Darwinian vintologi

The fundamental beliefs in vintologi are:

• The fundamental laws of nature are universal.

• consciousness has no first beginning or final end.

• there is only one universe.

• quantum 'randomness' is the free wills of the universe making choices.

There is no absolute morality in vintologi, only personal preferences humans have.

Darwinian vintologi is about loving evolution, both darwinian evolution and conscious evolution. Humans are viewed as another animal that is a part of nature.

pdf(version 3) http://docdro.id/oOgbck7

pdf(version 6) http://docdro.id/4ikqQPz

pdf(version http://docdro.id/DaRr0LO

pdf(version 9) https://docdro.id/0kFERas

odt(version 10) https://docdro.id/zumDk4Q

http://www.mediafire.com/file/8cibp9crzy0dr90/vintologi9.odt/file

How do you determine which preferences that will be satisfied when there is no absolute morality? well it is pretty simple 0 1 2

With brute force(extreme violence) and propaganda you will be able to impose your preferences upon others, might is right.

While ordinary citizens get imprisoned for murder, robbery and theft the rulers can do the same crimes in massive numbers without any consequences. Superiority and inferiority can only be decided by battle.

By having superior might you can enforce any morals into the masses and they will happily accept them no matter how obvious the contradictions are. Popular lies have ever been the most potent enemies of personal liberty.

Only slaves are born into contracts, the most important freedom is the freedom to dominate the unfit, survival of the fittest is the law of this world. An inherently strong person becomes weak and destructive by following false morals and reason. It is not possible to gain true power without using methods currently viewed as unethical. Christianity is a religion for slaves.

Death and destruction are necessary for the health of the world, and therefore are as natural, and lovable, as birth and life. Only priests and born cowards moan and weep over dying. Brave men face it with approving nonchalance.

Laws and rules imposed on you, from days of old renown, are not intended for your “good” but for your crushing down. Then dare to rend the chains that bind, and to yourself be true. Dare to liberate your mind, from all things, old and new.

Equality can only exist between equals. Civilization implies division of labor, division of labor implies subordination and subordination implies injustice and inequality. Government is founded on property. Property is founded on conquest. Conquest is founded on power. All power is founded on brain and brawn.

The rules of life are not to be found in Korans, Bibles, Decalogues and Constitutions, but rather the rules of decadence and death. The “law of laws” is not written in Hebrew consonants or upon tables of brass and stone, but in every man’s own heart. He who obeys any standard of right and wrong, but the one set up by his own conscience, betrays himself into the hands of his enemies, who are ever laying in wait to bind him to their millstones. And generally a man’s most dangerous enemies are his neighbors.

The lie that is known to be a lie is half eradicated, but the lie that even intelligent persons regard as a sacred fact – the lie that has been inculcated around a mother’s knee – is more dangerous to contend against than a creeping pestilence.

The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance, even as it was the heritage of previous generations.

Take from the peasantry even an infinitesimal proportion of their petty property, and they will lynch you as a lazy thievish tramp; but two-thirds of their harvests by law and rule (tax) and they will turn out in the middle of the night, to cheer you in your steam-horsed palace car, as it whirls through their ‘God forsaken’ villages.

Your decisions always have consequences, these can sometimes be difficult to know. Making good decisions itself isn’t free, when you spend time trying to figure out the rational endeavor you lose time that could have been used to benefit you in other ways. High intelligence makes it a lot easier to arrive at the correct conclusion during a given time and allows you to influence the future according to your preferences.

You will have to accept that you are wrong sometimes, eventually it will be cured with death or by changing your mind.

Your decisions may also affect future lives, if you have good genes and have a lot of children the probability of you ending up with good genes the next life will increase slightly, this is a form of karma but individual action hardly matters, your decisions are not important unless you have a lot of power.

Your actions now will affect which genes you end up having in future lives. Let's assume you are a female that prefer small cocks and only breed with males that have that both feature, this will result in a temporary decrease in average penis size but since most females have a different preference the average cock size will still converge to the average preference. If you kill all humans of the Caucasians race a new similar race would eventually evolve, it would take hundreds of thousands of years but it would eventually happen, you will just be forced to live thousands of generations as different races.

There is no individual karma in vintologi, instead your genetic type will be punished/rewarded in future lives. If you fail to stop communism/leftism you will suffer from it in future lives(we all suffer from that now). If you fail to stop christ insanity and the bad things that comes from that you may end up living with a mutilated penis in the next life(luckily circumcision isn't common in Europe).

Being born with good genetics is the most important part [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rsdVXrtRE']3[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jA53IkHZJg']4[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t5-foFRiKI']5[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgCY7rf7a_M']6[/URL]

The punishment of having bad genes can be really horrible, if you are an ugly male almost all females will reject you, ugly females can still get males but not the best. There is many truly horrible genetic disorders that we should try to eliminate completely. Some disorders such as OCD can be cured but it will be painful and difficult, it ruins many peoples lives.

Being an ugly male is no fun [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjK9mXKjZkw']7[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6BfFCErBQ']8[/URL] luckily females will reject most of these males resulting in a more beautiful population in the future.

When you reincarnate you go from a matured brain to a young brain that has limited capacity, thus you will most likely end up with a more powerful brain the next life if these brains are available. When you increase the amount of people with similar genetics as you will increase your chance of ending up with a better brain next life.

If the amount of new children being born if your genetic type is low you will be unlikely to reincarnate into a better brain unless you reincarnate into a different genetic type. Even if you like the new race you reincarnated into better you may still end up with genes you dislike more because you did not get a good body among the members of the new race, new souls typically get less healthy brains.

Which types of genes/species that survive is determined by the environment, an advantageous trait in one environment might be disadvantageous in a different environment. Currently which genes that is likely to survive is determined largely by human action, the selection is less natural and more determined by human preferences and this trend is likely to continue

If you create an environment of ever increasing pressure to perform, and eliminate the non performers from the gene pool, the performers continue to improve performance. Our current society instead cater to the weak and unproductive resulting in possibly dysgenic breeding, if this continue we will no longer be able to maintain our civilization.

The goal in darwinian vintologi is to create a new races/species. “homo sapiens superior” will have the following characteristics
[ATTACH=full]23[/ATTACH]
eye color: green or blue.
hair: red or blonde.
average iq: 125
average penis size: 250 cm³
executive functions: top 10% (no adhd).
beauty: attracts top 10% of nordic females or 3% of nordic males via appearance only.
body lengt: 192cm (avarage).
common mutations: hDEC2, LRP5, CCR5, ACTN3

[URL='https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cd/bb/92/cdbb9244a758a7de3f9ba96742f73d56.jpg']9[/URL] [URL='http://bestpussypics.net/galleries/big/1793he/name4.jpg']10[/URL] [URL='http://bestpussypics.net/galleries/big/1793he/name6.jpg']11[/URL] [URL='https://2img.net/h/oi65.tinypic.com/34j5gs7.jpg']12[/URL] [URL='http://xavierlamaar.tumblr.com/post/62048147566/hungeuropeans-biggest-dicks-on-the-internet']13[/URL] [URL='http://cdn.media.pictures.mrstiff.com/media/3/56/60/p47851138.jpg']14[/URL] [URL='https://cdn.pornpics.com/pics/2013-08-15/110225_15big.jpg']15[/URL]

If females prefer a certain male trait that trait is likely to be more common simply due to female preference, it does not have to be advantageous for survival. Humans have genetic preferences and these preferences is similar for most humans(all races).

The current sexual selection is mostly bases on genetic factors such as looks [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFnJMPQow7A&t=337s']16[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVB3ypWVu14']17[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0m_GVG3Oxo']18[/URL] this is due to several key factors, females no longer need male resources due to the welfare state and females entering the work force. The sexual liberation has resulted in females having a lot more options while males have fewer options.

Intelligent males will be more likely to reproduce for several reasons https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2017-020.pdf

As the bodies of males become more attractive due to female sexual selection the male body will become less and less important when it comes to female sexual selection and other factors such as intelligence and social status will become increasingly important. Different individual select their partners differently but we can still see some general patterns such as females loving good looking male psychopaths.

It is very unlikely a female will be monogamous with an unattractive male, some guys might be lucky enough to finding a female willing to waste herself with a loser but for the most part unattractive males will remain single or in very short term relationships. Being rich might attract certain types of females even if you are ugly but these females will quickly 'fall out of love' if you stop being successful.

Females have a tendency to reject males of their own race in favor for other males they find more attractive [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBK5o7V6Nw0']19[/URL] this is especially true for japanese females that reject their unattractive males in favor of caucasians despite the fact that whites males have lower average iq. The only reason white females does not racemix more than they do is because white males are at the top of the sexual marketplace among males, it is mostly unattractive white females that mix with other races.

Without enforced monogamy the most successful/attractive males will have multiple wives, this will lead to a lot harder competition for females and a less stable society which is a good thing. A less stable society will be needed for racial improvements and hence stability isn't desirable. With shortage of females the men will be needed to take larger risks and the stupid cowards will be eliminated from the gene pool. Polygamy allows most males to leave the society while maintaining population growth.

The disadvantage with polygamy is that it decreases the evolutionary pressure on females due to the shortage of them, there exist no humane solutions for this but one inhumane solution is to draft stupid stupid/ugly females to dangerous wars, this is the real advantage with female draft.

Without polygamy, it will only be possible for a man to impregnate a female once a year which isn't desirable. The best example of Polygamy is Charles Lindbergh. Polygamy will also make it possible for a female to find begin a relationship with a more attractive male(all females will benefit from it due to less completion for good males).

Males living in a polygamous society will often have to leave the society in order to find aven one partner, the result will be a gene-flow away from the polygamous society into other societies. The less monogamous a society iss the greater the gene-flow will be to other societies that willingly or unwillingly (war and rape) end up with some of the male surplus created.

It is a matter of preference if you prefer to have a monogamous relationship or several partners. The emotional benefit for the male with more than one wife is that it will be emotionally easier for him if a wife divorce him(more than 50% of marriages end up in divorce) since he will be less emotionally attached to each woman. The females will get the emotional benefit of being with a very good man and a lot of females prefer sharing a good man over being alone with an unattractive man.

Supporting polygamy is a sensible thing to do because men already like having many partners, it enhances personal freedom, helps to prevent or minimize adultery, is an integral part of some culture, was practiced by great men of Christianity and Islam and other religions, helps to decrease the number of single women in society, helps men with leadership ability, it indicates that men are humanitarian, and it is a normal human practice.

The media wants us to believe that humans are naturally monogamous. We are not. Men have always been intended to be polygamist, while women are what their men make them, which is monogamous. The basic concept of marriage is that the man invests in the family in return for the sexual fidelity of his wife. This way, the man can invest in kids who he knows are his. It is well-known that women prefer men who are successful with other women. The evolutionary benefits are obvious. A man who has the opportunity to spread his genes to many women will probably produce sons with the same opportunity, thereby also spreading the mother's genes. This would indicate that women would actually prefer to marry men who can have sex with other women.

So why do western women insist on the opposite? western women do not want a good man. They are taught that they should dominate and control their men, a position which women were never intended to fill. If the husband agrees and commits to sexual fidelity, then he has shown that he is weak and has failed the test. By committing to sexual fidelity, he is showing that he has no backbone and will give in to his wife on all issues. If his wife believes her husband's commitment, she will view him as a doormat and will soon find him boring and lose interest in having sex with him. If she doesn't believe his commitment, she will consider him a lying bastard and the marriage will be full of drama until it finally falls apart. Either way, the husbands loses. By refusing to commit to sexual fidelity, the husband passes the shit test. The wife will then feel that she still needs to compete with other women to hold on to her husband, so she will continue to be sexually attracted to him.

The demand for females will always be much greater than the supply in a typical society even if polygamy isn’t common, this often leads to gynocentrism/feminism when females are allowed to choice their husbands. Males in a country turning into substitutes such as porn, gay sex and prostitutes does not resolve the issue since females have the opportunity to mate with people outside the country, especially attractive females which we want to keep in the gene pool.

A good male will by definition not accept the current horrible marriage deal where the female gets all the power and the male will be punished hard during a breakup, often marriages are sexless and only a way for females to get economic security, these psychopath females are suitable for mating. There is nothing wrong with cuckolding pathetic males [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rsdVXrtRE']3[/URL]

Cuckolding
One clever strategy for a female is to use one as provider and another man as fucker/sperm donor, she will then get the best of both world. With the current laws the paternity will go to the husband and not the biological father, he will most likely end up paying child support for a child that isn't his.

Cheating is natural and it allows for quicker genetic improvements of the population without abandoning social monogamy. Social monogamy combined with sexual polygamy results in the child both having a good genes and a father figure that has a lot of time to spend with children he foolishly thinks is his, most males can be shamed into not demanding any paternity test.

Some parents convince themselves that overparenting a few kids is better than having a lot of children that they do not care too much about, the reality is of course the opposite. You may want your children to accomplish stuff you did not accomplish but if you only have 1 or 2 kids that will be problematic, they may not want to do what you have planned for them and this is a source for conflict.

If you have many children they will be free to do what suits them and it will still be likely that some of them follows your plan. You may want one or your children to take a higher education but not everyone is suited for that(i would recommend taking a short stem degree if it's free or low cost).

Parenting and schooling in general are simply indoctrination and control, it often involves punishing children despite not hurting anyone. Fortunately children is more influenced by their genes and general environment than their parents, as a parent you are simply at the mercy of the genetics of your child.

If a child have many siblings he/she will have a bigger support network in life, blood relatives are a lot more reliable than your 'friends', this network will be far more valuable than additional time with parents even if the parenting is ideal.

Children do have smaller brains and less knowledge(in general) than adults, their souls is also a lot more pure, they have become less corrupted by society. One current view is that children needs to be looked after and controlled by their parents until they are 18 or even higher(in Sweden the state can decide to take 'care' over you until you are 21).

The father is not really needed [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNJP2bGC3IY']20[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_VC66sP7Ck']21[/URL] having good genes is a lot more important.

While adults generally have better cognitive abilities than children the difference is much smaller than what most adults believe, there is no shortage of kids that are a lot smarter than 99% of the adults. From the chart above we see that male children at the age 8 has larger brains than adult females, females in general should be viewed as brainpolluted children.

It is natural for females to have sex after puberty, waiting with sex and pregnancy can result in mental issues. When males are legally banned from having sex with young girls it will be more difficult for young girls to have sex and get pregnant with a high quality male early. Females have a lot shorter biological window for sex than males and the earlier a females start to have sex without contraceptives the more children she will be able to have.

Females are generally mentally capable of sexual selection from very early age 22

Rape is dysgenic when it allows males with undesireable genetics to make females pregnant, if a male has top tier genes he will not have to rape females in the first place.

If a female is reduced to property of a male that already have success with free females the likely result is instead more sexual inequality and potentially resulting in stronger eugenic effect due to human selections. You can have a lot of fun with a female that you own as property since you do not have to consider her preferences when it comes to sexual activities.

Assume we have two tribes, one with strong(genetically superior) males and another with weak(inferior) males. If the tribe with strong males kill the weak males in the other tribe and rape the women the following will happen
1. The weak men from the other tribe will die and reincarnate
2. the females will experience being raped and humiliated
3. the children born will be genetically better.
4. In the upcoming lives everyone will benefit by having better genes.

It is obvious 3 and 4 is good, but what about the female experience? reports has shown that a [URL='https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/87-percent-of-women-orgasm-during-rape/']large part[/URL] of the females orgasm during rape, some experience their first orgasm. Some females even [URL='http://bornwithacunt.blogspot.se/2016/05/back-where-i-started-from.html']admit[/URL] that they enjoyed getting raped.

Today females is protected by the might of governments which needs to be crushed before they can be raped on a major scale, rape is a useful tool during war but it's not a viable option to spread your genes in a modern civilised society. Abortion is now an option in the case of a pregnancy.

Females will avoid undesirable males. Most rape in the legal sense consists of a male she has already approved of forcing a her into a sexual activity she do not want to doat the time, this will make the relationship more exiting.

Females often want to exchange [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMmg58yi-i0']sex for resources[/URL], in order to provide for the children, if a man rapes a woman she might get good genes but the man will not have to provide any resources. If a female is married against her will she will(sex slave) the man will still provide for her.

Since the male elite is biologically superior when it comes to cognetive tasks the male elite shall be in control. As we gain political power we can archive our goals.
-lower the age of concent to 13 or lower for all sexual activities.
-child support shall only be based on which male she is married to or marries first after conceiving the child.
-in rape cases the attractiveness and importance of the male shall be taken into account.
-reducing some females to our property.
-we may want to force females with good genes to have children(donating eggs is an alternative).
-females will be able to sell themselves into sexual 'slavery'.

We also need to abolish the welfare state and lower taxes as much possible, when males control most resources males will so have power over reproduction since children cost a lot of money. A soft patriarchy is simply a minority or wealthy males controlling the society and having power over the females via money or by being very attractive in other ways. Males will have to compete against males for females and it will be a lot more difficult for males to procreate, only the best among males will be given much freedom when it comes to partner selection.

Hard patriarchy does however have the disadvantage of not eliminating unattractive males for the gene pool, when males are in total control the only sexual selection will be against females resulting in unattractive females being discarded while unattractive males will be able to spread there genes simply by just buying females. Hard patriarchy in the west any time soon is unlikely but we are already seeing it with ISIS that kills the males and use females as sex slaves. Currently most males are very unattractive and thus we have to wait several generations(of female selection) before returning to [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KkL4ZZPWH0']hard patriarchy[/URL] is a good idea.

The only reason females stayed with unattractive males before was because cultural expectations [URL='https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl6pgsM45vI']23[/URL] and lack of government support for single mothers, now there is no turning back and we do not even want to try going back to a traditionalist society.

An elite taking control over a country will be able to enjoy abusing their powers in many ways. If the elite takes power ruthlessly they are also likely to rule ruthlessly. The ruling elite will divide the population into several classes.

A the ruling elite.
B selected citizens.
C citizens/tourists.
D Slaves.
E non-citizens not allowed within the border
F military targets.

[color:f9e3=rgb(255, 221, 255)]A0 citizens(15)
These are the members of the senate and has the higher legislative and judicial power. Each senator chooses a first to forth successor that will takeover once he dies or resigns. The senators are numbered 0 to 14 and if the vote ends with draw the vote of the lowest numbered voting senator will decide.

[color:f9e3=rgb(255, 187, 255)]A1 citizens(85)
State governor, cabinet member or first successor to a senator. The senate must be unanimous in order to remove an [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 187, 255)]A1-citizen from his post. 15 A1 citizens or a single A0-citizen can request an A-vote or delay the replacement of a deputy senator by 100 days.

[color:f9e3=rgb(255, 153, 255)]A2 citizens(115)
Deputy governor, second to forth successor to a senator or deputy to a cabinet member. A margin of 13 votes is required in the senate to remove an [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 153, 255)]A2 citizen from his post.

[color:f9e3=rgb(255, 119, 255)]A3 citizens(210)
Second to forth deputy governor or second to forth deputy to a cabinet member. A margin of 11 votes is required in the senate to remove an [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 119, 255)]A3 citizen from his post.

[color:f9e3=rgb(255, 85, 255)]A4 citizens(575)
Each [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 85, 255)]A4-citizen will select a B-citizen as successor. If the [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 85, 255)]A4-citizen dies/resigns without selecting a successor the senate will choose one, he will be added as [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 85, 255)]A4-citizen if the senate was unanimous or if 7 days has passed without a new candidate getting more votes in the senate.

Any changes to how the country is governed can forced via the A-vote where A-citizens are the only ones allowed to vote and have one vote each. A senator or 15 [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 187, 255)]A1-citizens to request it and that the new suggestion for how to govern wins by a margin of at least {senators opposing the change}² votes.

The possibility to do an A-vote limits the power of the executive branch of the government, it is up to the A-citizens to come up with good limitations for the judiciary. Thus, the small number of senators is controlled by a much larger number of A-citizens.

Only nationals of class A can be chosen as successors to senators, governors, cabinet members. When the senate votes to remove an A-citizenship there will be a delay period or at least (1000,500,350,250,200,150,100,50) days before the change takes effect for a win margin of (8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) in the senate. A unanimous senate is allowed to replace any A-citizens with other individuals and it will take 50 days or longer until the change is implemented.

B citizens(10000)
If the number of B-citizens drops below 9991 a [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 187, 255)]A1 or [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 221, 255)]A0 citizen will be given 120 hours to select 10 new B1-citizens, the [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 221, 255)]A0 and [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 187, 255)]A1 citizens will take turns selecting the new B1 citizens starting with the 15 senators. An A-citizen can choose any B1 citizen as successor(becomes B0 citizen).

The senate can add any number of new B1-citizens with a margin of 5 votes. If the number of B-citizens remains less than (13000,17000,25000) the senate can add new B-citizens with a margin of (2,3,4) votes. The senate requires a margin of at least 6 votes to limit the time and individual is allowed to B-citizen and the minimum time before downgrade will be (500,350,250,175,125,100,75,50,25,0) for win margin of (6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) votes.

C0 full citizenship.
C1 permanent residence.
C2 temporary residence.
D0 free slave, have to pay an additional amount of tax each month to the state.
D1 slave you have to threat well (owned by C0 or higher).
D2 slave not allowed to be killed or very seriously injure.
D3 slave with no rights.
E0 very limited legal protections.
E1 No legal protections.
F0 low value military target.
Fn military target of value {F0 value}*10^(n/10)

The cabinet consists of 20 specialists but is not given any additional power by the constitution besides the powers given to all [color:f9e3=rgb(255, 187, 187)]A1 citizens. It will be similar to the current united states cabinet in terms of individuals and they will be valuable as leaders in their fields.

You need to pass physical and mental tests to get a C0 citizenship, in addition C0 citizen will be allowed to vote in some referendums.

Your citizen-class will determine which weapons you are allowed to possess and carry, non-citizens are not allowed to carry any weapons, C0 will be allowed to keep and bear light arms(no license required) while B will be allowed to keep and bear very heavy weapons. Citizens in control of private jets, tanks, etc will all have A-citizenship.

The issue with pure elite rule is that the elite may not choose new members for the elite in a good way(this is why companies and organizations often fail). The ruling elite will have to come up with a good selection process that will allow prominent citizens to be a part of the ruling elite, objective selection criterias such as score on tests or taxes paid can be used to determine who will become a member of the ruling elite.

The state is just people using violence to enforce their will and it is mostly boring today, the alternative is smaller entities such as polygamous families where the husband can abuse his wives.

Governments tend to target the strong and capable and lifting up the unfit, thus people not deserving any power such as Adolf Hitler will get it while capable people end up jailed, killed or as productive tax slaves. Fighting against the might of the government is often futile, you simply have to rely on people with authority not screwing you up jailed for life or executed, if you survive one execution attempt they will just try to kill you again until you are finally dead.

Not everyone is suitable to live in a free society but the ones ill suited for that will be eliminated from the gene pool and there suffering will come to an end. If you keep the unfit alive by artificial means you will end up with more and more failure and suffering until the entire society fails. The freedom to fail is a very important freedom, nothing good comes from trying to protect people from their own stupidity. If someone wants to kill himself or destroy the brain with drugs, let him to it.

In a free society you will be able to live your life according to your preference. Currently our society isn't free at all, we get imprisoned for breaking laws and many of these crimes lacks victims. A lot of innocent males correctly gets imprisoned for sex crimes(age of consent and rape laws) and a lot of people get their children stolen from them by the state despite being good parents.

We do need good leaders but giving any entity the monopoly of violence democratic or not is very dangerous. Hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments and many more has been imprisoned or suffered from other forms of severe abuse.

People have different preferences and we will never be able to make everybody happy. We can however make most people satisfied via the free market and a free society in general, there will still be failure and suffering but that is short term. The free market is vastly superior any government allocating resources correctly [URL='https://mises.org/system/tdf/what%20is%20austrian%20economics.pdf?file=1&type=document']26[/URL] [URL='https://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia/videos']27[/URL]

Locking up criminals in jails cost a lot of money and will cause a lot of suffering for the ones locked up. Instead most people committing crimes should be fined but if the individual couldn’t pay or if the crime was serious a more brutal punishment will be given. The punishment given will depend on several factors such as gender and physical attractiveness where attractive females and important males are given much more lenient punishment while unattractive males get very brutal punishments.

The harshest punishment an fertile female of high quality can face shall be being reduced to D0 citizen.

Females should in general be given a much more lenient sentence for the same crime.

Subhumans causing problems can end up facing very brutal punishments such as being killed for meat/organs or having to enter into a gladiator tournament where only 1 of 16 can survive (the vinner).

The following groups can provide value in forms of entertainment
-christians(at least the ones mutilating male babies).
-socialists
-marxists
-people of the wrong ethnicity that did not leave the country in time.
-unattractive females.
-government workers and judges such as CPS-agents kidnapping children.
-mentally retarded.
-low iq and other disqualifying factors.

They either die and reincarnate of they survive a fun adventure.

A person we(the ruling elite) dislike will need up to 4 wins to be permitted to live, they will be paired up with other individuals that needs the same numbers of wins. You may simply give up and let the other contestant kill you but if both are unwilling to kill they will both get executed.
We do not want to kill too many people in these gladiator arenas but if it is less than 25% of the population it is a good thing, the fit will be able to survive in the gladiator arena while the weaklings die(in general, you may be lucky or unlucky).

I am against penitentiaries and executions, instead we should give all people a fair chance to survive and be free. Jails will only be used to hold the contestants before/between the fights. We can of course also have duels to the death in an anarchy but they will not be very common without a ruling elite forcing people to kill each other.

In many countries executions are common where the survival chance is almost zero. A lot of US citizens get killed by trigger-happy cops where you do not even get a trial, here you at least get a fair chance to survive(i prefer 25%).

You can construct elimination games in many ways, it does not have to be physical combat, can be board games(such as Fischer random) or letting people of the opposite sex choice after they have stripped naked. You may give people several chances to survive and reserve the death matches to the losers.

When your body dies you will lose most if not all memories and this is a good thing. When you live your soul becomes polluted by false beliefs and death is often the only cure. When you reincarnate your soul gets pure again and will be able to live a new amazing life.

Children with past life memories generally become a lot happier when they forget these memories and can move on with their current life.

If you do reach important conclusions in one life you can easily make them generally available and you might get a good use for that the upcoming lives. If you write a good book you might read it an upcoming life and liking it, not knowing you wrote it yourself.

Most stuff you learn in your life is unfortunately useless or more than useless, you might believe it is important information when it isn't. When you are reborn you are able to experience childhood again and grow up with new friends, starting a new life instead of being old and miserable.

Mental disorders such as Christianity, ocd, depression are all cured by death. It might be hard to accept for born cowards but death is the solution for all personal problems, if your current life is miserable dying is most likely a good thing.

It is very difficult to help victims of severe brainwashing before they die and reincarnate, most people are not willing to accept that they have been fooled and will not accept help even if it is offered for free. Realizing you have been fooled and moving on to a better understanding of reality requires both intelligence and will-power.

The ones killed by Breivik were lucky, they most likely lost the tragic memories and brain pollution and reincarnated, the survivors had to live with their memories and grief over lost friends.

Death sentence isn't a 'good' sentence, the executed will simply reincarnate while relatives will suffer from grief. Murder is however an effective form of punishment since most people today fear death and grief will be inflicted upon their friends and family.

When valuing individual lives you have to look at the particular individual and the society as a whole.

Death always leads to reincarnation and a new life, the new life can be better or worse, it is better to die with honour than to end up having a miserable life. In general human life is of little value, the current overestimation of the value of human life has lead to a very bad situation in our society.

What is important for each individual is the quality of their lives and their individual moral preferences, not how long the individual lives. Suicide is a perfectly rational solution if personal problems are too big.

A particular human can be both beneficial and harmful towards other humans. We need enough people having children to maintain the population, which makes sure most humans will reincarnate as humans and not something else. An individual with valuable genes will be able to improve the upcoming generations by spreading their genes and should be considered as valuable.

Mass murderers and humans that torture only inflict short suffrage, an individual that makes the gene pool worse will inflict suffering for many generations. The opposite can be said for improving the quality of the gene pool. An increase in intelligence will result in a better society for many upcoming generations.

It does not matter if consciousness has developed or not. It is currently unknown when consciousness is developed in a child/fetus and it does not matter, if consciousness is developed in the fetus it will simply reincarnate after the abortion.
There is nothing wrong in murdering defective children, it is however a sin to kill a fetus that has good genes and health, even if the fetus is unconscious. Even a child with average genes might turn out to be valuable.

Aborting your own child is genetic suicide but if a female aborts her child it will also result in her husband spreading his genes less, but the genetic interest argument could be continued indefinitely, what if your sister or identical twin is planning to do an abortion/infanticide?

We also have to ask yourself why not also make infanticide legal if both parents agree? In the past infanticide was most likely a common method to avoid starvation.

When a child is aborted a specific genetic configuration is eliminated before we know much about how good that particular combination is, this is only a good form of eugenics for obvious defects but it is not ideal if we want to improve average iq.

The emotional arguments for opposing abortion is very weak, you do not have to watch any abortion being done and you can simply pretend it isn’t happening.

One example of a stateless society is [URL='https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government']medieval iceland[/URL] which lasted 290 years, their society was much more stable than any republic and also more stable than the democracy ancient Greece had.

When the majority of the population does not accept slavery(taxation, military service, etc) or other forms of abuse the Nash equilibrium will be similar to anarcho-capitalism since people would use violence against any aggressors. Not everyone will be protected, genetic trash will hopefully end up in the bottom without any rights.

With anarcho-capitalism the best among the population will end up at the top by acquiring a lot of wealth but almost everyone will benefit(this is the disadvantage, helps the poor too).

The non-agression principle in anarcho-darwinism is simply a nash equilibrium, there is nothing wrong with initiating violence against the unfit. The vikings practiced anarcho-darwinism to some extent with their raids, they raided the racially less fit. In anarcho-darwinism aggression against the unfit(such as defective fetuses) should be permitted.

Some will choose to be completely unarmed while others will own fighter-jets, people that control the powerful weapons will naturally also have more power over the country itself since they will influence the outcome of armed conflicts. A wealthy individual may decide to finance a private army in order to protect himself and a lot of other people he care about. If the anarcho-darwinian land is invaded it will be defended in a decentralized manner and it will be very expensive to take control over the country since a lot of people will have very heave weapons.

An individual may also use his private army to invade a country and thus acquire more land and resources, the individual waging the war will have a great economic incentive to make the war cost-effective and it will likely benefit the population as a whole.

A person afraid of dying is easy to control, a coward is simply someone afraid of dying. Christianity and odinism has offered a false sense of security for the masses, if someone believes he will come to valhalla after dying in battle he will be more likely to be brave. A person that doesn't fear death is a lot more difficult to enslave [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A']24[/URL] he will protect his family without hesitation and be a dangerous warrior.

If you accept vintologi you will accept that death isn't the end, you will simply reincarnate and be reborn. It is better to live a short honorable life than to live a long life in a cage, what matters are the quality of your life and how it affects your future lives, not how long it is.

The only constitution you can have faith in is not the one on paper but in the high-quality men who will not tolerate the infringement of their freedoms and prerogatives [URL='https://ibb.co/jg8iNF']25[/URL]

A state, in accordance with generally accepted terminology, is defined as a compulsory territorial monopolist of law and order (an ultimate decision maker). Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only “tax” with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign (ultimate decision maker) as the feudal king was on his. However, in the course of many centuries, these originally stateless societies had gradually transformed into absolute – statist – monarchies. While they had initially been acknowledged voluntarily as protectors and judges, European kings had at long last succeeded in establishing themselves as hereditary heads of state. Resisted by the aristocracy but helped along by the “common people”, they had become absolute monarchs with the power to tax without consent and to make ultimate decisions regarding the property of free men.

Thanks to the great advances in economic and political theory since the late 1700s, in particular at the hands of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard, we are now able to give a precise answer to this question.

According to Mises and Rothbard, once there is no longer free entry into the business of the production of protection and adjudication, the price of protection and justice will rise and their quality will fall. Rather than being a protector and judge, a compulsory monopolist will become a protection racketeer – the destroyer and invader of the people and property that he is supposed to protect, a warmonger, and an imperialist. Indeed, the inflated price of protection and the perversion of the ancient law by the English king, both of which had led the American colonists to revolt, were the inevitable result of compulsory monopoly. Having successfully seceded and thrown out the British occupiers, it would only have been necessary for the American colonists to let the existing homegrown institutions of self-defense and private (voluntary and cooperative) protection and adjudication by specialized agents and agencies take care of law and order

With the growth of mass democracy (the abolition of poll taxes and other qualifications for voters, and the enfranchisement of non-Whites), the rise in the influence of the mass media on public opinion, the U.S. government was gradually transformed into the malignant monster it is today. We are now in a society where the government wants to control every aspect of our lives in all developed countries on earth, it is harder and harder to live the live we want to live without getting imprisoned for breaking laws while the government is free to break every law and constitution.

Polycentric law is a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction. Devolution of this monopoly occurs by the principle of jurisprudence in which they rule according to higher law.

If we manage to crush the current system we will most likely end up with polycentric law. Since your power is related to your violence and terror potential people and groups will be motivated to arm themselves a lot which will solve the issue of national defense. Your power will increase with your violence potential since violence is the ultimate arbitrator, courts are just a cheap replacement.

How long will a system of polycentric law last? It depends on the population, if the population is willing to sacrifice security and simplicity for freedom it is likely to last a long time period. If most people prefer to have a state it will not take long before they got the state they wanted(and high taxes).

The power of an entity can be limited by hard limit or by deterrence.

For a hard limit to work when it comes to government decisions the time it takes for other individuals to intervene cannot be too long, only a few minutes in the case or nuclear war.

deterrences can often be evaded, there are many ways to cheat i elections and in wars you may be able to limit the demage that can be delivered in return if you decide to push the nuclear button.

If someone does a crime it will often be too late once the police show up and many people are willing to break the law to achieve a political goal. Brenton Tarrant killed 51 muslims knowing he would go to jail for it, breivik killed 77 individuals and didn't even expect to survive.

Hard limits to the power of certain leaders only changes the power distribution, it doesn't limit the total power of the government.

Entity A: makes the correct decision 70% of the time.
Entity B: makes the correct decision 60% of the time.

If entity B rules the country but are accountable to Entity A you want entity A to intervene as much as possible, of course it would be even better if Entity A direcly rules the country. The opposite true holds true if Entity A governs, in that case it's better if entity B never intervenes.

Unfortunately the ones with the ultimate power will be time-limited and thus they will end up having to rely on other people making good decisions for them (lower courts, private sector, etc).

Separations of power allows for more specialization but it also adds more points of failure, this will only be stable if all branches of government are accountable to the same entity that have the ultimate power.

Mental illness is a real issue, all humans suffer from the limitations/flaws of our human brains and some people have very severe brain disorders. During the Rosenhan experiment it was shown that we cannot trust psychiatrists but it did not invalidate the concept of mental illnesses.

Mental fitness is a continuum, there is several aspects of mental fitness such as logical intelligence, spatial intelligence, executive functions, memory, etc. Mental capabilities all correlate and in typical mental tasks many different mental faculties are used, it is thus a lot more practical to focus on the general intelligence g instead of the specific capabilities.

Most people are incapable of making rational independent decisions even when they have a huge incentive to make the correct decision. Unfortunately realizing your own limitation also requires intelligence and thus incompetent people generally think they are capable [URL='http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf']28[/URL]

The incentive to make the correct decision will decrease when the probability of your vote changing the outcome is low, considering the low intelligence or the average voter democracy will never result in an outcome the voters actually want and thus the entire thing is pointless.

In order to make the system work we need to have much more restrictive voting requirements, which can be based on IQ, taxes paid or personal preferences people doing selection have. With a IQ based system for the united states each state will have IQ-tests to determine the right to vote(only top 1% will be accepted), this itself may be enough to make the system work somehow.

The house of representatives will have 299 seats and they will represent the tax payers, the probability of being selected should be proportional to the amount of taxes paid. Fines will also count as taxed paid, If a corporation pays taxed the shareholders of the company will be credited the taxes paid.

The probability to be selected will be {the amount of taxes paid by the individual}/{total amount of taxes paid to the state}

The individual selected will also select 5 A2 citizens each.

The senate will have 15 seats and the senators choose their successors freely but the house of representatives will be able to immediately replace any new or old senator with large enough majority(70% will always be enough).

A0 member of the senate.
A1 member of the house of representatives.
A2 ready to take over quickly.
B0 deputy senator.
B1 first successor to member of the house.
B2 deputy A2 citizen.
B3 second successor to A0 citizen.

All members of the senate and house can be replaced by random A2 citizens with ordinary majority (A0 and A1 can vote, one vote each), new A2 citizen will be selected randomly from the tax-payers.

Replacing a member of congress requires a vargin of n(n+1)/2 votes in the house will be required in the house of representatives where n={the number of senators opposing the impeachment}

The advantage with a system based on taxes paid is that it will be very objective and also represent the tax-payer better than any other system.

It's a mathematical reality "arrows theorem" that the only voting system where irrelevant alternatives doesn't matter and follows unanimous consent is dictatorship, all other voting system is pleaged with voting paradoxes and forces people to vote tactically. When you rule as a dictator there isn't any legal way for other people to remove you from your post and you will be able to shape the country according to your personal preferences.

Being a dictator is a lot of fun, you will be able to freely abuse other people without them having any legal way to oppose it. You will be the closest a human can get to an omnipotent god. Long after you are dead people will look up to you as a hero no matter how tyrannical you were. When you have absolute power you always have the option of implementing any other system of governance such as elite rule or constitutional democracy.

Each church will have its own rituals and beliefs, with time some rituals and beliefs will be common for all churches and become a part of the vintologi religion. A church is controlled and lead by a church führer(male), followed by a church general(second in command and deputy, male).

A vintologi church should offer wedding ceremonies, these weddings can't be legally binding with the current laws.

There is currently no shortage of empty christian churches that can be converted to vintologi churches, when a church is converted everything christian about it should be removed and burned. The actual church building may be owned by someone else than the church führer. A vintologi church should have good sex rooms in the case some church members wants to make love in the church.

There should not be any bit vintologi organization controlling everything, there is no need for that and giving too much power to any entity is dangerous. In order to join a church you must be accepted by the church führer of that church.

We shall not use current humans as role models since all humans are flawed. Victor Blom may be a very talanted poker players but he has other character flaws that has ended up costing him very large amount of money, Anders Beihring breivik was brave but he did not have any children. Albert einsten developed general relativity but he was wrong about quantum mechanics and failed to come up with a complete theory of physics (many humans have since tried that and failed).

Holy woman: selected by the church leader/führer for her intelligence and beauty to represent a vintologi church. A holy woman should have a lot of sex and isn't allowed to use any contraception, if she doesn't have a male partner should attend the church naked.

Everyone will be welcome to our vintologi communities, you do not need a full understanding of vintologi or having particularly good genes to join. You do not need to be anywhere close to being an elite human being to understand vintologi, the issue more about age, as you get older you are more invested in your beliefs often tivthe point where death is the only cure.

Online communities have the advantage or allowing some people to be completely anonymous while real world communities allows for closer human to human interaction.

Humans are social animals and thus in order to maintain your correct beliefs you need to interact with people that share the same correct beliefs. You will also need humans you are able to talk to honestly without fearing backlack due to you being to honest about your views.

If you believe in a more radical vesion of vintologi you may want to keep these beliefs for yourself unless you are fully anonymous. The social cost that comes with having unpopular views can be very high including but not limited to rejection by the opposite sex and issues with employment.

As our numbers grow we will be increasingly able to support ourself.

When we are small in numbers we will be forced to blend in the society and not be perceived as a hostile group. When our numbers is small the proper thing to do is to reproduce in massive numbers, there is no point in sanctifying ourselves like Breivik did.

You cannot fully follow vintologi and also follow the laws and norms of your country. When we are small in numbers running and hiding will be the proper thing to do, defeating the military and maintaining control over the country will be very difficult unless at least 10% of the population support you. Time spent trying to archive political success is time that could have been spent better archiving real world results instead of at best getting a few seats in parliament.

Nazi flags and other hostile symbolism should be avoided, we want to build a peaceful community and expand the religion by breeding, not going to war against the system and attracting failed individuals to the cult.

When our numbers grow we will be able to take more and more control over the countries we live in and make the conditions for vintologi better. Examples of political goals is lowered age of concent, better marriage laws(polygamous), abolish the system of child support, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, eugenics instead of dysgenics.

Just being armed with legal weapons is unlikely to be enough to fight tyranny, we have look at illegal weapons such as mortars, car bombs, machine guns and even weapons of mass destruction. Other useful tools is tor browser and anonymous cryptocurrencies(paid assassinations).

We do not want to be to accepted, if vintologi is generally disliked only the independent minded will be attracted to the religion. We want our members to accept vintologi despite being exposed to propaganda in school and pressure by peers to conform to the norms. Building communities where all people like vintologi might actually be a bad thing since it will make it easier for our enemies to [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsDBAixXJdM']crush us[/URL].

Helping random strangers does not make evolutionary sense and because of this reason ethno-nationalism isn't natural. Tribalism is natural, a tribe is a group of genetically very related humans and this allows for the group as a whole to preserve its genetics.

Preserving your genetics by your self is only possible with cloning and it has not yet been done with humans and if you just have children with random females your genes will be dissolved into the shitty general population and most likely it won't result in any good outcome.

Capitalism works well between selfish people and this is the only reason why USA is wealthy despite it's multiculturalism.

Blood relatives are a lot more important than your so called friends, they tend to be more supportive and thus valuable despite their intellectual shortcomings. Having blood relatives you trust will decrease the probability of you getting used by people that do not care about your well-being. Having Good blood relatives will result in you not having to rely upon the government or private organizations in the case you need help, thus tribalism is a threat to statism and also organized religion in general.

You do not need to have any friendships with people you are not genetically related too, it's rare that you can trust and rely upon an individual you are not genetically related to. Some people seek ideological communities or communities based upon a common interest but in most cases that's ends in disaster, they will abandon you very easily and it does not matter how much you have helped them.

You can be genetically close to someone without having a known common ancestor, generally if you look similar to someone you are genetically close to that human. One issue with internet accounts is that you may not know how someone looks and thus end up trusting a genetic enemy(most people are garbage).

There is a lot of talk about hate-crimes, there is a body of laws against hate-crimes, everybody seams to be worried about hate. Hate appears to be the gravest problem of our time but hate is good, hate gives structure to our lives, it gives us a reason to exist, a focus, something to strive for, an identity. Hate allows us to see through lies and pretense, it helps us concentrate on the essential. Hate is democratic; the rich and powerful cannot hate more than their slaves/subjects and soon hate might be all that we have left.

Hate emancipates, without hate for slavery you cannot break your shackles, without hate for injustice their can be no justice. The greatest achievements of humans has grown from hate and the ability to control hate. Hate separates the humans from other animals, animals do not hate but humans do.

Humans can hate for decades, sometimes for an entire life, we can even pass on hate to our children and grandchildren and keep hate alive for centuries. Hate is a sign of abstract intellect; only humans can hate people they have never seen or met, only humans can hate concepts and processes.

How can we know what love is if we refuse to recognize and understand hate? love and hate are the two opposite sides of the same coin. In order to be complete we need hate, only fools talk endlessly about hate but forget the hate. Hate separate us from the weak and docile masses.
Do not fear hate, do not deny or reject hate, accept hate and embrace hate, learn to know it and learn to use it. Hate is your most powerful weapon, a hidden source of your strength, do not deny it for you. What the current false elite fears most in this world is our ability to hate because our hate will one day our hate will be the most revolutionary force on the planet, our hate will destroy and create empires.