Globalist, Cuckservative: Deadly Words You Must Learn to Understand the Alt-Right

Words matter, and so do their meanings. Subtle changes in meanings can translate into big problems unless you're aware of them.

Cuckservative, a new favorite of the alt-right, is a blend between the words cuckold and conservative. One definition, according to Wikipedia, is a conservative who has sold out, bought into the key premises of the left and sympathizes with liberal values. When used, it's meant to insult and demean.

"This is a word specifically designed by the alt-right. So when you see that word, warning. That should be a warning sign. But most people are just like, Yeah, I like that word, or what is that word? They either dismiss it or they adopt it. Do not adopt it," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Who is funding the alt-right in Europe?

• Can you be an American conservative and believe in socialism?

• Why is the rise of the alt-right as critical as that of the caliphate?

• What is Neo-Eurasianism and how can you learn more about it?

• What is the alt-right's new definition of a globalist?

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

GLENN: Okay. I want to talk to you about something. I want to talk to you about Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin has now upped the game and is now funneling money, training, and terror to the alt-right in Europe.

We told you in a story two years ago that this was already happening through -- through Aleksandr Dugin into our churches here in America.

This -- this is not political. This has nothing to do -- I will be talking about this in greater detail after the election. I haven't brought this up during the election in great detail. I've told you that I'm going to be doing some chalkboard things. But I haven't done it because I know that it will fall on deaf ears. And whatever I say will be turned into, "See, he's just trying to help."

No. This is a big principle. I want to talk to you about this because a story broke yesterday that you need to know.

Don't allow anyone to -- to minimize this warning by making it about politics, by making it about Trump or Clinton. The people I am going to tell you about were here long before Donald Trump even thought, "Maybe I'll run." They were here -- we warned you about this when I was at Fox. This has nothing to do -- and, in fact, this would be happening if Ted Cruz were the nominee. This would be happening if Marco Rubio or anyone else were the nominee.

This has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters. I would be telling you and issuing this exact same warning if Ted Cruz were the nominee, and I would be saying to his supporters, "Warning. Watch yourself. There is something dangerous inside, right now."

This is not, for the last time, about politics. This is about our national survival.

If you remember, when I was on Fox, I did a chalkboard. And I talked about uber right. And, remember, I taught about the right and the left are different in Europe than they are here.

We call them the alt-right here, but they are not. They are fascists. They are communist or socialist. National socialism.

You cannot be an American right, if you believe in socialism.

The American right believes in small government. But we have allowed the media to define the American right as a European right.

If we aren't careful and the media isn't careful -- I spent, Ellen, 15 minutes, ten minutes on Dugin and this, with the New York Times on Monday. And said, "You must understand. These are not the Trump supporters. These are not the Tea Partiers. This is a subsection that's very nasty. And if you make these into the Trump supporters, you will shut down the hearing of everyone on the right, and no one will listen to you." Because that's not who these people are.

It is now officially happening in Europe. And it's only a matter of time before this happens here. I believe it already is. Here's what happened in Hungary.

In Hungary, they have the neo-Nazis. And when I was on Fox, I told you, "Watch for the hatreds of the 1930s. They will rise again." This was before the Golden Dawn Party in Greece. This was before any of this.

The neo-Nazis are rising again, and they are gaining great power because of what the EU is doing. A, they're forcing everybody to be the same. B, they're forcing everybody to take these refugees without any questions.

It is causing the alt-right to -- to have a fan base because they're the only ones saying, "We have to stop this." And because they are well thought out, because they are well financed, and because of Putin's influence as an invisible hand, they are gaining strength and popularity.

Remember, when I talked about them, they had no seats. Now in many countries, the alt-right, not the conservative, but the alt-right, the neo-Nazi, the nationalist and fascists are now, in many countries, 18 to 25 percent in national polls.

They are gaining seats.

There is a -- what a surprise, cop-killing spree in Hungary. The neo-Nazis are fueling a lot of this. And the cop-killing spree, as they went in and they caught one of these cop killers, they found out, "Holy cow, look at, this is a neo-Nazi. This is an old neo-Nazi. He's 70 years old. He's been coordinating this?"

But they also found guns and training from Vladimir Putin's Russia. They now have -- their version of the FBI has on tape Russian operatives going over in Europe, specifically in this case Hungary, coming in and training terrorists, alt-right terrorists.

And they are saying, you -- you are right. You've got to do this because of globalism. Because of the EU. Because of the banking -- they are feeding people exactly what people want to hear and are turning them on -- on things that we should be upset about.

Globalism is real. When Hillary Clinton, if she is elected and there is a downturn and a banking -- a real banking crisis, I will tell you now, her solution will be for nationalization of banks or a global bank that takes it over. A global bank. This is the path we're on.

It is my firm belief that Donald Trump will do the same thing. Because the experts that surround all of our politicians all believe those things.

This will be in direct conflict with what people, you and me, people who live in our streets, in America, in Canada, in Europe, in Russia, everywhere will be against it.

But Vladimir Putin has other designs. If you understand Neo-Eurasianism. Say it. Can you say it for me? Eurasianism. Neo-Eurasianism. If you understand that, which we will get into at a later date -- if you understand that, he is correcting the mistakes of modernism.

I want you -- the reason why I issued this warning yesterday -- and I can't give you a stronger warning -- I don't know if I ever have on anything. Yesterday, I wrote this on Facebook and said, "Look, there are some -- without getting into great detail, I'm going to be very general, but there are some things where you can spot their influence.

This is a generalization, and it is not always true. But if you take the time and read Facebook, you will notice that many times people are on Facebook, and it's like what they're saying is not in their first language. You will see that what they're saying and how they're writing it is not -- is clearly not their first language.

There are words that you may not have ever heard before or heard sparingly. But now all of a sudden, they are everywhere. And other terms and ideas that were not a conservative driving force -- for instance, trade barriers. That's not conservative. How come trade barriers are now suddenly so huge? There are ideas that were never conservative, but most of us just go, "Huh. I must have missed something. All of a sudden, this is everywhere. I don't know what that is." The way they're describing things with new spins, the ideas might sound really good. We just dismiss and support them or accept them.

If you repost (phonetic), one of the easiest wonders to know, you are now entering the world of the alt-right is the cuckservative. That word was nowhere. What the hell is a cuckservative? Right? How many times have you thought of that?

STU: This is a weird segment, man. We started out with masturbation shows, and now we're on to cuckservatives.

GLENN: Right. This is an easy sign to see that the writer has either been deeply influenced without his knowledge or is a member of the alt-right.

PAT: What is a cuckservative? I don't know what that is.

STU: Yeah. Cuckold.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's -- eh. I mean, it's not really stuff we can really talk about. But it's basically -- it started out as a racist slur, essentially.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Saying that you don't -- you care so little, you're giving up your wife to black people, is essentially the accusation. And when you are --

PAT: Oh, we've been cuckolded?

GLENN: Yes, yes.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: But notice it has its roots in racism.

STU: Of course.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So cuckservative is a cuckold and conservative put together.

PAT: Oh.

GLENN: This is a word specifically designed by the alt-right. So when you see that word, warning. That should be a warning sign. But most people are just like, "Yeah, I like that word, or what is that that word?" They either dismiss, it or they adopt it. Do not adopt it.

We'll get into more of this here in a second.

[break]

GLENN: So, again, a hasty generalization on what's happening with the influence of Russia. Story came out yesterday about how Russia is now funding running guns and training to the alt-right in Europe.

This alt-right is, burn the entire thing down. And out of the ashes of global chaos, we will rise. And the -- the true alt-right, as it is understood in Russia and Europe and more so here in America, not by Trump or Trump supporters, but it is understood by people like Breitbart and Bannon. And I can say that because they've announced it and printed it themselves.

They know what they're doing. And the idea is burn the entire thing down. And out of the chaos, we will rise. And it is a very different world.

It is not what Trump supporters or anybody else wants. And I'm issuing this warning. I -- I'm telling you, this is as important as the warning that I gave before the collapse in '08 and the warning that I gave on the caliphate. More in a second. Don't go anywhere.

[break]

GLENN: This is going to require you to see new nuance and to see -- to see beyond generalizations. And that's what's going to make the alt-right so dangerous in the future. And I -- yesterday, on Facebook, I published a story about what Putin is doing in Hungary. You need to read it. You need to understand what's happening. Because it's happening over in Europe now. And it is happening here, hopefully not to this degree. But it will -- if it's not, it will soon.

Over in Europe, there are now Russian operatives that are training those in the alt-right how to fight, how to -- they're even arming them, giving them guns, and training them on how to cause chaos and terror. And you need to understand the role of Vladimir Putin.

So I'm -- I want to give very hasty generalizations. We'll get into this after the election with the chalkboard. I want you to know, this has nothing to do with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. This would be happening if Ted Cruz were the nominee today. It is vital that you understand this, because this is something that we're going to be battling over the next, I don't know how many years. This is as important as the understanding of the caliphate.

But I want to give you quick generalization on how you know you're in the company of one of these people or one of these people who have been influenced, perhaps without their own knowledge.

One of the things, when you read on Facebook, if you see the word "cuckservative," run. That is an alt-right word. And it is -- it is -- it's everywhere now. And people have adopted it online. Don't adopt it. It is a word that is a tell on who is influencing the mind of these people.

There's also other things that are much less apparent, if you're just wrapped into the world of us and them.

Imagine, Stu, if I said to you now that you can no longer be an Eagles fan. You had to be a fan of the NFL. And, Pat, you could -- you could no longer be a fan of BYU. You had to be a fan of, what? The Big Ten. Right? Or -- is that right?

JEFFY: Just college football.

PAT: College football.

GLENN: College football. And you would say, "Well, I am a fan of college football. I am a fan of the NFL, but my team is -- yeah, but we don't play teams now. We don't play teams now.

Well, they're still on the --

It doesn't matter.

And they started phasing out and making everybody play in black-and-white uniforms. And every other game, they all switched uniforms. But it was just the NFL. And you were forced to cheer, "Yeah, go NFL!"

Imagine what the fans would feel. Well, that's what's happening with globalization. With things like the EU, we are -- in Sweden, if you hang the Swedish flag in front of your house, you are assumed to be a nationalist. The flag has even been taken away, to where they say, "Don't fly the flag. The flag is a symbol of nationalism. And we are open to the whole world. You can fly the EU flag." Imagine the power in Germany -- the power lost when they lost the Deutschmark.

Losing the Deutschmark and adopting the euro --

JEFFY: The euro.

GLENN: -- they were promised that things would get better. Their lifestyle has gone down. Their money isn't worth as much. They are no longer the engine. Even though they are the engine, they have to provide for everyone else, without their lifestyle going up. Okay?

This is real. And the people on the streets are feeling it. And when we say we're against globalism, what we mean as conservatives is, we are against jammed-down globalism. We're against things like the EU, where if you want to stay in the EU, stay in the EU. But if you're a country that the population says, "I don't like this," you should be able to leave.

But the elites have made it almost impossible for you to leave. Okay?

And if you want to leave, you're painted as a bad guy. That's not going to stand. But we as conservatives are for global trade. We are for -- we're not isolationists. We are not our country is better and your country sucks, so we should be able to destroy you.

We should be proud of what we have, just like I'm proud of my country -- my family. But that doesn't make my family better than your family.

Globalist is now a term to describe anyone. Notice anyone who is for free trade, is now a globalist. People who were deep -- deeply respected intellectual conservatives. Krauthammer, George Will, they're now cuckservatives and globalists?

Jonah Goldberg is now a globalist. I am now a globalist. That word is being thrown around everywhere. But it's thrown around by people who are in the alt-right. For instance, what's his crazy face.

PAT: Alex Jones. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Alex Jones, okay? This was the world -- everybody was, "Globalist. Globalist." But now it's spread. That's from the alt-right. And you need to be careful.

There are many words and ideas and people that are being mainstreamed, quite honestly, by Breitbart. And this is out in the open. They say it.

Steve Bannon has said, "We are a platform for the alt-right. They have become a platform. Milo Yiannopoulos is -- what? That's not his name?

Yeah, anyway, they have announced their official platform. Who is the guy that they say is the main voice? What's his name?

STU: Spencer.

GLENN: Robert Spencer. Richard Spencer. Look him up. That's who Breitbart says is the main thinker for the alt-right. And we are a platform for the alt-right. Steve Bannon, exact quote.

Spencer's wife is the English language translator for Aleksandr Dugin. This is tied directly, in America, to Dugin and Putin.

The movement's origins are traced back to the opposition, and I think some of it justifiable of George W. Bush, especially the invasion of Iraq.

I am a noninterventionist. I don't think we need to be intervening everywhere.

There are times that we do. But that's a case-by-case basis. I think many of the problems are because we went in and said, "We'll give you freedom." And so we have become interventionists. We are the world's policemen.

Now, there's a difference between that -- globalist -- and an isolationist. An isolationist is also claiming that everyone who is against them is a globalist.

Be careful. The subtleties here are deadly. They are suspicious of free markets. They believe that business interests are in conflict to what they view as higher ideals, those of cultural preservation. They use the word "traditionalism, identism." On Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos, has issued a manifesto of what sorts of groups he believes are their allies and which ones are not. It's Beltway conservatives. They say hate the alt-right more than Democrats or progressives.

Please do not laugh this off. Please do not dismiss this. I am going to -- after we get past -- hopefully we do -- this election, hopefully we can return to a place to where we can all talk again. But please inform yourself. After the election, I'm going to be doing stuff and chalkboards on this. And even if it's five people that are paying attention to this, those five, you need to strap on the armor. Because it will mean the difference between conservatives surviving or not.

I want you to inform yourself on Neo-Eurasianism. Also, the forth political theory and Aleksandr Dugin.

A good book to start is this, if you have a pen: Eurasian Mission: An Introduction to Neo-Eurasianism.

There are other books. In fact, if you will give me a second, let me go into my kindle. There is another book that is also quite good called The American Empire Should Be Destroyed. These are the words of the alt-right and Aleksandr Dugin. Please read those. I will be doing chalkboards on them. I haven't done them yet because everything in the world we currently live in are becoming about Clinton or Trump. But this has been in play for many years. Again, I laid it out on a chalkboard while I was at Fox.

And the campaign season has allowed the alt-right and these operatives to plant deep roots among us because they thrive in division and hatred. But it doesn't matter who would have been the candidate. This is a powerful force. It is an outside force. And it is -- if we remain blind, it will be the winning force. These are not Trump supporters. Some are masquerading as Trump supporters. And they are infecting the entire conservative movement. But they were here long before Trump even thought of running. I don't believe Trump is involved or knows -- is aware of this, would take seriously the roots.

Clinton, I don't believe is aware of this. And here's what's going to happen: The left and the media will eventually lump these people with all conservatives, if we don't self-identify, know who they are, understand their philosophy, their plan, and can articulate it to our friend.

These people are a great, grave danger to the republic and to the freedom of the West. And they have already infiltrated the American right.

In some cases, as we pointed out two years ago, they have already funneled money into the American churches. That began with the gay marriage debate because this is what they do. They find the things where they can join in, but their version of the gay marriage debate is radically different than your version of the gay marriage debate. You might say, "Hey, it's none of the government's business, and I want my church to be able to stand up and say this is wrong." Their version is, "Take away the driver's license of gay people. Gay people should be destroyed."

What's happening in Europe and what is happening mainly in -- in Russia -- and you might say, "We'll never fall for that." But when anger is involved, look at what historically we have fallen for. The rounding up of the Japanese. "We would never do that." We already have.

Featured Image Credit: Alex Vinci / iStock

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.