My friend ‘Millennial Woes’ – aka the Scottish writer and former YouTuber Colin Robertson – went viral in recent weeks after a laconic and pithy one sentence description of leftist discourse that he had written began to be used as a meme and/or counterpoint by both the right wing as well as (ironically) the hardcore pro-Israel ‘sensible centrists’ like James Lindsey; who continue to try (and fail) to take over the political right.
However, I think Woes’ description of leftist discourse is a lot more profound than just leftist discourse and rather describes how jews operate as well and given the historic close links between the jews and the left especially since the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917.
Woes’ dictum is as follows:
‘It’s amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.’ (1)
The insightful nature of Woes’ point is fairly obvious in that leftists engage in deconstructionist logic that breaks down things into what they believe are their base and superstructure per Hegelian and thus Marxist logic. This is where the ability and proclivity of leftists to engage in profoundly idiotic hyper-intellectual ‘critical reasoning’ comes in that they believe that the basis of human society is not biological – and thus based on the scientific method and process – but rather economic.
Hence, they usually believe that any problems within society are structural rather than foundational. We can see this in the leftist belief that was common until the 1940s/1950s in leftist activist circles – and was encoded within the Soviet Union by Stalin recriminalizing homosexuality in March 1934 after its de-criminalization by Lenin in December 1917 and its subsequent formal codification in Soviet law in 1922 and 1926 – that homosexuality was a structural problem that was not caused by biology but rather by economics or rather as they would have it: ‘the capitalist mode of production’.
Thus, in the halcyon years of the modern left; they viewed homosexuals not as an ‘oppressed minority’ whose sexuality – usually treated as it is ipso facto genetic but rarely defined as such because that would conflict with the idea that foundation (i.e., base) of problem is economic not something else – (2) was irrationally persecuted by the ‘capitalist class/state’, but rather an aberrative mental malady caused by the economic structure of the ‘capitalist class/state’ preventing men and women from being financially/economically able to have normal sexual relations and raise children. In turn encouraging men to engage in homosexual acts as a way to relieve their sexual urges without the danger of procreating and being thus required to marry the mother of their children resulting in unsustainable financial/economic stress being place upon them.
This earlier Marxist explanation ironically has much to recommend it as part of a multi-causal explanation of homosexual behaviour among humans – and why lesbianism is so rare historically while ostensible male homosexuality (especially situational such as in prisons and within the crews of ships) is relatively common – in that it locates homosexual acts as being outside of homosexuality rather being identical to it. (3) The point being that the reason we have fairly frequent accounts of homosexual acts among men who are otherwise heterosexual is because a lot of this is caused by a lack of access or the availability of women – it is the same reason that White settlers and traders in the America, Africa and India often took native female lovers/wives due to the lack of women of their own race in the area – (4) resulting in homosexual acts which then get promoted as if they were homosexuality itself by leftists today and in the last century or so.
The point is then the left’s own ideology requires them to understand what is foundational (the Hegelian ‘Base’) and what is structural (the Hegelian ‘Superstructure’), but because leftists use the result of human behaviour (economics) as their foundation; they end up being forced to claim that what is obviously foundational (biology) is structural because anything else contradicts all their other ideological conclusions and/or beliefs (i.e., if the foundation is biology thus the oppression of one group by another is thus biologically based and may in fact be justified and an inherent good rather than ipso facto ‘oppression’ and an inherent bad).
This lies at the root of why leftists can appeal to ‘science’ and also claim that ‘race/gender doesn’t exist’ in the same sentence without blushing nor seeing the obvious contradiction in terms. This in itself is the power of ‘critical reasoning’ (aka deconstructionism) in that it by asking the classic child’s question of ‘why?’ repeatedly you end up in a nihilistic point of view where anything and everything is amorphous and fluid, so nothing matters but also there is no foundation upon which to build discourse resulting in what Woes has so rightly observes.
Woes’ dictum describes the problem outlined above beautifully but the origin of this is much older than modernity as Hitler describes the exact same phenomenon when debating jewish leftists in ‘Mein Kampf’.
He writes that:
‘The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents; but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles; one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more — the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.’ (5)
Hitler’s point is obviously very similar to Woes’ point albeit the latter’s point is made in far more pithy and laconic style than Hitler’s observation of the same phenomena around a century earlier. However, what Hitler is pointing out is that jews routinely claim ‘not to understand’ their opponents in the same way modern leftists do – there is actually an element of truth in this because jews seem invariably to be completely unfamiliar with the basis of their opponent’s counter-arguments and instead tend to take the broad idea (as they understand it) to strawman that counter-argument as something else entirely (for example the claim so often encountered that there is a ‘contradiction’ in believing jews were/are behind both communism and capitalism when the unsaid adjective is ‘modern’ and/or ‘jewish’) – (6) but also this – which Woes implies – ‘confusion’ is deliberate in that in order to deny the material reality or obvious truth of something the leftist and the jew a-like simply claim it is a fluid category and/or amorphous thing that ‘we don’t understand’.
Then naturally comes the search for any ‘gotcha’ fact they can possibly use to try and support this denial of reality and truth despite presumably understand that exceptions don’t disprove the rule or apples cannot be compared to oranges to claim that apples should be decreasing in price because oranges are and ‘we all know apples and oranges are really just the same thing’ (i.e., ‘comparing apples to oranges’).
Jews themselves use all of these tactics and more among and against each other and have done since at the least the era of the Talmuds (since such debate strategies and counters are frequently seen in both the Talmud and in Rabbinics in general), but indeed the creators of this method of argument/debate – as well as the intellectual schema behind it - in modern leftism are themselves predominantly jewish.
Since who Hitler was arguing against in the early 1920s was the fathers of this sort of thinking (aka ‘Western Marxism’ = modern leftism) and who were in turn writing and arguing against critics and opponents like Hitler at just this time. These individuals were almost all jewish such as Gyorgy Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse and the ‘Frankfurt School’ while even later major ‘Western Marxist’ thinkers like Louis Althusser while not jewish were either married to jews (like Althusser was) or heavily influenced by them.
So, while Woes’ dictum appears at first to only be related to leftists; it in fact also applies in equal force to jews - among whom it can be dated back over a millennium - and it became so common among leftists precisely because the originators of modern leftism were… well… jews.
References
(1) https://x.com/MillennialWoes/status/1984928054284521760
(2) Since if sexuality’s foundation is stated to be genetic/biological in nature and thus fixed it would therefore render the idea of structural oppression based on that from the economic foundation used to be self-contradictory, because you sexuality and society is no fluid so it is therefore no longer structural then means that other biological phenomena – such as race and gender – must also be foundational which in turn suggests that human behaviour – such as economics – is structural not foundation meaning that leftist logic ends up eating itself.
(3) On this see Glenn Wilson, 1989, ‘The Great Sex Divide: A Study of Male-Female Differences’, 1st Edition, Peter Owen: London, pp. 80-82
(4) Cf. Roger Pearson, 1997, [1954], ‘Eastern Interlude: A Social History of the European Community in Calcutta’, 1st Edition, Scott-Townsend: Washington D.C.
(5) Adolf Hitler, ‘Mein Kampf’, pp. 63-64 (Murphy Edition)
(6) I have explained this in some detail here: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-lure-to-blame-isms-race-and-the