Our Approach to Peace

Everyone has his/her own idea on what peace is, how it should be defined and promoted. The fact is, that despite 50 years of passionate advocacy, there's no peace in sight.

In the last five decades, since the birth of the so called "Peace Movement" (U.S./U.K antiwar movement), the tireless efforts at leading humanity to a place of peaceful coexistence, free of nuclear weapons, have led to little or no results. The USA are currently involved, overtly or covertly in 135 wars, and nuclear disarmament is not happening., To the contrary... faster, more expensive, deadlier nuclear weapons are being developed. The recklessness of our governments on nuclear plants’ safety and their unwillingness to swiftly shift to renewable energy solutions have proven to humanity what kind of incompetent authorities we have. But this has also raised serious questions about the ability of "the Peace Movement" to produce substantial change, to transform inspiring speeches and initiatives in concrete results.

In the world of "Activism" peace is still widely seen, either as the quality of non violence in promoting social change, or as the aim, the mission of a small group of advocacy groups:

|   "Non Violence"   |   1: Antiwar organizations  |   2: Veterans for peace   |  3: Nuclear disarmament 

This approach is flawed, imprecise and it has been often challenged by famous public figures for good reasons. The obsession of linking war and peace perpetuates a narrative for which the 1% have little to do. Activism and the Peace Movement (whatever that means) are shooting themselves in the foot. Towards the end the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, a group of organizations shifted the debate on peace, glued our language, linked our thinking in the dogma of "War & Peace". Nobody has ever raised the question how this instinctive reaction erroneously emasculated social Activism from its inherent purpose of conflict relief and prevented solidarity and cohesion among all kinds of social or environmental struggles.

The whole Civil Rights Movement was a Peace Process and a Peace Movement well before the focus shifted onto "armed conflicts". Challenge a flawed approach is not our arbitraty caprice. This has become a necessity or even an urgency at times when humanity little options left as far as non violent strategies aimed at fixing its corrupted institutions.

Every Black-, every woman-, every student-, every union-, every civil rights- activist and organizer has been, or is, realizing peace by logic. The very purpose of activism is to remove our projected fears. "Peace is the absence of fear" is a far more efficient approach to peace, and it starts at the definition. This current revolution, embodied by all kinds of events and identities is noting else than a recurrence of peace. Ideals are profoundly important organizing tools. Defining them inaccurately (peace is the opposite of wars) prevents identification and empowerment, simply don't produce social empowerment. Evolving means often understanding what we do better and allowing empowerment to happen with better approaches.

Today, social activism has essentially no greatness, no cohesion, no shared purpose, because it doesn't know that its purpose is to realize peace. "Repeacing/Repeace" wants to fix this cognitive impairment, not for the sake of fame and profit, but because the obsession on wars and nuclear weapons is self damaging and paralyzing to "the 99%".

Reframing, "rebranding peace" is 1% strategy at the service of the 99%

Trying new approaches to reinvent what doesn't work is commonly used in free market/1% branding strategies. If they know how to make things work, why shouldn't we, the 99%? Forget about sales or profit. Let's just look at the huge image and results problem of a movement, campaign and strategy of social change that is a disaster. Fixing this image problem is not just a suggestion, but may well be one of the few options we have left!

What humanity needs now is not another leader, an organization or a movement. It has to look at the leading reorganizing thoughts that are here and have been around for ages. "Social activism" is the exercise of peace, "Social Change" is an evolving peace process.

If you really want some power and control over the 1%, how about you control the narrative? Now that would be a "change." The million dollar question will be: "Will the 99% realize how much power they will suddenly have?"