JW Insider

I often wondered why military uniforms had so many patches, braids, medals, and other stuff on them.
Then I realized that men were decorated up like that so that people who "knew the code" could tell at a glance your entire history and experience level, and your motivation levels, and other factors ... like a ten page resume that could be evaluated in two seconds.
I see nothing wrong with announcing that someone is willing to Pioneer ... go out for "sustained combat".
It is hard work, and perhaps they will need encouragement or some physical assistance.
Give honor where it is due!
I would like to see something like the U.S. Congressional Medal of Honor or some other appropriate award for "I survived Bethel"....

So many people in Africa live on less than 1 dollar a day..... so be thankful for what you have...... I was fortunate enough to be able to pay for my daughter's cancer operation which lasted the whole day.  It was also without blood - 40 years ago.  The fact that she did not take blood - this saved her life.  I thank Jehovah for having that knowledge to guide me in the right direction.  She would have died from anaphylactic shock - something I did not know about at the time.

Of those two, only Russell was removed from the "list." Rutherford remains, but some of Rutherford's faults have been candidly admitted. I wouldn't say anyone has "disowned" Rutherford, although I worked with two brothers in the 1970's who still admitted that they held a strong grudge against the judge. If you know some of the stories about him it's a lot easier to read between the lines in the publications and from experiences various brothers had with him that have been mentioned in interviews. But you don't have to be liked to be faithful and discreet. There are a few things I don't like about Rutherford and a few that I do like. I don't think of him as a key part of the FDS nor any kind of "foundation stone." Among many righteous and courageous things he stood for, he was instrumental in keeping control of the assets of the Watchtower Society, and that name, having been associated with Russell and the work of the Kingdom as they understood it, kept a core portion of Bible Students together at a critical time. Otherwise, it's possible that Rutherford might have become a footnote.
A couple things make no sense, because human traditions create strongly entrenched things. Things just get more awkward when someone has to grasp at straws to make sense of things after they have been proven to be obsolete. Outside of about 5 topic areas, however, I happen to think that most things make even more sense now, especially looking at all the changes since about the year 2000. Also, I think we've dropped a lot of things that just can't be made to work anymore, but the WTS hasn't completely abandoned the ideas completely and has sometimes chosen untenable solutions to issues created by the older teachings. It's like sewing new patches of unshrunk cloth on old garments. After everything is "cut and dried," it just doesn't wash!
All anointed Christians are no longer identified as THE faithful and discreet slave. But this wouldn't stop anointed Christians from being faithful and discreet slaves. This is something that all Christians are supposed to be, no matter what they claim to know about their ultimate place where they will serve in God's Kingdom throughout their eternal lives. True Christians who are faithful and discreet slaves will have this attitude:
(1 Peter 4:10) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. (1 Corinthians 4:2, 3) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . . I agree that it is an unfortunate circumstance that has probably led the Governing Body to believe that they need to bestow this title upon themselves to be respected for "authority" they believe is necessary to effectively lead thousands of local congregations and millions of brothers and sisters. I think it is a human failing to be expected in every religious organization on earth. For me the point of an organization is the idea that it provides a ready-made social group with which we can begin putting our Christianity into practice. It's a support group for the stronger to help the weaker, the richer to help the poorer -- and for all to provide an example to one another, both physical and spiritual encouragement and nourishment to one another. 
Such a group will be expected to put forth a set of teachings, which might be half right and half wrong, but it's a start for us to discuss. As the teachings are tested and questioned, the surer things and the more important things will rise to the top. It's true, as you say, that weak elders will not question and will become "policemen." But it is still our duty to test and question. If we are kicked out for it, so be it. If the "policemen" think it's right to break up families and natural affection over such questions then this is a tragedy and needs to be changed if we want to be Christian. Christianity is a constant fight for righteousness. It's easier in a social group of like minded persons, even though a social group, being human, will naturally have abusers who want to rise to the top just to be "policemen."
*** w77 10/1 p. 599 The Christian Congregation and Its Operation ***
They are not governors or “masters” of the lives or faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but are viewed as brothers and equals having a duty of stewardship. —1 Cor. 4:1, 2; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Pet. 4:10. Back in 1977, discussing the Governing Body, this verse from 2 Cor was included along with the two other scriptures I already quoted above. The one I hadn't quoted yet was the middle one:
(2 Corinthians 1:24) Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. This is one big problem. I'm not minimizing it. We no longer encourage the hiding of child abuse. It still happens, of course. I think it's from shame. We just don't want to admit something so horrible is as much among us as among others. Those who think it's best to hide it are not thinking the way Jehovah wants us to think; they are not thinking about what true justice really is. It's rampant criminal stupidity, and we are not immune.
True. Some have left, thinking this might allow them to push for change more effectively. Some, in the past, have pushed on the issue and then even been pushed out when they did not want to leave. But you left and I wonder if you really think that it made more people aware of the problem, than if you had just brought it up matter-of-factly in normal conversation to as many people as possible first, before leaving. Also, don't you think that this really requires a top-down approach. And by the way, I know of an elder in California who has stepped down and discontinued his former level of association with the congregation and who spends much time actively campaigning for worldwide change and national political change on this issue. If he is to be believed, he has not been approached by any persons or committee about disfellowshipping or disassociation. I honestly don't think the WTS would ever want to make a move against such a person again. It would be devastating to the current and potential court cases. Also, note that in recent court cases there are apparently less of them trying to mitigate against the seriousness of the specific crime itself. They are primarily trying to mitigate against financial loss to the corporate entities whose representatives argue that the responsibility for child sexual abuse does not lie in following the promoted rules, guides, and processes of the WTS, which they also believe, in good faith, have been Bible-based.
True. I don't expect the leadership of any human organization to be perfect. Ultimately we must be, and it should always guide our motives and goals. But don't expect it anywhere. As TrueTomHarley has often tried to point out, we might expect that Christian methods of dealing with the issue might make our numbers (statistics) actually come out better when compared against institutions of the world. Perhaps they already are. But there are factors that might fight against this, too. Just as Catholics bring supposedly celibate men into the priesthood, Witnesses attract persons who believe that association alone might change their wicked desires. Witnesses might also attract those who believe that fellow Witnesses are extremely trusting and naive, "babes to badness" as it were.
If that happens, do you see yourself believing that this organization must have been "God's chosen" one, just as Jerusalem represented an earthly organization of God's chosen ones? I get the feeling that you don't feel there is any significance to the JW Org in our day, and probably don't feel that big changes would really be a cleaning out by God's direct intervention.
I think that most if not all the current Governing Body are doing a pretty good job as expected in most areas of concern. But they are also steeped in our own long organizational tradition, and captivated by the idea that they have been asked to serve in an awesome, overwhelming position of responsibility. One of those areas of responsibility is finding and choosing others who should be asked to serve in such a position. In such a situation, I don't see them as bad or unworthy, but just trying to do the best they can in the situation they find themselves serving. An ex-member who was a strong critic of the Governing Body called it being "captives of a concept." The same ex-member said that a big part of that "concept" is based on seeing certain changes as inconceivable, especially where it comes to a perceived need to "police" the faith of millions of followers. I think you (and the ex-JW I refer to) are both partly right in this regard. Because their vantage point sees reports of activity always "rolled up" in terms of a works-based faith, it will likely be a while before we see a change from "activity-based faith" to "faith-based activity." As people who came up through the rules of the organization as they have always been, it's probably all they are seeing every day, and it's so much to deal with that they haven't yet looked very far outside the box.

Yes indeed. It's a bit like:
Caleb and Sophia - English Philipp und Sofia - Deutsch Lucas og Sofie - Dansk Kevin och Sofia - Svenska Jakob og Sofie - Norsk Priidu und Pauliina - Eesti Ignas ir Kotryna - Lietuviu Leevi ja Sofia - Suomi Stefcho and Lily - Bulgarski Marci és Zsófi - Magyar Kuba s Luckou - čeština 😊

It's definitely a side-track. But it's an interesting one to some people. Also, I see that this topic was in a religiously neutral part of the forum, and an admin has now  moved it into the "Jehovah's Witnesses Public Club."
To me, this will make it interesting because of how politically-influenced our own prophetic explanations have been over the years. Russell himself wrote to the President of the United States to tell him that Filipinos were lazy and that we (USA) should give a large portion of the Philippines to Japan. Rutherford was constantly involved in the political trends of his day. In fact, Rutherford, wrote to Hitler to tell him that he thought that what Hitler was "preaching" in the early 1930's was kind of like a political expression of what the kingdom of God stood for, and therefore, Rutherford expressed appreciation for what Hitler was saying. This only lasted a short time because Hitler didn't buy it. In fact, Rutherford for a short time also stated that the League of Nations was like a political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. That only lasted a few months. But he was famous for taking sides between capitalists and labor, and just like Russell, predicted that the chaos of Armageddon would be triggered by a clash between the interests of Capitalism and Labor's interest in social justice. This developed into the idea of the West (Capitalists) being the key representatives in the King of the South, and the socialist/communist powers being the key representatives of the King of the North.
Watching this idea develop between the old Daniel book (Your Will be Done on Earth) and the Babylon book and the new Ezekiel book is EXTREMELY interesting to me.

Anna and Outta Here have already said it and pointed to material that says it, and I'm sure you have heard the argument before while associating with Witnesses. But here it is again: there is a logical problem with your argument. God's name in Hebrew is YHWH, true, but this doesn't automatically mean that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. Why not Yehowah? In fact, there are languages today where the most common pronunciation of the Divine Name is exactly that: Yehowah.
Admittedly this was influenced from English, and a major contributor to the popularization of that form of the name was a Catholic monk. But as Anna said, there are other names where we use a modern English or other modern-language equivalent. The name for Jeremiah was YRMYH. Do you argue,  why not Yarmayah? It's possible (though highly unlikely) that this was how it was pronounced. But some modern languages will pronounce it Yeremiah, even in the WTS publications in those languages. The divine name is a special case and perhaps this means we should give it special scholarly treatment in selecting the most likely pronunciation. However, even here, if it turned out to be Yahweh, that form in English would be Jahveh. We don't say Yeshuah, we say Jesus (because that form of the name Joshua had already been "hellenized" to Yesous.) Sometimes the change is even more significant, like Yakob to James or even Santiago.
To me, these arguments sound a bit like straining the gnat, but not very consistently.

That has happened, but it's not what I said. There was a time when the focus was always on Russell and how great he was as one of the major historical contributors to the "faithful and discreet slave." We had a doctrine that claimed that there were always members of this faithful and discreet slave alive at any given time on the earth since the Christian congregation was formed just after Pentecost of 33 CE. 
In fact, there was a research assignment for history buffs that was supposed to become a part of the "Proclaimers" book, that was supposed to go into a lot more detail about some of the groups that our publications had identified in the past, who were typically persecuted for not believing in the Trinity (Arians, for example), and those who stood up against the powerful religious leaders of their time and tried to publish truths for wider distribution to everyone. The GB members behind this effort were so disappointed in the results that they dropped the idea from the "Proclaimers" book, and began to drop the teaching altogether, so that we rarely spoke any more about about Arius, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Waldenses, etc. 
The focus of that book became a chance to show how Russell stood out among those he had learned from: Grew, Stetson, Brown, Miller, Paton, Seiss, Storrs, Barbour, etc. But even this effort began to show that Russell was rather eclectic, and was just as apt to pick up a wrong idea as a good idea and run with it. But the biggest "new" issue that was being learned about Russell was that so many of the early Bible Students who followed Russell were actually in an end-times chronoloy cult. This was not Russell's fault, but he had the kind of convincing personality that drew people to him. Rutherford was a Russellite cult member too for many years. But it was in 1919 that Rutherford realized this. If Rutherford had not used shrewd (and technically illegal) means to grasp the Watchtower organization from the majority of the Russellite leadership that Russell had chosen, then the Watchtower would probably still be just another Russellite "cult."
The real cut-off from Russell began in 1919, and it took another decade for Rutherford to completely figure out how to do that. And this is one of the reasons that the Watchtower today, since 2012, teaches that the true "faithful and discreet slave" no longer includes Russell, even though for many years up until 1919, Russell was had been considered to be the ONLY member of the "faithful and discreet slave."
I'm not saying that the current Governing Body necessarily did the right thing in identifying only themselves as the current FDS, but at least, since 2012, they have taken measures to remove much of the emphasis on Russell himself, by removing him from any identification with the  "faithful and discreet slave."

@JOHN BUTLER  I like this quote from JW Insider;  " I think the only way we can see past the human error and focus on the leadership of Jesus under the headship of Jehovah, is to avoid putting the human leadership on so high a pedestal in the first place".

Anna and Outta Here have already said it and pointed to material that says it, and I'm sure you have heard the argument before while associating with Witnesses. But here it is again: there is a logical problem with your argument. God's name in Hebrew is YHWH, true, but this doesn't automatically mean that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. Why not Yehowah? In fact, there are languages today where the most common pronunciation of the Divine Name is exactly that: Yehowah.
Admittedly this was influenced from English, and a major contributor to the popularization of that form of the name was a Catholic monk. But as Anna said, there are other names where we use a modern English or other modern-language equivalent. The name for Jeremiah was YRMYH. Do you argue,  why not Yarmayah? It's possible (though highly unlikely) that this was how it was pronounced. But some modern languages will pronounce it Yeremiah, even in the WTS publications in those languages. The divine name is a special case and perhaps this means we should give it special scholarly treatment in selecting the most likely pronunciation. However, even here, if it turned out to be Yahweh, that form in English would be Jahveh. We don't say Yeshuah, we say Jesus (because that form of the name Joshua had already been "hellenized" to Yesous.) Sometimes the change is even more significant, like Yakob to James or even Santiago.
To me, these arguments sound a bit like straining the gnat, but not very consistently.

That has happened, but it's not what I said. There was a time when the focus was always on Russell and how great he was as one of the major historical contributors to the "faithful and discreet slave." We had a doctrine that claimed that there were always members of this faithful and discreet slave alive at any given time on the earth since the Christian congregation was formed just after Pentecost of 33 CE. 
In fact, there was a research assignment for history buffs that was supposed to become a part of the "Proclaimers" book, that was supposed to go into a lot more detail about some of the groups that our publications had identified in the past, who were typically persecuted for not believing in the Trinity (Arians, for example), and those who stood up against the powerful religious leaders of their time and tried to publish truths for wider distribution to everyone. The GB members behind this effort were so disappointed in the results that they dropped the idea from the "Proclaimers" book, and began to drop the teaching altogether, so that we rarely spoke any more about about Arius, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Waldenses, etc. 
The focus of that book became a chance to show how Russell stood out among those he had learned from: Grew, Stetson, Brown, Miller, Paton, Seiss, Storrs, Barbour, etc. But even this effort began to show that Russell was rather eclectic, and was just as apt to pick up a wrong idea as a good idea and run with it. But the biggest "new" issue that was being learned about Russell was that so many of the early Bible Students who followed Russell were actually in an end-times chronoloy cult. This was not Russell's fault, but he had the kind of convincing personality that drew people to him. Rutherford was a Russellite cult member too for many years. But it was in 1919 that Rutherford realized this. If Rutherford had not used shrewd (and technically illegal) means to grasp the Watchtower organization from the majority of the Russellite leadership that Russell had chosen, then the Watchtower would probably still be just another Russellite "cult."
The real cut-off from Russell began in 1919, and it took another decade for Rutherford to completely figure out how to do that. And this is one of the reasons that the Watchtower today, since 2012, teaches that the true "faithful and discreet slave" no longer includes Russell, even though for many years up until 1919, Russell was had been considered to be the ONLY member of the "faithful and discreet slave."
I'm not saying that the current Governing Body necessarily did the right thing in identifying only themselves as the current FDS, but at least, since 2012, they have taken measures to remove much of the emphasis on Russell himself, by removing him from any identification with the  "faithful and discreet slave."

I have never heard this expression "human foundation stones of the JW. org, but I know what you mean. However, I see that you still have some trust in the organization. You must have at least had some to be able to say that it is now less.
But this wasn't the point. I think people make too much of the humans who have been used and involved in the history of the Org. It is what it is, and for me the organization represents the most respectable attempt in recent history to present an international teaching ministry, making Bible teaching available for free to nearly the entire world. It's a teaching that is consistent, gives hope, encourages high morality, and presents a Christianity that has excellent advantages over other forms. You may disagree over some of the basic fundamental teachings of JWs, I happen to agree with the basics. I disagree with what I consider a lot of less significant issues, and for most of these disagreements, it means almost nothing in the scheme of things. There are a few moderately important issues that I disagree with, but I think these are also already on the way out. (I notice that, as an organization, we are almost able to laugh at ourselves with respect to some of these past errors and false doctrines. -- And, yes, one of the things I disagree with is our general inability to use the term "false doctrine" to refer to a past teaching that turned out to be false.)
I know your biggest issue, you said, was the child abuse issue, and I agree that it is big. Much bigger than most Witnesses realize. But as many have said, we don't produce pedophiles and child molesters. We may have needed big improvements in our processes, just as so many other institutions have needed. We should all push for more improvements even if this means exposing the seriousness of injustice to children, and exposing these issues to the light. But you sometimes give the impression that anytime a serious sin is seen in this organization that it means God has removed his blessing from all of us, especially the leadership. I don't expect so much out of the leadership as others, and from what I know, they are trying to do a good job going forward, and have a weakness in the area of admitting mistakes of the past. I think the only way we can see past the human error and focus on the leadership of Jesus under the headship of Jehovah, is to avoid putting the human leadership on so high a pedestal in the first place.
If we can see the human leadership as just as sinful and imperfect as the rest of us, this is a GOOD thing, in my opinion. And there are plenty of good reasons to make note of their imperfections and sinfulness. It's not to find fault and make you trust them less; it's to make us trust the leadership of Jesus and Jehovah, all the more.

Yes of course, Satan is in control of the world, and that perfectly explains the "mess", but by discussing these things we are not making ourselves a part of it are we? Not only that, but notice that my reason for my initial comment was because I have someone who is interested in the Bible, but who is actually involved in one sector of what we are discussing. The reason for me to "educate" myself, at least with what the various terminology means, is so that I can better understand what this person is talking about. If I have no idea, then how can I address anything they say properly? Besides, there is no harm in educating ourselves, no matter what it is. Being ignorant can make someone believe things are false to be true, or conversely, things that are true they may believe are false,  and that in turn can lead to bad decisions and as a consequence a host of other undesirable things. So I don't think anyone is trying to sidetrack or smokescreen. On the contrary, these kind of conversations help to establish facts. No one knows everything, so although you say you are uneducated, you probably know a host of things others don't. I wouldn't say I am educated, but I do have a thirst for knowledge, and I crave facts Of course a Christian's prime focus should be in gaining accurate knowledge about God and his purpose. That's a given.

No, you definitely don’t want to pretend, but have never been convinced of what you believed was the truth and later changed your perception of it, and adjusted it, in the light of more information? I think we have all done that. It seems like you naively think that truth will just pop up the first time, or that it will be miraculously revealed. On the contrary, it's hard work. The Bible says we have to search for it, because it’s a hidden treasure (Prov 2:5, 6). So finding the truth isn’t a sudden revelation, it’s a journey, and on the way we may stumble over rocks, have to climb hills and descend valleys, before we even know where to dig.  But like I said before, fundamental truths (God’s name, God’s personality, God’s purpose for mankind, the way God wants us to live etc.) are there; so that people seeking those truths are able to go to the “mountain of Jehovah”  Isaiah 2:2,3.

You might be stating something so obvious that the Watchtower has explicitly used this as one reason for a recent change in doctrine (only 5 years old) that states that the GB/FDS* only counts from 1919 onward. Previously, we said it was from 33 CE onward and would thus have included the indiscretions of Russell and a few of Rutherford's. The new doctrine now leaves Russell completely out of the picture. Also, Rutherford's time of saying how the League of Nations was 'wonderful and awesome' changed in just a matter of months, just before the beginning of 1919.
*** w91 6/1 p. 13 par. 14 The Spiritual Drunkards—Who Are They? ***
In 1919 she was among the foremost promoters of the League of Nations. While Jesus said that Christians would be no part of the world, Christendom’s leaders cultivate relationships with political leaders. *** ip-2 chap. 13 pp. 184-185 par. 9 “Cry Out Joyfully in Unison”! ***
When the Greater Cyrus, Jesus Christ, freed God’s covenant people from captivity to Babylon the Great in 1919, they came to a better understanding of Jehovah’s requirements. They had already cleansed themselves of many teachings of Christendom that have their roots in pre-Christian paganism, such as the Trinity, immortality of the soul, and eternal torment in a fiery hell. Now they set out to rid themselves of all traces of Babylonish influence. They also came to realize the importance of maintaining strict neutrality regarding this world’s partisan affairs. *** kj chap. 18 p. 346 par. 28 Resurrection to Unity in a “Garden of Eden” ***
Then in the liberation year of 1919 the faithful survivors of World War I reunited with the one objective, namely, to be loyal to Jehovah’s reigning King, Jesus Christ, and to preach world wide “this good news of the kingdom.” Jehovah forgave their transgressions and cleansed them of the “dungy idols” of worldly nationalism and other religiously disgusting things.  
 

You might be stating something so obvious that the Watchtower has explicitly used this as one reason for a recent change in doctrine (only 5 years old) that states that the GB/FDS* only counts from 1919 onward. Previously, we said it was from 33 CE onward and would thus have included the indiscretions of Russell and a few of Rutherford's. The new doctrine now leaves Russell completely out of the picture. Also, Rutherford's time of saying how the League of Nations was 'wonderful and awesome' changed in just a matter of months, just before the beginning of 1919.
*** w91 6/1 p. 13 par. 14 The Spiritual Drunkards—Who Are They? ***
In 1919 she was among the foremost promoters of the League of Nations. While Jesus said that Christians would be no part of the world, Christendom’s leaders cultivate relationships with political leaders. *** ip-2 chap. 13 pp. 184-185 par. 9 “Cry Out Joyfully in Unison”! ***
When the Greater Cyrus, Jesus Christ, freed God’s covenant people from captivity to Babylon the Great in 1919, they came to a better understanding of Jehovah’s requirements. They had already cleansed themselves of many teachings of Christendom that have their roots in pre-Christian paganism, such as the Trinity, immortality of the soul, and eternal torment in a fiery hell. Now they set out to rid themselves of all traces of Babylonish influence. They also came to realize the importance of maintaining strict neutrality regarding this world’s partisan affairs. *** kj chap. 18 p. 346 par. 28 Resurrection to Unity in a “Garden of Eden” ***
Then in the liberation year of 1919 the faithful survivors of World War I reunited with the one objective, namely, to be loyal to Jehovah’s reigning King, Jesus Christ, and to preach world wide “this good news of the kingdom.” Jehovah forgave their transgressions and cleansed them of the “dungy idols” of worldly nationalism and other religiously disgusting things.  
 

It's definitely a side-track. But it's an interesting one to some people. Also, I see that this topic was in a religiously neutral part of the forum, and an admin has now  moved it into the "Jehovah's Witnesses Public Club."
To me, this will make it interesting because of how politically-influenced our own prophetic explanations have been over the years. Russell himself wrote to the President of the United States to tell him that Filipinos were lazy and that we (USA) should give a large portion of the Philippines to Japan. Rutherford was constantly involved in the political trends of his day. In fact, Rutherford, wrote to Hitler to tell him that he thought that what Hitler was "preaching" in the early 1930's was kind of like a political expression of what the kingdom of God stood for, and therefore, Rutherford expressed appreciation for what Hitler was saying. This only lasted a short time because Hitler didn't buy it. In fact, Rutherford for a short time also stated that the League of Nations was like a political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. That only lasted a few months. But he was famous for taking sides between capitalists and labor, and just like Russell, predicted that the chaos of Armageddon would be triggered by a clash between the interests of Capitalism and Labor's interest in social justice. This developed into the idea of the West (Capitalists) being the key representatives in the King of the South, and the socialist/communist powers being the key representatives of the King of the North.
Watching this idea develop between the old Daniel book (Your Will be Done on Earth) and the Babylon book and the new Ezekiel book is EXTREMELY interesting to me.

The following is just my opinion, of course:
Religious fervor begins with a religious group believing that they know something important that others do not know. For some this has been "knowledge of the times and seasons" i.e., the dates or time range or signs that show how close we are to the end of this system. For some the differences between their religion and others will seem small, but to the religion that believes it has more important knowledge, these differences will seem huge.
The same thing is true of political views, some people see differences in left and right as no big deal, but others are convinced that they know something important about the correctness of their own view and the incorrectness of the other person's view. These ones will display political fervor in the same way that religions can show religious fervor.
In other words, politics is just like religion (and religion is just like politics).
Most of politics, just like most religion, is based on misinformation, or the beliefs of parents, or the general traditions and propaganda of our national group, or the beliefs of our most outspoken and convincing friends.
I've seen a curious uniformity in the way many JWs would position themselves if they had to identify which of their beliefs align more with the US "left" and the US "right." The US is aligned generally with the "International West" (UK, France, Germany, Australia) and sometimes includes Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other nations when interests align.
This might make an interesting topic of study about JWs, assuming that the person behind the study could be trusted to know the true differences between "left" and "right." Also, they'd have to understand the limitations of political knowledge that all Witnesses receive only through specific target-driven sources. Many JWs would still think of "FoxNews" as right, MSNBC as left, and CNN/ABC/CBS/NYTimes as generally neutral. In fact all these sources have their own interests which are often hyper-partisan, but often go far beyond "left" and "right." It would surprise most Witnesses, and much of the world, to see just how many interests of the "left" and "right"overlap in the very areas where most see them as different.

That's silly! What if the bus is at a stop sign and there is no wind? There should be a large depression in the roof of each bus to collect rainwater, and then solar-powered windmills could pick up buckets of water from the roof to spill the water onto small turbines to make electricity.

It's definitely a side-track. But it's an interesting one to some people. Also, I see that this topic was in a religiously neutral part of the forum, and an admin has now  moved it into the "Jehovah's Witnesses Public Club."
To me, this will make it interesting because of how politically-influenced our own prophetic explanations have been over the years. Russell himself wrote to the President of the United States to tell him that Filipinos were lazy and that we (USA) should give a large portion of the Philippines to Japan. Rutherford was constantly involved in the political trends of his day. In fact, Rutherford, wrote to Hitler to tell him that he thought that what Hitler was "preaching" in the early 1930's was kind of like a political expression of what the kingdom of God stood for, and therefore, Rutherford expressed appreciation for what Hitler was saying. This only lasted a short time because Hitler didn't buy it. In fact, Rutherford for a short time also stated that the League of Nations was like a political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. That only lasted a few months. But he was famous for taking sides between capitalists and labor, and just like Russell, predicted that the chaos of Armageddon would be triggered by a clash between the interests of Capitalism and Labor's interest in social justice. This developed into the idea of the West (Capitalists) being the key representatives in the King of the South, and the socialist/communist powers being the key representatives of the King of the North.
Watching this idea develop between the old Daniel book (Your Will be Done on Earth) and the Babylon book and the new Ezekiel book is EXTREMELY interesting to me.

Exactement ce chamailler pour rien.
Ou une expression biblique : ( picoreur de grains )
(Actes 17:18) 18 Mais quelques-uns des philosophes épicuriens et stoïciens se mirent à parler avec lui dans un esprit de controverse, et certains disaient : “ Que peut bien vouloir dire ce bavard ?  [...] 
*** Rbi8 Actes 17:18 ***
Lit. : “ picoreur de semences ”.
 

I don't mind you keeping this topic, although I do believe I wasn't off topic since it discussed the 1percenters, and they are supposed to be the "Globalists" and those behind the "deep state" . There is only so much you can discuss about; "How much money you need to be part of the 1% worldwide" lol. Most of those 1 percenters can print money, legally, because they own banks, so they dictate the amount you need, to be the 1%. And who knows what that amount is? It's not even "Pretty Woman" caliber, but more like owning a country. But I understand it became off topic since it started involving JW ideology. So how about changing the title to something like: An interesting take on politics, conspiracies, and prophecies

I used my moderate powers as a moderator to change the title. 

The "two-balloon slander" is  misunderstanding or mistranslation of the French, which I think just means "bickering over trivialities." (As in, "Isn't all this just some bickering over trivialities?")
C'est cette médisance a deux balles ?
Literally "à deux balles" doesn't mean two balloons, balls, or even two bullets, but I think is more like "over [just] two francs."  (i.e., 'Isn't this just some cheap sniping?')
 
 

The spare tire is going to need a trailer.
I actually had a guy who commissioned me to design a transmission for a power generating windmill, and said to me that he wanted to  put windmills on the top of municipal buses ...  so when the bus went down the street, the wind power could be fed to the wheels.
Since I needed his money, that was the Supreme Test of my diplomatic skills, for my entire lifetime.
I always wondered what happened to him ... I guess he is in Goodyear Management now.

In the spirit of non-competitive one-extra-man-ship I always like to respond as follows:
First person: See ya later, Alligator! Second person: After a while, Crocodile! Me: Mañana, Iguana!