u/freezoneandproud

I found this essay in a 2007 message posted to the Freezone Yahoo Group. I'm not sure whether the author is around anymore—how can it have been 20 years ago?! -- so I won't credit Lyn beyond the mention of her name. Still, I think she makes some interesting points that resonate today, especially for those of us who left the Church. Worthy of discussion, anyway:

def. Fanatic - a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

Syn. enthusiast, partizan, partisan - an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity

What's the difference between someone who believes their religion or methods are the only way and makes others wrong (or right) with their way and then someone who believes their religion or belief methods are right but who can allow for others to believe as they will without make-wrongs?

A long time ago, I was what I consider to be a fanatic. Everything I did was Scientology. I ate, slept, breathed, lived in a Scn house, had friends only in Scn. and I worked with other Scn whenever possible. No one could tell me that Scn didn't work and I was constantly trying to "disseminate" (convert) other people into Scn. I would never listen to any other viewpoints of how to obtain more sane results unless it was Scn. I was an absolute closed book and I looked down on most everything else - especially other religions. I didn't care if LRH got info from other areas, they no longer existed for me.

If someone attacked my huge belief system, I became extremely defensive and quickly disconnected. My immediate family became very unimportant to me because they didn't agree and were against what I was doing. I never totally disconnected, but I only stayed in touch here and there.

So, what makes a fanatic? For me, after I debriefed from many areas and had decided to go back into the mainstream of people, I realized that I held on to my beliefs as I had created them as the only stable data where I could have what I thought as "true" camaraderie and survival as someone who belonged somewhere without being made wrong. So, everything else was wrong and I was right with my beliefs. I cogged that I was using Scn as a "huge" ser fac. Others were wrong and I was "always" right. Maybe not in the details, but in the whole picture.

Whenever I hear people saying that this is the only way out, the tech is perfect but someone isn't doing it right, LRH was the only "source", you have to clear the planet before you can off and I'm sure there are a lot more "precepts" (not axioms), it reminds me of the "good ol' days" of my own fanatic engulfment.

I think one of the two main things about a fanatic is that they do two things - they try to "prove" their rightness and to "force" their rightness onto others.

It took me a long time to grant other people of the planet their beliefs. I think the greatest realization I had was - since we all start out as "static" and everything else is simply an addition, then when it comes down to it if all things were gone for whatever reasons, we'd still all be static and none of this would matter. As an analogy, like all paths lead up to the same mountain and out the top, more or less with the game over.

I just had an experience this week that pissed me off. It demonstrates how much and for how long the CofS has been poisoning its own well.

For 30+ years, I've been friends with a famous public relations professional, and we share a lot of buddies in common. In a Facebook post, she wrote about her experience 20 years ago when she worked for a tech company whose name you might know, which was (and for all I know still is) owned by a Scientologist. Buried in the HR paperwork was a requirement to acknowledge Scientology-based management principles. "Strange, but I brushed it off," she said. The CEO told her that she was doing PR all wrong (despite my friend's astonishing success at her previous employer... she's famous for a reason). She deftly got out of the conversation, and then quietly removed all the Hubbard books from the reception area. Things escalated, with required management training and an IQ test.

After a year, she left to work for a competitor. My friend and her husband (whom she'd met at the company) were stalked, with someone leaving photos of them in their mailbox. "Then, suddenly, it stopped. But I’ve never forgotten how hard they pushed—or how far they were willing to go."

The 49 Facebook comments back up the perception of the CofS as creepy. People shared their experiences with the organization, and none were positive.

And it drives me nuts. Most of you know that I like Scientology tech (or at least some of it), though I abhor the Church of Scientology as an organization. I continue to use the pieces that work for me, and ignore the bits that don't. (It's fine with me if you disagree; I offer this information as context for the lurkers.) How could I possibly say, "At least some of this stuff is useful," after a trusted friend tells a story like that? It's a major reason why I NEVER mention publicly that I was ever involved with the CoS, much less try to explain what it means to be a freezone Scientologist.

And all the responsibility falls on the CofS and its policies. Because these situations were not "misapplication of the tech [or policies];" they were totally in line with what the CofS Scientologists were trained to do. This includes forcing a belief system and behavior on people who hadn't signed up for it.

Marketing and public relations are hard enough when you have a good product or service. You want to attract people to your organization based on what you can do for them (whether it's a software application, a soft drink, or a spiritual benefit). Such efforts can have varying effectiveness; sometimes you only reach 1% of the target market, and 99% don't notice you or conclude, "Meh, not for me." That's fine.

But this incident reminded me of a lesson that OUGHT to go without saying: When you market your services, the people who are disinterested in it should not conclude that you suck. Maybe you're going to body route to get people into an Org, and you expect that only 1% of the people you approach will check out that free personality test. However, if the effort leaves 80% of the remainder annoyed, disenchanted, or ready to call the police, you should rethink that body routing campaign.

Sometimes, such things work out because the success rate is much higher than the pissed-off rate. For example, Penzey's Spices has taken a public political stand, which turns off at least a subset of the "other side" enough to have lost customers. OTOH, the spice company has earned a huge number of new loyal customers who have gone out of their way to buy from them. In their case, the math works out... and they do not have to compromise their moral values. That is not the case for the CoS, which already has, in Scientology parlance, "an ARC-broken field" (or in English, "a terrible reputation").

...And we all just KNOW that the CofS and its dedicated members don't see it this way. They imagine that people are badmouthing them for no reason whatsoever.

Sorry. Sometimes I just have to rant, too.