Bases Loaded with Questions: Who's Playing the Donation Shell Game?
- Stop the Take!
- Apr 19
- 1 min read
Step 1: Passing the Responsibility
Entity A oversees the program and communicates the program's goals, progress, and outcomes. When asked about donations, Entity A firmly states that they do not handle the funds and direct inquiries to Entity B.
Entity A's role is limited to administrative or operational oversight, ensuring plausible deniability regarding the financial aspect.
Step 2: Redirecting Accountability
Entity B is widely assumed to manage the donations due to their position within the system. However, when confronted, Entity B deflects responsibility, claiming that they are not responsible for the program and and they have nothing to do with the program funds. They emphasize their role as intermediaries and disclaim any direct access to the money.
Step 3: Benefiting from Ambiguity
Entity C asserts complete detachment from the program or the donation process, emphasizing they have "no involvement" in handling or managing funds. However, their employees or affiliates are direct beneficiaries of the program's funding, creating a conflict of interest that remains carefully obscured.
When pressed for answers, Entity C reiterates their independence and points back to Entity A for clarification.
Cycle Reinforcement: An Endless Loop – Questions about donations ignite the same pattern, as all three entities deflect responsibility and pass the issue along.
Often labeled a "circle jerk," these entities cultivate a toxic environment where questioning triggers hostility, exclusion, and retaliation. Their proclaimed dedication to community service serves merely as a facade, concealing their true nature as profit-driven organizations for sale.
Ethical concerns are systematically dodged, transparency is intentionally evaded, and the system flourishes in an atmosphere of calculated unaccountability.
