Sentences (#71)

Intrasexual competition as an engine of moral calculation:

In four studies, we show that men are more likely than women to make the anti-utilitarian (hypothetical) choice of causing three same sex deaths to save one opposite sex life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer potential sexual partners, more likely for heterosexual men and less likely if the female character to be saved no longer has reproductive value.


September 6, 2016admin 12 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

12 Responses to this entry

  • Alien Sex Fiend Says:

    Well thank heavens some people still have their heads screwed on properly.

    A shame that modern western ‘society’ is so determined to hunt them to extermination.


    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This is sort of the last remaining basal natural value, so I wouldn´t say it suffices to amount to the average male having their head screwed on properly.

    Since evolution apparently didn´t ‘figure’ there would be contraceptions, it made the lust to fuck stronger than the desire to have children.

    Or even more basally, mere ejaculation (porn).

    It has been, so to speak, blindsided.

    Men dominated by women,

    their women, or

    strange women in courtrooms, classrooms, councils, corporations, and cathedrals.


    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 9:58 am Reply | Quote
  • woods Says:

    Survival (individual, species) is the basis of all morality, as Heinlein noted.


    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 10:42 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    If you have to make a values calculation, it should be done by consequentialist principles. This avoids the type of navel-gazing moralizing that would have the average modern person sacrificing a boatload of his own people for one gay minority orphan who enjoys interpretive dance.


    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 11:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    I really hate academia.

    In four studies, we show that men are exactly as likely as women to make the (hypothetical) choice of causing three male deaths to save one female life; and that this choice is more likely when there are fewer women, more likely for more-male men and less likely if the woman to be saved no longer has reproductive value.

    Okay, that’s a little better.


    Garr Reply:

    Mind if I try?
    “In four studies we show that most men would kill three other guys to save one fuckable woman, and that most women would kill any and all nerdy men who want to fuck them and kill all other women who would be likely to distract the men that they want to be fucked by; furthermore, we show that the fewer fuckable women there are the more men a man would kill in order save one, and that the more manly a man is the more men he’d kill to save one. We conclude that the standard of manliness is the number of other men a men would kill to fuck a woman.”


    Alrenous Reply:

    I don’t mind at all.
    Does the study show women will kill distracting other women? I mean, it’s probably true or true-ish, but I can’t be arsed to read the study to see if it’s actually in there.

    I’m thinking the data mainly says this:


    michael Reply:

    Problem is getting it peer reviewed among professors who pee sitting


    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 1:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    is it fair to claim thats an anti utilitarian choice, Im no ethics expert just kind of think of myself as a utilitarian and without more information i wouldnt call it a no brainer or white knighting, its more lives yes but first of all whose utility, I might decide to kill all the guys and keep all the girls and food makes sense to me.


    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 9:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mild Troll Says:

    “Furthermore, and for the same reason, we expect anti-utilitarianism to be lower for homosexual males.”

    “Homosexual men were less willing to (hypothetically) eliminate other men, demonstrating that heterosexual interest was an essential component of the effect.”

    “The 16 homosexual men differed markedly from the rest of the male sample: Only 19 % made the anti-utilitarian choice, compared to 75 % of the heterosexual men.”

    While an antifeminist, I’ve always instinctively hated its MRA and MGTOW expressions. My suspicion about the kind of antifeminism that instead of seeking to protect women laughs at female suffering and shirks male responsibility and authority is that it’s profoundly unmasculine at best.


    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Aside from the romantic writings of scribes — polemicists, theologians and worse — woman was to man for all of history until the Middle Ages a disposable property to make sons firstly, and then daughters. This is evident in all European law, until modernity.

    This has nothing to do with mistreating your property, which only an ignoble person would do.


    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Far thinking Roman leaders saw these decline in native Roman numbers and the threat it posed. Professor A.M. Duff remarked, “One of the most serious evils with which the imperial government was called upon the contend was the decline in population. Not only had the Italian stock almost disappeared from the towns, but the descendants of freedmen had not been born in sufficient numbers to take its place. Accordingly, while the Lex Papia Poppaea offered privileges to freeborn citizens for the possession of three children, it used the whole question of inheritances of freedmen and freedwomen for the encouragement of procreation” (A. M. Duff, “Freedmen in the early Roman Empire”, Oxford University Press, 1928, p. 191).

    Charles Merivale, another renowned expert on Roman history, continued the story: “The centre of the empire had been more exhausted by the civil wars than any of the provinces. The rapid disappearance of the free population had been remarked with astonishment and dismay, at least from the time of the Gracchi. If the numbers actually maintained on the soil of the Peninsula had not diminished, it was abundantly certain that the independent native races had given way almost throughout its extent to a constant importation of slaves” (Charles Merivale, “The Romans Under the Empire”, vol. 2. Pp. 395-397).

    “The remedies to which Caesar resorted would appear as frivolous as they were arbitrary… He prohibited all citizens between the age of twenty and forty from remaining abroad more than three years together, while, as a matter of state policy, he placed more special restrictions upon the movements of the youths of senatorial families” (ibid).
    Merivale also points out how Caesar saw the danger of slave labor flooding Rome, and actually passed a law forbidding certain types of labor-intensive work from using only slaves: “He (Caesar) required also that the owners of herds and flocks, to the maintenance of which large tracts of Italy were exclusively devoted, should employ free labor to the extent of at least one-third of the whole. Such laws could only be executed constantly under the vigilant superintendence of a sovereign ruler. They fell in fact into immediate disuse, or rather were never acted upon at all. They served no other purpose at the time but to evince Caesar’s perception of one of the fatal tendencies of the age (i.e. race deterioration in Italy), to which the eyes of most statesmen of the day were already open” (ibid).”

    “Augustus´ [Octavian, Caesar´s heir] political and economic reforms were very successful and earned him the gratitude of the Roman people; however, as Will Durant in The Story of Civilization said, “He destroyed his own happiness by trying to make people good as well as happy; it was an imposition that Rome never forgave…”
    The extension of citizenship as a means of gaining support for political reforms; the increasing tendency to emancipate slaves whose children automatically acquired Roman citizenship; the low marriage and birth rates among native Romans—all of these things were causing a major shift in the racial balance. Augustus was convinced that Rome’s success depended on the self discipline, morality , and dedication that could be found only in the native born, aristocratic Roman: this class had declined considerably in number, scorned marriage, and allowed its women far too much freedom.


    Restrictions were placed on the attendance of women at public spectacles.

    A father could kill his daughter and her lover if he caught them in the act of adultery.

    In his own home, a husband could kill his wife and her lover if he caught them in the act of adultery.

    A husband must divorce his wife within 60 days if it is proven she has committed adultery.

    A woman who has committed adultery is subject to the following additional penalties:


    loss of half her dowry

    loss of one third of any additional wealth she possessed.

    Men under 60 and women under 50 must marry. Failure to do so would mean they could not inherit.

    Women with three or more children could wear a special garment and were freed from the authority of their husbands.

    These laws were certainly unpopular and were probably failures as well. Tacitus, writing a century later, certainly thought so, and even Augustus in the end bemoaned the inability of his generation to come up to the ancient standards. An interesting victim of the anti-adultery law was the Emperor’s own daughter, Julia, who was banished as an example to all.

    After decades of civil war Rome was ready for whatever political and economic reforms could guarantee peace, stability and the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that came from ownership of the ancient world’s greatest empire. The Augustan moral reforms were resented by all but the most conservative elements of society for seeming to fly in the face of a new world. Rising prosperity had contributed to a steady increase in the standing of women, especially women in the upper classes, and the Augustan social reforms threatened to end all of that. Many married just to meet the legal requirement and then divorced immediately after.

    Duff pinted out that by the time of Octavian Augustus, there were significant numbers of “Orientals” in Rome: “Even in Augustus” day the process of Orientalization had gone too far. The great emperor saw the clouds, but he did not know they had actually burst. His legislation would have been prudent and not a whit excessive a century earlier; but in his time Rome was a cosmopolitan city, and the doom of the Empire was already sealed” (Duff, ibid).

    Frank’s study of the Roman family lines revealed exactly how native Romans vanished. He wrote: “The race went under. The legislation of Augustus and his successors, while aiming at preserving the native stock, was of the myopic kind so usual in social lawmaking, and failing to reckon with the real nature of the problem involved, it utterly missed the mark” (Frank, ibid).

    “We know, for instance, in Caesar’s day of forty-five patricians, only one of whom is represented by posterity when Hadrian came to power. Of the families of nearly four hundred senators recorded in 65 AD under Nero, all trace of a half is lost by Nerva’s day, a generation later” (ibid).

    “At the same time many were tempted to emigrate to the colonies across the sea which Julius Caesar and Augustus founded. Many went away to Romanize the provinces, while society was becoming Orientalized at home. Because slave labor had taken over almost all jobs, the free born could not compete with them. They had to sell their small farms or businesses and move to the cities. Here they were placed on the dole because of unemployement. They were, at first, encouraged to emigrate to the more prosperous areas of the empire-to Gaul, North Africa, and Spain. Hundreds of thousands left Italy and settled in the newly-acquired land” (Duff, ibid).

    “Such a vast number left Italy-leaving it to the Orientals-that finally restrictions had to be passed to prevent the complete depopulation of the Latin stock, but as we have seen, the laws were never effectively put into force. The migrations increased and Italy was being left to another race. The Roman thus gave away to the Easterner in Italy, while he made a place for himself in the provinces” (Duff, ibid).

    The Cambridge Ancient History adds: “Augustus recognizing the serious infiltration of alien blood into the body politic, introduced restrictions as manumission” (Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VI, pp. 755, 756). “Yet this proved but a slight check, and Tacitus records a significant remark that “if freedmen were marked off as a separate grade, the scanty number of free-born would be evident.” This shows how very few native free-born were left in Italy by our era. This freemen were now freedmen-ex-slaves or their descendants. They were taking over the complete population” (ibid).

    Freed slaves, mostly of Syrian or eastern extraction, became numerically strong in Rome. The emperor Philip was born in Syria, and became known as “Philip the Arabian” as a result. “It seems unquestionable that the slaves from the eastern provinces were numerically preponderant in Rome, and-what is still more important-that they played a more important part in Roman life. Rome’s policy of manumitting slaves was very liberal and the grant of freedom and citizenship made it possible for them to become merged in the citizen body of Rome. Former slaves and sons of slaves spread into trades and crafts that required civil standing, and in Cicero’s day it was these people who already constituted the larger element of the plebian classes” (La Piana, ibid).

    “One thing which must, most of all, have shocked the aristocracy, even though of recent date, was the large number of Orientals, especially freedmen, who-had been given some of the highest posts in the empire” (Cambridge Ancient History, ibid).

    Tacitus complained that in Nero’s day, most of the senators and members of the aristocracy were now men of ex-slave status-and most of these were of eastern origin. By the third century AD, many of the emperors were actually descendants of the slaves of earlier centuries. La Piana stated it this way: “The denationalized capital of the great empire came to be ruled by the offspring of races which were originally had come to the city only to serve” (La Piana, ibid).”

    About this topic, new studies showed how the Scythians vanished.

    (24) After the « same-sex » mariage (originary in Islamic Egypt:, an interesting book on islamic homosexualities is available here: and the Richard Burton’s « terminal essay » on sexuality in the Semitic world here: ), children adoption for everyone and medically assisted procreation which is established in Europe by Semites, the monstrosity of carrier mothers is penetrating in Europe by (Judeo-Arab-Mongolian-)Slavic countries.

    That Slavs are the only Indo-European people that have had matriarchal societies and religions should not be losing sight of as this help us to understand why carrier mothers are developing in Eastern Europe.

    This is the last step in the commodification of life. In the old Aryan world being was divided into three parts: body, soul and spirit; the first drop was to assimilate the spirit to the soul (which can be found in Cartesianism), then the second the soul to the body and therefore to the matter, which is materialism (like in the Jewish Marxism), materialism which is being pushed to its limits by reducing life through Asian analytical sciences to a physical deterministic set of mechanisms where everything can be measured, a sign of hyper-rationalism. We can safely say that the current commoditization of life is partly a result of these feminine degradations.

    To add about marriage, it is relevant to note that before judeo-christianization of Europe, in genuine Indo-European societies, there was no need of the agreement of women to marry them. Judeo-Christianity made it mandatory and this agreement has given born to the feminine love marriage.

    Unrelated to the foregoing, I can’t resist to note that ancient familial cult of the male ancestors described by Numa Denis Fustel De Coulanges in his book “La cité antique” was replaced by judeo-christianity by the universal Marian devotion and the virile “national” cult of heroes by the feminine international cult of martyrs.

    [ The above is from
    and ]


    Posted on September 8th, 2016 at 1:16 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment