Scientology Incites Death Threat Against Marc Headley

Scientology has accused Leah Remini of everything from arson to murder but one of their favorite, go-to claims is that she “incites” others to hate and violence.

First off, proclaiming something should be burned to the ground indicates, for right thinking people, a building. Normally one does not burn a person “to the ground”.

Secondly, such a comment, while extreme, does not equal a death threat.

Property damage yes.

Death threat, no.

The first death threat is issued”.


Who knew that members of a cult that prides itself on achieving Vulcan like control over the reactive mind would, in the end, turn out to be such drama queens?

No it’s not nice to say someone should burn down Scientology buildings, but no one threatened to kill any Scientologists. Frankly, there are so many empty COS owned buildings across this country the chances of anyone actually being inside are almost nonexistent.

To be clear; do not go and burn down any Scientology buildings, OK?

Cap’n Miscavige needs to put on his big boy knickers and take a chill pill.

On the other hand…

While Cap’n Coward is hiding from the big, bad process servers and squealing in fear over imaginary death threats, his own minions are, in fact, inciting violence and actual death threats against Marc Headley.

Scientology has for years pointed the finger at Leah Remini whilst whining that she is the ringleader of meanies who are picking on innocent Scientologists for no reason. This latest tweet by Hate Monger reminds us of a kindergartner; “she’s looking at me! Make her stop looking at me!”

Miscavige and his OSA goons want people to think that Remini is responsible for the actions of people she doesn’t know, has never met and has absolutely nothing to do with. Some random fan stated that Scientology should be burned to the ground and Hate Monger screams “Leah Remini is inciting death threats!”

There was no death threat and Leah Remini is not inciting anything but a demand for justice and an end to abuse.

On the other hand, owning and operating multiple social media accounts that do nothing but create a platform for the dehumanization of others through constant misinformation, lies and false accusations is the epitome of incitement. There is no good reason for Scientology to have these accounts except to make people hate the targets.

Scientology wants their readers to be outraged at Leah Remini, Mike Rinder, the Headleys and anyone else who stands up to them.

What stems from such outrage?

One of their own hoping publicly that someone hits Marc Headley with a car.

That is true incitement.

By a so-called “religion”.


5 thoughts on “Scientology Incites Death Threat Against Marc Headley

  1. While the metaphor grand jury is in session:

    What exactly did Tom Cruise mean when he put on a turtleneck and exalted the day when there would be no more SPs (and presumably, wogs) to be found anywhere? Genocide?

    What did miscavige mean when he exulted “the war [with the IRS] is over?” Did he let it slip at that moment that the cult had been waging an actual war on the IRS and the American people who actually do pay their taxes? Did he just then admit to terrorized civil servants, their murdered pets and all that unsavory business?

    What about hubbarf himself? While children have imaginary friends, he had a ton of imaginary enemies. And he just loved talking about his “enemies”, spinning tales of when scientology would take over the world and run things; all things. Did that make him a a dangerous jihadist?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “Scientology needs to be burned to the ground.” It’s clear. Check. It’s violent. Check.

    And it’s a metaphor! It does not refer to people, even buildings, but to an idea–a bad one at that–scientology.

    Like it or not, people are “killing it” in the markets. They are “beating” each other at checkers. They are competing and proudly “leaving others in the dust” without lending assistance (as fodder for the jackals, presumably). In what world are these killers, beaters and abandoners of the wounded all gearing up for a killing spree?

    If you’re “dominating” and “owning” others at some pursuit or other, does this make you a slave owner? Or do you only qualify if you engage in the human trafficking of “religious” workers?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. That one’s an interesting one as it does not state whose leg to break. One of their own? But then, how to go on with the play?

        Or is this a blatant incitement to violence, calling them to go up to another and break theirs?

        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