Although the Left are violent, on an individual basis, they are weak. One-on-one, they seldom can deal with their Right opponents, not that anyone should be naughty and fighting anyway (bad, bad, illegal etc.), but this is simply my professional observation from YouTube pondering and viewing. However, there may be a scientific explanation for this, that stronger, muscular men, tend to be more conservative, if not Right wing:
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-muscular-men-unequal-society.html
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-nice-people-finish-money.html
“Men with large upper bodies have a tendency to favour inequality in society and a limited redistribution of resources. This is the conclusion drawn by Professor Michael Bang Petersen and Associate Professor Lasse Laustsen from the Department of Political Science in a study published in the journal, Political Psychology. "The results challenge the belief that our political views are formed by logic and reason alone. Instead, our views seemingly reflect intuitions produced by a Stone Age mind," says Michael Bang Petersen. Modern man thinks with his caveman brain. The new study concerns humans, but takes a theoretical starting point in one of the most well-documented findings in the study of animals: Physical strength shapes the conflict behaviour of animals. If animals are larger and stronger than their rivals, they are prone to attempt to assert themselves in the struggle for status and resources. However, if they are weaker than their rivals, they are likely to withdraw from the conflict. According to the latest research results from Aarhus BSS, the same logic applies to modern men when they reason about political conflicts regarding the redistribution of resources in society.
"This logic was adaptive under the conditions of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, as stronger men here would have been able to secure resources on their own. But it's an irrational way of dealing with modern day political resource conflicts. Today, physical strength is highly unlikely to affect how big a share of society's resources you are able to acquire. However, our data shows that physical strength nonetheless continues to affect men's political attitudes toward redistribution," says Lasse Laustsen. According to the researchers, the new results may explain the paradox of why some men with limited financial resources still favour financial inequality although they would, in fact, benefit from a greater redistribution of resources. "Our analysis suggests that these men expect to be able to rise in the hierarchy on their own. And once they reach the top of the hierarchy, an unequal society will increase their chances of maintaining that position," says Laustsen.’
Here is the link to the research paper, followed by its abstract:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12505
“Animal models of conflict behavior predict that an organism's behavior in a conflict situation is influenced by physical characteristics related to abilities to impose costs on adversaries. Stronger and larger organisms should be more motivated to seek larger shares of resources and higher places in hierarchies. Previous studies of human males have suggested that measures of upper‐body strength are associated with measures of support for inequality including Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), a measure of individual differences in support for group‐based hierarchies. However, other studies have failed to replicate this association. In this article, we reexamine the link between upper‐body strength and support for inequality using 12 different samples from multiple countries in which relevant measures were available. These samples include student and locally representative samples with direct measures of physical strength and nationally representative samples with self‐reported measures related to muscularity. While the predicted correlation does not replicate for every single available measure of support for inequality, the overall data pattern strongly suggests that for males, but not females, upper‐body strength correlates positively with support for inequality.”
This connects up with an idea that we have been pursuing here, of the problem of Leftism, at least in men, stems from low testosterone levels, since this magic hormone is a key component of strength. The emasculated estrogenic world of feminism, naturally requires such cucked, deracinated “men” who have become little more than laboratory animals, subjected to the grand social experiment, before their inevitable annihilation.
https://www.rooshv.com/the-decline-in-testosterone-is-destroying-the-basis-of-masculinity
“Facing reality means facing consequences and accepting the possibility of pain and discomfort. Fear of pain and discomfort is an impediment to facing reality. As such, one may find it useful to learn to suffer pain well, and we are blessed with the availability of an excellent introductory teacher in capsaicin. Find a hot sauce that says “ghost pepper” (also known as “naga jolokia” or “bhut jolokia”) and isn’t lying about it. Pour it onto your food. Pizza works alright for this, if for no other reason than its ubiquity (if you can’t get pizza you’ve probably already escaped modernity). You may learn the source of the fire-breathing dragon’s malice. You may learn to harbor a fire in your belly. As this teacher’s lesson comes to an end, you may wake from your sleep into the dark night of the Scoville to face the greater jihad upon your solitary throne. There you may begin to learn the distinction between sensation and substance, or appearance and reality. But even if you succumb immediately and return to your infancy, wailing for milk, you will surely learn something about yourself.”
http://www.amerika.org/politics/hot-sauce-against-the-modern-world/
Well, I guess that is a start on the long and winding road to manhood regained.