Finally: Sheila Jackson-Lee Introduces Bill to Make It Federal Crime For White People to Criticize Minorities, Which, and I'm Not Kidding, the Bill Would Criminalize as Doing a White Supremacy

Well, we all knew the train was heading here. Next stop: Zimbabwe.

In what can only be called a convoluted mess, the bill proposes that a white person who "vilifies" any non-white person and has their words end up on social media, accessible by "persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime," would themselves be committing a federal crime.

Ian Miles Cheong @stillgray

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has introduced a House Bill to criminalize "conspiracy to commit white supremacy," which includes any criticism of non-white people that influences (such as something published or said online) someone who commits a hate crime.

The proposed law creates a "conspiracy" between two people with no connection at all to each other. If someone commits a hate crime, and someone else published a post that criticizes black people, and the person who committed the hate crime could have read that post, then the two are made by the law co-conspirators together in the crime of "white supremacy."

b) Conspiracy.--A conspiracy to engage in white supremacy inspired hate crime shall be determined to exist--

(1) between two or more persons engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime; or

(2) between two or more persons--

(A) at least one of whom engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime; and

(B) at least one of whom published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on "replacement theory", or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group, and such published material--

(i) was published on a social media platform or by other means of publication with the likelihood that it would be viewed by persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime;

(ii) could, as determined by a reasonable person, motivate actions by a person predisposed to engaging in a white supremacy inspired hate crime or by a person who is susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions relating to a white supremacy inspired hate crime; and

(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.

We know that "hate speech" and "vilification" are now said to include saying that a biological male is a man or calling such a person by his "deadname" or correct pronouns. So essentially this criminalizes anything that Joy Anne Reid doesn't agree with.

One can imagine that simply contradicting any of Sheila Jackson Lee's claims about "police violence" -- pointing out that cops, in fact, shoot armed white perps at a higher rate than armed black perps, and that maybe there would be less physical confrontations between cops and black suspects if black suspects dropped the macho Racial Defiance psychodrama of having to physically resist every mundane police order and arrest...

Ooops, I did a hate crime.

You can still rip the shit out of "whipipo" though, of course. Or would she agree that black perps amped up by the speech of black radicals should put those black radicals in jeopardy of prison, too?

Oh, it doesn't matter. You're not allowed to criminalize speech. Moose outside of Congress should have told you, Sheila.

A state university will be holding workshops to help nonwhites survive "racial battle fatigue."

It's MLK Day (and why am I not taking this day off, I wonder), and while it's a useful rhetorical trope to champion MLK in order to compare him to today's crop of militant racial revanchists, David Azerrad provides a reminder on that: MLK, Jr. was closer to today's nihilistic radicals than many of us care to remember. While Kevin McCarthy recent quoted the "content of his character" quote to use MLK a rebuttal to today's "equity" Marxists, Azerrad points out that MLK pushed "equity" as his own definition of legal equality:

[Kevin] McCarthy obviously had in mind the most famous line from King's most famous speech. King, as we all know, expressed the hope that America would one day judge people not by "the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Fewer, however, know that his road to colorblindness was paved with racial preferences and reparations.

Like the critical race theorists of today, King demanded equal outcomes between blacks and whites in all realms. He wrote in his last book, Where Do We Go from Here?,

... if a city has a 30 percent Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30 percent of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas, as the case almost always happens to be.

This wholly unwarranted expectation is the cornerstone of both the modern civil rights regime and critical race theory. It has, of course, since been expanded to cover all other purportedly victimized identity groups. It provides the justification for the totalitarian doctrine of disparate impact, now enshrined in our laws, which "makes almost everything presumptively illegal," in the words of Gail Heriot, a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. What standard, law, or norm, after all, produces no disparate outcomes across all parts of the population?

If it is "logical" to expect proportional representation, then any disparity that cuts against blacks is inherently suspect, and it soon becomes just as "logical" to blame racism for all such disparities, as CRT does today. In the words of America's leading charlatan on racial questions, Ibram X. Kendi: "when I see disparities, I see racism." The words are not King's, but the underlying sentiment is.

It is particularly revealing that King expected blacks, in his hypothetical example, to have "at least 30 percent of the jobs in any particular company." They could always have more. As we see today, disparities that cut against white people are not evidence of racism. Major League Baseball is deemed racist because it's not black enough, but Harvard is deemed equitable, even though blacks are overrepresented in its incoming freshman class. Only prisons can be "too black."

The new Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta King statue was unveiled, and it looks like someone caught The Thing from Another World mid-transformation.

And from certain choice angles, it looks like a guy reaching under his buttocks to spread them open so that someone can inspect his anus.

If you don't know what you're looking at, you're not alone. But I'll orient you: It's their arms with their hands on each other's shoulders, with their heads and bodies removed, so it looks like a Valentine's Day card designed by Escher.

It's horrible. It's Geigeresque. It's full of anus.

It's art by the "elite" for the "elite" but funded by the tax dollars of the normies and inflicted on the public spaces of the normies. As usual.

A new bronze sculpture called "The Embrace" meant to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King was blasted by some onlookers as "hideous" after it was unveiled on the grounds of Boston Common over the weekend.

...

Critics agreed the statue was "horrible," "hideous," "awful," and worse.

Below, video of The Thing transforming into whatever it is now.

posted by Ace at 03:37 PM

| Access Comments