JW Insider

JWI wants nothing of the sort. But if you are going to do one of these things where you go on an attack with false "facts" again, then someone ought to point out at least a couple of them. First of all, you are conflating the Bible Students and the JW's if you think that the cross and crown was a view noticed "since 1950." The cross-and-crown pins were declared to be objectionable as early as 1928. The English Watchtower got rid of the symbol from its covers in 1931. The pin was objectionable because it was religious jewelry associated with Russell and the Bible Students, not because it showed a cross. The WT still taught that Jesus died on a cross up until about 1936. Remember that the English name for the "Bible Students" still associated with the WTS was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Some Branches with the delay due to language translation lagged behind with the new name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and their redesigned Watchtower covers. (The Branch in Spain still had the cross-and-crown on their tablecloth design until 1932, and their Spanish Watchtower redesigned the covers in 1932.) Recall that in Germany the usual name was still Bibelforscher (Bible Students) from 1933 and beyond, and was used so much in Germany that many people didn't recognize that the Bibleforscher were the same as the Jehovas Zeugen (Jehovah's Witnesses) even after WWII. In fact, many of the Bibelforscher in concentration camps were not Jehovah's Witnesses but were Bible Students no longer associated with Rutherford and the Watchtower Society. So this cross-and-crown change had nothing to do with the 1950's, even though a bit of confusion might still have occurred in the mind of outsiders about the Bible Student name up until then, as this Watchtower experience shows: *** w92 6/1 p. 30 After Buchenwald I Found the Truth *** In 1954, I was visited by two of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I subscribed to the Awake! magazine. . . . During the discussions that followed, I remembered the Bibelforscher in Buchenwald who were so true to their faith. Only then did I realize that these Bibelforscher and Jehovah’s Witnesses were one and the same people. Thanks to a Bible study, my wife and I took our stand for Jehovah and were baptized in April 1955. You have made this statement several times, seemingly forgetting that it is the Governing Body who have declared that the Watchtower erred in interpretation of scripture. You are so blinded in your anger against anyone who might admit this simple truth, that you are inadvertently claiming that the GB are opposed to the truth and seeking their own independent understanding. I don't believe they are opposed to the truth, nor do I think they are seeking their own independent understanding. After 1929, Jehovah's Witnesses (since 1931), not just the Bible Students, believed that Romans 13:1 did not refer to the secular authorities: *** w50 11/15 p. 442 par. 12 Subjection to the Higher Powers *** On the clergy interpretation of Romans 13:1 has been based the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “divine right of kings”. Man-made governments since the flood of Noah’s day stem from Nimrod’s government at Babel or Babylon. Since 1962, Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Romans 13:1 to refer to the man-made governmental authorities. As you have tried before, you try to be slick with your opposition to the truth of such matters, and as usual, it has led you to attempt some wordplay again. You try to divert with your wordplay to make it ambiguous about "why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture." Let's try to keep the facts straight: *** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 God and Caesar *** As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote in the book The Plan of the Ages: “Neither Jesus nor the Apostles interfered with earthly rulers in any way. . . . to offer no resistance to any established law. (Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:21) . . . This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul, as human governmental authorities. (Romans 13:1, King James Version) . . . . In 1929, . . . it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. . . . Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period. In 1961 . . . the words used not only in Romans chapter 13 but also in such passages as Titus 3:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, 17 made it evident that the term “superior authorities” referred, not to the Supreme Authority, Jehovah, and to his Son, Jesus, but to human governmental authorities. In late 1962, articles were published in The Watchtower that gave an accurate explanation of Romans chapter 13 . . . . It was correct in 1886, under Russell, until it was changed due to what Rutherford "felt" about it in 1929. Finally in 1962, it was changed back to Russell's correct view so that it was an "accurate explanation" again. So this had very little to do with "Bible Students" as you tried to imply. I was referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses from 1931 to 1962. Just a side note: For some reason the Watchtower added that "it must be said" that moving from a correct explanation to an inaccurate explanation of Romans 13:1 "helped." This makes one wonder why we no longer need the "help" of an incorrect explanation. Is it because we will no longer need to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout any more difficult periods in the future? That can't be the real reason. The real reason is clear. It was a mistake. We can be humble about it, instead of trying to use weasel words and other ambiguous wordplay to try to avoid being humble. We can't keep trying to give the impression that we avoid honesty to avoid admitting a mistake. It makes us look haughty. It makes us look like we are opposers who oppose the truth. (Proverbs 12:17) . . .The one who testifies faithfully will tell the truth, But a false witness speaks deceit.

Seems like the application is more like the lack of value that a foolish person might recognize in some very good counsel. Pearls and swine. That's not so different from his application. You can make it work among the brothers, but it sounds much more like our relationship with some in the world for whom we need to shake the dust off our feet.

I'm not sure what you meant was so special about "since at least 1950" and the remark about "when the Watchtower was in full control." But there were a couple times between 1976 and 1982 when all the various Branch Overseers were flown in to Bethel, for several weeks at a time, and there were special times set aside when many of the Branch Overseers would give talks and give experiences. Some of the local NYC congregations also gave up their Sunday talk, and sometimes a "Book Study" meeting to replace it with talks and experiences from them. Some added a Saturday night meeting. I must have heard at least 40 different Branch speakers, and I even invited a couple of them to a congregation in Queens and once accompanied an overseer and his wife to a meal there. Most of them reminded me of "District Overseers" who had worked their way up from Gilead missionaries to "elders" to "Circuit Overseers." I got a good impression of their humility and love for the brothers in their various countries. I was very impressed with the fact that, even though they were all white American/European, they were clearly involved so closely with the brothers and sisters in their various assignments that they saw themselves not as paternalistic, patronizing "leaders," but humble servants. But I also never got the impression that any one of them would ever have questioned a doctrine coming from headquarters. I doubt that any would have ever recommended a change to a doctrine. Doctrines were never part of their talks except to highlight how loyal the local brothers always were to any articles about neutrality, etc. 4Jah2me has just reminded us of the mistake Rutherford made about "superior authorities" which was not corrected back to Russell's view until the 1960's. And it made me think that hundreds of brothers, like branch overseers, district overseers, circuit overseers, and elders (whether anointed or not) could easily have known that the teaching was wrong. It seems impossible that any Witness anywhere could read the Bible and not see that this was a mistake. But none of these persons, evidently, had the idea that it would be OK to mention the need to correct this doctrine.

Good point. I recall having missed this obvious point when I first listened to the ARC videos. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/04/pedophiles.html alerted me to it, too. It's in the blog post (from TTH) and part of his Putin book, of course. It was a difficult read at first because it treads on some dangerous ground and I cringed too much at first, thinking TTH was walking too close to the edge of a cliff. (I still cringe at a couple of points made there.) But I think the blog/excerpt explains and expands on that particular point pretty well. Thanks for the reminder, CC.

I was pretty sure you had already broken into the Watchtower HQ and added the last sentence to a paragraph in a very recent Watchtower we just studied: (November 2019) *** w19 November p. 17 par. 13 Are You Maintaining Your “Large Shield of Faith”? *** 13 Imagine the scene. A group of soldiers spend the morning training with their swords, but one of their company is missing. That soldier is in town setting up a food shop. In the evening, the soldiers spend time inspecting their armor and sharpening their swords. But the one who owns the shop spends his time preparing food to sell the next day. The next morning, however, an enemy launches a surprise attack. Which soldier is more likely to act appropriately and earn the approval of his commanding officer? And whom would you want standing beside you—a soldier who focused on being prepared or the one who was distracted?

g=Awake! (g refers to fact that Awake! started out as the Golden Age) 93 is the Year, then 4/8 means month and day. (Awake! in those days came out on the 8th and 22nd of every month) So it's the April 8, 1993 Awake! magazine, page 31. w=Watchtower, which works the same way, except that the Watchtower, until very recently, came out on the 1st and 15th of every month. lv=Keep Yourself In God's Love, a publication that was released in 2014. You can find the full list on the Watchtower Library "CD" which can be downloaded from jw.org.

All right, if you insist: *** lv p. 223 [Keep Yourself In God's Love] Resolving Disputes in Business Matters *** There are also cases in which a brother might feel compelled to countersue in order to protect himself in a lawsuit.* If such lawsuits are pursued without a spirit of contention, they may not violate the spirit of Paul’s inspired counsel. Nonetheless, a Christian’s priority should be the sanctification of Jehovah’s name and the peace and unity of the congregation. Christ’s followers are marked first and foremost by their love, and “love . . . does not look for its own interests.”—1 Corinthians 13:4, 5; John 13:34, 35. [Footnotes] * In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another—such as rape, assault, murder, or major theft. In such cases, it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities, even though doing so might result in a court case or a criminal trial. *** w05 8/1 p. 14 When Is There a Basis for Taking Offense? *** In our time, rape is also a major crime with severe penalties. The victim has every right to report the matter to the police. In this way the proper authorities can punish the offender. And if the victim is a minor, the parents may want to initiate these actions. *** g05 8/8 p. 9 Freedom From Fear—Is It Possible? *** Reporting your husband’s abuse to the authorities and seeking their protection may also be an option. The Bible teaches that all must face the consequences of their actions. (Galatians 6:7) Of governmental authority, the Bible says: “It is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear.” (Romans 13:4) Assault is as much a crime at home as it is on the street. Stalking is also a crime in many countries. *** g93 10/8 p. 9 If Your Child Is Abused *** Some legal experts advise reporting the abuse to the authorities as soon as possible. In some lands the legal system may require this. But in other places the legal system may offer little hope of successful prosecution. What, though, when the abuser is one’s own beloved mate? Sad to say, many women fail to take decisive action. To be sure, it is never easy to face the ugly reality of a mate who is a child abuser. Emotional ties, and even financial dependency, can be overwhelmingly strong. The wronged wife may also realize that taking action could cost her husband his family, his job, his reputation. The hard truth is, though, that he may just be reaping what he has sown. (Galatians 6:7) Innocent children, on the other hand, stand to lose much more if they are not believed and protected. Their whole future is at stake. They do not have the resources that adults have. Trauma can scar and shape them adversely for life. They are the ones who need and deserve tender treatment.—Compare Genesis 33:13, 14. Parents must therefore make every reasonable effort to protect their children! Many responsible parents choose to seek out professional help for an abused child. Just as you would with a medical doctor, make sure that any such professional will respect your religious views. Help your child rebuild his or her shattered self-esteem through a steady outpouring of parental love. *** g91 2/8 p. 11 What Comfort for the Victims? *** Realizing the pain that such loss causes, many authorities work for laws or conditions that might reduce the shockingly high number of casualties each year. For instance, one official pointed to character weaknesses in those guilty of drinking and driving and suggested setting up reporting centers for them where, through education and job and drug counseling, they ‘could be reinforced and strengthened’ to overcome their weaknesses. What Is Really Needed? However desirable this may be, no human or human agency can erase the hurt inflicted on the victims, nor can humans bring back the dead. What is needed to undo all the damage is far more than what humans can provide. What is really needed is an entirely different arrangement in the world, one that would not be based on today’s selfish and destructive ‘thrills at any cost’ concepts that take so many lives. *** w91 11/1 p. 5 Is Vengeance Wrong? *** Should a crime victim, then, sit back and passively take the abuse? Not necessarily. When our person or property is violated, there are authorities to turn to. You may wish to call the police. At work, go to the supervisor. At school, you may wish to see the principal. That is one reason they are there—to uphold justice. The Bible tells us that governmental authorities are “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.” (Romans 13:4) Justice requires that the government exercise its authority, stop wrongdoing, and punish the wrongdoers. *** g00 7/8 p. 29 Watching the World *** Reported cases of child abuse in Japan soared 30 percent during fiscal 1998, compared with the previous year, says Asahi Evening News. Experts attribute this to “mounting stress borne by mothers, many of whom were carrying the entire burden of rearing their children,” as well as to “a heightened awareness among the general public” of their responsibility to report abuse or neglect. *** g93 4/8 p. 31 Victims of Pedophile Priests Speak Out *** “DURING the past decade, some 400 Roman Catholic priests have been reported to church or civil authorities for sexual abuse of children,” according to U.S.News & World Report. Recently, a national gathering of survivors of such abuse was held near Chicago, Illinois. Many spoke openly of how they had been victimized by pedophile priests. . . . suing six religious orders for $1.4 billion in damages. Interestingly, though, the aforementioned U.S. attorney, who represents 150 victims of pedophile priests in 23 states, says that he has never yet had a client who was eager to go to court. Each one first tried to seek justice “within the pastoral context of the church.” NCR concludes: “Survivors go to the courts, it appears, not as a first resort, but as a last resort.” *** w97 12/1 p. 31 Is All Complaining Bad? *** Did you note from the above examples that complaints should be made in the proper spirit and to the proper authority? For example, it would be pointless to complain to the police about a heavy tax burden or to a judge about one’s physical ailments. So, too, it would be inappropriate to complain about some situation either inside or outside the congregation to a person that had no authority or ability to help. In most lands today, there are courts and other appropriate authorities that can be appealed to in hopes of gaining a measure of relief. When the student mentioned in the beginning of the article took his complaint to court, the judges ruled in his favor, and he was reinstated with an apology from the school. Similarly, the female worker who was sexually harassed found relief through a working-women’s union. She received an apology from the school board. Her employers took steps to stop sexual harassment. *** g94 3/22 p. 29 Watching the World *** But the paper adds that these phony confessions “demonstrate the real confusion, inadequacy, and indulgence of a good part of the 36,000 Italian priests, who often seem more interested in sexual rather than social sins.” Pino Nicotri, one of the writers, found that of the 49 priests to whom he “confessed,” only one refused him absolution and told him to report his crime to the authorities. Commented La Repubblica: “As far as the others are concerned, either bribes are not a sin, or else it is useless to go to a judge, since what counts is pardon from God.” *** g73 4/8 p. 30 Watching the World *** The FBI says that 85 out of every 100,000 female residents of major U.S. cities are rape victims. Rape also appears to be the least reported crime. Many women do not want to discuss their case with male policemen or otherwise risk the possible shame of revealing they were raped. Newsweek observes: “The conservative estimate is that a phenomenal 75 per cent of all sexual attacks on women go entirely unreported to the authorities.”

Sorry, but the answer is yes, I have seen most Watchtower leaders practicing love among one another, especially to the flock, and also practicing love to those we might otherwise consider our enemies when it comes to a preaching, and giving of our time to take a message of hope to them. The kinds of elders or leaders who end up being involved in disfellowshipping those who disagree with doctrine are only working on one part of what they consider to be a Christian duty. I agree that it might show a lack of love with some, but only in that one activity, and not because most of them realize the lack of love. To most it's just a painful job that someone has to do. I know for a fact that elders sometimes cry during and after a judicial meeting. They imagine they are doing an act of sacred service. (John 16:2) . . .Men will expel YOU from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God. But sometimes we must forgive them, for they know not what they do. And other times, perhaps most of the time, they are doing the right thing. They ARE performing an act of sacred service. There is a scriptural basis for different versions of this practice.

So far, very little has gone on in that club. There were a few discussions of what people liked or didn't like about recent and/or upcoming Watchtower studies. It was probably considered better to discuss such things without every topic being turned into: "Yes that's true but you also have a CSA problem." You might not believe it, but we had a guy here once who could take any topic, even one about how you might pronounce YHWH, and would still find a way to weave in a dig about CSA.

The admin should come up with a new emoji/response that means you have said some very interesting thought-provoking things, and some of them are obviously right, but that there's enough I disagree with that I don't want to give it a full up-vote.

Jesus is that source of truth, and does not produce bad fruit. We as humans must try to imitate Jesus and follow to the best of our ability. But even a piece of good fruit has flaws when you look at it too closely. You appear to be interpreting this statement as if it is saying: (Matthew 5:48) . . .You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. But this is mitigated by another statement from the same Sermon on the Mount: (Matthew 6:14-15) . . 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. If everyone must be perfect, and can never produce bad fruit, then what's the point of asking for forgiveness of our trespasses?

I hope you are not referring to serpentza. I find him to be one of the most racist liars on youtube.

You have several recent posts here that would fit right in to the recent topic that Anna started in the closed club. 4J laughs at it, to be sure, but he holds a perspective that reflects his admitted lack of trust for just about anyone and anything. But, I just wanted to say that I suspect you are giving this whole idea a lot of very good and deep thought. Not that I'm the best judge of such things, but it's a matured perspective, too, I'm thinking. I hope you are planning to put it together into a very accessible format to refer to again (like a book/blog/etc). And I should add that I'm glad it's out here in the open for a little more public scrutiny. I have personally avoided Evan's videos and site(s). But I paid attention for a bit when The Atlantic published something that appears to have come from someone associated with him. There were issues with bias in the article, and outright mistakes of fact. I think this was actually not Evans himself, but it reflected a lot of "bald" hatred of elders and the whole arrangement that supplies them. Like you say, it's as they've tasted something that the rest of us see as good, and they see it all as bad. I lose interest quickly when thinking becomes so black and white that they focus ONLY on the extremes and don't even think about what is generally going on. Like going to a huge banquet/picnic where hundreds of items of great food are available to choose from, but because someone brought some tainted potato salad, they go around screaming that everything has been poisoned.

Evidently, so does the US State Department, and CIA entities. Some of the best foreign news sources have their accounts banned due to disagreements with US policies or exposure of falsehoods.

I know about this man's videos. (Laowhy86) He sells his Western propaganda through YouTube. He uses the fact that he is/was married to a Chinese woman to his "advantage" but you will see him interviewing his own wife sometimes and she is not going along with his agenda. He pushes so hard that when she gives an inch he will make a big deal of it (and gets called out in the comments for what he is doing.) They are evidently in the middle of a divorce. He actually doesn't live in China anymore. I hear he is back in America even though he still keeps a patreon account linked to his YouTube account to help him raise funds to get out. Much of what he has talked about has been made fun of by "Nathan Rich." Using the TTH method, I found Nathan Rich immediately after finding Loawhy86. But also tried to find someone who had an opinion about both of them. The next link is an example from someone who has followed both accounts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1vTYNRUb54 His stupidity is made clear by watching some of the things he said about the coronavirus in a couple videos. It's easy to get links to that, so I won't give them, but here is a link to what Nathan Rich has said, which isn't too long, but it does highlight some of the prejudices that outsiders have about China. Whether he is usually right or not, I can't say, but I like the fact that he documents evidence against some of the false claims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIt496d82s Nathan Rich, in his smart-aleck way attacks some of the points made by people like laowhy86. I added it to this thread because I think it's the one where he shows how anti-China propaganda so commonly upholds Hong Kong as a bastion of wonderful government, while trying to compare it with the awful Beijing government. The distortion as I recall was obviously full of lies, which N.R. easily showed with just a few news headlines that exactly contradicted the rewriting of history intended by the other propagandist. The best thing is never to trust either side to tell the whole truth, but use such items to ferret out the methods each side uses to try to get their ideology to "win" over the other. Do this enough, and you will realize that there are not just two sides. There are multiple sides with many things right and wrong on all these sides.

I never said I see nothing wrong with it. What I said is that whenever people have claimed that it says a certain thing, they will never point to the place where it says that certain thing. Instead, at best, they point to propaganda clips by persons known to promote controversial conspiracies. Some of those controversial conspiracies may well play out as they claim. They may end up being right even if they have always been wrong 100 percent of the time in the past. Even propaganda and conspiracies can be true, or come true, even if the "official" source of these conspiracies has been wrong or caught lying dozens of times in the past. So it's not that I see nothing wrong, it's that no one points me to the place where they get their ideas from in the original materials they are complaining about. It's always secondary materials that are supposedly commenting on the original materials. In the above statement I know you are focusing on the possibility that I am reading too much into the word "non-binding" when in practice, these ideas become "binding." That's not it at all. I'm talking about someone finding those actual claims in the actual documentation in the first place, not whether an idea was marked as non-binding or not. I knew when this was a big controversy in Denmark, because my sister has lived in Copenhagen for more than 10 years. (Married to a Danish brother, and it still took 10 years of language lessons, and tests to get citizenship.) Her husband is very prejudiced against Arab speaking immigration (and pretends he isn't, of course) and you probably know that the Danish PM, and its 'foreign ministry' were involved in the controversy. But everything he claimed turned out to be what everyone else was saying about them, and that the "legally binding" laws were not about what was voted on by the UN (as implemented by the EU) but were always about what he HEARD not about what was actually in the laws and documents.

That's true about information from America being restricted. Just like information from China and other information from the outside world that negatively impacts American propaganda is severely restricted here in America. Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook news accounts that report evidence against Western propaganda are blocked. Americans journalists and reporters who have lived in China and report on things that disagree with the propaganda are constantly having their accounts blocked and credentials restricted or removed. Good, in depth reporting is constantly being flagged as fake news. One of the things that investigative journalists have easily identified with overwhelming proof is the the fact that thousands of Twitter, YouTube and Facebook accounts are dormant for months at a time until, each time, when there is a "need" to counter a trend with Western propaganda or US State propaganda. Then these thousands of accounts are active for just enough time to begin creating a counter-narrative so that "fake" propaganda news begins to trend, supporting US/Western interests. When China restricts US and Western fake news (and porn) from their Internet service, it is considered extreme censorship. There are certain stories that must be continually exaggerated or made believable through constant repetition by the West. When there is a problem, you will often see Western leaders stoking the problem, providing weapons and methods of maximizing and turning riots into civil wars if possible. Western news and media services will usually play along, prioritizing negative news about China over all other news. As in almost all such situations, I'm sure we could just about guarantee that at least a few local authorities acted harshly and incorrectly. We've seen those scenarios play out like that all over the world. But you are right that he wasn't imprisoned or killed by the government as many sources had reported. From what I heard, there were probably at least 8 "whistle blower" doctors in December, and one of them, an ophthamologist, died from the virus after several weeks. But China is still a relatively poor country with a lot of "backward" thinking. Some doctors used their positions, not as whistle blowers, but as fear-mongers, which makes it much harder for other doctors and medical personnel around them to act responsibly. In the midst of the worst part of the crisis it's easy for someone to go crazy and start thinking that it's too late to stop this thing, and this makes others give up or go crazy. There was plenty of negative outcry on social media among Chinese who blogged about it and posted and chatted about it. Some of the reports were welcomed because they pointed out areas where not enough help was being given, or where people were giving up in desperation. I believe that a lot of this was removed by authorities, much false information was removed, but much of the false information is still there. It seems like there was a focus mostly on doctors and authorities who had been giving out false or obsolete information. I saved a link to a very interesting interview in English from a Fox News reporter who was interviewing an elderly state department or CIA person who had worked in the G.H.W.Bush White House. The reporter was snickering at the fact that China was blaming a lot of the rioting on Western interference. The reporter asked the Bush expert to counter that "obviously false" narrative, but the old man said, something like "Well, No, they're actually right. We are in Hong Kong on this issue through several groups , including National Endowment for Democracy. . . . . . ." He admitted about three American groups (known otherwise to be funded by the CIA) who were there instigating "democracy." I wished I had copied the whole interview, but I'd bet that someone saved it somewhere. It did make me look around myself for a bit and I quickly found several "damning" examples of what the former US official might have been referring to. (They are much harder to find right now.) I discovered photos of CIA leaders meeting with riot leaders. (I posted one under another topic already.) I also discovered that very sophisticated tactics that the CIA had taught in other countries were being implemented here. This happened to match perfectly a more official source that included the following A CIA-backed US foundation has been colluding with the heads of the recent Hong Kong riots with financial and strategic support, actions that Chinese experts said show the US' intention of "Americanization" which is endangering Hong Kong. Sentaku, a Japanese monthly magazine, revealed in August how the foreign forces represented by the US, manipulate the Hong Kong chaos. The magazine said that Hong Kong extremists received significant funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which it called "a CIA soft-power cutout that has played a critical role in innumerable US regime-change operations." Under the Reagan administration in 1983, the NED was founded to "support democracy in other countries." The NED's website shows that it granted $155,000 to the Solidarity Center (SC) and $200,000 to National Democratic Institute (NDI) for International Affairs for work in Hong Kong, and $90,000 to the Hong Kong Justice Center in 2018. NDI received $650,000 from 2016 to 2017, and SC received $459,865 from 2015 to 2017. "US foundations like the NED have been promoting 'Americanization' around the world," Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University's Institute of International Relations in Beijing, told the Global Times on Sunday. According to Li, the foundation conducts "transformation" in various regions around the world tangibly and intangibly, but in fact it is a behind the scenes player for color revolutions. It is also the US' way of violating the internal affairs of other countries. "This is a tradition of US diplomacy," Li noted. "The US does not even try to cover its goal of promoting 'Americanized' governance, which has now been proven a failure and is ridiculous." Western forces have been directly or indirectly involved in the Hong Kong riots, Shi Yinhong, director of Renmin University of China's Center for American Studies in Beijing, told the Global Times on Sunday. He noted that the interference also includes media promotion, which aims to encourage the protests to follow the desired direction. "The intention is obvious - to endanger Hong Kong and endanger China." If you compare the US coverage of the "yellow vest" riots in Paris with the riots in HK, you can guess at the truth of that last sentence. For people who think the coverage is balanced, they should try to guess how many persons they believe have died in HK riots, and make another guess as to the number of persons who have died in the Paris riots. Then they should check the actual numbers.

I just showed this to my 4 year old granddaughter, my son, and my wife. I even showed it to myself. I see it as PINK, WHITE My 4 year old grand-daughter sees it as PINK, WHITE My son sees it as GREENISH/AQUA and GREY My wife sees it as GREENISH/AQUA and GREY

The leveling off of new infections between 2/8 and 2/9 is the type of news the doctors, China, WHO, etc., have been waiting for. (Unless it was a matter of not finishing the input of all the cases due to overworked workers and the weekend staffing levels.)

The JHU data is still being updated on a daily basis, although it might become overwhelming to try to keep all this data mapped to all locations after a while. https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 Most interesting is the daily graph of reported cases, blown up below. It still seems linear from about January 31. The nearly imperceptible leveling between February 2 and 3 was thought to be the start of some good news (a plateau) but it "corrected" to the same linear progression since then. Linear is not typical of a virus outbreak. For something so easily transmitted it implies effective quarantining. When it breaks out into a place where it catches that population by surprise and goes undetected and untreated for too long, the increase is exponential (not linear) until a plateau. If the current linear rate could be maintained, the growth could be limited to 3.5k/day for nearly a year before 100,000 cases. But without a vaccine well before then, there are too many chances that it breaks into an exponential growth rate. In which case, if completely out of control, about half the world could be affected, with death rates higher than the currently typical 2 percent (due to overwhelmed facilities). This is speculation, of course, but that would make the worst case scenario affect 50 percent of 8 billion, or 4 billion, and with the current death rate of 2 percent bumped up to 4 percent means 160 million could die. For comparison, the Spanish Influenza (this is not the flu and not SARS) affected about 20 percent of the world's population in 1918/9 (but there are more people in closer contact with one another now). About 15 percent of those affected probably died, perhaps 3 percent of the world's population (out of nearly 2B), or about 50 million people. Just because I'm a nerd, and not because I know anything about it, I would make the following assumptions for a personal guess as to how bad this will get. Because the worst case scenario is so bad, I think that all countries (with any sense) will put a ton of resources into finding an anti-virus or at least a means of earlier detection so that multiple quarantining facilities are not overwhelmed. Therefore my own worst-case estimate is that the cases remain linear for another couple months, with only smaller population breakouts becoming exponential. Deaths therefore remain at 2 percent and the total population infected before a plateau doesn't reach above 1 million. Deaths therefore top out at about 20,000. That is scary, but would make this whole scare much less scary than the flu season of 2017/8. The 2017-2018 flu season was severe for all populations and resulted in an estimated 959,000 hospitalizations and 79,400 deaths. This is the highest number of patient claims since the 2009 flu season.(wikipedia)

@Health and Medicine, Clever Eagles remake. But yes, "too soon." By a strange coincidence, we traveled on the "Anthem of the Seas" mentioned in the above post, about 10 years ago. https://www.royalcaribbean.com/cruise-ships/anthem-of-the-seas I already called it "Anthem of Di Seas." [pronounced: disease] because a "norovirus" breakout was affecting dozens, and even my own mother and father had to be quarantined in his room instead of being allowed out to the daily activities or meals. All the cruise personnel worked overtime standing around offering squirts from bottles of Purell saying: "Washy-washy? Washy-washy? Washy-washy?" Hard not to make fun of the experience.

Excellent article on navigation and "dead reckoning" at the link. That's for sharing this.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to so many of the points made. Very possible, and in some cases very likely. Although it's easy to imagine that Chinese hear the same "propaganda" about the US when they are told about how the US Government freezes the assets of people who anger the US government and confiscate the property of those who anger the US Government and garnishes wages of those who anger the government (by not paying taxes or owing debts to courts and certain corporations). I know that one of the big problems in China is the fact that persons who cannot pay their train fares will crowd around the stations and jump on a train at the last minute even though they don't have a ticket. This is one of the reasons that facial recognition is being implemented at train stations. But we have the same thing at Penn Station and Grand Central Station in NYC, and undercover police make rounds at many of the subway stations to catch fare-beaters. I've seen dozens of these arrests over the years. (I understand that our real-time facial recognition doesn't work well enough yet, but that any seized security tape can be run through facial recognition by our police departments.) I agree with the approach to look at trends and corruption wherever it comes from. You apparently had the impression that I was supportive of re-writing history in support of communistic or socialistic countries. But it's a matter of looking at additional types of trends and corruption. One of those types of corruption is the attempt to persuade a population not to investigate corruption about their own nation's involvement in media manipulation, currency manipulation, statistical manipulation. The uses of propaganda in the United States and the Western allies is so powerful and pervasive that it should make us question what we are told to think about other nations. The targets of much of the propaganda and regime change since WWII have been communist and socialist countries. So pointing out cases of this type of propaganda and these types of attacks on other countries will no doubt make some people think I am taking sides. It does not at all mean that I am siding with communistic or socialistic countries, but the methods the US has used to get citizens to ignore the abuses perpetrated all around the world are right under our noses. As you say, it's not even a "conspiracy" in the usual sense, because the admissions and intentions are often spelled out and documented, barely hidden. I saw all this scary stuff in the conspiratorial commentary about Agenda 21. Then I looked it up myself, and most of it wasn't there. Just a few snippets of information that someone had built up into a big story. The snippets did not match the story that was made up. It made me wonder if people were reading the actual documents or just listening to the fear mongering and propaganda. That said, I agree that many Western countries, and probably many others too, have shown evidence that they don't really care so much about the environment, but would be willing to use any excuse to further control and trample the rights of the populations they are supposed to serve. Western countries especially have already been subverted by individuals representing corporate and other "monied" interests. This is not a conspiracy, it's continuous history. This will continue to happen whether Agenda 21 is innocuous or ominous. The UN could easily fulfill a role like the image of the beast, who receives kingship willingly from other governments. But it is not at all necessary for a Biblical fulfillment. The WTS has been looking for ways to tie the UN to this type of fulfillment for decades, just as many other religions in Christendom have also done. But Jehovah can make or permit this fulfillment to happen in any way he sees fit. His ways and thoughts are higher than ours. We need more humility and less presumptuousness. We don't need to pretend that we KNOW Jehovah's mind, and that we KNOW just what entities will be involved in the working out of his purpose. A review of our past beliefs on the "disgusting thing standing where it ought not" "Gog/Magog" "the eighth king" "king of the North/South" would all show that more humility is in order. They NEED to change laws in a drastic way, but I don't see it already going on "all over USA." Now THAT is a conspiracy theory! Not really a conspiracy theory. The US military has already shared papers that indicate they knew good and well that their policies were creating more terrorists. This has worked not only for the Middle East, but has worked predictably --as predicted-- in Central and South America, too. In my experience, 99 percent of Islam is as peaceful as 99 percent of nominal Christians, and 99 percent of Buddhists, etc. There are 100,000 Muslims in the metropolitan areas nearest where I live. After I retired 7 years ago, I also took a part time remote job working for a young practicing Muslim who was born in Palestine, as were his parents and uncles, all of whom I have met. We've had several discussions about his religion, and what they think of the those references to the Quran and Hadith. They are treated in about the same way that Judaism treats similar passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. OK. Now I see why you didn't like the idea that the US and Western governments helped to create terrorists through the harsh and inhumane treatment of Islamic nations. The type of wars and crimes that Israel and the US, for example, wages on Muslim civilians will not likely convince you. But I think you are already aware of how the US has used combinations of bombings and sanctions on countries that won't give the US the control it wants in the Middle East. Before the Iraq War, in the decade before 9/11, the US had already killled hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Here's a statement about it, which is very typical. https://jacobinmag.com/2016/05/war-iraq-bill-clinton-sanctions-desert-fox The effects of the sanctions were catastrophic. Iraq experienced shortages of food, medicine, and clean drinking water. And a 1995 Lancet study sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization concluded that 576,000 children under the age of five perished because of the policy, while a “conservative” estimate put the death toll for the same age group at 350,000. Dennis Halliday, a thirty-four-year UN veteran, resigned from the organization in protest after spending a little over a year as the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. He said the sanctions constituted genocide. His successor, Hans von Sponeck, also a career UN employee, lasted just two years before stepping down in protest; Jutta Burghardt, then head of the World Food Program, did the same. If Muslims had found a way to kill half a million American children under the age of 5, you think that a majority-"Christian" nation would not turn violent? If not, perhaps it's because the United States was already violent. Most of those half-million deaths of children were managed because the United States was pushing biological warfare against them, by bombing electricity, sewage treatment, and clean water and irrigation sources. Along with sanctions to make sure no help and aid came to them. This might not look like "violence" to some people, but when you watch those men, women and children die, you feel it just the same, or worse. And it takes a lot of successful propaganda to be able to pull this off, mostly during the decade before 9/11, without too many complaints by investigative journalists. We might even want to rethink which countries and ideologies we consider to be the more violent, and which countries are really the totalitarian countries. I won't bother again with most of the claims you make about China, because most of these ideas are easily debunked even by anti-Chinese, anti-CCP journalists who have been in China, looking for the evidence.

Nice poem, but it was not by C.T.Russell. It had already been published in the Christian Science Sentinel in 1899. It had already been published in a Theosophy journal in 1904. The Oregon Law School Journal in 1902. The Current Literature magazine of October 1890 published it with the added information that it had come from "The Fireside Magazine." I assume it was published anonymously in the Fireside, because it shows up in several other places from the 1890's even up through very recently.

I don't know why anyone would think of that. There are proven conspiracies going on all the time. As you say, they are usually only proven later to have been conspiracies. But just because something fits a preconceived notion, agenda, ideology, or prejudice of ours, it doesn't mean there is actually a specific predefined conspiracy going on. The actual conspiracy might even be the one that we are inadvertently ignoring just because we prefer to believe the conspiracy that fits our preconceptions. This is why, a real look into available evidence from many different sources can be a protection against false conspiracies. I'm not sure whether you realize that the Muslim issue in China is one of the most hypocritically pushed stories the West has recently attempted. The Western nations attack Muslims and push anti-Muslim rhetoric in their militaries constantly, and ultimately end up killing literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians in several different countries. You would think this was designed to create Muslim terrorists in the same way that Americans would undoubtedly react if America was continuously bombed decade after decade if, say, Japan, for example, kept bombing the US to take oil and other resources. I suspect there is a lot of prejudice and injustice that goes on in China against Muslims, especially when I consider how Americans have treated their minority populations recently, in my own town, and over the last couple centuries, too. But a lot of people don't realize that China has had a much larger terrorism issue with Muslims than the US has ever had on their own soil. Thousands of Uyghur Muslims have gone from China to Syria to fight with Al-Qaeda type forces. Many thousands are "radicalized." And yet even other Uyghur Muslims in China have praised the processes that China has been using to try to rehabilitate violent Muslim prisoners in humane ways. I know that the West would prefer to have everyone believe that there are ten million Uyghur Muslims all being tortured and chopped up for their body parts by the Chinese. If this was true, the terrorism problem would have gotten bigger. But it's actually considered by Uyghurs themselves as a massive success story. In fact, Chinese people have been punished for mistreatment of Uyghur Muslims and other minorities. The police in charge of the reeducation are Uyghur themselves. Pakistan officials for example have praised the Chinese processes and the great success story of the "reeducation" as a way to reduce terrorism. The Chinese leaders are proud of their successes in reducing ethnic violence, retraining for civic responsibility, education and gainful employment. The Chinese are appalled at the United States, for the methods used here where violence and imprisonment are the common tools. The United States imprisons millions MORE people than does China, even though China has nearly 5 times the population. Incarceration rates are low in China, and the government emphasizes the assimilation of many different ethnicities of persons without violence. But the US has "black sites" "Guantanamo" "Abu Ghraib" and videos sometimes slip out showing torture. I don't mention this at all to try to say that many things are better in China. A few things are probably better and a few things are probably worse. 80 percent of Chinese people give their government high marks in surveys. But they also strongly criticize things they don't like about their government. I've seen it. They laugh (sadly, sometimes) when they hear about the propaganda that tells Americans that the Chinese can't criticize their government. The laugh when they hear reports that China is kicking out Americans and teachers when they know that more and more people are coming to China to work. My son, who now writes Chinese fairly well, and went to school with many fellow students from China knows several Americans who have gone there to teach, or both Chinese and Americans who have gone back there to work. They also laugh when they hear that journalists can't get the truth out of the country. There are thousands of foreign journalists in China. It's the ones who are NOT in China, or have a Western political agenda who report the kind of very common false information. So, I'm just hoping that we are careful not to fall into the trap of accepting exaggerated issues which are often just pushed onto us as propaganda. We can often identify the hints that help us divide truth from propaganda when we hear items that can be checked for accuracy. We can't check all things for accuracy, because every nation tries to "spin" away its problems, and hide the negatives. Just in case you think I disagree, I don't. I think this is absolutely true. This doesn't mean I see all the same conspiracies that you see, and perhaps not in all the same places. But that's not because I think you are necessarily wrong. It only means that when I tried to find the same evidence you seem to have based your specific beliefs on, I didn't see the evidence. (I should add that this is not because I haven't tried. I've asked several persons to show the supposed Agenda points you often speak about in the actual U.N. documents you have claimed to know about, for example, and no one has yet been able to show me the actual places in these agreements where many of the claims are supposedly stated. This is not just about you, but several other persons I have questioned elsewhere who believe the same things.) Now I find that some of these ideas come from sources like the ones linked to earlier. When I see these persons twisting facts in exactly the same way that some apostates twist facts about Witnesses, I begin to think its important to start checking out ALL of their "facts." More points of perfect agreement between us! LOL. Absolutely. This is a difficult point for most Americans to understand. Even what looks like some of the best philanthropy will sometimes go (at least partially) to excellent charitable ends. But this too is often done as a way to divert millions to their own friends and family in organizations that do good, but with self-serving ends. One of those goals can be to "look good" while pushing an agenda that overall does even less good for the greater number of people. In other words, a specific policy that might help people will be lobbied against by a company that seems to do good for at least a few people. And then, the worst of all worlds, as you mention above, are those front organizations that pretend to do good but are really subversive. The US government has made use of such organizations even though they have great names like US AID, Centers for Democracy, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. I wouldn't doubt that numbers are being manipulated. I still have the TV on in the next room and half listened to Trump's State of the Union. Governments manipulate numbers as long as they can get away with it. I listened to the President manipulate economic data and hide facts, so what China does wouldn't surprise me either. But it's completely untrue that that citizens in China reporting about the virus on VPN's are facing long prison sentences. They are still talking about it right now, on VPN's, as we speak. You can go right now on WeChat, Tik Tok, or Twitter and see Chinese people talking about the virus. Some are scared. Some are optimistic. Some have complained about local officials mishandling it. China is probably happy in general to have Chinese people talking about it. But there have been some who have been pushing a political agenda and who think that trying to cause mass hysteria is the way to go, or a way to get attention. If persons are purposely trying to cause panic and terror just because they don't like a political party then they should be censured. When China started the new 1000 bed hospital, I saw many Western reports (from amateurs) that those bulldozers were there to bury thousands of bodies. This is irresponsible, and such disinformation is second-nature on US news panels.