Benjamin Norton — blogger, leftist “activist,” aspiring journalist & oligarch errand boy, and liberal “humanitarian interventionist” (aka war-monger) — has devoted a substantial amount of time and effort to stalking the twitter activity of myself and several of my closest and most valued friends in the twittersphere, engaging in a tireless effort to misrepresent our views and defame our character. His infatuation with five of us in particular has long been established, but came to a head in October of last year in a blog post in which he used the five of us to further demonstrate his bloodlust for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. You see, the five of us — Myself, Chris (@ChrisRulon), Jack (@cossa68), Vincent (@VincentTongue) and Ashley (@Way2Wonderland) — represent something out of the ordinary to activist types. We are wholly dedicated to the truth, however unsettling it may be, without bias or ideologies, and have not a shred of opportunism in our DNA. In light of the type of “work” Ben aspires to make a name for himself in, individuals like the five of us create major headaches for him. His hostility towards us is by no means indicative of a perceived lack of altruism on our part, but is in fact a result of our somewhat rare ability to undermine the effectiveness of his opportunistic endeavors. It’s an indisputable fact that two of the hottest tickets to the top of activist and journalistic superstardom these days are trumpeting the dangers of “anti-Semitism” and getting a seat on the bandwagon of the anti-Assad movement; both of which are bursting at the seams with hypocrisy, hyperbole and filthy, slanderous lies. It is under this set of conditions that tying the five of us and the dangers our ideas pose together with “anti-Semitism” and “apologetics” for a “brutal dictator who slaughters his own people,” a familiar formula is capitalized on.
Ben’s hard-hitting, thought-provoking masterpiece is titled (as you likely already know) ‘Meet the Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorists Who Are Assad’s Biggest Fans’. A title alone says a thousand words I’d bet a week’s pay Ben doesn’t have any clue what a Semite truly is. Using the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ in a demeaning way warrants no response at all. And as far as being Assad’s biggest fans, well… To say that’s an embellishment would be an understatement. To be clear, all five of us support the Syrian government and Syrian Arab Army in it’s now 4+ year-old war against foreign, US, Saudi, Israeli, Turkish and Qatari-backed wahabbi death squads who have all but destroyed a once vibrant and overwhelmingly safe country. We support Syria as a sovereign state whose population supports President Assad by an overwhelming majority, and as such, we support Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria, without whom that country would be the wasteland Libya is by now. The extent to which we support Assad as an individual varies greatly between the five of us, but that, of course, is wholly irrelevant and not even worthy of discussion. Labeling us “Assadistas” is a childish and intentionally manipulative tactic, which is to be expected of someone like him.
Utilizing a versatile vocabulary in the interest of aweing his readers with some sort of perceived eloquence, full of pseudo-Marxian gibberish and elitist vainglory, he achieves nothing but self-humiliation. His self-humiliation is accomplished in several ways. The first being the very time and effort he invested in stalking the tweets of the five of us, an especially painstaking task considering most if not all of us have him blocked. Managing to uncover the select few tweets that paint the five of us in the most damning light possible (to him and his readers, at least) undoubtedly required substantial motivation. To make matters worse for our friend Benjamin, in order to even produce such an agenda-driven work of misinformation, saturated in convolution and conflation, it is simply not plausible to be truthful or honest. Deference to presuppositions, egregious generalizations and outright lies is what characterizes the “analysis” offered to anyone stupid enough to read Norton’s posts. He unambiguously declares the five of us as admirers and adherents to individuals, information sources and ideological persuasions with not a shred of evidence to back the claim. Just one example being the assertion that we are followers of Alex Jones and “Illuminati conspiracy theories,” neither of which claim can be authenticated by even a single tweet. Considering the time Ben unquestionably put into mining and screenshotting tweets of ours, one would think finding such validation to the claims would prove rather effortless. Examining the complexity of any of our views towards Ben’s “neoliberal despots” such as Putin, Qaddafi, or whoever else, is a task unsuited for this particular piece I’m currently writing, though one can be sure Ben’s understanding of these issues is infantile. To that end, understanding and appreciating the extraordinary achievements of Qaddafi and what he represented as a leader, not only to the people of Libya, but to the people of all of Africa and even the entire world, is not a claim to know Qaddafi personally and imply he was a saint. Making such a false equivalence is ironic in light of Ben’s characterization of us as adopting the “Bush maxim” of “you’re either with us or against us,” therefore relegating our methodology as the former’s “polar inversion.”
His focus, naturally, turns to our “conspiracy theories” such as 9/11 truth, the dangers of vaccination and water fluoridation and, of course “anti-Semitism.” The sheer absurdity of the official 9/11 story, the safety of vaccines, and the harmlessness of water fluoridation, have all been so thoroughly and irrefutably proven as fantasy that they do not warrant another mention here. To arrogantly mock an individual who is informed enough to reject these state-sponsored fabrications is an exercise in self-defeat and embarrassment. The official Holocaust narrative, while wholly accepted as truth by a much greater percentage of the population, is no less worthy of critical analysis and, at least for starters, moderate skepticism. As it stands, however, holocaust revisionism is as taboo a subject as just about any other one could possibly invoke. Being a “denier” and being a revisionist do not mean the same thing, though Ben, and countless others from all walks of life and all political positions, have no intention of making the distinction — nor allowing anyone else the liberty of doing so. Being a holocaust revisionist is not being an anti-Semite, for two reasons. One: Questioning official versions of major events is not only a sign of mental and intellectual fortitude, but has been proven necessary by hundreds of years of history and the power structures that have existed within that time. The second reason being, Eastern European Ashkenazi and Khazarians are not Hebrews — that is, descendants of the land now partially occupied by the terrorist organization known as the “State of Israel.” Being called an anti-Semite? It couldn’t possibly hold less weight to anyone not being “informed” by “news” outlets who see dildos and think ISIS is at a gay pride parade; or for that matter, “news” outlets who think Hong Kong is a city in Brazil. Benjamin Norton’s dismissal of Jewish power and influence throughout the world, and his designation as “anti-Semitic” the suggestion of possible validity to the claim, is pathetic, cowardly and a clear indication he is devoid of the “dialectics” and “rudimentary historical analysis” he so pitifully deludes himself into believing he possesses. Even if, for a moment, we replaced “anti-Semitic” with its more apt term, “anti-Jew,” discovering information that contradicts official narratives of WWII still does not in itself imply one hates all Jews. That is pure stupidity.
The bottom line is simple. Benjamin Norton couldn’t hold his own in an actual debate, on any of the accusations he makes or subjects he invokes, with any one of the five of us for a full 90 seconds. He name-calls, associates us with actual hate groups whom none of us identify with in the slightest manner, makes assumptions about our character to further his own personal ambitions, speaks of subject matter he has no business having an opinion on, and for whatever reason he has chosen the five of us to accomplish his self-serving mission of furthering his pseudo-leftist, celebrity activist brand. The five of us unanimously wear it as a badge of honor, all the more so because he has made an absolute fool of himself in the process.