Wikileaks Airs Scientology Black Ops

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."

Comments

Re:PDF Link Broke

[kiwi_jackal]

get it by torrent - http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4059049/New_scientology_dox__The_Computer_Frank_Oliver_Dox

Anonymous marches March 15.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Are you going to be there? Find the closest church and be there!

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

Re:Should make a torrent

[psychodelicacy]

I think this is it. (Originally mentioned in another comment above.)

Re:Remember what happened last time

[pete-classic]

Would it kill you to provide a link?

-Peter

As the original submitter...

[Anonymous Coward]

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. 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)

I wonder why...

[deesine]

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

-

Re:Slashdot vs. Scientology?

[Anonymous Coward]

(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'.

This is quite scary

[Monsuco]

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.

Re:Get 'em while they're hot

[FooAtWFU]

• It's a cult if its founder is still alive, or is recently dead.
• It's a religion if the founder has been dead so long that his adherents have had time to rewrite his character.
• (In no case is any of it rational, practical, or efficient. Religion is for those who are insufficiently honest to build their own philosophy.)

A cult, in other words, has elements of personality-worship in it. Religions are old enough to claim that the founder's personality could not have unduly influenced their membership.

The Cult Information Centre describes it as such:

• It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
• It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
• Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
• It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people.
• Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.

(Project Clambake, likewise, quotes this list.)

In my opinion, a lot of it is a matter of a qualitative differences in what they do. There's a number of things. Some people in certain religions will try to bring you back if you leave. Cults, on the other hand, may blackmail, harass or threaten people who try to depart. Many religions ask for money; Scientology asks for money, and spends it on lawsuits against its critics. Many religions have people who approach you on the street and tell you that you need to convert or $badstuff (with varying degrees of pushiness). Scientology sets up a table with a "Free Stress Test" (presumably designed to be rather Scientific-looking) first to attract passerbys, then when you test positive for stress they try to sell you various courses, then ease into the dogma later.

Re:slashdotted

[fishbowl]

>They survived the aftermath of Operation "Snow White" with no long-term consequences.

Several people were tried, convicted, and served lengthy prison sentences, putting the church in
the public eye and simultaneously making it a laughingstock. One long-term consequence was that
the media exposure about the church reached the attention of one Ivan Stang, inspiring him to start
a competing scam religious cult company.