They express two very different world views.

Nietzsche’s theory of will to power holds that the world is will to power and nothing besides. In this sense, we might imagine Nietzsche with his own hawkish eyes looking down on Hawk’s monologue, to ascertain what sort of will to power the monologue might be critiquing, and also in another way also expressing.

If we consider the issue from the point of view of religion, and also quasi-religious sentiments, the idea that we can ignore the issue of how power operates in the world, but yet still be happy, predominates among those who are religiously inclined.

There is a certain kind of moral and religious idealism that sees the possession of power as something extremely negative and immoral. However, it mostly conceals its own aggression by upholding a notion that we simply don’t need to be bothered with that sort of thing, and that by ignoring political matters we are in fact “rising above” them. Nietzsche’s eagle looks down on all these notions with a sense of amused contempt.

Why? Because the supposition that one “rises above” something by denying its existence is, in fact, the expression of another kind of “will to power”. It is the expression of power of those who want to feel superior, relaxed, and in control of every aspect of their lives, by not having to bother with complex issues. To put it a different way, there are people who fear being overcome by complexity, so that they set a moral agenda not to have to face these kinds of issues. Instead they dismiss that which is abov

Because it is not really like that. There may be different types of people, according to Nietzsche. This part is true. But the idea that the people who dominate are the “smart ones” is more compatible with different philosophies of the Enlightenment, and maybe classical liberalism. It is rather a distortion to view our contemporary “common sense” about these matters as somehow relating t Nietzsche’s own thoughts.

What Nietzsche saw instead was another dividing line —not between the clever and the foolish — between the “weak of spirit” and, as it were, the strong of spirit. That is, it is a psychological dividing line, not one based on Intelligence Quotient.

And it may be surprising to note, also, that the “strong in spirit” (if I may coin my own Nietzsche-derivative term) are often identifiable by their fundamental foolishness (for instance in doing what others say can’t be done, or shouldn't be done), Those who are “intelligent” stick to an established system of morality, which assures them of safety and longevity. Those who comply with “objective morality”, who toe the line, and who risk very little are, in accordance with this psychological definition, “Intelligent”. (Of course in a philosophical way of thinking, they are not intelligent at all — but this has to do with their processes of thinking. In an emotional-psychological sense, the “weak of spirit” are still smarter than the “strong of spirit”).

As to the question of “dumb universe meat”, that also has a nuanced answer. This is because “the strong” live their lives according to the principle of dramatic Tragedy, whereas “the weak” lives their lives under subordination to so-called “objective morality”.

So, in a sense, both are subordinated to become “dumb universe meat”, although, in the interim, “the strong” live their lives on a higher level, with greater quality of meaning and experience more enrichment to their lives than do the “weak of spirit”.

So, in summation, these are two different psychologies, that Nietzsche is talking about, not differences in actual intelligence quotient.