Olivia
Online
Trinkamali
@trinkamali
Joined November 2022
1.1K Following
179 Followers
7K Posts
.@BernieSanders , it is a time to celebrate. @elonmusk has created enormous value for society by building @SpaceX, driving down the cost of rocket launches and creating a global satellite communication network that has brought high speed, low-cost internet and communication access to hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people along with critical advantages for our military and our nation��s defense.
SpaceX and its technologies will cause an acceleration in the growth of wages and wealth creation globally, including in some of the poorest communities in the U.S. and around the world.
Access to low-cost, high speed communications everywhere will allow children around the world to be educated, families to build businesses, and life-saving medical knowledge and care to be available everywhere.
SpaceX will materially bring down the cost of compute, advancing AI and humanity.
Meanwhile, 4,000 SpaceX employees yesterday became millionaires, including hourly wage employees who you claim you are trying to help.
The Elon Musks of the world drive growth, global GDP, and provide access to goods and services at lower cost that would otherwise not exist.
Elon’s nominal trillionaire status is due to his ownership of SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, the Boring Company and his other initiatives that have brought new technologies that improve our everyday lives.
Elon is not sitting on a trillion dollar pile of cash, jewelry and gold. He is using his controlling stakes in his companies to advance mankind. Elon’s companies don’t pay dividends. They reinvest all of their capital to accelerate innovation and value creation.
Elon is working 24/7 for all of us. He deserves respect and appreciation, not smears.
Bernie, your socialism would never allow a SpaceX to be built. Socialism has only proven to impoverish mankind and lead to death and destruction.
We need to create the conditions for more SpaceXs to be built, not attack the great entrepreneurs who are helping to advance our country.
> you’ll never start a rocket company
> you’ll never build your own engines
> you’ll never be able to use off-the-shelf parts
> you’ll never survive three launch failures
> you’ll never reach orbit
> you’ll never win NASA’s trust
> you’ll never launch cargo to the ISS
> you’ll never compete with Boeing
> you’ll never compete with Lockheed
> you’ll never make rockets reusable
> you’ll never land a rocket vertically
> you’ll never land one on a drone ship
> you’ll never reuse a booster
> you’ll never fly the same booster 10 times
> you’ll never fly the same booster 20 times
> you’ll never fly the same booster 30 times
> you’ll never recover and reuse the fairing
> you’ll never lower launch costs
> you’ll never launch every month
> you’ll never launch every week
> you’ll never launch multiple times a week
> you’ll never carry astronauts
> you’ll never replace Roscosmos
> you’ll never fly civilians to orbit
> you’ll never manufacture satellites at scale
> you’ll never build the biggest constellation ever
> you’ll never make satellite internet work
> you’ll never make satellite internet fast
> you’ll never make satellite internet affordable
> you’ll never serve rural customers
> you’ll never serve aircraft and ships
> you’ll never build a methane rocket engine
> you’ll never make full-flow staged combustion work
> you’ll never build the most powerful rocket ever
> you’ll never build a rocket bigger than Saturn V
> you’ll never build it out of stainless steel
> you’ll never launch Starship
> you’ll never separate Super Heavy and Starship
> you’ll never relight Raptor in space
> you’ll never bring Super Heavy back
> you’ll never catch a booster with Mechazilla tower arms
> you’ll never launch 85% of mass to orbit worldwide
> you’ll never change the economics of space
> you’ll never force the entire industry to copy you
> you’ll never win
> you’ll never IPO
Congratulations to @elonmusk and the SpaceX team. You did what countless people said was impossible, and you did it time and time again.
Today is your day. You deserve this. May it be a glorious one.
This op-ed represents everything wrong within 🇨🇦: envy, grounded in grievance & victimhood.
The instinct to attack success, instead of working hard to emulate it, is a sickness in our society & toxic to our prosperity, productivity & future.
Why’d the G&M publish this rubbish?
Great piece by @HadleyFreeman in Britain’s @thetimes about the Great unmarked graves social panic of 2021-26. The story makes Canadians look like gullible idiots, but it’s a valuable international case study in mass hysteria & journalistic incompetence
https://t.co/KiibJJ8HYB
Who to follow
𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒂𝒍𝒕 𝑶𝒇 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒉
@Shadaya_Knight
The Most Unapologetic Ignoramus {} Family Matters {} Part Time H4ter
AJ Kay
@AJKayWriter
I love it when words tinkle like piano keys and hit like bricks.
James Esses
@JamesEsses
Therapist, Campaigner, Conservative Councillor, Founder of Just Therapy https://t.co/S2inNGBxo9. For therapy with me: https://t.co/jxHoPerMOi. Opinions my own!
We have eyes. We all see it.
@DailyMail In other words, a man dangling his penis and testicles in the women’s locker room. A man. Just ban him (and all men) from any women’s spaces.
There are monsters in Canada tearing down posters about this missing Jewish girl.
Please circulate this to help find Esther.
#EstherIsMissing
Denmark just released official crime statistics broken down by origin.
The groups with the highest crime rates are from Somalia, Palestine, and Morocco.
For years, European leaders denied any connection between mass immigration from certain countries and rising crime. Now the data is becoming impossible to ignore.
How much longer will they keep pretending this isn’t happening?
My thoughts on the @EHRC guidance laid yesterday; this is not about non-existent "rights". It is about the safety of women - mothers, sisters, wives, daughters. We men need to hear their voices. Virginia Woolf : "Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".
My intro on @TimesRadio yesterday:
Where I live there are two different routes to and from the tube station. One, let’s call it Acacia Avenue, is quiet and residential. The other, London Road, is a busy major route with lots of traffic. At all times of the day, I automatically head for Acacia Road. It’s just much nicer.
The women in my family, on the other hand, will never willingly make that walk after dark. They live with an anxiety that most men find it hard to imagine, and frankly, rarely think about unprompted.
Last year 739,000 women were sexually assaulted in Britain. Virtually all such assaults - nine out of ten - are perpetrated by men. One in four women have been attacked at some time in their lives. Acacia Avenue is exactly the sort of place in which most women fear that they become vulnerable, and they are right.
As the author Virginia Woolf once wrote " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".
I think this is the right context in which to understand the furore over the guidance being laid today by the government, over the meaning of the words man and woman when it comes to providing services and facilities in workplaces.
Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t.
In a previous life, as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman. But it has taken a decade of campaigning, a Supreme Court judgement and now hundreds of pages of guidance to settle the issue.
This is not about so called trans rights, which are completely unaffected by this guidance, since no-one has ever had the right to walk into a changing room reserved for teenage girls.
What it does mean is that women and girls are guaranteed the protection they deserve, and that their safety, which we spent half a decade drafting law to ensure, is protected.
But the whole business illuminates some serious issues in our politics.
First that many of our institutions, in spite of the fact that they always knew what the right thing to do was, decided to ignore the fears of their women customers and employees, under pressure from noisy pressure groups. Instead, the people who were supposed to be the grown ups behaved as though the law said what campaigners wanted it to say, rather than what it actually said. They settled for what they hoped would be a quiet life.
In a democracy, there’s little point in Parliament deciding anything if the law is then made an ass by activists intimidating bosses in companies, schools, universities and the media into doing something different.
Second, at the heart of the campaign to undermine the Equality Act is an idea that we specifically rejected in 2010, so called self-identification. That is to say, that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they have what’s called a protected characteristic - are you male or female, are you black or white. The problem is that self-ID would destroy the operation of any law against discrimination.
Look, it would almost certainly have been to my advantage as a young man to self-identify as a handsome, white public schoolboy. None of those things is true of me. And at various points I am pretty sure it’s been to my disadvantage. It is certainly statistically likely to have been to my disadvantage.
But according to the logic of those who say that self-ID should be the rule and that anyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are male or female, black or white or Asian, were I to complain about racial discrimination, it would be difficult for anyone prove that I’d been discriminated against because of my race since anybody to whom I’d lost out could just tell the courts that they too were black.
I know that sounds like Alice in Wonderland but you can google the case where a chap, both of whose parents are white, insisted he should get money from the Arts Council because he so identified with the black struggle that he considered himself black, and everyone should accept his point of view. In the United States and Brazil exactly such outlandish claims have been made and people rewarded to the disadvantage of people actually born into minority families.
I have even been told about firms who, when reporting their gender pay gaps have put men who just happen to like wearing dresses at weekends - nothing wrong with that, let me be clear - into the female column and told their women employees that they really haven’t got anything to moan about because statistically they are paid equally, and they should get back in their box.
So today’s guidance isn’t just another tiresome chapter in culture wars. It is , I hope, a halt to the efforts to undermine one of the most important pieces of legislation on the statute book, by people who, for their own reasons, would prefer us to be living in the 1950s world of Mad Men.
Gilles, je vais démonter ta prémisse de départ, parce que tout le reste de ton argument s'effondre avec elle.
Tu pars du principe qu'il faut une « sensibilité de gauche » pour ne pas laisser créver les gens de faim. C'est l'inverse total de ce que dit l'histoire économique des 50 dernières années.
Les chiffres bruts.
1990 : 2,3 milliards de personnes en pauvreté extrême. 38% de l'humanité.
2025 : 831 millions. Environ 10%.
1,5 milliard d'êtres humains sortis de la misère absolue en 35 ans. La plus grande réduction de souffrance humaine de toute l'histoire de l'espèce.
Qui a fait ça ?
Pas l'aide internationale. Pas les ONG. Pas les programmes de redistribution. Pas la « sensibilité de gauche ».
Le marché. L'ouverture commerciale. La Chine de Deng en 1978 qui abandonne le maoisme. L'Inde en 1991 qui libéralise. Le Vietnam, l'Indonésie, le Bangladesh qui s'ouvrent au capitalisme.
Les seuls endroits où l'extrême pauvreté a EXPLOSÉ sur la même période ? Le Vénézuela socialiste : de 27% de pauvres en 2008 à plus de 80% en 2018, avec une inflation de 130 000% et un Vénézuélien moyen qui a perdu 11 kilos par dénutrition. La Corée du Nord. Cuba. Le Zimbabwe de Mugabe.
La gauche ne nourrit pas les pauvres. Elle les fabrique.
Le capitalisme produit tellement de richesse que même ses « perdants » américains vivent mieux que la classe moyenne soviétique. Un pauvre US a un frigo, une voiture, un téléphone, l'air conditionné, internet. Un pauvre cubain attend du riz.
Ton argument selon lequel « le social aux USA est un désastre » repète une légende française. La réalité : le PIB par habitant américain est de 80 000$. Français : 45 000$. Un Mississippien — l'État US le plus pauvre — a un revenu médian supérieur au Français moyen.
La vérité que la gauche française refuse de regarder : dans un système libéral, il y a plus de richesse créée, plus largement distribuée, et beaucoup moins de pauvres. Partout. Sans exception. Sur toutes les périodes mesurées.
ÊTRE de gauche en 2026 face à ces données, ce n'est pas avoir de la « sensibilité ». C'est ignorer 35 ans de preuves accablantes. C'est préférer la posture morale au résultat.
La compassion sans résultats, ça s'appelle de la vanité.
Tu confonds deux choses, et c'est exactement le piège que la French Theory a tendu.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité — égalité *de droits*, égalité *devant la loi*, égalité *de dignité*. C'est la promesse républicaine, et personne ici ne l'attaque.
Le wokisme, ce n'est pas ça. C'est l'égalitarisme des résultats. Et l'égalitarisme des résultats, contrairement à l'égalité des droits, n'est pas un élargissement de la liberté — c'est sa négation.
Quelques exemples concrets :
— San Francisco supprime les classes de maths avancées au collège pour "réduire les inégalités". Résultat : les écarts entre élèves explosent, les familles aisées prennent des cours privés, les pauvres se font enterrer. L'égalitarisme a creusé l'inégalité.
— Les politiques de discrimination positive à Harvard : étudiants admis avec des scores très en dessous de leurs camarades, taux d'échec dispropportionné, sentiment d'imposture, ressentiment généralisé. On a saboté ceux qu'on voulait aider.
— L'aide humanitaire qui distribue du riz gratuit pendant 30 ans en Afrique : effondrement des filières agricoles locales, dépendance institutionnalisée. Donner un poisson, c'est empêcher d'apprendre à pêcher.
Le wokisme ne détruit pas l'humanité dans le sens dramatique. Il fait pire : il dessert systématiquement ceux qu'il prétend protéger, et il génère du ressentiment des deux côtés — ceux qu'on infantilise et ceux qu'on culpabilise.
La fraternité républicaine dit : tu es mon égal, donc je te traite en adulte capable.
Le wokisme dit : tu es ma victime, donc je dois te protéger de toi-même.
L'un élève. L'autre infantilise. Ce n'est pas la même chose, et confondre les deux est exactement le tour de passe-passe qu'on dénonce.
One of the most beautiful stories I've ever read was when a scientist discovered a new butterfly species and named it after Iryna Zarutska.
The butterfly is called "Iryna's Azure."
"Her name will be forever immortalized as a butterfly," he said.
She will never be forgotten ❤️
Western society is currently divided between people who know this is a man and are prepared to say so and those who know this is a man but lie out of obedience to an ideology. There is no third option. Literally nobody on earth thinks "Roxanne Tickle" is actually a woman.
British PM Keir Starmer? Silent
French President Macron? Silent
Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez? Silent.
Italian PM Giorgia Meloni? Silent.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz? Silent.
Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin? Silent.
Norway PM Jonas Gahr? Silent.
Canada’s Mark Carney? Silent
Shawn Hendrix came into Western North Carolina to help after a natural disaster.
Is he a “white nationalist” 60 Minutes?
He continues to deliver gifts to orphans in Black Mountain.
He still suffers from health issues from being around moisture and mold.
He took a chance and partnered with Matt and I, a liberal couple at the time.
He showed us love, kindness, empathy, but more importantly, he brought his survival skills to my community.
We were safer having him here and are better humans now for knowing him.
A MILLION legacy media losers would not equal one of him.
SIT DOWN!
Out of every disgusting, dishonest piece of filth the mainstream media has produced about Hurricane Helene...
This is the worst.
60 Minutes has NEVER done a story on the families FEMA denied.
They NEVER mentioned the Amish, who are STILL in the mountains rebuilding homes 550 days later.
They NEVER mentioned Jake Jarvis, who has worked 550 days STRAIGHT FOR FREE for Hurricane Helene victims.
Instead, they dug up some fringe conspiracy angle to smear the people who actually showed up as White Nationalists.
I'm so angry.
Let me tell you what 60 Minutes will NEVER report on
I was there. I lived it. I am still here.
I shared every story I could find.
Me, my wife, hundreds of volunteers delivered RVs to mothers holding babies who were sleeping in TOOL SHEDS AND TENTS in the freezing cold, in the mountains.
Because their homes had been ripped off the side of a mountain and washed down the French Broad.
So tell me 60 Minutes... WHERE WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Tell me, WHY did all these volunteers NEED to show up?
Any thoughts on that?!!!!!
Any investigation AT ALL into the federal or state government's response to Hurricane Helene?
Please tell me... if the federal government was doing such a GREAT JOB, why did we need to put victims in RVs...
...A MONTH AFTER THE HURRICANE?!!!!!!!
Literally every single victim you talk to in Western North Carolina has a horror story about dealing with FEMA...
...and guess who they will all say actually cam through for them?
Neighbors.
Church groups.
The Amish.
The Cajun Navy.
Shawn Hendricks.
Samaritan's Purse.
MercuryOne.
The Mission Mules hauling insulin up washed-out roads, ONLY ACCESSIBLE by mules.
Greg Biffle burning his own fuel in helicopters.
Veterans like Adam Smith who organized helicopter rescues with other veterans BY HIMSELF and then was demonized by the media for it.
Volunteers like Jake Jarvis working TO THIS DAY, 550 days later without ANY PAY AT ALL.
THOSE ARE THE STORIES FROM HURRICANE HELENE WORTH TELLING.
But 60 Minutes won't tell ANY OF THEM.
Because the truth makes the federal government the villain and the "deplorables" are actually the heroes in this story and they can NEVER admit that.
So instead they smeared the rescuers as white nationalists.
This is unforgivable.
I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
And I will BE DAMNED if I let CBS rewrite the history of what happened to my mountains.
Out of every disgusting, dishonest piece of filth the mainstream media has produced about Hurricane Helene...
This is the worst.
60 Minutes has NEVER done a story on the families FEMA denied.
They NEVER mentioned the Amish, who are STILL in the mountains rebuilding homes 550 days later.
They NEVER mentioned Jake Jarvis, who has worked 550 days STRAIGHT FOR FREE for Hurricane Helene victims.
Instead, they dug up some fringe conspiracy angle to smear the people who actually showed up as White Nationalists.
I'm so angry.
Let me tell you what 60 Minutes will NEVER report on
I was there. I lived it. I am still here.
I shared every story I could find.
Me, my wife, hundreds of volunteers delivered RVs to mothers holding babies who were sleeping in TOOL SHEDS AND TENTS in the freezing cold, in the mountains.
Because their homes had been ripped off the side of a mountain and washed down the French Broad.
So tell me 60 Minutes... WHERE WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Tell me, WHY did all these volunteers NEED to show up?
Any thoughts on that?!!!!!
Any investigation AT ALL into the federal or state government's response to Hurricane Helene?
Please tell me... if the federal government was doing such a GREAT JOB, why did we need to put victims in RVs...
...A MONTH AFTER THE HURRICANE?!!!!!!!
Literally every single victim you talk to in Western North Carolina has a horror story about dealing with FEMA...
...and guess who they will all say actually cam through for them?
Neighbors.
Church groups.
The Amish.
The Cajun Navy.
Shawn Hendricks.
Samaritan's Purse.
MercuryOne.
The Mission Mules hauling insulin up washed-out roads, ONLY ACCESSIBLE by mules.
Greg Biffle burning his own fuel in helicopters.
Veterans like Adam Smith who organized helicopter rescues with other veterans BY HIMSELF and then was demonized by the media for it.
Volunteers like Jake Jarvis working TO THIS DAY, 550 days later without ANY PAY AT ALL.
THOSE ARE THE STORIES FROM HURRICANE HELENE WORTH TELLING.
But 60 Minutes won't tell ANY OF THEM.
Because the truth makes the federal government the villain and the "deplorables" are actually the heroes in this story and they can NEVER admit that.
So instead they smeared the rescuers as white nationalists.
This is unforgivable.
I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
And I will BE DAMNED if I let CBS rewrite the history of what happened to my mountains.
A Failure of Judgment at the Highest Court
To Richard Wagner,
Your refusal to recuse yourself from the Emergencies Act appeal is not a demonstration of judicial confidence. It is a failure of judgment at a moment that demanded restraint.
You have justified your decision on the basis that your prior public comments did not address the specific legal questions before the Court. That argument may satisfy a narrow, technical reading of judicial conduct. It does not satisfy the standard Canadians are entitled to expect from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The governing principle is not whether you commented on the precise statutory interpretation of the Emergencies Act. It is whether a reasonable and informed person would conclude that your previously expressed views could influence your assessment of the case.
You publicly characterized the convoy as the “budding start of anarchy,” described residents as being “taken hostage,” and spoke in terms that conveyed clear condemnation of the events and participants. Those were not neutral observations. They were judgments about the nature, legitimacy, and perceived threat posed by the very situation now under review.
This appeal is not a retrial. It does not exist to rehear evidence or relitigate the convoy as though the past can be reset. Appellate review in Canada is focused on whether the law was correctly interpreted and properly applied to established facts, with significant deference given to the findings already made by the lower courts.
That distinction matters.
The federal government is asking the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn decisions that found its use of the Emergencies Act unlawful. Those rulings concluded that the legal threshold for a national emergency was not met, that existing laws were sufficient, and that certain measures infringed Charter rights.
In response, the government argues that the courts applied the wrong legal standard, failed to give appropriate deference to executive decision-making during a crisis, interpreted the definition of a threat to the security of Canada too narrowly, and erred in their Charter analysis.
Each of those arguments turns on how serious and threatening the underlying events were understood to be in law. The Court must assess necessity, proportionality, and justification. It must determine whether extraordinary powers were warranted under the circumstances that existed at the time.
Those are not abstract exercises.
They require judgment about the nature of the events themselves.
To suggest that prior public condemnation of those events has no bearing on your ability to assess the legality of the government’s response is to rely on a distinction that may be legally convenient but is publicly unconvincing.
The issue is not your personal belief in your own impartiality. Every judge holds that belief. The issue is whether Canadians can reasonably maintain confidence in the Court’s impartiality when the Chief Justice has already expressed strong views about the factual foundation of the case.
Recusal would not have weakened the Court. It would have strengthened it.
It would have demonstrated that the Supreme Court understands the difference between legal defensibility and institutional legitimacy. It would have signaled that preserving public trust matters more than maintaining personal participation in a high-profile case.
Instead, your decision suggests that the threshold for stepping aside is so narrow that even prior public condemnation of the central events of a case does not meet it.
That is not a reassuring message to Canadians.
Other members of the Court have recognized the importance of avoiding even the perception of bias and have stepped aside in contentious cases to preserve the integrity of the institution. That example was available. It was not followed.
The principle of natural justice is clear. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In a case of this magnitude, involving the limits of state power and the rights of citizens, that principle should have guided your decision.
This was an opportunity to reinforce public confidence in Canada’s institutions at a time when that confidence is already strained.
You declined it.
As Chief Justice, you are not merely a participant in this case. You are the steward of the reputation of the Supreme Court of Canada itself. That reputation rests not on assertions of impartiality, but on decisions that demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. In choosing not to recuse yourself under these circumstances, you have not strengthened that reputation. You have placed it at risk, at a time when public confidence in national institutions is already fragile. The damage may not be immediate, but it is real, and it is yours to own.
Respectfully,
Melanie in Saskatchewan
Yes, the people who call themselves 'trans' exist and they deserve exactly the same rights as everyone else, which, fortunately, they already have in the UK. It would rightly be considered discrimination if a person was refused employment, housing or the vote because they identified as trans.
'Trans women are women' is a thought-terminating cliché. Men are not women. That doesn't mean they're not allowed to present themselves however they like, call themselves whatever they like and believe whatever they like about themselves. It means they haven't changed sex.
If we replace the objective, observable characteristic of sex with the unfalsifiable concept of gender identify, women and girls lose, among other things, their right to fair and safe sport and women-only spaces, including changing rooms, prison cells and rape crisis services.
Women and girls are provably more vulnerable to forms of abuse including sexual assault, harassment and voyeurism in mixed-sex spaces. There is no evidence that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same rates of criminal offending as all other men.
Trans people exist. I have no desire for them not to exist; indeed, I wish them safety, happiness and health. However, 'existence' does not, and should not, mean the violation of other people's right to privacy, dignity and freedom of speech, or the reconfiguration of society to indulge a fallacy.
Larry Ellison just asked the one question no journalist on Earth can answer.
A Wall Street Journal writer told Ellison to his face that Elon Musk doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Ellison didn’t argue. Didn’t get emotional. He just asked a question.
Ellison: “This guy is landing rockets on robot drone rafts in the ocean, and you’re saying he doesn’t know what he’s doing. You ever land a rocket?”
One question. No recovery.
Ellison: “Who are you? Why should I believe you as opposed to my friend Elon?”
This is the question the entire media class has been dodging for a decade. Who are you to judge? What have you built? What have you shipped? What problem have you solved that didn’t involve a keyboard and a deadline?
Ellison: “You’re there in front of your Apple Macintosh typing up an article saying Elon’s an idiot.”
They sit behind a laptop they did not engineer. Using a network they did not build. Running on silicon they cannot explain. To tell the world that the man sending humans to space doesn’t know what he’s doing.
They have never built anything heavier than a Word document.
And they publish it with absolute certainty.
That’s the part that should disturb you. Not the criticism. The confidence behind it. The total absence of self-awareness it takes to judge disciplines you wouldn’t last a single semester in.
Musk does not operate in opinion. He operates in the physical layer of the universe where the math closes or the rocket does not come home.
His critics operate in a text editor.
He built the vehicle that carries NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. The satellite constellation delivering internet to active war zones. The EV that forced every automaker on Earth to abandon their combustion roadmap.
His loudest critics built a byline.
So why the coordinated hatred?
Because they lost the leash.
The attacks didn’t escalate because Musk got worse at engineering. They escalated because he bought X. He cracked open the algorithm. He handed the public square back to the people. And he shattered their ability to control what you’re allowed to think.
They don’t hate the engineer.
They hate that the engineer took their monopoly.
You cannot cancel a rocket. You cannot publish a hit piece on gravity. You cannot edit the laws of physics.
They own the syntax.
He owns the physics.
One of them is going to Mars.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Lady_Nina_Birch 😈 Join My Femdom Onlyfans
Seen from United Kingdom
BlackDominance
Seen from Turkey
Asupan indo
Seen from Singapore
سعد
Seen from Pakistan
💥18+ Girls masturbation & Lesbians Only 💥
Seen from Turkey
قصص || Stories
Seen from Egypt
محمد فادي
Seen from Turkey
พ่อบ้านรุก8
Seen from Thailand
Dida
Seen from Singapore
kkkk
Seen from Korea
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.3M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.5M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.3M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.7M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.6M followers