DisillusionedCitizen
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2022
- Messages
- 561
Original Rough Draft Written: 24 January, 2026
Revised Date: 26 January, 2026
Something that is widely praised and well-regarded tends to hide a sinister flaw. Every time people go through hard times, they insist other should have hope, claiming that that it’s valuable and important, as without it, people would give in to depression, and ultimately, their lives would be meaningless. Granted, it lifts up the spirits, motivate people not to give up, give them a purpose, and a more mentally healthy state, but there’s a dark, cruel paradox public speakers and advocates would dare not address: just as often it can uplift people, hope can be given for deceptive purposes. Nietzsche once cited the having hope is “the worst of all evils because it prolongs the suffering of man.” Hope doesn’t seem like a negative concept at first, but hope tends to make people comfortable in the mental sense, so when that hope falls and reality presents evidence contrary to someone’s expectations, they’ll be disappointed, sometimes to the point they’ll lie to themselves to keep those versions in their head to be true. This leads to the term comforting lies.
Whether it’s to inspire and deceive, hope is hope, regardless of whatever people categorize it to be; what advocates call “false hope” is when people give others hope not to lift up people’s spirits, but with the intent to deceive them more easily. The concept of a double-edged exists for a reason: Advocates will over-emphasize the good aspects of certain concepts like hope. With the negative aspects, people will do little to warn others at best, or ignore them altogether at worst. Hope is one of these concepts. For all the perks and praises sung about what hope has accomplished, one has to wonder “how many lies have spawned as a result of hope?” Having hope is to imagine positive versions of events in the human mind that is then realized and manifested into reality so what does that mean? It’s entirely possible for advocates to deceive themselves and others without realizing it. Hope backed by action isn’t powerful; it only makes the dogmatism they impose more obvious. The idea of certain people working to desperately desire a good outcome to come to reality and accomplish it in spite of contrary evidence is horrifying. That they become liars by accident in the process only drives it home.
And there’s a common thread here. Is it any wonder Christians, whose religion has Jewish roots, infamously has “Jesus saves” as one of their slogans in spite of stealing millions of money from home-owners directly and through immigrants? There’s something else that plays into this, which I’ll go into later. Is it wonder pacifism is promoted by media as more effective than violent revolution. It keeps people’s spirits up and drop their guards down, desiring a peaceful outcome to manifest into reality. Pacifism invokes hope (specifically that politics will improve peacefully), only to enable more injustice. Is it any wonders Muslims claim that their religion (which also has Jewish roots) is peaceful? This narrative sounds until the violent Muslims start enforcing their brutal and draconian policies. Is it any wonder that Jewish-owned businesses swindle their customers and consumers so easily? Without hope, Jewish lies and swindles collapse more easily and quickly.
Even though hope will give people more positive emotions and higher expectations, there’s an oft-ignored trade-off: people end up easier to fool and swindle. The CONVID Scamdemic (COVID for politically correct zealots reading this.) is one pronounced example: Jews peddled vaccination as the ultimate cure for a disease that barely threatened people’s lives. A majority of people believed the narrative and took the vaccines, only for them to die afterward. It may explain a part of why the weak and the stupid die so easily so fooled; hope gives them comfort, thinking they won’t have to do the investigative work and hard work the smart and strong, respectively. The smart and strong do not need hope as often as the weak and stupid. Speaking of CONVID, this paradox is doubly true for narratives in general, and triply so for ‘inspirational’ and ‘victimhood’ narratives in particular; in the case of the former, public speakers will tell stories to uplift and motivate others, but what if that story was a lie, a perjury designed to gather more pawns on the chessboard to send listeners to their deaths? The idea would be absolutely nonsensical to mainstream thinkers. As for the victimhood narrative, the idea of this can be (and often has been) exploited with the positive, unrealistic claim that no amount of suffering will ever happen to them again (in their own minds); black people, and especially Jews, have used this narrative as a pretext to attack people of other races (usually white people) and censor any criticism directed against them, thus continuing the suffering. This is more true with Jews and their Holocaust narrative. It’s a narcissist presenting themselves as victims as a pretext to get revenge. If there are any ignorant people who believe this narrative, then it’s easier for the narcissist Jews and Blacks to abuse their enemies. The Jews in particular know full well that an audience are just more puppets to deceive, and haven’t forgotten that without entertainment as a reason and factor, theater and script-writing would become be a breeding ground for lies, and they’ve applied outside the field throughout history (The Civil Rights Movement, 9/11, The Holocaust, the AIDs pandemic, to name a few).
Recently, something has occurred to me: Most people I’ve talked to and run into will often say that life and humanity aren’t perfect, but don’t say the same with specific, static concepts; certain people will worship these concepts as if they’re the absolute truth when applied via action, paving the way for dogmatism. Maybe Apollo and Plato’s idea were over-praised and over-trusted; they believed that if they manifest their ideas through actions, it’ll be example of truth. What the two don’t realize that they’ve enabled the very bigotry Communists impose that they call their opponents out for. Hope is a big offender of this phenomenon, so much so that it’s become a constant cycle of entrenchment.
The future is a crap shoot: even if people take direct action, it may not influence everyone or everything directly. A person can be given hope all they like, and it won’t come to reality, even if there was work and effort put into it. Hope as a concept is seen as something sacred, however, whatever is (nigh)universally approved and considered as important does not mean it’s safe from exploitation. The idea that hope can breed deception would be considered anathema or totally absurd, but this is a paradox I discovered two weeks ago, in the days leading up to my job interview.
To the people reading this, what do you think?
Revised Date: 26 January, 2026
Something that is widely praised and well-regarded tends to hide a sinister flaw. Every time people go through hard times, they insist other should have hope, claiming that that it’s valuable and important, as without it, people would give in to depression, and ultimately, their lives would be meaningless. Granted, it lifts up the spirits, motivate people not to give up, give them a purpose, and a more mentally healthy state, but there’s a dark, cruel paradox public speakers and advocates would dare not address: just as often it can uplift people, hope can be given for deceptive purposes. Nietzsche once cited the having hope is “the worst of all evils because it prolongs the suffering of man.” Hope doesn’t seem like a negative concept at first, but hope tends to make people comfortable in the mental sense, so when that hope falls and reality presents evidence contrary to someone’s expectations, they’ll be disappointed, sometimes to the point they’ll lie to themselves to keep those versions in their head to be true. This leads to the term comforting lies.
Whether it’s to inspire and deceive, hope is hope, regardless of whatever people categorize it to be; what advocates call “false hope” is when people give others hope not to lift up people’s spirits, but with the intent to deceive them more easily. The concept of a double-edged exists for a reason: Advocates will over-emphasize the good aspects of certain concepts like hope. With the negative aspects, people will do little to warn others at best, or ignore them altogether at worst. Hope is one of these concepts. For all the perks and praises sung about what hope has accomplished, one has to wonder “how many lies have spawned as a result of hope?” Having hope is to imagine positive versions of events in the human mind that is then realized and manifested into reality so what does that mean? It’s entirely possible for advocates to deceive themselves and others without realizing it. Hope backed by action isn’t powerful; it only makes the dogmatism they impose more obvious. The idea of certain people working to desperately desire a good outcome to come to reality and accomplish it in spite of contrary evidence is horrifying. That they become liars by accident in the process only drives it home.
And there’s a common thread here. Is it any wonder Christians, whose religion has Jewish roots, infamously has “Jesus saves” as one of their slogans in spite of stealing millions of money from home-owners directly and through immigrants? There’s something else that plays into this, which I’ll go into later. Is it wonder pacifism is promoted by media as more effective than violent revolution. It keeps people’s spirits up and drop their guards down, desiring a peaceful outcome to manifest into reality. Pacifism invokes hope (specifically that politics will improve peacefully), only to enable more injustice. Is it any wonders Muslims claim that their religion (which also has Jewish roots) is peaceful? This narrative sounds until the violent Muslims start enforcing their brutal and draconian policies. Is it any wonder that Jewish-owned businesses swindle their customers and consumers so easily? Without hope, Jewish lies and swindles collapse more easily and quickly.
Even though hope will give people more positive emotions and higher expectations, there’s an oft-ignored trade-off: people end up easier to fool and swindle. The CONVID Scamdemic (COVID for politically correct zealots reading this.) is one pronounced example: Jews peddled vaccination as the ultimate cure for a disease that barely threatened people’s lives. A majority of people believed the narrative and took the vaccines, only for them to die afterward. It may explain a part of why the weak and the stupid die so easily so fooled; hope gives them comfort, thinking they won’t have to do the investigative work and hard work the smart and strong, respectively. The smart and strong do not need hope as often as the weak and stupid. Speaking of CONVID, this paradox is doubly true for narratives in general, and triply so for ‘inspirational’ and ‘victimhood’ narratives in particular; in the case of the former, public speakers will tell stories to uplift and motivate others, but what if that story was a lie, a perjury designed to gather more pawns on the chessboard to send listeners to their deaths? The idea would be absolutely nonsensical to mainstream thinkers. As for the victimhood narrative, the idea of this can be (and often has been) exploited with the positive, unrealistic claim that no amount of suffering will ever happen to them again (in their own minds); black people, and especially Jews, have used this narrative as a pretext to attack people of other races (usually white people) and censor any criticism directed against them, thus continuing the suffering. This is more true with Jews and their Holocaust narrative. It’s a narcissist presenting themselves as victims as a pretext to get revenge. If there are any ignorant people who believe this narrative, then it’s easier for the narcissist Jews and Blacks to abuse their enemies. The Jews in particular know full well that an audience are just more puppets to deceive, and haven’t forgotten that without entertainment as a reason and factor, theater and script-writing would become be a breeding ground for lies, and they’ve applied outside the field throughout history (The Civil Rights Movement, 9/11, The Holocaust, the AIDs pandemic, to name a few).
Recently, something has occurred to me: Most people I’ve talked to and run into will often say that life and humanity aren’t perfect, but don’t say the same with specific, static concepts; certain people will worship these concepts as if they’re the absolute truth when applied via action, paving the way for dogmatism. Maybe Apollo and Plato’s idea were over-praised and over-trusted; they believed that if they manifest their ideas through actions, it’ll be example of truth. What the two don’t realize that they’ve enabled the very bigotry Communists impose that they call their opponents out for. Hope is a big offender of this phenomenon, so much so that it’s become a constant cycle of entrenchment.
The future is a crap shoot: even if people take direct action, it may not influence everyone or everything directly. A person can be given hope all they like, and it won’t come to reality, even if there was work and effort put into it. Hope as a concept is seen as something sacred, however, whatever is (nigh)universally approved and considered as important does not mean it’s safe from exploitation. The idea that hope can breed deception would be considered anathema or totally absurd, but this is a paradox I discovered two weeks ago, in the days leading up to my job interview.
To the people reading this, what do you think?
