by Shem El-Jamal, July 6, 2017
Most of us are well familiar with what is becoming known as the anti-Full Disclosure movement or the anti-Corey Goodemovement. We have seen how some personalities claim that Corey Goode, David Wilcock, Roger Ramsaur, and Cobra are “satanists,” “liars,” “swindlers,” “cult leaders,” along with various other accusations against all of those who follow these four personalities.
Dark Journalist & Bill Ryan vs Corey Goode: Who is telling the Truth?
Those who are most fervently pushing the rumors of misconduct have yet to show any solid proof behind their claims. However, the sheer number and determination of these smear-campaigners to convince/coerce their would-be audience to agree, may lead some to consider these claims valid despite their lack of substance.
The countless slanderous presentations coming forward seem to reveal the targets of the defamation attempts are not randomly chosen. In fact every one of these targeted individuals has been at the forefront of the push for Full Disclosure. You can check this for yourself. These four individuals who have been targeted for character assassination have been the most prominent voices declaring the need to end all government, military, and religious secrecy in our world.
Let’s take a deeper look into the methods used against full-disclosure activists.
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Argumentum Ad hominem
(Also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
We can see that the textbook definition of ad hominem spares no detail of what these attacks truly are. Tactics such as these have a tendency to speak more against those using them than the target. They are considered low and divisive in the professional world, and are typically used by questionable politicians. They also seem to be the weapon of choice for all of those at the forefront of the movement against disclosure.
It would be one thing if the various subjects of criticism were presented with professionalism, respect, and honorable business practice, but from the start, it was apparent that upholding these professional standards was not the intent. From the beginning, the focus of the defamers was directed against the people involved in the disclosure movement. In fact, I have yet to see a single instance of where any of these critics actually focused on the data itself. In my observation, the flavor of the anti-full disclosed movement seems strikingly familiar to that of the anti-Trump campaign of CNN and the mainstream media.
This is not to say that the entire presentation of the testimonies of Corey Goode has been completely seamless. There are still loose ends that need to be tied. However, this does not justify the departure from respectful and professional journalism. Nor does it justify smear campaigns.
Getting to the Root
The anomaly at the center of the anti-Full Disclosure movement seems clear. The common strategy seems to be to ridicule and defame a person—usually Corey Goode—for not having all of the answers (despite the irrationality of such an expectation). This irrational double standard held against Corey Goode seems to be employed in order to distract the audience from the true goal of his testimony, which is to uncover these answers along with the entirety of the truth through one or more full-disclosure data dumps.
Here is an exercise that anyone can do. When you see someone trying their hardest to defame those promoting full disclosure, resist the urge to overreact. Don’t even raise an eyebrow. Instead, examine their claims. Read their posts and listen to their interviews, but when you do, be sure to search for one term—“Full Disclosure.” Count how many times you see this term used by these defamers. I will tell you now, you are not likely to see it once. If we find this to be the case, there is a likely reason for this.
I liken the anti-Full Disclosure movement to a man who walks into a department store, goes to the isle where the padlocks are sold, and purchases a lock with key included. This man then takes the lock and key home with him and opens the package, but instead of using the lock and key as they were intended, goes straight to the bathroom, opens the toilet lid, drops the key in and flushes it. Then afterward, this man shouts at the top of his lungs complaining to the world that he can’t open his lock.
This is the logical equivalent of the anti-Full Disclosure movement. This movement ridicules one man (and his coworkers) for not having all of the answers.
It is true that Goode does not have every answer we seek, and he admits this. However, he still seems to be doing his best to promote the obvious necessity for Full Disclosure. In short, the problem and the solution—both the collection of unanswered questions and the efforts to gain these answers—come in one package, but defamers seem to ignore the solution and obsess over the problem.
Ask yourself why every single public figure who has fervently promoted Full Disclosure has been so heavily attacked by defamers. Ask yourself why virtually none of these defamers will dare speak the words, “Full Disclosure.” Then ask yourself who most greatly benefits from the continued secrecy which has enslaved humanity for literally millennia of time.
CONTINUE READING @ discerningthemystery2000plus.blogspot.com
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected] with the error, headline and url. Thank you for reading.