JW Insider

I had no doubt that YOU knew it. But there are some people here from the UK, like @4Jah2me (assuming of course that he is the reincarnation of @John Butler). And, I'm not so sure that they had any groups like the Beatles over in the UK. 😉

That is what I was thinking, even speculating granted the recent discussion with him, for Butler tends to add things out of nowhere into a discussion, but I was not entirely sure. At least someone figured that out, and it did not take a Batman level of detective work to do it.
As for the topic at hand, things are getting a bit ridiculous. There are people out there, even in the black community that are referred to as race traitors for not agreeing with BLM, let alone if they speak of statistics involving police killings. And as of recent the MSM is still throwing the cards of racism on the table and people are just grabbing the cards, so to speak.
Not sure if you see this but the BLM aka now dubbed the Woke Religion of the Leftist had an interaction with Jacob, Mayor of Minneapolis. That being said, people think all police officers are guilty, and are not good; all evil, which is absurd. There are a few bad eggs, and like any institution and or group, there are some bad people, they do not define others, namely officers like Anderson of Seattle who spoke of the police while back while in the department prior to him being fired.
 
 

I know the original lyric. And I also know something of women.
I once told JTR that I would love to hear from his kids. I begin to think that I would love to hear from yours as well.  

I had no doubt that YOU knew it. But there are some people here from the UK, like @4Jah2me (assuming of course that he is the reincarnation of @John Butler). And, I'm not so sure that they had any groups like the Beatles over in the UK. 😉

@4Jah2me I controlled it... by moving JW conversations here in the JW world.....
And thank you @JW Insider for redirecting where possible. I enjoyed your analysis a lot.

It looks like someone (perhaps TTH or admin?) moved some of the comments from the original thread to here, probably because that was a general forum, and this is a JW discussion forum. If that was the reason, I'll move the rest of the JW/religion related comments over to here.

I knew I should try to keep religion completely out of this. But. . .
How did Jesus know that Herod Antipas was a fox? How did Luke know that Felix was probably looking for a bribe from Paul? How do you think that the writers for the Daniel and Revelation books could try to come up with the political entities that seemed to match up to the entities and symbols found in various Bible prophecies. Outside of those flimsy excuses, you might still be right. (That I shouldn't offer my two cents.)
But I did fully expect this comment from you. I wasn't sure who might attack first, though, since there are others besides you who could even be more anxious to pounce. I consider these posts to be much more trivial than a Bible discussion, but I have no problem providing something for others to pounce on, especially if someone's comfort level with other topics might be too strained if they feel it necessary to take them too seriously.

I like the account in which Paul’s accuser gushes on and on about Felix—showering him with insincere praise. When it becomes Paul’s turn, he all but says “Well—you’ve certainly been around for awhile.” Felix was a rotter through and through, and everyone knew it.
“When the governor nodded to Paul to speak, he answered: “Knowing well that this nation has had you as judge for many years, I readily speak in my own defense.” Acts 10:24

He’s on your thread, JWI, not mine.
If it is not important to you, then why ask it?
Look, it is not a bad question.** No need to act as though so pious that a “worldly” thought would never cross your mind. Obviously it has, and it is not a sin to ask about what’s going on. If you don’t know what is going on, then you are ever inclined to say stupid things. Tom Irregardless may have been right, but his knee-jerk response was annoying nonetheless: 
“And to think that Tom Irregardless, when confronted with some news report he didn’t understand, which was almost anything, would dismiss it all with ‘it just goes to show we need the Kingdom!’ How long had he been saying that?”
**I won’t answer it, of course, because I am too pure for that sort of thing—I only think of God. But maybe “worldly” JWI will.

That's not at all true. I have defended the staggered approach for years, even while JTR for example was saying that there was only one definition of a generation: something like an average lifespan of people who heard Jesus in 33 CE. There is no sarcasm at all in my acceptance of the staggered generation approach. I repeated my agreement with it, not out of sarcasm, but because you gave the impression that I hadn't thought about it.
In truth, I believe that all of these signs that started when Jesus was enthroned as King of Kings, and when he was given all authority in heaven and on earth, when he was given a title above all kings and princes and authorities in heaven and on earth, and when he sat at God's right hand, the right hand of the throne of Majesty. I believe that Paul would not have stated that "sitting at God's right hand was the same as "ruling as king" unless it was really true.
(1 Corinthians 15:25) . . .For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. (Psalm 110:1) . . .Jehovah declared to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” (1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, (Revelation 1:5) . . .and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . . So, of course the scriptures simply do not allow me to believe that Jesus became King only in 1914. For me, that would be dishonest. Yet, I ALSO believe that these signs of wars and earthquakes and pestilence and famine are actually signs that Jesus has actually been ruling in the midst of his enemies, and that those enemies include Death, which has not yet been fully put under his feet. Therefore he is still sitting at God's right hand, ruling as king, conquering in the midst of his enemies, right up until the last enemy Death is also conquered and thrown into the lake of fire, destroyed forever.
(1 Corinthians 15:26) 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. (Revelation 20:14) . . .And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. As Jesus rides throughout all of Christian history, he has been riding alongside the other horses representing Death from wars, famine, pestilence, etc. But Christians continue to find strength in his conquering ride through all of history, even though he has been ruling, riding and conquering in the midst of his enemies. We know that it means that we too can become conquerors.
(1 John 5:4, 5) . . .everyone who has been born from God conquers the world. And this is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith. 5 Who can conquer the world? Is it not the one who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God? Now that these "signs" are getting even worse, we can know that our deliverance is much closer than when we first became believers. This is true whether we live to see the Judgment or if we die before that time. I think that as things get worse, historically, we can be sure that Jehovah will step in before it is too late:
(Matthew 24:22) . . .In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short. (Luke 18:8) . . .Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?” (Luke 21:25, 26) . . .and on the earth anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation. 26 People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. We are already at a time when there are more persons living in fearful expectation of what might be coming upon the earth. This doesn't mean to me that these are definite signs that can put a range of dates on our generation, but it highlights the importance of putting faith in God's government.

And it's amazing how much heavy military equipment is being sold even to small towns over the last decade especially. I guess it makes the [recent military] recruits feel more comfortable? I suspect it also puts them in mind of how they needed to respond with heavy lethal force just a few months prior in some cases [in other countries]. Easy to imagine a new interview question when hiring police recruits: Can you fire a tank?

I haven't done a political post in a while, but it is probably a good idea that I try to explain in what ways I agree with Tucker Carlson (whom I usually disagree with to such a point that I never watch more than about once a month). I will try to avoid religion in this post, although it usually creeps in. This is more of an attempt to explain what I think is going on from a completely socio-economico-political perspective.
I think the recent “Black Lives Matter” protests are an outgrowth of a few specific factors. Conceptually, at least, there are the very real issues of police brutality, racist violence, and the “disparities” people of color often face. 
Materially, however, I think that there are 2 main factors driving the protests. One has been been the very recent social isolation and economic pain caused by America’s COVID19 response. This is too obvious. The other is — and has been for about 40 years now — the increasing proletarianization of the Professional/Managerial Middle Class (PMC). This has been particularly acute since the rapid liberalization and financialization of the economy since the 1980s and especially since the Recession/Depression of 2008. 
Members of the PMC are a relatively privileged class, distinct from the already “precarious” working class. Typically they are university-educated (the ~35% of the population with Bachelor’s Degrees or higher) possessing — or having close family that possess — upper-middle or higher incomes. The PMC is engaged in (or has close family engaged in) professional work involving business, management, finance, computers, engineering, law, medicine, media, education, and other technical fields. They make up about 40% of the recently employed labor force, or about 30% of the total population (typically earning the top 30% of incomes). 
While distinct from the ruling capitalist class (the 1% or less that own and control the bulk of capitalism), and also distinct from the vast working masses, the PMC has attributes of both. As they are typically inculcated in elite institutions, they carry the ruling ideologies: liberalism, individualism, self-help, liberal capitalism (“representational” economics), quasi-religious idealism, cosmopolitanism (“diversity and inclusion”), imperialism, and identitarianism (“identity politics”). 
But, in the era of monopoly capitalism, and thereby of stagnation, war, rising prices, and large-scale crisis, they have also had to face some fraction (however small) of the grim reality the proletarian masses face on a daily basis. Low wages and part-time employment, the absence of unions or collective bargaining, concerns about childcare, and unprecedented levels of debt have all become commonplace. 
This has bred an acute sense of insecurity and entitlement for those directly or even indirectly affected. This has bred hopelessness and political polarization. It also breeds a corresponding anarchist ideology tied to its liberal counterpart: the rejection (to varying degrees) of authority, intellectuals, elections, law, leadership, centralism, control, government, and/or “politics” more generally — in favor of decentralization, reaction, emotional catharsis, fetishization of “protest,” and local “communitarianism.” 
Needless to say, these are not the only people showing up to Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. But neoliberal antiracists and their anarchist counterparts do form the majority or at least a plurality of what might be termed the “movement.” And they certainly drive the gist of its politics, its “strategy” and tactics, and its social media presence. 
I use quotes around a lot of words here — “disparity,” “representation,” “movement,” “strategy”... This is because I believe these to be flawed categories; PMC distortions of reality often serving the neoliberal ruling class (not necessarily consciously).
It is difficult to see the “strategy” that BLM takes as a whole (though there is great potential in some organizations, which typically devolves over time). There is not really a unified or long-term plan outside of performative acts such as “Say Their Names,” the confessionals of white guilt, firing a few police officers, the rioting, and the media spectacle. Even specific, political goals (e.g., “Abolish the Police”) are often short-sighted and lack regard for future strategy or the larger political-economic context. (And there is evidence of overwhelming rejection to the ideas of defunding police departments among African-Americans in general.)
The same problems were present within BLM in 2014-2016. They should have been critiqued for very similar reasons then, too. Unfortunately, it was and is because the ideology motivating a lot of the participation and organizations is empty, anarchist, or at its core the ruling neoliberal ideology. (And these problems are not new: Bayard Rustin made similar critiques of “Black Power” in 1966.)
The typical framing of “disparity” and “representation” by neoliberal antiracists, for example, serves really to privilege essentialist notions of race and gender and sexual orientation, while often raging against the unequal distribution of social “goods and bads” for these idealized groups (or “identities”). 
That framing — plus many other aspects of the “woke” university jargon and neoliberal ideology — serves a double-function. First, it offends and alienates constituencies which might otherwise unite with the causes of ending police violence and more systemic issues like poverty, which are both sources of great consternation for many white working class people. (This is even to an extent true of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag itself, though, of course, everyone should acknowledge that black people are “over-represented” in killings by about 2.5 times*, and a whole host of other discriminations and problems too.) 
*No time for sources yet, but I'll add a few later.
Secondly, it also normalizes capitalism and the elite’s power to shape the more general context of jobs, real estate, and government, contributing to the very problems BLM purports to want to solve. Neoliberal antiracists tend to dismiss this charge outright, as they claim to “always mention” the problems of “the system!” But simplistic concession is not enough; theoretical and especially pragmatic questions are critically important to real movement-building, as they have been throughout world history.
In any case, for those wishing to make progress within the confines of this system, they would have to look at the greater context in which police violence occurs. There are some states in the US — and strikingly many of them in the Southern “Black Belt,”** where police killings of poor whites are often roughly equal to police killings of black people, even adjusted to their proportions in the society. Nearly all police killings (95%) occur in areas where the per-capita annual income is less than $50,000 (median income less than $25,000). Some of these areas have more crime. 
** Expanded from Adolph Reed's 2017 data by double-checking with other sources.
These facts alone illustrate the problem with using “disparity” as an analytical lens. It also poses a positive practical question: Could this allow for a bridging of the gap between White and Black America on organizational lines? Is there something to be salvaged from the “All Lives Matter” retort so often dismissed as racist? 
Put differently, would more effective movements be built if they were of the sort that organize around broad working-class constituencies and concrete questions? Building consensus as opposed to assuming pre-existing blocs? And can they move beyond “disruption” and gain power and effect change in the way the most influential Civil Rights leaders like MLK and Bayard Rustin envisioned? (It is a little discussed fact that the most pressure against civil rights leaders on a national scale began when MLK and others expanded their outreach to create broader coalitions.)
The gut-level response of the neoliberal antiracists to this question has so often been a resounding “No!” 
In fact, very often, these ideas are dismissed as somehow “implicitly racist” in themselves; very often they are slandered falsely as “class-reductionist.” Very often analogies to movements of the past are shouted down with “We’ve been there done that!” and sometimes even “Nonviolence is not the answer!” Serious concerns about the short-term consequences of rioting or the long-term evolution of anarchistic tendencies, concerns about supposedly “good” policy outcomes or tactics, are dismissed as “lacking empathy” for the causes or for “genocide” or “existential threats!” 
Not only is none of this the case, I would argue, but these “counterarguments” and insistence on hyperbolic rhetoric are little more than masks for a race-essentialist, identitarian, neoliberal class politics. They are a “class reductionism” of their own! They constitute a politics whose practical consequence is the division and further subdivision of the working masses and the (smaller) middle class. And this politics is neatly aligned with a large section of the ruling class’s agenda and the agenda of their capitalist/imperialist lackeys in the Democratic Party. 
So co-opting (by Democrats, so-called “anti-Trump” politicians, Hong Kong separatists, cops, the rich, etc.) is not only a “risk” movements of this kind face; it is a direct result of the kind of decentralization and class politics it espouses and represents. This is just an inevitable invitation to co-optation! 
It is therefore predictable that almost the entirety of the media apparatus (both corporate news media and manipulated social media), including much of the elites that own and operate them, all show sympathy for or outright endorse these protests. Should this not be looked at with suspicion? 
A significant section of the ruling class elite has for decades wished for diminishing the role of the State in education, services, and policing — precisely in favor of privatization and profit. The ruling class near-unanimously supports both the corruption and the dismantling of labor unions generally, a key factor in the disenfranchisement of people of color and the sharpening of inequality! Like it or not, the AFL-CIO (which has been attacked both rhetorically and now evidently a targeted burning of an AFL-CIO building during riots last week) and police unions (many of whom are people of color) are part of that picture too, issues of entrenchment and racism aside.  
So initial solutions that might be effective would have to see any tactics and organizing within this broader context and have a strategically calculated, long-term vision. Anarchism (in the general sense I defined above) must be rooted out, as it is a pitfall of real organization. Dismantling a specific system like police militarization or mass incarceration is alright so long as there is unity on how to do it, what to replace it with, how to maintain that new order, and how to maintain momentum and accountability to the working class majority.
Unfortunately, I do not yet see these features. Some good may yet come out of it, such as the punishment of officers involved in needless brutality and killing, many reforms at the state or municipal level, and a profound change in the bravery and political consciousness of our nation’s people. (Good only when limitations are understood and change can be effected without violence/suffering for others.) The same was said of the rise of BLM in 2014-2016. But the fear is that this will not result in any drastic change to the status quo nor will it build any strategic momentum. Indeed, many of the BLM leaders from 2014-2016 appear themselves to have been assassinated! I haven't looked far enough into this, but even "reputable" (traditional) national news sources have made this claim about Ferguson, Missouri BLM organizers.
I believe the alternative implied by this critique is somewhat obvious, at least in broad outline. Attempts to effectively solve the most issues would need to start with wide, broader-spectrum, and centralized membership organizations accountable to the working class. They would need to start with a clear set of strategic, attainable policy goals with a vision toward building momentum. Unfortunately, there are deep-rooted oppositional forces and predictable reactions from the ruling class to be watched for, and defended against. So there should never be violence of course, although this is typical of ruling class reactions when cornered. But infiltration and sabotage and false flags are even trickier to watch for. They would need to bridge as many gaps as possible, rejecting essentialisms, rejecting the quasi-religious narratives of “Original Sin,” (not in a religious sense, but the idea of unrequited guilt over slavery, lynchings, civil rights abuses, etc.) rejecting hyperbolic or exclusionary rhetoric, and rejecting the politics of the PMC and the ruling class.

I think a lot of people are surprised at the global spread of the protests and rioting. What might be even more surprising is the support by many media outlets, not just of the protests, but also supporting the rioting and destruction. MLK is quoted where he said that 'riots are the language of the oppressed.' (Which cherry-picks the quote out of MLK's context that did NOT support rioting.) It's also odd that all this happens in the midst of Covid19, which has disproportionately killed more African-Americans than police have for the last 100 years. Yet, there is no protest about the languishing response to that particular part of the Covid19 problem.
Another odd thing to notice about BLM is that one of their major contributors is from a CIA-backed organization. For those who might think this is just a conspiracy, the Ford Foundation has already admitted to giving more than $100,000. The CIA.org website reviews a book called "The Cultural Cold War" sometimes critiquing and sometimes accepting the author's claims:
She also does a fine job in recounting the intriguing story of how the CIA worked with existing institutions, such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, and established numerous "bogus" foundations to "hide" its funding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom and its other covert activities.  
In truth, the Ford Foundation has a long history with the CIA, especially post-WW2 through today. The New Yorker admits a connection, of sorts:
The Ford Foundation . . . The left thought that it was propping up the status quo, and was probably a front for the C.I.A. to boot (and, in fact, the C.I.A. was using other foundations for covert funding).
Books, websites, (in some cases even those written by persons involved with the Ford Foundation) admit to the intended effect of hiring CIA recruits and supporting CIA projects. Summaries of some of these activities are easily found, and not even denied:
Ford Foundation, a philanthropic facade for the CIA
by Paul Labarique
Between 1947 and 1966 the Ford Foundation played a key role in the network of US interference in Europe through the subvention of magazines, scientific programs and non-communist left-wing organizations. The largest philanthropic organization in the world was in fact providing a respectful facade for CIA financial and contact operations. This role was even more possible by the fact that the same persons designed and directed both organizations.
Also here:
James Petras, retired Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York, and adjunct professor at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, wrote a damning article on September 18, 2002, exposing the Ford Foundation’s sinister choice of beneficiaries of its donations. He accused the CIA of using “philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source”.
A quick search on Google shows that even the Washington Post has made the connection as recently as 2018:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2018/08/22/the-cia-funded-a-culture-war-against-communism-it-should-do-so-again/
The CIA funded a culture war against communism. It should do so again.
Magazines like Der Monat and English-American literary-political journal Encounter were not the only activities supported by nonprofit pass-throughs such as the Farfield Foundation and the Ford Foundation. The CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom brought the Boston Symphony to Europe (at the cost of $166,359.84 . . .
It can be just as hard to guess what the CIA's thinking is about BLM. But, based on past uses and abuses of philanthropic organizations, the surreal response should be looked at with some suspicion.
Oh wait, did I promise I wouldn't say things like:  "but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one"? Or,  "They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day . . ."

I haven't done a political post in a while, but it is probably a good idea that I try to explain in what ways I agree with Tucker Carlson (whom I usually disagree with to such a point that I never watch more than about once a month). I will try to avoid religion in this post, although it usually creeps in. This is more of an attempt to explain what I think is going on from a completely socio-economico-political perspective.
I think the recent “Black Lives Matter” protests are an outgrowth of a few specific factors. Conceptually, at least, there are the very real issues of police brutality, racist violence, and the “disparities” people of color often face. 
Materially, however, I think that there are 2 main factors driving the protests. One has been been the very recent social isolation and economic pain caused by America’s COVID19 response. This is too obvious. The other is — and has been for about 40 years now — the increasing proletarianization of the Professional/Managerial Middle Class (PMC). This has been particularly acute since the rapid liberalization and financialization of the economy since the 1980s and especially since the Recession/Depression of 2008. 
Members of the PMC are a relatively privileged class, distinct from the already “precarious” working class. Typically they are university-educated (the ~35% of the population with Bachelor’s Degrees or higher) possessing — or having close family that possess — upper-middle or higher incomes. The PMC is engaged in (or has close family engaged in) professional work involving business, management, finance, computers, engineering, law, medicine, media, education, and other technical fields. They make up about 40% of the recently employed labor force, or about 30% of the total population (typically earning the top 30% of incomes). 
While distinct from the ruling capitalist class (the 1% or less that own and control the bulk of capitalism), and also distinct from the vast working masses, the PMC has attributes of both. As they are typically inculcated in elite institutions, they carry the ruling ideologies: liberalism, individualism, self-help, liberal capitalism (“representational” economics), quasi-religious idealism, cosmopolitanism (“diversity and inclusion”), imperialism, and identitarianism (“identity politics”). 
But, in the era of monopoly capitalism, and thereby of stagnation, war, rising prices, and large-scale crisis, they have also had to face some fraction (however small) of the grim reality the proletarian masses face on a daily basis. Low wages and part-time employment, the absence of unions or collective bargaining, concerns about childcare, and unprecedented levels of debt have all become commonplace. 
This has bred an acute sense of insecurity and entitlement for those directly or even indirectly affected. This has bred hopelessness and political polarization. It also breeds a corresponding anarchist ideology tied to its liberal counterpart: the rejection (to varying degrees) of authority, intellectuals, elections, law, leadership, centralism, control, government, and/or “politics” more generally — in favor of decentralization, reaction, emotional catharsis, fetishization of “protest,” and local “communitarianism.” 
Needless to say, these are not the only people showing up to Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. But neoliberal antiracists and their anarchist counterparts do form the majority or at least a plurality of what might be termed the “movement.” And they certainly drive the gist of its politics, its “strategy” and tactics, and its social media presence. 
I use quotes around a lot of words here — “disparity,” “representation,” “movement,” “strategy”... This is because I believe these to be flawed categories; PMC distortions of reality often serving the neoliberal ruling class (not necessarily consciously).
It is difficult to see the “strategy” that BLM takes as a whole (though there is great potential in some organizations, which typically devolves over time). There is not really a unified or long-term plan outside of performative acts such as “Say Their Names,” the confessionals of white guilt, firing a few police officers, the rioting, and the media spectacle. Even specific, political goals (e.g., “Abolish the Police”) are often short-sighted and lack regard for future strategy or the larger political-economic context. (And there is evidence of overwhelming rejection to the ideas of defunding police departments among African-Americans in general.)
The same problems were present within BLM in 2014-2016. They should have been critiqued for very similar reasons then, too. Unfortunately, it was and is because the ideology motivating a lot of the participation and organizations is empty, anarchist, or at its core the ruling neoliberal ideology. (And these problems are not new: Bayard Rustin made similar critiques of “Black Power” in 1966.)
The typical framing of “disparity” and “representation” by neoliberal antiracists, for example, serves really to privilege essentialist notions of race and gender and sexual orientation, while often raging against the unequal distribution of social “goods and bads” for these idealized groups (or “identities”). 
That framing — plus many other aspects of the “woke” university jargon and neoliberal ideology — serves a double-function. First, it offends and alienates constituencies which might otherwise unite with the causes of ending police violence and more systemic issues like poverty, which are both sources of great consternation for many white working class people. (This is even to an extent true of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag itself, though, of course, everyone should acknowledge that black people are “over-represented” in killings by about 2.5 times*, and a whole host of other discriminations and problems too.) 
*No time for sources yet, but I'll add a few later.
Secondly, it also normalizes capitalism and the elite’s power to shape the more general context of jobs, real estate, and government, contributing to the very problems BLM purports to want to solve. Neoliberal antiracists tend to dismiss this charge outright, as they claim to “always mention” the problems of “the system!” But simplistic concession is not enough; theoretical and especially pragmatic questions are critically important to real movement-building, as they have been throughout world history.
In any case, for those wishing to make progress within the confines of this system, they would have to look at the greater context in which police violence occurs. There are some states in the US — and strikingly many of them in the Southern “Black Belt,”** where police killings of poor whites are often roughly equal to police killings of black people, even adjusted to their proportions in the society. Nearly all police killings (95%) occur in areas where the per-capita annual income is less than $50,000 (median income less than $25,000). Some of these areas have more crime. 
** Expanded from Adolph Reed's 2017 data by double-checking with other sources.
These facts alone illustrate the problem with using “disparity” as an analytical lens. It also poses a positive practical question: Could this allow for a bridging of the gap between White and Black America on organizational lines? Is there something to be salvaged from the “All Lives Matter” retort so often dismissed as racist? 
Put differently, would more effective movements be built if they were of the sort that organize around broad working-class constituencies and concrete questions? Building consensus as opposed to assuming pre-existing blocs? And can they move beyond “disruption” and gain power and effect change in the way the most influential Civil Rights leaders like MLK and Bayard Rustin envisioned? (It is a little discussed fact that the most pressure against civil rights leaders on a national scale began when MLK and others expanded their outreach to create broader coalitions.)
The gut-level response of the neoliberal antiracists to this question has so often been a resounding “No!” 
In fact, very often, these ideas are dismissed as somehow “implicitly racist” in themselves; very often they are slandered falsely as “class-reductionist.” Very often analogies to movements of the past are shouted down with “We’ve been there done that!” and sometimes even “Nonviolence is not the answer!” Serious concerns about the short-term consequences of rioting or the long-term evolution of anarchistic tendencies, concerns about supposedly “good” policy outcomes or tactics, are dismissed as “lacking empathy” for the causes or for “genocide” or “existential threats!” 
Not only is none of this the case, I would argue, but these “counterarguments” and insistence on hyperbolic rhetoric are little more than masks for a race-essentialist, identitarian, neoliberal class politics. They are a “class reductionism” of their own! They constitute a politics whose practical consequence is the division and further subdivision of the working masses and the (smaller) middle class. And this politics is neatly aligned with a large section of the ruling class’s agenda and the agenda of their capitalist/imperialist lackeys in the Democratic Party. 
So co-opting (by Democrats, so-called “anti-Trump” politicians, Hong Kong separatists, cops, the rich, etc.) is not only a “risk” movements of this kind face; it is a direct result of the kind of decentralization and class politics it espouses and represents. This is just an inevitable invitation to co-optation! 
It is therefore predictable that almost the entirety of the media apparatus (both corporate news media and manipulated social media), including much of the elites that own and operate them, all show sympathy for or outright endorse these protests. Should this not be looked at with suspicion? 
A significant section of the ruling class elite has for decades wished for diminishing the role of the State in education, services, and policing — precisely in favor of privatization and profit. The ruling class near-unanimously supports both the corruption and the dismantling of labor unions generally, a key factor in the disenfranchisement of people of color and the sharpening of inequality! Like it or not, the AFL-CIO (which has been attacked both rhetorically and now evidently a targeted burning of an AFL-CIO building during riots last week) and police unions (many of whom are people of color) are part of that picture too, issues of entrenchment and racism aside.  
So initial solutions that might be effective would have to see any tactics and organizing within this broader context and have a strategically calculated, long-term vision. Anarchism (in the general sense I defined above) must be rooted out, as it is a pitfall of real organization. Dismantling a specific system like police militarization or mass incarceration is alright so long as there is unity on how to do it, what to replace it with, how to maintain that new order, and how to maintain momentum and accountability to the working class majority.
Unfortunately, I do not yet see these features. Some good may yet come out of it, such as the punishment of officers involved in needless brutality and killing, many reforms at the state or municipal level, and a profound change in the bravery and political consciousness of our nation’s people. (Good only when limitations are understood and change can be effected without violence/suffering for others.) The same was said of the rise of BLM in 2014-2016. But the fear is that this will not result in any drastic change to the status quo nor will it build any strategic momentum. Indeed, many of the BLM leaders from 2014-2016 appear themselves to have been assassinated! I haven't looked far enough into this, but even "reputable" (traditional) national news sources have made this claim about Ferguson, Missouri BLM organizers.
I believe the alternative implied by this critique is somewhat obvious, at least in broad outline. Attempts to effectively solve the most issues would need to start with wide, broader-spectrum, and centralized membership organizations accountable to the working class. They would need to start with a clear set of strategic, attainable policy goals with a vision toward building momentum. Unfortunately, there are deep-rooted oppositional forces and predictable reactions from the ruling class to be watched for, and defended against. So there should never be violence of course, although this is typical of ruling class reactions when cornered. But infiltration and sabotage and false flags are even trickier to watch for. They would need to bridge as many gaps as possible, rejecting essentialisms, rejecting the quasi-religious narratives of “Original Sin,” (not in a religious sense, but the idea of unrequited guilt over slavery, lynchings, civil rights abuses, etc.) rejecting hyperbolic or exclusionary rhetoric, and rejecting the politics of the PMC and the ruling class.

I haven't done a political post in a while, but it is probably a good idea that I try to explain in what ways I agree with Tucker Carlson (whom I usually disagree with to such a point that I never watch more than about once a month). I will try to avoid religion in this post, although it usually creeps in. This is more of an attempt to explain what I think is going on from a completely socio-economico-political perspective.
I think the recent “Black Lives Matter” protests are an outgrowth of a few specific factors. Conceptually, at least, there are the very real issues of police brutality, racist violence, and the “disparities” people of color often face. 
Materially, however, I think that there are 2 main factors driving the protests. One has been been the very recent social isolation and economic pain caused by America’s COVID19 response. This is too obvious. The other is — and has been for about 40 years now — the increasing proletarianization of the Professional/Managerial Middle Class (PMC). This has been particularly acute since the rapid liberalization and financialization of the economy since the 1980s and especially since the Recession/Depression of 2008. 
Members of the PMC are a relatively privileged class, distinct from the already “precarious” working class. Typically they are university-educated (the ~35% of the population with Bachelor’s Degrees or higher) possessing — or having close family that possess — upper-middle or higher incomes. The PMC is engaged in (or has close family engaged in) professional work involving business, management, finance, computers, engineering, law, medicine, media, education, and other technical fields. They make up about 40% of the recently employed labor force, or about 30% of the total population (typically earning the top 30% of incomes). 
While distinct from the ruling capitalist class (the 1% or less that own and control the bulk of capitalism), and also distinct from the vast working masses, the PMC has attributes of both. As they are typically inculcated in elite institutions, they carry the ruling ideologies: liberalism, individualism, self-help, liberal capitalism (“representational” economics), quasi-religious idealism, cosmopolitanism (“diversity and inclusion”), imperialism, and identitarianism (“identity politics”). 
But, in the era of monopoly capitalism, and thereby of stagnation, war, rising prices, and large-scale crisis, they have also had to face some fraction (however small) of the grim reality the proletarian masses face on a daily basis. Low wages and part-time employment, the absence of unions or collective bargaining, concerns about childcare, and unprecedented levels of debt have all become commonplace. 
This has bred an acute sense of insecurity and entitlement for those directly or even indirectly affected. This has bred hopelessness and political polarization. It also breeds a corresponding anarchist ideology tied to its liberal counterpart: the rejection (to varying degrees) of authority, intellectuals, elections, law, leadership, centralism, control, government, and/or “politics” more generally — in favor of decentralization, reaction, emotional catharsis, fetishization of “protest,” and local “communitarianism.” 
Needless to say, these are not the only people showing up to Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. But neoliberal antiracists and their anarchist counterparts do form the majority or at least a plurality of what might be termed the “movement.” And they certainly drive the gist of its politics, its “strategy” and tactics, and its social media presence. 
I use quotes around a lot of words here — “disparity,” “representation,” “movement,” “strategy”... This is because I believe these to be flawed categories; PMC distortions of reality often serving the neoliberal ruling class (not necessarily consciously).
It is difficult to see the “strategy” that BLM takes as a whole (though there is great potential in some organizations, which typically devolves over time). There is not really a unified or long-term plan outside of performative acts such as “Say Their Names,” the confessionals of white guilt, firing a few police officers, the rioting, and the media spectacle. Even specific, political goals (e.g., “Abolish the Police”) are often short-sighted and lack regard for future strategy or the larger political-economic context. (And there is evidence of overwhelming rejection to the ideas of defunding police departments among African-Americans in general.)
The same problems were present within BLM in 2014-2016. They should have been critiqued for very similar reasons then, too. Unfortunately, it was and is because the ideology motivating a lot of the participation and organizations is empty, anarchist, or at its core the ruling neoliberal ideology. (And these problems are not new: Bayard Rustin made similar critiques of “Black Power” in 1966.)
The typical framing of “disparity” and “representation” by neoliberal antiracists, for example, serves really to privilege essentialist notions of race and gender and sexual orientation, while often raging against the unequal distribution of social “goods and bads” for these idealized groups (or “identities”). 
That framing — plus many other aspects of the “woke” university jargon and neoliberal ideology — serves a double-function. First, it offends and alienates constituencies which might otherwise unite with the causes of ending police violence and more systemic issues like poverty, which are both sources of great consternation for many white working class people. (This is even to an extent true of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag itself, though, of course, everyone should acknowledge that black people are “over-represented” in killings by about 2.5 times*, and a whole host of other discriminations and problems too.) 
*No time for sources yet, but I'll add a few later.
Secondly, it also normalizes capitalism and the elite’s power to shape the more general context of jobs, real estate, and government, contributing to the very problems BLM purports to want to solve. Neoliberal antiracists tend to dismiss this charge outright, as they claim to “always mention” the problems of “the system!” But simplistic concession is not enough; theoretical and especially pragmatic questions are critically important to real movement-building, as they have been throughout world history.
In any case, for those wishing to make progress within the confines of this system, they would have to look at the greater context in which police violence occurs. There are some states in the US — and strikingly many of them in the Southern “Black Belt,”** where police killings of poor whites are often roughly equal to police killings of black people, even adjusted to their proportions in the society. Nearly all police killings (95%) occur in areas where the per-capita annual income is less than $50,000 (median income less than $25,000). Some of these areas have more crime. 
** Expanded from Adolph Reed's 2017 data by double-checking with other sources.
These facts alone illustrate the problem with using “disparity” as an analytical lens. It also poses a positive practical question: Could this allow for a bridging of the gap between White and Black America on organizational lines? Is there something to be salvaged from the “All Lives Matter” retort so often dismissed as racist? 
Put differently, would more effective movements be built if they were of the sort that organize around broad working-class constituencies and concrete questions? Building consensus as opposed to assuming pre-existing blocs? And can they move beyond “disruption” and gain power and effect change in the way the most influential Civil Rights leaders like MLK and Bayard Rustin envisioned? (It is a little discussed fact that the most pressure against civil rights leaders on a national scale began when MLK and others expanded their outreach to create broader coalitions.)
The gut-level response of the neoliberal antiracists to this question has so often been a resounding “No!” 
In fact, very often, these ideas are dismissed as somehow “implicitly racist” in themselves; very often they are slandered falsely as “class-reductionist.” Very often analogies to movements of the past are shouted down with “We’ve been there done that!” and sometimes even “Nonviolence is not the answer!” Serious concerns about the short-term consequences of rioting or the long-term evolution of anarchistic tendencies, concerns about supposedly “good” policy outcomes or tactics, are dismissed as “lacking empathy” for the causes or for “genocide” or “existential threats!” 
Not only is none of this the case, I would argue, but these “counterarguments” and insistence on hyperbolic rhetoric are little more than masks for a race-essentialist, identitarian, neoliberal class politics. They are a “class reductionism” of their own! They constitute a politics whose practical consequence is the division and further subdivision of the working masses and the (smaller) middle class. And this politics is neatly aligned with a large section of the ruling class’s agenda and the agenda of their capitalist/imperialist lackeys in the Democratic Party. 
So co-opting (by Democrats, so-called “anti-Trump” politicians, Hong Kong separatists, cops, the rich, etc.) is not only a “risk” movements of this kind face; it is a direct result of the kind of decentralization and class politics it espouses and represents. This is just an inevitable invitation to co-optation! 
It is therefore predictable that almost the entirety of the media apparatus (both corporate news media and manipulated social media), including much of the elites that own and operate them, all show sympathy for or outright endorse these protests. Should this not be looked at with suspicion? 
A significant section of the ruling class elite has for decades wished for diminishing the role of the State in education, services, and policing — precisely in favor of privatization and profit. The ruling class near-unanimously supports both the corruption and the dismantling of labor unions generally, a key factor in the disenfranchisement of people of color and the sharpening of inequality! Like it or not, the AFL-CIO (which has been attacked both rhetorically and now evidently a targeted burning of an AFL-CIO building during riots last week) and police unions (many of whom are people of color) are part of that picture too, issues of entrenchment and racism aside.  
So initial solutions that might be effective would have to see any tactics and organizing within this broader context and have a strategically calculated, long-term vision. Anarchism (in the general sense I defined above) must be rooted out, as it is a pitfall of real organization. Dismantling a specific system like police militarization or mass incarceration is alright so long as there is unity on how to do it, what to replace it with, how to maintain that new order, and how to maintain momentum and accountability to the working class majority.
Unfortunately, I do not yet see these features. Some good may yet come out of it, such as the punishment of officers involved in needless brutality and killing, many reforms at the state or municipal level, and a profound change in the bravery and political consciousness of our nation’s people. (Good only when limitations are understood and change can be effected without violence/suffering for others.) The same was said of the rise of BLM in 2014-2016. But the fear is that this will not result in any drastic change to the status quo nor will it build any strategic momentum. Indeed, many of the BLM leaders from 2014-2016 appear themselves to have been assassinated! I haven't looked far enough into this, but even "reputable" (traditional) national news sources have made this claim about Ferguson, Missouri BLM organizers.
I believe the alternative implied by this critique is somewhat obvious, at least in broad outline. Attempts to effectively solve the most issues would need to start with wide, broader-spectrum, and centralized membership organizations accountable to the working class. They would need to start with a clear set of strategic, attainable policy goals with a vision toward building momentum. Unfortunately, there are deep-rooted oppositional forces and predictable reactions from the ruling class to be watched for, and defended against. So there should never be violence of course, although this is typical of ruling class reactions when cornered. But infiltration and sabotage and false flags are even trickier to watch for. They would need to bridge as many gaps as possible, rejecting essentialisms, rejecting the quasi-religious narratives of “Original Sin,” (not in a religious sense, but the idea of unrequited guilt over slavery, lynchings, civil rights abuses, etc.) rejecting hyperbolic or exclusionary rhetoric, and rejecting the politics of the PMC and the ruling class.

Nah, you screwed it all up. But behind the scenes, I contacted JTR and he made it right for you. “Is he doing more ‘heavy lifting,‘” he said. “Is he ever!” I replied.
I haven’t seen Tucker and I haven’t yet read your post thoroughly. I will. One thing that I noticed:
I spoke to a retired military man in field service who told me how he had felt a great sense of responsibility for those under his command. For some reason, in these racially charged days, you always have to say if someone was white or black. He was black. He spoke to how in police recruiting today a military background was a large factor—sometimes the only factor—that was taken under consideration for hire. This was true even of those who had had serious discipline problems. “You don’t think that if they are discipline problems in the military, they might not be ideal for civilian policing?” he said.

I think it is a combination of several reasons. de Vienne offers one when she speculates that they are “incurious as to their own history.” They are doers more than contemplators of the past. They lead with the heart more than the head. There is a plank devoted to such things, but it is not a rudder that steers the ship.
@Arauna advances another reason—it must be in the other thread—that to a certain degree, history is unknowable, written by the victors, modified over the years by those of myriad agendas, and much of the original data is lost forever. Thus, because they are doers more than thinkers, they research the past, come up with what seems tight enough, and say (as one local sportscaster used to say) “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.” To do otherwise is to yield to thinkers who frequently not engage in doing if you light a stick of dynamite under them. “God gives his holy spirit to those doing his will,” they say, not those writing about it. 
It is a scholar-light approach that infuriates scholars too caught up in the suppose ascendancy of their own discipline—scholars who simply assume takeover rights. They get them in many venues—and the greater world offers testimony has to what happens when the world’s scholarship runs the show—you would think Srecko would reflect upon that before he carries on about how essential higher education is—but they do not get them in Jehovah’s organization. Once in awhile they get sent to the doghouse, but only when they howl too much. 
I say, I have no problem with this,” once I get over the problem I have with it—for I come from a world of readers and books. Still, I notice that they don’t add up to much when they are poured into the world vat, and may collectively even bring that world to its knees. I yield to Someone whose ways just might be higher than mine. He gives his spirit to those obeying him as leader.
In general, when I hear any viewpoint of challenge, I look for deeds at least as much as ideas. Frequently, there are none, and the remarks can largely be dismissed on that account. That is my take on what Paul says on the prospect of confronting the self-styled superfine apostles of his day—‘when I see them, I will get to know not just their words—anyone has them and many have them in great abundance—but I want to get to know their power—their deeds. 
That’s why when Matthew4 5784 or someone, oozing malice, launches a new topic entitled: “Honestly—No Malice Here—But Let us Speak Earnestly About the Wrong-doing of the Witness Leaders,” I say, “Have you actually done anything besides quit? Do you have anything to show for yourself besides grumbling? ” Just any malcontent is going to throw a tirade about something I hold dear and expect me to engage in earnest debate with them? I don’t think so. I wait for JWI to do it on the basis of addressing the points, not the person—and Cesar with a flamethrower to do it on another basis—and then several pages in, after the original malice has been obscured, I override my better judgement and jump into the fray.
The saying goes that ‘if you can do something, you do it. If you can’t, you critique it.‘ Absent someone’s “power”—their good deeds, their honest track record—I do not take them too seriously. They are critiquing—and the reason just may be that they ar capable of nothing else. At least Rolf has a track record—how hot it is and what has been allowed to go stone cold was my first initial question about his book. 
The saying is often escalated to a usually (though not always) unnecessarily cynical, “and if you REALLY can’t do it, you teach it.” Here we come to Dr. Gene Huang, who did not fit the pattern. He taught at Cornell, and was for years, among the most published authorities on statistics. His work provides mathematical support for scientists who study gene function. He became a Witness in the late 1990’s.
I speculate in Tom Irregardless and Me that after a dozen years or so, when he has proved himself stable, he or someone like him is invited to look over our science offerings and contribute an update if they see fit. Many brothers seem to think that at Bethel, they assign such material to the Witness who did really well in high-school science, straight A’s!—he or she holed up for a few weeks, and “out came this book” on creation blowing the cover off evolution. 
No. Plainly it will be someone like Brother Huang “bringing his gift to the altar” upon invitation. However, will his work silence the critics? You know it won’t. The writings of evolutionists and those who favor “intelligent design” would fill a library so large that even @The Librarian (that old hen) would throw in the towel. So they take Gene Hwang’s book at Bethel—he is a heavy-hitter—and say: “That’s our story and we’re sticking to it,”—same as they do with history. Do other “scholars” debate their own competing version? “Yeah—well—we’ll see,” they say, as they envision a headline in the paper that they have seen so many times before: “Everything You Thought You Knew About Such-and-Such is Wrong!”
 

My older brother and I visited a house in service (in Missouri) in 1964 where a 104 year old man remembered the civil war and told us about how his relatives died, how two of their three slaves ran away, and how he remembers his father coming home from the fighting when he was about 5. We returned several times to offer him the magazines nearly up until the time he died in about 1966. 
I am so glad that I can say I am part of the U.S. Civil War generation.
You say I am stuck on the date 1914, when I should be stuck on the generation of 1914. But you also say that you understand my thinking because "neither do I accept 1914."
That inherent contradiction of yours says a lot to me. It says that the reason I don't accept that this generation is in large part because I don't accept 1914. The corollary, of course, is that the reason people accept the stretching of the generation to as much as 180 years, is because they accept 1914. In other words, this stretching of the definition is only true for people who accept 1914. If I accepted it, then whatever people say in support of it will always be true, even if it would otherwise be false. 😊
As you showed, the staggered generation is from some starting point and can go 90 years back and 90 years forward, for example, for a total of 180 years. Therefore those who discerned the sign in 1914 could have been born up to 90 years before, and lived to up to 90 years after. I have no problem with the 180 years of a staggered generation. The generation that discerned a sign in 1914 could run out as late as 2004 (or 1994 if they had to be at least 10 in 1914 to "discern," or 1989 if they had to be at least 15 in 1914 to be "anointed").
Also, tt was not me who said that the generation was about anointed persons who could discern the sign in 1914. Brother Splane was the one stuck on that 1914 date. By the way, I think it's revealing that Brother Splane didn't consider this new "generation" theory very seriously before presenting it. Otherwise he would not have used a scripture in Exodus that doesn't support his view, and he also would likely have noticed that his chart has a glaring error on it. It shows that "this generation" is passing away well before the great tribulation starts, when the entire point is that the great tribulation can't happen before this generation passes away. It depicts only anointed who are not part of group one or group two living at the time the great tribulation begins. To me, it's just a mistake, but it shows that he took his focus off the scripture that shows the exact opposite of what his chart depicts.
I believe 100 percent in the generation of 1914, and that it could represent as much as 180 years worth of a staggered generation. There were grandparents and great grandparents who could perceive the signs of war and pestilence during that WW1 period. Their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren who were also alive and growing up in 1914 could go on living for another 90 years or so, too. They can all legitimately be called a part of that generation, even though it's already a stretch to say that  "the generation" is still alive when 95 percent of it had already died before 1990.
This is why I mentioned the civil war generation above. You are part of the post WW2 generation, and you were also alive when persons saw the Civil War. Therefore if there were anointed brothers alive during the civil war, you are part of the Civil War generation too. You will probably claim that I am being ridiculous, but it is to help us think whether there is any point at which we would have balked at this explanation. If, by special mightiness, you are still alive in 2042 and the end has not come by then, does the existence of the FDS and the preaching work mean that you are still in the 1914 generation no matter what?
At what point in the future, if any, would the definition no longer be valid? 2033, 2042, 2050?

I am generation of communist era, and i am generation of post communist era. I am affected with feudalism. And capitalism too, because they invented private property and market economy philosophy. 
Oh no, private property and market economy draws its roots from "paganism". And all what have "pagan origins" are forbidden for Christians aka JW members. Well WTJWorg must reconsider their Legal Status, because of "pagan origins" of secular laws. :)) 
But i am also affected by US Civil war, and affected by volcano Vesuvius, especially after the 79 AD eruption. :))
All what was written (and we inform ourselves about it) about every events in the past and present make us to be "generation of that something". :))

My Generation. 
 

I spoke to and older black gentleman—he’d invited me into his house, where he had several Bibles and study materials revealing the student that he plainly was. It is dicey to point out that he was black because long ago I did that with another person, and Witness, from her pseudo-heavenly throne, launched a lecture my way about racism. I say it now (and then) to call attention to a basic humility and common sense which it seems to me whites are much quicker to shed. Okay, Witness?—it’s not a put-down.
Anyhow, with this fellow—who really did know his Bible—a certain passage of Corinthians came up, and I made to read it. “No, no, don’t you read it,” he cried, in mock-panic, “you’ll screw it up!” He chuckled even as he said it, and so did I. He wasn’t wound up too tight—I found myself liking the guy.
That’s how I feel about 4Jah, who posts one of my favorite groups of all time. I love The Who. But if he posts it, you just know that he will screw it up.

My older brother and I visited a house in service (in Missouri) in 1964 where a 104 year old man remembered the civil war and told us about how his relatives died, how two of their three slaves ran away, and how he remembers his father coming home from the fighting when he was about 5. We returned several times to offer him the magazines nearly up until the time he died in about 1966. 
I am so glad that I can say I am part of the U.S. Civil War generation.
You say I am stuck on the date 1914, when I should be stuck on the generation of 1914. But you also say that you understand my thinking because "neither do I accept 1914."
That inherent contradiction of yours says a lot to me. It says that the reason I don't accept that this generation is in large part because I don't accept 1914. The corollary, of course, is that the reason people accept the stretching of the generation to as much as 180 years, is because they accept 1914. In other words, this stretching of the definition is only true for people who accept 1914. If I accepted it, then whatever people say in support of it will always be true, even if it would otherwise be false. 😊
As you showed, the staggered generation is from some starting point and can go 90 years back and 90 years forward, for example, for a total of 180 years. Therefore those who discerned the sign in 1914 could have been born up to 90 years before, and lived to up to 90 years after. I have no problem with the 180 years of a staggered generation. The generation that discerned a sign in 1914 could run out as late as 2004 (or 1994 if they had to be at least 10 in 1914 to "discern," or 1989 if they had to be at least 15 in 1914 to be "anointed").
Also, tt was not me who said that the generation was about anointed persons who could discern the sign in 1914. Brother Splane was the one stuck on that 1914 date. By the way, I think it's revealing that Brother Splane didn't consider this new "generation" theory very seriously before presenting it. Otherwise he would not have used a scripture in Exodus that doesn't support his view, and he also would likely have noticed that his chart has a glaring error on it. It shows that "this generation" is passing away well before the great tribulation starts, when the entire point is that the great tribulation can't happen before this generation passes away. It depicts only anointed who are not part of group one or group two living at the time the great tribulation begins. To me, it's just a mistake, but it shows that he took his focus off the scripture that shows the exact opposite of what his chart depicts.
I believe 100 percent in the generation of 1914, and that it could represent as much as 180 years worth of a staggered generation. There were grandparents and great grandparents who could perceive the signs of war and pestilence during that WW1 period. Their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren who were also alive and growing up in 1914 could go on living for another 90 years or so, too. They can all legitimately be called a part of that generation, even though it's already a stretch to say that  "the generation" is still alive when 95 percent of it had already died before 1990.
This is why I mentioned the civil war generation above. You are part of the post WW2 generation, and you were also alive when persons saw the Civil War. Therefore if there were anointed brothers alive during the civil war, you are part of the Civil War generation too. You will probably claim that I am being ridiculous, but it is to help us think whether there is any point at which we would have balked at this explanation. If, by special mightiness, you are still alive in 2042 and the end has not come by then, does the existence of the FDS and the preaching work mean that you are still in the 1914 generation no matter what?
At what point in the future, if any, would the definition no longer be valid? 2033, 2042, 2050?

My older brother and I visited a house in service (in Missouri) in 1964 where a 104 year old man remembered the civil war and told us about how his relatives died, how two of their three slaves ran away, and how he remembers his father coming home from the fighting when he was about 5. We returned several times to offer him the magazines nearly up until the time he died in about 1966. 
I am so glad that I can say I am part of the U.S. Civil War generation.
You say I am stuck on the date 1914, when I should be stuck on the generation of 1914. But you also say that you understand my thinking because "neither do I accept 1914."
That inherent contradiction of yours says a lot to me. It says that the reason I don't accept that this generation is in large part because I don't accept 1914. The corollary, of course, is that the reason people accept the stretching of the generation to as much as 180 years, is because they accept 1914. In other words, this stretching of the definition is only true for people who accept 1914. If I accepted it, then whatever people say in support of it will always be true, even if it would otherwise be false. 😊
As you showed, the staggered generation is from some starting point and can go 90 years back and 90 years forward, for example, for a total of 180 years. Therefore those who discerned the sign in 1914 could have been born up to 90 years before, and lived to up to 90 years after. I have no problem with the 180 years of a staggered generation. The generation that discerned a sign in 1914 could run out as late as 2004 (or 1994 if they had to be at least 10 in 1914 to "discern," or 1989 if they had to be at least 15 in 1914 to be "anointed").
Also, tt was not me who said that the generation was about anointed persons who could discern the sign in 1914. Brother Splane was the one stuck on that 1914 date. By the way, I think it's revealing that Brother Splane didn't consider this new "generation" theory very seriously before presenting it. Otherwise he would not have used a scripture in Exodus that doesn't support his view, and he also would likely have noticed that his chart has a glaring error on it. It shows that "this generation" is passing away well before the great tribulation starts, when the entire point is that the great tribulation can't happen before this generation passes away. It depicts only anointed who are not part of group one or group two living at the time the great tribulation begins. To me, it's just a mistake, but it shows that he took his focus off the scripture that shows the exact opposite of what his chart depicts.
I believe 100 percent in the generation of 1914, and that it could represent as much as 180 years worth of a staggered generation. There were grandparents and great grandparents who could perceive the signs of war and pestilence during that WW1 period. Their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren who were also alive and growing up in 1914 could go on living for another 90 years or so, too. They can all legitimately be called a part of that generation, even though it's already a stretch to say that  "the generation" is still alive when 95 percent of it had already died before 1990.
This is why I mentioned the civil war generation above. You are part of the post WW2 generation, and you were also alive when persons saw the Civil War. Therefore if there were anointed brothers alive during the civil war, you are part of the Civil War generation too. You will probably claim that I am being ridiculous, but it is to help us think whether there is any point at which we would have balked at this explanation. If, by special mightiness, you are still alive in 2042 and the end has not come by then, does the existence of the FDS and the preaching work mean that you are still in the 1914 generation no matter what?
At what point in the future, if any, would the definition no longer be valid? 2033, 2042, 2050?

I think nearly everyone accepts that staggered generations exist. The staggered generation might even include people born more than 90 years earlier than the point identified (1914) and more than 90 years after the point identified (1914). I believe you might have even commented on a chart about a year ago that was included in a post to prove that we SHOULD accept "staggered generations" in the expression "this generation."
The problem is that you start out making claims about the generation of 1914, and say that there are 180 years worth of staggered generations from 90 years prior to 1914, and 90 years after 1914. That's fine. But you don't have the right to just move the starting point to around 1992 instead of 1914.
When you account for persons being 10 years of age to "discern" 1914, then the staggered generations, as you showed yourself, could range from perhaps 1814 to 1904 to 1994. (With variations depending on how old people need to be in 1914, or with a "proper" age of anointing.)
But the Watchtower doctrine uses some (unintentional?) sleight of hand to move that starting point of the staggered generations from around 1904 to around 1992. This way it can start an additional 90 years or so, beginning around 1992 or so and therefore it can for another 90 years or so from there (up to about 2082 if necessary). 1814 to 1904 to 1992/4 to 2082/4. This means that your staggered generations have been changed from a total of 180 years to 270 years. What's to stop them from being defined as 360 years, or more, if that ever became necessary. 1814 to 1904 to 1994 to 2084 to 2174, etc. (And we certainly hope it would not be necessary.)

I think nearly everyone accepts that staggered generations exist. The staggered generation might even include people born more than 90 years earlier than the point identified (1914) and more than 90 years after the point identified (1914). I believe you might have even commented on a chart about a year ago that was included in a post to prove that we SHOULD accept "staggered generations" in the expression "this generation."
The problem is that you start out making claims about the generation of 1914, and say that there are 180 years worth of staggered generations from 90 years prior to 1914, and 90 years after 1914. That's fine. But you don't have the right to just move the starting point to around 1992 instead of 1914.
When you account for persons being 10 years of age to "discern" 1914, then the staggered generations, as you showed yourself, could range from perhaps 1814 to 1904 to 1994. (With variations depending on how old people need to be in 1914, or with a "proper" age of anointing.)
But the Watchtower doctrine uses some (unintentional?) sleight of hand to move that starting point of the staggered generations from around 1904 to around 1992. This way it can start an additional 90 years or so, beginning around 1992 or so and therefore it can for another 90 years or so from there (up to about 2082 if necessary). 1814 to 1904 to 1992/4 to 2082/4. This means that your staggered generations have been changed from a total of 180 years to 270 years. What's to stop them from being defined as 360 years, or more, if that ever became necessary. 1814 to 1904 to 1994 to 2084 to 2174, etc. (And we certainly hope it would not be necessary.)