Jump to content
The World News Media

J F Rutherford: 1917-1919: Information, Misinformation and Disinformation


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But it was considerably more serious to the War Department and FBI if a person had influence, and their words were intended to influence.

Words has power to influence. Preaching Service, for example, is tool to make influence on people to change according to message. 

Words cannot change reality, but they can change how people perceive reality. Words create filters through which people view the world around them. A single word can make the difference between liking a person and disliking that person. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201011/words-have-power

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.3k
  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This forum currently contains a recent topic where the subject of the 1918 imprisonment and 1919 release of Rutherford and his associates has come up. There is a lot of misinformation under that topic

When i was arrested by Civil Police and handed to Military Police and after they transported me to place where i have to serve army, they treated me as Soldier even i was in civil clothes. Later i und

I'm still learning about it. The book "The Finished Mystery" was the initial focus of the investigation, but it was still only a part of the problem. When Rutherford decided to try to sell the bo

Posted Images

  • Member
6 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

...  fluctuation of people, from here to there, is always good way that the other part can be able to understand more - other people reality :)))

It seemed to me that some of the information that the ex-JWs had tried to prepare the prosecution with was unrelated to the case and was merely brought up to prejudice onlookers against Witnesses. Things can be done wrong, or said wrong, and still might have almost nothing to do with the case at hand. The place for the discussion of such things is in the context of how to improve our viewpoint and make it more in line with our own claims. It should not be used in order to stretch the truth about our lifestyle to make it seem like it could be matched up with extremists. If the State/Nation thinks it has a case against a person or group, let the State/Nation present it honestly so that the person or group knows what the real problem is, and can fairly defend themselves -- or even offer solutions and fixes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@Srecko Sostar: Completely different subject. Have you read or heard of a political author (American) named Michael Parenti? I have read a couple of his articles and have a book of his on the socio-politico-economic situation around Croatia and recent history there from Bill Clinton's time, and since. Wondered how much truth you thought his ideas had (if you know of them). They are not popular ideas in the US, so, even if credible, it's difficult to get a sense of validation/confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

@Srecko Sostar: Completely different subject. Have you read or heard of a political author (American) named Michael Parenti? I have read a couple of his articles and have a book of his on the socio-politico-economic situation around Croatia and recent history there from Bill Clinton's time, and since. Wondered how much truth you thought his ideas had (if you know of them). They are not popular ideas in the US, so, even if credible, it's difficult to get a sense of validation/confirmation.

Sorry, I am not familiar with this author and text of him. I will try to find something on internet to learn about his writings. Thanks for subject. :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Rutherford and his associates were not released in 1919 because they had been declared innocent. They were simply being released on bail, because the case was on appeal. A payment of $10,000 each gave them release until the case would be fully retried. Note that even up to January of 1920, they were still being told the case was going to be retried on April 7, 1920. (This is the Brooklyn Daily Eagle from January 20, 1920.)

image.png

But by April it was looking less and less like they could ever get a conviction. The "Proclaimers" book presents the situation like this:

*** jv chap. 29 p. 654 “Objects of Hatred by All the Nations” ***
Nine months after Rutherford and his associates were sentenced—and with the war past—on March 21, 1919, the appeals court ordered bail for all eight defendants, and on March 26, they were released in Brooklyn on bail of $10,000 each. On May 14, 1919, the U.S. circuit court of appeals in New York ruled: “The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.” The case was remanded for a new trial. However, on May 5, 1920, after the defendants had appeared in court, on call, five times, the government’s attorney, in open court in Brooklyn, announced withdrawal of the prosecution. Why? As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives, the Department of Justice feared that if the issues were presented to an unbiased jury, with the war hysteria gone, the case would be lost. U.S. attorney L. W. Ross stated in a letter to the attorney general: “It would be better, I think, for our relations with the public, if we should on our own initiative” state that the case would be pressed no further.
On the same day, May 5, 1920, the alternate indictment that had been filed in May 1918 against J. F. Rutherford and four of his associates was also dismissed.

Obtaining an appeal does not mean that they would win on appeal, but it does (at least temporarily) "reverse the judgment" of the first trial. The next trial could have turned out even worse for them. But soon after the war was over on November 11, 1918, other appeals of 1918 Espionage/Sedition cases were losing their "teeth" and being overturned, and sometimes just being dropped altogether, so it was becoming more difficult to successfully try such cases in late 1919 and early 1920. (Eugene Debs was a glaring exception, and unrelated to religion.)

Judge Howe, himself, makes it sound as if he knew all along that they would be released much sooner and Howe was in agreement that they should get bail, and even says he expected the President to commute their sentence after the war. (Howe had played up his support for President Wilson for years, and had communication and contact with him while running for Governor of Vermont, which is apparently why Wilson appointed him to a Federal judgeship as soon as Howe lost the election for Governor.)

image.png

Those 5 calls to have the defendants come to Brooklyn was not such a hardship on most of the defendants, because they lived at Brooklyn Bethel -- except for Rutherford who lived in Southern California. He complained that he was dying. Only a couple of months after his release on bail, he got sick and developed pneumonia. This was more than 20 years before he actually died, but he really was seriously ill back in 1919. This could even have been tied to the conditions in the Atlanta penitentiary, or perhaps in the worse conditions of the local jail back in 1918 before they were transferred. Some newspapers reported that Rutherford said he was "dying" and the courts stopped forcing Rutherford to make the trip from California to Brooklyn.

This is a bit out of order but the situation by October 1919 made it look like the Feds were not quite ready to give up on the case, but were already being pushed to declare it a non-case (abandonment of action, "nolle pros"). It doesn't mean they think you are innocent, but they are giving up trying to prove it, and it becomes as if the case never happened.

image.png

BTW, when the Proclaimer's book says "As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives" these are the same archives I am quoting from, although most of the newspaper quotes are coming from clippings from Newspapers.com. Also, archives of the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" are available for free online. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Governments are not in the business of exonerating people .... that is impossible.

The 1975 Yearbook had mentioned that Howe was immediately ready to have the sentence commuted, not to exonerate them, which, as you say, was never the point:

*** yb75 p. 116 Part 2—United States of America ***
On March 2, 1919, the trial judge, Federal District Judge Harland B. Howe, sent a telegram to Attorney General Gregory in Washington, D.C., recommending “immediate commutation” of the sentences imposed on the eight imprisoned Bible Students.

Had the Society's defense attorneys known this in advance, I wonder if they would have gone for the immediate appeal. It's quite possible that the Fed Dept of Justice figured they should ignore this immediate commutation request and just let Rutherford's attorneys have the appeal they wanted. The appeal might have been what kept them in prison for so long, although the way it worked out in making them "seem" exonerated was probably better for the Watch Tower Society in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Sorry, I am not familiar with this author and text of him. I will try to find something on internet to learn about his writings. Thanks for subject. :))

[on the OTHER topic of Yugoslavia/Serbia/etc]

Srecko, It's about the same take that Edward Hermann has on the topic: https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/

I can no longer locate the Parenti essay as it is down, but just got it from the "wayback machine."

https://web.archive.org/web/20190331172008/http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

I reference Parenti, rather than Hermann, because Parenti is so much more succinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Member
On 8/3/2019 at 6:56 PM, JW Insider said:

[on the OTHER topic of Yugoslavia/Serbia/etc]

Srecko, It's about the same take that Edward Hermann has on the topic: https:// monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/

I can no longer locate the Parenti essay as it is down, but just got it from the "wayback machine."

https://web.archive.org/web/20190331172008/http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

I reference Parenti, rather than Hermann, because Parenti is so much more succinct.

I have never dealt with the reasons for the aversion that exists between Croats and Serbs. Neighboring countries with very similar language but different Christian religions. Two small nations with big appetites. The 1991 conflicts arose and were caused by old, unresolved accounts in their relationships dating back to about 1941 (especially) and before. 

How much and in what measures Foreigner Powers was involved in conflict it is hard to say for me. They had, for sure, interests. And some of actors had their expectations in relation to West or East.

They, Croats and Serbs, who was involved in conflicts in WW2 period as soldiers of regular armies and paramilitary groups and/or supporters of domestic governments and in this or that as supporters or in alliance with out side powers, done many crimes for sure. Tito was united many Yugoslav nations in resistance to domestic and foreign aggression and violence. But, obviously he had power and way how to unite all of them in one goal, freedom and own state. After his dead, and changes in east block, fall of Wall, awaking of people who want separate states, which is one of possibility made by YU Constitution everything went in that direction. Why leaders of YU Republics didn't that wisely and without conflicts and suffers and many deaths ....?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Alphonse

      Alphonse 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • September22

      September22 2

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.