03/2009 - „…die as an eagle in the fight.“: The SO increases its rhetoric
The Scientology Organization (SO) has notably increased its rhetoric: "Battle", "die", "bleed" - such a martial choice of words towards its public is unusual even for Scientology. Obviously the SO considers itself to be in an intensified conflict with its opponents.
In conflicts, Scientology takes a polarizing approach as a matter of principle: In their propaganda there's always the "good" Scientologists on one side and on the other side there are only sinister opponents driven by base motives with the goal of stopping the advance of the supposedly good - Scientology. From this dualist worldview a concept of the enemy arises, with which SO isn't playing nice and with which SO at times compares its critics and opponents to bacteria, which better ought to be eliminated [as happened in the magazine "Impact" No 111/2006]. In December 2008 SO increased its campaign of hate in an unusual way:
„Our policy is pre-determined. As friends of mankind we have to get rid of the source of great inhumanity - and these sources are all criminals, the things which are cruel and hard, as they have left the human race. (...) So I [declare/explain] our war here. (...) If you have to die it's better to die as an eagle in the fight. (...) Make it known who your enemy is and all those who fight him are your friends. (...) We have learned that we win when we fight the criminals of earth, but that we are only bleeding when we hide from battle. “ [L. Ron HUBBARD, Magazine „Impact“ No 119/2008, p. 16.]
Upon reading these words one has to remember that from a scientologic point of view all critics of Scientology are considered criminals. According to the ideas of SO these human beings have no worth and should be weeded out or isolated in a „quarantaine“ (HUBBARD) respectively.
There are several possible reasons to be found in the developments of 2008 for the newly sharpened propaganda. Scientology is confronted with a growing number of critical reports and comments in media in this and in other countries. Termed "Anonymous", since the beginning of the year 2008, international and continuous protests against Scientology emerged. In Baden-Württemberg the "Anonymous" protested time and again against Scientology as well. The protests were triggered by the tactic of SO, which was considered censorship, to rid the internet via claims of their copyright of Scientology documents, which were disclosing internal information, that was unpleasant to the organization. The very strong reactions by SO to "Anonymous" indicate that they consider the loose protest movement, which is only connected through the internet, to be serious opponents.
However, one may not assume that SO is considering to act violent against its critics in Germany. According to all experience in this country an increased "psychological warfare" by SO has to be expected, such as wearing down opponents and "apostates" by intensified campaigns of diffamation and lawsuits. The SO is probably also going to start new attempts to gain diplomatic assistance in foreign nations with baseless claims of alleged discrimination against Scientologists in Germany. Without a doubt, the strong and martial choice of words also has the goal of preparing the adherents for a stronger readiness for sacrifice - especially of the financial kind - with the management apparently suggesting that Scientology was in a fight for life or death.
As a Concordia University alumnus, I am shocked to see an anti-psychiatry exhibition being held there. The exhibition is organized by a group connected with the Church of Scientology, which is well-known to strongly oppose, to the point of antagonism, psychiatry.
The exhibition's goal is clearly to incite fear by linking psychiatry to the worst atrocities of the 20th century, from Hitler's Third Reich to the Columbine shootings. How could a university, a place of academic freedom and transparency, allow an exhibition that selectively presents information that fits an ideology?
Wai Yen Tang
Montreal
As per Church of Scientology’s many statements to the IRS in early 1990s, *all* of Hubbard’s writings are *religious scriptures* (except for his pulp fiction writings.) Keeping this in mind, here is an excerpt of Scientology scriptures:
“The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda.”
— L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 5 October 1971, “Propaganda by Redefinition of Words”
So, in essence, Concordia University is letting itself being used by a Scientology front as a tool for Scientology’s religious agenda.
Okay, so here’s an analogy. Suppose the Economics department hired a Lyndon LaRouche nut to a tenure-track position at Concordia. If they tried to stop him from teaching or publishing his ideas, this would be a clear violation of academic freedom. But if they had the wisdom not to hire him in the first place, this would simply be a matter of maintaining academic standards.
The same is true of exhibits. The administration has a crucial gatekeeping function: it must decide who–whether students, faculty, or members of the public–can participate in university life. It is not only permissible, but indeed necessary, that it deny certain people the right to participate. The criteria for this decision are fairly straightforward: people must live up to certain academic standards.
If no faculty members or student groups invited the Scientologists on campus, the university was perfectly within its rights to deny them space. But what makes this turn of events truly embarrassing for Concordia is that administrators–and I truly believe this is the case–are so intellectually impoverished that they can’t distinguish between serious academic research and the half-baked ideas of the CCHR. They obviously couldn’t see how or why this exhibit might be controversial. This isn’t a question of academic freedom; it’s one of managerial incompetence.
