ON LOW-STATUS AND MASCULINE DEFIANCE

This passage is excerpted from Andy Nowicki's Ruminations of a Low-Status Male, Volume 4: On Being Unloved, which will be published soon.)

In a previous volume of this ongoing work, I spoke of the state of being unwanted. In this volume, I have selected to meditate upon the state of being unloved.

Again, as before, I wish to avoid the distracting specter of sentimentalism or the niggling bugaboo of self-pity in attacking this subject matter, which is difficult, given that the subject matter seems almost inherently to be possessed of viscerality. It’s hard for a man to speak of being unwanted without either seeming bitter, sad, angry, or in despair over his condition. The same applies for the state of being unloved, although the shade of difference between these two closely-related states warrants further explication.

A man earnestly wants to be wanted by a woman, but he ardently pines to be loved by one. When a woman loves a man, the man feels himself possessed of a sense of security which had never been granted him before. He experiences this love as a blessing, as an act of grace, and it nearly overwhelms him with gratitude to contemplate its reality. But when this love is withdrawn-- under such a circumstance as the one I described in Volume 2 of this work—he jumps back with a severe start, like a man waking from a blissful sleep into a cold realm that he thought he had left behind forever, but which it turned out was his actual condition all along. Joyous as his extended dream may have been, it was indeed illusory.

Or… had it actually, at some point, been real? This prospect is even more difficult to contemplate, because if the experience of being loved had truly been an authentic one, it seems like its foundations ought to have been made of sterner stuff. What is love, after all, if it does not eternally endure? In the forlorn words of one singer, “If lovenever lasts forever, then what’s ‘forever’ for?”

Being unwanted wounds the ego, but finding oneself unloved confounds the soul. The unwanted man shrivels with embarrassment, but the unloved man doesn’t find himself at all; rather, he loses himself. If having love in one’s life is an orienting experience, in that it helps a man to know who he is and to find direction, losing love is, by contrast a disorienting ordeal; one’s equilibrium is flung into disarray, to the point where up may well be down and east may well be west—nothing is assured any longer; that essential, salving sense of certainty has now fled forever.
                                                                
*************

But then there are those who have never been loved. 

It only stands to reason that such ones, in our age, are viewed through a political lens and so are relentless vilified in an altogether canting and hypocritical manner. Those who would receive pity under normal circumstances—i.e., the love-less, are rendered as shameful and worthy of revulsion Thus, we have the grisly, media-hyped spectacle of the “incel.”

*************

Unfortunately, infamous spree killer Elliot Rodger is commonly identified as the proto-incel figure, and the pre-massacre videos he recorded in 2014 reinforce a sort of “entitlement” notion in an almost comical way. But even if Rodger’s case, the discerning observer can easily see that the arrogance he projects is nothing more that sheer bluster; he talks himself up because he feels put down and asserts his superiority entirely defensively.

In any event, Rogers’s response to his circumstances is of dubious relevance when considered in light of the incel phenomenon, generally speaking. The incels’ folly lies not in their displaying any proclivity to mayhem, nor does it even lie in their frequently manifested spite and bitterness. For the most part, incels are not violent men, and their anger and frustration is in a way understandable, given that their biologically-ingrained desires are continually being frustrated. Would we scorn the hungry for being denied food? Would we scold the thirsty for desiring the cooling taste of water?

Instead, the incels’ folly lies in his buying into the societally-reinforced notion of status: the notion that if you aren’t a romantic success you are nothing; that a man’s worth is determined by the amount of validation he receives from women. These are the baleful bugaboos that he must learn to overcome.

*************

The problem is that wanting to free oneself from such impulses—or rather, to order oneself so that when such impulses are ignored when they manifest themselves, since no biologically-derived compulsion can ever entirely be deleted, erased, or eradicated from one’s consciousness—requires the adoption of a certain uniquely type of mindset, one which is as scornful of status-seeking and contemptuous of the notion of winning validation through the flaunting of perceived “social proof” as is the culture’s contempt for those it regards as “losers.”

To train oneself in this regard is tricky. What is required is to cease to have interest in impressing others. The problem is that one is, in a sense “programmed” (that is to say, designed) to desire the esteem of others. In a less depraved era, such an impulse--- i.e., the natural desire for validation—could easily be harnessed for one’s own betterment. After all, it is good to covet the approval of those whose approval signifies that one is righteous and upstanding.

However, a great deal of mischief is unleashed when those from whom one seeks approval are themselves most glaringly unrighteous and non-upstanding. The effect in such a cultural circumstance is to make a man desire to do that just exactly that which is most improper, imprudent, and morally objectionable, in order to win the validation of those he wishes to impress. That is to say, the ones he finds worthy of impressing are those whom he ought to disdain; nevertheless, he has been trained to see such people as worthy of being well-impressed upon: he is taught to view them as being above him, when he ought properly to regard them as beneath him.

So he faces a most unbecoming situation, one in which his natural-born impulse is at odds with his awareness of the truth. Most humiliatingly, he finds himself “trained,” as it were, to do the very sort of thing that is least becoming of character and least in line with his actual legitimate interests.  

*************

The first step towards breaking one’s conditioning is recognizing it as such, and acting accordingly. 

This may ultimately come down to the course of action often known as “faking it ’til you make it,” whereby one behaves in accord with one’s better judgment, ignoring all the while one’s baser consciousness, which aches to achieve the validation of one’s supposed superiors (who are actually one’s inferiors).

Thus the recovering “incel”—or more broadly speaking, the low-status male under examination, may be enabled to cease venerating those whose worthiness is questionable at best, on account of the latter having been accorded status that he lacks. It is through willed defiance—against cultural norms, and against his own warped inclinations—that he can begin to generate the sort of inner strength he needs to break free.

Like a bodybuilder whose muscle mass increases incrementally every time he hits the weights, so every instance of his willed defiance conditions him to shatter his conditioning and to grow psychically healthier.

Purchase Andy Nowicki's Ruminations of a Low-Status Male, Volume 1, Volume 2, and Volume 3

Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the NihilThe Columbine PilgrimConsidering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel. His author page is Alt Right Novelist.