Review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism”
Thomas Allen
The following is a review of
“‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism” (July 21, 2020) by Richard M.
Ebeling of the American Institute for Economic Research. He is a Jew, a libertarian, a Dixiephobe, and a
racial nihilist who adheres to the
new morality. Like nearly all libertarians and most
Yankees, he is a proponent of the atomistic autonomous individual devoid of any relationship with race,
ethnicity (nation), or country. They are deplorable collectives. In his article, he condemns systemic racism, which is used to cover all the world’s evil in a collective matter. Although he would staunchly deny it, Ebeling is a racist on multiple accounts (see
“Are You a Racist?”).
Ebeling discusses what he considers progress out of American racist past. When the veneer is removed, what is considered progress is the replacement of White supremacy with Black supremacy. Progress is Whites hating their race or at least disliking it enough to consider it not worthy of preservation.
Next, Ebeling discusses how attitudes have changed for the better. For him, the growing acceptance of
interracial marriages is a great leap forward. Why he hates the American Negro so much that he condones breeding him out of existence, he does not explain.
Perhaps, his ignorance or self-denial is so great that he does not recognize this genocide. However,
Maurice Lindsay, a Negro and a student of religion and Black history and development does realize this genocide. He knows that interracial marriages will genocide the American Negro. Moreover, he is convinced that miscegenation is a plot by Whites like Ebeling to rid the country and then the world of Blacks. Thus, this Black man has a much greater understanding of the consequences of
miscegenation than does Ebeling and, therefore, shows more intelligence than Ebeling. While Whites like Ebeling condemn White supremacy and the notion that Blacks are naturally inferior to Whites, they support the notion, most likely subconsciously, that Blacks need a strong infusion of White genes to raise them. By his approval of miscegenation and the growing number of mongrels, Ebeling reveals his hatred of the races and, by that, his hatred of humanity.
Like most
libertarians, Ebeling believes that the government is the root of all evil. He blames the government for most racial differences in performance and outcome. That is, governmental policies are the cause of Blacks lagging behind Whites by most economic and social measures. He is convinced that such differences are definitely not genetic.
Governmental policies and even corporate policies discriminate against Whites, especially White males, by hiring and promoting less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Many universities have procedures in place to admit less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Whatever is holding Blacks back, it is not governmental policies because they are skewed heavily in favor of Blacks and against Whites.
Ebeling blames minimum wage laws as the primary cause of unemployment of young Blacks. Minimum wage laws are a significant contribution to Black unemployment. Attitude, character, temperament, and intelligence, which genetics highly influences, are other important contributors that he does not discuss — probably because he believes that genetics have little or no influence on these attributes. (Initially, the primary purpose of minimum wage laws was to price Blacks out of the Northern labor markets and keep them in their place, i.e., to keep them in the South.)
According to Ebeling, the difference between the unemployment rate of young Blacks and young Whites results from public schools. Public schools often pass Blacks to the next grade when they lack the skills to enter the next grade. (For fear of being accused of being a “racist” and, thus, losing their jobs, teachers have a strong incentive to pass unqualified Blacks to the next grade.) Thus, they graduate without the skills to qualify for starting employment. (However, quotas and affirmative action are designed to overcome this problem by requiring hiring less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Ebeling fails to discuss quotas and affirmative action, which are highly invasive actions of the government.) Whatever the cause of the lower education of Blacks is, Ebeling seems convinced that it has nothing to do with Blacks having a lower IQ on average than Whites. He blames the difference on what is being taught and how it is being taught — although Whites are taught the same material in the same way.
Two laws that Ebeling ignores are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. He should have focused his arguments against these two laws, the court rulings that have interpreted and misinterpreted them, the governmental agencies that enforced them, and the unethical Supreme Court ruling in the
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which was based on sociology instead of the
Constitution and law. They are the cause of the problems about which he complains. Perhaps, he overlooks them because these two civil rights acts ended White supremacy, privilege, and power, with which he agrees. However, they replaced White supremacy, privilege, and power with Black
supremacy,
privilege, and power, with which he disagrees.
(Under Jim Crow, the segregationist had to accept equality before the law as the operative de jure principle. Under civil rights, Whites, especially White males, can be legally discriminated against with no recourse to the courts. In the civil rights era, Black privilege, i.e., Blacks have privileges denied to Whites, has replaced the concept of “all citizens are equal before the law.”)
Next, Ebeling blames the social environment in which many Blacks are reared as the cause of Blacks lagging economically. Many Blacks fail to emphasize education and making sacrifices in the present for benefits in the future. Again, he does not identify genetics as a possible cause of such an environment. (Since race precedes environment, race makes the environment.)
Ebeling writes that he was taught that the world did not owe him a living and that he needed to be a responsible individual. (He fails to mention the welfare state that has taught a disproportional number of Black women that they can make a good living merely by producing children — which is a highly rational act. Most people prefer being paid not to work to being paid about the same or less to work. [This is more proof of Black supremacy and privilege: Blacks, who are net tax recipients, have enslaved Whites, who are net taxpayers, to support them.])
Ebeling believes that education, planning for the future, and self-control are universal truths that apply to all human beings regardless of race. (Proponents of systemic racism would argue that these truths are the White man’s truths since a White man, Ebeling, declared them truths, and, therefore, they do not apply to Blacks.) He is correct in that people who follow these truths do better than people who do not.
Finally, he gets to the discussion of “systemic racism.” He defined systemic racism: “It is the claim that it does not matter what individual human beings think, believe, or try to do; they are all perpetrators or victims of racial injustices and oppressions due to the nature of the socio-economic and political system in which they live. In other words, white racism is embedded into society, and the implication is that it has always been so and will remain so unless and until the very structural design of the social order is radically transformed.”
Thus, the system is rotten, and most people do not realize that they are part of the system and are using it to benefit at the expense of others. (This is true although today it is opposite to what the proponents of systemic racism claim to be true. The proponents claim that the system benefits Whites at the expense of Blacks. On the contrary, Blacks benefit at the expense of Whites through affirmative action, quotas, preferments, and a host of other policies and by receiving more money from the government than they pay in taxes.)
According to the proponents of systemic racism, the differences in incomes between Whites and Blacks result from systemic racism. Moreover, the difference in the quality of schools results from systemic racism. (School integration and forced busing were designed to eliminate this difference. Thus, the difference results from the quality of the student, genetics, and not from the quality of the schools.) Systemic racism also causes differential treatment within the legal system. (Such as a Black criminal is less likely to be arrested for the same crime than is a White criminal and is more likely to be found not guilty by a jury even when obviously guilty than is a White criminal. However, proponents of systemic racism do not have these Black privileges in mind.)
Likewise, systemic racism is the cause of poorer quality food offered in local stores in Black neighborhoods. (If the food quality does differ could the cause be that the shopkeeper wants to risk losing less property when Blacks go on one of their periodic rampages of rioting, looting, and burning?)
Ebeling asks why the “poor, white trash” are not also victims of the system since they are often treated as badly, if not worse, than Blacks claim to be treated. After all, poor, white trash are in the lower income brackets, live in poor neighborhoods, and are ostracized from the better social networks. (The answer is obvious to a proponent of systemic racism: Poor, white trash are White.)
Proponents of systemic racism believe that success depends solely on being White. (Perhaps, their notion, at least in part, explains
the rise in interracial marriages. Blacks believe that their children will advance socially and economically with an infusion of White genes. Albusphobic Whites who are also Negrophobes are willing to whiten the Negro race. Is not such sacrificial attitude evidence of racism?)
Ebeling adheres to the proposition of the “melting pot” philosophy, the
amalgamation of all into one. He uses the classic example of European immigrants from various European countries. After a generation or two, the descendants of these European immigrants had mostly merged into American (White) society and culture.
Although these various ethnicities may have fought each other in Europe, they ceased doing so when they came to America. Why? Could it be that their similarities outweighed their differences? They were Whites coming to a White country where Negroes and Indians were like outcasts and only participated peripherally. Like White Americans, these White Europeans had the same basic religion (Christianity) and culture (Western Civilization). In this respect, they differed significantly from Blacks and Indians, both of whom were of a different race, a primitive culture, and a pagan-type religion.
Ebeling credits this merger on the lack of a legal foundation for group privileges and a lack of social prejudice. Moreover, the philosophy of individualism, personal freedom, and economic liberty was promoted. These are important reasons. However, he ignores racial, cultural, and religious similarities, which allowed the conditions that he cites to thrive.
Ebeling argues that slavery and Jim Crow needed the government to survive. He fails to note that the Jim Crow laws in the South were modeled after the Black labor codes in the North. As Booker T. Washington remarked, much of the segregation in the South, especially in the workplace, resulted from Northern workers who had migrated to the South. Moreover, even as the Northern Black codes faded away, Northerners still discriminated against Blacks as much as, and in some instances more than, Southerners until the government intervened to end such discrimination.
Ebeling condemns proponents of systemic racism for insisting that people have to think about themselves as part of a collective ethnic or racial group. In his arguments against them, he promotes amalgamating all ethnic and racial collectives of humanity — or at the other extreme, everyone becomes an atomistic, autonomous, isolated, independent individual.
Next, Ebeling compares systemic racism with Nazism. Both insist on identifying people by race. One’s race fixes one’s position and status in society. Then, he proceeds to condemn the eugenists, who claim that a person is his genes. Thus, he asserts that genetics are irrelevant. (Ignoring genetics is one of the main reasons that we have the racial problems that we have today.)
Further, he condemns the
eugenists for promoting increasing the population of higher quality people and discouraging the growth of lower quality people. (Ebeling should be rejoicing. Dysgenics has supplanted eugenics. Now, lower quality people are encouraged to reproduce while the reproduction of higher quality people is discouraged.)
According to Ebeling, the new eugenists claim that people cannot help being racists. It is part of their social DNA. Only by bringing down the system can White racism end. (Presumably, this includes
genociding Whites.) No common humanity or shared humanness exists — so claim the new eugenists. In contrast to the new eugenists, who believe that races think differently, Ebeling asserts that all races think the same way. (If Blacks think the same way as Whites do, then sub-Sahara Africa should have been at about the same level as Europe in culture, science, technology, etc. in the sixteenth century when Europeans began exploring sub-Sahara Africa. Likewise, the sixteenth-century American Indians should have been at about the same levels as the Europeans.)
Rightfully, Ebeling condemns people (Whites) who “verbally [and some physically] grovel and beg forgiveness for the presumption, the hubris, the insensitivity, to think that they could ever know and feel what a black person has or ever can feel.” However, he condemns them for the wrong reason. He condemns them for declaring that “we live in racially different universes, with no common humanity, understanding, empathy or sympathy.” They deserve to be condemned for cowardice and for trying to placate people, both White and Black, who will never be satisfied. Even the complete extermination of Whites will not satisfy them. (With the extermination of the White race, Blacks will soon perish. They will no longer have a race to which to feel superior. More importantly, they will no longer have a race to plunder. Further, they will lose their protection from the Asian and Latin American Turanians.)
Correctly, Ebeling remarks that White guilt has lead to Whites giving their “privilege” to the other races by allowing the government to take wealth from Whites, who do not deserve it and should not have it, and give it to the other races. Thus, “social justice” depends on which race controls the government. (Currently, Blacks control the government although most of the figureheads are Whites.)
Ebeling concludes that if the ideology and policies of systemic racism, identity politics, and cancel culture prevails, America dies. Unfortunately, he believes that the United States are a propositional country and not a genetic country as the Constitution declares it to be. Its proposition is dedicated to the destruction of races and ethnicities and the replacement of them with the atomistic, autonomous individual, who will be a nondescript narcissist motley mongrel man.
Ebeling favors discrimination based on merit instead of race, ethnicity, or any other criteria. Yet, discrimination is discrimination. For the person discriminated against, the reason is of little importance. He still fails to get what he seeks. Since Ebeling rejects genetics, he must believe that sufficient education and training can overcome the discrimination of merit. Thus, anyone can become a multimillionaire athlete or a world-renowned musician with the proper training or a physician or engineer with the proper education. Therefore, everyone can become whatever he wants to be with the proper training and education. Failure to receive such education and training must result from racial discrimination — as the proponents of systematic racism would argue. Like Ebeling, they reject the notion that genetics has any connection with intelligence, talents, or abilities. Nevertheless, unlike Ebeling, they know that any system that relies solely or mostly on merit will leave most Blacks behind. Eventually, the differences between Blacks and Whites will be as great as it was during the Jim Crow era. Economically, Blacks will fare no better than they did under Jim Crow unless they genocide themselves with a large infusion of White and East Asian genes. To prevent the genocide of Blacks and to keep them from lagging economically, the proponents of systemic racism use the government to give Blacks special privileges and to suppress Whites. Apparently, Ebeling fails to recognize this because he refuses to recognize the importance of genetics.
The major flaw in Ebeling’s analysis of systemic racism is that he ignores the importance of genetics. To the extent that he touches on genetics, he condemns the notion that genetics determines or influences anything beyond some physical features that none can deny.
Libertarians like Ebeling are like good Marxists and communists. They believe that the environment makes the person; genetics are irrelevant. A person is born as a blank slate upon which someone writes the person’s personality, temperament, character, abilities, talents, and intelligence.
Because of racial nihilists like Ebeling, albusphobes will achieve their goal: the extermination of the White race. Then, systemic racism will be no more.
Appendix: A Libertarian Quandary
When hiring and promoting, most corporations place more emphasis on race and sex than on merit and ability. Thus, many White males are often past over for a less qualified Black or woman. This action must confound libertarians since they believe that profit is the primary driving force of a company. How can the profit motive explain replacing a superior workforce with an inferior one? Such action results in less profit or even a loss. Such action also proves that if systemic racism exists, it is Black racism and not White racism. Libertarians cannot blame the government for causing these companies to behave this way because these companies control the government.
Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.
More social issues articles.
