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.