A popular theory among U.S. elites: Trump ran for President because he was so humiliated by Barack Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that it was the only way to save face. Explaining the theory Dan McLaughlin writes:
Despite being born to wealth, he’s lived his whole life as the nouveau riche kid from Queens whose fame, fortune, Ivy League degree, fashion-model wives, TV shows, casinos, beauty pageants, football team, political largesse . . . none of it could get his old-money Manhattan society neighbors, the smart kids, the political movers and shakers to treat him as a peer, an equal, a man of consequence.
Partly because of this, The New York Time‘s Charles M. Blow argues Trump is jealous of Obama:
Trump wants to be Obama — held in high esteem. But, alas, Trump is Trump, and that is now and has always been trashy. Trump accrued financial wealth, but he never accrued cultural capital, at least not among the people from whom he most wanted it.
Therefore, Trump is constantly whining about not being sufficiently applauded, commended, thanked, liked. His emotional injury is measured in his mind against Obama. How could Obama have been so celebrated while he is so reviled?
The whole world seemed to love Obama — and by extension, held America in high regard — but the world loathes Trump.
Obama was a phenomenon. He was elegant and cerebral. He was devoid of personal scandal and drenched in personal erudition. He was a walking, talking rebuttal to white supremacy and the myths of black pathology and inferiority. He was the personification of the possible — a possible future in which legacy power and advantages are redistributed more broadly to all with the gift of talent and the discipline to excel.
Given this backdrop, when Obama lured Trump to the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner to be laughed at to his face by a room full of U.S. elites and on international TV, he snapped, according to The New Yorker‘s Adam Gopnik:
On that night, Trump’s own sense of public humiliation became so overwhelming that he decided, perhaps at first unconsciously, that he would, somehow, get his own back — perhaps even pursue the Presidency after all, no matter how nihilistically or absurdly, and redeem himself
Explaining further, McKay Coppins writes:
On the night of the dinner, Trump took his seat at the center of the ballroom, perfectly situated so that all 2,500 lawmakers, movie stars, journalists, and politicos in attendance could see him….But as soon as the plates were cleared and the program began, it became agonizingly clear that Trump was not royalty in this room: He was the court jester. The president used his speech to pummel Trump with one punchline after another…When host Seth Meyers took the mic, he piled on with his own rat-a-tat of jokes, many of which seemed designed deliberately to inflame Trump’s outer-borough insecurities: “His whole life is models and gold leaf and marble columns, but he still sounds like a know-it-all down at the OTB.” The longer the night went on, the more conspicuous Trump’s glower became. He didn’t offer a self-deprecating chuckle, or wave warmly at the cameras, or smile with the practiced good humor of the aristocrats and A-listers who know they must never allow themselves to appear threatened by a joke at their expense.
Instead, Trump just sat there, stone-faced, stunned, simmering — Carrie at the prom covered in pig’s blood.
It’s ironic that Coppins seems to hint at Trump’s lack of social intelligence in this situation since commenters on this blog often praise Trump as one of the greatest social geniuses of our time, a reasonable opinion given Trump beat the top politicians in America at the their own game, despite no political experience. Perhaps Trump was just too angry to display his social skills on that night, or perhaps his type of social savvy can’t adapt to upper class environments.
More interesting, given it’s Halloweek, was Coppins’s reference to Stephen King’s first novel. In Carrie, after being lured to the prom by the elite kids only to be publicly laughed at, a high school senior takes her revenge by becoming the most powerful girl in the World (destroying the school with her telekinetic powers).
Similarly, after being lured to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner by U.S. elites to be publicly laughed at, Trump got his revenge by becoming the World’s most powerful man, displacing the President who mocked him.
He who laughs last, laughs best.
Pumpkin Person 
Pumpkin Person, I tried to contact you on twitter, but I don’t know how often you use twitter so you may not have seen the message. I wanted to have a discussion about an article I’ve been writing for the last several months, which, to some extent at least, involves the problem of “biological relativism”, or as your frequent sparring partner RaceRealist would say, “evolution isn’t teleological bro! it’s arbitrary and non-linear!”
Would you be interested in having a discussion about it?
Email me the article and we can discuss options.
A few points:
1) I believe there are probably long-term evolutionary trends, which one might call “progressive” but that’s a value judgement, but I’ve never considered these trends teleological because unless you’re a theist, they’re not intended
2) RR can speak for himself, but I think he also now believes in possible long-term evolutionary trends, but he invokes Gould’s Drunkard’s Walk Theory to explain them, which I don’t deny is a factor, but I also think Turney’s selection for versatility is a factor.
It’s 10,500 words long so far, but it won’t be finished until I’m sure I’ve said everything that needs to be said. I have got a lot rattling around in my brain that needs to be put to paper. It’s title is “an informal enquiry regarding the absence of phenotypical femininity from the historical record prior to the second quarter of the 20th century”… phew! Quite a mouthful, isn’t it? I think the title is pretty self-explanatory to anyone who’s already familiar with the terminology, but in case you still find it bewildering, I shall explain. Basically I noticed a long time ago that sexually attractive women (let’s be honest, what other kind of attractive women are there?) are not represented in the historical record, by which I mean art, sculpture and photography. Starting at the beginning with the Greco-Roman canon, I observe that the men and women of this time (if the depictions are accurate) are extremely low in sexual dimorphism. The males and females are, facially, very hard to tell apart; they both have large, painfully straight and sharply vertical noses, small pursed lips positioned very close to the base of the nose, and regressed mouths. Their chins are also often protuberant and vertically large. All of these features combined make for both a masculinised face and also a face reminiscent of a witch or old hag, with the mouth sunken in (usually due to tooth loss and collagen depletion). Despite being in complete contradiction to the fertile, high estrogen-dependent paedomorphic features we know males are biologically predisposed to find attractive, the Greco-Roman canon continued to influence the arts for over 2000 years. I’ve written in detail about all the factors that might have contributed to this, such as Abrahamic misogyny and sex-phobia (prominent in the Victorian era), the fact that women in past generations likely had much higher testosterone levels due to intralocus sexual conflict, and the fact that many artists in the classicist tradition, from classical antiquity up to the early 20th century, were homosexuals. But everything began to change in the 1920s, as the influence of Abrahamic religion began to diminish (at least in the west), estrogen and testosterone were discovered, and Konrad Lorenz finally made the connection between “kinderschema” (paedomorphy/neoteny) and phenotypical femininity. I’m currently writing chapters on the rational correlates of female beauty, the threats posed by postmodernism and (some) evolutionary psychologists to its continued existence, a discussion regarding inverted/perverted qualia, and our opponents’ claim that there is no criteria that transcends both biology and culture from which to judge beauty objectively and immutably. It’s been very hard work, as you can probably imagine!
Yes it sounds like hard work indeed. Perhaps you should tackle one topic at a time & worry about synthesizing it all later.
even a blind man can see evolution is clearly heading towards negative entropy, it isn’t arbitrary at all
= ”racerealiss”
brazil is the country of the future.
and it always will be.
sad!
Is robert louis CK?
Hahaha. I can picture Louis CK trolling ‘robert mugabe’ hahahahahahahaha.
SO an BLM lawyers won an election. I guessed immediately he was jewish without knowing anything else. Jews are about the same % of the pop as native americans/alaskans/hawaiin people…but you always know.
Does he believe in BLM?
I would bet my house he thinks everyone in BLM is a joke.
Pumpkin is like that guy in that movie Deep Rising, who wanted to blow up his own luxury cruise liner and when a sea monster attacked the ship he tried to stop the hero killing it as the sea monster would be cheaper than explosives. Unbelievable.
Just say it: I have no respect for this blog.
This one is interesting: a cult that indoctrinated mainly rich jewish women. http://artvoice.com/2017/10/19/ny-times-leads-stories-raniere-bronfman-mexico-salinas-vease-abajo-para-la-traduccion-en-espanol/
One of the things rarely discussed except by me, is cult leaders and how cult leaders basically create all morality for most people – not just speaking about organised religion obv, but PC and ‘equalism’ another good example of fake morality.
People find it extremely easy to spot cults they’re not in and have a high degree of social separation from. People don’t always spot all the cults they have been introduced to throughout life though, and that’s the problem. The more sophisticated ones are hiding in plain sight.
There seems to be a human instinct to want to become a part of a cult. Or at least, there seems to be a an easy way within human social systems to seed a cult and make followers make their children avow it through all their posterity.
Cults are a fascinating example of (a) using social intelligence and (b) how moral suasion works to make people follow very immoral or psychopathic people.
Louis theroux did a very good documentary on a man who claimed to be the messiah and had a small community living with him. In the documentary and man admitted letting the leader have sex with his wife.
Moral Suasion. Civilised man’s Achilles heel.
The average person watching Theroux will say AHA! I could spot that a mile away. Literally 5 minutes later he will ‘like’ a post by a celebrity denouncing ‘hate’ on facebook.
Fascinating.
Yup. Cult leaders and religious leaders in general (or Ayn Rand, for example, for the higher-IQ types?) represent the extreme end in the charisma spectrum amongst psychopaths. Serial killers are the extreme end in aggression…
and some people are immune. maybe it’s the same people who can’t be hypnotized.
st paul is always asking for money for the church in jerusalem. his evangelism may have been motivated by greed just as so many preachers are today. he was accused of selling his religion. he claimed he just wanted equality and the jerusalem church was poorer than the gentile churches.
that’s a picture of the greatest philosopher ever btw.
and some people are immune. maybe it’s the same people who can’t be hypnotized.
In a sense world is controlled by cult leaders more than lawyers, brainiacs and certainly engineers/scientists.
It goes back to Galileo. ‘And yet it moves’.
The foundation of law is theology. You can’t separate ‘morality’ from a person’s inculcation in some cult or another. And morality is a primary foundation of law. Even the founders of the US were obviously christian in form and moral substance.
Now if you can decode ‘morality’, you finally get underneath the laws.
In many ways, having thought about it, I have come to the conclusion that white people due to genetic personality ‘issues’ would have picked a high empathy ‘slave’ religion even if Jesus didn’t exist. But the morality type is important. Especially as we know now with our Bolshevik comrades how you can use to to channel people to walk over cliff faces pushing their children first.
Jim Jones reveals more to us about how the world works than any academic, scientist, philosopher, politician or more formal religious leader ever will. If you study these cult leaders some common themes are:
1. Sexual domination is important to them, being gamma males.
2. They are reflexive liars. They never break character. They’re dead eyed sharks with the visage of a human.
3. They teach us that real morality shouldn’t be taken from someone else.
Interesting…
indeed. if it’s necessary to explain at length why something is right or wrong it’s probably not right or not wrong. a sense of right and wrong is like sight. some people are blind. some people need glasses. some people have 20/20 vision. no amount of talk can persuade someone that his disgust, revulsion, and hatred are misplaced. it’s like trying to convince him grass is orange and the sky is chartreuse.
my experience is that im-moral people are rare, but a-moral people are the norm. so things like stalin’s purges aren’t difficult to understand. kierkegaard said, “the crowd is untruth.” for 99% of people the crowd is truth.
“a sense of right and wrong is like sight”
Yes. Its in the aesthetics of the matter.
The reason the god of jews and arabs is so harsh, is perhaps because such a figure was needed by the original cult leaders to make these more unruly groups toe the line and have discipline.
But what breaks that theory is the obvious fact that most early Christians are ethnic jews.
However in my opinion, the people that wrote the new testament have a lot more genetically in common with Spinoza or Fenoopy’s aunts, than Chuck Schumer and Elena Kagan.
(‘Kagan’ – term for ‘Khazar king’ apparentyl)
the old testament is just as harsh as the quran. maybe you’re reading the white diluted new testament.
yes, that harshness is absolutely needed to keep vicious groups under control.
whites are like bonobos (probably due to cold environment) and mena are like chimps of caucasoids.
almost identical, but radically different base personalities. both can be deliberately, coldly violent, however when ti comes to emotional aggression, mena clearly are the most violent
nevermind i don’t know anything about testaments, i meant to say ‘orthodox christianity’ not ‘catholicism’ white might as well be white written
Yes that is what I’ve been doing. Synthesizing (editing) it all together to form a coherent whole will be very difficult. Does it sound like something that would interest you? Have you ever had similar thoughts to mine? I was hoping we could communicate back-and-forth via twitter. Is that possible?
It’s not something I know or have thought a lot about although I’ve recently been interested in objective measures of physical attractiveness, partly because commenter “Deal with It” once asked me to blog about the correlation between looks and success.
I don’t spend much time on twitter, but your ideas fit into the range of topics we discuss here, so I would encourage you to write a brief guest article on at least one of the topics you mentioned and we can discuss it further in the comment section there.
I’d say we owe a massive debt to people like Konrad Lorenz, Leslie Farkas and Judith Langlois. Without the efforts of these people, the secrets of beauty would likely have remained obscured. I am very keen to keep my written piece together in its entirety, though, ands not to chop it up. I was inspired to write it after reading Boetel and Fuerst’s paper “the nature of race” from 2014. My aim is to provoke discussion and further research among professionals from various fields, and I do use pictures to illustrate and provide evidence for my claims. I don’t use any references, as I am not a professional scholar, and I find the process tedious and inhibitive. Besides, all of the information I provide regarding the current state of knowledge about sex differences is accurate, and anyone who knows anything about the subject will not need to trawl through references and cited sources, as it would already be common knowledge to them. Some questions I ask will need to have the answers provided by others with the appropriate expertise, but that is precisely what I want, to encourage collaboration from others in filling in the gaps.
Value judgements are not always incompatible with facts. One must first establish whether one is making the claim for a cosmic fact (chemistry, gravity, etc.) or an anthropocentric fact. It is a mistake to say that all value judgements are the arbitrary result of social conditioning, or that they spring forth randomly from a vacuum of instinctual noise. That is certainly the case for some, like the belief of tribal peoples that scarification and self-mutilation are beautiful, as these beliefs are not rationally explicable in accordance with biology (although some argue that they constitute an “extended phenotype” similar to high heels in western culture, for example).
I think you’re more likely to get constructive feedback if you chop it up into brief digestible parts because the Internet lacks the patience & attention span to read anything too long.
But if wish to write one super long guest article you can do so.
Or you could publish the full article off-site and them write a few brief guest articles discussing the major points, citing your main article as a reference for those who want more detail.
i feel mena today are seen in the same light as italians earlier in the century
now of course, we know italians have the high iq of 107, but they were seen as sub-human at the time
i think all mediterraneans just have the same temperament in general with it becoming more and more ruthless the further south you go
it’s like a nigerian woman said in bourdain’s trip to nigeria. until there’s a successful black country the black african diaspora won’t get no respect. the mena countries are shitholes unless they have oil. therefore they won’t get no respect. the japs are honorary whites in the US precisely because japan is such a successful country. the attitude toward japanese is very different from the attitude toward chinese or koreans. peru even had a jap president.
blacks have had no successful countries ever, in all of history.
mena has been the center of caucasian civilization for nearly all of history.
my own country has far better living standards than russia, greece, china etc
banana republics like saudi arabia are shitholes
mena have plenty of successful countries.
the biggest problem mena has right now is banana republics due to the oil.
which country is that picture from?
banana republic UAE
also steve jobs is syrian
there will never be a nigerian steve jobs
ever
i’m of the opinion that there are only 3 ‘races’.
Caucasoid, Monogloid, Negroid
and Aboriginals/Indians
are Indians Caucasian? they seem to be more asian than caucasian (short, tiny penises etc)
among a race
aka caucasian or mongoloid
the genetic differences are extremely minor to the point of just being height/shade of tan their skin is
all caucasians have the same skull shape for example, but varying heights
no they don’t. it’s just in the US that they have the same skull shape, because white americans are mostly a mix of western europeans and especially nw europeans. in eastern europe they have the sideways football shaped heads like stewie.
“in eastern europe they have the sideways football shaped heads like stewie.”
LOL nigga come on
the melanesians have some negroid features, but they’re more closely related to europeans than they are to black africans.
steve jobs is mena. you won’t ever see a nigger steve jobs
he was half syrian.
It will probably be a super long guest article. I did promise EvolutionX that she could also put it up on her blog, if it ever gets finished. There’s still a lot more that needs to be written, and even after that it’ll need a fair bit of fine tuning.