Freezone San Francisco Policy Letter

1 March 2007 RF

Re-Revised 23 July 2014


What Do I Bring to the Group?


Upon researching my and others’ experiences in maintaining a cohesive group, I have found a common denominator[1] that, when present, makes the group and when it is out, breaks the group.  The nature of this denominator is beyond merely sharing the same stated membership goal. Our mission is to discover and know this cohesion factor, get it properly acknowledged to stabilize the group and get the group back on track to success, if a group upset has already occurred.


We are familiar with axiom that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  If one member of the group strays from the standard of the group agreement, alter-isness and not-isness naturally result.  Weakness of character, ethic and integrity set , to begin a destabilization. One member’s weakness is “contagioned” onto others caught unawares, who then start producing faulty products without proper inspection on the “why”.  Havoc and confusion grow like a fast cancer.


Be alert to Third Partying, natter, blow-ups or any other O/W phenomena that will emanate from the “weak link”.  “So and so” says “Whos-it’ is the Enemy!  This accusation is so grand, that we often diminish its power because we have, in fact, forgotten what Enemy really means.  I believe this may exemplify the general confront level of individuals. 


The usual instance is: we’re busy focused on our own tasks in front of us, so we're already too inconvenienced to question the integrity of the report and/or individual originating the data.  This initial failure to spot can spin into a full loss of control for the manager of the group.  “Stops” pop up on group products.  In order to alleviate this crisis, a manager attempts to control by selecting a scapegoat for the promised fix so that the other less-affected areas of the group can keep working.  Often the scapegoat is the mis-targeted “enemy” as reported by the plaintiff, who is actually the one exhibiting classic O/W phenomena. If this O/W phenomena is not properly spotted, we have the start of a very quick end for the group, since the answer was “not quite right” and a wrong item can quickly cave-in a group.   It is imperative that any group manager is well-trained on the subject of O/W’s and Missed Withholds.


A successful group recognizes this danger and is prepared to put an “all hands” handle upon the discovery of the contagion.   This “all hands” approach holds the group integrity and bond, at this critical juncture. It keeps the ethics “in” upon the others who might be “weaker” in character simply by the clear presence of Ethics.  Soldiers learn this early on in their training.  We’ve all known the stories that when one guy goes “out” on self-discipline in training exercises, the whole platoon has to pay a stiff, often painful, exhausting penalty for this.  The lesson tragically stops short of translation to those of us in the civilian population but is not to be taken lightly if one wants to truly understand group strength.  The following is the application that promotes group strength in its highest form as opposed to that of mind-controlled robot societies (like those ordered about by the post-9/11 TSA  or Transportation Security Agency, for instance, that was installed via black ops, psy-ops and players as trite and phony as a guy with matches stuck in his shoes.)


Each member is responsible for the group, just as the group is responsible for the member because the SYNERGISTIC SUM OF THE GROUP IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ITS INDIVIDUAL PARTS. Notice that the platoon does not simply discard the individual.  The individual screws up.  The group learns the lesson.  Being sent home from boot camp is only the very last resort.


For Scientologists and especially those in the Independent and Free zone, the solution is here!  It had been buried, but it is now rediscovered. I found it while word-clearing the Enemy Formula outlined by LRH in HCO PL 6 Oct 1967 (Vol. 0, P.238).  It is NOT merely the one liner so cryptically placed in most every ethics publication, it is very explicitly delineated, in a tiny tucked away place in the citation above:


It is:      1.    “Examine oneself and one’s mind or have it examined to be sure that one’s attitude is not based on prejudice or aberration or mere similarity to something else.”


2.     “Decide if one’s reaction to the individual, group, project or org is based on one’s personal fear or the urging of others or on actual menace.


3.     Assume the Condition of Doubt and apply its formula.”


The first step means exactly that.  Get yourself into session! On what computation are you operating if you are apparently acting as the enemy to the group?  What are you ACTUALLY doing if you’re coloring another as the enemy? What are you thinking if you’re not as-ising the truth IN THE group?!


MAKE SURE YOUR VIEWPOINT IS CORRECT.  It is vital to recognize that this formula does not specify that only the accused one apply this condition.  If the condition of Enemy has been announced, then each one of the group, as a whole, must fully apply this formula.  Otherwise, we fall into robotic fascism and are no better improved in our society than the most ignorant, untechnological and primitive.  (This is a degraded form of “society” to which the church has fallen and has received such negative PR

as a result of its robotism.) 


The second step is to really evaluate the accusation and its effect on you and the group to see how valid that fear (“enemy!”) should be.  The words Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind here.  This is the point where you can evaluate on a gradient scale: from noticing to discernment to differentiation to concern to worry to fear to terror to numbness, and can deduce your own and others’ actual intentions as well as delineate actual dangers.  Once you spot what is the true data and correct response, you have gained new mastery with who and what you’re actually dealing.  The Christian correlative is applicable in its own way to this concept with Jesus’, “He who is without sin may cast the first stone.”


The third step speaks for itself and can be found in a fairly consistent form in the same referenced PL or other LRH Ethics sources, but it is important to note its vital inclusion within this enemy formula.  The Doubt Formula is so vital to the commonality of everyday, moment-to-moment analysis and decision-making, that its placement within this formula, as well as being its own serves to remind us of this fact.


This rediscovered Enemy Formula is expanded, more broken-down to the finite, than the later “revised” formula of the one command: “Find out who you really are,” which was issued only days later that same year.  It is interesting to note that LRH called this later issue only a “modification” of the earlier formula.  It does not cancel the earlier and it is beyond tragic that this earlier formula has not made it into any later ethics formula publications.  Perhaps his “modified” version could have been added as more explanatory text of the original Enemy Formula to have prevented its immersion into obscurity, but that’s now hindsight.


Therefore, when a person assigns or colors another in the group as “enemy”, EVERYONE had better immediately assign this condition to self and apply the three steps mentioned above, including Doubt through all of its steps.  By forcing the entire group to “suffer” through this short exercise for increased enlightenment will help keep the accusers muzzled, abate future overt accusations, and allow for the right investigations to occur to discover the real outnesses and source of the enturbulation.  No doubt this ought to be a big enough scare in itself to prevent future false reports. 


The very Valuable Final Product of this whole formula application has proven to result in an enlivened, happier, more loyal group with greater ARC because each member did their subjective processing, getting off any and all o/w’s and/or bypassed charge on the group that might not have been addressed otherwise!


This vital data is further understood by HCO PL 20 October 1967 (Vol. 0, p. 244) “CONDITIONS, HOW TO ASSIGN,” where it states:


“It is more than policy that one gets the condition he fails to correctly and promptly assign and enforce.


It’s a sort of natural law.  If you let your executives goof off and stay in, let us say, a Danger Condition yet you don’t assign and enforce one, they will surely put you in a Danger Condition whether it gets assigned or not.


Remember that when your finger falters ‘on the trigger’.” (LRH)


An “enemy” singled out and quietly shuffled out of the way, while the rest of the group remains disinterested, is no different.





When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group, org or project a Condition of Doubt exists.

The formula is:

1.   Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or org brushing aside all bias and rumor.

2.   Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or org.

3.   Decide on the basis of "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped.

4.   Evaluate oneself or one's own group, project or org as to intentions and objectives.

5.   Evaluate one's own or one's group, project or org's statistics.

6.   Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides.

7.   Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or org one has remained in or joined.

8.   Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in if wavering from it has lowered one's status.



When a person is an avowed and knowing enemy of an individual, a group, project or org, a Condition of Enemy exists.

The formula is:

1.   Examine oneself and one's mind or have it examined to be sure that one's attitude is not based on prejudice or aberration or mere similarity to something else.

2.   Decide if one's reaction to the individual, group, project or org is based on one's personal fear or the urging of others or on actual menace.

3.   Assume the Condition of Doubt and apply its formula.



                                L. RON HUBBARD



Copyright © 1967

by L. Ron Hubbard




[The formulas for the Conditions of Enemy and Treason given above were modified by HCO P/L 23 October 1967, Enemy Formula, page 245, and HCO P/L 16 October 1968, page 247, respectively. The penalties (grey rag, etc) associated with the above conditions formulas were cancelled by HCO P/L 6 October 1970 Issue III, Ethics Penalties, and reinstated by HCO P/L 19 October 1971 (corrected & reissued 22 Oct 71), Ethics Penalties Reinstated, and then later modified by HCO P/L 16 November 1971, Conditions, Awards and Penances. These Policies can be found in the 1970 and 1971 Year Books. A corrected table of Conditions is given in HCO P/L 14 March 1968 on page 247.]



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex





(Modifies HCO Pol Ltr of 6 Oct 1967 on Lower Conditions Formulas)

The formula for the Condition of Enemy is just one step:







                                L. RON HUBBARD







Copyright © 1967

by L. Ron Hubbard




[1] Common denominator – A regularly occurring trait or theme.