SHOOT TO KILL - the will to power

[Choir Loft]

Once upon a time a few voices were raised against violence as entertainment; violence in books, violence in magazines, violence on TV, violence in video games and violence in movies.

That was then. This is now.

Classical philosophy holds that no human activity can be conducted without two components; will and power.

Without the strength or the facility or the power to do a thing, no man can act.
Without the desire or the motivation or will to do a thing, no man can act.

These two components must always be present for a human action to be performed. The classic definition of will to power has been modified only slightly in modern police work and court room hearings. Today its called motive and opportunity. Its the same, really except that I personally prefer the classic definition; will to power.

Christian writing begins in the Good Book. In the pages of the Bible there is much discussion about THE WILL. Jesus said that if a man even thought about murder he was guilty of it. Today, however, its perfectly acceptable to spend hard earned dollars on 'escapism' which teaches that mass murder is ok.

Hollywood capitalists believe that there is a fine line between violence projected on a movie screen and violence that begins in front of it. Billions of dollars are spent to justify the marketing of violence as entertainment, all in the name of the constitutional right to distribute murder as a function of free speech.

In the name of constitutional legality, is it ok to incite millions to violence?
In the name of constitutional legality, is it ok to restrict millions from obtaining and carrying the means to defend themselves their families and their homes from violent attack?

Are we dancing on the head of a pin or are personal rights being destroyed by the same constitutional interpretations that are used to make others very wealthy at the risk of our safety?

Are Batman and the Joker having the last laugh at our expense?

Plenty is being said about firearms. Nothing is being said about THE WILL to power, the MOTIVATION to kill that our children are being trained in by means of movies and video games.

Why is it ok to put on a uniform, travel to a foreign land and kill innocent people but not ok to do it at home among our own people? Rev. Martin Luther King raised that question in 1967 and no one has yet to dare an answer. He believed it was wrong. America is ok with killing foreigners but not our own. There is a massive national hypocrisy at work here that none today are willing to address.

THE WILL TO POWER begins long before the first bullet is even purchased, but little is being said about it.

What say you.................

[Choir Loft]

Once upon a time a few voices were raised against violence as entertainment; violence in books, violence in magazines, violence on TV, violence in video games and violence in movies.

That was then. This is now.

Classical philosophy holds that no human activity can be conducted without two components; will and power.

Without the strength or the facility or the power to do a thing, no man can act.
Without the desire or the motivation or will to do a thing, no man can act.

These two components must always be present for a human action to be performed. The classic definition of will to power has been modified only slightly in modern police work and court room hearings. Today its called motive and opportunity. Its the same, really except that I personally prefer the classic definition; will to power.

Christian writing begins in the Good Book. In the pages of the Bible there is much discussion about THE WILL. Jesus said that if a man even thought about murder he was guilty of it. Today, however, its perfectly acceptable to spend hard earned dollars on 'escapism' which teaches that mass murder is ok.

Hollywood capitalists believe that there is a fine line between violence projected on a movie screen and violence that begins in front of it. Billions of dollars are spent to justify the marketing of violence as entertainment, all in the name of the constitutional right to distribute murder as a function of free speech.

In the name of constitutional legality, is it ok to incite millions to violence?
In the name of constitutional legality, is it ok to restrict millions from obtaining and carrying the means to defend themselves their families and their homes from violent attack?

Are we dancing on the head of a pin or are personal rights being destroyed by the same constitutional interpretations that are used to make others very wealthy at the risk of our safety?

Are Batman and the Joker having the last laugh at our expense?

Plenty is being said about firearms. Nothing is being said about THE WILL to power, the MOTIVATION to kill that our children are being trained in by means of movies and video games.

Why is it ok to put on a uniform, travel to a foreign land and kill innocent people but not ok to do it at home among our own people? Rev. Martin Luther King raised that question in 1967 and no one has yet to dare an answer. He believed it was wrong. America is ok with killing foreigners but not our own. There is a massive national hypocrisy at work here that none today are willing to address.

THE WILL TO POWER begins long before the first bullet is even purchased, but little is being said about it.

What say you.................

I say you're putting way too much emhasis on things like movies, media, etc and not enough emphasis on individuality and education.
Violence existed long before movies and media. What we're seeing in the movies and media is nothing more than "more of the SAME stuff". Meaning it's always been there and always will be, but we're seeing more of it and our brains tend to take what we see and materialize it into what "must exist!"
People are violent with other people. This will only change when people stop existing. The more people that exist, the more violence we can expect to see. Unless people start making a conscious effort to change how we interact with others.

I think you hit on a very good point, especially in light of the fact people are overly paranoid about crime. The economist reported that fear of crime and crime rates themselves are not closely connected:



Additionally, there are some interesting facts about how people who are unlikely to be victims of crime are often more paranoid than those who are likely victims.

This year's figures show that 16% of women over 60 think they are likely to be mugged—a fate that actually befalls fewer than one in two hundred. Meanwhile, young men, who are victimised at more than three times the national rate, are unusually unbothered. People living in Avon and Somerset seem irrationally calm, given above-average rates of burglary and car crime. But the inhabitants of Durham, who suffer around a quarter less crime than people elsewhere in the region, are very worried about it indeed; 26% have even managed to convince themselves that they live in a highly disorderly area.

The figures you quote illustrate attitude as a component of violent experience. That may be a statistic valuable in a psychological study of the action of the mind, but it doesn't answer the question of how violence acts in the community.

For example, your quotation states that women over 60 are relatively unlikely to be mugged whereas young men (your example doesn't mention race, but that's a factor too) are far more likely to be assaulted. The statistics you quote only refer to attitude and do not relate to reality.

How many 60 year old women do you see roaming city streets at 2am?
How many young men do so on a regular basis?

It is historically accurate to say that young men aimlessly wandering the streets are more than likely to find trouble. 60 year old women are usually home in bed long before the young stallion goes out looking for .... whatever he may find in the way of entertainment or mischief.

In short, comparing 60 year old women to young men is like comparing fresh fruit to sewage. The comparison stinks.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...