That is where you are wrong, and you do not hide the fact that you refuse to look at it objectively, because of your democratic Egalitarianism. First, it is clear that we are all different, some people are stronger than others, some are weaker, some are more intelligent, some less, and that this is determined, in part, by our genes. This is basic biology, basic genetics, it is basic science and common sense, and even the Greeks, who have lived before our age of levity and science, have wisely observed that people had innate characters. If we are to go back to the whole 'nature v. nuture', it is clear that we are all predisposed to different thing by nature, and that affects the reception of what we observe and learn from the world. For example, say that I was born a sickly child, but with a larger than average brain, in proportion to my body. That said, I have two predeposition, to greater intelligence, but to a weaker body. Thus, if I am reared on both book and exercise, it is clear that I would be more receptive to books than to sports.

Having such impediment, I do not have the ability to achieve the same success as one born with a stronger constitution in the area of fitness, might, and strenght. I would probably not distinguish myself as much as he would if we applied ourselves to fighting, wieght-lifting, boxing, or any thing of that sort. Likewise, if an person whose intellect is retarded by certain afflictation from birth, he would not be as distinguished as I am in areas where intelligence is concern. This myth of equality of oppertunity despite inequality of condition is obvious humbug, and goes hand in hand with the ol' Horatio Algers myth to perpetuate the myth of egalitarianism and the fairness of the world, and would, I may, actually lead to hatred of those who are unable to advance further than they have because 'they aren't putting enough effort', 'they are obviously poor because they didn't work hard enough, having equal oppurtunity as I, M. Joseph Prudhomme'.

But, regardless, you do not argue against the validity of that statement, but against the implication-
You argue this line of thinking somehow leads back to Eugenics (and you get your dates wrong, the Eugenics Movement started in the late nineteenth century and ended in the earlier part of the twentieth), and this is patently false, as such ideas do not lead to that. In fact, such ideas promote more tolerance for the morons and cretins of the world. To give an example, there is talk now of a 'Gay gene', a gene that makes one more predisposed towards homosexuality, this is not used by the anti-Gay movement to promote screening out of the Gays (remember, it is only a predisposition towards homosexual attraction), rather, they deny it altogether, despite the science, because they are unable to put the blame of homosexuality upon the homosexual. We cannot blame someone for something they have no control over, and we have no right to punish them, in any way, for the way they are born, it is unfair, it is, however, fair to punish choice, I choose to steal the apple, therefore I am deserving of punishment, I choose to break the law, therefore I am criminal and should be tried by a jury.