Madrid City Council. The Vaccine

Dear friends,

First of all, I want to inform you about recent communication from Madrid City Council regarding our application for a meeting concerning the organization in Madrid of an open and transparent World Congress where to deal with human unity. I translate it here:

“From the Subdirección General de Internationalization del Ayuntamiento de Madrid, we inform you that, due to scheduling problems caused by the extraordinary measures adopted in regard to the Pandemic, we are obliged to postpone our appointment for that meeting.

Therefore, we are asking you to send us your application again from September when we expect to retake ordinary meetings and visits”.


Even though we all are interested in keeping safe and healthy, the World Health Organization, WHO, is unable to obtain and to publish scientific or solid information on the current pandemic. Probably, the info it gathers does not include its testing, proofs, which stays private, inaccessible to the public.

The public information we have about the virus seems to be quite unreliable for our protection, and we cannot build upon it to obtain the vaccine. Surely this is also the cause of contradictory information and wild protection recommendations made by relevant political leaders

Now, how can we make it that human protection be inclusive, universal? Keeping that question in secrecy? For sure, not. Who are we afraid of as to go on hiding it? We are afraid of figuration of life, false, a life that is not real. Who are we going to harm? No one, but the virus, of course. Who we pretend to benefit? We want to benefit humanity.

Well, it is not a matter of signifying ourselves with a hat or with color as parties do, but, again, with something unheard of, unprecedented; by using, appealing to common sense, by thinking, proposing, asking, calling for human cooperation in searching for the vaccine. This is:

  • All pharma companies who can contribute to some research about the COVID 19- shall share, publish their research and tests, as also their research lines so that they will no longer overlap and waste resources as until now, but they complement and speed results.

Are they thus working for nothing? Then what? They close and make their employees redundant?

No. That cooperation agreement not only has to be published but to be fair and efficient with the help and cooperation of international organizations as the chambers of commerce and other associations and institutions providing services to the companies. Those, as depositary of the agreement by which all those companies contributing with specific tests will be all rewarded by the vaccine revenues instead of just a single one, and a single state, takes all the bounty. Or, perhaps without competition, there will be no longer a motivation for the vaccine?

This step would be an experience and precedent for the Human Unity Congress since it put in practice and achieve the change we are looking for with human unity: to go from secrecy to transparency regarding human relations management.

Transparency can be ensured with a human registration center as the blockchain model. Companies can also create a bank as the recipient of the peace dividend and the seed of a possible world currency.

Read more


Motivation is all about increasing possession -private property. So, world peace, human community -which prevents harming purposes- can never be achieved because it cannot be motivated.

– Enlightenment:

Indeed, human resources are moved to work by increasing or decreasing individual property handover, and it can even be confiscated by bailiffs and forfeiture.

Now, motivation does not distinguish benefit or harm.

–              For instance, when I was in Berlin, the more wall meters I accomplished at work, the better payment.

–              Fines might be rewarded by a percentage

–              Qin regime would pay its soldiers according to the handover of enemies’ heads number and such relation between harm and rewards are usual in wartime.

–              After the war, with the distribution of land among generals and officials according to their contribution to expanding the state.

But a community does not only prevents harming purposes -to motivate them would be like harming herself- it must have good purposes. And beneficial purposes obtain acknowledgment -which is motivation.


Harming purposes, arms availability, were in nature before humankind´s appearance. And humans, like any other animal, reacted to arms danger generated by the virtual feeling of their injuring and killing effects. (Real experience would be too late 🙂

In fact, arms only eventually destroy, injure, and kill, but they constantly deprive, limit, prevent…And the arm is the motivation key point.

Arms become incorporated as an army (armed unit) or state, and it rewards according to distributive justice; more to those who contribute more to its power -destruction capabilities.

Unlike all other objects meant to serve, only arms are essentially private, because they can only deprive the freedom of others, but they cannot be meant to deprive the freedom of the weapon holder. And all other things are deprived to be at service of a single army only.


The case of the possible moon privatization/deprivation might be a good illustration of the case. Private property is not the result of an individual producing some goods and claiming for ownership on them but as the result of an army positioning there (maybe Trump´s Space Force). Maybe to adapt to this euphemism, hypocrisy, or convention of the world, private space flights are promoted with this view or, perhaps many Chinese companies became ‘privatized’ aiming at foreign markets.

Any entrepreneurship is subordinate to the state the venture is depending on because only the army deprives or prevents other armies from occupying or using anything available. It is not even possible something available not being private -deprived of availability to most of the world- because to stay available means to facilitate or allow a position and resources to other armies whose sense is to harm so that letting something available is like harming oneself –how could we?.

Indeed, the private property is not meant for benefiting but for harming. Resources exploitation is secondary to the attainment of a strategic point. It is that army positioning that organizes human resources, ranks, and it undermines and worries the opponents. Also, a territory´s control means transit and other similar taxes.

  • Evil

But, as people say; “we all need to eat”, so pointing out that not everything can be meant for benefiting or even worse, nothing can actually be meant for the benefit. And so it is the fact that nobody has time or resources available for the common good, since each one is working for her or his own.

No. We see from unity´s perspective that to eat is benefiting because eating keeps and fortifies life.

But by using “we all need to eat” we mean we are lacking something, we are in need and we need to satisfy it and this is what matters to us so we are busy with it and have not freedom or time for anything else but to accept state conditions and motivation in order to be supplied in exchange from being used, renounce to freedom. We say, we need to eat, but we not only mean food but many other things we need to live and to live better. Supplies covering for a brief time and under great uncertainty even for rich people.

When Rousseau analyzed an all state´s Confederation as a Permanent Peace proposal by the abbey of Saint Pierre and considered why nobody paid him any attention, he concluded that states can only have an exclusive motivation, it is impossible for them to consider the common good, it does not make sense for them. Indeed, if the army has harming purposes, how can you expect any good from it?

Kant also sees it. In his Zum Ewigen Frieden (Towards Perpetual Peace), in the Annex “With respect to the disagreement between moral and politics”, in the paragraph “Divide and impera” concludes that state aim is “to get more power by any means” and adds a note: “We can doubt about the possibility of evil in human nature…..but this fundamental evil is clear and incontestable in the extreme relations between states.”

The first line in Sunzi´s Art of War states that war is state life, but people life is something else, therefore I insist that it is the first scientific book.


The state regulates monopolies in its territory and also participates in the agreements on international norms needed for trade and international cooperation.

Those regulations do not aim at the human benefit as they should, but only about overtaking and conditioning others -it might be an alliance against a third party.

Those agreements expose the alignment of each country regarding an international order relative to information and technologies transfer, international technological standards, international loans, etc.

Current globalization seems to face the possibility of a Cold War`s phenomena which means stopping the flow of international trade between corporations of two trading blocks. We see technological and information exchanges among the corporations stopped. Corporations’ cooperation means to benefit and stopping of exchange of information means harm sustained on another possible MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) system or even hot war.

Corporations are transnational companies and have some communication means, so that they are in the position to point out the useless harm states are causing to humanity since those corporations’ products and services have to transform into security investments -destruction means or weapons.

In the past century, there was no alternative to states´rule, but now we can propose human unity.


We, people, are not determined to do evil as armies are, we just adapt.

And the motivation for setting up human cooperation can only come from our freedom – not from enforcement, state motivation.

And we find a small space for our own election or freedom in the products and services offered by competing companies.

Consumption assumes we, people, are able to be responsible and, therefore, companies marketing is like a human; friendly to the people and to nature, according to human wishes and what we need and require.

We know about those products or services via commercials, since companies want and need to inform about their innovations.

However, what we actually choose is their exclusivity, their monopoly, and for it we pay –cooperate with the companies- and we participate in their monopoly since in this way we express our status or social value according to distributive justice.

The state honors and shows in this way those who serve its purposes. Confucius and Mozi understood clearly the meaning of luxuries, decorative and useless things and the first one fomented it, while the second one, whose teachings were universal love, opposed it.

The fact is that those human promises –adds- are not accomplished and we do not obtain a real benefit, because ads only produce emotions or experiences similar to reveries (behind it addictions), while reality keeps the same inequality and discrimination (discrimination is war).

(And, what are those reveries? Those Socrates died against, those Kant wrote so much to put their limits and Cervantes cleared it all by making Don Quixote fight against windmills).

Reality is only within space and time, so we are proposing and calling for a meeting on human unity (common security) in Madrid in Fall 2021. Informing about it, it is enough to succeed and then eliminate the motivation secret (harming purposes)


Kant´s Zum Ewigen Frieden ends with Appendix II titled “How the transcendental concept of public law harmonizes morality with politics”

“Having set aside everything empirical in the concept of civil or international law (such as the wickedness in human nature which necessitates coercion), we can call the following proposition the transcendental formula of public law: “All actions relating to the right of other men are unjust if their maxim is not consistent with publicity.”…..

“Now we need to know the condition under which these maxims, agree with the law of nations, for we cannot infer conversely that the maxims which bear publicity are therefore just, since no one who has decidedly superior power needs to conceal his plans.”

“In this regard, I propose another affirmative and transcendental principle of public law, the formula of which is: All maxims which stand in need of publicity in order not to fail their end, agree with politics and right combined. For if they can attain their end only through publicity, they must accord with the public’s universal end, happiness;”


The motivation for pursuing human benefit is only universal acknowledgment, appreciation.

Motivation impulses we to assume risks because innovation is to displace previous assumptions put first under question.

Now, are there any corporations supporting human unity? Those are informing about human unity call because the alternative to war only needs to be published, thus, it will be accepted by all.

Indeed, only those corporations supporting human unity deserve our acknowledgment, appreciation, – payments, purchases, rewards- because they are ready to become human common property since human unity eliminates the armies (depriving cause) and it means the human community.

Armies are only because of each other, there is no other use for them.

So, those corporations’ services and products are not only valuable for being innovative -improve our potential- but also because they have the disposition to become universal -human property as much as they become transparent too (this is the only regulation, so are they responsible). Is not it a business? And, it is not a good one? Was not property what motivated -or rather worried- us all?

Corporations` human unity call is not only addressed to their outside, this is; to their clients, suppliers, shareholders, but also to their human resources (this is leadership about), so ending with the motivation secret and allowing them to work voluntarily –instead of being manipulated as tools.

Once this information on the human unity call is shared, human unity will be no longer depend mostly on some free time of a few people as it is now, but it will be our daily occupation and work, everybody´s task in their different activities and posts, as politicians, entrepreneurs, staff, civil servants….Indeed, everyone is invited -and needed.


The Intermediate is the Universal now

Confucius’ Analects exposes several times the Silver rule of Ethics based on equality: “do not do to others what you would not like for yourself” but that rule is contested by the so-called Rectification of the Names doctrine, where human relations are unequal as we can see, he says, in the clear cases of a father and a son, a husband and a wife, older and younger brother, a ruler and his subjects, etc., those corresponding to hierarchical systems, such as the state.

Mozi opposes Confucius’s ethical proposal because inequality or discrimination is the cause of chaos, calamity, violence, and war (Heaven has made the world this way -we are free, Mozi says) and he promotes instead the Universal Love policy which is the general application of the Golden Rule, “do unto others what you would like for yourself”. The problem with it is that it can only work if it is universally applied, something impossible in the past because the world and its inhabitants were unknown. But now we are all in contact and we shall make a deal.

No wonder, that since universality was not available, Confucianism also proposed the so-called The doctrine of the Mean or the Intermediate, and so did Aristotle too. Aristotle exposes the doctrine of the Mean in his book Nicomachean Ethics, both, Confucius and Aristotle say that Virtue is the Intermediate “The equal is an intermediate between excess and defect” and “this is what is prized and praised”. “Money, then, acting as a measure, makes goods commensurate and equates them”, Aristotle adds. And with globalization the world constitutes itself as a value-chain where the Mean -there where is the more added value or money- is the center of the world too (Zhongguo – China- means the central state).

And Aristotle, like Confucius, also distinguishes between two types of justice; the lawful and the fair. The first one corresponding with the hierarchical Rectification of the Names system by Confucius which in Aristotle has an economic application called ‘distributive justice’, this is; rewards are unequal -though proportional- according to ‘merits’ at state service, but, fairness, however, is equality and his economic application is called equity. Now, let´s better Aristotle tell us about equity:

“The equitable man; the man who chooses and does such acts, and is no stickler for his rights in a bad sense but tends to take less than his share though he has the law of his side, is equitable, and this state of character is equity, which is a sort of justice and not a different state of character.” Resulting quite similar to Confucius ‘benevolence’ as a way to alleviate rising inequality originated by law -and by its “oversimplicity” (Aristotle) unable to deal with the concrete, so that it is always in favor of the powerful.

But we are not talking about charity (Aristotle) or benevolence (Confucius), we are talking about the corporations becoming common property since by supporting human unity we pursue no violence or deprivation.

Matching our needs or desires and the money we have available, we find the Intermediate. Now, we are offering a new product or service and a new need or desire is to be suggested or woken up in our customers: human unity, which is nowadays attainable and we all have some money available to buy it since money commensurate all things.


Setting up human unity means a system of shared security, human cooperation, and joint, inclusive decision making, which implies no harming purposes but fairness and not discrimination. Such an institution cannot be financed from the states (unless by their ‘benevolence’, but surely other states will prefer all states to be quiet), but from the corporations, because they are transnational and can get their customers, stakeholders involved all along the value chain.

A corporation´s fund pays for a world open and transparent humanity meeting (Congress) where best world experts and most relevant companies design a common future. The result of Congress is binding for all humans

The biggest, most relevant corporations are the most interested in participating since they will design the future of their sectors (of course, at Humanity service) when at the same time receiving a huge investment previously meant for military development as a consequence of the current partial security system.

United, our need is not property, but disarmament.

Read more


The expression Heaven´s will (天志 Tiān zhì) by Mòzi is an important part to understand Mozi´s doctrine, however, in China students only know from Mòzǐ Universal Love (兼爱 Jiān ài) and Against Aggressive War (Fēi gōng 非攻). Those two doctrines allow for a refutation of Mòzǐ´s philosophy, while Heaven´s Will is not to be refuted since it is sustained by itself as the model or standard of Universal Love, but, on the other side, it is just speculation without any possible demonstration.

We found before the expression Heaven´s Mandate (Tiānmìng 天命) used by Confucius, most probably originated in the Zhou or even previous dynasties. That Mandate is transferred and executed by the emperor or Heaven´s Son. Mozi´s expression ‘Heaven´s Will’, however, does not imply order or mandate, but a will, a desire expressed in some given rules of justice without any executive designs. It is very similar to Western’s Logos. But, let us give the word to Mòzǐ so that he can explain it.

The information we get from the triads can be summarized as follows: Mòzǐ advices about how reckless it is to offend the one supplying order, this is, Heaven. And “what Heaven desires is justice”, meaning that on Heaven´s part, he “will do what you want”, which is to benefit and avoid calamities. And, what is justice? No discrimination, same as injustice is violence. In the second triad, Mòzǐ points out the supremacy of Heaven over the Son of Heaven and again advises about the convenience of following his will: “in the world, those who lack humanity are unfortunate” because they do not love universally as Heaven does; they are ungrateful since “everything is there for human benefit”. Mòzǐ also repeatedly exposes Heaven as a human standard for justice in the same way as the compass is the standard for circularity or the pendula is the standard for verticality. “What is Heaven´s will? Mòzǐ asks in the third triad: To love all the people in the world universally. To follow Heaven´s will is to be universal and to oppose Heaven´s will is to be partial, because universality is justice and partiality is violence”.

After reading Heaven´s will triads we understand that we, people, are invited to follow a kind of natural law, we all understand, emanated from Heaven´s will and not from the Son of Heaven as the rulers and Confucians affirm. But we have some more interesting expressions about Heaven´s will in the dialectical chapters. They are so-called dialectical chapters because they do not express or imply vital or historical situations, but just speculative reasoning which makes them more difficult to understand and translate from old Chinese.

In the Major Illustration, (Dà qǔ 大取), it is said that Heaven´s love to humans is more inclusive than wise man love to humans. And later we learn that also spirits are wiser than wise men because they can see for long periods of time, so spirits previewed the cauldrons lasting for many centuries overcoming dynasties, whereas men can only think of shorter periods of time as allowed by their lifetime.

Later, in the same Illustration, Mozi says: “It is right to speak of Heaven intentions regarding the tyrant (despotism)? To blame Heaven’s will for the tyrant existence is wrong because it would be to take what people condemn as right. Choosing what is bigger of what is beneficial, there is an alternative, but choosing the least of what is harmful there is not alternative. Choosing what you do not have is choosing the most of what is beneficial (universal love), but to leave apart or discard what one already has is choosing the least of what is harmful. This is to say; the tyrant is not the result of choosing (alternatives). And this was Mòzǐ’s world as it is our world, a system of partialities and also, therefore, of despotism.

This is all, I think, about Heaven´s will in the Mòzǐ. Now, I think convenient to refer it to the last paragraphs of the Canons (經 – Jīng), namely, B72, B73 and B74 in Canon II (According to other accounts which join the two Canons those are 174, 175 and 176). Those Objections accuse Mòzǐ’s teaching as perverse (opposite to nature), the three referring to the impossibility of knowing the world limits, the number of his inhabitants as also those people whereabouts and circumstances (B74 is not complete but easy to figure out).

B72: 無窮不害兼,說在盈否。


B73: 不知其數而知其盡也,說在明者


B74: 不知其所處,不害愛之。說在喪子者。

Own translation -from Spanish 🙂


C: ‘Without limits’ does not exclude (prejudice) the ‘universal’. The explanation lies in being completed or not..

E: No. Objection: Regarding the South, if it has limits, it can be ‘exhausted’; if it does not have limits, then it cannot be ‘exhausted’. If we cannot know if it limited or not, then we do not know if it can be ‘exhausted’ or not. And if it is full of people or not cannot be known. So, claiming that people can love exhaustively (universally) is perverse.  

Answer: Regarding people, if they do not fill what has no limits, it means that people have limits. And to fill up what has limits has no difficulty. People can never fill what has no limits, otherwise, it would have limits.


C: It is not about to know the number, but to know its completeness.

E: No. Objection: If you do not know their number, how do you know that loving people can be completed?

Answer: Some are excluded in the question. If you question people exhaustively, then you love exhaustively to those questioned. Then, even if you do not know their numbers, you understand that loving exhaustively does not present difficulty.


Even if you do not know where are your children, it does not prevent loving them. The explanation is seen in the lost children.

With it in mind, I would like to make a very meaningful and relevant contribution to our time on the understanding of the Mòzǐ. Why tyranny (despotism) has no alternative (in its actuality)? Because we live in a partial world and, consequently, a world ruled by violence and deception, where despotism is most suitable for it. Now, Heaven´s will is universality, but it does not come from Heaven´s mandate, it is something we have to arrange by ourselves.

The question is that unilaterally we cannot apply universality. How could we make inclusive decisions without knowing whereabouts, circumstances, opinions, desires, and interests of those we want to include? Furthermore, pursuing universality under the condition of partiality is not only impossible but perverse because it results in harmful for whoever seeks it. As long as humanity or the total of human beings are not simultaneously participating in universality, trying to make inclusive decisions or to adopt a human behavior brings about only ruin and defeat because confrontation does not stop if only one side wishes it and, consequently, the other side goes on using deception and violence as under the usual condition of partiality.

It is very clear that the Objection we have just seen about the world limits comes from the Legalist school. Legalism most probably understands common sense, but also sees that cultures, peoples, nations need to differentiate and for that need, they use some different elements from common sense and far from human behavior (as, for instance, the different gods in every Polis or state in old Greece, when Socrates was condemned for not believing in his city gods, he probably made them a laughingstock and so he was corrupting the youth). Every state, every partiality uses an exclusive communication system generating his own, partial account of History legitimating itself and also a knowledge inequality and a hierarchical or pyramidal command system, inducing fears or ‘pleasures’ (consumption) in the people as other ruthless strategies needed for efficiently confronting the enemy, organizing for war and manipulating people as it is particularly exposed in chapter XI of the Art of War by Sunzi; Legalism applies it in government.

Legist scholars not only held this view but rigorously demonstrated this efficiency when implemented their model in the Qin state which defeated all other six Warring States in just 10 years and unified China.

Indeed, Mòzǐ´ s answers to the Legist Objection regarding universality or universal love impossibility -since the world and its inhabitants are unknown- are actually somewhat lofty and perhaps somehow able to refuse the charge of perversity, but still powerless about the possibility of substituting partiality by universality by all people simultaneously. They take refuge to sustain their doctrine in Heaven´s will which is independent of real (space, time) conditions.

With it, we have arrived at the point where we can represent us Mòzǐ’s Heaven´s Will. We have studied that gods or myths were there to apply some form of causality to phenomena we could not understand. Now we know that partiality goes along with war and deception, while for establishing universality we need transparency, openness, inclusive decision making, cooperation, something we cannot accomplish unilaterally, exclusively, or even no simultaneously. Universal love is indeed desirable, but impossible, therefore Heaven´s will was needed and came up. -Such things might happen sometimes with Mohism like talking about spirits.

Today, however, Heaven´s will has become irrelevant and unnecessary, as we can actually see in the scarce new information supplied by Heaven´s will triads; it was there to supply the lack of actual contact between humans, to fill up the ignorance on the way to overcome those communication difficulties. (This could also be the case of the Christian God which emerged in a similar atmosphere of widespread cosmopolitan understanding in the Roman and Hellenic -Alexander´s- empires.

Today we all know the limits of the world and the people in it and their circumstances and whereabouts too. Also, we can immediately communicate with each and all of them. Now it is a question of calling them all to set up a human community considering everybody´s interest according to common sense, nondiscrimination as it was always envisaged by all wise people on Earth in history. So that making inclusive and no discriminatory decisions, we can all dedicate our entrepreneurship, endeavors, and cooperation to the benefit, advantage, and progress of Humanity, of each and all persons in the world, instead of being mutually and tragically forced to dedicate all our efforts to (violently) oppose others, fighting with windmills, as it has been up to last night.

Indeed, the question is very clear, Mòzǐ` s sound and healthy proposal of replacing partiality by universality, has to be put in place in an agreed, universal and simultaneous manner. And for this, all we need is to convene everyone to a public forum, to the public place, where our only tool will be common sense, of course, human sense, and with it, we will set aside unnecessary fictions, configurations, and beliefs which, even if always discriminating, many times no bad intended, but candid and naïve. Common sense (based on objective purposes) will give us a way to universal cooperation and love.

It is very important to understand though that some people with better understanding and capabilities can represent humanity first; those wise people or, according to Cervantes expression, discreet people. Those who understand (beliefs’ function) and are tolerant and, therefore, are not going to offend others and will love them anyway. Because they know those beliefs were created to cover ignorance or specific shortcomings of the past and are still alive in many people. But we know now that it is time to call for that universal forum of common sense with intelligence and wisdom with not one less.


Read more



Informing is sharing news in order to facilitate or to keep cooperation.

However, cooperation is not yet universal and, therefore, the underlying object of cooperation up to now has been meant to obtain some advantage –to someone else disadvantage. For this reason, information has always been opaque and the motivation of its purpose could not be published -made universal.

Also, as a consequence of it, information has always looked for affinity, alignment, reinforcement while generating difference and weakening the other. And, in this way, even those cooperating are in fact consenting or submitting to a mandate or order. This is the only possible choice, if any, limited to consent with one side while opposing another, and so goes it on until war.

Fake news phenomena is a good case to reflect or analyze upon for better understanding the role of information. We need to ask ourselves what is the true information, the other side of fake news, the right information -our information. Indeed, only the other´s information is fake, since, obviously, we will not lie to ourselves. Or we do? We cannot be willing to lie to ourselves, but usually, we have to fill up some lack of information with beliefs –figurations.

The most obvious aspect of fake news is false data and misrepresentation of facts because we set up our purposes and claims upon data and facts. So that (re)figuration of them aims at generating a favorable reaction towards the publisher, such as more votes for political parties or alignment and support to one side in the international arena.

Information is shared to promote the advantage of those issuing it. The meaning of a figuration, a work, is attained considering who has paid for it and what interest he has. For instance, according to Chomsky, in the US and in capitalist countries, the media is under the corporation´s control since only they are able to finance it. Therefore, the media always supports corporate interests. But, in general, the state is the biggest information issuer since it counts with official communications means.

Under the circumstances of cooperation by enforcement and irrationality, humanity or human feelings as a source of cooperation is wishful thinking. The widely assumed vision, for example by Chomsky, of the modern slavery abolition as a result of sharing a human feeling, misses that for some military purposes slavery is difficult to keep, as letting the women with the slaves, and, on the contrary, by abolishing it, former slaves can be recruited for the army. Quite a similar case is with the French Revolution. It apparently shows a Providence’s hand or a historical process or progress (towards always a better future), but it misses that its success lies, as with slavery abolition, on the revolutionary state ability to mobilize resources for war by recruiting all the population and so obtaining advantage on its rivals if they are no so ready. Modern ideologies are based on such palliative “goodness” of History.

However, the point of departure for human communication, as Kant points out in Zum Ewigen Frieden, must be a proposal whose features and its proof is not to be imposed and consented, but it achieves everybody´s cooperation by just showing its purpose and motivation since it suits everybody’s desires for happiness. And this communication is the human unity proposal whose motivation is to put an end to mutual harming substituting it by universal care and cooperation.

The communication of the human unity proposal from people to people is also a sincere communication since information related to human unity must be inclusive, show affinity and empathy with everybody without discrimination, and it is because happiness is also a decision we make to live up to our purpose. The truth is just sincerity and vice-versa because it shares all to benefit humanity.


However, personal communication vanishes, the proposal for human unity shall be published, made universal.
Human unity movement cannot apply for states’ means or channels to publish, however, the corporations’ communication means suits that purpose.

Corporations are dependent on the states. States grant them a monopoly on a particular supply and with it the right to collect from the people so that they can compete in the international arena, but nowadays corporations are transnational and responsible to their international users and consumers without discriminating by nationality.

Therefore, we invite Telefónica-Movistar and other world communication corporations counting on linguistic areas to set up a joint channel for the Call and Broadcast of an open and transparent Meeting on Human Unity. That channel will continue to serve Humanity after the event.

A Humanity channel has to be inclusive, show human empathy and affinity without exclusion or discrimination. That channel exposes clearly the purpose and the motives for cooperation.

And the first proposal and purpose is human unity, whose motivation is to substitute mutual harm by universal care and cooperation. If united, how could we harm ourselves?

For the unification details to be considered and published the channel calls for the above mentioned open and public worldwide meeting.
Beyond that meeting, the channel informs of all issues concerning human unity, security, and cooperation, including the purposes and motivation of any proposal always open to everybody´s participation.

The Humanity communication channel includes also the decision making system as it also validates the best proposals or initiatives. Decision making uses some criteria as objectives priority or even urgency, benefits, costs, resources availability, sustainability…. and, in brief, all we know is a human resource.


As users and consumers we are constantly dealing with corporations’ services and products and, therefore, we can require from them human responsibility.

Also, corporations offer their best deals to get customers and, therefore, assuming human responsibility shall make them more competitive since they serve people without national discrimination.

Current corporations’ responsibility called Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, refers to good or bad practices in their operations while disregards the corporation’s aim. Indeed, they are basically good if they are meant to serve and bad if they are meant to harm.
But now we are asking the corporations to take Humanity as the ultimate or real source of their rights since this is the proper way to serve people. And this is because if the source of their rights is partial their services are subordinated to violence, discrimination, and their service is actually meant to exploit people’s needs and increase their monopoly.

To publish or share information on the human unity proposal is enough now to recognize humanity as sovereign. This initiative, even if firstly unilateral, is not detrimental for the corporations, on the contrary, it adds value to their service because it can be so recognized by their customers. By contrast, such a move if pushed or carried out by the states, or armed units, can be only simultaneously implemented (and never unilaterally) because harming purposes cannot be shared, communicated, but just jointly eliminated.

Human unity results in the human community by universal and simultaneous disarmament and dismantling of armed units as also by the corporation’s cooperation by using responsibility and/or transparency; this is: no discrimination. As Mòzǐ says, only no-discrimination, impartiality, is justice or peace or order, something we have to understand well and consciously accept –that just was Heaven’s will, he added.

Each venture product or service (a glass, a TV set, a car, an app and so on) always look to satisfy the need and desires of the people without discrimination and any improvement or development of a product or service is humanity´s progress notwithstanding who has achieved or promoted it.

Human needs and desires are also quite similar, we all need to be feed, want to enjoy good health, be happy, go further…we do not need to argue about our common goals, we do not need politics to set them because we all know and we all agree about what we want.

Furthermore, we are not just passive bodies whose needs and desires have to be satisfied by those products and services, also our relationship as humans becomes impartial when we have a common cause, a common production, a service objective. Even if the reach of such cooperation is limited, we share all the info we have for achieving our common purpose; this is also to recognize humanity as the ultimate source of right, where you feel grateful and happy about others knowing more.

Read more


We, the Peace and Cooperation and HUM – Human Unity Movement- associations have applied for a meeting with Madrid City Council aimed to agree on a venue and a date in 2021 where to call for a Congress to set up human unity, this is; to the application of an inclusive decision-making system for the whole of humanity so that we will only universally benefit all ourselves and not more harming each other.

Hereby we expose the Congress concept submitting it as clear as possible to the City Council consideration as also to everybody´s reading it because it is addressed and open to all people in the world as it concerns us all without exception.


It will be live broadcasted, transparent and open to everybody in the world, while the Participants – experts and most relevant companies’ representatives in each area of common concern and interest- will meet in Madrid during 5 days, 3 of those working in the Congress to agree and generate human cooperation proposals.

We invite the Participants, and anybody willing to contribute to the Congress, to assume and represent Humanity. All the states are invited as observers and we apply for the UN cooperation as link and channel of the Congress with the states.

We propose the following Working Groups: 1. Education/Humanities 2. Development 3. Security. Technologies. 5. Women. 6. Communication. We think of about 20 Participants by area except in Technologies divided in Food, Health, Environment, Energy, Manufacture, and Mobility/Infrastructures with about 8 Participants in each subdivision.


The Congress Call is the universal communication of human unity and cooperation as the alternative and overcoming of the opposition and mutual destruction or self-destruction.

The Congress call is to be broadcasted by the Communication Group, which is also event co-organizer and the first Group to be set up, therefore we are inviting Telefonica-Movistar to join the Group since Telefonica-Movistar has the required world relevance and it is based in Madrid.

The Congress Call requires and generates a global truce since Humanity is part of both sides in the conflicts.


A human common and shared security makes military personnel, materials and investment redundant and this is the peace dividend or first humanity asset which is instead redirected to human and technological development according to the Participants’ proposals.


Inclusive decision making is not only important because it ends with harming purposes, but also because it generates transparency, as necessary for cooperation, and unanimity, since decisions are made according to a single best criteria, making redundant strategic decision making or by majorities as also private resources.


Among the participants in the Congress is created a follow-up Commission to supervise and coordinate the implementation of the agreements. This Commission cooperates with the UN and its activity is transparent and open through the global communication channel build by the Communication Working Group. This channel is meant to always enhance participation so that all decisions are evaluated and made by everyone concerned.


Inclusive decision making will facilitate our happiness, to be loved, and the lack of confrontation will not end up in apathy and indolence, since we have to care, improve life…, so we have to care about eating, lodging, health caring, environment, and respond to the outer space call.


The Participants in the Congress will be selected according to relevance criteria in their field of expertise, as also for their practice and experience, and they will send a short preliminary proposal regarding their suggestions for development and possible contribution to Humanity benefit in their area. That proposal will be reviewed and approved by the Congress managers. More info at


Participant companies shall contribute a fee showing their commitment. They will benefit from global visibility and prestige and become peace dividend or human assets receptors for developing their sector.


Proposal to Madrid City Council

We think it would be convenient to create a legal entity with an office in Madrid participated by HUM and Peace y Cooperation in charge of the Congress conceptual management

Telefónica-Movistar would set up a seat for the media in cooperation with the other communication companies Participants.

Madrid City Council, or a company on its behalf, would be in charge of financial management; as the budget, management of expenditure and income from sponsors and Participant´ companies’ fees, etc.


We, all neighbors, are inviting so illustrious people to come to our city and, as much as we are humbly asking for your support, we are counting on it too.

Thank you very much for that!

Read more

The world economy

The economy has no much secret behind so much paraphernalia. Nothing better to understand it than its story. And best stories are those having the best scenario. And it is particularly good the one marking the Chinese economic experience because that experience was limited to an almost complete frame, it was a whole world on its own.

In this blog, we have talked about the great intellectual effort made in the Warring States period to achieve unity in China. A lasting peace should have been the so much expected reward for it. Nope. The Qin dynasty, extremely adapted to war by the Legists, could not live on in peacetime and collapsed 15 years after grabbing total power. The Han dynasty took it over and, excluded the Mohists, asked for assistance and advice to all schools of thought on how to keep stability and peace in the empire. Thus, those scholars described the trouble caused by economic processes imbalance resulting in peasant’s revolts and dynasty collapse or sometimes the revolts just paved the way for a foreign army to control China.

Once peace is established, social inequality grows and misery reaches more and more people until they rebel. As recorded by the Hungarian scholar, Balazc, the economic process is detailed by Han scholars in the following way: the growing affluence of superfluous goods means decreasing value for some vital goods like food, etc. and those only having a small piece of land can only earn for their own survival, then, a bad harvest, drought, floods, etc., force them to sell their land and become day laborers, their number inexorably grows, many become redundant, outlaws…., go to the mountains until they find a military leader and revolt…. The perception of this inexorable process is well referred by the solemn start of one the Four Chinese Classics, The Three Kingdoms: “The empire long time united must break, the empire broken must unite.”

A similar phenome is also described by Amartya Sen referring to famines in India by signaling that those famines in rural areas were not caused by the scarcity of food, but due to the imbalance generated by the cities’ affluence.

In the West, the economy´s processes were much more diffuse due to almost constant war engagements between different countries and coalitions. Economic processes, however, were analyzed in the XVIII and XIX century, mainly by Adam Smith and Karl Marx, both taking the state as a production unit (according with sovereign nation state system). While in China state officials’ utmost care was to prevent innovation and capitalism in order to contain as far as possible the inexorable inequality growth, European countries could export their surpluses and this is what it is happening now with China; once it integrated in the world market by the globalization, it might also export that problem of inequality/misery/insecurity to others while avoiding its own collapse.

Economy links us all humans, we are all in the same market now, but that market is not rationally regulated, just the states participate in it competing with one another. The only options or economic decisions to be made are unilateral, however, since the economy affects everyone, a plan was devised for the whole world. It would start with a unilateral change somewhere, a revolutionary state which would carry on and out that revolution followed by an all-out final war format meant to bring about a socialist world, where there would not be the private property of the production means and so would be public or common decision making (also weapons, armies would not be needed there, I suppose –they thought too). That model was based on the French Revolution expansion experience. Also, revolutionaries had a new faith in History as the progress towards freedom (Hegel Dixit).

In the middle of this final war, the cooperation between the SU and China ended when Khrushchev adopted appeasement with the US and the revolution/dictatorship/war stopped. Mao and Stalin had a shared vision –as also fascist’s regimes had understood well their purposes and manners. For Mao, Khrushchev`s Soviet Union was “revisionist”, and became a “bureaucrats bourgeoisie”, who had quitted his historical mission. Khrushchev´s motive was very good: that final war was to be nuclear. Moscow thought of Mao as a madman since he wanted ruthlessly to push it ahead. He was talking though about the revolution in rural areas….

In the end, the socialist block lost the cold war, in good part probably due to that divergence between the two giants, even more when China coupled with the US. The land for those who labor it resulted again in inheritance.

The idea around private property veils the concept of common sense developed much earlier. At this point, we have to study Mòzǐ again. He saw clearly that discrimination is violence (and in time would result in misery and revolts), but nondiscrimination was something impossible to follow or implement by the state since the state (the armed unit) is a command chain meant so to face other states likewise organized. However, today it is possible for us all to use common sense because we can make jointly and inclusive decisions and we can also follow or apply them at the same time, simultaneously, being it the missing link of the past.

Mòzǐ sees that all things shall be there according to its use. Weapons are there to harm, so they should not exist and they will not if we live together. The rest of the things, all are there to serve us, some of them are more beneficial for all than others, so those have to develop more. Its consumption meant to human wellbeing, integration and common goals is its reward.

Currently, what we call (particular or individual) happiness is actually a justification of how our bodies are induced to blind consumption since it results in added value and increase of competitiveness of companies and states. For that blind and irrational competition we need to increase all the time production, workload, abuse of Earth resources a go together at a faster pace to the abyss. Happiness is to be loved, my friend, and to love too, this is; to do effortlessly.

In our current state of alarm, even if we are protecting us by isolation, it would not work if we were not coordinated. But it would be even better if those measures concerning security were not taken by the states separately, but by Humanity as a whole. And it is the same with environmental and other issues faced by Humanity. Our condition of being separated in states is a historical development and it is our current situation but we, as persons, shall not deny ourselves such an overall human cooperation, now within our reach and only beneficial for all.

We tend to consider that since individuals and states are production units, our better or poorer performance delivers justice to each one. This cannot be the case with the pandemic, so we cannot appeal to that argument to also justify the status quo of unilateral decision making. Even more considering the virus spread as a hazardous development and not as something artificially created to disrupt economic rival’s performance as has been happening in history, obviously under secrecy.

We can deal together with the economic measures to be taken in order to face the effects of the pandemic since it also seriously affects the world economy as a whole. While the circumstances of rivalry between the sovereign nation-states will surely prevent us from taking the best measures to protect and save many people lives.

Big states meet sometimes to make decisions concerning the whole world, but they go there only to protect and enhance their own interests, there is no way for them to assume a human perspective. Our proposal, however, is to call the best experts to represent humanity interest as a whole, as a person when is hired by a company can easily represent its interests, and make proposals for a common inclusive decision-making system which can be corroborated by all humans to replace the current system.

Our proposal is an open and transparent Congress on human unity where we can already start using common sense to set up human cooperation. Our guarantee is that we can do it only simultaneously, this is to say, you can disarm only if disarmament is carried out simultaneously by all others so that there is no risk. And also transparency is needed, how could we cooperate if we do not share true information? And we have to start by sharing and spreading this proposal made by HUM – Human Unity Movement –

Read more


Dear friends,

I wish you all to be in good health.

Today we lack it due to this human crisis. A situation indeed concerning us all and, however, we are not acting together because we do not have cooperation mechanisms, even if we see that we need it by exchanging info, sharing and rationalizing supplies, concentrating efforts, etc. We could do much better today for our health and basic security.

Also, I want to share with you a story that might entertain and enlighten you.

It is the story of a desire for sharing, for working together, the cosmopolitan desire. Even if there were very old cosmopolitans, their thoughts did not consolidate in a proposal or alternative then. However, after Socrates’ death, Western civilization always wanted to share, to unity, so it was Socrates’ impact on us, even if he did not write anything and all we know about him is by other sources.

The problem of cosmopolitanism is that it cannot be promoted by any state and, therefore, it is hidden in the curricula. So we learn about Socrates that he would say “I only know that I know nothing”. It is not that, best it is to read yourself what he says.  And we know about him mainly by Plato, who in his dialogue Apology, the account of Socrates’ condemn and death, puts those words in his mouth quite different from that “I only know that I know nothing”:

“Listen then. Perhaps some of you will think I am jesting, but be sure that all that I shall say is true. What has caused my reputation is none other than a certain kind of wisdom. What kind of wisdom? Human wisdom, perhaps. It may be that I really possess this, while those whom I mentioned just now are wise with a wisdom more than human; else I cannot explain it, for I certainly do not possess it” (20 d, c)

Let´s illustrate it, make it clear. Socrates would ask something like that to people: “then you say that this guy Apollo shoots his arrows to punish people, or Zeus ask him to shoot them to punish them, and so they die, right? How do you know this? I see some people die, but I have not seen those arrows or those people you say as that handsome Apollo or that uncle Zeus with his big beard….”  Quite similarly the Toledo merchants asked don Quixote for a portrait of Dulcinea, even if a very small one, to gladly agree or confess that Dulcinea was the prettiest of all as Don Quixote wanted them to confess.

Well, but this arrogance costs Socrates his life.

What was going on and what is still going on? It might be just that those accusers were very bad people? Why they cared so much about if Socrates believed in the city gods or not? They actually added it in the accusation literally presented to the jury; “Socrates is guilty of not believing in the city gods and thus corrupting the youth”. So it is, the youths have to believe, to confess, to affirm and to defend without seeing, so that they can blindly fight as fighting needs. Indeed, there was then a rumor, a story of the time blaming Socrates’ ‘shamelessness’ of having had a bad influence on the Athenian military expedition to Sicily, a Spartan colony at the time. They said the young soldiers were not enough disciplined. It resulted in a terrible defeat which in the end brought about Athens surrender in the Peloponnesian war.

Yes, my friend, our leaders, our elders, some persons in our community know better. They might have some relevant and specific information as also concerns on public security they cannot share, publish it; so, our media can only talk about economy and propaganda, but media is not there to deal and discuss real matters since they cannot be disclosed. How on Earth could we disclose what relates to strategies, weaponry…? We do not have a way out from despotism, no matter the political system, since, as Rousseau well noticed, it is the same despotism and war or both sides of the same coin. War demands faithful, blind commitment.

Socrates spilled the beans; war actually requires stupidity. Yeah, so is it, subordinates operate –become machines- through ignorance. It was then when that desire for sharing emerged among all Socrates followers, from the Cynics to the Stoics, to the Epicureans, and the Monotheists, since they did not work for the state as now, they all were cosmopolitans, wanted to unite, to share. And the same, even earlier, was so with Mohism in China.

Indeed, hierarchy implies a “more than human” knowledge on gods, rituals, history, etc. since it serves to differentiate and discriminate us and therefore it cannot depend on common sense we all humans share and it cannot be contrasted by experience we all live in the same, but we have to trust others, put ourselves at their mercy to defeat others.

But Covid 19 pandemic puts us all facing reality which is one and the same for all human beings, a reality which equals humans and call for humanity, a desire and only a reality in our time. Before our time it was just a dream, a hope, since for cooperation, common decision making we required simultaneity.

This pandemic will be won because we coordinate our actions, we work together, even if for the isolation. Any partial way is deficient, unsatisfactory and so it is for all human undertakings. Therefore, we need to wake up that desire of sharing, of uniting, as cosmopolitans felt after Socrates death. Socrates found his death beautiful because he was old enough and at the same time able to show his will was sincere since accepting it he could not have another purpose. Even though he understood well his accuser’s good reasons and he could not guess that humanity’s day would come today.

Mozi exposes it well with the expression ‘Heavens Will’ meaning that Heaven arranged that some achieving happiness while others suffer is not just unfair but impossible, also even if he did not know when our day would come about.

Read more


To the Madrid people, asking for their support for the celebration there of a Congress on Human Unity.

– If we make decisions jointly instead of each state separately, we will only benefit us and will not mutually harm ourselves. We summon experts in human common interests to agree on binding proposals for human unity and cooperation
– As consequence of human shared security, military disinvestment releases great resources against underdevelopment and for welfare, but most important is that, once without harming purposes –which obviously have to be hidden, all public activities are transparent and human common sense serves for decision making without political enforcement.
– The proof of it is this message only needing to be shared by you or anybody willing to represent humanity so that we become part of both sides in conflict and so achieve truce all over the world for the Congress celebration.

Read more

Dear friends

Dear friends,

Power is yours, please, make good use of it on the 8th of March by supporting human unity so that Madrid City Hall cooperates with the organization of a World Congress where to apply and set up an inclusive decision-making system for Humanity as we are proposing from HUM – Human Unity Movement. Because the result of inclusive decision making will be only our benefit instead of mutually harming as we have been doing up to now as the consequence of partial or exclusive decision making.

Women have the last word. And the first too. Please, say it. Human unity is a decision each person immediately makes, here and now, once understood the universal good it entails and that means also to assume responsibility for humanity and its representation too when you choose, decide, buy, talk…Even if unworthy of you, this message is given to you bowing and with both hands by whom admire you and love you.

Read more


It is very interesting to see that Confucius and Aristotle use similar ethical concepts. By the dog! We could think they were in contact. The main Nicomachean Ethics principle is the Mean or the Intermediate and one of the Confucianism Four Classics is, besides the Analects, Mencius, the Great Learning, the Doctrine of the Mean expressing the same idea as Aristotle’s does. The Mean is what society values most, as much by praising as by pricing it and does it so by comparing and refusing the extremes.

Likewise, Confucius (Analects) and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics) distinguish two types of justice. A human justice or fairness, equity, based on putting yourself in other people’s shoes and basis of the Golden and Silver rules: treat others as you would like to be treated and don’t do to others what you would not like other´s do to you. Then we have another type of justice, legal justice, which is distributive and meant to establish hierarchy, ranks. This justice discriminates people hierarchically like husband and wife, elder or younger brother, leader or subjects.

Mozi raised his voice against the Confucian system which supports a few people enjoying everything and having everybody else at their disposal while the majority have it difficult to live and stays at those few people’s mercy and at their service. Mozi also pointed out that the way to solve this discrimination and inequality is universality so that we can use common sense, rational criteria. Mozi explains well that “the cause of the world calamities is partial or exclusive decision making”. Confucius actually would agree with that part, but Mencius, a later Confucius follower would respond Mozi that it could not be “a society without a state”.

Indeed Mozi´s universality could not be put in place because universality or inclusive decision making was impossible in an unknown world, incommunicado and full of unknown people. However, that ideal has become nowadays possible.

It is amazing again that we can see at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics when Aristotle criticizes previous ethical proposals, he includes the “universal good” of his master Plato. Aristotle says that the “universal good”, is not real because everything real has one before and one after, something the “universal good” does not have. Indeed, inclusive decision making was an idea, even the Will of Heaven, as Mozi says, but nothing real until our time. Now we can make universal proposals, meant for benefiting humanity, and such a proposal can be bettered by different persons so that we see how the ‘universal good’ can have one before and one after.

In the XVIII and XIX centuries, the world was fully discovered and thus some intended to achieve peace or universalization. So was the case of the abbey of Saint Pierre who proposed a Confederation of European states in order to decide everything by arbitration instead of by waging wars. The benefits for everyone, including the kings and high officials, would have been immense, but nobody paid attention to the abbey even if he was so convinced that he tried as hard as he could. Some years later Rousseau was asked why the abbey did not success and Rousseau answered that hierarchy and war are the same so it was not possible for those officials to consider something which could not make sense for their identity and business.

Rousseau went to say that state officials wage war as much to the enemies as to the subjects. We can link Rousseau’s words to Aristotle’s idea of two forms of justice. Aristotle says that human justice or fairness is based on transparency and freedom so as when you sign a contract, you first read it, understand it and then you sign it if you want to. And it is the same if you sign a loan or a mortgage and so on. For this, you do not need any official because this kind of justice is solved just by any person, as Sancho would do in his government on the Barataria Insula.

At this point, we have to further inquire about this legal or hierarchical justice relation with waging war. Since war is about to harm the enemy, you need to deceive him, or, at least, you cannot let him know your purposes since, otherwise, he would take countermeasures and you would be self-defeating yourself. In the same way, the leader cannot disclose his purposes to his subjects, they have to trust him, give him their freedom and lives, and this is the situation we have to face now. Stopping partial decision making and implementing universal decision making or peace is within our reach since we all are interconnected and know the limits of the world and the people in it, but we still have to solve the obstacle of deception and its consequence; mistrust.

But everything was seen and foreseen. The final chapter of Kant´s Perpetual Peace proposal, the Appendix II, titled “On the harmony between politics and moral according to the transcendental concept of public right”, can be resumed this way: If we take away every content from the law and we keep only its form, this is publicity. Now, if a proposal cannot be published because it will harm someone’s interests and, knowing about it, he will take measures against it we have proof of the proposal unfairness. And Kant adds; it does mean that to be able to publish your purpose means it to be fair because if the one publishing it has overwhelming power, he does not need to care about the opposition it might cause on others he is not afraid of.

But, finally, Kant says that we have the transcendental concept of public right, the one able to harmonize politics and moral and he puts it this way: “if a proposal stand only in need of publicity to achieve its aim, it means that it agrees as much with morality as with politics”, “because it is in agreement with the universal public aim which is happiness and this is the task of politics”.

Indeed, we apply to that principle calling for an open and transparent Congress on human unity as we have already proposed to the Madrid City Hall and we are waiting now for an answer. Our public and universal proposal is as follows: let’s adopt an inclusive decision-making system (human unity) so that in this way we will only think about how to benefit us all instead of basically think about how to harm others as the consequence of partial decision making.

‘Inclusive’ means that all proposals are open and transparent as the one above, this is, that the purpose´s end or aim is exposed so that each person is able to better it or tell if she finds something inadequate in it or simply accepts it as her own purpose, as we expect it to universally happen with the previous proposal basis of all others, as also with the call for the Congress so that we are proposing it one to another and all together.

Read more