What Can We Do Against the Killing and Destruction?
Global Cooperation Association
What actually prevents people to come to an understanding that they want to live? And that it is possible by communicating and electing two leaders competent to provide it; now that the communication is so easy.
The two-pole organization of the world shows how it is possible to reconcile economic interests with peacekeeping according to the Nobel's idea about the importance of the necessary amount of effective weapons. And that, with a bit of goodwill, it is possible to test this balance without harming people and with destroying the material only to a limited extent; this is advantegous for both sides.
Civilization could be, albeit more slowly, destroyed by degeneration described by Huxley and Orwell, when one of the poles prevails too strongly. Every monopoly is dangerous!
The "world multipolarity" would be dangerous, too: it effectively masks that effort of one power to command all, namely by blaming those others. Its result was the First World War and WWII. Even now, we see that a significant number of people in superpowers spread hate and admit the possibility of the WWIII, apparently denying that, after it, only such organisms as bedbugs and lower creatures would remain alive on Earth. Every war with killing means the same as stupidity of politics! Let us remind those citizens of their responsibility for that choice! Practical humanists, such as were presidents Wilson and Masaryk, can maintain that balance the same way as scientists use a good level of competition and cooperation; and prevent spreading hate. Good will cannot be economically nor militarily unilateral - it has to be balanced by the goodwill in the other fields, to respect copyright and exercise authority against irresponsible members. This is particularly a matter of the political level of both the Speakers of the poles and the opportunity to show, during their mutual negotiations, how clear and unambiguous are the positions of the respective pole. And both Speakers have room for the moral side - mutual recognition of merit.
Now it depends upon the goodwill of Mr. Trump of NATO and Mr. Putin of the SCO.
Can they both overcome the defamations from all those who are interested that they should not agree?
Why the UN or the media doesn't query them for a peaceful solution that hardly any of the two is willing to reject publicly?
Are their voters satisfied with actions of their goodwill?
What about an offence for failure to provide assistance by these two people?
Now, the world is small: if someone wants to arrange something through a chain of acquaintances with anyone else on Earth, on average less than four further contacts are needed. (We prepare translations of other chapters, now Czech and English, to German and Russian.)