Okay. This is the twenty-second lecture, 1st Melbourne ACC. And we're going to talk now about something that you will be interested in.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I've been alternating with lecture and demonstration with this particu­lar zone and area but where I've given you an even numbered lecture, you'll find out it's mostly demonstration material. In other words, it's material which is used directly and immediately in auditing technique and that sort of thing.

Well, this is the — should be the twenty-first lecture of the 1st Melbourne ACC, 23 November 1959. And I did have a very hot lecture to give you today but I took pity on you. No, I think I'll bawl you out anyhow.

And what we've got to take up now is an expansion of something I said at the end of the twentieth lecture, which was said that the only route I know to OT — I said it's the only route I know to OT. It was late and so forth; I didn't further amplify it. The only route I know to OT is the substance of the first twenty lectures. Not any little brief paragraph.

Well, I'll give you a lecture here that's a mixture between data and that sort of thing. And the first one that I'm going to take up with you, however, I'm going to have a heart-to-heart talk with you concerning life.

I've heard since that we had a little brief paragraph there and, you know, all you had to do is write it down and give it to an auditor, and the auditor would say, "Aw, let me read that to the pc," and he'd make an OT. Oh, yeah! Ha! You don't want debris.

You know, when you were a young boy, you should have had a father and very few of you did, and very few fathers ever do this; and you should have had a mother and very few of you did who would do this: call you in and say, "Son, or daughter, I'm going to acquaint you with the facts of life."

Now, basic material is that you mustn't audit somebody whose attention is fixed. I'm just going to give you a fast resume here. You mustn't audit somebody whose attention is fixed on a present time, present life circum­stance of such magnitude as to preclude his ability to expand his attention over the track.

And then they started, of all things, to talk about sex or something of the sort and this had nothing to do with the facts of life. Because the facts of life are very, very plain and very, very simple. And nobody ever told anybody that and so we had to come along with Scientology.

Now, it'd be just like this fellow standing there — if you want to drive somebody into a fit sometime, have him stand there watching a snake about to spring at him. (One of your more interesting varieties of snakes down here.) And the snake's about to spring on him and you come along and slap his head in such a way as to make him look over at a charging bull! He'd get nervous, you know!

Now, the basic facts of life are these: that life is life, and that's it. And it isn't good and it isn't bad. It's life! And it is very often compartmented off unnecessarily onto a few dynamics.

Well, your pc gets nervous to the degree that you knock his attention off of something his attention must be on. The last vestige of attention is located on the last attainable zone that he hopes he may be able to reassert control over. And what you reach there is the last zone he is trying on. And if you make him flick his attention off suddenly, this last zone he's trying on: PT problem; ARC break; if he's discovered, why, something horrible will happen to him. In other words, he's got his attention fixed on this last zone and you come along and you bat him in the head, you know, and you make him look over that way, poom! Bang! Got the idea? He'll get hit right in the chops every time on a sudden withdrawal of attention where the last vestige of atten­tion is there anyhow. You haven't got a pc then; you've got an automaton.

One, two, three dynamics are all that are left, and the person compart­mented way off and backed off, and so forth, well, he's not doing an awful lot of living. And then a person backs off to just one dynamic, not necessarily the first dynamic, backs off to just one dynamic and there's darn little life there. And then this person backs off finally and goes on the "negative dynamics," which is destroy a dynamic.

I'll give you an idea. Take a person who has just had a roaring row — a woman — who has just had a roaring row with a man, who is going to do this and going to do that, and it's all very tense and she's got to do this and that, and it's just all, you know, just strung out to a point of where if you hit one of the lines, it'd sound high C, you see.

The first run on this is "create" on dynamics and then this flicks over to "destroy" on dynamics. Now, there are several intermediate inversions between absolute create on the dynamics and absolute destroy. But there are people around who have no first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh but are totally devoted and dedicated to the destruction of God! And you know there are such people. He actually has gone by being able to destroy the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh dynamics. See, they're not even in view. See, they passed by long ago, long ago. He couldn't destroy any of those on a bet. But he can destroy God. Now that's getting down to the absolute, ultimate, bottom rung. A lot of psychos go around doing this.

And just say, "All right. Now, I want you to run a little process called `Create a child.' "

And finally they realize that they can destroy nothing, anywhere! Now you got a real nut. You got a real nut. No hope for it. The person can destroy nothing anyplace at any time ever. They just spin from there on out. But they are the most destructive people to have around you ever heard of. Everything they touch falls to pieces. They're on automatic destruction.

That's real wog, you know. 'Tisn't possible.

Now you could say there was a cycle of action, a large graph cycle of action, create-survive-destroy, and the further a person falls back from destroy the more destroy there is on automatic. In other words, destroy is no longer under his judgment. Destroy is something that happens oddly enough, with no responsibility of his, on one or more dynamics. Well, there'd be a cycle of action for each one of these dynamics.

All right. Now, let's take some person who had just been in an automo­bile accident and has got his shoulder, arm all swollen up and feels terrible and so forth, and let's sit him down — don't mention the automobile accident, nothing like that and let's immediately say to him, "Now, where were you raised?"

We can graph this out and graph these facts. But it leaves people less self-determined — much less pan-determined — about what they do. And the less judgment a person can exert over his actions, horribly enough, the more destructive he is. Destruction is something that gets more and more and more on automatic — more and more and more. In other words, the less alive a person is, the more destruction will occur in that person's vicinity. Think that over for a moment.

And the person says, "Raised? Raised? Ahhh, raised?"

Now a person gets down to "do good, think good, do good, think good. Always do good. Never think anything else but good. Always do good. Always ..." You know. Man, the lightning bolts are just singing around his skull, and the typewriter falls to pieces, and the wheels go off the car, and the kids break their legs and so forth. And he says, "Think good. Think good. Think good. Think good." Total lack of responsibility for anything ever get­ting destroyed. And the less responsibility a person has for things being destroyed, the more gets destroyed! Because the only people operating in this universe are the people operating in the universe!

And you say, "Yes, yes, yes. What was your hometown? Your hometown?"

That's what the religionist lies to you about. God, to one of these super whirling dervishes, is the person who takes the full responsibility for every-thing relieving everyone else, particularly themselves, of any responsibility for anything.

And he finally says, "Well, I think it was ... um ... I think it was ... um ... Upper North South Throphampshire." Bang! You know?

And that is a sure way to build a criminal society! Now, I'm not down on Christianity. Christianity is a Johnny-come-lately. About a million, two hun­dred fifty thousand years ago it was a space opera stunt. You trace it back. You can trace back Christ on any — any pc you run across if he's running free on the meter at all, you'll find the first trace of Christ was one million, two hundred and fifty thousand years ago which I consider very amusing! You're liable to find an implant with automatic angels and little devils. Very interesting.

And something over here goes off. Why? You took his attention and you put it on his childhood area, see. Get the idea? And his attention was really right there in present time. Well, you just threw him back in the automobile accident with a dull thud. You understand?

But all that is, at all, is a falling away of responsibility for the creation and destruction of things.

So you just mustn't audit people with high tone arms. Because it means their attention is stacked up elsewhere. Stacked up right here in PT. It's on PT objects. And every time you start yanking off your atten — you'll find they go in — sadder and sadder.

And the further a person falls away from responsibility for destruction, the more good they pride themselves in and the more destructive they are.

Now, you can cure arthritis simply by throwing the person from anger to apathy. Arthritis is a 1.5 disease. Just knock them into apathy. Cures arthri­tis every time. They're no longer capable of holding back the force, so it just engulfs them; but there's no strain, no trace of calcium in the joints or any-thing. See, they're not even capable of holding calcium in the joints now — it's just all over the place. Get how this would be?

I almost jump out of my skin when I receive a letter signed something on the order of, "legally and ethically yours." Oh, man now, we don't know. And some pc who sits there and says, "Well, I've always been honest. And I've always been hon — never stolen anything and I've been honest. And it's been my whole life, has just been dedicated to being honest and never stealing anything, and I'm good and so forth." My next question is, "What bank did you rob?" And the meter will fall off of its pin.

You can always change somebody by pulling the rug out from under­neath him. I'll give you an idea, you can take somebody who's perfectly happy, cheerful, walks into the room doing a fairly gay, light walk and so forth, and you grab the corner of the rug and you pull it and knock him down on the floor, you know. And it changes his tone.

Now, if you know these facts, you get a reality on these facts, you look around and you see these things happen, you're going to find something new. You're going to find something brand-new. That it isn't how good people are or how destructive they are, it's how responsible they are that counts. And that's all that counts.

Well, that's not how you audit. What you do, basically — the basic formula of auditing is: Find something the person can do something about and improve it. You improve his ability to do something about it. Got that?

The early Greek definition of justice was, "Methods by which the weak seek to destroy the strong." A rather cynical definition of justice. But in actual fact justice seldom has any trouble with a strong man. Justice has a great deal of trouble with very, very weak men who are trying to be very, very strong, very destructively. Now, that's a reverse look, you see.

And if you always did that in a very smooth way, boy, would you be an auditor! Knowing the various things that can happen to cases and not doing those things that would push the case around too much on it!

The Sampsons that can push down temples with no reactive compulsion to go push down temples are never the people to worry about in a society. The people that people worry about in the society are normally, however, people who have the strength enough to do something, so therefore they try to cut down everybody's strength. Well, what they're doing is cutting down every-body's control over force. And control over force becomes so unbalanced, at last, that only the weak ever rise to great positions of strength. But it's only apparent strength.

This person is having an awful lot of trouble, at the present moment, with the boss. Terrible amount of trouble with the boss, just awful lot of trou­ble with the boss. Sits down (they'll give you all about it), they'll start to talk to you about the boss if their attention is really superfixed on the boss, see.

You get Hitlers, Napoleons. Do you know these were very, very little men; very, very small thetans. They were small enough to fit into the total reactive force of a nation on the third dynamic. They were small enough to be the total stimulus-response of such a force. That's an interesting thing to know. Hitler was not a strong man, not even vaguely strong. He couldn't even control his own temper.

Well, the wrong way for you to do it is to go into a weak valence and sit there and let them talk endlessly. They felt so much better afterwards, you say. Oh, you just let them talk and you'll see them go right on down Tone Scale. No! You've got to get something effective done.

Now, you'll occasionally see somebody who's in pretty good shape get angry. Now please, let's not make the same mistake.

Now, what you get done that is effective is very simple. You say, "The boss. Well, you think the boss is upsetting to you?" and so forth.

A person who is Clear can get angry. A person who is Clear can become angry without being made angry. Got the idea? But he can exhibit anger.

"Yes." E-Meter says yes. They say yes. Everything says yes.

Let's not try to suppose that we're going all the way downhill into the goodness of nirvana and never-never, when we're clearing people. We are not trying to make people good! We're trying to make people responsible! And when we make them responsible, we will find out their actions are good! But if we only try to make them good, as they try to make them in these govern­ments and beat them into line by showing them there are superior forces all around them, all you do is make them irresponsible and they become evil and very destructive. But the destruction happens apparently with no slightest responsibility on their parts. They had nothing to do with it.

Okay. That's not the time to read his — and run his domestic affairs, let me tell you. His economics are tied up there too tightly. Not quite sure about this and about that.

I can show you people walking up and down the street that I wouldn't lean — let lean on a corner of the HASI building out here. I'd be scared stiff to let them lean on the corner of the building, I know the whole thing's liable to fall down on their heads. You see that? Coping's liable to come off. Well, this doesn't make them very strong, it makes them totally reactive. But in their vicinity, not through any strength of theirs, you have no control over any existing forces. And having no control you have chaos. They're a vacuum amongst us. Now, the psychiatrist got into psychiatry usually because he was afraid of the terrible strength of these madmen.

Well, there's any one of a dozen things that you could do. Now, slippily, with your present know-how, you could get him to face up to having done something to the boss. Now, if he could just get those overts off the line, the problem would collapse. And it's one of the easiest, simplest, smoothest ways you ever got a problem out of the road you ever heard of. But, boy, have you got to be good! Because he's saying: "Motivator, motivator, motivator, motiva­tor, motivator!"

I remember walking into a padded cell one day along with a psychiatrist who was showing me around. Oh, they show me around. When I show up they turn out the royal guard these days. They really do! You know, they talk, talk, talk, yak, yak, yak, snicker, snicker, snicker, get the bad notices in the newspaper and so forth, and tell all their patients, "They mustn't possibly have anything to do with it."

And you've got to say: "Overt?"

And I show up in an institution or something like this and say, "Hello." Or, "How are things going?"

Evaluation! Invalidation! Code break! Code break! Code break! Code break! Code break!

They say, "A-a-h-a-h-a, come in. Now, I have a personal problem I would like to talk to you about and I'm awfully glad you came over."

See, you got to be clever, smooth. So you say, "Well, let's run a process about this boss."

They think that insanity is strength because it is surrounded by chaos.

"Oh, all right."

Now the world did not begin in chaos, it began in order and then somebody kicked it in the teeth. Now, wherever you have a person of that character, all of the forces which are, are out of control and there's nobody controlling them, and then you stand back foolishly and expect these people to control their zone of action. To control their environment. And because everybody is standing back waiting for them to do something and nobody controls that zone of environment at all, it all goes into chaos because there's nobody con-trolling anything in that zone! Do you understand that?

"Good. Now, let's find out if you're withholding anything from the boss. And if you could do anything to the boss."

Audience: Yes.

"Oh, I could do something to the boss! Yeah! Good! He-he-he-he-he-he-he-he! Yeah. Yeah! Let's run that process!"

All right. You watch this — this wife that's having a hard time in her family and everything seems to be chaotic. Or this husband that's having a hard time in his family and everything seems to be chaotic. Everybody, including the society at large and the law and everybody else, kind of expects one or the other of them to have a zone of control. Well, that zone of control isn't there and where a zone of control does not exist you have chaos! There isn't either — it's just that! You don't have nothing. Because you are sur­rounded totally by natural forces of one kind or another; natural because they're put there by us. All right.

See, agree, agree, agree, agree; big ARC develops up the line, and so forth. Well, you run some sort of a process.

These forces being held there are held there because we hold them there! And all of a sudden we've got Joe and he's supposed to do his share of holding them there, or Bill or Peter or Zack, and he's supposed to hold the walls up and he doesn't hold them up! And of course they fall down!

What you're trying to do is get his overts off. Simple. You could say, "What action could you take against your boss for which you could be totally responsible?"

This is force, this is power? Well, this is the kind of force and power that people think exists in insanity. And it doesn't exist at all.

Kill him, drown him, stamp on his head, you know, big automaticity's going on one way or the other. And you get him simmered down to a point where he says what he's done to the boss. Get the idea? And, you got the overts off the line and all of a sudden, oddly enough, you can change the boss's mind about him.

The psychiatrist took me into this padded cell and he said, "Be careful of this man," he says, "we've got him there in a straitjacket."

I sometimes tell somebody who's really spinning and that you just can't get into session at all, "Now, look, we're not going to worry about your case; let's change his case. Now, I'm going to process you to change him. Is that all right?"

And I said, "Well, the poor fellow. Look, you've got him tied up in a straitjacket."

"Oh, could you do that?"

I turned him around and unstrapped the straitjacket, you know, to see if — how he was getting along all right. And the psychiatrist backed right on out the door.

"Listen, I can do anything. Now, come on."

I took the fellow's straitjacket off and handed it to him, and so forth. And I said, "Flex your arms. You must be pretty tired, huh?

Hey, you'll get the thing simmered down. You get the guy in-session.

"Ahhh," he says, "ahhhh."

And very often — you'll find in ACCs this comes up every once in a while — you'll be processing somebody who is just hundreds or thousands of miles away and all of a sudden, this person — ACC student hasn't heard from him, you know, for a dog's age — and all of a sudden, the person writes, cables, appears, does something of the sort. "Just wanted to let you know I feel dif­ferent about everything now." You know? It's real mystic — not very mystic.

And I said, "That's right. Flex them. Flex them."

Now, with all of this — with all of this you should realize that it's overts that pin the people into the place they are. Overt-Withhold Straightwire is, of course, a very sort of general, broad, anybody-can-do-it sort of a process. You see, that's good, mechanical — auditors find it very easy to run and so forth.

And, "How are you making out?"

Want to call your attention to something, however, about Overt-Withhold Straightwire: is it doesn't permit a withhold to run on the rest of the dynamics with regard to one person or one object. You say, "What have you done to your boss? What have you withheld from your boss?" Or some such auditing command based on overt-withhold. "Recall something you've done to your boss. Recall something you've withheld from your boss." Most elemen­tary version, not necessarily the best. This doesn't include doing something to the boss which they're withholding from the auditor. Doesn't, does it?

"Ahhhh. Ahhhh."

Audience: No.

And I says, "Well, sit down there. Take a breather." Threw the strait-jacket out into the hall and so on. And I says, "Why haven't you got this place straightened out?" and walked out and shut the cell door and so forth.

And it doesn't include something they've done to the boss they're with-holding from the rest of the employees. In other words, that particular proc­ess has its limitation. It's a good process because it can be addressed to specific terminals, but it has its limitations of not getting off all the with-holds.

The psychiatrist's "sssss" going just like that. He says, "My God. You take your life in your hands. He kills people."

Now, you could phrase it differently and say, "Think of something you could do to your boss." And "Think of something you have withheld in rela­tion to your boss." This would start to shotgun the thing and make it more adaptable. But, basically, what you're trying to do is get off the obsessive reach, obsessive withhold. And you must realize that your target, as an ACC graduate, is not to run Overt-Withhold Straightwire with exactly the right commands with your E-Meter held exactly with the proper little finger lifted. You understand?

And I said, "Look. If nobody has any control over him and he has no control over himself, of course he kills people. What elst would we have there? Would there be anything or anybody else present at all?"

Audience: Yes.

It was too much for the psychiatrist. It was frankly too much for him. He went into a total comm lag and turned me over to the chief nurse and went back to his office. When I left about two and a half hours later he was sitting at his desk, he wasn't even thinking.

What you're trying to do is attack the mental mechanism. Withhold is, of course, an obsessive withdrawal and "do something to," is simply an obses­sive reach. Reach — withdraw, that's all you're trying to do. And the basic thing is reach — withdraw or cause something to be withdrawn or cause some-thing to be reached.

Now, these zones of apparent terrific forces, and so forth — simply where the forces that exist in life — are in a zone of no control and they'll always be chaotic.

Now, I get awful tired of people saying to me, "What is the auditing com­mand for that?" It bores me stiff. It's just as though they're saying, "Where are my brains now, Ron?" See, it's just not sensible.

If you think there's a paving brick where there is no paving brick, sooner or later you're going to fall in it. If you think there's a step halfway up a flight of steps and there's no step there, you're going to stumble. Is that right?

Now, let's understand the mechanism back of this. This individual can't reach because he's withholding. And he can't withhold because he's reaching. And he's in a hell of a state. And wherever he's in that condition he's in trouble.

Audience: Yes.

In fact, if you want to turn on — as you've known for years — the feeling of insanity in a person, just have him get the idea of having to reach but not being able to; or having to withdraw and not being able to. And just have him get either one of those and have him get that idea firmly and he'll actually get the glee of insanity. Because he gets the beam structure coming and going and it adds up to the ridge and that is insanity. Insanity is not a posi­tion on the Tone Scale, so much as, in this particular regard, a stack-up of ridges which brings about a certain feeling: the glee of insanity. It's real glee. Oh, I — you wouldn't be able — you wouldn't have to walk more than ten min­utes down the street in any city to run into a person who had glee of insanity plastered all over him. Well, now, exactly what he's into, can be synthesized by you, in any case.

Now, where you look at life, you find control of existing environment, forces, people, dynamics, self, so forth, or you don't find any! And where you don't find any you're going to get destruction! Because those forces that exist are suddenly operating unguided and that's destruction. Destruction, by and large, that you see in a social order such as this does not come about from some powerful thetan coming along and bopping out the street light. It comes from the man who repairs street lights here spinning one morning, "because I didn't feel too well." So, he's spinning and so forth and throws the wrong switch and it blows up the street light. Got the idea? It's a different look if you take it.

You — I'll just say, you want to know what a person feels like when they're — feel real insane about something or other: well, just get the idea that you must reach, you can't reach, must withdraw — can't withdraw. Either one. Just get the idea. Hold it firmly, and see. Must reach but can't reach. That's good enough. Must reach — can't reach, you know. Zzzzzz. He can actu­ally stack up his own beams and by his agreements that's the emotion that turns on when he stacks up his beams that way.

Now, where a person has been forced to have no control, where he has been forced by various opinions, fears, upsets, punishments, aberrated ideas, preachments, moral codes and God knows what else, to withhold or withdraw from his proper sphere of action, you have trouble. But the trouble is the withdrawal, not the public opinion. And the more he withdraws from his natu­ral sphere or proper zone of action, the more chaos is in it, so the more destruction occurs. It's as simple as that.

How can a person go into communication with anything when they're in that frame of mind, hm? How can they go into agreement, communication or have any reality on anything, when they're in that frame of mind with regard to it? Well, they can't!

Now, every thetan to some degree is working on an assist to make some-body else withdraw. They're supposed to withdraw to their proper perimeter, whatever that is. When every — everybody decides that other people should have some sort of a zone of action and shouldn't exceed it and they try exceeding that zone of action, why, they have a tendency to slap them back a little bit, you know.

And do you know, that all you read on the E-Meter is what is still visible to the pc, minus, maybe, a half a tone. You're reading the surface of the case with an E-Meter. You're not reading the fundamentals and depths of the case. You're reading on that E-Meter what the pc can still almost reach by himself. The E-Meter reaches it quicker and before the pc does but that's because the pc is already reaching it. Simple. But, that's all that thing is. You are not reading the depths of the case. They are totally out of view to the E-Meter, to the pc and everything else.

You got a friend and you come home one night and the friend is sitting in your favorite chair eating your bonbons, and that's just going a little bit too far, and you say, "You'd better replace the bonbons or go out and buy me some bonbons. And that's my chair." Well, he says, "Well that's fine." If he's sensible, however, he wouldn't have been sitting there eating the bonbons. He would have recognized your sphere of action. Got the idea?

And one fine day, you're going to get somebody down the jailhouse or something, that just got through killing a hundred and eighty-five cops or something or a general or some other criminal and you get this character on an E-Meter. And you know doggone well that he just committed some crime, see, some crime of magnitude. And you say, "Well, how do you feel about mur­dering the little baby and burning it on a bonfire?" and so forth.

But there is a lot of natural knock-back with which we could not live practically. See, there's a lot of this natural knock-back, you see. Drivers driving on the right side of the road and the left side of the road and so forth, and they want the other driver to drive on the right or the left side of the road, the proper side, and they snarl a little bit, you know.

And he says, "Well, I feel all right about it." And the E-Meter says he does, too. It's kind of "What little baby?" you know. He was in the middle of a dramatization. The dramatization is something he can't confront; therefore, something he can't communicate with; therefore, something that is totally out of view and it doesn't register on the E-Meter. You must register on the E-Meter what the person can almost control. See, a person can still communi­cate, still a little bit confront, still almost reach, then, that registers on the E-Meter.

Some fellow's got his headlights on full glaring, you know, and the next guy will blink his lights down two or three times to make him put his lights down. There's — there's quite a bit of co-discipline which is not reactive disci­pline at all. It is the discipline subject to social co-existence and there's a lot of it and it's not bad.

So, don't wonder when you all of a sudden get the head of the Commu­nist Left Wing Bureau of the New Age Nation, no, it's Nation, I think — Chief of the Nation Cell, and you say, "How do you feel about murdering babies?"

You get some super virile pioneer society sometimes; they take delight in forgetting all about manners or forgetting about this or forgetting about that, you know. Letting it all go by the boards, you see, because they say, "Well, that's not necessary."

He says, "I feel all right about murdering babies."

Well, the actual fact of it is, they're not really letting things go by the boards, they're so spread out that they don't particularly care if somebody else does inhabit more of a sphere, you see. And as soon as it starts to smooth out and as soon as people have various spheres of action and opera­tion and control pointed out, why, they start enforcing manners on one another. And it's kind of mutually agreed upon codes of conduct. "I live in my house. You live in your house." You know, that sort of thing. None of which is reactive.

"How do you feel about overrunning countries?"

But if a person is made to withdraw beyond that, he is made to abandon the sphere of action he should be controlling or commanding. He begins to believe that there are certain things he has done, or might do, or would do, that are bad enough so that he had just better withhold from any zone of action having anything to do with these things. That's what he begins to believe.

"I feel all right about overrunning countries."

And the more he withholds beyond that point, the more he destroys. What he does not control, unfortunately in the life we live, controls him. You back further out of your sphere of existence than you should and your sphere of existence controls you more than it should. A person who cannot destroy anything can be destroyed utterly.

"How do you feel about spreading disease?"

Now, the person who has the ability to destroy, doesn't, oddly enough. The person who has no responsibility for destruction, who does; they really start chopping up everything. No responsibility for destruction and you'll find destruction is going on total automatic with the person to such a degree, this person — all this person has to do is put his key in the door and the back door blows off. He doesn't even have to think about the furnace. He thinks about the roof and the furnace blows up! It just isn't holding together, that's all — in his vicinity. He's your 10 percent on the highway that account for 90 percent of the accidents. He's your very aberrated person.

"I feel all right about spreading disease."

You've all heard of the word "hypocrisy." And hypocrisy works like this: a fellow censures everything his fellows do on the second dynamic, and then does everything he censures on the second dynamic. You got it?

"How do you feel, all right, about hitting women over the head?" "I feel all right about hitting women over the head."

Well, when you're looking at somebody's going around screaming saying, "It's a terrible thing, but nobody should touch a young girl! A young girl should be innocent, and should remain pure, and should know nothing what­soever about the second dynamic."

Sure he does! He hasn't got the slightest recognition of anything you're talking about and the meter doesn't have any recognition of it either. And it just sits there — high tone arm — and it just sits there and he doesn't know anything about it and the meter doesn't know anything about it, nobody seems to know anything about it. And you say, "Well, where the devil did all this blood come from that keeps dripping off of his hands?"

And somebody's really insisting on this. Really pounding the table, pounding the pulpit, kicking the doors in about this subject. Man, about the first door he starts kicking in on this subject, I start thinking, "Son, what little girl did you rape!" Get the idea?

Well, I'll tell you where it came from. It came from a total automaticity he has nothing whatsoever to do with. That's where it came from. And that's why he's a criminal.

Audience: Yes.

A criminal is a person who's — can't do anything about anything. He can't work or any other darn thing. As far as he is concerned, he's totally surrounded with nonconfronts. Now, you, in your genius, have got to find something he can confront. And, of course, withholds are madly opposed in the direction line to confronting, aren't they?

They can get so twisted, they can get so twisted that they will only drama­tize their own withholds! And that's what we call hypocrisy. And unfortu­nately all their advices on these withholds are destructive! They have no con­structive advices on these withholds, they're all destructive. They have no real control over that zone and so they are very destructive. They have backed off the control. In such a case as this, this person has backed off any association with, or communication with young girls. So, on the subject of young girls he's on total automatic. He has no determinism over what he does on the subject of young girls. Nothing whatsoever. It's impossible for him to determine any action, he or anybody else makes, on the subject of young girls.

I mean, how the devil can he look out there when it's pouring in on him? Hm? Well, who's making it pour in on him? He is!

Now he becomes terrified of this so he tries to stop it in everybody else! Hoping, perhaps, they'd stop it in him. Hoping perhaps a guy like me will come along someday and say, "Son, who did you rape?"

And don't — don't wonder if you get somebody like the Left High Wing Commissioner of the Second Echelon Cellblock of Northeast Asia or some-thing of the sort, on the same thing and you just know he's been bumping off muzhiks and everything else, and washing his hands in the blood. Whatever it is, I don't care. And you find out what he considers a crime. It's sleeping without a pajama top. Now, that he'll drop on, he'll register on that. You could audit that. He'll have a lot of trouble with it, too. But you finally get it clean, as slick as a whistle.

And the guy says, "Ohhhhh. Well. All right if you must know. Such and such, and so-and-so, and name, rank and serial number and convent." And you've got an interesting phenomenon going on down in Australia at this moment, it's very interesting. You have a church which is hand-in-glove with the communist party. Now, how the dickens did these two outfits get hand-in-glove? I realize that early Christianity was basically communal but I didn't think they'd go that far. And you have the religious publications of the country printing the same press as the commie publications. I think this is fascinating, very fascinating. Unless both of them have something to hide which they hide mutually. I wouldn't say that they were in cahoots about any-thing, I think they just drifted together one way or the other.

Now, you can find now what he'd consider tough to confront. It'll be something a little bit bigger, little bit bigger, little bit bigger. And you're win­ning back a zone of responsibility: you're digging him out of a negative hole. See that?

This particular church organization, which is in Australia, by the way, is I — as far as I can find out is a separate organization from the one that we normally associate with those names, titles and symbols through the rest of the world. It's something worth looking into. But I wasn't even interested in looking into it until a couple of these hell-roaring, "You must not sins" were spotted by me not twelve, fourteen hours ago in a very hot cabaret. And I said, "Well, oh, ye hypocrites." Because these were the boys that were telling you, "You mustn't go around and hit the hot spots, see, and you mustn't do this and you mustn't do that." And there they were hitting the hot spots.

Audience: Yes.

Now, there is simply, no more, no less, than these people have taken less and less responsibility for the actual community and dramatize more and more irresponsibility, censure, so forth. They're going to make it all good, are they? Well, how are they going to make anything good that they can't control! Now you please tell me that.

And don't you get out of this course and let me catch you with the reverse fixed in mind; that the more crimes they have done the more they'll read on a meter. That's not true!

Most road safety groups throughout the world breed more accidents than they prevent. They don't take responsibility for automobile accidents! They don't at all, where they're unsuccessful. It'd only be where they're very successful that they would have taken responsibility for accidents but they really don't take responsibility for accidents. They advertise them and that's about it. They advertise, "You too can have an accident."

You get somebody who is jitter, jatter, jitter, jatter, slinbang, monkey, monkey, wham, wham, wham and reading all over the meter: he's not reading on the meter at all. It's just super slams. Got the idea?

You know where they — in states where they put up little white crosses alongside of a road, and they put these little white crosses up to show where a person has been killed, if they put up two they'll get three; if they've got three, they'll get four; and if they've got four, they'll get five at that exact place! Ah, but nobody was ever killed there be — it's been — road's been there for years but nobody was killed there until the first accident. Years went by, nobody was killed at that particular curve or straight spot or something of the sort, but a first accident occurred. After that, that's the place to die.

But, a fairly active needle, you say to this person, "Where were you the night of January 31st, 1789? Where were you?"

The thing that gets totally reactive in a society such as we have is destruction because nobody will take any responsibility for it. You tear down a building on the sly and the next thing you know you're talking to the bulls — pardon me, the coppers. And the coppers say to you, "Did you tear down that building?" Well, you know you'd better not say that you had tore down the build­ing, you see. The thing for you to do is to say, "No, I didn't tear down the building." Otherwise they'll put your body in the clink.

And you say, "What did you just think of?"

And oddly enough they are creating zones of irresponsibility and they are more responsible for the creation of the destruction and crime in the soci­ety than they prevent.

"I don't know. I get an idea of a brick house. Brick house. Yeah, I got an idea of a brick house. Yeah. Yeah, idea of a brick house. As a matter of fact, I got an idea of wide streets, and so forth. I think I was, I was — must have been standing on the steps of the Commandant of Artillery, in Paris. Yeah, it must have been because there's the artillery park. Yeah it must have been. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I got it now. I got it now."

I was an officer in the Los Angeles police at one time, a special officer; just to study this one fact. And as far as I could tell Los Angeles wouldn't have had a hundredth the crime if they had had no police. Now, that sounds real funny but it's true.

Well, you're looking at a case that's in awful good shape. That case is in real good shape. You can ask him immediately afterwards, "Which end of a smooth bore do you look into?" You ask him — he's not Clear, he's in good shape, see, you get a reaction. He'll get a little reaction on the thing. You say, "How fast can you drive a chariot in the streets immediately adjacent to Palatine Hill?"

These fellows would go around and find mild offenders that weren't doing much and tyrannize them and beat them! And drive them into some antisocial sphere of some kind or another and assist their withholds, you see. Drive them out of a zone of responsibility and leave a real criminal where-they only had a mild misdemeanor before.

"Not very fast." You get a reaction on it.

And I watched this time and time again. They had no concept of rehabili­tation of the man! All they could do was put him in a cell where he could be further withdrawn from the society than before. This was quite a mecha­nism. And the numbers of crimes have gone up accordingly in the United States.

Well, he's been pinched, you see? Two thousand years ago he was pinched, as practically, who wasn't.

It's almost as much as you're worth to hire an extra hundred police! Mm-hm. You'll get your crime rate going up. Now, your police would have to be an entirely different character than they used to have down in Los Ange­les. He would have to be a fellow who kept order and who assisted the keep­ing of order in various zones. That would be a policeman who was doing a job of policing. He wouldn't be somebody who was driving off and never really quite doing anything.

Now, here's your reaction. It'll react on almost any little thing like this, you know. Guy isn't Clear yet; he's just got a relatively free needle.

By the way, .1 can tell you from long, long, long, long experience with police work that there are only two methods of police work that are success­ful. One is absolute, outright violence. You never do detective work. Detective work, you skip that. You just have enough coppers scattered around that when a crime is committed, the criminal is caught with the loot in his hand, is hung up on the nearest telegraph pole, that's it — bang! Any crime of vio­lence that occurs in the society meets with instant and immediate execution.

Now, the guy whose needle just doesn't do anything or it just goes through a machine action no matter what you say, oh, you got a case on your hands! And your task is to get the faintest possible, any change at all, in that needle reaction. And when you got that change, audit it! That doesn't mean you found what was wrong with the case; that means you've got a superficial entrance. Got the idea?

It sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Well, it cuts down the criminal population until they pick up more bodies. But it does do this: it sets up examples at every side and it demonstrates immediate, thorough meaningfulness of law. Now, that's a bad one but it's a short stop sort of an action. That'd be better, probably, in a bad society than no police at all.

Now, in cases that are lying around in flinders and can't get nowhere for nothing, and so forth, there are many processes that you could jam them up on. But, "What could you confront? What would you dislike confronting?" see, that's a reach — withdraw; very often will assemble the case to a point where it will read. But has to be done by a very good auditor because that guy can plunge right in over his head.

Or the other one is, you take the guy and you rehabilitate him! Recog­nizing what he is — that he's a real sick hombre. And there's nothing in between those two points, not a thing. There's no way-stop.

Now, the facts are these: the tougher a needle reads, the harder it is to read the pc; the slipperier it is to get a reaction, the more careful you have to be about stacking that pc up in anything because he can't get out of what he gets into.

You grab the criminal by the nape of the neck and you give him instant and immediate rehabilitation, holding him out of the society while you reha­bilitate him. That's it. That works. But who the devil could do that till we came along? Nobody could do that. So it's asking too much of man and that just left violence.

The only cases you'll get into trouble with is — take some case that's mov­ing on a slow stage four needle and you talk about grinding babies to dust and throwing them into furnaces or any other darn thing that you could think of at the moment. And, you don't get any change whatsoever. He says, "Well, that's right, you could cha — and throw babies into furnaces, and so forth. Yes, I .. " so on.

If you're going to have police work at all, then it had to be expressed totally in violence and it had to be on the spot and you didn't have courts that dragged on for a year or two, and you didn't have this, and you didn't have that. And detectives that would come around sniffing at your heels all the time, and so forth — all this namby-pamby middle ground sort of action. Man's a criminal, you hang him. Bang! Criminal population drops awfully rapidly. They emigrate. They take it on the lam.

And you'd say, "Well, how about somebody coming along and taking your wallet out of your pocket and throwing the pound notes all over the street?"

That'd be about the only kind of police you could have. You couldn't have police who stand around nicely, as far as the public is concerned, and beat criminals up for not doing anything and tyrannize and monkey around and fool around and pick up a guy because he's standing on a street corner, take him down to the station house for interrogation and then finally bring him back four or five hours later to the street corner, you know, and you and yah-yah.

"Ah, yeah, I guess somebody could do that." You know, no reaction what­soever and so on.

This is police work? Oh, no, no, no, no. The cop isn't really taking any course which is consistent with the requirements of public safety. And that's what police work is. You just say, "Well, police work, if it's effective, is consis­tent with the requirements of public safety." And you don't go around — you don't go around policing whether or not somebody paid their sales tax in the chemists or something, you know, I mean, big crimes these guys tackle.

Well, you happen to know — you happen to know for fair that he's been tagged with a parking ticket or something of the sort that day and you say, "How about the parking ticket?"

The less responsibility police take for their zone, the city, of law and order, the more crime occurs. The less responsibility, the more crime occurs. Because all they are there as is an antagonistic point. They're something who keeps people antagonized, keeps people withheld, keeps people withdrawn, nobody can ever open up, nobody ever can reach out and take any authority over their zones of action, you see, "because somebody might find out." And you get a machine-made society after a while which is — actually goes into real chaos.

Bless you! You may be able to get a reaction on the parking ticket. Well, if that's the case, that's what you audit. And you can just go, phewww! when you finally take one of these cases and find him dropping on something sim­ple and elementary like this, you know.

And life is life! And that's all it is! And so help me Pete, you'd better realize it. Now, I'm talking to you. Straight at you. The pc who is sitting in that chair is not bad or good. He is responsible or irresponsible. And he's irresponsible to the degree that he is withholding madly on his various areas and zones of responsibility.

Then, take more care in flattening that out than you take in clearing some other person! You hear me?

And if you set yourself up as some kind of a justiciary, adjudicating along the lines of some ancient moral code as to what you should look for or shouldn't look for, what you should feel tsk-tsk-tsk about, and so forth; as an auditor you're going to fail because you will only be looking for what you consider a breach of moral codes or what you can tolerate to look at.

Audience: Yes.

Now, the reason people get into the state they get into on withdrawals and so forth is there's something they can't confront, and the degree they can't confront brings about a degree of automatic destruction. Those things they cannot confront start running on automatic.

Oh, man, just — just careful, you know. Get every command in right, you know. Make sure you got the tone arm down before you audit him, you know and make sure the commands are all correct. And make sure that the proc­ess that you are running is administered constantly and it comes to a perfect flat spot, and that it's sitting just right, and that it's all finished up. You got it made. You got it made with that case.

Moral codes are brought about as a single statement:

And the reason you find tough cases is, is sometimes you have the idea that a tough case would register on everything on the track or is conscious of all sorts of crimes and so forth; whereas a matter of fact the tough case is conscious of nothing. Get the idea? Tough case is just, you know, floating out here in this limbo, ha-ha, has nothing to do with me, ha-ha!

"Thou shalt not kill."

I had a case one time, I could reach over and slap the case in the cheek. No reaction on the meter! I mean, I wasn't being brutal, particularly. I found it out one day — the case was trying to fall off the chair, somehow or another, sleepy or something, I patted the case back up by touching its face. There's no read there.

"Thou shalt not confront death."

Case said, "What you doing?"

"Thou shalt not steal."

"Oh," I said, "I'm just testing the meter."

"Thou shalt not confront goods which are procured in an irregular fashion."

Man, that case was stone-cold dead in the market. That's why I hadn't gotten anyplace with the case.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

I could evidently sit there and become the circuit of his thinkingness. And then if I thought something, he'd think something. He'd just go into a total mental rapport. See? If I thought something, he'd think something. Oh, I could have sat there, you know, and just audited this and audited that — just self-auditing was all I'd been doing.

A very interesting point to you, by the way, because most marriages go up in smoke because people cannot confront a couple. And if you want to solve a marriage, get somebody up to a point where he can confront couples and you'll find a marriage will go — very simple. It's a one-shot panacea and a very important technical point.

Aaah, I rolled up my sleeves; I said, "Here's a tough one!"

But where a person cannot confront a couple, he's always obsessively being snapped into being a couple in adultery or some such way or getting married to the wrong girl or the wrong guy. You see this? That which they cannot or will not confront — wind up with those things into which they get interiorized!

And I found something tiny enough and insignificant enough — the person — the person actually to confront. And, I got the person to confront it and the person screamed for about an hour and a half. I did get something to register on the meter totally independent of anything I was doing. And the person screamed and screamed and screamed and screamed and screamed and I kept — didn't get an answer to the auditing command, I just asked the auditing command, you know, and the person screamed some more; the scream would die out.

Ah, then, then, wouldn't it be true that the postulates which were made by people, the postulates which were made by people to the effect that they could not or would not confront such and such an act in somebody else, or somebody else doing such and such a thing; now, did they not open up the gate on themselves to become sinners? Isn't that true?

I'd say, "I'll now repeat the auditing command," I'd get a new scream.

They said, "I won't confront this!" Therefore, they said, "I won't commu­nicate with this." Therefore, they said, "I'm not going to control this zone and area." Ah-ha!

That person's a real psycho. You won't get many of those. That was a catatonic (actual designating term) sitting at a fixed 0.1 on the Tone Scale, just a tiny bit above death. Tone arm reading actually, in your modern meter, would have been reading in the bottom of the black area there, just above six. Real dead!

And what do you think you're doing as an auditor when you suddenly miss some terrific overt on the part of the pc and fail to get this pc sorted out and the tone arm down where it belongs? What are you doing but refusing to confront! Crime, sin. And of course what is crime and sin but refusing to confront.

But apparently, what I was intrigued with, is a lot of people had audited the case, you see, and nobody had ever done anything. Well, that's right; because the case would just go rapport with the auditor and do whatever the auditor did, and so on. And the auditor was just kind of reading himself on the meter, you know, machine case sort of a thing.

And you're going to go ahead and Q-and-A with this?

Now, I could have handled that case a lot gentler if I'd had the informa­tion of the ensuing years, don't you see? These beautiful six-foot rearview mirrors, you know, have a little tiny peephole in front. And you look in that little peephole, you know, and you can't see very much out ahead; but you sit back and look at that great big rearview, you know. Man, in the past, you can recognize!

If you stayed in that state of mind and if I got a sixpence for every one you missed, I could make a mighty — mighty nice dam down here in the Yarra River. If you stay in that frame of mind.

So, anyhow, I would have busted the person's tone arm down by getting him to accept, repetitively, responsibility for various items in the environ­ment, one way or the other, until I'd finally brought the tone arm down. Not necessarily made him cough up with overts and gotten dramatic about it in any particular fashion; just gotten the person into two-way comm and proba­bly the person would have, well, probably would have audited almost as a usual case, if I'd done that.

That there are certain things which you will not tolerate, that you will not confront, that you will not look at; you in sitting in front of a preclear are going to refuse to look for them in the pc! And if you're going to refuse to look for them in the pc, you're going to miss every single overt that comes up to your notice that is on your buttons!

Most of your (quote) "stage four needles" are inverted needles. Which is to say, they are reading here and when you clear them up, they go up. The tone arm goes up and then comes down again. They're reading down here and it's something else that's reading on the meter. They're not reading on the meter. You're reading some subdivision of the case. Now, you can't expect anybody to take any responsibility for the zone of environment who's reading like that.

So, you better get rid of those buttons. I'd be ashamed if there was one student left here who hadn't been shaken down on overts. But if there is one, it's because the student has an overt which he's withholding that the auditor has totally agreed is a "he won't confront it."

The rehabilitation of communication is just in the end goal of somebody trying to reach or attain some limit of their perimeter and exert some control in this particular area. Now, a lot of you have an idea that you should audit out diseases. Well, it's not necessary to audit out a disease.

The auditor says, "I'm not going to confront adultery. I just will not con-front adultery. After all, for seventeen hundred and ninety-five years I was a monk and I — here I am still with a tail. And therefore, I'm not going to con-front adultery!" So, the subject of adultery sort of comes up in this session, you know, and the auditor goes, "Tsk-tsk-tsk. Well, let's get onto something more interesting now. Have you ever punished any dogs?"

"From where could you communicate to the cancer?" is unworkable.

You got this? This is a total dive! This is a — an avoid!

If the person's got a cancer in the arm, "From where could you communi­cate to an arm?" is workable.

Now, look, life is life! Life is. It is what it is! It can be a lot of phony morals, it can be a lot of phony immoralities. Where it slips is where it slips from an optimum solution: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. That's where life slips. Nonoptimum conduct. But you start looking at a much broader definition of optimum conduct such as the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and you're going to get yourself into a fantastically different view on moral codes and what you shouldn't confront! You'll have an entirely different idea of it. That's why moral codes could be so slippery and change from continent to continent and city to city, all over the world.

Well, that's something you'd better look at. That's something you really better know!

There isn't anything on Earth, a sin in one district that cannot be found somewhere else on Earth to be a virtue. And that sounds pretty wild, and I am quoting, I think, Frazer. But where the thing is figured out on an optimum solution, whereby it's adjudicated on an optimum solution — the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics — you have a fairly reliable yardstick of conduct. But this should not prevent you from confronting departures from it.

The reason medicine is failing is because it addresses itself to diseases! The reason psychiatry fails is because it's addressing itself to neurosis and insani­ties! And where you'll win, you will simply address the environment, not some supersignificant adjectivial counterpart thereof. You address terminals!

And it certainly means that as an auditor, you'd better be in a frame of mind that you are capable of confronting any kind of sin. Otherwise, I'll let you in on something, one of these days you'll find yourself — flip! And you'll say, "Well, I don't know what got into me — fellow was standing there and I shot him. Hm! Wonder why?"

Now, all disease is, is the chaos which ensues the cessation of control. It could be stated much more simply. Where control has been dropped, disease will ensue. Disease is simply a chaos which follows the loss of control (com­munication, of course) and so on.

It's because you can't confront a shot man, of course. You can't confront shooting a man. And if you can't confront shooting a man to such a degree, it becomes a terrible compulsion to shoot a man.

Now, let's take a natural wood that's been sitting there for a long, long, long, long time. And the oak trees are growing and everything is going along just fine, and so on, and the forester takes his attention off of it and nothing much happens. And the forester comes back and puts his attention on it, well, nothing much happens. About the only thing it accumulates when he takes his attention off it, a little brush starts accumulating one way or the other. Limbs blowing off trees or something. Well, it's a long-term growing thing so you really don't notice that woods. really require control — or zone areas.

Now, naturally, if you're very young, or very old, or in some beingness that doesn't normally command or control firearms or weapons of one kind or another, it's fairly easy to avoid shooting a man. One fine day you'll find yourself standing there with a smoking pistol in your hands and somebody's dead.

California used to be cared for by the Indian. And the Indian squaws used to go out every autumn and burn all of the forests. And they'd start little low brushfires of all of the leaves, and so forth, and they would sweep through there and they would never injure the trees or touch them particu­larly; and, then, all the grass and everything would grow back up again and the forests were all clean, you got no forest fires or anything.

And you'd say just exactly what they all say to the police! Is, "I don't know what happened! I don't know why I did it." Only you'd be lying in your teeth. If you did something like that, you did it because you never were able to confront it. That's crime.

And since they exterminated the savage redskin who has nothing to do with anything, you know, and had no part in the American economy; they have nothing but brushfires from Pasadena straight up to Santa Monica and beyond the north and beyond to the south and they lose thousands of this and of — even a forestry man the other day started a six hundred and eighty-four thousand dollar fire that swept over the area for a long time.

Crime is the unconfronted circumstances which result in violence and destruction on the dynamics. And that's crime.

They can't control the fires. That's because nobody controls the woods. There's nobody doing anything about the woods. Nobody does anything about the growth. They just — it just grows up into horrible secondary, it's not planned, there's no control over the area at all. But it was a controlled area which is not now controlled and is just giving everybody hell. See, it's the watershed. Up in the mountains, if there isn't brush in the mountains, they get floods in Los Angeles. And yet, there is no real forestry control of the area. It was cared for and isn't cared for, now it's trouble.

Now your zones of responsibility — I'm not saying you're all festered up with tremendous oppressions and impulses that are someday going to over-master you, because you're going to get Clear.

That's a wood. Now, let's take a formal garden. And it's all been planted up and was beautifully kept and they were a half a dozen gardeners working around there and, oh man, all the boxwood and all the privet hedges and all of this — oh man, just — just chopped, you know, each leaf, you know, squared around and so on, wow! You get along with a watering can full of salt water, you know, and a board and go down all the paths and make sure nothing, no weeds ever grow in the path. Constant continuous care. Leave it go for one year. Man, you never saw such desolation in your life; it's ten times as deso­lated as something that's — was never cared for. It's really — really desolate.

I am saying very definitely that you can lay a terrible Kiwi egg with this one. Fantastic, you can lay a big one. And that's just this way: you can say, "Well, let's see, what crimes are they that the preclear could have committed? What withholds could there be? Well, let's see, the one I can confront is steal­ing toothpicks from restaurants. Let's see if he stole any toothpicks from res­taurants? Ah! All right."

Now, the oddity is is the cedar starts to get diseased. The this, the that, and so forth, you start to get disease. But the gardeners weren't doing any-thing about disease!

"Did you steal any toothpicks from restaurants?"

Of course, they have a good joke at Saint Hill, right now. I'm doing a terrific amount of experimentation about world food production and that sort of thing. Very interesting work. It's sufficiently spectacular that a lot of press, and so forth, has come in on it. And one of the factors which has turned up is — Suzie brought up — I've been explaining to everybody very pro­fessorially; I've located and isolated the factors which regulate growth and make growth possible and accelerate it, you see. And there's something on the order of minerals, water, humidity in the air, things of that sort, and all these things are monitored by shock and so on. And Suzie maintains there's a sixth element, and the reason this corn keeps growing up — they're sixteen feet in the air when it shouldn't be, you know, and tomatoes get fifteen pounds per vine and all this sort of thing, and this is the "Ron factor."

Needle doesn't wiggle. You could say, "I haven't — haven't a clue why the tone arm won't come down! Because all the crime that I can confront has already been exhausted on the pc." You see how that would be?

And I'm not guilty. But anyhow, the funny part of it is that it becomes peculiarly manifest in this area: that as long as there's tremendous interest in an experimental bench, and as long as it's being totally cared for, nothing happens to it. See, it grows, no disease, nothing much happens. And the sec­ond we start taking our attention off it and going on to something else, the lack of care which it gets, results almost immediately, in disease, wilt, blight and all the rest of that. It's fantastic.

Audience: Yes.

All disease is a symptom of failure of communication. And what is called bugs, insects, blight, bacteria, malformations of form, mishmashes of one kind or another — these things are simply — come under the heading of things that occur with chaos. See, these are forces which are left unmanaged, uncontrolled, unassisted, and in smashing together, one way or the other, result in misalignments of growth, misalignments of form, misalignments of this, misalignments of that.

Now, of course, we have some hardened old sinners amongst us who have done it all and been through it all, and that sort of thing, but they'll still find a few things they can't confront. And those are the exact ones they'll miss on the pc. It'll just never occur to them to run them.

Take Saint Hill itself. It's been there since 1733. Its oak paneling is the same as the day it was built. It's built out of sandstone. Nothing could be built out of sandstone and stand that long. It's built out of Sussex sandstone. Well, the trouble with the place — the place really never suffered any damage to amount to anything until the person we got it from, and so forth, tore all the furniture out of it and sold it and that bashed it in the head just a slight little bit.

Those aberrations that can react on the person are really out of sight. Man they are out of sight! They are not-ised to nowhere! And if they're that out of sight with the pc, you see, the pc doesn't know either, half the time, most of the time, he don't know what's bothering him — usually tells you the wrong thing.

But, I'm only the sixth person who has owned it since 1733. In other words, it's been cared for that whole span of time. It's rather fantastic when you come to think about it; counting as a person, the first family that owned it, you see. It's fantastic.

As a matter of fact Scientologists have gotten this one down so well, that they all — suddenly find some Scientologist who has had something halfway run out, he knows that's what's wrong with him, and he says, "That is what's wrong with me and it was half run out."

The place is — however, has for a long time gone without much grounds planning and that sort of thing. And ten or fifteen gardeners would be neces­sary to keep up every little flower patch, and so forth, that people misplanted around the place and we're having to relandscape it slightly just to make it possible to care for it. But it could be planned so that it could be cared for at that much less effort. But the point is, that where the area is under control and so on, why, it's just going along beautifully.

And the fellow says, "Well, it can't be what's wrong with him because he knows about it!" Well, sure he knows about it, it's half run out.

But I get somebody on who can't control his own area, like an electrician or something like that comes on staff — God, all of a sudden he's around drill­ing holes in the oak and having a time, you know! Rrraharr.

But like Dick's bullfighter,* "Bullfighters? Take bullfighters? Leave them alone. Take bulls, leave them alone. What's a bull? What's a bull? Muuuh! Get this scratchy spot in the middle of my back here where the banderilla stick in. What's a banderilla? Wonder what this scratchy spot is."

I didn't play around with one set of telephone men who came in and started to string white lines across oak paneling, you know. I didn't Q-and-A with them, I just called the manager and told him to come down at once. And he came down thinking they'd set the house on fire and I said, "Look. There's a hole bored through an oak beam."

No, he didn't know anything about bullfighters!

God, after that they were stringing things, you know, and they were hanging a line up very carefully, you know, and making sure that none of the oak got hurt and so on.

And as far as sin is concerned, as far as sin is concerned, the horrible truth of the matter is there isn't one in the book each and every one of you hasn't committed a thousand times!

These guys run on terrific automaticity, super irresponsibility, you know, and they come into the place and say, "Well, I don't know, all this structure!" You know: spin, spin, spin, spin, spin; put the hammer and nails, you know, through everything, holes in the stone. It's fantastic to watch some of those guys that come aboard. But, they are, each and every one of them who do that sort of thing, a fantastically bad-off case. And I've gotten quite inter­ested in comparing their actions around Saint Hill with their cases. You know, what they were — what they're doing to MEST, in comparison to their cases. Well, now, the better off their cases are the more they do to MEST. But, the worse off their cases are; the more happens to MEST. You get the differ­ence? Very subtle difference there. But you can trace this right back through their lives and the dynamics and so forth. It's quite interesting.

When you ask a pc, "You stolen any toothpicks in a restaurant?" you've got your nerve saying you've exhausted your basic knowledge of sin!

One electrician came to work to do some electrical work out in the glass-houses, and so forth. We've been growing things under lights and having a ball — and studying various colors of lights and their effects on growth and so on. And this fellow came along out there and the next thing you know every-body was around helping him, so he had everybody off post, you know? Only trouble is, everything he'd get everybody off post for had already been explained to him four times, you see.

And some other of you have got the idea that all sins exist on the second. Sin is something that happens on the second. Well, I'll guarantee you that people who believe exclusively that all sin is on the second don't give a damn how much havoc they commit on the third. Ever think about it from that standpoint?

Well, course, we tied this guy in a sack and dropped him in the lake — not quite that bad but pretty close. I found out it was the fourth job he'd had in two months; had had two severe automobile accidents in the last three months; his family was in ruins around him. Really, aside from his automo­biles, every piece of MEST near him had practically cracked up. In other words, everybody expected him to control various zones and areas, and no control was operating in those zones and areas. This doesn't leave a devil standing out; it just means that this guy is making motions in various direc­tions but they don't add up to anything and the motions he makes don't ever control anything. So you just get a mishmash of smash.

• [Editor's note: Reference to the lecture "The Rule of the Weak Valence" on page 89 in part 1 of this series.]

And this is disease, decay, all of these various things, destruction, and so forth — is the consequence of not holding form in line; not holding the chan­nels, the forces there. All of a sudden you just stop holding these things there and there's still some forces slopping over and they start going zingzong, zingzong, zingzong. This is not force or strength, you see.

Audience: No.

That's what you see in these pcs. So, the more the tone arm reads, the more flinders are going on, mentally; the more bits and pieces, bric-a-brac and nonsense is happening, don't you see? Now, the more random the spots are in this fellow's area, the higher that tone arm will read, the greater den­sity is expressed in the bank because the forces are all out of channel. Noth­ing is adding up to anything. Got that?

Very funny. Very funny, it's quite remarkable. But the thing the pc is obsessively withholding hardest, he kind of knows about and it would blow into view if he were asked about it but he has to be asked. It has to be looked over.

And that, therefore, is degree of irresponsibility. And the degree of irre­sponsibility is what you read on the tone arm. Now, a person has as much bank, as he's irresponsible for bank. He has as much bank as he hasn't con-fronted.

And if you as the auditor can't confront it, and if you as the auditor have omitted it from your roster and curricula of confrontable items, you're not going to find it in the pc. You're just not going to find it. You're just not going to get the tone arm down, that's all.

Now you think at once that "What — what destruction could you be responsible for?" would be the immediate answer. Well, it's one of these trick processes and sometimes you can get away with it a little bit and sometimes it's very tricky, and so on. It's something you could hunt and punch with. There's nothing to count with in a long time. You'll all of a sudden get a tremendous resurgence from a case for just a minute or two by — he's in the valence of some ally. And let's say the ally is — is Aunt Whisker. And Aunt Whisker is, to him — well, he's just having an awful time. You're running sim­ilarities and differences or overt-withhold or some darn fool thing here, you're getting a reach and withdraw done on Aunt Whisker, anyway, of one kind or another. And you ask him, "Well, what part of Aunt Whisker would you take responsibility for destroying?" You know?

So, I'm not asking you to be wise particularly. I'm not asking you to be smart. I'm not asking you to do anything in the world but be just a little less pretending. Don't pretend so hard that you don't know all the crimes in the book because you do, you do. And you know all the good things in the book, too. And we're not specializing in the crimes of the book in auditing, we're trying to rehabilitate the responsibility for the control of the environment in the individual. We're trying to raise his ability, himself, to confront actions and reactions across the boards. And if we do that, we've got it made. Won­derful state of affairs if we can do that.

And he'll say, "Burrrrr-brooom-zing-brrrrunk-Christ-mmmmm-murderkill-raaaarrrr-uuuuummm — wonderful!"

But I'm telling you that as many as you forcefully, willfully occlude; as many halos as you polish up and put on your head and say you've never done anything like that, so how could you know anything like that — don't give me that. Don't give me that. You might have them right — have them right on the tip of your tongue.

And then the case collapses. Because there's no such thing, you see, as the negative side of this thing.

The pc is not under your trial. The pc is under your confidence. It is not up to you to knock his anchor points back and make him withhold harder. No, it's up to you to pull them out so that he himself doesn't do these things.

Now, he'll get to that, sooner or later on just, "Confront Aunt Whisker." See, the reach and withdraw is confront — not-confront, you know. He'll get to that anyhow. And you run this responsible angle, "What destruction of Aunt Whisker could you be responsible for?" and you get an immediate little result. It's a little patch-up sort of result. But it's not anything to brag about, but it's something you could use. It's one of these things that you could use but it's not there for the long haul. That's all I'm telling you. It's kind of spectacular.

It's a horrible thing — it's a horrible thing to realize that most downward spirals start with the most wonderful intentions you ever heard of.

"Think of destroying something. Think of not destroying something. Think of destroying something. Think of not destroying something," will wind any case up in the sack. It's just not a true process because there's no such thing as destruction. There's counter-creation, see.

One night I stood alongside of a murderer. I was fortunately hanging around the police station. And they brought in the body of this woman and he was just standing there. The cop said to him, "Well, how did it all start?"

So, you run create, that restimulates the counter-creates and the counter-creates stack up the bank and you've got all the flinders and bits and bric-a-brac scattered around. So, that better be confronted. You get that con-fronted, and so on, why, destruction isn't there to exist, see. But, you some-times get little resurgences in the bank, and so forth, that's worth knowing and occasionally worth doing something about. It's kind of spectacular — wakes the preclear up. But it's not there for any long haul.

And the guy thought about it for a moment and he said, "Well," he said, "years and years ago," he said, "I tried to make her happy and I guess I never managed it."

Now, the ultimate in destructive reaching is to kill. Isn't it?

His intentions were just going astray, going astray and pretty soon that much failure wound this woman up in a total automaticity which sprung in some old automaticity and one day, bang, she was dead. And he didn't know how it happened other than that. But that was his single explanation.

Audience: Yeah.

It's rather remarkable that it's the failure to understand the other fellow which got us all in any mess we're in right now. The failure to understand the other fellow. To really understand what he was all about. Or to have a wider, tolerant view of what he was all about or to understand what he was getting at or what he was composed of.

That would be it. So, there's an ultimate in withholding, which I don't think you've ever looked at. And you may have to get a case to look at this some-day. So you better mark this one down. There is an ultimate in withholding. Sort of an amusing thing. I mean, it's kind of hideous to look at, if you want to. But what you're guilty — most guilty of withholding is your own death. That's what you personally are most guilty of withholding, is your own death.

Now, it was that failure all by itself which wound anybody up on the line. Because if you'd understood what he was all about, you wouldn't have misestimated here and there to that degree and made yourself stack up a lot of overts and so on.

Oh, you're mixed up in a war and you kill somebody and then you didn't die. Right? Well, tit for tat, that's certainly a noncommunicative, nonduplica­tion, isn't it? Hm? You're a cheat!

Now, I'm going to tell you later on what the primary withhold is today. Right now we're not so much interested in that.

Here are people storming all over the place, screaming for your blood and saying, "Die, die, die, die, die," apparently, you know. "Kill him off and he's got too much perimeter and slaughter him, murder him." And what do you do? You refuse to die. Don't you realize that's an overt? That is. It's not a joke, it's an overt — it's an overt act.

What we are very interested in, very interested in is for you to broaden your view and your judgment of life. To broaden your tolerance and to broaden the number of things which occur in life that you can confront.

And you know, you've been cheating on this for seventy-six trillion years. You just cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat. You drop a body, let it splatter all over the ground. Looks awful dead. Everybody comes along and says, "Look, he's dead." And you go back off and you say, "Yep, he sure is."

And when some pc gives you a confidence or says he has transgressed, for you to be effective not punitive. Because, just remember what I tell you, you might not be remembering it right now but somewhere back on that seventy-six trillion years, you've done it, whatever he said, you've done it.

But, you're not dead! And that is the basic occlusion, apparently, on the whole track — is your withheld death results in occluding the life you've lived. Because there was never a death you died that you clearly, cleanly and on your own volition and behalf, declared it so, and made it happen.

Now, if I don't think I'm Christ, you've got no business thinking you are either.

It's quite astonishing to run somebody on this — or has anything to do with this. And it's one allowable place where destruction can be used in an auditing command. I won't tell you the perfect way to run this. (Probably hasn't been developed.) But, the basis of it is, it would just be a "think" proc­ess, you know. "Think of killing somebody. Think of withholding your own death. Think of killing somebody. Think of withholding your own death. Think of killing somebody. Think of withholding your own death." And all of these death engrams we've been monkeying with, for years, fly off.

This is basically all this amounts to.

That's why death engrams stay in, why they're so available on the track. So, if we've done nothing else, we've certainly whipped that one.

Life is! And all we're trying to do is ask you to confront what is. And if

That is not the perfect command. That is the theoretical command, you see. "Think of killing somebody," you know. "Think of withholding your own death." And you get off all those nonduplicative spots on the track where you were so shortsighted and so — so selfish as not to die. Because that's the one thing, of course, you can't do and that's the big joke. That's the big joke that's the terrible tragedy.

you look at what is and bring into existence what is, you will have a lot more is than you've ever had before, both in your preclear and yourself. Thank you.

A civilization is traceable to the degree that it makes you stay alive. In other words, your livingness becomes other-determined and your dyingness is never self-determined, you see. Where your dyingness is never self-determined then this hideous fact gets held: that you were the person who determines your own destruction. So, of course, you can go around destroying yourself and anything else you can think of. This is old age, this is anything else, it's just "withheld own death" — which is an interesting piece of mechanism.

But whatever that is, let's not lose sight of the fact that this is just another form of overt-withhold, of reach and withdraw. And overt-withhold is simply another version of reach and withdraw. And what you're basically trying to do is to get reach and withdraw solved on a case. That, you must never lose sight of.

And as far as disease and so forth is concerned: it is only necessary to put the thetan who should be in control of a certain zone of mock-ups, back into control of that zone of mock-ups and you get a cessation of disease. You don't cure diseases. What you do is restore communication.

Disease is a result of the chaos which ensues on cessation of communica­tion. Now, we don't care whether they're caused by bugs or whether biologists can see them or — no, aw, we're not interested. We're not interested in the mechanisms by which they happen unless that does promote us, at least, into the zone.

But, the funny part of it is, you go into communication with the disease; every time, you'll lose the terminal. You process the disease; you don't get the terminal. The disease won't go away and stay away. You can process the dis­ease out, yes, but the disease will not go away and stay away, stably from them then; unless you get the terminal in a shape that it can be thoroughly reached and withdrawn from by the individual.

So, that there isn't a person alive today who has a totally well body, unless he can reach it freely on his own decision and withdraw from it freely on his own decision. Unless he can do that his body is susceptible to illness, old age and so forth.

And by withholding his own death he eventually causes his own death. And causing his own death he has to go and pick up another body and it's all worked out in some weird cycle of action that goes on and on and on.

And, of course, this would be a dirty trick on people: to go ahead, get situated in life, have everything taped, going along pretty well, and then get younger and younger and then go on and live and live and on and on and on. Wouldn't that be a dirty trick?

Everybody says that sooner or later, why, the world would get overpopu­lated. I'd like to know who'd overpopulate it. We're all here.

Okay. So the basis of anything you want that would demonstrate any workability in Scientology, would be based — no matter what its significances are — would be based totally on reach and withdraw. There's no other signifi­cances along the line until you get into postulates. And that's the basis of making a postulate stick, confronting a postulate and making postulates cease to exist. And that solves the zone and area of postulates. But, again, that's a sort of a reach and withdraw of postulates, isn't it? Of course, postu­lates, however, don't depend on space so that is actually a misnomer.

And that's actually the extent of what you're learning to do. And if you become much wiser than you are right now, then, all the complications of it will more or less fall away and you won't be looking for the light. You'll be looking at one. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

Okay. Thank you.