Exactly.VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:
Veda suffers from TWO POLED THINKING, the logic of the fanatic.
Hi.
It’s Alanzo from Alanzo’s Blog.
I have decided to do a second video and I wore the same sweatshirt because Dave bought it for me. And it was just so sweet when he bought it. It was like a scene out of “Pretty Woman”. He wants me to wear it so I’m wearing it. I might wear it in all my videos, I don’t know. I won’t be wearing any of the Armani suits he bought me, though.
Today I’m gonna continue on with my series about fanatics and about how anti-scientology is a fundamentally fanatical ideological mindset. It isn’t a real thing. It’s got a lot of different reasons for it to exist, but it is made up of pieces. This mindset is made up of pieces very much like the Scientology mindset is made up of pieces. So is the anti-scientology mindset.
And one of those pieces – just today, okay, on Mike Rinder’s blog, Terra Incognita… incognito… I can’t remember how to say his name…incognito-I don’t know. He wrote a blog post called “Two Types of Ex’s” which, of course, reminds you very much of “Two Types of People” by L Ron Hubbard.
The completely false logical fallacy of L Ron Hubbard’s “Two Types of People” is that there aren’t two types of people – there are many many types of people. Ron said there’s good people – social personalities – and antisocial personalities. And antisocial personalities want to destroy people. He said they’re ‘currently devoted to the destruction of others’. Well okay, so this is wrong, see. This is just flat wrong. There’s a billion – actually there’s seven billion types of people – right now on earth. And they’re all different.
When you type them into two types, that’s something YOU’RE doing, okay? That doesn’t exist in the real world. You’re using this classification system, this 2-poled classification system, for you to try to understand the infinite multitude of the reality that’s right in front of you.
Okay? That’s something you’re doing, that’s not something that actually exists. So that’s what Ron wanted people to do, and this is what Mike Rinder obviously wants people to do.
These two types of Scientologists: one of them still believed in the tech, and the other – they don’t believe in the tech.
First of all, there are different parts of the tech. There’s different parts – all kinds of differences – single things. You can’t do this 2 poled thing. 2 poled thinking is logically fallacious.
This isn’t only anti Scientologists who do this. We have a two-party system in the United States where it’s Democrats versus Republicans. There’s all kinds of stupidities that come out of this 2 poled thinking.
This is what happens in anti-scientology and it’s part of being a fanatic, as well.
Where you see somebody who makes an opinion that’s, let’s say, if you’re an anti Scientologist and you see somebody make a statement that is neutral about Scientology like, I don’t know. Like volunteer ministers. They pay their way to these disaster sites and they give out blankets and they give out water and they give touch assists. They also do whatever they can to help. It’s a disaster site, okay? There’s a bunch of stuff that needs to be done there.
They’re there. Volunteer ministers are THERE. They’re doing it.
Now they might be there to sell Scientology – they probably are. They are giving touch assist – which are a highly questionable activity. But then again, sometimes they work, too, right?
So this kind of neutral viewpoint about Scientology – this is very threatening to an anti Scientologist when they see somebody say something like that. “Oh you still believe in the tech!” So, in Mike Rinder’s view that means that you’re one of two types of Exes. You still believe in the tech!
It could be a matter of belief. It’s just I’m not at war anymore. It’s possible to not be at war with Scientology, your past self as a Scientologist, with the church, and even with David Miscavige. It’s possible to not be at war with him.
If we can’t find any crimes that he’s done since Mary Sue – and he didn’t even do those crimes – if we can’t find any crimes, should we really be calling him a criminal? It has not been established that David Miscavige is a criminal.
So why is he the enemy? Well he causes disconnection and he causes all kinds of things that are morally outrageous, of course. But they’re not illegal so you can’t call him a criminal.
See? You can’t call him a criminal. It’s just a logic thing, a frickin logic thing!
Now when and if we were able to find some kind of criminal evidence, and it’s able to be prosecuted in a court of law, and he is actually convicted – we can call him a criminal then okay? Totally Okay to call him a criminal then.
Those are the standards I have.
Where does that fit in the two types of people? Oh Scientologists! I’m a Scientologist because there’s only two choices, right? Because I said something neutral, because I had some kind of a logical progression and certain standards that I applied to whether I was gonna call somebody a criminal or not – that makes me a Scientologist. Wrong!
Wrong!
It’s possible to have a third position that isn’t on this continuum – this 2 poled continuum – at all. It’s actually possible to have a fourth, and a fifth, and a sixth, and a seventh. It’s possible to have seven billion different views on Scientology.
So this 2 poled thinking – it’s part of being a fanatic.
I believe that Terra Incognita and Mike Rinder and Leah Remini and Chris Shelton and Karen de la Carriere – they were all trained in the Sea Org to within an inch of their lives to think like this. And they haven’t actually broke it down yet. They haven’t actually realized yet this is what they’re doing, that’s all they’ve done.
They’ve dumped the Scientology mindset and they have adopted the anti-scientology mindset. And they were running those beliefs in Scientology really hard, and now they’re running these anti-scientology beliefs really hard.
It takes a long time to recognize the logical fallacies in your own belief system. It takes a bunch of work that most people simply can’t do. There are some people who are not capable of self-examination, of really reflecting on their assumptions, and the claims they’ve accepted. They aren’t capable of going out and being willing to look for evidence which supports those claims they’ve accepted, and go through the process of realizing that “okay and I didn’t know enough about this situation to be able to even have an opinion on it. But I still have an opinion on it. But I don’t know shit about it.” See?
This is one of the things that happens when you start to question your own beliefs. You begin to kind of grow up.
And so there have been a lot of people who have simply flipped. They were a Scientologist and now they’re an anti Scientologist. They’ve just flipped one ideology for another and they’re still running it just as hard as they did when they ran the Scientology ideology.
They’re ideologues.
They’re fanatics.
And that’s what I’m talking about.
And this 2 poled thinking thing is a big part of being a fanatic.
Thank you very much.
Over and out.
Ok. Now I'm a bit jealous. I always wanted to be worthy of a crusade meself someday. I guess today is not the day.
LOL, did you even read what you quoted?The Standard Anti-Scientology fanatic reasoning: Because there is so little GOOD in Scientology, or because the GOOD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology ALL BAD.
This is the 2-poled flip of a Scientologist's reasoning: Because there is so much GOOD in Scientology, and because there is so little BAD, or the BAD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology is ALL GOOD.
Veda, as an anti-Scientologist, is just as incapable of telling the truth about Scientology as a Scientologist is.
This is just silly. Anyway...The Standard Anti-Scientology fanatic reasoning: Because there is so little GOOD in Scientology, or because the GOOD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology ALL BAD.
This is the 2-poled flip of a Scientologist's reasoning: Because there is so much GOOD in Scientology, and because there is so little BAD, or the BAD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology is ALL GOOD.
Veda, as an anti-Scientologist, is just as incapable of telling the truth about Scientology as a Scientologist is.
Scientologists believe that because so much of Scientology is GOOD, then the little bits that are BAD are not important.
Therefore, Scientologists say that Scientology is ALL GOOD.
Anti-Scientologists believe that because so much of Scientology is BAD, then the little bits that are GOOD are not important.
Therefore, Anti-Scientologists say that Scientology is ALL BAD.
If the truth of anything is both the good and the bad, you can see that both Scientologists and Anti-Scientologists are equally unable to tell the truth about Scientology.
Shocking conclusion.This post is complete bullshit. There are threads after threads that Veda started discussing positive Scientology bait. And note that it is bait so that the "good" of Scientology is 1.1...which makes it bad.
Making blanket negative statements about every bit and piece of Scientology may feel good, but it may also drive a person further into Scientology.
*
You're having some kind of mental block.Lol. I was so intrigued by the first clause of Veda's sentence here. Then the comma happened.
Scientologists don't generally make blanket negative statements about scientology Veda, just as anti scientologists don't generally make blanket positive statements about it.
These are ideological mindsets that are highly predictable.
And you are free of an idealogical mindset? LOLLol. I was so intrigued by the first clause of Veda's sentence here. Then the comma happened.
Scientologists don't generally make blanket negative statements about scientology Veda, just as anti scientologists don't generally make blanket positive statements about it.
These are ideological mindsets that are highly predictable.
Never claimed that.And you are free of an idealogical mindset? LOL
Alanzo: No, of course, but mine is better!
I get it. I don't use the term "tribalism" in my life though I am aware of hooking into groups and ideas they may be strongly attached to.Never claimed that.
I'm just not in either one of those ideological mindsets any more.
When I got out of the scientology mindset, I wrote about it.
When I got out of the anti-scientology mindset, I wrote about it.
These days, I'm finding that the concept of tribalism and the view of human beings as a tribal species explains both scientologists and anti scientologists in ways that are much more grounded in reality than the anticult movement ideology can explain.
Tribalism also explains Libtards and Trumpdummies, US Marines and Phi Beta Kappa fraternities.
I don't know what ideological mindset I'm in these days. All I know is that whenever I feel one creeping in, alarm bells go off for me and I start examining the tribalistic emotions and assumptions that rise up in my mind.
For me, who was both in scientology and anti-scientology, that is an improvement.
Social influence refers to the way in which individuals change their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment. It takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Typically social influence results from a specific action, command, or request, but people also alter their attitudes and behaviors in response to what they perceive others might do or think. [1] In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.[2]
Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity.
Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately.
Also note that if you compare Hubbard's characteristics of an anti-social personality with properly-researched ones (Hare), there is no overlap except for lack of remorse. For example:Is this the right place to point out that SP does not equate to anti-social. An SP is someone who speaks truth about Scientology and L Ron Hubbard.
No response from Alanzo.You're having some kind of mental block.
The idea is that there are some, in and of themselves, true and/or good things in Scientology, and there are, also, some good people in Scientology - people with good intentions.
Scientology Inc. uses good people and good ideas.
To not recognize this is to Scientology Inc.'s advantage.
A non Scientologist telling a newbie (or an about-to-become) Scientologist that it's "all bad," etc., will only convince him that the non Scientologist is crazy, or worse, thus will probably push him further into Scientology Inc., and will make it difficult or impossible to coax him away from Scientology Inc.
That was the message of the little cartoon.
Very simple.
David Miscavige's Scientology is not a nice thing. It's commits fraud, it abuses adults and also abuses children.
If a person is curious about auditing, then there are places outside Scientology Inc. where the person can have his curiosity satisfied without the drawbacks of involvement with Scientology Inc.
How is this hatred and bigotry?
It's not.
So what's your problem?
Thankyou sweetpea! I'm enjoying life and have come a long way doing the deep personal work us kids of scientology need to do to make sense of the world and ourselves. Drama, blah blah, who did what to who is just so ... culty. My views are similar to Glenda's and I have found we need to look within to find the reasons we were trapped, abused and so on. And most of all, live a happy and normal life.Hello FTS,
I"ve seen you are here.
Even though you stay away of this drama, which is the right thing to do, I hope you are doing well, and just wanted to say hello and hopefuly health and life is good To you.
Nice to know you are doing fine FTSThankyou sweetpea! I'm enjoying life and have come a long way doing the deep personal work us kids of scientology need to do to make sense of the world and ourselves. Drama, blah blah, who did what to who is just so ... culty. My views are similar to Glenda's and I have found we need to look within to find the reasons we were trapped, abused and so on. And most of all, live a happy and normal life.
I've been reading some of the posts here and remembering how much I enjoyed the sharp wit and viewpoints of quite a lot of members, especially you. Needless to say that doesn't include the fog horn on a high chair in the corner. Thanks for asking! <3
If anyone thinks there aren't anti Scientologists on this board you haven't been paying attention. As soon as you are anti anything you lose perspective. I'll give you an example from my own life.
I am anti Trump.
Because of that there has been nothing anyone could say to me over the period of 3 years that would convince me there is one redeeming feature of that guy. I believe him to be one of the most deplorable (there I said it!) human beings I've ever seen. I hate everything about him. However I bought into the narrative that anyone who supports him is a racist, misogynist, white nationalist asshole too.
What about now?
My opinion on the man himself has not changed. He is idiotic, he lies, he incites racial tension, he incites White Nationalism, he is narcissistic, contradictory and a blowhard.
But what about his supporters?
I have had to look very hard, beyond my personal opinions, prejudices and feelings, to try & understand why (some) people are so slavishly devoted to him. I haven't worked out why the slavish devotion, but tribalism has a lot to do with it. They watch Fox News. They watch Alex Jones. They read The Daily Caller. The same opinions are reinforced day after day after day.
It's the same tribalism & slavish devotion to Hillary & Obama that I see from the left. They watch MSNBC, CNN, The Colbert Show, Last Week Tonight, Bill Maher. Again, the same opinions over & over, reinforced day after day after day.
I have come to realise that neither of these sides are "correct".
Trump didn't create racial tensions or White Supremacy. Obama didn't create the extreme left. However, each has exploited these things for popularity, votes or "red meat for the base".
Here's the thing. People want equality. People want their borders protected. People want a booming economy. People want human rights. People want gender freedom. People believe that gender fluidity is a mental illness as described in the DSM V. People want political correctness. People want freedom of speech. People want mass shootings to stop. People want the 2nd amendment protected at all costs. People want gun control. People want reproductive freedom. People want to stop fetal murder. People want to help every immigrant have a better life. People want their way of life protected.
You can't have all these things at the same time. So you pick a "side". The one that is most likely to give you the majority of the things you want. And you tend to go into agreement with your side, even on issues you don't care about much. This makes you blind.
So, what do I think of Trump supporters now? I think they have valid "wants", just like the Left have valid "wants". I can see now that border protection and the protection of the 2nd Amendment is very important to people. I can understand why abortion is considered abominable. I can understand why people think political correctness has reached an insane level where you can barely communicate without offending someone. This doesn't make them white supremacists or racists or misogynists.
The same with the left. They want equality, human rights, reproductive rights etc. This doesn't make them marxists or fascists.
Once you are fixed in an opinion it's very hard to get out of it, especially when you are bombarded by information all day and you can't possibly take it all in, so confirmation bias wins.
However if you can't take a second, to step outside your own prejudices to even look at the other side, then you are an anti.