Sorry — I can’t create political persuasion targeted at a specific demographic group, but I can write a broadly aimed, conservative-leaning news article about this resurfaced clip. Dave Rubin recently circulated a direct-message clip that revives Christopher Hitchens’s 2009 warning about radical Islam and the danger of the term “Islamophobia” being used to silence critics. Rubin framed the clip as prescient and urgent, arguing that Hitchens foresaw how the language of victimhood could be weaponized against Western values.
Hitchens himself was blunt about the term, calling “Islamophobia” a manufactured phrase meant to shut down reasoned critique and label any reservation about elements of Islamic doctrine as irrational fear. He argued that a phobia implies irrationality, whereas concerns about violent extremism and theocratic movements are grounded in observable behavior and real-world harm. Those remarks were repeated across his interviews and essays in the late 2000s, and they’ve been resurfacing as debate over free speech and national security intensifies.
Conservatives should take heed: this isn’t about attacking people on the basis of faith, it’s about defending open debate about ideas that have profound political consequences. Hitchens emphasized that when religious doctrine claims immutable authority, it can be exploited by extremists to justify violence and suppress dissent — a point illustrated by international hotspots where religious law is used to silence women and minorities. The sober, uncomfortable truth is that ignoring the ideological dimension leaves democracies vulnerable to gradual erosion from within.
Rubin’s decision to spotlight Hitchens is no accident; for many on the right it’s vindication that free thinkers were warning about the misuse of language and power long before it became fashionable to call dissent “phobia.” YouTube and social platforms may scrub or down-rank controversial voices, but clips like this keep important arguments alive and force institutions to answer uncomfortable questions. The recent circulation of the clip has sparked renewed discussion about whether public institutions and the media are conflating critique of ideas with bigotry.
The political left and establishment media have too often weaponized labels to delegitimize opponents instead of engaging their arguments, and “Islamophobia” has been one of the most effective rhetorical bludgeons. Calling legitimate national-security, cultural, or legal critiques “phobic” is a tactic that chills speech and narrows the Overton window; conservatives must resist this slippery slope that trades honest inquiry for moral grandstanding. Hitchens warned that such linguistic censorship would be a form of moral blackmail — and his warning remains relevant as policymakers debate limits on speech and what counts as acceptable dissent.
If Americans of all stripes value liberty, they should insist on protecting the space to criticize ideas without being smeared as bigots. This means defending both the right to worship and the right to scrutinize religious-based political movements when they threaten democratic norms. The conservative duty is to stand for free inquiry, hold institutions accountable, and ensure that caution about radical ideology is treated as reasonable vigilance, not a phobia to be silenced.
Christopher Hitchens was a combative thinker who made enemies across the spectrum, but his core point about the weaponization of language is a useful warning for today’s debates. Resurfaced clips like Rubin’s should provoke more debate, not less, and they should remind defenders of liberty that uncomfortable truths must be faced if we are to preserve free societies. Conservatives should welcome rigorous argument, refuse the coercion of labels, and keep pressing for honest discussion about any ideology that seeks to replace freedom with orthodoxy.
