Glenn: Be ‘Crystal Clear’ — Neo-Nazis ‘Are an Enemy of Mankind’

Vice interviewed white supremacists over the weekend in Charlottesville, compiling the interviews in a startling documentary that shows their Tiki-lit march while chanting “Jews will not replace us.”

On Wednesday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program,” Glenn Beck and the guys looked at a truly disturbing moment with a white nationalist who wanted a leader “a lot more racist than Donald Trump.” The white supremacist couldn’t believe Trump would “give his daughter to a Jew,” expressing his disgust for Ivanka Trump’s marriage to Jared Kushner.

Glenn compared people who make excuses for white supremacists to those who defended terrorists in the wake of 9/11. The problem with President Donald Trump’s comments on Tuesday about Charlottesville is that he wasn’t clear on condemning these atrocious beliefs.

“You do not defend, excuse or play ‘whataboutism’ with these horrifying comments,” Glenn said. “You hear this; you do not follow this with, ‘Yeah, but you know, the other side.’”

GLENN: Got some good news: There is a black group in Dallas that has vowed to protect the Confederate monuments here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It is in direct contrast to the way people are acting elsewhere. This black group here in Dallas said, "You know what, they don't affect my life, they're all dead, and it is part of our history."

Should we have perspective on those things? Yeah. Should we just start tearing monuments down? You know, I -- I would suggest that's part of our problem, that we are destroying everything. Remember when I said to you, "Everything that you thought was solid would be liquid, and liquid will be solid?" The entire country is being turned inside out and upside down.

We'll show you, first of all, how that's being done, why that's being done. But by the end of this hour, I think you will also understand who's really behind this. And it's not your neighbor, no matter who they voted for. We begin there, right now.

(music)

Let me give you the story: An anti-Trump activist has been accused of executing his neighbor who was a prominent Republican and Donald Trump supporter. Clayton Carter allegedly shot George Jennings, 51, twice in the head outside of his home in Pennsylvania in the early hours of August 8th.

Clayton Carter, 51, accused of shooting his neighbor, George Jennings.

Now, you can take this story, and you can spin it this way: Clayton had a whole bunch of Donald Trump signs in his front yard.

PAT: Anti-Trump.

GLENN: Or, I'm sorry. Yeah, anti-Trump in his front yard. He's the guy who did the shooting. The neighbor who was shot was pro-Trump. He was pro-G.O.P. They had been going at it forever.

The anti-Trump guy had enough of his neighbor and executed him. Put a bullet in his head. And then as he came down, put a second bullet in his head.

PAT: As his wife looked on.

GLENN: Now, this is the story I could tell. Or I could go a little deeper and say, "Yes. He was a rabid anti-Trump guy." And I could just make a case, "Now, all anti-Trump people are angry and violent and they're all going after their neighbors. If you disagree with them, they'll put a bullet in your head. Because that's how angry they really are." I could get you whipped up into that.

Or I could say, "You know what, there's probably something more." And once you do that homework, you realize this guy is -- the anti-Trump guy is angry all the time about everything. He's a guy who likes, it seems, to be angry. And nobody gets along with him in the neighborhood. And these guys had been arguing for years.

It was the Hatfields and McCoy. We -- we need to stop looking at just the political motivations in things. We also need to stop making generalizations of everyone based on who they voted for. Here's a guy who was anti-Donald Trump. Look, he shot his neighbor -- executed his neighbor. Shot him twice in the head. That's just like those anti-Trump people. Look how angry they all are.

Why are they angry? Why are they angry? And who is making them angry? And why is the left angry? And who is making them angry?

On both sides, I think both sides have a reason to be angry. We can get into whataboutism all you want, but I'm not talking about the fringes. I'm talking about the people that you know. The people that you've been friends with, who are not crazy. Why are they so angry?

Something is playing on them, beyond politics. Now, let me say -- first, I want to separate that group. That's the group of people you know on both sides of the aisle. Then there's another group. And these guys -- these groups deal in anger and rage and hatred.

Vice happened to be in Charlottesville over the weekend. And so they were doing a special on this white nationalist group. This is the alt-right. This is anybody who was, you know, posting little pictures of the frog and -- and, you know, starting -- you're just a cuckservative. That all came from the alt-right. All that language that so many of your friends adopted was started by the alt-right. Now, that doesn't make them an alt-right person. It just means they weren't aware of who these people are. And let's show you who these people are, on both sides.

Listen to this.

VOICE: Jews will not replace us! Jews will not replace us!

GLENN: Jews will not replace us.

VOICE: Jews will not replace us!

PAT: So that's what they're worried about, they're worried about being replaced by Jews. And, you know, who can blame them?

(laughter)

STU: Well, I can blame them.

GLENN: There's 16 million Jews on the planet. They all have to have ten jobs each -- ten full-time jobs each just to cover the jobs in the United States.

PAT: Well, just in America. Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Just in America. And I'm very concerned about that.

STU: I wouldn't say white nationalists are known for their math. I wouldn't say that's one of their strong suits.

GLENN: Right. Right. Well, they're socialists, so they believe in the big state. So they're probably for Common Core.

STU: Oh.

PAT: I'm worried about the Frisbeetarians. Because they have replaced a lot of people already.

STU: Frisbeetarians?

PAT: Yeah. The people who believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it back down.

GLENN: Yeah, like a Frisbee.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: I've never heard of it.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. No, it's big. It's really big. It's in Clear Water, Florida, I believe. The head of the Frisbeetarian Church.

JEFFY: Yes, it is.

GLENN: But, anyway, we digress.

PAT: Here's more.

VOICE: I'm here to spread idea, talk, in the hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that, somebody like Donald Trump who does not give his daughter to a Jew.

PAT: Oh, man.

VOICE: So Donald Trump, but, like, more racist?

VOICE: A lot more racist than Donald Trump.

I don't think that you could feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl. Okay?

PAT: Is that unbelievable?

STU: Unreal.

PAT: How do you get to feel that way about Jewish people? How does that happen? I don't even understand the Jewish hate. I don't even get it.

GLENN: You have to be taught. You have to be taught. You're not born with that kind of stuff.

PAT: No. Why would you be? Unless you're Palestinian, and then you've grown up in it, and you've gone to kindergarten and they've taught you all these things.

In America, how does that happen? How does that happen?

GLENN: I have no idea. I have no idea.

PAT: Bizarre.

GLENN: I didn't even know a Jewish person until my agent George Hilsink (phonetic). I mean, I was, what? Thirty? Not that I -- I may have known -- I never like, oh, you're Jewish, what's happened with -- I don't. I'm sure I knew them. I didn't care. We didn't talk about it. It was no big deal.

STU: You treat people as individuals. Which is kind of how you're supposed to do it, I think.

But, I mean, you look at it, and that clip sounds like it's going to be the typical media attack against Donald Trump. And you realize that, you know, that was not what it was at all. That is this guy saying, "You know, Donald Trump isn't going nearly far enough for me." And this is why you want Trump to come out and disassociate himself with these people as strongly as possible.

GLENN: And also --

STU: Look, obviously Donald Trump does not believe what this moron believes. You look at who he's put in his administration, besides his daughter and his --

GLENN: Please tell me there's no more Jews in that.

STU: There's lots of them.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh!

STU: He was doing -- he was behind -- Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin were right behind him when he was doing the press conference yesterday.

GLENN: Thank goodness -- he didn't have any black people in, does he?

STU: You know what, yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: This is stunning.

GLENN: I didn't know. Jews and blacks, both working in the government?

STU: Yeah. Yes. Yes.

PAT: Side by side. Side by side.

GLENN: Holy cow. Holy cow.

STU: This guy is going to be pissed off about it, I'm sure, in this audio.

GLENN: So this is -- again, just showing you --

PAT: It's bizarre.

GLENN: You do not defend, excuse, or play whataboutism.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The minute you say -- you hear this. No. Stop. You hear this. You do not follow this with, "Yeah, but -- you know, the other side is -- I don't care what the other side is doing. You know what that is? You know what that makes you sound like? Everyone we have railed against since September 11th. "Yes, I'm against the terrorists, but I will tell you that you guys have done -- you stopped listening to those people.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And this is the problem with Donald Trump's speech.

If you are not absolutely crystal clear, these guys are an enemy of not the United States, not of mine. Of mankind.

There's no whataboutism. There's no other side. There's nothing. We're talking about them right now.

PAT: And --

GLENN: Believe me, I'll get to the other side later. We're talking about them. There's no way you stand or dismiss or do anything, but say, "That's poison. I am as far away from that as possible."

STU: And you can watch CNN all day and find -- and anyplace, and find people denouncing white supremacists. Some of them are just doing it hyper partisan, Trump reasons. Some of them are doing it, and they are completely right, word-for-word, I would agree with them. The issue here though is, none of those things mean anything to white supremacies. None of those denunciations coming from CNN or MSNBC mean a thing. It would mean something from Donald Trump. And that's you want him to be so passionate about it, more passionate than a guy leaving your economic council.

GLENN: Right. They don't -- they don't mind being on the fringe. They like being on the fringe. That's where they -- that's the only place they can grow in darkness. The president shining a spotlight on them is really important.

But I really don't care about how they feel. I really don't. What I care about is that we have drawn a very bright line all around them. And said, "Do not cross this line." To our side. To our side.

See this group of people. This is what they believe. Stay a million miles away from them. It's not about them. It's about us.

I'm not going to excuse. I'm not going to play whataboutism, at all. I won't. They're wrong. They're evil. And they are an enemy to humanity.

Next clip, please.

VOICE: Trump wasn't able to beat us. The left, who are the good boys of the capitalist class and the bourgeoisie and the status quo.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. Stop. Hang on just a second.

What was that? What was that? Capitalists?

STU: What word was that? Capitalists?

GLENN: Yeah. What is he saying there, Stu?

STU: Hmm. He seems to be against capitalists.

GLENN: Capitalists.

PAT: Uh-huh. The bourgeoisie.

GLENN: And the bourgeoisie. I'm sorry. The only person I have ever met in my life and have even seen in movies that uses the word "bourgeoisie" are Marxists.

PAT: Well, Marxists and Jeffy, who doesn't like bougie sauce.

JEFFY: Right. Thank you.

STU: That's true.

PAT: He uses that on a regular basis, but not the entire word. Because he doesn't know it.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: But you're right. The bourgeoisie -- this is -- and it's an attack used, by the way, as people you might know as national socialists.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: They don't like capitalism. They crushed it --

GLENN: So wait a minute. By listening and exposing these people, you now can see in their own language, when they say "alt-right," they mean alternate right, as in defining the word alternate, a replacement of the right. They cannot co-exist with the right because they do not believe in the Constitution. They believe in a Marxist, socialist, heavy government state.

They have nothing to do with us. Draw a bright line around that.

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.

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.