Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, December 2004


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] (Chuck Beatty) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Dec 2004 21:45:27 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 9:45 pm

Subject: Former Int Base staff please reply (need rumors and raw data)

Questions for ex-Int Base Staff, recently out, like the last 5 years.


1) WHY is the LRH Bio dragging out? What is the rumor at the Int Base for why the Bio ain't coming out?

2) What has been the bug on the new Dictionary? I remember seeing a cheezy pilot version of the new Dictionary in Qual Gold for Int Base staff study for a time even, way back in the late 80's and early 90's. Then it got pulled since it was so cheezy (and I think those working on that version of the Dictionary got toasted). What's the problem on getting it out?

3) Why aren't the berthing buildings done yet? Lack of money to complete the inside work? Other?

4) How was Christmas time off the last couple Christmas's? Everyone get off okay? Two days off for everyone still?

5) Is Sea Org day being held yearly, or sometimes skipped, how's it been in recent years?

6) Any flaps in the various Int Base units: Translations Unit (TU); Public Dissem Org (PDU); Gold; CMO Int; RTC; CMO Gold; Household Unit (HU); Snr C/S Int Office; Int Finance Office; Int Landlord Office; Exec Strata; LRH PRO Office?

7) Any big organizational regroupings (like any units shift back and forth from or into Gold to other units, like into or out of Exec Strata, etc.)?

8) Uniforms pretty spiffy, or getting ratty, or pretty good in recent years?

9) Food overall very good, or has it ebbed and flowed (meaning dropped to HGB standards or PAC standards, or has it always been noticeably better than HGB or PAC consistently throughout the last 10 years)?

10) Any outrageously funny fads or bonehead occurances?

11) What is current terminology (like "ass-kicking", favorite swear words, "on the same page", "Hello!"), what's the latest trendy lingo used?

If you know the answers, or can relay the info from someone you know who was there recently, please share the wealth. Thanks.

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] (Chuck Beatty) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Dec 2004 10:08:11 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 10:08 am
Subject: ARS Postings, levels of deceit and trickery, Straight advice requested - Chuck Beatty

Hello to all,

My name is Chuck Beatty. I was in the Sea Org 27 years, and I've done a few posts now that I have made it to ARS, which I was told, was the best site to inform others my experiences, etc., and get fresh info.

I am still wondering what is going on, with many of the posters. Here are my questions. Only straight headed people please answer.

1) Are people (OSA connected people) actually the ones themselves doing these double identities, the double Faxhor, and double other people, are the OSA people doing this themselves to encourage other incautious people to jump on this trickery bandwagon, to snare and then discredit those that fall for and then engage is this type of computer trickery, and then later on down the road further discredit, or whatever, tie people up, whatever?

2) Where do people who were in Scn, the upper stratas, go to get good news about the top goings on in the church. I am nostalgic, I like accurate good news about things.

3) Where are the people who were at the Int Base, posting news about events of their careers in the Sea Org at the top?

4) I'd appreciate anyone who could write up simply for me (I'm a relatively ARS beginner, but experienced in the Scn movement, 27 years Sea Org, 7 years RPF, '75-03), how I can to sort through all these nonsense trickery posts that is put out against the anti-Scn critics. I don't mind good data, but I like it somewhat sensibly presented, not this double mind-twisting nonsense (unless that is someone's agenda to make ARS a briar patch of trickery). (You know if a straight-headed person simple wrote up the history of ARS and the tactics and methods of posting, all the actual OSA related list of players, their names, their histories, their actual OSA staff connections, or their delusional wannabe-ism roles they think they are performing, their think , what they think they are acomplishing, etc. that in itself would be valuable honest research and truth about this spinoff community of individuals related to the Scn movement.)

Anyways, help!

Any advice from people who like to get new news on the movement, what are people's techniques for checking ARS to see good news?

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] (Chuck Beatty) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Dec 2004 16:57:43 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: ARS Postings, levels of deceit and trickery, Straight advice requested - Chuck Beatty

And thanks again to everyone who answered.

There are so many intelligent people responding, it makes posting very rewarding.

Thank you.

Best, Chuck Beatty

PS: I guess one peice of somewhat vital info I should mention (I tend to sit on little gems of info), is that I received another phone call from Elliot Abelson, a couple days ago. I only told a few people about that so far. I took it as an overall positive call. Elliot was happy I had kept a relatively low profile since he last spoke to me. I take that to mean that ARS must be so taboo (and also a jumble mind twisting briar patch of whatever) for Scientologists to look at, that my posts on ARS are lost on them and not causing the movement any difficulty. I'm glad my posts are not lost on those people I respect and who are appreciative of the info I have written. Elliot spoke with me in a nice manner, equally if not more nice to his first call to me, a couple months back. I hope not to provoke his ire, but I think for posterity's sake, it is important for me to get as many recalled moments fairly written up and posted, so intelligent reviewers and future Scn movement researchers have an ongoing train of info to sift through in the years to come. I try to write for the future Roy Wallis's (whose book is almost impenetrable, but such a great work, and I am very slowly still moving through it), and I will continue to post what I believe to be new info in keeping with the current viewpoint of those I now have grown to understand and respect who are reading my info on ARS. But my big reward is hoping another Roy Wallis or similar person tackles the movement from a detailed sociological, psychological and academic approach. Wikipedia's definition of Scientology is the one I refer my relatives to, and I think those who wrote the Wikipedia articles are some good writers. I post so my info eventually is usable info for them.

PPS: I have one more thanks for the intelligent ARS readers and posters. It is the intelligent observers, actively commenting and observing the Scn movement that provide the climate that allows me even to safely post. My knowing that there are intelligent people on ARS, and knowing that there are even more knowledgeable people out in the wog world, the ones who write for Wikipedia, the academics that have delved into studying the Scn movement (Professors Kent and Touretzky, the reporters for the large newspapers), this community of thinking individuals is the safety net that protects me. Thanks.

I thank you all. Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology BR>From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Dec 2004 18:46:51 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 12 2004 6:46 pm
Subject: Thanks Arnie for the Jolly West and Margarat Singer audio clips.

I just listened to Jolly West and Maragaret Singer's lectures, which Arnie Lerma posted.

I was in the Sea Org for 27 years, I used to love the OSA and old GO's diet of anti-psyche material. I read everything I could get my hands on. I loved the old psyche-bashing and mudslinging.

Heber at the LA events, through the 80's, was a guaranteed crowd pleaser. He used to upstage all the other speakers with his cleverly written anti-psyche stories. The LA Scientologists will remember Heber's crowd pleasing presentations in the 80's. (I think because Heber upstaged even DM in the 80's events, this upstaging may have gotten Heber in trouble with DM, due to DM's jealousness. Both Heber and Ray Mitoff noticeable upstaged DM at some 80's events. Both were and are genuinely warmer individuals than DM. Both in the 80's used to generate more friendly LA crowd rapport than DM. He's never matched them in crowd affinity.)

(I remember how in the 80's Ray Mitoff would just say "hello", and how the crowd in LA used to respond! DM beat down their spirits (Ray's and Heber's), in the late 80's and 90's. In recent years, the layers of crap Heber and Ray have piled on their stage "beingnesses", you can see who is the "who" on their cases. DM. Rinder plays a tougher "DM" than even DM, with a dash of perennial woodenness. DM's blindness to his own negative influence on the movement's top personnel shows why the "king" or "guru" or "benign monarch" setup, when the top guy is character-flawed and oblivious to his own faults (and those around him are self-silenced cautious obviously beaten-down unwilling yet inevitable sycophants), this is a living reason why the Scn movement LRH has left behind offends regular people far and wide once they study the Scn movement for a while, even without considering the patent offensiveness of certain LRH policies, those vicious uncaring paranoic limited distribution LRH policies which are now freely posted on the internet.)

I never had a good impression of Margaret Singer. The images stuck in my mind regarding Margaret were irreparably negative. I've been out almost 2 years, and I still haven't had much interest in listening to her.

But I just listened to her, and needless to say, she is NOT in the least as I had been led to believe she was.

I recommend all ex-Sea Org listening to Margaret Singer's two part lecture above. It is worth the time, especially for Sea Org members who've been in for a decade or more.

I was so stuck in the mentality that ANY psyche assciated person is automatically responsible and condones all the psyche atrocities, that in the past I never gave any psyche associated person a second of credence.

Any longtime ex Sea Org member owes it to themselves to listen to these two people's lectures above.

Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Dec 2004 10:48:46 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 10:48 am
Subject: Re: Thanks Arnie for the Jolly West and Margarat Singer audio clips.

Dear Arnie,

Thanks for these EXCELLENT summarizing statements by Judges!

Talking about "epiphanies" (translated to "cognitions" in Scn movement lingo), I think the subjects of the media and the psych field, they are two areas of LRH's mindset a person has to shed to make it out.

I always liked and respected journalists, so I never accepted the wholesale dismissal of the "merchants of chaos." The concept of freedom to express one's dissent, or simply tell one's life experiences, that is such a fundamental in life, that it inevitably recoils on the Scn movement when they try to shut people up.


Chuck Beatty

The information on your site provides the raw info showing that wholesale dismissals of the media and the psych fields are NOT correct. Thanks again.

Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Dec 2004 15:53:52 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 3:53 pm
Subject: Ron's demons. He couldn't hold them off.

Below is a quote from LRH. It's from an email from Bridge, for the holidays. I was at the Flag Land Base that Christmas when it arrived. It was LRH's Christmas message to the FLB and the Scn movement that year, 1976. I was settling into the mindset fog at the time. In those early years there is so much LRH material to read, I never did ever read it all. He was overwhemlming in his fantasies about himself and his role. The shear amount of material he wrote and spoke, it takes years to read it all, and so much of it self-congratulatory world goodwill expansive views he tried to sweep the faithful along with. I still see and feel his intended warmth, but he is like a schizophrenic Walter Mitty/John Birch Society new age religious guru, doling out these fantasy statements, against the backdrop of his equally paranoic fantasies that the AMA and APA and IRS always amassing great operations to destroy his great efforts to help mankind.

His demons he tried to project out into the world, but in the end he could only push those demons out as far as his own body. So he led many people into the same closed quarters he found himself collapsed into.

He seriously overshot reality with his ideas and utterances.

Best, Chuck Beatty

PS: Two more people recently have contacted me, one is a decades long Int Base veteran. Hopefully the climate will be such that people can freely post their experiences without fear of the movement's retaliation. That'd be a nice Christmas present for all the ex-Scn members who wish to offer their two cents for posterity someday.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Dec 2004 19:35:28 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: ARS has only 10-100 members!

Anyone see Natan Sharansky's talk on C-SPAN about the importance of dissent, and how such a tiny small number of dissenters who voiced their criticism about the former USSR, even though the dissenters were a tiny fraction of the whole USSR, they were the visible tip of the iceberg, and their presence represented the tide that eventually turned!

He put the USSR population in 3 groups. 1) the vocal dissenters (which by the way were multi-cultural and multi-religious in the former USSR), 2) the inbetween people, who harbored but hid their doubts about the system, and 3) the true believers.

When the dissenters' arguments made the light of day, the 2nd group, the inbetween people (which were the majority of the population of the USSR) made the mental transition over to the dissenting side quite easily when the USSR collapsed.

The point is that in this real life, somewhat parallel scenario, once the dissenting ideas reach inside the rest of the inbetweeners' minds, then the whole movement shifts out of the bad predicament to a better predicament.

So the tip of the iceberg voices of common sense intelligence on ARS who continue to forward intelligent observations about the continued harmful and tragic aspects of the Scn movement, ARE the tip of the iceberg of the unseen inbetweener group who increasingly and almost inevitably harbor the unspoken doubts about their Scn movement predicaments.

That roughly is why the ARS dissenting voices of intelligent criticism (no matter how bad or good it is, when it is one the mark, it is good enough!), are doing right thing.

Intelligent reasoning will ultimately prevail in causing the Scn movement to lighten up and stop those parts of its activities which are still causing harm to people's lives. In changing to a less harmful mode of operation, the movement will attract less criticism. And if they don't see this, and react accordingly, then they will continue their slow stagnation that they already are experiencing right now. It may then be decades of flashy glitzy false PR about their growth, which those who are in it long enough when they see the actual growth, know that it is just not happening. The failures in the form of failed individual progress up the Bridge which are piling up along the wayside along this "growth" road are mounting and mounting.

Scn is still miles away from taking each person who walks into its doors and turning each relatively normal person 1 for 1 into a Clear, and it is lightyears statistically from turning each relatively normal person who walks in the door into an OT VIII, within the person's lifetime (when I realized this about 15 years into my career as a Sea Org member, it then struck me why LRH made the Sea Org motto "We come back", we needed to come back, and everyone else would have to come back too, because so many people were just not making it in one lifetime up the Scn Bridge; and I also realized why I signed a billion year contract; it suddenly hit me that the rah rah was necessary cheerleading so as to not get discouraged from the reality that the job of clearing earth was not going to happen for decades and decades or maybe even hundreds of years, if at all, maybe not even for all of "earth's" people).

Vital omitted statistics that they HAVE NEVER published would be to lay out those figures of how many people make it to Clear compared to how many normal everyday people walked in and did church services and at least started some auditings.

And how many of those same people made it to OT VIII.

Then we could get an honest idea of the number people piling up on the edges of this "Bridge."

Those already off the Bridge don't need any further enlightenment as to why they made the right move.

The ARS dissenting critics only need to be around so the word continues to be out here so it can leak back inside the ranks of those closed off from this vital info out here.

I really appreciate the anti-Scn sites, and now I appreciate ARS. I'm sure those who have made it out, and who know they aren't going back, feel the same way.

Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Dec 2004 11:27:23 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 11:27 am
Subject: LRH's Bright Idea, the GO's and OSA's eternal stat pushing role

Somebody's already probably said what I am going to say here, so this isn't new.

LRH talks about the Scn movement doing good when the critics attack.

LRH has written all sorts of things to stir up critics, and piss off critics and dissenters, getting them into a frenzy.

He's got OSA working to automatically generate and keep in place howling critics. The more howling, the more LRH could say Scn is doing good. And he has OSA 24/7 attacking "enemies" (normal dissenters).

So LRH has got the Scn movement generating it's own mud on itself, to ensure bad press on itself, to ensure exposure, and that bad press is then said to be a good sign!!

Anyways. It is a variation of LRH's lampooned PR man in LRH's last fiction work, Mission Earth.

And it is an imperfect, but set in concrete, stat push (inflating one's stats).

Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Dec 2004 18:42:02 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 13 2004 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: LRH's Bright Idea, the GO's and OSA's eternal stat pushing role

In 1976 or 77 I wrote to MSH about the then popular "Pritikin" diet, and she wrote me back, saying in effect she had been looking at that diet herself. A Flag GO person (I liked the old GO people, since they all were better educated than the run of the mill staff) had told me that MSH was interested in the Pritikin diet. I was on the Mess Officer's Committee, and thinking about improving the Flag staff's diet. So I wrote her.

I printed part of the response in her letter in the Flag OODs even, at that time. She didn't exactly endorse the Pritikin diet, but this is just an aside regarding MSH's willingness, and thus by inference, LRH's willingness , to look around at current diet material in the regular world they were in at that time.

I saw advices to ASI staff written in the first half of the 80's, from LRH, which basically said, eat normal diet, no fads (by inference I take that to include eating meat), BUT the important concurrent point is that one has to BURN OFF more calories than one puts on. Exercise was needed, and the HCOB on Exercise came out as a result around that time.

But the MSH Pritikin diet interest was I think before the summer 1977 raid by the FBI which completely overshadowed everything in the GO universe of course once that happened.

Today, I agree, the normal staff down near the bottom echelons of the church, get into a rut with what sensible material versus the unsensible material in church policy is available to guide them in their daily lives. And they can't think, can't adapt, some of them, or whatever proportion of them it actually is. That is one complaint I heard from a two decades long high up ex-exec also. That the movement is not moving with the times, and this is jamming them up. They don't allow telephone use, no cell phones to any of the higher Sea Org personnel that would normally have them for personal and post use. They don't allow internet use to the regular upper org Sea Org staff, for recreational use nor for communicating to their parents apparantly. The world that kids growing up today will be miles ahead of the Sea Org staff who are cut off due to NO internet access for their posts and personal lives.

It is unfortunate.

People who were in Scn management in the 60's and 70's, when more and more church policy level issues WERE authored by others during, up to and including the years of the "BPL's" and "BTB's" , the fact that that was allowed, shows that LRH did allow others for a couple decades even to author policy level writings that governed church activities to a certain extent.

I lived through the transition period (late 70's, early 80's) when all the non-LRH policy and tech issues were CUT off completely, and only LRH material was left standing. LRH seemed like he almost painted himself into a corner by what he perceived as Top Mgmt's incompetence so he wrote that he had to cut out the "non-source" materials that he perceived were screwing things up.

Some pretty bright people tried to make a go of this movement. I really enjoy reading the stories of people even back in the 50's, who say LRH never changed, and who see his pattern of replacing his top exec crew over and over, through the years.

LRH did again say in early 80's, like 82 I think, in advices to Int Mgmt, that Int Mgmt had to have their own Int Mgmt level policy issues which they could communicate to staff in all church units everywhere as needed about ongoing matters, and the Scn Policy Directives came about as a result of this LRH input. And the Senior C/S International Bulletins are directly due to LRH's insistence that Snr C/S Int have that type of communication line to the tech hierarchy in the church units around the world.

So LRH put back in place Int Mgmt's communication abilities, to issue policy level material that church staff need as the events of life move forward.

So at least he knew how important it was to let top management have a policy communication line. So the onus of responsibility to stay current with the world technology and freedoms, shifts out of LRH's court, over to current Int Mgmt's court.

I would really like to get input on the recent 5 years of Scn Policy Directives and Snr C/S Int Bulletins, written by top management for the church units, and analyze their efforts in keeping the movement on course (from their viewpoint).

Anyone coming in today, and reading through the OEC policy, sees the same thing, and asks the same questions. "Where are all the old-timers that used to work with Ron on staff in the 50's and 60's." Staff old-timer attrition and their stories are fascinating and part of the ongoing history I would like to see more people post on before they croak and their stories are lost.

I think the problem with any movement where so much is placed on the leader/founder to make all major decisions, it inevitably leads into the same types of problems the COS ran into, and which continues to limit its growth and acceptance in the world today.

LRH couldn't write about everything.

A minor saving grace for LRH, in my mind, today, would be if there existed some more of his writings, which cover his end of life honest feelings about how this movement, the church management, the tendency of somewhat robotic staff reliance on his EVERY word for important significance, which results in the faults of today's staff that you bring up in your example. He may have been lulled into a sense that all was pretty well in hand by the efforts of his closest messengers in the final years.

He did cover some of these major ideas of staff competance versus his ability to write in detail every detail of every staff member's every duty. He wrote about this in his policies in the late 50's and the 60's policy letters. But I'd like to hear what was rattling through his mind about the whole net effect, the ups and downs, of what he thought in the FINAL year or two of his life.

Pat Broeker's views and input would be invaluable, in shedding light on Ron's summarizing thoughts about Ron's life at the end. If there was anything more on LRH's mind other than what's been covered in the HCO PLs and HCOBs and advices that have been and are probably still being transcribed into local Int Base issue types, that'd be nice to hear.

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Dec 2004 09:52:00 -0800
Subject: Re: CC Int no longer a Saint Hill Size Org

Lagniappe wrote:

> I vaguely remember something about the ED of Hamburg, Wiebke Hansen
> was found to have "falsified stats" and that even though she wasn't
> the Sea Org, she was an OT VII and so agreed to go into the
> RPF. I don't know how true any of that is.

> If Chuck Beatty is reading this, do you anything about Wiebke Hansen?
> Lagniappe

Hello Lagniappe (your name means a small gift, especially one given by a merchant to a customer who makes a purchase)

Yes Weibke Hansen was on the Int RPF from about fall 95 until when she successfully graduated the Int RPF in 1999 I believe. She moved into Gold crew and is there today I believe.

She is a very nice woman, and I think the Hamburg org staff missed her very dearly. Her indiscretions others know about, some are personal. She did keep two sets of statistics for her organization, the false ones, and the real ones, and they tried to make the false ones match the real ones if they could, but they turned in false ones to Int Mgmt each week. And they won the Birthday Game based on their false stats.

Because of the misemotional excitement of revealing this on the eve of the famous Birthday Game yearly awards ceremony, and in DM's presence, the upset was severe enough and emotions were so highly strung, that to Weibke and top Mgmt people, the only course was to induct her into the RPF. I think if all concerned had taken a week to cool off, and step back from the mess, possibly another course would have been better, and Hamburg public and staff would not have been so heavily whacked for Wiebke's and her top org people's actions that were off-policy and against the rules.

She did so much to enliven Hamburg org, and put so much of her life into Hamburg staff and public, it is unfortunate. These types of things happen in other large organizations, and they deal with them in other ways.

Hubbard's methods that are church policy for dealing with these types of personal failings, I think are not as mature as large corporations' methods of dealing with the same thing. She was lost from the Hamburg field, and her influence in EU was positive and overall her handling was a loss for EU is my opinion. (This is my warped hindsight thinking of how Scn could have handled this fiasco more positively, believe me I know how weird I sound.)

On the RPF she was excellent, she's a professional artist, and her talents today are being used by Gold at the Int Base as far as I know. I cannot state for sure, but I would think her artistic talents are used in painting mainly but also possibly helping on some of the designing of the beautiful (or gaudy, whatever your opinion is) set elements in the IAS event, and she does art work for those types of projects which are occuring in advance of ALL of the releases and events the church puts out.

She was with us when the 1997 helicopter and plane flights over the Int RPF out at the ranch occurred. We even were briefed the german reporters (or paid govt investigators for the protection of the German constitution or whatever unit in the German intelligence agency these german reporter people were associated to) flew over and filmed, etc.

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology, sci.skeptic
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Dec 2004 02:28:02 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 19 2004 2:28 am >BR?Subject: Re: open letter to the Church of Scientology

Hello Phaedrus (which name appears to be after the Roman fable teller, and I am curious why you chose this nom de guerre),

Here are my opinions of simple answers to your questions:

>>1) ,,, why are your Churches materials copyrighted? ...

In my opinion Hubbard was initially paranoid right from the getgo with Dianetics, and he didn't want competitors cutting into his ongoing operation. He had other stated motives than this blunt jealousy and greed. He thought astronomically high of his own ideas and work compared to ANY other person's written works in the whole history of earth (witness the millions and millions of dollars the church of Scn has spent making metal tablets of his written words, which are stored in a massive still ongoing projects in secret sites built to withstand nucleur blasts and the worst mother nature can dish out--this fantastic actual occurrence shows Hubbard's idea of himself almost as a god, putting his words in indestructible tablet form for future generation Moseses tens of thousands of years from now to discover!!!!).


Hubbard's justification for copyrighting, is that his supporters and those earlier quitters were prone to borrow his work and alter it and try to make their own buck off of it and not share the bucks with Hubbard. In the early days, the 1950's, and into the 60's, the people that supported and stuck with Hubbard had a tendency (probably quite natural, but in Scn it is considered NOT natural) to be inventive and modify, change, alter, things that Hubbard had written. He being the type of person he is, insisted regularly on doing it his way, or else (meaning people who didn't cease altering what he laid down, got ousted). The fault in Scn taking on this mean spirited atmosphere that you note, with its body of "scriptures" obsessively being protected by copyrighting, this fault in Scn lays totally on LRH and his policy rules the current church must adhere to from here on out. (To put Scn and Hubbard in correct historical context, and compare Scn as a religious movement as academics do, you should read Roy Wallis' excellent book "The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology."

LRH blamed others for forcing him to react in the tough ways that LRH does in his church policy, where he lays out severe penalties to those that alter his work (excommunication if the perpetrator does not cease).. Your simple question could easily turn into several chapters in a book, because there are all sorts of official sub-units in the vast array of Scn church organizations today, obsessed with ensuring everything is done exactly as Hubbard has written (they don't achieve this totally, and they even don't apply everything obsessively, since there are so many inane policy rules, they'd tear themselves apart if they obsessed too much trying to follow every one of Hubbard's rules at all times). There is a good deal of contradiction in the church rules, paradox, and some what I call heinous catch 22 -ism, and on top of this, a great deal of incompetence just to confuse anyone thinking that every wrong thing they do is planned (a good deal of the church's bone headedness is just incompetence).

So the copyright protective aspect to Scn, is Hubbard. Just as the family disintegrating excommunication (Suppressive Person) policy is Hubbard. As is the massive church unit know as the Office of Special Affairs which has supported all the highly paid lawyers the church has hired over the past two decades and in my opinion wasted many many millions of dollars (dollars gotten from the people lured into the movement) which funded the church's attacks on its "attackers" (mainly outraged dissenters in any other age or historical context). Hubbard is at the source of it all.

The simple answer is Hubbard was preoccupied with his own rightness of his brand of whatever you want to call Scn (an applied religious philosophy or BS religious fraud, whatever your idea or opinion of it is). He thought his brand was so magical, that all others would fail, and his would succeed, and he didn't want any of these fly by night people who dropped into Scn for a few months or years to walk out the door with his great stuff, and make their living off of it. From his viewpoint he "knew" all those types of people only went out and screwed things up, and "muddied up" public who later on would be harder for his official Hubbard groups to disseminate to and deliver his brand of Scn to. He calls these alterers "squirrels". And he didn't want these squirrels doing their own thing, he wanted to shut them all down, especially if they cut into his operations by diverting people away from his set up groups, in the early years.

So the combativeness today of Scn has been long in the making. And Hubbard is the source of the bad in Scn, and also of the good (unless you are completely cynical, and believe any good in Scn is the goodness of the people who have been lured into it, and it's the regular people's goodness which is shining through and making Hubbard's idiocies of Scn work at all). Hubbard's self-promoting hubris (exaggerated pride and self-confidence) I admit to not recognizing, in my almost 3 decades as a dedicated follower of him.

But no longer. I have learned the language of the broader world, and in the language of the broader world, I've learned how others have correctly characterized what Hubbard was really up to.

Sorry, maybe my answer is not turning out simple. But this is my opinion of the answer to why copyrights on the Scn materials.

>>2) What about the stuff with Xenu, the alien overlord who put
>>H-bombs into volcanoes and blew up hundreds of billions of
>>people, etc. Is this really an integral part of the beliefs
>>of Scientology?

My 2 cents, the answer is no, not really. Realize people don't discuss this LRH story. Instead in Scientologists' everyday lives, they much more likely discuss the basic principles in his basic works (Scientology Handbook for instance). The Scn Handbook has the basics of the movement, the "tools" that most staff of churches use on a daily basis in their jobs, or what most Scientologists use at home in their families. The OT 3 story isn't something people (not unless they are OT or above) discuss. People don't go up to one another and ask how many blah blahs the other handled, or they don't even go telling each other too much about their past lives. Hubbard frowned on bragging about your past lives when you were historical big cheeses, and rightly so (but this didn't keep him from bragging a few times about the big cheeses he thought he used to be).

One sharp critic said the OT 3 story is so unbelievable it had to be kept secret, it is so ridiculous, it would offend people too much, because beginners in Scn would not stick around if they knew how ridiculous the top level material in Scn was.

Hubbard, in that critic's view, hid the ridiculousless of the story with the stated excuse that the story would sicken and possibly kill beginners. (I'm not dead, and I just re-read all the OT levels described in the Fischman Affadavit tonight on: .)

No, in my opinion, the story is NOT an integral part. I never even got to read the damn story for the 27 years I was in the Scn movement, I never made it even to Clear. (I was a serious failure at progressing up the Scn Bridge.) I was carried along, like the tens of thousands still hanging in there, by the hope that the OT stages were gonna be something special. The statistics on how many people DON'T make it to the top would be interesting to see. Particularly it is true that the church staff members who work for decades and still don't make it to the top OT levels, that is a very real reality. So what I instead thought about all day long was Hubbard's ideas from his self-help books and his church policies, and technical writings and his VOLUMINOUS other writings for the life-time staff category (those voluminous writings are mainly mundane specific writings directed to specific positions and specific church operations).

In otherwords, Hubbard was so prolific, he kept and will keep anyone who ventures into the movement VERY BUSY with years and years of everyday organizational policy and other writings, so they have plenty of other things to occupy their minds, rather than pining for the OT levels 24/7 (and the secret story of Xenu).

>>3)Why do people have to pay for Scientology teachings?

Lifetime staff don't, which is one reason sometimes the lifetime staff have to be weeded out, since some joined for the free ride. Historically, the movement started in the 50's and it needed money to survive, and it was NOT a religion, it was characterized as a quasi-psychoanalytic (meaning unscientific fad party game) procedure that within about 4 years then registered in California first as a church. But it looked just like Freud on the couch with a patient, and Hubbard's initial organizational direction was in training practioners of Dianetics to go home to their cities and put out their own shingles (like doctors) and pull in people to run their Dianetics on. The training centers for the practitioners (auditors), then became called central organizations, which later became the Scn churches. The setup was more like training and auditing centers. Today those are the two main bread and butter church activities--training and auditing.

It ain't and never was like a temple and priest congregation atmosphere/setup. It was set up and found its legs as a money exchange operation, money for training, and money for individual processing. So the training centers stopped referring to payments, and started to refer to the payments as religious donations, when the time came to make things align with Scn's acquired church status.

>>4) Lastly, I am curious about this "e-meter". If there were >>circuitry involved which can measure human thought, emotion,
>>or the presence of some astral body, wouldn't such
>>technology be a miracle of science? Why has the technology not
>>progressed beyond a meter with a needle? If such forces are
>>quantifiable, why is computer technology not used to image and
>>further define these phenomena?

I have heard a recent defector from the church bring up your exact argument. The current church is set and NOT advancing with the technical breakthroughs of modern life, and not taking advantage of them.

Hubbard claimed the meter worked for him, and that being "workable" for him, that set the emeter in concrete for everyone else. He's foisted this off on everyone else, and the faithful have had to buy it. But the meter DOES NOT work in many expert's opinions, it is simply a crude lie detector, and Hubbard even goes into excruciating detail in some of this famous early 1960's lectures and admits how the emeter is ineffective in the case of the patient NOT being in any turmoil over the issue that the patient is lying about. If the person doesn't think what he is being asked about was wrong, then the meter will not react. That assumes the meter even works as Hubbard claims, which more harsh critics don't even agree there. The meter's technical advances were pegged at Hubbard's limited mentality, and unfortunately the rest of the world's technical expertise was not invited by Hubbard to grace or improve upon his "Hubbard E-Meter," so unfortunately the Scn movement is probably stuck with what they have.

Call me if you want. 412-260-1170. I'm in Pittsburgh, and I get off work weekdays at 9pm, call me then if you want. I've sat in most of the mid to upper level church administrative organizations over my 27 years.

Chuck Beatty
27 year ex-lifetime staff member, of the
Scn religious movement (1975-2003)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology, sci.skeptic
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Dec 2004 10:47:17 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 19 2004 10:47 am
Subject: Re: open letter to the Church of Scientology

Phaedrus wrote:

> Wow, Chuck, thanks for the extensive follow-up.
> ...
> I had no idea that Church staff didn't have to pay for all the
>teachings. Sounds like a good business model; otherwise you'd
> either run out of employees or end up with a bunch of rich
>twits who don't know how to use MS Word & Excel. Now, do the
>staff get paid in addition to this?

I got $17.50 in 1975, weekly staff allowance. Over the years the allowance raised to today it is $50.00 I believe. Food and uniforms provided. Some health care paid for by the church but much health care is state provided since religious workers fall into the poverty economic band, so taxpayers are covering the health care of the lifetime Scn staff for the most part in my opinion (all my health care I paid with my measly savings or got California state freebie coverage myself).

> I notice by looking at the public face of the Church how similar it
>is to Quixtar/Amway. They both love to go around on boats, granting trips
>to the faithful. Amway calls their top folks Pearl, Diamond, Sapphire, etc.
>And they have no end of top ranks, once people move beyond their ultimate
> levels. Super-Diamond, Ultra-Triple-Pearlite, etc.

These names sound remniscent of the Scn plateaus of status donators can achieve in the various Scn movement projects that obtain direct funding from Scn public (church building projects and goodwill projects).

What are MLMs, by the way?

> ... I'm quite sure that Amway not only allows for that, but
>that it exists because of that great mass of folks who pay into the
>system, but aren't willing to tear away the veil and go at it like a
>profit-leeching pyramid scheme.

I am a totally novice critic of the Scn movement, having only made the transition from faithful to dissenting critic in the past two years, and I only began posting my complaints and observations in the last 5 months.

I have heard of comparisons of Scn to Amway, but not knowing Amway, I can only vaguely guess that the connections DO exist, since so much of the intelligent criticism of the Scn movement I keep discovering is correct in my opinion.
> I really believe that John Travolta is sincere when he says
>it works for him.

I do too. And I believe the Scn movement, like ANY other organization on earth, IS people and personality driven, meaning enough bright enough and happy enough people stay in Scn and keep their friends, co-workers and family in it too. Scn engages enough bright people to keep them sufficiently occupied with their "religious" or "spiritual" needs without wholescale tragedy, so the operation keeps going financially somehow.

The Scn movement leaves a trail of debris, but not enough to drag it down.

> Lastly, the bit about the e-meter and the Church's lag in keeping up
> technology. I wonder how much success I'd have in setting up a
> science-based religion today?

Wow. Sounds like you are swinging with the concepts way beyond my feeble grasp of cyber space religious possibilities, but yes, you got the big picture. It looks like you could spawn a few pilot new age cyber tech religions and see which one works, and then the best of these new cyber tech religions could charge ahead and leave L. Ron's Sci-fi Scn movement in the galatic dust.

Enjoy all the thousands of great writeups on the critics' sites. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours reading, and I am still less than 1/4 through all the material out on the internet on people's views and experiences. (If you wish to waste the time. Otherwise I recommend using Wikipedia's definition of Scientology as the starting point, and first read through the whole article without branching off on the links, and then go back and go off on any links you want, to get the best written rational summarized view of the Scn movement.)

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Dec 2004 20:58:23 -0800
Local: Tues, Dec 28 2004 8:58 pm
Subject: Re: Aletheia Taylor returns to the Sea Org

Deo Morto wrote:

> taking up your point about DM - " He clearly isn't an idiot, even if
> he is at best half-educated."
> I am at a loss to understand your point. Where do you get the
> information that he is "half educated" from? To what standard are you
> referring? I am not trying to be a cheer leader for him - unlike most
> people on this newsgroup I have worked with him and known him since
he was spec project ops - but I think you are missing something here.
The guy runs an enterprise that has a couple of billion dollars in
> reserves, has an enormous cash flow and has kept it integrated and
> running for 20 odd years. Those reserves were not there when he took
> over.

> As for running it into the ground - that has been the wishful
thinking on here since I first posted and it ain't happened yet. I believe
that, eventually, it will because Hubbard was such a jackass that his
> policies will utlitmately create failure because Scientology always
> poisons its own environment but that is a systemic fault of
Scientology itself.

Well said Deo man!

As an aside, you are the only person actively posting who has worked actually with DM. I wanted so much to ask you about the years when IAS was first set up. You were there, you knew Parodi, Janet Light, all the initial players when IAS was set up.

Another 2 decades long ex-Int Base staff who contacted me, has equal respect for some of DM's characteristics. There are many many normal moments people have shared in DM's presence. (All of my measly moments with him were all uneventful, I never saw him push, spit, pound, ridicule, or even shout, at anyone. He acted gracious, energetic, etc., polite, all the moments I spent near him.) (And I saw the CMO PR's survey results in late 1983 when the Int Base staff were surveyed who THEY wanted to have speak at the Int Base New Year's event, and overwhelmingly the Int Base staff wanted DM.) So the guy does command respect, and it may be a bit of the abused wife respect, and he's the only top dog they got, without any competition.

But another reason the movement hangs in there, relating to DM's grip of the world filtered through the LRH mindset filter, the two decades long ex-Int Base staffer told me the key key policy that sustains DM and the rest of them, is the PL where LRH says you only have to be right on your decisions MORE than 50 per cent of the time, and NEVER be wrong on a major decision. THAT is what that other 2 decades long ex-Int Base staffer believes is the reason the top Int Execs are able to still keep the show on the road. (Paying the lower allowances, and the FBO policies that enforce the stashing of the majority of the income into reserves, IS KEY I feel also.

Another angle, traces to LRH, he uses people for a while, and loses track of them, forgets them, and cyclically goes through people over and over for decades. When that old-timer from the 50's who was familiar all the way back to the Dn's days, when he summarized how he observed LRH treat the top execs right under LRH.

To DM's credit, he has at least allowed some stability in the top Int Execs, meaning the tippy top clique (Mark Yaeger, Mark Ingber, Shelly Miscavige, Greg Wilhere, Marty Rathbun, Lyman Spurlock, Norman Starkey, the RTC execs that have been there for years unbusted, and then there are the ones who float up, down, up, down, Wendell Reynolds, Steve Marlowe, Mike Sutter, Annie Broeker (who is CO CMO GOld as one recent Int Base defectee told me). Gary Weise has been stable in his final resting place in editing I think for well over a decade now.

Anyone want to email me anonymously, or add to Int Base exec news, please do so, or also fill out the new "ex-Int Base Staff" Interrogatory on the internet:

I agree with you. (Right now I am writing up a list of all the justifications I had personally generated or adopted over the years that kept me inside, so others can see the layers and layers of thoughts swimming around in a Sea Org member's head, as they rise to the heights that one can rise to in this movement.)
Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Dec 2004 21:56:11 -0800
Local: Tues, Dec 28 2004 9:56 pm
Subject: Re: Tom Cruise salutes DM (with photo)

Dave Touretzky wrote:

> Oh boy! I just got my latest copy of International Scientology News,
> issue 29, dated December 2004. And it has a marvelous article about
> Tom Cruise accepting a Glorious Hero of the Scientology Revolution to
> Save the Planet medal at the October IAS event in the UK.

. . .

> PHOTO: close up shot of GAWDY MEDAL OF VALOR with gobs of diamonds...

Hey Dave, for the possible record, I will bet my money on the fact that the wonderful diamond studded medal was produced by Argent Jewelry, the cover business operation that Mary Sue Hubbard is somehow connected with and which was/is I believe somehow her financial business lifeline in life, and a guy named Neville Potter (long time Sea Org member who together with long time Sea Org member Ginny Hof) the two of them are MSH's (Mary Sue Hubbard's) joint helper/assitant/business partner/auditor/relayman back to the Scn movement, via ASI (Author Services Inc) there in LA. Argent Jewelers probably had this great peice made up for Tom, is my bet. Everything is kept within the family. Many people at the Int Base over the years have seen Neville come and go, getting the pc folders and Case Supervision actions by Senior C/S Int Office or RTC tech terminals that Neville needed for those person(s) Neville was assisting over the years. (When I was ASI staff in the early 90's, like 93 or 94, Neville gave us all little jewelry Xmas gifts, from Argent, I liked him, he is a very likeable person.) Neville's Argent connection I don't know exactly, but I have no doubt he has some sort of connection. The rumor I heard was Argent does all the work for all the medals and pins, and Scn jewelry.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Dec 2004 22:17:06 -0800
Local: Wed, Dec 29 2004 10:17 pm
Subject: Re: Tom Cruise salutes DM (with photo)

Susan S wrote:

... The rumor I heard was Argent
> >does all the work for all the medals and pins, and Scn jewelry.

> Chuck,

> So, who cares?

> Susan S

Hello Susan S,

I posted the possible trail in the physical universe where the "gaudy" medal possibly came from is all.

Ever read the New York Review of Books? It's a magazine, with a layout similar in physical size to Rolling Stone magazine. But the NY Review of Books is topnotch intellectual writing by some of the sharpest writers, historians, researchers and academics in the English speaking world, mainly American, but some foreigners.

There are a whole group of intelligent individuals who are continually pawing through historical events, and pretty brilliant people they are.

The reason I try to originate the details that I do, is to provide data that later down the road, intelligent writers and researchers will come along and will have plenty of raw material to draw accurate conclusions or do further research about the Scn movement.

I encourage ALL to voice whatever they wish about the movement. I have faith that intelligent people will later sort through the material, and I believe the future reviewers of the Scn movement WILL get the story right!

>From historically similar circumstances, I have read repeatedly that historians truly appreciate finding writings of people directly involved in some facet of history. No matter if the writings are bad, slanted, delusional, whatever, the writings ADD, and never subtract, to gaining insight into the subject studied.

But I can tell you, and anyone who has been in the Sea Org for the last couple of decades, will tell you, that there are thousands and thousands of pretty interesting details of the Sea Org that ARE NOT in the public domain, that objective external reviewers of the Scn movement have no idea of.

Another answer, of course, is that no one now cares about this little supposition I made above about the medal being an Argent possible product, and the possible connection of Argent to MSH, etc. I can see that totally.

But from what I have read in the wog world, there ARE people who someday DO CARE, and they study the hell out of things.

I wrote to bring up the possible Argent/MSH connection, I am curious about that.

I am intensely interested in hearing from MSH personally. Whatever her viewpoint. She was closer to LRH and worked together with him longer than any other human being in the whole history of the Scn movement, do you realize that?

When I was on somewhat public lines, meaning a course supervisor, I had endless questions to me, asking what MSH was doing today. Those questions have not ceased. All Scn public wonder about MSH's fate after the trial and her prison. She has volumes of books of stories to relate, if she would.

What an incredible event it would be to get an interview with her, of her thoughts about her life with Ron!?

Do you have her phone number by chance? I would love to interview her before she passes. I hope that Danny Sherman has interviewed her extensively. At least the Scn movement will have her stories.

It would be so sad if she doesn't and hasn't had a chance to add her voice about her life with Ron, no matter what her views are.

I truly hope she writes and has written something, and that it someday comes to public light.

Just this whole subject of MSH, she is a major player in the Scn movement, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to elicit her or others to shed light on her contributions and activities in Scn. I do NOT hold the simplistically cautious and obvious current Scn Mgmt fearful view that tries to limit details of her involvment and contributions in her decades with LRH. The childish fear is that it detracts from the movement. More communication, not less, boy, I agree with that. It adds up to more affinity and more reality. More communication inevitably assists, despite the desire to clamp down on releasing new disreputable details.

I am not into suppressing the multitude of complexities and interesting details of the Scn movement.

I say lay all the details out, no matter how sloppy, inaccurate, incomplete, embarrassing, whatever.

(Anyone want to send me any data on MSH, former GO people, feel free to send me anonymous stories.)

A few rational researchers out there will eventually delve into the Scn movement at some point, and appreciate people who are trying to get down in print the life experiences of the players in the Scn movement. Especially at this time, since MSH is getting very advanced in age, and also the former GO hieracrchy have had a multitude of personal experiences with her, and thousands of stories themeselves to get into print for posterity I would think.

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Dec 2004 21:44:40 -0800
Local: Thurs, Dec 30 2004 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: Tom Cruise salutes DM (with photo)

Lulu Belle wrote:

> > before she passes. I hope that Danny Sherman has interviewed her
> > extensively. At least the Scn movement will have her stories.
> For at least the last ten years, all the photos and books of photos
> of LRH that the Church has published has had the entire Hubbard family
> airbrushed/photoshopped out.

> If this biography, which apparently is taking longer to write than
>the man hismelf lived, ever comes out, it's pretty much a guarantee that
>it will not have any of Mary Sue Hubbard's "stories."
> I'd be surprised if she's mentioned at all.

Yea. I can't believe I wasted so much of my life hoping LRH was right and that the world would catch up with him. In my 27 years as a Sea Org member I numbly skidded over decades of escalating outpoints.

Airbrushing people "out"!! I bet if I tried, I could narrow down the people who are today actually doing this "airbrushing" activity. Deep in the bowels of Building 36 the big building immediately to the left of the main Guard Booth at the Gold Base, probably on the 2nd floor in the PDO (Public Dissem Org) space, that is where this "airbrushing" is actually happening. That's where the movement actually perpetrates this 1984 revisionism of history.

(Some of the people in the PAC RPF who were demoted from the Int RPF could help us actually get the names of the people at the Int Base whose sick job it is to do this 1984 airbrushing.)

This unsavory aspect of the movement is so sick.

I hope someone in the movement wises up, and takes notice that the really intelligent people in the world are not and never have been fooled by LRH and the movement's petty vindictive abusive and dissembling tactics.

Rather than priding themselves with the delusive feedback they get from the wogs they have won support from with their "airburshed" revisionist history, they ought to instead respond to the valid critiscm of the movement and clean up their act. (For starters stop declaring dissenters "suppressive"; un-declare about 97 1/2 percent of the people they have declared "suppressive"; let the families reconnect they have forced apart; stop all PI dirty tricks and harrassing; stop all legal attacks on dissenters; apply good roads and good weather across the boards; admit staff incompetence where it caused tragedies; offer to settle monetarily fairly where people's lives have been devastated; lower prices ("donations"); end micro-management.) (Doing this would knock out 90% of the nagging criticism the movement inevitably attracts, and begin winning them the support of the people in the world whom LRH instead mistakenly insisted on offending.)

It is unusual that year after year, the people in the movement are unable to spot the fact that intelligent people in the world are not lining up on their side! I finally got sick of this fact, and I had to get out, and get back on the side of more reasonable thinking people. They are unaware that their discreditable actions are significant reasons intelligent people continue to be repelled by the movement. Rather than correct and cease these activities, they try to skirt being exposed committing them, and mindlessly continue them.

The ARS infestation by the pitiable human beings playing these uniquely 20th and 21st century computer dirty tricks, is a minor discreditable activity that also inevitably focuses negative public opinion back against the Scn movement. People who can't even admit who they are, and cannot talk to their fellow men and women freely.

Every ex-Sea Org member I have ever communicated with immediately recognized OSA's hand in the dirty tricks on ARS. And every ex Sea Org person (including myself) feel some aspect of fear against the church's retaliation against our lives. The Scn movement sees no fault in this. Truly a monumental mistake on LRH's part, that no one in the movement sees how they could possibly correct this, so it's another outpoint in the layers of mind-numbing accumulated outpoints in a Sea Org members' head.

The Scn movement outpoints are overwhelming, so many outpoints. The irreconcilable discreditable policies are numbing to them in the movement who mindlessly have to carry them out.

What a legacy! Not something I could continue to call my life's work, so I got out.

Again, I support all those who are working to pick apart the nagging resistive accumulated discreditable aspects of the Scn "juggnaut".
Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Dec 2004 13:58:11 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 31 2004 1:58 pm
Subject: Re: Tom Cruise salutes DM (with photo)

Mike Gormez wrote: >

>dissenters "suppressive"; un-declare about 97 1/2 percent of the
> >they have declared "suppressive";

> Just a nudge but did you write 97.5 percent because you believe
Hubbard was right when he said 2.5% op the people are trully
evil, or did you write it out of your own observation?

I just threw in the 97 1/2 percent since it's the reverse of the 2 1/2 percent, and just to say they went overkill in declaring people who were NOT suppressive. (I personally have not given it too much more thought, but I am headed towards dismissing LRH's claims about SPs. Most likely his "SPs" are just a needed controlling method to shut off internal negatism and criticism that the movement wasn't capable of dealing with. No one in the world would disagree that genuine criminals and psychotics should NOT disrupt the average citizens. There is really no need to even have the SP rules, simply call the police, or call the insane asylum, and cart off the criminals and wackos, or fire the wacko staff, and invite the wacko public to leave the premises and bar them from returning. The church taking on this police like role and witch-hunting attitude was a serious mistake on LRH's part. If anything, it was his retaliation for the public pressure against him. We all know of the busted up lives of people and families with one or more member still in the church and then one or more member stuck with the SP stigma. It genuinely shows LRH lacks sense.

If one compares what LRH says in the About Rhodesia tape lecture about SPs with all the rest of the material in the PTS/SP course (Note: This About Rhodesia tape is GLARINGLY OMITTED from the current PTS/SP Course), and to me it makes me feel even more so I am right about LRH's goof in this area.

> >Every ex-Sea Org member I have ever communicated with immediately
> >recognized OSA's hand in the dirty tricks on ARS.
> Some ex-SO see OSA everywhere. Use your own mind.

Right. When I came out, I never figured OSA was lurking around anyone. I thought they'd quit harrassing people, and it was a thing of the not so long past. In 2003, when I went online, and checked the critics sites, there were NO raids on people, NO one actively complaining about dirty tricks and harrassment. That is even WHY I decided to finally go public. I called Arnie Lerma, and asked him did he ever hear of OSA going after Dan Garvin, particularly since Dan was a former OSA staffer, and Dan's talks about INCOMM and even told the OT 3 story, which I found and listened to a copy of that radio show on the internet. Dan got NO harrassment. Not one iota.

So I hope this trend continues, and people become justifiably less and less worried about receiving OSA associated dirty tricks and harrassment.

> Ps. cut yourself some slack. If you haven't noticed it then let
>me tell you that not a great many people question their lives
>and thoughts. Nobody wants to feel silly and when you don't
>question there's no chance you'll get to feel silly.

Okay. Thanks. Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Dec 2004 19:44:33 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 31 2004 7:44 pm
Subject: Re: Aletheia Taylor returns to the Sea Org Lady Chatterly wrote:

> Shoot yourself now, heaps transfer under Asian examinations, unless
> they are not capable of representing themselves and that is 4 million
> people who now have a life away from the photography unit.

A human being is doing Lady Chatterly, and that human being's above suggestion I dismissed, as a probable accidental phrase plopped into the typically non-sequitor fare offered by Lady Chatterly. But if the human being(s) behind Lady Chatterly meant this above small phrase as a provocative and heinous command, then this is something truly only the sender(s) know(s). I leave this to them answer the the truth of my observation.

I just note this here in public, for the record.
Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Jan 2005 19:45:32 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 3 2005 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: Aletheia Taylor returns to the Sea Org

Due to the fatuous falsity of LRH's shot from the hip slapdash hyperbolic hubristically researched pronunciamentos, the ARS devolved dissembling fantasy skirmish tactics are saliva blown back onto their faces.

Best, Chuck Beatty

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


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