People (businesses, societies, nations, monarchs) rejuvenate their power by convincing each other that if they stay in groups and let the fittest in the group have more powers than others, such a strategy can increase the happiness of everyone faster and better. Throughout history, the fittest backed out of his pledge to observe the natural and legal rights legitimized and used his power to direct his violence back at the people he promised to reduce their fear and want in the name of maintaining peace and security. This conduct has always converted the quest of people into a conflict between good and evil instead of a journey to increase happiness. The Israeli-Palestinian crisis is an impediment that many people label as such.

In the 19th century, many political theorists warned the old powers (the fittest) about how a rise in the awareness of the societies that they were dominating and exploiting could propel the subjugated societies to refuse to want to stay with them and to even overthrow them from their good fortunes. Marxist philosophy (or bibliography), the Dutch disease, or the curse of oil (or resources) are all works that rulers and kings (i.e., the rich) could browse in to learn about the danger of disenchanting the working class (the poor). Such works warn the rich about the importance of committing to a political practice that does not push the poor to distrust them to avoid, principally, that they (the poor) become organized and overthrow them (the rich) from their power. As if the works produced before World War Two on what the rich must do to keep their power were not enough, the founding fathers of the UN (i.e., the old powers) counselled their successors (their children) in 1945 to observe the work program suggested in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to avoid having the poor withdraw their obligation to obey and be against wanting to stay with them or to let them have more power than others. However, instead of the successors of the old powers (i.e., their children) acting on the advice of their fathers, they decided to let their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) regard themselves exempt from observing the appeals suggested in the UN Charter and the UDHR. The decision of the successors of the old powers to reject observing the counsel of their fathers has kept the world engulfed in constant wars since 1945, putting at risk all the milestones that mankind made in the last two millennia against the materialistic and animalistic nature of man.

In antiquity, the Romans believed that a captain was safer surrendering his boat to the waves than trusting sailors, who were traitorous, hungry, and dishonorable. That is to say, the Romans believed that the sea was less treacherous than sailors who were disloyal or disobedient. Most importantly, the Romans believed that anyone who puts his happiness and contentment in the hands of defiant and mischievous individuals is a slave, even if he is a king. This book tries to support that the victors of WW2 (the children of the old powers) did exactly that when they allowed the people (societies, businesses, nations, kingdoms) that they were dominating till 1945 to start to regard themselves as equal to them post this date, knowing that mankind does not share outcomes on equal rights and rely on an economic model that generates winners and losers. The objective is to understand if the victors of WW2 would be able to keep their dominant role or if the rise in people’s awareness would overthrow them from their power, just as those kings or chiefs who converted the disenchantment of their citizens with them into a conflict between good and evil contended with in due time.