By Lana M.

In the last week two OT VIII’s who have been active with the Church in Florida were declared suppressive. The story just grates hard on the nerves and good nature of Scientologists and Scientology.  This couple have a son, who had been declared SP as he had been in touch with, or failed to disconnect with someone, who had been in touch with Mike Rinder. They were then given the order to disconnect from their son. They refused.  Long story short, this last week they were declared Suppressive Persons and their daughter (and granddaughter) subsequently disconnected from her parents.

Now if this is hard to make sense of, that is not surprising. It is nuts.  Complete reverse Scientology and illogical.

But here is what I find even more fascinating…

The couple in question posted on Facebook what had occurred, giving a factual account of the sequence of events, and how they were forced to make ‘Sophie’s Choice” and choose between their son or their daughter. They give details of their heartbreak and of the dilemma (problem) the church created for them, which did not have to occur or exist at all.

One of their “friends” on Facebook (who I am sure has since disconnected) stated “If you really wanted to handle it – you know this is not the way! It’s covered in the justice policies. Nattering and disavowing on FB is not the path. I guess you have made your choice.”

It is a well-known fact that criticism can stem from missed withholds and thus be traced back to overts and withholds. This datum has however, been misused by current management and many parishioners to mean “All criticism is bad”.

Within the Church of Scientology (and it has been this way for years), if you say something negative about someone or something it is deemed to be an indicator of overts and withholds.

Interestingly enough, in my experience, the persons who accuse people of this, do nothing but criticize others.

An example of this, close to my own heart, was when I worked in RTC from 1994 – 1999. At virtually every muster, staff meeting or briefing by COB (David Miscavige), he would be critical of International executives, about Gold staff or executives, about Gold or the Int base, or about RTC.  His profanity and vulgarness in describing individual Sea Org members and his view of them, and his immediate assumption that anyone who was not in full agreement with him, his policy, his action and his direction was guilty of heinous crimes, was the normal menu for an RTC staff member, daily.

I wish to point out something that may seem ridiculously obvious, but I feel needs to be said.

If application of Scientology principles is based on the Axioms, which clearly show that the only way to get persistence is to alter something, and the only way to get as-isness (and case gain) is to look at the truth of something — then surely an exact statement of the truth of a situation (regardless of whether it is considered unpalatable by some, or hard to confront) is the only way it can be resolved.

In the case of this couple – they are speaking the truth of a situation. They are pointing out that what has occurred is a violation of basic Scientology principles and is not per LRH policy. This is not criticism of Scientology, but of those who are mis-using it to harm. It is pointing out the truth of the situation.

Natter, on the other hand (per HCOB 21 Jan 1960 Justifications) is:

“Random, carping (covert hostile) criticism, not borne out in fact, is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticize unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.” LRH

If someone is nattering, then pulling missed withholds, overts and withholds should be attempted and will usually be found to effectively cure the destructive criticism and give the critical person relief. Again, this is achieved by getting the FACTs of the situation clear, resulting in as-isness (charge off the case).

From the view of the 3rd dynamic, and sorting out the propaganda and lies from the actual truth and facts of a situation – it requires that a person look. That they confront. That they communicate.

The twisted nature of propaganda from the Church and parishioners that anyone who says something bad or negative about the church is nattering – without actually LOOKING to see if the “criticism” is borne out in fact, is frankly walking a path that will lead to no case gain and a smaller and smaller sphere of action and confront.

Heck – half of us SPs out here are declared because we sat back, looked and confronted that David Miscavige is simply a power-hungry propaganda machine, altering LRH tech.

Is that natter?

Nope – it is borne out in fact, and we have AMPLE evidence to prove it. Thus we are no longer affiliated with him or with his Church of Scientology, that no longer reflects the tenets and basic philosophy of Scientology.

21 thoughts on “Natter

  1. Another point about natter, from someone who is admittedly not a trained auditor. “Natter” has a different “feel” to it than mere criticism. It appears (in my opinion) to be mixed with a great deal of unnecessary misemotion and/or HE&R. And when I say “misemotion” and “HE&R” I’m talking about emotion which does not match the circumstances one way or another.

    I would imagine that a well-trained auditor could in most cases, tell the difference, even without a meter, though I could be wrong about that.

    • Yes, this is a good point. Anyone who thinks all criticism is natter needs to clear up the definition of these words. Subjectively, I used to experience a wriggling, cornered-rat feeling associated with MWHs and natter; as if the body was dramatising the same irregular quiver as the dirty needle. And, as you say, the misemotion can be higher in volume than necessary. It’s quite different to the forthright complaint of a guy who’s toe has been trodden on. An auditor who is really duplicating their pc would pick up the difference.

  2. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to use quote marks around the word “Church,” or use terms such as “corporate Scientology”?

  3. Point of Logic:

    If ALL criticism is natter and is therefore based on overts and withholds, then…..

    ALL of the “church” of Scientology’s criticism of you, Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun, Karen de la Carrier, et al on all of their hate web sites and covert MAA “briefings” must also have as its origin their own overts and withholds.
    Actually, Ron didn’t actually even say that ALL criticism is based on overts and withholds as anyone who has done the Student Hat and then read the tech in this area would already know.

    But, I have observed that one of the more clever tricks of liars is to hide their big lies by camouflaging them carefully among and associating them with things that are actually true. This appears to be one of David Miscavige’s favorite tricks.
    Example: take a great policy entitled “Ideal Orgs” from the Data Series and create a squirrel initiative using the same name that in most cases does exactly the opposite of what the policy says to do! I encourage anyone who hasn’t read this LRH issue to read it, and then compare what Ron said to do with what DM has been doing as he robs parishioners into bankruptcy.

  4. Same old same old repetitive attempts to evade and elude answering the time stream of penetrating questions to Him.

    So: What part did you, DM play in the death of LRH, Lisa, & others?
    Where is Heber, Shelly? The billion odd dollars stashed away?
    What did you pay David Mayo, Debbie Cook and a multitude of others to go away and keep quiet? You evidently have a back up supply of alternatives, to the recently “shut down” “hole.”- So where are they? And how many of them? You appear to now have a meager supply of legal eagles willing to front up for your majesty’s consistent penchant for filling his footwear with lead bullets! Why on
    both counts? Do you know, DM, that ultimately, you are going to appear before a long series of tribunals to face up to your actions,
    many of which are of a severe criminal nature? Of course, it can be “arranged” for you, that you really do go into hiding, the way YOU orchestrated the same for LRH. Remember? Of course, all this is
    just pure, unadulterated natter, DM! Except for all the fingerprints, footprints and vast tomes of evidence that place YOU at the crime scene by actual witnessed account, no less! Still intend to go on playing your self embarrassing game, DM?

  5. Another LRH gem for the day (no. 7 in a series- by Calvin.)

    … “The anatomy of entrapment is an interesting one, and the reason why people get entrapped, and, indeed, the total mechanics of entrapment are now understood. In Scientology a great deal of experimentation was undertaken to determine the factors which resulted in entrapment, and it was discovered that the answer to the entire problem was two-way communication.”

    …”Roughly, the laws back of this are: Entrapment occurs only in the presence of one-way communication. Entrapment occurs only when one has not given or received answers to the things entrapping him. Thus we see the ARC triangle itself, and most importantly the Communication factor of that triangle looming up to give us Freedom.”

    …” It could be said that all the entrapment there is, is the waiting one does for an answer,”

    p. 59 Dianetics 55! (original version)

  6. That would be, if I follow, the parent of a son who talks to someone who talks to an alleged SP whose “SP-ness” is pointing out that the Co$ is not practicing Scientology anymore. (Did I get that right, or was there yet another friend of a friend involved?) And because the son knows someone who knows someone, the parents are given a choice of a) refusing to talk to their son, or b) refusing to talk to the alleged “always right” and alleged “not PTS at all” Co$ terminals who indicated the choice they had.

    Nuclear physics are easier to figure out, but the choice is a no-brainer. I’d tell the Co$ to … oh, sorry, I’m not supposed to swear. Darn. I had about ten choice words all selected in alliterative conjunction of thought and time and space, with intention to bring about a duplication at receipt point of what emanated from source point. (I love doing that. I’m so pretty.)

  7. . . .
    Isn’t an SP-decare the ultimate criticism ?
    Scientology was sold to the CIA on October 1st 1972 by an american OT VII called Hal Puthoff, as the CIA was interested in exteriorisation, which Putthoff demonstrated at Stanford University would perfectly work for spying !
    So WHY do you wonder ?

  8. It is clear that the alter-isness and not-isnesses of Scientology, the knowledge of the truth has added to the Insanity on top of he fact that the persons who read and have applied this false data have bypassed cases and are no more than degraded entities with Implanted demon circuits. I know this from speaking with a person I got into Scientology and gave the money for him for auditing where he says he went clear. With reading his so called altered “basics” he comes to erroneous conclusions and acts like a know it all.He has no knowledge or skill, and couldn’t evaluate any person or situation. He is a false clear and by reason of the presence of suppression not having or using the correct tech, As an example this pc stated that “I bet you I can go on an island by myself with the factors and go OT.” Right, and that’s a perfect example of violation of KSW !

  9. Hehe, looks to me that David Miscavige the is the perfect candidate for having large misswitholds 😉

    Infinite Love, Happiness, Harmony, Properity And Fun For Ever And For Now!

    • I forsee the day We will help him and Us, by as-ising with him his evil purposes and/or missunderstood words, i.e. his confusions, so that We could All get freer and play a better game.

  10. . . .
    Dear Lana,
    as you pointed out – David Miscavige uses NATTER on a regular basis – so THAT is the one that needs handling !
    But for some strange reason people look everywhere else – but not at the source of all that NATTER.
    A great analyst from Swizerland – Andreas Grosz – is convinced that David Miscavige is destroying Scientology for the US-government.
    Why isn’t there a committee of evidence on David Miscavige ?

  11. Pingback: Natter or criticism? | Milestone Two

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s