What is real?

I know that sounds like I’m trying to “blow your mind, man.” But I don’t mean it in some kind of hippy-dippy, dorm-room philosophizing kind of way.

They want a place where they know they’ll be seeing the world as it is, where they can drop their defenses against being fooled.

In 2026, “What is real?” is a very pressing question.

Won’t get fooled again

If you’ve spent any time on X, Instagram, or Facebook, you’ve probably gotten used to thinking about reality. Namely when coming across the countless AI-generated photos and videos flooding your timeline.

Some, of course, are obviously fake. A penguin shaking hands with a polar bear on a dock while a moose looks on from a sailboat? Most likely AI. But with others it’s not so easy.

Take that photo of the beautiful sunrise over those shining snow-covered mountains. Looks real … but it isn’t. Neither is that perfectly convincing woman talking about the scheduling app that helped her organize her life.

Unless you are exceedingly discerning, you’ve probably been fooled by AI, even if just for a few seconds. You shouldn’t feel bad, and you shouldn’t feel like a dupe, even though you probably do. We weren’t made for this world of images that look 99.99999% real but are 0% so. What in our past would have ever prepared us for this world? Seeing is believing? That may have been true once upon a time, but no more.

Shutter island

There are a lot of implications here for society. How do we live in a half reality, half anti-reality world? How do we organize a society around truth when the truth is constantly muddied by false images and videos? How do we even talk to each other if we can’t reach a consensus on what’s in front of us? These are big questions without clear answers.

But on a smaller, more granular, human level, I think something interesting is happening: People find themselves aching for more truth, more reality. Not everyone, of course. Some are going full steam into the Kafkaesque world of reality-nihilism. But others see the trap, the chaos, and the shallow ugliness of anti-reality.

Earlier this year, I started a project by the name of Film 20. Essentially, it’s a place of pure reality in the form of film photography. It’s an archive of photos from real people and real places all around the world. No iPhone photos are allowed, no digital photos from DSLRs either. Only film; only reality.

RELATED: The Kids Are Outside

O.W. Root

Reality hunger

At first, our followers were mostly film photographers and film aficionados. But an interesting thing happened in the past few months. The account blew up in a substantial way. There are now nearly 29,000 people following Film 20, an account dedicated to documenting reality through the eyes of film photographers.

Those 29,000 people aren’t all photographers, though some are — our DMs are flooded with submissions from wonderful photographers from all over. They aren’t just following for the nice photos either. I know because the primary sources of growth have been derived from posts underscoring the purpose of Film 20.

“Never AI. Always reality. Only film.”

People — 29,000 people — want a feed of reality and only reality. They want a place where they know they’ll be seeing the world as it is, where they can drop their defenses against being fooled.

Cultivating authenticity

I know that everyone doesn’t have this same kind of yearning for reality. I understand that these 29,000 are not representative of the general population in 2026. But I don’t think this desire is going away, and I don’t think the awareness of the shallow falseness of digital AI imagery is a short-term blip. The further we move into the AI world, the stronger this yearning for reality will be.

The bleed of fake video and imagery into every corner of our digital world will continue for the foreseeable future. It will be annoying. Next year you will only see more fake videos than the last.

So whether it is film photography, live music, local food, or real people with real emotions, the future of reality is one that will need to be cultivated and earnestly sought out. Just like we try to eat healthy and read good books, we will need to consciously make the choices that lead us toward reality in every way we can.

Reality is good for the body, mind, and soul.

​Ai, Community, Film, Reality, Iphone, Photography, Cameras, Film photography, Fake, Culture, Art, The root of the matter 

The left is in hysterics after the Texas State Board of Education approved new K-12 language arts curriculum standards for the 2030-2031 school year that include specific Bible stories and verses as required reading. Even though the board justified it as essential literary and cultural education rather than religious instruction, cries of “religious favoritism” and “separation of church and state” are dominating left-wing media.

“If you turn on CNN or the BBC or the Guardian or PBS, NBC, any of them, honestly, you’d think Texas had just crowned Jesus king of Texas and ordered every public school child to genuflect before a Bible on their teacher’s desk,” scoffs Glenn Beck.

The truth, however, is that these standards do not in any way breach the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They simply re-tether America — and the broader West — to her founding principles.

“There is no mandate to put a physical Bible in every classroom. There’s no statewide requirement for devotional prayer or forced religious exercises. … It’s literacy and historic study,” Glenn explains.

He points to the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp, in which the court ruled 8-1 that mandatory devotional Bible reading and prayer as opening religious exercises in public schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, while explicitly noting that objective, academic study of the Bible (for its literary and historic qualities) as part of a secular education program is permissible.

“Texas is not becoming a theocracy,” says Glenn. “They are walking through a door the Supreme Court left wide open and that our founders walked through with conviction.”

In 1782, Congress even officially endorsed the Aitken Bible (the first complete English-language Bible printed in the United States) for both religious study and literacy advancement in schools.

“One of the very first things that our representatives did … was to put the Bible in the hands of American families and schools,” says Glenn. “That’s not Christian nationalism. That’s the actual founding character of our republic.”

For most of American history, he explains, the Bible was not only “not controversial in schools” but actually seen as “central” to public education.

The McGuffey Readers, first published in the 1830s by educator William Holmes McGuffey, were hugely popular 19th-century American schoolbooks that taught reading, morality, and character through stories, poems, and excerpts that heavily featured the Bible alongside classic literature.

“Children learned to read from the Bible. They learned character from the Bible. That was normal,” says Glenn. “What happened in the 1960s — that was the radical break, not Texas 2026.”

Texas, he argues, is “right” to require Bible readings because students “cannot understand Western civilization,” including its most cherished literature, without it.

“Remove the Bible and half of Shakespeare goes dark. Try reading Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost.’ … Try to understand Dante’s ‘Divine Comedy.’ … You cannot understand ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ ‘Moby Dick,’ ‘The Scarlet Letter,’ Dostoevsky’s novels of sin and redemption — any of this,” Glenn exclaims.

Other forms of art crucial to the West become inaccessible too.

From Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Adam” and da Vinci’s “Last Supper” to European cathedrals and the great concertos, sonatas, and symphonies of Bach and Beethoven, the Bible is preeminent to the West’s greatest artistic achievements.

“The Ten Commandments are woven into the Western legal codes. … You don’t understand the Declaration of Independence if you don’t understand the Bible. You don’t understand the abolition movement in Britain and America … Lincoln, the second inaugural address — what is that other than just one giant biblical meditation on sin and judgment and mercy?” Glenn adds, emphasizing Scripture’s foundational role in Western history.

“Trying to understand Western civilization — the art, the literature, the music, its laws, its ethics, the very language — without the Bible is trying to understand the Middle East without the Quran. It is the foundational text; remove it, and the culture becomes incoherent,” he declares.

He warns that when a civilization becomes untethered to its foundation, everything begins to unravel.

“The morals drift; the art loses meaning; the law loses anchor; and most importantly — and don’t the progressives know it — the people lose their story,” he laments. “That’s what’s been happening for 60 years in American education.”

Glenn praises Texas for bringing Scripture back into academics where it rightfully belongs. “They are doing what they must do: simply refusing to continue the lie that the Bible is irrelevant to who we are.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Texas, Bible, Education 

They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you good judgment.

The Fort Worth Police Department gave Sarah Stogner both a gun and a badge. What it apparently failed to determine was whether she possessed the judgment — or the constitutional literacy — required to exercise the state’s coercive power over free citizens.

Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.

The controversy arose during Fort Worth’s Trinity Pride celebration on June 27, where Christian street preachers were evangelizing outside the event.

Video shows Stogner telling one preacher he could be cited if he said something “offensive.” City officials later emphasized that the citation itself was based on a noise ordinance governing amplified sound, not the content of the preacher’s message.

Sure.

The department then ordered First Amendment retraining after the encounter went viral.

Those facts may determine the outcome in court. They do not change what thousands of people on social media saw with their own eyes: a police officer confidently asserting authority the Constitution does not give her.

The retraining is welcome, I suppose. It also adds insult to injury.

What are they teaching at the police academy these days? This was not some obscure Fourth Amendment exception or a tangled question of qualified immunity.

This was constitutional law 101.

Americans do not lose their right to speak because somebody — a cop especially — dislikes what they have to say. Giving offense is not a crime. Hurt feelings do not create probable cause. The First Amendment does not contain a Pride festival exception. Yet.

What struck me most, however, was not Stogner’s ignorance. It was her arrogance.

She never appeared uncertain. She never asked a supervisor for guidance. She never paused to consider whether she was inventing a speech code on the spot.

RELATED: Blue cities reject law, reject order — and reject America

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP/Getty Images

She spoke as if the badge settled the question.

That’s worse than stupidity.

A stupid officer can be corrected. An arrogant officer believes correction is for everybody else.

A badge is not a moral credential. It is a legal office.

It does not make its bearer wiser, more virtuous, or more trustworthy. It confers authority — massive authority — within limits established by law.

For years, conservatives have rightly defended law enforcement against the left’s poisonous campaign to “defund the police.” They have recognized the indispensable role police play in maintaining civil order, protecting innocent people, and arresting violent criminals.

They have also rightly rejected the left’s habit of judging an entire profession by its worst actors.

But somewhere along the way, respect curdled into deference.

“Back the blue” became less a defense of lawful policing than a demand for unquestioning loyalty to anyone wearing a badge. Conservatives who instinctively distrust IRS agents, public health officials, and federal regulators somehow came to regard local police as natural allies in the defense of liberty.

That is a dangerous mistake.

Police officers are not the conservative movement in blue uniforms. They are not constitutional scholars with Glocks. They are government employees exercising delegated power.

“Protect and serve” is a worthy ideal. It’s also good marketing.

Every bureaucracy develops its own interests, habits, and institutional mythology. Every bureaucracy eventually divides the world into “us” and “them.”

Police departments are no exception.

Officers spend their days giving commands, issuing citations, conducting searches, making arrests, and using force when necessary. They are trained to establish control and treat uncertainty as a potential threat.

Much of that is unavoidable. Police work is dangerous. Hesitation can get an officer killed.

But the habits required for survival can become habits of mind.

The citizen becomes the subject. Disagreement becomes defiance. Questions become challenges to authority. The officer acts; the public is acted upon.

A Bible, a flag, or a thin blue line decal will not save you when an officer decides you are the problem. Neither will your voting record. The state does not ask whether you backed the blue before it puts you in handcuffs.

Do not misunderstand me. This is not an argument against police. It is an argument against political idolatry.

Conservatives understand, at least in theory, that government power must be constrained because human beings are fallible, self-interested, and prone to abuse authority.

We remember that principle when discussing the FBI, the IRS, or unelected regulators. We remember it when federal agents raid somebody’s home or some public health official invents a mandate.

Then a local officer puts on body armor, and suddenly half the right forgets everything it claims to believe about the state.

The uniform changes. The principle doesn’t.

Police exercise executive power. They carry the state’s monopoly on lawful violence on their hips.

That is precisely why they deserve more scrutiny, not less.

RELATED: Democratic Senate candidate can’t hide from ‘defund the police’ comments, no matter how hard he tries

Sarah Rice/Getty Images

A DMV clerk can ruin your afternoon. A police officer can ruin your life.

That power requires more than tactical training, physical courage, or marksmanship. It requires judgment. More than anything, it requires humility.

An officer must never forget that the badge does not create rights. It imposes limits.

The Constitution does not exist to make police work easier. It exists in part to prevent government officials from doing whatever seems easiest in the moment.

A citizen saying something offensive may cause some heartburn. A loud preacher may irritate festival-goers, businesses, officers, and city officials. None of that gives police authority to suppress protected speech.

Enforce the noise ordinance if the facts support it. But do not allow the police to invent an offended listener’s veto.

Good officers understand the distinction. Good departments reinforce it. Good conservatives should insist upon it.

The answer is not hostility toward law enforcement. The left has already demonstrated the stupidity and destructiveness of treating every cop as an occupying soldier.

The answer is constitutional realism.

Support police when they uphold the law. Defend them when they are unfairly maligned. Hold them accountable when they exceed their authority.

But stop pretending they belong to us.

They are not supposed to serve conservatives, progressives, Pride organizers, or street preachers.

They are supposed to serve the law.

When they forget that, another training seminar may satisfy the public relations department. It does not answer the more serious question.

Should someone who must be retrained on the basic meaning of the First Amendment continue to carry a gun, a badge, and the public’s trust?

Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.

They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you judgment.

And when an officer displays arrogance instead, conservatives should not avert their eyes simply because the uniform is blue.

​Constitution, First amendment, Fourth amendment, Police officer, Violent criminals, Fort worth, Sarah stogner, Pride celebration, Texas, Opinion & analysis 

The strongest publicly downloadable large language models are, by the composite measure of Artificial Analysis’ Intelligence Index, GLM-5.2, MiniMax-M3, DeepSeek V4 Pro, and Kimi K2.6. They are all Chinese. They are all products of heavily capitalized laboratories. They are all released under permissive licenses and commonly described as open. They are open in the sense that you can download the weights, run them on your own machines, fine-tune them, build products on top of them. They are not open in the sense that you can see how they were made. The training data and code, the recipes that would allow you to reproduce or audit the process remain, for the most part, undisclosed. The door is ajar. The room behind it is dark.

The Open Source Initiative draws a hard line on the terminology. An open-source AI system, by the OSI’s definition, must provide data information, code, and parameters sufficient to use, study, modify, and share the system. Open weights, by contrast, expose only the final product of training: the numerical parameters of a finished network. This situation is the difference between publishing a cookbook and selling a frozen dinner with the ingredient list printed on the box. Both let you eat. Only one lets you cook.

A mechanism for ecosystem capture, price disruption, and geopolitical positioning.

If you are deploying a model for enterprise search or code generation, you may want the frozen dinner: functional, affordable, and available without a subscription to someone else’s kitchen. DeepSeek V4 Pro, at four cents per task on certain benchmarks, is more than 20 times cheaper than GPT 5.5 and more than 40 times cheaper than Claude Opus 4.8. At those prices, the question of whether you can inspect the training data seems academic.

The models themselves are marvels of a particular kind of engineering. GLM-5.2 runs 744 billion total parameters with 40 billion active per token, using a design known as mixture-of-experts that allows a model to be enormous in capacity but economical in use, like a city that keeps most of its lights off at any given moment. DeepSeek V4 Pro pushes to 1.6 trillion total parameters. They process a million tokens of context, which means they can hold an entire codebase or a small library’s worth of documents in working memory. They reason in configurable modes: think a little, think a lot, or do not think at all.

The user chooses; the machine adjusts. In 2024, a chat interface invited you to ask a question. In 2026, it asks a subtler one: How much cognition should the system spend here?

When free isn’t

There is a historical analogy for open models: free software. Eric Raymond wrote about cathedrals and bazaars. Yochai Benkler wrote about commons-based peer production. Christopher Kelty described free software communities as recursive publics, groups organized around the capacity to build and maintain the very infrastructure that makes the group possible. These frameworks still illuminate something about the open-model ecosystem, where quantization hobbyists, inference-engine maintainers, and downstream fine-tuners extend the value of released weights in public, for reputation and for the pleasure of the work itself.

RELATED: Google got conformist. Now we’ll pay the price.

sesame/Getty Images

But the analogy fractures at the point that matters most. The volunteers in the original bazaar outperformed the cathedrals. The 2026 open-model ecosystem is about cathedrals distributing their products through the bazaar. DeepSeek reportedly closed a funding round exceeding $7 billion. Moonshot AI raised about $2 billion. Alibaba continues to invest in its Qwen line while weaving those models into commerce and robotics. These are not volunteer collectives. They are industrial actors pursuing what might be called strategic openness: releasing weights as a mechanism for ecosystem capture, price disruption, and geopolitical positioning. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has argued that China has effectively gone all in on an open-model strategy, using open publication and aggressive pricing to accelerate adoption and further iteration. The plan is working.

The central paradox of this domain is that openness can simultaneously broaden participation at the edges and concentrate power at the center. Aaron Shaw and Benjamin Mako Hill observed this pattern in peer production years ago: As collaborative systems scale, they tend toward oligarchy. Open models exhibit the same dynamic at the level of an industry. Anyone can download the weights; almost no one can produce them. The foundry becomes more rarefied even as the open web grows more participatory, and the gap between using a model and understanding it widens.

The cookbook stays secret

Meanwhile, the projects that are open in the older, stricter sense continue their work at a lower altitude. Ai2’s OLMo program publishes training data, training code, intermediate checkpoints, and reproducible recipes. OLMo sits at the top of every openness index and near the bottom of every capability leaderboard. This performance is not a coincidence. Full transparency is expensive in ways that go beyond compute, requiring a willingness to be audited, to be reproduced, to be shown wrong. The labs chasing benchmark supremacy have not shown much appetite for that form of exposure.

Thus the word “open” now describes two diverging projects. One is about capability access: the right to run a powerful model without paying rent to a proprietary API. The other is about knowledge access: the right to know where a model came from, what it was trained on, and why it behaves the way it does. These two meanings coexisted comfortably when the best open models were also the most transparent ones. They no longer do. The frozen dinner is excellent. The cookbook is secret.

The coming years may belong to open weights as infrastructure, especially in coding, agentic work, and enterprise use. The deeper contest, the one that will determine what “open” means, is only beginning.

​Tech 

The power of positive thinking has taken an occult turn. After his UFC victory at the White House last month, Sean O’Malley told Joe Rogan that he had seen the outcome beforehand and manifested it into reality.

Whether he meant those words casually or literally, they reflect an increasingly common belief among athletes, entrepreneurs, influencers, and podcasters. Success is no longer merely achieved through discipline and hard work. It is manifested — even conjured. Consciousness itself creates the future.

Our thoughts influence our actions, but they do not govern reality. We make plans, set goals, exercise prudence, and work diligently. The outcome ultimately belongs to God.

At first glance, this language may sound harmless. Athletes have long used visualization techniques. Coaches encourage competitors to imagine success before a game. Olympic athletes mentally rehearse routines. Quarterbacks visualize throws. Fighters picture victories.

But modern manifesting goes far beyond sports psychology.

Traditional visualization is straightforward. Imagining success can improve focus, reduce anxiety, build confidence, and prepare the body for performance. The athlete does not create reality through thought. He prepares himself to perform when reality arrives.

Manifesting makes a different claim.

It holds that consciousness participates in creating reality. The fighter does not merely prepare for victory; he helps bring it into existence. The entrepreneur does not merely work toward success; he attracts it. The individual does not merely respond to the world; he creates his own reality.

This way of thinking has become so common that many people no longer recognize how strange it is. Yet it represents a significant religious shift in modern American culture.

Ironically, little about it is new.

The roots of today’s manifestation movement extend into 19th-century American religious history and, before that, into occult and hermetic traditions.

One important source was Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Christian Science taught that matter is subordinate to mind and that many human problems result from false thinking rather than objective conditions.

Christian Science differs from today’s manifestation culture in important ways, but both assign consciousness a far more fundamental role than traditional Christianity permits.

Closely related was the New Thought movement. Its writers and lecturers taught that positive thinking could produce health, prosperity, and success. The message was simple: Change your thoughts, and you can change your reality.

RELATED: How the WNBA’s biggest star became its biggest embarrassment

Katelyn Mulcahy/Getty Images

Many modern manifestation teachers merely repackage New Thought for the social media age.

The vocabulary has changed, but the assumptions remain strikingly similar.

Instead of speaking about positive thinking — the scientific language of that era — people now invoke frequencies, vibrations, energy, alignment, and quantum possibilities — the scientific language of ours. Instead of spiritual laws, they speak of neuroscience and mindset.

The central claim remains unchanged: Your thoughts possess creative power.

The fundamental reality, they teach, is consciousness. The awakened self is divine.

This worldview also resembles older occult, esoteric, and theosophical traditions.

Historically, occult systems taught that hidden knowledge gave initiates access to powers unavailable to ordinary people. Reality operates according to secret principles that could be learned and harnessed. The enlightened individual gained mastery by acquiring that knowledge.

It is the promise of the serpent in the garden: You will know as God knows.

Human beings know by discovering what is real. God knows as the creator who determines what is real.

Modern manifestation culture often follows the same pattern. Its teachers claim that reality contains countless possible futures and that consciousness selects among them. Individuals are urged to discover hidden truths about their power, unlock limiting beliefs, raise their vibrations, and learn the principles by which the universe operates.

The pattern appears throughout many nonbiblical religions: You are a higher consciousness trapped in a body and must discover the secret that will restore you to divinity.

The problem is not sin but rather ignorance of your own godhood.

You do not need redemption through Christ to restore communion with God. You need enlightenment to remember that you are God.

That is why modern manifestation can accurately be described as a form of neo-gnosticism.

Ancient gnosticism taught that human beings contained a hidden divine element. The fundamental human problem was ignorance of this truth. Salvation came through secret knowledge that awakened people to their true nature.

Modern manifestation often follows the same structure:

You possess hidden creative powers.

You do not understand your true potential.

Limiting beliefs keep you trapped.

Special knowledge sets you free.

The language differs, but the story remains familiar. And its attraction is obvious.

Manifestation promises control in an uncertain world. It offers success without dependence, power without submission, and meaning without repentance. It assures individuals that they are not subject to forces beyond themselves but possess the power to shape their destinies.

RELATED: What if the commies were right after all?

Apic/Getty Images

Yet the system contains a serious flaw: It is self-validating.

When someone succeeds, the success proves manifestation works. When someone fails, the failure is blamed on faulty manifestation. Success confirms the theory. Failure confirms it too.

It resembles the gambler who remembers the one time double zero hit twice in a row and forgets every losing bet.

A theory that can absorb every possible result explains nothing. It merely improvises a new explanation after the fact.

Christianity begins somewhere else entirely.

Scripture teaches that human beings are not creators but creatures. God alone exists from eternity. He created human souls and a material world, and he called that world very good.

Our thoughts influence our actions, but they do not govern reality. We make plans, set goals, exercise prudence, and work diligently. The outcome ultimately belongs to God.

The biblical question is not, “What reality can I create?” It is, “What has God ordained, and how should I respond faithfully?”

That distinction may sound subtle, but it marks two radically different visions of the world.

One places creative sovereignty in human consciousness.

The other places it in God.

So when O’Malley says he manifested his victory, he may mean only that he visualized success and prepared himself mentally. If so, there is little controversy.

But if he means that consciousness itself helped create the result, then he is participating in a much larger religious movement — one stretching from 19th-century metaphysical spirituality through New Thought and occultism into today’s podcast culture.

The language is modern. The temptation is ancient.

​Joe rogan, Manifesting, Opinion & analysis, Positive thinking, Sean o’malley, God, Divinity, Creation, Occult 

For years, we’ve been force-fed the same sickening story. Young Americans aren’t getting married because they simply can’t afford to. The economy is disastrous, wages are too low, and housing costs require selling a kidney.

If we could just inject another thirty grand into everyone’s bank accounts, young lovers would magically sprint down the aisle. It’s a beautiful, thoroughly victim-centric fairy tale that makes everyone nod along. It’s also absolute nonsense.

Government handouts and cultural decay have combined to tell men that effort is for suckers.

A recent report from the Institute for Family Studies dismantles the narrative. The data reveals that the slow-motion suicide of American marriage has less to do with stagnant pay and much more to do with a mind virus that has convinced an entire generation they are too poor to love.

We love blaming the system because it absolves us of our crippling neuroses. But the numbers don’t lie, even if our Instagram feeds do.

Money changes everything?

Inflation-adjusted median earnings for young men recently hit a near 50-year high. Meanwhile, marriage rates continued their downward spiral. If money were the magic libido potion that many claim it is, these trends should move together. Instead, they look like two bitter, screaming divorcees tearing away from a shattered home in opposite directions.

Young men today generally out-earn the idealized pipe-smoking fathers of the 1960s and ’70s. Those mid-century men somehow managed to marry and breed without first acquiring quartz countertops, stainless-steel appliances, or a diversified stock portfolio. They didn’t postpone children until they could afford a five-star Disney excursion. Instead, they embraced the brutal reality of starting with absolutely nothing, expecting to build a life with someone they could love and trust.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, today’s married 30-year-olds own homes at roughly the same rate as their counterparts in 1970. And those homes are massive, bloated monuments to excess, full of technology that would have looked like witchcraft a few decades ago. Somehow, grandparents survived the unbearable trauma of raising kids without an automated espresso maker, a smart home cinema system, or three streaming subscriptions to numb the existential dread.

RELATED: Masked daredevil couple climb to top of Empire State Building to unfurl banner with message

L-R: Jason Mendez/Getty Images; Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Mergers and acquisitions

Somewhere along the line, the classic vow “for richer or for poorer” was replaced with “call me when your credit score hits 800.” Marriage is no longer the launchpad for adulthood, but the prize handed out at the end of an exhausting corporate obstacle course. You don’t get married to build a life any more; instead, you do it to signal to your peers that you have successfully conquered capitalism. What was once the beginning of a life is now a form of social proof.

We can thank Hollywood and Silicon Valley for this psychological castration. For decades, pop culture has glorified permanent adolescence and consequences-free swiping. Algorithms have transformed regular, middle-class existence into an agonizing, daily comparison against 20-year-old crypto-millionaires who rent private jets for 10 minutes to take a selfie. When every engagement announcement looks like a royal wedding funded by an oil cartel, an ordinary life feels like an insult.

The sickness runs deeper than mere vanity, though. We are also witnessing a strange strike among prime-age men who have voluntarily withdrawn from the workforce to master video games in permanently darkened rooms. Government handouts and cultural decay have combined to tell men that effort is for suckers. Why bother putting on a pair of pants and clocking in when you can just opt out entirely and vape in peace?

‘Know your worth’

Meanwhile, modern relationship advice reads like a venture capital prospectus. Young women are bombarded with articles treating courtship like a hostile corporate takeover. “Know your worth,” the influencers scream. “Never settle. Demand a partner who matches your tax bracket.” And if you find him, make sure he can cook, make you laugh, and respond to texts immediately.

It sounds empowering, but it’s actually a recipe for dying alone with 12 cats. A dependable plumber making a healthy living is discarded because he doesn’t match the lifestyle of a fake TikTok entrepreneur posing next to a Lamborghini he almost certainly doesn’t own. Reality cannot compete with a manufactured version of it.

The ultimate irony is thick enough to choke on. The richest, safest, most pampered generation in human history genuinely believes it is too destitute to commit to another human being. We’ve systematically dismantled every single rung of the societal ladder and are now standing around scratching our heads, wondering why the birth rate resembles a flatline on a hospital monitor.

Until young Americans recognize that a good marriage is built on character rather than curated luxury, churches will remain empty, dating apps will remain an endless purgatory, and cats will eventually inherit more apartments than children.

​Birth rate decline, Cultural decay, Dating apps, Institute for family studies, Marriage crisis, Marriage rates, Culture, Men and women, Wealth, Marriage story 

Steve Hemphill is the former CEO of a seven-figure tech company, lifelong cessationist, and now one of the most unusual ministers in America.

Hemphill tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace that his life changed after his father suddenly passed away of a heart attack, leaving behind an “ancient safe.” What he found was a sealed envelope addressed to him and his brother.

“It said, ‘If you boys find this envelope after I’m dead, do not open it. It is not important. Destroy this envelope without opening it, Dad.’ And it was dated about five months before he died very suddenly and unexpectedly,” he explains.

“So, we burned it without reading it. And I think about it every day.”

“I became very curious about heaven because of the envelope from Dad. It made me curious about what was in the envelope. But that also led to a curiosity about what’s eternity really like,” he explains.

As Hemphill began looking deeper into the Bible, he began to realize that spiritual warfare is real.

“If you don’t have the Holy Spirit, you got a demon spirit instead. In other words, only people with the Holy Spirit can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’” he says, recalling a run-in he had with a retired professor from Stanford.

The professor walked into a Burger King, saw Hemphill there reading the Bible in a booth, and began to say “some very strange things about the Bible.”

“So, I gently interrupted this guy and said, ‘Dr. Smith, let me ask you a question. Is Jesus Lord?’ This guy got so angry at that simple three-word question that he jumps up out of the booth and starts running circles around the Burger King dining room there, screaming at me at the top of is lungs, ‘No, who is Jesus? I don’t know who Jesus is. I’m wasting my time talking to you,’” he recalls.

“I looked up at him and said, ‘Sir, I’m going to pray for you that someday you can know Jesus as Lord.’ And that made him even angrier. He leaned into me, and he’s spitting through gritted teeth, and he shakes his finger right in my face,” he continues.

“He says, ‘Don’t you dare pray for me.’ And I don’t know why I did this because I’ve never done it before or since. I smiled and said, ‘I can pray for you right now. You can’t stop me.’ And he screamed and ran out of Burger King and slammed the door,” he adds.

“So, that was the story that turned the tide for me and began to open my eyes that there’s modern-day situations where demonic activity is still happening,”

This recognition of spiritual warfare eventually led to Hemphill using “stakes,” which refers to putting the word of God on evil land.

“My buddy was a Christian, and this guy he was friends with was not a Christian. And so, when I met the guy, I said, ‘What’s wrong? What’s your spiritual warfare problem?’ And he said, ‘I have demons on my property, and I’m getting ready to commit suicide,’” Hemphill tells Deace.

“I said, ‘Let’s take some tent stakes and write Bible verses on them and hammer them all the way in the ground on the four corners of your land where this is happening. Let’s read the verses out loud to honor God and pray and ask him to make all these bad things stop in your life and see what he does,’” he explains.

“The next week he became a Christian and wanted to be baptized. And that was just bizarre to me. It was hard for me to swallow,” he adds.

But when another woman came to him for help after having terrifying demonic dreams every night at 3 a.m., he tried the same thing. Her nightmares stopped.

“Next thing you know, they’re asking me to stake out this public school. And we did that, and all the problems went away there. The guy causing them died of a heart attack immediately, 30-year-old guy,” he explains. “I can’t make this stuff up.”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Baptism, Steve deace, Steve deace show, Steve hemphill, Demonic activity, The bible, Christianity, Spiritual warfare 

Most of the time when people talk about spiritual warfare, the focus is on the demonic — oppression, possession, attacks, or counterattacks.

But angels are also part of the unseen realm. In fact, according to standard biblical interpretations of Revelation 12, holy angels outnumber demons by about two to one.

And just like demons, angels interact with human beings. Hebrews 13:2 warns, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

“There are stories about angel encounters that have been handed down throughout history — I’m talking about going all the way back to World War I,” says BlazeTV host Rick Burgess.

On this episode of “Strange Encounters,” Rick revisits two of history’s most remarkable stories about angelic encounters.

Psalm 34:7 in action: Angels surround missionaries on cannibal island

In 1858, Scottish missionary John G. Paton and his wife arrived on the island of Tanna in the New Hebrides to bring the gospel to cannibal tribes. One night, hostile natives surrounded their mission station, intending to burn it down and kill them. As the Patons prayed, the attackers suddenly withdrew in fear.

Roughly a year later, they learned from the chief, who had converted to Christianity, why the locals had fled that night: hundreds of big men in shining garments with drawn swords encircled the Patons’ house.

Both Paton and the chief believed the army to be made up of angels.

Over the following decades, the gospel message spread, and thousands upon thousands of former cannibals turned to Christ across the islands.

“Truly a miracle,” says Rick. “And how was this done? With the appearance of big men in shining garments with swords protecting a missionary.”

He then reads from Psalm 34:7: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.”

“This one almost sounds like exactly what happened to John Paton,” he remarks.

The white cavalry of 1918: Golden-haired angel leads charge against the Germans

In May 1918 during WWI, British troops in France were in a desperate position and about to be overwhelmed by a massive German advance. Suddenly, the German soldiers stopped their attack and began firing wildly at something the British could not see. The fighting halted in confusion.

The British later captured two German officers. When interviewed, the officers described seeing a cavalry charge of men in white uniforms riding white horses shining like sunlight bearing down on them. Leading the troop was a towering angelic figure with golden hair, wielding a great sword.

The Germans opened fire, but the riders kept advancing unharmed. Terrified, the German troops broke off their assault and fled in terror.

The heavenly intervention bought enough time for American troops to arrive and capture the Germany army.

“It led to the allies turning toward victory in World War I against the Germans,” says Rick.

While many think that angels do not intervene in human affairs to this scale any more, Rick pushes back.

“I think when we get to heaven that it may be very likely that we meet an angel or angels that we get to converse with that says, ‘You don’t have any idea how many times I was sent into your life to protect you and to help you,”’ he predicts.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Strange encounters, Rick burgess, Spiritual warfare, Angels