Welcome to
Movement of
HUMAN UNITY
freedom is peace
The reason humans do not cooperate for the common good and instead dedicate ourselves to mutual destruction is, obviously, the lack of freedom. Mutual destruction cannot be anyone’s will or desire.
The current system of laws and rights cannot avoid war. If someone harms another, they can reconcile or, in the worst case, abide by mediation so that they do not destroy each other, however, the weapon deprives freedom (of free will); it subdues without ‘harming’, because it does so from its power/potential. And a weapon can only be countered with another weapon (as or more powerful). If neither prevails, mutual destruction -war- follows (“the attempt or action to disarm the enemy”) because what is at stake is the will that governs the other without any alternative, since the will that prevails is not free either; it cannot be other than to continue arming itself as much as it can and prevent the other from doing so.
The fact that the weapon acts from its power also means that it does so from its mere existence, prior to that of the human being, so humans had no other option than to adapt to it and live immersed in its diabolical vicious circle.
for a world republic
Peace cannot be based on imposition. Freedom is the voluntary act of cooperation among people who share a common purpose, to which each contributes because they understand it is in their own interest.
The weapon is to kill us, harm us and destroy each other, so we all understand that its improvement is to kill faster, more people, in one blow, better avoid enemy defense systems, and so on.
All other objects are meant to serve us, and when we understand their purpose, or how something is used, we also understand their improvement; in a car go faster, safer, carry more, use less gasoline, in a table be lighter and stronger, etc., with which we also know implicitly who, when, how those means should be used in the service of the human being.
What happens now is that weapons subordinate these objects to their own purpose (they deprive them of their service to humanity), because the weapon, which has the purpose of harm (to the other), obviously can only be private, and, likewise, what serves one weapon cannot serve another.
However, if humans unite in a world republic the weapon becomes useless and redundant, because its cause or reason for being is itself/against itself. Thus, we are freed, and, with weapons excluded, those same objects help, clarify, and facilitate our relationships, as these are also based on mutual and common service to our shared humanity.
information
The means of the republic (res publica = public matter), as well as that of simple cooperation without imposition or free and voluntary, is the information or publicity of the reason for being or purpose of something. Through whose knowledge one freely cooperates if one finds that it is in one’s own interest. So this same message or information you are reading now is the very foundation of the republic.
Although states call themselves republics, they cannot truly be so, because the weapon—that is, the purpose of harm—cannot be made public. To make it public is, in fact, to make it universal. For this reason, the system of states inevitably includes secrecy and the mystification of their subjects. In contrast, the functioning of the republic is based on the dissemination of the purpose or rationale of what is universally proposed, and apart from weapons, there is no contradiction among us, for everything is meant to serve us.
Publicity and transparency are also guarantees—and mechanisms of accountability—that ensure there is no deceit, harm, confusion, or ill intent, but only benefit for all.
For a world republic
Who we are
We promote human inclusive decision-making for the common good.
Our Mission Statement
We promote a World Republic
Our Goal
Human peace and concord.
Message for reconciliation
1 - The weapon is the same as the war
And if none prevail, war follows – whether preventive, indirect or direct – which is ‘the attempt or action to disarm the enemy’. The weapon does not subdue by its actual use (death, destruction) but by its power – its actual use is anticipated.
And its potency is its mere existence – already given in nature and to which humans adapted. The weapon is the ultimate human production in every time and place (also in the future that we anticipate) and the real object of everything that is made; cities, infrastructures, inventions, technologies…, although it does not share with us today, we know from the past that everything seeks to reinforce the weapon.
2 - The purpose of the harm is not shared publicly.
All humans are incorporated into an armed unit (and/or state), a system of hierarchical submission, or total inequality (injustice), which deprives them of freedom and humanity.
If one person does wrong: harms another, and this is made public all condemn it, for justice, peace, as well as cooperation for mutual benefit is the common interest, but exploiting others so that the weapon is strengthened and harming and killing the enemy is rewarded.
And if someone refuses to exploit or kill others they are forced to obey orders or penalised or even executed as deserters, so deception and violence are prevalent in our relationships.
Since their origin, armed units have manifested themselves through ideologies that their subjects have to learn in schools and other means, making it difficult for them to face reality, preventing them from understanding each other and only showing submission to a weapon or alliance.
3. Disarmament is universal
Inclusive decision making results in the common good and prevention of harm.
But the first inclusive decision has to be disarmament, which is only possible with the cooperation of all and therefore only possible today, as partial disarmament would only result in serving another weapon.
That is why inclusiveness as the way to human peace and concord, though well known to the sages of the past, has not been taught to us, for it was not only unfeasible, but would have weakened the party spreading it.
Now that all humans are in contact, let us reconcile ourselves by sharing this message and let us replace submission to the weapon by public decision making (inclusive, universal), stopping all arms development and initiating disarmament, for weapons are only one for another, let us all cooperate now to transform swords into ploughshares.
It’s our time
Mozi (475 BC – 221 BC) is the most important Chinese philosopher. He flourished during the period known as the Hundred Schools of Thought. The Mozi is an anthology of writings traditionally attributed to Mozi and his followers. His doctrine is known as the policy of Universal Love and Inclusive Care.
Mozi understands that partiality or exclusive decision-making (別) is the cause of the world’s calamities because it leads us to confrontation. However, if we live in the same community, the logical consequence will be to treat others as we wish to be treated, that is, Universal Love.
(Mozi, Book IV, I-3,4)
“The thief robs other families in order to gain advantage for his own family. Since he loves only his own family and not others, the thief does violence to others in order to benefit himself. And the reason for all this is lack of love. And those who love their own state and not others, attack other states in order to benefit their own. And when we examine the causes, we find that they all arise from lack of mutual love….. When each person regards other people as his own person, who will steal? When each person regards the states of others as his own, who will invade?”
(Mozi, Book 4, III -2)
Mozi continued: Whoever criticizes others must have something to replace it. Criticism without suggestion is like trying to stop a flood with a flood and put out fire with fire. It will surely be of no avail. Mozi said: Partiality must be replaced by universality. But how can partiality be replaced by universality?….. We have discovered that the consequences of universal love are the greatest benefits of the world and the consequences of partiality are the greatest calamities of the world; this is why Mozi said that partiality is wrong and universality is right..
(Mozi, Book V, I-2)
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.”
Unfortunately the most important western cosmopolitan text, the Republic of Zenon of Citium, has been lost, but its impact was able to found Stoicism, the main philosophical school from the 2nd century BCE to the 3rd century CE, from the Iberian peninsula to India, or in the Roman Empire and Alexander’s Empire.
But the cosmopolitan proposal could not be carried out in an unknown and incommunicado world, so the Stoics derived this knowledge into a doctrine of virtue and finally derived it into Christianity.
(Plutarco, Sobre la fortuna de Alejandro (Magno), 329A-B)
“The much-admired Republic of Zeno, the first author of the Stoic sect, points only to this, that neither in cities nor in towns should we live under different laws from one another, but that we should regard all people in general as our countrymen and fellow citizens, observing one way of life and one kind of order, like a flock feeding with equal rights in one common pasture. This Zeno wrote, imagining, as in a dream, a certain scheme of civil order and the image of a philosophical community. “
(Meditationes, Marcus Aurelius, Book IV, 4)
“The reason that commands what is to be done and what is to be avoided is common to us. Since this is so, the law is also common to us and we are fellow citizens, we participate in the citizenship of the world, which is our city. “
(Meditations, Book IX, 1)
“The nature of the universe has made us reasonable creatures to one another, in order that we may do one another good.”
Discover our Blog
We elaborate on the proposal for human unity, its relation to the history of thought, the international political situation and reflect on and make proposals for the Congress of Human Unity.
Letter in Support and Demand of the Olympic Truce
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...
RECONCILIATION CALL
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...
WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE COLD WAR
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...