Richard Paul Evans joins Glenn to discuss 'Michael Vey: Storm of Lightning' the 5th book in the mega-popular series

On radio Tuesday, Glenn shared the story of how he first partnered with bestselling author Richard Paul Evans to publish the now wildly popular Michael Vey series. About five years ago, Glenn said he was looking for a way to reach the youth and at the same time, Evans was trying to find a publisher that didn't insist on "dumbing down" the story of Michael Vey.

"It's intriguing that a lot of your listeners will say, 'well, that's the guy who wrote The Christmas Box. He writes adult novels and romantic stories.' And the most complex thing I write is actually Michael Vey by far," Evans said.

Glenn said one of the things he finds amazing about the young adult series is that it subtly weaves in messages without the reader knowing it.

"My son, he loves to read," Glenn said. "And there's not a lot that he reads that is young fiction or ones that have a message to them, you know what I mean? He doesn't like message books at all. And this is one that he waits on every year."

Listen to the interview or read the full transcript below.

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

GLENN: Richard Paul Evans is a dear friend of mine, and he's sold more books -- I mean, I think God has sold more books than Richard, but it might be close. And now he has started five books ago, the Michael Vey series, which is a young adult series that is absolutely fantastic. Really, truly fantastic. If you don't know the story, let me just tell you real quickly. This is six years ago, five years ago. We are just starting to get our own imprint at Mercury, Inc. from Simon & Schuster.

And Michael calls my head guy and he says -- or, not Michael. Richard calls and says, "I've written something. And all the publishers are saying that we need to dumb it down." And I was just in a meeting saying, "We need to reach the youth. Somehow or another, we need to start reaching the youth. And we need to not dumb things down." And he said, "Would you guys read it?" And we read it, and I absolutely love it. And now it has become a summer event. This is the first year that I haven't had the advance to be able to read it in advance with my son. And I just got it a couple of weeks ago. And we're in the midst of finishing another book. So I start probably tomorrow or the next day on Michael Vey, "Storm of Lightning." This has really caught storm all around the country and the world, this series.

RICHARD: Yeah, the world. The world. Sometimes I see these books, I don't know what language they're in. What is this, Hungarian? You know, Polish? I have one fan in Poland who is incredible. He almost stalks me. His life is Michael Vey. And I heard from a woman in Paris who said, "It's the only books my son will read. Please write faster."

GLENN: Oh, I know. They're great. My son, he loves to read. And there's not a lot that he reads that is young fiction or ones that have a message to them, you know what I mean? He doesn't like message books at all. And this is one that he waits on every year. And I just -- I got it a couple weeks ago and I said, "Look what just came in." And he was thrilled. Pat feels the same way.

PAT: Oh, jeez. Yeah. I like to wait awhile to read them. Because then I get so pissed off that I have to wait until next summer for the next one to come out. Because you get so excited for the next release. So, yes, please write them faster.

GLENN: Tell me about this one.

RICHARD: This one takes off where number four left. They think their families have all been killed. So they're headed back to a ranch. And it was fun because, spoiler alert, the ranch actually was in Mexico. So I always travel to where the book takes place. So I went down there. That's actually where my ancestors came from, they came from these families that went down as immigrants who were kicked out by Pancho Villa. So I followed them back. And I got to follow my own family's footsteps in it, so it was really cool.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So they -- the -- I hate to say this because it's very subtle, but you're learning lessons all the way through it. And this one in particular tries to teach the lesson without being a lesson book, about how kings hold on to their power.

RICHARD: Yeah, it's very -- there's some interesting political overtures. It's intriguing that a lot of your listeners will say, "Well, that's the guy who wrote the Christmas box. He writes adult novels and romantic stories." And the most complex thing I write is actually Michael Vey by far.

And there's a part in here where Dr. Hatch, who is the villain, he's teaching one of his kids -- one of this youth that he's raised in his way, how to be a king. So he gives him a small country, the Tuvalu, to be a king of and to be a king over. And he said, "Well, this is how you keep them from usurping power. You keep them at odds with each other." And he tells him how to do it. How to teach entitlement. How to teach that they're all victims. He goes, "But what if they're not victims?"

"Oh, everyone is a victim, if you look back far enough."

And so he teaches him how to make sure everyone is a victim so they can't work together and he can control them.

GLENN: The last one -- was it the last one when they were in China?

RICHARD: Yes. Taiwan.

GLENN: Taiwan. You go over and you write them while you're there?

RICHARD: Yes. You have to be in the place because how else can you describe swamp eel soup?

GLENN: Yes. All I know is I will never eat that. After reading it, we were --

RICHARD: I kind of threw up in my mouth just even -- I still get sick thinking about it. It was the worst thing that ever crossed my lips.

STU: Well, can you explain it just a little bit?

RICHARD: It's like getting -- well, first of all, these are things that are in the swamp. So it's like a rat -- it's like a swimming rat that looks like a belt. And he brought it out. And he said -- he brought it out. I'm trying not to -- I'm pretty tolerant. But it's like, "Oh, I don't know if I can do that." And then he brings out mine, he goes, "I put some extra special yellow mucous on top of it." Like, oh, no. And my daughter looks at me, and she's like, "You're not going to really eat that, are you?" It's like, well, we have to be gracious, right? My stomach was only so gracious.

GLENN: You really are swallowing now like you're going to vomit.

RICHARD: I'm getting sick just thinking about it. It's the best diet. You lose weight. Yes, I just think about swamp eel, and I just don't want to eat.

PAT: So whenever you write about these places, like South America they've been there. Taiwan. So that's where you go and you write the --

RICHARD: Right. Because that's the only way to really feel where the kids are. I want to get the sense of -- these kids are being hunted. So cool thing, I crossed the Mexican border. We didn't have enough passports. My wife didn't bring hers. And I described the Michael Vey series, and they let us through. It was kind of cool.

PAT: So you're literally walking through jungles and mapping --

RICHARD: Literally. Absolutely.

PAT: Wow.

RICHARD: And, in fact, there's a haunted hotel called the Gadsden Hotel, which in its day it was the Waldorf Astoria. It is so beautiful. There's a million-dollar Tiffany mural, and this place, there's nowhere there. No one goes through Douglas, Arizona, anymore. And there's this beautiful hotel. Has big marble columns with gold on it. But it's haunted. And so I was like, "Well, I'll put the kids in a haunted room. How fun is that?" We stayed in this one room. And people have etched "666" on the door, and people then put crosses on it and cross it out. It's this really amazing room. I said, "I want to go like in that room and spend the night, where people are seeing these disembodied spirits." Because that would be really cool for the book. We didn't see anything. But it gives you ideas.

GLENN: I think I say no to the soup. And I say no to the door -- I think I just wing that part of the book.

PAT: I do too.

RICHARD: But that way you get into the feel and everything. Because Austin, who is so funny. And you're in there, and you think, you know what Austin would do if he was here? It's like, well, that's what he does.

GLENN: So when you were writing this, you told me at the very beginning, you said, you've never -- it's as if your fingers are doing the writing, not your head. Is it still like that?

RICHARD: It is. It is. People say, you know how the series does ends. Right? Because it's seven books. I said, "I'm getting glimpses -- I'm getting glimpses of how it ends." I get just enough to put the stuff --

GLENN: How do you know there's seven books?

RICHARD: I don't know. I just knew. I just knew there were seven books.

GLENN: You just knew.

RICHARD: I mean, weird things happen with this book. Like I told you, I'm looking at the kids' name. There's Michael, Taylor, Zeus, Ian, Austin, Michelle. I'm looking at this -- wait. Their initials spell Mt. Zion. It's like Mt. Zion. They publish peace, right? These things are happening in the book. And these kids that are being put away because they won't -- they won't support Dr. Hatch. And so they're put in a place called Purgatory. And one of them has powers that he can see everything. One, Abigail can take away pain. The other can create light and heat. And I thought, well, that's like God. And then I look at their initials, I am. Ian, Abigail, McCants. I am. It gave me chills. I didn't do that on purpose. You know, there's something coming through these books. So I'm intrigued, just as the readers are, to see where this goes and where it ends. And so it's --

GLENN: So hang on just a second. So you like -- like the next book, you have to -- you're writing now, right?

RICHARD: Yes, right.

GLENN: Do you know how that one ends?

RICHARD: No. But I have a glimpse.

GLENN: Really?

RICHARD: I really don't.

PAT: So they could all wind up dead.

RICHARD: Yeah, they could.

PAT: Hmm.

RICHARD: But I had a glimpse of something that happens to Michael. I'm starting to understand something. And the big question around the world is, who is the voice? Who is the voice? And most people think it's Michael's dad, right? He's not really dead. And they want his dead to be alive. It's like, it's not. There. You heard it here first. It's not Michael's dad.

PAT: Oh, it's not Michael's dad.

RICHARD: That's going to shake up everyone.

PAT: Do you know who the voice is?

RICHARD: I do know who the voice was.

GLENN: When did you find out who the voice was?

RICHARD: Last year.

PAT: So you didn't even know when you started writing the book.

RICHARD: I didn't know the voice.

PAT: I was so convinced the voice was his dad.

GLENN: Everything that I write I start at the end. I know what the ending is, you know what I mean? And then I write backwards. I would get so lost if I didn't know where I was headed. There are just a few times. In fact, just a speech I gave last week or the week before, I didn't write. And I had no idea where I was going. I just sat down and I just wrote. And it was a surprise to me. Wow, wow, that's really good. Wow, that's really good. But I've never said, "And, by the way, there are seven books, and they're coming out one a year." I mean, has there been any fear at all that you're like, "I don't know if I have --

RICHARD: It's all fear. It's complete fear. Because with one of my novels, I start from the end. Just like you said, I know how it ends.

GLENN: You do the same thing.

RICHARD: I do the same thing. That's how we get them there. You outline. This one, I'm not, if I may say it, allowed to do that. This one is pure faith. But Glenn has been that way from the very beginning. I didn't have a publisher. Simon Schuster didn't want -- they weren't that interested. They offered me a really low advance that we actually earned out -- that we would have earned out the first hour. And it's like, my agent came to me. She goes, "I don't understand it. Disney just rejected. I don't get it." And I said, "Laura, we've been here before. Remember? The book was called the Christmas box, and it sold 8 million copies. It's finding itself."

And then out of nowhere, I get a call from Glenn Beck studios, and they're asking about a business book I had talked about. I said, "I have something else completely different that no one wants. It's a young adults series."

GLENN: And it's exactly what we were looking for.

RICHARD: And now we're looking -- it's like -- we've had movie offers. We've had things coming in. Not the right thing. And all of a sudden -- is it okay to --

GLENN: It's fine with me if it's okay with you.

RICHARD: Yeah. It's like, all of a sudden, a guy shows up a month ago and says, "Why hasn't this been produced?" He's a British producer. He goes, "Why hasn't this been produced. It's better than anything out there." He goes, "I want to do a TV series. I'll give you two and a half million dollars next week to do a pilot." He goes, "Obviously, it's going to cost a lot more. But fortunately, book one -- he had read the books. He goes, "My kids are rabid Veyniacs." And he goes, "You know, book one takes place -- it doesn't take place in Taiwan or Peru, thankfully. So we can actually produce it. Put the money in special effects, where it needs to be." And he goes, "I'll give you the money. Let's get this thing produced because this is going to be huge." And then he came to our launch party on Friday, and he goes, "This is nuts. There are 3,000 kids at your book signing. 3,000 kids. Does the world know this?" And he goes, "They're not just here. They're insane. They know everything about the characters."

GLENN: I know everything about the characters. What's nuts is, Pat is reading it the same way. I'm reading it with my son. I love it as much as he loves it. And we know everything about the characters. This is one of those books like Harry Potter. You can read this, if you have kids or you don't have kids, it doesn't matter, you're going to love this series. You're going to love this series. I recommend -- do you think people can start here?

RICHARD: No, no, no, start with book one. Prisoner of Cell 25. I don't know if you remember. We actually kind of had a problem. We started -- there were all adults reading the books. And they were giving it to their kids, and the kids didn't want to read it because their parents liked it. So my first year and a half at book signings, there were mostly adults.

GLENN: I didn't remember that.

RICHARD: Yes. Then it started to turn. And it was book four, all of a sudden, we would go, and I'm sitting on this stage, and I asked my daughter, "Do you think anyone will come?" She goes, "Dad, there are kids coming, like crazy. The whole school is surrounded." And we had more than 2,000 kids came to that book signing. All of a sudden, it's like -- it got to the kids. But it took a while. The books won more awards than the rest of my books combined. We've won 11 awards now. It's being picked as the best book in state after state, and it keeps going. And yet, it's kind of flying beneath their radar. The New York Times never written about it. The magazines have never written about it. It's really amazing that it's all grassroots.

GLENN: It's really amazing. It is. And I said this to you. I mean, you've sold many more books than me. I've had, what, 13 number one bestsellers. This is the most successful thing that we've ever been -- if it's not now, it will be. I know that this -- I know this series has a very long life. There's something about this book. I don't know why it hasn't become Harry Potter yet, but it will. When it catches fire, it will. It is just fantastic.

So it is book five. It is called "The Storm of Lightning." Michael Vey. If you've been writing for it, grab it now. If you haven't started the Michael Vey series, start it. You will love this series with your family. Thank you so much.

RICHARD: My pleasure.

GLENN: Appreciate it.

Michael Vey. "Storm of Lightning," available now. Amazon. GlennBeck.com. Or wherever books are sold. It's out today.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

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.