The purpose of this column is to illustrate that every white person is a racist, even if he doesn't know it.  At least that's the theory being foisted on the American public by some of the most radical "thinkers" in the country.

Not only are whites racist, but the law and legal institutions are inherently racist, too.  In fact, race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of "people of color."  According to Critical Race Theory (CRT) (which is the latest justification for blacks to stigmatize whites without fear of condemnation as racists themselves), racial inequality emerges from social, economic, and legal differences that white people create among races to maintain elite white interests in labor markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in minority communities.

So it appears that it doesn't matter what whites think, say, or do; they are racists because of the paucity of pigmentation in their skin.  Aside from being called a pedophile, being labeled a racist is probably the most perilous and terrifying assault on one's character and humanity.  For decades we've been instructed not to use racial profiling and stereotyping, which attribute certain characteristics to groups of people.  Part of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s Mission Statement is, "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."  They even have a "hate map" to indicate where all the hate is in our country.  Isn't it possible that the hate is right under their noses with concepts like CRT and White Fragility (W.F.), a book by Robin DiAngelo, a self-described progressive and tenured professor, with extensive experience in "whiteness studies," whatever that is?  Incidentally, isn't W.F. another term that uses racial characteristics to define an entire class of people?

The book's title is followed by "Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism."  This, from a white woman, who evidently thinks that all whites have the same problem she has.  She describes white fragility as "a defensive response by white people when their whiteness is highlighted or mentioned, or their racial worldview is challenged, whether this response is conscious or otherwise."  She gives examples, including white people accusing someone of playing the race card.

Once again, whites are being told that they are racists, and there's nothing they can do about it because, according to this white woman, it's programmed into their sociological DNA.  Wouldn't that make her a racist, too?  She doesn't bother addressing that obvious question, since that might demonstrate the total absurdity of her inflexible thesis.

As for people playing the race card, I think there's more than enough evidence of that every time race-hustlers like Al (Tawana Brawley) Sharpton, or the so-called "honorable" Louis (anti-Semitic) Farrakhan open their bigoted mouths to spew hate-filled invective to the cheers of their equally malevolent followers.  What these sociological constructs are saying is that there's no hope for racial harmony because whites have no control over their psychologically induced loathing for blacks. What better way for this radical "progressive" author to continue nurturing the division in our country?  How would she be able to sell books if blacks and whites were colorblind, which, by the way, she condemns because "it prevents people from understanding how race does matter in the current world"?

Do you get the idea that this woman's entire career is based on fomenting dissension between racial groups? Like Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jesse (corporate shakedown) Jackson, and their ilk, she has a vested interest in convincing us that racism is here to stay.  Not only do these cretins get paid handsomely for their malicious and defamatory comments, but they enjoy total immunity from the establishment of the "woke," which the Urban Dictionary defines as "being aware of the truth behind things 'the man' doesn't want you to know."  Another definition might be "being pretentious about how much you care about a social issue."  That's also accurately defined as "virtue-signaling."

John McWhorter, associate professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, writing in The Atlantic, called the book "a racist tract," saying it infantilizes and condescends to black people.   In addition, he argued that the book contradicts itself about white racial identity and leaves white people with no way to avoid being racist.  I also like what author and journalist Matt Taibbi said in criticizing DiAngelo's book.  He labeled it "pseudo-intellectual horses--- that is likely to have pernicious effects for race relations." 

The best approach to race relations I've ever heard was proposed by Morgan Freeman, one of my favorite Hollywood actors, during an interview with Mike Wallace several years ago.  When asked by Wallace how we're going to get rid of racism, Morgan simply said, "Stop talking about it."  He added, "I'm going to stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."  I couldn't agree more!

Image: MasterTux via Pixabay, Pixabay License.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.