Don’t take my word for it. Read Laura Perrins’ recent blog post:
Professor Michael Petersen said: ‘In all three countries [Norway, Sweden and Denmark], physically strong males consistently pursued the self-interested position on redistribution. However, physically weak males were more reluctant to assert their self-interest – just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation between individuals.’
Professor Peterson again: ‘While many people think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has, in a sense, always been with our species. Political views are designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’
“This is despite the fact that the Left have absolutely no right to occupy the high moral ground. Most of their policies are immoral, present a significant threat to the economy, and chip away at liberty, the family and civil society.”
I don’t think I have ever read a more succinct description of leftardism and the threat of their suicidal ideologies.
Besides science, the trolls who have frequented here over the years are ample enough evidence of leftard men being weak, lacking confidence and acting cowardly.
Obviously, humans are relatively complex creatures, so there are innumerable factors that influence our behaviors. But that said, it’s also rather apparent that weaker members of the species (not just physically weaker, either – perhaps “disempowered” would be a more accurate word) benefit more from socialism, from a compression of the range of possibilities within society, from Big Government in general. They can thereby sometimes obtain what they could not otherwise given their “inferior” genes. Whereas the powerful and gifted are more likely to favor self-interest, greater individual freedom and a smaller State because they believe that they stand a good chance of being able to obtain what they wish by their own efforts.
Some have argued that this is why women consistently favor Statism at higher levels than do males – because they are at a physical disadvantage compared to males and a strong State evens the playing field for them, thereby empowering them.
Well, no surprises in those paragraphs. The big question for me is, where have all the strong ones gone?
Taken by old age, (I’m 75), and the fact that many of us are now sitting back saying “Screw it, this is what you want, this is what you’ve got – best of luck – don’t call us and we won’t call you”.
Sorry, reader tips won’t load, but:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4586556/edmonton-attack-canada-car-cop-injured/
Terror attack in Edmonton. Isis flag in the front seat, so don’t let the CBC pull the wool over this one.
As Nemo2 says, we age out. I’m an ex-soldier, now 54. In the physical labour part of my current job, I consistently overmatch colleagues in their twenties, because I was raised and trained in hard physical work (not without a challenging mental component). That’s begging Part 2 of your question, why aren’t there new strong ones replacing us? The answer is because it has become social policy to no train the younger generations to be strong, even to train them to be weak, ignorant, and fearful dependants of the government.
“Some have argued that this is why women consistently favor Statism at higher levels than do males – because they are at a physical disadvantage compared to males and a strong State evens the playing field for them, thereby empowering them.”
I agree with this statement. I also agree with the article’s main theme that strong males tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum while weak males tend to be on the left. In my opinion, the biological purpose of strong adult males is to protect all females and pre-adult males. But what does the term “strong adult male” mean. I would assert that it is more about strength of character than physical strength. It is the duty of males and females alike to encourage the development of this trait. Right now, as a society, we are failing in this regard.
The sentence that really caught my eye, though, was this: “Political views are designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.”
“Designed by natural selection” – now that is a phrase for the ages and I suspect the good professor does not comprehend its full implications.
In HS … I spent quite a bit of time in the weight room, training and strengthening to be a better football player (with mixed results). However, I DID work up to a maximum 260lb on the bench press (free weight, 5-reps minimum). And I am a decidedly conservative thinker.
Most of the liberals I know are really good at hanging drapes, while I handle a worm-drive Skilsaw with aplomb
Yes! weakness may be faked:
The NFL football Players have become POLITICAL supporters of the (SJW) Feminist’s agenda of despising everything American….The use of Steroids may be the reason that these MEN are not in the manly state that Fans think… The use of Steroids & female Hormones by 40% of NFL players have both physical (growing Breasts) & mental abnormalities… (The Concussion research may fail to consider this DRUG brain damage)….Playing football & acting like a raped Ape may be driven by rage brought on by the use of Steroids…
Anabolic Steroids:
“This combination causes the testicles to shrink and to produce little if any sperm.”
The Testicles become like small hard marbles ..useless appendage…
I am in the same position. too bad my grandkids will suffer, because they will, their parents don’t understand what they are doing to the country and their future.
Heh. It was a rhetorical question. I’m with you and TheTooner. Today’s Sesame Street has been brought to you by the letter B: Beer, Buttered popcorn, and a whole bunch of other B things.