Job description: Scientology hardcore critic

A small part of the job description:

  1. Be passionate about Scientology.
  2. Keep in mind that Scientology is bad. Always.
  3. Don’t admit to anything right in Scientology.
  4. Don’t admit that anything in Scientology could possibly have a positive effect on you.
  5. Keep a negative attitude toward anything pushed by the church.
  6. Treat anything written by LRH as garbage.
  7. Thrash all Scientology celebrities.
  8. When encountering anything positive about the church or about Scientology, disregard it as “brainwashing”.
  9. Always attack, never defend against any criticism.
  10. Ridicule scientologists
  11. If a criticism “hits home”, react violently, loudly cry “foul” and dramatize so that the attacker can see how unfair the criticism was.
  12. Associate only with people who agree how horrible the Church of Scientology is.
  13. Label Scientologists (like “naive”, “brainwashed”, “idiots” etc.)

Feel free to suggest additional points.

26 thoughts on “Job description: Scientology hardcore critic

  1. 14. Do not mind very much about individual scientologists; they are flour of the same bag and all of them need help.

  2. I think you will still write another post for a more balanced position regarding the matter in question. I hope so.

  3. Sounds like alot of what Scientologists do, only the other way around.

    2. Keep in mind that Miscavige is good. Always:
    3. Dont admit to anything wrong in the organization or the tech
    7. Treat anything written by anyone other than the church as garbage
    9. is the same as yours
    10. Ridicule critics
    13. Label critics

  4. I notice a lot of Scientology critics at don’t do #9-13. Many are willing to admit when themselves or fellow critics are wrong, for example. Unfortunately, Scientologists themselves are required by policy to be fanatical. Anyone who tries to be fair or acknowledge valid criticism is subject to Scientology ethics proceedings. Obviously, one should investigate the claims of either side rather than blindly accepting their assertions. Thus I submit to you and

  5. I think many on both sides would love an open, honest discussion, but the C of S tries to keep members from engaging in discussion. The critics have no similar policy.

  6. Any kind of fanatical belief system is counter productive in the long run. If the beliefs of Scientology were harmless I could care less about them. Since Hubbard chose to instill a fanatical “we would rather have you trained or dead” motif into his “true believers.”

    Since it’s a big money maker and the powers-that-be are sworn to protect the money flow at any cost. Scientology management has made itself a clear and present danger to anyone critical of the organisation and a covert hazard to everyone else. Since the organisation chooses to systematically continue it’s criminal and antisocial programs, it will continue to be a subject of controversy if not outright derision.

    I submit however that the only commonality between your two lists IS Scientology. Scientology would exist without critics, critics of Scientology would not exist without Scientology continually misbehaving.

    Is Scientology completely bad? Of course not! Is Anonymous completely good? Are critics completely good? The questions are uniformly absurd.

  7. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a hard core Scientologist and a hard core critic if you just observe their behaviour.

  8. There is misunderstanding here. Geir is attempting to clarify a juxtaposition between the Scientologist hard-liners and Critical hard-liners. This is the second of related posts. Pay attention.

  9. Geir, your job description can be compacted much. Actually it can be compacted to only two rules:

    1. Always make Hubbard and Scientology wrong
    2. Should logic, experience or common sense seem to indicate that there could be anything right about Hubbard or Scientology, immediately apply rule #1.

    I know I have not invented this logical loop, but it works so well for the job of Scientology critic, especially for people with less than 1 active brain cell!

  10. Love it. This was posted to a list, I see Geir has done a better job in expanding the job description, but I’m adding my original here in Solidarity. 🙂

    “It seems our Geir has rather upset a particular band of fanatical critics in saying there is some worth in Scientology. This is deja vu for me, as I experienced similar 15 years ago. Hence I thought I would provide the following for some light amusement:

    Job description for exiting Scientologists, as required by the Kritik Kommunal Kauldron:

    1. Propritiate
    2. Write 100 “mea culpas”
    3. Say the Tech is completely and utterly worthless
    4. Perform like a seal, repeating points 1 -3 above
    5. Above all, make us RIGHT.

    Any deviation from the above will result in harsh penalties, and return to the Komminity will only be allowed after points 1-5 have been fulfilled again, several times over.


    (Caveat – not all critics like are like this, only a hard-core node)

    Bottom line – nobody, NOBODY – not the Church of Scientology nor the Critics, can take away your Rights as a Thetan. Simple as that.”

    Kim Baker

    1. Some are. Some are not. I am not about to commit the logical fallacy of Hasty Generalization that seems to be an over-representation among the Hard Core Critics.

  11. Greetings,

    I’ve discovered that black and white, all-or-nothing, dichotomous thinking is at the root of most destructive religions and ideologies in general. On an individual level, dichotomous thinking results in self-defeating behaviors, erroneous perceptions, and emotional dysfunction. We see the negative social consequences in religious intolerance, intense political partisanship, religious militancy and terrorism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

    While I haven’t participated in Church of Scientology services, I’ve spent enough time on the web to see Scientology’s zealous supporters and detractors. While I condemn and protest Scientology’s human rights abuses and militancy, I equally condemn those portray Scientology as thoroughly toxic and utterly devoid of any value.

    The astute observation that Scientology’s militant supporters and detractors have remarkable similarities deserves more attention. I was brought up in an apocalyptic cult that gave me an organized way of perceiving my world. Curiously enough, I later rebelled by becoming a fervid atheist! In both cases, I put on blinders after being conditioned to follow certain behavioral pathways. My rigid philosophies worked to simplify the world but they also limited my spiritual, social, and intellectual growth. To this day I have to guard against my propensity towards black-or-white dichotomous thinking. In the process of refuting irrational ideologies, I surprise myself by uncovering unconsciously held philosophies of living.


  12. Greetings Mr. Isene,

    Thank you for kind remark. I want to laud your efforts at providing a forum where people of divergent opinion can engage in spirited discussion about Scientology’s merits. Furthermore, I appreciate your intellectually flexibility and fair-minded assessment of Scientology’s benefits and liabilities. Also, I enjoy hearing about your personal experiences in Scientology, including the assorted collection of benefits you’ve identified.

    Sometimes I feel left out in the cold given my unique background. Whilst I’ve never participated in services, I suspect real value can be obtained through auditing and coursework. Unfortunately, the current church is mired in corruption and delivers lackluster results (based on the number of defections and complaints). Furthermore, it’s quite possible I’d be considered an illegal preclear and refused services. Without going into any further detail, I hope to someday undertake services under the guidance of an ethical and competent auditor.

    Thanks again for your feedback and fabulous site,


  13. I would like to promote the concept of “Look, don’t Listen.” This is a valuable and very applicable LRH policy which relates to Scientology as an organization and to all of life.
    That being said, I whole heartedly agree with Gere’s post where he discusses how something is either out with the tech or out with LRH’s ability to choose his people. LRH either missed the “fact” that David Mayo was a coniving SP (which means he was too pts to spot David Mayo’s true nature) or he allowed his affinity and trust in David Mayo to give way to 3rd party, which means he listened to rumor line, and again, didn’t spot the true sp spinning the tales.

    It is important to apply the basic tenements of Scientology to Scientology and Scientologist. That is, the PtS data, the overt motivator sequence, TWTH, the condition formulas, FEBC tapes, the ARC triangle, KRC triangle- all need to be used to evaluate LRH, Admin policy, DM and company, the Orgs etc., and you will see the truth,which may not agree with your fixed idea of it.

    For instance, how is it that OSA is suppose to discredit a percieved enemy (anyone who is an outspoken critic of Scientology) by digging up dirt and embellishing it, or fabricating some dirt, so as to “utterly destroy” the individual’s reputation, job, family life etc.? Is this not “motivating”?
    Isn’t that “effort to destroy” (as oppossed to just fighting against an actual crime) really different than an evil intention from an FPRD list?
    If we keep getting attacked doesn’t that mean we are “motivator hungry”? Doesn’t the Church need to get its o/w’s pulled?
    LRH says over and over that WE are the CAUSE of our attacks. He also says that if the ethics and tech is in, the place will fill up.
    Well, you get the idea. What is true for us, as thetans, applies to all of Scientology as a group and the policies that don’t reflect our most uptone and natural nature should not be followed. Theta is senior and the “Route to Infinity” is not based on chasing barking dogs, lieing, cheating, or any other dramitization.

    Let us spread what is good and correct with Scientology and get it to others without making people pay a fortune. If we are racing against the clock, so to speak, then all people should be able to audit and be audited. We don’t need fancy buildings, fancy course packs, IAS memberships, leather bound books or gilded emeters! It is false data that the tech is expensive to teach and that it costs billions of dollars to disseminate. Back to basics should just meant the grass roots movement to get people auditing people in volume all over the planet. Now that is a scene I like.

    1. Good post. LRH says We are the CAUSE of the attacks right there in KSW #1. Interesting point on the OSA/effort to destroy/FPRD List.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s