Skip to main content

Wokeism, Indian and global perspective


To be completely honest, until I started using Twitter, I had never heard of WOKEISM or WOKE people when I first started using social media, which was about 14 years ago. Twitter in fact provided me with a window into what the rest of the world believes. I was unable to find the definition of "Wokeism" in either my preferred Webster's or Chamber's dictionaries. To my surprise, I found it in online on dictionary.com/. Wokeism or Woke Culture is defined as the "promotion of liberal progressive ideology and policy as an expression of sensitivity to systemic injustices and prejudices," according to the statement. Some says, it’s origins rooted in African American Vernacular English. It is actually a Left-Liberal(sic) phenomenon.

I first began looking for examples of how Woke people behave in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe or North America. Over there, Wokeism is a term derived from the word “woke,” which initially meant being aware of social and political issues, particularly around race and injustice. The concept of Wokeism has expanded to encompass a broader range of social issues such as gender, sexuality, and environmental concerns. It makes sense theoretically, doesn’t it?

However, when I began observing those there who were affected by this most recent phenomenon, most of them seemed odd and amusing. Woke people claim to be champions of equality, inclusivity, and the fight against discrimination. However, a closer examination reveals a startling paradox. These self-proclaimed warriors of social justice often engage in virtue signaling to convey their moral superiority, while ironically dismissing and silencing opinions that do not align with their own. This "woke hypocrisy" raises questions about their genuine commitment to fairness and genuine inclusion.

Greta Thunberg, a Swedish activist, is the best example. I began researching her because she was being referred to as having the Woke phenomenon by numerous users of social media. It is evolved into a kind of left-liberal rally for those who believe they speak for the majority. Frequently, they don't, especially Greta Thunberg, a green "freedom fighter." She often appears at these woke gatherings to issue veiled threats to the world about how we should behave, but the majority of the solutions she suggests are either unrealistic or impossible. For instance, she promotes the use of green energy and electric vehicles, but she omits to discuss how to properly dispose of electric batteries, a topic that the green mafia will never discuss when attempting to impose its agenda on the rest of us.

Wokesism also had a positive side as it gave rise to movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo, which empowered marginalized communities and sparked important conversations that held institutions accountable for their behavior. However, the same individuals who instigated the movements also took advantage of them. Ironically, when it comes to addressing social issues, the woke community often exhibits selective outrage.

If Indian perspective were taken into account, these hypocritical individuals would begin researching ONLY issues pertaining to the Hindu community. Have you seen these dolts launching campaigns like #NoHijab, #NoSharia, #MuslimWomenMatter, #NoConversions, etc. on social media or in the streets? Funny enough, these people understand what it is like to fear for one's life. They know the serious implications because they are so shrewd.

This phenomenon first appeared in Left-leaning universities like JNU in India. For the younger generation, it seems cool to follow it. In the name of intellectuals and influencers, it has been enslaving the youth on social media sites like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. These guys may appear amusing, but we should take them seriously, they are dangerous because they have the potential to incite violence. We had already seen this happen during the CAA agitation, the cost of obstructing a national highway in the name of farmers’ interests, the cost of having a copper plant shut in Tamil Nadu, and so on. These individuals tend to assert their privileged position as the sole bearers of truth, dismissing any room for alternative perspectives, and thereby suppressing genuine dialogue.

These are typically bright, early-20s-aged individuals who are rebels without a cause. They believe that everything needs to be fixed, including government policy and discussions of gender. For them, a democratically elected majority leader in Parliament is a dictator, while a leader who promotes anarchy while blocking roads and is supported by a small number of wealthy protesters is the voice of millions.
People should call out these wokes' lack of credibility and common sense before choosing to ignore them because the world needs to see these people for what they truly are: privileged spoiled people who have no interest in knowledge, logic, facts, statistics or literacy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ABSURD THEME OF WAQT (1965), A DELIBERATE PLOY?

In the 1965 film Waqt, the choice of an earthquake as the catalyst for family separation is often cited as "absurd" or "flimsy" because it serves as a sanitized metaphor for the Partition of India. Critics and film scholars highlighted the following reasons for this perceived absurdity in the past as well Avoidance of Political Sensitivity: At the time of its 1965 release, India was in the midst of war with Pakistan. Filmmakers used the earthquake to evoke the mass displacement and trauma of 1947 without directly addressing the politically charged and communal violence of Partition. Dubious reason of Long-Term Separation: Critics argue that while an earthquake causes immediate chaos, it rarely results in family members being scattered to completely different cities (Bombay, Delhi) and remaining lost to each other for decades in a way that Partition-era migration did. Thematic Focus on Fate: The earthquake aligns with the movie’s title (Waqt meaning "Tim...

Left Liberal is an oxymoron

In today's politically polarized landscape, the term "left liberal" often finds itself in the midst of heated debates. Critics argue that being a left-leaning liberal is paradoxical due to the inherent conflict between leftist ideologies, capitalist systems, and associations with Islamists. Here I would like to explore whether the label of "left liberal" is indeed contradictory in nature. How they think-- When we identify someone as a leftist, we usually understand them to advocate for social equality, justice, and a more egalitarian society. Historically, leftists aim to dismantle oppressive systems, promote workers' rights, and bring about progressive social change. Now argument is that this ideology inherently clashes with the concept of liberalism, which upholds individual freedom and limited government intervention. However we sometimes equate these people with communist ideology with a heavy dose of socialism. But it is just 180 degree opposite. ...