Are Mass Shootings a Reflection of Our Godless Society?

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?”

Glenn revisited the famous “God is dead” quote from German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche on today’s show, analyzing how our society has disintegrated since people decided they no longer believed in God and asking if that loss has encouraged mass shootings. When we’re told that God doesn’t exist, there are no heroes to look up to and even science can be ignored, what else can we expect but chaos?

“How much … has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers?” Glenn asked. “How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledygook?”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to tell you about a movement now to get schools just to recognize the sixth commandment. Just can be can we -- can we recognize the sixth. Don't need to have all ten. Let's just put one in. You can't murder.

How much of this has been -- how much of this has been -- has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers? How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledegook.

We're doing this now with science. We're now saying that just because you say you're a man or say you're a woman, you are. Rejecting science. We've always been told, as religious people, you are science deniers. But we're now being told that just because you say you're a woman, you are a woman. Denying the X and Y chromosomes.

What is happening to us? What happens to us is, no matter what the god is, no matter what the -- we used to -- develop a society based on what the shoe box says. And inside the shoe box is a Magic 8-Ball. And that's what we've set our society up on.

Well, we might go and say, you know, we -- am I a woman? Shake the Magic 8-Ball and it says, ask again later.

And we build our whole foundation on that. Well, if you take away the Magic 8-Ball, you better replace it with something else that is going to decide what is true and what is not.

We've taken away our Magic 8-Ball. We've taken away the truth that we all recognize, the Judeo-Christian truth. We have taken -- we have taken God and chased him out in our society. What made western culture different was, we looked to Jesus. Jesus was a messenger of peace.

Now, religion's got screwed up all the time. All the time. But generally speaking, when we would take these big leaps forward, it was because we were basing our society and the greatest men in our society, on Jesus.

They were the ones who sacrificed it all. They were the ones who were peaceful, who were gentle, who were giving, who were healing. Who were listeners and comforters. Who took more than their fair share for everybody else. And that was something that was grown inside of us.

Now we've gotten rid of that character. And what have we replaced it with. Nothing. There is no hero. There is no archetype. There is nothing.

Point to what we're all striving to be. You know, we all -- we all chanted -- well, not all of us, but many chanted for change. To what?

To what? There has to be a point on the horizon. To what?

Many of us said, you're going to make these changes, and they're never going to be enough. It's never going to be enough. Because you haven't told us -- if you told us that look, we just want people to be fairly treated. Gay people should be able to get married. Fine. The way to solve this is to get the government out of marriage.

Otherwise, you cause far too many problems. So get government out of marriage. As a Christian, I don't get anything from the government declaring my marriage is sacred or valid. Who cares?

What we've done, however, is created a system to where now, what about the wedding cake? What about this? What about that? And the government has to be involved. That's not American. That's not freedom.

But because we don't have a point on the horizon, where we're saying, we're headed for that archetype. That's what we want. And this is what people are like, in that archetype. And they're well-defined characters, in all kinds of situations. We know how Jesus acted when he was angry. We know Jesus, how he acted when he was being scourged and accused. We know when he had the power to heal. We know how he acted when he was offered up the wealth of the earth. We know every scenario. We know.

Where is that archetype for us?

This is -- you know, I'm -- I'm reading Pinkerton and I'm also reading Jordan Peterson at the same time. And they're both coming at the problems of our society in very similar ways. Jordan Peterson, however, is saying there is a case for God here. Pinkerton is saying there is no case for God.

As I'm looking at -- as I'm looking at things, I'm realizing how foolish I have been. And how much -- how much I have to learn.

And how I have -- how I have allowed people to shape my thinking. For instance, I've always thought Nietzsche was, you know, God is dead. And it's nihilistic. And it's all over. And there's nothing good.

Nihilism. No, that's what he was warning against. And it's amazing, because he -- he makes this case that God is dead in something that he calls The Parable of the Madman. And the ending is what we've done.

We didn't listen to what he was saying. Listen to this Parable of a Madman.

Have you not heard of the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours and ran into the marketplace and cried incessantly, I'm looking for God, I'm looking for God. And many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there and excited considerable laughter. And they said, oh, you lost him? Oh, did he lose his way like a child? Is he hiding? Oh, he's afraid of us. Has he gone on a voyage? Maybe he's emigrated. They shouted and they laughed.

And the madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. So here he is, around a bunch of people, who are mocking the fact that he's looking for God.

He says, where has he gone? I'll tell you, we have killed him. You and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How are we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?

What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Is it moving, or are we moving? Or are we perpetually falling backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there even an up or down left now? Ask yourself these questions. Is there an up or down left now? Do you know what is up, down, sideways? Do you know which way we're falling?

Are we falling to the left or are we falling to the right? Are we falling, or are we falling backward?

There's no consensus to this at all. We have no idea. That's what this, quote, madman was saying to the people.

We don't have any idea. Is it not more and more night coming all the time? Has it not become colder? Ask yourself that question. Are we not a colder society than we were 20 years ago, 40 years ago? Are we not colder in many ways?

Doesn't it seem like darkness is getting earlier and earlier now in our society?

He then says, the famous quote from Nietzsche, God is dead. God remains dead. Here is what we don't follow.

And we have killed him. How shall we murderers of all murderers console ourselves now?

Think of this. If there is no God, who is consoling? Where do you get your -- where do you get your peace, your solace?

He's saying, because in that society, that's -- everybody found it with God. That which is holiest and mightiest of all, that the world has yet possessed, has bled to death under our knives. Who is going to wipe this blood off of us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement? What sacred games will we need to invent?

Now, think of that. We had a system. It was the atonement. It was for Christians. It was Jesus bore the sins so you can start over. Well, what is our -- what is our ritual of atonement now?

We don't have one as a society. There is no one who makes up for everything. There is no one who can forgive our sins. We just have to do it. You just forgive it. All you have to do is just stop drinking. Just stop drinking. All you have to do is stop eating so much. Just stop eating so much.

That's all you have to do. Then why don't we do it?

You know what I have to do? I just have to start exercising. Why don't we do it? There are things that we tell ourselves all the time that we just have to get over it, but why don't we?

That was an important ritual that we had. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Listen to what the people said.

Here the madman fell silent. He regarded his listeners -- they were silent as well and stared at him.

At last, he threw down his lantern to the ground and broke and it went out. I have come to, too, early, he said to them, my time is not yet come. The tremendous event is still on its way. Still traveling. It hasn't reached the ears of men yet. Lightning and thunder require time. The light of the stars require time.

Deeds require time, even after they are done, before they can even be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant than them from the distant stars. And yet, they had done it themselves. Meaning, Nietzsche is telling us now, what are you going to invent? Who is going to be your God? Who is going to make your rules?

Now, remember, he is writing this in Germany. And he is saying the Germans have lost their God. You're now going to have to restructure. So what is it? So it was built on the Progressive Era. It was built on science and pseudoscience. According to man. And man said, what you know we have to do is treat everybody equally? We have to be a collective. Instead of God saying, each of you are individuals, man said, yeah, but we're going to protect the individuals by working as a collective.

That led to death camps, death chambers, gas chambers, gulags, all over the world.

We have to fix reason firmly in her seat. But we also have to realize, we've killed God in our society. And it's going to end the same way it does every time a society kills God. If you want to kill God, then what are you replacing it with? Let's be very specific on that.

What is our God? What gives us eternal truth? What is that point on the horizon that we need to affix and look at and say, we're headed in that direction? If you get rid of the God who gave us the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as individuals, if you get rid of him, then it's logical to have a conversation about getting rid of those rights.

But then, who is going to issue our rights? And what exactly do they mean?

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.