Saturday May 07, 2022

Hero or Villain: Elon Musk | Twitter Freakout Meeting Leaked | Bloodthirsty Hollywood

In this week's episode, we discuss Elon Musk buying Twitter and the potential implications of the recent transaction. We also discuss whether Elon Musk is attempting to save the freedom of speech, or if he is actually just attempting to purchase mass amounts of human data for his plan to implant your brain. Megan Fox comes out and tells us that she and Machine Gun Kelly drink each other's blood, and the VA decides it is more important to send our doctors to take care of illegal immigrants than our own veterans. All of that and more on this week's episode!

The Patreon begins at only $5 and includes weekly bonus topics, full video episodes, and more!

Sign up now at:

For all the articles, videos, and documents discussed on this week's podcast join our substack! 

Podcast Companion Substack:

Please consider leaving a donation for all of the hard work that goes into this ad-free podcast. I love doing what I do and can only continue through your generosity and support! 



Full Transcription:

Welcome to Red Pill Revolution. My name is Austin Adams. Red pill revolution started out with me realizing everything that I knew, everything that I believed, everything I interpret about my life is through the lens of the information I was spoonfed as a child, religion, politics, history, conspiracies, Hollywood medicine, money, food, all of it, everything we know was tactfully written to influence your decisions and your view on reality by those in power.

Now I'm on a mission to retrain and reeducate myself to find the true reality of what is behind that curtain. And I'm taking your ass with me. Welcome to the rebel.

Hello, and welcome to red pill revolution. My name is Austin Adams. Thank you so much for listening today. I'm very glad you are here. This is episode number 26 of the red pill revolution podcast, and we have had some really interesting things go on in the last week. So we're just going to jump right into it.

I really don't know what else to do here, but just really just jump into these really interesting topics. So the things that we're going to discuss today are as follows. We're going to go into a conversation about the blood the blood lost of Megan Fox and machine gun Kelly. If you haven't seen that clip yet, it's very ominous, very creepy of Megan Fox discussing the way that her and machine gun Kelly S basically drink each other's blood.

Oh no, that's a conspiracy. We don't talk about those things. They're not real. You can't say that, but I can because she did. So we're going to talk about that. The next thing we're going to discuss is going to beam the veteran's administration sending medical staff from the VA down to the Southern border.

Now that the Act has been, or is being repealed. And we're going to have this flood of migrants coming into our country. They're now sending the help that is normally for our soldiers down to the border. So we're going to discuss that. We're also going to discuss the sheer hypocrisy that has been involved in the Twitter takeover of sir Elon Musk.

I think that's his new name, sir? Elon Musk. So we're going to talk about that in the last podcast last week that we discussed, we didn't know yet that this had happened. It had not happened yet. So Elon Musk, if you did not know, has taken over Twitter, he is now the largest shareholder and will effectively be running the company, which is incredible from a freedom of speech standpoint, but also quite weird from the standpoint of somebody who questions, everything and has a few questions about Elon Musk.

At this point. Now I've been in the Elon Musk fan. Until this point. And I had some of you guys, some of the commenters raise some questions here regarding the trustworthiness of Elon Musk from last week's clip, where I talked about Elon Musk being the iron man of the real world or of this reality because somewhere in a different reality, there might actually be an Ironman, but of this world, it's about the closest thing we get is Elon Musk.

And I discussed that in a lot of people chimed in and said, maybe he's not the hero that I think he is. And in fact, even worse, maybe Elon Musk. Is the villain. So we're going to discuss that today and some of the comments from people, some of the conversations and some of the weirder things that have gone on in Elon Musk's history.

So we're going to discuss that. We're also going to look at the white house looking at repealing section two 30 in section two 30 is basically a way for them to now that they're so scared about Elon Musk, having Twitter for them to essentially bypass it and take it to the government level where they can control speech now from the backend.

Now that Elon Musk has come out and said that, he's going to follow the legality of it, not the whims of the extreme left. So we're going to discuss those things. We also have a few other topics we're going to discuss, including Google launching a new woke writing function, which is.

Inclusive language, basically, they're going to re they're going to put a notification in front of you if you're not using the right pronouns, you're in your middle school speech or your middle-school document that you're writing for school. They're now going to push their woke ideology through words, through, through a word document, literally your thoughts and they're trying to shape them.

So a lot of things on the horizon today, those are just some of them. And then the last one is going to be the DHS basically testifying that it's creating a disinformation governance board on the backs of the department of Homeland security, putting out a statement surrounding calling people terrorists, who disagree or so descent in the government.

They're now coming up with a disinformation governance board, specifically on the backs of Elon Musk, securing Twitter. Wow. That's going to be a lot. We'll see you. This might take all day, but we'll get it all in there. We'll discuss it all. And some of it, you might catch on the Patreon.

So the first thing I need you to do before we discuss some of these topics is go ahead and click that subscribe button. I know you want to it's right there. I know you might've heard this and you might already be subscribed. And if you are, I appreciate you more than you could ever know, but if you are listening to this and you're not subscribed, go ahead right now.

It's good for you. It's good for me. It's good for the universe. It's good for spreading the truth now that we actually have places to do go ahead and click that subscribe button, leave a five-star review. I know there's some of you who are subscribed and I appreciate it more than you.

But the next step that you can take for me, you're just leaving a five-star review and maybe write in a nice little comment in there about, whatever it is that you appreciate about this podcast. It would mean the world to me, and it would be a good karma for you and all it takes us two seconds, two seconds, a little tippity tap, go ahead and do it.

Next thing is the substack. Go ahead and subscribe. actually. And you'll get the podcast companion, which we're back on track with following this week. So excited to get that back that out. Get that back out to you guys. A red pill revolution dot  dot com and then the Patreon $5.

Get you. Bonus content gets you access to this court server gives you the entire video podcast and you can get that at pill revolt. That's all I got. Let's go head and jump into the very first clip that I have for you today, which is going to be around Megan Fox, basically just outwardly discussing.

I don't know if she got the memo that you're not supposed to do this, but Megan Fox came out and said that her machine gun. Drink each other's blood. Could you imagine a celebrity in Hollywood, nonetheless drinking the blood of another human individual for pleasure. Now we're not allowed to do that.

And if you do, you definitely can't talk about it. But here, Megan Fox is talking about the fact that her machine gun Kelly drink each other's blood, which is in the conspiracy world. Not something you're able to discuss on these mainstream media is, but apparently if you are Megan Fox, you can do so here it is Megan Fox discussing this it's a, just a few drops, but yes, we do consume each other's blood on occasion for ritual purposes. Only it is used for a reason. And it is controlled where it's let's shed a few drops of blood and each drink it he's much more haphazard and hectic and chaotic where he's willing to just cut his chest open with broken glass and be like, take my Sol.

It doesn't not happen. Let me tell you maybe not exactly like that, but it, a version of that has happened many times a version of that has happened many times as Sheila. The version of that, where he takes broken glass cuts, open his chest, and then like a demon. If you see that video and you saw the way that she just went about that, she looked like a demon.

He goes, let me drink VR. Like she was really weird there. So yeah, apparently that just happens very often. According to Megan Fox that she's drinking the blood of Megan, not Megan Kelly machine, gun Kelly, but apparently they're on the train here of Adam to the list of celebrities that we actually know 100% are drinking the blood of other humans.

And this time maybe we can even discuss this without getting, thrown into a shadowy box of the worst things you could possibly say, and then being shadow banned into oblivion. But if you do get you out of band, apparently just go to Twitter now and that's going to be the way to go. But at this point it's really interesting, right?

The adrenochrome conversation. I think that's one that is very. Been a hot topic in the depths of the conspiracy world for a while. And it really hasn't had too many mainstream conversations like this one that bring it up. Now it doesn't seem to me, is this seems more of a satanic ritualistic which not to say that the adrenochrome situation isn't involved in that, but th this seems like a weird I don't know, it's it doesn't seem like that to me, it doesn't seem like you're drinking the blood of your spouse.

For the adrenochrome, because then you would, the whole idea, if you haven't heard of the adrenochrome conspiracy, here's how it goes. The idea is basically that if you go back long enough in history, you'll see that there's a bunch of our ancestors. And especially the specifically ones in power who along the lines have had dropped seeds, basically that they drink the blood of individuals who are in extreme amounts of stress.

Because when your body's in an extreme amount of stress, it produces this chemical adrenaline and subsequently this also a chemical called adrenochrome, which flows through your bloodstream and then celebrities and the elite, and the famous people of the world. Basically drink that to get. And if you look back far enough, if you look back towards the Royal bloodline and if you're deep into the conspiracy world, you already know a little bit about that.

But the idea is that if you go back into the Royal bloodline, the blood bloodline of the British elite, they're the Royal family, and you look far back enough, you'll see that there's somebody called Vlad, the Impaler and Vlad. The Impaler is a unique individual and unique individual because he feasts off of the blood of his enemies and he doesn't just do it for the taste.

He does. He does it in a way that he puts them in the most extreme amounts of pain possible in, and he used to have people that would sit around a long there's actual paintings during the time where Vlad, the Impaler was sitting at a table around all of these dead bodies in consuming the blood of his enemies in front of his own, and his own, higher up military individuals and there's stories and poems about this that we know from back during that time. And so we know factually historically, there are people who have drank the blood of other individuals and put them into stressful situations to get high. And we know that has started through the Royal bloodline is where there's the more, most consistent historical accounts of this, obviously, because those are where the conversations stick around for awhile.

But we know that historically it's Vlad, the Impaler was a very famous individual, a part of the Royal bloodline who then passed his ways down is where the conspiracy goes that this came from even before him. But the Royal family ever since who is tied into this, we know this from prince Harry. Who are not prince Harry Prince Andrew, I'm sorry.

Who came out and said that he specifically was related to bled the Impaler once they did a DNA check. So we know historically and factually that there is parts of the Royal blood line, the Royal family that has historically and factually drank the blood of people and incited the most horrific events towards these people before they drink the blood specifically to get this adrenochrome okay.

So they're in, that's passed down through generations and turned into this whole, blackmail situation where people are doing it and they don't talk about it in Hollywood. And this is where the whole underground child trafficking. And this is a real thing. If you go on the dark web right now, you can search adrenochrome and you can find this product being sold online right now.

And the idea where children come into play with that as it's the most purest blood that you can get in this whole dark crazy. I'm sorry that we went there so early into this podcast, maybe I should have put Megan Fox a little bit lower on the agenda here. Cause we got deep really fast anyways.

So there is a little bit about the adrenochrome conspiracy now where this comes into play and where I think this is interesting is I don't think this is that this isn't them drinking, just the way that she talked about it didn't seem like that because if this was that they wouldn't be talking about it.

So frivolously, it would be a far darker, deeper conversation. And she definitely wouldn't be coming out and speaking about it in an interview. So this seems to be some weird, hype devil. Craziness now, obviously it's tied into that in some way, shape or form, but I don't think it has to do with adrenochrome but this one is a weird conversation to see somebody just outwardly, just like the way she just talked about it to me was.

I guess exactly how you would expect somebody to talk about it. If they're actually drinking their spouse's blood for fun or whatever for ritual. So anyways, let's move on to some lighter geopolitical topics, not even geopolitical but more state side on this one that the topic that we're going to be discussing next is the VA doctors are being sent down to the Southern border on the backs of the law being repealed.

That basically stopped a lot of the immigrants who were coming in from just flooding our gates. And now we know that they are literally flooding our gates. We've seen videos upon videos and on the border, hundreds of thousands of people have crossed the border. I don't know if that's a factual number, but it sounds good, but I'm pretty sure I'm fairly positive.

It's pretty close to that. And so what's happening here is the VA is sending doctors down to the border that would normally be responsible for our veterans that would normally be responsible for purple hearts with legs missing or people with PTSD or whatever. So many individuals who are military veterans who lack care.

And I know this because I am one of them. I have VA coverage and it is atrocious. It's atrocious when we're not sending a large amount of our doctors to the border to handle people who shouldn't even be coming over here, let alone getting free healthcare in lieu of the veterans who are needing it. So let's watch this video.

It discusses a little bit. There's a, I believe a Senator or a Congresswoman who speaks up on this and grows one of the individuals here. So let's watch that and see what they have to say about it. Yes or no answer is that the department of Homeland security planning to reallocate resources, doctors and nurses from our VA system intended to care for our veterans to help care for illegal immigrants at our Southern border Congresswoman let me be clear because an inter-agency effort is precisely what the challenge of migration requires, and it's not specific to 2022, nor 2021 north 2020, where the years proceeding.


But I'm just 

asking you a yes or no question. Are you planning on taking resources away from our veterans to help deal with the surge at our Southern border? That's a yes or no question actually, Congresswoman the resources that the medical personnel from the veterans administration would allocate to this.

Is under the judgment of the secretary of veterans affairs, who prioritizes the interest of veterans above all others for very noble, incorrect reasons. Do 

you know if 

you've, have you had any conversations about reallocating those resources? I have not personally, but of course our teams, our personnel have, and I'd be very pleased to to follow up with you.

Yeah. Our veterans need to know that the care that they've earned is going to be provided to them and not to those at our Southern border. The other thing, so that's what it is. Just what I already talked about with you. She's arguing with him saying the fact that you guys are going to send physicians who are specifically allocated by our tax dollars, by the money that we spend from our hardworking citizens to go help illegal immigrants crossing the border because you made shitty policy decision.

What how is that acceptable? How are we just gonna, like the fact that our politicians just do, they think things through, do they even realize how this looks like when you're taking doctors specifically who were supposed to be taking care of what, how many doctors are out there that you could have paid money to go do this, but you have them on a shitty salary.

That's why the VA care is so bad. The VA care is so bad because they pay the doctors who are just getting out of school. They pay their way through school, so that, and then they put them on a contract. So they have to come work for the VA after they get out of school. And they only get through school through the VA's money.

So they get all of the shittiest doctors who went to the shittiest schools. No offense. If you're a VA doctor, I think what you're doing is great that you're helping veterans. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of times the care is subpar and the care is subpar because the pay is sub-par and when you pay people less money, you generally get lower quality candidates.

And so they have these people on a really low salary, one that's already contractually obligated to be fulfilled on their end. And they're in there manipulating the asset here of the doctors to send them directly to the border, to bypass our veterans who are in need. How many veterans are going to have extremely long?

I remember when I was calling the VA to get a pretty serious. Look at, I had I don't even remember exactly what it was, but it was a heart like a SVT was what it's called. And then basically what it is like you're we were trying to figure out what it was and but it was like 36 weeks or 36 days out, two months out, whenever I called it was like the most ridiculous times.

And then they came up with this thing called the veteran's choice program, where if you were 30 days or more out from the time that you could get an appointment with the physician or a specialist that you were looking for, that they would allow you to schedule an appointment at a local doctor's office.

And as soon as I pulled that card with them, what's so funny is so I would call them up and say, Hey, I need an appointment to see a cardiologist. And they would say, okay, it's about a 42 days out. We'll go ahead and schedule the appointment with you right now. I said, okay, that's not going to work.

I need it to be sooner than that. And they would say I'm sorry, sir. We can't do any sooner than that. I would say. If it's 42 days, that's outside of the 30 days and I'd like to elect the veterans choice program and go see a local doctor and what they would do is they go, oh I just found on in 29 and a half days from now, just, I just found this random appointment sitting here on my calendar.

And you can get seen 29 and a half days from now. And so they would find a way to basically push people off as far as they could, until they elected the choice program. And then they were directed specifically to find an appointment for you within the 30 day timeframe so that you wouldn't be able to elect choice.

So all in that to say that what they're doing here is wrong because the waiting times are already crazy at the VA. They're already ridiculous, like 30, 40 days out. If you have something that you believe was a heart attack, that's very concerning and I'm a young, healthy individual, right? Nothing wrong with.

As far as I'm concerned than according to the VA, because they never saw anything or took care of it. So to me, it's if that's happening to me, how concerned would I be? If I was 72 years old, 78 years old with these issues from world war two, or, from Vietnam, would you be, wouldn't be 70 if you were in world war two.

But if you were in Vietnam and then you're a war veteran and you have all of these issues and now you get pushed out 15, 20, 30, more days because they're sending your doctor who you fought for their country for. They're sending your doctor now to the border to take care of people who don't even have United States citizenship let alone, who should be the most respected individuals in the United States is combat veterans, especially disabled combat veterans who have the scars of our nations war decisions on their backs.

And to take that in and give those allocated assets, those doctors help to somebody who is not even a part of our country. How does that make any sense? How does that make any sense? It's got to, it's so frustrating to me to know that the way that there it's literally just virtue signaling. And I don't even know if this is virtue signaling.

I don't know what to call this, but to me it just, it makes no sense. It's frustrating. From a veteran's perspective, it's frustrating from a United States citizen perspective to know that they're just, bypassing the people who deserve the care the most to give it to people who are not even a part of our country, it makes no sense at all.

So speaking about weird governmental hypocrisy, let's go ahead and watch this video. So if you didn't know, Ilan mosque bought Twitter. Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion. And now Twitter, the left, the mainstream media are all freaking the fuck out about it. They have no idea what to do. They're so scared of people being able to say things that they don't like, and they are freaking out about it to the point where they're so blinded by their hate, that they don't even see their own hypocrisy, which we'll see here, which is a news anchor from MSNBC discussing what he believes to be Elon Musk's the downfall of our society based on the information that Elon Musk, being able to censor people at his will like a dictator according to this man.

So let's see how ridiculous this is. Cause if you haven't seen this clip yet, it's. If you have to be so blinded to not really it almost seems like satire. It almost seems like a joke that this man can not even see himself in the mirror saying these things and realize how, just how ridiculous it really is.

So let's go ahead and we'll watch that. No, the point is people who work with this stuff, they understand how important this is. I'm not telling you, you need a Twitter account. I'm not telling you. You have to jump in the ocean to study whether the ocean levels are rising. I'm just telling you this thing matters a ton.

Do you? World's richest person who is very good at accumulating wealth and power thinks this is worth spending tens of billions of dollars on because frankly he thinks it's that valuable. And he thinks it may help him. Trump, by the way, today is claiming he won't even return to Twitter. If the ban were lifted, but few take what Donald Trump says seriously on that score.

So what is happening? This is far bigger than Trump or Elon Musk. They are symptoms of the world we're living in where technology has outpaced any of our ability to deal with it. That's true. Whether you're a parent trying to figure out what you can and can't let your kids do at various ages. It's true.

If you are a democracy like the United States that used to regulate media ownership and say, Rupert Murdoch can't have too many local TV stations and newspapers in one town. They have laws for that, that are still on the books, but the Congress hasn't gotten around to limiting whether someone can own all of Twitter.

And as we discussed in one of our special reports, just last week, if you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don't have to explain yourself. You don't even have to be transparent. You could secretly ban one party's candidate or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else.

And the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the election. Elon Musk says, this is all to help people because he is just a free speech. Philosophically clear open-minded helper, a world helper, if you will, is that true? Should you take him at his word? Should you care about this? Whether you have a Twitter account or not, this is important.

This is important stuff. This is important stuff to know if it's just so funny. Cause if you would've played that four months ago, three months, two weeks ago, it would have sounded like a Tucker Carlson bit. Like it would have, it would've sounded like a alt right media silence, talking, conspiracy, talking points like this man is a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist forever.

Even taking the idea that Elon Musk or the leader of Twitter or any social media company for that matter, whatever alter the outcome of an election. Oh, this man needs to be banned. This man needs to be silenced. He can't be allowed to go around saying these things. We should take away any platform that he has completely get him away from the ears of the peasants, who might be able to hear these small fringe minority of ideas.

You literally, you can't listen to that and just go this man here himself, does this guy really not see what he's doing? Like you literally just outlined every problem you outlined, the entire reason that he spent this money, you just really gave us the whole talking point of the right of the conservative of the free speech app.

Solutionists like Elon Musk refers to himself, which he was about to call them, but it sounded too positive. So he said philosophical, whatever. It's so funny to me that this man had zero, zero self-awareness to know that he was literally describing the entire reason that Musk bought Twitter to begin with.

You can turn the knob in silence. People who disagree with you, you can eliminate people of the entire party. Like the sitting fucking president of the United States that got his Twitter platform taken from him, the sitting president of the United States was eliminated from a social media platform.

And this dumb ass has the balls to sit in front of us and contemplate the potential idea that somebody else could do the same to him on his side. I don't have words for the stupidity of this, man. I can't even imagine it's sitting in a room with this guy. He's saying these things and now just like busting out laughing and just be like, do you fucking hear yourself, man?

Do you hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? Because you're literally describing every problem that everybody on the entire side of the political spectrum that you disagree with has outlined for years literally have been the victims of this have been silenced, literally sitting here in front of you right now.

I have no platform with 50,000 legitimate, organically built followers stripped away from me because I posted a Senate, hearing a Senate hearing that they didn't like that didn't follow their narrative about the Biolabs literally right here. And this man's gonna try and to have hypothetical's about the potential of his side to being affected by this.

Maybe you shouldn't have implemented this on your side to begin with. Maybe if you weren't stopping the sitting president from speaking out on the social media platform during his presidency all, while you let the leader of Al-Qaeda on there all, while you let the boogeyman Putin himself still have a Twitter today with the Kremlin, all the, while you eliminated our sitting president from having a voice, I'm one of the biggest social platforms in the world.

And now you're scared of the repercussions. That's what it is. You got your way for so long, all those right. Wingers, all those conspiracy theorists that you got silenced in the name of your truth. Nah. Wow. It's coming for you. Now you have to worry about being silenced and you're scared. You're scared because the monster that you built, that you built a, you built this entire platform on a tower of lies on, on on the silencing of any dissent on the banning of anybody who disagrees with you.

And you now are going to see the repercussions of that. And you're scared of it. That's what he's saying here. Cause he knows this is how it's been. He's done. He's sitting in front of us speaking on the TV. He can't be dumb. Yeah. He might be for sure, but he knows he's scared because. This is the problem.

When you silence speech, this is the problem, especially when you have a democracy, is that every four years, the democracy changes every four years. There's a new leader. Every four years, something is going to shift. And if you silence enough people on the other side of the pendulum always swings back and eventually it's going to come for you.

And he's scared. And they should be because there should be that thought in the back of his mind, all these extreme left wing ideologies, right? And there are literally very extreme left wing ideologies, far worse than the, what are the white right wing ideologies that are scary. What freedom of speech freedom to right to bear arms don't talk to my children.

Sex in kindergarten, maybe some things like that. Those are some really radical conservative ideas. They're scared and they don't know what to do. And so they're running around with their their, like a chicken with their heads cut off because it, because they have no idea the repercussions of what they have built, the silencing machine will come for you to eventually, because you always have to agree.

You always have to agree with whatever individual is at the helm, and you might not agree on everything. And the second you don't agree on one thing, the second you deviate from that line just a little bit. Now you're the one being silenced. Now you're the one losing your platform. So now we know the.

They're scared and they should be scared now that they have project Veritas nice and close up on that ass, finding out the truth. So we had a whistleblower from within Twitter, sending an audio file to project Veritas of their all hands on deck meeting, which was a meeting where the CEO and some board members and the CMO and a few other people that don't matter.

Not that any of those people matter anyways, basically getting together and all whining and bitching and moaning together about the fact that they have to deal with Elon Musk buying out their company. I really wish the second thing that went through that deal went through. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in Twitter.

It must've just been like how many green haired they Z


It just must've been like every liberal, libs of tick-tock video combined in a single room. And it just would have been the most brilliant comedy to be able to watch this meltdown play out. It's I hope we get more of these videos, but here is the all hands on deck meeting. And this is specifically the CMO, the chief marketing officer of Twitter speaking out on this topic specifically.

So I actually have the full transcript. I pulled the video, wrote up the transcript for it. I'm going to include that as a separate sub stack this week for you guys. So go ahead and sign up right now. Red pill revolution that You'll also get the sub stat companion, which will have all the articles, all the videos in that full transcript for you guys right down there.

It'll also include the audio podcast. It'll also include the video podcast so you can get it all right to your email. Every single. And not have to worry about going into apps and finding stuff and all that whole deal. You can just get it right to your email inbox. So pretty awesome. Go ahead and sign up right now.

Red pill revolution that sub for the podcast, companion, as well as the full transcript of this Twitter meltdown meeting, which I seem to enjoy reading a little bit more than I do listening to these things because the audio is not great as you'll see here. But I hope you can, it's not terrible, but you can still make everything out.

But I think the transcript, you can just get through it a lot faster and it's a 45 minute meeting of them bitching and moaning. So maybe you don't want to hear that, but you can skim it and get the gist probably a little bit easier. So let's go ahead and start this video. And how did the board and Mr.

Musk plan on dealing with a mass Exodus considering the acquisition is by a person with questionable. The question of attrition as product stated, one of the themes of today is continuity and ensuring that Prague and this leadership team continues to operate the business successfully on behalf of our users on behalf of our customers.

And that has obviously been a big topic of discussion at the board. And as I mentioned in an area that is important to Elon Musk as well, because the important of Twitter as a service with no board in place who will keep Ilan accountable and how you don't want me to clear in public that a large part of the reason he bought the platform was because of our moderation policies and disagreements in how we deal with health is puts Twitter service and trust and safety, as well as anybody who cares about how on the platform in a very difficult position, greater service, the corner for policies and the capabilities we've built around content model.

I find a mental to keeping quitter safe and growing. I believe that there is a lot of work we have to do to continue making that better. Sometimes that means more thoughtful moderation. Sometimes that means making things simpler. Sometimes that means changing product incentives to be able to solve problems to products sometimes instead of policies during the last all hands, you said that you trust Elon Musk, the correct quote was we trust him.

So who is we and talking to Elon, what made you trust him? And based on the conversation I had with him, when we were excited to have him join our board, that was because at the major shelters. And an opinionated user we've wanted that Weiss in our boardroom so that we could learn. Is there an updated understanding on what free speech means?

The question behind the question here, which is where my us product goal as a private company in the future, once this deal closes to best gain perspective on this, as I said earlier, we'll find ways to bring it on for Q and a, with all of you to understand better what his vision for the future of cricket might look like.

Did you just hear that last question she asked? What does freedom of speech like w let me go back. Cause I think that's, probably the single most important part of that entire video while I, rubbed some, there we go, got a little bit of substance on my Desk here. All right. So now that's taken care of the part of that video, to me, that was the most concerning was the very last question there.

And obviously she started that by saying that the, her new boss has questionable ethics, which is probably, could you imagine being like joining a company and immediately making a statement to every single individual within the entire company that the new owner of your company has questionable ethics?

Like not even just saying he's bad at business, not saying that, he's a liar, just that he's his moral character entirely as a question here by this chief marketing officer. Okay. Now the more pressing issue here, I think was that last question, which was let's go ahead and run that.

She says, is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? What do you realize? Free speech is a ver okay. Free means unhindered UN UN kept free. You don't know what the word free means. Lady. You're the executive on Twitter and you don't know what free speech means.

Freedom of speech. Is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? Maybe what the law goes by is free speech and everything else is a hindrance. And isn't an opinion. And can literally be changed at the whim of whoever is in power. Is there an updated understand? No, it's the same understanding that we had when our country was established in 1776 and the constitution was written the same understanding of the freedom of speech.

The same idea of free speech back then applies today, which means don't tell people what they can say, unless they're violently threatening somebody and have the intention of following through, or if they yell fire in a crowded movie theater, as people like to point out, okay, that's about it. And maybe even doxing, let's throw that one in there, even though it's not a specific law.

It has to do with harassment. So it's in there somewhere. We've talked about that before, but freedom of speech means unhindered speech. That is exactly what Ulama said, which means that if we're going to put these policies in place, they should, if there is anything that is done to hinder freedom of speech, it should piss off the most radical 10% of the left equally, as much as it pisses off the most radical 10% of the right.

And if you do that is equal opportunity and in an equal way for this platform to thrive and still hold the idea of freedom of speech, because then it's not an opinion, it's an opinion based, but when you see people like Milo Yiannopoulos, whatever his name is, Alex Jones, Donald Trump literally point me to a liberal who's been kicked off of the platform for speaking out on liberal talking points.

You can't right. So for you to ask, what is the updated understanding of free speech is just the most ridiculous, disgusting, exact reason that Elon Musk bought the platform to begin with is because you can't even define the freedom of speech. You idiot

anyways, all the more reason to be happy about this, all the more reason to be excited. Now we are going to see the government, sorry about that. The government, the white house is looking to see what they can do as we'll see on what's on your radar, Bobby or Robbie, or pretty sure it's Robbie. I don't know whatever this guy's name is.

Oh, whereabouts to see it. The white house is now considering ways that they can step in for Twitter and start silencing your speech anyways, on these platforms and see if they can implement totalitarianism from their end, since the way that they've been doing it from the backend through Twitter and lobbying and quid pro quos and Saudi Arabian government ties and all of these crazy things.

Now they're looking at re basically putting a new laws into place so that they can do it from the government standpoint, which is going to be much more difficult to accomplish because there's a constitution between them and accomplishing this goal. And there wasn't that with Twitter, maybe when there should have been.

So let's go ahead and see you. Is that it has on his radar today. All right, Robbie, 

what's on your radar. Yesterday in my radar, I explained why so many members of the mainstream media are losing their minds over Elon Musk, acquisition of Twitter. They're afraid that if must makes the platforms, rules more favorable for free speech, their power to control the conversation and brand all dissenting views as disinformation and harassment, that power will come to an end.

So it should come as no surprise that the Biden administration is expressing similar. I'll be more cautious concerns about must Twitter takeover as well. Here was white house, press secretary, Jen, Saki, reacting the other. And just a quick one on 

the breaking news, Twitter, agreeing to let Elon Musk purchase and make this purchase.

Do you have a response to that? And does the white house have any concern that this new agreement might have president Trump back on the platform? I'm not going to comment on a specific transaction. What I can tell you as a general matter, no matter who owns or runs Twitter the president has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms.

What they have that power they have over our everyday lives has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms they cause. He has been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve that goal, including reforms to section two 30. And 

so that wasn't the only time Saki mentioned section two 30, either he or she is responding to a question, which I believe is from our dear friend Philippine.

And we would support taking including reforming section two 30, enacting antitrust reforms requiring more transparency. And the president is encouraged by the bipartisan support for or engagement in those efforts. 

So why the sudden interest in reforming section two 30 now that Elon Musk is set to take control of Twitter.

Now, in fairness, the interest is actually not sudden, Biden has long held that section two 30 should be eliminated. He previously said, quote, section two 30. It should be revoked immediately, should be revoked. Number one for Zuckerberg and for other platforms. So confusingly Democrats have managed to bring many Republicans on board with this idea of changing or getting rid of section two 30, no less than authority than former president.

Donald Trump has railed against two 30 at a Georgia rally a year ago. He said that we have to get rid of section two 30, or we won't have a country. And in fact, Republicans who support getting rid of section 2 38. They're getting played by Biden, Saki, et cetera, because without section two 30, social media would become even more hostile to conservative speech.

And many viewers are probably asking right now, okay. What even is section two 30. So allow me to explain section two 30 is a federal statute that protects internet platforms from some speech related liability. For instance, if I say something defamatory in this video, I can be sued just like anyone else, but YouTube cannot be sued because section two 30 treats me rather than YouTube as the speeding.

So the reasons for having this law are I think fairly obvious if YouTube, Twitter or Facebook, we're legally responsible for all speech on the platform. Then they would have to moderate way more aggressively. Maybe only people with blue check marks would get to post. It will maybe you'd have to fill out an application and prove that you wouldn't post content that could get the platform in trouble.

Something like that. Section 2 38 creates the legal regime that permits the internet to exist as it does right now, without gatekeepers reviewing posts or videos before they appear on the platforms. Now, of course I disagree with many of the individual content moderation decisions that the platforms make, people are not wrong to complain that the moderation has been to.

So that's interesting. It seems he's pointing out that it's almost like a double-edged sword here is if you do so I guess, as he just explained to section two 30, basically says that Facebook can not be held liable. If you say some stupid shit on their platform and get in trouble for it, it's not like you are writing it. I don't know. What's a good example of that. It's not it's not like they're going to ever be held liable for a situation where you did something wrong. They're a, they're just a platform for you to do your work on it's if you wrote S Hit-list on Google docs.

Like Google is not going to be sued for that hit list. It seems like a pretty ridiculous idea. But when you start to break it down, there is some valid points to this where it says basically the idea is that they're trying, they're going to hold Twitter, liable, hold Elan, Musk liable. If they allow certain voices to be raised and to say certain things that they deem inflammatory, maybe that don't violate the law, but they deem inflammatory.

So then that would cause a chain reaction from the social media companies, where they would have to come in and begin heavily moderation for fear of backlash from the government or legal ramifications for things that their users are saying. In which case they would have. Incentive to begin mass bannings to begin silencing of people.

Like he said, almost make people verify who they are and this whole deal, which is interesting, because that is something that Elon Musk has said he wants to do with. Which has caused all people to have to verify their identity, to get a blue check mark, or to even be on the platform he's hinting towards.

It seems so which a lot of people have problems with. The idea is that it's supposed to be eliminating these Saudi Arabian, swarm bots, and it's supposed to be eliminating all of these trolls that are out there under the bridge talking about Q spirochetes and it's supposed to eliminate all of that.

And so that's something that Elon Musk has come out with, which is basically having to identify yourself on the internet with some sort of like driver's license. W which you don't even need to vote now, but you need it to sign up for Twitter. So there's a problem with that. For some people where the heat, there's becoming a more loss or more use tracking of identity and the things that you are in specifically saying and outcomes for those things.

If it's maybe not something they like, so that's one problem that comes up with that. So we'll watch another minute or so of this clip and then we'll move on. Cause I think this, the section two 30 conversation, this is an interesting one though, because it is, if that's their next move, if they see Elan buying Twitter for 44 billion, especially with the elections coming up maybe they're starting to scramble. So they move their Rook to, Five. So they're trying to figure out what, what plays do we have as a response to this? Because this is not good for, this is not something we expected is the idea, right?

Because if all of the information that's on the surface level of this, imagine what is actually going on behind the scenes, because Elan, isn't just frivolously doing this for some overarching bold idea of freedom right there. There's probably even if that is the reason he in his intellect is going to break that down to a far more complex reasoning underneath that as to why it's not just going to be for freedom of speech, right?

Because he must have a very deeper perspective on the ramifications of that, not being the way that things are that I would be interested to hear, not just the, general tweet that it's for the greater good of humanity. If it is, I would love to hear. A longer form conversation as to why, because if that is the case, great, good on you.

I really appreciate it. And I think that if nothing else is and that there's the was something we'll get into next is the hero or villain conversation. But even if he is, somebody, the question and then there's questionable ties and family histories, and some things like that this still points the needle back in our direction, right?

In the direction of freedom of speech and the direction away from liberal extremism and in ideologies about stifling free speech platforms it is still for the greater good, no matter what his intentions are, which could be, scraping the intellectual data of billions and billions of human thoughts that are all in a singular place at one time for the last 10 plus years.

To then download into a chip that he is able to create AI with and then put into your brain that takes over the world. Even if it's just for that, it's still good for now. It's still good. In the short-term that we get to actually have a platform that's freedom of speech based, even if the outcome is destruction and death, which it always does anyways.

So I know I digress. So section two 30, let's watch another minute or two of this, and then we'll move on. 

He handed, we have countless examples of that, but getting rid of section two 30, wouldn't fix that problem. In fact, it would make it much, much worse because there would have to be much more approving of what posts are appearing now, political figures like Biden and.

I think they realize that, which is why they do want to see the law abolished without section two 30 companies like Facebook and Twitter, they'd have to carefully screen content. They purged problematic posts, which of course means purging more of the kind of posts that they already pursue aggressively, which is exactly what the Biden administration wants.

They want more purging of content that they don't agree that relates to COVID. And other things of that nature, there's no doubt they want it even more desperately. Now that Elon Musk is taking over Twitter and we'll possibly have a different regime and allow more, more free speech kind of content.

So there'll be no better way to throttle this new Twitter that Musk is creating than to subject it to endless frivolous lawsuits that are currently kept at bay by section two 30 as Steve Del Bianco of net choice, a tech trade association, put it the biggest threat to Elon Musk. Vision of a less moderate Twitter is section two 30 reform, which is why it's not surprised at all to hear Jen Psaki mentioning it repeatedly the other day.

All right. So I get that. I think we get to just to that, to me, it's just something that, it's a card that they're trying to wave that they have. I think they're trying to show that they're not being one-upped by a single man, which they are at least that's the mainstream question here.

So beyond that let's dive a little bit further into this Elon Musk conversation. Cause it's a really interesting discussion. Once you get a little bit deeper into it and you start to dive into some of the concerns of people, like the thing that I just mentioned there, which is the idea that you know, Elon Musk.

So he had a few tweets here about the the purchase and about the competition that he is currently seeing between his platform and truth social. So he points out here that truth, social, which he says in parentheses is a terrible name. And so again, Elon Musk says that truth, social. Parentheses is a terrible name that exists because Twitter censored free speech.

And that is the reason alone, according to Elon Musk. And then he goes on to show in the tweet before that truth social is beating Twitter in downloads and is the most highest ranked app on the app store right now for free app. Now it's funny to me that Elon Musk is still not saying it in a negative way, true social really.

Isn't a great name. I saw another person comment on there. Something about how retreat thing, which is like a thing where you can do. And I am on true social as of like yesterday or today. So red pill revolt on truth, social. If you're on there at red pill, revolt, go give me a follow. I'll be posting all my stuff on there, excited about that.

I will probably have a Twitter too, and just link the two. But but I do think there's a use case for both. And so yeah, Elan must speaking out saying how Twitter is being beat out by true social right now, which according to Elon Musk is a terrible name, which he said should have been changed to a trumpet instead, which would have been an awesome name.

I think a trumpet instead of true social was definitely the move, but they, unfortunately Donald Trump, wasn't able to consult Elon Musk's marketing team on this one. But definitely a great name trumpet. Maybe he should change it to it. Just to jump on the craziness train here. That'd be hilarious if we woke up tomorrow and it was called trumpet, but anyways, so there is a weirdness to this.

And then I guess the weirdness to me is the fact that truth, social and Elon Musk purchasing Twitter. So truth, social opening up to the general public and Elon Musk purchasing Twitter basically essentially happened on the same exact day. What are the odds of that? Two of the two singular. Opportunities or shifts within the social media history in the last decade or two, right?

Like what has happened in the last two decades that are in the last decade? That has been a bigger shift than true social coming out with the president of the United States, coming out with his own social media app. That was, is huge. There's millions of people on it right now, and a bunch more joining it as we speak as it's the number one app on the app store.

What are the odds that, that opening up and a billionaire iron man, like figure within our society purchasing Twitter on the same exact day, what are the odds of that? And so there's a whole idea surrounding this and some I'm sure we'll see better, and better thoughts come out surrounding this process and why these things are happening.

But what I got for you right now is that it's a, some people are saying it's an effort. So Trump basically came out and said that he was not going to have a Twitter account. He said, I am sticking with truth, which is weird because he's not actually even using it. And if you know how much Trump loves Twitter, it's weird that he's not jumping on the opportunity here.

So the idea is that there's something going on here and that this is all it just seems like a big play, right? It seems like these things that the coincidence is too ridiculous. It makes no sense to me that both of the two biggest things to happen in the social media world literally happened on the same day.

No chance at all. Cause this should have been horrible for true social. Which is almost maybe speaks to the idea that it's. The people are probably more fed up with this shit than they are willing to go crawling back to Twitter because daddy Ilan bought it. There. They're more like, fuck you.

I'm going to this one because it's even more like they, they believe in truth, social and Trump than more than they do in the Elon Musk at this point. And I think that's shows where we're at as a society and how divisive we've gotten to it, to where it's we don't want your life raft. We want an entirely different country to take the boat from.

We don't even want anything to do with you guys anymore. We're going to go over here. We're going to, we're going to go to where we don't have to deal with, th to have to deal with the opportunity of somebody having even the access to do because true social is an open platform. All of the coding is available.

You can look through it so you can see anytime there's changes, it's open. So if they change anything and you can see in the algorithms that they're starting to shadow banned people, you can see these changes. So the idea is that prevents them from doing things that would make you fucking hate them.

It seems fairly straightforward. So the true social app is open source Twitter, as it speaks right now is not Eli. My sassy lady wants to take it there. How many of these things will be able to implement? It will be, there'll be interesting to see, but he has taking it private so he can do a lot of these things without having to worry about board members or shareholders in the FBI or the FEC, federal exchange commission, FEC F CC.

I don't know, whichever one came out and said that they were not going to step in because some, some organization called crew came out and spoken and asked the FEC. To basically block Elon Musk from purchasing Twitter. And they said, what bitch, we're not doing that. That's not our job.

That's not what we're supposed to be doing. That has nothing to do with us. This is what the, what, this is financial outcomes. This is how this works. So now the next interesting part of that is, is that to me, it's there's, so there's a few little things that I've seen floating out there around conspiracies as to why this happens.

A decent amount of people are saying that the. Not for the betterment of humanity that Elon Musk's coming out and saying, these things is an all a show because he's a billionaire elite and his mom had ties to, I don't know some type of like Saudi Arabian deals. I don't know if I've seen people speak up on his mom's ties to the deeper, darker, deep state.

And then the fact that Elon Musk took billions in or millions in grants to start as companies from the government that he just so happened to get. And then there was things about Elon Musk saying that he believed in a he believed in the idea of a universal, basic income. And so there was a an image that I had that basically pointed out all of the things that pointed Elon Musk to having similar belief systems as the world economic forum.

And that's a scary thought, right? Like he, I have not seen any pointing to him in his association with the world economic forum. However, there is ideas that his mom was tied in with the, the deep state or whatever. But I don't know. I'm an Elon Musk fan boy I think he's, he's I think he might be sent back from the future and the fact that Wernher Von Braun the NASA.

And I said Nassi because he's a Nazi, a literal Nazi who was tried during Nuremberg trials, who is brought over to the United States under operation paperclip wrote a fiction book about a man who took and colonized the, or colonized Mars. And his name was Elon Musk. Without the mosque, it was just Ilan.

It would've been way crazier if it was Elon Musk, but he wrote ever Wernher Von Braun, the Nazis scientists that we brought over under operation paperclip. I wrote a fiction book like during the fifties about a man who took the human race to colonize Mars. And that's exactly what Ulan must does. So there's just some weird put on your tinfoil hat, things that are going on here.

That makes me question, what is actually happening with the Elon Musk situation. And should we be questioning him more than we are currently, should we be asking more questions about his history and should we not just be wholeheartedly diving into the idea that he's the white Knight coming in to save the day?

I don't know. I it's very easy to just, fan boy about Elon Musk. He's a very smart man. Obviously he's built many companies. He has a very much more career very much more charisma, so much more charisma. He has a lot more charisma than then the other billionaire that I've seen and going on Joe Rogan, his long conversations that he's had, the whole smoking weed thing during the Joe Rogan podcast and on his stock tumbling, and then going up better than, but like, how do you not be a fan of this man?

And when you get to this point in society where everything is questionable, right? Everything deserves a question first before you take it in wholeheartedly, it makes you want to still question him. And sometimes I think you just, you can't be too quick to eat your own, right? Because if this is it's just, it's hard to differentiate what is truth and what is a setup? And who's manipulating what, and but I think in this case, like I said, last time, $44 billion to purchase something as is a fair buy in of my trust. Especially if you say, if it's for the freedom of speech now, where it gets squirrely is what I mentioned before is that he also so happens to run a program called neuro link.

And he also happens to believe that's going to lead to AI symbiosis with humankind. And if you want it to do that, and you want it to build that AI, you would probably want the single largest data points of human consciousness than anywhere else in the world. And that might help you along a little bit.

And you could do that by buying Twitter and buying every single data point. Now I'm sure you could ask.

Get the data off of Twitter, at least majority of it without paying $44 billion. Like I'm sure some type of coding genius could like back it up into a hard drive and steal everything for less than that. So maybe there's that because it's more about having to steer the ship, I guess that makes a little bit more sense to me.

The idea is that he's taking it to scrape the data to turn it into AI. That is then going to turn us into the slaves of a bunch of, circulating Dyson vacuums with knives. And we're just going to, clean their floors instead of their them cleaning ours. The idea is that eventually they're going to take over the world, and it's going to be Elon Musk fault because he bought Twitter. Now that seems pretty farfetched. And I think that the explanation that I had earlier, which is the fact that he has a. He, he has a 10 step idea about where this goes from here if left uncorrected. And I think that he may be trying to correct those things before they happen.

But time will tell, is he the hero? Is he the villain? I don't know, but I do know that he admitted to believing that socialism was a good way. He also admitted to wanting a universal, basic income. He also said that he wanted, he believed that AI would eventually, basically take over human lives and that we would basically morph into a human AI symbiotic relationship with the world.

This all this craziest than this too. So I don't know, but it seems to me. Like I'm still in Ilan fanboy. So I don't know what your opinion is, but feel free to let me know at red pill revolt on Instagram would love to hear from ya. All right. So let's go ahead and check out the next thing here, which is going to be the last topic.

And that is about the mayor. Cause I don't know what that is, but this is off of Fox news and it discusses somebody testifying that the department of Homeland security is creating a disinformation governance board. And that's what we were talking about before where she actually, I guess that's the video that we watched, which is them discussing the idea that they're going to so I'll read this article to you.

It says re Lauren Underwood cited reports on how minority communities are being targeted and then misinformation campaigns and asked mayor coz what DHS will do to. Mayor Casa disinformation, a disinformation governance board had recently been created and would be led by under secretary for policy Rob Silver's co-chair with principal, deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskell.

It says in quotes, the goal is to bring the resources of the department of Homeland security together to address this threat. Adding that the department is focused on the spread of disinformation in minority communities. And Fox news has reached out to the DHS seeking more information on the disinformation governance board hours later.

Political reported that Nina Janka wicks, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson center will head the board as executive director. Then it shows a tweet. It says cat's out of the bag. Here's what I've been up to the past two months and I've been quiet. GENCO it's tweeted honor to be serving in the Biden administration at DHS gov and helping shape our counter, this information efforts.

They literally made a ministry of truth. They just did it. They came up with the department of Homeland security, came out with a counter disinformation campaign or a counter disinformation. It, what in the world where have we gotten a governance board of the truth? The ministry of truth is here folks, a disinformation governance board under the Biden administration.

How is this, like I read at the beginning of the pandemic, I read 1984. And maybe I'm the reason for all of this. How many times is I if I would have never read that book with these things not be happening because it seems like we're getting so close, like how is a governing body? Are you able to dictate and determine what is truthful and what is not truthful?

What is fact and what is fiction? What is the right opinion to hold on a topic? And what is disinformation? What is harmful, right? What is harmful disinformation now in the, in that, in line with the With the terrorism advisory bulletin that we discussed, like three, four or five episodes ago that they dropped basically stating if you so dissent within the government or make people have a difficulty agreeing with the government if you're like somebody who speaks out against them, that they can label you a terrorist, which is allows them to do all sorts of things under the Patriot act.

Disgusting. So to me, I don't know where this is going. I want to see the best in this situation and just be happy with the fact that we have somewhere to go. We not only one place, but two places. And I think we're seeing the public choosing right now with the fact that truth, social is number one on the app store which direction, w whether or not we wholeheartedly are buying into the idea of Twitter or not.

But time will tell, I guess we'll see what happens with the stock of Twitter. We'll see what changes actually are implemented. Cause that's a question too, right? Is he actually going to follow through on these things? But why would you spend $44 billion if you weren't going to anyways. So thank you guys for listening.

If you want to stick around with me here, head over to the patreon, just pill revolt. And we're going to discuss a couple things here which is going to be Joe Biden discussed in the quotes that the ruble has been reduced to rubble which was sad that when it was at a dollar 34, the sanctions were announced and then dropped down very low and today, guess she'll have to stick around to see. Go head over to pill. Revolt, go ahead and subscribe. Click that button right there. Follow me on Instagram. Follow me on the truth. Social at red pill, revolt. Go ahead and subscribe on YouTube. You'll see. Start to see a bunch of clips that are coming out.

A full video podcast is on hill revolt, including the bonus content, which is coming up next, which we are about to discuss. So thank you so much for listening. I hope you have a great day and welcome to the revolution. Thank you so much.

Comments (0)

To leave or reply to comments, please download free Podbean or

No Comments

Austin Adams 2021

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Version: 20221013