Jason Buttrill Sidesteps IEDs to Retrieve Bible With ISIS Bullet Holes

Fresh off his dangerous and controversial trip to Iraq, Jason Butrill with TheBlaze sat down with Glenn to give a firsthand account of his experience on the ground --- from shooting at ISIS, which he now regrets, to bringing Glenn a bible used as target practice by ISIS.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to start with a little bit of controversy that happened mainly in the media, but also the -- the right of the country was fed fake news. And about me. And said that I fired a guy on my staff for shooting at ISIS. As evidence, I have not fired the guy because he is sitting right here. Jason Buttrill who is our chief researcher and our writer for many of the programs. Did the root. And goes out into the field and tries to find the things that others are missing.

And I want to start with just 60 seconds on the controversy.

You went over and you were on your own. You were not with the journalist at the time. Right?

JASON: Right.

GLENN: And what happened?

JASON: Yeah. So we were out on our own. We were chasing the story that you were talking about. We were having a considerable hard time getting it because the Iraqi army is now in control of the final like checkpoint lines to actually get into Mosul. So we were having a lot of problems. But I was out searching for another story about the tunnels that we talked about.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JASON: And there did come a time when ISIS was in the distance. And I did take some shots at ISIS. I -- I -- I didn't think about how the perception was in making it public and what it looked like. And that -- I'm a part of a media organization. And, you know, there are journalists all over the country that are -- that are showing -- or that are doing great work, especially in combat zones. And I didn't think about what that does to them all over the world.

GLENN: Right.

JASON: It puts them in danger. I'm not a combatant. And I shouldn't have engaged.

GLENN: And you're not a journalist.

JASON: I'm not a journalist. But the appearance.

GLENN: But the appearance was that you were a journalist, and that's what ISIS says -- is that ISIS will say, "I can shoot a journalist because they're -- you know, they're really combatants under disguise."

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: And that's not true. You're not a journalist. I didn't send you over as a journalist. You're a researcher. But you shouldn't have done that. And you -- I've known you for a long, long time, you've had the snot kicked out of you from this. And this deeply affected you.

JASON: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Learned your lesson?

JASON: Absolutely. Yeah. I -- I don't know if you can be trained to handle something like this. Like I said, my mind was just going crazy after this. I more felt bad for -- when I was reading everything -- I did feel bad for journalists all over the world covering these stories. I was worried about what I did to them. But I was worried what I did to the organization. The organization has been great. Like I said, I was not fired. But, yeah, it's -- it's behind me. I'm definitely moving forward. I'm a better person now.

GLENN: Good. Thank you.

Can you tell me now what you saw?

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: First of all, isn't this -- because I wore one of those scarfs once, and I was told I'm now part of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. You're wearing a scarf.

(laughter)

GLENN: And I like them. Pat would call it an ascot. And I like them. But I've worn it once on television, and everyone said, "Oh, really? You're for Lebanon."

PAT: It's only an ascot when you wear it the way you do it. He's not wearing it as if it were an ascot.

JEFFY: That's correct.

STU: Yeah, he looks cool in it. You look really ridiculous.

GLENN: He's wearing it wrong. He's wearing it wrong.

JASON: I think it depends on the designs and everything.

But this is actually a Kurdish scarf. And they use it to put around their heads. To keep the wind and sand out. But this is Kurdish. And it's crazy cool. I kind of like it.

GLENN: I like it too.

So what did you find?

JASON: We found -- I was chasing that story, when we kept getting stonewalled. And it was getting harder and harder.

In fact, the Iraqi military is making it very, very difficult for even the UN -- when I was getting denied to go into the middle of Mosul, the UN was also getting denied for moving in there.

They are keeping it very tight under the lid, as far as how much casualties that they're taking and as far as their defeats and losses. They're not letting any of that get out. The day I was --

GLENN: Which usually means that that's --

PAT: It's not going well.

JASON: Right. Well, that day, there was -- they shut us down, and 30 to 40 ambulances went speeding out of the front line area. It took a massive hit. That was the same day that we bombed that hospital. I don't know if you read about it a few days ago. Because they were trying to take the hospital which was a command center that ISIS was using. And they couldn't take it. And so we had to bomb it.

But, yeah, it's -- I would say it's a very mixed bag now as far as how the operation is actually going.

GLENN: I heard ISIS is moving back into -- they just moved back into Palmyra. They just retook Palmyra.

JASON: Yeah. That shows you exactly what, you know, Assad and Putin want out of Syria. It's not to destroy ISIS or to fight ISIS, what they say.

They're there to once and for all defeat all the people -- what started as a protest during the Arab spring, they're there to defeat all those people. ISIS has nothing to do with it. That's ridiculous.

GLENN: What do you think about Tillerson? You had a long 30-hour flight back home. And I know you and I have done a lot of homework on Russia and Putin. We both are very clear, based on evidence and facts, on who he is, what he is -- what he really, truly believes.

Not a good guy. Here's Tillerson -- first of all, Donald Trump saying that 17 agencies -- and I think the agencies can be wrong. I mean, they have been wrong in the past.

So I don't want somebody just to take, "Well, the CIA said this is true. So it's true." Well, no. So let's reason. But we have 17 agencies all saying the same thing. We have Russia.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Russia confirm in research that we have done -- haven't they said that they have their own, you know, disinformation farms?

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Right. So it's not a surprise -- this is the one conspiracy theory that Alex Jones just can't buy into. You know, chemicals that the government is using making frogs gay, he's all into. But this one, there's no way it can be true.

What do you think about the denial and also Tillerson?

JASON: I think Tillerson -- I'm trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here.

Now, he's -- he's not doing -- he's not naming these people. And he's not pro-Russia on certain stances because he wants to enable Russia to be -- to take us over or whatever.

I do think that he's setting people up and setting a path forward to make a friendship actually possible. That's what I think.

Now, it could be to our detriment. But there are -- as I look back at foreign policy mistakes that we've made in the past, especially with Russia -- I mean, we've made severe mistakes going back to Clinton since the Yugoslav wars, when we completely cut them out. We pressed for NATO to go forward. And that further backed them into a corner.

The sanctions were warranted, but that was -- a lot of that was -- you know, because Bush was going for an antiballistic missile shield in eastern Europe. So there's a lot of things that have pushed Russia into a corner and have made them an enemy.

Now, if his strategy and coming up with people that understand Russia -- you know, and I hate -- personally, I don't want a Secretary of State that has been labeled and given a medal for being a friend of any country. I don't like that.

But if he's setting it up to where he's saying, "Look, we're going to make some concessions, but we're looking for concessions to you." Like, how about, get out of the propaganda campaign in Europe. Stop funding some of these far-right movements throughout the world.

GLENN: But he won't even admit that there is anything like that going on.

JASON: Yeah. I --

GLENN: I mean, you know, if you don't -- if you won't say -- you want to take a stand and say, look, let's look into that. Let's look into that. And have somebody else make the case. And then be the broker of the deal saying, "Look, I've got 17 agencies here that say it's true. I want to believe you. Why don't we just do something where it's trust and verify. Get out of that business. You say you're not. But we know you are over in Europe. So get out of that business."

JASON: What's scary to me about it is, I can see if he's just not saying anything publicly about it. Basically kind of -- not confirming that that's -- that Putin is meddling in elections all over the world. I can see him not coming at that publicly. But what it sounds like is that he's just denying or dismissing actual intelligence reports.

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: Just because it's not convenient for him at the time. That's extremely dangerous. I just don't -- I refuse to believe he's that stupid. There's got to be more going on than what we think.

There's so many ways that he can come out and be fine with this. He just refuses to do this diplomatically. He could just say, "Yes, they were involved. Now, I don't support that. I shouldn't have said, give me the 30,000 emails. You know, I don't support that. But we also can't turn a blind eye to the -- these are facts that they brought up about Hillary Clinton.

Yes, they were involved in exposing them through WikiLeaks. But, you know, we can't turn a blind eye to the actual facts. They reveal a truth, but they shouldn't have done it.

You can easily say that and be done with it.

GLENN: What happens to Russia with Syria? What's going to happen with Syria now?

JASON: It's a mess. I don't think it will ever be what it ever was.

You have a significant Kurdish problem in the north. It's a problem for Assad. They're not going anywhere. That's probably the next fight.

They'll probably turn towards the Kurds before they turn towards ISIS. I mean, just --

GLENN: You can't go after the Kurds. The Kurds are -- the Kurds are the best in the Middle East, next to Israel. The Kurds get it. The Kurds are our friends. And we will abandon them yet again.

JASON: Yeah. Well, I -- there's a weird -- the two stepbrothers, the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq, are a little bit different. They even speak a different language. The problem is they're connected to the terrorist group in Turkey, the ones in Syria, which will significantly hurt how we operate with them in the future. Right now, we are operating with them. But that's going to be a huge mess with Turkey going forward.

But I fully expect Assad to turn on the Kurds next, which means we have operators fighting along with the Kurds, some of our own. That's going to be a huge deal. I mean, we're going to have Russian planes bombing those guys while our guys are standing right next to them. I haven't even heard them address that fact right now. But that's going to be a significant problem.

But I still would not be surprised if ISIS morphs into something else later on. It becomes some other Islamic republic right there in the middle of Syria. But you could see three separate countries right now in Syria.

GLENN: Last thing, you brought home a Bible that was being used by ISIS as target practice.

JASON: This -- one of the main stories you're going to see come from my trip is the urban warfare now on the outskirts of Mosul. This Bible was used as target practice on the inside.

This hadn't even been swept for TNT or IEDs yet. So we literally had to follow a guy in. He said we were crazy, but we had to step where he was stepping as he was going through this church.

There were still wires, IED wires that were still attached to TNT as we were walking through this. No other media organization has walked through that. No other foreigner has walked through that church, but now that Bible is from that church.

I was blown away. Like, ISIS does not exist above -- up in the sunlight. They don't walk around through the streets. They go in tunnels. They go from house to house to house to house. They just travel through tunnels. And that's how they are in ISIS right now. But we're going to show you all those tunnels, where you actually walk through those tunnels.

GLENN: When is that? Is that after the 1st of the year?

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Jason, I appreciate it. And sorry that the trip was so -- I mean, you shot yourself in the foot, so to speak.

GLENN: Yeah.

JASON: But I'm glad that you learned. And I'm glad that you're back, and we pray that the -- we pray for the safety, as you know, because you -- you guarded my family for several years. And you know my family praise for all the soldiers and press and everybody who is in harm's way every night. And we continue to do that. And good to have you back.

JASON: Thanks.

GLENN: Thank you very much.

Featured Image: Glenn displays a bible shot by ISIS, brought back from Iraq by Jason Buttrill.

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.