A Scientific and Linguistic Dissection of Ben Azoulay
A dissection of the low-IQ theatrics, pseudo-masculine delusion, and linguistic ignorance of a self-proclaimed sage.
(Disclaimer: This article has descriptions of abuse which some readers may find distressing)
Every era produces its charlatans, but ours seems particularly fertile. As a linguist, this sort of thing is personally fascinating to me in a somewhat morbid fashion. Much like some scientists keep invertebrates in containers to study them, I compartmentalise such individuals for the sake of study in my language lab. Among the latest is a self-styled “influencer” and convicted child abuser who has decided that the best way to rebrand himself is by donning the borrowed robes of biblical royalty. Yes, you read that correctly: a man with a court record longer than his business résumé now struts about the internet proclaiming descent from none other than King Solomon. With a straight face, he presents himself as a latter-day bastion of masculinity, wisdom, and divine lineage as though a few reels and hashtags could rewrite both history and criminal files.
This article will slice through the theatrics and the pious posturing. We’ll look at the historical impossibility of his claims from historical and scientific perspectives. It may be a bit of a read but I do think some will find it of interest.
Firstly, we need to understand who this charlatan is. Both Ben Azoulay and his brother were convicted of the sexual assault of a minor (his brother was charged as a juvenile), with a third participant in the attack identified but never charged. After his conviction and prison sentence, the sordid tale only deepened: two years later, the victim’s parents launched a $50 million civil lawsuit against the family, citing evidence that this was not Azoulay’s first victim and that his parents had long known of his predatory behaviour. In his revisionist storytelling, Azoulay now insists that the criminal judge “offered him a deal” tied to the civil suit however this claim collapses under the most basic legal scrutiny. Criminal and civil cases are handled in separate jurisdictions; no judge could have possibly offered such a bargain. In reality, the civil case came after his conviction for a gang rape so brutal it left the victim requiring medical treatment. Azoulay claims to never have been convicted but he was convicted of “oral copulation with a minor” (sometimes called oral sexual contact with a person under the age of consent) which is statutory rape thereby he is by definition a rapist, worse, he did so with others. Later, in a final act of desperation to bury his past, Azoulay attempted to change his name, only to be denied because of his string of convictions, including domestic abuse. Most disconcertingly, this is the man who now parades himself online as a paragon of stoic masculinity essentially a predator in motivational-speaker cosplay. Fortunately, individuals such as Jon Bravo and American Thor have called out his antics. It would however be beneficial to see just how imbecilic his “motivational content” truly is.
The King Solomon Fairy Tale
Let us then gather some facts so as to understand the ludicrous claims of this cognitively deficient individual. The self proclaimed “King Azoulay” claims descent from King Solomon. Ah yes, the ancient monarch of Jerusalem who left behind exactly zero DNA samples, a family tree written on the back of a papyrus napkin, and a direct line to a Moroccan surname that only appeared over two millennia later. Of course. What could possibly be more plausible?
Here’s the reality check:
No Genetic Profile for Solomon
Let’s get this out of the way so that we can be perfectly clear, we don’t have Solomon’s bones, teeth, or a suspiciously preserved hairbrush in the Temple of Doom. Without a genetic profile, there is absolutely no scientific nor historic, nay nor any other method to “prove” descent from him. Claims of “direct descent” are the genealogical equivalent of saying, “I’m related to Hercules because I like to lift weights.”
The Azoulay Name is Moroccan, Not Davidic
The surname Azoulay is well-known in Jewish history, that much IS factual albeit it’s traced to Sephardic Jews in Morocco. In fact, one of the most famous was Rabbi Abraham Azoulay (1570–1643), a mystic in Hebron who traced his family back through Spain, not back to Solomon’s golden sandals. The name itself is thought to derive from the Berber/Arabic word azulay (meaning “blue” or “azure”), likely connected to Morocco’s Jewish communities. Nothing in that etymology screams “Temple in Jerusalem” neither does it provide any link to the David line in any capacity.
The Roman Problem
After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 (AD/CE) lineages were shattered. Priestly and royal genealogies didn’t survive intact as they were burned along with the temple where they were stored and hence there are no unbroken family lines from David or Solomon that can be demonstrated historically, let alone genetically. The only thing that survived intact were legends and later rabbinic traditions, not family registries. In other words: if Solomon had a 23andMe profile, it got burned along with the Temple records.
The Convenient Amnesia
Funny how these supposed “Solomonic descendants” never appeared until modern “influencers” suddenly need a divine PR boost. One would think that if the family line was so prestigious, it wouldn’t take until Instagram reels for the royal heirs to crawl out of obscurity. Only 2,500 years of historical silence and then, voilà, a pseudo-alpha male speaker in 2025 reveals his glittering pedigree. Convenient. I once made an IKEA bookshelf, maybe that makes me Swedish royalty.
A would-be Assassination
One of the most grotesque bits of theatre Azoulay has staged was his claim that a would-be assassin had “emailed” him to confess that he intended to violate Azoulay’s own mother. The “email,” however, was nothing more than a submission through his website’s contact form which is a tool meant for general inquiries, not the go-to channel for contract killers. Unless professional hitmen are now queuing up to book consultations like they’re reserving a table at Olive Garden, the premise collapses immediately.
And then there’s the text itself. The message is riddled with the same hallmarks of Azoulay’s own limited speech patterns: stunted vocabulary, abrupt syntax, and comical errors like writing “a third location” when clearly “a second location” was meant. The short, clipped sentences echo his personal speaking style, which makes the “threat” read less like the words of a would-be assassin and more like the diary scribble of the very man waving it around.
Most disturbing of all is the inclusion of references to date rape drugs. Here Azoulay shows an uncanny familiarity with able to name and even pronounce these substances fluently, despite normally struggling with articulate delivery. The contrast is quite glaring since he fumbles through basic conversational grammar yet rattles off pharmacological terms with ease. That incongruity raises a troubling question: why is he so intimately familiar with these drugs at all?
So rather than a chilling message from some dark underworld figure, what we have is a badly faked screed that tells us more about Azoulay’s own mind than about any imaginary enemy. It is self-incrimination disguised as victimhood, a pathetic attempt to draw sympathy that only underscores how deep his deceptions run
The Torah-Observant Pretender
Azoulay struts about claiming to be a Torah-observant Jew. The trouble is, everything in his life contradicts the very Torah and Tanakh he invokes. If Torah observance means anything, it is measured by obedience to the commandments, certainly not by Instagram reels, invented mafia fights, or braggadocious self-marketing.
1. Crimes Against Women
His record of violence against women is not only criminal by modern law more importantly it is a capital offense under Torah.
Deuteronomy 22:25
וְאִם בַּשָּׂדֶה יִמְצָא הָאִישׁ אֶת־הַנַּעֲרָ הַמְאֹרָשָׂה וְהֶחֱזִיק־בָּהּ הָאִישׁ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וּמֵת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַב עִמָּהּ לְבַדּוֹ
“But if in the field the man finds the betrothed young woman, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”
Deuteronomy 21:14
וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא־תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא־תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ
“But if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she wishes. You must not sell her for money or treat her as a slave, because you have humbled her.”
Even captives of war could not be treated as disposable. His conduct is precisely what the Torah condemns.
2. Pride and Boasting
The Tanakh spares no patience for boastful self-promotion.
Proverbs 16:18
לִפְנֵי־שֶׁבֶר גָּאוֹן וְלִפְנֵי כִשָּׁלוֹן גֹּבַהּ רוּחַ
“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
His endless bragging about wealth, women, and violence is a textbook example of what Proverbs promises will collapse.
3. Love of Money
Azoulay’s obsession with flaunting money reveals not Torah observance but idolatry of wealth.
Ecclesiastes 5:10
אֹהֵב כֶּסֶף לֹא־יִשְׂבַּע כֶּסֶף וּמִי אֹהֵב בֶּהָמוֹן לֹא תְבוּאָה
“Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.”
Proverbs 11:4
“Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.”
4. Foul Mouth, Violence, and Curses
His language is vulgar, his threats constant, his curses routine. Yet Scripture is explicit:
Psalm 34:13–14
נְצֹר לְשׁוֹנְךָ מֵרָע וּשְׂפָתֶיךָ מִדַּבֵּר מִרְמָה סוּר מֵרָע וַעֲשֵׂה־טוֹב בַּקֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם וְרָדְפֵהוּ
“Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.”
Proverbs 6:16–17
שֵׁשׁ הֵנָּה שָׂנֵא יְהוָה וְשֶׁבַע תּוֹעֲבַת נַפְשׁוֹ עֵינַיִם רָמוֹת לְשׁוֹן שָׁקֶר וְיָדַיִם שֹׁפְכוֹת דָּם נָקִי
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.”
By this measure, he ticks every box.
5. Hypocrisy
Perhaps worst of all is his hypocrisy: mouthing piety while leading others away from God.
Isaiah 29:13
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי וְלִבּוֹ רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי
“The Lord said: Because this people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me…”
Ezekiel 36:23
וְקִדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת־שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל הַמְּחֻלָּל בַּגּוֹיִם
“I will sanctify my great name, which has been profaned among the nations.”
His life does not glorify God’s Name instead it profanes it, loudly and publicly.
By Torah and Tanakh alike, Azoulay is no “observant Jew.” He is a man condemned by the very scriptures he pretends to uphold: a braggart, a liar, a money-lover, a violent predator. If this is Torah observance, then Pharaoh was righteous and Jezebel a prophetess.
The Low-IQ Illusionist (with a Side of Steroids and Napoleon Complex)
When it comes to Ben Azoulay, we’re not dealing with a mastermind of any sort. In fact, one of the clearest indicators of his extremely low IQ is the laughable incoherence of his grandiose fabrications. A genuinely cunning liar would at least weave a story that doesn’t collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Azoulay’s tales, by contrast, can be debunked by anyone with a Wi-Fi connection and five minutes to spare.
Add to this the obvious signs of steroid abuse,the swollen face, the oddly bloated muscles and so forth, you have a recipe for hyper-violence and delusions of grandeur. If his IQ wasn’t already in the basement, years of pumping his body full of artificial hormones have likely helped it settle there quite comfortably.
But let’s add another layer to this sorry saga: his Napoleon complex. Azoulay loves to challenge people to fights, but not just anyone. He either picks targets who are clearly no physical match for him (like older or weaker individuals), or he grandiosely claims he should take on world-class fighters who have zero interest in acknowledging his existence. In other words, he’s all bark and no bite, carefully curating confrontations he knows will never actually happen.
And while there’s nothing inherently wrong with being short, Azoulay’s entire act reeks of overcompensation. He’s a manlet who’s built a persona on trying to appear bigger and tougher than he actually is, a psychological inferiority complex dressed up in bravado. In the end, Azoulay’s lies, his steroid-fueled aggression, and his constant need to challenge and posture aren’t signs of strength but of severe insecurity.
The Skull-Conditioning Circus
Among Azoulay’s more idiotic claims is his supposed method of “skull conditioning,” where he insists one can thicken the cranium by repeatedly smashing it against a wall. This is not training, it is self-inflicted traumatic brain injury masquerading as wisdom.
Human Cranial Anatomy vs. Woodpeckers
The human skull is not designed to absorb repeated blunt trauma. Each strike generates linear and rotational acceleration of the brain within the cranial cavity. The result is axonal shearing, disruption of white matter tracts, and the cumulative formation of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) ironically the same pathology that plagues boxers and football players. Microvascular damage leads to progressive cognitive decline, memory loss, depression, and impaired executive function.
Woodpeckers, by contrast, have designed skulls. They have spongy cranial bone microstructure that dissipates impact forces. Further, thickened hyoid apparatus (the tongue bone) wrapping around the skull to act as a natural seatbelt. In addition to this they have a relatively small brain size and orientation that minimizes rotational forces.
Humans possess none of these traits. Smashing one’s skull against masonry does not create a woodpecker …… it creates a neurology patient.
The “Microfracture” Delusion
Azoulay also claims he improved bone density by repeatedly striking his limbs with hammers. While Wolff’s law does show that bone remodels under stress, the law applies to physiological stress from weight-bearing exercise, not self-flagellation with carpentry tools. Blunt force trauma with a hammer induces microfractures, which are not anabolic but pathological. Left unchecked, they can result in:
Non-union fractures and malalignment.
Periosteal stripping, leading to osteomyelitis (bone infection).
Nerve compression syndromes from hematoma and scar tissue.
True increases in bone mineral density come from resistance training, proper nutrition (calcium, vitamin D, protein), and mechanical loading not by mimicking medieval torture methods. The “skull-thickening” claim is a pseudo-martial arts fantasy with no physiological basis. The hammer-bone “conditioning” is orthopedic vandalism. Rather than demonstrating wisdom Azoulay demonstrates a complete lack of anatomical knowledge and an eagerness to trade long-term neurological and orthopedic health for the illusion of invincibility.
The Myth of the “Genius F-Student”
Azoulay delights in promoting the pseudo-intellectual myth that “F students are actually more creative and too intelligent for school.” This is one of those clichés that appeals to the lazy and the delusional alike. It flatters failure and disguises mediocrity as misunderstood brilliance.
Now, it is true that a small number of historically exceptional individuals have performed poorly in formal education while later achieving remarkable things. As an educator, I readily acknowledge that the conventional classroom does not always accommodate every cognitive style. Family instability, financial hardship, undiagnosed learning difficulties, or psychological stress can all impede academic performance in ways that have nothing to do with innate intelligence. Some students genuinely fall through the cracks of a rigid system.
However, the uncomfortable truth is that motivational charlatans like Azoulay will never say aloud namely that the vast majority of “F students” are not oppressed geniuses. They are students who did not apply themselves. During my years as a schoolteacher, and later as a university professor for over a decade (where I still work), I observed a consistent pattern: most failing students were (and are not) more creative, nor secretly brilliant; they were chronically unprepared, inattentive, and undisciplined. They skipped deadlines, ignored feedback, and mistook defiance for depth. Creativity requires effort, curiosity, and resilience which are simply put the very qualities that such students often refused to develop.
That being said, I am no academic chauvinist. I do not believe that universities hold a monopoly on intelligence or that everyone belongs in higher education. For many people, apprenticeships, trades, or technical paths are not merely alternatives but better routes that are honest, productive, and grounded in skill. Academic titles do not confer superiority; discipline and character do.
In short, while a few outliers prove that intellect and creativity can exist outside traditional scholastic frameworks, the sweeping claim that “F students are just too smart for school” is both statistically and pedagogically absurd. It serves only to soothe the egos of the underachieving and to give the likes of Azoulay yet another excuse to glorify their own pathetic incompetence.
The “Master Shifu” Myth
Azoulay’s supposed claim that he “studied under Master Shifu” is yet another demonstration of his astonishing ignorance of Chinese culture and language. The term Shifu (师父) sometimes written 師傅 is not a personal name at all. It is a title, a term of respect meaning “master” or “teacher.” Addressing someone as “Master Shifu” is as nonsensical as claiming to have trained under Master Sensei or Professor Teacher. The fact that Azoulay treats it as an individual’s name betrays that he has never studied under any authentic Chinese master nor, as it would appear, even learned the most basic linguistic or cultural conventions.
Furthermore, the Shaolin Temple (少林寺) itself does not teach martial arts to outsiders, least of all to foreigners. The monks who live within the temple walls are monastics who follow Chan (Zen) Buddhist precepts, not gym instructors. The martial arts “training” available to visitors is offered in commercial satellite schools that operate in the nearby township and are basically institutions that are businesses, not temples. While these academies may be impressive in performance, they are entirely separate from the monastic community.
Azoulay’s supposed “training” at Shaolin is, at best, a fiction and at worst, a deliberate cultural appropriation (and I am not one to use the word lightly as I think it is very overused). There is no record or photographic evidence of him ever having set foot in China, let alone at Mount Song in Henan. His stories read like a bad pastiche of kung fu films, where “Master Shifu” exists only as a character from animated cinema (Kung Fu Panda, no less).
Under the philosophy of Chan Buddhism, violence is regarded as deeply repulsive, a tragic necessity only when required to protect the innocent and even then, only as a last resort. A person displaying Azoulay’s aggressive, ego-driven demeanour would be rejected instantly from any authentic monastic circle. The Shaolin ideal is one of humility, restraint, and balance are all virtues that he clearly neither understands nor embodies.
As someone who has studied multiple Chinese languages and practiced Chinese calligraphy (书法) as an art form for many years, I find Azoulay’s posturing not merely ignorant but offensive. His crude imitation of Chinese traditions brings disdain upon a culture whose depth, discipline, and beauty he does not even begin to comprehend.
The Bedtime Stories: Snakes, Bricks, Coffee Tables, and “Russian Mafia” HR
1) “At 6, I kept a deadly venomous snake; it loved me and never bit.”
Biology first. As someone who has kept a number of venomous reptiles I can comment from personal experience as well as biological reality. Venomous snakes do not imprint on human children or form protective bonds. They display defensive/feeding responses driven by temperature, movement, and stress. A six-year-old’s fine-motor control plus a neurotoxin-bearing animal is a recipe for an ER visit, not a Disney friendship. Also: in jurisdictions where this would have happened, possessing medically-significant venomous species is heavily regulated/illegal. Translation: the story asks you to believe (a) implausible animal behavior, (b) negligent parenting, and (c) a legal vacuum. Pick any two; all three is fan-fiction.
2) “An 18-year-old killed the snake, so I ambushed him and cracked his skull with a brick.”
Let’s do the physics you never see on Instagram.
Skull fracture energy: Human cranial bone typically fractures with impact energies on the order of ~30–80 joules (varies by site/angle/age).
Brick mass: ~2–3 kg (standard clay brick).
Required swing speed: v for 40 J with a 2 kg brick:
That’s a very fast, very clean head strike delivered by someone with adult grip strength, wrist stabilization, and the ability to not flinch at impact.
Failure mode: Bricks are brittle. On cranial impact they tend to spall/shatter, dumping energy into the brick itself and reducing energy transmission to bone. You need excellent targeting, short contact time, and structural integrity to transmit enough energy. A child (the implied age in his story continuum) lacks the hand strength, joint stiffness, and neuromuscular control to do this reliably.
Could an adult grievously injure someone with a brick? Sadly, yes. Could a child stealth-club an 18-year-old, precisely, with enough intact energy to “crack the skull,” then stroll away with no police, no hospital record, no witnesses, and no paperwork? That’s where the story goes from improbable to operatic.
3) “I threw my father through a coffee table” / “I snapped a stick over my arm” (two mutually exclusive versions)
Pick a lane.
Version A: Father swings a stick; he blocks with his forearm and the stick “snaps from his strength.” A strike-through break typically occurs at mid-span from bending stress, not because the defender’s ulna radiates mystical anti-wood energy. Also: forearm blocks against a swung hardwood stick deliver periosteal contusions or outright fractures. If it “snapped,” it was because the stick was already weak/low-quality and the attacker supplied the bending moment.
Version B: He takes the stick from his father and then breaks it himself. That’s a completely different sequence (disarm → demonstrative break), not a block-break. Two stories, two physics, no consistency.
Coffee-table physics: An adult male mass (say 75–90 kg) has to be accelerated and redirected into a table. “Throwing” an adult cleanly through furniture requires either major leverage and technique (wrestling/judo mechanics) or the other party’s loss of footing. A scuffle that falls into a flimsy MDF table? Plausible. A dramatic “airmail launch” of your father through solid furniture? Spare me.
4) “I beat six Russian mafia guys; their boss offered me a job.”
Organized crime recruitment does not work like a 90s action film.
Operational reality: Mafias prize predictability, loyalty, leverage, and silence. A kid who humiliates six of its “soldiers” is a liability, not an asset.
Risk calculus: If your crew just got publicly beaten, you remove the problem or avoid escalation, you don’t invite Captain Chaos to payroll.
Minors & visibility: Recruiting a volatile minor/street brawler introduces exposure and evidence. No competent boss rewards that outcome.
Also, the fight math: six trained adult men don’t politely queue for 1-on-1 exchanges. They swarm, clinch, restrain, and end it. The mafia does not play games nor do they have mercy.
I will close my examination of this pompous, grandiose and cognitively deficient fraud here , what I have laid out are the most salient contradictions, the documentary silences, and the implausible fabrications that utterly dismantle his self-mythology; they are not exhaustive, merely dispositive. Based on the allegations, public records, and the pattern of lies and self-mythologizing we’ve reviewed, my recommendation is simple and blunt: a lifetime of silence, sustained penance, and full accountability under whatever lawful processes remain appropriate.