Collectivism 135, Part 2: Slavery Apologia, and ACE's Build Up to the French Revolution of 1789
Revised 2021
Hello, and welcome back to Safe White Space!
This is Part 2 of my review for Collectivism 135, a PACE in the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (ACE). All of these PACEs were written by a fascist goon named Donald Howard. If you don’t know what PACEs are, and need context for the scope of these reviews, check out Collectivism 133, Part 1 posted below:
Collectivism 133, Part 1: Lucifer, the Son with Morning Wood
This installment is Part 2 of my review for Collectivism 135. In a rare instance, Part 1 really isn’t necessary for Part 2, though it’s still worth a read:
Today we are going to examine one of two narratives that Donald Howard used in the ACE curriculum to build up to his revisionist version of the French Revolution. There is a lot he says in just a few pages, almost all of which needs to be addressed. One thing to keep in the back of your mind is his comment from Part 1, that “Communism has always represented a revolt against God’s natural order of things in His universe,” [Ex. 141]. Take that in the most classist, racist, and literal way possible. I’ve been trying to keep these posts shorter, but this one got away from me. The French Revolution is just too interesting. I will leave a TL;DR of this PACE section in the footnotes.1
Disclaimer off the top: The French Revolution was not without it’s faults, both tactically at times, and morally as well. I’m not here to make the French Revolution out to be this wholly good thing. However, my bias is very apparent throughout this post. I want to make it clear that I am consciously keying in on the good of the French Revolution here. For the first 29 years of my life, this very specific PACE and passage was the primary source I had about the French Revolution, even if I didn’t think about it in those terms. There are many such topics that I’ve forgotten to revisit, or haven’t had the time to. Know that my bias is coming from a place of incredulity towards Donald’s version of events, all these cheap lies I was told growing up, and how long things like this affected my interest in history (until my mid-twenties).
The French Revolution of 1789 was basically everything the far right pretends the American Revolution was. So Donald had to revise almost all the history he addressed here, while ignoring everything else. Donald’s whole case is going to revolve around the idea that the French Revolution was inspired by the literal Devil who used l’encyclopedia, the Illuminati, and a few “extraordinarily evil” people to change the course of human history. Donald presented the French Revolution as this wholly violent affair, perpetuated by rich men who tricked poor men into wanting equality. I use the word “men” there intentionally, because the actions of characters like Marie Antoinette[1, 2] are ignored, like always. That would complicate the message that God works exclusively through straight, land-owning men who are, 99% of the time, white as hell.
There is no material analysis of the poor Frenchman’s living conditions, no consideration for what the French Revolution accomplished, and at no time are the actions of the rich aristocrats brought under scrutiny. The student is left believing that the poor were just angry idiots who didn’t know how good they had it.
One last thing before we get to it. I’m not going to write my own comprehensive analysis of the French Revolution. That’s both out of my depth, and outside the scope of these reviews. For example, most audiobooks that cover the topic are over 20 hours long, and even they will recommend you read primary sources for yourself. Additionally, I’m not here to rewrite ACE’s education for them, but merely to show, in good-faith, that this education was authored in bad-faith, and doesn’t qualify as education.
That I can do.
So let’s start with ACE’s version of events by examining the premise they are working from:
Exhibit 145
The French Revolution of 1789
The myth of the era. Every student of history has been literally deluged with lurid descriptions, found in most secular history books, of the terrible social conditions existing in pre-revolutionary France, and the abject poverty and oppression to which the French masses were subjected. The usual recitation depicts the downtrodden French peasants as finally, in 1789, reaching the end of their collective tether and, therefore, rising up in justified rebellion against utterly intolerable oppression. The overwhelming bulk of historical evidence, however, simply does not support this generally accepted view of the French Revolution!
Collectivism 135, page 23
Okay, so from the top he is making the goal of this section clear - to counter the historically accepted consensus by presenting students with “the overwhelming bulk of historical evidence.” Namely, that the poor people in France had no reason to rebel.
Here he explains why the poor should have been content with their lot in life, while projecting just how out of touch he is with reality:
Exhibit 146
France was the richest and most populous country in Europe. France had half the money in circulation on the European Continent. Between 1720-1780, French foreign trade increased to four times it’s previous volume. The sugar trade in San Domingo supplied half the world’s market demand. The old hereditary aristocracy had, for the most part, released the reigns of power (through sheer apathy) into the hands of the new, rising middle class of merchants. Serfdom had completely disappeared, and the peasants actually owned more land than any other single group in France. These civil changes produced great upward social mobility never before enjoyed in French history.
Collectivism 135, page 23
Oh boy. First off, notice that the French Revolution happened in 1789, and Donald’s little list of economic booms all take place before 1780. A not-so-clever little trick he tried to pull there. And, again, these are all economic booms. These multi-fold increases in, say, the sugar trade, make rich people richer, while stagnating wages which leaves the poor poor. Poorer even, because when the economy booms, prices on things like bread go up. Even poorer because the slave trade was increasing to support the labor needs of French colonial holdings, which reduced the need for paid domestic labor.
Oh right, the “sugar trade in San Domingo,” increased in direct proportion to THE NUMBER OF SLAVES WORKING TO DEATH ON THE PLANTATIONS. Further, by humans-owning-another-human-being standards, this was brutal slavery. Donald doesn’t even address this; slavery is just an economic data point to him.
Per slaveryandrememberance.org:
“Enslaved African workers grew sugar in the northern plains around Cap Français, for example, and coffee in the mountainous interior. The slave system in Saint-Domingue was regarded as one of the harshest in the Americas, with high levels of both mortality and violence. To supply the plantation system, French owners imported almost 800,000 Africans to the colony (which, by comparison, is almost double the number of Africans carried to North America).”
Slave labor that’s double the size of the whole North American slave industry is “the sugar trade.” Don’t kid yourself, he knew. If he didn’t, that equally disqualifies him to write education. Again, “God’s natural order of things,” [Ex. 141] is literal, it’s racist, and it’s classist as all hell.
God’s natural order has African slaves producing sugar for white aristocrats.
Super cool, Donald.
Worth noting, the successful San Domingo Slave Revolt is credited with the abolition of slavery: “In February 1794, the French republic outlawed slavery in its colonies. Revolutionaries in Saint-Domingue secured not only their own freedom, but that of their French colonial counterparts, too.”
Prices for basic goods further increased because the population of France was the largest in Europe (by quite a bit), which created a strain on food supplies. More people eating, and more people willing to pay higher prices to feed their families, had the price of bread in a constant upturn. This rewarded the rich and fucked the poor. Further, many aristocrats fled the country, taking their wealth with them. A luxury unaffordable to the poor. That last bit about “upward social mobility never before enjoyed,” was almost exclusively for upper middle class folks who found space in the (lower) ranks of the aristocracy. At every turn, the peasant class in France was humiliated and rejected in their efforts to catch a break.
The oh-so-noble King ‘who was just trying to do the right thing,’ also pissed off the rich by selling and reselling political positions to the highest bidder. Rank corruption. He even went so far as to invent new seats to sell and resell again. When the peasants would, say, gain voting rights, the rich would invent a new rules (like a weighted voting system based on how much tax you paid), leaving poor people with much less political bargaining power, despite being around 98.5% of the population. Sometimes they had to own a certain amount of land to vote. So sure, poor were “allowed” to vote, but could they? Everything Donald listed above are reasons for rich people to be happy, not poor people.
Fuck your NASDAQ, it doesn’t feed the hungry.
So far, Donald is doing a terrible job of presenting the “overwhelming bulk of evidence,” to produce students who can “function more intelligently as an American citizen.” [Ex. 139]
On King Louis the XVI (16th)
One of the larger contradictions that blind Donald’s very narrow worldview is this idea that the kings of poor malcontents, ‘well that’s just God’s established monarch doing his God’s honest best to rule an “irresponsible” populace.’ Meanwhile, the kings of capitalists are dictators who stifle private enterprise. It’s the same contradictory dynamic where ‘God establishes all governments, but Satan runs all the governments, while at the same time Satan is also the “activating force” behind every revolution against said governments.’ Mind-breaking.
So, after whitewashing the economic reality of the day, Donald makes the case that king Louis the XVI (16th) was a benevolent, but misunderstood, moral monarch who was the victim of the schemes of the literal Devil. Mind you that the King is 110% directly responsible for the terrible slave trade previously discussed:
Exhibit 147
The French King Louis XVI, who is vilified by most historians, was, in truth, a dedicated reformer and sincerely wished to alleviate the oppression of his people. In his zeal for reform, however, Louis surrounded himself with advisors and cabinet ministers who were radical liberals. It was these wild-eyed pseudo-idealists, and not the much maligned monarch, who produced the climate for revolution…
How strange that a king who is determined to go down in history as a liberal reformer should instead be forever characterized as the epitome of the autocratic tyrant! The simple truth is that Louis XVI was the victim of a conspiracy ultimately perpetuated by the “father of lies.”
Collectivism 135, page 24
Donald immediately sets to work revising history. In reality, the King’s only interest was in maintaining the monarchy, and he failed spectacularly. He constantly tried to appease everyone, which made no one happy. Here’s an example, per the website for Chateau de Versailles: “At the outset of the Revolution, Louis XVI adopted a pro-reform stance. But the King was indecisive and reluctant to ratify the texts proclaiming the abolition of privileges and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, promulgated shortly after the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789.”
The King rejected the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is the French Declaration of Independence. I’m gonna pull snippets of the Rights of Man. Tell me this doesn’t sound like every libertarian’s wet-dream:
“Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society.
9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man
15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.”
That is what the noble, upright King rejected. Would it surprise you that Thomas Paine, that Thomas Paine, helped write the Declaration of the Rights of Man? It did me. It’s funny too that Donald can’t even appreciate that they included the right to own property, or that they derive these rights from a “Supreme Being.” It’s just “the work of Satan.”
Mind you too, the King was more responsible for the aforementioned slave trade than any single person. That’s Donald’s poor, misunderstood hero-king.
This is propaganda and an outright lie, in projection form:
Exhibit 186 [sic]
It has been said that the French Revolution of 1789 was the first modern revolution. That allegation is true in the sense that the modern devices of subversion, mass propaganda, popular causes, half truths and outright lies were employed…
The French Revolution (1789) was an example of the twisting of truth and the exploitation of social ills to propagandize the masses.
Collectivism 135, page 24
The French Revolution brought about the abolition of slavery in France in 1794. That “exploitation of social ills,” is slavery, and peasants unable to feed their families. This whole education is “half truths and outright lies,” and the amount of Donald’s projection that bleeds into the pages of this education is just grotesque.
At best, this is denying the agency and lived experience of the people alive at the time, who chose to involve themselves in revolution. These people were literally risking being burned to death or broken on the wheel and/or prison time for standing up for what is right. Donald’s version is such a boring reduction of history.
Accelerated Christian Education reduces everything to the machinations of Satan, or the grace of God. And sure, honestly, you can believe that and I have, I promise, ZERO issue with it. However, God and/or Satan didn’t just snap their vienna sausage fingers and poof!, a thing happened. If you believe that God is the creator of the universe, who created millions or billions of species, from bacteria to mammals, trillions of stars, fine. But you can’t then summarize history as a matter of “God says so.” You are limiting your God to the confines of your own imagination. How can you possibly think that history isn’t equally as intricate as everything else?
It’s the same way that I’ll never understand Christians who are threatened by evolution. How in the world does evolution disprove or challenge God in any conceivable way? Can your God be challenged? Are you saying that God couldn’t do something? That He works in mysterious ways, but just not like that?
Everyone who isn’t God, please sit down.
Anyway. Recall the two objectives previously mentioned. For the PACE overall, ACE is aiming to create more intelligent American citizens. Specifically in this section, we’re supposed to be receiving the “overwhelming bulk of evidence,” which apparently will counter the global historical consensus. So far, we’ve got jack shit. In fact, the bulk of evidence has been summarized by ACE as “a conspiracy ultimately perpetuated by “the father of lies.””
Somehow, I’m not convinced.
It doesn’t get better. Now, the Encyclopedia is haunted!
Exhibit 138
In 1743, fifteen years after Chamber’s work first appeared, certain individuals suggested that a French translation be made of Chambers’ ‘Cyclopedia. That suggestion was the birth of an idea that would alter the direction of history. An international coterie of religious and political iconoclasts decided to use Chambers’ ‘Cyclopedia as a foundation of an expanded French language encyclopedia of all knowledge. This group of conspirators envisioned the proposed encyclopedia as a vehicle for their insidious revolutionary propaganda with which they hoped to foment a communistic revolution…
Some historians have maintained that without the l’Encyclopédie, there would have been no French Revolution2.
Collectivism 135, page 25, 26
The real reason Donald hates the encyclopedia is because it’s accessible education for poor people. Yes, there were philosophical and political subjects in the Encyclopédie, and given who the majority of the authors were (not all), the more progressive philosophies were generally presented in a better light. Here is an example in the Washington University Library: “For example, in the entry on “Nobility,” Louis Jaucourt writes, “Democracies have no need for nobility, they are even more peaceful when there are no noble families” and “Noble birth commonly stifles industry and emulation. Nobles do not have so far to go as do others in order to reach the highest levels.” Even in the illustrations to the Encyclopédie, the affluent, when they are depicted at all, are generally pictured as pompous and lazy.”
Ohh, boo-hoo! Rich people are so brittle.
It’s notable that when poor people gain access to education, there is an immediate rise in class conflict. Typically between those who can now articulate their plight and want to put what they’ve learned into practice, and those who are threatened by an educated populace. I’m totally okay with the “communist propaganda” in the Encyclopédie, because no monarchist or fascist has ever risked getting broken on the wheel to increase the literacy rate of their local community. I think that entitles you to a certain amount of bias. Especially when, by Donald’s standards, this is “communist” intellectual property.
All that to say, there are multiple, very natural reasons that explain the effects the Encyclopédie had on the Revolution, and it’s not because of a secret cabal of socialists. Though, you wouldn’t know that as a student working through this PACE.
Over the next few pages, Donald changed gears and blamed the Revolution on Denis Diderot, Adam Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and the Jacobin Clubs. All of these played a role in the build up to the Revolution, but not even close to the capacity that Donald described. I want to cover this very specifically, especially because it will be a good time to reopen Donald’s fascist manifestos to explain where this lunacy comes from. We’ll also reestablish just how much this education is still pure Donald. So Part 3 will cover that, and hopefully we can wrap this PACE up in Part 4.
Honestly, this period of French history and revolutionary history is super cool, and Donald has to juggle so much bullshit that it’s worth our time. If anyone wants me to dial in on an aspect I’ve ignored, please let me know. I am, in a way, bound by the ways and means that Donald broaches these topics. SET ME FREE!!
In the meantime, arm yourselves with millstones, in Jesus name.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:6
TL;DR Donald’s first pass at his lead up to the French Revolution revolves around:
Whitewashing bruuutal slavery while conflating the economy with peasant living conditions. His point is that peasants had no reason to complain (despite living in near-famine conditions at times)
Presenting king Louis XVI (16th) as a benevolent monarch who tried to prevent the revolution by giving into every single demand asked for by those pesky peasants (not true, not even remotely). The King was also 110% responsible for the aforementioned brutal slavery.
And finally, blaming accessible education and expanded literacy rates for the Revolution, but not in an honest way.
If you were a student who believed you were receiving a superior Christian education, you’d come away from this section truly believing that the French Revolution was Satan’s attempt to alter history, without any real analysis of the situation. Instead, the French Revolution was the culmination of centuries of history, new ideas, bold figures, and the technology to spread and share those new ideas. Accelerated Christian Education makes history boring and dumb by revising what history they do address, and ignoring all the rest.
Update 8/28/2024:
I found this in Una Pope-Hennessy’s book Secret Societies, pages 8, 9:
“[The cause of the Revolution], on the other hand, have been too easily attributed to the publication of the "Encyclopaedia," and of certain other volumes by Beccaria, Rousseau, or Voltaire…
..and it can hardly be argued that these irregularly distributed volumes were directly responsible for the Revolution, though they too formed one of the contributory agencies of that cataclysm.”