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 Airs Scientology Black Ops

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the no-fair-game dept.

Censorship 509

An anonymous reader alerts us to new material up on Wikileaks: 208 scanned pages (in one PDF) relating to the Church of Scientology and its former "Office of Special Affairs" employee (and subsequent apostate) Frank Oliver. "The documents are dated between 1986 and 1992 inclusive, when, according to the file, Frank Oliver was declared a 'suppressive person' and excommunicated. Frank Oliver should be able to verify the material and has appeared in the media before on subjects relating to the church. Starting on page 107, the document shows that at the time of writing the Church of Scientology was still actively engaged in black propaganda (especially concerning psychiatry), 'fair game' and infiltration."

cancel ×

509 comments

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

Get 'em while they're hot (5, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723750)

Make sure you get your copy before the Scientologists take the site down.

slashdotted (5, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723772)

I bet this is a Scientology plot to overload wikileaks.

Re:slashdotted (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723804)

Over here the page still loads swiftly. *shrug*

Re:slashdotted (2, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723880)

Wikileaks is wayy beyond scientology's grasp. I mean, the CoS would easily bomb a data center if they could find one, but wikileaks is worldwide and hidden.

Re:slashdotted (4, Funny)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724310)

I mean, the CoS would easily bomb a data center if they could find one
You mean, with a Tom Cruise Missile?

Re:slashdotted (2, Funny)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724076)

It worked! Damn that Xenu! sneaky little bigger.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723774)

By now it'll always* be online regardless what CoS do... I wonder if this organization will realize that this time, or if they'll once again do a Streisand.

* as in until it falls out of interest

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (5, Insightful)

aarggh (806617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724002)

The official course of action for COS in cases like these is set down by elron himself, basically sue, sue, harass, and then sue some more regardless of winning or losing. And unfortunately they have so much sway that sending multiple C&D's to sites/ISP's will cause most sites to drop any links or references anyway as they are too intimidated by the COS. Note that by "COS" I am of course referring to the "Cult of Scientology", as no-one could ever confuse this group with any modern day religion!

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (3, Interesting)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724318)

> as no-one could ever confuse this group with any modern day religion!

I'm curious; why wouldn't you confuse it with a religion? What is a 'modern day' religion?

I ask these questions as a Christian myself, and a regular old boring protestant one at that.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (0, Flamebait)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724504)

I agree, it should be confused with modern day religions, since all are groups of adults believing in fictional stories and allowing them to control their lives.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (4, Interesting)

complete loony (663508) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724538)

If I asked you what you believe, you would point me to materials I can read, tell me yourself, or point me to someone else who can explain it better.

Scientology forces you to pay lots of money and undergo questionable interrogations before they will trust you to with their secrets. By which point you have made a huge emotional and financial investment. So it's unlikely you would question what you are being told anyway.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (2, Insightful)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724382)

Note that by "COS" I am of course referring to the "Cult of Scientology", as no-one could ever confuse this group with any modern day religion!

Indeed: whatever other tactics they use, Scientology doesn't use hangings or suicide bombings to silence their critics and apostates.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723848)

Starting on page 107, the document shows that at the time of writing the Church of Scientology was still actively engaged in black propaganda (especially concerning psychiatry), 'fair game' and infiltration."
Yes, I wonder if Wikileaks will get a taste of the 'Fair Game' policy the papers mention if they don't take the papers down.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724114)

I wonder if they'll care if they do. They're set up in many different countries with mirrors across the world for a reason - because they *expect* every organization they mention to try to shut them down. Won't work. The cult might bring down a server or two, but they'll just pop back up as quickly as they can and in the mean time alternate servers will take the burden.

I know the cult is sue-happy and has successes under its belt, but wikileaks is set up *specifically* for this. The documents are out, they're on servers worldwide already, and a dozen bit torrents as well. There is no way to suppress this even if they were to somehow take down all of wikileaks.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (3, Funny)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724060)

Some one summaries the controversial lines please, so that we can continue hot Sceintology bashing...

Ugh... I hate PDF... it makes me look like someone interested in actually reading TFA...

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (2, Interesting)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724346)

...so that we can continue hot Sceintology bashing...
I was thinking something along those lines. There seems to be a lot of 'bashing' happening on /. lately. I wonder if such articles get more posts and therefore more advertising revenue, or something.

All we need is for there to be a Chinese-Scientology link and we'll have the most commented-on story ever.

Hrm. I wonder if there are any stats on /. stories - ie which story received the most comments, the most highly rated comments, the most 'funny', the most 'flame bate'/etc/etc. That'd be interesting, don't you think? So, interesting, there's probably already a page somewhere on it that I haven't seen yet (I'm rarely the first to think of these things).

Re:Get 'em while they're hot (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724186)

Get your copy fully anonymized via i2p bittorrent (www.i2p2.de):

http://tracker.postman.i2p/details.php?id=2410 [tracker.postman.i2p]
(non i2p preview at tracker.postman.i2p.to)

One word (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723756)

PWNED.

PDF Link Broke (1, Informative)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723760)

The PDF file was broke or the link went to nowhere.

Re:PDF Link Broke (1)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723790)

Current link (from wikileaks.cx) working just fine... A lowly 60k/sec, but that's just a minute or two download.

Re:PDF Link Broke (5, Informative)

kiwi_jackal (1228098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723796)

Re:PDF Link Broke (3, Funny)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723898)

dl'd @ 400k in 30 secs from a torrent. Who said BitTorrent was for nothing but bad.

Re:PDF Link Broke (5, Funny)

ecavalli (1216014) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723978)

Xenu, I believe.

Re:PDF Link Broke (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724234)

Xenu, I believe.
Wouldn't he actually approve of it? I haven't read the book, let alone TFA, but I would've guessed that he created the whole bittorrent protocol by means of having Thetans carry packets from computer to computer via his ginormous spaceship.

Re:PDF Link Broke (2, Funny)

cdrdude (904978) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724000)

People like you are why need an additional rating (Score:5, Awesome)
Thank you for your quick thinking good sir; I am seeding it now.

Be careful... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724022)

I wouldn't put it past them to try and track anyone downloading that over something like a torrent; I'd stick to Wikileaks itself if possible. I've researched some of the abuses they did in the past, and I really don't like Scientology :/

Didn't they have ties to a major ISP (Earthlink?) at one time, too? That said, I remember reading that their internal sites are (were?) entirely self-made because they don't trust us "wogs". And by self-made I mean they're supposed to be utter crap.

Re:PDF Link Broke (5, Funny)

ecavalli (1216014) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723802)

Fasten the tinfoil hats boys and girls. This one is gonna get messy.

Would anyone like to wager how long it will be before we see a headline announcing the mysterious disappearance of Wikileaks' founders, their families and pets and anyone they've ever spoken to?

Re:PDF Link Broke (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723836)

It is sad to say that your statement may not be far from being serious, if it was intended to be a joke.

Re:PDF Link Broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723984)

Scifags are a little too busy trying to fight off the anonymous protests this weekend.

3/15 FTW

www.youfoundthecard.com Print them out and put one everywhere you can in public places. The moar the merrier.

Re:PDF Link Broke (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724054)

In addition to this Chuck Beatty, who was a member of the Sea Org for 27 years has a toll free number, 866-XSEAORG for any current Scientology staff members to call if you need someone to talk to . He can also be reached at 412-260-1170 and by email at chuckbeatty77@aol.com
You know, i hate living in a world where i see something like this and the first thing i think is "i wonder if the scientologists are actually creating anti-scientology fronts to discover who is leaking information or considering defecting with proofs."

Re:PDF Link Broke (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723998)

Would anyone like to wager how long it will be before we see a headline announcing the mysterious disappearance of Wikileaks' founders, their families and pets and anyone they've ever spoken to?

Who are these "Wikileaks" people exactly, anyhow? I googled the name, but oddly, I didn't come up with any hits...

Re:PDF Link Broke (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724522)

Feel like you want more information on a *wiki?
Why not just go to wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks [wikipedia.org]

Basically, it's a website dedicated to posting stuff anonymously that businesses/governments/etc... would not approve of. Airing all their dirty laundry/skeletons in their closet, etc...

Remember what happened last time (5, Interesting)

sgtron (35704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723770)

Do a google search for slashdot deleted posts scientology, and see what comes up.

Re:Remember what happened last time (5, Informative)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723924)

Would it kill you to provide a link [slashdot.org] ?

-Peter

Re:Remember what happened last time (5, Funny)

Abeydoun (1096003) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723948)

Maybe...

My condolences to your family, good sir.

Re:Remember what happened last time (1)

Merusdraconis (730732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723970)

I see this: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/16/1256226 [slashdot.org]

Which appears to be an apology from Slashdot for being strongarmed, and how to find the comment, plus lots of other 'Scientology are evil pricks' links. On the balance, I don't see the problem.

Re:Remember what happened last time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724506)

Er? No, it's a story about how they deleted the comment, and a few places to find the text that was in the comment. You know, sites that aren't slashdot. Which deleted the comment.

Here come da judge! (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723782)

Bet that won't result in any legal harassment.

So, (2, Funny)

Warll (1211492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723806)

First they had troubles with some foreign bank now there posting Scientology documents. Next step the MAFIAA?

Re:So, (5, Funny)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724152)

And then the Illuminati!

Hold on, there's someone at my do--

Anonymous marches March 15. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723808)

Anonymous marches on March 15, the "March of Ides".

Are you going to be there? Find the closest church and be there! [enturbulation.org]

It is your civic duty. I hope to march alongside you.

Mod parent plus a million (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724176)

Show them we know what they're up to and won't stand for it. Keep the pressure up.

Screw civic duty (3, Informative)

gozu (541069) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724248)

the real reason to go is for the lulz. Any good that comes out of it is just a bonus!

funny.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724304)

scientology has no nuclear weapons last time i checked..

sure they are a shit cult not worth anything, can't we just let the fucktards be fucktards? it is your own fault if you get tricked into their fairytale with no factual historic background or events tied to it.

why don't people focus their 'civic duty' elsewhere, like maybe our corrupt legal system, corrupt politicians, and corrupt companies?

civic duty my ass.. go read the constitution and see your real civic duties you tools who are followers of both scientology and anonymous.

Ides of March (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724466)

I didn't see anything on the first page linked that mentioned "March of Ides" but the traditional phrase is "the Ides of March." As in, "Beware the Ides of March," the infamous and probably apocryphal advice to Julius Caesar before his assassination. The Ides is the midpoint of a month, so the 15th of March is the Ides of March.

organizations that prohibit criticism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723814)

...are bankrupt at their core. We're talking Scientology, Islam and like religions, and extremist governments as well.

Extremists are at THEIR cores essentially frightened little people, afraid of change, afraid of difference, afraid of criticism.

Re:organizations that prohibit criticism (4, Insightful)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724336)

Why are you specifically stating Islam, and then forgetting all about those wonderful little people at the Discovery Institute. I understand that 'like religions' really does encompass all possible religions, singling out Islam by name is a bit unfair. They are no better, and no worse than any other major religion with extremist/fundamentalist groups.

Re:organizations that prohibit criticism (4, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724434)

I am a Muslim and I will not tolerate you criticising me for not tolerating criticism!

Wait...

Dammit!

Should make a torrent (1, Redundant)

von_rick (944421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723834)

The file would be downloaded like crazy over the next few days, and if its not taken down by S-logy lawyers, it will surely surpass the bandwidth quota of the person hosting it. If its made into a .torrent, it will live happily ever after, or before it becomes stale.

Re:Should make a torrent (5, Informative)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723920)

I think this is it [thepiratebay.org] . (Originally mentioned in another comment above.)

Re:Should make a torrent (2)

von_rick (944421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724020)

Thats what I get for not having my mind wired to the Internets :)

Re:Should make a torrent (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724080)

You don't? Get with the times, man!

Re:Should make a torrent (1)

Gutboy (587531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723950)

surely surpass the bandwidth quota of the person hosting it.

There are hosts that actually don't have bandwidth limits. Hostgator.com comes to mind, and only $15/month (and no, I don't work for them or get anything for talking about them).

Re:Should make a torrent (2, Informative)

cesium132 (1091379) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724024)

idiot, it's not unlimited. if you look at their terms of service, you'll see that they'll cut you off when you 'abuse' it.

Re:Should make a torrent (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724006)

> If its made into a .torrent, it will live happily ever after, or before it becomes stale.

Well, that or anyone trading it will have their IP address trivially captured.

Re:Should make a torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724156)

Who gives a shit? Really? I upload about 100 gigabytes every day and I've never gotten in trouble, don't expect I ever will either. I only know of one person who has, he got a letter about it and called his ISP, they told him that they have to send the letter out but he shouldn't worry about it.

208 scanned pages (in one PDF) (0, Offtopic)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723854)

yowza! they should have made it as html like a GNU/HowTo page even with a decent computer that is a lot for any pdf reader...

Re:208 scanned pages (in one PDF) (0, Offtopic)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724014)

Scanning to PDF is just foolish, unless you've got excellent on-line character recognition built in. If it's an image, publish it as an image file, not a complexly formatted layout structure like a PDF.

Re:208 scanned pages (in one PDF) (1)

ruinevil (852677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724090)

Scanning to PDF is just foolish, unless you've got excellent on-line character recognition built in. If it's an image, publish it as an image file, not a complexly formatted layout structure like a PDF.

 
Obviously I'm too lazy to actually download it and read it, but it would be 208 8.5"x11" images, all attached end-to-end, and being rendered at the same time. Sounds like fail to me.
 
PDF is an open format, so what are the problems using it to link all the images together sequentially in book form, with each page being rendered individually. Seriously, other than console users, who can't see images anyways, who doesn't have a PDF reader?

Re:208 scanned pages (in one PDF) (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724026)

I routinely open manuals of 300-800 pages in the various PDF readers on P3 and P4 systems, and have no troubles with them. It's really not a big deal.

Re:208 scanned pages (in one PDF) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724112)

I'd venture that those huge PDFs (I've worked with many at that size and larger) weren't created from scans, but from MSWord documents or some other digital source, which produces a rather resource-frioendly file, even when there are hundreds of pages. Try creating a 200 page MSWord doc, with each page containing only a full page image, and export that as a PDF, then open it and see how well your computer does.

Re:208 scanned pages (in one PDF) (1)

narf (207) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724344)

Preview.app handles it with grace and aplomb.

Can't my people get a break? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723884)

Black plague, Black Friday, now Black Propaganda?! Can't a brother catch a break?

Re:Can't my people get a break? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723996)

Dude.

Black Sabbath. Black Sambuca. Black Lights.

Don't ignore the good!

Re:Can't my people get a break? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724036)

Clever!! Yep, drive da brotha into a suicidal depression!!

Prepare for the migration... (4, Funny)

tubapro12 (896596) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723890)

...as thousands of CoS members migrate to Sweden to physically destroy the server...

Re:Prepare for the migration... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724050)

Oh, they're already unhappy with Sweden. It seems that someone submitted a bunch of $cientology documents to the Swedish government. Even with the (apparently fraudulent, due to forged copyright registrations) existing copyrights on such documents, getting them yanked back from public access through the Swedish government would take a constitutional amendment for them. But the $cientologists have repeatedly tried stealing the documents while keeping them "checked out" of the office that has them.

It happened with the Steve Fishman court documents, it happened again in Sweden. I hope Wikileaks, and the original poster, have been very careful to preserve and authenticate their original documents to avoid just such theft.

On a completely unrelated note... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723902)

My friends and I walked into the London scientology building while drunk and demanded a stress test. We were turned away. Truly the lowpoint in my life when not even Scientology wants me :

Passed the test, going for the brass ring (4, Interesting)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723916)

Maybe they figure that now they've cut their teeth on a big player (and they came out on top, eventually) they can tackle the big guys. I won't be fun, though... Scientology doesn't play by the same rules as normal corporations with rational customers. They fight as dirty as possible; tactics that would easily sink a normal business if they got out are business as usual, and they don't pretend otherwise to their members; they just made it part of their belief system that it's morally okay to use any means necessary to stop their detractors.

This is probably the best time to do it, though, while WikiLeaks still has quite a lot of active attention because of the Julius Baer legal business.

I just hope they didn't waste some of that capital calling for the eNom boycott [slashdot.org] . Not exactly the same level of "evil"....

But I guess we'll see, either way. Stay tuned -- same bat-time, same bat-channel!

Re:Passed the test, going for the brass ring (1)

batmanuel (535555) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724094)

I wish them luck. It's not like they're going after TicketMaster's [ticketmaster.com] evil monopoly where they would soon be crushed from existence.

Re:Passed the test, going for the brass ring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724122)

Proof of parent: page 27 of this pdf; stalking 101 class
paraphrase: "Call all these airlines, ask for frequent flier info with name and address -> get last few plane flights"

page 23:

[Department 20's] valuable final product is:
[following is in all caps in original]
handled situations which result in the total accept-
ance of scientology and it founder throught the
area.

This is hilarious (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723960)

Check out how the contract begins:

I FRANK OLIVER 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 THE UNIVERSE and, fully and without reservation, subscribe to the discipline, mores and conditions of this group and pledge to abide by them.

THEREFORE, I CONTRACT MYSELF TO THE SEA ORGANIZATION FOR THE NEXT BILLION YEARS.
being of sound mind...CONTRACT MYSELF FOR THE NEXT NEXT BILLION YEARS... :)

Re:This is hilarious (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724062)

Unless "Instant Karma" gets you first.

Re:This is hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724446)

While I myself found that funny, it isn't really that different from other religions.

I mean how many times do you pledge your "eternal soul" to jesus/yahweh/muhammad/etc. from Abrahamic beliefs?

This is kind of like Religion 2.0. :)

(I hope that fuck O'Reilly doesnt try to trademark that)

Oh wow (2, Interesting)

TurinPT (1226568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724056)

Take a look at page 75: A list of what they consider hostility towards scientology.

Thats some scary shit.

Re:Page 117 (4, Interesting)

TurinPT (1226568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724220)

I'm just speed reading, but this file is filled with little gems.

LRH on Data Mining - pg 117:

By all standards modern governments are not sane.

Thus, somewhere at the bottom of the pile is some hidden intention.

In collecting government files and the various false reports in them, through the use of Freedom of Information Act, it is not enough to simply see they are false and DA them. This of course is a necessary action but is NOT _the_ basic action.

One needs to construct a data bank of all documents and cross-index to get _all_ documents in their possession - using one file to find things that will detect the existence of unrevealed additional documents.


Interesting read...

Re:Page 117 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724386)

Is this really new? alot of stuff I recognize from http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/ [xs4all.nl] , a website last updated 2002.
For example, the aforementioned Page 117 [xs4all.nl] and Page 75 (AKA Count Your Points vs. OSA) [xs4all.nl]

Re:Page 117 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724494)

No it's not really new, but it being on wikileaks endorses it for a lot of people, and it getting on slashdot brings it's attention to a lot of people who wouldn't notice as otherwise it's relegated to 'conspiracy theorists' sites, and ignored much like many other caches of evidence on such sites including many legal documents.

what IS new (dated some time ago, but all new leak never seen before) is the wikileaks email content linked in this comment : http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=484166&cid=22724096 [slashdot.org]

Re:Oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724514)

Page 77 - Was the word "blogs" coined in 1990? (document more recent and printed on an old dot matrix?)

As the original submitter... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724096)

As the original submitter of the article, I'd like to mention that it is the now the second Wikileaks held set of documents for Scientology. Though I must apologize for the badly written rushed body of the firehose article, it's the linked content that is important :

Citizens Commission on Human Rights" (CCHR) exposed as an illegal Scientology front. [slashdot.org] exposes their LEAF (Letter to the Editor ATTACK Force) campaign, and illegal govt lobbying.

Many apologize to the Wikileaks admins for the /. effect, but this news HAD to be made public.

To the $clilos - Disclaimer - I did not personally leak these documents, nor did Slashdot, I'm merely posting legal links.

The peaceful protests of Anonymous against the CoS are also legal. Anonymous is ONLY protesting the CoS organization, no other religion and not religious beliefs themselves. There is a campaign of fabricating/doctoring Anonymous protest images and footage to try to frame Anonymous for anti-religious protests (they started by attempting to attack the Vatican): take a guess at who might want to be doing that!

Rather worrying, a similar anti Anonymous "ad hominem" attack force is trying to re-define the cake meme from the game Portal into one about underage pornography.

PS. Everything I post is posted via strings of proxies and most importantly Tor !
(wish it was faster, and didn't have so many problems with slashdot, lol)

Re:As the original submitter... (1)

DMalic (1118167) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724258)

Why was this modded down? It looks like a highly informative and relevant comment.. That worries me, especially in light of the article. I don't have mod points ATM, so I can't bring it back up.

Re:As the original submitter... (1)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724508)

Why was this modded down? It looks like a highly informative and relevant comment..

That worries me, especially in light of the article. I don't have mod points ATM, so I can't bring it back up.
I think all anonymous coward posts now start at -1.

Re:As the original submitter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724416)

"Anonymous is ONLY protesting the CoS organization, no other religion and not religious beliefs themselves."

Why not?
They're all equally abusive and promote insane behavior.

About Tor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724470)

> PS. Everything I post is posted via strings of proxies and most importantly Tor !

Might want to be careful. I remember some exit nodes that were only proxying for certain sites. In other words, they were spying on all traffic through them. I just hope the CoS isn't that adept technically.

Send them to Venus (5, Funny)

SlashWombat (1227578) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724116)

Easily fixed. First we modify all the old DC3's we can get our hands on by adding shuttle solid fuel boosters. Then we dress up as Aliens ...
We then encourage all the COS members to migrate to Venus to separate them from the unclean non-believers.
IMHO, COS members are all "B Ark" material anyway!

Re:Send them to Venus (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724162)

IIRC there is a soul repackaging center of Venus which the enlightened avoid as it just dumps you off the coast of California.

Slashdot vs. Scientology? (-1, Troll)

ElectricEuphonium (1179769) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724182)

I'm wondering why it is that Slashdot continues to post so many negative stories about Scientology. It seems to me that it is almost an outright witch hunt against them at times. Agree or disagree with them as you will (I choose the latter, personally), but let's avoid the slippery slope down into bigotry.

why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724198)

Because they're litigious cunts.

Re:Slashdot vs. Scientology? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724202)

When they stop murdering people and destroying lives. Deal.

try... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724280)

this [xenu.net]

Re:Slashdot vs. Scientology? (4, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724298)

I'm wondering why it is that Slashdot continues to post so many negative stories about Scientology

Because Scientology took legal action against Slashdot on what appeared to be a trivial matter. I do not think any other group has taken legal action against Slashdot in it's ten years of operation.

I wonder why... (5, Informative)

deesine (722173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724338)

your very first comment on /. is to ask why /. hates CoS?

-

Re:Slashdot vs. Scientology? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724378)

(Hello, Article submitter here again)

users first post , check (not always the case but very common)
'witch hunt' comment, check
'bigotry' comment, check

*CoS countermeasures 101 detected.*

'cyber terrorists' comment expected soon
'ad hominem' attacks, coming 'real soon now'.

Slashdot posts what people submit, it gets front paged if enough people care about the story and vote it up.

With Scientology stories it takes a hell of a lot more people voting it up than normal as OSA and the LEAF campaign try to force such things down.

So the story only makes it if people REALLY care, are interested, and strongly think the story has merit.

Don't you wonder MAYBE such stories might at least have SOME truth in them if THAT many people are so interested in them even OSA can't keep them down?

Now you've pondered that for a pico-second enjoy your invasive security 'sec check'.

Black propaganda passage (2, Interesting)

cpricejones (950353) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724350)

For those of you who didn't make it this far into the 208 pages ...

"Our propaganda is dirty but it is not black because it is true. Black propaganda is essentially false. ... We just run propaganda campaigns."

Pretty goofy but it gets far goofier.

"Vicious and lying gossip by old women was the earlier form of this tactic and was so bad that some areas put them in public stocks (neck yokes) to drive them out of town. ... The world is full of madmen."

Hmm.

PAGE 101 (1)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724352)

Scary stuff!!! these twisted bastards need fucked up!!

3.. 2.. 1.. (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724368)

thats the cue for the CoS to DDOS the wikileaks server and the Striesand Effect to kick in ten seconds later, oh wait - there we go...

After reading this PDF... (2, Informative)

Patchw0rk F0g (663145) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724402)

I'm asking: Has anyone else realized that these people are FUCKING NUTS?!

I was around for the Toronto trials, but this shit...? Holy cripes.

I may not be the most stable person, when discussing evolution vs. whatever-the-hell-the-trolls-from-the-evangelical-campuses-are-calling-it-this-week, but this takes the cake, in a SPECTRE/Mission Impossible/I Can't Believe This Is Under The Radar type of way.

Does this mean I need to watch for people on street corners, watching me covertly from behind newspapers? So be it! Bring it on, Tom! I'll kick your ass, Johnny boy!

Re:After reading this PDF... (5, Insightful)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724432)

Start by boycotting Tom's films! support him in anyway supports the Church.

This is quite scary (5, Informative)

Monsuco (998964) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724492)

In the case of a bad article which is signed, use the following procedures

1. Tell them by letter to restract the statement at once.

2. Hire a private investigator of the national type to investigate the writer not the magazine and get any criminal or communist background the man has. ...

3. Have your lawyers or solicitors write the magazines threatening suit. (Hardly ever permit a real suit - there more of a nuisance than their worth.)

4. Use the data you got off the detective at long last to write the author a very tantalizing letter. Don't give him your data on him. Just tell him we know something very interesting about him and wouldn't he like to come in and talk about it. (If he comes ask him to sign a confession of collusion and slander - people at that level often will just to commit suicide - and publish it as a paid ad in the paper if you get it.) Chances are he won't arrive but he's sure to shudder in silence.

5. Give the data you got from your detective to your lawyers to use against the magazine.

6. Don't let the matter upset you, take much time, or disrupt the central organization.

This is on page 100. Page 101 talks about "punishment". Pg. 116 explains a conspiracy theory about why government attacks religion.It appears there is a long list of conspiracies that Scientology has about the government. They talk about the constant need to deal with enemies, they seem more paranoid than Nixon, and with a longer enemies list. Pg. 148 has information about the need to attack. Pg. 149 rants about how Scientology is victimized by a conspiracy of public opinion, government, and media. I mentioned an enemy list, pg 165-206 is just that. Pg. 208 discusses Oliver's "crimes".

This is scarier than any horror film ever could be. Thank god Wikileaks. Kudos to Frank Oliver.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?