BRETT: No doubt you've heard this story about the psychiatrist, Dr. Aruna Khilanani, who now has come out and said "she does not regret" saying that she wanted to go take a gun and empty it into a bunch of white people. "Dr. Aruna Khilanani has said she does not regret the word choice of her lecture. She gave a controversial virtual talk to Yale University staff and students in April.
"In it, she said she fantasized about 'unloading a revolver' into white people. She has faced criticism from university staff and others over her comments. On Saturday, she said her words had been taken out of context..." Of course they've been "taken out of context."
They're always "taken out of context" when it's a liberal. You don't understand. You're not sophisticated enough. You don't! That's what we always get from these folks. But hold on. The very notion that we can even call this a controversy or a controversial virtual talk? A controversy is a ball game ending with a questionable call from a referee or an umpire.
A controversial moment might be a particular outfit worn to a television awards show that nobody watches anymore. Like, that can be controversy. Controversy can be a dramatic plot twist on a nighttime show. Going to a place of education at a prestigious university and declaring that you had fantasized openly as a psychiatrist -- meaning somebody who is working with other people to work through their problems.
And that you have "fantasized about 'unloading a revolver' into white people," that's enough, if you're not a psychiatrist, to get probably held on a Baker hold so that you're gonna be checked out by professionals, and they're probably gonna take your guns from you, for real, even if you just say that in some jurisdictions.
Now, she says it's a controversy. She says, "Well, you know..." But I have to ask the question, why is this okay? Why haven't the cancel culture trolls gotten hold of her career and sunk it? If you or I said this about a group of people -- white people or any other group of people -- we'd be called white supremacists and every other name under the sun.
But when an elite New York doctor speaking at an elite ivory tower institution like Yale speaks, well, we kind of know what happens. We're supposed to just see it as racism in ourselves for being offended. And that is absolutely, 100% wrong. I can't even imagine -- and I'm dead serious when I say this.
I can't even imagine going into a public space where there are people I'm going to be lecturing to and speaking in this way. So she said what she was trying to do is she was trying to, like, shake it up a little bit. The talking about shooting people was part of a shaking it up. Quote, "Too much of the discourse on race is a dry, bland regurgitation of new vocabulary words with no work in the unconscious.
"'And, if you want to hit the unconscious, you will have to feel real negative feelings. My speaking metaphorically about my own anger was a method for people to reflect on negative feelings. To normalize negative feelings. Because if you don't, it will turn into a violent action.'
"Khilanani, who is of Indian descent, went on to say that she did not regret her word choice." Okay. You don't even get an "I'm sorry if anybody was offended," one of those dodges in this. It's really incredible when you think about it. You don't even get a "I'm really sorry if it was taken out of context, if you didn't understand the analogy, if you were offended by my words."
Instead she says, "'Something is emotionally dangerous about opening up a conversation about race. No one wants to look at their actions or face their own negative feelings about what they are doing. The best way to control the narrative is to focus on me, and make me the problem, which is what I stated occurs in the dynamic of racism."
Oh, please! Spare me, spare us.
If you are fantasizing about shooting a group of people, then you should probably sit down with a psychiatrist in a moment of therapy, a moment of trust and try to work your way, way through it. But walking into a public space and say that you fantasize about killing people is a negative reflection on yourself. I know it's shocking, but it's true.
If you say, "I hate blank," whatever the people are, whoever the people are, there's going to be a reaction. And it's going to be negative. And the fact that this happened in a college campus doesn't give it any protection. See, because this is a long, drawn-out process of how you inculcate these kids into becoming the disastrous sort of folks that they grow up to be.
It comes down to this, okay? It comes down to this. It comes down to the notion of liberal privilege. She will not be fired 'cause she checks the right number of boxes, and she gets to say what she wants to say. Other people who go to say what they want to say will find a great deal of resistance and likely unemployment. Here's Rush talking about liberal privilege.
RUSH: This is Sandy in Atascadero, California. It's great to have you. I'm glad you waited, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Yeah, hi, Rush. Thanks a lot for taking my call. The thing that's always been interesting to me is, you know, oftentimes they talk about "white privilege," and I think there has been a truth to that over the years. Well, I think nowadays we're facing "liberal privilege." It seems like anything a liberal wants to say, whether it's on television or in public -- wherever it may be -- it's okay, and it's just accepted. And if you are so bold as to contradict them, you know, God have mercy on you.
RUSH: It's hate! If you disagree with anything liberals believe, you automatically are declared to be a hater.
RUSH: This is how they silence people. It's either that or you are a racist.
CALLER: It's suddenly personal attacks. It's not a good conversation, a good back-and-forth of exchanging information. It's just these sudden personal attacks, and it's very difficult to handle. I've even had one of my sons mention that, you know, he just has to be very careful what he says whenever he's in public just because, you know, of this very issue.
RUSH: Look, they don't desire a cross-talk and back-and-forth. They don't want to debate anything. As far as they are concerned, your attitude, my attitude, my views, your views are illegitimate and ought not have a platform, ought not have a mechanism of amplification. They don't want a level playing field. They don't want anybody else on it.
They immediately smear. They make things up and then they start trying to attack character. They lie about things that you say, take things out of context, and then the mainstream media picks it up and amplifies it, and they basically attempt to destroy your reputation. They're not interested in what you think. They don't care about free and open debate.
BRETT: And so as once upon a time you might have had somebody come out and do a presentation like this this was incredibly controversial in the pre-social media world, if you then challenge this person, what will happen is those who are allied with the person that you're disagreeing with will suddenly...
Well, they'll dox you, they'll come after with you, they'll try to ruin you, they'll try to get you fired, they'll try to get you run off the planet or the world, depending whatever your orientation is, the planet or the world. People get very upset when you say "the planet." But when you listen to somebody like this, a New York City psychiatrist...
Okay, that conveys certain qualifications and certain expertise -- and that New York City psychiatrist comes to Yale University. This is not some truck stop. This is not some neighborhood park where we're all gathering to kind of air it out. So it's a New York City psychiatrist coming to Yale University, one of the elite institutions (so we're told) in the world -- or the planet, depending on your orientation.
You have this situation where you say, "Okay. I expect this person will be expert in this subject." And then this person says, "Yeah, racism's a problem. I have fantasized about emptying a revolver into white people, watching them die, and then, you know, doing whatever comes next." That's not acceptable, and I don't care if it's at Yale University or if it is at a truck stop or it is at a neighborhood park.
People in that setting ought to be like, "Ew. You got a problem. I'm outta here. Not interested." Now, if she had set it up by saying, "Let me tell you a story. Let me give you an example of some feelings," then you can do that. But the audio has been released by Barry Weiss. The audio is out there. You can hear it. You can peruse it.
You can hear her terms. You can hear her mind-set. You can hear all of it. So if she wanted people to react and then now people react, well, that kind of goes with the business, doesn't it? And where does this come from? This starts very early. She's talking to college kids here, right? They're going to half a million dollars in debt to walk around with a Yale degree, and I understand that.
But we're talking about, where does this come from? That field has to be plowed. That field has to be fertilized. That field has to be prepared so that when you get to Yale and you hear from this psychiatrist, you're interested in hearing what she's saying. So where does that start? Where it starts is at the elementary-, middle-, and high-school level.
This is where critical race theory becomes a very serious conversation.
And in a matter of moments, we're gonna dive into that conversation. Former President Barack Obama has come out, and he's mocking your concerns over critical race theory. The fact that he's mocking your concerns sort of tells you that you're hittin' pay dirt in the argument. But I'm gonna give you a very real world example from right where I'm standing of the sort of things being taught in the schools without parental consent.