Labels

Racialised Polemics, Violent Epistemic Misrepresentation, and Plagiarism: A Critical Examination of Chris Bennett’s Recent Portrayal of me


 



This article critically analyses Chris Bennett’s Cannabis Culture piece, “The Strange Case of Wahid Azal: Bayān Messiah or Blaspheming Madman?”[1] published on 20 November 2025 on the Cannabis Culture website. Without reproducing Bennett’s allegations verbatim, I argue that the structure, rhetoric, and epistemic strategy of his article constitute a modern iteration of racialised polemic, grounded less in scholarly engagement than in sensationalism, cultural exoticisation, and personalised defamation. Drawing on media-studies frameworks, diaspora studies, CESNUR-critique literature, and legal considerations under Canadian criminal law, I demonstrate that Bennett’s piece exemplifies a troubling genre of racialised character assassination masquerading as investigative journalism: a known strategy and tactic of CESNUR’s that I already unmasked in my The Goal of the Wisecrack: Unmasking Rosita Šorytė’s Bitter Winter Diatribe.[2] The paper concludes by situating Bennett’s rhetorical approach within wider patterns of racialised misrepresentation of non-Western religious claimants and outlines the epistemic and ethical responsibilities owed to scholars and independent religious thinkers in diaspora.

 

Introduction

In November 2025, Cannabis Culture published a series of salacious articles by Chris Bennett purporting to examine me: an Australian-Iranian independent scholar and esoteric thinker best known for my translations and commentaries on Islamic-Persian esoteric philosophy, and particularly for my personal work within the Bayānī esoteric tradition. The article in question—framed under the sensationalistic binary of “Bayān Messiah or Blaspheming Madman”—makes bold claims about my intellectual output, personal conduct, and religious self-understanding. Yet Bennett’s narrative technique and rhetorical framing raise substantial concerns. Rather than presenting a balanced or academically grounded critique, the article deploys orientalist tropes, transparent racially coded innuendo, and ad hominem insinuations that cumulatively construct me as an “exotic outsider,” an untrustworthy “Oriental guru,” or a “dangerous fringe figure.” Such strategies not only distort my intellectual and spiritual work but also reproduce long-standing patterns in Western discourse where non-Western religious thinkers are flattened into caricatures for entertainment rather than engaged on the merits of their ideas. This reveal Bennett’s underlying racism.

Furthermore, Bennett’s article appears to trespass into legally questionable territory. Under Canadian criminal law—specifically the offence of defamatory libel under s. 298 Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)—the publication of matter likely to expose an individual to “hatred, contempt, or ridicule” without lawful justification may constitute a criminal offence. Although this article does not provide official legal opinion, the argument is put forth that the rhetorical structure of Bennett’s piece aligns disturbingly with the statutory definition of defamatory criminal libel.

This article proceeds by analysing the rhetorical strategies, cultural framings, epistemic omissions, commissions and legal implications of Bennett’s piece, situating it within broader academic discussions concerning race, media representation, CESNUR’s documented tactics, and the treatment of diaspora intellectuals.

 

Methodological Approach

This analysis draws upon four overlapping methodological frameworks:

1.     Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) — examining the lexical, narrative, and structural choices Bennett employs to construct certain meanings and connotations around me.

2.     Post-Colonial and Race-Critical Theory — interpreting the racialised subtext, orientalist tropes, and cultural framings that implicitly situate me as the “Other.”

3.     Media Studies & Cultic Studies Theory, including Corvaglia’s critique of CESNUR—interrogating the genre conventions and ideological patterns of organisations that police religious discourse, and their influence on downstream media.

4.     Legal-Rhetorical Analysis—assessing how Bennett’s statements intersect with the semantics of defamatory libel under Canadian law.

By triangulating these approaches, the goal is to render a comprehensive, academically grounded critique of Bennett’s methods and to demonstrate the larger epistemic and ethical issues his article exemplifies.

 

Mode of Representation: Sensationalism as Argument

Bennett’s title already signals the genre into which the article falls: the sensationalistic binary trope. “Messiah or madman?” is a framing device with a long history in Western portrayals of non-Western religious leaders, from the Orientalist travelogues of the 19th century to modern click-bait commentary. The binary is deliberately misleading: it offers only two pre-selected interpretations, both of which pathologise the subject.

Rather than engaging my extensive body of work—including my published translations, metaphysical commentary, multi-volume esoteric writings, and research on Islamic Illuminationist traditions—Bennett reduces the intellectual context to a side-show narrative of personality. Assertions about temperament, online disputes, interpersonal conflicts, and community disagreements supplant any rigorous exegesis of my actual writings. In short, what Bennett is engaging in is outright smear and black propaganda. This reductionism is epistemically irresponsible. By framing his article as an overview of a contemporary esoteric figure, Bennett implicitly claims the authority of an investigative researcher. Yet his rhetorical strategies align with bad entertainment journalism: reliance on selective anecdotes, preference for conflict-driven narratives, and absence of engagement with primary texts. Moreover, the article’s near-total silence on the intellectual tradition I inherit—the Bayānī legacy, Suhrawardian ontology, the Akbarian metaphysics of the unity of being— signals that the goal was never analysis but spectacle.

 

Racialised Subtext and Orientalist Tropes

A central argument of this paper is that Bennett’s article is embedded in racialised patterns of representation displaying conscious racial animus, demonstrating thereby how his rhetorical strategy reproduces long-standing orientalist conventions.

 

Ethnic and migratory foregrounding

Bennett repeatedly emphasises my Iranian background, migration trajectory, and diaspora identity in a manner that functions rhetorically to signal “foreignness.” While biographical context is not inherently problematic, the way it is deployed—juxtaposed with allegations of instability, extremity, or esoteric grandiosity—taps into a familiar Western narrative: the “eccentric eastern outsider.” In other words, he is redeploying the “wandering Jew” narrative of Antisemitism for his polemical purposes against me.

 

Exoticisation of religious identity

Bennett frames my esoteric theopathic claims not through the textual, philosophical, or historical framework they inhabit but through the lens of “messianic delusion,” “grandiosity,” or “cultic” behaviour. This reframing implicitly negates the legitimacy of non-Western religious epistemologies. It renders my system of thought inherently suspect not because of any demonstrated inconsistency but because it deviates from the presumed norm of Western rationality. Here Bennett clearly displays his epistemic white supremacy.

 

 

Pathologisation as a racial trope

The unitary axis of Bennett’s narrative—oscillating between mockery and pathologisation—is in itself a racialised trope. In Western treatments of Eastern mysticism, the figure of the “mad prophet,” the “unstable guru,” or the “dangerous messiah” is recurrent. What is notable is not the content but the structure: the conflation of cultural difference with psychological abnormality.

 

Erasure of intellectual labour

A quintessential mechanism of racialised discourse is the erasure of intellectual accomplishment. Despite my extensive translation work, engagement with medieval Islamic philosophy and esotericism, and contributions to comparative metaphysics, Bennett’s article focuses almost entirely on personality-based allegations from internet disputes. This epistemic minimisation is a hallmark of orientalist framing: the non-Western subject is not treated as a thinker but as an object of analysis. Again, here Bennett does not hide his racism.

 

Epistemic Misrepresentation and the Ethics of Criticism

Even if one sets aside race, Bennett’s article suffers from serious epistemic flaws.

i. Absence of textual engagement

No substantive analysis of my actual writings appears. Bennett’s portrayal relies almost entirely on third-party anecdotes, selective quotes, and contextual insinuations rather than the primary texts which define my work.

ii. Lack of methodological transparency

The article does not disclose its selection criteria, evidentiary standards, or fact-checking protocols. It presents contested claims as if they were settled facts.

iii. Conflation of theological and behavioural assertions

One of the most problematic aspects is Bennett’s conflation of theological self-understanding (e.g. claims to spiritual station) with behavioural allegations (e.g. interpersonal disputes). This reinforces the polemical linkage: non-Western religious claims are inherently discreditable.

iv. Omission of rejoinder and counter-narrative

Basic journalistic ethics require that the subject of serious allegations be properly consulted or given right of reply. Bennett’s piece does not reflect any such engagement, resulting in a structurally lopsided narrative. But it stands to reason that this is by design and what CESNUR specifically paid him to do.

 

Legal Considerations: Defamatory Libel Under Canadian Law

While the present article does not purport to provide legal advice, it is essential to note that Bennett’s publication raises prima facie questions under Section 298 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which defines defamatory libel as:

“Matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or that is designed to insult...”

Bennett’s framing, lexical choices, insinuations of delusion or instability, and allegations of improper conduct could collectively be argued to meet this threshold. Particularly relevant is:

  • The publication’s wide circulation,
  • The sensationalistic and derisive presentation,
  • The absence of evidentiary justification,
  • The refusal to engage primary works,
  • The explicitly insulting character of the portrayal.

 

The Criminal Code also recognises related offences concerning harassment and the publication of material encouraging hostility toward individuals. Although not directly invoked here, Bennett’s rhetorical approach edges close to these categories and even arguably crosses them, especially when paired with racialised subtext that renders the target not merely an individual but a symbol of a cultural “Otherness.” One wonders what actual Canadian Antifa would make of this. They would immediately see it as the common tactical methodology of a Neo-Nazi polemicist usually weaponized against them.

 

Broader Context: Non-Western Religious Thinkers in Western Media

Bennett’s article fits into a long lineage of Western media treatments of individuals from non-Western religious traditions. Scholars of religion have extensively documented how figures from Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African traditions are often portrayed either as:

1.     Exotic mystics,

2.     Dangerous cultic figures,

3.     Mad visionaries, or

4.     Frauds or impostors.

This typology serves a dual purpose: it both reassures Western audiences of their cultural superiority and trivialises the complexities of non-Western mystical traditions. In this framework, I become less a thinker whose work merits engagement and more a character in a morality play designed for Western consumption. Moreover, Bennett’s approach exemplifies what Edward Said termed the “textual attitude” of orientalism:[3] the preference for narratives that fit pre-existing cultural scripts rather than those which challenge them. The result is a public discourse that forecloses understanding rather than expanding it.

 

Parallels with CESNUR Tactics and the Probability of Indirect Involvement

A further dimension deepens the concern: the striking resemblance between Bennett’s rhetorical strategy and the well-documented methods of CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions), particularly as analysed by Massimo Corvaglia,[4] who has meticulously catalogued the organisation’s techniques for discrediting their critics.

Across numerous case studies, Corvaglia demonstrates that CESNUR-affiliated actors and sympathisers:

1.     Pathologise the target, framing them as mentally unstable or delusional;

2.     Isolate the individual, claiming broad community repudiation even where such repudiation is manufactured or unverified;

3.     Deploy racialised or cultural exoticisation to “otherise” the subject;

4.     Construct defamatory insinuations within pseudo-journalistic formats, permitting reputational harm while maintaining a facade of detached analysis.

Bennett’s article reproduces these tactics with remarkable fidelity verbatim. Thus, Bennett’s piece and CESNUR’s established modus operandi raises the strong possibility of:

  • ideological alignment,
  • indirect influence,
  • or convergence of interest,
  • remuneration

especially given my long-standing criticism of both the Baha’i institutional establishment and CESNUR’s role as the Baha’i administration’s cultic reputational “shield.” At minimum, these parallels justify critical scrutiny of the provenance, motivations, and network-context of Bennett’s article. They also highlight the broader ecosystem in which such polemics circulate: an ecosystem where non-Western religious voices are disproportionately targeted through coordinated or semi-coordinated reputational strategies.

 

Alignment with Duginist Disinformation Rhetoric

Another troubling dimension of Bennett’s article is its near-verbatim alignment with the rhetorical template used in the 2016 doxxing campaign against me published on the now-defunct Duginist blog The 4th Revolutionary War (“What if God Is a Troll? The Mendacity of N. Wahid Azal”)[5] wherein it would appear that Bennett has literally plagiarized the entire blog post. That piece—originally circulated within the wider Duginist ecosystem in 2016 after Trump’s first election—deployed a mix of character assassination, pseudo-psychological profiling, exoticisation of Iranian identity, and conspiratorial innuendo to portray me as unstable, dangerous, or ideologically deviant. What is notable is not merely the similarity but the verbatim structural replication: Bennett’s article repeats the same narrative scaffolding (claims of mental instability, “fringe messianism,” community ostracisation, alleged online volatility) and the same genre cues, including the sensational double-bind framing (“prophet or madman”) and the weaponisation of sectarian diaspora biography.

The Duginist piece relies on common authoritarian-inspired agitprop methods—selective quotation, unverified allegations, psychological pathologisation, and guilt-by-association—techniques extensively studied in analyses of far-right digital influence operations. Bennett’s portrayal mirrors these strategies in both form and diction. This is, then, what Canadian Antifa needs to especially interrogate regarding his motivations. Bennett obviously perused the 2016 doxx and basically rewrote it. With it the convergence of rhetoric, structure, tropes, and defamatory insinuation raises significant concerns about the transmission of disinformation templates across ideological ecosystems, here being used by an individual claiming to be a leftist (which he isn’t) whilst overtly repurposing far-right propaganda smear against me. The reproduction of such frameworks is especially alarming given that the Duginist campaign was explicitly designed to silence, marginalise, and delegitimise my intellectual voice through coordinated reputational harm—which it spectacularly failed in doing. In effect, Bennett reanimates the Duginist smear-frame in a fresh venue, giving new amplification to the same malicious and previously fringe Russian fascist disinformation architecture. The parallels are too extensive to dismiss as coincidence and raise serious concerns about the recycling of coordinated character-assassination tropes across ideological ecosystems. So let us briefly interrogate Bennett’s plagiarism of a Russian fascist-inspired 2016 doxx.

 

Between the 2016 Duginist Doxx and Chris Bennett’s 2025 Article

i. Identical Framing Device: “Messiah vs. Madman” Binary

2016 Duginist blog:

Uses a reductive binary in its title and structure to frame me as either a deluded claimant to spiritual station or a pathological fraud. This “false dichotomy” is presented as the only analytic framework.

2025 Bennett article:

Replicates precisely the same binary framing (“Messiah or blaspheming madman”), including the exact genre cue that forces the reader into a sensationalist and defamatory interpretive box. The structural formula is identical: two extreme caricatures, neither grounded in my actual work.

ii. Racialised Emphasis on Immigration, Name, and Ethnic Origin

2016 blog:

Opens with disproportionately heavy emphasis on my Iranian origin, diaspora trajectory, and name. Ethnicity is used as an insinuative tool to create estrangement and otherness.

2025 Bennett:

Uses the same technique—foregrounding my “Iranian-Australian” background, name changes, lineage, involvement in diaspora circles. The rhetorical effect is identical: establishing foreignness, exoticising identity, and replacing intellectual engagement with ethnographic spectacle.

iii. Pathologisation: Psychological Tropes and Amateur Diagnoses

2016 blog:

Pathologises me with armchair psychiatric terminology: “unstable,” “delusional,” “grandiose,” etc. These tropes are used as character weapons, not clinical observations.

2025 Bennett:

Mirrors these tropes almost point-for-point. Bennett’s descriptions reproduce the identical insinuations of mental illness, instability, “delusions of grandeur,” or antisocial behaviour. The diction and psychological framing closely mirror the 2016 template.

iv. Delegitimisation via “Community Rejection” Narrative

2016 blog: Asserts that I have been “rejected,” “excommunicated,” or “denounced” by religious communities—without any evidence and without defining what “community” means.

2025 Bennett: Uses the same tactic: cites alleged community rejection, portraying me as an ostracised lone figure. The trope operates identically in both texts: delegitimate by implying social isolation.

v. Substitution of Anecdote for Evidence

2016 blog: Relies on unverified anecdotes, second-hand forum drama, and cherry-picked online interactions rather than scholarly engagement with my work.

2025 Bennett: Repeats the exact formula: instead of addressing my textual corpus—translation work, metaphysical writings, philosophical contributions—Bennett substitutes internet anecdotes and forum hearsay. The methodological structure is copied: replace scholarship with gossip.

vi. Reduction of Esoteric Claims to Mockery

2016 blog: Ridicules my theological or metaphysical position by stripping it of context and re-presenting it as absurdity.

2025 Bennett: Replicates the same device: removes my claims from their Illuminationist and Bayānī context, presenting them as “grandiose self-conception,” precisely following the earlier post’s model.

vii. Conspiratorial Framing and Guilt-by-Association

2016 blog: Suggests shadowy affiliations, hidden networks, or subversive motives—an established Duginist polemical tactic.

2025 Bennett: Follows the same pattern: hints at conspiratorial behaviour or online manipulation, without evidence. The shape of the insinuation is identical even when specifics differ.

viii. Erasure of Intellectual Contribution

2016 blog: Completely avoids discussing my scholarly contributions; instead, focuses on personal attacks.

2025 Bennett: Repeats this erasure nearly identically. Despite my extensive published corpus, Bennett avoids substantive engagement and instead reproduces the 2016 narrative of personality-based defamation verbatim.

ix. Linguistic and Structural Parallels Suggesting Template Reuse and so plagiarism

Across both sources, we find:

  • identical paragraph structures,
  • identical sequencing of tropes (origin to instability to online drama to messianism to ostracism to ridicule),
  • repetition of near-identical rhetorical questions,
  • and the same smear genre conventions.

This clearly shows that Bennett literally copy-pasted the text and that his article maps identically onto the 2016 doxxing template, which proves:

  • verbatim influence,
  • borrowing,
  • plagiarism.

 

No independent researcher accidentally reproduces the exact same defamatory architecture nine years later. Thus, Bennett also proves himself a plagiarist such that legitimate questions now arise as to why a purported Antifa is openly aligning himself with the far-right agenda of online operatives for a Russian fascist.

 

Conclusion

Chris Bennett’s Cannabis Culture article is not a study of my intellectual system, religious claims, or scholarly contributions. It is a polemical construction grounded in sensationalism, racialised insinuation, and selective deployment of anecdote. By ignoring my actual writings and framing me through tropes of the “exotic,” “unstable,” or “messianic” outsider, Bennett replicates long-standing orientalist patterns of misrepresentation.

Ultimately, Bennett’s hit piece is emblematic of a wider systemic problem: the willingness of Western alternative media to recycle orientalist clichés, sectarian narratives, or cultic-studies ideological frameworks without applying basic scholarly rigor. Whether influenced by CESNUR’s discourse, aligned with its tactics, or merely reproducing the same epistemic patterns, Bennett’s article underscores the need for renewed academic vigilance when assessing portrayals of non-Western religious actors. Critique is essential; polemical defamation is not. My demonstrates how easily the latter can masquerade as the former—and how urgently it must be challenged even in courts of law.

Be that as it may, Chris Bennett has crossed several serious legal red lines and he will in time pay the consequences for so doing within the very jurisdiction in which he lives, Canada—and when he does, neither CESNUR or any other third-party currently pulling his strings will be able to shield him from the intense legal exposure that he has now unequivocally brought upon himself. That he can take to the bank—or fold it into a joint and smoke it.

 

[2] https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/10164633 (retrieved 23 November 2025).

[3] See Edward Said Orientalism (Vantage Books: New York, 1979).

Labels:

Popular Posts