Eight Pages of Comical Pigshit in a 4th Edition English PACE

Hello there, and welcome back to Safe White Space!

In the last post, we covered a large sampling of comic strips that appear in the PACEs, and recognized some of the patterns of conditioning that permeate this curriculum. Today’s post is going to be similar, but much more on the nose, even by Accelerated Christian Education standards. What follows is a seven (7!) page conversation between the comic book characters in a 4th edition English PACE (the ones currently in use), precipitated by a series of fill-in-the-blank questions, and true-or-false statements. As discussed before, these comics are how Donald Howard injected far-right talking points into school subjects that couldn’t otherwise be corrupted this way. The conversation that plays out has direct excerpts from Donald’s manifestos that make it explicitly clear that the PACEs are far-right propaganda.

Recognizing who is playing what role in this conversation will help contextualize the scene. The characters include Mr. Lovejoy, playing the role of Donald Howard, Reginald Upright is playing the ‘everyman’ ACE student who is taking this English PACE, and Christi Lovejoy is, for the most part, playing a doting cheerleader.

This PACE conversation was sent to me by Reddit user ArtisticK67, so shout out to them! Some of these are hard to read, and some people prefer to listen to the posts, so I’ve written out the transcript for each page just beneath it:

Exhibit 334

Reginald: Mr. Lovejoy, do you have anything that would explain the difference between humanistic and theistic government?

Mr. Lovejoy: Well, Reginald, the best source I know is God’s word.

Reginald: I’m planning to write an essay for student convention on the political left and right. I’ve heard newscasters use those terms, but I need a better understanding from God’s perspective.

Christi: Dad, the Scripture and that chart you have been sharing with us in family devotions might help Reginald. It helped me understand that any government is a reflection of its people.

Mr. Lovejoy: That’s a great suggestion. I have a copy of that chart here in my Bible. Let’s sit down and I’ll share a few Scriptural principles. Everything on the chart is based on God’s Word. I’m glad to see you are interested, and I believe you have chosen a great topic.

Reginald: That would be great!

Cool, the scene is set.

On the following page, Mr. Lovejoy shows the kids that chart he mentioned, and it’s the exact same as a chart in Donald’s manifesto, World Awakening. Here’s the manifesto, first:

Exhibit 335

World Awakening, page 81

---

Here’s the PACE:

Exhibit 336

Mr. Lovejoy: This chart on the principle of the left and the right will be very helpful.

Reginald: Why does the chart have “humanism” on the left and “theism” on the right?

Mr. Lovejoy: In every culture there is a left and a right. Language varies, but the principle is always the same.

Christi: Dad, explain about the eyes, ears, and hands.

Reginald: Eyes? Ears? Hands? What do they have to do with the political spectrum?

Mr. Lovejoy: Man is symmetrically designed - with a right eye and a left eye, a right ear and a left ear, a right foot and a left foot, a right hand and a left hand. Within every culture philosophical meanings and positions are expressed as being on the right or the left.

Holy shit - no. The left/right dynamic wasn’t even conceptualized until the French Revolution of 1789. This is actually really well documented. Per History.com: Today the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are used as symbolic labels for liberals and conservatives, but they were originally coined in reference to the physical seating arrangements of politicians during the French Revolution. [See also: 1, 2] Those seated on the left were for a more democratic and revolutionary France, and those on the right wanted to conserve power in the hands of the aristocracy and the rich.

Already, the foundation of this conversation is corrupted, but let’s see where this goes:

Exhibit 337

Reginald: Does that principle apply to politics as well?

Mr. Lovejoy: In economics, politics, theology, and so forth, people take their personal position somewhere on the spectrum between the two extremes of the left and the right. They think, make decisions, and act based upon their position.

Reginald: How do people locate their position on this chart?

Mr. Lovejoy: Each man’s philosophy is rooted in his relationship with God. Therefore, where he lands on the spectrum depends on his relation to Biblical absolutes.

Reginald: What do you mean by Biblical absolutes?

Mr. Lovejoy: God’s Word is a record of right and wrong. The Biblical statutes (laws and principles which are right) are called absolutes.

Reginald: Oh I see. That’s why God’s absolute principles are over on the right end of the chart.

Christi: And the principles moving from right to left are increasingly humanistic. But why is humanism on the left and absolutes on the right?

Mr. Lovejoy: In every language there is a “right.” The word “right” comes from the same root as the words “righteous” and “righteousness.” We say “you’re right!” meaning “You’re correct.” We never say “You’re left.”

Reginald: Is that true all over the world and throughout history?

Mr. Lovejoy: Yes, the word “left” in English, the Romance languages Greek, Hebrew, and hundreds of other languages conveys the idea of “sinister,” or “reckless.” In Spanish, sinistro (left) means “to degenerate” or “to grow wild.” The French word “gaucher” (left) means “to twist something,” or “to corrupt.” In Spanish, “diestra” (right) has a moral connotation of “reasonable justice” or “made correct.” The principle is consistent worldwide.

We’ve already seen that this premise of Left/Right is entirely false, so let’s address the bigger picture. What Donald is perpetuating is a superstitious myth that permeated many societies throughout history, but certainly not all. Essentially, left-handed folks were seen by a variety of different countries, cultures, and religions as cursed, weird, or evil. I found these articles by Time, NPR, and Snopes to be the most helpful in understanding this phenomenon. It’s not clear to me whether the superstition precipitated a change in language towards associating “left” with “sinister,” or if this was an unlucky coincidence that instead fueled the superstition. It’s most likely a combination of both, depending on the culture and language in question. But to claim this is “true all over the world and throughout history” is patently absurd, as many languages were not affected by this superstition.

This page exemplifies (yet again) how absurdly superstitious ACE’s author was, and how easily he fell for any obscure story that was put in front of him. Provided, of course, that it confirmed whatever bias was important to him that day. Donald was a sucker for esoteric knowledge, and that gullibility directly impacted the ACE curriculum.

Now, instead of word games, we play Bible games:

Exhibit 338

Christi: Are you saying that humanism —over on the left— is life based on man’s ways rather than on God’s ways?

Mr. Lovejoy: Yes, you are right. Scripture always identifies God’s right hand, but not His left. Isaiah 41:10 states, “Fear thou not for I am with thee. . . I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” And did you know? Ecclesiastes 10:2 states, “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand: but a fool’s heart at his left.” The Jewish rabbis taught the scribes to write with their right hands.

Reginald: That’s why a politician or economist who rejects God’s absolutes finds himself somewhere on the left.

Mr. Lovejoy: Good insight, Reginald! The substance of truth, ideals, perfection, and absolutes is on the right. Evil does not have substance: it is a departure from, and absence of the substance of good. The left is the farthest extreme from that basic substance.

Christi: Wouldn’t left also mean a lack of wisdom? A person who doesn’t walk with God would not be able to express wisdom. Wouldn’t that mark him as a humanist—someone who sets up his own values?

Mr. Lovejoy: You’re catching the idea. Righteousness is an absolute substance expressing God’s character measuring the mark of deity. God is good! God is love! Sin is to “miss the mark” of God’s goodness! “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” are principles that express absolutes. Men on the left are not necessarily identified as evil, but their political position and basic philosophy of life are not dominated or inspired by absolute truth. Men on the left cannot walk in wisdom.

Alright, but what about women on the Left?

Seriously though, this is fucking stupid. If the Bible established the Left/Right paradigm, why didn’t it appear in history until 1789, in what the PACEs consider to be a Godless Commie country?

Here‘s Donald in World Awakening using the exact same language as Mr. Lovejoy is in the above page:

Exhibit 3

The substance of Truth, Ideals, Perfection, and Absolutes is on the RIGHT. The Left is the furthest extreme from that basic element. Evil in Scripture does not have a substance; it is a departure from that substance or an absence of that good. Righteousness is an absolute expressing God's character, measuring the mark of deity. Sin is to "miss the mark." "Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute. Hegel said, "There are no absolutes." He was over on the Left.

World Awakening, page 80

Sure, pal.

It should come as no surprise when ACE teaches its students that Hitler was a leftist, but the list of people who are considered to be men of Biblical character is hilarious:

Exhibit 339

Reginald: The difference, then, between a humanistic and theistic government is man’s relationship with God. The closer government is to God’s absolutes, the more righteous it is. The farther it is to the left, the less righteous it will be.

Mr. Lovejoy: That’s true. As anyone deviates from God’s laws, he practices life according to what is right in his own opinion. He becomes a law unto himself. He lives by a philosophy of humanism—deciding what is right for the present situation. Life is relative for him, doing things the way he wishes rather than the way God’s Word commands.

Christi: Is that why the chart has the word “relative” way over on the left?

Mr. Lovejoy: Yes. When men reject God’s absolutes, government either becomes one of consensus in which officials do whatever the majority agrees is acceptable for the present, or government is ruled by a dictator who sets himself up as the final authority. Both systems are to the left of the spectrum of absolutes.

Reginald: That places Hitler, Caesar, Stalin, and other dictators on the left as humanists.

Mr. Lovejoy: Correct again, Reginald!

Christi: Then men like Daniel, Joseph, and David who walked with God were closer to the right. What about George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, Abraham Lincoln, or Ronald Reagan? Wouldn’t they be on the right?¹

Reginald: Probably, but why do you think so?

Christi: Because those men were Believers, they accepted the Bible as absolute authority. They recognized God as the supreme authority. They believed men should be ruled by God’s Word.

Mr. Lovejoy: That’s good insight, Christi. People will be ruled by either the Lord from within — by walking with God in wisdom —or by powerful government from without.

Ah, yes. Adolf Hitler. Remembered by everyone for his tolerance, and his relativistic approach to governing. He really cared about the poor, that Hitler. Caesar too! He was world renown for his socialist policies, of course. Ignore his slave-based economy, and the strictly enforced social hierarchies, both of which are antithetical to leftist philosophy. The man was a Marxist!

It will never fail to appall me when Donald writes something like ““Thou shalt not kill” is an absolute,” only to then praise three warlords who are famous for the various wars they fought, and/or genocides they committed (George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, Abraham Lincoln²). And then there’s Ronny Rae. Do we even need to get specific on his sins?

On this next page, Donald slips in a dogwhistle, and the rest of this is an absolute mind-fuck:

Exhibit 340

Reginald: I see something else here too, the closer a “nation” walks with God, the fewer government regulations are needed to rule the people. That’s why the word “conservative,” in the United States and in much of the free world is over on the right. It must mean that rule by God’s absolutes minimizes the need for government regulations.³

Christi: Oh, I see. A political leader who is conservative stands more to the right— toward theistic principles — than others and does not believe a powerful government to control people is necessary.

Reginald: Politicians who reject God’s absolutes and believe in extensive government regulations are called liberals. They are way over on the left and are very humanistic.

Mr. Lovejoy: Here’s the point. People will either be ruled by Biblical absolutes from their hearts, requiring less government, or be ruled by humanistic laws enforced by powerful government authority. The degree to which people allow God to rule over them determines how far to the right they are on the spectrum.

Reginald: I think I understand now. You’re saying that liberals tend to be relativists (humanists), who encourage control by the government authority, while conservatives tend to be absolutists, who encourage control by moral restraint based on obedience to Biblical absolutes.

After covering the race science in Collectivism 138, and documenting the dogwhistles in his manifestos, ‘air quoting’ “nation” is an easily identifiable code word. If you interchange “nation” with race, religion, Biblical heritage, cultural background,⁴ or whatever else you want, this conversation actually starts to make sense. Even pretending this door wasn’t left open on purpose, it’s easy to see how little it would take for a student to come to that conclusion on their own.

Also, claiming that conservatives “encourage control by moral restraint based on obedience to Biblical absolutes” as opposed to relativists who “encourage control by government authority” is silly on it’s face, but the intense hypocriticalness of this comment is almost infuriating. Not only does this sentiment run directly counter to basic Christian Nationalist doctrine, it’s mutually exclusive with other entries in the PACEs:

Exhibit 2a

After the Flood, God instituted human government… God authorized human government, in His Name, to have the power of life and death. If a man took the life of another, God demanded that the murderer's life be forfeited to the state. God-ordained government is to act as a restraint on selfishness and to regulate man's societal interactions when it is necessary.

Collectivism, PACE 133, page 15

When you have to have everything both ways, words necessarily lose all meaning. How do Christian Nationalists plan to put those moral restraints in place? Government authority. With this very convenient dynamic in place, they get to claim that they don’t want to use government authority, but that they must because people aren’t submitting to Biblical restraints (as interpreted by fascists) on their own. Putting ‘submit or we will force you to’ in plan language is a hard sell, which is why we get these word games.

This last page contains another excerpt from World Awakening. Also, watch for the moment when Mr. Lovejoy/Donald says the quiet part out loud:

Exhibit 341

Mr. Lovejoy: But remember, Alexander Hamilton said “A people get the kind of government they deserve.” Government is a reflection of the quality and character of the people over which it rules.⁵ In a free society, a humanistic people will elect a humanistic government. Humanists run for office on the exaggerated promises of what they will give to people. Conservatives run for office on responsibilities they hold out to people, which must be maintained. A “gimme” generation votes for liberals, not realizing it means more laws, taxes, and controls instead of handouts and benefits.

Reginald: But on the other hand, a charactered people will elect conservative statesmen who appeal to responsibility. A more responsible people require fewer laws to control them, for they have God’s laws within that control them.

Mr. Lovejoy: That’s true, and that’s why we need Biblical education. You have a good perspective of the principle of left and right, Reginald. You can probably write your essay without any difficulty.

Reginald: Thanks for explaining the difference between a humanistic and a theistic government, and thanks for helping me understand about God’s absolutes and what He is doing in the world today.

When I read, “In a free society, a humanistic people will elect a humanistic government” for the first time, I screamed. Like, yes, you dumb fucking donkey. When people are free, they tend to choose to stay that way. Brilliant observation. Comments like this one prove to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that Donald and his ilk know exactly what they are doing, and who they are - threats to freedom and democracy. They also know that, without government regulations, no one would opt for their philosophy of hierarchical domination.

When Mr. Lovejoy said earlier, that liberals “encourage control by the government authority,” that was simply a confession. Donald, in his manifesto To Save a Nation, 1976, went on ad-nauseam about how slavery is the natural result of humanism: “Slavery is an answer to the need a humanist has as a direct result of rejecting willful subordination to God.”

Really not leaving people with a choice there…

This section concludes with a Q and A bit that boggles the mind:

Exhibit 342

(1) Of the following, only _____ represents action based on a truly “right” philosophy: [Answer: d. a teen-ager who goes to church because he believes God wants him to go to church.]

(2) What are the absolutes against which every person’s position is measured:

[Answer: Relationship with God and Relation to Biblical absolutes]

(3) Of the following, only _____ represents the action of a responsible government. [Answer: d. cancelling all laws that have anything to do with what employers pay employees]

(4) Of the following, only _____ represents the action of a Godly, responsible citizen: [Answer: c. Voting for a new legislator who promises to reduce government controls]

(5) A person who departs from absolutes and does not walk with God is not able to express _______. [Answer: Wisdom]

(6) True

(7) True

(8) False

(9) True

(10) True

What’s especially sinister about this messaging is that it holds salvation hostage behind walls of conservative talking points that the student must subscribe to, or otherwise go to hell. Growing up, there were many such Biblical absolutes that I accepted against my better judgement. For a long while, it was gay marriage. Homosexuality was a sin, and the only way to love a gay person was to hate their “sin.” I didn’t like that this was a Biblical absolute, but who was I to question God? He’s a Republican, after all.

It likewise requires the student to reject any counter opinions to this thesis out of hand, because they are, by their very nature, evil. The student is boxed in by Christian Nationalism, and any attempt to escape would require them to throw their lot in with the literal Devil. I call that mental and emotional abuse.

Thank you all for reading! See you shortly.

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. You thought cleanliness was next to Godliness? Hah! It’s Ronald Reagan, you stupid fuck.

2. Because Lincoln freed the slaves, he tends to get a pass on the fact that he was instrumental in genociding the Dakota tribes, for example.

3. Acting as if this is some law of nature, or as though “the right” is a physical destination that the word “conservative” exists within is super weird. It’s like this left/right analogy has crossed over into the material plane and become literal.

4. These posts get into more details about the way race is viewed by Donald Howard and the ACE curriculum, including the dogwhistles that are used:

Collectivism 138, Part 2: "Fascist Precursors," an Introduction to Racial Theory, and Sluuurs

Collectivism 138, Part 3: Teaching 12th Grade Students How to Peddle Race Science and Zionism

4a. Upsetting God's Natural Order Heralds the Apocalypse of Our Lord

5. Okay, this is actually hysterical. So, Donald’s first manifesto opens with a flagrantly racist 3 page diatribe that concludes with “…a nation, a body of individuals themselves, determine the type of government under which they will ultimately live. People get the kind of government they deserve.”

So when he later writes:

Exhibit 343

Alexander Hamilton said, “A people get the kind of government they deserve.” The truth is, government is a reflection of the character of the people. Therefore, the greatest influence in bringing about a shift to the right is the increased influence of righteousness in the character of the people.

World Awakening, page 81

Donald is trying to up its importance by attributing this to Alexander Hamilton; he never said that. However, it’s plain to see how this sentiment can be is used to justify, say, the Atlantic slave trade, which Donald did:

Exhibit 190

The essence of that revival message related to a personal salvation experience with Jesus Christ. Once people had that salvation experience, they were made equal in the sight of God. That fact influenced the political thinking of the nation’s leaders in regard to the republican (as opposed to democratic) form of government and the individual worth of man.

Rebirth of Our Nation, page 8