Polaris Global distributor uses Scientology defense
Rhamnousia posted an interesting entry on the Polaris Global Scam wordpress blog yesterday briefly analysing content supposedly put out by Polaris Global.
Rhamnousia addressed some points that appeared to be from a list or series of information published by Polaris Global itself, or one of its distributors.
There wasn’t any source credited for the information so I hit up Google and it wasn’t too hard to find the source. Turns out Lisa Molina has published a new entry ‘Information or MIS information Age – the internet and Polaris Global‘ on her blog ‘Molina Family – Mo Lifestyle’.
It’s worth noting that around the time of Polaris Media Group’s launch in September 2009, many distributors started their own blogs in an attempt to bury negative information about Polaris on the internet. Most of these blogs are now defunct as their owners realised that a hell of a lot of work and research goes into running a blog properly.
Lisa’s last blog entry prior to this one was September 9th, 2009 indicating it was also on the defunct blog pile. I’m not sure why she’s chosen to resurrect it now.
Whatever the reason, I read through the complete set of points Molina had written about and couldn’t help but notice they all seem to reflect the tenants of Scientology’s ‘attack the attacker’ policy.
Intentional or just wild co-incidence?
Scientology’s ‘attack the attacker’ policy states;
BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us – only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don’t use us.
With the above in mind, let’s have a look at the points Molina has made.
1. Is the source of the information credible?
Some things to look for: Is the person posting using their name? If they are not willing to use their name, or if they using a false name, they may have something to hide. If a person is being truthful about what they are posting, why would they not use their name?
Right off the bat Molina directly goes after those criticising Polaris Global rather then addressing any of the criticisms or concerns raised.
Molina asserts that by not publishing under an actual name, criticisers of Polaris Global may have something to hide. Of course they do, their identity.
Rhamnousia’s Testimonial article linked to earlier alleges that that Polaris Global’s attorneys have contacted various people over blog posts and forums. Furthermore one of Rhamnousia’s readers states they were contacted by Polaris Global management over friends they had added on Facebook.
Recently Polaris Global published the website ‘Polaris Global Facts – Due Diligence’. I’ve already rebutted all the points made on Polaris Global Facts but I want to draw specific attention to the opening paragraphs which state that
One of the main violators of this public trust is the Ripoff Report. Its founder is allegedly in hiding, under pursuit by the FBI with tens of millions of dollars in judgements against his company.
Note the word alleged and the absence of any proof. The founder of the Ripoff Report is Ed Magedson which is readily available information. Armed with a name a simple google search will give you rumours but seemingly without any real credible proof. They also all appear to be hosted on businesses’ websites who have had runins with the Ripoff Report.
Instead of addressing any of the points that are raised at the Ripoff Report, Polaris Global attack the attacker by raising alleged claims about its founder. As if that somehow automatically negates personal testimonial and information backed up with evidence.
I’m not stating that information on the Ripoff Report is accurate or even true as I did not author it, I’m only highlighting the Scientology’esque manner in which Polaris Global have chosen to respond to it.
2. What is the agenda of the person posting?
Often times other marketers from other companies, will use the publicity and credibility of another company in attempt to sway one’s interest to their opportunity.
The ‘attack the attacker’ policy continues with Molina’s second point, as she again tries to deflect from the actual information presented and draw attention back on the author.
When I first started writing about Liberty League the allegations that I was working for Lifepath Unlimited or some other rival MLM company didn’t take long to start flooding in. I was later advised this is partly due to the then EMC telling distributors that this was my agenda, again instead of addressing any of the points made against them.
Whether a person has an agenda or not is irrelevant. If the information is good it should be able to stand on its own merit. Sources are regularly provided when negative information about Polaris Global is cited and furthermore it’s then often corroborated by people active in the company.
Again, instead of addressing this Molina instead chooses to go after the attacker.
3. What perspective is the person posting coming from?
Are they disgruntled? Are they taking any responsibility or just pointing blame? If/when a person is posting negative comments, in most cases, they have not taken responsibility for thier own choices and have given all the power of choice to someone else.
They want you to believe they are a victim. We all know we have our own choices to make. If the person posting negative comments spent that time focusing on their goals, and speaking out how they are responsible for their results, they would most likely be having massive results, and be extremely happy people, and would not spend a second of their time blaming others.
This point is kind of interesting as it is an indirect use of ‘attack the attacker’ policy via the ‘be at cause not effect’ Scientology belief.
To be at cause means you have complete control over your life, to be at effect the opposite. This idea itself isn’t so bad but to suggest that anyone who is criticising Polaris Global has “given all the power of choice to someone else” (to be at effect), is a direct attack again on the author of the information rather then addressing the information itself.
Once again, we’re back to attacking the attacker.
4. Is the person posting getting the results you want in life?
This seems obvious and really goes back to number 1. Make certain the information you are getting on the internet is in fact true by speaking with someone. Be in touch with someone, and ask directly about what you read. That is the only way to make an informed decision.
Again the credibility of the author of any negative information published is questioned, rather then suggesting that readers question the information itself. Analysis of the information inadvertently reflects on the credibility of the author in question whereas outright dismissing the information on the basis of second hand information about the author doesn’t seem too thorough.
Ironically it’s also worth noting that, as far as I’m aware, no author of any negative information has actually ever suggested people don’t speak with other people and ask questions. In fact it’s encouraged!
If Polaris Global and its distributors directly addressed any of the concerns raised at them there wouldn’t be the need for articles like this one highlighting the use of Scientology policies as a defense.
Polaris Global themselves have been accused of actively instructing their distributors to ignore any negative information found on the internet and even dictate who they can and can’t associate with on social networking sites.
People aren’t idiots, if the information provided is simply wild claims without any proof or corroboration from others they aren’t just going to blindly believe it. If the information is believable, accurate and backed up with credible proof people will have a look into it and decide for themselves.
Up until now Polaris have simply adopted the ‘everybody is lying except us’ approach and it hasn’t worked. Now the gloves are off and by demonstrating that they’re quite happy to engage in Scientology defense policy, they’re wondering why people publish anonymously on the internet?
At this time I’m unaware if the Molinas are members of Scientology but if not, I can only assume her involvement in Polaris Global and use of its products has directly influenced Lisa’s response to criticism about the company.
This seems to have occurred despite Polaris’ product line author Gregory Strom promising that
Polaris video and written course products have consistently avoided any particular political or religious belief system as a matter of company policy, and will continue to do so in the future.
If Lisa Molina isn’t a member of the church of Scientology then it’s kind of strange she’s published a rebuttal to critics of Polaris Global that seemingly strongly utilises Scientology defense policy. She had to get the ideas from somewhere right?
Seeing as Polaris Global is a personal development company headed up with a Scientologist CEO, I wonder where her ideas on how to handle criticism developed from?
The tagline for Molina’s blog reads ‘It’s all about the money’ so it certainly doesn’t appear to be out of any general desire or interest in personal development.