Street Fighter Destroys Karate Black Belt in SECONDS

Amanda Seales CONFRONTS Kamala, DEBATES Black Republicans, & Stands Up

I now consider myself a "black radical" like Amanda Seales

the physicist who tried to debunk postmodernism

Your video is a bit overly verbose and grandiloquent. A deep dive on the Sokol Affair should have been less pompous and more concise. The fact that Alan Sokol's BS Social Physics Paper about 'Quantum Gravity' being a social construct (which it just happens to be) being published in a "glorified zine" rather than a "Peer-Reviewed Sciennce Journal" may mean that it was "not an own" as you say, but that doesn't counteract the valid criticism about Postmodern Critical Theory and "Cultural Studies" (or STS). And the fact that many Peer-Reviewed Sciennce Journals" are pay-to-publish and lack intelectual ethics doesn''t discount the fact that hard sciences and mathematics are objectively testable and outside of any given social context or intersubjective contructs regarding the ideas around the objective facts of the science (and math), the fact remainst that scientific realism is correct that the physical sciences are obective and rational independent of any social forces, whie social "sciences" and forms of critiqe are at best statistical confermations of subjective and intersubective realities of individuals and groups at specific times and in specific contexts. The 'Soft Sciences," like psychology and sociology, literary philosophy, or even brain-biology (chemistry) and philosophy of mind are openly trying to create a less rigorious form of academic study that denys the objective analysis that facts and measurements provide by using things like 'feelings' and 'thoughs' as reporteed by individuals as 'evidence' in various research and/or arguments. There is a place for critical analysis of systems and power structures, and the academic study of such interpersonal phenomena such as sexual politics and gender studies, but it is not in the least to be considered HARD SCIENCE. Putting these arguments about the nature of scientific rigor in a political context of "Left vs. Right" is a mistake. We can't use "Science and Technology Studies" in the form of Cultural Studies to pretend to some higher wisdom about reality or our shared intersubjective social constructs. These attempts to explain the underlying injustices we see from the perspective of traditionally marginalized or oppressed minorities are valid academic subjects only as long as they use objective facts and measurements that can be verified and tested. Left or right, regardless of one's political ideology, money should be ethically excluded from scientific inquiry. Sokol Affair not only revealed the BS of Postmodern Critical Theory but also indirectly revealed the lack of rigor and the contradiction in 'pay-for-publishing "scientific journals. The fact that you made an hour-long video that gets patrons and sells ads on YouTube proves that Sokol's project was successful, in more ways than he intended. The point, finally, is that the academics of most American Universities have been confronted by the money and lost the trail, because the academics, especially in the soft sciences and liberal studies, find it necessary to BS in order to publish and produce controversy for their profit, credit, and funding. Publish or die. In other countries, there must be some practical outcome to your studies, but in the USA, simply staying in the Pension Fund for tenured professors and becoming famous is enough. You need to produce nothing of use. I'm now done posturing as intellectually superior in my hegemonic power structure of inequality since birth. Good faith criticism complete.

Trump’s REAL Economic Plan EXPOSED Hiding in PLAIN SIGHT

Bibi BUSTED? Massive Spy Ring Uncovered In NYC

You Are Witnessing the Death of American Capitalism

What Is Social Democracy? | The Economic Spectrum with Norway as a case ...

Secret History #3: Death by Gerontocracy

The True Origin of Capitalism - George Monbiot (Part 1)

We Are Ruled By Psychopaths - George Monbiot (Part 2)

What is Neoliberalism? - George Monbiot (Part 3)

"The Left Looks for Traitors; The Right Looks for Converts” George Monb...

Bad Idea #5 "Progress is inevitable" with George Monbiot

JEWEL STAITE on why Firefly is still so popular and on Nathan Fillion as...

James Hansen: Global Climate Sensitivity is 4.5C for 2x CO2 with 99% Cer...

End Of An Era | Marc Maron | TMR

How neoliberalism broke economics | Dr Abby Innes

The Secret History of Neoliberalism (w/ George Monbiot) | The Chris Hedg...

Balance After 50 is a Challenge…Until You Learn These Fascia Strength Tips

The Art Of Poison-Pilling Music Files

The US Economy is about to collapse.

 I wasn't aware of this change until July 2025, and it will mean the bubble is too large to correct. The end of the US economy is now a matter of when, not if.

The Elimination of Fractional Reserve RequirementsOn March 15, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it was reducing reserve requirement ratios to zero percent for all depository institutions, effective March 26, 2020. This decision was made in response to the economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s the context and impact, based on available information:

• What Was the Fractional Reserve Requirement? Historically, fractional reserve banking required banks to hold a percentage of their deposits (e.g., 3% or 10%, depending on the bank’s size) as reserves, either as cash in vaults or as deposits with the Federal Reserve. This was meant to ensure liquidity for withdrawals and stabilize the banking system, reducing the risk of bank runs (like those seen in the Great Depression or depicted in It’s a Wonderful Life). The reserve ratio was a key tool for the Fed to control the money supply, as it limited how much banks could lend out, influencing economic activity via the money multiplier effect.
  
  
  
• The Change in 2020: The Fed’s decision to set reserve requirements to zero effectively eliminated the mandate for banks to hold any reserves against deposits. This was part of a broader shift to an “ample reserves regime,” where the Fed incentivizes banks to hold reserves voluntarily by paying interest on reserve balances (IORB) rather than enforcing a minimum ratio. The goal was to free up liquidity, allowing banks to lend more to individuals and businesses during the pandemic-induced economic crisis.
  
  
  
• Why It Happened: The move was a response to the economic shutdown caused by COVID-19, aiming to stimulate lending and support economic recovery. The Fed had already shifted to an ample reserves framework in 2019, where banks held excess reserves beyond requirements due to post-2008 policies (e.g., quantitative easing). Setting the reserve ratio to zero aligned with this framework, as the Fed now relies on tools like IORB and open market operations to manage monetary policy rather than reserve requirements.
  
  
• Impact on Banking: With no reserve requirement, banks can theoretically lend out 100% of their deposits, increasing the potential for credit creation. This amplifies the money multiplier effect, as banks are no longer constrained by a fixed reserve ratio. However, banks still face capital adequacy ratios (e.g., Basel III requirements) and liquidity requirements to ensure stability, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects deposits up to $250,000 to mitigate bank run risks.
  
  
  
• Current Status: As of my latest information (up to July 21, 2025), the Fed has no plans to reinstate reserve requirements, though it retains the authority to adjust them if economic conditions warrant. The focus has shifted to managing interest rates and liquidity through IORB and other tools.
  
  

Critical Perspective and ControversyThe elimination of reserve requirements has sparked debate, reflected in both web sources and X posts, which ties into your interest in systemic “fractures” and emergent phenomena:

• Proponents’ View: The Fed and some economists argue that zero reserve requirements boost economic growth by freeing up capital for lending, especially during crises. The ample reserves regime, combined with interest on reserves, ensures banks maintain sufficient liquidity without rigid mandates. This aligns with your idea of systems adapting to new contexts, like water’s surface tension behaving differently in zero gravity.
  
  
• Critics’ Concerns: Some, including Austrian School economists like Ludwig von Mises (cited in X posts), view fractional reserve banking—and now “no-reserve” banking—as a source of financial instability. They argue it enables excessive credit creation, fueling boom-bust cycles and increasing the risk of bank runs if depositors lose confidence. X posts, like those from
  @MLiamMcCollum
  and
  @orion_kos
  , call this shift “fictional reserve banking,” suggesting it prioritizes bank profits over stability. Critics like Caitlin Long advocate for 100% reserve banking to eliminate these risks, echoing your interest in systems that break under certain conditions (e.g., bank runs as a “fracture”).
  
  
• Public Sentiment: X posts highlight public confusion and distrust, with users like
  @hrtlndbitcoin
  noting the shift to “optional reserve banking” and
  @rajatsonifnance
  warning that banks can “do whatever they want” with deposits. This reflects a broader concern about transparency and systemic fragility, akin to the “cracks” in understanding you’ve described in our discussions about free will and emergent systems.