PCG Hypocritically Defends Gay Man to Belittle Protests in South Africa

So in South Africa there is currently a lot of commotion over a statue of Cecil Rhodes which has since been removed. PCG immediately rose up in defense and published an article by Anthony Chibarirwe defending Cecil Rhodes and condemning the protests.

PCG has a long history of being sympathetic towards the white Apartheid regime and of belittling the current democratically elected government of South Africa. So it is not surprising that PCG's leaders have taken this position regarding these protests.

While acknowledging problems about what Rhodes did, Chibarirwe clearly condemns these protests against him. It glorifies Cecil Rhodes and says that he was a great man.

Here I will not talk about what Cecil Rhodes did politically because, frankly, PCG's leaders are inclined to be sympathetic towards what he did and minimize whatever problems occurred.

But there is one other thing that needs to be mentioned here: It is somehow never mentioned by PCG that Cecil Rhodes, the man PCG here says was so great, just happened to be gay.

Rhodes never married, pleading "I have too much work on my hands" and saying that he would not be a dutiful husband. ... Neville Pickering is described as Rhodes' lover in spite of the absence of decisive evidence. Rhodes was close to Pickering; he returned from negotiations for Pickering's 25th birthday in 1882. On that occasion, Rhodes drew up a new will leaving his estate to Pickering. Two years later, Pickering suffered a riding accident. Rhodes nursed him faithfully for six weeks, refusing even to answer telegrams concerning his business interests. Pickering died in Rhodes's arms, and at his funeral, Rhodes was said to have wept with fervour. ...

His successor was Henry Latham Currey, the son of an old friend, who had become Rhodes's private secretary in 1884. When Currey was engaged in 1894, Rhodes was deeply mortified and their relationship split.

Rhodes also remained close to Leander Starr Jameson after the two had met in Kimberley, where they shared a bungalow. In 1896 Earl Grey came to give Rhodes bad news. Rhodes instantly jumped to the conclusion that Jameson, who was ill, had died. On learning that his house had burnt down he commented, "Thank goodness. If Dr. Jim had died, I should never have got over it." Jameson nursed Rhodes during his final illness, was a trustee of his estate and residuary beneficiary of his will, which allowed him to continue living in Rhodes' mansion after his death. Rhodes' secretary, Jourdan, who was present shortly after Rhodes' death said, "Jameson was fighting against his own grief ... No mother could have displayed more tenderness towards the remains of a loved son". ("Cecil Rhodes", Wikipedia.)

Surely some PCG members must be aware of this matter. PCG condemns homosexuality as sinful. PCG's leaders constantly demonize homosexuals in order to distract PCG members from the problems within PCG. But when one such man is condemned by protesters in South Africa PCG choose to defend Rhodes in order to belittle and condemn the protesters.

PCG's leaders are so determined to vilify democratic South Africa that they have decided to defend a man even though he did things that PCG so often condemn in others.

Why do PCG's leaders choose to favor Cecil Rhodes while condemning homosexuality in others?

If they cannot bring themselves to condemn Rhodes' homosexuality then they should not condemn homosexuality at all.

If they choose to favor Rhodes and ignore his homosexuality then they should extend that same favor to all.

How amusing it is to see PCG's leaders tying themselves up into knots because of their dogmas.

Let Us Be Unafraid of PCG's False Prophecies

In 1994 Gerald Flurry proclaimed Iran to be the King of the South. This dogma of his was rarely mentioned by PCG's leaders until the atrocities of 9/11. Since then PCG's leaders have constantly vilified and demonized Iran whether the facts support their assertions or not.

PCG's leaders are emotionally invested in convincing people, mainly Americans, that Iran will soon plunge the world into catastrophe. PCG's leaders are not just soberly reporting facts. This is the interpretation that they project onto world events and they use their magazine to convince readers that the interpretation is correct.

PCG's leaders also vilify and demonize President Obama. In 2013 Gerald Flurry even wrote a booklet condemning President Obama as "another Antiochus", essentially an Antichrist like figure of his own devising.

But outside of PCG's information bubble what is really going on?

PCG's leaders say President Obama is useless and events in the Middle East, including Iran, are besting him at every turn.

Is this really the case? Let's remember what things were like under the previous Bush Administration.

For the record, during the administration in which Cheney served and played a prominent role in guiding foreign policy, Iran’s nuclear program went from rudimentary and primitive to highly sophisticated. By 2008-2009, it was churning out substantial quantities of the highly enriched uranium needed to build a bomb and carrying out important research into the design of such a bomb. The Bush administration failed to even slow that program, and in fact it acted as if it was utterly helpless to do so. By any measure, the Obama administration has already been far more successful. (Jay Bookman, "Dick Cheney embodies much that is wrong with today’s America", Atlanta Constitution Journal, April 9, 2015.)

And what did President Obama do? Only make war with Iran a far more remote possibility.

Career journalist Barbara Slavin, who spent years covering Iran, tells The Hill that the chances of war with the Islamic Republic went down by a “gazillion” with Thursday's announcement of a political framework to restrict Iran's nuclear program.

“The chances of a war with Iran just went down by a gazillion. There's no way that there's going to be a military option now against the Iranian program if this deal is implemented,” the Atlantic Council's non-resident senior fellow says in an interview. (Molly K. Hooper, "Nuke deal kills chances of war with Iran, says Barbara Slavin", The Hill, April 3, 2015.)

And let's also remember the Stuxnet virus.

I certainly have no way to see the future but there is no need to believe PCG's dire predictions that Iran will plunge the world into catastrophe.

There is no need to live in fear that what PCG's leaders might come to pass. It will not. Their predictions are false just like what they said about the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Roderick C. Meredith's 1953 Sermon

On July 25, 1953 Roderick C. Meredith gave the following sermon. It runs for 47 minutes. Essentially Meredith uses this sermon to tell Radio COG members that to enter the Kingdom of God they must obey "the law" as defined by HWA. There is no mention of grace in this sermon or of the need for Jesus to be sacrificed. Here are some notes I took of it from listening to it.

Russia Will Swallow All of Korea

For about the first four minutes Meredith discusses world news insisting the Great Tribulation and Christ's return will soon occur.

Rumors of revolt within the Eastern European countries.

The implication here is that these Eastern European countries will break away from Russia's sphere of influence and join a German led European Empire which is destined to soon conquer America. It was just a few months earlier that HWA and Herman Hoeh devised the dogma that the Great Tribulation would begin in 1972 with Christ returning in 1975.

America will let Russia swallow all of Korea.

(Of course this did not happen.)

America will not win another war. HWA has said this repeatedly.

Russia will take the Orient. "All of it [the orient] eventually."

"This world", citing some words of Jesus, in the original Greek is cosmos, meaning system. We (in Radio COG) are no part of this world's system.

Evangelizing Tours

Now Meredith talks about the evangelizing tours. Some Ambassador College students went out and interviewed interested listeners and readers about getting baptized into the Radio COG. Meredith talks about it.

People reached in the evangelizing tours (in which Meredith is a part of) are realizing the truth, meaning they are accepting HWA's words.

God has changed the weather for our benefit he says. Had nice weather.

Discusses how Norman Smith has a car which hopefully will be more useful.

First man we baptized was healthy and muscly 85 year old. (6 minutes.)

The 85 year old would not eat unclean meats. (6 minutes.)

People happy to meet Herman Hoeh having read his articles previously.

Listeners more educated about HWA's teachings each year.

Meredith and Raymond McNair had to teach them about the Sabbath and Holy Days in earlier years. Each year people more educated. Meredith and Raymond McNair can simply skip onto more esoteric teachings.

We found that if we just assumed they understood there would be misunderstandings.

Visited St. Louis church. About 30-35 members. Had about it through the announcements of Gene. [?] Gene had radio show called The World Ahead. Gene started with HWA in Eugene. He had dropped out of College.

God's Work is going to grow. One more church which is part of the true church.

Are there any announcements to be made? he asks.

Talked to HWA about magazines. He had talking a break from work in Port Arthur. Hard for him to stop working for even a day. Going with Raymond Cole. Started on articles for another issue of The Plain Truth.

Condemning Non-Armstrongite Hymns

Now Meredith begins to discuss hymns. Meredith talks about how disgusted he is by the hymns of the other churches because they contain ideas that contradict what HWA has said, (or as he puts it in Armstrongite jargon "lies".) 

You (the Radio COG lay members) were finishing "Praise Him" which he approved of. Must "not let paganism come into this church". Thankful and congratulates Dwight Armstrong for writing the Bible Hymnal. (13-14 minutes.)

The more he listens to other hymns the more thankful he is that Dwight Armstrong has made the hymns in question. Other hymns have been edited.

Onward Christian Soldiers speaks of a cross. This has been changed to a sword. Nothing loving about the cross. Despicable cross. Not to be "worshiped" in any form.

Singing Hymn 33. Have to watch it regarding what is sung. Meaningless poetic language. Draw me to the cross. Offended that it talks about Christ bleeding. Not the Christ preached in the Bible. (17 minutes.)

Talks of how Protestants believe in "Little Lord Jesus", in mocking tone.

Christ did not have long hair. Protestants have pagan pictures -- idols -- of Jesus. With effeminate features. Portrayed as "sickly individual." He was a "he man". Not a sissy. Not a sissy. (He uses that phrase twice very quickly.)

HWA is preaching the word of God. Soundly. Sober.

Not just telling about the person of Christ.

Condemning Unclean Meats

Here Meredith once again returns to condemning unclean meats. He complains how new members have to be carefully taught HWA's teachings or else they misunderstand something.

A Christian is somehow who is changing all the time to be more like Christ.

They are too lazy right in our own church. They are too lazy. Too indifferent. And too callous. They're too used to it. ... To eat the foods they ought to.

Isabel Kunkel writing booklet about food. (Isabel Kunkel would marry Herman Hoeh.)

Very sickening to walk into homes and be served white flour and white sugar. (22 minutes.)

They drift away and get into wrong habits.

Not going to take too much trouble to get into the habit to pray in a private place every day. (24 minutes.)

Once again Radio COG members getting brow beaten to alter their lives and use a lot of time simply focusing on HWA's dogmas to make them more dependent upon HWA and his following.

Loading the Term "Kingdom of God" to Mean 

Obey the Law as Defined by HWA

It is only now that the actual sermon begins.Here Meredith makes his listeners think about, What is the Kingdom of God? But Meredith exploits this topic to insist that "the law" (as selectively interpreted by HWA) must be obeyed in order to be a true Christian. There is no mention of grace in this sermon or of the need for Jesus to be sacrificed.

We now continue.

Many listeners did not understand this doctrine of the Kingdom of God. Some of the members of his own family who read HWA's writings did not understand what the "Kingdom of God" is.

Some think it (the Kingdom of God) is a political movement dedicated to making a better world here. (25 minutes.)

While once visiting listened to a minister who spoke of the Kingdom of God was to come about by people working to clean up "this society". He said nothing about obeying God.

Some say Kingdom of God is set up in your heart. (27 minutes.)

They have big words and say nothing. He thought it is something within your hearts. Meredith denies this.

Talks of "human philosophy".

Here it is used as loaded term denigrating all of society outside of the Radio COG as irredeemably corrupt and vile. The strong implication is one can only be saved from such vileness by joining the Radio COG (and paying them tithes).

Others think the Kingdom of God is the millennial rule of Christ on Earth.

The true gospel. Meredith wants to explain.

You can take notes if you want. (29 minutes.)

Talks about Cornelius in Acts 10.

God is no respecter of persons. God will call all people eventually.

HWA starts here to show where the true gospel began. Christ preached it from Matthew 10 onwards.

The gospel of the Kingdom of God. That was preached to Gentiles as well. (33 minutes.)

First condition to enter is to repent. We still must repent constantly. Even after years within Radio COG we are still lukewarm. We must constantly grow. (33 minutes.)

God calls divorce and remarriage adultery. (34 minutes.)

(This seems to be an allusion to HWA's practice of destroying marriages he disapproved of under certain highly subjective criteria. Roderick C. Meredith was instrumental in enforcing this draconian policy.)

Kingdom of God is tied directly to God's law. (So alleges Meredith.)

Talks of Phillip in Acts 8. He preached Christ in the name of Christ by telling the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Paul called Ephesians together. Still preaching the same gospel with God's law.

Paul was about to go away and would never see them again. He was preaching the same gospel to the Gentiles, not Jews. (37 minutes.)

Kingdom of God Taught to Only Exist After Christ's Coming

Matthew 16. People are to be rewarded based on their works. Going to see the Son of Man return. (39 minutes.)

Cites the Transfiguration as a vision of what the Kingdom of God is like. (40 minutes.)

Alludes to (incorrectly observed) Feast of Tabernacles.

Transfiguration interpreted as merely a vision of what is to happen in fact only after Christ's return. Because of HWA's adoption of the soul sleep dogma it is insisted that Moses and Elijah are at present not conscious at all but will be resurrected when Christ return. (42 minutes.)

Those resurrected are as spirit. Not flesh and blood.

Millennium just a space of time in which the Kingdom of God trains and rears up children.

A baby's chuckle can be heard. (45 minutes.)

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob not yet resurrected so Kingdom of God is not now present.

Christ will rule world with rod of iron until humanity gets it.

League of Nations a work of man doomed to fail.

Now the UN will offer Korea as an offering to Russia. US will not win the war. US will only get a "lying peace".  The US will fail in Korea. The US government is trying to appease Russia.

And so the recording ends.

In a nutshell he talked about the Kingdom of God to justify imposing Old Testament laws upon Radio COG members and to insist that it will only appear on Earth after Christ returns.

Both PCG's Ron Fraser and Osama bin Laden Wrong About HIV/AIDS's Origins

May 1999 issue.

As seen in a previous post, "PCG's Ron Fraser Falsely Blaming Sexual Promiscuity for "Giving Birth" to AIDS", Ron Fraser once inaccurately blamed sexual promiscuity in America (and Britain) for "giving birth" to AIDS.  

The current generation of foreign policy formulators and administrators in the West, particularly in the present British and American administrations, is the product of a left-wing, socialist-engineered education system that had its genesis in the 1960s (though its true origins may be traced to the Marxist-Leninist thought engendered by the fathers of socialism in the early 1900s). Socialist philosophy has always had particular appeal to the intelligentsia. Often described as the “baby-boom generation,” the post-World War II generation, which had their minds bent by German rationalist thought, tends to predicate all analyses, judgments and conclusions on godless evolutionary theory, based on the overall assumption that there are no absolutes.

In general terms, to this generation all of the values, mores, honorable traditions—even documented history of past events—are held up to question. This approach to subjective analysis is fundamentally sourced at a basic and false assumption—that the theory of relativity applies not just in the arena of physical sciences. By extension it is assumed that it generally may be applied to human behavior—religion, moral standards, ethics and human values. Thus we have the concept of “moral relativity,” which spawned the “new morality” of the 1960s, giving birth to a new and uncontrollable communicable disease—AIDS. (Ron Fraser, What's Behind the Crisis in Foreign Relations?, The Philadelphia Trumpet, May 1999, p. 3.)

You know who else happens happens to think that HIV/AIDS came from America? Osama bin Laden.

(Don't worry.
The publishers of this book have nothing to do with Al Qaeda.)

The following quote comes from a letter by that mass murderer, Osama bin Laden, entitled "To The Americans", dated October 6, 2002. He is talking to Americans here in the following passage below.

And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention. (Osama bin Laden in Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, 2005, p. 168.)

The editor of the book helpfully corrects this ridiculous delusion.

AIDS originated in sub-Saharan Africa during the twentieth century. The estimated prevalence of HIV infection in North America is among the lowest in the world, at between 0.3 and 0.6 per cent of the population. (Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, 2005, p. 168.)

Of course sexual promiscuity had nothing to do with "giving birth" to AIDS. What actually happened was that a disease that previously infected apes developed a strain that could infect humans as well. The first infections occurred in Africa. However it was not until 1981 when scientists in America and France proved that this was a new disease that had not previously infected humans.

Sexual promiscuity had nothing to do with "giving birth" to AIDS. Both Ron Fraser and Osama bin Laden are wrong on this matter.

So we see that Osama bin Laden was not just a mass murderer but an ignorant moron as well.

Now of course PCG and Al Qaeda are very different things. PCG and Al Qaeda are nothing like each other and I am not trying to insinuate some connection between them. There is none. They emerged from very different worlds for very different purposes.

Despite the many problems within PCG it is not like Al Qaeda plotting to seize political power for themselves through violence.

But it is strange to see such different persons from such different perspectives promoting the same ridiculous and inaccurate idea about the origin of HIV/AIDS.

Is PCG a Part of "the Shari'ah Conspiracy Theory Industry"?

Back in 2011 Sara Posner wrote an article on Alternet entitled Welcome to the Shari'ah Conspiracy Theory Industry. It describes how various organizations and groups have been vilifying Muslims. She describes it as a "Shari'ah Conspiracy Theory Industry". Posner mentions some of the inflammatory ideas such groups promote.

If one untangles what that cottage industry is saying, one can detect five claims of the shari'ah conspiracy theory: that the goal of Islam is totalitarianism; that the mastermind of bringing this totalitarianism to the world is the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of all Islamic groups from Hamas to the Islamic Society of North America; that these organizations within the United States are traitors in league with the American left and are bent on acts of sedition against America; that the majority of mosques in the United States are run by imams who promote such sedition; and that through this fifth column, shari'ah law has already infiltrated the United States and could result in a complete takeover if not stopped.

Does this describe how PCG discusses Muslims? Are there similarities and differences? Let's take a look.

Fear mongering claim 1: "the goal of Islam is totalitarianism".

PCG often describes "radical Islam", particularly Iran in a very frightening manner. However this particular idea is somewhat weakened in PCG dogma because PCG also teaches that Iran will be subdued by Europe led by Germany. But considering how often PCG vilifies Muslims this aspect could be easily missed by readers unaware of this aspect of PCG dogma.

Fear mongering claim 2: "the mastermind of bringing this totalitarianism to the world is the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of all Islamic groups from Hamas to the Islamic Society of North America".

PCG has fear mongered about the Muslim Brotherhood, a political party in Egypt that since Posner's article was published have been suppressed by the authorities with much violence. PCG often vilified the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and presented it as a boogeyman and prophesied they would take over Egypt. PCG's writers had no idea that the Muslim Brotherhood would fall from power in 2013 and be crushed with much loss of life.

Fear mongering claim 3: "these organizations within the United States are traitors in league with the American left and are bent on acts of sedition against America".

PCG's Ron Fraser viciously insinuated that Al Qaeda was the creation of the left as was noted in a previous post.

What is intriguing is that many of al-Qaeda’s operatives gained their education on the liberal-socialist campuses of the universities of the West. With middle-class backgrounds, these university-educated converts to militant Islam are the new wave of youthful, bored offspring of a generation which has matured within or under the structure of soft, corrupt elites. Ripe for the plucking, just as the turned-off Western youth of the 1960s and ’70s were to their Marxist-Leninist revolutionary mentors, these young people have been easy meat for brainwashing by fundamentalist mullahs intent on jihad against the West. Nurtured by the widespread Islamic resentment of the power and prosperity of the West, they rationalize the miserable political, social and economic record of Islamic countries by swallowing the neo-Marxist theories that explain Third World poverty as being the result of exploitation by the West. (Ron Fraser, "The Power of Religion", December 2001.)

That is actually even more extreme than the idea described in Posner's article. So it can be said that in this matter PCG is even more extreme than what is described in Posner's article.

Fear mongering claim 4: "the majority of mosques in the United States are run by imams who promote such sedition".

In 2013 Gerald Flurry once made the paranoid accusation that 80% of Muslim Imams in the United States are radicals prone to violence against Americans, as may be seen in this episode of The Key of David ("God Will Shake The Nations", May 5, 2013). Gerald Flurry also slurs innocent Muslims by accusing them of not doing enough to stop violent extremism. Here is what he said in the transcript (p. 3).

If you look closely at what is happening here, one expert tells us that, on TV he said that eighty percent of the Muslim mosques in the U.S. are led by radicals. Eighty per cent! I mean they could be doing this all over the land! And we’ve allowed that all to happen, and the truth of the matter is—the radical terrorists are doing the dirty work. But even in general the Muslim community doesn’t stand up to them and doesn’t really denounce them the way they should. (Gerald Flurry, "God Will Shake The Nations", May 5, 2013, p. 3.)

Amazingly Gerald Flurry does not even bother to note who made this ridiculous and false accusation. But it is quite safe to say whoever said this was no expert. These words do not reflect the actual present situation regarding American Muslims.

This vicious and false accusation appears to come from (surprise, surprise) the Islamophobia Network, specifically David Yerushalmi.

Here is how Nathan Lean describes how Yerushalmi's organization came to this inflammatory conclusion. Lean describes how Yerushalmi's organization hired some men to go into mosques.

Their travels brought them to the prayer rooms of more than a hundred mosques across the nation where, donning "Sharia adherent" disguises ... they entered the houses of worship alongside faithful Muslims and collected "data:" ... (Nathan Lean, The Islamophobia Industry, Chapter 4.)

What was the data they were looking for? How did they judge which Muslims are "radical" and which ones were not "radical"?

the length of the iman's beard, the percentage of worshippers wearing hats, the types of literature available to visitors, and notes about whether men sported their wristwatches on the left or right. (Nathan Lean, The Islamophobia Industry, Chapter 4.)

It seems facial hair and which hand one wears a wristwatch in this "study" determined who was radical and who was not.

With such astoundingly facile "reasoning" it is of course no surprise that Yerushalmi's group "found" the results they were looking for.

[Yerushalmi] noted that when the figures came in, some 81 percent of mosques contained literature that advocated violence, with more than 85 percent recommending the radical material to their congregations. The startling high number was immediately scooped up and circulated by the blogosphere. Robert Spencer wrote, "A new study has demonstrated that 80% of mosques right in this country are teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism." (Nathan Lean, The Islamophobia Industry, Chapter 4.)

And that is likely where Gerald Flurry got this vicious and false accusation.

It is also worth noting that Yerushalmi also appears to hold disturbing racist views against African Americans.

Yerushalmi is also known for his record of anti-black and anti-immigrant bigotry. He once described "blacks as the most murderous of peoples." (David Yerushalmi at islamophobianetwork.com.)

So it is safe to say PCG's leaders also teach this paranoid  accusation that "the majority of mosques in the United States are run by imams who promote such sedition" as well.

We now continue.

Fear mongering claim 5: "through this fifth column, shari'ah law has already infiltrated the United States and could result in a complete takeover if not stopped".

PCG does fear monger about Muslims, Iran and Palestinians a lot. But because they say Europe led by Germany will conquer America they do not tend to say that Muslims will take over America unless stopped from doing so.

Do PCG's leaders say that "shari'ah law has already infiltrated the United States"? Let's take a look at the following words.

America is going cap in hand to Middle East oil exporters. What government officials are not telling you is this: Islamic money comes with strings attached. Yes, sharia law “stipulates that money must not be used for a purpose incompatible with Islam” (Financial Times, April 26, 2007; emphasis mine). America will increasingly have to comply with sharia law, and what that entails isn’t pretty.

Sharia law is the religio-political-legal code that political Islam seeks to impose worldwide. With regard to banking, it ... is blatantly used for the express purpose of working toward overthrowing the U.S. Constitution and government in favor of Islamic rule. ...

American taxpayers already obey sharia law. (Robert Morley, Sharia Finance: Last Gasp of a Doomed American Economy, November 11, 2008.)

How did Posner describe what those other anti-Muslim groups have been saying? "[S]hari'ah law has already infiltrated the United States". That perfectly describes the crude fear mongering Morley indulges in above.

So it is clear that there is a disturbing overlap between what PCG (often inaccurately) teaches about Muslims and the Shari'ah Conspiracy Theory Industry as described by Sarah Posner. It seems safe to say that PCG is indeed a part of this "Shari'ah Conspiracy Theory Industry" described by Posner.

Robert Morley, Unqualified Economist, Condemns Krugman

PCG's Robert Morley did not go to college to get a degree in economics, he just taught himself. So how can he or anyone within PCG's Headquarters tell if he is wrong about something?

Take the US Federal debt for instance. It is often said the Federal debt is the highest it has ever been, but, surprising as this may sound, this is not true. This perception fails to take into account inflation and the simultaneous growth of the US economy. When one compares the US federal debt as a percentage of US GDP it turns out that actually the United States had, per capita, a higher federal debt back in the 1940s because of World War II as may be seen below. So it is not true that the US federal debt is unprecedentedly high today.

US federal debt compared with GDP 1940-2014

But he who lacks professional training in economics, Robert Morley, appears to be unaware of this fact and, because he has had no proper training in economics he proceeds to condemn the Nobel Prize wining economist, Paul Krugman, for saying the United States can afford to take on more debt in order to make the economy flourish and recover from the crisis of 2007-8 in this article. Morley seems obliviously unaware that the US had a higher federal debt per capita back in the 1940s.

The New York Times’s famed economist Paul Krugman is meditating out loud about debt again. Considering America’s fiscal future, he asks: Does America have enough debt?
Let me answer that. Yes!

Morley, unaccredited economist, proceeds to bring up some scaring sounding figures in order to scare the living daylights out of his readers.

Over the past six years, America’s national debt has risen from $11.1 trillion to $18.1 trillion. That’s a jump of more than 63 percent since the last presidency. For perspective, it took America 227 years (1776 to 2003) to accumulate its first $7 trillion worth of debt. 

Hasn't Morley ever heard of inflation? Back in 1963 a movie called Cleopatra was made with a budget of $44 million. In today's terms that is about $338 million. Morley fails to consider inflation when making these scary statements.

When one accounts for the US federal debt compared with overall US GDP it actually turns out that the United States had, per capita, a higher federal debt back in the 1940s because of World War II. But this extremely pertinent fact is obliterated in the unaccredited economist Morley's scary tale.

The unaccredited economist, Morley, continues.

Governments don’t have enough debt? They should have more? Is Krugman serious?

Morley has not had proper professional training in economics so of course Morley is befuddled and cannot understand what he is reading from Paul Krugman.

Morley then recites some of what Krugman says. While doing so Morley says the following:

Krugman: It’s simple: You grow the economy. A bigger economy means you don’t have to tax as much to cover interest payments. A bigger economy means your debt-to-GDP ratio will fall. 

 So Morley mentions the "debt-to-GDP ratio". If Morley looked at what the "debt-to-GDP ratio" for the US actually was he would discover that the United States had, per capita, a higher federal debt back in the 1940s because of World War II.

After presenting Krugman's proposal (but I cannot afford to trust Morley because he was never professionally trained as an economist) Morley posses his objection to Krugman's proposal.

Question: Anybody see a problem here?
Any personal finance adviser will tell you that borrowing money to purchase something that will not produce enough to pay for itself is a great way to get into financial trouble.

This is a false analogy. Morly is confusing public debt (which is what the US federal debt is) with private debt (which is what you and I have because we are not a government). The US has the internationally recognized right as a sovereign nation to print its own money. We, as individuals, do not.

Somehow this unaccredited economist, Morley, fails to see how flawed his analogy is. Of course he cannot because he has had no professional training in economics.

Near the end Morley says the following which, as is seen below, is utter nonsense.

Sadly, it will take a crisis to wake people up. And a crisis is guaranteed because it is the Paul Krugmans of the world who dominate political thinking and monetary policy. Only this time, it will be a lot worse than the last one because debt levels are so much higher.  

Utter nonsense. There are at least two reasons why Morley is totally wrong to say this.

1) As stated above the United States had, per capita, a higher federal debt back in the 1940s because of World War II. So it is not true that "debt levels are so much higher today" considering that they were actually even higher per capita back in the 1940s.

2) The global financial crisis of 2007-8 was because of private individuals and companies being in danger of going bankrupt because of private debt, not the federal debt which is public debt and was not the cause for that financial crisis.

It is not true that "the Paul Krugmans of the world ... dominate political thinking and monetary policy". In the European Union it was decided to follow the path of austerity, the opposite of what Paul Krugman proposes, and the whole world has seen the terrible consequences of such policies within some of the countries of the European Union. Austerity was a bad idea there and it is a bad idea in America as well.

Also it is not possible for the US to undergo what Greece, Ireland, Portugal and those other countries endured because they used the Euro and thus did not have their own sovereign currency, unlike the US.

So we see that Morley's objections to Krugman's proposals are highly flawed and are not worth listening to. But what can one expect from one who was never properly trained in economics?

It is sad that PCG's leaders think it is fitting and proper to have a man like this (mis)informing PCG's readers about economics when he clearly is unable to do so properly.

PCG's Demonization of Muslims Part 3: Hatred Blooms (2003)

Happy Easter everyone. I hope everyone is having a happy holiday.

And now onto the main post.

Continuing from Part 1 and Part 2 of this series we now reach an article that seems to symbolize a distinct hardening of hostility towards Muslims as a whole that seemed to not exist among PCG's leaders until 9/11.

February 2003 issue.

As seen in Part 1 PCG's leaders never seemed to demonize Muslims in general but rather tended to vilify individual governments. The Middle East tended to only be discussed once every few issues. They seemed more fixated on Germany and China as threats to America. They seemed to lack an ideology that justified hostility towards Muslims as a whole.

As seen in Part 2 there was a distinct hardening of hostility toward Muslim majority countries after Al Qaeda's atrocities of 9/11. The Middle East was discussed in just about every issue now. PCG's dogma that Iran is the King of the South was rarely mentioned in The Philadelphia Trumpet until 9/11. Afterwards this dogma was mentioned regularly.

This hardening hostility was given concrete expression in Joel Hilliker's February 2003 article "Is Islam a Threat?" As we shall soon see Hilliker's answer is an extremely alarmist yes.

This article represents an important marker of PCG's leaders deciding to harden their view of Muslims and incorrectly present all Muslims as a unitary threat.

Now Muslims tended to be viewed by PCG's leaders in quite a derogatory way already. But it had not yet hardened into viewing all Muslims as guilty and a threat. That idea was rarely mentioned. When Muslim majority countries were mentioned, especially before 9/11, it was usually as distinct national groups. The Palestinians and Iran for the most part.

They did not tend to view Muslims as being a unitary threat until this article which expressed this attitude at length. It is important to emphasize that Muslims do not exist as one united group capable of acting together. As we shall later see Hilliker insinuates that is the case.

However Muslim individuals are divided into many nations, and even within these many individual nations there is great variety among Muslim majority nations in regard to politics and religion. Any cooperation among these nations, political groups and religious groups require much work and labor at maintaining such cooperation. These divisions are vaguely alluded to by Hilliker but he tries to discredit such facts in order to convince tithe paying PCG members to fear all Muslims. 

(Surprisingly Iraq is never mentioned in this article. Once again we see how PCG's leaders fail to predict the future.)

Let us see what Hilliker has to say in this article.

To protect the image of Islam, many people—including George W. Bush, who has no interest in fighting one fifth of the Earth’s inhabitants—are doing their best to keep the distinction clear between Islam and Islamism.

Doesn't that sound like a good idea? Let's not antagonize such a large portion of the world when we can get what we want without doing so. But not for Hilliker.

But these distinctions can seem academic in the face of increasingly vocal, even violent popular Muslim uprisings occurring worldwide. The extremists themselves see no distinction, except insofar as some Muslims are failing in their responsibility to wage war. Bin Laden labels the U.S.-led war on terrorism “a war against Islam,” and has appealed to Muslims worldwide with the battle cry, “Rise in support of your religion. Islam is calling you.” 

"The extremists themselves see no distinction". Maybe they are wrong. Maybe this is part of the reason why they are extremists? Is Hilliker going to agree with these unnamed extremists and say there is "no distinction" between "Islam and Islamism"?

Also Hilliker somehow fails to note that when Osama bin Laden says "Islam is calling you" the murderer was actually calling for people to join Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was calling for people to join his band of murderers. He merely claimed to be speaking for Islam when in fact he was speaking for himself.

After this Joel Hilliker says that PCG's God hates America more than Al Qaeda, according to Hilliker.

Significant prophecies show that militant Islam does pose a serious threat—MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN THE VAST MAJORITY REALIZE—to the United States, Britain and the Jewish nation of Israel. Islamism will also deeply impact the European Union and, indirectly, the whole of the world. You cannot afford to ignore these biblical truths.

In evaluating current events in light of these prophecies, the Trumpet’s purpose is not to condemn any religion. Yes—GOD’S LAW absolutely condemns the seething hatred and violence being cultivated among many Islamist groups. But realize this: YOUR BIBLE shows that God is in fact MORE ANGRY with the nations those groups are TARGETING!

I wonder how those who survived the horrors of 9/11 and mourn those who were murdered will react to words such as these?

Even a dispassionate evaluation of the major conflicts in the world today suggests a measure of culpability on the part of the Islamic community as a whole.

In other words, All Muslims are guilty according to Joel Hilliker. This is simply crude guilt by association fear mongering being used against all Muslims. It is wrong to blame the innocent for what was done by the guilty.

Joel Hilliker then promotes the idea that there is a "clash of civilizations". Hilliker then uses this idea to say Muslims everywhere are prone to extremism and lashing out with violence against non-Muslims.

The facts support the thesis of Harvard’s Samuel Huntington, that most conflicts are occurring along the civilizational divide of Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from the rest of the world. Islam is butting heads with the Orthodox world not only in the northern Caucasus region (Russians vs. Chechens), but in the rest of the Caucasus (Turks vs. Greeks and Azeris vs. Armenians), as well as Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus and even Ethiopia. Muslims are fighting the Chinese in Malaysia and in China’s Xinjiang province. They are battling with Hindus in India, and with Buddhists in Bangladesh, Myanmar and Thailand. Of course, the most renowned Middle East conflict is between Muslims and Jews, but Muslims are also facing down Maronite Christians in Lebanon. Christian/Muslim warfare is also rife throughout Africa, being waged in Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Kenya and Tanzania, and is also at the root of problems within Indonesia and the Philippines.

This is madness. The division of Cyprus has nothing to do with ethnic tensions in Xinjiang. What's happening in Ethiopia has nothing to do with Kosovo. Here Hilliker insinuates that all these conflicts are somehow connected just because some of the participants just happen to be Muslims. 

So some Chechens were fighting to gain independence from Russia. What does that have to do with Bangladesh? Nothing.

There is a lot to be said about this paragraph so let's break it down into its individual parts.

Islam is butting heads with the Orthodox world not only in the northern Caucasus region (Russians vs. Chechens),

That is a war of secession. Some Chechens decided to fight for independence from Russia back in the early 1990s and, alas, this armed struggle has caused a lot of death and pain within Chechnya. But it is not part of some grand struggle between Muslims and the rest of the world. 

but in the rest of the Caucasus (Turks vs. Greeks 

Hilliker did not even bother to note the Turks and the Greeks are not in the Caucasus at all. Hilliker throws in so much information he somehow missed this fact. How is it that no one in PCG noticed this plain error?  

Alas, Turkey and Greece have a long history of hostility. Thankfully this has receded to a great degree since Greece had to gave up hopes of expanding their territory to Constantinople back in the early 1920s.

and Azeris vs. Armenians),

That is a border dispute partly caused because of the way the borders between what is now Armenia and Azerbaijan were drawn up during the Stalinist era. How can "Islam" be blamed for this border dispute? 

as well as Bosnia, 

The worse atrocities were committed by the genocidal forces of Karadžić and Mladić who led the ethnic Serbs within Bosnia. Here it is insinuated that "Islam" caused this war. That is not true. If anything the leaders of Serbia and Croatia bear far more responsibility for the collapse and violent destruction of Yugoslavia then the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims were tragically caught in the middle and suffered the most. 83% of civilian fatalities in Bosnia were Bosnian Muslims.

Kosovo,

The war in Kosovo was part of the disintegration of Yugoslavia which saw Belgrade fighting Slovenians, Croatians fighting Serbs, some Serbs choosing to fight with the Bosnian Muslims against the genocidal forces of Karadžić and Mladić, etc. The Kosovo War is not evidence of some war between all "Islam" and all non-Muslims.

Cyprus

Which is a conflict between Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks. How can "Islam" be blamed for the tragic division of Cyprus? This idea from Hilliker is just madness.

and even Ethiopia.

Whatever tensions may have existed between Muslims and Christians within Ethiopia no doubt got alleviated to some extent once predominantly Muslim Eritrea gained independence in 1993.

Muslims are fighting the Chinese in Malaysia

And what does ethnic tensions in Malaysia have to do with Cyprus or Bosnia? Nothing.

and in China’s Xinjiang province.

And what do problems in Xinjiang have to do with Ethiopia or Cyprus? Nothing.

They are battling with Hindus in India,

"They" are Indian Muslims. They are not working with people in Xinjiang, Ethiopia or Bosnia.

and with Buddhists in Bangladesh,

"They" are Bangladeshi Muslims. They are not working with people in Xinjiang, Ethiopia or Bosnia.

Myanmar

In some parts of Myanmar the local Muslims (Rohingya) are viewed as a hated minority. From what I have heard elsewhere they are forbidden to take up citizenship. The Rohingya are forbidden to own property or even own a house. The authorities view them as alien foreigners even though they have lived in Myanmar for centuries. In recent years, after Hilliker's article was written, some extremist Buddhist monks has stirred up the majority Burmese population to launch vicious and deadly attacks against Rohingya communities that have killed many people and forced many Rohingya to flee for their lives.

and Thailand.

There has been a secessionist insurgency among Muslim populations in the south of Thailand for years now, but what does that has to do with Chechnya? Nothing. What does it have to do with Bosnia and the collapse of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines? Nothing.

Of course, the most renowned Middle East conflict is between Muslims and Jews,

A portion of the those "Muslims" fighting Jews that Hilliker talks about here are actually Christians. Many Palestinians are actually Christians. How does Hilliker's ridiculous assertion that is a "clash of civilizations" account for the many Christian Palestinians? This is never addressed in Hilliker's article.

but Muslims are also facing down Maronite Christians in Lebanon. 

Every group fought every other group during the horrible Lebanese Civil War that raged from 1975 till 1992. Shiite Hezbollah at times fought against another Shiite party, Amal. There were numerous factions that fought in that most degraded and cynical war. The way it is presented here by Hilliker is extremely misleading.

Christian/Muslim warfare is also rife throughout Africa, 

But those are separate wars that, for the most part, occur within individual nation states. They are not part of some grand conspiracy by all Muslims to take over Africa. It is just nonsensical to insinuate it might be like that. It is simply not so.

being waged in Sudan, 

From the 1950s onwards, on and off, there was indeed a catastrophic and monstrous civil war in southern Sudan as the Khartoum regime murderously tried to impose their rule upon the predominantly Christian and animist south. In 2005 Khartoum was compelled to give up waging war against the south and started the process that saw South Sudan gain independence. But even so Khartoum continues to wage war against ethnic minorities in Darfur and the south of current Sudan to this day What does that have to do with Lebanon or Bosnia? Nothing.

Nigeria, 

And what does the conflict in Nigeria have to do with Chechnya and Thailand? Nothing.

Chad, 

What does conflict in Chad have to do with Lebanon or Myanmar? Nothing.

Kenya 

What does conflict in Kenya have to with Armenia, Bangladesh and Cyprus? Nothing.

and Tanzania,

What does conflict in Tanzania have to do with Kosovo and Malaysia? Nothing.

and is also at the root of problems within Indonesia 

Also the Asian financial crisis of 1997-8 is widely cited as contributing to the armed violence that occurred in some parts of Indonesia at that time. Hilliker does not discuss this aspect of that issue.

and the Philippines. 

What does conflict in the Philippines have to do with Chad? Nothing.

(Hey, Hilliker forgot Somalia!)

The point is these are all separate wars created in response to local and national issues within those nations. They are not a part of some grand unifying conflict of Muslims against the entire non-Muslim world as Hilliker here insinuates. That is just narrow minded and ignorant nonsense. 

One thing that is quite important about this article is that it appears to be the first time PCG quoted Daniel Pipes. Daniel Pipes is infamous for vilifying Muslims. PCG has very often quoted Daniel Pipes ever since. Here is the first quote.

Commentator Daniel Pipes asserts that the current period of “backwardness, resentment, extremism and violence” within much of the Muslim world is actually atypical of Islam’s long history. “[I]ndeed,” he concludes, “it may be the worst era in that entire history” (National Post, Aug. 2, 2002).

Daniel Pipes is notorious for vilifying Muslims. In 2011 the Center for American Progress identified him as being part of what is called the Islamophobia Network. Do not be fooled by this quote: Daniel Pipes is quite notorious for tending to present Muslims in a bad light. Since this article Daniel Pipes has often been quoted by PCG's leaders as an expert, many times by Joel Hilliker himself. Daniel Pipes (most often via Joel Hilliker) is PCG's link to the Islamophobia Network.

This trend explains why—despite the familiar assertion that 9/11 was the work of a tiny group claiming to be Muslim but totally at odds with the majority Muslim view—there has not been more vocal opposition to such terrorism among Muslim countries and cultures. It explains why Palestinians danced in the streets when the Twin Towers collapsed. ... The reality is, Islamist thinking is much more pervasive than most would want to believe.

This is nonsense. Most Muslims hate Al Qaeda. Hilliker tries to insinuate that Al Qaeda is just like many other Muslims. This is confusing nonsense.

It is important to remember that Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operating in Yemen have never fought for the Palestinians, whether for Fatah, Hamas, or any other Palestinian faction, against the State of Israel. Although the turbulent situation regarding the Palestinians was sometimes exploited in Al Qaeda's self serving propaganda Al Qaeda have done nothing to fight on behalf of the Palestinians against the State of Israel. This is because they are murderous usurpers trying to overthrow the Arab governments in order to gain power for themselves. This fact shows once again why Hilliker's paranoid assertion that there is a "clash of civilizations" between "Islam" and the rest of the world is nonsense.

Now why would some Palestinians be shamefully dancing in the streets after 9/11? Why Palestinians and no one else? Was there something going on among the Palestinians alone at the time that could account for why some of them reacted in this shameful and degraded way?

Indeed there is, namely the second intifada. Between September 2000 and January 2005 over 3000 Palestinians were killed in that severe and harrowing conflict.

Before 9/11 Richard Ames, who is from another COG group, namely LCG, wrote the following:

In September 2000, when he was still opposition leader, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, inciting Palestinian protesters to begin a new intifada of escalating violence against Israeli targets. Since Sharon's visit, more than 500 have been killed-at least 481 Palestinians, 88 Israeli Jews and 13 Israeli Arabs as of late May-in Israeli-Palestinian clashes. (Richard Ames, The Middle East in Prophecy, Tomorrow's World, July-August 2001.)

That conflict, the severe trauma of witnessing violence, the fear of being killed or losing loved ones to the severe violence of the time is what made this morally repugnant response seem rational to those individuals. This perverted reaction was a symptom of the situation of mass violence the Palestinians were enduring at the time. Amazingly Hilliker acts as though there is no connection between the violence endured by Palestinians during the second intifada and the shameful reaction after 9/11.

This does not justify what those individuals did. It was wrong, shameful and disgusting. But Hilliker fails to understand the context of what happened and exploits the shameful incident in an irresponsible way to inaccurately allege that there is a grand "clash of civilizations" between Muslims as a whole and non-Muslims when this is simply not the case.

The terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11 was a conspiracy conducted by a clandestine network of murderers, namely Al Qaeda. Hilliker seems to think focusing only on the guilty is undesirable. This goes against fundamental ideals of justice.

A common mistake Westerners make in evaluating the cause of Islamism is to focus purely on economic and material issues—to interpret Muslim anger as merely stemming from a lack of Western freedoms and privileges. The thinking is, Just give the Islamist a job and a car, and he’ll calm down.

As bin Laden himself put it, “Because America worships money, it believes that [other] people think that way too.”

And Hilliker thinks Osama bin Laden was right saying this? How does Hilliker know? What if he's lying? That thought never seems to occur to Hilliker. He just trusts that Osama bin Laden should just be taken at his word. There is no attempt to see if there is something else going on.

Hilliker then fearfully proclaims that terrorist attacks far worse than 9/11 are about to occur at any moment.

Though this prophecy will not be fulfilled until after some earth-shaking geopolitical events, it describes the cruel attitude behind this alliance—an attitude we see in embryo today: “They [the nations of this alliance] have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, and let us cut THEM OFF FROM BEING A NATION; THAT THE NAME OF ISRAEL MAY BE NO MORE IN REMEMBRANCE. For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee” (vv. 3-5). At that time, these nations will have one goal on their minds: to COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE ISRAEL—which includes America and Britain.
 
Realize: THE ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-ISRAEL PASSIONS WE SEE TODAY ARE BUILDING TOWARD THE UNPARALLELED HATRED DESCRIBED IN THIS PROPHECY!

Hatred on that scale could only be motivated by Satan the devil! God’s adversary would love nothing more than to obliterate the name of Israel—which means “GOD PREVAILS—GOD WILL RULE”!

Hilliker then claims in an alarmist way that 9/11 "was only a mild prelude."

In other words, the terror of September 11 was only a mild prelude. Failure to turn to God will mean a SEVENFOLD INCREASE in terror!

It is one of the most powerful and condemning ironies of our time: Many of the things about the West that rankle the Muslim world and anger Islamist extremists are the very things for which GOD condemns Israel!

God does not support terrorists. He condemns their anger, their violence, their self-righteousness. He will bring their every act into judgment (Eccl. 12:14).

But at the same time, IT IS STRONGLY CONDEMNING WHEN GENTILE PEOPLES HAVE A CLEARER-EYED VIEW OF THE EVILS AND SINS WITHIN ISRAEL THAN THE ISRAELITISH PEOPLE HAVE THEMSELVES!

And God is allowing the terrorism, allowing the violence—allowing the devil to sway these people into acting upon their brutal, satanic hatreds against America and Britain.

Fourteen years since 9/11, twelve years since this article was published, we are still waiting for a more severe terrorist attack. This is yet another false prophecy.

Just how many are going to be killed in these later terrorist attacks?

Gerald Flurry shows in his book Ezekiel—The End-Time Prophet that this refers to violence in the cities that includes terrorist violence. Ezekiel’s prophecy indicates that future attacks will wreak death on a sickening scale!

September 11 killed thousands.

THE DEATH TOLL OF THIS FUTURE VIOLENCE WILL MOUNT INTO THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

We are still waiting for "future violence" to kill "hundreds of millions" twelve years after this article was made.

What utter nonsense. It is bizarre to claim that all those conflicts are somehow the same. They are not.

It is terrible that PCG members and co-workers are being told such nonsense and getting badly misinformed about such important events.

It is despicable, not to mention wrong, for Joel Hilliker to say there is "a measure of culpability on the part of the Islamic community as a whole" for the various conflicts that are going on. They are separate conflicts, for the most part occurring in separate nation states, not part of some grand "clash of civilizations" as is portrayed here. It also carelessly blames the innocent for what was done by the guilty.

Joel Hilliker hysterically says "that militant Islam does pose a serious threat—MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN THE VAST MAJORITY REALIZE" and yet twelve years later such terrorist violence has simply failed to occur.

What a sick and disgusting, hate filled screed Joel Hilliker's article is. It deserves to treated as irresponsible scare mongering of the worst kind. It is designed to scare people into thinking the only way to save oneself is to join PCG and pay PCG three tithes and extra offerings. That is why Joel Hilliker can live in a house like this.

Hilliker's home at PCG's headquarters. (PCG Information.)

 

***

Here are some other articles related to PCG's demonization of Muslims: 

PCG's Demonization of Iran

PCG and Bigotry Against Muslims (Islamophobia)

PCG's Ron Fraser Mistakes Wahhabism's Age by 1100 Years

PCG's Ron Fraser's Demonization of Muslims After 9/11 (2001) 

PCG's Stephen Flurry Obliquely Quoted in Book About Islamophobia: PCG's Small Impact Upon Society Exposed

PCG and the Islamophobia Network

PCG Continuing to Vilify Muslims

PCG's Demonization of Muslims Part 1: Before 9/11
 
PCG's Demonization of Muslims Part 2: Conceiving Hate (2001-3)

Repost: Thoughts on the Wednesday Crucifixion

Happy Easter everyone. I hope everyone is having a happy and fulfilling holiday.

Here is a repost of a post, Thoughts on the Wednesday Crucifixion, regarding HWA's teaching that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday.

***

Was Jesus crucified on a Wednesday? Well those interested in this topic might wish to see this Answers in Genesis article about this. It goes in very well with ESN's article on this matter.

I remember how HWA boasted in his Autobiography that "opponents of God's Sabbath can invent some fifty-seven varieties of arguments to explain why they don't keep the Sabbath. But they have only one argument for observing Sunday -- the supposition of a Sunday morning resurrection."

Then he "discovers" the Wednesday Crucifixion doctrine. "It was about this time, summer, 1927, my wife and I had learned an exciting, shocking truth. The resurrection of Christ did not occur on Sunday morning!...The crucifixion was on Wednesday." (The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, Chapter 19. All quotes from the Autobiography here come from this chapter.)

HWA, however, neglected to mention that he was not original with this teaching. It is amazing how often he does that. "Sabbath historian, John N. Andrews, [who was not an Armstrongite but a Seventh Day Adventist] said that the crucifixion was on Wednesday, and the resurrection on Saturday." (Ivor C. Fletcher, The Incredible History of God's True Church, Chapter 13.)

It needs to be stated here that the Seventh Day Adventist Church appears to believe in a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. Some of them have even written articles on the web arguing that the Wednesday Crucifixion could not have happened, as may be seen here and here. Another article critiquing this belief from a Protestant perspective may be seen here.

It is intriguing that HWA made no mention about Esther in his booklet. Some of the anti-Wednesday Crucifixion articles comment that in Esther 4:16 it is written, "Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish." It is clear in the next verse that Mordecai followed these instructions. "So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him." The New American Standard Bible puts it this way: "So Mordecai went away and did just as Esther had commanded him." And then later in Esther 5:1 we read, "Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther...stood in the inner court of the king's house". As one writer puts it here, "these two expressions are identical and used interchangeably".

HWA never specifically addressed Esther. He does discuss this argument concerning idioms in his Autobiography. Here he pretends that this is a Greek idiom and pretends that it does not exist in Hebrew. "The usual argument employed to discredit Jesus' statement, that this was an idiomatic expression in the original Greek meaning only three parts of days, or either a day or night, did not stand up. We had the same three days and three nights duration expressed in Jonah, inspired in Hebrew which knows no such idiomatic twist -- or idiotic twist."

Notice how he makes it appears that Hebrew did not possess such an idiom. Yet he conveniently ignored the fact that this very idiom occurs in Esther 4:16 and 5:1. Therefore his statement that Hebrew possess no such idiom is shown to be yet another ill informed assertion. No wonder he was called Mr. Confusion.

Furthermore HWA then relates how he related this doctrine to a COG7 minister who had earlier healed his wife and he decided that this was not a matter worth preaching on. After that he (allegedly) lost his gift of healing. This story is carefully designed to make his followers fearful of ever getting any doctrine wrong. This is done in order to make the reader more dependent on him. "The servant of God cannot stand still. Either he advances, and grows spiritually against opposition and obstacles, or he falls by the wayside to be rejected."

In reality this story is used in order to make his followers fearful of ever doing the wrong thing. Hence when the prospective member discovers second and third tithes that one will remember this fearful story and, afraid that God will leave him should he or she reject this "new truth" revealed by "God's Apostle," will accept this great burden despite the weak basis for those practices. It is clear that HWA mainly used this story to impact us. He makes that point clear at the end of this fear inducing story. ""Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed, lest he fall!" How about YOU?"

Such fear inducing statements reminds me of another similar fear inducing statement made by Herman Hoeh in his booklet, A True History of the True Church, under the heading Church Grows in Truth: "Here is the KEY that proves which individuals are in God's Church. It is composed ONLY of those who are GROWING INTO TRUTH as God reveals it. The moment anyone ceases to GROW, but wants to retain only what he had five or ten years ago, FROM THAT MOMENT ON THE HOLY SPIRIT CEASES TO LIVE IN HIM."

These are merely statements made to implant fear into the reader in order to make that person more willing to submit to this cult's dictatorial rule. These statements are not parts of "the truth," but simply attempts at mind control.

When I read Exit and Support Network's article on this matter it argued that when the two men walking to Emmaus said that "and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:21) it is argued that this Scripture proves that a Wednesday crucifixion could not have occurred.

No matter how you count, whether you assume parts-of-days or 24-hour days, there is no way you can come up with a Wednesday crucifixion: If you count parts-of-days backward, the crucifixion occurred on Friday. If you count 24-hour days backward, the crucifixion would have occurred on Thursday at 5-6 p.m. I have checked the Greek on this verse, and the Greek totally supports the "third day" rendering. This verse blows a hole the size of a barn in HWA's claim and utterly destroys it.

When I read that I remembered that when I first read HWA's booklet on this subject, The Resurrection was not on Sunday, I had a momentary doubt about this doctrine when I read his discussion upon that Scripture. "These things" refer to what? Observe the previous verse, "how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him." HWA's contention that "these things" refer to the posting of the guards the day after the crucifixion is weak. I do not see that in Luke 24. He is just using what he would call "human reasoning" to justify his pet doctrine.

The ESN article argues that "HWA focused people's attention on picky, physical, irrelevant matters, and away from Jesus Christ, His sacrifice, and the New Covenant." This assessment of HWA's priorities is true. When HWA (allegedly) presented his latest pet doctrine to the man who healed his wife that man also made similar comments. HWA claim that this man spoke in this manner: "There are more important things for you to think about and study into. It's best to just keep your mind on Christ....Now we are saved by GRACE, not of works. We think there are more important things in salvation than which day Christ rose on, or which day we keep."

(By the way, I find it curious how HWA chose to capitalize "grace" here as though to ridicule this man's conception of Grace. I find this ironic in light of HWA's insistence that he believed in Grace. So why is he seemingly attacking this man's conception of Grace in this manner? Is Grace to be treated lightly then? HWA always claimed he believed in Grace but in fact he was talking of a different conception of it. The fact he chose to attack this man's conception of Grace here proves that.)

I wish I knew where this doctrine came from. Some may have read articles that cite old historical writings which appear to testify to the existence of this Wednesday Crucifixion doctrine long ago. Although some people seem to have developed this doctrine it needs to be stated that only a few seems to have believed this doctrine. What about all the church fathers who testified that the Lord Jesus Christ was resurrected on Sunday? As this article shows even such early figures as Justin Martyr, the authors of the Letter of Barnabas and the Didascalia believed that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday.

Why is it whenever something seems to support HWA's plagiarized teaching it "must" be true, and if any ancient writer should say that Jesus must have been resurrected on Sunday he "must" have been a part of the evil Apostacy? This is dangerously selective reasoning.

For one who believes this theory anything that seems to support HWA's plagiarized doctrine is deemed authentic, but if anyone sees anything that disagrees with HWA's conclusion it is simply dismissed as something from the Apostate church. If some ancient authority should say that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday it is simply viewed as proof that they "must" have been deceived, a part of the Apostasy. The believer in the Wednesday Crucifixion may breathlessly declare that some ancients believed it yet completely ignore all the many, many other ancient testimonies that disagree with the Wednesday Crucifixion. In fact if they believed that Christ was resurrected on Sunday that "proves" that they must have been a part of the Apostasy. This is weak and selective reasoning. Such selective reasoning has already decided on this matter and has made itself deaf to any evidence that may contradict the conclusion.

PCG Moans About Framework Agreement with Iran

Happy Easter everyone. I hope everyone is having a good holiday.

Now onto the topic at hand.

So a framework agreement has been made between the United States and Iran. And what does PCG have to say about it? They have made an initial response in the following article.

Washington is saying that the eventual agreement will limit Iran’s nuclear program. But many are expressing doubt that the negotiation will keep a nuclear weapon out of the hands of the world’s greatest terrorist nation.

Events seem to be this way to them because PCG's leaders have thrown themselves into an information bubble by only reading news sources they like, predominantly of the right wing variety. They are so confident they know what is "really" going on they do not bother to look at the other side of the story.

They are so stuck in their information bubble that when I saw Gerald Flurry quoting Michael Hastings in his 2013 booklet, America Under Attack, I immediately thought there was something odd about it as PCG's leaders are not inclined to have read a journalist like Michael Hastings.

It turned out that Gerald Flurry was actually relying on a right wing news report about Michael Hastings, specifically The Blaze, but The Blaze's article was not cited in Flurry's booklet.

This shows just how utterly reliant PCG's leaders are towards right wing news sources.

If [Iranian foreign minister Javad] Zarif’s version of events is to be trusted, the United States is about to capitulate to Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the proposed agreement, saying it is a threat to Israel’s survival. He said such a deal “paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” by leaving Iran’s vast nuclear infrastructure in place.

Since 1994 PCG has demonized Iran as being fated to become the King of the South. (Although this dogma appears to have been rarely mentioned until after 9/11.) It is to PCG's advantage to proclaim that Iran is getting the best of the United States. To portray events that way allows PCG's leaders to proclaim that their fearful prophecies are about to occur.

The Trumpet believes Iran’s nuclear program will yield nuclear weapons and that the Islamic republic will use those weapons.

Considering how often PCG's leaders have been utterly wrong about many things (the Muslim Brotherhood turning Egypt into another Iran for instance) and how PCG's leaders do not bother to look at the other side of the story such proclamations from them is worthless.

PCG's leaders say President Obama is some kind of Antichrist like figure, "another Antiochus" specifically. How can people of such extremist views be taken seriously? PCG's leaders are not a reliable source for news of this sort.

PCG's Gerald Flurry Using Star Wars to Lure People Into PCG

So Gerald Flurry has recently released the following twelve page booklet, entitled "The Real Star Wars", which exploits the widespread affection and admiration for Star Wars to lure people into PCG so that more people can pay three tithes and extra to PCG for the rest of their lives.

By alluding to how angels are sometimes referred to as stars Flurry presents Armstrongism's dogmas concerning angels and demons as "the real star wars" in order to get more people to join PCG.

Most of you have heard about the science-fiction fantasy Star Wars movie series. But did you know that the Bible talks about a REAL star wars that is more astounding than any fiction? The real star wars have been going on for thousands of years, and whether you realize it or not, they are affecting your life. ...

This is not fantasy. This is REALITY. It is happening behind the scenes—but it is clearly depicted in your Bible if we do a little digging to see—and its end is imminent. ...

The Bible uses stars as symbols for angels. ...

There are also fallen stars. (Gerald Flurry, The Real Star Wars, 2015, p. 1.)

Parts of this booklet have been lifted from other writings by Gerald Flurry.

The first part of this booklet comes from Chapter 5 of Gerald Flurry's 2002 booklet, Ezekiel: The End-Time Prophet. Here Gerald Flurry recites the idea inherited from HWA that the King of Tyrus mentioned in Ezekiel 28 is, he says, actually referring to Satan's fall into sin.

In Ezekiel 28, there is a prophecy about “the king of Tyrus.” But this clearly is not speaking of a mortal man. In fact, this is referring to Lucifer, who became Satan. “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold …” (Ezekiel 28:12-13). Lucifer was right there in Eden, the garden of God. (Gerald Flurry, Ezekiel: The End-Time Prophet, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009, Chapter 5, pp. 40-41.)

In Ezekiel 28, there is a prophecy about “the king of Tyrus.” But this clearly is not speaking of a mortal man. In fact, this is referring to Lucifer, who became Satan. “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God ; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold ...” (Ezekiel 28:12-13). Lucifer was right there in Eden, the garden of God. (Gerald Flurry, The Real Star Wars, 2015, p. 1.)

Other parts of this booklet are taken from Gerald Flurry's 2009 article, Satan's Power.

This prophecy was recorded some 2,500 years ago. For two and a half millennia, its meaning has been closed up and sealed. But we are living in the time of the end today, and God has unsealed this prophecy! He has revealed its meaning. (You can prove this from our free booklet Daniel—Unsealed at Last!) That is a gigantic miracle! What a thrill and a wonder to be able to understand this prophecy.  (Gerald Flurry, Satan's Power, February 2, 2009.)

This prophecy was recorded some 2,500 years ago. For 2½ millennia, its meaning has been closed up and sealed. But we are living in the time of the end today, and God has unsealed this prophecy! He has revealed its meaning. (You can prove this from our free booklet Daniel Unsealed at Last.) That is a gigantic miracle! What a thrill and a wonder to be able to understand this prophecy. (Gerald Flurry, The Real Star Wars, 2015, p. 5.)

This is not the first time Armstrongites have tried to use Star Wars to lure people into Armstrongism. Back in the October-November 1980 issue of The Plain Truth, when The Empire Strikes Back was released, Jeff Calkins wrote an article ("The Empire Strikes Back: What the Critics Didn't Tell You", pp. 32-38.) in which he crudely insisted that the Star Wars saga was just like Armstrongism's dogma that God will soon unseat Satan from controlling the world.

It does not matter how they try to pretty up PCG's teachings, it is still essentially the same as what HWA taught as far back as the 1930s and doomed to fail.

Many of the dire pronouncements Gerald Flurry make are based on the discredited dogma of British Israelism. As Silenced.co has shown British Israelism is built on a foundation of sand. In fact DNA evidence refutes British Israelism.

Gerald Flurry predicted that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over Egypt and turn it into an Islamist state like Iran. He never foresaw that they would be overthrown and suppressed in a military coup in 2013 with much loss of life.

Gerald Flurry claims to be the heir of Herbert W. Armstrong, who is hailed as the end-time Elijah by Flurry. But HWA made many false prophecies that simply did not happen. HWA even said Christ would return in 1975.

HWA and Flurry's words are vain which will fail to be fulfilled. But a lot of lay members will pay them money while the leaders of Armstrongism still live.