top of page
  • Extremely American

White Fragility & Critical Race Theory: Robin DiAngelo’s shameful guide to racism

Mar 24, 2021: In every walk of life, society is being bombarded with perverted forms of racist theories and models. Robin DiAngelo’s book (“White Fragility”) is emblematic of everything wrong with today’s theories regarding racism. It is noteworthy that a wealthy, university “educated”, white woman from a suburban cocoon (and gated community) has managed to slither her way into American culture with a piece of “literature” that serves no purpose other than to stoke up and foment racism across every walk of life in America and around the world. DiAngelo and her twisted concepts of “white fragility” hide behind a veil of sweeping racist principles, theories, Marxist ideology, and societal malintent. If there is anything the world does not need today it is an overly entitled and moral narcissistic white woman lecturing society on theories and principles that are steeped in racism and racist ways of thinking. Every parent on the planet should be objecting to the writings of this miserable imposter as her poison spills into academia, entertainment, professional sports, media, politics, and human resource departments around the world. Every parent should be extra vigilant about the attempts being made by schools and their teachers to indoctrinate Diangelo’s toxic science of new-age racism.

With the help of a conspicuously cooperative and eager push from mainstream media (particularly CNN and MSNBC) and liberal publications (particularly the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic), DiAngelo and her literary racist piece of trash known as “White Fragility” was given an intensely and well choreographed circuit of venues to promote her subversive doctrine. How can how such divisive and balkanizing literature be helpful to society? And how can parents stand by as such a hateful and self-loathing discipline is literally being jammed down the throats of their children?

It is worth noting that the controversial term “white fragility” gained traction in academic circles (particularly within the social sciences) many years ago. It is also noteworthy that “white fragility” is inextricably tied to the equally toxic and destructive concepts of “critical race theory” and “cancel culture”. This evil triumvirate of unhinged social science psychobabble has now been mainstreamed in DiAngelo’s NYT best selling book that has infested everything your children reads, watches, and experiences. I will repeat the three concepts, above, to remind you what your children are being exposed to every minute of every day: (1) White Fragility, (2) Critical Race Theory, and (3) Cancel Culture. As we cover the basic tenets of DiAngelo’s wicked “science” of how to behave like a racist, remind yourself to address this situation with your local school boards and with your local elected officials who can do something about this crime against society and your children.

It is hard to imagine anyone getting away with using DiAngelo-like terminology to describe racial or cultural groups in society. Can anyone imagine using terms like “black fragility,” “Hispanic fragility,” “gay fragility,” “transgender fragility,” “female fragility”, “senior fragility”, “educational fragility”, or “income fragility” in an equally pejorative tone without facing justifiable backlash from all corners of society? The notion of selective racism is not only immoral and unethical, but it is also immensely dangerous. The idea of “qualified and selective” racism, sexism, ageism, classism, and other forms of broad discrimination is unacceptable and those responsible for peddling this form of hatred should be identified, targeted, and penalized as criminal of society (beyond schools this also includes the enabling HR departments of major corporations who perpetuate this racist garbage with young professionals).

Digging more deeply into DiAngelo’s twisted science, consider her definition of “White Fragility” taken directly from her 2011 article found in the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy,

[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-induced situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.” (White Fragility – Robin DiAngelo; 2011)

This definition categorically and fully dismisses the notion of a white expressing dissent in any shape or manner. This is outrageous and a disastrous precedent of racism that can and will extend beyond Caucasians in due course. DiAngelo’s definition suggests that, if a white person voices any disagreement, their disagreement must be categorized as racially induced argumentation (which is assumed to be fueled by anger, fear, guilt, and insecurity). Ultimately, Diangelo’s theory claims that white fragility is at the core of anything a Caucasian would dare to challenge or dissent. The notion is wrong for every reason you can imagine and absolutely debilitating to a child or adolescent demonstrating any form of innocent curiosity in their efforts to learn by way of respectfully questioning and challenging what they are being taught in school. According to DiAngelo, no white child should ever be encouraged to ask questions or frame differences of opinion because they are imprisoned by their “white fragility”.

In an odd twist to this science of delegitimizing dissent, DiAngelo’s “theory” also claims that silence or inaction is another expression of “white fragility”. So, regardless of whether a Caucasian speaks or remains silent, the color of their skin (according DiAngelo) asserts that that person is fragile and predisposed to racism. Somewhat ironic coming from a white wealthy suburban woman speaking on behalf of society. Perhaps in expressing her theory she is reflecting on herself and this begs the question “Is DiAngelo actually the racist she accuses others of being?”. In the end, regardless of how a person responds, their actions can only be categorized as white fragility – which effectively places that person in a permanently inferior, vulnerable, and demeaning social position solely because of the color of his or her skin. And with a science that is positioned to prevent open dialogue and input for consideration, the concept of “white fragility” is specifically designed to secure one-way lectures and ideological monologue.

Dr. Jesse Lile offers an interesting perspective on the concept termed “The Double Bind”. Dr. Lile describes the concept as follows,

The double bind is a concept at the center of the Gregory Bateson research group’s theory of schizophrenia. The theory identifies a sequential interaction pattern that renders inner conflicts of logical typing in one of the individuals involved. In essence, the double bind is a mechanism of psychological domination, where one entity constructs an experience that results in an inner conflict and altering of reality for the other.” (The Federalist - Dr. Lile; June 18, 2019)

Dr. Lile goes on to lay out three basic steps to “the double bind”: (1) an initial negative injunction, (2) a secondary injunction that negates the first at a more abstract level, and (3) a tertiary negative injunction that keeps the victim from escaping the situation. Intuitively, “the double bind” is being applied throughout modern society as it targets groups well beyond Caucasians by applying the full spectrum of critical race theory (we see this dirty model being applied in every realm of politics, media, and corporate behavior today).

DiAngelo’s concept of “white fragility” is specially designed to manipulate and exploit the tertiary negative injunction (intended to push DiAngelo’s socialist and Marxist ideological agenda and interests).

To ensure the EA community understands the basics of “the double bind” step by step, please review and understand the importance of each step offered below:

1. Step One directs white people to engage in a conversation on racism and imply that refusing to do so betrays their racism (the initial negative injunction).

2. Step Two suggests that white people will bristle at the Step One engagement where it is asserted that a white person’s perspective is less valid (due to being white) and that they should remain quiet (this is technically referred to as the secondary negative injunction). This second step of the double bind has been codified by the term “white privilege”. “White privilege” asserts that any active engagement of a white person in the conversation can be assumed as an exercise of his or her white privilege, and any contributions or points made must be dismissed on the basis of the color of their skin and their inherent “white privilege”.

3. When a white person inevitably takes issue with the label “white privilege” (as nobody appreciates being called a racist by a racist) due to this term’s debasement and blatant dismissal of his or her life experience, the third and final step of the double bind is employed using the term “white fragility”. Step Three insists unequivocal and full compliance with the framing of the whole conversation at the expense of the target (in this case, the Caucasian being targeted). This third step also involves assigning the label “fragile” for daring to take issue with the dismissal of their personhood due to the color of their skin (this is the “tertiary negative injunction”). A person’s decision to take issue with the rule of dismissing a white individual’s personhood is considered illegitimate and the result of a white person’s fragility and inability to stay engaged with the conversation as framed. (The Federalist - Dr. Lile; June 18, 2019)


Critical Race Theory and White Fragility do absolutely nothing to advance this important topic. On the contrary, they undermine and balkanize a national conversation that is so important to all people. DiAngelo is solely responsible for fomenting hatred in society and creating a racist trap in its purest form. Dr. Lile employs these words to conclude his thoughts,

The concept’s demeaning and racist terminology, systematic and self-referential dismissal of dissent, and contribution to the construction of a societal double bind in discussions of race and racism are only harmful to our society. It serves only as a mechanism of domination and power assertion in race relations, and such an approach can only be divisive and alienating, making important and productive conversations more difficult for us to have.

Our children are being indoctrinated by this racist poison and massive human psychological experiment. We can not and should not allow our schools to teach our children this institutionalized form of racism. We should track down our elected officials and demand that they monitor and remove this contamination from academia, corporate culture, and social media – it simply should not be permitted, and any such conduct should face severe penalties including criminal charges in the most extreme cases. The only way to escape the “double bind” of critical race theory is to identify it and name it publicly. The EA call-to-action is to assertively and openly to challenge this form of racism by presenting your concerns to elected officials and municipal school boards in your area. By identifying this “double bind”, people will be better equipped to escape it and move on to more productive and helpful conversations on race relations in our society. By: Extremely American Colin Wright

bottom of page