We have been taught to think in terms of nation, religion, ideology, or culture. Yet these categories are figurations: mental constructs instilled by the State and its institutions (schools, media, political parties) which, although they change over time depending on the expansion or retreat of the weapon, always divide us, set us against one another, and conceal what we truly are: human beings equal in dignity, capable of understanding one another by putting ourselves in the place of the other (the indistinct human), for it is in this way that we know, directly and with certainty, what is good and what is evil.

When we think according to these figurations, we do not relate to others as humans, as equals, but as different —both in hierarchy and as enemies or adversaries. In such a state, we do not engage in dialogue: we impose, we demand submission and confession to our figurations or beliefs. Or, conversely, we oppose and reject integration into another weapon.

Taking command over the weapon —over all weapons— in the name of Humanity requires suspending these figurations (perhaps leaving them as personal and private thought and culture), for a weapon is the same as any other weapon and, by its nature, embodies the evil of all possible weapons. Yet these figurations differentiate the weapon and obscure what it truly implies.

Our common human reality is that the weapon determines our decisions, governs the institutions that subjugate us, and pits us against one another. The weapon —its violence— is the true root of conflict, not our cultural or ideological differences.

Allow me to share with you a revealing historical case: the trial and condemnation of Socrates.

Socrates was literally condemned “for not believing in the gods of the polis (Zeus, Apollo, etc.) and (as a consequence) for corrupting the youth” (Plato, Apology of Socrates). In other words, for not accepting the official beliefs imposed by the State. He was forced to die because he thought freely, in a truly human way, and thus provoked others to do the same.

And the ancients, both in the East and in the West, thought as persons —that is, they REFLECTED— and they understood and knew that peace was human unity: inclusive decision-making that, in a logical and natural way, prevents and avoids the intent to cause harm, and seeks only (through cooperation) the common good.

However, today’s scholars and intellectuals work for the State. That is why, among the many thinkers of antiquity, in the West only two who were not cosmopolitan are historically taught in their educational centers: Plato and Aristotle, whose Academy and Lyceum were funded by Athens precisely to counter the impact of Socrates’ death —an event that had revealed the State to be the enemy of humanity, for it killed him for not believing what it commanded him to believe. The same happens today, though in a way almost worse, for now one simply loses one’s position and salary.

Our institutions, dependent on the weapon, do not cultivate humanity, but rather belief and obedience. They do not teach us to reflect and to think from the standpoint of humanity and equality; they teach difference, impose hierarchy or submission, and define the enemy.

This is why it is necessary for you to take command, to free yourself and to make peace —for as long as the weapon remains uncontrolled, you have nothing to say, since you must submit in order to wage war (the most effectively).

And if this message reaches the humanity that necessarily resides within you, it will be proof that it can also reach the humanity of all human beings.

Therefore I ask you to put those historical figurations — the nation, ideology, religion — on hold and focus on the physical reality of the weapon.

If you do not understand that reality, you not only cannot prevent it from pushing you into deadly confrontation, eventually as a soldier, but it will permanently subject you to its hierarchy and nullify you as a person — you, us, and those we call our enemies, with whom we destroy one another — something that can only be overcome if we deactivate it together.

This public act — supporting human unity — is the proposal for our liberation.

Without this act, by which you mentally subdue the weapon, acquire freedom and dignity, and publish this message from and to humanity, you do not merely ensure your incorporation into the weapon and into the State and that you must obey as a cog in the hierarchy — you are not even given a choice. Do not say you submit (freely), for you have no room to choose; it simply happens to you.

Now, every present human project and activity necessarily aims at rearmament; but if we unite and thus unite the weapons, they become redundant — for a weapon exists only against another weapon, or against itself — and those projects and activities will be freed from that urgent, overriding purpose of rearmament, and everything will be available to serve us, to serve Humanity.

Service in which the first priority is precisely disarmament, recycling of weapons and their resources, dismantling borders, as well as human integration and equality for cooperation in common good and development.

And its guarantee and sole requirement is publicity or transparency of purpose and, consequently, full agreement or unanimity; that is, it cannot be partial, nor harmful or detrimental to anyone.

And do not worry: there is no other contradiction among human beings than the weapons, because the usefulness of things is not tied to individuality but to our humanity.

By assuming your command over the weapon, over all weapons, you deactivate it in your mind and, paradoxically, you do not assert power over others — for it would be absurd for a weapon to attack and defend itself — but you establish the equality and human dignity proper and necessary for peace.

Once again: understand this well — without your command over the weapon (inescapably, therefore, the weapon exists and acts from its potency/existence), peace, and most likely human survival, have no options; for the mere existence or potential of the weapon sets us against one another and, above all, enslaves us in body and mind by incorporating us into inequality or hierarchy, where, as happens now, no one is responsible.

Assume Command, Declare your Freedom, Support Human Unity and Share:

IF YOU WANT PEACE – Human Unity

• The only way to stop the permanent or immanent violence of the weapon—which manifests as the mutual threat of death and harm—is the unification of all weapons under a single command. To that end, I assume this responsibility in the name of Humanity and hereby communicate it to all States and armed units, requesting its publication.

  Only in this way will not only bloody mutual destruction—war itself—cease, but also the virtual, ongoing violence that stems from the mere existence of the weapon: the threat it projects. Even without bloodshed, this threat constitutes a real form of aggression, as it deprives us of freedom, imposes one will upon another, humiliates the one who must submit, and compels them to arm themselves as much as possible in self-defense—thus preventing actions based on common sense and obstructing cooperation for mutual benefit.

  A ceasefire is not sufficient while the parties still possess their weapons. Under such conditions, they will continue to develop destructive capabilities and project them against each other. Any suspension of hostilities without halting the development of arms is merely a temporary truce—a pause before the next confrontation. Only the unification of all weapons under a common command can bring about peace, because the weapon only exists in opposition to another. Its very nature is confrontation, and its unification cancels it: it loses meaning, becomes useless and redundant. In this way, the true human interest—cooperation for the common good—not only becomes possible, but desirable and even necessary.

  It is not even necessary to begin disarmament or destroy weapons in order to achieve peace. It is enough that, through unity, the need to develop them ceases universally. This is humanity’s liberation: it allows and compels us to act in accordance with our true nature—the pursuit of the common good—instead of continuing to desperately seek the destruction of others.

  This understanding can be generalized with clear logic: from division, from partiality, from the current state—based on exclusive decision-making—arise confrontation, evil, and the world’s calamities. In contrast, from unity, from universality—that is, from inclusive decision-making—arise, logically, cooperation for the common good.

  In both cases, it is not so much about individual will, but about the conditioning environment or circumstance, which causes the will to act accordingly. We are mutually dependent. In unity, the same good benefits us all, and from it arise goodwill, good behavior, positive disposition, attitude, and all corresponding activities. And we will all contribute to it: encouraging, helping, advising, and influencing one another with an awareness of our universal interdependence.

  Justification and Clarification of the Personal Aspect of the Proposal

  If anyone asks why, in my case, this proposal has been possible, I must say it holds no particular merit. It is circumstances that have brought me here. The desire for peace and the will to live in harmony exist equally in all of us.

  By chance, I studied philosophy in the 1980s and became deeply interested—and alarmed—by the threat of nuclear confrontation during the Cold War. I later experienced that anxiety more intensely while studying and working in Berlin during those very years. That same interest later led me to study the most widely spoken languages, which took me to live in Moscow, London, Cairo, and Beijing. Destiny also led me to marry a Russian woman and today I share my life with a Chinese woman.

  These life experiences allowed me to understand, intimately and profoundly, that human beings are essentially the same in every part of the world. That there is no justification for our permanent aggression—whether in word, action, or omission. On the contrary, years and years of experience have shown me how we are all subjected to conditioning and partial information—necessarily prejudiced, confused, or false—which drag us along according to the conflicting interests of States—or, more precisely, of the weapon.

  Since the 1980s, I have devoted myself to studying and researching independently, connecting ideas until reaching the certainty of what is truly happening to us. And I am not alone: this knowledge has been shared by wise individuals from both East and West throughout the centuries. But this knowledge has been systematically concealed or ignored, because it does not serve the State. And similarly—and by way of illustration—it helps us to understand that the State, by its very logic, rejects the white flag, which represents the human option. That flag exists, but it is not available. The same is true of this knowledge: it exists, but it is inaccessible. It is not offered to students or scholars; rather, it is omitted and hidden.

  But the time has come for the truth—because truth does exist—to be revealed to all humanity. We possess abundant documentation from the human perspective. And now it is also possible to give it a voice. If, as Sunzi said, war is the art of deception (and of corruption, which it induces), then truth is also peace—because there can be no other truth than the human one.

  This knowledge, transmitted since ancient times, is available to anyone who seeks it. And with peace, it will become predominant. It is knowledge oriented toward the common good, not the particular interest of the State—it is easy to distinguish. I have tried to publish what I have learned, as a doctor of philosophy, but my voice has received no diffusion or recognition—as was to be expected. On the contrary, every possible space for it in the academic field has been closed off.

  It is also important to understand that the command I assume, paradoxically, does not entail power in the usual sense—it merely lays claim to the relevant and demonstrable knowledge. It is not based on coercion, threat, harm, or homicide. To conceive of a unified weapon attacking and defending itself would be absurd, just as imagining that it must impose itself on itself. The purpose of this command—unlike the usual ones—is not to develop the weapon, but to disarm it. And that disarmament is not imposed; it is carried out voluntarily, as a result of unity, of the weapon’s uselessness within a framework of coordinated cooperation and shared interest.

  My task does not differ from that of any other human being once unity is achieved: to contribute to disarmament. And disarmament is to cooperate for the common good of humanity, rather than in the interest of one weapon against another.

• After the unification of armed forces comes disarmament—a coordinated, reciprocal, and universal process of dismantling resources that, until now, have been desperately allocated to threat and destruction. These resources are to be recycled and redirected toward human well-being, care, and shared development. This, in fact, constitutes the effective unification of the world and the integration of all human beings into a single system of coexistence, as disarmament also means the dismantling of borders.

  There is no middle ground: the misuse or waste of resources is also contrary to disarmament, as it defrauds the community—understood as inclusive decision-making, the mechanism by which we avoid and prevent the intention to harm.

  Everything, except weapons, exists to serve us, and its use implicitly as such carries not only the purpose, but the manner, the timing, and the agent of use. Each object must be used in the most efficient and appropriate way; this human use becomes itself a reference of understanding, order, harmony, and concord.

  In this new context, merit is shared by all, and all are equally beneficiaries of our commitment. The first priority, then, must be to ensure decent and satisfying living conditions for all people, beginning with those in greatest need. This also includes joint care for the environment and the planet. The second is to promote the development of our capabilities—technological and otherwise—and expand our reach, for example, into outer space and the oceans.

  Disarmament also requires—and simultaneously promotes—a profound reorganization of human relationships, eliminating inequality and hierarchy, which are structural adaptations to the weapon. A hierarchy represents a constant threat, as it tends to absorb individuals at its base and forces others to organize similarly in order to resist it. In the new framework, command is no longer permanent, but circumstantial—based on knowledge and linked to a specific object or shared task. And this relationship ends with the task itself.

  Disarmament also implies dismantling discriminatory differences—whether by country, race, religion, or others—because all discrimination is a logical consequence of the state of absolute war, which truly isolates each and every one of us and drives us to ally and align ourselves into physical blocs of power. Ultimately, these consolidate into two, as a way to summon the greatest strength, according to our virtual anticipations. And it is also through that virtual anticipation that we form our affinities and adversities.

  Equality is not an illusion but a logical reality: we are all equivalent as rational beings (the logos inhabits us). And unity demands and naturally leads us to treat others as we wish to be treated. Equality—understood as impartiality and fairness—is the concrete form peace takes, just as inequality and discrimination are expressions of war or of the weapon. For to speak of weapons is to speak of war.

  The will to disarm—the will to reject the weapon, to not kill or harm if no one wants to kill or harm you—makes my command over all weapons your own command as well, for it is our liberation from submission to the weapon.

  The will to disarm leads us to understand the necessity—both virtual and real—we have for one another. It connects us: our well-being is the well-being of others, and their harm, our harm. There is no longer a distinction between you and me, or between any of those who join this common purpose: the will to cease serving the weapon, that is, the rejection of the homicidal intention or the end of ill will—even if that ill will, paradoxically, is involuntary.

  And it is our responsibility to uphold disarmament and its demands in our surroundings, starting with those closest to us. Paradoxically, this is only possible through inclusive and universal decision-making.

  That is why this will requires a form: its public expression. It is not enough for each individual, separately, to cease their homicidal intent. It must be done publicly and in coordination. That is why I step forward, show my face, and assume this responsibility in this transitional phase. But no successor or permanent structure is required, beyond the shared logic that has now been initiated.

  Once this will is made public, we will all become aware of what constitutes evil—the intention to harm—and likewise, of what truly benefits us—which is common—and we will know how to move forward on the path toward total disarmament, whose result is the human community. Because the encounter with the other as an equal is what disarms us. A weapon only exists in relation to another. The weapon exists for itself. Outside the logic of the weapon, among human beings, there is no contradiction: our intelligence of reality—our virtual relationship—drives us to live in unity.

  The current system of law and property may continue to be protected by the police under the control of the State, and it will gradually dissolve as the threat of crime or theft disappears. Just as weapons cease to exist when they no longer face one another—and this is what we achieve immediately with unified command—crime, too, will cease to have reason to exist, as disarmament brings with it structural reforms.

  No one will be stripped of their rights or property—that too would be violence—but understood as a means of production in service of the common good, its use will seek maximum utility. This also benefits the possessor, as the common interest will guide even the use of others’ resources or property, and ownership will become irrelevant. Meanwhile, consumer goods may be enjoyed far more freely when the owner no longer has to dedicate part of their resources—or their attention—to protecting them.

• The guarantee that no one can abuse this historic moment—and that there is no turning back—lies in the universal publicity of these conditions of peace, which are for everyone and involve everyone. Publicity, transparency, and openness are, in fact, the very forms of inclusive decision-making, without which such inclusivity cannot exist.

  Each person must accept that any intention to develop or serve the weapon—that is, any homicidal intention—can no longer be justified by the threat posed by others. Therefore, it must be considered a criminal act, to be rejected by all and prevented by all possible means.

  While, as previously mentioned, unity will naturally lead us to care for, encourage, and support one another in ethical and cooperative behavior, it is also possible—especially during the transitional phase or disarmament process—to accompany this change with incentives or rewards for behaviors most beneficial to the community. However, these must now be oriented toward universal human interest, not partial or national interests.

  Similarly, it may—or may not—be appropriate to establish a universal currency. Perhaps the inheritance of property (especially consumable goods, which could include money) should be allowed—or perhaps not. These decisions must be made through public, inclusive, and reasoned processes, guided by shared logic and oriented toward common goals. Judgments must be collective, in light of the common good of humanity, considering both the present generation and future ones. But decisions must be made unanimously—that is, without any objection. Resources and usage options are limited, so there is little risk of wide dispersion of viewpoints, and the chosen option should be the one considered most beneficial to all. Objections must be reasoned and aimed at the common good. Unanimity does not mean perfection; it means transparency and a shared logic.

  The universal publicity of the decision-making process and its goals will be the foundation of unanimity. Each person may intervene to improve, object to, or enrich the proposals in the interest of all humanity. It is logical, however, that experts in each field formulate the proposals for change and development—but always for the common good. Logical capacity—human logos—is the same in all of us: it tells us clearly what is right and what is wrong. And today, it also tells us clearly and unmistakably that the weapon is evil, and its alternative is the good.

• Since this letter is public—or, at the very least, is not being secretly sent to the Secretary-General of the UN—all citizens of the world are invited to support this proposal, if they so wish and are able to do so.

  However, as has been explained, we cannot expect a direct response from each individual unless it is universal and simultaneous, since the weapon imposes a logic that silences sincere and human will. Furthermore, misinformation reigns, as a result of that same partial will. Each person, even if they know that the weapon—whose purpose is homicide—is evil, also believes that there is no alternative. They simply believe they are not free, that they are subject to that condition. Until an alternative such as the one presented here appears—one which I hope will be understood as soon as possible.

  As for current political debates—national or international—and the concerns of the present, we cannot now afford to divert attention toward other issues, such as climate change, artificial intelligence, or any other emergency. The fundamental human problem is the violence that overshadows everything. And once this is resolved, the rest may also be resolved—or at least, we will be able to face it together with the best possible response.

  More than that: at this moment, in which tension is rising inexorably, we are moving toward an increasingly inevitable confrontation. And any confrontation involving weapons as powerful as those now in existence could lead to our extinction.

  This final statement leaves no room for further evasion. This proposal must be considered seriously and sincerely. I remain at your full disposal for any clarification or detail, and I await your most prompt response.

  Thank you for your attention.
  Manuel Herranz Martín
  Mijas, July 22, 2025

• That in our current state of global contact and communication, the only thing preventing inclusive decision-making is weaponry, organized into armed units or states—to which all humans are subjected and which we serve. Since the purpose of weapons is to kill and harm, the interests of states or armed units are essentially opposed, and the improvement of one is to the detriment of the others (their cooperation is essentially directed against third parties).
• Now, it is the responsibility of each person to reject any homicidal or harmful intent or purpose—provided that everyone else does the same—and also to communicate this and persuade others to reject such ill will under the same condition.
• Whoever now prioritizes what they believe (that which separates us) over what they know is cursed and unworthy before Humanity, for they drive us all toward genocide and possibly extinction.
• No one is to be coerced or forced—such action would be contradictory. This is solely about awakening the conscience of what evil is, and making that awareness, as soon as possible, universal.

From this awareness follows the following:

• To pursue joint disarmament and allocate all resources to the common good: first, to meet human needs; second, to develop our potential and reach.
• Decision-making, as well as the purpose of these decisions, shall always be universally public and unanimous, so that every human being may improve or object to them in good faith.

For any questions, we can discuss them publicly at @HumanUnityMove1 or you may write to manuel@whiteflag.info

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.

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.

LETTER EN