An incident in Pullman
In the early morning of Friday, 4 September 2015, someone threw an object through a window in the Planned Parenthood center in Pullman, Washington, which started a fire. By the time the Fire Department arrived, the building was basically destroyed inside. An announcement the next day confirmed it was arson. A $10,000 reward has been offered for any significant information that could lead to the apprehension of the arsonist. The above are all the actual facts about this incident I have been able to collect.
Birth Control and Morals
In the late 1800s, when Margaret Sanger was born, advocating the use of birth control was considered an obscenity, as it was thought to encourage people (women in particular) to commit immoral acts (sex out of wedlock, etc.).
For reasons I have yet to delve into, the young Margaret Sanger was very involved with Socialism as it particularly applied to the liberation of working-class women. Birth control was a necessary component of this liberation, and the subject she decided to devote the rest of her life to.
The hypocrisy in all this, of course, was that the well-to-do had always had access to birth control methods and abortions, and were for sure no bastions of morality, yet were supporting the anti-birth control ideas of Anthony Comstock and others.
Sanger was only one of many during those days who saw this gap between the PR and the reality of the situation and thought something should be done about it.
As Eugenics became more popular in the early 1900s, Sanger latched onto the movement when it was formally organized in the United States in 1921. The modern eugenics movement was given its name by Francis Galton, a member of a well-to-do British family of gun manufacturers and bankers who also happened to be Quakers. By all accounts, Galton was a child prodigy. He developed into what I would describe as a Public Relations person for various ideas and movements he saw as advantageous to his group. He was, among many other associations, a Freemason. (This all per his Wikipedia article.) Though seen by most today as simply a brilliant person, he worked within a context that many today question as, frankly, a bit criminal. And one example of that was his interest in twisting Darwin’s work (Darwin was one of his cousins) to justify a blood-based system of selective breeding for humans, Eugenics.
The idea that people could be bred for character traits is not new. That it was never scientifically substantiated was not important to those who saw it as an idea that was in their interests to promote to the general population. That it cannot be scientifically substantiated, as it’s basically false (character is not determined by genetics), still does not deter some from supporting it.
The extent that Sanger really believed in it is not known to me. She acted like she did. But here we enter the world of Public Relations.
It’s a Public Relations World
Hubbard famously (for those who study him) wrote:
It’s a PR world.
When you read the papers, books and watch the TV of the twentieth century, it’s not a very nice world. Well, that’s PR at work.
(HCOPL 13 Aug 1970 I, LIABILITIES OF PR)
PR is used to influence the opinion of target publics by causing events to happen and using news of them as a way to forward the PR message.
Though Hubbard insists that his own PRs never include falsehoods in the information they put out, other PRs were never given this limitation.
The general public is susceptible to PR because the average individual is very limited in what information he can personally collect and evaluate. Thus in asking the average person to make any decision outside of his immediate sphere of influence, he will fall back on “trusted” sources for the data he needs. And if those sources lie but he never really finds out about it, then he will make a certain number of decisions based on lies. That these decisions may later come back to haunt him is something he possibly never considers.
The PR surrounding Planned Parenthood
On 5 September, The Stranger (a Seattle weekly alternative arts and culture newspaper) published an article about the fire in Pullman under the headline: Anti-Choice Terrorists Burn Down Planned Parenthood Clinic…”
This headline is a falsehood, but definitely conveys a PR message: Anti-choice people are terrorists. However, the anti-choice people who demonstrated there about a month earlier were totally peaceful and their action included children (of course all this was just to further their own PR message).
If you look at this fire as a PR event (which it might well be), then it would have been in the interests of the pro-choice people to have caused it (as they are the ones now using it for PR purposes). This is one of the ironies of a situation where people are not able (or willing) to verify the facts of an event as it is reported to them. A self-inflicted event of this character has a name: False Flag. The term apparently comes from a tactic in naval warfare of flying a flag not actually yours until you can get close enough to the enemy’s ship to bombard them. In modern political PR, it refers to an event that harms your own side so that you can make an excuse to attack someone else by blaming them for the event. The classic False Flag event of this century was 9/11.
Planned Parenthood has had PR problems since Margaret Sanger opened the first clinic in New York City in the early 1900s. At that time what she was doing was actually against US law. So she had to convince a court that what she was doing was legitimate medical work, which she eventually managed to do.
The opposition to birth control, and abortion in particular, though high-minded, always stunk of hypocrisy. I see no reason why moral considerations about this subject would lead rational people to go out and burn down (or shut down) a health clinic. So I smell something deeper going on here.
To give some numbers: The current death rate in the US is about 2.6 million per year. The current abortion rate in the US is about 1 million per year.
I consider this a pretty big number. Though on a global scale it’s not that big a deal. About 60 million people die every year world-wide. About twice that many are born every year. Some more world-wide estimates: Annual deaths caused by…War, 120,000; Fires, 270,000; Drownings, 370,000; Malnutrition, 460,000; Violence, 500,000; Falls, 693,000; Suicide, 800,000; Traffic accidents, 1.2 million.
So: You want to fight death? Why pick abortion? It’s only one of many many things that kills people, and sicknesses do most of it.
When I went past Pullman Planned Parenthood today (I go past it all the time; it’s right next to Safeway) there were a few dozen little notes stuck on the fence that got put up around it since the fire. They were notes of support, like “we’ve got your back” and “thanks for your help after I was assaulted,” more or less obviously from women. So, what is this? I thought. Is this some heartfelt action from the local community, or just more PR?
When does life start?
Man, Homo sapiens, is a composite being of four distinct and divisible actualities. These parts are termed the thetan [spiritual being], the memory banks, the genetic entity and the body.
(Scientology 8-8008, 1952)
Obviously, animal life in human beings begins at conception, though some think we should wait until the fetus can live on its own before calling it an animal separate from its mother. However, when we look into a baby’s eyes, and it smiles back at us, that’s not the animal smiling, that’s the spiritual being. And it normally (per LRH’s findings, supported by some work done by psychic researchers) steps in around the time of birth. Before that, only the GE (genetic entity) is taking care of the body. After the thetan arrives, we have a full-fledged personality to deal with.
So per our best data so far on how things really work, abortion kills an animal, whereas death after birth kills a person (who usually detaches and goes about looking for another baby to pick up). You may think this is still a matter of conjecture or superstition; I consider it a pretty solid fact. So on a moral level we are talking about the relative rights to life of an animal living inside its mother versus a person living under its own power, even though with considerable assistance.
My feeling is that this is not the moral question of the age. It’s too bad there is no agreement yet about what a person really consists of (as in the LRH quote above). Until this point is settled (if the Powers That Be will ever allow it to be settled), we have what amounts to a PR battle between camps who could serve their own interests much better by working on other issues. Obviously, someone’s interests are being served by keeping this battle alive. But that is a subject for another day.