FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

Our common interest is the philosophy and technology of Scientology, i.e. L. Ron Hubbard.

Due to this network idea, which was there from the beginning on, we don't have a hierarchy. This brings new advantages for individuals and for us as a group, and on the other hand some problems, too. People in that network have to learn to stand on their own feet... getting along without somebody "ordering" them. A functioning network runs on very "responsible" people. Otherwise, nothing happens.

It's totally opposite to the church which is a complete dictatorship and a total opposite to the so-called "secret societies".

Let's compare these systems on a basis of "more or less" - not in a "black and white" logic (only a few viewpoints on it):

Dictatorship: Individual responsibility is or can be relatively low, the force level within that group is very high, the level of "reason" is relatively low, the level of communication within that group is pretty much suppressed (people write knowledge reports about eachother, they can only trust eachother to a certain degree... a lot of internal spying activities), they hardly know what's going on at top management, management can even have a "hidden agenda" with goals opposite to what's promoted down the line. The PR or media line within that group is most important. A dictatorship depends on its dictator.

Democracy: Individual reponsibility? Something like moderate? Force level? Also about moderate. A democracy is more or less an average of everything. Its characteristic is a so-called "mainstream of society". It cannot really deal with extremes. Media takes care of these "extremes". The best system we have right now... but... who says we cannot improve. A democracy depends on masses. However... masses can be manipulated.

Network: Individual responsibility and the individual level of contribution must be very high, otherwise you cannot exchange anything... nothing really happens. Force level? Actually none. The level of reason has to be very high. A network depends on the individual.

You might say, a "network" is an "idea", a new form of society or civilization. It's an experiment.

In the end, it boils down to the question... force or reason?... or "can groups only exist in the presence of the force of dictatorship?" or "can people unite in freedom and reason under the aspect of tolerating multiple viewpoints?"

The experience over the years shows that some kind of an administrative hierarchy automatically forms if individuals demonstrate responsibility and competence... not just "words".

The breakpoint for the Free Zone in general is: Are the individuals willing to acknowledge and share the "majority of common viewpoints" or do they hang up in the relatively "small percentage of disagreement"?

We do face the problem that the more people get up the bridge (or to be more neutral... win in life) the more they become "players" themselves and the more they want to be "games masters" or "makers of games". They form (little) groups around them and these groups exist as long as this individual is accepted as some sort of a leader. Obviously, all groups need leaders.

So, the chance is the recognition of a common purpose and the willingness to contribute to this purpose, i.e to put something "in" instead of taking something "out". The negative side is the tendency to break away because of the small percentage of "individual" viewpoints or disagreements. This can be even a "win" someone had and which is not acknowledged or shared by the rest of the group.

The "Free Zone", in general, is an "idea". And the idea is to provide some kind of a "static point" (or safe space) where people can "consider and reconsider their position in the game". It's like in auditing... you withdraw from the game for a short period of time... you take a good look at possible stops, barriers, purposes, postulates etc.... (evaluate and handle a certain condition) and, after that, you go back and continue the game (or life).

With all our knowledge about Games, about efforts and counter-efforts, about "statics" and "thetans", about players, pieces and broken pieces... we (the Free Zone) should be able to act like an "umpire" or "consultant" for those "in" the game.

What are the requirements for an individual in the Free Zone... if it should expand as a "movement"? We need strong individuals. They have to be that strong that they can even rise above their own individual viewpoints, which in the end is "expansion on all dynamics".

Being part of the Free Zone, we see it as a chance for ourselves to contribute to the overall idea of "freedom" and betterment towards a new civilization as we are heading into a new millenium... into the year 2000.

In some groups, it is possible to "hide" as an individual. I guess this cannot be done in the Free Zone. Individuals stick their neck out with the chance of getting it cut off.

Maybe this makes it a bit clearer. We all have the potential of freedom... it's up to us what we do with it.

The Association we founded is more like a 3rd dynamic of those interested in the free practice of our philosophy and tech.

LRH set the path to go with the philosophy and tech. Now it's up to us to decide which way to go. We are not so much in all this admin stuff. Honestly, I never saw anything really improve by applying just policy. It's a useful tool if you know how to use it, but this "admin-thinking" represented by the RTC killed Scn in the end because it became the "master of thinking".

So, what are we trying to do? We try to separate the philosophical part from the admin part. We try to get a higher understanding for the basic philosophy and also to raise the awareness for it in society (as far as we can do it). Basically, we try to isolate those parts worthwhile enough to be taken over into a "new civilization".

(Sun, 18 Feb 1996) Hello, and thank you for providing this page. Complete as it is, however, it leaves many of my questions unanswered. I would appreciate any additional info, sent to me, that further explains the benefits of membership. Such as; What assistance does the FZ lend to the attainment of the goals you've outlined? Or the goals as written by LRH? I've read Dianetics and am intrigued by the possibilities yet, after researching the CoS, I am reluctant to join any organization! I feel, as you, that the technology should be free to all mankind.

We are not working on the principle "what can I get out of it" but "what can I put into it" to make it a better world in the end. You see what I mean? Our goals are basically to keep the tech free. We would like to move "Scientology as a philosophy" onto a higher social platform, disconnected from the negativity the church management puts into it.

To your question "What does it mean to be a member of the Free Zone"?

I can tell you what it means for me: I like to be part of a group working towards freedom for all. As the word "freedom" is very elastic and worn out, I narrow it down to a certain spiritual freedom. I don't know how much you dug yourself into the mind control situation on earth? Did you ever read Bill Cooper's "Behold a pale horse" (for instance)? The situation is that we are heading towards a very one-sided control of mankind. And the Scn church seems to be part of it. We want to throw some light into that and tell people that there is an alternative. The alternative, however, is not a new hierarchically-structured organization but a network of free people with a high level of responsibility.

We have a couple of years left to the year 2000 which is a new step for mankind. It's a chance to increase the overall awareness from a piece of mud - a one-lifetimer - into a conscious spiritual being.

Most of the auditors in the field are afraid of the RTC. If the RTC becomes aware of an independent group, they try to stamp it out. That's the situation.

The free zone in the US has quite a hard time. Most auditors outside of the church are in fear of attacks. There is a lot of discussion in the newsgroup a.r.s. Quite a few of the people there are not interested in setting up an alternative. They simply want to fight the church. Most of the former church members even turned 180 degrees against everything, LRH, the tech, the philosophy. It's the old problem with one-valued logic. Example: If you have a body of knowledge (100%) and there is 5%-10% wrong with it, for some people this 5-10% is enough to abandon the rest, too.

You know, our basic purpose is to lift the philosophy and the technology onto a higher social platform - disconnected from the Scn Organization... the RTC etc. We don't believe - and I think we prove that in our pages and you experienced that yourself - that the official church is no longer working for it's philosophy and for mankind, but only for selfish purposes.

We are not on the path of "people fighting people". What we try to do is get people together to set up a better civilization.

The Story of an OT or "My Way to Total Freedom"

You have a goal... let's say "OT VIII".

How do you go about it? Let's not forget! You want to accomplish this in one lifetime.

You need money. Lots of money.

How do you get money relatively fast? We are talking about something like 500,000 German Marks - not counting your Lifetime Membership in the IAS [16] ... and you, for sure, want to make a good contribution to the new Flag building.

You set up a real estate business.

You avoid paying taxes... maybe you don't pay your employees properly... you find a way of getting around paying their social securities... at least this brings you a bit faster to "OT".

You pay in the money. You come closer to your goal.

"Oh no..." In the meantime, they brought up another rundown or two... you have to do this first... that means even more money... what the hell do your employees need health insurance for... they just don't have to get ill.

OK... let's pay a couple of hundred thousand to the IAS... I'll become a patron.

Let's buy some more houses... get rid of the tenants... and make apartments out of them and sell them.

No doubt... that's an ethical business.

Noooo, I don't contribute to inflation by that. We help others by doing all that... and by the way... my employees can get up the bridge, too.

What luck the guys in the church have that definition of "overt"... it doesn't matter if you commit a crime outside the group. They are only "Wogs" anyway. We'll take care of them later.... but when? Before or after we cleared the Planet?

...Oh, what a wonderful place that will be....

Oh no!... the tax office... they finally found out about my real income... Thank God I'm OT VIII now. But what's that? I can't even face the society I'm living in... they say I'm a criminal...

... And what do these other dynamics want from me?

Wait until we've cleared the Planet... you will be one of the first sent to the RPF... I'll bet you.

How good it is to be an OT.

OK guys, you're right... that was a bit 1.1. But is it so far from the truth? That's the true story of an "OT" who ended up in prison. That's what we were told by church publics in Germany. And worst of all, the Church tolerated this because they obviously see everything through their $$ - eyes. Is it a single case? You tell us.

Philosophy versus Technology and Admin as parts of the Dynamics

Here is another viewpoint:

For quite some time, we have been thinking in terms of "Eight Dynamics".

Later, LRH introduced the 9th Dynamic as "Aesthetics" and then "Ethics" as the (possible) 10th dynamic.

Well, if you go on like this you might say that this is followed by tech and admin being the 11th and 12th dynamic. However, it is quite impossible that admin is the highest dynamic. Otherwise, we would get something like the "RTC" or the "Church of Scientology" as an EP.

There must be something above... and this something might be "the philosophy of games"... or "spirit of play"... or whatever you might call it... something which makes it worthwhile to invent a universe and to play at all. On this possible dynamic you have something like the "Q's" as the highest level of knowledge... or the Factors, and the Axioms.

Based on that also, "admin" makes sense... "admin" as the administration of games... and then "tech" as the possiblility to untangle "players" from game parts they are stuck in. Then comes "Ethics" as a tool to identify "counter-intentions" or "interferences" with the game... to identify something which wasn't agreed on to be part of the game.

If some dynamic gets overweighted, the others collapse. You see it in the current "game" of the church. How many dynamics do you really have in there? I can only see the 3rd (the church itself) and admin.

Do they really care about the 1st? Yeah, as long as you bring in the money...

About the 2nd? Well, you find it out if you have kids while being in the Sea Org.

About the 4th? OK, they want to "clear" the planet... but only under their control.

What's the basic use of ethics in the church? "Severe reality adjustment" in the Sea Org... to become a good robot? (Might be different with publics).

You can go on like that and evaluate it just by observation.

So, the game we are playing right now seems to run on the agreement of Dynamic 1-9. The 9th Dynamic might be the overall purpose of this game... to bring Aesthetics into this Universe and by the application of ARC/KRC bring back full understanding and power for the players. In another game there might be other agreements, i.e. other dynamics. The Dynamics above "9" seem to be independent of any game... they seem to be just "there"... they can be used in "any" game.