“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” ~Albert Einstein.
KAREN HUNT AKA KH MEZEK
The fact that men produce millions of times more sperm than women produce eggs means that a small number of superior men could annually father thousands of comparable children. ~ The History of Eugenics
There are many reasons to be worried these days, like the fact that we’re on the brink of World War III. I write a lot about this topic, but there are other issues that maybe aren’t as obvious as a bomb exploding, but that are of equal importance. In fact, unless we succeed in destroying ourselves with war, these other issues will be of greater importance because they will change the very fundamentals of what it means to be human. So, let’s get into it!
The richest men in the world are bringing eugenics back, not in an obvious Nazi way, so don’t worry.
Thanks to AI, they hope to create the master race that eugenicists have always hoped for by implanting their sperm in as many desirable women as possible along with fusing their offspring with superintelligent machines.
Imagine a hundred thousand Elon Musks running around on Mars, hooked up to Neuralink, and you get the idea.
Let’s look at a few of these men and how far eugenics has come since its founding.
Telegram founder Pavel Durov “super sperm donor” has announced that he has fathered over 100 children.
.
Durov has taken Elon Musk’s goal to populate the earth with genetically gifted offspring to the next level.
Those 100 kids include the six he’s an “official” dad to with three different women. The rest were through sperm bank donations. Durov recently made his will, leaving to each of his children $132 million from his estate currently worth nearly $14 billion, money they will receive in 30 years.
Now, that’s thoughtful of him. Most of those children are spread throughout 12 countries, he has never met them, and he will never be an actual father to them. But a lot can happen in 30 years. He could spawn another thousand babies and the amount they each get could substantially decrease. He could change his mind and cut them all out of his will. He could lose his fortune. Nothing is assured. But at least his heart is in the right place. If he can’t live forever, he can leave the world a better place—inhabited by as many of his offspring as possible who will carry on his fabulous genes.
With Elon Musk, spreading his seed is part of his wider mission to colonize Mars to “save civilization.”
It’s all about humanity, not the elites, we must remember that.
So far, Musk has fathered fourteen children with four different women, all born through IVF or surrogacy except X, that’s the little boy he parades around with him in public. Well, that’s fourteen children that we know about.
Elon Musk has offered his sperm (via in vitro fertilization) to other women he thinks would be worthy of it, including Nicole Shanahan, who has a child with her former husband, Google co-founder Sergey Brin. Shanahan declined Musk’s offer.
Elon Musk moved on and asked cryptocurrency influencer Tiffany Fong if she would have a child with him. According to the Wall Street Journal, she worried saying “no” could hurt her earnings from his social media platform X.
Musk had followed Fong on X (which he owns) often liking and commenting on her content. Naturally her numbers shot up astronomically, as did her earnings. He then sent her a direct message, asking if she was interested in having a child with him, even though they had never met in person.
Fong turned down the richest man in the world’s offer, upon which her worst fears were realized. Musk unfollowed her and reprimanded her for telling others about his request. As a result, her numbers and earnings plummeted.
In the same explosive report by the Wall Street Journal, MAGA influencer Ashley St Clair found herself caught up in Elon Musk’s “harem drama” when she became pregnant with Musk’s baby.
.
According to the WSJ:
Musk refers to his offspring as a “legion,” a reference to the ancient military units that could contain thousands of soldiers and were key to extending the reach of the Roman Empire.
During St. Clair’s pregnancy, Musk suggested that they bring in other women to have even more of their children faster. “To reach legion-level before the apocalypse,” he said to St. Clair in a text message viewed by The Wall Street Journal, “we will need to use surrogates.”
He has recruited potential mothers on his social-media platform X, according to some of the people. Musk has used his wealth to buy the silence of some women who have his kids, according to St. Clair as well as other people, text messages and documents reviewed by the Journal.
In 2023, he had a meeting in Austin where people he described as Japanese officials asked him to be a sperm donor for a high-profile woman, according to a text message reviewed by the Journal. “They want me to be a sperm donor. No romance or anything, just sperm,” he texted St. Clair. Musk later told her he gave his sperm to the person who asked for it, without naming the woman.
But no one has been more inspired by Elon Musk ’s vision of future “cyborg babies” than Alexander Wang, billionaire CEO of Scale AI.
A rising architect of artificial superintelligence at Meta, 28-year-old Wang is putting off parenthood until brain implants are ready for newborns. Specifically, he’s waiting for Elon Musk’s Neuralink, or similar tech—and there is plenty out there—to become advanced enough to merge babies’ brains with AI from birth.
Wang recently explained, “I want to wait to have kids until we figure out how Neuralink or other brain-computer interfaces start working.” He believes that if children grow up with this tech embedded from the earliest years—when the brain is most malleable—they could evolve into a generation that “uses [AI] in crazy, crazy ways.”
Musk, Wang and others like them, would like to reimagine children fused with AI superintelligence—born not just to live in a digital world, but to be one with it.
If you want to get a taste of what some of the “brightest minds” have in store for the future of humanity and how they justify it, here’s Elon Musk, futurist Ray Kurzweil, Demis Hassabis of MIT’s DeepMind, neuroscientist and author Sam Harris, philosopher Nick Bostrom, philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn, as well as computer scientists Stuart Russell and Bart Selman, all talking about how scary AI is but how we really have no choice but to fuse with it. The discussion was led by MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark.
As Elon Musk explains, he sees humans as “information-processing machines that pale in comparison to the powers of a computer.” We simply MUST create a greater integration between man and machine, specifically altering our brains with technology to make them more computer-like.
Yes, to Musk, we are just “information-processing machines.”
Of course, Musk assures us that the intention of these great minds is not to have a small group of guys like them (and their select offspring) acquiring such powerful capabilities that they become “dictators” with “dominion over Earth”. No, once they figure it all out, they will “share” with everyone. First of course, everyone must be willing to be experimented on so they can reach their goals—for our own good.
Just look at these guys and ask yourself how bizarre it is that this motley crew has amassed so much power that they believe they can make these god-like decisions, and we are all going to fall in line—and if we don’t pay better attention to what’s going on, that’s what will happen.
And by the way, this is a really boring talk, so I don’t expect you to listen to all of it, but just look at these guys and how they interact, you will see what I’m talking about:
The dream originated a century and a half ago with the British scientist and explorer Francis Galton, a younger first cousin of Charles Darwin’s. It was Galton who dubbed the idea “eugenics,” a word he took from the Greek root meaning “good in birth” or “noble in heredity.” It was well known that by careful selection, farmers and flower fanciers could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular traits. Galton, who believed that not only physical features but mental and moral capacities were inherited, wondered, “Could not the race of men be similarly improved?”
After the turn of the twentieth century, Galton’s ideas coalesced into a broadly popular movement that enlisted the new science of genetics and attracted the support of such luminaries as Teddy Roosevelt and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. They aimed, as Galton had said, to multiply society’s “desirables” and get rid of its “undesirables.”
A key problem was the difficulty of finding non-coercive means of multiplying the desirables. Galton proposed that the state sponsor competitive examinations in hereditary merit, celebrate the blushing winners in a public ceremony, foster wedded unions among them at Westminster Abbey, and encourage, by postnatal grants, the spawning of numerous eugenically golden offspring. But only the Nazis were willing, in practice, to enlist the state, establishing subsidies to racially meritorious couples in proportion to the number of children they bore. Heinrich Himmler urged members of the SS to father numerous children with racially preferred women, and in 1936 he instituted the Lebensborn—spa-like homes where SS mothers, married and unmarried, might receive the best medical care during their confinements.
Human improvers in the United States and Britain followed the route of voluntarism. Eugenics sympathizers such as Teddy Roosevelt, worried by the declining birth rate among their class, urged its women to bear more children for the good of the race. During the 1920s, taking a leaf from Galton’s book, they sponsored Fitter Family competitions in the “human stock” section of state agricultural fairs. At the 1924 Kansas Free Fair, winning families in the three categories—small, average, and large—were awarded a Governor’s Fitter Family Trophy. It is hard to know what made these families stand out as fit, but an indicator is supplied by the fact that all entrants had to take an IQ test—and the Wasserman test for syphilis.
Yet social-radical eugenicists, of whom there were a number on both sides of the Atlantic, were impatient with measures that sought to achieve human improvement within the constraints of conventional marriage and conception. A towering figure among them was J.B.S. Haldane, a brilliant British geneticist and evolutionary theorist. In 1924, in a slim book titled Daedalus, he laid out a method for producing human biological improvement that went far beyond urging high-class people to have more babies and behave well. The method centered on “ectogenesis”—the conception and nurturing of fetuses in glass vessels using gametes selected from a small number of superior men and women. Haldane predicted that the resulting offspring would be “so undoubtedly superior to the average that the advance in each generation in any single respect, from the increased output of first-class music to the decreased convictions for theft, is very startling.”
Aldous Huxley brilliantly spelled out the dystopian potential of Haldane’s scheme in Brave New World. But Herman J. Muller joined with a collaborator in Britain named Herbert Brewer to agitate for the realization of Haldane’s goal by the use of artificial insemination.
Brewer was a scientifically self-educated letter carrier and Muller an innovative experimental geneticist who would eventually win a Nobel Prize. Both men held, as Brewer put it, that if the salvation of the human species required socialism “to make a better world to live in,” it also required eugenics “to make better men to live in the world.” Both men fastened on artificial insemination to achieve that purpose because, although it was an imperfectly reliable technology, it was being used successfully with animals, was making headway among women, and took advantage of the fact that men produced millions of times more sperm than women produced eggs. It would thus enable a small number of superior men annually to father thousands of comparable children.
In his 1935 book, Out of the Night, Muller declared that “in the course of a paltry century or two…it would be possible for the majority of the population to become of the innate quality of such men as Lenin, Newton, Leonardo, Pasteur, Beethoven, Omar Khayyám, Pushkin, Sun Yat-sen…or even to possess their varied faculties combined.” Would thousands of women willingly make themselves vessels for the sperm of great men? Assuredly yes, both Muller and Brewer predicted. Muller confidently explained: “How many women, in an enlightened community devoid of superstitious taboos and of sex slavery, would be eager and proud to bear and rear a child of Lenin or of Darwin! Is it not obvious that restraint, rather than compulsion, would be called for?”
After World War II, eugenics became a dirty word. Muller, now an anti-eugenicist, revived a version of his and Brewer’s idea in 1959, calling it Germinal Choice. Despite Muller’s disapproval, a wealthy plastic-eyeglass maker established a sperm bank for Germinal Choice in Southern California to make the gametes of Nobel laureates available to women eager to improve the quality of the gene pool. Few women—only 15 by the mid-1980s—availed themselves of the opportunity.
It would seem things are different now. Replace the names Lenin or Darwin with the likes of Musk or Darov or Wang and voila, these men could potentially spawn hundreds of thousands of “mini-mes”.
You know what they say about inbreeding, right? Give me a mut any day over a pure bred. But the elites never learn. Eventually, they always crash and burn, just like Elon Musk’s latest rockets have been doing. He better hurry up and figure it out if he wants to escape to Mars before we destroy ourselves on earth.
If you want to delve a bit deeper into the topic of eugenics and CRISPR, read my essay Techno Eugenics
“If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us…, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.” ~ C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock
And The Case of the CRISPR Babies and the Scientist Who Made Them
“The most disturbing question in science today remains unanswered: Are the first genetically modified babies okay?” – El Pais news
This article (Billionaire Eugenicists and Their Baby Farms) was created and published by Break Free Media and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Sallust
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Is there a video of smart women discussing eugenics?