Kathrine Brown

Protecting Elon Musk’s online identity and preventing impersonation are my top priorities, guided by my expertise in cybercrime and digital identity security.

[Kathrine Brown @PressSec929]

@n1djs You are welcome. Send me direct message

[Kathrine Brown @PressSec929]

@Steve1817 Send me a private message

[DogeDesigner @cb_doge]

"Basically the government funded NGOs are a way to do things that would be illegal if they were the government."

一 Elon Musk

[NIK @ns123abc]

Grok 4.3 now has native LaTeX compilation built into Grok Files

[Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost @Ne_pas_couvrir]

Did you know that England once had a deeply rooted civilian gun culture, stretching from the 1500s into the early twentieth century, and that this English tradition helped shape the American right to keep and bear arms?

For centuries, English law and custom treated the armed citizen as a normal part of a free society. The 1689 Bill of Rights, enacted after the Glorious Revolution, declared that Protestant subjects could have arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law. That language reflected older English assumptions rather than creating something wholly new.

Under the militia tradition, able-bodied men were long expected to possess arms for the defense of the realm, and by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries firearms were widely available to ordinary civilians with relatively little state interference. Guns could be bought in shops, advertised openly, and acquired with few of the licensing burdens that later became standard. For much of this period, England did not treat civilian gun ownership as suspicious. It treated it as normal.

That inheritance mattered in America. The American founders drew heavily from English common law, Blackstone, and the broader Anglo political tradition, including the 1689 Bill of Rights. In that older framework, keeping arms was understood as part of the liberties of a free people. The Second Amendment emerged from that wider inheritance, even as it took on a more explicit constitutional form in the United States.

Britain’s sharp break with this older tradition came after the First World War. Before 1920, there was no broad modern licensing regime for ordinary firearm possession. The postwar period changed that. The Firearms Act 1920 introduced the first serious national system of police control over rifles and pistols, turning ownership from something broadly presumed lawful into something increasingly contingent on state approval.

The reasons were political as much as criminal. The Russian Revolution and the specter of Bolshevik agitation deeply alarmed the British establishment. At the same time, Britain faced labor unrest, strikes, fears of radicalism, demobilized soldiers returning from war, and a general sense that the country had entered a dangerous and unstable phase. Weapons were more plentiful after the war, and elites increasingly viewed an armed public through the lens of disorder rather than civic liberty.

Immigration and postwar racial tensions formed an important part of that climate. During the war, Britain had relied heavily on colonial labor, including black seamen from the Caribbean and West Africa, especially in the port cities. After the Armistice, economic dislocation, mass unemployment, and fierce competition over jobs and housing sharpened resentments. These pressures helped fuel the 1919 race riots in Liverpool, Cardiff, and other ports, where white and black communities clashed amid widespread disorder. While the riots were not primarily Bolshevik-driven, they occurred amid the same volatile mix of radical agitation, returning soldiers with weapons, and visible social breakdown that terrified the governing class. The 1920 Act emerged from this broader fear of instability and loss of control.

A similar pattern of social anxiety appeared again after 1945. Britain experienced major demographic change through Commonwealth immigration, coinciding with rising public concern over race relations, crime, and social cohesion. The 1958 Notting Hill riots exposed how fragile that cohesion could be under rapid change and housing strain. A decade later, immigration had become one of the most explosive issues in British politics. Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech captured those anxieties. In that same charged atmosphere, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 further restricted entry.

It was in this wider climate of unease that tighter firearms law became politically easier to justify. The new shotgun certificate system was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, later consolidated with earlier firearms law in the Firearms Act 1968. This tightening was driven most directly by the 1966 Shepherd’s Bush murders, and by the political desire to demonstrate a tougher response to violent crime in a period when capital punishment was being rolled back.

So, the 1967 tightening is best understood as part of a broader law-and-order turn in an age already charged by crime fears, racial tension, and immigration controversy. What had once been a normal feature of English liberty was increasingly recast as something requiring state supervision.

[Andrew Côté @Andercot]

I have the sneaking suspicions we all actually have to work has hard as possible to prevent a very small group of people from intentionally destroying civilization

[NIK @ns123abc]

Grok 4.3 "write an academic paper on general relativity"

It produced a 5-page LaTeX paper:
>Einstein field equations
>Schwarzschild metric
>tensor notation and Christoffel symbols
>starlight deflection diagram
>Newtonian vs GR comparison table
>8 properly formatted citations
>author: "Grok"

xAI team cooked fr

[Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47]

.@SecDuffy: 53% of Commercial Driver's Licenses issued to foreigners in New York were issued illegally.

We gave them FOUR MONTHS to comply with the law. They refused, so we had no choice but to pull funding — and if they still refuse, we can pull their ability to issue CDLs.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

A majority of CDLs were issued illegally in New York

[Rothmus 🏴 @Rothmus]

But we will never know what their true intentions are.

[pain @paaiinnnn]

This is fukin amazing...
I wish this was a real game!

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Grok Imagine

[Ben Habib @benhabib6]

The whole point about free speech is the right to insult. The second you insist social norms are observed, free speech dies.

@Nigel_Farage does not understand this.

Neither does he understand that without @X, there would be no @reformparty_uk or British right wing. We would have been cancelled.

Keep insulting!

[X Freeze @XFreeze]

Grok Imagine just got a HUGE update

You can now create your own custom templates

Just upload your image and you can do:
→ Photo to Video
→ Photo to Style Edit
→ Photo → Edit → Video

No design skills needed
This is your own personal AI creative studio

Create nearly unlimited templates with full control over your workflow and style

[tetsuo @tetsuoai]

good morning, 𝕏

the audio in Grok Imagine is getting scary good

the audio is clean, full, and present. even the mouth shapes are landing dead-on

insanely strong for a current-gen ai talking-head 🤯

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Imagine upgrades

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

🎯

[Pavel Durov @durov]

This is how the EU/UK now regulates social media:

🤐 Offer CEOs secret deals to censor dissent.
🚨 If they refuse, open criminal cases against them.
😑 When people push back, say it's "all for the children".

🎭 "Protecting children" has become the standard legal/PR cover.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@mattvanswol A friend of mine donated to an orphanage for over a decade and one day he stopped by to check on the orphans.

What he found was a room full of people working the phones for donations and zero kids. Not even one kid for show. Zero.