10 YUGE Elon Musk tweets from a wild presidential campaign weekend



When Elon Musk put his voice and considerable wealth behind President Donald J. Trump's campaign, it signaled a shift in the country. One of the country's most successful businessmen and entrepreneurs made his fortune by inventing what became Google Maps, making online payments, transforming electric vehicles, and single-handedly saving the American space program. So when he acquired Twitter, changed the name to X, and then signaled his support for Trump's campaign, it was a watershed moment in a political realignment that's shaking up everyone from old-school RNC power brokers to Silicon Valley tycoons and everyone in between. It's hard to understate the importance of his purchase of X. Without a platform where people and alternative media outlets could share information, it's unlikely that Trump would have any chance of getting in for a second term. His tweeting style can be equally hilarious and over the top. Here are the ten funniest tweets Elon sent over a wild political weekend.

Everyone in America would support never getting another political text for the rest of their lives.

— (@)

An underrated strategy Musk has employed is a robust get-out-the-vote campaign in swing states, including paying one lucky winner $1 million each day in the run-up to the election. It's resulted in a wave of new Republican voters.

— (@)

Over the weekend, the state of New York raided a man with a pet squirrel and killed the man's pets. It struck a nerve, showing how much the government has grown into being a nefarious force that meddles in the lives of everyday Americans. Elon jumped in to promise justice for Peanut the squirrel.

— (@)

The story of the murdered squirrel caught on like wildfire and resulted in memes calling for justice to be done.

— (@)

This tweet is a perfect example of the power of the X platform to cut through media lies. In the past, media could just lie that President Trump had called for violence against Liz Cheney, when he was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people like her who send our soldiers to die in pointless wars while she comfortably plots from D.C. Now, there's the opportunity to push narratives and voices like Tulsi Gabbard to counter this blatant lie.

— (@)

Never, under any circumstances, drink the Kool-Aid.

— (@)

Fair and balanced.

— (@)

At this point, Harris should have P. Diddy endorsing her from jail, considering she has everyone else on stage from his parties.

— (@)

Does anyone doubt this at this point?

— (@)

The last thing a government bureaucrat making six figures working from home 16 hours a week sees.

— (@)

Make sure to try to convince everyone you know to go out and vote.

Global elites fear America’s First Amendment — and here’s why



At a recent World Economic Forum summit, John Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate and Biden-Harris administration official, criticized the role of the First Amendment in limiting the government’s ability to censor social media. “You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc.,” Kerry complained. “But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.”

Kerry’s unguarded remarks might seem surprising, but they reflect a sentiment common among the managerial class that dominates much of the Western world. The unrestricted flow of information has become an existential threat for governments worldwide, which now rush to establish sovereignty in digital spaces to maintain control.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them.

The era of mass democracy coincided with the rise of mass media, and this alignment was no accident. As nations rapidly industrialized, vast countries with diverse regional cultures, like the United States, suddenly found ways to connect and unify. Innovations such as trains and telegraphs, followed by telephones, radio, interstate highways, and television, allowed information and people to travel vast distances quickly.

For the first time, governments could centralize economic coordination and effectively disseminate propaganda. Every state sought to capitalize on this. While the approach differed between the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the importance of centralization just as much as Hitler or Stalin did. The 20th century became a century of scale, where nations that lagged in the race for mass communication and control lost their sovereignty to those that succeeded.

In a system where popular sovereignty grants political legitimacy, a ruling class that aims to maintain power must control public opinion. Establishing compulsory public education with a unified curriculum is a good start, but gaining control over the limited number of television and radio stations effectively seals the deal. A consistent narrative across news and entertainment can steer public opinion in a desired direction. While this method doesn’t reach the level of top-down totalitarianism seen in the Soviet Union, it proves to be a more resilient form of control.

The growth in the number of media outlets did little to change this dynamic. The high cost of operation kept the ability to shape public opinion in the hands of a select group of wealthy oligarchs. The political orientation and selection criteria of journalism schools ensured that those who gathered, wrote, and distributed news held similar views. The public could choose from a variety of news sources and formats, but these options often led back to the same approved narrative.

In a media landscape that seemed to offer endless choices, people essentially received only one perspective. The ruling class maintained control by retaining authority over the flow of information.

The internet disrupted the traditional soft-power model. The digital world's decentralized nature made it difficult for any single oligarchic class to control information distribution. Initially, this posed no major issue because the internet was unfamiliar and complex, making it hard for the average person to access. While tech-savvy enthusiasts might have engaged with unapproved ideas on obscure message boards, most voters struggled just to access email through America Online.

But as digital natives matured and became adept with technology, social media emerged as a platform where anyone could go viral. This shift unleashed uncontrolled narratives into the political landscape, disrupting established powers.

The United States government quickly recognized the internet's disruptive potential. Thanks to its technological advancements and sophisticated intelligence operations, the United States was among the first to use the internet and social media to incite revolutions against rival regimes. Media shapes the behavior of the masses, and any government that relies on public opinion must control the information people consume.

Today, every modern government understands this reality. In the United States, however, the enduring protections around free speech make it especially challenging for the ruling elite to maintain that control.

Governments worldwide are racing against the forces of decentralization, aiming to establish digital sovereignty. Like the Roman roads, which sped up travel within the ancient empire but also facilitated barbarian invasions, the digital age presents both opportunities and threats. Modern governments face this challenge, but those not dependent on public approval have an edge. For example, China can more easily assert control over its digital landscape, often channeling all economic activity and communication through a single, state-mandated platform.

Western democracies, however, must tread more carefully when imposing controls. Yet, as we’ve seen in the United Kingdom, democratic governments can still wield significant power. After riots erupted following a mass stabbing incident involving British children, Labor Prime Minister Keir Starmer swiftly enacted draconian censorship measures, even imprisoning citizens for retweeting anti-immigration posts. In the United States, leaders have tried to sidestep First Amendment protections by forming “public-private partnerships,” pressuring social media companies to carry out censorship on their behalf. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter disrupted this system, creating at least one platform where information flows with relative freedom.

It’s crucial to recognize that the regime’s influence extends beyond formal government entities. The American ruling class has leveraged state power, media, and the nonprofit sector to build an industry around combating “misinformation and disinformation.” This censorship apparatus pushes the boundaries of what a democratic government can achieve through soft power, yet it has not fully succeeded in silencing dissent.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them. Although Americans remain deeply divided on most issues, the right to free speech stands as one of the country’s few shared values. This right faces increasing threats, with the state conditioning many citizens to view the First Amendment as “flexible.” Yet, the belief in free speech remains a powerful barrier to government overreach. Figures like John Kerry see the First Amendment as a significant obstacle to their globalist ambitions for control, making it a right that is undeniably worth defending.

Legal Group Sues State Department, Seeks Records On Biden-Harris Admin’s Alleged Censorship

'We are committed to getting to the bottom of this'

Country Bans Twitter

The shut down follows Musk closing the company's offices in Brazil

Will we become slaves to the AI manipulation?



Elon Musk is one of the most polarizing figures on the planet — a part-time tech genius and full-time provocateur who never fails to get under the left's skin. His latest venture, xAI, has just unveiled a new image generation tool that is, as expected, stirring up inordinate amounts of controversy. This feature, designed to create a wide range of visuals, is accused of flooding the internet with deep fakes and other dubious imagery.

Among the content being shared are images of Donald Trump and a pregnant Kamala Harris as a couple and depictions of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama with illegal substances. While these images have triggered the snowflake-like sensitivities of some on the left, those on the right might have more reason to be concerned about where this technology is headed. Let me explain.

This trend, coupled with the biases in training data, suggests that LLMs could continue to mirror and amplify left-leaning viewpoints.

To fully understand Grok's impact, it is crucial to see it within the broader AI landscape. Grok is a large language model, which places it among many others. The broader context reveals an important reality. The vast majority of LLMs tend to exhibit significant left-leaning biases.

LLMs are trained on vast amounts of internet data, which often skews toward progressive viewpoints. As a result, the outputs they generate can reflect these biases, influencing everything from political discourse to social media content.

A recent study by David Rozado, an AI researcher affiliated with Otago Polytechnic and Heterodox Academy, sheds light on a troubling trend in LLMs. Rozado analyzed 24 leading LLMs, including OpenAI’s GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Google’s Gemini, and Anthropic’s Claude, using 11 different political orientation evaluations. His findings reveal a consistent left-leaning bias across these models, with the “homogeneity of test results across LLMs developed by a wide variety of organizations is noteworthy” being particularly striking.

This situation becomes even more significant when considering the rapid evolution of search engines. As LLMs begin to replace traditional search engines, they are not just shifting our access to information; they are transforming it. Unlike search engines, which serve as vast digital libraries, LLMs are becoming personalized advisors, subtly curating the information we consume. This transition could make conventional search engines seem obsolete in comparison.

As Rozado points out, “The emergence of large language models (LLMs) as primary information providers marks a significant transformation in how individuals access and engage with information.” He adds, “Traditionally, people have relied on search engines or platforms like Wikipedia for quick and reliable access to a mix of factual and biased information. However, as LLMs become more advanced and accessible, they are starting to partially displace these conventional sources.”

Rozado further emphasizes, “This shift in the sourcing of information has profound societal implications, as LLMs can shape public opinion, influence voting behaviors, and impact the overall discourse in society. Therefore, it is crucial to critically examine and address the potential political biases embedded in LLMs to ensure a balanced, fair, and accurate representation of information in their responses to user queries.”

The study underscores the need to scrutinize the nature of bias in LLMs. Despite its obvious biases, traditional media allows for some degree of open debate and critique. In contrast, LLMs function in a far more opaque manner. They operate as black boxes, obscuring their internal processes and decision-making mechanisms. While traditional media can face challenges from a variety of angles, LLM content is more likely to escape such scrutiny.

Moreover, they don’t just retrieve information from the internet; they generate it based on the data they’ve been trained on, which inevitably reflects the biases present in that data. This can create an appearance of neutrality, hiding deeper biases that are more challenging to identify. For instance, if a specific LLM has a left-leaning bias, it might subtly favor certain viewpoints or sources over others when addressing sensitive topics like gender dysphoria or abortion. This can shape users' understanding of these issues not through explicit censorship but by subtly guiding content through algorithm-driven selection. Over time, this promotes a narrow range of perspectives while marginalizing others, effectively shifting the Overton window and narrowing the scope of acceptable discourse. Yes, things are bad now, but it’s difficult not to see them getting many times worse, especially if Kamala Harris, a darling of Silicon Valley, becomes president.

The potential implications of "LLM capture" are, for lack of a better word, severe. Given that many LLM developers come from predominantly left-leaning academic backgrounds, the biases from these environments may increasingly permeate the models themselves. This trend, coupled with the biases in training data, suggests that LLMs could continue to mirror and amplify left-leaning viewpoints.

Addressing these issues will require a concerted effort from respectable lawmakers (yes, a few of them still exist). Key to this will be improving transparency around the training processes of LLMs and understanding the nature of their biases. Jim Jordan and his colleagues recently had success dismantling GARM. Now, it’s time for them to turn their attention to a new, arguably far graver, threat.

‘People Like Listening To Bromance’: CNN Reporter Dubs Trump-Musk X Event A ‘Success’

'You had over 50 million people who viewed it'

Elon Musk’s WARNING for America: ‘Tragic situation’ if things don’t change



Elon Musk may be a tech billionaire who’s trying to colonize Mars, but his political views are reminiscent of the common, hardworking American on Earth.

He made that clear in a recent podcast interview with Lex Fridman, where Fridman asked Musk what the philosophy behind his endorsement of former president Donald Trump is.

“People tend to take an endorsement as ‘Well, I agree with everything that person has ever done in their entire life, 100% wholeheartedly,’” Musk began. “That's not going to be true of anyone.”

It’s not the only reason Musk has endorsed Trump, but he was thoroughly impressed by Trump’s immediate reaction to the attempt on his life.

“Trump displayed courage under fire,” Musk told Fridman. “He’s just got shot, he’s got blood streaming down his face, and he’s fist-pumping, saying ‘Fight.’ You know, that’s impressive. You can’t feign bravery in a situation like that. Most people would have been ducking.”

Musk has noticed that while Trump is “strong and courageous,” Biden “has trouble climbing a flight of stairs.”

“I mean, who do you want dealing with some of the toughest people, you know, other world leaders who are pretty tough themselves?” he explained.

The billionaire is also in support of Trump’s policies, telling Fridman that “we want a secure border,” “safe and clean cities,” and to “at least slow down the spending.”

“We’re currently spending at a rate that is bankrupting the country. The interest payments on U.S. debt this year exceeded the entire Defense Department spending. If this continues, all of the federal government taxes will simply be paying the interest, and then you keep going down that road and you end up in the tragic situation that Argentina had back in the day,” he explained.

“I think we should not take American prosperity for granted,” he continued. “We’ve got to reduce the size of government, we’ve got to reduce the spending, and we’ve got to live within our means.”

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” is aligned with Musk’s sentiment.

“Elon Musk is still fighting the good fight, as usual,” Rubin comments.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

WATCH: Elon Musk explains why journalists hate the X platform now



Elon Musk has become an enemy of the left for rejecting the government’s censorship agenda by prioritizing free speech on the X platform.

Now, Musk has made even more enemies for his “democratization” of X.

In an interview with Linda Yaccarino, Musk explained to the X CEO why journalists specifically are furious about his reformed blue check-mark policy.

Watch Host's Face as Elon Musk Exposes This Group's Real Motivationsyoutu.be

Under the former Twitter regime, a blue check mark signified the user’s authenticity and notability — a false honorary badge reserved for “verified identities.” Now, under Musk’s ownership, a blue check mark simply means “the account has an active subscription to X Premium and meets [X’s] eligibility requirements.”

“It’s the same for everyone,” Musk told Yaccarino, but “the thing that a lot of traditional journalists don't like is they don't like being put on the same platform as the average citizen. They don't like their voice being the same.”

“Yes, there are several news organizations who don't like your push for democratization and what they believe is the devaluing of the badges [check marks] because they were differentiated,” Yaccarino confirmed.

“I think it’s very important to elevate citizen journalism. I think it’s very important to hear the voice of the people — the actual voice of the people, not the filtered voice of the people. Let the people choose the narrative, and let the people determine the truth and not five editor in chiefs of major publications,” Musk responded.

Dave Rubin calls Musk’s democratization of X “[shifting] where the megaphone is.”

He explains that in an ideal world, we could rely on “a group of journalists” who could “make sense of the world,” allowing the average citizen to “vote appropriately” and “have a sense of what is happening in the world.”

But true journalism seems to be a thing of the past. We can’t trust journalists to report the facts anymore.

“Unfortunately, the journalist layer — the media layer — they do not deserve [our] trust anymore,” says Dave. That’s why Musk “democratized” the X platform.

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Proving you're human online doesn't require a credit card



Elon Musk went viral last year with tweets suggesting that the future of social media is to pay for it, because otherwise, it’ll all just be bots. This problem of how to prove you're human and not a bot is only getting worse.

— (@)


— (@)

Musk is right: The bots are coming, and we do have to do something. But we have two more options besides the one he offers. Here’s the expanded list of our choices for proving our humanity in the age of ubiquitous AI:

  1. Pay-to-play (i.e., the Musk option)
  2. Web3’s large selection of existing proof-of-human offerings
  3. Government-issued digital ID

I’m guessing we’ll end up with some combination of the above, but insofar as number 3 will be the most attractive option for many people, it’s yet another way in which AI is an inherently centralizing force. But as a decentralization maxi, the likelihood that we’ll end up where the government can digitally unperson me with a mouse click is concerning. If this worries you as well, then read on.

In this piece, I’ll give a very brief introduction to option number 2 — web3 proof-of-human services — for the non-crypto-pilled. Yes, I know, I know — nobody wants to read another piece about how “web3 fixes this.” But don’t close that tab!

Even if you hate crypto, it’s still worth acquainting yourself with just how much effort and money has gone into solving the precise problem Musk is worried about. Here are two relevant facts for the crypto-haters to consider before they bounce:

  1. Digital identity is a critical, well-established front in the “centralization vs. decentralization” war. So, if you care about this fight, then this issue matters.
  2. Recent advances in AI have fundamentally changed the digital ID terrain so that web 2.0 now has a problem that had previously been confined to web3 — i.e., how to do proof-of-human in a network where human nodes can be credibly impersonated at scale and at low marginal cost.

Proof-of-human is an early, fundamental web3 problem

One of the core distinctions crypto has vs. the traditional web is ubiquitous pseudonymity. Crypto types are super into the whole pseudonymous online persona thing.

Now, you may not care about pseudonymity, or you think it’s only for money launderers, dope peddlers, bootleggers, and prank callers. I get it, Boomer. But just bear with me for a moment because I promise I’m not trying to pseud-pill you — I’m just trying to help you understand why proof-of-human is such a longstanding web3 concern.

The de facto standard for identity on the current web (web2) is the email address plus password combination. To sign up for a new service, you usually supply these two items, and then you get a confirmation link in your email that you have to click to prove you’re the rightful owner of that email address.

The standard for identity on web3, in contrast, is the crypto address. This is a public address on a public blockchain — often Ethereum — that you have a private key for and can, therefore, prove ownership of.

Web3 identities, then, have the following qualities:

  • Trivial and cost-free for a single person to create and use in bulk
  • Impossible to link to a single person, company, or other entity
  • Used for accounts on internet services that are web3-based
  • Used for moving valuable assets around

You might say that in web3, every phone is a burner phone — there is no other kind. This is because it’s really easy to create new crypto addresses and use them as identities. You can do this locally by just creating a new public/private key pair in the correct format, and if you want to send some asset to that address (coins, NFTs), you can do that by interacting with the blockchain.

Obviously, this is a pretty treacherous combination of qualities that’s quite easy to abuse, even without any sort of advanced AI. If logging in to a web3-based service only requires a locally generated key pair, then a single, not very sophisticated person could spin up millions of these public/private key pairs on a laptop and use them to SPAM thousands of web3 applications with fake interactions using a few simple scripts. For instance, you could use this to manipulate DAO votes or abuse token-gated applications.

The point: At the very beginning of web3’s existence, the frictionless ease of essentially disposable bulk identity creation has meant that web3 services have had the very proof-of-human problems that are only now truly catching up to web2 in the AI era.

The web3 solutions

If you google “web3 proof of humanity,” you’ll get a ton of results. Everyone has ideas about how to do this, and many of the ideas are very good and practical.

In addition, there are some web3 projects I’ve seen that have their own built-in solution for this that you use to access the service or community, and there are other web3 efforts where proof-of-human sort of happens as a side effect (POAP is a good example of the latter, and I think STEPN may be another in that proof-of-workout equals proof-of-humanity).

If anything, web3’s problem is that there are too many solutions for the PoH problem, and no one has settled on a standard. You’ll notice in the above list that there’s basically a marketplace for proof-of-human services that many web3 hustlers are hoping to dominate with their own solution.

Here’s a very brief list of some approaches:

  • Scan your eyeball data into a creepy orb (i.e., WorldCoin).
  • Multiple humans meet in person and give each other NFTs that essentially say, “I did an IRL thing with the person who controls this wallet.”
  • Users upload videos of themselves answering questions or doing some required task.
  • Users take cognitive tests that are still too hard for AIs.
  • Users either vouch for or challenge each others’ humanity.
  • The platform analyzes your social graph on some network and uses that as proof.
  • The platform looks at your wallet for NFT credentials that it recognizes as normally only given out to real humans for doing a thing in the real world — e.g., an on-chain certificate granted by an institution or program, or an earned community participation token or status badge from an established web3 community.

None of these are scam-proof by themselves, so most PoH offerings will combine multiple approaches to give you some kind of score. But just to be clear on what this list is: These aren’t random ideas or shower thoughts that I or someone else thought might be kinda cool if only someone were to build it — no, there are (or, in some cases, have been) actual shipping products built around these ideas and more, some of them with thousands of users. This stuff literally exists courtesy of the now-busted (but steadily reflating) crypto bubble, and actual communities are testing it.

Again, the problem is the sheer variety of such PoH efforts and the lack of a clear standard or authority. If there were a kind of “LinkedIn” but for PoH (maybe LinkedIn itself could do this), where if you worked at a job with colleagues, you got an on-chain badge that says, “Jon Stokes definitely worked here doing this thing,” that would probably dominate. But there is no such Schelling point — yet.

We’ll probably go with option 3

I can already hear many of you asking, “Couldn’t we do all the ‘web3’ stuff you’re describing with a government-issued digital identity?” (I.e., option number 3 on the list in the first section of this piece.)

The answer is, “Yes, obviously.” And there are a number of country-level efforts to do exactly this, some of which involve the blockchain and some of which do not.

As I said in the intro, the people who want the government to handle this for them will probably get their way, eventually. But it should be clear that it doesn’t have to be this way.

We have a multitude of options for proof-of-human that don’t involve paying centralized service providers, whether private-sector platforms like X via subscription fees or governments via taxes. We should use them if we value our privacy and freedom.

And if we do decide on pay-to-play, there are privacy-preserving options like Bitcoin (either L1 or lightning network) that could be used by social media to filter for bots without wrecking pseudonymity.