Bennettian Butthurt: A Response to Chris Bennett’s recent tirade

 

 

 

 

I will keep this brief.

Chris Bennett’s most recent Substack article continues the pattern established in his earlier publications: substituting personal attack, psychological speculation, and insinuation for substantive engagement with evidence. Rather than addressing my actual scholarly claims—textual, historical, or philological—the article relies on ridicule, caricature, and unsubstantiated assertions about my mental state, motivations, and credibility. This response is therefore limited to correcting the record and clarifying several recurring misrepresentations.

On the Characterisation of My Responses as “Unhinged”

Having exhausted substantive argument, Bennett repeatedly describes my responses to his earlier articles as “unhinged,” claims I have “lost the plot,” and suggests I require a “wellness check.” These are not arguments. They are rhetorical pathologisations. They cite no clinical authority, no behavioural evidence, and no factual basis. Their sole function is to discredit a critic without engaging the substance of the critique, by implying psychological instability—an allegation that is irresponsible and defamatory.

My responses consist of documented textual analysis with sourcing, historical contextualisation, and publicly accessible citations. The length of my writing reflects the breadth of the misrepresentations involved, not emotional instability. Disagreement, even sharp disagreement, does not constitute pathology. If Bennett believes otherwise, the appropriate forum is legal review—not insinuation.

On the 2014 Rohani Fatwā

Bennett asserts that discussion of the 2014 Ayatollah Rohani fatwā should be suspended until “authentication” is provided by a Shiʿi authority acceptable to him. He is entitled to pursue that line of inquiry, but it does not invalidate the documentary evidence already presented. I have consistently stated that the fatwā exists in Arabic copies issued by Rohani’s office and transmitted through intermediaries. Bennett has not demonstrated that the document is forged, misattributed, or fabricated; he merely labels it “dubious” by assertion alone. In the absence of counter-evidence, insinuation does not invalidate a document.

When my earlier rebuttals are placed side by side with Bennett’s latest hit-piece, the record shows:

• No refutation of my core claims.

• Explicit concession of the document’s authenticity.

• Persistent reliance on irrelevant criteria (state law, publicity).

• Escalation into ad hominem framing as technical arguments fail.

From a scholarly, journalistic, or evidentiary standpoint, the comparison overwhelmingly favours consistency on my side and complete instability on his.

On Accusations of Plagiarism

Bennett alleges plagiarism without producing any side-by-side textual comparison or evidentiary demonstration. None is provided because none exists. Unsupported accusation does not constitute proof.

On Claims of Racism, Nazism, and “White Nationalism”

Bennett denies racism by demanding an explicit racial slur as evidence. This is a category error. Racism is not limited to epithets; it includes racialised framing, pathologisation, and the recurrent trope of the “mad Eastern mystic”—a trope extensively documented in Orientalist literature. Bennett’s article titles, fixation on alleged psychological instability, and reliance on binaries such as “Messiah or Madman” reproduce precisely this frame.

Conversely, Bennett’s accusations that I am antisemitic, Nazi-adjacent, or conspiratorial are unsupported by quotation, evidence, or analysis. Where such claims are gestured toward, they dissolve into assertion and ridicule rather than substantiation.

On “Corpus” and Academic Recognition

Bennett suggests that the absence of mainstream academic reviews invalidates my work, ignoring the fact that my work has in fact been cited by academics. In any case, this misunderstands both independent scholarship and the politics of academic recognition—particularly in fields involving marginalised or suppressed traditions. Academic silence is not evidence of intellectual failure, nor is institutional endorsement a criterion of truth. My work is publicly available, citable, and open to critique on its merits. Bennett does not engage it at that level.

On Threats, Authorities, and Intimidation

Bennett portrays my legal correspondence and formal complaints as intimidation. This is incorrect. Lawful notice and complaint mechanisms exist precisely to address defamatory publication. Characterising their use as coercive while engaging in repeated personal attack is a misrepresentation of both process and intent.

Conclusion

Chris Bennett’s article is not an investigation. It is a polemic. It relies on mockery where evidence is required, speculation where citation is necessary, and personal attack where argument should appear. I stand by the factual accuracy of my work and reject the defamatory characterisations advanced in his Substack publication. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources, verify claims independently, and distinguish disagreement from defamation. Bennett questions my credibility yet I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he has none.

Any further engagement on this matter will proceed through appropriate legal, regulatory, and human-rights channels. See also below.

How Against the Postmodern Germ Refutes Bennett — with Emphasis on the Epilogue

 

1. Bennett’s Core Move vs. the Book’s Core Counter-Move

Bennett’s central maneuver is to treat the dispute as idiosyncratic pathology: a strange individual, eccentric beliefs, personal obsession, unreliable narration. He frames himself as a detached observer encountering an anomaly.

The book, culminating in the Epilogue, reverses the direction of explanation. It demonstrates that Bennett is not an independent observer at all, but a terminal node in a long, traceable, institutional genealogy of disinformation—one whose origins predate him by decades and whose logic operates independently of his intentions .

The refutation is therefore not “Bennett is wrong about X,” but:

Bennett’s position is itself an artifact produced by a parapolitical system whose mechanics can be reconstructed.

This alone collapses his posture of neutrality.

 

2. The Epilogue: “Blasphemer” as a Diagnostic Keyword

The Epilogue (“On the Word ‘BLASPHEMER,’ Why all Roads Lead to CESNUR…”) identifies a decisive tell: the reappearance of the accusation of blasphemy in secularized, journalistic form.

Bennett repeatedly insinuates that:

• I am violating sacred boundaries,
• illegitimately speaking for a tradition,
• committing an offense against something that must be protected.

The Epilogue shows that this exact accusation—historically theological, later sectarian—has been translated into secular key by CESNUR and its proxies: “extremist,” “cultic,” “dangerous absolutist,” “madman,” etc.

What matters is not the word, but the function:

• to mark a speaker as beyond legitimate discourse,
• to justify exclusion without engagement,
• to foreclose juridical or doctrinal debate.

Thus Bennett’s framing is exposed as clerical, not journalistic—he is enforcing boundaries he did not author.

 

3. Evidence vs. Insinuation: The Epilogue’s Structural Kill Shot

Bennett relies on:

• tone,
• mockery,
• selective quotation,
• insinuations about motive or psychology.

The Epilogue responds by doing something devastatingly simple:

• it reconstructs the full archival trail (1991 → mid-1990s → CESNUR → Bahaipedia → Bitter Winter → Cannabis Culture → Bennett),
• showing that Bennett’s language, tropes, and assumptions are derivative, not investigative .

This directly refutes:

• his claim to originality,
• his claim to independence,
• his implication that the controversy originates with you.

The book demonstrates instead that the controversy pre-exists me, and that I am responding to a long-standing apparatus of narrative control.

 

4. The Epilogue Neutralizes the “Intent” Defense

One of Bennett’s likely fallbacks is: “I didn’t intend harm; I’m just reporting / joking / reacting.”

The Epilogue makes intent irrelevant.

By adopting a parapolitical and viral-semiotic framework, the book shows that:

• disinformation does not require conscious malice,
• harm is produced by systems, not just agents,
• repetition within an inherited architecture is sufficient to cause damage.

This refutes Bennett’s posture pre-emptively: even if he were acting in good faith, the structural effect of his writing remains the same.

 

5. Why the Epilogue Ends the Argument

The Epilogue does not argue with Bennett.
It reclassifies him.

After the Epilogue, Bennett is no longer:

• a critic to be answered,
• a journalist to be debated,
• a commentator to be corrected.

He is an instance—a demonstrable case study of how:

• sectarian polemic is laundered into secular media,
• minority traditions are rendered illegible,
• and reputational harm is outsourced to low-liability platforms.

That is why the Epilogue is fatal to his position. It removes the ground on which he stands.

 

Bottom Line

Against the Postmodern Germ, especially its Epilogue, refutes Bennett by showing that:

1.     His framing is not original but inherited.

2.     His accusations repeat a sectarian function under secular guise.

3.     His authority is borrowed, not earned.

4.     His posture of neutrality collapses under genealogical analysis.

5.     His role is explanatory data, not adjudicating voice.

After the Epilogue, Bennett’s post ceases to be an argument at all.
It becomes evidence.