Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Many, many times I've seen people say that they think that the two are the same, just the names are different, or, on some occasions, I've seen people ask what the difference was.
Here are differences I've noted:
CofS has a huge well established entrenched corporate structure.
The Freezone is just a loose knit collection of practitioners- some of whom take pcs and have courserooms, some of whom don't. There is no official One Big Thing.
The prices are standardized in CofS. The price list is the price list. There are alleged scholarships (which is not a good term for what you actually get, but that's what they call them) and there are IAS discounts and so forth, but it's etched in stone. Prices are also extremely high.
Freezoners charge what they want- often very little and they've been known to waive fees altogether or to accept a barter arrangement.
CofS has heavy, heavy regging. Mortgage grandma's house. Cash in your IRA. Sell your house.
The Freezone does not.
CofS has staff contracts and freeloader debts.
The Freezone has a very looseknit structure. As far as I know, there are no standardized staff contracts or freeloader debts, though I would guess that if someone opens an actual FZ center as some people have done, that they probably would come to an agreement with anyone who agreed to C/S or course supv or anything like that, as to when they could be expected to be there. Still, I've never seen anyone indentured into servitude, given huge whopping freeloader debts after working their asses off for years, beaten, starved, any of that.
No SO and RPF or any of that in the Freezone. No institutional living.
Nobody tells the person they can't leave in the Freezone.
No enforced disconnection in the FZ. Nobody's told they can't talk to someone because they are hostile, left the FZ, or can't talk to the press or anything like that. If I wanted to talk to someone who left the FZ- and I do know of some people who have- nobody I know in the FZ would care.
No coerced/recommended/enforced abortions there, either.
Squirrelling is a meaningless term in the FZ since not everyone in the Freezone is a purist. Some people create their own processes. If a person goes off to do some offshoot or something completely different, they can come back to the FZ if they feel like it.
No IAS in the Freezone.
While FZ auditors, like CofS auditors, are free to accept or reject any pc they want, they still do not apply the illegal pc reference anywhere near as stringently as CofS does. Most- if not all- FZ auditors wouldn't bat an eye upon encountering a pc who'd had some Ritalin as a kid or spent a couple nights in a psych ward ten years ago or something.
FZers aren't KR-happy. No "matters of RTC concern".
The FZ doesn't have an OSA. Don't you think that if it was the same circus, different clowns or any of the many comments I've seen alleging that they don't see a difference between the two- that having or not having a seeekrit police might be germane? I do!
FZers don't try to RMGRP critical forums or eradicate psychiatry- then lie about it. They don't do it at all, period. (so they don't have to then lie about it!) They tend not to care if anyone criticizes Scn, CofS, or anything else related. There are some FZers who take a rather dim view of critics and can be a bit by the book- almost like CofS members in that respect- but they don't fair game them and they don't do anything about it. They'll just ignore critics, if anything. There is no orchestrated or other directive or campaign to fuck up critics.
CofS is imperfect. FZ is perfect in every single way.
(Just kidding! Of course the FZ isn't perfect. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
)
In CofS, you can't criticize it or anybody in it. (they didn't like it, when, as a member, I said I did not like Jeff Pomerantz when I met him.) You can't speak up. You're told to go through channels, do this, do that, or you get in trouble. If I wanted to criticize the Freezone- which, actually, I have- it wouldn't matter to anybody. Though if I said something about an individual, he or she might have a response, same as in any other non CofS venue.
CofS members can't sue or file charges against one another- without getting permission from the cult first. Not true of Freezoners.
CofS has a cultic structure. The Freezone has no cultic structure because it isn't even really a group. There isn't really any "in the Freezone" regardless of how many times I just wrote it bringing us back to point #1.
Does this mean I think the Freezone is perfect and that non CofS Scn is perfect and that it can do no wrong? Hell no. I do. I do have some criticisms of the non CofS Scn scene I've made and can make again. And I don't care if other people disapprove of it.
But what I don't approve of- is this incorrect statement that it's the same thing as CofS, that there's no difference, there's a cult, etc. Those are not correct statements. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating the Freezone or that everybody better go out and be a Freezoner or that it's flawless.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that if something ought to be criticized, then might as well not start the criticism out with fallacies, untruths or half truths.
Here are differences I've noted:
CofS has a huge well established entrenched corporate structure.
The Freezone is just a loose knit collection of practitioners- some of whom take pcs and have courserooms, some of whom don't. There is no official One Big Thing.
The prices are standardized in CofS. The price list is the price list. There are alleged scholarships (which is not a good term for what you actually get, but that's what they call them) and there are IAS discounts and so forth, but it's etched in stone. Prices are also extremely high.
Freezoners charge what they want- often very little and they've been known to waive fees altogether or to accept a barter arrangement.
CofS has heavy, heavy regging. Mortgage grandma's house. Cash in your IRA. Sell your house.
The Freezone does not.
CofS has staff contracts and freeloader debts.
The Freezone has a very looseknit structure. As far as I know, there are no standardized staff contracts or freeloader debts, though I would guess that if someone opens an actual FZ center as some people have done, that they probably would come to an agreement with anyone who agreed to C/S or course supv or anything like that, as to when they could be expected to be there. Still, I've never seen anyone indentured into servitude, given huge whopping freeloader debts after working their asses off for years, beaten, starved, any of that.
No SO and RPF or any of that in the Freezone. No institutional living.
Nobody tells the person they can't leave in the Freezone.
No enforced disconnection in the FZ. Nobody's told they can't talk to someone because they are hostile, left the FZ, or can't talk to the press or anything like that. If I wanted to talk to someone who left the FZ- and I do know of some people who have- nobody I know in the FZ would care.
No coerced/recommended/enforced abortions there, either.
Squirrelling is a meaningless term in the FZ since not everyone in the Freezone is a purist. Some people create their own processes. If a person goes off to do some offshoot or something completely different, they can come back to the FZ if they feel like it.
No IAS in the Freezone.
While FZ auditors, like CofS auditors, are free to accept or reject any pc they want, they still do not apply the illegal pc reference anywhere near as stringently as CofS does. Most- if not all- FZ auditors wouldn't bat an eye upon encountering a pc who'd had some Ritalin as a kid or spent a couple nights in a psych ward ten years ago or something.
FZers aren't KR-happy. No "matters of RTC concern".
The FZ doesn't have an OSA. Don't you think that if it was the same circus, different clowns or any of the many comments I've seen alleging that they don't see a difference between the two- that having or not having a seeekrit police might be germane? I do!
FZers don't try to RMGRP critical forums or eradicate psychiatry- then lie about it. They don't do it at all, period. (so they don't have to then lie about it!) They tend not to care if anyone criticizes Scn, CofS, or anything else related. There are some FZers who take a rather dim view of critics and can be a bit by the book- almost like CofS members in that respect- but they don't fair game them and they don't do anything about it. They'll just ignore critics, if anything. There is no orchestrated or other directive or campaign to fuck up critics.
CofS is imperfect. FZ is perfect in every single way.
(Just kidding! Of course the FZ isn't perfect. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
)In CofS, you can't criticize it or anybody in it. (they didn't like it, when, as a member, I said I did not like Jeff Pomerantz when I met him.) You can't speak up. You're told to go through channels, do this, do that, or you get in trouble. If I wanted to criticize the Freezone- which, actually, I have- it wouldn't matter to anybody. Though if I said something about an individual, he or she might have a response, same as in any other non CofS venue.
CofS members can't sue or file charges against one another- without getting permission from the cult first. Not true of Freezoners.
CofS has a cultic structure. The Freezone has no cultic structure because it isn't even really a group. There isn't really any "in the Freezone" regardless of how many times I just wrote it bringing us back to point #1.
Does this mean I think the Freezone is perfect and that non CofS Scn is perfect and that it can do no wrong? Hell no. I do. I do have some criticisms of the non CofS Scn scene I've made and can make again. And I don't care if other people disapprove of it.
But what I don't approve of- is this incorrect statement that it's the same thing as CofS, that there's no difference, there's a cult, etc. Those are not correct statements. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating the Freezone or that everybody better go out and be a Freezoner or that it's flawless.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that if something ought to be criticized, then might as well not start the criticism out with fallacies, untruths or half truths.
