The inquiry comes after a 20-years battle by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), an international psychiatric watch dog group that in 1975 first exposed how blacks had been kept in converted mining compound under a secret agreement between the South African Health Department and private enterprises.
Those interested in the issue might want to know about the nature and motives of the CCHR, which many call a "Front Group" for L. Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology and which does not deny its ties to that "church". I am no apologist for Psychiatry's abuses, and I support the right of individual Scientologists to their beliefs.
One of CCHR and Scientology's goals is to "eliminate psychiatry by the year 2,000". As part of this, they are currently in the midst of a campaign to turn African Americans completely against the psychiatric and psychological professions including all forms of treatment and medication. However, the CCHR and Scientology offer no alternative except the extremely expensive courses of Dianetics and Scientology [which start out with a handful of cut-rate short "introductory" courses] -- there are never scholarships, scaled fees, or any sort of charity in their system, as they believe the downtrodden are totally responsible for their state.
Hubbard's ideology has much the same roots as the eugenic movement in Psychiatry such as Nietzsche and Pavlov, as well as turn of the century Theosophy which had some racist aspects. The following quotes from various postings to alt.religion.scientology amply display Hubbard's racist bent, and open the question as to whether CCHR is cynically manipulating this issue to further their own agenda, rather than out of a sincere sympathy for vicitms of racial bigotry.
[PLEASE NOTE THAT NOT ALL CITATIONS HERE GIVE THE EDITION THAT THEY REFER TO. SOME OF HUBBARD'S MORE INFLAMATORY QUOTATIONS DO NOT APPEAR IN MORE RECENT EDITIONS. THERE ARE NO QUOTES I HAVE SEEN WHERE HUBBARD RECANTS HIS RACIST STATEMENTS.]
Subject: Re: Hubbard's boy Jamble
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson)
Date: 30 Jun 1995 04:12:42 GMT
Kim Baker writes:
You wouldn't happen to have more specific details of this, please? Such as Bulletin no, tape, extract from old mag, etc? You see, here in South Africa, *some* people are trying to make out like they opposed apartheid all along.
I can't help you with the citation to that excerpt, Kim, but here's another one you might like to make note of. Ron Newman might like to add this to his "Isaac Hayes Collection" as well. It is taken from Professional Auditor's Bulletin No. 119, 1st September 1957, "The Big Auditing Problem," as published in "Level 0 PABS," by L. Ron Hubbard (c1968, The American St. Hill Organization), pages 80-81:
"In North Africa they had the Arab with the gun and whip, but he could force people to do things a gun and a whip [sic] and he accomplished a tremendous amount of extermination, but he certainly didn't advance that civilization very much. In South Africa they had a bit of the whip but everybody just gave up. The South African native is probably the one impossible person to train in the entire world--he is probably impossible by any human standard. I'll give you an example. A South African native is being shown how to sow crops and he has a basket, and he's got some seed, and he's walking along back of the harrow disc--and he is supposed to throw seed out this way, seed out this way, seed out that way, seed out this way. A white man is riding a little tractor that's pulling the disc and scraping the soil for the seed. And this scene was enacted and was witnessed and was told to me with considerable hilarity as some kind of learning rate. The white man was sitting on the little tractor pulling the harrow, the native along behind him, sowing the ssed straight down in handfuls on the ground. The white man got off the tractor, came back to the native, took the basket away from him, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the right, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the left, and gave it back to the native. And the native waited, the white man got on the tractor, drove along, and the native took a handful out of the basket and threw it straight on the ground. So the white man got off the tractor, came back, took the basket away from the native, showed the native, throw it to the right, throw it to the left, gave it back to the native, took him [sic] seat again on the tractor, the native followed along behind, took handsful and threw it straight on the ground! And this went on for a very long time. The native never did throw any handsful of seed to the right and left. Never did. That is farming in South Africa.
Now did anything ever come along and change that? Yes. Man had to cease to be Homo Sapiens and had to become Homo Scientologicus in order to accomplish any action that was anywhere near efficient in South Africa. And we have had some auditors in South Africa who have actually succeeded in training natives easily and well and have successfully managed large organizations there. That's certainly something. Now with these people it was still possible to get something done. But what had this native done? Was this native what we think of as primitive stock? No, we make a great many mistakes. We say a child is in a "native state". A native is in a "native state". People are in a barbaric condition and then they grow up and become civilized. How do we know that this barbaric condition isn't a retrogression from a highly civilized condition back to an Only One category? How do we know that isn't true? How do we know that that native didn't at one time achieve a great civilization of culture which then collapsed on him and he went back into a state of being a barbarian?
But the point is, is this true that a native is in a clearer state, and is it true that it requires Livingness to advance somebody in that crude state up to a condition of ability? No, that is not ture. The child, the primitive, the native, are in retrograded states. They are worse off than somebody who is at a civilized or thinking or analytical level."
Hubbard goes on in this PAB to explain how children and psychotics are identical because they share identical "delusions", although children grow out of them while psychotics remain locked in them. Hubbard appears to be attempting to make the point that psychotics, "natives", and children should all be treated in a similar manner. He concludes by stating:
"But all I am telling you is that children, South African natives, and now the entirety of this world in which we are living, presents to us an auditing problem. We are rich in being able to understand what is happening in our environment and we are rich also in knowing exactly how to handle such a circumstance or condition. Nobody knew before. That is factually true here on Earth."
I think you'll agree that, in spite of Hubbard's tortured writing style, his disdain for what he calls "native" or "primitive" or "barbaric" people shines through the rhetoric brightly.
Subject: Love That Ron!
From: email@example.com (TarlaStar)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 14:12:15 GMT
From "Scientology, fundamentals of Thought" page 30:
"IDENTITY AND ATTENTION
One 'needs' an identity to play the game, as covered later, but mainly to 'get attention."
A being looks at things. To balance the flow of his attention, he feels he must also be looked at. Thus he becomes attention-hungry. Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls etc. can give them attention. The white man seldom believes this and so is likely to become anxious about people. Thus the white saves people, prevents famine, flood, disease and revolution for people as the only purveyors of attention are scarce. The white goes further. He often believes had can get attention only from whites and that yellow and brown peoples' attention is worthless. Thus the yellow and brown races are not very progressive but by and large, saner. And the white race is progressive but more frantic. The yellow and brown races do not understand white concern for 'bad conditions' since what a few million dead men? There are plenty of identities and there is plenty of attention, they think. The white can't understand them. Nor can they understand the white."
I was going to point out all the racism and faulty thinking here, but I think you can do that for yourselves.
Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy, A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping "Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986 http://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html
From: Kim Baker <KBAKER@uctlib.uct.ac.za>
Subject: Hubbard's prejudice against Zulus
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:05:19 GMT
In Hubbard's own words, an extract from: "Dianetics: The modern science of mental health", Book 2, Chapter 8 ("Contagion of Aberration"), paragraph 9:
"Primitive societies, being subject to much mauling by the elements, have many more occasions for injury than civilized societies. Further, such primitive societies are alive with false data. Further, their practice of medicine and mental healing is on a very aberrative level by itself. The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who base conclusions on "modern man" by studying primitive races that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities. Measuring one set of aberrees by another set of aberrees is not likely to lead to much data. And the contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the superstitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality."
South African citizens from the Zulu nation find this highly offensive, patronising and out-right racist. The rich body of ancestral traditions, ceremonies and culture of the Zulu people are admired the world over. The picture that Hubbard has painted of the Zulu nation reveals an alarming ignorance and ability to comprehend a cultural tradition that is not his own. If his ability to understand the Zulu nation was that erroneous, how then his ability to observe and dictate a "philosophy of mind"?