into becoming a person who is jobless and a weight on his government after he refused to trade his best interests, preferring to prioritize the ideology that his country, as of 1945, asked him to prioritize first. If the UN is allowed to continue to be an economic collaborator whereby its subsidiary organs are teaching people to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, injustice, etc. to accelerate their degree of intolerance and make them revolt against their standing government so the best interests of the UN are preserved, it would soon be the case that the UN subsidiary organs would start to challenge existing governments with hard and soft power alike to get things done their own way. Let us check next if this scenario is possible.

The Father of Dark Matter, Fritz Zwicky (1898-1974), said that when studying complex morphological analyses problems, which are composed of multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable problems where causal modeling and simulation do not function well, which is an exact condition that we have here on our planet when studying relationships, the conventional approach is to break up a system down into parts, isolate the vital parts for their contributions, and then solve the simplified system for creating desired models or scenarios. Professor Zwicky argued that the disadvantage of using such a conventional approach is that real-world scenarios do not behave rationally (neither nature nor human behavior). Zwicky suggested not dropping any of the components from the system but working backward from the output towards the system internals.

Professor Zwicky used morphological analyses to study dynamical systems related to astrophysical objects such as stars, supernovas, dark matter, and many other topics in the field of aerodynamics and claimed that he made many of his discoveries using this method. What we have in common between what Zwicky was using when tracking astrophysical objects or sending objects into space and the like and the decision that our predecessors took in 1945 when they counselled us to promote the development of friendly relations to avert the barbarous acts that they lived and that had outraged their conscience is that they both are a project that includes attaining a goal.

A line is defined to be a point that has a start and an end. Let us take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all existing nations signed in 1948 due to how this document is essential if man is not to be compelled to have recourse to any act that jeopardizes peace as the point of departure.

Let the year 1948 refer to the starting point or when people expressed resolve to observe peace and security to save succeeding generations from future wars. Evidently, the arbitrary point no. 2 that we are seeking when people voluntarily start to observe faithfully the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acts is not a fixed point but a process. What we know so far is that after 72 years have elapsed since mankind proclaimed the acts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of aspiration, no nation can show evidence that the work program of the United Nations subsidiary organs made its own citizens begin to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of those progressive measures that people are collaborating together to ultimately attain.

Let us take the year 2017 or the present political order as point 2 and do as Professor Zwicky proposed doing when studying multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable problems where causal modeling and simulation do not function well. In other words, let us not drop any of the components from the system but work backwards from the output (i.e., the present political order) towards the system internals to find out what could be causing the collapse of the social system that we are observing occurring after people decided to be united to make future wars impossible.

First, let us verify if the social system that our leaders proposed in 1945 as a common standard of achievement has already collapsed or not. Great Britain is one of the founding countries of the United Nations. In the year 2016, this country voted to leave the European Union. This signifies that if Great Britain is backing away from practicing tolerance, which is a requirement to establish world peace, then this is a sufficient sign to signal that the social order is gradually deteriorating.

I have no way of knowing what has changed on earth from when humans began to develop sophistication and abandon living a nomadic lifestyle until now, except that on 24 October 1945, humans agreed to stop being bound by their personal power and conscience to practice, in lieu of that, tolerance to establish conditions whereby the ideal concept of world peace would be attained.

In like manner, I have no way of knowing what has changed on earth from 24 October to now in the year 2017 that could be pushing people to prefer to be less tolerant and to be willing to back away from wanting to maintain the one language and the common speech that they agreed upon on 24 October 1945, other than to suggest that this abnormal rise in people’s involuntary readiness to be tolerant could only be due to people as of 24 October 1945 agreeing to be tolerant.

What I am suggesting contradicts logic, because it is irrational to reason that when people are counselled to practice tolerance, people’s degree of intolerance increases. However, Great Britain, a founding member of the United Nations, eventually lost its patience or tolerance and chose to leave the European Union. President Trump not long ago threatened to withdraw from international affairs. The Spaniards in Spain, the Italians, the Brazilians, and the list of people who want to split from their existing political order to establish their own political community goes on and on. Then, one of two scenarios could be true. Either progress (or evolution) creates crises and conflicts, or the mechanisms that people began to use in 1945 to attain the rules that everyone agreed upon are the principal cause of the challenge. In this analysis, I will not elaborate on the former reason that could be contributing to this abnormal rise in intolerance that people are exhibiting but on the latter.

I have no way of knowing what behavioral change the UN expects people to start to exhibit, so we could all say that starting from this date onward we are all now on the right trajectory to become more tolerant, and the world could indeed start becoming more peaceful. Let us define this condition to be an ideal state of happiness and freedom in which people would be willing to cooperate voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance.

The self-determination ideology that the United States proposed to mankind in 1941, so we organize our social order around it, is better than what religion has offered mankind since people started to believe in supernatural forces. This is because religion expects people to be tolerant in order to reap happiness when people transition to eternal life. The American people offered mankind the chance to be tolerant and to experience happiness on earth and not in eternity.

Since no man can argue that the ideology proposed by the United States contains flaws, because any other guiding philosophy signifies returning mankind to how people navigated peace and security until 1945. The flaw could only be in the mechanism or means that people are using to attain the goals that the United States proposed.

The mechanisms for determining the self-determination policies and the means to enforce how to establish social conditions to attain the UN goals are none other than the United Nations and its different UN subsidiary organs, which have been leading this process since 1945.

Two humans cannot touch the same matter or fill the same void space. If Great Britain is in the process of leaving the European Union, this situation signifies that the British government could not have taken this decision if this polity did not feel that the citizens of the neighboring countries with whom the British formed a union are closing in on them and their polity is preventing the British from making choices that do not weaken their ability to defend their best interests. In other words, the choices or the concessions that the British government would be making by staying in this union would not lead to making the British people get to realize the full development of their personality at the standards that they would like.

This also signifies that if the people of Great Britain who proposed that an association of nations be created in 1943 to educate and teach people on why everyone should be tolerant are incapable themselves of tolerating anymore the encroachment of the people who are displacing them to realize the full development of their personality, they would prefer to withdraw from the European Union. This means that the people who are displacing the economy of the British people and/or are splitting their wealth or power could not be other than the people whom the United Nations subsidiary organs started teaching them about why they should develop conscious efforts to be devoted to pushing, splitting, or displacing the wealth of the British people in order to pursue the realization of the full development of their personality instead.

I do not know up to what extent this claim that I am making about the United Nations subsidiary organs creating crises and conflicts in the world could be true, but what I do know is that if human nature has not changed on earth from pre-24 October 1945 and post-24 October 1945, the only change that I believe occurred on earth starting from 25 October 1945 to now is that the British people started practicing tolerance and the different UN task-oriented organizations that the UN created started teaching the people of the other nations the opposite.

Robin Hood is a heroic outlaw in English folklore who, according to legend, used to rob from the rich and donate to the poor. Robin Hood became a popular folk in the late Middle Ages and continues to be widely remembered in modern popular culture for his partisanship of the lower class. Robin Hood used to wear down the patience or the tolerance of the poor by teaching and educating them on why they should not be tolerant. Are the United Nations’ subsidiary organs the new Robin Hoods of the world?

Could one of the reasons that pushed Great Britain to leave the European Union, the US to be challenged in recent years, and all the people around the world to appear confused be a consequence of what the United Nations occasioned when this organization wanted to make a name for itself and created UN task-oriented organizations and staffed them with Robin Hoods so they teach and educate people on why they should not be tolerant instead of sticking to doing what, in 1943, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed this assembly of nations be created to serve based on the principle of collective security? This was to be teaching people to be tolerant until standing governments manage to figure out how to make people start to perceive that they are not living under fear and want using the mechanisms that were created in 1945 and not through the UN subsidiary organs that this association of nations created later.

Will the ongoing confusion and the drums of war become louder and louder in the years to come if the United Nations subsidiary organs that were created post-1945 are continued to be allowed to be brought into a relationship with the United Nations, or will peace and security stabilize? I do not know the answer, but what I do know is that it will be our successors who will be able to answer this question better.