In our search to understand the true nature of the Watchtower,
it is likely that many of us consulted Orwell's "1984".
In that book, one important component of Big Brother's rule is the
use of "NewSpeak". In this form of English, all language is
strictly simplified and the vocabulary is severely curtailed.
Thus, a person could say "Big Brother is ungood!" - but not be
able to articulate any arguement to attack the government. The
words and concepts just wouldn't exist.
While this might work in a fictional setting, trying to protect
an aggressive cult like the Watchtower is another story. While not
actually restricting Witness vocabulary, the whole organization
is being 'dumbed-down'. More importantly, honest debate and
ARTICULATION of Watchtower doctrine is becoming nearly impossible.
The average Witless can say "The Bible forbids blood" or "God
commands us to be neutral" but that's about where it ends. Bring
up questions about blood fractions or the U.N. and you may not
get any real answer - even from the Society itself. This curious
lack of any depth of defense - of issues that may involve life
or death - has been getting worse with every passing year
and every new, platitude-laden Watchtower magazine.
(See Knowledge book - on blood, holidays, Gentile Times, etc.)
Appreciating the Society's sliding statistics is easy. Trying
to judge their superficial approach to their own beliefs is,
admittedly hard to quantify. Yet, in coming years, this silence
in the face of relentless attacks could cripple them in ways
no one can judge. It may be difficult to imagine Joe Witness
awakening one morning and asking himself "What do I believe,
anyway !!??" - but logically, that's where the process finally
ends up.
I also note that, in contrast to the old h2o, interest in
debating Watchtower doctrine now commands little interest....
perhaps because its general credibility has largely evaporated.
metatron