While there are many valuable definitions and purposes of “Public Relations”, these are the ones I would like to see killed:
“Communication by a person or an organization with the purpose of creating a favorable public image; commonly referred to as PR.” (Wiktionary)
“The business of inducing the public to have understanding for and goodwill toward a person, firm, or institution.” (Mirriam-Webster)
I don’t want others to have any other impression of me than the correct impression of me. Not slanted, not puffed up, not embellished.
I would rather have an honest impression of a company than a PR impression. I want to see honesty and transparency in business, not favorable images.
And I think the best goodwill you can create is the goodwill based on raw honesty.
73 thoughts on “Kill PR”
What, no comments? I’m first? oh f**k it. I agree with what you say about PR. But in reality it will go on and on as it is.
Isene: “I would rather have an honest impression of a company than a PR impression. I want to see honesty and transparency in business, not favorable images.”
Me too!. Keep wanting, but in the USA it’s Buyer Beware! One has to be alert and just not believe all they hear and check it out. Since it’s not illegal to say what you want, until proven false, it’s personal responsibility and no big brother to watch out for us.
One really needs to be alert, check it out, and find who is for real and honest. You know we can’t have it too easy it seems, as it may make life boring.
Ideal, yes, in reality, not at this time. My cents! 🙂
“Since it’s not illegal to say what you want, until proven false, it’s personal responsibility and no big brother to watch out for us.”
Not exactly. The regulations are insane. You can’t even say things you know are 100% true and you have proof to show for it if they violate any of thousands of state/federal regulations about what you can say and how you can say it and what disclaimers you have to include and how to place them and what size of type to use.
I just read somewhere that there are approx. 172 pages of regulations in the US that apply to the sale of cabbage. 🙂
Globetrotter: 172 pages of regulations in the US that apply to the sale of cabbage. 🙂
Gloab T…………Now you know why I dont grow cabbages : you see those rules stopped me: first of all I would have to teach the cabbages to read, than print those rules-regulations, than I would have to check every one if they have learned those rule and do word clearing on them so they dont get bogged down in some MU’s…
Ohhhh to much problem all around,:) and I only went to kinder garden so I dont want over educated cabbages around me.. that would make me feel inferior. 🙂
“I don’t want others to have any other impression of me than the correct impression of me.”
“And I think the best goodwill you can create is the goodwill based on raw honesty.”
Probably a very good approach for a person, but for that to work for a company and ensure its survival, people it wants to sell its products to would have to be 100% rational. And that ain’t gonna happen.
Since people almost always make purchase decisions based on irrational emotional reasons, “raw honesty” would most likely very quickly bankrupt any company, since all that would be needed is for a competitor is to use “slanted, puffed up, embellished” PR and it would win people over.
And as long as there is competition and companies want to sell their wares, you will ALWAYS find someone who will embellish the “raw honesty” and thus, gain an instant advantage with people who will continue, as they always had, decide based on emotion, rather than logic. They will always believe what fits their existing beliefs and reject the truth if it doesn’t, and they will always like the person who says what they want to hear as opposed the person who says the raw truth.
Most businesses have their own agendas that are NOT for the benefit of the customer, so they would only stand to lose if they disclosed those instead of luring customers into thinking “they are the most important for them”.
What would Microsoft had to say if it was honest? Yes, we know that we make the most buggy and hated operating system on the planet, we don’t listen to you and we don’t even care what you think because you are locked in, ha ha. As you see, you are still buying form us and making us a lot of money, so why should we listen. We don’t do it for you – we do it for ourselves and it’s working for us just fine. So fuck you – shut up and buy the next version. You don’t want to get fired because you switch your company to Linux and the boss hates it, right? Continuing with MS products is the safest way to keep your job – if it wasn’t for us and all the admin you have to do, you wouldn’t have one after all. So be a smart guy and let’s milk your company together. Win-win.
I don’t think that will happen.
Google: We are watching your every move. We collect data about every one of your clicks. We use that to pitch advertisers about how precisely they can “target you”. Please use our email service so we find our more about you form your personal messages, and please ALWAYS stay logged into your google account so we can track every website you visit. Thank you!
Bank CEO on TV: I will get another 12 million dollar bonus this year regardless if the bank is profitable or not. That’s why I came to work here – it’ in my contract. I had to kiss some serious ass to get the job, but I made it. Who the fuck are you? I’m the fucking CEO of a BANK, you get it?! Yes, if the bank goes down, who cares? I have my own money elsewhere and I already have more money than I can spend in my lifetime. You are a little worthless reporter asking me all these questions I couldn’t care less about. Blah blah blah. I’d rather be on my yacht with some top model “escorts” – that reminds me, you will never have a yacht, or any of those expensive chicks, you loser. I will spend more money this weekend than you will make this year. Get to the point and stop wasting my precious time, will ya?
That’s about how “raw honesty” would sound like.
You are an honest person so the strategy you describe will probably work for you. But with corporations where you will inevitably find good apples mixed in with bad apples, saying it as it is will never work as a strategy, because… well, it wouldn’t be pretty. If every company on Earth would suddenly become honest and tell it as it was, we would have a population so disgusted with them, there would probably be a revolution and corporations would be torn apart.
In a perfect world, you may be right. But as long as too many businesses are selfish and dishonest and their customers emotional and irrational, PR will ALWAYS win, and thus, remain a necessity to business survival, used by people and companies that are honest and those that are rotten to the core, alike.
Do I like it? No. Is this how it’s gonna continue, probably for a long time? Probably yes. It’s like politics. You can say there SHOULDN’T be corruption, but it is everywhere and probably will be as long as there is a single politician left on Earth.
Well, watch Å. We’ll see 🙂
I think people are smart enough to recognize raw honesty – and leave the liars in the ditch. And I believe that to be the new way.
Sure, it’s tough to start with raw honesty – because it forces the company to actually BE the best, not just LOOK the best. But being the best is what will ultimately win out.
Just like people in the 90’s thought it ludicrous to set up a free dictionary where everyone could pitch in with their knowledge, people today will say pretty much what you say above. But like Wikipedia broke that spell of “it can’t be done”, so I think the spell of PR will be broken.
I’ve heard about that Å company. Definitely sounds interesting. 🙂
If somebody really wanted to work for Å, how to proceed?
If they don’t know how to proceed, they shouldn’t be working for Å.
I’ve heard that Å only hires those who have a serious drive, people who do what it takes to create real value. People who don’t need directions.
“I’ve heard that Å only hires those who have a serious drive, people who do what it takes to create real value. People who don’t need directions.”
You think like I do.
When can I start?
When would you like to start?
” I believe that to be the new way”. I understand how you mean “new” but isn’t it rather the kind of old and natural which has been forgotten but now its existence is discovered once again? A good example is your Mastery video. If each and every person in a company is like him in the video, then the company IS sure success and its success IS expanding without any need to create false PR. I know quite a few companies like that around here where I live. Your post is like “the bottom of my heart” – thanks for writing it.
I think it is totally possible to do what you say – stat with raw honesty and build a company that way. My comment was more applicable to companies that already exist in the status quo.
A-circle looks good. I may want to talk to you about that one day 🙂
Like what you are saying! Do you think it is possible for some companies that already exist in the status quo to change? (small or middle-size ones at least).
Marianne: “Do you think it is possible for some companies that already exist in the status quo to change?”
I’ve seen it a few times, but always with smallsh concerns. Larger companies tend to have so many interconnects between the people in it that getting anything done is hard. Maybe it can be done for a very large organization, I just haven’t seen it happen.
Yes, I believe SOME companies can and do and will change. That will be the exception. But, just like you every once in a while see an honest politician, actually there to serve people and to make a change, they will remain the exception.
“If every company on Earth would suddenly become honest and tell it as it was, we would have a population so disgusted with them, there would probably be a revolution and corporations would be torn apart.”
Sounds like the OCCUPY movement, except the companies did not suddenly become honest, they became the subject of information exposure on the Internet. It isn’t just happening to the C of S, its happening to companies (and political groups) everywhere. And they should be torn apart or at least their directors held accountable. PERSONALLY and FINANCIALLY accountable. Its one thing to make a legitimate business error. Its another to deliberately lie, steal, cheat and destroy under the protection of a corporate umbrella.
I’m sure that’s why there is this constant effort to regulate the Internet. it is certainly not for our own good although that is the PR spin offered. It is for the “good” of commercial and political pursuits, which function for our “good.”
PR was useful in the age of mass media. On the Internet, it can be an active liability if it is dishonest and can be shown to be dishonest. And PR spin is exactly that — dishonesty (acceptable truth,) even if it seems to be or really is harmless.
Maria: On the Internet, it can be an active liability if it is dishonest and can be shown to be dishonest.
Hear, here!. That’s what I like about the internet. One can see the spins and facts, then choose what makes sense.
SINCERE – BUT STUPID
Twenty years ago I felt quite sure about myself. My attitude was: Take me as I am. And if you don’t like what you see – it’s alright. I couldn’t care less.
It was the time when I became acquainted with Scientology.
Of course I knew about the horrible image of that organization. But I happened to believe a person who succeeded in making me believe that this image was just the effect of black propaganda based on lies.
This person became my FSM (as you may imagine 🙂
As some things in my life were not really in order and I wanted to fix them I decided to start this adventure journey into Scientologyland. Maybe auditing would cure my deficiencies.
I told my family and friends about my plans and promised to let them know once I had found out what the truth was about this mysterious land.
My family thought I was out of my mind.
Some of my family members even withdrew from me as I was not listening to their warnings. I said: ‘Why don’t you let me find out myself? Why do you expect me to believe what others say? Maybe it’s all not true?’
My reaction: Then piss off! I have to do what I think is right. I have to go my way.
At that time I used to have a company which worked for the media.
I did not see any reason to hide what I was going to do.
My attitude: This is my fucking private business and I expect everyone to respect that.
Some of my staff came to me and said: ‘Are you mad? Don’t you see what is going to happen? Our clients will stop working with us.’
My reply: ‘We do excellent work. Only that counts. Everything else is my private business.’
A few weeks later one of my staff who had worked for me for a long time took me aside and asked me: ‘Is it true that you are a main supporter and a key person in the local Scientology organization?’
I was shocked. Nonsense. I hadn’t spent a single penny for the local org, hardly knew those people as my FSM had recommended I should take service in Munich and then right away at Flag as I’d get the very best service there.
‘Nonsense !!!’ I replied.
‘Who is spreading such nonsense’
‘Sorry, but the person who told me obliged me to keep this confidential.’
I physically felt some fear coming up in me. I felt that something was going on which I could not control anymore.
To make it short. I was right.
It was the end of my company.
I had been brave. But also very stupid.
Of course, consumers would be very happy if they could see companies without make-up.
But my advise for companies would be: Be careful! Hide whatever could irritate consumers. Look with THEIR eyes.
Your first intention is: to reach your goals. And if you care about being sincere and open: fine. But that is subordinate.
I think this is rather about the standards of the German society than anything else. I live just next door, in the Czech republic. Scientology is a bad joke here too, but people are not that hysterical. I’ve never spoken about Scientology in the work relations as it didn’t relate to my work, but I haven’t been hiding my participation and now past participation either. The worst thing that has happened was that some colleagues of mine were occasionally picking at me. For two odd years I’ve had a blog on the topic and one experienced colleague of mine happened to ran into it and read it and he appreciated my honesty and progress I made during writing that — I stopped even my activities in the freezone, but I’ve never become an aggressive critic.
In some ways I seem to be resistant against learning.
Recently a person whom I had addressed asking if he would like to work with me on a project wanted to find out what I had been doing before.
I was glad about his interest as I thought it was important for him to know me a little before maybe working on the project together with me.
So I told him on the phone about the ups and downs in my life.
When I finished there was silence.
‘Hello? Are you still there?’
o.k., he might call again.
But even if he did: What kind of impression did I get from him? Is he really the right person to work with on the project?
But meanwhile I thought: Am I stupid? Don’t I ever learn in that respect?
My original idea had been to bring my project further. Therefore I should have taken care of not doing basic PR-mistakes.
If you want to sell a car then you should talk about its qualities.
Yes, it has weaknesses as well.
But does it make any sense talking about them as well?
You can do so.
But then you can already think about closing down your company.
We people react on attractions. The whole world and the entire social life is based on that.
If you want to be successful: Use lots of powder and make-up to cover your pimples – if you have some. Set up a nice facade.
This is how the real world works.
But of course, Geir, dreaming is always allowed…
Daniel: “Yes, it has weaknesses as well.
But does it make any sense talking about them as well?”
Thanks for sharing that, a very good lesson. I can relate to it and will be helpful to me. 😉
“dreaming is always allowed” Yes, Daniel! For YOU too! Do a little trick, if you like!
Sit down and relax. Ask yourself the question: What do I REALLY, REALLY want to do?
And after that DO that!
What do you say to this?
Thanks. Exactly this is what I have been doing for a long time, and I am doing it today.
The picture “Kill’em with kindness”, also honesty pretty much sums up my yesterday com with Marildi and my prediction concerning the success of your book. Or rather, the success of Truth.
That’s pretty much like saying to kill most business that I know of….good thing 🙂
“That’s pretty much like saying to kill most BUSINESS that I know of….” HaHa….I have been in communication with a lot of businessmen….some of them confessed to me that they would like exactly that… to be finally ALIVE….to LIVE and do what they would really like. In these cases it was enough to listen to them and they came up with their own solutions of handling what had been hidden so far. You know what? It was not always business…it was e.g. not having a partner, not being able to help their child, not having sex, low self-confidence…After confronting whatever there was, they got into action. Had own ideas how to handle their businesses and their lives… even put their ethics in after which, of course, their businesses started to show higher stats. I realized very early that most didn’t have anyone around who they dared to TRUST. To tell, mostly, some very little “secret” like the above. I could go on with this, but I think you get it!
Two movies have just come to mind. Meet Joe Black and Pretty Woman. Both show quite a lot about how it is and how simple it can be to be successful or to change.
Yes Marianne, I have noticed some extreme distrust too. I suppose if one’s income is based on PR, which is similar to saying dishonesty (example: The happy girl in the advertisement who is wearing that dress, who pretends to be happy wearing that dress because she got paid to pretend to be happy…) such a person cannot trust others with ease –he cannot trust himself with ease. Of course there can be other models for business –models that are based on actual value rather than claimed or pretended value.
This is irrelevant, but you sounded like a cos scientologist in your message with ‘stats’ and ‘ethics in’…spooky! 😛
“spooky” HaHa…I re-read it….HaHa…Interesting take! Looking at it…..
Hehehehehe just mocking my A=A=A=A
There are fine restaurants which like to SHOW their kitchen – while other restaurants rather HIDE them.
Would I like to look into all kitchen of restaurants I like? NO.
I want to keep on believing that they are clean and that the staff wash their hands after visiting the toilet.
Would I like to know exactly how the food was produced which I buy and eat in restaurants? NO, in any case I’d become a vegetarian right away.
Would I like to know all advantages and disadvantages of most other products or services I consider buying (e.g. cars)? YES
An interesting subject: ‘Kill-PR’
Which stable data do I find?
1 – Without doubt it would be fantastic if every person would make changes towards the direction that it would allow to be seen without makeup.
2 – It would be fantastic if every company would do the same.
3 – In some cases prices would not have to climb even if quality became better
4 – In other areas (e.g. food production) prices would be climbing
5 – High quality has always been one significant goal for many of those selling products or services. A low price is the goal for many others. And most companies try to find a proper compromise.
I am wondering what exactly Geir would consider ‘the new way’.
Would I like to look into all kitchen of restaurants I like? YES.
I want to see that they are clean and that the staff wash their hands after visiting the toilet rather than keep on believing that.
Would I like to know exactly how the food was produced which I buy and eat in restaurants? YES, in any case I didn’t become a vegetarian right away when I cooked the food at home.
Wow!!! Dangerous indeed…:)
I agree with your “Kill PR” thing here, Geir.
If it weren’t for the people around L Ron Hubbard at Int Base who were constantly lying about LRH’s biography, his mental states, his “case” manifestations, etc., Scientology would not have harmed as many people as it did.
They were all trying to forward “Good PR”.
I know people to this day who do not want to talk about the bad things in Scientology because they want others to have similar gains to theirs. And they believe that if they told people the bad things they know about Scientology, or their bad experiences too, then those people might not get involved in Scientology and might not get the good things out of it that they did.
So their motivation for keeping up “good PR” is to help others.
But this is also the way to harm people with Scientology – not letting them know what to look out for.
It all stems from the effort to create good PR.
Kill it. Just decide never to lie or deceive anyone about Scientology ever again, no matter how good your intentions are for doing so.
Yes, Alanzo I agree that this has happened. And it is also out of fear that one might get his butt kicked if he talks against Scientology. But what when somebody really out of his own honesty wants to communicate something good about it? It is not all PR. Wouldn’t it be a lie if somebody only talked bad about it, if he thought otherwise? That would be sort of PR too, but black PR, no?
Yes. And it could be a response to no one ever saying anything bad about it for the reasons you and I have been discussing, and seeing a very urgent need to warn people about what to watch out for in Scientology when Scientologists aren’t going to warn anybody about that, and they too often will lie about that.
Once Scientologists start taking responsibility for Scientology, and start telling the truth about it – both the good and the bad – then there will be no need for critics to keep warning people about the bad stuff.
It all comes down to the irresponsibility of Scientologists for Scientology and for the welfare of others in society.
And when you realize that LRH made it a High Crime to speak “ill” about Scientology to others, then you can see why and how Scientologists have been made so irresponsible.
If Scientologists had been allowed by LRH to tell the truth about Scientology, both the good and the bad, from the very beginning, then there would never have been a need for 1 critic on the Internet, or for 1 Fair Game operation.
I agree and I have pointed out too that critics can see a side of the story that some SCNists may be unwilling to see. And so they serve a purpose. But I think some times a more neutral stance should be assumed.
Because I haven’t been very ethical latey, can you quote me that part that LRH made talking ill about about SCN to others a high crime? Honestly I dont know this stuff well.
Because I haven’t been very ethical latey, can you quote me that part that LRH made talking ill about about SCN to others a high crime? Honestly I dont know this stuff well.
Here ya go.
These are all the high crimes – crimes for which you can be declared an “SP” – that can be interpreted and used against a Scientologist at any time for speaking ill about Scientology to others:
Golden Age of Tech Ethics Specialist
(Certificate Still In Force!)
I could never understand (accept) that for the Church such ‘overts’ are considered to be on the same level as e.g. MURDER.
When I read this first I thought it was just incredible, real nonsense. And then I blocked it out – as many other things I had read in the Ethics book.
In the beginning I wanted so much that the CoS is an organization which I can trust, which provides proper solutions and concepts.
Whatever did not fit to that wish I obviously banned from my awareness.
I wanted auditing and the benefits from it so badly – even if I had to pay much money for it and to shut up about things I did not agree with.
I would have never thought that I would be able to lose my common sense so entirely – just because of being in love with an idea, a hope…
And how could it be that intelligent persons have studied all parts of Ethics, receiving a diploma, obviously accepting and afterwards defending everything they had read?
The Ethics Specialist Course was the next to last Course I did in Scientology.
Before I’d studied the whole ethics and justice system in Scientology I could always tell myself that I must not understand how all those violations of the Creed could really be crimes and “high crimes”. And so, just as you had, I stuffed it away and didn’t look at it because I was so in love with Scientology that I did not want to really look at it.
But after I did the course, and saw the whole system for what it was, I finally began to allow myself to realize that Scientology was not the group I’d thought I’d joined so many years ago.
You’re right, Daniel: Love is blind.
Thanks for looking this up for me, Al (I think you enjoyed it too 😛 )
That the Church wants to keep SCNists secluded from the media and the internet and pretty much the rest of the world is one side of it. Another side is that the media and some sources on the internet and many in the world, talk soo bad about SCN and SCNists as well, that make them want to be secluded. Ultimately, this serves Miscavige’s purposes to keep them secluded and brainwashed and under control.
I think another key-point in useless criticism that only serves to make people hostile and afraid is when somebody generalises about SCN and includes things he has no idea about. For instance that criticism that SCN is ‘satanic’ because a phraze in a lecture (out of a thousand lectures) starts with “my very good friend Aleister Crowley…”. Or it is very much in fashion lately to say that SCNists after they go to the OT levels find out that LRH talked about aliens and entities. This is both bullshit. LRH always talked about entities and aliens openly as well as about OT abilities and various unrealistic stuff. That never was a secret.
Is this done on purpose or out of stupidity? How does one expect an inside SCNist to take such criticism seriously, or think that it is well-intended, in this fashion? If the Church lies about SCN all the time, doesn’t mean that all critics are honest all the time. Among other things, some do this for money, and would say anything in order to have something to say, as it seems.
You are assuming that critics bother to seriously address Scientologists. Most critics don’t. There’ no point. Scientologists will “come to” when that final straw lands on their back and they either escape or get turfed out. In terms of efficacy, its a far better strategy to direct criticism as those who might fall prey to Scientology. This approach will eventually dry up the flow of raw meat while also reducing whatever credibility Scientology attempts to present to governments, statutory authorities and community interests.
In terms of “satanic”, there are far starker and many more parallels than just Hubbard’s comment about Crowley (cf Hugh Urban’s “The Occult Roots of Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, and the Origins of a Controversial New Religion”) As for the UFO/Alien aspect, true, Hubbard talked a lot about it. However, no Scientologist will actually confirm in public that were it not for the central character in OT III, there would be no need for Scientology. Once a wog knows that, most very quickly formulate the correct decision to avoid any further involvement. The reason OTIII is “very much in fashion” is that it is so effective an inoculation agent. Its also hillarious which helps tremendously in reducing Scientology’s credibility. Accordingly, there’s no need for Scientology’s critics to be dishonest and very, very few are. The simple truth about Scientology is more than adequate.
So, to answer your question: yes, talking about Hubbard’s devil worshipping practises and the OTIII saga is deliberate and, no, its not done out of stupidity. Your attempted DAing of those who do speak out is noted and dismissed as just one of many stimulus reponses inculcated by Scientology.
Crepuscule: talking about Hubbard’s devil worshipping practises and the OTIII saga is deliberate and, no, its not done out of stupidity.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. I’m an former and didn’t even know all about the satanic angle till I was out and read it, so to me is a minor fault. Ex’s concern themselves with major abuses, suppression and the truth be told, IMO.
Thank you, deElizabethan, for your supportive words. I’ve lurked here for quite a while and have learned from many of your comments.
Exes are most certainly in the vanguard of the effort to bring justice to Scientology and a halt to its abuses. As I see it, Anonymous, especially these days, serves largely an ancillary role to that primary function, and I occupy my time mainly with inoculation work, cheerleading activities, and egging on those post-cult Scientologists who could – and should – do more. I can understand why the occult aspects and OTIII angle might seem trivial, but they are effective inoculation tools and irritate reclacitrant post-cult Scientologists. I’m hoping the irritation might help them come to realise that they longer they dilly-dally trying to save the tech, the less tech there will be to save and the less people even remotely interested.
My strategy doesn’t endear me to many. The post-cult Scientologists have me pegged as an OSA dupe, unwittingly forwarding David Miscavige’s eeeeevil agenda. Alternatively, some Exes tell me that vehement criticism is best used sparingly, their general refrain being “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar”. But how does that relate to the maxim “never trust a Scientologist bearing affinity”? I suspect a multitude of approaches and personalities offers the best environment for people to come into after leaving the cult; strength in diversity, and all that. But, really, I dunno, what do you think?
Anyhow, since I’m a n00b round these parts and since you’re the first to engage with me, I’m relying on you to give me a nudge if I’m stepping out of line. I do have a bad habit of rambling on.
Crepscusle: “I occupy my time mainly with inoculation work, cheerleading activities, and egging on those post-cult Scientologists who could – and should – do more.”
Bravo and keep up what you’re doing. Just realize all have been in and out for various times frames and it does take some time to fully realize what they were into and it’s a process in itself.
“I suspect a multitude of approaches and personalities offers the best environment for people to come into after leaving the cult; strength in diversity, and all that. But, really, I dunno, what do you think?”
I think everyone is different and that whatever you are doing and feel good about in your gut, keep to your own honor and do what you feel helps the situation that you’re trying to help. I am resolute and definite in whatever I do to see changes, hopefully made while I’m still here. That’s my personal amends project.
“you catch more flies with honey than vinegar” is workable in a relationship, true. This is a war they created, tho we still can love the individuals, it will take those who care enough to do whatever it takes to dissolve.
Hey, now I’m rambling on a soap box but it’s fun too. Keep communicating, and remember the f**kit therapy. The book is great. 🙂
Hi, I used to be in that Church about 10 years ago, and then I left and had some relations with freezoners and now I am no longer a scientologist, as I don’t nor intend to practice SCN. Nevertheless, I don’t think that everything about SCN is wrong. I think the core philosophy is great, and if the group hadn’t spoiled it, there wouldn’t be abuses etc –it would be great in practice too. Now, that’s my point of view. I know others may not agree.
I know some things from inside and outside, and I know Churchies avoid critics like the devil but I also know that critics quite often talk trash, because they seem to have read some other SCN than I have. I’m not reffering to the practices that pertain to the group, but to the philosophy that pertains to the books and lectures.
I don’t intend to play against SCN nor critics. My criticism is my point of view and, and it’s all it is whether one agrees or not. I have no need to defend SCN nor to offend critics. I think if criticism was more ‘open minded’ –that is to say, less biased, it would be of more help than to just turn the public against all SCNists or make people scared of it.
If you immediately dismiss my claims as braiwashing, without knowing me and my thoughts, then you sure you’re not the one whos biased with regards to the subject? And how do you know that there aren’t dishonest critics or critics that just repeat what they’ve heard from other critics, have you met them all? The problem with people that know too much, is that they cannot learn. And this fits in SCNists and critics and others and myself too So, I advocate the neutral stance.
Alanzo: Spot on.
Alanzo: I agree with your “Kill PR” thing here, Geir.
Marty Rathbun: “One critical indicator I noted over and over was the fake smile – curling of the lips, while the eyes remain cold as ice.”
Chris: Agree Alanzo. If one bothers to notice classic Marty photographs show just such an insincere smile with pearly whites gleaming while stone cold eyes stare back empty at the camera. Anyone just take a look at his many internet photos. This is no great discovery. Both my mother and grandmother seemed to know this. When still a child my mother would show me large photographs of models and various people in fashion magazines. Then with one hand she would cover first their eyes leaving their mouth showing, then reverse showing their eyes without their mouth showing and she would ask me, “Do you think these eyes belong on this face?” and “Do you think this smile belongs on this face?” And my grandmother used to warn not to trust people who made their living using only their mouth. — Food for thought.
Yes. And even more enlightening is such a scrutiny of Miscavige’s pictures.
Vit: Yes. And even more enlightening is such a scrutiny of Miscavige’s pictures.
Chris: No doubt, it’s been mentioned routinely; however, I thought it was disingenuous of Marty to say so. As deE says, my nickel, except that my comment is only worth a penny if that.
It seems like a lot of Grandmas were actually Scientologists, deep down inside.
Alanzo: It seems like a lot of Grandmas were actually Scientologists, deep down inside.
Raw honesty is the new way. No glossing over, just transparency. And then I want to kill sales, too.
Why do you want to kill sales?
I think I understand how how you mean it. Still, I would like you to write down how it is for you
in case there are nuances I can’t see. Thanks!
I am still interested in your answer why you want to kill sales. Are you going to write a post in which you will write about it too?
See next blog post 🙂
Marianne: Geir, I am still interested in your answer why you want to kill sales. Are you going to write a post in which you will write about it too?
Chris: (uninvited 2-bits) For my part, sales is the two-part subject and technology of talking to people who don’t want to talk to you about something that they don’t want to talk about. A person applies various mental gymnastics to bring about not only a manipulation of another’s viewpoint but to also get that person to pay you for the time it took to do this. A “sale” is the ultimate acknowledgement and validation for having “sold well.” LRH placed the very highest commendation on sales in many places in his writings but especially when he placed it at the pinnacle of his “SCALE OF PRODUCTION.”
Right you are… without selling this blog would not be here either.. if we view what is selling and buy- ing.. that is the core of the game without it there is no game condition exist what so ever.
Chris, how did you sell your self to Shelly, why did she buy? 🙂
I guess, some use hard force when they want to get rid of some product and that can be very stimulating – so much so that we would like to shoot them dead…in order to stop that insistent flow of stimulation.
Elizabeth: “Chris, how did you sell your self to Shelly, why did she buy? :)”
Chris: By stalking and threatening until I wore her down and she gave in!
it figures: you have black mailed the poor thing by causing fear! 🙂 powerful sales tech…it must have been fun..
Elizabeth: ” . . .powerful sales tech…it must have been fun..”
Chris: Bah! You say sales but I say it was a negotiation! Very one-sided!
How about this as part of the picture?
Have an idea for another book: you could write the key concepts of your processes…article
in a story form like the Go-giver. It is a bestseller, sure yours would be also!
I have just listened to this guy. Not bad.
A popular saying in Spanish says: “No es oro todo lo que reluce” (“It’s not gold everything that shines” or “Not everything that shines is made of gold”).
There you have a good definition of PR: the shine of everything that is not gold.
This is typical from Colombia and Argentina, more than Spain.
In Guatemala we use it often too. I guess it’s popular in the whole Spanish speaking world.
‘Not everything that shines is made of gold’. Yes.
Related to that is an interesting issue: values. The root of values. What one considers to be valuable.
Yes, “to appear” is a more desirable value than “to be” in the PR world.
By the way, I just googled the saying and found out there is a similar one in English: “All that glitters is not gold”, by Shakespeare. It may be the origin of the saying in Spanish.