The Gum Tree for 2006 October 4 (entry 2)

< It must be hard to be a talk show host
Stuck in the eye. >

Wed Oct 04 10:10:35 MST Survival of the Unfittest--The Will to Power:

I have been thinking about what makes a person successful in Politics, Hollywood, Sports, and Buisness (thank goodness I have entered the meritocricy of academics). I am reminded of Raspinokov in Crime and Punishment who understood this and was tormented by the desire to help people by the use of raw force and power (Democrats may take a lesson from this), and the resulting negation of Moral Law that the will to power denies a priori, and therefore the negation of the very purpose for which one uses force--for the common Good (with a capital G).

Dosteovsky put it in a way that is interesting. People who will to power, who have a modicum of intelligence, need only stoop down to pick it up. Not too hard, right? The problem is that you get all kinds of people who are not-so intelligent, not-so talented, incompetent, etc. (you may say--yeah, Bush!, and I agree with you to a degree). The irony is that those who thrive in a "will to power" environment are not those who are integritous, moral individuals.

Napoleon was able to "stoop" down to power and pick it up as did Hitler. What made them better than Raspinokov? The Answer, Dosteovsky tells us is this: Raspinokov's principles weakened him in a world ruled by the will to power, and as a result he turned himself in for the murder of the pawn broker. Raspinokov's moral judgement bought him a prison cell in Siberia, while Nepoleon's abandonment of his moral judgement bought him an Empire. Those who succeed in a will to power must shed themselves of cumbersome values, morals, and principles. The same may be said of the powerful in Hollywood about whom Mitch Davis wrote:

"I developed a societal model I called, 'Survival of the Unfittest.' It grew out of my observation that the success of an individual in Hollywood often didn’t seem to derive from their level of intellect or innate talent. Rather, success often seemed to be determined by an individual’s willingness to fight dirtier and stoop lower than his or her peers." Mitch Davis Continues: "The unfortunate result was that all too frequently (although not always) people in seats of power in Hollywood seemed to be individuals who led unbalanced, miserable lives and who then foisted their lack of balance and misery on the world they were paid to entertain. In short, the lunatics were running the asylum."

Sound a bit like Congress?

No wonder Hollywood has become more and more unpalatable to my discriminating tastes. Those who do not have such taste, however, are like the senior citizen who orders sharp blue cheese salad dressing because their aesthetic tastes buds have progressively atrophied by the abandonment of the Good. Society needs become more eccentric, edgy, evocative, poignant as they become deadened to the joys of simple ordinary life. Hence the rise in homosexuality, the multi-Billion (with a B) dollar pornography "industry," and the rise in violence in TV, movies and the roadways of American Cities.

That was Clinton's great tragic trait, I believe. He fell in a will to power mentality (including using his power to coerce young interns to gratify his lusts), and that dulled his capacity and quality.

I think that is why people of principle (the meek) will never rule the earth until the earth no longer sustains the type who are willing to "stoop" to power or "slouch toward Gomorrah" to coin a phrase from Robert Bork.

[Main] [Edit]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.