Overts don’t mean you’re a bad person

You may have read my hubby’s latest post, Overts and Withholds. It was a topic of conversation recently in our house and I have some points I’d like to make on the subject.

One point I made to Paul (and that he included in his post) is that the mere fact you have overts doesn’t not make you a bad person. If you’re a human being living on this planet, you’ve got overts. All us Earthlings do. Overts are just another part of your case, like secondaries, service facsimiles, you name it. You shouldn’t look down on someone or think less of them because they have overts. To borrow from Christianity, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” And if someone suggests you might want to consider doing an O/W write-up, don’t take it as an attack. You get case gain from a good O/W handling. You’ll feel a whole lot better and that’s the point.

Part of this came up because of a post Paul had written last year about a particular prominent Scientologist who tended to include a good bit of natter in his blog. That old post of Paul’s recently led to him getting slammed in a private email by another prominent Scientologist blogger, hence the topic coming up.

First of all, let’s take a look at natter and what it means. According to the Collins English Dictionary, the British definition of natter when used as a verb is to talk idly and at length; chatter or gossip. In Scientology, natter more specifically refers to critical or derogatory talk about something or someone. Here’s what LRH had to say about what’s typically behind natter:

“Natter and 1.1 remarks mean a whithhold.” (HCOB 15 Oct 74)

“Sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. Such natter always indicates a real overt.” (Tech Dictionary definition, from HCOB 7Sept 64 II)

So what’s not nattering? Well, merely pointing out the facts of someone’s wrong-doing (and we all know COB has a rather extensive list of wrong-doing) is not necessarily natter. When you point out the time, place, form, and event as it were, you’re merely recounting factual incidents.

But when you start making derogatory comments about his physical stature (or lack thereof), that has nothing to do with the out-ethics behavior. Nor is referring to him as Pope or Mini-Pope relevant. It’s purely for insult purposes. The same could be said for some of the insults hurled at CofS — using a dollar sign in place of the “S”, for instance. Now, don’t get me wrong. If you read my blog, or my husband’s, you quickly realize we’re no apologists for either COB or CofS. But one can criticize, point out the crimes, etc. without devolving into natter. Sadly, natter seems to be a growing cancer in the Independent Field.

I left staff back in the late 80s and because of the out-tech and out-ethics at my org at the time, was not given my “leaving staff sec check”. Thankfully some years later, when a new team was leading the org, and when it was finally discovered on their end that my forced departure was based on a lie, I was called back in for those sec checks. Perhaps that’s why I can talk about the outpoints and crimes without resorting to natter. When my husband Paul posited the idea of a “Leaving Scientology Rundown”, the level of natter we saw in the Field was part of the reason.

Natter isn’t doing anyone any good, except that it’s letting others know you probably have some O/Ws in need of handling. Get them cleaned up. You’ll feel a whole lot better. And you can still inform the world of COBs crimes, and of the serious crimes committed by CofS under his leadership. Nobody is saying you can’t, nor is anyone saying you don’t have the right to natter. You have the right to say whatever you please. All we’re saying is, do yourself a big favor and clean up your O/Ws. You’ll be glad you did.


Being there and communicating

I’ve been working on this post for several days. I wanted to research references because I always prefer to let LRH do the talking. The topic has been on my mind since I first started reading websites by those in the Field some time back, but it was a comment I received recently that pushed it to the top of the stack. I won’t name the person (if you’re really curious, you could go looking and find it) — the who isn’t important to the point being made.

One of the most fundamental tenets in Scientology is the ARC triangle, with heavy emphasis on the C — Communication. But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of what LRH had to say on the subject:

P.A.B. No. 1, 10 May 1953:

“Communication, however, is far more important than affinity or reality, for it is the operation, the action, by which one experiences emotion and by which one agrees. Communication is not only the modus operandi, it is the heart of life and is by thousands of percent the senior in importance to affinity and reality.”

The Phoenix Lectures:

“A thetan is as well off as he can communicate, and he’s no better off than that.”

Dianetics ’55:

“A man is as dead as he can’t communicate. He is as alive as he can communicate.”

So communication is a pretty big deal and I’ve never had much back off in that department. Of course, that also means I’ve been known to get myself in trouble. After all, as LRH said in the Opening Lecture of the State of Man Congress (January 1, 1960):

“The only crimes that you can commit in this universe, as you know, is being there and communicating. Those are the two crimes of the universe. Did you realize that? There are only two crimes: being there and communicating.”

Yep, I’ve been guilty of the crimes being there and communicating, including this little blog. It doesn’t have a lot of visibility — as of this writing, only 219 views since it began October 18, 2012 — but I’ve apparently ruffled some feathers of one particular person. My hubby apparently also upset this fellow. Why? Because we voiced our opinions that KSW and Safeguarding Technology are guiding policies and auditing over the Internet doesn’t fit with standard Scientology. What heretics we are! How dare we express a preference for the Tech LRH so lovingly researched and mapped out for us.

Here’s the deal: I don’t want to silence anyone. I approved the comment this fellow posted, as did my husband on his blog, where the comments were even nastier. But it was the natter, eval, and inval that stirred me to discuss discourse. He’s not the first Scientologist to make some pretty vile comments on various blogs. My husband touched on this subject in his post “Freedom Versus Sacred Cows” on his blog. While Paul focused on the hypocrisy of this behavior, I want to discuss it in more broad terms.

People, we’re Scientologists. We’re better than this. Do we really need to resort to name-calling, snide comments, insults, and virtual threats? If you’re even slightly aware of the Tech, you know what’s usually behind this type of behavior.

HCO Bulletin 21 January AD10, Justification:

“When you hear scathing and brutal criticism of someone which sounds just a bit strained, know that you have your eye on overts against that criticised person and next chance you get pull the overts and remove just that much evil from the world.”

HCO Bulletin 15 December 1972R, Withholds, Missed and Partial:

“What are these natterings, upsets, ARC Breaks, critical tirades, lost students, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds.

“Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out.”

The Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, January 1951:

Tone Level 2.0
Communication K / Speech Talks: “Talks in threats. Invalidates other people.”
Communication L / Subject’s Handling of Written or Spoken Comm when Acting as a Relay Point: “Deals in hostile or threatening comm. Lets only small amount of theta go through.”
Y / Method Used by Subject to Handle Others: “Nags and bluntly criticizes to demand compliance with wishes.”

That covers the natter, so let me turn to the evaluative and invalidative comments. I pointed this out to the fellow (a trained auditor), recommending he word clear The Auditor’s Code and clay demo point two. His response was that he wasn’t my auditor, implying it was therefore okay to behave that way. Is that what LRH would say? Ask yourself, why are auditors forbidden to evaluate for or invalidate a PC? Here, let me help you out:

P.A.B. No. 93, 24 July 1956:

“The subjects of significances, evaluation and invalidation have become interdependent in Scientology.

“In invalidation we have more fully than in evaluation a capital crime.

“With significances we are simply discussing reasons why. With evaluation we are only giving new stable data, but with invalidation we are overtly and consciously knocking whatever props the patient may have out from under him.

“The greatest invalidation, of course, is to be struck when one does not expect to be struck, to be criticized when one does not think he merits criticism.”

HCO Bulletin 26 February 1970, Standard Tech and Invalidation:

“Invalidation is a serious button.

“When a Class VIII goes home, he is, of course, a better auditor.

“He can and will crash all stats in the area if he charges around invalidating all auditors not so fortunate to be an VIII.”

HCO Bulletin 26 April 1971, Issue I, TRs and Cognitions:

“Auditor Invalidation and Evaluation is just plain villainy. It interferes with pc cognitions.”

So knowing that, whether you’re a trained auditor or not, whether the person you’re talking to is your PC or not, do you really think you should evaluate for them or invalidate them? Can’t we rise above schoolyard taunts and tantrums? Again, I’m the last person who wants to cut or stop your comm, but I’d like to believe we can rise above this type of behavior. Let me leave you with some other wonderful nuggets of wisdom from the Old Man:

1954, The Creed of the Church of Scientology:

“We of the Church believe…
“That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

P.A.B. No. 83, The Conditions of Existence, 8 May 1956:

“The ability to assume or to grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtues”

Scientology: A New Slant on Life (from the chapter “What is Greatness?”):

“The hardest task one can have is to continue to love one’s fellows despite all reasons he should not.

“And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.”