> The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works.

The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it.

> So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.

You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable.

> It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic...

There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created.

> ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect

Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?

> ...and just obfuscates the more important topic

I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid doing so, but I shall persist in asking for evidence or reasoning.

> Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck.

Could be, but you're claiming he is a white supremacist who supports/advocates eugenics based on a single phrase he used in a 2+ hour long unscripted discussion. It appears you haven't even listened to the segment of the talk that you are using as evidence, because he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming.

> What's remarkable is that people still fall for it.

Not so much to me, based on what you've fallen for without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said. The human mind is easily tricked, sometimes even when the trick is shown to them.

> When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.

As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.

> It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam

Is "easy solution to the world's problems" what he proclaims to be selling? That sounds more like a story an active imagination would make up to rationalize a belief that lacks evidence.

> ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any

That's a bit rich considering the argument you're putting forth in your accusation of him.

>> Here you have completely manufactured reality

> This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else.

You have not provided any evidence that it means what you say it does. Try to find something on Google that agrees with you and link it here.

> It does not.

Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion.

> And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article.

Another claim. Let me guess, you won't be substantiating this one either?

> I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people.

Well, I'm talking to one right now, but s/he seems highly reluctant to shed any light on the matter. It's not too late though!

> Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken.

Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.

Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters, but it's people who are otherwise intelligent who will readily believe even more extraordinary (and specific) things, like accusations of Nazism or eugenics advocacy, despite no evidence that is so intriguing to me.

> Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy.

I bet this is your imagination working again. Regardless, Noam Chomsky has a theory of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU

> The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable.

As is the process leading to a belief that there are people doing as you describe.

> It's not really relevant....

How individuals behave varies on their conscious and subconscious perceptions of other people, and typically there is no self-awareness of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

> ...only what is written matters.

And simultaneously, the actual words someone speaks don't matter, but the contradictory (to the actual spoken words) interpretation of the listener does, and can even be used as a proof?