JW Insider

You would think so. That makes perfect sense. But there are so many cases in which academics has been purchased so as support whatever is the preferred view. For every case of academics forming the preferred view, there is another in which the preferred view forms academics. See the response I gave you re Pharma and the Brazilian study that has superseded the doctor-patient relationship. Many maintain that the evolution of college and school curricula is another example in which the preferred view molds academics.
To adapt the words of Yakov Smirnoff and satisfy JWI, is this a great [world] or what that can turn soundness of mind on its head? Nor can we look to “academics” for support on the origin of life. Certainly not with regard to any flood. Nor on the utility of blood transfusion. Apparently not with secular dating chronology. And not in what is called social “science,” even gender “science.” Is the foregoing all examples of Jehovah turning the wisdom of the wise into foolishness?
The earthly organization is not blind to academics but it certainly doesn’t allow itself to be shoved around by it, nor even its hand-in-glove “critical thinking” that is all the rage today, which so manifestly can be hijacked by other interests as to be anything but a reliable guide—something to factor in, but no more.
From Day 1 the organization has run experiences to illustrate whatever point they make that will infuriate academic devotees of “critical thinking” and, truth be told, sometimes even some of us. “Consider Danny,” it will say. “He and his wife decided to put God to the test by doing such and such” and it goes on to relate the successful outcome. It’s a single example. What about Sammy and his wife who also did such and such and it turned out horrendously for them? But in fact, as long as you do not claim it as more “proof” than it is, as long as you do not claim it is guaranteed outcome everyone will experience,, I guess you can reason this way. I mean, everyone else does when trying to motivate you into doing something. College recruiters certainly do. So it’s okay. Very few things can be reduced to simple enough terms so that “academics” or “science” or “critical thinking” can be of overriding use.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2021/11/a-scientist-pours-one-liquid-after-another-upon-a-duck-placed-on-the-table-his-companion-carefully-calibrates-the-results-on.html

There was a time in the past that Russia also pretended to come out of it links to Marxism to a more free market - but it was a ploy to build up again. Very few countries escape once they are communist.
Russia (large oil producer) made an agreement with Arabia to protect them (just as Kissinger organized in 1973 - to give protection in place of oil being sold in the dollar).  Now Saudi can sell in any currency and USA dollar is seeing the last of their crutch to hold up the economy.  Next day Russia made an agreement with another big oil country - Nigeria..... which also has big ties to China!   And to show disrespect to USA that they cannot do anything about the new deals - Russia and China put the new frightening nuclear supersonic missiles on their submarines - you know the ones that can go around the earth and cannot be shot down and then plunge down to earth  like an asteroid.

True. That's why I would never say they originated for that purpose, only that the popularity in retelling them served a new purpose. I thought it was very astute when you applied this even more generally, even to some of us, saying:
With respect to Western sabotage in many Eastern European countries that tried communism, you said:
That's quite true, too. Which is exactly what I had in mind when I said:
But there was also a lot of direct interference that most people haven't read about. The initial "Operation Gladio," for example, was when the CIA (at the time just one of the offices of army or naval intelligence) purposely set out to destroy and sabotage communist parties in Italy, France, Switzerland and Germany after WWII. They trained local armies in sabotage, promoted terrorist activities, and were even involved in massacres, most with a primary goal of breaking up communist parties which were being clamored for in many European countries more than ever before.
As an aside, especially for those who would like to think of Hitler as socialist or communist, it should be remembered that this is also one of the ways Hitler himself came into power. Hitler, working as an intelligence agent after WWI, worked to sabotage the communists parties rising after WWI. There were several communist parties in Germany and Hitler worked to attack and sabotage and purge them in his own "CIA" operation, finally getting the support of a large group, (something like "berniecrats against communism") in Germany to outnumber the communists for the 1933 election. This is why the famous 1946 confessional poem by Niemöller, in its final version, goes like this, as carved on a memorial:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Adam Smith in the late 1700's and Karl Marx in the 1800's, speak of the inevitable wastefulness of capitalist economies which always drive to excess production as part of the profit motive. It results in cycles of panics and recessions and depressions that have been with the US economy every few years, especially since the early 1800's. Obviously there were huge mistakes, such as China's (Mao's) Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and the Five Pests Campaign, and "backyard" steel production, but the idea of a command economy was precisely to avoid these kinds of wastes, and subsequent hoarding of inventory to control pricing.
Mao may have been a slow learner but it was Mao not Deng who finally accepted that he should open up for trade with Nixon and Kissinger.
Clearly, they wanted to see how far production wpuld take them on their own, and initial industry was meant to meet internal purposes. In some cases wider trade would have been very useful but there was little trust of trade partners who had things they really needed. So they often over-hoped and over-hyped their initial abilities to raise agriculture production. Mao, for example, raised agriculture production just about high enough, but did not have a distribution system in place. Lenin didn't trust the West far enough to trade for necessary wheat/grains. Still, the goals were finally met in spite of several years of natural disasters all over Asia.
But we can't ignore that in Eastern Europe, the United States also refused to trade with or help communist countries after the war, except the USSR itself.
If this came from the GC prof, then he must have anticipated that it was western media that provided the propaganda to these countries. It was media that made them discontent. This was exactly the purpose of US backed VOA (Voice of America) and Radio Free Asia, etc. The US poured MILLIONS into the propaganda campaigns, especially directed at intellectuals and elites, to offer them good paying jobs in the West, promise of much better housing, etc. But our view of exoduses from Eastern Europe and Russia is also somewhat skewed by the fact that the far, far greater exoduses (exodi?) happened after the fall of communism. Even birth rates in Eastern European countries had been rising, but with the glut and orgy of capitalism after the fall of communism, THIS is what sent more people running. In fact, in Ukraine, people fled in both directions, some going to the West, but some thinking that going to a newly capitalist Russia was still a bit better off than new capitalism in Ukraine. Someone called it the largest mass migrations on earth in the century. Things were much better in the West materially, but many Eastern Europeans also had a memory of how much worse many had been off materially before communism, too. We get much of our view from elites and intellectuals who fled, after WWII, but there were migrations of poor people going in both directions, even into communist countries, wherever a living could be made. And we shouldn't forget, too, that even in Western countries, USA included, there are many places where economic conditions are worse, with dozens of people jammed into small dilapidated apartments, surrounded by crime, scraping for enough food, etc.
That's enough for one post, but I will pick up on the implication that the USSR didn't really meet their production needs until Kruschev. For now I'll just say that the very reason they were able to beat Hitler was because they had already boosted production in farm equipment, steel, railways, agriculture, buildings. (Also literacy, health, etc.) I've heard interviews with Nazi Wehrmacht fighters on one of those history channels where they admit they had been so steeped in anti-Russian racism that they expected mud-huts and no ability for the Russians to fight back with any kind of war machine. Oddly, they admit that when they flew over major cities to drop bombs, some said they were not only shocked but taken back that they might be destroying "historical moments" and landmarks, not expecting architecture and tall buildings.

The Ivermectin blow-up over Joe Rogan's prescription from a doctor made headlines reverberating into the late night comedy shows and, of course, embarrassed CNN to no end. (Actually, it should have been to no end, but they went right back to lying about Ivermectin.)
Most people know this, I'm sure, but when Joe Rogan got Covid he looked for a doctor that would prescribe Ivermectin and some of the other non-standard medications. CNN has pushed the Ivermectin = Horse-Dewormer lie for so long that they couldn't help making fun of Rogan and ran headlines that said things like "Despite Warnings Joe Rogan takes Livestock Medicine" or words to that effect. Joe Rogan invited Sanjay Gupta (CNN Medical Reporter) on his show, and called CNN out on the lie. Gupta could only admit that the CNN had made a mistake.
(Ivermectin is, of course, a medicine designed for humans to treat various tropical ailments in humans, and the two doctors who developed it won Nobel prizes for it in 2017. Calling it a horse medicine is about the same as calling penicillin a pig medicine because it is sometimes recommended for pigs/swine.)
CNN's Sanjay Gupta had to go back on CNN right after this and allow Don Lemon to interview Gupta in order to restate the case as falsely as possible to do damage control for CNN.
Saturday Night Live weighed in with their support for CNN with a very unfunny skit about Joe Rogan taking horse dewormer.
Of course, the main reason that Joe Rogan had to be taken down is because Ivermectin apparently worked just fine in helping him get over a bad case of Covid in a matter of hours. (Analogous to the CIA's need to crush any small nation that succeeds with a ruling ideology that differs from their recommended dose of pseudo-democracy or a puppet dictatorship.) Another reason is that CNN is very jealous of people like Joe Rogan who isn't even that smart (my opinion) but can garner an audience even larger than CNN among demographics younger than 65.
Of course, Pfizer's problem with Ivermectin is that it only costs about 4 cents for a dose of Ivermectin and it is easy to make. It's a 3CLPro inhibitor (3-chymotrypsin like protease inibitor) and therefore, if taken as an early treatment for covid, will inhibit the virus from replicating in the body, making it easy to fight off without hospitalization or death.
Just last week Pfizer announced its patented version of a 3PCLPro inhibitor, which will likely cost much more than 4 cents a dose.
A good explanation of this was provided by John Campbell, PhD, who has taught medicine and trained nurses. For a while his explanation was given a warning by YouTube/Google, although the so-called fact-checkers ended up only pointing to info that agreed with his findings.
 

The Ivermectin blow-up over Joe Rogan's prescription from a doctor made headlines reverberating into the late night comedy shows and, of course, embarrassed CNN to no end. (Actually, it should have been to no end, but they went right back to lying about Ivermectin.)
Most people know this, I'm sure, but when Joe Rogan got Covid he looked for a doctor that would prescribe Ivermectin and some of the other non-standard medications. CNN has pushed the Ivermectin = Horse-Dewormer lie for so long that they couldn't help making fun of Rogan and ran headlines that said things like "Despite Warnings Joe Rogan takes Livestock Medicine" or words to that effect. Joe Rogan invited Sanjay Gupta (CNN Medical Reporter) on his show, and called CNN out on the lie. Gupta could only admit that the CNN had made a mistake.
(Ivermectin is, of course, a medicine designed for humans to treat various tropical ailments in humans, and the two doctors who developed it won Nobel prizes for it in 2017. Calling it a horse medicine is about the same as calling penicillin a pig medicine because it is sometimes recommended for pigs/swine.)
CNN's Sanjay Gupta had to go back on CNN right after this and allow Don Lemon to interview Gupta in order to restate the case as falsely as possible to do damage control for CNN.
Saturday Night Live weighed in with their support for CNN with a very unfunny skit about Joe Rogan taking horse dewormer.
Of course, the main reason that Joe Rogan had to be taken down is because Ivermectin apparently worked just fine in helping him get over a bad case of Covid in a matter of hours. (Analogous to the CIA's need to crush any small nation that succeeds with a ruling ideology that differs from their recommended dose of pseudo-democracy or a puppet dictatorship.) Another reason is that CNN is very jealous of people like Joe Rogan who isn't even that smart (my opinion) but can garner an audience even larger than CNN among demographics younger than 65.
Of course, Pfizer's problem with Ivermectin is that it only costs about 4 cents for a dose of Ivermectin and it is easy to make. It's a 3CLPro inhibitor (3-chymotrypsin like protease inibitor) and therefore, if taken as an early treatment for covid, will inhibit the virus from replicating in the body, making it easy to fight off without hospitalization or death.
Just last week Pfizer announced its patented version of a 3PCLPro inhibitor, which will likely cost much more than 4 cents a dose.
A good explanation of this was provided by John Campbell, PhD, who has taught medicine and trained nurses. For a while his explanation was given a warning by YouTube/Google, although the so-called fact-checkers ended up only pointing to info that agreed with his findings.
 

To the extent that the majority of the scientific community is under the influence of big money, they have lost much credibility.
There is a former pharma executive online who states that for every dollar Pharma spends on educating you through drug ads and otherwise, they spend six times that amount “educating” the medical field. There is another Pharma VP who says: “Look, nobody has any money. Government doesn’t. Researchers don’t. Universities don’t. But Pharma has lots of money.” 
“Conduct a study for us,” Pharma says, “here’s tons of money to fund it.” If the results come back favorable to Pharma, they can expect more funding for other studies. If the results come back unfavorable, they will never hear from Pharma again. “No money has changed hands,” the VP says. “No agreements have been entered into. But everyone knows what they must do,’ as he goes on to claim this practice is universal.
The above is said of new drugs. The regulatory hurdles for vaccines, even in normal times, are lower. In abnormal times, such as now, they are lower still. The existing vaccines were ushered in at “warp speed” under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This US emergency provision can only be done legally if there truly is a emergency—that is, if there is no existing alternative treatment for Covid-19. Thus, it becomes very important to certain parties to demonstrate that existing alternative treatments (read primarily hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) are no good and/or cause injury.
Yes. Some of them are medical doctors who felt impelled to do something to help their patients. Initially, there was no guidance whatsoever from health agencies upon a Covid-19 diagnosis other than get bed-rest, keep hydrated, and come to the hospital if it gets real bad—by which time it was too late. Most patients put on ventilators died.
So these doctors, mostly on their own & then they shared their results with colleagues, began experimenting with existing drugs to see if any could prevent the hospitalization that usually spelled death. They discovered and then shared with others their 80% or so success rate. One of them shared his regimen with the White House, and this is why when Trump was diagnosed with Covid, he was very soon up and running again.* Another pleaded before Congress—I heard him—that these drugs be made widely available. He stressed that he was not against vaccines, which then were only in the early stages of being developed and rolled out. He was only interested in saving his existing patients in the interim.
These doctors describe how they were aghast that, not only were the drugs not made widely available, but they were targeted for elimination. They describe their bewilderment that studies were undertaken administering these drugs at levels known to be toxic. Of one Brazilian study that came to be heralded as proof that these cheap drugs that had been around forever were dangerous, one of these doctors writes: 
“The Brazilian authors of this study must have known they were treading on dangerous territory by purposely causing many deaths. Coming from a poor area of the country, they may have felt they could get away with sacrificing their patients without local reprisals. They simply gave lethal doses of chloroquine to patients to prove that the drug and its derivative hydroxychloroquine were too dangerous to treat Covid-19”
This is an outrageous charge and these doctors were slow to make it. But a lethal dose is a lethal dose. Malfeasance is clearly demonstrated at many levels. It is assessing the motivation behind the malfeasance that is perilous and causes different docs to come to different conclusions, not always agreeing with each other. A prominent view, however, is that this campaign to discredit the drugs that demonstrably work amounts to mass murder and is the equal of previous genocides. Hundreds of thousands of people died who didn’t have to.
Didn’t many of Hitler’s medical experimenters wind up in South America? Of course, they’d be dead by now, but culture doesn’t die in an overlapping generation. I can’t picture rank and file technicians knowingly administering an experiment that kills people, but I can imagine them simply doing what they’re told, with no suspicions at all as to what their higher ups were concocting. Moreover, JWI I am sure will empathize with how poor people with the wrong skin color make good fodder for forward progress. Aren’t there examples in the US involving blacks and indigenous populations?
Some of the answer to this hinges on what you consider “academic.” The aforementioned doctor who sent his results to the White House and saved Trump also sent those results to certain official sources. These sources rejected the material because it was not a scientific study. “I understand it is not a scientific study,” he said, “it wasn’t intended to be, but it is still data.”
Scientific “studies” like the above Brazilian one are trumping actual data. They are infringing upon what these doctors consider sacred, the doctor-patient relationship. The “studies” have been used to go over the heads of doctors, who prescribe, say—Ivermecitn—and then the pharmacies refuse to fill it. (and in some cases report the doctor). What is “academic” is trampling what is real.
Some of them are widely published prior to going into this area of medical apostasy. I heard one of them say that he holds an advantage over some of his colleagues in that he has been published in some many journals that he will be difficult to take down.
All of them have been taken down, however,  on the mainstream outlets such as Facebook and YouTube. They are reduced to their own websites, where they aggregate breaking developments. How much they are actually reduced is a matter of debate. Most of them are reluctant beacons who never sought to be public figures. Their palpable integrity and manifest good motive draws people to their information. I consider them very credible. I mean, these are not the people who think Sandy Hook was a hoax.
___ * Aaron Rodgers, the quarterback, caused a major brouhaha when it was revealed that his prior claim of being “immunized” didn’t mean he was vaccinated. He was relying on something else, and then he came down with Covid-19. Of course, he missed the next game. But the one after that he led his team to a 17-0 victory. 
Doing my bit for “science,” I pointed out that it would have been 34-0 had he gone the conventional route.
 

41 countries ban religion-related groups; Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baha’is among the most commonly targeted
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/15/41-countries-ban-religion-related-groups-jehovahs-witnesses-bahais-among-the-most-commonly-targeted/
 
Government restrictions on religion take many forms around the world. Particularly restrictive governments often limit religious expression by banning certain groups – including entire faiths, social movements or political organizations that have ties to religion.
In fact, 41 countries – or around a fifth (21%) of those evaluated – banned at least one religion-related group in 2019, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of laws and policies in effect in 198 countries in 2019, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Baha’is were among the most frequently banned groups.
The Middle East-North Africa region had the highest share of countries (55%, or 11 out of 20 countries in the region) with bans on religion-related groups in 2019. Asia and the Pacific – the largest region in the study, with 50 nations – had the greatest number of countries with bans (17 out of 50 countries, or 34% of the region). Sub-Saharan Africa had eight countries with bans (representing about 17% of the 48 states in the region), Europe had three (or about 7% of the region’s 45 countries) and the Americas had two nations with such bans in place (representing about 6% of the region’s 35 countries).
This analysis is based on the Center’s most recent restrictions on religion report, which examines the extent to which governments and societies impinge on religious groups and practices. Data is collected from a wide range of sources, including the U.S. Department of State’s International Religious Freedom reports. For the purposes of this analysis, the term “banned” refers to official prohibitions that prevent a group from legally operating in a country.
Bible prediction coming true it seems, as world conditions continue to worsen. 
 

The majority of the scientific community are basically toeing the line or are genuinely ignorant due to the artfully contrived propaganda and the deliberate blocking of true science being spoken off.
Dont use google or utube…they are useless and tools to the satanic agenda….you have to go to places like… BITCHUTE ….RUMBLE …NEW YOU TUBE … …BRIGHTON…there are many others but I can not keep up with them…..look for the specialists in the field of vaccinations ..science and medicine…
 
A few names to give you a head start….
Geert Vandon Bosch…..this poor man is highly credentialed and a expert on vaccination….he’s also a very brave and principled man….what he foretold would happen has eventuates …my advice would be to watch all of his videos especially his first one …
Dr Robert Malone….one of the creators of the MRNA vaxination pathways…again highly credentialed and brave man.
Prof Delores Cahill…
Dr David Martin….fascinating to listen to….on the patterns and vaccination laws etc…..personally I think he is in the genies category…tho I may not agree with some of his other topics..on this subject he is amazing with his knowledge 
Catherine Austin
Dr Richard Fleming….
Dr Peter Mc Cullough….incredibly brave and highly credentialed in a number of fields ..
Judy Mikovitis….very brave woman…
Dr Mike Yeardon….very highly specialized and very brave man…..as he said..we are standing at the gates of hell!
You will see some of these men just break down and cry..due to the implications this is having on mankind and them being gagged as to getting it out to the population.
You may already know all of these and researched them yourselves….I’m don’t mean to assume you haven’t…sp please don’t be offended …but this is just scratching the surface of the MOST HIGHLY SPECIALIZED EDUCATED SCIENTIST speaking out but are being deliberately silenced and gagged by others working for the dark side…
remember they don’t all agree with each other over every detail …nor do I…but on the main points and basic facts…and science they all are in agreance with…the implications for mankind is terrifying…
Indeed looking at it from a cold hearted unemotional stand..it has been a master stroke ..a undeniable genius act or war strategy  by Satan….
 
 

China - was following a capitalistic investment program to alleviate poverty - that is true (although they were not altruistic in their goals but more about modernization and industrial growth of the central government ///// but they always wanted to return to the pure communism which they have done now. There has always been a faction in the  top echelons who believed that one can use capitalism to equalize wealth. But the belief is still that capitalism cannot grow forever and they point to the demise of the USA for this - which is also true, (stock markets cannot grow forever!).  (Human systems are flawed - as we all know). In the west this has also overtaken most of the schools of thinking..... this is why communism is openly preached in the universities and no-one bats an eyelid.
In the end - a neo- communistic central control model will engulf us all as pushed by their agenda of "environmental" sustainability..... which will further enrich those with money and those who made their money from the energy available before. They will be the technocrats and oligarchs of the future.
Yes - when you have a centralized government surrounded by oligarchs - things work very well (think of Hitler's fascistic regime and the NWO now on our doorstep).     All central governments work better because they control things much better than democracy - where all opinions are accommodated............  In communism there is justice  for the controllers and those who support party goals but not for the poor.   I know of many horror stories in china and Russia.  Similar things are now happening in USA and people are outraged and do not understand what is going on.  Try to go to court on a matter that is not popular and you will see how they throw it out of court!  Even supreme court.  This is why I think the Tumpers are a sad lot when they thing government can still fix what is going on. Anyone who wants to go to court on "sleever" court cases can forget it -we are already living in a semi-fascistic control..... and more to come.
 
The CIA has been out of control for decades and this corruption has infiltrated all "secret" agencies.  NASA, DARPA,  and CIA are the worst.  They have paid terrorists, smuggled drugs and people , and corrupted many governments, wasted billions and covered up their terrible secret experiments on people. They outsourced all shady jobs to private companies which are now closely linked to the NWO such as Blackrock and Tech companies such as FB, Microsoft, Amazon etc.  Congress and Senate do not know half of what these organizations have done because there is no transparency of the budgets and the military industrial complex is out of control.  Similarly with gain of function research.  The chemical or pharma industrial complex is also out of control. .... which has infiltrated the food supply and may other industries.  So yes - Anglo-American power  is the 2-horned sheep who is a dragon. 
One cannot apologize for any of what has been going on. We cannot be naïve and apologize for any of these world powers.  
The orange revolution , the rose revolution etc - they have done this same maneuvers before and got away with it.  Supercomputers were used in USA....... which were adapting from outside the country as they went along.  Everything dome by math so as to look above board.......NOthing is what is seems.  Many elections in the past in USA were also not clean....... and with justice.... even if people want to believe this.  TRUST in government - lol
True - in Africa the communist collective ideology fits in with African culture - this is why Africa was never a success and always went into dictatorships.  Most of the leaders also received training under Libya, Cuba or Russia. 
True, because of a loss of religion, populations are now ready for the 4th industrial revolution which will bring in the transhumanist and AI revolution. With propaganda for sustainable development reaching an all time high - populations will soon be clamoring for more control of the environment and give up freedom of choice to get rid of their fears and feel SAFE under a neo-communist regime.

My question was regarding the process from the beggining. I was NOT asking about men being appointed and then turning into wolves and betraying the christian congregations as Judas did or others in the 1st century and later. I meant about the appointment of  men that from the beggining had the intention/purpose of damaging the congregation. I see it has happened in other countries like Rumania.  Also found interesting this Bible verse, but I am not sure if those false brothers mentioned in Galatas 2:4 were appointed 🤔
 
 
 
Tactics of the Enemy
In their attempts to weaken the faith of Jehovah’s servants or to bully them into submission, the Communists employed spies, traitors, torture, lying propaganda, and the threat of death. Spies and informers included neighbors, work colleagues, apostates, family members, and Securitate agents. The latter even infiltrated congregations by feigning interest in the truth and learning theocratic terms. These “false brothers” did much harm and caused many arrests. One of them, Savu Gabor, even held a responsible position. He was exposed in 1969.—Gal. 2:4.
 
But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly,+ who slipped in to spy on the freedom+ we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;+
 
 
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/302006006?q=spies+romania&p=par

Judas was appointed by Jesus also, and he was of the heavenly calling.  And I agree with the last sentence above by Bro Tom Harley. 
By the way Adam was made by God, and appointed to take care of all the earth and the animals. But he used his free will in the wrong way.

If “appointed by holy spirit“ is supposed to be some sort of “foolproof” process, how could Paul have said (Acts 20:30) to first-century elders, “from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves?”

Circuit Overseer told a joke about how Eve would count Adam's ribs while he was sleeping to see if he had another woman.

The Annual Meeting gave an update on this. The delays are acknowledged but work goes on a few pieces at a time. Some buildings haven't been fully designed yet and they don't have all permits yet. Prep work on the ground area for each building hasn't been completed yet and a bridge has to be upgraded to bring materials in and out. Several phrases were used that imply the chance for more delays. But they expect to keep at it -"Jehovah willing."

I was not trying to clarify a time structure. I was only showing to what extent we will begin making assumptions based on our own assumptions. And if it means adding or taking away from the Bible, or even promoting a contradiction to the Bible, we often won't realize just how easily and quickly we are ready to do this.
That's a good example. Notice how the Bible doesn't say anything about Adam and Eve having canine teeth, and yet we can be so quick to make an assumption that has no Biblical evidence, one way or another. If animal teeth can be explained by what kind of vegetation those animals were consuming, then why couldn't Adam have canine teeth which could be explained by what kind of vegetation he would be consuming? You seem to be saying that Adam had no canine teeth at first, but Cain, Seth, Abel, and Cain's wife were born with canine teeth. And then Adam and Eve grew them after they were expelled. But there are no scriptures supporting this assumption.

Thanks for this. It's true that there are thousands upon thousands of these cases, and we can get "numbed" by hearing regular and repeated reports from Central America and Haiti and Nigeria, for example. But when details of any one of them is pointed out, we better understand the devastation to her and her loved ones.

The concept of the Trinity isn't new. It existed for centuries before Christ came to earth and many centuries before it became the official dogma of later Christians. The teaching has taken different forms over the centuries including that of modern Christendom. What Trinitarians are asking us to believe is that faithful Jews like Moses who spoke with God "face-to-face" as it were, and Abraham who was described as "God's friend," as well as Isaac, Jacob, Samuel...and many others really didn't know God at all. It was the "pagan" nations around them that had a handle of who God was? Seriously? Some of these faithful men were miraculously inspired by God himself to write the Bible and to this day, Jews don't believe in a Trinity (nor do Muslims who both accept Jesus as a prophet and sections of the "Old Testament," as well as other Christian denominations.) And if Jesus and his apostles took such a radical departure as to the understanding of the nature of God and who he really was, it wouldn't be the relative kerfuffle of whether to get circumcised or not that would be an issue, it would be the earthquake of an issue that would upend 1500 years of Jewish faith, belief and theology that would send them to Jerusalem for an answer. It's also telling that it took Christians hundreds of years to formalize the Trinitarian creed that was ultimately decided by a pagan Roman emperor - as there were many different schools of thought and much dissention over the issue -sometimes violent. It's doubtful true Christians (who that by that time were over-sown by weed-like "Christians" according to Jesus words, would have even attended such an event.)
Also, is it reasonable for Jesus to expect that to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth, humble people, (some uneducated) would need to be experts in languages that had died and have been out of use for thousands of years? The fact is that Greek/Hebrew scholars don't even always agree among themselves as how to translate so-called "proof texts" of the Trinity doctrine. No, to an unbiased, unindoctrinated reader, no one of themselves would assume the Bible teaches the Trinity. (Maybe the most you would get is a duality - if that). Of course, Jesus was aware that many would come on the basis of his name (today there are over 45,000 different Christian religions alone). But people who really wanted to know, could simply look around them as to who his true disciples were - those who had love among themselves (John 13:35). In fact, they would love even their enemies. So Christian truth isn't recognized by human/pagan creeds and formulas. It's not solely identified by Greek grammar. It isn't just available to those who have expensive and extensive higher education. It's available to all and clearly identified by seeing who has love among themselves (as opposed to killing each other in war). It's not identified by making a big deal over the Trinity, while winking and supporting other pagan celebrations such as Halloween, Christmas...or other false teachings such and immortality of the soul or Hellfire or "justifiable warfare" doctrines. It's not identified by "cherry-picking" only those scriptures that support your idea, while ignoring what the Bible teaches as a whole. (Although everyone- including JW's - have been guilty of "cherry-picking" at times as well).
No, Jesus didn't come to earth to create a "mystery." He came to de-mystify.

Allowing the animals to eat other animals after they died is supposedly a clever solution to the idea that Jehovah would never have created carnivores. But it's only an explanation that might otherwise explain carnivorous teeth and claws and carnivorous digestive systems, and carnivorous hunting instincts. Otherwise we would have to explain how and why such teeth and claws and carnivorous digestive systems and carnivorous hunting instincts evolved so quickly from the time of Noah.
But even though the solution is clever it shows that the person who made up the solution didn't believe the Bible the way they thought they believed it. (I know it wasn't you who made up the solution, I've seen it in several fundamentalist sources.)
The Bible is clear enough that the overall intention of Creation was initially for humans to be vegetarian and for animals to be be vegetarian:
(Genesis 1:29, 30) . . .Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
Technically, of course, this could mean that all animals would eat vegetation even if they also ate meat, so that all animals were either vegetarian or omnivores, and would therefore be competing with man for the vegetation. 
But trying to use the scripture in Genesis to prove that there were no carnivores falls short of explaining the carnivorous features and instincts of some animals. Merely claiming that they ate dead meat still contradicts the very idea they are trying to make use of from the Bible. Any animals eating dead meat are still eating meat, and not following the supposed "rule" of Genesis 1:30. And if you allow for animals to eat dead meat that died on its own, then why not allow maggots to eat of the same carcasses? What are they doing that is so different from what the larger animals are doing?
If a person is going to "go against" the Bible to claim that large animals could eat dead meat, then why not also allow them to be carnivores? The Genesis account never says there were no carnivores anyway. It just says that all the animals were also given vegetation to eat just like humans were given vegetation to eat. 
If one were take this to the absurd degree and not even allow for maggots and decay, then they aren't allowing Adam to have microbes in his intestines. They aren't allowing birds to eat spiders, or even to eat insects like mosquitoes. They aren't allowing for mosquitoes either, unless they believe mosquitoes evolved a new digestive process, and they are claiming that spiders evolved a complex "instinct" to create complex webs and capture flies. And some plants like "Venus fly-traps" evolved complex "instincts" to respond to captured flies and spiders, too. And all of this evolution, including spider webs, etc., would have to happened in the last 4,000 years???? 
I wonder how the human digestive system would work with chemical reactions and enzymes only, without any microscopic organisms to help the process.
Reminds me of a poem "Antiquity of the Microbe" supposedly the shortest poem ever, attributed to Ogden Nash or Strickland Gillilan:
Adam
had'm.
Ogden Nash and also Augustus De Morgan are both associated with another poem that has a bearing on the topic:
Great fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite ‘em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
And so ad infinitum
And the great fleas themselves, in turn,
Have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still,
And greater still, and so on.

But they do talk about things in the CCP government that they do not like. Of course they talk about bad things happening in their area. There are even protests. My son knows persons who have participated in the protests. You can even find them discussed on YouTube and WeChat channels.

@Arauna@TrueTomHarley@NoisySrecko@Space Merchant @Pudgy:
It was my fault that this topic was diverted to a discussion about China. So I moved the China-related posts over to the link pictured below:
 

But they do talk about things in the CCP government that they do not like. Of course they talk about bad things happening in their area. There are even protests. My son knows persons who have participated in the protests. You can even find them discussed on YouTube and WeChat channels.

@Arauna@TrueTomHarley@NoisySrecko@Space Merchant @Pudgy:
It was my fault that this topic was diverted to a discussion about China. So I moved the China-related posts over to the link pictured below:
 

But they do talk about things in the CCP government that they do not like. Of course they talk about bad things happening in their area. There are even protests. My son knows persons who have participated in the protests. You can even find them discussed on YouTube and WeChat channels.

No. My own study and research about China is ongoing, not just based on a visit or a long association with a Chinese colleague who visited family in both HK and the mainland every year. And my son's learning of the language and continuing contact with several people in several districts of China is also ongoing. And still, I don't know all about Xi.
The basic modus operandi of anti-China propaganda is to exaggerate a long list of items, so that if one is seen to be possibly debunked, then a whole slew of other issues are ready to be flung. This way, one can always divert attention against specific bits of propaganda by merely saying, "Oh yeah, then what about Taiwan? . . . What about the China Sea? . . . What about the Uyghurs? What about the Wuhan lab? What about Tibet? What about damming rivers and water rights? What about Inner Mongolia? What about Hong Kong? What about organ harvesting? What about support of countries that the West hates? What about mining in Africa? What about trade wars, currency manipulation, aggressive military actions, etc.?
The list is made long enough so that a complete debunking of any one claim will be meaningless. Any debunkable bit of propaganda must still be true, because the long list of other items must prove that there is no need to pay attention to evidence about any single item. The mind is shut before one can discuss the first item, much less a second and a third item. 
And then there is the problem that anyone defending China in the midst of all this propaganda must immediately be labeled naive. That person will be seen as trying to exonerate China completely from these issues, even though some have a partial basis in truth. This implies the strawman argument that a defender must think China can do no wrong.
I won't take on your list of issues again here by showing where the likelihood of both evidence and lack of evidence actually points. But I would repeat again that a lot of evidence and research tells me that most of the anti-China propaganda I have heard, including most of the topics you bring up, are based on exaggerations and re-interpretations of issues that are common to many countries. When these issues are repeated widely, often, and over long periods of time, they become intractable. A lot of lies and propaganda are told about Western countries, too. Much of it is based on some fact, but it's mostly a geopolitical game that goes on everywhere.
I know that in the past I personally was much too reflexive and naive in just accepting anything bad I heard about China, just because I knew that they really are pretty bad on a few issues (like accepting freedom of religion). 
Edited to add: Any statements or evidence I might offer that defends China from exaggerations should not be confused with defending Japan, Russia, or Ukraine, or any of the several countries which are forced to look to China for aid when those countries are cut off from Western alliances for aid.

Even that solution has a built-in problem. The reason is that the goals of various organizations can easily be reached by merely leveraging the West's distrust of China. When any of the individuals and organizations would like attention or funding they need only report a negative story from China, and then claim that the negative action was an official act of the Chinese government.
It's like someone reading about a bank robbery in the United States, and then claiming that Biden (or Trump, etc) is now seizing all bank assets in the United States. Too many people in the world read English for such a story to gain traction anywhere. But stories about China can even pretend to be correctly translating a Chinese posting, and not enough people would complain. My son and I went through a NYT article a couple years ago that linked to several pages of Chinese documentation about Chinese goals with respect to religion, anti-terrorism, etc., and many of its translations were skewed to the point of creating direct falsehoods. Some were about as bad as if an English article had said "the U.S. Public School system provides education and vocational training" and the translation became "Regime-sponsored juvenile detention centers promote propaganda and forced labor."
The idea of the US "provocation diplomacy" is to make sure that all these anti-China stories, some true, some exaggerated, and some made up out of thin air, will become such a constant stream that it's too tedious to produce material defending the preposterous. So the general idea of a dystopian regime sticks. You won't find material defending against every negative claim. Because even if China stands up 100% against a preposterous claim, the report in the West is still going to be that China "admitted" the problem when they didn't. Or that China said they aren't doing that any more. Or that they could only deny the problem in the face of "overwhelming" (i.e., non-existent) evidence.
This probably sounds ludicrous, to most consumers of anti-China reporting, but I have amazing examples of everything I just said.  
It is true that religion is not the same thing in China as it is in Christian and Muslim countries. In the West and Mid-East, the depth of one's faith is shown by how strongly you will stand up for (and how strongly you will defend the difference between) your belief and the belief of something you think gets in the way of that belief. In the US, it's often the fundamentalists against "progressive politics" that defend or promote abortion and gay rights and the like. In the Mid-East it can be the same thing, or the difference between two version of Islam. Even in the US, UK, and elsewhere in Europe, a thousand times more religious ink has been spilled over the tiniest of differences between similar religions than over the major differences between disparate religions.
In China most people don't think of religion as beliefs that need to conflict with the state, they just think of religion as sets of specific, traditional old rituals. This was also true in old Greece and Rome, where most religion was hallowed rituals, not specific beliefs. So the communist propagandists in China are really more actively "religious" in "evangelizing" a belief system than they would expect of the religions themselves to be evangelizing. In fact, it's promoting beliefs where most of the problem lies with Christian-styled religions in China. They all inevitably came from the West, and most of them have also been the source of spies and missionary-imperialism. Today, the ones that get in trouble try to convert people from non-Christian religion to Christian religion, and most of those have made strong statements against governments in general, and the Chinese government specifically. The communist ideologists, still feel a duty to try to convert Western religionists to a more secular or at least a more ritualistic religion that doesn't fly in the face of the state.
I know of a non-JW case in China where the young man, of a 'Christian' religion, was exploited by a evangelizing group from Spain when he was in college in China. When it was discovered that this evangelizing religion was exploiting young people for money, and volunteer evangelism, it was only that group from Spain who got in serious trouble, but not the Christian group he was already a part of.