Rutger Bregman
Historian and co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition
Rutger Bregman uses LinkedIn to mobilize action on corporate accountability and AI ethics by combining moral urgency with concrete institutional solutions. His most distinctive move is the 'viral-to-action' narrative: he opens with a famous moment (Davos speech, viral clip) then pivots to what he actually built instead, making the post both retrospective and forward-looking.
2.1/wk
27 posts in 30d
1.2K
avg per post
3.7%
comments / total
8.4%
reposts / total
problem-solution
Thu · 12 PM CET
Voice & tone
Bregman writes with the authority of a historian but the directness of an activist. He avoids jargon and speaks to readers as peers who share his moral clarity. Phrases like 'There, I said it' and 'I'm going to say something that might upset some people' signal he's willing to name uncomfortable truths without apology. His tone is urgent but not panicked, confident but not arrogant.
Signature phrases
- “In 2019, I went to Davos and told a room full of billionaires to pay their taxes. The clip went viral. It felt great. It changed… not that much.”
- “So, seven years later, I want to share what we *did* instead.”
- “It's insane how neglected the fight against this industry is.”
- “Fascism. There, I said it.”
- “I'm going to say something that might upset some people.”
- “This video will never go viral. Not because it's bad. To the contrary, it's one of the best I've seen on the topic.”
Top 3 posts, dissected
Their highest-engagement posts, broken down line by line. Steal the structure.
In 2019, I went to Davos and told a room full of billionaires to pay their taxes. The clip went viral. It felt great. It changed… not that much. So, seven years later, I want to share what we *did* instead. At The School for Moral Ambition, we stopped talking and started building. We just opened applications for our first Tax Fairness Fellowship. That means we're recruiting the sharpest tax specialists, legal minds, policy wonks and campaigners to actually fix the system. To make this possible, we first went to the people. And wow, you showed up. In just a few weeks, over 1,300 small donors – teachers, students, nurses, engineers (people who actually do pay their fair share) – contributed more than $80,000. Then major philanthropists came on board, including Abigail Disney and other members of the awesome Patriotic Millionaires. Next, we recruited an extraordinary program manager: Omezzine Khelifa. Why does this matter? Because for the first time in history, billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than literally everyone else. They employ armies of lawyers and accountants to pay pretty much nothing in income tax – often as little as ZERO. It's perfectly legal, and it's breaking our societies. But there's momentum. The G20 has pledged to develop a global tax standard for the ultra-wealthy. The UN has begun negotiations on a Tax Convention. France nearly passed a wealth tax for the super-rich. Change is coming, but only if enough talented people are working on this full-time. That's exactly what our fellows will do. A team of 8 brilliant people, embedded in 10 organizations across 3 continents – from Paris to Geneva, Nairobi to New York. ► They'll work at Gabriel Zucman's International Tax Observatory in Paris: the place where the groundbreaking research on how little billionaires actually pay gets produced. ► At the South Centre, Geneva, where global tax rules are being rewritten, at the Canadians For Tax Fairness and at the Patriotic Millionaires in DC. ► At Oxfam Novib and ICRICT, the commission chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty. ► At The Canadian Tax Observatory, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Center for Economic and Social Rights in New York. ► Finally, we've got a dual placement with professor Attiya Waris in Kenya, combining the UN mandate on human rights and tax justice with a new think tank (the House of Fiscal Wisdom) on illicit financial flows. Going viral is nice. Building a SWAT team to raise billionaires' taxes? That's better. And to be clear: this is just the beginning. We're going to pump this ecosystem full of the best people we can find, year after year, until we've won. 👉 Want to dedicate your career to this? Apply here: https://lnkd.in/e3uPSACV
The hook 'In 2019, I went to Davos and told a room full of billionaires to pay their taxes' works because it immediately establishes the author's credibility and notoriety (readers likely recognize this moment), then the next sentence 'The clip went viral. It felt great. It changed… not that much.' deflates the reader's expectation and creates narrative tension. The ellipsis before 'not that much' is a micro-pause that makes the admission feel honest rather than boastful.
The post follows a three-act structure: (1) The famous moment and its hollow victory. (2) What was built instead (Tax Fairness Fellowship, fundraising, team recruitment). (3) Why it matters (billionaires pay lower effective tax rates than everyone else, specific examples of legal tax avoidance). Each section builds from personal narrative to systemic problem to concrete solution.
- Ellipsis as emotional punctuation — 'It changed… not that much' creates a pause that signals disappointment and honesty
- Specific numbers as credibility markers — '1,300 small donors', '$80,000', 'ZERO' income tax in all caps for emphasis
- Contrast between scale of problem and scale of solution — billionaires employ 'armies of lawyers and accountants' vs. the fellowship's focused team
- Direct address to reader's moral intuition — 'people who actually do pay their fair share' makes the reader feel part of the in-group
The post ends with the problem statement incomplete ('It's perfectly legal, and it's brea…') which truncates mid-word. This forces readers to click through to the full post to finish the thought, driving click-through rate and time-on-page.
Use the viral-to-action narrative structure to convert attention into credibility for a new initiative: acknowledge your past moment of fame, admit its limitations, then reveal what you built instead.
WOW, what an incredible speech by Jeltsje Boersma. One of the most powerful 3 minutes I've seen in a long time. Jeltsje is an alumnus of our Tobacco Free Future program at The School for Moral Ambition. Applications for our new cohort just closed. We received hundreds of submiss…
The hook 'WOW, what an incredible speech by Jeltsje Boersma. One of the most powerful 3 minutes I've seen in a long time.' works because it uses genuine enthusiasm (all caps 'WOW') to signal that the author is sharing something he finds genuinely moving, not just promoting his program. The specificity of '3 minutes' makes the endorsement feel measured rather than hyperbolic. Readers trust enthusiasm paired with specificity.
The post uses a testimonial-to-systemic-problem-to-solution arc: (1) Praise for a program alumnus's speech. (2) Context about the program and its applicant pool. (3) The scale of the tobacco problem (8 million deaths, comparison to other diseases). (4) Why the problem is neglected (0.1% of global health funding). (5) Why it's solvable (specific interventions that work). The structure moves from personal/emotional to statistical/analytical to actionable.
- Comparative statistics to make abstract numbers concrete — '8 million people every year' becomes meaningful when compared to 'HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined'
- Moral reframing that rejects false equivalence — 'diseases are tragedies, tobacco is business' separates natural disasters from deliberate harm
- Specific policy solutions listed without elaboration — 'Smoke-free laws, rules for vapes and heated tobacco, advertising bans, taxes' signals that solutions exist and are known
- Paradox as engagement hook — 'It's insane how neglected the fight against this industry is' + 'this is also one of the most solvable problems' creates cognitive dissonance that pulls readers in
The post truncates at 'And …' which leaves the reader hanging. This incomplete ending mirrors the hook's incomplete thought and creates a pattern that trains readers to click through for the full argument.
When promoting a program or initiative, lead with a specific person's success story, then zoom out to the systemic problem that person is solving, then show why that problem is both urgent and solvable.
Fascism. There, I said it. Not as an insult. Not as hyperbole. As a clinical diagnosis from some of the world's leading historians, including the scholar who spent sixty years warning people not to use the word carelessly. Robert Paxton is probably the greatest living historian…
The hook 'Fascism. There, I said it.' is a single sentence that does three things: (1) names a taboo word, (2) signals the author is willing to say what others won't, (3) creates immediate curiosity about what justification follows. The brevity and isolation of the sentence on its own line makes it feel like a declaration rather than an argument. The next sentence immediately reframes it as serious analysis, not hyperbole, which prevents readers from dismissing it as clickbait.
The post uses a scholarly-authority-to-historical-parallel structure: (1) Bold claim with immediate reframing as clinical diagnosis. (2) Introduction of authority figure (Robert Paxton, 'probably the greatest living historian of fascism'). (3) Paxton's own journey from skepticism to acceptance of the label. (4) Introduction of a philosophical concept (Wittgenstein's 'family resemblances') that explains how to identify fascism without a single defining feature. (5) Application of that concept to contemporary events. The structure moves from provocation to authority to philosophy to application.
- Authority delegation — citing Robert Paxton and his 60-year track record of careful language use makes the claim feel scholarly rather than partisan
- Narrative of expert conversion — showing that Paxton changed his mind after January 6th makes the argument feel like it's based on evidence, not ideology
- Philosophical framework as legitimacy — introducing Wittgenstein's concept gives readers a tool to evaluate the claim themselves rather than just accepting it
- Specific historical parallel — 'Confederate flags, the gallows erected for Mike Pence' and 'Mussolini's Blackshirts marching on Rome in 1922' make the comparison concrete and visual
The post ends with 'That's how fascism w…' which truncates mid-word, forcing readers to click through. This is Bregman's consistent pattern: end with an incomplete thought to drive engagement.
When making a controversial claim, immediately cite an authority figure who shares your view and explain their journey to that view. This transforms your claim from opinion into evidence-based analysis.
What drives their engagement
Bregman's posts drive comments by making moral claims that readers feel compelled to either defend or debate. The low conversation index (3.7%) suggests most engagement is passive (likes/reposts) rather than argumentative, but when comments do occur, they're likely substantive because the posts present specific, defensible claims about policy and ethics rather than vague inspirational statements.
Reposts (8.4% of engagement) are driven by posts that combine moral clarity with actionable solutions. The Tax Fairness Fellowship post and Tobacco Free Future post both announce concrete programs readers can share with their networks. Reposts happen when readers feel the post reflects their values and gives them something concrete to amplify.
Low — this creator optimizes for reach and action over savability. Posts are designed to be shared immediately (viral-to-action narrative, incomplete endings that force click-through) rather than bookmarked for later reference. The focus is on mobilization, not resource-building.
Content pillars
Moral Ambition in Action
37%Stories of building institutions and recruiting talent to solve systemic problems (tax fairness, tobacco control) rather than just talking about them.
AI Ethics and Corporate Power
26%Contrarian takes on AI hype, corporate accountability, and why mainstream skeptics are wrong about technology's impact.
Moral Clarity on Hidden Atrocities
26%Exposing systemic harm (factory farming, fascism, billionaire tax evasion) that society ignores or normalizes, with historical or statistical evidence.
Historian's Perspective on Power
11%Using historical parallels and scholarly authority to reframe contemporary political and social crises.
Hook patterns
Bold Confession
[Provocative statement]. [Qualifier that reframes it as serious, not hyperbole].
“Fascism. There, I said it. Not as an insult. Not as hyperbole. As a clinical diagnosis from some of the world's leading historians.”
→ The pause between statement and qualifier creates cognitive tension that forces readers to keep reading to resolve it.
Viral-to-Action Pivot
[Famous moment I created]. The clip went viral. It felt great. It changed… not that much. So [what I actually built instead].
“In 2019, I went to Davos and told a room full of billionaires to pay their taxes. The clip went viral. It felt great. It changed… not that much. So, seven years later, I want to share what we *did* instead.”
→ Readers recognize the author's credibility, then feel the sting of viral-but-ineffective activism, then get pulled into a redemption narrative about real change.
Contrarian Prediction
[Prediction that contradicts conventional wisdom]. [Reason why the conventional wisdom is wrong].
“This video will never go viral. Not because it's bad. To the contrary, it's one of the best I've seen on the topic. But that's exactly the problem: the topic.”
→ The reversal surprises readers and immediately establishes the author as someone who sees what others miss.
Accusation of Collective Failure
[Group of people]. [What they should be doing]. [Evidence they're not].
“Journalists, academics, left-wing intellectuals – many of you are completely asleep at the wheel. We are in the middle of the most consequential technological revolution in human history, and the people who should be scrutinizing it have barely shown up.”
→ Directly addresses readers' peer group and creates social pressure to engage with the argument.
Statistic Shock with Moral Framing
[Shocking number]. [Moral reframing that makes the number feel worse than it sounds].
“Big Tobacco kills more than 8 million people every year. As Jeltsje explains: that's more than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. But diseases are tragedies, tobacco is business.”
→ The comparison makes the number concrete, then the moral reframe prevents readers from scrolling past it as just another statistic.
Vulnerability Admission
I'm going to say something that might upset some people. [Contrarian claim that challenges readers' assumptions].
“I'm going to say something that might upset some people. Journalists, academics, left-wing intellectuals – many of you are completely asleep at the wheel.”
→ The preface signals intellectual honesty and invites readers to hear a difficult truth rather than dismiss it as provocation.
Top-performing hooks
“In 2019, I went to Davos and told a room full of billionaires to pay their taxes.”
→ The post combines a personal anecdote with a concrete solution to a widely recognized problem (tax avoidance by the wealthy). It highlights the tangible progress made by the author's organization, bui
“WOW, what an incredible speech by Jeltsje Boersma. One of the most powerful 3 minutes I've seen in a long time.”
→ The post uses shocking statistics to highlight a neglected problem and then offers a clear solution and call to action. It leverages emotional appeal and provides concrete ways for readers to contribu
“Fascism. There, I said it.”
→ The post uses a controversial topic and expert opinion to grab attention and establish authority. It breaks down a complex issue into understandable components, making it engaging and thought-provokin
“This video will never go viral. Not because it's bad. To the contrary, it's one of the best I've seen on the topic.”
→ The post uses a contrarian hook to grab attention and then presents disturbing facts about factory farming, creating a sense of urgency and moral imperative. The question and call to awareness encoura
“I'm going to say something that might upset some people.”
→ The post uses a contrarian viewpoint and strong claims to grab attention, then backs it up with evidence and a call to action, making it thought-provoking and likely to generate discussion. The refere
“As a historian, I've always been careful with the word "fascism." I've seen how it gets weaponized, how it shuts down debate, how it loses all meaning when everyone throws it at everything they don't like. That caution felt responsible.”
→ The post tackles a sensitive and complex topic with nuance, demonstrating historical expertise and encouraging critical thinking. The call to action is to watch a longer video, providing a clear next
“There are thousands of billionaires on the planet. Any one of them could pick up the phone right now and help pull an entire country out of poverty. For some, it would cost about a year's worth of stock market returns.”
→ The post uses a strong, provocative opening to challenge conventional philanthropic approaches. It highlights a specific, effective solution (GiveDirectly) and criticizes the priorities of billionaire
“When I recorded this video last week, 700,000 people had joined the international boycott of ChatGPT. By the time the edit was done: 4+ million. 😅”
→ The post uses a shocking statistic to grab attention and then leverages outrage over perceived ethical failings of OpenAI to encourage participation in a boycott. The clear call to action with a link
“You're good at your job. Maybe really good. But something doesn't sit right.”
→ The post taps into a common feeling of dissatisfaction among professionals who want their work to have a greater purpose. It offers a concrete solution (the fellowship) and a clear call to action, mak
“Peter Thiel literally wrote that freedom and democracy are not 'compatible' and that regulating Big Tech is the work of the 'anti-Christ'. We should stop treating this as metaphor. When billionaires tell us they want to end democracy, we should take ”
→ The post uses a strong, controversial statement to grab attention and then offers a strategic solution to a perceived problem, resonating with those who share similar political views. It leverages his
What works
- Bold statement hooks outperform other styles — 14 posts using 'bold statement' hooks averaged 1317 engagement, vs. 1310 for statistic shock and 1436 for contrarian claims. Bold statements are his most-used hook type (52% of posts) because they're reliable and align with his voice.
- Problem-solution format dominates — 63% of posts use this structure (17 posts, avg 1359 engagement), which is 10% higher than the platform average. This format works because it mirrors how Bregman thinks: identify a systemic failure, then show what he's building to fix it.
- Incomplete endings drive click-through — Posts 1, 2, and 3 all truncate mid-word ('…not that much', 'And …', 'fascism w…'), forcing readers to click the full post. This is a deliberate tactic that increases time-on-page and click-through rate.
- Specific numbers and comparisons beat abstract claims — The tobacco post's '8 million people every year' + 'more than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined' + '0.1% of global health funding' creates a layered argument that feels both urgent and solvable. Abstract claims about 'major problems' don't perform.
- Moral reframing of familiar problems — Posts that take a known issue (tax evasion, factory farming, AI hype) and reframe it with new moral clarity drive engagement. 'Diseases are tragedies, tobacco is business' reframes tobacco as a choice, not a natural disaster, which changes how readers think about it.
- Institutional credibility through team and funding — The Tax Fairness Fellowship post mentions '1,300 small donors', 'Abigail Disney', 'Patriotic Millionaires', and 'Omezzine Khelifa' by name. This specificity signals that the initiative is real and funded, not just an idea, which drives trust and reposts.
Steal this for your own LinkedIn
- Start your next post with a single-sentence bold claim, then immediately reframe it as serious analysis in the next sentence. Example: 'AI is just hype. No, actually, it's the fastest-growing technology in capitalism's history.' This pattern appears in 5 of his top posts.
- When announcing a new initiative or program, lead with a famous moment you created, admit it didn't change much, then reveal what you built instead. This 'viral-to-action' structure converts your past attention into credibility for your current work.
- Use specific numbers paired with unexpected comparisons to make abstract problems concrete. Instead of 'tobacco kills a lot of people,' write 'tobacco kills 8 million people yearly, more than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined.' The comparison makes the number stick.
- End your post with an incomplete thought that forces readers to click through to the full version. Truncate mid-word if possible ('fascism w…', 'And …'). This is a consistent pattern in his top-performing posts and drives click-through rate.
- Name the specific people involved in your work (team members, donors, advisors, program alumni) rather than describing them generically. 'Omezzine Khelifa' and 'Abigail Disney' feel more real and trustworthy than 'an extraordinary program manager' and 'major philanthropists.'
- When making a controversial claim, cite an authority figure who initially disagreed with you but changed their mind based on evidence. Robert Paxton's journey from skepticism to acceptance of the 'fascist' label makes the argument feel evidence-based rather than ideological.
Compare Rutger with…
Get the full Rutger Bregman playbook
Hook templates, content calendar, posting cadence, and the exact frameworks they use - delivered to your inbox.
Posting patterns
Bregman posts 2.1 times per week with perfect consistency (27 posts in both 30 and 90-day windows), signaling a disciplined content calendar that trains followers to expect regular updates.
Thursday at 11 UTC performs best, suggesting posts should go live mid-morning European time when both US and European audiences are active.
Medium (80-180 words) and long (180-350 words) posts perform equally well (989 and 1065 engagement respectively), but very long posts (350+ words) drive 3x more engagement (3257 avg). This suggests Bregman's audience is willing to read deeply when the topic justifies it, but medium-length posts work for announcements and shorter arguments.
Engagement by day
Content mix
avg 1.4K engagements per post
avg 2.7K engagements per post
Bregman's 63% problem-solution format works because his audience is activist-minded and wants to know not just what's wrong but what to do about it. His 7% argumentative essay posts drive 2x engagement (2713 avg) because they're rare and signal deep analysis, making them feel like special events rather than routine content. The mix trains followers to expect both quick actionable updates (problem-solution) and occasional deep dives (essays), which keeps the feed from feeling repetitive while maintaining high engagement.
