'Third Party Law' and 'Natter'

[sallydannce]

A few thoughts...

So we have a raging narcissist. He wants full control, he wants the world to adore him, clap for him - and bronze busts of him. He wants young girls to prance around in hot-pants for his visual misogynistic pleasure. He wants what he wants. Classic misogynistic narcissistic stuff.

All rules must deflect from his real intentions (common usage of word). They must project away from his darkness, his deep well-hidden cruelty and misery. His heart is dead and no one must find out. Gas-light the suckers! Get them looking in all the wrong places - for everything. And then demand they admit how stupid, incompetent, evil-purposed, non-worthy, they are when it continually messes them, and their lives, up.

Make up a rule, enforce it with fear and force - and large doses of "shame on you!" - that bitching and "nattering" is wrong, wrong, wrong. Silence the followers and only let them express words which suit and protect him. That covers his arse nicely, gives him the power and control - and leaves the fawning disciples, the hot-pants wearing (metaphorical and otherwise) sweet spiritual seekers, without an anchor to any critical thinking skills.

Hubbard's madness induces a departure from self-identity, cultural identity, critical skills. The true narcissist rapes and destroys anything decent. With zero sense of themselves, no one else can possibly be respected for their individuality, unless it momentarily serves the narcissist. So it is perfect to make up stupid, numbing, brain-killing rules like the 3rd party law and "do not natter". It served Hubbard nicely. His methods induce shame and shame paralyses and destroys.

 

[HappyGirl]

Thank you for this thread! I just had an "argument" with my best friend (long out of Scn) who totally agrees with the "third party rule." Even when I was in and drinking the kool-aid I thought the 3rd party rule was BS. It was obvious to me that a conflict can easily occur between two people with no outside influence. Like lovers would never break up unless there were a secret person that they were totally unaware of whispering rumors in their ears. In my life experience the "third parties" were too obvious to be "hidden," such as a group of teens chanting "fight!" to encourage a fist fight. Seriously, every time I had to read about "3rd party," my head would fill with endless examples of how it was not true. I had so many of these kinds of disagreements with "the tech" I don't know how I stayed in so long!

 

[Dulloldfart]

The 'Third Party Law' was one of the last pieces of tek that I hung onto for some reason and I am just working on why that happened and what other people think of it and how they have dealt with this.

One could try False Data Stripping the subject.

http://paulsrobot3.com/scn/fds/index.htm

Paul

 

[AngeloV]

It is certainly possible that in an argument there is another party instigating the fight. But if I think of all of the conflicts/arguments/disagreements in my life with siblings, parents, other family members, spouse, co-workers and managers, I can't think of a single instance of the 'third party' causing the problem except maybe in grade school during playground fights.

So it's possible but highly unlikely to happen.

Of course, hubbard took 'possible' and made it absolute like a lot of his bullshit decrees.

 

[Demented LRH]

The 'Third Party Law' was one of the last pieces of tek that I hung onto for some reason and I am just working on why that happened and what other people think of it and how they have dealt with this.There is no doubt that when you have two people fighting there can sometimes be a 'whisperer' in the background with their own agenda. But it is not a hard and fast rule for every conflict. And in my experience that 'third person' is often known about anyway!IMO the best way to try and resolve conflicts is to have open and honest dialogue. And here we run into the ex scientologists aversion to ‘natter’ or ‘Chinese Whispers’ which can be deeply ingrained. This is a ‘thought stopper’ on revealing needed factual information. And so resolution of the conflict does not occur.“I can’t tell you because that is natter.” http://www.xenu-directory.net/glossary/glossary_n.htm“I can’t tell you because it is Chinese Whispers”. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/chinese-whispers.htmlIt’s like an awful Catch 22, as so much of the tek is.I would appreciate input on this.

I haven’t heard about this Hubbard rule before, but, definitely, it doesn’t apply to me. As a creationist, I spent numerous hours battling the evolutionists all over the Internet. Unless our quarrels were stirred up by the spirit of Darwin, there was no third party working tirelessly behind the scene.

 

[RogerB]

Hmmm, from my memory, the whole statement on this by Hubbs, apart from the mere headline he put up, included the phrase: "if two people communicate completely and honestly and they are still in conflict . . . "

But all that is beside the point.

Hubbard we now know is famous for taking an underlying principle and turning it negative and using it destructively in the vein of increasing his own power and control.

The reason I say there is an underlying principle here is this. It is not what Hubbs is talking about, it is the fact that folks rely on "third parties" as positive references to validate propositions put to them.

If I were to tell you I have a deal for you, you might likely hold it as suspect: but if another recommended me or my deal, or if a friend of yours unsolicited told you you should get a load of what I have, then you'd likely go for it.

That's the positive version of the principle, and hence, this being an underlying principle we so often have relied on . . . well, of course, Hubbard's presentation of its negative application to control and dominate would tend to ring true and stick with us.

Rog

 

[mockingbird]

Hey Happygirl don't blame yourself, the tech is designed to use shame and regret inducing mechanisms in our minds ( through confessionals, o/ws, conditons, the tone scale etc.) to permanently make us blame ourselves when things fail and unquestioningly , slavishly love lrh: he screwed you over;you didn't screw yourself.
We don't have to play his game anymore.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Most effective lies contain a grain or so of truth.

 

[Good twin]

I remember one time getting routed to HCO with another mission exec to get "handled" The Dep ED D&E at the Org gave us the references on 3rd party law and made us word clear it and crap. Then sat us down together to come up with a terminal. As she left the room she told us we wouldn't be allowed to leave until we came up with a terminal "and it couldn't be CO SMI". We sat there and practically cried. We both knew the CO was "in our ear" all the time about the other. Finally a public person walked in that we both knew so we wrote her name down so we could get out of there.

Scientology is just an elaborate twisted role playing game. You will be a hero and a villain if you stick around long enough. Scientology always "works". Or else!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Hypothetical: Two Scientologists become stranded on a remote and uninhabited desert island.

Scientology Koan: If the only two people living on the island get into a conflict, how can they do a Third Party investigation?

Think about this: According to Scientology theory, those two stranded people would NEVER get into a conflict because there is no third party present. But everyone knows getting into occasional conflicts is part of being human. Wouldn't you just love to hear a Scientologist doing semantic-gymnastics in trying to answer that? LOL.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Hypothetical: Two Scientologists become stranded on a remote and uninhabited desert island.

Scientology Koan: If the only two people living on the island get into a conflict, how can they do a Third Party investigation?

Are they both OT3 or above?

Paul

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Are they both OT3 or above?

Paul

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

your answer to the 3P koan--perfection!