By now, you've been told hourly that institutional racism and white privilege are to blame for any inequality between whites and blacks.  But both terms, in true sociologist fashion, are merely observations that ambiguously describe some kind of hidden structure.

Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton describe institutional racism via example, saying:

When unidentified white terrorists bomb a Negro church and kill five children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society.  But when in that same city, Birmingham, Alabama, not five but five hundred Negro babies die each year because of a lack of proper food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and deprivation in the ghetto, that is a function of institutionalized racism.

Where are the specifics in this example?  Conditions of poverty and deprivation could be caused by racism, but then again, they could be caused by any number of factors.

Similarly, Peggy McIntosh in "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" describes white privilege "as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was 'meant' to remain oblivious.  White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks."

Both institutional racism and white privilege suggest that "white culture," through unwritten rules and codes, lifts up whites and pushes down blacks.  Naturally, both Carmichael and McIntosh see whites as aggressors in a struggle for societal power.

If this is correct, then as long as whites are policing or governing, they'll be blamed for institutional racism and white privilege.  Either charge is nearly impossible to disprove.

Institutional racism and white privilege leave few alternatives: segregation, a dual legal system, and revolution come to mind.  But of these three, revolution is the most plausible, as segregation and a dual legal system are revolutionary.  The West has been going through a cultural revolution for some time, and the recent riots are a product of that revolution.

Through this lens, the law and order position must be resigned to the dust bin of history.  You can see this reckless and evil strategy in the Defund the Police Movement, now popular among leftists.  Krystal Ball told Joe Rogan that a militarized response, the law and order approach, ultimately never works.  She added:

Look at 19 years in Afghanistan.  What did we learn?  Yeah, you can take the ground, but you can't hold it.  You can't hold a society together with an aggressive militarized response.  That's not going to work over time.  So if that's your only strategy — it's like, okay, then what?  Then what are you going to do?  Are we going to have curfews at 1 P.M. every day?  Are you going to have the militaries holding down American cities every day?  Because you have a significant chunk of the population that will no longer consent.

If you have a "significant chunk of the population that will no longer consent" and are equivalent in fervor to Islamists in Afghanistan, then either law and order or the revolution wins, period.  Tom Cotton is right: "One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain, and ultimately deter lawbreakers."