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.