A Quote by Anita Roddick

The predominant idea behind globalization, in its most virulent form, is an unpleasant kind of social Darwinism - that the world is for winners not losers, that only the successful count, that money is considerably more important than votes.
Perhaps the most important rule is to hold on to your winners and cut your losers. Both are equally important. If you don’t stay with your winners, you are not going to be able to pay for the losers.
The culture war is between the winners and those who think they're losers who want to become winners. The losers think the only way they can become winners is by banding together all the losers and them empowering a leader of the losers to make things right for them.
In a capitalistic society the losers slaved for the winners and you have to have more losers than winners.
Winners expect to win before the contest starts; losers don't. Any individual becomes what he or she thinks about most. If you want to be a champion, then that thought must dominate your life. But most important, winners dwell on the rewards of winning; losers dwell on the penalties of failure.
This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games. All games are basically hostile. Winners and losers. We see them all around us: the winners and the losers. The losers can oftentimes become winners, and the winners can very easily become losers.
The silver lining of Brexit and Trump is that it has undermined the perception that globalization is an unstoppable force, whether or not we think it is a good thing or a bad thing. There have always been losers and as well as winners in this process, and cultural minorities have been among the most vulnerable losers. Now that sizable numbers of people in the most advanced economies have made their grievances felt in a fashion that is hard to ignore.
I'm always fascinated by losers. Also, in my "Foucault's Pendulum," the main characters, who are in a way losers, they are more interesting than the winners.
Yes, dodgeball encourages competitiveness. Yes, the stronger, more athletic kids are going to be more successful at it than the weaker ones, but what game doesn't have winners and losers?
So winners, Hae-Joo proposed, are the real losers because they learn nothing? What, then, are losers? Winners?
The guys that go into the Hall of Fame are the winners, and the losers are the ones who put them in there, and I would like to see some of the great losers through the years be in the Hall of Fame. I know that that's probably impossible, but you've got to give those losers credit, they made the winners.
I couldn't have children, so that's the bad side. But compared to everything else I have, it's not all that terribly bad. I count my winners rather than my losers.
The major media companies are playing a defensive game, and I'm not sure I blame them. If you look at the digital revolution, you look at who the winners and the losers are, there are some very very big losers - music, the newspaper industry. And there are some really big winners, social media, Facebook.
Im not advocating social Darwinism, I am witnessing actual Darwinism. If you are in a camp with a bunch of campers, and a bear attacks, you don't have to be faster than the bear. You only have to be faster than the slowest camper
The difference between winners and losers is that winners do things losers don't want to do.
It all depends on what you're willing to invest time and effort in and put your mind to. That's what separates winners from losers. Winners are the ones who want the most out of their opportunities.
I think I pick more winners than losers.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!