Elon 'Cucks' to ADL and Maybe It's Good
The Anti-Defamation League is slowly being exposed to the broader masses.
Before noon on Wednesday, Elon Musk feebly signaled on X that he and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) were finally on talking terms.
“Thank you for clarifying that you support advertising on X,” said the multi-billionaire to the ADL’s press release regarding “antisemitism and hate on the platform.”
So much for that lawsuit, I guess.
The press release by the ADL noted that social media platforms have had “a serious issue with antisemites and other extremists using these platforms to push their hateful ideas and, in some cases, bully Jewish and other users.”
The Zionist nonprofit acknowledged “X’s stated intent over the last few weeks to address antisemitism and hate” but urged Musk that “more needs to be done.”
The ADL then claimed that it combats all “extremism across all platforms regardless of party or ideology” but, of course, its own.
It goes on to deny the allegations of an ADL boycott of X or Musk’s company losing billions. However, according to CBS News, the ADL called “on advertisers to boycott Twitter” in November of 2022 after Musk reinstated President Donald Trump. Forward also reported several advertising boycotts, including one last fall. None of that includes the many press releases the organization has issued condemning Musk and Twitter, now X.
Musk told CBS News that roughly 50% of advertising revenue plunged at the onset of the purchase of Twitter—a purchase the ADL advocated against.
So, the ADL is lying?
Yes, but because of a resounding and unspeakable “cultural” influence, it is permitted. Musk’s complete bending of the knee has publicly shown money is not the dominant factor in power. Forbes pegs the owner of X at $260.5 billion. As for the ADL, it sits at $81.5 million in assets and $101 million in revenue as of 2021.
Where do we go from here?
The ADL has won the battle, but the war appears to be leaning in favor of the Dissident Right—the true conservatives. Musk's profound reduction in the X space held by Ben Shapiro may have been open to interpretation, but this latest post is pretty definitive. The long game is where the ADL will fall as more and more people are now in tune to the nonprofit duking it out with the richest man in the world—and winning.
The revelations to the ADL won’t be so dramatic for a full understanding of the Zionist Mafia, so censorship is indeed to come quickly.
“A better, healthier, and safer X would be a win for the world,” stated the ADL in the brief. “… As we do with all platforms, we will credit X as it moves in that direction, and we also will call it out when it has not.”
Its last sentence of the release said it “endeavor(s) to further this common mission while respecting the Constitutional right to free speech and religious liberty that belongs to all of us.”
The ADL declares it morally acceptable to be pro-free speech, but of course, on its terms, respecting its “mission.” Claiming to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” through a wide birth of interpretations of antisemitism is mere censorship and will only lead to further angst and animosity.
The ADL-accepted definition is from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), stating:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
The IHRA has a guide to properly illustrate such manifestations, including “the targeting of the state of Israel.” No alluding to “the power as collective—such as … the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
“Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group” is antisemitic, along with any questions surrounding the Holocaust and dual-loyalty. Any comparison of Israeli policy to Nazis is also off-limits.
The definition also included “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”—Zionism—“by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
Any “claims of Jews killing Jesus” are antisemitic, although Christians know Matthew 12:14 states, “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him.” John 11:46-57 also supplements the depiction of his death by the Pharisees.
Protection from Grouping
Most of the definition rests around stigma as a collective, which is understandable for any group, but the rest of the terms simply limit conversation and criticism. Zionism is a part of politics, so in its nature, it should be up for discussion. The purposeful limitation on speech is meant to ensure that American policies support Zionism.
It is just so strange how these nonprofits position Jews as being utterly defenseless, although they are touted for their success. That is perhaps part of the “business of antisemitism” non-Zionist Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews talk about.
It all points to preserving power, which is why we can’t discuss it. It’s understandable to be avoidant to collective abuse, but every other group has to deal with such.
The ADL, if it is really fighting antisemitism, should let its guard down completely—unleash the herd of radicals. They would only be exposed for their bigotry and be outcasts organically. Censorship doesn’t work. The conservative publication Townhall tried censoring the editorial “Elon Musk Cornered by Ben Shapiro's Jewish Leaders to Repent.” Now, the article, self-published, has a quarter of a million views and rising.