In the video below, Herbert Armstrong, challenges his listeners to find reference to anyone going to heaven in the Bible. Did my late friend, Ben Toney hear Herbert’s word, but, he was not really listening? Herbert Armstrong gave London Radio $50,000 dollars a year to air his half hour show. It appears Radio London, and other Pirate Radio Stations, received money from the CIA. The co-founder of the European Union, Denis de Rougemont, was President of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, that was funded by the CIA who was in Cold War with the Soviety Union, the N0.1 enemy of Armstrong. President Trump and Boris Johnson see the European Union as their enemy.
I am going to go before the Springfield City Council and ask for funding. I may own the only images of KORE. If it was still standing, I would hold classes insider about The Church owning World Ambitions. It is very suspect that Tim LaHaye came up with Nicolae Carpathian. I suspect he followed Armstrong.
Was Mueller questioned about the CIA?
The overseas broadcasts seemed to follow the strange establishment of CIA client stations such as “Radio Swan” (later called “Radio Americas”) which played a key role in the Bay of Pigs invasion. This station has a well documented history tied to the CIA. The same is true of stations like “Radio Tangier International” in Africa, and his Russian language broadcasts from “Radio Monte Carlo”.
Yet it is the “Radio Luxembourg” and “Radio Caroline North”, “Radio 270”, “Radio Scotland”, “Radio 390” and “Wonderful Radio London” broadcasts that are most interesting because they represented the US interests in developing Europe as a single entity. The French under de Gaulle advanced the idea of a United States of Europe” having similar powers to the United States of America, while the USA and the UK advanced the idea of a United Europe as a single trading block that would be tied to the USA. Armstrong’s broadcasts and supporting literature had a history dating back to pre-WWII in which he warned that a United States of Europe would eventually defeat both the UK and USA with a person similar to Adolph Hitler as its leader. This is thoroughly documented in both the recordings of his broadcasts and his literature. In fact before WWII ended Armstrong thought that the USA would lose and when it actually won, he immediately began predicting that a USE would arise from the ashes and try again. His dire warnings predate even the earliest of the Benelux agreements for trade in iron, steel and coal.
-From Wiki Talk on “Herbert W. Armstrong”
The third of these 1966 articles began to detail false-front organizations and the secret transfer of CIA funds to, for example, the US State Department or to the United States Information Agency (USIA) which “may help finance a scholarly inquiry and publication, or the agency may channel research money through foundations – legitimate ones or dummy fronts.” The New York Times cited, amongst others, the CIA’s funding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, Encounter magazine, ‘several American book publishers’, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology‘s Center for International Studies, and a foreign-aid project in South Vietnam run by Michigan State University.
In 1967, the US magazines Ramparts and The Saturday Evening Post reported on the CIA’s funding of a number of anti-communist cultural organizations aimed at winning the support of supposedly Soviet-sympathizing liberals worldwide. These reports were lent credence by a statement made by a former CIA covert operations director admitting to CIA financing and operation of the CCF. The CIA website states that “the Congress for Cultural Freedom is widely considered one of the CIA’s more daring and effective Cold War covert operations.”
That same year in May, Thomas Braden, head of the CCF’s parent body the International Organizations Division, responded to the Ramparts report in an article entitled “I’m Glad the CIA is ‘Immoral'”, in the Saturday Evening Post, defending the activities of his unit within the CIA. For more than ten years, Braden admitted, the CIA had subsidized Encounter through the CCF, which it also funded; one of the magazine’s staff, he added, was a CIA agent.
Worldwide Church of God settles, will allow Armstrong books to be published
In another book-related lawsuit, the Worldwide Church of God has settled its legal battle with the Philadelphia Church of God over works written by the group’s founder, Herbert W. Armstrong.
The Worldwide Church of God (WCG) has repudiated Armstrong’s teachings and has joined the National Association of Evangelicals, but splinter groups like the Philadelphia Church of God, which broke away when the WCG began becoming more orthodox, fought to keep the WCG from suppressing the works.
Joseph Tkach Jr., pastor general of the WCG, had said it was the church’s “Christian duty [to keep the book out of …
Denis de Rougemont headed the Congress of Cultural Freedom that was funded by the CIA. Artist and Writers in the West were covertly employed to keep leftist intellectuals from adopting the hegemony of the Soviet Union, and use Communism as a weapon of empowerment. Putin was surely aware of it – eventually. Did he found his Troll Farms on the ideas of Rougemont, he employing a reverse move?
Denis Rougemont had Christianity in mind as making the difference. With Putin embracing the Russian Orthodox church against The U.S. and the European Union, a ‘Think Tank’ needs to be established that employs the philosophy of Rougemont who co-founded the European Union. I suspect Rougemont is kin to the Habsburgs.
The Trumpites are tying to establish a Evangelical Vatican in Jerusalem with the move of our Secular Embassy there. I am going to compose a letter to Congressman Peter DeFazio and ask him to stop this covert operation by the John Darby Cult. Trump’s evangelical handlers want what Putin has. What is that bird on the wall in back of Putin? It’s the cote of arms of the Russian Empire. This is why I declare myself ‘King of the Habsburg’ and Emperor of the revived Byzantine Empire.
The problem I have, is I have been trying to give a warning to secular peoples who shun everything with a religious message in it. This is a perfect holy smoke screen – for many tyrants – who hate the teaching of Jesus. Add to this the profits of the billionaires, and, it looks overwhelming for the little people, who tend to cave-in, forsake the courage they should be given in order to sustain fragile democracies.
Russia should reinstate the monarchy, the regional head of Russia’s internationally unrecognized government in Crimea declared in a television interview on Tuesday night.
Sergey Aksyonov, who was appointed head of the Crimea region after Russia annexed it from Ukraine in 2014, shared his thoughts on Russian Crimean channel Perviy Krimsky.
“We do not need the democracy in the form in which it is presented by the Western media,” Aksyonov said. “We have our own traditional Orthodox spiritual values… Today, in my opinion, Russia needs the monarchy,” said Aksenov.
“I can’t understand the Government’s attitude over the pirates,” Beatle George Harrison declaimed in an interview. ”Why don’t they make the BBC illegal as well. It doesn’t give the public the service it wants, otherwise the pirates wouldn’t be here to fill the gap.”4
Herbert Armstrong lived at 1608 N.6th Ave in Eugene Oregon. His radio station was on Linda Street in Springfield. Armstrong and Radio London’s history is the premiere history of Springfield, where I live.
Ben called me ‘The Sage of Oregon’. He knew I was a conflicted theologian. We posted messages about the abuses of the Religious-right. I wondered what Ben and I would be saying about Trump declaring the press the ‘Opposition Party’. Then, a miracle happened. A real miracle! Do you see that radio tower behind me? That tower funded Radio London. That tower belonged to Herbert Armstrong who broadcast a religious program here in Oregon, and later, in Pasadena. These two towers are connected! They are TWINS seperated at birth!
Herbert Armstrong did NOT BELIEVE IN RAPTURE and his theology was labeled a cult. As the new prophet of the Radio Church of God, I appeal to all who are not members of the Rapture Cult invented by John Darby in 1840. I do not believe Jesus came as the son of God, or, as God, to die for human sins. I believe he came as the second Solomon to establish the Lost Kingdom of God that was being seeded all over the world. Armstrong came close to the truth! He and my angel have anointed me to carry on. This is a very liberal mission that will establish a Great World Democracy!
The cost of the station was covered by local and national advertising and the half-hour religious commentary, The World Tomorrow, presented by Herbert W. Armstrong or his son, Garner Ted Armstrong. The Armstrongs’ Worldwide Church of God sponsored the station with £50,000 a year. The World Tomorrow aired at 7pm, outside prime hours.
This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA “projects,” and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left.
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of “anti-Stalinist” leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack “Stalinist totalitarianism” and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals.
What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art’s sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted “committed” house “hacks” of the Stalinist apparatus.
It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London “intellectuals” feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404).
According to Braden, the CIA financed their “literary froth,” as CIA hardliner Cord Meyer called the anti-Stalinist intellectual exercises of Hook, Kristol, and Lasky. Regarding the most prestigious and best-known publications of the self-styled “Democratic Left” (Encounter, New Leader, Partisan Review), Braden wrote that the money for them came from the CIA and that “an agent became the editor of Encounter“ (398). By 1953, Braden wrote, “we were operating or influencing international organizations in every field” (398).
Saunders’ book provides useful information about several important questions regarding the ways in which CIA intellectual operatives defended U.S. imperialist interests on cultural fronts. It also initiates an important discussion of the long-term consequences of the ideological and artistic positions defended by CIA intellectuals.
Saunders refutes the claims (made by Hook, Kristol, and Lasky) that the CIA and its friendly foundations provided aid with no strings attached. She demonstrates that “the individuals and institutions subsidized by the CIA were expected to perform as part…of a propaganda war.” The most effective propaganda was defined by the CIA as the kind where “the subject moves in the direction you desire for reasons which he believes to be his own.” While the CIA allowed their assets on the “Democratic Left” to prattle occasionally about social reform, it was the “anti-Stalinist” polemics and literary diatribes against Western Marxists and Soviet writers and artists that they were most interested in, funded most generously, and promoted with the greatest visibility. Braden referred to this as the “convergence” between the CIA and the European “Democratic Left” in the fight against communism. The collaboration between the “Democratic Left” and the CIA included strike-breaking in France, informing on Stalinists (Orwell and Hook), and covert smear campaigns to prevent leftist artists from receiving recognition (including Pablo Neruda’s bid for a Nobel Prize in 1964 ).
The CIA, as the arm of the U.S. government most concerned with fighting the cultural Cold War, focused on Europe in the period immediately following the Second World War. Having experienced almost two decades of capitalist war, depression, and postwar occupation, the overwhelming majority of European intellectuals and trade unionists were anticapitalist and particularly critical of the hegemonic pretensions of the United States. To counter the appeal of communism and the growth of the European Communist Parties (particularly in France and Italy), the CIA devised a two-tier program. On the one hand, as Saunders argues, certain European authors were promoted as part of an explicitly “anticommunist program.” The CIA cultural commissar’s criteria for “suitable texts” included “whatever critiques of Soviet foreign policy and Communism as a form of government we find to be objective (sic) and convincingly written and timely.” The CIA was especially keen on publishing disillusioned ex-communists like Silone, Koestler, and Gide. The CIA promoted anticommunist writers by funding lavish conferences in Paris, Berlin, and Bellagio (overlooking Lake Como), where objective social scientists and philosophers like Isaiah Berlin, Daniel Bell, and Czeslow Milosz preached their values (and the virtues of Western freedom and intellectual independence, within the anticommunist and pro-Washington parameters defined by their CIA paymasters). None of these prestigious intellectuals dared to raise any doubts or questions regarding U.S. support of the mass killing in colonial Indochina and Algeria, the witch hunt of U.S. intellectuals or the paramilitary (Ku Klux Klan) lynchings in the southern United States. Such banal concerns would only “play into the hands of the Communists,” according to Sidney Hook, Melvin Lasky, and the Partisan Review crowd, who eagerly sought funds for their quasi-bankrupt literary operation. Many of the so-called prestigious anticommunist literary and political journals would long have gone out of business were it not for CIA subsidies, which bought thousands of copies that it later distributed free.
The second cultural track on which the CIA operated was much more subtle. Here, it promoted symphonies, art exhibits, ballet, theater groups, and well-known jazz and opera performers with the explicit aim of neutralizing anti-imperialist sentiment in Europe and creating an appreciation of U.S. culture and government. The idea behind this policy was to showcase U.S. culture, in order to gain cultural hegemony to support its military-economic empire. The CIA was especially keen on sending black artists to Europe—particularly singers (like Marion Anderson), writers, and musicians (such as Louis Armstrong)—to neutralize European hostility toward Washington’s racist domestic policies. If black intellectuals didn’t stick to the U.S. artistic script and wandered into explicit criticism, they were banished from the list, as was the case with writer Richard Wright.
The degree of CIA political control over the intellectual agenda of these seemingly nonpolitical artistic activities was clearly demonstrated by the reaction of the editors of Encounter (Lasky and Kristol, among others) with regard to an article submitted by Dwight MacDonald. MacDonald, a maverick anarchist intellectual, was a long-time collaborator with the CIA-run Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter. In 1958, he wrote an article for Encounter entitled “America America,” in which he expressed his revulsion for U.S. mass culture, its crude materialism, and lack of civility. It was a rebuttal of the American values that were prime propaganda material in the CIA’s and Encounter‘s cultural war against communism. MacDonald’s attack of the “decadent American imperium” was too much for the CIA and its intellectual operatives in Encounter. As Braden, in his guidelines to the intellectuals, stated “organizations receiving CIA funds should not be required to support every aspect of U.S. policy,” but invariably there was a cut-off point—particularly where U.S. foreign policy was concerned (314). Despite the fact that MacDonald was a former editor ofEncounter, the article was rejected. The pious claims of Cold War writers like Nicola Chiaromonte, writing in the second issue of Encounter, that “[t]he duty that no intellectual can shirk without degrading himself is the duty to expose fictions and to refuse to call ‘useful lies,’ truths,” certainly did not apply to Encounter and its distinguished list of contributors when it came to dealing with the ‘useful lies’ of the West.
One of the most important and fascinating discussions in Saunders’ book is about the fact that CIA and its allies in the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) poured vast sums of money into promoting Abstract Expressionist (AE) painting and painters as an antidote to art with a social content. In promoting AE, the CIA fought off the right-wing in Congress. What the CIA saw in AE was an “anti-Communist ideology, the ideology of freedom, of free enterprise. Non-figurative and politically silent it was the very antithesis of socialist realism” (254). They viewed AE as the true expression of the national will. To bypass right-wing criticism, the CIA turned to the private sector (namely MOMA and its co-founder, Nelson Rockefeller, who referred to AE as “free enterprise painting.”) Many directors at MOMA had longstanding links to the CIA and were more than willing to lend a hand in promoting AE as a weapon in the cultural Cold War. Heavily funded exhibits of AE were organized all over Europe; art critics were mobilized, and art magazines churned out articles full of lavish praise. The combined economic resources of MOMA and the CIA-run Fairfield Foundation ensured the collaboration of Europe’s most prestigious galleries which, in turn, were able to influence aesthetics across Europe.
AE as “free art” ideology (George Kennan, 272) was used to attack politically committed artists in Europe. The Congress for Cultural Freedom (the CIA front) threw its weight behind abstract painting, over representational or realist aesthetics, in an explicit political act. Commenting on the political role of AE, Saunders points out: “One of the extraordinary features of the role that American painting played in the cultural Cold War is not the fact that it became part of the enterprise, but that a movement which so deliberately declared itself to be apolitical could become so intensely politicized” (275). The CIA associated apolitical artists and art with freedom. This was directed toward neutralizing the artists on the European left. The irony, of course, was that the apolitical posturing was only for left-wing consumption.
Nevertheless, the CIA and its cultural organizations were able to profoundly shape the postwar view of art. Many prestigious writers, poets, artists, and musicians proclaimed their independence from politics and declared their belief in art for art’s sake. The dogma of the free artist or intellectual, as someone disconnected from political engagement, gained ascendancy and is pervasive to this day.
While Saunders has presented a superbly detailed account of the links between the CIA and Western artists and intellectuals, she leaves unexplored the structural reasons for the necessity of CIA deception and control over dissent. Her discussion is framed largely in the context of political competition and conflict with Soviet communism. There is no serious attempt to locate the CIA’s cultural Cold War in the context of class warfare, indigenous third world revolutions, and independent Marxist challenges to U.S. imperialist economic domination. This leads Saunders to selectively praise some CIA ventures at the expense of others, some operatives over others. Rather than see the CIA’s cultural war as part of an imperialist system, Saunders tends to be critical of its deceptive and distinct reactive nature. The U.S.-NATO cultural conquest of Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR should quickly dispel any notion that the cultural war was a defensive action.
The very origins of the cultural Cold War were rooted in class warfare. Early on, the CIA and its U.S. AFL-CIO operatives Irving Brown and Jay Lovestone (ex-communists) poured millions of dollars into subverting militant trade unions and breaking strikes through the funding of social democratic unions (94). The Congress for Cultural Freedom and its enlightened intellectuals were funded by the same CIA operatives who hired Marseilles gangsters to break the dockworkers’ strikes in 1948.
After the Second World War, with the discrediting in Western Europe of the old right (compromised by its links to the fascists and a weak capitalist system), the CIA realized that, in order to undermine the anti-NATO trade unionists and intellectuals, it needed to find (or invent) a Democratic Left to engage in ideological warfare. A special sector of the CIA was set up to circumvent right-wing Congressional objections. The Democratic Left was essentially used to combat the radical left and to provide an ideological gloss on U.S. hegemony in Europe. At no point were the ideological pugilists of the democratic left in any position to shape the strategic policies and interests of the United States. Their job was not to question or demand, but to serve the empire in the name of “Western democratic values.” Only when massive opposition to the Vietnam War surfaced in the United States and Europe, and their CIA covers were blown, did many of the CIA-promoted and -financed intellectuals jump ship and begin to criticize U.S. foreign policy. For example, after spending most of his career on the CIA payroll, Stephen Spender became a critic of U.S. Vietnam policy, as did some of the editors of Partisan Review. They all claimed innocence, but few critics believed that a love affair with so many journals and convention junkets, so long and deeply involved, could transpire without some degree of knowledge.
The CIA’s involvement in the cultural life of the United States, Europe, and elsewhere had important long-term consequences. Many intellectuals were rewarded with prestige, public recognition, and research funds precisely for operating within the ideological blinders set by the Agency. Some of the biggest names in philosophy, political ethics, sociology, and art, who gained visibility from CIA-funded conferences and journals, went on to establish the norms and standards for promotion of the new generation, based on the political parameters established by the CIA. Not merit nor skill, but politics—the Washington line—defined “truth” and “excellence” and future chairs in prestigious academic settings, foundations, and museums.
The U.S. and European Democratic Left’s anti-Stalinist rhetorical ejaculations, and their proclamations of faith in democratic values and freedom, were a useful ideological cover for the heinous crimes of the West. Once again, in NATO’s recent war against Yugoslavia, many Democratic Left intellectuals have lined up with the West and the KLA in its bloody purge of tens of thousands of Serbs and the murder of scores of innocent civilians. If anti-Stalinism was the opium of the Democratic Left during the Cold War, human rights interventionism has the same narcotizing effect today, and deludes contemporary Democratic Leftists.
The CIA’s cultural campaigns created the prototype for today’s seemingly apolitical intellectuals, academics, and artists who are divorced from popular struggles and whose worth rises with their distance from the working classes and their proximity to prestigious foundations. The CIA role model of the successful professional is the ideological gatekeeper, excluding critical intellectuals who write about class struggle, class exploitation and U.S. imperialism—“ideological” not “objective” categories, or so they are told.
The singular lasting, damaging influence of the CIA’s Congress of Cultural Freedom crowd was not their specific defenses of U.S. imperialist policies, but their success in imposing on subsequent generations of intellectuals the idea of excluding any sustained discussion of U.S. imperialism from the influential cultural and political media. The issue is not that today’s intellectuals or artists may or may not take a progressive position on this or that issue. The problem is the pervasive belief among writers and artists that anti-imperialist social and political expressions should not appear in their music, paintings, and serious writing if they want their work to be considered of substantial artistic merit. The enduring political victory of the CIA was to convince intellectuals that serious and sustained political engagement on the left is incompatible with serious art and scholarship. Today at the opera, theater, and art galleries, as well as in the professional meetings of academics, the Cold War values of the CIA are visible and pervasive: who dares to undress the emperor?
Fox News host Sean Hannity said Thursday that the negative reactions to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony on Wednesday are proof the Democratic Party just cannot let go of its 2016 defeat.
“They just seem incapable of accepting, which is I think at the foundation of why they keep going here, they can’t accept the 2016 election results,” Hannity said Thursday night.
And, how will this asshole like to see this acceptance, after Trump is crying;
“Lock her up!”
Putin hated Hillary and worked had to be sure she was not elected. Mueller said he would have locked up Trump if he was not the President – and he’s a Republican! Putin is laughing his ass off, because we Americans are living in two opposing worlds – as planned!
For over twenty-five years I have been walking a fence between the secular and religious world. Today, there is no fence, no wall. no border.
There is a shield in the fake seal that depicts five hammer and cycles in the blue field. In 2014 I began to give prophetic warnings wearing an American and Soviet flag. These flags have merged. The U.S. is now part of Putin’s Kingdom, as is Britain. The words on the fake seal say……….”45 is a puppet”.
Herbert Armstrong warned us. I suspect his church was taken over by the Soviet Union. Putin may have been in charge of this operation. Like the Phantom of the Oera, he upstaged Trump after he appear at the end of this very apocalyptic film. I’m talking about the richest man in the world who may have been secretly funding evangelical churches – and colleges – turning out loyal robots.
It all began 500 yards from where I live. I am not sure if KORE is in Eugene or Springfield. I now wonder if there was a conspiracy to prevent me from saving Armstrong’s radio station that should have continued to broadcast out WARNINGS again the Russians. Armstrong did not foresee a Russian Czar who wants to restore the Monarchy. Did Putin listen to Hebert Armstrong’s message being broadcast from Radio London?
All this information is falling from the sky like mana! All the pieces are falling into place. The End of the World may be at hand! I am going to try to gather together some loyal American computer experts to help me broadcast Armstrong’s Last Show.
Today I went to where Marilyn works to go to lunch. 500 hundred yards away, her long time employee’s spirit contacted me. I told Marilyn Joseph spoke to me.
“Didn’t you tell me he died several years ago?”
“He died two months ago.”
“You didn’t tell me!”
Josephs’ spirit is hanging about where he worked since 1999. He loved it there.
John ‘The Second Elijah’
“During Tkach’s tenure, the changes that he implemented stirred much controversy and significant dissent among those who continued to follow Armstrong’s theology. The dissenters labeled the changes as heresy and many left to form new church organizations. Within the mainstream Christian community, some have hailed Tkach’s reforms, which brought a church from the fringe to orthodoxy, as unprecedented. “
He was born March 16, 1927, in Chicago, the youngest of five children and the only son of Vassil and Mary Tkach. The name Tkach /təˈkɒtʃ/ is of Carpatho-Rusyn (Ukrainian) origin, but his parents were originally from Czechoslovakia. The neighborhood where he grew up was composed mainly of blue-collar working people of Russian origin. He graduated from Tilden High School in southwest Chicago. He then served a short term in the U.S. Navy near the end of World War II and afterward returned to his native Chicago. On March 31, 1951, Tkach married Elaine Apostolos; they had three children: Joseph Jr., Tanya, and Jennifer.
Tkach grew up in the Russian Orthodox faith, but eventually his family, including his parents, became interested in the Radio Church of God through the radio broadcast of Herbert W. Armstrong, the founder of the church. The Radio Church of God would eventually change its name in 1968 to the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), the church that Tkach would lead. It was a church characterized by the strong influence of its founder and his unique doctrines based on his own interpretation of the Bible. Initially, Tkach was the only member of his family who was not interested in listening to the radio broadcasts. However, a purportedly miraculous event was to change him. At the time, Tkach suffered from severe ulcers and was required to stay on a special diet. His wife then suggested that God would heal him if he were to become a minister in Armstrong’s church. Although skeptical, he accepted the suggestion of becoming a minister and he found himself cured, never again to suffer from the ulcers. He was baptized by Radio Church of God minister, Dean Blackwell, on March 1, 1957. On June 7, 1961, Blackwell ordained him a deacon in the Chicago congregation, and on June 3, 1963, Roderick C. Meredith, who would eventually lead a breakaway church from the WCG, ordained him as an elder.
Rusyns (Rusyn: Русины / Rusynŷ), sometimes referred to as Rusnaks (Rusyn: Руснакы / Rusnakŷ), also known as Carpatho-Ruthenians or Carpatho-Russians (Rusyn: Карпато-Русини / Karpato-Rusyny), are an East Slavic people who speak the Rusyn language. They descend from an East Slavic population that inhabited the Northern regions of the Eastern Carpathians since the Early Middle Ages. Together with other East Slavs from neighboring regions, they were often labeled by the common exonym Ruthenians, or by the regionally more specific designation Carpathian Ruthenians, and sub-group designations Dolinyans, Boykos, Hutsuls and Lemkos. Unlike their Eastern neighbors, who adopted the use of the ethnonym Ukrainians in the early 20th century, Rusyns kept and preserved their original name. As residents of Northeastern regions of the Carpathian Mountains, Rusyns are closely connected to, and also sometimes associated with, other Slavic communities in the region, like the Slovaks highlander community of Gorals (literally, “Highlanders”).
Early Life and Rise to Power
According to the plot, born in Cluj County, Romania, Carpathia was the product of genetic engineering and artificial insemination. His mother, Marilena, was unwittingly convinced by a group of Luciferians, whose group she joins, to become the mother of a child who, they assured her, would change the face of the world. Marilena stayed with her husband, Sorin, until the baby was born, insisting that her son keep the strong Carpathia name. (In the prequel novels, it is explained that the name “Nicolae”, when translated, means “victory of the people”, although this is far from Carpathia’s actual goals.
Through his parents, Carpathia possessed a unique bloodline dating back to Ancient Rome, so he could actually claim to be a Roman descendant. This references both the early Christian belief that the Antichrist would come in the form of a Roman emperor, as well as the current Pre-Millennialist Christian view that the Antichrist will emerge from a “New Roman Empire”.
The Radio Church of God began with Herbert W. Armstrong, who in 1931 was ordained by the Oregon Conference of the Church of God (Seventh-Day), an Adventist group, and began serving a congregation in Eugene, Oregon. On January 7, 1934, Armstrong began hosting a broadcast on a local 100-watt radio station KORE in Eugene. It was essentially a condensed church service on the air, with hymn singing featured along with Armstrong’s message, and it was the launching point for what would become the Radio Church of God. In 1933, the Church of God (Seventh-Day) split. Armstrong, who sided with the faction centered in Salem, West Virginia, fell out with the local congregation over various doctrinal issues, especially his espousal of British Israelism.
Scandal and Conflict
Many members were disappointed that the events predicted in Biblical prophecy, expounded and preached about by Herbert Armstrong, had not yet come to pass. Most were unaware that Herbert Armstrong had been preaching about Revelation and Bible Prophecy on the radio as far back as World War II, when he had proclaimed Hitler and Mussolini could have filled the roles of the Beast and False Prophet of the Book of Revelation. After the war ended, Armstrong attended a meeting in San Francisco in which a proposal was made to create the United Nations. He had also read a quote from Winston Churchill proposing the creation of a United States of Europe. This was a springboard that the 10 Kings, 10 Horns, 10 Crowns of Revelation reveal a European Union would rise up to become the Beast Power. While the European Union was an idea in the making, the nations of Europe were far from united, as the union itself was still another 20 years in the future. Because church literature such as The Wonderful World Tomorrow, 1975 in Prophecy!, and many others had attempted to pinpoint the date of Christ’s return, members continued to wait anxiously for the Second Coming. Armstrong never predicted a date in his sermons, nor did any of his evangelists. Some (such as Gerald Waterhouse) presented detailed, step-by-step accounts of the Second Coming in their sermons, which included Armstrong himself as one of two witnesses of the Book of Revelation.
Herbert Armstrong began to speak openly and critically of his son. Garner Ted spoke of greatly expanding the church’s media ministry on the model of the Church of Christ, Scientist with its widely read Christian Science Monitor to which Herbert W. Armstrong disagreed.
I talked to the people inside the building that replaced KORE about doing a mural on this wall. I collected some earth in remembrance of Ben Toney. I have to put the video on youtube. I put five scoops of dirt in bag that had these words printed on it:
“The perfect blend”
With each scoop I said;
On the land
On the sea
In the air
On the air
Church, State and the Pirate Ship Saga
By Neil Earle
(Jingle) “Radio London reminds you: Go to the Church of your choice.”
(Announce, loudly): “THE WORLD TOMORROW! Garner Ted Armstrong brings you the plain truth about today’s world news with the prophecies of the World Tomorrow!
(GTA): “And greetings friends, this is Garner Ted Armstrong with the good news of the World Tomorrow. World leaders admit that they are frightened, that they are engaged in a fantastic nightmare. They’re scared. They don’t know what to do. They’re wondering what is going to happen in the future and none of them really know.”
This was a typical opener for a “World Tomorrow” radio show beaming down on millions of Englishman in the Greater London area between late 1964 and August 15, 1967. This period is now somewhat notable in British broadcasting circles as the heyday of the Pirate Ships. A fascinating tale, this, of how the Armstrongs, Herbert and Garner Ted (successful radio evangelists based in America) ended up in a curious roundelay involving Her Majesty’s government in London, the BBC, some of Britain’s elite publications and a host of over-the-top radio personalities – some of whom ended up as legends of British popular culture.
This has been a very long day. Let me sign off with this good news.
I took another nap. When I awoke, I realized the suitcase I took out of the dumpster was the history of Armstrong and Radio London. I put it there in my fictional story. I got up and blogged on this connection. I found much. I found blueprints for a New Radio London and a Memorial – to be built in the future. Some say Armstrong, was CIA. They should employ my divine psychic abilities.
Astwood is today’s Culpeper Manor.
‘The Hammer and the Hand’
John Ambrose could not believe his good fortune. On his way to Safeway in his vintage 1972 Ford Truck, he noticed the gate to the grounds of KORE radio was open. Pulling over, he entered what he considered hallowed ground. It was his dream to own this radio station that had been for sale over a year. His heart began to pound when he saw workman hauling boxes out of Armstrong’s old radio station that was just sold. To John’s dismay, it was being torn down. Taking shaky steps towards the dumpster, John knew he must act. He could not stop himself from climbing the built-in ladder. Looking inside, his eyes instantly spotted the handle of an old suitcase. Before he grabbed it, he knew what this suitcase looked like. Getting a firm grip, John gave a mighty tug, and, there was debris and papers flying about him, when he heard a voice!
“Hey! What are you doing! Get out of there!”
John pretended he did not hear the command. With shaking hands, he clicked the clasps, and lifted the lid of the suitcase.
“Holy shit! John said, as he beheld the title of the manuscript………
“The Last Russian Prophecy of Herbert Armstrong.”