Today, we’ll contrast Donald Howard’s presentation of both the biographies and philosophies of three “antecedents to Fascism,” with those of their Communist counterparts. What we’ll find is that, by presenting fascist ideas and racial theory in an ’objective’ manner, Donald was able to give credibility to these ideas, without calling attention to the fact that he was. This is really effective propaganda, especially on the target audience of 17 to 18 year old students. After spending five PACEs calling all leftists Satanic morons, it’s clear that Donald wrote this PACE to extensively platform fascist ideas and racial theory. Aaaaand the PACE employs slurs...
Imagine using the Bible to justify your race science and missing the part where it says:
9. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10. but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 9-11)
It's almost as if it's easy to bend the book to make it say whatever you want it to...
i can't confirm it, but i can see this being one of the PACEs that convinced my school to drop it - considering it was being used in a 99% Black school in Detroit!
Wow, that'd do it! In the early 90's there was a big stir when a black student showed a journalist the PACE's defense of South African apartheid. It was along the lines of 'the black population wasn't ready for the "responsibility" of being free, so it's the white man's burden to care for them.' Heinous shit.
In practice, this means that whites can never accept the idea of free blacks. If you look at the history of America, you will see that in the antebellum era economic development coincided with less and less tolerance and lower and lower status for free blacks both in the slave and free states.
The same was, as the late James Löwen noted in his 2005 book ‘Sundown Towns’ true of the era between the end of Reconstruction and the Great Depression. Whites re-excluded blacks from almost all of the rural North, West and nonplantation South, whilst in the plantation South blacks were completely excluded from voting until Smith v. Allwright in 1944, and in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana outside Acadiana and most other rural areas until the late 1960s.
Since the globalisation of capital beginning in 1973, imprisonment of US blacks has reached unprecedented levels. All this history, in fact, points to blacks in the US being amongst the biggest, if not the outright biggest, losers from globalisation in the entire world, and the civil rights movement that we know being a by-product of the deglobalisation following World War I. Ron Rogowski in his 1989 ‘Commerce and Coalitions’ powerfully hinted at this, but was far too timid discussing the roots of race’s centrality to US politics although such discussion is extremely easy to fit into his thesis.
It's funny. More than a decade later and reading Donald's words still makes my eyes glaze over and my attention span vanish. Maybe that's the point, you're so bored all the fascist brainwashing just gets filed away without a second though...
Keep up the great work! Every day I grow a little more furious; this company needs to go down.
I feel like that has to be an element of it. If it didn't make me so mad, the bordem would make this impossible haha. Thank you for the encouragement :)
i wanted to just laugh at how stupid donald sounds trying to dunk on darwin’s hairline in this post, but exhibit 291 had my jaw on the floor. platforming this ideology and serving it up to high school kids as if it has any level of validity makes me want to throw up.
Re “ Machiavelli doesn’t belong in one of histories good or bad categories”, many on the right see him as a distant forerunner of modern Marxism and Leninism. In fact, many Marxists acknowledge his influence, and Benjamin Wiker listed ‘The Prince’ in his ‘Ten Books That Screwed Up the World — and Five Others That Didn’t Help’.
Well, I'm two chapters in and I wish I could get my money back. The first major red flag was when he made that cartoonishly stupid comment about the Communist Manifesto in the introduction. It's disappointing too, because after reading the chapter on The Prince, I would agree that Machiavelli was much less moral than I was at first willing to commit to, but the author's conclusion is one of the dumbest hot-takes I've ever had to suffer - particularly because it's the same old fantastical narrative that says Christians are actually beholden to a moral code, and that atheists somehow aren't. Biker then used 5 to 7 examples of moral-bound rules Christians follow, none of which are in the Bible. To finish making his case, Biker even had to craft the staple Christian allegory where the atheist is some exceedingly confident, yet fantastically incorrect "snark" who tries to out-wit the Christian with an absurd what-if scenario -> which is literally what Biker is doing by telling this what-if scenario. The chapter concluded by saying that the rest of the book was going to be viewed through this lens of 'atheism = bad,' which should be beneath someone with a Ph.D.
I should clarify there that I mean morally good or bad. It's my understanding from the various sources I read that no one really thinks (anymore) he was advocating for the kind of government/authority he was describing. His ideas have definitely influenced a wide spectrum of people, but not in a way that warrants a moral judgement.
I did just buy that book. Looking forward to knowing more.
Imagine using the Bible to justify your race science and missing the part where it says:
9. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10. but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 9-11)
It's almost as if it's easy to bend the book to make it say whatever you want it to...
It's insanity! Lazy insanity.
i can't confirm it, but i can see this being one of the PACEs that convinced my school to drop it - considering it was being used in a 99% Black school in Detroit!
Wow, that'd do it! In the early 90's there was a big stir when a black student showed a journalist the PACE's defense of South African apartheid. It was along the lines of 'the black population wasn't ready for the "responsibility" of being free, so it's the white man's burden to care for them.' Heinous shit.
In practice, this means that whites can never accept the idea of free blacks. If you look at the history of America, you will see that in the antebellum era economic development coincided with less and less tolerance and lower and lower status for free blacks both in the slave and free states.
The same was, as the late James Löwen noted in his 2005 book ‘Sundown Towns’ true of the era between the end of Reconstruction and the Great Depression. Whites re-excluded blacks from almost all of the rural North, West and nonplantation South, whilst in the plantation South blacks were completely excluded from voting until Smith v. Allwright in 1944, and in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana outside Acadiana and most other rural areas until the late 1960s.
Since the globalisation of capital beginning in 1973, imprisonment of US blacks has reached unprecedented levels. All this history, in fact, points to blacks in the US being amongst the biggest, if not the outright biggest, losers from globalisation in the entire world, and the civil rights movement that we know being a by-product of the deglobalisation following World War I. Ron Rogowski in his 1989 ‘Commerce and Coalitions’ powerfully hinted at this, but was far too timid discussing the roots of race’s centrality to US politics although such discussion is extremely easy to fit into his thesis.
It's funny. More than a decade later and reading Donald's words still makes my eyes glaze over and my attention span vanish. Maybe that's the point, you're so bored all the fascist brainwashing just gets filed away without a second though...
Keep up the great work! Every day I grow a little more furious; this company needs to go down.
I feel like that has to be an element of it. If it didn't make me so mad, the bordem would make this impossible haha. Thank you for the encouragement :)
i wanted to just laugh at how stupid donald sounds trying to dunk on darwin’s hairline in this post, but exhibit 291 had my jaw on the floor. platforming this ideology and serving it up to high school kids as if it has any level of validity makes me want to throw up.
A-fucking-men to that. It constantly shocks me that this curriculum can still shock me.
Re “ Machiavelli doesn’t belong in one of histories good or bad categories”, many on the right see him as a distant forerunner of modern Marxism and Leninism. In fact, many Marxists acknowledge his influence, and Benjamin Wiker listed ‘The Prince’ in his ‘Ten Books That Screwed Up the World — and Five Others That Didn’t Help’.
Well, I'm two chapters in and I wish I could get my money back. The first major red flag was when he made that cartoonishly stupid comment about the Communist Manifesto in the introduction. It's disappointing too, because after reading the chapter on The Prince, I would agree that Machiavelli was much less moral than I was at first willing to commit to, but the author's conclusion is one of the dumbest hot-takes I've ever had to suffer - particularly because it's the same old fantastical narrative that says Christians are actually beholden to a moral code, and that atheists somehow aren't. Biker then used 5 to 7 examples of moral-bound rules Christians follow, none of which are in the Bible. To finish making his case, Biker even had to craft the staple Christian allegory where the atheist is some exceedingly confident, yet fantastically incorrect "snark" who tries to out-wit the Christian with an absurd what-if scenario -> which is literally what Biker is doing by telling this what-if scenario. The chapter concluded by saying that the rest of the book was going to be viewed through this lens of 'atheism = bad,' which should be beneath someone with a Ph.D.
I should clarify there that I mean morally good or bad. It's my understanding from the various sources I read that no one really thinks (anymore) he was advocating for the kind of government/authority he was describing. His ideas have definitely influenced a wide spectrum of people, but not in a way that warrants a moral judgement.
I did just buy that book. Looking forward to knowing more.