Archive for the ‘Academic Intelligentsia’ Category

Black University of Georgia Teaching Assistant Who Declared ‘White People Have to Die’, May Face Expulsion

Via Campus Reform

University of Georgia teaching assistant who has made comments like “fighting white people is a skill” and “some white people may have to die” testified Friday in front of a student panel.

While Irami Osei-Frimpong has found himself the subject of a number of Campus Reform stories as a result of the aforementioned comment and others, his hearing concerned another matter entirely. Osei-Frimpong stands accused of violating UGA’s code of conduct by deliberately excluding a 2011 trespassing arrest when applying to the school, according to Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

He has also said “fighting white people is a skill”

In addition to falsely responding in the negative to an application question asking him if he had been charged or convicted of something aside from a minor traffic violation, Osei-Frimpong was also accused of neglecting to cite his previous University of Chicago studies.

The TA could be expelled for these alleged infractions.

But Osei-Frimpong and his defenders say that the racially-charged comments are the real reason behind scrutiny of the TA, AJC reported.


Uh, yeah muthafucka.  Had it been a white teaching assistant that made racial comments toward blacks, they would have been scrutinized out of a job the same day.


In addition to saying “some white people may have to die for black communities to be made whole in this struggle to advance to freedom,” Osei-Frimpong made a remark on Facebook claiming “we have to dismantle the institutions that make crappy white people. Their churches, their schools, their families” after the 2018 midterm election, a remark for which the social media giant suspended him.

The TA had also compared Southern whites to “autistic kids” and “sociopaths” and suggested that white individuals who post photos to social media in which they are carrying guns are “terrorists.”

UGA said in January that the school “has been vigorously exploring all available legal options. Racism has no place on our campus.”




If Osei-Frimpong wants some examples of crappy people, look no further than his own black community.

Skin color is used as an excuse for everything from laziness to abhorrent criminal behavior.  Throwing the race card and practicing victimology is so much easier than personal accountability.  Black victimologists and white liberals share a common denominator; both ignore the crime rate in black neighborhoods, and black on white hate crimes with equal indifference.

When it comes to racism, liberal Democrats and their supporters, black and white, are some of the worst racist pigs on the planet.  According to these lowlifes, racism bears only one skin color; white. How racist.  No one does racism like the left, and I’ve seen plenty of racism on the part of minorities.

The “blame ‘whitey’” tactic won’t work anymore. It’s a hackneyed gimmick used by punks who think vandalism, assault, burning the American flag, and throwing Molotov cocktails through the windows of a Walmart is gonna elevate their street cred.

Stop producing children at a rate you can’t afford. You’re just as allergic to birth control as you are staying in school and getting a job.

Inflammatory rhetoric and threats from the Black Panthers and ‘Black Lives Matter’ thugs don’t impress us, it just reinforces the image you’ve created.

I keep hearing the phrases  “white privilege” and “check your privilege” every time one of these racist blowhards gives a speech for the cameras.  I want to know where the hell I can get mine.

More of Frimpong’s regurgitations:




The current environment on university campuses is tailored for black radical blowhards and liberal white snowflakes.

The more extreme the conduct and rhetoric, the more it’s excused by college administrations. It’s been incorporated into the curriculum and policy.

Act for America posted a video of a UofGA student — Andrew Lawrence (@YoungGaGOP)—-confronting this asshole over his bigoted comments, here:



Good for him.


Related articles:

Related posts:

Leftwing Mob Harasses Conservative Professor at NY College for Speaking the Truth

It took the triggered children 5 months to get their panties in a wad over his article.  I’m betting that they didn’t care about this until he let some truth slip during class.


Last October, Sarah Lawrence College professor Samuel Abrams wrote an important and insightful essay in the New York Times. While critics of higher education have often focused on faculty bias — in part because a small subset of professors is prone to say ridiculous things — a larger problem has gone mostly unnoticed. Abrams’s research revealed that college administrators are more uniformly progressive even than college faculties. “Liberal staff members,” he wrote, “outnumber their conservative counterparts by the astonishing ratio of 12-to-one,” making them the “most left-leaning group on campus.”

At the conclusion of his piece, Abrams made an argument that rang true to my more than 20 years of litigation experience — “ideological imbalance, coupled with [administrators’] agenda-setting power, threatens the free and open exchange of ideas.”

This is exactly right. Administrators draft and enforce speech codes. Administrators are responsible for creating campus kangaroo courts. Administrators kick Christian student groups off campus, and administrators often take the lead in designing campus programming that features overwhelmingly progressive voices. While conservative media often focus their ire on random radical professors, administrators are busy engaging in the overwhelming majority of campus censorship.

Simply put, Abrams told an important truth. And he’s been punished for it. As our Madeleine Kearns reported last November, his office door was vandalized, students called for him to be punished, anonymous individuals falsely accused him of sexual misconduct, and when Abrams urged the college president, Cristle Judd, to take a strong stand in favor of academic freedom, he said that she “asked whether he thought it was appropriate to write op-eds without her permission and further suggested that his article had been hostile toward his colleagues.”

It turns out that Abrams’s ordeal isn’t over. Yesterday, a group of students calling themselves the “Diaspora Coalition” began a sit-in and issued an extraordinary set of demands, including demands aimed directly at Abrams. The protesters called on the college to “confront how the presence of Sam Abrams . . . affects the safety and well being of marginalized students.”


According to the traumatized students, his article “revealed the anti-Blackness, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-woman bigotry of Abrams.”  Their “list of demands” for retribution include:

  • “All campus laundry rooms are to supply laundry detergent and softener on a consistent basis for all students, faculty and staff.”
  • “Students of color should not be forced to resort to racist white professors in order to have access to their own history. It is crucial that the College offer courses taught about people of color by people of color so that students may engage in and produce meaningful work that represents them authentically.”
  • “When dining options are closed on campus, the College must provide free meals for students staying on campus, including vegetarian, gluten-free, vegan, halal, and kosher options.”
  • Students from the Diaspora Coalition and “at least three faculty members of color” are allowed to conduct a tenure review surrounding the position of politics professor Samuel Abrams – who they describe as “an anti-queer, misogynist and racist who actively targets queer people, women and people of color.” They also want Abrams to publicly apologize for writing an op-ed for the New York Times last year.


The microaggression insanity is rampant on college campuses, where anything and everything can be construed as ‘offensive’ by the aggrieved group du jour.

“White supremacy”; the Left’s all-purpose boogeyman since 2016 and counting. If you don’t adhere to their extremist leftwing ideology, then by default,  you’re a “racist”.

Many of these kids arrive on campus fully indoctrinated thanks to academic intelligentsia’s K-12 curriculum.

Their educational system pushes communist  agenda,  “gay history”, disrespect for the American flag,  pro-muslim terrorism, and tuition and criminal facilitation for illegal aliens.

Thanks to the fatuous brainwashing, college campuses have morphed into a petri dish of bat-shit crazy dysfunction. Once these little snowflakes get out into the real world and try to get jobs, they will get a rude awakening when they find out that employers will not pander to their ‘feelz’ and unearned sense of entitlement. The administrations and faculty at these universities are fostering this kind of insanity by encouraging violent, infantile behavior. How ironic that the Free Speech Movement, which was started by left wing radicals on university campuses in the 1960s, against the ‘oppressive establishment’, has now become the oppressive establishment. Learning, healthy skepticism, courage of conviction and thoughtful analysis of the world have been gutted for a more dumbed-down, spineless, unprincipled, nihilist approach. Just the very act of rebelling against or challenging the agenda and the tactics of students who arrive at the college already radicalized, will get you death threats and social media hate speech.

The inmates are running the asylum.



Related posts:

Related articles:

John Stossel: China’s Big Brother Social Media Control Worse Than Facebook, Google

People tend to forget that China is a belligerent country ruled by a communist authoritarian regime.  This should serve as a reminder.


From his article at Fox News

Upset because Facebook and Google invade your privacy? Be glad you don’t live in China.

Facebook and other Western apps are banned there. The government views their openness as a threat. So the Chinese use platforms like WeChat and Alibaba.

Now the Chinese government takes data from those platforms to assign all people who use them a “social credit score.”

In other words, the government monitors your web activity and gives you a grade. Your purchases, social interactions and political activity will determine what privileges you get.

Having a low score — because you smoke, are slow to pay bills or criticize a government official — could get you barred from flying, using certain hotels or sending your kids to better schools.

Li Schoolland grew up in China. As a teenager, she survived China’s Great Leap Forward, Great Famine and Cultural Revolution. Her parents were doctors, which meant they, and she, were intellectual enough to be targeted for communist “re-education.”

“Mao said we shouldn’t learn from books; we should learn from the military, from the farmers, from the workers,” she recalls in my online video. “The poorer you were, the better you were. If you’re illiterate, you’re the best. …

“After I came to the United States I thought, oh, no more politics. I’m in the land of the free,” she recounts. But after she saw surveillance states developing around the world, she thought, “No, no, no. I have to tell the American people, ‘Don’t let this happen.'”

I like to think the era of communism is over, the danger past. But in China, “The repression is not over,” says Schoolland. “The control of people’s mind, people’s mouth, people’s pen, never stopped.”

Today in China, if you email friends about books like Orwell’s “Animal Farm” or Huxley’s “Brave New World,” your message will be blocked.

Even pictures of Winnie the Pooh were banned because someone said president Xi Jinping resembled the stuffed bear.

And now, another step, one subtler than just banning things: the social credit score.

The government brags the system will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

That’s totalitarianism.

Of course, the U.S. is much freer. People complain because Facebook is irresponsible about sharing our data. But to that I say, so what? I voluntarily give Facebook that information. I’d rather see targeted ads than random ones, and no one forces me to use Facebook.

I worry more about what my government does. Facebook and Google cannot use force. Government can. Governments do.

Already, there are new surveillance programs.

Los Angeles police brag that they now practice “predictive” policing. They pay a company called Palantir to analyze social media, trace people’s ties to gang members and predict the likelihood that someone may commit a crime.

That makes some people feel safer.

But “I think they are giving government too much power,” says Schoolland. “They didn’t realize this is going to lead to more and more.”

I might like to know people’s “trust score” before interacting with them, I tell her.

“Yes, we want to know who we can trust when we do business,” she responds, “but those are market behaviors. We don’t need the government to get involved.”

For now, the internet, and other new technology, enhances my freedom.

My son complains that it distracts us so much that we can’t focus on what matters. That’s true also, but I say, on balance, it’s wonderful. It helps me band together with others who think like I do. It makes it easier for me criticize the government and business practices I consider unfair. Heck, that’s what I do every week in my videos.

But we should be on guard against use of technology to curtail our freedom. Government was dangerous enough — before it could spy on us so easily.


China’s dictatorship  owns most of its country’s businesses and cracks down on critics and free speech advocates.

The ‘social credit score’ is one more example.

Come to think of it. we have our own problems with speech-suppressing elites right here in America.

Facebook and Twitter pull the same stunts with their own versions of selective censorship.  Matter of fact, Twitter boss Jack Dorsey personally has a hand in banning conservatives when they hammer his celeb and political pals too much for his liking.

The leftwing Silicon Valley conglomerate has become maliciously politicized and jackbooted in their effort to squelch freedom of speech.

Leftwing fascists on college campuses across America engage in the same oppression of free speech, and use violence as a tool.

The more that happens, the more we’ll end up like China.



Related article:

Related post:

Triggered Millennial Snowflakes Add ‘Cry Closets’ to Their Collection of Toys

Tide Pods, condom snorting, and now this:






This generation is what we can expect to populate the country in the next few years.

Their world centers around sophomoric narratives and SJW drivel.  ‘White privilege‘, ‘microaggression‘,  ‘triggering‘, and ‘safe spaces from scary ideas’ that provide cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, is what constitutes college education for millennials; it’s the infantilization of young adults.  They bloviate and spew like 2 year olds, and apparently need to escape to their nursery when confronted with ideas an opinions that run contrary to their manufactured utopia.

They’re also pretty exhausted from all that ‘activism’.

They think if they scream, cry, and throw tantrums, the world will bend to their sensitivities.  At the risk of bursting their bubble, we’re not intimidated.

If the current generation is that fucking fragile, they should just curl up in a ball and die.  Leave the real world to people strong enough to handle it.



Related article:

Related post:


College Professor Happily Retired, Free of Rabid SJWs

From Thom Nickels at Pajamas Media


I was talking with an ex-university professor recently who told me that he was very happy to be retired. He said he was glad to be out of the hornets’ nest, away from a world so filled with political correctness that it was difficult to get through the day. Life on campus, he said, is rife with so many non-issue “issues” that it’s like walking barefoot on sidewalks littered with broken glass.
He related how he once told a fellow professor that she “looked very nice today,” meaning that she had selected a particularly nice outfit. Rather than thank him for the compliment, the professor took him to task for being sexist and going out of his way to objectify her as an object (a piece of meat) to be admired.

“You wouldn’t say the same thing to a male colleague,” she scolded. The male professor was taken aback and told her that she was wrong. “I do say the same thing to male colleagues. I do it all the time.” The professor also happened to be gay, so he wasn’t thinking about female objectification (the meat factor) when he said what he said. Welcome to university life in 2018, where every word out of your mouth has to censored, and where even paying a colleague a compliment can get you into hot water.

The ex-professor told me another story, of when his university invited a well-known woman speaker to lecture to students. While the speaker’s presentation was flawless and held the audience spellbound, during the Q and A a well-dressed young man stood up and said that the speaker had disparaged African Americans.
“I compliment you on a good talk, however you made one gross mistake that is offensive to the African American community,” he began. The speaker asked in a soft voice what the offensive remark was.

“In your introduction, you described yourself as being the ‘black sheep’ of your family,” the student said. “The use of the word black in this instance connotes negativity and undesirability and as such it casts a poor light on African American students. It is racist.”
Yes, she was right up there with the Ku Klux Klan.
The speaker swallowed hard, not quite sure what she should say when another woman professor in the audience stood up and complimented her on a stellar lecture and added that she was certainly entitled to express her views anyway she wanted to, including using any word she felt was appropriate. Common sense won out in this instance — the easily triggered student who called the speaker a racist became so unpopular on campus that he eventually transferred to a school outside the United States.

But this is a rare scenario. Generally the triggered student is not reprimanded, but joined by other triggered allies in the audience.

……There was a time not so long ago when only the right wing was crazy over censorship. In the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s, it was conservatives who banned books and movies and even speakers (Communists, etc.) from college campuses. Today it is the Left. That’s why the term regressive left in now a part of the national vocabulary. A regressive leftist is someone who has an inability to listen to contrary, uncomfortable viewpoints without throwing out accusations of bigotry, racism, and white supremacy. Labeling someone a “racist” or a “white supremacist” is supposed to shut down all debate. It’s what philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers means when she says: “In their war against intolerance, they take on the extremes of intolerance.” She also adds: “It’s going to be hard for future historians to understand what happened on American campuses in this decade.” This is true because freedom of expression on campus is being replaced by the right to feel comfortable.
When I attended journalism school, America was waging the Vietnam War. Students at that time were either pro-war (a hawk), or pro-peace (a dove). The majority of students at my school were reluctant to take a side: they didn’t want to voice their opposition to the war because so called peaceniks in those days were often labeled “dirty long haired hippies in need of a bath.”

When our professors would occasionally blurt out a pro-hawk statement during class they would usually accent it with an acerbic anti-hippie comment. Hearing these impromptu comments was always unsettling for those students against the war, but everything was taken in stride. Nearly all the students viewed a professor’s political tirade, left or right, with a grudging tolerance. The point/counterpoint aspect of it all often echoed what we were hearing at home from parents and siblings. Yet we never allowed the clash of ideas in the classroom to bring us to the brink of despair or “war,” unlike the atmosphere on today’s college campuses.

There were no space spaces at my journalism alma mater, no padded side rooms with play dough, licorice-flavored binkies, or settings of milk and cookies to soothe over hurt political feelings. The anti-war students agreed to disagree when one professor invited a pro-war Colonel to speak to a class, or when the school sponsored a “Support the Troops” day, code at that time for Support the War.

At some colleges now, the latest trend is banning white male poets like T.S. Eliot and John Milton. This would have been inconceivable to students in the 1970s.

Glen Harlan Reynolds, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Tennessee, says the term “hate speech” is meaningless because “all speech is equally protected whether it’s hateful or cheerful.” Yet this solid Constitutional definition doesn’t wash with college campus social justice warriors, especially at schools like Swarthmore, Brandeis, UC Berkeley, Smith College, Sarah Lawrence, Bennington, Wesleyan, Oberlin, and Sarah Lawrence College (where, as a critic noted, freaky theater types go who want to be like Yoko Ono).
Students in the 1970s understood that college is a trial run for adulthood. And adulthood, after all, is an Upton Sinclair “Jungle” of clashing opinions and warring ideas. Colleges that seek to protect students from the world of ideas are not colleges at all, but four-year retreats.


Thanks to the fatuous indoctrination of left wing academic intelligentsia, college campuses have morphed into a petri dish of bat-shit crazy dysfunction.  


There are a few professors—Mike Adams, who is a professor at UNC-Wilmington—who won’t put up with the triggered snowflake drama.  He lets his students know on the first day of class that they have no right not to be offended, and if they don’t like it, they can drop the class.

How ironic that the Free Speech Movement, which was started by left wing radicals on university campuses in the 1960s, against the ‘oppressive establishment’, has now become the oppressive establishment. Learning, healthy skepticism, courage of conviction and thoughtful analysis of the world have been gutted for a more dumbed-down, spineless, unprincipled, nihilist approach. Just the very act of rebelling against or challenging the agenda and the tactics of students who arrive at the college already radicalized, will get you death threats and social media hate speech.

The inmates are running the asylum.


%d bloggers like this: