“Unloading A Revolver Into The Head Of Any White Person”: Yale Features Violent, Racist Diatribe By Psychiatrist

We previously discussed the ongoing controversies over former Yale psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee, who made highly unprofessional and sensational remarks throughout the Trump presidency. The school eventually got rid of Lee but seems to have found another even more controversial substitute as a speaker in psychiatrist Dr. Aruna Khilanani. The New York-based doctor was invited to Yale School of Medicine in April to deliver an address which turned out to be a violent, racist diatribe, including saying that she often thought of “unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way.”

The audio of the talk was placed on substack by former New York Times opinion writer and editor Bari Weiss. Khilanani previously complained that Yale had restricted access to her speech and demanded that it be made public. Yale Child Study Center Director of Medical Studies Dr. Andres Martin was listed as “course director” for the talk.

Khilanani launched into an attack of all white people as a monolithically ignorant, delusional, and hateful group. Early on, she offers a telling self-diagnosis: “We are calm, we are giving, too giving, and then when we get angry, they use our responses as confirmation that we’re crazy or have emotional problems.” She insisted “Nothing makes me angrier than a white person who tells me not to be angry, because they have not seen real anger yet.”

Khilanani then gives a chilling observation. After noting that she stopped watching news because it upset her too much, she noted “I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f–king favor.”

Khilanani encouraged the audience to stop speaking with white people because they have are incapable of dealing with their racism and refuse to admit that they are all racists.

“White people are out of their minds, and they have been for a long time … White people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. . . We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen…They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall.”

Khilanani was brought in by Yale to share her thoughts on “decoding white people” and explain how white people are useless to speak to (despite the white people in her audience).

Khilanani is an example of a growing number of writers and academics spewing anti-white sentiments while dismissing any criticism as white insecurity or privilege.  Elie Mystal, writer for Above the Law and The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, lashed out at “white society” and how he strived to maintain a “whiteness free” life in the pandemic.  A seminary professor recently publicly prayed “Dear God, Please help me to hate White people” and to overcome any lingering concern for them. Even students are voicing such views.  We recently discussed a Miami law student writing about her “hate for white people.” It is not hard to imagine what would be the response if such statements were made about a different race.

I have long defended such statements as protected by free speech principles and I feel the same way about Khilanani’s speech. This is a viewpoint that should be discussed and debated. In the past, I have defended extremist views on academic freedom grounds lie those of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis also writes for the site “Lawyers, Guns, and Money.”) I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.

I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. There is a value to having an open intellectual forum including extremist views like those of Loomis and Khilanani. The problem is that universities have shown little tolerance for opposing viewpoints and have often subjected faculty to investigations and sanctions for expressing their viewpoints.  Students have also been sanctioned for criticism BLM and anti-police views at various colleges. Even a high school principal was fired for stating that “all lives matter.”  Each of these controversies raise concerns over the countervailing statements against police or Republicans or other groups.

The problem is not the tolerance shown speakers like Khilanani but the intolerance shown opposing viewpoints. Indeed, it is rare for such conservative or libertarian speakers to be invited to these conferences or campus events.  Yale clearly wanted to feature Khilanani and her “decoding whiteness” viewpoints. The question is whether it will now offer a speaker who will decode Khilanani and whether she is herself an example of violent and racist ideations.

154 thoughts on ““Unloading A Revolver Into The Head Of Any White Person”: Yale Features Violent, Racist Diatribe By Psychiatrist”

  1. Proof of how far the media, academia and Hollywood, have moved to the left is that this woman actually wants her insane rants to be published. It wasn’t to long ago when we would catch snippets of these kind of radical speeches on campuses and we would all be shocked and then the speaker would be castigated and removed.

    Remember the professor from CO, Ward Churchill, who claimed to be a Native American and found his downfall after calling the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmann’s”. That “lecture” escaped the campus and that particular radical was ruined. Now we have Yale inviting this bigot to give a talk, she gives a racially genocidal fantasy speech…and she demands it be released to the public????

    1. hullbobby

      The good news is that these idiots are showing the world where we are headed if they win.

      One of the best tools Republicans have for 2022.

  2. Critical Racist’s Theory presumes diversity [dogma], not limited to racism, sexism, ageism, is a progressive condition. Baby Lives Matter

  3. “After graduating from The University of Michigan with a Bachelor’s degree in English, Aruna Khilanani received a Master’s in English from the University of Chicago, where she focused on critical race theory, gender theory, Marxist critique, and post-colonial studies. She is currently attending Medical School at the University of Illinois at Chicago as well as working at the show “Odyssey” on National Public Radio, a show that investigates the production of academic ideas and attempts to make them accessible to a mainstream audience. She hopes to pursue academic work at the juncture where medicine intersects race, gender, politics, sexuality, and class. She is heavily engaged in leftist politics and says she is glad and excited to run into DCD alumni at various talks and protests in Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York!”


    1. The above tells us what the left and even many bloggers here are unwittingly espousing. Hate, violence, CRT, and Marxism.

      Virtually everything they say is promoting those views.

    2. She condemns white folks as racist yet she values very much the credentials bestowed upon her by academic institutions founded by white folks that she regards as racist. It’s interesting that all three of her degrees are from institutions with names appropriated from Native Americans yet she proudly lists them on her CV. Of course, she’d as soon have her degrees from Michigan and Chicago rebranded as Central Midwestern University and Western Midwestern University, as leftist graduates of Yale and Stanford would have the names of slaver Eli Yale and anti-Chinese racist Leland Stanford removed from their credentials.

  4. The views of this ‘person’ – I want to use significantly stronger language but won’t – don’t need to be debated or discussed. They need to be ignored. This woman needs to be removed from whatever positions she holds as a public statement of our disgust and revilement of her attitudes and beliefs. The problem of course is that in the current zeitgeist, we expose ourselves as violent racists if we do the proper thing. Even if one is not white, you are still tarred with the ‘racist’ brush for speaking out against this (insert favourite pejorative here).
    If this sort of thing continues, we will see a return of support for racial segregation. If they want to hate us this much, fine. Go the h3ll somewhere else and damn your souls.
    Fortunately, this (insert appropriate four letter descriptive here) is a small minority, I hope, and only beclowns herself. What worries me most of all is that white liberals encourage this idiocy. What in blazes is wrong with those people?

  5. When the BLM/Antifa/CRT assault on civilization began, a lot of us thought it would run its course and maybe even succumb to its own extremist views. The phrase “give it enough rope and it will hang itself’ was more or less silently assumed. But how much more rope should we allow people who publicly call for white genocide? Historically, we have seen how incremental actions soon reach a tipping point. Each outrageous comment — whether spoken by a sane or unhinged lefty — allows the next person to get even more outrageous. The “free speech” argument fails when it only applies to the dominant power group and legitimizes verbal assaults on their opponents. The examples Turley cites are not examples of a “freedom of speech” issue. They are examples of public attacks on an entire race. This is not about free speech — it’s about power.

  6. This young lady was born in Iran. She came to America and received and excellent education. She has achieved the American dream provided to her by the thousands of white, yellow and black people who have died serving our nation.
    It is obvious that this individual does not care about their sacrifice. I recommend she consider returning to Iran so she does not have to interact with white people.

    1. This is NOT Iran…what she said is a criminal offence in the US and she should have been locked up…why was the police NOT called and why were charges not filled against her???…If I was in Iran and said that about any Muslim I would be beheaded on camera!!!

      1. I thought she was born in Michigan, but her parents were from Pakistan.

    2. The name of the country “Iran” comes from the same Indo-European root as the Sanskrit word “aryan”. In other words, if one gives any particular credence to the racial terms “white” or “caucasian”, this woman is also a member. I can think of one person she can and perhaps should immediately put her fantasy into practice upon.

      1. (I didn’t check her nation of origin, just trusted earlier commenters, so perhaps my comment of June 6 at 1:24 AM is not pertinent. Pardon!)

  7. So, she was “brought in by Yale to share her thoughts on ‘decoding white people’ and explain how white people are useless to speak to”? Well, they got what they paid for. How could such a topic even be considered by a reputable institution like Yale? The Antifa-BLM-CRT juggernaught has done more than tear down a few statues and burn a few cities — it has destroyed the foundation of Western learning. Our universities are now useless piles of intellectual rubble.

    1. That is the whole point of neo marxism = destroy the West, why destroying the education system from pre k to doctorate level is vital to the movement. They want to put us in a Somali like state as punishment for our progress.

  8. That person should be locked up in the psych ward and put on heavy doses of thorazine or just ECT or old school…frontal lobotomy.

  9. Of course, the free stupid speech should be legally tolerated, but the assumption that its ideas should be debated is not a good idea. They are well below the standard for public reasoning. True scientists don’t waste their time investigating paranormal experiences. Extreme murderous views should not be taken seriously as if they are potentially correct.
    Legally, the process of free speech should be protected, but a moral conformance to basic human decency should be expected in terms of substance. Legally permissible extreme views are so bad they should not be given the dignity of reasonable public political reasoning. Legal protection is not the same as “should be debated”.
    When what we call “critical race theory” was put in the orientation curriculum at my university, there were two problems. One was the forced acceptance of controversial views (process problem). The other was the fact that the controversial view itself is terrible (substance problem). Compare this to the forced political correctness of communism in the Cultural Revolution in China (1966-75). The process horror was the demand of acceptance of Mao’s teachings or some combination of humiliation, imprisonment, torture and death would be inflicted. The substance horror was the content of the substance of Mao’s communism which had already led to the deaths of millions in “The Great Leap Forward”(1957-62).
    Let’s not even debate extremist murder views. So what if it is legal to have speeches like this at Yale. That doesn’t mean that a national debate is necessary any more than demanding a debate on the paranormal. An example of reasonable debate is hashing out the amount and size of the safety net. There are pros and cons for larger and smaller amounts of the safety net (more coverage of people at risk versus the incentive to not work.) But the extremes of total government control over the economy (communism) or complete absence of any help for those in dire circumstances (absolute lazze faire) are not worthy of national debate. The middle ground of levels of welfare are discussed in terms of pros and cons of the level, then voting occurs followed by testing the result as time goes on. This a trial and error “incremental” approach. But the murderous extreme views are “categorical”, one side is all pros and the other side is all cons. This leads to either tyranny or anarchy, precisely what our system of government was designed to avoid.

    1. “Legal protection is not the same as “should be debated”.” Priceless comment! Yes, demanding a debate over over CRT ideology ranks up there with scientists having to debate creationism, or abolitionists having to debate the merits of slavery. The call for a debate just legitimizes those idiotic and racist ideas. We don’t debate the “merits” of murdering whites. Period.

  10. Odds are slim that anyone addressing an opposing view to this racist rant will be permitted. Indeed, I actually just read she is angry that Yale is “silencing” her by omitting her name in video clips of the speech. It ought to be an embarrassment to give her a platform, though nothing surprises me anymore. Free speech on today’s campuses doesn’t apply to conservatives. Only anti-conservative, racist, Marxist slants are permitted. If you want a job, you keep your opinions to yourself if you are white, believe yourself liberal, but disagree with indoctrination. Sorry times. A race war is what the Left wants, and their reactions will chill all thought and speech. The China model.

  11. I think we should be VERY concerned that these are Psychiatrists – they should really be investigated to see if they are treating patients and how? And the people like Yale who invited the to speak also. The one threatening to uses revolver should be on the No Fly list at least

    1. If she ever applies for a gun permit, should we not have some mechanism in place? Well, she can hire her own teams of security anyway. Hit squads?

    2. I thought the same thing. If she is treating White patients, is she deliberately using drugs to slowly, stealthily kill them?

    3. Actually, by reading the interview , you can clearly see these are the ravings of a sick person .

  12. Thousands of city dwellers–mostly liberals–are flocking to small towns in the Rockies, the Appalachians, and other mostly remote resort communities in America to escape the violence of the big cities. Yet, when they land in those (mostly conservative) places, they continue to espouse the same ideological nonsense and vote in a manner that turned the places they are running from into cesspools. One thing is certain, the level of vitriol will reach a stage where people do act out as this shrink fantasizes. Then all heck will break loose, and not just in the cities. I’m not sure what this era is more akin to, 1850s America, 1930s Germany, or 1960s China, or a blend of all three.

    1. I definitely share your concerns here. Cultural revolution plus 1930s rise of National Socialism in Germany. (Nazis.)

    2. It’s the new improved version of all of the above that consolidates the “best of” from them to trigger a race war that sets the stage for the implementation of The Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians.

      1. Yes, they are playing with a double-edged scalpel. Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), inequity, and exclusion breeds adversity. Baby Lives Matter

  13. A reminder of how many unhinged people are running loose among us.

    Just read some of the rants of people like Natascha and wonder what she would do if she had a gun while talking (shouting at?) a Trump supporter.

    And these people want to be taken seriously!

    Long sleeved white coat that ties in the back while on the way to a rubber lined room.

    1. Perhaps. The novel standard of justice is plausible in lieu of probable, a presumption of guilt until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Witch hunts (e.g. democratic/social) and warlock judgments (e.g. em-pathetic appeal) are socially and politically progressive. They’re surely playing with a double-edged scalpel.

  14. No doubt the hate filled, self entitled elitist lefties will be completely shocked and stunned and begin an all out campaign of raging whinning, sniveling, branding, blaming and accusing when the inevitable consequences of issuing terrorist death threats to millions of heavily armed Citizens and their children hits the fan.
    The Right to Free Speech does not protect one from the results or consequences of Free Speech when that Right is used recklessly to gin up a support for genocide against People who just happen to also have the Right to self defense.

  15. Lux et veritas seems to be in serious need of updating. Yale seems to be a Woke institution these days.

    1. Their religion is based on morality’s relativistic sibling “ethics”. Woke and [morally] broke, including, notably, the wicked solution, but also diversity [dogma], redistributive change. and political congruence.

    1. Then John Kerry will go back to his family’s private island off of Falmouth, Cape Cod.

Comments are closed.