EPTElon Musk's lies, propaganda, etc. - Page 63
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
RowdierBob
Australia13290 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8625 Posts
The Wall Street Journal has published an eye-opening exposé on Elon Musk’s “harem drama,” diving into the relationships the world’s richest man has with his baby mamas – and the labyrinthine system by which he allegedly manages them. Musk is on a mission to help “seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence,” per the Journal’s Dana Mattioli. The White House senior advisor has at least 14 children by four different mothers – though this number is thought to be higher. Conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair, one such mother, reveals how after being impregnated by Musk, he offered her “$15 million and $100,000 a month in support,” while encouraging them a “legion-level” of children “before the apocalypse.” The quest to repopulate America and save civilization is a noble one — even if Elon’s vision of supplanting the nuclear family with “a compound in Austin where Musk imagined the women and his growing number of babies would all live among multiple residences” might scandalize the Republican party he joined last year. That got Cockburn thinking: who’s next? now I knew Elon was kinda out there. those two pieces however - especially the linked WSJ one - are eye poppers. eye opener is just not strong enough of an expression. be aware where you hitch your wagon to - or buy a ride from? saviours are few and far between, which brings me to... happy easter sunday everyone! | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25964 Posts
On April 20 2025 15:35 Doublemint wrote: https://thespectator.com/topic/elon-musk-next-child-baby-mama-natalie-winters/ now I knew Elon was kinda out there. those two pieces however - especially the linked WSJ one - are eye poppers. eye opener is just not strong enough of an expression. be aware where you hitch your wagon to - or buy a ride from? saviours are few and far between, which brings me to... happy easter sunday everyone! It’s very strange, it’s also utter bollocks as well. Very unlike him. It really is his worldview and all its flaws in a neat nutshell. The auld human genetic stock being rather a numbers game so a solo eugenics run being utterly pointless in that regard. His hubris in ‘better genetic stock = people like me’. But simultaneously his seeming dismissal of the importance of actually being involved in these kids’ lives. He’s so great his genes will just punch through or what? Shame I can’t read the WSJ one because of paywall, something I was somewhat aware of but I’ve not read a proper deep dive on it. Any particular highlights? | ||
|
Vivax
22086 Posts
On April 20 2025 15:35 Doublemint wrote: https://thespectator.com/topic/elon-musk-next-child-baby-mama-natalie-winters/ now I knew Elon was kinda out there. those two pieces however - especially the linked WSJ one - are eye poppers. eye opener is just not strong enough of an expression. be aware where you hitch your wagon to - or buy a ride from? saviours are few and far between, which brings me to... happy easter sunday everyone! He thinks his high intelligence is innate, like some kind of rpg trait. Not that it reflects the amount of effort he puts into the offspring. It doesn‘t matter how intelligent your parents were if you grow up deprived and alienated. Seems more like an excuse to feed the narcissistic ego and rampant ambitions. And a guy called cockburn wrote about this? Fitting. Psychology keeps debating the origin of traits with the nature vs. nurture debate. Would be a good starting point for people with strange ideas to educate themselves. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8625 Posts
On April 20 2025 21:19 WombaT wrote: It’s very strange, it’s also utter bollocks as well. Very unlike him. It really is his worldview and all its flaws in a neat nutshell. The auld human genetic stock being rather a numbers game so a solo eugenics run being utterly pointless in that regard. His hubris in ‘better genetic stock = people like me’. But simultaneously his seeming dismissal of the importance of actually being involved in these kids’ lives. He’s so great his genes will just punch through or what? Shame I can’t read the WSJ one because of paywall, something I was somewhat aware of but I’ve not read a proper deep dive on it. Any particular highlights? https://archive.is/DkF1x gotcha covered. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25964 Posts
Much obliged! Very fucking strange stuff | ||
|
oBlade
United States5756 Posts
On April 20 2025 21:19 WombaT wrote: It’s very strange, it’s also utter bollocks as well. Very unlike him. It really is his worldview and all its flaws in a neat nutshell. The auld human genetic stock being rather a numbers game so a solo eugenics run being utterly pointless in that regard. His hubris in ‘better genetic stock = people like me’. But simultaneously his seeming dismissal of the importance of actually being involved in these kids’ lives. He’s so great his genes will just punch through or what? Shame I can’t read the WSJ one because of paywall, something I was somewhat aware of but I’ve not read a proper deep dive on it. Any particular highlights? If Kim Kardashian can have a measurable effect on the size of society's butts, obviously famous people having children while spamming about having children and its importance can promote fertility. The fertility rate is a problem, and real. At the same time, culture is real - we make it and it also makes us. Our particular prejudices against his nontraditional family structures aside... He's not an Epstein level of breeding island delusion at all, but rather there is an obvious element of do as I say and as I do which preemptively rebuts the criticism that those who can't, teach, and lends some credence to his seriousness about the issues of population decline. Also he's rumored to use IVF a lot (exclusively?) which without making too much of a spectacle of people's private lives, sidesteps criticism that his intentions are not really about the fruit of the labor - although in some cases we can also guess what is really going on since Amber Heard didn't end up having one of his children. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2602 Posts
On April 23 2025 02:45 oBlade wrote: If Kim Kardashian can have a measurable effect on the size of society's butts, obviously famous people having children while spamming about having children and its importance can promote fertility. The fertility rate is a problem, and real. At the same time, culture is real - we make it and it also makes us. Our particular prejudices against his nontraditional family structures aside... He's not an Epstein level of breeding island delusion at all, but rather there is an obvious element of do as I say and as I do which preemptively rebuts the criticism that those who can't, teach, and lends some credence to his seriousness about the issues of population decline. Also he's rumored to use IVF a lot (exclusively?) which without making too much of a spectacle of people's private lives, sidesteps criticism that his intentions are not really about the fruit of the labor - although in some cases we can also guess what is really going on since Amber Heard didn't end up having one of his children. LOL I'll get right on becoming a billionaire so I can offer 15 million and 100k/month to the mothers of my children. That seems widely sustainable and healthy for everyone. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25964 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43197 Posts
Or if he wanted a more direct approach he could easily create and fund Elon Musk childcare centres across the nation providing free childcare to millions of Americans who wish to have children but cannot find a way to make it work for their household finances due to the cost of childcare. The idea that he's having a bunch of children and then abandoning them out of some broader cultural concern about demographics is frankly laughable. He's so rich that he's making an active choice to not address these issues in a meaningful way. He could easily do it, hell, at the very least he could stop requiring that the employees within his own companies work hours that are incompatible with having a family. But he does not. In addition to doing nothing to promote having children he actively makes it harder for Americans to have children. But he has a bunch himself and then refuses to do his duty as a father and raise them. It's a fetish, nothing more. He's a fucking weird guy. | ||
|
Hat Trick of Today
137 Posts
The Kardashians are culture vultures that exploit popular trends and sentiments for personal gain. Her BBL is a reflection of non-WASP beauty standards becoming more and more mainstream and desirable, not her being a fashion and beauty innovator and trailblazer. Basically what Kwark said. Musk isn’t following any trends or addressing any of society’s failures, he’s just a stupid natalist and eugenicist with zero desire of actually properly raising children because he believes “intelligence” is genetic. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44993 Posts
"Musk says he’ll step back from DOGE to focus on Tesla as company sees 71 percent drop in Q1 profits. Elon Musk says he’ll dedicate more time to Tesla starting in May after the company reported a big drop in first-quarter profit. The company has faced angry protests over Musk’s leadership of a federal government jobs-cutting group that has divided the country." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/musk-says-hell-step-back-from-doge-to-focus-on-tesla-as-company-sees-71-percent-drop-in-q1-profits | ||
|
oBlade
United States5756 Posts
On April 23 2025 04:13 Fleetfeet wrote: LOL I'll get right on becoming a billionaire so I can offer 15 million and 100k/month to the mothers of my children. That seems widely sustainable and healthy for everyone. Providing for a mother and children is absolutely fundamental. There's no view here. You would also have a quip if he supported them with $0, and only in that case would you happen to be right. On April 23 2025 11:24 Hat Trick of Today wrote: All this discussion proves is that Sir Mix-A-Lot erasure is real. The Kardashians are culture vultures that exploit popular trends and sentiments for personal gain. Her BBL is a reflection of non-WASP beauty standards becoming more and more mainstream and desirable, not her being a fashion and beauty innovator and trailblazer. Basically what Kwark said. Musk isn’t following any trends or addressing any of society’s failures, he’s just a stupid natalist and eugenicist with zero desire of actually properly raising children because he believes “intelligence” is genetic. Who's an intelligent natalist? Name two. You're welcome to be a Shaker or extinctionist if you like, but there is an established genetic component to intelligence, and smart people are measurably having fewer children, which is a societal issue to us all and not a eugenicist conspiracy. It's more likely you're simply scared of the question than that you're inconvenienced because you have all the right answers already. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8625 Posts
I rather like the lasses and chaps from ledbydonkeys. a stunt sure, but exectuted perfectly. and the message rings true. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4937 Posts
On April 24 2025 02:49 oBlade wrote: Who's an intelligent natalist? Name two. You're welcome to be a Shaker or extinctionist if you like, but there is an established genetic component to intelligence, and smart people are measurably having fewer children, which is a societal issue to us all and not a eugenicist conspiracy. It's more likely you're simply scared of the question than that you're inconvenienced because you have all the right answers already. Intelligence might in part be inherited, but simply reproducing will give you intelligent people. Hell, stupid people give birth to geniuses all the time. Do you think the "intelligence cluster" in our genome is akin to a finite resource pool? Or do you think random chance in the billions of people reproducing will sure enough produce smart people all the same? I like to think the latter is the case, which makes it absolutely not a societal issue, except for the fact that this intelligence through genetics is usually used as some superiority racist dog whistle. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia869 Posts
Regarding oBlade's bullshit, he obviously, just like Muskler thinks that there is a problem with fertility because white people are having less children then "the others". | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25964 Posts
On May 08 2025 22:15 Uldridge wrote: Intelligence might in part be inherited, but simply reproducing will give you intelligent people. Hell, stupid people give birth to geniuses all the time. Do you think the "intelligence cluster" in our genome is akin to a finite resource pool? Or do you think random chance in the billions of people reproducing will sure enough produce smart people all the same? I like to think the latter is the case, which makes it absolutely not a societal issue, except for the fact that this intelligence through genetics is usually used as some superiority racist dog whistle. Yeah between this and what Kwark said, lmao it’s utterly preposterous, the very height of hubris. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18106 Posts
On May 08 2025 21:51 Doublemint wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw4ZjhOukwU I rather like the lasses and chaps from ledbydonkeys. a stunt sure, but exectuted perfectly. and the message rings true. Glorious. That slowmo at the end there and then the Bridge over the River Kwai whistling... Oscar worthy stuff there! | ||
|
oBlade
United States5756 Posts
On May 08 2025 22:15 Uldridge wrote: Intelligence might in part be inherited, but simply reproducing will give you intelligent people. Hell, stupid people give birth to geniuses all the time. Do you think the "intelligence cluster" in our genome is akin to a finite resource pool? Or do you think random chance in the billions of people reproducing will sure enough produce smart people all the same? I like to think the latter is the case, which makes it absolutely not a societal issue, except for the fact that this intelligence through genetics is usually used as some superiority racist dog whistle. Similarly, the fact that if you took billions of elementary schoolers and gave them the SAT, some will get 1600s, this means education past elementary school is not an issue, not an object of study for the social sciences, not a civilizational question, and last and least... racist somehow? For tens of thousands of years, human societies have generally produced, and selected for, "fit" people. Many (most?) babies simply died. Mothers died. People who would not have survived to adulthood 10,000 years ago are now able to have families and raise multiple children of their own. This is a fact, and not because hurr oBlade is a racist and thinks babies dying is good, but because it's just a basic fact that has to be acknowledged to even gain access to the perspective to see what the subject at hand is. Alternatively anyone with basic pop culture knowledge will have seen Idiocracy. We are (one of?) the only species that has the cultural and technological power to shape ourselves. We are the only species that controls our own fate in this way (and incidentally the fate of other species, but that's its own discussion). Lions don't invent hospitals that reduce the mortality rate of lion cubs. The factors that decide how many lion cubs survive are simply if there's enough food for them and their pride is good enough to kill it. Whether there's enough food or not is determined by was the summer too short several years in a row, so not enough plants, so the food chain got nuked bottom up, or are there too many competing lion prides starving each other out, in which case there will probably be a pride war resulting in the genocide of the group of cubs we're talking about as the victorious males replace the cubs with their own cubs by mating with the surviving females. None of this is in the lions' control. They can't make an apartment complex with a gazelle farm and all watch LionFlix and have a service based economy all day. They are just existing and reacting. Humans thankfully don't operate that way. Because it's fucking vulnerable, and it's not noble. That's the difference between man and beast. Instead, we are in the middle of controlling our own evolution. We are engineering our present and future. Now, we are already doing it, whether you accept it or not. We unlock technologies and organize our societies in ways that constantly change the selection pressures in our populations. Some of these pressures mean that people who would have used to have fit children are instead so lazy, free, and comfortable that they eschew children altogether. It doesn't matter what the reason is. For all we know, smart people in the past got raped by stupid people more and it created smart children, whereas nowadays smart people pair up and enter the DINK lifestyle together, and stupid people pair up and are fruitful and multiply. Obviously this is not an endorsement of prehistoric rape. I am simply imploring you to think. I am not asking you to join and create a race of genius supermen - obviously and for the record. Neither is Musk. That is phantom nonsense. So there are basically 3 options on any time interval: 1) The proportion of stupid/smart, however you measure it, averages, medians, shape of distribution, is the same from one generation to the next 2) The next generations are getting smarter on balance (average, median, skew, however you care to measure) 3) The next generations are getting stupider on balance (There are more specific possibilities, like a bimodal future where very stupid people and hyper intelligent people both grow in proportion and average people decrease. But that's outside the limited point being made right now.) In what universe is the possibility of 3) so obviously devoid of unfavorability that it deserves no thought whatsoever? Because there will always still be "some" smart people? No matter what level of idiocracy the future gets to, it's not going to affect society because there will be a subset of elite geniuses who can manipulate and rule and control everything? My simplified moral position is we should organize our culture so that our populations simply don't trend worse than the status quo. So for intelligence, however smart the human race is now, should be considered a default, a floor, a minimum to maintain, and if smart people are having less kids, and stupid people more - making future generations proportionally less smart - that's not ideal just because "there will still be someone who's smart I mean stupid people have smart kids all the time." That just totally misses the point. Like saying one WNBA player is taller than one NBA player. An example is never relevant against trends. I don't even care about 2). I want 1), because it's an antidote to 3). 2) might be good, and it might not be. It might be that the ubermensch society all become sociopaths. But if even the 3) vs 1) conversation is triggering the 2) one is impossible. I've legitimately never explored 2) because everyone is already filtered by 3) vs 1). But look at it this way. I'm definitely not celebrating 3) like it's some inevitable result of the principles of the world. We aren't the lions. We aren't just along for nature's ride. We have total control of ourselves. 3) does not fill me with hope. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4937 Posts
There's some beauty in pushing the envolope of the human condition, but it's nothing mors than just that. We could dwindle to some steady state hundreds of millions people with a dwindled down tech tree and could be perfectly happy with what we got. Is that a bad future for humanity per se? Do we need to try to survive our sun? Do we need to try to survive our galaxy? My point didn't miss the point. My point was that we have so many people fucking all the time and mixing their DNA all the time on a scale that is so incomprehensible for us to understand that it's literally impossible to run out of smart people or geniuses. The first thing we need to do to secure as many smart born people grow up to be as smart as they can be is to get food security, basic education and infrastructure in order globally. We could have a discussion about if we even want an "as smart society as possible", because that could very well be a nightmare to live in. | ||
| ||
