Yes, elaborate more on this political selection. That sounds very interesting.
How does political selection differ from natural selection?
I find most of the isms of socialism exists to serve the interests of the top ratio of society even contrary to when supposedly it suggests to serve the interests of the lower classes.
Yes, I can. 
If you are poor or economically supported by a social state (see also my text below), then you have enough time to reproduce yourself. If you always work and make a career all day long, then you have not much time to reproduce yourself. If you are rich, then you can choose whether you are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) or lazy, so also being rich in spite of having much time can but does not have to mean the lack of reproduction, because reproduction depends on the interest in it. So most of those who have no or almost no offspring are those who are very industrious (hardworking and making a career all day long). Who are very industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and very career driven? … Of course: the occidental humans. That is why they can be found at the bottom on the right in my above chart.
[tab]The occidental people can be found at the bottom on the right:
[/tab]
It is not merely industriousness (industry, diligence, smartness, business acumen) that works against the reproduction and especially against the interest of reproduction; it is also, for example, feminism (including sexism, genderism). Isms are modern ideologies, and almost all modern ideologies are based on main modern ideologies like cyniicsm and techno-creditsm (formerly known as “capitalism”) that are based on the machine revolution (formerly known as “industrial revolution”). The machine revolution did not cause the first cynics (cynics are much older) but cynicism (cyn[ic]ism) in combination with the techno-creditism, which both led to all other isms we had, have, and will have for a while. (Please note the suffix “ism”!) So the machine revolution caused what we can call the “occidental moderinity” in the narrow sense of the word, and - insofar as reproduction is concerned - modernity means a shrinking interest in reproduction. Feminism is just one of the great many cultural consequences of a great technical invention (which is certainly based on cultural skills, by the way). We should not overestimate but also not underestimate all this isms.
So the interest in reproduction can be influenced by many phenomena variously.
Without feminism the European numbers of the birthrates would be optimal (about 2,13 children per woman), but in reality they are suboptimal, disastrous: very much too low. In Europe very much too low, in the so-called “Thrid World” very much too high.
[tab]
[/tab]
Lazy people who are economically supported by those who are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and pay taxes (cp. “social state”) are not always but very often those who have children, many children, at least enough children. Industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) people are not always but very often those who have not enough children or even no children. This demographical fact means an economical tragedy: the so called “tragedy of the commons”.
[tab]
=>[/tab]
According to the natural selection the fit species as the well or even best adapted species has enough offspring, thus survives, whereas the unfit species as the badly or even worst adapted or maldapted species has not enough or even no offspring and dies out. Political selection means that “social” politics can artificially make out of unfit humans as the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans fit humans as the well or best adapted humans, so that they can have enough offspring, thus survive, and it also can artificially make out the of fit humans as the well or best adapted humans the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans, so that they have not enough or even no offspring and die out. So natural selection and political (social) selection contradict each other. This is what I have been saying in many threads, especially in my thread called “Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?”, suggestively also in your thread called “Evolution and Maladaptility”.
What humans culturally create or select is, if you compare it with what nature “creates” or “selects”, artificial (cultural), although every culture is based on nature. Humans are capable of dissociating from nature, which does not mean that they are completely free from nature, but it means that they are relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.
The development of the human brain led to a huge intelligence and skills that made an isolation process possible, so that the humans could become relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.
Nature causes anti-nature (culture).
Culture is the artificial antipode of nature. In other words: Culture is the antithesis of the thesis nature. Guess what the synthesis is.
Yes, of course. Cynicism is one of the main isms and one of the main reasons why all other isms exist.
Posted on the library bulletin board locally here.
the 3rd reich experiment is pale in comparison to what has been done throughout history… however modern eugenics starts with Darwin and the huxleys, and Darwin got so much admiration as a way to legitimize the eugenics of the fittest and past and future genocides of the elites. People tend to turn a blind eye because they regard their own race as supremacist.
Supremacy is the root of all evil on this earth. As we can see it today, many agree with depopulation which will be caused by AI and its minions because admitting their support for a “grand fallacy” that has ruled over humanity since ever is too much of a stretch.
DARWIN/SUPREMACY = YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED=YOUR ARE NEXT
So it was posted here, on ILP?
It is not possible to stop at the exact point of evil. If you think you have found one, you will soon find another one. It is no accident that the word “evil” can be found in the word “devil”.
Yes, it’s an example of socio economic eugenics albeited by feminism.
Would you, please, post the link to the thread(s) of that example.
There obviously is no discussion going on in the world about this which is why we’re theorizing and speculating the subject within this thread. 
I really wish this discussion was more mainstream but it isn’t.
What is your exact statement of your last post?
Which “discussion” do you mean?
The thing I dislike about Eugenics, is that most of the people who do them don’t have the power to make superior inferior judgements.
I mean, the 13 families are inbred. Do we want to make a bunch of George bush and rockefeller clones? I mean, according to them, if you have money, you are superior, if you don’t have money, you are inferior. This is very ghetto logic, like something you would hear from a rap song. Do you want people who have such minds deciding on our eugenics?
Putting toxins and chemicals in our environment is ignoble and such minds are unequipped to have the authority to carry out superior/inferior eugenics. Second of all, its not even a reliable method, people who drink Koolaid everyday often have lots of kids. Clearly the people behind the eugenics are unfit inbred lunatics.
My DNA machine will fix all that though. Simply step into the machine, put in the body you like and viola. Has different parameters you can adjust such as strength intelligence and body types. Also has a function to input defects and disabilities, to remind us of the old ways and still have a connection between past and nature. I figure most people will opt for the most beautiful bodies though.
I mean, do you really want the Patrick Bateman’s, Dandy Mott’s, J.D Rockefeller’s of the world behind your eugenics?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=992HpviuhX0[/youtube]
Who has an interest in making that clones?
What about the projections people make and actually show that there are others who do what those who are projecting like to do?
The reasons for the non-sex-segregation, feminism, genderism, … (and so on and so forth) are not only the sexes themselves but also and especially the interest in the human resources.
If the societies of the west do not stop using the human resources like a common property, then the Tragedy of the Commons will go on and lead to the death of that societies.
Society is already dead. We are living in the ashes.
I am Arcturus’s villain.
she is one of the remaining survivors…a final fantasy girl living in a hut, no objective, just foraging for food.
Would you say that heterosexual females who are attracted exclusively to homosexual males and males who don’t want them…what would you say in terms of that…would you say the modern female’s filtering system is functioning appropriately, or malfunctioning inappropriately?
The society as I understand it is not dead. Maybe it is dying but not already dead. If it was dead, then there would be no Tragedy of the Commons anymore. But there is a Tragedy of the Commons - the biggest ever.
The meaning of feminism has not to do with females as such but with cheap wages, which means the replacement of expensive male work by cheap female work. If you compare feminism and immigration with the machine revolution we have been experiencing since the last third of the 18th century, then you will see that both feminism and Immigration have the same economical and demographical function as the machines have: replacing the espensive occidental male workers by cheap workers, destroying the occidental patriarchalism, thus destroying the occidental families and reducing the occidental birthrates.