Start conversations

communicateThis blog’s purpose is in it’s title “Back in Comm”. In this purpose we seek to reach two general groupings of people:

  • People who have become disillusioned with official Scientology and who then begin the process of looking. Those in doubt, in other words.
  • People who have left and find themselves separated from a community which played such an intrinsic part of their lives for a long time and wish to be in comm with other similarly situated people.

It has been wonderful to see the lively debate and discussion on the last article posted which was provided by Tony DePhilipps. It is very clear that this sort of discussion is needed.  We went back and had a look at our more popular articles, the ones that attracted the most participation. The most obvious conclusion from this is that stories of a personal nature and those that tackle specific areas of Scientology have a far greater volume of communication.

We therefore think this should be something we focus on.  While the scandal that has become the official church may be of public interest and something we will certainly keep an eye on, if we are to “get back in comm” we should be communicating more.

We would like to re-iterate an article we posted back in January titled “Want to help get back in comm? Become a contributor!” In this post we invited contributors to put forward articles for the blog.  Immediately following this we had great contributions from a number of people. But life gets on with itself and these tappered off.

Judging by the comments on the last article, many people have a lot to say.  Don’t let important stories get buried in the comments, let’s give these issues proper air time!

So, again: Anyone is free to submit articles. Of course they should align with our mission statement and moderation policy. Articles can be anonymous, nom de plume or in your own name. Other than this there is no restrictions on topics.

We would love to hear from you, as often as possible! Send your stories to


26 thoughts on “Start conversations

  1. I totally agree. For me, and no insult intended at all, but what is important to me is more the comments and less your article. I have seen some articles totally hijacked by an intriguing posting – and often they’re they most illuminating and interesting. Where this blog puts all others in the shade as far as I’m concerned is firstly your above comment that it’s often personal and local, and secondly you don’t shy from controversial subjects. I think mocking fundraising has been done to death. The last was one of the best – as any ‘still-in’ would say, it was the equivalent of an L or three times through Solo NOTS. As I personally have come to the conclusion that the upper levels are a crock of sh** (gimme a comm course any day) I think it’s worth much more.

    • Sorry to post this recklessly in some place it probably does not belong. I am not “tech savvy”. I just want to say something about Mike Rinder. That guy does a whole lot more than spend full time keeping people aware of the false reports coming from the Church, and God knows that is a full time job. He lends his ear to anyone in trouble. He consults with attorneys on legal. He travels to other countries to educate, he sorts out internal issues, and his labor is all voluntary. He has laid his life on the line over and over and over for other people. If we can not celebrate that in a man what can we? Please don’t think he can breathe on air for your benefit and amusement. 100% of the people have no idea how WE have taken hits out here and continue to breathe on air. If you can give something to at least keep his air conditioner on in triple did get temp for the love of God go to his web site and click on the donate button and help this man with his burden.

  2. I think it could be interesting to evaluate certain Scientological datums here on the blog and get people to air their views on different subjects. Hopefully in a respectful way.

    For example: I think I am a spiritual being. I think everyone is a spiritual being.

    I think this idea has been floating around since Man first started to walk the Earth. How do you “prove” this? For me, I don’t think it needs to be proved. If you feel you are a spirit and eternal then it makes sense that you could have lived before this life. Again, this is argued by many and again I say, “to each his own”.

    Through auditing I have contacted what I feel are past life incidents for myself and have had some very nice wins connected to doing so. ~

    The idea I had- back to my idea in the first paragraph- would be to discuss IDEAS about the Scientology philosophy. I’m not sure if this would be acceptable to the moderation policy, but after the last thread, I think many ideas were argued in a respectable way without too much fall out.

    I have already done a bunch of research on LRH and feel this is not the right site to continue on this line per moderation policy. I personally am pretty overrun on the topic. Let people decide for themselves and there are plenty of blogs that cover that topic.

    I think it would be cool to discuss some of the ideas that the Scientology philosophy encompassed. Some are good and some are not so good in my opinion. For people decompressing, I feel this is a necessary step.

    • Good idea to call for articles. I will do my best.
      Tony. Hellofa back and forth on the last article. Excellent.
      To look at ideas within the tech could be a good debate, for those willing to question tech. Or to have their own viewpoint.
      I tend to not do that with the red on white because that was what he was all about. In the main. Auditing and it’s workability. If it works for you, all well and good. If it doesn’t, do something else.
      The green on white, on the other hand, is a whole different matter, in my view.
      If you listen to the FEBC tapes, that tech was the ultimate in organizational efficiency. Later, Establishment tech became THE thing that was missing. It was replaced, by who I do not know, with service officer data and call-in and the like. FEBC and it’s cousins, did not make it. There is not one organization on planet earth that uses the FEBC Esto system in full.
      In amongst all the zillions of data within those systems are some gems. For example, every organization in the world has 4 basic things it produces.
      1 is creating an establishment of some kind that can produce something, be it an item or a service.
      2 is working the establishment to make or deliver the item
      3 is doing things that correct or enhance the establishment
      4 is doing things to correct or enhance the item or service.

      Apple does this, the hairdresser down the road does and SpaceX does it too.
      They do these things in greater or lesser degrees, naturally, logically, not because LRH discovered them. They were always there from the time whole show was designed. But it is useful to know. LRH codified this simple idea in a set of 4 factors that anyone can understand and use. You can look over what you are doing, and see if you are a bit slack within any one for these items, and do something to strengthen that effort, in that area.
      This is one idea that you refer to Tony, in the hundreds contained in his writings.
      LRH did not get this applied very well. Nor did his troops. He wrote tomes about the first one. Then tomes on the other 3.

      He could have left it at the clear statement of the principle he codified, but he tended to write screeds on how, in great detail, this should be applied by his staff. Checklists and correction lists, and more, all of which are not about the principle but HIS idea of how it should be applied. These are two VERY different things.
      The underlying principle is smart and well-spotted and codified very simply. What followed was too much, too many instructions and procedures and cautions and pitfalls, as to make it hard to just simply use, by granting those who work there, the space to apply the simple principle, using their own good sense.
      So, there ye go. An idea, thrown out there Tony.


      • I’m into questioning everything and discussing it. I know there are some people who don’t like that but I think it’s good to think for yourself on everything in the philosophy. If you don’t want to change anything then that’s cool too.
        As an example in the last thread I talked about doing a locational type action on some guy I knew who was in bad shape. I knew I was “squirreling it” but I also knew that it would help him and it did. So…even though it wasn’t exact it did the job.

  3. When a person has an ARCX (break) of magnitude with corporate scn, this lowers the affinity WAY down and this in turn lowers the communication and the reality WAY down. If a person doesn’t have any grounding with wins from the tech, this can throw them totally out of ARC with the philosophy and get them to where they won’t or cannot say anything good about it.

    This is what I feel suppressive personalities do. People like dm create HUGE ARCX’s with people. A lot of those people are very able and capable people. He makes enemies of them and frequently they also become enemies of the tech and end up doing damage too. (PTSness)

    I think this plays right into the hands of dm. He can keep justifying why he needs all of this money to safeguard Scientology because there are so many “SP’s: running around trying to unmock him and corporate scn. When prominent ex Scn’s start becoming enemies of the tech this sort of “proves” to the rest of the flock that they were indeed suppressive.

    I have tried talking to haters about the tech to see if they could say one good thing about it. Frequently they can’t or they will give something sarcastic. I mean this is unrealistic that a person who has been involved in Scn cannot say ANYTHING good about it. I can find good in anything if I try. I feel it is the huge ARCX’s that cause this inability to differentiate between good and bad within Scientology the philosophy.

    • Hi Tony, here is confirmation from the field of Psychology. It seems clear to me that Suppressives engage in the behavior described as putting others in “double binds”. The “double bind” was originally described by Gregory Bateson in the mid 1950s, and further developed by Jay Haley and some others. Here is a precise defintion/descriptuion of what it is. It is not just haing two bad alternatives to choose from; it has four distinct elements:

      A double bind is technically defined as a situation where:

      1. Explicitly, if you do some Action, you’ll be punished
      2. Implicitly, if you don’t do that Action, you’ll also be punished
      3. If you bring up the contradiction, you’ll be punished
      4. You can’t leave the situation

      For more info:

      I think this defines “suppression” to a T, and actually validates LRH’s original concept of SP/PTS. (Not he “administrative use” of it)

  4. Yes Tony, They will not differentiate because their affinity has gone very low. Myself, I have applied the tech and I know it works, and I have many wins but in PT, I feel overwhelmed. I got some auditing, but it didn’t handle… while in the past I was a very fast PC.
    People have been grossly overrun on Not’s. The cancelation of the “blow by inspection” and the three swing FN are suppressive out tech of high magnitude, burying the OT under mass. Earlier state of release looks hallucinatory, seems dub in and all the wins are drawn into BPC.
    Nobody actually has really understood the magnitude of alteration of “COB”.
    My take is that all the Ron’s journal from 34 are FALSE. Not written by LRH, not said by him.
    The amont of lie is unconfrontable for someone who doesn’t really know the basic of the tech and can observe departure of basic laws, and is not hatted on how totalitarian fascist are acting with outright lies as a matter of propaganda.
    For exemple RJ35, from clear to eternity is promotting the “actual OT levels” versus the pre OT level ! Nice marketting invention to keep the customer on the shop in 1982.
    The “actual OT levels”, above OTVIII don’t exist. How could LRH have been promoting something which doesn’t exist? Did he ever do that previously?
    And RJ 38 were he promote RTC? Don’t you think he is quite weird? And what strange voice, so young and robotic for an men over 70 who use to all kind of chukle, comm lags…
    These RJs are forgeries. And the personnality DM is most similar by many aspect is Joseph Goebbels.
    Some hater, i would say idiots, put the blame on LRH. It’s sad and so untrue.
    One day we will know the truth or maybe not… Justice might not prevail.

    • This is the key problem when a subject is built around a source, and the ability to evaluate data for oneself is suppressed. It then becomes black or white.

      This is what is happening with Scientology right now.. It’s earlier policies are coming back to haunt it.

  5. Just to add. David Miscavige is like the item “me”, the only right item!
    And if it is not you, it’s him! He is a perfect BD FN item for any question asking for an SP. He might become as famous SP as “Mr X”. He is a perfect illustration of the PTS tech! Read the pack again, with the SP indicators, you’ll be amazed.
    He will stay in the mythology of Scientology in years to come, as how an SP has taken the command of the Church. And how KSW has been thoroughly defeated by the reasonableness of the poor members!
    The great day will come where his SP declare will be posted everywhere. Let’s postulate it!

  6. Now that the temperature has dropped, I’ll come in.
    Firstly, good writing, Tony. Thank you.
    An issue I’d like to put on the table: in most of the countries on this planet, the doctrine of hearsay is addressed in their courts of law. Hearsay is not permitted as evidence. This is also addressed in the various data valuator courses in Scientology. It’s a no-no.
    And yet in growing numbers, I see hearsay being used by Scientologists in this and other blogs – the only public arenas where they are exposed. And the majority of the hearsay are about the following topics:
    1. Attacking LRH.
    2. Negative statements about the Bridge – especially the state of Clear (by those not Clear)
    3. Negative statements about the Technology – and clearly by those not well trained, or trained at all.
    Scientology is an applied religion. And sadly, I deduce from these blogs that many parishioners think that you get Scientology’s benefits by having something injected into one, or by osmosis by being close to so-and-so.
    The dichotomy of the complexity on the one part and the simplicity on the other, of who you are my friends, means that the recipe of spiritual freedom and being master of your universe, is not written on one page. Or one lecture.
    Scientology’s delivery application can simplistically be divided into two components:
    1. That which happens in the HGC and the Academy, and
    2. The management systems that arranges and controls the above.
    And my beef is with No 2 above. And yes, No 2 has altered the materials now given in No 1, but the original No 1’s are available. And No 2’s kingpin, Miscaviage, will get his come-uppance, I hope. But if I’m concerned about my spiritual advancement, I should be concentrating on training and auditing to attain that Ideal Scene.
    And in the mess of the aftermath of No.2 ‘s actions, finding true, unaltered, original HGC and Academy materials is problematic for most, but are available. And complicating matters further, are the various splinter groups offering auditing services. And a major question I have is: How do I know that they are doing it the way LRH would have done it? How do I know I’m not just getting another altered version, which could do damage once more? (And yes, I’m working off the base that LRH did it best.)
    Lastly, I have detected the odd view that a consensus view on this or that might be sought to settle an issue. To keep my temperature down, that’s how ISIS was formed. Or Nazi Germany.
    Very few of you have done any research or search into the Mind. No hearsay, please.
    And please don’t loose your integrity, my friends.

    • Dear Frik Blaauw ,

      Yours is one of the most rational posts I’ve seen so far at this blog indeed. I am on the same boat you are, swimming on a sea of confusion (represented by the Independent Field) trying to locate stable datums (standard KSW terminals) in which to orient myself.

      “And complicating matters further, are the various splinter groups offering auditing services. And a major question I have is: How do I know that they are doing it the way LRH would have done it? How do I know I’m not just getting another altered version, which could do damage once more? (And yes, I’m working off the base that LRH did it best.)”

      Dear Blaauw, the answer to that is “you get trained”. There is what you can call , a “general consensus” that LRH materials were not altered (at least not to any actual harmful degree) till after the early ’80s. By that time
      most of the LRH materials were already developed. You can find most of those materials, actually all of them, on many sources like Scientolipedia and Matrix Files Scientology. You use Standard W/C Tech and just read all you can, ensuring you have no M/Us and you’ll have a standard scene against which to evaluate any existing scene. You’ll be impossible to be lead astray.

      Then you begin to establish comm lines and analyze such lines and terminals using your self-taught training which should include a very through W/Cing of the complete Data Series. And you’ll be ready. It takes some effort on one’s part but it can be done. And certainly, there is no other choice actually but that one as blindly trusting ANY tetminal no matter his training level or previous position on the Org Board is a sure slow death indeed. So there isn’t really any substitute for yourself as the only stable datum there is , around which to evaluate every and any scene.

      Good luck on your journey !!!


  7. Greetings everybody !

    I posted this at MS2 recently and I am basically copy pasting it here too. I am using all comm lines available. Here it is :

    Hi everybody !

    This may be a little off the subject but I decided to use this forum and opportunity to inform my fellow scientologists of something that I really need and want. I have tried others ways to no avail , including but not limited to direct comms with a few Delivery Centers.

    I need a Standard Spanish speaking auditor for a friend of mine who is currently bridging from the CofS to the Field for services. This person has been subjected to incredible out-Tech handlings for years ! , so much you wouldn’t believe it.

    I am currently on a program with this terminal handling PTSness and some other ethics handlings to unsnarl him of all the resulting confusion from the connection to suppressive elements. The person is doing more than great on this program. Upon finishing this program I have already set up to repair/finish him on a long incomplete lower Bridge auditing cycle .
    I’ll do it myself under the supervision of a great C/S who showed an incredible willingness to help on this cycle for which I will be eternally grateful.

    Now, the situation is that I am not trained enough by a long ways to be able to take him to Clear, a long attempted goal of him which has been obstructed just too many times. This person only speaks Spanish.

    I was refered to a incredible high trained Spanish speaking Field terminal by an incredible professional and helpful scientologist who is in charge of a Delivery Group. For reasons I can’t understand, my comms to this highly trained auditor has been totally ignored.

    Another refereral from other Delivery Center (run by an incredible, professional and helpful individual) who also audits in Spanish has this “confusion” about the real order of Bridge steps concerning NED and the Expanded Grades. This was something clearly established by LRH in HCOB 12 Dec 1981 , “The Theory Of The New Grade Chart”. On this ref as well as others, NED was clearly placed AFTER the Expanded Grades. It is not open to any other interpretation. However, this auditor doesn’t seem to think so but recently became a Grad V auditor !

    I keep colliding with non-Standardness every step of my way. It is really frustrating to say the least. I am a VERY KSW terminal. The fact that I am not yet (only this lifetime) a highly trained auditor doesn’t mean that I am unfamiliar in any way, shape or form, with the basic auditing principles and with all C/S series which I know well enough to be able to spot deviations from Standard Tech. I have also fully W/Ced and listened to several times , each of the Class VIII lectures. I am what you can call a “LRH junkie”. I read and apply a lot , daily for years non-stop. I am a very competent observer.

    Of course, the option for me to getting trained and just do it all myself (as a Spanish speaker that I am myself) is very much valid too. The thing is that such a goal is not something that I will be able to do in the next few months due to time and money limitations.

    So I am asking all scientologists that frequent this blog that if you know of any Standard Spanish speaking auditor (Grad V at least or above) to please let me know. There is a person in need of help and with this incredible urge to go up the Bridge.

    This auditor would have to be willing to audit under a C/S that I’ve already been in comm with and who has an incredible rep. I am a very nice individual who loves to help others. I am not looking at perfection. I leave that to COB and the Church. I am only looking for a willing individual , able to apply Standard Tech and willing to be corrected when the C/S considers so. I won’t be an RTC, but a friend who will lend him a hand in anything he may need. I only ask in return loyalty to LRH and the Scn principles as exactly written with no deviations and no weird ideas.

    If the one I am looking for is reading this or if you know such a person, you would be doing an incredible act of help if you contact me to discuss this. I will be eternally grateful to you. May you all have great success in your endeavors.

    Sorry moderators for getting off the subject. I just have been at this cycle for a long time and I am running short on options.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s