Drexel University Professor Calls Las Vegas Massacre An Outgrowth Of “Trumpism”

screen-shot-2017-04-17-at-5-16-35-pm-e1493074583232drexel-newsealWe previously discussed the controversies swirling around Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher when he tweeted in 2016 that “all I want for Christmas is white genocide.”  Now he is again in the news with tweets that blame the Las Vegas massacre on “Trumpism” and “white victimization.”  There is still no confirmation of any motivation of Stephen Paddock but that does not appear to be relevant to Ciccariello-Maher.  It is part of a torrent of comments using the massacre to amplify political or social views.  Recently, Pat Robertson blamed the massacre on disrespect for Trump and the flag in society.

 

Just hours after the shooting, Ciccariello-Maher began his tweets on the massacre with a three word message: “A White Man.”  He then held forth on what really happened and explained that “white people and men” will go on shooting sprees “when they don’t get what they want.”  It is not clear if non-whites never go on shooting sprees or do so when they get what they want.

His tweet is filled with the same stereotypical and low-grade analysis that characterizes much of his past statements on social media:

“White people and men are told that they are entitled to everything. This is what happens when they don’t get what they want. The narrative of white victimization has been gradually built over the past 40 years. It is the spinal column of Trumpism, and most extreme form is the white genocide myth. Yesterday was a morbid symptom of what happens when those who believe they deserve to own the world also think it is being stolen from them.”

He ended with this tweet several hours later:

“Here’s a wild idea: white supremacy in the U.S. is a bipartisan project, & *both* the gun lobby *and* the anti-gun lobby are racist as f—.”

Drexel University issues a statement condemning the remarks:

“The recent social media comments by George Ciccariello-Maher, associate professor of Politics and Global Studies at Drexel University, are his own opinion and do not represent the University’s views. Drexel is deeply saddened by the tragic shooting in Las Vegas. The thoughts and prayers of the Drexel community are with the families of those affected by this senseless act of violence.”

It is hard to advocate for free speech and academic freedom with this type of simplistic and callous commentary. However, we have previously discussed how professors and teachers are increasingly being disciplined for engaging in political speech outside of their schools.  Cicariello-Maher’s views are disturbing but he has a right to express his views on public events and issues.

What do you think?

107 thoughts on “Drexel University Professor Calls Las Vegas Massacre An Outgrowth Of “Trumpism””

  1. Every time this sh!tbird makes the news, he creates thousands of new Trump voters.

  2. You have to wonder at what point this racist professor recognizes the fact that he is also white. So, he must by his own definitions be guilty of all the accusations he levies against others.

    Despite all Drexel’s side stepping on the matter, and one has to wonder truly how quietly some at the university condone it, the fact remains that Drexel’s employs a professor who makes racist public comments and expresses schadenfreude at the deaths of others. It will continue to suffer financially due to its decisions.

  3. Just have Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor as a title doesn’t make you intelligent, competent, or knowledgeable. Many are boring, talentless dopes and dupes, like this Drexel University fraudster, masquerading as a “teacher,” when he knows next to nothing.

    However, there are some highly intelligent analysts who have examined the Las Vegas mass murder case. The person I’ve heard that presents the most compelling, persuasive, and supported case is forensic psychologist, Dr. Michael Welner. His thesis is simple, logical, and cannot be logically disabused.

    Dr. Welner says that to understand the intent of the criminal(s) behind this particular crime, you must look to the victims that were targeted since the crime was obviously carefully planned and prepared. And how can the victims be reasonably characterized? The following come to mind: pro-American, pro-Trump, patriotic, pro-Constitutional, pro-freedom, anti-authoritarian. In short: anti-leftist. Small wonder that a CBS attorney would make a public statement saying, in effect, that she approved of the mass murder because the victims were Republican. If this ultracretinesque attorney understood the meaning of the crime, then that surely confirms the intention behind the crime. Thus, Pat Robertson is actually right here and he has instinctively grasped the intent of the crime.

    Here is Dr. Welner explaining his excellent and unassailable analysis.

  4. Professor Turley, when does our freedom of speech resume to include the n-word?

    Apparently, the “n” is the only arbitrarily censored word in the English language.

    Americans and the President are publicly called “cracker” and worse as demonstrated here on SNL:

    1. We hear Democrats and Hollywood activists, the MSM, etc. talk about addressing the alarming rise of hate speech since Trump was elected, and yet their contribution to the “un-civil discourse” in the country is more hate-filled, highly charged, anti-Trump rhetoric like this? The Democrats shout “Love Trumps Hate” from their megaphones – but it’s not hate when they incite it, of course.

  5. Making political hay out of mass murder is hearbreakingly callous.

    Wait for an investigation to draw conclusions.

    1. Unfortunately, there will be no investigation. Only a cover-up with the FBI leading the cover-up. Just as the FBI failed to stop Omar Mateen from carrying out his mass murder in Orlando last year, even though they had many warning, and then after the crime proceeded to cover-up their own failure–the same will be done here.

    1. Hillary isn’t the subject of the post and this academic loon wasn’t working for her campaign. What’s the ‘tie-in’?

      1. Like Fox News, anytime JT has a reason to bash someone who says something outrageous, there’s an attempt to tie the bad actor to Hillary Clinton. Just wondering why it’s missing here.

  6. So this Drexel guy says: “White people and men are told that they are entitled to everything. This is what happens when they don’t get what they want.” What the hell does that mean? That a white guy takes his guns and shoots up a country-western concert full of patriotic white people who probably support Trump?

    Then he says: “Yesterday was a morbid symptom of what happens when those who believe they deserve to own the world also think it is being stolen from them.” Like the election was ‘stolen’ from Hillary and the Democrats?

    He said: “This is what happens when they don’t get what they want.” Sounds to me like this Drexel guy is saying that deranged Trump haters didn’t get the result they wanted in this election and are still so outraged that they are taking their guns and shooting up a bunch of Republicans….just like the GOP-hating shooter did when he went to the baseball field with a hit-list in his pocket of all the Republicans he wanted to kill. Yup, that’s how I read it.

    1. The CBS lawyer who was just fired confirms it with her tweet saying that she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

  7. Can Drexel not do better hiring its faculty? Instead of spouting off as he did, he might have just as lamely recounted his racist 2016 Christmas wish and celebrate it as having been granted. Let’s hope the FBI keeps a bead on this nut case.

  8. I think this nonsense has gone far enough, and anyone with even a shred of sanity knows it. I didn’t used to think the left were bad folks, but so many of them barely resemble human beings at this point. I am actively voting against them, even in local elections, and I will never vote in their favor again as long as I live. People like this man are reprehensible to me, pure and simple. He’s welcome to have his opinions, I am welcome to pointedly ignore him. This commrnt is all he’s getting.

    1. James, you fall victim to the polarizing of America; us against them, left against right. This is not the left nor the right, but an idiot that found its way up the ladder to a position where people are forced to listen to him. Your identifying this fool with the left is counter productive and has absolutely nothing with what the founding fathers intended when they focused on freedoms and social evolution, way back when. It does work for the oligarchs that run the place; two opposing sides neutralize each other and the issues are soon over shadowed by this sort of cr*p.

      1. Isaac:

        I agree that as of now we have absolutely no idea what motivation, politics, or religion this guy was. We don’t even know how he liked his eggs.

        But I am really upset by the reaction from some Liberals in the media, politics, Instagrsm, etc.

  9. Those who hire teaching faculty must constantly judge their fitness to educate others. Poor judgement in public statements is a large part of the scope of fitness.

  10. This kind of idiot would have been shot or gulagged if the Commies had taken over America:

    [Bezmenov] It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is] demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).

    The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.

    Griffin: And yet these people who have been ‘programmed,’ and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept… these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

    Bezmenov: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people, and the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the leagues of dissenters (dissidents).

    Unlike in [the] present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy-rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident,’ for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will be simply [squashing sound] squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. This they don’t understand and it will be [the] greatest shock for them, of course.

    The demoralization process in [the] United States is basically completed already. For the last 25 years… actually, it’s over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to [a] lack of moral standards.

    As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his… then he will understand. But not before that. That’s the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.

    So basically America is stuck with demoralization and unless… even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of American[s], it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.

    Here is the original interview, in full:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  11. He displays what is pretty much copacetic thought in the Democratic Left, so why fire him? To be “fair” you’d have to fire nearly every Democrat employed in higher education.

    When otherwise-intelligent people people quit voting for Democrats, then the propaganda arm of the party will stop promulgating this sort of nonsense, and then it will disappear from the campuses as this group of retards slowly die off.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. SFGR said, “He displays what is pretty much copacetic thought in the Democratic Left, so why fire him?”

      Squeeky, we don’t want this guy any more than you do.

            1. I suppose I should’ve known that I couldn’t sneak that one past you, Squeeky. You’re catching on all the time.
              Now go prove that Drexel University is “we” Democrats. Then remember that we Democrats reject this Ciccariello-Maher character anyhow. Otherwise, go play pin the tail on the donkey with Drexel University, instead.

  12. LV is today’s Dealey Plaza – complete with a dead Patsy, evidence of two or more shooters, and important questions that MSM won’t ask and government will never address. Where is Max Holland, “The Bug”, and the new Warren commission?

    1. Can’t you take your stupid delusions somewhere else? You’re a godawful bore.

  13. Turley mines the world’s newspapers to find the most remote examples of human nonsense when all he has to do is tune in to Washington and other government centers. The NRA has already sent out warnings and regardless of whether or not the majority to the vast majority of Americans demand stricter gun control regulations, background checks, a ceiling on the mayhem an arm can create; our spineless leaders place their jobs, pensions, benefits ahead of their duty to represent the demands of the people. Yet Turley keeps navigating the rags at the checkout counters of the world for the bizarre. Ya fall flat here.

    1. This blog is a service to readers who enjoy reading and commenting on current conditions that judges and juries must deal with. Stop biting the hand that feeds you.

      1. Well, Trump has stated that he not only gets his news from the National Enquirer, but that it’s a great newspaper. So, he has company, Bacon.

    2. I don’t see how a tweet from a professor at a major university constitutes mining for a remote example. A tweet that is in the same vein as the comment from the council that cbs fired. The point is that there is a trend in his sort of inflammatory rhetoric from people in positions who should know better.

      1. OK, Kathy, he’s not going to any great trouble, inferred by the use of the word mining; however, it is a sad comment on what takes priority on one’s radar. Have you heard that aliens were behind the last election results? I read that in passing at the local checkout counter, on the cover of the National Enquirer. The only difference between Trump reading that and I, or any other person in line, is that Trump subscribes to the Enquirer. And, this mutt at Drexel is hardly in any ‘position’, except one that gets noticed by Turley.

    3. JT has his playbook all set every time, Lie, Spin, Distract, Deflect, and repeat.

  14. The people who run higher education have turned it into a sandbox for faculty. Faculty are highly other-directed status-conscious people and its status-lowering in that set to kick out the kooks if their kookery respects certain boundaries and rubrics. Faculties are collecting pools of vicious sectaries. They and the administrators have only themselves to blame for this situation.

    The proper policy response is to strip the faculty and administration of things they value: their social function, their autonomy, their employment, their security.

    1. “Can’t you take your stupid delusions somewhere else? You’re a godawful bore.”

    2. From as far back as one wishes to research into the history of organized education, these sorts have surfaced from time to time. Before freedom of speech and other lay established protections they were often times roasted at the stake on the village square. For a long, long time they have simply been there to amuse and serve as an object of derision. Who better to amuse us than someone who knows a lot about one or two things but not enough to think before spouting.

  15. This is the type of professor whose class I would love to be thrown out of. 🙂 He is a f***ing idiot. I would take a class from him just for the sheer pleasure of tormenting him. And I want you to know, I am a specialist at tormenting professors. This one clearly has the intellectual capacity of a pissant. It would be easy, as Winston Churchill said during WWII, to find his soft underbelly and attack him.

    I think this statement is going to embolden him. The next one will be worse and may be enough to get him fired.

    1. He’s working in the non-quantitative social research disciplines. Without a doubt, several dozen other people applied for the position he landed, not a few of them normal adults. Without a doubt, half-a-dozen people were denied tenure the year he was granted it, half of them roughly normal adults. His department is responsible for this travesty. The dean of arts and sciences is responsible. The provost is responsible, The institutional committees the provost convenes for tenure and promotion decisions are responsible.

      This will not stop until the trustees intervene forcefully with a Kenesaw Mountain Landis solution. That is this: a vote of the trustees to stop offering degree programs in political science, to dissolve the political science department, and to discharge its faculty en bloc because they have no function at the institution anymore. If the keep-my-head-down faculty do not suffer for their delinquency, you are never going to restore standards in the academy.

    2. “And I want you to know, I am a specialist at tormenting professors.”

      *************************

      I need techniques, Paul. Do tell!

      1. mespo – are you taking classes now? Or thinking back on what you would have like to have done? 🙂

          1. mespo – you missed all of mine. 🙂 Maybe I should write an instruction manual?

    3. Paul, apropos Churchill – remember when he said “the Hun is at your feet or at your throat”? I am beginning to apply this to hard core cultist Dims. At the feet of any perceived “marginalized” group – at the throat of both Conservatives and Independents. =)

      1. Dimwit, you need to shut up about the Dims, comrade. You are becoming a godawfulbore. A one trick pony much like the blowhard.

        1. FU “YNOT” this is a FREE speech blog– something you Antifa/PC idiots wish to close down. FACE IT the DNC is collapsing.

          1. “Autie” is an Independent – the DIMS greatest enemy. Now you have both Indies AND Conservatives coming together. And we Inides keep growing as more people wake up from the cult and Demexit. We choose people on policy and merit.

  16. Is there any legal way for Drexel University to force Ciccariello-Maher to undergo a psychiatric examination as a condition of continued employment? Could they use the public safety excuse to do so?

    1. Diane – he may be a danger to his students? That would be a legitimate claim.

      1. That’s what I’m thinking, Paul. He’s promulgating a myth about a myth. He’s one mirror shy of infinite regress. Surely that’s listed in somebody’s manual as a symptom of mental illness.

        No. Seriously. We’ve all read George’s complaint about the white-American birthrate in a death spiral. But nobody, not even George, has deployed the word “genocide” to characterize a demographic decline of the white population when measured as a relative percentage of the total population.

        Ciccariello-Maher needs to adduce evidence of somebody other than himself who has used the word genocide in the foregoing context. Otherwise he’s not merely pretending to be bat guano insane.

        1. No. Seriously. We’ve all read George’s complaint about the white-American birthrate in a death spiral.

          George is being innumerate and silly. The white American total fertility rate has for 40 years bounced around a set point of 1.8 births per woman per lifetime. There’s room for improvement in this metric (to be had with tax, welfare, educational, and land use policies which make family-formation more affordable). It’s not depressed enough to generate a death spiral. Death-spiral is Germany’s problem and South Korea’s problem, not our problem.

          The novel demographic problem we’ve faced the last 15 or 20 years has been the declining propensity of the young to marry. The ratio of marriages in year N to births in year N-26 has declined by about 25% since the year 2000.

          1. Sold. The myth is a myth. That figures. Wait. What about the affirmative action bit? You know, delayed marriage and an older average age of women at the birth of their first child and all that. George seems to think there’s a connection there to women entering the work force.

            My God. What am I doing. I’m not really sticking up for George; am I? Oily crepe.

            1. George seems to think there’s a connection there to women entering the work force.

              About 1/4 of the formal sector workforce was female in 1930. About 1/3 was in 1957. It is currently 47%. The figure hasn’t changed at all in the last 20 years and has changed little in the last 35 years. The decline in total fertility rates took place between 1957 and 1976, reversing an increase in those rates registered between 1945 and 1957. In assessing the relationship between labor force participation and fertility, reverse causation and confounding variables makes for a tangle to analyze. Looked at longitudinally, the relationship is not straightforward and one-to-one.

              1. Autumn, look at what areas the PhDs are in; most are education, social sciences, humanities, public administration, etc. Only health sciences is likely to be a good financial payoff (excepting college administrators, who are overpaid paper pushers). PhDs in biological sciences aren’t well paid relative to the time and training. The real issue, IMO, is what’s going on with the men.

                1. CCS – Public administration actually can pay quite well depending on where one works – and also if one gets a job as school super. As far as the others they are most likely doomed to be adjuncts. FWIW – I started a program to get my MA in English as a Second Language – only made it through two courses and quit. The Education departments are the worse in terms of PC curriculum and inane busywork – PowerPoint presentations, etc.

                  1. It isn’t the pay scale that’s salient. The advantage women have in obtaining doctoral degrees is almost entirely attributable to (1) credential inflation (see the history of the D. Au and DPT degree), (2) the triumph of the therapeutic – i.e. job opportunities for clinical psychologists and (3) the triumph of the therapeutic pari passu with the advance of the public administration blob (manifest in the school psychology and EdD degrees). There are bits and pieces therein which suggest improved achievement – namely the position of women in veterinary schools and graduate programs in biology and the academic wing of psychology.

                  2. Autumn, interesting. Thanks for the input. One doesn’t need a doctorate to be a school superintendent. Experience and a good work record should suffice. I agree with DSS that much of these degrees are inflated and were non-existent previously. I would imagine they are the natural result of a higher percentage of college grads in US; advanced degrees are necessary in order to stand out. Not surprised to hear your perspective re: MA in ESL. Edward Tufte, the guru of data presentation, has much to say about the data lost in a Power Point layout (and the resulting dumbing down of your audience).

              2. About 4% of a typical age cohort acquires a doctoral degree of any kind, and many of them these days are getting professional credentials which were not labeled ‘doctoral degrees’ as recently as 30 years ago.

                About 85,000 doctoral degrees are awarded to men in a typical year nowadays. Were degree awards to track the share of the workforce accounted for by men and women, you’d expect there to be about 75,000 awards to women (as women account for 47% of the workforce). There are actually 91,000 degrees awarded to women, so an overhang of 16,000 degrees. This overhang is accounted for by an advantage women have in the following catagories:

                Research degree novelties (in academics and the arts) (accounting for 1.8% of the overhang)
                Language and literature (accounting for 3.2% of the overhang)
                Biology and allied disciplines (accounting for 3.3% of the overhang)
                Research degree novelties (in vocational subjects &c) (accounting for 4.3% of the overhang)
                Psychology (accounting for 20.3% of the overhang)
                Education (the Ed.D degree, granddaddy of foolish credentials) (accounting for 24.8%)
                Health professions (accounting for 70%).

                You have 11,000 excess doctoral degrees in ‘Health Professions’. That’s accounted for by the advantage women have in a number of disciplines. The advantage is distributed as follows:

                54% Audiology, Speech pathology, Physical therapy, Occupational therapy, and Pharmacy
                23% Nursing
                12% Veterinary medicine
                5.5% Research / professional novelties
                1.4%: Public Health
                3.5% Odds and ends

                The ‘odds and ends’ refers to subsets of established disciplines (e.g. bioethics). Public health is not a novelty and research degrees within it are not awkward. Veterinary medicine is a well-established profession for which the doctoral degree has been standard for several generations. The rest is a consequence of credential inflation over the last generation. The professional doctorate is now bog standard for pharmacists, physical therapists and audiologists when it was odd if not absent as recently as 1980. ‘Doctorates’ in nursing are plain strange. Nursing is a vocation, not a distinct body of knowledge. As for the novelties, we’re talking about degrees awarded in obscure subjects like ‘health and wellness’, a consequence of institutional entrepreneurship and marketing, not developments in knowledge.

                Women have an advantage in just about every subdivision of psychology you can name. However, most of their advantage (63%) is accounted for by clinicians and school psychologists.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: