-

From Wikileaks

Some years ago i read Aleister Crowleys book which was a diary of some kind,when it got to the 1940's he wrote about the Californian chapter of his organisation the O.T.O and claimed that Ron L Hubbard was second in command under someone whose name i think was Smith and with whose wife Hubbard ran off with. As this book was published in the forties prior to the advent of Scientology it could well explain where Hubbards theories emerged from.

[edit] I dont think this is confidential.

its just the course materials. i think anyone can get these?

It mentions limited distribution at the beginning and end of the document. It also looks like an internal document since it seems to describe procedure for workers; Scientology is usually very secretive with internal documents.

After reading this I think I understand why L Ron Hubbard has something against psychiatrists/psychologists -- one must have told him that he was INSANE. He clearly has a God complex. I have to hand it to him though. Quite a racket he has going there making unintelligent people think that they are smarter than everyone else.

Confirmed. Anyone can get these. They cost money. PirateLeaks, eh Wikileaks just wants to provide it to you for free.

"They cost money" - Much like saving your eternity from those pesky psychs, body thetans and everything else concocted up by Hubbard. As this is an auditing rundown, you'd also stand absolutely zero chance of getting it unless you were a trained auditor - Which also means, funnily enough, a practicing Scientologist.

Fail some more at trying to make us believe "anyone can get these", please? The more people leave, the more docs get leaked, the more the truth comes out. --OldGuard 13:18, 24 June 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Significant anomaly in section 5

It is highly unlikely that an HCOPL (Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter) would include a mis-spelling of L Ron Hubbard's own name. In section 5, item 4, the phrase "... the materials Of the course, and is awarded the certificate of SUBBARD FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR (Provisional)." contains two errors: capitalization of 'Of' and mis-spelling 'SUBBARD'. Some explanation of whether these errors may have been caused by transcription of the original document would appear to be necessary.

This thing is chock-a-block full of typos. Check out the HCOPL on suppressive persons. --WannaBeANerd 22:17, 10 May 2008 (GMT)

My money is on a poor OCR job. Which is fail in and of itself - Gunna do something, should do it right! --OldGuard 13:11, 24 June 2008 (GMT)

As OldGuard said, it's just a bad OCR job. I compared this to the original paper version and it's identical, save for some formatting oddities (and the aforementioned spelling mistakes) introduced by the OCR process.