Ruthlessness is required

One of the unfortunate things about modern times is the need for one to be totally ruthless in one's dealings with others and in maintaining one's values. This poses a particular problem for those who may be inclined toward compassion and other traits considered to be more "humane." The nicer or more compassionate one is, the less likely he is to get ahead. That is the hard, cold truth of it. For the world tends to reward obnoxiousness. To be ruthless in defending one's values and in maintaining strength of character seems to be the only rational alternative given these circumstances.

One is supposed to believe that humans are one big happy family, and if one accepts all of the superficial banter that goes on, one would think that murders, rapes, robberies, embezzlement, and other forms of treachery never take place. Take "good morning." In America, everyone wants to start the day off with cheerful 'good morning,' and a little yellow smiley face. Very, few people actually take the positive action that a good morning requires. They are as indifferent, hostile, belligerent, and inconsiderate as ever underneath that "yellow smiley face." Even so, one is supposed to believe it is a "good morning." Well, reason demands that if a day actually has a "good morning," there should be some tangible proof of it. A morning is not 'good' simply because one claims it to be. Here is the way it works in America. One gets fired, arrested, sued, and evicted but as long as it is done with a yellow smiley face, it is all supposed to be good. Cultural moors are completely out of touch with reality. One reason is because events and behavior rarely bare the weight of substance. Even the most gravest of circumstances are belittled to giggling and jokes. And, what is even more perplexing, is all of the comedy and smiles are not making people any nicer or kinder. It is all an illusion.

It seems that the nicer and more decent one is, the more likely one is to fall victim to some act of malice. That is not to say that there are no more decent people, but that decency no longer seems to be the dominant trait in public dealings. Some people attribute this to the fall of religion and the rise of secularism. Since religion typically carries a rather heavy dose of morality, there may be some truth to this. However, the reasons for the change in behavior are less important that the effects that it has on everyday life most particularly those who notice it. A great majority of people accept malice as a normal part of life. It is not. However, one must prepare to combat the forces of malice most particularly when one does not embrace a malicious world view. In other words, the more brutal and cruel becomes the world, the more necessary is the combative mindset.

Females have a much easier time of it than men in general. All of the popular talk about this being a man's world and boo-hoo-hoo for women is a trivial distraction. The fact is, men are doers and in general women are not. Women do not want to read, educate themselves, solve problems, or generally face reality. Many women simply want a man to take care of them. That may have sounded attractive to some men a long time ago like in feudal times, but there is just too much responsibility and pressure on rational men today to be burdened with such invertebrate dependency. When a female projects an outward decency or kindness, it does well for her. Everyone, men and women alike want to help her and make life easier. On the other hand, when a man exhibits those same traits of human decency, it is viewed unfavorably. Certainly on the surface everyone says how "wonderful" he is, but the substance and the reality of it are quite different matters. Others seem to view him as a target. Women want him to lift heavy objects because he looks like a "strong man." 'Strong' in this case being an inverted compliment designed to distract one from the person's true intentions: to get a mule to do the heavy lifting. Men tend to view decent men as a different kind of target, one to be pounced upon and bullied verbally or otherwise. This is another area where a man must be ruthless, ruthless in how he protects his dignity, ruthless in identifying all attempts to exploit his strength.

Ruthlessness is not always a case of fending off an eminent attack. Often it is more subtle, more critically psychological. For example, to keep what one earns in a socially inclined society requires ruthlessness. Lists abound of wealthy people who often relinquish one-half of their fortunes to women who rarely help them to build it simply by virtue of a marriage from which men typically receive little: Michael Jordan, Steven Spielberg, Paul McCartney, Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, etc. These men brought great joy to the world, what was their "wives" claim to fame? A marriage certificate. Live requires ruthlessness in marriage.

Ruthlessness is necessary in "learning" environments where one will very often feel completely alienated in a classroom of clowns. It is no wonder that Americans read on a seventh grade reading level since a great many Americans feel that knowledge has less value than sports and liquor, and who laugh their way through everything. But, for those who want to learn, learning will be hard in most formal settings.

Ruthlessness is necessary in business not so much due to competition. Very often the competition will behave quite rationally, but one needs ruthlessness to wade through all of the inane red tape, to cope with the ubiquitous lack of competence and the absence of real quality. What makes ruthlessness even more necessary is the fact that so few people show any concern such things and blithely carry on their lives in a subnambulistic state perfectly content with shallowness. Yet, one must live in this world too. Is one supposed to just shrug and relinquish all values? That is not feasible.

Ruthlessness is required in love where pretense not sincerity is the dominant practice. Very few people think matters through. Even fewer, most particularly women, think about the meaning of love. Certainly meaning and sincerity are tossed about like bread crumbs in the wind, and the seriousness of relationships remains a mystery to most. But, what of the ones who think about such things? What about the ones for whom love is more than an erection, an orgasm, or a divorce settlement? In other words, what of the ones who do not fit into the popular scheme of things?

Ruthlessness is particularly necessary for those who are compassionate. This sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. In this world, compassion is not a valuable commodity, and in most situations it becomes a liability for those who believe in it. 'Compassion' in this instance is not the obvious demonstrations of charitable giving or selective acts of kindness to show others how humane one is. Compassion in this instance has nothing in fact to do with others. I am talking about the compassion that is derived from reason and a very logical process. When one looks at the world, one immediately realizes that there are other people in it. One does not live alone and the world most certainly does not revolve around any one person. Yet, in America this is precisely how a great many people behave. An exaggerated sense of self-importance is obvious in just about everything people do these days. For example, the attitude that the world owes one a living is so ingrained that people describe their lives in ways that blatantly demean other people "they will pay for me to do what I love" not "I will earn what they pay." It is a logical consequence of the idea that the self is all that matters. Giving importance to the self is rational, but it cannot exist independent of reality or context. However, reality for a great many people is fragmented into pieces, and the only piece that seems to matter to many is 'mine.'

In a recent radio interview on KUSC in California a student of Julliard described her experience in a business class for musicians. The class teaches things like how to build a resume, find a manager, manage personal finances etc. It is an extremely useful class and it shows that Julliard deserves its brilliant reputation. It is no wonder that many fine musicians of the caliber of Miles Davis attended there. Such classes--if more people understood the concept of context--should be standard fare in most educational curriculums along with things like buying a home, investing, remodeling, etc. In other words, all of the subjects that are helpful for leading a successful life should also be offered in school. School is after all is advertised as a place to learn. In the interview the student remarked that she needed to learn about resumes in order to "get someone to pay me for what I like to do." This is shocking in what it implies. The implication is that other people owe her a living. The idea that one freely exchange services and talent for payment does not figure into this kind of mentality.

The idea that others owe one a living and that one simply has to "get" one to cater to one's whims or to beguile someone into doing one's bidding is weak. But, it is an idea that has come to dominate the cultural landscape. This creates a significant problem for those who value character. For, it creates a vicious environment in which to try to thrive. If one attempts to enter into relationships openly without the proper psychological and emotional fortifications, the results can be disastrous. In other words, if one enters into relationships with the idea of free and fair trade while "competing" with those who could care less about either and think nothing of lying to get what they want, that person will be at a severe disadvantage. This is yet another reason that ruthlessness is necessary to protect the character one spends a lifetime building. In other words, ruthlessness is required in all of the areas where one would least expect to need it.

Very often one will feel alone in a sea of confusion, triteness, banality, and outright stupidity. This forces one to make a choice between lowering one's intellect to the least common denominator--a choice that many people unflinchingly make--and extreme isolation. For, if one desires to maintain a certain sense of dignity, pride, intelligence, strength, and value, it will cause severe alienation. This is often not a choice that one makes voluntarily. Most of the time others will make it for you. They will not specify a reason that they do not "like" you. They will simply stop talking to you or associating with you. Why? Not because you are a rapist, a murderer, an arsonist, or a pedophile, but simply because you show no interest in their inane and vulgar cartoons, or their exaggerated interest in drugs and alcohol, or their pointless jokes, etc. They do not want to rise to a higher level. They want you to come down to theirs or face the consequences of alienation. And, after all, we have been taught that alienation is a very bad thing. One "needs" friends don't you know. How does one cope with this but through a ruthless application of one's own principles, goals, and dreams?