tl;dw is that argumentative writing must follow a strict set of rules which are suspiciously similar to a high school grading rubric, and deviation from these rules demonstrates the author's inability to communicate. Of particular note is that Jammies uses the introduction to one of his own undergrad essays as an example, which I've painstakingly transcribed below.
His standards for what makes a good essay are giving me vivid flashbacks to high school writing class. Hook->Introduction->Reasoning->Evidence->Revisit Thesis->Why It Matters->Conclusion is beat for beat the exact same. I'd say the biggest problem with his advice is that imposing a rigid standard for something as fluid as argumentation is setting yourself up for failure caused by an inability to adapt to different mediums (like Youtube videos) or unfamiliar contexts. His repeated misunderstanding of arguments not within this format demonstrates this fact. Like many midwits, he's focused on the "how" of things rather than the "why", to put it simply.
And if that excerpt from his undergrad essay is supposed to validate his advice, then all it actually proves is how literacy has gone down the shitter if this guy has managed to become some kind of authority on anything related to it.
"The 20th century would be an era where millions of people would experience radical change to implement new and progressive governments in the newly decolonized world"
First of all, immediately using "would be" instead of "was" is a tragedy of grammar. That's a conditional progressive, meaning the actions described are both hypothetical/conditional and ongoing which is the exact opposite of how a retrospective essay about history should be written. That's not even the worst of it.
"Named Apartheid, it, and its predecessor laws would bring into being an oppressive police-state that sacrificed its Black population to rule its White population with fear. The South African government utilized racial fear to create an authoritarian state that oppressed its non-White population, and then eventually political opponents of its White population. Additionally, the government would use the Cold War, specifically anti-Communism, as another source of fear to further centralize power and enact a police state."
This part is especially bad. The "predecessor laws" brought in an oppressive police-state, but then anti-communism was used to enact a police state, again? So was South Africa then a double police-state? Also lol at the verb choice of "sacrificed". I'm sure he chose it for those juicy emotional connotations, but without the historical knowledge it sounds like the government enacted TND to spook the racist whitoids. "Cold War, specifically anti-Communism, as another source of fear" makes it sound like South Africans were afraid of anti-communist actions. So were they all communists, then?
That part also likely reveals that he equates any anti-communist action during the Cold War period with the cartoonish parody of American Red Scare Lenin-in-your-toast hysteria modern-day Marxists like to push as truth. No doubt his high school teacher taught him about how ebil the McCarthy hearings were. "Natural zeitgeist" is also a made up term.
"As I demonstrate, unchecked fear was the flaw that led South Africa to its undemocratic governance in the 20th century. Today, fear destroying democracy is a phenomenon that is just as possible as it was in the Apartheid era and not exclusive to South Africa whatsoever, making the lessons to be learned from South Africa just as relevant."
Of course he concludes that today bad people with Power™ use Fear™ to oppress Minorities™ and hurt Democracy™. OMG THIS IS LITERALLY EXACTLY DRUMPF'S AMERIKKKA BILLIONAIRES LITERALLY HYPNOTIZE MAGAPEDE CRACKERS INTO HATING WHOLESOME BROWN PEOPLES. His libtard professor definitely praised this essay to high heavens because of that parallel which is why he feels so confident in showing it off. Modern professors prefer producing apparatchiks over producing rational individuals with the ability to differentiate truths from lies.
I could go on.
I am thoroughly convinced that the sole reason he has any form of following is because he ebinly dunks on le chuds and internet leftists have zero standards. There is no other possible explanation for something this poorly constructed and lazy to get any kind of attention.
If he wasn't overtly political in his motivations and targets, specifically with a anti-rightists slant, he'd be sitting at maybe 10 subscribers.
He found a niche as a faux-academic reviewing dumbshit with the pretense of intellectual authority. His deboonking videos probably get so many views because Breadtube shit itself and doesn't care about debunking rightwing videos anymore. That muscle atrophied after the great purges of the mid 2010's and early 2020's killed creators with views right of Biden online, so seething liberals and leftists had to look for someone new to reaffirm that these new scary videos were all fact-checked false. Notice how all of the RW channels he reviews aren't much older than a few years and with their popularity only coming about post-2024.
I gotta admit I find this guy fascinating now. He is the ultimate case study in the effect of public education on midwittery; by virtue of his obedience and capacity to regurgitate shitlib talking points, he now believes himself to be in a position to educate others despite a functionally low intelligence.
I'd say he's essentially the embodiment the modern failings of academia. Him heavily valuing the citations and formatting of an argument rather than its actual substance is a direct parallel to high schools and universities preferring adherence to ideological orthodoxy rather than open debate. If everyone is in agreement, then the focus of argument would shift from trying to convince others of your perspective to reaffirming those truths "properly" using standards that descend from the exact same place on high the acceptable beliefs do. Naturally, believers won't deviate from either, and dissidents will resent both.
Ironically he'd also be the type to say that bix-nooding Ebonics is a perfectly valid form of English and that prescriptive grammar is White supremacy.
