RUSH: Mr. Snerdley, can I ask you a quick question just to set your memory back? How many times over the course of this program have you heard me either say directly, making a big point of it, or just in passing, that I am stunned, that I am shocked that real men can be liberals? How many times have you heard me raise this or ask this? It’s a lot. Over the years I’ve often asked a lot — it’s tough for me to understand how real guys, real guys can be liberals!
Well, guess what? The U.K. Times, headline: Weak men more likely to be socialists, study claims. Once again, your host on the cutting edge of societal evolution. I mean, decades ago I began to raise this anomaly. Don’t tell John Prescott, but maybe socialists are socialist because they aren’t that good in a fight. (paraphrasing) “Conversely, free marketeers may not actually have a sincere belief in the power of Adam Smith’s unseeing hand, instead have a justified belief in the power of their clenched fist.
A study has found that weaker men…” The first paragraph there, the definition of weak versus strong by fists and fighting is not really what this is about. “A study has found that weaker men are more likely to be in favor of redistributive taxation. They are more likely to be sympathetic and feel sorry for minorities and others. The strong, on the other hand, according to the study, are far less likely to see the virtue of egalitarian social policies.”
Now, listen to the way… I just interpreted the paragraph. I want to read to you the way this thing is actually written. The people that wrote this do not like this, they don’t agree with it, and they’re impugning it as they write. Listen to this paragraph. “A study has found that weaker men are more likely to be in favor of redistributive taxation. The strong, on the other hand, who in their cavemen past had no problems controlling both women and resources that they had no intention of sharing are far less likely to see the virtue of egalitarian social policies.” See how strong people are portrayed here?
Controlling women, abusive, they don’t share anything. Just the exact opposite! Weak people demand that other people share what they have. The strong already do it. The strong take care of who knows how many! That’s the point of getting strong and being strong, it’s the point of becoming a provider. I don’t think other people ought to have to do it, like liberals do.
Liberals are great at spending everybody else’s money and even keep spending it when there isn’t any left. Let’s see how strong people are portrayed here. (impression) “Manipulating and controlling women, and they don’t share resources.” This is one interpretation of research by academics in Brunel University who assessed 171 men.
RUSH: From The Daily Wire, but it’s actually about an NBC poll, which was announced Sunday on Meet the Depressed. This has just got to rip ’em apart at NBC News.
“NBC Polling Data Shows Sanders Voters Are ‘Low Information’ And Sanders Voters Aren’t Happy.” Low-information voters are leaving the Democrat Party primary. “An NBC poll which debuted Sunday on Meet the Press revealed a characteristic about Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voters that wasn’t exactly flattering. It turns out, the less you pay attention to politics, the more likely you are to support the socialist option for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination,” led, of course, by Crazy Bernie.
Chuck Todd delivered the bad news to his panel. And people watching this on social media were downright insulted, because what it says is that people who pay the least attention to politics — i.e., watch NBC News — people that pay the least bit of attention to the Drive-By Media are more prone to support socialist candidates.
In other words, people that don’t watch a lot, therefore, don’t know a lot, therefore, are low-information voters, happen to be the people propelling the Democrat Party primary race. “The less you are paying attention, the more likely you are a Bernie Sanders supporter,” reported F. Chuck Todd, pointing to a Monmouth poll taken recently showing that Sanders is losing ground to both Sleepy Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren is catapulting up. Mayor Pete is trying to raise a lot of money to be taken seriously.
But I just absolutely love this because the media, of course, thinks that their audience is the most informed and the most sophisticated and the most erudite and all of that. And their own poll has revealed — (laughing) — they’re the least informed! And the less they know, the more they are inclined to support governments like Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union.
By the way, speaking of which, if you are too old to remember the, quote, unquote, Soviet Union — that was an eighties and nineties thing — if you’re too old, if that’s ancient history, if you weren’t old enough or you weren’t paying attention back then, you really need to watch a series on HBO called Chernobyl.
Six parts. Episode 4 I think aired last night or episode 5. It’s coming up on the conclusion. But if you have HBO, you can stream all episodes back-to-back except for the finale I think is next week. I’ve never seen a show that so accurately portrays what the Soviet Union was as this.
And it’s all about the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl and how it happened, how it shouldn’t have happened, how the Soviets tried to cover it up, how they were incapable of dealing with it, how they had no ability to tell the truth to themselves or their people about anything, about how their people lived.
I almost started crying watching last night’s episode, and I’m not making that up. Last night’s episode — I don’t even want to tell you this — last night’s episode, they had to kill every animal within a 250-kilometer or maybe square-mile area of the nuclear plant.
And they recruited people that had never been in the military, had never fired guns, to go shoot pets, to lure people’s pets out of their home. They had to kill them because they were infected, they were radioactive, they had to do it. They had to bury ’em in concrete. It had to be done, but they depicted it, which you don’t often see.
But it’s not that. I mean, any nation would have had to do that. It’s not that alone that portrays the Soviet Union. The idea that anybody in their right mind could have ever advocated for that system, for that country — and this is not a political show — they just do an accurate portrayal of what life was and how the government operated at the time the Chernobyl meltdown happened.
And you sit there, and it’s something you wonder, how can anybody, anybody, think tanker or intellectual, how could anybody of ever advocated for that, particularly in comparison to the United States?
RUSH: Yeah. We invented the term “low-information voter” on this program — we ought to get residuals — to describe people that had voted for Obama in 2008 ’cause they didn’t follow the news or politics.
We invented the term right here, “low-information voter.”