Thank you.

Hiya! Hiya!

I heard astonishingly from the seminar leaders that there were some people present that didn't know what a HASI was and didn't know what an HCO was, and so forth. And astonishing as this may seem, I thought I'd better tell you.

Well, I'm glad to see there's some people in Australia! You know there were a bunch of jokes before I left England about this is the first time I'll ever lecture standing on my head, you know, all that sort of thing. And we can say from here now — we can say from here, „How do they do their work standing on their heads?“

Of course, a HASI is the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International that has offices on every continent and has its central office for Australia at 157 Spring Street, Melbourne, and is the Central Organization for Australia. And that's always familiarly referred to as the HASI. It's the Central Organization — it's the service organization. It does the training, the processing. It handles certification. It does all sorts of odds and ends and bits and pieces.

Now, actually — actually, I'm very, very glad to be here. It was a bit of a crush getting here because just at the moment I started to leave, of course, there were seventeen hundred and fifty-five emergencies and HASI Limited came through, just like that — bang!

And HCO is Hubbard Communications Office. And that's a spontaneous combustion, that's HCO, that's — HCOs spring up; they occur. And it's very, very interesting.

This means a great deal to Scientology in general because what it does is tie up, under a public limited company status, all of the various branches and divisions of Scientology throughout the world. And you would be amazed how much that is. You would be amazed.

You see, where we stay in agreement with legal we always get into some kind — by which I mean, corporate law and all this sort of thing. We're all very careful in that field and we always try to stay in it, but things happen that don't necessarily agree with the laws of states.

Well, I want to thank you and congratulate you here in Australia for the really tremendous job you are doing. You probably, just like in other parts of the world, are in there pushing up against the seeming carelessness, the feeling that it doesn't matter — we'll all be dead anyway in a short time, so why worry about it and — may seem to you occasionally that you're not getting anywhere, you know, that you're sort of stalled down or that you're progressing very slowly or something like that.

Now, a corporation is something that is supposed to be formed by a number of individuals, preferably pompous and ponderous, who get together and decide and invest some money, and hold meetings. You see, that's how they happen. Well, that's never how anything has happened in Dianetics and Scientology. There's been a spontaneous formation of some sort, and boom!

You have to have fairly exact statistics — fairly good statistics to really understand where we are getting and why. The tremendous amount of forward impetus that Scientology has had in the last five months in Australia, you Australians wouldn't believe. You just wouldn't believe it. Because it is considerable. But this is more or less true all around the world.

And there's an area of interest, we have to do something about it, it busily organizes itself in some way — we try to help the thing out, and the next thing you know, why, there's this corporation sitting over there, and we say, „Well, let's see, we'd better go to the registrar of companies and tell them.“ And we always do! We are very, very kind and benign people. We don't pick on these poor little governments.

And I'm real proud of people that have been carrying on, particularly here. You know, we owe the people that have fought the good fight through here in Melbourne, in HASI Melbourne, we owe them a great deal, because it's not been easy. They've not had a good smooth run of it over the years. They've had some bad breaks. Originally, a HASI was set up in Melbourne that wasn't even authorized and there was no way to straighten it up or square it around or do anything for it at all, and it limped along and kept falling on its face and being set back up again and people would work at it and sacrifice their time, energy and so forth to keep it going. And several months now, they have had a very fine running organization and it's there for the long haul. I'm very proud of it and I want to thank everybody that's had anything to do with keeping HASI Melbourne alive these many years. Thank you.

But HCO is a particularly wonderful manifestation of this. I'm liable to wake up any day of a given year and find we have a new HCO office somewhere.

I was extremely pleased, by the way, to walk in and see the building looking so good and see the staff looking so good and see everybody full of beans, and doing all the right things in the right directions. It was very pleasing indeed.

Now, what happens is a Central Organization or an area of an enfranchised area organization gets so much traffic, so much is happening, things start to get so random and they go so far out of communication that their method of getting into communication is to take the brightest girl they've got and tell her she's the HCO Secretary and then they tell the Continental Office that there's an HCO Secretary over here and then they tell me, wherever I am, and then I write her a letter and tell her she's an HCO Secretary. And then she handles the problems of ethics, technology and awards.

Once in a while you think, well, Scientology is basically — must be very mercenary, very mercenary: thinks about money. You bet it thinks about money! I'll tell you why it thinks about money. Because tradesmen think about money, because it takes money to pay the rent, because it takes money to pay staff. They have to think about money.

In other words, if somebody's — somebody hasn't been doing the public right, but has just been „doing“ the public or something like that, that's the business of the HCO Secretary.

There are two points of agreement that Scientology has to maintain with the rest of existence. Just two, really. One is finance, and the other, unfortunately, is legal. In other words, they stay in agreement with the society where legalities are concerned — court orders, filings of changes of name and board minutes and bylaws and you have to go see solicitors and try to communicate with solicitors and... And then every once in a while, why, somebody will rush in and say, „Why haven't you paid this bill?“ you know. Have you ever had that experience personally? And they say — they say this, you know, and of course the basic impulse is just to say, „Ha! What are you talking about — bills. We're all in this together,“ and so forth. But they don't listen to this line at all.

And then there's the problem of technology: What is now currently allowed in terms of research? What is allowed in the way of standard processes? And which processes have been found to be best and how should they be run and who can run them and that sort of thing. She answers those problems.

So as a result the two points of agreement with a relatively — well, I don't like to say rough words about the society at large. There's no reason swearing at them. There's no reason to get down and say, „Well, they fffft, grum-grum-grum.“ You know? You know, in the comic strips where they have asterisks and exclamation points in the balloons — well, there's no reason to say that about society in general.

And she gets routine issues of bulletins and so forth, material and so on, that I write, and makes sure they go out.

But it is rough to have to stay in agreement with some of the general procedures of society. Have you ever noticed that? It's rough. Because some of the things that they're now supposed to do and some of the things that they're absolutely certain are absolute fact are so far out in the middle of the ocean and so far away from anything necessary and truthful that it's quite amazing.

And then on awards, people who have certificates — if they can have a certificate, if they pass their examination, if they are qualified, all that sort of thing, that's all up to the HCO Secretary.

I don't know if you know anything about socialism or politics or anything like that, but give you an idea of how far out of agreement it all is: socialism, apparently, was something that was dreamed up — now I'm not talking about the political aspect, I'm talking about the pure theory — it was evidently dreamed up by a couple of tramps down alongside the railroad track who couldn't bum any more chow so they had to figure out some political philosophy by which to get somebody to — that did work to support them.

She's actually some pumpkins. Therefore they try to efface themselves and the public seldom hears much about HCO. HCO has as its general purpose the wearing of the hats that I personally wear and they wear them for me here and there. And HCO today is just scattered all over this planet! It's — it's actually a tremendously effective, very small, very numerous-officed organization. And of course, I'm very proud of these girls. They do a terrific job!

That's cruel of me to say that. But I never had — I never had a — a decided opinion on this before, not until the general election occurred in England. I got a fairly decided opinion on the thing. Because right away, the first thing that the socialists and laborers and so forth — the Labor Party are the people who don't work. And I got a tremendously new view of all of this when they said they were going to pay every person in the country who wasn't working 10 shillings more per week. Now of course, socialism, by which a person couldn't be worked to death, and would have something for his old age and couldn't be exploited left and right and so forth, was a grand dream. But socialism in actual practice is the ways and means of making enough people indigent so they'll vote for you, or something like that. It doesn't have very much to do with labor or production.

And where you have things straight in an area or where things are straightened out or where problems are being handled one way or the other, why, if those problems have to do with ethics, technology and awards and so forth, why, they're handled by HCO.

So, if we were to go into a total agreement with some of the leading trends of the world, we would have to go into agreement with socialism, which is to say, we would have to cater totally toward disabled people — unable people, and we would have to work very hard in order to keep these unable people unable. And we're not going in that direction. And every once in a while we get into a considerable argument.

But, of course, the HASI is very, very, very important. The HASI is the Central Organization. And if anything's going to get done the doingness is done by the HASI and so on.

Now you'll think I have decided political views. No, I don't have decided political views beyond this one point: I don't believe that the working man should be made the slave of all parasitic groups. I don't believe that. And actually I think that's a philosophy that the working man would agree with. In other words, the worker, or the person who does the work — and believe me, it's just as much work to manage as to sweep floors; I'm talking about work now — anybody who works has a perfect right to be assisted in his work by somebody else working. Right?

Now, I wanted to keep this down to an elementary simplicity so that those people who were brought by trained auditors — but my worst nature won.

Audience: Yes.

And I'm going to give you a lecture now, with your permission, that has to do with an explanation of social behavior, conduct, government conduct, other things, that is the package explanation of why things happen the way they happen, and also what happens in cases.

Well, isn't that a new, novel, strange idea!

And I talked to you about Step 6, and this has something to do with the route around Step 6 and why Step 6 got deadly on some people. Would you like to hear about that?

Here we have — here we have two nineteenth-century philosophies which are fighting it out now here on Earth, between the United States and Russia. They're fighting it out. Russia — communism, the worker, so forth. And the United States — capitalism, you know? They both belonged in the nineteenth century. They were — they're something that's covered with mold and moss: capitalism, communism.

Audience: Yes.

Communism was something dreamed up in Germany a hundred years ago. The Germans knew it wasn't any good so they threw it across the border into Russia.

All right. I'll just sail out into the blue, and those that don't know all the basic basics, and — or their own basic-basic — keep up with me as you can. I think you will find this much more comprehensible than you think.

And capitalism was the basic idea whereby you took some money, preferably stolen, and loaned it to somebody at an exorbitant rate of interest so his labor would then support you. Now, that was basically capitalism. And both of these are old hat. They're total antiques.

But let us start right out in full stride and call your attention to the cycle of action. Now, everyone knows there is a cycle of action and everyone knows that this is part and parcel of Scientology and it occurs in the book Fundamentals of Thought. And a cycle of action is a very important part of the basic mechanics of Scientology.

And we have Russia fighting the United States because it's a capitalistic nation. (The United States isn't a capitalistic nation — just try and save some money in the United States today!) And the United States is busy fighting Russia because Russia's a communism. Boy, I don't know what it says in Russian, but when it comes down to it, I think if you asked any commissar to practice pure communism, he would be sure you were trying to start the counterrevolution; he'd probably have you shot. It's kind of — some kind of a laborers' fascism.

But that there was this much still to be known about the cycle of action makes me ashamed of myself. And should — you should be ashamed of yourself for never having noticed it. But, as usual, I have to notice these things. It's the little cross I bear.

Both philosophies (communism and capitalism) and other such philosophies are actually simply parasitic upon the one producer. The person who produces, they try to figure some way — means to corral or monopolize this production or to get part of the production for no return, something like that — bunch of figure- figure-figure.

Now, the cycle of action, as you will find in Fundamentals of Thought, has to do with state of existence plotted against time for any given form or object.

Now, that's an extreme view on my part. But that's all I believe in the field of politics. I don't care about any of the ramifications about it. I simply believe that the person who works should have help. He's entitled to have somebody else work too. And I believe that people that are not worth anything to the society and are not going to produce anything in the society and are just going to drag it down and so forth, I don't believe they need to be supported at all. The only thing I think you could do for those people is help them all you could to salvage them and bring them up to a point where they could pull their own weight in the society.

Now, there you are sitting in a chair. Or what is in that chair? All right, what's in the chair?

Now, there's — there's actually a different political philosophy, if you want to call it that. But it is a practical philosophy that if we've got to work at all, well, let's all work; and if we aren't going to work at all, well, let's not any body work. But if there's got to be work done and if that's the way the wheels are going to run, then, those that are a burden upon the economic structure of the society certainly could be promoted up into a status where they could pull their own weight. Now, don't you think it's a fairly workable philosophy?

Audience: A body.

Audience: Yes.

A body, all right. Now, the body follows this cycle of action. The body follows this cycle of action. Now, what sort of an environment do you have? What are your surroundings right here? Look around. Take a look.

Well, but that philosophy, you see, is not actually a political philosophy. And I don't give it to you as the political philosophy of Scientology at all. I just give it to you as a practical statement of how to keep the show on the road. And does that agree with any existing philosophy on Earth today? Doesn't at all.

What's there?

Money, for instance, should represent worth but worth should not be represented in money. You get the idea of a fellow has value to his fellow man — he is valuable to his fellow man; he's valuable to his society, his community and so forth. He performs service, he has value, he knows things and so forth. Well, now, that person should be recompensed and the money should represent his value. Well, the society at large has got this totally reversed.

Audience: A room.

You go down to the bank and you say, „How much is Mr. Jones worth?“ They say, „Well, Mr. Jones is worth 100,000 pounds.“ You couldn't sell Mr. Jones for 100,000 pounds! Couldn't be done. Couldn't be done at all.

All right. Those forms follow the cycle of action. Now, who are you? Go on, who are you?

No, capitalism, communism, this sort of thing, sort of out of shape today. But these political philosophies are more or less special interests, badly understood, used to serve the interests of people who don't mean the best for the other fellow. And so we have an enturbulance going on in the world today, which makes the Southern Hemisphere a very valuable part of Earth, since there's some possibility that it will be the only alive part of Earth within the next century.

Audience: A thetan.

Now, you can scoff at that if you like. But these new things — missiles, atomic weapons — can lay waste a considerable stretch of country, just because somebody didn't understand or believe in or try to help his fellow man. Left in the hands of the incompetent, who is being parasitic upon somebody else's labor, atomic weapons sooner or later will be loosed on somebody somewhere. But it will happen in the Northern Hemisphere, not this hemisphere.

Yeah. Well, you're about the only thing around that wouldn't follow the cycle of action but you sometimes think you do! A thetan doesn't follow the cycle of action. He observes the cycle of action.

Your worry on the score of atomic fission, in my opinion, is an entirely different worry than it is in the Northern Hemisphere. In the Northern Hemisphere, the question is, „How long are we going to stay alive, and, if it happens, what can be salvaged out of it?“ That's the question up there.

So, we've got a body and we've got a room, and the forms of the body and the room follow this cycle of action. And that's very simple here. I'll just draw a picture of it, a big picture, and then we'll go on with it.

As a matter of fact, the question is so burning, so weighty that nobody can confront it. You see a picture of an atomic bomb in a newsreel, and don't bother to look at the picture on the screen, look at the people in the seats. And they'll go this way. And people step out of their seats and walk up the aisle and leave the theater. There's nobody even talking about it. Nobody confronts this fact at all. They just not-is it and brush it off and say, „Well, we're all going to stay blind to this if we possibly can and maybe it won't happen.“ Although they know very well that it very probably will happen. If not in another dozen years, maybe a half-century, certainly within a century. Weapons of that magnitude cannot continue to exist on a planet with man in the state he's in without someday being used, unless, of course, we get there first. If Scientology got there first, we'd have some guarantee that no insane people would be in the Northern Hemisphere governments.

Now, that's all there is to it. This is plotted against time — create, survive, destroy. And that is the lot of any form at this time in the physical universe. It is created, it survives and is then destroyed. That is the cycle of action.

We're going in that direction, by the way, and that is our program. It's a very — it's a very complicated program. It's not very popular. So if Scientology misses, since there is no other organization, rationale, know-how or anything else that is even vaguely pointed in the direction of atomic fission — there are few little groups that hold meetings in towns, and occasionally get together and say nobody should use the bomb or we should stop manufacturing it or something. Very limp — very limp little groups. And everybody says, „Boo, boo, boo“ and go out and arrest somebody because they put up a placard or something of the sort, and said that atomic bombs are bad. You know, it's such a limp effort that it's hardly worth measuring at all. And it leaves Scientology with a job on it hands it never intended to have and didn't want and puts pressure on the line of dissemination and colors organizational actions, even colors the actions of individual auditors and so on, makes them hit pretty hard. It makes them try harder and it makes them feel defeated more easily.

Now, the first time this was ever noticed was in one of the unwritten Vedic hymns, Lord knows how long ago. I've forgotten when I did write it. Let's see? But it runs like this. They don't have this clean, clear-cut cycle of action. It got a little bit muddied up and complicated.

They can't pull it smoothly and evenly forward, you see. They can't say, „Well, if we just get a PE going and if we get our friends interested in the PE and we just get people coming in — small groups — and eventually we'll make the grade.“ They realize that they're on some kind of borrowed time and it gives them the feeling like, „Well, we just haven't got time to get some people in and put them on a PE and straighten it out and get dissemination going in this way. We just haven't got time to do it.“ And they're always trying for the total effect. And you'll occasionally find them up at the US Senate or something like that, hammering on senators' doors and so forth. That's a very unpopular activity.

It's „Out of the infinite nothingness there arrived a form which in various aggressions and recessions proceeded on through the infinity unto the time it declined, degraded and disappeared.“

There was a fellow got a new thought into the US Senate one time or another and... I remember I talked to a US Senator about this one time. I said, „What are you doing about atomic fission, you personally, in your political campaigns and so forth?“ And he looked absolutely surprised like, should he have any ideas concerning this, you know? And I said, „Well, what are you doing to smooth down world tension, and so on, so that atomic fission wouldn't eventually come to be used to solve political problems and so on?“

Well, it's written in various ways, some of them much more colorful than that. But the truth of the matter is something got created and that which is created survives and is then destroyed. That's the simplicity of it.

„Oh, well, we have the answer to that, ho, ho.“

But let us examine this cycle of action as it is examined in Fundamentals of Thought and we'll find out something very interesting. Creation to persist, as in survival, has to be continuously created. So it's create (that was the beginning) and then you get create-create-create-create-create, see, continuous creation. We get the persistence of something if it's continuously created, and then one of two things would happen: It would either be continuously created or not created at all and you'd get absolute destruction. But if the continuous creation changed while it was being continuously created — you created something on it to change its form or alter it or vary it in some way — you would get the destruction of the original form. You get the idea?

And I said, „Well, what are you doing?“

There is no such thing as an absolute destruction except ceasing to create. And this — this is one of the most fundamental fundamentals of this universe. And these particular discoveries and so forth take nuclear physicists and leave them with terrible headaches because they're more simple and more fundamental than nuclear physics, because it gives you the character of matter.

„Well, we've got the answer to that. We do that. That's our power here in the Senate and that's what we do and. . .”

And you can go off into complications that have gimmicks and ruddy rods and quantum mechanics and everything else all piled on top of this thing, gah-woof!

I said, „Yeah, but what are you doing?“

What is still being created that everything else is creating an alteration of? Well, that is the fundamental building block of the universe. It's that thing which is still being created that a great many alter-isnesses have been created about.

And he said, „Fighting communism, of course!“

Right now you almost never see a pure cycle of action. A pure cycle of action would simply be this: A fellow creates something, then he continues to create this thing so that it looks like it's persisting, you see, and then ceases to create it at which moment it disappears. Now, that would be a knowing, meaning, clear-cut cycle of action. That would be in its simplest form, and that's the only kind of real destruction there would be. You'd just cease to create somebody and that would be destruction in an absolute nature.

I said, „Well, how are you fighting communism? I mean, if you're going to fight communism.“

Now, where — where do we go astray on destruction and how do things get so mishmashed and why is everybody so puzzled about it all? Well, it's just that most destruction is not cessation of creation. It's an additional creation on top of the object which is being destroyed. We have a form and we put some dynamite in it and it goes boom! And we say, „Well, we destroyed that!“ Oh, did we? What are all those fragments lying all over the place?

„Well, train up a young fellow and you put a gun in his hands and have him go shoot communists.“

So, destruction is actually basically an alter-isness. What people call destruction is an alter-isness. It's never the cessation of anything. So if you wonder if somebody gets in trouble if he goes around destroying things — well, the more he destroys, the more he doesn't get rid of, because he's got the bits and pieces left forever lying all over the place because he still must be creating whatever he tried to destroy.

Well, these programs — these programs that are originated in those particular spheres are not necessarily the programs that will win! That's an understatement if there ever was one!

See, he's — take a vase, a potter makes a vase and then he continues to make the vase in order to have a solid form, and you have to help him make the vase continuously, and it survives and it gets over, and everybody decides to destroy this vase. So they break it up. Now, of course, they've got fragments of a vase left there till the end of time because somebody's still creating a vase! Otherwise you couldn't break it up. You can't break up that which isn't being created. It's as stupidly simple as this.

So the — the Scientologist is in a slightly more tense frame of mind in the Northern Hemisphere if he looks in this direction at all. When he tries to do something he feels that, well, he won't get there quick enough; it won't be done fast enough. And he goes through cycles of being — snarling about it and being apathetic about it. But here you've got a longer, smoother pull. And this is an easy one, actually. And you're succeeding and you're succeeding very well. But you do have some share in this problem of the Northern Hemisphere.

So, two nations go to war and the United States and the Allies are going to end Japan! Going to finish off the Japanese empire and so forth. They're going to go to war.

Because — well, for one thing, if there's anything manufactured in the Northern Hemisphere that you have to use to keep this society going, you'd better be manufacturing it. And if there's a spillover of radiation one kind or another, which there very well might be, a tremendous amount of fallout, you'd certainly better know how to — to handle small amounts of fallout — the small amount you'd get. If you have any economic dependence on the Northern Hemisphere at all, you certainly better get over it. If the Southern Hemisphere is self-maintaining, if it is a total economic unit, if its know-hows and so forth are top-drawer, it'll continue to have a civilization that may very well be the only civilization left on Earth.

Well, it's a good thing they did. But they — in destroying it, they made its bits and pieces persist till you hear President Eisenhower recently saying that the United States couldn't do such and such a thing because it would lose face. And it was a good thing they went to war with Germany because the Germans were all out on a — various line. But what do we find now? We find in the American Army relics of German habits, equipments and names and titles and things the like of which you never heard of. They're scattered all over the US Army.

Now, that sounds like I'm just beating the drum and trotting out a horrible fact and hanging up a carcass and so on. But it's a fact you don't even dare say in the Northern Hemisphere today, because it's too true. It's just too true. It's too much truth.

In the First World War the conquest of Germany wound up with American soldiers wearing, not quite, a German helmet. Did you ever notice that? In the Second World War they wound up with their panzer divisions and all kinds of subdivisions and battle tactics and names and nomenclature and so forth. And you look over the US Army rule book and you wondered, „Who won?“

If you were to destroy 50 percent of the facilities of the United States, 50 percent of its population, so on, with atomic fission, I promise you that the remaining 50 percent would be so pulled down and so overloaded with the — with the burden of trying to care for the injured and the sick and the tremendous epidemics that follow and so forth, civilization would just never survive it.

You see, they never destroyed Germany. AH they did was alter-is it. They didn't just cease to create Hitler; they alter-ised all of Hitler's works. So, of course, basically they're persisting. And now people are going mad over in

Nobody looks at that fact up to a point of where they don't even take precautions with civil defense. There's hardly even a store of bandages sitting outside of any metropolitan center up in the Northern Hemisphere. There's just nothing.

Germany trying to uneducate the Hitler Youth. You ask — in a German schoolroom, you ask the boys, „Well, now, what do you think of Adolf Hitler?“

Old air-raid defense of the old days and so on, that's what they kind of fall back on. They've got it all planned out — all planned out in Washington that they have a warning — air-raid wardens, you see, and they're out on the outskirts of the city and they look up, you see, and they identify the guided missile and then they pick up a telephone, you see, and then they call somebody and then they tell somebody else and then somebody else gets everybody together and puts them into cars, I think it is, and takes them to various centralized parts of the city.

„Well, he's probably a misguided man in that he was a zealot, and he made some beautiful autobahns, and he got the German race better known throughout the world and he purified the blood of the Aryan people.“ And they say, „No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. What you're supposed to say is, 'Hitler was a dog and a villain and never should have existed!“' And they say, „Yes, we know we're supposed to say that.“

And I asked the chief of civil defense of Washington, DC (because I was trained in this work to some degree), and I ask him, I said, „How fast does a guided missile travel?“ He just changed the subject. See, by the time an air-raid warden put his telescope or binoculars on a guided missile, it, traveling at 30,000 miles an hour, would have exploded. There isn't any time to phone anybody up or evacuate any buildings or anything else.

Very recently a couple of German girls appeared over in London and were hired organizationally. They were Hitler Youth. Straight — straight out of it. They were talking about some people had pure Aryan blood and some people didn't and — and so forth.

Now, you say, „Well, you could have a far warning system.“ Well, I guess you could. You could have a far warning system and they could look up, boom! See? This is beyond — beyond the reality of the Northern Hemisphere.

The very violence which was pressed up against that mocked-up culture is making that culture persist in some fashion. Even though it has been conquered, it is still alive. They didn't cease to create it, in other words, they alter-ised it. And so you get very few pure cycles of action.

So I wouldn't pay much attention to it if I were you, what the Northern Hemisphere thinks about atomic radiation and that sort of thing, what's released there or what the political promises or future is. I would just sort of think to myself, „Well, if it happens they've had it, and if it happens we better not have it too.“ Because the Southern Hemisphere, obviously, is the only area that will ever have a prayer in an atomic war. But it will only have a prayer if it is very definitely self-sufficient.

Nowadays with the embalmer's art being what it is — and by the way, the medical examiner of the city of New York explained to me one day, he said, „Well, the Egyptian, well, he might have thought he knew a thing or two. He, you know, buried a lot of mummies in tombs and preserved them. But,“ he says, „as far as the embalmer's art is concerned,“ he says, „we in modern times do a much better job.“ He says, „Our corpses,“ he said, „be dug up 10,000 years from now,“ he said, „they'd be just as good as the day they were buried.“ Well, you certainly can't get a very pure cycle of action while an embalmer's around.

And that's why it's such good news all around that you're doing so well here with Scientology. Because we are putting all our chips on this bet here. There's a lot more depends on Australia than you would at first notice. I hate to have to bring it up.

A person's born — a person is born, a person survives and something destroys him. That's generally the way this is thought of. And the destroyed body, you see, is put in a coffin and filled full of formaldehyde and taped up and painted properly, and the coffin is put inside of a concrete vault, and then they bury that in the ground where the seepage won't get to it and it never does finish its cycle of action, you see, for an awful long time. And the cycle of action keeps on going.

But Australia — Australia is no stranger to me. I know your country very well. Before the Yanks came I was Senior Officer Present of northern Australia, not because I had any rank, but because there wasn't anybody else there. The — perhaps you're aware of the status of a Senior Officer Present, naval status. It's the flag ashore. Senior Officer Present ashore commands all Senior Officer Presents afloat. Now it's one of these interesting things.

This bothers thetans! If you look on the backtrack you'll very often find, though, that what really upsets them is not being up — it doesn't upset them to be buried. It upsets them to be left around unburied.

Well, I got mixed up in the early part of the war and got detoured and that sort of thing, and I finally wound up falling back to Brisbane. And I was walking down the street in a bad state of dishabille — I'd saved some insignia, you know, and the army stopped me and said, „Who are you?“

If I were really wanting — wanted to get even with somebody, I would say, „Well, you know, I'm going to wait until you're dead and then I'm going to dig up your body. I'm going to take it up on a high hill and expose it to the wind and weather, you see. And after it's gone along for a while and is kind of weathered away, I'm going to take the skull and sell it to a carnival with the jaws so fixed as to flap, you see, and with some sort of a speaker unit in back of it that will tell the people some kind of a story. That's what I'm going to do with your skull.“ Might not be real to them, but they wouldn't realize that their nightmares after that had something to do with what I'd told them, because they're very afraid of just that thing happening.

And I gave my name, rank and serial number.

If they could get an absolute destruction of the body, they'd be all right, but you can — oh, every once in a while you pick up somebody in processing, you find out that he's still been ... A girl in London — picked her up, ran it back to a time 1,500 years ago and body, murdered. The Greeks didn't like bodies that had been murdered. And the body had just been thrown into a grove and neglected and just deteriorated gradually. And you know, still part of her consciousness was still there. It wasn't so much of an engram. Part of her was stuck in a grove in Greece, right now in present time, see? And that was why she always kind of felt a little bit absent and not quite here. It wasn't that she was on the backtrack, it was that she was in a grove in Greece still hanging around because of evidently a couple of particles left of this body or something. Couldn't quite make out why.

And they said, „Do you realize that there's no naval officer in this port or in Northern Australia?“ And I said, „Well, I hadn't realized it.“ Couldn't have cared less, as a matter of fact. I was thinking, „Gosh, it's nice to be alive!“

But there's persistence, you see, still continuing to mock up something that wasn't there, still trying to make something survive that has been destroyed pins the person down to the area.

And — „Well now, in your regulations,“ the army said, „I'm sure you will find a clause that says, 'By exigencies of service on foreign station, the senior naval officer present shall take command of all naval activities.“

You see how this would work? The person is — says, „I don't want to lose this body. I don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose it.“ And head goes off, you know, and it gets cut in two and the person says, „I don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose it.“ And boy, he's pinned down still protecting — finally he's protecting an idea.

So I looked at my stripes. I said, „Okay. That's the way it is. I'll sit around and look pretty.“

And there are people here right this moment that have some kind of a mass stuck around here someplace, you know. They're conscious of it occasionally and they're still protecting the mass energy idea of a body they once had. See, it is still being created, and it hasn't been destroyed at all because there's something left of it.

„Look pretty! There's 17 merchantmen in Brisbane lower river; they haven't been brought in. There's 4 million dollars worth of jettisoned cargo laying on the docks that nobody has any responsibility for. There are 250 refugees who have just dropped back from Malaysia and Singapore that nobody's taking any responsibility for, and you have about 200 naval personnel drifting through this port that nobody's taking any responsibility for. There are enemy agents all over the place. Nobody's taking charge of naval censorship. Well, here's a sergeant and a girl and there's your office.“

So, absolute destruction is something we see very little of in this universe. Now, in Dianetics, the dynamic principle of existence, as agreed upon by all animals and so forth and beings, was said to be survive. And we know just a little bit more than that. That was observable, and you'll find that in Book One, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

For ensuing months, why, I had a ball. Forgot what it was like to sleep. I remember vividly — you see, Australia had already been written off the books by the US Navy. I don't know if you knew that — very early in the war. In the US entrance into the war it had been — it had been written off the books. I opened up the trans-Pacific telephone line and called the Bureau of Naval Operations, Navy Department, Washington, DC, because I'd sent them already ten messages without any single reply. One of them had to do with what the hell did they want me to do with a heavy cruiser? So I just phoned them up clear, straight through. Got the officer of the day right in the Navy Department in the Pentagon in Washington, and I said, „This is Hubbard, Senior Officer Present in Northern Australia. I want to talk to somebody — who will give me orders for certain vessels in these waters.“ And he said, „Just a moment.“

In Scientology we've advanced this just a little further and we know the dynamic principle of existence in Scientology broadens out to create. The dynamic principle of existence is creating. The action of creation is the dynamic principle of existence.

And I waited. And the Australian telephone company that I was working with, they waited. Everybody waited. And the voice came back and said, „Well, I'm sorry. There's nobody of that name here.“ And hung up. Australia didn't exist.

Now, don't please, run this back off into Sigmund Freud. What's the idea of bringing him in? I know he talked about the second dynamic and sex, and it was all sex and if anybody ate a bad dinner and it disagreed with him, well, that was sex. And if you didn't like spaghetti and if you rode horses it was all sex. And if you got fired, well, that was sex. Confidentially, it's been my opinion for a long time that he sort of had it on the brain.

The ship in question — the ship in question was a heavy cruiser and its four-stripe captain had first come ashore and had looked at me, you know, „What! You're Senior Officer Present ashore?“ and had sniffed. And I was trying to get him orders and he was trying to get orders and everybody was trying to do something to get it out of here, because the Japanese might strike in the north at any time.

No, create means a great deal more than that. Actually, the second dynamic is simply a body manifestation of sex. Let's see how far just create goes. Well, it goes into the fact that if you've got a job you'll continue to have a job. In other words, your job will survive so long as you create the job. So if you have somebody — there's a job called governor general of the Mishmash Tool Company, see. And that's a tremendous position, you see. It's been occupied by great men. Has a tremendous salary. We take this little fellow down here and we say, „You're now appointed governor general of the Mishmash Tool Company.“ He goes in ... He hasn't got a prayer of creating that job, has he? The job is so much bigger than he is! See, the job's big and he's little and he couldn't create the job — well, boy, he doesn't survive very long or the Mishmash Tool Company doesn't survive very long either.

He finally came in the office, you know, all four stripes and gold braid and so forth, and he said, „Mr. Hubbard,“ he said, „if you will sign — if you will sign sailing orders for me, I'll sail.“

And politically, every time you elect to office a man that's smaller than the job, the job doesn't get created and the government doesn't function! And that goes right on — right on down to janitors. If a guy cannot or is not willing to create the job of janitor he will never do any janitoring. He'll do everything else.

So I scribbled out: „You are hereby detached from this station and shall proceed upon your way as befits your duties and missions. Signed, L. Ron Hubbard.“

You come in, find the water pipes all busted and the furnace all rinsed and everything going wrong and the roof off. That's what he's been doing. He hasn't been doing janitoring, because he wouldn't create the job of janitor.

A couple of years later I was kicking around — I had command of a squadron over on the other side of the war — I was kicking around an officers' club and I was — just been introduced to somebody and this officer sat there and all of a sudden he went into a brown study, you know. „Did you say your name was Hubbard?“

I don't care whether the post is some tremendously high post or some very, very low one, one has to continue to create his job! It isn't something that goes on forever automatically because as soon as it slides over to going on forever, it slides right on down the curve and goes into destruction.

„That's right.“

He's creating it less and less and then he decides he doesn't like it, so he'll alter-is it in some fashion in order to destroy his former beingness. Well, he's still being the same beingness and alter-ising the same beingness at the same time he's being it. And he hasn't been — he hasn't been an executioner for 1,500 years, he hasn't been one. Obviously that cycle of existence disappeared — altered it. All the overts on it have all disappeared. There's nothing left of his life as an executioner except he can't stand ties! So, there'd be right ways to end things and wrong ways.

„Hubbard. Hubbard.“ He says, „L. R. Hubbard?“

And the right way to end things is simply to cease to create them. Ah, but to cease to create anything you have to realize that you were responsible for creating it in the first place.

I said, „That's right.“

Now, let's take a reactive bank; there it is. And the person says, „I don't create it. It's totally other-determined. It just seems like every time I think of spaghetti I get hit in the face. And I have nothing to do with it whatsoever.“

He says, „Good God,“ he says, „you're that fellow from down in Australia!“

Well, the reason why he gets hit in the face every time he thinks of spaghetti — he gets a somatic, you know, every time he thinks of spaghetti or something — some other ridiculous thing like he hears a typewriter running and gets a cold. Whenever he smells gas fumes he gets a pain in his hip — never manages to connect the two at all. If his wife looks at him crossly, why, he knows she has put poison in the soup. All of these things that are absolute knowns he seldom connects up with any other factor. And seldom even recognizes them.

And, actually, through the remainder — they had kept this set of orders framed on the wall of this US heavy cruiser for the remainder of the war. And actually, throughout the remainder of the war I was known as that fellow who was in Australia. So you see, I must be one of you.

But not one of these things would he own up to creating! He'd say, „Wen, that's something I'd never create. Nope. The one thing I would never do — would create a wife who would put ground glass in the soup.“ And, of course, as soon as he said that he'd never create a wife that would put ground glass in the soup, if he has engrams on the subject of the wife putting ground glass in the soup, then hell always be suspicious of women putting ground glass in soup!

All very funny. Very funny. I sent four ships to MacArthur and everybody says, „You mustn't send them.“ Refugees all over the place, everybody says, „They're probably all spies. You mustn't do anything with them.“ I'd keep rounding them up and shoving them aboard ships and people would say, „We can't take them. Have no orders.“ I'd say, „Yes, you have. You've got my orders. Take them.“

And it'll go much further than that. His alter-is will start to get into a scale of substitutes. Any soup might have ground glass in it. Food has ground glass in it. When you pick up tablecloths you get ground glass in your fingers. All whitish powder is ground glass really. (We get a new scientific discovery by some sane scientist.) Whenever he looks at a white wall (which is the same as a white tablecloth), he gets a funny feeling in his mouth as though the skin's raw. See? Alter-is, alter-is, alter-is, substitute, substitute, substitute.

I remember reading at that time — I remember reading a US newspaper story. It says, „Where is the US fleet? Where is the US fleet?“ And there's a big picture, you see, of battleships and a map of Australia. „It is guarding the shores of Australia.“ The US fleet was on the bottom at Pearl Harbor — thud. And what was guarding the shores of Australia was a six-inch gun in charge of some naval — Australian naval reservists down at the mouth of the Brisbane River, a few territorials with Lee-Enfields and Hubbard with a submachine gun. I was the antiaircraft battery. Actually had bullets for the thing! That was before the Yanks came.

And what have we got? We've got destroy — alter-isness and you're not getting destruction at all. You're just getting persistence, persistence, persistence. He is unconsciously and unknowingly continuing to create the thing that kills him. And we get what's wrong with the reactive bank. And people just will not create certain things. They won't! They won't! They won't And that's it. Zrupp! And whatever a person absolutely refuses to create, if it has ever cut his throat, will then continue to cut his throat.

The — this is very, very amusing. One of my officers, some years later, told somebody, „Yes, he's the fellow who was down in Australia. He was relieved by a million men.“ Well, we had a ball.

People who are alter-ising continuously, changing something, not just ceasing to create it — see, the wife says, „I'm not guilty in this marriage. I'm not the one who's doing any nagging. I've always been sweet and good. And at night when he's come home there I've been tired and worn out, and I've been sweet and good and gotten his dinner and done everything for him and never done a single thing and encouraged him along the way the whole time.“ And the more she thinks like that, you know, the worse her stomach gets and her back and so on — „And I've been sweet and good and I've never done anything but be a good wife.“

One of the jobs I had was keeping enough rumors on the line. Every time we'd find a spy, why, naval intelligence and army intelligence and so forth — I've actually received orders: „Take him out in the middle of the harbor and drown him,“ see, spy. Oh no. Oh, I'd just tell them, „Well now, listen, I've got something for you to do,“ you see? And I'd give them all the data on all the batteries. I'd tell them I was privately a German spy, you see, and I wanted him somehow or other to get the dope to the Japs: all the tremendous massed batteries and the airfields and the tremendous numbers of troops and the battleships and everything that were down here ready to knock the Japs off. Anything to keep the Japanese high command totally convinced that there was something here. I'll never know — I'll just never know why Australia came through it at that time. I just never - I'll never know the facts.

And of course this isn't his viewpoint at all. He said, „I have been a model husband. I've been a model husband. Here I come home, worked hard all day, sweated my fingers to the bone, just taking it from every corner, just to earn the bread of the family. Here I come home, tired, exhausted, just for a little kind word, something of the sort. And what do I get? Yak, yak, yak, yak, yak!“

I finally figured out why the Allies won the war over the Japs: because the Jap high command was stupider than ours. And that's the only — only real reason for it.

Well, to listen to the two. of them, you'll finally form the opinion that life was never like that either way. If there's any trouble between them it's because neither one of them is taking responsibility for creating the existing situation. But somebody must be creating the existing situation! And there are only two people present!

But Australia had shipped everything it had overseas at that time. And there was nothing left in the country and there was just a handful of troops and so forth here just to make some kind of a show. Any boatload of Jap marines could have taken the country. That was up till almost the end of spring of 1942. Maybe you didn't even know it was in that condition. But it was really rough. It was something to perspire about quite heavily.

Now, it's all very well to invent devils and gods and say, „They came along and came in through the bay window and got it in for you because you were blasphemous or didn't put ice cream in the collection plate or something.“

I thought I was going to come back to Australia at the end of 42. They shipped me home and within a week gave me corvettes, North Atlantic. And I went on fighting submarines in the North Atlantic and doing other things and so on. And I finally got a set of orders for the ship. By that time I had the squadron. And I got a set of orders and these orders said, „You will proceed through the Panama Canal to Auckland and then Melbourne.“ And I thought, „Isn't that nice! Now that the place is in good shape and everything, why, maybe I can go back because I think Australia's wonderful.“

I'm sorry if I've stepped on anybody's Christian principles. If there are any Christian principles present I honor them. I honor them deeply — if they're Christian principles.

And I called all the officers together in the wardroom and I said, „Well, here we go, and isn't this swell and everything's fine. And this is all supersecret and you're not supposed to tell anybody but your girls.“

But who's responsible for the situation? And you hear these two people talking and this one says that that one's responsible, and this one says that one's responsible. And both of them insist on other-determinism.

About 24 hours later I myself got a set of orders and it said, „You are hereby detached as commander of the squadron and you will proceed to the training center in Florida for preparation to take command of a new war vessel.“ Reason, you see — the reference was „All NAV (something or other, something or other)“ which the — any officer who had served in these waters and area up to the beginning of summer of 1942, would not be returned to these waters for a year. Now you tell me why. I don't know why. But that was the order they put out because there actually weren't many people got home from the Asiatic fleet. Maybe you noticed that. There was a few casualties around. And so I got detached and I went to Florida, not Melbourne. This is the first time I've had a chance to be back. So I'm awfully glad to be here.

This one says, „You are creating the whole situation.“ And this one says, „You are creating the whole situation.“ Neither one of them will admit to creating any part of the situation. And what do we get? The situation exists! And if neither one of them admits to having created it, we get destruction. It just slips — just like that!

Well, I actually didn't mean to tell you all that. Probably not particularly interesting as far as Scientology is concerned. But it's interesting as far as Australia is concerned because I feel this is — this is one of the — the country, perhaps, with the greatest and brightest future on the face of Earth today.

And we get what you might call — and we could go into this much more technically and at length. Well, we get what you might call carelessly a slip on the cycle of action. The less responsibility there is for creating what is created, the more rapidly the cycle of action goes from create to destroy. Very — it's very simple.

I believe what political philosophies are adopted and followed, what governing principles are put into effect here, the care — of utilization of the land, the supervision of immigration and all of these various concerns are of tremendous importance. Any one of them could make or break the future of this country to some degree. There's some bad mistakes could be made along this line someplace and the future of the country could be muddied up rather easily. But I think it's going along fine.

But it'll slip so fast that if you find what anybody is trying to waste or destroy, you will find the thing he won't create.

The only thing I see it doing right now that worries me — and it's very funny that I would be worried about it, but I am worried about it — is I hate to see inflation occurring. Where sterling is stable and where money is stable more or less everyplace but the United States, to see Australian money inflating slightly and going up the line and so on, is a worrisome thing. Because it means only one thing — it means the production isn't up here.

This person says, „Well, I just can't stand insects. Insects, they are just terrible. Everywhere insects, insects. And I just can't stand insects. They just drive me mad! Swoosh-swoosh- swoosh, swoosh-swoosh-swoosh. Swat. Swat. Kill the insects! Kill them off, you know! Kill them off! Kill the insects. Kill the insects. Kill the insects,“ and so forth.

Now, all you have to know about economics is that in a period where you have low production — per capita production — you don't have enough goods — where money won't buy anything, then money inflates. Where goods are missing, money inflates. And where goods are there in too great a number, money deflates. And that's — beside from the law of supply and demand, which is part of that — that's about all you need to know about inflation and deflation and economics.

Now, oddly enough, if you ask this person as a preclear, you said, „Now mock up an insect,“ you'd get a dead insect. It just goes phhsst. „Mock up an insect.“ Phhsst. And you get a destroyed insect.

I don't care what some special interest tells you, if you see money inflating it means there isn't enough production, that's all. And it means that somewhere along the line — somewhere along the line, why, either Australia isn't getting enough construction machinery or it isn't getting enough raw materials of some sort or it isn't aligned economically in some fashion in order to keep it stable. Because inflating money is a very, very dangerous symptom. It makes a country liable to many political consequences. It makes it a target for many things. It's not terribly dangerous in the state that it's in, but if the money inflated up to a point where it cost a thousand pounds to buy a loaf of bread, you'd have raw, red revolution here. Because an economic stress of this sort is something that a country can't possibly afford to have.

In other words, he can't mock up an insect. He's got to mock up an insect plus an alter-is. He gets a slip. When he tries to create it he gets destruction. Got the idea?

As I see it right now, the role of Scientology would be to assist the increase of production in any way that it could. And, of course, the best way to assist production is to just bring about more able people. There must be — it isn't necessarily true that there are people dragging on the lines, but it is true that by increasing the production of individuals, you would tend to halt an economic chaos sometime in the future.

So, you'll find anything that a person is trying to destroy one way or the other — you ask them to create it, they get the destruction of it. Very simple.

Probably the only thing that faces Australia now that looks the least bit dangerous to me is just this slight inflationary trend. And I'm sure somebody's going to get hold of that. But if they don't, why, we ought to. And I got so darn used to protecting Australia that I worry about it.

Sounds incredible. But the living truth of the matter is there are other phenomena connected with this, but there are people around that always get destruction on anything they try to create. That's right. You ask them to create anything and they'll get it in a destroyed form. Anything created becomes a destroyed form, just like that — bang!

But here's — whether the political future is good or bad or — or whether we're going to have atomic war or not, all that's beside the point. The point is, right now, is I'm awfully glad you're here and I'm awfully glad to be here, and I hope by this time you've got a congress. Have you?

In other words, you say, „Now create a pretty girl“ to this person, and this person gets a dead girl eaten up with maggots. Just like that — bang! — automaticity.

Audience: Yes.

You say, „Create a little child.“ Bang! Under the car wheels, you see, dead.

All right. I want to take up a lot of, oh, technical material and odds and ends and so forth, but I thought I'd just better ramble on this first hour and tell you hello and tell you I was glad to be here and tell you I wasn't exactly a stranger to it. Because many of you probably didn't even know I'd even seen Australia before.

Now when that gets too bad, they just never get pictures at all; it's just all destroyed. They never really create anything but the destroyed faction of it, therefore they think of nothing but the destruction when they start to create something. You got the idea? It's just an automatic slip.

Oh, you knew — knew I'd been down here? Do you also know I was the fellow from Australia?

You say, „Create,“ they say, „Destroy.“ Just like that — bing!

Well, later on we'll get into some more interesting stuff. I was up all night writing materials for these lectures, you see. And I made a tremendous pile of notes about it, and I had all the notes all set up and all ready to go and the chambermaid threw them out this morning. So you'll just have to bear with me on what data I can manage to remember from my notes in these next few lectures.

This is so much the case that an artist takes his life in his hands practically when he goes into the public with art. Critics are people with this slip. There are people who can write and there are critics. There are people that can paint and there are critics.

And until the next lecture, thank you.

Now, if you were to ask a critic who was a professional critic to paint a picture, the high probability is he would simply tell you, „Destroy, destroy, destroy, destroy.“ Just the thought of painting a picture causes him to think of destroying a picture. Well, he wouldn't be able to do that because, you see, the colors wouldn't come out right and it'd all be streaked with this and that. But the thought of anybody else creating anything drives him mad! So, he's got to be a critic.

„Well, there was an exhibit today down at the town hall of some paintings. We don't know why our city fathers permit such things to be displayed. Compared to Rubens — ha!“ You know, chop-chop- chop.

And some of them are overtly destructive and some of them are covertly destructive and so forth, but these are people with a slip. And the poor artist, you see, who can create a picture runs into people who instantly skid on the cycle of action at the thought of a picture having been created! So the fact that he's painted a picture touches the button which makes them have to destroy the picture, and if he continues to paint pictures, obviously they have to destroy him.

You get then, in an aberrated world, any overtly creative action being met in many quarters by destruction! It's just one-two. And these two things come together so that we get the interplay of people whereas one person starts to create, another person's got to destroy it. Or two people start creating something and then destroy each other. Or those things which are created have to be destroyed. Or people who insist on creating in spite of the fact that everybody's going to destroy them — We get all sorts of variation,; and we get an interplay between these two things and we get the interweavings of life. And if you think it over for a little while — look it over, I think you will find that most of the violent reactions, most of the inexplicable reactions which you have observed in the past had something to do with the destruction of a creation.

The belief that something has been created is enough for some people to insist that it must be destroyed so that you get — a whole society of some kind or another will do an incredible thing. They've been formed to help epileptic children, let's say. You come along and you say, „Well, all right, we're going to help epileptic children. We could do something for epilepsy.“ They immediately say, „Shoot him!“ And then the next thing you know they say, „Anybody who says he can do anything for epileptic children is a quack. This society was formed to help epileptic children. There is no cure for epilepsy.“

This goes into an additional stage. The Society for the Prevention of Epilepsy and the Help of Epileptic Children becomes the Society for the Punishment and Vivisection of Epileptic Children. They destroy, then.

So, your mental health societies, they — they just think of doing something for mental health or about mental health, in other words, creating a better situation, and they instantly start killing people who need mental help. Just automatic reaction. Say — they think, „Well, I think I will help all these poor insane...“

„Kill them!“ See? It just goes just like that.

If people say, „Well, I will certainly help the people if I am put in charge of its government. What we will do is create a fine, good and noble government where everybody will be happy!“ So, everybody puts this fellow in charge. And he takes the various departments of the government and cuts them to pieces and changes them all over and stands people up against the wall and shoots them down with machine guns and so forth. Well, that would just be a very aberrated choice.

Hitler was making great promises for the German people and how he was going to help the German Reich, and where's the German Reich today.? Hasn't been heard of for some time, except in its guise in the American Army. In other words, this man was so unbalanced that trying to create a good German state made him destroy the German state. Do you follow that?

Now, we must be pretty good people in Scientology because almost never do we have very flagrant examples of this. In psychoanalysis, old-time nineteenth-century practices, psychiatry, all these old-hat sort of things, they're legion — the examples — that they — a practitioner starts to help somebody and instantly kills him.

Now, you think once in a blue moon that this is what the auditor's doing to you. But, I have great faith in auditors in Scientology and I have found everywhere I have looked that whatever an auditor was doing, even though it looked a little bit miscolored or something of the sort, he was earnestly, honestly and sincerely trying to help the preclear.

I've followed an awful lot of squawks and beefs and yaps, to be very colloquial, down of auditors' misconduct and all this sort of thing, and amongst trained Scientologists they just didn't have any real basis in fact at all. The fact that somebody was trying to create a new state of beingness for the person made that aberrated person want to destroy the practitioner.

This is the automaticity which one runs into when he takes a very aberrated person, tries to do anything for him. Then all that person can do is cut him to ribbons! This is typically a psychotic reaction. You try to help a psychotic, oh boy, wow! They're all over you, they're tearing you to bits. And if they can't get at you physically, they'll get at your reputation, try anything they can think of to cut you to ribbons. Why? Your total crime was you tried to create a better state of beingness for them.

So, until you can hand out processing institutionally, where an institution is taking care of the psychotic, and where he can't tear everything up just because you're trying to help him — see, because he does an automatic slip. The fact that you're trying to make him survive causes him to destroy. That's the most horrible crime you can pull on a psychotic is try to make them survive! And you just go „survive“ to a psychotic and he goes „destroy“ instantly — bing! bing! It isn't even create-destroy, it's survive-destroy.

He knows what survival is; it's lying down on railroad tracks being run over by trains. That's — that's survival.

And until you can put a psychotic in an institution where you've got — got padded cells and attendants and they can't hurt the practitioner and they can't hurt each other and they can't hurt themselves and so forth — can't do anything for them. Because the violence of this skid is so great that they're just left out in the society. Trying to do something for them causes them to practically explode in everybody's face! And of course, you're not going to have control of institutions as long as you have nothing but avowed killers in institutions running them. I don't mean to use a strong expression and say everybody in charge of all the institutions for psychotics in the world are murderers and killers and bums and so forth. I'll shorten it and merely say they're psychiatrists.

But Scientology can do as much as it has facilities for in that direction because of this phenomenon.

But where you see people trying to do something for people and you see that effort going wrong, look it over and I think you'll see clearly what you're looking at. I think you'll see that this fits, that you can see this explanation in action.

Somebody's trying to help somebody and this other person is trying to do this. And you see somebody trying to get along and create a job and you see other people in the organization, very low-scale people, something like that, cutting this person to pieces. Oh, they're a terrible person, and so forth, and this person is really the person trying to do a job.

You'll see this — instances of this all the time. And as you look at these instances, it gives you an opportunity to evaluate conduct against sanity. In other words, there are sane actions and there are insane actions. And you can evaluate the value of this on the basis of how fast the person skids between create and destroy. The fact that anybody's trying to create anything, does that make this person try to destroy that thing.?

You look this over. And I don't ask you to assimilate it all srrp, and I certainly don't ask you to buy it 100 percent, but just look it over as an automatic reaction that some people are so close to this destroy...

You get, by the way — your Tone Scale goes down and your cycle of action follows the Tone Scale down. As you get low on the Tone Scale you get more and more destructive reaction toward creation until you get no reaction at all.

And you look over the general behavior of man, and I invite you to inspect these principles of creation and — versus destruction as the reactions of different personalities toward different subjects.

All of us are agreed that certain things need to be destroyed. There should be certain things destroyed. Well, we also know how to destroy them and that's to cease to create them. In some fashion we'll get whoever is creating them and whoever's helping create them to cease to create them and they'll be destroyed.

Also we can understand what's going on amongst men to the degree that creative efforts or helpful efforts and so forth are met with destruction. And I just ask you to apply the cycle of action and see if it works and if it isn't a useful yardstick to you in understanding men.

Well, this is the last lecture of this afternoon, and I will see you again at one o'clock tomorrow.

And you have been very pleasant and I am very glad to be here. And thank you for having me.