Why I Hate the Maxim (But Not the Showtune): It's Not Where You Start

Tommy Tune and ensemble performing in 

the Broadway musical Seesaw (dir. Michael Bennett, 1973)

 

Your final return will not diminish / And you can be the cream of the crop -

It's not where you start, it's where you finish / And you're gonna finish on top! [1]

 

 

I. 

 

Commenting on my temptation of Christ post (7 August 2026), an anonymous demon makes some fascinating points and encourages readers to investigate certain non-canonical texts classified as biblical apocrypha. 

 

But they also write this: "It's not where writers begin but where they end that generally tells the final truth of their legacy ..."  

 

In other words, they take a disappointing turn into tired cliché by dressing up a maxim that is repeatedly used by sports psychologists, motivational speakers, self-help authors, and sparkly showbiz types rather than those who are genuinely spawned by the Devil and delight in speaking falsehoods rather than mere platitudes.  

 

 

II. 

 

Just to be clear: I'm not denying the phrase it's not where you start, it's where you finish may have some truth content - and it certainly expresses a comforting, universally understood sentiment, which is precisely why it remains popular among those who have experienced failure or feel themselves to be slow starters in life.

 

But I hate it and regard it as a belonging to an underdog narrative: You too can overcome base origins or personal misfortune and achieve the greatness you deserve! In this way, it reinforces what Nietzsche termed the slave revolt in morals [2].   

 

Philosophically, it's suspect too in promoting the idea of agency - i.e., that your individual choices and effort matter more than your initial circumstances or fate: The future, my friends, is unwritten - so climb up that ladder and go for it!  

 

In reality, of course, starting positions - such as wealth, access to education, and social connections - heavily determine the direction and final outcome of your life. Those who are lucky enough to have a good start will invariably finish ahead of the game. 

 

Song lyrics asserting if you start at the top, you're certain to drop and that nobody starts a winner [3] are - to not put too fine a point on it - a load of old cobblers, no matter how enthusiastically they're performed.  

 

Ultimately, this uplifting maxim is a banal piece of pseudo-wisdom that ignores systemic inequalities, while encouraging all and sundry to believe that they might be rewarded by the bitch-goddess Success.   

 

It's one thing for some all-too-human commentator like Alex Guillien [4] to buy into the myth of it's not where you start, it's where you finish, but I expect so much more in the way of satanic insight from my more demonic readers ... 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] From the song 'It's Not Where You Start', which featured in the American musical Seesaw (1973); music by Cy Coleman and lyrics by Dorothy Fields. The Broadway show was based on William Gibson's play Two for the Seesaw (1958). Click on the link provided to listen to the original Broadway cast recording, provided to YouTube by DRG Records. 

      Alternatively, if you wish to see multi-talented Tommy Tune and Co. perform the song - which was the big showstopper - then click here. Funnily enough, although I hate the maxim, I love the song and this performance - choreographed by Michael Bennett - is fabulous; it quite literally has it all (including confetti and balloons). 

 

[2] The original German expression used by Nietzsche is der Sklavenaufstand in der Moral and it appears in the First Essay of Zur Genealogie der Moral (1887). 

 

[3] See note [1] above. 

 

[4] Alex Guillien, It's Not Where You Start, It's Where You Finish, Medium (14 June 2016). 

      While researching this post, I was obliged to read some really piss-poor pieces by authors concerned with wellness, fitness, and inspiration, but I think that this one by Guillien best encapsulates all that I find so objectionable about the endlessly upbeat optimism of those who believe that "opportunities are ever-present", that success is "the progressive realization of a worthy goal" and that the aim in life is to become the "best version of YOU!"   

 

 

Dark Enlightenment 1: On the Politics of Hate

Hate, as Nick Land rightly says, is a word worth considering: one which "testifies with special clarity to the religious orthodoxy" [1] of an age obsessed with hate speech and hate crime. 

 

With reference to the second of these things, Land writes: 

 

"Perhaps its most remarkable feature is its perfect redundancy, when evaluated from the perspective of any analysis of legal and cultural norms that is not enflamed by neo-puritan evangelical enthusiasm." 

 

That's true: for what is a hate crime - if any such thing exists - other than just an ordinary crime with the word 'hate' attached? 

 

And, one might also ask: "what is it exactly that aggravates a murder, or assault, if the motivation is attributed to 'hate'?" 

 

 

II. 

 

In response to these questions, Land says that, firstly, a hate crime "is augmented by a purely ideational, ideological, or even 'spiritual' element, attesting not only to a violation of civilized conduct, but also to a heretical intention."

 

Hate, in other words, is an offense against what Land and his fellow neoreactionaries term the Cathedral [2]; "a refusal of its spiritual guidance, and a mental act of defiance against the manifest religious destiny of the world".

 

Secondly, Land asserts that a hate crime is something that only those on the right can commit; the left is far too enlightened - or far too woke as we would say now - ever to hate; they are passionate about a cause, or morally outraged about an issue, or justifiably angry about some form of behaviour deemed offensive, but never hateful. 

 

For theirs is the politics of Universal Love; a decadent creed which "with its reflex identification of inequality with injustice, can conceive no alternative to the proposition that the lower one's situation or status, the more compelling is one's claim upon society, the purer and nobler one's cause". 

 

Being one of the wretched of this earth is thus a "sign of spiritual election [...] and to dispute any of this is clearly 'hate'". 

 

I think that's correct and I'd like to see Taylor Swift, or anyone else for that matter, just shake off the truth of Land's analysis of slave morality and the manner in which hate functions for some not merely as a form of political incorrectness or criminality, but as sin.   

 

 

Notes

 

[1] Nick Land, The Dark Enlightenment (Imperium Press, 2022). The essay, written in 2012, is also available online - click here - from where I am quoting (see Part 3). 

 

[2] In brief, the Cathedral is an overarching body composed of universities, mainstream media outlets, and many other institutions.

Dark Enlightenment 2: On Exiting the Present (5 July 2024): click here. 

 

Dark Enlightenment 3: On the Zombie Apocalypse (5 July 2024): click here. 

Dark Enlightenment 4: On Rejecting Universalism (6 July 2024): click here. 

What if the Shoe Were on the Other Foot?

Photo by Chris Buck for O - Oprah Magazine (May 2017)

chrisbuck.com

 

 

New York based photographer Chris Buck is known for his unconventional portraits of various celebrities and politicians - and celebrity politicians - including Presidents Obama and Trump. His arresting images have appeared in many top publications and he has been involved with a number of high profile commercial campaigns, including the controversial Be Stupid campaign for Diesel. 

 

Like many people, however, I know of him primarily for his pictures in the May 2017 edition of O - The Oprah Magazine, which played with the idea of a reversal of class and race roles, in which whiteness was suddenly disprivileged, at best, if not subject to systemic discrimination in this alternative universe.

 

The photos - which quickly went viral - were for the most part positively received, though, predictably, some found them offensive. Buck claims that his pictures were intended to stimulate questions, but not necessarily provide answers and that he's pleased to know that different people had different reactions:

 

"I want everyone to feel like they can vocalize their feelings about it, whether they’re positive or negative. More talk about this is a good thing. I’d rather people not get upset or offended, but if that’s their reaction then I think that’s totally fair too." *

 

For me, they illustrate something I think we all know at heart: that given the opportunity, everyone is capable of behaving as a cruel, selfish, exploitative arsehole who doesn't give a shit about those who are regarded as inferiors. 

 

In other words, no one is innocent. And those currently oppressed or subject to injustice and violence would behave just as appallingly - if not worse - given the upper hand. Slave morality - for all its fine words - is, let us not forget, a resentment-fuelled desire for revenge; a reactive expression of will to power. 

 

And so, even if the shoe were on the other foot, it would still mean a kick in the face for someone ... Is the solution then that we must all learn to go barefoot (were such a thing possible)?

 

* Note: I'm quoting from an interview with Chris Buck by Jennifer Berry. See: 'The Real Story Behind the O Pics That Have Been All Over Your Feed', Flare, (23 May, 2017): click here.  

In Defence of Gwyneth Paltrow

The question is not why so many people find Gwyneth Paltrow irritating, but why so many people hate her with such violent and shameful ferocity.

Reading through some of the vile comments written about her this week following the announcement of her conscious uncoupling from husband Chris Martin, one predictably comes across not only misogyny and anti-Semitism, but what Nietzsche terms ressentiment and by which he refers to a poisonous will to revenge on behalf of the disprivileged and those who continue to advocate and enforce slave morality. 

Ms Paltrow is hated not because of any pretentious aspects to her character or quirky affectations of speech, but because she is a very wealthy, very successful, very talented, and very beautiful individual who, despite the deep sadness caused by her separation, dares to present the world with a healthy, happy face.

I may not wish to subscribe to her goop lifestyle, but better even that than living with scabies of the heart.