Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views

6 posts

Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views


Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution
Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors
Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources
There is no link between women's physical strength and political views

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.
Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.
Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.

President Camacho

I like how Daily Mail trolls the weakling Jew Miliband clan:

"Men with less upper body strength are more likely to support the welfare state - like Labour leader Ed Miliband"

This ''upper body strength'' canard is a holdover from the Lysenkoist 70s - anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of biology, physiology, kineseology and things of this sort realizes that male physical power is not just ''upper body strength'' - men are not women or pre-pubescent children who simply have strong backs and arms. Strong men have strong upper bodies, strong lower bodies, dense bone structures, thick skulls (literally) heavy cardioresporatory capacity, and a slew of other characteristics.

There's not some parity of bone density, leg strength, skull thickness and aerobic capacity between a 20 year old man and a 20 year old girl, with the former simply enjoying the advantage of a thickly muscled chest or shoulders capable of load-bearing.

It seems a middling point but I think its not - its evidence of the lack of body awareness, knowledge of physical limits common to the ''intelligensia''.
Bob Dylan Roof

My early affinity for Marxism can be explained by my thin wrists (am I doomed?)

This study portends great things, IMO. The territorial and economic politics of the 17th and 18th centuries replaced the preceding politics of religious creed. In turn, the politics of the 17th and 18th centuries was eclipsed by the ideological politics of the 19th and 20th centuries. Ours will be the century of somatological politics, where friend and enemy will be defined according to breeding, beauty, cranial index, chin strength, muscle definition, workout split, and supplement preference.

The article is confusing -- the conclusion is that physically stronger men look after their economic interests, whether rich or prole, not that they're more likely to be 'right-wing' (defined misleadingly as opposition to redistribution). So for instance, beta proles are more likely to oppose redistribution, and stronger proles will support it, because it's in their economic interest.

what does it say about men who are DICED