How a spiritual awakening on a Birmingham football team turned hatred into love

Movie director Jon Erwin joined Glenn on radio Monday, to share some details about the new movie, Woodlawn, which will premiere on 8/28 in Birmingham as part of Glenn's Restoring Unity event.

"It's a story of a high school that was going to close from violence due to integration. 1973 Birmingham, my home town," Erwin said. "And nothing could fix the problem. Nothing could fix the hatred. You know, policy couldn't fix it. Police. And it was a spiritual awakening that happened on the football team. The entire team decided to make a decision together to love God and love each other."

Watch the Woodlawn trailer below.

Erwin also shared a few details about preparations now being made for the Restoring Unity march and stadium events.

"We have some surprises. We have a blimp that's going to be there to display Never Again Is Now. We'll do a lot of cool things," he said.

Watch the following clip of the segment or read the full transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Welcome back to the program. We have Jon Erwin with us. He is the director of Woodlawn which is this great new movie coming out in October. And we're actually doing the premiere of it on Saturday night. The world premiere is going to be in Birmingham, Alabama, because it is a story that happened in Birmingham, Alabama. Tell me the story, Jon.

JON: Oh, Woodlawn is incredible. I mean, it's timely. It's a story of a high school that was going to close from violence due to integration. 1973 Birmingham, my home town. And nothing could fix the problem. Nothing could fix the hatred. You know, policy couldn't fix it. Police. And it was a spiritual awakening that happened on the football team. The entire team decided to make a decision together to love God and love each other.

GLENN: And this happened -- the guy in the movie who plays it is Sean Astin. And you know Sean Astin, he played Samwise Gamgee in Lord of the Rings. And so he's a big actor. And he just comes in during a program. Who is the real guy?

JON: You know, that's the amazing thing. Sean Astin's character is based in part on my father and one other minister that worked with -- so this is literally a family story that I've heard. My brother and I always wanted to make this into a movie. As we did the research, the story not only met what we had been told as kids, but far exceeded it. And it led to the largest game that's ever been played in Alabama, on a high school level. And it really was the way the city began to heal.

And it led to Birmingham's first African-American superstar, Tony Nathan, that was heavily recruited by Bear Bryant who is played by Jon Voight in the film. So it was a real treat. From Birmingham, as a die-hard Alabama fan, to have Jon Voight played Bear Bryant. And just to tell this story, it puts our city in a really good light. And I feel like it's needed. Because it's a story of love conquering hatred. And a commitment to love each other, you see the blatant effects of it. It's a true story. And I think there couldn't be anything more relevant.

GLENN: I just -- I was reading some of the things on Facebook this weekend. You know, people will say, yeah, Glenn, you know, I hear the love thing. I got it. I got it. I got it. But we need really solutions. And I keep saying in my head and keep saying it out loud, that is a real solution. In fact, that's the only solution. And people just for some reason don't take that one seriously.

JON: It works. That's my point. I love to study what works and find what works. And we need answers, you know. I remember when we were filming the video, you know, we didn't know what was going to happen. We decided to make this film last summer. We didn't know how timely it was going to be. And one of our actors was from Ferguson. And Ferguson was happening as we were shooting the movie. And we said, look, you need to go home. Like, we'll redo the whole schedule. He said, no, this is why we're here making this movie because this is the answer.

And I think, look, thousands of years ago, Christ said, love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. And that is a very real answer that produces very real results. And this is an absolutely true story at a public high school. This is what worked. And if it worked then, maybe it could work now.

GLENN: So we're doing the movie premiere. This is 7 o'clock on Saturday night. The same arena that we're doing the event. Jon Voight is coming. Tell us a little about -- because if we're asking people to come, you can be a part of all this. Who is coming for the movie premiere.

JON: I mean, that's the great thing. You know, my last film was Mom's Night Out. And we did a premiere in LA. And we've never done anything in Birmingham to say thank you to celebrate the city, to celebrate what we've done. And so this will be an incredible event. And I think it just ties so nicely to what you wanted to come to Birmingham to do. We're absolutely unified around your vision and your idea. It was an absolutely natural idea. You meet the cast. There's going to be red carpet. We'll rev up the film. You typically never do a premiere this big. So it's pretty cool. This will be one of the larger premieres that I've ever heard of. And I think it will be a lot of fun and I think it will be great to have your audience and also have Birmingham, get to have a sneak peek at Woodlawn six weeks before it's out in theaters.

GLENN: Tell me a little bit -- because you are actually on the ground. And I come on Thursday to start doing -- start looking at the program and everything else that we have on Saturday. Tell people what we're planning on.

JON: Yeah, yeah. Well, I think that -- first of all, I think that when I heard just of the idea of Restoring Unity, it was something that I had to be a part of. And I think it's time -- it's absolutely time for those of us who believe in the same values to come together and show it. And it's time for a blatant public display of unity. And the fact that you would step forward and do that is incredible.

But I think some of the things that we'll do is just going to be awesome. I mean, the people that are going to be there. We have some surprises. We have a blimp that's going to be there to display never again is now. We'll do a lot of cool things. But we'll march. And that was your vision. And I think that's important. And I think it's timely. And it's something that I have to be a part of and I want to help empower. And then the program that you have, you know, the whole day in taking a break and revving the red carpet and showing people Woodlawn. That night, I think it will just be a blast. And I think anybody that would -- we have to stop complaining. And we have to start taking action. And we have to start taking action together. And we have to start unifying beyond our differences. And I think that Restoring Unity can be a big part of something that can last years. It's more than one event and it's something I'm happy to be a part of.

GLENN: I was in church yesterday. And I was in a men's meeting at church. And one of our -- one of our dear friends and fellow church members has cancer quite horribly just ravaging him. And he's just one of the nicest, most optimistic guys you've ever met. And we were sitting there, and what was nice was, all of us just took action at the time. You know, he was really down. So we just all gathered around him and prayed. And I think that that needs to start happening outside of our churches as well. We just need to not be afraid. And in the South, it's different than it is up North. It's not as unusual in the South. But it's still -- it's still something that people don't do enough. And in the North, they certainly don't. You just don't talk about God.

JON: Yeah. I think we've become more lonely. I think the people that you can call upon in the event of a life crisis has been steadily declining since the '50s. We've gotten so connected. We've gotten so lonely. And I think a lot of us feel that. And I think a lot of us want to see beyond. I mean, we can look all day at the things that divide us and we can let those things separate us, or we can transcend those and look at the things that unite us. And we can champion those together in a very public way, and I think anybody that believes that should come to Birmingham.

GLENN: You're really a great example because you're Southern Baptist. Aren't you?

JON: Yeah. Born and raised.

GLENN: Yeah. I'm LDS. And those two are not supposed to get along. And you came to my ranch when I was on hiatus and told me you wanted to volunteer your services and your team wanted to help produce this. And at one point, we started talking about our faith. And how our faiths are supposed to be at war with each other. We're supposed to disagree with each other. And we do disagree theologically on things. But that doesn't mean we can't work with one another on big things.

JON: That's exactly right. That's the beauty of something like this. I just think today, culturally, we're in this unify or lose territory.

GLENN: We are.

JON: And I feel, are there differences between myself as a Southern Baptist and yourself as a LDS? Of course there are. Is there a time to talk about those differences openly and debate them? Absolutely. But I don't believe that time is today, at least not at the public square. And I think that it's time for evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, our Jewish friends, to take cultural opportunities to unify around what we value. And to do that in a very, very loud way. And I think Birmingham is a chance to do that. And I would just challenge everybody that is listening. If you believe in the same things that we believe in, why are we sitting in this place of inaction on the sidelines? And when someone like you steps up and says, let's do this. Let's do something. I can't sit idly by. And I have to do that. And I've come to deeply respect both your friendship and your -- and your beliefs and I think God is doing a great work in your life as he is in mine. And I'm glad to be able to do something together and make a statement together and I challenge everyone listening to come make that statement with us.

GLENN: I knew that when you were doing Woodlawn and you needed a place to show it here in the Dallas area, and we opened up the movie studio doors immediately to you guys for the same reason because anybody who is on the same path -- you're on the same path, man. Anybody who is trying to make a difference for good, we have to stand together.

JON: That's right. I just think unity is our problem.

GLENN: It is.

JON: And unity is our answer.

GLENN: That's why we're being divided right now. That's why everyone is trying to divide us. Between black and white, rich and poor, Republican/Democrat, North and South. No matter what it is, they're all trying to divide. Because they know, we're not scary if we're divided. If we stand together, that's when we have real power.

JON: Oh, I'm brokenhearted for my culture. I'm brokenhearted for a generation. I'm brokenhearted for what my business of entertainment is doing to a generation. And, you know, in the evangelical church, you know, millennials are leaving faster than before. We're losing an entire generation, and I'm brokenhearted for that. And so anyone that will help take back the microphone to get to a generation --

GLENN: How daunting was it for you to do a movie -- you know, because your idea is, I'm not just going to do a little faith-based movie. I want a blockbuster. You're like, why can't we have a blockbuster?

JON: That's the goal. That's the idea. I think it's time that we stop trying to compete with each other, with other Christian films or other faith-based films. We have to start competing with 50 Shades of Gray and Jurassic World and all these things that get the attention of a generation, not only in America, but worldwide. And I'm asking the question, why can't we? There's enough of us. We have enough resources. I mean, there's enough evangelical wealth in Dallas, Texas, to change the world ten times. We have plenty of money. We just have not had a unified strategy, and we have not had the will. And I believe it's possible to make something a lot bigger.

So, yes, we put together $25 million to do Woodlawn both to make and market. And it seems like a lot of money. But the way I look at it, it's less than half of what 50 Shades of Gray spent to get to a generation, to get the attention of a generation. So we have to ask how much we care. And I'm passionate about making really entertaining movies that people will love. And this is an inspirational sports story that you will love. But I am also passionate about sharing what I believe is true, and ultimately sharing the gospel of Christ with as many people as I can. And movies are an incredible way to do that.

So we're saying is, we have to put the gospel on a bigger stage. We have to put truth on a grand stage. We have to earn a message, not use it as a crutch. If you haven't been to the studios, you get creative just walking in the door. So that's why I wanted to bring some of the top leaders in America here because it's a great tangible manifestation of truth, but with scale and with excellence. You know, it's a great place. So I was happy to come here and it was incredibly effective. And it's just a great friendship that built.

GLENN: This is Jon Erwin. His new movie is Woodlawn. It opens up in October. We'll tell you more about it when we get closer to October. But they're premiering it with all the stars, including Jon Voight Saturday in Birmingham at our event. And it's kind of a way to cap the night off and say thank you to everybody. And we want you to come. You can find out more about it. Just go to now.mercuryone.org. Now.mercuryone.org.

Jon, thank you very much.

JON: Oh, thanks for having me.

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.