Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks reveals the complete Scientology OT docs

FreedomToThink (1254724) writes | more than 6 years ago

Censorship 4

FreedomToThink writes "The complete Church of Scientology collected Operating Thetan documents have now been released by Wikileaks in PDF form, including both the original and the new versions of all OT levels I to VIII.

The documents were previously released online by the collective known as Anonymous but they were only available via bittorrent.
The complete collection of Scientology's Operating Thetan levels normally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to access by working your way through the Scientology system. The Church of Scientology denies the information exists, but the authenticity of these documents can be verified by any former OT level members of the Church of Scientology such as Jesse Prince (former No.2 of the 'Church'), Michael Pattinson (OT VIII), Tory Christman (OT VII) and 10 year Scientology member turned renowned critic, Arnie Lerma, who's home was raided at the bequest of the church of Scientology in 1995, to recover copies of the OT texts which had been legally obtained via the court release of them during the Fishman case.

Though these texts have appeared online before, they have always been rapidly hit with copyright claims and lawsuits by the church of Scientology, despite at the same time denial of the existence, or authenticity of the documents.

Older versions of these texts, versions of OT levels I to VII were once made available to the public for under 100 dollars as exhibits attached to a declaration by Steven Fishman on 9 April 1993 as part of Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz. The text of this declaration and its exhibits were collectively known as the Fishman Affidavit. These exhibits were eventually sealed by a judge after petitioning by the Church of Scientology, as their contents were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per reader to them.

This is the third major Scientology leak on Wikileaks spawned by the Anonymous campaign against what it calls "the corrupt business known as the 'Church of Scientology'". Previously there was :

Citizens Commission on Human Rights exposed as a Scientology front Which holds proof of political lobbying that is in violation of it's 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt status
The 'Frank Oliver' documents as discussed on slashdot recently in Wikileaks Airs Scientology Black Ops"

Link to Original Source

cancel ×

4 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Incidentally I don't have them. (1)

FreedomToThink (1254724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22864856)

I haven't read or downloaded these, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. I've heard about Scientology putting a passing Starbucks employee on a restraining order [tampabay.com] they claim is against 'terrorists' when she simply walked by the peaceful Anonymous protest. I hate to think what they'd do to someone who's actually, gasp, reported on a website containing something they'd really have cause to complain about.

I do however have more faith in the words of Scientology alumni and objective critics than the propaganda and weak cover ups of the 'Church' discredited by their own actions such as lawsuits.

Who knows, maybe they've learned from recent experiences and yet another Streisand effect will not be coming shortly, but then the doctrine of L. Ron Hubbard was to 'never defend, always attack' and "The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
" ( sources : http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/exhibg.html [cmu.edu] )

Wikileaks already down? (1)

FreedomToThink (1254724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22866258)

At I begin writing this, 5:19pm Wednesday (NZDT), Wikileaks has been coming up as a plain white page for 10 minutes, no source in Firefox, and a 'cannot display' error in IE on several international proxies.

I have tested all Wikileak links provided by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks [wikipedia.org] :
http://www.wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]
https://secure.wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]
http://wikileaks.cn/ [wikileaks.cn]
https://wikileaks.cx/ [wikileaks.cx]
http://wikileaks.in/ [wikileaks.in]
http://wikileaks.karantan.org/ [karantan.org]
http://wikileaks.org.au/ [wikileaks.org.au]
http://wikileaks.org.nz/ [wikileaks.org.nz]
http://wikileaks.org.uk/ [wikileaks.org.uk]
http://www.cauce.us/wiki/Wikileaks [cauce.us]
https://secure.freedomsbell.org/ [freedomsbell.org] - alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
https://secure.libertypen.org/ [libertypen.org] - alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
https://secure.ljsf.org/ [ljsf.org] - alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
https://secure.sunshinepress.org/ [sunshinepress.org] - alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
https://secure.wikileaks.be/ [wikileaks.be]

  and direct to IP on http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] so it is not DNS blocking.

OP was posted at 2:15 (NZDT) so this is less than 3 hours after posting the story, it has not made Slashdot front page, in fact it has been down voted on the firehose, the story has less than 200 diggs, and has been burried in the digg system by those not wanting the story to get out.

This story is a long way from being well known.

So what could have happened to wikileaks? It can't be the digg effect, it can't have been slashdotted.
This site has weathered (to a point) several slashdottings, digg effects and Julius Baer Bank's litigation to name but a few hazzards it has dealt with.

It's 30 minutes by now (5.46) ... and even Wikipedia is even amending "(serves null pages, 2008-03-26)" to the links listed above
I can't wait to find what Wikileaks has to say about what happened when it's back online.

Clarification : why a collection? (1)

FreedomToThink (1254724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22875418)

A well known Scientology critic has made a note on the source of the documents :

The PDF file dates from 1999. It was compiled in the Freezone. It is not a manual, but a collection of the original OT and L levels and associated checksheets, notes etc.

These papers do NOT exist as a single item in the CoS, but as a series of levels taken (and paid for!) over a number of years. So far as I know they have all been available since the final bits were stolen in 1983.

This file is part of a collection that was widely distributed on CD within the Freezone. A copy has been on bittorrent since 2006. The collection includes Hubbard's books, critical books, Freezone books, Red and Green volumes, lots of stuff.
http://www.mininova.org/tor/274971 [mininova.org]
If you're going to take a serious interest in Scientology, this is the one to get rather than download lots of smaller bits.

When the Church of Scientology officially denies the documents, be aware of their habit of telling 'acceptable truths'.

For example :

On the Scientology web site Scientologymyths, After a few paragraphs discussing secret teachings, they disclose that they don't worship an alien (Xenu), which is something NO critic has asserted. Christians don't worship Satan, but he's still a part of the whole deal.

Or in a recent Radar Online article [radaronline.com] about letters from a legal firm along with the propaganda DVD 'Anonymous hate crimes', being hand delivered to suspected Anonymous supporters:

A Church of Scientology spokesperson says "It is not true that lawyers from any firm representing the Church have visited anyone. If anyone is suggesting otherwise, that is false."

This appears to be the 'Church' denying involvement but more accurately it is merely stating that delivery person was not a lawyer.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?