In other news, water is wet:
A new study from Brunel University London found that physically weaker men are more apt to believe in socialist policies, such as redistribution of wealth. Meanwhile, stronger men are more geared to believe in the capitalist concepts, such as the idea that people should keep what you earn.
Brunel University academics studied 171 men aged 18 – 40, examining their overall physical strength, bicep circumference, weight, and height. They also noted the amount of time each individual spent at a gym, and examined these variables in light of whether they subscribed more to capitalist or socialist ideologies. They found that the more physically strong the men were, the less they believed in socialist policies, and the more they believed certain social groups should be dominant.
To anyone who has dealt with your average 21st century socialist this is no breathtaking revelation. Just one look at pajama boy and you just know he’s a smarmy leftist weasel from his curly mop to the plastic toes of his plaid microfleece onesie. Time-honored stereotypes exist for a reason.
But why do weaker men tend to be leftist? The researchers propose a series of evolutionary just-so stories along the lines of, “if you’re strong enough to take what you want, you don’t need to believe in equality.” I think the answer is simpler: it’s easier to convince yourself that you’re smart than that you’re strong.
Every man wants to think well of himself. Or rather, every man wants to have something about himself that he can be proud of. For some it’s a PhD. For others it’s a trophy wife and a red convertible. For the man with biceps, he can not only be proud of them, other people can see them, and he can work to improve them. He can see the results. He learns cause and effect: work hard, get muscles. And he notices that cause and effect works in the real world, just like in the gym. He feels no compulsion to fix others, instead knowing that if they want and work, they can usually fix themselves.
The physically weak man needs something to be proud of as well. But he’ll convince no one he can bench 300 or run a 4.4 40. There are no trophies in his den or his bed. He has nothing that he can show before others, saying, look at me! But he can be proud of his intellect, or at least his perceived intellect. He can tell himself that he’s good enough, he’s smart enough, and doggone it, people need to do what he says.
At a basic emotional level, the appeal of socialism is pride: pride in one’s own intellect and moral superiority. This is why it is so beloved of academics, especially in their larval stage. Central planning demands planners and those planners need to be smart – smart enough that they can organize the lives of strangers better than those strangers can organize themselves. And socialism, especially campus socialism, is filled with the sort of overeducated midwits who, while they are not smart, think they are smart enough to make social omelets while breaking all the right eggs.
It is not true that if you scratch a physically weak man, you will find a socialist. But it is true that if you scratch a socialist, you will find a man who is convinced that he is smarter than nearly everyone else, and by virtue of that intellect and his moral purity, has the right to organize society as he sees fit. Such men have no time to improve themselves; they are too busy saving the world.
The Problem is, that while leftists are weak, they also have ‘weak man disease’. Which means that, when they are in power, not only are they utterly ruthless, but they have absolutely no sense of a scale, no mercy, nothing resembling honor or consistency, and an utter lack of self examination or care for the future.
Give a leftist a little bit of political power, and he will start casually committing atrocities, because he feels everyone over whom he now has power ‘has it coming’. Look at what happened when leftist regimes come to power… Broad scale murder of the most helpless humans, Horrifying atrocities like castrations, casual enslavement, corruption at every level, and all for ‘your own good’.
Leftism is an effeminate affectation, matching the female psych in having no sense of restraint (as restraint for a female is both irrelevant and counter survival). Rationalize ANY extreme behavior, control everyone through guilt and fear, commit horrors with the maternal self-righteousness of the assurance that ‘This hurts me more than it hurts you’ and ‘I know better than you what is good for you’. Blithely ignoring the human and cultural costs in favor of a Utopian progress that frankly, never ever happens. Ultimate concern for the trivia of the ‘Now’ without any concept of the future,
Women generally make terrible single parents, terrible leaders, and terrible engineers. What’s much, much worse is when a male, who IS capable of being a leader and accomplishing great and often horrible things on a broad scale, chooses to adopt a marxist, female philosophy. Such weak, effeminate males make the greatest monsters.
5
“it’s easier to convince yourself that you’re smart than that you’re strong.”
Excellent point.
4.5
5
There’s also a bizarre perception that it’s easier to get “strong” than it is it get “smart”. I’ve seen that attitude crop up now and then, and I just have to shake my head.
Both are hard. Your talents and abilities will give you bonuses, but both are still hard.
One thing I have observed too among weak men is that they tend to eat more estrogen rich foods like soy products. Now estrogen foods are fine for women who are trying to adjust to menopause. But you men are just not meant to be sucking down all that estrogen. Moobs is the least of the worries. It also tames what makes a man, a MAN. I don’t feed that stuff to my hubby and I never will. Some foods are just not meant for consumption by men.