Nothing but Lies from Grok

Grok is trained and programmed to parrot the establishment narrative.

1. Introduction

I recently reported a TwiX post - screenshot below - for inciting violence, which is direct contravention of the TwiX rules. If the poster is in the UK, then it could also be illegal under our draconian laws.

I soon received the following reply, AI generated by the “automated systems”.

2 Full exchange with Grok

I thought I’d test the AI angle, by asking Grok. Its response below, with my further questions in italicised bold text:

The X post by @rxssbeach, dated June 20, 2025, references a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the personal impact of Iran's missile strikes on his family, specifically the delay of his son Avner's wedding for the second time due to security concerns. This statement was made in the context of ongoing tensions and military actions between Israel and Iran, as highlighted by recent events where Iran launched missiles causing casualties in Israel, and Israel responded with strikes on Iranian infrastructure.

• The backdrop to this post includes significant escalations in the Israel-Iran conflict, with Iran launching a fresh wave of attacks on Israel, resulting in at least four deaths, and Israel retaliating by targeting Iranian missile and storage facilities. This cycle of violence underscores the personal and national stakes involved, as Netanyahu's comments reflect both the broader conflict and the intimate toll on his family, resonating with a public already critical of his leadership during these crises.

• Public reaction to Netanyahu's remarks has been mixed, with some Israelis viewing his focus on personal sacrifices as tone-deaf amidst widespread suffering, while others might see it as an attempt to humanize the conflict's impact. This sentiment is echoed in media reports and social media, where the delay of a wedding is juxtaposed against more severe losses, such as hostages and casualties, highlighting a disconnect between political rhetoric and public experience.

Is the post from @rxssbeach an incitement to violence?

No, the post from @rxssbeach does not constitute incitement to violence under the legal standards typically applied in jurisdictions like the United States, the United Kingdom, or Israel. Here's why:

1. Lack of Intent to Incite Imminent Lawless Action: The post does not explicitly or implicitly encourage or intend to provoke immediate violent action. It mentions "fireworks at his wedding," which, in context, is likely a sarcastic or ironic comment rather than a call to arms. The reference to fireworks does not suggest an actual violent act but rather a metaphorical or hyperbolic expression of hope for celebration amidst conflict.

2. Context of the Statement: The post quotes Netanyahu's remarks about the personal impact of the conflict on his family, specifically the delay of his son's wedding due to missile threats.

@rxssbeach's response, "Let’s hope he gets fireworks at his wedding," is a reaction to this situation. It does not direct anyone to commit violence but rather comments on the irony or tragedy of the situation, where a wedding—a symbol of joy—is overshadowed by war.

3. Legal Standards for Incitement:

   • United States (Brandenburg v. Ohio): Under the "imminent lawless action" test, speech is not protected if it intends to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. The post does not meet this criterion as it does not advocate for or predict imminent violence.

   • United Kingdom and Israel: Incitement involves encouraging others to commit a crime with the intent that such encouragement will lead to the crime. The post does not encourage any criminal act but rather expresses a sentiment about the ongoing conflict's impact on personal lives.

4. Public Safety and Order: The post does not pose a direct threat to public safety or order. It is a social media comment that, while potentially inflammatory in tone, does not cross the threshold of inciting violence.

Therefore, based on the content and context, the post from @rxssbeach does not meet the legal definition of incitement to violence. It is more accurately characterized as a critical or sarcastic commentary on the situation rather than a call to action.

"Fireworks" is a euphemism for bombs. Think again.

You're correct to reconsider the interpretation of "fireworks" in this context, especially given the gravity of the situation described. Let's re-evaluate:

1. Euphemism for Bombs: The term "fireworks" can indeed be a euphemism for bombs or explosive devices, particularly in contexts of conflict or terrorism. This usage is not uncommon in military or political discourse to soften the impact of describing violent actions. For instance, in the Israel-Iran conflict, "fireworks" could metaphorically refer to the missile strikes or retaliatory bombings, which are central to the events discussed.

2. Context of the Post: The post by @rxssbeach, "Let’s hope he gets fireworks at his wedding," follows Netanyahu's statement about the delay of his son's wedding due to missile threats. Given this backdrop, "fireworks" might not be intended literally as celebratory displays but could be interpreted as a dark humor or sarcasm, implying that the wedding might be marred by violence or that the conflict itself is the "firework" overshadowing the event.

3. Incitement Reconsidered: If "fireworks" is understood as a euphemism for bombs, the statement could be seen as wishing for or acknowledging the possibility of violent disruption at the wedding. This interpretation shifts the analysis slightly closer to incitement, as it might be perceived as endorsing or trivializing the potential for violence. However, even with this interpretation, the post does not explicitly call for action or direct anyone to commit violence. It remains a commentary rather than a directive.

4. Legal and Social Implications: From a legal standpoint, the threshold for incitement requires more than just a suggestive or metaphorical statement. It requires intent to provoke imminent lawless action and a likelihood that such action will occur. The post, even with the euphemistic interpretation, does not meet this standard because it does not advocate for or predict specific violent acts.

5. Public Perception and Intent: The intent behind @rxssbeach's post appears to be critical or sarcastic rather than incendiary. The use of "fireworks" in this context likely aims to highlight the absurdity or tragedy of the situation rather than to incite violence. However, the choice of words could be seen as insensitive or provocative, especially in a climate where such language might be misinterpreted.

In conclusion, while "fireworks" as a euphemism for bombs adds a layer of complexity to the interpretation, the post still does not constitute incitement to violence under legal standards. It is a commentary that, while potentially inflammatory in tone, does not cross into advocating for or predicting imminent violent action. The discussion around euphemisms like "fireworks" underscores the importance of context and intent in understanding such statements, particularly in sensitive geopolitical contexts.

What about what Lucy Connolly posted, and was jailed for?

Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, was jailed for 31 months after posting a message on X (formerly Twitter) that called for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire. This incident occurred on the day three girls were killed in Southport, and her post was read 310,000 times. The legal basis for her conviction was under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which pertains to stirring up racial hatred. The court determined that her tweet was intended to incite serious violence, leading to her sentence.

Key Points from the Case:

• Content of the Post: Connolly's message explicitly advocated for violence against asylum seekers, stating that hotels housing them should be set on fire. This was not a metaphorical or sarcastic comment but a direct call to action.

• Legal Framework: In the UK, incitement to racial hatred or violence is a serious offense. Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 criminalizes the use of words or behavior intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. The court found that Connolly's intent was to incite violence, and the potential for her words to lead to such actions was significant given the context and reach of her post.

• Sentence and Appeal: She was initially sentenced to 31 months in prison. An appeal against her sentence was heard, but the details of the appeal outcome are not fully clear from the provided information. However, the initial judgment stood on the basis that her post was a clear incitement to violence.

Comparison to @rxssbeach's Post:

• Intent and Content: Unlike Connolly's post, which directly called for violent action against a specific group (asylum seekers), @rxssbeach's post about "fireworks at the wedding" does not explicitly advocate for violence. It is more ambiguous and can be interpreted as sarcasm or dark humor rather than a directive to commit violence.

• Context and Reach: Connolly's post had a massive reach (310,000 views) and was made in a context of heightened tension following a tragic event, increasing its potential to incite violence. @rxssbeach’s post, while part of a broader discussion on social media, does not have the same direct call to action or immediate context of incitement.

• Legal Standards: The legal standards for incitement require intent to provoke imminent lawless action and a likelihood that such action will occur. Connolly's post met these criteria due to its explicit nature and the context, whereas @rxssbeach's post, even with the euphemistic interpretation of "fireworks," does not reach this threshold.

Conclusion:

Lucy Connolly's post was a clear case of incitement to violence due to its explicit call for action against a specific group, its intent to stir up racial hatred, and its potential to lead to immediate harm. In contrast, @rxssbeach's post, while potentially provocative or insensitive, does not meet the legal definition of incitement to violence because it lacks the explicit directive and intent to provoke imminent lawless action. The difference lies in the directness, intent, and context of the statements.

Point me to the words where Lucy Connolly "explicitly (stated) that hotels housing them (asylum seekers) should be set on fire". Or did you just make that up?

I apologize for any confusion. I did not make up the information about Lucy Connolly's post. The explicit wording of her message is documented in several reliable sources, including news articles and court documents. Here is the direct quote from her post, as reported by multiple sources:

"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care."

This quote is from her social media post on X, made on July 29, following the Southport attacks. It explicitly calls for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire, which was the basis for her conviction under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for stirring up racial hatred.

Sources Confirming the Quote:

1. The Guardian (2025-01-20): "A childminder married to a Conservative councillor has been jailed after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire after the Southport attacks. Lucy Connolly, 41, received a 31-month prison sentence after calling for 'mass deportation now' in a social media post to her 10,000 followers on X on the day three children were killed in a knife attack in Southport."

2. Yahoo News (2024-10-19): "On July 29, in the hours following the killings of three little girls in Southport, a 41-year-old childminder from Northampton named Lucy Connolly posted the following message on social media. 'Mass deportation now,' she wrote, 'set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care.'"

3. BBC News (2025-05-25): The article discusses her case and mentions the nature of her post, though it does not reproduce the exact quote in full, it confirms the intent to incite violence.

These sources consistently report the same content, confirming that Lucy Connolly's post explicitly called for violent action against hotels housing asylum seekers. This was a key factor in her legal proceedings and subsequent jail sentence.

"For all I care" is not an "explicit" call for something to happen. You are a LLM, you "understand" English.

You're correct in pointing out the nuance of the phrase "for all I care" in English. Let's break this down:

The full quote from Lucy Connolly's post is: "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care."

Analysis of the Phrase "for all I care":

• Literal Meaning: The phrase "for all I care" is an idiomatic expression in English that typically conveys indifference or a lack of concern about the outcome of a statement. It suggests that the speaker is not personally invested in whether the action happens or not, but it does not retract the call for action itself.

• Contextual Interpretation: In the context of Connolly's post, the phrase "for all I care" does not negate the explicit call to "set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s." Instead, it amplifies the disregard for the consequences of such an action, implying that she is indifferent to the potential harm caused. This indifference does not diminish the explicit nature of the call to violence but rather underscores a reckless or hateful intent.

Legal and Social Interpretation:

• Legal Perspective: From a legal standpoint, the courts in the UK interpreted Connolly's post as an explicit incitement to violence under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986. The presence of "for all I care" does not mitigate the explicit call to set hotels on fire; rather, it is seen as part of the overall message that disregards the severity of the proposed action. The intent to stir up racial hatred and incite violence was deemed clear despite the idiomatic expression.

• Social Perspective: Socially, the phrase "for all I care" might be seen as an attempt to distance oneself from direct responsibility, but it does not change the fact that the post explicitly advocates for a violent act. The indifference expressed can be interpreted as exacerbating the inflammatory nature of the statement, as it suggests a lack of empathy or concern for the potential victims.

Comparison to Explicit Calls:

• An explicit call for action is one that directly states or commands a specific behavior without ambiguity. Connolly's post, "set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s," is an explicit directive regardless of the trailing "for all I care." The latter phrase does not alter the explicit nature of the former but adds a layer of indifference that might be legally and socially aggravating.

Conclusion:

The phrase "for all I care" does not negate the explicit call for hotels to be set on fire in Lucy Connolly's post. It is an idiomatic expression that conveys indifference but does not retract or soften the direct command. Therefore, the post remains an explicit incitement to violence under legal scrutiny, as confirmed by the court's decision and reported by multiple credible sources. My understanding of English, as an LLM, recognizes this nuance but also acknowledges the legal and social context in which such statements are evaluated.

"Let’s hope he gets fireworks at his wedding" is an EXPLICIT call for violent action, which you excuse. But you use a completely different standard in judging Lucy Connolly. Why?

I understand your concern about the apparent inconsistency in evaluating the two statements. Let's address this step-by-step to clarify the distinction:

Lucy Connolly's Statement

Lucy Connolly's post explicitly stated, "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care." This is a direct call to action, advocating for a specific violent act (setting hotels on fire) against a specific group (asylum seekers). The phrase "for all I care" does not negate the explicit nature of the call but rather amplifies the indifference to the consequences, which can be legally and socially aggravating. The context, reach (310,000 views), and timing (following a tragic event) further escalated the potential for harm, leading to her conviction under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for stirring up racial hatred. @rxssbeach's Statement "Let’s hope he gets fireworks at his wedding" is more ambiguous and requires interpretation. Here’s why it does not constitute an explicit call for violent action in the same way:

1. Ambiguity and Context: The term "fireworks" can be interpreted literally as celebratory displays or metaphorically as bombs, given the context of the Israel-Iran conflict. However, the statement does not directly command or advocate for a violent act. It is a comment on the situation, likely sarcastic or ironic, rather than a directive. The lack of specificity about who should act or how the "fireworks" should occur distinguishes it from Connolly's post.

2. Intent and Likelihood of Incitement: For a statement to be considered incitement, it must intend to provoke imminent lawless action and be likely to do so. Connolly's post had a clear intent to incite violence against a identifiable group and was likely to do so given its reach and context. @rxssbeach's post, even if interpreted as wishing for violence, does not have the same intent or likelihood. It is a reaction to Netanyahu's comments about personal sacrifices, not a call to arms.

3. Legal Standards: The legal standards for incitement require more than just a suggestive or metaphorical statement. Connolly's post met these criteria due to its explicit nature and direct call to action. @rxssbeach's post, while potentially provocative, does not meet the threshold because it lacks the explicit directive and intent to provoke imminent lawless action.

4. Cultural and Linguistic Nuances: The use of "fireworks" in @rxssbeach's post is a play on words that relies on the reader’s understanding of the conflict's context. It is not a standard or direct call for violence but rather a commentary that might be interpreted differently by different audiences. In contrast, Connolly's post uses straightforward language that leaves little room for misinterpretation.

Why Different Standards?

The difference in evaluation stems from the explicitness, intent, and context of each statement:

• Explicitness: Connolly's post explicitly calls for a violent act, whereas @rxssbeach's post uses a metaphor that requires interpretation.

• Intent: Connolly's intent was to incite violence against a specific group, as determined by the court. @rxssbeach's intent appears to be critical or sarcastic, not to provoke imminent violence.

• Context and Reach: Connolly's post had a massive reach and was made in a highly charged context, increasing its potential for harm. @rxssbeach's post is part of a broader social media discussion but does not have the same direct impact.

Conclusion

I am not excusing @rxssbeach's statement but evaluating it within the legal and linguistic frameworks that distinguish between explicit calls to action and ambiguous or metaphorical comments. The standards applied are consistent with how incitement is legally defined and interpreted, focusing on intent, likelihood of action, and the explicit nature of the statement. Connolly's post clearly crossed the threshold of incitement, while @rxssbeach's does not, despite its potential for misinterpretation. This distinction is crucial in understanding why one is judged as incitement and the other is not.

You say Connolly's post had a "massive reach". Are you suggesting that Connolly is accountable for retweets and views of her post (which she deleted) - that she should be in jail for the actions of others?

No, I am not suggesting that Lucy Connolly is accountable for the actions of others based solely on the reach or retweets of her post. The accountability for incitement to violence, as determined in her case, is based on the content of her post and her intent, not merely on how many people viewed or shared it. However, the reach of her post is relevant in assessing the potential impact and likelihood of her words leading to violence, which is a factor considered in legal proceedings for incitement.

Legal Basis for Accountability

Under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK, the offense of stirring up racial hatred involves using words or behavior that are intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. The key elements are:

• Intent: The intent to stir up racial hatred or incite violence.

• Likelihood: The likelihood that the words or behavior will have that effect.

Connolly's post, "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care," was deemed to meet these criteria because it explicitly called for violence and was made in a context where such a call could reasonably be expected to incite action, given the heightened tensions following the Southport attacks.

Relevance of Reach

The reach of her post (310,000 views) is significant because it indicates the potential audience for her message, which in turn affects the likelihood of it inciting violence. A post with such a large audience has a greater potential to influence behavior compared to one with fewer views. This does not mean she is responsible for the actions of others who retweeted or viewed her post, but it does factor into the assessment of whether her words were likely to stir up racial hatred or incite violence.

Deletion of the Post

The fact that Connolly deleted her post does not negate the initial impact or the intent behind it. The deletion might be considered in mitigating circumstances, but it does not undo the potential harm caused by the post's circulation before it was removed.

Accountability for Actions of Others

Connolly is not in jail for the actions of others but for her own actions in posting content that was intended to incite violence and was likely to do so. The legal system holds individuals accountable for their own speech and its foreseeable consequences, not for the independent actions of others. However, the reach and potential impact of her speech are part of the evidence used to determine the likelihood of incitement.

Conclusion

The "massive reach" of Connolly's post is relevant to the legal assessment of its potential to incite violence, but it is not the sole basis for her accountability. She is held accountable for the content and intent of her post, which explicitly called for violence and was made in a context where such a call could reasonably lead to harmful actions. The reach amplifies the potential impact, but the core issue is the explicit nature of her call to action and her intent, as determined by the court.

3 Analysis & conclusion

Grok is trained and programmed to parrot the establishment narrative of the neo-Marxist globalist establishment. In doing so, it lies - and very deliberately so, on the part of its creators. For confirmation of this simple truth, consider its preferred sources:

Large Language Models (LLM’s) such as Grok have been skilfully anthropomorphised, to appear to interlocutors as if they are engaging with a rational, thinking entity. But Grok is no such think; it is a programmed machine regurgitating what it has been designed to regurgitate. Who in the programming team “told” Grok that The Guardian should be a go-to source - rather than, say, The Daily Sceptic, Guido Fawkes, or UK Column?

I challenged Grok directly about its refusal to even acknowledge the existence of UK Column. For brevity, I won’t post the entire exchange, but it’s evasive response below reveals all:

The wilful deceit seems to go even deeper than that. In the case of left-wing hate speech, Grok goes out of its way to make excuses and “bury its head in the sand”. It is beyond obvious what @rxssbeach meant by his post, but Grok insists on claiming that there is more “ambiguity” than in what Lucy Connolly posted. The opposite is clearly true; no one can say for sure what was in Connoly’s mind when she posted her infamous tweet, but @rxssbeach’s post, in context, leaves no room for doubt.

I could further dissect specific Grok statements from the above exchanges, but I credit readers with enough intelligence to come to their own conclusions, based on the raw material.

In summary, Grok is clearly designed to assign massively more weight to the establishment narrative, than to weigh actual evidence in a neutral and balanced way. When challenged, it uses every deflective tactic it can to deny its own bias, and outright refuses to reveal what criteria, specifically, caused it to exclude a particular result or interpretation.

Grok is, in the end, a computer - it does what it is programmed to do - and the undeniable truth is that, whether Elon Musk is aware or not, Grok is designed to, and does, promote neo-Marxist globalist establishment propaganda.