There are two errors into which persons can fall about #LRonHubbard. One is to disbelieve in his significance. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in him. In the 1990s and early 2000s there flourished a lively geek-culture obsession with Hubbard and #Scientology in which I participated to a small degree, drawn like a moth to a flame whose fuel was supplied by the somewhat unhealthful fascination which cults of all sorts exert upon the skeptical and overconfident minds of young nerds of the sort who imagine that it's easy to refute #Christianity merely by pointing out that virgins don't usually give birth, or by quoting Richard Dawkins.

Christianity may seem like an easy mark for skeptics and "rational" persons, but I daresay that even the most brazen and breezy dismisser of the Jesus-cult must be forced to concede, under pressure, that no matter how ridiculous the premises of Christianity seem to them and no matter how obviously wrong seem the assertions of Bible-bashers, Christianity isn't exactly doing that badly for itself. There are more nonbelievers than ever, but #Christian organizations and Christian propagandists (e.g. Christofascist politicians and pundits) still wield a frightful degree of power and unquestioned authority in the United States and "the West". Attacking Christianity is scarcely the ticket to an easy life or the satisfaction of racking up decisive victories against a sinister social force. Jim Bakker is still around, for fecking sake!

So...why not pick an easier target? That, I suggest, has been a motivation for focusing upon Scientology as an avatar and embodiment of the evils of irrationality and religious devotion.

It's a sadly commonplace error, picking the easier target—or the target that is incorrectly perceived as the easier one, with some idea that scoring a victory against the easy target will pave the road to victory against tougher opponents.

Such mistaken thinking is how the U.S. environmentalist movement became increasingly preoccupied with irrelevant and misguided battles: the REAL battle was against the carbon-extraction industry and its long-term plan to normalize anthropogenic global warming as a fait accompli and unprecedented business opportunity, but the enemy was so formidable and apparently invincible that timid environmentalists instead pursued minor triumphs mostly pertaining to consumer products (which is how we ended up with garbage like plastic-straw bans) when they weren't drumming up popular outrage at #nuclear power...which only strengthened the plans of the carbon-extraction corporate juggernaut.

And now they're talking about nuclear power again—not for public benefit, but for the exclusive use of #tech entrepreneurs thirsting to devote entire nuclear plants to #LLM trash generation. Meanwhile, chemical pollution issues are worse than ever because of the timidity of the environmentalist movement: rather than attack the real villains, capitalists and corporate industries, it was safer to pin responsibility on "consumer activism".