[zarro]

That why I used "Your" genes in quotation marks.I think that saying that this process is not genetics is not factually accurate, as its obviously clear it affects genetic expression. Its just a paradigm shift of how you would traditionally view "genetics" to be more broad than just your direct inheritance.

Lets go with the Hilter example since I think this is an interesting thought experiment.

Was Hitler a failure? (From his evolutionary perspective.)

At first glance you would say yes, obviously. He had no kids, he killed himself and was probably very unhappy and distraught with how things turned out in the end. The very people he thought were the "best" in his society actually suffered the most (as defined by him as he said "all the best have already died in Germany").

Now, if you think about it as a kid who was born with almost no family structure, no inheritance, and not very competitive in terms of capability compared to his peers (He wasn't a good architect, he wasn't a good painter, most of the esoteric things that he tried at he failed). I don't think its a stretch to suppose he thought his environment didn't bring favorable advantages for him (and others) and he sought a remedy to this. What did his remedy amount to?

The destruction of a large part of genes from the gene pool. And what where the genes that were largely removed composed of? You could argue he was wildly successful in influencing the genetic frequency of expression of a certain types of genes, while suppressing others.