On Taking Personal Responsibility for One’s Emotional States

Life is a pastiche, a process, a melting pot. Life is love and anger, hope and despair, understanding and intolerance, charity and greed, joy and pain, peace and suffering. Still, it remains always dominated by a suffocating atmospheric mixture of fear and desire which play together in a swirling vortex, each constantly influencing and reinforcing the other in the unconscious' mental realms.

We are taught to want from an early age in our infancy as needs are not immediately met. We are not taught to examine the reasons for our unrelenting wanting. Instead we merely accept it as the natural state of the human psyche. We want because we are afraid of not having, of lacking, of feeling the pit of emptiness within and the scrutiny of others who possess that which we seek. We fear these conditions because the ego demands to reign supreme, not just over the self, but over everyone. We seek supremacy because we fear that autonomy will be encroached by others. In the ego's wish for a place in eternity, it seeks to fill up the empty spaces where inadequacy finds footholds with the acquisition and attainment of personal desires.

It is this manifestation of personal desire, setting personal motivations and accomplishments ahead of everything else in the one's world (or cultural motivations and accomplishments when cultures express desire - whether militarily, economically, or religiously) which the Buddha warned as being the root of all suffering. The Buddha taught a lesson which is hard-learned - when our actions, thoughts, feelings, and/or intentions come from personal motives - we are in a place of greed, desire, and selfishness. Personally motivated desire will always lead to suffering.

However, to act altruistically, without considering what personal benefits or harms may arise due to a course of action, is the highest expression of love. This is everyone's highest calling in life, the lesson each of us is here to learn, and the underlying struggle in all our interpersonal relationships and life choices. Giving in to altruism negates personal desire, liberates one from the domination of the ego, and opens one up to a much larger world with the potential to engage in and with universal principles and universal purpose. To the degree one integrates ones personality in greater degrees with altruism in every moment and every individual choice, one negates desire, increases peace and harmony in life and eases the causes for suffering (not only in one's own life, but in the lives of others, too). Stress (which is a symptom of the ego when dominated by fear and desire) does not arise from living out the highest expression of love since stress is only a personal reaction to one's focus on one's own desires. Stress never attaches to altruistic actions or motivations.

It is often true that individuals delude themselves regarding their motives. We all create useful excuses in certain circumstances to allow us to remain in denial as we pursue individually motivated agendas: "I know best," "I only want what is best for (fill in the blank)," "It's God's will (or any other term which denotes some individual's term for 'higher power')," "I want to save you, or protect you, from making the same mistakes I've made." This list can go on and on, but you can see the manifestation of the personally motivated rationale by now. The real question one can ask oneself in any and every instance remains, "Am I doing this on even the remotest possibility that I will gain something I desire as a result (or avoid something I wish to avoid)?" If the honest answer is yes, then the contemplated course of action is personally motivated, and the result can only bring personal suffering along with it.

Life cannot exist without some degree of suffering. Life is a process of becoming. As one engages in the process of becoming, one will, being human, make mistakes in life. The quality of human frailty and tendency for individuals to err underlies the process of learning and growth. These mistakes will, naturally, lead to suffering. What do I mean by mistakes? I am alluding to actions based on and colored by personal desires.

Another facet of personal desire is that it rarely stops to consider the free expression of the personal will and choice which divests itself in others just as surely as it invests in oneself. The interplay between exalting one's own ego driven needs while also negating the free will of others is the ethical principle, and fundamental esoteric basis, underlying the interrelationship of personal desires with suffering. Actions based on personal desire will cause someone to suffer: either the person undertaking the action if/when their expectations for the outcome are not met, or the person being manipulated or affected by the action which negates their free opportunity to choose the events and circumstances affecting them from and in their environment. In either case, it is also part of the nature of suffering that it festers, causing enmity between both parties, leading to suffering in both, as well.

Life, as a process, flows through a constant series of yin/yang experiences - experiences that reveal the effects and influences of both extremes of the polar opposites in every duality - whether that yin/yang might be expressed and experienced through emotions, careers, beliefs, relationships, economic/political systems, cultural ethos/pathos, or sociologically influenced dreams for the future. One cannot know happiness without also knowing sadness. If only one of the states existed, that state would not be distinguishable, and hence would only be experienced as part of a bland, unperceived ennui.

However, the law of existence which demands that the poles of opposites must be intertwined and present as the duality of reality (whether in individuals or cultures and nations) should not denote that it is not possible to improve the conditions of existence for the better. We can do a lot to ease suffering by reducing our individual, natural, and cultural orientations to desire. Humanity will never fully eliminate suffering, but the degree and suffering felt as well as its pervasiveness throughout the world can always be alleviated by varying amounts. The only path to reducing suffering arises by commensurately reducing individual, national, and cultural desire.

The contemporary world is rooted in stress. Those most successful in accumulating wealth, position, and power require a willing workforce to perpetuate the division into classes and widen the gaps between classes. So, the worker is placed under the constant stress if not only having to produce on the job, but having to protect and maintain their income in order to continue paying for: rent, house payments, car payments, insurance payments, repair bills, food, clothing, and, of course, the purchase of all those objects which are accumulated out of desire - for status, for the acceptance of others, to create envy in others, to make one feel good, and to create a sense of personal self-worth. Stress keeps people "in their place," sociologically, as it also reveals the people who cannot cope - those who societies ultimately cast aside.

Humanity has re-created (or perhaps redesigned is a better word) the planet. Humanity has done this out of the personal and collective desires for an unending and unfathomable "more." Yet, while the quest for all this "more" makes the already wealthy exponentially wealthier, and the affluent more comfortable and more estimable in others' eyes but generally lazier to a commensurate degree, this "more" also leads to greater doses of suffering on a planetary scale as the divide between affluence and poverty widens, as extreme poverty spreads, as famine becomes endemic, as species are rendered extinct, as the quality of the environment deteriorates, and as we use up the planet's natural resources at an alarming rate without ever stopping to consider the needs of future generations who are, after all, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. 

This culture will, ultimately, consume itself into oblivion. People will survive, no doubt. But the structure of the culture, the economic, political and sociological models upon which the contemporary social order are based will all perish as the culture consumes itself into oblivion. The people of the future will have to develop a more sustainable mindset and more sustainable method of integrating humanity with the natural world as they seek to integrate necessary comfort while maintaining a viable and naturally abundant ecosystem (which the planets is capable of providing for us if we allow it to) while overcoming the desire for luxury and predominance. 

Humanity will have to reduce its numbers dramatically. Human sprawl must cease to usurp nearly all the habitable land and wisely understand that if we so reduce the planet's diversity, we ultimately doom it to evolve into a lifeless waste heap incapable of functioning as an living, interconnected, and vital ecosystem. Thus, humanity must find a way to teach, individually and collectively, the personal responsibility that accrues with existence and the need for balance between ego driven personal and collective expressions of desire with the moral and ethical imperative of honoring and respecting all other lifeforms. 

In the process if dying, one discovers that the implications and influences of duality are slowly stripped away. The ego (and nearly always the body, too) is immersed in pain and suffering. The process of dying may seem instantaneous or drawn out over a long period. However, in both cases, the process of dying demands the ego focus on the pain and suffering which is insuperably connected with the encroachment of necrosis (mentally, emotionally, and physically). This dynamic is another law of existence because the process is meant to purge the individual of personal desire before they enter the light, feel the sensation of perfect love awaiting at the end, and reunite with the "All." 

What comes after death?

No one who has not been there can answer that with any degree of certainty. Those who have encountered Near Death or Out-of-Body states are also incapable of answer with any degree of objective certainty that question, too, because they did not cross the threshold, and therefore, have not actually experienced the afterlife (if one exists). No, those folks have gone up to the door, but they have not walked through it. Thus, no living being can offer anything objectively or definitively true about the post-death experience. 

All living things possess consciousness. Even coral reefs know the exact right time of the full moon, and the one full moon of the year, during which to coordinate their reproductive discharges to effectively propagate new life. The timing of coral reproduction, the hive mentalities of ants and bees, the way packs, herds, pods, coveys, schools, and all other collectives of species of life on this planet (including colonies of single celled organisms) work together to enhance their chances of survival, all prove to me that there are hierarchies of collective consciousness.

The Earth, our planet, is also an ecosystem, utterly interconnected and interdependent. This planet has created, nurtured, and propagated unfathomably countless variations of lifeforms over the eons of the planet's presence in the cosmos. Until redesigned by human inventions' intervention, the bounty the planet offered seemed limitless. Consequently, it seems obvious to me that there has to exist a planetary consciousness which exists in conjunction with the ecosystem. 

It is my contention and belief that when individual lifeforms die, each individual consciousness reunites with the planetary consciousness, and that is what I call, "Reuniting with the 'All.'"

I can only suggest that, from any logical perspective, the "self," or individual consciousness, would be a puny thing compared with the "All." The only way the "All" can be enriched is by and through the love we bring with ourselves into it at the moment we "step into the light" and reunite with our source, the fountain of life. As the individual consciousness joins with the planetary consciousness, there is no more need for the individual self-awareness to persist. However, all of that-which-was-the-self integrates into the "All," and so it (and each of us with it) lives on in the planetary consciousness. This is why all aspects of personal desire and ego must be purged through the stripping away process contained in pain and suffering as expressed through the process of dying. What is left is the pure love accumulated and expressed in one's lifetime, which then joins with the planetary consciousness, the expression of altruism and love which nurtures physical reality. In this process, the planetary consciousness can be understood as the ever-increasing, ever-intensifying, ever-expanding, ever-diversifying, and infinite expression of the planet's accumulation and apprehension of love. 

In the same way, our solar system is also an ecosystem, as is the galaxy, the local cluster of galaxies in which our galaxy drifts through space, and on to our universe, indeed, leading all the way to the Multiverse. So, our consciousnesses never die, even though they cease being self-aware. As part of the planetary consciousness, they merge with the solar consciousness when the Sun goes supernova. This accumulation of pure love and eons of nearly infinite expressions of diverse experience will seed the new solar system that arises out of the (quite literal) ashes of the supernova of the previous one. Eventually, when all the available energy in this area has been used, the collective consciousnesses of the many solar systems will join with the galactic consciousness, which will join with the collective consciousness of local cluster of galactic consciousness when our galaxy burns all its energy, and so on, through the merger with the Universal Consciousness, and ultimately, the Multiversal Consciousness. 

Rather than mourn the passing of those who die in our lives, we should rejoice. Our mourning is an expression of our own losses. But in reality, death purges and perfects the soul, making it ready to reunite with the "All." The soul becomes an instrument of pure and perfect love which then enriches the planetary consciousness, and through it, all of humanity, as well. Suffering ends. The ego is overcome, and the individual expands into the "All" in the merger of reuniting. This is an event to rejoice because love is served. This is the esoteric meaning of "Love-ism." 

On Seeking Balance in the Contemporary World

The world in which we find ourselves during this period of history presents great challenges for anyone and everyone who seeks to tread the path of the middle way, avoid extremes, cultivate a balanced psyche, and pursue a life in harmony with the environment, with all life on the planet, with other people (both politically and economically), between and among cultures and nations, and within ourselves on a spiritual level. 

In the contemporary climate, people have been pushed into polarized political camps by politicians, commentators, pundits, and demogogues. Polarized opinions have widened the gap of disagreement and wrought vitriol in the public discourse. Pursuit of compromises which would reflect the best interests of the broadest segments of the population is no longer esteemed as worthwhile. Indeed, both sides exhibit such an unwillingness to bend that they prefer to block legislation which is drafted to promote the greatest common good. Polarized points of view, which are so common in the contemporary world, actually oppose the ideals expressed in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which was created to, "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure domestic tranquility." 

As wide as the political gulf has become, the disparities between the wealthy and the middle class and between the middle class and the poor have never been greater. The intensity and pervasiveness of individuals' focus on personal interests, accumulation of material objects, amassing of capital, and quest for social status has never been more pronounced and pervasive. This perverse fascination with personal gain to the detriment of the greatest common good inveigles contemporary culture with the notion that a competitive edge is the most valuable and desirable personal trait an individual can cultivate. Now, certainly, the individual nature can express itself in a very positive way when it's influence manifests itself as an individual's drive for personal excellence. However, when the sole motivation for competition reveals itself to be for personal gain at the expense of another (or others), then it's value diminishes commensurately with the reduction of others' opportunities and degradation of others' lifestyles. 

Humanity possesses a natural inclination for pursuing comfort, convenience, recreation, expression, and enjoyment. However, when those proclivities rise to the level of a desire for ostentation, an appetite for wealth, a devotion to notions of individual (as well as national and/or cultural) superiority, a hunger to accumulate possessions, an infatuation with status, and a yearning for power, then individuals debase themselves morally, ethically, and spiritually at the same time as they wreck havoc on the environment and consume the planet's resources without consideration for future generations' needs. 

As a consequence of the psychological and sociological divergences from a middle path of inclusiveness, cooperation, community, compromise, and the greatest common good, extremism dominates all aspects and all expressions in the contemporary world. We can no longer agree to be generous to the needy, merciful to the infirm, benevolent to our youth (who, as students, must receive adequate and affordable educations if they are to offer wise and sound leadership in the future), prudent in our stewardship of the environment, understanding toward one another, accepting of divergent viewpoints as being critical to cultural growth and making wise decisions after informed debate, and magnanimous to our spiritual natures by reducing our stress and increasing our dedication to humanity's highest ideals and the notion of the greatest common good. Instead, our vitriolic extremism advances enmity, undermines our climate, increases the likelihood for conflict, escalates war across the globe, engenders the continuing and increasing spread of extinction of planetary life, and devalues all notions of gratitude and respect commensurately with the exaltation of the cults of greed, wealth, power, entitlement, and superiority. 

In such a world, humanity, both collectively and as individuals, finds itself so attached to the illusion of material value, phenomenal accomplishment, and corporeal eminence that the balance required by any truly spiritual foundation has been forsaken. If humanity is ever to even aspire to, let alone actually achieve, universal peace, an all-inclusive affluence that honors the environment, value for the need for diversity of all life forms, and respect the rights of future generations to an equally harmonious and bountiful existence, then our individual, national, and cultural values must change: compassion must replace victory, altruism must supercede personal desire, cooperation must redeem competition, understanding must supplant antagonism, acceptance must displace intolerance, equality must overcome notions of superiority, and moderation must reconstitute entitlement. 

There is only one path to such a world. That path incorporates spiritual balance and a ubiquitous education concerning humanity's highest values. Such a redirection of human focus will take time, certainly multiple generations, but it is both a worthwhile and possible endeavor to pursue. 

Between the paths of extremes lies a middle way, the way of balance, harmony, and wisdom. Too great of a devotion to self will deny humanity the fulfillment of its greatest collective potential. Too small of a consideration for individual needs and opportunities will rob us of our liberties and all sense of meaning in life and personal value to the community and the world. Only by seeking a balance between the two can we eradicate the destructive forces inherent in either extreme. Only by understanding the true spiritual value that resides in balance and moderation will humanity begin to aspire to a more perfect, more harmonious, more bountiful, and more meaningful world. 

This balance is the expression of universal, altruistic love. By keeping the notion of love in mind as we pursue all our endeavors, we redeem ourselves moment to moment, fulfill our true destinies, and realize the value and meaning of life. It we operate out of love, we cannot inculcate divisiveness or engage ourselves in the destructive forces of extremism. 

We are born out of love to discover each of our own balanced pathways of love and, ultimately, to live our lives predicated on spreading as much love as possible during our lifetimes. In so doing, we fulfill and redeem ourselves with and through love's moral imperative.

North Korea, Nuclear Proliferation and Peaceful Co-existence

With regard to North Korea and Kim Jong-il's current pursuit of nuclear weapons, I suppose all of you have probably not only noticed, but wondered, at my silence on that topic given the gravity of its implications and the significance of the moment as well as my penchant for remarking on all the significant news of each day. It is a complex issue.

One main consideration is this: How can the US morally and ethically repudiate North Korea for doing the same thing it did years ago? I mean, after all, the US, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel have all conducted research into nuclear weapon technology, have all developed nuclear weapons, and have all tested the efficacy of their nuclear weapons. Most of those nations have also developed missile delivery systems and have tested those systems as well. North Korea is doing nothing these other nations have not all done at one time or another. Furthermore, at the times when India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, they were both chastised for it and the world was just as concerned about their likelihood of using those weapons (potentially against one another) as it is today about North Korea's possible use of nuclear weapons.

Another major consideration is: By what right do we assume the moral authority to tell other nations they may not aspire to acquire or actually develop the same military technology possessed by the US, Russia (and other former Soviet satellite nations which possess nuclear weapons in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union), Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel (nuclear weapons)? Certainly, there is a need for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and to avoid creating new arms races among and between currently non-nuclear weaponized states. However, there cannot be any moral authority on an issue which supports the continued possession of specific weapons by some nations and a denial to all others regarding their self-interest right to develop the same level of military proficiency as a defensive measure to prevent the possible attack and invasion of the weaker state by stronger, nuclear armed nations.

Consequently, the stand the US, the UN Security Council and the UN body in general take on this issue is nothing short of elitist hypocrisy which preserves the status quo to the detriment of all non-nuclear weaponized nations on the theory that the nuclear weaponized nations will benevolently assure the sanctity and safety of the lesser military powers in perpetuity. This guarantee is impossible to assure, as any quick glance at the collapse of the Roman Empire will reveal.

That said, I also see the value in preventing Kim Jong-il specifically, and all non-nuclear powers generally, from obtaining nuclear weapons as a practical matter.

I think nations like Syria, Iran and North Korea feel caught between the rock and the hard place. They watch the US, time and again, act like a bully on the block and invade some smaller, weaker, more poorly armed country and destroy the stability of that nation as well as those peoples' way of life. They have to feel, on some level, that if they only had nuclear weapons to brandish, they could at least pose a greater threat to the US if it intended to invade, which might make the US more reluctant to actually conduct an invasion. Furthermore, ancient and recent enmity and war with Israel leaves Syria and Iran (and other arab states) feeling extremely vulnerable to a potential Israeli first strike given that the Israelis possess a nuclear capability. This has to be an even greater concern given the effectiveness of the Israeli military in 1967's Six Day War and 1973's Yom Kippur War, as well as the ongoing hostility with Palestinians due to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the West Bank and the police state tactics imposed by Israel on Palestinians, as well as ongoing battles with both the government of Lebanon at times and the Hezbollah faction within Lebanon at other times in addition to continuing conflict with first the PLO and now Hamas among Palestinians. I'd suggest they are entitled to some sense of security, though I also have to admit, the idea of these other countries having nuclear weapons scares me.

Nonetheless, people were scared when the Soviet Union developed The Bomb. People were scared when China developed The Bomb. People were scared when the former Soviet Union dissolved and various SSRs became nations who possessed The Bomb (and people remain frightened of that circumstance). People were scared when India and Pakistan developed The Bomb. Yet, among all these nations who possess nuclear weapons, it remains true that only the US has ever actually detonated a nuclear device against another nation (twice). In fact, the US has a history of using a variety of weapons of mass destruction, from the Atomic Bomb during WWII against Japan in Nagasaki and Hiroshima to napalm against North Vietnam and the NLF in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to Agent Orange in Vietnam in as widespread a use as described for napalm to white phosphorous in Falloujah, Iraq, just to provide the best known examples. Hence, nations who fear a potential pre-emptive strike by the US such as North Korea, Syria and Iran all fear the likely American use of WMDs in any war they'd have to wage to preserve their existence and their way of life. It is no wonder these nations seek to possess nuclear weapons. They feel they need these weapons as tactical threats against any invading force to prevent pre-emptive invasions.

I am particularly frightened of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' announced response to North Korea's declared intention of conducting additional tests for either their nuclear weapons, their missile delivery systems, or both: that he intends to beef up Hawaii's security with ABMs, etc. First, to escalate an arms race only hardens North Korea in its position vis-a-vis its perceived need to possess nuclear weapons to deter the US from considering aggression. Second, if the US decides to shoot down one of Korea's tests, that could be perceived as an act of war and could actually lead to the nuclear confrontation everyone claims they are trying to avoid. The same may be true of any attempt to intercept the North Korean ship which so-called military intelligence claims is carrying some kind of nuclear technology. Even if a nuclear confrontation is not the result, the North Koreans might attack South Korea and restart the hostilities which ended in the 50s all over again. They could even attack Japan. That would put China in a hard place, too, because they are still committed by treaty to defend aggression against North Korea.

Part of me thinks, if the US feels the need to show North Korea it can shoot down their missiles, then why not launch an American missile from a South Korean site and shoot it down from Hawaii. Then, the US cannot be perceived as attacking a North Korean asset. They may still take it as an act of war, but they'd be hard pressed to feel the need to strike back given the US wouldn't have destroyed their weapon.

The real way to diffuse the situation is to make North Korea feel less threatened. When you back a frightened animal into a corner, it will strike out in a frightened, angry response. But, if you back up and offer it an avenue of escape marked by food treats, the animal will relax, come out of the corner and be calm. North Korea's economy is in severe straits. The people are barely eating. As China has become more Western involved, especially economically, North Korea has been more isolated in the world. The way to diffuse North Korea's sense of isolation and endangerment, and the fear which arises as a result, is to find a way to bring North Korea more into the world community, not make them a greater pariah; assure them of their sovereignty and safety, not make them feel more threatened; and assist them to improve their economic situation so they feel they have a stake in maintaining positive relations with the West. If North Korea feels it has nothing to lose because it has nothing and no place in the world, threatening to destroy everything (and possibly following through on that threat) looms as a viable strategy. However, engage North Korea in mutually enriching economic endeavors and a mutually assured sense of national security, and North Korea will have a stake in maintaining and preserving agreements into which it enters.

The same strategy applies to Iran and Syria. If the world engages those nations in a manner which assures them of national security, accepts their culture and "way of life," confirms them with respect and dignity, and engages them in mutually beneficial economic ties, those nations will have a greater stake in preserving the world order which is relied upon to perpetuate that sense of place in the world. The more US strategies seek to isolate, punish, repudiate and destabilize those nations, the less they will invest in any desire to mesh with the world in mutually respectful interrelationships which require all parties to recognize they have a significant stake in maintaining a harmonious world order.

You catch more bees with honey than vinegar...

The US likes to say that rogue nations pose the greatest threat to world stability because they sell arms to dangerous groups. The fact is, the US armed and funded Al Qaeda and the Taliban when Al Qaeda was known as the Mujahedeen and the two fought the Soviet Union. The US gave the WMDs to Iraq which Saddam used against Iran and his own people. The US GAO determined that arms which are fueling the rise of violence by Mexico's drug cartels are mainly smuggled into the country from the US. The L.A. Times stated that according to the GAO, "One of its findings was that more than 90% of the firearms traced by authorities after being seized in Mexico over the last three years came from the United States." A recent report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute states that, "Together [the United States, Russia, Germany, France and United Kingdom] accounted for 79 per cent of the volume of [military arms] exports for 2004–2008. They have been the top five suppliers since the end of the cold war and have accounted for at least three-quarters of all exports annually."

The truth is that the majority of the most feared armaments in the world are controlled by nations who are not considered rogue nations and that those armaments are constantly for sale to anyone with the funds to purchase them. The US desire to create a new missile "defense" system in eastern Europe has led to concerns in Russia to a degree that Russia now is refusing to proceed with the US on a new deal for deep cuts in strategic nuclear weapons to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which expires in December, and if allowed to expire, could result in a new arms race with Russia.

There is as great a danger that nuclear materials might be sold to "terrorists" by former satellites of the Soviet Union as by any "rogue" nation which might acquire the technology. The reality is that in these difficult economic times, a former SSR might find it economically expedient to make such a sale, whereas any rogue nation who fears a possible invasion by the US is more apt to feel the need to keep their most valuable military assets so they can have them to use in the event of such an invasion. The whole point for North Korea or Iran to developing nuclear weapons with a delivery system is not to sell them to terrorists who would not be capable of using the delivery system. No, the point is to have those weapons as a deterrent to potential US military action against that country (and in Iran's case to prevent Israel from either a pre-emptive invasion, air attack or even limited use of nuclear weapons, all of which Israel has discussed within the last 2 years). There is no incentive whatsoever for North Korea or Iran to divest itself of its most valuable military asset and to suggest either nation would merely jumbles all notions of logic when applied to the notion.

What all citizens of the world really need in order to feel secure in the future is a completely denuclearized world. If we really want to be free of the threat of nuclear attack, we must live in a world without nuclear arms. However, in order to assure such a world would remain free of nuclear arms, all nuclear power plants and, indeed, all nuclear technology, would have to be forsaken. This is the only way to assure there will never be another nuclear explosion on the planet, that no nation will have to fear nuclear arms falling into the hands of aggressive and dangerous rogue states or terrorist organizations. Anything less, and the danger will always exist. Suggesting that by preventing nations like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear arms capabilities we can prevent a calamity is neither a true statement nor an ethical one to make.

So, all in all, you can say I am suggesting a compassionate approach. You can say I am suggesting an inclusive and cooperative approach. You can say I am suggesting applying understanding and mutual respect. You can say I am suggesting acceptance of the other side, because as it was shown after Nixon went to China, the years of economic and political ties between the West and China have only led to a more secure world in which all parties now are invested in maintaining cooperative and peaceful relations with each other. Only by reaching out and offering hope to ones adversaries can one diffuse potentially destructive urges or situations and create a new climate of respect, acceptance, cooperation and ultimately peace.