Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, Aug 2005


Home

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Aug 2005 12:42:23 -0700
Local: Mon, Aug 1 2005 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: Don't the Sea Org members feel like idiots in their "fake" uniforms??

pitdog wrote:
> TinyArm...@gmail.com wrote:
> snip

> when i first saw photos of sea org members
> in their uniforms, i constantly thought about
> "ocean quest" and other such tv series, funny
> stuff.

When I saw the 1975 recruitment poster just prior to my leap of faith lack of judgement decision to join the Sea Org (lifetime staffer category) the poster showed a photo of the freshly painted "Apollo" Sea Org vessel where L. Ron Hubbard and top management and most topnotch OTs all hung out. The Apollo reminded me of Jacques Cousteau's "Calypso", and I envisioned mediterranean exploration cruises for myself, like "Mission Into Time".

At any point in Scientology's and the Sea Org's history there is a bewildering incongruous mix of imagery and messages presented by the movement, and a wild range of Hubbard writings distracting one all over the place mentally. And then since Hubbard is so prolific, there are endless innocuous Hubbard common sense statements to select from to relieve oneself of all the Hubbard befuddling hopeful fantasies.

After joining, and going along in the mundane details of Sea Org life, I kept with it, for decades, though, because of my "faith" in the guaranteed "out-of-the-body" flights that surely were every Scientologist's and every human being's birthright were they to get into and "stick with Scientology" and follow Hubbard's "carefully marked path" to those high spiritual abilities!

The legions of failed Scientology OTs, the OTs that never were, those honest ex-OTs human beings today tell the true tale that is in alignment with what historians of mystical groups already have observed and learned for thousands of years.

But it doesn't take an expert to see the lack of results by mystical/spirtual groups. Common sense people see right through groups like Scientology easily every day without the help of experts.

But I appreciate the work of the people on this chat site and the other excellent sites on the harms and faults in L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology world. I needed this site!

I appreciate all who post their extremely sensible observations and ideas here!

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Aug 2005 01:14:53 -0700
Local: Thurs, Aug 4 2005 1:14 am
Subject: Re: Keith Henson, you are so full of bull shit!

You know almost instinctively any human being reading this thinks something is wrong with Scientology and wonder what Scientology is up to by posting this obvious smear material on Keith.

Scientology has been shown in court cases, and in media to set their critics up.

Doing this to Keith is simply part of the continuing vicious Scientology generated propaganda that media find newsworthy to show Scientology still is engaging in.

Would you like to talk to some media about Keith, and spread your vile statements to some media.

I am sure media would like to meet you, find out who you really are, and ask you some pointed questions about yourself.

I have media from both coast right now contacting me and accumulating material.

Would you like to vent?

Media likes to stay on top of the dirty tricks that Scientologists are engaging in, and you can be a live example.

Give me a call, and I will hook up if you have the honesty to talk directly to some media, and OUT your pitiful tactics to what the wider world recognizes as pitiful, at this point, in Scientology's disgraceful dirt smearing offensive tactics history!

Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
412-260-1170



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Aug 2005 14:01:23 -0700
Local: Mon, Aug 1 2005 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: Tech Volumes Sold On E-Bay

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Infotroll wrote:

> > A 12 volume set of Tech Volumes (normally
> > priced at about $2,000.00) sold on
> > E-Bay for $32.00.

> This set is from 1976. Weren't they rendered
> obsolete (from the point of view of a currently
> active Scn) a long time ago?

There is an extreme value to these original 1976 sets. I'd love a set myself, just to refer to, and compare to history and later HCOB sets. This set would be priceless to scholars, the people someday who will study Scientology inside out and backwards for historical purposes, seeing how the authorship of Hubbard's tech works were actually evolving.

a) They have some old BTBs, which contain in some cases "excerpts" of original LRH orders. The value of this gives serious researchers insight into LRH's evolved authorizing rules for writing things in his name. For instance, today some of the these BTBs are now HCOBs. Some of these BTBs have clearcut LRH quotes that DID NOT make it into final today's set of HCOB volumes, showing experts that the church compilers are governed by the rules that Hubbard ordered for compilers, which is they are authorized only to put into issue form what LRH ordered which is "timeless tech". Some in these BTBs was not Hubbard, some could NOT be proven to trace to Hubbard, the evidence was lost, or the BTBs were the BTBs were truly NOT Hubbard's intention, thus for a variety of reasons the BTBs did not make it into the 1990 HCOB volumes.

b) Sometimes in this 1976 volume set there will be two and three and four issues, with each of the revisions of that single issue, because at the time this 1976 set was produced, the LRH then existent orders to his tech compilers (the people who compile his orders into issue form) were told to re-issue the revised HCOBs, and to keep on the books, the older versions, so that people could read the old issue and compare and see the changes to the new.

[This above comment, by me, is important. It is historically important to know. It shows the minutia understanding and degree of orders that LRH got into. And also, comparing the 1976 set to the 1990 set of HCOB volumes, you will see there are NO such repeat issues of the older retired HCOBs still in the final 1990 set, the reason being that things in the movement have moved beyond the time frame where tech trainees need to read the old tech still and compare and update things. It is assumed that as of 1990 that students of LRH's tech were NOT around in the earlier years, and thus didn't need to have the older HCOB issue versions to compare to. In otherwords what was fine for 1976 was unecessary in 1990, since tech trainees in 1990 would more likely be confused by the HCOBs that were "cancelled" but still included in the 1976 HCOB set. This is a fine fine point, but it is excellent background into LRH's detailed orders, minutia concerns, while LRH missed so many major issues as he breezed along in his adventurous delusive history.]

Ernie Ryan, Ken Delderfield, Gary Miller, Fred Albach, Russ Williams, are some of the key people to interview before they pass away, for their firsthand incredibly detailed knowledge of these two sets of LRH HCOB volumes.

Best, Chuck Beatty
412-260-1170
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
Flag 1975-1983
Int Base (on CMO Int Ruting Forms Msn) 83-84
FB (Snr HCO Int) in LA, 84-87
FB level 88
Snr C/S Int Office (RTRC) fall 88-Feb 89
Int RPF Feb 89
PAC RPF Mar-May 89
HGB (ITO) 89
INCOMM (Routing Forms Pjt) 89-90
INCOMM Computer Opertions 90-92
(both at Int and LA computer rooms)
ASI Computer Operations 92-95
Int Decks Dec 95-Jun 96
Int RPF Jun 96-Nov 2000
PAC RPF Nov 2000 - Mar 2003
Finally routed out, walked out finally, Mar 29, 2003
Started posting on critics sites, July 2004



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Aug 2005 14:27:45 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 2 2005 2:27 pm
Subject: Tory Christman best TV talk, and
Tory's excellent all time best media coverage!!
A MUST watch and A MUST read!!! > Chuck, as an Eglish speaking native
> you should now that your headline
> makes no sense. It is either "Read
> what intelligent media wrote" or
> "what intelligent media writes".
> And btw most media is not intelligent.

Seymour Hersh, intelligent
David Halberstam, intelligent
Mark Bowden, intelligent
Tom Friedman, intelligent
Columbia School of Journalism Review, intelligent
NY Times, intelligent
NY Review of Books, intelligent
Choice, intelligent
Scientific American, intelligent
Wall Street Journal, Nation magazine,
Alexander Cockburn, intelligent
Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria, intelligent
Jonathan Schell, intelligent
Katha Politt, intelligent
Patricia Williams, intelligent
Timothy Garton Ash, intelligent

In my opinion, unless you grasp my point of "intelligent" media, and judge the journalists by their works, you've just bought into the poor excuse for failing to educate yourself enough to tell what IS good and what is mediocre and what is just inflamatory. That is your loss, that you haven't read enough, is all. Read more and you will see (New Yorker, Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, NY Times, New York Review of Books, try any of these for their minimum subscriptions, and see for yourself.)

There is SO MUCH intelligent media, journalism, writing, to absorb, that one does NOT have enough time to absorb it all.

>
> This is no flattering article about Tory.

http://www.torymagoo.org/devil.htm

If you don't see how this is flattering, and how well they grasp Tory, then that is your loss. Others who are just a tad more well read, see this is a damn good article and captures Tory and the predicaments of her life, and the predicaments Scientology puts a regular parishioner through.

I suggest you actually read the books on Scientology, that is what I am doing.

Even after being in for almost 30 years, now when I read the Scientology books (Paulette Cooper's and Robert Kaufman), I see the excellent work that is already done, and available for the public.

I just finished Paulette Cooper's "Scandal of Scientology" and her book stands the test of time.

Paulette ironically had the same hopeful thoughts that many of us ex's have right now, which is that Scientology will continue its snail paced reform. Back then, even she thought reform could occur. Today wiser critics see Scientology's snail paced reform as an illusion that is likely never to fully occur, due to how entrenched Hubbard's worst ideas are in the movement.

Barbara, you are really out of step with what wogs themselves think about Scientology, and if you use your poor excuse NOT to view any media for staying uninformed about what the world thinks, and you don't just go speak to enough people (I am forced to discuss Scientology, as my whole life was as a Scientologist, so almost a half dozen times a week I discuss it with brand new people, and I see the raw public reaction every damn week, which obviously for whatever reason you have not the inclination nor breadth of reasoning to absorb even my opinion here in a balanced way, you just dismiss my views, which is your right but you truly seem to deserve the labels so many here on ARS affix to you).

I am on page 168 of Robert Kaufman's "Inside Scientology", and it is excellent!

Have your read either it or the "Scandal of Scientology" by Paulette Cooper?

There are points in every single anti-Scientology book I have read since getting out of Scientology which I find valid and still valid today, even though I agree things are slightly less harsh than the "old" days. The errors in these anti- Scientology books do NOT outweigh what I agree are the points that these books get correct about the Scientology movement.

Luckily today Advanced Org public aren't forced to work all-nighters to get out of lower conditions when they leave their confidential materials insecure, and today they don't have to wear dirty gray rags. This is what public had to do back in 1968 when Robert Kaufman did his Clearing through OT III at Edinborough when the Advanced Org United Kingdom was up there in 1968.

>It is awful how her private
> life is dished out, including her drug
> abuse. If somebody would write
> that about me, I would file a law suit. :)
>

You know, in California, in the world we live in people are more forgiving than you give them credit. I suggest you listen to the crowd response and standing ovation that wogs gave to Tory at the hour long talk Tory gave right there in Los Angeles to the Center For Inquiry West (CFI, just a block away, on Hollywood Blvd, from the Complex). She was/is love. She had the crowd just rolling in laughter, and they loved her! So wogs love and understand Tory. Anyone with half a brain sees this.

Spend an hour, and see how the at first very silent and conservative crowd warms up to Tory and in the end of her over one hour talk, they are laughing their heads off in sympathy for her and give her a standing ovation!

If anyone wants to see Tory at her best, watch this 5 part excellent excellent video:

http://www.torymagoo.org/

And then if you have not, read again this excellent excellent article that is what I call excellent journalism:

http://www.torymagoo.org/devil.htm

Wogs and intelligent media totally agree with the critics on the ridiculousness of the predicaments that Hubbard puts Scientology faithful through.

Wogs are so much more forgiving than you seem to be able to perceive of us. Us who came limping out of the Scientology movement, with our whacked out views about ourselves and the world due to having been noxiously gased by L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology miasma.

Normal people see it. I guess you are not normal, that's about all I can say about you. Maybe that is to your credit. In some other world that maybe true. But not the world I perceive here before me.

Tory is a walking media story, and the article I quoted, is just the best I've read, and it captures for all time Tory's permanent place in the Scientology movement, as someone who DID make it out, and the ridiculous lengths that OSA goes to, to try to keep someone within the ranks.

Don't you think it is ironic today that apparantly Janet Weiland is on the PAC RPF, and Janet Weiland who was the dedicated OSA Int executive who was madly tagging along with the escaping Tory at LAX in Nov 2000 with Janet trying to keep Tory from crossing over to the "enemy" (anti-Scientology) side, just after Tory saw finally how far south Tory's life as a Scientology internet volunteer had led Tory astray from her beliefs as a human being?

Minimally the Scientology Hubbard miasma generates these odd moments played out in international airports, and that type of incident at least deserves to be a backdrop sidebar wacky characteristic of what often happens at LAX, something I hope minimally makes it into a movie script.

You Barbara can't even see this, that when the Scientology decades-ling personal stories people like Tory and I live through, that these odd real-life predicaments play out in public, that regular people are sort of bewildered about what is it about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard that precipitaed these wierd moments that burst into the wog world from the hidden Scientology miasma-world.

I don't wish Janet Weiland or anyone time in the RPF.

I did over 6 1/2 years in it. And I waited over 14 months to be allowed to standardly get out of the Sea Org, via the RPF's RPF.

I could have blown, but you know, Ed Parkin and Gigi Scudilari and Kirsten Caetano just did not allow any honest options and tell me that I would get some decent help if I went out as an SP, and I might have just sped up the routing out process. But you know, the Sea Org people just won't "talk turkey" with you. They don't want to talk about letting you leave as an SP, and speed up the leaving process. They let you either blow on your own, but they won't talk to you honestly and tell you what will happen if you just don't follow all their rules for "leaving standardly." You follow their rules, and you wait months for the okay to "leave". Only way out fast, for me, only option allowed me, was to go out as an SP. And no one, not he RPF I/C, Alex Meyer, not Ed Parkin, RPF's RPF MAA, not Gigi Scudilari, RPF's RPF MAA, not Kirsten Caetano, OSA Int staffer, would talk to me and let me ask about just walking out without finishing the damn routing out procedures. Do you follow? The Sea Organization leave people with enforced options that cause people frustrating moments that ignite all sorts of rancor. No one should have to wait goddamn 14 months to get out of the Sea Org.

I can't talk to you Barbara, sorry, you don't get so many basic things that normal people understand. I take it for granted you know things that are just beyond your understanding.

I probably won't be answring you Barbara, I predict, since our views are so distant from each others.

I'd like to hear your voice, just once, for history's sake.

Are you allowed to make phone calls? I'd love to hear your voice, just once, for history's sake.

Best, Chuck Beatty
412-260-1170
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
Flag 1975-1983
Int Base (on CMO Int Ruting Forms Msn) 83-84
FB (Snr HCO Int) in LA, 84-87
FB level 88
Snr C/S Int Office (RTRC) fall 88-Feb 89
Int RPF Feb 89
PAC RPF Mar-May 89
HGB (ITO) 89
INCOMM (Routing Forms Pjt) 89-90
INCOMM Computer Opertions 90-92
(both at Int and LA computer rooms)
ASI Computer Operations 92-95
Int Decks Dec 95-Jun 96
Int RPF Jun 96-Nov 2000
PAC RPF Nov 2000 - Mar 2003

Finally routed out, walked out finally, Mar 29, 2003
Started posting on critics sites, July 2004



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Aug 2005 23:37:18 -0700
Local: Wed, Aug 3 2005 11:37 pm
Subject: Re: Int RPF what apparantly happened to it.

Phil Scott wrote:
> From the outside its starting to look like a pretty sparce
> crew these days.

You know, I think we are missing a lot of info. Because when people leave, the sort of older timers leave, there are so many NEWER people who come along and those NEWER people then go through their own learning curves, and it is just one big revolving door (Keith Henson's views strike me as most understanding, in that some damn people are cult prone, straight and simple, for the variety of genetic as well as cultural and personal reasons). Then the NEWER people become LARGER in numbers than the "older timers" and it just goes on decade after decade. (I left LA in Dec 95, when I came back in Nov 2000, I was floored with about 70 percent of the faces at the Complex were NEW young people's faces! That was ONLY 5 years!)

Now, there are the clique at the top, the ones LRH left holding the top management reins, whom he highly patted on their backs, in 1983. LRH in 1983 gave a pretty wide pat on the back to the clique that is still the top clique. DM, Ray Mitoff, Starkey, Greg Wilhere, Shelly, Heber, Mark Yager, Mark Ingber, Guilliaume L, Lyman Spurlock, the clique of older-timer Int Base staffers STILL hanging in there (Carol Spurlock, Gary Wiese, Carmen Wiese, Hansulli Stahli, Heidi Stahli, Hara O'Hare, Darnelle Bloomberg, Marion Dendiu, Diane Hopkins, Spike Bush even though he's eternally in grounds, Dan Koon, Sue Koon, Waldo--Bob Waldman, Carol Burke, the numerous RTC staffers who're permanent fixtures, Warren McShane---I think he's still in there, and you are only getting my very imperfect take, realize I was NOT some bigtime insider, I was a lower level hanger on!)

There are these unofficial cliques of higher ups, that HAVE built reputations, and they aren't quitters, they have whatever dedication factors personally that override the outpoints that outsiders see. The psychological factors pressuring people to act the way they do, to protect their created lives within the groups they have made their beds with, I mean understanding the Sea Org groups is explained already by psychological info already published and widely distributed (I don't know it, but I am sure it is out there.)

> People leaving others passing away. and
> some heavies send down to menial jobs.

Don't forget there were 700 Int Base staffers in 2000. Even if they dumped 200, they could have replaced those 200 with new faces that we just don't know about. [I mentioned above the 70% new faces in LA, during the 5 years I left LA and came back.] And even if they didn't replace them, they still are sitting at 500 or more strong at the Int Base. I am sure they replaced at least SOME of their losses. In PAC there are gobs of people! There were 4 dining room shifts at mealtimes for lunch and dinner!

Missing from the info I help spread, is I don't have input to offer on their recruitment, and that is simply not being given.

In 2002, the numbers at the Int Base I still think were about 500-600.

> It appears that the TomKAT / WoW movie operation has failed to
> drive any more raw meats into the orgs. ..if thats true what
> do you predict the next move scientology inc will take to
> rebuild the orgs?

I am sorry, I might have given the impression that Scn is relying on the Celebs to do their dissemination, I think that is out of default, and NOT some sort of DM and RTC and CMO Int planned tactics.

I think honestly, we are LACKING more raw statistical data, on their Int stats.

I was basing my opinion that the celebs are the only ones doing positive dissem activities, based on Ann Marie Woodward's comment that as of 2002 only CC Int was the only Saint Hill sized org that remained at Saint Hill size production levels.

That means the celebs are pulling together and I think that is true.

I think the Scientology celebs on their own are actually learning and figuring their lives as Scientologists and celebs in a way they believe is turning out okay for them.

For instance Travolata and Kirstie got all cleancut and reached an insipid peak in both their careers with their talking baby movies, and their careers languished.

Then John landed Pulp Fiction, and his bad boy character was rehabilitated and his career took off again. Kirstie with her fat thing, that rehabilitated her old bitchy Cheers character edge she used to have! She to me, I like her speaking out saying whatever outrageous thing she wants. It shows she ISN'T the mindless Scientology robot, honestly.

The sreenwriter for some recent play or movie, the guy who got the Academy award nomination or award, that Scientologist is actully very sensible.

I think when the Scn celebs just blurt out their feelings, honestly, and just don't worry about their Scn image, they come across okay.

The squeaky clean Scn image of John and Kirstie during the baby talking movies phase in the 80s was just death to their careers.

Hollywood stars have to have the rebellious edge, the speak your mind freely, and if the Scn celebs can do that, fine for them.

I hope that the normal rank and file in Scientology start getting the courage not to be muzzled and start just blurting out their opinions.

I mean, honestly, another huge angle, is the damn church ought to just give up on the Xenu story, and let the rank and file faithful all log onto the internet and read all the material, and just have any that get sick get them into the org, and clean them up.

Just let everyone see the LRH materials, and deal with the fallout.

If Scientology just dropped their SP rules, just let the Xenu story out to their faithful, just undeclared all their SPs, and just let their faithful say whatever the hell they wanted about anything, including criticizing LRH or the orgs or DM or anything, they'd wouldn't tank.

They still got a half to 1 billion dollars in money in foreign bank accounts, they are NOT just gonna tank.

If they just let the faithful read the internet and undeclared all the SPS, and let the orgs just get overrun with confused and baffled faithful and new public crawling all over their lines, it would create such a massive amount of FREE publicity, and confusion, and people crowding into the orgs, just making a confusing mess, but they WILL get through that, and I think it would be a hell of a lot better than any stupid LRH repackaged ideas DM is squeezing out of top management.

The Scientology movement needs an internal Perestroika like the above.

------------------------------

They are in emergency longrange by stats, but they got a thing, a revolving door mundane turnover of personnel routine going on in the Sea Org (older times who linger on for decades eventually leave, and plenty of newer people leaking in to fill the ranks).

That revolving door operation loses people, and it gains enough people who don't see what is going on.

-----------------------

Now, here is a major thing, in my opinion. We are missing, and have all along, in all the years I have been reading on the internet, the actual behind the scenes financial data, in the overseas accounts. I sort of think of the overseas accounts as their really big important nest eggs.

I don't, and I have not read how much interest they are making.

We'd need a defector like Jonno Epstein, someone who's worked the Sea Org reserves accounts for a decade to give us the info on what their overseas accounts are doing.

I've NEVER heard that info.

That is a key omitted peice of information I have NOT seen on the internet.

To me, their overseas accounts, we need a Jonno Epstein to tell us the score there.

My gut feeling, is they got serious money overseas, and that nest egg I think is untouchable by any US disaster at this point.

I think that nest egg overseas, in my wild guess opinion, is what ultimately gives DM and the top knowledgable leadership clique the confidence at this point to sort of putz around trying different things to "keep the show on the road" and keep the faithful's spirits high with the year after year new releases of LRH's same old works, repackaged, etc.

I don't think they are worried long range. That was my feeling. I admittedly am out of the loop on the bigtime state of the big overseas accounts where the movements major nest eggs are.

I think DM's absorbed as much of LRH's view as he can, and he's the one to now start deciding what of LRH's views DON'T work, and I think we are actually sort of in a situation like United States is with Red China. We just have to let them go on their own, and see what the next generation after DM and his surrounding clique who are the ones "blessed" by LRH in 1983, we just have see what the next generation after this "blessed" clique will do in the decades to come.

I think I've reached the limits of my opinions at this point.

When DM becomes disallusioned with LRH's ideas, maybe DM will do something more sensible, but LRH was so prolific, and there are just so many barbed recoiling sticker infested policies that snap back and are just so tough to disengage once these LRH policies are let loose and stuck in place and functioning.

It will be a trick to undo LRH's briar patch of policies.

> Do you think government infiltration alone such as via e
> republic and others will provide a base for the orgs?

This is out of my personal range of knowledge.

> What would be your speculation on why the reno's in LA are not
> finished for years now with tarps hanging on various critical
> scn building,,such as the one cross from Grumans Chinese
> Theatre?

Money. Not enough money. I've heard this from lots.

Now how they squeeze money for renos out of their budgets, is part and parcel of their "allocation" forms. Each org Banking Officer fills out a weekly "allocation" form, and that "allocation" form lists where all the income of that particular church goes.

Int Finance Office, the Bureau under CMO Int, is the one that sets the percentages and methods of the org "allocation" form.

We need some ex's with current info on the "allocation" form in use right now, for the big big Sea Org orgs, like FSO, and someone savy with the financial divvying that is done weekly on all the money that gets collected into Sea Org reserves.

We need a damn Jonno Epstein level defector.

We just have massive holes in the truthful "allocation" percentages, and WHAT the money is going for.

What happens is they may be scraping by, and just not have enough for their renos, which is why their renos stall.

That has traditionally been the explanation for why ANY renos at any Sea Org area stall!

And the Sea Org has invested or the IAS nest egg (see I just don't have any knowledge of the exact financing of their big church by church renovations around the world, their "vanity" renos of their "Saint Hill sized" new orgs).

All the ex Int Base staffers and anonymous sources who give me info say renos stall for lack of money.

Honestly, we need some finance office defectors, who can tell of the big expenses, how the money is being used up, and the problems with how they decided to spend their money these last 10-20 years.

We need a Jonno Epstein or Ellen Reynold, or Nigel Oakes, or Maureen Brigatti, any of them need to defect, or a Wendell Reynolds. Charles Watts if he is out, he'd be great. But we need someone like Mark Ingber, who knows about the overseas accounts, and knows what is really what with those accounts!

Mark Ingber would know everything and be able to explain it all pretty simply.

Mark Ingber would be a perfect defector to explain their money stuff.

Sorry. You ask questions for which I can tell you who inside could answer them, but there is massive infomation missing and available to answer your question right now.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected]
Date: 7 Aug 2005 14:12:52 -0700
Local: Sun, Aug 7 2005 2:12 pm
Subject: This weekend I got to meet some SPs
face to face, and found they are just really
nice people.

This weekend I met a bunch (8-9) SPs face to face. 7 were Religious Freedom Watch members!

As any sane person would expect, these SPs are just normal nice people.

But the only difference about these individuals is their stubborn courage to speak out their opinions and intelligence. That admirable characteristic has NOT been beaten out of them!

The genuine faults and utter fantasy in the L. Ron Hubbard organizations and writings won't disappear by Hubbard's adherents shifting the blame onto the "Suppressive Persons."

What a sad case of convenient disinformation is the ridiculus Religious Freedom Watch site.

And also the only reason these SPs I met don't react more angrily to the utter disinformation on Religious Freedom Watch, are their social characteristics! Meet them and see for yourself!

I enjoyed many hours laughing and learning with this most normal group of people (with the exception that these normal people have the courage to speak out).

I recommend anyone who has the courage, to meet these supposed SPs and hang out with them someday.

Doing that is one of the quickest ways to learn how wrong LRH's ideas about "SPs" really are, and how ridiculously wrong the material on the Religious Freedome Watch truly is.

I had a great time.

Best, Chuck Beatty
chuckbeatt...@aol.com
412-260-1170



From: ""
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Bill Yaude. Anyone who has his phone number please send it to me.
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:52:45 -0700

How do I contact Bill Yaude?

Do people agree that Bill Yaude could tell us who the volunteers are?

I have media wishing to interview any of the disinformation spreaders.

Please contact me, and reporters wishing to discover what is going on want to interview the OSA volunteer internet disinformation spreaders.

What is the latest on Bill Yaude?

Anyone with present or past info on the volunteers please contact me.

Media will interview you anonymously, so you don't even have to fear about retaliation from OSA.

Over 5 ex-Int Base staffers have given anonymous interviews about their Int Base lives to reporters in the past 3 months, and media is quite good about protecting and reporting ANY retaliation that comes against people who speak out about the disgraceful predicaments and experiences that result because of L. Ron Hubbard's worst ideas turned into unquestionable policy that Scientology adherents are boxed into following.

Best, Chuck Beatty
412-260-1170
[email protected],com



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Aug 2005 12:56:43 -0700
Local: Wed, Aug 10 2005 12:56 pm

Subject: 1981 Flag Executive Briefing Course student body photograph.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=32959922&size=l [People I recall in this photo include the following, sorry I could not remember the rest:

Dan Przybylski
Shane Whitmore
Maggie Butterworth
Keithie Kerras
Wendy Baer
Carlos Cornier
Marylou Tinney
Abby Hayworth
Steve Harlan
Larry Monroe
Larry Myers
Allen Gilbertson
Helga Wiesner
Pauline Shantz Flood
Carol Woodruff
Ruthie (Silverman) Disher
Randy Smith
Johnnie Colosimo
Ken Nietchze
John Hargraves
Sten Larsson
Eric Johnson
Rick Harding
Dan Lange(?)
Steve (? from Buffalo)
Lisa Jeeter
Mike Agee
Kevin Wilson
Lorraine Taylor
Edith Lorenget
Sally Allerdice
Jo Lawrence
Fleur Stevens Thomas
Norm Reed
Helen O’Leary
Diane Hopkins Reynolds
Mike Russell
Bertie Schrott
Gail Vorm

Best, Chuck Beatty
412-260-1170
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
Flag 1975-1983 (TTC, Course Sup, Word Clearer,
Sup, D of T, T/CO ITO)
Int Base (on CMO Int Routing Forms Pjt) 83-84
FB (Snr HCO Int) in LA, 84-87
FB level 88
Snr C/S Int Office (RTRC) fall 88-Feb 89
Int RPF Feb 89
PAC RPF Mar-May 89
HGB (ITO) 89


INCOMM (Routing Forms Pjt) 89-90
INCOMM Computer Operations 90-92
(both at Int and LA computer rooms)
ASI Computer Operations 92-95
Int Decks Dec 95-Jun 96
Int RPF Jun 96-Nov 2000
PAC RPF Nov 2000 - Mar 2003
Finally routed out, walked out finally, Mar 29, 2003
Started posting on critics sites, July 2004



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Aug 2005 08:40:02 -0700
Local: Thurs, Aug 11 2005 8:40 am
Subject: Re: 1981 Flag Executive Briefing Course student body photograph.

lamoore0...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> "I can't recall their names".

> You never went "clear"?

> Just kidding with you Chuck. I admire
>your strength courage and conviction
>greatly.

> However, I do wonder just how you
>(and those pictured in your post)
> managed to "explain away" the absence
>of the end phenomena, or results
> (or at least the absence of the
>abilities Hubbard so boldly proclaimed,
> in dianetics, regarding the new
>superhuman, "clear")?

> Perfect recall, etc. etc. (I could go
>dig out my old Dianetics book to
> find the exact original definition, >but I trust you are familiar with
> it).

> Knowing full well, as you and
>everyone else back then, knew, and
>that everyone still does to this very
>day, know, whom have reached the
> "state of being clear", that perfect
>recall is totally completely 100%
> nonexistant. In other words, it was a lie.

> I mean did everyone just completely
>ignore the pink elephant in the
> livingroom?

> Perhaps some potential "raw meat"
> looking into scientology (today), may
> benefit from hearing how not one
> single case of attaining "perfect
> recall" has ever been obtained in
> scientologys entire history, and yet
> thousands and thousands upon thousands
>of people during that same time,
> somehow or other were sufficiently
>indoctrinated by the time they
> reached Hubbards unparalleled
> breakthrough in producing a new state of
> man, called a "clear", to not even care
>about the shockingly consistent
> deception of it (& of Hubbard).

> Was it merely (and or really) just a
> case of "don't think about that"?

> Thanks.

> A witness of the train wreck, of the
> church of scientology, on the
> internet, on the time track, just
> around the turn of the 21st century.

Oh, I think it is the thousands year long same old story.

We are here in the middle of all time and space, and wonder how we fit into the rest of it all.

Hubbard's combined the age-old ideas of past and future lives (a tremendoously relieving and hopeful tradition of the future in itself) with the 1930s science fiction craze, and with the age old selling of the hopeful existence of higher states of spiritual ability that are everyone's birthright.

I think throughout history people have been sold this same line of spiritual goodies.

I assumed the goodies were there, since so many other groups claim to provide the same goodies.

I said it before, but when I read between the lines in the Encyclopedia Britanica article on "Mysticism" and the branch off articles from it in the Encyclopedia Britanica, I finally majorly came "back to earth" from my dreamy stubborn still-hoping faith that these high spiritual abilities were real. (I only achieved Grade 0, which is just near the very bottom of the Scientology ladder in my 27 years of dutiful support of Hubbard's organizations, so I was a long-duration hope type of person, always hoping, always hoping, for that distant day when I'd get my chance to receive the spiritual goodies. I guess that shows my own personal strength and weakness simultaneously.)

Inside the Hubbard world, once in it, you feel like you are being "CI" (counter-intention) to all your friends and the whole hopeful tradition of "helping raise mankind up by the bootstraps to mankind's birthright of high spiritual abilities" if you doubt the whole ball of wax. You certainly can feel like you are biting the hand that is feeding you if you turn against the Hubbard tenets.

Scientology is just a 20th century variation and concoction of the age-old story like other hopeful faith-based (scientific-method devoid and reason-slippery) spiritual and mystical groups in mankind's history.

I hope someone, some damn scholar, gets above all these mystical groups in history, and summarizes the spiritual carrot that the whole gamut of spiritual/mystical groups are selling but never delivering. The Encyclopedia Britanica implies this, but I think they and other damn scholars gotta be more scientifically blunt and simpler so there is more common sense common man level discourse available on this in the public mind.

LRH just insisted and insisted, and now his faithful adherents still insist that Scn produces the spiritual abilities.

Due to the fact that some people insist on the reality of these spiritual abilities, like Hubbard in his adventure story/science fiction fantasy writing style does, and because the Scientology now extensive bureaucratic and institutionally all-pervasive group dynamic organizations all neatly coroporately set up to exist here in the U.S, it is a tough battle once one sinks into that neat little world of the Scientology organizations to to pull oneself back out of it. And all the while (if one is in the Sea Org, the lifetime staffer category, getting an allowance barely enough to get some treats in the "canteen", never enough to save up to make the transition back to normal life) one is pushed to a low level of hand to mouth survival where one doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds one, and that hand that feeds one in the Sea Org, are one's Sea Org companions who similarly are in the same predicament of the same sub-poverty semi-monastic lifestyle.

The only golden moments of joy are found in Hubbard's adventurous-toned and inspirational writings where he imbues the parishioners and staffers alike with praise for their commitment and duty and loyalty and financial support, as well as he repeatedly admonishes his faithful adherents (I paraphrase) to: "work hard in this precisous short time span we have here on earth to rise up and achieve these spiritual states" using Hubbard's precious hard won and decades-long researched spirtual gains producing "tech".

It is a bewildering hopeful miasma.

I think I will just learn other intellectual platforms in which to discuss the basics that need to be discussed, since the spin-off hopeful spiritual/mystical groups that lock people into lifelong careers without delivering the spiritual goodies, do need to come to the public's attention in some sort of wider disseminated forum and the most important reasons for NOT getting into a group like Scientology can be discussed and learned.

I still am trying to find more answers that if I had known 28 years ago, those answers would have dissuaded me back in 1975 from so stubbornly stepping abroad the Scientology train.

Back then, I thought Scientology was just another "Murray's" (LRH in one tape lecture says Scientology is not just another spiritual competitor, but that Scientology is something grandly different above all the spiritual competitors.)

Anyways, I today love science and love to read about astronomy and the bigger ideas in the last 10 years which are mind-blowing enough for me.

I love hiking now and here are some shots of my so far favorite hikes:

http:[email protected]/32477920/

ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/

The only road out, is decency. Official Scientology DOES have the financial luxury right now of dropping the worst of Hubbard's worst "defensive" policies, and start acting even more decently



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Aug 2005 09:23:21 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 13 2005 9:23 am
Subject: This has got to be one of the most important books an Ex decades long Sea Org member should at least scan over.

From the Wikipedia article on Robert Jay Lifton:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay_Lifton#Biography

(Wikipedia is just the best! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/)

"Lifton's 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China was a study of coercive techniques that others had described as "brainwashing" or "mind control". Lifton describes in detail eight methods which he says are used to change peoples minds without their agreement:

milieu control
(controlled relations with the outer world)

mystic manipulation
(the group has a higher purpose than the rest)

confession
(confess past and present sins)

self-sanctification through purity
(pushing the individual towards a not-attainable perfection)

aura of sacred science
(beliefs of the group are sacrosanct and perfect)

loaded language
(new meanings to words, encouraging black-white thinking)

doctrine over person
(the group is more important than the individual)

dispensed existence
(insiders are saved, outsiders are doomed)

------------------------------

This man's observations apply in great part to L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology organizations.

L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology organizations for decades have had the challenge of untotalitarizing themselves. I think they are gradually becoming less harsh. They are far from being reformed though I feel.

If anyone wants to help bring about the slow gradual understanding inside the Scn movement, I suggest all friends and family send those inside Hubbard's groups copies of books like:

The Private Life of Chairman Mao. Dr. Li Zhisui, with the editorial assistance of Anne F. Thurston. New York: Random House, 1994, 663 pp. $30.00.

[I read this book while at ASI, and it contributed to me seeing where I was in Scientology.]

Fear No Evil. The Classic Memoir of One Man's Triumph over a Police State, by Natan Sharansky.

[I read this book while at ASI also.]

I think by being exposed to intelligent examples of people reacting honorably to totalitarian and mind coercive situations, that people inside of Scientology groups where the predicaments are disgracefully similar to totalitarian governments of the past and present, that Scientology and Hubbard group participants can see that the outside world will welcome and support them if they choose to leave the Hubbard groups where totalitarian like predicaments are still operative.

I recommend these two books, and others similar to the two books above, be given as presents to Scientology movement adherents as a way to spread into their minds similar examples in history of strong willed people fighting against a totalitarian group's internal pressures.

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Aug 2005 16:03:47 -0700
Local: Fri, Aug 19 2005 4:03 pm
Subject: One reason the SP rules are out of step with mankind's thinking tradition

Bill Yaude, 818-995-3460, of Sherman Oaks Mission, who I've read on the critics sites is likely still a knowledgable participant or minimally a knowledgable person concerning the defensive "unofficial" internet activities of official Scientology adherents, told the person was holding the Receptionist position for the moment, yesterday, Thursday, just after 2pm, that I was to direct my communication only to the International Justice Chief, and that I was declared SP.

Int Justice Chief did NOT inform me of being a declared suppressive person, so until I receive my declare in writing, I will assume this is a likely valid rumor, but not proven until I receive my SP declare in writing. I won't be asking for the SP declare because I don't believe in these worst of L. Ron Hubbard's rules.

Hubbard's SP rules and procedures are so prickly, that one is easily caught up in them.

Hubbard's ignorant and harmful SP rules are bad for Scientology and anyone who gives credence to these faulty Hubbard policies.

These rules put in place a bureaucratic muzzle on people's natural inclination to judge for themselves who and how they will communicate in life.

I won't agree to any angle of Hubbard's rules which I think are wrong and hurtful of people's natural abilities to determine how and who they will speak to in life.

The official Scientology groups often incorrectly and often incompetently label people like myself as suppressive.

Then the official Scientology movement faithful are informed ("by despatch," I was told by Sherman Oaks Receptionist, an obviously precisely thought out wording that was spoken to me on the phone yesterday carefully spoken and communicated aligning with Hubbard rules which state that matters of importance must "be in writing"), the Sherman Oaks Mission staff, of which Bill Yaude is a member, were told I was a declared suppressive person, and that my only terminal of contact was the Int Justice Chief. They are not allowed to talk to me.

All neat and tidy and in alignment technically per Hubbard's tidy prolific, initiative and independence smothering rules.

No one has to talk to me, judge me personally any longer; someone else, further up the bureaucracy of the official church of Scientology, has made the decision that I am a suppressive not to be communicated to ever again.

I know of no way the church on their own, at this juncture, will ever allow their faithful official members, to speak to me again.

I am no longer a Scientologist and will never abide by Hubbard's worst ideas which I feel the SP rules are some of his worst rules he has forced his faithful followers into the predicament of now following.

Thus I will never decide to do the procedure that the official L. Ron Hubbard policies require "suppressive persons" to carry out.

Hubbard was not wise enough to see that people might disagree and criticize with his operations, and he arrogantly only left his faithful official Scientology movement adherents with the options he has allowed them in policies.

This situation, right now, with me, is a perfect example of what I began to realize is just wrong about L. Ron Hubbard's voluminous detailed policies.

------------------------

I was on the Int RPF, Castille Canyon Ranch, Happy Valley, in 1997, spring to summer, and I was reading the Freedom magazines, which had an article about the UN Declaration of Human Rights documents.

I thought when I read the article, that how odd that Scientology has rules about SPs (which I was constantly battling with HOW I could live my life in the future and NOT be labelled an SP). L. Ron Hubbard's SP rules and the rules leading a faithful to becoming labelled as a suppressive person seemed so stiffling that one had only the choice of remaining a faithful Scientologist and Sea Org member, and abide by all the Scientology L. Ron Hubbard policies, or else one was declared an SP, and then became like I am now, a person who official faithful Scientologists cannot by their rules, communicate to me.

This 1997 moment of reflection on my then predicament, which now I yesterday saw the first real life application of these extensive L. Ron Hubbard rules to my own life, when the Receptionist Sherman Oaks Mission where Bill Yaude (apparant Scientology internet activities expert or ex-expert) WOULD NOT COMMUNICATE WITH ME as a fellow human being.

How odd, finally, to feel people disallowed to communicate to me. L. Ron Hubbard is to blame for this, I feel.

The tenor of the UN Declaration of Human Rights document that mentioned a person's supposed religious rights, which the church of Scientology I believe agrees with, I perceived that L. Ron Hubbard's SP rules were out of step with the tenor of the UN Human Rights document clauses about having rights to choose a new religion.

My thinking went as follows:

a) If I choose to change from Scientologist to non-scientologist, I should be allowed to do so, instantly and without ANY further penalty for that instantaneous decision.

b) I should just be able to say, I don't want to be a Scientologist starting right now. I don't have to sign any papers, I don't even have to do other than communicate it to someone, so they hear it. I can even just believe it myself, since it is my beliefs that are senior.

c) I should be allowed to instantly leave the Sea Org, leave the RPF, without ANY SP declare, etc., without any penalties, since if I no longer hold Scientology views, nor consider myself a Scientologist then there should be no penalty, that is what I understood the tenor of the UN Human Rights document clause on switching one's religion to imply.

d) I felt a person can decide to cease being of a religion, and the next instant not be considered a member of that religion, and NOT be subject to ANY penalties for that instant change of decision of membership.

e) If one truly does NOT believe one is of a certain religion, one is NOT of that religion, and the rules of that religion are thus NOT any longer binding nor should one have to suffer for that instantaneously abrupt decision. It is a matter of conscious change of mind, it is just simply a human being changing their mind, and one is totally free to do this.

f) I concluded that historically mankind respects people changing their minds, changing their groups, changing their religions, and I at this moment in 1997 when I thought this above train of thoughts, concluded that I therefore JOIN the group of human beings on earth who believe as I believe above, and I respect people of this like-minded logic as I have laid out here over those people who I also realized from my vast years of experience in the Sea Org (lifetime staffer category of the official Scientology movement) believe all sorts of uncomfortable rules will be triggered into being employed on me at that instant I was on the Int RPF in 1997 when I went through this train of thoughts and logic. I concluded that official Scientology adherents with me on the Int RPF would NOT respect me instantly changing my views, but instead they would do as they indeed did do, they carried out all manner of "standard" steps which L. Ron Hubbard says to engage in, on people like me, in this exact scenario.

This 1997 predicament of being surrounded by L. Ron Hubbard rules that prevented me from gaining agreement from ANY of the official faithful Sea Org RPF members who were "dealing" with me during this 1997 period of my protest and overt communications to LEAVE the Sea Org and Scientology completely, NO ONE respected me in the way that I above have laid out that I wished to be respected for my views and decisions.

MY CONCLUSION THEN AND NOW:

L. Ron Hubbard's rules enforce a web of containment out of step with humanity, in that they will not adjust and respect a person's most fundamental right to abruptly change their opinions and beliefs.

Labelling either then, in 1997, or now, as a suppressive person is fundamentally abhorant to mankind's tradition of respect for people basic rights to decide their futures and rights to free speech and their exercise of communication with whomever they wish.

Also, I see that tolerance is a charateristic L. Ron Hubbard sadly did not avail himself of to the detriment of his official Scientology movement adherents today.

It's their call, not mine.

Best, Chuck Beatty
412-260-1170
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
(I was in Scientology for 27 years
as a lifetime staffer, then I quit)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
http:[email protected]/32959922/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/

The only road out, is decency. I hope official Scientology chooses to reform away from L. Ron Hubbard's worst "defensive" policies, and undo the disgraceful predicaments L. Ron Hubbard has unwittingly created through Hubbard's personal lack of tolerance, humility and forgiveness.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Aug 2005 11:19:04 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 20 2005 11:19 am
Subject: The vagaries of fulfillment in the Scientology movement.

I had shopped around enough (Scientology was number 8 on my list of about 10 spiritual/mystical new age groups I was shopping and comparing, when I got in), and Scientology appeared strong on organizational skills, the OEC Volumes on proud display my first visit to Phoenix Org in May 1975, impressed me and those volumes alone were pregnant with implication about the orderliness and evolution of the Scientology movement from 1950 to 1975, and May 75 was the moment I stepped aboard the Scientology train.

The Bridge chart on the wall with definite stages, including the "out of the body" exteriorization guaranteed at L 12, that sold me, since I wanted the spiritual "highs" that people for thousands of years on earth have similarly sought.

Lots of other spiritual groups offer "out of the body" and other high spiritual cosmic consciousness states as goals.

Scientology is in a field of spiritual/mystic competitors, off the main map, since the spiritual abilities offering groups are NOT taught in Kindergarten through 12th grade in a way to hat kids in the public education system on their spiritual abilities choices in life.

One learns of the spiritual/mystical abilities offering groups OUTSIDE the mainstream public education system, which itself implies a major important point, which is that the bulk of mankind hasn't yet reached consensus on the validity of the claims of the spiritual/mystical groups, that is more the sad realization I returned to, in the end, when I exited the Scientology train 27 years later.

I came into Scientology while shopping the spiritual abilities selling groups. Scientology's organizational and friendly atmosphere, and the promise of guaranteed step by step improvements towards the ultimate high spiritual states that so many other spiritual/mystical competitors have offered (I'd read) for hundreds and thousands of years on earth, literally, the OEC Vols helped sell me on Scientology as opposed to me continuing in "Theosophy" or chasing after Zen or Baba Ram Dass (Richard Albert), Carlos Castaneda, or the Hindu gurus. The damn org looked and had a vast body of organizational tech, the people looked pretty normal, and cheerful. And it "was in writing", tons of LRH books, etc.

I think the Scientology organizational setting, the vast body of rules to learn and occupy all the hierarchical roles in holding together the whole group, LRH's prolificness gives participants a huge runway of learning opportunities (and barriers) that compartment and form inevitably the hierarchical sub-groups, and not everything is obtainable all at once, so participation in Scientology is automatically forcing of one to dedicated years to gaining all the understandings and abilities and progression of if not one's spiritual advancement, then one can advance in organization ways. Ambition is often satisfactorily fulfilled in the Scientology organizational administrative bureaucracies.

Depending on what one thought Scientology possessed, one trades one's participation or monetary offerings with Scientology in exchange for whatever it was one sought or as one along the way sought new fulfillment in terms of belonging, etc, the whole variety of things people say they wanted and got out of Scientology.

Scientology's flexible groups, exchange back quite a lot of human needs, and also fall short on this exchange back, depending on the vagaries of one's exact group surroundings in the whole history of it all.

Today if one wishes to reach the high administrative positions at the Int Base, for instance, or as a public parishioner to attain access to the final OT levels, it is a multi-year many many barriered progression of participating moments and checks and stamps of approval along the way.

I find everyone's views valid, since people hop aboard this Scientology train for so many reasons.

LRH's prolificness of rules and boundries for participants offer enough return, and enough struggle for enough people and fulfill enough variety of motives at least temporarily, that the whole train keeps moving, despite so many people getting off that train eventually and I feel inevitably, once they learn the longer wiser learned views that mankind has already accumulated over thousands of years about the whole group of mystical/spirtual groups and the lack of results reaching these "out of the body", Nirvana, cosmic consciousness, states of mind.

I like this LRH quote from unquestionably the most important of L. Ron Hubbard's policy letters, Keeping Scientology Working:

"The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is 'no results.' Trouble spots occur only where there are 'no results.' Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are 'no results' or 'bad results.' " - L. Ron Hubbard, Keeping Scientology Working policy letter.

The sad truth about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard's claims are found between the lines, in and around this closest to an admission that LRH came. This paragraph above implies why so many people eventually and in my opinion inevitably exit the Scientology train, quietly or noisily.

Best, Chuck Beatty
412-260-1170
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
(I was in Scientology for 27 years
as a lifetime staffer, then I quit)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
http:[email protected]/32959922/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/

The only road out, is decency. I hope official Scientology chooses to reform away from L. Ron Hubbard's worst "defensive" policies, and undo the disgraceful predicaments L. Ron Hubbard has unwittingly created through Hubbard's personal lack of tolerance, humility and forgiveness.



Skipper wrote:
> In article
<[email protected]>,
Mik
wrote:

> > ROFLMAO!
> >
> > oh dear, what a peckerhead you are skippy.
> >
> > Just to paraphrase what I said in the e-mail to you
> >
> > here, once again, is something that even a
> > fuckwit like you can understand - Fuck off.
> >
>

> And you're so eloquent, too.
>
> What a wonderful representative of your loving
> little group you are.
>
> You should do an up all night "all-hands" to think
> up some new insult, if there's enough brain power
> between you all.

Skipper, here's my response to the post you did on me, also related to this XSO site, which I am sorry you got kicked off.

Skipper wrote:
> This is mainly to Chuck Beatty, who posted
> here to get people to join the ex Sea Org group
> on Yahoo, which I did. I'm sure that by posting
> this Chuck will tell moderator Mick Wenlock about
> it, who will summarily "declare" me gone from his
> group, which will prove the point I'm about to
> make here.

Too bad you got kicked off, if I read your other post correctly.

But I agree the likes of some who post on XSO have voices that will be recorded, and people 50-100 years from now will be reading their views, not yours.

Respect, forgiveness, humility, tolerance, escape you just like our agreed upon historical foe, Hubbard.

You lack humor. Don't let your bitterness consume you.

We agree on many things.

You don't see the predicaments of the staff that you never understood, and these are people just like the ones you walk next to, or not, daily, which I would guess you equally don't understand.

The playing field of life includes some rules Hubbard omitted.

You omit them too, and you need to learn them.

Respect, tolerance, humility.

These aren't Hubbard strong points, nor yours.

> Let me point something out to you, Chuck.
> You were a damned fool staying in $cientology as
> long as you did. So was I. So was Tory. Now
> for some advice. COMPLETELY give up the delusional
> idea that $cientology can be reformed, made whole,
> put "back on purpose" or anything else. It is not
> redeemable because the man who created it was
> a charlatan, a liar, an egomaniac, a psychopath.

Agreed, and your distilled incenDiary IED style of writing is a valid voice.

But there are all the rest of the tamer dumber, duller, imperfect, struggling, most never to be heard, voices. Each equally a human being.

Remember Voltaire. Try to at least allow your fellows their rights to speak their dull imperfect opinions.

Again, you are good though, I highly appreciate your views, since it toughens my own thoughts.

Forces me to think of the most important things in life, mentioned above. The things Hubbard and your manor of discourse equally omit.

>> "Star-rate Method 4 clay demo" those words
> if you don't "get it."

Read some Shakespeare, develope some friends in Hollywood, network and start inspiring some scriptwriters to take on the Hubbard story as a project.

Why don't you do something that will get the story of the full range of predicaments in our common suffering lives in Hubbard's worst of fantasies, into the public mind, like in the form of a tragedy, comedy, or all combinations that can be done!

How about a play! Script a movie!

Lobbing IEDs missives at the suffering fools seems pretty self-centered, expecting the world to convulse in repulsion like you did, and magically arrive at your state of brilliant summary conclusions.

The world and all of us are sadly not you, and even if we could be, that would make for a harrowing thought, if you ask my opinion of you.

The rest of the world of participants are some like you, and I admit, all that you do to trigger their vomiting exit out of Hubbard's fantasy world, I give you all the credit for those you so trigger to exit.

I'd say you glossed over and continue to gloss over how to actually make your views acceptable to a wider sphere of listeners.

I am not interested in directing my thoughts to you, when DM and Hubbard's worst deserve the attention.

But your words toughen me, so thankyou.

> To illustrate what I'm talking about, here's
> a quote in response to a post you made. Your
> post stating "admiration of anyone who got close to
> LRH" shows you're still in thrall of that red-headed
> blowhard bastard.

Shows I can respect those who still respect LRH.

Shows that someday, when I wish, I might be able to interview some of the people I call the major participants in the Scientology history book, whereas I doubt those people not unless they share your views, will be talking to you.

Shows you I at least strive to speak in a manner respectful of the persons whose views someday will give more depth of understanding to the whole spinoff worlds that Hubbard's ideas caused.

I respect each person's views, as we are all not at the same place in life.

Your IED (yes, improvised explosive device) style writing recoils on you, and you expect people only to come to your conclusions.

I see a wider world of participants, and most of the people I see out there, aren't at your advanced, however fully valid and rightful, view that you occupy.

I thought of an analogy. If the Hubbard organizations are a ship, floating out in a sea of fantasy, then you place yourself in my opinion a bit too far inland to help those still adrift.

You help and again, all you trigger to vomit and exit in a convulsion of repulsion, I congratulate you, and I think you should carry on.

Just don't lay waste to all us dumber fucks on the shore who are also trying to lure those on board the Hubbard fantasy ship back to shore!

Tolerance, respect, humility, forgiveness, understanding, patience.

These replace and help a person rebuild long range the character that make better human beings, I believe.

I know I am a shitty writer. I know smarter minds will come along and get the Scientology story right.

> The response to you comes from Neil Safarti,
> who was a sax player in the Apollo Stars, one
> of the worst god-damned rock groups ever
> envisioned, who only came close to a record
> deal because Becky Shargo was at Epic Records
> (She was a $cientologist in love with Jimmie
> Spheeris, an "Oatee" who wrote the blubbering
> paen to Hubbard called "I Am the Mercury" and lost
> his record deal when he got a five figure
> advance on a record and promptly flew off to
> Hawaii and spent it all most likely in homosexual
> whoring.)

> The entire history of $cientology is a
> continuous train wreck of human
> beings abandoned to die in misery.

> Here's what Neil said about Elwrong Humbug:

> From: "Neil S"
> Date: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:56 pm
> Subject: Re: The life of the late 60's and early 70's

> Hi Chuck

> Yes, its me the short sax player to the right of Billy.
> Golds...........Have some found memories of Mike G and Jimmy D.

> Yes, I was deffenetly in LRH's face more then most.
> I got to a lot about him and his thinking.
> There is much about the man which is still a true
> mystery. He had more sides then a 47th street cut
> diamond. Brilliant in some ways. But totally contrary
> at times to his writings, and his communcate road
> to freedom. ......Didn't anybody ever wonder why he
> had no friends to speak of? He never really hung out
> with anyone and lets a beer and talk about life.
> There were days were we spent hours and hours together.
>Yes, we laughed and joked and then bang
> boom...........splater........­......there I was
> plastered on the wall from his anger. Anyone ever
>wonder why he had such anger. Why didn't he apply
> what he wrote to himself? Why so money crazy but
> not really spending any himself? The old line of "money
> for lawyers..." Bull. If we didn't attack anyone,
> no one really cared about us.

> But he loved the sport of it all.
> ............Brutal anger. Strange for a man who wrote
> he at the wait of the universe. Is OT 543 the state of
> meanness and anger. As the dark side of SO and SCN kept
> evolving into the torture chamber it became, I am sorry
> to say it was predictable.

> When the RPF become the true gradiant chart for us.
>I relized the road was cul da sac for itself. Its hard
>to say that and relize that. In its 55 years of life, it
>is only alive because of the the CC invention.

> Oh yes, the bridge, You learn to communcate,
> but can only commmuicte with people who are
> allowed to communicate with you. Strange.
> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. The auditing of your service fac.
> I think he forgot to design a process to audit out
> the service fac of Scn let alone each group with it.
> Yes, my friend, I believe it was designed that
> way, on purpose by him.

> Sorry for the rambling. It's almost 1am
> here in the east. I just wanted to share
> some of my insites into the man and the
> invisible fog created by him.

> -- In X...@yahoogroups.com, [email protected].. wrote:

> > Hi Neil,

> > I thought that was you, since you said
> >"sax" and besides Bill Potter, than
> > only left you, I think.

> > Mike Goldstein told me about a month
> >ago, about Bill, but I somehow lost
> > Mike Goldstein's email address, otherwise
> > I'd post that here also.

> > I remember you of course.

> > I always admired those who somehow
> >managed to get up close into
> > LRH's life, as I suppose is natural in any
> >group where it has a founder/leader/writer
> >person at the top and those near him
> > gain in stature willy-nilly.

> [snipped]

> I have NEVER met anyone who worked
>closely with Humbug who didn't live
> in fear of him.

> That's a religious leader?

> That's a world reformer?

> That's someone who created perfect
policy and "tech" to "clear the
> planet"?

> No, it's a tyrant, a lunatic, AN EVIL MAN.

> You wasted decades of your life,
Chuck. And while doing so you never
> even advanced to the "upper levels"
>that were supposed to give you
> untold power but only really give depleted bank accounts.

> You lived a lie.

> You forwarded evil.

> Give it up. Save your immortal soul
> while you still have a chance. Quit
> believing that there is ANY iota of
>sanity within the cult of
> $cientology.

> It is EVIL. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard
> was a vicious, self-centered, EVIL
> man who left a wake of ruined lives behind him.

> Including you.

> Say a prayer. Save yourself.
> Salvage what you've got left.

> Or keep wrapping the veil of illusion
> around yourself - if you do it will
> be your funeral shroud.

Whatever, but this isn't my style.

Thanks Skipper, you are good to read.

Thanks for even bothering.

Anyone else want to throw out their views, go for it.

Only thing that could result is more progress away from the fantasies I admit I was wasting my life away supporting.

> --
> Do all the good you can,
> By all the means you can,
> In all the ways you can,
> In all the places you can,
> At all the times you can,
> To all the people you can,
> As long as you ever can.

> -- John Wesley

> http://www.skippress.com

My first long answer to you, I stupidly lost it. Above is my second feeble attempt to respond.

Skipper you can come to any party I ever hold, and trash as many fools as you like!

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 27 Aug 2005 08:48:52 -0700
Local: Sat, Aug 27 2005 8:48 am
Subject: Re: L. Ron Hubbard Quote of the Day

zenshoot...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER
> PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY."

> -L. Ron Hubbard

Thanks for this exellent example of one of L. Ron Hubbard's ideas which construed even with the best of intents, repels people.

Most people only need about 30 seconds of hearing about Scientology to decide it is NOT for them. They are the smart ones.

8 Million supposed Hubbard group members (a gross misrepresentation).

80 million said NO to Hubbard's groups, (probably way more than 80 million, if their 8 million number is accurate).

The Sunday edition of the NY Times is my recommendation for long term Sea Org members, to re-educate themselves about the world and the best in it today.

Use the Onelook computer online free dictionary facility, for clearing up words and phrases and historical things (http://www.onelook.com/ ).

Best, Chuck Beatty
412-260-1170
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
(I was in Scientology for 27 years
as a lifetime staffer, then I quit)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05205/542899.stm
http:[email protected]/32959922/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/

I now think Scientology is just slow motion tanking. I recommend people in the various stages of disentangling themselves from Hubbard's ideas and groups just treat each other as decently as possible.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Aug 2005 19:46:06 -0700
Local: Wed, Aug 31 2005 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: Office of Special Affairs Church of Scientology International L. Ron Hubbard covert operation example of smearing me based on earlier forced admissions

Phil Scott wrote:
> snip,,,,
> But what OSA and its minioins do is so much worse than
> anything their victims could ever have done. It's called
> blackmail and denial of redemption. It is the gravest
> sin of all. It is the ultimate evil.

Thankyou Phil and Zinj and Elbr..,

I could not understand when I was inside the smearing of Jesse, Dennis, David Mayo, Hana, Vaughn, Stacy, Vicki, Gerry, Arnie, etc., etc., it was insane to try to change history and say people who once were good are now bad.

> On the upside, this episode has produced a lot of
> encouragement to Chuck in the form of posts that
> say, basically, "We don't care."

I never took any of the smearing of the people on Religious Freedom Watch other than a horrific condemnation of Scientologists foolishly obediently following LRH's insane policies. The official Church of Scientology International Office of Special Affairs (OSA) right there in the Hollywood Guarantee Building at 6331 Hollywood Blvd, 90027, hires the attornies and OSA hires Private Eyes who gather the dirt, and OSA Int shares their official church acquired dirt, summarized and written into nasty blurbs by OSA's staffers, these blurbs get okayed by attornies, and the blurbs get fed to volunteer Scientologists who dutifully keep Religious Freedom Watch updated.

How disgracefully Religious Freedom Watch recoils on LRH and Scientology's image does not impinge on them, they are so out of touch with the world. They are put out of touch by LRH, and it takes years for members to see this.

(OSA Int staffers who read this, please defect and write your lives for history's sake!)

> WE DON'T CARE, CHUCK. Get it? So no big deal even if your fake,
> exaggerated confessions were true. We still wouldn't give a
> shit, and we love you unconditionally. At least I do, and I
> think many others agree.

It makes them look a bit irrationally savage even to their staffs and public in the movement, to those who knew me and who felt a ray of kindness for me as I did for most everyone I met in my years in the Sea Org. Those inside who know me still, when exposed to a one-sided simplistic slanted diatribe against me, it will have the effect on them that I experienced when I read something like the Religious Freedom Watch, and I instinctively respected those listed there. It made me seek out the writings of each person on Religious Freedome Watch, out of reverse logic.

I just hope more defections occur, and if some big cheezes defect (in 2004 a whole slew of top management guys apparrantly were declared SP and did their A - E steps at the Int Base), and that to me just means, in the years to come, those same big cheezes when they get clobbered in the next wave of DM's wrathful idiodies, or the next clobbering, or the next clobbering, eventually they will get sick of getting clobbered unjustly and they too will quit.

It is inevitable!

> Welcome back to humanity.

Thanks. I highly appreciate the advice and smart defenses people post here for me.

Chuck Beatty



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

















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