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.

• free will ≡ quantum indeterminism

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

Darwinian vintologi also has the additional assumption that the probability of reincarnation decreases with genetic distance.

pdf(version 29) https://app.box.com/s/t5so7avetnnl81hos0tkhgkokblkqkqv
odt(version 29) https://app.box.com/s/4abys6ig43nb7nwb07oe1x91p192nv9h

pdf(version 28) https://app.box.com/s/uvfc07wm7p1fpykmy9873w2mnxtpjoya
odt(version 28) https://app.box.com/s/s38k1w4nynex4fqbewd45pvac7lm8wof

pdf & odt (version 27) https://archive.org/details/vintologi27
pdf & odt (version 26) https://archive.org/details/vintologi26
pdf & odt (version 25) https://archive.org/details/vintologi25
pdf & odt (version 24) https://archive.org/details/vintologi24
pdf(version 23) https://www.dropbox.com/s/wh13bfq756vw53y/vintologi23.pdf?dl=0
pdf(version 22) https://1drv.ms/b/s!AlZW68YL6mlYavTOabja6aOInnY?e=gf5Uo4



Last edited:


Might is right
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.


Decision making and consequences
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 decision now will also affect future lives, not just your current life.

There is no individual karma in vintologi, instead your kind 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 good with good genes can bless your life 3 4 5 6

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 are 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 7 8 luckily females will reject most of these males resulting in a more beautiful population in the future.

The quality of your life isn't just about the genes you happen to be born with, when you are young you will depend on your parents/government taking proper care of you 1009 in addition you will have to deal with the consequences of political beliefs the majority hold and this can ruin your life 1010

Culture and politics of a country will however over time be a result of genetics, it does however take time before the fruit of eugenics can be enjoyed and thus people will generally not be in favor of eugenics policies even when it's clear they work thinking they will not actually benefit themselves from the improvement.

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 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. If you do reincarnate as a different race you are more likely to end up with an abnormal brain of said race.

The quality of your future life is also to a large part determined by actions and characteristics of other people. Traits such as high intelligence tend to also benefit other people and not just the individual with the trait, thus you need to look at the impact on society as a whole and not just the individual.


Genetic preferences
Factor1: does the gene provide a survival & reproduction advantage?

Factor2: do you want other people to be born with said gene?

Factor3: do you want yourself to be born with said gene?

All these factors are heavily dependent on environment and our environment comes down to decisions made by humans, the actions you take now will affect the future of humanity.

Factor4: what other genes will you be born with?


Homo sapiens superior
The goal in darwinian vintologi is to create a new races/species. “homo sapiens superior” will have the following characteristics

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.
common mutations: hDEC2, CCR5, ACTN3

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

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).


Sexual selection
The current sexual selection is mostly based on genetic factors such as looks 16 17 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 18

Intelligent males will be more likely to reproduce 19 good looking people tend to be more intelligent and thus female selection based on appearance will result in humans becoming more intelligent, other selection criteria such as money and status also depend on intelligence.

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 of other males they find more attractive 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.


Returning to polygamy
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 even 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.

Polygamy is a good option for gynephilic females since it does allow them to engage in sex with other wives of his without having sex outside the marriage, this might be beneficial even if you are strictly gynephilic as a lesbian, you and your lesbian partner can both get pregnant by the same male, this is a valuable in a society hostile towards lesbians.

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 3

Serial monogamy
Once the male have had all the children she wanted he simly moves on to a new female and makes her pregnant too, this is already taking place resulting in a a big portion of the male population being forced into childlessness. This allow for the preservation of both sexual and social monogamy while these weeding out undesirable males from the gene pool.

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.
Last edited:


How big families benefit children
Some parents convince themselves that over-parenting 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 of 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 their not hurting anyone. Fortunately children are 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 has 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.


How we should view children
Children are the future of humanity. By taking care of children we take care of the future, by taking care of your own children you secure a future for your genetic lineage. Dying childless is the ultimate failure.

Children do have smaller brains and less knowledge(in general) than adults, their souls are 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).

Young people may seem to be rebellious sometimes but often they are only taking the values we taught them and applying them in a more radical manner. Young people are not yet indoctrinated into a particular belief system and thus they are suitable target if you have a particular agenda, you just have to wait until they are able to vote before you see results (when they are finally able to vote).

The father is not really needed 20 21 having good genes is a lot more important.


Early sex and pair bonding
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 and forced marriages
By using might you can force a female to have sex and get pregnant by a different male of your choice (such as yourself) instead of letting her make the decision, whether or not it's dysgenic will depend on the decision you make and how you define good genes.

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

It does however take effort to reduce the occurrence of sexual rape in a country, thus we need to ask ourselves whether or not this effort can be put into achieving something more important, there is an equilibrium point where it's no longer beneficial to try to reduce the amount of sexual rape.

If a female is reduced to property of a male who already has success with free females the likely result is instead more sexual inequality; 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 kills the weak males in the other tribe and rape the women the following will happen:

0. The weak men from the other tribe will die and reincarnate.
1. The females will experience being raped and humiliated.
2. The children born will be genetically better.
3. In the upcoming lives everyone will benefit by having better genes.

Some females develop Stockholm Syndrome after rape or general brutal domination. Some females even state that they enjoyed being raped, other females describe it as something horrible and end up with mental issues because of it.

Preventing females from being raped makes sense in terms of your reproduction, if a female is raped then she might become pregnant and then she will no longer be able to get pregnant by you or some other male you want her to get impregnated by.

Today females are protected by the might of governments that 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 civilized 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 her into a sexual activity she does not want to do at the time, this will make the relationship more exciting.

Females often want to exchange sex for resources, 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 (sex slave) the man will still provide for her.


Restoring male authority
The people with the abilities required to properly rule our planet are mostly male, elite females are at a general disadvantage compared to elite males. As we gain political power we can archive our goals.
-lower the age of consent to 13 or lower for all sexual activities.
-reducing some females to our property.
-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.
-we may want to force females with good genes to have children(donating eggs is an alternative).
-it should be legal to directly buy or sell sex.

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 their genes simply by just buying females. Hard patriarchy in the west any time soon is unlikely but we are already seeing it with ISIS which 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 hard patriarchy is a good idea.

The only reason females stayed with unattractive males before was because of cultural expectations 23 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.


Pure elite rule
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 world population into the following classes.

A the ruling elite (15 to 999 senators).
B selected by the ruling elite.
C ordinary citizens or tourists/guestworkers.
D Slaves.
E non-citizens not allowed within the border
F military targets.

The ruling elite may consist of 35 senators that have unlimited power, in order to make a decision instantly 18 senators have to approve, at least 20 shall be ready to instantly make a decision. All 35 senators must be reachable all hours of the day, if 18 senators cannot instantly agree to a decision senators asleep may have to be waken up. The senate will have the highest judicial, legislative and executive power and each senator select his own successors. For N senators we get

A0: senator 0
An: senator n where (n < N)
An+N:: first successor to senator n
An+2N:: second successor to senator n
An+3N:: third successor to senator n
An+4N:: forth successor to senator n
An+5N:: fift successor to senator n
An+6N:: sixth successor to senator n
An+7N:: seventh successor to senator n
An+8N:: eight successor to senator n
An+9N:: ninth successor to senator n
B0: cabinet member.
B1: official advisor to at least one senator.
B2: members of parliament.
B3: approved for jury duty.
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 treat 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)

All senators will carry secure phone with them when they are not working, the secure phones will allow them to quickly make a decision in the case of an emergency such as nuclear war scenario. A senator will work at least 14 hours per day, each senator will have a personal staff (successors and B0 citizens) that helps him with research.

The senators are supposed to have sex daily to impregnate a lot of females, this will result in each senators having many children to chose from when it comes to appointing a successor. A senators may also select a successor that isn’t a biological child of his.

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

The C0 citizens will vote every 4 years to elect reprasentatives for parliament (B2 citizens), the parliament will draft legislation and submit it to the senate for approval.

You become a B3-citizen by passing a test where you have to show you understand our laws. Once you are a B3-citizen you may be selected to serve in the jury if someone is accused of a crime. The defendant and prosecuter can ask a jury members to appeal the verdict if they are not happy with it.

The senate will appoint cabinet members B0 for the executive branch of the government.


About government power
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 their 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 do 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 incorrectly get 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 to any government at allocating resources correctly.

https://mises.org/system/tdf/what is austrian economics.pdf?file=1&type=document

Last edited:


Punishing problematic people
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).
Last edited:


Gladiator games
People we dislike can provide entertainment value in the form of gladiator games. We watching in delight as they fight for their lives, the crowd cheering as another human is beaten to death.

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 (25% in the case of 2 rounds).

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 choose after they have stripped naked. You may give people several chances to survive and reserve the death matches to the losers.


Soul purification
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.


Murders and executions
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.


The value of human life
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 honor 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.

One measure of someones contribution to society is income but this does not cover all contributions since a lot of individuals offer a lot of value to other people (such as writing high quality open source software) without getting much in return, we also have a lot of individuals getting paid by governments to do things that are bad for 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 suffering, 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.


Abortions and infanticide
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?

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.

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.


One example of a stateless society is medieval iceland 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.

The issue with capitalism is that it forces people to work for other people instead of oppressing people, it also forces people into a less and less natural lifestyle over time.

With anarcho-darwinism people reach the top by being ruthless and while there would still be capitalism to some extent it would be far more limited since there wouldn’t be any state to support large-scale capitalism, this will result in a lot of poverty and people will have to fight a lot harder for survival.

The non-aggression 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 cares 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.


The fear of death is a threat to liberty
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 24 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 futility of limited government
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 25

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
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).


About checks and balances to power
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 of nuclear war.

Deterrences can often be evaded, there are many ways to cheat in elections and in wars you may be able to limit the damage 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 directly 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. Thus even if the highest court always make the correct decision we might still end up with a lot of bad results due to the highest court not having time to review all decisions made by lower courts.

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 with ultimate power, this specialization can also be achieved by relying on parties outside the official government.


Mental fitness
Given an environment there will there will be some brains that function better than others in terms of survival and reproduction, thus from a darwinian perspective mental fitness is simply about how well someone is mentally adapted for the environment, this is typically not the same as what's good for the society long term. By implementing eugenics we can change the selection mechanism to be more in line in what's actually good for society long term, this could allow society to be highly functional even with a more democratic system of government.

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 28


Mass-voting doesn’t work
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.

When democracy fail
When a technically democratic system fails people will point fingers and try to blame a small minority such as Jews or wealthy people in general. In any democracy the battle will be to win over masses and this will create a propaganda arms-race where a lot of actors have a lot to gain from spreading misinformation to the public.

Strong outside governments will be incentivized to meddle in elections and this may result in a bad candidate winning due to outside influense (russia, china, saudi arabia, etc).

In reality bad outcomes is to be expected when a democratic system is implemented, this can be predicted from theory, the nature of the bad outcome will however depend on circumstances.

Often the actual bad outcomes of democracies are not even viewed as bad by most citizens.


Democrazy is more like a constant civil war, where one side gets stuff from the other. The arms race-race is always there, you use misinformation and propaganda to get more stuff from the other group. The only times where those differences CAN be bridged is during war or a global pandemic. People will blame those who gamed the system, that they all played, to the highest degree and just from a game theory point of view; it will be a group that persuades other groups to be open minded and egalitarian, while being nepotists to their own.

A simple bait and switch (what we call virtue signaling) is enough to get a long way.

The damage can be limited by reducing the importance of elections, you can let people vote on things that are unimportant, it can be symbolic positions similar to most monarchs in democratic countries or the system can be technically constructed in such a way that the real power is in institutions that are undemocratic.

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.


Objective elite rule
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.



Vintologi Churches
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.


Building Vintologi Communities
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 to the 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. Online communities also allow us to remain in contact with each other without being in the same physical location.

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 backlash due to you being to honest about your views.

If you believe in a more radical version 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 ourselves.


Living as a minority
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.

Having a local vintologi community has upsides but there is also a lot of risk to it and it gives enemies of vintologi an easy target to go after. By being open and supporting each other we would be able to survive and thrive assuming we do not get the government against us but if the government do turn against us having an open community will result in a lot of causalties for us.

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.

Our communities have to be percieved a peaceful, we 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 consent, better marriage laws(polygamous), abolish the system of child support being tied to who is the biological father, freedom of speech for us, freedom of religion for us, 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 crush us


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).


Hate & love
There is a lot of talk about hate-crimes, there is a body of laws against hate-crimes, everybody seems 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. Hate separates us from the weak and docile masses. People in power fear hate since its capable of destroying and creating empires.

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.