The Tactics Elon Musk Uses to Manage His ‘Legion’ of Babies—and Their Mothers

[JosephZ]

The world’s richest man juggles more than a dozen children and ‘harem drama’ along with running his companies and advising Trump. He recently took a paternity test in a battle with one woman over money and privacy.​

In Musk’s dark view of the world, civilization is under threat because of a declining population. He is driven to correct the historic moment by helping seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence, according to people familiar with the matter.

His businesses are set up to serve the idea: The main objective of SpaceX is to build a rocket ship capable of getting to Mars, and his other companies, including electric-car maker Tesla, help finance the plan.

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 said he is concerned about what he called Third World countries having higher birthrates than the U.S. and Europe, a person familiar with the conversation said.

One of the most important ways to change these dynamics, he has repeatedly told people close to him, is for educated people to have more children.

While Musk posts sometimes dozens of times a day on X about right-wing politics or his companies, among other things on his mind, he often interacts with lesser-known users. He replies to them and sometimes interacts through direct messages, some of whom he eventually solicits to have his babies, according to people who have viewed the messages.

Cryptocurrency influencer Tiffany Fong was covering disgraced crypto tycoon Sam Bankman-Fried’s downfall when Musk started liking and replying to her posts. Musk’s interactions ramped up as Fong posted more political content in support of Trump, and Musk followed her last summer.

During the height of her interactions with the billionaire owner, Fong earned $21,000 on the platform in a two-week period in November, according to a screenshot she posted.

That was about when Musk sent her a direct message asking if she was interested in having his child, according to people familiar with the matter. The two had never met in person.

 

[Yttrium]

Sadly for Elon, intelligent women won't fall for this.

 

[ozso]

WSJ has gone tabloid.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

"We are legion"

Where have I heard that before?

 

[ozso]

"We are legion"

Where have I heard that before?

Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. Luke 8:30

 

[durangodawood]

.....That was about when Musk sent her a direct message asking if she was interested in having his child, according to people familiar with the matter. The two had never met in person.

What is the Christian take on this kind of harem/breeder endeavor?

Actually I should probly break this into two questions:
1. What is the traditional Christian view of this?
2. What is the modern American politico-Christian view of this?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What is the Christian take on this kind of harem/breeder endeavor?

Actually I should probly break this into two questions:
1. What is the traditional Christian view of this?
2. What is the modern American politico-Christian view of this?

The Nazi's had a badge for large families, perhaps we can too.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm sure a guy who sires a bunch of kids and then ignores them is going to put a lot of care and attention into the needs of the American people and the concerns of the folks impacted by his actions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Musk has said he is concerned about what he called Third World countries having higher birthrates than the U.S. and Europe, a person familiar with the conversation said.

That's actually a fair concern...along with just the declining birth rates in developed nations in general.

(granted, I can't throw stones because I got the old snip back about a decade ago to make sure I don't have any kids)

But declining birth rates in developed nations are concerning because
A) the solvency of social safety nets in developed nations dependent on having a certain ratio of working aged people paying in, to elderly people who can no long work, collecting. (some Asian countries are struggling with this right now...too many pensioners and not enough people to pay in)

B) non-developed and under-developed nations are often heavily reliant on the generosity of developed westernized nations. Both in terms of money, and in terms of piggy-backing off of the innovation of developed nations. If the "Modernized world" was confined to just Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Iceland...do you think an impoverished country in Africa or South America ever gets electricity or access to motor vehicles?

C) culturally speaking -- and this one may get a bit touchy -- I think the developed world should have a vested interest in making sure that westernized/liberalized cultures/mindsets remain the predominate ones that are "holding the cards" so to speak. Ultimately, you need to have numbers on your side to maintain that.

 

[durangodawood]

That's actually a fair concern...along with just the declining birth rates in developed nations in general.

(granted, I can't throw stones because I got the old snip back about a decade ago to make sure I don't have any kids)

But declining birth rates in developed nations are concerning because
A) the solvency of social safety nets in developed nations dependent on having a certain ratio of working aged people paying in, to elderly people who can no long work, collecting. (some Asian countries are struggling with this right now...too many pensioners and not enough people to pay in)

Totally. And countries that reject immigration as part of the solution will suffer economically.

C) culturally speaking -- and this one may get a bit touchy -- I think the developed world should have a vested interest in making sure that westernized/liberalized cultures/mindsets remain the predominate ones that are "holding the cards" so to speak. Ultimately, you need to have numbers on your side to maintain that.

Agree here too.

But I dont think super rich men harem/breeder pools where they drop in with cash now and again is even part of a viable solution. Its just a vanity project really.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

(granted, I can't throw stones because I got the old snip back about a decade ago to make sure I don't have any kids)

I got married for the same reason, looking back, the snip would have been cheaper.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Totally. And countries that reject immigration as part of the solution will suffer economically.

Agree here too.

Economically, yes, countries that blanket reject immigration will suffer in that regard.

However, where A ties in with C (from the list I mentioned)

...is that not all immigration is equal in terms of that cultural aspect.

While immigration can prop things up economically to offset declining birth rates in certain countries. In terms of preserving the westernized/liberalized values, there's a staunch difference between someone coming to a country because they want to embrace those ideas and pass them on, vs. people who come here purely for economic reasons (some of which may not even like westernized society)

For example (just a hypothetical) 8 million people coming here from Afghanistan because they truly dislike Afghanistan's way of doing things and the oppressive theocracy and religious oligarchy, and want to become part of a freer more open minded culture...

...is going to have a very different effect than 8 million who may actually prefer that rigid theocracy, and if they had their druthers, would prefer to stay there, but were compelled to move for purely economic reasons.

One strengthens a country's westernized values, the other waters them down.

But I dont think super rich men harem/breeder pools where they drop in with cash now and again is even part of a viable solution. Its just a vanity project really.

I think that pretty obvious...some narcissistic types tend to see is as "doing the world a favor" by passing their DNA on to future generations.

 

[durangodawood]

Economically, yes, countries that blanket reject immigration will suffer in that regard.

However, where A ties in with C (from the list I mentioned)

...is that not all immigration is equal in terms of that cultural aspect.

While immigration can prop things up economically to offset declining birth rates in certain countries. In terms of preserving the westernized/liberalized values, there's a staunch difference between someone coming to a country because they want to embrace those ideas and pass them on, vs. people who come here purely for economic reasons (some of which may not even like westernized society)

For example (just a hypothetical) 8 million people coming here from Afghanistan because they truly dislike Afghanistan's way of doing things and the oppressive theocracy and religious oligarchy, and want to become part of a freer more open minded culture...

...is going to have a very different effect than 8 million who may actually prefer that rigid theocracy, and if they had their druthers, would prefer to stay there, but were compelled to move for purely economic reasons.

One strengthens a country's westernized values, the other waters them down.

Yeah I think thats generally true. People steeped in tribal/fundamentalism arent going to be such a good mix. On the flip side, Im a little baffled over the "conservative" suspicion of Mexican and Central American immigrants who often align really well with western values, even to the point of leaning conservative.

I think that pretty obvious...some narcissistic types tend to see is as "doing the world a favor" by passing their DNA on to future generations.

Obvious to you and I perhaps. But I do like to say it pointedly tho, because "conservatives" might want to pause for second and consider who theyre getting in bed with. Musk might just "breed" them too.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah I think thats generally true. People steeped in tribal/fundamentalism arent going to be such a good mix. On the flip side, Im a little baffled over the "conservative" suspicion of Mexican and Central American immigrants who often align really well with western values, even to the point of leaning conservative.

I think they align with US-conservatives on certain religious values, but I don't consider that to be totality of "westernized values".

I've subscribed more to the school of thought of those like Durant and Strauss who defined westernized culture as the combination of Greek Reason and Judeo-Christian values. I believe the words Strauss used to describe it were "The collaboration and tension between Athens and Jerusalem"

Latin America has been something of a mixed bag in that regard.

You had everything ranging from far-right dictatorships like Pinochet, all the way to the polar opposite extreme of Cuba and central American countries that were Soviet allies.


But, as for the "conservative suspicion", sometimes the easiest answer is the right one. Their concerns are rooted in the fact that many of the people involved don't share their political values, and the opposing team expressing interest in fast tracking citizenship thereby granting full voting rights.

If the roles were reversed, and say, Latin Americans (by a score of 70/30) were reliably pro-gun and anti-environmental protection laws, and the conservative party seemed very eager to bring them in as easily as possible, and fast-track citizenship to allow them to get to the polls and start voting. I assume there would be some liberal suspicion about such maneuvers.


So, in reality, I don't think it's the actual Latin Americans that conservatives are suspicious of, it's their political rivals they're suspicious of.
(I say that based on the fact that conservatives seem to have little to no issue with Cuban immigrants (who are 3-1 conservative) coming to the US)

Whereas people from other countries of origin...

 

[durangodawood]

I think they align with US-conservatives on certain religious values, but I don't consider that to be totality of "westernized values".

I've subscribed more to the school of thought of those like Durant and Strauss who defined westernized culture as the combination of Greek Reason and Judeo-Christian values. I believe the words Strauss used to describe it were "The collaboration and tension between Athens and Jerusalem"

Latin America has been something of a mixed bag in that regard.

You had everything ranging from far-right dictatorships like Pinochet, all the way to the polar opposite extreme of Cuba and central American countries that were Soviet allies.

Do you not recall the USA's own complicity in installing Pinochet? He's the man our own government wanted at the time and so should be no more held against Latin American values as against our own.

As for Cuba, also dont forget that state communism was essentially a western project. It emerged from western thinking and values in the heart of the west. It certainly didnt come from China, African thought, or the Islamic world. It was our mistake. Let not define "western" as only the good things that emerge from the Athens/Jerusalem heritage. The history of "the west" is chock full of despots and tyrants right through the 20th century.

The whole regional analysis is confounded by the history of US and Soviet power games and raw economic imperialism. It seems to me that on a personal level most of our southern neighbors value economic liberty, personal freedom, and general benevolence about as much as we do.

But, as for the "conservative suspicion", sometimes the easiest answer is the right one. Their concerns are rooted in the fact that many of the people involved don't share their political values, and the opposing team expressing interest in fast tracking citizenship thereby granting full voting rights.

Yeah this is probably true (although the trend is in the opposite direction). Its not really about general personal and societal values. Its about partisanship and the same things "true and decent Americans" have been arguing over forever.