Thank you for your visit
In this site we promote PEACE
This is to say: HUMAN UNITY, ALL PEOPLE LIVING TOGETHER
(instead of divided in states or armed units)
It is not a question of ideology or a proposal for social organization, because peace is a matter of will –everybody wants to live in peace- peace, harmony is a question of circumstances:
If we unite, if we live together, how could be there armies? Not even a single army, because an army does not make sense without opposite armies. Even more, we can forcast that there will be not even weapons because our common sense would not consent production or possession of objects for killing.
And, what is in fact to unify? No other thing than dismantling together frontiers and armies.
If we live together we will distinguish evil –this is harm and what it is there for harming- and good –as mutual service and cooperation- as distinct and clear as we distinguish now white from black or bitter from sweet.
And we all will share this common sense and will promote it on others by praising and rewarding the good unanimously.
Currently, however, harming others and entrepreneurship for harm, is our priority and, therefore, in the world rules the motto si vis pacis parabellum – if you want peace, prepare for war- actually arm yourself more and more ad infinitum.
It is that condition of division what makes us to behave like that and not a will and this is also the cause that we exploit each other organized in hierarchical or pyramidal systems, since this organization is needed to affront others organized this way too. So that in the civil society we are induced to accumulate ‘private property’ also ad infinitum.
Indeed, to live together no only means to dismantling frontiers and armies, it also means to end with deprivation, the virtual effect of weapon. Currently to possess something –what we call, private property- is actually to deprive of it to the rest of the world, but this possession is nothing else than assignment of the army sovereignty, the only object necessarily private and therefore, to eliminate weapons or armies is the same as to build the Human Community.
Even if we tend to consider only weapons activity as something bloody or destructive, the weapon is acting permanently acting; when a war ends the army keep on working impossing its will on the defeated or dissarmed side, therefore wars are so cruel, both sides know what is beyond war´s end. If someone points to us a gun –as also when someone deprive us from food- he is forcing us, even there is not blood or violence to be seen. It is enough to anticípate weapons effect. And this is what the humans found in nature and anticipated and reacted to weapons existence giving to it upmost priority on top of anything else, and therefore war has been our condition, state or circumstance any time and any place and weapons our main production. “It is the same arms or war", says Cervantes in the Speech on Arms and Letter in the Quixote. Obviously, it is best all cooperation for mutual and common benefit, but this existence of weapons and its effect anticipation, even if unconsciously, prevent us from doing so.
Historically human unity and its consequences: humanity in its meaning of feeling and behavior towards other humans, besides state action to prevent and hide it when appeared- was difficult to think given the incognita of the world and the people in it as it happened with Mohist school in old China, but today, once the whole world is fully revealed and all people is under our immediate reach we can well propose human unity under the right conditions for it.
Human unity or disarmament is not so risky or dangerous, since it can be achieved only in agreement with all human beings. In opposite to what sometimes might have been proposed –to the other side- unilateral disarmament is useless because it would be as being defeated, this is to serve and integrate another armed unit which immediately and without any remorse would absorb the disarmed one
Apart from weapons, everything is there to serve us and using and employing objects, things or humans work implies a common sense or objective understanding to all human beings so that we all know clearly how and by whom they should be used or consumed. We do not no another contradiction between us but the weapon
Just with stopping new production and development of new weapons a great amount of resources would be liberated able to satisfy many more human needs and desires. Above all, it is clear that human misery is not a question of means shortages but a question of deprivation –we have resources for all more than enough.
Those who promote human unity, will be able son to stop current violence since we are (pacific) part of both sides, while nowadays everyone perceives and acts in a conflicto as part of the army or state he belongs to.
But, how to start the process of human unity? Obviously spreading human unification proposal.
After it, the first and simple first step is stopping new investment in weapons development, funds to be used in humanitarian purposes…., armies shall start then dismantling together, reciprocally, proportionally….but meanwhile its resources can help in developing depressed areas and in other humanitarian activities.
Certainly, there is only one part which requires unilateral effort and this is, first of all, spreading human unity proposal, living together proposal to those who do not know about it. If you understand it, others will understand too.
I want to tell you my history, since this is an initiative I have to assume personal responsibility for it, but I have not personal merit whatsoever, simply I lived some exceptional circumstances. Look:
Thought humanity has always suffered the scourge of war, when I was young –the time of the highest intensity of Cold War- as an insatiable newspapers reader I was very impressed and worried about the possibility of Humanity auto annihilation and condired most urgent and needed to find a way out.
I studied philosophy and when cursing PhD I moved to (West) Berlin, then divided by the Wall, where my motivation for peace increased living in the epicenter of the Cold War, then soviets agents contacted with me ready to help my peace enterpreneurship, but this made me clear and present the fundamental tragedy the world suffers: our force or violence relations makes that if you are pacific, even human in a moral sense or even more, sincere with yourself and with the truth about humanity, you are harming your side and you are benefiting the other side, independently what side you are in. It seemed nothing could be done!
However, I could not and did not stop looking for a way out to this terrible human condition, I travelled and studied the main languages and cultures and in all of them I perceived intelligence of the tragedy and now I have full understanding that the way to overcome our lack of communication and understanding is human unity proposal, we have to invite all others to simply live together.
In old China, in the V century BC, it was anticipated by Chinese thinkers, simply it was premature to put it into practice since they would not know about the world limits and world people, particularly since they were under attack of the chivalry of nomad people who would enter kill, plunder and fly into the limitless wasteland of Siberia
"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." (Book IV. Against Offensive War I, 2)
Mozi doctrine is know as the "Universal Love Policy”, but that love is not a result of a will as presented in the Idealist West but the result of the condition, circumstance of universality or living all together, therefore Mozi does ever say “love each other”, but repeat again and again: 兼以易別 -"universality shall substitute partiality” and clearly exposes how the cause of evil is that condition of partiality or world division in states and the cause of good is universality or living all together.
Certainly, as Mozi also says, in the world confusion reigns and, as a result of our war circumstances, cultural ideological figurations have to be also overcome. Those cultures exalt sacrifice, exalt the great killers or heroes, those who contributed to their army work. But if we unite or simple propose, think about it, those figurations will simply disappear as smoke when fire is put down.
HOW WILL WE MAKE THIS PROPOSAL TO THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT?
This question arise because the state cannot be our departure point, on the contrary, the state need partisans –militants- instead of humans, universal.
However, as users and consumers, we have immediate freedom for choosing the companies and their products we want to deal with and, therefore, we can ask them for responsibility.
Indeed, companies try to offer the best they can in order to win customers, therefore we are proposing them to assume responsibility in order to be more competitive.
The current responsibility of the companies, known as Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, disregards common sense, it only refers to good of bad practices in their operations, independently of what could be the object of their venture. However, considered from a human or common sense point view, companies are basically good if they offer a service and they are bad if they are meant for harming.
Car factory Tanks factory
And, indeed, most companies are meant to serve us, therefore their responsibility lies in the human term of it which does not implies necessarily any change in their practices since it is the same as stopping violence unilaterally bringing about defeat and integration in another army. So companies adopting a human attitude could bring them to failure and irrelevance in front of their competitors
However, companies can express their acknowledge to Humanity as ultimate source of all rights and their consequent purpose of servicing it in the best way and this is now helping to spread the call for living all together, for human unity. That contribution does not undermine companies strength on the contrary it can reward those companies since those who already support human unity will prioritize our dealings, purchasing, cooperation with those companies as much as we can and also in the same way we will refuse dealing with companies who do not acknowledge Humanity.
Indeed, companies who know the alternative to war and do not assume their human responsibility are objectively giving way to enterpreneurship for harming, while those companies who support or spread HUM human unity proposal are showing their disposition to integrate themselves in the Human Community, this is, to serve Humanity in absence of violence and this way start to adapt themselves to this circumstance when sharing their disposition to their stakeholders and, therefore, become susceptible of responding for it.
HUM will on its side make public and transparent its relationship with the companies.
Something similar occurs with the people: the simple fact of proposing human unity is the right disposition to solve conflicts and generates immediate results in all ambits.
It is then you decision here and now to undertake common good cooperating with HUM in its work of spreading human unity proposal.
I hope you can understand all this clearly and act consequently.
Always to your disposition: email@example.com