The Undocumented Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn is one of the smartest commentators around today, and Glenn had the opportunity to chat with him about his new book on radio today. Mark believes the battleground needs to be in culture, arguing liberals focus their efforts there while conservatives only care about an election every other November and are surprised nothing changes.

WATCH:

Below is a rough transcript of the interview

GLENN: My opinion there are probably two people that come really right off the top of my head that I think have been some of the most courageous people when it comes to the fight against radicalized Islam that have been mainstream for a long time early on. And that is Michelle Malkin and Mark Steyn. They've been very clear, unafraid and have really been persecuted for their viewpoint. If I'm not mistaken, mark, his Canadian citizenship was prosecuted for hate speech because he spoke out years ago about radicalized Islam and he said, warning this is a real problem. Now, in his own country, we are all Canadians today. Now, in his own country, two people were shot. Canadian parliament is meeting now and at least their prime minister has come out and said, this is terrorism. None of this, mumbo, jumbo and political correct crap that is coming out of the mouth of our politicians. They're somewhat clear that this is Muslim -- I don't want to say extremism. This is Islamic psychopaths that have done this. And Mark Steyn is with us today. He has the book, The Undocumented. Mark Steyn. Don't say you weren't warned. How accurate is that, don't say you weren't warned, Mark?

MARK: Yeah, that's sadly true. It doesn't give me any pleasure. I know the Canadian parliament really well. At the time of the hate speech stuff that you mentioned just now, I testified there to the House of Commons in that block where that barbarian was rampaging down yesterday morning and where, thank God, he was taken out by the sergeant of arms, who is basically a ceremonial figure. It's what a military man or a retired police officer does in the years before he goes off to enjoy his pension. And thank God that that brave guy realized that his ceremonial role had turned real and took down that savage yesterday because otherwise there would have been a lot more dead people.

GLENN: So, Mark, there's two things here. They're doing a moment of silence now in Ottawa. There's live coverage everywhere. Canada is somewhat in a state of shock. I have to say we were all going numb to some of this stuff which is a really bad sign. But there's two things that come to mind. There's two paths. We're at a fork for Canada right now. They could go the Patriot Act way and beat their chest and start to, you know, go unfortunately some of the ways that we went. Or they could just sober up, wake up, get rid of political correctness and actually start dealing with the issues. Which way do they go?

MARK: I hope they don't go the Patriot Act way. I love America, but I'm tired of the big national security state, which is why Capitol city-wise I preferred in recent years to wander around Ottawa rather than Washington, D.C. where they get into the -- an obscure office of the department of paperwork. You have to go through 45 minutes of background checks and show your Social Security number.

We have a kind of 40-car motorcade culture, where we seal off our ruling class from the people they rule. We have absurd regulations like the -- just the head of Thanksgiving, I talk about this in the book, the absurd kind of things. The consistency of pumpkin pie you take home for Auntie Mabel at Thanksgiving. If it's like dry and tasteless like the Nevada desert, you can take it on the plane. But if it's moist and succulent, it counts as a liquid. And a jihadist could weaponize your pumpkin pie.

And instead of going down that kind of big security state route, I think we need to be honest. We need to recognize we're up against an ideology. We're not fighting pumpkin pies. We're not fighting gel. We're not fighting shoes. We're up against an ideology, and we need to drive a stake through that ideology. So I don't want to go the Patriot Act route.

GLENN: But do you think they have the courage to do that? Look what they did to you.

MARK: Yes, but to be fair to the Canadian parliament, they had a lot of these hate speech laws -- I mean, if you look at Canada as like a particularly insane American college campus, that's how it was for hate speech laws.

And the great thing about my case is that, God bless them, the Canadian parliament understood that the hate speech laws had gone too far, and they repealed them. And it was a difficult process, and a lot of those fellows weren't on board with it because they think it means you're in favor of hate and you don't like the people, but eventually that went through the House of Commons and the Senate, and it got royal assent, and that law was repealed. And I think that's the sign that Canada has opened up and recognized reality.

When I look at the dishonesty about what Major Hasan did at Fort Hood. When I listen to the president yesterday using phrases like "senseless violence" -- I mean, he always sounds so sedated when he's asked to react to something like this. And you keep thinking, come on, man, a bit of righteous indignation wouldn't -- you could at least look as if you're kind of upset or angry about what's going on. But he could never do it.

And that kind of sedated attitude to these events, most obviously when the poor fellow had his head chopped off by ISIS, and Obama gives his usual listless performance and then goes back to the vineyard country club about 20 minutes later, at some point, you have to -- if you're not getting angry about this, about the world we're building for our children, where somehow we're expected to put up with a little bit of low-level beheading every now and then, or some guy is going to run you over in his car because he's gone freelance jihad -- I don't want my kids living in that world. And I think we shouldn't be changing the way we live to accommodate lunatics.

GLENN: So what are we headed for? We have kids now in Australia. Kids leaving to go join ISIS. We had two girls from Colorado that went to join jihad. Where are we headed?

MARK: You know, I think it's like -- I think that's what's so disturbing about a lot of what has been in the news recently. The fellows who did this thing in Ottawa and San Jon Sarish (phonetic) there, where people who were born in Canada and converted to Islam. The fellow in Moore, Oklahoma, who beheaded a woman was a recent convert. The fellows that hacked drummer Rigby to death in the streets of London were Nigerian Christians who converted to Islam.

So it is almost -- I think we're at the stage -- and they're not converting because they suddenly saw on the road to Damascus, and they've come -- and they've undergone some kind of spiritual divine transformation.

What conversion means there is that they're joining the coolest gang on the planet. And if it's now not something to do with being born in Waziristan or Yemen or whatever, but a Quebec quire Catholic can suddenly decide he'd like to be one of the jihad boys, or some fellow in Oklahoma can suddenly decide, wow, this is the coolest gang to belong to, then I think that is actually far more dangerous than some fellow sitting in a cave in Afghanistan dreaming about destroying the great Satan because it's not a foreign war anymore. It's within us. They are us and we are them. And that's a very dark place to go.

GLENN: So what happens next? Let's talk about nuts and bolts. Let's talk about the sporting event that is politics and the election. Okay. So I want to know a couple things. What happens, in your opinion to this election? Does it -- and does it even matter? What happens to the presidential election? And would you want to be president of the United States with all the damage that has been done and the wreckage that has yet to be reconciled?

MARK: Well, that last one is a terrible -- we're approaching the stage where this president has outspent two and a third centuries of his -- he's run up more debt than two and a third centuries of presidents combined. And whoever succeeds him is going to have to be serious about the implications of that.

I've listened to you for years. And you're absolutely right that -- when the choice is between people who want to go off a cliff full-throttle and somebody else who says, no, let's go off the cliff in third gear, that doesn't make any difference to how you land when you're at the bottom. You're still dead.

And I would like a real choice, and I would like someone who is willing to move the meter. At the end of my book, I write about a couple of contemporary figures and a far more remote one. About Reagan, Thatcher, and William Wilberforce who was an obscure backbencher who got slavery abolished, which was a feature of life across the entire planet for all societies. And they didn't take a focus group. And they didn't run the numbers. They actually changed the way people thought. And they move -- they didn't move toward the center, as the consultants tell you to do, they moved the center toward them. And that's what I'm looking for. So that's what I'm looking for this November, and that's what I'm looking for in two November's time.

GLENN: Have you seen that? Have you seen William Wilber? Paging William Wilber for us. Paging William Wilber for us. To the campaign trail. Stat.

MARK: No, I have a great fear that the -- the smart guys in Washington would say, he's way too crazy. We don't want the money going to him.

GLENN: Right. So let me ask you this: First of all, you're a Canadian citizen.

MARK: Right. And I live in New Hampshire, and this is where my children are.

GLENN: All right. All right. This is all a beard. Okay. This New Hampshire thing is a beard. The Canadian thing is a beard. What's with the English accent, Mr. Canadian? You carpetbagger.

MARK: I love the people who is it's a phony accent. It's like hell to keep up.

GLENN: We meet you in the street at night and you're like, hey, how you doing?

PAT: You actually attended the same school as JRR Tolkien.

MARK: Yeah, that's right. I had his old Greek dictionary. I wasn't the same time as him. Because I would have told him, lay off all that troll stuff. It's not going to go anywhere. I had his old Greek dictionary, and I actually had an exchange of letters with him when I was 11 or 12 years old. The best selling authors I regret to say aren't always when you send them handwritten letters, and so I went to school --

GLENN: So funny, I just went through his handwritten letters. I have a library. And so we're collecting a lot of stuff. And I just went through some handwritten letters. One is explaining about Gandalf and why he named him Gandalf and everything. Some amazing stuff. I was going through these letters and some of them were just to fans who said, hey, I want to thank you for this. What he would write back to them. I had that very thought. Who does that now? Who has the time to write people back in hand, not typewritten. What did he write to you.

MARK: I know. Well, he wrote to me again about an obscure point in The Hobbit I had raised. And he wrote me a nice handwritten letter explaining that. And the idea. And as you say, who has the time to do that now? And these days people get annoyed if you, you know, if you email someone or you tweet someone and they don't instantly respond in five, six, seven seconds.

And the idea of someone painstakingly writing this out in hand. And putting it in an envelope. Putting a stamp on it and taking it to the post office to mail. It's like, he doesn't need me, and yet he did it for me.

GLENN: Do you still have the letter?

MARK: Yeah, I have it in the attic at my mum's house, but it's still there.

GLENN: Say it with me. Mom.

SPEAKER: It creeps across the border.

GLENN: Don't worry. Don't worry. We've got everything creeping across our borders. We don't seem to care anymore. It's very hard for me to watch a James Bond with my son because he's like, is she his mom? Why does he keep calling her mum? I'm like, I don't know. Mum sometimes means mom. Sometimes it means ma'am. I don't know. They're English.

MARK: Yes, it's like the queen you call, ma'am. Which rhymes with jam. And James Bond calls M halfway between -- he calls Judi Dench halfway between ma'am and mum. So she's like a maternal queenly figure.

Actually, in the book, there's a whole big chunk of stuff about James Bond, so you can get your full thing of Ian Fleming and ma'am/jam thing going there?

GLENN: Mark, I don't know why you're not on more. I thoroughly enjoy you. You're really truly one of the bravest men alive today because you will not shut up or sit down. I hope that continues. New book: The Undocumented. Mark Steyn. Don't say you weren't warned. Mark, thanks a lot.

MARK: Thanks a lot, Glenn. And I may yet cover have a Ramahanukwanzmas. As life goes on, I think it's actually one of the most profound statements of what has happened to us.

GLENN: You know, I have not heard Ramahanukwanzmas for a long time. I can't believe you even remember that. But we should pull that out for this Christmas.

MARK: We've got it all worked out.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. God bless.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.