JW Insider

Here is the "Rosetta Stone" of American politics.
 
Hillary Kills Weinstein Story.wmv

Yes. This is partly true. My old boss was from the mainland, where his parents still live, but had moved to work in Hong Kong before getting a job in New York. Most of his relatives still live on the mainland, so when he goes back he visits Hong Kong first, then his other relatives. We recently met at a restaurant with a couple other retirees from the same company, and we talked for a couple hours. I ran a few of these same "young people" arguments by him, and it's true that he is very wary of some of the government's business and economic plans, although he admits that they are currently working. He is very anti-communist as many Chinese-born US citizens are.
But the one area he says the US (and West) has all wrong is the Uyghur ("Weeger") situation. He says that you have to read between the lines, or learn how to pick the one CNN report in 10 that gets it right. He is surprised that they allow reports to be completely contradictory (although he listens to an International version of CNN) along with a lot of anti-Chinese media. What's curious is that these "concentration camps" are not "concentration camps," as there is no torture, no forced hard labor, etc.  Although Chinese are definitely behind it, they are actually run mostly by Weegers and for Weegers. One of the big thrusts of the Chinese government is to try to legislate against racism, and there is plenty of racism in China. If a group appears to be very unaccepting of other groups -to the point of using violence- they are supposed to go through training in their own culture and other cultures, too. This does include "indoctrination" in the goals of the government, what we would call classes in civics and citizenship, but he says it is mostly job training, and can even include moving a Weeger family to areas to get them better jobs. China ties the problem of poverty to violent rioting and demonstrations.  Muslims around the world have agreed that this has worked as a method of reducing radicalization and has eliminated terrorism.
Most of China, of course, are Han, although there are several million Weegers, mostly in the Xinjiang province. The first big problem with the Weegers came about after riots that evidently began with rumors of Weegers raping a Han, and other rumors that spread and morphed out of this one. The Han instigated violent riots against the Weegers, and China put a lot of effort into punishing the Han offenders. On the mainland, he says that the Chinese support and defense of the Weegers is a source of anger by racist Chinese. The actual number of Weegers required to go through the training programs are probably in the tens of thousands, he thinks. (The idea of "millions" is a Western invention.) He also mentioned that China has helped Muslims build mosques, not only in China but also in Africa. The Weegers have a vibrant culture in the Xinjiang province that China supports.
By the way, the entire Muslim world does NOT believe the Weeger propaganda. Even when the UN resolution condemning the "Weeger" situation was promoted by the West, it was signed on by only about 22 countries, all white (US, UK, etc) and ZERO Islamic countries signed onto the resolution. The NYT which attempts at least one big anti-China article every week, ended up reporting the Chinese side of the argument in the context of the 22 nation campaign. While generally negative, of course, the article also included the following:
China denied such actions when a United Nations human rights committee questioned the policy last year but later said it was providing vocational training to insulate Xinjiang’s population from what it described as the global scourge of extremism.
To counter international critics, last month China brought Xinjiang’s deputy governor, an ethnic Uighur, to the council, where he asserted that such training is lifting Xinjiang’s people from poverty. The deputy governor, Aierken Tuniyazi, also rejected accusations that the trainees are in detention camps.
“The trainees’ personal dignity and freedom are fully protected,” he said, describing students living in air-conditioned dormitories and dividing their time between learning valuable skills and participating in ethnic dancing, singing or sports.
China has used its economic leverage and diplomatic muscle to support this narrative with some success. Muslim countries have remained silent and have even praised China’s treatment of its Muslims. Cameroon, a beneficiary of Chinese infrastructure spending, devoted a statement in the council last week to praising China’s “big achievement” in Xinjiang.
And last month Vladimir Voronkov, the Russian diplomat heading the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Office, visited Xinjiang and in his end of mission statement made no reference to human rights concerns there, an omission that human rights groups saw as a propaganda gift to Chinese authorities.
What often raises my own suspicions on these topics is a common thread of US hypocrisy. The US and other Western nations have been overreacting to Muslim countries for many years now, because it's good for the military contractors, and the oil industry. (These are often synonymous with the meaning of the expression "American interests," the thing the US is protecting every time the US joins a conflict.) Therefore, the West looks to blame China for something that might sound even worse. The West uses the IMF and World Bank and even so-called Human Rights societies to help push an agenda in countries where the West wants to plunder resources. When the West builds infrastructure in another nation it's mostly to help get those resources out of the country, not to help local workers and local civilians. The US is infamous for promoting a need for certain facilities at such a cost in IMF loans that the country is supposed to default, and then the US then has leverage to gain UN votes, build military bases, take a higher percentage of resources and profits, or completely "own" the country's new leader through a regime change. Therefore, this is what China will be blamed for doing through Western fearmongering.
The pattern is very clear on several such items. The West (especially the US) does something bad, so China must be blamed for something just like it, but worse.

And some allow for a dry application. Mennen women, to be Sure, usually kept their deodorant brands a Secret, to some Degree, because, you know, Mums* the word. [Don't Axe, don't smell.]
(*I always wondered how well the Mum brand would work in the UK.)
There, have we reached 101 topics in one, yet?
 

And some allow for a dry application. Mennen women, to be Sure, usually kept their deodorant brands a Secret, to some Degree, because, you know, Mums* the word. [Don't Axe, don't smell.]
(*I always wondered how well the Mum brand would work in the UK.)
There, have we reached 101 topics in one, yet?
 

In 1994, I was working in Midtown Manhattan and someone handed me a 26 page booklet called "Four Years of Struggle against Texaco's Dark Legacy in the Ecuadorian Amazon." There is also a tract inside called "Boycott Texaco - Star Polluter of the Ecuadorian Rainforest."
I never read them at the time, but I find them today in pristine condition, and didn't even know about the tract inside until this morning. Representatives of indigenous groups, along with supporters around the world, brought a case against Texaco which had devastated the lands, killed the fish, and chased away the animals that the rural people of Ecuador had relied upon to live. Texaco had agreed to clean up their mess, but this is in a part of the world that cannot enforce a cleanup in the way Texaco had been forced to clean up messes affecting the United States.
Texaco continued to flout the laws, while claiming to uphold them, without a care that they were literally killing people by their roughshod processes. (Separately, not in the tracts, they have been investigated for suspicion of being in cahoots with actual hitmen who murdered indigenous people in Ecuador when they tried to stand in the way of Texaco and other oil companies there.)
If any company or group had come into the United States and done something similar it would easily have been seen as a declaration of war. Similarly, a lot of people don't realize that when a group or government destroys the food supplies of another nation that it is the same thing as a declaration of war. When the US sanctions Venezuela, or Iraq, or Iran, (or perhaps Turkey) for example, if it attempts to enforce a total blockade of goods going into and out of the nation through pressure on other nations, too, it has not only declared war (unofficially) but has found a way to kill more civilians than an outright declaration of war would accomplish. Most people think of Bush II as the person who killed the most Iraqis, but when Clinton enforced the sanctions promoted through the UN, and continued to bomb infrastructure such as electric power plants, airports, clean water facilities, etc., Clinton had been able to accomplish the killing of at least a MILLION women, children, and men. When Saudi Arabia, with US help, bombs Yemen's water, and power, and resources, it creates the same situation where the majority of the population of men, women, and children can die of starvation and disease. 
There have been dozens of cases where governments have promised to help survivors of such campaigns, and dozens of cases where corporations have promised to help out the survivors who have had a livelihood taken away. If the country or corporation is rich enough, however, they always find a way to avoid the promised expenditures. And they don't worry much about the negative publicity, because if they break their promises long enough, they can usually just wait until the demonstrators get violent so that they can be termed "criminal" and most of the world will just look away.

For anyone who didn't understand the joke, the excerpt I put in the original post was actually taken from a 1987 Watchtower. It's from an article written by Brother Fred Franz, giving a part of his own life experience:
*** w87 5/1 p. 24 Looking Back Over 93 Years of Living ***
One Saturday night in the spring of 1913, Albert had gone to bed early in the dormitory of the YMCA, where he was living while working in Chicago. Later, his roommate burst into the room to explain a difficulty. He was invited that night to the home of a Mr. and Mrs. Hindman, and their daughter Nora was to have a girlfriend there at the house. Two girls would be too much for Albert’s roommate to handle by himself. With alacrity, Albert rose to the occasion. During the course of the evening, Albert’s roommate was getting along quite famously with the two young ladies. But Mr. and Mrs. Hindman concentrated on Albert . . .
I often heard Brother Franz speak to the Bethel family for up to half-an-hour at a time, over a period of several years in the late 1970's and early 1980's. He often seemed pleased with himself that he could get away with sometimes coarse talk and even "suggestive" language, that no one else would ever even attempt in front of an audience.

Didn't realize how good that sentence was.  "But some names stick". 
You didn't mention the one James alluded to. You weren't Banned, why?
Yes, 101 topics in one.

And some allow for a dry application. Mennen women, to be Sure, usually kept their deodorant brands a Secret, to some Degree, because, you know, Mums* the word. [Don't Axe, don't smell.]
(*I always wondered how well the Mum brand would work in the UK.)
There, have we reached 101 topics in one, yet?
 

via .ORGWorld News

People that have "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" will go to great lengths to prove, with distorted logic and reasoning that their viewpoint of the Universe ... centered on them ... is correct.
You can prove them wrong a hundred times on any one subject, and they will NEVER accept it.
I would not be surprised if Foreigner would ban himself/herself/themselves, just to appear to be correct, and then reappear as another entity, and say "see, I TOLD you so!"., thinking in their own mind that they were forced out by others.
Whatever happens to NPD people who irritate, insult, disparage and malign everyone around them who think rationally ...  is NEVER their own fault.
... except that in reality ... it always is.

It is clear to me that there is only ONE WAY to convince you that we are not the owners and do not have that power,
so......
“Right now, @JW Insider LET’S DO THIS THING! LET’S BAN HIM!”
There. I do not expect to see him again, since JWI and I have banned him. If I do.....

When the world at last wakes up to a problem, it wildly overswings. It misses its target, who ducks, and hits square in the teeth the unsuspecting, innocent, and ordinary joe standing just behind.‬ Will this be soon be the case in the world of blogging?
Mr. Admin thinks so. He runs a big site. He will go down at the end of the year, he fears, “as will many, many bloggers and other small ad-supported websites due to onerous and draconian data privacy laws.”
He cites an article:
“The [California Consumer Privacy Act, to go into effect at year end] was supposed to curb the purportedly abusive privacy practices of internet giants (like Google and Facebook) and data brokers. Unfortunately, the law overshot this goal; it reaches most businesses, online or off. Facebook may have been the target, but the local pizzeria will bear the law’s brunt.” Cost of compliance to these new mandates, which carries a $20 fine per incident for any internet hit from California are so onerous that anyone not in the same league as Facebook will simply fold.”
“Well, if you are not in California and have no critical interests there, who cares if you run afoul of their law? What’s the worst that can happen?” I asked him. He continued to fret:
“I doubt development companies like IPS or Wordpress have dedicated anything to this problem. They were probably hoping Google would make it go away....Would you risk life changing fines “per incident” to make even $100 monthly profit? High risk + Low Reward = Find a new hobby for most small time publishers/bloggers/forum owners.”
Hmm. He’s not in California. But he doesn’t want to risk a trip to the mailbox to discover a letter: 
“Dear Mr Admin:
It’s “Hasta la vista” for you, baby!
Very truly yours
Arnold Schwartsnegger - Governor emeritus of California”
PS — I’ll be back!
Now, I hang out there quite a bit on the forum of Admin. I have written substantial portions of text there latter reorganized to comprise parts of “Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia,” and “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” I think his fears are overblown and that outfits such as he mentions will come up with some solution that they will use to justify a price increase—hopefully not too huge. Our worst dreams do come true, but they usually come true gradually, not all at once with a swipe of the pen.
There will be a gateway at the entrance of blogs, I predict, where ones who wish to participate will waive away privacy rights. Already I see such things. Or (better yet) there will be developed a firewall to ban anyone from California, and then the outrage of those persons will cause lawmakers to backtrack. They do not want to be like John Jay, who negotiated a treaty with the British so unpopular that he later wrote he could ride the road from Philadelphia to Washington at night, his path lit solely by the burning effigies of himself hanging every 50 yards or so. 
Still, Admin is closer to this than me, and paying more attention. Maybe I underestimate the problem and his forum will indeed go down. If so, I will miss it. But I will also move on. I have used my time well there. Engaging with malcontents, villains, as well as some “avant-garde” brothers has served to hone both my writing and my thinking. In turn, I have used that to write larger collections that stand on their own, even if distribution methods themselves may change. Admin himself rebuked me long ago, and the experience served as a quirky introduction to “TrueTom vs the Apostates.”
It finally dawned upon the troublesome “Foreigner” that Mr. Admin is not a Witness, and he said that now he realized it. 
He didn’t know that? Admin has said it often enough. “So here you come charging like a bull,” I told him, “upbraiding for apostasy anyone displaying the slightest deviation from the latest writing of the Witness organization, far in excess of what they would ever insist upon themselves, and you do it all before unbelievers, making Witnesses look ridiculous!”
It is nearly as absurd as (I have seen it) the spectacle presented when brothers tell each other on Facebook that so-and-so is disfellowshipped, and so be careful not to associate with that one. Since you can’t really know what is real and what is rumor, one sister even proposed phoning an elder in the person’s home congregation to ask if so-and-so was in good standing or not. All this before just regular folk who know or care nothing of congregation matters. I responded that if I were that elder, I might comply once or twice, being caught off guard, but after that I would say: “Enough! I have a family, a job, congregation responsibilities, and a life! Now you want me to police the internet? Stay off social media if you have to ask such questions!” The internet is not the congregation and cannot be made to behave like one. Do not venture online if you cannot get your head around this.
Another value to me of the forum (and online in general) that may tank—if it does, it does—is the discipline of addressing heavy, even controversial spiritual topics, knowing non-Witnesses might be listening in, and learning how to say heavy things without turning them off. I mean, they may not like the religion itself, and if such is the case, there is nothing to be done about it. But sometimes it is our own inartfulness that is the turn-off, and I have learned (relatively) how to be artful. It is no more that what Paul said: 
“To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law....I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Most Witnesses are not good at this. When they engage with non-believers, it is strictly mundane, regarding business matters or the weather—OR they go into “witness mode” and tell them of the paradise, petting the animals, and how the Trinity is a crock. They don’t seem to know how to mix the two. I have learned to do that, and I credit sites like Admin’s with providing the needed practice.
It is a good skill to develop, I think. We won’t be described as so “insular” should we ever pull of that trick. But I think we never will pull it off.. “Insularity” is too close to being “no part of the world”—a condition that must be so for Christians, per James 4:4, for example: “Adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God.”
If Admin’s worst fears are realized and his site goes down, other sites will go down for the same reason. That will kick out tons of “apostate” sites, and I have no problem with that. “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it,” is the saying of Voltaire, not me. When it comes to trashing spiritual things, I’d just as soon they not say it. I can live with it should that become the new law.
None of this will affect the official channel, JW.org, that is not into collecting data in the first place, and when they do for the sake of log-in accounts, I think even already they require applicants to yield on such newfound concerns—and you should hear the apostates howl over that!
In fact, I think what Bethel will say with regard to the apostates who hang their hearts on the BITE model [Behavioral, Information, Thought, and Emotional “control”] is: “The idiots! They pressed their ‘victimization’ complaints to such absurd lengths that the asp came around to bite them in their own rear ends, knocking them all offline.” 
As for Admin, he will have to find himself a new hobby. They are offering pickleball lessons down at the Rec Center, I hear—a fine way for duffers to keep in shape. It wouldn’t hurt me were I to sign up myself, and maybe I will see him there. Maybe someday I will even see him at the Kingdom Hall—that is, if he did not get chased away by the hotheads on his own forum.
After that, in search of new things to do, I may even start to tackle more of Mrs. Harley’s to-do list. Say—you don’t suppose that it is she who spoke to California lawmakers, do you?

What congregation do those sisters attend?
It was a mistake I love that brand.

I remember reading about early America when in the Ohio River Valley Indians used to drive herds of millions of wild mushrooms over a cliff, and go down below and feast.
... nothing quite like sitting around a campfire at night, looking up at the stars above, with all your family and tribe, after a hard day's hunt, and  four pounds of mushrooms.
 

One hundred subjects in one? I think we had a topic on what Jesus looked like already.
 

I know what you mean. Most of the time when a person puts up a post that goes to a different topic, it's not that serious and they don't intend to create an in-depth discussion of that new topic. But Anna quoted something from another website with enough material in it to make 100 posts the length of this one.
For example, if I mention mad cow disease as an aside, I know that JTR, for example, just might be able to find a video about cows that are arming themselves with guns for some kind of revolution, or something. But I doubt that this means JTR wants to discuss either mad cow disease or the advisability of allowing four-legged creatures to have arms.

@Anna, Can these posts about Rutherford/Hitler be moved to a new topic? I'll check with TTH of course, but I think I can still do this. 
 
 

I know what you mean. Most of the time when a person puts up a post that goes to a different topic, it's not that serious and they don't intend to create an in-depth discussion of that new topic. But Anna quoted something from another website with enough material in it to make 100 posts the length of this one.
For example, if I mention mad cow disease as an aside, I know that JTR, for example, just might be able to find a video about cows that are arming themselves with guns for some kind of revolution, or something. But I doubt that this means JTR wants to discuss either mad cow disease or the advisability of allowing four-legged creatures to have arms.

I know what you mean. Most of the time when a person puts up a post that goes to a different topic, it's not that serious and they don't intend to create an in-depth discussion of that new topic. But Anna quoted something from another website with enough material in it to make 100 posts the length of this one.
For example, if I mention mad cow disease as an aside, I know that JTR, for example, just might be able to find a video about cows that are arming themselves with guns for some kind of revolution, or something. But I doubt that this means JTR wants to discuss either mad cow disease or the advisability of allowing four-legged creatures to have arms.

I don't think it's subtle. I think it's exactly intended to do what you say: to make us think of Jehovah's arrangement. It's the way Jesus spoke of marriage, as an arrangement set up in the beginning by God, between one man and one woman.
Besides, it's a little better than the "institution of marriage" because that sounds too much like, well, an "institution." A common expression in the Southern U.S. was "the institution of slavery." I'm not making any connection between the two, however.

Sounds like you belong in an institution.

Oh, so YOU are that one who made that 3-minute long comment!
“Thirty seconds or less,” is what they say. There are others who would like to comment, you know.

That’s what she said! You two are in cahoots, are you?

Last night, as usual, I wowed my wife with romance. 
I plied her with flowers. I pumped some wine at her. I took her  to one of those fancy MacDonalds where they bring your food right to you.
Afterwards, as I led her to the bedroom, she said: “Why are you so lovey-dovey tonight?”
“It’s the arrangement,” I told her. 

I don't think it's subtle. I think it's exactly intended to do what you say: to make us think of Jehovah's arrangement. It's the way Jesus spoke of marriage, as an arrangement set up in the beginning by God, between one man and one woman.
Besides, it's a little better than the "institution of marriage" because that sounds too much like, well, an "institution." A common expression in the Southern U.S. was "the institution of slavery." I'm not making any connection between the two, however.