Friday, September 20, 2019

A Darkness in the Armstrongist Heart: Blackwellian White Supremacy

A Darkness in the Armstrongist Heart: 

Blackwellian White Supremacy

Back in the Seventies, Dean Blackwell, an evangelist in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), was sent out to many congregations to present the official understanding of race then held by the WCG. I heard this special message in a large WCG congregation in the Midwest. To my knowledge, none of Blackwell’s material exists in official written form. I am working from memory in the writing of this op-ed. It is unfortunate that crucial elements of WCG dogmata are not documented. Two generations of Armstrongists have come and gone since the Seventies. Eventually and unfortunately, the doctrinal nature of Armstrongism at its roots will be lost to the passage of time.


While the WCG did believe in White Supremacy, it was not one of the traditional types of White Supremacy current in the USA. British-Israelism had to be accommodated. British-Israelism would dictate a different racial hierarchy that looks like the following list with the superior class at the top and then descending:

1. Whites descended from Ephraim and Manasseh (British-Israel; most  White Europeans of USA, Britain and former British colonies). 
2.  Jews and other Tribes of Israel (Jews and Northwest Europeans).
3. Other Whites (with purported descendants of Shem as defined by Herman Hoeh at the highest status among White people).
4. People of color (with Blacks occupying the lowest status). 
This was the WCG view of humanity as I understood it when I began attending the WCG in the late Sixties. Since this was never formally taught but existed as oral tradition, there may be slight variations in how this hierarchy is viewed by different WCG members. And it was not entirely without documentation. Herman Hoeh’s two volume “Compendium of World History” was dedicated to portraying the profound importance of British-Israel in all dimensions of world civilization. Point 2 is controversial with regard to Jews. An unofficial faction at Ambassador College, Big Sandy regarded Ashkenazi Jews as Gentiles in alignment with some of the right-wing, anti-Semitic White supremacist groups outside the WCG.


Blackwell taught that Israel, principally Britain as Ephraim and the British-Americans as Manasseh, would rule over all other peoples throughout eternity. It was not clear if this encompassed other “Israelitish” tribes (point 2 above). This was supposed to be for the good of all humanity. Afro-American WCG members, Blackwell asserted, were readily accepting of this idea once it was explained. Essentially, this was Manifest Destiny in a religiously intensified form. Implicitly, it denied the competency of all peoples to function as nations without the leadership of British-Israel. And these nations would be servants to British-Israel.

The momentum and pervasiveness of this belief in the WCG is illustrated by the following incident involving one of Blackwell’s sermons that I heard a few years later. Blackwell explained Isaiah 19:23-24 but altered its meaning even as members of the congregation were actually looking at the scripture in their open Bibles. He preached that the scripture stated that both Egypt and Assyria would be servants of Israel in the future. Whereas, from larger context, it is clear that the scripture refers to Israel, Egypt and Assyria all being one day servants of God together. And the status of the three is that of equality rather than a super-ordinate Israel with a subordinate Egypt and a subordinate Assyria. Blackwell’s mishandling of this scripture based on the already established WCG racial model provoked no reaction from the audience.

Error in Translation
Blackwell based the supremacy of the British people on a scripture in Deuteronomy 32:8-9:
“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.”
This was interpreted by Blackwell to mean that God organized the nations in order to allocate them to the oversight of the “sons of Israel.” This was not just a transient, temporal plan but would extend into eternity.

The problem is, this scripture does not say that. It instead refers not to the “sons of Israel” but to the “sons of god.” The full passage speaks of “El” and “Yahweh” and the “sons of god.” The nations were to be parceled out by El to the “sons of god” and Yahweh was to receive Jacob’s descendants from El as his portion in this process. The Masoretic translators altered this to read “the sons of Israel” to expunge anything that would seem to even hint at polytheism (see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God” and also Peter Enns’ interview with Mark Smith entitled “Who is Yahweh and Where Did Yahweh Come From?” both available on the web.) Heiser concludes:
“In light of the evidence there exists no textual or theological justification for preferring the Masoretic reading of verse 8. That verse should read "sons of God," not "sons of Israel."

This reference to other divine beings as “sons of god” should not alarm Armstrongists. Ron Dart preached a sermon that included this topic back in the Seventies. He initiated the topic with the scriptures Daniel 10:13 and Daniel 10:20.


Deuteronomy 32:9-9 reads differently in various translations – sometimes “sons of god” is used and sometimes “sons of Israel.”  The text may be footnoted with an alternate translation.  The KJV, the likely text used by Blackwell, uses the phrase “children of Israel.”  We cannot fault Dean Blackwell for a mistranslation made by Masoretes.  We can fault him for not researching this passage further. And we can fault him for immediately jumping to the conclusion that this verse should be translated in a way that means that all nations will be servants to supreme Israel throughout eternity.   This verse, if it actually were to contain the “sons of Israel” phrase, would be much more compatible with the spirit of the Old Testament commission to the Jews to bring the knowledge of god to the Gentiles rather than the White supremacist declaration of Dean Blackwell.   As it has happened, this is now a case study in the particular way that Armstrongists gratuitously spun scripture to support White Supremacy. 


I spoke with Dean Blackwell in his office in the Roy Hammer Library on the Big Sandy campus back in the mid-Seventies.  This was within a few years after I heard his presentation on race and I had a number of questions.  Unfortunately, we did we did not spend much time on my interests.  His cordial discussion ranged across a number of other general topics.  The only substantive idea I remember was a statement by Blackwell that the WCG leadership in Pasadena was very hesitant about releasing Herman Hoeh’s two volume “Compendium of World History” to lay members.  The lay membership would be likely to misunderstand and misinterpret it. It may well be that Blackwell did not have a strong background in the WCG dogma of race and was using scripted ideas developed by others when he delivered his sermons on race.  I finally excused myself and felt as if we had not communicated much.  



Anonymous said...

It's good that somebody here is looking into Dr. Michael Heiser. Mentioned him and his studies once in a COG fellowship, and all I got are blank expressions. Sad.

Anonymous said...

Friday evening Bible Study at the Ambassador College Gymnasium, I dreaded it when Herman Hoeh was the one who spoke. Not only did I find him to be boring, it wasn't long before I learned that he was also an incompetent historian. This is one reason why all areas of research need peer reviews. By that, I don't mean, friendly colleagues in the Hall of Administration, but historians from other institutions. If Hoeh and Armstrong were really interested in finding the Plain Truth, they would submit their "research" for peer review. But, once you are convinced that all others are deceived by Satan and that HWA was the fountain of truth, why would you expose your work to the corrupted minds of those in the world? The saddest part is the arrogance that accompanied their ignorance.

Anonymous said...

The cogs may be a lot of things but this is the biggest boatload of manure from you people yet.

Anonymous said...

Blackwellian White Supremacy
Here we go again. I wonder how the Blackwell Family will feel about their name getting posted here. It seems that those posting here think nothing about a family when using the name of a person who is dead in a questioning manner. ASB

Anonymous said...

When Mr Blackwell visited my country to give a sermon to my states one thousand members, he pulled up and disembarked from the back of a limousine. He was a public figure who lived like a king. Like every public figure, the limited privacy goes with the territory. According to you, king David's sins should be removed from the bible because how his family will feel.
This is typical ACOG culture with its 1001 reasons why peoples freedom of speech and every other right should be curtailed. With the curtailing never applying to the ministers. I should know since my last minister criticized me from the pulpit two times, even though he had no right or authority to do so. One standard for me, another for thee.
Mr Blackwell should have considered the family name issue before he embarked on his adulatory spree.

Anonymous said...

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28-29

if the armstrongites had understood, and accepted, the underlying principle behind such scriptures, the cogs would not have failed...

i am so glad that i am not of the kind what is obsessed with matters of the flesh and the "manifest destiny", and other fruits of a superiority be stuck in that mode must make for a hell of a mindset to overcome...

c f ben yochanan

please stop censoring me...

Tonto said...

By the time of his death, even Herman Hoeh dismissed his own work "The Compendium" as rubbish.

Anonymous said...

A reply to September 21, 2019 at 8:15 AM
My point was that any effort to correct the past will often damage the future but never change the past. I personally look at things from the belief that God exists and will correct the human failures without destroying current believers if they view things the way I believe Jesus did. Of course I could be wrong, but I know that holding grudges never leads to the peace and joy we all would like to experience. ASB

Anonymous said...

Your "effort to correct the past" and "holding grudges" are straw man arguments.
The bible tells us that the "wages of sin is death." This means damage, and permanent lifelong damage if the sin is great. Like all bullies you reject this and believe that you can cheat reality by silencing the witnesses, covering up the crime, demanding that others suspend moral evaluation, etc. This is what David attempted when he murdered Uriah the Hittite. In this worldview, natural penalties, long term consequences, Gods reaction, that one dies on the inside if one sins, is completely ignored.

"God will correct humans failures?" Not really. God enforces reality rather than wiping it out. That's why the ultimate power in the universe calls Himself God The Father. That is, IF YOU PLAY, YOU PAY.

Byker Bob said...

Armstrongism was for the most part, a load of crap. There were many people who were movers and shakers in supporting a very bogus system which was based on distortions and lies. If some of the family members of these movers and shakers are still zombies, then the kindest thing to do is to wake them up regarding the true nature of their family members' activities in support of the cult, and their mistakes. They need to see it for what it is and was, just as people raised in white supremacist militias need to be awakened to a more realistic and productive world view.

When I was in high school, I was part of the debate club and team. The art of competitive debate is based upon being given one of two opposing sides of a topic, or issue, and then doing research to support the side to which you were assigned, to articulate and defend your material in the presence of an audience and judges, who will then determine which team did a more effective job of making a convincing oration for its position. Topics of that day involved questions such as "Should capital punishment be abolished?" "Should euthanasia be legalized?" Should an economic and political union be formed amongst western hemisphere nations?". To prove one's side, research was done for materials supporting that side in an effort to win the debate. That type of research is known as "proof texting", and while it has its place in debate technique, politics, and diplomacy, it is not valid in truth-seeking, or research in the various sciences, history, or for that matter, theology. It is important that everybody realize that WCG/Ambassador College "research" was always debate quality research, and not of scientific quality in which an evidentiary trail is followed leading to conclusion, and then tested and retested, and reviewed by peers. HWA and his lackeys played to win a debate, to take and support their side in that debate, and not to discover and preach truth!!!

Members of my family were not of the level of a Heman Hoeh, a Dean Blackwell, or a Gerald Waterhouse in the cult. However, it is a matter of family WCG heretage that many of you were affected by my dad's activities and efforts suporting the church. Fortunately, although he preached it, he was not involved in supporting doctrine, but his professional activities facilitated observance of the Feast of Tabernacles in a big way. I have no problem realizing and admitting that he was a deceived partisan who devoted his talents and intellect to supporting a bogus and damaging system from which all of us have spent many hours, days, and years recovering. That realization is what I would wish for all of the family members to whom ASB made reference.


TLA said...

I have read some of Dr. Michael Heiser's materials and books. Interesting ideas.
NEO - I was at AC Big Sandy in its last few years of the 1977 shutdown.
Have to admit my studying goals were to get good grades, not question what I was learning.
I am now open to multiple sources and appreciate when an author is not dogmatic and gives multiple possible explanations.
I am trying not to be blinded by confirmation bias.
The scientific studies of origins used to be limited by creationism, now they are limited by evolution which explains complexity by the miracle of randomness.
Some are now considering that we are a simulation.
Another possibility is that there are other life forms - possibly non-physical, energy based, that created life on earth as we know it. I can see the possibility that evolution took over once we had the basic building blocks of life with all the complicated programming already in place. IF scientists were not hung up on their religious beliefs of evolution, maybe we would know more. In the meantime, don't dare blaspheme the evolution gods!

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that those here accuse me of being Like all bullies you reject this and believe that you can cheat reality by silencing the witnesses, covering up the crime when all I was doing was pointing out what Jesus taught about God's love. There is no point trying to reveal what Jesus did when he died on the cross and was resurrected. What I see here is not remotely close to what biblical Christianity teaches. I did and do not support the way WWCOG managed the churches they had formed, but there were many sincere dedicated members who like me built families who are dedicated Christians with a strong faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ. My parents and my wife's parents were never members of WWCOG but there was never a problem in our relationships regarding our religious traditions. If you look at the commentaries on biblical love you will find what true love really is. By the way I am no longer with any organized church haven't been for 20 years. ASB

Anonymous said...

BB said: “To prove one's side, research was done for materials supporting that side in an effort to win the debate. That type of research is known as "proof texting", and while it has its place in debate technique, politics, and diplomacy, it is not valid in truth-seeking, or research in the various sciences, history, or for that matter, theology.”

That’s even an apt description of the American legal system BB!

Anonymous said...

ASB, Don't worry about it ASB, there are one or two on here who love to call foul if you write against their views. Claiming that you're trying to silence them, when in fact they're trying to silence you by calling you a bully. Which they obviously are.

Byker Bob said...

Yes, 5:42, the technique is so totally pervasive that many cannot see it for what it is. We could also cite sales and advertising. Every day we are assaulted by it from many sources.

The antidote is of ccourse to question those who would use it on us.


Anonymous said...

Your race is your extended family.

Anonymous said...

I just noticed the following was posted on SHT’s post “Church of God Code of Conduct Requirements.” I think it was meant for NEO’s post🤔

Anonymous September 21, 2019 at 3:50 PM
Two important questions...

1) Is that Ron Dart sermon recalled from 70s memory, or something we can find online?
2) What's your favorite Messier object?

Feastgoer said...

I remember Dean Blackwell for something different - the day he spoke in the middle of Unleavened Bread and said at least FOUR people were at Calvary around Jesus on the day He died.

There were "two thieves" and "two malefactors," he said, based on different language in the KJV gospels. Thus the common depiction of "three crosses" is wrong.

Has anyone in the COG's ever corrected that?

Anonymous said...

8.18 PM
Interesting point. I'II Google it. I once heard a live sermon by Dean Blackwell. It was all chit chat. The intellectual content was zero. I've never come across or heard anyone else in my life who radiates such a 'I'm so very, very, very important' aura in my life. It seems that he felt that honoring people with his presence was enough, and he didn't need to say much of anything. He should have spent more time reading, and less time with his adultery.

Anonymous said...

Blackwell's interpretation doesn't really make sense to me logically, considering that there were only originally twelve "son's of Israel" and there are many more nations than that. Also to pull all of this "race" stuff out of the Bible is a feat, considering the Bible generally doesn't even refer to people by "race". They are referred to as individuals, families, peoples, tribes, and nations. Those who are not Israelite are gentile and this goes for "white" gentiles as well. God doesn't differentiate based on race or skin color. We do have reference to the Ethiopian or Cushite woman, whom Moses married.(Numbers12:1) We also have reference to the Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptized.(Acts 8:26-39) These are both positive examples of God's acceptance of these individuals. What the church does not seem to understand or stress in all of their focus on the physical identity of Israel is the fact that God accepts all equally who accept Jesus Christ, and considers all Christians to be Abraham's seed.(Galatians 3:28-29) While it may be one thing to have an interest in where you came from, it is an entirely different thing to boast over something you had no part in or control over, and use that as an excuse to exclude, or treat other Christians as second class citizens. Israel was told repeatedly to accept those who wished to join their country and worship their God as "native born" citizens.(Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:33-34; Ezekiel 47:21-23) Ezekiel illustrates that these people were to be treated as brothers and share in the inheritance of Israel, regardless of where they originally came from. Besides, what was never taken into account was that Israelite men were actually given permission to take wives from the gentile peoples they conquered, which no doubt created many "mixed marriages" in Israel.(Deuteronomy 21:10-14) Also, with King Solomon taking on so many foreign wives and concubines, there are any number of people of other ethnicities who could claim to have Israelite or Jewish blood coursing through their veins. It seems to me that there was a reason the Apostle Paul warned both Timothy and Titus not to be caught up in "...endless genealogies" which promote "speculation rather than the stewardship of God's work, which is by faith."(1Timothy 1:4; also Titus 3:9). We have frankly failed to heed Paul's warnings and have focused entirely too much on Israel's identity, while not focusing nearly enough on Christian identity, which in the end will be the only thing that causes any of us to be accepted by God, whether Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free. When all is said and done, those things don't matter.
Concerned Sister

Yes and No to HWA said...

Part 1

Dt 32:8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (LXX).
Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

“The Septuagint rendering, “according to the number of the angels of God,” is of no critical value, - in fact, is nothing more than an arbitrary interpretation founded upon the later Jewish notion of guardian angels of the different nations (Sir. 17:14), which probably originated in a misunderstanding of Deu 4:19, as compared with Dan 10:13, Dan 10:20-21, and Dan 12:1)…” (Karl Keil).

Da 12:1a And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:

“It would appear that God has assigned the special protection of Israel (as a covenant nation) to this mighty champion, the archangel Michael…” (Gleason L. Archer Jr., Daniel, EBC, Vol.7, p.150).

There is also a third view:

Dt 32:8b he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
Dt 32:9 For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

“Another rendering, which has received the sanction of eminent scholars, has been proposed as follows:
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam and set the bounds of every people, the children of Israel were few in numbers, when the Lord chose that people and made Jacob His inheritance” (compare Deu 30:5; Gen 34:30; Psa 105:9-12)” (Andrew Fausset).

“While the latter part of v.8 is unclear, the most probable meaning is that the boundaries of the nations were determined with the intent that Israel would have Canaan because her numbers could be supported in that area. This was done because Israel was central in the Lord’s affection and sovereign planning… As the people looked across the Jordan at the country that was to be their share of the world’s lands, the Song of Moses told them that they were the Lord’s portion, allotment, and inheritance” (Earl S. Kalland,” Deuteronomy,” EBC, Vol.3, pp.203-04).

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Ps 2:10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Ps 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Ps 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment...

Ps 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand;
Ps 149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
Ps 149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
Ps 149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints...

"As the next to the last psalm in the book, Psalm 149 corresponds to the location of Psalm 2 as the second. Psalm 2 announces that it is through the anointed king that the LORD will claim kings and nations for his rule. In Psalm 149, the human instrument is the assembly of the faithful, who seem in their service to be a messianic community through whom the LORD achieves what was assigned to the vocation of the Davidic king..." (James L. Mays, Psalms, Interpretation, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), p.448).

Yes and No to HWA said...

Part 2

Ps 2:6 "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill."
Ps 2:7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD? He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.
Ps 2:8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
Ps 2:9 You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
Ps 2:10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Ps 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.

Solomon's hegemony is a type of a future Israel/Jacob hegemony. In the Millennium, that starts three and a half years after the end of Jacob's trouble, the descendant of David/Solomon, instead of a "hegemony" over the land from the Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt, will have a hegemony that extends "to the ends of the earth".

"... almost a thousand years before Christ (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7), the Davidic kings of Israel were already claiming to be sons of Yahweh...

"... the "official line" of these Davidic kings was their right to rule all the earth by Yahweh's authorization and support..." (Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms Volume 1, NIVAC, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), pp.102, 112).

The king as the "son" of God "may freely ask for an extension of his rule, because it fits within God's planned universal rule. The father graciously grants to his son the promise of worldwide rule as his "inheritance." Since God is the Ruler of the world, he authorizes the Davidic king to extend his kingdom to "the ends of the earth" " (Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (EBC), (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), (Vol.5, p.70).

2Ch 9:8a Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;

The Son is ultimately Jesus Christ - the LORD thy God; but He delegates the responsibility to the human descendants of David/Solomon.

Mic 5:4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.

"... the usage of the phrase "the ends of the earth" in Judean royal ideology implies a universal empire" (Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, NICOT, (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), p.347).

Anonymous said...

BB said: "Yes, 5:42, the technique is so totally pervasive that many cannot see it for what it is. We could also cite sales and advertising. Every day we are assaulted by it from many sources. The antidote is of ccourse to question those who would use it on us."

Right you are! ;-)

Growing up Catholic I was always interested in the Bible and was fascinated why other Christians held different views. So when I came across the "Plain Truth" rag I found it interesting and would compare with a critical lens what I grew up believing in Catholicism with what the WCG taught. This obviously led to my conversion to Armstrongism. However, I've never given up my critical lens and this is what I find most bizarre with plenty of Armstrongists. Those who grew up in a different Christian group, as I did, once they were converted to Armstrongism seem to have given up their critical lens--which was what assisted them to see the flaws in their previous religious affiliation--and with all that has happened over the decades since HWA's death and WCG's demise, I'm surprised they still fail to evaluate or re-evaluate their belief system and worldview as was ordained by HWA/WCG--unless of course the revision was handed down via a minister. This extends even to refusing to read anything written by another Christian because they might be a Trinitarian or a Sunday-keeper, etc. I know people like this today making it difficult to share books or videos with them and who tell me they don't want to study anymore as they've "proven what is truth." It's completely ridiculous and just plain sad! Of course, if the Trinitarian supports what HWA taught like Hislop's debunked "The Two Babylons" then it's approved reading. I just don't understand how they can see that a critical perspective was a principle valued prior to joining Armstrongism, but afterwards it was something to be discouraged and suppressed. Further, coming from a teaching background this is a quality that is absolutely necessary in education and as you noted has application to all aspects of life otherwise if you fail to constantly evaluate information and sources of information from a critical perspective the risk is you'll be duped again and again and again.

Non_Ecliptic_Orbit said...

Anon 5:21 - Thanks for redirecting this.

1) Is that Ron Dart sermon recalled from 70s memory, or something we can find online?

This sermon was recalled from memory. I recall Dart continued along this line of thought by comparing Houston to New Orleans. The cultural disparity was great, he asserted. And this aligned with the presence and control of two different spirits. I do not think the sermons given by ministers were ever formally documented. In recent years, sermons were taped. I don't know if anyone ever listened to the tapes. I have heard WCG ministers say extraordinary and regrettable things from the pulpit. I have never heard an apology or retraction.

2) What's your favorite Messier object?



The idea that there were four instead of two malefactors at the crucifixion came from an appendix in Bullinger's Companion Bible. I heard this same idea preached in Big Sandy - I think by Dean Blackwell. I don't think this idea ever came to be widely accepted anywhere.

TLA said...

I have never heard anyone say or write that, so my guess is that was Dean Blackwell's personal idea that never found traction.

nck said...

Heheh is this all????????

When I read the sentence "the heart of darkness" I recall the death of Dag Hammerskjold by the CIA" to protect the interests of the Katanga Mining Corps. The Belgian elites in Congo, South African mercenary army Saimr spreading aids destabilizing black Africa, Congo Rwd, MI6 protecting the interests of the white race.

The "heart of darkness" as I know it, The fascist imperialists of Anglo-American mining Corps.

Not some silly rant on how a boorish preacher defines a hierarchy of Israel. But how DISRAELI and Rhodes and the Beers and Dag Hammerskjold would define that hierarchy and find each other on opposing sides in 1961.

Just follow the yellow brick road or rather the GII trail.

And you're of to find the wizard the wonderful wizard of Oz.

Perhaps in my next installment when Tarsis is discussed on this blog I might just talk a bit on who actually visited King Juan Carlos of Spain after generalussimo Franco offered him the throne and the CIA wished to bless this new course and chapter toward its policy of European Unification.


RSK said...


nck said...

"Concerned sister" did in fact summarize the official wcg teaching.

HWA did frequent "the lion of Judah" in Ethiopia and they did discuss their "common ancestor". In the eighties the Israeli government recognized part of that belief by the execution of operation "Moses" or "mannah" and rescue the Falasha from starvation.

Of those who dispute NEOS article as being THE official doctrine with a hierarchy among the races (even if it was locally accepted in the Mid West and a faction at Big Sandy), NON argue NEO by the obvious difference between HWAs teaching and the supposed Blackwellisn interpretation.

HWA primarily taught that God would hold and honor his physical "promises" to Abraham. Regardless how much time had passed or regardless how degenerate or sinful "Abraham's descendants" might have become.

Arab oil was supposed to be a part fulfillment of that promise. Like US ascendancy to world power.

NOTHING in this teaching implied racial superiority. All descendants were sinners according to Christs standards.

The flip coin of that promiss was the teaching that another people would be promised for executing God's will on earth by fulfilling his promiss to be "the rod of mine anger."

Again no indication that their race had anything to do with this role or a hierarchy for eternity.

It is just that God decreed something and that he keeps his promiss no matter what. Even if the descendants execute the fulfillment of that promiss poorly by exterminating the native Americans by force or by unintended germs or a Neurenberg trial ensues for enacting the part of "the rod of mine anger" according to the worst script ever that even a demented SLY could not contemplate.


Non_Ecliptic_Orbit said...


In the last analysis, we do not know where Dean Blackwell's views came from. When Blakwell said "we" who was he referring to? Was he given a script or did he develop these ideas himself?

I referred to this as Blackwellian White Supremacy because Blackwell did the presentation. It is an open and likely unresolvable issue as to whether Blackwell originated the content of the dogma. Someone may have the answer to this but I do not.

There is also the problematical issue that a significant part of what Armstrongism asserts about race can also be found in the neo-Nazi, Anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity is an offshoot of British-Israelism (see Wikipedia). Then one must ask if there was some interplay between Armstrongism and Christian Identity. Who might have been the WCG personalities participating in that interplay?

At some point we must ask ourselves how much of the history of Armstrongism has been conveniently lost - so much so that young Armstrongists believe that this kind of thing never happened and is just being concocted by critics.

nck said...


There is nothing sinister on the origins of the 19th century nationalist ideology.

The closer one is to the date of origin the more benign it is.

What bad can there be about the hidden fascist anti semitic history of the United States being preached to that the Jews are actually cousins. How benign can one get.

HWA lived in Oregon the ALL WHITE KKK dominated state. The mythical "north west where the Israelite would go" the southern states were very much aware of the 1910 constitution of "north west".

Do some research on the history of Oregon and the KKK.

Then wcg plastered the USA with the birthright book with about 20 million copies the most distributed book of WCG teaching a benign history of the USA toward its allies in North Western Europe (cousins) and the Jews (cousins) for crying out loud.

This had until Wilson not been the overriding political dogma with r e Europeans in the role of colonial oppressors and the Jews as the vile deniers off christ.

WWI, Wilson, the league of nations, hwa introduced another line for the USA.

A line that would set the USA up for Empire as it had been a MINOR power until 1910 only, inwardly preoccupied, blinding itself by its own light.

For a role on the international stage it needed a new ideology. One with an outward look. One toward a global family of nations. A commonwealth based on trust and "the way of giving or sharing" technology and receiving markets for its products in return.

This was the core message of hwa of the Chicago chamber of commerce and later thd Los Angeles chapter situated in the 9th economic power of the world, the state of California.

Blackwell was only a minion with as I gather a perceptive audience in the Midwest. As his personsl interpretation cut for a specific audience never reached beyond that audience and certainly not at Tatooine where I am at.



Byker Bob said...

I recall sitting on a hard metal folding chair for about three hours as a child, enduring a Gerald Waterhouse sermon in which this same racial hierarchy was expounded upon. Rod Meredith frequently made reference to the mind that had been given to the Gentiles, illustrated by their propensity towards temper and violence. He would include the Italians and Hispanics in his rants on this topic, conveniently forgetting us Celtic types, many of whom have as wild passions as any Sicilian or Chicano.

When forced bussing of students came into play in the public schools of Pasadena in the early ‘70s, there was concern that the snooping Feds would become aware of the founding documents for Ambassador College, which incorporated racial segregation statements into the official policies. Some members thought that the church had gone to hell in a hand-basket when the children of black and Mexican ministers and church employees were admitted to Imperial Schools. That was a very controversial move at the time, with some very conservative members believing that we were obeying man rather than God.

Rather than being at the vanguard of equality for all Christians, the WCG has a history of institutionalized racism that was a real trial for “gentile” members who believed in the end times and sabbath. They had to be really gung ho to overcome such a huge obstacle as these false beliefs about their own nature and heretage. It’s really a pox on our anti-intellectual HWA and his leadership team, and a shame that the same attitudes are so prolific today in the ACOG splinters. It’s a large part of why we consider the Armstrong movement as having been a cult.


Anonymous said...

Call me a racist. I consider it a badge of honor. Racism is natural. People are born that way.

Anonymous said...

Discussions on race are usually void of anything constructive. What one sees is typically lot of virtue signalling, time wasted arguing about stupid religious ideas, and precious little racial science showing the racial differences, which are substantial. That's because people would rather be sanctimonious and feel good about themselves than do research (which involves actual work) and face facts.

Byker Bob said...

Or, maybe seeking and learning to get along with and enjoy the friendship and charisma of people who are different from themselves. Don’t forget that one, as it is a biggie!


nck said...

I am not even disputing the private interpretations or preaching of the "generals".

Armstrongist BI is a reflection or blue print of the World Order of the day. (early 20th century until the USA reached its zenith of power in 1994 when it remained as sole "indispensable nation", Fukuyama preached the victory of liberal economics, SU collapsed into
Russia, Reagan finally pulled the plug on SA Apartheid and Tkach pulled the plug on one of its ideological centers.

WCG's multimillion distributed BI book turned "oppressors" into "cousins." Jews into neighbors, former colonies into "a sphere of familial and fraternal" relations as the American empire succeeded their "cousins" empire.

Strange how Meredith et all preached their controversial ideologies while AC was originally conceived to be a "language school" in Italy. (so far for anti mediterenean sentiments) Original teachers amongst them from Armenia even. As gentile as one can get.


Anonymous said...

This is not about "feeling sanctimonious". I have sat in church for years and listened to blatant racist as well as sexist comments made from the pulpit by those who were supposed to be setting an example of the love of God for all His children. There were weeks that I marveled that there were any "gentile" brethren in attendance at all, considering what they endured listening to on several occasions. The comments about them were not only inaccurate, but hurtful as well. Rather than promoting a spirit of harmony, love, and "one body", a spirit of division and smug superiority ruled the day, while those who knew better for the most part kept silent because after all the comments were made by the "Elder", "Pastor", "Presiding Evangelist", or "God's Apostle".

For those of us who still find value in Christianity and take the instructions of Jesus to love one another seriously this is a grievous injustice that has caused untold damage within the body of Christ, because rather than promoting an atmosphere of brotherly acceptance, love, and unity, it created the opposite, to the point that I still hear others "in the church" display the same despicable attitude of their leaders toward those who are not only brothers and sisters of the human race, but also supposed to be considered brothers and sisters in Christ. And all of this was justified by twisting some scriptures and taking others out of context.

Concerned Sister

Sane Con said...

Racism is idol worship. Anybody proud of that is an idiot.

Anonymous said...

When people from different countries immigrate to America, they typically form or join enclaves. Cultured African Americans form separate enclaves from ordinary blacks. Segregation is natural and normal. When busing or similar, forces different groups together, the culturally and morally inferior exploits and victimizes their betters.
Forced mixing of different groups creates a paradise for non winners.
This is another reason why God will allow nuclear weapons to be used against American cities.

Anonymous said...

Problem is, 1:26, there are those who believe that anything other than white culture is bacteria culture. Looked in the mirror lately?

nck said...

As an aside. I just developed a theory on the current impeachment effort.

When having business dealings with other cultures one should always be sensitive about a level of "corruption" that should be considered "normal" or "an intrinsic" part of that nation's particular culture.

With the recent influx of people in Congress from other nations, or at least different cultural background from the former dominating white culture, it seems there is a terrible misunderstanding on the level other white people are willing to forgive "perceived" or real transgressions "from one of their own."

It leads to competent people like Nancy Pelosi to be forced to draw cards she knows that will lead to less than favorable outcome for her Party.

In short. It is proven fact that if a random group of people are given a red or a green shirt. This group splits into 2 factions immediately, one that is positively biased toward the behavior 'of their own" and one that is negatively biased toward "the other shirt color group."


Byker Bob said...

I must confess to some inner jubilation when I learned of the formal impeachment inquiry being launched. My thoughts were “Finally! A return to our form and senses!”

But then as I further digested it all, I realize that it would be far more effective if the voters repudiated and rejected this president on their own, based on the destructive path he has laid down since day one. I am somewhat concerned that partisan impeachment will come off as being sour grapes over loss of an election rather than as a vital part of a learning process. We would have so admired Germany if the German people had risen up and removed their maniac, Hitler. But they didn’t, and the rest of the world had to do it for them. One can only hope that the same does not become necessary in our own present low estate.


nck said...



What what are you saying? That the Germans or a combine of European nations might have to come at the rescue of the USA.

Or perhaps please no a 200 million army of Sino Russians?

I propose meeting half way and have it settled at say...........a plain in Northern Israel??

Just kidding.

Germans tried to overthrow Hitler at least 17 times.

The significant army coup planned for 1938/1939 failed because Hitler returned with an agreement with Chamberlain completely changing the mood of the people and altering the stage and momentum. Subsequent historic victories like the one over France cemented his position as a miracle man.

Kinda like a certain person saying that the stock market will collapse if said person is impeached. Momentum and speed that is needed in political processes.

I love the title of the book "a world held hostage".


Anonymous said...

BB, you claim to be balanced but you keep running at the mouth all of the liberal left's talking points. You are a blind fool! You've been in Californication way too long!

Byker Bob said...

Why thank you, 4:50! I always appreciate such fine “objective” criticism from extreme right wingers.

Actually, I’m a centrist, or middle of the road person, like most of the electorate used to be. Unfortunately, the left has moved so far to the extreme left, and the right has moved so far to the radical right that each side accuses me of being from the other. If you only endorse people 50%, they consider you the enemy.

Extreme leftists don’t like my attitudes about who gets to use what used to be mens’ rooms and ladies’ rooms, or my attitudes towards God and guns. They don’t like that I’m for fiscal accountability, and against abolishing international borders. Or that I believe in the natural rewards that come with hard work and personal achievement. Or for that matter, capitalism. Military might, etc.


Anonymous said...

BB, extreme right winger? Lol, I who believe that homosexual couples should be given the same rights as married straights am an extreme right winger? I who think that the government should get its nose out of the marriage 'business' and out of the bedroom? Just because I don't believe that there's enough evidence to prove Anthropogenic Global Warming I'm labeled by you an "extreme right winger"? I have no doubt that the earth is warming, we're still exiting an ice age. I have no doubt that we're adding co2 to the atmosphere, but we don't know if that's bad or good for the planet. Carbon dioxide is plant food, would more plants be a bad thing? They claim that we've warmed 1.2° C (2.2° F) since 1750...


...but they don't tell you that those were merely observationd temps 100 to 200 years ago using thermometers that were only accurate +-2 degrees Fahrenheit. What if the actual high for a day back then was 98 degrees, but the person observing went out an hour before or after that actual high? He'd get a lower high for the day making it seem to have been cooler. The science is wrong, yet you poo poo scientists who acknowledge that we're warming but are telling us it's not the emergency that the radical left globalists want us to believe. Actually when it comes to AGW I'm way more centrist than you. I just don't know. I'm skeptical of both sides, but I'm willing to listen to both sides, you on the other hand are biased to the left on AGW. Warming temperatures, melting ice, does not prove AGW, it merely proves that we're on a changing planet. We need more evidence before we cripple the economic system of the U.S. Now as for actual pollution of our oceans and the cutting down of our rain forests I'm all for cutting off the hands of those who pollute our planet. Hard to toss a can out the window if you haven't got a hand. I guarantee that I'm way more center of the road than you.

Anonymous said...

After reading the transcript of the phone call it's obvious that there is nothing there. If anything, it's POTUS checking on a possible interference into a criminal investigation of a foreign nation by a sitting VP who threatened to withhold aid money if the investigation wasn't dropped. (an investigation involving his son, by the way)
And just like the "Russian Collusion" thing, the opposing side will manufacture whatever evidence they think they need to try to get an impeachment in under the wire.
Personally, I think this will lead to a Trump landslide next November, with the Republicans taking back the House and growing the Senate. That's when the riots begin.

Byker Bob said...

How would I know anything about an anonymous poster except what he or she had stated in the one specific comment (in this case an accusation) that had prompted my response? The primary benefit of posting anonymously is that binary-thinking posters who normally like to put others in convenient little boxes so they can deal with them find it impossible to do so to one of the anonymi. On the other hand, astute posters are actually allowed to get to know the regulars who have posted under their own name or the same screen name in some cases for decades. (Not everyone is an astute poster, and some have very questionable memories).

Over the past several months, I’ve come to realize that AGW (I like your acronym) has been removed from the political realm. Major US and global corporations such as oil companies, shipping companies, insurance companies, and auto manufacturers are actually incorporating climate change into their long range business plans, and are defying the politicians who claim to be protecting them from being economically crippled. Four auto manufacturers recently frustrated the president by stating that they would continue to abide by the tougher California emission and fleet mileage standards rather than rejoice and bask in the temporary sunlight of this president’s relaxed standards. Insurance companies have created their own private fire companies to protect them from the increasing high dollar losses caused by AGW-related wildfires. Shipping companies are basing financial planning on more efficient northern polar shipping routes which have opened up as a result of the melt-down of the Arctic region.

The tide has clearly turned, with many realizing that AGW is simply a small part of a much larger, more comprehensive problem called the Holocene Extinction. The global bird population is down by alarming numbers according to a recent report by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, with some formerly common species facing imminent extinction. The same is happening with sea creatures and honey bees. It is appalling what has happened with virtually all of the “big game” animals in Africa. The cause of this animal holocaust is undeniable. It is due to the activities of man.

I can’t fathom the sheer stupidity of raising the issue of improved thermometer technology as we watch glaciers and polar ice caps melt that were not melting during the era of old thermometers. That is just so lame and weak as an argument! The evidentiary trail which Climate Scientists are examining involves evidence which is much more accurate and complex, such as ice core samples, tree rings, and silt layers.

Still, although AGW is one corner on which we finally seem to be making the turn, I also worry about the collapse of fiat currency, which is the predominant type of currency currently being used around the world. And, there are what? About ten additional major existential threats which have come into play since the bomb?


Anonymous said...

BB, or could it be that corporations know that if they don't put on a show of "going green" they're going to lose a lot of their customer base? The loudmouth minority, who are always threatening boycott, boycott, boycott are of your crowd. The silent majority just want to live and let live. Corporations know that if they don't put on the front of "going green" that the crazies, like you, will boycott their product, while the silent majority will still buy their product if it's a product they need. You should know better that causation does not equal correlation, but by your examples apparently you don't!

Anonymous said...

Building houses in forests that historically suffer wildfire, and then falling prey to your own stupidity does not prove climate change!

Byker Bob said...

If the powers that be treat the surfeit of greenhouse gases the same way in which they treated chlorofluorocarbons and tetraethyl lead, there is hope.


Anonymous said...

I'm sure that this will be poo pooed but I don't give a damn, both sides of every issue deserves equal time.

Did the Montreal Protocol really save us or did it just take money from one group's pocket and put it in another? Did we really "save the ozone" in ten years?