RADIOApril 21, 2022

SHOCK: Is Biden giving our STRATEGIC OIL to Europe?!

The European Union is set to declare a FULL embargo on Russian oil after France’s upcoming presidential election, which could cost the price per barrel of oil to skyrocket yet again — maybe up to 185 DOLLARS, JP Morgan has warned. And the worst part? With China, Turkey, and India buying whatever oil supplies Europe won’t take, it’s unlikely this embargo will hurt Russia. But it WILL affect you. Plus, a new report alleges Biden is not only releasing oil from our strategic reserves to help Americans at the pump, but the administration could be giving that oil to Europe too. So, does anyone else find it INSANE that we’d willingly sacrifice so much of our oil RESERVES while the threat of a World War looms…?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Before I get into the strategic oil reserve, let me just give you something that Reuters reported last night. The EU is set to declare a full embargo on Russian oil, after this week's French election. Now, that election is happening, I believe this weekend. Is it not?

And it's between Macron, and Le Pen. It is close. I mean, remember last time, do you happen to know those numbers? The last time Macron ran against Le Pen. Wasn't it like 80/20 or something?

STU: I want to say it 70/30. 80/20, something in that general -- once they have a big election, like to go to a runoff. In that runoff, it adds up to 100 percent because there's only two candidates and everyone has to vote. Pick somebody.

So it was a blowout though. It was not close. It was like, I can't believe she got into the runoff, was the reaction to it. And then the runoff was not close. That's not the case this time.

GLENN: Yeah. It's 45/55, Macron. And once again, the elites are deciding an election. You know, in World War I. Right before we went into World War I, Wilson said, as his campaign slogan. I'm not going to get you into war. Within just a few weeks after, he was in office.

For his second term, after the election, we were at war. He sent the troops to war. The elites always think they know better. And so they will keep things from you. And that's exactly what the European Union is doing, with the French people. They don't want to upset the election, because it's so close. And what they're about to do, would push it in Le Pen's favor. They are about to declare a total embargo on Russian oil. They're supposedly, according to Reuters, going to do this next week.

This will cause a massive spike, in the price of oil.

I'll give that to you, here in a second. But first, let me ask you, is this really hurting Russia?

Because they've found other buyers for all of their oil.

They have found buyers in China and Turkey and India. And these people are saying that if this happens, they'll buy more.

So they have remarkably, according to JP Morgan, the Russian crude exports, are actually averaging 360,000 barrels above preinvasion volumes.

Huh. Now they're saying, that they're going to cut -- Europe will cut, all of that.

And when they do, according to JP Morgan Chase, the price of Brent crude oil, $185 a barrel.

$185 a barrel. That because of inflation, is about where the price of oil was. About 125. For how long, in 2007 or eight?

This is what caused the collapse of our economy.

It was oil prices. The entire western world is -- is built, on the back of energy prices, being no more than $100 a barrel. Every time it's over $100 a barrel, it hurts the economy. And it stops it. If you can get it down to -- what did Trump have it down to, like $60 a barrel? When you get it down there, you're starting to hurt Russia. But high prices help Russia, Saudi Arabia, and hurt us. The entire West. At $185 a barrel, I don't even know what gas prices would be. But we're probably all paying $5 plus, California, good luck.

How long can the Western world survive that?

Now, here's what's interesting. India, and China, and Turkey, have already said, they would take this oil.

Europe is not thinking about just pulling all of the oil, and stopping it cold Turkey. They are thinking about maybe doing it more slowly. Over a period of months. Well, that gives Russia time, to make all the deals.

That -- who wins in that scenario? You don't have oil. They have buyers.

How it -- what is that? By the way, the Russian break even, for oil, is less than $10 a barrel.

So they're talking also about price caps, we'll only pay $20 a -- you're still giving them $10 on every barrel. I mean, I don't understand.

You're just hurting yourself with this. And, you know, I'm beginning to wonder. You remember Biden had the emergency strategic oil reserve. Petroleum reserve.

And he said, he was going to release 180 million barrels of oil. 180 million barrels of oil, from the strategic petroleum reserve. That's 1 million barrels a day, for 180 days. And it would end shockingly, just right after the midterm elections. Okay? So he was going to do that. And remember what he said. I'm going to do this, because I want to help the average person at the gas pump. Well, somehow or another, the definition of an emergency, and helping you, now includes making a profit at the expense of American consumers. Because sooner or later, a real emergency will hit, and we will need the fuel, according to Matt Smith, oil analyst and commodity data firm Kepler, we are now exporting our strategic oil reserve crude, and we've been doing it since last November.

So when Biden said, we're going to release some, and it's going to help the average person. No, that's not true. Unless you -- unless you consider the citizens of Europe, the citizens of the United States.

Why didn't we know this? Why is he doing this?

This is really not going to help -- I mean, unless he's buying the support, from Europe. Why would we buy the support from Europe?

Support for what?

STU: Two years ago, what were oil prices?

GLENN: I don't know.

STU: Today, it's 100 -- what is it $104.

GLENN: Four. Yeah.

STU: Two years ago today, oil prices, $16.94.

GLENN: Sixteen dollars!

STU: Now, an asterisk, in that, we were in the worst part of the pandemic at that point. Which was a massive. That is the lowest it went. But that was two years ago, exactly today. $16.94. It's now over $100. And, you know, once we rebounded off that -- the real catastrophic drop of the pandemic, it was around $40 after that. And now we're at 104.

GLENN: Forty to $60 is a dream.

STU: Yeah. Forty to sixty, that's where it was throughout 2019, most of 2017. A little higher at times in 2018. But had leveled off, between 50 and $60, before the pandemic hit. And then, of course, all the way down to $16. That was amazing. I wish I would have bought oil back then.

GLENN: So, Stu, can you tell me what exactly is happening, with the strategic oil reserve being released some of it, at least. To Europe.

That's not for Europe. That's for us. And that is actually not for price relief. That is to run our ships, our Navy, our Air Force.

STU: Well, it's supposed to be certainly.

GLENN: Exactly right. Okay?

And then we seem to be going closer and closer. Remember, Joe Biden said, I don't want to do anything that's going to look like we're supporting Ukraine in any military fashion. We're not going to replace those planes for Poland, if they do that. We're not going to be involved in that at all, okay? Because that would be akin to an act of war. He was very clear on that, wasn't he?

STU: It seems like it. No, it seemed like it.

GLENN: Yesterday, NBC News cited five U.S. officials, that said a -- a new package, a new arms package, which will bring our military aid to 3 billion dollars, is going to be announced. Listen to this. We are now selling them howitzers, antiaircraft systems, anti-ship missiles, armed drones, armored trucks, personnel carriers, and even tanks!

Now, that sounds to me, as bad, if not worse, than some old planes, from the 1960s. That we weren't even going to do.

Why are we doing this? By the way, Russia sent a warning, to us. That if we start delivering these, quote, most sensitive weapon systems to Ukraine, it will bring unpredictable consequences.

I don't think they're unpredictable. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't think it's unpredictable. Are we -- are we shooting ourself in the foot, by giving away our oil reserve?

Even selling our oil reserve. Just touching our oil reserves, at this point.

STU: It's crazy.

GLENN: While we're antagonizing the bigger bully. And maybe the biggest bully on the block.

STU: With over 6,000 nuclear weapons. Yeah. That seems like a problem to me. Now, if you're going -- we know the back sort of -- the backstory, as far as the reporting goes, seems to indicate, basically, we're trying to say to Europe, you guys need to stop buying Russian fossil fuels.

And we are -- they say, well, what are we going to use? And this is part of our answer. Right? Well, we'll send you some from our strategic oil reserves, to help, you know, lower the burden. As you --

GLENN: How about this? We just open up our system. You know, yeah. It's going to take us six months. But we're already six months into this. We're going to open our systems again. We're going to start pumping it like we were. And we'll sell it to you, for $60 a barrel. And we'll leave our strategic oil reserve alone. I mean, it's really getting simple.

STU: It's fascinating to watch this. You mentioned this before. Wasn't he really clear about this?

And he was really clear, when he said, that we were not going to do anything that was going to escalate us into war. But to say he was clear, really about any of this. Overall, is really difficult to say. He's gone back and forth over and over again.

Remember, this guy ran a platform, saying, we're going to get rid of fossil fuels. We're going to eliminate them. We're going to be net zero. All of these things he said to environmentalists to get their vote. Then he gets in front of the -- the public, and people say, hey, you keep saying, you're going to get rid of all these fossil fuels, now we're having an oil crisis. What's the deal? Your gas prices are going through the roof. It's hurting families. And he says, we haven't done anything. We haven't done anything to stop production. What are you talking about?

Now, there's a court ruling, that say, they have to open up new leases. Not their action. The court said, you have to open up these new leases. So the environmentalists are mad. And he's saying, again, we're not doing anything. This isn't us. So they've gone back and forth on this, so many times, because they're telling the left, that they're absolutely attacking fossil fuels. And then telling the American people, we're not doing anything on that front, at all. All these oil companies are just, oh, so greedy. And that's the problem here.

What Aleksandr Dugin REALLY Believes About America

In light of Tucker Carlson’s recently released interview with Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, Glenn dives deep into Dugin’s true beliefs about America and his terrifying “solutions” to society’s problems. Dugin may sound like an ally to American conservatives, but his comments on war, apocalypse, and fascism reveal his true intents. Rockford University Philosophy Professor Stephen Hicks joins Glenn to lay out the “massive trap” that Dugin has set for the West and the future of “fascism without compromise” that he wants for the world.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Yesterday, a -- an interview that Tucker Carlson did while he was in Russia, was released. It was about 20 minutes. And I applaud everyone for having a conversation. Tucker has said many times. It's important to see and understand how our adversaries view us.

Well, that -- that wasn't clear in this. He just diagnosed a problem as Aleksandr Dugin always does.

And enough to open a door to people. Have people say, oh. Well, I think I might agree with that.

It is really important, what Tucker has begun. We have to now continue that conversation. So people on our side, will not fall victim to this guy.

They talk about how people want his books to be banned. I don't. I want you to read this in his own words. There will be stuff at the beginning of the book, you will go, yeah. Yeah. He knows me.

By the time you're at the end of the book. This is a horror show.

Literally a horror show. But you should read him.

Jefferson, when we went into our first foreign war, which was against the Muslim pirates, insisted that everybody read the Koran. If you really want to understand the absurdity of it all, he said, you need to read this in their own words. Now, let's get down to it.

GLENN: So let me play just a little bit of what he said, to Tucker yesterday. We'll start there. Here's a clip from the Tucker Carlson interview with Aleksandr Dugin.

VOICE: There was all liberals.

And, for instance (inaudible), correctly, that there are no more ideologies, except for liberalism. And liberalism, that was liberation, of this individual from any kind of collective identity.

There are only two collective identities, to liberate from. Gender identity, because it's disconnected by identity.

You are man and woman, collectively.

So you could be -- so liberation of gender. And that has led to transgenders. To LGBT. And new form of sexual individuals. So sex is all -- something optional.

And that was not just the deviation of liberalism. That was necessary elements of implementation and victor of this liberal ideology.

And the last step that is not yet totally -- totally, made his liberation from human identity. Humanity optional. And when -- now we are choosing for you, in the West, you are choosing the sex you want, as you want. And the last step in this process of liberalism. Implementation of liberalism. Will mean precisely, the human optional. So you can choose your individual identity to be human. Not to be human.

And that -- transhumanism. Post humanism. Singularity. Artificial intelligence. Klaus Schwab. They openly declare that it is the inevitable future of humanity. So we have arrived to the historical terminal station. That we finally -- five centuries. A goal, we have embarked on this train. And we are now arriving at the last station.

GLENN: So what he's saying here is, that liberalism, meaning the classic liberalism where you're an individual. It's not collective. Et cetera, et cetera. He says, the inevitable end is progressivism. And then some dystopian future. But I don't think that's right.

I would love to hear from you.

Liberalism doesn't lead to progressivism. Marxism leads to progressivism.

STEPHEN: Yeah. The first half of the Dugin clip is correct. The second half is a massive equivocation. I think he should know better. I think he's doing some tactical rhetoric against the West, talking about the transgenderism. So let's take those two in part.

So the first part is all of the Soviet Union. I think Dugin is exactly right. What plays out in the 20th century, left only some sort of liberalism standing in the field.

Twenty-first century was a huge ideological battle. I think Dugin's analysis is correct. It's kind of the analysis I've argued and many other people have argued as well.

The 20th Century was about some sort of liberalism, versus some sort of fascism or national socialism, versus some sort of Marxist communism.

We fought world wars. We fought cold wars. Fought many French warfare, ideological wars as well.
What happened was fascism was defeated.

National socialism was defeated. And by 1991, Marxist communism was defeated. So what seemed to be, almost inevitable. I don't want to use the inevitably language. But was that some sort of liberal democracy, capitalism, individualism. Barbarity, was triumphant.

So I think that part is exactly right. Now where I think Dugin goes wrong, is in what happens next.

My view was what happened, liberalism took a breathing. We've been fighting wars. Ideological. And actual wars for over a century.

We let our guard down. We have relaxed. We have kind of thought everybody is going to get on board.

Some sort of liberal, democratic, capitalist. Modern future is slowly going to prevail over the next generation.

What actually happened though, was that the fascists. The national socialists.

The authoritarians. The communists. The Marxists.

The various sorts, did not simply go away, and give up the fight.

Instead, they started to repackage themselves. Inside, the now triumph unto west, there are countermovements that tried to reassert themselves. We started to say, by the time we got to 2010, 2015. Or so.

That those countermovement inside the West are reasserting themselves. And everybody is starting to become aware of them. And the particularly nasty forms of transgenderism.

Now, I think is a legitimate version of transgenderism. That reasonable, sensitive people will take wear of. Weaponized transgenderism. Of a particularly vibrant form, that we're sometimes dealing with.

That is a different phenomena. So the second part then, is what Dugin wants to do is to say.

And this is the part that you were picking up on. That are -- the relativism. The angry activism. The willingness to let everything burn inside the West. That we're now confronting with.

The virulent forms of Islamism. That we are now confronting. And some of the total package of anti-western. Antiliberalism.

Where did those come from?

Now, I agree. Those are pathological.

They are very destructive. What Dugin is offering. Is a thesis that says. That those antiliberalisms. Are themselves an youth growth of liberalism.

And that I think is simply false.

GLENN: So he -- when he says, you know, an end to modernity. And liberalism.

He's actually -- I mean, one of the first things I've found about Dugin. That opened my eyes.

Was his statement that -- that fascism, with Mussolini. Mussolini was a very brave person. As was Hitler.

But it didn't work. But they understood that international communism was not good. So they went for national communism, or socialism. Which became fascist. And he said, where the two of them went wrong. Was they offered too many compromises.

He said, the future -- yeah. The future is fascism without compromise.

STEPHEN: Exactly.

GLENN: This is terrifying.

STEPHEN: This is 1990's Dugin in the first decade after the fail of the Soviet Union. And he's a strange character at this point. He's already adopted various forms of Naziism. In the 1980s. At this point, he's not a young man. He's in his late '20s. Early '30s.

So he's a mature thinker. He hates liberalism already. He hates modernity. He hates the West in its entirety. At the same time, he's dissatisfied with a lot of what's going on in the Soviet Union.

Its version of Communism and Marxism. When the Soviet Union falls, so he's cofounder of a national Bolshevik Party. And the Bolsheviks, of course, was Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and so on. So it's a reworking of a kind of Communist Marxism.

But the nationalism is important there for him. And he then -- and, a few years, settles on saying, what we need to do is just rework fascism.

So he's widely and explicitly admiring of Mussolini, and some of the German fascists of the 1920s and early 1930s. And he publishes an article in 1997, called fascism. Borderless and red. The red part means blood. And it means a little bit of incorporation of Marxism.

That will mean bloody, violent revolution that we need, and the border part is also there. That we need to expand Russia's border.

We need to be expansionists.

What we need is a kind of national socialism. And he takes the socialism seriously.

Economic control.

But it's not going to be a socialism, that we take on, so to speak. It's a Russian people, who moved into some abstract, socialist template. We need to take the Russian people. Its particular ethnic identity, including its religion. Its cultures. It's traditions. See it as having a world historical destiny.

It's going to lead the world to a new, bright future that is not going to be kind of trapped in the old Marxist way. And as you were suggesting, it will learn from the failures of the earlier versions of fascism and national socialism.

And what that is going to involve with. A willingness to be muscular. A willingness to be violent. A willingness to take ethnicity and nationalism seriously. And not to compromise one job with capitalism, with any form of Western liberalism.

Yes. That's Dugin. By the time we get to the late 1990s.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Did the Deep State Kill a Journalist? An ‘Octopus Murders’ Review | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 219

A journalist went where the FBI couldn’t and may have dug his own grave asking the wrong questions to a nefarious network, including CIA operatives, the mafia, Hollywood’s elite, Native Americans, and psychopathic killers. This was Danny Casolaro's biggest story that never happened because he was found dead in a motel room in West Virginia. Was it suicide or murder? Glenn Beck excavates never-before-heard testimony from the filmmakers of the Netflix original docuseries “American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders,” including evidence and a paper trail of a stolen election. Christian Hansen and Zachary Treitz detail the most dangerous character they came across. It’s not Bill Hamilton, Inslaw, Robert Booth Nichols, or Michael Riconosciuto. They also explain how the PROMIS software and the Inslaw scandal have ties to the Angry Birds backdoor malware installed by the NSA as well as that outrageous Zapruder film hoax of the JFK assassination. Confused yet? The interconnected web of disinformation consumed Hansen so much that director Treitz was concerned about his emotional and physical health during filming. The ending, reminiscent of "The Sopranos," left the filmmakers on the hunt for the key that could unlock the entire conspiracy. But the story doesn’t end there ...

Did the U.S. Government TELEPORT Malaysia Airlines Flight 370?!

A decade ago, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared without a trace. Now, some are claiming this was a cover-up — by the U.S. GOVERNMENT! Glenn speaks with one of those people, investigative journalist Ashton Forbes, who claims that he has video evidence of what really happened. The alleged footage, which he claims was leaked from within the government, depicts a plane disappearing into what could be a worm hole created by three rotating orbs. Ashton lays out the science that he believes explains this … but does the government really have this game-changing technology? Glenn lets you decide …

Biden Sent HOW MANY Migrants to THIS Red State?!

According to a new report, internal DHS data has revealed how the Biden administration has flown hundreds of thousands of “inadmissible” migrants into U.S. cities — and the top 15 cities are eye-opening. The controversial CHNV mass-parole program has used YOUR tax dollars to send migrants who have claimed refugee status all over the country. But the administration has brought the most migrants into the country BY FAR through airports in (of course) the red state of Florida. This is ON TOP of the record-high illegal immigration that we have seen under the Biden administration. So, what’s the goal here?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: New internal DHS data reveals 45 US cities that hundreds of thousands of migrants that have felony into via the Biden administrations, controversial CHMV mass parole program.

It shows that the top 15 cities that migrants were flown into, on your tax dollar. On our airlines. Which you have to take your shoes off.

They have to know. I mean, come on over here.

Yeah. Every third person, we do a rectal exam.

Yeah. And now -- now we're just flying these people. Without knowing, who they really are. Doing it in the middle of the night.

Now, these aren't the people who go across the border.

Are these the ones who the United States government went out to, hey. Is anybody -- refugee. If you're a refugee, I've got free tickets to America.

So the top 15 cities, Miami, Florida, 91,000 people were flown in from January through August 2023.

Eight months. Eight months. Miami, Florida, Florida. 91,000.

Ft. Lauderdale. Which is the same city.

I mean, it's Miami Ft. Lauderdale.

STU: Yeah. I used to live in Ft. Lauderdale.

GLENN: It's part of Miami.

STU: It's a little bit of a drive to Miami. It's like Dallas/Fort Worth.

A couple cities close to each other.

GLENN: So Ft. Lauderdale got 60,000. And then New York City is number 3. They got 14,000. Wait a minute.

Wow! That's quite a spread there.

So, you know, they get 150,000, just in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale. And then 14,000 in New York. Houston --
STU: And think about what Eric Adams has said.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

STU: They're overrunning our communities, we can't do anything. Half the cities on this list are on one state. And New York City can't handle this.

GLENN: Yeah. They have 14,000. Then Houston has 8,000.

Orlando has 16,000. Another Florida.

Los Angeles, three. Tampa, another Florida. 3200. Dallas, Texas, is 2200.

San Francisco, 2,000. Atlanta, 2,000.

Newark, New Jersey.

I mean --

STU: Oh, people love Newark.

GLENN: Honestly, if you're like in some other place.

I don't care if they're torturing you. And they say, you want to come to the United States?

Sure. Where am I headed?

Newark, New Jersey. No, I'm going to hang out. I'm good. I'm good.

Put me back on the rack. It's false alarm. I'm not going anywhere.

STU: How are these decisions made?

GLENN: What do you mean?

STU: Do you know -- if you're someone coming in, you're an illegal immigrant, you're on this parole program.

And you come in. Do they say, hey. Here is your -- they have fliers come visit Orlando out there. Look through them until you pick one. Do they assign a city to you? Is it wherever your relatives are?

GLENN: I don't know. It's taken us forever, to get just this information.

STU: I know. It's true. It could be, that these people are like, look, I don't want to go to Newark. So I will pick Tampa or Orlando or Ft. Lauderdale.

My guess is, do you know anyone who lives there?

Yeah. My brother lives in Miami.

So they're flying them to Miami.

I don't know. Regardless, wouldn't the opposite be obvious, if you were honest here? If you're the Biden administration, you keep telling everyone that people in the south and the red states hate immigrants. They're racists. They're, you know, xenophobes. They don't have any programs for them.

So why would you continue to keep bringing them to Florida and Texas. Why?

Wouldn't you bring them to the cities, that have all these wonderful programs that you've passed. Why not?

GLENN: Well, unless you're trying to make sure that you fly them into a city, like Miami, Ft. Lauderdale. That's usually run by Democrats.

And you can have them vote.

STU: But -- but, again, it's not run currently by tells me.

GLENN: Miami, Ft. Lauderdale.

STU: Republican mayor. Remember, he ran for a short time, ran for president.

GLENN: I don't remember that. It was very short. Very short.

STU: Very short. But unless you have enemies, in red states and you realize that what you're doing is a punishment, right?

The same kind of thing that, you know, Greg Abbott did in Texas. You know what, we will send these people up to you guys. You guys deal with them.

Because we're being honest with them here. This is a strain on our society. And so we shouldn't be responsible for them. Because we want them to be stopped before they come in.

Right? All these other people are saying, we're welcoming. You're welcomed here. You will always be welcomed in New York City. I don't know if that one is expired. But that's what Eric Adams was saying when he was running for election.

GLENN: San Francisco.

STU: San Francisco. All these things. We went through and found all the quotes from these mayors.

All of them, welcomed with open arms, illegal who didn't notice. And invited them to come. And now when they actually show up, they realize what the situation is. You're taking a bunch of people who have no current path to earn enough to -- to house themselves. To feed themselves.

To give themselves basic humanitarian aid.

And then you're going to put that on the state, or local -- local communities.

GLENN: Imagine. Imagine your city. Knowing how large you are. You have an influx of 150,000 people.

Where are those jobs?

Where are the jobs for those people? You don't have a deficit of 150,000, you know, employees.

STU: Where do they work?

GLENN: Where are they working?

Where are they working?

By the way, a recent pew poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans have little or no confidence that Joe Biden is physically fit to be president.

That's two-thirds. When you're talking about the immigration thing, 80 percent of America, wants them to be sent back home.

Okay?

They're starting to get really.

Quite, quite intense object the immigration thing.

And that's Republicans and Democrats.

Everybody knows that the economy is in flames.

Again, two-thirds have little or no confidence that Joe Biden is even physically fit to be president.

What the hell, how is this so close?

How is this so close?

I just -- it doesn't -- it doesn't make sense.

STU: People are not making judgments based on what's in front of them.

GLENN: No. They're not.

STU: They're these partisan. You know, these partisan lanes you get in. And it's impossible to escape them. I don't know. For 80 percent of people, at this point.

We would like to think it's some rare thing.

But it's pretty much everybody who looks at this. And doesn't seem to be spending any time to make this instigation.

Decision was made for them, years ago, decades ago, and they're going and checking the boxes.

Yes. He has mean tweets. But you had a job. We had a country. I mean, yeah. But I know those mean tweets are really, really horrible.