Since the dawn of humanity, the desire for happiness seems to motivate all human choices. There are two doctrines that humans could exploit to structure their interaction with one another or with any other physical mass to deepen one’s own happiness. One is to orient human ingenuity to establish relationships emphasizing a controlled hierarchical interaction, while the other is based on the declaration that was proclaimed during the American revolutionary period in 1776, which penned that “all men are created equal.”

All theological doctrines emphasize that tradition and custom guide man’s action and stress that the freedom that a person voluntarily surrenders in his earthly life is something that would be recuperated in an afterlife. The ideology that the United States proclaimed in 1776 holds that hierarchy is not a process to dominate but a process to regulate. In this way, no person would find himself subsisting, having to postpone happiness to an afterlife.

All accounts claim that the American people were “happy” right before the outbreak of WW2 despite all the internal challenges that this country underwent internally since its founding. In 1941, the American people proposed that the choices or the processes of interaction and decision-making systems they adapted to improve the quality of their lives be put to the test to create, in all the lands, the conditions of stability and well-being that religion and all the past political ideologies that were tested with had failed to yield.

A point of departure to any project that is set to alter the social order starts with delineating policies, activities, and organizational development. The United States proposed that an association of nations be created in the wake of the Second World War to coordinate this endeavor. People had high hopes that this new intergovernmental organization, which was founded in 1945 and was named the United Nations, would manage to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, but unfortunately this was not the case.

Various arguments have been developed to explain why this intergovernmental organization failed to prevent conflicts, which has encompassed even peddling that the United States uses its veto power to violate the sovereignty of other nations. After the United States suggested in 2017 that it was ready to withdraw from international affairs, critics who claimed that the country was using the mechanisms of this global council to become a hegemon could no longer justify their assertions. In fact, the motion made by the American people regarding their readiness to withdraw from international affairs indicates that the United States is not engaged in international affairs to promote its own neoliberal agenda or to serve its strategic interests.

If people are not able to cope in accordance with the processes of interactions and decision-making systems that the United States suggested that all members of the human family adapt to deepen ultimate happiness post-1945, the challenge cannot be intertwined in what this intergovernmental organization named the United Nations wants us to perceive the problem to be always due to it; afterwards, its administrators convene member states to establish new UN organs or commissions to expand this organization and create jobs. Examples are overpopulation, environmental degradation, religious extremism, technology, ideological bias, poverty, lack of resources to enforce rulings, equality of representation, veto power, and so forth. The United Nations did not establish itself as a government in exile.

If everything on earth is undergoing at all times differences that amount to a loss of original identity; and if human nature has not changed pre- and post-1945; and if the origin of people’s sophistication is embodied in the natural inequality that the division of labor levies; and if the general theory of relativity that Albert Einstein postulated in 1905, in which he claimed that space and time are relative rather than absolute; and if, in 1941, all that the American people suggested to humans at large to start doing to deepen connectedness is to strive to ensure that their own body begins to break away from its sameness (or past behavioral routine) based on the disposition fixed in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; then the principal motive that prevented mankind from managing to adapt to the rules, norms, and actions that the American people proposed cannot be rooted in the self-determination political ideology that this culture suggested. All that the American people posited that all members of the human family start doing to maintain world peace post-1945 is to begin to introduce a difference in matter that stresses a relationship based on the choices this sovereign nation adapted. In other words, the only difference that man introduced in the social order pre- and post-1945 was coming together to agree that the self-determination ideology that the American people employ to fix their processes of interaction with one another be extended over all the lands.

The challenge that is preventing mankind from coping in accordance with the processes of interactions and decision-making systems that the United States suggested to deepen ultimate happiness can only be due to this intergovernmental organization and its subsidiary organs teaching people to break away from their sameness using rules that are different than the program the United States follows or counselled be followed.

There are two sources from which a person can advance his economic and social condition: one is from widening his social space, and the other is his knowledge. No matter what a person may do during his life, without access to knowledge (technology, education, social improvement, etc.), it will not be possible for him to access the primordial elements that can sustain his survival needs or earthly desires. Likewise, if a person does not increase his social space to thereby upgrade his abundance and quality of natural matter, he will be unable to increase his knowledge to sustain his survival needs or earthly desires.

Let the word “thing” refer to a mass or an idea. Let whenever a person makes a difference in a “thing” to make it become something else to denote change. Let the process that takes place when a person substitutes one “thing” for another be called “change” as well.

The preamble of the UN Charter states that the purpose of the coming together of all the existing nations at this global council was to maintain world peace through employing “international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.”

If the principal obligation that any nation is required to adhere to upon subscribing to the self-determination ideology that the United States proposed to advance the social welfare of its populace post-1945 dictates that a member state agree to not seek to expand social space to enlarge the happiness of its people, then the difference that this country proposed that all members of the human family begin to introduce in the aftermath of WWII to attain the goals set forth in the preamble of the UN Charter could not be a “rule” that a person or a nation can secure by making human imagination look outward but by exploring inward instead.

Equally, if throughout history, no culture split tenaciously its people into rich and poor and then proceeded to create machineries so its structures began to domesticate its populace to invest reactive conscious efforts to fight injustice, inequality, and poverty to increase happiness as per how this international organization named the United Nations resorted to doing post-1945 to advance the promotion of the economic and social condition of all members of the human family, then all the insecurity and turmoil that people are knowing in the countries that this organization classified first as poor and then moved to interfere in their lives and to teach them to cope based on its creative chaos approach has to be what caused their instability. The United States did not resort to preparing its people using the coping mechanism that this organization is using to improve their life chances but based on the ends set forth in the preamble of the UN Charter.

Steve Jobs, before his death, said, “Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything—all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure—these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.” The choices are clear: we can continue to let the social order remain an experimental theater for this international organization and its machineries, or we can take the advice of Jobs and revert this council back to the coordination role that the founding members initially foresaw for it so we can let the United States, in partnership with the initial organs that were approved by our founding fathers for this council, take the lead and show us how we can create the transformation that would make everyone live free of want and fear.

The past does not define us; it is the choices we make from now on that do. We can continue to undermine the milestone that the American people achieved to free us from the oligarchic hegemon of the political philosophy that the Portuguese, Spaniards, French, British, and so forth adapted to established relations, like before the outbreak of WW2, or carry on perceiving, as some critics managed to make us believe during the past 72 years, that the United States created, for instance, the World Bank/International Monetary Fund and maintains veto at the IMF to regulate the money supply of the world to protect its interests. The choices ahead are clear after science changed our way of doing things, thus making the United Nations become obsolete: We could continue to let the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and all the other European countries that, until 26 June 1945, believed in hierarchy and domination use their financial aid to finance the United Nations so this organization can peddle to us that its structures are creating change in the social order when we all know that this outward-looking teaching that this council is using, along with all the different “goals” that it is setting, are nothing but ambitions that cannot make a person become tolerant but instead promote the economic strategic interests of the European countries that are financing the UN, as the past 72 years have been a sample and a true measure. Alternatively, we willingly let the United States show us how we could transfer their know-how and use their norms, rules, and actions to set up in all the existing countries the new world order that technology is dictating how people would be interacting with one another on its basis and no longer real humans. This last option will spare us from continuing to let the United Nations resize people and nations as this organization has been doing, including making us head toward a new form of domination that would see us throw away all the milestones that we invested to affirm faith in the human person. Most importantly, this will allow us to give the United States a chance to show us how we can deepen happiness, which the United Nations prevented us from knowing when this organization decided to take separate action and started coming up with “goals” or setting up “targets,” which acts as a lure to pause us from managing or becoming tolerant or independent in the performance of our civic duties and in vilifying corruption as per what the United States suggested we start doing to triumph over the weakness of our will to be happy.

No matter what the future may hold, there have been lots of speculations that posit that the people who control the money supply of the world could decide to establish a one-world government using the UN as a central authority given how this action can centralize, along with technology, the governance of people. If this idea is true, what assurances do we have that the UN would subject us to live under its oligarchic hegemon as mankind did until 1945?

The United Nations is not pursuing the attainment of the goals that are set in the preamble of the charter of the United Nations in the same manner that the different religious denominations ensure the sustainability of their ideologies using individuals who have traded their right to happiness in favor of the spiritual mission to which they consecrate their lives to teaching and advancing. The UN officials are pursuing the moral goals that the United States proclaimed in the preamble of the charter of the United Nations to deepen compassion and the different material goals that this intergovernmental organization devises to preserve the natural and built environment using individuals who are working on pursuing the attainment of those objectives while being devoted to fulfilling the full development of their personality at the same time.

For example, UNOPS is one of the UN self-financed subsidiary organs that the UN created and mandated to offer turnkey-type solutions. The United Nations mandated UNOPS to engineer/design, procure, manage, construct, and equip projects for a remuneration. All the UN organs that the UN mandated to operate with all the checks and balances of a project done under the same roof are operations that the UN uses to run its internal “dirty” business, including serving as a source to generate income because the UN financing comes from voluntary or assessed contributions.

Corruption is endemic, and therefore the United Nations is not exempt. In 2013, an American national who was working for UNOPS was under a compulsory directive and requested to transfer temporarily from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to a posting in Sudan. When he objected, UNOPS senior management began to offer the UN bank account so donors could use it in blatant money laundering operations. In Sudan, this American national found that his senior management were misappropriating donor funds and violating the UN financial rules and regulations in the name of their passion to help the Sudanese people build better lives. He paid a big price when he decided not to trade the best interests of the self-determination ideology that the United States pledged that all its citizens would be observing post-1945 and challenged his senior management approach to building better lives in the fraudulent manner that they are using. In late 2014, he “spilled the beans” when he refused to say yes to the impropriety that Great Britain requested be done to preserve its best interests in Sudan but which served the UN’s best interests and UNOPS administrators because of the money that this council was going to gain from this business.

Money is the root of all evil. Power is also the ability of a person to achieve his way despite the resistance of others. Power is the variable that humans use to wield influence and create social change. Everyday people use their power to deny each other rights, and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual was invented to delineate rights. Can men solve the problem of natural inequality by delegating this task to an international intergovernmental organization whose officials are using the benefits of the political order to terrify people and advance their best interests instead of advancing the best interests of the self-determination ideology that all members of the human family confide to them to deepen social cohesion?

The United Nations, after making this American national wait close to a year and without telling him who pressed charges against him or what the exact nature of the charges that were leveled against him was, cancelled the investigation. In between, the same UN officials who charged him with being a threat to the UN’s best interests ended his contract on the ground that the UN was restructuring. When this American national highlighted that the UN violated his right to due process in accordance with the UN’s own legal framework for addressing non-compliance with the United Nations standard of conduct. The same UN officials who charged him made him an offer to drop the application he filed to seek damages, which was void of agreeing to returning him to resume his normal career. Strangely, after the UN judges heard the UN investigators testify that this American citizen had not committed any wrongdoing to be charged and that the charges were imposed against their recommendations, and his immediate supervisors testify verbally and in writing that very senior UN officials charged him to disguise impropriety, dismissed the case in late 2017. The legal argument that the UN and its lawyers used to dismiss the application defies ethics. The UN judges dismissed the application of this American because he waited until the UN lawyers informed him that the investigation was cancelled to question why the UN charged him or ended his contract. By waiting until the date when the UN lawyers informed him that this council cancelled the investigation to question why the UN subjected him to this interference and/or why the UN is refusing to help him in good faith to resume his normal career after he agreed to surrender freedom and be charged, he missed the 60-day deadline that the UN has in vigor to challenge its decision. In short, this American forgave his rights to challenge the UN for its decision to charge him or end his contract because he practiced tolerance exactly as per what his government directed him to do post-1945 and the UN charter stipulated and waited until the UN informed him that this council cancelled the investigation to question why he was charged and his contract was ended. The UN is penalizing him because he did not invest in reactive coping and challenged this organization within the 60-day rules or delays to find out why he was charged or why his contract was ended. The UN dismissed his application because he did not support a relationship that was considered below standard. Had he supported a relationship that is below standards, he would have influenced a different decision!

Indeed, the decision of the UN tribunal to bunker under the pretext that the application of this American national was time-barred to deny him a fair ruling to protect the large number of individuals who were implicated in this case is not new. What was new was a detail that the United Nations and its lawyers used to argue why the UN tribunal should dismiss the application of this American national. In the application that this American national filed to appeal the dismissal, he emphasized how the UN violated not only its own rules but, more so, the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that this council was created to secure its observance. Surprisingly, the UN and its lawyers counter-argued that this American national “modified the description of his claim” when he appropriated himself with the UN charter or the UDHR to argue his case. This stance that, on its basis,basis the United Nations and its internal machineries, along with its UN judicial system, dismissed the appeal of this American national supports the existence of a challenge that is much more complex than the power differential that, on its basis, this organization acted to deny this individual the sum of money he requested as damages after this organization violated his rights.

The United States proposed that a new association of nations be created in the aftermath of WWII to prepare people to break away from their sameness so as to interact with each other based on the principles that are stipulated in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The motion of the UN to consider the UN charter and the UDHR a variable and no longer the blueprint on its basis people are supposed to guide their interaction with one another post-1945 is evidence to support that the United Nations has become a threat to the self-determination ideology that mankind started practicing as of 1945 that is much more complex than the threat communism posed on the United States post-1989.

Historians claim that during the Cold War, successive United States administrations planned operations to eradicate Marxist subversion and ideas. The purpose of those operations was to counter a theory that was prominent during the Cold War, which posited that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect.

The communist dissidents and leftists who were preaching before the collapse of the Soviet Union to people to reverse the neoliberal economic policies to replace them with Marxist philosophy were teaching people to work toward a communal goal, which was to regulate social space and knowledge so those two variables could be distributed in a balanced way. The individuals who were spreading communist ideologies during the Cold War and the individuals who worked to stop them from going ahead with teaching people to make proactive conscious efforts to eradicate poverty, injustice, and inequality in accordance with the communist principles were both advocating how people take actions that are intended to improve a person’s life chances, but with each alliance suggesting a different coping mechanism to attain this goal. In the case of the United States, the policies that this country was defending and preaching were neoliberal.

Many people criticized the United States for exerting efforts to curb Marxist subversion, but the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 was good proof to support that humans cannot share equally rights to something that is always changing. In fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union is evidence to support what could have awaited a larger number of nations had this ideology succeeded in spreading further in the world. The shrewdness and vigilance of the United States spared us from going back to living under compulsory dominion so we could face in the future eventually the same fate that we all witnessed happen in the year 1989 to this ideology.

The United Nations is not teaching any Marxist philosophy, but this organization is teaching people to eradicate poverty, injustice, and inequality to attain the same practical communal goals that the Marxist philosophy was preaching (i.e., in as far as how social space, knowledge, or material things get distributed). The only difference is that the United Nations is not teaching people to reverse neoliberal economic policies to replace them with communal goals, but it is teaching communal goals to replace the individuals who are controlling the money supply with new people, which is worse.

Neoliberal philosophy is an idea that is a cardinal concept within the self-determination ideology and, like anything else, needs a baseline to prosper. It is not possible for the neoliberal ideology to endeavor if people do not voluntarily agree to be tolerant and to vilify corruption. If the United Nations is teaching people to invest reactive conscious effort to break away from their sameness to adapt to a purpose that would see social space and knowledge regulated using individuals who did not trade their right to happiness in favor of the humanitarian mission, which they consecrated their lives to teaching; and if the United Nations is teaching people to employ coping mechanisms aimed at resizing the people who control the money supply of the world with individuals who are pursuing their happiness at the same time; and if the UN is dismissing the cases of people on the ground that the UN charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are variables, then how can we ascertain that the UN does not pose a threat to the republicanism/neoliberal ideology in the same way communism posed before its collapse? This is because there is no difference between what the people who were during the Cold War spreading and teaching what people should be doing to improve their life chances using the communist ideology and the teaching the UN is pursuing. The two teachings are both aimed at making people invest reactive, conscious efforts to eradicate poverty, injustice, and inequality!

The constitution of the United States is the supreme law that delineates the framework of how the government should operate to form a perfect union and establish justice. The constitution of the United States recognizes that law and political order are not natural but are instead human creations. The Second Amendment in the US Bill of Rights extends rights to the American people to keep and bear arms to defend themselves when the government becomes tyrannical. If the United Nations is teaching people to invest conscious efforts to end poverty, inequality, and so forth to improve their life chances, which is a philosophy that prevents people from being tolerant to be able to establish relations based on respect of the conditions of equal rights; and if when people are intolerant the necessary conditions for any ideology would collapse; and if the United Nations has now become an economic operator and is working on protecting its best interests thus fuelling more global chaos; and if the United Nations is acting as a shadow government in each country and in the countries that collapsed and are stateless as a principal power broker; and if the United Nations has openly proclaimed during its dispute with this American national that the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are a variable and are not an obligation that people are supposed to interact with one another on their basis; and if there is no difference between what the people who were during the cold war spreading and teaching what people should be doing to improve their life chances using the communist ideology and the teaching the UN is pursuing (i.e., they are both aimed at making people invest reactive conscious efforts to eradicate poverty, injustice and inequality), how could we be assured that the domino effect that the UN teaching occasioned in the poor nations so far would not collapse the United States ultimately? Most importantly, should people start to anticipate that the UN would eventually become tyrannical, and therefore, people and nations should start to have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against the tyranny of this intergovernmental organization?

Put differently, if all the human choices appear to be motivated by the desire for happiness which means that when we have competing ideologies a person is bound to favor the doctrine that deepen his happiness first; and if we know that the “humanitarian intervention” that the United Nations is bunkering under to operate its creative chaos strategy is more effective to increase a person happiness than the self-determination / neoliberal ideology because it works on driving a person to practice intolerance to resize the social order to create the necessary change that would deepen the realization of the full development of his own personality as compared to practicing equal rights and tolerance which is what the self-determination / neoliberal ideology teaches to allow the self-control that a person manifest make him gain better understanding of himself to translate this consciousness into politics that would bring choices that would deepen happiness to everyone; and if the existing nations are allowing this intergovernmental organization to be an economic operator who could operate with privileges and immunity whereby its officials are not liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law as per how this organization treated this American national and denied him rights; how can we be assured that if we continue to allow this intergovernmental organization to sustain its creative chaos scheme and injure with impunity that it would not breakup the self-determination / neoliberal ideology that the United States proposed all people practice to give rise to a new ideology which could include living under the compulsory domination of this global council until it would collapse eventually in the same way the Marxist philosophy reversed to a simpler form?

I have no way of knowing if the domino effect that the teaching of the United Nations has prompted in the poor nations would continue to protrude or ripple until it would occasion the collapse of the United States to reverse this country to a simpler form in the same way the Marxist philosophy collapsed, and/or if the people of the money supply of the world would continue to empower the United Nations to replace standing governments with UN subsidiary organs. Hence, this association of nations possesses now the capacity to act as a shadow government in each country and has become an alternative; what I do know is that humans are objects, which allows us to say that they obey the same physical laws as other matter and motion. I also know that in 1905 Albert Einstein showed that anything that has a mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa. When Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, scientists all over the world debated if matter and energy could be equivalent and/or if matter could be converted into energy; hence, a good number of scientists considered that his theory applied only in special cases. What if all the crises and conflicts or dynamics that we are witnessing people prompt post-1945 are a reflection of the energy that the United Nations’ teaching is provoking in the social order after this council chose to take separate action and began to prepare people to accelerate setting their own body in motion to make a difference in matters contrary to the philosophical concept that the founding fathers of the United Nations proposed? In other words, what if the rule that is empowering people to manifest intolerance post-1945 instead of resolving to act based on the processes of interaction and decision-making systems that were enunciated in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is woven into the United Nations’ ongoing devotion to accelerating people’s motion instead of letting the existing nations freely determine their political status or freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development in accordance with the mechanisms the United States proposed in 1945?

On the other hand, what I do know is that if the UN Security Council does not reopen the case of this American national that the UN and its judiciary system used its power differential to dismiss and bury instead of being up to the measure and holding accountable the people whom this organization is protecting, more people and nations would continue to be weakened by the teachings and anarchic conduct of this international organization. This defiance will continue to ripple until eventually the people who control the money supply of the world replace all the standing governments with one global government that the UN, with its different organs, would act as its political authority until, in turn, this system reverses to a simpler form. Here is the rationale on whose basis I support my claim:

From birth to death, all that humans do is to set their own bodies in motion to sustain their survival needs and to satiate their earthly desires, including teaching each other about how not to let the natural inequality of humanity make one be bound by his personal power and conscience.

In physics, motion refers to a change in the position of an object accompanied by a transfer of energy. All the changes that occur in the natural world are thermodynamically irreversible. In other words, the energy that gets dissipated is irreversible.

Scientists posit that there are two principal types of motion that transfer energy through matter or space. One type is mechanical, and the other type is electromagnetic. The mechanical type refers to a motion in which a body propagates through a medium. The electromagnetic type does not require a medium.

Mathematics is a tool invented by humans to calculate the energy gains or losses that result from changes in virtually every area of science. All that scientists can do each time a change takes place is to calculate the amount of energy that was gained / lost as a result of the change that ensued. It is the impact of the accompanied energy that was transferred or displaced what is of concern when a change occurs. Scientists use the amount of energy that was gained/lost to control and regulate the frequency, distance, velocity, acceleration, speed, and many other measures during the transformation that all objects are continually undergoing.

For example, when a person moves from one point to the next involuntarily or voluntarily, the change of position that the human body undergoes creates a mechanical disturbance that transfers energy through matter.

Sound, on the other hand, is a vibration that propagates as an audible wave of pressure, which the brain recognizes. When our vocal cords cause the air molecules to vibrate (set them in motion), this phenomenon makes the air molecules oscillate or causes an audible wave of pressure that dissipates energy.

Humans are a species whose nervous system “hibernates” and does not stay active when their consciousness is suspended or when they are sleeping. When human consciousness becomes suspended, the human body becomes idle in space and time, and it stops dissipating mechanical energy in the natural world except for the air that the body sets in motion when breathing (inhaling/exhaling). We can say that when the human nervous system becomes inactive or when consciousness is practically suspended, the amount of energy that is gained/lost could be said to occur about an equilibrium point until the person resumes his awareness or sets his body in motion. Actually, since there are people who snore while sleeping and there are others who do not emit any sound when they are breathing, we can also say that the pressure waves that the human breathing system propagates can occur about an equilibrium point when the sound waves are very low.

On the other hand, when humans are resting but awake (i.e., idle, not in motion, and their nervous system is not hibernated), people have the power to make the sound wave that they emit transform into a mechanical energy that does not get restricted to creating a wave of pressure in the air molecules that were bombarded but to cause the sound wave to generate substantial energy as well. Humans exercise this power when they use or appropriate the human body of another person to effect mechanical disturbance in matter on their behalf.

For example, when a person has his body idle in space and time but his nervous system is not hibernating and is in the company of another person, all that person has to do is emit a vocal sound in the form of a speech or a body action like moving his eyes in one direction or another to make the other person comprehend a perception. The message conveyed through speech or eye movement can stimulate the nerve cells of the person who is listening or observing the communication. The perception that was emitted travelled through some sort of a “vacuum,” carrying along its path wave pressure identical to radio waves, infrared radiation, light, and so forth, that charges the nerve cells in the brain of the person who received the message, thus forcing him to react or to change matter. We can say that when a speech contains information that is perceived to be important by the person who hears it, the facts provided have the power to charge the nerve cells of the person who is hearing the message that is being communicated to push him to move his body, thus creating a disturbance that transfers energy through matter or space.

We can also say that the brain carries electromagnetic radiant energy that behaves in the same way audible waves propagate owing to the ability of this programmed aptitude to set in motion the body of another person. When a person is alone and his human brain voluntarily initiates an action, this programmed aptitude is the one that gives the command, but it is not the one that affects the change that the human body exhibits in matter. It is the human body that affects the motion, which causes a change of position accompanied by a transfer of energy. This signifies that when a person’s own nervous system is not hibernating but the person is idle or in motion and he has practically agreed to suspend his consciousness or stay silent, the human brain can be said to refer to a measure of a central value that denotes a point of equilibrium. In this case, only nature has the power to make a person involuntarily dissipate energy. This happens when a person feels pain or is in danger. The nerve cells that fire in his brain push him to either howl or displace his body.

Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of particles at the smallest scales of energy levels. To my knowledge, scientists have not been able to describe the behavior of the human brain in mathematical form to control and regulate the impact of the energy that this programmed aptitude creates when it sets a human body in motion. Nonetheless, if we correlate the constitutional makeup that was approved at the time of the founding of the United Nations in 1945 to achieve the aims that all the existing nations agreed to collaborate on in the economic, social, and political fields to attain and the structure that the United Nations now operates with, we find that the scheme that was approved by the founding fathers works on letting the energy that a person exhibits or releases be the result of one’s own measure as compared to an induced measure. In other words, the solutions that a person would come up with to not perceive that his human personality is trapped and, therefore, be compelled to have recourse to aggression to widen his access to material things, knowledge, or social space are driven by the interlocutor that is the self. This motor skill was something that each individual was going to develop and decide upon on his own and in partnership with his own natural and built environment. The coping mechanism that the United States proposed so people attain the goals set forth in the preamble of the UN Charter could not have been directed at having post-1945 UN task-oriented organizations interject to prepare people to invest reactive conscious efforts to improve their life chances when everyone agreed that there would be no territorial gains but territorial adjustment. The United Nations should have known that the natural and built environment cannot be equal and that humans did not regulate reproduction in 1945 so we could develop a material balance that would take into account the relationships that could deepen one’s own happiness when human imagination is limitless. In 1945, people agreed to interact with one another based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination and not based on what this organization is working on doing. The strategy that the United Nations is adapting is a major threat to world peace.

Granted that it is not possible to quantify the energy transfer (i.e., crises and conflicts) that the UN teaching is prompting to determine the magnitude of the disturbance in matter that its coaching is provoking because causal modeling and simulation cannot be used on objects (physical and human beings) that are continuously changing. The multi-dimensionality of the problem makes it impossible to establish relationships to hold the United Nations accountable for all this abnormal rise in people’s intolerance. In other words, we cannot isolate how much of the abnormal rise in people’s intolerance is due to all the accelerated teaching that the UN is perpetrating in the social domain from the permanent changes that humans are continually exerting in the natural and built environment to support why this organization needs to be stopped from continuing to make people intolerant to save mankind from more challenges. However, since humans, as I said before, are objects, which allows us to say that they obey the same physical laws as other matter and motion, what we can do is show what happens when the motion of objects that are like humans, able to maintain an equilibrium point, is accelerated to deduce what type of disturbance in matter the energy transferred creates. Then it is up to the existing nations that are financing the UN to determine if they would like to reform this council so it can go back to functioning as it was programmed initially to induce a reduced net energy transfer to reinforce positive results and make the world become less violent, or to go on letting this creative chaos that this organization is operating on its basis continue to reshape people as it is doing with some increasing their happiness to the detriment of others. Let us first start by establishing if, indeed, the UN is setting people in motion to then tackle the impact on peace and security this accelerated motion is perpetrating.

People rely on the natural world to meet their survival needs. The environment is not the same everywhere on earth. Human ingenuity is not equal, and the fact that humans cannot be in two places to do two things at the same time makes people surrender to the natural inequality that the division of labor imposes. Such conditions also made people specialize or allocate tasks according to the skills and/or equipment different individuals possess.

Teaching and educating people on why they should replace their actual ways of doing things with current behaviors, thoughts, or actions accelerates the number of human bodies that become idle faster. When people are idle, human imagination jumps on this opportunity to direct the human brain to emphasize the importance of the senses over human reason. Hence, it is from the senses that people get to realize the full development of the body and the brain. This signifies that all the UN subsidiary organs are doing when they are pushing people to become devoted to replacing their usual ways of interacting with matter with current behaviors, thoughts, or actions because, in their eyes, this benefits them and is nothing but charging or firing the nerve cells of the people they are influencing to take action to create a change.

Since the only change that UN teaching can prompt is nothing but to make a person want to set his human body in motion because the United Nations cannot create matter or wealth so people can have the material things that they need to fulfill the realization of the full development of their personality from their fixed point in time and space, this signifies that all that the different UN task-oriented organizations are prompting is nothing but arousing people to stop wanting to be tolerant and to continue to want to realize the fulfillment of their own personality from their own fixed position in space and time; to instead be intolerant and to want to take action to set their own human body in motion to realize the fulfillment of one’s own personality from the void space that a person perceives his own body is denied from occupying. People’s choices are motivated by happiness. As we said, the environment is not the same everywhere, and a person cannot be in two places at once. A person is not interested in fulfilling the full development of his personality from his actual point in space. A person’s mere existence or survival within a given point of space in time means that he is already realizing the fulfillment of his own personality within the void space that he is occupying. It is the void space that a person perceives his own body is denied from occupying that a person desires to conquer. It is the new void space that a person occupies or freezes and/or the new material things that an individual accumulates that make a person claim that he managed to realize the fulfillment of his own personality.

This means that the only service the different UN subsidiary organs are lending the world a hand with, from teaching people to be modernized, is feeding nothing but to persuade the human imagination / human reason to want to set in motion the human body. The consequence of making all people become more aware of their existence so they invest conscious efforts to realize the full development of their personality teaches and educates people nothing but why they should be devoted to filling the full development of their personality from the void space that their own human body is devoid of. Moreover, since all the liveable void space that exists on the outside of the human physical body is either occupied or frozen by another human being. This means that the civilizing mission that the different UN task-oriented organizations have been lending the world a hand with since 1945 is only serving to make people stop continuing to be devoted to focusing on how to worry about sustaining survival needs from their fixed point in space and time to becoming devoted to displacing their bodies to employ them to revolt against ordinary values and traditions in order to seek to arrive at political and ethical truths to have access to more social space or knowledge (i.e., happiness). Indeed, this teaching is charging the nerve cells of people and is making them become devoted to realizing the full development of their personality and/or to resizing each other, thus keeping the assembly lines of the industrialized nations up and running. However, since technology is progressive and is also competing with humans, the UN teaching is unfortunately prompting nothing other than converting people from being subjects who used to know how to sustain their survival needs to people who are becoming confused and living without any know-how. Thus, deepening the world’s insecurity even further.

Socrates wondered if humans would be able to prevail over the weakness of their will—doing wrong when they know what is right, and he seemed to think that it is possible to stop people from being bound by their personal power and conscience if humans are taught to not let the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. Could we say that peace and security would have been better off if we had let the United States show us how its teaching made its own citizen happy instead of letting the UN teach us how to resize the United States, as this intergovernmental organization is doing after it started to take separate action to prepare us to adapt to a new philosophy that we did not agree to collaborate to attain as of 1945?

Likewise, could we also say that until scientists show us how humans can manage to understand themselves (i.e., emphasize moral aims over ambitions) when the human body is also in motion as per how the UN is teaching people to be devoted to doing to improve one’s life chances, the only difference that we could expect this coaching to help us to attain is to head the social order to where the Marxist ideology headed already?

Most importantly, could we say that for as long as the UN is going to be devoted to teaching people to adopt reactive coping mechanisms to address poverty and injustice to attain world peace, religion, on the other hand, is spreading the idea that reality is split into good and evil and that all the injustice and inequality are due to people’s wickedness, so we can never have peace on earth? Man manages to live with religion because this ideology teaches tolerance and preaches that what a person is not able to achieve on earth he would mend in eternity. Can we manage to make people agree to collaborate in the economic field based on the principles of equal rights and self-determination to deepen connectedness when the UN is teaching them why they should be intolerant and devoted to seeking political and ethical truths?

Indeed, it looks as if the more tools or technology distances people from having to be dedicated to being worried about how to sustain survival needs, the more this situation would free more people and would make them become devoted to fighting injustice and inequality. Moreover, the more the teaching of the UN grows, the more people’s determination to ensure justice and equality on behalf of God grows. Ultimately, this could lead to more energy being expended on crises and conflicts than is currently the case. It seems as if only when all the existing nations stop financing the UN subsidiary organs and channel all the development financial aid back through the World Bank/IMF so standing governments could access it on their own as initially foreseen in 1945 could we expect the world to become less dynamic and safer. This measure will stop the UN from continuing to accelerate the awareness of people to be intolerant and/or to have people set their bodies in motion as they are doing to fight injustice and inequality.

In conclusion, it appears as if people were in a state of equilibrium with meeting their survival needs and earthly desires when they were with their respective governments working on addressing their requirements or before the different UN subsidiary organizations did not interfere in people’s lives to show them why they should invest reactive conscious efforts to improve their social and economic condition. It looks as if when the different UN subsidiary organizations began to teach people why they should be devoted to pursuing better living standards using this creative chaos approach, the UN destabilized the state of equilibrium of peace and security in the world.

I have no way of knowing how peace and security would evolve in the future. However, what I do know is that from 1945 to 2015, the decision of the existing nations to let the UN take separate action to attain the goals set forth in the preamble of the UN charter has made the UN become composed of two organs: one body that is devoted to making people invest reactive conscious efforts to accelerate creating change in matter (UN subsidiary organs) and another body that is devoted to slowing down the people whom the UN charged their conscience to introduce a change in matter (peace missions). In other words, one is teaching people intolerance and the other, tolerance. In 2016, all the existing nations approved the United Nations pursuing, under the UN sustainable development targets, interventions that would enable its organs to operate in all the UN member states.

Earlier I said that sound is a vibration that makes air molecules oscillate about a point of equilibrium when a person sets such properties in motion. Familiar examples of oscillation about a point of equilibrium include a swinging pendulum or a spring-mass system. A pendulum is a weight suspended from a fixed point that swings back and forth freely. The repetitive oscillation of the weight transfers or displaces this mass from one point to another, or about a central value, which is normally a point of equilibrium.

I have no way of knowing if this continuous tension that has been prevailing in the social order since 1945 is due to the UN being split into one body teaching people why it is important to be intolerant (UN subsidiary organs) and the other one tolerance (peace missions), and this phenomenon is keeping peace and security oscillating back and forth from their point of equilibrium in the same way a pendulum swings. In other words, the UN teaching makes it impossible to establish a restoring force that would get peace and security back to a point of equilibrium because of how the momentum that the UN is investing in keeping people invested/withholding energy keeps on pushing them back and forth, and every time this happens, the force that people acquire makes peace and security move beyond the point of equilibrium. What I do know is that if the existing nations do not stop the UN from continuing to pursue goals that set in motion people’s expectations to make them want to invest reactive conscious efforts to accelerate creating change in the matter to end poverty, inequality, and so forth so we can let the United States take the lead to show us what we need to do to make all the people happy, more nations would continue to break down, and the same phenomenon that the UN goals have created in poor nations would duplicate in other nations.