In which Gans resentfully recounts how the only reason he gets attention is through the resentment of others.
If they're tiring they can be overlooked, right? There's no need to resent them. But keep in mind that for Gans resentment is not exactly a "bad" thing. He has said many times, and in important contexts (like his analyses of the Illiad and the Bible) that resentment is productive--productive of culture. Resentment is in that case the transcendence of revenge. On the originary scene our first resentment is toward the central object itself, which denies itself to us. On the other hand, sometimes resentment is "bad" for Gans. I've tried to sort out this question of good vs. bad resentments, mostly by myself since Gans tends to resist (perhaps "defer") requests that he get more "specific" or "precise." My solution has been, essentially, to exploit the ambiguity of "of"--the resentment of the center, i.e., towards the center, gets converted into the resentment of the center, i.e., the center's resentment towards those who would violate it. In other words, "re-sacralization" is adopting the resentment of the center or, as I've put it, "donating" your resentment to center.
With regard to his reference to the alt-right, I think he's leaning more toward the "good" resentment because he is, after all, attributing to them an interest in GA that he obviously thinks everyone should have. Nor does he say anything to suggest that their interest is somehow misguided or in bad faith. So, he's not calling them petty and vengeful, or complaining that they are interested in his work rather than someone he would be prefer. At the same time he doesn't know too much about all that, and he's a bit wary.
In the end, I'm not sure that he'd really object to your characterization of his Chronicle in your title for this post. He knows he's got his own resentments.
---
To start with your last point, he certainly has neither the energy or desire to be a logistical leader. He really appreciated Moritz, which doesn't mean Moritz was wrong--it just means we're grading on different curves here. He's given what he has to give, and then those of us interested take it from there. He's turning 77 tomorrow--nobody's going to change him.
On the more important question of resentment, I think you'll find that Gans has said both. Here's a very old Chronicle (#160, 1999) called "The Productive Resentment of Michael Jordan" where we can see the complexity of the issue:
"Is resentment a “good thing”? The example of Jordan allows us to answer this question in a more equitable fashion than Nietzsche or Scheler. Resentment is the negative moment of mimetic desire in which one sees one’s other-model-rival closer to the center of the scene than oneself. The scandal that fuels resentment is denial of our equidistance from the sacred center, as guaranteed by our originary equality in language. In its simplest form, resentment is a social “instinct” that protects us against unequal treatment, just as our biological instinct makes us pull our hand back from a fire. When someone tries to push ahead of us in line, our “instinctive” reaction is not to let him in. But since the origin of hierarchical society, this same mechanism can be adapted to more creative ends. Michael Jordan is not resentful of unequal treatment; his resentment is aroused by any hint of challenge to his superiority. We admire him not for this resentment itself, but for channeling its energy into his work with such ferocity that he has been able to maintain this superiority for over a decade on the basketball court, while acting as a decent human being outside it."
So, the resentment is productive insofar as it propels Jordan to maintain his unchallenged position as the best NBA player, and we benefit from this kind of resentment insofar as consensus regarding the "best" prevents an endless, potentially violent struggle over who will occupy that position. (It's not so much that rivalry within the NBA would turn violent over this point--it's a question of what kind of model Jordan's resentment provides in a hierarchical society.) It's interesting that here Gans favors the resentment of the "best" over the resentment of those who believe they have been unfairly served or treated. Jordan knows everyone thinks he's the best--he's just careful not to yield even an inch. Gans might be agreeing with Nietzsche here in privileging the resentment of the achiever over the one who just doesn't want others to cut in front of him on line. But he sees it differently than Nietzsche insofar as he insists that the "master" class also resents. Finally, as you say, the resentment does have to be "channelled" into some achievement--so, the resentment, all by itself, is not "good." It's "good" insofar as it's the only way to get to the achievement. And note that here, at least, there's no talk of "transcending" resentment--Jordan is not getting to the point where he's indifferent to competing assessments of his place in the basketball pantheon. (We might take the concluding reference to Jordan also being a decent human off the court to hint at some kind of "transcendence"--but that's outside of the sphere of rivalry.)
---
I just noticed this as well, from the same Chronicle:
"Resentment is not something we can abolish. It is inherent in the human condition and just as indispensable to our functioning in society as our biological instincts are to our bodily existence. Our love for our fellows is not a state of effortless beatitude but a continual conquest and refocusing of resentment."
So, is resentment "conquered" or "refocused"? Maybe both, but they don't go together so simply. That's the ambiguity I was referring to.
---
I'll just add to this that when I discovered GA my first thought was that of course this great idea will catch on if we show its relevance to the current theories and disciplines, bring it to the attention of the right people, etc. Maybe I wasn't the best messenger either, but until very recently I got exactly nowhere.
---
Even if everything you say is true, is there anything else to do other than take that presumably useful 5% and draw out whatever its organizational and political implications might be? We can concede that Gans won't be much help, and I'm probably a rather incomplete package myself--certainly not a man of action. But if my writing turns out to be of some use to men out there in the world doing the things you say, I will be gratified, especially if it makes their actions more informed and elevated. I suspect Gans would feel similarly.