I commented twice in the discussion on the post Scientology Regression that there is no enemy; the malady is having to have one. Apparently, Scientology instills the firm belief that there are people worthy of the label ‘enemy’, and that such people must be depowered and dispensed with, or in some cases made to be and act in an acceptable way. I’m sure someone will cite to What Is Greatness?, originally published as a magazine article in March 1966, to stop this train of thought. In that case, someone else can just as easily cite HCO PL The Responsibilities of Leaders, issued as policy less than a year later, which justifies murder provided it is carried out stealthily against the enemy of a worthy enough power.
You even have a self-auditing process in Scientology designed for people deemed by authorities in the group to have acted in a way that warrants the label ‘enemy.’ That formula requires the individual to change the very essence of his being – his very concept of his own identity – to conform to the liking of the powers that be in the group. That can be a rather dysfunctional, destructive process given the fact that finding out who one really is is the end product of the Scientology bridge itself. In order to be accepted back into the group he must, in addition to other steps, ‘deliver an effective blow to the enemies of the group one has been pretending to be part of despite personal danger.’
I think it is worthwhile for someone who has adopted Scientology beliefs to think about what notions have been inculcated into oneself about labeling people as ‘enemy’ and treating them as such. Think about the effect it might have on your relations and your own peace of mind. For contemplation about how to deal with anyone who might declare you an enemy of him or her, an apt passage from the Tao Te Ching describing what is a ‘great man’ might assist:
He thinks of his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts.