Peace: A Natural State of Human Mind By Mirza I. Ashraf

Peace: A Natural State of Human Mind.

Abstract: Human beings—though sometimes to survive or get what they need are driven to violence—are firstly peaceful. Buried inside every human mind, peace is holistically alive unless a cause with a right or a wrong signal raises its head within the mind of an individual or a group, it becomes frightful to harm others. When we argue, whether humans are naturally peaceful or violent, there is no dearth of evidence that humans are inherently compassionate, intrinsically altruistic, innately generous and naturally kind, even if they are in certain circumstances driven to act aggressively and violently. At the same time there is no dearth of evidence for those who believe that humans are inherently aggressive, violent and competitive, but still compassionately cooperating for personal as well as societal welfare. Since, a vast majority of the human beings is most of the time peaceful, peace seems to be naturally ingrained in their nature. It arises perfectly when an individual inertly and outwardly keeps himself in harmony with himself and the rest of creation. Its latent power is found in relaxation which gives rise to love, in its mindfulness which gives rise to vigilance, and in its consciousness, which gives rise to reason; all these together give rise to a feeling of “Peace.” Shakespeare expresses the feeling of peace in his play Henry VIII;

I know myself now: I feel within me

A peace above all earthly dignities,

A still and quiet confidence.1

 But the enigma of peace challenges our mind when we find human beings imperfectly kind, unintentionally inconsiderate, self-serving and helpful in near-equal measure, and at the same time Bottom of Form surprisingly experiencing cruelty that results in their being more aggressive and violent. However, while kindness often transforms human beings in ways that lead to greater compassion and generosity, it is far more reasonable to perceive humans as capable of astonishing altruism, and most of the time, getting along fine together. Mirza Ashraf

(for full article, please visit: https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaAshraf

 

God bless liberal fascists

Worth reading article by Pervez Hoodbhoy

Full Article

Is U.S.A Better Off As A Bunch Of Separate Countries? By Clare Malone

This week we talked to Chris, a 35-year-old white man from rural Pennsylvania. Chris wrote in that he thought, “the U.S. should have a velvet divorce,” a reference to the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia — now the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic — in 1993. Chris went on: “I live in heavy Trump country but know he’s an idiot, but even Trump haters wouldn’t agree to break up the U.S. And certain areas (the South, the Midwest) would be horrible for minorities and destroy the environment. But it’s obvious the U.S. has run its course.”

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Clare Malone: Maybe you can start out by telling me how you came to think this?

Chris: I’ve always been a history buff, and it always seems that these large powers rise and fall. They usually get too big and they drink their own Kool-Aid a little bit too much. I feel like we’ve reached that point. I feel like the U.S. peaked in the ’90s, and I would definitely say that 9/11 is what spurred it on, because I feel like you don’t get to Trump without 9/11.

The U.S. has always been, I would say, on the right side of the bell curve when it comes to jingoism — a little bit more patriotic than most countries. But it hasn’t been overly oppressive or debilitating, it was just one of those qualities that could describe the U.S. And I feel like 9/11 exacerbated those qualities.

I feel like it’s gotten to the point where the U.S. is too big too fail. And when something’s too big to fail, people stop working hard to make it work because they think it can’t fail.

CM: But you’ve also gone one step further, saying, “we need entirely separate countries.” I’m curious what took you over the hump there.

Chris: I’ve sort of felt this way since George W. Bush. We’re so polarized that the federal government doesn’t really work. If it’s not working, then you might as well break it up before the point where the break is so bad that you end up with, say, a second Civil War, which I don’t think would happen. But if you can alleviate the pressure earlier by saying, “This isn’t working, let’s break it up,” states could join together and form their own countries, and I think it would actually help in the sense that they would have to work together to keep economic prosperity going.

CM: So what kind of new countries do you see forming from the states?

Chris: Obviously, there would be blue and red states [forming countries] and the swing states would have to decide how they wanted to merge together. New England’s states would be obvious to form a new country together. Then maybe there would be a country of New York, Pennsylvania, all the way down to Virginia. Then the Carolinas through Georgia and Florida would form another one. Texas and California could probably form their own countries, maybe even Florida. Louisiana might latch on to Texas simply because if something bad happened with New Orleans they would need the help.

CM: You’re basically making the argument that we should have geographically smaller countries because we’ve gotten too big to make things work?

Chris: Yeah. America’s always contained multitudes, like Walt Whitman said, that contradict each other, but it’s almost gotten to the point where there’s no way to build bridges. People like to light them on fire. There’s really no empathy toward each other, and you need that to build bridges.

CM: I’m sensing that maybe something about the place where you live or your experience has led you in this direction.

Chris: Yeah. I grew up here, but I went to college away from here. I recently went to a fair. When I was a kid you saw maybe a Second Amendment T-shirt, but they were largely selling pop culture T-shirts — the Simpsons, that type of thing. We recently took the kids back to the fair, and all the vendors’ shirts are predominantly the Second Amendment and Trump.

This area has always leaned right. You always saw a lot of Bush/Cheney bumper stickers., McCain/Palin/Romney — they didn’t play as big, but people definitely voted for them because it was their party. It’s definitely become a cult of personality with Trump.

CM: Do you feel like it affects you interpersonally day-to-day?

Chris: It’s kind of weird because everyone just assumes that people think like you do because of where you live. So I keep my cards pretty close to the vest. I keep it quiet because people tell you what they really think.

CM: Do you have an example of that?

Chris: There’s a lot of moderate racism that, if they were talking to someone they didn’t consider part of their tribe, they would word differently. Like, there’s a certain word they have for Martin Luther King Day. Not everybody says it, but more than you’d think.

CM: What is it?

Chris: It’s the N-word. N-Day is kinda what they say. Even the people who don’t say it chuckle at it. Even if saying it is a bridge too far, they enjoy someone saying it. A lot of it comes down to the fact that there are next to no minorities around here. The excuse when I was in high school was, “Well, they say it to each other, so we should be able to say it.”

CM: How do you handle that when it happens in front of you. Do you try to avoid those situations?

Chris: It’s largely older people, so you sort of just shrug it off because they’re from a different generation and set in their ways. There’s no point in arguing; there’s no point. And it’s difficult when you’re the minority in a situation to argue back. You’re not going to change any minds.

Full article

posted by f.sheikh

Tip Of The Inequality Iceberg-College Admission Scandal

Shared By

Syed Ehtesham.

The children of working stiffs learned a brutal lesson this week as federal prosecutors criminally charged rich people with buying admission to elite universities for their less-than-stellar children.

The lesson is that no matter how hard you work, no matter how smart or talented you are, a dumb, lazy rich kid is going to beat you.

It’s crucial that everyone who is not a wealthy movie star, hedge fund executive, or corporate CEO—that is, 99 percent of all Americans—sees this college admissions scandal for what it really is: a microcosm of the larger, corrupt system that works against working people, squashing their chances for advancement.

This system is the reason that rich people and corporations got massive tax breaks last year while the 99 percent got paltry ones. It is the reason the federal minimum wage and the overtime threshold are stuck at poverty levels. It is the reason labor unions have dwindled over the past four decades.

This system is the reason we cannot have nice things. Despite all that land-of-equal-opportunity crap, the rich ensure that only they can have nice things, starting with what they can buy legally and illegally for their children and rising through what they can buy legally and illegally from politicians who make the rules that withdraw money from the pockets of working people and deposit it into the bulging bank accounts of the fabulously rich.

When the mastermind of the elite university admissions scheme, William Singer, pleaded guilty this week, he exposed the launching pad available to the well-heeled to guarantee that their children will be well-heeled. Even after the wealthy pay for their heirs to attend prohibitively expensive private preparatory academies, their grades, test scores and extracurricular activities may not add up to enough to gain them entrance to Ivy League universities, from which a degree virtually assures an overpaid position on Wall Street, and with it, another generation of wealth accumulation.

Singer admitted he developed a work-around for the wealthy. The indictment revealed that, through Singer, parents handed between $15,000 and $75,000 to college entrance exam administrators to fabricate top-notch test scores for low-achieving offspring.

That lower amount—$15,000—paid by the rich to pad SAT and ACT scores is a good example. It’s a figure of trifling import to a one-percenter. It is, however, the entire year’s earnings of a parent working full-time at the federal $7.25 minimum wage. That parent may have a child who received a perfect SAT score—without cheating—who has earned straight As, even in advanced placement classes, who excelled in soccer and served as class president. But that child of a minimum-wage worker won’t get into Harvard because the rich kid took his place with falsified test scores and faked athletic achievements.

And the rich kid and his parents have the means to ensure that members of the next generation of the family have the same opportunity to cheat their way to the top and remain there. They have the money to buy just the right politicians, something that the perverse Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court facilitated. The right-wing court ruled that rich people and corporations could give unlimited money to elect politicians of their choice.

For further reading please click bellow.

Download  |  View