Collectivism 137, Part 7: Shut Up and Thank White People

Written 1981, Revised 1998

Hello there, and welcome back to Safe White Space!

This is Part 7 of my review for Collectivism 137, a PACE in the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (ACE). All of these PACEs were written by one single 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:

Today we are finally concluding our longest series yet! It’s taken 7 Parts, but we have arrived! In Parts 1-4 of this series, we thoroughly deconstructed the first half of this PACE, which properly analyzes entirely revises Russian history, from about 1895 through to the Russian revolution (1917-1923). The second half covers Chinese history, from the 1890s through the 1970s. In Part 5, we ran through a brief history of China. We began in the 1820s to show that the PACE was intentionally skipping 70 years of history in-order to avoid talking about the evils of U.S. and Western Imperialism. In Part 6, we deconstructed the PACE’s whitewashed version of the pedophile dictator, Chiang Kai-shek.

Over here, in the land of reality, Chiang Kai-shek was a cruel dictator who leaned heavily on his own personal Gestapo, had his citizens tortured in a myriad of ways, murdered millions through terrible decision making (often intentionally so), personally waged a civil war in China for decades, was a friend and trade partner with the Nazis, and he fucked children. The PACE reported strictly on Chiang’s Christian conversion, and his military successes (without examining the costs), all while ignoring his sins and failures.

In this post, we are going to compare the PACE’s presentation of Chiang Kai-shek with that of Mao Zedong, deconstruct the PACE’s conclusion to the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Civil War, and document some last minute empirical errors. In the process, we’ll draw another direct line between Donald Howard’s manifestos and the content in the PACEs.

One last time, here’s a reminder of this PACE’s goal for the student:

Exhibit 207

Objective

Upon the proper completion of this PACE, you will be able to reproduce the salient facts in the development of the Communist revolutionary movements in both China and Russia. You will demonstrate the degree of your comprehension of the material by correctly supplying the answers in a series of Checkups and tests.

Collectivism 137, page 1

So far this has proven false 100 times over, and today’s post will be no different.

Let’s kick off by examining the difference between a “good guy” presentation and a “bad guy” presentation in the ACE curriculum:

Exhibit 250

Sun Yat-sen’s future chief aide and ultimate successor was born at Ch’i-k’ou, Chekiang province, on October 30 October 31, 1887, some 21 years after his mentor. The eldest son of a moderately well-off merchant class Han family, Chiang Kai-shek was the recipient of a traditional Confucian education. For several years, he was taught the Chinese Classics, by private tutor, in the Chiang home… the Chiang family decided to channel Kai-shek’s youthful energy into a military career. At that time, only one Chinese military school was open to him and out of fourteen available places, there were over 1,000 applicants! Eagerly accepting the almost impossible challenge, Chiang Kai-shek passed the entrance exam with the highest grade and was awarded one of the fourteen coveted cadet positions.

Collectivism 137, page 66, 67

That’s what it looks like when the author, Donald Howard, is a fan of the person he is introducing.

But most of you will recognize that this isn’t the same type of presentation the Communists receive. None of the previous 30ish “Communists” or “Socialists” had any of their achievements listed, unless the achievement was produced by the direct and literal power of Satan.

It’s no different for Mao:

Exhibit 251

Chairman Mao. Prerevolutionary China was a land smothered in the darkness of pagan superstition and demonic occultism. The most minute of circumstances surrounding every event in life were considered to be indicators of the future. It is said, for instance, that Mao Tse-tung was born in the year of the black snake and at the hour of the green dragon….

Mao Tse-tung was born in the village of Shao Shau, Hunan Province, on December 26, 1893…

… twelve days after the “Double Tenth” revolt [*1911*], Mao joined Sun Yat-sens’ revolutionary army, but he spent only six months as a republican soldier. During that half year in the service, Mao never saw combat but merely did odd jobs around the camp. Throughout 1912, Mao drifted from one activity to another. He momentarily attended several different types of schools and abortively began the study of a number of subjects. However, he accomplished little or nothing during that period, because he spent the major portion of his time reading revolutionary dissertations… Searching for answers (in all the wrong places), Mao expressed his thoughts, in 1917, in poetic form:

I opened the window of a solitary tower

And asked: Who, on this enormous planet,

Decides the destiny of human beings?

It is unfortunate for China, the world, and Mao himself that someone was not able to supply him with the correct answer to this question!

Collectivism 137, page 70

This whole section of the PACE is just a list of events in Mao’s life, with that derogatory editorializing. Being totally honest with you, because of this, I looked very little into Mao. I’m sure Mao did some fucked up stuff, but the PACE only presents one specific reason, and that reason is entirely disqualified upon any examination (we’ll get there in a second). Also, I’m not here to fanboy for Mao, like Donald is for Chiang. I’m just demonstrating why the PACE is entirely wrong; I’m not here to vindicate Mao.

As he did with Karl Marx [Ex. 171] in Collectivism 136, instead of deconstructing Mao’s philosophical or political beliefs, Donald is going to take the “family man” approach, and lie about Mao’s parental instincts. Prepare for a fake-out:

*the {#}’s are mine

Exhibit 252

Mao Tse-tung, the man, was indeed courageous, a brilliant scholar, an avid reader, a dynamic speaker and writer, and totally dedicated to his beliefs. He was also, however, coarse, vulgar, simplistic, shrewd, ruthless, untidy in personal habits and appearance, and could be aroused to near uncontrollable rage{1}… Mao was also the “family man” who abandoned his three children on the Long March{2} and divorced his second wife to marry his third—a movie actress!{3} Mao Tse-tung, lost and Hell-bound Communist and mortal god, died on September 9, 1976, at the age of eighty-three eighty-two. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement.” (Hebrews 9:27)

Collectivism 137, page 72

1. Chiang Kai-shek was known for his temper, famous for turning a casual disagreement into a murder (to include folks he knew very personally, and ostensibly cared about). His gestapo disappeared hundreds of thousands of dissenters. Why was that not relevant to the PACE?

2. Mao “abandoned” two children on the Long March, not three. He had a rule in his army that no babies were allowed in the war zone, because it gave away where the soldiers’ positions were. Pretty fucking reasonable if you ask me. One of Mao’s children was left with the child’s aunt and uncle before the Long March started, in-order to keep the baby safe and away from Chiang’s attack and assassins. And to follow his own rules.¹ So that doesn’t count. Another child was born in the middle of the Long March, when Mao led his army to safety for ~360 days and over ~6,000 miles. As Mao’s army was running for its life, He Zizhen, his wife, gave birth. They immediately found a woman to take care of the baby, and got them both out of harm’s way, and kept running for their lives. Talking about her baby born on the Long March, “He Zizhen was still tormented by her decision: "I did not even get a good look at my baby. I wasn't even clear where exactly she was born.""[1] A third child was “abandoned” prior to the Long March, but that was also an instance where Mao and He Zizhen were running for their lives from Chiang’s U.S. backed, genocidal war machine. That time, there was no one around to care for the child. So, they wrapped the baby up warm, and left him in a house they hoped someone would find. The odds of the child surviving there were higher than if he were brought on the Long March. They left their children behind in order to keep them alive, giving them a chance at a future, and the PACE is exploiting that. Donald neither gives a shit about these babies, nor about the pain felt by parents who lost their children. As in his manifestos, so in the PACEs. What’s crazy too, one of Donald Howard’s children died at the age of two. You’d think he could muster up some empathy for something that (should) hit so close to home, but I truly believe this man was at least a cold sociopath.

3. Mao “the family man” actually had four wives, not three, and seven children, not three. Chiang also had 4 wives, but that was never mentioned to the student. If you were an ACE student, all you’d know about Chiang’s love life concerns his Christian wife, Soong Mei-ling. His polygamy and pedophilia were never mentioned. Why is it worth mentioning that Mao married a “movie actress,” yet Chiang’s marriage to a literal child is not? What’s even more ridiculous, there is significant evidence that Mao was also a pedophile. How are these things not important?

There is a question for the student on the next page that is just… well, check it out:

Exhibit 253

[Answer: Hell]

Collectivism 137, page 73

That is such an insane thing to ask or state that I had to zoom in and take a picture for you. Especially since this “family man” business is the ONLY specific sin Mao is accused of. It’s the only one, and it is disgustingly false with any sort of context.

Why not at least mention the millions that died under Mao’s rule? Even without context or proof, the students would believe it. If Donald had, I would love to talk about it, and get into the context of those deaths. This PACE doesn’t even mention the Great Leap Forward, which is a go-to point of criticism for Mao’s detractors, so neither will I.²

Donald’s interest in disparaging Mao was less acute than his need to whitewash his hero, Chiang, which brings us to the PACE’s conclusion. This is where all the Pace’s appalling hot-takes on history will come together and form a truly spectacular, though delusional fantasy. After studying for this review series, I should have seen this conclusion coming from a mile away.

We’ll take this paragraph by paragraph:

Exhibit 254

The history of the communist takeover of the two largest [*largest, and 3rd or 4th largest, depending on how you measure the size of China and the U.S.*] nations in the world exhibits some striking parallels and at least one significant difference. There is a remarkably similar progression of events. The government of both Russia and China underwent a series of changes from absolute autocratic dynasty to modified semi-constitutional autocracy to moderate socialistic pseudo-republicanism to Communist dictatorship. In the case of China, however, there is an additional period. For twenty years, the true Chinese Republic existed. Why does the Chinese pattern so greatly differ from the Russian one? The answer is three-fold:

Collectivism 137, page 81

Oh boy. This period of history spans from the 1820s to the ~1970s. After 81 pages of faux analysis (about 40 pages of text), the PACE determines that the only notable difference between their two timelines comes down to 20 years of the “true Chinese Republic,” and a measly three reasons for it. It shouldn’t surprise you that all three of these reasons are going to boil down to “white Christians saved China.”

Every time you read “Christian influence,” or “missionaries,” remember that is just a code word for imperialism, colonialism, and genocidal behavior:

Exhibit 255

(1) China experienced a Christian influence which was the result of missionary activity. That stimulus was totally lacking in Russia. Protestant missionaries increased from less than 200 to nearly 1,300 between 1864 and 1889 — the period just before the rise of the Chinese revolutionary movement… It was indeed the foreign Christian missionaries and their native Chinese converts who were the primary targets of the 1900 Boxer Rebellion. In the Christian climate thus produced, true republicanism was able to flourish for a time until it was subverted by Satanic and conspiratorial forces. Such a spiritual environment was missing in Russia.

Collectivism 137, page 81, 82

Literally, the Czar’s Russia was Orthodox Christian. The state religion was Christianity… “that stimulus” which “was totally lacking” in Russia was not Christian, but rather Imperialism disguised as Christianity. Hilariously, as discussed in Part 6, we discussed how Russia was one of those countries imposing its will on China, in the form of military and economic warfare. They even gobbled up northern Chinese territories for a while, and fought a war with Japan over Manchuria. This would be a more appropriate first answer to the question “Why does the Chinese pattern so greatly differ from the Russian one?”

Here’s that direct line:

Donald made this very same claim wayyy back in Commies Make the Grass Grow, Exhibit 28. He explained in his manifesto, World Awakening, that the country of Indonesia (population 100 million at the time) was spared a “Communist coup” because white people converted 1,000 Indonesians to Christ, just four days before the attempt. Then I explained that what actually caused Indonesia being “spared” was a fascist counter-coup which murdered between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 innocent people. Donald described Indonesia’s political climate during the fascist liquidation of “communists” and ethnic Chinese as the work of God.

In this case, 500,000,000 Chinese (five hundred million) were saved by 1300 white Christians who converted some native Chinese to Christianity, and staved off Communism for 20 years…

That’s some vile shit.

When you ignore (and/or lie about) all of Chinese history in the 1800s, you can say whatever you want about the 1900s:

Exhibit 256

(2) China was the possessor of positive Christian leadership in the persons of Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, and the highly prestigious Soong family, into which both men married. Of course, the fact that those prominent Chinese individuals were Christians was the fruit of the aforementioned missionary activity. Again, an analogous Christian emphasis was nearly lacking in Russia. The Czar and his family may have been Christians, but even if so, they were very weak, ill-taught, superstitious, and horribly misled by Satanic persuasions… any spiritual effect the above might have exerted was more than overbalanced by the evil demonic magnetism of Grigori Rasputin.

Collectivism 137, page 82

“evil demonic magnetism” sounds so horny…

It’s insane that Donald can disparage someone else’s Christianity as “very weak, ill-taught, superstitious,” while talking about “Satanic persuasions” and “evil demonic magnetism.” Have some self-awareness. Sheesh.

So. Reasons # 1 and 2 both boil down to ‘white Christians did a thing, and China reaped the benefits.’ How much do you want to bet that reason three is the exact same, but even more reductive?

Exhibit 257

(3) China was blessed by the presence of a man who was truly a republican in his political ideology. That man was Chiang Kai-shek. No such individual rose in Russia. Again, the fact that Chiang was a Christian may have shaped his political thinking as well.

Collectivism 137, page 82

WHAAAAT?! You mean, after all this time, you don’t know if his Christianity even “shaped his political thinking”? This is the second to last paragraph of text in this entire PACE (third, if you count a fucking Ronald Reagan quote…³). What does it make this PACE if Chiang’s Christianity didn’t shape his political thinking? It didn’t, as we discussed, but why the fuck would you out yourself like this?? Right at the finish line, Donald can’t help but admit that he has no idea what the fuck he’s even been writing about. It happens every single time. It was this way when he wrote about AIDS being God’s judgement on homosexuals and drug users:

2c. The Wages of Sin Isn't Not Death

Here’s the PACE’s final word:

Exhibit 258

The result of nearly a century and a half of Gospel exposition in China produced a two-decade-long respite from the cancerous growth called Communism, which eventually conquered both nations. During that 150 years, thousands of souls were saved and history was altered.

Collectivism 137, page 82

As frustrating and disappointing as this conclusion is, there isn’t much else I care to say about it. This PACE claimed on page 1 that, by the end, students would be able “to reproduce the salient facts in the development of the Communist revolutionary movements in both China and Russia.” Pretending like Parts 1-6 don’t prove the PACE’s Objective to be entirely false, this conclusion knee-caps everything.

The PACE reaffirms it’s conclusion four times, once in the follow-up question section on Page 82, then the Check-up, the Self-Test, and the Test:

Exhibit 259

What were the three basic factors in China’s twenty-year respite from Communist takeover?

(a) _____________________________________

(b) _____________________________________

(c) _____________________________________

[Answer: Something like “White Christians” x3]

Collectivism 137, page 82, 85 (Check-up), 88 (Self-Test), and the Test

Two other questions that follow the conclusion on page 82 are also disappointing:

Exhibit 260

(32) Any positive spiritual influence during the last days of Czarist Russia was negated by _____________.

[Answer: Grigori Rasputin]

(33) God promises that His ________ will not return void.

[:Word]

Collectivism 137, page 82

“Salient” my ass.

To round us out, below is a quick run through of some empirical errors, and false or misleading questions that weren’t relevant to the rest of our conversation:

Exhibit 261

Early in 1894, however, Kim-Ok-Kim Kim Ok-Kyun— a fanatical reformer and the leader of Korea’s 1884 uprising…

Collectivism 137, page 52 [2, 3, 4]

Other alternate spellings include Kim Ok-Okgyun, or Ok-Gyun.

Kim-Ok-Kim was a North Korean government official born almost 70 years after Ok-Kyun’s death. Not acceptable.

---

Exhibit 262

In December 1884, another confrontation between the Japanese and Korean citizens occurred. The result of that second imbroglio was the signing, on April 8 April 18, 1885, of the Treaty of Tientsin Convention of Tientsin in which….

Collectivism 137, page 52

The Treaty of Tientsin is a reference to the series of unequal treaties imposed on China, which we discussed in Part 6. If you google “Treaty of Tientsin,” you’ll have to dig deep to find the “agreement” Donald is referencing. When someone refers to these treaties, they’re either talking generally about all of them, or will clarify which one they are talking about. In this case, calling it specifically the “Convention of Tientsin” is accurate, while “Treaty of Tientsin” is not.

---

Exhibit 263

A national assembly of revolutionaries met in Nanking and, on December 28, 1911, proclaimed the establishment of a Chinese Republic!

Collectivism 137, page 59 [5]

On December 29th, the assembly unanimously elected Sun Yat-sen, and on his January 1st inauguration, “proclaimed the establishment of a Chinese Republic.”

---

Exhibit 264

On January 1 January 6th-10th, 1949, the last major engagement of the Chinese Civil War was fought. “The Battle of the Hwai River” resulted in a decisive victory for the so-called People’s Liberation Army.

Collectivism 137, page 80

While the PACE makes it seem like this battle was fought and done with in a day, it was actually fought from November 6th, 1911 - January 10th, 1912. [7, 8]

---

Exhibit 265

General Oyama landed yet another Japanese army and proceeded, on November 22 November 21, 1894, to capture Port Arthur.

Collectivism 137, page 53 [6, 7]

---

After a month long siege, on February 9 February 17/18, 1895, Wei-hai-wei surrendered to a Japanese column…

Collectivism 137, page 53 [8, 9]

---

Yuan Shih-k’ai, on June 6, 1914 1916, died.

Collectivism 137, page 61 [8]

Lastly, my goofy ass had forgotten to check the Self-Test for questions. Some of these may seem like duplicate questions from Part 1, but they are actually unique appearances. All of these questions are either beneath a 12th grade level, contextually misleading, or empirically false:

Exhibit 266

(1) The Feudal Age was _______ than the emerging Industrial Age. (better, worse)

[Answer: better — very contextually misleading]

(2) Feudalism is essentially a form of __________.

[: socialism — erroneous]

(3) The conspiracy of Satan is an attempt to thwart the plan of _________.

[: God — beneath the student]

(5) List the five nations which cooperated in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion: (a) _______, (b) _______, (c) _______, (d) __________, (e)________

[erroneous question, there were 8 nations]

(22) In Russia’s only free election, 75% of the people ________ the Bolshevik Party. (supported, rejected)

[: rejected — a combination of erroneous and misleading]

(24) The Bolshevik Revolution overthrew the Czarist regime. (True or false?) _________

[: False — the real answer is true]

Collectivism 137, page 85, 86, 87

That’s all I have for Collectivism 137. All we have left in this PACE course is Collectivism 138, which is all about platforming fascists and race science.

It’s gonna be a doozy.

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

1. Having been in the military, there is actually something super cool about a commander following his own rules. He could have very easily risked the lives of his soldiers to keep his baby, but he made the hard choice and didn’t.

2. For more context on Mao and the Great Leap Forward, I found this essay to be very informative.

3. Exhibit 267

“The communist master plan, as we know it from published reports, from intelligence sources, and from our own painful experience, is to isolate free nations one by one, stimulating and supplying revolutions without endangering their own troops.” Governor Ronald Reagan

Collectivism 137, page 83

What a fucking projection from our lord and savior Ronny Ray.