Time to Pass the Baton to the Next Hero Generation: The Millennials

It's time to take the plastic off the furniture and turn off the TV set. Millennials are the next hero generation queued up to save the republic. They're depending on older generations to show them the way. They don't care about political parties, they don't care about Ronald Reagan. They care about making a difference. So let's show them how to do it --- the American way.

RELATED: Will Millennials Turn to Capitalism or Socialism on Their Quest for Truth?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Do millennials watch television?

• What unrealistic expectations did parents set for millennials?

• Do millennials think older generations are like old grumpy neighbors?

• Why don't more millennials know about Mao Tse-tung?

• Do millennials want your house?

• Does Glenn surf the Kondratiev wave?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  So if -- imagine that you are a -- imagine that you're a millennial, and you're 20-something years old, and you're seeing the world as it is today.  And you're watching people on television -- on television, which is no longer a part of your world.  You go over to your mom and dad's house, and they're sitting on their couch, watching television, which you don't do.  You don't do it.  You don't sit and watch an hour of commercials in a television program.  And so it's already kind of cute and quaint.  It's kind of like going over to your grandparents when they had the plastic on the furniture.  You're like, "They're just old.  Don't -- you know, just go along with it."  Okay?

PAT:  I don't know if it's quite that bad.

GLENN:  It's pretty close.  It's pretty close.  Millennials do not watch television.

JEFFY:  No.  No, they do not.

PAT:  I mean, they watch it less.  But they do watch it.

GLENN:  Not cable news.  Not cable news.

PAT:  Nobody watches cable news anymore.

JEFFY:  No cable.

GLENN:  Yes, they do.  

So the ones who are connected to politics, they're watching cable news.  So they come over from their world into yours, and you're watching cable news.  And you're seeing usually two old white guys and a young person, a millennial, a girl, a hot girl, who isn't talking at all like any of your millennial friends.  Is like old people speak.

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  And you're rolling your eyes at her.  Because you're like, "Total sellout."  And the other one -- because you're like, "This is so obvious.  They're saying the same basic thing.  They're arguing over things that -- oh, my gosh, I don't know why my dad does this."  Okay?

That's the world they're coming from.  Then they go to their world where they're listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and everybody else saying that jobs are good.  Hey, we're on the road to recovery.  They're massively in debt.  They have -- they are -- they've gone to college.  All their friends have gone to college.  Their friends aren't getting jobs.

JEFFY:  If they are, they're underemployed.

GLENN:  Yes, they're underemployed.  They can't pay for their --

PAT:  And let's not forget, they've been told that which drives me out of my mind.  That their debt is not their fault, they believe.  Which pisses me off.

GLENN:  Well, hang on just a second, they have now -- they see this crushing debt that they have --

PAT:  That they accrued.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.

PAT:  All right.

GLENN:  That the old world, as they see it --

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  -- has been encouraged since they were little, "You got to go to college.  When are going to go to college?  Where are you going to go to college?  Got to go to college.  Got to go to college.  Everybody goes to college.  Got to go to college.  Got to get into a good college."  

Everyone in their life who they're now seeing represented on dad's/grandpa's TV set yelling at each other about a solution that they know won't work, and they think to themselves, "I -- I mean, this doesn't work, and I'm screwed with this debt."  

Meanwhile, while everybody has been saying, "Got to go to college, got to go to college, got to go to college," they went to college.  And where everybody -- where mom and dad said, "This is the best college.  This is a great college."  Those people that mom and dad endorsed taught them that you didn't really incur this debt and this whole system doesn't work.  And so maybe I do know a little bit more than mom and dad.

Even if they don't go that far, they know this system doesn't work, and they don't want to become like mom and dad, who are now in debt.  Dad is still having to work.  Maybe their retirement isn't coming through the way it was.  They haven't really been happy.  Mom or dad have just been kind of tolerating each other for a while, maybe till the kids -- they've drifted apart.  Or maybe they're really happy, but they're -- they are under such pressure with debt because of the house and the lifestyle, that the millennial looks at and says, "Why not just buy a smaller house?  Why -- we didn't need all this stuff, mom and dad.  Why did you do that?"

STU:  It would be great if that's the way they were -- that's the way they were thinking about these things.  It doesn't seem like that's the way they're thinking about it.

JEFFY:  No, it is not.

STU:  Good example of your generational thing.

GLENN:  Some.  Some.  I'm telling you --

STU:  Of course, some --

GLENN:  -- they're being indoctrinated to think the other way.

STU:  Right.  But let's think about --

PAT:  Some believe they're entitled to the house that mom and dad are living in.

JEFFY:  Exactly right.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

PAT:  Move out of that house.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

STU:  Why would you bring that up?  That's a weird thing to bring up.

PAT:  I don't have any examples, no.

(laughter)

STU:  Okay.

PAT:  I just know that exists.

GLENN:  You have five examples.  You have five examples.

(chuckling)

STU:  The generational thing you've talked about many times -- and this is an interesting -- potentially an interesting example of it, the situation -- the old system is faulty.  Right?  We spend all of this money.  We get in lots of debt to get college.  And they agree that that's faulty.  You know what, I agree also that that's faulty.  My, let's call it, generation would look at that issue and say, "Let's execute a cost-benefit analysis.  Is it wise for us to enter into this agreement that everyone is telling me I have to do and acquire all this debt?  Should I consider being educated in a way that is less expensive?  Should I chase a different way of approaching this problem?"

PAT:  Should I have gotten a job in high school and earned money?

GLENN:  Hang on.  Hang on.

STU:  Hold on.  Let me just finish the point.  

They seem to be looking at this as, it's not the idea that college should be required, that's the problem.  The issue is, I just shouldn't have to pay for it.  I completely accept without questioning --

JEFFY:  Yes.

STU:  -- the idea that I must go to college and must do all these things, despite the fact that I'm going to spend 80 percent of my time now doing schoolwork, as has been shown in study after study.  That, I shouldn't question at all.  I should only question the cost I acquire for it.  And that's why we continually complain about them -- millennials looking at socialist solutions.

A real -- a real questioning the status quo, really, is to say, do I need this?  Do I need to do it in a different way?  Do I do it in a way that maybe doesn't --

PAT:  Can I go to trade school?  Can I go to a community college?  

Can I go to a State University where it's going to be cheaper than Harvard?  

JEFFY:  Not without getting a job though.

PAT:  You know.  Right.

STU:  I stopped talking already.  Glenn is giving me that look of how dare you.  How dare you.

GLENN:  No, no.  No, no, no.  

I agree with your point -- I agree with your point of view.  I absolutely agree with your point of view.  Here's where we differ, I think.

STU:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  Do you know how hard it is to cut your own way anyway?  Everybody likes to think, I'm different.  I'm special.  I'm cutting my own way.

JEFFY:  Right.

GLENN:  Well, first of all, that wasn't true for most of us when it was cool to think that you were different, but this generation, it's not cool to necessarily think differently.  It's to think collectively because of their generation.  Okay?  To make things better collectively.

So they're coming to it from a different place than we are.  It's why -- it's why grandparents usually understand -- have such a great bond with the grandchild.  I've always thought that it's because, "I don't have the responsibility.  So it's kind of fun."  No, it's because it's an 80-year cycle.  Your experiences are closer than the experiences of your children.  It skips a generation because it's an 80-year we/me cycle.  Okay?

So the grandchildren are looking at things much differently.  Our children are looking at things much differently than we are.  We were more independent-minded.

Also, at the time -- at our time, there were more people like Ronald Reagan, who were living this and saying, "Be this.  Do this."  All of society was, "You -- you can do it."  All of society now is, "No, you can't do it, nor should you want to do it.  No man is an island.  You all have to work together for the common good."  Everything is teaching them the opposite.  And on top of it, who the hell do we have on our side that they can -- that they even relate to?

Because everybody that is on our side looks like me, sounds like me, does talk radio, or a stupid talk show on television, that come at that only their dads are watching.  And they think their dad doesn't understand them.

There's nobody positioning themselves on our side that's speaking their language or even doing anything, but, "These crazy kids.  Get off my lawn."  That's who we're turning into, to them.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  Where their professors are all --

PAT:  Well, I don't want them on my lawn.

GLENN:  All the professors are really super cool and telling them all the super cool things they can do collectively.

JEFFY:  That's right.

GLENN:  We're not.  We're not.

We are never going to make an impact trying to speak the language of Ronald Reagan to a group of people who don't -- nor do they care.  And in most cases, have been taught he's a bad guy.  Nobody is going to listen to, "We got to be more like Ronald Reagan.  We need another Ronald Reagan."  They don't even know who the hell that is.  

STU:  I mean, I think that's the point I was making.  In that, that's the generational gap.  Right?  That's the difference.

PAT:  Yeah.

STU:  And it's not just even bringing up Ronald Reagan.  They don't even know who freaking Ronald Reagan is.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  I mean, you know, we talked about them not knowing who killed more people, Mao or Bush.  Forty-two percent of people were unfamiliar with Mao.  Almost half of them have never even heard of the guy.  So I'm not -- you're right on language, I think.  What I was trying to define is more of like what their approach is.  And I think you've tried to do this with guest after guest after guest, and Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after pendulum -- all of those things are pointing to the same general conclusion, that these -- that younger voters think completely differently about this stuff.  And, you know, I find it to be problematic.  I think -- I think you're looking at it as, well, how do we win them over, which I think is appropriate and is necessary.  But, I mean, I do think it's problematic.

GLENN:  But there's no -- the question I keep asking -- Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave -- and I go back and do my history and look -- you do not beat -- it's like standing in front of the ocean expecting to change the tide.  You're not.

Now, how can you get into the water and work with that tide and that force and perhaps change the direction?  Because that happens every time.  It's why we have the French Revolution and the American Revolution.  Very different things, all the same piece:  We, the people.  We, the people.

That's really important to understand, just that one thing.  That was a generation that understood -- that looked at things as a collective.  

Now, you can push back and say, "Yeah, well, we had the Bill of Rights.  That was all about individual liberties."  

Yes, because they know that the eternal truth was that no one is over you.  But that's why they started it with, "We, the people."  Not, I, the individual:  We, the people.  We'll establish this to protect these things, to protect the individual.  We're going to get together as a collective.  

Now, unless you have somebody who is teaching, "Hey, as a collective, we have to protect the individual."  Because that's all they want to do.  "We want to help the downtrodden.  We want to help."  Great.  Well, there's ways to do that.  And the two times before this wave was the Founders' wave.  

And they said, "We, the people, need to protect the individual and what the individual -- because that is supreme."  Where all of the other generational we thinkers at that time went Robespierre and said, "We are the collective, and we'll crush the individual that stands in our way."  And that's already happening.

You disagree with global warming, they will crush you.  You disagree with Donald Trump, and they will crush you.

We are in that scenario, that always leads to witch hunts and to blacklists, unless somebody on our side is appealing to the youth and knows who they can be.  They've just not had anybody on our side actually reaching out to them and saying, "I know who you are.  You're not who everybody says who you are.  I know who you are.  You are the hero generation.  And people are going to try to misguide you.  We, collectively -- you can change the world and chart the course, away from the death you never learned about."

When somebody teaches you something and you realize that somebody intentionally has kept a very important detail away from you, you don't run into their arms and say, "Hey, thank you for that."  You look at them and say, "What the hell were you thinking?  You didn't tell me about this part?  You didn't tell me about Mao and 100 million people that he killed.  You let me believe that George W. Bush was a bigger killer.  I can't trust you at all."  We have a massive win.  But it's slipping through our fingers every time we betray our values by living something differently than what we say is important.

Featured Image: USA's Gil Roberts (L) grabs the baton from USA's Tony McQuay as they compete in the Men's 4x400m Relay Final during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on August 20, 2016. / AFP / PEDRO UGARTE (Photo credit should read PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images)

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.