Counter-Currents
Is There a High-Tech Solution to the Great Replacement?
Jason Kessler1,135 words 
Recently, Jewish conservative influencer Ashley St Clair announced that she had conceived a child with Elon Musk, his 13th. What she declined to clarify is if, like at least 10 of his other children, they were conceived by IVF, or in vitro fertilization. IVF is a medical procedure where an egg is fertilized by test tube or somewhere outside the lab. The fertilized eggs are then placed inside a woman’s uterus. In other words, this is an alternative to pregnancy by sexual conception, with some advantages in terms of pregnancy chances and preventing genetic defects.
To be clear, most of Elon’s IVF pregnancies did not use a surrogate. IVF was used to ensure a healthy and successful pregnancy rather than to prevent the rigors of pregnancy on a woman’s body. At the time, Neuralink director Shivon Zilis was pregnant with his twins she told colleagues that she and Musk were not in a romantic relationship. This means he must be in the habit of asking random women to have his children. That’s not weird at all.
The reason I’m writing about this is because I believe that changes in the way human beings are born is both necessary and inevitable. Currently a human female is still required to carry a child to term, making the process of hiring someone for this purpose, known as surrogacy, prohibitively expensive (apparently between $150,000 and $200,000).
It is my view that too many women have abrogated their roles as wives and mothers in pursuit of materialism, feminist narcissism, and careerism to a point where it risks the survival of the white race. This is unacceptable. Freed from the societal constraints that have limited women’s worst impulses: vanity, ambition, and naked Darwinian forces, women have chosen a very dark path. An increasing number of men are shut out from experiencing a woman’s love. Rates of divorce, long-term singles, childlessness, and other social maladies are on the rise. Women cluster around a segment of the male population and cut large swathes of the rest off from either sexual or romantic access.
Some might say, “This is natural selection. It’s sexual selection. Women are choosing the most fit mates for a more genetically potent future.” But clearly this is not true. Studies show that high intelligence actually makes men less attractive to women. On average, women would prefer a literal retard over a prodigy. Much of the “selection” is predicated on men who are sexually aggressive, while a sizable chunk of the genius population will prefer spending time in solitary activities like books, video games and social media leaving access to the females to 80 IQ Tyrone who enjoys grinding at da club but is basically a bum and a social parasite. Just the fact one can go to clubs in many cities and see white women hooking up with black men should prove that female sexual selection is not choosing premium genetic material.
There are a lot of jokes (or are they jokes?) online in manosphere and incel circles about robotic lovers and artificial wombs. Artificial Womb Technology (AWT), also known as ectogenesis, involves growing a fetus in an artificial environment that mimics the human womb. A so-called BioBag, developed by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has successfully supported lamb fetuses and will eventually be utilized in the care of premature infants. The BioBag is filled with amniotic fluid and a machine to oxygenize the blood via the umbilical cord.
Even more ambitious is EctoLife, a project envisioned by Yemeni molecular biologist Hashem Al-Ghaili. While more of a conceptual vision than a fleshed out project, it provides a futuristic vision of a facility of pods where up to 30,000 infants a year can be born. The project notes that it is specifically designed to help stabilize countries with catastrophically low birth rates like Japan and Bulgaria. It’s possible this could be a future means of solving the feminism-induced baby crash since the buy-in from a woman is much lower than with surrogacy. Men would now have the freedom, like women, make a child from a donor’s egg, without the heartbreak of a surrogate mother giving birth to a child which she cannot keep.
We are, unfortunately, still a ways out on this technology. The first step is perfecting partial artificial gestation, of the kind sought by BioBag, and that will ultimately lead to full-term gestation outside the human body.
There are all kinds of moral questions that surround this technology, for instance, in the realm of DNA editing. Would tinkering with the blueprint of human babies to make them faster, stronger, and smarter make us little more than Frankensteins? Or could there even be a moral obligation to make sure that a child has the best chance at success in life and to remove hereditary illnesses like cancer, asthma and diabetes?
Since artificial womb technology seems to go hand in hand with hypothetical DNA editing let’s talk just a moment about the current state of the technology. A recent viral post purporting to be from Ashley St. Clair claimed that her child with Elon was conceived by IVF with gene editing and splicing from “other organisms” using CRISPR to achieve a “superior” genetic profile. Although the post was a hoax meant to subtly evoke body horror movies like David Cronenberg’s remake of “The Fly”, the technology is more or less real. Short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, CRISPR gene editing involves using RNA to cut genes out of a DNA sequence, or even add them in.
The technology is mostly illegal for use on human subjects. However there have been notable violations of the taboo. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui edited the DNA of unborn twin girls to cut out an instance believed to inhibit resistance to HIV. Although the girls were born unharmed with adaptations to the gene sequence, Dr. Jiankui was jailed by the Chinese government and definitive test have not been performed to determine the efficacy of the procedure.
If the practice becomes legal one day, we can expect everything we know about human identity to change. Parents could hypothetically adapt the race, gender, IQ, height, strength and creative abilities of their offspring. As dangerous as this technology could be if not implemented with proper ethical considerations, it could revolutionize the re-population of our race and evolve human beings for the unique challenges of the future, like surviving in the inhospitable environs of outer space. For these reasons, it behooves nationalists concerned with the eugenic quality of our genetic heritage to keep an open mind on technological innovations in human conception.
Jason Kessler is the author of Charlottesville and the Death of Free Speech, available now from Dissident Press. Follow him on Telegram, Twitter,Youtube, Odysee, and Gab. Also follow Dissident Press on Twitter/X.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
23 comments
While I appreciate thinking outside of the box given the dire situation we are in demographically, this could make things even worse. In JF’s book The Revolutionary Phenotype he details exactly why we should not allow genetic editing in humans. It will always start with something benign such as HIV resistance, and turns into machines deciding which traits they wish to encourage or otherwise in the next generation of humans.
Indeed, settling the west quickly by bringing in hordes of immigrants is partly how we got into this situation in the first place. Heritage Americans could have “closed the frontier” over a much longer time span, filling it with their offspring. But somehow they needed more and they needed it faster, and so bringing in immigrants to populate the interior set the tone for how Americans solve their problems: print more money and import more people.
Maybe the artificial wombs will help restore balance between the sexes and/or increase the total number of white babies per year. I’m willing to listen. But gene editing should be denied on its face.
I haven’t read JF’s book and probably won’t but I’m not sure that it logically follows that machines will control the direction of genetic editing. Not sure how it “always” turns out that way when this is a prospective future technology without much applied history beyond Dr. Jiankui.
I understand JF has a background in science, but like his friend Richard Spencer, I think he likes to project that he’s deeper than he really is. If he had the scientific chops he’d be conducting research rather than sucking up to online e-celebs.
In other words the gene editing starts with low hanging fruit everyone can agree to. Sure, we don’t want our children to get HIV. Maybe later this includes certain cancers. Then it broadens into cosmetic changes. Let’s give them a stronger jaw, or red hair. Then likely AI gets paired up with artificial wombs and hey the algorithm it uses to produce superior children is great so why tweak it? It is the idea that human (and then machine/AI) choices can better dictate the course of natural selection than nature. It is arrogant, there is no reason to believe it is true and every reason to believe it is dangerous. Deciding on which person you reproduce with IS the choice, but you don’t get to choose how the chromosomes pair off and all the granular details of what takes place in the womb. This is good that we don’t control everything, because we don’t understand everything. Selecting for certain traits we desires can have catastrophic results that are entirely unpredictable because of the way genes interact and express themselves.
We can’t even solve for immigration, which involves very little engineering and really just simple policy backed up by force. You think we can successfully launch large generations of white babies with genetic engineering and robots without screwing ourselves in the process? Not gonna happen.
“Playing God” in medicine goes all the way back to splinting the first broken bone. Nevertheless, “doing no harm” demands conservatism in approaches, and there is very much that we simply do not know.
🙂
EDIT – P.S.
What do you think agriculture does if not “select genes” so that grass hybrids, for example, bear seeds useful to humans for grain?
The differences are quantum leaps in technology, and of course it is profound. I don’t disagree that extreme caution is warranted with any technology, genetic or otherwise.
Agriculture is about ten thousand years old. That is technology. However, because it might be more bucolic than a diesel farm tractor or a GMO, we just don’t necessarily see how it “plays God” with “Nature.”
Something like treating diabetes is just medicine too ─ and yet in doing so we end up reinforcing this undesirable trait in the gene pool. In cave man times where the next meal was doubtful, perhaps a tendency to rapidly put on fat was not an undesirable trait to have.
Now people seriously claim that the White Man tried to genocide the (feather) Indians by giving them milk and white flour to make their fry bread so that they would not go hungry, and not forceably preventing them from drinking Old World firewater somehow.
Of course, nobody wants to go back to feast-and-famine cycles like the Pre-Columbian “Natives,” whose descendants are today prone to type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and often can’t digest lactose. Lots of archaeological proof of pre-Columbian cannibalism in the graves of those Noble Savages too. They were probably hungry most of the time.
Anthropologist (((Jared Diamond))) thinks that the agricultural revolution was bad because man was “egalitarian” and “communal” before then. I don’t see how he can seriously make that argument.
Again, I don’t disagree that extreme caution is warranted with any disruptive technology.
Splinting a broken bone is not playing God, it is medicine. Playing God is saying we know we can improve humans by controlling their genes, and we can simultaneously predict and head off any negative effects. This is the only way to screw ourselves even more thoroughly than thru mass immigration. Splinting a broken bone doesn’t change the gametes. The difference between the two is fundamental and profound.
Natural selection happens when new traits emerge randomly through mutation and novel genetic combinations and are subjected to conditions that may prevent their bearers from passing them on. There’s no reason to think it is wise or optimal. Beyond that, technology has pretty much stopped natural selection. So why should we not create new forms of our own and subject them to artificial selection?
Natural selection is traditionalism writ large, so how can it be unwise? The only way to improve this would be if we knew exactly the downstream results of each genetic edit and edited accordingly. We neither understand this nor perhaps can understand the complexity of mutations interplaying with other mutations. One may confer a benefit in some regard but detract in another and it can appear to us as inexplicable. Your baby will not get HIV now, but perhaps (for instance) it gets jaundice. Or worse. The effect can be masked and/or express itself many years (or generations) later.
Technology augments natural selection, sure, but has not stopped it. Plus, what goes on in our balls and ovaries is generally shielded from most of the effects of technology.
This, specifically, is where I disagree: “Since artificial womb technology seems to go hand in hand with hypothetical DNA editing”. I don’t see a problem per se with artificial womb technology. I am also pro-eugenics, in the sense of building a civilization where quality people reproduce and are encouraged in this. But just as we draw the line at risking our people’s genetic future, and therefore are sensibly against mass immigration, we must draw the line against genetic fiddling. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should because we don’t know as much as we think.
What may appear to us as the solution for the white race may turn us either into a slave to the machine or a post-human creature that is neither white nor any other color we’ve seen.
How unwise to think that natural selection has stopped. This is why the survival of the White race shouldn’t be left in the hands of White nationalists. They don’t have the wisdom to bear the responsibility. That’s the level of unmitigated arrogance that has led to the current situation we find ourselves in. If technology is the only way for a wasted race to continue on (since sex seems to be a concept our race of idiots in incapable of comprehending) then Whites should die off with whatever dignity they can scrape together.
Natural selection, as Nature WISELY intended, takes a lot of time since circumstances can change dramatically and new mutations that pop up may seem to be good but then turn out to be bad and it’s best they get selected out.
Let’s look at the White race today. The selection process is for effeminacy, cowardice, obedience, docility, and, amongst men, a selection towards those who just talk, talk, talk and can’t actually achieve anything. Add to that a drop in IQ levels…yes, even amongst Whites, don’t try and shift that away. That didn’t happen overnight and the gilded cage called Western “civilization” keeps that kind of type progressing on.
Let’s also be VERY honest about you “intellectuals”. You think that your type should be the one that everything is selected for and, since in the realms of Nature most of you are genetic dead ends, this is a good way to keep your “type” going. When one looks at the quality and reverence given to “intellectuals” over the millennia and judges them against the wisdom of Nature…boy oh boy have we been sold a barrel of rotten apples.
You seem confused.
1. Natural selection has largely stopped because of medicine and technology. The selection you complain about is artificial/cultural, and the problem is that it is dysgenic. That’s why we need eugenics.
2. There is nothing “wise” about nature. There’s no evidence that natural selection optimizes or perfects anything. These are anthropocentric myths.
3. Anti-intellectualism isn’t going to defeat intellectualism. We aren’t going to out-dumb our enemies. We need to outsmart them.
Thanks for explaining that a bit further.
The part where artificial intelligence is introduced into the decision making process sounds speculative and not at all inevitable.
This is the kind of thing that parents are going to want to be choosing for themselves. Obviously parents are going to be very concerned that their kids are healthy, attractive and intelligent but they may have nuanced requests too, like aptitude in a creative or technical pursuit.
I don’t think turning it over to a computer will go off too hot with most parents.
It won’t start that way. Hopefully it won’t finish that way either, but that would be counting on people’s nature to change.
We want our women to be good, to be happy, and to be fertile. We want them to marry and remain married. We want our women to have children and grandchildren, and to have their grandchildren kiss them on the cheek when they get old and call them Grandma.
You can’t always get what you want.
That sounds nice. And to think some lucky guys have women like that!
Used to be a lot more though. They’re harder to come by these days.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the community notes says that the “I’m Ashley St. Clair and I had an IVF CRISPR baby with Elon Musk” post is fake. Look, I’m all for reading juicy righosphere gossip but I think we need to make sure x claim/bit of gossip is true. I mean, the link you posted didn’t even originate from her X feed. Please take this as constructive criticism and nothing personal. I hope to one day read your book to get your story on Charlottesville and being a victim of wanton Jewish pilpul and legal artifice.
Is she really Jewish? The fact that she is astroturfed like this suggests yes. It’s sad that so many “conservatives” flock to people like her instead of journals like this.
In any case the whole declining birth rates thing is pretty alarming. I think the Amish have it right; you get one year to go wild and then it’s back to the farm to help out with the farm work, get married, and start whelping children.
Yes, I saw that fact-check article too. I think it I a toss-up whether she had IVF as St. Clair is cagey about timely details.
Good article in IVF though. It has been around for a while.
“Although the post was a hoax meant to subtly evoke body horror movies like David Cronenberg’s remake of “The Fly”…”
Read the article again.
I don’t know about this one. On one hand, future IVF technology that selects which of the paired chromosomes from each parent goes into a child can eliminate hereditary diseases as well as purify lineages. On the other hand, the artificial wombs for mass production is too close to Brave New World and the writings of Shulamith Firestone. (In case you were wondering, yes she is.) So we should tread carefully.
What I’d like to see most of all is a nice White society where couples pair up early in young adulthood and have nice normal families.
It makes sense to heed the warnings of science fiction authors about emerging technologies. Their criticisms should give us pause and encourage proper safeguards.
But also remember that fiction is not documentary and novelists are not scientists. Moving slowly and carefully is the key.
In Shulamith Firestone’s case, it was an actual proposal from her Freudo-Marxist magnum opus The Dialectic of Sex. Spoiler: she had a HUGE hang-up about nookie, and paranoid schizophrenia certainly didn’t help.
Anyway, I’m for the cautious approach, at least as of the moment. Perhaps the best way is to get young women to listen to their grandmothers telling them that Tinder and Onlyfans aren’t an optimal life strategy.
The image I always have is the grandmother reading to the girl in Edward Scissorhands as a life well lived as intended, not a Kathy Baker horny slag. Roger Devlin has good writing on this.
“It provides a futuristic vision of a facility of pods where up to 30,000 infants a year can be born… designed to help stabilize countries with catastrophically low birth rates like Japan.”
That’s a lot of work to avoid simply restoring health by reversing the poisonous social policies that cause the decline in fertility.
“This means he must be in the habit of asking random women to have his children.” If you are the richest man in the world, women ask you. Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk is highly recommended if you are interested in learning more.
Great article, I believe with advances in AI this will become possible. It is a Brave New World out there. IVF has already enabled otherwise infertile couples have families. IVF embryo selection is already having an eugenic impact.
Startups are already forming to help enable “superbabies”
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DfrSZaf3JC8vJdbZL/how-to-make-superbabies
There’s nothing no matter how innocuous I’d trust the current ruling scum to ever do well out of anything less than pure malice so these technologies should only be allowed in the best of our hands. Bodily improvements like porcelain veneers or rhinoplasty to straighten a crinkled beak are one thing but we should caution all about approaching radical decisions of major cosmetic fleshwerking and genetic editing by the ignorant on whims as if they’re no different than customizing a video game character. The transtrender craze is the new tattoos and the former’s regrets are as common as the latter today. We don’t need to be zerzan-rewilded luddites content to live in a communal Shire but I believe enough of a White society, after we emerge victorious from the dark rift, must collectively prove itself to be wisely efficient enough to advance or ‘graduate’ to level 2. A technocracy’s efficacy should require that enough a population segment grasp its potential and liabilities. I’m skeptical of biobags, driver’s licenses, or a public voice being available to people with the iq of a fly. An infantile population in arrested development should not have access to body augmentation any more than a struggling 3rd grader be admitted to Caltech. Or sheboons as pilots. If such developments are inevitable then exceptional Euromerit should be the prime determinant of who has earned the right to open the chest of wonders crossing frontiers into a new world.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.