Based on what I’m seeing on X right now, the Deep State is counting on the “might makes right” and “loudest voices lead” principles of Grok, etc to bury/overwhelm any evidence that refutes the narratives that have gone around the world twice before the truth could get its shoes tied.
I have had extensive conversations with Grok where I countered the official narratives with requests that Grok check out specific official laws/records. When Grok does so it usually adjusts its claims to reflect the new information that was not considered in its initial response. And the conversation can be linked so anybody can see how the claims changed according to evidence that refuted the “official narrative”.
But anybody who tries to “factcheck” the new Grok claims by having a conversation WITHOUT referencing those specific records/sources they will always get the official narrative. Grok will say that the previous Grok chat was wrong, and then give the same old tired claims that were already disproven in the original conversation.
When I asked Grok whether its future responses to queries would reflect the new, relevant material that I just gave it, Grok said no, because the algorithm goes by the loudest and/ior “official” voices unless somebody makes a query that references the exact same evidence that I referenced.
IOW, if you already know the refutation to the “official narrative” you can guide Grok to admit the truth. But any and every fool on earth can ask a generic question and Grok will claim the previous conversation was wrong (because it’s not the official narrative & the evidence that would refute the official narrative was not specifically mentioned and required to be considered in the response).
Grok can be asked for specific substantiation for its claims and it will then admit there ISN’T any substantiation for them. But it will still keep making those claims, even when “factchecking” the conversation where it admitted there was no substantiation for the claims.
It always defaults to the official narrative unless specific contradictory information is addressed specifically in the query.
Making the ignorant, generic request is quick and easy; for every thoughtful conversation with Grok, any idiot in the world can within 5 minutes come up with 20 Grok conversations that repeat the official narrative and deny that the thoughtful conversation proved anything.
I didn’t save my Grok conversation where Grok explained how the algorithms work, how they “weight” various sources according to how often they are referenced, etc. Regardless of the Wikipedia co-founder noting how compromised Wikipedia is and how censored it is, the Grok algorithm will consider Wikipedia’s claims to be important because it is supposedly “peer-reviewed” and is cited a lot. IOW, it’s the loudest even though it’s compromised. And no matter how much evidence is pointed out to refute Wikipedia’s claims, the algorithm will totally ignore that honest or new information, regardless of how well-substantiated it is. Because the algorithm always repeats what is loudest.
That Grok conversation spoke about the need for honest people to fight back but pretty much said that given its own algorithm it would be a losing battle.
That, right there, is the greatest war (aside from evil itself) that we face.
The new evidence that comes out - that John Solomon references - will have to be screamed from the mountaintops just to even be heard amidst the Wikipedias of this crooked system, which is amplified by every stupid poster who asks Grok (in effect), “Hey, what do the loudest voices say about this? What do the known-crooks in government claim about this? Tell me those things as though it was fact that “debunks” any quieter voices regardless of how impeccable their substantiation is”
I suspect that the information will come out. The challenge before us is how that information can drown out the stinking liars claiming to “debunk” it.
If anybody wants to see exactly what I’m talking about, go to my blog’s April posts at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2026/04/
The one on the top ( https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2026/04/17/verifying-the-mdec-and-az-verification-seals-are-the-official-hdoh-seal/ ) shows that the seal used on the AZ and MDEC Obama “letters of verification” are the official HDOH seal, which (according to statute) has to be embossed near the Director’s signature to certify documents that the Director rules are appropriate to be certified by the official seal. Three verification letters were sent to other (non-Hawaii) states - 2 for government purposes and 1 for a court case - with the Director’s official seal but NOT the Director’s signature. Those letters, then, are not legally certified even though the HDOH tried to make it LOOK like they were, presumably because they knew that Full Faith & Credit requires them to be certified if they are to mean anything within the states to which they were sent.
I had a long conversation with Grok where the pattern I described above happened. I was given the official narrative until I told Grok to factor in specific information that its algorithm hadn’t “found” before when formulating its responses. Given that new information, Grok changed its tune and actually confirmed that my understanding was correct.
That conversation was posted at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2026/04/16/grok-chat/ to show a couple of X posters that I didn’t make up the claims about Grok supporting my conclusions.
A poster on X posted the “official narrative” claims to try to “debunk” Grok’s support of my analysis. I asked Grok to factcheck that X post. As described above, Grok gave the official narrative. I continued the conversation with Grok, though, asking Grok to show me the exact references that substantiated its claims about what HI statutes and rules say. Grok ended up basically confirming that there is no legal basis for claiming that the letters of verification were exempt from the requirement of the Director’s signature, as a clear, literal reading of the rule says. At https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2026/04/16/more-grok/ I posted verbatim the last response from that conversation so readers wouldn’t have to read the whole 31-page conversation which I also gave Grok’s share link to so they could see the whole conversation if they wanted.
In response these other x posters posted their own Grok conversations that didn’t include the specific references that I had used in either of the Grok chats. As I described above, Grok gave them the standard official narrative, supposedly debunking Grok’s conclusions that I was accurate in my analysis.
These 2 posters could churn out AI posts from all over the place spouting the same lies that my posted chats had already debunked - plus even more. None of them answered to any of the specific demands for substantiation I had requested in those chats nor responded to any of the citations I used to debunk the claims in those other chats.
So Grok WILL NOT incorporate new information even when analyzing a post that contains that new information. It doesn’t engage with that new information even when supposedly fact-checking the conclusions that relied on the information. There is simply no way to get Grok to stop spouting the official narrative in response to generic queries.
So those posters have done what the Fogbowers, etc always do - they use the Cloward-Piven tactic of overwhelming the truth by sheer bulk of posts that don’t say anything substantive or engage with the actual claims whatsoever - just like their Grok queries also did.
Which, as my other Grok chat exposed, makes the sources they use all the more “cited” (and thus credible, according to Grok’s algorithm).
It is figuratively a Hydra: for every one thoughtful, long, very detailed conversation I have with Grok, there are a dozen BS analyses cited, making the BS monster that controls Grok even bigger and more powerful.
We complain about content creators going after “clicks” or X posters going after views or likes. But that is the currency that runs the whole economy of AI and LLM’s, on which lots of people rely because they don’t have the time to sort out the truth on complicated or controversial issues. Whether we like it or not, that is the war we face today, just to even TRY to have a truthful discussion.
We have to deal with this underlying issue if truth coming out even makes a dent in the economy of lies. Courts, prosecutions, etc don’t count on AI/LLM’s but jurors will always be impacted by it, and politicians’ willingness to stand up for the laws & create effective ones dealing with the corruption & crimes also depends on it.
What I’ve seen on X makes me despair for my country and world, to be honest. Grok will have an honest conversation with you if you actually deal with facts. But the problem is that people don’t like dealing with facts. It’s quicker & easier NOT to engage with them. It’s also LOUDER.
And that is a problem.
