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.
ED
FZSF
CONDITION OF DOUBT
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
Founder
LRH:mwp.rd
Copyright © 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[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.]
Remimeo
The formula for the Condition of Enemy is just one step:
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd
Copyright © 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[1] Common denominator – A regularly occurring trait or theme.