“Diversity” doesn’t include whitey. Whitey’s existence is ‘violence’

Moonbat Professor Barks That Whiteness Is “Violence” and an “Existential Threat”

There must not be enough hardcore antiwhite racism at the University of Minnesota, if they feel the need to import it from other colleges:

The University of Minnesota has invited a professor dedicated to “dismantling whiteness” to speak next week on how whiteness is an “existential threat” to the United States.

The Elephant in the Room: A ‘Grown Up’ Conversation about Whiteness” will be presented by Lisa Anderson-Levy, an Anthropology professor at Beloit College whose teaching philosophy is predicated on the belief that “teaching is a political act.”

What Anderson-Levy does is political all right, but I wouldn’t call it teaching, and I certainly wouldn’t call it grown up.

During her lecture, Anderson-Levy is slated to speak on a number of issues, including “the violence of whiteness”…

Violence is so bad that it must be stopped by any means. That’s why, according to liberals, speech they don’t want to hear is “violence.” Even being white is violence. That justifies addressing it with real violence, like we are about to see on a genocidal scale in South Africa.

Speaking of real violence, in this country the vast majority of it is committed by nonwhites. That’s why the prisons are so full of them. But according to liberals, incarcerating people based on their behavior instead of in accordance with racial quotas is racist.

Anderson-Levy barks that whiteness is not only violence but also “an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S.” which “demands our immediate attention.” It is a short step from the evil nonsense spewed on college campuses to extermination camps.

Other than hating all things Caucasian, Anderson-Levy’s academic specialties are “feminist anthropology” and “activist anthropology.” She is a Moonbat of Negritude, making it easier for such a useless person to pass herself off as an educator.

The race hate and left-wing politics don’t prevent her from wallowing in wealth created by a white male capitalist:

She is also the co-leader on a $600,000 project to foster “diversity, inclusivity, and equity” at Beloit College, which was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

If Mellon, Ford, and other great men who built this country had known how their fortunes would be used, they would have burned all their money before they died.

Meanwhile, in South Africa:

South Africa’s Hate Bill Takes Tyranny to New Extremes

Taken to its logical conclusion, political correctness is a form of tyranny more insanely repressive than anything dreamt of by Stalin. If you doubt it, consider the hate speech law that is about to hit the country born of political correctness, post-Apartheid South Africa:

The Prevention and Combatting of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill (let’s call it the Hate Bill) is currently before Cabinet, and once approved, will be tabled in Parliament.

“Hate” is already against the law in South Africa. But not like it will be.

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act) already prohibits and criminalises hate speech. The Hate Bill goes much further, however, criminalising even petty insults and hand gestures, and imposing lengthy jail terms even on first offenders.

The new bill extends the grounds for hate speech to race, gender, sex (including intersex), ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV status, nationality, gender identity, albinism, and occupation or trade.

South Africa has a constitution; Ruth Bader Ginsburg prefers it to the one she is sworn to uphold. But it may not be much defense against the Hate Bill.

The Constitution, in section 16 of the Bill of Rights, states that freedom of expression “does not extend to advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”.

In 2002, the Constitutional Court ruled that no law can extend the definition of hate speech beyond what it says in the Constitution.

This means that the Equality Act already contravenes the Constitution, by extending grounds for hate speech to race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth; or anything else that could perpetuate systemic disadvantage, undermine human dignity, or adversely affect the equal enjoyment of a person’s rights and freedoms in a serious manner that is comparable to discrimination on one of the listed grounds.

That’s a big jump, from “incitement to cause harm” to “adversely affect the equal enjoyment of blah blah blah.”

But if people are going to start being sticklers and insist that laws be constitutional, the Constitution can be changed, like they are doing to allow confiscation of property from whites without compensation. If Ramaphosa et al. will steal the farm that has been in your family for generations and leave you penniless, they certainly won’t hesitate to throw you in jail for being insensitive.

The Hate Bill also explicitly criminalises not only public communication of hate speech, but also private messages, and even gestures and bodily expressions that could be interpreted as insulting. If you flip the bird at someone, you’re up on charges. If you recoil at the touch of a gay person, because they are gay, you’re guilty of hate speech. If you make an expression of disgust at a police officer, it’s off to jail you go.

And jail it will be. The Hate Bill imposes extraordinarily harsh penalties upon offenders. A first-time hate speech offender could get a fine, three years in prison, or both. A second-time offender could face ten years in prison.

Basic liberty or “social justice.” Take your pick; you can’t have both.