One of the sites I follow regularly is www.martyrathbunblog.com, a blog run by Church of Scientology members specifically targeted at Marty Rathbun. It’s hugely entertaining stuff, and the comments section is filled with “me-too” replies that almost make Marty’s sheep look like free thinkers. For us, it’s an interesting glimpse into what Scientologists surround themselves with and how they convince themselves that all this bullshit is okay.
But over the last week, there have been some snippets in a couple of posts that are surprisingly and disturbingly honest. The first is an admission that things are far from perfect in the Church of Scientology.
These excerpts are from a post called I Want My Real Friends Back – Sig Interviews, a series of interviews with a Scientologist who supposedly left the Church, got auditing from Marty, and came back into the fold. At first I thought they were fictional, but the revelations in this latest post make me think this is a real person who is doing this as part of their “lower conditions”.
Here are some snippets of what “Sig” says:
“[Independent Scientologists] talk as though they have a right to judge. They are so outraged by things that COB or the church is supposed to have done.
“But the truth is they are not qualified to judge or to point a finger at all.
“In reality, actually, it is worse among the indies – much worse. There is far more out ethics, back stabbing, betrayal, natter and so on….
“I suppose you have to decide what the goals and purposes are that you want to see being achieved, and then go with the side that is going to achieve that, even if it is not perfect.”
This may sound like I’m grasping at straws – something I routinely accuse Marty of doing – but anyone who knows about Scientology knows that this is actually a pretty big deal. Saying things are “much worse” on the Indie side implies problems on the Church side, and “even if it’s not perfect” speaks for itself.
This sort of complaining is known in Scientology as “nattering,” and according to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, if you natter, it’s not because you are actually making a legitimate criticism of something that is really wrong. Nope – if you natter, the problem is you.
Hubbard named several contradictory causes of nattering in his writings. Here are a few:
1) Nattering is caused by missed withholds, i.e. something the Scientologist does not want to talk about but his auditor has not managed to harrangue out of him:
“What are these natterings, upsets, ARC breaks…? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds… If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out. The only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people failed to find out about them.” HCOB 22 Febuary 1962
“A nattery pc has withholds… That’s real actual basic tech.” HCOB 12 June 1970
“In an area in which someone’s withholds have caused natter about management, there is a decay of confidence in the management.” HCOPL 6 Feb 1982
2) Overts (sins) in general:
“The Pro [auditor] would recognize by the pc’s natter, or lack of previous gain, that the pc had overts.” (HCOB 7 Sept 1964 Issue II)
“It could be that a person is nattering or feels critical, in which case the Ethics Officer or MAA [Master At Arms] could have the person write up his O/Ws [Overts and Withholds].” HCOB 2 March 1984R
3) Overts (sins) against another person:
“…If a pc is nattering about somebody the pc has overts
on that somebody.” HCOB 31 January 1970
(Get that? If you natter about Hubbard, you have sins against Hubbard. If you natter against Miscavige, or Marty Rathbun, or me, same deal. Makes you wonder about those time Hubbard bitched about Nixon*.)
4) Misunderstood or misdefined words:
“Course natter stems entirely from the students’ non-comprehension of words and data.” HCOPL 24 Sept 1964
“Every nattery or non-progressing student or pc is hung up in the above 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cycle [a downward spiral caused by a misdefined word]. And every such student or pc has a misdefined word at the bottom of that pile.” HCOB 21 February 1966
There are more reasons and more quotes, but I think you get my point: If people complain, it’s not because there is something to complain about; the problem is something the complainer did.
So what do you think – is the problem that “Sig” has withholds, overts, and misdefined words?
Or are there really problems with Scientology and the Church, and “Sig” and her interviewer just let their guard down?
* From HCO PL 22 June 1974, TECH: “When one adopts false tech he will then wind up with confusion as false tech will not deliver a product. It delivers a confusion — like psychiatry or Nixon economics.” Hubbard also wrote an anti-Nixon diatribe in 1960, which he made into a policy (HCOB 24 April 1960, CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENCY). For the record, good for him.