Want to dismantle BLM? Start at the root.

There's a lot of buzz surrounding BLM at the moment, which makes sense if we look at what's happening in Milwaukee. However, the conversation is too often being held over whether or not BLM should be supported, or whether or not BLM is a terrorist organization, or whether or not BLM itself is racist. Let's straighten this shit out once and for all. Instead of launching into emotionally-charged rants about the issue, let's sit down, examine the evidence, and come up with a conclusion. BLM recently put out a list of six demands. This gives us some legitimate information to analyze, which is far better than bickering over whether or not violent protesters are "actual members of BLM." 1. End the war on black people. 2. Reparations for past and present harms. 3. Divestment from the institutions that criminalize, cage and harm black people; and investment in the education, health and safety of black people. 4. Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access. 5. Community control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us. 6. Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-lives-matter-releases-policy-agenda-n620966) Right. We have a list of demands, here. It's apparent that BLM is concerned with far more than just police violence. The main idea is [i]racism in general.[/i] 1 and 2 illustrate this. 1 refers to a war on black people, and 2 refers to "present harms." Police violence is definitely included, but BLM is painting with a broader brush. Society as a whole, in their eyes, is racist (and has been racist for a long time). This racism apparently has negative effects - so much so that we need to pay reparations for harms [i]past and present.[/i] As an aside, let's deal with the first demand. BLM refers to a war on black people. If there really [i]is[/i] a war on black people, it's a civil war. From 1980 - 2008, black-on-black crime has been an enormous outlier. Black crime [i]in general[/i] has been an outlier. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf) [quote]In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000). Black victims were over-represented in homicides involving drugs, with 62.1% of all drug-related homicides involving black victims. By comparison, 36.9% of drug-related homicide victims were white and 1% were victims of other races. [i]93% of black victims were killed by blacks.[/i] Between 1980 and 2008, young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories. While young black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008, they have made up an increasing proportion of homicide victims, going from 9% of all homicide victims in 1980 to 18% in 1994. After 1994, their proportion of homicide victims has remained relatively stable at about 16%. Th e percentage of young black male homicide offenders also increased rapidly from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, going from 17% in 1985 to 35% by 1993 before declining. By 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%)[/quote] This "war on black people," is not being waged by white people. [i]93% of black homicide victims were killed by a member of the same race.[/i] Right. We've gotten that out of the way. There is no mass amount of violence being on blacks by whites, and this makes sense. What do white people have to gain from inflicting suffering onto black people? There's nothing to gain, and there's no widespread suffering being inflicted (across racial lines). Back to the demands... 3 and 4 are quite similar. BLM wants society (society is a nebulous being - I've never been able to pin it down and ask it about its evil machinations towards racial minorities) to divest in "institutions that criminalize, cage, and harm black people," and to invest in their "health and safety." This is obviously a response to an artificial narrative. "Institutions that criminalize, cage, and harm black people?" Are there public institutions designed to criminalize [i]being black[/i]? No. That's ridiculous. Are black people arrested and caged? Yes. Are they being arrested and caged [i]for being black[/i]? No. They're arrested and caged [i]for being criminals.[/i] Take this data, for instance... (http://www.amren.com/archives/reports/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/) [quote][b]The evidence suggests that if there is police racial bias in arrests it is negligible.[/b] Victim and witness surveys show that police arrest violent criminals in close proportion to the rates at which criminals of different races commit violent crimes. There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups. In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race. In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely. If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent. In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, -blam!- by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent. In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest. [b]In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks.[/b] The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.[/quote] Again, there's no war on black people. There is no institution that cages or harms blacks specifically as a matter of policy. [i]BLM is trying to sell a narrative, but it's a false one.[/i] Part of this narrative includes these "institutions" that cage and harm black people. The 3rd demand is a pathetic attempt at cashing in on this false narrative. Speaking of [i]cashing in[/i], we arrive at my main point. Demand 4. More tax dollars. More social spending. More public assistance. BLM is calling for more of the same. It's like a heroine addict. Heroine landed it in this painful mess, but if only it had some heroine to numb the pain... [b][i]The main part of BLM's narrative is that racism is responsible for the ills of American blacks.[/i][/b] This is wrong. [i]Dead wrong.[/i] In the 60's, racism was far more tangible than it is today. However, American blacks were doing better than they are today. Not only that, [i]but they were improving at an impressive rate.[/i] Then LBJ happened. (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672) Give this a read. [quote]When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislation and added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson.[/quote] (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/#50b5c4781595) [quote]From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor.[/quote] [quote]The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled.[/quote]