By now, you’ve likely heard the term “White Fragility.” It’s another rhetorical weapon recently added to the Leftist arsenal. Robin DiAngelo, the Marxist amazon who coined the idiom, defines it thus:
White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.
The ‘minimum amount of racial stress’?
Well, let’s just reflect a moment on what that ‘minimum’ is: it’s the accusation that every White is, by his mere existence, injuring all nonwhite people; and that, under the presumption that Whites are corporately responsible for the unfortunate condition of all Brown people throughout history; and all under the circumstance of a government which is systematically dispossessing and marginalizing Whites in manifold ways on behalf of the nonwhite mob, who define themselves in terms of their unremitting contempt of European man.
Let’s not forget that the accusation is uniformly leveled with an implicit threat of violence from the accuser. Or, at minimum, the insistence that Whites deserve whatever violence may be done upon us.
So, yeah, that ‘minimum of racial stress’ is the announcement of a terror siege against Western Man. It’s an implicit demand that our people be abolished. And it never remains implicit long. I know I’ve never heard lectures on a mandate to exterminate Blacks broadcast on CSPAN, but I have heard such about Whites. Calls for the extermination of Whites are now, sadly, normal.
Every such confrontation takes the form of an ultimatum — that any White who does not capitulate wholly to the agenda of White genocide is only provoking their own immediate murder. In effect, Whites are given the choice — either help minorities destroy Whites or be destroyed.
So you’ll have to excuse us if this ‘minimum of racial stress’ evokes from Whites responses other than enthusiastic affirmation. Because in spite of the 24/7 bombardment with liberal propaganda, most of us still just aren’t keen on the idea of our own genocide. We’re kooky that way.
Simultaneous with which, Whites’ tendency to fall silent or flee these accusatory ambushes is due to the fact that the charges are all but entirely fictitious. Whites simply are not responsible for the pitiable conditions of nonwhites. Just the opposite, really, nonwhites have and continue to benefit from White largesse. But you see, White folks are of the unanimous conviction that there’s nothing to be gained by calling an ugly baby ugly. Even if it’s true, it’s a thing which simply cannot be heard as anything but a cruelty by the mother, nor generally even by the one speaking it. So when thugs wind up shot as a result of attacking cops and the Black community exalts them as their heroes and martyrs, it is to Whites obscenity upon absurdity. But telling Blacks as much is tantamount to calling an ugly baby ugly.
So Whites will try to avoid discussion thereof. And not immediately out of guilt, but in recognition of the fact that Blacks, by and large, cannot think rationally about it; and telling them that, too, strikes us as a cruelty. And only then does guilt enter the heart of the average White — when he contemplates the hurt which the truth carries for Blacks. Because cruel is the absolute last thing White people, in the main, wish to be. Even when the alternative leaves us open to continued attacks.
So the truth is, what they contemptuously refer to as ‘White Fragility’ is, in all honesty, the awareness of and response to Black Fragility.
Promulgated, however, from the halls of academia, the term ‘White Fragility’ is not clinical in nature, nor forensic in the least, but rather a taunt – a term of derision – a slur, in fact. In an age of “safe spaces” and courses built around “microaggressions,” such diminutive and condescending language was plainly crafted to offend us.
And even in the midst of such provocation atop all the aforementioned slander, threats, and marginalization, Whites still find it vulgar to defend ourselves by telling our accusers that they are in fact the fragile ones, because they cannot bear to hear the truth told concerning their native condition under God, let alone the truth of the White man’s history of longsuffering benevolence toward them.
Furthermore, the tally of responses which Ms. DiAngelo identifies as indicative of so-called ‘White Fragility’ grant us only one exculpatory option — total capitulation and embrace of the anti-White narrative. Which is to say, in spite of their clearly being deluded about the whole concept, disagreement, exceptions, or reservation of any sort is disallowed. They demand we succor them in their make-believe, the truth be damned.
Because they can’t handle it. They’re too, dare I say, fragile.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
