Sheila Lee Jackson’s Racist Bill

Commentary

Have you recently posted something on social media about your concern with the exacerbating situation on the U.S. southern border?

How about the potential dangers of unmitigated flows of illegal newcomers entering the country without a properly thorough vetting process?

In the past three years, have you posted any crime statistics highlighting the spike in theft or violent attacks, particularly among certain racial categories, following the 2020 Antifa/BLM riots?

Have you cited soft-on-crime policies (such as the elimination of cash bail) intended to reduce the prison population percentage of specific demographic groups as a potential factor contributing to skyrocketing recidivism rates, increased drug use, and the generally deteriorating status of U.S. inner cities?

Did you answer “yes” to any of the above questions? If so, you have been found guilty of spreading dangerous and inflammatory information that could potentially incite racially motivated crimes. Please prepare for an extended stay in the bourgeoning state gulag system for reeducating those afflicted by chronic misinformation disease.

Fortunately, this type of inquiry is not a normally occurring event in the United States—yet.

But the attempt to narrow the confines of acceptable discourse into an increasingly constrained prism of regime-approved narratives through the force of law is intended to get us there as fast as possible.

Rep. Sheila Lee Jackson’s (D-Texas) proposal to combat “white supremacy” is about as blatant an attempt as we have seen of late to sow greater racial division in pursuit of political gain.

The “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023” is meant “to prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy inspired hate crime.” The “conspiracy” section means that an individual who posts “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” could be prosecuted regardless of whether they actually commit (or attempt to commit) a violent crime. All that is required is that someone else—even if they have no actual connection to that individual, having never spoken, met, or heard of them—engages in an act that qualifies as a type of “hate crime.”

There is so much that is ethically wrong and fundamentally un-American about this bill that it is hard to know where to begin.

Let’s start with the obvious attempt to shut down sources of information that deny “systemic” or “institutionalized” racism as the foundational concept of the United States. This isn’t merely aimed at anonymous posters on the internet. Specifically in the crosshairs would be such prevalent figures as Tucker Carlson (the most-watched show on cable news) and Ben Shapiro (one of the most popular podcasts in the country). But don’t take my word for it. That analysis comes straight from The Root, an online magazine that labels itself “Black News and Black Views with a Whole Lotta Attitude,” in which the “attitude” seems to come from one specific (left-wing) angle.

But what about the average American who shares some of the same views on Twitter or Facebook? Should their words be found to have played a role in some other individual engaging in “white supremacy,” it appears that they, too, could be held accountable for the ensuing actions and subsequently face criminal charges.

This is what we might call a “thought-crime.”

The first amendment enshrines the freedom of expression in this country and is the bedrock of the constitutional republicanism that is meant to be the guiding principle of our regime. You get to share your opinion—regardless of how distasteful, offensive, or downright stupid it may be. Being held in contempt of the public relations court does not equal a mandate to prosecute you in the U.S. judicial system.

Of bigger concern for the present bill under consideration, however, is not so much that an individual has the right to speak, but rather what type of speech, in particular, it is attempting to prohibit.

What our regime defines as “hate” is essentially anything that doesn’t meet the standards of the current political narrative. In the latter, the United States is an endemically racist country that also happens to be wracked by homophobia, transphobia, climate change denial, anti-science sentiment, and pretty much every other left-wing bugaboo you can think of. Denying that a man can be a woman—a statement that a mere 10 years ago wouldn’t have been considered controversial—is now hate. Refusing to condone double-mastectomies or castration on teenagers as “gender-affirming care”—also, hate.

As far as “white supremacy?” We have seen statements from legacy media, prominent politicians, and even the White House about how actions unrelated to race—such as questioning the integrity of elections, refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and refusing to wear a mask properly or social distance—are all inextricably linked to white racism.

We know that the “slippery slope” argument is the most validated concept there is. Totalitarian government control almost never comes about through unqualified attacks on personal sovereignty. What seems reasonable at first progresses exponentially until we see blatant attempts at top-down authoritarian mandates.

One of the most alarming features of Lee’s bill is the fact that it specifically targets one demographic group—white people—the implication being that only the latter can even be guilty of “hate.” The intention is to harvest and mobilize the social unrest around the deteriorating situation in neighborhoods, communities, cities, states, and the country. While failed policy exacerbates a downward spiral, one specific identity group becomes the target of all public ire and is scapegoated as the source of every problem.

At about the same time as Lee had been proposing her bill, Vice President of the European Commission Věra Jourová stated the importance of controlling public speech in a conversation at this year’s World Economic Forum meeting in Davos. Sitting next to former CNN personality Brian Stelter, she gladly predicted “illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the U.S. I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law.”

How long before questioning vaccines is hate speech? Or doubting the “science” around climate change?

“White supremacy” is the bludgeon the American regime uses to beat us into submission. Anti-white hate in the United States is an effective rallying tool to guarantee support from the left-wing progressive base as the government continues to strip away constitutional rights in an imitation of Europe.

The regime will continue to tighten its grip on narrative control as our domestic situation inevitably deteriorates due to incompetent leadership and left-wing ideology. Lee’s bill may be unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House, but the anti-white sentiment is here to stay.

As an ending note, one wonders whether this article in itself could be used to prosecute me under the bill proposed by Lee.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.