Claim. SMM defines a true person as one whom everyone — good and bad, friend and enemy, Korean and Japanese — likes most, because anything truly true cannot have enemies.
Elaboration. The argument runs through a striking concrete example: Admiral Yi Sun-shin is a Korean national hero but appears in Japanese history books as an enemy. SMM says, ‘I do not admire him so much’ — not from anti-patriotism but from a definitional standard: ‘That which is true must be true everywhere: in Britain, in Germany, in America, in Korea, in Africa, and also in Japan. Something that is true has no enemies’ (2.1. What is the meaning of).
The operational corollary is ethical: ‘let us like even those who hate us.’ If you act kindly three times toward someone who hates you, ‘he will bow his head.’ This is empirically testable in SMM’s framing — ‘Try it yourself and see if I am right or not’ — and is anchored in conscience as the universal judge of true vs. false.
The definition has bite. It rules out partisan goodness (a person who is good to insiders but hostile to outsiders fails the test) and sets a very high bar for who can claim ‘true person’ status. Worth noting: this definition presses toward a universalist love ethic structurally similar to Jesus’s ‘love your enemies,’ but SMM grounds it not in command but in the logic of trueness itself. The criterion also pre-positions SMM’s eventual claim that the True Parent must be acceptable across all nations and religions — a high bar that critics will challenge by pointing to the existence of UC opposition. SMM would presumably respond that opposition to True Parents comes from satanic interference, not from a defect in trueness — a move that risks unfalsifiability.