He really doesn’t know when to shut the hell up, does he?

Wahid Azal has made yet another enemy, D C Shepard, that like me tried to be friendly with him until it eventually became impossible because they (Shepard is transgender)  became disgusted with Azal’s egomania, which is as large as the moon, but a lot uglier.

First, some background. On March 6, 2025, Azal and Shepard collaborated in a podcast:

Watching this, I was reminded of my own experience collaborating with Azal on a podcast.

Then Shepard made an announcement about the podcast in r/exbahai:

And even while watching some of that, I predicted that in a few months, Azal would backstab Shepard just as he did me, and for the same reason: Azal only pretends to be someone’s friend as long as they are useful to him; the moment you stop being useful to him, he turns against you and attacks you in the most vicious and ridiculous terms.

And I was RIGHT!

https://wahidazal303.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-incoherence-of-my-critics-analysis.html

DC Shepard is precisely the kind of texbook white liberal racist that I recently wrote about in the first chapter of The Wretched of the Corporate State. He is also an opportunist and a time-waster from hell.

Speaking of a time-waster, I will jump ahead to the parts that I can directly address and ignore everything else.

Seen through this lens, the pattern I describe is not accidental: that my attackers are always white men. The repeated appearance of white male attackers is not about individual prejudice but about who feels authorized to discipline dissent. 

Look who’s talking! As a person of Persian background, Azal is himself a white man, more closely related to Caucasians like myself and D C Shepard than to most people of African or east Asian descent. This is also true of Arabs, BTW, which is why the leftist trend of equating criticism of Islamism with racism is so incredibly ignorant. It needs to end, forever.

And maybe Azal’s attackers are white men because he BEFRIENDS only them thus showing his own racial biases. I’ve never seen him involved on any level with men of color….hypocrite much?

Then Azal goes after Unitarian Universalism…..MY RELIGION!

A further structural layer worth naming is the recurring association of these actors with Unitarian Universalism, an affiliation that is not incidental but philosophically consequential. UU has long positioned itself as the ethical vanguard of liberal modernity: anti-dogmatic, pluralist, inclusive, and post-theological. Yet this very posture has made it a particularly effective carrier of what Mills would call the racial contract in moral form—a space where white liberal reason presents itself as universal conscience.

Azal then goes to attack UU’s liberal, anti-dogmatic stance, using the kind of absurd language I would expect from a religious fundamentalist right-wing BIGOT.

As a narcissist much like Donald Trump, Azal clearly has an authoritarian mindset; great for cult leaders, terrible for anyone who is not easily seduced to join his Bayani/Marxist cult.

Azal also cites Joseph Massad, which is pointless because I already know what a lunatic Massad is. To paraphrase an old saying….

Birds of a feather fuck together!

UPDATE: Things have gotten even more ridiculous.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/183792156

There the Satan of Babyism vomits this crap:

DC Sheperd’s recent substack in the part where he discusses me opens with what Fanon would immediately recognize as pre-emptive delegitimation of the native voice (proving thereby my entire critique of him from the outset): the critic is rendered obsessive, pathological, criminal, irrational before his claims are addressed. This is not argument but classification. Fanon describes this maneuver as the colonial reflex by which dissent is translated into neurosis, fixation, or deviance, thereby exempting power from having to respond on the level of truth. The absence of quotation, evidence, or precise rebuttal is not accidental; it is constitutive. What is at work is not refutation but epistemic quarantine: the speaker is framed as someone whose speech does not count as speech at all. In Fanon’s terms, this is the moment where critique is expelled from the field of reason and relocated into the clinic or the police file.

The “scare-quotes” defense (“I put rescue in quotes”) exemplifies what Fanon calls liberal bad faith: the claim to distance without rupture. Fanon repeatedly insists that colonial reason survives precisely by learning to criticize itself without abandoning its horizon. Quotation marks do not suspend power when the analysis proceeds from within the assumed aftermath of domination. To speak “realistically” from inside imperial consequences is already to accept empire as the condition of intelligibility. Fanon’s point is not that such realism is immoral, but that it is ontologically captured: it treats domination as the ground state of history. The author’s insistence that he is merely describing outcomes, not endorsing them, fails because description itself functions as normalization. This is exactly the move Fanon dissects when he shows how colonial violence becomes invisible once it is narrated as necessity.

Who the fuck is this Fanon??? Some obscure left-wing extremist? And how arrogant of Wahid to claim to speak for this other person! How about we see his writings for ourselves to know if they are being represented accurately?

As I said in reply to Shepard himself:

Idiots like Azal often rely on “intellectuals” who are as extremist as he is to legitimize his own irrational dogmas. Ironic, considering he claims to be a Manifestation of God; he shouldn’t need advice or input from anyone other than God. That’s proof enough that he is a fraud.