Britain’s former Chief Rabbi says bigotry is rising

Glenn interviewed Britain’s former Chief Rabbi on TV this week and the Rabbi has noticed some disturbing trends. Not only are attacks on Christians escalating in the Middle East, anti-Semitism is on the rise. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks shared his unique insight on TheBlaze.

Glenn: You were the chief Rabbi of England. We have heard from so many people, English, Jewish, no longer feel comfortable there. What’s happening in England?

Rabbi Sacks: I don’t think it’s England. I think it’s Europe, and I think it’s the world. You know, sometimes it happens with an illness that you find a cure, you eradicate it from a certain population, but before you’ve done so, you infect another population. I kind of think that’s what happened with anti-Semitism, that after the Holocaust, Europe woke up and said what is this that’s happened in our midst? And from them on, there was a sustained campaign, probably the most complete in history, to strengthen the immune system of European culture so that there would never again be an outbreak of anti-Semitism. Sadly, the virus did infect certain populations in the Middle East.

Glenn: It was intentionally transferred. I mean, Iran is called Iran as a salute to the Aryan nation.

Rabbi Sacks: It goes back a way, yes. A very European thing called the blood libel which accused Jews of killing Christian children was taken by Christians to the Middle East, to Egypt and Syria and Lebanon, in the 19th century, and then very sadly from Germany in the 1930s, a forgery, famous forgery called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also taken into the Arab world, and so this huge effort of Holocaust education, antiracist legislation, interfaith dialogue, that had such an impact and actually transformed relations between Jews and Christians which had been estranged for almost 2,000 years, and there really was a transformation.

I mean, let me salute a great human being here, Pope John XXIII, who in the early 1960s began to realize what had happened and set in motion something called Vatican II which produced a document called Nostra Aetate in 1965, which transformed the church’s relationship with other faiths, but especially with Jews, and that has been one of the most positive changes in religious history, but unfortunately it began to infect parts of the Middle East, and today that has fed back into Europe, and it’s very problematic.

Glenn: Okay, so you can’t get anybody…if we would have said in the 1930s you can’t say that we’re at war against Nazi-ism, you can’t say you’re at war against Germans, even though we have a record of destroying the Nazis and then immediately handing candy to the Germans—we didn’t hate the German people; we hated the ideology that was driving them. You can’t get anyone in today’s politically correct world to say we’re at war with a psychotic version of Islam. That doesn’t mean that all Muslims are bad. I have friends who are Muslim. They’re not bad. But there is a clear ideology that wants you dead, me dead, and quite honestly some Muslims dead as well, and we won’t name that.

Rabbi Sacks: Well, I think we have to be very candid here and say that the most serious victims of radical Islamism are Muslims who are being killed in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan. You know, it’s a war within Islam. There’s no question about it, just as, you know, the 1930s was a war within Europe, and just as in the 16th and 17th centuries we had a war within Christianity. So, where Islam is today, Europe was and Christianity was before then. So, this is not a completely unknown phenomenon.

Glenn: So what are we at war with, Rabbi?

Rabbi Sacks: We are at war with a way of thinking which says when bad things happen, who did this to us? I mean, Germany was not the most anti-Semitic nation in Europe at the end of the 19th century. If you would have asked in the late 1890s what are the epicenters of anti-Semitism, you would have answered Paris and Vienna, Paris of the Dreyfus trial and Vienna, whose mayor was a man called Karl Lueger, very public anti-Semite from whom Hitler learned to be an anti-Semite.

So, it wasn’t Germany, so what happened in Germany? And the answer is Germany lost the First World War, felt humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles, and instead of asking what did we do wrong, it asked who did this to us? Now, whenever a culture moves from what did we do wrong, which is a self-reckoning, which is essential to Judaism and Christianity. You know, when something goes wrong, we say, you know, forgive us, you know, help us atone, help us change.

When a culture doesn’t ask that question, when it says somebody must have done this to us, the West has had a narrative for 2,000 years which says if you want somebody to blame, here are the Jews. Unfortunately, today that is gripping hold of another kind of population. There’s no question that nothing good ever came out of this, and anti-Semitism doesn’t just destroy Jews, it destroys anti-Semites, so it’s a very self-destructive route.

Glenn: I want to come back to the war with radicalized Islam here in a second, but let me jump off of what you’re saying here, because it is one of my greatest concerns. In the 1930s, you’re right, Weimar looked for anybody, and they had good reason. We as the West punished Germans in an unreasonable way. That’s why they inflated their money, and that just led to more misery and somebody rising up and saying, “They did it!”

In the 1930s, we saw this rapid rise of anti-Semitism. We saw the world go mad, but the world went mad because people were starving. We don’t even begin to understand the kind of depression that they were going through in the 1930s. We have people now who say I’m going to go kill in the name of Allah for ISIS, and they leave, and they go. They’re signing up to behead people, but they don’t have cell service, and they write mom and dad and say you’ve got to help me get back into France because I can’t live without my cell phone. We have no clue as to how bad things economically can get.

I believe we are on the road for economic, real economic disaster that we will get through. The world has always gotten through these things but usually with bad bloodshed, because somebody, Fascists, whether they are in the line of Le Pen in France or in Russia or in Germany, Spain, somebody rises up and says, “They did this to you.”

So, we don’t have just the Islamists, we also have the Fascists and the Communists that are also rising up who also like to have Jews as a scapegoat, but I don’t think it’s just the Jews this time. I think it’s everybody who disagrees with them. So, how do we prepare a society that our leadership all across the world is saying the economic crisis is over? It’s not. Even if you don’t believe in the banking crisis or a hyperinflation or a deflation crisis, just look at technology. The people in Silicon Valley are telling us 50% of all jobs will be lost by 2025. There is a great change of some sort coming, so how do we root people into decency in a growingly secular way of life?

Rabbi Sacks: There is no question that this calls for real spiritual leadership. There’s no question. People can get used to a great number of things. They can get used to poverty. They can get used to disease. They can even get used to war, but they can’t get used to change, real, profound systemic change that gets faster and faster. You’re on a roller coaster of ever-accelerating change. This is very disorienting to people, and it does seem to me that at times like this a spiritual message is very important, because if there’s one thing that religion tells you, it is what is eternal in the midst of change.

I think Jews knew this very well indeed, you know? For pretty much 1,000 years, Jews didn’t know whether they would still be in the country where they were born next year. The political environment could change so fast, and yet Jews learned this extraordinary persistence during change because they were rooted in things which are not to do with where you’re living, they’re not to do with what job you do, they are to do with who am I, you know?

So I think in a sense religion may be part of the problem when it becomes radicalized, but at the same time, religion is part of the solution. One thing that drives fundamentalists in all faiths is fear, and I think to myself, you know, what is my answer to fear? Just read Psalm 27—the Lord is my light and my salvation, whom then shall I fear? God is the refuge of my life, of whom then shall I be afraid? If there’s one thing in human civilization that is stronger than fear, it’s called faith, so real, true faith, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in all the world’s faiths is actually the solution to the problem that we’re facing.

Glenn: There are many Christians, pastors, leaders, that are awake and standing up. I find it amazing the thing happening in the Christian world that has changed in the last five to ten years. There’s something different happening, a lot of people standing up and waking up, but there’s also, and this is in every faith, there’s also a lot that in the Christian world, they don’t want to take on anything too controversial because they’ll, you know, lose whatever.

In the Jewish world, God forbid you stand up and say never again means look for the roots of the problem, and if you see those, maybe we should weed those roots out or at least point and say maybe a bad part of the garden that’s happening over here. So, we have people in both of our faiths that are not part of the solution here. They’re not standing up.

Rabbi Sacks: We had a very great Rabbi 2,000 years ago, terrific man called Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai. He was a real hero. I mean, the fact that Judaism survived has to do with the fact that he managed to build an Academy at Yavne after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. So, he was one of the visionaries of his time, and as he lay dying, his disciples gathered around his bed and said, “Rabbi, tell us something.” And he said, “You want me to teach you something? Would that you were as afraid of God as you are of human beings.” They said, “Rabbi, we needed you to tell us that?” And he said, “Yes, you do, because when a thief breaks into somebody’s house, he prays that no human being should see him. He doesn’t worry that God sees him.”

So, it’s one of those mistakes we all make, being scared of other people instead of really fearing God, and that’s why, you know, if you really do reverence God, you are not afraid of saying what has to be said. Fear no man is one of the principles of religion, so I think this is terribly important, and I think we have to have the courage to say in the end, what is evil about anti-Semitism? What actually is anti-Semitism?

We have a famous anti-Semite in our history called Haman, who is a major figure in the Book of Esther, and he tells King Ahasuerus, translated in English as Xerxes, he says wipe out the Jews because there is this one people dispersed among the nations whose laws and customs are different from all other nations. Jews were hated because they were different. Anti-Semitism is the paradigm case of dislike of the unlike, but if you think about it, it is what makes us different that makes each of us, you and I, unique, and it is the fact that each of us is unique—even genetically identical twins have only 50% of characteristics in common, because each of us is unique. None of us is replaceable, and that is what the sanctity of life is all about.

So, anti-Semitism looks as if it’s about Jews, but it’s actually about what it is to be human. There was a very great survivor of Auschwitz called Primo Levi, who wrote a famous book on his experiences in Auschwitz, and he called it If This is a Man. He didn’t call it If This is a Jew. Ultimately, anti-Semitism is an assault on our humanity, so it really and truly affects all of us, Jew, Christian, Muslim, you name it, and that is why we have to stand together to fight it right now.

If you were to ask me who are the biggest victims on the line right now, I would say it is the Christian populations of much of the world. They are being persecuted throughout the Middle East and in many other parts of the world. There are no Christians left in Afghanistan. The last remaining church burned to the ground in 2010. There was a Kristallnacht, an assault on 50 churches in Egypt in 2013.

There are 5 million Coptic Christians living in fear. In Iraq, 12 years ago, there were 1-1/2 million Christians, today less than 400,000, so in the end, you have Jews fearing the return of anti-Semitism, Christians almost being wiped out of the Middle East which is where Christianity was born, and you have 90% of the casualties of Islamist violence being Muslims. So, we’re all at risk, and we all have to stand together.

Glenn: So you are talking to an audience now who has been through this. This is well-tilled soil here, and we have talked about these things for a long time. My audience is, I really, truly believe, one of the more dedicated groups of people to let’s be the righteous among the nations; however, I know I feel this way, and I am sure the audience does. I bet there are people all over the world that feel this way—what do I do? What do I do?

Yes, I know. I know what’s happening in Egypt. I know what’s happening in Iraq. I know what’s happening Afghanistan, in France, in England, in Germany, in Russia, what’s happening here. I know. We keep saying it. We keep talking. Rabbi, it’s such a huge problem. As I was thinking about this interview today, I thought I think this is going to be one of those interviews that people look back ten years, 15 years from now, and say they knew, people knew…what happened? And what happened was we don’t know what to do.

Don't miss part 2 Thursday night on TheBlaze

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.