I meant to post this month’s ago. I wrote this before Charlie Kirk got killed. I had it all written but things got busy. This post is in response to the push back that comedians got regarding their support of Trump. I argue that YouTube anti-woke comedians are just a node in the Right Wing matrix. I call them jokingly and seriously as being the “Comedian Intelligence Agency”.
There are typos in this. So this will be edited over the next few weeks but I want to share with you so my term of “Comedian Intelligence Agency” gets out there.
(My original post is below).
Joe Rogan has Mike Baker as seen on many JRE podcast episodes (the most recent as of the date of this publication being July 25, 2025).
Andrew Schulz and some YouTube conspiracy or “deep state studies” podcasters have Andrew Bustamante.
What’s the similarity between Andrew Bustamante and Mike Baker? They have both worked at the CIA.
Sure, one can interview people from The CIA and there is no agenda in mind. People at the CIA likely have great insight, however, there does seem to be a link between “comedy” “podcasting” “conspiracy theory” culture and intelligence agencies, where the core messaging is to casually prevent “leftist thought” from gaining too much traction, maintain an apologia for the neoliberal capitalist order, and maintain a Judeo (Zionist) Christian and “western chauvinist” perspective.
Comedians getting direct orders, having security clearances, etc., seems a bit unrealistic, though not implausible, but I can assume that intelligence – both public and private – would utilize platforms to disseminate narratives, shift perspectives. etc.
Essentially, intelligence agents or ex-agents who are still in the rolodexes of their former employers – often currently working within the consultancy business – are more likely to use, i.e., “play”, podcasters who are more concerned with getting YouTube placards, views, and algorithm paychecks.
Comedians also seem more susceptible to higher risk levels of lifestyles. Drugs, alcohol, meeting sexual partners while touring, etc. Also, the personality types who like being center of attention. And, like all people, they have things they are not proud of in their past, such as embarrassing details from former relationships or flings, etc.
Further, comedians have agents, and those agents, even unbeknownst to their talent may have potential intelligence community links. Andrew Schulz for example is works closely with Dov Mamann being college classmates, but Dov, being Jewish from Los Angeles (center of entertainment) and having worked at CAA (Creative Artist Agency), one of the largest talent agencies, could potentially be a few degrees away from actual Israelis, who in turn are few degrees away from the IDF or Mossad. (Note: See other Andrew Schulz agent information: https://bookingagentinfo.com/celebrity/andrew-schulz/)
Intelligence it seems is all about relationships and compartmentalization.
As a result of this inclination I have, I am coining the term the “Comedian Intelligence Agency”, which is a community of Joe Rogan adjacent comedians who are within a web of cultural spaces, that are able to twist narratives in the directions I spoke of previously.
This paper is about how it seems Comedians have infiltrated, wooed, and sold out to larger forces with the intent of maintaining status quo power. For the possibility of career advancement, invites into exclusive circles, etc., it seems fairly easy to manipulate podcast era comedians, whom often thread upon other communities such conspiracy theorists, political analysts, etc.
To begin, Tim Dillon admitted that he had a dinner with JD Vance. Yeah, I think it is safe to say that Tim Dillon can’t be trusted from here on out. Thank you Tim for your approach to comedy with its hyperbolic, sort of edgy, speak truth to power style, but I do not trust really anyone from the “Rogan-sphere”.
All these bro-like YouTube comedians should have heeded Whitney Cummings warning that they were evolving into dorks.
But thing about Tim Dillon, and even Andrew Schulz (to whom this post is about), is that no matter how good the information is from a person, ultimately that person is the filter. So, Tim Dillon comes off as very knowledgeable with his online reading, encyclopedic grasp of basic “Deep State” history such as that of the CIA (i.e., Operation Gladio, Stay Behind Units, JFK conspiracy, Iran Contra, etc.), but even in the face of the facts, how those facts are interpreted is subjective. And Dillon, as I suspect from most YouTube Era comedians is they lean towards what I consider to be a classically liberal foundation, centering strongly around….money and the preservation of it.
Also, Dillon is not a genius. Saagar Enjenti, Andrew Schulz, and the web of other related online personalities are not. They are no different than you or I. Most of what they know about “Deep State” this or that is just building or borrowing from other sources, or living too much online on Twitter “X”, but rather they have a platform, watched by many people who don’t want to connect dots for themselves.
Regardless, this post will be about Andrew Schulz but to get this started off, it is important to note an obvious fact which is…Bill Maher is going to die one day.
He’s old. He has enough spunk and vinegar left in him to keep hanging on, likely for at least another 20 years, but there will be a day his show goes away. With Bill being an apologist for the system as is, that being the “neoliberal, post-colonial, imperialist, capitalist yadda yadda Zionist whatever we live in”, is that the system needs a new crop of replacements to fill the void of “cultural engineers”.
Andrew Schulz to me will replace Bill Maher.
Maher has hosted Charlemagne da God who is a friend of Schulz, and both Schulz and Maher share an extended network. I feel confident in believing that they are a few texts away from each other. Maher and Schulz are similar with their so-so acting careers and a love-them-or-hate them comedian careers, so it seems like a good prediction that Schulz will have some sort of HBO late night show. For example, our overlords have already positioned Charlie Kirk to be our casual racist Archie Bunker for Millennials and beyond.
With the Colbert Show being cancelled, who knows? Maybe Schulz will get a talk show slot on Paramount CBS streaming? He has that New York City, white mix blended look that wavers between Jew, Italian, Black Irish, etc., what harkens back to images of 1950s bowling shirts or the Rat Pack martinis with Dean Martin and Sammy Davis, Jr.
They will simply take his podcast, give it a higher budget, live audience, maybe throw in a band of hip black people playing a jazz funk blend, and it would be easy for Schulz because Paramount, Viacom, etc., are all based in New York City. The Flagrant podcast is essentially a talk show with guest, so the model is already there. If it happens, I predicted it.
However, I am not here to drag Charlemagne da God (despite me only able to listen to him in doses), is because he does actually have a pretty well-thought out political consciousness, which leans in the rightful humanist and progressive direction, and he accurately calls Trump what he is which is a man flirting with dictatorship and authoritarianism. Charlemagne also keeps tabs on actual legislation affecting issues such as Civil and Voting Rights.
But, Andrew Schulz needs to chill on politics.
Andrew Schulz said, “How it is it best to handle criticizing someone I voted for who are doing the exactly opposite of what I voted for?”, or something to that effect, but not verbatim. Bro… Andy, Andrew, Schulz, Schulz-tsy, whatever… Trump said exactly what he was going to do.
What do you mean opposite?
And, why would you (Andrew) give Trump the benefit of doubt to be able to save the world despite his frequent lies, and not the other candidate such as Kamala which he ran against?
Because she is not the best “entertainer”? Andrew Schulz did make some disparaging jokes about Kamala’s love life, insinuating she “sucked her way” to the top, where this casual misogyny occurred during the Hawk Tuwah (Haley Welch) infamous era. But Andrew did not seem to have as much of a problem with Trump saying he grabs women by their p-ssy, uses his power as the host of the the Miss Universe pageant to walk in on nude models, etc. Sure, I am be coming off as some “cringe Prince Valiant wannabe” but the truth of the matter is that Andrew set different bars for the two candidates, and lowered it for Trump despite all the controversy around him, including being involved in trying to overturn the 2020 election with his cabal of fake electors, possible voting machine rigging, and yes, the violent insurrection that ensue on at the US Capitol. Not to mention cheating on his wife (and, no it doesn’t matter whether it was with an adult actress or not). Oh, and he was convicted of being civilly liable for rape. Just saying.
The same Schulz who thankfully lambasted Right Wing, Man-o-sphere nutjobs at the Fresh and Fit Podcast with Myron Gaines, for how they treat women, ends up joking about how an accomplished woman such as Kamala had to fellate herself to the top.
Why is the burden of proof lower for Trump, and higher for others, besides you (Andrew) simply voting on vibes, optics, popularity, resentment, vengeance against your critics, and whichever way the wind blows?
I was not even the biggest Kamala fan at all and she certainly had flaws. But, what I presume Andrew’s gripe with her was that he associated her with the common narrative that Democrats are elitist hypocrites who simply appropriate progressive politics as a means of maintaining the vast conspiracies which props up establishment power, in which many of his guests (such as Tim Dillon) talks about. Not only this, but there could of even be a default layer of misogyny, in which people resented Kamala for appearing like a sloppy identity-politics oriented (i.e., a woman of color) candidate to prop up establishment power. I only say misogyny, not to single out Andrew, but to point to society’s innate tendency to see woman as corrupting and unaccountable entities, who leverage their “feminine wiles” to manipulate men and also inspire the droves of seemingly vindictive feminists who wish harm on men. Men and even women conditioned by patriarchy see the feminine form as as beautiful and kind to one’s face, but with a butcher knife in the other hand hidden behind their backs.
Andrew Schulz has every right to say what he wants, but I would suggest that people ignore him, unsubscribe, etc.
I will say the same for Theo Von, Tim Dillon, etc., to whom I now going to call the “Comedian Intelligence Agency”, because many people within the Joe Rogan Set seem to have been coopted or lured into the periphery of Trump, where Trump is not only act actor for the establishment, but an almost comically occult manifestation of the hyperreality and gluttony that undergirds American life. Trump is a Golem, but not spun from the clay of some Yiddish mystic, but rather an entity summoned from depressed American channel surfing in which one accidently hit the right combination of TV remote buttons, as if the buttons were John Dee’s Enochian language.
This C.I.A. (of Comedians), is basically the comedic rendition of the Intellectual Dark Web with people such as Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, the Weinstein Brothers, etc. The IDW laid the basis for online psy-ops to support the classically liberal establishment with Sam Harris and Stefan Molyneux opening up debates about “Bell Curve, racial IQ” statistics; Jordan Peterson using pseudo-intellectual Jungian psychology and appropriating Joseph C. Campbell premises to create a self-help model to steer young, alienated men towards classical liberal thinking (and a fear of female sexuality); Ben Shapiro was simply there to steer hatred away from Israel by tapping into America’s long standing hatred of black people, and Joe Rogan was the central transfer station where these IDW people could proliferate their messages to mass audiences, while also Joe serving as the archetype for the “Right Wing, Burning Man attending, psycho-naut (drug user)” who was able to steer the cultural vestiges of “Far Out man…” hippie thinking back towards its supposed classically liberal origins (a premise purported in the book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon: Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream by David McGowan).
Tim Dillion as I wrote in a previous post about the comedians of the bourgeoise is effectively a gay clout chaser trying to hold court with elites, so he can party in the Hamptons, have sex with young men (cough — boys), talk on the speaker phone while smoking cigarettes about which Michelin restaurant he can slob at, be dramatic, etc. He is living in his own little slice of a Brett Easton Ellis universe I guess. Tim Dillion is trying to get into Dorsia, the restaurant which denied Patrick Bateman from American Psycho entry.
But, I want to like Tim Dillon, yet, he is actively helping Alex Jones resurrect his career and credibility despite Alex Jones helping to create the Right Wing oriented conspiracy culture which grew like cancer into the Qanon movement.
Dillon pretending to act like Alex Jones is not an asset of the state is comedy but with dire consequences.
For example, for such as “conspiracy guru” like Tim Dillon, why has he not asked why was Alex Jones hanging out with Kenneth Cheseboro were at the Capitol Grounds on January 6th?
Cheseboro is the now disbarred lawyer who was the mastermind behind the fake elector plot which spanned multiple states including Georgia and Michigan, where in Michigan they were assisted with lawyers associated with Hillsdale College and Rudy Giuliani. In Michigan this Republican cabal cooked up a half-brained plot to sleep overnight in the State Capitol on Michigan, pose as electors, and cast fake votes before the real electors arrived. It is something straight out of a Mr. Bean or Simpson’s episode.
It is almost as if they were hoping their vast conspiracy to overthrow the election would work and they wanted Alex Jones there on the spot to cover “the historic event” of Trump winning on his InfoWars streaming outlet.
Alex Jones eventually lost his own legal battle because of his Sandy Hook fiasco where he alleged the mass shooting event was a false flag with “crisis actors”, and his crazy fans harrased the victim’s families.
Now broke, Jones is playing this clever game to claw himself back and Tim Dillon is helping him.
Further, Alex Jones has close ties to Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi who were two Trump operatives. Dillon is MAGA, despite him able to speak with a messaging that resonates with the Left because of his analysis of late-state capitalism, and this is something I have noticed actual racist such as Tucker Carlson drifting towards in recent years.
However, in a world where people like Andrew, Tim, Theo Von can get power, the only recourse is to simply unfollow, ignore, etc.
It’s important to note that Theo Von is descended from a wealthy real estate family in Louisiana, with minor Polish nobility roots, even though he sells this myth of him being poor because supposedly his mother was allegedly reduced to a side-piece by his wheeling-and-dealing father, where the father may have been neighbors with David Duke, the Grand Wizard of the KKK and a State politician in Louisiana.
But…I wish Andrew the best in his career and with his family.
He actually seems like genuinely decent guy if you meet him on the right day. This is not me being a “hater”, but more so a guy approaching forty years old, trapped in a cosmic “eye roll” and sigh as I live in the hyperbolic ridiculousness of the modern world.
A modern world where we once saw utopia in the future (a world beyond race, old ethnic vendettas, and of high technology that alleviated us from the burdens of cradle-to-grave labor), but rather we have been given drug-addicted, chainsaw wielding Elon Musk as he blows up more rockets than gets into outer-space and on US tax payer dime.
Instead of utopia, we instead have young wet-nose college kids lost on 8chan, Discord servers, and Subreddits somehow thinking Nazi Germany was a better choice, and to add more irony is the Zionist Jewish Israel lobby (one time foes of actual Nazis) are totally fine supporting Far Right Nazi narratives because they’re more conducive with Israel’s “Might Makes Right” and amoral realpolitik foreign policy.
We’ve totally lost the plot.
College kids protesting for Palestine are seen as more threats than legitimate Neo Nazis who want to accelerate the collapse of civilization by blowing up power stations or doing “lone wolf” terror.
The elite class is not supporting Social Justice Warrior. No. Far from it.
Rather they are totally supportive of any ideology that justifies their power as is, and in a late-stage capitalist society, elites are normalizing more fringe and archaic modes of political organization. This is why you have dorks such as the young man on Jubilee wanting a Catholic autocracy as if he is a side character in his favorite video game like Elder Scrolls, his favorite Japanese anime with its obsession with German and Austro-Hungarian aesthetics, or in a book like Lords of the Rings.
About this young Catholic autocrat, he is just a byproduct of the same culture that our leaders such as JD Vance represents in which Vance is the symbolic nexus between the “theocrat bros” who want the erosion of church and state, and “tech bros” who are elite CEOs who controls and gatekeeps the high technology which society runs on.
I just don’t care what comedian podcasters at this point have to say on anything.
They’ve done enough damage, they’ve flexed enough, etc., where I am simply numb to their existences, and I don’t have time to reward them with a few pennies generated by YouTube being flipped their way by me watching them.
But the fact still remains about Andrew and that is who cares what he has to say? The issue with the modern world now is we are listening to people talk to themselves through others too much these days. Since people are paid to talk, of course people will have issues with something you say.
Andrew is too defensive, arrogant, and narrow focused to be taken seriously on matters of politics, notably when pushed into a corner for his own endorsement of our controversial President. And this is even with him generally being a good guy I would think. Ignoring him is like timeout of a child. Sometimes having no stimulation is what a kid needs, so they can develop. Ignoring Andrew’s podcast will just force him to focus more on his comedy and acting, and not only on his philosophical opining.
Deep down inside I suspect there’s a “debate bro” inside of him, who simply wants to win an argument, rather, than admitting he is wrong sometimes. The inability to take an L can be seen as confidence, but also arrogance, and there’s a difference. Arrogance could be argued as attempting to impose one’s will, rather than being content with your own beliefs. It’s not about logic, but pride.
It is not about his political beliefs but simply who he is personality wise that I am over. I think your time as a watcher can be better put elsewhere.
Andrew is basically saying in the wake of the criticism about him backtracking on his vote for Donald Trump, that he does not care what anyone says.
Great. Let’s make that happen by not listening to anything he has to say ever again.
Seriously.
Let us all do that. It should not be any sweat of his back at all. I unsubscribed a long time ago. The only clips I see of him are through content creators actually calling him out for the reasons I unsubscribed for.
He say’s he doesn’t care what people say while telling us that, which means he does care. Andrew, duh.
The best thing for Andrew Schulz to do is to put his ego aside on political matters or maybe not even talk about politics at all, yet, the moment you suggest to certain personality types not do something, they are going to take it personally and do the exact opposite.
He made a mistake voting for Trump, and he did fall a bit into the Trump adjacent anti-woke comedian era, with the latter having become a tiresome crutch that many sad comedians or so-so actors continue to moan about. Andrew Schulz is not as pathetic as Rob Schneider however, but every comedic actors should see Schneider as a warning. A spiteful byproduct of the entertainment machine, who seems to have zero accountability over his actions, and simply blames wokeness as an innocuous force for his own failings. Don’t be that guy.
There are comedians who are conservative, even though I am not saying Andrew is an explicit conservative, but there are ones.
Dave Spade for example has noted conservative beliefs (even giving police departments guns), but he also does not talk about politics and he seems more naturally talented that Schulz, which I suspect is because Spade is aware of who he is, his faults, his strengths, etc., and he simply matured as himself over time. Spade is also from Arizona, land of Barry Goldwater, so there you go too.
Vince Vaughn is also very conservative, but he often keeps his politics close to his chest. I would argue that Hollywood is not actually politically progressive but more so culturally liberal, so the politics simply follows suit, but that progressive liberalism is essential for the arts because the arts are supposed to be inclusive, and conservatism is often antithetical to inclusion. The zenith of conservatives American pop culture is the…Western. The Western serves as means of often whitewashing the brutality of Manifest Destiny during Western Expansion by offering up strong, often straight, white male (which is not a crime for your softies out there angry I simply mentioned that), to be characters offering a moral vindication for their presence in the region. The cowboy is thus a tool of civilization in the subliminal lore of Western white supremacy. However, this is a harsher analysis of the Western genre, and many Westerns so touch upon the brutality in which “the west was won”, and more recently they show the racial, gender, and other intersectional aspects of what it was really like back them, rather than being a male power fantasy exclusive only to white men. Yet, “conservative Hollywood” could only really offer tales of John Wayne cowboys or remakes of old swashbuckling adventures such as Robin Hood or Ivanhoe (all with a predictable moral story arcs — which is actually not bad).
But back to comedians and actors who are conservative I truly don’t think that any actors saying they are voting Republican would hurt their career.
People hurt their careers when they show themselves as jerks who are publicly espousing beliefs which may invalidate the existences of others they may be working with.
Regardless, the “anti-woke” era of comedians which Schulz sort of falls into, took it personally that they couldn’t rely as much on “punching down” jokes such as those directed towards marginalized groups, or even comedy that socially reinforces stereotypes, etc.
These sort of comedians see themselves as being provocative for the sake of provocative because they seems themselves as torch bearers of free speech.
But, many people realized that comedians were able to be bigots but behind the veneer of simply saying everything is a joke. This is why Dave Chappelle got heat for this transgender humor.
I am not saying that this is Schulz directly or even that he was guilty of these things, but via many of his conversations and talks, one can see he sort of started adopting what I consider to be the anti-woke mentality.
Some comedians as to not hurt their careers tried to play an ambiguous center region of the political spectrum, so this explains why some went on the anti-woke train. My suggestion would not to have played the center, but not have played at all. It’s about money, business, career, etc. for some, and Andrew Schulz being a pretty ambitious person who wants to succeed, started going down this road of “false equivalencies” between the political-left and the political-right. Essentially, this idea that the extreme left and the extreme right are the same thing, when that is not true at all, especially within the context of the Western and American Left versus the Western and American Right Wing.
So, being a sort of “enlightened centrist” is good for one’s career, especially in times of heated political debates, where comedians can be seen as “modern truthsayers’, yet, the issue still remains that the political-right and political-left have very different agendas in mind. Further there are crisis points in society every now and then where playing the center simply feeds more so to right wing power which is status quo power.
The system as is, is more catered towards a right-wing viewpoint (e.g,. a predominately white accepting, patriarchal, heteronormative, culturally exclusive set of views which often layers the normalization of capitalist exploitation and labor-relations, i.e., a master slave mentality).
The system as is more effective at painting the Left, be they Left Liberals (capitalist apologists – which is not a bad thing) or true Leftists (critical of capitalism such as Socialists and Communists), as being caricatures and threats to society on both social issues and economic issues.
So, when people play the false equivalence game, they are more so helping the status quo who already has the power, more than they are creating some level playing field which many naively think they are doing. There’s no equivalence in a system with a foundation of hostility towards Leftism.
However, many comedians play this center ground to preserve the conservatism or Right Wing ideology they do hold.
Andrew Schulz vote for Trump and his current (and alleged) regret from having done so, despite Trump telling everyone exactly what he was going to do, means Schulz cannot really be taken seriously as much as he wants to be.
He is either so out touch, that he didn’t believe the words that were coming out of Trump’s mouth because many “bros” like Andrew see Trump as funny first and foremost, so they end up concluding with, “Eh, he doesn’t really mean it”.
Or, as I slightly suspect… I believe there is a concerted effort to incorporate comedians into a loose network that ultimately feeds back into Right Wing, capitalist, neoliberal, and corporate power. They may be too dumb or arrogant to understand this though. Some comedians are essentially “street teams” or “cultural engineers”, who are enticed with rewards of bettering their careers, getting film roles, being invited to exclusive parties, etc., to steer and twist narratives in a way where audiences subconsciously gravitate towards positions which ultimately supports status-quo power. Trump is the zenith of this with him being an actor who does what the one-percent wants him to do.
Most conspiracies are thrown at the Political Left despite them not having real power, such as that of multinational financing, the ownership of the means of production, etc., yet, I truly feel the world is a giant Right Wing conspiracy (as I have written about in my thesis on the Anglo-American, Continental, Zionist, Saud., ACZS Network), but this conspiracy knows how to play fiddle to Left Wing liberalism enough in order to anesthetize and neuter it. This vaguely reminds me of what I have heard about CIA spook Cord Meyer, who was one of the earlier members of the CIA, who supposedly infiltrated leftist and student movements, to prevent Europe from supporting socialist or communist, but certainly he led Radio Free Europe.
This “loose network” of Right Wing conspiracy utilizes “cultural nodes” or “spaces” to culturally groom and steer the public away from class solidarity and anti-capitalist stances by utilizing what can considered to be marketing studies, i.e., appealing to desire, fear, sociability, the yearning to conform, a basic idea of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, etc. I am not Communications Studies expert but from my time studying it during my graduate degree, I remember theories such as Uses and Gratifications Theory, and also the Toronto School of Communication which was led by Malcolm McLuhan.
From UFC with ties to comedians and thus conspiracy culture as exemplified by Joe Rogan, to the “healthy living movements” ties with the anti-vax community which can be a slippery slop into “tinfoil” hat subgenres of conspiracy cultures, to the healthy living movement (raw goat milk drinkers included) being coopted by the patriarchal “Trad Wife movement” which is a subsect of the anti-democratic Third Position (fascist) movements found within obscure Discord or Subreddit threads. It is all network of pathways intended to groom the mind towards intended outcomes.
Even the pacifism movement, which was once assumed to be Leftist because of the Left’s anti-imperialists talking points, has been coopted to steer pacifism in a direction which actually benefits America’s enemies, simply because these enemies (such as Russia) have become the cultural darlings of many within the Right Wing movement for their Orthodox stances on social matters such as feminism, diversity, and LGBTQ issues.
Is not interesting that conservatives used pacifism to hurt the moral crusade (in America interests) of supporting Ukraine against Russia, but now that pacifism is gone on Israel, Iran, etc.?
But, these Right Wingers are very smart, and now they are even slipping into criticism of Israel and pacifism towards Iran to save face, despite all military efforts still going to support Israel and keep up pressure on Iran because of Israel.
The fact that conservatives are adopting and stealing Leftist analysis on labor, and now even slipping more so into the Anti-Zionist movement (and not for humanist reasons but because of traditional conservative Jew hatred), we should all be weary considering this is what Hitler and Strasser Brothers did to lay the foundation for Third Position fascist politics in Germany.
But anyways…
Andrew like many people were…clout chasing.
They didn’t want to be left behind if history proved Trump correct, so they betted on social clout rather than moral integrity and the reality of the socio-economic situation where we as people face the descent of late-stage capitalism into fascism, because those who won the capitalist game know the time is coming up where its logic runs out in the minds of the masses.
On a slight side note, one of my main theories is that as wealth disparity gets out of control you will see a natural rise in conspiracies promoted by the “system”. Conspiracies and weaponized postmodernism are proportional to wealth disparity and conspiracies are tools of the wealthy to distract the masses and misdirect anger, often towards the general idea of the government, in which the people should control to make society a better place on egalitarian grounds.
They (the status quo, conservatives, etc.) directs anger at the government while still using and accruing government power by privatizing it into their own hands and away from public accountability. It is rigged either which way, but I am not a fatalist or defeatist, but rather this is simply an analysis of what I consider to be the facts. I am not saying it is rigged as a means of convincing myself not to care.
But again back to Schulz, I believe Schulz voted for Trump because of FOMO, i.e., Fear of Missing Out, so he betted on Trump, hoping he would succeed, because if Trump succeeded it not only preserves the anti-Leftist but pro-liberal ideology that Schulz merits with his interpretation of where free speech is at now, but Schulz also wants the ability to make money and live lavishly.
Schulz is selling a dream, and although it is an aspirational dream with noble intent, the fact remains in a capitalist system, especially one in which the social contract between workers and employers, and people and their government, hasn’t evolved to keep up with the uber-powerful corporate entities, is that his dream is naïve at best.
Capitalism in at all of its phases has required winners and losers, and by losers I don’t mean losers who lost a fair fight.
Unpaid slave labor founded the USA it its early agrarian phase; non-unionized and underpaid (and child labor) labor made the USA into a powerhouse during its industrial phase, and shifting tax-burdens and inflation costs (generated by the wealthy’s ability to use the state’s credit for stimulus preferential to their own interests) off onto the working class, compounded by technological innovation and outsourcing labor is sustaining the American Empire in its “post-industrial, service-oriented, and financialized” phase but not without consequence.
That consequence being that the logical conclusions of capitalism are inevitable, such as having civil unrests, first starting with the poor and lower working classes, as technology and outsourcing replaces jobs, yet people still need to pay bills to private interests (or even to public interests under the logic of private interests).
For example, technology, robots, etc., replace jobs, but you still have a lot of people who need to pay bills, and these bills become higher and higher as asset prices rise due to excessive stimulus and inflation, but the state needs people, even if only from a system’s theory standpoint, i.e., seeing people merely as numbers, where a county with more numbers is simply seen as more powerful than another (for example, treating people as disposable resources in wars and to be stand-in numbers against aspiring superpowers who wish to unseat the USA.).
As the USA goes more nationalistic, contradictions will become more apparent but to hide those contradictions the animus of the capitalist system will obfuscate, distract, blame, etc., and this results in a race to zero, first beginning with the emergence of the American Republican into an American Dictatorship. The irony is that status quo convinced everyday people to justify this privatization, because the status quo understands the power of patriotism. The same way how corporations funded Nazis and the Nazis had brown-shirts, the same thing is going on with corporations supporting Trump and Republicans, as well as 3rd Way Democrats, but with MAGA most specifically it gave rise to the Proud Boys, etc. What were the J6 Insurrectionists even fighting for? The right for insurance to deny you claim? The ability to let Palantir track your info and possibly index you onto a kill list? The right for companies to pollute water tables? The sad truth is that white supremacy (being the only explanation whether you agree or not) is the major impetus for everyday people preserving the wealth and power of the 1%. Everyday people are so fearful of change or to share, they would rather fall into a fascist state which strips their labor power and rights as long as they maintain some sliver of aesthetic and nostalgic significance.
For example, to realistically bring back jobs, the costs of goods will have to rise to factor in higher labor costs at home, yet, Americans may be unwilling to understand why this is happening, and they will simply blame government (benefiting the rich who simply use anger to privatize power into their own hands) and/or they will blame outsider groups such as immigrants despite these immigrants driving wages down to an acceptable point for consumers to still benefit.
Basically, the USA may have to give up its position as the defacto world power in order to save itself and be more self-sustaining, but either which way has consequences. One way is simply accelerating the large crash of the empire, whereas the other choice is ushering in a slow malaise decline towards some hopeful future state of renewal, where Americans make persona sacrifices, don’t consume as much, and are fine with their currency not being strong. You can’t have it both ways. Americans have grown accustomed to having higher asset prices, while having very cheap consumer products, and I believe this is a distortion, and this distortion is the impetus for America’s Right Wing backlash. It is a backlash due to the inability of the population to judge they system they ideally (i.e. dream) will always offer them endless bounty.
Remember, economics at its very foundational principle is studying how to balance a limited supply with infinite demand, but the USA has evolved into a system of unlimited supply and infinite demand, as if this won’t have negative effects, even if as simply as using a credit card to pay off another credit card to ensure there’s enough money to not only pay off debts, but to ensure enough cash in the economy to buoy higher asset prices and sustain consistent demand.
Which begs the question? Has the USA reached both its logical conclusions of both Supply Side and Demand Side economics? And we are simply living in the “bleh zone” of this. If both are at their logical conclusions, with the only room left is to go more extreme while also being denial of the inevitable. Capitalism in the USA is too systemic that it won’t even allow itself to bloom from a caterpillar into a butterfly and reach its own supposed utopian ends. The same way how Communists posited that after the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state wouldn’t somehow wither away (presupposing that the managerial elite who oversaw this dictatorship would give up power), the Capitalists, cut from the same Enlightenment Era cloth, are suppose to have their own utopian end, but by why would those who won the capitalist game ever give up the prizes they won? Their goal is to keep as slaves in their manufactured, forced obsolescent game for as long as possible, because of faith in the system, gives life to the money, and thus power they hold.
For example, remote work is supposed to be a capitalist innovation which help sustain capitalism such shifting capital towards depressed areas for renewal, but the capitalist were like “nah”, go back to the office in order to rewards the real estate investments of the private equity interests which owns most large firms. Remote work also helped boost the NASDAQ with firms such as Zoom, Chegg, Microsoft, etc., but for some reasons corporate boards have prioritized real estate space, in a society with urban housing crisis. Businesses also aren’t letting Intellectual Property enter the public domain which can hinder innovation.
People say “Well this isn’t real capitalism”. No, it is real capitalism, it is just not your capitalism with idealistic conclusions.
This FOMO seems anchored in Schulz’s tendency to be the “funny guy”, the popular guy, etc. MAGA is a trend with consequences, yet MAGA, conservatives, and even liberals (not to be confused with Leftist) have done a great job at painting the Left has ridiculous people whose grievances can be calmed by moderation and apologia with the system.
On his Flagrant 2 podcast,
In a discussion with Charlemagne da God on The Brilliant Idiots Podcast, Andrew Schulz to me proves how got mentally swept up in the anti-woke frenzy (as many comedians did) and now that “wokeness” won in the New York City mayoral race with a Democratic Socialist candidate, Schulz has to save face, yet he is also giving passive-aggressive jabs towards those he perceives as “woke”, which he calls “people with useless degrees and $200,000 in student loan debt”. He stereotypes Socialists as “hipsters”, which is a tactic similar to what Bill Maher does, by trying to use this mix of reverse-psychology, gas-lighting, and attempts to calls one’s own alleged hypocrisy into question, as means of shaming people away from “radical Left Wing politics”. This tactic is no different than people trying to make fun of a socialist for drinking a Starbucks or having an Apple computer, but people who try these tactics forgets the overall point that there is not much of any ethnical consumption in capitalism, and people still need to survive, even if it means drinking a coffee to be functional at work, or using a computer to manage their lives.
Further, Schulz who makes a living talking and trying to be correct in his predictions, as a comedian trying to land laughs but also as a social commentary podcaster, not only is he being passive-aggressive against those he perceives to be his ideological enemies or nuisances, but he is also being sour by alleging any of Mandami’s ideas won’t work.
In this talk with Charlemagne da God, Schulz talks about how Mandami’s ideas won’t work, so he’s being preemptively pessimistic, but doesn’t explain why he’s pessimistic. The irony is if he explains why he is being pessimistic he may come to conclusions with sides more with the Left and the “woke mob”. He may have to admit there is unregulated Dark Money campaigns which have been permitted by a classical liberal system. He would have to admit the sheer power of corporations, banks, capital venture, etc., which are controlled by a few having more power than the majority of people, and that this power is justified by a classical liberal interpretation. Adding further irony, when Andrew promotes his liberal ideas (different than Leftist ideals), he’s a tear-jerking, Cinderella Man optimist, selling the American Dream to a jaded public, who sees such apologia as being another tool of status quo. This is why many people are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party overall, because they are not fighting Republicans wholeheartedly since Liberal Democrats are the same as Conservative Republicans, where both champion market capitalism, hierarchy, and private property (which has metastasized into corporate domination).
Everything that Andrew Schulz has being doing recently in his defend and deflect campaign is about protecting his ideological stances knowing that he has taken symbolic “L’s” (loses), yet all political ideology can be seen as a veil for one’s own desires (i.e., their internal wants, needs, safety from fears, etc.). For example, I can admit that
Essentially, Andrew Schulz feels like he lost on an argument or prediction, so he is “swinging going down”, which to me is very telling of Schulz as a person, with that being he is sort of full of himself and takes criticism very personally. The same mentality I noticed in Schulz, I notice in other people such as Bill Maher but more prominently in Joe Rogan. These men talk sometimes for hours and hours, seemingly engaging with the audience in mind, but are really talking to themselves, trying to prove whatever thoughts they have in their own brains are valid. These podcasts ends up being some odd version of psychotherapy for these men, where they can talk one way, but nothing comes from the other way, and if they are brave enough to read comments, they take any criticism as an attack, despite them in their talks often attacking others. To me it is sort of sad. Sure, they may have money, success, and are ironically part of the same entertainment machines they alleged to have hated (because their careers weren’t entirely respected by the industry).
Further, following up on Andrew Schulz’s Flagrant episode where he alleged that Trump is doing the things he thought he would do, and after Schulz’s talk on the Brilliant Idiots with Charlamagne the God, Andrew Schulz went off further showing how…egotistical he sort of his. Not only egotistical but has a default setting at gaslighting others when called out on what he does. I can’t image what it must be like for any women who deals with his stuff. He’s showing himself as the ultimate “I need to the have word” type of person, when really he should be quiet and move on. His combativeness simply serves into his ego because he can’t take an “L”, but he monetizes it all by creating segments about it, so either which he way he positions himself to win both monetarily via YouTube algorithm payments, and also “win” by using his gaslighting, and passive aggressive jab tactics.
The worst thing for a person like Andrew Schulz is to ignore him. Delete him. Even if he is a part of anything successful, simply be indifferent to his presence and being.
I don’t want to dislike Andrew, but he doesn’t make it easy. And, sure, his response to a person such as myself may be “F you” “I got money”, etc., etc., whatever, but the fact remains is… I’m utterly indifferent to him and his quest and his clout chasing journey towards fame. The irony is he hated on Hollywood and the mainstream, but the moment he gets invited into the “social club”, then all of a sudden this system is cool.
The irony about Schulz’s Flagrant episode on July 15, 2025 is he says “I am not a part of any of your cults”. Ok… so why did you vote for a candidate which literally has the framework of a culture, i.e., a charismatic leader, promises of a better world to come, the inability to take criticism and one who demands blind loyalty? This is a pure cop out by Schulz. If he didn’t want a side, then why he is going on other people’s podcast talking about politics? He has even go on podcasts which advocates for free-markets, libertarian ideals, etc. Unless Andrew doesn’t talk about politics, and doesn’t vote, he does have a side. And considering he has a tendency to play this “Bill Maher like Enlightened Centrists” angle, he by proxy is taking a side, which I would argue is more right-leaning, because the moderate argument that the Left and Right are the same is based on the flaw of “false equivalence” considering the system as is, has always been catered towards a Right Wing mentality. Duh. For example, the entire Cold War was a concerted effort between industrialists, Big Business, corporations, the military, the intelligence community, and ideologies such as white supremacy, survivalism, Zionist oriented Christianity, etc., to oppress anything that smelled of Leftist politics. The entire CIA for example was bent on maintaining US economic power which is highly controlled by a few wealthy people, so to insinuate that the “left and the right” are the same, is nonsense. But it is an easy nonsense to believe, when the media, controlled by the establishment, paints Leftists are ridiculous people with ridiculous wants such as subsidized healthcare, education, housing, etc.
Further, within this same segment, Schulz and his crew that include Akash Singh, tries to deflect from the fact that Schulz voted for Trump, by twisting into an issue about platforming Trump.
Interviewing Trump is not the problem, so let’s not shift the needle in that direction. Interviewing people is not the issue, granted, interviews for such as important role and within such a contentious time should be more combative or hard-hitting, which people such Schulz, Theo Von and Rogan often failed on doing. But, the issue still remains is A) Schulz voting for Trump, (B) playing what I consider to be this false equivalency narrative which I suspect he did because of (B1) he wants to grow his audience by playing the center and (B2) as a comedian he naturally takes a disliking towards anything considered restrictive of free speech, for which the Left has taken the blame mostly in recent times, despite the irony that the very nature of conservatism is to “conform”.
Everything I said here is further nuanced by Andrew’s “personality type hard-wiring” where one can observe that he often obfuscates, double downs, gaslights, and tries to throw his opposition’s perceived hypocrisy back into their faces, while still not admitting any fault of his own. This indicative of a reaction of feeling cornered and exposed, because Schulz does care about a curated outside version of himself towards others. This personality type is further nuanced by his need to feel important, be praised, and feel successful, and this can be seen in his real-time tendency to “manifest” in public. I said in a video I made about Schulz that Schulz reminds me of a guy who grew up dreaming of living the lives depicted in the TV Show, Entourage, but his sound track is that early recession Era (2008-2014) grind-set athem of “Started from the Bottom No Were Here” by Drake.
Another simple way to explain Schulz as a person, is a person who doesn’t really know how to deal with existential identity crisis. Many comedians it seems have this problem, and though they are good about storying telling their “neurotic tendencies” through anecdotes and jokes, the fact still remains is there is an insecure person down inside who wrapped that sensitive core with barbed wire, snobbery, and a too cool for school mantra.
But even if confronted and able to get past these deeply rooted insecurities, there is a possibility that the person on the other side, still won’t be a decent person to deal with.
They may end up as sourly defeated people, where their personal bemoaning is still a sign of holding definitely to that old person they had to get over.
Andrew Schulz in the talks I have heard from him, has a seemingly idealistic view of the United States, where he often insinuates that a type of WWII-like patriotic nationalism, but also a firm belief in capitalism, will work things out for society overall. Through his comedy, Schulz thus seems himself, maybe without articulating it as such, that he is defender or truth-sayer of the “classical liberal tradition”, and his comedy is a form of his patriotism and nationalism.
Mitchell Research Group 