There is much truth in many of the things that the Rabbi has said in this article, but one claim that is patently untrue is that Kamala Harris' ancestors owned slaves. Kamala Harris' father is Donald Harris, who is likely the son of indentured laborers who were brought into the West Indies to grow sugarcane. Her mother is Shyamala Harris, whose parents are Brahmins. Brahmins have traditionally been among the elite classes in India, and practiced abhorrent things such as untouchability, but did not generally own slaves, as they were mostly a priestly class who dominated scholarly pursuits such as writing, literature, music etc., and have long been a mainstay of the professional workforce (lawyers, clerks, bureaucrats, doctors, engineers etc.). In current-day India, Brahmins wield little political power. In fact, they are systematically excluded from politics (they are a very tiny class numerically, much like the Jews, and thus don't have caste supporters in sufficient numbers to matter), college places etc.

We haven't even elected a president who was born after racial discrimination was no longer codified into law. And he's claiming that racism is ancient history?

For someone who claims not to be racist he sure seems to have a talent for casting aspersions on people of color, and it's odd that he insists systemic racism doesn't exist while complaining about the "White Leftist Power Infrastructure" that controls the media, academia, and Silicon Valley and keeps opportunities away from people of color, and spending the bulk of the article relating a lifetime of encountering anti-Semitism at every turn.

I mean, he's not entirely wrong, at least not about the hypocrisy of white liberals, but his obvious hatred of leftists and modernity (as his slight against "the Millennials and the Generation Z sorts who think Cardi B is their answer to Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" illustrates) undermines the clarity of his thinking.

To assume that systemic racism no longer exists because people of color can succeed at if they merely excel "(like) LeBron James and Kobe Bryant at basketball, Jackie Robinson and Henry Aaron at baseball, Aretha Franklin and Michael Jackson at singing … or Thomas Sowell in economics, Ben Carson in medicine..." the way he did under a system he admits was bigoted against him is shockingly naive from a man of his background.

He seems to have never once stopped to wonder why the bar is set so high only for Jews and people of color, and the reward so relatively low. It's almost as if there were systemic obstacles set against the success of certain races and classes of people that were not set against other races and classes.

And the parts where he blames Obama for destroying American culture and brainwashing people into believing in systemic racism and takes a swipe at Kamala Harris' family for owning slaves "unlike him" makes the true nature of the author's bigotry apparent.

The article states,

>Do you ever notice that White leftists lead promoting the Big Lie — the New York Times 1619 Project, Hollywood, academia, the mainstream media? Do you ever notice that they do not give up their own jobs so that Blacks can have them?

This is a non-sequitur. It's hard to tell how the author came to the conclusion that the best thing an individual can do against 'systemic racism' is give up their job and hope it gets filled by a black person. I don't understand the connection here.

The article further states,

>If you rely on government to pull you up, you never will be equal to The Man because no one who gives charity, whether it is called “welfare” or “food stamps” or just-plain “entitlements” — will ever make you richer than they are.

So what? I assume that this isn't a problem for most of the recipients of welfare, who don't even believe that welfare will make them richer than a government official.

>And then we got Obama. What kind of “White-privileged systemic racist” country voluntarily elects a Black — with no demonstrable background other than having been a community organizer and an undistinguished one-term senator — to be their president?

This is the "I'm not a racist, I have a black friend" statement but written about a whole society. The fact that the people elected a black president says nothing about the machinations under the electoral layer in daily life.

>Two generations of Americans never had seen a segregated bathroom or bus or lunch counter. This country had achieved racial harmony. It was not that long ago that racial harmony existed.

The author's argument is that we had 'racial harmony' because we no longer have the Jim Crow laws, as if MLK ended all racism and policies stacked against black people.

> If you want to break barriers, you have to take advantage of all that America offers and make yourself indispensable in some way, leaving others unable to deny you.

This is impractical; it's not clear what 'break barriers' means, but the author seems to have neglected to consider that in order for individuals to break those barriers, they need to have a footing available to do so. This is a primary question in economics and political philosophy. The author has neglected to consider any account of poverty, or race, or the intersection between them.

The article ends with:

>Don’t rely on the government for equal results because the government only will botch most things it touches. Rather, rely on yourself for self-help and your immediate network of family and friends, and the people at your church, cathedral, synagogue or temple, and private sources for a boost when needed — and understand that all you need to do to succeed in America is to be good at something valued by others: whether it be LeBron James and Kobe Bryant at basketball, Jackie Robinson and Henry Aaron at baseball, Aretha Franklin and Michael Jackson at singing …

Is this the best the author could come up with? A libertarian truism and a list of people with particular successes? The author failed (perhaps deliberately) to account for the fact that none of these people are in those positions for the simple fact of 'being good at something valued by others'. The janitor at work workplace is good at something valued by others. This does not mean he's joined the league of big-name janitors.

The author's solution to poverty is quite literally to pull up your bootstraps and do something that makes you indispensible. When even well-off people aren't indispensible, and the only analogy the author can draw is with himself and LeBron James of all people.

Always interesting when a 'Rabbi' that supports an apartheid state feels like he has the standing to lecture POC about how they should perceive their lived experiences... No thanks.

From his experiences i can see how he comes to his position but I think he could have come to other positions too.

He's right about kicking racists in the nuts. No qualification, just give them what they have coming.

> It's hard to tell how the author came to the conclusion that the best thing an individual can do against 'systemic racism' is give up their job and hope it gets filled by a black person.

To his credit, I have heard similar from some activists. There's a miniscule fraction of the people who otherwise align with those activists who actually subscribe to that reasoning, so it's effectively a strawman.

>> Don’t rely on the government for equal results because the government only will botch most things it touches. Rather, rely on yourself for self-help and your immediate network of family and friends, and the people at your church, cathedral, synagogue or temple, and private sources for a boost when needed...

> Is this the best the author could come up with?

Yeah... "don't ask for handouts"... unless you need a handout. And then, you're deserving of a handout if your friends or family have excess resources, or if you participate in a sufficiently wealthy religion. Shame if you were kicked out of your town, family, and church for being gay or transgender.