Roe vs. Wade, Tokenized Procreation, Chattel Slavery & the “Emancipation” Doublespeak
Sebs Solomon — May 13, 2022
I was asked an interesting question on twitter recently and it ignited a topic of conversation that I had never explored from such an angle. A lovely gentleman named James asked:
If the Roe vs. Wade argument is setting the stage for synthetic humans and will that spark the conversation around life vs non-life?
At first, I did not understand the importance of what James was saying because, to be honest, my eyes kind of glaze over whenever I hear “Roe vs. Wade” — I always felt that the abortion debate was purposely engineered to be divisive in order to evoke reactionary responses from the pro-life and pro-choice factions of the issue. Both groups probably have good intentions: the pro-life people view life as sacred and want to preserve it; while the pro-choice people want individuals to be able to make choices for their own bodies. Of course, there is more nuance than that and there is the question of Planned Parenthood’s origins and the role Margaret Sanger plays in the eugenics inspired ideology that provoked the spread of these clinics in, predominantly, black and low-income neighborhoods.
Like I said, when I hear Roe vs. Wade, I instantly get tense and prepare for some sort of “abortion” debate — which is why I am happy that my friend, Aly Alexandra, brought this topic up to me again in relation to what James was saying on twitter because, had she not, I wouldn’t have thought about the topic much further and, in turn, would have deprived myself of the knowledge and understanding I gained from engaging in the subject. So, thank you James and Aly because you were both onto something that I totally missed. Side note: Aly did a video on our Doom&Gloom channel regarding Roe vs. Wade, the right to procreate, redefining viability standards, and artificial wombs (growing boutique babies in bio-bags) — worth checking out.
Now let me get into how the conversation transpired and what I learned. First and foremost, I agree with Aly that the Roe vs. Wade conversation is a “distraction” in the way that the acceptable arguments surrounding it are controlled and the paradigms are manufactured; however, within the distraction there are some key aspects that get missed when most people are focused on the surface level spectacle of it all — Aly’s observation was accurate. Second, James and Aly were (again) correct in pointing out that the abortion debate might just be a cover for an underlying or hidden agenda: will the future be more about who does or does not have the right to have a kid at all?
Will we eventually need to obtain credentials or a license and apply to some agency and put in a “request” in order to do something that is as natural as breathing: creating life.
That’s when blockchain and smart contracts came to my mind: will there be some sort of smart contract that grants a person the permission to have a kid based on the behavioral analytics recorded and tracked on a decentralized ledger system or blockchain? What if you eventually need a specific “token” in order to be permitted to have a baby — a tokenized procreation system where past behaviors and decisions dictate the “right” to bring a child into the world. Does that not sound like a repackaged form of eugenics? Who is going to decide on the metrics that a person will be required to meet in order to have a child? This is all hypothetical, obviously, and I have enough faith in humanity that I think this would be rejected on a mass scale. However, I don’t think this type of structure would be scaled, globally, all at once — it would be done incrementally and covertly (which is the sinister part). For example, Alison McDowell told Aly and I about a company called EggsChain (Stephers, who blogs at Piece of Mindful, shared this with Alison).
The EggsChain website describes the company as a thought leader and an authority/pioneer in blockchain-based digital chain of custody tracking of blood, genome, tissues, organs, DNA, RNA, sperm, eggs, embryos, and more. In addition, they provide solutions to the IVF and Cryogenic Preservation labs and industries. Back in March 2022, EggsChain opened an auction for their first publicly available sperm account on blockchain. The mainstream news described it as a system that combines “blockchain and genetics to bring medical grade information and data to individuals undergoing IVF in a secure, transparent and universally trackable format.” The online auction was for a chance to bet on the first available spot for sperm storage on the blockchain. The bids were placed on an “exclusive” NFT by EggsChain and the winner got to secure that sperm account — sounds eerie and dystopian (in my opinion).
Also: Take a gander at this piece by Alison McDowell written in 2019—about legislation regarding surveillance for expectant families, Strive Network tracking human capital from cradle-to-career through pay-for-success programs, Omidyar Network (eBay) in early childhood education and health—pre-k digital identity via Amply, the Vatican’s connection to social impact investing, and much more—worth a read.
Home Visit Legislation: A Sales Pitch For Family Surveillance?
I've heard rumblings from folks in a number of states about pending legislation to establish home visit programs for…
Emancipation and Sovereignty: The True Meaning
During our exchange, James, astutely, mentioned how “emancipation” basically just meant “you’re on your own” without protection and rights from the state because you’re still not a person with inalienable rights — eventually making you a ward of the state or court (I am directly quoting James here because he is correct in what he is saying and I want to credit him). His explanation got me thinking about Margaret Kimberley’s book, Prejudential, where she reveals that Abraham Lincoln was negotiating a colonization scheme in Haiti, while he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It’s obvious that Lincoln’s main goal was to keep the Union together at all costs and the Civil War was never about slavery on moral or ethical grounds.
Emancipation is one of those doublespeak words like “sovereign” — it does not mean what most think it means. Sovereign is related to a French word, suzerain, which means “upper sovereign” — a relationship in which the dominant state controls the foreign policy of the weaker state, while allowing it to have internal autonomy; the dominant state is called the suzerain and the subordinate nation is called the tributary state. Thus, sovereignty implies that there will be a “higher or supreme” chief/ruler and a subvert — a group under the mercy of the suzerain (upper sovereign).
Circling back to what James said about emancipation leading to populations of people coming under the ward of the state or court, this is directly related to the social programs provided by the state to “reduce crime” — these are perfect investments for the ghouls pushing the social impact finance scheme. This is how it is framed: in order to to reduce crime, we must invest in underserved communities through social impact investing; which will require massive amounts of data aggregation because we want to keep track of what works. The goal of these types of programs it to steer people away from “bad” behavior in order to “reduce violent crime” — social engineering. I wrote about slavery, the Zong Massacre, and social impact investing, and human capital here.
Side note: if the violent crimes of governments and private militaries hired by them were counted in these types of studies, it would be clear that the people at the head of those institutions are the ones who need to be monitored (not the average person in the “projects”).
Chattel Slavery & Breeding Farms
Moreover, during our exchange, James also touched on the concept of “chattel slavery” and, instantly, I thought about the slave breeding farms in Maryland. They were established after the transatlantic slave trade was “disbanded” — of course, ending the transatlantic slave trade did not mean slavery ended (and it still hasn’t because debt slavery is still alive and well). One of the factors that “justified” breeding farms was the enactment of laws and policies that transformed the definition of slaves from “personhood” into “thinghood”. Part of the story left out about the American slave trade is that the slave system, “depended on human beings not just as labor but as reproducible raw material.” During the 1800’s, enslaved women were obligated to bear a “sufficient” number of children to replace the older workers. As William Spivey points out in an article I read several years ago, it was made to appear that:
America had little choice but to increase slave production to offset the altruistic end of the International Slave Trade which Congress banned in 1808…They didn’t end International Slave Trade to harm slavery, but to preserve it; domestic slavery, in particular. Congress wanted to decrease the external supply to keep prices up for the homebred slaves.
Furthermore, Spivey explains that black female slaves were the first to receive free health services because breeders had a financial interest in their fertility; thus, they monitored their “well-being” out of pure self-interest. Female slaves had “currency” because of the “workers” they were able to produce. Their wombs were their “value” because they birthed “productive” slaves for the owners. When a person’s value is measured by how productive they are or what they’ve contributed to the larger collective, it can lead to exceedingly dark realms — this type of thinking can be used to justify horrific actions taken against individuals in the name of productivity. Yes, I am talking about this in terms of slavery, but that ideology is still prevalent and relates to the present — slavery is just the most obvious and egregious example.
James was right to ask, “how does one determine who can have a baby and who can’t? Education (intelect) + Genetics? Would your social score be a score of your entire bloodline and your ancestors proclivity toward crime or non-productivity?”
Maybe we are being “alarmists” and worrying about things that will never happen — and people are more than welcome to dismiss it as that; but I think these are conversations worth having (even if they’re uncomfortable). Surely, these conversations are more interesting and fruitful than the substance-lacking, dumpster fire conversations surrounding the conventional “pro-life vs. pro-choice” debates.
Peace and blessings,