> 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.

How do you know it is referring to the human population?

> The genetic cleansing phrase is not about the daughter.

Can you provide a timestamp for the usage of this phrase?

> he was not and could not be thinking of her when he said it because environmental factors are not passed on through breeding

People are affected by the environment in which they are raised, which can be passed on.

You seem to have this habit of believing the world is constrained by the extent of your knowledge, and seem unable to consider that your assessment of a situation may not be correct.

> 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.

Technically, you claimed the phrase refers to ethnic cleansing. You believing something doesn't make it true.

> It was your suggestion the he was merely referring to "crazy" people. I'll go along with that out of generosity to your argument.

It wasn't my suggestion, it is what he says. You cannot produce a quote that demonstrates otherwise, all you have are claims with no evidence.

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

"breed cleaning" is not used. If you disagree, provide a timestamp.

> But keeping his "crazy family of origin" away can not refer to any interpretation of "whole" let alone any hereditary cleansing.

Can you provide a timestamp of the usage of "hereditary cleansing"?

> So this was neither in his mind nor his intent with the eugenics phrase.

Can you provide a timestamp of the usage of "eugenics"?

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

> Breeding a population refers to gene selection does it not?

Perhaps sometimes, but not always. If you disagree, I am happy to consider any evidence or logical argument you provide.

>>> 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?

Yes it is my claim, it is the most obvious meaning that requires a minimum usage of one's imagination.

Can you substantiate, with evidence (direct quotes, with timestamps), your indoctrination claim?

Can you substantiate, with evidence (direct quotes, with timestamps), your "controlling her partners" claim?

For the record, I would like to explicitly point out that you didn't reply to my question about your "cleaning the whole gene pool" claim.

> That's why he chose the word.

How do you know this? Are you speculating, or do you believe this to be a fact?

> He could have used "self actualized" or any other easily recognized term.

A lack of choosing words to your liking proves nothing.

> You don't wear a swastika expecting people to think it's Hindu.

He's not wearing a swastika.

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

I've already provided links demonstrating significant usage of the term in a way other than the meaning you say it must be.

> And Nietzsche at no point refers to breeding up Übermensch.

No, but he defined the noun, which many people subsequently used in various different contexts. Molyneux is one of many people who've used it. You can argue he might be using it with your preferred meaning, but he isn't necessarily doing that, and you've provided nothing beyond your opinion substantiating your theory.

> That distinctly bizarre misinterpretation of Nietzsche comes from one place: the 1930's German eugenics program.

Your claim. How do you know it is true? Have you forgotten that it was you who introduced eugenics to the discussion? You seem to be using it as an accepted fact.

> Molyneux wants to breed supermen so he is most definitely did not getting that from Nietzsche but from the eugenics program.

Your claim. How do you know it is true?

>> 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.

So then how do your rationalize your Nazi claim? ("The most generous we could possibly be to Molyneux (and then only if this video were his one and only) is to say that he's only referring to the "good" part of the nazi program (it's obviously the nazi program because he even uses the term "supermen"). Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence, a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter. And even this still leaves him and his followers looking for the "good" in nazism.")

Please provide the specific words he said (with timestamp), and the reasoning behind your claim.

> A cartoon frog now inevitably refers to a hated minority.

No, it is claimed to refer to a hated minority. Feel free to provide evidence & examples that substantially proves it is always or even usually used to refer 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.

Maybe, if your cartoon frog is true. Let's see the evidence you come up with.

> And "cleaning the gene pool" is far more established in it's meaning then some 4chan meme.

Please provide the timestamp of his usage of "cleaning the gene pool".

> 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.

You have provided no evidence that your interpretation is more likely.