It is a truth universally acknowledged that Left-wing men are pathetic weaklings. So it came as no surprise to me that this universal principle was proved by science – actual science – as reported in the journal, Psychological Science.
We are told, ‘Men who are strong are more likely to take a Right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim. Their study discovered a link between a man’s upper-body strength and his political views.’
It is true that the boffins had a slightly different spin on it, as they are from Aarhus University in Denmark. In the land of Janteloven, the producers are shamed and those who live off the labour of the producers are seen as self-sacrificing heroes.
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.’
You see what Professor Peterson has done here: being Right-wing is pursuing self-interest, whereas being Left-wing is of course the better, selfless stance.
Only, if you are weaker and less likely to hunt and gather resources, then it follows that demanding the wealth of others (redistribution) who are more successful in said hunting and gathering is in fact selfish and pursing one’s own self-interest.
In fact, some people might think using State power to seize the wealth of another and transfer it to yourself is in fact theft. That could be one interpretation of the data that the dear Professor has conveniently dodged.
In fact Professor Peterson pretty much accepts this when he admits that political views are probably more primal than we first think: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people's political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models. This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they're designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’
It is indeed rational to claim the resources of another as your own. And that, my friends, is called socialism.
This brings me nicely on to this lovely little story I picked up from Guido Fawkes about a poor Conservative babe having a First Date with a Leftie.
MP Mark Field’s former researcher Lettie Egan appeared on the popular Channel 4 show where viewers saw her interrogated by some Leftie, Remain-voting wimp who was smug and deeply irritating.
The interesting thing about this exchange – and by interesting, I mean outrageous – was how Ms Egan was on the defence and Wimp certainly thought he was the righteous one. Don’t they all?
Ms Egan seemed ashamed to admit that she was a Tory staffer and became even more apologetic when she fessed up to voting Leave. This was clearly too much for Wimp, and although he remained civil you could sense him reaching for his coat in his mind’s eye at that point.
The nerve of the guy! Apart from the gross ungentlemanliness of it all (he should be putting her at her ease, not the other way around) the whole exchange sums up what is wrong with the Left v Right debate in Britain.
The Left are on the offensive, high on their own sense of righteousness, while the Right explain, appease and apologise. 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.
Yet there they are, busy dressing up their own selfish, self-interest as compassion and virtue. Give me a break. We know what you are doing. You are using the power of the State to grab more resources for yourself. Sure, you might throw a little the way of the poor. But poor families might not need so many redistributed, humiliating hand-outs if it were not for Leftist policies that damage employment and the equally immoral family-destroying social policies.
So, if you ever have the misfortune of having a date with one of these people, remember: you have nothing to apologise for. The Leftist, on the other hand, has a lot of explaining to do.