judgementBy Lana Mitchell

Well there have been a lot of hostilities in the last 5 days.  The amount of noise and upset bouncing around the field has been at an all-time high.

The accusations are many and varied – but the one thing they have in common are few specifics, and lots of outpoints.

Two key points that seem to have caused bypassed charge were: a) the inclusion of PTS A-J checks in the constitution (included simply as a deterrent to OSA, but misconstrued as some effort to do something else entirely), and b) a Justice Committee also seems to have been a hot subject (only included as a last port of call if some new little Hitler takes the helm), but this too is a hot topic based on the amount of injustice that has occurred in the field over the last 30 years.

Just the mention of the word “justice” has gotten people railing.  So, we are removing both of these from the constitution based on the feedback received. They are not vital to achieving the organization’s objectives and have caused more upset than was ever envisioned.

After reviewing the overall situation I have concluded that we are guilty as charged.

Milestone Two is made up of Scientologists. Not just people who say they are, or used to be. But people who actually use and apply Scientology to help on a day to day basis. That is not to say that we don’t like former Scientologists, quasi-Scientologists, or any other form of ex-Scientologists – we just know who we are, and what our purposes are. And if others have different paths they wish to follow – then good for them.  We have no war with anyone – despite what you may be hearing.

The pressure brought to bear on Milestone Two founding members in the last 5 days was such that 4 people have bowed out and asked to no longer be included on the Milestone Two articles or as part of the organization. This was accomplished by public shunning, repeated accusations of wrong doing, and creating an air of total hostility to anyone connected with Milestone Two.  A brilliant reproduction of life at the Int base actually. I would not have believed it could have been done, but it has.

I had a friend write to me and ask why I was setting up a new Sea Org. Huh? Yeh right! I spent 17 years doing that and now I want to create some new militant organization that will run heavy ethics and control on people. That sure doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I guess they reckon I miss that environment, and that I would rather be back at the Int base. Not!

I had another person, whom I have never met in person, accuse us of sitting in judgment on people, deciding who is OK and who is not, who is good and who is bad, who is “in” and who is “out”, and I guess whose haircuts we like and what the next fashion trend should be. Black uniforms maybe? For anyone who knows us individually, that is even more absurd that the idea that Milestone Two is the new SO.

And then the one that takes the cake is the innuendo and intrigue that I am being run by OSA or David Miscavige and all of this is just an “operation”. Now let’s think this one through a little. I am a single mum (finally divorced last week after a 1 ½ yr battle in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, where I defended myself as I did not have the money to pay for a lawyer), holding 3 part time jobs, managing a household, juggling two children (one not even in school yet), and with a mortgage. Wow – surely if I was working for OSA I would at least have them pay my bills?

The whole thing is nonsensical.   Conspiracy theories abound – but I don’t have time for them.  If others want to pontificate on that, go ahead.

I have had more than 15 people come to my home in the last 7 months, that Jim and I have gotten back onto the Bridge and winning again.  If I (or Jim for that matter) am being run by OSA, then our delivery here is better than any Australian org and I should make sure to turn my stats in on Thursdays. That would be pretty funny actually, come to think of it.

And it is not just Jim and I that are delivering. The other existing (and former) Milestone Two founding members have been doing the same. Tom is a fulltime auditor.  Dani is running the biggest independent centre on the planet and doing a superb job of it.  And Shreff is as always, disseminating.

So yes, we are guilty. We are guilty of wanting to see the tech being delivered in the future. We are guilty of having a purpose and putting it there for others. And we are guilty of getting together and collaborating to create something bigger than our own individual spheres of operation.  And we are guilty of communicating – the biggest crime there is.

I am also guilty of creating the idea of Milestone Two and approaching people to assist me to put it together.  I am guilty of creating the website in its entirety.   And yes – I am guilty of having a vision and getting the cooperation of others to put something there.

If you wanted a confession – then here it is. Guilty as charged.

With the Milestone Two website up and running we are now going to operate from there, as our new home.  We have created this new wordpress blog site for any people who wish to visit,  members or not.

Thanks to the many who have signed up to Milestone Two since last Friday.

Regardless of whatever other noise is occurring, the stable datum is that we are just going to get on with building delivery and getting dissemination occurring.

Lovely to have your support. We are just getting on with delivery and dissemination. http://www.milestonetwo.org

27 thoughts on “Guilty as charged

  1. We all want what was best in Scientology and none of the rest. The freedoms that Scientology brought us all made everything that was not freeing within it stand out in stark contrast.

    I think that all of us believed we were joining a group that would exemplify the top buttons of the chart of attitudes. It could have been as bright and shiny as the best of what Ron described in “An Essay on Management”, but it just didn’t turn out that way. Why? Because Ron “sanctified” with his signature too many policies that validated low toned actions. Also, for the greater part of his administrative career as an executive of the Church, he gave tacit yet ongoing approval to thuggery disguised as leadership.

    Somewhere in the aforementioned “Essay”, Ron said that a true group member should “..have done with the casualnesses and insincerities that exist in a low-toned outer society…”. We are all very much DONE with that, but your recent announcement reminded us that all that might come back again.

    All the things that any Scientologist, current or former, in our out, ex-, independent, with management, against management; all that anyone ever objected to was being treated or seeing others being treated without dignity and without respect. I don’t see any other “why” for reduced participation. That’s even true within the current ranks of corporate people! No one is active as they once were as the upsets have taken a lot of the willingness out of everyone involved.

    If there is any group policy ever to exist, let’s attempt to emulate in it the attributes of an individual well above enthusiasm on the tone scale. Such a person speaks rarely if at all for the need of justice and wants little less than to look for what might be a “source of trouble” within the ranks. His or her thoughts and conduct are all along the positive and expansive.

    There’s a lot of that in policy. Cull out the parts that don’t back up and validate our strengths and let the rest decay from inattentiveness.

    • Just more wrong whys.

      To find a right why you need to follow a trail of outpoints.

      There are more outpoints visible in the last week of noise than you can shake a stick at. False datums, omitted datums, dropped out time, altered sequence, you name it. They are there aplenty. Rumors, fabricated stories, accusations and more. A perfect example of group bank in full drama. For people who protest being sheeple, there sure are a lot of people out there who are quick to follow the lead of others, with no evidence, no substance to the claims — but get a boot in quick so that they can be seen to be on the “right” side.

      I won’t be putting through a slew of anti-LRH and anti-tech comments. There is enough of those in the other forums and blogs that are currently focusing on trying to quash and kill off some Scientologists who are just getting on with practicing and using the body of work standardly.

      There are no lack of people that want to go up the Bridge. There are no lack of people who wish to improve the lives of themselves and others. And there are tons who desire to use the tech constructively.

      Good luck to you Dan. I have sessions scheduled and no time or interest for debate on such “whys”.

      • I did not think that I was finding nor did I intend to indicate a “Why”. There’s this phrase below the post saying, “Leave a Reply”. I guess the webmaster must have imbued it with some good clean intention though, because, without really giving it much thought, I just did as I was told.

        I did not see that anyone asked for a “Why” in the post and thus did not offer one. If Lana had seemed to ask for one, I don’t know that I would have offered even a guess.

        Am I remembering correctly? Isn’t it an ethics offense to find whys without a DSEC certificate? That could be my dub-in, but that’s my idea in looking back at it. I don’t remember, in all my long Scientology career, ever being encouraged to why, but it was regularly insisted upon me that I handle various situations. I think what I offer up here is a situation, and what I feel might be done to resolve it. But the only one I personally know this works for is Me!

        Let’s not consider my previous comment to be an amateur attempt to find and indicate a why; let’s consider it simply to be an application of part of my first dynamic danger formula. There’s a situation with the blunt fact that much Scientology policy does not benefit me. My handling of it is not to put myself in situations where i would likely find myself the effect of those aspects of it ever again. I think it’s a good idea for others to follow suit and not put themselves in situations where they are likely to be treated or to treat others in a low tone. But that’s an individual decision that I will never attempt to enforce on another.

        Glad to hear that you are taking a p.c. in session. I totally agree with you and mean this sincerely: your time is much better spent there. Imho, the best thing anyone can do with Scientology is to take someone in session with the First Act fully in place with the intention to return to the p.c. more self determinism. After that, my scale of the value of Scientology things drops off dramatically. Whatever is in second place is behind getting a pc in session by at least a factor of ten.

        • Lana, he just have some serious crashing M/Us on the Tech. Can’t convince anyone on top of that or get them to observe. Just sent him to clear his M/Us.

          You must define your publics carefully, otherwise this can become a forum for A-Js, DBs and the whole lot. Make it a scientologist blog only or “scientologist-want-to-be” that be more in agreement with your blog goal statement as I understood it. You don’t have to convince anyone, deal only on the Tech, leave opinions out. This should not become an victim-anonymous” site or a “Let’s discuss what LRH really meant” site. There is no room for opinions and “bank thinking”. You want to really make scientology goals come true ? ; do it by the book. Leave the BPC home, and get on with it. Just the Tech, by the book, in all your post comm. No opinions, no convincing anyone, not acknowledging any entheta (any part of it) , just pure unaltered tech in handling any comm. Otherwise, with all the good intentions I am sure you guys have, you will just become another more ARC version of Mike Rinder’s blog, just a big mixture of a little of everything and a little of everyone. Your decision dear. Take care.

          CB#: 7873455951

  2. You created the impression that it was all supported by a glorious band of 11 warriors in the Light.
    I think that was a mistake as it was not true.
    You seem to have a very strong capability.
    My suggestion would be to create a forum for communication and involvement in Independent Scientology with zero tolerance for ad hominem.
    No fees.
    No ethics commitee.
    No self righteous whiners.
    The rules would be that you can criticize others opinions but any disdaining comments about their character would not be permitted.
    You could have a donate button and I think you would get far more than a self righteous group could.

    • Ralph,
      On the Milestone Two site, there is potentially a place for such a forum. I’ve seen many of these over the years, that rather than be intellectual discussions of the ramifications of say, the Axioms, they are pot shots at LRH, his faults, how others did it better, and the rest of that sort of rattletrap.

      How about a forum that discusses stuff like Dean Radin’s “quantum entanglement” at a beingness level relative to the ARC manifestations of theta and the interactions of others in life?

      I’ve no interest in pseudo Scientology. I’ve no desire to engage in unseemly arguments with the uninformed.

      But, I know you like a good, rousing discussion of some profound ideas, so I’ll see what I can do to get one such forum going over the next bit.

      • Jimbo, great. Enough with the mumbo jumbo. I contributed to Marty’s blog 4 years of daily, yes daily, support and hourly attention (lol), I got from him all the good stuff, to read books, the way he writes which is really great and all the discussions, but, you know what? I didn’t get much Scientology. Oh, I got a lot of invals too for the last one year, lol.

        With MS 2, I want to make it clear that I would like to see not the chit chats alone, which are ok, but some action, at least some cooperation between us and the good news from others around the globe.

  3. It’s a shame to see the A-J checks and justice committee removed. After all, they weren’t even meant for associate members or those in the field anyway, as I recall. Yet so much BPC. I’ve been through the justice ringer myself many times and it doesn’t bother me to have it in my new group. Any/every group needs some manner of justice procedure in it. I really truly wish that Scientologists leaving the Church would make their first stop an auditor who will handle their BPC, so that they can judge things clearly, without looking through a veil of BPC.

    I must say that I admire Lana’s steady demeanor through all this. She’s taking it in stride and just getting on with the job. Precisely the right thing to do. I love Ron’s analogy of the “cur dogs” on Ron’s Journal 67. Goes right along with this.

    Also good on Lana for putting up this blog. Easy to find

    • I agree completely here, the A-J checks are not any affront against anyone, but to maintain the group. As a member one has more confidence in those running MS2.

    • A-J Checks are grossly out-Tech! I’ve fully detailed this fact in my blog. It goes without saying that “sources of trouble” should not be allowed in a group. However, I challenge anyone to show me a reference where LRH dictated that all prospective members should be put on a meter and asked such questions as those that are on the A-J Check Form used by the Church. In fact, I challenge anyone to even find out where these questions came from. Good luck!

      • Thanks Class IV auditor. I like your blog — you accurately point out so many of the outnesses that occur within the Church, and claimed to be on-policy and in-tech.
        Write to me at lana@hushmail.com as I would like more details on A-J. We removed it from our constitution a few months ago, but I am interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject.
        Cheers- Lana

        • Class IV, greetings !!!
          I think that all BPC many have experienced in Church’s bad ethics handlings, is getting in the way of properly analysing the sit here. Any group have a right and a duty to have a means to detect and route out trouble sources.
          Otherwise, the group will rapidly desintegrate. Forget about any Qs or refs about cheking it or not. The LRH ref describing each A-j type IS THERE. Each type is described as to why they are active or potential trouble sources. The data is there. There is no room for interpretations here. The data is proven and factual.

          That being said, how to you detect such persons ?
          With a cristal ball ?, with OT phenomena ? How ?
          Is all well to debate how there is not an LRH ref regarding A-Js check Qs, but do you really want me to believe that you can’t extent policy to cover areas not so clearly laid out by LRH, and just robotically follow tech and policy ? Where is the judment in that ?

          Now, how the data is applied for the protection of the group is another story, as unhatted personnel can bring about injustices applying it. Or it can be used by suppresives for witch hunting. But you guys are letting your own case and BPC on the subject to blind you. Just read and w/c fully PTS/SP course refs, and you’ll immediately realize why it is VITAL to detect, confront and route out suppresives and sources of trouble. Is for group protection, not to do somebody in. If Church Management has misused it or not is another story.
          CB#: 7873455951

          • Thanks David. The BPC on A-J mishandling is unquestionably an issue but certainly the PTS/ST tech stands and must be applied. The misapplication and injustices relating to the subject make it touchy – for example mass declares of public and ex staff. The stable datum at this juncture is the tech works if correctly applied. Thanks for your comment which is spot on.

            • This discussion about A-J and Ethics Handling as far as I can see is distractive.

              The fact is that these various activities are being conducted out side of the organization and therefore would come under Div 6 Field Activities whether we or they like it or not.

              Thus as Ron says in Ethics and Franchise:

              Franchise is a Public Divisions Function. Public Divisions run on Public Relations tech and rules.

              There are several technologies. Handling people with Dianetics and Scientology tech, handling them with Ethics tech, handling them with PR tech.

              Franchises are essentially PR activities. When you use Ethics you mix practices.

              PR Tech is covered in the Management Series in the PR Series.

              One of the big mistakes as in flagrant that SMI and other areas that the Sea Org did when taking over Field Activities was try to run them as mini-Scientology Orgs and apply “ethics tech” or more accurately a perverted version thereof.

              Aside from that is the BPC that has been generated by the misuse and misapplication of Ethics and Justice.

              Not to mention a lot of wrong whys and wrong indications relating to the subject.

              • Thanks RV. I get where you are coming from. A question then logically follows:

                Q: If field practices are only public relations activities and do not use ethics then how are they protected and proofed up from the occasional PTS or SP or wholly unqualified person who is coming in to stir up trouble?

                Without basic ethics applied a preclear and student can get no case gain.

                Let’s take some examples:

                1. A student is on course in the field and has ongoing criminal activity operating as a sales man for “get rich quick” schemes that do nothing but line his pocket. Over the course of time this student has swindled people of more than half a million dollars but takes absolutely no responsibility for what he has done and is doing. This is a real example that I have encountered.

                2. A preclear is to receive auditing but is caught up in a PTS situation with the C of S and family members and is so constantly enturbulated and embroiled in the problems therein that she is never sessionable and never makes progress. Another real example.

                Having, understanding and applying Ethics is vital to being able to actually get delivery occurring in many cases. Now there is a difference between Ethics and Heavy Ethics — and that is possible the confusion here.

                • Lana,

                  I’m just pointing out what Ron says in the matter.

                  Also I don’t see anywhere that he says that an auditor nor PC can’t apply ethics tech.

                  I mean just like any other tech. It’s for use.

                  It’s when to use it and when not.

                  • So you are agreeing that there is nothing contradictory in LRH’s statement about the field and the fact that one has to apply ethics when needed? It is not clear from your comment…

                    • It’s always been true on an individual level.

                      I think what Ron is discussing here is using it on an Organizational level like for example in the case of the infamous Mission Massacre back in ’82.

                      Not the same as a Course Supe assigning a student a danger condition for continually being late for course or handling a PTS condition with a PC or someone wanting to do ROPEC or Ethics and Exchange by Dynamics or do an ethics condition for their job or post.

                      Mainly I think the objection is more on “Heavy Ethics”.

  4. To create a group out of the Church to get people up the Bridge (including wogs) it is very good idea and need all support from us (Scientologist). The only point I am a little concerned is: What Bridge? I explain my self. DM and Company changed OT 1, 4,5,6,7 and 8. OT 2 as been cut in half and is being push to do it at minimum 5 hours a day and on 3 is missing data . Out of the Church there is only DM Tech. This per the auditor list on interdependent Scientology blogs. My concern is: What Bridge are you talking about. I am OT7 “completion” Per KSW Series 1 – point 1 is vital No tech no bridge no nothing.

    • Actually when you say “DM Tech”. You are assigning wrong cause.

      The change in the Grade Chart regarding the original OT Levels was originally instituted by David Mayo in 1982.

      Also having Pre OTs audit more hours then outlined in the materials of the Clearing Course and OT II actually started before Miscavige seized control of RTC.

      In my opinion if one wants to sort out a situation. It begins with assigning proper source or cause.

      Ironically Miscavige and those working with him while accusing Mayo of being a Squirrel extraordinare basically kept the structure of the Grade Chart as it was after he changed it and obviously failed to remedy the huge Tech Degrade which basically led to OTs being less OT then they were before.

      In this case it is just another case of Quickie Grades.

      This time at the higher end of the Grade Chart instead of the lower levels.

      And could be one of the reasons for the various unusual solutions to handle it such as these various Golden Age actions and forcing those who have gone clear in an earlier life or Dianetic Auditing to do the Clearing Course etc.

  5. Hi Lana, i agree with your move. I want the real scientology. As far as the attacks are concerned, Who doesn’t want a justice commitee? Maybe somebody afraid that something may be found out about him? They are dramatizing something from their past but dont worry, in 2 to 3 lifetimes they’ll be destimulated enough to come to pt and they will understand that a is not equal a. You are not David miscavige and ms2 is not the finance police.

    • No RV – you don’t bite. You snarl from time to time, and thrash about, but have not bitten me yet. LOL
      I appreciate your patience and have taken you off moderation. 🙂

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s