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

Get the Duct Tape: This DIY Demo Will Teach You EXACTLY How to Add a Chainsaw to Your AR-15

November 09, 2017
Jon Boldt

Writer

As if the mainstream media hadn't already proven how gun-illiterate they are, USA Today decided to push the envelope and go all-in on the gun insanity.

In a tweet Wednesday afternoon, USA Today shared a video showing "common" and "rare" modifications to an AR-15 rifle that would turn your Walmart Special into a video game-esque, zombie-hunting chainsaw-shotgun-laser-hybrid from your worst nightmare.

Check out the tweet:

When he first saw the video, Glenn said he thought it was a joke and reacted accordingly.

"So when I saw the chainsaw bayonet, first of all, I was like, I’ve got to get me one of them," Glenn said on radio Thursday. "The second thing that I thought of is this: the people that are telling you that guns are evil are so disconnected from reality, that they actually think that there is a movement to attach chainsaw to AR's."

He then proceeded with a little DIY gun-modification project of his own. Stu captured the moment on Facebook Live.

Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

Maybe Glenn and Stu didn't get it quite right. Have a suggestion for them? Share your favorite modification ideas in the comments section below.

GLENN: So I saw something yesterday I thought had to be joke. It's really not.

STU: Yeah. Because you seem to be joking a lot so far in the show.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: You're mocking people who were screaming helplessly at the sky. But what are you supposed to do in a culture that allows legal chain saw bayonets on their guns?

GLENN: Right! Am I right?

STU: Right? And you might think it's a joke. You might think it's some silly thing. I don't know. But, I mean, I can tell you this. It scared the hell out of me when I saw it yesterday from USA Today.

GLENN: Okay. So USA Today put out a video of all of the attachments. Like a flash light. Good God, you could put a flash flight on the end of a gun. Why would someone ever need something like that?

STU: It's almost as if you'd want to see where the bullets were going.

GLENN: See what's in front of you. It's crazy these -- then they showed a laser site.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hello. Does anybody remember Dr. Evil? What was he putting at the top of sharks' heads? Lasers.

STU: So that is really -- they actually did do this video, if you haven't seen it. First, they go through the actual attachments that were on the gun, that the shooter used. Then they go through some other possible attachments that are available.

GLENN: That are available.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And people do this, they put lasers on their guns.

STU: It says possible modifications. One hundred round drum magazine. They also have a shotgun attachment.

GLENN: A shotgun attachment.

STU: So you had attach another shotgun below the gun.

GLENN: A shotgun attachment, now, that is not something I've seen before. But if it's in USA Today, it's a shotgun attachment. I get that.

STU: And, of course, most terrifying is the chain saw baneet.

GLENN: Don't even say that out loud.

STU: Well, I unfortunately have. So it's impossible to stop now.

GLENN: I wish you hadn't. Because once people get the idea that this is available, that you can go out in a store and you can buy an attachment for your AR, and it's a chain saw and you just mount that chain saw underneath the barrel so it's -- it's a chain saw bayonet. My gosh, do you know the kind of carnage?

STU: Oh, my gosh. Everyone is going to have one by the end of the week. And that's what's terrifying to me. You know, I used to be for the Second Amendment. Then chain saw bayonet.

GLENN: So now let me just say that I don't think -- and I'm doing something at 5 o'clock tonight that I believe -- we're going to take you through the fantasy land that Hollywood lives in. Because I don't think that they can find the difference between truth and fiction. I really -- you know, it's like these actors who are like, well, when I was climbing the -- the Himalayas with HEP Niblick. With who?

He was my Sherpa guy. That was a movie, man. That was a movie. And they have no idea the difference between real life and movies and fiction. George Takei yesterday tweeted out how in the United Federation of Planets, they had universal health care.

George, I want you to -- I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United Federation of Planets, doesn't exist. It's a TV show.

STU: It's also movies.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So...

GLENN: So.

STU: Back up. Second source there. That's how it works, right?

GLENN: When you're right, you're right.

So when I saw the chain saw bayonet --

STU: Hmm. Terrifying.

GLENN: First of all, I was like, I've got to get me one of them.

STU: I actually think I do want one if they exist.

GLENN: And then the second thing that I thought of is this -- the people that are telling you that guns are evil are so disconnected from reality, that they actually think that there is a movement to attach chain saw to ARs. That that is something -- you know, I'm --

STU: I'm going to Cabela's.

GLENN: I'm going to Cabela's. I'm just going to grab a chain saw attachment, honey. I'll be right back.

STU: That's like a totally normal thing to them.

GLENN: Right. That they would attach them. And they would -- it's ridiculous to believe. So we started to look into it. The gun exists. And I have it.

STU: You do? And this is -- by the way, do not try this at home. Because this is a very dangerous weapon.

GLENN: This is the actual gun, that they are basing -- and I'm not kidding you. This is the gun that they're basing that attachment on. And as you see, Stu, I don't want to point it to you.

STU: Please don't. It's very scary.

GLENN: I'm putting it at the camera. You will see that this is an AR.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I don't know if it's an actual --

GLENN: And right underneath it's a chain saw.

STU: Now, some would say that potentially, that gun seems to come from the video game games of war -- Gears of War.

GLENN: That's what some would say. What's the difference between real life and a video game?

STU: Apparently to many in the media, nothing.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right.

This is from the video game --

STU: And a lot of people actually think that's where they got that idea. It's a popular video game from the '90s.

GLENN: Where else would you get that idea? Have you ever heard of that?

STU: I've never heard of that. There's a few YouTubers who have sort of jokingly attached, you know, chain saws to guns. I guess they then use the chain saw. But it's not like it's an actual functional thing. There's no reason --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, Stu, you are so stupid. I am going to -- you know what, could we get -- here, here, I got it. I got it.

I brought in a few things today.

STU: He brought in a few things, he's across the room now.

GLENN: So I brought in the AR.

STU: Okay. Be careful with that.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Yeah, no, I know. I brought the AR in. And I brought in a chain saw.

STU: That's a -- and a real chain saw.

GLENN: So I have the AR and the chain saw.

Wait a minute. I've got more.

I also have a shotgun.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Handgun. And some duct tape.

Now, I am -- I am of the mindset.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That USA Today was on to something.

And I believe that we need to make one of these.

So could we -- is Jason around?

Come here, Jason. Jason is our -- today in-house weapons expert.

Now, Jason, what I would like to do is first I would like to take the AR. And it is unloaded and safe.

I would like you to take the AR, and we want to attach the chain saw right here. Come here. We want to attach the chain saw. Now, I'm left-hand. So I'm going to be shooting like this. So I would like the chain saw right here, so I can -- you know what I mean? So I think it should be like that. Because that's --

STU: Wait. That's not how the design is on the actual chain saw bayonet. The chain saw bayonet from USA Today has it underneath.

GLENN: You know, you can go -- you can go with that. Sure, you can do that.

STU: I have the schematic right here.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I don't want it that way. I want it right there.

STU: You want it on the side basically?

GLENN: They have it like this. Yeah, because I want it on the side. Because I want to be able to chop their heads off.

STU: Wait. The concept of this would be you would shoot the person.

GLENN: You would shoot the person and then you would chop their heads off.

STU: After you've shot them?

GLENN: Sure.

STU: Why would you want -- what's the purpose of chopping their heads off after you've already --

GLENN: Because then there's dead, and then there's, that was sick.

STU: So straight out bloodlust?

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: Making sure.

GLENN: Are you a member of the NRA?

STU: I'm not. So maybe I don't understand real blood lust.

GLENN: Yeah. It's just every member of the NRA knows, I want to shoot something, and then I want to take a chain saw and just hack it up.

STU: Really? Because the guy who was an NRA instructor who stopped the shooting.

GLENN: Yeah, he used one of these.

STU: He used the if one, not the chain saw.

GLENN: Yeah, he used the AR. ARs have to be removed only when killing people.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Except he didn't kill him. He wounded him and stopped the slaughter with his AR. But pay no attention to that. You know, because he didn't kill him.

STU: A lot of people aren't paying attention to him, it seems like.

GLENN: Yeah. So he had just the AR. But I'm going to have the AR with just the attachment. Okay? So can we work on that right now? Can you just take that over there? Because I'd got some other attachments that I would like to add to it as well.

For instance, Stu, what is this?

STU: Well, that's a knife.

GLENN: A knife. What kind of knife is it?

STU: I would say steak knife.

GLENN: That's what you would think.

STU: Looks like a steak knife to me. Is that what it is?

GLENN: Yeah. That's it. Just a regular knife.

I don't want you to freak out. I don't want you to freak out.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But what is this?

STU: That appears to be another knife.

GLENN: Another knife.

STU: It's slightly larger. It's like a butcher knife. Not quite --

GLENN: So a butcher knife. Okay.

You don't see the difference here?

Besides the size. Oh, my gosh.

STU: What's the -- it looks like --

GLENN: What is this?

STU: That's like a butcher knife.

GLENN: That's a butcher knife, right?

STU: That's a butcher knife. Regular butcher knife, right?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Does it make you afraid.

STU: No, we have them --

GLENN: What's this?

STU: Basically a butcher knife. I don't know the exact at the table term of that knife.

GLENN: But it makes you afraid?

STU: No.

GLENN: Yes, it does.

STU: It does?

GLENN: This one is spray-painted black. (?) this is a tabling knife. This is a steak knife. This doesn't make you afraid. This doesn't make you afraid. But I spray pained this one black, so it's now a tactical knife.

Don't you --

STU: But would they all be sharp and dangerous and stab you in the same --

GLENN: Yeah, but this one is more frightening.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: I come at you with this.

STU: Oh, that's just a normal silver knife.

GLENN: He's just going to come at me and maybe we're going to butcher some meat together. I believe at you with this, (?), but I come at you with this, and you know I have deadly intent.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: And I'm a serial killer.

STU: Right. Because it's painted.

GLENN: It's pained black.

STU: Okay. Now I'm getting it. (?)

GLENN: Good. We need to put the tactical knife. I was thinking, if we put -- except, I don't like the look of the tactical (?)

STU: It's just silver.

GLENN: No, it's just silver.

STU: That part is just scary.

GLENN: That part is scary. If I came (?) then you would be terrified.

STU: But you had the barrel.

GLENN: As soon as I put the barrel, and you see it's silver, you're like --

STU: It's not a big deal. By the way, that is essentially the subscription of the new Feinstein bill. It's basically her new (?) is it a black weapon? Then it must be banned.

GLENN: Wow. Racist. Listen to the racism.

STU: That's typical progressives.

GLENN: Hey, can I have some of that duct tape. Because I'm going to show you here at home, if you happen to be listening, you can go to TheBlaze TV and capture this sometimes later today, in case you want to make some of this yourself. But I'll try to be very descriptive on radio. But, again, if you can't follow this, and you want to get this exactly right --

STU: And we're getting this live on Facebook. Stu Burguiere on Facebook. (?) you can see this happen.

GLENN: You take a Smith & Wesson here. Okay? Regular Smith and resin. Because I can carry this. I'm going to show you how to make a concealed weapon with an at home attachment to make it a little more sick.

STU: Oh, my gosh. And this is legal, right?

GLENN: Oh, this is totally legal. Totally legal.

STU: Because the NRA. The freaking NRA.

GLENN: We'll do that just a second. (?)

STU: No, it's just silver.

GLENN: We'll go through all this. Because I'm an NRA member. And I know. And we'll also show you the finished product of the real chain saw AR coming up in a second.

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.

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.