The Scientology Money Project

Commodore Hubbard and Maverick: Tom Cruise Remains a Lifer in Scientology’s Master Race Cult

While Tom Cruise plays a US Navy officer in Top Gun, the reality is that Scientology is run by a radicalized paramilitary organization called the Sea Org. Often referred to as “Scientology’s fake navy,” the Sea Org was created in 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard who gave himself the title of Commodore.

The ultimate purpose of Scientology's Sea Org is to conduct the genocide L. Ron Hubbard ordered

Captain David Miscavige is the Leader of Scientology’s radicalized Sea Organization.

Per the billon year Sea Org contract, the purpose of the Sea Org is put in Scientology Ethics in on this and planet and universe:

I, ___________________ DO HEREBY AGREE to enter into employment with the SEA ORGANIZATION and, being of sound mind, do fully realize and agree to abide by its purpose which is to get ETHICS IN on this PLANET AND UNIVERSE and, fully and without reservation, subscribe to the discipline, mores and conditions of this group and pledge to abide by them.


Scientology’s stated goal is planetary and universal conquest. The Sea Org is in charge of this goal. The Sea Org includes the “Office of Special Affairs” which in charge of Scientology’s vicious Fair Game operations. Part of the donations Tom Cruise makes to Scientology fund Fair Game operations.

Tom Cruise’s donations also help fund Scientology’s legal bills related to the Danny Masterson civil and criminal rape trials. In the Masterson civil sexual assault trial, David Miscavige is a named defendant and so part of the money from Top Gun: Maverick will help pay Miscavige’s legal bills.

Scientologists believe they are a Master Race called Homo Novis which means the “New Man.”

The shocking details of Scientology’s Master Race and are here: The Horrifying Real Secret of Scientology is Genocide

2 replies »

  1. Every time I’ve seen someone gushing about the new Top Gun move (and TC), I’m literally screaming at the TV, “Where’s Shelly Miscavage?” and “What really happened with Lisa McPherson?”

  2. Top Gun II: The Return of Maverick? Whatever, I’m just waiting for this thing to go on sale at WalMart, in the under $5 bin, right next to Paul Blart: Mall Cop and the other garbage in this bin before I even consider watching it. I do, however, wonder about the financials behind this movie. Reportedly, the film cost about $170 Million to make. Right now, it is pushing around $900 million in box office revenue It is not expected to break the $1 billion mark, due to it not being released in China or Russia. Conservatively, a 10% profit margin can be expected on total sales, with high profit margin industries seeing upwards of 20%. At this rate, the streaming and video sales would have to be appreciable in order for the investors to realize any meaningful rate of return. Further, assuming this figure of $170 M is accurate (which I cannot vouch for other than to say that it appeared on at least two different websites), one has to wonder what the marketing costs were, as well as the interest that was tacked on to any loans that the production company had to take out. Recall, that the movie’s release was delayed due to Covid-19 and Cruise’s decision to take advantage of the Memorial Day weekend. Put simply, a more conservative investment may have done better, especially given the extended time line. The movie also may have faced significant unreported challenges in getting staff to edit it. Today, I saw that Paul Haggis has been accused of raping a woman over the course of several days. I understand that the accusations levied against Paul have been largely attributed to Scientology’s clandestine involvement and they have been held by many to be suspect. I have no personal knowledge of the situation or the accuser, but it does seem suspicious to think that a 65 year old man would have been capable of raping a young woman for several days. One has to ask, is Scientology trying to send a message to give Tom better access to talent? Are they being blocked from the good, cheap film labor they need? And from what I’ve seen of this “action flick,” the picture quality looks nothing like the original – spray tans were used, the stills seem unneccesarily dark, the acting mediocre, and the anthem, allegedly redone by Harold Faltemeyer has a cheesy tonality that reeks of overhype. And how can Cruise, who at one point called a sequel to Top Gun “irresponsible” in the wake of his closest shot to wining an Oscar “Born on the Fourth of July” (note: saying “penis” unnecessarily and repeatedly will generally shoot your chances of an award) and a member of a notoriously anti-American cult make this movie? Much remains to be seen, but as for me, I’ll keep following in the stands.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.