Well, it’s official…

Science says that there definitely IS a fundamental difference between conservative men and liberal men…

And it’s not a difference of philosophical or political ideology.

It’s physical.

Liberal men are physically smaller and weaker than conservative men — and it’s measurable.

In a study published by the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, researchers measured the shoulders, chest and biceps of 171 men — then had them squeeze a dynamometer to also measure their grip strength — before interviewing them on some of their political and economic values.

The men questioned were asked to gauge how they viewed both the redistribution of wealth and how they felt about social hierarchies…

These questions ranged from queries like, “should rich people be taxed more than others?” and “should inferior groups stay in their place?”

And believe it or not, there was a correlation between their physical measurements and their political and hierarchal values.

When compared to the measurement of physical strength to their economic values, the researchers found that the slighter, weaker men were more apt to be less socially dominant and more pro-distribution of wealth.

Or, to put it plainly…

Physically weak men are more likely to have liberal values.

It makes perfect sense…

Think about it, when we get right down to it, our basal instincts are still intact underneath our more civilized veneer.

In our ancestral past, it was a man’s physical size that determined status, allocation of resources and prime mating partners — so of course it makes sense that even in today’s world, bigger men are more than OK with a survival-of-the-fittest-type system…

Because underneath all the fancy clothes, deodorant and cologne, we’re still the cavemen that will take what we want if we can. To the cavemen…

Might makes right — and liberals don’t have the physical means to take what they want.

So, what do they do? They use other nefarious ways to get what they want…

Such as making and passing laws and policies that even the playing field for them. They can’t compete physically, so they do the next best thing. They use somebody or something bigger to get what they want.

And this isn’t the only study of its kind…

An anthropologist from the University of California admits that there is a LOT of research out there that supports the idea that status and wealth are linked to size and strength.

It’s common knowledge that tall men make MORE money doing the same job as shorter men do, so it’s not like this is new stuff…

But it makes total sense why larger men don’t usually believe in redistribution economics because their DNA tells them that it’s not natural to give away your wealth and privilege to others.

However, weaker men have no problem trying to take that wealth and privilege by using underhanded methods to get ahead in life — metaphorically speaking.

Smaller men hate conflict — unless they’re statistically likely to win. You wouldn’t see them in a straight-up fist fight trying to beat the dominate alpha male to get more…

They use cunning and subterfuge to move forward.

That’s what we’re seeing played out between the right and the left today…

The left wants what the right has, and the right wants to keep what it has.

If it came down to a straight-up mano-a-mano fight — the bigger, stronger man is most likely the victor…

However, if a weaker man perverts laws and policies, or finds a group of like-minded and weaker people like themselves, they’ll either use might of the law or their superior numbers to win.

Does this all sound familiar?

Look at how much the frailer males of our society flock to groups like ANTIFA or Media Matters?

It helps knowing that these men can’t help the way they think…

It helps knowing that these smaller, weaker men aren’t just crazy — they’re in survival mode.

If they weren’t so greedy about it, it’d be easy to feel sorry for them.

But this is also why we can’t let them win…

Who wants a weak man as the face of our country?

I sure as hell don’t…

Do you?