Nothing I say in this piece is new but I wanted to put it out there to help try and raise awareness of the Rutger Bregman problem, because I think it's a big one and sadly is a reflection of White Supremacy gone wild, perhaps with a healthy mix of White Saviourism.
If you wanted a top line summary here it is; I think that Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman (and his non-profit School for Moral Ambition) are both brilliant examples of everything that is wrong with our western, liberal society and how they both serve as a magnet for those in the sustainability space.
I use him here in this article as main focus point yes, but also to try and comment on what is happening at a higher systematic level, as others before me have already done so.
Also to be blunt here: Bregman is not the problem. Like Trump, I propose that he is just a symptom of a very broken society. We need to understand the damage that is being done and how to "unlearn" a lot of what we have been taught in the West. This doesn't happen overnight.
Rutger Bregman by Maartje ter Horst - This picture was taken for Wikipedia, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=147434410
Why is Rutger Bregman now everywhere?
Recently I seem unable to avoid Rutger Bregman popping up on my screen - posts he was making on social media, appearances he was making on the BBC (he was appointed to host their Reith Lectures, which should speak volumes in itself), books he was promoting, fellowships he was trying to sell - it felt quite relentless.
And then in some online communities I'm a part of, people would bring up his name, and how they LOVED his book (Moral Ambition being a particularly popular choice). For context, this was usually from those in the sustainability circle, so people who claim to care about the environment, climate change, and so on.
By chance I was on a call with someone who was a paying member of his School for Moral Ambition. I asked how they felt it was going - they seemed to be enjoying it, that it was all quite an uplifting and positive experience, being around people with a same common goal. They got quite defensive when I gently tried to voice some of my own concerns, which is understandable if you are new to some of these topics discussed below.
What's the problem with Rutger Bregman?
I only became aware of many of these issues due to following some very smart, equally brave people on social media, and of course by keeping an open mind myself.
Anita Naidu's brilliant piece for CounterPunch entitled "How Elites Rebrand Power as Virtue" discussed The School for Moral Ambition having been an early advisor to the project. She went on to make accusations of racism within the School for Moral Ambition.
In her incredible write up (and you must read it in full before you continue here), Naidu starts out with this blinding passage:
"Rutger Bregman, once hailed as the Dutch progressive mascot, rose to global attention after a moment at Davos, where he told billionaires to “just stop talking about philanthropy and start talking about taxes.” That carefully edited Davos clip and his viral blow-up with Tucker Carlson helped manufacture a persona of principled dissent—a stage-managed liberal rebel, perfectly engineered for the algorithm, saying just enough to look brave without ever endangering the structure that embraced him."
Journalist Tim Schwab, famous for his "The Bill Gates Problem" book, was one of the first to sound the alarm.
He wrote on his Substack "Racism, Rihanna - and Rutger Bregman" about how in 2011, Bregman when writing for Dutch outlet de Volkskrant, would use racial slurs like "niggabitch" when referring to Rihanna, complaining that she was too sensitive to racism. This was after Rihanna had been attacked by fashion magazine Jackie.
Quote above from Racism, Rihanna----and Rutger Bregman by Tim Schwab
So - the man who seems to be ok about dismissing the impact of racism is now able to stand up and act as a moral compass for all the worlds issues, or so it seems. To be fair he did publish an "apology" (only when called out by Naidu and Schwab), which was very aggressive towards Naidu.
Again, you must read Schwab's brilliant write up of this "apology" and the subsequent aftermath, including follow up comments from Naidu, to get the full picture of what went on here.
This isn't the crux of the issue but hopefully it is good background context.
The "Anti-Billionaire" who's School for Moral Ambition is (partly) Funded by.... Billionaire Bill Gates
Rather hilariously, Tim Schwab was also able to uncover how Rutger Bregman's School for Moral Ambition was funded in part by donations from billionaire Bill Gates.
Schwab is strongly tied with Gates and knows his impact on the philanthropic world well, through his book The Bill Gates Problem. So there's some nice symmetry in this story, despite the heavy hitting themes.
I find it incredible, but also not that surprising, how someone like Rutger can rise to fame from saying quite obvious one-liners when platformed at Davos, things like "let's make the billionaires pay more taxes!" - and then is happy to cosy-up to said billionaires, and accept their money to fund his school.
It's almost as if he is a big part of the problem, and that through everything he says and does, it's all about building and creating his own platform, raising his profile, and so on and so on.
Ask yourself this - does a non-white, non-European, non-male person get given the same privilege (to be platformed on stage at Davos in front of these billionaires) as Bregman clearly has done? And his subsequent best selling books, podcast appearances, BBC role, Guardian column, etc etc?
What is the Problem with the School for Moral Ambition?
I was again randomly on a call with someone in the philanthropy and charity space when Bregman's name came up. She told me how she was obsessed with his recent book, and that's how she became aware of his school.
She had been on a call with Bregman (acting in some kind of unofficial advisory role I believe) whereby she told me she had serious doubts about everything he was planning on doing, in terms of the aims of the school.
The summary of the school is this: Bregman believes the not-for-profit charity sector is underperforming, and what they really need is to begin attracting talent from top end universities and colleges from the US. By recruiting such elite level liberal talent, these people will bring more business acumen to the not-for-profit space, and thus will help to run far more successful charities.
So - in his view - what is wrong with this sector is that the people in these organisations don't have the right skillset and mindset, basically. They need some young talent that are better at capitalism is the general vibe I have received, from the few people I have spoken to about this.
And this is the issue in a nutshell. Bregman doesn't ever get anywhere near the heart of the issue (capitalism, white supremacy, liberalism) and instead has the white-male-European arrogance of suggesting the problem with the entire sector is a result of the underqualified staff they've hired, that they're approach has been wrong the entire time.
If I was actively working within a charity or non-profit, I would be quite seething with what Bregman is directly implying through the actions of his school.
Screenshot I took from a previous version of the School For Moral Ambition website a few years ago. Note the quote they chose from Margaret Thatcher "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions - he had money as well" - to me this sums up their ideology perfectly
A Quick Word on Effective Altruism (EA) and Rutger Bregman
What Bregman appears to be proposing via his School For Moral Ambition, is again this idea of effective altruism - whereby current, existing charities and not-for-profits are apparently underperforming not due to a lack of funding through many years of cutbacks and austerity measures, removal of DEI policies and so on, but actually because the staff have the wrong skillset - and that these charities need to be run in a more commercial minded business way. Basically, this implies charities need to be better at capitalism.
Wikipedia defines it partly as (being)... "motivated by "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis." Ironically, a major earlier funder of effective altruism causes is now in jail - Sam Bankman-Fried, having committed fraud through his crypto platform FTX.
EA to me is an incredibly arrogant belief that existing charities don't do a good enough job at tackling the issues they claim to be looking to tackle simply because they aren't growth focused or aren't tracking the right metrics. Those within this space believe that the answer is to fund only "the right" charities and get in the right staff members, and then obsessively to track metrics and measure the return on investment. This is what it comes down to really - measuring the outcomes.
Of course to a certain extent all charities do need to prove their worth (they are governed by a board of trustees/directors, responsible for ensuring a charity fulfils its core purpose), to show that they are having a positive impact on society. But for me this is starting to reflect society's obsession with growth and measurement. I personally think in many cases it is hard to reflect everything with metrics (and I say this despite being an internet marketing consultant... someone who's success is often judged by metrics).
I believe the School For Moral Ambition is a way of pushing this EA belief model onto those students who sign up - and have seen similar things being pushed by other books, again often directly supported by the backing of Bill Gates, and the misguided belief that more (or better?) capitalism will get us out of the complex issues caused by the Polycrisis.
My Thoughts on Bregman & the Phenomenon of Intentionally Misleading Well-Intentioned Audiences
For me this is a recurring theme within the sustainability sector and around the Polycrisis in general.
Someone like Bregman intercepts a space, without a concern of those who have worked hard to get their voice heard, and quickly rises to the top, platformed due to his inherent privilege.
Suddenly they are able to speak upon all topics and their opinions are guzzled up and reshared around the web - from speaking out about AI (instead of Bregman refusing the use of AI he instead told people to stop using ChatGPT and start using Anthropic instead) - to ending world poverty, preventing climate change, and whatever else.
Another of Bregman's amazing positions of privilege - where he gets to share his opinions on a range of topics at The Guardian - this time on leaving ChatGPT
His business model is to share an opinion on these moral issues of the day, with the consistent call to action being to sign up for a Fellowship with his school. This is a school which claims to confront many of these world problems, which attracts a lot of concerned citizens who are clearly well-meaning - but he ends up misdirecting them, or channelling their energies in the wrong direction.
Clearly this creates this self-fulfilling loop, which just ends up strengthening the problem of white supremacy, capitalism and white saviourism. If you look at the types of people who are able to care about these issues (which I propose are usually based on positions of privilege) - they are often white and European. So, it's hardly surprising that Bregman has this magnetic pull which seems to attract this kind of audience.
The frustration of seeing people who care about elements of the Polycrisis and yet their good intentions get intentionally hijacked and re-routed through the bad intentions of the Bregman's of the world - I have to admit - is quite high.
I quite liked this visualisation of the Polycrisis by Andrea Edwards
Wait - Aren't You Just Guilty of Everything You've Achieved Bregman Of Doing?
I have long considered this too - that by me pointing the finger at Bregman - accusing him of misdirection, white saviourism and so on, amplifying the words of Anita Naidu - I realise is a tricky position for me to defend.
I stand by what I have written above, which again, is largely just a regurgitation of what both Anita Naidu and Tim Schwab wrote about expertly last year. Another great critique comes from Samantha Suppiah in her piece Breaking Breg: The School for Moral Elitism.
I write this because I think I could act as a bridge between very important decolonial spaces, and the very white, "less aware" space that I tend to inhabit. Not to centre myself in this (at least not intentionally) but to try and cast more eyes on this topic.
I work as an SEO consultant, and so I understand a bit about algorithms, press and media coverage, and so on. And from my research, I was surprised at the few critiques I was finding of Bregman and his School For Moral Ambition.
So - I figured I would write something and try to contribute something positive to the mix. Hopefully search engines will surface this, but the irony here too is that the people who are researching issues with Bregman and his school are likely already aware that there are issues, so, I am preaching to the converted.
The problem then becomes how do we reach the millions of people who have copies of Bregman's books on their shelves, and perhaps posters of his face on their bedroom wall? Or the Breg-lievers if you will.
It is really hard for people to be told that their idol (or at least, someone they admire) might not be the saint he has been portrayed to be - and harder still to understand that they way in which you believe the world works is largely wrong, based on decades of western, imperialist influenced propaganda...
I think it takes a few years of good "unlearning" before you are in a position to be able to accept some of the above. I often wonder, how do we begin to de-program people at scale, before it's too late, whilst also not being accused of some kind of intentional "radicalisation" of the masses?
As usual, thoughts on a postcard!
