Print this post Print this post

In Defense of Losers, 2

1,669 words

Aedon Cassiel’s excellent Counter-Currents article “In Defense of Losers” made me think a lot about the nature of dissident political movements in general, and white ethno-nationalism in particular.

One of Cassiel’s points, made in the second half of his article, was that the more intelligent or successful whites—winners, presumably—tend to insulate themselves from the negative effects of racial diversity by being able to afford to live away from most non-whites and by typically encountering only those non-whites who are exceptional for desirable traits on their race’s bell curve. Less intelligent or successful whites—losers, presumably—cannot afford such insulation, and therefore will be more likely to personally observe the negative impacts of racial diversity.

It follows that most whites who are sympathetic to White Nationalism will spring from this latter subset of the white population because, presumably, they would be the most dissatisfied with racial diversity. Hence, any White Nationalist movement will contain a large number of “losers.”

I believe that this makes sense and that there’s quite a bit of truth in it (as there is in the entirety of Cassiel’s article, which I am by no means paraphrasing in toto here). Cassiel also does of a good job of dispelling the White Nationalist loser notion as peddled by our nation’s elites while sticking to the discussion’s original terminology. However, I also believe that with some effort this argument could be taken a little further.

Let me back up first and define the terms “winner” and “loser” before applying these concepts to White Nationalism. As a caveat, I am only offering these definitions as they apply to white men since there are far fewer white women seriously involved in White Nationalism at this time. Also, these definitions are mine alone, and may or may not correspond with the epithets “winner” and “loser” as they are commonly used.

So, defining “winner” is easy; it’s someone who isn’t a loser.

Okay, then, what is a loser?

When I was in high school and college, a “loser” was simply someone who was socially maladapted, a person who had few if any friends and no credible hope for serious attention from the opposite sex. Because such a person earns this distinction in an environment in which no one has to work or fight to survive, I would refer to this person as a “Scholastic Loser.” In a scholastic setting, most people who aspired to be winners avoided losers as much as possible since it was socially backward to be around them. Their loser-ness permeates space like a bad smell. In hindsight, this has all the pettiness of the bureaucratic snobbery and groveling found in Gogol’s or Dostoevsky’s Russia, but that’s just the way it was.

For example, I was neither a winner nor loser in college, but starting out I was certainly much closer to the loser end of the spectrum. Still, with some work over a few years, I was able to eke my way towards the center of the spectrum and enjoy a somewhat respectable social life. One night, as I was planning a trip to a club across town and entertaining not-quite-so-unrealistic hopes of meeting girls from other colleges there, a friend asked if he could tag along. I was crestfallen. This friend occupied the ninety-ninth percentile of loserdom as if it were a decrepit port-a-potty. He was a nice guy and I liked him fine, but he was tedious and annoying and not terribly good looking. But because we were in the same broad social circle and because I just didn’t have the heart to hurt him, I couldn’t say no. I already had the handicap of being a little more than half-loser myself, and with this guy hanging around my neck like an albatross, the night was shot before it could even begin.

In a scholastic milieu, being a winner or loser loosely correlates with attributes such as looks, physical stature, money, wittiness, accomplishment (academic or athletic, usually), and how much beer you can guzzle. But the most important attributes are the ability to attract the opposite sex and the ability to embarrass. The former makes others respect you; the latter makes others fear you. When I was in graduate school years later, I had a snide, hipster colleague who thought he could be rude to me. One cutting, sarcastic dig from me however—in front of a couple pretty girls, no less—and he was happy to see me from then on.

Once you get into the real world, of course, things change and make all this scholastic business seem quite juvenile in retrospect. When you have to struggle for survival and provide for other people, society correctly values different aspects of a man. For a man to be considered an “Adult Winner,” he must A) be good at what he does, and B) do what he does. If he can do one of these things and not the other, then he is part-winner and part-loser. If he can’t do either, then he is all loser. It’s really that simple. If a man can fulfill these two criteria, then in the vast majority of cases, he will be able to at least earn a living, attract the opposite sex, and accomplish a good chunk of what he wants in life. All the rest (looks, height, fitness, wit, intelligence, etc.) matters less, with the caveat that being rich accomplishes A and B in one fell swoop since what a rich man does is “whatever he wants.”

As proof of my Adult Winner-Loser theory, I present exhibit A, one Michel Petrucciani.

This was a fascinating man, born in France in 1962, with an incurable genetic disorder called osteogenesis imperfecta. Osteogenesis imperfecta in its more extreme forms causes short stature, brittle bones, constant pain, and pulminory problems. It is also inheritable, saddling each of its victim’s offspring with varying chances of being afflicted as well. Oh, and it can also kill you young, with victims of certain types of the disease rarely living a normal lifespan (Petrucciani, all three feet of him, made it to 36).

The reason why I bring up Michel Petrucciani is because he was a true winner in my little schema. In spite of horrific adversity, the man was an extremely talented and successful jazz pianist. He released over thirty recordings and was awarded the Légion d’honneur in Paris in 1994. Furthermore, he had girlfriends, even wives (!). Pretty ones, too. Check out two of them, here and here. One of these ladies even bore him a child who, predictably—and tragically—enough, was afflicted with the same disease as his father.

In a social science sense, Michel Petrucciani is the perfect specimen to test my Adult Winner-Loser theory because he controls for almost every possible independent variable that would attract the opposite sex except for criteria A and B above, which become the dependent variables. Pretty much the only thing he had going for him was that he was extremely good at what he did, and he did what he did. This and this alone explains how this scrunched up little genius got more damnable action than a good chunk of us.

(Yes, Michel Petrucciani was a nice guy, but so was my college friend of the decrepit porta-potty, for all the good it did him.)

I imagine a Punnett Square of the Adult Winner-Loser breakdown would look something like this:

And just like in genetics, a person can have many Punnett Squares describing different things he may be good or bad at, which places winners and losers on a continuum, rather than in a stark black-white dichotomy. Our mainstream elites would have us believe that White Nationalism either consists of Scholastic Losers or Adult Losers of the gd variety. The former never reversed their social backwardness, and latter are no good at what they do and are unemployed besides. And yes, there are people like this among White Nationalists as there are among members of any dissident group.

But what our elites don’t count on are losers of the Gd variety also being attracted to White Nationalism. These are white men who are talented, intelligent, and driven, but who are excluded or hindered from their chosen careers or forced to conform to modern, politically correct standards which clearly disadvantage “pale males” like them. They are made into “losers” through no fault of their own, and from this pool White Nationalism draws some of its best thinkers and leaders. Think Wilmot Robertson resorting to the classic underground publication Instauration or Sam Francis being fired from the Washington Times or Peter Brimelow being let go from National Review or the safe, cushy life Kevin MacDonald could have lived had he simply dropped the Jew thing years ago. A lot of our best people have suffered outright rejection from the mainstream in one way or another or certainly expect to if they ever get doxed. As a result, they have little invested in mainstream society and would care even less if it were to come crashing down. As we all know, having little to lose also encourages risk taking. It makes one dangerous. What comes around, goes around with unjust rejection. Ultimately, the rejected party bites back twice as hard.

Now, I have to be very careful here lest I give the impression that all White Nationalists are losers. They are not; not by a long shot. I’m sure there are many perfectly successful and well-adjusted GD folks who do more than just sympathize with us and read our blogs. As I have stated before, “winners” and “losers” in this instance are not the commonly-used epithets we’re so familiar with but objective jargon established to make a point within this limited context. Most importantly, they are not static, with many losers being transformed into winners once they become White Nationalists and put in the serious effort and sacrifice necessary to make this thing work.

I believe this is something else our mainstream elites did not count on.

Related

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

7 Comments

  1. ster plaz
    Posted July 22, 2017 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    I have a different observation in life.

    All that seems to matter is how pretty your face is. Most of society seems to revolve around this condition. It is not only important in how successful one is in how they are treated by the opposite sex. It determines how well one is treated by people in general, meaning platonic interactions. It is carried over into the business world or employment. Who’s hired first, who’s fired/laid-off first, how much they are paid, how high they advance; all revolve around how pretty one is.

    There is only a small amount of truly/genuine pretty people, so next up on the totem pole of “winner/loser” are those “approved” of by the pretty people; those who are not pretty but are useful or suck ups to someone pretty. In the workplace, exceptions are those who are family relation to the boss(es).

    Sports teams in public schools are, underneath, about the “winners”. They get to start first, commit many blunders and when replaced (benched) it is done so without fanfare. Losers wait for any chance to play and are usually dismissed on the slightest error/failure. Their removal is usually a public event. It is not really about playing the best to be had. It doesn’t matter how good an athlete one is.

    Every activity starts, or quickly ends up, being about making the pretty the center of attention.

    The Hollywood entertainment industry is one big, societal wide, “make-the-pretty-the-center-of-attention”.

    If you are not one of the pretty or one of their suck ups, then you must find the ability to enjoy life in some way independent of that. Something else to be content with, like developing your own mind, your own artistic abilities. Social interactions will be largely unfulfilling. Otherwise you’ll be perennially miserable. To me, it kind of parallels the White Nationalist movement versus society at large; just drop out of society in a manner of speaking (not saying move to a remote compound in Idaho type of thing) if you don’t care for the multicultural (ie destroy White people) garbage dump that is society/culture and do something else potentially fulfilling (join WN movement).

  2. Posted July 19, 2017 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    A number of commentators, who shall go nameless, like to use what might be referred to as “The Judgment of High School” to sort out how they relate to other members of the various factions. Which is somewhat odd, because more than a few of those same factions dispute the legitimacy or effectiveness of the secondary education system in the first place.

    It’s very difficult to sort out what the article calls the “Scholastic Loser” from people who have, for whatever reason, lost out, perhaps from an early age, in the dance for status that dominates much of our late Imperial society. Officially, our education system, as well as the few remaining social institutions left to us, has little to do with creating a social hierarchy. In reality, it is accepted, perhaps not as a legal principal, but as reality, that it does.

  3. Matt Edge
    Posted July 16, 2017 at 3:44 am | Permalink

    Great article.

    I know exactly what you mean. I’m 30 and all through my 20s I saw this whole “alpha male” concept come into fruition. And as far as I can tell he’s some high-earning, high-status, paper-shuffling corporate drone.

    It utterly repulsed me to consider that this was the standard I was held up against.

    Thank God for White Nationalism because now we correctly identify such a blue-pilled yuppie as a CUCK!

    And I am so happy I am not a cuck. It feels good to be vindicated. It feels good to watch all these nihilistic consumer-culture values being totally discredited.

    Of course I am against multiculturalism. I have certainly seen how things work out better for everyone when we stick to our nations. But I have learned a lot of valuable lessons from coming into contact with foreigners.

    Sometimes it seems so arbitrary and comically juvenile what White people consider “loser” traits. Like living at home with your parents as an adult. There is no conception of this being a bad thing in the foreign cultures I have come into contact with. In fact, it is considered a good thing to live with your parents until marriage. And even then I often see newly-wed men returning to their parent’s home with wife to live as a cohesive unit. It seems do natural, sometimes 3 generations under the same roof. That is community, that is the strength and warmth we ourselves lack in our individualistic culture

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted July 16, 2017 at 6:14 am | Permalink

      Interesting insights, Matt. Thank you.

  4. Peter Quint
    Posted July 15, 2017 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    I could care less if people consider me a “loser,” in this degenerate jewish dystopia.

  5. Dov
    Posted July 14, 2017 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know whether this has already been addressed by Donovan, Cassiel, Quinn, or commenters, but an additional element that figures into the far-Right “loser” issue – particularly in the context framed by Quinn here – is that the bar for Whites is set rather higher than it is for the groups like Blacks or Hispanics. If a White man does not have the kind of job capable of at least mostly supporting a frugal family, act like a gentleman in public, and act like an adult, he is considered a “loser”/failure – and rightly so! But Black men are given all sorts of latitude; not simply to buck traditional Western standards, but, in fact, to *celebrate* instincts that would be considered disturbingly base among Whites. Unemployed, or possessing of a job that could never support more than one? Well, it must be because of generations of “racism” culminating in the poor fellow’s predicament. Having more children than he could support even with a middle-class income? Well, any objection to that is “racist” and genocidal. Vulgar expression of sex and violence in music (aside: why do so many Blacks feel the need to play their rap and R&B music in public spaces so that it’s audible to everyone around them?)? Well, that’s their culture, you see? And so on. Society has all sorts of prefabricated rationalizations for excusing Black behaviors that would invariably cause sniffing and frowning when exhibited by Whites.

    Similar dynamics exist for Hispanics, though they’re not as egregious as the accommodations made for Blacks. White women also experience a very different set of expectations than do women “of color” (excluding, to some degree, East-Asians). It’s considered, for example, charmingly blunt when Black women give “attitude” and sass (think: “Oh no you di–int!!”, the stereotypical finger-wagging, etc.); in a White woman, such behavior would be considered highly boorish. Most elites would sniff at White lower-class women having children while unable to provide financial support, but you’ll hear no such complaints about Hispanic women. And so on.

    In some ways, even “anti-racist” elites are, subconsciously, racial realists. As animals, humans have instincts that allow us to size up our fellows in hundreds of ways – hence, the biases that set the bar higher in expecting civilized, “winning” behavior from Whites and East-Asians. This is off the article’s track, but I thought it related a bit to Quinn’s interesting G/D categorization.

    Also, I hadn’t been aware that you went to grad school, Spencer. What did you study?

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted July 16, 2017 at 6:20 am | Permalink

      Hi Dov,

      Yes, the concepts of winner and loser, as I described it, only apply to whites and perhaps east Asians. It is kind of a sliding scale once you include blacks or Hispanics. Lower expectations, and all that. Once whites start applying their own standards to these people (like we used to) all the condescending benevolence you describe will go out the window. I personally cannot wait for that day.

      Thanks for your interesting comments.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Prison Notes

    Standardbearers

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance