I refer you to my recent blog entry about the battle that happened between Wahid Azal and Chris Bennett: Wahid Azal vs Chris Bennette
Now I have noticed that Azal has written about me again, in direct reference to Chris Bennett writing about me first in detailing how I stood up to Azal and defeated him. Azal, for his part, never admits defeat; he just makes up more bullshit to smear me and Bennett.
https://wahidazal303.blogspot.com/2025/11/when-incoherence-becomes-method.html
Here are direct quotes from that insane pile of crap, trying to paint Bennett as incoherent and contradictory.
In the sociology of new religious movements and the study of disruptive information ecosystems, one of the most revealing indicators of intent is not what actors say, but how and with whom they align. When ideological consistency collapses, and when individuals begin adopting mutually contradictory discourses without concern for coherence, it is usually a sign that the real motive lies elsewhere.
The recent convergence between Chris Bennett—a self-styled psychedelic writer—and Dale Husband, an ex-Bahá’í blogger known for his polemical hostility toward the Bahá’í faith, presents a striking example of this phenomenon. That Bennett would simultaneously appropriate pro-Bahá’í institutional templates (specifically those pioneered by the CESNUR–Bitter Winter network) while amplifying the commentary of a long-time Ex-Bahá’í dissident is a paradox that deserves closer examination. This asymmetry is not merely a curiosity; it is diagnostically significant.
<snip>
Bennett’s writings adopt the language and logic of apologetic inversion developed by CESNUR: pathologising the critic, delegitimising testimony, inverting the victim–perpetrator axis, and reframing dissent as instability. These are recognisable features mapped extensively in Dr. Luigi Corvaglia’s analytical work on NRM apologetics.
Husband, by contrast, has spent nearly two decades attacking the Bahá’í faith and its leadership. His blog archive is one of the better-known anti-Bahá’í polemical repositories online. By any coherent standard:
- A pro-Bahá’í CESNUR-style apologist would reject Husband outright.
- An anti-Bahá’í critic would reject CESNUR’s institutionalist defences.
Yet Bennett embraces both, and now Husband has embraced Bennett.
<snip>
Let us look at this more closely because Bennett’s contradictions cannot be explained by principles—only by opportunism. If Bennett had a coherent ideological position, any of the following would make sense:
-
Pro-Bahá’í : He would reject Husband (since Husband has publicly attacked the Bahá’í faith for 20+ years).
-
Anti-Bahá’í : He would reject CESNUR narratives (which defend authoritarian Bahá’í institutions rhetorically).
-
Neutral journalist: He wouldn’t touch Dale Husband’s crude blog with a ten-foot pole.
-
Cannabis-religion advocate :The Bahá’í model of drug prohibition would be by definition antithetical to him.
But he is doing something none of these categories predict:
-
he uses pro-Bahá’í institutional frames (pathologising apostates),
-
while allying with an ex-Bahá’í anti-Bahá’í blogger,
-
while simultaneously propagating CESNUR-type apologetics,
-
while himself having no grounding in Bahá’í Studies, Iranian Studies, or the history of apostasy/defection in NRM scholarship.
<snip>
If Bennett genuinely cared about Bahá’í doctrine, history, or integrity:
- he would not touch Husband,
- he would not cite anti-Bahá’í blogs,
- he would not amplify ex-Bahá’í polemics.
If he cared about “accuracy” or scholarship:
- he would not use CESNUR’s debunked structures,
- he would not reproduce their inversion-template without understanding it,
- he would avoid repeating claims whose origins he cannot trace.
But because the only real goal is:
“attack Wahid Azal,” every contradiction becomes acceptable, and in this the ideology collapses into the narcissistic intent.
<snip>
In this framework, the Bennett–Husband convergence is not an anomaly. It is a predictable outcome of networked antagonism. Each participant brings their own motivations:
-
Bennett: ego injury, resentment, and desire to delegitimise a critic who challenged his claims.
-
Husband: long-standing personal hostility and desire to revive a defunct feud.
-
CESNUR-style framing: an inherited structure that conveniently provides a ready-made vocabulary for discrediting dissenters.
The result is not a coherent ideology, but a convergence of vectors, all pointing in one direction, and this is why the asymmetry looks suspicious—and why others have noticed.
To an external observer:
- Bennett is not defending the Bahá’í faith,
- he is not supporting a theological position,
- he is not conducting research,
- and he is not critiquing entheogenic history with academic seriousness.
He is: Emotionally “joining forces” with anyone who has ever attacked me, regardless of their ideology, credibility, or internal contradictions. The 2016 Duginist doxxer did exactly the same thing. This is a hallmark of:
- personal malice,
- reputational harm intent,
- cyber harassment behaviour,
- and in some cases, third-party influence or alignment through ideological networks, even if informal.
Does the incoherence strengthen the case that his actions are malicious, reckless, or defamation-driven rather than journalistic? Yes — significantly.
Seen enough?
Has Bennett himself EVER claimed to “appropriate pro-Bahá’í institutional templates (specifically those pioneered by the CESNUR–Bitter Winter network)” at any point? Indeed, has he EVER said ANYTHING pro-Baha’i? Certainly not to my knowledge. If a premise of an argument or claim is not established, then the argument or claim is completely pointless.
What I DO know about Azal already is that he is and always has been a pathological liar and a completely amoral narcissist who wants to rule over his own little Bayani/Marxist cult, reality and ethical matters be damned. His attitude towards ANYONE who refuses to be his blind follower is this:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndWhiteInsanity
In Real Life, seeing the world in absolute Black-and-White Morality is considered normal for small children, but is often seen as a far less healthy trait in older people. A person who regards the people around them as entirely good or entirely evil has this trait. This type of thinking is called “splitting” in psychology, and it is a symptom of many real-life mental disorders.
Some authors have picked up on this, playing belief in Black-and-White Morality as a sign of the character being insane or at least mentally unstable.
Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants 
_____________________________________________________________________________