Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Witch Hunt: Bill O'Reilly Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt

April 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Glenn has spent a fair amount of time --- in studio and on tour --- with Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. Not once did he or his staff see anything resembling the accusations being levied at the host of cable news' number one show.

"Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional," Glenn said. "[He] deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Somebody that I have known for years and has -- and have really grown to really, truly respect is being raked over the coals in the press right now. People are trying to destroy him by getting his advertisers to run for the hills. Guess who is involved in this, Stu?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: Color of Change.

STU: Oh, the same Van Jones organization.

GLENN: Yeah, how do we know about Color of Change?

STU: They were trying to lead a boycott against you.

GLENN: Yeah, and how did that boycott work?

STU: Well, they tried to intimidate -- you know, their 14 social media followers would continually tweet, call, and intimidate companies. Companies not wanting to deal with it would just make -- move their advertising from our show on to another show and still pay the same exact amount. And it wouldn't affect the business at all.

GLENN: But that really -- that really was the -- that was the worst of the worst. And there was very little of that, that actually went on.

STU: Yeah. A lot of it -- yeah, that was the most extreme part. Most of it was advertisers that never advertised on the program. They would try to make announcements that they had dropped our show, when they were never on the show.

GLENN: For instance, can you think of a cheese company?

STU: I can think of a cheese company.

GLENN: Would you like to talk about that cheese company?

STU: I can if you want me to talk about the cheese company.

GLENN: That's fine. I just know that Stu has harbored some very deep feelings about --

STU: A particular cheese company.

GLENN: -- a particular cheese company that never advertised on our show.

STU: Yeah. Because I could actually -- and these things are weird. Because companies don't want to be involved in controversies.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if they don't believe the controversy is real, they just don't want to deal with it. They make cheese, for example. So I understand sometimes these companies will be like, just don't put me on that show right now. I don't want to be in the news. I get that.

To make public statements in which you are -- well, we cannot be associated with hate, or that type of stuff, which they were doing to us. Many companies are doing the same thing today. That's just infuriating, especially when they know it's not true.

You know, these --

GLENN: No, but -- you didn't know that it wasn't true. Some people still think that I am the reason for all of the hate in the country.

STU: You seem to be leading that brigade lately. But --

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: So, anyway, what when I worked at Fox News -- when I worked at Fox News, this is what the left did to me. They tried really hard.

It actually didn't work. Unfortunately, Fox News tried to make the case after I left that it did. And that's going to come and bite them in the ass now.

But it actually didn't work. When I was there -- and I've said this many times. Bill O'Reilly was the -- it was the most honest, fair, most intelligent and intellectually curious guy in the media I have ever met.

I don't agree with everything that Bill O'Reilly says. I don't agree with some of his stances. He always seems to be behind because he's not willing to predict or project. He's willing to look at what's a fact today. That's what -- I mean, we've had this argument. I'm like, "Bill, come on, man. Look. Here's history. Here are the facts. Where do you think --

He's like, that's not my job, Glenn.

So I don't necessarily agree with him on things. And, quite honestly, I remember the first time I met him and I was on his show. I was just starting Fox. And, you know, he has quite the reputation of being a bulldog. And he is a -- I think he's 6-5 or 6-6. And he's at this little teeny desk. Those studios -- studios and television look a lot bigger. Objects in the mirror appear to be bigger than they are -- or bigger than they are. They're really small. And you're in O'Reilly's face sitting at that table.

And I remember they were counting him down, five, four -- and I reached over and I grabbed his hand and said, "Please don't kill me." Because you don't go into a room with Bill O'Reilly knowing.

And we became friends, but we became friends because we were both intellectually honest with each other. When we were flying on a plane -- and he probably -- well, no, I think he would be fine with this.

STU: These stories always work out well. I don't see why they would have any problem with this. This is a private story that was told in confidence, but let me just say it right now on the air.

GLENN: So we were on a plane, and I said, "Bill, thank you for being so kind to me. There's no reason you need to be kind to me." And he looked at me and he said, "Stop it." And I said, "What?" And he said, "Glenn, you're jet fuel. You're hot right now. That helps me. By having you on the show, it helps me, you know, continue to expand and boost my ratings and expand my audience."

STU: Right. Makes for interesting, compelling content.

GLENN: Right. And he said, "And it's compelling. It's good stuff. I'm not doing you any favor." And I thought -- because I knew that to be true, but I didn't think anyone would ever admit that.

That's the kind of guy I know in Bill O'Reilly. I know he is intellectually honest. And so buttoned up.

PAT: Tough, but fair.

GLENN: Yeah. He does not --

PAT: That's Bill.

GLENN: He gets the reputation of being tough because if you're not cutting it, he is. He's writing every word he says.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: He's doing all the hard lifting on his own show.

STU: It's almost when you talk to him, you're in a zone where there's not spin occurring.

GLENN: Shut up.

So he's doing all the hard work himself that he's supposed to do. If you are not bringing your full game, he's not a fan of yours.

PAT: And we've spent a lot of time with him. We went on tour with him several times. We toured the country with him. Bill O'Reilly never gave any indication that --

GLENN: That there's any of this stuff.

PAT: This kind of behavior.

GLENN: Never. Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional.

We talked about this yesterday in a meeting. With everybody -- we have a large team. We did our tours. When Bill and I went out, it was my company that produced those tours. So it was everybody, from the people that took him to the airport, to the people that took him home, to the people that tucked him into bed at night. It was all my people.

Not one person said anything about Bill O'Reilly, other than, that guy is a professional.

STU: To be clear, none of our people tucked him into bed at night.

GLENN: That was probably a poor choice of words there. But we were with him. Somebody from my staff was with him the entire time.

STU: Well --

GLENN: And no one said anything, but, "Wow, he's buttoned up."

STU: And we've seen -- you hang out with -- we're doing business with a lot of different people. I mean, think of one recent example that we all dredged through of one particular person on a bus with Billy Bush. And that sort of commentary, that --

PAT: That kidding around kind of -- blue humor.

STU: Yeah, we never saw anything like that. Not even jokes. Not even passing comments.

PAT: No.

STU: Nothing like that at all.

PAT: Uh-uh.

GLENN: You notice that I never said anything in defense of Roger Ailes. I never made the statement about Roger Ailes.

STU: Roger Ailes, yeah.

GLENN: Because, A, I never saw it, but it did not surprise me. Let's just put it that way. Because there was enough joking and conversations that I thought, eh, that one kind of made me a little uncomfortable. It did not surprise me.

Bill O'Reilly, I will be shocked, of course, disappointed, but shocked if he was engaged in any of the kind of monstrous stuff that he is being accused of.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I know what it's like to be attacked. And I am not doing this as a favor to him. I'm not doing this because I'm a friend of his. I believe he's a good man who is being attacked.

I could be wrong. But never an indication from us. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. Let's make that one really clear.

Because you settle a lawsuit -- for instance, I can tell you I was in a lawsuit recently. How hard did I fight not to settle that, Stu?

STU: Very hard.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Knowing everyone around you.

GLENN: And who was I fighting against?

STU: Your own companies and people that were associated with you. Because they all wanted to --

GLENN: Right. I have several contracts with several big companies, and they were like, just settle the damn thing. Make it go away. The main argument came from the insurance company.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Just settle it. Just settle it. We can settle it for a fraction of the cost.

But it's wrong. Just settle it.

So because you settle does not make -- is not an admission of guilt. It's usually a way to just spend less time and money.

Just move on with your -- with your life.

Now, as a guy who drives about $100 million in revenue every year, that makes you a target. I know it. Because people do not understand that -- when they come to work for us at TheBlaze. They'll be like, oh, no. It's easy. You just do this. No, no. We call it jokingly the Glenn Beck tax. No, you don't understand. You're working with Glenn Beck. There's no -- there's no, like, oh, no, we can do this. No, no. Because we're a massive target.

And people don't understand that until they work here for a while. As a guy who has been number one for 20 years on cable news, do you think some people are going to try to take him down? Especially on the Fox News network. Especially that he is viewed as if he leaves, Fox is destroyed? Without Roger Ailes, who was the bulldog at the door -- like him, hate him, whatever. He was effective. And he kept the vampires at the door, sucking the blood out of -- the lifeblood out of Fox News. How it survives without Roger Ailes is beyond me. How it survives without Bill O'Reilly -- and you don't think the left understands this? The media is never going to give Bill O'Reilly or anyone with his effectiveness and his point of view a fair shake.

I would like one from time to time. I am being accused now that I am stomping on people's freedom of speech. That is so far out of every reality, and my -- and some, very few, claim -- listeners, people that claim to be my listeners believe that. Well, you were never my listener if you believe that. Because you cannot doubt -- you knew nothing about me.

PAT: Why don't you ask Amy Holmes about that?

GLENN: Yeah. But that's the way the world works. That's the way this press works. That's the way the left works. And, quite frankly, that's the way the right works when they want to destroy somebody, but the left is very, very good at it.

STU: And you're not -- this is not you taking -- you know, going after people who are making accusations.

GLENN: No.

STU: This is -- this is just you talking about someone you know. You don't know everything about every person and every interaction obviously. And it's not to -- it's not to go out --

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

STU: He gets it from me, surely.

PAT: Yeah, innocent until proven guilty.

GLENN: Yes. Until it has been proven guilty.

PAT: That's certainly not the assumption here by many.

GLENN: No.

STU: Well, and to be fair, it's because --

PAT: Maxine Waters said last night he should go to jail.

GLENN: To go to jail.

PAT: Are you kidding me?

GLENN: To go to jail.

STU: And a lot of this has to do with the stuff that happened with Roger. Because people now see Fox as anything you say about them and that atmosphere will be believed. And that's not fair. You have to look at it honestly.

GLENN: There are things that I saw and I witnessed. And things that happened at Fox that truly turned my stomach. Truly almost destroyed my hope in people. But I will tell you, if it wasn't for Bill O'Reilly, I think it would have been destroyed.

I walked in hearing all these stories about Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is none of those things. Bill O'Reilly was buttoned up and professional every step of the way. He is uber, uber smart. Now, maybe again -- I don't know. I'm not with him every second of the day. I have no idea. But, boy, the Bill O'Reilly that I know and that I saw working, side by side for a long time, there is no doubt in my mind that he's just smarter than that.

And I would hope that even though I disagree with Bill O'Reilly, particularly on Donald Trump -- and he has said things about, you know, Never Trumpers, or whatever the category he might put me in, and he has not even had me on his show since the Trump thing began. I don't care. I don't care. I know who he is.

He did not ask me. I did not engage with him. So, Bill -- it doesn't matter.

We have to stand up for what we believe is right, and we have to stand up for people who are coming under fire, until they prove otherwise.

By the way, for the record, there are far more facts and witnesses and issues about Bill Clinton, who seems to get the benefit of the doubt all the time.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Good luck, Bill. Stay strong.

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.