>Is it your position that "whole" unequivocally (in a way that is clear and unambiguous) refers to the human population on planet earth

No, it could be hyperbole for "most" and possibly refer solely to a subset of nations with "genetic potential", as we know from previous attempts at implementation.

>is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised

He is. The genetic cleansing phrase is not about the daughter. And assuming Molyneux has a minimal scientific literacy, he was not and could not be thinking of her when he said it because environmental factors are not passed on through breeding.

>You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family

I _do_ think that part is just about his family. Because, as pointed out by the topmost comment, the phrase actually refers to ethnic cleansing not "crazy" people.

It was your suggestion the he was merely referring to "crazy" people. I'll go along with that out of generosity to your argument. Or if we want to walk that back, I'd be happier with the correct understanding.

At any rate, the reference to crazy people was glued on post hoc to attempt to moderate the breed cleaning phrase.

>And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter

He does indeed mean keeping away the girl's grandparents. But keeping his "crazy family of origin" away can not refer to any interpretation of "whole" let alone any hereditary cleansing. So this was neither in his mind nor his intent with the eugenics phrase.

>Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.

Breeding a population refers to gene selection does it not?

>>Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool.

>Timestamp of this please.

The notion that the phrase "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned up" was actually referring solely to indoctrinating the daughter, controlling her partners and keeping the grandparents way. That is certainly convoluted enough to suffice.

But is this indeed your claim?

>>with the goal of creating "supermen"

>A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning

That's why he chose the word. He could have used "self actualized" or any other easily recognized term. You don't wear a swastika expecting people to think it's Hindu.

>[Superman is a term] used by Friedrich Nietzsche

>How about David Bowie? [who wrote a song named The Supermen]

The suggestion of breeding supermen comes from one place. Not Shaw, Not Bowie, Not a comic book.

And Nietzsche at no point refers to breeding up Übermensch.

That distinctly bizarre misinterpretation of Nietzsche comes from one place: the 1930's German eugenics program.
Molyneux wants to breed supermen so he is most definitely did not getting that from Nietzsche but from the eugenics program.

>Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi

No, but....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW-iy-9m9SU&feature=youtu.be...

Clearly even the smartest people can be get draw into this. The hidden signals, charisma and especially the intentional ambiguity work well. Of course Shaw was intellectually honest enough to change. As did everyone who survived that period, which apparently did not leave a permanent impression.

>Of course, it's simply not possible he was referring to his daughter, even though he specifically is discussing raising her in the surrounding context of that phrase.

No, he makes no mention of race when talking about the daughter. And that talk has no connection to the phase in question anyway.

>No, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned.

A cartoon frog now inevitably refers to a hated minority. So absolutely yes, he is indirectly referring to some hated ethnic group(s) without naming them. Yes, most likely non-whites. And "cleaning the gene pool" is far more established in it's meaning then some 4chan meme.

> ...Not just likely, but literally impossible..

The most likely interpretation of an event is the one most reasonable to believe. Deprecating it in favor of something that is less likely is the very definition of bias.

After all, it's possible I'm a brain in a vat. But it's unreasonable to seriously entertain the idea.