>>395370It was a very, very small part. The point of the proliferation of games that were meant for children was to infantilize the population and recreate "schooling" in every other sphere of social existence. Eugenics in its fullest form would reproduce the school such that no one can escape the judgement made at an early age. We already see this with the schoolification of the workplace.
Sport as a concept is not eugenicist. I like sports just fine, but I think it is silly we have turned it into this huge thing. Nor is the elevation of sports entirely due to a eugenic plot. It has a lot more to do with gambling being the real past-time of humanity, and you need something to gamble on. But the proliferation of games and stadiums was something HG Wells explicitly wrote about as a kind of social engineering.
>>395375There is no form of eugenics that does not entail a central body dictating who is and isn't eugenic, and what rights the subordinated classes would have. Only the highest grade of civic worth would enjoy full political liberty in the eugenicist world-system, and all other groups would be by definition subordinated. On the flip side, pure eugenics would entail that the highest grade of civic worth would not be bound by any laws at all - hence "there is no law in Oceania".
I wouldn't even call the "improving the human condition" thing a smokescreen. If you read Galton, he's very clear about what would be needed to improve the human gene stock, and you can extrapolate that to figure out what it would mean for liberal civil society (that effectively, it would mean the end of liberalism as such).
If you want to speak of disability, you have to ask why life with a disability is so hellish. The vast majority of misery from disability comes purely from the actions of other people, particularly in a eugenicist society which teaches the young from birth to scorn the disabled simply for existing and taking "their" food and water and oxygen. The decision to bring a child with Down Syndrome into the world, or to abort it, is one thing, but eugenics clearly stipulates that such children must be treated as modern day lepers at best, or subjected to the most abject slavery at worse. Down Syndrome is one of the few cases where the genetic theory really worked out for them, and so eugenics jealously defends the persecution of Downs people. As a result, anyone with Downs is subjected to a regime of torture and humiliation that has few equivalents. About the only thing that comes close is the mythology around autism, and even there it has not elevated to the point where someone with Downs is automatically stripped of all legal, civil, and human rights except those that may be revoked at any time. The attitude towards Downs people is so awful that mere slavery is see as an improvement in their social standing. Starting in the 1990s, the schools and eugenics were pushing hard to put autistics in the same group, and pushed aggressively this new form of slavery in the social experiments. I recall this indoctrination and the mental damage it wreaked on me and people like me. A lot of people like myself didn't make it, killed themselves or wound up dead or imprisoned.
At some point you have to ask, as you do with chattel slavery, if it is worth this. Is it worth the many billions, if not trillions, of dollars invested purely in maintaining the class/caste system, just so some eugenicist assholes feel better about themselves and get that good feeling. To a utilitarian, for whom base and crass pleasure is moral goodness, the answer is obvious.