Two excerpts from Mark Armstrong's March 11
Weekly Update.
We're not about to try to tell anyone who to vote for or who not to. We can only pray to God for the peace and safety of the United States in a time where vicious enemies have been strengthened and we've been systematically invaded by people with no respect for our traditions or laws. Thanks to the weak and/or intentionally wrongheaded "leadership" of recent years, many of them will actually be voting in the upcoming elections! Maybe you saw the caucus from the environs of Minneapolis, Minnesota a couple of weeks ago where the entire meeting was conducted in a Somali dialect. That can be only one of many examples of this type of thing going on all across the United States, in some language other than English. It's an outrage.
As we've said numerous times before, Western civilization is under attack. Not only from the Muslim hordes and their murderous religion, but by its own leaders. It has shaped up in Europe, and to a lesser degree in the United States, that if you're not on board in support of "multiculturalism," socialist redistribution and the idiotic theory of man-made global warming, you are dangerous. Rejection of that philosophy is taking hold across Europe and leading inexorably toward political upheaval.
Yup, no clues there about which way Mark leans.
23 comments:
Even if we assumed for the moment that Mark's premises were true, his comments are inflammatory. If you are preaching a message to appeal to people from all walks of life, you modulate the rhetoric to bring a wider audience on board.
Herb's old hook was a message promoting fear at the highest possible level, leading to the acceptance of the Armstrong gospel. Today, Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk show hosts are preaching a secularized version of the fear gospel to recruit new members to the Republican Party.
In falling in step with the rhetoric of ultra-conservatives, the ACOGS lose Herb's original targeted audience, the fearful amongst the common, everyday people. Back in the day, if a listener heard about the bomb, economic depression, or the rise of the vanquished enemies of the most recent war, the message was party neutral. It struck a common chord.
GTA in the 1960s included in his message things of which liberals stood in fear, such as the deplorable condition of the environment at that time, as well as greed and corruption in business and government. Mark could easily work climate change into his father's 1960s blueprint, as well as other fears and concerns of the left, lending a universality to the message, and balancing it out. Why GTA used to strap on his guitar at student functions to sing a liberal anthem, Joe South's "Walk a Mile in my Shoes." That's what made him different. His general tone appealed to both liberal and conservative alike.
BB
The thing that struck me about what Mark has written here is how racist it sounds, as though it were either written for or cribbed from a speech at a KKK rally. "...People with no respect for 'our traditions'...?" He objects to people speaking languages other than English? That's not my culture'n'heritage! I guess he stopped short of objecting to the relatively dark Arabic complexion. Is it any wonder he appears to be recommending his followers vote for the most racist presidential candidate since David Duke?
Maybe I'm just missing it, but the media, quick to jump on candidate gaffe's or historical revelations in past election cycles, don't seem to be taking The Donald to task in the usual way. Perhaps it was explained to them that the old conventional wisdom for how to win presidential primaries has been thrown out, and they were satisfied with that. At best this seems like bubbly irrationality; the same sort of thinking that made it acceptable to dispense with all the old wisdom about who qualifies for a mortgage. Somehow, despite what I would categorize as a little conservative over-exuberance, I think Trump is going to be surprised, should he get the GOP nomination, that the average voter in the general election isn't exuberant about him at all. In any event, whatever influence Mark has over his puny voting bloc won't matter at all, and whatever outcome should transpire, the US won't go to hell in a handbasket because of whoever is president for the next 4 years. The quality of candidates the GOP has fielded in the 21st century hasn't been stellar, but this year, they all fit into one clown car. I think it's a pretty safe bet that whoever wins the democratic primary this election cycle has already won the won the white house.
I like Byker Bob's comment above. There was a time in which Ted was critical of pollution and the arms race, and even elements of the right-wing. It seemed to me, though, that Ted's rhetoric became more right-wing in the 1990's, when conservative talk radio was ascending. Granted, Ted was already right-wing on some issues before then, particularly on cultural-social issues (i.e., homosexuality). But, in the 1990's, he was speaking the right-wing spiel on illegal immigration.
Mark Armstrong is a hopeless right-wing looney and fascist. That we have produced so many of his ilk is one of the things which disgust me about this Armstrong movement. I remember in the 1970s writing to Brian Knowles, then editor of the Plain Truth magazine, complaining bitterly about the racist and fascist articles by then Chief Right-wing Fanatic Gene Hogberg, whom I speculated must have been in the employ of the CIA in those Cold War years.
Brian, one of the most sensible and balanced persons we ever produced, advised me to write to Stan Rader and Wayne Cole. Which, in my naivety then, I did. I wrote showing why those articles stoutly supporting apartheid South Africa as well as racist Rhodesia and every American misadventure in the Third World was detracting from our mission of preaching Christ's true Gospel.(I see the same trash regurgitated in the Philadelphia Trumpet today. Cant stomach it so I limit myself to reports on the Living Armstrongism blog)
How can we say we are not political and even ban our members from voting when we were(are) so blatantly partisan and Republican? What reprehensible hypocrisy! By the way, does Mark Armstrong write or know anything about doctrine? Has he even ever tried even proof-texting on any Biblical subject? Does he know of any other doctrines of his grandfather except British-Israelism? Seriously, I have never seen anything Biblical that he has written. No doubt he regards his right-wing rantings as "preaching the Gospel" and "warning Israel". Does he preach about doctrine? Does he even know where to find particular books in the Bible, or does he just read right-wing garbage every day?
I am sorry to be so harsh, especially as a Minister in a church his father founded and as someone who still regards Mark as a brother. And it's not my style to be strident. I am not emotionally comfortable writing like this. You must know, therefore, how I feel about right-wing fanaticism (I similarly despise leftist fanaticism and Islamic fanaticism-- as well as religious fanaticism, too!)
But if Paul could publicly rebuke Peter for his ethnic chauvinism , I suppose it is quite appropriate for me to publicly oppose this Armstrong for so shamelessly betraying the Gospel.
It's not just you guys who are disgusted with this movement. I am, too. It is just that I still hold the view that it has the truth, despite all the dross and rubble. I think Gavin and Gary should stop giving coverage to Mark Armstrong's right-wing inanities. Treat them with the contempt they deserve. Some people I don't even bother to respond to.
I once described the Plain Truth as a "right-wing rag" in one of my articles in the 1970s. My then WCG Caribbean Director Stan Bass and my local minister rebuked me but, fortunately , I escaped disfellowshipment. They perhaps forgave my youthful exuberance as a journalist! Ian Boyne
Vintage Byker Bob with his brilliant, insightful comments on the success marketing strategies of the Armstrongs in the 1960s and 1970s! They remind me of why he is my must-read among critics of the Armstrong movement. Sharp, penetrating mind; deeply analytical. We who are still a part of the Armstrong movement would do well to take some(not all) lessons from him about what not to do and how to gain some relevance for our movement today. I am sure that's not a part of BB's objectives--but let's say its an "unintended consequence" which we Armstrongites should not mind ! LOL Ian Boyne
It is terribly disingenuous for some in the COGs to pretend they are somehow above the fray and pretend that just because they do not vote that hey are neutral when in fact the COGs for the most part tend to lean to the right in regards to political affairs.
Very few are fooled by such talk.
I do not condemn the COGs for being right wing. That is their choice. But since they are right wing they should not pretend that they are above the fray of politics when in fact they are far from neutral.
I wonder if GTA felt emasculated by his father. Even as a middle aged man it seems as if he had no real authority, no real power. Sure, he had money, celebrity, etc. But he didn't have real influence. He simply followed through on what HWA wanted. Daddy had to approve everything. He didn't even have control of the money (SR made sure of that)It's like GTA was working for his dad, always, and was never to be his own man. Now Mark is drawing a paycheck off the talent of his father. Does he ever feel as if he has accomplished much in his life? Did they give up all opportunity to be their own person for the hope of getting a paycheck for little effort? I wonder if both GTA and Mark sometimes questioned the road they took in life? What would their lives have been like if each of them were really on their own, doing what they really wanted to do? How often have they thought, "What if . . . .?"
Well put, Redfox712 Ian Boyne
Thank you, Ian Boyne.
Just read the Weekly Update for myself. My word. It is even worse than I thought it would be after reading this post. Mark Armstrong should stop embarrassing himself with such writings and educate himself to stop viewing the world in such a paranoid way. The paranoid style is alive and well with Mark Armstrong. No good can come from this.
I absolutely don't get why Ian Boyne is associated with a COG. It's mind-boggling.
BYKER:
Your first comment above got me thinking. Talk Radio , which is primarily dominated by conservative talk, did not really come into its own until the 1980s.
Prior to that, it was unknown. What gave GTA/HWA a unique marketplace presence was that their programs were just as often about the news and current events as it was about the Bible. Sure there were other religious broadcasters, but not any that could appeal to the latent "conservative talk" listener that existed in the day.
With that marketplace now saturated with talks hosts and the like, COG marketing efforts that attempt to market in that same manner find themselves faced with a plethora of competition in that market segment. Again , another example of why HWA/GTA found traction ... a unique time and circumstance.
It would have been easier for Mark to say he stands for borders, language and culture in the USA and Europe than for open borders and the admittance of those who will not assimilate into the culture. I believe that is what he is saying but he spoke as a man who fails to communicate well. He is a poor speaker and communicator no doubt.
Mr. Anon.
I burst out in laughter at Anonymous' bewilderment re my involvement with a COG. I get that reaction sometimes from highly educated people who know of my involvement with Armstrongism. What on earth could I find of value in such a cultic and weird group when I should have better options? And they know it's not for the money, for I am not paid , and it is not because I need an audience, for I am already a well-known journalist and communications executive. I remember one theologian, who is now President of one of one our leading theological seminaries, saying to me a number of years ago, " Ian, when are you going to get yourself attached to a real denomination?" DWL Ian Boyne
You should not demean other Ian. You sound like Herbert Armstrong.
>>I get that reaction sometimes from highly educated people who know of my involvement with Armstrongism<< Highly educated people? They talk to you? Why?
You may be involved not for money but for the appearance as an authority figure trying to gain a following. Your response Ian.
Mr. Anon.
If the ACoG broadcasters would like to achieve greater relevance, and to attract a greater audience, what would prevent them from conducting interviews on topics which have "sizzle" in the daily news, and affect all of us? Why not be on the cutting edge of making a positive impact on contemporary society? They called their college "Ambassador". Isn't a positive impact something "ambassadors for Christ" should be making? Where are their equivalents, to use an outstanding example, of Annicia Gayle Geddes, whose work and calling is in promoting social justice and equality for those with disabilities, as recently interviewed on "Profile"? (Google it, and watch!) There must be dozens of people and topics available whose inclusion would provide an aura of universality and a feeling of relevance that magazines and programs with thesaurus equivalents of the words "plain", "truth", "world", and "tomorrow" simply lack. Messages must strike a common chord, and must reach people in such ways and depth that they will relate. Otherwise, it all becomes vapid, and seems to have been phoned in. Surely, there are many more attractive and endearing emotions than the fear and anger associated with right wing politics. Deep inner joy comes from positivism. Not from a Kafkaesque state of logging one's time.
BB
I'm no fan of the Armstrongs, but I do agree with Mark's opinion, and he has a right to speak his mind. So what is wrong with being a right wing conservative? Let me see, when a left wing politically correct pinko liberal nut=job is voicing his/her opinions on social issues like immigration, abortion, gay rights, etc. that is okay? But when a conservative has an opinion on the same issues it's deemed hate and intolerance? I get it now, so politically correct retarded God hating liberals are allowed to voice their opinions and we conservative have to keep our mouths shut. So much for free speech. I thought we lived in a democracy? I guess it's a democracy as long as you tow the politically correct line.
Peter
Great advice, BB. I seriously hope the relevant fellows(including those with access to the decision-makers) are reading this blog for such priceless consultancy. And you have been watching "Profile"? Now you have thrown in a surprise on me! A welcome, one though. Cheers! What I am sure you would love is "Religious Hardtalk". Google that, too. Ian Boyne
The issue, Peter, is NOT free speech It is not even the right to express idiotic views. I am a free speech libertarian. Google my columns on that issue. I believe people should have the right to freely express obnoxious, even insulting views(including on this blog. I know how to deal with those.) The issue is someone's passing off that as the Gospel(like Mark Armstrong) and feigning political neutrality. I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. They don't claim to be preaching the true Gospel when they spout their right-wing views. Ian Boyne
Ian B. what was the response of Rader and Wayne Cole to your letters objecting to church publications supporting apartheid South Africa etc.? I think your critique was wholly valid and courageous. What was the response?
Connie, the problem faced by a religious movement that mirrors one of two polar opposite political philosophies is that that church group ends up writing off , alienating, and excluding the very same subset of people that the party whose views they mirror is known to exclude. Those who feel excluded do not see that particular church or party as having any sincere interest in addressing the very real problems which they face in their everyday walk of life. People embrace a system if and because that system speaks to their souls, and improves their quality of life. Armstrongism is inexorably linked with the exteme right wing of the Republican party.
I believe that in the book of Acts, when diverse listeners to the Apostles' messages heard them each in their own tongue, that was a lesson in the inclusiveness of the gospel message. People from all walks of life felt as if they were being brought into something extraordinary, something which yielded a broad base of solutions into their lives. The apostles didn't foment an apartheid-like practice against the Samaritans, or consider Samaritans to be responsible for the social problems of the day. They welcomed and embraced them. The early Christian church of the day was very multi-culturlist, and the Judaizers of that day had difficulty dealing with it.
A Native American friend of mine who had grown up on the reservation asked me today if I planned to vote for Donald Trump. I realized when she asked this that I was on trial. She is very scared of the things that Donald has said, and wonders if he will start World War III. It also scares her that some of the people she has known as being benign and supportive have come out of the woodwork with frighteningly hostile views in their support for Donald Trump. When an authority figure expresses hateful feelings towards one group, you realize that sooner or later they will also turn on you.
Mark and much of the Armstrong movement desperately need a change of heart. Unless they experience that (anyone care to hold your breath?) they will naturally stunt their own growth. They are not perceived as being even handed or possessing an acceptable sense of fair play. In the minds of the slighted, their posturing makes them into the enemy rather than any reliable sort of spiritual guide. Their politicization has rendered their gospel message "of man". Fortunately, our old bud, Gamaliel, is standing by!
BB
There was absolutely no response to my letter to Rader and Cole. But knowing our autocratic culture, perhaps I should consider myself lucky there was no response, for a "response" might well have been disfellowshipment! Ian Boyne
Anonymous said...
I'm no fan of the Armstrongs, but I do agree with Mark's opinion, and he has a right to speak his mind. So what is wrong with being a right wing conservative? Let me see, when a left wing politically correct pinko liberal nut=job is voicing his/her opinions on social issues like immigration, abortion, gay rights, etc. that is okay? But when a conservative has an opinion on the same issues it's deemed hate and intolerance? I get it now, so politically correct retarded God hating liberals are allowed to voice their opinions and we conservative have to keep our mouths shut. So much for free speech. I thought we lived in a democracy? I guess it's a democracy as long as you tow the politically correct line.
Peter
____________________________________________________________
Well that is fine with me. I also agree with Mark. He is entitled to his opinion as any of us who post here.
What Mark needs to do is to voice his opinion as to his grandfather and the evil he has done. Without his opinion I would see this as support for grandpa who fucked his own daughter who was his aunt. More than a grievous sin, but a capital CRIME, worthy of death.
Post a Comment