Saturday, April 16, 2016

Reading Melvin Rhodes' Blog: Part 2

Recently Ambassador Watch mentioned the blog of UCG's Melvin Rhodes. Rhodes originally came from Britain and now resides in the United States. Let's take a look at what Rhodes has said on his blog in January and February.
In my opinion the blog's message can be summed up in the following words, "The Muslims are coming! Restrict immigration of Muslims now." Let us see if he continues that theme.

January 6

Here Rhodes seems to assert that Muslims should not be allowed to migrate to the United States because the name of their religion means surrender.
I went to see my primary doctor recently, shortly after San Bernardino. He couldn’t understand why so many people brought up in the United States could become “radicalized.” I know that Britons, Australians, Canadians and people in other western countries don’t understand this, either.
An article in yesterday’s Lansing State Journal called for more Muslim immigration into the US. The reasoning was simple – the more people from the Middle East who come here, the better, because they either go back enthused about the American way of life, or they stay here committed to America.
This reasoning fails to understand that there is a major difference between Islam and the West – one means “submission” (or “surrender”), while the other believes in freedom. These two cannot be reconciled. Any child brought up in the former, while living in the latter, is inevitably going to be confused.
Why can’t people see that?
So not liking the name of their religion is a justified reason to restrict Muslims immigrating to the United States?

Rhodes then seems to say that the Crusades were justified.
When the Holy Land fell to the Muslims, it was necessary for the West to intervene to enable pilgrims to travel there safely.
Rhodes portrays the war in Yemen as part of a Sunni-Shia conflict instead of trying to grasp what has actually been happening today to lead to that tragic conflict. May peace soon come to Yemen.
Reporting right now is focused on the growing Saudi-Iranian conflict, a continuation of the 1400-year-old struggle between Sunni and Shia Islam.   Neither can respect the other.   They just want to kill those who believe differently from themselves.  We can see it clearly when looking at the two branches of Islam – why do the same reporters find it so difficult to see the threat Islam poses to Christians and secularists in the West?
January 12

ISIL's terrorist attack in Istanbul is mentioned. This post contains more scare mongering against Muslims and refugees in Europe.

January 18

Here Rhodes mentions that most infamous and vile book, Mein Kampf.
Meanwhile, the 70-year-old ban on Hitler’s Mein Kampf (My Struggle) has been lifted in Germany and a new annotated version of the book has become available.
What actually happened was that it entered public domain in Germany. Its copyright owned by Bavaria expired. It was not lifted as though they suddenly wanted it and it is certainly not a sign that Germany will soon conquer the United States.

Rhodes discusses a petition in Britain to ban Trump from entering.
The British parliament is debating today, Monday, a petition signed by well over half a million people to ban Donald Trump from visiting the United Kingdom following his anti-Islamic comments.   A second pro-Trump petition has been signed by fewer people.   It seems like the Donald is dividing the UK as much as the US.   If the ban is approved by Members of the British Parliament, what will happen to the western alliance should he become president?
Rhodes complains of many American and British citizens wanting Muslims to immigrate there. It is seemingly condemned as a form of political correctness.
The unanswered question here is why so many people on both sides of the Atlantic are determined to see a lot more Muslim immigrants arriving on their shores.   Their thinking is totally different from that of previous generations.
It’s going to be difficult to overcome political correctness on both sides of the Atlantic!
January 22

Here Rhodes discusses the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks. It is hysterically claimed that a similar fate awaits the Western world.
Secondly, some of the wealthy elite did well from their connections with the Turks, mostly in trade, but also donations to co-operate with the Turks.  Reading this, I was mindful of the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from Middle Eastern leaders, a conflict of interest for sure.
What about Fox News? One of the owners happens to be a Saudi prince.
A fourth point of great interest was that once the capital fell, it wasn’t long before the rest followed.   Could this happen in the US?  Of course it could.  If terrorists could deliver crushing blows to both Washington DC (the political capital) and New York City (the financial capital), the rest of the country would follow.
Even if both Washington and New York somehow disappeared in one day it would not cause the United States to collapse. Institutions would be heroically rebuilt and located somewhere else. America is great.
I should add that although I would have preferred life under the Byzantine Emperor to life under the Ottoman Sultan, the former was hardly Christian and thoroughly deserved its fate.  That’s another lesson for us today – the West deserves its fate, which it has brought upon itself.
So the West deserves to be plunged into some sort of catastrophe? Even our children?

Sensationalist assertions of badly behaved Muslims in Europe are mentioned. Certain domestic policies in Russia are mentioned.

January 28

Here Rhodes discusses the terrorist attack in Benghazi in which four innocent Americans were murdered.
The movie recounts the events of September 11, 2012, when the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, came under attack.   The US Ambassador to Libya was killed in the attack along with a few others.   The then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been blamed for the deaths.   Certainly the US State Department was slow to react.
He insinuates that Libyans are uninterested in democracy.
There is a deeper, more troubling question here – what is the US doing in Benghazi?   Chris Stevens, the Ambassador, said it was to support those who want democracy.   Really?   There’s little evidence in Libya, or elsewhere in the Middle East, that anybody wants democracy.   If they do, they want to use democracy to get power, after which there will be no more democracy!
Rhodes describes the refugee crisis in Europe as a "mostly Islamic invasion".
Europe is still not ready to face the twin challenges of Islamic terrorism and the mostly Islamic invasion of the continent, taking place through the migrant crisis.
Rhodes wonders what the United States is doing in the Middle East.
There may only be one year left of the Obama Administration, but will things be any better afterwards?   Will a new president be different?   Some candidates threaten to bomb their way to victory in the Middle East, failing to learn the lessons of the past.   Most, maybe all, are simply clueless when it comes to understanding that part of the world.
Once again, the question is:   what are we doing there?
Such an opinion is rather unusual in the world of Armstrongism.

February 8

Here Rhodes scare mongers about the US federal debt.
Another sign of spreading delusion is the federal deficit. It passed $19 trillion last week and hardly got a mention. Nobody cares anymore. It appears that nobody in Washington has any concept of why the country should live within its means.   Of course, few people, mere mortals included, has any idea how to balance a budget, so it’s not surprising our leaders get away with it. Somebody once described credit cards as “45 days to reality” – it may take longer for the US to reach its “pay by” date, but it will come and when it does economic upheaval will follow.
Rhodes is wrong. The US was actually more indebted per capita back in the 1940s because of World War II. It is not possible for the US government to be forced to default on the US federal debt because it is denominated in a currency that the US government produces, the US dollar. This is a false fear. America is great. Bet on America.

He expresses disapproval at President Obama's visit of an American mosque.
Further delusion was shown when the President visited a mosque Thursday, as a guest of the Islamic Society of Baltimore.   Stressing how Muslims were involved in America from the beginning, he continued to build on the false idea that this country is based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic principles and that Islam, together with the other two religions, is a religion of peace.
February 9

Here Rhodes presents British politicians meeting in a hall for a few months which does not serve alcohol as part of a "threat from Islamization."
The British and French governments seem to belatedly be realizing the threat from Islamization. ...
Across the English Channel, the Palace of Westminster, home to the Houses of Parliament, is in need of some urgent repair.  While the building is being renovated, parliament will meet in another hall. This hall is owned by a group with Islamic connections and will not allow alcohol in the building.   Parliamentarians are used to having ten bars to choose from in their own hall.  They will now have no alcohol for a few months!
Perhaps a dry spell might help them focus better on the threat from growing Islamic influence.
So even having a hall that does not serve alcohol merits Rhodes' condemnation if it happens to be (at least partly). What if it was owned by a Christian church that discouraged the consumption of alcohol? Would Rhodes complain of "Islamization" if that was the case?
Our bank manager dismisses all the candidates as being “useless.”   His point is that not one of them offers a solution to the problem of the $19 trillion national debt – which, of course, threatens the very existence of the country.
It’s a world record.  Never before in history has any country owed so much.   It cannot go on.
We are in unchartered territory, as no nation has ever been in this great a fiscal mess.
Rhodes is wrong. This is a false fear.
The former Greek finance minister today warned that Europe is going through a depression.   Yanis Varoufakis warns in The Independent that Europe is sliding back into the 1930’s and a new political movement is needed.
This is particularly poignant considering that one consequence of the severe financial crisis in Greece is the rise of the infamous, far right party, Golden Dawn.
Unfortunately, both Mr. Varoufakis and the prime minister he served under, Alexis Tsipras, are avowed atheists, influenced more by Karl Marx than anything in scripture.  But they should take a look at Leviticus, chapter 25, and specifically at the Year of Jubilee.  Only the cancellation of all debt will help revive the world economy.
The Greek government is unable to cancel their debt because, unlike the US, they do not have their own currency. If they were to default it would be necessary for them to create a new national currency. However the current government is committed to staying in the eurozone.

February 12

Here Rhodes describes the Clintons as part of the establishment. However he uses the word "establishment" in a politically partisan manner to refer to left wing liberals. The possibility that there are other powerful people in the United States who happen to adhere to differing ideologies is ignored.
Based on this definition, the Clintons are a part of the Establishment.  They have spent years promoting their liberal ideals, from abortion and same-sex marriage to big government programs, multiculturalism and political correctness.
Rhodes then reminisce about his younger days in Britain and how society changed around 1968.
This is turning out to be the most interesting US presidential election since 1968.   At that time, I was a teenager living in England.   Britain had its own radical government at the time, the second post-war Labour government led by Harold Wilson.
It seemed like everything was changing.   Abortion and homosexuality were both legalized, while the death penalty was abolished.  There were also radical financial decisions taken, including nationalization of some industries (others had already been nationalized).  The left-wing financial decisions were reversed under Margaret Thatcher over a decade later; but the other reforms stayed the same.
Other countries were going through the same radical changes.
Fifty years later, like it or not, the liberal-leftists who have dominated the western world are now the establishment, an establishment that has clearly failed the country.
He then mentions a murder.
Thursday evening, less than 24 hours ago, an individual attacked customers in a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, with a machete, injuring four, one of whom is critical.   First reports assured people this was not terrorism; then they announced the name of the man responsible, Mohammad Barry.
So just because of the name he labels it terrorism. Was it an individual thing? What was his motive? Did he have a motive? What if he had some sort of mental illness? These questions do not seem to enter Rhodes' thinking.

If a white man had committed the murder would Rhodes call it terrorism? And if not, why not?
Meanwhile, the Pope, on a visit to Mexico, will stand with migrants at the US border, symbolically demanding the US let more migrants in.   It’s not just the politicians who don’t get it!
So is Rhodes proposing some sort of restriction on immigration. If so perhaps he should plainly say so and come up with a plan, or at least ideas, on what to do. People would then be able to assess his ideas plainly and simply.

February 17

Here Rhodes speculates that Russia's airstrikes in Syria may have weakened the terrorists of ISIL.
While the western media concentrates on exposing Russian air attacks as potential “war crimes,” it may be that, overall, Russia’s intervention has been a good thing, stopping the spread of ISIS and thwarting a greater threat to Israel.
The key words are “may be.”  We may never know.
Rhodes in an alarmist manner insinuates that the protests against police brutality could lead to "anarchy."
The US election has taken a worrying turn, again.   The two Democratic candidates are busy criticizing the police in order to get the African-American vote. They need to tread carefully.   The police are all that stand between the general population and anarchy. One day, one of these candidates may need a policeman or two to protect them. Undermining the police is not in anybody’s interests.
Instead of trying to understand why so many African Americans are worried, scared and agitated Rhodes incorrectly accuses the protesters of not caring about whites like himself.
Of course black lives matter.  But white ones should, too.   No attention was given to this story of the white Marine until Fox News” put it on its website this morning.  No attention has been given either to the death of a 17-year-old white male a few miles from our home – shot by a white policeman who, some think, over reacted.  “Justice for Devon Guilford” is written on signs all over our neighborhood as investigations continue.   The issue has seriously divided Eaton County.
There is definitely a double standard in the media, where “black lives matter,” but white lives don’t!
Rhodes is incorrect on this matter. He thinks they mean "only black lives matter." This is wrong. Rather the protesters mean "black lives matter too."The protesters are persuaded that police officers and those in power do not value the lives of African Americans compared with others and they are trying to correct that problem. They are not trying to devalue anyone's life.

Rhodes brings up Venezuela to discredit Sanders.
Mr. Sanders claims that he wants “democratic socialism” and cites Denmark as his model.   He has wisely avoided any mention of Venezuela where socialism has brought the country to near-starvation.
 To be continued...


  1. What amazes me is that some months ago, we were reading that Melvin Rhodes had resigned from his position on the UCG council of elders for what was termed "past unChristian behavior." And, now he is continuing his ministry through this blog?

    I guess it is really not that strange. These guys disfellowship and discredit one another all the time, and it fails to silence them.


  2. So true. One rule for the humble laymembers. Another more lenient rule for those in power.