Breakdown:

1. The Perfection of Existing Systems
   The central thesis of this argument is that the current systems in place are not broken but are instead “perfectly designed” to achieve their intended outcomes. Whether these systems are related to law enforcement, economic inequality, or social hierarchies, they operate exactly as they were meant to. These systems were crafted to maintain specific societal roles, where women, people of color, and white people each have designated positions that benefit the structure as a whole.
2. The Inability to Fix the System
   The argument challenges the notion that these systems can be “fixed.” The idea of “fixing” implies that something is wrong or broken, but according to this perspective, the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to. The message here is that calling for reform may not be enough, as the very foundation of the system needs to be challenged, rather than tinkering around the edges. The suggestion is that the system isn’t just flawed; it’s intentionally constructed to maintain inequality and oppression.
3. Law Enforcement’s Historical Roots in Oppression
   The piece turns to the example of law enforcement in America, asserting that its origins in slave patrols demonstrate its fundamental purpose was never to “serve and protect” all citizens. Rather, it was initially designed to maintain control over enslaved Black people and prevent uprisings. Even after slavery was abolished, the legacy of fear and control continued, as law enforcement institutions remained tethered to this oppressive history.
4. The Historical Legacy of Fear and Control
   The fear of revolt, which originated from slave patrols, is cited as a deep-rooted pathology that continues to influence law enforcement today. The notion that Black people or marginalized groups are inherently threatening is presented as a racialized and unfounded fear that is perpetuated by the very systems that claim to offer safety. This “fear” is not about actual threat but about maintaining a power dynamic where certain groups are policed and controlled more than others.
5. Reframing the Need for New Systems
   Finally, the argument calls for a reevaluation of the systems that govern society. Instead of fixing these systems, which are inherently unjust, there is a call for new systems altogether—systems that are not based on the same oppressive principles. This suggests a radical rethinking of how society should function, advocating for solutions that address the root causes of inequality rather than superficial reforms.

The overall message is clear: systems that perpetuate racial, gender, and economic hierarchies are not broken—they are intentionally designed this way—and until we recognize and confront this, meaningful change will remain elusive.