So, today’s topic was suggested by Twitter user @ImNotDeplorable, and centers on the idea that some, if not all, members of the “most ethical” people on the planet engage in half-truths, full lies, or outright avoidance of popularly held “facts”. While some of this could veer off, or apply, to many believe systems as an over-arching “suspension of rational thought”, such as immaculate conception or Galactic Overlords, let’s focus on the day-to-day interactions through social media.
To begin, one has to realize that groups like Co$ operate in a bubble, mostly insulated from the moral/ethical rules of mainstream society. They follow, strictly in many cases, the “scripture” of the belief system, verbatim. As such, if their “source” validates the use of misleading, over-blown, or outright fabricated “truths”, they feel confident that they are validated by the moral/ethical code of conduct. For example, there are many points where LRH validated this line of reasoning – LRH on Lying.
With this “framework”, a member or organization may feel empowered to use semantics to skirt around the truth, create hate/smear sites about critics or ex-members, or simply answer questions with non-answers. One such example would be, having proof that a certain website tracks visitor information, without a doubt, yet the proprietor refuses to admit that it does. No matter the amount of proof provided, the response is “we don’t track”. This is both half-truth and deception. There is no doubt that visitor geo-locational data is captured, such as Date/Time, City/State/Country, type of browser, and page visited. But, this “tracking” seems to be through a “live traffic monitor” plugin which was added to the site. So, while the proprietor may or may not also track via cookies, they can deny that “they” track since the obvious tracking is through the plug-in. But, the webmaster or designer did in fact add the plug-in, and the proprietor can visibly see said plugin on the site.
From another perspective, when confronted with “facts” about their organization’s policies or actions, they believe they are empowered to “confront & shatter” anyone or anything that is critical or detrimental to the best interest of the group. No matter the subject, they are compelled to “attack”. We have seen this take many shapes over the years. From the formation of “anti-bigotry” groups like STAND and FreedomMediaEthics, to accounts and websites solely focused on individual critics and ex-members. The key point here is, rather than confront the “facts” or stories, they focus on completely discrediting the individual. One could say, “It’s partly sunny today”, yet their response would be, “You cannot trust this person. They were so rude and nasty that we had to kick them out, so they are an unreliable source”. As you can see, they completely avoided the “fact” as it was in their best interest to attack the credibility of the speaker, rather than the point being discussed.
Deception, deflection, or denial? When faced with negative or salacious information about a member, group, policy or action, or asked a direct question that could lead to such an end, they can choose to answer through the use of semantics (deception as noted above), deflection (“well, answer my question first”, “I’ve already answered that a million times”, or “what books or courses have you studied?”), or denial (“you have not proven anything, let alone that I lied”, “you have no proof he ever said that”, “you can’t believe anything on the internet”). When asking a member, one that doesn’t immediately block us :), about a particular event or story, many have received a simple “Nope” or #facepalm response, rather than an actual answer. If you are lucky enough, you may receive a “are you that dumb?”, #bigot, #hate or #eyeroll response. Even if you innocently include certain keywords in a post, you may be trolled or get “reported” to their other accounts or groups, to be blocked or labeled.
In the end, dealing truth with this organization is a dodgy proposition. One could argue that it is policy for them to tell “acceptable truths” as linked above, documentation entered as evidence in the Fishman trial here, or the possible existence of TR-L. I’m sure there are many other examples, not to mention the information shared by ex-members, but I think it is clear – in order to secure the future of the organization, they have shown a willingness to avoid “facts”, “attack” critics, “deny” or “deflect” negative information or question rather than address the topics directly. My feeling is, continued lack of transparency, use of semantics and smear tactics, and avoidance of “real” communication will only further impede their efforts to “clear the planet”.
Comments welcome 🙂