Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn Reacts to Statement by U2's Bono: He's Amazing, One of the Bravest

May 25, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Editor's note: This article has been updated. An earlier version seemed to indicate Glenn's admiration for Bono was a recent development when in reality, Glenn has been a fan of U2's lead vocalist for quite some time.

Contrasting responses to the Manchester terrorist attack made by U2's Bono and Queen's Brian May, Glenn shared his reaction on radio Thursday.

"I think Bono is an amazing guy, truly an amazing guy," he said.

One thing's for sure, Bono is incredibly brave for his comments on Manchester:

They hate music. They hate women. They even hate little girls. They hate everything that we love. And, you know, the worst of humanity was on view in Manchester last night. So was the best. As people took perfect strangers into their hands, and cued up blood banks. Manchester has an undefeatable spirit, I can assure you.

In other interviews, Bono has boldly discussed his belief in God:

My mother died at my --- her own father's grave site, as he was being lowered into the ground --- I was 14. She left me, but she left me an artist. I began the journey, trying to fill the hole in my heart with music, with my mates, my band mates.

Finally, the only thing that could fill it is God's love. And it's a big hole. But luckily, it's a big love. I went finally to Jerusalem on a family pilgrimage and I went to Golgotha. And I went to the site where -- and I had some time on my own -- where death died. And I was like, wow, there it is. That's where death died.

"That's unbelievable. I've never heard it described as where death died. That is fantastic," Glenn said.

Religious themes have also made their way into U2's music.

"U2's 1983 album War has a song called 40," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

Bono's bandmate The Edge had this to say about the song:

So we had this slightly unusual piece the music, and We said, okay. What are we going to do with it? Bono said, let's do a psalm. Opened up the Bible, and found Psalm 40. "This is it. Let's do it." The song title is 40. Within 40 minutes, we had worked out the last few elements from the tune. Bono had sung it. We had mixed it. And literally, after finishing the mix, we walked out the door, and the next band walked in.

"I mean, they did a song that was based on Psalm 40," Stu said.

"If they're playing anywhere when I get back from vacation, if they're anywhere close, let's all go as a show," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment beginning at the 18:18 mark from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Welcome to the program.

Okay. So we heard from Brian May. Now let's hear what Bono said about the Manchester bombing.

JIMMY: As you know, there was another senseless terrorist attack in Manchester yesterday.

PAT: Obviously on Jimmy Kimmel.

JIMMY: And that's something you guys have been thinking about, certainly.

BONO: They -- they hate music. They hate women. They even hate little girls. They hate everything that we love.

And, you know, the worst of humanity was on view in Manchester last night. So was the best. As people took perfect strangers into their hands, and cued up blood banks. Manchester has an undefeatable spirit, I can assure you.

GLENN: Now, listen to the difference.

PAT: Listen to the difference between him and Brian May.

GLENN: Listen to the difference.

PAT: That almost sounds like what George Bush used to say all the time.

GLENN: No, but that's true.

PAT: They hate our music. They don't like Ariana Grande.

(laughter)

PAT: They don't like our -- tunes.

(chuckling)

PAT: They hate freedom.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: They don't like bowling. They don't like professional bowlers. They don't like the bowling shoes. They think they're ugly.

(chuckling)

Even the size 12, they didn't like them at all. In fact, size 12 bowling shoes set them off more than anything else.

(laughter)

STU: That's great.

GLENN: There's more to Bono that you absolutely have to hear. One of the -- one of the bravest --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: One of the bravest -- he's kind of the Jon Voight though of music. Jon Voight is like, I got my Oscars. They don't know what to do with me now anyway. I'm still going to act in all their movies because they love me.

That's who he is. Bono is Jon Voight of music.

(OUT AT 10:30AM)

GLENN: All right. So let's play the Manchester from Jimmy Kimmel and Bono. I think Bono is -- is an amazing guy. Truly an amazing guy.

And I don't know if he is -- if he's changed, if he was as lefty as we thought. Or if he was just so popular, the left just brought him in and said, "Oh, Bono, you're on great. And you agree with us on everything." And he got credit and blame for things that he really didn't believe. I don't know.

PAT: Possibly. Because I remember disliking him a lot, thinking he was a wacko progressive.

GLENN: Well, you were a big U2 fan.

STU: I'm still a big U2 fan. Actually seeing them on Friday in Dallas.

JEFFY: Heck yeah.

GLENN: Are you really? I've never seen them.

STU: Oh, they're fantastic. This one is the Joshua Tree Tour. So they're going back -- I guess it's the 30-year anniversary of the Joshua Tree. So they're doing the whole album. And I think just that.

PAT: What?

GLENN: If they're playing anywhere, when I get back from vacation, if they're anywhere close, let's all go as a show. I've never seen them. I hear they're great.

STU: They are. I've been a big fan for a really long time. But I've always felt like the right gave him an unfair shake when it comes to who he is. Because he's seen as sort of this crazy liberal activist. And he was big on supporting AIDS charities and debt relief and sort the these global causes that you'd associate with every left-wing annoying celebrity --

PAT: AIDS for Africa.

GLENN: And there's nothing -- there's nothing wrong with any of that.

STU: Of course not.

GLENN: I always just assumed that he was with the United Nations. And I think he was.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And then it didn't work.

STU: You know, I think -- he's no hard-core conservative by any means.

GLENN: No, no.

STU: But he's always been a big capitalist. And I think he's always -- he's always been religious and had a really impassioned --

PAT: And he's not afraid to talk about it.

GLENN: He was always religious?

STU: Yeah, going back to the beginning of the band.

JEFFY: Pretty much.

STU: I think he's had times where he's had his ups and life. I mean, he's lived a life. He's lived a rock star life too.

GLENN: I mean, I've heard him mention Jesus a lot lately.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it must be one of his up periods because nobody talks -- nobody uses the J word.

STU: He's been more outspoken, I think, recently.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But he's always had that influence. And, like, one of the things he got beat on was this RED project he did. Now, the RED project was -- you might remember it. It had like -- it was all shirts. And a lot the people, and celebrities were wearing them for a while. It said like, "Inspired." And RED was in parentheses. And it raised money for global charities, and it was a big deal.

And, you know, the media and also a lot on the right, kind of jumped on him. Was like, well, here you go. I think they raised $100 million or something. And they -- but, you know, like, I can't remember exactly what it was. It was something like at the end of -- at one period, they had only sent something like $20 million to -- to these charities. And it's like, well, think about what he did there, from a conservative perspective from a moment.

He worked with dozens of actual stores. He didn't just ask for free money. He worked with actual capitalist institutions, designed clothing that people wanted to wear, and then took a chunk of that money and gave it to charity.

GLENN: 20 percent.

STU: It was something like 20 percent that he gave to charity. Now, he didn't give every dime of it to charity. You know, there were licensing fees that they paid. He got criticism for that. And the fact that they were working for these big companies that only want profit and get people in the stores, and they buy other things.

GLENN: You had to have license, or people would rip it off. And then you would have nothing.

STU: Exactly. And here's a guy who actually worked through capitalism, to improve the world.

GLENN: That's why.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: And isn't that -- that's why he got beat up by places like the New York Times. But the right jumped on it because, oh, it's a celebrity.

GLENN: It's so weird that you say that. Because I almost said, when he started his RED campaign, I almost said -- that's when I started to like him. Then I thought -- maybe it wasn't. I don't know when -- but it was around that period that I started to think, "I think this guy gets it."

STU: Yeah. And you would talk to I'm sure Bono about a million topics. And you would disagree with him on half of them probably. He's no Libertarian.

GLENN: Sure. But you're a huge fan of his.

STU: I'm a huge fan.

GLENN: Right. You remember the time when I met him and spent like a half hour with him, we just chatted?

PAT: In New York, when he was doing the --

STU: I do remember that.

GLENN: Yeah. You weren't there. But I just chatted with him. We're buds.

PAT: It seems like you didn't even know who he was at that time.

GLENN: I mean, I knew he was part of U2. But I had never seen any of his contests or anything like that, but you --

JEFFY: He was asking you advice.

GLENN: Yeah, he was. He was asking me advice.

STU: Curing deadly diseases, and this is what you're going to focus on.

GLENN: Only because it drives you out of your mind.

STU: It does. It does.

GLENN: Okay. So listen to this from Bono. This came out earlier this week.

BONO: My mother died at my -- her own father's grave site, as he was being lowered into the ground -- I was fourteen.

She left me. But she left me an artist. I began the journey, trying to fill the hole in my heart with music, with my mates, my band mates. Finally, the only thing that could fill it is God's love. And it's a big hole. But luckily, it's a big love. I went finally to Jerusalem on a family pilgrimage.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

BONO: And I went to Golgotha. And I went to the site where -- and I had some time on my own -- where death died.

GLENN: Hmm.

BONO: And I was like, wow, there it is. That's where death died.

And so --

STU: Wow.

BONO: -- I don't really believe in it.

PAT: Wow. From a rock star.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. I've never heard it described as where death died. That is fantastic.

JEFFY: Me either.

STU: He speaks in lyrics in normal conversation.

GLENN: Yeah, I noticed that when I was -- oh, you weren't there.

STU: No. I wasn't.

JEFFY: Oh, man.

PAT: Really, he's almost poetic.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: A lot like Donald Trump, who is also so eloquent, that sometimes it just shoots right over your head.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: If I may quote what's her name, the country artist -- the girl -- the young girl remember I saw the 100 most important people in the world or influential people in the world thing. She got up in front of Elton John and said, "I have this theory that songs -- love songs are just poetry set to music."

PAT: That was so profound. Wasn't it?

GLENN: So profound. Who was it? I actually like her. She's the big country artist that really respect her for, you know, the way she treats her fans and everything. What's her name?

STU: Taylor Swift.

GLENN: Yeah. Elton John was sitting right in front of her, and he had never heard that before.

JEFFY: He probably never heard that before.

GLENN: I think he put his head in his hands at that point. He's like, oh, dear God.

(laughter)

She didn't say it to a crowd of influential or important people at all.

STU: That's good. U2's 1983 album War has a song called 40. Here's the quote. This is by the Edge, not Bono. The other guy in the band -- one of the other guys in the band, talking about what it came from.

So we had this slightly unusual piece the music, and We said, okay. What are we going to do with it? Bono said, let's do a psalm.

Opened up the Bible, and found Psalm 40. "This is it. Let's do it."

The song title is 40. Within 40 minutes, we had worked out the last few elements from the tune. Bono had sung it. We had mixed it. And literally, after finishing the mix, we walked out the door, and the next band walked in.

But, I mean, they did a song that was based on Psalm 40.

PAT: Wow.

STU: One of their CDs. And this is 1983. This is not a new thing obviously.

GLENN: Is he Catholic?

STU: I think he is, yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Is it Scotland that is -- one of the -- is it -- is it -- is the struggle only in Ireland, between the Catholics and the Protestants?

PAT: Yeah, I don't think it's in Scotland.

GLENN: Why not? Aren't they right next door to each other? Aren't they a stone's throw away? Once you throw a mazel tov cocktail from Ireland to Scotland.

PAT: I don't think they do copycat protests. No, I don't think so.

GLENN: You don't think so?

Huh. Because I think they're basically the same country.

STU: Let's leave it to the expert on this debate. Jeffy, how would you describe that?

JEFFY: Describe what?

STU: Yeah. Okay. That's my new thing. Whenever there's a complicated topic, I just throw it to Jeffy as the expert because then he looks dumb instead of me.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

PAT: And then you get something really deep like, ugh.

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.