In this episode, I dive into the intersection of politics and identity, exploring how the election—and the discourse around it—has morphed into a hyper-stylized spectacle. I felt the need to talk about the election in my way….I’ve got to stay on brand, right!?

Anyway our increasingly online world has transformed political engagement into a product, something we consume for entertainment rather than something that prompts genuine reflection or change. We essentially perform our discontent instead of seeking out a genuine understanding of the origins of said discontent.

Think about it: are we really engaging with the issues, or just performing our political identities for an audience? We seek validation for the identity we formulate online! Both as consumers and creators.

To explore this, I use Jubilee as a backdrop, which has turned political debate into binge-worthy content, casting ideological labels into meme-ready roles in series like Middle Ground (insane ‘vs’ series…. “fit vs fat” is an example of their debates) and Surrounded (1 vs 25 debates).

These "debates" aren’t about meaningful exchange; they’re about creating viral moments, reinforcing stereotypes, and packaging political identity as a consumable commodity. These staged personas reflect the performative nature of modern politics. They’re not there to inform—they’re there to entertain, to affirm, and to let viewers project their own identities onto prefabricated political tropes, symbols, and trends.

But it’s not just Jubilee. Think about figures like Joe Rogan, who recently stirred the pot by endorsing Trump. Platforms and influencers with massive reach have financial incentives to feed us predictable, memeable political “analysis,” and we consume it without digging deeper. Our political discourse has been flattened into a series of catchphrases and predictable debates, designed to feed our sense of self/identity rather than challenge it.

So, what does it mean when our politics is sold back to us as entertainment? This isn’t just disillusioning—it’s profoundly isolating. As we scroll through clips, drawn into ideological caricatures and clickbait conflicts, we sense a disconnect between the theater of politics and the real issues shaping our lives. But instead of prompting action, this disconnect leaves us in a loop of passive consumption, feeding a politics of narcissism and spectacle.

So….our personal distress, our longing for validation, and even our political identities have become the products we buy and sell—leaving us, the “voters,” as spectators in a political drama that may not care whether we truly understand or engage with issues that truly effect us everyday.

The fragmented political arena is a closed loop; a loop with no escape and no imagined future, only a loop of predictable reactions.

Now, dance liberal!

How can we move the spectacle into something more impactful? How can we find a political project that actually has an idea for the future?

Welcome to Unformulated. A subsection of my audio/visual content…where I can ramble through what I’m researching, poke at uncomfortable ideas, and maybe even say something worthwhile.

This will be my chaotic sandbox. It’s my experiment in real-time thinking, a space where I can let my mind wander without obsessing over making every idea neat and polished. We will destroy the neat package that is the easily digestible content! (Also this is still well researched content….it’s just not condensed down and will vary more in topics and style…it’s experimental.)

It’s an act of rebellion against the algorithms.

Anyway, I’ve been fixating on some cultural and societal frustrations lately, especially how the theory space feels like an intellectual time capsule—more obsessed with dissecting the past than figuring out what it means for our uncertain future. Don’t get me wrong, I love history and all that, I love theory, but sometimes it feels like we’re stuck playing curators in an intellectual museum instead of building anything new. We need more people willing to take risks with their ideas, even if it means sounding a little unhinged.

Cultural analysis should go beyond history…it should be willing to predict.

We need to be more willing to fail and be wrong.

I talk about why so much of modern culture—think figures like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro—peddle simplified versions of complex ideas, treating history like a myth to prop up their narratives. But it’s not just them. Everyone’s craving predictability—something the algorithms love to reinforce. That desire to fit into neat categories? It’s killing our ability to imagine new futures. We end up trapped in these tidy, marketable versions of ourselves, all the while ignoring the deeper questions about how power shapes our desires and keeps us in a state of discontent and problematic status quo.

This is my space to push back against all that. I’ll throw out my clusterfucked and more ‘lateral’ thoughts here and only upload when I think there’s some value in my word-vomit. Thank you for your attention. I need your attention—seriously, it keeps me sane. But I also need you to challenge me, to love and hate what I say.

Okay, now I’m gonna attempt to break some museums or something.

I’ll have the video version on my YT channel I made for Unformulated…it should be up a few hours after your receive this in case you’d rather stare into my eyes and look at my face while consuming my words.

I’ve been working on an essay that uses the recent Jay Shetty controversy as a lens to explore deeper themes around individuality and how capitalism shapes our sense of self. The controversy isn’t surprising in a system designed to commodify every aspect of our lives. I argue that the more individualized we become, the more society pushes us to deconstruct ourselves in pursuit of consumption. This cycle creates a fragmented sense of identity, marketed as self-exploration and empowerment, but ultimately designed to sell us more.

More, more, more….hoooooray!

Self-help has evolved into a massive industry driven by figures like Jordan Peterson, Tony Robbins, and Jay Shetty (to name a few of the endless names I could have named), capitalizing on our desire to "fix" ourselves.

But what if this endless focus on the individual is distracting us from the collective issues we face? Deleuze and Guattari's idea of capitalism as schizophrenic—constantly reshaping our desires to fit market demands—plays a key role here. As we consume to define ourselves, we become more atomized and isolated, convinced that self-consumption is the path to maintaining our identity.

I also touch on how hyper-individualization connects to media distrust in the digital age.

As we build personalized realities through fragmented information, we lose a shared sense of truth, deepening social divisions. Ultimately, I hope to explore how this obsession with self-identity not only drives consumerism but keeps us from addressing the broader systemic forces that benefit from our division.

Stay tuned for more on this topic as I made this episode because my other essay was getting off track around a related topic.

In this one I dive deep into the peculiar tension that Gen Z and younger millennials are feeling around today's cultural and political landscape. But it’s not just about politics or the rise of certain obvious and overdone characters like….Trump. It’s about something more pervasive, something beyond current discourse.

Imagine being caught in a strange subliminal space…where meaning, once anchored by grand narratives, is evaporating faster than we can grasp. I’m not making a value judgement on this idea either…maybe those grand narratives need to fall in on themselves. I’m into it.

But what happens when the rebellions of past generations—once fueled by dreams of change—become nothing more than empty aesthetics? Hippie culture, cyberpunk, punk rock: all absorbed by the very systems they sought to dismantle, now sold as commodities.

Any symbol of rebellion that ends up as a Halloween costume? You’ve lost it. It’s dead. A ghost of what it once was. Time to move on. It’s been hollowed out by the center.

Are we losing sleep over political collapse? Should we? Instead, we’re struggling with the suffocating sense of stagnation. Whether it’s politics, where new faces are just sequels of the old…our current culture, where the freshest ideas feel like polished-up retreads. We’re stuck in a loop…Marvel superheroes, Disney remakes, even Barbie got a reboot.

It’s reboots all the way down!

So, the big question here: Are we trapped in a rebooted reality? Is everything—from the content we consume to our political choices—just a remix of what’s come before? And more crucially, is there a way out of this loop, or are we doomed to keep recycling the same stale narratives forever? I’m trying to explore this disorienting moment in time, where the future feels like a nostalgic rerun but the nostalgic feeling is overstaying its welcome.

Anyway….thanks for listening and I’ll be doing a branch off of this as a Part 2.

In this one…I get into the chaotic, absurd world of the "Hegelian E-Girl Council" drama—a bizarre saga that epitomizes the kind of online cultural labyrinth I'm all about. The brief hook: Twitter is swarming with communities that ride the fine line between genius, madness, and stupidity and this council is the latest example that has emerged and garnered some attention. It's not just about Hegel; it's about how online identities and highbrow jargon become badges of pseudo-intellectual honor, a reality-check on the line between digital performance and genuine philosophy.

Caught up in this mess (but not really), I found myself in a Discord rabbit hole where theory nerds perform as if every tweet is a stage, showcasing the schizoid dialectical. I explore how these online personas tried to bring Hegel into the real world with a symposium in NYC, only to implode in a whirlwind of accusations, betrayals, and ideological clashes that mirror the fragmented, hyperreal landscape of our online identities.

This episode is more than internet gossip/drama—it’s a probe into how our virtual personas, fueled by narcissistic desires, clash with reality, revealing the messy, often performative nature of our intellectual lives. It’s about the Hegelian struggle to find truth amidst the noise and the hilarious futility of seeking coherence in an era where even philosophy is reduced to a meme. Or maybe that is Zizek…who is checking though? Right?

My not serious critique, with a bit of self-reflection, and a deep dive into the digital maelstrom that is my psyche and the collective consciousness of our culture. Welcome to my web of culture, identity, and the ever-elusive pursuit of truth.

Stay curious.

Nikki: https://x.com/returntohegel

Anna: https://x.com/tenshi_anna

Sanje: https://x.com/sanjehorah

Also I like JRegs political compass video….

"Oh no…a politics episode."

Yes, yes, I hear your collective groan. Politics, ugh, right? Same due. But I've got a bone to pick with the Heritage Foundation's President Kevin Roberts and his Project 2025. I kind of used to work for the guy. We kind of used to debate each other on some stuff. I kind of pretended to be an anarchist Catholic (it was a fun bit) while engaging with him. Trust me, this isn't just politics as usual—this is a deep dive into a conservative fever dream that demands our attention.

Let's dismantle the conservative (especially the religious conservative) mindset, and expose Kevin Roberts' not-so-subtle nods to violence and upheaval, all wrapped up in the guise of a "New American Revolution." The man is practically inciting chaos with his rhetoric.

Yet he claims to be on the side of “common sense.” So sick dude.

I'm delving into the conservatives' psychological warfare, where they manipulate spiritual narratives to maintain their grip on power, while liberals stumble around with their performative wokeness. It's a spectacle of narcissism on both sides, and it's high time we dismantle it. We need to start by dragging our political discourse out of its current dismal state.

Think of this as a step one individual effort of mine to redefine political discourse.

Intro of what this episode is about…

So, there's this trend in the influencer and guru world of trying to make God cool again. You've got your Petersons, your Hubermans, your Rogans, all preaching their own brand of spirituality, self-improvement, and self-optimization.

And I've noticed this trend where they’ve moved more towards this acceptance of God or more open to a Jesus like figure. Not a problem on face value. I’m not here today to critique the flaws of religion. It’s over done or at least we will save it for a different day.

I want to examine why this happens and just the general understanding of these, what I want to call, Podcast Daddy.

Look at it this way, we're all players in the grand theatre of life, acting out our parts in a drama as ancient as the myths of Greece. We can cast ourselves into three roles, I think, in some sense, obviously this is a bit oversimplified as I’m still trying to formulate my wording for this but: those striving to be Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods to bring wisdom to mankind and gods being the structures we live under, the structures that influence our desire without us really know it; those wanting to play Apollo, the priestly conduit between heaven and earth, and the Gods, being your interpreter of ‘the good’; and then there are those who are content being the chorus, echoing whatever tune the priestly Apollo plays.

Basically, you have your wise guys, you have your priest, and you have the people who generally follow the priest or start becoming a wise guy.

I might turn this into a more in depth essay but the episode includes some of my initial thoughts.

Let me know what you think…

Stay curious.