Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, February 2005




Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Feb 2005 22:26:02 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 1 2005 10:26 pm
Subject: Has Sea Org pay been raised to $75 / per week?

In the Buffalo News article it mentioned that the St. Pete Times recently mentioned that Flag staff pay was $75 / per week.

That's an increase of 25 bucks if true, over the 2003 Sea Org pay of $50 per week.

Anyone know if the Sea Org pay is indeed $75 per week now?

Chuck Beatty

Buffalo News:

"Nearly 7,000 Scientology followers live downtown, including 1,400 members of the church's elite Sea Organization who earned $75 a week, along with food, lodging and benefits in 2004, according to the St. Petersburg Times



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Feb 2005 21:22:58 -0800
Local: Thurs, Feb 3 2005 9:22 pm
Subject: Answer to an ex-Scn Mgmt Exec who authored LRH issued policy

[I recently answered some critics on Clambake, who had upsets on the sourceness of LRH's writings. I wrote some opinions, and raw info I had, on Clambake: under the topic: "RTRC, are the scriptures altered?" I then just recently got an email from an old Scn exec telling of about a half dozen policy letters they either helped create or they saw others create which were issued as pure LRH in the 70's. Below is my answer to this person who came forward and told me those specifics. - Chuck Beatty]

"HI,

Thanks very much for your data. I don't plan to post any specifics, but for sure I can generally say some overall conclusions, which your info confirms. This is excellent data.

(I have dreams that someday we can hold a reunion of Sea Org and GO and OSA staff, and uplines people, all the ex's, and have tables set up with various subjects, so people can check into a table station at this big reunion, and read the LRH traffic on a particular subject, and that table station also has all the related programs, and other writings, and then the participants and ex's gave add their two cents to these major points about the Scn movement, that will otherwise all be lost once we all pass away.)

Your post shows really quite a few things, not only bad things. To me it also shows that LRH as a person was a myriad of things. It shows in earlier years he was very trusting, of others, to rise up and write policy that proved itself by the Scn staff members' who, like yourself and [....] and of course so many others, who themselves were very bright and understanding people, and LRH actually trusted people's judgement and experiences enough to authorize policy and tech on others' experiences. That is actually an okay thing, making Scn not just LRH's, but also showed LRH considered the Scn organization was being "made" by the people who joined and rose to help run the movement.

Really, the history of the Scn movement, that is ongoing, and the way LRH had to pull back issue writing into only his court, due to the incompetent policy issued by others (or due to his own incompetence, and the ramifications of the more basic policies he laid out that everyone had to abide by, and people trying to dodge around the parameters of some of his illogical and contradictory writings), in any case he chose in 1977 and a little later, to discontinue letting others author policy solely themselves, and he ordered the wholesale erasure of the "bad" policy and tech authored by others, but so much water had gone under the bridge, and so much had been issued, that I know that Dan Koon (RTRC in Snr C/S Int Office in CMO Int)in the late 80's had a hell of a time trying to dig up who had actually written what, and the archives original submission folders were either lost, or misplaced, or never kept in the first place, whatever, and Dan had a hell of a time trying to reconstruct which of the various HCOBs were LRH and which were others. Jeff Walker and James Byrnes I believe were instrumental in the late 80's helping Dan sort that particular aspect of the HCOB verifying process out. But the whole broader long range practises of LRH's earlier years in relying on others (which I consider more a good thing than bad, personally, since LRH was less paranoic and meglomaniac and more trusting of others' help, and letting others share in the growth and stability of the movement, although today I hardly believe in the movement at all, I only value and have affinity for the people in it still), anyways, I think I communicated my point here.

I felt LRH as a human being, was wise to rely on you and the many many others, who he trusted, and who he felt were trying to solve the ongoing problems of the movement, sanely, so he clearly appreciated help like yours and [...'s] and many many other people's. (I am a perennial look-on-the-bright-side-of-life type of individual, so I always try to give the most credit to anyone.) I think it was a turn for the worse, actually, when things were so balled up, that LRH responded by taking back all policy writing authority, and him having to blame and encourage the busting of so many people, who had really only been trying to shoulder some of the work. I believe so many of the bright people in the Scn movement in the late 70's were never replaced with people of similar wog-world common sense understanding ever since.

That's my take on this whole broader pattern, when LRH took back the role of authoring policy and tech in the late 70's, and everyone else's hands were slapped hard who had tried to help in those areas.

It turned Scn into a more one-man show, invalidating many many people who were good people really, and that anti-management trend LRH himself was the real culprit for starting. LRH definitely by attacking management so heavily in the late 70's he didn't realize what effect he put into place. The unhatted, inexperienced CMO Int messengers, who LRH steered into picking up the mess that LRH himself had unwittingly shot to pieces, the new dedicated ("tough", green, loyal) CMO people then had to go through a two decades long learning curve (that I think is the most charitable way of describing DM's LRH authorized slash and burn style of leading, while DM got hatted along those years, 80's and 90's). But looking at what Exec Strata, what WDC members and what DM himself has written as issues in the 80's and 90's, none of their writings in any issue form, nothing of Exec Strata or WDC has remained "basic" policy, it is NOTHING compared to the policy and tech contributions made by the people working with LRH in management in the 70's (and earlier years). Not even DM has issued ANYTHING of comparable level of policy or tech of the people who worked in management on the Apollo with LRH, or people in earlier years. This IS a big fact! I think you'd agree. Once LRH was really OFF the lines, in the early 80's, the movement genuinely has taken an odd turn, as many who defected in the 80's have written. I can appreciate their views, finally, now.

So, in my opinion, you should be proud, in your own way, for the sane contributions of your wise 2 cents input that did result in organizational policy that is doing the movement some good. (Whether I or anyone else supports them, is separate. My point is that you and others contributed, and LRH allowed it, in a saner, in my opinion, period of the Scn movement, despite what later became the "think" that all these earlier management groups and individuals only entered all sorts of problems and destructive ideas that harmed the Scn movement, which was the later reason LRH had to pull back unto himself.)

Anyways, that's my take.

I really appreciate you contacting me, with your info.

I really hope the climate changes before the ends of our lives, and you can write freely more experiences, and I hope you can get more people to come forward with their experiences.

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

Regarding all the GO, I am such a nostaligic person, I actually loved all the GO guys, they were pretty bright people. From Dec 75 through 79, I loved all the GO briefings. Even if today so many are still with the movement, meaning public. To me, they are still good people.

I got no problem liking anyone, no matter who they work for or what they believe in.

I don't believe in the artificial barriers that supposedly have to be agreed upon, due to LRH's dumber rules, that he forced on the Scn movement, that forces them to cut communication with those they perceive as their enemies. I just don't agree and will not pigeon hole my opinions by criterion which are artificial and LRH's bad ideas.

I am a little sad that not a single really intelligent ex-GO person has gone on to write extensively their feelings about their years in Scn.

I would think that a former GO person would have come out by now. I have and had such high respect for GO people's intelligence. Besides Vaughn, who brilliantly exposed so much, I would think there would be others.

In your opinion, do you think, for instance, the GO WW heavyweights, like Jane K, and Herbie P, will ever write, or if their stories will come out posthumously, like they may have already put down in words, their feelings about things?

I found my thoughts evolved, since my measley little time that I have been out, and that I have taken the time to start writing what I felt and what I observed.

I would think, that also, the more higher up people, the former bright and intelligent GO people, Jane, et al, when they write, and as they recall things, and reflect on their time in the GO and in Scn, they will also gain a greater insight into what was going on?!

I hope so.

LRH and the current Scn movement leaders and the evolved rules for not communicating what went on, and what people's feelings were, those communication restraining rules are artificial. They are like the shadows LRH talks about in the basic Dn's books, the shadows that the fishermen used to herd the fish into their nets with. In my opinion, the Scn movement regulations to keep former members silent, are all shadows.

The broader wog world does NOT recognize the Scn shadow rules for muzzling people. And constant exposure of the Scn movement's muzzling and silencing tactics, will break down those shadows that "threaten" people from reflecting and writing their Scn staff experiences.

That's my hope. (I got nothing to lose, so I am free to write, that's about the long an short of it for me.)

I just wish every email I receive, like yours, I could post, but that I guess is not yet the scene, due to the harsh illogicalness embedded in the Scn movement, ultimately by L. Ron Hubbard.

Best, Chuck



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Feb 2005 19:07:15 -0800
Local: Sat, Feb 5 2005 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: The Clear Cognition

I think you got a major chunk of LRH right here, and I think whoever eventually (maybe not in our lifetime) does LRH's serious biography (if anyone finds him worthy enough) , and the biographer goes into his childhood and discovers Ron's "Rosebuds", then that should all tie into your assessements too.

There are also LRH's other major whole track goals, his thoughts on "Native State", the pairs of "No-Games-Conditions" blather (or whatever) from the early 50's lectures, which LRH again significantly mentions in the early 80's LRH EDs on the Birthday Game, when he alluded to Scn movement staff members all eventually bringing the whole universe back to Native State. (And there are the LRH Tech films, some with their whole track projections of LRH's goals for Scn movement members.)

Ron's Admissions/Affirmations from the late 40's, the self-hypnotized concepts he drilled into himself, those are pretty revealing in an assessement of LRH's mental state.

Ron had a thing about demons (ref fiction work "Fear", earlier ref his teenage experiences with the demon-fearing islanders in South East Pacific), which to me, his later BTs, are just his failure to sort out reality from his mental creations. Or we're talking genuine mental problems here with Ron, of the psyche hospital type. (That's why TWO MAJOR things still need to be gotten into the public domain, 1) More anecdotal writings of those who audited or FESed Ron, to lay out what he said about his mental phenomena 2) publish Ron's preclear folders---these I think we won't see for many many lifetimes from now, not until the movement really crashes and burns---although if Ray Mitoff or David Mayo, or some of the old Class 12's, maybe Merril Mayo, and others who FESed all of LRH's folders, might write, so their writings are released posthumously, will we find out what LRH actually felt about his "demons", "BTs", and when in his life he really "cognited" he had "BTs" living right next to him.

To me, this is one MAJOR MAJOR interesting fact to get from one of the Scn movement people who have had access to LRH's pc folders. There may be defectors who know some more in this area, and we may have to wait. David Mayo I don't think is of the mind to write on this. I think David Mayo's reality is that the BTs are actually a factor affecting us all. So, even though David and others, who had access to LRH's most intimate thoughts about LRH's reality, unfortunately, realistically, we who have a far different reality, have a slight barrier to getting someone who does have access to LRH's thoughts, to give us the real scoop on what LRH said and wrote.

This in itself says alot about the reality shifting phenomena of the Scn movement idea trail that LRH lead the Scn movement people into. Today it is hard to get those who know about LRH's intimate thoughts, to ever reveal them as relates to WHEN LRH really believed BTs were a significant part of his and everyone's reality. Even though those who may know these critical details of LRH's thoughts, these people are NOT talking about this, that I know of, even though these people have even been attacked and harrassed by the official Scn movement. The reality LRH has woven has a pretty resistive nature to being accurately revealed, blow by blow, what was happening to LRH, day by day, as he slide into BTs being such a major factor. I think David Mayo is the major person to ultimately reveal LRH's thoughts on this.

The data is there, sitting there in his pc folders. And the people who audited him, hung out with him, could give some pretty good pictures of LRH's actual state of mind and how much influence he placed on the BTs adversely affecting him and others.

These are serious points to be still seriously further researched.

Right now, we have the structures of the Scn movement organizations and their rules, and their religious status, which will prevent assessments like the ones that non-Scn movement outsiders would make, if they had ALL the raw data on LRH.

That's why I just hope that the raw info gets written up by the major participants in the Scn movement. All those working with Ron, and those who know LRH stories, I hope they all put their stories and info in written form, or however, and get it into someone else's hands after they pass away, so that outside Scn movement researchers in the future, have the raw data to look through. For posterity, for historians who will appreciate this. At least some second hand info can be gotten out now. It'll be years between now and when ALL of LRH's pc folders and LRH's limited distribution writings are made available.

The movement will have to dissolve basically, for all the insider raw info to be released. That could be decades or centuries. By then, no one will likely care. Not that too many care right now, actually.

Chuck Beatty

Thanks.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Feb 2005 22:03:35 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 6 2005 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: To Chuck Beatty

Ralph Hilton wrote:
> chuckbeatt...@aol.com (Chuckbeatty77) wrote on 26 Oct 2004 03:03:23 GMT in msg
> <20041025230323.21321.00002...@mb-m15.aol.com>, :
> Hi Chuck,
> You posted here that you remember me.

I think you remember me. I was your Mission 2nd on the CF Project Mission where we copied the invoices for the FSO. We sat in the CB lobby for about a month, Jan or Feb 1976, and copied a 5th or 6th copy of all the FSO treasury invoices.

Later you were in ITO, I believe. I think you were even in HCO ITO, if I'm not mistaken.

And in the summer of 1977, I recall you being posted at the CB, at the time of the CB fire. (I'd like to hear your views of that fire.)

> Do you remember the day that you pompously and self righteously sat
in judgement in a Court of Ethics over me you little shit.

Sorry, I apologize. I don't remember the specifics, but no doubt you are right. I remember in later years when I held the Comm Ev secretary position, I remember writing up Comm Ev findings on people in a way that were unfairly harsh on others, and I apologize for that. I have no doubt what you say is accurate about my then attitude while finding against you in your Court of Ethics. There is no valid excuse for my behaviour then.

> I daresay you only remember the bad things the CofS did to you. You
have conveniently forgotten your misdeeds and contributions to the control
> operations.

Hardly true. I've posted dozens of comments on persons and honest efforts of the Sea Org I respected and still respect.

My stated purpose in writing on the internet is because I know in the years to come, there will be outsiders who will appreciate us who were in the movement, for providing them material for historical and sociological analysis of the Scn movement. Those are my goals and purposes for writing and providing info that I experienced in the movement. We are part of a larger history.

Any particular criticism you wish to fire my way, by all means let loose. It'll only add, never subtract, to other's who later observe the Scn movement.

> I have seen quite a few ex-members of the CofS post here about how
they were poor suffering victims.

> Most have been lying sacks of shit who contributed to the hardship of
>good staff who actually wanted to help.

Again, not my views, but fire away!

> I don't consider myself to be a victim.
> --
> Ralph Hilton
> http://www.ralphhilton.org
> C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
> FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.net

Fair enough.

I side with the people outside the Scn movement, who speak in the broader vocabulary of intelligent thought and analysis about the Scn movement. Those individuals were never in Scn to begin with! The Scn movement faults published in the media and books, those faults are not simply victims whining.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Feb 2005 13:17:41 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 7 2005 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: To Chuck Beatty

wrote:
> I remember in later years when I held the Comm Ev
> secretary position, I remember writing up Comm Ev findings on people in
> a way that were unfairly harsh on others, and I apologize for that.

Well Chuck, that's certainly an area that could use some clarification -- if you are willing.

--
Ted

Ted,

I was secretary on a Comm Ev on a div head in INCOMM, on a man I won't mention. This was 89,90 or 81. As Secretary on the Comm Ev, I wrote the findings up, and I painted all the bad things, NOT weighing this man's good points, not mentioning his good record and accomplishments, thus my written up findings on him were unbalanced. I regretted it then, and have been aware of having done this similarly, in other justice actions I was a participant, while in the Scn movement. This man went to the RPF, he suffered through it, got done, went back onto post in another org, and is doing relatively well ever since. I regretted my painting only the bad aspects of his actions, and I incorrectly went against what I now feel (which I then also felt, but which I admittedly pushed aside), which is that people's worth in times of their justice actions, in the Sea Org, their positive sides and their positive overall contributions, were most often overshadowed by the present atmosphere of upsets their actions had in those immediate times of their justice actions, brought about. In otherwords this man's relatively recent actions as an INCOMM staffer, were upsetting, and the then climate of opinion was strongly unfavorable against him. I would of course apologize to him, and to anyone else, who I have similarly "ganged up against" when the chips were down against them, when I failed to take into consideration their contributions within the contexts we were then in.

That's the picture. I regret this, and have no excuse for this. I am sorry for it. Ralph's comment on me doing this with him, that is what jarred my admission. I am sorry for this.

Who, by the way, are you? I offer my thoughts, and would be interested in learning what yours are, also who you are.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Feb 2005 21:48:21 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 8 2005 9:48 pm
Subject: Re: To Chuck Beatty

>Ted Crammer wrote:

> So my query to you is really on the order of how did you develop an
> attitude and get so far off-track on LRH Policy? Not making YOU the
>WHO understand, but just trying to get a glimpse of what goes on behind
>the obvious and how LRH Policy gets so screwed up.

Dear Ted,

Inexperience, and following the leader, that's what I fell into. Watching how others operated, and following suit with those I thought were best applying LRH.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Feb 2005 21:37:35 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 7 2005 9:37 pm
Subject: Re: To Chuck Beatty

Ralph Hilton wrote:
> chuckbeatt...@aol.com wrote on 6 Feb 2005 22:03:35 -0800 in msg
> <1107756215.440597.98...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, :

> >Ralph Hilton wrote:
> >> chuckbeatt...@aol.com (Chuckbeatty77) wrote on 26 Oct 2004
> >>03:03:23
> >GMT in msg <20041025230323.21321.00002...@mb-m15.aol.com>, :

> >> Hi Chuck,

> >> You posted here that you remember me.

> >I think you remember me. I was your Mission 2nd on the CF Project
> >Mission where we copied the invoices for the FSO. We sat in the CB
> >lobby for about a month, Jan or Feb 1976, and copied a 5th or 6th
> >copy of all the FSO treasury invoices.

> >Later you were in ITO, I believe. I think you were even in
> >HCO ITO, if I'm not mistaken.

> >And in the summer of 1977, I recall you being posted at the CB, at
>the time of the CB fire. (I'd like to hear your views of that fire.)

> Hi Chuck,

> The fire was caused by an electrical fault in a panel near an air
conditioner. I thought, when smoke appeared, that it was a burnt
> out air conditioner motor but that was a big mistake. So I didn't
>call the fire brigade immediately which probably made matters worse.
>I've seen conspiracy theories but don't agree with them.

> >> Do you remember the day that you pompously and self righteously
> >>sat in judgement in a Court of Ethics over me you little shit.

> >Sorry, I apologize. I don't remember the specifics, but no doubt
> >you are right. I remember in later years when I held the Comm Ev
> >secretary position, I remember writing up Comm Ev findings on people
> >in a way that were unfairly harsh on others, and I apologize for that.
> >have no doubt what you say is accurate about my then attitude while
> >finding against you in your Court of Ethics. There is no valid
> >excuse for my behaviour then.

> ok. No problem. I still cringe a bit thinking of some of the things I
>did as MAA. Sorry if I came across a bit heavy.

> >> I daresay you only remember the bad things the CofS did to you.
> >>You have conveniently forgotten your misdeeds and contributions
> >>to the control operations.

> >Hardly true. I've posted dozens of comments on persons and honest
> >efforts of the Sea Org I respected and still respect.

> >My stated purpose in writing on the internet is because I know in
> >the years to come, there will be outsiders who will appreciate us who
> >were in the movement, for providing them material for historical and
> >sociological analysis of the Scn movement. Those are my goals and
> >purposes for writing and providing info that I experienced in the
> >movement. We are part of a larger history.

> >Any particular criticism you wish to fire my way, by all means let
> >loose. It'll only add, never subtract, to other's who later observe
> >the Scn movement.

> >> I have seen quite a few ex-members of the CofS post here about how
> >>they were poor suffering victims.

> >> Most have been lying sacks of shit who contributed to the hardship
> >>of good staff who actually wanted to help.

> >Again, not my views, but fire away!

> Steve Fishman was a nasty one - see his "Lonesome Squirrel" which is
>still on the net somewhere. Nibs Hubbard didn't directly post but his lies
>were referenced here. He was slagging off his father as a conman while
>selling exteriorization courses using drugs for $1000. I did talk to him
>personally. Others have appeared over the years.

> >I side with the people outside the Scn movement, who speak in the
> >broader vocabulary of intelligent thought and analysis about the Scn
> >movement. Those individuals were never in Scn to begin with! The
> >Scn movement faults published in the media and books, those faults are
> >not simply victims whining.

> Yes, there are many faults. I believe that in evaluating Scientology
one should look at the good aswell as the bad. I personally know
>many people who have benefitted from it. What goes on in this
>newsgroup is unbalanced.

> Someone could easily create a newsgroup listing the crimes of
>Christianity with lurid details of the Inquisition without
>looking at the immense good that it has done in some areas.

> Atheism, as a religious belief system, is probably the worst.

> --
> Ralph Hilton
> http://www.ralphhilton.org
> C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
> FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.net

Thanks for your candid answer Ralph,

I have always considered you a good guy, and I think both of us, had circumstances been different, we would not be posting here today. We'd both be still in the Sea Org. I think the reasons that we ultimately are NOT both still in the Sea Org, lay ultimately at LRH's feet. For me, if there was more to Scn, and to LRH's writings about the big picture in life, then I'd still be aboard. I think it actually is in the character of LRH, and in the people who have risen to power, that due to the certain harsher qualities of character having predominated, the official movement has suffered. The harsher character demonstrations, are written into the rules, into the policy. The harsh policy and rules are now unescapable parts of the Scn movement, which ultimately beat, bash up and eject enough fundamentally good people, that they are caused the seemingly endless retalitory reactions they are faced with.

LRH's written words alone cause them trouble they have yet to wrap their wits around how to handle.

Instead they mistakenly wrong target and try to handle you, the other "squirrels", and the wide bandwidth of anti-Scn critics.

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

It was pointed out to me once by Prof Dave Touretzky, that more traditional religious leaders exemplify grace, humility, charity, forgiveness, immense compassion. You and I may have observed some of these characteristics to varying degrees in Scn movement people, but we'd have to agree that these characteristics are NOT stressed by LRH. I think Scn has a ways to go in developing the qualities of personal character that exist in other religions' priests for instance. I think the best of the Scn movement is from the pre-existing character of the people in it who were and are very good people.

I agree that of course there are volumes of good things about LRH and Scn, I think this same goes for almost every human being alive in this world. I agree that people are basically good, and to LRH's and the Scn movement's favor, they believe this too (but I highly doubt LRH is the first to stress this).

I sometimes lament ARS, but ARS is also totally fine for me. I think if you relate all that happens here, as I do, as HISTORY, all as a result of the events of the Scn movement, then one can add to ARS in any way one wishes, which itself is a remarkable amount of freedom. I greatly appreciate all who have been behind putting and keeping ARS here, and to ALL the contributors to it.

(By the way, I just looked at your C-Meter site, and I thought, Damn!!!! That C-Meter looks cool. I don't think there is a person in the Scn movement who used a meter, that hasn't dreamed and hoped that someone someday would come out with a totally digital screen meter that automatically showed the TA for hands off operation!! This is another reason, to me, it is sad the way things went. Had things gone otherwise, they wouldn't have lost you, and you may have instead made your way uplines to the Int Base today, working with Luigi and Bruce Plotz, on developing something like the C-Meter. This must sound wierd to you, but I think they missed out, your ejection from the Sea Org. I count you as one of the many good individuals that would have been to their benefit, had you and the other good people who ejected, had you all remained in.)

I think the ultimate blame on most Scn faults, falls back on LRH. While us intimate participants in the lifetime staff category, certainly share the Scn movement failures, the written rules by which the movement still operates, those policies, rules and operating guidelines aren't anyone's responsibility other than LRH!

I wish you success in your efforts to do what you think is right, in helping people as you are.

Best, Chuck Beatty

PS: On Atheists, of which I have to admit I find myself roughly in that group, I disagree that the dreaded atheists are the ones most responsible for earth's long history of tragedy. I think atheists are way way in the minority of earth's trouble makers, compared to the majority of people I believe in earth's history, who've believed in the big thetan or big thetans way way out there somewhere at the edge of whatever was understood to be the outer boundry of the universe.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Feb 2005 22:23:04 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 7 2005 10:23 pm
Subject: Re: To Chuck Beatty

Ms. Ball of Fluff,

Thanks for this! I too felt a pang from Ralph, because I like Ralph. His latest answer to me is proof of my judgement, though, on his character, that he's a good person then and now. (He to withstand the official Scn movement and still hold his version of the show together, his longevity itself is testimony that he's still a remarkable player in the Scn movement history!)

(Ralph is a nice guy, if you ever meet him, you will see this immediately!)

Anyways, I did indeed forget my unkind, mindless, goosestepping ethics-hat-wearing Sea Org duty, that moment that I tromped on Ralph at his Court of Ethics. I am sorry, I am sure he was just giving me back the pinprick (but my actions originally to him were harder than a pinprick).

When I first read his above post to me, I at first wondered the paranoic thought, was this really Ralph or another OSA op searching me out for my overts, to discredit me. (This in itself is part of the almost comical ARS paranoia, that OSA unfunnily has unleashed by its decades long internet work.)

But no, it was just Ralph, same guy. I respect him now and I respected him then. I couldn't have done what he's done. Ralph's done quite a feat since he's left the Sea Org and the Scn movement. Compared to him, my sliding back into wog world reality, in some respects, is easier than the path Ralph's taken. (I'm digressing sorry.)

In Ralph's favor, I wrote an answer to him. Ralph, in my opinion, then and now, was and is a good guy. He means well, and my views I stated in my last answer to him. (To his credit, he DID apparantly do what others, probably tens of thousands of good Scn members dreamed someone high in the Scn movement would do someday; Ralph built his own BETTER E-meter, or what looks to be such, which digitally displays the TA without anyone having to push the TA lever around with their thumb!!!!!)

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Feb 2005 13:02:06 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 7 2005 1:02 pm
Subject: Hats off to Gerry Armstrong.

Hi Gerry,

I again, have to say, thankyou for your continued existence. You in my mind, will always be the KEY KEY defector, and you keep on going, which to me is such a good example!!!! Like I said about 5 times already to you, the fact that you are still fighting, still talking freely, THAT IS SO IMPORTANT! That to me, has made the greatest impression on me. Thank you very much for your persistence!!!

(When I finally routed out of the RPF in March 2003, and I started looking on the Internet, to see who in the anti-Scn community was still standing, I was SO happy to see you, free and talking! By reverse logic, the Scn movement spent more $ and effort discrediting you than ANY other critic, and that they didn't shut you down, THAT FACT ALONE IS SUCH A UNDENIABLE THORN IN THEIR SIDE! Your every day's life is history! Keep it up!!)

I am still slowly edging further and further out of the Scn mentality, but I admittedly have not grasped fully, the importance and reality that you gained over two decades ago, about the church's fraud. Just re-reading your early 80's court decisions, as summarized by site after site that mention it, it is slowly sinking in. (I have so many justifications, mainly wog justifications that I have not been able to shake free of, mainly.)

Amongst all the persons who pester you on ARS, believe me, there are also people reading ARS now and there will always be people in the years to come who read through all the internet postings and information, and who grasp the bigger and important things and events you have helped bring about, against the Scn movement.

Your continued speaking out freely, is a continuing ongoing historical event. You are undeniably an ongoing living historical figure in Scn's history. Hats off to you!

(I think the diversity of views and inter-critics criticism on ARS, looking at all this on the positive side, reflects the freedom that exists OUTSIDE the movement. This inter-critics criticism is part of the bargain of having freedom of speech. The western wog world has already been/there-done/that on trying to STOP people from dissenting and speaking freely. Luckily the broader societies we find ourselves in, allow us to speak out about the harmful aspects of the Scn movement. We who know the Scn movement shuts down all forms of this type of internal dissent, and we know they are trying to enforce this on an ever increasing zone around them. These anti-free speech and dissent suppression related policies of the Scn movement are themselves the reasons why the movement will never succede and these anti-dissent policies are reasons the movement continues to draw fire from the wog world.)

I thank you again for your work and I wish you and Caroline well for all the years to come.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Feb 2005 02:01:18 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 8 2005 2:01 am
Subject: Re: The Clear Cognition

ladayla wrote:

[re: demons / "BTs",]

> It's really all in DMSMH. He was referring to entities and demon
>circuits, etc. I could be wrong about this, but looking back, I
>can see all of the Scn Bridge in the Dn book. The info about
>entities might have been deleted from the book.
> When I was in deposition with Joe Yanny, I had just the
>night before been preparing for it and had read some pages
>of DMSMH containing the 'entities' stuff - where Ron was
>saying that they all think that they are 'you', and so
> on.I had looked in the table of contents under 'entities' and then
gone to those pages. Anyways, in that Yanny depo, I made a
>statement and referred him to the section of DMSMH regarding
>'entities', and lo and behold! the copy of the book
> that he had did not have that designation in the table of
>contents. Another reference would be during the
>Technique 88 lectures, LRH made it known
> that he was much fascinated by 'the entities'. Later on,
>in the HCL lectures (I think), he made a tape called
>"Psycometric Auditing: Battle of the Universes"
>> in which he locates,and describes body thetans that he called
>'Targs'. I also recall his saying of the 'entities' that
>" It is better to let sleeping dogs lie".

> I am not nearly so good a source on this subject as David or
>Merrill or Leon would be, nor have I seen or read Ron's
>folders; but I am certain that he was aware of BTs from
>the get-go, and until the necessity level came up and he
>had David to help him, he was too busy or too wound up in
>other facets of the subject of Dn/Scn to write the area up so that
>it could be communicated and run by others.
> la

Thankyou very much. I know so little about these tech points. LRH did consider his "serious" work his tech. I mainly studied policy, and oversaw the admin training of church execs, and worked on the project to get policy into the routing forms. I early on failed as a tech trainee (TTCer) at Flag. In those months of fall 76 and early 77, when I did get to rub elbows minorly with the 76-77 vintage Flag Tech terminals, Leon Steinberg, Murray Chopping, I highly admired them, and I admired most of the 12's.

Leon Steinberg in my opinion had immense character and presence.

LRH's tech I only studied on the RPF. I really liked the Ex DN Case Supervision directions. I enjoyed reading ex-Class 12 Pierre Ethier's take on the Lisa McPherson tragedy, with her botched up L's, which no doubt is true.

Any of these people's views about their Sea Org lives, the tech, LRH, I would highly value hearing.

Have you any influence on urging these Class 12's to write up whatever of their histories, stories, anecdotes, good and bad, their thoughts on the major issues Scn is all about?

It would be so historically valuable to get these people's ideas of their years in the Sea Org, and before, their whole Scn runways, whatever details.

I was just thinking in another post, on Clambake, how vital it would be get the views of the top tech terminals during the years of the Tech Aide, CS-4, and the issue writing era entrusted to Brian Livingston, Ron Shaffron, Jeff Walker, and to get their views and input into the major technical points they participated in directly, which I think in many cases each of the above people had major hands in quite a few tech issues. (And please tell me other individuals you know who were issue compilers or oversaw issue compiling, if you know.)

I'd love to have unlimited time with each of the above, and leaf through a tech volume covering the dates they were over the tech issue compilations, and get their input, HCOB by HCOB, what they recall on each HCOB's history. They would know. And when they pass away, those details will be lost, except through stories that might have already been told on this.

Unhindered now by the rules on not spreading verbal data, etc., to get their views, what they may not have ever expressed, would be invaluable.

Thanks for anything you can do or direct me to.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Feb 2005 22:04:49 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 15 2005 10:04 pm
Subject: Int Base questions: Answers by chuck beatty, info to ARS

Moonbeam,

1) Yes, I was at Gold (total about 2 years over a 11 year period). Look at this aeriel photo of the Int Base, with labels.

http://www.lermanet.com/image/­hemet-labeled.jpg

2) There are about 700 people working daily at the Int Base.

2a) There are 3 echelons at the Int Base. Top dogs are called RTC. See the photo, it shows the building they work in. My guess is RTC has about 75 staff or so. Top top dog, is David Miscavige, the top guy in RTC.

2b) 2nd echelon is CMO Int. Top guy in CMO Int used to be, and my guess still is, Mark Yager. CMO Int has about 120 or so people. CMO Int includes the Int Finance Office and the Senior C/S Int Office. Just below, but working very closely with CMO Int is the Exec Strata. Executive Director International (ED Int) is the boss of the Executive Strata which is about 8-10 guys who are supposed to be experts of certain zones of responsibility, the Exec Strata are a key part of what is called "Int Management". The other parts of Int Management are CMO Int and the Int Finance Office.) All of CMO Int and Int Finance and Exec Strata are normally in the same building, they were for a couple of decades, and I think they still are today. They all form the 2nd echelon at the Int Base. Total guys, about 100 I would guess.

2c) 3rd and bottom echelon of the 3 basic major groups at the Int Base, is the actual Golden Era Productions organization. Gold is huge, like 400-500 staff. Gold is massive. The top guy in Gold is called Commanding Officer Gold. Gold makes movies, they make the CDs of LRH's lectures, they make the Emeters, they make all the music for the events, they make all the videos of all the events, they oversee all the expensive marketing and do the marketing themselves. Gold is huge. All the security personnel guarding the Int Base are Gold staff. All of the construction personnel at the Int Base are Gold staff. All of the people upkeeping the many many acres of lawns, flowers, trees, sidewalks, roads, etc., all the food that they all eat, all the berthing, all the caring for the celebrities who visit the base, all of the day to day upkeep functions, are handled by Gold staff. (If you have been on a military base, and see how military operations are set up, with mess halls, canteens for snacks, all the buildings and equipment to upkeep the whole base, carpentry shop, plumbing, air conditioning, cooking, cleaning, my impression of the Int Base is that it is somewhat like a military base, but it looks a lot more spiffy, beautiful buildings, pretty high quality sidewalks, nice office furniture, etc., etc. It is a pretty nice looking and efficiently run operation. Gold is a huge huge org, bigger and more expensive equipment used for making films, recording lectures, making music. LRH has written thousands of orders in the early 80's to Gold staff. Those orders were turned into issues, that Gold staff follow in doing their jobs. Gold easily has millions and millions of dollars of expensive recording and film equipment, much state of the art, some equipment which is one of a kind (I think of the spinning microphone room, where there is a one of a kind recording room with a completely unique microphone setup that floats and spins, unlike ANYTHING in the wog world that anyone has ever tried before). Gold has a recording studio for the musicians. They have the massive massive Castle, where they can shoot all the films they produce (See the photo for how massive the Castle is.) Gold is responsible for training everyone on the base, and the "Qual" building is where people go in shifts daily to study. People eat daily at the place called "MCI, also in shifts, because there are so many people working at Gold. Someday they may live in the buildings labelled the "berthing buildings". I don't have recent data, so don't know if staff have moved into these berthing buildings yet. The berthing buildings are custom made for them. People married get a single room, people unmarried stay in dorms, and I have no idea how many will be in a room, but I am sure it won't be overcrowded there, at least not at first.

2c) There are other groups at the Int Base, there is a local CMO, called CMO Gold, and CMO Gold has CMO Int as their immediate seniors, and CMO Gold is over the Gold org. CMO Gold is about 10 or so staff. Under CMO Gold is the Household Unit, which used to be the men and women personally attending LRH. Today the Household Unit maintains the "LRH spaces". The LRH spaces are those spaces (buidlings, offices, personal house) that are built and maintained, for LRH. Like all the churches of Scientology have an office for LRH, at the Int Base, there is a huge house, called Bonnyview, that is LRH's home. I have not seen it, but it is labelled on the photo.

I could go on for hours. Gold is a massive operation, and the Int Base is the top of the Scn movement. There are hundreds of personalities and a whole lifestyle unique to the Scn movement.

You asked a couple more questions, like about conditions, and do people complain. Of course some people complain. But usually people put up with it, and there are procedures for improving the conditions, and there are all sorts of moment to moment reasons for much of the degrading conditions. People who are in huge groups living together, with limited time and money, have tendencies to get into a bureacractic type mentality, like some outnesses will be overlooked, and people "think" someone else is supposed to handle the outnesses, so I have observed that the outnesses of the conditions are tolerated, ignored, etc. Sometimes someone gets so pissed, like an executive, and the executive screams that the outnesses have to be handled, and then they get handled.

Overall, there are thousands and thousands of postings on the internet by former Sea Org staff detailing all of the odd outnesses in the Sea Org over the last 3 decades.

You should just continue reading, and looking through the dozens of excellent internet anti-Scn sites, as the answers to all of your questions I think are spread all over.

I have given you data, and pointed you to the latest that I know, about the top top of the Scn movement, which I know many many others will be interested to see what is now on the internet also about the Int Base.

I hope more former people from the Int Base will update us all on what is happening there. I know a little, a fraction of what dozens and dozens of ex-Int Base staff know. I was only there a very short time, relative to the whole history of the Int Base.

I hope and encourage others who have been at the Int Base in the last 5 or so years, to offer new information.

Best, Chuck Beatty, Ex-Sea Org, 75-03
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckb­eatty77
chuckbeatt...@aol.com
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm EST)



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Feb 2005 06:01:48 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 16 2005 6:01 am
Subject: Re: Int Base questions: Answers by chuck beatty, info to ARS

friendship wrote:
> Dear Chuck,

> I've been in Scn since 1970 but have never been in the Sea Org so
> your information is very interesting.

> I know a few people who I believe were high up in Int. Do you have
> any info about them? Here's a list:

> Hara Klein

She's a top auditor in RTC. Great person. Married to Kevin O'Hare, so she's Hara O'Hare. One of the best all-time auditors and tech persons in RTC, and thus the official church. I think she reviews tech and wears RTC's hat of reviewing and ensuring tech is standard. RTC reviews pc folders to ensure tech is standardly applied, Hara I believe is one of their top top people who does this job. I am sure there are many varied opinions WAY beyond my very incomplete and limited opinion of her, and about RTC's overseeing role in doing their openly stated job. For instance being a tech terminal in RTC and deciding what is LRH's ultimate opinion on certain tech points, for instance, if you are faintly aware about auditing tech, you know that Case Supervisors send auditors to cramming, auditors go to cramming, and hash out the differences of opinion of which LRH technical data apply to the specific pc under question, well in all the thousands and thousands of instances of these subtle technical differences of opinion by auditors and case supervisors of which LRH technical writings and taped lectures should apply to the preclears in question, I think Hara O'Hare (Klein) is probably one of THE top individuals in the Scn movement, who is trusted within RTC to make the correct calls on these matters. She is trusted to review I think just about ANY technical auditing by anyone on anyone. My limited observation is that she's stable, I recall she's a very nice person, just the normal good type of person that the best auditors in the Scn movement are. Others who have worked with her, can, and I hope will, offer further info. One doesn't survive decades in the top of the movement, particularly at RTC, unless one is a pretty fundamentally stable and uniquely good person, who can constantly make sense of and shine through with one's basic goodness despite the almost never-ending heated emotions and flaps and limiting and strongly worded and faulty instructions LRH has tossed into the mix of all of LRH's other thousands and thousands of more sensible written instructions, orders, policies, etc.

These people who remain and hold the fort, so to speak, are in my opinion doing so, due to their own good characters.

> Tom Ondrieka

I like him, he's done hundreds of "missions" (the projects that senior church organizations do almost constantly where they send 2-5 or so people to deal with a particular almost always flappy situation). He worked on the mission/project to initially research and write and implement the computerized weekly reports systems, for INCOMM in the early 80's. I worked adjacent to him in those years. Recently, I crossed his path, as he had been on a mission in 2000, where he was entrusted to make physical and berthing arrangements in the PAC RPF, so that the 50 or more Int RPFers who were demoted from the Int RPF down to the PAC RPF had adequate berthing facilities, and a spiffy course room in which to audit, since the Int RPFers would need separate rooms so things said in their sessions could not be overheard by the lower echelon RPFers from PAC. The Int RPFers are not supposed to blab about their experiences at the Int Base. So Tom and his mission partner set up the PAC RPF with additional dorm spaces and course rooms as I said. I blieve the RPF Insider mentioned Tom and his wife Cathy are on the PAC RPF now. They are both great people in my opinion (I find almost every person in life, as pretty decent people, though, that's about all you'll get from me unfortunately.)

> David Henderson (I think he blew a few years ago -- any idea where he
> is and what he's doing?)

Oh, I really liked Dave Henderson. Great guy! I think he's at the FSO or Clearwater, doing some post there. Very high character person, I admired him a lot.

> Pete Specker (I saw him about 5 years ago at AOLA and he there seemed
> to be something wrong with him. He was on some study project or
> something.)

Peter, also, really liked him. All these people you ask about are New Yorkers, and I generally like people from New York. Peter was QEI (Quality Exec Int), and he's a Class 8, Class 9, OEC/FEBC, he's trained up the ying-yang, he did probably dozens and dozens of evals while he was QEI over the years in the 80's. Not sure why he was busted, but he did get busted down from his post at Int to PAC. Very likeable great guy, very intelligent. Someone else told me he went to Cornell, which makes sense. He is an extremely intelligent person.

> Sue Rubio

Not familiar with this same. Did she become Sue Price?

> Ken Krieger

Great guy, last I heard he was in Africa, with Sue Krieger, and if Sue Rubio became Sue Krieger, then that might explain where Sue is also. Both New Yorkers. Great people, and real assets to the Scn movement inmy opinion. They'd be in the CLO (Continental Liaison Org Africa, Johannesburg) Africa, most likely. Ken's a commanding officer caliber person, good leader in my opinion. Him and Sue are in my mind, a pair of the longterm stable Sea Org members, as are all the people you've asked about. They all are genuinely real good people, who've adapted to the Sea Org lifestyle, and they are the types that keep the movement going.

In my opinion, the movement runs due to the goodness of the people in it, like these people mentioned above. These people made the commitment to work within the Sea Org, they've accepted the rules, they hold their own to varying extents, meaning usually around such people as these longterm Sea Org members, these good people provide a smaller internal zone of pretty sane operation. I liked working with all of them, and respect them all.

> Colin Thorne (I believe he was sent out to 'handle' people who were a
> threat but that was years ago. I believe he and his wife Marta are
> still in the S.O. but I haven't heard much about them.)

Oh yea! Marta, she's a great gal. Haven't seen Colin, but I know Marta from the 80's, and I saw her in about 2003 or so, she works in the HGB. That means she is part of the Flag Liaison Org (FLO) which is the rename of the old FB (Flag Bureaux) from the Apollo days. The FLO was renamed since there was an early 80's advice from LRH regarding naming the FB as a senior "Liaison" org, because LRH realized that as "Int Headquarters" was coming into stable being in the early 80's, thus the FB (which used to be part of the old Int management) needed a new name to fit them. Since FB was now being bumped down to "middle management". That is all. Nothing sinister, this is just renaming as the Sea Org management units evolved, as the top units at the Int Base formed up, which meant the FB now was middle management, not top management anymore. This is actually how the FLO name came about, and the FB and FCB names, FB being Flag Burueax and it applies still today to the divisions in the FLO that do the same functions, like Data Bu, and Action Bu and Training & Services Bu, Qual Bu, all those bureaux exist in the FB part of the FLO today. It is just that the FLO today has the other what are now called "middle management" echelon units like SMI, WISE, and others I forget at the moment. The FCB name was for a period the expanded FB, FCB standing for Flag Command Bureaux, and FCB included SMI and WISE etc. Then FCB was renamed FLO in recent years. (There are probably dozens of defectors now, of people who took part in the big training project to get everyone in the FLO all trained up. The FLO setup project was massive, involved people from the FCB being sent to the Int Base for training and learning about how the new FLO was to run, and some people from the Int Base became part of these groups, and these groups then when they finished their training at Int, went and re-setup the FLO in Hollywood, and teams of people also went to, I believe, all of the major Continental Liaison Orgs, like in New York City, Toronto, Copenhagen, Sidney, Johannesburg, Los Angeles, everywhere the Sea Org has their Continental Liaison Offices. And of course the FLO, which was the senior Liaison Org to them. All these people were sent to the Int Base, mainly from the FCB but also from other Sea Org orgs around the world, then spent varying amounts of time up there, up to months, getting trained on how the FLO and CLO new setup, and all this occurred in the mid 90's. I haven't seen any postings of these people, but defectors from this period of Sea Org history could give insight into their lives during their training up at the Int Base.)

Marta today works in one of these half a dozen FLO sub-units today, on Hollywood Blvd.

> If I think of anyone else I'll let you know.

Sure. Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Feb 2005 09:57:43 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 16 2005 9:57 am
Subject: Re: Int Base questions: Answers by chuck beatty, info to ARS

friendship wrote:
> Dear Chuck,

> Wow!! Thanks very much for your answers!

> I pretty much agree with you about these people. However, there is a
> dilemna for me. If someone is a good technical terminal how can they
> stomach the dismantling of the basic workability of the religion?

I think the answer to questions like this are very serious, and take quite a bit of answering. In summary, people do give up their rights when inside groups like this, I gave up my free speech, in the normal sense. Luckily here on ARS, us chatting right here and now, I can write what I want. I can make critical comments, give my opinion freely, express my doubts, etc. I don't fear getting a Knowledge Report written on me, which those in the Sea Org, actively in the mid to higher ranks can automatically expect, especially the higher you go (with the exceptions that the top guys can sit around and badmouth all over the place, from reading Jesse Prince's excellent writeups of what life was like at the top, I think Jesse's writings are the best, and I highly recommend new readers read ALL of Jesse's and the other top top defector's writeups, they are immeasurably more important to read if you have not read those yet), but normal everyday top people in RTC, like Hara, isn't going to even come mentally close to challenging significantly in her mind in the least bit of doubtful way, any of LRH's harsher pronouncements. People, in my opinion, in the movement, way up there, the "good people" we are discussing here, have layers of justifications, in the normal sense, not the Scn sense, and layers of thoughts that allow them each to skid over the "misinterpretations" of Hubbard's harsher instructions. I think when people come out, the top people, I think even now, that Jesse and Vicki and the other top players, this same question should be put to them, and let them answer how they kept this all under control, so that they didn't just react in complete disbelief and repugnance of what LRH says. I as a lower lower level underling, in this upper level world at the Int Base, I just robotically knew NOT to express any disaffection, that was a one-way ticket out of the upper level "paradise" (admittedly nice offices, nice food, nice lawns, people acting very friendly socially and good manners and social graces were expected, boors and slouches and downgrade looking people stuck out and were corrected or ousted from the Int Base ranks).

There are great psychs and other smart smart wogs who already have written about groups (totalitarian), and the coercion internally, all of their knowledge completely applies, I am way way behind in reading ALL that needs to be absorbed to put my experiences in full context. The wogs have already been/there-done/that on all of the coercive crap the Sea Org puts its members through. Nothing new under the sun here. My personal thoughts on how I did it, how I actually kept myself in support, was just blunt personal survival. I thought, if I even dared think about doubtful thoughts, I was toast. Since I am so unbelievably wishing to express my feelings in words, I was in a long long term mental battle, having to sit on my thoughts all the time, piling up layers of carefully thought out justifications, that if I had to voice them, those carefully worked out statements of thought, protected me, I was able to maintain the balance of justifications to remain a well-fed and well-rewarded Sea Org member, and I slipped up the echelons, when vacancies opened up due to people blowing. My trek in the Sea Org was such.

I don't fear being told at the end of today, that I should be sessionable, because tomorrow I am going to be security checked based on Hubbard's premise that all critical thoughts and critical utterances against what the Scn movement considers "well-intentioned" people or groups or things, well if one criticizes good things, then one, per Hubbard has got overts, and the overts (bad deeds or bad intentions that squeaked out in modified ways), the overts need to be justified, and the criticism one voices is merely one's false delusional opinion about the good people and good things, and one's criticism is justification for the deeply buried overts (and LRH says the overts are SERIOUS ones). Talk about freedom of speech and opinion, and the subject turns quickly into please locate your SERIOUS overts against us "well-intentioned" people. That's their policy, that gets drummed into your head, and the way to survive, is adjust to that procedure. That's the mental coercion.

Are the people still good. Are we all still good. Yes, that's my opinion. Whether caught in this web of logic or not. People in my opinion are still good.

The top people in RTC and CMOI, everyone after a while who learns how to "survive" at the Int Base, within the mindset parameters laid out by Hubbard in the full breadth of his basic books, all through all the limited issue type writings for the Sea Org, and including all his advices and writings and lectures for the Int Base personnel, within his thousands and thousands of comments on every damn thing, a person has so MUCH LRH material, to replace his every thought with, that it is easy to distract oneself into something good that LRH has said, to counter every criticism one hears about the bad that LRH has said. There being enough good thoughts in his stuff, there is a way to balance it all, and just deflect all actually good criticism of LRH's bad stuff.

In my case, I stayed in, and my lurking doubts slowly swum around like deep sea fish, way down deep, way out of sight, and I just went on, day by day, bouyed and distracted by daily events, like you said, in the shiny bright office spaces and envirnonment. (I was at ASI on Hollywood Blvd, which was VERY spiffy as far as office spaces, etc.)

> I'll give you an example. Hubbard issued a bulletin in I think 1971
> entitled "Illegal Auditing" making O/W write-ups and off the meter
> accusations illegal. A simple HCO B that really seemed to be LRH.
> Then some years later O/W write-ups were resurrected in an obviously
> tech compilation issue that parades as an HCO B. There are so many
> problems with these write-ups (as well as torturous sec checking and
> the other tech 'updates' that allow for interminable interrogations)
> that it becomes truly destructive to allow these 're-issues' of
> earlier tech that was re-thought by LRH and mostly devalued or
> cancelled. So why don't these top tech terminals straighten this
> out?

I so want to discuss this, and can only throw out some opinions. I wish I knew more of what was going through Ray Mitoff's, and the tech terminals he discussed this with, and possibly going back to David Mayo. This question is so important, it requires access to the players there, to tell their actual views at the moment these types of serious HCOB issues were being discussed. I can name people who could answer. I recommend David Mayo. I recommend all the former Class 12s, who might have some guess as to why this particular HCOB came out. Fred Albach, was a compiler under David Mayo, and Fred would be an excellent source. I think Fred is in good graces so will not at this time be able to offer his opinion, since under the rules of being a Scn member in good standing, or even being the category of whatever he is, he may not be able to answer. Dan and Sue Koon may know the answer, both are excellent individuals who are highly intelligent and could offer excellent opinions on this, and almost every other serious technical change or point that has occurred. Dan and Sue are at the Int Base, and of course completely out of the question to ask at this time.

You question is above my level of judgement, sorry. But I think this and questions like it, deserve good answers. Hold the question, someday this type of question can still be answered as defectors come out, and as the atmosphere changes in the future.

> And if they really believe that the endless O/W write-ups and
> sec checks are IN tech, I don't think that I would have much
> respect for them. Do you get my drift?

Yes. Really, more fundamentally, Sec Checks will NOT work, if the sec check is NOT the reason for the person's behavior. Many times executives in the Sea Org DO do stupid blunderous things. Spitting in people's faces, like a person we all know did, of course is not good. There is no justification, and trying to use LRH's figurative advice on this matter, was a serious lapse in judgement. So be it, it's done, the deed is done. Complaining about genuine lapses, in context, is NOT wrong. So sec checking someone for bringing to mind genuine lapses in judgement won't get the product of turning off the criticism of the genuine lapse.

So the continuous usage incorrectly of Scn sec checking and OW writeups to deal with genuine goofs, won't work, and it generates more upset and obfuscates the genunie goofs. All agree on this basic logic, at least out here where there is a freedom to discuss this (inside, people normally keep themselves from even having these thoughts, since it bodes badly for one to doubt one's leader's competence---"pushing power to power" and all that, the Simon Bolivar justification of supporting the leader despite his faults, and if you can't do that, then get ready for your sec check or OW writeup to train you to keep your big mouth shut).

Anyways, this has so already been discussed and proven conclusively, of course you are right on this.

> If you look at the structure of the GPM you see the importance of the
> concepts in the "Worst Tangle" issues. It is a waste of time and
> damaging to a case to concentrate on O/Ws (way low down on the GPM)
> when the person is unsure of their own identity or is shifting
> positions and identities (Out Int and Out Lists) or is ARC Xen.

Absolutely, there are sec checking tapes in the early 60's, which when I was being endlessly directed to find my SERIOUS overts, it just threw me over the edge, and made me hate what I was experiencing in the end, with the endless variation of the same sec check questions, over and over, I got fed up finally finally. The 60's tapes, one says you can drive a pc over the bend by asking MORE than what is there. The phrase LRH uses is "did did". The implication is to get more of the did that was did. Try to get the "did did", which I laughed and laughed, when I heard that tape. In my final year in the RPF's RPF while getting the slow slow routing out sec checking auditing, I listened to the sec checking tapes over and over and over, and in the end LRH material I found allowed me some respite from the needless sec checking. I had the LRH material to prove myself that what I was being audited on was wrong. I brought it up, politely, all my observations numbly acknowledege by my numb auditors and C/Ss, and I just got more and more sec check questions. I was a real treat I am sure for my final auditors and C/Ses, I am sorry to say.

Anyways, you are for sure very right. And you know in the movement, these are the types of "fads" that I want the recent years tech defectors to go into, if they can. There have been decade after decade of tech fads, about sec checker beingness, which Ray Mitoff and the guys in RTRC and the RTC tech temrinals like Hara, all discuss, and they go over the LRH references.

To me, the obvious problem is LRH. He's the damn guy who made this stew of tech.

To me, now, I highly respect the free thinking people, who can look at it all, and man, to me, even the quote unquote "squirrels", the squirrels are just people who have risen above LRH's dogmatism, and who can think for themselves. In the context of religious history, there is nothing particularly wrong with splinter groups, look at human history. I got no problem with "squirrels". In fact I can appreciate them at least now.

I am trying to ellicit the high tech defectors to come out, and hopefully, if we had some anonymous forums, where tech defectors could answer questions, that would be ideal.

I am sorry, I am not versed in the tech extensively. Just RPF read it drill it do it trained, and I loved to read LRH, since so much of what I experienced, I found in the end, one or another of LRH's wide range of opinions would fit my view in some way. And since when inside, you are only given the option of selecting opinions supported by LRH's writings, luckily LRH is so contradictory and wide ranging, ironically, in all his massive prolificness. One can find almost anything one does justified by some other LRH writing.

(Example, you feel like spitting on someone who really pissed you off. Well go look up "spit" on the INCOMM computer SIR system, which all the top echelons at the Int Base have access to for doing their jobs. Pull up the LRH advice where LRH tells DM that if he sees a certain person in his travels at the base, spit on that person for LRH. That's a prime example of a dark figurative thought passed on from LRH to DM. You can immediately grasp how this LRH remark then allows a human emotional reaction quite out of character with the vast vast bulk of LRH's other writings. This is an example of the predicament, and ongoing atmosphere at the top of the movement, with the full breadth of LRH's writings to the top people, and gives you the predicament they all find themselves in. Anyone can type in "spit" on the SIR (Source Information Retrieval system) which is the INCOMM computer system that has the full body of LRH's works on the computer so Int execs can instantly pull up the information in a split second.

>Can't
> these people see that these O/W write-ups are causing case upsets?
> Because they DO.

In my opinion, this is probably another of the fads. It is an entrenched fad that won't go away, since, as many older generation, the 60's70's generation of defected tech people believe, the current tech people are just NOT applying all the tech correctly. LRH did say to do things to handle things they are running into, but the intelligence of the auditors doing the tech, and the Case Supervisors, the auditing, of course to a limited dgree, is as good as they are. Dumber auditors and C/Ss, and auditors and C/Ses following fads, of course will miss applying the other options LRH allowed in other references.

But even so, in my opinion now, the whole thing, all the auditing I feel is placebo effect, and as good as the humanness and compassion of the individual auditor, who's mere good character and reassuring pressence and well-wishing attitude towards the preclears, is what helped anyone who was a preclear in the Scn movement. (Trained people will understnad this pegs me at believing in only the first leg of the two basics of auditing works. I don't agree that the tech does anything, that's is my view today. So in many people's views, tech people's views, I am pretty low on that scale of belief system.)

> Sometimes people will have wins on them initially and
> if they run them on themselves very lightly they may have some
> benefit.

I agree. I liked the Objective processes. That's the extent of the gains I got in Scn, I freely admitted.

> But if they are over done the person gets the earlier similars
> thoroughly into restimulation, can't run them out and winds up with
> lots of mass. This sometimes leads to a feeling of degradation, an
> excess of carefulness and an inability to take responsibility for
> fear of committing a small transgression. Or doing them over and
> over the person becomes thoroughly overrun and starts to get into
> self-inval.

Absolutely. But I am far from a knowledgable person in this area.

> So I don't see how these 'top tech terminals' are really tops.

I am open-minded, both ways. It is sad that there will never be, due to the official rules, a discussion between people who should have them. The top tech people would scoff at discussing this issue. Yet ironically, they do discuss these things, in their submissions, when this issues are dealth with in the revision of HCOBs, etc.

Those people NOT at the "Top" just don't get to take part in the discussion. Best hook up with other experienced tech people, a good freezone cramming officer, with LOTS of access to LRH materials, and hash it out. (I don't believe in the tech myself, but if I was troubled by official church tech fads, and I was a freezoner, I'd see a freezoner cramming officer. I have no reality on the freezone, so have no clue about what they do, they probably don't even spend a second worrying about the negative aspects of LRH's tech, I doubt they'd grind up their preclears with unecessary or bad sec checking. I gave up auditing, and will never waste my time on it. I love reading wog materials, learning more intelligent thought which is out in the regular world.)

> Looking back at the mentality I had when 'in' I recall feeling
> totally incapable of making any real change in things coming
> down from management and felt that I could still contribute
> by applying the tech properly to people I audited and auditors
> I c/sed. But I did write up outnesses when I came across them.
> How can people like Hara O'Hare not observe that hundreds and
> hundreds of Sea Org members get endless sec checks but never
> go up the bridge? Doesn't she feel that the case progress of
> these people is important?

Powerful inditement. I respect Hara, I am truly sorry for this situation.

I so wish the RTC tech personnel, or Snr C/S Int office staff could send out teams to help resolve, and cram people, but I think when the official church DOES incorrectly apply LRH, when they get into fads, they do sometimes go around and try to undo the fads (which they sometimes conveniently blame on former tech personnel who were ousted or self-ejected), and when LRH himself paints auditors and C/Ses into corners due to LRH's inadequacies in the tech itself, I myself have to logically conclude that there are more things overall wrong here than can be corrected, even with all the good intentions of people like you, people like Hara. LRH may have had good intentions (completely wild and unjustified I know most serious critics no longer entertain this delusion that LRH and Scn mean ANYTHING good to mankind), but for the sake of even discussing this, let's say all concerned at sometime meant well (which I ultimately concluded IS true), then the other still existing possibility is that LRH did NOT get it all properly nailed down, like he claimed (and like the serious harsh critics KNOW at this point is overwhelmingly true). Right now, the official church MUST operate under the belief (or delusion) that it is correct in whatever tech interpretation that is being forwarded currently. They have to believe in what they are doing, even if it is in some way or ways wrong. (I think this is a human frailty we all are inescapably living also.)

LRH didn't have it all nailed. He claimed over and over and over to have it all nailed (that he had to repeat this claim, was a clue that he DIDN'T have it nailed), it all comes back to him, is what I concluded.

He isn't the biggest cheeze on planet earth. He's a minor potato.

> So I don't get it. But I see this same 'follow the leader' mentality
> leading to bad consequences in politics, in the military and in
> corporations as well. People put the survival of their own small
> sphere above the greater good. A basic out-ethics situation.

> And, also, what about all the wrong RPF assignments? Surely Dave
> Henderson, Tom O., etc., recognize that a lot of these assignments
> are incorrect. Then they sit back and do nothing about that?

Oh man. I talked too much here. I ran out of gas of what to say. I think others have already beaten all this territory to death, and there is so much more interesting things on the movement to read on all the excellent excellent anti-Scn sites, which I encourage all to read.

> I don't get it. But I understand what you're saying. I have some
> friends who are really good people basically -- but what does that
> matter in the long run? "Evil abounds when good men do nothing."

Yea.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Feb 2005 22:15:28 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 15 2005 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: Answer to an ex-Scn Mgmt Exec who authored LRH issued policy

friendship wrote:
> Another thought. If high level G.O. people defect and write their
> stories would they still be bound by statutes of limitations? I bet
> they would. A lot of their crimes were federal in nature. And if
>they spill the beans they may be putting friends at risk.

> The government doesn't like being infiltrated and spied on. That's
> probably why that group is pretty silent. And a lot of them actually
> went to jail. Right? They know what its like and they probably
>don't want to go back.

> But I'm just rambling here. I don't know, I have very little legal
> info. If anyone has an opinion or some data about this it would be
> nice if they would respond.

Probably true, about the risk of exposing themselves and friends to prosecution. Well, then the next step would be writing, entrusting records to universities, or hooking up with the serious Scn researchers, wog researchers, and finding out how to get the data into researchers' hands so that at least in the decades in the future, the stories and experiences are at least written up, so someone later has the raw info.

I hope they can do that at least. I hope that for instance, the few university professors researching Scn, are allowed to keep records that will be maintained by those universities, for generations of Scn researchers and observers in the future.

chuck beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Feb 2005 22:17:04 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 16 2005 10:17 pm
Subject: Re: Answer to an ex-Scn Mgmt Exec who authored LRH issued policy

friendship wrote:

> Dear Chuck,

> I sometimes really wonder how the ex-GO people feel. What they
>think.

> Mary Sue, for example. Her inheritance and the that of her children
> was basically stolen by DM -- she was coerced and tricked out of it
>by DM -- or so I've read on some website or post somewhere.

Yea, google Jesse Prince and Mary Sue Hubbard, and you will get several vesrsions of a key key showdown moment. Jesse's posts are the utter best regarding the top of the movement, in my opinion.

> I wonder how the other Hubbard children feel.

I have repeatedly had thoughts of training to become a journalist, and then hunt them up and interview them for a magazine article. Not sure I want to do that. Rather they will come out someday, and write themselves, their own histories and thoughts.

> DM has done his utter best to neutralize the Hubbard family
>as they would, obviously, present the biggest threat
>to his regime. Because Scns would probably follow
>Diana, et al, if they decided to 'mutiny.'

She [Diana] is charismatic. But realize the Sea Org is a huge operation, they have greased command lines, and I did a post about the respect, realistically, the Int Base staff have for DM despite all of the BS he dishes out (which is less bad news compared to earlier years when it was pretty bad). He is a respected, relied upon, and assuredly he is the abusing father and the underlings are in the abused wife syndrome, etc. Despite that, the Sea Org has an extensively ingrained command channel and organizational pattern that runs by itself. It is not a Mussolini operation in that it will all collapse should DM collapse. It will run, the staff are all ingrained in their duties, and the operation will go on.

Whoever replaces DM as COB of RTC, probably will fumble around, and probably the first couple people taking over will botch it up. But either the whole movement will collapse (I doubt it, but I am open to it), or I think with the people they have available to draw from, that the movement will necessarily lighten up, once DM retires out of the scene as the top dog.

The Int Base would not jump behind Dianna, you gotta realize the extent of the responsibilities that DM has assigned to himself, and he is sort of dramatizing a make-wrong on everyone else, for his not being able to turn over to them, the hats he is "having to wear because there is no one to turn these hats over to" mentality.

I am not sure she isn't a player long range, but she's older than DM, and DM would have to blow or abandon the whole movement, for her to have a shot at it. She is not even in RTC, realize.

Normally they pick commanding officer caliber people, and there is a set of people who have been successful commanding officers, and I believe it will be from that set of people that DM's replacement would be selected, by the top echelon in RTC at the moment when DM relinquishes his role as COB RTC. COB's role is almost NOT a commanding officer type. He is an expert (in their context) speaker. He is their spokesman, he is sort of like a super AVC (the ultimate authorizing person who has to okay ALL the major major proposals to spend money on major major movement projects).

I would really like to get some former Int Base staffer who knows all the hats that COB is wearing to offer up what all he does. I know he has to okay certain types of projects, like major renovations at the Int Base.

There is a list of things that people at the Int Base know that have to get COB okay. The underlings at Int, most, have heard thousands of conversations over their years at the Int Base, where fellow staff have said "COB will have to approve that."

He does a lot of administrative desk sitting, approving or disapproving what others are proposing to do. What exactly, that is what I'd like to get others to relay.

Not sure Dianna could hold his job. I think they will choose someone in RTC, when that time comes.

I like Dianna, but I don't honestly think she will be offered nor will she manoeuver and try to take the reins of the Scn movement, in the unlikely event that DM relinquishes control for some reason.

> Often with totalitarian organizations the organization rots from the
> inside because the super strong dictator is so afraid of insurrection
> that he or she expells any strong and charismatic juniors and keeps
>the weaker, less intelligent and less ambitious ones.

Yes, and that I think is part of the problem. I posted that Greg Wilhere is most likely to succede DM, should DM suddenly depart from COB post right now. I think the way RTC is set up, that they have not attracked any brighter people than those already there, so they simply don't have the caliber of people willing and wanting to rise up and actually do a good job of taking over. The best guys left in Scn in the early 80's were selected up to ASI. DM headed ASI and was COB ASI. DM sometime in the late 80's took over RTC. When he went from ASI to RTC, he took with him some of the best guys from ASI, who were Greg Wilhere, Marty Rathbun and Marion Dendiu (not sure her name now). Others too, but I don't know the details. Norman Starkey stayed in ASI, and ASI sort of rebuilt in the 90's. The top top clique of leaders and people went with him when he went into RTC. So really, he's kept the same clique of top people under him pretty much for the last 20 years approximately. It isn't like he weeded them out. But he sure put them each in their places, and he is top, and they do what he says. So the totalitarian model for the Scn movement is modified slightly. DM's boss, and the same set of people at the top, are posted around him in various posts, some more stable on their posts than others, some get busted and recycled, RPFed and put back on post, that sort of thing. They get put on the decks, then go back on post. I got no new data in the past 4 years, so I don't have a recent clue. I saw no new blood, but in the mid to late 90's RTC was trying to man up with fresh fresh blood. I have NO data on how those new people have fared in the last almost 10 years now though. I saw about 3 or 4 of those "RTC Trainees" (they were called this, and it was a pretty long procedure for these new young people attempting to make it in RTC), a few that got busted and RPFed and ended up demoted to the PAC RPF). So this is evidence of some long range RTC personnel actions, to build up RTC, which ultimately someday might result in the personnel from which DM's replacement is actually drawn. We shall see if any of these new blood personnel in RTC manage to rise up in this atmosphere and eventually take on COB's hat.

> This, of course, leads to internal decay.
> But that's pretty obvious.

> Thank you for your perspective, Chuck. My viewpoint about my entire
> Scn experience shifts subtley as time goes by. The committment to
> think and to keep on thinking and evaluating things is the only
>thing, really, that keeps society going. Unfortunately, most people
>are so wrapped up in body maintenance and the other chores that go
>along with making a living, raising a family, etc., that they don't
>do too much reflection. Luckily, some people do and it is often
>their courage and intervention that keeps things from degenerating
>and puts the brakes on insane ideas.

Yep agreed. I hope to encourage people to come out enough so they provide data to the wog researchers who ultimately will appreciate the raw material that ex-Scn people can write for them.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Feb 2005 23:03:59 -0800
Local: Thurs, Feb 17 2005 11:03 pm
Subject: Re: Int Base questions: Answers by chuck beatty, info to ARS

friendship wrote:
> Dear Chuck,

> I do appreciate your lengthy response and I'll try to respond below.

> I have a lot of respect for Jesse Prince. It is very clear why Scn
> management detests him. He's clear, methodical, has a great deal of
> integrity and is very incisive and intelligent. I, too, appreciated
> his info more than most. I have read lots of stories and websites on
> the net about Scn.

> Now I'm not putting you down for not saving Scn from your Sea Org
> post. I have my own overts of omission. But that doesn't make
> those who should 'keep Scn working' innocent. We have to try to
> hold ourselves and others to a higher standard or else we will all
> sink into the utter degradation of mud -- to paraphrase from that
> same section of HOM.

They are locked into a system that allows them to not even consider any valid complaints coming from people their other policies have isolated as SPs or squirrels. So, unfortunately all the Freezoners and SPs, should just do what they consider right, and not expect the official church to respond. Only their own internal churches having difficulties, and the outnesses they detect in their own zone, will they ever try to respond to. Best to get a former Senior C/S Int office defector to tell you how they deal with these issues. Bruce Bromley was in Snr C/S Int office for years, and blew then routed out, in about 1997. He would be an excellent source to answer many many points about tech query/conflicts, like this one you bring up.

> OK -- I have a bone to pick with you about this. First of all, are
> you a trained auditor and if so, to what level?

RPF read-it/drill-it/do-it so I could audit Grades, and do C/S 53's, FPRD, Truth Rundown, Sec Checking, Expanded Dianetics, NED.

> I've been around and around about the sec checking
> endlessly and endless missed WH pulling stuff and it's simply
> not true that Hubbard sanctioned all of it.

I can't offer even a guess on this. Best to get others who have defected to handle this question. I can't offer a good response. > He may have operationally been into that type of tech for a
> period of time, but that is not reflected in the issues.
> For example, see the following reference:
> HCO BULLETIN of 31 Aug. '74, NEW GRADE CHART: GRADE II

> Some orgs specialize in Grade II, especially on org
> staff. The pc is always getting Integrity Processing (Security
> Checking) or his O/W's pulled on so and so.

> If you look on the Grade Chart you will find
> Withholds and Overts are Grade TWO.

> Below Grade TWO lies Grade I (Problems)
> and Grade Zero (Communications). And below that is Dianetics
> and at the bottom of Dianetics is the Drug Handling.

They stuck Dianetcs (now NED), after Expanded Grade IV now. They have what is called the "Scientology Drug Rundown" which does recalls on drug experiences, no engram running, and this Scientology Drug Rundown is done before the Grades now. NED Drug Rundown is done after Expanded Grade IV now.

> Now how do you expect a fellow who has unhandled
> drugs
> (or omitted drug items because of "no interest") to even know (no
> Grade 0) that other people are around or that (Grade I) he is
> caved in with problems he's never cognited on?

Boy, this type of question you need to ask one of the tech people from the Apollo days, like around 1969, 1970 or so, I think that is when this was decided. Couldn't you figure this out by just looking in the 1969 and 1970 HCOBs in the HCOB Volumes?

> And he's supposed to have enough responsibility to
> answer up on Grade II? With real overts and withholds?

> This does not mean you must never Sec Check. It does
> mean that Sec Checks are no substitute for auditing or guarantee of
> innocence.

> Grades are Grades and the Grade Chart sequence is correct.

> Also, there is "F/N What You Say or Ask" which makes it
> out-tech to Q & A off an ARC X to hunt for a MWH. You can't
> audit over an ARCX!! And I have been unable to find any later
> reference than 'The Worst Tangle' C/S series issues that state
> the sequence that you handle things in. If you know of a
> reference please refer me to it.

Ask a good former Cramming Officer. I think you could get someone to answer this with the right reference, or else some defected techie might be able to sort this out with the right reference, or else they'd agree with you.

> And if it is the 'fad' to do things in a certain way, or the
'culture' of the area or the 'culture' of the Sea org to hobby
> horse with O/W tech in a way that is blatantly out-tech -- well,
> that is out-tech pure and simple. And Hara O'Hare and Richard
> Reiss are smart enough to know this, just like all the auditors
> who know it's wrong and doesn't work and there are no issues
> that say its OK. But that's the point!! There are '61 and '62
issues that talk about pulling WHs, etc., but the whole
> concept of how and why and when you do that has been modified many
> times by later issues.

For sure.

> As a specific example, some tech terminals would harken back to the
> '61 and '62 issues that say that dirty needles are caused by WHs
> and MWHs. But what about HCO B 28 June 1962 revised 5 Sept. 1978
> entitled "Dirty Needles" ??? That issue says:

> "An auditor, seeing such a needle, and faced with the task of reading
> the instant read through all these prior and latents and scratchy
> patterns, tends to think in terms of heroic measures. It is
'obvious' that this pc has W/Hs, missed W/Hs, overts and secrets to
end all reactive banks and that the thing to do is pick each one of
these random needle reactions up as soon as possible. But when you
try to do this you find the needle gets even more confused. It
reads something all the time!

> "An extreme case of a dirty, random needle is not solved by any 'fish
> and fumble' or heroic measures.

> "The pc's needle reacts that way because of no confidence, which
> induces a sort of auto-control in session which induces a dirty
needle. Ability to predict equals confidence.

> "The thing to do is give this pc about 3 sessions of rudiments and
> havingness--just Model Session severely with no Q & A or added
> chitchat..."

Yep, and I have seen this ordered on RPFers, when they had such needles. They got this exact 3 session C/S instruction, and they did it.

> If I can find this bulletin I'm sure that anyone else can. It
> exists!! It clarifies and modifies the older tech of seeing
> a dirty needle as an indicator of crimes. AND IT IS A LATER
> ISSUE!! So this makes it OUT TECH to routinely deal with a
> dirty needle by pulling W/Hs -- but it's still done. Well,
> it just means that there is rampant verbal tech
> that has led to rampant misapplication of Scn tech.

There's a 78 HCOB on the 3 main reasons for dirty needles, and barring those things not handling it, then the 3 sessions above are C/Sed for.

> This is not that I think that LRH is god and that he didn't have
> flaws. No. The justice codes are a collection of totalitarian
>> proscripts that make it prohibited to ever criticize the leader
> or the subject. And in that way I do agree with you. But that's
> the justice codes and they may not be consistent with the tech,
> but I have been unable to find any reference making it OK to
> audit anyone over an ARCX or Out Int or Out Lists unless
> something comes up on a correction list -- which would basically
> mean that the Out Int or Out Lists are secondary to the
> pc to another out rudiment. Does this make sense?

Sure.

> I better sign off for the moment before I erase this message.
> But I'll be back.

Okay, later. Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Feb 2005 10:38:13 -0800
Local: Thurs, Feb 17 2005 10:38 am
Subject: Re: Answer to an ex-Scn Mgmt Exec who authored LRH
issued policy

ladayla wrote:

> Stephen Kent is a good bet for securing scn stories. He
>has a University connection as a repository that should be safe.

I agree, he is, as far as I know, the most active academic writing about the Scn movement, and when he gets back on the subject, I hope to assist him with whatever angle I can. I truly appreciate and support any academic looking into the Scn movement seriously, and I totally agree on him being a hopeful repository for Scn raw data info.

>Also, I am told that Pat Krenik has an Oldtimers list with
>stories and such that you ( Chuck) might want to
> check out. I think that the true reason that a lot of
>stuff doesn't get written up is that it can't be proven,
>and if OSA wants to, they could sue you to oblivion. Or
>just 'take you out' quietly and without a second thought.
>Is the risk worth it ?

To avoid these dark consequences, which no amount of reassurance may alleviate , there are other options.

Like asking that one's writeups NOT be published. In one's spare moments, in retirement, whenever one wishes, one simply starts writing, and one simply either keeps one's material, or makes copies and sends them to WHOMEVER one trusts. I personally think university environments, family members, relatives, WHOMEVER one trusts.

Not make a big deal, or make a big deal, whatever a person thinks is adequate. (I am not so worried, because I know how FORGIVING and UNDERSTANDING the really intelligent people in this world we find ourselves in, really are; the world the Scn shadow-threat-cloud-makers would have anti-Scn critics believe, is NOT really intelligent public opinion. In my opinion, the anti-Scn community in general is sympathized with by the intelligent thinking public world, and always will be, because of the Scn movement abuses of its members and critics, is so fresh in the news and on people's minds.

So long as the Scn movement continues its discreditable actions, meaning today, as we speak, right this very moment, the movement is delaying turning public opinion ever to favor them.

But I also believe that the Scn movement is very very slowly catching on to their own predicament, and ever so slowly, historically (since other similar religious movements take certain known directions, already studied, already spotted and written up by sociology religious experts), and thus the Scn movement if they wish to ever change the tide of opinion against them, will be forced to change, (unless they collapse dramatically, which is a possibility, although not my current opinion).)

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Feb 2005 19:50:03 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 16 2005 7:50 pm
Subject: Re: Answer to an ex-Scn Mgmt Exec who authored LRH
>issued policy

ladayla wrote:
> In article <1108534528.076764.95...@o13g2­000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> chuckbeatt...@aol.com says...

> >friendship wrote:
> >> Another thought. If high level G.O. people defect and write their
> >> stories would they still be bound by statutes of limitations? I
> >> bet they would. A lot of their crimes were federal in nature.
> >> And if they spill the beans they may be putting friends at risk.

> >> The government doesn't like being infiltrated and spied on.
> >>That's probably why that group is pretty silent. And a lot of them
> >> actually went to jail. Right? They know what its like and they
> >> probably don't want to go back.

> >> But I'm just rambling here. I don't know, I have very little
> >> legal info. If anyone has an opinion or some data about this
> >> it would be nice if they would respond.

> I have something that I want to say about your desire to have
>ex-members, esp. those of high rank, write about and talk about
>their past experiences in scn. I don't know zackly how to say it
>so that it doesn't sound insipid. When I begin to bring past
>experiences up to look at them, it is like rebuilding a f'ing
> "case". The whole trip through scn is an engram of long duration.
>When one begins to re-hash one's recalls of certain procedures,
>certain times, certain people and associations, it is much like
>reading your own PC folder. I think that is why many ex-s just
>do not do it. They start to write up an incident, and
> mass comes in, and they say screw it and stop. Also as we age, our
>memories lapse to some degree or another. I had my 74th birthday
>a couple days ago, and I was informed that the house in the orange
>grove that I had posted about wasn't in an orange grove, but in
>a grapefruit grove. Lapses like that on a forum like ARS can be
>used to discredit one, and us oldtimers can get treated rudely
> without some uninformed a'hole jmping on the dogpile, so why bother?
>Just my opinion.

> la

Thanks ladayla,

On making goofs in recounting one's experience, I have read enough in wog magazines, the intellectual ones, where scholars and intellectuals go at each other almost by nature, about historical details, and believe me, it is a well known and understood fact, that people's memories and their own writings are NOT perfect, in fact it is almost expected that certain amounts of material is questionable.

In spite of the imperfectness that everyone possesses a little to a lot of, STILL the wog historians NEED material. It is far far better to have frail imperfect data, compared to NO data at all. It all adds up!

In my reading of wog intellectuals, those people are very astute at analyziing and reconstructing, and getting a damn good grip on ANYTHING that has gone on in history.

There is a huge huge amount of been/there---done/that going on, amongst the smart people on the east and west coasts, and in the universities and think tanks and in the highest professions, and in the media, there are tens of thousands of people who are so much smarter than LRH ever gave them credit.

No matter what us participants write, so long as it is preserved somewhere for someone later to go through, there will be smart people to sort through the material and get a damn good grip of what all has happened even beyond what has been pretty extensively covered already on the anti-Scn sites.

I would really like to ask you about the main old time tech people you seem to know about. I'd really like to encourage Brian Livingston, Jeff Walker, Leon Steinberg, Merril Mayo, David Mayo, Ron Shafron, just the whole top tech hierarchy, and all of the even older people who are probably almost all gone, the ones mentioned in the tech vols and in the policy volumes, I'd like to encourage them all to write up whatever they want, on anything they want.

In favor of having ANY info, as opposed to NO info at all, as an example, when I WAS in the Sea Org, I asked James Byrnes, who is well known in the Sea Org for his great LRH and Apollo and Sea Org stories (these types of old timers are less and less, so the ones left are in higher internal demand), I asked him about a few things. He had a little trouble with the details, but had I not even asked, and not even gotten the sketchy memories that he did remember, I would have missed a major (to me it seemed major) point.

I'd like to have your thoughts on the early players you knew. Even if you write it up, and don't wish it let into public (for whatever reason, any reason you have is fine). Just having your thoughts written up, secure, with copies to someone who will archive the stuff for later researchers, that is all that really matters.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Feb 2005 21:05:41 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 16 2005 9:05 pm
Subject: Re: Answer to an ex-Scn Mgmt Exec who authored LRH issued
policy [to Ladayla]

You sound like a great source to me. Petty attacks and diversions, and people distracting others off the issue that is being talked about, I think any intelligent observer sees through such things. (I think all the distractions and petty tactics on ARS, they all should just be ignored.)

I think it is worth the risk. Or even just write it up and keep it yourself and send it to one of the university professors. Dave Touretzky I am sure would keep anything you write up safe.

Or someone offering to film you or others, on video or DVD. Save it and don't post it.

Better to get something down rather than let all the details just vanish. Especially the bigger cheezes.

In my measly 7 months now, reading and listening on the anti-Scn sites, and some ex-Scn movement people phoning me and emailing me, and a pretty sizable handful remaining anonymous, I have learned an incredible amount. I learned some amazing stuff.

I hope you can inspire some of the others you know to write, even just for themselves. Historians have been sorting through people's writings for thousands of years, and they are pretty astute at figuring a lot of things from the writings, no matter the imperfections in the writings.

It is worth it.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Feb 2005 09:51:29 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 18 2005 9:51 am
Subject: Re: The Church of Scientology's Decoy System - 02/18/05

Truth Seeker wrote:
> The Church of Scientology's Decoy System: (snip)

> ...Scientology sends out phony "critics" in order to smoke
> out into the open some real critics of scientology. They
> take members from their own church, tell them to look
> and act like critics or enemies of Scientology in order to
> fool the church's real critics in to coming out in the open.
> Just how Scientology goes about convincing the world that
> it's members are critics is outlined in a article titled:
> "The Magical Transformation ..... (snip)

> If you want to know what Scientology doesn't want you
> to know, take a look these posts that I've put up earlier on
> this newsgroup. (That's if the Church of "Suppress Free Speech"
> hasn't illegally cancelled them)

> "How to spot the OSA members on this newsgroup"
> "How you know you've just read phony criticism created by
>Scientology"
> "Scientology's Plan to Stop Critics & Criticism on this newsgroup"
> "The key to how Scientology is handling this newsgroup"
> "Why you should stay away from Scientology"
> "The FAQ for Alt.Religion.Scientology"
> "Names the Church of Scientology is posting under on this newsgroup"
> "Tactics OSA uses to stop critics on this newsgroup"
> "The Magical Transformation of Church Member into Critic"
> "How Scientology is playing both sides of the coin"
> "Scientology's Decoy System"
> "The 3 beliefs Scientology wants the world to believe"
> "Some different Ways to "Handle" Scientology"
> "How Scientology Traps New Members"
> "Scientology's Trick to keep people from REAL criticism"
> "Weaknesses of the Church of Scientology"
> "How Scientology creates identity confusion"

I think unfortunately, for someone like me, when I read your above listed posts, in the end, I get the feeling that there is some truth, but then the result is almost MORE paranoia.

I think you could provide a good historical service, were you to really further develope your posts into a longer work, with good supporting proof and unquestionable examples, and develope this into a short thesis paper. After reading about 4 of your aticles, I found a lack of proof, no examples. Compare your posts to let's say a NY Times Magazine article.

I think developing your posts into a larger better supported thesis type paper, would be helpful. And then stick the thing on one of the free web sites.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Feb 2005 22:06:06 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 18 2005 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: The Church of Scientology's Decoy System - 02/18/05 .

> "Truth Seeker" clogged up a.r.s. with several thousands of
> completely repetitive posts (mostly these same articles) for a period
> of possibly a year up through a few months ago. He is one of the most
> notorious spammers ever here, despite his somewhat peculiar story.
> Many, many thousands of replies further clogged up a.r.s. and to the
> best of my knowledge no one ever has gotten a straight, honest,
> constructive communication from Truth Seeker. He therefore seems to
> be one of the better OSA creations.

> Ed

Yes, I agree. Truthseeker in the end comes across, due to his attacking persons I consider good hats (Tory, and others), that he is just another subtrefuge disinformation muddying the waters OSA accomplice operation.

Thanks Peach too. That would be another sign if and when that happens.

The net effect of Truthseeker's warnings, are that ARS posters are bad, untrustworthy, that even the good posters are really OSA accomplices. He (or the concocters of these warning posts of his) needs to back up the claims with good evidence, like good media reporters do, and if he can do that, then great. If he (they) can't, then fine. (In my opinion it puts him/them in the same level of writing skill as the old Freedom magazine investigatory articles, which were promising, but often times disappointingly shy of good supporting evidence.)

Thanks very much for the info on Truthseeker!

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Feb 2005 23:14:53 -0800
Local: Sat, Feb 19 2005 11:14 pm
Subject: Re: Are Sea Org Off-loads Just Corporate Downsizing?

friendship wrote:

> In most major corporations if the profits margins are too low one of
> the first things that many companies do is to lay off employees to
> decrease expenses. Usually when the company announces its intention
> to fire or lay off employees the stock will rise shortly thereafter.

> So, I've been wondering if Scn management has been lowering its
> expenses by 'downsizing.' The first thing that comes to mind is the
> edict that Sea Org members were not allowed to have children.
> Someone probably figured out that the most expensive staff members
> were the ones with children. So -- get rid of them and you improve
>the bottom line.

> Also, Chuck Beatty was mentioning in a post from a while back that
> unjust RPF assignments would often be overturned 10 or 15 years ago
> but this has been less and less the case recently. Possibly
> because any excuse will now be used to trim the ranks of staff?
> Keep only the 'best'? But what would the definition of 'best'
> be? Probably the most compliant.

> Also, there are a number of technically trained people who are
> chronically physically ill in the Los Angeles area who seem to be
kept around. I'm wondering how they manage to keep from being off
loaded. Specifically, there is Barry Ross who has severe asthma
>-- may now be emphasema. I believe he is a Class 6 or Class 8,
> NOTS auditor and C/S who I think was taken off auditing because
he was so unwell and put on FESing. Not sure what his post is
currently or if he is still on staff.

> Another one is Bruce Gaines. A Class 8 for many years. He had a
> heart attack and I believe he had heart surgery about 10 years
> ago and had been put on a 1/2 time schedule because of his
> heart disease. I think he was posted at AO or ASHO.

> Another one is Roz -- what's her last name? It used to be Roz
> Mustard and then Roz Lobue and then... Roz Reece!! I got it!
> She's a Class 6 and was working in the CLO WUS the last I heard.

> Anyone have any ideas about this?

Yes, here is another angle.

At the Int Base, in the first half of 1996, I directly observed people accumulated in a category, until a decision was made about this category of persons, and then there was a sudden group handling done on this accumulated group of people. Around Dec 19, 1995, I was removed from post in ASI (ASI is in LA, but ASI staff are deemed a high status in the Sea Org, ASI staff are deemed equivalent to Int Base status, and actually when the whole Int Base assembles, ASI are given seating in the front rows on one side of the aisle, and RTC have the front rows on the other side of the aisle). I arrived at the Int Base to do the "decks" (the decks are a staff category which means "removed from post" and doing deck work,which is cleaning, rough manual labor, and in my case I was getting sec checking to find out what was up with me, because I had doubts about staying in the Sea Org, and I'd had dreams of defecting and turning into another ASI defector, of which over the years there had been some serious prior defectors from ASI). When I got to the Int decks category, there were only 2 persons on the Int decks. There had been a trend towards the end of the year, 1995, to get ALL persons OFF the decks by the end of the year. COB had even ordered it. So those last 2 persons were ordered to graduate and get through their lower conditions, and all Int Base staff were ordered by COB to be out of lower conditions by Christmas that year, because 95 had been a good year, and DM wanted all Int Base staff to have the Christmas and New Year's off. So by Christmas Day, I was the ONLY individual at the whole 600-700 man Int Base who was on the decks (of course there were the people on the RPF who were out at the Happy Valley ranch, but they didn't count for this DM order). Then in Jan 1996, 2-3 people from the Int Base or some people from CST joined me on the Int decks. Then in Feb about 10 people got sent to the decks. Then Mar, Apr, May, Jun more and more people got sent to the decks. By Jun/Jul about 25 people were still on the Int decks (some people had graduated the decks and went back onto posts in the orgs they came from). These last 25 or so people on the Int Decks, in June 1996, it was somewhat accepted amongst us, that most of us, were headed for the RPF, and we were just waiting for COB to come back from the Freewinds, and get around to approving the CSWs (administrative proposals that were writen up on each of us that recommended each of us be sent to the RPF). The point is that COB was the bottleneck, he needed to approve our going to the RPF. And importantly, AFTER he returned from the Freewinds events, then we started popping off the decks, and went to the Int RPF. Us 20 or so Int deckees all went over to the Int RPF in clumps over a 2-3 week time frame I recall. The point is that people accumulated in the deck category over a 6 MONTHS TIME PERIOD!! Then suddenly, once COB finally approved their RPF assignments, they went over into the RPF category, which to me, is proof of a trend, or swing, or en masse shift. People dribbled onto the decks, and then as big clumps plopped into the RPF.

This above shows the following:

a) Things can bottleneck, group handlings occur due to a Mussolini bureacracy (only the top guy can make certain decisions, in this case the decision at that time on who goes to the RPF). There are certain times, when DM insists on the prerogative on approving the RPFing or not of anyone at the Int Base status. COB Asst gets the word from COB and she (COB Asst is Shelly Miscavige, DM's wife) spreads the word down the ranks, so all concerned know that DM has the final say on certain matters. This bureaucratic fact alone, creates the bottlenecks, and the fads or trends of huge movements of persons, at times, from one status to another inside the top ranks of the Scn movement.

b) At different times in the Int Base history, different rules apply as to what COB needs to approve and what he doesn't want to have to see. Depending on how COB okays certain people to be RPFed, and how he might NOT approve certain others, that forms within the top execs privy to the approvals and rejections, the actual fad/trend climate, the atmosphere amongst the top several dozen people who "know" what is RPFable conduct, and what isn't. By extrapolation, every decision DM makes, in his approvals and rejects, you can see, sets the parameters then for how all the command channel execs below him will follow suit and similarly adjudicate the same matters in the immediate future. They follow his lead, period.

c) Following this, in my opinion, the subject of what is "off-loadable" conduct similarly ebbs and flowed, based what DM has said and written in adjudicating on the offloads they have been doing in the recent years. My guess is that in the last 5 years, DM has approved and disapproved sufficient offload CSWs, that it is now transferred down to AVC Int probably authorzing the offloads. Any sticky questions and AVC Int asks COB Asst's input, and only if COB Asst can't decide would they ask for COB's input on people's offloads. In my opinion, the people demoted from the Int RPF to the PAC RPF,this trend we saw starting in 2000 and going on till now, were initially done with DM's approval.

d) Further, these last 5 -10 years offloads are increasing just because they got more experience and are more efficient of going through the myriad steps they have all worked out and approved in the last recent years. They've got the lines "greased", so more get off-loaded more efficiently, and with quicker decisions at lower levels, based on already approved instances as covered above.

This is what I guess is contributing to the increased offloads. It is unglamorous dull administrative realities of events inside the ranks of the Scn movement.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Feb 2005 14:15:54 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 20 2005 2:15 pm
Subject: Re: Are Sea Org Off-loads Just Corporate Downsizing?

> When you get a chance, Chuck, could you delineate the mandates of the
> different Sea Org units? I believe that ASI deals with LRH
> properties that are not scriptures? Like fiction, video, music.
> Am I correct? If this is the case, why do they have such high
> status? Or am I completely off the beam?

Yes, that is correct for ASI. There is an ASI website, and the ASI magazines, about 10 have been published, one of those 10 issues containted the ASI org board, and gives watered-down info on the history of ASI. I thought the ASI mags give about the best picture, despite their obvious pat LRH and themselves on the back type writing.

I think it best to just look up the mandates in the What Is Scientology book, if you want the basic, but watered-down, version of those mandates.

This is findable, after some patient searching, on their sites on the internet.

Here's a great anti-Scn briefing on most of them: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/C­owen/essays/corporate.html#pt2­_12

As an aside, it is pretty conclusively been confirmed that over the years that DM has one by one beaten down on tbe heads of all the Int Base execs of the other units, and everyone definitely follows his serious cues.

DM's opinion is unquestionably the final word. Of course, in real life, let's say DM has a personal opinion, and another staff knows DM's just offering a light suggestion, then of course DM wouldn't beat that staffer up for doing what the staffer wants to do instead. But if DM gives his opinion on something, and it is serious, NO ONE questions it, and all conform to it. Or those that fail to follow his serious opinions will get clobbered, if he feels they have screwed up. Here's two examples, both ways, that I have seen:

Extreme example of people getting clobbered for not following his established opinion and known orders: 1) DM has ordered that background to him, when he stands on stage, is to be the shade of blue, a medium sort of darkish blue, a majestic type of background blue, so that when video cameras shoot him speaking, he has the blue background to offset and give the best appearance. Nothing sinister about this request, and it's been the accepted norm, thus all stage elements, if you watch the photos of him, will generally have a deep, medium blue background, for the straight in shots. Now there was a major major blowup when the stage sets for the 1993 Int'l Association of Scn event were built, they DID NOT include having this blue background, so the whole damn major major expensive video production of this biggest events of all time, the damn background to him, was wrong, and he was pissed. His opinion about color, those in charge of ensuring this type of thing was right, got in trouble, due to their missing handling this. They knew they should have, but for whatever reasons, the massiveness of the event, the persons who should have caught and dealt with ensuring he had the standard blue background, didn't and they got it trouble for it. This is an artisitc judgement call, he's made it and it's accepted, and this omission got people in trouble, amongst other things wrong at this event. (To us normal viewers, this goof was trivial, but to him, in that setting, it was significant, pissed him off, along with the other outnesses of that event's setup, and people got in trouble for it. The people who got in trouble were the Gold staffers who screwed up, mainly.)

Other extreme, a casual remark by DM, I was NOT held in any way at fault for not heeding: 2) I was the Computer person at ASI. One afternoon all of the ASI staff were invited to come down Hollywood Blvd, ASI is at 7051 Hollywood Blvd, and we were invited to come to the new RTC Offices recently reno'd on floor 11, I think, of the HGB (Hollywood Guarantee Building). The HGB holds OSA Int and middle management, but the HGB pretends to be Church of Scientology International headquarters, but really the top dogs are at the Hemet, Gilman Hot Springs, no longer secret base, and the HGB is really only middle management for Church of Scientology International. Anyways, all 25 or so ASI staff drive down from 7051 Hollywood Blvd to 6331 Hollywood Blvd, to the new RTC offices. These offices are for meetings, it is NOT where DM sits and does his day to day executiving of RTC. There's an RTC building uplines, at the Hemet, Gilman Hot Springs, not so secret base, today, where the RTC staff do their actual duties. When DM comes to LA, he does his office work in this 11th floor RTC office space, and he brings a few RTC office people with him, one or two of his communicators, and only occassionally does Shelly, his wife, COB Asst, come with him. He usually only needs one or two of his communicators, with him, and he has one or two security people, who are Security Gold, but who have special duty to go with COB whenever he needs them, and there is a Div 3 RTC staffer, the guy is named, I think, Nori, who handles all the purchasing, cars, outside meals, appointments, pickups of things, errands, for COB when COB is on the go away from the Int Base. Nori sometimes goes with COB too, I think a great deal of the time, or pre-handles things for COB when COB moves around. Anyways, I digress, sorry. Anyways, here us 25 ASI staff are standing admiring the Reception area in this newly renovated RTC floor in the HGB, and the ASI Receptionist goes gah gah about the flat screen monitor for the RTC receptionist desk. This was 94 or 95, so flat screens were then very cutting edge, more expensive than even now. The ASI Receptionist is obviously being coyly admiring, and said, "I want one, this looks so cool!", to which COB casually responded, yea she ought to get one. Well, I was the computer purchasing person for ASI, and when we got back to ASI, the Receptionist tried to tell me that COB ordered that she should get a flat screen terminal too, based on his casual polite agreeing comment to her. I of course wouldn't disagree, but I did have enough of a say over my area, that due to my judgement, I didn't go out and purchase such a flat screen just because of this COB comment. I, in my opinion, thought, I'd wait, until the price came down a bit, as the ASI receptionist's monitor was hidden from public view anyways, and it made almost no differerence. My judgement was not taken as mutinous, etc. DM can say things, and of course, no one takes his casual comments as orders, or if they do, it is for reasons like the ASI receptionist did, she wanted a spiffy new flatscreen, and this was back in spring or summer 1995 or maybe 1994.

These are two extremes, and this is just normal human relations, incidents that happen in any company, when execs' communications are open to varying levels of interpretation.

> Are people put on the decks because of personal doubt about
> remaining on staff or from screwing up on post?

Yes, at Int, and at Int level orgs, doubts expressed are an out-qual for remaining at the Int Base, and they are grounds for instant post removal, and instant placement on the decks. That is a very very harsh and immediate rule, and a significant factor in keeping people in line. People with doubts either about the Sea Org in general or doubts about whether they want to be at the Int Base any more, are grounds for immediate decks assignment. Realize that a person is given 2 serious long sec checks to get cleared to even go to the Int Base for posting in any of the 3 major ecehelons there (RTC, CMO Int or Gold).

They are not put on the decks, as far as I know, for just simply screwing up on post. You have to have one of the Int Base out-quals ignite in your head, and that means doubts, thoughts of blowing, actual blow attempts, planning to blow thoughts, and direct mutinous disaffection to DM mainly.

The subject of the bad thoughts one has about one's fellows or ones whole life choice of remaining at the Int Base, this is one of the few things I would like to talk about extensively in person. Most things about the Int Base, they can be written about adequately. This particular area of the subject of "disaffection", "doubts", "blow thoughts" is the HOT HOT topic that gets an Int Base staffer in immediate trouble if these thoughts surface in speech or writing.

I think this area deserves a very systematic discussion, and I have so much mental turmoil regarding it still, that I need to go over it and sort our the main headings within this topic, to really cover all the important angles in full. Every Int Base defector will have something to say about this, and give valuable insight into the thought control process, as used at the Int Base to keep people in line.

It is expected that a person is set up mentally, before they get promoted to work at the Int Base, so there are times, when NO one is on the decks. Depending on the ebb and flow, and nice creature comforts that the Int Base staff enjoy, even more creature comforts than all lower Scn Sea Org echelons, they often don't have crowds of disaffected blowy staff on the decks there.

When you first get promoted to the Int Base, it is expeceted you know you are basically going into an area that you won't be coming back out of, unless you get shipped off to run a whole major continental office or special project somewhere else in the world. Going to the Int Base to work, is really another jump up in the whole major scheme of joining the Sea Org for life. The downside of Int Base life, the further isolation from relatives and non-immediate family, is not played up when you are recruited to be promoted to the Int Base. To those before they go there, and in the Sea Org lifestyle, if you already know and have handled your relatives to the fact that you won't be seeing them again for years at a stretch, then you may be up for the Int Base lifestyle. If you are an orphan, that is almost ideal. If your relatives understand you have selected a lifestyle similar to if you went to India and joined a Hindu mystical monestary life, and weren't expected to see them but a few times the rest of your life, then that is truly a good way to put it to your relatives.

The decks category fills mainly with those with doubts, blow thoughts, disaffected persons, persons expressing troublesome opinions against the top top execs (DM mainly, since he is the only one unquestionably right, because DM routinely cowtows ALL other Int Base top people, so the staff at the Int Base know that the other top execs make goofs, and are fallible, thus disaffection against the fallible top execs doesn't necessarily get one in trouble, especially if the fallible top execs' goofs come to DM's notice and he hits on those execs himself too). In fact this last comment of mine brings up another dark pattern of conduct at the Int Base. Due to DM taking this top role, himself browbeating all the top guys below him, those even lower on the rung, will sometimes challenge the edge of the envelope of what is considered disaffection, against the other top execs, the fallible ones, below DM. The fallible execs get targetted, I've observed, in Knowledge Reports. It is a very strict environoment, where embellishment and outright disaffection is a tightly controlled constant. But because every one of the top players sort of has their ups and downs, just below DM, and just below that, there is an ever changing series of patterns as animosities between the lower players, hitting at each other, over the years, plays out. These types of long term differences of people hitting on each other over the years, is a completely untold series of events about the Int Base.

> Are S.O. members allowed to speak freely with each other
> about these matters or are there strictures against this?

Possibly, it's possible couples discuss it. But everyone knows that they could be asked to tell on each other, in session, when they are being audited, and are asked about disaffection, and if asked did you notice anyone else being disaffected, they'd have to tell on their spouse's disaffection. So it is a truly unescapable envirnoment where one's negative thoughts against DM or regarding thoughts of leaving the Sea Org or leaving one's life at the Int Base, will produce bad consequences, meaning being assigned to the decks, if the thoughts are taken seriously, which in my case, mine were immediate grounds for removal from post, and being sent to the Int decks.

> Can you tell me what your
> personal view is of him? Also, as you've been saying, he seems to be
> the final word and everyone cow-tows to him, am I right? Or is there
> some power behind the thrown?

I've posted on DM, my feelings. I could repeat it here, if you need. But my site has my thoughts on DM. I recognize and appreciate what others have said about his strong qualities. I try NOT to place the most important blame on him, I see the main faults of Scn are LRH's. LRH accepting DM and not vetting DM from the top ranks, DM won the power struggle, the game of King of the Mountain, getting to the top of the Scn movement, playing within the rules LRH allowed. They got a son of a bitch, and could have gotten a far better man to do what DM is doing. Due to what LRH's Scn movement is and what it offers, the Scn movement does not attrack better men and women to do LRH's biddings. I agree DM is harmful to LRH's kinder long range goals for mankind. I don't give LRH special favorable consideration, I don't consider LRH a "genius", and I don't consider DM some great leader. I feel LRH is more at fault, for the framework that allowed a person like DM to prevail, but more basically, I don't accept ANY of the harsher wrong aspects of LRH's writings, of which there are some very significant ones.

LRH is responsible for the biggest mistakes in the Scn movement, and DM adds his own mistakes to it, while forwarding and keeping in place LRH's mistakes.

> Hmm.. Do you think the character of the Sea Org would change
> markedly if DM left? Or do you think the machine would just
> keep on going?

Yes, it would change. See my views in my posts in my site. Reason is that no one below DM is a son of a bitch and at this point, all the lower guys have flaws, and the others know their flaws, since DM has pointed out everyone's flaws, so I think the next leader will by necessity be kinder. The crew from which DM's replacement will come, are more understanding, and when his darker presence is off the scene, things will immediately lighten up. Then they will fumble around, stats will suffer, but this is due to just the fact that LRH's flawed writings about keeping things going, are really at fault. There are so many factors that will contribute to their demise, it will be a combination of all the bad things about Scn, and all mainly tracing back to LRH, is what I predict.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Feb 2005 22:53:11 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 20 2005 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: Int Base questions: Answers by chuck beatty, info to ARS

friendship wrote:

> Dear Chuck,

> OK -- I put your name in the ARS search engine and read
> about your Scn history -- so you trained up to be a Class 3
> auditor and have much word clearing, supervising and exec
> training and experience.

> You say that on several projects you failed miserably. Can you
> elaborate on, say, one example of that?

> I've never been in the S.O. but I have much curiosity about how it
> works.

Hmm, where to begin.

1) I joined the Sea Org to train up to be a Class 12 in the FSO. I failed after 1 year and 3 months. I just was not suited to be an auditor.

If the way to the Scn version of nirvana was a solo route, the whole way, I'd have much preferred that.

Having to be a good priest or counselor for another person to reach nirvana, I admit I didn't have the desire to be that guiding role for someone else. Nor did I ever accept the concept that I needed someone else to counsel me up to nirvana.

2) I "failed" on the routing forms project. Really the only aspect I failed on was the administrative, executive aspect, pushing through and getting implementation missions fired to implement the computerized routing forms. I never considered myself a good executive type, and I wasn't, and I never held many executive roles in the Sea Org. That's the simple reason for that "failure".

3) I was on the 81-82 OEC/FEBC training evolution that was considered a "present lifetime engram" for most student participants. This was spring/summer of 81 through summer of 82. I was the evolution head course supervisor, from spring 81 until July 81, then I was busted in Jul 81. I was lacking in presence, and oomph, to oversee this OEC/FEBC evolution as it grew to mammoth size.

You sound like you may have really wanted me to lay out a typial Sea Org duty day or something, at different intervals in my Sea Org career, at the different echelons, sort of like a birds-eye view of my day to day life, at the differrent Sea Org units.

If so, I can give you a typical day at Int, a typical day at ASI, and a typical day at the HGB, that's 3 distinct zones of the Scn movement, where lifetime staff are operating, I can give you something like that.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Feb 2005 10:22:15 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 18 2005 10:22 am
Subject: Re: The OSA goons at the church work on ~bluff~, call thier bluff!

Truth Seeker wrote:

> The OSA goons at the church work on Bluff, call their bluff!:

Thankyou. I now agree with this approach.

> If we all stand up against these criminals, they will be crushed.

They are also slowly conforming to general wog world standards, due to the bad publicity they generate back on themselves all the time for their discreditable behavior.

> There isn't enough OSA goons in their criminal organization to follow
> and harass everyone.

The more understanding and intelligent the criticism of them, the less they can avoid conforming to the wog world's more decent standards. LRH's dumber written works, which directly incite them into the people abuse they engage in, are their bane.

All they can do, is slowly stop applying the dumber LRH written instructions which recoil with bad publicity on them.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Feb 2005 18:33:56 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 21 2005 6:33 pm
Subject: Re: The OSA goons at the church work on ~bluff~, call thier bluff!

Rick Sherwood wrote:
> chuckbeatt...@aol.com wrote:

> > Truth Seeker wrote:
> >> The OSA goons at the church work on Bluff, call their bluff!:

> > Thankyou. I now agree with this approach.

> >> If we all stand up against these criminals, they will be
> >> crushed.

> > They are also slowly conforming to general wog world standards, due
> > to the bad publicity they generate back on themselves all the time for
> > their discreditable behavior.

> Do you want to stand beside lying
> perverts like TurthSeeker when you stand up against the so-called
crimes
> of the Chruch? Are you going to follow TurdSeekers example and forge
> messages to bondage newsgroups, with personal details of people you
> dont like?
> ARC, Woody

> --
> Proof that "Truth Seeker" is a pervert who forges messages with his
> victim's home phone numbers to personals newsgroups.
http://groups.google.com/group­s?as_umsgid=zltkc.46811$OU.112­5...@news...
http://groups.google.com/group­s?as_umsgid=MBP7c.10705$A_2.61­8...@news...

> Proof that ARS Bigot and Proven Liar "Truth Seeker" is a liar:
> http://groups.google.com/group­s?as_umsgid=JYb4c.6759$j05.328­...@news2...

> Proof that ARS Bigot and Proven Liar "Truth Seeker" tries to
> invalidate true data by hiding it:

>http://groups.google.com/group­s?as_umsgid=40514d9e.54059...@­news.indi...

Thanks for the info on the Truthseeker operation, which now I see is part of the Scn movement's ongoing dirty tactics via their OSA sponsered internet accomplices. Thanks, I won't make that mistake again. You learn something new every day.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Feb 2005 23:22:21 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 21 2005 11:22 pm
Subject: Computer generated floating needles, LRH Tech Films 9 & 9A, the truth

The floating needle depicted in LRH's Tech Films 9 and 9A, are computer generated, not a real person's floating needle. I confirmed this with several people who came forward. (Also the floating needles in all the other recent tech films are similarly computer generated.)

The tech films in recent years, particularly since about 97, have created a heap of wonderment and trouble for existing auditors.

Since the mid 90's people have been being beaten over the head for miscalling F/Ns that don't match these perfect computer generated floating needles.

At the Int Base, in 1995, RTC put all the Int Base tech personnel through an almost typically odd form of RTC retribution, making all Int Base tech people who miscalled F/Ns, which was everybody who used an Emeter at the base at that time, do a "sand bag" drill. The Sand Bag drill was a Pavlovian exercise to give tech people the idea of what they had been doing to people by miscalling F/Ns that were false. The drill consisted of two people sitting a foot or two away from each other in chairs, and the drill started with one person telling the recipient "Your needle is floating." And then placing a sand bag on the recipient's lap. Then the person repeated that statement again, "Your needle is floating", and then placed another sandbag on the recipient's lap. Then the person said "Your needle is floating," a few more times to the recipient, and each placing another sandbag on the recipient, until the recipient was basically weighed down with sandbags. The sandbags were to represent miscalled floating needles, and the person being squashed with the sandbags then realized what he'd been doing to his preclears by miscalling F/Ns. Besides being squashed with sandbags, everyone had to do lower conditions for miscalling floating needles also.

This is serious unreality, in my opinion. I think these films should be redone, and replace the doctored fake floating needles with real ones.

In my last 7 years on the RPF, about 5 of those years, there was constant, constant hassling of RPF auditors about miscalling floating needles that were NOT enough like the ones in the tech films. (I could write hundreds of details of this, but that's not the point.)

Anyways, rightly or wrongly, I think it is vital to bring up this historical information. The current tech films 9 and 9A have computer generated floating needles, which are NOT what the majority of floating needles in real life look like. And the official Scn movement is trying to steer application in the direction of these computer generated perfect floating needles.

In my opinion, they ought to own up to this very bad decision, and replace these fake floating needles in these films with real floating needles, from real people. They should spend 6 months, film thousands of floating needles, and then put the best 500 of the floating needles in a separate tech film showing that there is not one damn perfect floating needle, but give auditors the damn truth, and let them see what floating needles look like across the world. And then replace all the fake floating needles with real ones.

Right now, the members of the whole tech hieracrchy in the movement are dutifully keeping their mouths shut and trying to shoehorn the unreality of these fake floating needles from the tech films into their heads.

Things like this don't help the Scn movement.

This is a massive goof, and hopefully they revise their tech films back to depict reality.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 22 Feb 2005 19:42:25 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 22 2005 7:42 pm
Subject: Re: Computer generated floating needles, LRH Tech Films 9 & 9A, the truth

roger gonnet wrote:

> . . . Do you think elrong has had
> any F/N . . . .

Brilliant question. This is actually something we could ask David Mayo, Paulette Ausley (Cohen), and Otto Roos too, I believe. There are people this question could and should be asked of. In fact this is a completely valid historical question. Mary Sue of course audited him probably a huge amount too.

I think so much data is being lost, with people not coming forward to tell such details. There are thousands of relevant little peices of information, like your brilliant simple question, that could go completely unrecorded were all the people who audited LRH to never write down such details!

Again, I really hope people who've been close to LRH write all they can, about anything, no matter how irrelevant or insignificant they think their observations are.

> More on topic, I never saw ONE F/N having the same size on both
> sides, and repeating ... neither a TA F/N of the same size in
> both sides .

I only recall a few really great big floating TAs, and again, like others have noted, this was back in 1976, when I was a soon to fail auditor trainee, and I saw the needle of one FCCI whose case had been cracked by Ron Norton and it was flopping back and forth just beautifully. Another needle of a pc that Katherine Glenn (Jessup) had cracked, and his needle was persistent F/N.

And one time I gave an ASI executive an after session exam and his TA was floating, his needle was the loosest I have ever seen, just a great floating needle.

But all these floating needles, still were NOT perfect, like the films 9 and 9A, where the computer generated floating needles are possibly based on a real recorded F/N sweep, and then doctored to make it fit LRH's defnition literally.

(I think if LRH were around, he'd had done something else than what they have done, on depicting the floating needle, LRH would have probably concluded that Qual Gold needed an overhaul, if the Gold Base couldn't offer up a preclear with a suitable floating needle to film, and instead they had to rely on the computer to doctor a floating needle to look more like LRH's written definition, the result being that the floating TA depicted in the tech films is so obviously fake.)

> Chuck: you're out for good reasons. They have the same thoughts, but
> not yet entirely developed, perhaps.

I agree with that!!

> roger>

thanks, Chuck



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 23 Feb 2005 09:00:28 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 23 2005 9:00 am
Subject: Re: Computer generated floating needles, LRH Tech Films 9 & 9A, the truth

bb wrote:

> >The floating needle depicted in LRH's Tech Films 9 and 9A, are
> >computer generated, not a real person's floating needle. I
> >confirmed this with > >several people who came forward. (Also
> >the floating needles in all the other recent tech films are
> >similarly computer generated.)

> Hi Chuck,
> I posted this to our forum. Someone pointed out that
> this is not an LRH film. His were made in the seventies. RTC
> destroyed thm in the eighties and made new ones.

> bb

Yes, isn't this an interesting point?! I being one who just sort of went with the wind, in the movement, in the Sea Org, I hadn't recognized that the work the movement is doing, in the name of LRH, actually is no longer ever looked at nor sidechecked by LRH, and thus this is an important historical fact you bring up. Their efforts to come out with "LRH Tech Films" or new "LRH works", definitely, these works which don't have LRH's sidecheck nor approval, since he is deceased, and in many cases he just simply didn't sidecheck things that came out in the 80's in his name in certain cases, all those "LRH" works are a different breed. Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention. I know others know this, it never hit me. Thanks.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: chuckbeatt...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 27 Feb 2005 03:25:56 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 27 2005 3:25 am
Subject: Re: Computer generated floating needles, LRH Tech Films 9 & 9A, the truth

croesus wrote:

> Three questions.

> Are all the original LRH films still shown and available in the
> church?

answer: My guess, the actual original LRH films (the ones already replaced and NOT shown any longer) those are very likely only accessible to people at the Int Base, and only to those who would need to watch the films for some reason. Like a posted Cine division staff member in Gold might have the LRH films, the ones LRH shot or sidechecked himself, for their posts today. Sometimes the Cine staff, I believe but do not know conclusively, have access to video recordings of these films, as needed for their posts. I think actually, physically, all the old films (the ones that cannot be shown now) were videoed, so they exist at least on a video cassette form at the Int Base, again only for playing by those who have access anr/or need to see them. I really can only guess.

For comparable data, at times in the past, anyone at the Int Base, any staffer, can stumble across advices by LRH, unedited original xerox copies of advices (I did in 1983 when stumbling around boxes of materials I was rumaging through in one of the then containers used for storing Int Data files), so conceivably, in years past, Cine staff and others, have copies of video cassettes (like for instance AVEI, Audio Visual Exec Int, ED Int's junior over films and cassettes) might have been sent copies of these videos made of the original LRH tech films, the films since replaced, and the videos may have ended up in Exec Strata's data files, and maybe some Exec Strata lower underling may stumble across these video cassettes of the earlier tech films, someday, while they are hunting down something else in the Exec Strata files, for some other Exec Strata member. That is the on the ground way these earlier LRH Tech films, if they exist on video, as I am speculating, might be have seen, and whether to say they are still around today, as we speak, I cannot of course say. I can ask a few people, and will get back to you on that question. When I get the answers I will post more here.

> If not are people being told they are not looking at original LRH
> films but films made by others?

Oh, man. People at the Int Base are about 10 levels of thought different to yours here.

Realize that the people at the Int Base, have thousands of LRH advices, in the late 70's and early 80's that they are operating on, as the mainstay of their ongoing operations.

(When I was the Int Data Preservation Officer at INCOMM Int, the computer room at the Int Base, which is located at "C" on this photo here:

http://www.lermanet.com/image/­hemet-labeled.jpg

I was in INCOMM Int, but anyone at the Int Base, when they log onto the computer system called "SIR" which means Source Information Retrieval, there used to be a listing of the total number of advices in the different categories, and I am pretty sure if they are all tallied, the Int Base sub-units have at leaset several thousand total LRH advices to them. LRH advices you understand were taken as orders that they better comply to or else.)

Also these thousands of advices were then also turned into the actual Gold Executive Directive issues that Gold staff follow for doing their posts today. A massive long "Hats Project" was done, and it was a huge long project to get all the LRH advices to the Int Base personnel all put into 'timeless tech' issue form, for Int Base staff to use.

In this atmosphere, of 600-700 people running around still trying to comply to 20 year old LRH advices, the people at the Int Base didn't think things were just going to stop when LRH died.

LRH didn't send out multiple messages, nor ANY messages, telling them to stop trying to comply with his orders and strategies.

Missing, is your access to thousands of LRH orders, which he's given to the top people in the movement who have been trying to carry on and do what he's ordered them to do to keep the Scn show on the road.

In my opinion he obviously didn't really have total confidence in his ability to get another body, and make his true presence felt as being LRH in his last lifetime. Had he had that level of confidence, I feel he would have spread the word to NOT do anything in HIS name, while he was dead and getting a new body and growing up, and making his way back.

(You know honestly, topics like this I cannot get my wits around until I do some more reading, or someone else does some more reading and researching and gives up the data; specifically I want to learn what the Tibetan Buddhist's actually believe on this subject, and what their leaders say and write on this subject, becausee they have already been/there--done/that on coming back life after life and they have been for centuries supposedly already been recognizing in themselves and their fellows, the same personalities coming back lifetime after lifetime to carry on their spiritual quests towards enlightenment, and to lead others in that quest, life after life, until they head off for nirvana or wherever they go, and I think to be fair to LRH, I'll have to someday compare LRH's writings, in context with theirs, on this same subject of coming back, recognizing oneself, and being recognized by others in one's religious group.)

He didn't say HOLD OFF! He didn't tell them to wait until he came back.

He had left a lot of uncomplied orders, and their decision to go ahead and try to carry out those orders, this is a serious issue.

I feel that the official Scn movement had no other choice but to carry on.

LRH left so many major orders with them (I detailed the INCOMM advices and the incredible things the INCOMM computers still need to someday be programmed to do, if they can).

But in this context, the tech films, the LRH issues, his long range orders to get all of his "tech" "the time-less tech" compiled into permanent issue form, those orders I did see. He wrote to ASI about the topic of getting his orders into issue form. In fact, when I was at ASI, I helped in complying to these orders. And earlier when I briefly was in RTRC (LRH's Tech Research and Compilations branch in Snr C/S Int Office, I was there Sept 88 - Feb 89 only), I saw the compilers working on compiling HCOBs based on LRH's longrange advices.

So, in context, the Int Base atmosphere is one of continuing to comply with old LRH orders. Even though LRH cannot of course sidecheck and approve what they do in his name.

Since LRH said nothing else, they went with what he did say to do.

If he shows up again, of course that event, will overshadow this minor discussion we are having, and to me, such an event, like LRH returning, and that fact actually being accepted within the Scn movement, that fact, should that occur, will dwarf ALL matters, and it will paint the Scn movement like NO OTHER fact about it.

Should LRH show up, and should he prove conclusively that he is in fact the late L. Ron Hubbard, that fact will just change the world, if the Scientologists and the new "LRH" in fact prove it true.

By corollary, if LRH does not appear, then that fact too, is an unfortunate one.

It truly then places Scn in the broader "been/there---done/that" context that similar religious and mystical movements all through man's history have found themselves. That man's awareness and recollection of past-lives are just not convincing enough.

The probably spurious idea that was spread that he plans his next life as a political person, and thus he will not try to hook right back up with Scn, that opens LRH up to the criticism that he is far more human and far less OT than he or anyone else hoped he was.

My opinion is that LRH is far more human, and less OT, because history shows people claiming OT abilities, and OTism, while a great goal for themselves and their fellow humans, is more historically typical of religious movement startup people.

Making ordinary men into angels, or causative ghosts, or into astral walking, out-of-the-body-flying invisible specks of conciousness with power to affect the physical universe, attaining immortal self-recognition; all the while pushing man into shooting range of permanent nirvana-like god-consciousness. Why not? Others in earth's history have sold other men on this path. And there are plenty on it still.

(That tape where David Mayo talks about LRH's difficulty exteriorizing, is vital info for all existing and ex-Scn believers. It's on Arnie Lerma's site I believe.)

LRH did not plan out the future after his death, and how he'd return, very well, in my opinion. It reflects his true limits and abilities.

LRH would have said hold off, don't issue anything in my name, until he returned, if he was confident about his ability to return, and he surely would have understood that if he could successfully truly do that, he'd be putting himself on par with the leaders of Tibetan Buddhism, with their two returning spiritual leaders who come back after they die, and the Tibetan Buddhists locate and recognize these top leaders.

LRH in my opinion pushed this responsibility back on individuals around him, specifically the Sea Org's motto: "We come back", really, seriously, should groups of Sea Org members be on the verge of this type of actual consciousness and level of responsibility to honestly live their lives with beliefs of this high high level of reality, this is really a remarkable thing, were this to be true.

(I completely doubt past lives and future lives, partially based on my first hand experiences, and also after 5 years in RPF co-aiudits, listening in on younger generation of Sea Org member's deluded ideas about their past lives intersecting with LRH, and the competing of their self-delusional past life roles next to LRH, as an almost childish game of one-up-man-ship; this is a perculiar younger generation Int Base case abomination of reality that I observed the new younger generation of Int Base RPFed Sea Org members.)

So even if LRH can't make it back, he's left the Sea Org motto, so Sea Org members have to grapple with this predicament.

LRH, if he is worth his salt, will have to show his nose again, and if he does, I'll certainly tune in and listen to what he has to say. (Will this happen, of course not, I don't believe this for a second. But I am open to being shocked into this fact, were it to occur.)

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

I think within the material he left the official church, that they are basically doing what they consider he wanted them to do, which is why "LRH Tech Films" come out or in whatever way they label them. They are LRH ordered, and they do possess more of the LRH writing and LRH thoughts than anyone else.

Their execution of LRH's orders can be challenged. But I don't think they are making a mistake by trying to put out these later revised films.

Others might have much more to say on this, since I am sure there are dozens of defected ex-Int Base staffers who left during the ongoing turmoil surrounding the revision of each of these films that was redone.

(It's LRH's fault that they won't be able to open up their LRH material to all to see, that's all LRH's doing, LRH doesn't credit the wog world the intelligence to appreciate him, which again reflects LRH's mental scene and his understanding of the world.)

Criticizing the top Scn management people, is fair, and even if the criticism is wildly lacking in some respects. People who were in Scn have a right to say whatever they want.

Intelligent people have been/there---done/that, on everything that the Scn movement has gone through.

David Mayo in my opinion, is a very pivotal individual, and time he spends thinking and writing on all his thoughts on Scn and his life, and the broader context of Scn as a religion, is very very valuable to get David's input. (Someone sent me a box of David's tapes, and John Zegal's tapes, I finished the Zegal Tapes, and I am on tape 6 of David Mayo's tapes, all these tapes are invaluable historical, which only persons who get above all the bickering and attempts to silence the thinking Scn movement participants; goddamn, I am NOT a Scientologist, but I goddamn fully support the Grade 0 End phenomenon, and am goddamn fully supportive of allowing any human being who was part of the Scn movement speaking their minds, because I know goddamn well historians will be able to see through ANYTHING anyone tries to pull, wogs are just so much damn smarter than anyone in the Scn movement, including and especially including even LRH!) David in the 6 tapes I heard so far, is such a basically decent human being. If a person has been in Scn, is now out, and ever knew about the things surrounding David Mayo, I suggest they someday listen to him, and compare his tone of voice, his manner of speaking, and judge for yourselves. He is unquestionably a decent individual. Despite the probably fully valid points John Zegal presents against David Mayo in John's 4th tape, where John eloquently lays out the OSA/official Scn movement line against David Mayo and others, which is entirely their right to counter any and all faults the official Scn movement finds on their critics, but despite the valuable counter info presented by John Zegel in his 4th tape, it is clear to any human being with enough mental brain matter, that still the splintering of the church in 1983-84 by David Mayo and others, was ALSO the official church's fault, and hardly of the same order of magnitude of the criminal stealing of the NOTs materials.

Historically, it would be ludicrous to charge Martin Luther with the major crime of stealing the bible on his way out of the Catholic church, on his way to set up what may or may not have been a more ethical and standard version of their church. Martin Luther was trying to offset the abuses he perceived in the Catholic church. (Sorry this is my crude understanding, but it is somewhat my take on a comparable historical event.) In otherwords, who cares about Martin taking the bible? Who cares about David Mayo getting the full lineup of tech?

The William Burroughs 1970 blunt criticism of LRH and Scn applies in my opinion on this issue:

http://www.clambake.org/archiv­e/books/asns/NakedScientology.­txt

"If Mr. Hubbard were content to be a technician who has made some important discoveries we could afford to ignore his personal opinions. When he sets himself up as the savior of all possible universes we cannot. The shoddy presentation, the reactionary opinions, the preposterous claims, the atrocious writing are so immediately repellent that few intelligent people can be persuaded that Scientology is worth a second glance."

...

"Mr. Hubbard says that the mere sight of his confidential materials would make any WOG - (His revealing term to designate those unversed in Scientology) - violently sick. I can claim some experience and skill in the scrivener's trade, but I could not undertake to write a few words guaranteed to make any appreciable number of readers physically sick. So, if this claim is justified, it is certainly a matter for investigation. I am sure that volunteers in abundance would step forward. Who would pass up an opportunity to read such potent prose? A head ache or a cold or the loss of the last supper is a small price to pay. This is not a frivolous suggestion. If words can make people vomit how are these particular words effecting the vomiting centers in the hypothalamus? Or is this claim put forward to give his followers a feeling of importance and to justify rather substantial fees? Only an actual test can give us the answer.

"If the Scientologists persist in a self-imposed isolation and in withholding their materials from those best qualified to evaluate and use them, they may well find themselves bypassed. Mr. Hubbard says he wants recognition for his discoveries. Well, let him then show his confidential materials free of charge and without any restrictions to qualified workers in other fields. He says he has the road to freedom. Others have been a long time on that road. At the Edinburgh Writer's Conference in 1952 Alex Troochi coined the phrase 'astronauts of inner space.' Let him show his confidential materials to the astronauts of inner space: Alex Troochi, Brion Ysin, Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, to anthropologists like Castaneda and shamans like Don Juan. Let him show his material to mathematicians, computer programmers, biologists and virologists, to students of language like Marshall McLuhan and Noam Chomsky. Let him show his material to those who have fought for freedom in the streets, Eldridge Cleaver, Stokely Carmichael, Abbie Hoffman, Dick Gregory, to the veterans of Chicago and Paris and Mexico City.

"Above all, young people nave a right to see his materials. So let him set up a center and give his processing and materials free of charge and without restrictions of any kind to anyone under the age of 35. If he has what he says he has, the results should be cataclysmic. . ."

William Burroughs
Naked Scientology
BURROUGHS
ON
SCIENTOLOGY
Los Angeles Free Press March 6, 1970

> Were any of the original films ever sold to outside people so that
> even if the Church decided to withold or destroy all the original films
> (suppressive), they would still be available for future generations
> through this avenue?

I believe all the films sent out to the Class 5 orgs and Sea Org orgs, the defective films, were all returned to Gold. Those would have been in reel form (the type that are shown on projectors).

I will let you know, if in fact video recordings were done of the tech films that LRH worked more extensively on. Gerry Armstrong wrote that there are about 5 (I think) tech films that LRH had quite a hand in. So possibly if those were video recorded, I think those would be the ones potentially available to some people at the Int Base.

I can see that those films, the one's LRH actually worked on himself, and sidechecked himself, those would be as close to LRH as you can get. Exactly how many scenes and how many tech films fall into that category, I don't have the data.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Gerry Armstrong - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:00:41 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: Busted from the Int Base, hired and succeding elsewhere (who's fault?)

On 28 Feb 2005 12:57:27 -0800, chuckbeatt...@aol.com wrote:

>friendship wrote:
>> Can one of you please explain the day to day life of an average Int
>> staff member? What time do people wake up? What is the berthing
>like?

>Average Day before I finally routed out of the Sea Org.

>[My diary entry for my final day in the Sea Org:
>"29 March 2003
>"Talk to Mr. C [Kirsten Caetano, my handler for smoothing my exit
>from the Sea Org] Laundry, dekludge. Get out Sat afternoon, see lawyer
>[Elliot Abelson], get moved."]

>The missing details of this day are as follows:
>Got up about 7am, dressed, and me and my watch who slept with me, Lars
>Asplund takes me down to breakfast in the crew galley in the complex.
>Watch changes, Urs Spoori, my new watch, accompanies me back to my
>room, I carry my breakfast with me, as I eat in my nice little 12 by 12
>room, which had two great windows, this was 3rd floor, main building of
>the complex, room directly above the front main entrance to the
>complex, just above the long wide-stepped entranceway on the Fountain
>Ave side, in the tallest section of the complex. My room overlooked
>the long sloped wide-stepped front entrance to the complex.

>Ate breakfast and chatted with Urs in our room, we ate together. This
>gives Lars time to eat breakfast, and do his own thing, hit the
>bathroom, since that is one of the major bugs of being someone's
>watch, you can't go off to the bathroom and leave the person you are
>watching alone, since the person being watched might escape, obviously.

They just have to double the security personnel. But now surely all guards, RPF on up, have phones.

>After breakfast, Urs gets replaced by Lars, and Lars and I take what
>little dirty laundry I have and he accompanies me over to the staff
>laundry room in the complex, which is in the CTO (Continental Training
>Org) building. The CTO building used to be the old Bridge building,
>and the laundry has been in that same place for about 20 years now I
>believe.

>We wait and I read in my room, with my watch accompanying full time as
>usual. I think I called Mr. Caetano (Kirsten) to see what the deal
>was. She said it was going to be soon, meaning that day or the next,
>for sure, this WAS finally IT!! I was about to really get okay.

>Lars and I finish my laundry, then I want to go to the library.

>We walk, from the complex over to the LA Public Library, at the corner
>of Franklin and Hillhurst. I insisted on going there almost every
>other day, my final 2 months in the Sea Org. I went to the library
>since I wanted to get caught up with the world, since I rationalized I
>was just killing time, waiting for the bureaucratic approval to route
>out.. I'd had so many disappointments waiting for okay, at least
>going to the Library was one thing I could predict and accomplish, and
>I loved reading, etc., and I started surfing the internet, first for
>job hunting, later, unbeknownst to the Scn people, I even checked out
>the anti-LRH sites.

>We go to the library, and come back to the complex for lunch. Eat
>lunch in my room, take our dishes to the dirty dishes room, and head

>back to the library.

>Right after lunch, back at the library, suddenly Mr. Caetano (Kirsten)
>and Mr. Duvall (the friendly good natured PAC Security guard who deals
>with the trickier route out or off-load people category that I fell
>into at this time) they show up. They came into the public library and
>sort of suddenly right behind me, I didn't notice them, and they tell
>me I was now going over to OSA, and this was it, the final steps.
>(This moment was the awkward moment when I just happened to be looking
>at the Internet at the Library, and I was reading about David Mayo at
>one of the anti-Scn sites, and Mr. Duvall was slightly taken aback that
>I was looking at this. Later, I think Lars may have gotten into some
>trouble for letting me do this, it was something that I gradually
>accomplished, getting my watches used to my uses of the internet where
>they didn't see what I was doing exactly, I've posted on that
>already.)

>I got a ride over to OSA with Mr. Duvall and Kirsten, and we go up to
>the OSA staff floor of the HGB, and into the room with the video
>camera. Elliot Abelson comes in, all cheery, popping peanuts,
>red-nosed, and briefs me. He introduces himself, in the course of
>minor briefing of this legal release I will be signing on video, I
>tell him I read the New York Times. My intended implication was that I
>understand the bigger lay of the land wog world where I assumed
>businesses do similar things like making people sign these legal
>releases when they leave, but knowing full well that the Buddhist monks
>and Catholic monks are very unlikely required to sign similar things,
>and knowing that up to that time in my Sea Org history, I've never
>heard of any instance of a court enforcing these freedom of speech
>muzzling legal releases on ex-Sea Org members who have blatantly
>violated similar releases for decades already, and me thinking that
>even Elliot would have to ultimately face the intelligent minds of
>judges and the much smarter NY Times and Wall Street Journal level
>reporters someday, who would likely put any future Scn legal tactics
>against me regarding this legal release, in quite candid historical
>and accurate context.

>He reads me the final release legal doc that I give up all my rights to
>speak about ANYTHING in my Sea Org employment, the normal give up ALL
>your rights to free speech, etc., and I sign or I initial all pages,
>etc., while Elliot reads page by page, or the major section titles over
>the major sections of the release, out loud, all on video.

>This was a pretty intense and admittedly significance packed moment, my
>final moment, in these legal OSA settings, signing away rights, that no
>normal Buddhist ex-monk or Catholic ex-monk would sign away when they
>depart their monastic lifetime staff categories, but no matter.

Interesting comparison. Almost a comparison that Sea Org legal and PR would use. (The "fraternal" SO.) The fact is that an ex-monk cannot sign away his right to discuss his experiences, simply because he's an ex-monk. Or rather, a secular court cannot lawfully enforce a "religious" organization's contract that prohibits an ex-monk from discussing his monk's experiences. Freedom of religion necessitates the freedom to discuss religious experiences.

If he was an ex-CIA employee, he probably can sign away his right to discuss his experiences in that company.

Scientology wants it both ways: to operate as a CIA, and bind its former employees to silence; and to get all the protections and benefits of being a "religion" run by "monks."

> Again,
>Scn does what it does, and our legal system doesn't support this type
>of activity in certain contexts, and hasn't supported this yet. But
>our legal system does support Scn legal tactics in other matters.
>Whatever. The threat was still sitting there in my face. We'll get
>you if you talk, buddy! That was the message.

That is important. That's what a contract cannot lawfully be. And Abelson, and whole nest of Scientology crooks know it. Their "contracts," which seemed so clever when Hubbard concocted the idea as "religious "scripture,"" and which Miscavige took to the stars with the Armstrong "contract," have bound Scientology and Scientologists to self-destruction.

It seemed so clever because no "religious leader" before Hubbard, and no "religion" before Scientology, had ever thought to bind their followers to silence with contracts concocted by secular lawyers to be enforced in secular courts.

Their "contracts" are now, in addition to unlawful, a clear reflection of the cult's increasing toothlessness. So much effort, wealth and public relations have been dissipated by Miscavige, all of RTC, all of OSA, dozens of law firms, hundreds of lawyers, tens of thousands of Scientologists, all trying to threaten people into compliance with unlawful, anti-human rights "contracts," that the cult has crippled itself. And there's no way back, because it's all there in the cult's own "contracts." People will forever laugh at Scientology and Scientologists for their "contracts."

Imagine writing your criminality, the baseness of your desires, your anti-human rightness, and your lies and hypocrisy into a witnessed "contract." Imagine too, contracting virtually every Scientologist in the world to that criminality, those base desires, the destruction of human rights, lies and hypocrisy. Then imagine seeking by threat, and worse, by use of the justice system, to enforce this "contract." What a field day for the wogs.

>The signing to me was the tough veiled threat bargain I'd been led to
>agreeing to, and I was resigned to this signing because I saw I could
>get my freedom finally and get back to wog life. I didn't want to
>upset the cart at this point, because in about two hours I would
>finally be out of the Sea Org. My plans were NOT to go out flaming.
>Had I chosen the flaming route, I wouldn't have waited those many
>extra months. I didn't want to just dash all the ARC that people in
>the Sea Org had for me, were I to go out as a protesting recalcitrant
>because that would have surely gotten me labeled suppressive And I
>opted to take advantage of the help the Sea Org did offer, and I did
>wish to remain on good terms, simply because I am not of the nature to
>get into screaming matches with ignorant fellow RPF members who were
>completely unaware of local law violations, and I did not ever wish my
>life's events escalate up to me having to actually call the police
>to protect me from physical restraints, physical restraints I'd seen
>applied to other RPFers and which I had earlier been threatened with
>and even personally received in my earlier RPF years already. .

I guess I didn't go with the flaming route or the route-out route, but took the escape route. I will say that had my escape not been successful, or if I'd been confronted before I escaped, I was willing to fight to the death. They would have had to kill me, so I saved them one hell of a crime by getting away clean.

>(Regarding violating the legal release I signed, I just figured if I
>did violate it, I'd face that when it came up, and in the future I
>would follow the high principled good examples of famous wogs in
>history who throughout history have taken principled stands against
>oppressive similar circumstances.

Did this occur when you were faced with signing but hadn't yet signed?

I ask this because I had a similar thought, related by a view of the future, when I was faced with having to sign the cult's unconscionable "contract."

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/­50grand/legal/a1/mutual-releas­e-1986.html

> I knew in my guts someone out there
>would protect me, should I choose to not adhere to this release I was
>signing to bargain my way out smoothly. Also I could worry about my
>then freshly acquired legal predicament with the church later in my
>life, when I chose to violate this legal release.) This all passed
>through my head, in the moments I was listening to Elliot and finally
>signing my legal release form with Elliot. I signed the damn thing. I
>was almost out now.

>It was almost finally over.

>On my way out of the OSA floor, I check the halls, see the OSA staff
>that I will see probably for the last time in my life, Sea Org members
>who have known me, some for decades, many OSA staff attended my
>marriage ceremony to one of their own, Janet Findley, 10 years earlier.
> About 60 OSA staff attended, our marriage, right there in the same
>building, in the historical "Charlie Chaplain's Office", a room
>that Charlie Chaplain has somehow been associated with, in earlier
>years, there in the historic HGB building.. [This last goodbye moment
>was not really the last for me, because later in the next year, when I
>was living in Hollywood, I used to switch city buses near the HGB, and
>I rode my bicycle by the HGB, and I ate gyro sandwiches at Combo's
>restaurant, across from the HGB, so I was to see dozens of Sea Org
>members I'd known in my 27 year Sea Org career, this was from 2003
>till summer 2004, when I left LA and moved to Pittsburgh, where I live
>now.] I had mixed feelings of sadness and massive relief, that my
>life came to that unusual predicament, in that unusual setting, with
>this piece of paper threatening me with huge amounts of legal fees I
>would be potentially paying Scn lawyers for violating my agreement to
>give up my rights to discuss ANY aspect of my lifetime staff life!

But no $50,000 per utterance liquidated damages clause, right?

And for all that "consideration." Didn't they give you five hundred clams or something when you left? Did they give you whatever $ they gave you on this great last day too?

>Mr. Duvall takes me back to the complex, I load my stuff and he drives
>me two blocks to the rooming house at 5117 Harold Way, owned by a then
>LA Foundation staff member, and which housed Scn members only.

Wow, a real SO halfway house!

>On my final walk out of the building I shake hands with my watch, get
>a few well wishes from my watch, I think I got to say goodbye to all my
>watches that day, Urs, Lars and two or three other guys who'd been my
>watches. I walk out the back exit walking by the RPF course room, but
>when so routing out, there was no goodbyes exchanged with RPFers, I
>only said goodbye to my watch. I did get to say goodbye I think to
>Frank Frau, who I'd been on the RPF for over 6 years with. Francesco
>Frau, good guy.

>Mr. Alex Meyers, the PAC RPF I/C

This is a post outside the RPF?

>was waiting on the sidewalk outside
>the back entrance at my final moments, and he shook my hand and wished
>me well, Then I got into the car with Mr. Duvall and he took me to
>the Scn rooming house, just two blocks away, this was about 4pm, I
>think, Saturday, Mar 29, 2003.

>Once in the rooming house, I got settled in, watched some TV and saw
>some videos, I hadn't seen TV more than about 6 times in the last
>over 7 years.

>I was finally out, free, able to walk alone, not accompanied by a
>"watch" for the first time in many months.

>It was a seriously good day for me, despite the potential loss of
>signing away my rights to speak and write about my life. Just being
>out, finally, after having spent a total of over 18 months, trying to
>get out, over the two periods I had tried to get out of the Sea Org, it
>was a massive final relief of accomplishment.

What an EP for the Sea Org: Out!

>This was most of my final moments in the Sea Org, typical last day.

Very funny. An exceptional last day.

>More typical days I will write up in the next post.

>Best, Chuck Beatty

>PS: A photo of me, next weekend, on top of Griffith Park, overlooking
>LA. http://www.freewebs.com/chuckb­eatty77/

Great pic.

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org



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.




July 2004 Posts | August 2004 Posts | September 2004 Posts | October 2004 Posts |
Nov 2004 Posts Pt 1 | Nov 2004 Posts Pt 2 | Nov 2004 Posts Pt 3 | Dec 2004 Posts |
Jan 2005 Posts | Feb 2005 Posts | Mar 2005 Posts | Apr 2005 Posts | May 2005 Posts | Jun 2005 Posts | Jul 2005 Posts | Aug 2005 Posts | Home

















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