JW Insider

TTH, I just told myself (and others) that I should stay away from all controversial topics that might reflect negatively on current Witness doctrine, at least for a few weeks. I don't think this topic counts, since I'm not even taking sides on whether JWs do more or less than their reasonable share. (I'm guessing, like you, that JWs do better than the average person in this regard, but I'm not trying to make any claims.) In fact, perhaps it's a good idea for me to just limit my comments to non-JW topics like climate change, politics, physics, computer science, and economics whenever I get the urge to kick my feet up on the desk and relax over here on the forum. I could care less what Lloyd Evans thinks about climate change, unless he is some kind of expert on the topic who might be ready to bring something new or important to the table. I haven't looked into that part of the discussion and probably won't try to. If he's just criticizing JWs, then it's probably a complete waste of time on such a topic. But I have no problem if JTR is drawn into a discussion on the topic, because I'm sure he knows more than I do about it. And that's the beauty of a forum where you can dialogue with persons who know more than you. For me, it's an ideal way to test and/or prove whether what I think stands up to counter-evidence. So if you don't mind, I'll start out with my take on what you just said: I thought for a second that you might be joking on this claim. The world most definitely does not split down the middle on climate change. It probably seems that way in the United States, of course, because we are here bombarded with propaganda that pretends that it's a political issue. And the United States has had a long history of promoting political issues that split the population down the middle. But even the majority of persons in this country more honestly answer "I don't know" when typical climate change questions are asked. Those who have been fooled into thinking it's a political issue are apt to believe they know something about it when they don't. It's a very small percentage of the population who actually know anything more than the political propaganda that only pretends to know. If we just count the people who have truly studied the scientific factors with respect to climate change, then we truly do get a split of about 98 percent who fall on side of human-influenced climate change. Only about 2 percent of scientists who have studied a wide range of climate related factors will deny that humans have had or can have any significant influence on climate. And only about 0 percent of such scientists believe that significant "global warming" does not exist. An old "divide and conquer" propaganda trick when trying to overcome the "impossible" is to find a couple of persons who will present themselves as experts and make a contrary claim to the scientifically tested claim. Then even if the skewing is 99 percent to 1 percent, the propagandist can still claim that "some experts hold an opposing opinion." Now you are just moments from using propaganda outlets, such as established news organizations to do the rest of the dirty work for you. News outlets love controversy and drama because news sells best when it is really entertainment instead of news. Also, news outlets can be made to look balanced by finding a representative of both sides of a controversy. So if the actual score is 99 to 1, propaganda outlets will make it look like 50/50. The 1 percent get just as much media attention as the 99 percent. When this happens often enough, someone will say: "the world is pretty much split down the middle on this topic." It works like a charm, and climate change is only one of many such topics manipulated by propagandists. Over the last few decades, there has been better understanding of the data and much improvement in the way the models reflect and predict reality. But this is not the reason that the term "global warming" sometimes takes a backseat to "climate change." The real reason is propaganda. Propagandists appeal to the stupidity of most of us by saying things like: "Ha! ha! These scientists still believe in global warming when it's freezing out today, and I have a snowball from an unexpected snowfall." Stupid people, who are usually the target, not the source of such propaganda will often fall for it. In fact, global warming just means that the average yearly temperature around the globe at literally 1,000s of different measuring points, measured daily, will all be averaged together to get a global average temperature for the entire year (or day, week, month, decade, etc). This global average is trending upward at a rate that is much faster and higher than most of the models predicted. But it does not necessarily follow that the average global yearly temperature will rise EACH year, or that there will not be unexpected cold waves and snowfalls. In fact, almost all global warming models all along have predicted that while global warming occurs it will follow that some areas will see colder and unexpected changes. This does not change the average global yearly temperature just because some areas still see a lot of cold, or even extra cold. For all the extra cold seen in some places there will be an excess of heat in other places making up for it. For example, there were many times in the last few years when the temperature on the North Pole was warmer than the temperature in New York, when measured at the exact same time. But it is also true that some of the cold winds that usually effected the North Pole had trended southward and brought colder temperatures to parts of Canada and the United States. Some new cold temperature records were recorded to the south, while the North Pole reached temperatures in the 70's Fahrenheit. Global warming is the same as climate change, and the data has come out just as models had predicted. Global warming has been a known fact for decades. It is not just 98 percent of climate specialists agree with, but 100 percent agree with it. The question has been whether man has caused a significant part of it, or can cause an improvement or change in the other direction. It is on this question where 98 percent of the scientists agree that man is influencing it, and 2 percent say no. There have been some bad practices in science in most areas, but usually this is about scientists who are lazy and don't want to go through the selfless tedium of collecting their own real data. There are bad actors like this in all fields and it's just as prevalent in areas of science, schools, universities, labs, and of course authors, students professors who want to make a quick name for themselves, etc. Data is faked. No doubt about it. Data is often copied and adjusted and randomized within expected ranges to make it look like real work was put into it. But a second person or group comes along and can poke holes in it. But the types of issues with data fraud that come up in climate science are much more common from the 2 percent trying to disprove global warming. These are paid for by the fossil fuel industry. Millions of dollars are poured into producing a propaganda network of studies that obfuscate data, cherry-pick datasets of anomalies to "prove" the opposite of what the full set of data indicated. Reports that don't go the way of the oil companies have been hidden, given false summaries, forged, and dishonestly edited. The money machine behind the oil industry makes sure that all investigation of their fraud is squashed, and that even the most minor mistakes of actual climate scientists are blown out of proportion. Most scientific innovation and energy innovation these days comes out of China. China is still not able or ready to wean themselves from dirty energy but their scientists realize the urgency. The US and Russia are too tied to their petroleum economies, and capitalist economies like these always fight change due to the effect of change on corporate profits. National interests become corporate interests. Corporate interests become the driver of politics and propaganda in places like the United States and Russia. Germany has done well in trying to wean off a petroleum economy. Other European nations see the advantages, but are at differing stages. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of oil, coal, and natural gas, and natural gas is relatively cheap. Even to manufacture and transport solar and wind renewables still takes a lot of electricity and oil. When you drive an electric car you still ultimately get that electricity from coal in this country. So I think the corporate and political propagandists of this world will drive change as slowly as possible, and if left to their own devices, would drive the planet to destruction.

Thanks. And thanks for the further points of consideration. I don't quite understand how you mean this. Rutherford said he dropped any and all considerations of modern Israel and the Jewish re-population of Palestine after 1930. They were no longer considered to have any part in the outworking of any further Bible prophecies. From Rutherford, the last major pro-Zionist writing on the topic was "Comfort for the Jews" and "Comfort for the People," both from 1925. If he was "on to something" do you mean he shouldn't have dropped it as if it were all a mistake?

Just to clarify. Rutherford didn't initially identify the British as the thing standing in the holy place where it ought not. Initially he made statements that showed a preference for British administration until Israel could stand on its own. He also curiously indicated that he thought the Jews would prefer an initial administration under the Mohommedan Turks, since Mohammadans (Muslims) were basically the cousins of the Jews and they could expect peace. But Rutherford took a trip to to Britain, Greece, Palestine and Egypt later in 1920 as planning was indicated in the August 15, 1920 Watchtower. After getting underway, in October, he even opened up a Branch of the Watch Tower Society in Ramallah, Palestine: PALESTINE BRANCH It seemed proper and necessary that a branch office of the Society be established within this territory . . . . Accordingly a branch office has been established at Ramallah, Palestine, which is within sight of the city of Jerusalem. It will be known as the Palestine Branch, the address being: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Ramallah, Palestine. On visiting Egypt he began speaking of it as Satan's base of operations, which appears to be a prelude to dropping the significance of the Pyramids. But he also had trouble getting to Palestine due to the British control, and had to appeal to the American embassy: In early 1921 he reported on the trip to Palestine, 1921 Watchtower, p.9,10: ... This is where the tie between the "abomination" and the League of Nations became clearer to Rutherford, due to the influence of Britain over Palestine (and over the League). The two-horned beast had already been identified by Russell as Britain (p.12): So, I wanted to clarify that it was not the British soldiers representing Britain that directly identified Britain as the abomination, but it was because British soldiers were standing in Palestine under a mandate from the League, whose votes Britain controlled. (The League had been produced as an image of the first beast Britain, and came forth from it, per Rutherford.)

To which BTK responded: BTK, I'm just trying to reference a bit of historical context that preceded our current view of the "standing where it does not belong." Your Ellen G White, "Seventh Day Adventist" reference reminded me that we hadn't yet done that for the Watchtower's view. You will be happy to know, however, that I am not claiming to understand it, or "get it," or give what I don''t understand any credibility. It's just historical reference. The way I thought I understood it is this: Shortly after 1914, as the War raged on, Rutherford was very interested in who would end up with the winning hand in Palestine. Rutherford explained it himself in the Watchtower, 1917, p.133: The expectations were very much on the mind of Rutherford due especially to the Zionist beliefs about Jews returning to Palestine that he had inherited from Russell. Understanding the timing seemed critical, which of course had been expected for 1915, when the Gentile Times ended and, therefore, the Jewish Times would begin. The dispensation parallels were still the strongest source of determining that 1914 had been the end of the Gentile Times (not Daniel 4) and the idea was that Palestine was "harvested" from the beginning of Jesus' ministry up through the Jewish/Roman War of 66-70. The Jewish "harvest" was considered to have happened from 30 CE to 70 CE, for 40 years, just as the 40 years of the "Harvest of the World" was dated from 1874 to 1914. But Rutherford quickly changed it to 1878 to 1918, a 40 year period that was still being taught when I first attended the "Congregation Book Study." Yet, Rutherford now knew that the harvest had continued beyond 1914. Adjusting the complete subjugation to 73 would allow 1918 into the "parallels." The idea had even been floated that it was not until the Bar-Kochba rebellion of 135 CE, that Palestine had been "depopulated." That would put the end of the harvest in 1980, and this was an idea that Rutherford rejected because it ruined the "parallels." p.126: But Rutherford continued to use the supposed total age of the animals that Abraham sacrificed as one of the methods, which had been used to reach 1915, and added 10 years to this in order to match up the restoration of Israel in Palestine in 1925. See page 134 of the same 1917 Watchtower: By starting the count of the 3,960 years, 10 years later than had previously been done, Rutherford saw it as another potential evidence reaching to 1925: From the end of the War (Barfour, etc.) up until 1925, of course, the British controlled Palestine, and because its soldiers were still there, Britain became the "thing standing where it does not belong" in the holy place.

I guess I really have egg on my face now. Right? At least I didn't interpret it as the result of Billy the Kid's six-shooter, and a quick draw with exceptional aim.

True. We don't get a lot of Ellen G White around here. But I admit that I didn't get the point. I recall that Rutherford thought he was able to figure out that the thing "standing where it ought not" was obviously the British Empire since they were still occupying Palestine well after the Gentiles' time was supposed to have ended, and they should therefore have no longer been dominating the land of Israel.

I'm convinced! Of course, it might be delirium. I'm suffering from such a fever you could fry eggs on my forehead. At least, I assume so based on the picture.

TTH, Am I going to have to actually go back and read this entire thread? I tried to avoid reading it, by only scanning for comments on the Chilean flag portion. But it has become pretty obvious that I have been referenced by others more often than I have even made comments here in this thread. Don't know why I ever became a sub-topic here. The rebuke was effective. I will be holding my cards close to the vest for the next few weeks. If I feel that my conscience is still clean, and there is no more reason to speak up anywhere about the things I have seen and heard, then I will happily remove myself completely and no longer comment in public about the controversies and issues that I currently think should be brought to light. For the record, I have not participated on any other public forum (with minor exceptions several years ago) before coming to this one when it was jw-archive.org. So this would not be a matter of merely moving to another forum. Luke 17:3 of course says something like: "So watch yourselves. 'If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.' " Taking a strong stand or using a "loaded" bit of vocabulary has often triggered BTK (and persons just like him) to re-use the exact same words or expression back at the person he was conversing with. Although it was buried deep within your post, I read this, above, and fully expected BTK to use the same expression back at you. He came very close. That minor quirk might relate to what you say below about another person that BTK reminds you of, but it is intentionally easy to disclaim this one as meaningless. It's just a friendly reminder that other similar reactions might not be unexpected. In my opinion, it's only one of literally hundreds of examples. You are not implying it at all, but if BTK is AllenSmith "reincarnated," then I am very happy he is still here. Both Allen and BTK have very often provided unique insights that have been valuable in providing additional sides of an issue. But there may also be a dark lesson to be learned in the idea that a person can feel very distraught by having a past persona wiped out, and his prior comments removed as if worthless. It is probably akin to the removal of a person who has been disfellowshipped for matters of conscience, leaving them with no way to return, as if they have been wiped off the face of the earth, with loss of all prior connections that meant a lot to them. It's no wonder that we've seen people here refer to the process of disfellowshipping and shunning as a type of "murder." It must be worse for a person who feels that a forum is akin to a congregation in need of shepherding. (Sorry, my cards are showing again!) I should add that BTK's comments also remind of AllenSmith in another way. When he quotes from other sources, or when he runs a comment through a Microsoft product before posting it here, those comments will reformat with extra gaps between paragraphs. When I checked the html "source code" of Allen's comments, they previously matched BTK's "source code" and have been the only ones on the forum that contained the following <class> and <span> definitions. Both of the following examples are from above in this thread: ---------------------------- <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">I would say, you demand as much as Anna, James, JWinsider when it comes to the role an Elder and the governing body has within Christ Church.</span> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:major-bidi;mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi">As for knowing people are liars, I agree and I treat everyone as such. I don&rsquo;t hold preferences as you do. I don&rsquo;t admire apostasy as you do.</span> This gives away another research trick but it's a simple and useful one for cyber forensics. By contrast. Here are your own, TTH. Mine are the same, with no extra mso options: <p> We&rsquo;re on the same side, really, going about the same thing in different ways. I am not going to allow a division be made between us. I&rsquo;m just not. </p> ---------------------- This is not any indication that BTK is doing anything wrong. No matter what, he is completely within his rights to speak up as he does, and I appreciate it. If someone is going to publicly present an opinion or information they believe is true, it is always important to have someone with a different or opposite opinion providing their own information. It is what we often need to keep from just merely falling for the first (or last) opinion we hear on a topic. It's one of the reasons I always argued to keep Allen from being removed, as admins can attest. BTK is trying to root apostasy from this site. I think there has been too much apostasy on this site, too. But I also think all apostates should have a place to express their views in public as it also provides a double-check on the men who may have judged them as apostate. I think that even within the congregation all disfellowshippings for apostasy should be argued in front of the entire congregation so that the rebuke of the majority can be clear. Accessible public forums may be the next best thing. I also think that all of us should be able to comment from the heart about anything stated in the congregation or on jw.org. There is no current forum for many of us to comment honestly from the heart, and no comments section on jw.org. The only comments allowed in a congregational setting must be completely supportive even if the paragraph contained information that was clearly unscriptural. In some cases those unscriptural ideas have already been corrected over the years, but in other cases they would have been corrected more quickly if all persons felt comfortable answering honestly from the heart. Of course, BTK has the idea (that we keep going back to) that no one should be allowed to publicly disagree with a current Watchtower doctrine, policy, or practice. He even appears to believe that past mistakes and corrections were possibly part of Jehovah's plan, so that they were not really mistakes, after all. He also thinks that someone is literally apostate if they disagree with the current eschatology. Of course, our eschatology is tied so closely to teachings about the anointed, the great crowd, the faithful slave, specifics of prophetic explanations, the definition of generation, etc., that his position could be understandable.

1.4 million, with an "M."

Someone changed it. Perhaps they were motivated by your own prediction. 😉

Your entire response here and in one or two earlier posts in this thread appear to be exactly what I would expect to hear from an anointed person. I believe you speak out in the hope that readers will reject the falsehoods and accept truths in their place. Which is fine. Perhaps you also want all readers to reject the entire association with the JW Organization, as you think it has gotten so far off track. This is where I think you are being impractical. On the first count, obviously we should reject all falsehoods and accept truths to the best of our ability. On the second part, what do you think would be wrong with continuing to associate with the same brotherhood from which has sprung so many truly anointed persons? And then, if one considers himself to be anointed, continuing to bear righteous spiritual fruit (love, joy, peace, etc) that will have a positive and upbuilding effect on others. I don't consider myself anointed, of course, but this (above) is also the same thing I believe I would try to do if I were. If you believe the GB are creating a "dark place" for other anointed persons, why not be that light in a dark place, as far as it depends upon you? Perhaps you personally are in a situation where you have been kicked out of the synagogue for calling the leaders blind, and it seems nearly impossible or unfruitful to go back. But if other anointed persons decided to merely set a good example of "shining as illuminators" among the same brotherhood in which they were called, do you think it would be wrong for them to remain in the state they were called? Since we were effectively called as slaves into a certain "household of faith" I think 1 Cor 7:19-24 gives a thought that might be related: (1 Cor 7:19-24) Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20 In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21 Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22 For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24 In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

In some ways, I am impressed that it's a step in the right direction. Allowing for some differences on conscience matters is still better than saying everything must be done a specific way because that's the only way a Bible-trained conscience should allow for. The brother is probably 75 to 80, so I didn't press him, but he was the one who used the terms "strongly encouraged" and "strongly discouraged." It's true that it implies that no one was told they must do it this way or that way, but it also implies that "loaded" or "leading" language would be used. We all know that this produces the implied idea: "I'm not telling you what to do, but you you know what you need to do . . . 'wink, wink,' . . . 'nod, nod.' "

Well I got an answer from the brother with connections to Chile and elsewhere in South America, but it's very hard to believe. The answer is so odd that I hate to offer it yet as an explanation. So I also called about 12 different KH numbers, including an Assembly Hall number and the main number for Chile on JW.ORG (which matches the number on the "infamous" letterhead). I recorded the messages I got on each number. Some rang 'forever' and some had "no service" messages, and two had recorded messages after which I could have left a call-back number, but didn't. I am still going to have to call again next week, to attempt further verification. The friend I met with definitely knows about the Internet "hoopla." The son-in-law who was a Circuit Overseer there has come back to the USA more than once with his wife (my friend's daughter) due to a medical condition treated here. They have gone back, but each time to a different assignment, sometimes in different countries of South America. So I couldn't get an exact response about "a firsthand" experience with the topic in Chile since 2014. Neither of his daughters (or sons-in-law) are currently in Chile. So here was the answer that still needs more verification (mostly because I find it hard to believe). He stated it very matter-of-factly, and didn't seem to see a problem with it at all. Circuit Overseers are evidently told to strongly encourage the display of the flag on specific mandatory days ONLY in those areas where there have been past legal issues in the area regarding enforcement. Enforcement is not uniform, even though it applies to all buildings. Other circuit overseers have been told to strongly discourage the display of the flag on the premises of a KH, with certain exceptions regarding property ownership by individuals volunteering a property's free use as a KH. I asked about why he thought an inconsistent policy would be encouraged. His answer to that question was what really seemed more disconcerting: "Because if some congregations do and some don't, the government will see that this is a matter of conscience, and will realize that they [local JWs] aren't being ordered to handle the matter one way or another [based on a directive] from the [Watch Tower] Society." I didn't have the heart to point out that this is a strange way to prove that something is really a matter of conscience.

I will be happy to. But at 2pm today I'm actually driving out of state to meet an elder whose 2 sons-in-law are/were(?) circuit overseers in Paraguay and Chile respectively. One was the "Home Overseer" for several years, but I don't recall whether that was the one or Paraguay or Chile. The purpose of the visit is unrelated, but I will definitely remember to ask him about the Chilean flags. I can't imagine that he doesn't know. But if not, I volunteer to call one or more of the KH's in Chile. BTW, at most it's a very low charge, sometimes just a few cents to call through Google Phone, or other IP phone services.

What you have here is very similar to what I was about to show, but of course, I picked slightly different reference points on the flag for reasons that I thought were reasonable, but don't think would be worth the trouble to explain. The pole and flag still seem nearly perfect to me (using the points I chose). Doesn't mean much, since we should be looking for a preponderance of evidence as JTR calls it, not just a couple items here and there. But I admit that I had not seen all the supposed evidence when I questioned HQ. I presented it as if it was just a couple possible examples both in 2016 and earlier this year. That reminds me, that on the additional view of another Hall at 2789 Mexico Ave, shown above with an EMPTY flagpole, I find it interesting that Google Street View took the picture just a few months before it became marked as a Kingdom Hall. Note that there was no flagpole in the June 2014 photo from Google, but there is one per an ex-JW (I presume) who took a picture in September 2014. This would mean that either the picture was altered, or the brothers at the Hall had installed the flagpole as a part of opening up the KH. I see no evidence that the photo was altered, especially as it was just one of several pictures of various degrees of quality. But this would have been an easy one to alter, if someone wanted to. But then, why create a slightly off kilter flagpole. BTW, Chile has their own street mapping application, and they have recently added street view, but not with this address completed. http://mapas.emol.com/?busxr=Salon Del Reino México 2789

I wouldn't go that far. Someone could have superimposed the flag onto the picture, but knowing where the flagpole is from another picture now puts the shadow in exactly the right place (in my opinion). Also, I just ran a line from each known shadow projection point (corners, objects) on that front facing wall, and they all spread exactly as expected (nearly parallel, but flared as expected with low sunlight). Also notice that the edges are even attenuated as expected the further distance that the shadow travels to reach the further part of the wall from the flag. Compare that slight blurriness to the crisper shadows of the roof overhang, etc. That's a lot of unnecessary work if all they had to do was just not show a flag shadow altogether, or get a picture without shadows. They even caught the depth of the vinyl siding correctly and realized that the zig-zag would have to be exaggerated for the longer angle. If it's faked they got all this down perfectly. That tells me that the shape of the flag shadow itself is likely correct even though we can't see a portion of the flag making a piece of the projected shadow. If they had the abilities required to attenuate and zig-zag the Gaussian blur correctly, then they could have produced a more "expected" shape for the shadow of the invisible portion of the flag. The fact that they did not work to make it more "expected," but left a perfectly reasonable shadow anyway tells me it's not "Photoshopped." I'm willing to suspend judgment and give more credence to the supposed branch letter's explanation. Also, due to my own prejudices, I have tried to be a stickler at avoiding jehovahs-witness.com, even when it comes up as the only source in Google for certain information. But I see that there is more evidence there than was presented previously on this site. For example, quoting: "Hi, I moved during the past week and searched 21 Kingdom Halls, not including Bethel. I could only obtain a picture of a mast and a waving flag. The picture of the mast (with no flag) is of a Hall that's at Avenida México 2789 in the neighborhood of Puente Alto, Provincia Cordillera, Región Metropolitana, Chile, and was taken on the 21st of September, 2014 at around 6PM." On this picture, I would have sworn that the JW.ORG sign was photoshopped. That would be damaging, if true, but still wouldn't be critical to the point of the picture. I found the location of this Hall on JW.ORG and on Google Street View, but can't see the sign.

That wasn't one of the 21 addresses in Santiago proper, but I did find it here (in the Valparaiso Region). The flagpole is definitely kept on the KH side of the fence, and this is definitely the site of an actual KH with a flagpole on the property.

The particular picture you showed, however, might or might not be evidence for what it looks like. I don't think it's a coincidence that the picture finds the most damning angle, and yet that angle still doesn't prove what it was apparently intended to prove. Notice how close the flag material is shown to the corner of the Hall. You could not take a picture with it any closer. We also have a shadow that indicates the flag is not as close to that corner as it first appears. And we have a vertical fence bar obscuring the vertical flag pole so that we don't know if it is behind the white fence or in front. The picture therefore appears staged in a way that could be hiding evidence and which could be easily shown one way or another with a second picture that shows which side of the white fence the flag is on. You have often shown the picture below, and engineers and draftsmen realize that you often need three or more perspectives, and dotted (hidden) lines to get the full picture.

It's funny. I have no trouble getting to sleep, but by choice I've always been able to stay up several nights a week and not feel it the next day, and go on as normal. But I've heard that this is not healthy, and at 61, now, I'm beginning to need more than 5 hours of sleep. I began working on a building project a couple weeks ago, and will be for another couple weeks. When younger, I'd come home and find that reading or studying would be an enjoyable way to get some rest, even if it meant losing sleep. But these last couple weeks, I'm actually falling asleep in the evenings even when I want to stay up. This must be the end of the world as I knew it.

If I recall correcty, the idea was that there is a day of independence or something like that where the flags are put up for a day or two. It's possible that individual JWs, based on conscience, might put up a flag here and there. But I'm pretty sure the KH would rather pay a fine rather than put up a flag. There was a time when we would rather take it to court than even pay a fine.

Not sure what this means, but on the topic of the Chilean flag flying at, on or near Kingdom Halls, I don't really believe it. When this topic first came out a couple of years ago, there were some problems with the correspondence that supposedly explained it from an JW standpoint. Also, not all properties where KH's exist are fully owned by JWs. There could be a myriad of reasons that a flag exists on or near a JW property. But I'm not sure they really do. I followed up on this by calling Patterson a couple of years ago (and the brother said he didn't know if it was true) and speaking to someone more recently in Warwick, who said "that couldn't be true," as far as he knows. But he also didn't know about any Internet-based commotion on the topic. I told him that I had checked about 20 Kingdom Halls in Chile using Google Street View. Here is one example: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Encinas+1749,+Renca,+Región+Metropolitana,+Chile/@-33.4041048,-70.6907054,3a,75y,108.84h,87.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slfiq6LkMs2Z5CuAmFiG3ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x9662c69f295173ad:0x837dfa74929e385!8m2!3d-33.4041138!4d-70.6904265 Just go to JW.ORG and get the addresses of all the different locations in Santiago, for example: https://apps.jw.org/ui/E/meeting-search.html#/memorial/search/any/Santiago, Chile/-33.43783,-70.650449/@-33.434145,-70.639928,13z These images were taken when the law was supposedly in effect. Yet, none of them showed flagpoles. None of them showed flags. I checked a few churches, too and none of them show flags either. I checked the one Hall that had been mentioned on this site, too. I'm not even sure about the supposed "law" as described. There have been several items promoted by JW opposers that should rightly raise some suspicions. It's not usually that hard to look up corroborating evidence these days, even if it's half-way around the world for some of us. If anyone knows of any different evidence, I'd be happy to see it. But I have strong doubts that there is any definitive evidence that means what opposers have claimed.

Pinpointing the first single day of the crash ends up giving an incomplete picture of the larger problem. By the end of October 1929 about 25 percent of the value of the market was gone. By 1933 about 80 percent of the peak 1929 market was gone. Ironically, it was when Roosevelt (FDR) turned to some Marxist ideas from "socialism" that the economy began improving again after 1933. Even more ironically, the big secret of capitalism relies on the largest capitalists continually taking of more and more of other people's money until they finally run out of it, and they cannot drain any more money from the system (mostly from workers). As historian Schlesinger says: According to historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. the most critical reasons for this economic collapse can be summarized as: 1) Management’s disposition to maintain prices and inflate profits while holding down wages and raw material prices meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in their own productivity. The consequence was the relative decline of mass purchasing power. As goods flowed out of the expanding capital plant in ever greater quantities, there was proportionately less and less cash in the hands of buyers to carry the goods off the market. The pattern of income distribution, in short, was incapable of long maintaining prosperity. 2) Seven years of fixed capital investment at high rates had “overbuilt” productive capacity (in terms of existing capacity to consume) and had thus saturated the economy. The slackening of the automotive and building industries was symptomatic. The existing rate of capital formation could not be sustained without different governmental policies – policies aimed not at helping those who had money to accumulate more but at transferring money from those who were letting it stagnate in savings to those who would spend it. 3) The sucking off into profits and dividends of the gains of technology meant the tendency to use excess money for speculation, transforming the Stock Exchange from a securities market into a gaming-house. . . . Source: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Crisis of the Old Order, The Age of Roosevelt 1919-1933: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957, pp. 159-160.

It's a typical pattern for sexually abused persons not to want to speak out against an abuser for 20 years or more, or even admit to themselves or others that the abuse was "real." And the trust issues created by the abuse will often extend to the parents, other grown-ups, the courts, the police and other authorities. And sometimes for good reason: an abused person will very often be abused again and again by those who recognize the signs of a damaged psyche. (For the record, literally thousands of Mexican and Central American children who were detained in the last couple of years in immigrant detention centers, often removed far from their parents, claimed they were abused sexually by Americans in charge of the centers. This is the same "government" that is supposed to be caring for them. But many of these persons were also running away from sexual abuse and other crimes in their own countries where a drug and gang culture has become as powerful as the local governments of those countries. The point being, that not even those in charge of protecting you can be trusted.) I haven't seen the documentary yet, but I recall listening to interviews with some of M.Jackson's family, and remember thinking that they (LaToya, Janet, etc) wouldn't have worded things exactly in the way they did if they didn't know that he was guilty in some of these cases. I understand that Neverland was built with many secret escape routes that were set up in such a way that M.Jackson could commit crimes and then escape and hide if law enforcement came for him. I think that this is included in the documentary.

Thanks for sharing this, Jack. I have a friend who has been involved with the setting up of jw.org from the beginning and he knows that they have spared no expense to make sure the site is never hacked. Internally, the WTS and related corporations also distribute multiple versions of documents with hidden identifying tracking information buried in them so that if one is leaked it will be easy to narrow down the department or even the person, hopefully, from whom it was leaked. It's a shame that the WTS needs to put so much time and resources into tracking leakers, but it is the right of any corporation to take any measures deemed necessary to protect corporate interests. The shame, in my opinion, is that the WTS and related corporations have produced any documents or videos that would be embarrassing to have distributed, or even critiqued. If one is humble, critique should be welcomed, requested and even promoted. Distribution of any WTS content by any means (e.g., news channels, social media channels, apostate channels, underground channels, and official channels) should all be encouraged. This assumes, of course, that nothing embarrassing or secret or underhanded is ever produced. As a corporation that can take pride in the message being given to the world, any and all means of allowing that content to be freely shared should be appreciated. And, as stated, if the producers of the content are humble, they will appreciate any type of questions and criticism, too.

Found it from the other link: https://www.elsoldetlaxcala.com.mx/local/los-testigos-de-jehova-contra-muro-fronterizo-3102305.html