Are We Fighting World War III With Currency?

Financial expert Chris Martenson with PeakProsperity.com joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to discuss what Glenn calls the largest currency war in the history of mankind.

"I believe we are in a global currency war, the Third World War of currency. First World War, currency war, was World War I then World War II, and this has been going back and forth with Jina since Ronald Reagan. But now Donald Trump is talking about trade barriers and specifically taking on China as the biggest manipulator of currency, which historically, they have been," Glenn said.

Instead of dealing with reality, we've decided to play the money game. What will it look like when the chickens come home to roost?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Who is the biggest manipulator of currency?

• What's the impact of regulations and workplace safety laws in the US?

• What's the one thing credit bubbles can't stand?

• Did Italy do a Brexit this weekend?

• What's the real game being played right now?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the program. We are in, what I believe is the largest currency war in the history of mankind. And it's the most wonderful time of the year. So this is all good stuff.

Chris Martenson, our currency guru is joining us to talk about what this means for your finance. Put things that you're hearing in the news like tweets about Jina, what does that actually mean to you? We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Beginning of next year, and throughout the year, I want to give you a handle on what I believe is coming, just as a student of history.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. And I believe we are in a global currency war, the third world war of currency. First world war, currency war, was World War I. Then World War II. And this has been going back and forth with Jina since Ronald Reagan. But now Donald Trump is talking about trade barriers and specifically taking on China as the biggest manipulator of currency, which historically, they have been.

But we have decided to play the game all of these years for a reason.

You may want to stop playing the game. But I want you to understand what that means so you don't go in and then when the whole world falls apart, you go, "Well, why the hell didn't someone tell me this?" We have Chris Martenson on with us. Our guru from peakprosperity.com. Welcome, Chris. How are you?

CHRIS: Oh, I'm doing very well today. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Can you put into perspective the -- the Taiwan and China talk about being the manipulator of -- the largest manipulator of currency?

First of all, is it true, or are we the biggest manipulator of currency?

(chuckling)

CHRIS: I think the answer is yes. Everybody is manipulating their currencies at all times. And there's a good reason for it, if you can keep your currency weak or low, relative to your trading partners, it makes your goods more attractive. So if somebody has a widget to sell and you can keep your currency nice and low, well, you can sell more of them. China has been on an absolute industrial tear. They've been exporting like mad. So the thinking would be, in a normal world, their currency should rise in value, relative to other currencies, and that hasn't been happening. And so the charge is leveled that China is manipulating its currency to keep it low, to give it an unfair advantage, to give its manufacturers an unfair advantage. That's what Trump is talking about.

GLENN: So, I mean, really, we have to cut ourselves a break. The reason why America doesn't make the world's goods anymore is partly because our currency was always so strong that the rest of the world couldn't afford to buy our stuff. And we bought everybody else's stuff because it was good or good enough. And it was really cheap. We couldn't compete because of the value of their currency.

CHRIS: Well, indeed. That's part of the story, and the other part is that we give ourselves lots and lots of tasty regulations and workplace safety laws.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

CHRIS: And all sorts of things like that.

GLENN: Correct.

CHRIS: And China doesn't burden itself in quite the same way. So they can compete.

GLENN: Correct.

CHRIS: So, yes, they have cheaper labor. But that's just part of the story. The rest of the story is, yes, they are keeping their currency nice and low. And so this has worked out really well for the United States. Sometimes people say, "Chris, the United States doesn't really export anymore." And it's not true.

We export a lot of dollars. We run a trade deficit, that if it was its own economy, would be around the eighth or the ninth largest in the world. It's an astonishing number that the United States imports more than we export. When we do that, it means basically we're exporting those dollars, and we're counting on places like China to hold on to those dollars and not send them back home.

GLENN: Why is that important?

CHRIS: Well, so what they have to do, if they're holding the dollars, what do they do with them?

The central bank starts to accumulate them in China. And so they can't just hold on to dollars. So they hold on to treasuries instead. And because they're buying our treasuries in the United States, what happens next is that keeps our interest rates low.

So if China suddenly decided to reverse this policy -- let's say Trump comes out and labels them a currency manipulator, goes after them hard, China could just turn around and decide to start selling all of those treasuries. And if they do that, our interest rates will rise.

Well, you want to talk about World War I, World War II, where are we in this story? We're in the middle of the largest credit bubble in all of human history. One thing credit bubbles really can't stand is rising rates of interest. That's what would result if China started selling its treasuries.

GLENN: Chris, over the next few weeks -- and I would like to bring you in so we could spend a day before we talk about this on the air. But I am more and more convinced that -- first of all, do you believe we're in a World War III scenario of just a currency war?

CHRIS: Well, we are -- everybody -- all the central banks are doing everything they can to try and keep this whole thing stitched together. And as they do that, Glenn. They're creating larger and larger imbalances. The imbalances in Europe are large enough to tear it apart. They're very afraid of the rise of populism over there. They've seen this story before.

The difference between what is happening with the Chinese, the Japanese, the United States central banks, all these enormous imbalances are building up. And nobody has a plan for how to resolve them. If we don't, there's a good chance they resolve chaotically, which is just a fancy way of saying, "Stuff just breaks down, and then we see what happens."

GLENN: Yeah. What does it mean for Italy this weekend? Italy had the opportunity to solve things, if you will, or at least still keep playing the game. They kind of did a Trump or a Brexit this weekend and said, "No," to the plan of their Prime Minister over there. So now he is stepping down. And it looks like it's, again, another Brexit.

What does this mean?

CHRIS: This -- you know, a lot of people -- I've seen a lot of ink written already that says, "Well, this is just people not understanding the bigger issues. And maybe they're a little bit racist or more like Trump or something or something."

But the truth is, Glenn, that the people of Italy have been suffering for a long time. The average people have been suffering for a long time. I think it's been since 1998 since their economy has been growing. And the people of Italy have had to endure with less and less and less. And they've just been getting squeezed. So I view this again -- they call it pop, like I say, this or that. Really, it's just economics. When people find their daily lives getting harder and harder, it creates social tension.

This was another opportunity for the elites this time in Italy, to figure out how they're going to start listening to their people.

Renzi was deciding not to do that. And the people of Italy, very convincingly -- nearly 60 percent, I think, is the last number I saw, said, "No, it's time for us to be part of this story as well." That's really what's going on here. And the bigger picture, the thing we can talk about over the coming weeks is, the only question that has to be answered at this stage of the credit bubble is: Who is going to eat the losses?

GLENN: Explain that.

CHRIS: Well, when something can't be paid back, it won't be. And so the banks are always trying to figure out how they don't get to eat the losses. They're always looking for a bailout in some form, or in this case in Europe, now bail-ins. But somebody's going to have to take the losses.

So in the case of Italy, their banks have 360 billion euros of non-performing loans. Those are loans that aren't being paid. That's 20 percent of Italian GDP. There's no possible way that they can cover that.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CHRIS: So the question now is: Who is going to eat the losses? And the politicians would love that to be the taxpayers. They create inflation, which is a stealth way of stealing that from all the people. Sometimes they just do the bailout and make the taxpayers pay directly. But the people are starting to say, "No. This is unfair. We don't like this. And the losses should actually belong to the people who made the bad decisions. Maybe that's the banks. Maybe that's the politicians." So this is the real game that's being played right now.

GLENN: But how do they pay for it? How do the banks and the politicians pay for that? They can't. How are you going to give that to the politicians?

CHRIS: Well, they're going to have to suffer with austerity so that the government is going to have to say, "Look, we can't just dip into the coffers for this. We're going to have to tighten our belts." Guess what, every one of the politicians who was involved in that gets swept out of office. It's a real career killer when you have to tell people, "It's time to pay for all of the bad decisions."

GLENN: You know, I've been reading a lot about the -- the gold standard and -- and how we kind of got off it. And it's really much more complex. And the trade balance is so complex, and yet elegant in the way it kept everything balanced. But we don't do that anymore.

When the Weimar Republic had hyperinflation and they inflated their way out of things, first of all, they didn't inflate their way out of the reparations that they were supposed to. A lot of people think, I believe, that, oh, we're just -- the world is going to forgive America of this big debt. I don't think so.

Chris Martenson, do you believe they will?

CHRIS: No. How could they?

GLENN: Yeah.

CHRIS: The world isn't an entity. When we say, you know, there's $7 trillion of US money out overseas, it's not just in a spot in some central bank where they can flick a pen. It's sitting in a French pension. It's sitting in the endowment for a small school. It's in people's 401(k)s and retirement accounts. It's parked all over the place.

So either everybody has to agree to forgive that, or we get back to the prime question, which is: Who eats the losses in this story? And the governments always want to try and inflate it away. That seems the simplest. It spreads the pain over a great many people.

But what your listeners need to know is that this is a game. This is a game that's been played for a very long time. And it's basically heads we win, tails you lose. And that's what's creating the populist backlash. People are starting to figure it out. We have information now that we can access and go, "Oh, is that the game." Right?

It's not like it was in the '50s, when you only had one newspaper. Now, we can go to other sources of information and say, "Oh, I see what they're doing here. This really isn't fair." And so that's what we're getting down to is that when people experience deep unfairness in their lives, they don't like it. And that's really, I think, a better explanation of what's happening than, you know, simple ignorance or something like that.

GLENN: Okay. So, Chris, when you -- we'll have you back. And I want to talk to you about the way the Weimar Republic stabilized their economy after hyperinflation. They attached it to land.

Can you tell me at all, when you come back, about what a scenario like that would mean. Does that mean the government takes the land? Do they do that with just the public land that they hold? Would they take our mortgages? How does that work? How did it work before? Because I'm more and more convinced -- and I'd love to hear your opinion on this now, that the central banks and the central planners actually thought the lessons from World War I, the Weimar Republic, and World War II, they think those actually worked. Didn't they?

CHRIS: Well, they kind of did. And this is a really important topic. It will take a little while to explain. But it's summarized like this: If you read all the accounts of what happened in the Weimar Republic, all the popular books and all the stuff in the library says, "Wow, there was a lot of wealth destruction. Look at all these middle class, upper middle class people. They lost everything."

When you really look at what happened though, no wealth was actually destroyed. Because real wealth are the factories, the farms, the streets, the cars -- it's the real productive wealth of the nation. That didn't go away. What happened? It got transferred.

GLENN: Yes.

CHRIS: And this happened in the 1920s and '30s in the United States as well. All these people owned farms. They went bust because the mortgages all went bust on them.

And when the dust settled, if you watched carefully, who owned the farms changed hands. So that's what I'm trying to alert people to, that this idea of what we're facing is not so much of a wealth destruction. It's a wealth transfer. But first, you got to understand what the real wealth is. And it's not the paper.

GLENN: Okay.

Let's start there next time you're on. Chris Martenson from Peak Prosperity. Thank you so much. Appreciate it, sir.

CHRIS: You're welcome. My pleasure.

GLENN: You bet.

Featured Image: Fake US Dollar and Turkish Lira currency often used as a novelty gift is seen for sale at a tobacco shop in a market on December 5, 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey. As the Turkish Lira plunged to record lows in past weeks, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a speech Saturday said his political enemies were trying to sabotage the economy and urged citizens to convert their foreign currency savings into lira or gold. Borsa Istanbul, Turkey's main stock exchange, became the first institution to act on the presidents call, converting all it's cash assets to liras. Some local businesses in a show of support began offering incentives to customers who had proof of changing foreign currency to lira, with rewards such as free restaurant meals, free gifts and discounts on purchases and one funeral owner in the province of Bursa promised to give free tombstones to people who had protected their lira. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

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.