Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, July 2005


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Jul 2005 13:06:24 -0700
Local: Tues,Jul 5 2005 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: Attorney Ford Greene

The Friends of San Anselmo in my opinion is a dirty tricks smearing tactic to deflect people off of sympathizing with the honorable actions that Attorney Ford Greene is engaging in in helping people fight against the disgraceful abuses of the official Scientology movement.

Ford Greene is doing good.

People can have done bad in the past and do good today.

Ford Greene is doing good.

Petty smearing of people, expecially the ongoing ARS dirty tricks smearing tactics, against the persons listed on the Religious Freedom Watch site, this smearing is doing nothing but blackening official Scientology's image of intolerance and wrong and disgraceful tactics, all traceable to L. Ron Hubbard.

Media understand this implicitly, since media have decades long felt the disgraceful retaliation ordered by L. Ron Hubbard's faulty and disgraceful policies.

I would not side with wrongful tactics.

Hubbard's wrongs do not need to be forwarded.

If you are supportive of Hubbard, support what the world agrees are good about Hubbard, and only do that!

Get off this ARS newsgroup, and watch the official Scientology image improve.

I guarantee it.

I support all good things Ford Greene is doing to right the wrongs that official Scientology has long perpetrated.

Best, Chuck Beatty


What the shameless and unconsciencable perpetrators of those limited worst of L. Ron Hubbard's policies and writings which encouraged the creation and maintenance of the Friends of Anselmo smear campaign site and also the Religious Freedom Watch smear campaign site fail to see is that mankind has been/there--done/that on all this type of dirty tricks smearing.

Anyone only needs to increase their vocabulary and begin observing and reading, and the shoddy tactics L. Ron Hubbard overtly encourages his variously loyal followers of his Scientology movement to engage in are OUT OF STEP with mankind's more intelligent thought.

[I say "variously loyal" because I now understand that the adept perpetrators of the dirty tricks internet tactics are from the official and ex-GAS associates or similar later OSA accomplice type volunteers, all of their roles tracing back to the historic Guardian's Office directives written by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. It all traces back and holds firm today due to LRH's long ago worst ideas. Those earlier "loyal" GO persons who "bit the bullet" to defend Hubbard from jail for his ordered tactics, and those later coming on board with OSA's ongoing similar efforts, all the remaining active participants are today still using L. Ron Hubbard's special defensive "tech". These behind the scenes people are a whole subject I'd love to hear the stories of these people from their own mouths, these people who still carry out the internet work, their unique long years' work and stories would be another fascinating historical angle to Hubbard's spinoff niches of Scientology movement participants.]

Scientologists continue to stoop to tactics that continue to blemish their character and the character of their founder. Media and intelligent critics have known for decades the disgraceful tactics trace directly to L. Ron Hubbard. Were official Scientology leaders to silently voluntarily cease those retalitory "defensive" policies that only confirm what media and intelligent observers of the Scientology movement's tactics have already known for decades, then guaranteed the official Scientology movement would gain.

Ironically what the goddamn GO PR people could NOT get Hubbard to do in the 70's, possibly the ex-goddamn GO PR people should get the guts to come out and help the movement accomplish NOW!

I rose to ASI staff level, and became concious of LRH's image, and became aware of those (Hugh Wilhere, David Bloomberg, Danny Sherman, Norman Starkey, DM) who were most having to deal with the ongoing LRH PR image. I was the type who daydreamed what the hell I would do instead of what I saw being done.

With access, at ASI, to all the bad press clippings, and watching Hugh order his orders down the lines to people to handle various bad media, I became interested in how the hell could Hubbard be better defended.

That's been a personal beef I've had, that the top best people in the movement have got to goddamn do something a hell of a lot more effective than what the hell they are doing.

In the famous "Effective Public Relations" book, which as an administrative course supervisor, for years, I had students read, there is a line of gold that reads something like: "All a person needs to become a Public Relations man in New York, is a subscription to the NY Times." That floored me.

Most missing from the Scientology movement are Sea Org members who could absorb and appreciate and carry out the wisdom in this little paraphrased sentence.

So missing in the top ranks are those with the strength of mind and will to pervade over top Hubbard's worst directives that so ruinously plague the movement, and follow wiser courses offered by outsiders to the whole Scientology movement. (I was personally so disappointed we "Sea Org/Scientology" had to fire Hill and Knolton, that PR firm was such a right move on DM's part to employ. It is absolutely the correct direction the movement should go and should spend its millions on, rather than on the dozens of attack dog Private Eyes and attornies due to Hubbard's vindictive irrationally hateful unbalanced "defensive" policies!)

I read that sentence in the Effective Public Relations book, in my final 14 months, in the RPF's RPF course room, in 2002, in LA, where I began re-reading all the OEC Volumes, listening to the ESTO Tapes, the FEBC tapes, dozens of other tapes, reading hundreds of wog encyclopedia articles, The Oxford Companion to English Literature [thanks to I think Kathy Lemeron who's copy somehow ended up in the PAC RPF's library, the ironies of reference book history in the Sea Org course rooms!] and getting prepared to re-enter the wog world from my 27 year Sea Org bubble world career. (I read the Big League Sales books by Les Dane, which I use in my door to door sales job now, too!)

I realize it is the old Intel GO people who are the ones brainchilding the internet stuff today.

But it is the frustrated GO PR (Guardian's Officer Public Relations) people like Vaughn and Stacy who came out. If Vaughn and Stacy came out, then I hope some will at least anonymously call me. I am sure the old frustrations linger about Hubbard's failure to use better PR and less disgraceful illegal tactics. Hubbard was one fool about his rightness, which now we see how wrong he was, how long his trail of worst directives has so continuously blemished his and the official movement's character.

The mess Hubbard refused to acknowledge he was creating, does still need to be handled.

Current Scientology leadership has had two decades of losses using LRH's "defensive" tactics.

Defectors will just keep coming out, like me, like the 18 ex-Int Base staffers who've come out in the 1 year since I started observing on the anti-Scientology internet sites.

My coming out I see is mostly a result of my outside world reading, being influenced by the more sensible intelligent minds OUTSIDE, who have rightly written about Hubbard's wrongful policies and ideas.

Hubbard and his followers can have their groups.

But Hubbard's groups' out of step and disgraceful group tactics only lengthen the days until Scientology gains the intelligent world's support.

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

The sooner the better for them.

Best, Chuck Beatty <>BR>ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Jul 2005 11:18:06 -0700
Local: Tues,Jul 5 2005 2:18 pm
Subject: Thoughts about Vanella Sechi (ED Int's ex-wife)

Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 7:54 pm:


I saw Vanella over the years, had a soft spot for her.

In Int Training Org when it was back at the Flag Land Base, and being shut down in late 1982, since LRH sent an advice to ED Int that ED Int needed to have a training setup nearby Exec Strata to make execs for the churches, ITO at the FLB, which was a bombshelled disaster after the 1981-82 OEC/FEBC evolution, ITO was tanked (disbanded). Me and my best friend Chuck McDougal, were the sole remaining OEC FEBC personnel, and we had a few straggling last OEC FEBC students. Me and Chuck shipped what was left of the OEC FEBC course to LA, and Vanella was D/ED Int Internal, and was in telex comm with me on the disbanding of the OEC FEBC course.

She was a thoughtful exec, maybe a bit of a sidekick/spouse to ED Int, but I got on fine with her, as I did with most everyone in my 27 years in the Sea Org.

Then, when I was finally finally busted for my last time, my fatal final 7 years in the Sea Org, I went to the Int RPF, in Jul 96, and Vanella was on the Int RPF.

She altogether must have been on the RPF for about 7-8 years.

She had a rough go on the Int RPF, prima dona in her unique Italian/Euro way. Her dad was or still is a bigtime lawyer and her dad and Frank Frau's dad used to be buddies, Frank's dad, now dead, was a judge in Breschia. Frank's family is from Sardinia and they moved to Breschia on the mainland, and met the Secchi family there, Frank and Vanella have known each other since before they were in Scientology.

Vanella I think went through her divorce to ED Int while she was on the Int RPF, and at the very very very end, when I left the Int RPF, she was having a rough time, wanting to leave, hating the control and losing control emotionally, yelling at people at times who told her to do things she did not want to do.

The accumulated bureaucratic "agreed upon" self-enforced mental coercion and pressure people in the Sea Org agree to and self- inflict on themselves and others, is really what I hated most about my whole 27 years in Scientology. The agreements leading up to moments when you just cannot agree any longer, and feeling trapped, I so wish people coming out to describe their experiences exhaustively, and accurately, that is what needs to be told.

Vanella had her serious share of moments when she did NOT agree with the rules, and she fought back in a variety of ways.

I highly respected her for this, inside, in my mind.

When people in the Sea Org act "badly" or "protest" or fight against the rules, I secretly always loved to see the blowups of people finally getting pissed off at all the goddman dumb little rules which a fellow Sea Org member would unwittingly try to enforce on the protesting Sea Org member, and there would be these comical blowups, and not so comical blowups.

The goddamn smothering accumulation of petty rules, that just smother human desire to be free of all those damn rules and agreements sometimes.

The RPF is a layered in deep recessed cavern and just simiply walking out is such not an option mentally to all the agreements one has been led to agree to over the years of being a "dedicated" Sea Org member.

Anyways, Vanella, I totally sympathized with her, while other Int RPFers just sort of tolerated her eccentric outbursts.

Frank many times was her ally. Maj Wheelis my later twin when I later went to the PAC RPF, Maj on the Int RPF spent some time helping calm and stay with Vanella during those moments on the Int RPF when she simply refused to follow any of the damn rules herself.

As a sidenote, anyone wishing to phone me, and further discuss ANY aspect of ANYTHING I can tell you about my Sea Org experience, give yourself 30 minutes to an hour and call me on the weekends, any weekend, and I will tell anyone anything. Talking about this most frustrating of experience, which I watched others like Vanella go through, and which I myself predicted myself later going through, and I did later have to go through the whole protest phase, it is so frustrating.

When you want to just get the hell out, and just break down the rules, in the midst of those you are there on the RPF with, your longtime friends, who are just standing by, doing their "duty" following the rules you yourself even agreed to, but in the spur of the moment desires to just shuck all the rules off, the mental battle to just get the hell out, it was frustrating to say the least.

I was in the sort of "restricted to the ranch" category of the Int RPF, not being allowed to go into the "castle" which is the great huge building where the Int RPFers were doing their daily work duties.

People in "bad" shape, or for some reason were not supposed to be seen at the Base, stayed at the ranch all the time. I was NEVER going to graduate and rise to Int Base status, once my RPF was done, so that is why I thought for base security reasons I was never let go work at the sets and props area. Also, I was so obsessed with my future dreams of just unloading, and writing about all my experiences like I am now, eventually, that I felt it best I not be allowed to go to the Int Base daily with the other RPFers at the Happy Valley ranch Int RPF, due to knowing I would inevitably just record mentally all I saw and write about it all someday, in complete violation of the self-instilled rules self-enforced due to L. Ron Hubbard's extensively accumulated "security" mindset that pervades ALL of the mindset at the Int Base. It all traces back to Hubbard's rules and policies, and people's bad reactions to those constritive rules.

When some intelligent people write someday, I would place Vanella in the category of someone who I hope does write, to capture the unique subtlties and frustrations of how helpless one feels at trying to protest the rules.

She is an extremely intelligent woman, and not doubt mumbles due to the ignorance of those around her unable to grasp her thoughts and rationale. That is completely my view.

While I never graduated to mumbling stage, I have mentally played through endless scenarios that all ended me up "losing" to the boundries of L. Ron Hubbard's totalitarian rules and group agreed upon interpretations that others in decades past have recorded about their RPF experiences which are amongst the worst of the worst stories that come OUT of the Scientology "prison/gulag" Rehabilitation Project Forces that still exist, and still put people through these frustrating scenarios.

Vanella should be judged on her mind, and my opinion is that those who failed to see her intellect, are at their own personal loss.

What each of us accumulates which we consider our lives, I am very interested in hearing each person's views of their lives. I have found people's life stories are not easily dismissable.

I encourage all persons to write and express their ideas and opinions.

I hope Vanella tells her tale. It would be an excellent one. Then her good qualities will be apparant.

She was so close to defecting so many times that I think now, inevitably, she is going to defect someday. I predict she will return to her upper middle class family, in Italy. Her daughters are in Italy I believe.

I hope she and Frank get the opportunity to meet again, late in life, and do their story with an intelligent Italian author. "Our Lives in Scientology" or something. They are old-timers relatively speaking in the Italy field, and can tell the Italian story well.

Best, Chuck Beatty,
Ex-Sea Org, 75-03
[email protected]
412-260-1170 (Call anytime if important!)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Jul 2005 19:12:41 -0700
Local: Tues,Jul 5 2005 10:12 pm
Subject: Re: Will the anonymous Ex-GO exec please phone me!

> > Ball of Fluff wrote:

> >> > Well Mike McClaughry at least came forward!!!

> >> > snip
> >> >

> >> > snip

> >> Yes, and now that he's been out a while,
> >> he and his wife still attack people.
> >> They've personally ruined and caused the demise
> >> of two forums.

> >> Every now and again they post some out to get
> >> us rant here and on a.c.t. <>P> >> C

Well at least Stacy was able to catch what he was willing to say on video, even if he is not likely to say anything further now.

I guess he is not the best poster child to stir other ex-GO members to write the truth that up till now they have been loyaly covering up for LRH.

The details all need to be summarized intelligently so future writers on Scientology get the right score on what we all seem to agree the GO was absolutely up to, as far as covering for LRH's ass, on all of LRH's orders on the illegal activities.

It is just such a missed issue, not to place blame back to LRH, squarely.

That is the issue, and LRH is the who.

He set himself up as the unquestioned leader to be followed, and no one would be doing things unless he had been the driving force behind them.

Each little indicator and moment of everyone's lives all adds up to the whole sad tragedy of following a single man whose words become unquestioned law, more a lesson in the broader phenomena of coercive and totalitarian groups.

Well, until the movement collapses, the tradition of defecting and writing and exposing the ongoing details of life in the movement will continue.

There is so much material on the bad aspects of Scientology, I so wish to thank all who have put together all the excellent sites. I've just now started watching all the great 80's and 90's TV shows!

> Sure. I think all those tapes are valuable.

> I do.

> But they don't stand alone, IMO.

> His other behavior is noteworthy.

> C

I waited 27 years to conclude that Keeping Scientology Working and Safeguarding Technology, those 2 policy letters, are not in my opinion true.

I felt the urge to walk right out of Scientology when I read those 2 PLs the first couple times. I couldn't. I'd bought into the whole mysticism subject, meaning Scientology's spiritual movement competitors had sufficiently already sold me on the general spiritual field that includes Scientology.

The advertisements for Hinduism, Baba Ram Dass, Carlos Castaneda, Theosophy, Eckenkar, TM, etc., are what convinced me the same existed in Scientology.

My mistake. I should have walked out quickly from Scientology.

I'll admit any day, that a lot of good people have been associated and are still associated, trying to still make it work and help people out, with and around the subject of Scientology.

Loyalty should not blind reason, I feel now, so I cannot be loyal just for loyalty's sake. That leads towards the mob think LRH claimed to be steering away from.

Scientology should lighten up on those they consider disloyal, their defectors.

Scientology appears to me, after 27 years in it, just not delivering the goods bluntly.

My best auditing received was by intelligent, smarter than me, more uptone than me, caring individuals. My opinion is that conversing in or out of session with such people is all the benefit I got out of Scientology.

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Jul 2005 09:43:51 -0700
Local: Thurs,Jul 7 2005 12:43 pm
Subject: Danny Sherman LRH Biographer behind the scenes news ....

This excellent post is from U. R. Free on Clambake. This is the kind of behind the scenes Int Base info that is the tip of the iceberg to get out into the public. Chuck Beatty

Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 6:56 am:


Chuck, I appreciate your comments and encouragement for speaking out, and all the things you said above. I may fill out an interrogatory--I hope you can save it and come back to it instead of completing it in one sitting! I wanted to post something that would be interesting to many readers here. In some post I read a question someone asked about Danny Sherman, which reminded me of something that triggered my desire to leave Int and Scientology:

Danny Sherman (former GO) had been working at the Int base for about two years prior to 1998, as the writer/researcher/LRH Biographer, although he was a public. He got treated with kid gloves, i.e. COB made CMO INT buy him a car, we bought him a wardrobe for his speaking engagements, etc. Andy Lenarcic was in LRH PPRO INT up at Int, in charge of the LRH Biography, so Andy and Danny worked together. Andy made an announcement one night at a CMO INT staff meeting, explaining why it was taking him so long to complete the LRH Biography. He said that he and Danny had interviewed a lot of different people in LRH's past, and had come up with conflicting or completely different information that contradicted what he had already released about LRH in many of the prior LRH Magazines they had put out, i.e. Ron the Writer, Ron the Cinematographer, Ron the Philosopher, etc. What he was saying was that he had falsified various things in those publications. In my own naive way years prior, I had thought that the Ron Mags were real accounts of LRH's life. So to hear Andy admit he had concocted some of the information blew me away. I realized I had swallowed the PR line that information released about him was true, as authorized by RTC. I had heard this after I had found out about numerous HCOBs being altered by various staff at INT and released in OEC vols as if LRH had written them. These observations are what made me realize that there was no such thing as 100% standard tech or truth about Hubbard's background. I saw it as a scam and despite everything else I hated about sea org life, particularly the human rights violations, I realized I was part of a lunatic organization and had to get out. People need to know about this. The Int Execs work diligently to keep the wool pulled over their publics' eyes about "pure tech" and the sanctity of materials about Ron, it's pathetic. I don't know how they sleep at night, much less live from day to day with any kind of a conscience at all.

[U.R. Free posting on Clambake]

Anyone wish to contact me and continue getting out info on their experiences and opinions, anyway you wish, please contact me.

19 ex-Int Base staffers have personally contacted me in one way or another in response to my pleas to get people to come out and tell more and more of their opinions and experiences at the Int Base.

Media will back anyone up, and protect anyone with exposing ANY retaliation ANYONE gets, and if no retaliation comes, then that is just damn good news too!

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after
9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time;
after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Jul 2005 19:23:49 -0700
Local: Tues,Jul 12 2005 10:23 pm
Subject: The big time LRH never prepared Scientology for. I am learning.

Scn haven't been able to come up with anyone to be spokesman recently, and Ed Parkin is just a walking disaster, in my opinon. Ed's not OT, and Ed's been in for 20 years, which is an embarrassing line of questioning that instantly reflects back on the statistics of Sea Org who have been in for decades and didn't make it up to OT, etc. (I freely admit I am far worse of an example of personal case progress, I left Scn after 27 years, and I am mid Grade 0).

Rinder was made a complete fool on TV last times I saw him interviewed. Spoke well, but he was boxed into the corner and made look like a damn fool, and made Scn looklike a totalitarian group. Jentsch was chewed up on 60 minutes and isn't allowed TV spokesman, he comes across blustering overbearing and a bumper sticker slogan sputtering machine (Bruce Weiseman's epithet that Cooper Anderson rightly noticed of Bruce's tactics).

They truly lack a PR spokesman who is savy with the world enough to stay cool and handle the charges. My opinions are they lack someone who DM in any case would not allow do what LRH does give a top PR the authority to do which is recommend policy to be changed/issued to actually change some of LRH's worst recoiling inhumane directives.

They need a policy overhaul on 2 key issues (SP policy, psychiatry bashing) and large scale execution of this.

They need to make news by engaging in reform, rather than make news because LRH's worst long range policies continue to ignite misemotion and hatred for their behavior and tactics.

That'd be my PR advice, and if they let me loose in NYC with a PR budget, I'd research out some solutions for them, and hire some PR people, some retired ones, who have been watching the whole decades long travesty of the Scn movement, and get a couple retired pro PRs on the payroll for some solid advice, but the real price will be that Scn needs major reform.

That price is mainly to be paid with admitting their real faults, being humble enough to accept whatever results.

The two things that would be blockbuster reform:

1) Dump the SP rules, declare amnesties and cease all SP policies, especially related to family communication rules.

2) Retire CCHR completely, end all psych attacks.

That'd get them free PR, and untotalitarize their image, instantly and be such a damn boon for them.

What do you think?

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Jul 2005 10:33:35 -0700
Local: Sun,Jul 10 2005 1:33 pm
Subject: Re: Excellent assessment of the GAT fad
and other Tech Fads (for you Tory!)

roger gonnet wrote:
> a ?it dans le message de news:
> [email protected]­..
> > [Tory, this long excellent response was prompted
> > in response to me asking a former Int Base Staffer
> > to comment, regarding your experiences.]

> I'd be more simple and direct about all this:
>there can't be tech or GAT fads or
> whatever;

> Indeed, the tech simply does not work,
>moreover so for the upper levels "OT"
> techs.

> Based on nothing.

> The lower levels have never proven to be
>effective either: they are just what
> I'd call great tools to force people to
>fabricate FALSE/FAKED memories,
> therefore FAKED/FALSE "WHYS" for their
failures and problems in life, so, later
> on, the clients will again stumble on the
>exact same problems, with sometimes
> different "new" faked images/past lives/
>false explanations, and this can keep on
> for their whole life.

> r

So true. LRH in some lecture, summarizes unwittingly LRH's irresponsibility which I think is more widely true of the whole body of his works. LRH is talking about "giving advice" and LRH says, even if your advice is wrong, it sometimes helps jog the person into coming up with the "right" answer for himself.

This "cover all bases" common sense logic justification is repeated strategically throughout his works, and it is a major aspect of his bubbling cheerful irresponsibility in my opinion.

This irresponsible justification works for him in support of all the myriad endless little "discoveries" and the questionably "successful" "processes" that form the "Bridge."

I think LRH's charm, his personal contact with people, the group dynamics of him being the "boss" "founder" "source" and people hooking up, him granting them roles and respect and letting people in on his operation, a certain continuous natural group of people "surviving" within his rules and groups, moving up in ranks, taking the reigns themselves, evolving, using their own sense of rightness and decency, it simply is a decades long personal day by day, moment by moment accumulation of human basic moments, that has resulted in this whole resulting mess today. (The higher they rise, Scn participants today see LRH's other legacy of the restrictive and offensive LRH behind the scenes utterances and LRH's actual personal bad behavior.)

It is a wierd evolved mess of fantasy, belief, hope, faith, naturally displayed human decency despite the challenges of LRH's unwitting recoiling policy/tech/insanities.

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Jul 2005 13:44:06 -0700
Local: Sat,Jul 16 2005 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Newest "Command Intention"

Lagniappe wrote:
> The newest orders per 'Command Intention'
> is: to raise $ 5,000,000 from each Org
> by the 16th of July.

> There is no regging for services, such
> auditing or training or even for the
> IAS memberships; they are concentrated
> on asking for 'donations' to come up with
> the above mentioned amount, because every
> Org must have 'robots', machines that if
> anybody that walks in an Org they can
> press the button and read what Scientology
> is all about, this is for NN, Applied Scholastics,
> regular orgs, etc., etc, and it is because
> everything has to be 'perfect' according to him.

Thankyou Lagniappe,

Regarding the $5 million requested from each org area, for the project for this "Automatic Registration" machine, etc., here are some thoughts I have, and info I asked around for.

In general, I think this is an example of the constant brainstorming DM considers his hat, and it is also his own learning curve, and it is also part of what he considers his hat of trying long range to comply with the long un-complied backlog of LRH orders.

There are piles of accumulated un-complied with long duration LRH bright ideas for "helping" the orgs and handling the long term "situations" LRH believed needed to be dealt with in the orgs.

I think DM's still going through his learning curve, of trying a composite of several of LRH's old "bright ideas".

This current composite bright idea that DM is now asking funding for is made up, in my opinion of the following, from my association with reading through the array of non-complied org related source accumulated adbvces and long term non-complied with LRH ideas in long ago issue types:

a) "Automatic registration" machine (LRH talks about in policy, and refers back to this "machine" in the INCOMM/Routing Forms advices in 1982-83. This "machine" LRH first envisaged as a wall mounted magazine rack like thing, where public could just go through the pamphlets in slots pulling what suited their needs, and then walk to the Treasury window and sign themselves up!

b) LRH's 1980's (or earlier) advices to Cine, in general, re org's having dissemination tools, and things to use on the front lines, meaning Reg lines.

c) LRH's advices to INCOMM, and the Routing Forms project in general, as regards "bypassing" the greenie staff who botch up handling public coming into the orgs. (The INCOMM/Routing Forms advices contain one advice refering to a space-opera gizmo, not directly related to the above "machine" but in the same general direction of a "machine" that helps service public.) Also the INCOMM computers still long range need to be programmed to comply with the specific "Chug Advices" which are the core INCOMM still un-complied with advices which when complied with, will replace church management, meaning strategy writing, evaluations execution, program running and personnel replacements. INCOMM still has to comply with these decades long star high advices from LRH.


I have asked 4 ex-Int Base staffers and all agree if the orgs are going to be asked $5 million each from their fields, this will seriously put people off in the field, and not good for the field.

3/4 of the Int Base staffers I asked wanted to verify if DM really said he wanted $5 million? They doubted such a high amount being asked.


My background, which I will add, just for history:

In 1983, when I was on the Routing Forms Pjt being run from CMO Int by Action CMO Int, amongst the source material I was ordered to study to ensure that all policy was consulted in writing the "Computerized Routing Forms" which I believe still exist in the Class V orgs and Sea Org Orgs today, so some degree, I was told to study all relevant LRH advices which had not yet been put into any permanent issue type form.

There are a handful of LRH advices from the early 1980's particularly the so-called INCOMM advices mainly to Foster Tompkins, the first few of which were to John Busby. I'd estimate there are about 20 total INCOMM advices, about 2-3 initial advices from LRH to John Busby, and the rest are to Foster Tompkins. (Should they both defect someday, Foster could brilliantly describe his conversations with Ron, which in my opinion, of all of LRH's final back and forth conversations in advice form, the INCOMM advices comm cycles with Foster are just the lengthiest long advices I think LRH wrote in his final years, that I saw, this is my opinion. They are good to see, the state of mind of Ron, at a time when the critics were saying Ron was dead, and far from it, LRH was just pumping out long advices to Foster and deludging the Int Base staff with all sorts of advices on matters for the Int Base to comply with. Others I hope will write on LRH's traffic in the 1980's, what they recall LRH was saying, from memory, since we obviously don't have LRH's advices in the public domain, to go over. But I urge those who in the 1980's were privy to the final years of advices to tell what they recall of them, as it reflects on Ron in his final years, what he chose to comment on and write on, and itself is simply historical info that I hope someday becomes available for historians and serious observers of the history of the Scientology movement, since these early and mid 1980's advices will show LRH's state of mind and priorities in these final years of his life, period, thus these advices are significant in my opinion.)

Back to my little part observing what I observed firsthand, in 1983-184 when I was given access and ordered to read through all LRH's advices written in those years, to ensure NOTHING was omitted from the texts in the computerized routing forms I was made responsible to ensure their routing forms were "on-source" and that the routing forms were LRH's latest intentions for the org staffers. Staffers were being expected to follow the step by step steps in the computerized routing forms, so the steps had to be double checked to ensure they were what LRH said to do.

Well in one or two of the "Routing Forms" 1982-83 advices LRH is talking "wholetrack" (past-lives, space opera stuff). LRH implies whole track scenarios, as examples of comparison, to help Foster and the Routing Forms Pjt I/C, then Carol Titus, I think. (Barbara Price I think was the first Routing Forms Pjt In Charge in late 1982, with Roy Sarkowich being the 2nd. Then Barbara was replaced as the In Charge by Roy, and I think Ben Atwood and Jessica Pruit then came onto the project. Then those 3 were replaced by Carol Titus and Mary Ziff, and that is when I was pulled into the project, and I became researcher/writer to help get the final work already majorly done by Barbara, Roy, Ben and Jessica. By the time I came along the routing forms were all written up but had various major and minor flaws and Carol was in progress revising and fixing them, one by one. I then started helping at the revising fixing, and managed to do well enough to stay on the routing forms mission, and finally get up to taking over the final final revisions after the many months of piloting. I in the end became the one at that time most expert in the whole project, and Carol left abruptly. I was relatively good on the written paperwork and physical logistics parts of the routing forms project, but failed on the implementation aspects. I was on it for 4 1/2 years, then busted. I returned in 1989 just to the writing/revision job, since that is what I did best in my years on the routing forms project. Again in 1990 I failed, again on the complexities of dealing with areas I was not good at, "computerizing", "implementing".

Tony Kinzl eventually has taken over the routing forms project I learned in later years, and I hope someday he or anyone associated with the project updates me on how it went in later years. I enjoyed my years on the project for the most part.

LRH in 1982 and 1983 is specificially talking about what he suggests be done, LRH tells of a whole track type of gizmo, that is sort of like a handheld electronic device that records a person's progress in an organizational setting, sort of like a wholetrack space opera computerized routing form used eons ago in advanced civiliations. LRH was speaking to Carol and Foster, just to give them a feel for comparison to spur them to come up with a good solution on the routing forms. Carol and Foster earned one of those LRH commendations of a wholey high level, they got a "Brilliant" from LRH, which is better than the Very Highly Commended acknowledgement. (The LRH variety of "okays": Commended, Highly Commended, Very Highly Commended, I think it was bantered about that "Brilliant" is up there in the ranks of LRH acknowledgements.) And Carol and Foster, have each received and have for all time, their "Brilliant".

I was later when I failed, from the routing forms project 1987, then later in 1989 was re-recruited into the later incarnation of the project, being run by Dir Computerization RTC, Pascal Jullienne, then in RTC himself, I was given an order by Pascal to see if I somehow couldn't perfect the computerized routing forms and make them all simpler, since some of the computerize routing forms are multiple pages long, etc, and considered cumbersomely long, and complex.

It was the whole track advice where LRH mentions this simple little whole-track gizmo that Renata Tinner then tried to figure out how to comply with LRH's intention to make the computerized routing form somehow more similar to.

Renate and I were unable to comply with that order, and the computerized routing forms were not able to be made less cumbersome at that time by me. This was 1990. I'd like to hear if they computerized routing forms are still in use in the Class 5 orgs today though.


I only go into the details above, since the major theme, over the years, in LRH's mind was away from using people to execute on the ground in the orgs.

People in the late 70's at the FB and Commodore's Staff level at CW, and who lived through the collapse of top management and rebuilding efforts from 1978-1985, I feel need to have access to LRH's INCOMM advices and the other 1981-1983 advices, to get where LRH was headed, which then today, what we see this direction DM is going with this "automatic" machine for public, then it all becomes more plain to see. You see why DM so concentrates on Int Base activity, it all fits in with what LRH says directly and between the lines in all his final years writings to the Int Base groups. ASI also has about 4 regular filing cabinet drawers full of single paged advices, from LRH in the years 1982(?) to 1985.

LRH was prolific in his 1980's advices, and I hope all who can share their first-hand experiences of LRHs full scope in his 1980's advices comes forward.

Ex-CST (Archives) personnel or ex-Int Base staffers who worked with Gail Poval, even if just helping Gail, when Gail was doing the "SIR" project, anyone with firsthand eyeball contact with the filing cabinets of the advices Gail was working with, will help give physical universe length and breadth scope to the amount of L. Ron Hubbard actual writings done by Ron in the 1980s, on the Cine, Music, Int Base, Int scene, INCOMM, etc, etc.

DM is operating off of decades long ordered and still to be complied with LRH advices, and I will answer any questions further, by email or phone, or however, here.

I hope others who have been part of the INCOMM history, to help replace management, which has ",,,failed for the millionth time...." (I think many recall that LRH statement!), will come forward and help fill in details.

Hope this helps give background and understanding.

Again, now, after reading this above, you can see why I think it is so damn important to get the former Int Base staffers, who just lived and breathed little angles to this whole array of LRH intentions and advices and so forth, why I think ANYONE who just even walked into Gail's office, at any time, and had access to hunt around and find something for yourself, please come forward and add to the breadth of LRH's writings in the 1980's, etc.

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Jul 2005 13:27:59 -0700
Local: Wed,Jul 13 2005 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Nad wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Nad wrote:

> >>Chuck,

> >>You know me. I left the SO - I am done.

> >>However, I have been reading over some
> >>of the stuff you have been up to
>>on ars and while I am sure you have
> >>it all figured out, I cannot imagine
> >>that you would like it very much if
> >>someone from the RPF started
> >>spilling out the details of your more
> >>personal (2D) obsessions. But on
> >>the other hand, maybe, I'm wrong and
> >>you have gone that far south (or
> >>always were) - that you would get off
> >>on seeing your own perverted 2D
> >>aberration spread all over the internet.

> >>But, I still think that most of the rest
> >>of the ex-staff I know, no matter their
> >>views on Scn, are not that sick and would
> >>not appreciate you leading them down the
> >>garden path to a scenario where their
> >>personal lives could potentially end up
> >>being dissected all over the net by
> >>sickos like yourself.

> >>You are setting people up - STOP harassing
> >>them Mr. DMGD!

> >>Nad

> >>"I will answer any and all questions about
> >>any moment in my Scientology history."
> >>- Chuck Beatty

> > Nad,

[Chuck's response to the above:]

Fair enough. Thanks for posting.

I hear you.

You know, I appreciate you speaking up!

If you are a real ex-Sea Org or real ex-RPFer, I so wish you could phone me, and we could talk.

I hear you. Thanks. Points taken.

Best, Chuck


[Nad's reponse:]

> Chuck,

> I hear your comments - complete
> over-acknowledgment I might add. Guess
> that goes with your obsessive
>compulsiveness = sad.

> You say "points taken" but I have
> *no clue* what point you think you got
> - I don't think you got the point at
> all. Most of the ex-staff I knew
> or know, would not like to have their
>personal information or their
> names bandied around the net by you.
> You seem to have a personal problem
>> and you should get help. You seem
> to think getting out of Scn was all
> you needed, but the joke is that you
>have never left - it is all you
> talk about. In case you didn't get
>it, STOP bringing other ex-SO into
> your game.

> Nad


[Chuck's response to the above:]

Do you read Nad?

1) New York Review of Books
2) The New Yorker
3) Atlantic Monthly
4) New York Times (suggest a 3 month subscription
Sunday only and read it all)

Then compare your words and my words, to what the smarter people who LRH shut out of the faithful Scientologist's minds, by locking them into LRH's mindset, and rules.

The world is a far better place, OUTSIDE of the Hubbard universe of rules.

Your views are NOT in step with the world.

I suggest all persons coming out read OUTSIDE of the movement, really a 3 month subscription to the NY Times Sunday edition only, I highly highly recommend it.

That will "blow" out of a person's head more of the untrue imaginary restraints of L. Ron Hubbard's worst ideas, than anything we say here on ARS.

The intellectual tradition of western civilization I do not think I am in any way violating.

Expose yourself to it, and then get back to me.

Bye for now, see you on the other side of reality,


Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Jul 2005 18:02:02 -0700
Local: Thurs,Jul 14 2005 9:02 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Gerry Armstrong wrote:

> snip ...
> ....just be grateful that it [Scientology]
> doesn't work.
> Where you are is not where Scientology
> promised you'd be. So as it
> promised, it didn't work. F/N
> But something other than Scientology
> must have worked because you really are
> where you are. F/N
> So then, what works? LFBD
> And if the LFBD F/Ning item works, which
> you prove it does by being where you are
> rather than where Scientology promised
> you'd be, be grateful Scientology doesn't
> work. You'll spend a lot less time trying
> to get it to work if you know it doesn't,
> and be grateful for that too.

Whoa!!! Thanks. This floors me.

Isn't this really truly, this whole internet community, this opportunity to freely talk, and exchange experience, isn't this what life is so much more about!

This is priceless. Thanks Gerry!

No one can talk like this inside the movement.

No one, not a single pair of people inside could speak like this.

Auditing truly, truly, was a mind-fuck with who? No one. Yourself. It omits live participation of people. Auditing is just a shuffling of one's ideas by oneself.

I prefer exchanging ideas, and discussing and learning.

Thanks Gerry! This is fucking priceless.

To me, this is picking apart, live, the totalitarian or coercive rules and mental boundries so carefully constructed in the Scientology movement.

Thanks man!

Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Jul 2005 11:46:09 -0700
Local: Fri,Jul 15 2005 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

barb wrote:
> SNIP ....
> I wonder how many people who are still
> in are having the same thoughts.
> Of course, they can't share them with
> others, or they might be surprised
> that they're not the only one thinking them.

> --
> --barb
> Chaplain,ARSCC

I have tried to write on it. It is layers. An out-qual for Int base staff, is doubts about staying in the Sea Org. Any types of doubts, all the things that critics more simply and clearly state, are just a restatement of the kinds of things that Sea Org members ultimately think about during those times when Sea Org member is in the "doubt condition".

I had so kept my doubts under layers, so that whenever asked about a subject, I had ready to offer up other thoughts to cover for my hidden doubts.

It is an elaborate self-decption, self- inflicting game, trying to cover even your own doubts, as the years go by.

The incident of the gang-bang sec checking, the spitting, the punching, the LRH slamming Mike Douglas against the wall on the ship told by Hana Eltringham Wakefield, and then all of the Sea Org members decades of similar physical and mental screaming fits and abuses, we have seen them all.

It is group insanity, trying to be kept under wraps. It is not right to do those things. LRH saying in Flag Orders that Officers have the right in circumstances to yell and scream, at Sea with lives at stake, one thing entirely.

LRH's policy letter, the one that got turned into policy, his long advice about how important Hatting and training was, LRH uses the phrases "....stark, staring truth I've ever uttered..." about how bad it will be up in the future on the whole track if "we" (Sea Org heroes, movement supporters) don't get the job done, and how important it is to get hatted right now and do the job that has to be done etc., etc., that level of rationale is truly insane. No justification for it.

Luckily LRH countered with The Way to Happiness, which I think is indicative of his mental profile, and I would be most agreeing with experts who from the evidence can judge that LRH was truly nuts, based on these types of widely and unreconcilable writings that LRH has authored. This type of stuff happens in history, Hubbard is so far from the first to do this.

LRH truly is the source of Scientology and all its good and bad.

The bad cannot be redefined as good, and the doubts I felt, were along this simple line of illogic. I started to see the "stop" "defensive" "destroy" Sea Org LRH writings as wrong.

As soon as source is wrong, it's a major point, like Arnie said, it's the first step, in my opinion.

And that first step, when it happens and you are still on post in the Sea Org, those thoughts, that you honestly feel unquestionably in your heart that LRH was dead wrong on some issue (for me it was the Sea Org harshness encouragement), then the doubts start coming in.

Per the rules, doubts get one in trouble. It stops you rising to the Int Base ranks, if you got unhandled doubts. I learned in life since, that doubts are okay. It means there might be something wrong about what you are doubting.

Wrong actions are wrong, they aren't really right, which is the recurring scenario in the Sea Org, in its internal dealings with its wrongs. Wrongs by LRH are not wrongs, they were "necessities". Wrongs by DM we don't bring up now, we just forget about them and get on with our jobs of helping mankind, that kind of thing. LRH overall was a good person, he's a genius, all these types of thoughts easily cover up instantly the little wounds of doubt that open up.

This doubt issue is a book in itself.

Best, Chuck

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Jul 2005 10:27:04 -0700
Local: Fri,Jul 15 2005 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Nad wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Okay. Give 1 single example of 1
> > single ex-Sea Org who objects,
> > and I will respect that 1 single
> > person, instantly.

> > Who is 1 single example?

> > Best, Chuck

> Chuck,

> Don't be such an asswipe. I know of lots of ex-SO
> people who object to you including their names in your
> rants. By posting those names here, I'd be doing the
> same thing you are doing.

> Don't let Touretzky delude you. He was never
> inside and doesn't know what he is talking about. You
> are not writing any autobiography. If you were, you'd
> be explaining the real reasons why you left the SO. Didn't
> this have more to do with your problems on the 2D? There
> were many times that you talked about this in the RPF
> and how screwed up you were on this subject. I wouldn't
> even bring this up but you are not telling the whole
> truth with all of your stories of "how it was".

> You object to me telling you to stop harassing
> ex-SO guys that have no desire to have their names
> involved in your false version of what happened. You
> say you will talk about anything that happened in the SO
> but you are not giving the straight information on why
> you really left. If you are going to confess to all
> the bad things you say went on, then you better start
> confessing to the real facts about yourself and your
> problem and how that is what really put you at odds
> with the SO.

> You know what I am talking about. You know
> that it went on for years and I am sure is
> still going on. Correct me if I am wrong but
> the problem stemmed from the fact that you didn't
> want to stop.

> Unless you are willing to actually tell
> the truth about what was really going on
> in your own decadent world, then your stories
> don't have a lot to do with the truth do they?

> Lots of people were on the RPF who had
> problems and they don't appreciate you
> spreading this crap around the net. They have
> lives and are trying to get on with them. You
> should not be naming ex-SO people - so knock it
> off.

> Nad


Decency, and respect, wins Scientology respect and decency back.

Not much to say in response to your words above. Others with years of firsthand experience have said it far better than I can.

I suggest Way to Happiness for you. Re-read a few chapters of it.

If Scientology only did The Way to Happiness as senior policy and the center-piece of all its various strategies, man, the movement would boom! Don't you agree, even as an ex-Sea Org?

Change the signs on the Hollywood CCHR Building to a world-wide TWTH activist headquarters and gain some real respect for common sense human decency for a decade or two, then watch the tide turn.

Declare a worldwide all lifetime amnesty, period, and declare NO one in the future.

Scientology would boom.

The world is far more forgiving of people The world simply is.

Scientology has racked up a long history of pissing people off. It is NOT the fault of the pissed-off people who left with valid grievances. It is not the fault of those who look at Scientology even today, and find valid grievances.

It is a fact, Scientology needs to reform.

Hubbard boxed Scientology movement people into predicaments like you are in right now, being prompted to do this post.

But if you are truly a real person, I will be honest and hear you.

Below's my number, and I hope you choose to phone me, and meet me.

Chuck Beatty.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Jul 2005 10:17:20 -0700
Local: Sun,Jul 17 2005 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Nad wrote:
> snip ...

> Chuck,

> Please, spare me.

> Save all the two-faced, high minded
> philosophical bullshit for people
> who don't know you. You and I both know
> you are preaching from your soapbox over
> a big withhold (i.e. lie / concealment of the
> truth).

> There is a completely different story to be
> told that has nothing to do with anything
> anyone did to Chuck Beatty or how badly you
> now claim to have been treated or how bad
> you now say the organization was. This story
> has nothing to do with the "intelligentsia",
> reading the NY Times or reading the Britannica.

> You said you would answer any question about
> your experience on the RPF and yet you won't
> answer ANY of my questions. Now why is that
> Chuck?

> Is it because the only one that has something to
> hide is you? You know exactly what I am talking
> about. But as long as you're doing a tell-all
> in which you feel you need to invade other
> people's privacy, then in my estimation you need
> to bring yourself out of the closet too. Why don't
> you just get it off and be done with it?
> When you start telling the truth you will
> provide a much better balance to your audience.
> People here seem to be very forgiving.

> Otherwise, I repeat, stop bringing up other
> ex-SO people who don't want to have any part in
> your compulsive stream of consciousness.

> Nad


You only wish I was still under the spell of the false mental world LRH so carefully crafted to contain his followers.

I realize you can only say to me what is okayed for you to say, and that you don't have full access to all I said in session. Natter of the pc is not written in my pc folders, nor did I bother to write what I knew would be construed as natter for my ethics folder, knowing it would only lengthen me getting the hell out.

So, you don't see fully why all I concluded what I now have confirmed with my outside reading from the wider wiser and far more intelligent and understanding world.

That's why you don't "get" me.

My pc folder won't have my "natter" since C/S's stamp on auditors who are filling pc folders with the natter.

One of the frustrating aspects of being on the RPF, is when you start saying things which the auditor is not writing down, and as the pc you know he is just letting you "natter."

Depending on the auditor's grasp of life and the auditor's own beliefs, my actual beliefs, when I uttered them (I was midst the self-instilled solo Flow 0---self to self---ad hominem routine of blaming myself for any of my "natter" which unfortunatley for you and earlier Hubbard failed to recognize the root valid complaints as valid complaints and injustices, the auditor just lets all the natter float nowhere, and never acknowledges it. If there is any hidden part, it is the truths I observed then, not written down in the pc folders, not listened to, not acknowledged, or only noted as "natter" which of course you know and I know that LRH only allowed that to be dealt with by turning the tables on the pc and asking the pc for the pc's transgressions. [ad hominem: "attacking one's opponent rather than dealing with the subject under discussion"]

My conclusion, while on the Int RPF, after a certain amount of sec checking, that LRH had instilled "ad hominem" reasoning into his tech, as a self- protective mechanism that is self- perpetuated now forever by the adherents to Scientology.

Well, go through about 5 years of that type of crap, and a person gets indoctrinated into "seeing" how they must get out, within the understanding of the keepers and players within the Scientology RPF world, and the whole pc world.

I was always trying hard to see how I could hold the views I did, and tried my best to still fit how I felt in with what LRH said I must have at the root of what my thoughts.

That is all you saw with my utterances and writings, which you somehow claim to have known me.

You are seriously a human being in a far place, far from mankind.

I pity you.

Gerry Armstrong told me briefly how it would go for me.

You start it, aren't you?

Same old shit.

Well carry on.

I hope you defect someday, and pull yourself out of Hubbard's self-perpetuating self-protecting disgraceful ad hominem self to self manipulative mental restraints.

You will get what I am saying here, when you get out.

See you then. Hope you can detail the other people you are working with, as getting the history of what you are doing, is all really part of the Scientology movement's history.

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Jul 2005 15:05:09 -0700
Local: Sun,Jul 17 2005 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam wrote:

> Hey Chuck!

> Even to a wog psych as myself who doesnīt
> understand much of your scienolingua, the
> drama is quite obvious. Someone is trying
> to trick you. I guess you know alot about
> the tricks being used but I just wanted to
> express my sympathies on what you are doing.
> I hope I havenīt made it worse with this
> posting, you know, having a psych on
> your bench.

> Ulf Brettstam

> "This volume [DMSMH] probably contains more
> promises and less evidence per page
> than has any publication since the
> invention of printing."
> - Review of "Dianetics",
> Scientific American, 1951

Dear Ulf,

I love being able to discuss this all, and I cannot state enough praise for all the accumulated writings on ARS and the live defense and advice I constantly find on ARS.

Inside the movement, like I said above, the L. Ron Hubbard contexts for discussing issues in life are artificially constrained by Hubbard's rules about what causes what. Hubbard says a person rabidly complaining has transgressions driving them to complain. Hubbard's intellectual bankruptcy left him only the disgraceful ad hominem defenses for his ideas (putting focus on the faults of his opponents).

In my opinion now, LRH then made ad hominem defense not only overt church policy, carried out from OSA today, but LRH also injected ad hominem permanently into the Scientology ministerial counseling procedures and theories, thus making all Scientologists walking self-siliencing solo---self to self---ad hominem silencers of any dissenting beliefs against Hubbard's policies or behavior. How else can people in the movement tolerate LRH's insane live behavior that they witnessed firsthand? How else can member's today tolerate insane irrational behavior by any of their fellow Sea Org members?

Anyways, I appreciate all who have the guts to write about all this, and leave behind in writing their experiences for us who are still making our ways fully out of all this Hubbard crappy illogic again.

The Nad people can't even understand what we are talking about. It's a bit of a big jump to where I am now, from where any of the OSA staffers and people inside are, so that is why their postings sound so wierd to outsiders who can almost not fathom how wierd it is inside. They still see me as one of them, still believing what they believe, which is just not the case any longer.

It is now my belief that Nad is likely the following: Joan Diskin of OSA Int or similar level OSA Int staff tech person I think is the FESer/past auditor and a part of the Nad fake created beingness, and then the rest of the Nad beingness is the OSA staffer who cuts and pastes a tailor made email just to try to push my buttons enough to get me to stop talking, and that OSA staffer emails the actual text of the Nad fake posts to the Scientologist or sympathizing OSA accomplice in some other city, and the OSA op accomplice then does the actual posting of the "Nad" posts.

I appreciate you taking the time to even answer. I appreciate the great quote from the Scientific American. When I first read that quote, I was laughing the rest of the day!

I urge strongly all people coming out, read OUTSIDE material, read the latest and greatest current thinking in current newspapers and magazines, and get back in tune with the wiser people's thinking in life, OUTSIDE of Hubbard's worst ideas.

Here is my favorite all time quote:

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

. . .

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

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

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

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


Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Jul 2005 12:24:38 -0700
Local: Tues,Jul 19 2005 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Nad wrote:
> snip ,,,,
> I have asked you direct and pertinent
> questions about your experiences
> on the RPF and the real reasons for your
> departure and you have not answered.
> I am not even saying the real reasons
> you had are wrong. As long as you are
> talking shit about other people who were
> on the RPF I think you should tell the
> truth about yourself.
> Otherwise, stop dragging in other ex-RPFers
> who don’t want their personal lives talked
> about.
> Nad

Dear Fake Nad composite identity
(part OSA pc/ethics folder culler[s],
part OSA staffer[s], part internet
subtrefuge crew person[s]),

I'll let the wider world, when outsiders bother to read this thread, judge whether I've sufficiently answered, with my answers already given in this thread, your inuendo laden dirty smearing tactics known for 3 decades to be L. Ron Hubbard's disgraceful offensive misdirecting opinions and tactics turned into unquestioned Scientology church policy that you avidly (but not so speedily) and obediently employ here as your ONLY authorized discourse option back to me.

Wiser experts and regular intelligent outsiders easily recognize that your responses mark you as just sticking to Hubbard's authorized avenue of "defensive" = "attack" action, even after I have given you clearly my answer, which per your conveniently self-serving totalitarian L. Ron Hubbard paradigm of "attack the attacker" "never defend" you cannot accept. Hubbard was one insane person on his rightness and the wrongness of those who found some of his writings and policies insane and destructive.

Your judgement is impaired and limited to L. Ron Hubbard's disgraceful reason-denying ad hominem strategies, of which you cannot shake free from. You are too many years at this game, I see now, and those who "okay" your responses (love your 2 day comm lags pal), you know they won't let you stray from what's worked on others I imagine.

I'm free to learn and think and write outside the Hubbard box that I KNOW the world will NEVER accept Hubbard's totalitarian self-silencing rules you so pitifully defend and now continue to try to get me to return to the fold of self-silenced obediently abused ex-members, who with these same disgraceful Hubbard ordered tactics you employ to me. You may have successfully silenced others in the past on ARS and Clambake, fine. Good work. More people shut up. Proud of yourself? More people under Hubbard's yoke of irrational unproven thoughts.

What you are actually doing here is truly and simply, historically, in any sane outside observer's wider more understanding mind, wrong.

Defect, please!

I honestly believe the fallout from you (and I invite your OSA superiors) defecting would make a minor splash in the news, and encourage more "unmocking" of Hubbard's worst ideas, and actually help improve Scientology's and Hubbard's image, if these tactics are stopped.

When you expose yourself to the wiser minds in life, now, and in history, you will see what I am saying here is truer than what you are saying.

Scientology advances when its known irrational policies the world perceives widely as bad, when those policies and activities are exposed and then cease. Then Scn gains.

Undo the harm Hubbard has woven into the Scientology movement, and the world.

Give defecting some serious thought. (It was about 1989 when I seriously starting contemplating defection, and 14 years later, I did.) It may not be an overnight thing for you, but start some thinking about your options, how you could live, outside the movement.

And please call me in the years to come, when you do make it out! I'd love to hear from you then.

Remember this moment, and call me when you get out.

It's a great feeling to get out! Talk more with you when you get to that stage.

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

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


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Historical vital info: : LRH's '80's Advices
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:20:24 -0700

[from an ex-Int Base staffer's memory, the following are the areas that LRH in the 1980's wrote advices to the Int Base for execution:]

Hi Chuck,

The subjects of advices included:

- set-up, organization, and responsibilities of the exec ints and exec strata;

- set-up, organization, and responsibilities of WDC;

- roll-back;

- Cine and films;

- Audio;

- Music;

- ASI;

- RTC;

- Archives (CST);

- grounds;

- INCOMM and computerization;

- running program and pilot;

- sec checking;

- evil purpose handling and pilot;

- black PR handling (TRD) and pilot;

- Snr C/S Int, tech correction, standard tech PR;

- Int and ASI stats (the famous one from '84);

- handling out-ethics and criminality at the base;

- running the FSO, FSO's relation to int;

- marketing and positioning;

- RComps;

- RTRC and issue compilation and approval;

- replies to weekly reports and BPs;

- LC network;

- LAD and the Pac bridge;

- TRs and video critiques from the late '70s.

I'm sure there are more. Most of the above included orders and policy phrased as, "In my opinion ... " or "My advice is ... ."

Many were turned into HCOPLs, HCOBs.

[separate, were the 'legal' and OSA responsibility topics]

Email me any clarification of anything listed here.

Best, Chuck Beatty ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Jul 2005 14:13:50 -0700
Local: Thurs,Jul 21 2005 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: Join the SO (please?)

barb wrote:
> From: "freewinds" [email protected]
> Date: July 20, 2005
> Subject: Sea Org Recruitment Survey; From:
> Christine McNocher on the Freewinds

> Dear Scientologist,

This is truly a fascinating angle to think about. (I hate the use of the word "handle", that is too darkly implying use of manipulative and harsh tactics, for the implied unquestioned good cause; that is so fitting to LRH's mindset though.)

The Sea Org would better have the image of a sort of a galactic Red Cross, spreading across the universe from earth to save future planetary civilizations, helping undo the dwindling spiral of all time and space that luckily LRH knows and has informed us (which when we dig deep into our past lives we'll confirm) is the Sea Org's future wholetrack destiny and duty.

Who couldn't resist joining the Sea Org under these conditions!

I just was today again interviewed by media doing a story, and I tried to impart my views on how I thought of things as a Sea Org member, about the big long range future, reversing the dwindling spiral that life throughout the whole broad universe of all time and space, how Scientology is conceived by some Sea Org members planning on returning lifetime after lifetime, how Scientology aims to overturn all the downtrends on all planets everywhere where there are sentient humanoid civilizations, and help return the universe to "Native State" as outlined in LRH ED 339R Int by L. Ron Hubbard as his goals for all staff.

Scientologist on the Briefing Course see the Isaac Hayes narrated film placing them in their future lifetimes on other planets in other galaxies, etc, where they have to become "source" of the tech on other planets to help salvage fallen civilizations on other planets in the future, as their part in overturning the whole dwindling of civilizations in planets and the universe.

Anyways, Sea Org members telling their views provide ample firsthand justification for calling Scientology a science fiction fantasy religion. I call it now, a cross between Hinduism, past and future lives and eternal transmigration of souls, and science fiction. That's so obvious.

The words that inevitably come to an outsider's (media interviewer's) mind when you try to tell them about LRH's envisaged BIG future of this planet, the galaxy, this sector of the universe, etc., etc., all time and space, the operative word coming to the lips of interviewers is for LRH is "meglomania", and on a galactic science fiction level!

His ideas of meglomania are galactic and truly science-fiction awe-inspiring.

I got a loud long laugh from media when I showed them how the long ago and still valid characterization of Scientology is a "science fiction religion" is so true.

I would tell media of the LRH tech films, the one with Isaac Hayes, and the other short little "advertisement" at the start of another of LRH's tech films, where the young Scientologist is coming into the org telling Receptionist "I'm Back!" The kid was obviously a Scientologist the lifetime before, and he's showing up to continue up the Bridge (another LRH bright idea so public would not be discouraged about NOT making it to full OT in one lifetime, they can always come back and keep going in the next lifetime)!

There is this eternally imbedded facet to the Sea Org that it's a future whole-track gung-ho conspiracy juggernaut of like-minded individuals with enough reality of themselves to have the certainty to know they will come back lifetime after lifetime in the future to save all time and space for all civilizations everywhere in the whole cosmos.

I just wish LRH would demonstrate the first baby step in all Sea Org member's inevitable future lives, by LRH just showing up and proving he himself made it back, consciously.

He needs to prove it can be done, honorably, by setting a good example himself of coming back, and proving he is himself, etc.

The silence of him not showing up and proving this baby step first proof of his meglomaniac fantasies shows conclusively the unreality of them.

Best, Chuck Beatty

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Jul 2005 13:05:46 -0700
Local: Thurs,Jul 21 2005 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Nad wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> snip,,,,
> For a really "intellectual" guy you come
> across pretty thick.

Agreed. I am going thorugh a number of learning curves, and finding out what is what really in life. The more I read, particularly the more I read OUTSIDE the whole Scn/Hubbard box, the more I place all I have been through in my 27 years in the Scientology movement, in context with intelligent current thought about life. Like anyone who exits a group like the Sea Org, after a few decades in it.

Just read current thought, in books in newspapers (NY Times is tops in my opinion) and good magazines, and you get what I am mean. Just do it and see for yourself.

Scientology movement and Hubbard cross so many cultural and historical themes, there is a lot to compare it too.

Some people like to think about these things, and whether we like it or not, all that goes on can be written up as people's opinions and their views of history.

Hubbard and Scientology have always wished to have history, their way.

It is not to be, and when you expose yourself to life, and intelligent thought more and more in life, you see why Hubbard's constraints will never be able to keep people boxed into his claims about Scientology and its role in man's history.

> snip... . Now, come back with an answer
> to my original question.....

Answered it in a couple of my thread answers in this thread, you just won't get what I'm saying until you get out, and distance yourself and learn a little about what "ad hominem" means, and how LRH instilled ad hominem as a self to self policy of self-silencing. Get that, and you will see my answer above.


How people react and communicate their feelings, their opinions, their firsthand accounts of life sometimes in the imperfect ways that are done, it is all that goes on here.

Why don't you call me?

This forum may not be the most pleasant place for you to try to write your thoughts and opinions into.

Call me. If you got a real concern, call me. Talk to you then.

Best, Chuck

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 22 Jul 2005 19:45:50 -0700
Local: Fri,Jul 22 2005 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: Chuck's real problem

Nad wrote:
> In my book talking about ex-SO members
> without getting their permission,

Per what "rule" or societal agreement?

> talking about people who were acquaintances
> and friends without checking

Done all the time, in the media and magazines I read.

> with them is a stab in their backs.

Tell me the people, let me speak to them, see if they even knew about what you claim here, and I will listen, and see if there is any merit in your claims, but you haven't given a single example of a single person yet.

I disagree, simply put.

> But evidently its is OK for you to

Correct, but if there is any edge of truth in your opinion, let's bring up a real person to ask them, if it hurt them, and let's both talk and decide if indeed your or my opinions are valid on this.

> engage in such behavior but not OK for me to
> point out your deceit

It is okay for you to say whatever you please.

> even get a simple answer to a question about
> the real reason you left.

We disgree on the "real reason". You think in Hubbard's terms. I don't agree to those terms nor rules any longer. Thus the reason for you is not the same reason for me any longer.

> You never answered my question despite your
> convoluted no answer.

I don't agree that I have not answered.

I have answered.

You want me to repeat something I don't agree with any longer as the reason I left.

> out it, and I need no one lecturing me
> about what I should read before
> understanding your answer in this thread.

I think you do need to read a bit outside of Hubbard.

You expect me to only answer up a "reason" I no longer think is the reason.

>You engage in assorted ad hominem attacks
> on a number of people including me

When, where?

> and then accuse me of doing so.

Ah, that's correct.

> You still have not answered my very simple
> question about what the real reason was you
> gave for leaving. I am not talking about
> session data -

I forget what I said, help me out big Nad! All I know now, is that whatever reason I gave, due to Scientology's extensively intrusive L. Ron Hubbard North Korean style mind manipulation, whatever I said was likely the type of thing that prisoners of war are forced to confess as their "transgressions" to buy them some relief from the inescapable predicaments I was similarly stuck in while in the Sea Org and RPF.

So whatever I said, was the same level of quality just like what prisoners of war utter to their captors!

> I have no clue what you said to an auditor.

Hmm. Okay, defensive little retreat, wow! Wonder what that means?

>That is a cop out Chuck and a clever way
> to avoid answering the question.

Well how is my above newly offered "cop out" answer that whatever I said, it was more in line with the "forced confession" of a mentally manipulated and cult coerced type of setting, similar to the prisoner of war forced admissions?

>It is an ad hominem

Right. You must be a friend of Barbara Schwartz, that makes about as much sense as her logic.

> attack in itself. You gave your reasons for
>leaving to a number of people in the RPF,

oh yea, who was that?

> people about whom you are now gossiping.

Who is that? You sound like you are allowed to say something, but why not at least refer to the post of such and such a date, so I can re-read the post and see if there is any bit of truth in your claim.

> It would be fair and more balanced for you to
> out yourself regardless of whether or not in
> retrospect you have changed your mind.

Out myself? Regarding what?

> People obviously took you at face value

We all did. I have no hard feelings. This is now germane to my extensively covered feelings in my posts, which you obviously have not read. Like which person feels betrayed, and I will rectify the matter.

The people who got stuck in Scientology and the Sea Org missed a few things, and those that got out, and were pissed off with things they didn't like, have every right to complain about whatever they wish to complain about, etc.

> and believed what you said and helped
> you on your way.

As best they understood, and I thank them for the help.

I agree on one thing. More discussion of this, not less, sorts it out.

There is the rosy side of L. Ron Hubbard's evisaged world, and the not so rosy and downright harrowing predicaments that are a result of L. Ron Hubbard's writings.

They are subjects that can be discussed, written about and they will continue to be discussed and written about, in the future.

If anyone truly feels I wrongly wrote about them, I will correct whatever requires correction.

> Nad


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date Jul 2005 05:26:04 -0700
Local: ul 23 2005 5:26 am
Subject: Re: Forbes 1987 article, anonymous person's statement, VITAL INFO!

Steve Dufour wrote:
> And why did Forbes magazine consider a
> former "high official" of a
> dishonest cult a credible source of information?


A few days ago, a former ex-Sea Org person, someone I trust and knew, called me and verified there was an LRH 1980 despatch/advice which they saw personally. That LRH despatch/advice was apparantly to a particular high exec in the Commodore's Staff Aides, which were in 1980 still LRH's trusted execution terminals.

The advice/despatch stated the gist of what this "ex-high official" was quoted as saying.

I have seen firsthand, how the LRH "traffic" was shared, person to person, so that others adjacent to the person that LRH addressed, all the active execs who were curious to stay on top of what LRH had ordered, would get their hands on their adjacent execs' LRH live traffic, so as to stay informed.

It is well-known, that when LRH wrote to a particular "underling" in the management structures that all adjacent execs would get their hands on the advice, and thus about 50 people for sure saw, even at that time, that exact despatch, and thus read this comment. That is why I believe this Forbes writing is based on credible information.

That is just sort of normal office behavior, people trying to stay in tune with LRH's orders. CMO Int members for sure felt fully justified in being intimately knowledgable with ANY LRH traffic, since CMO are entrusted to relay and obtain compliance to LRH orders, etc. So I observed in 1983-84 a very casual attitude of CMO Int staffers where they felt obligated and free to read ANY of LRH's orders or comments to "top management". So there are hundreds of persons at CMO Int, truthfully, over the years from 1983 on, who could have seen this exact LRH comment on that 1980 despatch.

This is exactly what I hope to encourage all former Int Base staff, especially some ex staff were intimately knowledgable of hundreds and hundreds of LRH advices that he issued in the 1980s.

The advices are in the church's possession and cannot be allowed out.

So until then, the people who used to work in the ranks at the Int Base, I hope, can at least give the gist of what L. Ron Hubbard in his final 6 years of his life was ordering into the Scientology movement.

For history's sake!

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Jul 2005 16:24:28 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 29 2005 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: Answer to Chuch Beatty

Enturbulation Order wrote:
> You asked Scientology Inc., via the "Nad"
>robot, the following question:
> "Do you really think that people are so stupid?"

> The answer is "Yes, we do." Everyone in
>Scientology Inc. management except the very
>top believes that they have the answers
> to every one of life's questions and problems.
>They have the "tech" and the rest of the world
>does not. This makes them vastly
> superior to the rest of the (wog) world.

> So yes, they really do believe people are
>stupid enough to accept their lies. One sees
>this fact time and time and time again, year
> after year. The crime syndicate changes their
>lies now and then, but the pattern never deviates.
> ---
> Bumberboom! Bumberboom! Bumberboom!


You are so right.

I am right now reading Robert Kaufman's "Inside Scientology" (just finished reading Paulette Cooper's excellent book Scandel of Scientology) and I was interested that Robert referred to the most dedicated of staffers (like the NY Org staff and the Saint Hill staff, or most dedicated students) as the "fanatics".

That struck me as true. In the Sea Org, at all ranks there are those that are "unreasonable" (irony of ironies, or the ultimate "1984"ism redefinition of the word "reasonable").

People are praised for their "unreasonableness", which LRH re-defined as a good thing.

An article is due on just the Scientology 1984isms, the re-definitions of words that Hubbard clearly helps turn members on themselves, and deflect criticism OFF of Hubbard's worst ideas and behavior.

Hubbard's "unreasonbleness" is the "hallmark" of "good" Sea Org members, capable of "getting ethics in."

The world does NOT need that type of "ethics"! No one deserves that crap, not even those Sea Org faithful in OSA in RTC and elsewhere outside the Sea Org, the faithful formerly trained ex-GO types, those who are dishing out the harsh "unreasonable" tactics and justifying their inhumane actions with Hubbard's umbrella of manipulative self-serving writings.

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

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

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

pitdog wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best, Chuck Beatty
ex-Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 (call after 9pm New York City time;
after 6pm LA time; after 7pm Denver time)
(Call anytime if important!)

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

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Infotroll wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> This is no flattering article about Tory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!