The anti-Scientologist

The_Fixer

Class Clown
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
Erin Pizzey also added to that about Domestic violence.

She observed that some people become addicted to it along with the dramas associated with it, rather like a heroin addict looking for their fix. She explains her conclusions in more detail in her book "This Way To the Revolution". It explains why the abused partner keeps going back.

Also claims that the women who are the violence perpetrators often get a sexual release from being violent to their partner.

There are many factors in DV and it gets complicated at times. The main roots are with stress (often associated with poverty), alcohol, drugs and mental health issues.

Been looking into it a bit lately and quite surprised by what I found. Especially that the women's DV support network has been hijacked by radical feminists who have really become a big part of the problem and not part of the solution. In short, the industry (cult) seems to be doing more harm than good with their misuse and distortion of statistics and data.

Anyway, enough from me for now. Sorry about the derail.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
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 feel weird writing anything with regards to Trump when not on the Trump thread, but I loved this post of yours back when you wrote it. I had intended to respond to it at the time but forgot about it until I just saw ITYIWT's response to it.

Personally, I do not like Trump at all, and like Hillary even less. Out of a nation of over 300 million people I felt we can do much better at finding the best possible candidate for President. I was seriously considering staying home on Election Day. But ultimately decided to vote for Trump as I felt the long term effect of his Supreme Court choices would be better for the country.

I pretty much stayed out of any discussions about Trump, but when I saw mainstream media outlets accusing him of certain things (such as mocking a disabled reporter) when there was compelling evidence against it, and then saw many people accepting it as truth, causing them to become disgusted at Trump's behavior (if they weren't already), it infuriated me, and I attempted to refute some of that BS (probably failing to convince a single person LOL).

You wrote in your post:
"I bought into the narrative that anyone who supports him is a racist, misogynist, white nationalist asshole too."

I ran into that type of belief frequently on social media, and really, THAT bothered me more than anything. It bothered me because I am none of those things or even close to it, yet I ran across many who seemed to genuinely believe it.

There are many people whose vote for President has absolutely nothing to do with whether they like the person running or not. Many vote along Party lines. In the 2016 election many Republican's who didn't like Trump voted for him, and many Democrats who didn't like Hillary voted for her.

Hopefully, many others will have the same realizations that you had about his supporters. It was nice to read that from you with regards to how you see his supporters.

Lot's of other good stuff in your post as well, but I'll leave it at that for now.

All that said, I learned quite a lot in the Trump thread. The Trump thread is about many other things other than Trump. It covers many aspects of politics in the U.S., and I learned many things I found pretty disturbing. :omg: Thank-you for that @guanoloco and some others. :eek::cool:
 

Veda

Sponsor

Hey! No politics on this thread!



The anti-Scientologist
pg419_1.jpg

Learn to spot them

 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP

Hey! No politics on this thread!



The anti-Scientologist
pg419_1.jpg

Learn to spot them

Sorry, couldn't resist responding to Emma.

OK, I'm back on-topic now, learning how to spot anti-scientologists!

Is their a drill that would help us in this matter? :unsure:
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think one of the reasons Scientology doesn't get the attention it deserves is that there are so many things going on that are much much worse. There are a lot of extremely violent gangs in the US, especially from South America and they have had operational control of the border for decades. If you get declared by Scientology you can be Fair Gamed but if you get declared by MS-13 you get hacked with machetes. Before Trump absolutely no one was doing anything effective about this on either side. We figure there are at most 30,000 active Scientologists world wide. That's like 2.15% of the US gang population. Scientology's net worth is between 2 - 3 billion but cartels make over 62 billion per year just from the US.

Given a choice between Scientologists and MS-13 for neighbors I'll choose Scientologists every time, so let it not be said that I never say anything positive about Scientology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13

(snip)

In 2018, the gang accounted for less than 1 percent (10,000) of total gang members in the United States (1.4 million), and a similar share of gang murders.

(snip)

http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=342471&CategoryId=14091

Drug Cartels Make $64 Billion a Year from U.S., Mexican Says
MEXICO CITY – Drug cartels currently take in $64.34 billion from their sales to users in the United States, Mexico’s public safety secretary said.

(snip)

The secretary said that the criminal organizations are taking advantage of the phenomenon of globalization to expand their activities through the opening up of the financial markets and technological development.

He also emphasized that organized crime is participating not only in the shipment of drugs but also in trafficking in weapons and migrants, smuggling other items, money laundering, vehicle theft, kidnappings-for-ransom and extortion. EFE
 

Gib

Crusader
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've recognized some truths about scientology as well as some bad.

But,

what is the ultimate truth about scientology? Why that's no clears or OT's. You even admitted that.

So why should this organization created by dead L R Hubbard, when his ultimate truth of going clear and then OT and up the bridge to total freedom is false?

Why should it still be allowed to exist, when it's false?

And you admitted there are no clears or OT's.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I think one of the reasons Scientology doesn't get the attention it deserves is that there are so many things going on that are much much worse. There are a lot of extremely violent gangs in the US, especially from South America and they have had operational control of the border for decades. If you get declared by Scientology you can be Fair Gamed but if you get declared by MS-13 you get hacked with machetes. Before Trump absolutely no one was doing anything effective about this on either side. We figure there are at most 30,000 active Scientologists world wide. That's like 2.15% of the US gang population. Scientology's net worth is between 2 - 3 billion but cartels make over 62 billion per year just from the US.

Given a choice between Scientologists and MS-13 for neighbors I'll choose Scientologists every time, so let it not be said that I never say anything positive about Scientology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13

(snip)

In 2018, the gang accounted for less than 1 percent (10,000) of total gang members in the United States (1.4 million), and a similar share of gang murders.

(snip)

http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=342471&CategoryId=14091

Drug Cartels Make $64 Billion a Year from U.S., Mexican Says
MEXICO CITY – Drug cartels currently take in $64.34 billion from their sales to users in the United States, Mexico’s public safety secretary said.

(snip)

The secretary said that the criminal organizations are taking advantage of the phenomenon of globalization to expand their activities through the opening up of the financial markets and technological development.

He also emphasized that organized crime is participating not only in the shipment of drugs but also in trafficking in weapons and migrants, smuggling other items, money laundering, vehicle theft, kidnappings-for-ransom and extortion. EFE
There's always something worse and, then, something worse than that.

At least some of those who know the subject and its tricks are here to help those in need.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
I feel weird writing anything with regards to Trump when not on the Trump thread, but I loved this post of yours back when you wrote it. I had intended to respond to it at the time but forgot about it until I just saw ITYIWT's response to it.

Personally, I do not like Trump at all, and like Hillary even less. Out of a nation of over 300 million people I felt we can do much better at finding the best possible candidate for President. I was seriously considering staying home on Election Day. But ultimately decided to vote for Trump as I felt the long term effect of his Supreme Court choices would be better for the country.

I pretty much stayed out of any discussions about Trump, but when I saw mainstream media outlets accusing him of certain things (such as mocking a disabled reporter) when there was compelling evidence against it, and then saw many people accepting it as truth, causing them to become disgusted at Trump's behavior (if they weren't already), it infuriated me, and I attempted to refute some of that BS (probably failing to convince a single person LOL).

You wrote in your post:


I ran into that type of belief frequently on social media, and really, THAT bothered me more than anything. It bothered me because I am none of those things or even close to it, yet I ran across many who seemed to genuinely believe it.

There are many people whose vote for President has absolutely nothing to do with whether they like the person running or not. Many vote along Party lines. In the 2016 election many Republican's who didn't like Trump voted for him, and many Democrats who didn't like Hillary voted for her.

Hopefully, many others will have the same realizations that you had about his supporters. It was nice to read that from you with regards to how you see his supporters.

Lot's of other good stuff in your post as well, but I'll leave it at that for now.

All that said, I learned quite a lot in the Trump thread. The Trump thread is about many other things other than Trump. It covers many aspects of politics in the U.S., and I learned many things I found pretty disturbing. :omg: Thank-you for that @guanoloco and some others. :eek::cool:
I hope the opposite can happen too. Not everyone who doesn't like Trump is a crazy, leftist, language strangling, outrage machine either.

Some people who voted for Trump or support Trump really are assholes. But their support of Trump doesn't make them an asshole, they just are assholes regardless of political bent. Same can be said for Hillary supporters.
 

Gib

Crusader
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.
you said:


"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."

2 pole thinking is actually not fallacious. It's called Boolean logic.

https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/Boolean_logic.html

Either true or false, that's boolean logic.

Here's the Boolean logic I apply to dianetics and scientology.

Is there a clear and OT and a Bridge to Total Freedom? answer, no. And you admitted this too!
 

StatPush

Patron
I've recognized some truths about scientology as well as some bad.

But,

what is the ultimate truth about scientology? Why that's no clears or OT's. You even admitted that.

So why should this organization created by dead L R Hubbard, when his ultimate truth of going clear and then OT and up the bridge to total freedom is false?

Why should it still be allowed to exist, when it's false?

And you admitted there are no clears or OT's.
Easy tiger. Let's step back and think about this.

So only organisations based on truth should be allowed to exist? And who is going to make that determination?

Would be you comfortable applying the same criteria to, let's say, the Catholic Church? One could easily claim that Christian Heaven does not exist, that its all a scam designed to control you and take your money.

But, any reasonable person would recognise that this is something Christians believe in. It is a personal, subjective belief.

While Scientologists may be reluctant to admit that belief plays a role in their practice, I would argue all auditing is a personal, subjective experience. And when they attest to the State of Clear, they believe they have achieved a profound spiritual state. The church confuses the matter by stating auditing level EPs that appear to be objective. And regarding Clear, they look for "evidence" before certification. This, I feel, comes from it's schizophrenic nature (science or a religion). It portrays itself as a science when it serves them. And it portrays itself as a religion when it serves them.

When addressing a customer, its all "sciency" (exact application of "technology", laws, axioms, logics, etc). Upon completing an auditing level, the customer has some assurance that their results are verified and certified by a team of highly trained "experts".

However, if you were to apply other scientific principles to the practice (e.g. peer review, critical inspection, testing, etc), they would flip and become a "religion" and accuse you of discrimination. I think its even a crime to criticise or ridicule a Clear.

Hubbard knew his work would not stand up to real scientific rigour. Hence, the "religion angle".

At best, Scientology is a pseudo-science.

So, should we not allow any pseudo-science to exist?

Let us not forget the close relationship between Astrology and Astronomy.

Maybe Scientology is the Astrology of some future science?
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
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.
I just read your video transcript for the first time.

It appears that you didn't even read the post on Mike Rinder's blog from Terra Incognita.

Either that or you intentionally changed the title and content of the post to fit your fraudulent narrative.

You claimed that the title was:
Two Types of Ex’s

The actual title of his post is:
Two Main Types of Ex-Scientologists
https://www.mikerindersblog.org/two-main-types-of-ex-scientologists/

He then goes on to quickly write:
Not Written in Stone

Are these generalities? Yes. Are there gradient variations and differences within each group? Absolutely. Do people waffle? All the time.
There's nothing whatsoever fanatical about the post but you omit mention of this section and alter the title to better fit your narrative which is dishonest. Seems to be an emerging pattern. :whistling:
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Easy tiger. Let's step back and think about this.

So only organisations based on truth should be allowed to exist? And who is going to make that determination?

Would be you comfortable applying the same criteria to, let's say, the Catholic Church? One could easily claim that Christian Heaven does not exist, that its all a scam designed to control you and take your money.

But, any reasonable person would recognise that this is something Christians believe in. It is a personal, subjective belief.

While Scientologists may be reluctant to admit that belief plays a role in their practice, I would argue all auditing is a personal, subjective experience. And when they attest to the State of Clear, they believe they have achieved a profound spiritual state. The church confuses the matter by stating auditing level EPs that appear to be objective. And regarding Clear, they look for "evidence" before certification. This, I feel, comes from it's schizophrenic nature (science or a religion). It portrays itself as a science when it serves them. And it portrays itself as a religion when it serves them.

When addressing a customer, its all "sciency" (exact application of "technology", laws, axioms, logics, etc). Upon completing an auditing level, the customer has some assurance that their results are verified and certified by a team of highly trained "experts".

However, if you were to apply other scientific principles to the practice (e.g. peer review, critical inspection, testing, etc), they would flip and become a "religion" and accuse you of discrimination. I think its even a crime to criticise or ridicule a Clear.

Hubbard knew his work would not stand up to real scientific rigour. Hence, the "religion angle".

At best, Scientology is a pseudo-science.

So, should we not allow any pseudo-science to exist?

Let us not forget the close relationship between Astrology and Astronomy.

Maybe Scientology is the Astrology of some future science?
A nice stream of thought.

Miscavige makes the religious equivalency argument on Nightline (His last public TV interview = Fail).

The problem is that the true science behind Scientology is the gradual (or not so gradual) progression of the individual from a New Age activity into an exploitative high control activity that can operate under the laws of the land without regard for the laws of the land.

Except for Islam most other respectable religions don't have a fundamentalist doctrine like KSW or Sharia that demand the installment of a global government based on their internal judicial and organizational systems. As a Muslim try going into a Mosque and saying you don't believe other people should be converted and there shouldn't be Sharia Law. As a Scientologist try going into an org and saying you don't believe in global clearing or making enough OTs to save the planet and that there shouldn't be KSW, that you don't believe Scientology spiritual and management and study technology should be used in all mental health services, businesses and governments, and schools.

In application Scientology ideas about the spirit and the mind are a cynical excuse for control.

We now see businesses applying similar techniques. Weinstein's use of NDAs, Google and Facebook's intrusive access and biased control of information and ideas. If Scientology is the "Astrology" of any future "science" it is this.

I think the Rinder/Cognita article speaks directly to the existential nature of being a Scientologist because being a Scientologist is the process of going from naive New Ageist to understanding Hubbard's exploitative high control end game. Somewhere during this process the individual either retains and recovers their original moral compass or becomes a clone of Hubbard's moral compass or finds that their original moral compass and Hubbard's moral compass were always aligned. So the real EP (End Phenomena) or VFP (Valuable Final Product) of Scientology is someone whose moral compass has been tested and reconfirmed.

 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Easy tiger. Let's step back and think about this.

So only organisations based on truth should be allowed to exist? And who is going to make that determination?

Would be you comfortable applying the same criteria to, let's say, the Catholic Church? One could easily claim that Christian Heaven does not exist, that its all a scam designed to control you and take your money.

But, any reasonable person would recognise that this is something Christians believe in. It is a personal, subjective belief.


<snip>

I agree with you in that the CoS should be allowed to exist. But they shouldn't be allowed to defraud people as they've done on a routine basis for over 65 years now.

While there's some truth in what you write above, there's huge differences between the CoS and the Catholic Church.

You don't have to pay the Catholic Church hundreds of thousands of dollars to find out what their beliefs are. You can find out for free before you get involved.

You don't have to pay ANY money whatsoever to be saved in accordance with their beliefs.

They don't have mandatory events where they block the doors in case you attempt to leave before seeing the registrar, demanding you pay to buy a new building for them.

Compare what the Volunteer Ministers do compared to Catholic Charities:
https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
 

Out Effix

Out Ethics Ex Ethics Officer
When it's not working with the proeminent critics, why not give a try with targeting the perceived alpha males of the perceived flock????

Seriously,
Are we supposed to pay attention of what you think of people Alanzo???

Jesus,
You have quite a large pool of ennemies...ennemies...ennemies to maintain!
Isn't exhausting!

Why aren't you posting on your blog these last days???



Alanzo????
Why is Alanzo posting on this blog - because Scientology wants him to spread his confusion tech all over the threads so when lurkers come here - they won't know what to think.
Alanzo works for Scientology and OSA.

The question another ex OSA staff member told me to ask is

WHO does the behavior benefit??

It does not benefit the ex community, the newbie, the lurker. It benefits Scientology.

Don't be fooled by Alanzo's occasional critical remark or attack of Scientology / David Miscavige or some piece of LRH tech. He does that to further confuse and throw you off.

Just look at Alanzo's actions and the effect he creates.

Constant criticizing and attacking to get people confused.

Mike Rinder is an outstanding man. He has risen to strength and courage to do something about it. Leah Remini has done the same.

What has Alanzo done? nothing of value - nothing but confuse, criticize and attack ex Scientologists who are exposing the cults crimes.

The only answer to Alanzo's persistent and constant attacks on Critics dismantling the Cult of Scientology is that Alanzo works for Scientology. Nothing else makes sense...except mental illness, of course. One has to be mentally ill to work for Scientology anyway. Alanzo is out of touch with reality and fighting battles of long duration with no end in site.
 
Last edited:
Top