Posted March 22, 2014
by Jerry Alatalo
“If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.”
– Ayn Rand (1905-1982) Russian-born American write.”
“Until you have become really, in actual fact, as brother to everyone, brotherhood will not come to pass.”
– Fyodor Dostoyevski (1821-1881) Russian novelist
And why not? Both men are past the halfway point of their lives, both have taken part in activities with problem-solving around the world as their inherent intention, and both share visions of creating conditions resulting in a better world for future generations. Obviously, the title of this piece – “George W. Bush, F. William Engdahl Agree To Debates” – is intended to stir the imagination. The odds of two-term United States President George Bush and geopolitical author William Engdahl having a debate are about as remote as it gets.
Let me explain the reasons that such a proposed debate between Bush and Engdahl came to the point where it is suggested here. First, if such a debate were to occur, there is an almost certain guarantee that the most important issues facing humanity would be discussed. Because the clash of ideas held by these men will occur while both men hold no weapons, such an event would rely on and illustrate the highest and noblest aspects of philosophical work. Philosophers engage in the “study of truths underlying being and knowledge”.
By agreeing to such a debate, both George Bush and William Engdahl would be delivering a message of major import to the human race: dialogue, discussion, reason, and thought are the best, most beneficial ways for human beings to resolve differences. Former President Bush and geopolitical expert Engdahl, by agreeing to take part in debates, would set a precedent for solving human differences in a civilized, honest, and peaceful way.
Now, although a debate event involving Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl is unlikely, this does not take away from the logic of the transformative positive consequences for humanity that would come from such an event. Think about the day when, on any school playground on Earth, two young boys are exchanging ideas instead of fists to successfully resolve their differences. Does this way of looking at a Bush-Engdahl debate or series of debates open up one’s mind in a way that alters perception from ridiculous and impossible to beneficial and worthwhile?
Consider for a moment what these two men represent in terms of personal philosophy as they mirror precisely the real, on-the-ground, philosophical differences seen presently in Ukraine. The first debate Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl engage in could be about Ukraine: “The Best Solutions For Ukraine”. Now, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl surely wish to see the Ukrainian people leading lives of happiness, health, and well-being. Right?
In a very real sense, these two men would be the ideal debate candidates for discussion on world events in 2014. Their debate(s) would possibly be looked back on by future generations – written about in future history books – as the most influential debate of ideas in world history up until the year 2014. Consider for a moment how the profound contrast in world views and philosophies between Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl offers monumental potential for entire nations, regions, and large populations of men, women, and children.
Think about the good effects that debates between George Bush and William Engdahl will surely bring about. Most importantly, everywhere on Earth people will become engaged in rational dialogue that brings forth good ideas that will help to bridge divides analogous to the profound contrast between Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl. When Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl shake hands upon meeting for their first debate, an utterly magnificent, new, shared path will open wide for humanity moving forward.
Is one person’s unconditional love “better” than another person’s unconditional love?
As one who has listened to a number of William Engdahl’s interviews, lectures, and read a number of his articles, the video interview at the end of this post was enlightening. In this interview, William Engdahl talks about love – the first time this writer has heard him mention or write that small, yet omnipotent word. Now, to the origin of an idea suggesting George W. Bush and F. William Engdahl agree to debate.
Moments after hearing William Engdahl speak about love, the memory of former President George W. Bush’s appearance a few weeks ago on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno surfaced. While sitting next to Jay Leno a reference to George W. Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, came forward. George W. Bush told Jay Leno and America that his father’s greatest impact on him was “unconditional love”.
unconditional adj. without conditions or reservations; absolute.
absolute adj. 1. perfect. 2. complete; whole. 3. not mixed; pure. 4. not limited; not conditional; unrestricted: as, an absolute ruler. 5. positive; certain; definite. 6. actual; real: as, an absolute truth. 7. not dependent on anything else; considered without reference to anything else.
love in theology, a) God’s benevolent concern for mankind. b) man’s devout attachment to God. c) the feeling of benevolence that people should have for each other.
benevolence n. 1. an inclination to do good; kindliness. 2. a kindly, charitable activity; gift; beneficence.
So, if George W. Bush and F. William Engdahl debated, one can safely say that more understanding and coöperation would become visible on Earth. Perhaps humanity would take one large step closer to that place where it is widely recognized, acknowledged, and known that unconditional love is the same for all. If both men hold love in their hearts, each will show no hesitation and enthusiastically agree to take part in an effort to create a peaceful world.
“The thought manifests as the word; the word manifests as the deed; the deed develops into habit; the habit hardens into character; so watch the thoughts and its ways with care, and let it spring from love born out of concern for all beings… As the shadow follows the body, as we think, so we become.”
– Sayings of the Buddha
(Thank you to Blank337208 at YouTube)