Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, April 2008



Home. Index for all posts.


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Apr 8 2008 2:49 pm
Subject: Re: All Scientologists on ARS, read this.

On Apr 8, 1:52 pm, "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" wrote:

> On Mar 17, 12:56�am, [email protected] wrote:

> > On Mar 16, 9:50 pm, "Ball of Fluff"
> > wrote:

> > > "butterflygrrrl" wrote in message

> > >news:[email protected]...
> > > On Mar 16, 10:14 am, "Ball of Fluff"
> > > wrote:

> > > > You seem to be assuming that all Scientologists on a.r.s. are with OSA.

> > > > C
> > > > It's a pretty safe assumption, most of the time. Especially since you
> > > > haven't been around to argue about "independent scientology" as much
> > > >as you used to.
> > > I don't "argue about independent scientology". Frankly, I don't give a crap
> > > if people want to do it or not. Never did, never will. And I'm not the only
> > > non CofS Scn'ist posting here.

> > > My point was merely that "all" and "most" are two very different
> > > propositions. Of course most of the Scn'ists here are OSA. But not all.

> > > I've been on this forum 10 years. Always been that way. Lots of OSA bots but
> > > not all Scn'ists on the forum were OSA. That was true in 98, and it's true
> > > now.

> > > C

> > >www.claireswazey.com

> > > But most Anon don't have a problem with the freezone, in case you
> > > haven't noticed.

> > Based on my youtube responses, I must stress MOST.

> > There are many Anonymous, however, that are completely unwilling to
> > differentiate the Church of Scientology with the subject. I patiently
> > explain the difference, but some refuse to accept it. They insist that
> > even though I haven't been in the church for 15 years, I must still be
> > "in it". (Butterflygrrrl just today suggested I leave it. What an
> > ignorant and bigoted fool she turned out to be! I'm sorry I wasted so
> > much time on her in the past.)- Hide quoted text -

> [Chuck's comments:]Read Roy Wallis "The Road to Total Freedom".

> Hubbard's UFO religion ideas place Scientology with other UFO cults'
> ideas.

> Read Roy Wallis' "The Road to Total Freedom."

> My simple opinion, the whole Scientology must give an "International
> Amnesty" and undeclare ALL past "suppressive persons" and
> "suppressive groups."

> That's all DM has to do.

> Chuck Beatty

The "lost tech" reference which DOES justify a full International Amnesty, is Hubbard's 1966 summer lecture entitled "About Rhodesia" where Hubbard briefly softened his definition of what a "suppressive person" really was. For that 1966 summer few days or weeks tiny brief window of time, Hubbard considered that all the people that Saint Hill had declared suppressive were NOT "real suppressives" and he said "real SPs" are more like the foul government agent he encountered in Rhodesia, one particular man, who he names on the taped lecture "About Rhodesia." LRH is clear in this 1966 lecture that the staff who were declared SP at Saint Hill were NOT SP. He further grandly states that he recalls NO person in Scientology's history who really fits the label of "suppressive person" of the caliber of "SP" person he encountered in Rhodesia, which was one man.

So, in fact, that vacation LRH took to Rhodesia, and LRH's contact with real people for those months, actually swayed Hubbard back to rationality, in my opinion.

Then, back at Saint Hill, that summer of 1966, back in the saddle as unchallenged leader of his own movement, he slipped again into his own private world of rules he had built up, and he was presented with the other thoughts that led him to irrational harsh "heavy ethics" penalty system that again swamped him into the more paranoid views he later finally concluded, which have become the laid in concrete policies ever since (covered in the PTS/SP Course).

I remember when I was on my final months, leaving the Sea Org (2002-2003), I listened to dozens and dozens of Hubbard's lectures, in the RPF course room there in Los Angeles, in the big blue building RPF course room, and the 1966 "About Rhodesia" lecture just was such a relief. I laughed that this lecture was NOT included on the PTS/SP Course, because it so obviously softened and changed Hubbard's harsh expansive definition of what an SP is.

I've thought a lot about Hubbard and his mental trip himself.

His Rhodesia trip/vacation, did at least have that positive effect, and what he stated in the "About Rhodesia" lecture about "SPs", is important I think to realize Hubbard's mental path.

And to change the course of official Scientology, they will have to retrieve and revert to Hubbard's moments of sanity, selectively extract his saner orders from those moments, and execute those orders Hubbard issued in his moments of greater sanity. The "About Rhodesia" "orders" should simply be dug up by David Miscavige, and he should consider executing the "LRH orders" from that taped lecture.

To justify a full International Amnesty, they will have to go back to Hubbard's own words, his own conclusions.

The "About Rhodesia" lecture, I just wish to note that this reference is the scriptural foundation for issuing an International Amnesty, since the HUGE number of people who have been declared suppressive persons these last 4 decades of the Scientology movement's history, these suppressive person declarations were wrong when compared to Hubbard's own clearcut views expressed on the "About Rhodesia" lecture.

Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me anytime!)
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://tinyurl.com/295khy
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
http://tinyurl.com/38ptz8 buffalo video
http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf buffalo poster

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology
From: "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Apr 14 2008 12:28 pm
Subject: Re: Oh my gosh! That is why Scientology haters don't get smarter!

On Apr 14, 12:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> False data can cause one to make stupid mistakes. It can even
> block one from absorbing true data.

> L. Ron Hubbard

One of my biggest sudden relieving realizations while sitting in one of my "sessions" while on the church prison system (RPF) was that Hubbard blames everyone else but himself for the criticism lodged rightfully at his setups in the church of Scientology.

Hubbard omitted to allow for official Scientologists to discard Hubbard's false data.

Read the "False Data Stripping" essay by Hubbard, and it is implicit that Hubbard himself is NOT the source of any false data.

Hubbard's "False Data Stripping" issue is based on the assumption that the world is full of false data, but that Hubbard's writings are NOT full of false data.

"Think for yourself" and "What is true for you is true" are uttered by Hubbard as the spiritual tech advice from him to all members, but the members are NOT allowed to conclude that important Hubbard ideas are "false data."

But there are numerous Catch 22s and plenty of Hubbard false data that Scientologists are forced to accept as "good data" and that is the problem.

Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me anytime!)
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://tinyurl.com/295khy
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology
From: "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Apr 14 2008 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: I am here to help the Anonymous and the extremists to some understanding about Scientology

On Apr 14, 11:52 am, [email protected] wrote:

> ---
> Scientology is a route, a way, rather than a dissertation or an
> assertive body of knowledge.

> L. Ron Hubbard

Nice thoughts that keep members faithful, and also divert the faithful Scientologists from dealing with the valid criticims against Scientology.

Just like Hubbard, the followers are locked into the Hubbard mindset of diverting off to the positive, never dealing with the negatives that ARE real and unhandled.

Hubbard failed to deal with the faults he has embedded within the movement.

An honest discussion would be that the freezone (which official Scientology has NOT recognized as "Scientology") is a group of individuals who follow Hubbard's spiritual tech and other common sense writings, the freezone people have overcome the most major faults in official Scientology.

There are some historical sociological flaws in Hubbard's official Scientology setup that could dramatically be reformed by:

a) official Scientology declaring an international amnesty and "un" declare ALL persons the movement has declared "suppressive" these last 40 plus years. That would have the effect of eliminating the "disconnection" problem, and allow immediate "reconnection" of all the broken relationships due to Hubbard's "suppressive person" rules.

b) repay ALL ex Scientologists who want NOTHING more to do with Scientology and who want ALL of their money back.

These are two steps that would dramatically show that Hubbard's official Scientology is responsive and is changing from its current authoritarian pattern locked into Hubbard's offensive rules that cause it rightfully to continue to be labeled a "cult."

To "un" cult Scientology it could do so dramatically and quickly by:

a) International amnesty
b) repay unconditionally all former parishioners who request full
refunds of their money they've dumped into Scientology.

On Aug 27, 10:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 26, 4:12 pm, "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
> wrote:
>
>

> > On Aug 26, 5:06 pm, Maureen Drueck wrote:
[Maureen quotes Hubbard‘s outrageously pretentious blather:] "When Scientology founded Bio-physics, it did so because of the various discoveries which had accumulated concerning mental energy in its reaction against physical energy…”

[Chuck comment:] this is such offensive stuff, it's just smothering enough for the under-educated (I fell into that category) to buy this crap.

To me, it makes me irate MORE that society's goddamn intellectuals just don't rise up and smack this crap DOWN!

Hubbard's own words just show what to college educated people and professors is just outrageous fraud!

I just wish some intellectual would just lay waste to Hubbard's crap publicly, LOUDLY!

[Astrid777 wisely comments, 5 star response in my opinion:] “ Scientology attracts no real thinkers as members, because it is such obvious crap to anyone who has read, or THINKS about science, psychology, religion, spirituality etc. It is a mixture of nonsense, common sense, and ideas derived from sources that go unaccredited by Hubbard, tied together in a hall of mirrors. I understand how ex- members, may spend the rest of their lives, trying to understand why and how they got involved so deeply. And wanting to help others avoid making that mistake. The only intelligent person who could go along with this enough to join up, is one who allows their mind to be bent by its methods and promises.

It thrives on the placebo effect. If you believe something is helping you, chances are it may help you, especially if it is structured, and keeps you busy, away from something that was not life-enhancing, like drugs, confusion, or boredom. Therefore, Scientology works, for some.

Although I am not an intellectual, I would imagine people such as writer Gore Vidal, or lesser known academics do not get involved in exposing Scientology for two reasons:

1. It would compromise their intellectual integrity to get deeply into such horse shit. It is like railing against people who believe the earth is flat. Even a half intelligent person can feel like they are going a little mad, just reading about Scientology, and refuting such lunacy point by point. You should be thankful for Dave Touretzky, who has done a good job, over the years, of writing and speaking about what is wrong with Scientology. And there are a few others.

2. The way Scientology goes after its critics is not worth it. They have a well funded legal team, and a small contingent of brainwashed minions willing to do anything on command, to a degree that the public or law enforcement wouldn't believe. I forget what it was exactly, but I believe that they even went after Touretzky, via CM's board, but ended up getting laughed out.

Scientology has only 100,000 members and does not have widespread influence on society, yet. It is mostly a danger to its own members.

A few months ago, I read a year or so of your posts Chuck. You are one of the few ex-Scientologists who has written candidly and convincingly about the reason Scientology was attractive to you, and the ONLY story I read where an ex-member cited "going exterior" as a reason. I think it is important for ex-Scientologists to write clearly about the religion in which they were raised, and their level of interest in science, other religions they experimented with or considered etc. Also important is mental state and the myriad of things that suckered you into Scientology. You covered most of that in your posts.

The end of Scientology would be hastened by Tom Cruise speaking up weekly or monthly, creating the kind of buzz he did with Lauer. Imagine if David Miscavige started lecturing to the public about Jesus- as-implant, or about a hundred other Scientology ideas that would set off the furor of segments of the public.

Yes, Scientology has caused some deaths, or driven some members with mental problems insane, made many members broke, became a huge waste of time or career block, but it is not a magnitude of death like war, or problems enacted by many governments.

In other words, the Chinese government doesn't ask you if you want to go to prison camp for protesting them. The RPF is voluntary.

Dawn (of Glosslip) does a good interview with Touretzky. In one part, she asks him to comment on the "high intelligence," generally, of Scientology members. He stammers at that point. Made me laugh out loud. He is just such an honest guy. Sure, there are some reasonably bright people in Scientology, but they are stupid for getting involved in such a cult. And there simply aren't any great thinkers in Scientology presently. Also, Hubbard was not a great thinker, merely a good huckster and cult creator. I would like more ex-members (obviously not the children who are born into it) to 'fess up to that in detail, how stupid they feel about getting into Scientology.

The lack of intelligence in the current Scientologists, in their arguments for Scientology, who post here, like Jonathan Barbera, are so obvious, I do not respond to these people. I've never read an intelligent post by a Scientologist. These people are mentally ill. I've never read anything that was coherent. Dianetics is such a load of crap, I still have a problem understanding how any intelligent person could believe it.

Scientologists lack a type of imagination. They can't imagine other truths besides Scientology. They don't understand the concept of "theory." They make huge leaps in logic, such as one I read recently where the Scientologist said that Scientology is plausible because there are billions of stars, millions of galaxies. Ergo, everything Hubbard wrote or said is true! Obviously! The volcanoes, DC-8's. Knitting needles poking at you in the womb. Gotta be true.

[Chuck response:]

You're so right. We are lucky David Touretzky even bothers. Had he not, I wouldn't have connected up to him, and connected up, and actually all the networking, that goes on, helps nudge the ex members out publicly.

It's an embarrassing life to have lived, those of us who wasted the decades of our youth creative years in Hubbard's UFO cult.

I wish a distillation, then, of the best of the books already written (Thank god, not really believing in god, but, for Dave Touretzky's "NOTs Scholars" and the "Secret Library" of books), of the books done, into spoon feedable form, for those needing a summary of the best of Hubbard's worst.

It's a messy area, those in, those out, those on the learning curve about it all, not fully out of the crap. thank god for the internet!

And thanks for people like you on ARS who've commented over the years!

Again, back to the point, if goddamn smart people who are respected, as intellectuals are supposedly due to their talent for understanding human affairs and life, if we don't have our culture's smartest most respected minds commenting publicly as opinion leaders (hate to use any phrase Hubbard ever used, since it tacitly pats his sorry head) to speak out against crap like Scientology.

I'm reading Roy Wallis' "The Road to Total Freedom" in bits, and he nails Hubbard's mental problems and authoritarian style from day one, the early 1950s when all Hubbard's supporters dropped out, one by one, due to Hubbard's erratic irrational behavior.

I guess Scientology hasn't really impacted too many humans adversely, but the 1984ism hucksterism that still sweeps some of the undereducated and mentally needy people into the cult, I think broader intellectual anti Scientology criticism IS called for!

If Christopher Hitchens were to take the side against Scientology and Alexander Cockburn who has written and was on TV for one tiny stretch of history favorable to Scientology in recent years, if Cockburn were to try to defend Scientology, and let them take up the "big" reasons for and against a UFO cult being allowed to prevail, and how a UFO cult should be discussed properly in society, so that the vulnerable DON'T get suckered into such things!

I mean this discussion has to be WIDER made, as I damn well would have appreciated having heard and learned that Scientology did NOT deliver the OT superpeople powers, convincingly.

In current hindsight, I believe had I known that even in India, there are secularists who poke holes in the Hindu mystical men's LACK of miracle powers, THAT knowledge, to me when I was a pre-Scientology dupe, when I was in college, INFO that even in India they were smacking down their mystical miracle men, showing that there were NO supernatural powers, no miracles, I needed to know that Baba Ram Dass and Alan Watts, and that whole eastern mysticism condoning climate of the late 1960s early 1970s, I needed to have that crap all knocked flat, and then I would NOT have been suckered into Hubbard's average Joe version of the eastern mysticism supposed superpeople powers that Scientology professed to give "standardly" and with full engineering accuracy.

I mean the world's offering crap mysticism, it still offers it. It all needs to be smacked down as false and fake.

Scientology was just to me, one of the choices, and a scientific (I knew it said it was, I sensed it was dicey, just by the pretentious name), and like you noted above, in my case, I was suckered from a more intellectual base, I was suckered already into buying that eastern mysticism did make at some points in their history, these superpeople.

And like someone in anon cogently said, what kind of person thinks they can get a leg up on their fellow man by doing the Faustian bargain getting mystical powers.

Well the eastern mysticism crap con dodges the Faustian bargain argument and Hubbard uses that dodge, saying ALL people can get these superpeople powers.

My god, what is needed is a well researched goddamn scholarly treatise, point by point, of the dodges Hubbard uses to sucker people along into the cult, and ALSO at the same time just lay waste in a simple, well written book, summarizing ALL of the dodge tactics ANY of these mystical cults use, where Scientology is just another of the long line of con mystical cult (UFO modernized) in human history. And that book ought to be High School recommended reading, and is has to be by a well respected GOOD writer.

That would keep the dumb youth like I was, OUT of Scientology, hopefully.







DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology?. Dianetics?, Scientology are service marks and trademarks reportedly owned by Religious Technology Center, and permission was not sought for their fair use here.




Home. Index for all posts.

















This site is hosted for FREE by FreeWebs.com. Click here to get your own Free Website!