To your most valuable and kind attention

CALL FOR RECONCILIATION AND HUMAN COEXISTENCE ON JANUARY 30, 2025  School Day of Non-violence and Peace (DENIP / DENYP)

Peace cannot be imposed by force nor based on deception; it must result from the voluntary agreement of all on true and clear terms. This is the goal of this Reconciliation proposal.

My name is Manuel Herranz, founder of HUM-Human Unity Movement, www.human-unity.org. I have been researching peace since the late 1970s. Although my academic career was in philosophy, the potential devastation of a nuclear war during the Cold War captured my entire intellectual interest. And already in the 1980s, when I was studying in West Berlin, I was contacted by the Soviets to support my peace activities. From this, I experienced firsthand and clearly understood that being a pacifist on one side benefits the other, and, more than that, given the human condition of a ‘state of war,’ everything favors one side or its opposite.

Thanks to the support of my family and my dedication to business, I have been able to continue my research independently. However, in effect, when it comes to addressing or speaking about peace, all doors have been closed to me, as no one is willing to publish or give you an audience when your effect will be to demotivate and limit their own power. Unless, of course, the peace is not genuine and seeks some ulterior political motive. My proof of this is that I have always stood by the white flag.

You may already feel like stopping here, but please consider that we are close to (self-)extinction, and it is worth considering an alternative, especially since here you are a person and not a ‘representative’ and, above all, because peace was certainly unfeasible in the past, and the good news is that it is now possible. Let’s achieve it.

Undoubtedly, war or mutual destruction is undesirable for everyone and is the worst, but peace is not just the absence of war but disarmament, and this is only possible today because disarmament is only achievable if it is done universally and simultaneously.

Weapons, whose purpose is harm, represent evil, the (undesired) ill will, but the weapon is in itself or, in other words, a weapon is by/against another(s), and there is no inherent contradiction among humans; we just need to demand goodwill or humanity from each other and publicly and universally reject ill will, the weapon; that is reconciliation.

Peace is Disarmament

“It is the same to say weapons as to say war” (Cervantes, Don Quixote I, Ch. XXXVII).

Although we attribute to others bad behavior and ill will, the cause of our ‘state of war’ or ‘absolute war’ is the weapon, because the most powerful weapon, without bloodshed, imposes its will on the less powerful weapon.

The weapon offers two alternatives: submission or death/destruction. If one side does not submit, destruction follows, war, “the attempt or action of disarming the other,” resulting in the destruction of one side, and the remaining weapons and resources are submitted and serve the weapon that prevails against other weapons, and that is what we call peace.

Reconciliation, therefore, is not just a ceasefire but the cessation of arms development supervised by a body of Humanity, to which armed units or states are subordinated, formed by voluntary individuals nominated by others in consideration of their value to Humanity and in terms of numbers and functions that best suit the objectives we set, the first of which, already determined, is disarmament.

Without the weapon imposing its regime—which is limited to strengthening itself and preventing the other from doing so—decisions are humanly inclusive, that is, public, open, and transparent, so we all participate and cooperate on equal terms with this body or government according to our possibilities at all levels and in all relationships, and we demand mutual responsibility for it. Inclusive decision-making prevents and avoids the intent of harm and seeks only the common good.

Weapons, such as atomic bombs, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc., are clearly for one against another and not for any other human conflict, and they manifest their intent or purpose of harm, for example, in the blade and tip of a sword, in the explosiveness of a bomb, etc. However, this is not the case, for example, with a kitchen knife or a stone, because they are not made to kill and destroy the other, and therefore, they neither submit nor alarm the other.

The consequence of this intent or purpose of harm, which is massive and unwanted by anyone, is that the weapon is the utmost human dedication and production in all times and places, including the future as we anticipate it. And humans serve it by strengthening it as much as we can while trying to prevent others from doing so. And not only that, the design of cities and infrastructures, research, technical advances, etc., are all subordinated to reinforcing this capacity for harm, though it is hidden from us in the present, we know it from the past. But now, suspending weapon development frees us and all of Humanity because we replace serving the weapon with serving our own human interests.

Currently, each person is a resource of an armed unit or state, in which they are deprived of humanity and/or freedom through their incorporation into a system of total injustice or inequality, the hierarchy, which denies us the ability to put ourselves in the other’s place—the means of justice, peace, and concord. Let’s not confuse this relationship subordinated to the weapon with ill will.

Incorporation into the state implies the unequal, pyramidal distribution of resources for living. Inequality is not the result of the greedy will of the rich, as is often claimed for political reasons, but the very structure of the state (a state can become wealthier, but its pyramidal system will persist, perhaps even intensify), because hierarchy is the mechanism of the weapon to hold its resources at its mercy and exploit them better, particularly to wage war or harm and destroy other humans; so much so that whoever refuses is harmed or killed as a deserter. Similarly, the money or means assigned to us for living is ultimately compensated for our service to the weapon—to exclusivity. A challenge for peace is that it has no resources to sustain anyone, and we all need sustenance, but reconciliation is making the truth public, which implies (almost) no cost.

Truth Reconciles Us

“Heaven suffers force” (Cervantes, Don Quixote I, Ch. XXXVII).

What is made public—and thus universally exposed—logically conceals ill will or the will to cause the maximum possible harm, as exposing it would undermine its purpose and alert the other. But mainly, the weapon is hidden because the acceptance of obedience is already included in obedience itself, and this is absurd and unbearable for a human being, as it prevents them from recognizing themselves in agreement with what they do (that is, their free being). From the very beginning, armed units have been linked to figurations imposed on those they subjugate. In this way, the weapon abstracts itself from reality, meaning its relationship with human life, which allows us to deceive ourselves and live in an illusion.

Thus, we do not represent the real weapon but its image, so the use of the weapon is possible, eventual, and indeterminate (dependent on our freedom). Just as it is falsely said that a stone is also a weapon (although it could become one, like an airplane), the ill will or intent of maximum possible harm and the constant and concrete effect of the weapon—depriving us of freedom and humanity—are hidden, denied, or unrecognized. And it is not because leaders subjugate their subjects; leaders equally serve the weapon or its necessity, which is why people change, but not their uniforms or suits, that is, their functions in service of the weapon.

Ideologies and religions are essentially slogans in this illusory world, as with them, we stage and signify our (supposed, but false, freedom of) adherence to an armed force or faction—which differentiates and justifies itself against ‘others.’ Here, we are all democrats, and in North Korea, they are all communists. But these ideologies neither change nor can change reality as they supposedly intend, for reality is driven by the weapon/against the weapon, and all weapons are organized in the same way to be effective, depriving us of freedom and humanity, precisely because humans are equal.

Here is the demonstration: if peace is not disarmament and is merely the absence of war (something we must confess to affirm our own weapon), then peace can only be submission to a weapon, a hierarchy, a figuration—our own.

That is the prejudice of organic intellectuals that prevents them from seeing the benefit of human unity. They promote figurations without realizing that, as they are foreign to common sense—in contrast to this very exposition that appeals to our empathetic understanding—they can only be induced, taught, and trained by the state through its schools and other means. If we unite, we free ourselves and liberate humanity, those figurations will disappear like smoke when the fire is extinguished. For if we unite/coexist/disarm, we will not admit secrecy, deception, and confusion through which we are currently governed, as imposed by our ‘state of war’.

Goodwill is the publicity of intentions—a necessary consequence of human unity, just as the publicity of intentions results in goodwill. Or does anyone truly and freely prefer to preserve secrecy or veil decision-making about what concerns them, keeping it private and the secret matter of a group or an individual leader who handles the general interest? Secrecy and confusion in practical matters are accepted because current decisions are exclusive, they make war, they seek harm. However, it is wonderful to understand that there is no alternative but to seek harm or good, that secrecy and confusion are absurd if decisions are inclusive.

The refusal to question the weapon generally leads to the ‘idea’ of the evilness of human nature, but the human being simply adapts as best as possible to their conditions and environment—and so they did with the weapon already given in nature. However, from the circumstance of coexistence, from inclusive decision-making, follows universal love (treating others as one wishes to be treated) and cooperation for mutual and common benefit, while from partiality, unilateralism, and exclusive decision-making follow hatred, confrontation, and inequality—just as now.

Something similar happens with private property, which many attribute as the cause of war. Private property—along with its pyramidal distribution similar in every state—not only would not be possible or conceivable without the (prior) violence provided by the weapon -the armed unit, with which it is appropriated, protected, or guarded, but it is a necessary consequence of the weapon, for the intent of harm is what is essentially private (inhuman, non-interchangeable), and everything else is private because it serves it. That is, not only is it that without A (the weapon) there would be no B (private property), but that if A, then B. From this, it also follows that disarming ourselves is building the human community.

Liberating Ourselves is Telling the Truth

曰順天之意者，兼也；反天之意者，別也。兼之為道也，義正；別之為道也，力正

The will of Heaven is universality, and opposing the will of Heaven is partiality, for universality is justice, while partiality is force. (Mozi, Book 7, The Will of Heaven, 6)

In the past, human groups were isolated, and decision-making was necessarily exclusive, leading them to confrontation and being organized into armed units. Now, the problem is that disarmament can only be universal/simultaneous, as partial or unilateral disarmament is not liberating us from serving the weapon, but only serving another. In fact, intelligent people of the past, those who thought for themselves, understood the human situation perfectly as it is presented here, but their understanding has not been transmitted to us (even they did not do so openly and directly), for peace was not only unfeasible in an unknown and unconnected world, but it weakened the side that disseminated this understanding.

But today, we can already reconcile, and to do so, we only need to resolve to publish—make universal—the truth or reality that we are mediated by the weapon. Today, since the dissemination of this knowledge is possible—once its reach can be universal and thus not harm any particular side—and equally, given that universal agreement is the condition for disarmament, this call in your hand is the practical, effective means of reconciliation and not something ulterior to it. Human understanding is the motive for goodwill, so it is now a matter of publishing it, sharing it, exposing it, and explaining it if necessary, and those who know, teach.

Indeed, agreeing with human reconciliation, with peace and coexistence, is to share this proposal and promote the Day of Reconciliation (and forgiveness) on January 30, 2025, for only if you publicize your goodwill do you manifest that you are free and that you free others. Its alternative, your silence or inaction, is your threat, that is, the inescapable mediation of the weapon in every human matter.

The plan is to share this message as much as we can until Reconciliation Day on the 30th and on that day achieve its worldwide dissemination with the activities and celebrations we can organize in gratitude to others for their humanity, which we need and to which we appeal for our own liberation.