'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

September 22, 2016

Writer

Redefining words is a very dangerous thing. It's happened on the radical left for years through political correctness, impacting both society and politics. Old school Blue Dog Democrats didn't see it coming until it was too late, and the entire Democratic Party was taken over by radicals.

The same thing is now happening on the conservative side, with words like "nationalism" and "globalism" being morphed into new meanings.

"I want to show you the first example of me finding it on my own social media," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program. "I contend so many people will agree with a quick reading of this that it seems harmless, but it is absolutely the alt-right. This is the earmark of everything changing in language, and so suddenly that you will not even notice you've been sold into slavery."

It's time to pay attention and read between the lines.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these definitive questions:

• Is "nationalism" tied to improving the lives of Americans or neo-Nazis and racism?

• What does Bob in Pocatello say about the rejection of the virus that is globalization?

• Are iDentists online practitioners of dentistry?

• Do you think the alt-right should produce films on faith for your church?

• Would Thomas Jefferson have been for or against tariffs?

• Is American exceptionalism the same thing as American nationalism?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:20:50, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to show you a post on my social media. And let me just -- let me read it to you. And don't overthink it. Just tell me if you are kind of comfortable with it.

We/me is a crackpot theory, saying the we generation and the me generation. It's clearly not a crackpot theory. It is very well researched. But this is somebody who happened to be watching the show from The Vault last night, where I mentioned it.

And the we/me is a crackpot theory. Don't accept a binary choice, America.

STU: Hmm. I thought we were supposed to -- isn't that we've been told for months?

GLENN: Listen to this: American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic-oriented, nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism. Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them. Modern nationalism and populism in America is a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

(chuckling)

American nationalism and populism is a wholesale rejection of the virus that is globalization.

PAT: This is just written by Bob in Pocatello. Right?

JEFFY: Right.

(chuckling)

PAT: Bob just happened to be watching, and he thought, "You know what, I'm going to pop off something to Glenn."

GLENN: With no followers. No pictures. No friends.

STU: He wanted to sign up to social networks, just to post that particular paragraph and then never post again.

GLENN: And then never post again.

PAT: It's interesting though because you can be okay with all of that, mostly. Almost all of it, you can say, yeah --

JEFFY: Oh, on the surface, absolutely.

GLENN: On the surface.

PAT: I agree with that. On the surface, I agree with that.

GLENN: If you read it again, you're like, "Okay. Wait a minute. American nationalism. No, I'm not for nationalism. That's not good."

STU: Right. But patriotism. People conflate those two terms. Those are very different.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. They're very different.

STU: And we've seen nationalism rise and what it does. But this is trying to save that term, right?

GLENN: Yes. To reintroduce this term.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay? To reintroduce it.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: Listen to this again.

American nationalism -- it's not racial or ethnic-oriented. Why would you say that? Because nationalism is tied directly to neo-Nazis.

PAT: And racism.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And also, by the way, very specifically the people who are the intellectual heads of this particular movement have very specifically talked in overt terms about race and ethnicity being vitally important to this. I mean, this is --

GLENN: No, they're not racists. No, no. They're identists.

STU: Right. But, I mean, they've said, "We need an ethno-nationalist --

PAT: They're dentists on the internet?

GLENN: No, they're identists. They're identists --

JEFFY: ID.

GLENN: No -- yes, they recognize the identity of people, but that's not judging people on race. It is looking at the identity of people.

PAT: I see.

GLENN: So if you want to call it racist, that's an old term. That's -- that describes old things. I do believe that we all have an identity that is unique from where all of us originally came from. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out someone's identity. You're black. I'm white. But I do believe there are specific things that are different in each culture. And perhaps we shouldn't live together.

STU: This is --

PAT: Perhaps we shouldn't live together.

(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. Did you hear what I just said?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: And if you're hearing this from a friend and somebody who you think is a conservative -- and you will. I'm telling you, this is coming. You're going to start hearing this from your church friends, people you trusted, and they're going to make a great case because they're changing the language.

STU: This is Candle In the Wind and Candle In the Wind 1997, where like Princess Diana died, and we're going to release the same exact song with like three different lyrics.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: That is what this is. It's the same pitch. It's the same thing that you think it is.

GLENN: Same song.

STU: It's just using new terms and trying to overtake old ones.

GLENN: And using emotions to push it to the top of the chart.

STU: Yeah, yeah, yeah. One of the terms that is attempting -- and it's an interesting, somewhat subtle thing that's happened over the past year or two, which is the term globalist -- now, the term --

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: I would not consider myself a globalist at all. I mean, for example, we've been doing this show for how long.

PAT: Why are we globalists?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Hang on. Before you get into this, I just want to set this up. Globalism is a tripwire of nationalism. Okay?

Once you hear your friend, who -- why are you hearing the word "globalist" all the time now about people? Where is that coming from?

STU: Yeah, all the time.

GLENN: That's coming from people like Breitbart, who are into the alt-right, and they are poisoning the well. And globalist is your first sign of warning. Hang on just a second. What do you mean by globalist, exactly? And I'll bet that's what you were going to make the point on.

STU: That's exactly what I want to go into because we've been doing this show for a long time. There's been things that have, you know, leaned towards globalism, that the talk radio audience, generally speaking, rejects, as do I. Things like the United Nations making our decisions on our military.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And, you know, global climate treaties that --

GLENN: IPCC. Yeah. The IPP --

STU: The Kyoto treaties -- yeah, Protocol.

PAT: Nobody has been more anti-globalist than we have.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Exactly. Having global entities control what we do in our country.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Even some global trade agreements. We need to have trade agreements. But are they about -- for instance, the T- -- what is it? The TPP?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The TPP is an Asian global look at things. And it is an Asian pact that supersedes our law.

STU: And there's elements of many of these agreements that we've fought against.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And so the idea that we would look towards global entities to influence our policy and the way we deal with our things here, we reject and have rejected for a long time. And the talk radio audience, with that definition of globalist, has always been against that.

PAT: But they've changed it now. Right?

STU: But now you notice -- and you say Breitbart. But really, Alex Jones. Breitbart and Alex Jones are one and the same at this point.

GLENN: Absolutely. Alex Jones is who he is, and everybody knew it. And now one step closer to the media is Breitbart. So one step closer to the average person as --

PAT: And Drudge.

GLENN: And Drudge. Anyone want to talk about the new movie Torch Bearer? Torch Bearer is a new movie, when man stops believing in God, he'll believe in anything. Sounds really good. Phil Robertson is in it, everything else. You know who the producer is? You know who the executive producer of this film is?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Who?

PAT: It's Bannon.

GLENN: Bannon.

PAT: Bannon. What's-his-face, Bannon.

GLENN: So Bannon, who is Trump's campaign manager, who is, yes, we're providing a platform for the alt-right --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is now producing films on faith for your church.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Congratulations, America. Congratulations.

PAT: Wow. Unbelievable.

GLENN: You are sliding into a cesspool that you have no idea what is coming your way.

STU: On the globalist thing, to finish that, the old definition was, you know, international agreements and things that we were skeptical of. We don't want to be controlled by international bureaucracy.

PAT: Anything. We want our sovereignty.

STU: We want our sovereignty.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And a lot of times that has gone along with having borders and border security.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And we are for Brexit. I'm for Brexit.

STU: Yeah. I believe in sovereignty. I don't like the European Union.

GLENN: Yep. Don't like it.

STU: What it's now turning into is, do you believe in free trade? Are you against tariffs? Are you for or against legal immigration? Do you think we should have any interaction with -- with our allies? Do we have any role in the rest of the world?

If you believe any of those things, all of a sudden now you're a globalist.

PAT: Globalist.

GLENN: If you don't believe in tariffs -- tariffs are the most destructive thing to the free market, which is what we are based on as conservatives --

STU: Right.

GLENN: If you're against tariffs, you're now a globalist. Well, tell that to our Founders.

PAT: If you're against Donald Trump, you're supposedly now a globalist.

STU: Right. And that's certainly where a lot of this comes from.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And a lot of the passion behind it, obviously, because we're in the middle of an election season.

GLENN: It goes way beyond him.

STU: But, I mean, look at -- I can't remember -- was it Cruz or maybe Pat Toomey, when they were running, they were running ads against them, saying, "Hey, did you know that -- I can't remember which one it was. But they were talking about free trade and how it's helped us. But it's also helped lift billions of people out of poverty.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And the fact that we've lifted Chinese people, for example -- a billion Chinese have come out of poverty because they've started to embrace a little bit of capitalism and free trade.

GLENN: Bono just said this.

STU: It's a great commercial for what we believe. Rooting for the success of people in other nations, wanting people to not starve to death all of a sudden is some weird definition of globalist. I mean, these things do help the rest of the world. I think free trade has been one of the most positive things that has ever happened to this planet, but it's also helped us.

GLENN: Here's why nationalism is so wrong, and here's why saying that we are a unique country is right, but it is not the people. American exceptionalism is not the people. We're no different than anybody else.

Yes, do we have different work ethics? Did we have different ethics than other countries? Yes.

Do we now? Not so much. Do the Chinese or do the Saudis understand American exceptionalism? No. Does that make them different people? No. It means they don't buy into the idea of America.

America is not a country. It's an idea. It is also a country. And nationalism glorifies the country and its people. What patriotism should be is the -- the glorification of the idea that we aspire to. The idea that we all men could be free, that all -- that all men can pursue their own happiness. And it's a very subtle difference. But if you don't get it, you are on the train to hell in these times.

I want to end this segment real quick just by reading this again, and I want to you listen because this is going to become -- I don't know how many people in this audience -- but I am still convinced that this audience is going to be the audience that will be remembered for pulling the republic out of the fire. I'm convinced of it. And I don't know when that happens. And I don't even know if it's because of what you do, other than teaching your children these things. Maybe it is because of what we do collectively that teaches our children and our children save the nation or bring it back. I don't know.

But for those with eyes and ears, please hear me. Let me read this again. American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic oriented.

Yes, it is.

Nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.

That is true. That goes to the point on globalists.

Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.

So what they're saying is: We can keep foreigners out of here, and that's better than -- well, you're giving a binary choice here.

Modern nationalism -- modern nationalism, let me tell you, is exactly the same as old-timey nationalism. Modern nationalism and populism.

What is populism? Populism is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

Modern nationalism and populism in America is just a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

Oh, my gosh. Hello, Germany, 1930.

American nationalism and populism is a whole scale (sic) rejection of the virus -- hello, Goebbels -- of globalism.

Please, please, know the tripwires. Please know, national -- nationalism is suicide. Populism is suicide. That the tripwire of globalism doesn't mean what you think it means. To them, it means anything other than America, first and foremost, and nothing else.

STU: It's okay to prioritize America.

GLENN: Right. It's fine to prioritize.

STU: That's what you should do. But it does not mean --

GLENN: It means a complete withdrawal and enemy outside -- it is complete isolationist, protectionist, and no trade deals. Even our Founders made trade deals. And we protested tariffs. What do you think the Tea Party was about? It was a rejection of tariffs. And that's what nationalism is doing. And it is coming. And it is coming beyond this election. And it will only gain strength after this election, no matter who wins, because this is not about Donald Trump.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Inigo Montoya (played by Mandy Patinkin) from The Princess Bride.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

In the quiet aftermath of a profound loss, the Christian community mourns the unexpected passing of Dr. Voddie Baucham, a towering figure in evangelical circles. Known for his defense of biblical truth, Baucham, a pastor, author, and theologian, left a legacy on family, faith, and opposing "woke" ideologies in the church. His book Fault Lines challenged believers to prioritize Scripture over cultural trends. Glenn had Voddie on the show several times, where they discussed progressive influences in Christianity, debunked myths of “Christian nationalism,” and urged hope amid hostility.

The shock of Baucham's death has deeply affected his family. Grieving, they remain hopeful in Christ, with his wife, Bridget, now facing the task of resettling in the US without him. Their planned move from Lusaka, Zambia, was disrupted when their home sale fell through last December, resulting in temporary Airbnb accommodations, but they have since secured a new home in Cape Coral that requires renovations. To ensure Voddie's family is taken care of, a fundraiser is being held to raise $2 million, which will be invested for ongoing support, allowing Bridget to focus on her family.

We invite readers to contribute prayerfully. If you feel called to support the Bauchams in this time of need, you can click here to donate.

We grieve and pray with hope for the Bauchams.

May Voddie's example inspire us.

Overcoming loneliness: Connecting in a disconnected world

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Russell Vought’s secret plan to finally shrink Washington

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s OMB chief built the plan for this moment: Starve pet programs, force reauthorization, and actually shrink Washington.

The government is shut down again, and the usual panic is back. I even had someone call my house this week to ask if it was safe to fly today. The person was half-joking, half-serious, wondering if planes would “fall out of the sky.”

For the record, the sky isn’t falling — at least not literally. But the chaos in Washington does feel like it. Once again, we’re watching the same old script: a shutdown engineered not by fiscal restraint but by political brinkmanship. And this time, the Democrats are driving the bus.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills.

Democrats, among other things, are demanding that health care be extended to illegal immigrants. Democratic leadership caved to its radical base, which would rather shut down the government for such left-wing campaign points than compromise. Republicans — shockingly — said no. They refused to rubber-stamp more spending for illegal immigration. For once, they stood their ground.

But if you’ve watched Washington long enough, you know how this story usually ends: a shutdown followed by a deal that spends even more money than before — a continuing resolution kicking the can down the road. Everyone pretends to “win,” but taxpayers always lose.

The Vought effect

This time might be different. Republicans actually hold some cards. The public may blame Democrats — not the media, but the people who feel this in their wallets. Americans don’t like shutdowns, but they like runaway spending and chaos even less.

That’s why you’re hearing so much about Russell Vought, the director of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Donald Trump’s quiet architect of a strategy to use moments like this to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Vought spent four years building a plan for exactly this scenario: firing nonessential workers and forcing reauthorization of pet programs. Trump talks about draining the swamp. Vought draws up the blueprints.

The Democrats and media are threatened by Vought because he is patient, calculated, and understands how to leverage the moment to reverse decades of government bloat. If programs aren’t mandated, cut them. Make Congress fight to bring them back. That’s how you actually drain the swamp.

Predictable meltdowns

Predictably, Democrats are melting down. They’ve shifted their arguments so many times it’s dizzying. Last time, they claimed a shutdown would lead to mass firings. Now, they insist Republicans are firing everyone anyway. It’s the same playbook: Move the goalposts, reframe the narrative, accuse your opponents of cruelty.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the infamous "You lie!” moment in 2009? President Barack Obama promised during his State of the Union that Obamacare wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” and was condemned for breaching decorum.

Several years later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform openly promised health care for illegal immigrants. What was once called a “lie” became official policy. And today, Democrats are shutting down the government because they can’t get even more of it.

This is progressivism in action: Deny it, inch toward it, then demand it as a moral imperative. Anyone who resists becomes the villain.

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Stand firm

This shutdown isn’t just about spending. It’s about whether we’ll keep letting progressives rewrite the rules one crisis at a time. Trump’s plan — to cut what isn’t mandated, force programs into reauthorization, and fight the battle in the courts — is the first real counterpunch to decades of this manipulation.

It’s time to stop pretending. This isn’t about compassion. It’s about control. Progressives know once they normalize government benefits for illegal immigrants, they never roll back. They know Americans forget how it started.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills. If we don’t take it, we’ll be right back here again, only deeper in debt, with fewer freedoms left to defend.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

Moral erosion

The buck stops with us

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

Overcoming loneliness: Connecting in a disconnected world

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

Shared pain makes us human

You’re not alone

Russell Vought’s secret plan to finally shrink Washington

Trump’s OMB chief built the plan for this moment: Starve pet programs, force reauthorization, and actually shrink Washington.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills.

The Vought effect

Predictable meltdowns

Stand firm