We've Reached A Boiling Point! | HUDSON'S EPIPHANIES w/ Professor Penn & Walter Hudson | EP243

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "We've Reached A Boiling Point! | HUDSON'S EPIPHANIES w/ Professor Penn & Walter Hudson | EP243"

Podcast: Real America’s Voice
Host: David Penn (Professor Penn)
Guest: Rep. Walter Hudson
Date: October 1, 2025

---

Episode Theme Overview

This highly charged episode confronts the state of American political and cultural polarization through candid reflections on recent political assassinations (notably Charlie Kirk), breakdowns of civil discourse, and the need for unity among the political right. Professor Penn and Rep. Walter Hudson assess the current "boiling point" in American society, discuss the erosion of democratic norms and morality, and debate the path forward for conservatism and the broader American project, blending personal epiphanies with urgent calls for new leadership and organizing principles.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal & Political Epiphanies ([03:36]–[24:38])

• David Penn opens up about his evolving outlook, shifting from a strident nationalist to someone more focused on political unity and wellness after recent political violence—specifically following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

  • "[I'm] starting to look at this politically because the facts on the ground are changing...I want to become a more unifying figure." — A [03:06]

• Walter Hudson shares a three-stage emotional process triggered by the assassination:

  • Shock and horror at the act itself

  • Disgust at public responses, especially from prominent and professional figures who celebrated the violence

  • A transformative realization about the social contract being broken, and a shift in approach toward politics and unity.

  • “There’s this analogy…about the frog and the boiling pot of water. That seems really apropos to the current moment…” — B [05:09]

  • "Unbeknownst to us, the social contract was amended without our knowledge.” — B [06:32]

• Reflections on Civility and Social Contract:

  • Historical respect for adversaries' lives has eroded; now, some openly celebrate political deaths.
  • The idea that “without power, it’s all meaningless” leads to urgent discussions on intra-party unity and external foe identification.

---

2. Culture War: Order, Morality, and “Woke Religion” ([10:58]–[44:54])

• Breakdown of Order — The lack of order in American discourse is likened to chaos in courts and Congress.

  • "Fundamentals have to be respected. And we call that fundamental order." — A & B [10:58–11:00]

• Left and Right: Competing Moral Orders

  • Both acknowledge the other side is orderly—just in fundamentally different ways.

  • Penn frames "woke" as a secular religion replacing Christianity as America's moral backbone.

  • "We have a set of agreed upon cultural fundamentals that...have a 5,700 year tradition." — A [15:19]

  • "What I've been saying...I'm referring to the Western civilization order...the order that is oriented around the principles in the Constitution..." — B [18:57]

• Education as a Cultural Battleground

  • Universities and schools serve as “incubators” for ideological transformation, largely driven by activist faculty and long-term planning.

  • “Decades and decades later, and our academic institutions are just incubators and manufacturing facilities for leftism.” — A [35:01]

---

3. Short-Term vs. Long-Term Strategies for the Right ([23:53]–[37:13])

• Right's Short-Term Mission: Defeat the woke, left-wing establishment electorally and culturally ("They need to be utterly decimated electorally.")

• Long-Term Vision: Reinviting “legacy” or “ancestral” Democrats back into the American mainstream—those who still share some core American values.

  • "...our long-term mission...is to address culturally the fact that there are people in that camp and I would like to think they're the majority..." — B [30:12]

• Discussion of Political Realignment

  • Emphasizes need for a “center of gravity” for unity, not ideological purity.
  • Lessons drawn from Christian revival and mass movements witnessed at the Charlie Kirk Memorial.

---

4. The Corruption of Governance and Institutional Decay ([66:45]–[86:35])

• Minnesota as a “Node” of the Progressive Project:

  • State seen as an ideological template for national change (e.g., election laws).

  • "This is the incubator, this is one of the primary nodes...if we can beat the left here in Minnesota...we took out their command center. It's the Death Star." — A [88:03/90:43]

• Institutionalized Corruption:

  • Detailed accusations of intentional racketeering by Minnesota Democrats; fraud in social service programs is seen as built-in and insurmountable by conventional prosecution.
  • Inferences that billions in fraud undermine democratic legitimacy, bolster political machines and possibly, international actors.
  • "I'm personally convinced that we in Minnesota are victims of an intentional racketeering operation..." — B [68:54]

• RICO and the Role of Leadership:

  • Calls for new prosecutorial and investigative strategies akin to RICO laws against mafia-style political corruption.

---

5. Political Organization and the Path Forward ([79:00]–[102:31])

• Calls to Action:

  • Republican/Conservative leaders must emerge as unifying “generals” to organize voters at the grassroots, especially in neglected districts and precincts.

  • “We all have a ministry. We all have a sphere of influence...and you could be a general in that sphere of influence.” — B [53:26]

• Unity Over Purity:

  • Focus on cooperation rather than rigid ideological enforcement.

  • Need to create compelling “value propositions” that go beyond the same tired political scripts, to attract the politically homeless.

  • “You don’t need to change everybody’s heart and mind. What you need to do is you need to lift up key leaders, a center of gravity—and everyone else will come along.” — B [93:25]

• Policy Innovation:

  • Advocates for a "Steve Jobs" approach to politics—disrupting old narratives and offering bold, new solutions beyond left/right framing.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "There's this analogy...about the frog and the boiling pot of water. ...as soon as the bubbles start to form, you're like, oh, whoa, what is this? ...that's the moment that we're facing right now." — Rep. Walter Hudson, [05:09]
• "Unbeknownst to us, the social contract was amended without our knowledge." — Rep. Walter Hudson, [06:32]
• "These are people who wake up angry every day...ready to take on the system and dismantle institutions." — Rep. Walter Hudson on the "culture of grievance", [41:12]
• "All our academic institutions are just incubators and manufacturing facilities for leftism." — David Penn, [35:01]
• "If we can beat the left here in Minnesota and turn this state back to the philosophy of Republicanism...we took out their command center." — David Penn, [88:03/90:43]
• "You don’t need to change everybody’s heart and mind. What you need to do is you need to lift up key leaders, a center of gravity—and everyone else will come along.” — Rep. Walter Hudson, [93:25]

---

Key Timestamps by Segment

• Opening & Tone Setting: [00:36]–[04:34]
• Emotional Reactions to Charlie Kirk’s Assassination: [04:34]–[12:20]
• Cultural Breakdown & Social Contract: [12:20]–[23:53]
• Education, Universities, & Cultural Marxism: [33:20]–[37:13]
• Political Unity & Next Steps: [47:40]–[54:19]
• Corruption & Racketeering in Minnesota: [66:45]–[79:00]
• Future Vision, Leadership & Value Proposition: [79:00]–[102:31]
• Policy and Message Innovation: [99:59]–[102:31]
• Wrap-Up & Reflections: [102:31]–[105:28]

---

Conclusion

This episode is a vivid example of present-day American political anxiety and transformation. Through the lens of recent tragedies, the hosts interrogate the breakdown of civility, the erosion of shared values, and the hijacking of institutions by what they call a new secular "woke" religion. Rather than simply echoing partisan animosity, both call for renewed unity, grassroots organization, and a dynamic new leadership that can create a sustainable, more inclusive American project—without compromising foundational principles.

---

For listeners: Whether you are conservative, independent, or skeptical, this episode provides a raw look inside the evolving right-wing perspective and the urgent calls for American renewal in the face of profound crisis. The conversation is thick with historical allusions, original philosophy, tough questions about corruption and leadership, and frank assessments of how to reconstruct a center in national life.

---

Rep. Walter Hudson’s social media and YouTube (passed 100,000 subscribers) can be found in the episode description.

Transcript

[A]

This is an iHeart podcast. Cross our hearts and hope to die by these 50 countries differing so much.

[B]

In race and religion, in language and culture.

[A]

It is a big idea. A new world order. Well, I know they're lying. They tricked me once, but they're not going to trick me twice. The time is now.

[C]

Foreign.

[A]

Welcome back to the Professor Penn Podcast. David Pen, your host. Glad to be with you as always for episode number 243. Coming to you on septi on september 30th 30th, the last day of the month. We are so glad to have back in studio a guest that we've had on before. Controversial, quite charismatic, and someone I'm enjoying developing a relationship with. Representative Walter Hudson. Welcome back, sir.

[B]

Happy to be here for the third time in the studio. Am I setting a record or no?

[A]

But we'd like to get you to be a regular. We're working on it step by step, you know, and I want to say before we start, you know, just because we haven't spoken for a while, you know, in politics, everybody has a position, and I'm a neophyte. When you were on last time, you told me you were involved with Dan schultz Back in 2011, the tea party time.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And in 2011, I was doing my international thing, and I skewed local politics like it was beneath me, which is arrogant and wrong. In 2020, the thing happened with Trump, and I said, wow, I am really misaligned here. I got to get involved in local politics. So I'm really still a neophyte. And, and I say frequently in meetings, if I was to join the Republican Party today and nobody would even know my politics, I just show up and vote and keep my mouth shut. Because when they're taking votes in big rooms, it's hard to figure out who's who. Right. And there's no. So I went out and I, you know, I, I staked out a very nationalist perspective. And I was, you know, I ruffled a lot of ridges, which, you know, I know when you come on, that's something for me that, you know, thank you. But I'm, I'm starting to think a lot about unity. Also. We talked about unity on your last visit here, and you laid out a case for unity, and you said that without power, it's all meaningless. And I thought, you know, I've been thinking a lot about that comment. So I'm changing. And it's not that I'm giving up what I believe. I'm starting to look at this politically because the Facts on the ground are changing and we just had this awful assassination and I'm changing my perspective. I want to become a more unifying figure. I have a growing platform and I take that with a great deal of responsibility. I want people to be well. Wellness is degraded by conflict. Being conflict orientated is not good for our well being. But from time to time, all the time, we get into positions where we have to be in a self defense mode and that's where we are today. So I noted, because I follow you on social media, we follow each other respectfully. You know, you made some statements after the awful martyrdom of Charlie Kirk that it created change in you. And I wanted to start the podcast and let me just say one more thing and thank you for waiting. You know, I got a lot of people that follow me, that are followers, listeners, viewers that communicate, they don't like you and you know, that's just part of the game. So I wanted you to tell everybody this change that you felt because I've never had that kind of reaction to you. I mean, politics is a dirty business and it requires a lot of thought. I'm changing. You talked about a change. So rather than me make up a story in my head, could you tell, can you share what was the psychological or the emotional process that had you post up? I'm not going to read the post, but you know what I'm talking about. So floor is all yours, sir.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, so it was a two stage process, right? So in the, the immediate reaction to the assassination is visceral, it's horrifying, it's shocking, I guess three stages. Second stage is reacting to the reaction, right? So we see these abhorrent comments that came out and it wasn't just the number of them or the nature of the comments that people were making. Dancing in the grave before Erica Kirk had the opportunity to put her husband in was who was saying it. It was where it was coming from. It's coming from, you know, political figures, it's coming from congresspeople, our own Elon Omar. It's coming from about a dozen or so of my own state legislative colleagues. It's coming from nurses, doctors, lawyers, know, people in positions of stature, right. It's not, it's not like yahoos who are just sitting on the computer with nothing to do and who. Nobody. It's, it's coming from people who educate our kids, who perform medical procedures on us, who write our laws. And what that revealed to me is that unbeknownst to us, you know, there's this analogy that we've heard a million times about the frog and the boiling pot of water. And that seems really apropos to the current moment because there's a certain point where if you're that frog and you're in that water and it's warming up, you may not realize what's going on until those bubbles start to form. Right. Like, as soon as the bubbles start to form, you're like, oh, whoa, what is this? What's going on? Look at that one, look at that one. Look at all these. And then you realize I might be in trouble here. And it feels to me like that's the moment that we're facing right now. And specifically, what we're noting is that unbeknownst to us, the social contract was amended without our knowledge. And when I.

[A]

Or possibly abrogated. Yeah, possibly abrogated. Sure, possibly.

[B]

And. And what I mean by the social contract is it's not written down somewhere.

[A]

It's.

[B]

It's not a document that you can look up, but it's the things in our head, it's the things in our heart that we take for granted as part of our culture, as part of our civilization. The. The. The unspoken agreements that we have amongst ourselves in terms of how we're going to treat each other and how we're going to interact as human beings. And one of the clauses in that social contract, historically in the United States of America has been, I don't want to see you dead. Right. Like, if somebody. And we had recent experience with this back in June with Melissa Hortman, the speaker emerita, who's a Democrat, who I disagreed with on virtually everything politically and whose positions, quite frankly, I feel comfortable saying now, were quite abhorrent. I mean, she championed the worst. The most life. Rejecting abortion policy in the world puts us on par with North Korea, China. She championed all sorts of destructive policies. But you didn't see me on X or in front of a camera the day or the week or the month, even after she was assassinated, talking about how I disagreed with all of her policy positions and how abhorrent I found them. And the reason why you didn't see me doing that is because I subscribed to this social contract which says that a person's life takes primacy. Right. And there's a certain degree of respect and honor that we all are do just by virtue of the fact that we're fellow human beings. And to see the number and the type of folks who came out in the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk being Assassinated, saying the most abhorrent possible things, doubling down on the Nazi rhetoric, doubling down on the fascist rhetoric, talking about what a terrible person he is, in some cases either inferring and in other cases outright saying that. That he deserved it, that he got what was coming to him, that he created the scenario in. In which this happened to him, that it's his fault somehow. Blaming the victim was just incredibly abhorrent. And as a elected legislator who has to work alongside a lot of these people who are saying these things, that's quite a paradigm shift of. I don't know how you. Because after. In June, after the Horman situation, we had this prolonged conversation. I myself went on a number of legacy media, mainstream media programs, had interviews on the radio and television, talking to people about, you know, how we're going to tone down the rhetoric, how we're going to turn down the temperature. Where do we go from here? How do we all come together and make something positive out of this? None of those conversations are happening today. Nobody's even interested in having them. And there's two reasons for that. One is because the left was never sincerely interested in having that conversation. They were just interested in leveraging the moment in order to put us into a defensive position as Republicans and conservatives and normies. And the second reason is, at least speaking for myself, I have no interest in sitting across the table from somebody who I now know would celebrate my death. If it happened today, they would celebrate it tomorrow. If it happened today, they would mock my wife, they would wish ill on my kids, they would call my mother all sorts of names, because all of these things happen to Charlie Kirk. And Charlie Kirk believes more or less 90% of the same stuff that I believe. And so if you're telling me that him believing what he believed and saying it out loud and having a conversation in public merited him getting shot in the throat and bleeding out in front of the entire world. If you're saying that about him, you mean it about me, and you mean it about every American who believes the same things that he believes. And so past that point, this conversation about turning down the temperature and bringing down the rhetoric and kumbaya and how do we come together and how do we have unity is the wrong conversation. Because there's a prerequisite to that. There's an order of operation in order for civilization to take place.

[A]

Fundamentals have to be respected.

[B]

Fundamentals have to be respected. And we call that fundamental order. Right? You're in a courtroom and somebody starts making a ruckus, the Judge is going to bang that gavel and say, order in the court. Right. You go to a city council meeting and you speak out of turn and you disrupt the order of business. The mayor is going to bang that gavel and say we need to have order in these chambers. And that is not some arbitrary, tyrannical.

[A]

Expression that brings everybody back to an agreed upon set of rules.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And if I can just bookmark where you're at, I want to just share, all the viewers and listeners can go right to YouTube and put in the search Congress moment of silence, Kirk.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And you'll see what happened. That even in the halls of our federal government, in the US Congress, a 60 second moment of silence for this man's life, the honoring of his life. The Congress couldn't keep it together and Mike Johnson was banging that gavel and calling the room back to order and he couldn't get the job done. And so it's not just right here in your hall of governance. It's a national issue.

[B]

Yes. And it's a cultural issue. Right. We've had people who've lost their, lots of people have lost their jobs in the last couple of weeks, I think justifiably and rightfully for the abhorrent things that they've said online. And the reason why that's appropriate. And we can get into, if you want to, this whole conversation about cancel culture and what that means and the differences between how these things have manifested in the past, when it was the left doing it versus what's happening right now. But the bottom line is, is that you, you cannot have, as part of your community, as part of your institutions, people who have a disordered thought process. And clearly, if you're sitting there dancing in an unoccupied grave because the wife hasn't had the opportunity to actually put her husband in it yet, that is a disordered way of thinking that communicates to the rest of us that you're not participating in our society. You're not, you're in it, but you're not participating.

[A]

Can I comment back on this? And it is a. I mean, I want to let you have the floor as much as possible, but I do want to say, to communicate with you, because I know some of your fellow Republican Party elected officials and party members are going to watch this. And a lot of them don't have great feelings about me because I've been very strident. And why have I been strident? I grew up in the university system. I've watched this since the 60s. I was in the middle of it for large portion periods of my life. I know who these people are. I'm a student of history. I could say I dabble as a historian, but I mean, I really spend a lot of time and I know what happens historically. And I, I do view history as a good predictor of future events. And I've been so, I've been so critical of the people that would collaborate with folks that I knew where they were heading. And so here's the reaction that I've had. I mean, I want to say to all the people that are watching, you know, I was just out on the front edge saying, these people are dangerous. We can't deal with them. And if you deal with them and you lie about it, because a lot of times the dealing with them gets hidden because of course, nobody wants to really get made as being a, you know, in, in concert with these folks because there's so many folks like me that say, hey, you can't do that. So I was, you know, I got this platform and you know, I've been very vocal and it's been very widely distributed and people don't like it. Well, now look at this. Now, really all that happened was I was just sounding the alarm since the moment I took the mic and calling out, you know, we can't. This, we got to think this thing through. This isn't working. But the, the impetus in me, or what, what, what's come to me is, man, we got to unify in the Republican side to beat these people. I mean, that, you know, it's like we're not going to be able to unify with communists. They are interested in power. They're. They have a, a secular humanism, which is a religion that drives them forward. And, and that's why, why I broke into your m. Monologue. It's not that their thinking's disordered, in my opinion. It's ordered differently. They have a different order. We have a set of agreed upon cultural fundamentals that really, if we break them back and break them down, they have a 5,700 year tradition. They didn't just pop up in 1776 that was built on a tradition, and they are rejecting that tradition. And so you were making the comments about Representative Hortman, who you gave respect to her life, you were deeply opposed to her ideas and her legislative initiatives. I would say her thinking, I mean, I could say her thinking was very disordered from my perspective. But from her perspective, we're disordered. That's the, that's the fundamental problem they see my thinking because I have faith in God, for example. I have a traditional belief system. They think I am absolutely. And we see it all the way into. I was reading the Star Tribune in, in the morning, and they had a long article about how our, you know, let's depend on our. It might have been an opinion piece. I didn't focus on it, but there was a long piece in there about let's depend on our local vaccine experts. Let's not listen to, you know, Trump and Kennedy on vaccines. So, I mean, it's, it's this, this, this split, this separation between faith and science, which really don't have to be opposed. They've just ended up opposed. It's, they're very ordered in their thinking. And that's why I've been so vocal, calling out, you know, cooperation with what I would consider a worldview that completely is intent on exterminating me. And now you see it, and now everybody sees it, because this is what always happens when Communists get close to power. They just start killing their opponents. If you go back historically and look at what happened in China, what happened in Russia, what happened in Cambodia, for example, those are three outstanding examples. But you could look at many other ones, too. Eastern European countries, Poland, for example, when Communists get power or get close to power, they just start killing their way to the top. And now we see it. And so it's bringing out in me the desire to unify in our. I mean, I don't need ideological purity. I just need cooperation. And let's all get focused on what we're dealing with here. So I'm saying that kind of, because I know people are listening to this. They're listening to you. It's kind of a self. Hey, come on now. Quit, Quit criticizing me because I'm on your side. I mean, this is the point. These people got to understand. We're in this together. And if there's any doubt about this now, maybe you're on the wrong side of the football. Not speaking to you, but I'm just saying if there are people that are still in our Republican movement that see America Firsters or nationalists or Trump supporters or whatever, however you want to characterize it as being antithetical to their politics, they might be on the wrong side. I just throw it out there for, for future consideration. Anyhow, thank you for giving me a minute. Please. You were talking about Melissa Hortman, and please continue with this, with the, the order. Do you, do you see what I'm saying? That they're ordered in their Thinking I do.

[B]

And it's. That's a very interesting way of phrasing it. I don't think it runs in conflict with the point that I'm trying to make at all. I think that what, the way I would, what I would suggest as the paradigm through which you're expressing what you're saying is that I suppose there is an ordered way to be a communist, right? Like there is an ordered way to be anti American. What I've been saying to this point is I'm referring to the Western civilization order, right? I'm referring to the order that is oriented around the principles in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the idea that the purpose of society is to provide an environment where we're able to enjoy our individual rights and enjoy peace and liberty and the rational expectation that people who violate our rights or conspire to violate our rights are going to meet with justice. So I'm talking about a Western order, right? And so the thinking on the other side clearly at this point is disordered from that perspective, regardless of whether or not it's ordered from their perspective. I'm not, I don't care about their perspective because their, their perspective, to the extent it's not aligned with the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, individual rights, peace, justice, these concepts that are fundamental to the American project, then the. You get into a little bit of, and I'm not accusing you of this, but you get into a little bit of moral relativism there where you say, well, it's ordered from this perspective versus order from that perspective. No matter how organized their thinking is within their perspective, it's disordered in the sense that it's out of alignment with both reality and morality. Right?

[A]

Now you're getting down to it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

See, because within our constitutional system, the people that framed this system were so badass that they allowed for other kinds of ideological frameworks to enter the public square. And they said, hey, we're giving you freedom, you're going to have to keep it. I mean, it's up to you now, generation after generation. And I want to say, because I think this is interesting, I'm coming from. Because I view these people and what comes to my mind is that scene in a conference room at the Capitol where your committee was harangued by protesters, which you posted up. You know, those people came in screaming and they were threatening, well, they weren't ready to go to the next step, but maybe they are the next time, right? So it really brings into the, in the focus that our, our system allows for this kind of disharmony and maintaining that traditional frame requires the political involvement of the citizens.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And I do want to say also when you talk about the constitutional framework, you know, it's up for grabs what America is, in my opinion. I mean, I hear what you're saying and I'm not trying to be relativistic about it. I have a very clear idea about what I believe. But if we don't get citizens involved in the process, and if they're not motivated and activated and collaborating and cooperating to maintain, because you said something interesting, morality, that morality, you know, you can't, you can't capture all of morality in a document. Morality lives inside of us. That's what it is to be self governing. You know, when you're, when you're not moral, you need governance. When you're moral, you don't need much governance because you're, you're behavior is directed from within.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

So I'm going to come at this and say, not relativism. I'm not making any concession to these people. I think we have to know our enemy. I think we have to know how these people think. There's many of them, in my opinion, just having grown up in the university system that are captured there. We gotta set the captives free.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

That's what being a Republican is. That's the essence of the party is setting the captives free.

[B]

It's literally what it was founded upon.

[A]

That's correct. So when we don't go into CD5, if we don't go into CD4, if we're not in the city, if we're not going to Rochester, if we're not up in Duluth, if our hierarchy has written those areas off, we're writing off the American project because that gives them the beachhead. If you think about this in a military perspective, to expand their influence with housing, with mass transit, with the expansion of programs, and we're just, you know, we really, up till now, my stridency, my militancy within the party, it's because we haven't been doing it here in Minnesota. But maybe we're going to make a change now.

[B]

Well, so that leads me to epiphany number three. Right.

[A]

Well, let's, let's review epiphany number one. Since there's a hierarchy, what was epiphany number one?

[B]

So epiphany number one was just the, the shock and awe of the initial moment. Right. Epiphany number two was reacting to the reaction of, my God, these people who have been pretending to be decent human beings are wearing a mask and underneath it, they're God awful ghouls who would mock my wife if I die tonight.

[A]

And these, these caused change in you because you call them epiphanies. Because recognizing this because you're a public figure of some note, significance. And you said, wait a second, okay, Because I asked the question, how did this change you? We're changing. Okay, number three.

[B]

So number three is where the rubber meets the road. After watching the entirety of the Charlie Kirk Memorial on Sunday, which I maintain was the largest tent revival the world has ever seen. I mean, you had every single speaker, whether they were a literal pastor or a friend or some officer within TP USA, or the Secretary of State, the Vice President, United States, the President, United States, all sitting there lifting up the name of Jesus Christ, right? Unbelievable. Just an unbelievable expression of national faith on that stage for five, six hours straight, which is something that I. I cannot recall anything like that in my entire lifetime. Nothing even remotely close. And what it signaled to me was, you know, you talk about, and we've talked about in the past, this need for unity on our side to the end of defeating them. Right. Defeating the Democrats. I think we need to slightly alter our thinking in this regard because I got to tell you, I got in laws, I got friends, I got, you know, people in my community, neighbors, who I know are voting for Democrats, but they ain't down with this nonsense. They ain't down with dancing on people's graves. They aren't down with communism. They're down with. They're. They're stuck in a paradigm from their grandparents and, and their great grandparents where the Democrat Party was something different than it is.

[A]

I think they call that ancestral Democrats. I mean, the pollsters, I don't. They call it. Yeah, I think that's what ancestral. What Richard Barris called it when he was on, I think either et cetera or legacy.

[B]

Maybe that's what it was, legacy.

[A]

And then there's people like me and. Hold your thought. I was brought up in a communist family. I mean, that's just the fact. And then I just looked at the facts, starting when my parents took me up to the Prairie island nuclear reactor, which is just north of here, just north of St. Cloud when it was being built. It was like 1970. My mother was out protesting nuclear power. And I said, why? Right, why?

[B]

What do you have against the light bulbs?

[A]

You know, what's the deal here? Can you explain this to me?

[B]

Sure.

[A]

And my mother was so mad at me, but, you know, so for me, I just, I mean, but that's the beauty of our country. We all have the ability so far to think and feel as we are uniquely created to do, right? But going back to this third epiphany about these legacy people in your, in your life, right?

[B]

So it occurs to me that the current dichotomy between the Republicans and the Democrats, because it's unquestionable that when you've got Barack Obama, you got a former president, United States coming out making these types of statements, right? You got Tim Walls, of course, the governor of the state coming out making these types of statements. Clearly, institutionally, the Democrat Party has been captured by this insanity, right? And so for the time being, yes, of course it, it is us versus them right now. It is, but that's not sustainable. We can't, we can't maintain that, like thinking, thinking generationally, which is something that modern day Americans are not good at, right? Like, we think in terms of what, what's happening next quarter, what's happening next, then in the next four year election cycle, we need to start thinking 50, 100 years in the future, like, what is our country going to look like when we're in the ground and it's our great grandchildren who are running things? And it, this tension that currently exists can not persist or the country's going to fall apart. And so our, our long term mission, the short term mission is absolutely, they need to be defeated. They need to electorally, they need to be utterly decimated. To what end, though? Not just so that we can claim victory and have this cathartic schwartenfreude and be like, look at us, we did it so that we can set the stage to invite those who remain on their side, on the Democrat side back into the American project. We need to lift up within their ranks people who are committed to restoring JFK's Democrat Party, right? Hubert Humphrey's Democrat Party guys, who, despite the fact that they may have held views that I don't personally agree with and that we're still going to have disagreements. They're going to be meaningful, profound, important disagreements, but they're disagreements on methodology, not goals, right? The goal is how do we, how do we have a freer society? How do we have prosperity? How do, how do we make, make America great again? Right? Like the very fact that MAGA is considered a controversial statement and is used as an insult or some sort of, you know, demeaning label, really. Like, we can't come together on the idea that America should be great. Seriously, like that's offensive to you. And it is because the, the controlling forces within the current Democrat establishment are not interested in America being great. They're interested in dismantling it. And I know this because I've sat in committee hearings where they bring in students to argue for ethnic studies, which is just all that is, is the curriculum of critical race theory put in our schools. And they parade example after example on the testifying stand of students who have been fully indoctrinated into the idea that I'm a white male, therefore I can't understand what's going on in the world and I need to keep my mouth shut in order to make space for everybody else to tell me how oppressed they are. And that was described in committee by one of my colleagues and she was lauding it. She was like, oh, isn't this wonderful? We've seen examples of, how exactly did she phrase it? We've seen examples of resistance, we've seen examples of activism. And I came back to that and I said, that's not what the public education system is for. I don't want a public education that produces resistant activists. I want a public education system that produces productive citizens, people who are ready to go out into the world and make something of themselves, make something of their communities and contribute to this nation of ours, which is in fact the greatest nation that we've ever seen on the face of the earth and throughout history. That's what our goal should be. And so my point here is that we are at a point where the two sides, the two parties don't have the same goals. They have completely conflicting goals. That's not sustainable. You cannot have a nation divided, which is essentially what we have at this point. We are living through a soft civil war and it is manifesting in these episodes of violence. And Charlie Kirk's assassination is only one example. We've seen several since and before frankly, of this type of left wing terrorism that's taking place. But more fundamentally, it's not just the, yeah, do we need to prosecute the perpetrators? Absolutely. Do we need to follow through, through on the way J.D. vance and Donald Trump have been talking about, we're going to dismantle these organizations, we're going to defund them, we're going to prosecute the organizers, we're going to treat them like the mob? Absolutely, we need to do that. But the long term solution is to address culturally the fact that there are people in that camp and I would like to think they're the majority. I don't know who they, they are being suppressed. I mean, we've felt suppressed over the past few years. And we have been in terms of, like, our speech being curtailed, YouTube demonetizing channels, you know, people losing their jobs because they won't take a vaccine or whatever the case may be. There's been real suppression against us. But I think what we've been blind to is the fact that there are people on their side who have also been suppressed. And to an extent, it's been worse for them because they can't even complain about it. Right. If they, if they stick their head above the trench.

[A]

That's an interesting. That is an interesting comment. I hadn't thought about that. But of course, all cultures demand compliance and complicity. Ours does, too. I mean, I've been a victim of it in the Republican Party. So this is, this is just the way cultures function. But I do want to say, you know, the, the incubator of this is the universities. I mean, we're talking about students coming and giving testimony. Well, there's a reason why it's students. You're talking about curriculum. I mean, it's the educational process. If we're looking downrange and you think about, well, who has the, you know, like me? I mean, I'm working every day with the sweat of my brow to earn my daily bread. Who has the time and the space to project 50 or 100 or 500 years into the future to try to envision an endpoint for society and then put in process those structures and organizations and institutions which bring forth their endpoint? Well, you know, it's very wealthy people and that they have. They can set up the incubators, the special, you know, the special organizations, the think tanks, the NGOs, the, you know, the, the incubators of these ideas, then those people that get trained there get a position at the University of Minnesota or Harvard University. I mean, there's a network of this, like if you get a job. My father taught at the university for 50 years. Here's was his experience and his, his responsibility. He had six hours of work week. His, his work Week mandatory was 6 hours, 4 hours of classroom, 2 hours of office time for students. So that's what he had for responsibility. The rest of the time, he was free to work on anything he wanted to. And see, we don't understand the people that are out there, you know, driving a truck. I mean, they really. I mean, we just got to understand these people are funded and are thinking downrange. And I. It brought to mind an Italian communist Named Gram. She who's been dead for over a hundred years, but talked about, got to take over the academic institutions.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

And he put in process thinking downrange. And there's two ways you could be super rich and not have anything. You got time on your hands. I mean, if you're, you know, so there's. It's interesting. They're the same, but a little different. You can be completely poor and have time on your hands to think downrange. And here we are, decades and decades later in our academic institutions are just incubators and manufacturing facilities for leftism. And so I've been, for example, I've been complimented to representative Rare because she stood up and said, there's over 2,000 people at the university that make more money than the governor. What's going on? Stopped. No, no, we can't stop. We can't. You know, this is why I'm pushing people, because if we really want to get to this and solve it, what you're saying is we can't. And this is not the first time we've been polarized like this. Usually what brings us back together is a tremendous bloodletting. Like this kind of polarization existed before the Civil War. It existed before World War II. I don't know that people know that, but there was a very similar polarization just before the war. Lots of assassinations, lots of violence, lots of strikes. World War II, hey, half a million Americans die in five years. Hey, fourth turning. We get to the first turning, we start all over again. So for me, the goal is, how do we get through this transition with the least amount of death? Because I am from the culture of life.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So I, I'm. Look, but you know, I think in reference to what you're saying, it's the schools. And you know, I've had other legislators on here. I won't mention their names when I bring up the schools, they shrink back. No, don't talk about our teachers like that. I got great teachers in my district. Okay, maybe there's great. There's great everything but the sum. Output. The sum of the output.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is we're looking at the evidence, aren't we?

[B]

Well, that's actually a great example. Right. So. So. Because I could say the same thing sincerely, genuinely. I've got great teachers in my district. I've got great administrators in my district. But you know what's interesting is that the conversations that. The reason why I know they're great is because I've had private conversations with them behind closed doors where they Say things in whispered tones, Having to look.

[A]

Over their shoulder confidentially.

[B]

Yes. And that's what I'm talking about, is there are people that are trapped in this system who don't go along with the madness, but they're not in a position because of where they've found themselves or where they're institutionally where they can't be me, they can't go on YouTube and shout down the madness because they'll lose their job, they'll lose their standing, and they gotta pay the mortgage.

[A]

Right?

[B]

That's a real consideration. I don't begrudge people for having that. But my point is, if that's the situation, then America is at stake. It doesn't fundamentally exist. In order for America to be a thing, people have to, you know, you live in freedom. You know, you live in liberty when you're not afraid, Right? When you're not afraid to say what you believe, when you're not afraid to pursue what you believe in your best interest is the thing you should be pursuing when you're not afraid to live your life according to your own values. That's when you know you're living in liberty. And I think inherently, Americans across the spectrum have this voice in the periphery of their mind that's letting them know, you are not free. You're not free to speak, you're not free to express. You're not free to. To. To be who you want to be and to live how you want to live. Because if you do, you're going to face consequences and they're going to be unjust. Social consequences. We talked earlier about the cancel culture, right? There's this whole conversation now because so many people have been losing their jobs over the last couple of weeks about, oh, you right wingers, you were complaining about cancel culture for so long, and now you' ones who are doing it. And as Matt Walsh says, there's a fundamental difference. There's a fundamental difference between losing your job because you said something normal, decent, true, righteous, norm, sane, versus losing your job because you said something abhorrent, heinous, un American and evil. And yes, we can tell the difference. Don't tell me that you can't tell the difference. That just depends on the point of view. Saying that somebody deserved to die because what they think is un American, plain and simple, it is heinous. It is evil.

[A]

Okay, what is it? I mean, you're saying it's un American.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What is it? What is it? Because I, I said, okay, we got two orders at, at. At conflict with each Other. And you're saying no because you default again to the issue of morality. Okay, so we're saying, what I'm hearing you say is that we as Americans have an agreed upon cultural expectation about what is moral and good.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

What is this other ideology? What is it? Can you name it?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, it's, I guess, in a word, woke. Right. It's. It's the idea that I've said for a long time. You know, back when I had a radio show back in the day, I used to talk about the dueling cultures in America, and that there's a culture of gratitude, which is the vast majority, and then there's a culture of grievance, which is smaller but much more influential. And the culture of grievances. These are people who wake up angry every day. They wake up angry every day and ready to take on the system and dismantle the institutions. And they form organizations in order to affect that because they sincerely believe that they're oppressed by the United States of America and by Western civilization and by our way of doing things, by our ordered society. They feel that that's oppressive. The family's oppressive, Marriage is oppressive. The patriarchy, like all these things that they talk about.

[A]

But this. But Walter, you know, we're kind of dancing around this a little bit because you said earlier this was the greatest Christian revival you've ever seen, probably in human history. Yeah, okay. And these morale, these moral precepts come out of a religious frame. So what I'm just going to say is they are oppressed by that religious frame. From their perspective. I'm not being relativistic about it. I'm very clear about what I believe. But I know why they feel the way they feel. And I've. I've been in plenty of classrooms listening to this for a very long time. My point being they're ordered in their thinking. And what they're driving to end is the very moral foundations of America. They're not after America because if we lose, all the right is defeated because it's an existential fight, 100%. So we lose. America's still there, still the United States of America. What's going to go away is Christianity, in my opinion. I think that's what this whole thing. I've never viewed Marxism as an economic strategy. I thought that was always a cover story. I view it as an anti God strategy because, you know, religion is the opiate of the masses. They're looking to free the people from what they believe is the illusion of faith in God. And I just want to just say it straight up now. There's a risk here, of course, organizing around religion, but we're organized, our own religion, so let's quit dancing around. There are certain things going on. They're organized. They have a religion. It's called woke. It's organized. It has all the hallmarks culturally of a religious system, but it's secular. So it slipped into our governance, slipped into our universities because the framers of this country were so badass. They said, hey, freedom is freedom. Keep it if you can, okay? And it slipped in under the most American of pretenses that I believe this and that I am free to believe it and I'm free to work at the university or work at the high school, believe in it. And my views are just as valid as your views. And we sat there, particularly in Minnesota, because of the unique nature of Minnesota culture, and said, yeah, hey, you know what? I'm good with that because, hey, you're not going to tell me what to think and I'm not going to tell you what to think. But what did we find out? They are telling us what to think, even down to if we, if you disagree with us and you're a threat, something's going to come out of the muck and meer and kill your ass. So now what we have to do, I think as Republicans, and I don't necessarily mean it as Republicans to party. I mean, Republicans, people that believe smaller.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Believe in human freedom, believe in the protection of minority rights, believe that we're sovereign citizens. The things that brought you into politics. Based on previous conversations that we had, we got to organize now. I mean, we, you know, there's a political conversation here. I mean, these issues are great to talk about and love talking about them, but, you know, can you be a general? I mean, it's one thing to be an elected representative. I'm just, I'm just laying it out there. You could say, no, that's not my role. But I'm saying what I want now is the candidates and the elected representatives to organize our communities to be the focus that brings young people into political activism, political education of their peers, their friends, their children, their parents, so that we can really. Because you're talking about a sustainable long term cultural change. Politics is just a barometer of cultural change. Yes, we need. And we had this awful event and you know, my feeling, having lived through the 60s, a little bit older than you, and we're not done with this because I was live when Kennedy was shot. Malcolm X was shot, Martin Luther King was shot and then Bobby Kennedy was shot. And at the end, my generation said, bleep this it, we're out. And we went out and just tried to avoid anything controversial. Make money, chase women, get high, have a good time. Big. And my generation is the most idealist. We were such an idealistic generation. We were in the streets fighting for human freedom, fighting for peace and prosperity, civil rights, human rights. Four quick assassinations in five years. And everybody said we're out. And so what are we going to do this time as this mounts to help people have the courage? Because that time there was no Christian revival. I'm just going to tell you that was a very secular time in our country, but now we have this revival. How, I mean, can you perceive what can you see a role, maybe not for you, but for other legislators, other candidates that every time they walk up to the microphone, you know, you can be involved in politics, Let me tell you how. And try to bring people in to political participation in the. So we have 4,100 precincts in this state. I'm going to tell you as a party member, they're not staffed and they're not active. So we really don't have the means to get out the vote of the low propensity Republican voters. We don't have a, we have a structure, but we don't have the mechanism. We don't have the boots on the ground. And if we're going to really do this, I mean sustainably, long term cultural change, we need to have something happening in 4,100 precincts. And I think people like you that have the microphone talk a lot about issues. Yeah, we know what the issues are. We just laid it out. It's kind of us versus them, isn't it? Kind of in a way. Is that what we're saying?

[B]

Well, I mean, I, I think the point that I was trying to make earlier, yes, it is, but I, I'm trying to reframe who us is and who them are.

[A]

Okay, let's go. Once we get the battle line drawn, and I don't mean this in a violent way, I mean in a political way.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I'm, I. Let me just say this. If you're watching Walter, because you don't like him and on your left, I am totally steeped in the Constitution. I believe that self defense is my right. I'm trained in it. And I'm going to tell you the most fundamental nature of self defense is the best way to win a fight is don't be there when it happens. So I don't want any fighting. I want us to talk to each other. But let's define this. Continue to find it. Then I want to come back to how do we get the citizens? Because I know you're at the turning point thing. You saw what happened there.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Wasn't there an auditorium full of young people?

[B]

You got it.

[A]

Okay, let's define this and let's talk about these young people real quick.

[B]

Let's. Let's put a bookmark real quick because we have to take a moment to talk about Tiger. Get. We have to stand on our soapbox for a moment. Oh, oh, oh.

[A]

Thank Tanner. Tanner, my producer. Thank you, Tanner. Tanner's talking about something that's very fundamental here, which is we want to break even and not go broke doing politics. You know, there's people that build audiences and they make millions of dollars. I'm not opposed to that if it happened to me because I'm not a communist. Let's just get to the break even phase, and here's how we're going to do it. Walter sits and I thought about this. You set me up and I let it drop. Where the rubber meets the road. That's an old tagline for Firestone. Tiregate is an online e commerce e tailer where you can go to get anything you need in tires at the right price. It's anything you need in tires. And when I say it's the right price, I've been in the tire business my whole life. I know the price is right. We'll put the tires right on in your backyard. The service is great. You can call in. We're a legitimate company. We are honest. We want to do business with you. And if you like this content, if you're following Walter, if you're following Free People Radio, I want you to know 25% of you are going to buy tires this year. 25% of this audience this year needs tires. 25%. Man. If all 25% of you went to Target.com, we could hire more engineers and expand the broadcast. We. We want to expand what we're doing here. So if you like the content, you're a follower of Walter, you go to tireget.com. that's T I R E G E T dot com. Use promo code FPR. That's F as in frank, P as in people. Rs and radio. Free people. Radio FBR. And I'm going to tell you why, because I want to know that you are watching this broadcast and you will Use that promo code and you'll get an extra 3% off your tire purchase. Just because we want to know you watched Walter tonight. Isn't that cool? So thank you very much. You can also go to the free people store. You got to buy your T shirts from somebody. Buy them from free people. See, we're trying to monetize. We're just not very. If he hadn't reminded me. Yeah, I would have forgot. Because what I'm most focused on is this 1500 year plan. I was actually in a room in 1969 at the University with a handful of academics that were high players there where they made a 50 year plan to turn this state communist. I was in the room. I was young. I wasn't part of the conspiracy, but I was a witness to it. And they pulled it off because no one was paying attention. Now everybody's paying attention. Now let's define who these groups are. And I want to try to come back to. Could you please be a general? Is that an abhorrent thing for me to say to you or do you understand where I'm coming from?

[B]

No, it's. I. Not only do I understand, I wholeheartedly agree. And it ties into what we talked about the last time I came here to have a conversation. You may recall I talked about the necessity to have a center of gravity that pulls all of our factions together in the party. Right? And that's true within the Republican Party. It's also true culturally. Right. We need our leaders, we need central figures who can speak into the moment. I mean, you just listed off all the ones who were assassinated in the 1960s. Right. There's a reason why they were targeted. It's because they commanded this center of gravity that brought people, that led that, that said, this is the way things are now. It's disordered. This is where we need to go. And come with me if you want to live. Right. We need that again today. And the responsibility does fall upon folks like myself in positions of elected office and candidates who are seeking elected office. But it goes beyond that. We all have a ministry. We all have a sphere of influence. Business, family, education, wherever you find yourself, the healthcare, wherever you find yourself, you have a sphere of influence. And you could be a general in that sphere of influence. In order to drive this conversation forward. The second point that I want to make in response to what you were saying earlier, you tried to nail it down to what the fundamental conflict is and you define it as God versus anti God. Basically, this is just a continuation of the garden of Eden, right? This is just a continuation of the.

[A]

Rebellion, the next chapter, right?

[B]

And I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, when people hear that people who aren't believers, people who are secular Americans, who nonetheless agree with the American project, who have signed onto that social contract that we were talking about earlier, who want to live in a decent society where they're free, they'll hear something like that and they'll think, oh, dear Lord, these theocrats, right? These Christian nationalists talking about how it's all about God. Well, listen, you have nothing to fear from Christianity being the moral basis upon which your society is founded. Because what Christianity recognizes. Go read. If you've never opened your Bible, I'm not asking you to come to an altar call, right? I'm not asking you to go to church just as an academic exercise, as.

[A]

A philosophical text, right?

[B]

Go read Romans 1. All right. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul says that the. The power of God and his attributes are evident based upon the things that have been made. What that is a reference to, it's a theological concept called general revelation. And what it means is that what is tells us evidence what is true. It's basically, that is Paul, what Paul was laying out there is what Isaac Newton and Einstein and every scientist who ever came after built upon, is that the world is what it is. A is A. Like Aristotle was talking about this stuff, right? A is a. The world is what it is. And it. You. It is. You can discern right from wrong based upon what has been made. So you don't have to believe in God, you don't have to give your life to Christ to recognize that fundamental. Which is that the things work the way they work. If, if you let your kid play in a four lane highway, there's likely going to be an accident. If you let them jump off your roof with an umbrella thinking that they're gonna just kind of like glide down like Mary Poppins, right? I did that when I was a kid. So that's where you're still walking. Tanner worked out there. There are certain things that just are. They're just real, they're just true. And that's so. So I think it's important to say that because I don't want people to think. And this whole Christian nationalist meme nonsense, that's. That the left comes at us with, we are, we are not. You know, with apologies to my, to my Muslim friends, we are not on some crusade to like conquer through force, right? We're going to take over the land and impose our religious worldview on you. What we're saying is that we honor our God, we recognize him as our creator, we dedicate our lives to him. But what that translates to in the real world is real world thinking. It translates to logic, reason, science, service. Yeah, all the things that are fundamentals of the American project. And so what we're prescribing here, there's nothing threatening about it. It's an invitation to join us, be part of this. You don't have to agree with our religion. You don't have to agree with every little plank and platform of what it is that we have on offer. But you should be able to agree with certain fundamentals, one of them being we value life. At least enough. At least enough to not dance on each other's graves.

[A]

And isn't it interesting, that's the linchpin of the argument going back to 1973. You have to say to yourself, who was so smart as to pick that to break our society into two camps? Because my mother talked about my mother a lot lately. She's getting older and communist and active. And she ran the Democrat party in St. Paul for years. Player got a law degree, one of the first female graduates of the University of Minnesota Law School, and used that not to. To make money. She used that law degree as a weapon to bring about societal change, which is another thing we don't understand too well. Out here in the street. There's a lot of lawyers that just practice their trade and they're not held in high regard because of how they do it. And there's a lot of lawyers that are very ethical and wonderful people, and I know some of them. But there's another group that wield that law degree like a cudgel with the intent of bringing the system down. Or you don't understand. You understand it because you're a legislator. You see it up close and personal. But my mother, man, I just had a conversation with her very recently about this. And, you know, for her, she sees it. She's very educated and very smart. She sees what's happening as a woman. She will ride this ship down into the bottom of the sea over a woman's right to choose abortion. And she actually said to me that grievance thing. She said, you're a white man, you'll never understand. And I said, mom, you're calling me a white man. What kind of scam is that? You know who I am. You know who we are. We're not white. If they come, the white people come. Rounding up folks. Hey, blacks and Jews Gonna go together off to the camps. So why you talk to me like this? But see, that ideology is so hardwired in her. She wants to maintain what she believes. Because we're talking about cultural life. Now, you started this thing off. We're going to just agree that, well, you know, when you take it out at its fundamental place, when you say that God is no longer the master of life and death, but men and women are, you've really kicked out one of those fundamentals. So downstream 50 years, people are dancing. You know, it kind of makes me mad, actually, because I actually say, and this is going to be controversial, people are going to like it. You know, women, I recognize your right. But you also have to recognize the cost of that right is far beyond an individual child. It has coarsened our entire culture and allowed death to replace what was a culture of life. And you have to be old enough to remember when it was a culture of life, because if you're 50 or younger, you have no idea what it was like. Now, was there oppression, suppression? Was there problems? Yes. Every choice has a outcome that has a benefit and a cost. There are benefits, perceived benefits, not the least of which is the liberation of women. That's a great. I mean, women have been liberated. They're not property. So I know where my mom's coming from. But where it became crystallized the cost of this policy, people are dancing on the grave of Charlie Kirk and telling me that he deserved it. Man, that's a high cost to pay. Got a cost benefit analysis here. And the other thing about faith, I want to say, why do people believe it's good for you if you don't believe? If you're watching, because you hate Walter, you hate me. And let me tell you, if you never tried it, okay, you're talking about something you don't understand. Because faith is a process that if you don't give over to it, you don't get the benefits. So you'll never know the effect it's had in healing my life, or possibly Walter's life, because I was a sinner. I mean, I was raised in the faith. But hey, you know what? I went off and did whatever I wanted to for a long time. So. Whoa, this isn't working. I'm sick. How am I going to get my well being back? Well, I defaulted to what I knew. So you don't know the benefit. You just don't know the benefit if you don't believe. So I. I urge people, when Walter says, read Romans, just do it as a philosophical Exercise. Take Matthew and Mark. Read them as philosophical treatises that you're trying to understand what is the philosophy of. Because, as Walter said, and I agree with you, you don't have to believe in God, right? In fact, the Chinese have a system which Tanner understands because he's a hunter. It's called the natural way. The natural way. You're talking about how things just reveal themselves in nature. What our great scientists like Isaac Newton and Einstein were revealing, studying. How does this thing work? Because there's laws to it. There's a natural way. And when we get away from the natural way, hey, you can make water run uphill. Takes a pump, right? Okay. But eventually the pump breaks, you run out of gas, and the water keeps running on downhill. There's a way things work. And what we're doing in our society right now is we're making water run uphill. And it's very costly. It's very damaging. And what are we trying to accomplish? So let's go back to what are these groups? Let's get this thing. I want, I want, I really want. Because you're dealing with these people. See, when we're out here consuming social media or just talking with our friends, hey, we're not really in the trench. That's entertainment. You're in the trench with this. It's a job for you. And when you fight with something, you understand it. So help people really understand it. Because we got all these armchair people, you know, pissing and moaning on social media, but they're not really in the fight like I'm in the fight. I'll tell you a funny story. I almost saw you this past Saturday. You didn't come to the game. I was there, okay? I heard you were coming. Don't say anything. None of our business. But I'm going to tell you what happened to me when I went down there. I'd been down there several weeks earlier for a group put on by the American pack that Vic Yrence runs down there. There was more protesters there than there were attendees of the event. And that really shocked me because there was a lot of. I mean, there was a lot. There was more protesters than attendees. And then I went down there again into CD6, where you live and where you practice. And I felt it. I felt the intense amount of money coming in from the outside to change CD6 really, to get rid of Tom Emmer, who has. I've been a brutal critic of Tom Emmer. And I thought, man, wait a second. Slow down, slow down. Look at what this man is Facing. I'm viewing him as a threat, and they're putting millions of dollars up to get rid of them. Let's define these groups.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Because now I'm seeking unity within my group, and there are going to be people that hear this. They're going to say, you know, I'm selling out. No, I'm not. I'm going to fight tooth and nail for what I believe to the endorsement, to the primary. The day after the primary, if they're on that ballot with an R, I'm door knocking for them. And if we don't get that attitude, house divided can't stand. Right, Right. So let's go back. I'm telling you, I learned something. Being, you know, you got to be in the fight, you got to be threatened, you got to be engaged to really feel it, and I learned so much. So I want to thank Patty Williamson for putting that event on and me going down. It was the. I think they called it the establishment for the Rhinos versus the Loons.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

It was cute because Patty was trying to bring people together. Okay. You know, there's an old Arabic saying, me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my cousin against a stranger. So I got some people in the party that are calling them cousins is a stretch.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But compared to what we're dealing with now.

[B]

Right.

[A]

People shooting people and celebrating the death. Oh, hey, hey. Okay, now, so if you're a nationalist and you're listening, let's get this right now. What's going on? Let's get it right. Let's. Let's change with the times. The times make the warrior. Let's evolve this whole podcast. Why I asked Walter on is I follow his social media, and he made statements about personal evolution. He talked about an epiphany. I'm having an epiphany. Are any of the rest of you getting this out there, that this is epiphany time, and if we don't have an epiphany, we're lost here, because those folks, they're united, they're on task, they're well funded, and they're still in control of all the institutions. We got President Trump up there. That's great. Are they still in control of Minnesota governance? Representative Hudson, could you let everybody know what you're facing when you go back into session?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I'm facing an entrenched at this point. I call it a racketeering scheme. I mean, we saw. And I don't want to go down the rabbit hole necessarily right now.

[A]

Well, I'm going to take you. Go ahead.

[B]

Okay. Well, just. Just as an example of how it functions, we had the U.S. attorney, Joe Thompson, come out last week with an announcement of eight new indictments regarding fraud related to the Housing Stabilization Services Program. And he made several remarkable statements. He said things like, our waiver Medicaid programs are basically just fraud programs. He said that the vast majority of the money that we are appropriate, that were taken from you, taken from Tiregate, taken from our neighbors, taken from the viewers in Minnesota is going to fraud. That's why. That's where it's going. And he said things like, we're never gonna be able to prosecute our way out of this problem. Which is another way of saying injustice.

[A]

Shall stand because there's just too much of it.

[B]

You're right. Yeah. There's people who are just gonna get away with it.

[A]

What the U.S. attorney was saying is that the fraud is so wrapped into our governance that if he got up every morning and worked 24 hours a day with a staff of hundreds, they couldn't get to all of it.

[B]

That's literally what he said.

[A]

That's just crazy, isn't it?

[B]

He.

[A]

Yeah, that. You know, and then, and then that begs the question, which is really starting to bother me because it. And I don't want to say it's a super. An isolated group of people because I'm going to tell you, when I see one group getting prosecuted over and over again, you know what? That starts to look to me like a cover up of other people that are doing the same thing. Because this, when, when he said. He's basically saying it's everywhere all the time. So we have this focus now on new citizens in our country that are exploiting the system very effectively, by the way. And I'm starting to wonder just in terms of that group, where is that money going? Is this organized at a level that's way beyond what anybody's talking about? Because we're not talking about a few bucks and a billion dollars in a small civil war goes a long way.

[B]

You got it?

[A]

You see that in my mouth 100%.

[B]

I am personally convinced that. And I don't know the full, like all the, the high resolution details, but I've been exposed to enough both officially and unofficially, both. Both in terms of things like Joe Thompson coming out and saying the things that he said, and also anecdotal conversations with folks in the community. I'm personally convinced that we in Minnesota are victims of an intentional racketeering operation that was. That it has been Intentionally constructed and orchestrated by high level Democrats in order to maintain their power. You know, we often talk about, you know, why do people keep voting for people like Tim Walls? Why do people keep voting for Democrat legislative majorities? Well, it's because they've put their thumb on the scale. And this is one of the ways in which they've done it is through these, this. This convoluted, sophisticated fraud campaign to both buy loyalty. Right. Like, come with us and you'll get rich. Right. That's a pretty strong motivator. But then also, we expect a cut. Like we wink, wink, not nod. We expect you kick back upstairs. Yeah, absolutely.

[A]

You got to kick back.

[B]

We expect you to contribute to our campaigns and to. To get your people to vote for us and what have you. So, you know, you talk about, you ask the question of. Let's define the groups, right? Let me offer some context. I. What I observe over the course of history, American history in particular, is that we set up our laws. You said earlier, and it's a great insight, And I agree 100%, that to the extent that you're a moral person, or more broadly, to the extent that we're a moral society, we don't require a bunch of laws. Right. Like, if people are just good people, if it's Mayberry, you don't need to have all sorts of regulation and restrictions.

[A]

One bullet and Barney Fife's gone.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. Right. But what happens is we construct our laws in response to the. To our perception of where society is at. And then people take a look at that landscape and they say to themselves, how can I take advantage of this? How can I take advantage of the. Of the liberties that are provided by this society so benevolently in order to take advantage of my fellow man and engage in criminal enterprise? And one example of that was the mob, right? The Mafia. So very similar, I believe, to what we're seeing today, where you have an immigrant group that comes in, they bring their culture with them that has. At some level, it's not the entirety of their culture, but it's a part of their culture where they had this mafia system, right, where they're engaged in organized criminal activity and you kick money up to the guy upstairs, and that's the way we do things. They brought that to America and they utilized. They took advantage of the state of our laws at the time to do things like two guys sitting across the table, right? You're the boss, I'm the henchman. You say something like, you know, I think it's time for Tanner to take a vacation. Right. You haven't said what we both know you mean. Right. And then I act upon that, and then if I get caught, you're completely insulated. I didn't tell him to do that. I. I didn't. I didn't do it. It wasn't me. I didn't pull the trigger.

[A]

You're only. It's only illegal if you get caught. Yeah. That attitude is not based in a moral frame. That's based in a completely different worldview.

[B]

And what we recognize and the way we pushed back against organized crime and the mob is we recognize that that was what was going on. And so we had to alter our laws and alter our approach to. To legal mechanisms and concepts in order to respond to the fact that people were taking advantage of our benevolence. They were taking advantage of. Of the liberties that we provide in this country in order to affect evil, in order to affect death, in order to affect chaos in the streets. And so what we said was, we're going to come up with this thing called rico. And what we're going to do is if. If you are an associate of an organization and that organization, a member of that organization commits a crime and we can establish that there was a conspiracy there, every single person involved is going to get charged with the same thing. And you sitting there telling me it's time for Tanner to take a vacation, are going to face the exact same responsibility that I and the exact same accountability that I'm going to face for having pulled the trigger. Right. There's a similar need in the here and now in response to what we're seeing from the left. For years, we have watched, as you mentioned, we have watched as these organizations that are proceeding under the auspices of political activism and public service. Yeah, right. Nonprofits, political organizations, campaign organizations, have been orchestrating and materially providing support for the burning of Minneapolis, the burning of the third Precinct, you know. Oh. Just so you know, like the way that conversation, the boss henchman conversation happens today is we really want you to guys to take to the streets. Wink. And by the way, if you happen to notice a pallet of bricks on the corner, they're just there in case you find a use for them. Right.

[A]

And this is coming from the most senior seats in the Democrat Party. I just saw Jamila Prabhupal from, I think, Washington.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

She's the leader of the House Minority Caucus, say that it's time to go to the streets.

[B]

Yes, that's exactly. I just tweeted about that this morning.

[A]

Oh, you did. Okay, so there we are. You know, that's the great thing about social media. We see it and we can respond to it. Yeah, but I'm. That's just. And then people are saying, and this is true, after the Charlie Kirk thing, there was no rioting, no burning, no kill, no revenge killings. What does that say about that moral frame of the Christians? Well, what it says to the outsider or the newcomer is they're soft, they can be exploited. You talked about these groups come in. Well, there's also a. You don't have to look at things. I tend to want to look at things 360 degrees. I'm not giving up what I believe, but I like to know how things happen. I speak about it from the Jewish perspective. My family came Here in the 30s, 20s, 30s, 40s, lived in a ghetto, couldn't get a job, wouldn't be hired, couldn't even have their doctors practicing in the hospitals. Intense discrimination. What did he end up doing? Called the Jewish mob because there was nothing available to these people. They wanted the American dream, they came for the American dream. But there was no effort to incorporate these folks into the American dream. They were actually pushed aside. Which of course the young strong bulls say, okay, that's the game you're going to play. We're going to rob you. And then they study the laws to exploit them. We have this on the international stage with the Chinese. The Chinese, I can say from personal experience, study our laws to exploit them, not to follow them. If I read a law, I read it to be in compliance with it because I'm an American citizen and I believe in our Constitution. But I'm going to tell you, when you make a lot of laws that I'm reading and I'll work out, it can curve out the other way where the laws become oppressive, start to not work any. We're in a spot is what I'm trying to say. So with this reset, we're talking about figuring out who these people are and how we're going to look downrange 50 to 100 years from now. I think the critical thing, I'm going to say it back to you because you would have said that same thing to me because we have that in common. A moral and just people do not need an oppressive governance. They're self governing. That is the whole essence of the philosophy of Republicanism. And that Constitution and declaration is the embodiment of a philosophy. It's the opera. Opera. It's operating, it's putting into operation ideas, philosophical ideas and making Them into governance. And it's broken down now. People need governance because we've removed that internal compass.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And experiment, going back to progressive education. And I just look at. And I say, okay, I was a progressive. I was. Grew up in a communist household. I'm just looking at the evidence. Hey, if you're on the left, is this working for. Is this really working for anybody? And the answer is, no, it's not. So the left and the right, the far left and the far right have the almost identical diagnosis of the problem. We just differ in the solution. But the diagnosis of this problem, which is a corruption of our institutions. Nothing wrong with the institution. It's the people. It's about the people. It's about what the people are taught. Who's teaching them? What are they teaching them? That. That's where I'm coming from. So, you know, I had Phil Parish on here and I said, phil, I'm a political activist. I don't like that word. You're an educator. Okay, what we need is what. What I think we need is less issues and more education on what we can take as steps as American citizens to change this culture. And you're a leader, and I think your leadership is growing. You've stepped. You've had an epiphany. Okay, now that you have the epiphany, what's your next step? Where are you headed with this?

[B]

Yeah, well, I mean, I could tell you I like to consider myself to be a pretty quick learner. Right. I've only been in the legislature. I been through three sessions at this point, and I've spent a lot of that time, my outspoken nature notwithstanding, believe it or not, I've been a relative wallflower, like, legislatively, in terms of just kind of sitting back and watching how the process works.

[A]

Learning the system.

[B]

Learning the system. And you hear all this talk about, you know, we're one big happy team and you gotta be a team player and yada, yada, yada. One of the things that I've noticed on the other side, my. My Democrat colleagues, it's not their team players who get what they want. You look at the Queer caucus, which that's what they call themselves. I'm not demeaning them by calling them that. The Posse Caucus, People of color, right? The Emma Greenman who's widely regarded, she's spoken of in the halls and the corridors of the Capitol. Her nickname is the Terrorist. Okay. In terms of how she conducts herself through the legislative process. Omar Fattah, who, on the second to last day of the 2024 legislative session shut the entire Senate down because he wanted to get his Uber bill passed. All of these people get what they want. They are rewarded for going rogue. Now, I look at that, and I don't necessarily come away with the conclusion that that's what I need to do, that it's a good idea for me to just recklessly throw my colleagues under the bus in order to make some sort of point or to try to. To push something in particular. But what it does show me is that there is a dynamic in the legislature where leadership can be unassigned, it can be organic. You can lead simply by standing up and doing the thing, and people will follow. Now, that tendency or that, that decision, that methodology can be used constructively or can be used counterproductively. I want to use it constructively to be able to, and I already have in the past couple of weeks. In terms of the things I've been saying, the mere fact that I'm willing to come on your show, I've done a number of other podcasts at Alpha News this week as well, where I'm willing to sit here and say, yeah, it's just one giant racketeering operation. Like, the Democrats are unconvinced. And look, I qualify it with. I don't know this for an absolute provable fact, but it is my personal conviction based upon everything that I've been.

[A]

You said it quite well. We just hadn't related it. What you said was, if we're sitting around in a room, right, the boss doesn't have to say anything. He just has to sit there. And if you don't say no, it's yes.

[B]

And in the legislature, there's this tendency. And part of it is just like the way the institution is structured because you can't speak to personalities, you can't impugn motives, that we have to kind of dance around these things, right? We can't take the ax to the root and say, listen, buddy, I know what you're doing and I know why you're doing it, right? But I can say that literally anywhere else, right? I can say that in public. And I feel as though we have. We have been nipping at the edges of this problem. Like, when we talk about fraud, it's trying to figure out like. Like we're talking about the mechanisms of the state agencies. We bring in the state agencies to the fraud committee and we ask them, well, what are you doing? What mechanisms do you have in place in order to deal with this problem, which I'm not Saying that's not a worthwhile endeavor. But it doesn't cut to the heart of the issue.

[A]

Which is. What is the heart of the issue?

[B]

The heart of the issue is the person, the mother who signed up for tutoring services didn't get them, and the person who conned her into signing up for them is Bill in the state for thousands of dollars and going out and buying a BMW. That's the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is who taught these folks how to do what they're doing. You expect me to believe that, as U.S. attorney Joe Thompson said on day one, within a couple of years, you had hundreds, hundreds of completely fraudulent companies set up, many of them, like two dozen to a building, all engaged in just billing the state and doing nothing. Did they all, like, independently? You expect me to believe that independently, hundreds of people decided that they were going to do that all at the same time and had the institutional knowledge to make it happen?

[A]

Now we're dancing around the edge of this thing again. So what we are saying is, what I'm hearing you say is there was some kind of organization, 100%. And then when I hear organization.

[B]

And.

[A]

I'm looking at billions, you know, you don't have to kick that much up to the local boss to keep him happy. It's Minnesota afterwards, Right. Where's all that money going? Who organized this massive transfer of money from Minnesota? Taxpayers.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Where did it go? I mean, I'm not, you know, even myself saying it. I get a little bit afraid because I know that I have presumptions about this. I have presumptions about who organized it. I don't have any evidence.

[B]

So do I.

[A]

Right. And so all the players, intermediate, get a commission for taking the money from me and sending it somewhere for some purpose. So if, you know, if I, you know, look at this person. They bought a BMW. That's not the issue. That's the symptom of the issue. Where'd that money go? Who organized this? Who's going to ask those questions? Because now we're getting down into areas really. Maybe it's just greed. I'd be happy with that. Yeah. No, no. A couple billion dollars disappeared into the pockets of really greedy people, and they're living large at our expense. Okay, I'd like to know that if that's. But a couple billion. Yeah, come on. You finance armies with a couple billion dollars that finances war? I don't know that to be the case, but I'm asking the question because you're going to Go back into session.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And if I'm thinking this, I'm not alone. This is a giant slush fund. A lot of people got commission moving this money around. Where'd the money go? That old saying, follow the money.

[B]

Correct. Yeah. That's why I'm calling upon. And I don't know if she'll hear it or respond, but I've put out a number. You know, I've been publicly calling on Pam Bondi to get off her backside. Buy a second home in Minnesota, you know, get a cabin on a lake, enjoy yourself in the summer, but by God, get to work. You can make your career here. Right. You're never going to run out of people to prosecute because this is endemic, it is systemic and it is organized. And indeed you do need to follow the money. You need to know you. It's not enough to, to determine and to prosecute. And that's the thing is right now the focus is, well, who did this and what did they do? That is not enough. What did they do with that money? Where did that money go? Yeah, we know some of it went to vacation homes. Yeah, we know some of it went to BMWs.

[A]

Those are commissions.

[B]

But who, who were they contributing to politically? Who got political contributions from these people? And you're probably going to have to trace the cash through a couple of entities, through a few entities in order to find out. It went here and then it went here and then went here and then went here. And you might not be able to draw a straight line because of the way things are, are in the accounting, but you can make some implications. Right. And then those, the, the places where it ends up, those folks need to be under federal scrutiny. Those folks need to be accountable.

[A]

Yeah. Held accountable for being the receivers of ill gotten gains. I mean, if you're talking mafia, I mean they was followed the money which took down a lot of those folks.

[B]

Right.

[A]

RICO laws. That's exactly. But, but I also want to say, relative to Pam Bondi moving to Minnesota, which, you know, that's a metaphor.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

But I'm going to tell you why it's such an incredible metaphor. I don't think even our elected representatives understand what Minnesota really represents to worldwide leftism. Worldwide, let alone American.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

This is the incubator, this is one of the primary nodes.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

You know, and I tell this story, people think I'm crazy. I'm that weird dude that reads the bills.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And you know, it wasn't that long ago that it looked like we were going to have Four more years of Democrats, and there was a federal bill, a federal election law bill. Now, if you follow Amy Klomachar like I do, her normal bill is beautifying the Lake Superior waterfront, more air traffic controllers in small rural airports. She's very smart about what she does for her because she wants to be president. She ran for president. There was a bill on federal election law. Had one sponsor, Senator Amy Klobuchar. I said, you know, I want to read this. This is before Donald Trump. This is when it looked like we were going into the sea. In this movement, not that long. People forget how dark it was. When Bannon went to jail, when Navarro went to jail, when Trump was under indictment. All over the country. It didn't look like we were coming out of this thing. Right? And I'm podcasting, thinking, whoops, I'm going to the Gulag. And I want you to know that when you come on here, this is a place where anybody that comes on, all your colleagues, they come on. I'm going to talk to them just like you. Respectfully, I got my pundit hat and I got my news hat. This is my news interviewer hat. And I want everybody to come on here because we need these centers of gravity to emerge. And those of you that are listening, remember what I said the day after that primary. I'm door knocking for whoever's got an R after their name. Now, not everybody feels that way. But see, the times make the warrior. And I'm changing. I'm changing. We can't just fight each other 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There has to be a secession of hostilities. And this has always been this way. There's always been internal conflict. And then, okay, me and my brother against my cousin, me, my cousin against a stranger. We got some strangers in our midst. But this state, I was reading that bill and it was a thousand page bill and I was about 100 page into it and I was going, man, this is so familiar. Why is this so? It's Minnesota election law. Minnesota's election laws are the damn template for federalizing our elections. This is the center, this is the ideological center. So Pam Bondi coming here metaphorically, man, we need to draw our attention. We need to realize that if we can beat the left here in Minnesota and turn this state back to the philosophy of Republicanism, change our culture in the state, we took out their command center.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

It's the Death Star. And I don't know that we're all focused on that. When we're all stabbing each other in the back. And I'm going to quit that and get my mind focused on making. But, you know, if you're a Republican with an R after your name and you're really a Democrat, you're not really helping. There's two clear, distinct groups here. Let's end with that. Let's get these groups a little bit better defined from your perspective, being in the ring with them, because you're in a position to tell me you're fighting with them. What does it mean? What, what are we dealing with here?

[B]

Well, I mean, I really haven't been fighting with my colleagues in the party in the caucus.

[A]

I'm talking about, not just within the caucus. I'm talking about the other side. I want to get these two.

[B]

Sure, sure, sure. So this is what I'll say is. And, and I don't know if this is a direct answer to what you're aiming at or not, but it's. What pops into my head is that because I was, I was an activist for a long time before I was an elected representative. Right. Like, I was, I was doing this commentary stuff for years. I was, I was writing for the David Horowitz Freedom Center. I was, you know, I had a radio show for three years. I've been around. I was in the Tea Party. So I'm very, very familiar with the activist mindset. And the activist mindset, what I observe about it is that it's very much focused on kind of this inquisition of identify the rhino, kill the rhino, metaphorically. Right. And I think that that's the wrong approach. Not just. And I'm not just making like the oh, Team R, we all need to be one big happy family argument, because that doesn't work either. Very clearly. What I've recognized, and Trump is the one who taught me this by watching him. You don't need to change everybody's heart and mind. What you need to do is you need to lift up key leaders, that center of gravity. And everybody else is going to come along. Look at the second Trump administration. Look who it's composed of. You got J.D. vance, who, like me in 2016, was calling Trump a fascist. Okay, you've got RFK Jr. Democrat as they come. Old school Democrat, but Democrat. You got Tulsi Gabbard. She was a Democrat Congresswoman. She was a Democrat candidate for President.

[A]

Of the United States, Marco Rubio.

[B]

Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio, the Dude who, in 2016, he was part of that, what, the Gang of Eight or whatever they called him, trying to do the amnesty and all that. And now he's the Secretary of State and he's, and he's, you know, behind Trump. Rah rah maga maga. Now does he feel that in his heart of hearts? I hope so. But it actually doesn't matter what he feels. What he believes is almost irrelevant because he's been drawn in by that center of gravity to the orbit of the leader who's showing him this is, who's telling him this is the way we're going. And you're either coming along or you're going to be irrelevant. So I think the entire approach to activism for folks who are frustrated needs to shift from this kind of candidate by candidate inquisition of how conservative are you and do you really believe this and are you sincere and are you genuine? Is. First of all, it's never gonna work. Like, you don't have kind of like what Joe Thompson was saying. You're not gonna be able to prosecute your way out of this. You're not gonna be able to primary your way out of this. Okay. It's not gonna, that's not gonna work.

[A]

Center of gravity. Yeah.

[B]

You need to find the people who are so dynamic and have the vision and draw everybody else to them and pave the way.

[A]

In other words, what you're saying is it's not about ideological purity, it's about creating a center of gravity where we all can rally towards, which is. And I think about it a little bit differently and about my own role in it. We get so narcissistic, all of us, about what we think. Actually American Republicanism is a, it's a giant system of organizing the human will. We all have this will. Politics is about the human will. War is about the human will. Who's going to have the will to prevail. It doesn't mean we all have to have the same ideas. It's about the system working in a direction that brings us enhanced human well being, enhanced human economic prosperity. I mean that it's about well being and prosperity, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which as you know, was originally written up as the pursuit of property.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Property, which is prosperity. And they just got a little bit soft on that.

[B]

Yep. For the first compromise.

[A]

Well, for political reasons. But you know, if we're heading towards enhancing human well being, American citizen well being, we're back to the natural way. We're back to what works and what doesn't work. So we've taken a giant hundred year experiment in something that's not working, that doesn't mean anybody's bad. I mean, you had children, I have children. They're crawling on the floor, they put everything in their mouth. It's an experiment. Hey, kid, pull that out of you. He's going to kill you. We're doing things to our children and to our society, which is going to kill it. If you want to maintain your freedom and your well being, we're going to have to let the times shape how we function together. I'm not looking anymore, but I did say up until the primary, it's bare knuckles because I want my candidates to prevail. But when we get out there and it's go time, you know, there's hundreds of thousands of people that don't vote. We have hundreds of thousands of people that don't vote a straight R ticket. We got the evidence from 24, don't we, right here. So I'm gonna say this in closing because thank you for coming in. I'm not saying everybody would say this, but for myself personally, I'm hurt that Royce White got 250,000 less votes than Donald Trump did, which meant 250,000 people that voted for Republican president for some reason thought Royce was not a good candidate for Senate. That's not unity. So I'm going to say that from my perspective, my chair, the disunity is not coming from people like me. Something to think about. Because if we're going to unify, where we unify, how we unify is that new center of gravity that you're talking about. We need a new center of power, of gravity, which incorporates more people like the Christians that don't vote. Why don't they vote? How are we gonna. So to that end, we've started a Christian outreach here at Free People Radio. We've got all the people in the cities. God, if we could get 15% of the urban voters to vote with Republicans, we won. Didn't we win if that happened?

[B]

Yes, but so in order to affect everything that you're talking about, everything from, you know, if you want to call them the, let's call them the country club Republicans, right? That's that 250,000 talking about, or the urban core or independence, or same Democrats who need to be rescued from the current status of their party, it, you, you have to have a value proposition. And the crazy idea that I'm operating under is I, I think the value proposition. And again, I learned this from watching Trump. The value proposition is to take the established political narratives, ball em up and throw them in the trash. So, you know, Issues like abortion, immigration. What's another one that comes to mind? But you have these certain issues that everybody has their scripts. The Republicans have their script, the Democrats have their script. It's very well worn. Everybody has the lines memorized and they know how to fundraise off of it and they know how to campaign on it. Gun control, that's another one. And so what that does. I mean, we were talking about Rubio earlier and you know, this immigrant. We've been talking about amnesty and immigration for years and years and years. The problem never seems to get solved. Comprehensive immigration reform, which never happens. I believe. I believe both sides intentionally refuse to solve problems so that they can continue to read off those scripts, raise money.

[A]

Off of those scripts.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

The industry of politics.

[B]

Yes. And so my crazy idea is, what if we did a Steve Jobs on this thing? What if instead of looking at the market, which is those scripts, and saying, what do the people want? Well, the people want me to talk tough about guns. The people want me to talk, talk about gun control, like these, these two sides, instead of looking at the market and what it wants today, Steve Jobs says, I don't care what the people want. I'm going to give them something they don't know they want. I'm going to solve their problem by.

[A]

Redefining the whole conversation.

[B]

That's exactly right. And so if you want to bring all these disparate groups together, whether it's within the party or outside, get independents, get soft Democrats or sane Democrats is probably a better way to put it. We gotta, Steve Jobs this thing. We gotta come up with policy proposals that shatter the paradigm. We have to take those scripts, put them in the shredder and start talking about things entirely differently than we do now.

[A]

You know, we had Richard Barris on and we're going to have. Is it next week? Mark Mitchell is coming on from Rasmussen.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

You know, I'm getting these pollsters on because they actually have data and I want to learn from them. And Barris said that there's four issues that pull great across the entire spectrum of American citizens. Medical freedom, economic freedom, religious freedom and food freedom. Those four issues are unifying issues. And you know, I've been talking a lot about, you know, I used to just say I'm practicing the politics of human wellbeing because of course I know what that means for me. Everybody else looks at me and goes, what the hell do you mean? Well, you know, the polling told me how to break that down. Because what we want, all of us, I mean, not all of us. That's a cognitive distortion because obviously we got nihilists that want to kill themselves. But what most of us want is a long life of health and well being and economic freedom. That's what we have wanted traditionally for thousands of years. And that's the script. And any policy, anything that's going that doesn't feed into that. Hey, wait a second. That's a whole new set of issues, isn't it? Anyhow, Walter, it was just great to have you. And we always have these great. I mean, our conversations are. Do you. I hope you agree with me. I think our conversations are good.

[B]

There's a reason I keep coming back.

[A]

It's fun, isn't it?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

We have a good time. You're welcome to come back anytime. You know, I. I don't press on Walter because as he alluded, you know, there's some price for him to pay for coming on here. But why look at who I mean? Come on. I'm just a nice guy. I want to get along with everybody. All of you need to come on, and we all need to talk. We all need to have a new center of gravity and we need new media. And I'm trying to move free people in the direction where all are free to come. Even if you're on the left, you can come in here, be happy to talk with you. Respectfully, no name calling, you know, and that's what we do. So thanks for coming in. We wish you well. I want to go out by saying, please remember tire Get. We need everybody to remember the next set of tires. You don't know how many people walk up to me and say, oh my God, David, I just bought a set of tires. I forgot about you. I said, great, thanks for. Hope you like them. So please, next time you need tires, your family needs tires, your friends need tire. We're starting an affiliate program. If you go to supporttarget.com, i'll get you business cards, get you your own promo code. You can monetize with us. We'll pay you a commission for spreading the word. And we want that money. As I say, I'm not a communist. Happy to get rich doing this. Not my goal. Just don't want to go broke right now. So please. Thank you for your support. Tanner, could you please get from Walter his socials? We found out that Walter Congratulations. Just breached 100,000 YouTube followers, which is badass in the extreme. So I want to make sure we get all of Walter's socials into the description of the podcast. He'll get them for you. And Walter, you're welcome back soon. We wish you well. When do you go back into session?

[B]

It'll be in mid February. On that note of hitting crossing, finally crossing the 100,000 subscriber mark on YouTube. So apparently they mail you like a little plaque, right? It's called a silver play button and I haven't gotten mine yet. I'm sure it'll come at some point. I told my 12 year old yesterday that I let him hang it in his room and he was absolutely ecstatic. I would have. I would have lost my shit if I was told by my parents.

[A]

Now you got to bleep yourself out, Tanner. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. So that'll be fun.

[A]

Congratulations. Thank you. Please come back soon. Anytime. You're welcome. You could be a regular. I think the conversation is important. What we're finding here is we've got certain people that are coming back regularly now. We're, we're moving more to an interview conversation format and less of the solo podcast format that I started. But that's, you know, compliment that we're on the right path and we do want to expand our content. We want more people here, more creators because, you know, we are living in this era where we're gonna affect from this podcast a lot of people. So I hope you enjoyed it. Thank you for being a viewer and listener. Thank you for supporting free people. Thank you for following Walter Tanner. Thank you very much.

[B]

Of course. Have a good night everybody.

[C]

Disclaimer the information provided in this podcast is for general informational purposes only. All opinions expressed by the podcast host and their guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinions of any entity they represent or associated with. This podcast is not intended to provide professional advice or political guidance and should not be relied upon for such. The content of this podcast is based on the host's knowledge and understanding at the time of recording and is subject to change any fact, presented or factual statement made by the podcast. The host or guests are generated by available mainstream media sources, social media outlets and artificial intelligence, including grok, the Artificial Intelligence Module of X. Although we strive to provide accurate and up to date commentary and opinions, we make no representations or warranties express or implied about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the podcast or the information, products, services or related graphics contained in the podcast for any purpose. By accessing and using this podcast, you acknowledge and agree that the hosts, guests and any affiliated entities are not responsible for any actions you take based on the information provided in this podcast. You agree that the use of this podcast is at your own risk, the hosts, guests, and any affiliated entities are not liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of your access to or use of this podcast. This includes any damages related to the loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of such damages. In no event shall the hosts, guests, and any affiliated entities be liable to you or any third party for any claims, losses, or damages arising out of your use of this podcast or reliance on any information provided herein. By listening to this podcast, you agree to release and hold harmless the hosts, guests, and any affiliated entities from any and all liability, claims, actions, demands and expenses arising out of war relating to your use of this podcast. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

[A]

This is an I Heart Podcast.