Why has the age of awakening given rise to so much judging and shaming? Because those quickest to judge and shame tend to believe they have the right to change someone’s mind for them. If the 90s were about losing one’s religion, the current trend appears to be tearing down someone else’s in order to preserve your own.
Take the woke movement and subsequent backlash against it. Snow White’s Rachel Zegler no doubt annoyed many with her comments on the animated original, but does expressing one’s opinion of a near-century old film warrant the level of outrage reported? Let’s not pretend indoctrinating the masses was not part of the agenda for Disney and Hollywood in general long before woke culture. The difference is, people are finally waking up to it.
It is a misconception that the gradual movement towards diversity, inclusion, and fairer representation in media and society was instigated by radical “social justice warriors”. It was originally began by people and groups who sincerely sought to overcome decades of marginalization and oppressive typecasting. That this plea grew into an indefatigable, at times obnoxious, demand was due to hijacking of the movement by the same forces that hijack any form of awakening and turn it into an instrument of division. These forces are already busy fanning the flames of the next controversy. Divide and conquer is their strategy, and has always been.
Ultimately their efforts will be in vain. The awakening cannot be stopped, and the turmoil we’re going through as a society with seemingly countless conflicting beliefs is but a natural and necessary part of the process. Human consciousness is rising and expanding due to cosmic events. This expansion causes many to become initially lost. Seeking shelter, they stumble upon a compelling doctrine, one perhaps containing profound truths, which feels like an oasis from the wilderness they had been mired in.
They then find others of a resonant frequency, some who are long-time subscribers of said doctrine, and soon this oasis becomes a comfortable bubble in which they settle. It is now home, and anything and anyone who threatens this sanctuary provokes their vitriol. It can also happen the other way around, where they become the targets due to their beliefs threatening someone else’s bubble.
It is not my intention to trivialize anyone’s doctrine or ideology. I have always intensely admired those devoted to standing up for the truth. But invariably I would encounter someone who believes something is true that I myself feel is a lie. What then? Do I attempt to change that person’s mind? I have learned the answer is no, for to change someone else’s mind is actually not only impossible, but unethical.
They can only do it themselves.
Too many have fallen into the evangelistic trap of believing they have the ability and right to change people’s minds. No one does, but they try anyway. And try, and try. Then the tables are turned as the other person attempts to persuade them towards an opposing philosophy, forcing them on the defensive. The aggression escalates and arguments ensue. Before we know it, friendships and family bonds are strained to breaking point. But which is more to blame here – clashing ideologies or ego?
I am not advocating neutrality. It is imperative to be true to who we are, to choose sides if compelled to do so, while also keeping in mind that choosing a side does not have to mean going to war.
On the whole, Earth societies are not naturally inclined to accept, much less embrace, having diverse, clashing beliefs within a single culture. In a recent interview by Dani Henderson, explorer Praveen Mohan explains how India is an exception in that they “don’t have one central authority or one book that is the book. If it was designed this way, it would have been easily taken over by others”. He goes on to say, “in ancient times in India people really respected that your opinions were different. You can choose to believe anything you wanted, and so we have a lot of gods and we also have a lot of texts, and sometimes the texts conflict with one another, but they’re very respectful and we had this beautiful kind of free culture where everybody coexisted very peacefully”.
This will be the near future for the human race once we come to terms with the idea of standing up for truth while maintaining civility and respect. Standing up for truth while knowing that everyone finds it in their own time, their own way.
Which is the only way.
