Musk Threatens to Sue the Anti-Defamation League for Defamation | Crossroads

Good evening and welcome to Crossroads. Elon Musk may soon be in a legal battle with the ADL. That's the Anti-Defamation League. And he's alleging the organization has cost X, formerly known as Twitter, billions in ad revenue. And he claims this is done by using hate labels, in particular by accusing X of being a platform for anti-Semitism and thereby threatening the advertisers. So Musk wrote on Monday, to clear our platform's name on the matter of anti-Semitism, it looks like we have no choice but to file a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League. Oh, the irony. Now, he's alleging this lawsuit, you know, in it that, quote, they would potentially be on the hook for destroying half the value of the company, so roughly $22 billion. Musk noted that X has heard from advertisers that ADL seems to be responsible for most of our revenue loss and that a discovery process through a lawsuit, which, you know, would reveal the organization's communications, would give a clearer picture of what's actually been taking place behind the scenes. Musk noted advertisers avoid controversy, so all that is needed for ADL to crush our US and European ad revenue is to make unfounded accusations. He said they have much less power in Asia, so our ad revenue there is still strong. This controversy causes advertisers to pause, but that pause is permanent until ADL gives the green light, which they will not do without us agreeing to secretly suspend or shadow ban any account they don't like. That is the relationship they've had with X slash Twitter for many years. And he says, presumably, they have that with all Western search or social media orgs. Now after this, the hashtag ban the ADL began trending on Twitter and what ensued has been, let's call it a very lively online debate over the nature not just of the ADL, but of hate labels and pressure systems using these in particular. Now the ADL, it runs into the narrative of fighting defamation and historically it was really an organization that was more dedicated to defending the Jewish community from attacks. It operates massive lists of people, groups, symbols, numbers, just about everything that it says advocate for hate or discrimination. It notes it with governments at various levels. It does training programs, cool with the FBI, for example, and its power to destroy a company using a single label to declare they're tied to antisemitism or discrimination is a very damaging stain. It can destroy a company. Now for its part, the ADL is shot back at Musk. It said in a statement to CNBC, the threat of defamation lawsuit was frivolous. It called Musk's accusation, quote, flat out dangerous and deeply irresponsible. Now the main accusation, it should be noted, is not really about the ADL like in particular. It's the system tied to it. It's an allegation that a large number of similar organizations really appear to be using the veneer of their organizations claiming to fight against discrimination as just a cover for an actual political agenda, i.e. its political censorship, in other words. There's a belief the actions of these groups and their advocacy for online censorship is really about partisan politics, that they're trying to censor conservatives and doing so mainly in favor of the Democrat Party. Now for the ADL, this controversy actually goes back a few years. This is not something that's always been with them. It's only a few years ago this started. Some point out the ADL took a really different role, notably at the tail end of the Obama administration, and that was shortly before Trump came into office. Now this has to do with the ADL's appointment in particular of its new CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt. Before that, he actually served as a special assistant to President Barack Obama, and New York Post reported that before that position under Obama, Greenblatt, quote, directed an initiative at the Aspen Institute, a George Soros-financed left-leaning nonprofit, suggesting there's some kind of political siding taking place. Now after Greenblatt came into the picture, the ADL began facing criticism for appearing to align itself more with Democrat Party interests and for, you know, apparently distancing itself from advocacy while actual antisemitism, at least, you know, in terms of party interests. The New York Post reported at the time, under Greenblatt, the ADL has rightly taken a strong stance against antisemitism stemming from Internet trolls associated with the alt-right, but he's also largely ignored antisemitism spawning from the left. It noted the ADL downplayed the boycott, you know, divestment, sanctions movement, which notably had an alleged goal, publicly stated, in fact, of destroying Israel. It noted the ADL promoted Black Lives Matter despite BLM support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement and its open hostility toward Israel. And then there are many other examples of this as well, too long to even list. The New York Post reported in September of 2016, it noted that the century-old Jewish civil rights organization appeared to change focus around that time. In particular, it alleged the ADL transformed into, quote, an arm of the Democrat Party's stable of pressure groups. In other words, a tool in the tool chest of the Democrat Party. Now, that following year, 2017, Tablet Magazine criticized the ADL, and they stated this. They said the ADL issued a guide to help us errant Jews understand who are our true haters. And that guide included profiles of 36 people who were framed as being anti-Semitic. And the piece noted the hypocrisy in it. All the individuals listed in that report were on the right side of politics, and the ADL appeared to turn a blind eye to the anti-Jews on the left side of politics. It noted, for example, as Jews face real hate from the left and right alike, we need and deserve an organization that places principles over politics. Now, that Tablet writer questioned why the ADL, for example, did not criticize the LGBT Chicago Dyke March for expelling Jews. They were allegedly kicked out of the homosexual march for raising Jewish pride flags that had the Star of David on them. The writer questioned why the ADL didn't include progressive activists in its hate guide, who claimed a person cannot be both a feminist and a Zionist. That was noted in a 2017 news piece that notably the Nation appears to have deleted. The writer asked why the ADL seemed to have no issue with leftist professors claiming that Jews were behind the 9-11 terror attacks. Now, look, of course the piece was not defending things like this from the right wing of politics either. It was questioning why the ADL appeared to have a double standard politically. You know, when it came to partisan interests. And it raised concerns that the so-called hate labels, anti-Semitism and all these things, were less about actual hate, less about actual anti-Semitism, and a whole lot more about defaming one side of the political aisle in order to benefit the other. Now, Ronald S. Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress in 2017, criticized the ADL. He noted that when President Donald Trump issued a statement at the time, for Holocaust Remembrance Day, Greenblatt of the ADL criticized Trump for failing to note that victims were Jews. Lauder actually took issue with this. He wrote this, Any fair reading of the White House statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day will see it appropriately commemorates the suffering and the heroism that mark that dark chapter in modern history. And he added, Our community gains nothing if we reach a point where manufactured outrages reduce public sensitivity to the real dangers we confront. In other words, again, it was the Jewish community that appeared to take issue with the ADL's partisan stance. It looked like the ADL was trying to use the Jewish community as a political tool. And many critics noted that politicizing anti-Semitism and having a double standard on it could actually cause more harm than good. Now, look, in my personal opinion, the issues they raised are well-founded. Hatred is not a partisan issue. It exists on both sides of the aisle. So if an organization makes a name for itself, allegedly by opposing hate, then it needs to represent what it claims to represent. Well, everyone, that's it for YouTube for the rest of the episode. Come join us on Epic TV, where we can talk about many things we cannot talk about on YouTube. We have a lot to go into still in this show, including, for example, what's happened with the Chinese economy and what it's going to mean for us here. Apparently the Biden administration is saying it's uninvestable, but they're also restricting investment. There's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that is not being talked about too much on the surface. We'll go into some of these things. Also, as well, we'll talk about in the rest of this episode, talking about the ADL, actually some of the accusations against it from the Jewish community, notably, and the problems you have when you politicize hate labels, when you turn it into a partisan issue, rather than what it's supposed to represent. What does it mean, for example, if the FBI, which they train, by the way, were to only target hate groups on one side of the political aisle? What does it mean for the other side? We'll go into these things and a lot more. Again, check out the link in the description. Join us on Epic TV. We'll also be talking about the state of the U.S. economy, what's really going on. They're about to double the deficit, apparently. How is that even humanly possible? Join us on Epic TV for that discussion. Folks, thank you so much for being here. I'll see you on Epic TV. 25-cent flash sale right now for a week. Come join us. People from 160 countries illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border and get themselves up to Border Patrol. But what about the ones who evade Border Patrol? These are known as You can safely assume that anybody that went through the extra effort to avoid U.S. Border Patrol was not an asylum seeker by default. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but if somebody rapes and kills somebody and we find out that they came through here on my watch, that's unacceptable. These men had surrounded my house. They were banging on my back door. They were banging on my front door. I can't understand it unless you're out here seeing it. 21 dead bodies on the road. Code 3 response. Is it wrong to ask people to come to your front door of your home? It's fine. Then why would it be wrong to ask people to come to the front door of our nation? Their primary goal is to circumvent the checkpoints, go undetected. People that do not want to surrender, those are going to be the potential terrorists, the criminals, the real threat to the U.S. We were hoping the federal government would step in and do something, but they didn't. We have no clue who they are or where they're going. That's the scary part.