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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

August 17, 2017
Staff

WRITER

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.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.