The anti-Scientologist

guanoloco

As-Wased
Exactly.

Veda suffers from TWO POLED THINKING, the logic of the fanatic.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
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.
LOL, did you even read what you quoted?

Do you think you are capable of telling the truth about Scientology Alanzo?

What is your "truth" about Scientology? And how does it differ from Veda's?
 

Veda

Sponsor
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...

Here's another old post from years ago. No doubt it will be further proof to you of even more "anti-Scientologist fanaticism":

____________



Making blanket negative statements about every bit and piece of Scientology may feel good, but it may also drive a person further into Scientology.

*

When confronted by a person, who is in the process of being lured into Scientology, and has just pleasantly used his newly acquired "Comm Course" skills to establish communication with, and happily extrovert, a withdrawn little old lady neighbor, and is very pleased with himself about his good deed, and equally as impressed with his success applying the "tech," don't go

300px-Profanity.svg.png

on the person, because that probably won't help free him from the sucking power of Scientology.

The fact is the little old lady did feel better, and was cheerfully extroverted.

Recognize that, and then take it from there.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
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.

I'm having some wonderful wins reading your postings Alanzo. I think my anti-scientologist bank just blew and I'm feeling so exterior now. :buzzin:

All of a sudden I can see some of the wonderful things that Ron wrote back in the day.

He wrote some things about people who speak in generalities such as you are doing in this post of yours I quoted.

Maybe he was right about that after all. :questions:

Wow! The room just got brighter! :happydance:

I'll be back. I'm off to the Examiner! :yay:
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
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.
Shocking conclusion.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa

Making blanket negative statements about every bit and piece of Scientology may feel good, but it may also drive a person further into Scientology.

*


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.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
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.
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?
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
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? LOL

Alanzo: No, of course, but mine is better!
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
And you are free of an idealogical mindset? LOL

Alanzo: No, of course, but mine is better!
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.
 

Glenda

Crusader
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.
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.

Here in my life I am involved with a bunch of (often) highly opinionated and educated folk in various environmental issues. I.e. climate change, pest control in our (NZ) native forests, waste minimisation issues, etc. It can get very closed-shop in perspectives and what may be considered the best way forward. It can sometimes get emotional. For some people it is their life's work, the reason they get out of bed each morning type thing. I respect that and love the driving passion these folk bring to the world.

Because of my scientology experience and the stuff that happened on the way out of that closed-shop mentality I am alert and careful. I've learned to hold my own views even in the presence of the doctorate possessing company. They are interesting to engage with because they tend to be more flexible in their thinking. Those that are trying to save the environment based on a few tid-bits off the internet become boring, quite fast.

There is no doubt there is a social influence factor involved. Think like us, behave like us or you will not truly be part of our tribe. I don't give a shit. We have enough in common to work on projects together in relative harmony. The conversations usually remain civil. Social interactions do not get personal and there is respect offered.

Humans have a need to belong. During my big(ish) research stage after leaving scientology I looked into this belonging thing. I went out into the world and observed people bending themselves out of shape simply to belong. The deep need to belong is a factor in domestic abuse. I have a background in domestic abuse. Grew up within it and ended up in similar messes at an adult. The need to belong is only one aspect of why abuse victims stay in abusive situations but it is a factor. The primal stuff associated with staying in a situation which is far from healthy is, imo, fascinating. There were enormous social influence factors in play in the scientology culture. It was close to a zero-tolerance for even a hint of dissension. Fear-based reactions were introduced very early in the training methods i.e. if you waste this brief breath in eternity you'll be in the darkness forever more. Not a healthy way to live but workable in the social setting scientology creates.

I think the post-life of a former scientologist requires a lot of reading and a lot of living. There remains a vulnerability to attach to other unhealthy - but similar - patterns if no sincere deep inspection is made. That can be tricky for a former scientologist because of the entrenched nonsense about other mental health perspectives. I was terrified to see a psych-trained therapist. Nearly fainted in the waiting room the first time I went to see a therapist. It took a lot of pushing myself to begin to trust there may be decent support outside of scientology. The social influences of scientology ran deep.

Anyway thanks for your comment above. This article describes what I am talking about re: social influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence

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.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
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.
:)
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
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.
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:

https://datingasociopath.com/sociopath-character-traits/character-traits-of-a-sociopath-by-r-hare/

These are the main character traits as outlined by Robert Hare
Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for his or her own actions
Factor 2: Case history “Socially deviant lifestyle.”
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release
Robert Hare thought that Factor 1 traits will always be present, whilst factor 2 traits can improve with age.

Paul
 

Veda

Sponsor
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?
No response from Alanzo.

He knows he's wrong.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
@Dulloldfart

IMO, I would add Obsessive-Compulsive disorder to the Factor 1 list.

Four phases (my description):
1. trigger
2. obsession (this can go on for months)
3. seeking catharsis from the obsession (usually relationship damage)
4. denial (lying about it)
 
Last edited:

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
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.
:)
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.
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
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
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.
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
Nice to know you are doing fine FTS
Thanks for the kind words.
Yes most of 2nd generation succeed to recover as they make a new happy normal life, and it's good to know!

Presse keep coming to say hello!
A big hug for you

:kiss::flowers:
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
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.

I meant to respond to this post when you wrote it and then forgot ... I just wanted to say that I really liked it and feel pretty much the same way about the supporters of either side. I lean to the right but am not blind to faults within the right.

It's so easy to get trapped in mini cults ... they are mental traps, we are all better off without them.

:)
 
Last edited:
Top