That title gave me a stroke and immediately after the ghost of Lenin carted me off to an old people’s home.
this exact meme popped into my head when I read that title lol
Who is Kav? FD had a bad Palestine take?
Kavernacle. Seems to be a UK youtuber, recently did a stream with Noah Samsen discussing why american “leftists” (hasan, minority report, ryan grim) excuse veterans for their role in imperialism.
FD has a lot of bad palestine takes lol One of the more recent examples is when he revealed that he didn’t talk about Palestine because it would have hurt his ad revenue. A lotta leftists are now calling him IDF signifier.
Bonus:
Based on
Malus:
I have screenshots of neo-Nazis in Kavernacle’s Twitter feeds
An authentic quote by FD Signifier in “Debating Zionism and ‘Jewish Supremacy’ ft. F. D Signifier, Lil’ Bill, and Deculturation”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nR9Fcrp1yg&t=914s
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Kav is an Irish-British leftist political commentator.
This is the transcript of what Kav said in the excerpt Bree’s posted & paraphrased:
But instead, you [FD Signifier] go to this podcast and start saying sh!t like this trying to discredit me. And also in your campaign against Bal Empanada, even if you’re not saying we’re the same, your criticism of him is calling him a Nazi 4chan groper. You’re calling him a 4chan leftist and then throwing me in there as well, right?
And although I’ve defended him on some things, I’ve outlined in this video how we’re not the same. He’s criticized me a lot. His fans are unhinged. They’re in my mentions as well, criticizing me all the time. I’m not agreeing with him on that stuff.
But if you’re going to make the critique of my content, stop being lazy. Go and watch it. And also, while you’re at it, maybe educate yourself better on anti-semitism and Palestine and stop tone policing the left and stop hiding behind identity politics. It doesn’t fvck!ng matter that we’re both white. Like, it really doesn’t. Are you seriously going to say we can’t say this stuff because we’re white people?
But that’s what I mean. Like, he’s uncomfortable because we’re white people and white people are the historic oppressors of Jews, right? So now we’re saying Jewish supremacy. That must mean we have some sort of like Nazi particles flying around. Not that we’re just calling a spade a spade.
Like Muhammad el-Kurd said, it’s not his fault. It’s not his fault they waved the Star of David. It’s not his fault they base so much of their apartheid law on the Torah. It’s not his fault.
And it’s not any individual Jew’s fault. We’re not blaming all Jews the same way he doesn’t. If a Jew is against the state of Israel, that is another person who’s against the state of Israel.
We welcome you into the movement.
Links to watch:
- Kav’s full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2BLClJmRZA
- Relevant excerpt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2BLClJmRZA&t=3507s
Sorry, does someone have a 2-hour long commentary on a disney movie I can watch while reading this transcript?
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
F.D. isn’t a liberal. Having a bad take doesn’t make you a liberal.
What? He is literally just a radlib like almost all other Nebula creators. He advocated voting for Holocaust Harris, and this isn’t a “take”. It’s pretty terrible to say that. He’s fundamentally racist about Palestine’s history and his only actual comments on it have been to criticize Anti-Zionists. He has platformed 2 white people to whine about the words they use while never platforming a Palestinian, when that’s all he cares about.
All fair criticism, but that doesn’t make someone a lib.
Liberalism is an ideology, not a vibe.
from combat liberalism - mao zedong:
but liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. …
To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.according to mao it sounds like a liberal tho ig idf signifier is not in a revolutionary organization
You can have liberal positions without being a liberal.
Sure
Liberalism is an ideology, not a vibe.
Yup, and one that he holds.
I consume his media like a good slop-eating piggy, but I do think he is kinda lib.
He mentions some leftist words a bit in his videos but that’s the jist of it.
I do think his content has a place, especially when he discusses issues black people face in amerikkka, and how movements like “For Us By Us” and “we need more black billionaires” are psyops that don’t want to identify the root of the problems.
But his videos are very western-centric, and he seems to regularly fail at understanding the contexts in which things are said.
Him thinking people using the word “zionist” is an antisemitic dogwhistle made me raise a brow, and people said it was taken out of context but the whole clip still didn’t make me agree with him.
I think it’s also Jewish exceptionalist / supremacist to even try to call it racist at this point. My parents used Jew and Zionist interchangeably, and although they are getting better about differentiating the two as they are now a part of the diaspora, to many Palestinians, or really any Arabs in the region, the only Jews they interact with are zionists.
That’s like shaming Chief Powhatan for calling them white people and not colonizers
Just gonna be honest but I think the extensive tone-policing / HR-left is a psyop.
MLK Jr. talked about liberals like IDF Signifier:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
IDF Signifier, who has never spoken about Palestine in his videos, decides to spend his time ridiculing and tone-policing those who are more vocal about it. He is the white moderate in this instance.
Him thinking people using the word “zionist” is an antisemitic dogwhistle made me raise a brow, and people said it was taken out of context but the whole clip still didn’t make me agree with him.
i think the clip was “zionism, jewish supremacy, insert nazi dog whistle here”, he’s explicitly saying that those terms or the usage of them is like nazi dogwhistle
He’s Western-centric because he’s from the West speaking about issues he is directly familiar with. There’s nothing wrong with that and he isn’t obligated to speak about Palestine - especially if he isn’t well-versed on the subject. While you’re right that he shouldn’t be tone policing white leftists about Palestine that appears to be the crux of his issue: Palestine isn’t something that white leftists have a direct experience with, ergo he thinks we should stay out of it and leave it to people more directly affected; e.g. Palestinians and other Arabs.
This is a bad take but it doesn’t make him pro-Israel, anti-Palestine, or even a liberal. If anything it comes from a progressive place of wanting white people to stay out of issues that don’t affect them so they don’t speak over or for Palestinians.
His concerns about the term Zionist are also valid. Zionist has been used as a dogwhistle and has allowed antisemites to infiltrate leftist circles or even push less principled leftists toward antisemitism. I’ve seen both happen myself. We shouldn’t stop using it because it is accurate, and that’s where I think he’s wrong, but it’s uncharitable to paint this guy as a Zionist for being reasonably skeptical of the way white people engage with politics - particularly those concerning non-white populations.
It’s weird how everything you are explicitly defending happens to provide cover for, and prevent criticism of, Israel. Very strange. Probably a complete coincidence.
If anything it comes from a progressive place of wanting white people to stay out of issues that don’t affect them so they don’t speak over or for Palestinians.
This is not “progressive” (a meaningless word, shows your level of understanding), it’s reactionary.
Kamala voter, chauvanist, thinks 5 time iraq vet and blackwater merc is cool.
If it quacks…
His plethora of “bad takes” are the direct result of him having a unprincipled chauvinistic views of the world because he would rather watch Disney movies than learn about Palestine.
If he’s not a liberal what is he?
Again: having bad takes doesn’t make someone a liberal.
Liberalism is a specific ideology that F.D. doesn’t appear to hold. He might reach the same conclusion as liberals on various topics because, as you noted, he’s unprincipled but that doesn’t mean he’s a liberal. The political spectrum is more complicated than just “Communist or Liberal”. The average person doesn’t even have a proper ideology in the first place, including F.D.
Everybody has an ideology, however not everyone knows they do, and in those cases (like the majority of people) they take on the dominant ideology of their soceity, that being liberalism in the case of capitlist societies.
Everyone has an ideology, yes, on that I will agree. I will also agree that the average person is a liberal by default since that is the dominant, state-backed ideology.
But there comes a point where you swing far enough Left that you stop being a “liberal” in the traditional sense even if you still hold onto some liberal values. Where exactly that line is can be debated but I’m of the opinion that once you accept that capitalism isn’t unsustainable, isn’t ideal, and should be replaced you cease to be a coherent “liberal” in the traditional sense of the word since liberalism as an ideology exists to protect, legitimize, and expand capitalism. Even if you still believe in liberal democracy as a system you’ve accepted that the concept of private property - a cornerstone of liberal ideology and the foundational block of capitalism - must be challenged. This will inevitably put you at odds with liberalism. Now of course someone could get stuck in this state, but more likely what happens is they end up swinging further to the Left over time especially as liberal democracy fails to deliver.
This is where I believe F.D. is at. He clearly isn’t a fan of capitalism but is still hung up on liberal democracy, though is also fairly skeptical of it. Not what I think of when I think of liberals, who tend to be loud-and-proud about voting, would rather take a bullet than have a respectful discussion with anyone on the Left, and have no problems with capitalism at all and whose most radical position is “tax billionaires”.
But there comes a point where you swing far enough Left that you stop being a “liberal” in the traditional sense even if you still hold onto some liberal values. Where exactly that line is can be debated but I’m of the opinion that once you accept that capitalism isn’t unsustainable, isn’t ideal, and should be replaced you cease to be a coherent “liberal” in the traditional sense of the word since liberalism as an ideology exists to protect, legitimize, and expand capitalism.
I’d have to disagree with this assessment. Not because it’s entirely incorrect but because I think it’s confusing cause and correlation.
Someone realizing capitalism is unsustainable and not the best possible system, doesn’t expunge them of being a liberal, it just means that they’ve come to the rational conclusion that capitlist alienation pushes all proles in the direction of. However, if they are not interrogating their idealogy, they are going to still be making liberal presumptions to fill in the gaps made by those realizations.
Their approach to solving problems and analyzing the world will still be liberal idealism, not dialectical materialism or anything else. It’s not just one’s beliefs that make them a liberal, it’s the tendency of idealism. Those beliefs are some of the rational conclusions of liberal idealism, but they are scrutinized by contact with material reality in action.
They don’t have to be traditionally liberal. It’s not really possible to remain traditionally liberal unless you’repart of the bourgeoisie or a well off petit bourgeoisie or labor aristocrat. So what occurs is liberalism morphing itself in contact with alienation, in FDs case, I think it’s fair to say that racism has been the driving wedge into his traditional liberalism. However, since he is still applying idealism to solve these issues the result is still something that preserves the interests of capitlism.
Not to mention that being a YouTuber makes you petty bourgeois, therefore you’re going to have a harder time reconfiguring away from idealism.
Now of course someone could get stuck in this state, but more likely what happens is they end up swinging further to the Left over time especially as liberal democracy fails to deliver.
This is the issue. It’s not just could get stuck in this state, it’s that someone will get stuck in this state if they don’t stop approaching liberation in an idealist manner. I’d argue you’ve demonstrated it to a certain extent actually:
Even if you still believe in liberal democracy as a system you’ve accepted that the concept of private property - a cornerstone of liberal ideology and the foundational block of capitalism - must be challenged. This will inevitably put you at odds with liberalism.
You point out how it’s internally held beliefs that drive someone’s revolutionary journey, but that’s inaccurate. Beliefs are a result of material factors in action, and are arrived at by the way someone approaches the analysis of those factors. It’s not that beliefs are unimportant, but they are a result not a cause for someone’s liberalism fading. You’ll notice that someone’s beliefs will further not align with liberalism the more they apply material analysis instead of idealism.
He clearly isn’t a fan of capitalism but is still hung up on liberal democracy, though is also fairly skeptical of it. Not what I think of when I think of liberals, who tend to be loud-and-proud about voting, would rather take a bullet than have a respectful discussion with anyone on the Left, and have no problems with capitalism at all and whose most radical position is “tax billionaires”.
He doesn’t have to be a fan of capitalism and can be skeptical of liberal democracy, which yes isn’t common amongst traditional liberals, but that doesn’t make him not a liberal. About 2/3rds of American youth have a favorable view of socialism, 1/3rd a favorable view of communism. Are they also not largely liberal still?
They are, but the propaganda of capitalism didn’t survive contact with its enemy. However most of these people are joining orgs like DSA, not PSL, FRSO, or even CPUSA. Likely because that’s what’s available to them.
FD clearly cares about issues regarding the Black community, he has to, it’s a matter of survival, it’s why I care about issues of Islamaphobia. However, he still approaches situations using liberal idealism rather then materialism. He can change, I don’t doubt that and hope he does, but his idealogy should not be confused by beliefs that are rational for someone expiercing racism within the empire. He’s still a liberal due to his approach. That’s not a moral category or condemnation from me, it’s an observation of how he conducts his work and portrays himself.
I don’t think it’s accurate to describe him as a full-on idealist. Many of his videos often touch upon more materialist-oriented perspectives and in some case are fully materialist. This isn’t universal though, and that’s where your point lands: he does end up defaulting to liberal idealism often. I will concede that point.
But I don’t think idealism is enough to make one a liberal. To do so means that anarchists, fascists, monarchists, and utopian socialists are liberals and at that point the word becomes basically useless as politics is reduced to a simple binary of communism and liberalism. For sure idealism is a major component of liberal analysis, and is often the sign of liberal thinking and will often lead to liberal conclusions, but that alone isn’t sufficient (at least not in my view) to classify someone as a liberal simply because it’s not unique to liberalism specifically even if they might be the most famous champions of it.
The contradiction of liberal analysis and anti-liberal positions will inevitably resolve itself either by capitulation to, or rejection of, idealism. This might not occur consciously but it can be demonstrated through one’s own actions and I don’t believe FD has resolved this contradiction in either direction yet.
Beliefs are informed by conditions, yes, but they’re also what drive actions. You don’t act on something if you don’t believe in it first. Why would you? Conditions teach but beliefs motivate. This is why workers can experience exploitation for years but never move toward pro-revolutionary sentiment because they don’t believe in revolution or the radical politics that promote & foster revolutionary ideals. I can attest to this personally as I didn’t become a socialist until five years after entering the workforce whereas there are people who’ve been working jobs with even worse conditions than any of the ones I’ve had for literal decades before I was born who are still ideologically liberal despite having it even worse than I do because they don’t believe in socialism as a viable system.
The average person doesn’t even have a proper ideology in the first place, including F.D.
Complete nonsense.
thinks 5 time iraq vet and blackwater merc is cool.
okay so I watched the video he put out about this and you’re presenting literally the opposite of his stated opinion
True, he’s actually more spineless than that. He avoids giving any real opinion and says he’ll vote for him no matter what for “his people”. Pretty great illustration of his ideology.
Edit: in case anyone else is going to purposefully misunderstand this comment: it’s pretty clear I meant to say “would vote” and not the obviously ridiculous idea that I’m alleging he admitted to planning election fraud.
You’re telling me a guy who doesn’t live in Maine said that he would vote for someone running for office in Maine?
Is there some purpose to repeating what I said with a question mark at the end?
Yeah stating something completely irrational like that in plain terms is implicitly calling you a liar. You’re telling me someone who doesn’t live in a state said they’re going to vote in that state. You’re spouting bullshit. So take your attitude and direct it inward. Why are you lying about an internet celebrity? Why is it so important to you that strangers hate a youtuber that you’re going to act immorally over it?
What? Oh because I accidentally said “will”? But you already corrected it in your own comment to “would vote”. So you knew what I meant the whole time. He did say he would vote for Platner. I thought you said you watched the clip.
It’s pretty obvious you’re the one that’s lying. Why pretend to be offended at something you know you’re making up? You wrote what you know I meant right in your comment.
does voting for kamala make you a liberal?
No.
