Max Burns Struck a Scientology Nerve

As Daily Beast contributor Max Burns took to Twitter weighing in on the Slap Heard ‘Round the World he mentioned Will Smith’s connection to Scientology.

Scientology immediately responded with their tired and much overused war cry of “BIGOT!”

Beyond the irony of a group who has raised self humiliation to epic heights, (think getting caught over and over faking humanitarian service or being publicly called out for lying about a coffee company boycotting the Emmy Awards) is the hypocrisy of any Scientologist writing; “These are petty, small-minded individuals who consider themselves threatened by the very existence of people who appear ‘different’”

Burns’ post begins; “The slap is much less interesting when you realize Will Smith almost certainly went through the Scientology courses that teach you to unapologetically use slaps and physical force to let a fellow Scientologist know they’ve done something wrong.”

As Tony Ortega noted, Smith was not a dedicated Scientologist.

It is debatable whether Smith reached the Upper Indoc TRs and this is where the physical contact gets real.

During Training Routine 6 the student attempts to control the coach’s body movements. In the next stage, TR 7, “Coach tries in all possible ways, verbal, covert and physical, to stop student from running control on him.”

As Marc Headley explained it, Upper Indoc TRs is where “you physically manhandle people”. You “shove and push people around for hours as a Training Routine”.

Further, as a celebrity Will Smith would not have been hit by anyone.

Celebrities were/are exempt from following the same rules as the rest of Scientology. No one would have dared hit him for any reason.

Max Burns was on the right path however.

In Scientology violence and physical abuse is real.

COS’ very foundations are anger, revenge and destruction. L. Ron Hubbard spent more time on crafting paranoid policies to pay back “enemies” than he ever did on research.

Hubbard’s vicious instruction on precisely how to annihilate anyone who dared challenge him ran the gauntlet from savage character assassination right up to R2-45 which he described as “an enormously effective process for exteriorization but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time”

R2-45 is shooting someone in the head with a 45 pistol.

Hubbard wasn’t joking.

Burns’ description of Tom Cruise is also spot on; “Tom Cruise does a similar thing, but his preferred method is shouting and intense personality intimidation…”

L. Ron Hubbard hit those around him, he also verbally abused his subordinates just like Cruise. He was also a domestic abuser according to two of his wives, Polly and Sara.

In the Sea Org it is normal practice for higher ranking members to strike those under their command.

Of course no discussion of Scientology violence can be had without mentioning the Bully-in-Chief David Miscavige whose vile temper and brutal attacks on his executives are notorious.

Abusive violence in all it’s forms is an ongoing legacy that can be traced directly back to L. Ron Hubbard.

Michael Leb’s Stand League article lashing out at Burns resulted in a very good question.

Inquiring minds want to know…

Where is the rebuttal?

Such responses are surely frustrating for Leb and COS as they prove the attempt to humiliate Max Burns embarrassingly, epically backfires.

Leb proffers no evidence to counter Burns’ claims that violence is an acceptable response in COS. Instead he drifts off into a saccharine ode d’ amour to Scientology for all the wondrous good it has done for the world.

“I am fascinated by the care and heart of its people to help others so freely and fearlessly, whether it’s tending to cyclone victims left homeless in Samoa through our Volunteer Minister program, or restoring literacy and therefore hope to underserved communities across the United States through Applied Scholastics, or freeing people young and old, rich and poor, from the iron grip of drugs thanks to Mr. Hubbard’s drug rehabilitation technology employed by Narconon.”

If anyone is publicly embarrassing oneself it would be Michael Leb. Someone please hand the man a tissue.

His Volunteer Ministers program fearlessly stages photo ops and ruthlessly hijacks disasters in order to create an illusion for good PR.

Applied Scholastics is an unfounded, unresearched construct of Hubbard’s that is downright dangerous for children with learning disabilities.

Narconon is an equally baseless creation devoid of any real research or science. Its use has resulted in multiple deaths over the years.

Leb’s attempt at deflection from the uncomfortable truth raised by Max Burns only opened the door for more uncomfortable truth.

How embarrassing for Scientology.

While Will Smith’s slap at the Oscars was not truly driven by Scientology, Burns has done a service by reopening a discussion about the rampant violence in this cult.

Something Scientology obviously cannot refute with any believability.

Always attack, never defend.

Because they can’t.

2 thoughts on “Max Burns Struck a Scientology Nerve

  1. A couple parts of the Hate Monger reply are telling:

    First off, as people who incessantly occupy themselves with “word clearing” undoubtedly know, “bigotry” is defined as “prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.” (Oxford Dictionary). Max Burns did NOT accuse Smith of membership in the cult.

    He pointed out that the cult trains physical violence/intimidation as a “communications” tool as part of their “religious” practices. This is NOT about prejudice as long as there’s a simple truth test available: Either they do or they don’t. It turns out, they do. And Hate Monger does NOT even try to refute that. Because they can’t!

    This is a lot like showing empirically that persons from abusive homes are at greatly increased risk of becoming abusive themselves as this is how they have been indoctrinated to practice conflict resolution. How is this observation “bigotry” against abusive homes? Let alone against victims of abusive homes?

    Equally puzzling: Where is the “embarassment [sic] for Mr Burns?” One thing is for certain, a bigoted remark (or one that can be constructed as one, even if great reaching and word twisting are required) is sure to attract a virtue signalling Twitter lynch mob in half the time it takes to say “social justice warrior.” It speaks to the popularity of scientology as well as to the fact that “the word is out” about the cult that no such outcry ever materialized. As it turns out, the “embarassment” exists only in the imagination of Hate Monger.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In the interest of relentless pursuit of the truth: They know “embarrassment” better than I do. They spelled it correctly. I didn’t.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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