Black Public Relations, White public Relations, and BLACK PROPAGANDA
Author: Virginia
Posted: Thur Sep 20 2001 02:39 pm
For scientologists here, this is a post I did a while back to ARS and ACT.
Date: 2001-07-13 01:56:43 PST
For any scientologists reading here, some interesting references I came across. I found something interesting, ie: that there are TWO meanings for "Black PR".
1. PR
From HCOPL 13 August 1970 Issue I PR Series 1
PR= public relations, a technique of communication of ideas.
Pr Series 2 The Missing Ingredient
"Thus the law:
NEVER USE LIES IN PR.
The trouble with PR then was its lack of reality (italics). A lie of course is a false reality."
Pr Series 7 Black PR
"More correctly this is technically called BLACK PROPAGANDA"
Ok everybody, See that?
Black PR stands for Black Propaganda in this case.
another quote from same ref
"The technique is:
A hidden source injects lies and derogatory data into public view."
PR series 17R PR AND CAUSATION
SECTION ON TRUTH
"The only safe ground is to idealize what is already true and when engaged in black PR to degrade what is already bad"
"..."WHITE" PR
When PR is used for the improvement of things, ideals, conditions or any promotion of pro-survival factors, it could be called "white PR".
....BLACK PR
When PR is used for the destruction of ideals or institutions or repute of persons, it is called, traditionally, black PR.
TRUTH
Too glowing an idealization can be punctured when it is a lie.
Too vicious degradation can be exploded when it is a lie.
The only safe ground is to idealize what is already true and when engaged in black PR to degrade what is already bad.
2. Black PR
HCOPL Pr series 7 Black PR
"The word 'propaganda' means putting out slanted information to populations....
When PR goes into black propaganda (hidden source using lies and defamation to destroy) it has crossed intelligence with publicity. They don't mix well."
So, we have Black PR as in Black Public Relations which ideally is showing as degraded etc etc something that IS degraded, and then we have the type of Black PR which is defined as Black PROPAGANDA which deals in lies and
"hidden" sources.
So I guess then with White PR, if someone is PRing themselves or their organization, with a "glowing idealization" that is far from the truth,
which means the glowing idealization is a lie, then it's almost as if White Pr is REALLY Black PROPAGANDA, ie:some hidden source is promulgating these lies in order to destroy and defame what.....??
Well whoever and whatever is running the current "Church of Scientology" is certainly using this tactic, and so blatantly lieing in their "white PR" that it's almost as if there is an intentional destruction of "ideals,
institutions or repute" of SCIENTOLOGY...by DOING such numerous examples of departing from truth in the "white PR" you see so consistently put out.
Could that be the intention behind such blatant lies used in the White PR? Destruction of Scientology?
It certainly could, it certainly could.
Do other "front groups" use this tactic?
I think the answer to that is, yes.
Food for thought, and I hope these TWO definitions of Black PR, might help some of you scientologists who might have been confused by this.
Virginia
Scientologist
--------end post
Virginia
Author: John
Posted: Thur Sep 20 2001 04:49 pm
>The only safe ground is to idealize what is already true.
Typical.
You want to give the public a sugar coated pill to swallow.
Author: Virginia
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 02:59 am
Geez, think you let one of the double digit IQ club compose that answer for ya John, where were YOU, taking a nap?
LOL
It's obvious it can't even tell what the hell it's answering, and minor details such as 'I" didn't author what you excerpted seem to escape use of any higher reasoning process at all.
That's why you should try being YOU John, instead of letting this a=a thinking do the talking.
Try it.
Virginia
Author: John
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 04:47 am
Virginia, if you really want to test my IQ, then I suggest you join Floyd and I in a discussion sometime.
Author: Shawn R.
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 08:50 am
There is a rather common viewpoint that says, "Person A [ some random person that I had contact with yesterday], And Person A-prime [ The "same" person that I am in contact with again today], are the same exact person except for minor changes which can be attributed to the process of Cause & Effect Over Time. In fact, in order to have past occurrences as constant and exclusive of other past nonoccurrence, it is necessary to grant validity to this C&EOT viewpoint. The math goes something like : Aprime = (A *C&EOT) as T goes from 0 to +24hours (I'm sorry, I don't know how to get the function symbol on this keyboard - and it's been a looooooog time since I took calc.). The point is that this is the viewpoint which I have operated from for 99.99999% of my lifetime. This is largely reactive viewpoint. A minimum of 50% of the universe [the past] is viewed as fixed, fact, real, unchanging and unchangeable. The largest possible amount of personal responsibility that is available under this viewpoint is 50% [i.e.: total control of the future]. Of course, attainment of that 50% is unlikely do to the almost constant mental attempt to apply the C&EOT viewpoint of the past as a tool for creation of future events. I further note that the original example is clearly inadequate as it makes no attempt to account for the same C&EOT changes to the observer (myself).
I'm suddenly seeing lots of tie-ins to "pop physics", but I do not want to focus on them at this point.
I do want to make clear that an alternate (and IMO more useful viewpoint can be "seen" and (after having entertained it and allowing it to be right) it can be "had".
This alternate viewpoint is what we (John, Floyd, Myself) have been discussing as "Cause & Effect as a Texture of Space Time" [C&ETST] and it is clearly identical in structure to the concept of Probability as a Texture of Space Time. To acquire this viewpoint one simply reverses the logic of the original example... So.... "Person A [ some random person that I had contact with yesterday], And Person A-prime [ The "same" person that I am in contact with again today], are ENTIRELY, TOTALLY, AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE except for MAJOR SIMILARITIES which can be attributed to the LACK OF THE process of Cause & Effect Over Time. [AKA: C&ETST]
This (in my experience) is a very fast way to change the universe (or change your position in it [whichever viewpoint you prefer]).
Thank you ALL!!! This site and it's contributors are an asset to me.
Shawn
PS: At the risk of "postulating problems". I want to communicate that I experienced a difficulty which I labeled as "insanity" and "delusion" when this viewpoint started to become real. I found that Pilot's exercise of "finding corners" was helpful in bringing sanity back.
Author: John
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 09:02 am
The past is no more fixed than the future is.
Person A-past, and person A-present are the same exact person because of there amount of interplay with the universe. If universe was not constant, then Person A-past would be no different than person A-present. We would have no freedom in a totally chaotic situation, which is fixed under the guidlines of never having any fundamental difference between A and B.
Rocket J. Squirrel
Author: Shawn R.
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 10:02 am
J: The past is no more fixed than the future is.
S: Agreed.
J: Person A-past, and person A-present are the same exact person because of there amount of interplay with the universe.
S: You can have it that way but it is not true.
Person A-Past is not equal to Person A-present - by definition.
Person A-Past = Person A present minus Time.
OR
Person A-Present = Person A-Past plus Time.
J: If universe was not constant, then Person A-past would be no different than person A-present. We would have no freedom in a totally chaotic situation,...
S: Agreed.
J: ...which is fixed under the guidelines of never having any fundamental difference between A and B.
S: Not clear on what that means.
Thank you
Shawn
PS: I'm not trying to fight with you or contradict you. I want you (and anyone else who wishes to) to know that having this viewpoint available as real was/is useful to me.
Author: punkfloyd
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 10:04 am
if you could undo everything that has happened since a past event, then you can change the past. That's certainly possible on atomic level.
Atoms have no memory, put them in a new way and you have effectively changed the past. The problem is that the data about how they were before could have leaked out. Well, you either prevent these leaks or you catch them and also rearrange them to be consistent with your new version. It's like a PR campaign in microworld ;) This is actually doable and has been done. The experiments with "quantum computing" and "quantum teleportation" are based on this approach.
best,
punkfloyd
Author: John
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 10:16 am
Shawn,
It is true that the person has more experience, but is still the same identity. That in itself remains constant, otherwise, there would be no "me," there would be no "I." I would simply be a program which God created to perform labor.
>Not clear on what that means.
If you have a "golfball" and a "planet" in a chaotic universe, there are no parameters to define the differences between them. Thus, there is no difference between a golf ball and a planet.
I welcome your contradictions, as long as they are well founded.
Floyd,
The only problem with that theory is that you are not actually changing the past, because the amount of information which determines the outcome of events can never be changed. You can redistribute it to make it appear as though the past has changed, but in reality, the quantum world has no sense of "time" in the way that we perceive it.
Author: punkfloyd
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 11:52 am
John,
The great thing is that quantum world has no sense of "information" either. Information only appears when *we* look at it. Quantum world has "quinformation" (my own made up word, people usually use a somewhat misleading term "quantum information") which does NOT follow the same laws as our familiar bits and bytes.
A great thing about it is that it does not force you to choose any particular version of the past, present or future. Any *consistent* version is fine.
punkfloyd
Author: John
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 12:04 pm
Exactly!
Which means that the paradigm of the universe is based on our agreement!
Excellent post Floyd!
Author: Shawn R.
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 12:49 pm
Floyd,
Thanks, that's way cool information!! And it lines up quite nicely with where I am right now. Memory definitely resists and tends to persist. I'm all over Salvador Dalli (sp) at the moment.
John,
J: It is true that the person has more experience, but is still the same identity.
S: Agreed, however that is not the point that I am putting forth. The point is that viewpoint A is very easy to consider (I do it almost all the time), and viewpoint B is very challenging to consider (I have rarely had it clear in my mind). If/when I put viewpoint B in my mind with clarity and intention of healthy improvement, all appearances are (from my viewpoint) that healthy improvement occurs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J: That in itself remains constant, otherwise, there would be no "me," there would be no "I." I would simply be a program which God created to perform labor.
S: I have no idea why god created me, or you, or anything else. And I don't care whether he/she/it's purposes are good, evil or neutral. As far as I see it.... god is no different from evolution or any other consept/explanation/description.... Which is to say, "If it is useful in my life it can stay and if it is in my way it can kiss-my-ass"
Thank you
Shawn
PS: John, a line of yours from a discussion with Floyd, "The only way to detect anything is to have it moving towards you." was a key point for me in being able to have this as real.
Author: John
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 01:03 pm
Shawn,
I think you are seriously degrading the importance of God in the nature of the universe. I'll give you some basic things to consider, but this is a MAJOR topic, and best left for another time.
You were raised in the southern Baptist church. OK, right off I can see where the problem is. The Baptists are well known for their crazy behavior. I was also raised in the church, and I know better than anyone what it feels like to be beaten up for displaying original ideas. If you choose not to believe in God, that is your choice, but consider this...
The tree exists, whether you say it does or not. The amount of information which makes up that tree is there, whether your brain interprets it or not. The reason we have time, is very simply put, because it exists regardless of how we shove it into our paradigm. The universe is there, and no wishing on your part will make it go away. You are here for a specific reason, and you flow one direction in time for that reason. Remebering the past is no different than speculating on the future. In reality, there is no past and future, there is only a fixed purpose which we call the universe, and it is because of God that you are here today to bitch about him. Think of it this way...
God could very easily have created other realities, and he did, but they are all there with a greater plan in mind, and I just hate to think that human arrogance alone gets in the way of spiritual freedom. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it is there, and it is there for you to figure out. Regardless of whatever religious views you may have (if any), atheism is simply not an option. We may be, in laymen's terms, "gods." But when you compare our nature to that of which we are composed of, there is no comparison. Believing yourself to be limited by consideration only, is a way of freeing your mind. Believing yourself to be all powerful, is a sure way to get into trouble really fast. The bottom line is, we may be "gods," but we can get hurt, and we can die, and we can't be at cause over another being. God is cause over all things, just look at the universe. In contemplating this vast majesty of wonder, how can you not accept that there is something which is greater than all of us?
I shudder to think.
Rocket J. Squirrel
Author: Shawn R.
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 01:48 pm
Dude, Relax!! If god has/had/will have any particular purpose in mind for little o'le me. He/she/it is certainly powerful enough to accomplish that goal with or without my endorsement.
Thank you
Shawn
Author: shogun
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 03:38 pm
Punk Floyd..cool new word! *filing it away* :-)
Author: John
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 03:49 pm
Shawn,
If you think that I was sitting at the keyboard with a scrunched up face, I think you have the wrong idea. I am actually concerned about you. I know what God is up to, and I don't have to sit here and try to change his plan. My only concern is for us lil'ol people (as you put it) and our preconceived notions. Your misconceptions about God are no more dangerous than some of these Christian cults.
I'm a pretty chilled out guy, especially when it comes to Christianity. The only time I get P.O'd is if someone says somethign really stupid, and then calls me a pseudo intellectual.
I'm not here to enforce ethics, I'm here to help.
Rocket J. Squirrel
Author: Shawn R.
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 07:23 pm
John,
OK... would you be so kind as to be a little bit more specific about what you believe my preconceived notions are?
Floyd,
Quin-formation.... "Come on without, Come on within, You've not seen nothing like the Mighty Quin" :-) Way cool!!!!
Thank you
Shawn
PS: I know that some people are rather concerned with crediting proper authors, so.... To the best of my knowledge, at this point in time the above quote re: Mighty Quin was recorded by a group called the "Animals" somewhere around 1972 but it is entirely possible that that is not correct.
Author: John
Posted: Fri Sep 21 2001 07:45 pm
Well,
I was basically generalizing. I'm assuming that you have an atheist viewpoint.
However, we all have misinformation, because none of us are perfect.
Sin is defined as wandering from the truth.
So if you think "sin," and then you think, Preacher: "Damn you to hell!"
This is way off the mark, and untrue.
So in reality, the preacher is sinning by being a hypocrite.
|
