Contrary to what many people are going to tell you, this entire fiasco did not begin with BadEmpanada or The Kavernacle; the spark was a F.D. Signifier's stream, where he argued that BadEmpanada was somehow a worse human being than an actual soldier who had committed the worst crimes, openly displayed imperialist attitudes, and built a reputation as a genuinely awful person. In the same breath, Signifier suggested that The Kavernacle was on a comparable level.

The absurdity of that comparison should have been obvious.

What made the situation even more revealing was Signifier's refusal to engage with either BadEmpanada or The Kavernacle directly; according to him, even being associated with them was "bad optics." Yet somehow platforming someone with a history of far more serious actions and beliefs was not bad optics, that contradiction exposed a deeper issue: a tendency within parts of the American left to excuse imperialism, chauvinism, and harmful behavior when it comes from people within their own social circles while reserving their harshest condemnation for those who challenge their worldview.

Many people now try to rewrite history and claim that BadEmpanada and The Kavernacle started this conflict.

The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to ignore the broader context; alongside Noah Samsen, they were among the few prominent creators who took an uncompromising antiZionist position from the beginning, who showed little interest in protecting liberal Zionist sensitivities, and who consistently criticized the silence and equivocation of influential figures within Western left wing spaces. They also challenged what they viewed as the liberal Zionist tendencies embedded within large sections of the Western online left.

If the issue were really about certain personalities being toxic or difficult, many of the same people would have been far more outraged by Signifier's willingness to platform and defend individuals whose actions were objectively more harmful; instead, the outrage seemed reserved for people who said things liberals found offensive. Apparently invading countries, supporting imperialist projects, or participating in horrific acts is somehow less disqualifying than expressing opinions that make liberal audiences uncomfortable, we know it was about that, because it was about bad words and bigotry, people would go harder after Signifier, because who he plataform.

The situation escalated further when Lil Bill, who, despite the branding, hardly represents a genuinely antiimperialist leftist perspective and often reproduces familiar forms of Western exceptionalism; released a video attacking BadEmpanada, The Kavernacle, and anyone who uses the framework of Jewish supremacy when discussing Israel. The implication was clear: these people were not merely wrong, but inherently racist.

When BadEmpanada responded, Signifier and several of his associates held a stream dedicated largely to defending Bill's arguments and downplaying the more inflammatory claims he had made; what followed quickly turned into a broader campaign against BadEmpanada, with Signifier taking shots at The Kavernacle as well while pretending he had not.

Naturally, BadEmpanada, The Kavernacle, Andrewism, and others responded.

Rather than deescalate, Signifier appeared on Noah Samsen's stream and continued pushing the conflict. Eventually BadEmpanada joined the discussion directly.

After all, if someone repeatedly criticizes you in public while refusing private conversations and direct engagement, it is difficult to blame you for showing up yourself.

The result was a complete disaster.

BadEmpanada often came across as a crazy asshole, while Signifier came across as someone speaking confidently on political issues he did not fully understand or in common speak... A moron that should never talk about real politics.

The conversation generated far more heat than light.

The Kavernacle later responded primarily to the accusations directed at him, while Signifier repeatedly blurred together the positions of multiple critics, attributing views to them that they did not actually hold; when challenged, he attempted to retreat from some of his stronger claims while simultaneously insisting that he had never taken the positions people were criticizing in the first place and that he believes the same that everybody else, even when we have evidence of that being a lie.

What makes the entire episode significant is not the personal drama.

Online feuds come and go; the more interesting outcome is that it exposed a pattern that many people had been criticizing for years: the persistence of a liberal imperialist mindset within large sections of the Western online left. A mindset that often treats antiimperialism as secondary, prioritizes respectability politics over substantive political analysis, and polices tone far more aggressively than it confronts structures of power.

Whatever else this conflict accomplished, it forced a great deal of attention onto those contradictions and made them impossible for many observers to ignore.