Racism or racialism

The war of semantics has overshadowed the rising tempers among special interest minority groups. In an effort to diffuse or whitewash (look it up if you're inclined to infer racist overtones) the growing divide between communities in the United States, talking heads have come up with another 'softening' term for plain old racism. By employing this newspeak term, "racialism," pundits seek to deflect from identifying their remarks as obviously racist. How is that done? They seem to believe that inserting the "ial" into the word gives them thin cover to assert that they are just necessarily distinguishing between people of varied color. Not so. They are attempting to conceal their own inability to measure individuals by characteristics other than outward appearance. They are still lumping people together by skin color, which is the core of a racist attitude.

According to Merriam-Webster racialism is defined as: "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities; also: racism" This whole business of believing that only light-skinned Caucasians can be racist is rampant among individuals wrapped in darker complexions, but it is a fallacy. Racism is racism no matter from whom it emanates nor whether they soften the term by adding an extra syllable. It's a similar ploy to that of adding "ist" to Islam in order to deflect from the radical Muslims waging jihad against the West by making it sound as if the jihadis are playing at being Muslim. Racism is the basis for the rioting that erupted in Charlotte, North Carolina this week, and it is the agitators among the people of 'color' who have been forcing the issue, inciting violence by chanting non-factual 'facts.' Even the release of a video recorded by Keith Scott's wife does not clearly show what occurred. Over and over again, many Charlotte protesters made statements about what they believe, not what was corroborated. The point is, that creating havoc in the streets without all the facts produces nothing more than angry confusion from crowds of citizens who believe what they wish to believe, rather than waiting for the investigation to reveal exactly how a man's life was taken under tragic circumstances.

---

So, when the chief of police, a black individual, stated that the story of a black officer shooting a black victim brandishing a book had erroneous elements, why did the crowds roaming the street still repeat a tale of white law enforcement purposefully killing black citizens? The answer is actually rather simple. It is that of claiming the one generally accepted rationale for rioting and looting (even if it's fabricated): unjustified force. What's interesting is, historically speaking, the Nazi brown shirts and average citizens used a similar excuse for rampaging through the streets of Germany on Kristallnacht to plunder and raze Jewish shops and synagogues--retaliation for a shooting of a German official by a troubled Jewish teen. In either case, the illegitimate pretext given for violence is that another group (ethnic, racial, religious or cultural) is responsible for the rioting groups' ills. At the bottom of the meteoric increase of orchestrated violent protests following a few questioned uses of deadly force by law enforcement, is the politically instigated deterioration of relations between communities. Grievance industry has undermined every aspect of American life by pitting neighbors against neighbors and communities against law enforcement, the latter of which has been encouraged by political powermongers.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

One black police officer from Dallas decided that he's had enough and has taken the imagined battle between community and law enforcement to the courts, bringing suit against elected officials and community "leaders" for inciting race wars. The defendants named in the suit include BlackLivesMatter, George Soros, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, President Barack Obama and, not to be prejudiced against women, democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. There is no doubt that these individuals, and numerous others who fund them, are hip-deep in the pitched battle that is being provoked among the minority communities spinning a false tale that the "powers-that-be" are targeting them. In fact, those provocateurs (named above that could be joined by a lengthy list of accomplices) have been manipulating media and politics for decades to paint reliance on government favors (otherwise rendered "entitlements") as freedom. Is it "freedom" to roam streets in the wee hours looting and trashing other citizens' businesses? Or is that just an exercise in blowing off steam brought on by the frustration of being forced into idleness by a progressive agenda that has demolished a thriving economy, leaving them with no productive enterprise? And how, pray tell, does destroying someone else's hard work promote a positive message? It doesn't. But then, maybe the purpose of the agitators is an attempt to inflict fear among the rest of the populace. That's pretty much the credo of administrative government anymore such as the IRS and the EPA. Unfortunately, rioting mobs wield no real power other than to further empower the bureaucracies that oppressed them in the first place. The racism hot button is nothing more than a liberal game plan to influence frustrated, discouraged, forcibly idle individuals into a seething press of humanity that requires yet more control. It's time to recognize what freedom really entails. It's not the freedom to destroy by invoking "free speech," but the freedom to work, produce and build a strong family, community and nation.