Young people should give up activism and make money

You may say that this is the wrong time to tell. Earlier this month, the Indian government used unequal force against a 22-year-old climate change activist, calling her protest a war on the Republic and imprisoning her. Other young activists are also facing serious consequences for revolting against India’s agrarian reforms. But, the wrong time to say something is also the best time to test the tanner of a difficult argument. And the argument is this: the youth of India, who are good-minded and this is an important classification, must abandon full-time activism, refuse to work in non-profit organizations, remove themselves from humanitarians and raise suspicion of hyper-morality emanating from the West. They should make money instead, or do well in other ways in the physical world, or at least start a sad business.

I would say for a single moment that young people should not be interested in the welfare of other people, or that they should be tolerated arbitrarily and quietly. In fact, the only moral basis for all my columns in this space is: ‘We have only one job: if we are lucky, we must take care of the unlucky; Everything else is just an argument about the best way. ‘I think it’s the best way for young people, especially those with exclusive rights, to be able to serve their country better, without choosing the easy option of festive grandstanding and do-gooding. It is often harmful, at best useless or an inefficient way to make the world a better place.

There are good arguments against such an opinion. Physical success is tough, just lottery, and often tough. Why should young people be caught up in the dissatisfaction of ambition; Why should they waste their lives in dull corporate slavery? And, the taxes or invisible jobs you create by expanding the economy do not match the excitement and meaning of direct intervention in any social benefit. However, my argument against early activism is based on these ideas.

Some activists are whispering, but can’t say it publicly. Humanism has become a magnet for the instability of wanting to see dissatisfaction in everything. This is not a place to thrive happily and intelligently. It is a dangerous environment for those who are suicidal or just sad, as is often the case with youth, because all the evils in the world are constantly expressed.

Last year, Barack Obama took this phrase from a young American civil rights activist and encouraged young people to create change by asking him to “put good trouble”. The “good trouble” is that Obama is not as innocent as the ination about the “moderate Taliban.” Young can do “good trouble”. “Toxicity” means full-time idealism to implement the useful modern term. “The joy of giving” is the pleasure that emanates from an emotional feudal system in which some are more important than the miserable ones. The pleasure of easy verification is unmatched intoxication.

As with any drug, it has its drawbacks. And activists get into trouble with the state for relying on it.

When this happens, what is the moral obligation of individuals to encourage young people to turn into “good trouble”? In the US, the establishment of human rights can go a long way in looking after its own. But its wisdom is not possible in India. Young people who expect to be “good trouble” can destroy the state and their handlers who use them to achieve political and ideological ends cannot always protect them. India is just electoral democracy; It’s not really democracy in the Western sense, it can not move forward that way.

Much of what is happening in India in the name of humanism is a part of the global industry of Western idealism with its similar values. It is a new form of the gospel. Hence conscientious comedians such as Greta Th‌nberg or Rihanna, or Trevor Noah, do not feel obligated to read the dense passages of a country’s agricultural economy, at least on Wikipedia, before commenting on what a country should do. Its own farmers. As this column maintains, Indian agrarian reform is a bold humanitarian endeavor, but for Western social evangelism propaganda, the farmer who is concerned about the tractor‌ needs to be the victim. Thus, once again, Global Posh, in the spirit of do-gooding, is actually hurting the Indian poor. Exotic socialism has impoverished India to such an extent that good intentions can kill millions, and liberating greed can tragically lift a quarter of a nation out of poverty in a single generation.

The argument made by the Indian government that foreign agents are trying to undermine its agricultural reforms seems foolish, but there is substance in the insanity. Young people never realize who is funding their cause and why. Above all, the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States not only funded uprisings around the world, but also sponsored Gloria Steinim’s feminism and the globalization of Russian literature.

Truth be told, if I were the Prime Minister of India and worried about China’s growth, I would call my Secret Service Chief and wonder how to promote humanitarian concerns in China’s well – fed youth and how they can be smuggled into that country. Giving ‘. It will inadvertently hurt its poor growth for China’s rich who are looking for meaning. I know this is a bit funny. But again, it is always an omen of truth.

Manu Joseph is a journalist, and novelist, most recently ‘Miss Laila, Armed and Dangerous’

Subscribe to it Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *