Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, Jan 2005


Home

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Jan 2005 17:26:52 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 2 2005 5:26 pm
Subject: Calling for Ex Int Base staff to fill out the Ex-Int Base Staff Interrogatory!

Ex Int Base staff should fill out this interrogatory:

http://alley.ethercat.com/xint/

SHARE THE WEALTH OF INFO YOU HAVE ABOUT BASE ACTIVITES!
=======================================
Monday, 6th December, 2004 08:16:00pm

Name or Alias: Chuck Beatty
Training and/or processing level: Mainly Course Sup training
Locations before INT Base: FSO,FB,CW,Complex,RTRC,Int
RPF,HGB,INCOMM,INCOMM Int,INCOMM LA,ASI,Decks Int,Int RPF,PAC RPF, routed out
Time period at INT Base: 83-84,88-89,90-91,96

NEWS:

1. What in your opinion are the most interesting or biggest projects and strategies being worked on at the Base that are NOT known outside the Base during any time period?

I don't know all that is on the internet, and I haven't seen all the new buildings on the base, but I heard of them from the other Int RPFers, 96-2000, like the RTC Building, the Berthing Buildings, the CMO Int and Exec Strata office building(S?), I heard that Del Sol is now Qual Gold auditing spaces. The chicken coup that long ago RPFers used to live in, was transformed into a Bavarian style course room for deckees by 1995. On the Happy Valley ranch, there is endlless things I can relate. The red trailers that the Int RPF lived in starting in 1995, were eventually demolished and buried way on the edge of the property. All the Int RPFers now live in the Motels buildings. The kids at the Int Ranch all grew up and were moved off the base in 2000. And the Int RPF has the whole ranch except for the ranch staff berthed there. The Int RPF mainly work at the Castle on sets for movies and videos and other cycles they are able to do using the Castle shop equipment. The ranch was majorly renovated in the early 90's, new asphalt road, basketball court (a nice one), the swimming pool was fixe up, all the buildings were reno'd and repainted, it really looked great in the mid to late 90's when I was there on the Int RPF. When the kids left in 2000, some of the fields, like the sports field, was neglected, since it was not needed for the kids to play on any longer. The Int ranch was getting into farm animals. I cared for pigs, chickens, and turkeys. I did years of farm work, all the manual work, harvesting, planting, anything that was able to be done without machinery, since RPFers can't drive large engined equipment. I did fire break work, I loved all the hard outdoor farm work myself. Could have stayed there as staff, but the RPF program doesn't smoothly phase you into another job, its rules for graduation are fixed and wouldn't allow that. I haven't a clue about any strategies in recent years, I was off the lines in Dec 95, when I went to the decks uplines, having bombed out as Exec Esto ASI.

2. Is there any news about things that are common knowledge at the Base, but completely unknown outside, in your opinion?

Funniest experience I thought was hiding in the red RPF trailers at Happy Valley when the German news people came to film the Int RPF, looking for Weibke Hansen. She indeed was on the Int RPF then, and surely out of sight somewhere. She graduated and uses her artistic talents in Gold I believe now. The Int RPF made the sets for the last LRh tech films.

GATHERINGS:

1. Are the weekly all base briefings by COB still held Saturday nights around 9pm, in MCI? Do any noteworthy briefings stand out in your mind?

Up to the end of 95 they were. Only thing I noticed, that hasn't lessened, is that during the talks, there is a definite pecking order mentality in the room when the whole group is assembled. RTCers are seated front right, ASI front left. CMOI behind RTC. CST staff behind ASI. CMO Gold behind CMOI, HU behind them, then Gold. And behind CST is Exec Strata I believe, then certain Exec Strata sub units, and then Gold. To me RTC had still a snobbishness still in many of the staff. Like an invisible 'we are the elite of the elite', and not for all, the older timers in RTC have their own unique layers of eliteness and special confidential duties and tasks that only they know about. It is quite an experience being in the midst of the whole Int Base crew assembled. There are so many stories relating to each person at Int. If you are a people watching person, crowd watcher, this crowd of people is one of the most unique groups to be in the midst of. The thoughts rumbling around in their heads while COB speaks, if one were a mind-reader.

2. Are Sea Org ceremonies still held at the Base, outdoors? Are there any troubles holding events outdoors any longer, and why is that?

In summer 1995 they were. They held it at night, about 2 hours long. Had fireworks, had bleachers set up. I am sure if someone had driven by on the road, and took some telephotos, they'd have gotten quite a few of the 600-700 base staffers in a photo.

3. Are any musters held outdoors? Do RTC, CMO INT, Exec Strata, and Gold still hold any of their staff musters outdoors?

Gold in summer 96 still held musters on the road below Building 36, I saw numbers of times.

4. Is study still in the morning?

Was in 94-95.

GROUNDS:

1. How is the Berthing Building cycle coming along?

when I left the base in Jun or Jul 96, only the walls were starting to go up on one of the buidlings, and all the pads had been poured.

2. How does the RTC Building look? Did you get to work on it during Renos, or was it done by Gold construction and outside contractors only? Can you describe its location, using terms that someone previously at the base would understand (meaning describe it in relation to where BonnyView is/was; is it towards the mountains, up from the upper villas, for example)?

No data. But one of the persons in construction Gold who didn't do a good job on something related to the RTC Building ending up joining us on the Int RPF at Happy Valley.

3. How does the CMO INT building look? Where is the CMO INT Building now? Is it in the region where the old RTRC Building was? Are Exec Strata's offices in the CMO INT Building?

No data, this happened after I left the base in 96.

4. What is going on with the buildings over on the west end of the property: OGH, M&M House, the Horwich House, Carmen and Gary Weise's house, the swamp area, the trailers that used to hold deckees, the old "chicken coop" that got turned into the Bavarian style course room? Any data on those buildings?

No data. Left in 96

5. Do people still live offbase at the several different berthing apartment complexes, and are people divided up somewhat by orgs, meaning RTC staff living off base at the same complex, and CMOI and Exec Strata at another, and everyone else at another?

Up to the late 90's at least, and for sure if they haven't moved into the new berthing buildings yet.

6. What are the latest renovations on the base?

Castle, where all the set production and filming is now done is the only one I know about.

EXECS and PERSONNEL:

1. In your opinion, do you think David Miscavige is going to be the top exec until he dies? Is there anyone else there who even vaguely competes with him in status, effectiveness, or competence?

Yes. Only Greg Wilhere is the next most eligible person to hold the top post in my opinion.

2. Have you ever seen David Miscavige hit anyone physically (including spitting, pushing, grabbing them by their shirts, throwing in the pool, screaming right in their face, or similar)? Include the time and place on the base, and other people present. Has this practice lessened, and has he mellowed out in recent years?

Nope, Only read about it on the Internet after leaving the church, regarding Homer Schomer. I heard a rumor that a person was spit on by DM, and I read the LRH advice that related to this, but I do not doubt that it occured, since others have written similar things about DM. I heard another person was slammed up against a wall by DM, or pushed. And I heard another person was pushed and they tripped and fell over backwards. I read many instances of DM pummelling people. I also saw another junior to DM, beat on an INCOMM staff member, and since that person doing the beating walked and acted tough like DM, this lends credence to this physical abuse trend that was occurring. An old timer from almost two decades upline told me DM did do this, but it was not a daily occurance. It didn't happen that often, and those getting the attacks basically screwed up and DM's physical attacks were his bad thing. I've overheard in Del Sol on the top floor when CMO Int was still using it as office space, a training session of how to give a 'severe reality adjustment' (SRA Severe Reality Adjustment). This consisted of sceaming loudly some question or invalidative comment and slamming ones hand on a desktop loudly to punctuate one's SRA message. It was a sick administrative technique coming right from CMO Int, to a CMO Int staffer who was going out to do execute this little SRA routine on some hapless screwup lower echelon Sea Org member in LA or Flag. There was this deadly life threatening air that was developed by certain CMO messengers, the 'kickass' mentality and attitude, that was a prized characteristic if one possessed it. I was completely numb to this, it was as if I didn't see what I was seeing. I haven't mentioned this SRA drilling ever before, I haven't even thought about it. This whole mentality of impinging on someone else, and forcing them to confront what they were doing wrong on their posts, was a core characteristic to the mindset at Int, that persists to this day. It is a characteristic which I have not isolated to which particular writings of Hubbard are the ones responsible for keeping that attitude as a key tool that Int Execs have to possess as a necessity if they are to be successful. I don't think this SRA drilling is still done any longer. But I do not know. I saw it being done in the late 1980's in Del Sol.

3. At the time you left INT Base, had physical and screaming fits in general lessened? When was the last time you saw red-faced screaming and desk pounding irrational execs, etc.?

I don't know. I know it lessened in PAC. In my 7 years on the Int and PAC RPFs, at no time did the PAC RPF I/C of the Int RPF I/C lose their temper like the CMO Int missionaires could do back in the 80's. Worst case screaming exec was Jeff Walker. I never had seen Jeff get mad at Flag in the 70's at the FLB. It was not until I was in RTRC (Ron's Tech Research and Compilations Officer, Senior C/S Office, CMO Int), when I saw Jeff scream at the various RTRC staff one by one, for screwing up. I finally was the target for a mere two screamings, and my third screaming never came. I got RPFed as I harbored intentions of smashing Jeff in the head with my tape dispenser the next time he screamed at me, and the 3rd screaming never came. I went to the RPF. If you possess evil purposes seriously, and are apt to whack someone, they PRF you on the spot, especially if you are going to whack one of the top execs who are doing the screaming. Jeff got RPFed himself about 6 weeks later, and then another 6 weeks later my RPFing got cancelled, rightfully so. Jeff never swung at anyone. But he sure levelled people with his screaming. I couldn't stand it, it was too much for me. No matter what the good things are about the Int Base, the comraderie, the tight production and high work ethic, the pride of working in such a well organized activity, getting screamed at like that, was unnerving for me. I'm glad he made it out of there though. Since once Jeff was busted, there was no future for him in the movement. It is better that they let people go. The whole experience, though, of going up to the top echelons, getting into abusive relationships, getting into these predicaments where unusually tense and irrational behavior erupts almost weekly and for sure monthly, blowups here and there in people's lives under the strain of the pressure of the working circumstances, the mindset to be 'kickass', and also the condoning of this warlike combativeness between staff (the Flag Order where LRH says an MAA is not to penalize either of two staff members who are fighting, but only bill the one who physically damages the other one), that type of 'freedom' that LRH allowed staff, in their daily encounters with each other, encourages and holds in place a violent undercurrent which I don't think you would expect to see at the top echelons of any religion in the world. That type of underlying violent combative spirit existed in the 80's and 90's (I observed it between two Gold staff in 96), and I am sure it persists today. That is just insane in my opinion to allow that and not organizationally develope saner inter-staff behavior minus the combative screaming and punching, etc. That's why we have sports. If you were to take some blindfolded wogs and let them eavesdrop on RTRC office when Jeff Walker was screaming, there is no way they'd discern that RTRC was the office where Ron Hubbard's written works were compiled, edited and issued. I have no idea if this office screaming is still prevalent, and how prevalent it is at the Int Base.

4. Have you ever seen other execs in RTC, CMO INT, Gold, or other INT units, physically beat up on their staff in any way? When and who else was present?

Saw two gold staff, one big guy, one little guy, the little guy trying ti pick a fight with the big guy, and had I been the big guy, I would not have been able to withstand that harrassment the little guy was giving him, without reacting and trying to beat the little guy up. I had heard that that little guy used to like to pick fights, I don't know the truth of that, since I later heard that that little guy was actually a coward. A two decade long vet of the Int Base told me there were always fights in Gold over the years, and the Flag Order from LRH was the justification. The fights would stop short of medical bills, that was the self-imposed limit.

5. How are the following people doing: COB Asst (Shelly Miscavige), Greg Wilhere, Marty Rathbun, Ray Mitoff, Wendell Reynolds, ED INT (Guillaume Lesevre), Lyman Spurlock, Gary Weise?

No data. I was on the Int RPF in Jan 97, when Greg Wilhere came out to handle a flap that an incompetant RTC staffer had perpetrated on the Int RPF, and Greg smoothly handled that screwup. He looked good. I always liked Greg W.
Gary Weise I last saw, he came wandering out to the Int RPF site at Happy Valley one day, unauthorized, probably was his libs day or Sunday morning CSP, and he came to the ranch for some other reason. He looked like he was doing fine. Marty Rathbun came out to the Int RPF two times, first to regroup the RPF after the Int RPF Bosun blew one time. And the second time Marty came to brief us Int RPFers about Ray Mitoff, when Ray arrived to the RPF. Ray messed up on executing the Golden Age of Tech, is what I remembered. I liked Ray. Always have. No data on the others. My few moments with COB Asst, in 90 or 91 and later in 93, were fine. She is extremely attentive and sharp and sensitive. I got on totally fine, even though both times she was slightly on my case for something. I liked her. In 1983 and early 84 I had to get about 90 submissions approved by ED Int, and he liked to have me sit nearby as he looked at them. He was a brisk decisive, pushy, but I liked his manner. I never had trouble speaking what I had to say to him. My first wife had trouble with him, but I never did. He's stubborn and pushy, but I had no problem operating around him. He has been the one exec who has remained on post even longer than anyone at the Base, on such a high post. That is pretty remarkable.

6. How is Mark Ingber doing? How did he do after being RPFed in 2000?

He looked okay and gung ho when he arrived to do the RPF. And he didn't stay long, he got some auditing that revitalized him, and I think he got reprieved and returned to CMO Int by the end of 2000, I think that's what happened.

7. How is Norman Starkey doing? Is he working with Danny Sherman on the LRH Bio?

No data.

8. How are any other of the top RTC, CMOI, Exec Strata guys doing?

No data. I was on the Int RPF from 96 on, till I got out.

9. How is Gold doing? What upper org staff have been busted down from the upper orgs to Gold? Who is CO Gold?

I did see John Eastment driving the bus to take the Int RPFers from Happy Valley to the Castle for their sets making duties. No data, as I was out at Happy Valley.

10. Why did the Hodens (Ken and Lisa), the Epsteins (Jono and Leslie), and the Bennets (Jason and Susie) all get RPFed and sent down to the PAC RPF?

No data.

11. Are there any personnel changes that you know about in RTC, CMO INT, Exec Strata or Gold or CMO Gold or HU, or the other units, INT Finance Office, Snr C/S INT Office, INT Landlord Office, RTRC, TU, R Comps, PDU, that are notable?

One thing was that the Marketing person from ASI got comm eved out of ASI. That person then was busted to Gold, and within 6 weeks of being on post in Gold that person got things approved first time by COB. This fact was brought up by Norman Starkey against ASI staff, as a point that ASI staff were at fault for getting rid of a good staff member. I later, when I caved in for screwing up at ASI, also decided never to go back to ASI. ASI had a lady exec who was a real insance screamer. I hated being screamed at. If someone does that, I just lose all agreements with whoever it is, if the screaming is irrational and the person is incorrectly and irrationally screaming. That is really why in the end I refused to stay at ASI, and made an effort to leave and not come back. I could not stand the screaming irrational hatred exhibited by the 2nd to the top exec at ASI, who I see now is no longer mentioned. Either that person got toasted themselves, or they got corrected.

12. Did you hear or observe what happened really, with Pat Broeker? Did he blow? Do you recall an issue written on him, saying what he did? Did DM do a base briefing on him, after he left? Any data on him?

No data. I heard that he blew though, from a former Int Base staffer who was there when he blew.

13. Is the food still excellent, and deserts incredible, and is Pinucio Tisi still in the bakery making yummy things to eat?

Was when I was on the Int RPF and we got all the baked bread and deserts at the Happy Valley RPF.

FLAPS:

1. What were the biggest flaps that you observed in your years at the Base?

I heard it was the flood handling, that went on for a long time. I was on the Int RPF when the Stacy Meyers tragedy occured. One of the persons I was on the RPF on at the Happy Valley ranch made the monumental goof to accidentally start a fire, at the Int Base, no buildings were burned I don't believe. But it was a massive distraction and major brush fire. People blowing or setting off the alarm like they were intruders jumping onto or off the property, I saw that one time, which was done by an ex-Security Guard who had been busted. He was pissed and wanted to piss off the other guards and RTC execs. He made his point. He later left the Sea Org. One of the Int RPFers, a guy who refused to do the RPF, then got talked into it, then didn't like the idea so he blew, that was a minor flap. About 6 people in all tried and 4 succeded in blowing from the Happy Valley RPF when I was on it from 96 till 2000.

2. Do you have any direct knowledge on the Stacy Moxon Meyer tragedy, her electrocution in the high voltage vault? Did she go into the vault as part of her job? Do you know the specific reason she went into the vault? If not, have you heard any rumors?

No data. Thought it was part of an all-hands reno team activitiy, I dubbed in or heard she was returning to the vault to pick up something she'd left earlier. But I heard a better story on the internet that she was trying to chase a squirrel out of the vault, since squirrels had been getting into the vaults and electrocuting themselves and shutting down the power on the base and COB was pissed about it. That is plausible, but I have NO directe data on it's actual truth.

3. After dark on May 17, 2000, a young woman named Ashlee Shaner was killed in an accident with a frontloader tractor being used by TaseCo, a subcontractor who was doing paving work inside the Base. The traffic collision report states that Golden Era staff had asked the construction workers to work late. Were you aware of this accident? Do you recall the work being done? Who would have been responsible for asking the workers to stay late? There were roadside memorials built for Ashlee Shaner, which were later destroyed. Do you have any knowledge of the memorials and why they were destroyed, or by whom?

NO data.

4. Were you aware of any picketers outside of the Base during your time there? Were you told anything about the picketers, who they were, why they were there, etc.? Were you sent to other areas to keep you from seeing or interacting with them? Were you curious about the picketers, or affected by their presence in any way?

Nope, in early 96 I didn't see any.

5. Is there anything over the years that you were at the Base, politics wise, that stands out? Expound upon the tension between any persons at the Base, grievances that certain staff had towards other staff, or any longstanding "grudges" held between people that stand out in your mind.

I need to come back and fill this one in later. This is an interesting subject. Because when I was being surveyed to see if I qualled for being promoted to CMO Int staff, I was asked if I was in bad with anyone. It was asked like it was a perfectly normal question. I was slightly taken aback, being the kind of person that I didn't think it wise to be in bad with anyone, and my career in the Sea Org I tried to maintain a social relationship with everyone. But the implication is that at Int, it is routine for certain people to NOT get along at all with certain other people, and like it was even expected to be a mentionable fact. I stayed away from that level of hidden animosity amongst staff.

6. Was there anyone you thought was "getting away with something"? Were there ongoing injustices, lack of funding, lack of strategic support for areas that you know should have been getting handled, but weren't, or musical chairing of personnel and resources that doomed ongoing projects? Were any people you liked and thought highly of treated in an unjust way?

Obviously there is a problem if the construction cycles like the berthing buildings, took almost 10 years now, to get done and occupied. No detailed data though.

7. Are there any personnel flaps, or Base flaps that stand out, in the years that you were at the base? Do any other dumb or funny flaps come to mind during the years you were there? Did anyone do any ridiculously stupid things that stand out in your years at the base?

No detailed data.

FADS and TRENDS:

1. Are there any clothing fads or trends that COB or COB Asst or others started that spread around the base, like the Aveda shampoo and products that were a hit for a while?

Aveda shampoo definitely was in. Don't know if it still is

2. Is there currently exercise time? When were there times when exercise was in for most on the Base? Is the par course still used? Is almost everyone off smoking cigarettes now?

Was in 90 and 91, I took it. Was in 84, I took it then too.

3. Any exciting all Base outings?

I liked the 93-94 Christmas Big Bear outings.

4. Is the running program still going? Is there still a negative tint to persons doing it, either the person's themselves didn't think they needed it, or it has been ordered to be done on people who basically have screwed up?

No data. I wanted to do the program, and was oblivious to the connotation that one doing it was a screwup on their post. I wanted to do it because in sports I enjoyed the second wind phenomenon, and in general I loved running.

5. Is Superpower being delivered to any staff yet?

While on the RPF, in 1999 or 2000, at the Happy Valley Ranch, we had to make the small scale buildings, like a little city of these small scal buildings, for someone at the Int Base who was doing that step of the Superpower rundown, that was the rumor at the Int RPF at least.

6. What are the study orders most people are currently working on, and what have been the study order trends over the years you were there (like the STCC evolution, FPRD, etc.)

No recent data.

7. Is there still an ongoing program for the Base Staff Statuses, and the whole Base Executive Staff Statuses?

Was in 95.

8. How is the Team Share system going? Any gripes on it? Has it gone in and out, and to what degree?

Was in the 90s to some degree. I had my cards then, and it was not too big of a hassle. In the 80's I'd heard it dropped out at times.

9. Are Exec Strata Execs and CMO INT execs getting through the OEC and FEBC if they are not already on it?

No data.

10. How big is the Eval Corps and are evals still being all-handsed by other Exec Strata Execs and WDC Members?

No data

11. Are there any fads and trends that COB puts a halt to, with his characteristic methods (labels, photos, issues, or at the weekly staff briefings)?

At ASI, someone from RTC, not said, but I assumed it was from COB's office, meaning COB or COB Asst, sent us ASI staff a caricature of an ASI staff member, who was smiling and pretending innocence and pointing his fingers away from himself as to indicate he was NOT guilty and NOT responsible, the point being that ASI were at that moment not owning up to their goofs. It was just a minor admonishment, sort of a unique form of ethics gradient to get this lack of owning up point across.

12. Is there any other INT Base exec being a serious opinion leader at the Base, or is it still mainly just COB?

No data.

13. Are there any little groups of execs going around doing bonehead things, trying to deal with something before it lands on COB's plate, but making a botch of it?

I heard that this happens over the years, but never experienced it myself.

DATA POINTS:

1. Do you have any data on any big busts at INT Base?

No data. Just MY (Mark Yager), when he got busted in Jan 96, then RPFed later, and he graduated and is now back on post. Same with Ray Mitoff, RPFed and graduated and back on post, lated 90's, back on post by the 2000 event, where both Yager and Mitoff spoke.

2. Do you have any data on any big RPF assignments?

Above. Also when I was on the Int RPF, Mike sutter arrived. Don't remember the year. I think he graduated though by 1999, and I think he was twinned with Manuela Ruggeri, they both graduated. There were a whole bunch (10) RTC staff busted and doing the Int RPF. Proportionally quite a few RTC staff were RPFed. To me I thought that was correct. Just because of the snottiness I perceived exhibited by RTC, I liked seeing all the snotty RTC people brought down to size. But on the other hand, RPFing someone is a pretty drastic thing, and to me, if the best people in the Sea Org are selected to man the Int Base, there is no reason why ANY of them should be RPF bait. But proportionately there were over a hundred Int RPFers, which is 1 in 7 people at the Int Base was on the RPF. that's way too many I think. This was late 1999.

3. Is the INT RPF still going on out at Happy Valley (Castille Canyon Ranch, or the "ranch")? Do you have any data on the size of the INT RPF?

Yes. I heard in 2002 it still was. I do not thing it will ever go out of existence now. They have the whole ranch to themselves. It is possible it has been downsized, keeping only the most qualified Int Base staffers at it, and demoting those unqualified for future Int Base staff status to the PAC RPF and for routing the deadwood personnel out of the Int Base crew. But in the opinion of one ex Int Base staffer the Int RPF will still be there. It never actually ceased altogether, over the time that person was there.

SUMMARY:

1. What did you like most about your years at INT Base?

The food was great. The events, parties were great. I loved the community, when you first go there it is a privilege to get okay to go there, and the first couple days you are on cloud nine. The people in general are bright and shiny and happy, acting the characteristic uptone, and generally appearance wise they look like the smiling happy faces in the What Is Scn book and the Scn Handbook, because those faces on most of the pages are from the people at the Int Base.

2. How long were you at INT Base?

Covered above. 2 years total spread over 11 years.

3. Were you ever RPFed? If so, why, and please describe your experience.

Yes, Happy Valley RPF from 96 till Nov 2000 I loved it. I love outdoors working on the farm. Loved working in the fields, hot sun, no shirt, sprinkler system, mountains were beautiful, hated the captivity, and I never left the ranch in over 4 years, but I loved the work, the food, the people, all sorts of wildlife, coyotes, mountan lions, deer, rattle snakes, we build endless number of big and small buildings, chicken coops, turkey pens, pig pens, storage buildings, farm produce building, tractor building, storage sheds, several huge movie set construction buildings to protect and build movie sets inside. We built a damn, about a 180 foot long damn, over 10 feet high, and it took months, this was during that big rainy year in California in 97 I think. I loved working on that farm. I was RPFed from ASI for being completely secretly disaffected and thinking I would someday for real, turn into an enemy of the church, like I have now. I knew once I revealed my thoughts about this area, my life at the top was over. Once you admit you have been having fantasies about being a critic of the church, and if you were working in ASI which was the org where Vaughn and Stacy and earlier it is the unit that Gerry Armstrong would have worked in had it been formed then, well if you are ASI and you finally own up that you think you are going to turn into the next Vaughn Young, there is only one place for you, if you are a good Sea Org member, and that is the RPF.

4. Why did you leave INT Base?

Because I was a temp missionaire, later I got busted, last time I left I got RPFed.

5. Are there any questions you think of that should be added to this list so that others who have been at the Base can provide us with additional data that outsiders and ex-staff might be interested in knowing about? No. THis is unbleievably long!!!

6. Do you have any additional comments?

Yes, break this down into parts. Like make this whole thing into a about a 10 part questionaire, so a person can fill out only one thing, and go away from the computer. I have sat here for hours and hours, like 4 hours filling this out.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Jan 2005 17:29:50 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 3 2005 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: Aletheia Taylor returns to the Sea Org

Lulu Belle wrote:

> >
>> People who actually have something going for them have
>>too much to lose by going "public" like this, and also
>have enough going on in their current lives that their
>past in Scientology just isn't that important.
> They now have *other* problems.

I have seen about 15 ex-sea org members since getting out. I have received communication from about 5 ex-Int Base staff. ALL are doing far better financially than they did in their lives BEFORE being in the Sea Org. Granted all 5 I speak of, ex-Int Base staff, were not old enough to make what they make now, before they joined the Sea Org.

I noticed a few things.

1) All 5 ex-Int Base staffers who have contacted me, except one who was making the most $$, are working in the Scn community, and have been for over a decade, almost two decades in some cases. Each are doing relatively well, to excellent, in those business arrangements. The ones with LESS Scn connections, to me, just my impression, make MORE money (exceptions I am sure apply), but the more wog related their companies, the more money they make. But I also know the successful all Scn companies, do great, good money for the Scn staff, I heard from the sons whose moms worked in the same big Scn company, and heard of their 10 Gs Xmas bonuses, etc.

2) I observed when I was leaving the RPF's RPF category in PAC (LA), over the year of 2002-2003, I left March 29,2003, in ANY case where the person being routed out via the RPF's RPF, if the person wished assistance, they GOT it. Security PAC helps drive you to job interviews (they did with me and I saw it with others). They transport you and your mest to your new apartment. They give you a ride to the airport if you are flying home. In the case of the ex-Int Base staff, Kirsten Caetano, of OSA Int, helps and sincerely extends unlimited, no time limit in the future that is, help for as long as you need in the years to come, getting job assistance. For me, since I was going out as normally as I could, meaning I was open to help getting jobs in the Scn public business community in LA, my motive was to not create an entheta shock wave back into the movement, by just leaping into the enemy camp, and because I wasn't convinced of the bona fides of the enemy camp yet also. So I took advantage of the system that is in place now. Kirsten called my soon to be new Scn business employer ahead of time, and acted as a friendly live reference, helping me get the job. As Scn businesses are aware people coming out the RPF may not be desirable, due to the reasons they were RPFed. But OSA Int helped me, get my first job out, and it worked fine for me. I didn't bite that hand (not then, and I don't wish to gnaw too much on it now). (Even the 3 people that were declared SP and offloaded out of the PAC RPF all got assistance getting home, and getting jobs if they asked for it.)

3) Other ex-Sea Org members coming out from the PAC RPF's RPF, I saw, were getting $400 - 500 per week jobs right off. There are a number of nearby (the complex) rooming houses, where most go. I saw one guy use his RPF learned electrical skills to get a job in an electrical company, making great money. I saw another get $500 week in general no-brainer construction job, hired straight away. I saw another do the "Task" sales company, and was making 300-500 per week, selling. I saw another making great money in a PR firm, and another making great money in the vitamin sales related Scn business. My impression is the Scn business community, depending on your connections, is good to the majority of the people routing out via the PAC RPF, that is what I saw. This is anecdotal experience, and only based on verbal info. Seriously someone would have to ask and get figures, to see the validity of my info.

(The RPF's RPF MAAs (happened to be two OSA INT staff who were doing the RPF, the OSA staff tend to be MAAs on the RPF, from their experience in OSA which tends to lead them into MAA type roles), both told me several times that many ex-Sea Org, once they get out, and see what the world is like, later pine to be back in the Sea Org.)

I didn't believe these RPF's RPF MAAs, but I have to admit I saw one such example, who was my first boss at the Scn company I worked at. He was working to get back in the Sea Org. I personally in my current state of mind would NOT try to dissuade such an individual from doing that, so I never tried to divert my Scn job boss from his goal of rejoining the Sea Org. My ex-bosshad been in the Sea Org over 15 years earlier.

His motives were that the Sea Org is the most effective group in the Scn movement, in helping get the word spread, get LRH's tech spread broadly around the world, and the best thing a person could do, rather than be a business success, is help out by being in the Sea Org. It is a status thing, since Sea Org members for sure have a button that they are doing MORE than those making big bucks in the wog world (although we know how Regs think about their high donating public, as Regs DON'T push their public into the Sea Org, and Regs treat their high donating Public with respect, and acknowledge the high donating public for flowing the energy to the Sea Org to do the work the Sea Org does, so there are rationales covering all bases, sufficient to keep all participants in the Scn movement happy, no matter where they stand).

An ex-Sea Org member has no illusions about the lack of cushiness in the Sea Org. They are aware that mest considerations are secondary, and that a Sea Org member has to overcome, with shear dedication, the mest conditions, both the lack and the lure, towards the laudatory goals of the Sea Org. (I will have to do some analyses of Sea Org goals, and all the reasons why I feel the whole atmosphere in the Sea Org, with so much voluminous writings by Hubbard on the Sea Org and its role, why in that isolated group, it is such an all-mind-consuming activity, that once one is locked into it mentally, the challenges, the rush of the pressure and "wins" on accomplishing the day to day goals, the heightened sense of high randomity particle flow production, if one is in a high particle flow activity, just the day to day challenges, the rules the targets to be met (probably already analyzed inside and out by psyches and others sociologically, LRH just refers to it as necessity level, and other ways LRH talks about it), that atmosphere so engaged them emotionally, and made them feel valuable, since LRH has heaped so MUCH praise on the value of the Sea Org in the big picture of the history of the universe. These matters are taken seriously, enough so that people get locked into it, and their doubts about the validity and reality of LRH's views, are smothered by the prolificness of LRH's writings and the 24/7 momentum of Sea Org life. The more you read by LRH about the Sea Org, the more you have fodder to convince yourself that what you are doing in the Sea Org, is the right thing to do.

Ex-Sea Org members are already aware of the down side aspects of Sea Org life, and those wanting to go back in, are aware of the above pluspoint aspects of it, and thus my opinion is that simply they decide to go back in, since the pluspoints outweigh the negatives in their obviously limited viewpoint minds. (In the case of my Scn business boss, in otherwords, his making over a 100 Gs at his business each year, was NOT as valuable, he knew in his heart, as being a Sea Org member and doing the work he knew the Sea Org is supposed to be doing.) My Scn business ex-boss was a HIGH donator to IAS and other straight $ donation projects each year, so he WAS NOT a money motivated guy, basically, other than enough to run his business.

I would never re-join the Sea Org again, since I see things very differently. My opinion is that the ex-Sea Org for various reasons are not apt to avail themselves of the broader knowledge and intelligent understanding that exists in the wog world, so they don't spot the major outpoints in the Scn movement that currently peg it at its current state of losing increasing numbers of its followers as the movement continues its apparancy of "growing." (Anyone during Thursday stat evolution at middle and upper management only has to compare how many people get lost off Div 6 lines and NEVER make it over to Div 4 to see what I mean.) Not unless the Scn movement gives the yo-heave to major LRH ideas about how to operate in this current civilization, it will continue leaking and spewing massive quantities of people that aren't sticking with the movement, out of its doors. (There are LRH references for every angle, including this "wasting" of public, not worrying about those that are "off-lines", all the policies that say those people off lines for years, eventually come back. LRH has a policy for EVERY noted outpoint in the movement, and that is part of the false assurance LRH plugs every hole of "doubt" that arise in the Scn movment members's heads during their day to day challenging Scn movement careers! Getting OUT of LRH's universe of prolific, all-base covering ideas, can be tough, and was for me the toughest thing for me, since I had read SO MUCH of his handlings for every difficulty; I was 5 years on the Routing Forms project, and I helped search out every LRH policy for every staff member daily duty, so I scoured the whole OEC and all of LRH's administrative advices to lay out for staff all the LRH mainline handlings for ALL staff member day to day duties and difficulties.)

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Jan 2005 17:45:07 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 3 2005 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Aletheia Taylor returns to the Sea Org

Hey Deo,

She [Aletheia Taylor] must be back, since I too got an email from her, and I got another one from her a couple weeks or months ago, that was signed by her. She signs her name and gives her AOLA post title. The title definitely sounded like a regular AOLA staff member post title. Next time I get an email from her, I will shoot it your way. Best, Chuck



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Jan 2005 19:21:29 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 4 2005 7:21 pm
Subject: Andy Yarrow, hounded out by DM and RTC's group think

I heard the following story about an ex-Int Base Staffer.

There was a former Int Base staffer named Andy Yarrow. By several people's accounts, Andy had strains of genius.

Andy's the one who originally came up with the current design of the Emeter cans that use banana clips. He made the prototype. He got thrown out though, before they switched to his design. Andy was from England and due to his skills, LRH, I heard, even had a metal lathe presented to Andy in appreciation for his contributions.

Andy was apt to make anything out of metal. He had been around for years and was used to working with LRH. He hated the new management system. He had his own 28 ft. trailer parked outside near the old studio. Later after Andy left, the trailer was used for storage and I don't know what's been done with it today.

During his days, Andy lived and worked in it. His main problem was that he hated musters and people had to often go and wake him up. He was the kind of guy that was a night owl and would put in many more hours working through the night on a project than most staff. But, because he chose to buck the system DM hated him. It was sometime after the death of LRH that DM decided to get rid of him. He did not bust him in any way but systematically set out to harass and demean him. He constantly gave him unreal orders, told him to get rid of his trailer and made fun of him in front of others. DM figured that since LRH was gone then there was no one around to protect him. It was not long after that when Andy blew, never to be heard from again. Another person remembered that Andy got declared by Greg Wilhere for messing up on something related to the cans cycles. Possibly Andy tried to include his cans idea in with the project he was authorized to work on. He was declared and on the RPF's RPF and apparantly from there, blew.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Jan 2005 19:45:11 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 5 2005 7:45 pm
Subject: My thoughts: Phone call 7:30pm EST, Edwin Richardson to Chuck Beatty

At 7:30pm, EST, I'm in Pittsburgh, Edwin Richardson called me. I told him to call me back at 9pm, as I was still working at 7:30pm, I work for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

When he called back (I had in the meantime emailed about 6 people, and several people gave me the quick scoop on Edwin.

When Edwin called back, he told me he was doing "investigation related to litigation." Then he said it was regarding possible use of personal information that people felt was private. I didn't ask anything, so I don't know if he was referring to something I posted, but I assume that is his point.

I told him to put his questions, which he said he wanted to ask me, in writing, so that I could go over them with my attorney. I told him I wouldn't answer his questions on the phone because then he and I would no have record of what we talked about. I also said I'd wanted the questions in writing to go over with my attorneys.

He asked if he could fax me the questions, I said better to email them. I gave him my email. He said he'd see what he needed to do to email me. End of conversation.

He called me back a few minutes later, and asked who my attorney was. I told him I needed to hear back from my attorney, before I mentioned my attorney's name, since I didn't know what my attorney wished me to do. He thanked me.

He was polite, called me Mr. Beatty, etc.

I hope it isn't serious, not only for my sake, but also for the movement's sake, who I feel should not continue engaging in silencing tactics on individuals.

They will be unable to shut up those in the world who are in disagreement with them, as they "continue to expand" into it.

Once I get the questions, I will go over with my attorney(s) and go from there.

Best, Chuck Beatty

PS: Anyone wish to give me advice on Edwin, please let me know. He's in CA at the moment.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Jan 2005 08:51:27 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 6 2005 8:51 am
Subject: Re: My thoughts: Phone call 7:30pm EST, Edwin Richardson to Chuck Beatty

roger gonnet wrote:

> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]

> Thanks a lot for your great accounts, Chuck.

> These guys can't possibly understand that their
>silencing tactics are horrendous, horippilant,
>unnerving and so on, and that it can't but add
>to their deserved criminal reputation, whatever
>they could do besides.

> Last such tactics here are against our friend Jean-Luc
>Barbier, to which they have refused to pay back
>something like 100000 dollars since years upon
> years, and now, they attack him, they tried to get his
>anti-scientology association (AVDS) seized by the
>swiss justice, etc etc. They can't understand that,
>would they have paid ten years ago, he would have
> forgotten their fraudulous promises etc. What a bunch
>of loons creating their own enemies!

> roger

Thank you. These are very close to my sentiments.

I think for their own benefit they HAVE to cease applying LRH's petty vindictive policies. It was one continuing issue I hated to observe when I was a Sea Org member. Hubbard's wrath which should have been taken as him just blowing steam, and he should have cooled off before he sat down those days and wrote the foolish overreaching policies that the church is now bound by, and which draw so much bad publicity for them.

But he foolishly used his unquestioned authority, isolated from other people's calm reasoning, and he wended his unreasoned uncalm opinions into all the odd policies that today the movement continues to try to apply. (Sidenote, I recall policies where he condemns the attornies and others who tried to counter his extreme ideas about various matters, others recall how many attorneys he's fired over the decades.

To put his wrath into policy, and then insist repeatedly over the decades by writing extensively in other writings in support of his initial mistaken wild opinionated claims about his "enemies", being who he is and was to the movement, "Source", etc., this forced the whole movement to be WITH HIM or against him, on his opinions, which he'd weaved extensively into church policy.

Unraveling oneself from the windings of LRH's wrongnesses in his policies from any of the rightnesss, is NOT an easy matter. A dedicated Scn movement member in their minds have SO MUCH good LRH material to counter the mistakes in LRH's works which do get rightly criticised repeatedly in the broader world, that they mistakenly feel reassured they are right, in spite of the obvious wrongnesses. I've been there, done that, for 27 years. But no more.

The church does itself no favor by continuing to perpetrate the wrongnesses that LRH was blind to.

Anyways. Thanks for all the observations. I've checked all the sites other people have mentioned. Thanks.

Best, Chuck Beatty

PS: It is still my probably niaive hope that the movement will yet mature to the point that they understand they need to let lay dormant his irrational policies and writings which today continue to offend the broader world.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Jan 2005 10:06:10 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 7 2005 10:06 am
Subject: Re: My thoughts: Phone call 7:30pm EST, Edwin Richardson to Chuck Beatty

Deo Morto wrote:
>

> Personally I would just tell Edwin to fuck off. I would also tape all
> his calls, if you have caller ID make sure you keep the log. One
>other very useful tactic Chuck is to say nothing on the phone -
>hard to do I know but make him do all the talking.
> Have fun with the jerk. make him spell everything he asks you. make
> damned sure he knows you are recording what he says.

Thanks Deo,

My sister just got a call this morning, 9am approx, Pittsburgh time, from a garbled speaking individual who failed to introduce himself. My sister asked if it was about me, and the guy said yes, and my sister dutifuly hung up. I'm printing off photos for her and my neighbors, and issuing all with disposable cameras and briefings, to photograph any PIs or accomplices that get sent my way. (And I'm making sure all my trash is extra smelly and gooey.)

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Jan 2005 11:36:52 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 10 2005 11:36 am
Subject: Re: Ist posting for the troll

Genesis wrote:


> ... The tech is extremely questionable.

> You know as well as I spacetraveler, that more then 90%
> of the people that got involved with the church wanted better
> lives and the wins they read about in the books and tapes.

> It didn't happen.

> Thats why this cult has shrunk.

> Not because of the sps, or us critics.
> Its because the tech did not deliever.
> If if did, it would be a house hold word
> and everyone would be applying it.

> Genesis

Brilliantly simple analysis. Which in many respects LRH even agrees to. He agrees people will "upbraid" Scn if there are NO results (Policy Letter Keeping Scn Working, and Policy Letter "Senior Policy".) If Scn delivered the goods on spiritual gains like they claim, then the critics would not have legs to stand on. The problem really is that no religion or practise can deliver what a whole bunch of them claim they can achieve. Reference the Encyclopedia Britanica articles including and related to their main article on "Mysticism."
Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Jan 2005 20:26:42 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 11 2005 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: How Harassment Works

University Studies wrote:
> Young people sometimes have problems with harassment. This website
explains
> there is nothing to worry about.

> How Harassment Works

> http://members.fcc.net/workgroup5/country/harassment.html

> If a person harasses someone, the person doing the harassing always
>harms his own situation more than the person he is trying to harass.

Thanks for posting this. I think this is fundamentally true. If the Scn movement still engages in low level up to extensive level harrassment of people critical of the Scn movement, it is my belief this reflects badly on the Scn movement, and always will.

It is my hope they stop this activity, and actually concentrate on the things that supporters of the Scn movement most appreciate. Since there are thousands and thousands of happy Scn movement members, the Scn movement leaders should concentrate on the things their supporters appreciate.

I think if the movement leaders did one thing in the next year or so, just this one thing would really reflect well back on them.

If they simply allowed all the family members who are unable to communicate with their family members who have been "declared" "suppressive" by the official churches of Scn, to let the opposing family members to at least have normal "good roads and good weather" communication between the family members who currently are NOT allowed to have ANY communication per church rules.

I mean the ones who are NOT allowed even to mail birthday cards back and forth, or even send Christmas greetings, that is the type of communication the Scn movement SHOULD allow. They should ALLOW all normal good wishes to go back and forth between family members, even if the family members are in the "Suppressive Person" category.

(The Scn movement is overkill on cutting communication with family members who have been declared "suppressive", and they could do A LOT to improve the Scn movement's image in the world if they at least modified this one simple rule and let normal well wishes to pass to and from family members who currently are NOT allowed to communicate any longer.)

Anyways, I agree on this point of harrassment reflecting back worse on the harrasser.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Posted on Clambake Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:59 am:

Someone asked me months ago about my freeloader bill.

I got sent my debt, from ASHO, and I contested it a bit. They sent it to me way back, even before I crossed the line and started posting on the internet. I haggled and my debt got knocked down and down, until my current freeloader debt, which I have not fully grasped, is ONLY $250.00!!!! That's right, ONLY $250.00!!

I am a little skeptical of this figure, but 250 bucks is all for my whole freeloader debt, so I could pay that off, (barring me having to handle my steps A to E, since I am probably declared SP now too, but I won't bother with that detail).

My guess is that I have a number of freeloader debts to any number of Scn churches. I was Flag Service Org staff, so I probably have a freeloader debt to them. I was International Training Org staff, so I probably have a freeloader debt to them. Etc. (for all the other Scn orgs I used to belong to).

My guess is, that my freeloader debt to ASHO is all I would have to handle, then I could do services at ASHO. If I next wanted to go to Flag, and do services at the FSO, it is conceivable I'd have to pay off my FSO freeloader's debt also.

But I am just dubbing in.

My guess the reason I got a freeloaders bill from ASHO is because I told the people who were handling my routing out of Sea Org, when I routed out in March 2003, that ASHOD was about the only place I'd like to do service in the future. This was when I was aware that I needed to say this, in order to get out. One of the requirements, part of the bargain for going out in good graces is to express a desire to continue on the Bridge.

To me it was a pie in the sky type goal, because I never expected really to do the Bridge, but a best case scenario, I offered was that I guessed someday I might do my Grades at ASHO. That's the best I could ever hope to still achieve in Scn.

I liked ASHO over the years, since they deliver the briefing course, and I liked Scn members who at least got themselves trained on the briefing course, it being such a long haul major committment training cycle, I respected people who put in that much time to really study, and get a grip on all that LRH has said tech wise.

Anyways, before leaving the Sea Org, when I went via the PAC RPF, I made it known that if I ever did services again, that ASHO would be my choice.

So my guess is ASHO got info'd that I'd selected them, to eventually someday do services in, and then ASHO did what they were supposed to do, and looked up my freeloader debt to them, sent it to me, we haggled, and they settled my freeloader bill at only $250.00. (This freeloader debt is ONLY for actual services I did at ASHO, while I was a Sea Org member in the PAC area, which was in the 80's when the Flag Bu actually, in 84 and 85 was temporarily in the complex before the Flag bu moved over to the HGB, and Flag Bu staff, some of us, snuck over to ASHO and did some training there, I did OEC Vol 0, and started Academy Level III).

Like I said, I would probably have to pay off my freeloader bills to the other orgs I did service in while a Sea Org member, should I ever wish to get new services from those orgs (meaning the FSO, and Int Training Org).

That's my answer. If anyone wants me to answer any questions, email me please. I will respect anyone's request for anonymity (don't send your name, etc.).

If you later want to post my answer on Clambake or Factnet, feel free to do whatever you want with any email answer I send you in the future.
Best, Chuck Beatty, Ex-Sea Org, 75-03
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77
[email protected]
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm EST)



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Jan 2005 21:42:11 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 14 2005 9:42 pm
Subject: Re: NY Daily News: Rick Ross skeptical of cults' motives for tsunami relief

[email protected] wrote:

> To whom it may concern:

> "Religious Freedom Watch" appears to be little more than a
Scientology front.

> >
> See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html

>
> Scientologists seem to make a practice of parsing quotes out of
context in an apparent effort to mislead the public.

>
> Rick A. Ross
> www.rickross.com

Dear Rick,

Thanks for taking the time to defend yourself from the Scn onslaught over the years. I read from http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html

I was inside for 27 years. I've been reading the internet since 2003, and I appreciate finding details the Scn people left out.

It is valuable experience to read about persons like yourself, since in my 27 years inside the lifetime staff category in the Scn movement, I only encountered the worst possible slant on your life. As a dedicated former lifetime Scn movement staff member, I dutifully read, over the years, all of the characterizations and details written about the Scn movement's perceived enemies (including all those listed on the Religious Freedom Watch site).

I wish you well. Sorry I was part of the Scn movement that tried and is still trying to ruin you.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the important facts omitted by the Scn movement.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Posted on Clambake Friday, January 14, 2005 - 6:39 am:

Dear Braveheart's Girlfriend, No 8C now,

I get my freeloader billing invoices sent to me about once every month, which I think is per policy. Us freeloaders are income to them. (When I explained this to my family, they were incredulous that I would owe anything, especially since I earned less that 500 bucks per year for the last 7 years in the Scn movement.)

LRH could NOT think of everything.

I refuse to pay the movement anything, the freeloader doctrine is ridiculous for anyone who has put in over 10 years of duty in the Sea Org.

I can guarantee you that the Int Finance Director who heads the Int Finance Office up at CMO Int, they are the top church finance exec whose responsibility this would be to resolve, that top finance exec will NEVER actually stand on their hind legs and issue a rational policy forgiving the freeloader debt to 10 year plus Sea Org members who route out. There exists NO Sea Org member of that caliber, and probably never will exist one, thanks to LRH and his unthoughtout policies which have resulted in the totalitarian mindless bureaucracy they have now.

This is a result of LRH's lack of foresight into the ramifications of his accumulated policies.

They are stuck with all sorts of weirdities.

I think the most glaring weirdities they will HAVE to deal with, or else continue suffering bad public relations as the wog world continues to react badly to those weirdities once they become public knowledge.

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



Posted on Clambake Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 11:27 pm:

I don't plan to pay off the freeloader debt, because I agree, I gave more than enough. Others have extensively and accurately described the whole freeloadeer angle. In one type of isolated scenario, many years ago, some persons were "taking advantage" of Scn services, getting them for "free", by joining staff, taking the services (OT levels, training courses that normal public have to make expensive donations for), and I will admit, my logic for initially joining the "Flag Service Org" was the lure of becoming a Flag trained Class XII auditor someday, and in the course of gaining that high status and ability at the top of the line auditor in the Scn movement, I would have gotten the WHOLE BRIDGE of services FREE. That was the lure, I took it. I never made it, got busted as a Flag auditor within 2 years, became a training (executive admin course area) supervisor for 4 1/2 years, then moved away from Flag, never to return, never to ever get close to the top of the Bridge, services wise. I stuck with the Scn movement, as a lifetime staffer (Sea Org member), but as the decades rolled on, and I slipped up the org board to higher and higher positions, the reality of it all sank in. I've covered parts of my whole sorry story at http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77, and the title page is a shot of me, a mere 2 WEEKS (April 2003) after I finally finally, stepped OUT of the Scn movement, and took an enjoyable hike to Griffith Park, overlooking LA.

I have no intentions of going back. I suggest reading from the following great accumulated references (I'm reading Stewart Lamont's "Religion Inc.: The Church of Scientology", findable at: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/

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



Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 8:15 am:

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

[I posted this similar answer on FactNet to Pit Bull, several months ago, in explaining the "changes", from my experience in the Sea Org]

[The site of my posts contains lots of answers to people here on ClamBake and other people's questions to me, on Factnet. http://www.freewebs.com/chuckbeatty77]

***************

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:31 am

Dear Pitbull,

You asked about all the apparent changes. I can give you a rough picture of the scene uplines, that might relate to the apparent changes all the times. Take these ideas roughly, but this data I give you should give you a rough idea of why there are "changes" and why there will be "changes" for a long time to come.

First off, realize one MAJOR MAJOR thing, the goddamn Sea Org is about 20-30 years in non-compliance with some very enduring senior LRH advices. LRH's final 80's advices contain LRH's strategic ideas about what the church (or ASI, his private org) should do.

Example, LRH says to ASI, make BE (Battlefield Earth) into a movie. Do it first of all else. What happens, years of other BS, some BS not even ordered. Why? Years and years of altered compliance, and FINALLY, in 1999, the overt product film, Battlefield Earth. 17 years in non-compliance, and then overt product compliance. And this is ASI, LRH's personal org. Orders to other Int orgs NEVER even get started in many cases, or the attempts are shot down fast. Realize, that it is sometimes a mammoth task trying to execute LRH's orders. It is really tough. You probably can guess better than many inside the top echelons why it is so hard to carry out such an order, like "get BE [Battlefield Earth] turned into a movie as a priority". It was a completely UNREAL order, but LRH said push it through. He said to ASI don't think like the wog publishing industry does, just stick to pushing one item at a time (in this case BE). Was it doable, no it wasn't. Why not. Personnel, meaning no one in the Sea Org with the quals to push that type of order through, because it required a lot of money, connections, which no one inside the Sea Org had. Travolta sacrificed a lot to make it happen, bless him for trying. That was one tough LRH order to comply with, and fine, BE will just have to be redone, in 20 or so years, when this generation forgets about it, and the new generation in 20 years will be ready, and someone else at ASI will push it through in a new unit of time, and maybe get a better produced movie, or maybe not. Maybe the book just isn't right for a movie, I don't know all the reasons, this order in any case is a tough order, and after 17 years you know the result, no use beating a dead horse. If they want to comply with the BE order, they have to now wait and do it again in a decade or two, like the rest of Hollywood does, when they release a movie again, 20-40 years later.

Okay, let's step back just a second, and play like LRH had been here all along. Let's say he was still alive in 1999, and nothing else had prevented BE from finally getting produced. Let's say it came out, and flopped. What would LRH have done. Well obviously some heads would roll, some people would do the RPF program, but likely LRH would just order some whole other direction to go in, rather than try to beat BE getting produced again as a movie. He might even revise his strategic advices to ASI in some way, so as not to get stuck with that loss.

So I grant it is conceivable, although I have no evidence of DM doing this, but I can conjecture that he might order some senior Int level org exec to modify their strategy to handle such an impasse, as LRH would also. It is a judgement call, it is not some devious evil plot type of call.

Stepping back, you see even that LRH himself, had circumstances or failures land in his lap, and he dealt with them by shifting off into some other major direction, away from the failure, and thus even when LRH was around guiding the Scn movement, there were massive shifts and changes, continually, year after year. I think people from the 70's saw this alot. For instance I heard that LRH put the whole ESTO (establishment officer system) on hold, until further review. There are many policies that changed things wholescale in the 50's and 60's. LRH could operate like that.

Miscavage and the top execs in the church are really only doing what LRH did himself. They have tried to comply with his major major early 80's strategic level advices. It has taken decades to comply, and the compliances have been not just overt products or faulty just one time, but very often two times the product was faulty, and a third time the thing had to be done.

Another example. LRH major strategic advices to Foster Tompkins to computerize the church. I said in another post, the INCOMM advices say that INCOMM is to get the computer to do evals eventually. And the computer is to do some incredible other things too. It is now 20 years, and the computers in INCOMM are not doing evals, and not doing the other incredible things they are supposed to do. LRH's orders are for a variety of reasons difficult and unable to be complied with, but the church has been trying, and trying, and everyone involved has seen all the varioust things that do get done, out of necessity to survive, and the LRH orders are seemingly unsurmountable, but they keep trying and trying. Foster was the head of INCOMM two times in the two decades of trying to comply with the INCOMM advices from LRH. He tried and tried, and Foster is one sharp individual, despite any faults, he is one very sharp person. (Evidence his comm cycles to and from LRH which are the INCOMM advices, are THE most lengthy comm cycles ANY Sea Org member has even engaged LRH with, which to me says a lot about Foster's ability to get through and engage LRH in conversation, which might be neither here nor there, but the INCOMM advices are HUGE in individual length compared to most other advice communication cycles LRH engaged in on individual subjects).

Anyways, the apparant "changes", realize that the undercore pounding pulsating theme at Int, coming out of DM's mind, is getting LRH's 80's strategic advices executed by all of the various church sectors to which those LRH advices were directed. In the 80's as LRH moved totally off the lines, the strategies for the sectors were the most important directions for sectors. The programs written were based on the approved strategies. LRH ordered DM and CMO Int to draw up the strategies. He approved some I seem to recall. So the strategies were big, and in most cases have still to this day not been complied with.

So many of the changes, are just the things that have just not been complied with, is part of the reason why it appears we are getting changes.

Golden Age of Tech, that I would love to talk to Jon Horwich about. My guess is he (Jon Horwich) put a major buzz about some long ago (back to 71, 74) orders by LRH (and I think this is comfirmed by the fact that the Golden Age of Tech RTC ED issued originally to staffs explaining WHY the Golden Age of Tech was being issued, that RTC ED (Executive Directive issue) even quotes the '70 and '74 LRH orders to get certain types of drilling done. The eval on "blind leading the blind" was new, meaning COB's doing. But the old non-complied 70 and 74 advices on drilling, (which some old time Scn people will remember the of BTB Grades Drill sheets that told you how to drill all the Grades Processes), were the basis for the Golden Age of Tech drills. Then there are plenty of LRH advices in many areas about being uptodate with equipment, and bright ideas are always part of evals, and the simulator machine for producing all the emeter reads which makes the drilling realistic, is just being uptodate with the technology available, etc., and wha-la, Golden Age of Tech (all splashed out with on-policy marketing), and handling things LRH ordered handled in the early 70's which was an overt product compliance back then.

Okay, another insider datum, hope I am not overwhelmning you.

Exec Stata has their hat, per LRH. Each guy in Exec Strata is supposed to do what is called a "25 year study". This ties directly in with what LRH writes in LRH ED 339R and LRH ED 339R-1, when he says that he is setting up the Exec Strata as all orgs staffs' experts that the org staff can call on (I so wanted to be one of the helpers to an Exec Stata guy, that had I gotten that post, I also might be posting this today). Each Exec Strata exec is supposed to study 20 years the stats, and solutions and know his area inside out and backwards, and the reason is so that when they handle things in their zones, they utilize EVERY LRH solution of the past. And believe me, there are LOTS of LRH past bright ideas (I am sorry, I know I am sounding totally like I am pumping up LRH and the Exec Strata, and the whole of top management, but I do this to let you know what they think, what LRH advices to their posts they operate on, and the nitty-gritty parameters in which they are playing). In this mass of information, and you can see in the org bookstores how prolific LRH is, also realize each Exec Strata member has their own file cabinet full of LRH advices on every conceivable aspect of their zone, and that is on top of the OEC Volumes that apply to their zone. They have all the past LRH written or approved programs, projects, mission orders, other types of issues, the old issue type on the ship. I have beaten the picture maybe too much to death.

So the changes you worry about as occuring in Scn, at the events, these whole huge swings in this direction or that, realize that the top managment guys in Exec Strata, CMO Int, and input from the really astute RTC members into top management's head reminding top management, for instance, here's a wild guess scenario: RTC top guy looking at a submission from Exec Strata on how to complete execution of some 1983 advice from LRH, RTC guy writes or says to the Exec Strat guy: "Hey, what about that '76 advice from LRH to the CO FSO, about blah blah blah. Why the hell isn't that included in your solution. Get that handled and fix your submission and get this submission back to me." Exec Strata guy, goes off, digs up the FSO Executive Directive issue, figures out how to stick it in his proposal, and "wha-la" the proposal gets approved, it is STANDARD, and gets implemented, and some new "change" hits everyone's lines and the public see some new "change" in the orgs.

That's how it happens.

-------------------------
*************************
--------------------------

Additionally (this is me talking today, live), on the LRH books that got revised in the late 80's, ALL the changes were done by the compiler staff in RTRC (Ron's Tech Research and Compilations Branch, which is located in Senior C/S Int Office, which is division of CMO International uplines). There's another defector named Ken Rose, who was in RTRC when the books were being worked on, I believe, and someone today may want to hunt up what he's written on this. Another person who's since blown RTRC and may also know about the changes in the LRH books in the 80's, is Mickey Lipton, wife of Kenny Lipton, both of whom have blown and I think are NOT in good standing. Mickey would be a great source on EXACTLY how the books got done. She was the senior over RTRC when I was there in 88-early 89 (I got RPFed for producing an overt product and no-product OEC Checksheet, in Feb 89.)

My understanding, I came late on the scene AFTER the LRH books were all revised, is that the RTRC Compilers, and I think Dan Koon (who is a very exceptional guy, very good person, one of my favorite all time Sea Org members, and my senior for a very short time when I myself was a total beginner at RTRC in Nov and Dec 1988 when I was posted myself in RTRC for a very short time), Dan I believe worked on several of the books. I think Sue Koon, his wife (also an exceptionally nice person in my opinion), also did a few of the books.

The procedure RTRC compilers, of which Dan and Sue Koon were, is verify that everything written in the existing book, is actually written by LRH. They fix all typos, they have a whole checklist of things to do, and their guideline checklists are checklists of actions that LRH specifically ordered these RTRC compilers to do. LRH had for decades relied on others to write issues for him. He specifically wrote advices and despatches to them in the early years, of exactly WHAT he expected of them. He even lays out exactly HOW to to write like he writes! LRH has a characteristic format for his HCOBs, which he lays out how to duplicate his format, in a specific advice to the RTRC compilers, so that they write material into the format that duplicates his style and technique.

LRH further comments on how books should be done.

He gives numerous advices, and RTRC MUST follow his guidelines, or else they are "toast", and believe me RTRC catches shit if they do any bonehead work in LRH's name.

Every change that the RTRC compilers made in the late 80's to the LRH books were ALL based on specific and general LRH advices.

I came in at the tail end, when the books were all done, but I overheard a number of conversations of Dan and Sue and others in RTRC on related matters, and got the rough feel of how they operate in trying to comply with LRH's orders for how to ensure LRH's writings are the way he wishes them to be.

Believe me, there are EXTENSIVE LRH guidelines for them, and all of the personnel in RTRC that have ANYTHING to do with the written words that are attributed to LRH, go through myriad checks and assurances that things that come out in print, ARE the way LRH wanted them. LRH made sure of this, and there are a series of approval terminals, who all themselves had to attest that everything IS per LRH's intentions.

(In my opinion, the major screwsups that appear in LRH materials that were compiled for him are MOST OFTEN traceable back to LRH's slapdashedness or LRH's incompletedness himself, rather than the RTRC Compiler's faults. Although, if and when the best of the RTRC Compilers retire OUT of the Scn movement and voice their opinions on this matter someday, that would be the ultimate in finding out the truth of my somewhat educated guess, but I could be way off too.)

I am not saying RTRC compilers don't still make mistakes, because I think that mistakes still might have occurred.

But I observed that they took extensive care to try to get it the way LRH asked them to do it.

And I saw NO evidence of top exec (like DM) trying to interject some personal influence that intentionally altered LRH's works.

Ken Rose would be an excellent authoritative source on this.

Dan and Sue Koon, should they EVER defect, would be excellent authoritative sources on this.

A man named Fred Albach, who did this before Dan and Sue Koon, and I believe Fred is in good standing and in the LA area today, but should he ever defect in the future, he'd be an excellent source of the life and times, at RTRC.

Over the years, there have been about 50 or more people who were entrusted to work and did a good job at compiling LRH's written works into the various issue types that LRH's works appear in today, and the books, who would know far more in detail, what I have outlined above, and could comment even more accurately than what I have said above.

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

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



Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:08 pm:

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

Chuck,

Did you ever hear of the fallout within the ranks when BE turned out to be such a stinker? I asked around at the time and was given the standard, "Well, there was a major SP on the lines at the time". Yeah, and he's still there to this day.

Any fellow RPFer there as a result of this?

Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 7:44 pm:

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

Dear No 8C now,

I know one person who went along with the shoot crew for the BE movie, and later got RPFed, some time afterwards.

I was in the RPF from 96 till 2003, and BE movie came out in 1999, so my info came via the RPFers who arrived, and debriefed.

The movie is recognized as a failure internally, unofficially. Realize staff are NOT necessarily as bright as wogs in critquing the nuances of films, movies, etc. There are NO official persons in the church of Scn who have some job to digest the wog reaction to the church, and put out the official church line. So I heard mostly negative things about the movie, and polite silence, and I heard NO excuses, no "who's" being blamed. Sorry. I only heard bad opinions of the movie. I heard one story that a Sea Org member from Bridge, a girl, won the $200,000.00 ticket lottery, and she didn't get the money! Had a wog won that ticket, the wog would have had to have been paid the $200,000.00. She was rightly pissed! What a fascade of hype.

Again, in Hollywood, ASI in 20 years can do another version, and do a better one, next time. I could care less though.

I'm reading "Religion Inc." by Stweart Lamont. I hihgly recommend this book! And I recommend all of the works listed on :
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/index.html

I highly recommend people reading their way through these best of the best references on the Scn movement. They correctly cover EVERY angle of the Scn movement.

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

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



From: ""
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: How Harassment Works
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:35:41 -0800

friendship wrote:
>
> ... The only thing is
> disconnection is a potent control mechanism that the C of S uses to
> keep its staff and members in line. Do you think they can afford to
> relinquish it?

Yes, not only can they afford this, but they won't ever gain wide acceptance until they do drop their extreme SP policies.
Best, Chuck Beatty



From: ""
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: F/Ns - Floataing needles on the meter in Hubbard's own words.
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:53:58 -0800

roger gonnet wrote:
> De: "friendship"
> Objet: Redefinition of what a Floating Needle is
> Date: mardi 18 janvier 2005 01:04
>
>
> HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1976
>
> > (REVISED - see HCOB 10Aug76R Volume XI - 238)
> R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN
> " . . . . smoothly slowly move the tone
> arm back and forth about 2 times a second without any roughness and
> the same distance right and left, you will have a Floating Needle."
>
> Now, try it if you have still a meter, and I guarantee that the
movement you'll get on the dial will never look as an F/N! It
>looks exactly as a Rockslam,
>I wrote to "Ron" that there was an eror in that
> bulletin, and that the sentence should probably read "... once every
>two seconds" instead of "about two times a second", some asshole
>"secretary" signing his/her letters "Ron" by hand wrote back that
>I should go to the ... cramming etc.

Dear Roger,

Everyone above you in the tech command hierarchy mindlessly justified this "tech" issued in LRH's name, and rest assured that they all weighed questioning this definition, and realized they risked getting the same or worse treatment that you got, and they all decided to let that sleeping dog lie!!! Good for you though man!!!

As you probably already know, this faulty definition was eventually officially superceded, a few years later, when the definitive HCOB on floating needles came out to handle ALL of the definitions of a floating needle.

I think most people thought LRH was just not hitting on all cylinders that day when he wrote what he wrote above.

I also think because no one at that moment (nor at any other moment that I know of) in the Scn movement was allowed to occupy the level of responsibility and ability to bring this to LRH's attention in a way that LRH could correct this so it made sense, BEFORE that definition was issued, it shows LRH had isolated himself from being "corrected". The only other possibility for this goofy definition of F/N is a Barbara Schwartz scenario, which ironically LRH was prone to support such theories.

(Had LRH been immediately shown his goof, and had Barbara Schwartz been there at the moment this goof was reported to him, I think she and he would have been in great agreement on how this goof really occurred. Barbara may not realize how well she keeps LRH's own legacy of his demonstrated paranoia alive. Or maybe I just never got that Barbara is a super advanced joke against LRH himself.)

Realistically if any of the top tech terminals at Flag in 1976 would have abruptly (like immediately right after this HCOB was issued) brought this goof to his attention they for sure would have likely been risking their necks!

In fairness, though, like I said above, and as you already know, I think it was someone in Snr C/S Int Office who eventually handled this, by proposing and getting approval on the HCOB that superceded all the weird definitions of floating needle, due to all the clamor that resulted from this weird F/N definition and the earlier definitions of F/N.

But it took about 3 years, after this above HCOB, which was a long time to have confusion going on around such a key needle phenomenon. (Fred Albach would know on the resolving HCOBs in the late 70's, that resolved the F/N definition!)

To me, your bringing up this goof, really cuts into the movement deep. It shows how difficult it was for anyone to stand up to LRH on his obvious goofs (or it shows how a Barbara Schwartz scenario was equally difficult to detect and handle if there "really" was an infiltrator screwing up things).

LRH's relationship with the movement was problematic. His set up filters on things coming to him, and his arrangement of his top technical aides at the time of this 1976 HCOB above was problamatic.

He didn't set up safe procedures for his followers to interact with him, without risking their necks, to catch his own major screwups. That is the crux of this above HCOB goof in my opinion.

Well, at least now LRH is gone, and there won't be any more bonehead ideas coming down the lines for the Scn execs to deal with! They only have to deal with the ones he's has already peppered the Scn movement with.

Chuck Beatty

PS: Man, once some of the bigger fish defect in the future, they will have some bizarre bizarre anecdotes to tell about RTC tech terminals at the Int Base ordering arbitrary "tech handling/crammings" for similar questions and other related tech screwups.

PPS: Have you ever heard about the "Sand Bag" handling that RTC issued on all the Int Base tech terminals who were miscalling Floating Needles, in the early to mid 1990s? All Int Base tech persons calling F/Ns had to undergo a "sandbag" handling (have actual sandbags placed on them, simulating the effects of the mental mass they piled on their pcs by virtue of miscalling F/Ns on their pcs), which was completely Pavlovian!

PPPS: There was also a fad for RTC to order multiple M-9ing of KSW #1. Like 7 times M-9ing KSW #1 in a row! Imagine what M-9ing KSW #1 seven times in a row does to you mentally. KSW #1 and your mind, meld, with unimaginable results!

Thanks again very for bringing this up today. Only us here, outside the movement have the freedom to discuss this.

Chuck Beatty



From: ""
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Who knows the details on the Scn movement, tips for observers.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:59:50 -0800

AVC (Authorization, Verification and Correction unit) is the unit at the no longer secret Int Base, at Gilman Hot Springs, outside Hemet and San Jacinto California.

AVC is a 3-6 man administrative unit (a unit in RTC) where the Scn movement reviews and gives the okay on all issues, writings, films, tapes, videos, programs, strategies, and promotion that goes out broadly to the public.

AVC is about a 3-6 man unit, variously posted over the years with at least 3 people, and up to 6 or so people.

About 30 people have held positions in AVC over the past 2 decades.

My guess is that 80% are no longer at the Int Base, and some have completely moved out of the Sea Org.

These AVC people had to read and give official church authorization to all the then written issues, programs, planning, and EVERY administrative and technical order issued that the church staff operate and use in the recent years.

Everything the church is trying to do, all their programs, all go through AVC for approval.

So, if anyone wants to hear about what is REALLY on the church's minds these days, the former AVC personnel, who are now OUT of the movement, any full-blown defectees, will have a wealth of info.

One person is Mariette Lindstein, a Swedish lady, mentioned by the RPF insider some months ago.

Anyone in Sweden want to encourage her to speak out, and a wealth of insider data could be gotten, should she wish to speak.

Mariette worked in AVC for a number of years, she had been a WDC Member for years before that. She's been the head of the middle management organization at the HGB for a while also.

She was RPFed in the later part of the 90's and apparantly today, is in Sweden, out of the Sea Org.

If she someday crosses the line, and posts her experiences, she would be a MAJOR MAJOR source of insider data, because she worked in RTC and in AVC for years, and knows an unbelievable amount of inside administrative information.

In a week's time AVC sees probably 100-300 issues and particles, which they must authorize. All angles of ALL major strategies and programs, and handlings, for ALL aspects of the movement, ALL must be approved via AVC, and Mariette has overseen ALL important writings and issues by the movement in her years in AVC.

Even the lowly clerks who have held positions in AVC will have seen (although will not have always read and understood) the issues going through AVC for approval.

Also all the Committees of Evidence (church justice procedures), including the Findings, which are the crux of all the Scn Sea Org justice matters at the Int Base, highest echelon, go through AVC also.

The personnel who've worked in AVC are all RTC staff, and thus vetted severely.

Should any of them talk in the future, a wealth of insider data will be available.

Again, I notice a lack of former RTC or even Int Base personnel coming out and talking.

This is a reminder to any who are occassionally reading ARS, that if in the years to come they wish to add to the behind the scenes history of the Scn top levels, their stories will be greatly appreciated by current Scn movement observers and by future researchers.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Jan 2005 22:37:23 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 21 2005 10:37 pm
Subject: Re: Who knows the details on the Scn movement, tips for observers.

[email protected] wrote:

> You mean to say, some of them Gilminers don't like working in the
> Castle?

That's right. The staff working in the very small unit called AVC, only about 3-6 people total, used to work in the building called "Del Sol" at the Int Base, and you can see that building in the aeriel photo at

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

Del Sol is building J

I think today that AVC has moved to either Building L (the new CMO Int building) or to Building F (the new RTC building).

The castle you will see is the huge huge building marked simple "The Castle (movie stuff)" in the aeriel photo site of the Int Base, above.

AVC is a small, but powerful vetting overseeing unit at the Int Base. Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Jan 2005 22:20:03 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 21 2005 10:20 pm
Subject: Ex-Int Base RPFers' unique sad dreams /
Offer to post short diary notes

From Nov 2000 till Mar 2003 (and I am sure it still exists today) in the PAC RPF, in the Lebanon Hall, second floor, there is a specific dorm ONLY for former Int Cleared (which means people who were posted uplines at the Int Base), but who are now on the PAC RPF. About 15 of the former Int Base men live in that dorm. The reason for such a separate dorm, is so former Int Base staff can chit chat, and not worry about being "out-security". Realize while we on the Internet know about the Int Base, its location and many details, the normal Sea Org members who have NOT been to the Int Base, know nothing about it, and it and all things about the Int Base are considered confidential still.

(This is another one of the ironies of the Sea Org, where wogs know more details about the fabian Int Base than do the lower echelon Sea Org members who've put in decades of duty to the Sea Org and never had the privilege of going to the Int Base.)

Yet wogs can read all about it (including an aeriel photo of the secret Int Base with building labels now, http://www.lermanet.com/image/hemet-labeled.jpg).

But back to the Los Angeles, PAC RPF, in this PAC RPF "former Int Base staff" male RPF dorm, one of the unspoken, meaning suppressed, topics, is the spousal divorce. All the married men in that dorm, whose spouses remained at the Int Base, all had either already divorced or were in progress divorcing.

Women and men coming down from Int (exceptions are the Hodens and Bennets and Epsteins who appear to be new trend--these three married pairs came down together), otherwise from 2000-2003 all the other men and women coming down to the PAC RPF from the Int Base have had to divorce their spouses.

I firsthand asked several guys when I was living in that all-male ex-Int Base staff PAC RPF dorm, 2000-2003, about their divorces, and confirmed it first hand.

Not a single separate individual who was married (formerly married) to an Int Base staffer stayed married. All marriages ended in divorce. No exceptions. Women and men, and most divorces were happening BEFORE they came down.

I don't know of others still coming down from Int if they are still being pressured to divorce, that would need to be checked into. But it is almost certainly the case.

Dorm chatting in the ex-Int Base male dorm, on the subject of the divorces, from 2000 - 2003, was a very hot suppressed subject. I hated seeing some of my most respected long term Sea Org member pairs broken up. One marriage I particularly hated to see get split up I hate to mention the pair's name, but that pair I for years held up in my mind as a great marriage, as their sons were also Int Base staffers. So seeing that one marriage break up was sort of another one of the straws about the Sea Org that added to the camel's hump breaking for me too.

It is a sad moment when I heard several of the young guys hoping beyond hope, to graduate the PAC RPF, do well at the PAC level, then get their Int Clearances, and rise back up to being posted at Int, and then hoping someday to remarry their spouse that they had to divorce from. That was really a uniquely sad dream to overhear, but I overheard it.

(I believe they eventually get over it, and realize it just ain't gonna happen, readjust, and marry locally, and probably with someone who similarly was busted down from uplines, which is a sensible way, in their contexts.)

I am coming up on my two year anniversary of breaking free from my 7 years in the RPF, and my 27 years in the Scn movement. (I left the Sea Org from the PAC RPF on Mar 29, 2003.)

(Anyone interested in having me post my diaries, I have very shorthand diary notes of my last 30 days in the PAC RPF before I was finally let go from the Sea Org. I kept shorthand diaries, and I was not made to turn these diaries in before leaving!)

Chuck Beatty



From: "" Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Old ARS post about "Suppressive Persons" Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:26:31 -0800

Thanks for this. I have had many thoughts about this subject.

(A trained Scn member will observe the non-sequiterness of my following thoughts, sorry, I just need to improve my editing abilities, and so many thoughts arose as I wrote and rewrote the below. I don't consider my non-sequiterness as LRH does. I just need to improve my editing skill! Bear with my disjointedness.)

To me, it is almost a trick to only offer the criterion that LRH lays out, to paint what an SP is.

It is simplistic, and does NOT truly help the Scn movement's mission.

For instance, we all agree that the people in the Scn movement, one for one, are generally all good people. No one in the anti-Scn community would really have any problem living and working with ANY Scn member or Sea Org member, if they had to live and work with them, minus the quirky rules and restrictions in the Scn world or Sea Org.

LRH's definition of SP is a working organizational convenience, I believe. LRH tries to actually convince us that there is something deep-seated in people's personal makeup, that brands them as an SP. That is simply untrue. (The people who arrive at a Scn movement organization's doors are willing and decent people inherently, and would NOT be in the seriously devious criminal category, or minimally in the "want to do better in life" category of people!)

It has taken me quite some contemplation to separate myself enough from LRH's extensive views on SP, and look at people and life circumstances enough, to see that his characterisation and views are simply artificial. They are NOT fact.

I have now spoken and emailed about 1/3 of the "heavy duty" supposed current enemies of the Scn movement, by these I mean the people listed on the Religious Freedom Watch site.

None of the people I have spoken to are SPs in LRH's definition. All these persons are polite, kind, logical, well-spoken, forgiving, and just regular people. They are NOT SPs. Not a single one of them.

The SP ideas are LRH's opinion, and I and everyone is entitled equally to our opinions. That LRH wrote his opinions into policy, I myself was waiting, in vain, hoping to read that researchers, scholars and academics would someday (I was in for 27 years in the lifetime staff category in the Scn movement), I was waiting, hoping for academics and scholars to confirm LRH's views were testing out true in the broader world. It unfortunately is NOT coming to pass. And once you break out of the mindset, and break out of the limiting parameters of LRH's opinions, expose yourself to the greater intelligence of the people and thinkers of our current world, and to the great minds in earth's history, I am confident ANYONE will then conclude LRH's ideas will never receive the broad approval LRH and those in the Scn movement hope someday they will receive. It unfortunately is NOT possible for LRH to get broad acceptance and approval, due to the flawed nature of LRH's opinions. All his good statements and "high theta goals" statements of course do get approval. Who could really disagree with those. I don't and most people have NO disagreement with the Scn movement's good stated intentions. (It is a validity problem, do the Scn claims actually work, and the opinions about the effectivenes and validity of the Scn movement claims, is certainly a subject that can and will always be discussed.)

For instance, you take a former Scn member or former Sea Org member, who has accumulated years and thousands of small experiences while hanging out in the Scn movement, and those accumulated moments they find they disliked about Scn practises or related Scn brought about experiences. So the former Scn movement people want to complain about those less enjoyed moments in their lives.

Nothing wrong with that particularly. The point is really, people can bitch and moan and compare how bad things are compared to other moments and experiences in their lives. That is all that is truly going on. (Of course some complaints are pretty bad, and the bigger the complaint, the more intense the emotions are surrounding it.)

LRH comes along and wants to shut up the complainers and moaners, and he dreams up all the rules and definitions to just coral these individuals, and even rules to eject the whiners and moaners and dissenters. He thinks he is doing good in the world, and he's a prolific writer, pumps out the wordage, and packages his ideas into policy and books that the accumulated followers of his ideas now have to adopt, and that's how everyone got into the whole SPism is the root of all man's (and LRH's) problems.

I am sure a very very few of the anti-Scn complainers may also have committed some illegal acts, that might be prosecutable, BUT that is true also of the hardworking people inside the Scn movement. There are people IN the movement with checkered pasts, who are not whiners and moaners and complainers who ALSO have committed some illegal acts.

LRH heaping all these listed characteristics on the supposed SPs, those same characteristics apply momentarily, and LRH even admits this, to normal people who are Scn supporters. It is convenient self-serving, and his attempt to protect him and his followers efforts to their good efforts which they sometimes stumble at accomplishing, and they need someone and something to blame, so LRH chose to add the "SP" angle as a way to single out why things went wrong in certain circumstances.

So, a careful thinking through of all the things LRH says about the SP and looking and comparing, I came to the conclusion that the same things apply to everyone. People have all manner of capabilities moment to moment, to do good, get distracted from their task at hand, desires for things, and in the mix, anyone can almost blame a mixture of any combination of the multitude of factors in life as the reason why events transpire, good and bad. SP rules are witchhunting, a practise LRH in other places in his works, he admonishes. Yet his SP rules are witchhunting, in my opinion.

LRH got away with a lot, because he has a whole body of people all pretty much sold and happly on his massive package of ideas, but those ideas, when you unravel them, are majorly just his convenient opinions, that support the huge bubble of the movement. Maybe not a bubble, since it takes quite a lot of thinking (or possibly a massive one-time dropping) of his ideas to unravel onself from them.

People can only absorb so many things at any given moment, and LRH tends to dish our a LOT of ideas, one after the other, leading listeners and readers on and on, up and down mental logical paths, that through the shear volume of ACCUMULATED inflowed concepts, overwhelms the readers or listeners logic, and then one sort of absorbs LRH's whole view of the world.

I went down that path, and it was an accumulation of years and years, daily reading, daily being exposed to the Scn movement rules (as a staff member was my decades long path).

The layers and layers of interlocking LRH ideas that I have accumulated, do eventually unravel.

I greatly appreciate the daily discussions and links to the great anti-Scn sites where the illogicalness of LRH's works are daily exposed on ARS and the other anti-Scn sites.

The SP doctrines and thoughts of LRH, my critical jogging moment, when I realized LRH was being very convenient and self-serving in his views, was after listening to LRH's taped lecture, given in summer 1966, which I urge ALL who wish to see the impermanence and the "taking advantage of the situation" ability of LRH, is the taped lecture called "About Rhodesia". I think this is a critical LRH lecture to listen to, because the comments LRH makes about SPs, are crucial to giving you an idea of how LRH "flip-flpped" on the definition of SP. This tape was a major blow to the validity of LRH's logic and research and his later written and taped lectures on the subject of SP.

Myself, as the years rolled by in the Sea Org, as I lived through the late 70's, 80's, and into the 90's, as I slowly evolved in my views, learning more in my staff hatting over the years, comparing and justifying what LRH wrote over the years, to maintain my mental support of LRH and the movement as I lived and kept myself in it all, here is a rough breakdown of my "dub-in" of what happened.

LRH in 66 concluded there really are only a few really rotten apples in life, and those are his "SPs" In summer 66 he thought real SPs are only the worst of the worst, and he concluded that at Saint Hill there really weren't any that should be categorized like that.

Back at Saint Hill, summer of 66 on, he had to deal with more and more incompetance around him, in the staff there, and he flip-flopped, and changed his mind, thinking all the staff goofs must be due to more than just stupidity, thus he went hardcore back into the SP idea, that SPs were more prevalent.

He went on this way in his thoughts through the first couple years in the Sea Org, until the 70's when he swung back to noticing "unhattedness" and the "real whys" behind people's screwups. The Data Series was a slight reprieve for the othewise labelled "SPs".

But his "SPs" are just his reaction to his frustration with not being able to deal with those around him, over the years, his way of blaming others, for things not going right like he wanted.

No one disagrees with Scn's high purpose goals for mankind, and the advances the Scn movment makes and the cooperation they receive are because these goals are shared by all people.

All the cruddy anti-people rules that LRH laid out, are actually just like the bad press that LRH complains bitterly about. All the bad LRH material should just be ignored, not read, not applied.

I lasted as long as I did, because I basically as a Sea Org member, tried NOT to apply the bad LRH material, the lowtoned "blame the SPs for everything" mentality. (I never agreed that the people being declared as SPs and ousted werer actually bad people. One for one, there was not one single person I met who was a Scn member who I would call what LRH would call them, an SP!)

Hatting, apprenticing under good experienced and uptone people, that works. Educating, vocabulary increasing, improving literacy, who can disagree with any of that. Luckily in the years in the movement I was most involved with things of this nature.

The Scn movement would be best to only concentrate on hatting, training, apprenticing, uptone dealings with people, all the LRH "high theta goals" activities, and just drop all the LRH lower toned responses which he embedded into his rules and regulations for the Scn movement.

All of us on the outside know Scn members who basically were "uptone" and very forgiving (now there is a word LRH preempted OUT of the movement, the word "forgiveness", "forgive", and this is a MAJOR mistake, even though I am not a Christian, I wholely agree with the practise of "forgiving", it is such an instant defuser of rancor between warring factions and upset clashing people, a sad omission from the Scn lexicon), and we who were in Scn think the highest of those compassionate Scn members who were wise, knowledgeable, competent, etc. I think we on the outside agree that those nice people in Scn were nice despite, and not DUE TO, anything Hubbard wrote.

In the end I have observed that people are good because they are inherently hardwired that way. SPism is witchhuntism.

We who stayed in the moment and those still in it, are hanging on due to the good things that LRH borrowed from life, and wove into the movement. And due to people's goodness in general.

The goodness in the movement is out in the rest of the world, and it is actually a lot freer and better out here than it was inside. That is what I concluded in the end.

The SP paranoia does NOT help the Scn movement and only hinders the Scn movement's progress.

Best, Chuck Beatty




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

Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 1:09 am:

Chuck,

The old 70's VM handbook had some hilarious (unintentionally, of course) pictures. Is the guy pictured in this link a much younger Foster Tompkins?

http://www.modcult.org/img/splash/scientology-computer.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answered on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:34 pm:

Dear No 8C now,

The person in the picture is a great old time Sea Org member, named Chuck Murray. Chuck was one of my favorite's he is and was a great person. He genuinely lived an interesting life. LRH praised Chuck quite a bit, since Chuck was one of the great 1978-79 TRs Course Sups at Flag, but Chuck routed out, and today is an attorney, (he went out and got his law degree), in Long Beach Calif. I met Chuck one time, in 1989 or 1990, downtown LA by chance. He is in good standing as he routed out of staff in 79 or 80 I think. He was and is a very fair, warm, great guy.

I started to go through the current Scn Handbook and list page by page, the people in each picture, just for future historical reasons.

The same should be done on all the old WIS books, etc.

As a funny aside, that is why in the recent years they used pro actors more and more, as it killed two birds with 1 stone. They got better films, and they didn't have to worry about the staff in movies defecting in the future, and could avoid re-showing defectors faces year after future year.

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



Posted on Clambake Monday, January 24, 2005 - 3:14 am:

Hey Mick,

Sure Mari Baker was in AVU, and routed out, and later Al told me he ran into her in NYC, she wasn't declared, but she is NO supporter of Scn. She'd be a great source of a few stories, and it is persons like her, who I hope someday, write up their parts and observations, as there are thousands of angles to events, and for sure people remember all sorts of valuable little nuggets of events. Maz Whitcher too, she'd be interesting to hear from. Phoebe as you know, passed away, Phoebe had risen to a very very stable position in the end, in RTRC, as a compiler, and LRH relied on her for writing issues in her final position. I don't know much about her specifically other than seeing her physically in the RTRC space in the early 80's, like 83-84, and then having seen LRH address advices to her specifically, asking as he did when he wished issues to be written based on his traffic.

He knew when he had sent down enough traffic that constituted the type of material that should be preserved as "timeless tech" (LRH's words for what he ordered to be preserved in the approriate issue types). LRH for sure in the Int Base personnel, had accumulated years of procedures and trusted individuals to compile his works, carefully, following all his directions which he had been giving over the decades, into issues. He gave and placed a lot of trust in RTRC, and my opinion of those individuals, are that they are some of my favorite people, really good human beings, who worked on the jobs compiling and ensuring what LRH said, did get correctly compiled and presented in LRH issue form. Again, I NEVER perceived that there was some incorrect influence in slanting LRH's works in some deviously wrong fashion.

Again, again, I gave the names of the people, who I know about, people I met briefly in some cases, but people none the less, who can give even more info on the matter.

Also Michael, I answered in your RTRC post on Clambake, a whole big answer, which you can see on it.

Best, Chuck Beatty, Ex-Sea Org, 75-03



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 24 Jan 2005 22:47:13 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 24 2005 10:47 pm
Subject: Re: How Harassment Works

Anonymous wrote:

>NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Re: How Harassment Works

> Chuck I was in the RPF with you. I think you are a hypocrite when you speak of harassment. What do you think you are doing posting private and personal information about several people including myself? How would you feel if I started talking about your microscopic "thingy" which you appear to have compensated for by developing a big mouth?
> Please explain.
> Declared
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services. =====================

(My answer to the above:)

Dear Anonymous,

Good on writing what you did.

It took courage.

Hope you speak out some more. I'm sure people would like to hear more of your opinions, and it's a free country to speak what you want, out here at least.

I will never hold anything against you totally saying anything you wish about me.

I could care less if you FESed my pc folder, and ethics folders, and wrote whatever you please.

To me, it would just add rather than subtract to things.

If you want me to correct something I said wrong, go ahead, tell me here or in private, and I can correct it, if I was wrong. I got no problem on sorting out something like that.

In any case, please speak out, say whatever you want about me, and let it all out buddy!

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 24 Jan 2005 23:31:39 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 24 2005 11:31 pm
Subject: OSA attacks chuck beatty through fake anonymous ex-RPFer!

From: ""
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: How Harassment Works
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:24:43 -0800

Anonymous wrote:

> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Re: How Harassment Works

> Chuck I was in the RPF with you. I think you are a
hypocrite when you speak of harassment. What do you
think you are doing posting private and personal
> information about several people including myself?
. . . .>

> Please explain.

> Declared

> -=-

> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services. ----------------------------

Dear Anonymous (hello to the fake Declared OSA accomplice),

Write whatever you want on me. I give you full authority to try to dish out your dirty tricks.

It is another sad ongoing OSA sponsered tactic. As I was warned.

To the OSA accomplice:

1) You say you are Declared. Only someone in OSA or clueless about that status would MISS this goof, luckily this is something an OSA op person would not even spot the outpoint in that alone, and they don't see their own obvious goof, nor why. It is funnily the first thing that exposes this as an obvious OSA op.

2) You ask me to explain, when a real declared person would have experienced the lightening up freedom that accompanies being kicked out. You are all anger man, and real people are NOT the way you are faking it. OSA policy via Hubbard, is only attack, never take up the exact points to actually allow anyone to review the details and weigh if this speaker (or OSA speakers who engineer these responses, for sure minimally sidechecked and authorized by people in OSA). All the people who are not fakes, contact with at least a balance of ARC. You are obviously NOT declared, and NOT who you say you are. I have had so many real ex's and "suppressive" people contact me, and there is a niaivity and warmth and comraderie of the real people who are on the other side, and if you were declared, you'd have it too. But you don't. You're a fake. The genuine human emotion and feelings of people who got out, either routed out, got declared, etc., that human emotion OSA people don't know how to fake. Luckily for us who have crossed the line, OSA cannot fake the honesty that people who got ousted display. Lesson for you OSA people.

3) I expect with me saying this above, I will get a couple of the same people OSA has used so far to contact me, to re-contact me, within the next day or so. I will keep all informed. (I didn't bring up the names of specific obviously OSA directed people, but depending on who now contacts me in the next couple days, I will start laying out the OSA accomplices.)

4) I am reposting this, as I feel this is actually straightup, OSA subtrefuge, fresh silencing tactics.

Chuck Beatty



From: ""
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: RPFer's all study the HCO Manual of Justice
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:44:00 -0800

Part of the training lineup for RPFers is the Rollback procedure, which is based in theory, on the HCO Manual of Justice.

I recall in 1997, or so, when I did the TRD (Truth rundown) RDD (Read it, Drill it, Do it) checksheet on the Int RPF, that part of this RPF checksheet to deliver the TRD (Truth Rundown) includes the HCO Manual of Justice.

I was ecstatic to find this HCO Manual of Justice is webbed at an awesome site:

http://www.entheta.net/archive/go/man_just.htm

I recommend people who have not read this document, to read it.

It provides some of the theory basis for the Rollback procedure, which is the current today evolved procedure for tracking down where "destructive" rumors come from.

Anyways at least ONE place where Scn members are actively studying this LRH peice of written material, is on the RPF.

That was a fact, in my case. I suspect it might still be the case that RPFers, have to study the HCO Manual of Justice still, in doing their Truth Rundown checksheets, before they drill and then audit the TRD on each other.

TRD comes very early, like right after, usually, general case cleanup, on every new RPFer's case program.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 7:00 pm:

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

Michael,

I try to answer as best as I can, point by point below.

Chuck Beatty

[your questions] I guess I am really interested in this: How exactly is something verified as being written by LRH?

Answer: In the 80's, when CST was manned up, one of the CST staff's first projects, as you've heard I'm sure, was to gather ALL LRH "originals" which in my educated guess, these originals are kept at the one CST site that is closest to the Int Base. (There's an internet site with details of all of the 4 or so main CST sites in the USA, and the CST site which is somewhere near the San Bernadino Mtns, that site contains, my educated guess, ALL the actual LRH originals of his organizational writings. So CST as part of their project gathering the originals, also COPIED all original writings by LRH, and microfilmed them all. The microfilm (microfische, whatever they are called) are provided to RTRC. RTRC staff only look at the microfiched copied of all original LRH material. LRH's works come in various fashions. Sometimes there's a CSW, with LRH's signature on the CSW, sometimes LRH comments in his handwriting on the margins of the CSW. Sometimes the typed up issue (typed up by the compiler as the proposed issue) has LRH's comments and scratched out sentences clearly on it. Sometimes the typed up issue is all typed by LRH. ALL papers with writing on them, have some sort of LRH markings on them. I seem to recall the microfiched papers are ONLY ones with LRH's markings or are LRH typed papers. Some of course are LRH's handwriting. Like there is a huge long 1974 BPL (Board Policy Letter) regarding Refunds and Repayments, the whole damn "BPL" (it is really an HCO Policy Letter, but LRH wrote the whole BPL in his own handwriting, and this was a weird conundrum since no one was authorized to turn this BPL back into policy, since LRH intentionally wrote it as a BPL, so today people at Int in finance circles APPLY this policy, but it is not issued to public, since this issue has to be kept the way LRH wrote it, and he signed it Board of Directors, and no one is authorized to change what he wrote on it, a funny minor sidelight problem LRH's rules created). Anyways, whole issues and whole sections of issues are in LRH's handwriting too. And RTRC has these microfiche of all the LRH writings as described above. (I know nothing about the books. I never saw, because I was NOT in on any book cycles, how the books manuscripts, the originals, looked. That's why I gave so many people's names, who could very likely tell the details that I cannot.)

[your question] Did you personally SEE or participate in comparing the proposed issue or "compiliation" to handwritten *original documents* or was it just verified against transcripts or "copies" or (as I think has been reported) computer files that were supposedly transcripts made from tapes?

answer: Yes, I participated on a measly 3 or 4 LRH HCOBs, where I actually was apprenticing doing the actual checklist actions that the real compilers do. I did miserably, all my proposed issues got soundly rejected! I didn't have any bigtime issues to work on, I just got some leftover scraps, and those scraps were NOT worth putting into final issue form. Realize there is a massive list that RTRC had of ALL the old BTBs and HCOBs that include ALL of them, all that were NOT even LRH. When I was in RTRC, it was at the tail end of the project to ensure that NO LRH material was omitted. RTRC was digging up all old LRH writings, and issuing them. There were dozens and dozens, maybe a hundred or more, HCOBs that were being either released, or fixed up majorly, due to what was found when all the original material was looked at (original material being the materal dug up in the early 80's and sent to Archives, which was microfiched, and which RTRC had ONLY on microfiche, as RTRC does NOT have any originals, only the microfiche copies.) So I did do some actual nuts and bolts, go through the motions, check the microfiche, and all the other little steps to ensure whatever I got, was okay to issue as LRH. What scraps I worked on, 2-3 of the issues, could not be confirmed as LRH, and 1 other was questionable, and I made the monumental goof of proposing something, that Jeff Walker, or another senior, informed me was NOT LRH, but in fact MSH, and I truly made this goof. So yes, I was eyewitness, myself, as a newbie, admittedly green RTRC compiler, and I had questionable old, like 1963 Director of Processing type HCOB instructions, which others, and Jeff Walker himself back on the Apollo had done some serious compiling back then, and so had some track on being a succesful compiler of LRH's materials, on the ship, and so my 1 proposed HCOB was blown away. I didn't get in massive trouble for it, but later when I did get in more serious trouble, this goof was brought up, and if you had access to my CMO Int staff member ethics file, I think you might find mention of this goof, of mine, when I proposed this questionable "HCOB" that was likely MSH or some other Saint Hill Dir of Processing's writing, and so yes, this give you some light on a possible goof. But belive me, Jeff Walker rightly caught my goof. I was pretty much a bit of a "air brain" at times, and I honestly should not have proposed that stupid issue in LRH's name, that was pretty bad. The scraps of material I had to research and verify or not, all were NOT of the level to turn into "timeless tech", and label as LRH.

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

[your question] My concern is that there is NO way that ANY individual member of Co$ can apply a fundamental point of KSW: having the correct technology. Members are told that they have to *trust* that RTRC or AVC Int. are issuing only actual LRH materials. 19 years after 'ole commodes vistaril induced death, *NEW* issues are still coming out that revise longstanding issues and books.

answer: LRH orders regarding issues and his writings ARE source to the appropriate people. I don't have all the policy to show you, since I don't have a set of OECs here, but I can tell you LRH ordered people at the upper echelons to do his writing for him, and he ordered the units that exist, and I saw the 80's traffic from LRH, specifically saying what to do. As a failed RTRC compiler, I was only there a few months, and produced NOTHING of value that was issued, I did get fully hatted, saw and used the checklist which is all based directly on LRH's years of accumulated orders to the compilers, of exactly what to do. Issues that are questionable, sometimes in the old 70's HCOBs there were up to half a dozen revisions by LRH, over the years, and the timetrack on changes was pretty significant to follow, and all the old copies are of course kept. Sometimes LRH writings and comments were NOT done right back then, and that is another reason, another part of the checklist I was following in the late 80's, to verify, for instance, that the issue being verified, that all additional LATER LRH writings that directly bear on that issue (in the case of an issue it was pretty simple, as LRH would just have specifically referred to that issue by name or date), was correctly included. I did NOT do ANY of this type of verifying, but I saw others who had done that type of thing. Dan Koon I think was the main man on that type of thing. Realize I am talking about things in the late 80's, like 88-89 only, is what I saw when I was there. (Why don't you email me, if you need more, or if this brings up too many questions.)

[your question]How can one *trust* that RTRC is not inventing, or passing on the inventions of others?

Answer: Yes, even though I am not a fan of LRH anylonger, I personally trust RTC and Senior C/S Int Office not to interject any personal slants into LRH's works. I do not think they are capable of getting away with that. I was NOT in DM's circle, nor Pat Broeker's cicle, and was a lowly RTRC soon to fail compiler. Better to ask Jesse Prince, Vicki Aznaran for that type of point. The day to day tech, neither Ray Mitoff nor Jeff Walker were doing anything weird, that is NOT what I observed. DM when I was there, had not yet delved into the tech issues, and left the responsibility up to Ray as the final arbiter on any newly revised or newly compiled LRH issue or material.

(Editing of LRH lectures, again LRH gives guidelines of what to cut out, on taped lectures, that is where, but I was NOT involved, nor do I recall who in RTRC did the tape lectures or even if any were being reviewed when I was there, I don't recall anything on exactly, but I knew from reading the RTRC full hat, which has all the LRH advices, issues on compiling, I recall reading LRH saying a few things about tape editing. Not only that, but people who've heard the old lectures, the unedited tape lectures, recall LRH saying a number of times, right after he'd made some comment, to edit that comment OUT of the lecture that later would be copied and sold to public. So granted there is more play on lectures, for RTRC or Snr C/S Int, or DM or whomever approves the final tape lecture, to mess around and take something out, than in normal HCOBs for instance. Again, there are LRH guidelines, and NO ONE in the lineup of people who compile, review, sidecheck, approve these LRH materials, NO ONE steps outside the guidelines that I know of. It would be suicidal in those settings, people get busted for that type of stuff.)

[your question] Especially when it is vividly apparent that both hubbard and his top cronies and yes-men lied and fabricated SO much about scientology, its bogus "church" status and his personal history.

Answser: (I cannot say since, I didn't see this. When David Mayo was there, I don't know exactly how it went. I have other extensive opinions, in favor of David Mayo, not relevant here. But it is possible in the context you are speaking of above, that during David Mayo's time, there were abuses of authority, and HCOB tech issued without LRH's sidecheck, and those HCOB's were mainly writings of David Mayo. I know only what I've read, no direct experience. But as of the time I was there, the only suspect issues I doubted were the HCO PLs called Admin High Crimes. While I had NO direct support for my opinion, my opinion is that these were LRH ordered (and only possibly, I had doubts that he even ordered these issues directly), and my gut feeling was that that series about Admin High Crimes, were not LRH directly written. If you wish to send me some detailed observations on particular issues, but realize man, we are outside. Only the guys in RTRC, inside, can say for sure man. Sorry, I have a pretty good memory, but I wasn't exposed to issue by issue by issue, I wasn't there long enough, and didn't build up that big of a memory bull pen on the thousands of issues, and each of their histories. But rest assured, someday, if a new compiler who has gone through all these steps, with the thousands of LRH HCOBs and hCOPLs and other other issues (there were compilers working on projects on the various issue types over the many many years, so the potential of finding out details from them, should they have defected and be willing to detail further), so sorry, I wasn't there that long in RTRC to have seen any specifics. I did see the filing cabinets full of the various issue submissions, which contained the checklists of LRH guidelines for reviewing, and handling each issue, since each issue gets a manilla folder, checklist, all the supporting LRH copied originals, etc., etc., all the LRH source references related to confirming each issue is correct, I've seen dozens of folders, and looked into them like that myself. But I cannot give you the timeline on any. I'd need to sit down with someone, at RTRC, and start going through the filing cabinets. But realize, that is what the compilers jobs were, and they completed the review of LRH's materials for the HCOB volumes and HCOPL volumes years ago, BEFORE the new OEC and HCOB volumes came out. So all these statements I made about their procedures, and possible changes still to come out, I haven't been clear, sorry. There are almost NO changes coming out majorly now. They tried to handle all the Tech and Policy issues years ago, before the new OEC and Tech Vols were last issued. Sorry, I probably didn't make that important point clear.

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

[your question] If one cannot verify for oneself the veracity of these new issues, then KSW and the "verbal tech checklist" are not the bastions of legitimacy they were presented as.

Answer: Ah, well, LRH entrusted the job to the people I've given some details about. I trust those people. I was far from good at it, and was rightly busted out of the unit, I was RPFed in fact. So I'm an example of possibly what people who are followers, should be disgruntled with. I am sorry, I apologize, I should NOT have been elevated to the compiler position, my goofs on the scraps I did get to work on, I did mak serious mistakes, caught by others, proves that I was correctly removed from that unit. On the otherhand of course we can discuss whether LRH should even have entrusted this all to others, and should he not have done it all himself. This gets into some advices which relate to the actual organization setup of RTRC. RTRC was also entruste with piloting, or ensuring LRH's tech procedures were sufficiently tested, to then finally decide to put them into the timeless tech form for all to use. In the 80's many staff in orgs in some ways were parts of tech pilots run by RTRC. This whole angle of RTRC's job was also based on LRH's orders.

So LRH did even try to ensure the piloting and testing was sufficient.

I think LRH's intentions, and RTRC's intentions are unquestionably okay intentions.

I didn't see anyone evily subverting LRH's researches and writings.

Whether the setup is adequate, and the personalities who succeded and those who failed in this area, all of course directly relate to any problems that arose later due to faulty LRH materials, but when goofs in LRH materials were found, they were honestly worked on to be corrected.

I didn't experience any subversion of LRH's tech by anyone, that was intentionally done to intentionally harm LRH and Scn's goals. People through their personal frailties (that's how I justify my own failures there), and LRH, in the specific instances when he ordered something that sounded odd or contradictory, all added to the problamatic things we have today as LRH material. I think and give full credit to the guys at Int who I feel have and tried to get what LRH was saying right.

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

[your question] If anyone as a member of the Co$ cannot personally verify through some means available to them that a particular writing or issue or book is actually the work of hubbard, by seeing in person the actual handwritten issues, then I submit that KSW and all it stands for is long dead. There is no protection from alteration and complete distortion of the "tech".

answer: Okay, you are entitled to this conclusion. I don't think it has much bearing. There is so much of what LRH said and wrote that isn't distorted, that this question is for the most part, in my 27 years of experience, insignificant. More telling is what other critics say, which is the tech doesn't work at all. I am inclined to think this latter. I believe Scn is like a placebo operation, the goodness and uptoneness of staff do the most to buoy hurting people, and help them out.

I also have a funny view. Even though I don't like C of S, I respect them, and they goddamn for sure have the MOST of what LRH wrote. They got the crown jewels of L. Ron Hubbard's works. So my advice to people who love LRH, truly respect and want to be on LRH's side, even though I am now far far from being in agreement with LRH, I will tell you, the church of Scn has ALL the goods on LRH. It is no competition. If you are a Hubbard die hard, stickler for pure LRH, then grin and bear all of the rules, and go right into the heart and see if you can rise to the top where you see what THEY see inside, because they are the ones sitting there with the LRH originals, they have LRH. I am not an LRH supporter, I find many squirrels like David Mayo, I think I respect David as a human being and Julie, over a lot of other people in the Scn movement. Life is personality driven. In the end we decide on the basis of people we life and dislike. If you want the pure LRH material, rise up and be a CST staff member. Anyone reading this, automatically will never be allowed though.

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

[your question/comment] I'm saying this from my former viewpoint of being a Co$ member. I personally have no longer a need to know one way or another as so much of it, by hubbard or others, is complete crap. But it think it is important to those in, and the issue of if the issues are real and by hubbard or fabricated by others can be a key point, leading those in to discovering how much they have been lied to. Michael Leonard Tilse

anser: Well you are certainly entitled to your views and to voice them. Thanks!!

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

(next set of questions and answers)

[your question/comment] Well, I see that I might be being redundant. On re-reading your post, I see that compilations actually *DO* invent new issues. And that hubbard had others write issues too, under his name. No matter how many checks and ballances and "tech" on doing the new issues as "LRH intended", it still means that *other people* are writing them! And this is not known to the general SCN population.

answer: Okay, I am not sure the specifics of what you refer to, meaning specific issues. My big answer above might cover more details, but if you are still loaded with specific questions, email me, and then post my answer.

[your question/comment] And that blows out of the water the whole sacredness and integrity of HCOBs and HCOPLs, the trusted, relied upon statements that hubbard made that you can only trust *ron* and that the red bulletins and the green policy letters were ONLY written by him and could be trusted to be ONLY his writtings.

answer: Covered above. I guess I compromised quite a bit, since LRH did order people to do what they did. Thus his orders being turned into policy and tech, well, that is what the man said to do. What were people to do? No one in the Sea Org was about to say to LRH "Hey Ron! Great scarf you got on today there, ah, sir! How's your diet going? Oh, sorry. Well, say Ron, you know you asked Otto to write up the laws of listing and nulling for you, well, Otto wanted me to tell you that he feels sort of funny doing something that important, and wanted me to tell you that he'd really like you to do the Laws of Listing and Nulling. What say big guy?"

I think others will agree. There really wasn't an option to not following LRH's orders, and LRH is the one that directs what to do in this sensitive and important area of his published works.

[your question/comment] And the people who *DARE* to put out writings of their own under hubbards name are scum, suppressive persons and squirrels.

answer: I found that educating oneself in the broader world, read current thoughtful magazines (Newsweek, New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, New York Review of Books), read good newspapers, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, start reading books on the current minds of the leaders of the US and the world, and you will see LRH and Scn in correct context. Other men and women who have decided to also apply versions of tech that they borrowed from LRH and which LRH borrowed from them, it is totally part of the options to one in life. Scn as a movement has restrictions that are artificial and I am completely open-minded in the negative Scn sense, thus I think LRH's works are only to be compared to what else is in the world, and I don't any longer agree LRH's works are senior to all else that thinking man has produced and is still producing on earth.

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

[your question/comment] Thus we see that the whole fabricated charade surrounding David Mayo was a sham. David Mayo *DID* write NOTS. He *DID* write all those HCOBs that were later cancelled. The sham is that he wrote them with full approval of hubbard himself in the first place, as part of hubbards longstanding practice of having others write HCOBs and HCOPLs under his name.

The only thing that happend was that Mayo fell out of favor and left the "church" so the Co$ had to pretend that he was a squirrel and SP. Had he never left, scientologists would still have been reading, studying and getting examined on Mayo written issues, never being the wiser.

answer: Yes, you are very likely right.

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

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



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 27 Jan 2005 20:20:54 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 27 2005 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: Two ex-RPFers contacted me, assisting OSA data gathering, etc.

Red Drag Diva wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Earth mentions:

> In L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, an essay on Hubbard's literary career,

> Marco Frenschkowski of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz described the Mission Earth series:

> The satire is not humorous, but biting and harsh, which makes the
> novels not easy to read. Also Hubbard somehow had lost contact with
> developing narrative techniques: he writes exactly as he had done
> 40 years earlier. When read as entertainment Mission Earth is
> disappointing: it does not entertain. Many of the scenes
> (especially some sexual encounters) are incredibly grotesque,
> not in a pornographic sense, but they are violently
> aggressive about modern American ideals. The Mission Earth novels
> on the whole are a subversive, harsh, poignant attack on
> American society in the 1980ies. As such they has so far
> received almost no attention, which perhaps they do deserve
> a bit more. They also have some quite interesting characters,
> especially when read with a deconstructionist approach.
> These 11 later novels by Hubbard are not Scientology
> propaganda literature, but have some topics in common,
> especially the very strong opposition against 20th century
> psychology and psychiatry, which is seen as a major
> source of evil. All open allusions to Scientology are
> strictly avoided. They are not as successful in their
> use of suspense and humour as Hubbard's early tales,
> but have to say perhaps more about the complex personality
> of their author.

> Marco Frenschkowski: L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, Marburg
> Journal of Religion, Volume 4, No. 1 (July 1999)

Thanks RDD,

This review is for sure an exception where an intelligent wog took the time to review a good many of Hubbard's writings. I really appreciate intelligent reviews like this one!

When I got out of Scn, in Spring of 2003, I spent a lot of time at the LA Public Library, using their computer resources to search for what intelligent wogs have been saying about LRH and LRH's written works. I was disappointed, and it was another blow, since I had expected at least some wogs to "discover" LRH.

This above review is the type of thing I was looking for. Although I had really hoped that this type of intelligent review would have further gone on to find something actually in LRH's works that was "missed", and which somehow elevated LRH above what I earlier knew to be his already established position in the wog world, which is NOT one of high standing. He never rated anywhere near as high as he considered himself. This was disappointing to me, as a Sea Org member. I was hoping for him to earn higher marks from intelligent critics.

An intelligent and overall favorable review that was supportive of Scn's goals and Scn's progress towards its goals, would have better justified my early life decision to jump into the Scn movement (and stay with it for 27 years).

I've had to come to terms with intelligent people's opinions of Scn, which are at best cautiously lukewarm, and more realistically are bluntly and resolutely unfavorable.

Thanks very much, I appreciate your showing the link to this great review!

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Jan 2005 10:29:05 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 28 2005 10:29 am
Subject: Re: Two ex-RPFers contacted me, assisting OSA data gathering, etc.

Dear barb,

Thanks for your sacrifice. You know, in my opinion, LRH should have skipped trying to avoid putting his philosophy into his works, and just gone full bore and laid out his visions for the long range future of the world.

I don't know it you will ever get a chance to see the LRH Tech Film "Why TRs?", which is the one with Isaac Hayes starring as a cosmic narrator floating on a space platform way out in space, and Isaac has a special Sci-Fi telescope allowing him to peek in on any planet anywhere in the whole physical universe, and Isaac then gives out LRH's major whole track future briefing, to the audience. This Tech Film is reserved for the Briefing Course students.

This film would probably be a much more insightful work of LRH's to get into the public domain, giving really LRH's ideas about the bigger picture he envisions about the Scn movement, and for the level of dedicated people he hopes to inspire with the main Scn concepts to take up the banner of Scn and bring it broadly out into the universe, way beyond earth's sphere of influence now.

I wonder if there is actually any writings by anyone about such concepts that LRH implies in "Why TRs?"

Ai Pedrito, well, thanks for your sacrifice, is all I can say. I won't be re-reading that one anytime soon, and I barely remembered it.

Thanks for your remarks on it.

There is still room for someone to embrace all of LRH's really far reaching concepts, beyond our lives now, way into the whole future of the universe that LRH occassionally gets into, and see where those lead and see how LRH fits in with people who have said similar far reaching ideas in the past.

The reality of life I think shouldn't be wasted so trustingly, on these concepts of the massive inevitable future which people will return in future lives, per Hubbard, willy-nilly.

I had been living in full support of LRH and the Sea Org, and now I much rather enjoy the here and now, compared to always thinking about the broad broad eternity of good things that will come to pass way up the road (which if one is reincarnated into it willy-nilly, fully justifies one pushing along that opinion).

This opinion of the future inevitability of coming back endlessly into new lives in the future, this I now feel is a bit too much trust to place in a faith for the future, with not much proof.

Is says something about him, that he didn't put that concept, that I can recall, into any of his fiction works, as a reality. That says something about his caution, or says something, I don't know what.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - 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: [email protected] - 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.



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




Home. Index for all posts.

















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