In 1796, President George Washington counseled the United States in his farewell presidential address to keep its distances from European affairs. Washington wrote, “Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise of us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

Washington was right. Europe has stayed engaged in frequent controversies to this day. Since the start of the 21st century, the United States seems to be ignoring the counsel of Washington and appears ready to defend Europe more than the Europeans themselves.

In this work, I plan to investigate if this entanglement that rulers and the political class in the United States are showing is helping their cause (i.e., strengthening the liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy), or if it is leading them to chase wind.

In 1947 the United Kingdom and France signed a treaty of alliance and mutual assistance (Treaty of Dunkirk). Under the terms of the Dunkirk Treaty, France and Great Britain were going to collaborate in the defense field as well as in the political, economic, and cultural fields to prevent, among other things, Germany from again becoming a menace for peace. In 1948, this alliance was expanded to include the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg). The alliance between Great Britain, France, and the three Benelux countries was known as the Western Union (or Brussels Treaty Organization). In 1949, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Iceland, Canada, and the United States integrated into the Western Union, and all of them established the alliance that is known today as NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). In other words, the Brussels Treaty Organization is the predecessor to NATO. Since 1949, new member states have joined NATO. The actual number of NATO member states is 30. The 18 countries that integrated into NATO since 1949 are all western or eastern European countries.

Let the word “idea” and all the possibilities or courses of action that an idea could represent and generate refer to the way a particle of water starts and ends its life within the water cycle. After a water vapor (concept) turns into a liquid water droplet (idea), most water droplets form with other droplets a continuum (people buy into the idea). Let the new ideas that people continuously come up with and the way each idea competes or behaves until eventually getting replaced or displaced by a new one refer to the journey a particle of water takes within a continuum of water or a system.

Dispersion and displacement of fluids (ideas) are two phenomena that do not occur only between two bodies that are in contact with each other in nature. For example, when Great Britain and France created the Treaty of Dunkirk, there was a body of water that separated both countries from each other. However, when the Benelux countries integrated into the Treaty of Dunkirk, this alliance stretched or diffused through an assimilation process that did not pass through a body of water. France maintains a border with Belgium. Belgium maintains a border with the Netherlands. Likewise, Luxemburg has a border with Belgium and France. Again, when Denmark, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Iceland, Canada, and the United States integrated into the Western Union nations (which is the new alliance between Great Britain, France, and the Benelux countries), we find that those new countries either maintained a direct border with an existing Western Union nation or were separated by a body of water or a non-Western Union nation. However, when we take the 18 countries that were integrated into NATO in 1949, we find that all of them maintain a border with an existing NATO nation.

We can say that NATO is composed of two (land) masses: 27 countries that form one land mass (let’s include Great Britain in this land mass due to its very close proximity to this larger mass) and 3 countries (Iceland, Canada, and the United States) that are not part of the same land mass.

I have no way of knowing why the original founders of NATO admitted after 1949 only new members who maintained a border with an existing NATO member state and did not invite other countries such as North Korea, Bangladesh, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Nigeria, Haiti, Brazil, China, Russia, etc., to join. In fact, I have no way of knowing why Great Britain was not keen on inviting Ireland to join NATO, especially since this country maintains a border with Great Britain (perhaps Ireland expressed interest in joining this alliance, but its request was rejected).

The expression “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is a piece of advice that means that one should not concentrate all his [her] efforts and resources in one area, as one could lose everything.

To put it differently, humans have been creating alliances and treaties since antiquity. All of them start off with one person or two people coming up with an idea, which others find attractive and buy into. Unfortunately, all the alliances and treaties that humans have created so far have all collapsed, with the exception of the religious alliances that people make.

Therefore, if we consider the history of NATO to be an account that would not be any different from the story of a fisherman who starts off making his living through the use of a small boat but then, in the course of time and things, expands and starts to transfer his operation into larger boats, we can say that it makes more sense that this fisherman maintains in his fleet a number of fishing boats of all sizes so that in case his main boat sinks, everyone on board does not sink along. A good example of this is all the territories around the globe that Great Britain and France still maintain to this day for unknown reasons.

Actually, if we compare the way Great Britain, France, or even the United States protects aircraft carriers, we find that the people and military hardware on board are protected much more wisely than the thinkers at NATO are protecting this large land mass against the vicissitudes of the human mind. For example, “in modern United States Navy carrier air operations, a carrier strike group (CSG) normally consists of 1 aircraft carrier, 1 guided missile cruiser (for air defense), 2 LAMPS-capable warships (focusing on anti-submarine and surface warfare), and 1‑2 anti-submarine destroyers or frigates.”

If we compare how the United States protects aircraft carriers and the way the thinkers at NATO (political thinkers and military thinkers) are protecting this alliance, we find that there is incongruity between the two. An aircraft carrier, which is a body that is only ±1,000 feet long by ±134 feet, is protected by more bodies (against the vicissitudes of the human mind) than the number of bodies that are protecting the main landmass of NATO (i.e., Iceland, Canada, and the United States).

I have no way of knowing why the political and military thinkers stretched NATO in the aftermath of 1949 in a radial step flow instead of inviting nations that do not maintain an existing border with an existing NATO nation to integrate with them.

In nature, in any drawdown, all the objects that are within the cone of depression area usually sink when the water table drops due to natural forces or is pumped out (i.e., sucked out). Likewise, in nature, vortices are not only created by surface currents but also by internal currents that exist within a body of water. Therefore, common sense dictates that the more a body partitions itself into smaller bodies within any cone of depression, the more the body stands a chance of salvaging a component of its system if it gets caught in any drawdown or vortex.

If the thinkers at NATO consider that it is not necessary to invite North Korea, Bangladesh, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Nigeria, Haiti, Brazil, Russia, China, etc., to join and believe that letting this alliance grow in the form of only one mass so far (one color) and three masses that are not amalgamated to it is enough to protect it, then one of two scenarios could be true. Either the thinkers of NATO (political thinkers and military thinkers) believe they can defy the forces of nature, or the thinkers of NATO are gambling with the power, wealth, and status of all the families/dynasties who depend on the idea of democracy and freedom to maintain their strength and stability.

Said differently, when a nation integrates into NATO, the new nation agrees to start to settle disputes that arise between its people and the people of another NATO member through negotiation and arbitration. In addition, all NATO nations commit to defend any NATO member in response to an attack by any external non-NATO party.

The code of honor or conduct that NATO member states agree to be mindful of in their relations is exactly what mankind has been aspiring for since the appearance of man on earth. Unfortunately, most people do not honor what they pledge to be mindful about all the time, and this drawback has been a major obstacle in the ability of mankind to keep a treaty unbroken.

For instance, when the Titanic left Southampton for New York, all aboard were ready to help each other. However, when the passenger liner struck an iceberg and started to sink, everyone on board acted in their own self-interest. All the passengers that were onboard were not prepared to live and die together.

That is to say, if today, a non-NATO country attacks a NATO member and the NATO member states decide to rush to its aid, or a non-NATO country invades another non-NATO country and the NATO member states decide to interfere for humanitarian reasons or because the NATO member states believe that such an incursion could threaten the maintenance of their strength and stability, no one knows if all the British, American, German, Albanian, Turkish, etc. soldiers who would be going to the front line would be ready to die to defend the principles of NATO.

Simply put, to join the Cosa Nostra, a current gangster does not tell the other gangsters that he knows a person that would be loyal if he [she] were initiated, but every new member is first tested repeatedly before being admitted. Are the families/dynasties who profit the most from NATO or the idea of democracy and freedom sure about the readiness of the people who they already invited to establish balance with them paying the ultimate price so their heirs (i.e., of those powerful families/dynasties) inherit their wealth, status, and power intact when most people around the world are no longer prepared to obey governments unless outcomes are shared on equal rights?

For example, pursuant to the failure of NATO in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and everywhere else NATO intervened so far, we can say that theoretically only the soldiers who were involved in actual combat and were either killed or injured in the line of fire were truly wakeful for the values of NATO to succeed. If the other NATO soldiers (military and non-military) were also fighting and restless for the same cause as those who paid with their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the success they would have all achieved could not be any different than the one that occurred when the patriots defeated the British Crown in the United States or when the Taliban expelled NATO from Afghanistan.

Again, I have no way of knowing if the reason why NATO failed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else since 1949 happened because the rulers (politicians) who were taking decisions on behalf of their populations without asking them if they would be prepared to die for the families/dynasties who control NATO or the idea of good was the principal cause.

In fact, I strongly believe that until the NATO nations determine why the Afghan forces whom NATO trained during 19 years and 10 months refused to fight the Taliban, this alliance should not wage any military operations short of launching a nuclear strike as the United States did in 1945 to end WW2. Again, lots of countries possess weapons of mass destruction today, and therefore, launching a nuclear attack against a nation that possesses nuclear weapons is not a choice. This necessitates that great powers stay away from being involved in an all-out war to determine who is the fittest and rely on deceit and diplomacy to avoid a zero-sum game.

Could the reason why the NATO member states decided to integrate only Eastern European nations in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union be to obtain access to the vast land that Russia is controlling? Additionally, this strategy could allow NATO to encircle China and India on all sides after dismantling Russia.

I have no way of knowing if the NATO member states are plotting to dismantle Russia to enable them afterwards to place China, Pakistan, and India in a situation that is not any different than the one that occurs when an object becomes placed under the grip of a plier. In my opinion, if humans were born free, it would not be possible for Russia to prevent other nations that border Russia, such as Ukraine, from joining NATO. In fact, I strongly believe that if Ukraine is admitted into NATO, the likelihood of Russia resisting collapse would be very slim. In addition, if Russia collapses and nations around the world continue to practice isolationism and strengthen authoritarianism, as is increasingly happening, then it would not be possible for China or India to prevent their own collapse in the course of time and things.

In other words, Russia’s wealth stems from its gas and weapon sales. If the Europeans stop buying Russia’s gas, Russia would need to rely solely on the sale of arms to keep its economy sustained until it manages to build new pipelines to supply China and other countries. Hence, Russia cannot sell arms in Europe, China, India, or Central and Latin America, and the Africans can only swap things with them, and the Arabs think from the waist down. The regime in Russia will have a hard time resisting its collapse when challenges pile up from all directions at the same time. That is why only if Ukraine does not join NATO and the Arabs continue to think from the waist down can Russia resist any collapse.

Actually, I do not believe that Russia could wage war on the Arabs on any issue that involves its interests or security, because all the regimes that are standing in the Middle East (excluding Israel), including in Egypt and North Africa (i.e., the Arab belt), are regimes that came to power either through backstabbing their protectors or because the regime that is in power is serving the agenda of a foreign power.

Indeed, the families/dynasties who control Russia will confront a very serious test if Ukraine joins NATO. If Ukraine joins NATO, there is a good chance that the Russians would fold forever what is still standing from the Iron Curtain. However, if Russia annexes Ukraine, this move will put Russia back on the periphery of Western Europe. Afterwards, Russia needs to just wage its own Iron Dome, intercepting any nuclear attack.

Again, let us assume that the NATO countries admit Ukraine into this alliance and that Russia and China fall. In other words, let us assume that Russia and China start to consider the opinion of the principal countries in NATO (i.e., Great Britain, France, and, to an extent, the United States) before taking action of their own.

I have no way of knowing how the world could change if Russia and China start to consider the opinion of the principal NATO nations (i.e., Great Britain, France, and, to an extent, the United States) before taking action of their own. For example, all the new countries that joined NATO post-1982 (14 countries so far) were either part of the Soviet Union or a client (satellite) state. The nations who joined NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union are much better off today than their situation was like thirty years ago when they existed under the shadow of the Soviet Union (i.e., their civilizing mission). However, we cannot say that the stride or political situation in those new NATO members became any different than the one that exists in the rest of the principal NATO nations. In other words, we can say that transportation and communication, including access to infrastructure and technology, improved tremendously in those former Soviet countries. However, we cannot say that corruption and violence reduced, or democracy, tolerance, and virtue improved, because if this were the case, then the world would have been much safer already. To the contrary, most people are prepared to support that peace and security are reduced in those former Soviet nations.

Indeed, the people who were born after the 1990s in those former Soviet Union countries are having access to living standards that are much better than their predecessors who lived under the Soviet Union. But every person has one life to live. In other words, it is nice to hear political leaders make speeches about the importance of tolerating the social injustice or the economic gap that exists between people, because the world is being reorganized, but political leaders do not make their case while living a poor lifestyle or among the poor. If most people around the world are becoming unprepared to tolerate false promises from their governments, common sense dictates that the NATO nations make the people of the nations who are already a member of this alliance start to surrender freedom to the standing political order they are legitimizing before taking on new members.

Again, when we compare how NATO has managed to prevent its members from being engulfed in wars since 1949 as compared to the opposite ramification the United Nations achieved since 1945, we can say it makes more sense that new nations join NATO. This begs many questions. For one, would peace and security improve in the world if more nations joined NATO, or would the United States be better off withdrawing from this alliance?

The NATO member states have succeeded in avoiding that peace and security and justice become endangered between them since 1949. In addition, the alliance managed to make NATO member states refrain in their international relations with one another from using force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

If the NATO countries agree to integrate a new nation into the alliance today, it is highly likely that the new nation will further the development of peaceful and friendly relations as existing NATO nations are doing.

Again, the new nations that emerged after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and whom the NATO member states admitted some of them into their own alliance because they accepted the obligations set forth in the NATO Treaty, did not do anything that was different from the nations that were dominated by Great Britain and France before WW2 but then were granted independence and invited to join with them to be a member at the intergovernmental organization named the United Nations. All the nations that Great Britain and France decolonized in the aftermath of WW2 initially announced that they would be ready to accept the obligations set forth in the UN Charter, but everyone knows that no one among them is obeying the obligations set forth in the UN Charter.

Before the eruption of WW2, the world partitioned itself into 40-50 nations. Presently, the world is partitioned into 193 UN member states. Only the United States has passionately committed itself to ensuring the success of the international postwar world order among the 193 UN member states.

In addition, hence, the United States is the only country that has been defending the idea of freedom since 1776; unlike most UN member states, which started doing it as of 1945, we cannot say that its efforts to reduce fear and want are not genuine, especially since this country has been home to the happiest and the freest people on earth since 1776.

If when the world was composed of 40-50 nations (i.e., before WW2 erupted) and then when the world became composed of 193 nations (i.e., after WW2 ended), only the United States had been faithful to the idea of freedom, democracy, and human rights both in theory and in practice (playing the global policeman role), inviting a new nation to join NATO or expelling an existing nation from this alliance would not have any bearing since we know already that no nation is leading by example.

Said differently, if we cannot expect any new nation that would join NATO to be doing anything that would be any different than what all the nations that joined the United Nations in 1945 (or in later years) have been dedicated to doing so far, and that is violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and that includes the United States involuntarily), it looks as if the United States should not be involved in NATO, Europe, or the United Nations. In other words, the best option for the United States is to withdraw from Europe as Great Britain did by withdrawing from the EU.

In fact, if we take the EU, another organization whose members are failing to obey the work program set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and analyze how Europe or Great Britain changed after this country’s withdrawal from the EU, we discover that Great Britain’s presence in or outside of the EU made no difference in the political status of Great Britain or the EU. However, this decision would ultimately benefit Great Britain in the long run, as it has returned to enacting change without implementing the modifications it is currently making in its own political fabric.

I do not believe that the United States should go back to practicing isolationism, as Great Britain and Great Britain’s close western European allies are famous for doing to protect their wealth, power, and status, because the values that the United States stands for are totally different. At the same time, I do not believe that the United States should allow the idea of freedom to become a commodity or a ladder that UN member states take for granted.

Indeed, the accomplishments of the United Nations (nations and organizations) in the last 70 years are impressive, and the world has become a lot more hospitable since 1945, but people did not come together in the aftermath of WW2 to make the world become more hospitable only, but rather more peaceful. In other words, people did not come together in the aftermath of WW2 to prove that democracies can deliver for people on issues that matter most to them but to practice the work program that the founding fathers defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and till today, only the United States is obeying.

Hence, for as long as people around the world refuse to practice the work program that the founding fathers of the UN defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the history of the world would not be any different from the one that transpired after Moses handed the Israelites the Ten Commandments; it is incumbent on the United States to avoid letting the fate that the Israelites and the Ten Commandments endured repeat itself for its people or for the idea of freedom.

Therefore, since the issue at stake is how to prevent the idea of freedom (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) from enduring the same fate that the Ten Commandments endured so far, and we know that evolution or progress is continuous irrespective of the existence or the inexistence of laws or principles, a key question needs to be answered. How can we be sure that the efforts that the United States is putting into strengthening democracy are making a difference in the world?

Said differently, if fear and want have been on the rise despite all the human progress that mankind achieved in the last seventy years, and the more people cooperate to defend democracy, the more the units of authority that nations created in the aftermath of WW2 (the United Nations, EU, NATO, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, etc.) are failing to prevent authoritarianism from rising, then one of two scenarios could be true.

The first is if those new units of authority that were created in the aftermath of WW2 are the challenge, and the second is if the rulers and political class who are regarding themselves as the deputy of God in UN member states and are refusing to lead by example are the problem.

Hence, before and after WW2, rulers and the political class (the rich) regarded themselves as the deputy of God on earth and interpreted the coming together of people in the aftermath of WW2 as being one that was programmed so people cooperate in accordance with the work program stipulated in the UN Charter, while regarding themselves exempt from this appeal; then this rise in intolerance that emerged in the world in recent years could be due to the rivalry that exists between governments and the new units of authority (the United Nations, EU, NATO, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, etc.) over how power would be divided between them.

In addition, for as long as rulers and the political class and the agents of the different units of authority that UN member states created in the aftermath of WW2 (the United Nations, EU, NATO, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, etc.) regard themselves exempt from obeying the work program stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world would be spiraling toward deeper insecurity. The more the United States goes along with reforms that do not involve those aforementioned social actors changing their conduct, the more this country would be living in denial (confirmation bias).

That is to say, since humans believe that at the center of wealth, power, and status stands the arrival of a person at telling all others to consider his [her] opinion before taking action of their own. In addition, humans use the idea of good as a tool to dominate each other with such conviction. Likewise, people believe that they are on a mission to address fundamental questions about their place in the universe. Could the United States protect the idea of freedom if the families/dynasties who control the nations that are members of NATO need to be continuously admitting new nations into the alliance to keep up with such beliefs?

Simply put, the families/dynasties who control NATO need to attract new nations to join the alliance regularly to ensure that their foes do not gang up against them. This strategy also allows the principal nations who control NATO (Great Britain, France, and, to an extent, the United States) to have better relations with each of their adversaries than they have among one another, thus enabling them to prevent desertion or conspiracy.

I have no way of knowing if the decision of the United States to be part of a group (the United Nations, EU, NATO, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, etc.) is using the idea of democracy as a ladder to serve powerful forces who stand to gain from keeping the world devoted to agreeing to disagree. What I do know is that in the last two thousand years, only in 1776 did people in the United States accept to start to voluntarily surrender freedom to each other, without units of authority, wealth, power, status, race, or religion standing between them. By 1945, despite all the internal challenges, the American people achieved an unprecedented result in the history of the world.

Most people would be inclined to believe that in 1945 (i.e., following the WW2 political and economic reset), all the people of the world started to surrender freedom to the Americans so mankind could use the understanding those people gained of themselves to shepherd the world into the happiness or practical results they managed to attain for themselves, but strangely this is not the case. Most rulers and political classes around the world began prostituting the idea of freedom, human rights, democracy, etc., which the victors of WW2 penned as war aims for their own benefits and the benefit of the faction that protects them. In other words, instead of rulers and political classes around the world leading by example so mankind can manage to achieve the result that the Americans managed to accomplish from 1776 to 1945 despite all their internal problems, we now have close to 8 billion people who are roaming the earth, and each one is regarding himself [herself] as the deputy of God on earth, including considering himself [herself] exempt from obeying the work program set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights unless their neighbor does it first.

The challenges that the idea of freedom, human rights, democracy, etc. has known since 1945 are not new. Throughout history, all the ideas that people came up with were either rejected initially and then people later agreed to accept them or the other way around, i.e., the idea was initially accepted but then people diverged away from it.

The only difference this time is that the awareness and knowledge of people are not as they were when our predecessors lived. Only the dead are tolerant; everyone else thinks social and economic standards should be the same for all. In other words, it is not possible to reduce fear and want when no one is prepared to accept being patient.

No one knows why humans were programmed with an aptitude to keep historical events active in their minds. This capacity could have been programmed in the human body so those who use the idea of benevolence as a tool to prioritize their self-interest over the common welfare could be prepared for what to expect. And so, many questions beg for answers. For one, how can we be sure that this unprecedented rush by people of all ages and sexes to improve freedom, human rights, and democracy but without anyone being ready to pay attention to philosophy, mathematics, or sciences would not create a stampede that would crush the main idea that people are running after (i.e., freedom), along with the families/dynasties who are profiting the most from having people stop coping to keep the world dynamic?

To put it differently, humans are not capable by nature of avoiding external changes from influencing their behavior. For example, in the 1990s, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, NATO intervened between the factions who were rivaling for power and launched a military operation without the UN’s approval, stating that it was an intervention intended to serve a humanitarian purpose. Likewise, following the September 11 attacks, the NATO member states came to the aid of the United States and, in concert, invaded Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF after the regime in Afghanistan refused to extradite Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, according to the United States. In 2011, the NATO member states (the US forces) captured and killed Osama bin Laden. However, NATO refused to end its intervention in the country until 2021.

No one knows what NATO gained from intervening in Yugoslavia (i.e., not talking about lives saved) or why NATO continued to intervene in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2021 (i.e., after the alliance captured and killed Osama bin Laden in 2011). Irrespective of what NATO’s motive to stay in Afghanistan was (i.e., whether the additional time was required for drawdown or the additional time was required to ensure that al-Qaeda would not return to power in the country, etc.), we now know that the external changes that were compelling this added time were not strengthening the status, power, or wealth of the alliance.

Again, humans are not the only species who create change. The natural system is at all times creating change around humans as well. This signifies that the changes that humans create and the ones that the natural system is also continually compelling would always be influencing people. This also means that it would not be possible for the NATO member states to prevent the remaining 163 states (193 UN member states − 30 NATO member states) from influencing change that would either persuade the NATO member states to intervene on humanitarian grounds as they did in the 1990s during the breakup of Yugoslavia or to discard the idea that the NATO member states would not be required to dissipate threats as happened during the Sept. 11 attacks.

Now, if NATO cannot stop the natural and manmade changes that people are continually compelled to influence their behavior to compete with, and if every time NATO intervenes, we can expect changes that would not be any different than the ones that played out in Yugoslavia or Afghanistan, then NATO could be creating a much bigger problem in the world than its interventions have so far produced. This threat could be driving people to distrust how the liberal intervention (capitalism and self-determination) ideology could be used as a tool to achieve the goals enshrined in the UN Charter. This is very serious and worrisome. This is because when societies stop being able to control the entropy (disorder and chaos) that people are generating through using the liberal intervention (capitalism and self-determination) ideology, then the world would have no choice but to slip back into relying on domination, subjugation, and exploitation to improve peace and security.

Furthermore, hence, as I just said, when people stop to practice liberal interventionism (capitalism and self-determination) with competition, this signifies that people are practicing domination, subjugation, and exploitation. This means that the rise in isolationism and authoritarianism that we are observing around the world in recent years could be an indication that the world is returning back into being organized according to the political status that existed before WW2 erupted.

That’s not all, because people freeze social space and transfer the material things they accumulate on a cumulative basis to designated individuals and refuse to surrender freedom to the work program set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the same time, people could be cooperating in order to engulf the world in a new global war.

If all that the victors of WW2 recuperated from the instruments they created, such as the United Nations system plus NATO, the EU, the World Bank, the IMF, and many others, in the last seventy years is whether or not it would be possible to continue to maintain the democratic institutions that existed before WW2 erupted, this means that the idea of freedom, democracy, and human rights is under great threat. If the idea of freedom, democracy, and human rights continue to get threatened as the case has been like since 1945, this means that it would not be possible for the United States to continue to sustain freedom, human rights, and democracy through NATO without the use of force or without starting to make compromises.

All the instruments that the victors of WW2 created in the aftermath of WW2, such as the NATO, United Nations, EU, World Bank, IMF, etc., etc., and used to reduce fear and want around the world failed to produce the results those organizations were formed to help achieve for our successors. If autocracy is the only political order that is bound to prevail if political leaders (and the rich) around the world continue to be unprepared to reach consensus to sustain freedom, democracy, and human rights, then the ideas that the United States stands for and this country has defended since 1776 could be at great risk. This is because NATO, the United Nations, the EU, the World Bank, the IMF, and everyone else are using the ideas of freedom, democracy, and human rights as a tool to get their way despite the resistance of others and not to improve connectedness between people. In other words, mankind cannot improve freedom, democracy, or human rights through the intermediary of agents who are, on one hand, preaching equal rights and, on the other, pursuing the realization of the full development of their personality. The last time this strategy was adopted (through Christianity), it resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Furthermore, neither when NATO, the United Nations, the EU, etc., and everyone else used force to make the people whose social order they interfered in trust them and surrender freedom to them, nor when those agents made compromises, did such tactics help. This means that the longer the United States allows NATO, the United Nations, the EU, the World Bank, the IMF, and everyone else to use the idea of freedom, democracy, and human rights as an instrument to improve rivalry and not an instrument to make people practice tolerance, the higher the likelihood of the United States converting into a totalitarian regime will grow. When the United States converts into becoming a totalitarian regime, mankind would not be throwing away the milestones that our predecessors strived incessantly to preserve so we could carry forward, but we would be lining up humanity (our successors) on a reverse course to reproduce the events leading to living as was the case during the dark ages.

Imagination is a form of succession of conditions, images, situations, ideas, emotions, and sensations that usually the mind structure comprises. Throughout history, humans relied on the power of their human ingenuity to plan out conditions, situations, images, etc. that their imagination conceived. Our imagination has helped us to achieve dramatic results when it comes to producing tools or instruments to improve practical results, but when it comes to how to improve connectedness, mankind has not made lots of progress except when a calamity strikes. Throughout history, all the individuals who preached about how they were mindful to improve freedom, democracy, and human rights while pursuing the realization of the full development of their personality at the same time failed to forgo the security of others using the rhetoric or the force they employed.

For example, as of the date the UN member states extended the mission of the formal intergovernmental organization named the United Nations to cover tasks that the founding fathers of the UN did not counsel be delegated to its agents (i.e., interfere in the political, economic, and social preparedness of nations), the peace and security situation around the world has been going from worse to direr.

The United States can wage on preventing that NATO become like the United Nations today, a ground where people buy and sell just as Jesus found people doing in the court of a synagogue. But the question that the United States must answer is not about whether or not it would be possible for this country to prevent NATO from becoming corrupt, but can the United States succeed at making people surrender freedom when the United Nations, NATO, EU, World Bank, IMF, NGOs, etc., are teaching the poor to be unprepared to surrender freedom to the political order until the rich share with them their wealth, power, and status on equal rights when they are pursuing the realization of the full development of their personality and while enjoying privileges and immunities?

It looks as if the only case that the United States would be able to make in the future if the United Nations is not dissolved, like its predecessor the League of Nations, or absorbed by NATO so the world does not continue to be strengthening isolationism instead of liberalism, is the conversion of NATO (i.e., the United States) into becoming the only bull on the block. Likewise, the nations that join NATO would not be doing so to improve the world, but rather to seek protection.

In the animal kingdom, lions age and are reverted to a simpler form either by getting bullied by another much stronger lion from the same pride or by being weakened through repeated defeats.

For example, at the start of the 21st century, NATO failed to strengthen democratic institutions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and many other countries. In Afghanistan, the Taliban fighters (while wearing traditional clothing with slippers) stood the test of time against 40 allied NATO countries that were made up of the world’s old powers combined; the monarch that historians regard as the greatest empire the world has known (Great Britain); and the country that historians regard its military as being the mightiest of all time (the United States). The Taliban regained control of Afghanistan after 19 years and 10 months of insurgency. The failure of NATO to control the fighting or the political situation in Libya is another example. Likewise, NATO’s failure to declare victory over ISIS serves as another example supporting the notion that the instruments created by the victors of World War II to maintain their strength and stability are currently in a state of despair.

It is important that readers keep in mind that the aforementioned paragraph should not be interpreted to mean that the Taliban defeated the NATO allies militarily. The United States can wipe out Afghanistan from the map of the earth with one nuclear bomb. The point that is being made here is about how after 19 years and 10 months of fighting to make the Taliban fighters surrender freedom to NATO and, most importantly, after 19 years and 10 months of training and capacity-building support by the NATO coalition to the transitional authority that was in power since 2001 in the country, the Afghans (in their entirety) decided to reject the civilizing mission that NATO was proposing to them and decided to surrender freedom to the Taliban so they can all go back to prioritizing outdated traditions and customs.

In addition, it is important that readers keep in mind that it is not the responsibility of the NATO countries to defend democracy or freedom in Afghanistan or anywhere else around the world. This responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Afghan people and no one else. If the Afghans do not want to stand up to the Taliban fighters to defend the idea of freedom and democracy in the country in the same way the Taliban fighters were defending their own ideas or beliefs, then one of two scenarios is true. The first is if the Afghans think that the NATO countries ousted the Taliban regime in 2001 from power and spent 19 years and 10 months playing cat and mouse with the Taliban fighters because the NATO countries have nothing else to do with their time but to foment trouble. The second is if the Afghans remain to this day illiterate about the purpose of the coming together of all the members of the human family in the aftermath of WW2 to help build. The same can be said about the people who are living in all the UN member states except for the United States.

Again, we cannot blame the Afghan people for their failure to understand the war aims that the victors of WW2 fixed at the end of WW2, because the Afghans, from 1919 (when they gained independence) till 2001 (when the NATO countries conquered them), were either living under a totalitarian regime (the kingdom of Afghanistan, which lasted for 50 years) or in civil wars.

Throughout history, people have been relying on the teacher-and-student relationship to build passion for learning and build trust.

In a classroom, the teacher-to-student ratio varies from school to school. However, no matter how large the size of the student sample is, only one teacher usually acts as mentor.

If we adopt the same analogy into our analysis to isolate what could have compelled the Afghans to reject the civilizing mission that the NATO countries were extending from 2001 till 2021 and to accept extending the civilizing mission of the Taliban instead, we can say that NATO can be regarded as the teacher and the Afghans as the student.

The population of Afghanistan in 2021 was estimated at 40 million. In the past 19 years and 10 months, the NATO military soldiers or political force that specifically developed and trained the Afghan in “policy planning” numbered no more than 1 million. This means that we have a ratio of 1 to 40.

It would be very difficult to argue that 40 million Afghans, during 19 years and 10 months, were ignorant about the benefit of surrendering freedom to the liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy (freedom and democracy) as a means to improve their happiness, preferring instead to surrender freedom in 2021 to the Taliban so they would all go back to prioritizing outdated traditions and customs.

One of two scenarios could have explained the unpreparedness of the Afghani people to build a resistance front and to prefer surrendering to the Taliban instead. The first scenario is that NATO, comprising all 30 member countries, failed to develop effective strategies for the Afghan people, as this alliance is led by thinkers (military thinkers, political thinkers, etc.) who are knowledgeable in many areas except for the history of the world and the dynamics of human relations. The second scenario could be due to the existence of a rule that has hindered the work of the NATO member states in Afghanistan.

The 30 member states of NATO cover an area of 24.57 m km², and with about 944.52 m people. It would be anti-logic to suppose that within such a large area or large population mass, there are no qualified teachers or thinkers (military thinkers, political thinkers, etc.) who know the importance of ensuring that Afghanistan does not fall back into the hands of the Taliban so the Great Game that existed throughout most of the 19th century in Afghanistan and neighboring countries does not repeat.

Again, if the thinkers (military thinkers, political thinkers, etc.) of NATO countries do not mind that Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban, then one of two scenarios could have compelled this outcome.

The first is if the NATO member states facilitated the return of the Taliban to power to let the pace at which the awareness and knowledge of the Afghan people progress stay slow. In other words, by having a totalitarian regime rule Afghanistan, this arrangement would keep the people in this country under a tight grip and, most importantly, prevent them from siphoning the wealth that exists in NATO member states and in other nations around the world if the trade of opium becomes uncontrolled. The second is if there is a rule, as I said, which has hindered the capacity of NATO member states to make the Afghans be ready to accept the civilizing mission they were proposing to them.

I have no way of knowing which scenario between the aforesaid two could have persuaded the NATO member states to let Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban. However, if Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires throughout history (and in modern history brought NATO to its knees), then the Afghan people must be living a modern life by choice, not by force.

I have no way of knowing why the Afghan people preferred to let the Taliban take over the Islamic Republic that was mounted in Afghanistan, thus in so doing throwing away their chance of being modernized, which is a prerequisite to increasing happiness. However, if the takeover of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan by the Taliban happened independent of the will of the NATO member states (i.e., the Afghans preferred prioritizing values and traditions over modernity), this then signifies that there is a rule that could have compelled this takeover that is much mightier than the military power of the NATO member states combined. This is very serious and worrisome. This is because the aforesaid signifies that it is not the NATO member states that were in the driver’s seat in the nations in which they were intervening in their political status in recent years, but it is the effect of this rule. The situation is very serious and worrisome. If NATO intervenes in another nation’s politics, its forces could suffer the same fate.

Once again, I have no way of knowing if the NATO member states facilitated the return of the Taliban to power so the Afghans go back to living under a totalitarian regime and, in this way, slow them down from being in favor of improving their awareness and knowledge, which could be a threat to the people who live in the NATO member states, or if a rule compelled this development. What I do know is that mankind could be doomed if the NATO member states did not facilitate the return of the Taliban to power and a rule compelled such a development. This is because this rule appears to function similarly to how two magnets with opposite poles repel each other.

In other words, the social anxiety this rule perpetuates makes the societies whose political status NATO interferes in refuse to surrender freedom to the civilizing mission the NATO countries are inviting them to adopt (such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and others in recent years). Likewise, this rule is pushing the NATO member states to take irrational actions, such as the adoption of force to get their ways.

Albert Einstein said, “You never fail until you stop trying.” However, Einstein also said, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

I have no way of knowing what Einstein was trying to say when he made his statements. What I do know is that the founding fathers of the UN and the founding fathers of NATO did not counsel that those two organizations extend their activities into political, economic, social, and humanitarian situations or arenas.

I have no way of knowing why the families/dynasties who control the United Nations and the families/dynasties who control NATO decided to deviate away from the work program that the founding fathers of the UN and the founding fathers of NATO counseled them to remain faithful to its principle, preferring instead to delegate to those two organizations tasks they did not recommend.

What I do know is that when a sailor (without a console) decides to sail from Calais in France to Dover in Great Britain, he [she] needs to make sure that the sailboat stays in the perimeter of the English Channel. If the sailor takes his sailboat to any spot that is located on the outside of the English Channel perimeter, all that he [she] would be doing is circumnavigating the sea. This is because, on the outside of this boundary, a sailor stops to have landmarks.

I have no way of knowing if the challenges that NATO encountered in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc. are because the alliance is addressing the challenges that it is encountering while circumnavigating the earth (as the United Nations has been doing since 1945) and not because the organization is addressing the challenges that its sailors (administrators) would be encountering if they were to be staying on the path that the founding fathers of NATO laid out for them in 1949. What I do know is that if the above analogy contains any element of truth, then the NATO member states stand a good chance of continuing to be going in circles if they do not pull the console (i.e., the work program) that the founding fathers of the UN charted for them and counselled them to obey to achieve their goals. This is because at sea it is not the sailor who decides in which direction his sailboat drifts, but the wind!

Furthermore, hence, NATO (and the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, EU, and NGOs) are not developing policies, training, capacity building, and crisis response planning to address the challenges that could help the NATO member countries to fulfill their purposes or the purposes of the founding fathers of the UN for the world, but to resolve the challenges that the alliance is encountering while circumnavigating the earth. The biggest challenge that is going to be facing the NATO thinkers and administrators in the future is how to avoid further disappointment, or let’s say how to stop “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” as Albert Einstein also said.

In conclusion, it looks as if George Washington’s counsel in 1796 for the United States to keep its distance from European affairs makes lots of sense to this day. Again, NATO is the ideal organization to create the conditions for lasting peace around the world. I do not know if the United States can sustain democracy and freedom if NATO does not absorb the United Nations or make a U-turn and go back to putting the international rule-based postwar world order that the victors of WW2 legitimized in the aftermath of WW2 back on the right track. Only time will tell if the crisis response planning that NATO is developing would help the United States to sustain the liberal interventionism and self-determination philosophy or if this country is chasing after the wind!