Firstly, this licence has all the same problems associated with any other crayon licence.
Secondly, and also fatal to my mind, is that it doesn't specify what rights are given. It says that one may "use this code freely", but both use this code and freely are ambiguous in English. Compare that with (to pick a random example) the MIT licence's grant:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so...
That takes about sixty words to say what takes you six, and there's a reason for that: to avoid legal ambiguities.
Thirdly, we come to the requirement to agree with a political statement in order to avail oneself of the licence grant. I have some sympathy with this, but I think it's doomed to failure, because there's no central register of human beliefs, and people are allowed to change their minds. What will you do if someone uses your code, then claims they don't hold the required belief, you sue for copyright violation, and their defence is that they held the required belief at the time they used the code, but no longer do so?
There is also the problem that this licence may be un-free. The closest analogue I can find, the JSON licence that required "the use of the software for good, not evil", was held by the FSF to be non-free. If your licence is un-free, it's off-topic for this site.
So in short I think there are too many problems with this licence to have any chance of talking about its compatibility with any standard free licence.