Tag: breeding

Elon Musk Has a Breeding Fetish and it Creeps Me Out

Let’s talk about Apartheid Clyde again. Not the genius inventor, not the Mars guy, not the billionaire memelord, but the man on a bizarre, almost dystopian crusade to impregnate the planet. At this point it’s not just “having a lot of kids.” It’s a full-blown ideology. A fetish wrapped in futurism. A techno-breeding manifesto disguised as civilization-saving.

Apartheid Clyde has at least 14 children (that we know of) with multiple women, including employees. He’s tweeted things like “population collapse is the biggest threat to humanity” and “I’m doing my part haha,” as if civilization hinges on him personally repopulating the Earth — or Mars — with his offspring. That’s not family planning. That’s legacy-building with a hint of sci-fi eugenics.

He’s literally turned human reproduction into a status symbol. It’s not about love or parenting or raising decent people. It’s about seeding the future … with himself. He thinks he’s a mythological figure tasked with restarting the species after the collapse.

It’s not subtle. He has said he believes “smart people” aren’t reproducing enough. He reportedly fathered twins with a Neuralink executive. He once called birth control a “civilization-ending experiment.” He’s flirted with the logic of eugenics while acting like he’s just being a rationalist.

In any other context, this would be horrifying. But because he’s rich and quirky, people brush it off as just another Musk-ism. But imagine any regular man walking around, telling the world it’s his moral duty to have as many children as possible because his DNA is just that important. That’s not just arrogant. That’s a fetish.

This isn’t about children. It’s about control. Power. Legacy. Apartheid Clyde talks about colonizing Mars, building superintelligence, and rewriting human history, always with himself as the central node. He doesn’t want to save the word. He wants to remake it in his image, and apparently that starts in the bedroom. He’s not trying to be your kid’s role model. He’s trying to be their ancestor.

Here’s the kicker: Apartheid Clyde doesn’t believe in collective solutions. He doesn’t trust democracy. He doesn’t care about building a better society. He wants a genetically optimized future ruled by the right kind of people: him and his kind.

And that’s why his weird, hyper-capitalist breeding campaign is so creepy. Because it’s not just personal. It’s political. It’s patriarchal. And it’s deeply authoritarian in disguise. We don’t need more Musk children. We need fewer billionaires treating the Earth — and our bodies — like a startup they can scale.

When the State Turns the Dead Into Incubators

A woman in my state was declared brain-dead. Her family wanted to let her go. However, she was nine weeks pregnant–and the state refused.

They are keeping her body alive. Not for her. Not because there’s hope she’ll wake up. Not because her family asked her to. They’re keeping her alive for the embryo. She has become a womb with a heartbeat. A vessel. A corpse turned into an incubator.

If this isn’t dystopia, then what is?

I posted about it. I said, “Georgia is keeping a brain-dead woman’s body alive against her family’s wishes because she was nine weeks pregnant. They’ll only pull the plug after they pull out a baby. If using corpses as incubators isn’t dystopia then I don’t know what is.”

Someone replied, “So, you would rather kill an unborn wanted family member rather than have a piece of the woman you have lost? That’s reasonable…”

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t about a grieving mother begging doctors to preserve her baby. It was the state overriding the wishes of the family. Of the people who knew her. Loved her. Watched her slip away. And now they’re forced to watch her body turn into a baby machine.

I responsed, “No, I’d rather respect a person’s dignity in death and not treat their body like a farm tool. If the family wanted a ‘piece’ of her, they could have kept a lock of hair, not forced a fetus to develop inside a corpse. Grief doesn’t justify dystopia.”

When you don’t have a good argument, you fall back on gender. On insults. But gender doesn’t erase the ethical horror here: a government deciding your dead body isn’t yours anymore. That once you’re brain-dead, you’re fair game for state use–if you’re carrying a fetus.

This isn’t compassion. This is forced birth through necromancy. It’s Christian nationalism turning science fiction into state policy.

If a living woman chooses to stay on life support to try to save her pregnancy, I support her. That’s her decision. I may be an anti-natalist who thinks no one should breed, but I also believe in people having freedom of choice. Call it a contradiction if you want. That’s not what’s happening here though.

This was never about life. It’s about control.

And if you don’t think using someone’s dead body as a uterus without consent is grotesque then ask yourself why you think women only matter when they’re carrying something.