Category: Uncategorized

À l’attention de:

Son Excellence M. António Guterres, Secrétaire général de l’ONU

Son Excellence M. Dennis Francis, Président de l’AGNU

Son Excellence M. Thomas Bach, président du CIO

 

Objet : Lettre de soutien et de demande de la Trêve olympique

Chers messieurs,

Nous proposons humblement mais fermement les considérations suivantes, fruit d’une réflexion et d’une étude de longue date, pour que vous réitériez la demande et l’exigence d’une trêve olympique universelle à tous les peuples et à tous les États en partageant ce document.

Contexte

Selon les termes de la soixante-dix-huitième session, le point 11 de l’ordre du jour : Le sport au service du développement et de la paix : construire un monde pacifique et meilleur grâce au sport et à l’idéal olympique :

« Reconnaissant que les Jeux Olympiques et Paralympiques de Paris 2024 seront un événement fédérateur et une occasion significative d’exploiter le pouvoir du sport pour favoriser une atmosphère de paix, de développement, de résilience, de tolérance et de compréhension, d’accessibilité et d’inclusion, et rappelant sa résolution 77/ 27 du 1er décembre 2022 sur le sport en tant que catalyseur du développement durable, dans laquelle elle appelle les futurs hôtes des Jeux Olympiques et Paralympiques et les autres États membres à inclure le sport, le cas échéant, dans les activités de prévention des conflits et à assurer la mise en œuvre effective de la Trêve olympique pendant les Jeux.”

Sur la paix et le désarmement

“C’est la même chose de dire armes ou guerre” (Cervantes, Quichotte I, Cap XXXVII).

Pour nous, humains, la paix n’est pas seulement l’absence de guerre comme on le suppose communément, mais aussi le désarmement, la cessation de la tentative de destruction de l’autre, incarnée dans l’arme. Cette intention est évidente dans la lame et la pointe de l’épée, dans l’explosivité de la bombe, etc. – mais pas, par exemple, dans un couteau de cuisine ou une pierre, qui ne sont pas destinés à cela et ne nous alarment pas. Et la finalité du dommage n’est pas abstraite mais concrète et adaptée aux conditions de l’autre pour causer le maximum de dommage possible.

Même si chaque camp considère qu’il s’agit d’une légitime défense, le simple fait de s’armer nous viole et nous prive tous de liberté – ce que nous ne pouvons pas tolérer. D’une part, elle nous soumet à une menace à laquelle nous devons nous soumettre et servir si nous voulons éviter d’être blessés et, d’autre part, elle nous oblige à nous armer le plus possible pour dissuader l’autre, nous défendre et pour éviter d’être au service d’un autre camp – et il en va de même pour l’autre camp.

L’empathie humaine nous met à la place les uns des autres et l’intelligence humaine anticipe et projette, de sorte qu’aucune effusion de sang n’est nécessaire pour dominer. Le simple fait d’avoir la capacité de détruire les autres le met à notre merci et à notre service. Cela se produit non seulement entre et parmi les unités armées ou les États, mais également au sein de ceux-ci, où la forme que les humains incorporent dans le arme, des unité armée se fait par le biais d’une application mécanique (inhumaine) articulée par l’inégalité absolue de la hiérarchie ou de la structure étatique pyramidale qui comprend l’allocation totalement inégale des ressources comme moyen le plus efficace de faire la guerre et de nuire et de détruire d’autres humains.

L’effet d’une arme n’est pas une opinion ou une idéologie à laquelle il faut croire et s’opposer aux idées des autres. Au contraire, les idéologies ou les idées ignorent cette empathie humaine et cachent la signification réelle du arm, alors que l’effet du l’arm est la réalité ordinaire et commune qui n’est pas « présumée » mais directement connue, ou autrement, inefficace, il faut donc y réfléchir dessus d’une manière humaine et le comprendre pour faire la paix.

La guerre chaude, comme le dit Clausewitz, est « l’action ou la tentative de désarmer l’ennemi », la manière dont nous le tenons à notre merci et/ou l’empêchons de nous menacer et de nous soumettre. Par conséquent, nous devons d’abord comprendre cette situation lorsque nous parlons d’une trêve dans une guerre chaude. Si une guerre chaude est menée pour désarmer l’ennemi et que la trêve n’est qu’un moment de réarmement, alors guerre et trêve sont directement opposées et une proposition de trêve sans autre examen est pour la plupart irréalisable. La trêve ne peut être comprise que comme un pas vers la paix par le désarmement, quelque chose qui peut se produire aujourd’hui parce que nous sommes pleinement connectés et pouvons remplir ses conditions d’universalité et de simultanéité. Et ce sont vos institutions qui sont censées et capables de le faire, tandis que cet événement également universel qu’est les Jeux Olympiques est également le moment le plus excellent pour cela.

 

« Ensemble » (Le président du CIO, 1er juillet, Genève)

 

子墨子曰：非人者必有以易之，若非人而無以易之，譬之猶以水救火也，其說將必無可焉。是故子墨子曰：兼以易別 « Celui qui critique les autres doit avoir quelque chose pour le remplacer. Critiquer sans alternative, c’est comme essayer d’arrêter une inondation par une inondation et d’éteindre un incendie par le feu, cela ne servira sûrement à rien, c’est pourquoi Mozi a déclaré : La partialité doit être remplacée par l’universalité/simultanéité » (兼 signifie à la fois « universel » et « simultané »). (Mozi, 兼愛下 – Amour Universel III, 2)

 

La décision de désarmer doit être universelle/simultanée, le désarmement unilatéral ne signifierait pas cesser de servir l’arme, mais simplement en servir une autre, et, en effet, dans le passé, les groupes humains étaient isolés et non communiqués, et la prise de décision exclusive, qui implique évidemment une confrontation, était inévitable. C’est pourquoi les humains se sont inévitablement organisés en unités armées ou en États. Mais à notre époque, nous pouvons et devons nous réconcilier (et nous pardonner, car il n’était pas entre nos mains d’éviter de se faire du mal) et établir la paix ou même la prise de décision, qui empêche et évite le but de nuire et implique une coopération pour le bien de l’autre. bien commun.

Et, en effet, la première décision inclusive doit être le désarmement, le renoncement à l’intention ou au but de détruire. Sans ce renoncement, aucune décision inclusive ne peut être prise, car le but de la destruction (évidemment de l’autre) conditionne tout le reste dans la mesure où la coopération non seulement ne peut pas être inclusive mais se produit réellement uniquement contre des tiers. La conséquence inévitable de haïr ou de vouloir détruire ne serait-ce qu’une seule personne ou un seul parti, en les privant de liberté et d’humanité, équivaut à nuire à tout le monde puisque cela conduit à violer et à forcer tous les autres à prendre parti. Logiquement, l’autre, celui visé par l’arme, n’acceptera pas d’être détruit ou privé de liberté par la menace de destruction, et fera nécessairement tout son possible pour parvenir à ses propres moyens de destruction plus puissants et à ses alliés pour éviter cela. de se produire.

 L’appel

“Toutes les maximes qui ont besoin d’une publicité (universelle), pour ne pas manquer d’atteindre leur but, sont en accord avec le droit et avec la politique.” (Kant, Paix perpétuelle, Annexe II. De l’harmonie de la politique avec la morale).

Nous devons exposer et partager cette condition humaine avec tous les humains lorsque nous proposons ou convoquons la Trêve olympique pour qu’ils assument la liberté, l’humanité et la responsabilité et en deviennent ainsi la garantie. Par la présente, nous disons à tous que l’objectif de cette astuce est de réconcilier l’humanité et qu’après les Jeux Olympiques, nous commencerons et commencerons le processus consistant à inclure la prise de décision dans le désarmement, en plaçant toutes les armes sous commandement humain, ce qui conduirait à la suspension de toute activité militaire et de tout développement, rendant le désarmement non seulement possible mais pratique.

Le désarmement doit être fondé sur la raison et la compréhension et doit donc être un processus public et transparent pour tous les êtres humains. Sauf dans le but de nuire, qui doit être dissimulé, la coopération pour le désarmement et le bien commun passe par des propositions simples et par la transparence, comme c’est le cas de cette proposition même.

Puisque le désarmement ne peut être qu’universel et que cette universalité justifie ou implique qu’outre, bien sûr, le souci du maintien des conditions de vie du personnel militaire, les ressources désormais soustraites à l’usage militaire soient réorientées pour faciliter des conditions de vie dignes pour tous et intégrer l’humanité dans un système de coopération pour le bien commun. À l’exception des armes, tout est censé nous servir, améliorer notre bien-être, nous responsabiliser tous et accroître nos capacités, favorisant ainsi l’harmonie et le bon sens. Ensemble, nous nous persuaderons et nous entraiderons de manière logique et naturelle vers le meilleur comportement et la meilleure utilisation des ressources pour la communauté.

Le garant ultime des droits des peuples actuels transcende les États, et c’est alors l’humanité, dont le principal objectif est d’assurer la paix et la sécurité pour tous, afin que personne ne soit lésé, forcé ou privé involontairement de quoi que ce soit. L’humanité doit être incarnée dans une ONU renouvelée, dirigée par des personnes ayant la volonté, la capacité et le mérite de servir l’humanité.

Sincèrement,

To the attention of:

His Excellency Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN
His Excellency Mr. Dennis Francis, President of the UNGA
His Excellency Mr. Thomas Bach, IOC President

Subject: Letter in Support and Demand of the Olympic Truce

Dear Sirs,

We humbly yet firmly propose the following considerations, the result of long-time reflection and study, for you to reiterate the request and demand for the universal Olympic Truce to all people and states by sharing this document.

Context

According to the terms of the seventy-eighth session, item 11 of the Agenda: Sport for development and peace: building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal:

“Acknowledging that the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games will be a unifying event and a meaningful opportunity to harness the power of sport to foster an atmosphere of peace, development, resilience, tolerance and understanding, accessibility and inclusion, and recalling its resolution 77/27 of 1 December 2022 on sport as an enabler of sustainable development, in which it called upon future hosts of the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and other Member States to include sport, as appropriate, in conflict prevention activities and to ensure the effective implementation of the Olympic Truce during the Games.”

On Peace and Disarmament 

“It is the same to say arms or war” (Cervantes, Quixote I, Cap XXXVII).

For us humans, peace is not only the absence of war as is commonly assumed, but also disarmament, the cessation of the intent to destroy the other, which is embodied in the weapon. This intent is evident in the blade and point of the sword, in the explosiveness of the bomb, etc. – but not, for example, in a kitchen knife or a stone, which are not meant for this and do not alarm us. And the purpose of damage is not abstract but concrete and adapted to the conditions of the other to cause the maximum possible harm.

Even though each side considers this in self-defense, the simple act of arming oneself violates and deprives us all of freedom -something we cannot tolerate. On one hand, it subjects us to threat by which we must submit and serve if we want to avoid being harmed, and, on the other hand, it forces us to arm ourselves as much as we can to dissuade the other, defend ourselves and to avoid being at another arm´s service -and so is the same for the other side.

Human empathy puts us in the place of one another and human intelligence anticipates and projects, so that no bloodshed is needed to dominate. Just having the capability to destroy the other puts him at our mercy and service. This occurs not only between and among armed units or states but also within them, where the form humans incorporate into weapons/arms in armed units is through a (inhuman) mechanical enforcement articulated by the absolute inequality of the hierarchy or pyramidal state structure which includes the total inequal allocation of resources as the most effective way for waging war and harming and destroying other humans.

The arm or weapon’ effect is not an opinion or an ideology to be believed and opposed to others’ ideas. On the contrary, ideologies or ideas disregard this human empathy and hide the real significance of the arm, while the arm effect is the ordinary and common reality that is not ‘presumed’ but directly known, or otherwise, ineffective, therefore, we must reflect upon it in a human way and understand it to make peace.

Hot war, as Clausewitz says, is “the action or attempt to disarm the enemy,” the way in which we have them at our mercy and/or prevent them from threatening and subjugating us. Therefore, we must first understand this situation when we talk about a truce in hot war. If hot war is waged to disarm the enemy and the truce is merely a moment of rearmament, then war and truce are directly opposite and a truce proposal without further consideration is mostly unfeasible. Truce can only be understood as a step towards peace through disarmament, something that can happen today because we are fully connected and can fulfill its condition, universality and simultaneity. And your institutions are the ones meant and able to do it, while this also universal event of the Olympic Games is the most excellent moment for it too.

 

“Together” (The president of the IOC, July 1^st, Geneve)

子墨子曰：非人者必有以易之，若非人而無以易之，譬之猶以水救火也，其說將必無可焉。是故子墨子曰：兼以易別 “Whoever criticizes others must have something to replace them. Criticism without an alternative is like trying to stop flood with flood and put out fire with fire, it will surely be without worth, therefore Mozi said: Partiality is to be replaced by universality/simultaneity (兼 means both ‘universal’ and ‘simultaneous’)”. (Mozi, 兼愛下 – Universal Love III, 2)

 

The decision to disarm must be universal/simultaneous, unilateral disarmament would not mean us stopping serving the weapon or arm, but just serve to another one, and, indeed, in the past, human groups were isolated and uncommunicated, and exclusive decision-making, which obviously involves confrontation, was inevitable. That is why humans have inevitably organized themselves into armed units or states. But in our time, we can and shall reconcile (and forgive ourselves, as it was not in our hands to avoid harming each other) and establish peace or inclusive decision-making, which prevents and avoids the purpose of harming and implies cooperation for the common good.

And, indeed, the first inclusive decision must be disarmament, the renunciation of the intention or purpose to destroy. Without this renunciation, no inclusive decision can be made, as the purpose of destruction (obviously of the other) conditions everything else to the extent that cooperation not only cannot be inclusive but only really occurs against third parties. The inevitable consequence of hating or wanting to destroy even just one person or party, depriving them of freedom and humanity, is equivalent to harming everyone since this leads to violating and forcing all others to take sides. Logically, the other, the one the weapon is aimed at, will not agree to be destroyed or to be deprived of freedom through the threat of destruction, and will necessarily do his utmost to achieve its own more powerful destruction means and allies to avoid this from happening.

 

The truce call

“All maxims which require (universal) publicity, in order that they may not fail to attain their end, are in agreement both with right and politics.” (Kant, Perpetual Peace, Appendix II. Concerning the harmony of politics with morals).

We need to expose and share this human condition with all humans when proposing or convening the Olympic Truce for them to assume freedom, humanity and responsibility and thus becoming the guarantee of it. Hereby we are telling all that the objective of this truce is to reconcile Humanity and after the Olympic Games we shall and will begin the process of inclusive decision-making with disarmament, placing all weapons and arms under human command, that would lead to the suspension of all military activity and development, making disarmament not only possible but convenient.

Disarmament shall be based on reason and understanding, and therefore it must be a public and transparent process for all humans. Except for the purpose of harming, which needs to be concealed, cooperation for disarmament and the common good is achieved through simple proposals and transparency, as is the case with this very proposal.

Since disarmament can only be universal, and this universality justifies or implies that, besides, of course, caring about keeping the life conditions of military personnel, resources now withdrawn from military use should be redirected to facilitate dignified living conditions for all and to integrate humanity into a system of cooperation for the common good. Except from weapons, everything is meant to serve us, enhance our well-being, empower us all, and increase our capacities, thereby fostering harmony and common sense. Together, we will in a logical and natural way persuade and help each other toward the best behavior and the best use of resources for the community.

The ultimate guarantor of the actual people’s rights transcends the States, and it is then Humanity, whose main aim is to provide peace and security for all, so that nobody is harmed, forced, or unwillingly deprived of anything. Humanity should be embodied in a renewed UN led by people with the willingness, capability, and merits to serve humanity.

Sincerely,

It is crucial to use our intelligence to understand and recognize what our humanity means, which does not allow for a ‘partial or limited peace,’ and that is why war is said to be ‘absolute.’

In the past, human groups were isolated and uncommunicated, and the exclusive decision-making that leads to confrontation was inevitable. For this reason, humans have organized themselves into armed units or states. However, in our time, we can reconcile (and forgive ourselves, as it was not within our control not to harm each other) and establish peace or inclusive decision-making that avoids and prevents the intent of harm and implies cooperation for the common good.

However, the first inclusive decision must be disarmament, the renunciation of the intention or purpose to destroy the other, which is the object of the weapon. Without this renunciation, no inclusive decision can be made, since the purpose of destruction (of the other) conditions everything else so much that cooperation not only cannot be inclusive but happens only really against third parties (and hence the ugliness of politics).

Why is this so? Because of our humanity, which is unique and belongs to all of us, putting us in the place of the other by projecting and anticipating. That is why we submit to those who threaten us. The inevitable consequence of wanting to harm, even if it is only one person in the world, is equivalent to harming everyone, as this forces others to take sides (logically, the other will not agree to be destroyed), and where force is used, freedom and humanity are deprived.

This was already understood by the wise pacifists who called themselves cosmopolitans, as they understood that peace was nothing other than natural law, the law of the Cosmos. Mozi, the Eastern cosmopolitan version, whose doctrine is Universal Love, affirms that this love is the Will of Heaven, which has arranged things in such a way that some of us cannot have peace while others do not, as a consequence of that virtual human capacity. Similarly, for Mozi, love is not idealistic, a will or voluntarism that uselessly confronts a world at war, but rather love is the logical consequence of universality.

Mozi says in “Xiaoqu” – Minor Illustration – 7:

愛人，待周愛人而後為愛人。不愛人，不待周不愛人；不周愛，因為不愛人矣。乘馬，不待周乘馬然後為乘馬也；有乘於馬，因為乘馬矣。逮至不乘馬，待周不乘馬而後不乘馬。此一周而一不周者也。

To love people requires loving all people for it to count as loving people; but not loving people does not require not loving anyone for it to count as not loving people.

Riding a horse does not require riding all horses for it to count as riding a horse; it is enough to have ridden one horse for it to imply riding horses. By contrast, not riding a horse requires not riding any horse for it to count as not riding a horse.

This is “one requires all and the other not all.”

This captures the wonderful and fascinating condition and characteristic of our humanity. But it is intelligence that must discern.

And discerning this condition of our humanity is the meaning of the call for a Day of Reconciliation on January 30, 2025. Until that day, we share, spread, and support this message and the call as much as we can, and on that day, we ensure that this communication effectively reaches all of Humanity, thus beginning disarmament by placing all weapons under human command. As they are no longer than just one for the other, they suspend their activity and development, making disarmament not only possible but also convenient.

Not even that command can then generate the initiative of harm, as it would be the absurd and contradictory situation of one who simultaneously attacks and defends themselves. Moreover, the command is not at the top of the hierarchy, as only an army constitutes a hierarchy. Here, the command is over all arms, which do not compose a hierarchy, and therefore, it is a command of equals, a human command. All this projects intelligence before which we must not blind ourselves.

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE IN BERLIN SINCE THE COLD WAR?

I am in Berlin now after 35 years since I studied at the Freie Universität Berlin, FUB. I had been working for peace at the UAM in Madrid at the peak of the Cold War in the early eighties and when I came here for a visit I was so moved seeing all at the FUB full of signs and actions against war, against nukes, and such an enthusiasm for peace and reconciliation that I decided to stay here. Now, I have been around here and the students at the FUB only care about the room renting prices, require psychological services for all and the only political proposal to be seen thre is a demo against the right wing parties.

Later I have been to the Humbolt University. At the entrance you see a forest made of columns of photographs and CVS’s of Ukrainian students who died in the war under the common Title for each column: UNUSED CERTIFICATE, and then the deceased’s picture, his studies details and the details about how they were “brutally killed during the Russian invasion”.

During the Cold War the main strain was about the deployment of American nukes in Europe and the possible response (preventive attack by the SU) but now it is about “the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine but the criminal Putin”, where indeed people mainly young ones are dying

Now, if Putin is an autocrat, and the young Russians are dying because of his ruthless and wicked despotism they should be remembered too in the Humboldt Lobby Forest. I am not playing with words, despotism (actually hierarchy) and war is the same, or the two sides of the same coin, as wise people see it. But I think that the case here is not that Russia is a case of more despotism than in the West, I do not think there is a different in despotism, I do not even think it can be.

I wish nobody here (Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian, Americans…) get ungry at me. Please, it is my birthday today. I do not want to bother anybody, but very much on the contrary, I would be so happy if you could understand that peace is at hand, just by by not deceiving ourselves.

Nous nous rapprochons de l’extinction ou, du moins, nous flirtons avec elle, alors que nous savons ce qu’est la paix depuis des millénaires et la preuve en est qu’elle a été également comprise et vue à l’Est comme à l’Ouest sans aucun contact entre eux. Par exemple, Marc Aurèle l’exprime ainsi :

« Si l’intelligence et la raison sont communes à tous les humains, et que la raison nous dit ce qu’il faut faire et ce qu’il faut éviter, c’est aussi commun, donc la loi doit être commune et nous sommes les concitoyens d’une même citoyenneté où le monde est notre ville (Méditations, Marc Aurèle, Livre IV, 4) « La nature de l’univers a fait de nous tous des créatures raisonnables les uns pour les autres afin que nous puissions nous faire du bien les uns aux autres (Méditations, Marc Aurèle, Livre IX, 1)

Mòzǐ partage ce point de vue, et il considère l’Amour Universel (ou Soins Inclusifs) et l’Aide Mutuelle comme la Volonté du Ciel (également de la Nature), car les choses, pour cette raison qui nous rend égaux, les humains ont été créées de telle manière que nous ne pouvons pas avoir la paix si nous ne vivons pas tous ensemble dans un système de prise de décision inclusif, nous prendrons tous soin les uns des autres et nous rejetterons tous le mal parce que ce sera notre intérêt commun.

Le problème est que nous ne pouvons pas passer de la guerre à la paix, de la division à l’unité, car nous sommes divisés en États ou en unités armées. L’arme à ses débuts, était utilisé par les humains pour se défendre et chasser, mais entre les humains, l’arme, dont l’objet est de tuer et de nuire, crée une logique de menace mutuelle qui empêche la compréhension et conduit à l’escalade, non seulement par générer toutes les armes les plus meurtrières possibles, mais aussi obliger les humains à empêcher leur nature humaine et à n’utiliser que la violence, à imposer leurs relations en s’organisant hiérarchiquement (inégalité ou injustice absolue) pour que les gens assument le but de l’arme : tuer – ou être tué, principalement comme déserteur. Pour cette raison, Cervantes nous dit que « c’est la même arme ou la guerre », et « les lettres (mots, idéologies, figurations) sont nécessairement subordonnées au l’arme », et nous montre-t-il donc le drapeau blanc comme moyen d’arrêter l’effet de l’arme, à la fois, nous tuant et nous menaçant/déterminant à tuer.

La paix doit en effet être fondée sur l’intelligence et la raison qui nous sont communes à tous et qui nous rendent égaux, comme nous le disent les sages. Par conséquent, nous ne pouvons pas nous attendre à ce que la paix soit en même temps une initiative politique, car même si les hommes politiques sont des humains, leur travail particulier (appelons-le Armes ou Lettres) est de servir l’État ou l’unité armée et de nous soumettre à son service. Les politiciens font appel à nos sentiments humains, à nos besoins et à nos souffrances parce qu’en effet, nous ne nous connaissons et ne nous comprenons que de cette façon, mais ce qui est étrange, c’est qu’ils limitent cela aux frontières, ce qui, en même temps, exclut les gens au-delà et c’est exactement ce qui se passe la manière de faire la guerre (à l’extérieur et à l’intérieur) car la primauté de l’exclusion est la confrontation.

Nous proposons une Journée de réconciliation le 30 janvier 2025 en hissant le drapeau blanc exigeant avec lui l’arrêt universel du service humain au l’arme et entamant un dialogue entre toutes les communautés, non seulement les États, mais aussi entre les citoyens ordinaires, créant un réseau de confiance et d’engagement qui vont au-delà des structures de pouvoir traditionnelles. Nous pouvons former des comités de paix dans chaque communauté, promouvant la coopération et la compréhension, et permettre aux citoyens d’exiger de leurs dirigeants une coopération internationale en matière de désarmement. Le simple fait de dépasser les frontières avec cette compréhension et cette démarche permet de briser le cycle de violence par lequel nous générons le bien commun, qui, en utilisant les ressources qui servent désormais a l’arme pour l’entraide à toute l’humanité sans distinction ni discrimination. D’abord parce que la condition du désarmement est l’universalité et, par conséquent, les dividendes de la paix sont un bien commun et doivent être partagés comme tels et, d’ailleurs, n’est-ce pas ce que nous dit le bon sens ? N’est-il pas évidemment plus important d’empêcher les gens de mourir de faim que d’acheter, par exemple, un nouveau téléphone portable ? Sauver les gens de la mort et de l’indignité a du sens pour chacun d’entre nous ; il ne s’agit pas seulement de notre santé mentale, c’est notre véritable intérêt et nous le savons parce que nous sommes des humains.

Partagez ce message, s’il vous plaît.

DISARM NOW!

RECONCILIATION CALL ON JANUARY 30, 2025

Figurations or representations, such as nationalities, political systems as democracy, socialism, liberalism, or religions, or others, cannot be the fundament of peace. Figurations separate and divide us; they are not based on common sense, but constructions sustained by (the enforcement of) the state and at its service since they depend on it.

We understand each other by nature as human beings, we know of somebody else’s needs by putting us in his/her shoes, or if sad or happy when we see him or her, and everything real is this way, no matter his/her nationality, religion, we know what is good, as helping, cooperating, and what is bad, as harming, killing, etc. It is weird and amazing, however, how politics talk and use this understanding of our humanity but limiting it to some borders.

Indeed, when we talk about peace, we refer to humanity. Mozi, a Chinese philosopher of the fourth century BC puts it this way:

今有一人，入人园圃，窃其桃李，众闻则非之，上为政者得则罚之。此何也？以亏人自利也。至攘人犬豕鸡豚者，其不义又甚入人园圃窃桃李。是何故也？以亏人愈多，其不仁兹甚，罪益厚。

“Suppose a man enters the orchard of another and steals the other’s peaches and plums. Hearing of it the public will condemn it; laying hold of him the authorities will punish him. Why? Because he injures others to profit himself. As to seizing dogs, pigs, chickens, and young pigs from another, it is even more unrighteous than to steal peaches and plums from his orchard. Why? Because it causes others to suffer more, and it is more inhumane and criminal.”

杀一人谓之不义，必有一死罪矣，若以此说往，杀十人十重不义，必有十死罪矣；杀百人百重不义，必有百死罪矣。当此，天下之君子皆知而非之，谓之不义。今至大为不义攻国，则弗知¹非，从而誉之，谓之义，情不知其不义也，故书其言以遗后世。若知其不义也，夫奚说书其不义以遗后世哉？今有人于此，少见黑曰黑，多见黑曰白，则以此人不知白黑之辩矣；少尝苦曰苦，多尝苦曰甘，则必以此人为不知甘苦之辩矣。今小为非，则知而非之。大为非攻国，则不知非，从而誉之，谓之义。此可谓知义与不义之辩乎？是以知天下之君子也，辩义与不义之乱也.

“The murder of one person is called unrighteous and incurs one death penalty. Following this argument, the murder of ten persons will be ten times as unrighteous and there should be ten death penalties; the murder of a hundred persons will be a hundred times as unrighteous and there should be a hundred death penalties. All the gentlemen of the world know that they should condemn these things, calling them unrighteous. But when it comes to the great unrighteousness of attacking states, they do not know that they should condemn it. On the contrary, they applaud it, calling it righteous. And they are really ignorant of its being unrighteous. Hence they have recorded their judgment to bequeath to their posterity. If they did know that it is unrighteous, then why would they record their false judgment to bequeath to posterity? Now, if there were a man who, upon seeing a little blackness, should say it is black, but, upon seeing much, should say it is white; then we should think he could not tell the difference between black and white. If, upon tasting a little bitterness one should say it is bitter, but, upon tasting much, should say it is sweet; then we should think he could not tell the difference between bitter and sweet. Now, when a little wrong is committed people know that they should condemn it, but when such a great wrong as attacking a state is committed people do not know that they should condemn it. On the contrary, it is applauded, called righteous. Can this be said to be knowing the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous? Hence we know the gentlemen of the world are confused about the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness.” (Mòzi, Book V-1 & 2).

Mòzǐ ´s doctrine is known as the policy of Universal Love (兼爱) (some translate it in English as Inclusive Care) or a longer expression of it: “Universal Love and Mutual Aid (兼相爱，交相利). Mòzǐ also explains that the cause of all evils is partiality or unilaterality (别-bie), exclusive-decision making, which unavoidably leads to confrontation.

The same idea is hold by Western cosmopolitanism, as we hear this from Plutarch:

“the much admired Republic of Zeno…., first author of the Stoic sect, aims singly at this, that neither in cities nor in towns we should live under laws distinct one from another, but that we should look upon all people in general to be our fellow-countryfolk and citizens, observing one manner of living and one kind of order, like a flock feeding together with equal right in one common pasture. This Zeno wrote, fancying to himself, as in a dream, a certain scheme of civil order, and the image of a philosophical commonwealth. (On the fortune or the virtue of Alexander, 329 A-B).

And such understanding and longing for humanity is exposed by many stoics and cosmopolitan authors as Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius…, this last one says:

If intelligence is common to us, and reason is also common to us, the reason that orders what should be done or avoided is also common to us. Granted this, the law is also common to us and we are fellow citizens, we participate in a citizenship and the world is our city (Meditations, Marco Aurelios, Book IV, 4)

“For the nature of the universe, having made all reasonable creatures one for another, to the end that they should do one another good” (Meditations, Marcus Aurelius, Book IX, 1)

Furthermore, the shared ideological peace vision and justification of war and expansion of every continental empire was human unity or inclusive decision making too, which would put an end to war, since this is just common sense and a very good tool for gaining people´s hearts. So was the case of the Chinese Empire under Confucianism, so was the case of Alexander the Great`s empire (the text of Plutarch quoted above is actually the introduction to Alexander own cosmopolitan undertaking with his conquests), so was it with the Roman Empire, fully immersed in a cosmopolitan culture, and Roma granted all people living within the Empire limits Roman citizenship, so is it also with the Catholic (universal) Church and it was with the Holy German Roman Empire, so is it with Islam, so was it with the Hispanic, also a catholic (universal) Monarchy or Empire, and even so was it with Communism (we can see this approach particularly in Engels). This view, however, lasts from the III century BC. until the XIX century when two maritime empires (thalassocracies -according to Greek terminology), UK and USA, obtained hegemony. A thalassocracy has its (military) advantage in his defensive position beyond the sea and cannot put his aim at expanding in the continent by deposing local rulers as continental empires do, but it aims at its control and exploitation while dividing and weaken continental powers. This is how the arm work, mainly determined by geography (nowadays technology is also a key factor), but people have never a say just serve it in its way).

Even if all those empires longed for peace or human unity, we do not have anything written left from the first cosmopolitan school in the West, the cynics, while the main Western cosmopolitan book, Zeno´s Republic, the foundation of stoicism referred above, has been also “lost”. Stoicism became the main Western philosophical school from III century a. C until the III. A. C extending from India to Spain, this is within the Roman and Hellenic Empires until Christian monotheism took over. Regarding Mohism, even if it was the most popular school in China in its time when competing with Confucianism and many other schools, once China was unified under the Qin Emperor in a single state, he burned the books of Mohism and buried its scholars alive. Luckily, most texts were preserved hidden in the Daoist Patrology and recovered no very long ago. As Mòzǐ opponents saw (Book 10, Canon II, 174 – 176), the condition for peace is universality and without it, proposing universal love is “perverse”.

Indeed, the universality condition was unfulfilled in the past and therefore peace was not only impossible, but its proposal only effect was to weaken the state which, logically and “legitimately”, repressed, hid, or misrepresented peace in its sense of humanity. We can also read the stoics discussion about the impossibility of renouncing to the state and private property and using things and resources for common good or according to the best use for the community in an unknown world without limits in a sea of states, religions, and cultures.

In the XVIII century, once the limits of the world are uncovered we see a new reflection on peace as human unity, beginning with the Abby of Saint Pierre proposal for the European states, proposing them to agree on solving their disputes by legal means instead of by waging war, and we see also Rousseau’s critic to the Abby, arguing that despotism and war are the two sides of the same coin, and Kant, consequently, requiring the states joining the peace coalition o confederation but only if under a republican constitution, in the sense opposed to despotism; dealing with common issues publicly, submitting every decision to people´s consideration and judgement.

Now, we are living in a globalized world and the universality condition for peace, or human unity is at hand, however, we are not able to achieve it, even if it is obviously convenient for all to cooperate for common good instead of killing and destroying each other as we are witnessing right now with millions of young people dying waging war.

War

At this point, we must reconsider the nature of war with help of the  Sunzi´s Art of War which begins this way:

孙子曰：兵者，国之大事，死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也。

”The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.” (Sunzi, The Art of War, Book I, 1)

And he goes: 兵者，诡道也 “All warfare is based on deception”. (Sunzi, The Art of War, Book I, 7)

Contrary to what we might tend to think, and we are surely told, deception is not only to be practiced on the enemy, but it is mostly practiced by the leader on his own people because only people confused and disoriented need a leader. The Art of War describes how the people must be put in precariousness to be managed or manipulated and, furthermore, the war leader requires from the people that they put their life in his hands.

凡为客之道，深入则专，主人不克，掠于饶野，三军足食，谨养而无劳，并气积力，运兵计谋，为不可测，投之无所往，死且不北，死焉不得，士人尽力。兵士甚陷则不惧，无所往则固，深入则拘，不得已则斗。是故，其兵不修而戒，不求而得，不约而亲，不令而信，禁祥去疑，至死无所之。吾士无馀财，非恶货也；无馀命，非恶寿也。令发之日，士卒坐者涕沾襟，偃卧者涕交颐，投之无所往，则诸刿之勇也。    

“The following are the principles to be observed by an invading force: The further you penetrate into a country, the greater will be the solidarity of your troops, and thus the defenders will not prevail against you. Make forays in fertile country in order to supply your army with food. Carefully study the well-being of your men, and do not overtax them. Concentrate your energy and hoard your strength. Keep your army continually on the move, and devise unfathomable plans. Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard. Thus, without waiting to be marshaled, the soldiers will be constantly on the qui vive; without waiting to be asked, they will do your will; without restrictions, they will be faithful; without giving orders, they can be trusted. Prohibit the taking of omens, and do away with superstitious doubts. Then, until death itself comes, no calamity need be feared. If our soldiers are not overburdened with money, it is not because they have a distaste for riches; if their lives are not unduly long, it is not because they are disinclined to longevity. On the day they are ordered out to battle, your soldiers may weep, those sitting up bedewing their garments, and those lying down letting the tears run down their cheeks. But let them once be brought to bay, and they will display the courage of a Chu or a Gui.”

故善用兵者，譬如率然；率然者，常山之蛇也，击其首，则尾至，击其尾，则首至，击其中，则首尾俱至。敢问：“兵可使如率然乎？”曰：“可。”夫吴人与越人相恶也，当其同舟济而遇风，其相救也如左右手。是故，方马埋轮，未足恃也，齐勇若一，政之道也；刚柔皆得，地之理也。故善用兵者，携手若使一人，不得已也。

“Thus the skillful general conducts his army just as though he were leading a single man, willy-nilly, by the hand. It is the business of a general to be quiet and thus ensure secrecy; upright and just, and thus maintain order. He must be able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances, and thus keep them in total ignorance. By altering his arrangements and changing his plans, he keeps the enemy without definite knowledge. By shifting his camp and taking circuitous routes, he prevents the enemy from anticipating his purpose. At the critical moment, the leader of an army acts like one who has climbed up a height and then kicks away the ladder behind him. He carries his men deep into hostile territory before he shows his hand. He burns his boats and breaks his cooking-pots; like a shepherd driving a flock of sheep, he drives his men this way and that, and nothing knows whither he is going. To muster his host and bring it into danger: this may be termed the business of the general. The different measures suited to the nine varieties of ground; the expediency of aggressive or defensive tactics; and the fundamental laws of human nature: these are things that must most certainly be studied.” (Sunzi, The Art of War, Book XI, 3 & 4)

If we compare this conception with The Iliad, from the same period of time, also dedicated to war and with the same ground laying character for the Western civilization, we see that deception in the West is mainly based in figurations, given the public character of politics practiced in the polis, while in the East (China), deception is based mainly in concealment, facilitated by the separation between the people and its rulers (as it is most probably assumed by Sunzi).

That deception way of the West was bluntly disclosed by Socrates, a turning point in Western civilization. As we can read in The Apology of Socrates written by Plato and known and mentioned by other sources, Socrates was literally accused and condemned for: “Not believing in the city´s God and (thus) corrupting the youth”. The key here is that only those in contact with the gods or God know what to do and the others must obey (and also believe and confess it). (I do not want here to offend anyone, I can understand that in the same way that human unity brings about peace, also our link with the universe, we can call it God or the gods, might be decisive for the fulfillment of our humanity).

Cervantes, as a new Socrates, writes The Quixote to expose first of all that “Letters (words, confessions, beliefs, ideologies) serve the Arm (a particular one)”, he writes it in the so-called Speech of Arms and Letter (Chapter XXXVII) and shows it to us by exposing how everybody can follow without problem don Quixote’s crazy world vision and, furthermore, many people would follow and play it with him like living in this imaginary world if feeling threatened by him or just by his arms projection on them. Therefore, Cervantes’s quest for human life disregards ideologies and focuses on the arm, which does not only kill people but unceasingly conditions us as follows:

–             The arm is the evil, however, given in nature, humans had to adapt to it. “It is the same arms or war” (Quixote, First Part. Chapter XXXVII). The arm is evil per definition, as its object is harming, but it is also the form of injustice due to the necessary incorporation of every human being into an arm, forming within it an armed unit (or state) made according to absolute inequality or hierarchy to outlaw humanity, so that all relation within it is only violent (enforced). (The masses are kept in scarcity for their management too, where rich have the task of depriving the others. Every political ideology looks for and promises change in society, but it can be only implemented if it reinforces the arm – I can show you the many cases where there is wishful thinking and misperception there, and injustice, absolute inequality, cannot be changed within the state).

Such an organization form is mutually and universally generated; we all force each other to organize this way since the alternative is to be absorbed by another armed unit (state) but in a lower rank (of the pyramid).

–             The arm existence means absolute war since a single arm is equivalent to all possible arms or the most lethal and harmful ones and, when their threat projected on the other side is not decisive to set up the rules aimed at preventing the other from rearming follows (hot) war  –“the action or intend of disarming the enemy”, as Clausewitz puts it.

–             The arm is by itself. As Sunzi sees, the arm main factor is/was geography; humans just serve the arm. Or we can also say: arms are because/against each other, humans have not a say there, and have no option but to incorporating in one and, this is, assuming its evil finality and kill -or being killed (as deserters).

 

For peace we must dispel deception, disclose, and share with each other the truth of the reality determined by the arm and not by other cause (the windmills), and require each other and work and cooperate all together to eradicate evil, disarm, since it is everyone´s real convenience.

We can only disarm in a universal and agreed way when everyone is informed and with the agreement and participation of all humans without exception or discrimination. It is not a question of waiting for a progress or enlightenment, and we have to do it now, otherwise, the state will inherit our memory and change and tergiversate it looking for its partial and exclusive advantage, as with Cervantes and other´s case.

The consequence of the simple disarmament call is now and immediate (indivisible) common good from what we immediately spare in death, destruction and in weapons production, development, maintenance, as with the disarmament result: the human community.

Cervantes shows us the white flag as much in the First Part of The Quixote, by the key occasion and as mean of encounter of the captive and the moor woman, each one a member of two irreconcilable faiths, and again in the Second Part, written 10 years later, when don Quixote raises the white cloth at the peak of his spear after leaving the lions inside the king cart of the colored flags, because the white flag is meant to stop the arms effect as much killing as threatening/determining us to evil.

And we are calling for a Human Reconciliation Call on January 30^th, 2025, which is also a Day of Pardon, since nobody is responsible for what happened under the dark time under the arm rule. The reconciliation call is the universal disarmament proposal call, which is the same as human unification, carried out by means of publicity (openness, transparency) of the purposes or intentions not only by disarming, but in general in all what might affect or concern others, starting with this message, because, except for the arm, everything else is there to serve us and, therefore, harmonizing us and in accord with common sense.

INVITATION À LA FÊTE DE LA RÉCONCILIATION DE L’HUMANITÉ LE 30 JANVIER 2025

Bien sûr, cette invitation s’adresse à tout le monde, mais je propose à ceux d’entre vous qui recevront ce document de l’appeler et de le préparer en tant que volontaires, car nous ne pouvons pas attendre de l’État, de l’unité armée, ou des entités qui en dépendent qu’ils promeuvent cette initiative d’humanité et de paix qui se manifeste avec le drapeau blanc et dont le but est le désarmement, l’unité et l’harmonie humaine, puisque c’est ce qu’exige la réconciliation. Jusqu’à l’été nous communiquons l’appel et après l’été nous préparons l’activité.

Je veux d’abord me présenter en tant que promoteur de cette initiative : je m’appelle Manuel Herranz, président de HUM, Mouvement pour l’Unité Humaine (www.human-unity.org) et c’est une initiative et je veux vous donner quelques informations sur moi que vous pourrez vérifier et aussi je me mets à votre disposition pour toute question.

En 1987, j’ai été contacté par des agents soviétiques à Berlin qui étaient prêts à me soutenir alors que je travaillais activement pour la paix et le désarmement tout en rédigeant ma thèse sur l’humanité et le désarmement à la FU Berlin. Je n’ai pas accepté sa proposition parce que j’avais compris que soutenir la paix à l’Ouest était à l’avantage de l’Est.

J’avais étudié la philosophie à l’UAM de Madrid, mais au début des années 80, en pleine guerre froide, ce qui était le plus impressionnant était la possibilité d’une guerre nucléaire, j’ai donc concentré mes études sur la paix. En 1986, alors que je travaillais déjà sur ma thèse de doctorat, je suis arrivé à Berlin-Ouest et j’ai décidé d’y rester et d’y poursuivre mes recherches et mes activités. Outre la philosophie, j’ai commencé à étudier les relations internationales, le chinois, l’arabe et le russe, car j’ai décidé que c’étaient les principales langues de l’Est, du Sud et du Nord et après avoir quitté Berlin en 1989, j’ai voyagé et étudié la vision de paix des principales cultures du monde.

Maintenant que l’abîme nucléaire est de nouveau devant nous, considérons un point de vue très général : la vision de la paix en Occident et au Moyen-Orient est que Dieu, père ou leader, fait de tous les humains des frères et sœurs, et le principal vision de la paix en Chine est l’œuvre de Mozi, le principal rival de Confucius au Ve siècle avant JC. L’enseignement de Mozi s’appelle La Politique de l’Amour Universel, et je le cite ici pour donner une idée de son principe : « Celui qui critique les autres doit avoir une alternative. Critiquer sans suggérer comment s’améliorer, c’est comme essayer d’arrêter une inondation avec de l’eau ou essayer d’éteindre un incendie avec le feu. Ce sera inutile. C’est pourquoi Mòzǐ a dit : La partialité doit être remplacé par l’universalité ». Mòzǐ nous montre comment toutes les calamités du monde naissent de la partialité, tout comme le bien humain et l’impartialité doivent être un produit de l’universalité, en raison de notre intelligence ou de notre bon sens qui nous amène à nous mettre à la place de l’autre et nous ne pouvons pas nous contenter de moins. qu’être égal. Le problème pour Mòzǐ, ainsi que pour les cosmopolites occidentaux – la principale école de pensée de l’Empire romain et de l’Empire hellénique qui s’étendait de l’Espagne à l’Inde du 3ème siècle avant JC au 3ème siècle après JC jusqu’à la propagation du monothéisme – était de savoir comment pour surmonter les préjugés des unités armées ou des États dans un monde inconnu. Mais aujourd’hui que le monde est à notre portée et interconnecté, l’universalité et avec elle la paix sont possibles.

Le 30 janvier 2025, tous les humains sont appelés à exprimer leur volonté de coexister en paix et de créer un organe de l’humanité pour le désarmement et une prise de décision inclusive qui prévient l’intention de nuire par la coopération pour le bien commun et en traitant les autres comme nous le ferions aime être traité.

La paix n’est pas l’absence de guerre, la PAIX est LE DÉSARMEMENT

L’arme, donnée dans la nature, est l’objet (ou l’intention) du mal qui nous est manifesté – dans la main de l’autre, avec le tranchant et la pointe de l’épée, dans l’explosivité de la bombe, etc., ce qui n’est pas le cas, par exemple, d’un couteau de cuisine ou d’une pierre, qui n’ont pas cette intention et ne nous alarment pas. Cette mauvaise intention aboutit à une « guerre absolue », c’est-à-dire que les unités armées cherchent à augmenter leur capacité de destruction et à limiter celle de l’autre, car par la menace elles dominent les autres et lorsque la menace ne suffit pas, la guerre devient irrémédiable comme l’action ou la tentative de désarmer l’ennemi, donc la paix n’est pas (seulement) l’absence de guerre mais le désarmement, qui est la coopération pour le bien commun.

Le drapeau blanc est le moyen de réconciliation

Eh bien, l’arme, qui met tout à son service et n’admet d’autre option que d’être incorporé ou ennemi, oblige tous les humains à rejoindre des unités armées et les états organisées hiérarchiquement pour annuler ainsi notre volonté personnelle et notre humanité, et pour nous libérer de l’arme dont nous avons besoin du drapeau blanc, puisque sa signification et son effet sont la cessation universelle de l’activité de l’arme, à la fois dommageable et menaçante. Si nous ne sommes pas capables d’exprimer notre volonté humaine personnelle à travers le drapeau blanc et que nous sommes représentés par des officiers de l’unité armée ou de l’État, ou derrière des « idées » de notre précédent état de guerre, ce sera une manifestation de notre peur de la menace des autres et projection de la nôtre.

Le désarmement est synonyme de réconciliation et d’unité humaine

Le désarmement unilatéral – comme il l’aurait nécessairement été dans le passé – n’est pas un désarmement mais, comme la défaite, un transfert de soumission et de service à une autre arme, car le désarmement exige l’universalité, ce qui ne se produit qu’à notre époque et c’est pourquoi nous faisons cela un appel à la réconciliation, qui est aussi un appel au pardon, car jusqu’à présent chacun était au service de l’arme sans autre option, donc nous ne pouvons tenir personne pour responsable.

Il n’y a pas d’autre problème parmi nous, les humains, que l’arme dont le but de nuire doit être caché, sous prétexte, tandis que la réconciliation humaine est une prise de décision inclusive en rendant public tout objectif (pouvant affecter autrui) qui évite et empêche le but de nuire et ne traite que le bien commun.

Si l’on exclut l’arme, tout est pour nous servir et donc sa finalité implique aussi quand, comment, par qui, etc. cette (ressource) devrait être utilisée de la meilleure façon. Par conséquent, la souveraineté humaine ne force ni n’impose rien, son organe n’est rien d’autre qu’un réseau d’informations d’abord pour le désarmement et en général pour la coopération, tandis que l’unité ou la souveraineté humaine favorise la concorde comme bien commun, ce que maintenant l’arme nous empêche, ce qui nous affront.

Évidemment, le désarmement pacifique ne peut être imposé ou forcé ; Elle doit être libre, volontaire, mais chaque partie cesse de produire et de développer des armes et désarme si tous les autres satisfont à ses conditions, ce qui fondamentalement consiste également à cesser de développer des armes et à désarmer, puisque la cause de l’arme est l’(autre) arme. Par conséquent, le désarmement ne peut être réalisé par l’une ou l’autre des parties et nécessite la coopération de tous ; économiser les dépenses en armement est le bien commun, tout comme le résultat du désarmement est la communauté humaine.

Le cessez-le-feu et l’arrêt du développement de l’arme

Même si la souveraineté de l’humanité requiert l’accord unanime de tous les êtres humains et que, dans l’intervalle, la paix doit respecter la souveraineté de notre État, puisqu’une action unilatérale engendrerait sa réaction violente, l’appel à la réconciliation et la manifestation du drapeau blanc peuvent servir à arrêter le développement des armes et établir un cessez-le-feu (en Ukraine, à Gaza, dans de nombreux endroits d’Afrique, partout où il y a un conflit armé), puisque nous savons désormais que la paix est le désarmement et la souveraineté de l’humanité, et le soutien et la prévoyance de ceux-ci sont déjà proches facilite l’accord pour la suspension immédiate de toute hostilité, sans aucune autre condition préalable.

Human Unity Movement, HUM     www.human-unity.org o manuelhm@human-unity.org

C/Felipe Solano Antelo 19A, 2°A, Guadalajara 19002, Spain, Phone: +34 656339490 App: @HumanUnity

 

INVITATION TO THE FESTIVAL OF THE RECONCILIATION OF HUMANITY ON JANUARY 30, 2025

Of course, this invitation is addressed to everyone, but I propose to those of you who are receiving this document to call it sharing it.

We cannot expect from the State, the armed unit, or the entities that depend on it that they promote this initiative of humanity and peace whose aim and mean is disarmament, which leads to human unity and harmony among us all humans and it is called by the white flag. This is what human reconciliation requires and other way will be useless, undermined by the arm.

Until the summer we communicate the call and after the summer we prepare the activity. Thank you.

 

I first want to introduce myself as the promoter of this initiative: my name is Manuel Herranz, president of HUM, Movement for Human Unity (www.human-unity.org) and it I want to give you some information about me that you can check and also I am at your disposal for any questions.

In 1987, I was contacted by Soviet agents in Berlin who were willing to support me as I actively worked for peace and disarmament while writing my thesis on humanity and disarmament at FU Berlin. I did not accept their proposal because I understood that supporting peace in the West was to the advantage of the East.

I had studied philosophy at the UAM in Madrid, but in the early 80s, in the middle of the Cold War, and I was most impressed about the possibility of nuclear war, so I focused my studies on peace. In 1986, when I was already working on my doctoral thesis, I arrived in West Berlin and decided to stay and continue my research and activities there. Besides philosophy, I started studying international relations, Chinese, Arabic and Russian, because I decided that these were the main languages of the East, South and North and after leaving Berlin in 1989, I traveled and studied the world’s major cultures’ vision of peace.

Now that the nuclear abyss is once again before us, let us consider a very general point of view: the vision of peace in the West and the Middle East is that God, father or leader, makes all humans brothers and sisters, and the main vision of peace in China is the work of Mozi, Confucius’ main rival in the 5th century BC. Mozi’s teaching is called The Policy of Universal Love, and I quote him here to give an idea of its principle: “He who criticizes others must have an alternative. Criticizing without suggesting how to improve is like trying to stop a flood with water or trying to put out a fire with fire. It will be useless. This is why Mòzǐ said: Partiality must be replaced by universality. Mòzǐ shows us how all the calamities of the world are born from partiality, just as human good and impartiality is the product of universality, due to our intelligence or our common sense which leads us to put ourselves in other people´s shoes and we cannot settle for less than being equal. The problem for Mòzǐ, as well as Western cosmopolitans – the main school of thought of the Roman Empire and the Hellenic Empire which stretched from Spain to India from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD until the spread of monotheism – was how to overcome the prejudices of armed units or states in an unknown world. But today that the world is within our reach and interconnected, thus universality and with it peace is possible.

On January 30, 2025, all humans are called to express their willingness to coexist in peace and create an organ of humanity for disarmament and inclusive decision-making that prevents the intent to harm through cooperation for the common good and treating others as we would like to be treated.

Peace is not the absence of war, PEACE is DISARMAMENT

The weapon was there in nature, and it is the object (or evil intention) of harming as is manifested to us in the edge and tip of the sword, in the explosiveness of the bomb, etc., but not in a kitchen knife or a stone since those do not have that evil intention and do not alarm us. This harming or evil intention of the arm is sustained with time and cannot be solved but only confronted by another arm, and all arms become armed units, each seeking to increase its capacity of destruction and undermine this capacity of the others, because they dominate each other by using the threat of destruction and when this is not decisive the war follows, as the action or attempt to disarm the enemy. Therefore, peace is not the absence of war, but disarmament by cooperating for the common good.

The white flag is the means for human reconciliation.

The arm puts everything at its service. It does not admit other option than to be incorporated or to be the enemy and forces us all humans to organize ourselves hierarchically in armed units and states because in this way our personal will and our humanity is cancelled. Therefore, to liberate ourselves and all others from the arm we need to rise the white flag since its meaning and effect is the universal cessation of the arm´s activity, both damaging and threatening. If we are not able to express our humanity with the white flag and we are represented by our armed unit or state officials or by “ideas”, all developed in our previous state of war at the arm’s service, it will be a manifestation of our fear from the others´ threat and a projection of our own threat upon the others.

Disarmament is human unity.

Unilateral disarmament is not real disarmament but, like defeat, the transfer of our submission/service to another arm. Disarmament requires universality, something only possible in our time. Therefore, we are making this universal call of reconciliation, along with forgiveness because until now each one was at the arm´s service without alternative and we cannot hold anyone responsible.

There is no problem among us humans except for the weapon whose purpose of harming must be hidden, pretexted, while human reconciliation is inclusive decision-making through the publicity of the purpose of any undertaking (affecting others) which prevents any harming purpose and just look for common good.

Since, everything but the weapon is there to serve us, its purpose of service implies when, how, by whom, etc., that (resource) shall be best used. Therefore, human sovereignty does not enforce anything, its organ is just an information nexus first for disarmament and in general for cooperation. Human unity or sovereignty promotes peace and reconciliation as a common good, something that is now prevented by the arm, which affront us.

Peaceful disarmament cannot be enforced; it must free, voluntary, but one side disarms if all others disarm too because the sole cause of the arm is the (other) arm. Since disarmament cannot be achieved by one side or another and needs everyone’s cooperation, the savings on weapons’ expenditure is the common good which motivates us (mutually) to treat each other as we would like to be treated and the result of disarmament is the human community.

Ceasefire and stop the weapon’s development now.

Disarmament which is human unity and sovereignty requires the unanimous agreement of all human beings. But, until we achieve that universality, and with-it peace and reconciliation, we have to abide by the sovereignty of our state, because any unilateral/independent action within it would generate its violent reaction. However, the call for reconciliation and the manifestation of the white flag to the world can already serve to stop weapons’ development and to establish ceasefire (in Ukraine, Gaza, many places in Africa, wherever there is armed conflict), since now we know that peace is disarmament and human sovereignty, and the understanding, support and foresight of it facilitate the agreement of the parts for the immediate suspension of all weapons’ development and hostility without any other precondition.

Human Unity Movement, HUM  www.human-unity.org o manuelhm@human-unity.org Phone: +34 656339490

The drums of total war sound in Europe while we see on TV the terrible damage it causes in Ukraine and Gaza (in other places without strategic relevance, TV does not show it to us) and, even so, we neither achieve a ceasefire there nor we find a way for avoiding the same thing or even worse happening to us soon.

If we ask about the cause of the war and take as an answer what is said on TV, or in the newspapers or on social networks, the overwhelming answer is the bad behavior of the other, the enemy, although it is also sometimes said that wars are promoted by the “military industrial complex”, the capitalism or the elites to profit from them, but the truth is that war, especially if it is not surrogate as most usual, and it is mutual (and total) destruction as it seems it would be the current case in the making, cannot be beneficial to anyone and is therefore not wanted by anyone. And yet, it does not seem to be avoidable.

War is the simple relationship of the weapon with itself, this is to say; the relationship of armed units whose development, progress or improvement is a greater capacity for destruction of the other, which is the way in which they impose or subjugate each other, so that their interests are expressly opposite, since each seeks to arm itself as much as it can and disarm the other. And thus, war is “absolute” – it is happening all the time, as Clausewitz says, and he defines specific military operations as “the action or the attempt to disarm the enemy”, a point that is inevitably reached if no one is capable to impose itself on the other through the simple threat provided by the superiority of the means of destruction. And such is the fearsome case now when the supremacy of the United States is in question.

The weapon gives rise among humans to the armed unity (the army and the state), which differentiates people among those subjugated to its hierarchical system, and thus articulated with the explicit and precise purpose of annulling freedom, personal will and humanity not only to its members, but to the rest of the world whom such an organization would by default irremediably absorb or subjugate – unless they are organized in the same way to be able to resist it.

This manifest purpose of universal enslavement cannot be made public – and it is rather done unintentionally as an unavoidable reaction chain that the politician, the one managing the state experiences, and thus it is the cause of the representative and figurative language that necessarily accompanies the armed unit within the state, which also makes us dependent on whoever figures it, by which we “confess” the “voluntary” “cession” of our will to our commanders and representatives who certainly, can be changed by democratic vote every few years, but the people are irrelevant here, since one or other people just will occupy the same positions and functions in the hierarchical machine.

What finally and really matters here is that all of us, Tyrians and Trojans, NATO or Russia-China people, publicly maintain the absurdity that peace is just the absence of war, hiding from ourselves in one way or another that war is our submission to the arm or to that system of universal slavery that mechanically forces or imposes itself on us all through harm or threat of harm, nullifying our humanity and our will, so that, deprived of will or freedom, we cannot even conform, and stop doing war -more than a contradiction, a madness and a nightmare.

However, at the same time, we all know, and we also have records in all the various past and present human cultures of the knowledge of peace or human coexistence: to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves – and we do not settle for less – and this is inclusivity in decision-making that is guaranteed through the publicity of the purposes or intentions of what may affect others, which, logically, discards the intention of harm and leads us all to disarmament and arm prevention through cooperation. Something that today is happily within our reach for the benefit of all, but to achieve it we must first free our humanity by summoning it with the human flag, the white flag, whose use, or effect is to stop the activity of and for the weapon/arm. This is difficult to do as you might think, since the white flag is considered surrender, and this is up to the decision of our authority, and therefore is prohibited – and frowned upon, but today it is a new personal representation on social networks because it is a call to all to disarmament without prejudice for anyone.