[Also see my July 5, 2010 blog post, "Would you like some Scientology with your libertarianism?"]

Douglas Casey--Scientological Investment Advice?

Word on the street is that Douglas Casey is, in fact, a Scientologist, and that his associates include Michael Baybak (who was also on Harry Browne's 1996 financial committee), a Scientology OTVIII who played a major role in the "Mining Money in Vancouver" sidebar of Time magazine's expose on Scientology in 1991.

Does Douglas Casey's investment advice reflect Scientology principles or promote Scientology-related companies?

Why did Liberty magazine conceal the fact that Douglas Casey was feeding Scientology doctrine to its readers?

How many Scientologists were on the Harry Browne for President 1996 financial committee?

If you have any interesting information about financial dealings of the Church of Scientology, Baybak, or Casey, please send it to .

For more information on Scientology, see http://www.discord.org/skeptical/Cults_and_Religions/Scientology/.

BTW, Harry Browne got 471,263 votes--if my bet had been taken, Douglas Casey would have had to pay $2,643.69 to the IHS or Cato Institute.

UPDATE March 4, 2006: While putting together this "Scientology sampler" blog entry, I decided to add a link to the list of Scientology courses taken by Doug Casey. While I'm not certain it's the same Doug Casey, I believe that it is.


Challenge for Douglas Casey  
Author: James J. Lippard [lippard email addr]
Date:   1996/10/12
Forums: sci.skeptic, alt.religion.scientology, talk.politics.libertarian,
        alt.politics.libertarian 

The current (November 1996, vol. 10, no. 2) issue of _Liberty_ magazine
contains the following statement in an article about election polls (p.
17): 

   "[Libertarian Party candidate Harry] Browne's campaign co-chair,
Douglas Casey, has predicted that Browne will receive 4,000,000 to
5,000,000 votes this fall--four to five times as big a vote-share as the
party's previous high-water mark in 1980." 

Perhaps Casey intends to use L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology "tech" to
produce these remarkable votes.[1] 

Assuming that the statement is correctly attributed to Casey, I offer him
the following challenge:

I will agree to pay Casey (or the Libertarian Party) $5 for each thousand
votes Browne receives over 1,000,000 votes (i.e., $15,000-$20,000 if
Casey's estimate proves correct), on the condition that Casey agrees to
pay me (or the organization of my choice, let's say another free market
organization such as the Institute for Humane Studies or the Cato
Institute) $5 for each thousand votes Brown receives under
1,000,000 votes (thus Casey risks no more than $5,000).

Does Casey have enough confidence in his statement to take the challenge,
or is he as full of hot air as he is when he writes about Hubbard's
"Potential Trouble Sources" and "Suppressive Persons" in a libertarian
periodical without revealing that he is spouting Scientology nonsense?

[posted and mailed to [email protected]]

---

[1] I sent the following letter to _Liberty_ magazine on March 26,
1996.  It has not been published.

Editor
Liberty magazine
P.O. Box 1181
Port Townsend, WA 98368

Dear Editor:

It's bad enough that Douglas Casey presents unsubstantiated numbers for
the percentage of "sociopaths" in society, but worse yet that he obtains
his numbers from and uses the terminology of the Church of Scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote much about "potential trouble sources" (PTS's) and
"suppressive persons" (SP's) whom he claimed made up 17.5 and 2.5 percent
of the population, respectively (see Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky:
Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed, 1990, Carol Publishing
Group. p. 155).  Hubbard's views on PTS's and SP's are set out at length
in his book An Introduction to Scientology Ethics, where his definitions
of crimes and suppressive acts make it clear that he is no friend of
liberty.  The Church of Scientology has a long history of harassment and
barratrous litigation against its critics which continues to this day on
the Internet (see Spy, February 1996; Wired, December 1995; Skeptic, June
1995; and the Internet resources linked from

http://www.thecia.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html).


--
Jim Lippard    [lippard email addr]
Phoenix, Arizona  http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57  35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04

Re: Challenge for Douglas Casey  
Author: James J. Lippard [lippard email addr]
Date:   1996/10/13
Forums: sci.skeptic, alt.religion.scientology, talk.politics.libertarian,
        alt.politics.libertarian 

I've been asked to clarify what I was responding to by Douglas Casey in
my letter to _Liberty_ (below).

In the March 1996 issue of _Liberty_ magazine appeared an article
by Casey titled
 "The New Praetorians."  This article contains
the following statements:

     "I have long believed that about 80% of the human race are basically
      people of good will.  About 17% can be classified as potential
      trouble sources--PTS's--who will basically bend with whatever
      wind prevails.  Only 3% are actively destructive sociopaths.  But
      that 3% tend to gravitate toward politics, the military, the media,
      the financial system, and other centers of power."

There is no empirical foundation or supporting reference given for these
percentages, which are the same (rounded to the nearest whole percentage
point) figures that L. Ron Hubbard gives for PTS's and suppressive persons
(SPs) in several of his Scientology works.  The term "potential trouble
source" is Hubbard's.

I don't believe this should reflect at all badly on Browne except perhaps
for his choice of campaign co-chair.  I'll be casting my protest vote for
Browne.

In article <53p853$[email protected]>,
James J. Lippard [lippard email addr] wrote:
[deletions]

>Perhaps Casey intends to use L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology "tech" to
>produce these remarkable votes.[1] 

[deletions]

>Does Casey have enough confidence in his statement to take the challenge,
>or is he as full of hot air as he is when he writes about Hubbard's
>"Potential Trouble Sources" and "Suppressive Persons" in a libertarian
>periodical without revealing that he is spouting Scientology nonsense?

[deletions]

>Dear Editor:
>
>It's bad enough that Douglas Casey presents unsubstantiated numbers for
>the percentage of "sociopaths" in society, but worse yet that he obtains
>his numbers from and uses the terminology of the Church of Scientology.
>L. Ron Hubbard wrote much about "potential trouble sources" (PTS's) and
>"suppressive persons" (SP's) whom he claimed made up 17.5 and 2.5 percent
>of the population, respectively (see Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky:
>Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed, 1990, Carol Publishing
>Group. p. 155).  Hubbard's views on PTS's and SP's are set out at length
>in his book An Introduction to Scientology Ethics, where his definitions
>of crimes and suppressive acts make it clear that he is no friend of
>liberty.  The Church of Scientology has a long history of harassment and
>barratrous litigation against its critics which continues to this day on
>the Internet (see Spy, February 1996; Wired, December 1995; Skeptic, June
>1995; and the Internet resources linked from
>http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html).
>
>
>--
>Jim Lippard    [lippard email addr]
>Phoenix, Arizona  http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
>PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57  35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04


--
Jim Lippard    [lippard email addr]
Phoenix, Arizona  http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57  35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04