YouTuber 100% Debunks Collective Works of LRH
- Thread starter nowwhat
- Start date
FlunkedForLaughing
Patron with Honors
He has 63 videos. Are there any in particular you suggest watching first? Any in particular you want to discuss?
FFL
FFL
nowwhat
Patron with Honors
Well I suggest you watch it in his chronological order.. haha sike no scilon crapola here. Just watch them all, I've never seen someone this intelligent address scientology.
13heathens
Patron with Honors
Squeek-Squeek Chitter, Chitter!
This squirrel always like to see if his name has been mentioned.
Most of the material was easy to digest, given my background. When I started making videos I started seeking out Freezone Scientologists and asked them to jump into the conversation to put some of the text into context.
For example; When LRH says that anyone who takes advantage of another should be shot he's clearly just attempting to show the depth of his disdain, not making a recommendation!
I thought a couple freezoners joining the conversation and saying "That's just the way LRH talks. If you listen to enough of his lectures you'd get a feel for his quirky sense of humor." or "It's important that the P/C get's something from their stops on the full track, it doesn't matter if any of it is true or not"
It amazed me! I was waiting for dozens of specific and valid counter points, but they never came. Instead I get BS from people like "ScientologyWisdom" claiming that Genetic Memory proves past lives.
With all the COS trolling I've gotten, nobody's pointed out that I'm constantly shifting the direction of my counter-points. To me it's psychological warfare, and the moment someone questions their own beliefs enough to put them into context everyone wins.
---
Unfortunately I seem to have also alienated the freezone folks that I was initially hoping would step up and show they are aren't simply a COS splinter group.
---
Oh, and if I were to point someone here to a starting point it would be 13H get's real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvb-UfngK0g
It's part of a (currently short) series in which I try to explain some of the underlying concepts of Scientology for those which have never read the material. I'd love opinions from those who understand scn beyond the text.
It's been refreshing swinging by here and seeing people who can, and do discuss what they believe without the standard COS rhetoric.
-13H
This squirrel always like to see if his name has been mentioned.
Most of the material was easy to digest, given my background. When I started making videos I started seeking out Freezone Scientologists and asked them to jump into the conversation to put some of the text into context.
For example; When LRH says that anyone who takes advantage of another should be shot he's clearly just attempting to show the depth of his disdain, not making a recommendation!
I thought a couple freezoners joining the conversation and saying "That's just the way LRH talks. If you listen to enough of his lectures you'd get a feel for his quirky sense of humor." or "It's important that the P/C get's something from their stops on the full track, it doesn't matter if any of it is true or not"
It amazed me! I was waiting for dozens of specific and valid counter points, but they never came. Instead I get BS from people like "ScientologyWisdom" claiming that Genetic Memory proves past lives.
With all the COS trolling I've gotten, nobody's pointed out that I'm constantly shifting the direction of my counter-points. To me it's psychological warfare, and the moment someone questions their own beliefs enough to put them into context everyone wins.
---
Unfortunately I seem to have also alienated the freezone folks that I was initially hoping would step up and show they are aren't simply a COS splinter group.
---
Oh, and if I were to point someone here to a starting point it would be 13H get's real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvb-UfngK0g
It's part of a (currently short) series in which I try to explain some of the underlying concepts of Scientology for those which have never read the material. I'd love opinions from those who understand scn beyond the text.
It's been refreshing swinging by here and seeing people who can, and do discuss what they believe without the standard COS rhetoric.
-13H
Veda
Sponsor
Peter (mentioned in the above video) is skilled in PR, most Scientologists are not.
Scientology has been a secretive personality cult since the 1960s.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1
Scientology has been a secretive personality cult since the 1960s.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1
Björkist
Silver Meritorious Patron
Actually, I never stated that "Genetic Memory proves past lives." or any words to that effect.
The only BS here is you coming on the scene and lying about what I said. Which, in itself, is kind of sad.
Hardly anyone is going to wade through the comments on your videos to see whether I did or not, but here is actually what I said re: Genetic memory in the few comments I left on one of your videos:
"Genetic memory is factual. How do you think cells just "know" exactly what to do when injured or growing anew? It's like an organic computer program."
--
"That memory, with the right equipment and technology can be mapped."
And it's true. If something exists, it can be shown to exist given the right technology and equipment.
Please notice that nothing about past lives is mentioned in my comments.
Once again, my statements are not even close to what you claim they were.
And I'm intensely curious, who are "people like" me?
Last edited:
13heathens
Patron with Honors
The video was the first video of my series dealing with History of man. The subject of the video was the past life material. I've heard the Genetic Memory argument - although not referenced by name - before as members of CoS have gone through a chain of logic to lend more credibility to the past life claims. The conversation was 5 months ago.
Perception being relative, and considering the topic of the video was past lives, it seamed clear to me that this is where you were going with that segment of our conversation. Transcript follows;
You'd actually came in with some of the best counter points I'd seen. Honestly you impressed me.
But Just as the conversation got good and I started to see some real insight (here's where the people like you comes into play) You left. You had two great counterpoints going, which I expected to have to admit defeat on (and was looking forward to it. Then you bailed.
You ran with what I interpreted as a rehash of the Genetic Memory = past life argument (not a great choice, the other points were stronger IMHO), and that was the end of it.
-------
I contacted you a few months later to say hello, and tried to touch base to see if you were alright. Not that it much mattered.
I'm not infallible and it would have been nice if you'd taken the time to finish the debate on the other conversation segments. I was looking forward to losing.
That one there ^ was a great counter argument. If you'd chosen that one to continue with I have no doubt you would have won the debate - to me its not a battle, merely a debate.
It took some time for me to get around to it, but I did eventually make a video regarding Genetic Memory..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT3elGnRCbQ
I never forwarded it to you because of the hostility I received when I tried to touch base with you. That whole conversation had stuck with me because you walked away without finishing making your counter points.
You left me to make my assumptions based upon the context, and now you accuse me of lying.. Would you mind at least telling me where you were going with that counter point?
Feral
Rogue male
OK 13 Heathens,
I can see clearly where you are going wrong in studying scn.
You are using too much differentiation and critical evaluation skills, between comments, opinions and laws.
You are also trying to allow scios to put it into 'broader' context.
Haven't you read KSW 1??? You are not meant to think with it, you APPLY it EXACTLY. You learn it VERBATIM.
Also Peter Mansel would not believe what he said to you, he is a trained PR (read; pro liar) he would have used any methodology of argumentation available to him, he picked one that your intellect and education would approve of.
I can see clearly where you are going wrong in studying scn.
You are using too much differentiation and critical evaluation skills, between comments, opinions and laws.
You are also trying to allow scios to put it into 'broader' context.
Haven't you read KSW 1??? You are not meant to think with it, you APPLY it EXACTLY. You learn it VERBATIM.
Also Peter Mansel would not believe what he said to you, he is a trained PR (read; pro liar) he would have used any methodology of argumentation available to him, he picked one that your intellect and education would approve of.
13heathens
Patron with Honors
That may be so, however I did feel better, and was willing to stand down for a while after talking to him. Between the constant attacks on psychiatry (which had pulled me out of my own personal hell as a kid) and all of the removal of people below 2.0 on the tone scale references I was VERY disturbed by what I'd read.
I remember being on the verge of begging him to put it into some sort of context.. I ended up manipulating him during the remainder of the conversation - lots - to get at least some piece of mind.
I've mellowed since. Even if he's on the other side, I do appreciate the small amount of solace I was able to get from our chat. Naturally Flag would not allow me to speak to him at all after that initial call.
anonmom
Patron with Honors
What a fasinating hobby you have there, 13heathens. Trying to get logic out of a clam! Makes me laugh! A very difficult task concidering that they are taught to attack and never defend. Unfortunately a scientologist would see discussing their beliefs as defending them. I applaud your efforts. Keep fighting the good fight! 
klidov
Silver Meritorious Patron
I am curious, was it worth "outting" your YouTube name to quarrel a mote point?
(Attack, not defend?)
13-H did not come across as untruthful in this exchange ( "lying", as you say),
instead, trying to be legalistic with terminology and arguing, frankly, this reflects badly on you.
You are coming across as a stubbon $ci with a "don't confuse me with facts!"-attitude.
Just how I see it......
Axiom142
Gold Meritorious Patron
13heathens,
If you are waiting to receive intelligent and valid counter-arguments to the points that you raise about Scientology, then you’d better invest in a very comfortable chair. You are in for a long wait.
There are two main reasons why this is so:
1. ‘Ordinary’ Scientologists, i.e. the usual run-of-the-mill public member and most staff members who are not tasked with dealing with ‘entheta’ are not allowed to view critical material on the internet. If they do view such material and are caught, they will be subject to ‘ethics’ actions and told to stop. If they continue to view such material, then they will be declared an enemy of the CoS and kicked out. I know this is so, because it happened to me.
2. Most Scientologists who might see your arguments are not equipped to analyse the content of your argument, compare it to what they have actually observed and construct a valid counter-argument. Involvement in the CoS destroys one’s ability to think logically. If you are a Scientologist, you don’t have to think or work things out for yourself – L. Ron Hubbard has already done it for you! Since he was such a genius and incredibly able in every field of human endeavour, there is no way you could possibly improve upon his works anyway. So, just study what HE says and do as you are told. Anything else will lead you to ruin. Or so they are lead to believe.
I’m generalising a bit here, but even so I believe this fairly represents the majority of Scientologists who are still ‘in’.
Oh, and thanks for making so many informative and thought-provoking videos.
Axiom142
If you are waiting to receive intelligent and valid counter-arguments to the points that you raise about Scientology, then you’d better invest in a very comfortable chair. You are in for a long wait.
There are two main reasons why this is so:
1. ‘Ordinary’ Scientologists, i.e. the usual run-of-the-mill public member and most staff members who are not tasked with dealing with ‘entheta’ are not allowed to view critical material on the internet. If they do view such material and are caught, they will be subject to ‘ethics’ actions and told to stop. If they continue to view such material, then they will be declared an enemy of the CoS and kicked out. I know this is so, because it happened to me.
2. Most Scientologists who might see your arguments are not equipped to analyse the content of your argument, compare it to what they have actually observed and construct a valid counter-argument. Involvement in the CoS destroys one’s ability to think logically. If you are a Scientologist, you don’t have to think or work things out for yourself – L. Ron Hubbard has already done it for you! Since he was such a genius and incredibly able in every field of human endeavour, there is no way you could possibly improve upon his works anyway. So, just study what HE says and do as you are told. Anything else will lead you to ruin. Or so they are lead to believe.
I’m generalising a bit here, but even so I believe this fairly represents the majority of Scientologists who are still ‘in’.
Oh, and thanks for making so many informative and thought-provoking videos.
Axiom142
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
What about what Hubbard said about robotism? He wasn't in favor of it. A lot of Scn'ists I know do differentiate. It's just that it's a LOT harder to do so in the cult.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
What a fasinating hobby you have there, 13heathens. Trying to get logic out of a clam! Makes me laugh! A very difficult task concidering that they are taught to attack and never defend. Unfortunately a scientologist would see discussing their beliefs as defending them. I applaud your efforts. Keep fighting the good fight!
Well, maybe he'll get through to the person. I mean, I used to be in CofS and I was talking to critics and some people actually discussed things with me. It mattered, it meant something, and I eventually left CofS.
I wasn't treated like a clam, I was treated like a nice (slightly dull witted) ball of fluff.
13heathens
Patron with Honors
Regarding the brief quarrel.
It appears to me that the entire situation was just a matter of two alternate perspectives coming into conflict with each other. I believe Björkist and I had BOTH entered the conversation with biased interpretations of the agenda being promoted by the other.
These sort of misunderstandings are common - especially in type. Everyone falls prey to this sorts of situation from time to time. It's not a big deal. Sometimes the air needs to be cleared of all those preconceived notions for two people to have a real discussion.
It appears to me that the entire situation was just a matter of two alternate perspectives coming into conflict with each other. I believe Björkist and I had BOTH entered the conversation with biased interpretations of the agenda being promoted by the other.
These sort of misunderstandings are common - especially in type. Everyone falls prey to this sorts of situation from time to time. It's not a big deal. Sometimes the air needs to be cleared of all those preconceived notions for two people to have a real discussion.
Last edited:
Feral
Rogue male
Yeh, you're right Fluff, he did say that, and elsewhere he wrote the KSW series which pretty much nuked the idea.
The PTS SP tech is a great study in Ron saying different contradictory things.
Sps total 2.5% population. + another 17.5% then PTSs in an org should be no more than 20% or you are mishandling / mis diagnosing. Psychotics, who are SPs could comprise as much as 25%. People in institutions are rarely SP except criminals in some places in policy are referred to as SPs. But they get there own refs, ie the criminal mind HCOB, and interestingly have different traits. What about list 1 R/Sers?
Then the RPF was designed for salvageable psychotics, well over 20% of career SO end up there....SPs?
If it is not real to you then it is not real, try telling a word clearer and you will spend forever on WCing, until you 'get it' ('read' agree with the text). Now it's real.....I was a clam on a beach!
The church bears no resemblance to the basic scn tech that spawned it. ARC is not used in management the method by subject to control others is a study in facsism, yet those blow 2.0 should be shot.
No, I'm sure we were not meant to be able to understand it in the light that 13 Heathens is talking about.
Who could stand that much cognitive dissonance?
