This is the afternoon lecture of November the 27th. We are going to ask a question and we're going to take up Step VI today.

And this is November the 27th, first morning lecture. And this morning we're going to take up, once more, consecutively, methods of exteriorization.

Now, the question which is going to be asked here is a very, very simple question. How do you fix a thetan up so he's disabled? Come on, how do you disable a thetan?

You know, there's not very much to learn in theory. Your theory is so simple that one of these days you're going to say, "Gee, I sure have been stumbling around in the brush!" And you'll find yourself out in this good, broad highway, and there you are. It's much harder, really, to get into the brush than it is on the highway, which is peculiar.

Male voice: Get him mixed up in energy.

All you're handling, in essence, is this: There's this guy or this gal, and they've come from someplace else, and they're in a state of fog and unreality, and they're sitting in a head, of all things. That's peculiar, see. I mean, it's real weird. And there they are, and they don't know whether this is the — Christmas or applejack, and this confuses them. And in their confusion, they turn to all sorts of things. They turn to psychology, mesmerism, electric shocks, broken legs, education, religion (so that they save their soul, which is something they put at some distance from them and save it, I guess). And they get into this state of confusion about "which way is 9th and Chestnut." And they don't know these things.

Second male voice: Get him to agree on barriers.

And you find this person walks in — now, sometimes they walk in, they're not very badly disoriented and so what do you for — do? You either get them out of the head, or get the head away from them. Well, the easiest thing to do is to get them out of their head, usually. So you say, "Be three feet back of your head" — the fellow's very surprised and is, or he "kind of" is three feet back of his head, you know, kind of. Well, if he's just "kind of" three feet back of his head, he's using viewpoints. I mean, that's just — that's one, two, three — I mean, he's just using viewpoints. He's putting a viewpoint back of his head.

Third male voice: Make him think he's his anchor points.

One of the ways to get rid of that is have him put viewpoints around places and use them for a while. And then say in a nasty tone of voice, "Well, now be there." And he rather routinely is. And if you fail on that one, you'll waste a lot of time for yourself.

Fourth male voice: Make him resist.

And so he isn't three feet back of his head, and he can't put any viewpoints anyplace. Why, your next choice, just in standard operation — just looking over the way I've been operating lately and looking over a series of cases and so forth — if he isn't, why, certain, or he isn't certain of viewpoints or anything, why, I start polishing up anchor points for him.

Hm?

I use various methods of polishing them up, and it's very often you can put that intermediate step in there, see, just — "Put your body — mock up your body three or four times," something like that. I found out I've been doing that less often lately. Usually, if the guy is uncertain, why, I try to remedy it on viewpoints, and it remedies right away. And the next thing I know, why, I just say, "All right. Now put up a network of anchor points which vaguely approximate the shape of a body. And make them disappear, and put them away, and make them disappear."

Fourth male voice: Make him resist.

And he says, "They're coming back."

Fifth male voice: Get him to agree to something.

"All right. Make them disappear, and make them come back. Make them disappear, and make them come back."

Sixth male voice: You could put him in a body.

And now, when I've done that for a little while, before or after that, I ask him, "Can you look around in your head and find any anchor points that are out of position?"

Seventh male voice: Invalidate him.

This, by the way, is a little package technique that I suddenly looked at myself, and found, myself, that I'd used many, many times and never particularly codified. Because this isn't stuff you think about, it's stuff you look at. Ask him if he can find any of these points in his head that are out of position. Have him mock up some more patterns of anchor points. Have him mock up some anchor points inside of his head. Every time he finds an anchor point out of position or something like that, why, mock up a flock more anchor points. I mean, mock it up and unmock it and mock it up and unmock it and mock it up and unmock it until it gets real clear, and all of a sudden he says, "It's jiggling."

Female voice: Collapse his space when you get a chance.

And you say, "All right. Mock one up and make it jiggle." And you just follow the pattern of the anchor point, and so control it.

Third male voice: Make his anchor points somebody else's or make him think so.

And he adjusts this anchor point in his head — real anchor point, a GE point — and he looks around and he finds some more. And ask him to mock up more patterns of anchor points out in front of him.

Gee, you guys are inventive. You know, I've asked general questions — I've asked general questions about how you made people well here several times, and everybody sits there silent. Now I ask you one about how to louse somebody up ... (audience laughter) Very interesting!

So I've actually been converting Step II here, little by little, and finally caught on to myself what I was doing, as been converting Step II of "Mock up your body," to "Mock up a pattern of anchor points," see, "that represent the body." And I found out that the preclear was mocking up a flesh-and-blood body. This might seem amusing to you, but I found out he was mocking up a flesh-and-blood body rather than the space in which the body appeared, so that the body would appear in the space. This is the way it's done, you see. And you have to find out what people are doing backwards and so forth.

Female voice: Can't finish them, can you?

And I found out they were mocking up a body — you know, it had a head and shoulders and so forth — instead of mocking up a bunch of star-points in which a body could be made to appear and disappear. Follow me? Very simple.

Very interesting, isn't it?

Step II, actually, is this kind of a step, but this is Step II and varied down to Step III. And you push these anchor points around in his head and finally found — find every anchor point you can find in his body or in his head that's out of position and push each one into position. Then you ask him to be back of his head again.

Female voice: Can't finish them.

Now, about this time he has an objection, and so on. And this objection is that "Hrmph-hrmph-nyar-nyar" — he doesn't know — "It isn't even there!" And he shudders or something of the sort.

You can come awful close.

And you say, "Well, mock yourself up as a thetan out in front of you, in terrible condition and shuddering and — because you don't like to leave a body." You do that a few times. And then you have him put something in the walls, like: "Put shuddering in the walls and get it back, and get everything shuddering. And now, be three feet back of your head now."

I asked you a while ago about that, John, and what did you tell me?

And the fellow is, and very often will tell you, "Yes, I was for a moment."

Male voice: Fix him up so he can't look.

Now, well, if you searched into it a little more deeply, you would find out that he simply — he knew he could get back of his head, but he thinks you're asking him to leave his body. And bodies to this person are scarce. And that's about the only reason somebody won't get back of his head, if you want to be real mechanical, is bodies are scarce. He's got the idea they're scarce. So you just go on and remedy this — scarcity of bodies.

And how else did you tell me?

You can remedy it in dozens of ways. The most effective way to remedy it is just mock him up abandoned and forgotten and alone and getting no attention — as a thetan, you know — because he's lost his body. And mock him up as having gotten out of his body — End of Cycle Processing, see — mock him up as having gotten out of his body and the body's been stolen.

Male voice: Hm?

If the preclear suddenly gets an awful sharp pain in the leg, or something else happens, you can be almost certain that somebody else walked out of their body one day, and he picked up their body and walked it into the brush somewhere or got its teeth knocked out or ... It was just like somebody stealing a car, see?

You told me another method.

See? He walked off with that body, and it's an overt act-motivator sequence that you're running. You're right into overt act-motivator sequence. And you remedy this by — have him mock up other bodies being stolen and all messed up and thrown in the mud; and his own body stolen the second he was out of it, and run into the mud and dead (see, end of cycle) and messy; and mock up his own body very beautiful, and then it gets stolen, and then he can never get another body, and — you get the idea. You know, just end of cycle, end of cycle — terrible consequences of.

Male voice: Yeah I did, but what the devil was it?

And this comes under this terrific button; there's a button there that's just hotter than a piece of dynamite, called "consequences." And if you were just to ask a preclear to sit there and get the concept of "the consequences of (blank)," see — brother! It's — practically tear him to pieces, because that's what he's running on, and that is the overt act-motivator sequence described as a concept.

Just as you walked out of the door of the office there, you told me a method.

So you mock up end of cycle, which — you finish the consequences of having walked out of the body and so on. Get the body going crazy and being uncontrollable, and the body being stolen, and just because he moved out of the body, it falls over on the stove and burns its hair off or something of the sort. (Thetans don't like unaesthetic things.) And then, finally, "Be three feet back of your head." Something like that.

Male voice: Make him uncertain.

He keeps telling you, "Still all black." Well, you haven't paid any attention to this until you've gone through all these various ramifications and "It's still all black." He can be back of his head, but it's still all black. Well, just have him do some "Where isn't he in the room?" And he starts checking off the room. You say, "Now, start checking off the corners of the room, one after the other. Start checking them off, checking them off, checking them off." And he just goes over them and looks and finds he's not there and not there and not there.

Yeah. Well, how do you do this?

And he has — "Still all black," he says. "I don't get a good idea of this at all," so on. Well, break down and have him outside of his body and have him waste a machine that makes blackness.

Male voice: I told you something else?

Have him waste a machine that makes blackness because of the fact that somebody will see his body if he steps out of it; a machine that will cover up mock-ups so they won't get swiped. Some sort of machinery of that character.

Well, that's more or less what you told me.

You run — in other words, you just follow this pattern. You get him out of his head and you handle his automaticity. What is this sudden idea that the body's going to be stolen the second he gets out of it? He really doesn't think you're going to steal it. That's an automaticity; it's an idea that occurred to him. And so, as an idea that occurred to him, why, you remedy it — by making him get the idea. You see, this is of essence.

Male voice: Well, I told you that the way to fix up a thetan is ...

And then something occurs to him automatic, like he all of a sudden has a shudder or he gets real upset or he starts to cave in on himself and he's — that's an automaticity. So what do you do? You just remedy it. So a mock-up won't disappear, that's an automaticity — remedy it. So a mock-up disappears and appears again, so that's an automaticity — handle it. That's why I tell you, "My God, you'd better know how to handle automaticities!" Because that's all these sudden ideas of consequences are: they're automaticities, see?

This is very interesting . . .

That's just the same as he gets a mock-up and it all of a sudden begins to wave its hands around just furiously. The second you ask him to stay out of his body, he says, "Oh, no!" and he feels kind of sick. That's an automaticity. Well, now you dig on that just a little deeper, and you'll find out he's sitting in some kind of an incident connected with the body. And you don't have to handle the incident at all. But the incident itself, that it came up at that moment, is an automaticity.

Male voice:. . . was fix him so he couldn't look . . .

Anything that happens that he didn't predict, or feels he can't handle himself, is a severe automaticity. And you only worry about those automaticities which the person feels he's unable to handle.

. . . because I just played the same trick on him.

Now, I've had you, earlier in this course, handling very light little two-bit automaticities that didn't amount to anything, see. Like mock-ups fly around, this guy with a spacesuit keeps appearing, he vanishes it and so forth, but it keeps coming back all the time. Well, you just get him to get it back. Have him vanish it and get it back, vanish it and get it back. That's what the machine is doing, so you just make him do it and follow out the same laws, same rules that we've had before.

Male voice:. . . so he couldn't look and then . . .

Well, anyway, I just kind of play this one way against the other and get rid of the blackness this way and by wasting and accepting machines that make blackness. But, when? When he's exteriorized. And we're off onto running SOP 8-C on an exteriorized thetan. The second we've got him out, and he knows he's out and he's — he could take a finger off that body for a moment, we've got nothing more and nothing less than SOP 8 -C, just as given to you on the steps. And these steps are very easy steps to follow.

I played the identical trick on him that he told me was the right trick, and now we're reaping the harvest of this. I told him that it was you fixed him up so he could look. And I said it very seriously, expecting to pick him up a little bit later on it today.

But up to that point, this point of exteriorization, you're just playing these two facts one against the other: that the guy is in a body or the body is over a guy. And you want him elsewhere so that he isn't being reinfluenced all the time by the body. And you want him comfortable about walking out of a body, and you want him stable, and you don't want him to use viewpoints. And the only real uncertainty he gets is using viewpoints.

Male voice: I told you to fix him up so he couldn't look, but I didn't know that of my own knowledge. I knew . . .

Now this astral walking — this mystic astral walking that I was talking to you about — is an educated automaticity with viewpoints. Now, there's educated emotional automaticities, too. I know one school of thought in India which is fabulous on this. But it — they practice it. Now, any time you get a school that practices something, you've got one that's setting up an automaticity.

You didn't know that of your own knowledge. That's right. You didn't know that, but I told you that, and now the first answer you gave me, which happens to be the right one, has done what? It's evaporated.

Well, you'd better get as far away from setting up an automaticity on auditing as you can. Because the machine turns around on you and starts to audit you after a while and that's self-auditing. There's no sense in learning some kind of a pattern. You just have to know how to look.

Male voice: No, it hasn't.

And I'm telling you, if there's any discovery, which is of — an interesting discovery in the whole field of Scientology, two discoveries actually; we won't deal with theory or mathematics or composition of the universe or anything else — there are two very pertinent discoveries as far as we're concerned here.

All right. What is it?

And that is, that there's a guy in the body — what do you know? That's a discovery of magnitude. And two — you know, he's in the body, and he doesn't function well in a body, you see; you can just put that all down under the same discovery. And the other discovery is that he is handling things automatically and that this is his reduction of self-determinism. He's reduced himself by handling — letting everything be handled automatically, and we remedy that simply by making him do it, instead of do it automatically.

Second male voice: Well, he can't know.

Giving those two points, and an ability on your part (God help you) to look, you can be the best condemned auditor that ever walked — just given those two points and knowing how to handle those two points. And then, please, putting a little imagination on it. You know? Just a little imagination. Well, there's nothing like lookingness to stimulate the imagination. So just look at the guy and listen to him.

Third male voice: Forgotten.

Now, I've seen more preclears being audited on this basis: The preclear says, "But I'm going down for the third time."

Male voice: No, that wasn't it. I remember telling you something else, but what the devil was it?

And the auditor simply says, "All right. Now, let's get a recall on your mother. And let's get her standing at the stove."

"Make him so that he's wrong," you said to me.

And the fellow says, "But I'm going down for the third time."

Male voice: That's right! That's right.

And the auditor says, "Well, get another recall on your mother," and so on.

And I came right back and gave you the same trick. I told you, "No, no." I said I wanted you to tell me about that later because it was actually "fix him up so he couldn't look," which is terrifically reasonable. It's the second echelon of how you fix him up. The first way you fix him up is how?

He's being calm, he's taking my advice about being courageous. Being courageous has nothing to do with being a stick of wood. It's very nice — it's a happy but unusual state — when an auditor is actually in communication with his preclear. It's a nice state, because then the preclear gets cleared. But if the auditor isn't in communication with the preclear . . .

Male voice: Make him wrong.

Now, how much communication do you want? You just want to hear what he's doing that is important. So you have to separate out of all the gibberish he's liable to hand you, something that's important. What's important? He's in a body — that's important. And the other one is, he's — it's some automaticity has cut in. That's important. But only when the automaticity inhibits his exteriorization. Because you'll find soon as he gets away from a body, his automaticities drop by about 999 percent. You'd be surprised, they just practically vanish.

That's right. You reduce his knowingness by making him wrong.

And after that he's dealing with rather simple machinery which is just put there by simple postulates. You just drill him into a point where he can make space and energy, and know, and be places, and get tough, and — so that he will have enough imagination to interest himself in existence.

Because — we covered this very early in the course — the first echelon is knowingness, the second echelon is space.

That's all that's ever going to interest him, by the way. You take most pcs, when you exteriorize them, they haven't got enough imagination to be a drama critic. I mean, I couldn't be more scathing. What they think, they think because somebody else thinks that they should think and so forth, and they're just kind of dull on the whole thing.

Male voice: All right.

They've been so condemned and kicked around about imaginings, and they're so afraid of delusion — they think that if they imagine lots of things, this brings about delusion. This is not true: Their setting up imagination as something they can't have makes it an automaticity which then gives them delusion.

Right. You've got it laid out right in front of you there, and yet in spite of this, I could play the same trick on John back here and he'd fall for it. You get that? I said, just in so many words, "No. No," I said, "that's not right."

Inhibiting a child from imagining is almost sure to produce the delusion in the child that he is living well, and he must do certain things in the year of 1953,1954, and that he should vote Republican and so forth. It's the finest way in the world to control somebody, is to blunt out and black out his imagination.

This is just a little case, a test case I'm showing you on it. See, this is perfect, the memory on exactly what he said — because he gave me exactly the right answer, right off the bat, bang! I said, "What's wrong with a thetan? What can you do to a thetan? What's the only thing you can really do to a thetan to foul him up?"

And — because if a fellow has imagination, why, it's — then the fellows in charge of things have to have imagination, see. They have to out-imagine the situation, and if anybody had to really think, that would make it a hard job.

And he gave me the right answer immediately (snap). "Well," he says, "you could make him wrong. Make him believe he's wrong. That's all you can do to him. As far as I'm concerned," he says, "that's all you could do to him."

They wouldn't be able to just throw in the cops every time something went wrong. They'd have to get down and be reasonable, you know?

And I said, "No, no." I said, "You give me that answer later and you tell me about that later. Now, you think about that, and you tell me some other way now. The only way that you can really .. ."And here we had the trick. Now, he's just waking up to it, right now. You see that?

They'd have to say, "Well, let's see — crops, food supply, this sort of thing, that's a real problem. There are human values involved in it, and there are land values, and there are future generations involved in this, and we'll have to figure out now what's best on this situation."

Male voice: Sure.

And they won't figure it out by what they did in 1861 — that's an auto­maticity.

You get that mechanism? That's been drifting all the way down the track.

And the whole — all of law is set up as this horrible, ponderous, rusting, rotten machine that just grinds on and on from the year when. Well, do you know the bulk of it is grinding on and on from the year 500 B.C. — Roman law; which is the base of English law, which is the base of our law. But English law hasn't invaded us (well, they actually, not technically since they burned the White House, but — in 1812) — but hasn't invaded us since 1776.

Now we're dealing with symbols. We're in the level of symbols and we have hit, at Step VI, the break point of the case. When a person believes that he has lost his ability to a large degree, to a very large degree, to recover his own Tightness — you know, he's lost his ability to recover his own Tightness one way or the other — we get all these other mechanisms cutting in. And any time other tricks have been played on him, such as occluding his vision, and anchor points, space, anything about energy, making him believe he's energy, making him think he's a barrier — you can do anything to him, but easily, after he comes across a certain break point.

So it's an automatic machine. The legal procedures are set up on a — are just continuing an automatic machine that was last given a little punch in 1776. And we said, "We're all independent." And we added that to the law and wrote a constitution about it.

You can come across that early break point when he becomes a body. That is a break point. Earlier on the track, when he became a doll. You see? That also is a higher break point. And there's a lower break point in a body. It is the point where he believes that his capabilities of being right are such that anything he does will meet with an opposite result. See, he's always going to be wrong. No matter how right he may think he is, he's going to be somehow or other wrong.

Actually our Constitution in the United States is not as good as the original British Magna Carta. If you want a confirmation of that, read the two documents someday.

And this amounts to not just an automaticity, this amounts to a way of life. And his wrongness begins to show up more and more, and it first shows up on a single subject that is so serious that when he gets to a point where he — you give him a mock-up of this subject, it always turns out to be some other mock-up on some other subject, you would have something he can't look at.

The Magna Carta was taken away from King John, I think it was, at the point of a blunderbuss — or what was serving in those days as blunderbuss; probably a few well-aimed longbow arrows. And he recognized his kingly duty, and signed the fact that people had freedom, and that men could own land, and that men had rights to their own domiciles and so forth, and had protection of one kind and another against the state.

See, we've got Tightness and wrongness now entering into looking. And we give him a mock-up, let's say, of a piano. And he gets a mock-up, consistently, of an elephant. Or inconsistently — the next time he gets a mock-up, it's a zebra. The next time he gets a mock-up, it's a baby's milk bottle. And each time he's trying to mock up the piano.

Later on they wrote this Constitution. The Constitution is beautiful, but not enforced. Its Bill of Rights, for instance, that follow it on as an amendment today in the United States is just plaahhh. (I know this tape's going abroad. It's perfectly true.) Rights of seizure by force, entrance by law, search — these are just violated just day after day after day after day across the length and breadth of the land.

Well, it would take an auditor to force the guy to think about mocking up with a piano. See, that'd just — it'd take an auditor to make him do that. He'd never, of his own volition, think of mocking up a piano or having anything to do with a piano. And he wouldn't, in the mest universe, see a piano. You could walk him through the room and he wouldn't see the piano.

In Great Britain, a bobby comes up to somebody's house and says — if he thinks there's a criminal harbored there, why, he knocks on the door politely and he said, "You might ask him if he would step out."

Now, at that state (that's a rough estimate because we're dealing with an arbitrary number and — but we're not dealing with an arbitrary state), we can call that a VI. The object is missing. See, it's disappeared in a mock-up, and he gets something else every time he gets this mock-up, if an auditor forces him to try to mock it up. But the actual part of it is, is the object is missing in the whole universe. There just isn't any. But when he gets that, he is Step VI, at least about that subject.

And they say, "No," and — the British equivalent of an American equivalent. And the bobby has to go away and get proper seizures and search and entrance warrants and so forth. Meantime, the cop has lost his quarry: he's in some other place.

Now, when he gets Step VI pretty broadly, why, everything starts turning up missing. I mean, if he was a Step VI on the subject of clocks, he would simply never see a clock. He'd just never see one. Somebody would have to — a la the auditor making him get the mock-up — walk up and take a clock, and put the clock in his hands and say, "This is a clock. Look at it." And the fellow would hazily see a dim outline.

And you think this is very, very terrible. You get the reverse on it: British justice is awful sudden. When they lay their hands on somebody who is convicted of something, they're often much too fast, by the way. They hang them quick. They sentence them and hang them the same week or the next week, you know? Boom! Just enough time to get the — dust the trial off the guy a little bit and get him steadied up so he'll stand on the platform and they drop him through.

Another characteristic of the step is, when the fellow isn't occluded on mock-ups, you — actually, in the room, at the moment he's sitting there, with his mest eyes (and he doesn't know about auditing, doesn't know about Scientology or anything of the sort) a black frame may start to appear around an object, or something just vanishes. It vanishes so thoroughly he doesn't quite know what's vanished. But a black frame will, with his MEST eyes, start to appear around a specialized object like a piano. He'll notice there's a terrific black frame of some sort or another, and he won't quite see what's in the black frame.

They — by the way, this leads occasionally to miscarriages of justice. There was a young man hanged there in the Christie case. He was hanged for killing — for a murder which Christie had committed. And a year or so later they found the real murderer, and this was just one of the murderers — one of the murders which this other murderer had committed, you see. And this young man who had a wife and a baby was — had been hanged a year before for the murder of the wife and baby. And he'd said at the time Christie did it. But they hanged him — quick, see?

It works out on people like this: There's somebody continually calling himself to this person's attention. And he's gotten to a point, and the strain is so great on this — and believe me, this is terrific duress; this person must have been a terrific duress to produce this effect — the individual who has been the great strain on this person will, in the eyes of this person, be suddenly surrounded or slowly surrounded by a black frame or a white field, or things will turn blue in the person's vicinity or something like that, and then the person will disappear. See that? That manifestation is quite common. But there are numbers of them like this.

But that's beside the point. Justice is always going to miscarry. The point is, the longer it takes to grind, the more automatic it becomes. And when civil rights and personal rights are not immediately recognized and enforced, all justice has lost its point, which is the safeguarding of the individual in the society. And you just can't have the two words sitting together: no "civil rights" and "justice." They just don't exist together. I mean, it's like saying "green is purple" or "elephants are kept in music stores." You just can't make a closure of those two terminals.

It's where the — it's the first point where, selectively, lots — actually at Step VI, lots of symbols shift and alter. He tries to get a picture of one thing, he gets an entirely different picture. That's rather chronic with a VI. He — it's just chronic, what we'd call a VI, you see. Where — that's where we get interested in this manifestation is not when it amounts to an automaticity, anybody has those, it's when just everything starts to blur out.

Today in the United States this is quite common to civil rights and so forth. I understand the Department of Justice — if you can imagine, all these years after, the Department of Justice was recently empowered to enforce breaches of the Bill of Rights. And the FBI was given the right to investigate them. They did this the other day — great triumph! I mean, imagine it. They're going to be surprised: I'm going to tap on their door in a couple of days — you know, come Monday, Tuesday, something like that. I'm going to say, "Well, you boys can stop fooling now, I got a couple for you." It isn't that any — I've been wrong, but I know a couple of guys who are — just plain got mauled to pieces.

And there are several objects at Step VI which have vanished or which have black hoods over them or something — they're gone, they're just gone. I mean, the person would be utterly incapable — it's hard for you to imagine this, you could say, "Clock," see, and you say, "Clock. Clock." Put it in his hands, make him feel the clock and so forth, he would then get a dim outline of a clock. He would not see a clock, you understand, he'd just get a dim outline of one. That's VI. And every VI has at least one of these objects.

So I think this is a good place to enter into the society. It might be that we can take some of the stone axes and clubs out of people's hands in this fashion. You know, civil rights.

Now, when we get down to VII, we have achieved the broad view of the whole universe. Just broadly. Things all over the place of all kinds and varieties and so forth are doing this trick. Walls do them — they fall in. And every time he looks at a cigarette it turns into a beetle. Or there's — he sees something else, and everything else starts to disappear and then turn into another object in this physical universe. So you see the gradient scale of what parallel we have between mock-ups and so forth.

Now, civil rights, at the same time, is what your thetan is worried about. Because he's operating outside — as poor as the law is, he doesn't have any legal power. None. He has no jurisprudence in his community of action, and this is mainly what your thetan is worried about. He's worried about, one shape or another, justice. He can't safeguard this private property called a body. The body has an identity; he doesn't have an identity. And this worries him. And he very often thinks that this body can easily be taken away from him.

Now, we have that with knowingness. Knowingness goes down scale, of course, senior to and accompanying all this. Knowingness is just it. And then as soon as it begins to be considered, breaks into rightness and wrongness, and this in itself is consideration. And on its highest echelon, this is solely on the subject of aesthetics. A way backtrack thetan who — way long time ago — I mean, guys of good condition, so forth, their total rightness and wrongness had to do with aesthetics. The only way they'd really get into arguments with each other and so forth would be on aesthetics.

Well he'd be much heartened to know that the last of the roaring lions amongst thetans was actually damped out some long time ago here on Earth. These things used to happen and they still happen in the mildest, tiniest little way imaginable, but they don't happen now. And he's been guilty of them on the past track — he's stolen people's bodies. He's asked them to step out of the body, you know, and then simply made the body walk away.

An aesthetic what? An aesthetic thought. See, it wasn't even an aesthetic mock-up yet, it was just an aesthetic thought. They became critical of each other about their aesthetic thoughts. This was the only way you could get a big line of individuality: The fellow didn't think of something correctly. It's thought games. This is quite early.

There can be justice only when there is fair justice which administers protection of the individual and gives him the right to redress under law. In the absence of that, he doesn't have any law. His home must be his castle, his possessions must be his and so on.

Well, this is very easily disturbed, and it's easily disturbed in almost anybody. People have exact Tone Scale parallels on their reactions to being wrong. That is to say, motion, and being accused of being wrong, produce the same reaction in these various case levels on the Tone Scale.

A second that justice falls a tiny bit short of that, there is no justice. And this is not a gradient scale of justice. There is no such thing as a gradient scale of justice, you see? I mean, it isn't things are more just than other justness. If you're going to deal with a community, and laws to handle the community, if you're going to deal with that as a community, you're going to have to have complete protection of the individual, his possessions. Otherwise you're simply hamstringing him. If you say he has protection; if you say such things as the Bill of Rights are in force and that he lives in that framework, and yet he doesn't live in that framework; if the law operates for anybody who can buy it; if the law operates to let him be sued but doesn't permit him to sue — justice has ceased anytime any one of these conditions occur, no matter how slightly. Justice is about as close to an absolute thing as one can get.

In other words, you get a 1.1 — you accuse a 1.1 of being wrong. Well, in terms of motion, he will let the motion go by, you see, and he'll move his hand and then put his hand back, very covertly when you aren't looking, in place. You see? Well, a 1.1 will do this — when this is a chronic 1.1 — he'll say, "Yes, yes." He'll eventually surrender to your logic, and surrender this point and that point, and then when you have walked away, why, he will very covertly explain to anybody else there and to himself, that he has now put his hand back. See, he believes the first thing that he believed before. He has not altered one hair, see, really, on the belief on the situation. He's still combating on the thing.

So out of this, where justice is not possible in a large group, we get justice on a small group basis within the large group. And this is the revolution. Taking place slowly, it is called an evolution; taking place swiftly and with violence, it is called a revolution. But the revolution is always against the lack of justice. It is never against anything else. It is man's complaint that — or a group's complaint — that it has entrusted some larger beingness of itself with its own protection and enforcement, and that this entrustment has been betrayed. And we have that as the basic thought underlying every revolutionary manifesto written by any group since the beginning of time.

What happens to him, though, as he's pounded and hammered with this is he goes down into grief, and when made too wrong will cry. Just that — just will cry. And then he gives up, and finally grief itself becomes the chronic tone.

Now, he takes it up on a small group basis and, of course, then, we don't have large group justice because we have a small group within the large group employing force toward special means. And this is chaos. And it results in such things, in the French Revolution, as the loss of practically all the literate people in France. It results, in the United States, in such organizations as the Communist Party.

Now, when people try to push him out of grief — which is a sort of a soppy, solid, holding proposition and so on — he simply goes into apathy. When people try to drive people in grief to do something, they produce inaction. See? I mean, they really start to produce more grief, and then they produce inaction.

Now, such pressure groups occur in any society when a decent justice is departed from and where such things as the Bill of Rights begin to lose their purpose and meaning.

And it's quite interesting. You wouldn't think of an army being in grief and going into inaction, but there's an historical event that — where one did. And it's only important to us because north Africa is still an arid waste. But the army of people who had been the Vandals and who had swept down and conquered north Africa — and who had been big enough and tough enough to loot all Rome and bring back, actually, the gold roofs of a temple or two back to the African coast — these people who were Carthage, and who in the long run won after all; these people there, under attack by Belisarius who was sent by Justinian to take care of this, recognized that they were under attack.

And so we have smaller groups sitting up and barking wildly. And then we get individuals all through the group who themselves, recognizing the complete lack of justice, have taken justice into their own hands. And some of them take it one way, and some of them take it another. Some are strong men and some are very weak men, and some are criminals and some become slaves. But in one way or the other, they throw the social world out of balance very markedly.

Well, they'd been in a southern climate long enough to key in clear across the boards and they were in foul shape by this time because that hot African climate, and lots of slaves and soft living and so on; and they weren't in any hilarity now, they were in grief. And the — one of the principal guard companies, cavalry unit, came galloping up a hill toward Belisarius' vanguard and were slaughtered to a man.

The criminal, for instance, is a product — 100 percent a product — of injustice. I don't care how tough a pill it is for the state to swallow: It is parental injustice plus state injustice that makes a criminal. And these two factors are always present in the criminal. You can go down to the prisons and you can start asking people as to what the situation has been in their life. And they — you find out it starts out with some parental injustice that is quite marked, and then they find out that they are not protected in the state. And a state, by the way, which takes no responsibility for, and gives no redress, no recourse to the teenager or child, which keeps a child disenfranchised of civil rights, shouldn't ever wonder for two seconds why it has juvenile delinquency.

This news reached the capital, which is quite near Tunis, and when the news reached the capital, the other troops simply stood around and put their arms around each other's shoulders and wept. And that was true of an enormous army. That was an enormous army. It was much bigger by eight or ten times than Belisarius' army. It was as well equipped; it was better drilled.

Now, under this little set of laws I've just been — these are sort of natural laws that kind of underlie all this structure — you can see immediately that any group, then, which is deprived of rights, to its need of rights, so as to suffer wrong at the hands of many, is going to become a revolutionary or protesting group, and any individual in a group is going to become the same way. He's going to be very wary. And his primary philosophy will be: "I have to administer justice myself." There is either, then, an absolute justice or, in terms of an individual as a member of a group or just as an individual, the person has to feel that he can handle or render justice. You get these two things? I mean, there's got to be some sort of a justice involved.

And these men stood on the field of battle and wept for a while until they were hit by Belisarius' charges, and having been hit by those charges two or three times, they simply laid down and let themselves be slaughtered. And Belisarius' troops did do just that: They killed them all. And then the women, the widows — to show you grief again in operation — came out and sold themselves, in terms of how much property they were holding, to Belisarius' troops before the battle was even dry on the ground.

And what you're dealing with, when you're dealing with a preclear who is difficult to exteriorize, is a person who has come in conflict with these basic fundamentals. He's come in conflict with them to such an extent that he feels he has no right to protect his own property. He has been disenfranchised one way or the other.

This is real interesting, isn't it? I mean, you get a — you can get a whole strata, a whole organism like an army, so forth, will go into that. So will a country go into that.

A whole series of techniques to remedy his problems immediately display themselves the moment you understand what is justice. It means that he either must have in himself the feeling that sooner or later he can have enough force and power of his own to balance the books — when they need balancing, not because of past scores — but to protect himself, to protect his body, to protect his beingness and protect those dependent upon him.

Now, here's the level of knowingness. What the devil had disturbed the Vandal knowingness? That's the question you would ask. What had disturbed that? That's the primary factor. Let's not look for significances under the energy, and significances this way and that way. I tell you all their prenatals had keyed in; this is a manifestation of something else — it's a hot climate, they were already down in energy. But what had disturbed their knowingness? History is completely blank on that point.

Man is not quite as egocentric as some of the past superstitions, such as voodooism or psychology, would have us believe. But — he's not that egocentric. Matter of fact, the only button that runs on problems and runs like mad is "other people's problems"; the button never runs on "my problems." It's fascinating. It's "other people's problem" — responsibility to others.

One can only surmise what disturbed their knowingness. They were in north Africa and their own tribal gods had sort of fallen by the wayside. These people had inherited enormous property, and with that property they had inherited the religions of north Africa. And they had just gotten through raiding all of Rome a few decades earlier. They'd wiped out Rome, really — they smashed it flat and loaded it on ships and took it back over to north Africa again, and imported with it enormous quantities of slaves.

Well, so you have, in anybody difficult to exteriorize, a person who is interested in the vested interest called a body. And he feels that he can protect it — if he stays right close to it and right near to hand, you see, possibly there's some chance of protecting it. And — but if he moves away from it in any way, shape or form, he feels that he will have abandoned, somewhat, his right to it, and he will let — make it less defensible. And his problem is one of defenses.

Mm, what was the Roman slave doing in those days? He was drinking the blood of the Lamb and eating the bread of the Lord at a mad rate. North Africa was a churning madhouse of this Christian sect raiding that Christian sect. In all the Christian purges of the Roman Empire, in all those purges I don't think fifty — anywhere near ... The first one, for instance, thirty Christians were knocked off — that famous purge that we hear so much about that Nero did — well, that included thirty Christians.

The answer to this — where there exists no rightful justice with regard to the property of a thetan and the identity of a thetan so that he can have property; or the lack of necessity on the part of a thetan to have property, because he can simply create it at will — lacking those various solutions, the best solution doesn't quite occur to this fellow.

And I don't think there were more than about fifty of these purges all told; I think there were ten or twelve major ones, but there were about fifty of them. And in all these purges, there probably weren't more than five or six or eight thousand Christians killed by Empire troops.

The best solution, if he can't have justice, is to be himself justice. And he can only be justice to the ratio that he is able to generate and use force.

But in one year alone in Alexandria, one sect of Christians fighting another sect of Christians wiped out and killed one hundred thousand Christians. In one year alone! This is real madness, isn't it? And their chronic emotion was grief. And here we had what amounts to Anglo-Saxon troops holding all of the north of Africa and giving a manifestation like this in the battlefield. What had disturbed their knowingness?

And a person who is inside a body doesn't dare — any more than a person on any other theta trap — doesn't dare use any force because he'll just blow the body to atoms. So the only way he can really protect a body is to be outside of a body and in command of sufficient force in order to reach a level of desirable justice. That's his solution; that's his best bet. But he's inverted on this to a point where he doesn't feel that he can do this. Too many things have been taken from him.

We can surmise what had disturbed their knowingness. They were no longer dealing with their own woods gods and so forth from northern Europe, that place from which they'd come. Their basic knowingness, which is to say that thing in which they had invested belief — they'd already gone astray by investing belief in something; now that had been redisturbed and they had become, to a large degree, "Christianized." And so that belief had been redisturbed — that is to say, their tribal gods redisturbed into Christianity — and now in Christianity, we had these huge masses of Christians attacking these huge masses of Christians. And just because two churches sat one across the street from the other, why, there'd be riots in the street every morning. And nobody raised any vegetables, they went around selling tracts.

Therefore, the remedy of anchor points is the problem. Because the loss of anchor points and the ownership of anchor points, their destruction, their untimely creation (so as to impede other activities), is the problem of justice. Justice concerns itself with points, and it only indifferently concerns itself with the space enclosed in the points.

And this was the social order in which such a strange thing could occur. You'd almost think any body of troops under drill and so on, would at least put up a — some kind of battle formation, not just lie down and say, "Kill me." But there is what made — we could surmise this, I don't say this is what happened, but I'm just trying to give you an idea of an — of shifts, shifts of belief.

So that your preclear who is difficult to exteriorize — if you understand him well, he is a person who is involved with justice. And he feels that he himself would have to be justice in order to continue to own his body in any kind of an altered condition. And you have posed him a very weighty problem. Anytime you say, "Be three feet back of your head," you have posed him this problem. And if he's already been disabused of any belief in any future justice on the part of this society, he, of course, is not going to move an inch away from the property if he can possibly help it.

You see, they had to admit they were wrong about their tribal gods, now they had to admit that they were wrong about some sect of Christians, now they had to admit they were wrong about something else, you see. And then they had to admit they were wrong again about something else, and we've just got a falling leaf effect, a dwindling spiral. One after the other, the fellow was pulled this way and that.

It's no good to give him a lecture and tell him that justice is desirable only when he can knock people's heads off, because he immediately goes into a furious rage against all the heads that have been knocked off. But the problem is an overt act-motivator sequence having to do with the property of bodies — overt act-motivator sequence.

Now, you take anybody in the field of magic. The books of magic — magic being a process which is the materialization of spirits, and handling spirits — of course, these boys accumulated more information about the behavior of thetans, without knowing what they were doing, during the last fifteen hundred years than anybody else did.

Well, there are many light things that you can run in order to remedy this. Let's think of the number of anchor points that a person customarily has in terms of bodies. Let's treat a body as an anchor point — that's kind of silly, because a body is a collection of anchor points.

Spiritualists didn't. A spiritualist normally considered himself to be junior to the spirits he monkeyed with. Period. I mean, I'm saying that colloquially because this about characterizes this activity of spiritualism — he monkeys with spirits. They don't know anything about them.

But let's treat a body as an anchor point, and let's find out that every time an actor died, the person lost an awful lot of screen time. See? The body of the actor was one of his anchor points. Every time a celebrity died, he lost an anchor point. And this, by the way, is the gradient scale which leads up finally to his loss of Mother or his loss of Father or his loss of a wife. You see? The loss of anchor points is his problem. He can't even see anchor points. He doesn't dare see anchor points. And furthermore, if he created them, he'd have to protect them by painting them black. So he can't locate the anchor points in his head easily.

But magic is something else. Magic existed, and a magician was trained, to materialize and control and send off on errands, spirits — bad ones and good ones. They made no differentiation between bad spirits and good spirits as far as their own habits and activities were concerned. See? They'd just as soon handle a good one as a bad one. So these boys were fairly up Tone Scale. They faded out fairly fast, but they were very active about 800 A.D. here on Earth — very active.

This is the rationale, if there's any rationale, and these really are reasons — and these are quite valid reasons — behind the failure to exteriorize. It is a problem in property. It's really a mechanical problem. But he has gotten himself to the point where he feels he needs this body, he wants to continue with this body, he wishes it well, he wants it to function well. All of his goals have to do with bodies, his ends of cycle have to do with bodies, his entire orientation is care of the body, and now you all of a sudden ask him to be three feet out!

And you'll find in their books this repeated line: That if one is educated in the field of magic, he should not then and therefore, merely because he reads it in some book, suddenly desert all his past beliefs and teachings. This was one of their tenets. One mustn't desert these beliefs. Just because he was dealing with magic did not mean that he should cease to be a Christian magician. They stressed this very heavily. Why? Because by changing his belief, if he's given these beliefs and he believed he had to believe (you see, that's the first thing that you'd get — the first aberration — he believed he had to believe, and then after that he believed he had to be convinced), why, he went down the line on this, and eventually he was being a slave to the very spirits which he was supposed to control.

And if he does not think that this society is capable of administering justice to him, he won't exteriorize. If his belief has chronically been in the past that injustice was a commoner practice than justice, you'll have difficulty with your preclear right at that moment. He's lost too much property, he's lost too much of this and too much of that, and he's had too many things taken away from him, you might say, in the name of justice, in order for him to easily give up another piece of mest. You're trying to reduce his havingness to an intolerable point and it makes him frantic! Just the thought of doing so will make him frantic. He'll do all sorts of things. He's even liable to kind of curl up and get convulsive and so forth.

A very interesting chapter on Earth's history which has been almost completely masked. For instance, groups of these people — they're just not known in the history textbooks, that's all. They've just been erased. They operated in the field of biochemistry, amongst other things. In 1213 we find them operating with successfully — operating successfully with artificial insemination. They also were operating successfully in the induction of hormones into the human body in order to rejuvenate it. They were doing all these things.

Well, so what's back of this automaticity he suddenly displays? He says, "Yeah, I did that for a second, and oh, I just feel terrible! I just feel terrible." What's back of this? Just — "If I'm back of this body, I can't protect it or control it, I can't defend it, and this is the main problem with which I am faced because I have lost too much." He might as well tell you that, see. If he says, "I just feel bad, and I don't like that, and I keep snapping back in" — all these remarks immediately translate to "I have problems of justice which have never been resolved." See?

They got wiped out but good. The Catholic Church wiped them out. And that, by the way, was what started Freemasonry. So here we go. We've got them right up here in present time with us. They sit down the line, and I don't know whether they know the lines they're chanting mean the lines they're chanting or not. But a lot of their lower rating rituals and so forth are definitely right straight up from the magician of 800.

He also has this concept: "I am not going to have justice, even when I ask for it, anywhere in the universe." That is his full belief. He believes this.

The Great Seal of the United States is, on its obverse side one of these recurring symbols. You go down to Washington, you start looking around the architecture and the buildings and the symbols and the seals of the government and so forth, and you're just falling into magic every way you look. You see, you're falling into one set of symbols — these are Masonic symbols. That's because George Washington and all the rest of the boys who amounted to anything, that formed this country — that occupied any office, that is, at the country's beginning — were all Freemasons. And these people were Freemasons from Scotland, to which the people, on the breakup of Freemasonry, and the magicians of north Africa, fled. They fled to Scotland. They had a few of their lower ratings — up to about 7th degree — they fled to Scotland, formed their chapters and then from there spread out across the rest of the world. The 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th degree material never arrived in Scotland and the — Freemasonry operates up to that level now.

He believes, sometimes — when he's really, really, very, very, very hard to exteriorize, he believes at this level: "Anybody in the world can ask for any judgment or arrest against me, no matter how unreasonable, and it will be immediately granted them. But if I were to ask for, no matter how reasonably — for the slightest redress of wrong, even though I paid millions of dollars to the finest attorneys alive, it would never be granted to me." And there's his orientation. He can't have any justice!

I'm not letting any secrets out of the bag because I've talked a few times to Masons and so forth, and managed to cross them up no end by simply knowing some of their 7th degree work. Just extrapolating it out of books of magic which are still in existence but in Amharic, another language which isn't often read. And this is very puzzling to find this — all this symbolism turning up.

Well, the second that you give him a smell of the idea that he can be his own justice, he starts to whip up some horsepower and starts to think about what he's going to do to them. See? They've got revenge! So we're resisting, right away, the enemy. We're using force and all that sort of thing.

You're living on top of that symbolism right now. You've got it in your pocket. You got it right in your pocket, you spent it for lunch and so on. You're still dealing with the strongest cult of the Middle Age, and actually that cult is the dominant cult of the Western Hemisphere today — still is. Even at this distance, those boys are still knowing why they're assuming command of something rather than — at early days, they didn't "believe in" near so much as they "made things believe in them" and that was one of their bywords. They did this. They also had a lot to say about cause and effect.

Well, this kind of a churn goes on in his mind. It shows up in this form of ethics. "What are ethics?" he'll say. "What's justice? What's ethics? What's moral?" And you'll get into a tumult on these things. And I can give you, without you going over and over and over it, his — the final conclusion that comes to him. That conclusion, at length and at last, is that the only immorality, and the only failure in ethics, is to deny oneself. It finally reduces down to this, in the final analysis.

It's very odd that what — by the way, Scientology doesn't owe them anything very much except for this: where Scientology has turned up hot once in a while, it's crossed tracks with that school of thought. It's crossed tracks back and forth, which is a different thing than taking that school of thought, you see. There just happens to be agreement between these two things as you go along.

But there isn't any reason to get philosophic with him. You've got somebody on your hands that's being driven around by ... What big general term is he being driven about by? Hm?

And we take cause and effect. They talked an awful lot about cause and effect; they talked widely and they talked considerably about it and they wrote a great deal about it and so on. Now, their ideas of cause and effect are a little more complex than the ideas that we have been using about cause and effect. But they used this idea, you see. Only when they said "cause," they meant it in this limited state: they were creating an effect. See, they were causing an effect and they meant that in terms of a ritual, a system of communication, and that's what they were talking about. They weren't talking about the basic fundamentals of existence. They were just talking about what they did. Well, we get a difference then.

Male voice: Automaticity.

The only reason I'm talking about this at all is just to show you that a knowingness goes flip-flop, back and forth, and every time somebody says, "Well, I was wrong," and so on, we have a little bit of a jam on the track. Well, you'd better clear this up with a preclear. Because a preclear has very often known and had full and complete belief in something, and all of a sudden you throw Scientology at him and you do what? You make him wrong.

That's right. He's just being pounded around by automaticities, which themselves are built out of an effort to remedy and keep even a score and balance of justice in the societies and communities in which he lives.

Now, you take somebody who is very expert in the field of medicine. You take some good surgeon: He has seen results out of surgery, he knows what he can do with surgery. He can take out bones and stretch bones and hack up bones and he can cut out appendices and he can do all sorts of tricks with textbooks and otherwise. He's very good. And he's very expert, his hands are very nimble, he has a fine concept of every facet of anatomy. And true, he doesn't make much of a practice of investigating or examining any side effects of surgery. He says he's not interested in anything else, he sort of puts blinders on himself like that. And now one day he gets sick, and there's nothing to cut out, you know? He gets sick from something that doesn't offer itself up to a knife. This is very embar­rassing, because you've immediately gone outside of his field of knowingness.

And you're just dealing with these automaticities, and he may, if he's in terrible shape — you might say (quote) "out of space," we have said, and so forth; he's occluded and all that sort of thing — you're just dealing with this one problem. You're not dealing with eighty problems. As far as thinking is concerned and knowing is concerned, you're only dealing with one problem and that is the problem of property. You're dealing with somebody who has to own something in order to have it. Many ways to state this. Or you're dealing with somebody who continues to protect but is actually, he realizes, failing to protect. This person has problems. Well, when you say he has problems, they're not really problems of the future or anything of the sort.

Now, surgeons have, by the way, in the past, even taken out their own appendix. They have. I mean, they've done all sorts of things. I mean, that's in their field of knowingness — they can maul a body around. They know they can do this. And — fascinatingly true.

Now, a person who is quite psychotic or neurotic has problems of this nature to such a degree that they now not only cannot have property, but the property which they perceive must be different than the actual property, because they've even been disenfranchised of their right to perceive properly.

And these boys, however, suddenly come to you, and you start off, not with the basis that surgery's all wrong but you just start telling them about the thetan repairing the body. Of course, you're let out somewhat on this by: you're in a basic agreement. They've already agreed to this way back on the track. So it's not too hard to do, because you're prior to their belief and knowingness, you see. So you're not really up against it.

Now, a person who is occluded has merely been disenfranchised of his right to perceive. And a person who is delusive has been disenfranchised to such a degree that he can only perceive when he perceives something wrong, something out of the — order, something weird. He could see an elephant coming through the door, but he couldn't see his mother. You get the idea? So he's — his automaticity has mounted up and is running him to such a degree that it puts elephants coming through the door.

But you'll find the fellow has a tendency — the second he gets a good effect, he's liable to do a terrible sag. You know, you've done just the thing you were supposed to do, and then you see this boy sag, boom. Hm! What have you done? You must have invalidated the former knowingness of the person.

And by the way, how would you handle that? How would you handle that? How would you handle that?

Well, I don't care how skilled you are at this, on knocking out his former knowingnesses and so forth — it's terribly unimportant. If you just went on and cleared him and made him up into the bracket of Operating Thetan, it wouldn't matter what he'd known before. You see, you just went right on up the line. He thinks, for a while, that he's being asked to change churches or change beliefs or desert surgery or to do something of the sort. We're not even vaguely involved with whether or not he stays on with surgery or psychology or anything else. We're "prior art" any day of the week, you see.

Male voice: Increase it.

But we're not asking him to believe in something else. Every — somebody comes along, wrote a pamphlet the other day — I received a copy of it. Quite well written, except that every few lines it says, "Scientology believes in .. ." Now, here we go! I mean, this is an incomprehensible slant, because we don't happen to believe in anything. I have, very often — show a somewhat sarcas­tic attitude toward the gods that be and so on, and I'm apt to make a little bit of fun or tease around about the cultural level which is supposed to exist today and so on. But I'm sure I'm not demanding that you believe in these things. I'm trying — what I'm trying to do is show you an illustration of what I'm talking about or where it leads and so on.

You'd — he — you got a pc has elephants coming through the door, what do you say to him?

And I swear to God I can't take this society seriously anymore. I mean, the strain of doing it for a long time was just too much for me, and I finally piled up enough effort on it to blow a couple of ridges. And I haven't been able to make the grade very hard on this. I mean, I'm just as interested in doing, in fact more interested than I was in the past in trying to do something in the society, but to take it very seriously and consider that these problems are problems that are going to break the back of all existence down to the end of time, I'm afraid I can't do that anymore. And hence my general attitude when I talk about jails and criminals and so forth.

Male voice: Well, get him to put more of them there.

It's very funny to see people following out the exact procedure — in fact, it's a comedy — they follow out this exact procedure of producing a bad effect, such as a child delinquent. They do the exact thing they're supposed to do to produce the child delinquent. They just do it slavishly. And then they stand around and are very surprised, you see, because they produced a child delinquent. This is very silly. It's like watching monkeys having found a picnic basket, trying to eat an orderly picnic, like men do, you know, and use cups and things. It's very silly. And this just hits my risibilities.

Mm-hm. Would you do it "more of them" or would you get him to put elephants through the door?

But as far as believing is concerned, if you want to go on and believe in this and believe in that and believe in something else, you're each time selecting up a new randomity whether you know it or not. That person who gives all his faith to God can be counted, sooner or later, this generation or that, to show his teeth to God, long and sharp and lashing.

Male voice: Well, I'd have him put lots of them through. And then finally slow one up and — oh, look through one, make some more come, so he'd have control of them.

This is interesting that all of these "belief in" will turn in eventually, in man, to a "fighting against." And "fighting against" will turn, in a few generations, to "belief in." At first he believed in demons you see, and then he fought against demons, and then he became a demon. See, he thinks of himself, as a thetan, as a demon.

Okay. That's right. That's right. All right.

Now, we have some sort of an idea of what our problem is with this preclear. He's gone through this falling-leaf idea of knowingness all the way down. If there were some fine method of installing knowingness in an individual, that would be all right. But the method which we have to use at the moment, actually, is subtraction. We have to subtract from him what he really didn't know, until we find something that he actually can know. And when he starts hitting certainties, he starts hitting things he actually can know.

The perception problem is, then — it becomes actually, by evolution, a justice problem. We have the justice first appearing when we first worry about "the right to look." And when it goes into the field of reason and so on, why, we have "right to own" and so on, long after we have the right to look.

Now, one of the lower knowingnesses that I ran into one day in a preclear was — the biggest certainty, the only certainty he'd ever gotten — he'd never gotten a certainty on mock-up, he'd never gotten a certainty on anything. He put the mock-up up and I told him to have time make it disappear. And boy, that was the one thing he was certain of: that time would eventually make anything disappear.

So if he's dealing with perceptic difficulties, you know that low on the scale in his immediate society, he has problems dealing with the fact that he can't have justice but other people probably can, and that everything is crooked and backwards and be — going to be used against him one way or the other. And we go up the scale and we wonder why this fellow can't perceive. Other people can look, but he can't. This is the way you translate justice as you go up into perception in space, you see. That means other people can have space but he can't have any space.

And you know, he wouldn't take any more processing. He was so certain, and this put him so high up and so happy about the whole thing that he wanted to end the session, and we did, and he went away and he was just happy for days. The first time he'd ever been happy in this — he could remember in this life. He was certain of something. He knew this. Of course, that's a fairly high level of knowingness, you come to think about it. He knew time would take it away. He didn't know anything else. He didn't know whether he could make it disappear or whether he was in Christmas. This was just exactly what his concept of it was. All right.

And all of this breaks down — as we get into the rationale in this universe, it just breaks down into this fundamental problem of justice — which you probably think I have been beating to death at long ends trying to get around one way or the other to spend some time, but I'm not; I'm talking about a preclear.

We have, in rebuilding a VI, just a little more trouble than the others, because we have to hit the thing first on a locational attitude preferably, and then on some sort of an attitude which brings it up to a knowingness. And his case advances in little clicks, you might say. These little clicks are more and more and more pronounced. But his case does little jumps, little flashes, sort of, up the line — click, click — and he knows this and he knows that and so on. These certainties come in on him.

I'm also talking about a sick society. Anytime a society runs fresh out of justice, it's run out of society — it's like that. You know, the best way in the world to make a bunch of savage beasts is to be unjust.

And if you work directly toward the production of these certainties without informing him, if you work directly toward this, this is a covert method of subtracting enough of the balderdash which he has digested to right his knowingness. He's righting it himself, you see, all the time. But you just give him an opportunity to right his knowingness about this and that. And you can lead him too fast and press him too hard and be far too informative — that's the only direction you'll err. Well, we have these various methods of doing this.

Even if you're running a small group or something like that, small orga­nization — say you're a corporal in charge of a squad — you're continually dealing with this problem: problems of justice, problems of justice. And it takes a pretty skilled corporal to handle a squad. It does, to have a good squad and so forth.

Now, oddly enough, everybody sounds so certain, and every individual knows he's not certain, that he never adds up the fact that he always sounds certain too. This doesn't seem to occur to anybody unless they examine this. Everybody is so certain and he knows he's not, and that's all he does know. He never adds it up — boy, how certain he himself sounds. So we give him drills about the rightness of other people. We don't even worry about whether or not they're there or not there because this person's got more people present than he even vaguely suspects.

How skilled does a mother with three or four kids have to be? Well, let me assure you, they're not that skilled! I don't care how skilled she has to be — they're not that skilled. They don't — ordinarily, don't function in terms of justice. And when they do, you've got a good mother, got a good father. You've got certainty. It's — even if it's only his certainty that somebody's going to get his block knocked off, you've at least got certainty!

And we start giving this person drills that run somewhat in this fashion. All right, you will — you might — you guys might as well take this drill and you'll see what I'm talking about. Now the people that are more or less on the side of the room here to my left, pick out people on the side of the room to my right. And people on the right side of the room just kind of glance over and find somebody to the left. Now just stare at each other. It's all right, there's no penalty for looking, here in Scientology. Just stare at each other.

That's a certainty of sorts. It's poor, but it's better than "knock off their blocks today, and kiss them tomorrow, and then buy them anything they want on Tuesday, and then deny them anything to eat for a week because they've been so bad." I mean, you know, this is uncertainty. And that's randomity. That's the definition of randomity, is unpredictability.

And now I want you to put these emotions into each other:

If you could always predict that some guy was going to do something bad to you — if you could always predict this — why, you see, you'd have the certainty. It's that he might do something good to you that upsets the whole equation. The only enemies — the only enemies you have that stand up and stick around are these enemies that were not predictably 100 percent bad or good. They were 50 percent bad and 50 percent good, and hung up in a bunch of maybes and so forth. One day Papa was perfectly willing to play ball with you, and then he never looked at you for two weeks. And then you complained about this and it was explained to you by Mother how he'd played ball with you every day for the last two weeks. This is the sort of squirrel bait that kids fool with.

How right this person is.

Well, your preclear, if he's difficult to exteriorize, has suffered a great deal of injustice in youth, and it goes right back to that. It goes back to something very simple: It goes back to anchor points, loss of. You find somebody who is difficult to exteriorize had no good property rights enforced for him. He'll have his keenest memory and his best recall on that period of his life when somebody was around who enforced his property rights — or even vaguely enforced them, you know?

Now pick out another person. How right he is.

You'll — for instance, he'll have this terrific memory of being at his aunt's. You know, he was at his aunt's every summer, and he can remember these. And you could say, very logically, "Well, of course, it was summer and he was having a good time. That's why he remembers all those summers. And he was away from his other things and so on." And then you find out that his mother and father were also at his aunt's all these times, and he's kind of forgotten that. But it's true.

Now put the feeling of rightness into another person.

And then what pertinent questions would you start asking right about there if you just wanted to clean up somebody's track on some certain subject? Just Straightwire on the recovery of anchor points. This is what we're talking about now: recovery of anchor points. That, justice, and perception — that's all in the same band.

Now put the feeling of rightness into another person.

His memory of his youth is very good during a certain period. If you examine that period you will find out that his property rights were enforced. So, of course, he has memory. Memory itself depends upon being able to get in when you want some anchor points. It doesn't depend on that, but people think it does. It just depends on knowing what happened. It's a much simpler statement than a flock of mechanical anchor points coming in. But trained memories operate with: forgettingness is throwing them away — throwing away anchor points; and memory is pulling them in.

Now put the feeling of rightness into somebody else.

So if a person starts losing too many anchor points, he starts forgetting everything. So if he's around home and he has no justice and his rights of property cannot be enforced, he doesn't have any memory on his childhood.

Now the feeling of rightness into somebody else.

I can tell you in a moment — I can be with a preclear a minute, not even look at him, and just get the answer to that: "Can you recall your childhood easily?"

Now the feeling of complete certainty into somebody else. Not for their sake, but just as you regard them. Get the idea of just the complete certainty that's coming from that person.

And the person says, "No, it's very occluded."

Now get the complete rightness that's coming from yet another person.

I can tell you immediately what — his status with regard to property, then and now. What was his status then, what is his status now, with regard to property? How does he feel about justice? What will he vote politically? He'll vote for anything politically which tends to give a better right to property and safe­guard his rights to property in particular. That's what he'll vote for politically.

Now get the complete certainty that's coming from another person — just put the certainty into them so you can feel it back.

Anybody wants to go down here and sweep a national election — I don't care if his name was known to the people ten minutes before he was suddenly put up on the ballot — if his voice could be heard simply advocating better rights to property, better protection of property and more justice, and if he sounded really like he meant it, boy, he'd sweep any office he wanted to possibly sweep. Because this is the one thing people can't have in this society today. They're very leery of this sort of thing.

Now put the complete rightness in somebody.

We've had a rough time in this country because we've run on two standards, and one is the political standard and the other is an economic standard completely at variance from the political standard. In the political standard we've had two standards again in there, which is what we say happens and what happens.

Now put utter wrongness into somebody. (audience laughter)

You say, "Well, any country runs like that, what they say happens and what happens. The hell it is. I mean, no country under the sun has ever been so anxious to convince schoolchildren of the greatness and justice of liberty, fraternity, and equality as they exist in the United States. They just pound it in. Textbooks, textbooks, textbooks, beat it and pound it in: "Our American citizen has rights to justice, he has rights to property, he has good rights, and there's nothing more wonderful than the" — whatever amendment it is, the Fifth Amendment, I think. Is it the Fifth Amendment? or whatever it is. Oh, maybe it's the first ten amendments. Anyway, this Bill of Rights, so called. I've gotten so disgusted with it, I've even kicked it out of my memory. Because they keep talking about this thing, and then it doesn't come true.

Now put complete wrongness into somebody else. (audience laughter)

The first time the little boy is down at the end of the block and gets picked up by a cop for stealing something he didn't steal or gets beaten around for breaking a window he didn't break, and then it's backed up by the whole family and he has no court of appeal, he all of a sudden looks around and realizes there's no justice anywhere he can see. And the second he realizes that thoroughly, he's a juvenile delinquent because he's in revolt against the society. And when he really realizes it, then he's down the street knocking your wife over the head or gunning some cop through the guts just to see the fellow belch. This guy gets into a terrible state. Why? Because he's been lied to continually about the complete power of the Constitution and the complete sanctity and security of the central government, and then he finds out it doesn't work!

Now put complete wrongness into somebody else.

If you want to make a calm country, just keep telling them that the federal government is crooked and has no intentions of enforcing anything. Everybody will be calm. But you put everybody on this double maybe. And the only reason pcs are hard to — harder to fish out of their heads in this country than other countries in the world is simply that one factor in education. And if you want to pick on any factor, it's that one.

Now put complete rightness into that person.

Sure enough, it's up to you and it's up to me and it's up to the rest of us to see that there is some justice, there's rights before law, that there is right as written in the Constitution, which is the law of the land. The Constitution says it is the law of the land — okay, it's the law of the land. Just make sure it is, that's all. Don't write up the Constitution as the law of the land and then put that in your hip pocket every time you want to do a fast pitch for the Democratic Party or something. See? I mean, it doesn't work that way. If you're going to operate on a high advertised ethic, you certainly better deliver the high advertised ethic.

And rightness into somebody else.

Now, Mama and Papa who talk to your preclear consistently and continually and forever and aye about "they were so just, and they did so much for the preclear" and he knows damn well they're lying in their teeth — gets so darn stuck in his body, he doesn't know whether he's going or coming. Because they never regarded his property rights as rights at all, they just talked about it. And when it came to his ownership and conduct of property, they weren't there.

And get your own feeling of how certain you feel they are.

You exteriorize him, you've got a problem in anchor points immediately. What's the gradient scale of anchor points? The least important losses which he has suffered, to the most terrible loss which he suffered, which was the person who enforced his rights to property while a child. I don't care who he says was the terrible loss, it's that one that was the loss. And that's the one who is sticking him, if you're going to go into the past. But there is no real reason to go into the past.

And again, your own feeling of how certain they feel they are.

Now, I've laid down to you here — if you're trying to understand the preclear, you just get this idea of anchor points, ownership and justice as they're associated. Just realize he's scared somebody's going to grab this thing. They've grabbed everything else he owns.

All right, just get that. That gives you some sort of an idea about this.

Realize he's probably done some injustice in the past on grabbing. I'm not in — you see, it's a different thing: Theft and injustice are not a — that isn't the same bracket of words. Overt acts and injustice. Justice doesn't mean, as it's normally interpreted, "no overt acts or motivators"; it doesn't mean "no action." It merely means that if you hacked a guy's head off, certainly that guy has the right to appeal somewhere to get your head hacked off, if this was an overt act and he can't [can] prove that he shouldn't have had his head knocked off. That's really the statement of justice about this.

Now, an exercise based on this is a very simple one. You get the preclear to walk down the street — this at least gets him into motion. And this is a VI I'm talking about, and this can also apply to a VII. And you just get him putting how certain this person is and how certain that person is and how right some other person is and how wrong some other person is, until he's putting the feeling of rightness and wrongness into other people and he knows he's putting it there. Because he's got a feeling to go with it — what do you know?

You'll find out your preclear's up against this problem in terms of ethics. And he's turning this round and round and round and round in his head, one way or the other. And it all boils down to this: loss of anchor points. Which means what? Anchor points out of position or gone. And if the anchor points of the body themselves are disarranged by impacts and so forth, he can't exteriorize from them because he can't find what he's exteriorizing for.

He's got knowingness reduced into a feelingness. It's actually life itself. But he will differentiate it in various ways until he finally decides that it is — it's just they're alive. They've got a right to be right or wrong, they're alive. This is a big decision. If you've come up to that level with a VI, believe me, you've got him well on the way! And if you get a psycho up to that person [level] — oh brother, you've done it, you really have. You could get into communication enough with one.

The only real view a thetan has of the body, the brightest view he has of the body, is this pattern of anchor points. If he's upset about justice, he's upset about anchor points. If he's upset about anchor points, his body anchor points undoubtedly are out of line. And if they're out of line, he can't get out of them because the space in them is warped, therefore his thinkingness is warped and so on.

But a good way to process a VI, as I say, is to walk him around and drive him around. And actually, it's a very interesting way to process yourself. Because you're surrounded all the time by people whose primary motivation, as far as communication is concerned — to demonstrate how right they are, how much in agreement they are with you, how wrong they are, and how much they're in agreement with other people about how wrong you are, and how wrong you are. And they say this in various ways, such as, "Well, that may be true, but I — don't you think it is vaguely possible . . ."

Do you know what you face when you face a preclear? You aren't facing anything that has to do with whether or not he was properly toilet trained — has nothing to do with it. You aren't worrying about whether or not he has horrible sexual inhibitions or whether or not he wants to get out of the body or not. It's just whether or not he has enough feeling of security to be three feet away from that darn body, and whether he can still control it, you see, and whether or not it's going to be taken away from him.

This is the way Benjamin Franklin oriented it, to give you some idea of the Tone Scale of Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin wrote a whole paper on this. A very fine paper. It's "How to be a 1.1" (the name of the paper). No, come to think about it, that wasn't the name of the paper, but it was something like that.

He's also got to feel a pretty good security about you. Because the trick's been pulled on him in the past that he's left a body and somebody else grabbed it immediately. The fellow who asked him out of it took it away from him! This has happened. And it's not going to happen here. Not while I still have the power to zap somebody.

Anyway, he gave a dissertation on how you should present a thing to a council of men, you see, and said that you must say that: "Well now, it has occurred to me, and it might possibly — occurred to you, whereas I agree with most of your views and so forth, there is some slight possibility that there's some tiny modification, you see, could take place in the opinion which you so ably stated." You know — 1.1, strictly. It never gets anything done, by the way.

Okay.

The only way to handle a crew of men, if you know what you're doing and they even vaguely look like they don't know what they're doing, if they're just foggy on this subject or if they're going the wrong direction, just know harder than they do and know longer than they can endure it. You win. That's all — just know harder than them and endure longer than they do about the same level of knowingness.

It also helps to be right. If you've got both of those together, you can run anything. I don't care whether it's the United States or the South African police or a corporation or anything, is — and you can do that as long as you're around.

Don't do this consistently though for several months to a group of men and then take an overnight trip. You've got them backed up and they will revert to Tone Scale. Sometimes they'll only revert to Tone Scale after a couple of months of absence, and sometimes they'll revert to Tone Scale only after six months of absence, but they'll revert. And after that their total passion will be making you wrong. They feel they have to do this in order to be right. That's real interesting. When people get into that slipslop of (quote) "thinking" (unquote), life becomes very confused, to say the least.

If the primary mission of somebody is to make you wrong, believe me, he can make you wrong — anytime. Anytime. Because you have based rightness on agreement. So you're trying to make him agree.

If you made him right all the time, you'd ruin him. You'd just ruin him, because you'd put him into consistent and continual agreement with the entire MEST universe. Do you see how that would be? Make him — not right according to a set of laws or axioms; not right, you see, according to the way life operates. But if you just made him consistently correct in his neighborhood — you know, you just make him consistently correct in his neighborhood — well, you'll murder him.

If you make him consistently wrong in his neighborhood, you may drive him down Tone Scale and you may cause him some unhappy moments, but you might also cause him to invent a new, cheaper electric light. He's going to prove that he's right, one way or the other, someplace. And you've given him the overt act-motivator sequence that he needs in order to complete a cycle. You see how that works?

It's very silly. You see, a person — there is such a thing as a truth. It doesn't happen to be a datum, though. There is such a thing; it's not very communicable. That's the certainty which you keep touching and tapping when these cases do these little jumps up the line.

Now, the VI does come up the line in a jump. A VII breaks to be a VI. Don't ever overlook that one. After you've processed somebody who was spinny — badly spinning and they seem to be better, you've only broken them up to about VI, you see. And after that you have to get down and process.

It's no great trick to break a person out of a psychosis. Almost any kind of a certainty is better than the no-certainty state, or the reverse or destructive-certainty state in which they're operating. You see, it's — the only psychotic that gives anybody any trouble is one that's working on a reverse certainty. He's certain that he'll be happy if everybody else is dead. Well, that might characterize the general part of the populace, perhaps, in certain societies and locales. But it — when people begin to act on that basis, you see, why, they are considered to be insane. And actually as far as the society is concerned, they sure are.

And the society likes to perform surgery, if possible. They don't ever realize that the prefrontal lobotomy is just Q and A. They're trying to run a patientectomy on society, and as far as they can go is just cut out his thinkingness a little bit — they want to slow that down. Actually, I think on most of those cases the thetan just shoves off, skips it. The bodies behave that way.

Well anyway, getting down here to knowingness: to what do they assign knowingness? Well now, I was talking a little while ago about these symbols which you're carrying around in your pocket. Well, Step VI, for our purposes, has ceased to be an SOP 8-C neurotic case as its sole thing; it is that step which includes the solution of problems posed by symbolism. "The solutions which resolve symbolism" is the definition of Step VI. Now I'll show you a technique for running this.

Get a word out in front of you.

Now have the word know.

Get another word in front of you.

Now have that word know.

Put a word behind you.

Have it be so right.

Put a word over to your right.

Have it know.

Put the Great Seal of the United States out in front of you. (It's that pyramid with an eye on top of it.) Have it know.

Get the money in your purse or pocket knowing.

Get that again.

Get the amount of knowingness in that money in your pocket.

Now get the dimes knowing.

Now there, of course, you're processing an energy unit, because there is mass to it, and the symbol. All right.

Let's get a textbook out in front of you and get it being very knowing.

Now get that textbook being very certain.

And get it finding you very uncertain.

Get a book of formulas behind your back and get it being very certain of just one thing — that you're not certain.

All right, throw those away.

Now get a word under your chair, and get it knowing.

And get a word up above your head, and get it knowing.

And get the idea or the actual sound of a peanut whistle going skeeeeeee! Get it knowing.

Because what are we doing here? We're just backing up the inversion. You know by symbols, until symbols know.

Now, remember I told you earlier the fellow who fought — believed in demons and then fought demons became a demon. And so it is that people at VI and VII — people at VI depend wholly for their knowingness upon symbols — entirely. Entirely. That's it. They don't depend on anything else but symbols. And when that sinks down the line, their symbols become solid. A mock-up is more solid than a real chair to a psycho.

I had a comment on this from somebody once and — they kept telling me, these other auditors kept telling me this girl was all right. But I went over to see her and I had her put up a couple of anchor points and I sure didn't think she was. Guess what she put up? Two pyramids. See, real heavy See, the symbol was a real heavy object. You just said to put up a couple of anchor points and you got pyramids. Next session — I mean, pardon me, the next command on it — she put up two cast-iron blocks. You see, that's — I mean, we dealt with nothing but very heavy symbols.

Now, this person's purse weighed God knows how much. Now, trying to take something away from this person is quite interesting. They're trying to become mest, you might say. They're trying to become solid matter if they possibly can, they're trying to be energy and all the rest of it. But the point is, they're out of contact with actual energy. They're not even making actual energy. They're under the control of symbols which are solid and which know far more than they do.

Now, you'll get people who'll flip the Bible open to a passage at random to get the answer to a question. (audience laughter) Well now actually, that's not bad necromancy, and almost anybody's liable to indulge in this once in a while because the future's a pretty hard thing to predict if you have admitted that you don't make it. And somebody will take all kinds of methods of prediction. But how about the fellow who doesn't dare eat without doing it? See, then only the book knows — only the book knows.

Now, you assault this person's reality — which is the reality of symbols — anytime you make a grammatical error or a definitional error at the higher levels of VI. And when he's VII, he'll just cave in and almost faint if you misdefine something. This — you can watch his sense of humor going by the boards. This is the one thing that's very noticeable about them. You pick up this ashtray, you say, "Well, have a camel." You'll just ruin somebody, that's no kidding. You've involved him in an endless row with you and a night of doubt. (audience laughter)

He'll vary from "Did he really think it was a camel?" to "I know it wasn't a camel anyway." The symbol, you see, is so important — the misuse of a symbol. You use some word in a backwards fashion and they're very upset.

These people, by the way, will, when they become editors — they very often do. It's not because I used to be a writer, it's because I've known a lot of editors. And editors are failed writers. I'm always in favor of editors; I'm very much in favor of editors, I think they ought to exist and — that's more than a lot of people think. And so — I always stand up for them too. People say they're pigs and I say they aren't. And in fact I got into a big argument one time in front of two editors with another writer on the specious — I said, what I was saying was, in effect, that the other writer had said they were pigs; I just inferred this, you see. And I waited until these boys both had attention, then I came down with my fist resoundingly and began a very serious argument: "They're not pigs. Editors aren't pigs. I won't stand for that," see?

And I got — just got this guy going and coming on this, because he wasn't in an argument to begin with. And these two editors began to look at him and one of them began to think of all the stories he'd bought from him. And their opinion of that fellow certainly went down — certainly went down. I was dealing with three people who were all symbol-happy. Completely symbol-happy. They took this whole thing completely seriously. They never cracked a smile during the whole thing and actually could be heard to talk about it for couple of hours afterwards, from time to time mention it, so forth, saying that it was very bad.

This fellow thought it was very bad of me, rather reproachfully, to do that to him in front of a couple of editors. Never occurred to the fellow — here's where creativeness goes — to immediately come up with a rebuttal which would have been completely vanquishing. See, he could have very well — could have very well just completely ruined me. His creativeness of symbols was deficient, which accounted for the fact that he was writing comic books. He was doing nothing but turning out a pattern and so on.

Creation and imagination and so forth all lie above that band, well above the band of symbols. And when you ask somebody to create too long solely in terms of symbols, then he gets the idea that the symbols are creating him.

Now, let's take the automatic machinery by which somebody measures the future. When he has assigned knowingness to the future, he sends himself like a rocket, jet plane, straight back into the past. 'The future knows." One of the commonest phrases: 'The future will tell." And he finally sets up an enormous amount of bric-a-brac.

We had one case here not too long ago, that made no headway for a number of hours of student auditing until somebody wasted, in brackets, some machines which predicted the future. And as soon as this was done, we had a marked alteration in the case. Right up to the moment when that took place, this case was varying between V and VI, V and VI, V and VI and not doing any consistency.

Because he had assigned all his knowingness to the future. You see, in the future, not he would know, but actually the future would deliver enough knowingness in terms of data so that he, then, would be able to act. See, we weren't on a level of, he'd get the data in the future and then he'd know what he was doing; you see, the data in the future would determine his action. Now get that — that's not subtle, that's a big wide differentiation between two things.

Everybody does this other trick: they wait for some data — if they're going to wait around at all — and they wait for some data to fall into line so that they see a consecutive pattern which then they add to and use as a creational pattern for further motion. They do this all the time. This is the modus operandi of movement itself, and of planning and of delivering effort and competence and all these other things. That's the thing.

But that goes to a level where they don't wait for the data so that they can do something, they wait for the data so the data will do something. In other words, the symbol will act. They get down to that level after a while — the symbol itself acts. I swear, somebody like that would draw a symbol on a piece of paper in front of them and wait for it to blow their nose. This — it could get that far.

Now, I hope you understand something about this case. I've given you some of the processes that work on this case. These processes are around in anybody who consistently uses language. He eventually assigns some knowingness to language. But someday you're going to find a case where "only the words know." And you know, they don't exist at all — only the words know. You know, not the fellow who's giving the words, not the communication of the words, not the whole communication, but the — each separate individual word is itself the knowingness. Just because words are the servants of knowingness is no reason that they become knowingness; and yet people think that the words themselves do. And this is the incantation.

Ran across the funniest engram I think I ever processed out of anybody — it was a prenatal AA, and Mama was saying, "Tic-a-tac-a-little-baby. Now you're going down the drain. That's the way that goes. Now I'm supposed to say it this way: Tic-a-tac-a-little-baby . ..' You know, I think it's the medicine that does it. I don't think that the words have, really, anything to do with it."

This person was sitting in the middle of that engram and they were — had taken up general semantics. It was the key engram of the case. We had this fellow line-charging all over the beach and the front lawn and the third floor of the house. I mean, he was just having a hell of a time after he broke that. All right. Here we had the symbol, by command, taking prominence.

How do you process symbols? You use them for anchor points. Simple, isn't it? You put up sheets of them and have him look through them to sheets more of them. You get it up to a point where he's got symbols differentiated from energy. And this in itself opens a whole category of processes, because number VI is, of course, the processing of symbols and getting the thetan to use direct rather than indirect communication. You understand that?

You have to process any thetan exteriorized on Step VI. Get him out of this idea of symbols.

Because his postulates are all locked up and nailed down in symbols. And these are nailed down in energy. And the energy is lost in condensed space. And the space is lost because he couldn't be it anyhow. Get the idea?

Well, any thetan has Step VI run, and it's just run so as to remedy sym­bols, however you want to do it. And I've given you some methods of doing it.

Okay.