Leave No American Behind: Brandon Straka on DarkHorse
Bret Speaks with Brandon Straka, founder of The Walkaway Campaign on the need for open dialogue and the pursuit of truth in political discourse. Straka shares his journey from being a lifelong Democrat to becoming a vocal supporter of independent thought.The discussion also delves into the Second Amendment, government power, and the extremism within the Democratic Party, highlighting the complexities of political identity and the motivations behind political actions.Find Brandon on X at https...
Sign up for the values that we agree on, and then make sure that any party that gets your vote is adhering to those values.
That's the way to be a powerful force in American politics, and frankly, it's a powerful enough force to right the ship and put it back on course.
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I have the distinct pleasure of sitting this morning with Brandon Strock, who is the founder of the Walk Away Movement.
He has interesting stories to tell, and I think this is going to be a fascinating episode.
Brandon, welcome to Dark Horse.
Thanks for having me.
Let's talk a bit about what the walkaway movement is.
I believe I had a misapprehension about it, which led me over the course of a couple of years to say some things that I now regret, and I just want to make sure my understanding of what it is is accurate.
So tell us about walkaway.
Yeah.
Well, and that's really understandable, actually, because there's been a lot of sort of misreporting on both sides about what we are and what our mission is.
But essentially, I started WalkAway about six and a half years ago in May of 2018 because I myself was a lifelong Democrat and I was a liberal, two-time Obama supporter, Hillary Clinton voter in 2016, and really bought into the left-wing media narrative and liberal ideology.
And when Trump got elected, I had a massive awakening.
Really, it was like an earthquake in my life, which I'm sure we'll get into the story.
But basically, I had this massive awakening after Trump got elected in 2016, and that awakening wasn't just that I'd been lied to about Trump and that I'd been lied to about what modern conservatism is, but also so much of what I'd been believing in as a liberal and fighting for as a liberal was really antithetical to all of my values and what I believe in.
When I realized that I was being lied to and betrayed, and particularly the way that I think the left is lying to and betraying minorities and causing so much chaos and division and fragmentation kind of in our society that doesn't actually need to be there, that's what made me want to speak up and do something about it.
And so in May of 2018, I put out a video talking about all the reasons I was walking away from liberalism and the Democratic Party, and I encouraged anyone else who was feeling the same way I was feeling to We're good to go.
When we talk about the misperception, I think because I left the left and I became such an out loud, vocal Trump supporter, and I myself became a conservative, a lot of people thought that the mission of WalkAway was to get people to leave the Democratic Party and become a Trump supporter or become a Republican.
And that was never really the case.
From day one, we always said, WalkAway is a journey, not a destination.
And what we meant by that was, We just want people to start thinking for themselves.
Do your own homework.
Do your own research.
Walk away from tribal mentality, the hive mind, groupthink, identity politics.
See yourself as an individual, an American, and really know what the truth is behind what you believe.
Research it.
And if that truth and that journey leads you to being a libertarian or an independent or politically unaffiliated, or maybe you're a Republican who doesn't like Trump, or maybe you do love Trump, we don't really care.
We just want to encourage people to think for themselves and walk away from the toxicity, I think, of the political left and what that's doing to our country.
Alright, two important things.
One, it turns out that my misunderstanding was indeed a misunderstanding of walk away.
My concern about it from the beginning has been that it was cryptically a walk towards movement, which I couldn't embrace because I thought essentially that the duopoly was a two-headed monster and that The fact that the blue team is hyper-toxic and empowered at the moment is not evidence that the red team is somehow superior.
It's just disempowered.
But nonetheless, so I guess I owe you an apology for that misunderstanding and for arguing that walkaway was not a solution by virtue of that error.
But the other thing you said that is very interesting, and it is emblematic of a movement in which it's not about a destination, which is you and I are on some shared journey away from the blue team, the Democrats.
But a very different one, apparently.
I think I heard you say, and then you emphasized it, that actually your values changed.
And I would say, in only a couple of cases have my values changed.
In most cases, my values have remained the same, but my understanding of the players, and I believe the players themselves, have changed radically so that I can no longer support the Democratic Party, even though I've been a member and I'm still a member of it.
So tell me about your shift in values.
What does that mean?
Why did they shift?
And where do you understand yourself to be politically now?
Sure.
Well, I would say that I, like so many other people, certainly fall into the category of person who would say, you know, I didn't leave the party, the party left me.
So many of my values didn't change.
But I will say through the process of going through that journey of research that I did after I walked away, I did change my mind about a lot of policies and issues and things like that.
So I'll start by saying that I would say that the reason why I became a liberal in the first place or that felt like the right place for me to be is because inherently I'm against racism, I'm against sexism, I'm pro-equality, I'm pro-opportunity for all people despite their socioeconomic background, their race, their gender, etc.
That's what I thought liberalism was.
And I think when I was younger and I was a liberal, I think there was more of that.
But over time, what happened is that, you know, this party that's against or this this group that's against racism, sexism, started hating white people, started hating men, started caring more about immigrants than than people who live in this country.
And so I started to look at all this and say, well, hating white people to me doesn't feel any better than hating black people and hating men doesn't feel or disenfranchising men doesn't feel any better than disenfranchising women.
And so in that way, they left me and kind of pushed me more towards a center.
But when I started researching a lot of the things that I believed, what I discovered was that a lot of the things I believe just basically were not true are.
You know, when you talk about like a racial wage gap or a gender wage gap or the Second Amendment.
I mean, as a liberal, I was very pro, you know, gun control, very, you know, if the left said we need to confiscate guns or I would have been all for it.
Now I've completely changed my mind, and I'm not a gun owner yet, largely because I'm on probation.
But I will be a gun owner at some point, and I would say that I'm very pro-Second Amendment, pretty much with the least possible restrictions.
And then issues like immigration and even abortion.
So, with immigration, I was definitely of the mind that we have this amazing country.
We have so much.
Why shouldn't we be sharing it with people who need it?
Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to come here who wants to come here, who wants to be a part?
We have an abundance in this country.
We don't need to be turning people away.
Obviously, I see the error of that thinking now, and I'm very much pro-legal immigration and merit-based.
And then with abortion, I didn't really change my mind necessarily.
You know, I've always kind of had this, like, I'd say kind of safe and rare mentality.
I think, you know, maybe up until three months, there should be exceptions for rape and incest.
But what I really changed my mind about was that as a liberal, I believed the liberal narrative that...
Republicans want abortion because they want to control women and control women's bodies.
And, you know, this is misogynistic white men.
They want to ban abortion because of these things.
And that, too.
No, no.
I think that's what you meant to say.
Republicans want to ban abortion because they want to control women's bodies.
What did I say?
You said they want abortion.
I think it was good.
Right, right, right.
They want to ban abortion because they want to control women and control women's bodies.
Yeah.
But when I got to know more about conservatism and know more about conservatives, I started to see that basically, you know, this is people who believe that life begins at conception.
And, you know, we can argue or debate whether it does or doesn't or how people feel, but the point is, conservatives are not anti-abortion.
Because they're trying to control women or because they're misogynistic.
So I didn't necessarily change my position on abortion, but I now have a much more understanding and compassionate view of why conservatives are anti-abortion or so many of them are.
This is going to be an interesting conversation because we really need to drill down on where either of our values actually changed.
There are a couple of places where they did for me and where Your values have actually remained consistent, and by comparing them to the blue team or the Democratic Party, you're discovering nuances that were maybe there all along, but have become important.
So let's go back through a couple of these things.
You and I are both strong advocates for the Second Amendment.
I very much changed my position on this.
I used to be a What I would have said was a rational gun control advocate.
And I regarded the Second Amendment as an error by the founders, that its vagueness is a problem, and that obviously we're not entitled to personal nuclear arms.
Therefore, we have to draw a line somewhere, and we should draw a line in the restrictive direction.
Hey folks, a quick word before we get to the podcast.
Rescue the Republic in Washington, D.C. on September 29th was a smashing success.
Many thousand attended in person.
Many millions watched it online.
That event was put on by volunteers at And all of the speakers, musicians, and comedians volunteered their time as well.
The event was funded through donations, and we collected the vast bulk of the donations necessary to put it on before the event happened.
But we still have some debt, and we need to retire that debt in order to go back to work galvanizing the Unity movement.
So please, there is a GiveSundGo link in the form of a QR code.
If you have some resources you can send our way, we'd really appreciate it.
Thanks.
I now understand it completely differently.
I believe what the founders were doing was actually creating a hedge against tyranny that an armed populace is harder to tyrannize and...
That that means that the firepower in the hands of the public has to be powerful enough that a rogue government would hesitate to go after that public.
And that means that as firepower goes up on the governmental side, it also needs to go up on the public side.
They don't need to be the same.
Obviously, the government does have nuclear weapons.
The government has fully automatic weapons.
But the real issue is, and you can drive an analogy from nature here.
There are lots of battles that don't happen in nature, not because creature A couldn't kill creature B, but because the cost of killing creature B is so high that creature B on the way out will do so much damage that it's not worth doing.
And so the public needs to be in a position to defend itself.
Now, the question, actually, this is a new change for me.
I came to understand through a report by John Stossel recently that what I had taken to be a fact, which is that good guys with guns almost never successfully fend off an attack by bad guys with guns, that that turns out to be nonsense.
That we don't actually know that the data has specifically not been collected by the federal agencies that should be collecting it that would tell us how often good guys with guns fend off bad guys with guns, and it's a lot more common than we think.
And then the last point I will make is that the blue team uses the fact of mass shootings as a...
As a pillar of its argument against gun rights.
But it specifically does not want to talk about the contributing factors, specifically factors like the mental health crisis and the pharmaceuticals that are used to address it and their contribution to mass shootings.
So As a scientist, my feeling is this is certain to be a diminishing returns problem, where there are going to be a number of contributing factors.
One wants to address the factors that are easiest to address and have the biggest impact, that those factors are always portrayed as liberal gun laws.
But there's lots of reason why.
for example, the lack of similar mass shootings in countries that have liberal gun laws, but do not have the same relationship with pharmaceuticals, that the last thing we should do is eliminate the public's rights to powerful firearms in order to that the last thing we should do is eliminate the public's rights to powerful firearms in order to cure a violence
Because, you know, if you want to talk about what's bad for unarmed citizens who are gunned down, which is obviously a tragedy, well, tyranny does that.
Tyranny kills people by the millions.
You want the public empowered to prevent tyranny, and firearms are the last resort, but nonetheless an important one.
And if we look at the degree to which tyranny has been much more aggressive in the last four years in Australia, in the UK, the question really is how much of the delay in that tyranny in the US is actually because of the Second Amendment.
Well, right.
Absolutely.
I mean, and the left's response, I think, is the wrong solution to the right problem.
I mean, I think that any of us agree that mass shootings are bad and, you know, we need to do anything that we can to try to keep people safe.
Obviously, people on the right don't want mass shootings either.
But in a way, it's very similar.
And you kind of alluded to it when you were talking about Australia and other countries.
It's a similar mind frame that they have Like with COVID or anything else.
There's sort of this sweeping, all or nothing mentality that kind of boils down to trying to control everybody based off of small or single incidents of things that are...
Mostly pretty rare, but the idea that everybody has to lock down and everyone has to close down their business and no one's allowed to go outside because a few people are susceptible to this thing that's happening is kind of the same mindset in a way that they use toward gun control, which is to say, well, there are a few people in our society who shouldn't have guns and that are dangerous when guns are in their hands.
Therefore, nobody should have these types of guns because a few people might misuse them.
But I think that, to your point, this is something that I think is abused by the government and by the left, because I do think that they are pushing towards trying to disarm the public.
And I think that they actually kind of secretly love when these incidents happen, because it gives them a little more leverage to say, see, we told you, Guns are not safe, semi-automatic rifles, things like that are not safe in the hands of the general populace.
Nobody needs anything more than a pistol or a handgun or something to protect your home.
But I agree completely, and that's exactly why I changed my mind about the Second Amendment as well.
I've seen firsthand in my own life over the last four or five years the way the government can weaponize itself against you or the citizens of this country.
So to me, it's not hyperbolic at all at this point to believe that there could be a scenario in which the government turns on its own people And I think the only thing that's really preventing them from going all the way with that is that they have to fear us to some degree, and right now they do.
But that will come to a complete stop if there ever comes a day where people are required to turn in their guns to the government.
Then at that point, there's nothing to protect us from anything that they want to do.
I agree.
And there are two ominous signs.
There are a bunch of things I want to go back to there, but there are two ominous signs that the day in which the government turns on us might be close at hand.
One of them is the effect of vaccine mandates during COVID on the military, which I tried to highlight on the podcast.
What this did was it took resistors People who naturally refuse immoral orders, and it outed them, and then it forced them out of the service.
So what that did is it created a residual.
The remaining military that abided by those obnoxious and obscene mandates are now inherently more compliant.
So my sense is if the executive branch had commanded the military to go after Americans based on some pretext, What would have happened is the military would have divided over this.
But now that they've forced out all of the people who are of a mindset to resist immoral orders, it's much more likely that the force would be compliant, which makes it much more important that we retain our firearms so that that's an unthinkable move.
I've now forgotten the second of the two things that points in this direction.
Maybe it will come to me.
But I want to go back and just add a couple pieces to or propose a couple of pieces for your toolkit that I find very useful.
You talk about the reason...
Oh, the first one is you refer to the left.
I would like to suggest that you stop referring to the Democrats and the blue team as the left.
I don't think they're the left.
I think Heather and I are the left.
I think Joe Rogan is the left.
I think Bobby Kennedy is the left.
But there's nothing about the Democratic Party that reminds me of any of the values That I grew up with on the left, and I'm not ceding that territory to them at all.
They can be the blue team, right?
That's what they're playing like.
But that has nothing to do with the left.
And one of the things that distinguishes us The blue team claims that they're motivated by a revulsion at racism, but as you point out, that's where racism lives now.
Racism lives in the Democratic Party, and it's anti-white racism, but nonetheless, it's racism.
So I want to distinguish between what I would call a rationalization, where For example, a government that is interested in tyrannizing the public says that it's to prevent school shootings and pretends to be obsessed with our safety.
That's a rationalization.
The actual rationale for wanting to eliminate guns in private hands is likely to be a desire to...
To send the military to control the population and not meet resistance.
So distinguishing between rationale and rationalization and not conceding the idea that the blue team is the left I think are important upgrades.
Fair enough.
I think that, well, you know, obviously we exist in a two-party system, and so we kind of refer to this side and that side.
But, you know, when I first walked away six and a half years ago, to me, I've watched as the Democrats have become, even in six years, increasingly extreme, extreme progressive, extreme leftist.
I don't hear a lot of people, I hear a lot of people walking away, but I don't hear a lot of people saying, I'm going to stay in the Democrat Party and try to preserve or reform the values that I think are great about being a Democrat in the first place.
It sort of seems like the party as a whole is embracing the extremism and being pulled in that direction.
Maybe it is an error on my part, but I sort of feel like, well, where are all the voices on the left who are shouting out, I'm staying here, and I'm going to do everything that I can to eradicate this radical sect of my party?
It kind of seems like they're all just kind of going along with it.
All right.
This is fascinating.
I don't mean to interrupt you.
No, it's okay.
You and I have been thinking through this puzzle separately, it seems, and there's a lot to talk about.
The analogy I've been using is that the party is like the family dog that has become rabid.
And the answer is, at the point that your family dog has become rabid, the response is you have to put it down.
There's no rescuing a rabid dog.
There is putting that dog down.
Maybe you'll get another dog.
But it doesn't matter how many good times you've had with that dog.
It doesn't matter that time that that dog fended off wolves and saved your life.
That dog has rabies.
It's done.
And so the reason that you don't find people staying in the Democratic Party and standing and fighting and restoring those values is it's too late.
It can't be done.
And this is, in fact, the whole reason for your movement.
Walking away is the only thing to do when you've got a party that has embraced extremism.
But the other thing I want to say, and I hate to load you up with multiple things at once, is I don't believe that the party is extreme in its left-leaning stance.
I believe that is pure rationalization and a false portrayal of what the party wants in order to garner enough support amongst rank-and-file voters who are fooled by this to gain power.
This party is not interested in a massive redistribution of wealth to take care of the oppressed.
We have elites who are hidden in the shadows who want to install puppets and they want to engage in policy, the purpose of which is never discussed with us.
We are always given the rationalization and never given the rationale.
Why are we I don't know what it's about,
but I know It isn't fundamentally about an aggressive dictator who, you know, acted against Ukraine without warning.
This is all a nonsense story.
So I would just caution that I draw a distinction between the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, which represents the elites that control the party and their actual constituents,
the people who fund it, and the rank and file, who are people who vote for the party, who listen to the party, But have very little control over where it's headed and they just need to be placated every two or four years in order to get them to vote in the right direction and that's their entire relationship with it.
Well, okay.
But if the ultimate goal, if I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like what you're saying is that ultimately, oftentimes they don't really mean what they say or what they portray to be their mission isn't exactly true or genuine.
What they really want is just to attain power however they can.
I can't remember the last time I heard a powerful Democrat say anything that I took at face value.
I think it is always meant, if they're saying it into a microphone, that's for the little people.
And the elites know what they're doing and why, and we can guess and we can hypothesis test, but we're never in on that conversation.
Yeah, but don't you think that...
I guess when we talk about the party itself becoming more extreme, or when I talk about that, I think that in order to keep power or acquire more power, one of the main tactics that the Democrats use is to try to degrade and destabilize society, to divide people.
And the methods which they use to do that are to embrace any...
First of all, Make us believe that whether you're Black or Hispanic, basically, if you're a non-Caucasian person, they want you to believe that you are in inherent danger just by living in this country.
And therefore, this is a reason why we should defund the police and have less law enforcement and less...
That we should be less safe, essentially, as a society, because they want to have less law enforcement.
They want to bring more illegal immigrants over the border and engage in policies that also kind of destabilize what it means to be a sovereign nation.
And kind of just the everyday cultural issues.
I mean, I know you know, we all know that the LGBTQIA +, has become a big part of their platform.
It's like trans mania everywhere.
And these are, to me, very extreme policies that are being adopted by the Democrats and embraced by the Democrats.
And whether they mean what they say...
Probably not.
And I think it is all kind of a ploy to destabilize everything so that they can come in and attain more power.
But I still believe that the party has become much more extreme in an effort to get to their end, which is to acquire and attain more power.
So the party, you and I will agree, is utterly extreme.
And I would argue that it is extreme in two ways.
There's the actual policy, which is utterly extreme.
At the moment, we have a puppet president who is incompetent, and we are also simultaneously acting in a provocative and belligerent way against our old Cold War nuclear adversary.
You know, in an active war zone, that's insane and highly extreme.
I don't usually say highly extreme because it's redundant, but it's hard to emphasize enough how insane it is for humans to be playing that game with nuclear weapons, any humans.
But it is also extreme in the policy that it advocates for the little people.
But the purpose of that policy for the little people is, think of it this way.
I believe that there is a moment that comes in history.
Actually, there's no shortage of faults with Marx, but Marx is not wrong about the following point.
In a free market economy, you tend to get the evolution of corruption, which tends to concentrate wealth.
And At the point the wealth becomes concentrated, there's a moment that I call the French Revolution moment, where the people who've been shut out of the productivity of their own labor, they come for the people who have hoarded wealth and power.
The elites are aware that that moment comes and they've innovated a new solution and that solution involves convincing a large enough fraction of the public that the people who took their wealth are effectively their peers.
That by pointing to white guys and saying, why do they have more than you have?
Let's transfer that to you, right?
That ploy is designed to keep attention away from elite rent seekers who actually have captured that wealth through many different rackets, whether those rackets are big pharma or the university system.
There are many different rackets that elite rent seekers Have used to capture this wealth and basically pointing people who have a grievance that in the end is legitimate, but pointing them at the wrong people, people who did not do this to them, is a temporary solution to stave off that French Revolution moment.
So I do believe that the entire intersectionality ploy is both foolish, it is communist in nature, but I don't think the people at the top of the party have sympathies with communism, because for one thing, it would involve transferring away their wealth, which they're never going to do.
They're all about hoarding wealth.
So it's an excuse.
And the endgame is obvious, right?
If the blue team succeeds in gaining power and bringing all of these people who feel oppressed based on Race, gender, whatever it is, they will consume each other.
It's inevitable.
But that's not what the party is about.
That's the rank-and-file being sold a story about why they should vote for this, at best, influence-peddling racket, and at worst, the deep state.
Agreed.
I think there are a lot of leaders on the Democrat side, and I think there are a lot of people in media, too, who actually are unaware of what the overall—I look at someone like, say, AOC or The Squad or a number of people in the left-wing media,
and at this point, I think probably the majority of people in the left-wing media— I actually don't even realize at this point that there is a facade.
I think that they've actually bought into the lie.
I don't think AOC realizes that She's a part of the lie.
I think she actually believes what she's saying.
And I think a lot of them, especially in the media, actually now believe the lies that they're telling.
So I think, in a way, it's not even just a matter of that there's a party that's selling a story to the everyday citizen who doesn't really know exactly what they're doing.
I think that a lot of people, even in positions of power at this point, don't even understand that they are a part of the lie.
And they're not getting that they're perpetuating the lie.
I think you're absolutely right about this, and I think AOC is a fascinating case.
So the thing about AOC is she's not a dummy.
This is actually somebody who has skills.
She has ambition.
There are two meanings to me of the term ambition.
One of them is honorable and the other is despicable.
And I guess there's a question in her case about which one it is.
But ultimately, what I want to know in AOC's case is...
If she was, she's a rising star on the basis of this false story of what the blue team is pursuing.
If she understood what she was party to and had the choice to do what she does very well, but on a mission that was actually noble and had a future, Would she do it?
And I don't know the answer in her case.
I do know that Thomas Massey describes having partnered with her.
I can't remember what the issue was, but I do find Thomas Massey to be a fascinating person.
I've now met him and I find him utterly authentic and patriotic and also unusually capable of seeing across large gaps, social gaps.
And so for him to say that actually he's been able to partner with her tells me that maybe she is capable of being awakened.
And I would hope to see it because obviously if she had an awakening like you did or like I have or like so many others, she could be a powerful force for good.
But she would really have to see what it is that she has been partnered with and recognize the full horror of.
you know, that this is not the intersectional story she's been pushing.
This is a dangerous ploy by...
control elites who I don't believe are competent enough to run the system that they aspire to.
I think that they will crash the system we have and discover they're completely incapable of running any alternative.
But AOC would be an interesting, it's an interesting test case.
I don't know what she would do if she saw the whole picture.
It's a super interesting hypothetical and I think my gut tells me that she has enough I think that if she had a sincere and genuine awakening, I don't think that she would look the other way and pretend as though she had not.
I think the problem would be that her success has been built so much on race pandering and that's a really, really tough nut to crack.
You know, it's When people are behind you because you're reinforcing their belief of systemic oppression and that the problems in their life are caused by white America, and then one day you realize, oh my god, I'm actually perpetrating this lie that's causing so many problems.
Very, very difficult, I think, to navigate how you then messaged your base that you got it wrong and that you're shifting course.
Not to mention the fact that you know, as well as I know, and many others know, that when you're vocal about changing your mind, the left is savage and they're relentless and they're unyielding.
And I think someone in her position They would stop at nothing, I think, to destroy her.
Coming up with, you know, manufactured scandals or something.
Yeah, but I'd actually bet on her in that scenario.
Because if you remember, and I'm sure you do, if you remember her ascendancy, she came in as a freshman and was immediately The focus of attention.
That's not normal.
She didn't come up through the ranks.
She was so disproportionately fascinating, I think, that she is capable of sidestepping the normal process.
Now, I do think part of what you said is absolutely certain that if she were to break ranks, what came back at her would be relentless.
But I also think we are existing in a very interesting moment where the blue team is losing its grip on constituencies that have traditionally seen no alternative.
And I'm sure you've watched videos, as I have, of blacks, especially black men, rejecting Kamala and saying they're going to vote for Trump.
So my sense is that's happening.
The The Democratic ploy of real men are voting for Kamala because they're not afraid of women completely backfired.
And so to the extent that lots of constituencies are waking up in numbers that make the Democratic Party unsustainable, it's possible that just as a matter of self-preservation, AOC and maybe some others will have a You know, they will have a look at themselves in the mirror and they'll say, well, what am I going to do now?
And they will realize that the people that they actually resonate with and can speak to are now...
Contrary to what they imagined was possible, gathering under the other banner.
I mean, you were at Rescue the Republic, and we will talk more about that later.
I should make clear that this is a dark horse podcast, not about Rescue the Republic.
But let's talk about the fact of this massive unity movement, both physically gathering in person and watching in huge numbers this Non-ideological, post-partisan, huge tent gathering.
That means something.
And it is that moment.
So, you know, what happens as the blue team, as their ship sinks, who flees and into what lifeboats?
Well, and that's why I was really excited to be a part of the Rescue the Republic event.
And I'm also really excited about what's happening right now because when I started WalkAway again six and a half years ago, it really, again, it almost comes back to the conversation about, well, where are people walking to?
You know, at that time, you know, remember Trump was in office at the time.
He had only been in office for two years, and there was massive excitement behind Trump and MAGA at that time from the people who were pro-Trump and pro-MAGA.
So it did kind of feel like, you know, you walk away from the Democratic Party, you have your journey, and then ultimately you're either just going to find your way over to Trump or you're kind of going to just disengage entirely, which I think some people did.
But again, that was never for me the purpose or the mission of doing this because I think that anything can be corrupted.
You know, MAGA is not perfect.
Trump is not perfect.
And certainly the Republican Party is not perfect.
So I don't even want to be a part necessarily of trying to Build up something else, because in time, that's just going to become corrupted as well.
You know, I'm not really actually even that big of a fan of groups and parties and things like that, because it just once the spotlight gets shifted to something else and it's like, OK, this is the place to be or the thing to do.
Then it just becomes this massive tug of war of who can claw their way to the top and get power and push this one out.
And it's that's just human nature.
But what I like about what's happening right now and I like about the Rescue of the Republic event is that it kind of.
Gave equal emphasis to the many different boxes that a person can align with or find themselves if they want to.
I thought it was really cool that there were people on that stage who probably are not huge Trump enthusiasts, or maybe they're voting for Trump, but they really wanted RFK Jr. or what have you.
And I think that's great.
I think that the more that I can be a part of or walk away can be a part of, not something that's just monumentally MAGA, but that really is putting an emphasis on people thinking for themselves Do your own homework.
Do your own research.
And always explore.
Always seek truth.
And honestly, in my opinion, don't get too behind any party or any movement for the reason that I just said.
It's only a matter of time before just about anything shifts and changes and hopefully it doesn't go as bad as the Democrats have gone.
But...
This is human nature.
And so I think as long as we're always pursuing truth, honesty, good values, I'm behind that.
But I love being a part of something that right now is very diverse.
There's a broad spectrum of opinions and backgrounds, and I love that.
Yeah, I do too, obviously.
And I would point out, you know, sometimes I feel bad about talking about my concerns over on the red side of this race, because I do believe at the end of the day that in this election, there is No choice.
And all of the third-party voting I've done over my adult lifetime, this is not the moment for that.
And in fact, I will make a very strong pitch for doing the obvious standard thing in this case because the danger is so concentrated over with the blue team and we are so close to the precipice.
But I will make one point.
One of the things that always bothered me about MAGA was the last A. And I don't know that this point resonates with people, but it's so important to me, I can't let it go.
The problem is, I've never been embarrassed about being a patriot.
I've always considered myself a liberal patriot, and it's never troubled me the way it troubles other people over on the blue side.
I'm also aware that America was a prototype.
The founders gave us mechanisms for improving it over time.
They knew for certain they were making one error that they couldn't avoid in order to federate the colonies.
And so To my way of thinking, there are two populations that have a unique origin story as Americans, and it is a hobbling origin story.
American blacks and Native Americans.
And my feeling is, because we have never fully successfully integrated these two populations, there's nowhere to go back to.
It's not again.
Make America great, I am right there with you.
That's what America is supposed to do.
Make America Great again suggests that we've been there and we need to go back.
And I just think that's nonsense.
So I get it.
It's a good slogan.
You know, it's morning in America again.
It's a revival of that kind of thing.
But at the point that a unity movement arises, and I was obviously very big on unity in 2020.
I started the unity 2020 movement.
At the point that that unity movement actually catalyzes in 2024, and Maha, Make America Healthy Again, shows up on the stage.
Now you have my full attention, because you know what?
America was healthy.
We can talk about when the last moment that was happened to be.
But there's nothing wrong with the concept of making America healthy again.
Anybody who stands in an airport for five minutes and watches the population walk by can detect that there's a problem.
So this movement, I'm completely thrilled that it contains MAGA, but that it is not synonymous with MAGA, that it groups many people, including all of us politically homeless liberals, That is very exciting to me.
And yeah, I don't want it synonymized with the Republican Party.
For one thing, as much as we can say that the Democratic Party is an entirely corrupt entity, That corruption racket, to my mind, started, I don't want to say started, there's always corruption, but really took on its modern form in the Republican Party first.
And then the Clinton, Bill Clinton, brought the Democratic Party into that racket, abandoning labor and cutting them loose.
And those labor voters, I think, are now a huge fraction of what we call MAGA.
These are working class people who've been betrayed by the Democratic Party and are now surprisingly getting a hearing in the Republican Party, which used to be a stingy corporate party that wasn't that interested in labor.
In fact, it was the opposing force.
So that's a that's a story of political realignment that I didn't think I would live to see.
but it's thrilling to be part of it
And it is also, for anyone listening who has not yet escaped their historical bonds and found their way to this new movement, it is delightful to once again be gathering with people Don't really care what color your skin is or what shape your lips are or any of these things.
It's not that those facts disappear.
It's not that we don't want to talk about them when they're relevant, but we don't want that to be what we see when we meet each other.
We actually want to be Americans.
It's what's amazing about this Melting Pot Experiment and to see it reviving after all of these years of race being portrayed as the central question is a huge relief and it's very energizing.
Absolutely true.
Wow, there's so many things you just said that I want to touch on that I'm going to try to organize my thoughts here.
So when I see your point about, you know, make America great again, I guess in my mind, I've always viewed that slogan as somewhat aspirational, which I understand is sort of illogical because you're saying make it again the way it was before.
To me, I Maybe it's about what the definition of great is, because I've never interpreted...
I know that many people on the left think they're saying that, you know, well, America was truly great when, you know, blacks were in their place and Hispanics were in their place and gays were in the closet and, you know, that was...
To me, that's not at all what we're saying.
What we're talking about is a time when there was economic prosperity and a sense of safety and security and I think unification as a country that gave us this feeling of opportunity and patriotism and possibility.
And what we want to do is expand the tent for all people in this country to have that feeling.
And to believe that anything is possible and to want to attain that.
Now, I will say that after becoming a Republican, what I've learned and I did not know before is that it's astonishing, really, how weak Republicans are.
They're not fighters.
They're they're they're very docile.
They're they're very spineless in many circumstances.
And so when I look around at the Republicans, what I see is that they gave up a long time ago on wanting to fight for trying to appeal to to black people or a lot of minorities.
It's getting better.
And I actually would go so far as to say that I would like to believe that walk away has had an impact on Republicans getting better at doing outreach and trying to appeal to these people.
But I feel like there's almost this sense that Republicans feel like, well, we're never going to get the black vote anyway.
These racial minorities have been so indoctrinated at this point to never even consider coming over and joining us.
So what we're doing basically is marketing what we're trying to do to the idea of American potential and greatness.
And, you know, and if these people, if these racial minorities don't want to hear our message because they feel like, you know, they would never consider being a part of what we're doing, that's too bad.
But we're still going to, you know, charge forward with this ideal that we want to make America great again the way that it used to be.
And it's there for everybody.
But if you want to take it, great.
If you don't, great.
The problem is that they don't do that outreach.
They don't do that marketing.
And so, you know, these groups are constantly, I think, being marketed to by the left wing media saying that that slogan means that they want to take America back to a time where you were disenfranchised.
And I don't think that that's true.
Um, and.
And there was a third point that I wanted to make, but I guess I'll leave it there for the moment, that to me, I know it's not totally logical, but that slogan to me is sort of aspirational.
And I like the aspiration that's behind it.
I believe in that.
I just think that Republicans are really lousy at marketing, and they're even worse at doing outreach.
Yeah, I mean, I think we're somewhere new and different, and sufficiently so that all of that needs to be reinvestigated.
I think my point is right, that America has done a pretty good job with minorities in general.
It's never been fair, but it's always been within reach.
And for the two populations that I point to, Indians and American blacks, this is not exactly the case.
And I do remember a time When I was a kid, so I grew up in the 70s and 80s.
When I was a kid, there was a period in which Cadillacs were proliferating.
Black people valued Cadillacs as a symbol that they had made it somewhere.
And so they became very common.
And then I remember, I'm not sure that they became more common, but black folks driving Cadillacs was a thing.
And I remember a period, I guess it would have been in the 80s and 90s, where you started to see those Cadillacs rusting, right?
That they hadn't been replaced.
There was a moment in which there was economic ascendancy, and then it stalled.
So anyway...
I guess, all right, maybe I'm going to found something right here now.
Let's call it the Leave No Americans Behind movement, right?
My feeling is there's nothing wrong with America fundamentally because America was designed as a prototype that would be upgraded over time to fix its defects, and I'm thrilled to return to that process.
That's what we should be doing.
I don't think there's a place we can go back to that was great, but I think the trajectory we were on was actually great that I can sign up for.
But personally, I will not be ready to accept where we are until every American is included.
I don't want to include immigrants who don't want to be Americans.
I think it's insane that we allow anybody who doesn't want to be an American over the border with no sense of when they're leaving.
But I do think we have Americans that we have to take care of, large numbers of them, and that they have to be part of the plan.
But to your second point, you see Republicans as hopeless about appealing to, let's say, black voters.
I think that has traditionally been true.
I don't think that's true at this moment.
For one thing, I think Blacks are in the process of being betrayed by the Democratic Party, and so we have lots of Black voices that articulate the case very well.
We have Glenn Lowry.
We have Thomas Sowell.
We have no shortage.
We have John Wood Jr., Bob Woodson.
There's a deep bench of blacks making the case that that thing over on the blue side is not actually your friend.
And that there is no shame in switching sides.
And I think it's working.
So I would say there's a difference between not knowing how to communicate to a population that has not traditionally been a part of your coalition and not caring about them.
And again, I'm not really talking about the Republican Party, but I would encourage anybody who feels that they've been betrayed by the Democratic Party to join the unity movement.
And the thing about the unity movement is it's actually a strategic play.
The idea is we exist.
We know how to talk to each other.
We've come to understand the values that we share.
You know, the intersection of our values describes a plan for America.
And it is on offer.
If the Republican Party wants to embrace a plan that unites people across racial lines, across ideological lines, across economic lines, if it wants to embrace that plan, then it becomes a new party.
And it's not the first time that this has happened.
Right?
The unity movement is there for anyone to join it.
And by joining it, you are not joining some corruptible party that will be overwhelmed by lobbyists.
You are joining a grassroots, and it's truly grassroots, movement of people who say, you know what?
We're not going to be divided over These issues that are the foundation of the American experiment, we may be divided over small things, but until the big things get addressed and stabilized, there's nothing to fight over, right?
We have no reason to have animosity towards each other because the people who are tormenting us and plotting to tyrannize us, they're not even in conversation with us.
Yeah, well, and I would say, too, it's not that I ever thought that the Republican Party doesn't care about these people.
But I think even to your point right now about this awakening that's happening, and yes, it's very real.
And I would even, again, I would assert that, you know, starting six and a half years ago, we have had...
Hundreds, maybe thousands, of Black people make their walkaway videos and walkaway stories, because that's at the heart and soul that we're a testimonial campaign.
And so this is happening.
I think what bothers me is that it's not happening as a result of anything that the Republican Party actually did, organically or any effort or outreach.
It's like...
They're benefiting from this thing that's happening, but I don't think that they caused it or created it.
If we had another couple of hours, maybe we could get into how I think that they actually really, in many ways, disenfranchised their own most effective grassroots activists and organizations that benefit them.
They're happy to yield the results, but not actually happy to Treat very well the people in their movement who are actually causing those results or doing that work and that outreach.
But nonetheless, it is a good and positive thing, I think, that's happening.
And I think the other thing that's great about the unity movement is that when you have two sides that are at odds with each other, For instance, for the last six and a half years, I've traveled the country doing marches, rallies, debates, town halls with WalkAway.
And many times, I've had people of all races, genders, and backgrounds in my face, screaming at me, calling me a racist, calling me a Nazi, calling me a bigot, calling me all these things.
And obviously, that type of rhetoric, I just shut down.
And I have no desire at that point to try to reach an understanding with that person, especially if that person is unrelenting about that.
But I think what's great about something like the unity movement...
Is that maybe you've got people who are not totally behind Trump.
Maybe they're really behind RFK Jr.
or wherever they align.
But there's not this hostility and contempt and animosity.
And that I actually feel like I can sit down and talk with somebody with a different opinion and a different background and learn something and have that openness between us.
So many people in the MAGA movement right now are learning so much about what it means when the RFK Jr.
base says, make America healthy again.
And I'm one of them.
I don't know that much today about Why RFK Jr.
and his base are so much about the healthcare industry and what's going on with America and our food.
But I'm very interested in it, and I want to learn more about it.
And I think a lot of people in MAGA feel that same way.
They're like, wow, we have a lot to learn on this subject.
The problem is it's been such a long time that an opposing group hasn't treated us like we're Hitler worshipers, that it's kind of like this new thing that, wow, we can actually sit down with people with opposing views or different views and have a civil dialogue and learn something from one another.
And I think that's really inspiring.
Oh, it's beyond inspiring.
I used to say this thing about why the modern West, which I take to have started with the American founders, was so contagious as an idea.
And what I used to argue is that When the idea of the West is a level playing field in which you don't prioritize people's origin, you just partner with people who bring something to the table that makes them worth partnering with,
and that that creates a huge economic boom because often the best people to partner with are not from your racial group, and so it just makes for a system that discovers more faster and updates it and upgrades it more effectively.
But along with that, once you start putting aside people's demographic markers, it's a gift.
It's like giving yourself a huge raise.
Not only are you not paying the price of your bigotry and suspecting people because they come from different places or circumstances, but you're also in a marvelous position to Enjoy the benefits of all of the different cultural elements that those people have in their background.
And so I draw a distinction between the multicultural portrait portrayed by the left and the cosmopolitan portrait that was America as it got over all of its forms of bigotry.
The fact is, if you join that cosmopolitan world, it's just a much nicer place to live.
It's fairer, it's safer, it's more fascinating.
And so anyway, that feeling doesn't exist in the U.S. as a whole at the moment.
We're very much on edge about issues of race and sex and gender and all of that.
But in the Unity movement, you can experience it right now.
You join with people in the Unity movement, and you have all kinds of conversations with people.
You know, I'm having marvelous conversations with people who have deep religious faith.
They know damn well I'm an atheist.
The equivalent of an atheist and I'm an evolutionary biologist.
We have marvelous conversations.
There's no tension between us.
I'm having conversations with people from every conceivable racial group, you know, including their trans people in the movement, people who do not want to be bigoted towards others.
Are finding this huge tent that's been pitched, and it feels good to be there.
That's really the key thing people need to understand.
It's not that you should join this because, you know, because it's right.
I mean, that is a good reason to join it, but you should join it because, frankly, it's where you want to be.
It's where the people who aren't going to look at you askance because of your skin color are, and isn't that what you signed up for anyway?
Sorry, again, to load you up with stuff all at once.
But I see you doing the same thing on the red side that you're doing on the blue side.
And I believe drawing the same distinction in the Republican Party is important.
The Democratic Party consists of a power structure.
And a rank and file, right?
The Republican Party does too.
And the Republican Party's power structure hasn't suddenly given up on corruption.
It's still heavily pushed by lobbyists into doing things that aren't in the interest of the American public.
But the rank and file is swelling with all of these people who are now in a position to make demands of that party.
And so I don't really want to see anybody signed up in any obligate way for any part.
I want people saying, hey, here are our American values.
If you want to cater to them, we're all ears.
If you're going to betray us, we want nothing to do with you.
And so the unity movement, even MAGA as a separate entity than the Republican Party, because at some level MAGA is a Trump phenomenon.
Trump decapitated the Republican Party, which the Republican Party did not like one bit.
Right.
It happened because they didn't have a choice.
This was too powerful a political force.
And so he's brought the labor movement that was abandoned by the Democrats under the Republican banner.
but they're not Republicans inherently.
So anyway, I do think that there's a deafness, as you point to, at the top of the Republican Party, and that deafness needs to be dealt with.
But in terms of the rank and file, this seems to be where all of the life is.
And I believe that that rank and file unity movement ought to be very careful not to sign up for a jersey.
Don't sign up for the party.
Sign up for the values that we agree on and then make sure that any party that gets your vote is adhering to those values.
That's the way to be a powerful force in American politics.
And frankly, it's a powerful enough force to right the ship and put it back on course.
Yeah, well, and I would say, too, that a lot of what I've seen in the last four years since the 2020 election is a lot of people realizing that they need to be involved in local government.
And I'll be the first to say, you know, it's not terribly sexy.
It lacks, you know, a real universal appeal, and I get that.
But I think...
One of the biggest mistakes so many people have made for so long is kind of, and this really exists on the right, I think it exists on the right much more than it exists on the left, but they're desperately seeking a messiah, somebody who is going to solve all of their problems and fix everything.
They've done it with Trump.
They've done it at different times with me.
They've done it with a number of different people saying like, oh, Thank God for this person.
Thank God for that person.
We don't have to worry about this.
We don't have to worry about all our problems because Trump's going to take care of it.
We don't have to worry about getting people to leave the left because Brandon's going to take care of it.
You know, there's a lot that we can do.
But at the end of the day, people are just people.
And people are flawed.
And people have problems.
Trump is not perfect.
I'm not perfect.
Nobody's perfect.
And I think the best thing to do is stop.
You know, it's great to be excited about MAGA. I think it's great to be excited about Trump or the unity movement, whatever it is that you're excited about.
But the best way that you're going to affect change around you is to get involved as much as you can at whatever level that you can.
And I've watched in the last four years as people who were heavily involved in walkaway, whether it was as volunteers or they used to come and just show up and help participate in our events.
But now I'm hearing from them and saying, well, I ran for my local city council, I ran for my school board, or I ran for my state legislature, whatever.
They're actually getting in there and getting involved.
And I'm starting to see, even for myself, there's a lot more power in local government in many ways than I think there even is in federal government.
And even in the ways that...
You know, I've been targeted or walk away has been targeted.
We've gotten more support at a state level than I ever have gotten at a federal level.
There's a lot of power in local government.
And I think I would encourage people to not just sit around getting excited about groups or organizations or movements that are on the rise.
I think that's great.
But get involved as much as you can in the actual process because I think that is how you're going to really feel like you're a part of real change.
That's a really good point.
It's an interesting one because...
I'm struggling a little bit for something I believe about why the federal level is particularly constrained.
But there is power at the local level.
The local level, it's not uncorrupt, but it's less corrupt and it's easier to put it back on track.
Then there's this new level.
The international level has become a battleground.
Things like the World Health Organization, which has traditionally been effectively a trade group disguised as an international governmental entity.
Which has now been imbued or the attempt has been made to imbue it with supranational powers that override national sovereignty.
We derailed that effort largely.
I would say 95% we derailed that effort as the World Health Organization was gearing up to grant itself these incredible powers.
The attempt is now being made to take exactly the powers that the World Health Organization was forced to abandon and put them into a UN framework.
But effectively, what you have is the national level in the US, the federal level has been thoroughly captured and it has been repurposed.
The checks and balances have been broken.
And the executive branch has been made powerful in a way that the founders never would have tolerated.
And people don't realize this.
And I think it's part of the reason that Trump is so terrifying to the people who control the blue team, right?
They have reasons that they tell the little people to be afraid of Trump.
But the real thing that they fear is that they Put powers into the American executive branch that they never imagined would fall into the hands of anybody they hadn't chosen.
So Donald Trump broke into the system.
He decapitated the Republican Party.
Who knew that that could be done?
And he ascended to the office.
And suddenly he has the powers of an emperor because under the theory of the unitary executive, the presidency was given the powers of an emperor in the aftermath of 9-11.
So here they had this person that they didn't control who suddenly had powers literally to lock people up at will.
He didn't do it, right?
That speaks well of him.
But he had those powers because they loaded those powers into the office.
So anyway, this all goes back to your point about local involvement matters a great deal.
Paying attention to the international level now matters in a way that it never did before.
And what we do about the thoroughly corrupted federal level is the sticky wicket, in my opinion.
Yeah.
Well, it's going to require, I think, a lot of work.
But, you know, WalkAway was savagely targeted, always, but particularly post-J6. And, I mean, we just really couldn't get any support whatsoever from anybody at a federal level.
And I wish I had understood at the time that it originally happened.
It began in January of 2021, but Facebook banned our group with no explanation, with no option for recourse.
And they banned every single person who was an admin of the group just for being associated with the group.
And then we started getting banned from all of these big tech platforms and literally no explanation whatsoever.
And for a while, we just kind of took it and then did what we could to rebuild the I mean, it was a very difficult time.
But anyway, the point is that it took years later before I began to realize the powers that exist at a state level.
And it's a good lesson, I guess, for I want people out there to know that because I didn't know it.
But, you know, you can talk to your attorney generals or attorneys general or state representatives, and a lot of them have subpoena powers to actually go after corporations, which is what we're doing right now.
We have the attorney general in my state involved in my case.
Now, we're actually going after Facebook and a number of big tech corporations for what they did to us.
And we very likely will be subpoenaing Facebook and a number of other organizations soon to get answers about why they did to us what they did to us.
But this is all powers that exist within your state government.
And that we're actually getting results this way in a way that we never did when we were actually trying to, at a federal level.
You know, I know a lot of congresspeople.
You know, I have their phone numbers.
I have their email addresses.
And it's like when you contact them, they're just like, I don't know what you expect me to do.
But if you actually go to people within your own local government, you can actually, many times, actually get support, get results.
And they have more power than I think people realize.
Yeah.
So I have also experienced the targeting.
There's a lot of cryptic targeting, but then there's some very overt stuff.
Unity 2020 was thrown off of Twitter.
Our account was deactivated.
Under false pretenses, this is original Twitter, obviously in 2020, long before Musk had purchased it and turned it into X. But Unity 2020 was thrown off the platform for, well, they said for engaging in inauthentic behavior, which they argued was the use of bots, which we never did.
We ran an internal investigation.
Not only did we never do it, but nobody under our banner did either.
So anyway, they locked us out in the middle of that very contentious election, obviously because we had violated a sacred unspoken oath not to challenge the blue power structure.
So anyway, this is obviously illegitimate, antithetical to the values that we as Americans share.
We're supposed to be able to discuss whatever we want.
We're supposed to be able to field candidates if we're not satisfied with the ones that are being offered by the parties.
The parties are not a feature of our Constitution.
We're allowed, as Americans, to do whatever we want.
But Facebook doesn't think so.
The old Twitter didn't think so.
So anyway, that's a very troubling fact and one that has to be addressed In our upgrade of the Republic.
You mentioned January 6th, and I wanted to talk to you about this, because you have a January 6th story.
Obviously, January 6th is a fraught story.
idea across the political spectrum and let's talk about you and what happened to you and what you and I think about this in retrospect.
So you want to tell your story?
Sure.
So essentially I was invited to be a speaker at a scheduled event on January 6th.
Now there's a lot of things I'm going to tell you today that I'm just going to assume that your audience doesn't know some of these things because most people don't.
Hey folks, to hear the rest of this conversation, head on over to the Dark Horse Locals community.
You can find the link in the description to access the full version of this podcast where Brandon Strock shares his January 6th story and you'll hear my opinion on what he experienced since that day as well as what it means for our country moving forward.
If you haven't joined yet, The Dark Horse Podcast Locals community is a space to share ideas with Dark Horse fans and Dark Horses from around the globe.
For just $7 a month, or $70 a year, our supporters get access to monthly exclusive Q&A live streams, the Dark Horse Discord server, podcast release early, and it's the only place that features a live chat during all public streams.
We've been demonetized, censored, and slandered countless times over the last few years.
Your support is what enables us to keep the lights on and the show running.
Thank you for joining us over on Locals.
Alright, well, Brandon Strzok, this has been a very interesting conversation.
I think lots of people are going to benefit from hearing two people who find themselves unable to stomach the current form of the political party that they have belonged to.
They will no doubt find their own path, but it is very important not to hold on to a nostalgic view of a party that is now clearly beyond the pale.
It is, in my opinion, unrescuable.
But in any case, in its current form, what it is advocating for, both at the level of the rationales which undoubtedly exist behind the scenes and the rationalizations that it presents to the public, those things are un-American.
And it is in no way political to notice that.
Couldn't agree more.
And I guess I would add to that point just to...
Always have an open heart.
Always have an open mind.
Always seek more truth.
Always make, I think, the center of your political journey, the pursuit of finding answers and finding truth.
And don't jump out of one boiling pot and into another boiling pot.
I don't think it's about groups.
I don't think it's necessarily about movements or parties.
I think it's just about always seeking the truth and having an open heart and an open mind.
And the willingness to have civil discourse and dialogue and to learn from people and to impart wisdom to people and do it in a respectful way.
I think that should be the cornerstone of what American politics is all about.
I agree.
And that's happening right now in the unity movement, as you and I have both experienced.
So where can people find you?
Well, I'm on every social media platform, X, YouTube, Facebook, but I'd highly encourage, I'm sure you have a lot of people in your audience maybe who are, you know, those people leaving the left or, you know, feeling pushed to the center by the left.
If any of them out there are interested in making a walkway video and sharing their stories, we would love to have them.
Facebook did ban our original group, which had grown to over half a million, but we have a new group now.
We're We just launched it a few months ago, so we're still building.
But they can join the hashtag walkawaycampaigngroup on Facebook.
Please join and share your stories.
And share your stories on X, too.
Make a video.
Use that walkaway hashtag.
Share your story.
And join the Facebook group.
We also have an app.
Walkaway Social, if people want to join our app.
But speak out, you guys.
I mean, that's the most important thing.
If you're feeling pushed away by the left or if you're having an awakening or changing your mind, don't keep it to yourself.
Because when you share your story, you inspire other people to also walk away and to also share their own stories.
So please make a video or a written testimonial and share it in the Walkaway group.
We'd love to have it.
Great.
All right.
Brandon Strzok, thanks so much for joining me on Dark Horse.
