Hubbard the Racist

[hbla...@uconnvm.uconn.edu]

Some months ago, when I was still a scientologist, despite being burned
by them several times, I complained to Tilman Hausherr for his suggestion
that a quote concerning races (from _The Fundamentals of Thought_) was
racist. At the time, my equation was Something Hubbard Wrote = True.
Sometimes this equation was violated, but only sometimes. Tilman quoted
my reply here, as some of you may remember, and it is only now that I
have had the courage to look back on the post and replies. It was
embarrassing to read my pathetic justifications for what Hubbard had
said.

But anyway, I'm not writing just because I have a computer and an
internet account. I'd like to bring up two things for discussion, one
about the way scientologists will obscure their own feelings about
things, if briefly at first, to defend and uphold Hubbard's views. The
other is how we approach current scientologists.

Not too long after I posted that message, my father (a current
scientologist) told me about some African music he'd listened to recently
and how much he admired it.

He went on for a few minutes about how utterly wonderful and magical this
music was (I think it was from a central African nation). Some part of
me rebelled and didn't want to hear it, and that's when I realized that I
was rebelling because Hubbard wouldn't have liked African music.

That realization was scary.

I mean, I had listened to [South] African music before and enjoyed it
very much. Why was I not willing to accept that it could be good now?
Certainly I wasn't becoming racist, even if in a small way, right?

That's when it came to me.

It was either my own thoughts and opinions or Hubbard's. Although I live
at the moment in an area where there are few blacks, I have had many
friends who were African-American and, as I am a student of Japanese, I
have always had considerable interest in Eastern cultures.

But to believe in scientology means to believe that the Zulus (and all
Africans) are savage, that the Japanese are insane because of their
language (from a 1950 lecture), that the yogis are practicing
mind-damaging techniques, etc., etc. I _don't_ believe these things, and
really thinking about these things, I suddenly found the range of things
Hubbard said I disagreed with become huge.

Whereas before I had read his books and lecture transcripts as if they
were gospel, suddenly they seemed dry, lifeless. I am ashamed for
defending what Hubbard said now, especially as it implicates me as
agreeing with the racist comments of a racist.

I had passed over those statements before, but now having them brought to
my attention, they repulsed me. It was all so overwhelming I had to drop
thinking about the subject for a month or two. When I was ready for the
subject again, I started doing some research on the Net and was shocked
at what I found.

You see what was happening? I had to defend what Hubbard said, and when
Hubbard said something I didn't really agree with, I _still_ had to
defend it. It was insane. By defending whatever Hubbard quote that came
my way meant I had to reshape my own mindset; and that turned me off and
shook me so badly I had to just pull away from it for a couple months.

Anyway, my second point is, how do you approach scientologists who are
defending their Demigod, like I had done? One person's approach to my
comments was contempt. It may have been well deserved contempt, but I
think that's the wrong approach, unless the _only_ purpose of the reply
is to express scorn and contempt.

And that won't get you in the good graces of the scienos out there who
just need a little nudge to open their eyes. What's needed is cold
compassion, an offer to supply some links (but not the links themselves;
they must make the whole choice), and a good enough knowledge of
Hubbard's writings so that you can approach them with the nomenclature
they'll respond to. This last point is especially important because most
scienos believe that critics don't know anything about the tech.

Now, people do these things from time to time. But they need to be done
_all_ the time. The cynical, sardonic attitude of some messages is just
making things worse.

[off the soapbox]

Anthony

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Eric Bohlman]

hbla...@uconnvm.uconn.edu wrote:

: Anyway, my second point is, how do you approach scientologists who are

: defending their Demigod, like I had done? One person's approach to my
: comments was contempt. It may have been well deserved contempt, but I
: think that's the wrong approach, unless the _only_ purpose of the reply
: is to express scorn and contempt.

: And that won't get you in the good graces of the scienos out there who
: just need a little nudge to open their eyes. What's needed is cold
: compassion, an offer to supply some links (but not the links themselves;
: they must make the whole choice), and a good enough knowledge of
: Hubbard's writings so that you can approach them with the nomenclature
: they'll respond to. This last point is especially important because most
: scienos believe that critics don't know anything about the tech.

Thanks for pointing this out. All reputable exit counsellors say that
directly challenging a cult member's beliefs is unproductive; all it does
is put them on the defensive and make them feel more secure in their
beliefs. This is exactly what cognitive dissonance theory predicts. The
only way to overcome such beliefs is the way you did; to think them
through and recognize the contradications through your own effort, *not*
through someone else directly pointing them out to you. The best way to
encourage someone to do that is to simply listen to them without
evaluating what they have to say.

[Keith Henson]

hbla...@uconnvm.uconn.edu wrote:
: Some months ago, when I was still a scientologist, despite being burned

: by them several times, I complained to Tilman Hausherr for his suggestion

snip

Excellent article Anthony. I crossposted it to a low traffic group call
alt.memetics. That's a group concerned with the problems infectious
information (which is what scientology is) cause to humans.

If you wonder why people are susceptable to the kind of effect hubbard
think had on you, memetics and evolutionary psychology are the areas of
study most likely to bring about an understanding of the phenomina.

Your suggestion seem to be fairly sound as well, though there is a lot
of room for variations in what works. Keith Henson

[hbla...@uconnvm.uconn.edu]

In article <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>,
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:

> Excellent article Anthony.

Thank you.

[snip about memetics]

> Your suggestion seem to be fairly sound as well, though there is a lot
> of room for variations in what works. Keith Henson

Thinking about it, I agree with you. The group with which my suggestion
would work best, I think, is those who have remained relatively secure
from negative information about Scientology, people who don't read ars
and haven't come into much contact with the great deal of negative info
available on the `Net. They may have _heard_ references to the negative
information, but haven't seen much of it themselves.

When it comes the type you might encounter here on ars... well, then it's
not quite so cut and dry. I still don't like the antagonism responses to
their messages contain, but in those cases I sure as hell understand why
critics might respond to them that way, out of frustration if nothing
else.