Skip to content

Thought-Stopping

July 23, 2010
Stop

Okay, here is the promised post on the subject of thought-stopping – an interesting subject and one that every Scientologist or ex-Scientologist should understand.

The term originated with Robert Jay Lifton in his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (a book that I recommend reading by the way, particularly Chapter 22, where he lays out the seven characteristics of the totalist thought reform environment).

In the book, Lifton describes what he calls the “thought-terminating cliché.”

“The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, for instance, the phrase “bourgeois mentality” is used to encompass and critically dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns like the quest for individual expression, the exploration of alternative ideas, and the search for perspective and balance in political judgments.”

George Orwell, in his dystopian novel 1984, describes a society where an entire language has been developed, “Newspeak,” full of these thought-stopping phrases:

“…an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes [the citizen] unable and unwilling to think too deeply on any subject whatever….Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.”

We’ve all experienced thought-terminating clichés, in their milder form, in daily life. Let’s say a man is fired from his job. He says, to himself or to his buddies, “Well, shit happens.” It’s a cliché. It “explains” everything. He doesn’t have to think too deeply about things, like, for instance, what he might be doing to continually lose jobs.

Or a mother, who hears that her teenage son has been suspended from school for beating up another student. She shrugs and says, “Boys will be boys.” Again, it’s a cliché. It “explains” things for her. And it stops her from thinking about why her son does this or if there might be deeper issues.

Totalist authoritarian groups such as cults and oppressive governments load the language with such thought-stopping words and phrases. For example, a fundamentalist cult might believe that doctors are evil and modern medicine is the work of Satan. If a child gets ill, they don’t provide any medical care. If the child dies, they say “It’s God’s will.” That “explains” why the child died and stops them from worrisome thoughts that might test their faith. Such an “inner language” affects how people communicate and how they think. Using the cult’s terms begins to box one into a rigid orthodoxy – if you can only express yourself using the specialized cult terms, you start to think along certain patterns, and stop yourself from thoughts that are “outside the box.”

Scientology has its share of thought-stopping phrases. Let me give a few examples.

“He’s an SP” or “She’s been declared.” Of course, this effectively stops any thought about the person or anything they might say. And one does not even think about whether the person really is or is not Suppressive. If the Church says they are, they are, and the matter is given no further thought. “Did you see the CNN program about Scientology?” is met with “Oh, those people are all declared SPs.” And that’s the end of it – no further thought is necessary.

“That’s entheta.” The perfect thought-stopping phrase.  It means, “go no further, this is something dangerous, something you cannot read, listen to or discuss.” Anything critical of the Church is, of course, “entheta.” Anything critical of David Miscavige is, of course, “entheta.” Any complaint or negative comment is “entheta.” Scientologists know not to go there. They have, as Orwell put it, “the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.” “Did you see the St. Petersberg Times articles about beatings at Int?” “That’s entheta.” End of story.

“He’s got overts.” The perfect phrase to dismiss anyone who is critical or who complains. You don’t have to listen to or understand their complaint. You don’t have to think about why they might be complaining. You don’t need to worry about possible conditions that might bring about complaints. The handy phrase explains everything, and you don’t have to think any more about it.

“That’s Black PR.” Similar to “that’s entheta.” Any complaint about Scientology management or leaders is met with this phrase. And presto, you don’t have to give it any further thought.

“It’s Command Intention.” I recall this being used internally among staff, and maybe it’s gotten out to public as well. It means “Don’t question or think about what you are being told to do.” A similar one is “It’s a COB Order.”

He’s PTS.” Let me be clear – it’s one thing to study a person’s case, taking into account all factors, conclude that they are PTS, and do a PTS handling to try to better their life. It’s quite another to throw this phrase out as a cliché to avoid thinking too deeply about things. For example, when Rex Fowler, an OT VII, murdered his business partner, the first thing out of some people’s mouths was “he’s PTS.” Not based on any case study or knowledge, just thrown out there to avoid thinking too deeply about what it might mean for an OT VII, supposedly Cause Over Life, to murder someone. I heard the same thing when OT VIII Steve Brackett committed suicide: “He was PTS.” I’ve even heard the same phrase used to explain the entirety of current Scientology management: “they are all PTS.” Before you use a phrase like this, ask yourself, “am I just throwing this phrase out as a rationalization or excuse to avoid thinking about deeper issues?”

“She pulled it in.” Too often used by Scientologists to avoid thinking about or empathizing with the misfortunes of others.

I’m sure you can think of other examples (and I’m sure your examples will show up in the Comments section, as usual!)

I sometimes advise people who are recently out of Scientology to stop using the terminology, and stop thinking in the terminology. That’s not because the terminology is “wrong,” or “bad” necessarily, but some of the words and phrases may function as thought-terminating clichés. If you deliberately avoid talking and thinking in the terminology for a while, you force yourself to think things through newly rather than falling back on a pat phrase.

About these ads
141 Comments
  1. li Po permalink
    July 23, 2010 6:48 pm

    Spot on! Nothing to add :-)
    …or perhaps one comment: looking, really looking can be an art work

  2. July 23, 2010 8:03 pm

    Brilliant !

  3. Cool Observer permalink
    July 23, 2010 8:20 pm

    Thought-Stopping permeates the entire orgnisation, it’s the basic fiber of Scientology. The TRs are usually the first step, where the pc learns to switch off the mind and go into alpha state (bullbaiting), then there’s lots of repetition and obedience drills.
    Obnosis drill: Concentrate on some detail and ignore the bigger picture. Answering without comm lag: Don’t think! Simply use the answwer you’re spposed to use.
    Typical question Scientologists ask themselves: What would LRH do? They learn that as well.
    Why did LRH make it mandatory for any Scientologist to report their PTSness? Because he was concerned about their inability to have case gain? Not likely, they had to be handled right away to root out any doubt that might have been planted into their heads by a friend or family member.
    Circular logic is a major thought stopper: No case gain? You don’t apply the tech correctly. You’re PTS. You’ve got O/Ws etc. It’s always the fault of the Sceintologist, and they accept it.
    And the #1 thought stopper? Stress. Make money.Make more money. Make other people produce as to make more money. Be upstat or else…Scientologists (staff and Sea Org) are always busy, remaining upstat means more pressure every week, there are always new projects, new games to be played, new enemies to be fought…there are constant deadlines, screaming execs, everything to guarantee staff never have time to ponder their situation or apply a doubt formula. Oh, and there’s always your eternity to consider, an issue that makes every problem, question or doubt redundant.
    And if a wog should have the temerity to ask a Scientologist to use some critical thought…well, Hubbard took care of that, didn’t he?

    Think for yourself! Become more aware! More perceptive! Raise your IQ! Get rid of your bank and become 100% analytical. You gotta be shi***** me!

    btw: great article, Jeff, as usual.

  4. July 23, 2010 8:27 pm

    An indie friend in LA is reporting the scene to me down there, within the church mind-set.

    A big one is “Anything coming from the internet is void.”
    Another is “COB is cleaning up David Mayo’s horrid, suppressive mess.”
    And, unbelieveably, “We know it’s a violation of policy but we have very little time now to get the job done!”

    This is another great article, Jeff!

  5. lunamoth permalink
    July 23, 2010 8:44 pm

    Ah, Jeff, this is the BEST. You are so right. To stop thinking in scientology terms one must stop speaking in scientology terms.

    I noticed that it took a surprising amount of effort to stop falling back on the old scientology slang (and I still lapse into it sometimes now). I had the idea that the nomenclature was more precise than English for a lot of what I wanted to say, but in fact it limited what I could say and which concepts I thought with. What I accepted as “shorthand” was essentially a huge limitation to thinking, just as was purposefully done to the population in Orwell’s 1984 with the enforcement of Newspeak.

    Here’s another one: “She’s/he’s dissaffected. ” This means you don’t have to listen to or evaluate her/his concerns or ideas – in fact you shouldn’t, or you could become “disaffected,” too.

    I would like to change this phrase to “She’s/ he’s disinfected.” I believe that is what actually happens to one once one starts really looking and evaluating things for oneself.

    • Jeff permalink*
      July 23, 2010 9:19 pm

      I love that – “disinfected.” Perfect.

  6. Joe Howard permalink
    July 23, 2010 9:20 pm

    Perfectly expressed. Great job, as usual, Jeff.

  7. July 23, 2010 9:41 pm

    I gotta agree. The original use of SP had good intentions and is still valuable I think. However, it’s ALWAYS somewhere on the grey scale from 1 to 100. Hitler was worse than Stalin, who was worse than Ceausescu etc. So I think an SP is somebody who is bad enough to be more bad than good and so on.

    But even Mark Bunker, who I don’t know whether to consider an SP or not since I don’t know him well enough, got points. He has some really big troubles about seeing anything good about Scientology, but the bad things he says are most of the time right. He has changed a little bit to now accept that “anybody can believe what they want, but I just want to reveal the abuses”.

    There are very few real, real SPs out there but then again, it’s on a gradient scale and they DO exist. I guess the interesting questions is how to exactly label somebody an SP and where to draw the line. Hubbard claimed about 20 % are SP but I would roughly claim 5 % perhaps? But Hubbard was also a very positive force so perhaps he was more sensitive regarding negativity?

    • Cool Observer permalink
      July 24, 2010 12:40 am

      I regard men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King or the Dalai Lama as “very positive forces”, and do you know what distinguishes them from Hubbard? They never demanded that critics should be ruined utterly, they didn’t come up with fair game, disconnection, lower conditions and they were not interested in money.
      Hubbard was very smart, extremely charismatic and charming, but underneath this “social veneer” lurked a petulant, vindictive, hostile and increasingly paranoid personality.
      Would you consider that YOU practice thought-stopping regarding LRH? Nope, that’s entheta!
      And please don’t take this personally, it’ just food for thought.

      • ClearlyMistreated permalink
        July 24, 2010 5:16 am

        Sorry, but I think you’re guilty of thought-stopping regarding LRH. I take it that you’ve never read a book like Fundamentals of Thought or listened to a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard. Or if you have then you are very guilty. How do you rationalize the very positive message of ARC, creativity and helping mankind that comes through in the early years of Scientology with the “fair game, disconnection and lower conditions” of the later years? For years I honestly didn’t know how to rationalize the two sides. After following through on the thought and gathering information, I believe that something did happen to LRH to turn him more negative after about 1965. But I don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and discard the parts of the tech that I found to be highly workable.

      • July 24, 2010 7:27 am

        Regarding ruin utterly perhaps LRH knew from history that there would be trouble so instead of sitting quiet and turning the other cheek some more force would be needed? This is not to excuse Micavige and his antisocial behaviour in any way.

        Yeah, I gotta agree it would have looked better if Hubbard had given all the material away for free and kept the OT-levels non-confidential etc and suspended some policy letters but then again the problems of that would have popped up. So I think the PLs are pretty descent, BUT they should be used much more restrictive than today. And the OT-levels would have been ridiculed publicly so better keep them confidential, and some payment has to go into auditing otherwise the auditor tends to not do the job right.

        But the prices could have been set a little bit cheaper for higher levels. Do not confuse this with Miscavige wild pricing that has no fundamental basis in the PLs.

      • Cool Observer permalink
        July 24, 2010 5:16 pm

        Jeff,

        I have some very unpleasant memories and I guess I’m still smarting…I got carried away. I don’t want to offend anyone. I won’t mind if you delete the post above. Btw: I read counterfeit dreams, and it sure puts my experience into perspective. It’s amazing how calm and open-minded you deal with everything, and how effective that is. I’ll try to take a leaf out of your book. (I still believe that the glorification of LRH fits into the subject of this article, but I guess some will say this is not their reality.)

      • Cool Observer permalink
        July 24, 2010 7:20 pm

        Hubbardianen,
        thanks for replying. Hubbard definitely knew there would be trouble ahead:

        “Somebody some day will say this is illegal. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not.”
        HCOPL, 4 January 1966, “LRH Relationship to Orgs”.

        That sounds rather dystopian to me, because the wording implies coercion or force. I guess you know what Hubbard wrote about democracy. I think the mindset that advocates “preemptive violence” is dangerous and irreconcilable with greatness, altruism etc. This mindset is alive and well in Scientology today, just watch Tom Cruise’s fixed and dedicated glare while saying “We don’t ask permission! Why ask permission? We’re the authorites…”

        There are many groups who believe they offer the only path to salvation, and we ostracize them should they force others “to do what’s best for them”, the same rules should apply to Scientology, don’t you think?

        Christianity ha become one of the biggest religions by turning the other cheek (I know it degenerated into a greedy, corrupt and tyrannical organisation before the modern era forced it to undergo essential changes – and issues still remain), but the point is that lashing out is often counterproductive.
        Without the secrecy, the hostility towards criticism and Hubbard’s claim about Scientology’s infallibility hardly anybody would have bothered to criticize or investigate.
        The church has always created its own enemies and Hubbard’s biography pre-Dianetics (the entheta) explains why Scientology became so restrictive and openly cultish in the early 60s. Taboos are thought-stoppers as well, if I’m not mistaken.
        Take care

      • Joe Doakes permalink
        August 8, 2010 1:16 am

        I think what ClearlyMistreated was saying is that by dismissing the entirety of the subject (or person in this case) because of a particular policy or operating basis demonstrates thought-stopping.

        Saying, “Oh, Hubbard was a Science Fiction writer” is a thought-stopper for many to mean, “Nothing he says has any credibility”. Or pulling out the statement Hubbard made about “If you want to make money, start a religion.” It’s just a thought-stopper used to invalidate anything/everything in Scn.

        But when I read the “Old Testament” of Scientology (pre-’65) there’s nothing but a loving/giving Ron. The “New Testament” (post-’65) is filled with vitrol, angst, know-best, ultimatums and penalty.

        Using either to thought-stop the other is equally silly and worth inspection…

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 24, 2010 2:13 am

      Hubbard regarded about 20% to be pts, and 2 1/2% to be actual SP’s.
      Your mileage may vary.

      • July 24, 2010 7:21 am

        Quote:

        “Hubbard believed that approximately 80 percent of all people are what he called social personalities – people who welcome and contribute to the welfare of others. The remaining 20 percent of the population, Hubbard thought, were suppressive persons. According to Hubbard, only about 2.5 percent of this 20 percent are hopelessly antisocial personalities; these make up the small proportion of truly dangerous individuals in humanity: “the Adolf Hitlers and the Genghis Khans, the unrepentant murderers and the drug lords.”

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 24, 2010 5:55 pm

        Hubbardianen –

        Who are you quoting here?

        lunamoth

      • July 24, 2010 7:10 pm

        @Hubbardianen: “According to Hubbard, only about 2.5 percent of this 20 percent are hopelessly antisocial personalities”.

        Where do these numbers come from? Hubbard referred to his writings as “research”. Where is the research which supports these figures? What methodology was used? On which raw data? Is this supported outside Hubbard’s purported ‘research’?

        Is the following part of Hubbard’s research?

        /====
        Never judge such a person by their conduct. That is too difficult. Judge by no case gains. Don’t even use tests. One asks these questions:

        1. Will the person permit auditing at all? or
        2. Does their history of routine auditing reveal any gains?

        If (1) is present, one is safe to treat the person as suppressive. It is not always correct, but it is always safe. Some errors will be made, but it is better to make them than to take a chance on it.

        [Ref.: Scientology’s “technical” criteria for Suppressive Person]
        \====

        Why does Hubbard define a “suppressive person” according to how he perceive the person feels about his ‘Tech’ above? In his writings, how often does Hubbard define “suppressive” according his perception of their feelings regarding the “Tech”?

      • July 24, 2010 8:21 pm

        I found the quote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

        Come on guys, stop the ridicoulus discussion. SP/PTS tech is great and the numbers can always be argued. I don’t need science for this but it would be interesting with a serious study in the subject. It’s simple: There are more or less evil persons in society who bully or do bad things, SPs, then some other nice guys goes PTS to this. Simple and good to know. The “details” such as how many percent etc is something everybody has to figure out for themselves the way I see it.

        SP/PTS can of course be misused such as if somebody criticize CoS when they’re actually right and they get labeled an SP in a wrong way etc. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

        But for good people with good intentions the SP/PTS technology is good to know. The first time I got really interested in Scientology was when I read some SP/PTS stuff. Wow and interesting!

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 24, 2010 8:35 pm

        Gotta agree with you on this one, R.Hill. LRH clearly stated in his issue on the antisocial personality that man, being prone to witch hunts (how ironic), must
        compare the individual against both lists, that of the traits of an anti-social personality and that of the social. Yet he glibly assigns that status (of SP) to
        anyone who refuses auditing! Again, anyone paying attention at this point would
        bloody hell certainly refuse auditing in the church! It’s a trap. It’s one of those
        “truths” that once you accept it, there is no escaping the church-think.

      • Jeff permalink*
        July 24, 2010 8:54 pm

        “Come on guys, stop the ridiculous discussion. SP/PTS tech is great…”

        Hubbardianen, you may find “SP/PTS tech” great and useful, and that is your right, to believe and practice what you want. But discussing it and hearing different experiences and viewpoints is never “ridiculous.” Not on this blog. Personally, I try not to stop thought, mine or anyone else’s.

      • Synthia permalink
        July 25, 2010 3:30 am

        To me, the most difficult course I had to do was the PTS/SP course. I believe it to be a course full of references from a very paranoid man. I could never get myself to see people and life the way that course mandates and I felt horrible for almost the entire course. It felt like the worst mind f@ck ever. I believe that course is the foundation for so much of the cult system in Scientology. Sorry if I am stepping on any toes here.

      • July 25, 2010 6:51 am

        Jeff,

        Strawman argument. I did not mean that different viewpoints are ridiculous nor intend thought-stopping, but some of the arguments are just aimed at sucking energy instead of improving discussion, e.g. arguments like “What methodology was used?” I’ve communicated with individuals (not here) who go on and on in an endless loop about questioning everything and that does certainly lengthen the discussion but it can be too much also. In those cases thought-stopping is a good thing. Get the balance right.

        The main issue the way I see it is how CoS misuse the SP-tech to label unconvenient individuals. The other issue should be how to safely label somebody an SP according to more specific criterias and actions and how often they have to occur so that it becomes a safe and rational label. I believe in a much more restrictive use than today since there are other factors such as freedom of speech, correct critique and so on to consider. The label SP should be reserved for those who really deserves it, no others.

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 25, 2010 3:53 pm

        Synthia

        There is a whole world of people who would agree with you on this topic.

        It’s just not possible, while toeing the party line, to get much perspective into whether or not what LRH asserts in that material is all really true, especially after the GAT version came out and any possibility of the individual evaluating the data for him/herself was finally eliminated. But once we start to read more widely and learn more about LRH and his history, we have a context for the tone and spirit of his writings on this subject.

        Sure changes things to know this, doesn’t it?

        I agree with you entirely. Much of LRH’s paranoia, fear, and baser emotions and character traits come out in full force in some of the references in the area of PTS/SP tech.

        I’m not tossing out the baby with the bath water; I still find some of this tech useful, and I have been genuinely helped in life by it’s use. But some of it is just extreme, and when you look at some of the policies (fair game comes to mind) that were based on it, and with which some truly “anti-social” actions were condoned, you see an unstable man’s fear and loathing being expressed as “technology.”

      • Jeff permalink*
        July 25, 2010 4:04 pm

        Well, if someone says they have done research, it’s legitimate to ask where the research is, what the raw data was, and what methodology was used. It’s not a diversion, it’s directly to the point. If someone says “this is the way life is and my conclusions are based on my research” then a rather obvious question is “okay, where is your research?”

        Once when I was on staff in Marketing at the Base I was doing my research into the book “Dianetics: The Original Thesis.” In that book, he talks about auditing a series of cases in a Savannah, Georgia, mental hospital, and it was based on these cases that he developed Dianetics. I wrote to LRH archives and asked for copies of the case records. I was interested. They wrote back and said there were no such case records. Of course, Hubbard kept everything, even diaries from when he was a kid. That he had not kept pivotal Dianetics research records was odd. It was a red flag. Without the actual research records, there is no way for anyone to verify what he did. You just have to take his word that he did the research and that his conclusions were correct.

        I don’t agree that when it comes to challenging Hubbard’s research “thought stopping is a good thing.”

      • hubbardianen permalink
        July 25, 2010 4:16 pm

        I agree that everything should be able to be challenged, even Hubbard’s research. My referal to thought-stopping was endless loops and discussions, not research.

        Actually, I would like to see some serious and heavy research regarding most or all of Hubbard’s work, especially the auditing part, since I’m mainly interested in the truth and have no need to defend Hubbard’s work just for the sake of it.

        Here are three very interesting videoclips about people with severe phobias and how they apparently got treated with past life counceling very similair to auditing, but with hypnosis and no E-meter.

        Part I

        Part 2

        Part 3

      • Synthia permalink
        July 25, 2010 4:16 pm

        Contrary to LRH and the CofS, I don’t believe in labeling anyone or expecting some authoritative group to label and warn you of some oppressive individual who may come into your universe, leave that up to “God”, so to speak.

        Contrary to you and many other Scientologists, I don’t believe that PTS/SP “tech” is great in any way. I think it is sinister and is what is now the tool for the oppressor to eat the group alive.

        As has been proven over and over again, Scientologists are unable to recognize or act upon their recognition of widespread suppression within the group until AFTER they leave, no matter how many time they’ve taken the PTS/SP course and done verbatim drills against the wall on the SPs characteristics.

        No, in my observation this “tech” gets people to witch hunt. If this tech were so great, why can’t people spot DM? Why didn’t LRH spot him?

        IMHO, this “tech” was developed to get each and everyone of us to introvert and wonder about our friends and to keep each other in check at all times. Freedom? I think not.

      • Synthia permalink
        July 25, 2010 4:23 pm

        lunamoth,

        Thank you. Yes, I agree with you and thank you for your thoughtful post. I suppose some of the data we find in the PTS/SP references is helpful but it isn’t new or something you can’t find elsewhere since time immemorial. It does WAY more harm than good and that’s why I do throw the baby out with the bath water cause the baby is an illusion to me.

      • Synthia permalink
        July 25, 2010 4:25 pm

        In my above comments I was speaking to Hubbardianen, for clarification.

        Synthia

      • Synthia permalink
        July 25, 2010 5:15 pm

        Hubbardianen,

        Thank you for these videos. I do appreciate that you are looking for truth and not defending LRH for the sake of just defending.

        Synthia

      • July 25, 2010 5:18 pm

        Synthia,

        I think the usage of the tech depends on the user (not to offend you in any way). An evil person could label persons SP in a wrong way or be too sensitive about the criterias, e.g. if a person says five invalidative comments a year to his wife, would that be enough to label him an SP? Ten comments? Twenty? A hundred? Every day? That’s the interesting discussions of the criterias of an SP. It has to be recurringly but how recurringly?

        I do agree that many Scientologists have a blind attitude regarding this issue, like I had in the very beginning when I thought that just by knowing the tech everything would be just fine and it would protect you. Of course not, that’s silly. *laughs* But more and more people are waking up and the best Scientologists are unfortunately as of now probably outside of the Church.

        So I have more and more come to view Scientology as an interesting complement to life that give me insight in some issues. I still think it’s interesting, applied correctly and in a restrictive way regarding SP, PTS, disconnection etc. Not in a fanatical way.

        And I would seriously like to see some very serious research about the claims Hubbard made. This is something CoS should start to do as soon as possible. And getting confirmations from independent scientific communities.

      • Synthia permalink
        July 25, 2010 6:45 pm

        Hubbardianen,

        Thanks for the reply. Here’s my take and see if this makes any sense to you. May be it will, maybe not.

        Have you ever felt a certain way about another person where that opinion was not shared by others? Or where maybe another could see what your beef with the person was but did not have those same beefs themselves?

        In many instances, one person’s SP is another persons friend. Per the tech, apparently we all have cases and those cases are filled with various incidents that can reactively dictate how we respond to various personalities.

        I say that if you have difficulty with a certain person and cannot sort that out, by all means it is your complete right not to have to deal with that person but an official label or any label really is not necessary in that equation.

        The world is not black and white. To be honest, I have never met a full on SP every person I have ever meet, even those I have a very hard time with, all have some redeeming qualities that make it difficult for me to decide, “Is this person an SP?” Who cares! That thought process is introverting and arrogant. If ya can’t get along with that person, for whatever reason, get away from them. That is a personal choice.

        This is the doublespeak of Scientology. You have that “Tech” along with the “What is Greatness” reference. It seems that almost every, if not every, concept in Scientology has an opposite balancing idea so one can never say that LRH or Scientology is wrong because all bases are covered.

        The PTS/SP “tech”, to me, is a system of enslavement. There are many helpful means to deal with troublesome individuals outside the philosophy of Scientology.

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 25, 2010 6:56 pm

        Synthia

        “I suppose some of the data we find in the PTS/SP references is helpful but it isn’t new or something you can’t find elsewhere since time immemorial.”

        Agreed! I just happened to find it in scientology. I’m sure LRH found it somewhere, too, since he seems to have done his research the same way a high school student “researches” that term paper he left until the last minute: liberal and uncredited “borrowing” from other sources. And when I say I value some of this stuff, I’m talking strictly about the tech here, not the policy he based on it, the authorization of criminal and immoral actions against people deemed to deserve it, or the power he gave the group to act in a manner that ironically would have earned an individual so acting the title of SP.

        It does WAY more harm than good and that’s why I do throw the baby out with the bath water cause the baby is an illusion to me.”

        More power to you. If that baby is an illusion, you will have lost nothing when it goes out with the bath water. If you see only the potential for evil in that particular “tech,” Good riddance! The important thing is that each of us gets to test, try, evaluate the outcome and decide for ourselves. We don’t have to have ANY group agreement on it. We decide for ourselves what is true. (Hey, remember that?) And it’s up to each of us to use what we retain in the most truly ethical way possible.

        I would add one more thing. The part of the tech that I found most beneficial was that which made me take responsibility for my own actions and got me to view how
        I myself can create and antagonize another into a situation that is suppressive to me. There is a lot of PTS/SP tech, and by necessity we’re speaking in generalities here. But I do understand and agree with the essence of your comments, and I am happy that we are both now able to express and practice what is really true for each of us. Anything else is (was) simply suppressive.

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 25, 2010 7:05 pm

        Jeff,

        This little nugget, “Without the actual research records, there is no way for anyone to verify what he did. You just have to take his word that he did the research and that his conclusions were correct” is priceless.

        It has ALWAYS bothered me that there seemed to be no research, when LRH claimed time and time again that he had done it. When and where EXACTLY did he research DMSMH? All the official accounts of his life stress how he was engaged in informal research his entire life leading up to that work, but on closer examination we find that it was a life which apparently consisted of many events and accomplishments for which there is no record, or records that conflict with his own account. Without the prejudice that everything LRH wrote is true, without the indoctrination to take as gospel everything told to us by the church, one would have to conclude that no real research was done. One have to conclude that there has been a hell of a lot of embroidering of the truth going on.

      • Synthia permalink
        July 25, 2010 9:49 pm

        lunamoth,

        Thank you. You are so right. Out of necessity we are talking a bit general and I am the one that just said that things are not black and white and I have to admit my viewpoint on this tech is rather black and white and that, too, is unfair. I certainly agree that there is helpful information and though I have been making progress, I am still not as charitable as I believe I will be in the future towards the truth within the lies, as I am still so hurt about the lies. I’m not being a victim when I say that, I am just deeply disappointed to this day. I will get through it :)

        As always, I find your words a beacon of sanity.

        Love, Synthia

      • July 26, 2010 6:50 am

        Synthia,

        I agree that there’s some danger to the subject of SP if it comes to just disliking somebody. Sometimes the wavelengths are wrong between two persons even though they do not want any harm. I have some rare occassions with people I just don’t get along with and they don’t get along with me, but nobody really does anything bad. It just doesn’t work out. That is not to be confused with an SP.

        That’s why I mean that the criterias of an SP has to be safe and proveable and not just loosely based on “like or dislike”. CoS should label somebody an SP as safe as a trial with concrete evidence, the defendant should have a lawyer as well. If CoS don’t like a person just label him a persona nongrata instead, but not an SP.

        Example: Person A hits his kids once a month, his wife once a week, he steals from stores once a week and does a bank robbery every six months when he’s out of money and generally invalidate his fellows when talking to them, not to forget his drunk driving. He should probably be labeled an SP.

        Person B sometimes do some labour for his neghbours without paying taxes and shoplift some make-up once a year for his wife. This person should probably not be labeled an SP.

        lunamoth,

        I think Hubbard didn’t have time or interest for all of that very formal kind of research that would have taken far too much time. He seemed to be a guy who brought up broader ideas, like Purif, auditing etc, looked for himself, made some speculations and tried the best he could. I think he disliked the slow University kind of research and just did it all by himself with the help of auditors. And I actually think he made the right choice. The subject of Scientology is far too mind-boggling for ordinary Universities to accept (OT-levels etc).

        Now I think it’s up to us to actually research Hubbards claims in a more serious scientific matter with methology, scientific criterias, lots of cases etc.

      • Freetothink permalink
        July 30, 2010 1:55 am

        Thank you lunamoth, Synthia, Jeff & Hubbardianen for sharing this very insightful exchange. Sorry I don’t have much time now to contribute to the conversation but I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate you all.

        You have given me a lot of food for thought. Completely opposite of the thought stopping of the CoM.

        Marie-Joe

  8. Lise permalink
    July 23, 2010 9:48 pm

    Hi Jeff…Great Post. “Command Intention” is in full swing in the lower Orgs. I first heard it when in ’06 when every Org on the Planet had to send 2 trainees to Flag and it remained in full swing through the Basics and was still around when I resigned.

    Have you read Margaret Singers book “Cults in our midst”. I found it very eyeopening especially about cultic recruit methods using “Love Bombing”. When I first joined I was “love bombed” and when I resigned I was given a triple dose of love bombing in an attempt to keep me from leaving. Things like “Wow Lise, you are such a BIG Thetan”, “your Tone 40 is amazing” and “we always knew how gung ho you are” “your self determinism is awesome”..etc etc.and to end it all the promise that OSA Australia would investigate the claims made that Miscavige lives a life of luxury.I never heard from them again.

  9. Revenimus permalink
    July 23, 2010 11:30 pm

    Fantastic Jeff, very insightful how about this one (in my opinion a real whopper) YOU’RE BEING REASONABLE!

    • Another Layer permalink
      July 24, 2010 2:19 am

      Jeff,

      Thank you for yet another excellently evolved chapter in what I hope will become another book. (Yes?)

    • John Doe permalink
      July 25, 2010 5:08 pm

      “Being Reasonable”…Sheesh! I understand what LRH was trying to say, ie, that some people will attempt to make up reasons for and explain away things that are illogical rather than seeing them as they are–illogical, but to employ the word “reasonable” to describe this phenomenon was a very poor choice of a term. It removes people in a group from the larger society to reverse the meanings of words and this is just such a case. Thus, a sentence like, “When it comes to applying ethics and justice policies, that MAA is totally unreasonable,” becomes a good thing to the indoctrinated.

      Taking it a step further, using the above definition, current members of the C of S that explain away illogical activities of the church are being reasonable…

  10. July 24, 2010 12:33 am

    Jeff – This is so true. Scientology claims they teach their members to have the BEST confront, yet every one of these thought stopping circuits they’ve got are a complete NON-CONFRONT.

    You have to be a robot to follow that line of “thinking”. There’s no room for analysis or rational thought. It’s a way to control information (prevent it from being obtained) which is a key factor in mind control.

    Your recent posts, Jeff are brilliant and spot-on.

    Love, Amy

    • Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
      July 25, 2010 2:35 am

      Great essay Jeff.
      There’s a new level of Thought Stopping.
      Jeff said :
      QUOTE
      Scientology has its share of thought-stopping phrases. Let me give a few examples.

      “He’s an SP” or “She’s been declared.”
      Unquote.

      It is now on a level of a whispering campaign EVEN when the public is not declared.
      Example: Freewinds Security Chief tells a Freewinds arrival he must disconnect with someone because they are DISAFFECTED !

      They are not declared, they are disaffected and therefore must be disconnected from !

      Policy reference ?

  11. Aeolus permalink
    July 24, 2010 1:02 am

    This is a fascinating area. I think we’ve accepted many of these cliches initially because they were useful. For instance I don’t know of a counterpart outside of Scientology that expresses the concept of PTS in exactly that way, or the overt/motivator sequence. Once we have the concepts though we can use them to categorize any misfortune, or someone’s actions we don’t like, without real analysis.

    Along with the terms and concepts, we apparently also absorb some guidelines regarding when to use them. The same person who cuts off all criticism of the church or Miscavige as “entheta” will cheerfully watch a CCHR documentary on the history of psychiatry, with graphic images of shock treatment and lobotomies. And no IAS briefing would be complete without threatening the end of civilization as we know it. Now that’s entheta!

    • John Doe permalink
      July 25, 2010 5:12 pm

      Wow! Good observation…”entheta” has been re-defined by the culture of the church to mean only those things that are upsetting to the church!

  12. Exilo permalink
    July 24, 2010 1:46 am

    This post is brilliant. Thanks, it’s like on-doing the SO implant.

    Here are some more:

    “That’s an Enemy Line”.
    “This is backflash”
    “He/she is disaffected”
    “We need to Clear the Planet”
    “Get the stats up”
    “This is subordination”
    “He/she has an out-2D history”
    “He/she is a L1 R/Ser”
    “They are wogs”
    “They are DBs”

    and more….

  13. July 24, 2010 2:07 am

    Great blog Jeff! Thanks for not making us wait for very long. I found thid subject to most insightful and certainly applicable.

    Here’s a few more thought-stoppers I thought of: enemy line, wog, conspiracy theorist, druggie, squirrel.

    Then, I went to youtube and found this little jewel….(great material from beginning to end)

  14. July 24, 2010 2:24 am

    Continuing my search on youtube I found another applicable video to add to this blog post of Jeff’s.

  15. dora N. permalink
    July 24, 2010 2:48 am

    How true – it’s the perfect way to drastically cut off those pesky questions. You have a thought process regarding something but because there’s no room for individual thinking, it’s gets hammered. Asked and answered. Move on. Donate here but stop asking these questions. It is all so automatic, we don’t realize how we became indoctrinated this way. I for one have heard myself using all of these at one time or another. ….I shutter at the thought.

    Thanks Jeff. Another brilliant post.

  16. Synthia permalink
    July 24, 2010 5:12 am

    Here’s one….”All ARC Breaks stem from Missed Withholds” That stops ya dead in your tracks.

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 24, 2010 3:10 pm

      …and another is the use of the term “blow.” Leaving without authoritization? Why does an adult human being need authorization from anybody to leave anywhere? I personally would like to strike that word from the vocabulary of every ex- and indie and current scientologist. The idea that one ONLY leaves due to overts is insidious and keeps many people feeling trapped in doing stupid and harmful things long after they’ve realized they should stop.

      Specifically, when an individual comes to their senses and decides they must and can leave the Int Base or the church in general, it should NOT be referred to as “blowing.” It is a self-determined action, executed in the best interests of the individual BECAUSE THAT IS HIS/HER RIGHT AND DUTY. That it also turns out to be in the best interests of a lot of other people, humanity in general, the planet and all the little woodland creatures great and small is beside the point. Let’s use language that acknowledges the right of the being for self-preservation and self-determined action.

      The word “blow” is one craptastic, thought-stopping word.

      • sherrymk permalink
        July 25, 2010 6:17 am

        I can’t express to you the relief I just experienced on reading your post LunaM…for many reasons which I will outline at a different time, I have been stuck on this “blow” thing. It had been wrongly indicated to me and just stuck. Well..I am finally unstuck my friend. Thank you!

        Sherry

      • Mickey permalink
        July 25, 2010 12:11 pm

        lunamoth…. your position is even backed up by this Article from the United Nations “Declaration of Human Rights”, a document the CofM has publicly supported in times past. Empty words when their deeds observed. It’s a narrow but powerful point, the freedom to change one’s mind without consequence regarding any aspect of one’s life. After all, in the end all there is, is you.

        Article 18
        Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

        Ref: http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2007/hrphotos/declaration%20_eng.pdf

    • Mike permalink
      July 24, 2010 10:05 pm

      Interestingly, shortly after that datum was written, it was revised along the lines that all arcx’s stem from bypassed charge. Even when I present this to someone who spouts the line, they can’t let go of that thought stopper. Hopefully I don’t use “thought-stopper” as a thought-stopper (joke).
      Jeff, brilliant essay. Thank you. Look forward to meeting you some day. As pointed out by one of the others, I am amazed and impressed at your absence of bitterness, in spite of what you went through.

  17. John Doe permalink
    July 24, 2010 7:43 am

    Jeff, you are such an amazing thinker and writer. Thanks for this. Here is one that came to mind:

    “Make it go right.” In my experience, I’ve seen this used on Sea Org members by executives when giving an order that is nearly impossible to carry out. It enables the executive to avoid thinking that he has, indeed, just issued an order while providing no resources, no personnel, no time, or no support. It transfers the insanity of having issued such an order to the junior, implying he is a lesser person if he cannot accomplish the task. The junior is often derailed from a rational line of thinking about how to marshal the appropriate resources needed to accomplish the task and into an irrational loop of self-doubt and overwhelm.

    • sherrymk permalink
      July 25, 2010 6:19 am

      So very right on John Doe. I had this exact thing run on me countless times as Tech Sec..total insanity.

      • Sinar permalink
        July 26, 2010 5:09 pm

        At the Int Base, the song “make it go right” was put in years ago after staff meetings ended. There were other oddities put in at certain times such as reciting “definition of a Team” verbatim and in unison at musters.

        After a while it seemed like some motions one went through like playing a record and no thought actually went into it. Felt a bit weird and embarrassed having to do these actions robotically -not sure what others felt.

      • Sinar permalink
        July 26, 2010 5:24 pm

        Omitted the thought stoppers consisting of:
        -not part of the team
        -He/she is individuated
        -worker oriented or wog oriented
        -other fish to fry

      • John Doe permalink
        July 27, 2010 4:07 am

        I remember that “definition of a team” drill, where we would mime various things while we chinese schooled that definition. I think that buck-toothed MAA kid that ran around on the moped, Gary something, started that…

  18. July 24, 2010 1:55 pm

    Jeff, while there are no doubt many things which you deserve to be commended for, I want to specifically commend you for, via your blog posts, providing some very useful tools that we can use to hold up to any movement, group, plan, cause etc. and go….okay, before I go any further, am I observing any parallels here?

    This look at thought-stopping techniques, IMO. is particuliarly useful. In fact, I’ve just installed it in my outermost sensor field and its all wired in to the mother board. And, other than maybe requiring a few fine adjustments, it’s ready for use.

    Jeff, your blog site could also be appropriately sub-titled…Lessons On How To Regain And Keep Your Sovereignty

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 24, 2010 6:01 pm

      Monte,

      It’s good to have you posting again. Who’s going to come up with this stuff if you’re not here?

      lunamoth

      • July 24, 2010 10:38 pm

        Thanks lunamoth. I’m glad to be posting again. I guess I’ve become a “downstat” (ooops another thought-stopper). Since those days of my frequent commenting here on Jeff’s blog site, I’ve been on a bit of walkabout. In the process I’ve looked under more rocks and rummaged around in more closets than I can count. There is no doubt that what I’ve come across will influence the “stuff ” I’ll be coming up with. Indeed, I might now be considered to be radioactive. Meaning…you will only be able take me and what I post in small doses and not too often. :)

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 24, 2010 11:45 pm

        Monte

        Hmmmm… is that a challenge?? My god, what the hell have you been up to! LOL!

      • July 25, 2010 11:20 pm

        lunamoth, some while back on one of Jeff’s blog posts far, far away, I added a comment that included a perspective that I had come to have wherein I said something to the effect…that in order to really learn about scn it is best not to look at scn. But instead, go look at other things. I had it in mind that in the process of looking at other things I believed I could learn more about scn than otherwise. Well, for me, I have found this approach to be most workable. However, that said, a most formidable barrier that I have had to contend with is the enormous quantity of “filters” (layers and layers and layers worth) that I continually have to disable in order to actually view what I’m viewing. The “filter prgm” I have installed or allowed to be installed, is one immense and insidious program. And now, thanks to Jeff, this integral and highly destructive component within my filter program i.e., the thought-stopping mechanic, has been exposed and I’m much appreciative for having this occur. It will be of tremendous help.

        lunamoth, when I came into scn it was like walking into a cavernous space that appeared to just go on and on and on with out limits. And there were people in this space that I could easily converse with and share thoughts that I could not share with any of my family members or friends without being perceived as being a “weirdo.” I really felt that I had long last found my people. I found out that I wasn’t and “Only one” after all and I was incredibly joyous and in an exhilarated state about this. But, over time circumstances, conditions, realities and perceptions changed. The space that had first appeared to be without limits became more and more limiting. The freedom of being able to have wide-open communication without restriction that I had first experienced became increasingly inhibited in one way or another. Essentially, the more time I spent in the universe of scn the more the freedoms declined and the barriers expanded.

        While inside, what was there became more real and what was outside became more unreal. Furthermore, outside was something to avoid. It was filled with DBs, downstats, SPs, PTSes, 1.1s, homo sapiens, evil psyches, druggies and wogs. Not a safe place to be.

        Also, inside, there was only one source and that was LRH and if it wasn’t LRH it wasn’t true. He wasn’t but was the “God.” Consequently, in my 30 + years as a scio, I really didn’t have a clue what was really going on out in that pathetic, dismal world outside of scn and Source. But now, after first leaving CoS and then leaving scn, I have been discovering that there was a LOT going on! And this is how I learned that the best way (for me) to learn about scn and come to an understanding of scn and my experience as a scio, is to go look at other things then come back and look at scn, then go look then come back and so on and so forth. Applying this method has greatly hastened and facilitated my coming to view scn without all the influences of the scn filters that were installed during those three decades.

        IMO, those individuals who are leaving CoS and then going right to the Indie movement and then are staying in the Indie movement and not moving on…are making a mistake. But, I do realize, that those individuals consider that they fully know and understand scn. And to them, there is no need for any further R&D. It is just DM that is the problem. If DM can just be gotten rid of, everything will come together and be good again.

        Okay, lunamoth, I’m going to give you something to look at. And if you do look at it you will no doubt see the correlation between what is being told and what is being introduced by LRH into the scn org. Especially, note the correlation of time when certain things were the “program of the day” in the outside world and certain policies or tech were introduced into the scn org. When I saw this it blew my mind (if only I were so lucky). :) Anyway, go to youtube and enter in Adam Curtis The Trap. This is a three Part series. Each part consist of six videos. The parts, in sequence, are: 1) The Trap: What Happened To Our Dreams Of Freedom 2) The Lonely Robot and 3) We Will Force You To Be Free. Adam Curtis produced an earlier series called “The Nightmare”, which I have recently strated watching. I’m only a few videos into it and I’m already seeing numerous correlations between what he is showing and what was happening within scn. VERY Interesting material!

        And lunamoth, if you or anyone else who reads Jeff’s blog would ever like to contact me personally, here is my email add:

        monterock@yahoo.com

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 26, 2010 3:35 am

        LOL, Monte, THIS is what I’ve missed!

        …and yes -tracking with you on the whole thing. I understand completely about learning about sci by gaining more perspective on the real world. Makes complete sense.

        I’ll check out the videos.

        lunamoth

      • Synthia permalink
        July 26, 2010 4:05 am

        Monte,

        I find your post fascinating. Thank you. I went to YouTube and searched for Adam Curtis and not remembering what you said to watch and just remembering “The Trap”, I watch a different 6 part series called “The Trap: Fuck You Buddy.” This was very interesting too. I should have checked back and made sure of what you said to watch before I started as now I don’t have any more time tonight to watch the others. Are you familiar with the one that I watched? If so, does it cover similar stuff? Anyway, even with that one I can see the correlations.

        Synthia

      • August 1, 2010 10:37 pm

        Hi Synthia, after a week I’m finally getting back to this blog. You did watch the first segment in the 3 part sequence of The Trap Synthia when you watched, The Trap: Fuck You Buddy. I was glad to hear that you too were seeing correlations between the subject of the doc and scn. In Part 6 of Fuck You Buddy a guy by the name of Alain Enthoven is introduced and his idea that everything could be managed by numbers (mgmt by statistics) was being readily adopted in the early sixties. I was wondering if perhaps LRH borrowed, or was inspired by, Alain’s concept of being able to manage everything by numbers and, like only LRH could do, then used that idea to develop his system of mgmt. by stats coupled to conditions of existence. Or, who knows, maybe it was LRH that inspired Alain. In any case, what was particularly interesting as well as POV shifting for me was going from a POV where I considered scn being on a one-way flow of influencing society and not even considering that society was influencing scn. In my viewing The Trap, I saw how realized that scn was indeed being influenced by events and agendas happening out in the “wog” world. Also, I want to mention that in Part 5 of The Lonely Robot, the problems being revealed that were encountered in society as a result of mgmt. by stats, were the same problems I was experiencing at the time while I was the ED WISE Portland. In seeing this I was flabbergasted! (hey, where in the hell did that word come from?! Certainly is a dusty one. Haha)

        A sidenote: it was of interest to me to discover that Alain Enthoven was the person responsible for why the Viet Nam body counts were reported every night, week and month on the eve news. News reports I watched daily while in highschool.

        You know Synthia, as I go around poking my nose in first one thing then another, I’m always on the alert for anything that will corroborate LRH’s work. And, I must say, that I do find quite a bit of information that does. However, when it comes to some of LRH’s more esoteric tales of Space Opera and such, I, so far, have not come across any information (and there’s an abundance of such info extant and accessible out here) that comes close to corroborating what LRH was telling us had gone on and was going on. And, the more I look, the more odd this lack of corroboration becomes.

        There is some really excellent and very artful propaganda available these days. Youtube, for example, in providing the venue it does has no doubt ushered in a whole new age of propaganda and progaganda artists. In fact, there’s this kid by the name of Ben Stewart who has really turned out some good products. In 08′ when he was only 18 he produced the , ESOTERIC AGENDA (13 parts) then in 09′ he produced KYMATICA. Both of which are excellent progaganda films that I highly recommend to anybody. Ben Stewart is quite an artist!

        @ Vad & Fidelio….you have both linked to Vadim Zeland’s Reality Transurfing – thanks to you both. I finally went there and read the Pendelum chapter. I must say that the instant I began to read, my own thought-stopping filters sprang up (the “sheild up” order had been activated). These particular thought-stoppers are phrases like: “this is old news” “I already know this” “this is elementary” and so on. Of course, if I don’t disable these filters there is no point in continuing for even if I did go on and read the material it would all be run through the filters. Thus, I would not get the actual comm from the author for what it was. Well, I was able to successfully disable these filters and read The Pendelum. And, I found it to be very interesting. I saw too what Fidelio was referring to when he made the comparison between my description of DM on Jeff’s earlier blog and what Vadim Zeland was describing about the vampires. Oh yeah, I also appreciated Vadim’s concept of the space of variations.

        I was thinking….if it wasn’t for LRH, for dn and scn and yes, for DM, I wouldn’t be sitting here adding a comment to a blog started by an ex-scio that was created to help people leave scn. Ha! Nor, would I have this opportunity to connect to all of you incredible beings who are each moving into your own sovereign independence. Life is certainly a trip!

        I have come to be of the mind that the only way I could ever reap the benefits (and there were many) gained during my scn journey is to fully leave scn, jettison all the extraneous crap that got added along the way (and there was much crap that got added – I discover more and more as I go along) and finally, use the lessons learned and the gains achieved in their pure form. I have no desire, need, want or compulsion to be anything other than an independent sovereign being that operates (plays) in complete harmony and balance with other independent sovereign beings. In my journey since my awakening to the truth of scn back in Nov of last year, I have moved past the need to have a guru (or be one), group, goal, cause or purpose in life. Ha! All clearly recognized now as being key components of the trap.

  19. Filtered permalink
    July 24, 2010 2:19 pm

    “He (or she) hasn’t done GAT!” followed up by, such things as “how can they be certain?” or “how can his results be assured?” or “I’ve had to handle many of his auditing errors.” Whether it’s true or not. Certainly makes one more cautious about a person.

    “I’ve read his ethics files.” – DSA/HCO terminal to questioning public. This is usually followed up by looks or comments that steer the questioning persons imagination into just what is in those ethics files – it’s a nice mystery because you aren’t allowed to see them. Naturally people think of bad and VERY bad things and just wonder. The final result may be, “I better steer clear” or “maybe, you’re right” … the result being the person gets black PR’d and communication perhaps is reduced between the person in question and the one questioning the OFFICIAL TERMINAL on the cycle.

    “I have confidential issues on this subject that are OSA-only issues, I can assure you _______ [insert whatever you can imagine].” Heard commonly from DSA/OSA types and serves as a hidden data line and usually makes one just accept that what off-policy that is happening must be per some confidential LRH policy. (You assume it’s LRH, but it’s likely written by someone else).

  20. July 24, 2010 4:22 pm

    Excellent post, Jeff.

    Very clear, very well written.

    By the way, here’s one I’ve always loved:

    “We build a world with broken straws”.

    It works as not only a fantastic thought-stopper whenever you are faced with some colossal Church injustice or abuse, but also as a Hubbard-installed service fac you can dramatize, too. So you get two uses out of the same thought-stopping phrase!

  21. Suzanne permalink
    July 24, 2010 5:35 pm

    I have a little story relating to this post.

    Once, when I was at a farmer’s market with my 7-year-old son, we walked by a homeless man who was scratching a song out on his guitar. As usual, I quickly walked by with my “thought stopping” package that consisted of something like this:

    “He is a DB”
    “As a thetan, he is below 0.0 on the Tone Scale. Completely undeserving of help.”
    “Scientology helps the able become more able.”
    “He is an out-exchange parasite on society.”

    A few minutes later, my son asked me for a dollar. He said when he got home, he would work for it, so could he just please have a dollar! He was rather insistent but also seemed reluctant to tell me why he needed it so desperately at that moment. It was as if he thought I wouldn’t approve. He finally told me he wanted to “give it to that poor guy back there because it looked like he needed help.” Well, you could have just smacked me down right there. I sort of gasped and a deep wave of embarrassment and humiliation washed over me. That my young son, who didn’t have the “benefit” of all those years of Scientology training, would have such compassion for another human being left me speechless. I gave him the dollar and he ran back and proudly put it in the guy’s guitar case. He was bubbling with joy as he rushed back to me. At that moment, my heart cracked open. With a lump in my throat, I hugged my son tightly and realized what a callous human being I had become.

    I still get weepy when I think about it.

    This was the beginning of many dollars to the homeless over the years. Still, every time I give money to another, I give it “from the both of us”. My son is now an adult and still the same kind and compassionate person he always has been. I am eternally grateful to him for melting my icy Scientology heart and returning me to back to the state of “decent human being”.

    • Jeff permalink*
      July 24, 2010 7:46 pm

      Great story Suzanne. I had the same prejudice to overcome – when I first got out, I would not give money to homeless people. After a while, the conditioning broke down and I was able to see them as people. Many of them are – to the shame of our country – veterans. In Portland the homeless write and produce their own newspaper, called Street Roots, and any homeless person can make a bit of money by selling copies on the street. I always buy a copy and sometimes chat with the seller. I often think, “there, but for the grace of God, go I.”

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 24, 2010 8:49 pm

      Suzanne

      This just brought tears to my eyes. I have been there..

      But this gives me an additional insight, reading your story, because I know you personally, and I know that cold, heartless scientologist persona is not you, not at all. Which leads me to examine how many times I have done this over the years, when acting as a good and “trained” scientologist I failed to live up to my own code of honor as an individual. I have to look at how “being trained and able to handle life,” I was still so far below the lowest acceptable standard of a decent and compassionate human being that I couldn’t feel compassion for fellow being so completely down and out that he has to sleep in doorways and piss in alley.

      OK, this just brings up another “thought-stopper:” Humanoid. Used to describe things that humans like, that humans do, responses that humans have. As if responding to a situation as a human being is below that of a scientologist – like you might describe someone acting like a wild animal instead of a human. If I don’t like the way I’m being handled by an osabot or a regbot, or etc. etc., and I become pissed off or otherwise upset, I’m being humanoid. I’m having a humanoid reaction. Pfffffft. What bullshit.

      • sherrymk permalink
        July 25, 2010 6:25 am

        What say you? Are you not Homo Novis? Come on now….

    • sherrymk permalink
      July 25, 2010 6:31 am

      Thank you for that story Suzanne. I sure understand what it’s like to be in that mind set. Isn’t it grand just to be able to SEE people now? There was so much that I didn’t want to see before, or recognize and it was easy to just put a Scientology label on it and have it all explained away. Eh?

    • Freetothink permalink
      July 30, 2010 2:11 am

      Beautiful story! I can totally relate :-)

  22. Tintin permalink
    July 24, 2010 6:24 pm

    And for a public, one of the most common, and probably the most stupid one:

    “The money is never the problem”

    Typical use:
    Reg: “When do you plan to do your next step on the bridge?”
    Public: “Well it`s OT III and I don´t have the money yet, to do it.”
    Reg: “I have been helping people to get up the bridge for many years, and what I´ve seen the money is, never the problem”

    For me it was ALWAYS the money, of course it was with those sky high prices.

  23. Jack Airey permalink
    July 24, 2010 6:27 pm

    Jeff;

    I do read all your posts. I don’t comment much. Not sure why. After reading this post and all the comments I was struck with this lingering thought. No answer is necessary.

    You have proven over and over again how brilliant your thought processes are. My question is how in the hell did you stay in the SO for all those years? I suspect you were so busy at your job making the days rolls by resulting in years of service to help better mankind.

    I’m so, so glad you found the exit door and created this blog. I have a friend who has compiled many of your writings in gradient steps to give to folks he knows who will not look at the outpoints taking place within the church of Scientology.

    Stay the course….you have many people who admire what you do, because you do it so well.

    Good luck on your book sales and I hope to meet you someday and take one of those walks with you for ice cream….my treat.

    • Jeff permalink*
      July 24, 2010 7:49 pm

      Thanks Jack. My friend John Sanborn once said to me, “People think we’re dedicated. Actually, we’re just a bunch of stubborn SOBs.” I think I stayed so long because I’m a stubborn SOB. I look forward to meeting you one of these days.

      • Mike permalink
        July 24, 2010 9:58 pm

        Thank you for that- rings true for me!

  24. Aeolus permalink
    July 24, 2010 9:19 pm

    “You have to be OT to go OT”. I’m not sure if that’s a Hubbard quote, but I’ve been given that item more than once. The phrase could be used to encourage someone to stretch their causation beyond their current comfort level, or make more of an effort to overcome some barrier, which might be a good thing. In practice, every time I’ve heard that statement it was in the context of pressuring someone to take on additional debt, against their own sense of financial prudence. Also against every LRH advice on the subject of debt.

    • Synthia permalink
      July 25, 2010 3:45 pm

      So true. How OT is it to go into debt and struggle? Not very CAUSE over Matter, Energy, Space and Time. And….and this is a big AND… it supposedly is off policy or out tech on one’s finances to go into debt (how about stating the obvious) but 99.9% of the time that is COMPLETELY ignored.

  25. Jeff permalink*
    July 24, 2010 9:40 pm

    Just remembered another one: “human emotion and reaction” – as a bad thing.

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 24, 2010 11:48 pm

      Jeff

      I HATE THAT ONE!!! LOL!!!! OMG!!!

    • Aeolus permalink
      July 25, 2010 1:32 pm

      Oh right, HE & R. This was one of my earliest instances of cognitive dissonance with the church, which I now wish I’d paid more attention to. As an indicator of sanity, the more freely you can move on the Tone Scale, the better shape you are in. Ditto for your ability to communicate freely. On the other hand, you’re not supposed to show any “human emotion and reaction”. WTF?

  26. lunamoth permalink
    July 24, 2010 11:49 pm

    OK, probably the biggest thought stopper of all has to be “It’s LRH.”

    No more need be said. Just nod and smile, baby. Just nod and smile.

    lunamoth

    • Marta permalink
      July 26, 2010 1:35 am

      Lunamoth – Right on. That was going to be my post:

      LRH says…
      LRH said…
      HCOB…..states
      In HCOPL, FO, LRHED, et al……

      And it’s either get into a quoting war or shut the f*ck up, evidently.

      I too have worked to keep the scientologese out of my language, to try and keep my human voice, especially when joining the out-of-CoS blog sites. I’ve noticed, though, that steering clear of the speak has garnered me ( and others too) some responses, including quotes of chapter and verse, delivered with a flavor of “helping me understand”. Makes me chuckle, since I was an int level LRH Comm, quite practiced at finding ‘source references’ all by myself. So, there’s a mindset that if someone isn’t spouting LRH, they don’t know any LRH. Pffffft to that.

      In addition, I’ve recently been thinking that on the day when the ‘LRH says’ is used and heard more like ‘Gandhi put it like this’ (or another leader, philosopher, etc) , is perhaps when we, as a community of former “followers” will have turned the corner for real.

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 26, 2010 3:42 am

        All true, Marta.

        Funny about the assumption made about your training level based on your ashewing the sci slang. Reminds me that I make assumptions all the time when speaking to others on these blogs. It would be amusing to see how many of those are incorrect!

  27. Kingair350 permalink
    July 25, 2010 1:19 am

    Jeff
    You are helping many of us to regain our humanity through this and many other posts and for that I am grateful. Like some on this thread, I never ever want to experience the self-loathing and disgust for the contemptable and arrogant beingness i flowed toward those less fortunate than myself.

    I have felt for some time the reason the government and public haven’t taken direct and concrete action against the c of m, in spite of the vast amount of evidence against it is centered around the question, Why?

    The Church of Scientology and Scientologists, from their viewpoint, are nothing more than a whacked out, tiny cult in the throes of a terminal disease. They’re not worth the expense of another investigation and criminal proceeding – let them kill each other off as they have been doing
    for the last 30 years.

    So, in the end, it really is up to us to salvage the tech and it’s application,, along with as many others that we can rescue, as we have been doing with the help of Jeff, Marty, Mike, Steve, Amy, Dan and Haydn and so many
    others.

    I can’t even guess when the real tipping point will be, in what form it will take, where or who will be involved but after being a part of this group (in my way) I am utterly convinced and have unshakeble certainty, that this moment WILL occur. There is far too much truth being revealed.

  28. John Doe permalink
    July 25, 2010 2:11 am

    “Write a KR.” This one is used to respond to someone who is talking about anything that can be perceived as some type of criticism of the church, management, etc. It is one of the most basic ways the listener invokes crimestop for himself and attempts to exert crimestop for the speaker. Regardless of whether the person should write up a KR (Knowledge Report), the phrase is used as a Thought Stopper

    • Synthia permalink
      July 25, 2010 3:40 pm

      John Doe,

      Yes, “Write a KR” is a big one. It is so unsafe in so many instances to write a KR and so often nothing happens and the one writing become the target. Thought-stopping indeed.

      Synthia

    • Aeolus permalink
      July 26, 2010 12:48 am

      This “write a KR” response can get quite robotic. I’ve heard more than one person say that the people going to the Saint Pete Times and other media with information about David Miscavige deserve their SP declares because they should have handled it with KRs instead. And this has been said specifically about Marty Rathbun, who was DM’s immediate junior. The highest post available for routing an out-tech or out policy report at that time was held by Marty himself, and assuming the SO1 line was still functioning, that would go to, you guessed it, Miscavige.

      Anybody smarter than a 5th grader should be able to see that this dog wasn’t ever gonna hunt, but my thoroughly thought-stopped friends insist that writing reports was, and is, the only valid way to solve the problem of their dictatorial sociopathic leader. In one case I followed this with an invitation for them to see the KRs from Mary Jo and Sherry K, but the person refused to look because they just knew it would be “entheta”.

    • Marta permalink
      July 26, 2010 1:38 am

      Yes! A thought stopper and Shut up, End of Conversation.

    • Freetothink permalink
      July 30, 2010 2:15 am

      “Write a KR” is the Scn equivalent of “talk to the hand” LOL

  29. July 25, 2010 2:31 am

    Not sure if it’s been mentioned in the comments but I really really really hate the term “WOG”.

    Hate to say it but LRH started it……neener neener neener!

    IO

    • Synthia permalink
      July 25, 2010 3:37 pm

      Idle Org,

      I find the word “wog” demeaning and those who use the word sound arrogant, ignorant and robotic all at the same time. Not very friendly. The prevalent use of that term in Scientology shows how very un-Ghandi like this movement is and instead it ends up being, on the whole, vindictive and nasty and cold as the push to make cold hard cash and to turn every Scientologist into a reg, sucks the humanity out of us and makes us think that saying things like, “Wow, he seemed pretty smart for a wog.” is an enlightened observation. Please.

      Synthia

    • Cool Observer permalink
      July 25, 2010 8:17 pm

      Idle Org

      What about Rraw meat, mark, quarry (for celebs), run-of -the-mill human being or …wait for it: Common, garden-variety humanoid? Andthe term BODY ROUTER oozes contempt for the unwashed.
      Mankind’s best friend didn’tmince words…but I don’t think he used ‘wog’ as a racial slur, it was short for pollywog, a nickname for inexperienced sailors who hadn’t crossed the equator yet.

    • Marta permalink
      July 26, 2010 2:12 am

      IO,

      Right! It’s a label that sums up a whole person in one word, like any other. In fact, I’ve really grown weary of all kinds of labeling. Like “he’s an asshole”. How about we label the behavior instead….he sure did act like an asshole, eh?

      We’re all capable of behaving badly (some of us do so more often and much worse than others: DM). I would even rather refer to Miscavage as behaving like a stark ravainf mad man, or acting like a little Hitleresque, or some such, than an SP. Not to minimize, at all. But we could even say some one is psychotic, rather than a psychotic.

      Labels are dismissive and have a way of triggering our not so nice human behaviors of prejudice so we can justify behaving badly toward one another.

      The past 18 years I’ve worked in and around communities and community-building. One of the things I’ve learned is that every so often it’s a good idea to review the language culture to find what has become “dirty language”. These are the words and terms that may have started out as a descriptor or time saving term or phrase, and later morphs into a derogatory term that separates the user and gives them altitude. From there it’s a slippery slope to abuse, harassment, etc.

      The Indie/Outie movement already has some slang slipping in there, like bot, scilon, koolaid drinker, etc. It takes more time and thought to continue to respect the person, separate out and call the behavior and discuss that.

      Thanks so much, Jeff. What a terrific space this is to communicate in and what an awesome group of folks that post here. I am so grateful to have come through to here, alive and engaged in this process.

      • Synthia permalink
        July 26, 2010 4:13 am

        Marta,

        This was so beautifully written. I agree with everything you said here. I like the new term “dirty language”. That is something, certainly, to watch out for and I concur that we should point out the objectionable behavior vs. calling names. It’s worth the extra time and in the end results in a much higher quality discussion.

        Love, Synthia

      • John Doe permalink
        July 27, 2010 4:20 am

        Very good points, Marta. When you say someone is “acting like an asshole”, you still, via language, leave intact their humanity; however,when saying someone “is an asshole”, well, you removed their humanity. (well, almost all of it…)

      • Freetothink permalink
        July 30, 2010 2:18 am

        You are so right my beautiful friend :-)

      • Just Me permalink
        August 3, 2010 3:25 pm

        So well said, Marta.

        I have done that of late — slipped into “dirty language.” Especially when I’m tired or exasperated.

        Because of your post, I’ll be more aware of communicating better / more clearly / less ad hom.

        Thank you!

        Just Me

    • Heather G permalink
      July 31, 2010 2:16 pm

      I hate the term “2D”! It’s so clinical and devoid of colour. Why use such a term when there are so many wonderful alternatives: boyfriend, beloved, lover, husband, best friend, snookums (!) – whatever.

      • Just Me permalink
        August 3, 2010 7:39 pm

        Heather G,

        I agree that “2D” is a rather cold term by which to refer to a specific person (“Joe”) or role (“husband”).

        However, “the 2D” seems an appropriate term (at least to me) when discussing one’s entire second dynamic with other Scientologists who more or less agree on what that second dynamic means.

        For example, “2D” a handy term I use when considering how balanced my energies are among the various aspects of my life. I suppose “family” is the single best synonym for “2D” (as I’ve come to use that term), although actually “sex and family” or “sex and romance and family” or … well, you get my drift.

        As I always view these things, the terms and categories and structures we utilize should be those we find convenient and helpful. As powerful as language is, I’m not confused that “the term” is the same as “the thing” the term describes.

        In fact, when working and interacting in teams with people I haven’t worked with before or don’t know very well, some of the most amazing confusions get created when “we all know” what X means, but then discover halfway through the project she thought document meant hard copy and he thought it meant digital copy and they thought it meant the document in this folder and those other guys thought it meant the language in a single page on the Web site, etc.

        Ai yi yi yi yi! Language — how did human beings get so far with so few definitional skills and so little concern about defining the most basic terms we’re using?!?

        Best,

        Just Me

  30. July 25, 2010 1:59 pm

    How about this one:

    “Man can not be trusted with justice.”

    Any instance of justice throughout human history has been created by Man, yet Man can not be trusted with justice.

    Nice one, eh?

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 25, 2010 9:42 pm

      …especially since, as it turns out, it’s the church of scienotology that can’t be trusted with justice.

      Hah. What do you know.

    • Marta permalink
      July 26, 2010 2:21 am

      The world (universe, life, et al) according to Ron.

  31. Synthia permalink
    July 25, 2010 3:58 pm

    In the end, the process of thought stopping turns people’s regular conversations into an introverted mess where people feel obligated to interject things like “I don’t mean to be a third party, but…” even though they are just speaking their truth as they observe it, but their own comm smashes back at them for inspection to make sure they are being good Scientologists.

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 26, 2010 9:33 pm

      Yes, it does. Introverted is exactly the right word. How many times have you heard a sci sneer at “political correctness?” It’s the same thing, I’d say.

  32. Ho Tai permalink
    July 25, 2010 4:21 pm

    I remember “counter-intention” as a show-stopper. If someone said something and it was critized as counter-intention or CI, end of discussion.

  33. July 25, 2010 6:33 pm

    Jeff, I’m back to let you know that I am most definitely getting a lot of mileage out of this topic of thought-stopping. It’s turned out to be quite the treasure chest! For sure, I am going to have to compose a similiar blog to post on my local community online website. And doing so should be quite interesting. It will certainly disarm some and free others.

    This blog sort of reminds me of watching one of those programs on TV where, via the video cameras, they take you into what appears to be a immaculate clean hotel room. Then, someone switches on a black light and instantly this plethora of excretement that’s been, in some way or another, spewed over practically every exposed surface of the room is exposed. Well Jeff, your the guy that has turned on the black light. And who would’ve thunk that thought-stoppers show up in a black light!! Just like that excretement in the hotel room, those damn thought-stoppers are everywhere!

    Then, as always, there is this wonderful group of commenters that frequent your blog posts and the process of commenting, especially on a blog topic like this one, very much reminds me of folks digging and screening for diamonds in Arkansas’s diamond mine (field). And I must say, there are some remarkable diamonds (thought-stoppers) being exposed by these commenters. And each diamond exposed includes a sign. Huh? Watch the vid. Then you’ll understand.

    Perhaps when we’ve hit a flat point in exposing thought-stopppers, we can move over to the flip side and take a crack at illuminating some thought-starters. Just a thought.

    • Marta permalink
      July 26, 2010 2:25 am

      Hoo-haa! Good dose, there. Love the metaphor – just dirty enough to carry a punch! :)

  34. July 25, 2010 8:12 pm

    “Theta” = “The energy of thought and life. Theta is reason, serenity, stability, happiness, cheerful emotion, persistence and the other factors which man ordinarily considers desirable. The complete description of theta is contained in Science of Survival” (“State of Man Congress” Glossary)
    “Thetan” = “The personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man” (the same source)

    Here are some of major thought-stoppers I can think of:

    “I’m a Thetan”, “You are a Thetan”, “He/She is a Thetan”, “We are Thetans”, “They are Thetans”
    – Production-wise (and Production, esp. to make money, is the key operation in $cn) it means that Scn’st should stop “dramatizing” and “make it go right” (like “get stats up”, “get it done, done! DONE!, “get one’s targets met no matter what”, “take your next step NOW!”…)
    It reads as “You are Cause, don’t be Effect!” which reads us “Stop whining, get above the bank!” which reads as “Your complaints that you “can’t” are for the birds. Nobody here believes your pretenses that you can’t.” – because “You are a Thetan!”… and “Thetan is not a whimp” (see above defs)
    Recognizing oneself and others as “a Thetan” effectively stops one from objectively evaluating and estimating oneself’s/others’s actual lacks and merits, powers and weaknesses, health conditions… and gets him going towards what needs to be done for the good of Scientology/Management/Hubbard.
    Example: senior citizens running on RPF on the same terms as youngsters, or women carrying heavy loads just like men, or children/teens working full-time. – They are all “Thetans’ (that’s what they believe. It’s their undestructable Reality)

    “Hubbard’s words are religious scriptures” stops one from any questioning or critical thinking about Hubbard’s texts/statements (no matter how vague or doubtful they may seem). They aren’t to be judged/evaluated! Why? -”because they are Sacred, for Gawd’s sakes! That’s why!”

    “Hubbard is The Source” stops one from correctly evaluating and establishing one’s own position within the framework of Scientology. Whether one is willing or not, he is firmly fixed as a never-changing receipt-point in relation to THE Source. “Being connected to the Source” means that one receives more and more of emanated from the source, and never the other way around… It makes one what? – disconnected from real world around him. Why? – because one has more and more of HIS vision of things, and being connected to only one person’s vision makes a bubble around one, seeing things from “The source’s perspective”, thus having effectively replaced one’s own visions about life, oneself, other people, physical world, sciences, education, art, labor, grooming, etiquette, cleaning, PR, marketing, economics… Hubbard as “The Source” said about EVERYTHING. It makes him (for a Scn’st) The Source of any and every knowledge there is.
    If this last one is not true for you, fine. Just think of a person who DAILY “connects to The Source.” The more he does it the “better” it gets (Not).

    • July 25, 2010 8:24 pm

      Quotes above, from everyday life of Scn’st, may sound harmless to an outside observer.
      Yes, those words are harmless – until they are applied. Applied daily, heavily, as the ONLY answers to any and all the questions to/about yourself/others/Hubbard/Management/Scientology.

      And, after all, Scientology is all about APPLICATION of data.
      Any “important data” is chinese schooled, drilled, demo’ed, clay demo’ed, starrtate checked out, practiced…

      It’s results of application of data that I refer to… not to the fallacy of the data itself.

  35. July 25, 2010 9:18 pm

    This post is not about thought-stoppers or thought-terminating cliches but rather about thought-terminating technique.
    This is a psychological technique of talking to a girl to seduce her, and used as an advanced pick-up tool.

    You start out your story to a selected “victim” by telling about A. Then, in the middle of it, you smoothly shift to a B. Then, without finishing B. again smoothly and lovingly to a C… You finish story “C”. Then go back to finish story “B”. Then return to and finish telling story “A”. By that time she’s all yours. A… > B… > C. > B. > A. The key is being smooth and groovy all the way throughout.
    You might have seen yourself that continuing your story in a “by the way” way, you may get a person looking at you with great awe.
    Why does it have such an effect? – Listener is lost for words. He can’t connect the whole story into one comprehensible message from you but you now seem as a great person to listen to.
    He/she WILL remember the bits and pieces of data you gave him. But not the whole story (of course! there were 3-in-1 there) . And he/she will have a hard time to figure out and state concisely (if someone asks to do that) what that whole story was all about. But that’s not your concern… since your only concern is to get laid.

    To the point:
    Have you noticed LRH used this in his lectures? – I have.
    Has it happened to you that you can’t single out the overall message of the lecture? – It happened to me many times. I could get star-rate checkouts passed, demo and clay demo pieces of data, could tell verbatim some “important data” from them… but couldn’t place it into my head as a single message. Yet, I was in awe of “this great mind of great man”.

    To compare, when you watch some good Hollywood film (like 3-hour long ones “Green Mile”
    or “Avatar”), you CAN state in not so many words what the Single Message out of this film you got.
    From many Hubbard’s lectures I listened to, I still can’t.
    Yet, I *memorized” well much of the data but not the Message of this or that lecture.

    Is it real to you as a thought-stopper which gets you into absorbing-everything-he-said mode, and away from thinking clearly and freely about the subject matter of a lecture?

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 25, 2010 11:32 pm

      It’s called rambling, VaD. It happens when you have not prepared your remarks beforehand. LRH rambled. I often had the feeling when listening to one of his “lectures” that he was making it up
      as he went a long. Seems I could be right.

      • Marta permalink
        July 26, 2010 2:28 am

        :). Chuckling, hehehehe

    • July 26, 2010 6:59 am

      Lunamoth,
      It’s rambling all right – when one looks at lecture’s face value.
      When one tries to make sense out of it, think it over, think it thru, think with it, it has to be broken down… because by the middle of a lecture LRH talks something different or hardly relevant to what the title of the lecture states.
      It’s the function of this rambling I was talking about…. what it DOES (such “learning”) rather than what it IS.
      It does mess up the line of one’s thought (which is usually clear at the beginning).
      And how this confusion by the end is explained? – “You went past MUs. Go back and clear them.”

      “Bulk of Scientology and most important discoveries are recorded in my lectures” – LRH

      Have you ever wondered that it’s way easier to understand and relate to someone else’s religious/spiritual statements without demonstrating and clearing words than LRH’s ones?
      – I have. And it prevented me from learning about life from others… until I stopped to be in awe of LRH’s ways (techniques!) to dish out his “material” and “discoveries”.

      ***

      Now I’m a Transurfer. Not a Scientologist.
      With Transurfing alone I can see much of Hubbard’s mind-boggling “spew” thru… as well as see what’s going on in and around Scientology (even on this blog). I see why people are like that about Scientology (those who are in, those who are out, those who are around).
      It’s all perfectly and simply explained by Zeland in his first book: “”The Space of Variations.” (it has NOTHING to do with Scientology whatsoever but explains it’s essense and effects).

      I recommend Transurfing to everyone of you… minimally, to get done and over with Scientology. http://zelands.com/

      I believe that Jeff’s views make him a good Transurfer.

      At the bottom of this page: http://zelands.com/e_book1.htm you can download and read one important chapter of the book. It explains Pendulums and its swings, and you will see how it works about Scientology.
      ;)

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 26, 2010 9:38 pm

        Very interesting, VaD. Thank you.

  36. Revenimus permalink
    July 25, 2010 9:41 pm

    “He or she is green…

    “Many are called few are chosen

    “My meter doesn’t lie (but you do)

    “You’re out ethics, or you’ve got overts!”

    I remember talking to a scientologist who argued that “we’re putting in ethics in Iraq” and that he approved of the war – I told him that he was crazy and that the very aims of scientology are “a world without war…” And the argument started getting really heated with me pointing out that mass killing people with tons of bombs has nothing to do with “putting in ethics” and he successfully thought stopped the whole argument by saying “we just need to clear the planet”. I still thought he was a moron.

    I think you’ve shown us a dark side of scientology that has been going for a long time and has brainwashed thousands.

    What about the “ack” that is just another way of telling one to “shut the hell up!” The one that abruptly ends the comm cycle, and leaves one just a little bit miffed. Yes the stupid tone 40 “Got it!” (I swear the next time I hear that … It won’t be pretty)

    Jeff, your post is one of the most significant and important ones I’ve come across, I’ve had thousands of thought – stopping experiences through a lifetime of being a scientologist and enough of these has lead us to make some pretty aberrated moves.

    But freedom of thought represents a threat to Herr Miscavige doesn’t it?

  37. July 25, 2010 9:48 pm

    And the one that’s a thought-stopper for an opponent critical of Scientology, “What are your crimes?”

  38. lunamoth permalink
    July 25, 2010 10:54 pm

    It would appear that thought-stoppers are also communication stoppers. Looks like there has been a great deal of communication freed up by peeling off those little buggers.

  39. July 25, 2010 11:49 pm

    One that stops one from thinking, “Thinking is low on the Tone Scale”
    …and from having doubts, “Doubt condition/formula” (“When one cannot make up one’s mind as to an individual, a group, org or project, a condition of Doubt exists”) which cannot be done by itself but a part of “ethics formulas scale” and below Liability condition (unpleasant series of steps to be done after “going out of Doubt” ). “Below Non-Existence there is the condition of Liability. The being has ceased to be simply nonexistent as a team member and has taken on the color of an enemy”. Easier to stop doubting than go through that intimidating crap (again).

  40. Doc "Smith" permalink
    July 26, 2010 1:12 am

    This is a great topic, but don’t forget it can happen anywhere. In blogs and comments I often see (and even write) Koolaid drinker, robot, DM-bot, and although they are true in some instances any use of generalities and labels can lead to this type of thought-stopping. Many have expressed that those left in the church are not worth helping as they are not looking, but as of last May I was in that category and I’m sure all here were ‘IN’ some Scn type situation at some point in their life. I still know good people that I will help to ‘escape’ if I can get them to look.

    This post and several of the recent ones may be very helpful in getting others to look. The one on mental manipulation was also fabulous and I’ve kept a copy to show to others.

  41. AMY'S MOM permalink
    July 26, 2010 1:34 am

    Hi Jeff!

    This subject “THOUGHT-STOPPING” is one of the most thought-provoking posts I’ve read on any Blog. It was a real moaner with the realization of how I had fallen into the miriad of traps on this subject. I’ve been “out” for 6 years and thought I wasn’t using the vinacular any longer, but, when the mirror was held up in front of me I had to look. OMG! Now feeling more free than ever before.

    It’s also part of the outside world and I’ll be keeping an eye and ear out to ensure I don’t fall into any similar traps out here. Thank you, my friend.

  42. PlainOldThetan permalink
    July 26, 2010 2:41 am

    || “He’s got overts.” The perfect phrase to dismiss anyone who is critical or who
    || complains. You don’t have to listen to or understand their complaint. You don’t
    || have to think about why they might be complaining. You don’t need to worry about
    || possible conditions that might bring about complaints. The handy phrase explains
    || everything, and you don’t have to think any more about it.

    And, according to the works of L. Ron Hubbard, this is also ILLEGAL, and telling someone “You have overts” or “You have withholds” classifies as ILLEGAL AUDITING.

    Look at HCOB 2 January 1971 ILLEGAL AUDITING (IX:217).

  43. July 26, 2010 6:05 am

    How ’bout “You don’t understand!” used as an argument in discussion to a non-Scientologist:

    “Tom Cruise on Matt Lauer: “No Matt. You don’t understand. I do.”

    Guillaume Leserve to Anderson Cooper: “You don’t understand.”

    Tommy Davis: You don’t get it. here’s the thing.”

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/cnn-ac-360-part-iii/#comment-17797

  44. July 26, 2010 6:23 am

    And then this one, “Scientology ALWAYS works, and it ALWAYS help people when used properly” (paraphrased right out of KSW #1)
    Argument: “It didn’t work”
    Answer: “You’re doing it wrong”, “You didn’t use the right piece of tech”
    Argument: “I did it all by the book”
    Answer: “*-rate KSW # 1, and clay demo points 1 thru 10.”

    ***
    There was the whole thread here “Understanding Scientology-Speak”

    http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/understanding-scientology-speak/

    where many contributors explicated plenty of inside Scio lingo. It might be interesting to view them from the perspective of having possibly been/become thought-stoppers. Using many of those terms in the statements to others and oneself definitely prevents from thinking clearly, to say the least.

  45. July 26, 2010 7:11 am

    I dare say that all Scientology’s doctrine, system of beliefs, indoctrination, therory and practice is designed in a way so as to serve the followers as “Ultimate answers” where one doesn’t need to think for himself anymore and doesn’t need to question things in life.
    It’s a complete circular thought-stopping system turning one who has questions outwards inwards.
    People got with Scientology what they wanted – not to think.

    imho

  46. Greg permalink
    July 26, 2010 8:43 am

    How about “There must be some out-tech on his case” to explain someone having a psychotic break or otherwise going nuts?

    Or hey Jeff, how about this one… “This crap doesn’t make any sense!!!”

    Thought stopper: “Oh there must be a misunderstood somewhere around here…that’s the only reason I wouldn’t get it!”

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 26, 2010 9:39 pm

      HA!

  47. July 26, 2010 4:47 pm

    Irrelevant statement:

    I see clearly that since I started reading Jeff’s blog my intelligence level (don’t know about IQ – don’t care to test it again) has risen quite much.

    Relevant quote (posted by someone earlier):

    “You have begun to see that an intelligent mind is a mind which is not satisfied with explanations, with conclusions; nor is it a mind that believes, because belief is again another form of conclusion.
    An intelligent mind is an inquiring mind, a mind that is watching, learning, studying.
    Which means what?
    That there is intelligence only when there is no fear, when you are willing to rebel, to go against the whole social structure in order to find out what God is, or to discover the truth of anything.
    Intelligence is not knowledge. If you could read all the books in the world it would not give you intelligence. Intelligence is something very subtle; it has no anchorage. It comes into being only when you understand the total process of the mind… your own mind.
    So intelligence comes into being with the understanding of yourself; and you can understand yourself only in relation to the world of people, things and ideas.
    Intelligence is not something that you can acquire, like learning; it arises with great revolt, that is, when there is no fear – which means, really, when there is a sense of love. “
    J. Krishnamurti

    Thank you, Jeff!
    Thank you, everyone who posted and presented to the world his own vision!

    • Jeff permalink*
      July 26, 2010 4:56 pm

      Great quote, thank you for posting it.

  48. July 26, 2010 10:21 pm

    I can’t tell what’s better: Jeff’s awesome article or the myriad of awesome comments following.

    Either way, this is a fascinating read, without a doubt.

    While I haven’t read each and every comment, I have glossed over and stopped at numerous locations to see how the flow is going.

    That said, I’m not sure if it’s come up but one thing I’ve observed is that a couple of local opinion leaders I know, who have been declared for having doubts and reservations about dear leader, are now being called “squirrels” by the ethics terminals when showing “reports” to local public.

    This is to camouflage the fact that the opinion leaders have been declared, because pretty much anyone who knows them knows it’s complete bullshit.

    The “ethics” folks can’t even confront the effects of their own creation. Or should I say, dramatization.

    “Squirrel”… Generalization. Dead-agent tactic. Persona non grata. Ethics blinder.

    Thought-stopper!

  49. brendon permalink
    July 27, 2010 6:17 am

    I always thought the most ironic ad campaign from the COS was “Think For Yourself.” It struck me that was the one thing the COS didn’t want you to actually do.

    • Gary permalink
      July 28, 2010 10:12 pm

      LOL…. oh so true! Lately moreso than ever!

  50. Freetothink permalink
    July 30, 2010 2:27 am

    I think this is just a bunch of “natter”. You guys all have MU’s! ;-)

    Truly you are all fantastic! Thanks for giving me so much food for thought.

    Love, Marie-Joe

  51. I-see-it-clearly permalink
    July 31, 2010 10:50 am

    “What are you afraid of?”

    Hey, if I can’t force you to believe I can levitate ashtrays and stop tsunamis with my amzing tales of wins, then lets question your integrity, your courage and open mindedness. There must be something wrong with YOU. Right?

  52. Just Me permalink
    August 3, 2010 9:24 pm

    Interesting discussion.

    when I look back over my life, I am astonished at how I have moved from “Look how much I know now” to “Look how much I’ve learned since then” to “Gosh, and now I know even more” to “Gee, I didn’t know anything before” to “(blush) Maybe I better just shut up and not pretend like I’m so all-fired smart, since I’m not nearly as clued-in as I’m going to become in the future.”

    The more time I spend reading and commenting on Scientology-related blogs, the less I realize I KNOW. And the more comfortable I become NOT KNOWING.

    Lately, I’ve been more comfortable just looking and observing. Not always judging. Not always criticizing. (Still doing that somewhat, you realize, but a bit less.)

    I’m almost 65 years old. I can’t even imagine how smart I’m going to become (i.e., how much I’m going to NOT KNOW) by the time I’m 90 years old!

    Just Me

Trackbacks

  1. Thought Stopping - Why We Protest | Activism Forum
  2. Musí Scientologická církev přežít? « Vít Profant
  3. Talking the Talk « Becoming Free to Shine…

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 853 other followers

%d bloggers like this: