Why I Think Wikileaks Is Important
Dec. 6th, 2010 10:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deirdreIn late 1994, a handful of Scientology materials, including NOTs documents (but not including OT III despite the Wikipedia page's claim) were posted to alt.religion.scientology. You can read more of the fallout on the wikipedia page, but here's four data points:
1) Dennis Ehrlich's house was raided because he'd replied to the postings several times (and, indeed, had discovered that the anonymous postings had been canceled by the CofS). It is said that his defense's costs ran between a million and a million and a half dollars.
2) Many governments sanctioned Scientology's actions in this. Most famously, the Dutch supreme court has supported Karin Spaink and xs4all over commentary posted about Scientology's OT documents. They fought that battle for more than ten years. You can read the documents here. (Note that the Fishman Affidavit is considered one of the less reliable sources about some of the levels, but OT III appears to be materially correct per the originals I've seen in person years ago.)
3) Germany, concerned over Diskeeper, a Scientologist-run company, code in Windows 2000, wanted to see source code before permitting it to be included with Windows 2000 in Germany over fears about privacy and security. Per the footnoted Wired article, "German law bars state and federal governments from doing business with a member of the Church of Scientology." That is a direct consequence of the misbehavior of the CofS during the OT document fallout.
4) I started posting to alt.religion.scientology in August 1994, and in February, 1995, Scientology sent a "handler" who couldn't find me. (The general store told me about it later.) Two weeks before the CofS showed up in my 'hood, my former boss was expelled suddenly, though we had not spoken in five years. I can't help but think that wasn't coincidental.
So I thought I'd say my personal angle, speaking as a former CofS member: it is, in fact, seeing the secret documents that helped me make the choice that I no longer wished to pursue the secret upper levels. I am neither the first nor the last person this is true for, either. It had been sold to me as a mystery cult (an expensive one at that), and I really did find auditing useful. That said, the higher up you go, the more you have to buy in, and I always had that bit of reservation. I did do a couple of the early secret levels when I was in, but none worthy of making any press, frankly. I still find some parts of Scientology useful and consider myself a part of the independent field. I'm under no illusions that Hubbard was perfect or anything: he was sexist and racist (both, I believe, more so than average for his time), had no idea of how to do science, was prone to gross exaggeration on a good day, but he was a competent synthesist in many ways.
One of the ways to break the hold a mystery has is to make it no longer a mystery. Obviously, the CofS, fearing for their revenue stream, has a vested interest in keeping the secret levels secret. (Pneumonia? Really? Puh-leeze.)
Given the cost of litigation, pretty much everyone folded when it came to hosting "secret" Scientology documents. That is, until Wikileaks. (Because of the current controversy, it's a bit difficult to get to the other archives of Wikileaks, but they are out there somewhere.)
(All non-friends comments will be screened. Note that there are a lot of people who consider themselves Scientologists and a part of Scientology who refuse to have anything to do with the CofS, so let's not conflate one with the other. Currently, the core group on Marty Rathbun's blog is calling themselves Scientology and the CofS "Radical Scientology." Of particular interest from recent times is this post about the CofS's campaign against Tory Christman -- who was, ironically, one of the alt.religion.scientology CofS posters of olden days.)
1) Dennis Ehrlich's house was raided because he'd replied to the postings several times (and, indeed, had discovered that the anonymous postings had been canceled by the CofS). It is said that his defense's costs ran between a million and a million and a half dollars.
2) Many governments sanctioned Scientology's actions in this. Most famously, the Dutch supreme court has supported Karin Spaink and xs4all over commentary posted about Scientology's OT documents. They fought that battle for more than ten years. You can read the documents here. (Note that the Fishman Affidavit is considered one of the less reliable sources about some of the levels, but OT III appears to be materially correct per the originals I've seen in person years ago.)
3) Germany, concerned over Diskeeper, a Scientologist-run company, code in Windows 2000, wanted to see source code before permitting it to be included with Windows 2000 in Germany over fears about privacy and security. Per the footnoted Wired article, "German law bars state and federal governments from doing business with a member of the Church of Scientology." That is a direct consequence of the misbehavior of the CofS during the OT document fallout.
4) I started posting to alt.religion.scientology in August 1994, and in February, 1995, Scientology sent a "handler" who couldn't find me. (The general store told me about it later.) Two weeks before the CofS showed up in my 'hood, my former boss was expelled suddenly, though we had not spoken in five years. I can't help but think that wasn't coincidental.
So I thought I'd say my personal angle, speaking as a former CofS member: it is, in fact, seeing the secret documents that helped me make the choice that I no longer wished to pursue the secret upper levels. I am neither the first nor the last person this is true for, either. It had been sold to me as a mystery cult (an expensive one at that), and I really did find auditing useful. That said, the higher up you go, the more you have to buy in, and I always had that bit of reservation. I did do a couple of the early secret levels when I was in, but none worthy of making any press, frankly. I still find some parts of Scientology useful and consider myself a part of the independent field. I'm under no illusions that Hubbard was perfect or anything: he was sexist and racist (both, I believe, more so than average for his time), had no idea of how to do science, was prone to gross exaggeration on a good day, but he was a competent synthesist in many ways.
One of the ways to break the hold a mystery has is to make it no longer a mystery. Obviously, the CofS, fearing for their revenue stream, has a vested interest in keeping the secret levels secret. (Pneumonia? Really? Puh-leeze.)
Given the cost of litigation, pretty much everyone folded when it came to hosting "secret" Scientology documents. That is, until Wikileaks. (Because of the current controversy, it's a bit difficult to get to the other archives of Wikileaks, but they are out there somewhere.)
(All non-friends comments will be screened. Note that there are a lot of people who consider themselves Scientologists and a part of Scientology who refuse to have anything to do with the CofS, so let's not conflate one with the other. Currently, the core group on Marty Rathbun's blog is calling themselves Scientology and the CofS "Radical Scientology." Of particular interest from recent times is this post about the CofS's campaign against Tory Christman -- who was, ironically, one of the alt.religion.scientology CofS posters of olden days.)