2 Poled Thinking & Anti Scientology Fanatics

Running Time: 07 min. 32 secs



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!


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.

33 thoughts on “2 Poled Thinking & Anti Scientology Fanatics”

      • It’s ordinary practice to allow likes and dislikes, and comments.

        Are you not interested in two way communication?

        Marty did not allow comments in his recent videos. You can dispel suspicions – at least somewhat – that you are working – like Rathbun – for Miscavige, by allowing comments.

        Plus it will enliven the video and create interest and participation.

      • It’s standard practice to allow like and dislikes, and to allow comments.

        Allowing comments helps increase interest.

        It also helps dispel the suspicion that you are working for Scientology, as Scientology does not allow free exchange of ideas.

          • You allow comments on your blog but not on the videos?

            It creates the impression that someone is having you make the videos, and that same someone has told you that there are to be no comments allowed.

            • LOL! Behold yet another piece of the anti-Scientology mindset – conspiracy theories!

              I’ve already got one in the can on this piece. And here it is – right here on Alanzo’s Blog!

              I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned my sweatshirt yet – that is absolute ironclad proof I’m working for David Miscavige, isn’t it?

              • I’ve never been an anti-Scientologist. That’s a term that L. Ron Hubbard invented and encouraged people to use.

                Asserting “conspiracy theories!” is a straw man fallacy. You’re the only one mentioning conspiracy.

                • Fair enough.

                  Like I said, I have a video about this piece of the anti-Scientology mindset ‘in the can’, coming up. I show the role that conspiracy theories play in propping up ideological belief systems like those in the Scientology mindset, and in the anti-Scientology mindset. Your use of a conspiracy theory to claim that I am a paid employee of David Miscavige – conspiring with him to make these videos – is a great example of their use.

                  People use conspiracy theories to protect their existing beliefs when those beliefs are challenged.

                  You can always count on me to provide my arguments, and my reasoning, for the claims I make.

                  Can we count on you to continue to do the same?

                • The term “conspiracy theorist” is often used as a thought and discussion stopping cliché. The term came into being decades ago to discredit (ad hom style) anyone who spots someone engaged in an underhanded activity.

                  That there are some people, with over active imaginations, who see underhanded activity where there is none, doesn’t automatically discredit rational suspicions about a group, such as Scientology, that has a long history of using underhanded methods.

                  Mary Sue Hubbard was sent to prison for criminal conspiracy and her husband, in hiding, was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. Was U.S. Federal Judge Charles Richey a “conspiracy theorist”?

                  Hubbard, in his writing, actually recommends being conspiratorial as the winning approach.

                  Scientology routinely engages in scandalous underhanded activity. It’s built in.

                  Scientology has lied, cheated, threatened, harassed and hounded, and, as a last resort, paid large sums in financial settlements to keep David Miscavige out of court and possibly out of prison.

                  Apart from Scientology’s own behavior, its belief in conspiracies, committed by others, might be a cute counter point that’s expedient when (ad hom style) depicting Scientology critics as being “conspiracy theorists,” and thus being like that which they criticize.

                  This presents the “Scientologists are kind of loopy (but mostly harmless)” idea, coupled with the “Scientology critics are loopy and sometimes dangerous” idea.

                  Scientology has a long history of being willing (through third parties) to slightly discredit itself so as to, then, completely discredit those it regards as enemies.

                  Anyone with knowledge of Scientology and its methods is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of you. Such people are not necessarily kooky “conspiracy theorists.”

                  Your unwillingness to allow comments on your recent YouTube videos is strange and you have no explanation for it.

                • “Your unwillingness to allow comments on your recent YouTube videos is strange and you have no explanation for it.”

                  And neither do you, therefore I’m an OSA agent.

                  The problem is that your patternicity tends toward a type 1 error, and because of the danger you believe that Scientology represents, you are willing to err in favor of the worst-case scenario – I’m “the lion sneaking up on you” when you hear a rustling in the grass behind you.

                  So I’m an OSA agent, even though I completely invalidate Scientology and L Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige constantly on my blog. For you, the fact that I do this PROVES that I am an OSA agent. Contrary evidence to your belief is twisted around by you to prove your existing belief.

                  Also, NO EVIDENCE, for you, is PROOF that I am an OSA agent. Because – Scientology! The Scientology Conspiracy would NEVER allow there to be evidence to support your claim that I am an OSA Agent. So the absence of evidence serves as proof to you of your belief that I’m an OSA Agent.

                  This is the role of a conspiracy theory – it’s a kind of self-fulfilling teflon rock that props up and protects your existing belief system when it is challenged from contrary evidence, or from having no evidence at all to support it.

                  That’s why I say you are engaging in conspiracy theory thinking when, in the face of counterfactual information, and in the face of no evidence at all, you use these as evidence to support your belief that I am an OSA Agent.

                  It’s hilarious. And it is common to both the Scientology mindset and the Anti-Scientology mindset.

                • Observing odd behavior, and briefly wondering about it, is not the same as making an assertion. I have not accused you of being an OSA agent.

                  Your behavior is odd.

                  So was Marty Rathbun’s recent behavior.

                  It’s natural and healthy for people to wonder about it.

                  You can call names and make silly assertions all day long and it will have no effect.

                • B.Volta writes: I have not accused you of being an OSA agent.


                  “Anyone with knowledge of Scientology and its methods is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of you.”


                  “Your behavior is odd. So was Marty Rathbun’s recent behavior.”


                  “It indicates that there’s either something wrong with Alanzo (paranoid? uptight? control freak?), or he’s being someone’s obedient puppet/employee.”


                  “Allowing comments helps increase interest. It also helps dispel the suspicion that you are working for Scientology, as Scientology does not allow free exchange of ideas.”


                  “Marty did not allow comments in his recent videos. You can dispel suspicions – at least somewhat – that you are working – like Rathbun – for Miscavige, by allowing comments.”


                  Who do you think you are fooling?

                • The targets of your attacks are mostly Ex Scientologists

                  Your primary purpose is to cause conflicts between natural allies and, in general, to create confusion.

                  Sometimes you take advantage of victims of Scientology by presenting yourself as a friend when you are not.

                  You fool good people.

                  I wouldn’t want to have your Karma.

                • I have no animosity to you. You simply serve as an example to others of what never to become as an Ex.


                  Your primary purpose is to cause conflicts between natural allies and, in general, to create confusion.

                  This is the mindset of someone on a wartime footing, where soldiers on one side are fighting soldiers on the other.

                  There is no evolution or learning for soldiers. They fight and die.

                  The rules for soldiers have nothing to with learning and growing, only following orders and never questioning them.

                  Some soldiers even continue to fight shadows and nightmares long after the battle is over and everyone has gone home.

                  This maladaptive soldier mindset causes damage and dysfunction in Exes at intensities similar to the most abused sea Org members in Scientology.

                  This soldier mindset should at least be questioned so that every Ex can avoid your fate.


      • One can click the upturned or downturned thumb and it will turn blue, but no numerical indication appears. No likes or dislikes are tabulated.

        There are some people who might appreciate Alanzo’s message but will be turned off by no comments being allowed.

        It indicates that there’s either something wrong with Alanzo (paranoid? uptight? control freak?), or he’s being someone’s obedient puppet/employee.

        • I don’t see a problem with not having comments on videos. Sometimes I’ll watch a video, say a Buddhist monk lecturing on Buddhism. The video will be very informative, and the comments often will be ignorant, rude and unintelligent. Additionally you come across as arrogant with your declaration of the only two possible reasons Alonzo doesn’t have comments enabled.

          • “…ignorant, rude and unintelligent… comments…”

            And yet the Buddhist monks allow these comments on their videos.

            That should teach you something.

            Does it?

            • Ouch baby. Very ouch.

              I don’t have a problem with a monk allowing comments or not allowing comments. It neither ads nor takes much away from the video for me.

  1. Alanzo, did you ever consider that maybe we’re all a bit fanatical about Scientology — to still be going on and on about it after all these years? 🙂

  2. Speaking of two poled it is only for exScientologist especialy publicited ones. There are no 7 billion excientologist. Your video and almost all blog is concentrate on exScientologist and especialy “antyScientologist” I am neither Scientologist nether “antyScientologist”(this is only recoznied by CoS!!). Your blog is not polarized and almost everybody can post. There are no similar blog on Scientology and “antyScientology” side and I much appreciete this.

    • Well thanks, Subtractor.

      I think it’s important to entertain and explore a whole big wide range of views on Scientology. And let the most valid views win. (Which are not always the most popular)

  3. Throwing fact-free speculations into a debate as if they were facts is a way of arguing in bad faith. This “B. Volta” person gives us a prime example with repeating the “Marty is working for Miscavige” smear. Another way of arguing in bad faith is the whole “just asking questions” shtick – raising the presence or absence of comments/likes as a way of raising Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about Alanzo’s motives because you can’t argue with his logic. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

    Trolls are trolls, whether sent by Miscavige or Ortega.

    Speaking of Marty, where would he fit in Rinder’s binary categories? In an interview with the Daily Mail in 2013 he said that he’d given up trying to salvage anything from the subject of Scientology, due to his experiences with indies like Milestone Two acting just like the Church. But if he’s “working for Miscavige”, doesn’t that mean he DOES believe in Scientology, according to this binary logic? It’s just cognitive dissonance.

  4. I got poled a few times in Catholic school. Those nuns were pretty strict.

    That was a joke. I’ve never been religious and even got kicked out of Sunday School.

    Pole has different meanings. Let’s see which apply.

    manipulate, impel, support etc. with or as with a pole

    Either of two opposed or differentiated forces, parts or principles, such as the ends of a magnet, the terminals of a battery, or two extremes of opinion

    poles apart – widely separated; having opposite natures, opinions etc.; at opposite extremes

    Conclusion: no middle in poles

    • Exactly. But it also implies the magnetic pull between the poles and their resistance to breaking free of the field and thinking in completely new and unrelated ways.

      That is the best way to avoid or repair the damage that the Scientology/anti Scientology “prison of belief” thoughtbubble causes to exes.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.