What should be clear to anyone paying attention is that both the Racist and Anti-Racist sides of things subscribe to false mental models for largely self-serving reasons, albeit on opposite sides of a core question. That being racists are afraid of loss, while the race-hustlers are lusting for gain. Both sides mental models are in fact useful from their own point of view. As such, most people are both, depending on the situation.
The racists, while rarely being able to articulate this, have the following mental model: Personality is largely heritable. Certain phenotypes have been observed to express 3 traits that in combination roughly align with "unemployable" more often than other phenotypes. Those being willingness to be violent, low intelligence and high disagreeableness. There is no inherent corrective brake on these traits due to them also being attractive mating signals; hybristophillia is a thing.
Stopping here leaves you with two solutions to the problem. Liquidate those expressing these traits in an attempt to eradicate them, or exercise exit. Largely the latter is the choice, as most would prefer to be merely racist rather than racist mass murderers. Such free association being core to the classical liberal program is why the race hustlers are inevitably all socialists of one stripe or another.
Meanwhile the anti-racist camp, insofar as they don't embrace the polylogism of the critical theorists, have valid criticism of this model. Namely, that epigenetics is real. Gene expression in fact changes in response to conditions; as such eradication of these traits is not only evil but impossible. This effect is not as fast as most would like, or even practical within a lifespan, as this is a generational project which is actively undermined by women.
Furthermore, pretty much the entire evo bio field is just as fucked up and irreproducible as the rest of modern science. E.G. it's also a false (but useful) mental model. This is a less strong point than they think, but self-serving skepticism is a strong ingroup signal.
These in combination are enough to advocate for gibs, so that's where they stop.
The trouble of course is when you dig deeper, you find that the period where western phenotypes largely eradicated these traits in combination doesn't fit. In short it was far more racist, christian and liberal than now. Like high prices are the cure for high prices, you might say that racism was the cure for the causes of racism. That is to say, a necessarily incomplete mental model proved useful. Shocker.
Indeed, seeing the reversion in the condition of American blacks since the civil rights act leads many to conclude we need more, not less racism. It should come as no surprise that many blacks' policy preferences are in fact the sort of classical liberalism called conservatism in the USA. They remember what worked and are as tired of "ninja shit" as much as committed klansmen. However given their widespread poverty most have little choice but to align with the race hustlers begging for scraps from master's table.
In all this I see no evidence whatsoever of incentives aligning between the black and white communities in the USA to choose policy which would work (repeal of CRA). What we will instead see is wealthy nonwhite Immigrants and "nonbinary" whites increasingly leverage the CRA to crowd the black community out into deepening poverty and immiseration. This has already lead to black hostility towards Asians and the "nonbinary", who are overwhelmingly the ones leveraging this strategy. Conflict rises, just as the state prefers.
Which brings me to my point. There are a lot of things far worse than racism or race hustling. The state is obviously one of them. It was, after all, "behfel ist behfel", not racism that was used as the defense against genocide at nurenburg. In this case particularly, it's quite obvious state censorship is far worse than (largely private) racism.
As far as flawed mental models go, both racism and antiracism are not exactly high on my threat classification scale. In fact, they can both be useful in various contexts. Namely, grifting for engagement online.
Most people will satisfy themselves with "Racist in the streets, Anti-Racist in the sheets".
Is there perhaps a more useful mental model than either? I'd say it's the paranoid libertarian's "If they can, they are; treat every gun as if it is loaded" pessimistic model of human behavior. It's clear that if you let people get away with criminal abuse, you get a lot more of it. It's why I'm racist against bankers. Oh wait, I should cool it with the anti-semitism.
UPDATE: It's worth noting that the Ron Unz has made the case that these integrated states/cities seem to not be the ones causing trouble. His argument is the poster child for why this "treat any gun as if its loaded" attitude works. Houston is the most diverse city in the USA and is well known for "You loot, I shoot" being the norm. Stop tolerating ninja shit like the bleeding heart yanks and it stops happening. Simple as.
Last week, during the Schuman Forum, Josep Borrell presented his first report on the implementation of the "Strategic Compass". The idea is to coordinate the pooling of national armies, including intelligence services, in a spirit of integration rather than cooperation. Emmanuel Macron’s project now buries that of Charles De Gaulle and the French Communists. The "Europe of Defence" now appears to be a slogan aimed at placing not only the operational forces of the EU member states under the authority of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), now the US General Christopher G. Cavoli, but also at taking control of all the financing decisions that were previously the responsibility of the national parliaments, and even of the decisions on armaments and organization that were the responsibility of the member states’ executive bodies. Thus, the Union is organizing a common army without knowing who will command it.Note the seizure of control for finances. That's a key part of any actually successful coup.
In a multipolar world, shared responsibility for security can be a virtue that reduces the burden on Americans without increasing threats to U.S. interests. It is not security that we would give up, but the illusion that we are — and have to be — in control of developments far away. For too long, Americans have been told that if we do not dominate, the world will descend into chaos. In reality, as the Chinese mediation has shown, other powers are likely to step up to shoulder the burden of security and peacemaking.Needs to be said, as this hallucinatory hyperventilation about what will happen if we don't win in every shithole everywhere is the mainstream opinion.
These [name redacted] would-be censors are different. They have no sense of humor, no imagination, and exactly one distinguishing characteristic: they know what’s best for you. Anti-disinfo work suits them because they all have a Poppins streak that quietly gets off on binning your digital dirty bits (after the voyeuristic thrill of logging on to watch them in secret, with special credentials, which they rub with pleasure in evenings). They’re the vilest kind of snobs, and when they finally were forced to show their real selves to the public — and here I feel safe in thanking Elon Musk for making that possible, via the #TwitterFiles — the public rightfully recoiled from these arrogant power-worshipping mediocrities.The mediocrities will never stop until egalitarianism, that deranged impulse to make everyone as lame as them, is rejected in toto. War will empower them anew; they have simply slunk off to the shadows temporarily. Still, Matt has the right attitude:
We don’t have to concede to a future of always being at war somewhere abroad, and with each other at home. We don’t have to put up with a government that doesn’t tell us anything. Most of all, we can go back to enjoying life, on our own terms, without stressing over an endless succession of panics invented by politically insecure losers. We can do so much better, and we will, because this place is ours to run, a fact the singing censors should never have let us remember.Ultimately you just have to keep striking the root over and over. Never ever stop, and keep breathing in and out longer than the bad guys.
The Fed crammed deposits down the throats of banks via QEIt really is funny that the only bank that proposed just parking all the money at the fed and making that sweet free money was told "No". Lol.
The Zero Reserve requirement by the Fed encouraged banks to speculate.
Not happy with free money for nothing, banks invested deposits into long duration treasuries and mortgage backed securities.
Regulators at the banks and Fed did no duration risk analysis
As the fed hiked rates, total bank losses hit $620 billion.
Instead of making $253 billion in annualized free money, banks collectively managed to lose $620 billion. Way to go!
