Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, March 2005


Home

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Mar 2005 08:39:30 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 8:39 am
Subject: Defector's predicaments - coming out - Suggestions needed

One of the about half a dozen former Int Base staff, who want to write their experiences in the future, are currently in the same predicament that I was in.

When you route out of the Int Base or via the PAC RPF, like I did, you really have NO initial clue about the whole anti-Scn community, and no idea who to trust, who is an OSA accomplice, and there's an adequate amount of paranoia to prevent you from contacting people "on the other side".

I waited a whole year, and moved to another city, I "safepointed" all my relatives, briefed them that the movement might attack me back. I did all this for months, and over a whole year, I took it slow, building up the reality of my family, so they would not be shocked if Scn came after me in the known ways they have harrassed their former staff and critics in the past (again I must thank ALL who have put the info on the internet, it historically is a powerful help, and the dozens of good people who have put good info on it about LRH and Scn).

But still the problem, how to defect, how to leave one's Scn friends one is in with, who to hook up with people in the anti-Scn side of things, how not to incur the wrath of one's Scn boss, how not to offend blatantly one's Scn friend's feelings, since to me I realized I'd be creating a string of ARC breaks, because I know how I felt when the great former people in the Scn movement were ousted or ejected, it is a disappointment to see people drift out. Even if anyone remembers LRH's voice when he discussed in the 1959 Individuation tape lecture, people know that LRH was even, in those earlier years, emotionally sad to lose good people. LRH even uses the word good, in describing those people, who today, with the later rules, we know, these same people are unfortunately labelled SPs. (To me this LRH tape, when I re-listened to it, which I did about 20 times in my 7 years on the RPF, this tape is proof that people are in fact good, and the SP labels are simply labels, and the SP label is just evolved rules. People are still blowing, and those people are still good people. And not only are the people blowing good, I would argue that LRH to me, in that 1959 lecture, himself, was demonstrating a huge amount of compassion, which over the years, due to his own hampering accumulating rules, his own goodness showed itself in other ways, and he unfortunately left the Scn movement with rules prohibiting them exhibiting compassion he himself earlier did.

This to me is truly a sad longer range developement, which I think probably is similarly true in all the weirdnesses that the movement exhibits. My view is they will have to figure their way back out of those rules that shut down their inate humanness.)

Anyways, back to the point. I have people contacting me, with questions how to move out, how to get good jobs, how to find a safe location to speak their stories which they have concluded that the official Scn movement would harrass them were they to tell their lives!

1) Help getting jobs outside the Scn jobs they are already in.

2) Places to move to, they can afford, outside the Scn community they are currently in.

Good useful advice on these 2 points, will later on result in some people getting in positions to speak out.

(I chose working by high principled wog businesses or groups, I chose the Sierra Club, and activist groups, and newspapers, as good people to work for. Working with intelligent wogs, is to me, the best defense from official and unofficial Scn movement harrassing tactics.)

I'd like to hear people's years of good experience and opinions in dealing with these two initial problems that people coming out of the Sea Org, after having been in and round the top parts of the Sea Org for decades, what good suggestions people have.

Thanks, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Mar 2005 22:18:26 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 3 2005 10:18 pm
Subject: Re: Defector's predicaments - coming out - Suggestions needed

>Deo Morto wrote:

>I am not sure what can be done about this, Chuck. For it to be really
>effective a person would have to know before leaving the SO and I do
>not know of any way to achieve that. Management works very hard to make
>sure that any person thinking about leaving KNOWS that they are
>stepping into a world of pain and hurt, they are going down the tubes,
>they are kissing goodbye to any hope they have of making it, they are
>condemning themselves (and so on ad infinitum) I am not sure that
>management is going to allow someone to promote "well jeez, it's fine
>out here, really. A lot saner than the crap you have been through"..

>It is usually going to be a while before an ex even starts up on the
internet and starts searching around.

>How and when did you find out about ARS and xenu.net? You are one of
>the most recent leavers I know.

>Mick

I first found Lerma Net, because when I was in the RPF, in the late 90's the Freedom Mag articles stupidly mentioned Arnie, and I remembered Arnie's flap with Suzette back when it happened at the FLB years earlier.

So when I first got out, I spent a lot of time looking at LermaNet and that branched off all over the place. First couple of times on LermaNet, it hooks up to xenu, and there are SO MANY sites now, it is just overwhelming almost, which is also reassuring, since the anti-Scn info looks so permanently on the internet. It looked suddenly to me, when I first was looking, that there was a huge anti-Scn community of all various types of participants.

I started looking at anti-LRH and anti-Scn sites, while I was still on the RPF's RPF in March 2003. I had started sneaking a peek at the anti-Scn stuff then. I'd arranged to go to the library, and I had arranged to start using the internet while still routing out. I saw the huge number of anti-Scn links then, but when on the RPF's RPF route out special category, I limited my looking then to just the anti-LRH history stuff, since if I got caught, I could argue I was just doing "source" briefings on LRH's life (ha!)!

About May or Jun 2003, I got my own computer, and started looking at the confid OT 3 and NOTs stuff, that was a definite hump for me. But I just couldn't stop looking, it was too damn compelling, reading the info, there is SO MUCH good info, especially all the LRH material. That's when I started looking all over the anti-Scn sites, and I looked at them for a year before I moved to Pittsbrugh, and when here in Pittsburgh, in late July, I started posting.

(Have you written up the early IAS history yet? Cyprus!)

I encourage all the former Int Base staff to write whatever they can, and get it on the internet, since the head of the Scn movement resides at the Int Base. People observing the Scn movement can be informed of what directions things might be going, or what's behind the scenes in recent years there. Plus the whole history of the top of the movement needs to get written up for history's sake.

Best, Chuck



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Mar 2005 19:30:32 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 7:30 pm
Subject: Re: Defector's predicaments - coming out - Suggestions needed

> 1) Help getting jobs outside the Scn jobs they are already in.

> 2) Places to move to, they can afford, outside the Scn community they
> are currently in.

> Good useful advice on these 2 points, will later on result in some
> people getting in positions to speak out.

Anonymous answered me the following: GOOD TIPS

When I 1st left, I got jobs doing things I knew about, Call-In translated to selling professional magazines on the phone, things like "Agricultural Parts Trader", ""Airplane Exchange", Construction Industry Magazine, etc. Telemarketers are always hiring, and it is not a great job, but beats the hell out of selling a scam and there is no Thursday at 2 to worry about! I also got my real estate license, takes about 6 weeks and often the training is free through one of the large brokers, and anything in sales kind of relates to regging. I also sold Encyclopedias and learning materials to schools and churches, and magazines door to door. Then I decided to go back to college, and found there are many programs to help adults go back to college, whether for a degree or certificate.

I STRONGLY recommend staying away from "Trade Schools", on-line certificate programs, etc. Most are scams, and there was a recent "60 Minutes" show on CBS about this. I also read recently that some of the largest, ( CEC, Smartcertify, etc.) are associated with WISE, and Jerry DYAS (OT 8 from Clearwater) is one of the owners. Their certs are essentially worthless in getting a job, all you end up with is a huge student loan debt.

That said, the way to go is to enroll in your local community college and apply for financial aide. After working for $scn for years, you definitely qualify! I got Pell grants, State grants, and took out student loans. While attending school full time, I got a part-time job as a bartender/waiter in a nice supper club. I usually made 200 to 300 dollars a night working only Friday and Saturday. I doubled up on classes and did summer school and winter breaks for extra credit, and graduated in just less than 2 years. I saved money by living in a really cheap mobile home, hell I was never there anyway, and it was MUCH nicer than staff berthing!!! I started applying for jobs 6 months before graduation, and landed a really good one that I started right away while still a student. I continued part time in University even after graduating Community College to get promoted at work.

Also, I used my knowledge of real estate to buy a crappy house in a decent neighborhood using a government backed FHA loan. I lived there for 2 years, fixed it up, and made enough to buy a better house, and did the same thing. So in just a few years after leaving $cn, I was making 70K a year salary, sold 2 houses and bought a third, paid off my student loans and had enough money to pay off my "freeloader debt". THANK GOD for the Internet!!!!! And A big Thanks to all the critics who put the truth about $cn out there! I did not give one thin dime to $cn, and never will, even though now I could buy the whole "bridge" if I wanted to. (What bridge? There is no bridge!) The only thing I have to thank the Sea Org for is teaching me to work like a dog and live on almost nothing. Oh, and thank you very much for declaring me an SP!

Anonymous



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Mar 2005 22:31:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Defector's predicaments - coming out - Suggestions needed

Another suggestion to ex-Sea Org from another ex-Sea Org member:

Coming out of the SO after years can be really scary. I remember one of my juniors who had been in for decades, he was in tears because his wife got pregnant and they were being sent to a Class V org. He was a tough guy, had been a CO and held many exec positions since the days when LRH was still around. But he was absolutely terrified of having to go out in the wog world and pay rent and buy his own food, etc., as he had been in the SO since he was a teen and had never had a "real" job. I felt the same way after years of indoctrination. They came back to the Sea Org years later, not looking happy or healthy at all.

When I finally left, I read about health care being one of the fastest growing job markets due to the baby boom generation getting to retirement age. There are a lot of great opportunities in geriatrics. If I were coming out of the SO now, with my 500 dollars severance pay and no work history, I would go to work at a Nursing Home. They are ALWAYS hiring. They have on the job training so you can get a CNA. (Certified Nurse Assistant Certificate.) Once you have that, you can go to work at a hospital, they hire CNAs all the time. Check if a hospital in your area has a tuition reimbursement program. You can start as a CNA or a monitor technician or a unit clerk. Often training is provided. Check with the Human Resources Dept., they usually have a job board with the requirements listed. Once you are hired and have a few months of good production, apply for training as an RN. Several hospitals in my area have programs where you work 20 hours but get full time pay and benefits to attend Nursing School. (There is a nationwide shortage of Nurses.) You just have sign a contract promising to work for them for a few years after you graduate. (usually 2 years). RNs average over 25/hr, much more if you specialize. (ER, ICU, Surgery, Life Flight, etc.)

Not every employee is chosen, you have to be special, but if you were able to survive and move up the ranks in the insane world of the SO, you ARE special. The real world is so much more sane than the SO, especially if you were an exec. There are rules and laws and justice that are actually applied. You get paid for your work, and you have security and benefits. Plus, you can really help people, and isn't that why we joined the Sea Org in the 1st Place?

An Ex-SO



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Mar 2005 09:41:18 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 3 2005 9:41 am
Subject: Re: neurophysiological correlates of depression

Dave Touretzky wrote:
> Scientology falsely claims that there are no physical correlates of
> mental illness. Their science is 50 years out of date. Here's a
> nice little web page that describes, with pictures, physical changes in
> the brain resulting from chronic depression:

> http://www.psycheducation.org/­mechanism/6atrophy.htm

> A brief excerpt:

> There have been studies showing a change in brain activity when
> mood shifts, but there is now also research showing a change in brain
> shape that appears to be associated with severe mood disorders.
> The brain shrinks, or rather, certain parts of it do. One of those
> parts is called the hippocampus. This part is associated with
> making and being able to recall memories. If mood symptoms are
> severe or go on very long, the hippocampus shrinks. This chapter
> shows you the evidence that this shrinkage really occurs. The same
> process appears also to be occurring in frontal lobes as well,
> though not elsewhere in the brain.

> This page is actually chapter 6 of a longer treatise on the physical
> basis of depression, including genetic causes. The full essay is
here:

> http://www.psycheducation.org/­mechanism/MechanismIntro.htm

> Scientologists will no doubt persist in their lies about mental
> illness, keeping their eyes carefully averted from the pile of dead
> bodies that result from their ignorant practices (Lisa McPherson,
> Elli Perkins, etc.) But the general public is wising up.

> No wonder Scientology hates the Internet.

> -- Dave Touretzky
> http://LisaClause.org http://PerkinsTragedy.org

Makes sense to me! The more I observed life in and out of the Scn cocoon, even despite LRH's early 1950's sympathetic comments about psychiatrists' good-natured communication abilities, despite these few admissions LRH makes in favor of psyches, still for sure LRH and Scn are overweighted on believing it is ALL mind over physical.

It is pretty obvious, with people poking brain parts, and the brain-poked people telling what they experienced when their brains got poked, that the damn brain is a major player in whatever it is that one is. The brain isn't just a pin cushion (Hubbard's notion). Consciousness per Hubbard is the formless, locationless, timeless, non-speck of non-anythingness (the thetan) that Hubbard contends is the traditional religious thousand-years-long agreed upon immortal spirit which we REALLY are, and each of us are one of these non-speck thetans running our bodies via our brains like we're running puppets. Great pipe dream, very alluring belief.

Unwinding oneself from that fallacy, is another one of the major steps in coming back to reality from the Scn mindset. People are free to keep Hubbard's (and the other religious movement's) notions as religious beliefs, that's their preogative. I don't think these notions will be presented in school as scientific fact just yet though. Those notions I feel are okay to be taught though, as philosophy, religious beliefs, etc.

This material you are sharing, will be what's credible enough to be taught in schools as science.

It brings to mind a whole other major theme in Hubbard's beliefs, which is that he was adamantly anti-science, scoffing repeatedly against science. When I was a training supervisor, from 1977 to 1983, the scientifically trained students I supervised were repeatedly taken aback by Hubbard's anti-science opinions. As a training supervisor I was supposed to sheppard ANY student through their disagreements with Hubbard's claims, and get them to see how what Hubbard was saying could be true. I had a difficult time convincing science trained students to swallow Hubbard's anti-science opinions.

Thanks for this update!

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Mar 2005 10:04:16 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 3 2005 10:04 am
Subject: Remarkable spirit of a new defector - read this!

This is a strange conversation between a person coming out in the near future, with someone still in the movement.

This is raw material good enough to be woven into future fiction works:

Hi Chuck,

Thanks ... I had a conversation recently with a Scn that I thought you might find interesting:

There was one day I was with a Scientologist (a -blank- Scientologist visiting) eating dinner next to the -blank- . I'd eaten with him a couple times before. He told me that I needed to eat more meat and I should eat a hamburger with him because "LRH says in the PEP HCOB....." and he kept repeating this and I got sick of being polite and I screamed at him, "Adel Davis DIED of cancer and LRH died of a stroke and had had two heart attacks in his later years ----- so why would I do what either of them said about my health? They are both DEAD and I want to be ALIVE." and the Scn stared at me blankly and said, " LRH went onto target 2, he left his body of his own free will and he was perfectly healthy..." and I said, "NO, it was an assisted suicide or a murder --- the coroner's report stated that LRH had been given shots of Vistaril before he died and he'd had a stroke a weak earlier." The Scn looked at me astonished, " how do you know this?" I said, "It's on the internet, it's very easy to find." --- Scn "Oh, you can't believe everything you read on the internet" and I said, "OK --- you read the scanned copy of the coroner's report and tell me it's a fake, and then tell me why OSA ---one of THE MOST powerful legal machines in the United States has not gotten it off the internet as Libel in the last several years when they've had plenty of time and opportunity to do so." The Scn then looked at me and said, "OK --- I wont ask you to eat any more hamburgers"

What a strange conversation huh?

Best, ....



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Mar 2005 10:17:53 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 3 2005 10:17 am
Subject: Ex-Int Base staffer's input on the "LRH" Tech Films, historical data

Hi Chuck,

This is what I recall about the tech films:

TR1 --TRS in LIFE. Shot originally in the 80's by DR [David Rousseau, now deceased]. Possibly videos tapes of the shots were seen by LRH, but not sure. It was Reshot in 1987 with Louise Shekter directing. Then it was reshot again in 1998 with Mitch Brisker Directing. I haven't seen the film yet! I should see if I can, it's supposed to be a public film.

As a note: Even if a TR or EM film wasn't directed or seen or approved by LRH, they did all have what were called SHOOTING SCRIPTS , not the oridnary script. They dictated many of the details of how the scene was to be shot which are most often left just up to the Cameraman and Director.

TR2 -- The Cycle of Communication. Orginal Film was shot in the 70's. The Golf Course was used at GHS [Gilman Hot Springs] before it had actually become headquarters. This was partially directed by LRH and mostly just had videos sent to him for approval. There was a video tape of this film that was referred to extensively during the reshoot of TR 2 in 1993 by Mitch. I went through some old video tapes of set recordings to see if LRH's voice were on any of them, but I found none. I imagine he wasn't on the set a whole lot for the film, or the recordings that did have LRH on them had been sent to CST already.

TR 3-- What film is this? I am blank on TR 3

TR 4 --- This film was fully directed by LRH. He saw the edit of it when it finally got edited but some shots were reshot later. They were matched exactly to what was shot before.

TR5 -Why TRs. This was never shot by LRH. The first time it was shot was in 1998.

TR6 -- Use of a Doll In Auditing. DR shot a version of this film in the 80's and I beleive that LRH saw the film. The tape for the film was played occassionally on the set to refer to when it got reshot in 1994 on 35mm.

TR7 - ? Forgot what this one was.

TR8 -- Start Change Stop. Shot in the 80's. Dont know if LRH saw it. A video of the old film was referred to during the rehooting of it in 1991.

TR9-- The Auditors Code. This was shot in the 80's I think by DR [David Rousseau]. I don't know if LRH saw it or not. The old video was used and looked at during the reshoot in the mid 90's around 1994.

TR10--Assists. This film was shot in the 80's but never completed. I do not think LRH saw it, but I don't know. The old film was used for both reshoots in 1987 and later in 1994.

TR11--- Tone 40 Assessment. The first time this film was shot was in 1993.

TR12--The Solo Auditor --- This film was orignally shot in 1991 and reshot later in 1996 I think.

TR13-- ? Forgot which one this was.

TR 14 -- Confessional TRs--- This was shot in 1994. This was one of my favorite films actually.

TR 15--- The Different TRs courses --- Originally shot in 1993, I think they've redone some of it now but I don't know.

TR 16--- Beingness. Originally shot in 1999.

EM1 -- Man the Unfathomable --- LRH Directed this film full originally in the 70's. IT was on this film that LRH got the RPFers helping on Set Construction and this is how later a petition was approved for the INT RPFers to work on sets for the films in 1997. The film that LRH Directed --- IT was horrible. Mitch redid it following a vdeo of what LRh had shot and making vasts improvements in 1996.

EM 2 and 2A. --- The Tone Scale Films. The Original films were directed by LRH. We used video tapes of them on the set extensively for it's reshoot in 1992. These Films were the first films to get shot on 35mm when Cine went from 16mm to 35mm in 1993.

EM 3-- History of the E Meter. Original was shot in 1987. IT was reshot in 1996.

EM 4 -- How the Emeter Works. I don't know if LRH directed this or not. It was shot with Carol Spurlock as the girl and John Acevedo as the young technician. LRH might have seen the film. We had a video of the old film to refer to when it was reshot in 1993 with Michellle Stafford and Tate Ruppert

EM 5-- How to Set Up the Session and the EMeter. I had some rehersal videos that might have been seen by LRH, but they were so bad, we were unable to really use them. This film was shot in 1992. This film had the first really nicely done helicopter shot of a part of the Ranch property that had huts put on it to make it look like Mahali Arafici

EM 6-- False Tone Arm Film. The original film was done in the 80's with Wak Alcock as Plodget. I do not know if LRH saw it or not. He might have seen it and disapproved it. We had a video of the old film to refer to but not that much. I had the feeling that this film never originally was fully completed. IT was redone in 1987 by Louise Shekter with Tom as the Cameraman, then in 1994 Mitch redid the film with the new E-Meter and better set designs.

EM 7 -- Body Motion Reads. This was originally shot in 1995.

EM8 -- Estimating Case Conditions by tests and the E-Meter. This was originally shot in 1993

EM 9/9A -- Meter Reads Films. I've given data on this one already. The history is kind of sketchy on what LRH saw or didn't see. This was shot in the 90's and again in 1998 with the new emter.

EM10---- I forgot what this one was. Is there an EM 10?

ORIENTATION FILM --- Not scripted by LRH --- only based on a thorough outline. Shot in 1995. LRH only saw some communications about the motif in the 80's which were used.

PSMPS FILMS --- LRH saw the film What Happned to These Civilizations. I can't remember.

PSMPS Films were Public Scientology Motion Picture Series Films based on 50 treatments (outlines) from LRH. There are 50 Treatments and they were written in the 80's. They are not done yet. As far as I know they don't have all the scripts written for them yet either.

PSMPS #5 Evolution of a Science was shot in 1986 and reshot recently I think in 2000?

PSMPS # ? The Married Couple Film. Shot in 1987 with Lee Purcell and reshot recently in 2000 I think.

This is what I can remember. Let me know if you have any other questions or have data that might jog my memory on any details I might have left out.

Best, .....



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Mar 2005 07:39:32 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 4 2005 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Ex-Int Base staffer's input on the "LRH" Tech Films, historical data

Additional info I received:

I know what EM 10 and 10A were --- That is PC Indicators. This was originally shot in 1989 and then reshot around 92 and I think reshot again in 96 to get it on 35mm film. It's the most easy film technically to shoot because it is mostly two PCs, a male PC and a female PC showing the different PC Indicators in front of a backdrop.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology
From: [email protected] (Chuck Beatty) - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Mar 2005 23:03:23 -0800
Local: Sat, Mar 5 2005 11:03 pm
Subject: Re: Q for scns regarding chess players

Gerry Armstrong wrote in message

snip

> It may be that the key to getting Scientology customers to realize
> they didn't get the results Hubbard and Scientology promise, the key
> to getting that ringing alarm bell heard, is first the elimination or
> reduction of the terror that SPs and the fear of being or being
> labeled SP generate in those Scientologists.

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

Gerry,

Thanks very much for this, and also for your great posts of the court records, expecially the 1984 case! Those I find really helpful!

I agree on the above.

This predicament to the Scn leadership is almost an impossible challenge.

The leaders who momentarily mentally stray to recognize the truth of the situation they are in, are easily overwhemlmed with the task of how to repair realistically LRH's accumulated bad public image in the intelligent circles of the world, and due to their internal pentalties of expressing their doubts about LRH and his ideas, the Scn leaders who today are responsible for the current climate and trends in the Scn movement, those leaders normally slide back from any doubts they are having quickly back into LRH's faulty world views. They really have no other options, other than to direct the attention off their own controversies onto someone else's controversies.

They are caught in a number of vicious circles due to LRH's policies.

LRH has done the most damage that the Scn movement is grappling with. And they are not allowed to admit to this.

I think they will have to be embarrassed into shutting down the SP policies.

It is the wog world that is the only authorized player that can put pressure on the Scn movement and get it to change its ways.

I think your efforts to pick apart the bad rules, and expose them, is excellent!

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Mar 2005 12:54:50 -0800
Local: Sun, Mar 6 2005 12:54 pm
Subject: Academics analyzing Hubbard's writings, it's coming. Chuck Beatty

I recently got an email from an ARS lurker, and I responded the following to them:

Dear "-----",

Thanks for the email below.

I have been thinking over the many months what is needed. I think long run those of us who can provide insight into the policies of Scn that cause them to act the way they do, by bringing out the actual writings of Hubbard, policy by policy, and analyzing them, that the words of Hubbard will be seen to be the ultimate culprit in this tale of who is "whining" and who is justified in speaking about their life experiences in trying to adhere to those Hubbard writings, and who's lives have been impacted adversely by the literal application of those specific Hubbard policies and writings.

LRH himself is very very open to criticism based solely on what he says, and not in any way on the adverse effects complained about by "apostates" and "defectors".

This issue of apostates being unreliable, the Religious Freedom Watch site put up by OSA accomplices to discredit all the anti-Scn critics, includes a bit of Bryan Wilson's views on the unreliable nature of some apostates.

To counter the official Church of Scientology accomplices views that disgruntled apostates are unreliable, it will take better research and uncovering, policy by policy, and writing by writing, of Hubbard's, to put the ball conclusively in Hubbard's court, that the faults in Scn lie at his feet.

I think someone needs to just lay out over and over, OEC Volume by OEC Volume, Hubbard's claims and overreaching self-aggrandizing and self-promotion, and in an exhaustive way.

It needs to be done almost at book-length, and will take a few years.

I hope intelligent sociology and new religious movement grad students catch wind of the Scn religious movement, and tackle it as a lifetime career choice. And I hope they someday do the more extensive research into the actual OEC policy. Right now, I don't think any wog academics have delved exhaustively into LRH's policies. I've read through the OEC Volumes one time, in my final year in the RPF's RPF, during our daily study period. There is considerable raw material in just the OEC Volumes to analyze and lay out the raw material for making cases against the wrongful practises that have resulted directly due to Hubbard's writings alone.

I believe Scn will go on for decades. In the upcoming decades there will be ample room for more and more even serious delving into LRH's green on white policy claims, and researchers can do comparisons within the contexts of LRH's major claims. And then further into the future, if and when all of the OTHER LRH administrative writings which are limited issue for the senior management bodies, the Flag Orders, Central Bureaux Orders (CBOs),and all the dozens of other LRH issue types for the more limited management and other types of Sea Org units in the myriad of other upper administrative units in the Church of Scientology, once scholars get access to all of those writings, and see the whole breadth of material, then those as yet unavailable LRH limited distribution writings, including the about 7,000 LRH original advices of which many of the LRH limited issues were based, etc., etc., my dream is that someday the whole wealth of the LRH writings will be available to peruse and study by academics.

Two things currently prevent this:

1) Lack of wog academic interest, which is the existing scene, and a major hurdle I think realistically, and

2) the Church of Scn's lack of cooperation, which rightfully they will claim it would be unthinkable to let wog academics peruse all of LRH's writings which they incorrectly assume academics would not understand in context. (This is where former defectors come in, as former staff who lived through the actual events LRH was writing about in policies, and issues, they provide the background, and a few hundred such LRH written issues with side by side accounts of the anecdotal experiences of the actual staff and players, together would be the exhaustive material on which to get the fuller context and truth of LRH's conclusions in his writings.)

My hope all along, is that former Scn movement players who were a part of LRH's written about subjects in the OEC and Tech Volumes, that they write up what they recall, issue by issue. This will be invaluable material in the decades to come, if academic interest ever shifts around to covering the Scn movement.

This to me, is one of the tragedies of the current Scn leadership's actions to shut down individuals, like Mary Sue Hubbard, from being free to write her throughts and memoirs.

The high high ex GO people, Jane Kember, Herbie Parkhouse, will know dozens of policies and HCOBs and Guardian's Office issues, which were LRH directed, and they will have thousands of anecdocal material to support the issues, and writings that resulted in Hubbard's concluding final words which he issued himself or ordered others to issue on those matters.

There are decades of research and writing to come on the Scn movement, I feel. The official movement has so much $$ now, that as long as they don't get bankrupted through their leadership's incompetance (I don't think they will), or if they don't get ripped off of their assets in some unethical way (I don't think they will), I feel the Scn movement will be around long enough, that it will be worth the while of some young inspired academic upcoming scholars to really go whole-hog, study LRH's OEC policies, and issues that are in the public domain, and really start getting a major grip and write much more authoritatively on the major major issues for and against the Scn movement.

The Scn movement struggles along, I don't see it crashing and burning like the Hindenberg. I think their wealth is being correctly managed and thus this alone will majorly see them through a lot more than they already have suffered for their incompetent application of LRH's delusorily well-intentioned and placebo effect writings and "technology", even though these writings by Hubbard were the theoretical basis for the tragedies that have happened in their midst, and those events resulted in the then and now horrendous bad press. They have somehow blundered their way through these bad events, and despite all this, and all the major Scn leaders defectors and their scathing revelations of the mindset of the still existing leaders, the Scn movement is still going. The top people running Scn have a pride of still standing, and they on the other hand have Hubbard's volumes of inspiring writings to spur them on, and distract them and everyone else away from the historical messes they are trying to put behind them now.

This is pipe dream stuff now, but I think should the Scn movement continue on, which I think it will, then the academic world will one day start taking on the volume of material to be explored.

In the meantime, before the first 50 years Scn movement players all die, I hope they write up their parts in the movement, and what they heard and saw, while they were around LRH.

Best, Chuck Beatty

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

The lurker wrote me:

Hi, Chuck.

I've seen your posts and website "lurking". I share many of your sentiments. This includes the view that most Sea Org members really are/were trying to help and many were actually good people. And despite "they are responsible for their own condition" bla, bla, bla -- a lot of these good people have now been screwed over. A LOT of them gone out in the last few years. Too many to fit "the percentages" -- a lot who spent many years of their lives and were considered good Sea Org members for most of their lives and now they are thrown on the trash heap. For now, just call me "-------"

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

Lurker's reponse to my answer to them:

Quite astute observations, Chuck. Yes, despite the claims on various sites that the Church is "ready to fold" and so on, it just ain't so. By observation, there are problems with their income lines currently, and this must be causing the financial folks problems. Otherwise there wouldn't be the frantic Wednesday and Thursday phone calls that still exist to the same public over and over. But you are correct that the assets will not be ripped off and current financial management will allow it to at least maintain for awhile. At the current rate of their "purges", though, they must be losing years and years of valuable experience (although I'm sure that whenever they throw someone out, it's all justified that everything that person did was wrong anyway, so it was of no real value, no matter the commendations and kudos that may have appeared on these people in the past). They are creating their own enemies -- at what seems to me now an alarming rate (at least it should be alarming to the Church). There are those on the websites who will be happy this is occurring, and others may want to step forward and do the things you note. From either perspective, however, I think it would be the responsible thing to do to take the actions you outline, as the Church of Scientology just isn't going to disappear tomorrow or next year (as you note). So what is to be done? Or do we just try to ignore it and get on with our lives (ignoring our fellows)?



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Mar 2005 01:22:37 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2005 1:22 am
Subject: Sea Org physical restraints, threats, violence, recent examples?

,,, You recently said that "the RPF is like a jail that you can leave
at any time" and I really think you need to look at that thought
again. You couldn't leave at any time.. you were under guard, you
were controled. When you did want to leave, they would "handle" you to
shift your thoughts back to their thoughts so you would stay.
.........................
Very twisted thoughts...
,
"---"

Dear "----",

I absolutely agree about the "jail you can leave at any time" incorrect portrayal by me.

This goes right over my head. I had years of mind-numbing physical overt restraint, by having watches, and earlier I was directly threatened with being jumped by 10 Int RPFers should I decide to try to walk out of the Int RPF without authorization.

I hated these Sea Org procedures.

Sometime in late 96 or early 97, I told my understanding of the physical restraint unofficial rules to the Bosun of the Int RPF, Jim Mortland. I said to him I understood that if I tried to walk out, I knew others would physically restrain me. Jim Mortland said I was right, that he'd send 10 guys to jump me and prevent me from walking out. He said this in shocked anger, ensuring that I got the point. He for sure wanted me to know he was NOT going to let me walk out of there.

Then in later years I had two gross multi-hour long invalidative screaming matches, with Mark Treasurere and Clark Morton. The second screaming match, was physically demeaning and physically abusive. I was blocked in a chair in a small confining room, two persons far stronger physically than me were between me and the door. I was sitting furthest from the door in a chair with a table between me and them. Then one of them came on my side of the table and sat above me on the table, and was in direct contact with me. This was Clark Morton. He began forcefully pressing OEC Volume 1, open to the page with the instructions telling a suppressive person the steps the suppressive person needs to do in order to get in good standing again, he pressed the volume into my chest over and over, each time chanting "Stop committing suppressive acts." This whole thing was Clark's rendition of one of the steps of the SP policy where the person is gotten to cease committing suppressive acts. Clark was pounding this datum into my head and pressing it into my chest, over and over, dozens and dozens of times, for almost an hour, I refused to communicate to either of them. It was the most bizarre degraded action I have ever received from any Scientologist in my 27 years in Scn. (The whole incident lasted 2-3 hours, and there is much more to describe, but the above is the worst of it.)

I had years, all total, of being under watch while on the Int RPF and PAC RPF. Of my 7 years in total on the RPF, I was under watch for easily 4-5 years total.

I was so glad that day I walked down the sidewalk away from the complex in LA, without a "watch".

A recent defector recently told me briefly of physical restraints and violence they directly experienced at the Int Base. I will gladly post the details in general form.

I'd be interested in hearing all recent examples of physical restraints and threatened or actual violence against Sea Org members.

Best, Chuck Beatty
[email protected]
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm, New York City time,
any day of the week)



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 9 Mar 2005 20:40:03 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 9 2005 8:40 pm
Subject: Anyone seen Kevin Bloomquist recently?

Looking for Kevin Bloomquist, if you know his whereabouts, let me know.

Best, Chuck Beatty
[email protected]



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Mar 2005 19:43:48 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2005 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: Sea Org physical restraints, threats, violence, recent examples?

An anonymous ex Sea Org member saw the following physical restraint which was broken up when DG PAC realized the possible legal ramifications:

I do have an example, although pretty old: This was in 1980. I was at FL WUS and Fran Boughton, (the then wife of Al Boughton) wanted to leave the SO. I think she had been put in a lower condition. She was cowering in a room in the FOLO, on the floor, and was being guarded. She had apparently experienced a heart fluttering, palpitation, or something, which was from some earlier medical illness, and was very upset. David Butterworth, DG PAC, found out of this guarding of Fran, immediatly came over and told those keepng her in the room to let her go. He was pissed. I know he knew the legal ramifications of this.

Anonymous



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Mar 2005 09:03:23 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 10 2005 9:03 am
Subject: Vital info on actual internet access for 1,000 Sea Org members

Further info on easy free interest access for Sea Org members, maybe already mentioned by others, but less than 200 yard from the HGB (Hollywood Guarantee Building, the middle management building, the one that houses the two floors of OSA), on Ivar, is the Hollywood Branch of the LA Public Library. I haven't been to this Hollywood library branch in recent years.

Disney donated multiple millions of $$ for the computers for the whole LA Public Libraries, which are pretty damn good libraries, in my opinion. I used the system pretty extensively when I got out of the Sea Org. The 1,000 plus Sea Org personnel stationed in the HGB all have access to the library, and anyone knowing of the rules against or lack of rules about going to the library, and using the computers to hook up to the internet, would be great to hear.

The opportunity is there, so anyone feeling slightly disgruntled could just easily hop on over to this Hollywood Branch of the LA Public Library system, and hook up to the internet during their lunch times or dinner times, less than 3-4 minutes walking distance from the HGB.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Mar 2005 09:57:49 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 8 2005 9:57 am
Subject: Re: Sea Org Members Not Allowed Internet Access

One more minor anecdotal incident I saw firsthand, when I was also on the PAC RPF, we did renos for various staff berthing spaces. In one berthing space I saw printouts of email letters from a staff member to their family, and about 5 staff I saw had computer setups in their berthing.

One PAC regular staffer in particular, I knew had been a former Int Base staffer, and this individual had their own computer setup, phone line, and was emailing family.

So, at this moment, which I think was 2000 or 2001, I saw a dedicated Sea Org member with, at that moment, the capability of hooking up to the internet, etc.

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

Another, in 2003 Feb-Mar, when I was going to the LA Public Library branch on the corner of Franklin and Hilhurst Aves, I saw dozens of Sea Org members coming over to the library. I saw younger Sea Org members, the ones who were still completing their high school education, who came over in groups of 5-10 young SO members, and I saw numbers of them, 2-3 at a time, sitting down at the computer terminals, in this LA Public Library branch, and of course, those young Sea Org members thus had the ability to hook up to the anti-Scn sites, just like I was doing at that time.

So, the young people, DO have the time, and excuse (those young ones going to the Library weekly, each Saturday), to hook up, should they decide to do so!

Best, Chuck Beatty

PS: Anyone in LA want to confirm this, then go spend Saturday mornings, from say 10am till 3-4pm, and watch for the groups of young Sea Org members coming over to the Franklin/Hilhurst LA Public Library, and see this for yourself! (I think these groups will come over at other times as well, but this the LA Public Library Branch closest to the complex, and the walking distance close access, free, to the internet, they have!)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Mar 2005 10:16:09 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 11 2005 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Sea Org Members Not Allowed Internet Access

Deo Morto wrote:
> Maybe this is more a question for Chuck but IIRC there was a posting
> some while ago from someone newly out that SO members were not
> allowed to have cell phones nor access to the Internet and that the
> CMO had gone through the berthing in PAC to enforce it.

> Chuck - given the fact that you had been away from this planet for
> quite a while in the SO - how did you find out about free library
> internet access and stuff like that - from your time at INCOMM? In
> your experience how was the level of knowledge about the internet for
> the average SO member?

Dear Deo,

1) In the early 90's, when the Scn OT materials were being put on the internet, and anti-Scn material was being put on the internet, INCOMM programmers were drawn into being asked to do something about it. I don't know specifics, other than the one instance Paul Wilmshurst told me he did something against a site. I overheard James Perry tell me about the stuff. Then I read in the church Freedom Mags, articles on church efforts to shut down sites. I then heard about Arnie and Dennis Erlich (which put the seeds of doubt right in my head, making Dennis my years-long dreamed about first contact point to ask for help, if I needed to escape without my gear to hand which was my predicament for years while on the RPF uplines at Happy Valley). So it was my INCOMM experience and the Freedom Mags, which I don't know if they show those same Freedom mag issues on the internet these days or not, probably not. I tried to look up the old Freedom Mags that I read that told me who were the "bad" guys (who I knew from experience were NOT "bad").

2) In Jan-Feb 2003, when I was on the RPF's RPF, final route out, isolated category, I insisted on going to the library, only to read up on things. I then saw the computers. The Hilhurst Branch Library of the LA Public Library system has 12 computer stations for adults and 3 for kids. All funded by Disney I believe. The wait is often 1/2 hour at most, oftentimes you can get a free one. I used the pretext first of checking for jobs on the computer, and checking the news, I checked New York Times archives, and read all the Scn press. I then found google, and yahoo and lycos and search L. Ron Hubbard, was overwhelmed with the anti-LRH sites. I chose his history, justifying it was a "source" briefing I was giving myself. I found even a taped clip of LRH's voice, and played it, and embarrassed the hell out of myself, paranoically, when LRH's booming voice played out my computer's speaker for a few seconds until I figured how to shut it off! What a panic I felt, sitting there sneaking into forbidden territory and LRH's voice comes into the room for all to hear! My watch was in another room thank goodness and didn't hear it! Anyways, this went on for weeks, I getting more and more used to the internet, and searching.

3) I happened to be a computer person at INCOMM, and then ASI. At ASI I set up several computers for David Bloomberg, then an ASI top exec, who was researching the internet, and his work preceded the setting up of all the Scn sites in the mid 90's. So I was familiar with personal computers, setting them up, modems, hooking up to AOL, which I did, for the research David was doing at the time. I could have gotten right into that area, but I wasn't and am not a computer geek at heart, and I was only in INCOMM and the computer area due to being "trustworthy" enough, since INCOMM had trouble (my goodness, they continued to have trouble in this area) with computer operations officers defecting or going out security (I know a few wild stories in that area).

4) I think the younger people coming into the Sea Org today know MORE than the execs in Scn know. The young people have their experience with cell phones, etc. When I was in my final final days, Feb, Mar 2003, the "isolation" (from illness symptons) space was adjacent to my own room and I overheard hundreds of younger Sea Org members everyday conversations. I overheard the silence, keep you mouth shut, abide by the new rules, mentality, and the personal loss of young Sea Org members who had to give up their cell phones. ASHO staff were the loosest with the rules, and let young people their phones for their "posts". ASHO D & F are probably a little further from the harsh pressue of the higher orgs, so things are more "out-ethics" and the cell phone use is a continual point of issue for the new members who were used to it, and see nothing wrong with continuing their cell phone use. It is like the old atmosphere where Sea Org members used to slip out for video games or watching TV. You just can't really stop it altogether.

(Even at ASI, the top end, when the dumb rule went in at the Int Base of no one was allowed to use outside telephones to call their families, at first people continuned to violate the rule. Even ASI staff violated the rulea, which was harder, since ASI staff are daily, for their lunch and dinner meals, often, in the mid 90's were going down to the wog restaurants near ASI, so wog world access to phones was hard to stop. I even still used the outside payphones. It just was a trust factor, and really hard to implement those rules. People don't consider they are doing anything wrong, and simply violate the rules, and it does not phase you until someone continually pressures you to feel guilty for doing it!)

4) One person told me they felt the Sea Org's rules on cell phones and computer internet access would ruin them, since new people coming in, will think this completely paranoid. Especially since kids growing up today, will have have years of cell phone and internet use, and then not be allowed to do it at all, it will and is seeming ludicrous to the new young members joining.

Best, Chuck



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Mar 2005 09:50:32 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 11 2005 9:50 am
Subject: Re: Sea Org Members Not Allowed Internet Access

Mark Thorson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

> > I saw dozens of Sea Org members coming over to the library.
> > I saw younger Sea Org members, the ones who were still
> > completing their high school education, who came over in
> > groups of 5-10 young SO members, and I saw numbers of
> > them, 2-3 at a time, sitting down at the computer terminals,
> > in this LA Public Library branch, and of course, those young
> > Sea Org members thus had the ability to hook up to the
> > anti-Scn sites, just like I was doing at that time.

> How do you know they were Sea Org?
> Were they in uniform?

I knew them from seeing them on posts at the complex, where they worked. I lived for over 2 years, Nov 2000 till Mar 2003, in the complex myself. My final year in the Sea Org, I was in the RPF's RPF, running around cleaning the buildings, hallways, basements, helped on all sorts of things, and saw the hundreds of staff, also crossing paths with staff in their meal times, and staff would cross the RPFer's paths themselves in the course of their doing their duties and traveling through the buildings there at the complex.

I knew them by sight, and they walk in groups of 4 or more, per the LRH reference where he specifically advised Sea Org staff to walk the streets in groups, to avoid being mugged, basically.

They sometimes, one or two of them at least, dress in their uniforms, their ASHO day uniform is light blue button down shirts, dark blue trousers, black shoes. ASHO Foundation staff are medium to dark blue shirts, (black ties, both day and foudnation men wear black ties), dark blue trousers and black leather shoes. ASHO Day and Fdn have the most yound people and I was seeing maninly their staff on Saturdays, I saw them at least a half dozen times, in groups of 4-8.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Mar 2005 10:19:15 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 11 2005 10:19 am
Subject: Re: Sea Org Members Not Allowed Internet Access

If the men wear their black ties, check out their tie pins. The Sea Org men's black ties usually have a Sea Horse tie pin. If you see black men's ties with Sea Horse tie pins, you are about 99% sure of looking at a male Sea Org member.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Mar 2005 21:24:37 -0800
Local: Sat, Mar 12 2005 9:24 pm
Subject: Re: Questions re: FSO F/N calling, 97-2003, any change?

[email protected] wrote:

> > Questions I'd appreciate anyone answering who knows (for a lurker
> > who asked me to ask for them):

> > 1) I know some people who more or
> > less fell off lines after '96 or '97. Was that
> > widespread? Is it now easier to FN at the examiner
> > these days? (FSO and AO's)

> > 2) What I meant to ask was about FNs on public at
> > the FSO. I have heard and read that there was a
> > very bad reaction at the FSO when the GAT was released,
> > due to FNs not being called. Completion stats went way
> > down, etc. Then I saw that in 2002 and 2003 (or
> > thereabouts) there was a significant increase in the
> > number of Solo NOTs completions. From my experience, I
> > think this means that the tech seniors at the FSO were no
> > longer so strict about FNs. And this would mean
> > that RTC terminals, who constantly monitor FSO tech, had
> > somehow let up on the subject. Have you heard or
> > read anything about that?

> > 3) I wonder if FSO tech seniors (and so the RPF
> > terminals who monitor them) have backed off
> > on being so picky about what an FN is. Do you
> > know?

> > Thanks, Chuck Beatty

> A recent anonymous person recently (2001) experienced the following.
> Unfortunately this is only up to 2001. (Anyone with 2003-PT
> experience, please send it along, thanks. Chuck Beatty):

.....

> Chuck:
> It [F/N calling scene at FSO in recent years] was nuts. I hadn't
> been in session for a long time-I guess since the fn thing started.
> To add to that, the 53 changed also...it used to have all those
> good items, upset by examiner, not wanting an exam, waited at exams
> etc. But it was totally trimmed down. All those periphial items
> that were in script were gone. I think it went back to the
> original 53. The exam lines in the OT 5 HGC at Flag were always
> jammed, as it took so long for a pc to get through. I think I
> mentioned before, belts, pillows, socks, shoes, ..... doors
> closed almost always. Exams became a very scary thing. It was
> a grim place to go. I red tagged a lot, to no joy or resolution.
> Same on the solo NOTs exam lines. I went to Qual several times,
> asking for what exactly was this reference on the back and forth,
> back and forth, but never got anyone to come across the line and
> tell me. Every exam point had a recording device, which I assume
> RTC checked routinely. Every one. Even success flipped a
> recording switch. Exams is no longer some kind of validation
> of what occured in session, but an end all in itself.
> I was there when the "new qual" opened upstairs at the Sand Castle,
> and it appears every session is totally recorded needle wise, and
> can be played back. Add to that there were always 2 cameras in
> every session I was in, one on the meter, one on the pc, and I
> know that I had to wait at times until the RTC procession (3 to
> 4 RTC terminals) went into the behind the scenes HGC area to watch
> my session. I was being viewed by many, many people while in
> session. "-------" also on OT 7, saw my tears one day, and told
> me not to worry.
> "_____" told me "------" red tagged 50 times in a row. "----"
> didn't look too hot then either.
> There were many individuals that seemed to be "from the old days"
> that just could't seem to get with the program...GAT, F/Ns revised
> definition, etc, and just bumped along. The "new crop" seemed to
> just smile and move along with it all.
> EM drill 25 took most people over a full week to complete. Some
> months. And the guys coming up on regular OT 6 part A and B had to
do the drills I think 3 times.
> When I was on course there were about 200. (Solo Nots Certainty and
> OT 6 part b) Comps at that time were about 20 a week. (S/N
> certainty and OT 6 part b,same stuff..... Also I went into the
> OT 1-3 course room a few times, and sometimes it had no one in it.)
> Watching the comps since I left, this has really really dropped
> drastically. From what I can see a lot are dropping back to pro
> metering, and PTS SP. The auditing comps (OT 5) look like there
must be cob webs in the HGC. (lack of pcs) It doesn't look like
> people are getting put onto FPRD etc and other case ramp ups as
> has occurred in the past. It is very very unlikely they have
> "lightened up" on the f/n definition.
> What would they [RTC Tech people] do, say they were wrong?
> Pop f/ns are now ok? Highly highly unlikely. I get the idea
> the rtc would rather be dead than wrong. All I can tell you
> is that I felt non tech people, and new people, not having
> been indoced into the "old fn" idea, did not rebel against
> this new thing. I did mightily. And others I saw that had
> a problem were tech trained. The HQS grads who somehow got
> onto the OT levels just rolled with it. And the Solo Nots course
> was mostly the backlogged previous attests redoing the level. Not
> new guys. Thats my take on it.

> You may find this amusing. I picked up a folder in the course room,
> and there was an FPGMO for all auditors and metering people on
> instant reads. I had a lot of affinity for programs, and read it.
> Lotsa targets from a technical angle about how pcs had basically
> been mis-metered forever (forever!) by auditors not taking instant
> reads, but taking prior or latent ones, and how this was not the
> abberative part of the case. It was just "think." It was to drill
> all on metering lines within an inch of their lives, heavy penalties,
> for taking anything other than an instant read. The funny part,
> when I went to the end, is that it was written by DM! I don't
> know his training level, but got the feeling this was an admin
> person who just divined a why, and was going to ram it in. I can
> see it as some sort of planetary why dm cooked up, and ray agreed
> with him.

> My whole experience was so out of ARC on so many levels. It was
>almost like everything had been "tweaked" and not for the good.

> Old friends I saw (SO staff) barely even acknowledged me. They
>seemed to be in a sort of hysteria and/or terror.

> Reading your account of the individuals pushing the OEC Vol 1 into
> your chest for hours kind of sums it up for me. That was very sad. It
> seems the whole SO scene deteriorated so gradiently to such a
>degraded scene, as did the public lines...where I ended up. I couldn't
>believe what was happening and thought it must be me.

> ......

> Anonymous

My answer to Anonymous's email above to me:

Thanks very much for this. I relayed your answer to another defector, who is the person who asked me to try to get this info, since they were curious to the current scene themselves.

I think we still need an update on the current FSO scene, and if indeed they still are scrutinizing F/Ns, or have they dropped back to the earlier years' F/N standard.

It looks very much like your observations are what's happened though.

Even Ray Mitoff, was hassled on his time on the Int RPF (98-99), on the point of miscalling Floating Needles, which is just preposterous to me. In 1999 I got several Method 4s from Ray Mitoff, I'm an easy, in my mind, pc. His TRs were excellent, in my opinion, I didn't have any trouble F/Ning during my Method 4s by him, he called my F/Ns, and I thought I was being audited by a regular old tech person from the 70's. And after Ray's Method 4s, I went to the RPF Examiner, and I F/Ned easily. This to me was unusual, since I like almost everyone else then, had adopted the bizarre over-itsaing, blanket on the feet, heater on, etc., routine at the Examiner trying to fucking "F/N". Ray at least for a moment, instilled in me, a little hope that the old days of auditing might return. After Ray's Method 4's, I just went to the Examiner and I decided to just say what I used to say in the 70's, I said "I had some method 4's, they were fine." (Nothing else.) I F/Ned, without further ado. This was extremely unusual at that time, when NO ONE at the RPF Examiner didn't also go blabbing on and on for 30 seconds to 2 minutes. In my limited understanding, for me Ray Mitoff passed as a tech terminal. (I know others think even Ray is below past standards, and I know I fall into one of the intervening generations in the Scn movement, who doesn't even know how good it was even earlier, before the intervention of the meter into the session, etc., these are extremely valid senior issues warranting attention and discussion too.)

There are lots of twisty details to the Scn movement. I don't mind going over them, and hope others take the time to offer their two cents on anything they wish, for history's sake! Out here, there is no muzzling on one's opinion.

This trend of torpedoing and making the older tech personnel wrong, your remarks are probably so true. The only saving possible grace, is if RTC has lightened up, on this F/N thing.

This to me, is what I said in other posts I have made, about the fads that occur in the Scn movement, that go on for years. Tech fads are the initiated incompetences of the staff (DM's goof this time), him acting out his nature and carrying out RTC's "responsibility" following the LRH parameters in KSW #1, where LRH blames staff for tech failures, so RTC and DM inevitably have to blame the misapplication of the tech, in this case, the Floating Needle is the fad to scrutinize.

The person asking the question that you answered, is of the opinion that the other parts of the End Phenomenon are being given the back seat.

(To me, this is all just another example of a multi-year-long tech fad that eventually DM or someone else will blame on someone else, if they stick to LRH's formula on how to run the Scn movement.)

Best, Chuck



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Mar 2005 10:49:37 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 16 2005 10:49 am
Subject: Thank you Arnie Lerma!!! - Chuck Beatty

Dear Arnie,

Thanks for these articles you are posting. One of them, in the midst of reading one, it undid explosively for me, undid a mystery I have pondered for 28 years.

I learn something amazing each time I read your ARS postings of old completely valid media articles on Scn. Your site is a complete goldmine of vital info, full of years of reading material, totally vital info for ex-Scn and ex-Sea Org members to go through.

I particularly thank you for the recent links to the Hana Eltringham 1991 interview about her using Prozac and finally getting out of a vicious rut due to her Sea Org experiences.

I was truly relieved myself to read what Hana wrote about LRH's screaming and violence.

I met Hana at the Flag Land Base, when she was CS-1, and also Supercargo of the FSO in 1976-78 or so.

When she was put on the RPF in 1976 it really astounded me, why LRH would put top people on the RPF, I was a totally green Sea Org member, having joined only in Dec 75, and I moved straight to the FSO, mingling with hundreds of tough veteran Apollo vintage staff who knew life around LRH inside out and backwards.

I lived in a long developing bubble from those days.

I have always wondered where the tough, violence threatening image that the string of top male Sea Org execs demonstrated, a combination of their own personal rage and taking advantage of their pedestal high positions to scream, and threaten violence.

This exact incident that Hana outlines, I saw and I heard about others receiving:

"The Psychiatric Times
Volume VIII, No. 6 $9.00
The Newspaper of American Psychiatry
June 1991 "

"Prozac Frees Ex-Scientology Leader from Depression "

[Hana reports:]

"I once saw him [LRH] lift Michael Douglas [another aide] by the shirt neck, shove him against a wall, and scream in his face for five or six minutes." Hana said, "It was uncivilized. a barbaric kind of thing." Despite their fear of Hubbard, however, Hana said both she and other staff members rationalized that his behavior was due to the pressures of wanting to save the world. "We revered him, there's no doubt about it." she said. "I and most of my associates saw him almost as God incarnate." - Hana

I can't tell you how just reading this one paragraph, a whole chain of incidents of Sea Org violence and threatened violence just snapped into place. Source is the "source" of the Sea Org violence.

LRH, Sibersky, Franks, DM, Norman Starkey, I've experienced myself or heard of incidents now of these individuals, grabbing someone by the collar, shoving him up against the wall, screaming, THAT IS LRH TALKING! LRH is the source of this violence threatening tactic.

This is direct historical evidence that the sickness in Scn, traces to Hubbard.

This whole aspect of the Sea Org needs to be exhaustively written up by anyone who has received this behavior. I think this behavior is mainly over, but I think hundreds of apologies are in order, to the persons who were at the receiving end of the threats. Damn the Scn lawyers advice to the contrary, the church leaders would gain so much to their favor to admit and apologize, to the individuals they individually irrationally vented their rage and violence threatening behavior at.

The leaders in Scn have a challenge to rise above LRH's unrecognized faults, and demonstrate decency and character that LRH himself was NOT able to.

(To LRH's credit, in 1981 he did write The Way to Happiness, also, and LRH did write what he did in the FPRD HCOBs and in the Truth Rundown HCOBs, about making some advance to those one has "black Pred". Unfortunately LRH didn't inch a few centimeters further, and suggest that Sea Org members overtly apologize to each other for their threatened violence they've engaged in when they held pedestal high positions of command channel domination over juniors they were pounding with their threatened violence. Execs and LRH seemed historically markedly oblivious to how hate instilling their arrogant power was, and to the ramifications of their unrestrained violence threatening behavior which resulted in hateful retaliation toward the Sea Org, Scn and LRH.)

LRH never apologized (if he did, I would like to read about it, and others can direct met to moments when LRH did, and if he did, that would open the door to the Scn leaders themselves apologizing).

In my opinion, unfortunately LRH to the contrary failed to allow them the policy to apologize for their mistakes. I may be wrong, and will eagerly await others who can defend LRH's threatened and overt violence and screaming behavior, and show policy or writings where he says to apologize.

The closest I have read / heard was the Esto Tapes, Tapes 4-5, and 5-6, where LRH says the Esto has to get the angry Exec to communicate to the screamed at junior, so the junior isn't left with the impression that the pissed exec still hates the junior, or whatever the junior's fear might be. LRH at least offers that piece of policy for execs to unburden the damage done by venting their wrathe on juniors. Further in 1981 LRH wrote The Way to Happiness. And in the early 80's advices that were turned into the FPRD and Truth Rundown, there are steps the person is to direct communication to those he incorrectly viewed and who he "black PRed".

I think in recent years the violence threatening is lessened. The Scn leaders I think now, with the years of time passed, it is time for them to apologize individually to at least the major Sea Org members who were pretty brutally treated in the early 80's and henceforth. This could be done personally, and the word would spread. Honest, personal, apologies would be a good thing. The goodwill generated from that alone, would actually advance their cause.

I never saw this, Arnie, until reading Hana's remarks.

There is SO MUCH vital info in the anti-Scn sites, and I thank you again, Arnie for your years of great efforts getting this material for former members to see. Thank you particularly for the recent things you are posting!!!

This excerpted paragraph above undid for me one of my longest pondered mysteries of Sea Org irrationality. Your posts I really appreciate.

Best, Chuck Beatty
http://www.freewebs.com/chuckb­eatty77/



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Kim P - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:39:49 -0500
Local: Wed, Mar 16 2005 11:39 am
Subject: Re: Thank you Arnie Lerma!!! - Chuck Beatty

thank you for your input Chuck - your experiences and your journey to self rediscovery are vital information for everyone here -ex members or not. I congratulate you on your continued growth and appreciate your input more than words can express.

Kim Palmer

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Mar 2005 07:37:17 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 18 2005 7:37 am
Subject: Re: RPF Insider: daily schedule on the RPF

Keith Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:24:09 -0500, "SunSurfer"
> wrote:
> >"Keith Henson" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On 16 Mar 2005 01:48:31 -0500, [email protected] (Dave Touretzky)
> >> wrote:

> >>>Keith Henson posted on ARS that someone should ask the RPF Insider
> >>>what the RPF schedule was, so people would know the best times to
> >>>picket Big Blue.

> >>> ================

> >>> RPF Insider's Reply to Keith Henson's Query

> >>>RPF schedule:

> >>> 6:50 AM Wakeup

> >> This is way cool information and I very much appreciate it.

> >> However, it really doesn't answer my question: when would be the
> >> best time to picket on the west side of big blue to get the
> >> attention of the RPF?

> >> Then again maybe does if the RPF people are run so ragged that
> >> they could never look out a window.

> >> Best wishes,

> >> Keith Henson

> >Some questions to clarify your intentions and plans for your planned
> >"Memeatopia" http://human-nature.com/nibbs/­02/cults.html
> >I will soon post a brief "review" of your article with "Quotes and
> > NOTES" format, but until that time -

> Thanks. I was amazed by how widely that article got linked. Google
> reports about 783 links. Always glad to discuss it and clear up any
> questions you might have.

> >Why do you want to harass those people on the RPF?

> The point is to show support for them. Chuck Beatty was in not that
> long ago. As him how the people in the RPF would feel about being
> supported by picketers.

> >Who are you to decide for others what they should learn or not
> >learn?

> The MemeMaster. :-)

> snip

> Keith Henson

Chuck answered:

I would have loved to read my name on a protestor's sign. If someone said:

"RPFers!!! We're thinking about you guys!! Call 1-800-RPF-DEFECT for help!"

I would have bolted and called. I wouldn't have been able to restrain myself.

The rumor of such a demonstrationw would get around, within minutes, and within an hour any clear messages simply stated on the protest signs if seen by RPFers would leak around the RPF.

They ALL know the RPF is on the edge. Despite wanting to stay in, or whatever their plans are.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Mar 2005 07:30:35 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 18 2005 7:30 am
Subject: Re: RPF Insider: daily schedule on the RPF

Keith Henson wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2005 01:48:31 -0500, [email protected] (Dave Touretzky) wrote:

> >Keith Henson posted on ARS that someone should ask the RPF Insider
> >what the RPF schedule was, so people would know the best times to
> >picket Big Blue.

> > ================

> > RPF Insider's Reply to Keith Henson's Query

> >RPF schedule:

> > 6:50 AM Wakeup

> This is way cool information and I very much appreciate it.

> However, it really doesn't answer my question: when would be the best
> time to picket on the west side of big blue to get the attention of
> the RPF?

> Then again maybe does if the RPF people are run so ragged that they
> could never look out a window.

> Best wishes,

> Keith Henson

Lunch mealtimes, the smokers in the RPF will be likely sitting in the stairwell, and this stairwell is open to view out to the street corner of Catalina and Fountain Avenues. RPF lunch starts and many RPFers rush to that stairwell right at the beginning of the lunch break and puff away, about 10-30 of them, sitting slightly unnoticed but allowing their smoke to drift out the opening of the stairwell. The best location to be seen from their perch on the steps in that stairwell, will likely be the sidewalk ACROSS from the complex, the sidewalk area by the "Mail-Box Cafe" on the one corner of Catalina and Fountain. Then the RPFers puffing their cigarettes will at least get a glance of the protesteres. I also think smoker RPFers would be more likely to get a grin from the signs, so long as the signs have BIG simple messages on them.

Also I suggest a rapid swat team type setup protests, and aim your signs right at the opening of the southwest blue building stairwell, so the RPFers can see them.

Security will react instantly, and shoo them away out of the stairwell, and it will disrupt their lunch, but a few will actually see the signs if the sign-carriers set up really fast and the signs are big print enough and visible from about 60-80 feet away. Maybe a big clear banner aimed right at the stairwell during their smoking time, that would get whatever message is on the banner inside the best.

Lunch RPF meal time is the best time to catch an RPFer's eye, and aim the signs at the southwest stairwell of the complex.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Mar 2005 08:01:36 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 18 2005 8:01 am
Subject: Re: RPF Insider: daily schedule on the RPF

snip

Honestly, simply a small group of protesters clearly enuciating and chanting in sync, saying a simple message, again I would love to have heard something like: "Call 1-800-RPF-DEFECT" chanted over and over, simply would get the message in, and that simple message would get to almost every RPFer, within a few hours, and any that wanted to bolt and get help, would bolt call the number. - Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Mar 2005 10:44:10 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 18 2005 10:44 am
Subject: Re: RPF Insider: daily schedule on the RPF

Mike Gormez wrote:

> "On 18 Mar 2005 08:01:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote in
> <[email protected]­000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

> Hiring a phone number is the easy thing but you'd need a back office
> to process the RPF blowers. You'd need a van/cars, safe place to stay,
> food, phone to call their families and some pocket money for the first
> few days etc.

> That is a serious operation when 10 would blow right away. And you
> know since the scienos behave in such circumstances as spoiled brats that
> they will wreck havoc near homes they expect those people are staying,
> fueled by stories of evil deprogrammers and what not.

> LA critics should best stay somewhere else then because they will
> have the cops - if not a SWAT team - knocking on their door thanks to
> anonymous phone calls. it has all been done before by the scienos.

> --
> Mike Gormez

In my 2 years in the PAC RPF, and in my 4 years in the Int RPF, there usually is only less than 5 people at a time, and usually just 1 or 2, that is REALLY on the edge, and blowy.

I think the blowy ones are the ones that would appreciate immediate assistance.

In otherwords, don't worry about vans.

I think just spur of the moment help is safest from Scn official organized retaliation.

There are NOT going to be floods of people coming out. If so, then my thoughts were, to have a cell phone with the 800 number on it, and I would be willing to just be liaison. People who can help put an ex-RPFer up for a night, for a few days, until that person gets contact with family, or other ex's already out, they could hook up with, I think just temporary relayers, like others have already offered.

Spur of the moment, whoever is available, best suited by personal nature to befriend the particular defecting Sea Org person. People knowing older Sea Org members coming out, would befriend their old friends, and put them up for a few days until they can hook up with family elsewhere, etc.

There might be spurts, for instance during times when RPFers go off base, and are able themselves to get to phones, and defect, that happens weekly, RPFers go out of the complex to the LA County Hospital, to Olive View hospital, for their own medical scenes, those will be possible phone calling defectors, and they will be already OUT of the building, on a city bus far away from the complex, enroute or coming back from LA County or Olive View hospitals. I doubt more than 3 will defect simultaneously, and the handling would be just a place to stay and place to eat, until they can be relayed to family.

I myself in many of my blow scenarios that I pondered, I was overjoyed when one time I was enroute to Olive View hospital there in LA with my RPF twin, and we drove by the Salvation Army of Glendale, and I was filled with the prospect of blowing to the Salvation Army place and I plotted at night back in my RPF bunk dreaming of how I was to blow, present myself to the Salvation Army place, get what I needed, get my ID, get help, get a job, and move on from there.

It does NOT have to be totally organized, only the phone line. I'd be willing, and am checking into the cost of having a 1-800- number come to a cell phone, andthen I could do it 24/7, I'd volunteer to be the relay point, and have one or two other people in LA I could then call, give coordinates for pickup, and anyone who wants to help, just contact me. If I had 3-4 people willing to put a defectee up for a night or two, and I'd help get the defectee hooked up to family or friends or other ex's they trust. Older timer ex-Sea Org members or older timer ex-Scientologists in LA willing to network an hook up any older timer defectors temporarily, people know people from years ago in the Sea Org, who would be willing to help a defectee for a night or two is all.

There are other things to discuss, and I'd love to here everyone's input on this.

I don't think there will be massive defection. I personally only think someone would use the 1-800-RPF-DEFECT phone line seriously less than 5 times per year. Honestly, the phone line itself would pressure any temporary or permanently ingrained harshness in the RPFs to lessen, once the word leaks inside that the RPFers have a hot line 1-800 number they could contact for general help should they instantly defect.

I support any type of lifeline type option to those inside who DON'T want to wait out the bureaucratic ingrained seemingly endless route out procedure.

It could be that the church will modify and issue local policy making it even clearer in the RPFs that RPFers can route out standardly, and they may increase the speed of the routing out procedures (mine was a horrendous 1 year 3 months the last time I tried to go out standardly, and routinely routing out of the RPF is several months minimally usually), and to me, just getting the church to speed up the process.

As an aside, I know my process took so long, because as people can see from what I have written, I do have strong feelings positively about most of the Sea Org members in the Sea Org, and one ex-Int RPFer emailed me a week ago and told me that DM had ordered back in 1997 that I be handled. So that is why my handling, and why they tried so long to salvage me and gave me so much leeway. In fact I think and understand that from their viewpoint this was very good of them, and I honestly appreciate all the good well meaning intentions of them in that regard, I can understand and apreciate their intentions towards me, and I feel the same good intentions towards them still.

But I do feel that when a human being wishes to move on, in life, that they let that human being move on. Their heartfelt loss of losing people they like, I think their communicating that honestly, person to person, does more than months and months of in my opinion in my case, ineffective and seemingly bureaucratic slow paperwork delays.

Amidst all their good intentions, which no one can really convince them out of their beliefs that they are operating with good intentions, and I feel they think they are and understand that, but the major major gripe I had was the time factor. I knew since 1997 DM or maybe COB Asst had said salvage me, and that was why my first attempt went on and on and on, because I got on well with both DM and COB Asst, and I think they call the shots on these types of calls whether to let a former Int Base cleared staffer go out the back door. Despite the top people's good intentions, and all the other people's good intentions, you gotta just let people go when they want to.

There has to be a realistic time frame in letting people go who want to go, and then they won't blow, they won't have all the upsets about being under "watch" and being holed up.

Their speeding up the routing out, and making routing out NOT such a big hurdle, that would defuse setting up all the major things you mention above. My whole whole desire would be to offer RPFers a 1-800-RPF-DEFECT hotline. Then we'd see what kinds of reaches would be made to it.

If they let people leave within a more reasonable time frame, hopefully that is all the protests and 1-800 hotline would rectify, and that is why longerrange there hopefully will not even be a necessity for even maintaining some sort of underground railroad.

I think as long as they have blowing staff, that means they got procedures that the blowing staff didn't want to go through, that means to me the solution of a hotline to call and get spur of the moment unofficial friendly help, is always an option I will support as long as it is needed.

I think an unparanoid, sensible, mild-mannered approach to helping people who ask for it, treat all people decently, is the way to go. The Scn people when competing with compassionate people outside, will respond in kind on the inside, I've noticed this over the years when I was in that boat on the inside.

Any stranger is authorized to help another stranger and assist them if they choose. We are NOT talking about anything elaborate. Intelligent wogs would completely understand and approve of such help.

(I just read the Odysey by Homer and was struck by how good people several thousand years ago were with helping out strangers and unexpected guests; so I think it is well within modern people's nature to occassionaly help out others for a night or two, until they are let go on their ways to their families or other old friends.)

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 23 Mar 2005 00:41:08 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 23 2005 12:41 am
Subject: LRH tech film: Why TRs (Isaac Hayes stars in this one)

An anonymous person who has seen the LRH tech film called "Why TRs" wrote the following about this film:

Hi Chuck,

Well, this is an intersting question. Here's what I remember about the film:

It starts with Isaac Hayes standing on this platform in space [that the Int RPF built at the ranch]. He is talking about the book, THE DYNAMICS OF LIFE, and how it contains basics that Scientologists need to know and understand for the future.

The key ideas are TRs and that pc plus auditor are greater than the bank.

It shows problems that early Dn auditors had with getting restimulated by their pcs and how TRs solve that difficulty. I.e. with TRs, one can audit with no liability. I seem to remember graphics of how the bank of the pc can enturbulate the auditor and how pc minus auditor is less than the bank.

At some point Isaac Hayes looks through this special lens to view a sci-fi kind of planet. [I was always disappointed that the lens that we RPFers worked so hard on doesn't get a close up shot of it, it is just a background object, a lot of RPF work for not much of a shot!] The civilization on that planet was a remnant from an earlier high-tech space opera society. The surviving people on it were relatively primitive and were just learning about mest technology, trying to figure out how things left over from the space opera civilization.

[We also made huge paper mache rocks and stone slabs for that film, the Int RPF made virtually all the sets for this film, and we shipped the sets by truck from the Happy Valley ranch to the new Gold filming studio nicknamed the castle, since it looks like a huge castle, where they did the actual filming.]

The people on the planet were getting to the point where they could build an Emeter. LRH indicated that future societies would be able to overcome difficulties associated with manufacturing meters, implying that a meter would be necessary.

On the planet was a kid, who had been a Scientologist at some point earlier on the track, remembered it and was trying to teach it to the people on that planet.

One thing that was interesting to me is that the kid became Source on that planet.

Anyway, he was trying to get the people to audit dianetics but the sessions would fall apart because the auditor would get restimulated. So he realilzed that he had to put them all on a TRs course. On the course it was all smiles and the people talked, in a made-up language, about their wins.

Hence, the title, "Why TRs?"

The kid was sort of deified on that planet, or became a kind of king. To me that is also a key part of LRH's vision.

As you point out, Dn and Scn, nor LRH's writing, are still not generally accepted after 55 years. So much for becoming adored by the general populace.

In moments of doubt before I left Scn, I wondered if it would take a few hundred years, like it did for Christianity, for Scn to get a mass following. At this stage of the game, this does not seem likely to me. In my private world, though, I thought it might be like the freemen in DUNE (if you have read that).

Anyway, that's what I can remember about the film right now.

.....



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 23 Mar 2005 00:47:42 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 23 2005 12:47 am
Subject: Incisive thoughts from ex Int Base staffer

An ex-Int Base staffer wrote me the following:

... I found out that David Miscavige had a secret indicator to tell him if someone is actually an SP or not and that is this: If he points his finger at them at a staff meeting or in front of a group of other people and accuses them of being suppressive and trying to sabotage Scientology and they cave in afterwards and get introverted or want to leave -- Then that means, it was the RIGHT target. If the person shows no emotional response and does not get introverted, then they will eventually end up back on a post in the org and it will be considered a correctable mistake rather than a personality flaw requiring the RPF. I would bet a million dollars that this is why no one had Lisa McPherson's Introspection Rundown step number two (wrong indications found and handled) done properly to get her out of the break. No one said, Lisa --- it was a wrong indication that you were a bad WHO at Digital Lightwave. Because maybe THAT would have saved her life. But since she caved in and ran away afterwards --- it was therefore "correct". That's my conjecture. I've never seen anything about that aspect of it except that it wasn't in her worksheets as a wrong indication. She seemed to truly believe that she was a 1.1 SP and that that was the "truth" and her CSs and auditors and handlers let her believe that. Have you ever heard that info about how DM judges how someone reacts to a justice action as to whether it was correct or not? I wish I could remember who told me this info about DM, I think it was someone who worked with him in RTC briefly. If I remember the name, I'll let you know.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 22 Mar 2005 23:36:38 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 22 2005 11:36 pm
Subject: Re: Security Clearance & Co$

[email protected] wrote:
> Not Someone wrote:
> > Question,

> > Does a US government security clearance and Co$ mesh?

> > A security clearance requires a background check and sometimes a
> > polygraph.

> > If one has been to a physiologist or been counseled one has to
> > report it and sign forms that allow the government to
> > interview the counselor.

> > A financial statement is sometimes necessary

> > It seems to me that what one does in Co$ needs to be reported.
> > They take gobs of your money and audit secrets out of you so they can
> >blackmail you.

> > It's a good thing that the bad guy has not infiltrated Co$!

> Good question. I didn't know that. Would membership in any other
> church need to be reported?

I reported a lady who was in the Admin Courses course room at Int Training Org, in summer 1989, she was a devout Catholic and because she insisted on going to mass on Sunday, I knew the LRH policy saying dual religions are completely okay, and I thus let her go to mass, even though all other Int Training Org students study 24/7 basically. I let her go to mass each week, but I also sent a despatch to OSA Int, her seniors were OSA Int since she was the Dept of Special Affairs exec trainee for the Berlin Org, and Berlin hadn't realized that she might not be a completely satisfactory candidate for the DSA (Director of Special Affairs position) for Berlin org. She really was a strong Catholic, and a very green Scientologist, far greener as a Scientologist than as a devout Catholic. Which is fine, staff may be such. My thoughts were that she might not be suitable for the DSA position is all, so I alerted OSA Int about this.

I believe she was then decided to be fine for other staff positions but not the DSA post, although I don't recall the actual outcome. In my years of training, this was the only time I had a student so devout about their original faith, that they wished to practise it simultaneously while engaged in Scn training. She thanked me for letting her go to mass, as other course sups in Int Training Org had given her a hard time and hadn't allowed her. (Shows you also where I was headed, one of the long ago indicators of my "reasonableness" as a Sea Org member, because normally no regular Sea Org sup would allow a DSA trainee to go to mass, that was just too obviously a major outpoint!)

But also from this, my understanding was that being another religion did not preclude one from Scn org staff. But only might preclude one from certain posts, like the DSA area. But maybe not. This lady might today be the DSA Berlin, and she might be weekly going to mass. I don't think so though.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 23 Mar 2005 22:39:59 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 23 2005 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: Security Clearance & Co$

Mike Gormez wrote:

snip

> Was here maiden name Sabine Titzel?

No, I know Sabine, I helped train Sabine on some of her DSA training, and it was not Sabine. It was a slightly older attractive blonde haired German young woman. Over the years I helped train a whole slew of DSAs, Sabine, Muriel Dufresne (Gold), and Gaetain Asselin, Beth Akiyama (? spelling), and dozens of other OSA people over the years. I had no problem with them as people, the OSA guys were always a cut above average staff, just like the old GO people were similarly brighter and smarter than average staff. I don't think it's the OSA guys that are the problem. Rather if the current Scn leaders (namely only DM, he's the only one to accomplish this) were to turn off LRH's dumber rules, and retire the objectionable bad PR recoiling LRH ordered practises, they'd get along a lot better with the intelligent wogs who've been giving Scn bad press criticism and minimally the cold shoulder for decades. Ironically as LRH becomes more well known, the Scn movement PR and OSA people seeking wog allies are finding less and less wog officials who are niaivly uninformed. The point is the Scn leaders could change things by simply retiring the dumber rules that wogs find objectionable with Scn.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 23 Mar 2005 10:56:53 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 23 2005 10:56 am
Subject: HIgh level Sea Org member answers my email. - Chuck Beatty

The following is a short email conversation between me and Sharyn Runyon, the recent IAS Freedom Medal winner, one of only 2 Sea Org members to yet win this award. I feel this communication is important for several reasons. It shows that some Sea Org members do communicate to persons like myself, when they chose to on their own, without any higher authority's approval. She took it upon herself to respond to my cautioning polite email to her, the bottom email. Her addvice to me others would criticise, but I respect her communication. It is her right of course to hold those views. - Chuck Beatty

Dear Sharyn,

Thanks for answering.

I do not give any credence to LRH's claims about there being Suppressive Persons, nor will I allow any related ideas affect my behavior towards my fellow man. The SP rules are wrong and I will not treat people as SPs as church members do. People are people and can voice their opinions and suffer their fellow man's condemnation or approval for voicing their opinions. Man's freedom to converse on any topic is a broader agreed upon fact of life that reasonable intelligent people in the world agree to far more readily compared with agreeing to LRH's late 1960's restrictive SP rules which he's embedded into the Scn movement which now recoil and will continue to recoil on the church's image negatively, until the church retires these objectionable rules from practice. The church is free to defend itself in the tradition of thinking man on this planet, which is the arena of debate.

I agree with the intelligent people who I have found have a greater understanding of life compared to LRH. There are tens of thousands more intelligent individuals who are communicating about life and I find what I read in the media and in books, the classics, the great thinkers of the past, I finally came to the conclusion that LRH is truly far below past standards set by other thinking intelligent wise individuals on earth.

The Scn movement's public image in the intelligent circles of the world can be hyped only so long, and newly introduced intelligent wogs first encountering the Scn movement and LRH may be hopefully respectful, which is normal human behavior. But no seriously intelligent academics have embraced Scn as their religion. There is no trend of the intelligentsia class in western world being attracted and staying with, and intellectually defending LRH's major major claims.

I read my way out of the Scn movement. I read hundreds of wog encyclopedia articles in the RPF course rooms, over the 7 years while I was on the decks and the Int RPF and the PAC RPF in my final 7 years in the Sea Org. I even started reading the "Great Books" series of classic books from western man's several thousand year long history, in the final days on the RPF's RPF waiting to be processed out of the Sea Org.

In my final year on the RPF's RPF while going through the routing out process (took me 1 year and 3 months, although I heard very recently they have dispensed with doing these long routing out procedures, thank goodness in my opinion) I read the OEC volumes, I listened and compared LRH's lectures, the FEBC Tapes, the ESTO tapes, all the tape series, Sec Checker tapes over and over and over and over and over. I reread all the basic books.

I compared LRH, and came away with a different conclusion.

I've written extensively on the internet my views and my thoughts, as my thoughts evolved, and how I came to decide to finally end my engagement with the Scn movement.

I no longer subscribe to Scn rules. Any good things I learned from LRH I inherently use in my life.

It is any person's right to change their allegiances their place of work their religion, should they decide to. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has the clause about the right to change one's religion. I disagree with LRH's rule in the Code of Honor about not giving up one's allegiance once granted. That to me is just not correct.

I disagree with the restrictive Scn internal rules limiting debate about internal Scn movement communication about one's dissenting opinions.

There are about a dozen most senior Scn movement rules traceable directly to LRH that I plan to dissect and write about exhaustively in my life in the years to come, as I find time.

It is my hope the church long-range retires these most objectionable of LRH's rules. I think the church is to a degree already doing so, that's my opinion.

I feel those rules get in the way of the good things the church is trying to do, and I feel the church is responsive, from what I have read in the media, so it is my belief that the Scn movement will continue to evolve slowly, and actually longer range retire the practices that the broader intelligent wog world finds objectionable.

The church can carry on and do the good things its followers appreciate, since religious and practices or even just plain any person's beliefs and goals and purposes, when NOT reasonably objected against by their fellow man, are fine for any decent person to engage in accomplishing.

I hope the church accomplishes its well meaning and helpful goals. But above are my major thoughts on the Scn movement and some of its continuing objectionable rules that in my opinion it should cease trying to enforce in the world that does NOT react well to those rules!

Best, Chuck Beatty

The Scn movement does itself no favor, it paints itself into corners with some of LRH's rules.

The shunning former members it deems "suppressive", I disagree with. And I see these practices and it is my opinion that the SP policies and many other policies and writings of LRH's will continue to recoil on the Scn movement until it ceases to actively engage in those policies and writings.

Best, Chuck Beatty

==========================

In a message dated 3/20/2005 8:36:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes

Dear Chuck,

Thanks for the comm. You really should review your actions as they are anti-Scientology no matter if your justification is they are "open minded" or "reasonable". You are committing suppressive acts.

Take this opportunity to do your a-e steps and get straight. It is the decent thing to do. If you no longer want to do services, that is up to you but you shouldn't spend your time trying to stop others in the practice of their religion or make it harder by spreading false information or disgruntled communication.

Take the time right now and make the right choice and I really hope you do.

Sincerely, Sharyn

Church of Scientology New York
227 West 46th Street, NY, NY 10036
212-921-1210

==========================

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:34 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chuck - From Sharyn Runyon

Hi Sharyn,

Not sure how I got on your list. I am not entirely supportive of the Sea Org and Scn any longer. I respect Scn and Sea Org members, just because I know at heart they like everyone in the world, in my opinion, in the world are good people.

But I was in the Sea Org for 27 years, routed out, and I haven't plans to do Scn services the rest of my life.

I take people's response to Scn and the Sea Org whichever way the people respond. If people like things about the Sea Org and Scn, then I will share my views which are supportive. If people's responses towards Scn and the Sea Org are negative, then I share my similar negative responses.

I am truly what LRH would characterize as "open-minded", "reasonable" and I would be considered to have a fatal dose of "theetie-weetieness". I shouldn't really have delved into Scn and the Sea Org, and no amount of discussion nor reading of LRH's works, nor auditing, ever fundamentally dissuaded me from my root beliefs.

So while I have great affinity and respect for the commitment and basic goodness of Sea Org members, and if you are the IAS Freedom Medal winner Sharyn, then I surely have good thoughts about you and John Carmichael (the first two Sea Org members to get the IAS Freedom medal!). We may have crossed paths back at Flag in the late 70's or early 80's when you swung by there in the course of your Sea Org duties. Or else I recall you from seeing you in passing when you were in PAC in the early 80's or mid 80's, I recall your husband, Bill I believe is his name, he was short, wore lots of button down light blue shirts, and I think you both were in LRH PRO Office WUS, I think, and I was a Routing Forms Missionaire, on the computerized routing forms mission, and I vaguely crossed your path, or observed you both in your doing your jobs, while I passed through CMO PAC building in the early and mid 80's.

Anyways, I am out of the Scn movement, I basically I have crossed the line, I post on the anti-Scn sites, but I wish you well and hope you do good as you see it in the world.

While I won't ask to be taken off Scn mailing lists, since I like to hear the news, if you take me off, that is your prerogative.

Congratulations on winning the IAS Freedom medal, you and Michael and the other lady, Ms. Dubin. I got no problem at all with the good things LRH has written and which LRH has wished for this world.

Best, Chuck Beatty

==========================

In a message dated 3/17/2005 6:54:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Dear Chuck,

I have you on a list of people who were on staff. What org did you work at?

Are you currently on services?

Friday, tomorrow, is the LRH Birthday event in NYC. It is a great time to get back in touch with some old friends. We're expecting over 1,000 of them! Starts at 7pm at our building. Come.

Best, Sharyn



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Mar 2005 20:37:12 -0800
Local: Sat, Mar 26 2005 8:37 pm
Subject: The Floating Needle problem, longer range. Historical views

These are some thoughts about the problems with looseness of the needle, on the damn emeters the church uses and has used over the past 3 decades.

This is a comm cycle between two defectors, names changed, edited out, for now.

- Chuck Beatty

=============================

Hi Chuck,

Very interesting point.

You see, I started my tech training in '7X and by the time I got to the FSO in '7X, the HCOB [How to Set Emeter Sensitivity] had been revised to set the sensitivity to 1/3 dial drop on a can squeeze.

I did start on a Mark V, which I believe was a blue American Delta. And now that you mention it, I recall that my first metering course was in Copenhagen in '7X. Of course all we had was Mark V's, which as I recall were prodominately the gray British ones. And yes, the needle was loose as hell. My very first action on someone was a 10 Aug PTS handling, and the needle was all over the dial. As I recall, we simply set the sensitivity to 8 or 16 or something.

I do remember when the bulletin said to set the sensitivity to 1/2 dial FN "maximum or minimum", or something like that. I could never figure out for sure what that meant and I didn't know how one could set the sensitivity like that. As you say, you'd have to get an F/N somehow. It shows that it was considered, which matches some LRH HCOBs from the late 60s and early 70s, that it was easy to get an FN on someone. After GAT [Golden Age of Tech, the David Miscavige encroachment into the tech scene in the Scn movement started in 1996 and continues today], at least on the [blank] and apparently at the FSO, it nearly took an act of God to get an FN passed in a session.

What I was referring to below was auditing on a Mark VI or VII or Quantum from 1980 on. I think the method for setting sensitivity changed in '79 when the bulletin on E-METER ESSENTIALS errata came out.

One of the things that I wrote to [Sea Org terminal] in the summer of [--] was that I suspected the Quantum meter. Apparently LRH said that he discovered that the Delta Mark V did not FN properly, and so he got rid of them. There is also a tape (maybe a Class VIII tape?) where he says the way he tests a meter is to fly a rud and see if the meter shows an F/N. It was presented as a quick test. On the [---] ruds chains often went on and on, with pc protest, lots of checks for and reads on "bypassed FN" and the like. And in general there was an unbelievable amount of dope-off, overruns, pc protest, etc. on the [--]. And the long speeches at the examiner to try to FN. All of this made me think that in addition to the misdefinition of an FN, that Quantums meters do not FN properly. The design was supposedly based on some LRH advice, but who knows what actually happened. The movement mechanism was such that it was really hard to get two sweeps back and forth at the same speed, much less 3 or 4.

Anyway, I think you are right, that the Mark Vs, especially the way sensitivity was set, gave a very loose needle, often one hard to control. As I think back, even my Mark V with the sensitivity set lower still gave a needle looser than a VI or VII [later emeters].

Yes, that was a key change in the history of Scn.

From what I know, the last two HCOBs that LRH actually wrote, were in 1983 (one about sec checking implants and one about springy FNs). At least one of those bulletins mentions the Mark VI favorably. For sure the Mark VII was developed (by John McCormick?) after LRH died.

. . .

[----]

============================

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 27 Mar 2005 16:23:24 -0800
Local: Sun, Mar 27 2005 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: The Floating Needle problem, longer range. Historical views

Regarding the earlier version of the HCOB Emeter and Sensitivity Settings, maybe the original tech volumes contain (the version of HCOB Vols that contained BTBs and also contained all the revisions of certain key HCOBs so the reader was able to see how the tech evolved), I think that earliest version of the tech vols might contain the original version, I hope, of the sensitivity setting procedure. That earlier version of the Sensitivity setting HCOB told the details of the, I think, 3 methods of setting the sensitivity, or maybe it was just 2 allowed methods. The earliest Tech Vols edition should contain the procedure for setting the sensitivity to 1/2 dial F/N size.

My solution on their damn emeter. If I were them, I'd send Bruce Plotz and Luigi (their two emeter resident geniuses at Golden Era)on a very long project, with unlimited funds, let them go scour ANY source of material ANY where they both need to (unlimited plane flights, unlimited research funding), and FIX their damn emeter (first giving both a 1 month vacation and 5 Gs each to just blow for laughs). This includes letting Luigi and Bruce make unlimited and unhindered visits with ANYONE, ANYWHERE on planet earth (meaning letting them go visit Ralph Hilton or any person who knows anything about the damn emeter). I'd give their project a 5 year TM, and if they got it done in 3 years, fine, give them a bonus.

Oh, I so wish to have a discussion with a former Exec Strata person, someone in the Exec Strata in the last 10 years, someone who knows the responsibility that LRH placed on the Exec Strata, which was supposed to be the body of experts, above the movement, expert in their zones.

I really do hope someone who has been through the years of Int Base upper echelon life, I hope that someone who's been in Exec Strata, for a decade or more, and really got what LRH wanted of them, as solvers for these ongoing major major problems, to come forward.

Anybody know of any Exec Strata ex-Sea Org people who have come out in the past decade, let me know, I would like their input.

I think historically, it would be great to get the opinions of former high level exec problem solvers in the Scn movement, to what they think the movement should be doing differently.

I think ultimately the Scn movement benefits, because the ones kicked out, often just held unpopular opinions that the current Scn leadership couldn't accept.

They need a means to fix their internal goofs, their big goofs, the goofs set in concrete, no matter WHO, including LRH, was responsible for their original goofs set in concrete.

Historically ANY group faces this challenge.

When I read so many intelligent correct assessments of the movement by the people posting on ARS and outside the official Scn movement, and by people who I personally know to be really good people, I hope the official church heeds the good advice the people kicked out of the movement or self-ejected out of the movement offer back to them!

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Mar 2005 11:51:40 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 28 2005 11:51 am
Subject: LRH and MSH, point of discussion, their stories

General question:

1) Is it ethical for people who audited LRH to now post details of LRH's statements in session?

(Reason I ask is that such details would be valuable for the generations of researchers, wogs, who may someday do more serious biographies of LRH than the official Scn movement is doing or will ever do.)

2) Similarly, is is ethical for people who audited MSH and heard her thoughts on her life with LRH, and her thoughts on the whole transition of events when she was incarcerated, to reveal her thoughts, AFTER she is deceased?

LRH and MSH are the most major players in the Scn movement. Their ideas and opinions, behind the scenes, are thus likewise the most revealing about the Scn movement.

I truly truly hope MSH will write before she passes away, and that her voice on whatever she wishes to discuss, is allowed to reach the public domain.

I also similarly hope those with first hand stories about LRH and MSH get those stories into someone's hands they trust.

For history's sake. Some wog researchers will appreciate the info even if the official Scn movement will not.

Best, Chuck Beatty

====================================== [A reply to this question:]

Quaoar Mar 28, 12:06 pm

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: "Quaoar" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:06:53 -0700
Local: Mon, Mar 28 2005 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: LRH and MSH, point of discussion, their stories

No, it's not ethical in either Wog or Kult ethical systems to divulge information given in confidence by the recipient of such information. Practically, though, such revelations, while perhaps interesting, are hearsay and have no intrinsic value unless corroborated by the originator.

Q

====================================== [Another reply to this question:]

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] (Cerridwen) - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Mar 2005 22:55:31 -0000
Local: Mon, Mar 28 2005 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: LRH and MSH, point of discussion, their stories

On 28 Mar 2005,

[email protected] wrote:
>General question:

>1) Is it ethical for people who audited LRH to now post
>details of LRH's statements in session?

>(Reason I ask is that such details would be valuable for
>the generations of researchers, wogs, who may someday do
>more serious biographies of LRH than the official Scn
>movement is doing or will ever do.)

What's the law on this? I know the PC folders are marked "confidential confessional folders" but what law would be applied to make this legal or not legal to do.

I think the law is the important matter here. If it's OK for a pastor/counsellor to divulge this kind of information after a person is dead, then fine, I say sure, let's hear it.

LRH is dead.

I don't think dead people give a shit about what was said in their sessions. I'm sure the Church of Scientology cares what might be told, but I doubt LRH gives a rat's ass.

>2) Similarly, is is ethical for people who audited MSH
>and heard her thoughts on her life with LRH, and her
>thoughts on the whole transition of events when she was
>incarcerated, to reveal her thoughts, AFTER she is
>deceased?

Again, I think it's fine, as long as she's deceased and it's legal.

>LRH and MSH are the most major players in the Scn
>movement. Their ideas and opinions, behind the
>scenes, are thus likewise the most revealing about
>the Scn movement.

It would be wonderful information to have. I guess we can hope that the people that currently have this information, will write it all up or video tape an interview with themselves, telling all these marverlous stories and passing it on after "they" die. It may take longer than you want but at least the information will be available for the future.

Cerridwen

http://www.truthaboutscientolo­gy.com/stats/

"Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who disagree with you." --Prignillius



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Mar 2005 10:44:09 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 28 2005 10:44 am
Subject: Violence and Restraints - real incidents, late 90's. Int Base & RPF

Re: Physical restraints and violence in the last 10 years, Int RPF and Int Base

A month or so ago I wrote my opinion and asked people who have been at the Int Base to confirm what I thought was the case.

1)I wanted some evidence that dissaffection against DM was grounds for being sent to the dog house. This is confirmed with the info below.

2)I wanted to find out the extent of physical abuse, like hitting, etc., and below is the most shocking I have ever heard. My opinion is that in the most recent years the punching, etc., stopped, and I think this is somewhat still true, in spite of the incidents below, which are from late 90's.

Below is a daming portrayal of unecessary violence and restraints in the late 90's at the Int Base and Int RPF. It captures an exact scenario, an exact predicament, this person below found themselves in.

Anyone else recently out of the Sea Org with any stories they wish me to post, please let me know. [email protected] 412-260-1170

Chuck Beatty

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

Dear Chuck,

Well here is a long answer for you. You might want to edit names and such, .... I'll leave it up to your good judgement. ....

I began criticizing DM after I'd been removed from post in [.....] because I had [.....] and I was unable to get through the [...auditing...],and I was sent to the RPF shortly thereafter... so I do not know how a REGULAR base staffer was treated with regards to criticizing DM in exact particulars.

I can give you bits of info: I do know that in [...late 90's...] while I was at OGH [Old Gilman House, where troublesome staff temporarily berth until they get back in good graces, see this site: http://www.lermanet.com/image/­hemet-labeled.jpg ] that a rule was implemented that individuals who had "spread Black PR" about DM would get placed at OGH to do mest work and get rollback/TRD [Truth Rundown auditing procedure the result of which one recants the "black propaganda" one has spread regarding well-intentioned individuals or groups].There were small posters [cardboard posters with hand-drawn slightly comical images] that were made up each week during this program (at one point there were 30 or more people at OGH doing MEST WORK and they worked on projects such as digging trenches all over the area to install an irrigation system, or transplanting large trees, potting large amounts of plants for future use on the property etc.). A typical poster said "BLACK PR BART WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE" and DEAD was circled. I found this to be very intimidating...

This group of 30 people apparantly "had not passed their weekly HCO meter checks" [HCO meter checks were done to pull strings on staff with bad indicators, like if a staff had a dirty needle on the check, that was bad news for them, they'd get investigated] and some of them had to get rollback and TRD handlings. There was one person in particular who was at OGH who had been in RTRC and I had heard second hand from the Staff Security Off this person had criticized DM and had come up as a source of "BLACK PR" in RTRC. That person got their own special handling [later I met up with this person on the Int RPF, so that was the outcome of this person's fate]. At that time this person was not allowed to talk to or do work with others, but only allowed to do work on their own. This person somehow did get the opportunity to help another person then on the decks also, but even though the person appreciated the help, which was word clearing on religion apparantly, the isolated troublesome person was quickly separated again from contacting the others. One aspect of the story is that this troublesome person complained that the LRH calendars have removed Easter and Christmas from the LRH calendars, and this person complained about that.

OK... so more on me and "black PR". I said and wrote things about DM that I believed were NOT Black PR and I was given "TRD Steps" on the meter for these. I got mad and said, "How can I do TRD steps for something which I don't beleive is a lie?" I found this very challenging to my sanity actually... I said there MUST be a way to prove with evidence that something is false BEFORE one picks it out as BLACK PR. It seemed that anything "bad" about DM was considered "Black PR". That was what it seemd to me anyway. All of my criticisms of DM were in my "black PR cull" which is a compilation of things a person has written or said to be put throught the Truth Rundown steps.

There was one day when I was getting an assist from one of the deckies at OGH who were there because they were routing out, they weren't part of the black PR Bart campaign. In this assist I actually did have a wild delusion about DM and I said it to her..... Why I made this up, I have no clue... except that I was in a lot of pain from having to do heavy MEST work at OGH without having gotten any physical therapy for my back problems and I also had a toothache and problems with my wisdom teeth causing pain and was not able to see the dentist. Possibly I felt that I was being denied medical and dental care because of DM's orders about me and so I had to attack him somehow or it was so stupid to be getting asists when what I needed was real medical help! I was maybe fighting back in a way that would get me the attention I needed?... Since it was a session, my assist auditor did not say anything about it. But later on not in session, she politely said she no longer wanted to exchange assists with me, that she no longer wanted to do MEST work with me and she frankly thought I was a "no change" and she thought it was not OK that I say anything bad about DM. They lauded him as being a very hard working man doing many things for Scientology and I had no right to complain about him. I also had her roomate and friend who was at OGH "getting correction" on her own seperate program come up to me and yell in my face "you are not my friend!!!" All the people on the "Black PR Bart" program were gone and so now I was working all on my own at OGH again.

[person tells story of a delusive event they know now they invented] was confusing. This quite possibly was a real example of delusion where I was making something up to attack him [DM] again because I was getting realy sick of being at OGH...and I had gotten [some condition] and was losing weight rapidly.....

And... it worked. I got offloaded with a little trip out to Big Bear with some other SO members looking after me to do a destim program to resolve the physical situation... and my final routing out sec check I had the OSA auditor speak to me very sternly during the session and say "YOU KNOW THIS WASN'T TRUE" and she demanded an overt I'd committed before I said it. I said that I was not surviving well at OGH and that the auditing I was given was too difficult and over my head and very out-tech and this was why I said it, because I was being forced by auditor and my CS to committ out-tech wihich is an overt. My OSA auditor would not accpet this answer, she plied me with more questions. I began crying and I said that well, [and made up another potential delusion to give the auditor an answer]. My auditor was very interested in this and acknowledged this and said my needle was floating. I argued with her that, how would you be able to use the meter to tell if I'm lying or not if it floats when I tell a lie too? She had no answer for this.... I figured personally that the emeter cannot be used to evolve the truth, it only reads on conviction perhaps.

I was so convinced after this auditing that I might be gay that I told me family after I got out of the SO that this might be the case. they were so understanding about it, that I lost my fear of being in such a state as a human being and I actually found that I wasnt' really gay. I have also contacted the female staffer I imagined having an affair with since and she laughed and thougth it was funny that I thought this had happend and I realized that it was just no way because most of the time we were together we just talked about guys!!! It was just under the pressure and the challenge to my own answers to the questions that I'd get delusional. The treatment I got at OGH made me delusional!!!

ON BEING TACKLED AND RESTRAINTS:

I blew the Int RPF at the Ranch. I ran over the hills, not sure which compass direction (not along the creek) and I got to a small dirt road. The dog, Lady had followed me probably to protect me. But she pointed me out to the Security Guard who came driving down the dirt road looking for me. I was exhausted from all the running and I had not eaten breakfast. He offered me an orange and we sat on the tail gate of the truck and chatted while I ate the orange and caught my breath. there was no physical contact here. R.... (a top Int Base Security Guard) wanted to know where I was going and why. I said I wanted to visit my family and that my letter to the HAS Gold saying I wanted to route out wasn't getting answered so therefore, I had a right to blow because the LRH policies were not being followed. R... said that I could get this sorted out and he would call U..., the Secrutiy Chf and we could talk. I was driven back to the Ranch, I said I was NOT going back to the RPF site until I got some answers about why my letters were not getting answered. R... [note: this Security Guard R... himself blew the Sea Org some time later] said that it was just to meet U... [Security Chief, who is the boss of all the Int Base and the Int Ranch Security Guards] there at the Security office at the Int Ranch, and I wasn't going back to the part of the Int Ranch where the Int RPF was. I then saw U... and he said his office at the Ranch was being used for a session for a kid (it was actually) and he had to drive me to a room at the RPF Site. I said NO, that I was not wanting to go back to the RPF and I was having doubts about even remaining in Scientology. U... then said, that it was just to talk in the room. We got to the room and he basically said that I was declared a Suppressive Person again. I ran out of the room. I was really upset. I was screaming "I am not BAD!!!!" and I was crying, "I am not BAD" and I walked towards the gate to get off the RPF site again. T... W... [Int RPFer] stopped me and grabbed me physically. I tried to strangle him to get him to let go of me. Someone else intervened and I fell on the ground on my back kicking and screaming. My friend J... showed up and she apparently had gotten OK to take me for a walk. The guys let go of me and J... and I went for a long walk and smoked cigarettes and chatted. I did not want to get my friend J... in trouble so I did not try to run away while I was with her. But I also knew that it was either have a nice peacful walk with J... and chill out or go back to getting tackled... I chose the former. My twin T... got in trouble for my having blown and she had to do the RPFs RPF and very heavy MEST WORK. J... said that I had some OUT INT on my last auditing and that I was going to get some INT RD auditing. I did get some and I decided to try to do the program. Later on, I think in June, I got upset about something and I wanted to just take a walk. I felt kind of trapped. I got up early around 6AM and I figured I'd take a long walk and then come back . I just needed some space. I was already declared, so what difference did it make? I got past the main gate of the RPF site and M..., the Int Ranch Secruity guard showed up and tried to talk me out of taking a walk. Then the RPF I/C and RPF Bosun showed up and they tackled me and stuffed me into M... C...'s [Int Ranch Security Guard's] car, I tried hitting the RPF I/C and said that this was illegal and I was gong to sue the Church, it violates my basic human rights, and the Int RPF I/C said, "you can sue me..." He grabbed my hands and held them down while he was sitting on me in the car. I was totally pinned in. I asked him to please let go of my hands because he was cutting of my circulation and he said he would if I stopped hitting him. He then let go of me. M... C... [Int Ranch Security Guard] told me that if I EVER feel like I need to go for a walk or am having any problems, I could come and talk to him personally to get it sorted out. I said OK.

I was brought back to the site. I again tried to do my RPF program and I got very depressed when my I found out my husband and sister had not gotten my Christmas presents, and my husband [an Int Base staffer in good graces doing fine on his post at the Int Base] wasn't allowed to write me letters and the RPF FOs had changed to where there was now NO 2D time anymore, not even if a gold arm band is achieved. I felt my marriage was in great danger, that if I did actually do my program that I would not have my husband waiting for me and I coudln't recover him by showing I was doing the program by getting 2D time with my gold arm band. I got in trouble for complaining about the buddy system [at the Int RPF during the late 90's a system was implemented where no Int RPF was trusted to go anywhere by themselves, and had to have another Int RPFer go with them, so this was unofficially known as the "buddy system"] and I got taken off my job as the D/Tools IC and brought to the MAAs office for an interview. In there I said that the recent RPF FO changes were suppressive and that whoever changed the LRH approved FOs was a Suppressive and I refused to do a Squirrel RPF Program. Apparently it was DM who had these changed... I didn't know this,but... anyway, while I was in M...'s [Int RPF MAA's] office, I noticed in his pending basket that all my letters out were still there. He'd been stopping my comms!!! all year!! I demanded to go see M... C... [Int Ranch Security Guard, the Int Ranch had only 1 single Security Guard on duty at a time, and 1 sleeping]. M... [Int RPF MAA] wouldn't let me and he blocked the door. I got mad and punched him in the face, he grabbed my hand and slammed in on the desk and broke my hand (I may have broken it punching him, but when he smashed it on the desk, it definately broke it and made the bone unable to set properly. I still have a slight problem with my right hand) and then he shoved me backwards a couple times into the shelving behind me brusing my back and ribs. Then he stuffed me into a chair and held onto my wrists very tightly and wouldn't let me move out of the chair. Then the RPF Bosun and RPF I/C and C... B... [RPFer who was about to become my new twin], showed up. I was declared a Suppressive Person again and C...B... was instructed to read references about Suppressives to me while M... [RPF MAA] kept me in the room. Finally M... let me go. But whenever I went for the door, I was jumped on and shoved back into my chair. M... T... [Int RPF MAA] used to be a professinal bouncer in Australia.... he seemd to enjoy physically abusing a small women... I was brought food and I threw it at them and refused to eat. This went on until sunset. finally the guys left the room and K... showed up, holding the RPF Qual IC and she told me that I needed to get a shower and get some sleep. I refused and said I was not going to eat or sleep until I could talk to M... C... [Int Ranch Security Guard] because M... C... said I could talk to him anytime I needed help. And I didn't care if I died. I said I wasn't going to do the program unless the RPF FOs got changed back again to just FPRD and with 2D time. K... [RPF Qual I/C] said, that if I ate something and got some sleep it didn't mean I was in agreement with the program. I could still eat and sleep and keep my stand. I said OK and I was escorted to the shower and to my room. There were three people posted outside my door to guard me. I listened very carefully and there was a point where I felt that all three had moved away from the door to smoke a cigarette or maybe go to the bathroom and I (having gotten under my covers fully dressed and with my shoes on) bolted out the door and I ran up the creek bed so fast no one could catch me. I made it to my aunts house where Ken Hoden and my sister (gosh she finally got to talk to me!) came to sweet talk me back to OGH. That was [late 90's]..

At OGH, I jumped the fence at OGH by placing a ladder by the fence and very carefully stepping over the ultra barrier [razor sharp wire] and dropping down. I did not get very far when the security guard came and pursued me with a truck. I actually wasn't trying to blow this time, I just wanted to take a walk so I told that to the Security Guard and they allowed me to take a long walk with a Security guard escorting me. When I was done with my walk I got driven back to OGH.

There were three other instances where I went for a walk or left and I was followed by security guards and spoken to and given many promises that my problems would get resolved. I did not have anymore physical tackling, just being closely followed on foot or by truck and the person stopping in front of me and telling me to stop. I didn't want to get tacked again, so the person standing in front of me and ordering me to stop kind of was a threat to me. Whether he would have actually tackled me if I did not stop, I don't know because I would stop and talk.

Those are my physical tackling and being restrained stories. I suppose the men involved in harassing me all felt they were doing this for "the greatest good" and did not respect the laws of the United States.

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

Dear .....,

In your opinion, at the Int Base, did people in general get away with criticizing DM openly. Or did someone criticizing DM get one in trouble, minimally with an MAA talking to one, or one getting a rollback? Or did an RTC staffer come defend DM and threaten Gold staff who appeared mutinous to DM?

I also would like to hear about the physical restraints you mentioned one time. When you blew, from the Int RPF, the 2nd time, is that the time someone tackled you, or did you get tackled at the Int Base, while living at OGH?

Best, Chuck

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

From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Mar 2005 11:16:52 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 28 2005 11:16 am
Subject: Re: Violence and Restraints - real incidents, late 90's. Int Base & RPF

I can confirm the peripheral details of this person's story. I saw this person on the Int RPF, when they were experiencing these incidents, but I didn't hear of the details.

The people perpetrating these restrictive rules which generate the intense aggravation at not being allowed to get out of that situation, are unfortunately overstepping what is gneerally accepted rational behavior in the broader world we live in.

My own more minor restraints, were the most trying moments in my adult life.

I hope and feel the official Scn movement will cease creating situations that result in these restraining moments and these unfortunate violent results.

All they have to do, is let the damn person go, let them walk out, let them get out, and let the person insisting on leaving to just go. The pressure will be off! Then no worse physical violence will result.

I'd let a person blow right out of there, rather than restrain them.

This issue, this is LRH talking to them. They need to cease this LRH rule, period! There is no valid excuse for restraining people in any circumstance like this person experienced, nor like my much more minor but similar experience. I know the people intimately, the MAA the Bosaun the RPF I/C, all are the same people, I know all of the people this person above is talking about. I don't doubt for an instant that what this person is saying is 100% accurate.

Chuck Beatty
[email protected]
412-260-1170



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Mar 2005 11:51:40 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 28 2005 11:51 am
Subject: LRH and MSH, point of discussion, their stories

General question:

1) Is it ethical for people who audited LRH to now post details of LRH's statements in session?

(Reason I ask is that such details would be valuable for the generations of researchers, wogs, who may someday do more serious biographies of LRH than the official Scn movement is doing or will ever do.)

2) Similarly, is is ethical for people who audited MSH and heard her thoughts on her life with LRH, and her thoughts on the whole transition of events when she was incarcerated, to reveal her thoughts, AFTER she is deceased?

LRH and MSH are the most major players in the Scn movement. Their ideas and opinions, behind the scenes, are thus likewise the most revealing about the Scn movement.

I truly truly hope MSH will write before she passes away, and that her voice on whatever she wishes to discuss, is allowed to reach the public domain.

I also similarly hope those with first hand stories about LRH and MSH get those stories into someone's hands they trust.

For history's sake. Some wog researchers will appreciate the info even if the official Scn movement will not.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 27 Mar 2005 20:06:30 -0800
Local: Sun, Mar 27 2005 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: Happy Easter to those in the RPF

Question:

Do you think the official Scn movement ethics staff should allow birthday cards with simple short well-wishes to family members inside the Sea Org to pass through and be received by Sea Org members who have officially disconnected from these family members outside?

Similarly do you think other short messages good-roads good-weather news sent by SP family members outside to Sea Org family members inside should be allowed to pass through to the Sea Org members inside?

I am thinking strictly of well-wishes like Birthday, Anniversary, birth announcements, holidays, and relatives' news that is NOT related to religion at all, and NOT challenging in any way against the Sea Org members beliefs or committment to the Sea Org.

If you were in the Sea Org, and were my son or daughter, having read my postings on the ARS and Clambake sites, would you as a Sea Org member but also my son or daughter in the Sea Org, would you be willing to receive from me a Birthday Card, which simply said:

"Hi son! Thinking of you. I hope you are doing well and have a great birthday! Love, Dad "

My opinion is that the official Scn movement would make a MAJOR advance to their benefit if they allowed this between the formerly estranged long standing "SPs" and family members in the Sea Org or active Scn members. They might be already, but I sorta got the impression this is not fully the case.

I am curious if non-staff Scn members in good standing with the official Scn movement, if they already go ahead and have good-roads good-weather relationships with their "SP" family members. I see nothing wrong with this, and hope this is allowed.

Basically my question is do you agree that good-roads/good-weather well-wishes be allowed between opposite sides (the "SPs" and good-standing Scn members)?

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Mar 2005 18:37:52 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 28 2005 6:37 pm
Subject: Re: Happy Easter to those in the RPF

Ball of Fluff wrote:
> "Hartley Patterson" wrote in message snip

> Hartley, most church members are so indoctrinated that they will often
> impose and enforce disconnection from friends, family and others -
> themselvs. That's what SunSurfer is referring to though I'm sure he won't
> attribute it to indoctrination.
> snip
> The cunningness of indoctrination is that the Scn'ist in question
> will often self censor, self disconnect. I've seen it.
> snip
> That's why you don't find many doing web searches re Scn or, if they
> do, just backing out of the 'sites in disgust and going on to do
> something else.
> They do it themselves.

Ball of Fluff,

I see this, now. I agree. Do you think the self-indoctrination atmosphere traces back mainly to parameters of the Scn movement laid out by LRH? Or is it a combination of the movement members' weak characters plus LRH's rules? And do you think, if you think LRH is the source of this atmosphere by virtue of his rules he obliges them to follow, that LRH intended to bring about this state they are stuck in? Do you think LRH saw that he was creating this unfortunate scene?

To me I see LRH's efforts with so many Sea Org and policy rules accumulating over the years, with LRH's unbelievably prolific amount of written and actual physical universe examples, he has smothered the rank and file member's power of choice. I never saw that that was truly his intention. He could have been fooling himself about what he really intended, but he didn't outright write anything that he said to turn them into this mess they seem to have become.

(I'd be curious to know from individuals who audited LRH, if LRH coughed up any evil intentions towards the movement, in his final years, which I seriously doubt, but that would be enlightening info to find out.)

Do you think they have the LRH written materials that would allow them to undo the detrimental scene they find themselves in?

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Mar 2005 19:13:06 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 7:13 pm
Subject: Re: Happy Easter to those in the RPF

I only wanted to encourage people who are declared SP to write good-roads good-weather birthday cards, Xmas cards, etc. to their family members that they have been separated from for decades. Nothing more! I encourage them to do so, just to do that.

I think it is wrong to assume that once a family is separated by the SP disconnection policies, that the SPs on the outside who may desire to communicate to family inside the Scn movement, that they can't write. The "SPs" I think should be encouraged to still do so, and do so with mild communication.

There is NOTHING wrong with that. I do NOT go tripping mentally into complications etc.

I see nothing goddamn wrong with sensible mild, well-meaning communication, and at ANYTIME, whether the Scn movement has erected protective filters for its members or not.

I say be sensible, they should newly look at each newly received piece of communication, pass it on to the Scn members from their family if the communication reads nicely!

If they do that already. Hooray!

If not, then I hope they start doing so. I think it would help! Reference, Problems of Work!

Can you spell out your objections.

I think even per the miracle results of the Suppressed Person Rundown, they gotta allow good intentioned communication through to the members!

So I think my question was already answered. Their policy actually already allows good natured communication to be allowed in, the reference is the EP of the Suppressed Person Rundown!

Do you agree somewhat with this?

Best, Chuck Beatty

Sunsurfer said: Yes of course, always more communication. I thought you were presuming some other ideas, like someones monitoring another's personal mail. But put in the terms above it is completely desirable. ARC is life. Now, about the "Suppressed Person Rundown" I have run this as an auditor and witnessed it work incredibly well as designed. It really is interesting how you can address one persons case and have that effect a change in the attitude of another person - I could feel the ridges blowing (and the e-meter showed the TA blowing way down down down) The next days the SP person was calling apologizing and crying over their prior behavior and wanting to make amends - It was like "magical thinking" as Keith Henson would say !

> SunSurfer

[Chuck responded:] Thankyou. I too had a magical end phenomenon one time in auditing, which I have told hundreds of times to other Sea Org members. I got a Cramming Repair List done on me once by Ted Cormier, a great Class VIII auditor at that time, and less than 45 seconds after exiting the Examiner's booth I ran into the Cramming Officer who 2 years earlier had suspended my auditing certs, and this Cramming Officer, unprompted, out of the blue, asked if I thought about being an auditor again! Coincedent? Of course that's highly possible/probable, there is something else going on, something else that even LRH never grasped, that to me is more likely. I respect scientific and thorough research into whatever it is, and do NOT think Scn is the end-all/be-all of the mysteries and unknowns in life. I disagree LRH had "it all taped". Scn should not, hopefully, pretend to have all the answers and preempt mankind's ongoing interest in continuing to look into and discover further info and understandings of the mysteries of life.

I believe that it is a serious serious stable datum learned in history, that people should have the freedome to fully discuss ANYTHING!

One odd pluspoint to me of the Free Zone environment, even though I am not a tech supporter, but Freezone individuals have that incredibly valuable right to speak freely, and discuss freely, and that is a level of humanness that I respect people demonstrating. Inside the top ranks of the Scn movement, that is not happening.

I am truly open-minded (in the negative Hubbard A-J policy letter context), but that is why I am OUT of the movement. I wish to have the freedom to discuss anything, fully, and my compass for doing so is long long human tradition of intellectual freedom exibited in the intellectual world in western civilization. Read a few issues of the New York Review of Books, and experience how really intelligent people deal with the major issues of life.

Scn is a subject, LRH is a subject. I feel one should have the forums and opportunity to discuss these things fully, and let the discussions go wherever the discussions go. That is why I appreciate those who keep ARS and any other site allowing ex-Scn members or even Scn members, to discuss ANYTHING to do with the Scn movement.

The antidote to the problems the Scn movement, I feel to a marked degree right now are contained in wog world history, and there are thousands of intelligent wogs who if they knew and took the time to absorb the Scn movement's travails internally, the wog world has already been/there---done/that on Scn's problems.

(Note: One of my brightest light bulb moments in my Sea Org history, was the moment, one Saturday, when I was studying in the Qual Gold courseroom, this is at Gilman Hot Springs [the now not so secret top Sea Org base where RTC and CMO Int, the top leaders of the Scn movement work]. I asked the Qual Gold Course Room course supervisor to let me go to the Qual Gold Library, so I could research a man named Plotinus, who LRH refered to in the Upper Indoc Course lecture tapes that I was listening to. That triggered a whole long life purpose in me as you will see. I went to the finely laid out, great renos job, library, and went direct to the Encyclopedia section, and started thumbing and reading through the 3 different sets of Encyclopedia, checking Plotinus is each. Then I was flabbergasted to see the Encyclopedia Britanica "Great Books Series", which contains the great Classics from Western Civ, going back to Greek times and coming up to the end of the 19th century. I personally felt WOW! The top of the Scn movement, someone at the Int Base, decided to have mankind's, at least Western Civ's greatest thinkers included in the library that the Int Base top of the line Scn staffers use!!!! And sure enough, here was Plotinus's volume, his writings from around 270 AD or so. I read and read for an hour on Plotinus, and found that Plotinus had apparantly gone exterior about 3 times, and those were the highlights of his own life. But the Great Books, being in the Qual Library, at the top of the Scn movement, this made it okay for me to then read the Great Books myself any time I felt the need. They were right there in Qual Library for any top Int Base staffer to refer to!! In the months following, I purchased my own set of Great Books, while I was an ASI staffer. Those books, the prospect of reading the greatest thinker's thoughts, and the long conversation that intelligent thinking human beings have had for the thousands of years of thinking Western Civ, this all began my slow shift to a new major stable datum in my life, off LRH and back onto the wog world best thinkers. That moment sticks out for me, and I led myself slowly on my final path, over the next 10 years right OUT of the Scn movement. To Qual Gold's credit, they have those books. I hope others find and use the material, in whatever way helps them see that the wog world has been/there--done/that on the similar predicaments the Scn movement is facing today. Freedom of communication and sharing opinions I think is a proven long term working principle in history.)

There are certain LRH rules that need to be retired, and I feel it could be done internally, by them. How they go about it, they may figure it out themselves. I hope so. I feel their success at making real expansion (they seem to be expanding and losing at the same time, that was my impression during my almost 3 decades inside) depends on them figuring this out.

Thanks for talking back to me.

Best, Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Mar 2005 08:20:34 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 29 2005 8:20 am
Subject: Re: Question (Chuck Beatty!) : what is the TRD - Truth Rundown?

roger gonnet wrote:

> Hi Chuck,

> Could it be possible to develop more how the "TRD" is done?

> Is that some new form of sec check or jo-burg? Does it have steps
>etc?

> roger

Truth Rundown as done on the RPF Program by Sea Org members and it is done almost always co-audited on the RPF. Rarely one-way.

After an RPFer gets a general case cleanup, the main first auditing action he receives is the Truth Rundown.

If any auditing on the RPF is a direct candidate of the label "brainwashing", then this action is.

I was on the Truth Rundown over a year, and in the end I just stopped running on it, I didn't attest to it, I just started on my first FPRD Form. The significance of this is, that the Case Supervisor didn't want to allow me to attest for some reason, and just C/Sed me to then continue on my next RPF program auditing action, which is the Basic FPRD Form.

The Truth Rundown consists of Rollback and then sec checking. It is an overall procedure to deal with the Black Propaganda that a staff member has spread about a well-intentioned group or individual.

Examples of typical Black Propaganda that a Sea Org member might have said and which he will have to deal with on the Truth Rundown are as follows. A person has about 50 to 100 of these lines, and similar lines are grouped into one overall line, so as not to be unnecessarily duplicative:

1) The CMO don't know what the hell they are doing. They are a bunch
of amateurs.
2) Joe [good exec in fact] is an evil son of a bitch
3) Jane (an auditor) is a fucking squirrel! [When in truth she was
auditor of the year.]
4) LRH does not know what he is talking about when it comes to how to
polish a car.
5) LRH was always cross ordering himself.
6) Joe [Good junior overall in fact] likes to crash his stats just to
get me [his senior] in trouble with my seniors.
7) The RTC Representatives are out to get me, they are like vultures.
[When in fact the RTC Reps haven't acted in any way like this.]
8) Etc., etc.

A Black Propaganda line, called a Black PR line, has to contain a falsehood about a well-intentioned person. Using the Black PR is false vilification of a well-intentioned person or group, and the Black PR is an attempt to lower the status of the person or group that the pc is spreading the Black PR on, as a justification of their serious overt against that person or group. When the person handles this serious overt, and expresses remorse and does a reversal of their viewpoint and retracts the Black Propaganda statement, then they have gotten the correct result of doing the Truth Rundown for that one Black PR statement. Each Black PR line is taken to this same result.

The Rollback procedure step of the Truth Rundown comes first and determines, line by line, did the pc get the idea from someone else, or did the pc think it up themselves. If the lines came from someone else, then the person they came from is noted down and the information is passed out of the RPF to the proper staff so those other persons can later be investigated to find out where they got the ideas, and so on, until the person who actually first came up with the idea is isolated.

But for RPFers, they just do the Rollback step all in one session, going through each line, quickly determining where the line came from, either the pc, or someone else.

While on the RPF in the years I was there, people usually had from 20-100 approximately, such Black PR lines to handle on their Truth Rundowns.

Next step of the Truth Rundown is to deal with each line, line by line, with sec checking, to isolate first the serious overt (and this leads into a chain of other overts) that the person committed just prior to him uttering or writing the Black PR line.

Once all the serious overt and then usually a chain of earlier overts are run out, then a "false purpose" underlying the earliest overt is located, and itself run out.

The person is expected to achieve a reversal of his Black PR viewpoint, which is called a viewpoint shift.

After much Truth Rundown, a person achieves usually a dramatic reversal of their viewpoint about the person or group they uttered or wrote the Black Propaganda on.

This is a very dramatic procedure in obtaining a major shift in the viewpoint of the Sea Org members.

This is such an intense regulated procedure, regular persons who have not had at least sec checking, and who are familiar with auditing, cannot grasp all the agreements that a person undergoing the Truth Rundown, is already agreeing to, by the time they get to this auditing action.

In general in Scientology, the pc agrees NOT to wildly complain, in public. It is a no no in Scientology. It is simply off policy to natter or complain. One is ordered by policy to save their complaints and natter for session, which is when the trained auditor will do the right thing and ask the person for their overts and run them out.

So on the RPF all the Black Propaganda is ONLY discussed by the pc inside of session. RPFers are NOT sharing their Black Propaganda outside of session, they don't go joking around with it. It is only discussed inside of session. It is considered an overt itself to spread Black Propaganda about other well-intentioned Sea Org members or Sea Org groups. There is a group agreed upon code of self-muzzled non-discussion of any natter or criticism and especially any Black PR.

So in the Truth Rundown, to get through it, the person has to recant all their uttered or written Black Propaganda, and have complete viewpoint shifts on all of their Black Propaganda points of view, in order to complete this step of the RPF auditing program before they procede to the next step of the RPF auditing program.

I do not think this rundown has ever been extensively discussed yet.

The issues of it are all labeled confidential, and only the RPFers are widely running the Truth Rundown on each other. Only in the RPF is this auditing action most widely being done.

Comment or questions?

Best, Chuck

000000000000000000000000000000­00000000000000000
1:15pm Thursday 9 Dec 2004

The question is the Truth Rundown effective as brainwashing, or thought modification.

Possibly. A person becomes disaffected with his work environment. He sees that others have done things to him, and that his views change to being negative toward those others.

The Truth Rundown claims to get the person in such a disaffected state, to recall earlier in his life when he himself did things to cause those others to attack him and do the things he later complains about. When the person recalls what he did to precipitate the attacks he received, he then has a reversal of opinion, and forgives the persons who attacked him, if he indeed makes this connection.

A person can also during the Truth Rundown recall actual wrongs that others committed, and the information on those wrongs is reported to appropriate Ethics personnel in the church to investigate further and deal with the individuals who committed any violations of behavior that the church deems need addressing.

The crux of whether the person's complaints are valid or not, are if theperson's utterances fit the definition of "Black PR" (black propaganda): false vilification of a well intentioned individual or group that the person is uttering to cover up his own hidden committed harmful acts. The black PR is a justification for having committed those serious hidden harmful acts.

The Truth Rundown assumes the person needs it, and is full of black propaganda that he has uttered or harbors, against other members of the Sea Org who are in good standing. If you say something critical and disparaging about another Sea Org member who is in bad standing, that is NOT black PR, and the Truth Rundown procedure would not be addressed to statements made against Sea Org members who are busted, and so forth.

Black PR against DM, COB Asst, the top RTC execs in good standing, RTC as a whole, CMO Int as a whole, Exec Strata as a whole, all the execs in any unit who are doing good, and all the official church units, all them are considered good, and any remarks or writings which are false vilification of those groups is considered black PR.

Every statement of black PR recorded that the person has written or spoken, is addressed individually.

The end result of the Truth Rundown procedure is that all black propaganda that one has uttered or written or somehow communicated against a well-intentioned and well-meaning individual or group (in the RPF one address just Black PR against Int Execs and Int organizations and units, and against LRH), one recants and tries in some way to undo one's wrongful back propaganda.

Chuck Beatty



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Mar 2005 10:16:08 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 29 2005 10:16 am
Subject: Anonymous offering, 80's Flag, extreme predicaments of Sea Org life

An anonymous person offered this to be posted. Anyone wishing me to post similar please email me: chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

Good Morning Chuck! This thread about physical abuse is really getting to me. Here are a couple things that happened to me, there are lots more but these are the worst. You can post them if you want, but anonymously please!

While I was at Flag, there was a time when there was a "cluster" of accidents, including some "accidental" deaths and this created a big flap. (They are on the "whyaretheydead" site already.) My husband and I were in a minor accident during this time. Of course this was a big ethics cycle, and I was told it was MY PTS situation with my family that caused my husband to be hurt, and that he did not want to see me and we were to be separated. I was very upset and did not believe it, and was very worried about him. Late one night 2 security guards 8Ced (forced) me into a car and took me to our berthing to get my things. While out front, 2 other guards came out of our room holding my husband by both arms. I could see he was very upset and I tried to get out of the car to go to him, but was physically restrained, and one guard held his hand over my mouth to keep me quiet because I was yelling, while the other held me down because I was kicking the door trying to get out. We did not talk about this for a long time, but it turns out they had told him that I didn't want to see him!!! This broke my heart and his for a long time, even though later we got back together.

Another time, I got really sick and couldn't keep any food or water down. After losing a lot of weight and not getting better after a couple weeks I was sent to ethics and put in isolation in a room in the FH. Again, I was "enturbulating" my husband by being PTS. The door was locked, and only the MLO came a few times a day to bring "cal-mag" and vitamins and soup. I was pretty freaked out, and thought I was going to die there all alone in that dark, stinky moldy room, but I knew if I made a fuss I would NEVER get out, so I was very cooperative. One day, she left the door unlocked. It must have been Thursday before 2, because when I walked through the lobby and out the front door no one stopped me. I went to the hospital down the street with the intention of going to the emergency room. When I got there I sat on a bench outside, and decided that if I went to the hospital unauthorized, I would probably be declared, or at least fitness boarded for running up a big medical bill. Plus I was feeling a little better, probably just a nice walk in the sun and getting out of that room. So I walked back to the MLO's office and acted all uptone and told her I was feeling better and wanted to go home to my husband. She was pretty shocked to see me, and probably didn't want to get in trouble herself because she never wrote it up and gave me medical clearance to get out of isolation. Later, when I finally left the SO, I found out I had a very serious hereditary medical condition that would have in fact killed me eventually without proper medical treatment!

I was a "techie", so I was aware of some other peoples problems that most staff wouldn't know about, because no one is allowed to talk about their "case", not even to their spouse. It is so outrageous that you are penalized for asking for help, and are not allowed to help anyone else in the Sea Org, not even your own family when they need you. Sea Org members are supposed to be OT and make it go right. Anything bad that happens is "out-ethics" or "dramatizing your case." One good example is when Mike Rinder's baby died at Flag and he was not allowed to return from California to even go to the funeral or comfort his wife. He probably thought he was doing the "greatest good" for the planet and what the hell, it is only a meat body anyway. That is how a "good scientologist" thinks. That is how $cientology teaches you to think about others, and even yourself!

Anonymous



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Mar 2005 20:56:37 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 30 2005 8:56 pm
Subject: Re: Anonymous offering, 80's Flag, extreme predicaments of Sea Org life

friendship wrote:
> Thank you for posting this, Chuck.

> Holding someone against their will and denying them medical care is a
> serious offense in the United States. As far as I know, it is a
>felony and anyone involved could be prosecuted and do serious jail time.

> I have heard from someone who recently left the Sea Org that this
> practice is still going on. This person also told me that s/he knows
> of around 60 marriages that were broken up between Int staff and Sea
> Org members not on the Int level. Or Int staff who were put on the
>RPF and coerced into divorcing their spouse who remained in Int. The
> married couple, in one instance, were not allowed to talk to one
> another and were heavily third partied by other Sea Org members. In
> other words, they were not allowed to communicate to one another,
>even in writing, and were told that the other didn't want to continue the
> relationship. Often a spouse on the RPF will be browbeaten for
>months to sign a request for a divorce.

> Chuck, in your opinion, if a regular person were to approach Sea Org
> members when they are outside and ask them if they want to leave and
> offer them a ride away from the Sea Org facility would any go? Just
> curious.

Only work if the Sea Org member is being prevented from leaving, or on Sea Org members secretly harboring strong blow thoughts.

I was on the RPF when my strong strong blow thoughts were happening, and I was under the impression that I would be restrained from leaving, physically. Under those circumstances I would have welcomed a "drive-by" offer of help. I was so wanting to get the hell out for almost 5 of my last 7 years in the Sea Org, I would have instantly taken the help instantly.

I could talk for an hour answering this, specifically.

New news for you:

In the past 2 weeks, another ex-Gold Staff blew, he got to LA, called his family who called a famous critic, who gave the family some phone numbers, mine included. Unfortunately the ex-Gold blown staffer had also contacted Gold again, he got talked into coming to OSA at the HGB, was speedily declared, signed the legal doc giving up his free speech, etc., before he could be warned NOT to sign the legal doc.

But importantly Gold and OSA did NOT try to hang onto him and do their usually normal routine of auditing/salvage. They just let him go. No holding onto him. That is a major damn improvement in my opinion!

He got hooked up with other ex-Gold staffers who'd blown or blown and routed out themselves, who knew him. He got advice from them, and he emailed me and I gave him my advice.

This IS the most uptodate blow I believe from the Int Base, he's out less than 2-3 weeks as we speak here.

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

Back to the point of drive-by help for Sea Org members. If my wog brother had driven by, I'd have just said bye to Scn and the Sea Org, and I would have cried with joy! But I was being held WAY WAY too long.

If the Sea Org are speedy in letting Sea Org members out, not hanging onto them against the person's will, then there will likely be no need to do these types of drive-by bail-outs.

If the new blown ex-Gold person contacts me again, I'll try to remember to ask him if he knows of recent Int Base staff who might have been being held against their wills. Usually Int Base staff are troupers and normally tolerate it. I will post any info I find out.

Best, Chuck



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Mar 2005 21:27:14 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: Question (Chuck Beatty!) : what is the TRD - Truth Rundown?

Hi Deo,

No, I didn't have any marked viewpoint shifts [on my own Truth Rundown auditing, TRD], none linger in my head that I can recall.

Only thing that lingered were my thoughts about LRH's loud nattering utterances, and me trying to figure out what LRH's serious overts [overts = misdeeds] were behind his natter (my daydreaming of how TRD applied to LRH).

LRH lambasted the US Justice Dept in one of LRH's tech films. A woman actor in one of his tech films spits on the ground and sarcastically utters the words "justice department". That was black PR by LRH, and LRH's serious overt was likely writing the 1967 policy letter regarding Simon Bolivar that encouraged MSH and the GO to push the envelope of legality in the years leading up to MSH's and GO people's prison sentences. LRH was very likely additionally hooked into the events that MSH and the others went to jail for. That's LRH's prior serious overt I surmised, and why he was so pissed about them nailing MSH and almost getting him! Now if LRH had admitted what I say here, and apologized in another policy to the Justice Dept, in public, then that would have been to LRH's credit.

But even this example showing LRH's own life and my conjecture of TRD relevance to LRH himself, this anyways is simply inadequate to capturing LRH's motivations for lambasting of the Justice Dept (and LRH really let them have it in the 1982 HCOB or HCOPL on Justice, he goes maddog in that 1982 policy/HCOB.)

TRD has a simplistic agenda to connect statements and utterances to people's overts. But in real life all sorts of things actually happen instead of the correlation that LRH pronounced in the TRD materials. In life for instance, if one's done something wrong, sometimes one's overt gets brought to light, one gets punished sometimes, sometimes one takes responsibility for it, and handles it somehow, or does not handle it, sometimes one suffers even though not punished, or sometimes one takes responsibility and handles it and benefits, or maybe one goes honest and gets incorrectly further toasted, or one lies and lives like a king sometimes, but in truth there are a LOT more variations in life to the events. TRD connects only certain dots, but there are lots of other dot patterns, and TRD ignores those dots.

A good number of Int RPFers finished their TRD and RPF auditing of a zillion FPRD sec checks (all dynamics), went back to the Int Base, and then got in trouble again. Some left the Sea Org.

I concluded there are no end-all/be-all results from ANY Scn/LRH auditing procedures.

TRD and all auditing I feel is unecessary. One can just decide to just be honest, starting right now, instantly. One can just decide to act decently, right now, instantly. One does not have to get auditing to just start acting decently and honestly! One just decides to do so and then one does so!

There are so many damn smarter people in the world than LRH. Their knowledge is written, and anyone can just go read it in libraries, for free. No auditing required.

I highly recommend a person wishing to compare auditing to the wisdom in the world, go to a used bookstore, or B Dalton's, etc., and pick up the Bartlett's Quotations book, and just read the wisdom of those quotations and compare them with LRH's utterances.

All the contemporary great magazines and newspapers are free to read in libraries, and one can find out about the far more intelligent people alive today in the world compared to LRH, in my opinion.

My all-time favorite magazine is the New York Review of Books. It is the best.

Best, Chuck





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




Home

















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