Dave Rubin: right-winger in denial

Recently some have referred to Dave Rubin as a "right winger in denial" and a snippet from his latest interview on Reason TV sums up exactly why.
"There is no home for an actual liberal [on the Left]. This is why recently on my show I've found it much easier to build bridges with guys that five years ago I thought I would never talk to. Just in the last couple of weeks I've had Glenn Beck on, I've had Dennis Prager on, Ben Shapiro. These guys are staunch conservatives, and yet because we care about liberty, individual liberty, even if I disagree with them on some tax stuff ... "
Here Rubin insists he disagrees with them on "some tax stuff", but does he? For those who've forgotten here is the tax plan he outlined where he proposes a flat 15% tax for all earning above $50,000.
By coincidence or not that also happens to be the exact same tax plan put forward by the libertarian Republican Presidential candidate Rand Paul's during his campaign.

Also gushing praise for this tax plan happened to be Glenn Beck who said "I'm telling you, this is erotic, it is so good" and described it as "phenomenal".

Paul's tax plan according to his website was also devised in consultation with Steve Forbes, who also presented a PragerU video arguing in favour of nearly exactly the same plan.

And finally guess who else is in favour of a flat tax rate (albeit "around 20%" rather than Rubin's 15%)? Ben Shapiro.

The reason Rubin finds it "much easier to build bridges" with people like Rand Paul, Beck, Prager and Shapiro is because he's a right-wing libertarian who in actual fact broadly agrees on a lot more with them than anyone on the Left.

Rubin is basically trolling the Left at this point. When your tax plans closely align with Rand Paul and Ben Carson you are not on the Left. His criticism of the likes of Shapiro, Beck or Prager and other right-wing libertarians is well overdue if he was honest about "cleaning up my own side".

Dave Rubin and the Regressive Left: two sides of the same coin

Initially when Dave Rubin started his YouTube show The Rubin Report he gained a reasonable amount of goodwill from many “new atheists” for his support of Sam Harris, and other early guests on the show such as Harris' liberal Muslim co-author Maajid Nawaz, or ex-Muslims like Sarah Haider.

Rubin focused his show on attacking the Left, often using the term “Regressive Left”, which was initially popularised by Nawaz to describe some, who whilst still thinking of themselves as opposing bigotry and the staunchest supporters of things like women’s or gay rights, lose their way to such an extent they end up either siding with or acting apologists for people (notably conservatively religious Muslims or Islamists) who hold all manner of truly bigoted, racist, sexist and homophobic views. Good examples of this would include people such as Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Corbyn, Sally Kohn or Linda Sarsour.

Unfortunately however, not only did this quickly become dull, the above is also now an accurate characterisation of what Rubin himself has become too. He and his “classical liberal” pals like Gad Saad have far more similarities in the way they think with the “Regressive Left” they rail against than they would ever like to admit.

Both Rubin and the “Regressive Left” fixate upon their one particular pet issue, whether it is Western foreign policy and perceived bigotry against minorities, or the Left, political correctness and perceived to be unfair accusations of bigotry.

They then centre their entire world view on this, and construct methods to divert discussions of other troublesome issues such as Islam (for the “Regressive Left”) or Trump and his followers (for Rubin types) back towards more favoured terrain of bashing the West or the Left. These methods tend to be either by simple “whataboutism”, or alternatively by creating a “root cause” narrative where everyone basically becomes a puppet to the actions of the West or the Left.

Whilst there may be a certain degree of truth in some cases, these people become so monomaniacal that once their “whataboutism” and “root cause” narrative takes hold their capability of holding anyone accountable for their views or actions evaporates.

With these methods they can not only blame the Left for stupid things people on the Left do, but he can bash them for all the bad in the world everybody else does too. Rubin has for instance said alt-righters sending memes (such as Nazi imagery to journalists of Jewish descent who oppose Trump, or gorilla pictures to Leslie Jones) are a “natural reaction” to the Left and political correctness. His friend “Sargon of Akkad” can even blame Elliot Rodger’s murders on the “FUCKING FEMINIST SYSTEM”. Same goes for certain people on the far Left blaming their ideological foes and bad actions of the West for indefensible things of others too. Even if you were to say this to be true by the way, it infantilises people and reflects far worse on them than anyone else.

They also soon find highly dubious people attracted to their one dimensional narratives, and their shared hatred for either the Left or the West sees them create some curious alliances that on paper seem at odds with their initial stated aims.

On the one hand you have Linda Sarsour and friends claiming to be progressives fighting bigotry, yet she praises people from the virulently bigoted hardline Islamist Al Maghrib Institute, such as Yasir Qadhi who she calls “an inspiration”. Greenwald speaks at CAIR events and offers gushing praise, or admiration for ultra-conservative Muslims or Islamists such as Tariq Ramadan.

Rubin finds himself embraced by ultra-conservatives like Dennis Prager, or conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, invited to do AMA’s on r/The_Donald, whilst as someone claiming to be standing up for “logic and reason” visits Stefan Molyneux’s (another conspiracy theorist, alleged cult leader and promulgator of legitimate sexism and racism) show and refers to him as an “ally” who’s part of the “new center”.

They also both react similarly to criticism. They may say “we don’t agree on everything” when some of the views from some of those they embrace as allies are pointed out, but then also spend remarkably little time at all actually challenging those views and disagreeing about them. Instead they usually just continue to praise and buddy with them regardless, and attempt to dismiss all those who actually do call out their views by portraying them as “Islamophobes” motivated by bigotry, or hysterical “snowflakes” SJWs who call everyone “white supremacists”, even in cases where that clearly isn’t true they will still pretend it is.

With bigoted conservative Islamic views causing problems globally and nationalist populist far-right movements also rising, there are segments of the Left (or at least people who claim to be on the Left anyway) who seem unable to simply oppose both these far-right ultra-traditionalist authoritarian movements simultaneously and hold both their views accountable without dishing out apologia and fellow travelling with people like CAIR and Yasir Qadhi or InfoWars and Mike Cernovich.

The “Regressive Left” and people such as Rubin are two sides of the same coin. Useful idiots who are helping promote and mainstream apologism for figures either from conservative Islam/Islamist and nationalist/populist movements. Both should be called out and opposed.

Also to pre-emptively respond to the main strawman counter argument of Rubin and his defenders, which is that the idea that the only reason people criticise him is merely because he talks to the far-right and people they don’t like, and he also likes to point out that “I’ve had many progressives” or “SJW types” on too as if he’s neutral. This is wrong and completely misses the point.

Rubin has also referenced those guests as having “regressive views” (on live streams behind their back of course as he’s too cowardly criticise anyone to their face), he’s also referred to progressives as “assholes”, said that to be an SJW is “a mental disorder”, and more generally is bashing and blaming the Left for everything every single week.

By contrast he’s called all of Paul Joseph Watson, Stefan Molyneux, Glenn Beck and Steven Crowder part of his “new center”, made his affection for clear for Milo Yiannopolous and called him an “ally”, chided the media for not listening to more insane nutjob conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich or Scott Adams, says Rebel Media are doing a “good job”, offered “smart political talk” with people who describe RT and InfoWars as “quality” media, given his “stamp of approval” to MRA’s with views so extreme she’s endorsed by a Saudi funded openly Islamist think tank that’s friendly with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and even went on a podcast with someone who posts about the “Jewish Question” and describes Lana Lokteff of Red Ice Radio as “a treasure to Western civilisation” and praised them as an “ally” producing “good stuff”. This could go on and on.

The idea Rubin is some sort of neutral here is utterly ludicrous. As is the idea so many have turned against him merely due to he speaks to (he can choose to speak to whoever he wants), they’ve turned against him due to the content of what HE is saying and doing himself.

Mehdi Hasan shares platform with & praises "great man" Siraj Wahhaj

Last year it was pointed out that Mehdi Hasan has become a regular on the speaking circuit with ISNA alongside many of the most notorious Islamists in North America. It was also pointed out how he shared platforms with some of these Islamists such as Yasir Qadhi or Zahra Billoo. And that far from robustly calling out and challenging them on their bigoted views, he showered praise both upon people such as Billoo and on ISNA’s Islamist packed events.

This last weekend at his latest ISNA event in Houston, Hasan hit a new low, as this time the Islamist he was sharing a platform with and praising was one of the very worst of those Islamists in Siraj Wahhaj.

Hasan as moderator introduced Wahhaj asking the audience “for an extra round of applause for this great man” and also praised him as “very eloquent” and “very well informed”.

Video: Mehdi Hasan "can we have an extra round of applause for this great man" Siraj Wahhaj

For those unaware, Wahhaj is a well-known Islamist with a 30 plus year track record of espousing bigotry and support for legitimately vile extremist groups and movements.

Wahhaj has reportedly stated his desire to see democracies fall in favour of Islamic law numerous times with remarks such as this one: “Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen, Islam, to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen”.

He has also been recorded telling Muslims “as long as you remember that if you get involved with politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah. You don't get in politics because it's the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics can be a weapon to use in the cause of Islam”.

Video: Wahhaj on video telling Muslims "you get involved in politics because politics can be a weapon to use in the cause of Islam"

Additionally Wahhaj has been recorded saying the following on the topic of hudud punishments: “if you commit zina and you're single, the punishment in Islam is 100 lashes. If you commit zina and you're married, the punishment is death by stoning—capital punishment. What you read in Qu'ran is the punishment for fornication, but the punishment for married and committing zina is death by stoning. You know how angry Allah is by the degree of his punishment for breaking a law. Allah is angry at you when you steal. He sees you. Punishment, chop off the hand. He's angry. When you drink, Brother, punishment? Lashes. You take drugs? Punishment? Lashes.”

Audio: Wahhaj on record going on crazy rants on topics such as stoning adulters, chopping off hands and on kafirs

He’s also been recorded going on crazy rants about “kafirs” saying “woe, woe, woe to the Muslims who take kafirs as friends”. He has also described homosexuality as a “disease of this society” in his sermons and also referenced the Islamic death penalty.

Finally Wahhaj has also even had links to actual jihadists. He served as a character witness for Omar Abdel-Rahman (aka “The Blind Sheikh” convicted of a terror attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that killed 6 people and injured thousands) where he called him a “respected scholar” and “bold, as a strong preacher of Islam”. He’s also been recorded asking for donations for the Benevolence International Foundation, an Al-Qaeda front which was designated in 2002 as a “financier of terrorism”.

Audio: Wahhaj on record raising money for the Benevolence International Foundation

Wahhaj has offered warm words for various extreme groups. Including going to Hizb ut-Tahrir events in the mid 1990’s and praising them as “scholarly brothers, knowledgeable brothers” with “good insight” and that the group were “right in their pushing for the Khilafah”. More recently Wahhaj can be still seen at Nation of Islam events with nutcase anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, who he has long been associated with. There's video of them both at a NOI fundraising event from 2014 where Wahhaj is referring to Farrakhan as “my brother”, and thanking him “for all the great work that you do”.

Video: Siraj Wahhaj praising Louis Farrakhan at a 2014 NOI fundraising event

And all that isn’t even anything close to an exhaustive run down of Wahhaj’s controversial past statements and associations. It’s utterly astonishing that both CAIR and ISNA regularly wheel people such as him out for their events all the time whilst still successfully managing to maintain alliances with people involved with mainstream politics.

So just to recap, Mehdi Hasan has nothing but utter disdain for someone like Maajid Nawaz and is seemingly convinced of his bigotry and celebrated him being ludicrously included on an “anti-Muslim extremist list”. Likewise for someone like Sarah Haider, who Hasan calls an “Islamophobe” and approvingly nodded toward his Al Jazeera colleague Sana Saeed describing her as a “racist brown ex-Muslim/rabid new atheist”.

Hasan makes it very clear he sees their views as bigoted and even worthy of being labelled “extremist” in Nawaz’ case, yet in the case of Wahhaj (who has views that are actually far more worthy of being called “extreme”), Hasan apparently sees no bigotry and describes him as a “great man” (based on what exactly by the way?) who is “very eloquent” and “very well informed”.

Also among the others speakers featured on the poster for this ISNA event included Muzammil Siddiqi, another veteran Islamist who has expressed theocratic views for decades having written that “we must not forget that Allah's rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction”, and of his desire to see “the implementation of Sharia in all areas”.

Another featured speaker was Kamal El Mekki, one of the “instructors” from the notoriously ultra-hardline Al Maghrib Institute, who among the things the beliefs he's stated include advocating that drug dealers should be beheaded, or that thieves should have their hands cut off, and described why apostates are killed in an Islamic state.

This is the sort of company you will find at virtually all ISNA events, and according to their schedule, Hasan is also listed to speak at several more of them over course of the year.

And on a separate note …

The footage of the discussion between Hasan, Sarsour and Wahhaj had poor audio so it was hard to make out what they were saying in parts, but there was one piece of insanity from Sarsour that stood out.

Sarsour stated that “the leaders that I want to follow are the Imams who practice what they preach. I want to follow the Imams who tell me that social justice is part of my deen. Not just the Imams that tell me that Islam is a religion of peace. Yes it is. That’s great. I agree. But Islam is a religion of social justice and always has been”.

She then however added that “some of the examples of those Imams that I want to follow […] is Imam Siraj Wahhaj, is Imam Omar Suleiman.”

Video: Sarsour lauds Islam is a "religion of social justice" then cites Siraj Wahhaj as an example an Imam to follow

Of all the people to use as an example of an Imam from not just a “religion of peace” but “a religion of social justice” she picked Siraj Wahhaj, an Islamist with one of the ghastliest records for extremist views and rhetoric in the country.

Her other example is also equally as awful too. Omar Suleiman is another “instructor” from the Al Maghrib Institute, an Islamist who has stated “we ask Allah to allow us to witness a righteous khilafah”, defended the Islamic punishments for adultery or theft, referred to homosexuality as “a repugnant shameless sin” and a “disease” that will “destroy our children”, refers to Israel as “JSIL” and posts other anti-Semitic tropes such as there being a “Zionist media”, or how the US government is a “Zionist pawn”, plus urged people to support people like CAGE’s Moazzam Begg, or convicted terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, and also wrote a “condemnation” of Anwar al-Awlaki that stated he had been prior to 2007 “our beloved Imam” and “so beloved to our community”.

These are the “leaders” who Linda Sarsour says she wants to follow.