The New Leviathan: Glenn interviews author David Horowitz UPDATED

UPDATE: Glenn also took time to talk to David Horowitz on GBTV Monday night:

Original Story:

On radio this morning, Glenn interviewed former Communist David Horowitz, a man who has now dedicated himself to exposing progressives, radicals, and extremists. And while Horowitz's latest book, The New Leviathan, contains some chilling information about how organized and funded the left has become, he said that he now sees that American conservatives are starting to wake up to the realities in front of them.

Transcript below:

GLENN: I will tell you that there are few heroes and lots of villains. There are few heroes in today's society. There are a few people that have stood and stood and stood for a very long time and tried to warn the American people, tried to warn the ruling class, if you will, that there's trouble coming, and knows it inside and out. And one of those heroes, in fact, a guy who I think has given us more time than maybe anybody else besides the Navy SEALs has been David Horowitz. David Horowitz has been standing guard for a long time. He was a Communist. He was raised by communists, he was part of the 1960s radical movement. When he started to see the slaughter after the Vietnam War, he woke up and said, what ‑‑ guys, we were wrong. They didn't care. And he realized it wasn't about the principles, it wasn't really about doing good. It was really about power and control. And he started to talk about that. And he was rejected by the left and the right and then the right would listen to him, if I'm not mistaken, David ‑‑ stop me at any time ‑‑ the right would listen to him when it was advantageous to him but still they really didn't get it. David Horowitz is a guy who, when I first started looking into the Tides Foundation and everything else, I found Discover the Networks, which is one of the best tools out there if you really want to know who's connected, how it's connected. It's really complex, very difficult to understand, but he's made more sense of it than anybody else. David Horowitz has a new book out called The New Leviathan: How the Leftwing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future. It is one of the most frightening books you will read because it's all true and all about how far behind anybody who loves freedom really is. David, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

HOROWITZ: Thank you, Glenn. Actually I'm not as pessimistic as my book would lead people because ‑‑

GLENN: It's breathtaking.

HOROWITZ: I see a dramatic change in American political life and that is the awakening of the people. The awakening of conservatives. When I first, when I left the left 25 years ago, actually conservatives were quite kind to me, but they didn't really want to take in if the message. They were in a kind of denial because ‑‑ first of all because it was too horrible to contemplate that there were so many people that want to destroy this country. So many Americans, American citizens, Americans born, Americans privileged especially, privileged Americans who have a hatred in their heart for America.

And the second thing is that conservatives don't like politics. If you're a conservative, you're probably in the private sector, you're a creator. Politics is real ‑‑ is a lot about destruction. You're a creator. If you're running a business, you want every customer possible. So you don't want to get involved in divisive battles. And then kind of the attitudes change a little and I got support because they ‑‑ I mean, here was a guy who was willing to mix it up and get into the street fight and I ‑‑ you know, I don't take any credit for that. That's really all I know how to do. And that's the way I was brought up.

GLENN: But we haven't ‑‑ I mean, all of us, first of all, after communism fell, we all thought, oh, Communist, it's a joke, that's proven wrong, it's not working." So any hiding communists or anything like that, "Oh, please, it's ridiculous. Nobody really believes that." And we're all in that moment of, you know, after September 11th, all ‑‑ even the progressives standing there on the steps of the capitol holding hands and singing Kumbayah and everybody thought, we're all Americans. No, we're not.

HOROWITZ: No.

GLENN: No, we're not. And your book outlines the staggering, again, just the appendix just breathtaking. It is the number of groups and how much money they have on the left. Let me just start here. There are 14 liberal groups that have a billion dollars in assets.

HOROWITZ: More than.

GLENN: Yeah, more than a billion dollars in assets. 14. The conservatives have zero. There's nobody on the side of conservatives that have the juice and the power of these foundations.

HOROWITZ: Let's dramatize it. I mean, the Koch Brothers have a foundation. It's worth $239 million. Sounds like a lot of money. The Ford Foundation has $10 billion. It's 30, whatever that is, five times, 35 times the size of the Koch Brothers. And, of course, the Gates Foundation is three times the size of Ford. The leftwing foundations ‑‑ and they are the ones that they fund Occupy Wall Street, they fund the radical organizations that gave Obama his start, that trained him, that brought him up through the ranks. They have $104 billion in assets whereas the conservative foundations have only $10 billion total, 75 conservative foundations. But that's just the, I don't know, it's just the base of the iceberg because they then fund other tax‑exempt foundations, 501(c)(3)s.

For example, the Ford Foundation created the Environmental Resources Defense Council many years ago. And actually it created them to fight DDT just to do this very briefly. DDT, the Rockefeller foundation in the old days when it was the conservative foundation funded a global malaria eradication program using DDT. Along came the Ford Foundation and the Environmental Resources Defense Council which now, by the way, has $139 million in assets. It's grown to gigantic size. It started with this malaria campaign. They conducted a campaign against DDT using Rachel Carson's famous, or should be infamous book The Silent Spring which claimed that DDT would kill all the birds. Completely false, no scientific basis, but it's a classic of the environmental movement.

They persuaded even the Nixon administration to ban DDT and so malaria returned. And malaria kills three million people a year. It's killed since the ban on DDT100 million people probably. 95% of them are black children under the age of 5 in Africa. All this blood is on the heads and the hands of the ‑‑ without the Ford Foundation, this never would have happened.

GLENN: Ford Foundation, I was talking to a friend who actually knew Henry Ford and he said ‑‑ they were having lunch together one time and he said, "The worst thing I ever did was let go control of the foundation"

HOROWITZ: Yeah.

GLENN: Because it went off the rails. They always do that.

HOROWITZ: We print, in our book The New Leviathan, we print Henry Ford's resignation letter from the board which says in so many words that you are attacking the very system, the Ford Foundation is dedicated now the very system that created this wealth. And, you know, in his behalf, he had to save the Ford Motor Company which was in the hands of a gangster after his grandfather died in 1947 and that's why he let the president of Studebaker, who turned out to be a progressive, be president. And that's true of a lot of, well, most of the venerable American foundations.

GLENN: So how we ‑‑

HOROWITZ: Rockefeller is now a leftwing foundation. Carnegie, Hewlett, Packard, Kellogg, Casey, Joyce, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are funding the left. These are government‑backed institutions.

GLENN: When you have Soros join this ‑‑

HOROWITZ: And Soros.

GLENN: I mean, how do you possibly win, David?

HOROWITZ: Well ‑‑

GLENN: Because you ‑‑ wait. We haven't even talked about the universities. The universities are the think tanks now.

HOROWITZ: Of the left, right. Look. I had this experience. I was on a panel in Paris in 1986 organized by the committee for the free world and we had the Vietnamese there. It was an anniversary of the America's defeat in Vietnam. The French. And I was on a panel. And the topic of the panel was, is communism reversible. This is 1986. And nobody thought it was. I certainly didn't. And three years later it was gone. The fact of the matter is that America is ‑‑ first of all, it's not like European countries. We are an individualist country. We were founded by individualists. We had a frontier. So ‑‑ which created an incredible spirit of independence. If you didn't like the way things were here, you went west a little ways and you founded your own, and you did it on these principles. And these, the founders, it's not just the original founders but all along the way the founders of America were incredible people. You know I'm thinking ‑‑ you know the Mormons who went across the country and then came to Salt Lake and they said, "Hey, you know, let's ‑‑ let's build it here in the middle of nowhere."

GLENN: That's crazy, yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: You know. Or as I was saying to Glenn earlier, Dallas is a little, a little shack in the middle, log cabin actually in the middle of Dallas where some guy walked across the plains and you have to be to Texas to see how vast it is and said, "I'm going to stop here and this is where I'm going to raise ‑‑ you know, do whatever I did," and he was the founder of Dallas. That spirit is so antithetic to everything these collectivists want to do that I still think we have a fighting chance.

GLENN: Okay. We're going to take a quick break and when we come back, I want to talk to you a little bit about ‑‑ because the book lays out the path to presidency for Obama and how everything was just a network of these radical progressives. We'll get into that here in a second. The name of the book is The New Leviathan by David Horowitz and it's all ‑‑ it's the dirt on what ‑‑ on how this, how this machine that they've built really works. We'll come back to David here in just a second.

Our sponsor this half hour is LifeLock. A former sailor who posed as a SEAL chief to persuade other sailors to turn over their personal information was sentenced to seven‑plus years in prison for bilking a credit union out of nearly $182,000. He posed as a Navy SEAL, a SEAL chief and a chief petty officer to gain the trust of young sailors. He obtained their personal information and used it to get nearly 200 grand in car loans from the Navy Federal Credit Union. Identity thieves are shrewd. They're targeting your checking, your savings, they're after your cash, your retirement and they come in many shapes and sizes. LifeLock Ultimate, the new science in ID theft protection. They brought it here first. LifeLock Ultimate is the most comprehensive ID theft protection ever made and it goes way beyond guarding your identity, your good name or your credit. Those things are essential, but LifeLock is now the only ID theft protection that is monitoring your bank accounts for something called takeover fraud. They can't protect you if you're not a member. Visit LifeLock.com/Beck for details and then get a special 10% discount if you use my name. Call or use the promo code Beck and get that discount at 1‑800‑440‑4936. 1‑800‑440‑4936, or LifeLock.com/Beck.

(OUT 11:19)

GLENN: Chapter 12 in my new book cowards is young socialists, why kids think they hate capitalism. David has helped us with several of our ‑‑ several of our books and he is ‑‑ being a reformed Communist, he knows about radicals and revolutionaries and how they work. He has a new book out called the New Leviathan: How the Leftwing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future. And if you really want to know what you're up against, if you really want to see how all of this works, you want to see how screwed we are on the EPA, how much ‑‑ how much money the leftwing organizations have.

VOICE: The leftwing 501(c)(3) ‑‑ by the way, this book is really about the Shadow Party on steroids. George Soros is an important player here but when you see how many of them there are, you'll appreciate what we're up against. The environmental leftists, we divided environmental groups into pro free market and anti‑free market. The anti‑free market wants huge government controls. They think that corporations are the cause of everything from the mythic global warming to every other environmental problem we have. So they have built into them this anti‑capitalist, anti‑freedom agenda. The progressive environmental organizations have $9 1/2 billion in assets. That's bigger than the EPA budget which is 8.7 billion. And also dwarves the pro ‑‑ there are pro free market environmental organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. There are 32 of those and they have $38 million. So that's the left ‑‑

GLENN: To give you some idea of how ‑‑

HOROWITZ: 249 times, times as big.

GLENN: We're not coming to ‑‑

HOROWITZ: But that's ‑‑ that's not the end of it because the left through the Democratic Party and through brainless Republicans gets itself funded by the government. What's the disparity there? They get annually $570 million to fund these anticapitalist, anticorporation environmental organizations, and the pro free market environmental organizations get 728,000. 570 million versus 728,000. You can do the math on that.

GLENN: We're bringing a ‑‑ we're not bringing a knife to a gunfight. We're bringing a toothpick.

HOROWITZ: A toothpick, exactly right.

GLENN: To a ‑‑ to a gunfight.

HOROWITZ: But I'm going to have to say this over and over. Look at Wisconsin. They had all their forces out in Wisconsin and they lost. And why did they lose? Because the people are waking up.

GLENN: They ‑‑

HOROWITZ: Glenn, I mean, you're the Clarion voice here in waking them up.

GLENN: I think people are just, I think people have sensed for a long time that something's not right. I think they started waking up in George W. Bush. I mean, Pat, you and I both have an awakening about the same time, don't you think?

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm. Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: It was just a couple of years after September 11th and we're like, something's not right. By 2004 we were pretty awake and I think we're ‑‑ I think we're still somewhat asleep, but we're waking up. And people are just, people are waking up all over the country.

HOROWITZ: I think you can date it from 9/11. 9/11 started the turn and then Obama has really, you know, it's like that when they go to hyperspeed. That Obama really said, people suddenly realized we could lose this country.

GLENN: How much is Obama really in charge of things? How much of this is Obama and how much is he the face?

HOROWITZ: I think if it were only Obama, it wouldn't be such a big problem. I think that Obama is pretty incompetent. I think that's pretty evident. He let Pelosi and Harry Reid run his ‑‑ and the unions. I think the ‑‑ one of the values in this book The New Leviathan is to give you a picture of how it works and how big it really is. And again with the unions. Look, all that Scott Walker had to do was to take away the, you know, the government collecting dues for the unions and give people the freedom to leave and half their members left. So this couldn't ‑‑ you know, this can turn pretty quickly if we have people who have the stomach and the spine to do the right thing.

GLENN: Did you see how Obama is now asking for donations?

HOROWITZ: From weddings? They're shameless.

GLENN: All of the money that they have.

HOROWITZ: Not enough.

GLENN: What are they doing? I guess it is, it's not enough.

HOROWITZ: Never enough.

GLENN: It's never enough. The name it book is The New Leviathan: How the Leftwing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future. You want to see what it really looks like, you want to see why I've had so many sleepless nights in the last couple of years. David lines it out unlike anything I've ever seen before. New Leviathan available in bookstores everywhere. Back in just a second.

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.