Glenn reveals the true face of evil

Editor's Note: GlennBeck.com will not be posting the uncensored images from tonight's monologue in our story or video. Only subscribers to TheBlaze TV will be able to see the uncensored images in the full 7/28/2014 episode of The Glenn Beck Program. More details HERE.

I want to thank you for watching tonight. I want to warn you that tonight you’re going to see some very disturbing images that you won’t see on other outlets, but I think it’s really important. In fact, I spent a lot of time this weekend debating with myself whether or not to show them to you, and I came down on the side of we showed the pictures of the Holocaust, and if we hadn’t have shown the pictures of the Holocaust, I don’t think anybody would believe it. And as it turns out, because we don’t show the pictures of the Holocaust because they’re too horrible to look at, we no longer believe it.

I want to show you these pictures tonight not because of their brutality but because they don’t fit the narrative, and that’s why nobody else is showing them. It’s a narrative that is hopelessly lost in politics and completely detached from the old standard that we used to use. We used to use the standard of good and evil. It was very pretty basic, good and evil. Whether it’s due to wistful blindness or ignorance, but we have lost the ability to be able to distinguish between these two.

And I want to show you an example. These are things that are just off the top of my head that are pretty easy to be able to say, some of them. Swearing used to be the old standard. Swearing is wrong. It’s wrong. Don’t talk that way. Don’t talk that way in front of a woman. Don’t talk that way in front of, you know, your parents, whatever. Don’t talk that way. And it came from the Judeo-Christian values. But now swearing, I don’t even know if we teach that that’s wrong anymore.

Feed the hungry, is that good? Is that clearly in the good category now? Because there are people now who are angry that we fed the hungry down at the border. So is it good? Is it clearly good to feed the hungry?

How about greed? There are people who are libertarian that say greed is good. Ayn Rand would say greed is good. Is it good or is it evil? Genocide, is it good or is it evil? Lying, forgiving one another, slavery, comfort the sick…may I just suggest that there are a couple of things that are pretty absolute, and I would say feeding the hungry, feeding the hungry is always good.

Forgiving is always good. Comforting the sick, always good. Lying, yeah, that dress does make you look fat – sometimes, not sure. Swearing, I think it’s wrong, but I’m not going to – greed, you can go both ways on that. I think greed is wrong, but I understand what Ayn Rand was saying. But when you look at evil, on this list, I will tell you at no time is slavery or genocide anything other than evil, at no time.

TheBlaze TV TheBlaze TV

We can debate the fact that, you know, we have the death penalty. Well, should we kill those people? We can debate that. We can debate that. But if I said we’re going to kill everybody who is this race, color, or creed, and we’re just going to wipe them all off, everyone would know, I think you’re in the evil category, right?

Slavery, the same thing, you don’t have a right to enslave anyone. Well, both of these things are happening in the world today, and they’re both happening with exactly the same people, and we’re not willing to call it by its name. Here’s how you know. It’s really interesting to me, if you believe in evil, and I do, I believe in good, and I believe in an opposing force of evil. Not everybody does, but if you do, you know that the Dark Lord, the Sith Lord, never takes and introduces something entirely new. He always just perverts those things that are good, reverses it, turns it upside down.

That’s how you can spot it. It’s been completely perverted and reversed and reversed – L, I, V, E, live. When you’re snuffing out someone’s right to live, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have a right to live, to live.

Let me show you. I’m going to start in Israel. Today, the world pounced on reports from Gaza police that Israel had bombed a hospital. Okay, that’s pretty bad, right? That’s evil, except there’s no real context here, it’s just Israel bombs hospitals. And we should condemn people who are bombing hospitals, except there’s one little problem, is there any context to this story? Every single little opportunity, as if this nation the size of New Jersey could possibly oppress the billions of Muslims who surround them.

Hamas continues to break cease-fire agreements and rain down thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians. We also showed you the videotape taken from the IDF of the hospital, of the schools. We showed you that they did an infrared scan to see is there anybody in there? Yet Israel gets the blame, and they get the horrible headlines.

I showed you last week how Hamas cowardly hides their stockpiles behind civilian targets. This weekend on TheBlaze there was a story about how they uncovered next to children’s cribs bombs from Hamas. The great pains that Israel goes through to make sure that they hit only terrorist targets, but they can’t do that all the time. It’s war. Those things are rarely reported. Instead, we just go right for Israel bombs hospitals. What? And then into another heroic freedom flotilla for Gaza.

That’s what’s being prepared now in Turkey, the same place the last freedom flotilla sailed back in 2010. We were together at FOX, and I took an awful lot of heat for pointing out the freedom flotilla. In fact, I was the only one. There is no national voice that I trust that is going to be telling the truth about what’s happening on this freedom flotilla.

I remember how much heat I took to not stop pounding that story because nobody else was telling you the story. The world now luckily remembers that event, at least you do in the context of truth, but the world looks at this as Israeli aggression and violence because that’s what the world showed on television. But the truth is much different.

The peace activists knew about the blockade. They were warned when they got close, but they breached it anyway. They prepared for the conflict. They wanted the conflict. They ambushed the two Israeli commandos who boarded the boat. They beat them first with metal pipes. At least one commando was stabbed. Do you remember this video? Another was tossed overboard. The IDF had to use force, but the spin was big bad Israel slaughters innocent peace activists. That’s not what happened.

Now, Turkey this weekend gave the blessing for another freedom flotilla. I want to give you some perspective here. Turkey’s Prime Minister just last week had this to say about Israel: “(Israelis) have no conscience, no honor, no pride. Those who condemn Hitler day and night have surpassed Hitler in barbarism.” That’s saying something because remember, we have all deemed slavery and genocide as evil, right?

TheBlaze TV TheBlaze TV

We know genocide is evil, and the Prime Minister of Turkey is saying that they are worse than Hitler who we know did genocide. That’s quite a statement. It is so far detached from reality, but if it were actually true, let’s just say it was, what he’s saying is the world has a responsibility for getting rid of the modern-day Hitler. Now, I love this logo here for him, and the reason why love it is because it’s very reminiscent of another logo.

And it makes sense because the current administration, President Obama, has a very close relationship with this man, and it’s extremely disturbing. The president has called him a friend. They have shared parenting tips. When the president won his election, he was the first guy that the president called. He says he is a partner in peace in the region, and it’s not just a hey, you know, they punch above their weight. He means it with this guy.

Why would we partner with this man? Why would we, especially with anti-Semitism and bigotry and hate rising all over the Middle East? Does a man who says that the Jews have surpassed Hitler in genocide and evil, is he a guy that we wrap our arms around? People are rioting now in anti-Israel protests all around the country. There were big, they weren’t riots, but they were big gatherings in the United States. But this one is an actual riot, and it was happening in Paris, France.

France has seen some of the worst protests that are anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. That’s probably the bigger thing here is pro-Palestinian. They were seen making the Hitler salutes. I mean, the last time we had people that were giving Hitler salutes on the streets of France, it was a bad thing, I thought. The world thought was. I wonder where the Parisians are now.

But if Israel is more barbaric than Adolf Hitler, I wonder what the Turkish Prime Minister thinks of what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq. Mohamed Elomar, he is a terrorist that originates from Australia, and he has just posed for several pictures that were posted on social media. Most media blacked out these images. A few blogs have the full gruesome images. I warn you that these images are extraordinarily disturbing.

I made this choice because I think it’s irresponsible to not show you the face of evil. You have to know what’s going on, and you have to know okay, so wait a minute, people are defending their right to exist, because in the Hamas charter it says Allah has promised that he would wipe out all of the Jews, evil, genocide. That’s in their charter, and so Israel is making the case, hey, we have a right to live, we have a right to protect ourselves so we can exist, so we can live as a people.

It is irresponsible of me not to show you the face of evil because next they come for you, and that’s not hyperbole, that’s not Glenn Beck fearmongering. What that is is quoting them. Israel is being equated with evil and equated with Hitler, but those who surround them, those who oppose them are not, and this is what they are doing. There is your terrorist.

Okay, this is what they’re doing to Christians and Muslims who disagree with them. Notice the pile of heads. They are chopping off heads in Iraq, and they are smiling while doing it.

Photos from Twitter, via Daily Mail Photos from Twitter, via TheBlaze TV. The uncensored images can be found on the 7/28/2014 episode of The Glenn Beck Program on TheBlaze TV.

Editor's Note: GlennBeck.com will not be posting the uncensored images from tonight's monologue in our story or video. Only subscribers to TheBlaze TV will be able to see the uncensored images in the full 7/28/2014 episode of The Glenn Beck Program. More details HERE.

Do you remember how outraged we were when we thought that American soldiers would be urinating on dead bodies? This, my friend, is what evil looks like. This is what Israel is up against, heads on pikes and fences.

We have told you this was happening for a while, but we haven’t had the evidence to prove it until now. I believe you have to see the truth. You have to see what evil looks like, because it matters. It matters.

Let me take you someplace I never thought we would actually go. I never thought we would, you know, take the words, in talking about good and evil, take the words of an atheist who technically, again, I don’t think believes in good and evil, but the words of Christopher Hitchens. He was speaking in 2010, and I think this is really important that you listen to what he’s saying.

Hitchens: Because anti-Semitism is the godfather of racism and the gateway to tyranny and fascism and war, it is to be regarded not as the enemy of the Jewish people, but as the common enemy of humanity and of civilization and has to be fought against very tenaciously for that reason, most especially in its current most virulent form of Islamic Jihad.

Our task is to call this filthy thing, this plague, this, this pest, by its right name, to make unceasing resistance to it, knowing all the time that it’s probably ultimately ineradicable, and bearing in mind that its hatred towards us is a compliment, and resolving (some of the time, at any rate) to do a bit more to deserve it.

Amen. Maybe we should do a little more to deserve their hatred. Are we standing up against it? I will tell you that I was shocked when I heard those words because he absolutely is right. He gets it. If you look back in the history, the Holocaust happened once, once, but the attempt to kill all the Jews has happened 19 times. Let’s not make it an even 20. Let’s stand, let’s choose a different path. Let us be the people who say we know the difference.

We could argue all you want on swearing and greed and lying. We can argue all you want. On this one and this one, what do you say we get it right? That’s not a fluky sentiment. This is a pattern repeated throughout history. This is what evil looks like.

Some people are trying to stand for the truth. Hashtag went viral on social media, it’s #JewsandArabsrefusetobeenemies, what a great concept, what a great concept. I know Arabs, I know Palestinians, and I know Jews. And they don’t all hate each other. It’s like, you know, the Cold War. When the Iron Curtain came down, and we saw people, not the leadership, not what the politicians and the leaders wanted us to believe, but people, we were all the same.

But even this now has been co-opted online by the people who want to continue the violence and the efforts to wipe one side out. That’s why we can’t sit idly by now. That’s why I want you to share those pictures with your friends. You have to show them this is who we’re up against. I want you to see the break we have coming up in just a second. I’m going to be talking to a guy who has witnessed this firsthand, and he is calling for people, it is time, it is time to stand and call evil evil.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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.