Social Darwinism is Natural Selection Misunderstood

[Curtis24]

I've asked it before, but what is the solution/s to these problems?

[Agrippa]

I've asked it before, but what is the solution/s to these problems?

Well, like I said before, there must be a positive and negative Eugenic, if you want do it in a humane way, it means the usage of prenatal Diagnostics and selection for all and positive rewards for higher level families if getting more, and for lower level families getting less children.

One has to re-connect the social success and status with valuable offspring for the group, that is absolutely fundamental! Today social status and success being totally disconnect from social success and social success too being often determined by factors, which produce detrimental results for the people and group.

So we need a new moral and reward system in this respect, a new community spirit and organisation.

Group orientation and a new moral attitude, a complete reform of the money system, with the current way of fractional reserve being abandoned and states having their own, debt free issued money, being also part of the "must have".

[Breedingvariety]

That can be true, but must not. If you formulate that in such a dogmatic way, it is just completely false, because probably a rather parasitic element made it to the top, while more favourable elements suffer from it.

Those you call parasitic elements take what they want. Those you call favorable elements sheepishly follow. To take is harder than to follow. And they will follow to their own destruction.

Looking at masses of people, I don't see how they are favorable elements. While parasitic is perspective judgment, which I would make as I'm part of the masses.

But I think the reason of their success was high organization, cooperation and long term planning. That can not be called "low level". And being reduced to slaves can not be called "high level".

But I think you are saying the more favorable slaves suffer and unfavorable slaves multiply. I agree.

...while more favourable elements suffer from it.

What is it?

Then you reject higher mankind and adore the animal.

Higher mankind is marked by higher spirituality and superior morality, not by how much stuff it has. Stuff is usually just a side effect.

Anyway, a lot of what is called progress is actually degeneracy.

What's an optimal behaviour being determined by the circumstances in concrete situations, though.

If behavior is determined by circumstances, then the behavior is not optimal. When behavior changes circumstances it becomes more optimal.

Situations require actions. Behavior is repeat of similar actions in similar situations.

I said: "Principles of conduct must not be based on undetermined premises & possibilities. Not based on maybes."

I was referring to Phil75231 saying we should treat all humans equally, because we don't know who is useful or not. Of course, it's not clear what useful is. Nor can we establish any policies, because we know nothing.

Phil75231 doesn't understand that every policy has an effect of favoritism.

So policies should be based on things thought to be known and according to and consistent with our philosophy.

[Agrippa]

Those you call parasitic elements take what they want. Those you call favorable elements sheepishly follow. To take is harder than to follow. And they will follow to their own destruction.

But they are parasitic, because they profit but not letting those profit, from which they take and also because they just exploited a weak immune system of the higher level people's structures.

The problem was just, that this defence system wasn't build up fast and effective enough, to prevent them from exploiting, still they are what they were, parasitic and hostile.

Looking at masses of people, I don't see how they are favorable elements. While parasitic is perspective judgment, which I would make as I'm part of the masses.

It is about a certain set of valuable genes and memes, without those, the parasites on their own wouldn't be as superiour at all, as I said, they just exploited a weakness and harming the host, which is a typical characteristic of the parasite.

If the would just rule, but rule for the host at least TOO, one could call it a symbiont, but because their interests and plans are directed agains the interests ans well being of the host, they are hostile parasites.

But I think the reason of their success was high organization, cooperation and long term planning. That can not be called "low level". And being reduced to slaves can not be called "high level".

It is low level, because they were little on their own. In the harder and higher individual and group selection, people of that sort wouldn't stand a chance and are not at all that group oriented and well organised.

They are just better in the chaotic world of the civilisations to exploit niches and weaknesses and form later alliances, because so they can profit individually even more, but are most of the time competitors among themselves as well.

It was a selection for the best manipulators and parasites.

But I think you are saying the more favorable slaves suffer and unfavorable slaves multiply. I agree.

There are two types of elites, the functional elite, this are the achievers, but they usually don't think "out of the box" politically-socially, they are not really those which you would trust if it is evaluating things and judging for the best of the group. They are just good at what they do, whatever it is, but they are "adapters".

Then there is the spiritual elite, those might not be as good as achievers even, but they think more independently and are good as leaders, philosophers, judges, making important and strategical decisions considering as many arguments as possible.

Now what the Plutocratic Oligarchy did, is corrupting one elite, namely that of England and supporting the expansion and success of this corrupted elite, while transforming its people and system. From there, they began to ruin other spiritual elites independent from them, sometimes from within, like in the USA, sometimes from outside, like in Germany.

Either way they destroyed the independent spiritual elite, which means that the body, good or bad, being headless and now they can put their ugly flesh on it, and using the high level people of the Europeans for their own purposes and against their very own interests.

There is enough potential in Europeans for forming such a spiritual elite on their own, even a better one, but the place being occupied by the Plutocrats and their menials first and for being effective, you need a tradition.

Because even if many people have the traits necessary, genetically, they need the sort of education a true spiritual elite member needs. Some can gain it on their own, by chance, will or personal drives - however, to form effective networks of such and having the true "knowledge of power", you need "a background" people of the Plutocratic Oligarchy have.

And of course, knowledge is nice, but you also need the tools and networks to rely on, first of all, for a Plutocrat these days, the control over large amounts of money.

Higher mankind is marked by higher spirituality and superior morality, not by how much stuff it has. Stuff is usually just a side effect.

But one higher mankind will always produce, because it is in their nature.

Anyway, a lot of what is called progress is actually degeneracy.

There must be a genetic and memetic purification, but still what the occident achieved is marvellous and otherwise humans would be just another meaningless animal species which will sooner or later go down the drain, without a higher potential and knowledge, anyway.

If behavior is determined by circumstances, then the behavior is not optimal. When behavior changes circumstances it becomes more optimal.

Situations require actions. Behavior is repeat of similar actions in similar situations.

Well, that is what a higher mind does, but consider, the higher human spirit and mind is able to adapt by THINKING about the problem and coming to an optimal solution for the SPECIFIC PROBLEM in question. That's what I meant.

Any kind of philosophy or behavioural limitation which would limit your adaptiveness to something which could get dangerous for survival on a higher level in a specific given situation is detrimental.

The survival on a higher level is the most crucial aspect.

[Curtis24]

Agrippa, what do you think about the idea of "hypergamy" and how it relates to our modern woes?

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher socioeconomic status, or caste status than oneself.[1]

The term is often used more specifically in reference to a perceived tendency amongst human cultures for females to seek or be encouraged to pursue male suitors that are higher status than themselves, which often manifests itself as being attracted to comparatively older, wealthier or otherwise more privileged than themselves.[2] Hypergamic behaviours can be explained in terms of genetic economic necessity, in which societies with high levels of gender inequality are more likely to have women who "marry-up" for the benefit of their children, and more likely to have men who "marry-down" to ensure that their mates have a higher incentive to remain faithful.[3]

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, what do you think about the idea of "hypergamy" and how it relates to our modern woes?

Well, hypergamy is a good mean for a group to expend over another, because in the end, it is always about the fight for the females, since they bear the children and determine how many offspring you have.

Essentially, if you have a polygamic society in particular, but don't allow the mixed ones to come up to the highest ranks, you can spread your genes in a foreign population that way very fast.

It really depends on the exact practise and details in realisation, of how it works for this or that group.

[Curtis24]

well, I have hard some say that women have become too hypergamous, this is why most men can't get wives, most women want to be in relationships with the "alpha males"

[Agrippa]

well, I have hard some say that women have become too hypergamous, this is why most men can't get wives, most women want to be in relationships with the "alpha males"

Ok, I thought about strict rules, like in the caste system or between the conquerors and conquered, aristocracy and common people and so on.

Well, that is a problem indeed, but you have to keep in mind that females might see different kinds of superiority in a male, so there are various options how a male can score.

Despite of that, this is a huge problem in the feminised Capitalist society, because the highest level women don't get enough male partners any more and usually behave in a way, which the potential mates won't accept quite often - so those males prefer an "easier wife" so to say and those "problem women" on the top get often even more men-hating throughout life, than their original Cultural Marxist-radical feminist "education" or better indoctrination taught them, so they are quite often rather hopeless cases for a stable relationship, because even women of their niveau are not supposed to be at such ranks - at least not in those numbers - exceptions are another cup of tea.

This is really part of the contraselective trend and a huge problem if looking at the partner selection.

It is however clearly a cultural problem, once again, because in the past, the single exceptions of women, which often turned into a rather male role, like one can often see in history, were not of importance biologically, whereas the current mass phenomenon of women of higher status in various fields in which they were often rather pushed even, is a problem from the Eugenic point of view.

There are various options for solving that problem, from bringing women of that class in a position in which they face higher status males, or to change their attitude and that in society, so that the male has IN THE RELATIONSHIP still the higher status, regardless of what the female otherwise is.

Or to directly connect the progress in education and career, social success, with reproductive success. For example: Until a woman of that kind has not founded a family, she will be discriminated in all fields of importance, while favoured if she is the proud mother of good group members.

This is to the me the crucial aspect: Lifting males position, but even more important, connecting the female success, like it was ALWAYS, with being a successful mother.

Today, in this Capitalist mess, single woman without children have more and better options virtually everywhere, this sick condition must be broken and changed to a functional rule system, in which getting children, especially for women of that status, is being rewarded.

Actually some of those women would wish so - others not of course.
I know that, because they often suppressed their wish for children and family, just to MAKE IT TO THE TOP and staying there. They made up their own calculation and the result IN THIS SOCIETAL CONTEXT is, that they "wait with children" - yet their hormonal clock ticks, their youthful idealism for relationships with males and becoming a mother vanishes biologically, together with their fertility, so the problem becomes bigger with every year and some make it late with one or two children, practically never more, because the companies wouldn't reward that neither, if they give birth and create life at all.

So this must be changed and broken: Social success = mother of valuable children.

If you go to a job interview as a woman: Do you have children and family? No - we have to prefer those which have.

You go for a stipendium: Do you have children and family? No - we have to prefer those which have.

You want to get promoted? ...

And so on!

Taxes? Of course, here too.

In the end, the women which has children must be proud and sure this was a good decision, honoured and rewarded by the group, while those without must get the opposite message.

This is how it always was and how it WORKS!

[SwordoftheVistula]

If you're going to do that, you have to make sure that any & all support is contingent on being married. All western countries today have generous support for are single mothers. This has got to stop or reversed.

Also remove police/government involvement in domestic/family disputes, and instead allow churches or similar organizations to resolve such disputes. This will ensure better mate selection instead of tattooed thug ex-con 'alpha males' that she calls the cops on every weekend and yet sticks with him, meanwhile the better genetically suited law abiding people are stuck with the tax bill for the police & justice system to manage these dysfunctional relationships.

Britain has had some success with delegating out family disputes to religious organizations, with good results for all involved, but as it typical in modern western societies this privilege is reserved for immigrants.

In general, lower taxes & regulations will boost the ability of the more naturally able to afford/have children, and removal of subsidies will eliminate the incentive of the less naturally able to have children.

[Agrippa]

If you're going to do that, you have to make sure that any & all support is contingent on being married. All western countries today have generous support for are single mothers. This has got to stop or reversed.

I won't let them down, because there can be many reasons for becoming a single mother and a single mother is better than a married woman without children.

However, while I don't agree with "all the support", I agree that stable relationships too need to be rewarded and respected, promoted in society.

Also remove police/government involvement in domestic/family disputes, and instead allow churches or similar organizations to resolve such disputes. This will ensure better mate selection instead of tattooed thug ex-con 'alpha males' that she calls the cops on every weekend and yet sticks with him, meanwhile the better genetically suited law abiding people are stuck with the tax bill for the police & justice system to manage these dysfunctional relationships.

In this case I'd say REDUCING the involvement, but not REMOVING it, that might go too far.

And the Eugenic and Euphenic measures might not solve such "issues" in one generation, but will drastically reduce it in a couple of, not talking about the systemic change as such already reducing it drastically.

Britain has had some success with delegating out family disputes to religious organizations, with good results for all involved, but as it typical in modern western societies this privilege is reserved for immigrants.

I'm not that fond of that idea, but I don't care whether its being done by the state or other organisations, as long as they spread reasonable moral and rationality.

I'm fully convinced however, that the CURRENT WAY of state intervention is a huge failure, that must be improved and social network and local organisations should look after the people, without having to call the police or judges for everything, which is just a lawyer business, ruins even more and costs a lot of ressources.

In general, lower taxes & regulations will boost the ability of the more naturally able to afford/have children, and removal of subsidies will eliminate the incentive of the less naturally able to have children.

In a Capitalist society, the connection between income and good traits must not always be present and many people which are rather decent and want to control their life might rather get less children, then falling into poverty - I'd say there is no way to chaotically come to as good results as with programs.

However, lower taxes means less of a re-distribution from the lower and middle classes to the upper classes, especially if talking about the interest for state deficits.

This payment goes directly to the high finance and plutocracy, largely from the middle class, without improving anything!

That must be stopped first.