What Icke seems to be arguing against is empty promises, but he expands the argument to encompass all hope.
I agree with him that false hope can be offered to populations to keep them docile, and that this is a tactic frequently employed by politicians of
all stripes. Whether or not the hope that Obama has offered the nation is a false hope is debatable, but not important in examining the meaning of the
statement:
Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW.
Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to
stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed
to prevent it.
But it's more accurate to say that
false hope is like riding a carousel horse but believing it's a racehorse. Hope itself can be like either
one, or neither, but doesn't involve deception.
Originally posted by Argnot
I think a definate alignment can be made between hope & faith as both deal in the realm of the as yet unknown. They both give power over to that
unknown and allow the unknown to create the end result rather than add any input into this result.
The basic act of giving power over to anything other than yourself makes you powerless (Mmmm dah) and controllable. The powerful want you controllable
as you are then easier to manipulate and decieve.
The sad thing is that the hopeful/faithful will ultimately attempt to justify this lack of power by saying things like "It was fate...", "It was
mean't to be...", "It was their time...", "It was gods will..." this is again another act of giving power over.
Why does having hope entail giving power over to someone else? It often means recognizing that there are external forces at work in our lives that we
don't control, but it doesn't create those forces.
Also, giving power over to someone or something doesn't make you controllable by everything. Icke has set up a theoretical model in which hope is
equal to powerlessness is equal to inaction; but those equations aren't necessarily true.
Remain powerful by not being hopeful, by all means be positive and driven as these are tangible things which can make known that which is
unknown. Command your destiny as this is commandable and anything you want to achieve can be achieved. To hope for a better tomorrow will do nothing
to bring that to reality - work towards a better tomorrow!
What exactly is the difference between having hopes and being positive? And I notice that your "mood" in your profile is "optimistic" – are you
therefore asserting your powerlessness and willingness to be controlled by the global financial elite?
What Ike was referring to was to not be powerless by playing the game according to their rules (the carousel's design dictates that you will
never catch the horse in front - these are the rules of the carousel), by believing that that one magic device will give you the body of a greek god,
that by simply saying "I will bring change" is enough - demand this change, fight for this change and most of all BE the change.
I agree that these were the points that he actually made and backed up, more or less.
But he attaches to them the claim that "Hope is a meaningless emotion" as though feeling hope means playing by the rules.
He is turning his readers (the unpowerful but supposedly open-eyed) against the hopeful, focusing attention on the supposed ignorance of the powerless
masses, giving his readers someone to feel better than.
And belief in one's superiority is at least as big a threat to real change, in my opinion, as hope (even false hope) ever could be.
Some say life is nothing without hope - I say life is nothing without purpose
Why not have both?
