Thank you.

Thank you. I'm glad you're here. In fact, thank you for being here.

Well, you know, a lot of people have been talking about my plant research. I'd just like to tell you something about plant research.

We're actually now in the embarrassing position of being smaller in the United Kingdom than we are in Australia and being a smaller organization in the United Kingdom than we are in South Africa. We, of course, are not smaller than we are in the United States in the United Kingdom, but I decided that we better have a program for the United Kingdom. I decided that would be an awfully good idea if we had a program for the United Kingdom.

In view of the fact that it's hit the press of the world, round and round and round, and much to the dismay of the most learned, great, pompous-uhm, excuse me — scientific societies in the United States, appeared as a lead in This Week magazine in the United States, at least one of the items was, which caused a scientific society to just get down and gnaw the rug because they have a philosophy. And that is if anybody creates anything, he's supposed to take full irresponsibility for it at once, and turn it over to the government or turn it over to a corporation, and immediately run away, and so forth. That's how we got the atom bomb.

Not that there's anything wrong with the United Kingdom except we've become complacent. We've been going for a very long time, and we are now on the treadmill grind. And you know, that's sort of, "That's the way it is."

A bunch of guys that should have known better said, "Well, here it is. We don't care what you do with it. It's all right with us. Go ahead and bomb the world with it." And we got an atom bomb, leaving the rest of us with the problem of how do you handle their irresponsibility. Well, we'll handle it — we'll fool them.

Well, that isn't the way it is. You can't hold a level without falling off. You've either got to go up or go down. And so, we have two programs for the United Kingdom.

Scientific irresponsibility is — of course, pays big money in some quarters and gives lots of power into the wrong hands.

One's a Special Zone Plan about which you know a great deal and about which a great deal more could be said. I, however, do not consider that program number 1 for the United Kingdom. Program number 1 for the United Kingdom starts at 7:30 tomorrow morning at the Charing Cross–Embankment Underground where the bus leaves for Saint Hill. That's when that program starts.

Well, anyway, this society was really gibbering. "You know, for years we've tried to tell everybody Hubbard is no good, and here everybody goes ... urrhh . . . here he is again. Well, what are we going to do? What are we going to do?" So I wrote and told them what they could do.

Now, you may think this is just an effort to fill up an ACC or to get somebody in, and so forth. But look-a-here, you've had two only mediumly successful ACCs in the United Kingdom in the distant past — only two. And they didn't turn out the percentages that they should have in terms of Clear or anything else. You understand?

But plant research is apparently of great, great interest, great interest. Doesn't matter whether it's over in Europe or South Africa or Australia or anyplace. I mean stories keep occurring on this. "A scientist does so-and-so," you see? And so on.

So that's why about 24 or 36 hours ago (you ought to be part of the organization; if you are, you know how dizzy things can get) I suddenly decided with a crash that this had gone far enough, and the best thing we could possibly do for the United Kingdom — not that anybody is worried about it — but if something remains that static, it'll as-is. (Joke.)

And I've had the compliment of being copied by the University of Texas on this stuff. The University of Texas came up with some of my experiments and got the wrong answers. I've been laughing ever since. There's light experiments — light experiments. And they have determined quite erroneously that it's red light which is best.

Now, much to the horror of HCO Worldwide and HCO London, and with a little minor gulp in HASI London, I said, "Well, I'm going to sit on this ACC tight." And I said, "This one I'm going to teach personal for the United Kingdom, and I'm going to turn out at the other end nothing but Clears, 100 percent. I'm bored with this business of sitting around patty-caking," and so forth.

Now, I ran the experiment over and over and over and over and over. It isn't, it's yellow light that's best, but they ran it once and put more fertilizer in one pot, so they got the wrong result.

Now look, if you had twenty-five–thirty-five Clears in the United Kingdom, it would make one fantastic lot of difference, wouldn't it? Hm? And if you had twenty-five or thirty-five people in the United Kingdom, each one of whom could be absolutely trusted to sit down in front of a pc and dear the pc, what do you think that'd do to the United Kingdom?

Well, I couldn't care less about plants. It's fun. It's fun. You put a seed in the pot, and it comes up and grows. That's fun. But as far as research on the matter, they've had a grip on this for some time. I mean you've seen plants and fruit and flowers and things in the stores, haven't you? So they can grow plants, there's no problem about this.

Well, to get any kind of a splash, you see, you have to grow them six times as big and twice as fast or something like this, you know, superlatives.

In the first place it's not very hard to clear anybody. It's not difficult to clear people, not now. The operating climate is changed. It has been changed here now in the United Kingdom for not more than seven or eight weeks, but it has changed. Definitely. Because HGCs all over the world are reporting in all of their profiles as they always do to HCO WW. And in 25 hours, those cases which were lying on the bottom are up toward the bottom middle of the graph.

Well, that's rather easy to do too, providing you — Mary Sue's — I was holding forth with, "There are five factors of plant growth and these are ..." you know, "and you have to keep them constant," and so forth.

In other words, they go from off the bottom up toward the middle of the graph. Another 25 hours of processing, they go up just above the middle of the graph. Another 25 hours of processing and they start sailing up in the Clear range.

And she says, "You've forgotten the one other factor."

The only funny story about all this is, of course, this stuff comes in — just in by the ton. The postmaster general loves us. We send so much mail out and get so much in. Keeps the morale up.

I said, "No, I haven't forgotten. Let's see, there's air." And she really got me on this one. I said, "There's . . . well, there's a constancy of air, and you have to have a constancy of humidity and a constancy of vitamins and minerals and a constancy of water, and you have to have a constancy of a temperature." If those are the five, I've not forgotten them. I went over it very carefully and I said, "Well, those are the constants, and so forth."

Oh, factually, every Central Organization pc in the world — and that's an awful lot of them — are reported in full at Saint Hill. And we've kept our eye on this, and for the last — oh, we haven't got every Central Organization absolutely smooth or every auditor in the world yet absolutely smooth, but we have found something fabulous. Found something utterly fabulous. The only thing that prevents anybody from being Clear on the processes we are now using — and we're going right up and out the top — is some gross error. A gross error. It is not a small error. It's something like the auditor sat there for 25 hours and talked about his ulcers.

"You've forgotten the most important factor with why those tomatoes out there are three times as big," she said, "the Ron factor."

You ask Robin. She sits there and agonizes over them. Once in a while I get a despatch on the lines from her. "Can't I tell the auditors in Northumbria or Upper Slobithgovia or something — can't I please tell them to audit the pc, not the D of P?" Or something like that, you know.

And of course, this will throw an experiment out any time. It's actually — there's something about it, is something about it. You look at them, you know, and you say, "Grow," you know, and they grow.

But it's a gross error. A fantastically gross error.

There's some marigolds out there that tall, they're growing right now and they're very, very nice, very nice marigolds, but I don't know why they're that tall. There's nothing real different happened to these marigolds than happened to any other marigold.

Now look. We've been in the operating climate for a very, very long time of you had to be very careful to follow the Auditor's Code. You had to be rely careful how you gave that acknowledgment. You had to walk that tightrope all the way through the session. It was a critical proposition clearing people. Well, that's very true. The processes we had made clearing a very critical proposition. But that now has only laid a good foundation for auditing. It makes a good auditor, if he's trained that way and oriented that way, that he does that careful a job.

The reporters come by and they say, "Wow! Look at those marigolds." I go, "Oh, yes, yes, yes ..."

But, the things that are preventing people from getting cleared are not these, not these tiny little differences. The things that are preventing them from getting cleared is something on the order of the auditor never came to the session.

Now I'll tell you what this plant research is all about. A plant runs a fast cycle-of-action. It runs from growth to death in a matter of days. That is to say, you get sixty days, eighty days, something like this, and you have a complete cycle of life.

Oh, yeah, you-it's that goofy. I'm not even exaggerating. It's something fabulous. The fellow was supposed to have 121/2 hours of-the pc is supposed to have 121/2 hours of processing, and it got goofed around, so it got cut way down, of course, this would upset a pc and you get no auditing in, or something like this would happen. Or consistent and continual changes of auditors. Or the auditor just didn't even vaguely run any terminal had anything to do with the case. You know, I mean, it's gross.

Insects give you a very fast cycle of life — a very rapid, rapid cycle of life. But you can't do some things with insects that you can do with plants. The insect kingdom is a little bit too swift, and it's too hard to observe.

And we're now looking — we're now looking at an entirely changed picture in Scientology.

But plants are very good to observe and I was trying to find the answer to illness.

Now look, I maybe could be accused of crying wolf too often and say, "Well, we're making Clears now. Yeah, this is clearing. Clearing is fine," and so forth. Well, maybe you could be perfectly justified in saying, "Well, he said it too often."

Illness. What is it? Is it a bunch of bacteria? Or Pasteurs? Or AM or BMAs? What is it? What is sickness? Is it the maladjustment of the ruddy rod? I think practically every nonsense on Earth has been assigned as the cause of sickness — the evil eye, the demons.

Well, there are two reasons for that. All of my experience, the most direct, subjective experience, and so forth, which I have is in my auditing people. And for something on the order of about 10 years I've been dreaming up a process which is, "Hold the two back corners of the room." And I say to the pc, "All right, you hold the two back corners of the room," something like that. "Just sit there in the chair and get the idea of holding those two back corners of the room." And wild, weird and incredible things would occur and I tell an auditor, "All right, now have your pc hold the two back corners of the room," and wild and incredible things don't occur.

Well, for centuries they were busy exorcising demons, you know. All you had to do was burn enough sulfur in the sick person's room, and the demon didn't like sulfur and would leave, in spite of the fact that the devil in all textbooks smells like sulfur. They were just a little bit mixed up but they believed this. And this was sickness.

Another thing is, my next pair of eyes is through auditors doing immediate and direct research. And these boys were auditing pcs and girls were auditing pcs directly, but on a process that Ron had told them to run exactly as Ron had told them to run it. And of course, the pc knew that. Pc agreement, usually, was gotten to run an experimental process. So once more, what is that? This is altitude at work.

Well, in view of the fact that penicillin doesn't work very well anymore and various strains of bacteria are busy straining themselves up past the very best antiseptics, I thought maybe it might be a good idea if we knew what sickness was.

Now, when I say to somebody, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" All right. Student auditor says this, you know, he says, "Now what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

So I rolled up my hypothetical sleeves and plunged into the greenhouses, having some available down at Saint Hill. First had to find out how you raise something so it would grow with a constancy, that is to say, so that you could count on its growth. You know, it just wasn't a case of just putting something in the ground and it grew, and there was — a few flowers here grew, and so you say they grew and you picked those, you see. You had to be certain that what you planted would grow. Otherwise, you've thrown a series of factors or variables into the problem which could throw out the solution.

And the pc says, "Well, let's see, what part of the problem, this isn't very important."

Well, knowing that, then I had to find out what grew a healthy plant and what didn't grow a healthy plant. And I didn't really know what I was going to find out when I first started to work, I got no preconcept of the thing.

Somebody with altitude tells them that, "Now what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

I said, "Well, we'll just grow a bunch of plants and work with these plants. And we'll find out what we can find out about illness, and so forth, from these plants because plants get diseased."

The pc says, "Who? Me? Me? Me be responsible for something? Let's see now. Me be responsible for something? Me? Well, who does he mean by me? Me? You know, I think this guy is talking to me. Well, let's see. What part could I be responsible for? By George, not very much of it. Ah, yes, yes. I know what I could be responsible for. I could be responsible for avoiding it."

Well, I made a double check on this. One of them was an E-Meter. Do thetans put up plants as mock-ups or are plants put up as mock-ups by thetans or is the life in plants of the same order of magnitude as the life in human beings?

All right. All right. This is the question of altitude. This is the question of altitude. And I assure you, it should pay [play] a minimal part. It's been with us as a problem now since the first days I myself was auditing directly and immediately, which takes us back to very early 1947. I put in a lot of hours in the auditor's chair back from the last year of the war on up, and was making first Clears back there at that time.

In other words, are these thetans at work in some fashion or another?

Well now, let me give you something that is very interesting. There's such a thing as a valence. A person is in somebody else's valence. He isn't being himself at all.

The best check on that was Mr. E-Meter. So I started putting E-Meters on plants and on human beings and they have the same reactions. And the British press probably is going to take its revenge out against the American press because the American press said the British press couldn't observe, when they saw these experiments done by me and saw these reactions they called it mere animism — that we were just assigning life to things which were dead.

Now as soon as a person is in somebody else's valence, somebody else's beingness, only then can he experience pain, discomfort, upset, unrest and worry. We needn't worry too much about why that is, but it's just there. That's it.

Well, I don't know how they could come to that conclusion. They didn't do or see the experiment. But they had an opinion without doing or seeing the experiment, which is more and more modern science.

A person's identity, in other words, has to be highly false before he can have any bad luck. If he's ever saying, "I am being me," or acting as he himself would act, he doesn't have. Falsity is always the basis of all injury, pain, upset, bad luck, fate, karma, anything else you want to call it.

But the British press is mad because they said the reporters didn't observe anything. Well, these poor reporters were going in circles and were actually saying, "Urk, " and "I'll never eat another tomato," and "Wow!" and so forth.

Now, Mary Sue is smiling down here. She used to write an ad and put it in Fate magazine once in a while. Out of her own personal puckishness, she'd say, "You can erase your karma." It's true, you can. But the fundamental of erasing your karma would simply just be yourself. Because your karma applies to somebody else called Joe, Bill or Pete that you aren't. Don't you see?

Somebody started hearing about this and the press kept coming down and we kept letting them in. And there wasn't anything else you could do about it — they would have banged the door down or written something anyway.

All right. Here we've got a problem in altitude whenever somebody is auditing somebody with technology which is not strong enough to resolve that particular difficulty in auditing.

But put the electrodes in a reporter's hands and ask him to think of death, and then show him the needle. Of course, it's doing a theta bop, tick, tick, tick, tick. Exact needle pattern on an E-Meter. See?

A student auditor or somebody auditing without much conviction, he's sitting there, and he's saying, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" You know, with good Tone 40, and so forth.

And then say, "Now think of somebody who was very lively and alive," you see, and theta bop would stop at once. With demonstrations of this character on the live reporter, I'd turn around and hook up the E-Meter to a living plant and then take a slip off of it. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, theta bop, see. And then it'd calm down and wouldn't disturb anything, wouldn't move it, wouldn't talk at it, and so forth, and calm down, and get all right again. See?

And he says this, and pc says, "What part of the problem could I — Mother, what part of the problem could Mother be responsible for? Let's see. I guess she could be responsible for the whole shooting match. The whole ruddy works, that's for sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, be responsible for the whole thing." (Pc's answer.)

And reporters would look at this and say, "Now look, this thing looks like it — thinks it's going to die. Now let's take another one off." Snip. You know? Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. And then it would calm down. Take it off the plant, put the electrodes in the reporter's hands, say, "Now think of being happy or don't think." No reaction.

Well, by the way, this is just one of several accidentals which have stood in the line — one of several. Auditing without altitude, without punch, without conviction, without a desire to be helped on the part of a pc. All of these things add up to a long tough play — a long one and a tough one.

"Now do you know anybody who's dead." Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.

Auditors throughout the world have set me the rather fantastic problem of finding out what they were going to do next to outguess the whole situation. Back two or three years ago, I used to go at it like this: There'd be a perfectly clean, clear problem — process. Or there would be a perfectly good undercut process of some kind or another like, well, an old one was, "Invent something worse than that leg or a leg." That was a couple of years ago. You've seen refinements come in, even on this line. But I get hold of a pc, and I say, "Invent something worse than a leg." Pc's got a bad leg, see. Pang pang, pang pang. Forty-five minutes, an hour, and so forth. The fellow says, "Ow, ow, ow, ow."

Because all this apparently demonstrates — then I'd take it over and I'd put it on inanimate matter like pieces of wood, you see, or dead plants, or something like this, and you'd get no read. It wouldn't do anything. And then we'd try to jiggle the electrodes and do everything else to make this thing read, and of course it wouldn't read. Put it back on the plant again, give theta bops, and then get a reporter to feeling anxious. You know? Talk to him about his job, talk to him about — talk to him about his boss, and about things like this, and show him the climbing needle of anxiety.

And I say, "What's the matter?"

You know, get him to feel he's just about to pack up, you know. Or put it on his photographer and let him watch it, and harass the photographer saving, "Wouldn't it be terrible if all the fallout in the world, you see, which comes down all the time," you know that, "and you never could expose films again because they'd all be pre-exposed or something like this, and you never could develop them." Stuff like this, you know, get him worried, get him upset and watch that climbing needle. Take a tomato, put the electrodes on the tomato, and punch a nail in it. Psheeeeeeeeew! Get the anxiety reaction on the tomato and anxiety reaction on the man, both of the same order of magnitude.

He says, "Ow, ow, ow," he says, "My leg hurts."

What's astonishing is that it responds to the same current. Of course, the psychologist a hundred years ago (when he first had anything to do with a Wheatstone bridge) made a rather amazing and interesting assumption. He assumed that it was sweat on the palms. I've had an argument with a lot of them, they still talked about it, they still say, "Well, the reason the E-Meter works is because people's palms sweat. And when somebody becomes very anxious, their palms sweat more. And so that — the meter will register palm sweat." They still think this today. They couldn't possibly read palm sweat because when — after a fellow has been nervous, his palms do not un-sweat when he becomes calm again. Don't you see? They're still wet.

I say, "Fine. Invent something worse than that leg."

And yet the E-Meter shows that he's become calm again. There's a lot of little obvious explanations on this line, but it was the same order of magnitude.

"Oh, I don't know. Boiled in oil. Rah, rah, rub, rah." And all of a sudden, boom!

Well, as soon as I found out that it was the same order of magnitude, it might have knocked a number of people out for a number of days from eating tomatoes or something of the sort, you know. They'd just about get the tomato there, and they'd say, "Well . . ." Couldn't go through with it, you see.

I say, "What's the matter here?"

So I got my experiments lined up and took enough data and enough observations to discover something very peculiar. We won't go into the tortured ramifications of it because there are many. It simply adds up to this. A plant that wants to live lives.

And he'll look down. Any sores or anything on his leg (snap), gone. That miraculous, absolutely miraculous. Run the BMA right out of business.

You give him the constant environment in which it can live, and it lives. And you give it an environment that it doesn't like, and it packs up.

But when I released that one, I said now what are they going to do with it that'll muck it up. I was getting cynical because it could be mucked up. It could be. And it was. And you hardly see that process around today, but it's one of the finest processes you ever saw in your life.

Well, all right, that's so far so good. Naturally, you don't give a plant any fertilizer and it dies, naturally all this, naturally ... Yeah, but explain this one. Let's take a plant, injure it, and then key it in, and watch it die although it has the optimum environment. Give it engrams. Actually, give it engrams, key him in. I won't go into the ramifications of how you give plants engrams, it's rather simple, particularly if you have some gardeners around, see.

You could set up your shingle right next to the BMA central headquarters and build a bigger building in three months. You could! I mean that's a fact. There are few things wrong with the processes originally worded. So what happens is a process comes back to me, I have to reshape the process and fix it up so that in the absence of tremendous altitude and things of this character, it will still work.

The worst about plant research is a good gardener comes in and sees that the plant is falling over on its head, and he says, "Poor little plant," and straightens it all up and makes it look perfect. And you come back out and you say, "What happened to the experiment? It isn't working. Have you done anything in the greenhouse?"

Well, it's taken almost two years to sort that one out. So the first piece of data you've got at the congress in a technical fashion is just, "Think of something worse than a (whatever is wrong with the pc)."

"No, nothing."

You say to the pc, "What's wrong with you? What's wrong with your body?"

Of course, he's done nothing except be a gardener. You try to mutate plants. You have a picnic. You take plants and expose them to hard radiation or something like this. Take atomic seed and you scatter them all out in a seed box and a good gardener looks them over carefully and for rogues. You know, the one that has too many leaves, or one that's a little stunted or one that has a difference in it somehow or another. And he picks the rogue out and throws it away. He leaves you with the exact variety that you've already got, you see. Because it's these rogues that develop the mutation.

And he says, "Well, I think it's my kidneys."

And of course, in atomic work, you get something on the order of 80 percent rogues or something like this if you're using heavy radiation. And so there's practically nothing left of the seed boxes but the least changed ones which, of course, you don't want anyhow. You've already got them.

And you say, "Well, that's fine. Think of something worse than kidneys."

Well, radiation aside, a plant apparently could be made unwilling to live after which it would get sick. It would develop diseases. It would apparently not repel insects as soon as it was made uncomfortable or something of the sort.

It's "Think of something worse than kidneys." You cut the bottom out from underneath the condition, in other words, because he's resisting getting worse. And that's what makes him bad. He's resisting getting ill, sick, worse, and so forth, and that is the downward spiral. His resistance to decay. And it works. It works very, very well, and it works marvelously — providing he's in-session. A little footnote on that, asterisk, bottom line: providing pc is in-session.

Now what's funny is, is to take plant A and plant B and give plant A a perfectly happy environment the same as plant B, but give plant B over here a few early engrams, almost prenatals. You get the idea? A few early engrams, and let them go on growing and then into the box pour some insects or let them stand up there with some insects flying around. It's very hard to do, only a Scientologist could do this. And the only reason these plants are behaving in such a peculiar fashion is simply — apply the principles of Scientology to them.

But that's really not tough — not tough to get him in-session now because there is such a thing called presessioning. Again, that I am going to tell you something about in this congress because there's new data on it that has not even been released in a bulletin.

But this plant over here that's got the engrams, apparently doesn't repel the insects and they eat it up.

All right. But when we look over this picture, what do we see? We see various things have intervened between the preclear and Clear. It really didn't have too much to do with bad auditing, but it had a lot to do with having to do auditing with such care that the auditing itself could prove ineffectual in many cases, and the auditor himself having the difficult time trying to steer this very cranky bark called a pc over the troubled seas of his aberrations. And it was a piece of helmsmanship that would have — would do credit to the defender of the international cup. You had to be too confounded good, that's all.

And the plant over here, that hasn't got any engrams, doesn't accumulate very many insects and doesn't die if it does. How interesting. Well, innumerable experiments of this character finally worked out this factor and this was all we wanted out of the whole thing. We just wanted one thing out of it.

Lacking altitude, you had to be perfect. Don't you see? Now I could make a mistake. You can't. Lacking altitude the pc will bring it up and it'll fester. If I do it, well, he says, "That must be the way it's done. Ron did it," which, of course, has made a difficulty for you. Now actually, the first clearing done by other people occurred in 1957, late in the year. And I knew there was something still needful because I didn't think we would get to the very, very rough bottom scale cases. I thought some other things would probably intervene up the line, and you saw that sometime late in 1958 I stopped talking about it to a marked degree. I got very quiet about it.

Is will to live, the only predisposition to disease or health?

Well, that wasn't because we weren't making Clears. We still could have along that line except for one thing. We were only getting a percentage, we were only getting something between 50 and 30 percent and it was just not enough. And it was taking auditors in HGCs and the field at large fantastic numbers of hours. It was just a long long long long look. The hour estimates were out.

Is lack of will to live, an immediate predisposition to disease. Is illness — you see, this was all part of this tremendously long run of overts and withholds — is it what the person does out, more or less, which keyed in, makes him sick or aberrated, see?

So I dropped it and decided to solve one problem and decided to solve that problem well, completely and utterly. Is the pc at cause? Must he really be audited at cause and only cause? And from that time until just this April, you will find that all the work done is done around that alone.

He can get things happening from the outside because he's willed it and you can take it late on the cycle and apparently give him motivators. But he couldn't get a motivator unless he had something evil on the line earlier, you see. So we assume these plants did have.

We have to understand now, we've got to face it now that there is a new law involved with cases that any effect a person receives of a bad or unwanted nature was originally caused by himself and has gone through the vias of other-determinisms. In other words, unless he authored the effect, it never hit him and never will hit him.

But the point is the will to live, when knocked out, brought about illness. And when the will to live was still there, we didn't get illness.

Now you know quite a bit about this. There have been lots of bulletins out on it and those people just got — hearing too much about this first time might have their hair stand on end.

So illness probably is some self-generated mechanism whether disease or otherwise. Now, man has had lots of figures on this. In England there was a great plague. Why? Why? Why only 50 percent of the population? Look, the remaining 50 percent were as thoroughly subjected certainly to the fleas from the rats and mice and from the bacteria of the plague. Yet they didn't get sick. Why not? Well, they just didn't want the bubonic plague. They didn't cooperate.

Well, look, I'll call something to your attention. Man's never done anything with man. Well, that's a fact, that's a fact. If you read all the ads and blurbs of the medical association and psychiatric associations, and so forth, very faithfully, you will look in vain for cures. You'll see a lot of procedure. You'll see a lot of must do's — first, the sulfa drugs and now penicillin. Then there was penicillin, and penicillin, oh, man, that cured anything from broken legs to falling hair. All you had to do was get a horse needle and hold the patient down with one knee, see, and go sssssew. And they even got it so it'd stay in him for days, and you didn't have to wake him up every three hours, and you didn't have to let it drip into him from bottles. They really got this one down pat.

They didn't go through the "Now-I'm-supposed-to's" that become the symptoms of bubonic plague. That's all. Apparently, that's correct. Why is it out of so many human beings — a totally violent, totally this and that, totally some other kind — only knocked off 50 percent? Well, you could say, well, those people had developed immunity in some fashion or it didn't work or something of the sort. Well, I dare say this is probably the case. But that's also mechanical. That's the mechanical fact. There must have been 50 percent of people in England who wanted to die along about that time. Ah, they sure did. Swish!

And now it's stopped curing anything. That's a fact. Tremendous numbers of people are allergic to this stuff now. It's stopped working. You don't hear any ads on the subject, but why Aureomycetin? Why Chloromycetin? Why all these new wonder drugs after wonder drugs after wonder drugs? It makes you wonder, let me tell you.

I know I was — dear old George Wichelow one night — was over at the Queen's Poplar Theater down here, watching one of his plays, and so forth. And I got out of there afterwards and I said, "George," I said, "what's buried underneath that theater?"

I think even the BMA and the rest of them are wondering about it by now. But here we have — here we have somebody putting all his chips on a cure, a drug. Well, we know the word "abracadabra" familiarly in all of our magic and that sort of thing.

And he says, "Buried underneath the theater? Buried underneath the theater. Oh, yeah." He said, "Well, how would you know that?" He said, "That's one of the plague burial spots."_

Well, the Roman had a cure, too, and maybe it worked in its day, which was you put a triangle on the fellow's chest. And it had abracadabra, and it was all written so that you could take off one letter a day or something like that. And when they were all gone, it'd be cleared.

Yeah, the Queen's Poplar Theater is built on one. Yeah? Well, how come? How come that anybody got the plague?

Now this was a wonderful amulet. This is a marvelous amulet and maybe it worked in its day. But it was so far from anything like a total answer and there were so many other factors that could crop up in it, that any continuous reliance upon it would have been folly. Hence, new cures, until we get the magic amulet of the bottle of Aureomycetin. Well, you shoot somebody with it and he gets well. And then the germs recondition themselves or some fallout comes down, and they mutate, and boom! Here we've got something else on our hands.

Well, let's look at the conditions of the times and let's not wonder about it. The conditions of the times had some rough spots in them. But apparently not the right kind of rough spots to make people want to survive over the top of them but to quit and do something else or go somewhere else. But we have a sweeping epidemic, and there is — certainly true that there is such a thing as bacteria. But it doesn't bite unless one has bacterial ovens of some kind or another — which is quite interesting.

I tell you, I feel for the medico. Factually, I never fight medical doctors. Those medical doctors I know are good Joes. Only they've gotten so they run, kind of, when they come near me and talk to me in a professional capacity any length of time. They become superstitious. I start asking them about their warts and things, you know. And then I'm liable to get overt enough to roll up my sleeves and offer to audit them.

The mechanics of the thing are beside the point. Men die. It sounds so fantastically supersimplified. Men die because they don't want to live. Sounds too simple, doesn't it? They die because they don't want to live. And that's why they die.

And they've really gotten down till one of them said to Mary Sue not too long ago this fantastic statement. And I know you couldn't imagine this statement as having any part whatsoever of a medical doctor's makeup. He said, "All I'm asking to do in front of you Scientologists," and so forth, and the rest of all these things, "just let me go along and practice medicine the way I know it and get what results I can."

Well, let's go a little bit further. Why do they want to die? It's because they think they're going to damage something. They think they ought to withstrain, restrain or withhold that much evil. They eventually observe their own conduct and consider it evil, and after that they start wrapping it up. And if they can't wrap it up by going over a cliff someplace, why, they wrap it up by getting a cold and turning it into pneumonia and caving in and kicking off.-

We have at least — have taken out a little bit of pomposity on the subject. But I'm not even angry with or upset with medical doctors, and I never have been because I know they've got a rough beef that is a tough one. It's a very, very tough one because they so far from have all the answers that healing is a tremendous liability. It's a tremendous liability for them to sock into it and heal. Look what happens to them.

The mechanics of how they die are so complex and diverse that they have formed such a vast field of interest that nobody ever apparently looked at the simple fact that men do die. And how they die could form an enormous study. They die covertly and they die overtly. And it's all suicide.

Look at psychiatry. They're still saying, "Well, is it chemical? Is it mental?" I just read they put an eight-million-dollar campaign out in the United States a short time ago — eight million dollars they spent to advertise. So I got very curious as to what they were advertising, so I whistled up their advertisements.

There's some fellows commit suicide in a hurry. You know, they walk up to a lion, but they have plenty of ovens on lions on the whole track, you see. They particularly would choose a lion if they had ovens on lions. And they kick him in the teeth. Or they carefully fix it up so that one of the bullets that they have in their jacket has lain in the water for some time in a puddle in the tent. And then they stick that one up as the first one up and load their gun with it, you see. And they wait till the lion is very close, see, and then they go click. And they're lionized at once.

And their advertisements were mainly — I think their professional journal is the Reader's Digest, something like that. Or Look magazine and I read in this thing — over here I think it's the Graphic, isn't it, the Daily Graphic or something of that sort? Anyway, Look magazine has this, "Psychiatry didn't know what insanity was and couldn't cure it but were arguing whether or not it was chemical or mental" — insanity was.

Or they just somehow or another don't ever take their car in and have its wheels checked. You know, they keep walking around the car watching this wheel wobble. You know, they kick the wheel, and the wheel turns about that far out of line. They say, "I'll have to get that fixed, you know."

Now, it sounds incredible. You'd think this organization or these people professing to be the sole proprietors of insanity in the world would at least know or have decided amongst themselves, rightly or wrongly, what insanity was before they hold themselves forth as the only authorities on the subject. Because if the only authority on any subject is an authority because he says, "I don't know what it is and I can't cure it," I'm sure somebody else is going to find another authority.

And they drive faster and faster and faster and walk around the car and kick the wheel, you know, and by this time it turns this way, and so forth. "I see. I'll just have to get that fixed."

Now, again we're not even interested in being sole proprietors of the insane. We have a hard enough time with our own people, let alone the insane. But these poor devils, because they don't know the answers, wind up in their own mental hospitals at a fantastic rate.

Why don't they get it fixed? Mm-hm. You could come along and say, "Hey! Fix that wheel."

They keep saying, "There are only 3,400 psychiatrists in the United States." Now, they've been saying this for a number of years. And the number of psychiatrists then graduating from hospitals and intern schools for psychiatry, and so forth, would have to be then, wouldn't it, the number of psychiatrists which go mad out the top or die. And that would tell you immediately how many psychiatrists went mad every year. Well, wouldn't it?

Get down there, put all the lugs in place on the wheel, fix the wheel on tight.

And there's some — of course, that's one — that's mathematics a la psychiatry. But nevertheless, they wind up mad all the time. They have no answer to what insanity is. They go in there and they do something violent and vigorous to insanity, you know, electric shock people and give them metrazol and pizzas and — I don't know what all they give them, but they're going to do something.

Guy will drive down the road for just about two or three days and then hit a lorry head-on. And you fixed him. It didn't work.

And with grand pomposity they say they know what they're talking about themselves, and then this stuff comes back and takes their head off. Well, they — it must be a terribly dangerous profession, let me assure you.

In some modus operandi, this fellow is trying to die slowly or fast. And fundamentally, where we are right now, susceptible to demonstration on human beings, apparently one command would make anybody well. Not change him on the profile or change his IQ or anything like that, but just make him well.

Now again, I have no arguments with those fellows. Probably what's wrong with me in their eyes is I don't fight with them. You know, therefore, they're — I am either terribly dangerous or don't know anything. And they've never quite made up their minds which one this is. But they're kind of leery on the subject.

If you at any moment suspected that — well, if he was sick or if he had ever been sick, you would consider that he must have considered his actions evil enough to withhold at sometime or another. And then he had pulled them back to a point where he decided his actions were so bad that the world could do very easily without them at this time in that identity. There's still a postulate there. There's still a postulate there.

If they weren't nervous, they wouldn't invest money trying to say we were no good. You know, they occupy more space saying we're bums and tramps and fakes, and so forth. You know, they just work at it real hard. And they just can't seem to convince anybody. And that, too, must be a failure which winds them up in their own spinbins.

And so we get the first step of presessioning would be the adjustment of the cycle-of-action which we have before called goals. We made the preclear postulate new goals.

Now, here's the point, however. In handling a case, you mustn't get 30 to 50 percent results because that tells us at once that we don't know about 50 percent of the cases or 70 percent of the cases. Don't you see? So there must be that much that we don't know because we don't get broad results on that many. And that was what I socked into in the winter of '57 — '58 on the subject of clearing.

Well, you can do that in its proper place in a Model Session, but goals don't necessarily, the way they're handled, adjust him on the cycle-of-action. And by simply adjusting a pc on the cycle-of-action so that he's going in the direction of create and survive, you could make him well. You could by shaking out of him all the reasons why he had to die. That's just your blunt, theoretical assumption.

I said, "Well, there's some factor around here which is just, eeeeh, some factor." Well, I could only think of two factors. One was valences, and the other was whether or not a person was aberrated by others or only was able to aberrate himself.

The command, one of any dozen commands that could be used on this — Lord knows how many commands could be used on this or how many process combinations — there also, you're looking into the mechanics of the situation. Some question such as, "Find a reason not to live." Use it pretty nearly repetitively. Of course, that would have to be followed in that form with "What is it?" if you wanted to know it. Otherwise, the pc would merely nod that he had found a reason.

In other words, was aberration from the outside in or was from — aberration from the inside out. Which direction? Which direction had to be attacked in order to resolve this thing called aberration?

But you could cover an awful lot of it if you didn't make him explain it particularly and just got him. And he can actually pick them up by the barrelful. And evidently we've been on this kick for so long that anything can hit us.

Well, all that time — mid-1958 right straight on through till this April — was spent shaking that problem out, and I hope you will forgive me for taking so long because it became a very involved problem indeed.

And that is our security that we don't have to go on living when we consider ourselves too inhibitive and mean to the environment to go on living. We use these things in some covert way because it's very bad to die, as a matter of fact, it's so very bad to die that you couldn't possibly do it. You can forget. You can assume an oblivion over a past, but you can't die. So this is quite a trick.

Tremendous numbers of tests had to be run on this. And it's only the person — it's the fellow himself and the reasons why he won't undo it have to do with valences. So valences is the other part of it. So we had to solve valences and get that really solved.

So a thetan keeps — very often will have a lot of these on the back burner, and they surprise him. And he makes mistakes. Nobody ever said he was absolutely letter-perfect in everything he did. And he keeps them back here someplace on a shelf or handy at the rear of the stove or something like that. And he figures, "Well, one of these lives I'm going to — huh! I'm going to really pull one and the best thing to do then is reach back for one of these things and — double lumbarpneumonia!Ha-ooo-ooo-ooo. I'm dead." That's a good one. That's a good one. And he'll work this out somehow or another.

So the pc has to be at cause, really and actually, and has to be audited at cause and has to be moved over into his own valence. Actually, it's no careless statement I make to you that the only time a person can feel pain is when he is not being himself. He is actually being another personality than himself if he can feel pain, discomfort, bad luck, and so forth. Because it's the valence that gets in the road.

And then one day he's cooking something, you know. And he slips one in just about the time he inherited a million dollars or something and gets double lumbar pneumonia. And he says, "This is a mistake!"

Because why? He says, "I am this other being and this other being here is being responsible for everything I do." So the individual now runs on a total irresponsibility for himself and he can get it in the teeth. It's actually as simple as this, but that was necessary to unravel this thing called clearing. What kept the 50 to 70 percent of the people who were being processed toward Clear — what kept them from attaining the goal of Clear? And it's just that techniques were insufficiently powerful to plow in to 100 percent of the human race. Well, I overshot the goal.

I had a fellow tell me that one time. He didn't mean to. Well, it's gone so on automatic, he's lost his control, you see, of the function or factor. And he can do that easily if he's got these things stacked up.

I swear the auditor could sit there now, half asleep, as long as he'd run the auditing commands and the person would come Clear at the other end of the line. Now, that's what you've made me do.

So you're busy processing a preclear and you shake one of these loose, the double lumbar pneumonia thing, see. And he coughs and he wheezes, and he says, "Well, what's this? Well, was — was — I was supposed to get well," and so forth. And you're processing him. Immediately it accompanies a package of all the reasons why you shouldn't get well. And he really goes over the jumps while you process this thing out.

Now, wherever we look in Scientology today, we find some consciousness now of a person's own ovens. Everyone's pretty well got this one taped, you know.

Meantime he's disclaiming any possible responsibility for this, you see. Ku-oo-oo — temperature running up. Funny thing what convinces some observers, and so on, you run a pc through a fever engram and change his temperature just by the count, you know. And you say, "Did you ever have a very high temperature in your life?"

If he's feeling bad about something, it must be because he has ovens against it. And certainly enough, it works out. You don't have to educate a pc into this.

And the fellow says, "Oh, yes, I did. I had a champion temperature one time. I had a temperature of 105. Doctors didn't possibly know how I was going to live. Didn't think I'd live at all, but I did."

You take the disgruntled employee out of the office and you pull him aside, and you sit him down in a chair, and he's saying, "Justify, justify and they did this to me, and they did that to me," and so on. And even though it chops him up a little bit, you say, "Look, son, what have you done and what have you withheld?"

He just slipped this double off and missed and lived and the medicos said, "You've got to live." So he said, "Well, all right. I'll fail."

Now, the test is that we could run out endlessly, out of this uneducated, uninformed person on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, we could run out all of these motivators. He'd be all right. But oh, that takes a long time. He's been working in the place — he's been working in the place eight years. He's been bawled out, chopped up, his pay increased, decreased, he's been promoted, reduced. He's been chopped down about this. He's had boxes fall on him. He's had .. .

And whatever it was. So you go back and you find this engram, and throw him back down the track and run him through that engram. His temperature will go up to 105. You'll only do it about the first time.

All right, so we had to put him in shape to run engrams, see. And we had to very carefully put him in shape to be able to run all these things. And then if we erased all these things with Dianetic procedure, we'd eventually make it.

You put a thermometer in his mouth, and his temperature will go up. Make him go over it maybe three, four times till you get 105. That really, really upsets some observers. Only be careful because the observer, if a medico, will say, "Get him to bed at once!" Of course it's the last thing in the world you would want to do with the pc, it would leave him with a temperature of 105. You have to run him through the engram another half a dozen times, bring him up to present time, the temperature's gone. It's very impressive.

The funny part of it is we could actually make it. That's what's peculiar because it's almost impossible to. Look, we did something that was utterly impossible in Dianetics. The whole orientation of Dianetics is it's done to the person. And the orientation of Scientology is he did it. These are two reverse philosophies actually.

Look. Why is he keeping around a mental image picture which contains as one of its physical manifestations a temperature of 105? Why? Now that's just one of those things handy on the back burner in case he gets into a spot that he can't get out of. That's a nice one to have.

You actually can get there with Dianetics, but this accounts for the thousand hours to make somebody well, don't you see? It's erasing those motivators, you know. And they're just innumerable. And it's sort of over the preclear's dead body that you really get them all, too. But you can kneel on his chest and push him through those engrams and get them erased anyhow. Takes an awful lot of auditing skill and cleverness and so forth to do it.

You know, gets drafted in the army or something. Man, how they turn them on. The guy — you can just see some of these boys, you know, claw all over the back of the stove trying to pick them up in handfuls. You know. Stick them in their pockets. Wow!

But let's look at the other side. We sit down this shipping clerk and we say to this shipping clerk — we say, "Now think of something you've done to the boss. Think of something you withheld from him." We flatten that sort of thing off. It doesn't take too long. "Think of something that you have done to the organization. Think of something you have withheld from the organization."

Or he goes to prison or he finds he's married the wrong woman or anything. He decides he's taken the wrong course and is liable to be very bad or evil to his environment. He might rationalize it as a self-protection, but he really never does otherwise than protect the environment which is kind of funny.

These things start going clip, clip, clip, clip. Bip, bip, bip, bip, bip, bip. And he thinks of what he's really done to them, and so forth. And at first he starts out and he says, "Well I ... what I've done to them, I have ... I have faithfully punched the time clock," or something like this. Some big vicious stunt he's pulled, you see.

Now, when he wants to protect the environment enormously, why, he knocks himself off or disables himself.-

And it finally boils down to why he's so upset about the organization was that up until three years ago, every day practically, he took home a shoe box full of ump-gumps which the organization made, unbeknownst to anybody else. Don't you see? He's got overts by the ton against this organization.

Now, you can ask some fellow who's gimping along, he's gimping along and you ask him, "What would happen" — this is quite an interesting study and exercise for you to do when you see somebody like this — "What would happen if you weren't limping?"

Well, it doesn't take too long to strip these things off and all of a sudden he feels all right about the organization. Well, that's a Scientology look at running the pc exactly and only at cause — just ignoring what's been done to him and just running him on what he's done.

Mmmmmmmm. You really shouldn't have asked that question because, well, he's liable to kick somebody to death, you see. He's liable to do almost anything. You find out at some time or another maybe he was a champion runner or something of the sort

Well, it works out numerically like this. There are millions of people around one person. Well, the millions of people do millions of things, of course. And tremendous numbers of things happen to this person we're talking about — who will become a pc. But he himself really doesn't have too much time to do more than a few things. And it's very lucky for us because it gives us the minority of incidents to audit. It's quite remarkable. In other words, you could get the shipping clerk happy about the firm he's working for.

But he has to inhibit this ability, but this ability at one time was demonstrated to him to be tremendously harmful to his fellows. So if it was harmful to his fellows, he had better cut it off and that's what he does.

You could get anybody — well, marriage counseling, marriage counseling is a field that ought to open up. Somebody ought to really start doing this thing. I showed somebody how to do it, and they went to another place and found a couple and straightened them out. And it's going sort of like this, but only by subjective reality. It's apparently something that sounds good theoretically. So therefore, nobody really should do it because it's — probably wouldn't work. Something like that.

And he picks up these engrams or incidents of one kind or another, and fits them on like somebody putting on a — oh, the iron maiden or something, and holds himself in. And he uses engrams to do it. And as long as his cycle is out of adjustment, that is to say, as long as he believes he is going to be evil to the environment, he will try to destroy himself.

What happens is the auditor gets a husband and a wife. He doesn't audit the husband, he doesn't audit the wife, see. In fact, there's a case right out in front of me that should have been done to a long time ago. And it all would have straightened out very easily.

Now there's a less creditable motive at first glance, and that is try to make somebody else guilty. That's the game of victim. But he tries to make them guilty for their own good by being sick himself and setting up an example. And you'll get those coming off. Those come off of children rather easily. Little boys and little girls who have a lot of coughs and sicknesses and lamenesses and that sort of thing will tell you as their first rationale that they're trying to make their parents guilty.

Get the — the case would have straightened out — get the husband and get the wife in the same room at the same time, no matter what the antagonism involved is, and give one or the other of them the electrodes on an E-Meter. And just get them talking about what they've done to the other person. The other person is right there. Auditor does this. It doesn't become involved because at some times you have to pull one of them off of the other one, you know, sort of like this.

Well, a little — little kid says, "They will be sorry. There I'll be lying in that coffin. And they will look down on me and they'll say, 'I wish I had of let him eat more apples.' That's what they'll say."

And then when he's got this kind of shaken out, why, you do the reverse and you take the other person and make him get those ovens off against the other person. And the funniest doggone thing, it just starts clearing up like mad, and all is sweetness and light, and everything is fine — as long as they're both in the same room, and the auditor audits each one of them on overt-withholds only in the presence of the other person. That is marriage counseling.

Well, in that form it's a control mechanism, but how can he make a control mechanism out of it and why did he adapt the mechanism in the first place? Well, the mechanism is that he feels he'll be harmful to the environment, and just the fact of punishing him or upsetting him in some particular way tells him he isn't helping his environment. Tells him he mustn't act. He mustn't act toward the environment. It educates him into believing that he mustn't or he is being evil to the environment. He adjudicates his own efforts. He's adjudicated the efforts of others as being evil to the environment, and so he gets himself wrapped up in this little squirrel cage here, and he can postulate himself sick. Illness always contains this postulate.

Believe me, that is so wrapped up, I am amazed that it isn't being done more. It's being done quite a bit, but nobody has stressed that that is the way you straighten up an interpersonal relationship. Now of course, there are numerous reasons why this can't be done and why it's difficult and all kinds of excuses. But there is no substitute for that way to do it. No matter how difficult it is, that's the only way to do it.

It is too involved for a direct look. It's too involved to say to somebody, "Well, the principles are these. You wanted to be sick, so you're sick. Now you got that straight? Good."

Now there might be other ways, and somewhere up the line there might — other ways turn up, but we've tried most of them. Yeah, I look over the number of techniques, and so forth that have been developed in this particular field, and I would say immediately and directly that the chances of thinking up another one are very rare. Ha!

"Well, he's well."

Yeah, you get that way after a while when you — when you pick up a file and it almost breaks your back. And it's nothing but single sheet methods of doing something, you know. It's that kind of thing.

And you turn around and you look, and there he is in his wheelchair still rolling along, see.

But this one works. And about the only reason it doesn't work is if one of them can't be kept in the room or something like that, but that's easy to solve. Just get two auditors on the same deal. One of them keeps them in the room and the other one audits them. But that is the way you do it. And that is the way to straighten up a marriage.

Well, that's because basically it's so interwoven he's forgotten when and why and how he did it. He's operating on very unknown and covert lines as far as he's concerned, and he has to be able to inspect the data. And all you gave him was the data.

You just straighten it out right there, bang! And it will straighten out because each one of them is saying, "Look what he or she has done to poor me." That's what each one of them is saying.

And the data itself might let him start looking, but just like the fellow who wound up in Kent when he should have been going to Cornwall, he doesn't have the rationale back of it, he hasn't really looked at it, he finds one. He finds out when he wished desperately that he were very sick so he wouldn't have to go to school. And this lends a lot of reality to the thing because nearly everybody has got this one.

Well, maybe they have done things to each other. And maybe their own sins on the whole track all the way back, all the times they've been alive — maybe all of these sins composite up to the fact that it becomes very painful to have this done to him or her. See? Maybe — we can't argue with the fact that it's probably painful. It's very upsetting. Undoubtedly, they believe it is but we take them and we get off what they've done to the other one. It's very hard to get at sometimes because there's so many justifiers in the middle of all of the Confessional, you know.

There was one time or another when they didn't want to go to school or didn't want to work or didn't want to do something or other, and so they wished they were sick. And they got sick.

You practically just have to stamp on it with hobnail boots and say, "Oh, yes, I know. She stayed away for three weeks living with another man. That's good. We got that story. I heard you before. That's fine. Thank you very much. We got it. I heard it. That's good. Good. What did you do?"

Well, how did they get sick? Well, they didn't actually plot it. They just simply restimulated a time when they were — could make themselves good and sick — when they were more able than they are now.

"Well, the year before, when I went away with that girl, I only stayed a week."

So we look at this and he picks one off the top, see. And then he says, "Well, I'm still sick. I feel a little better but not very much."

That makes it all right, see.

No, I'm afraid he's got to go down there about 462 times or something to get into one, and you do that by some kind of repetitive question of, "Find a reason not to live." Any such question, that is not the optimum question, that is just one tossed off on the principles. You'd make him as-is death as a solution to livingness.

But you could straighten out more interpersonal relations. We look around in the society at large and we find marriage is supposed to be going by the boards and a lot of things are supposed to be going by the boards. Well, it's — you could put it back together again in quite a rush.

Now, problems are very peculiar. The more you solve problems, the more they come in on you. You've got to as-is the problem. If you refuse to confront the problem that you're faced with in life, you say, 'Well, that's there, but this is a solution to it" and then fixate on the solution, you see, this problem walks right in.

I imagine you could go so far as just look up in the overdue alimony payments or something of this sort and find a lot of customers. You know, just find the lists of people who have been cited during the past month or something like that for not paying their alimony or for not receiving it. They're already divorced. See, the whole thing is already smashed. Run it the hard way. Get each one of them by the ear, set them down in the room, get between them and the door, and run off the overts and motivators. They'd be back together again. It's very remarkable, I mean the power and authority contained in this.

Now, if one's attention is fixed on the solution, and he refuses to confront the actual problem, he gets a collapsed space. He's got to actually knock out this fixation on the solution and confront the problem. And when he does that, he gets more space and the thing goes away, as you would say, but going away in intimate — well, it means through space.

But isn't it — something is very, very remarkable about this? There's something very remarkable about this that you should know — is that it doesn't particularly change profiles or IQs. It just makes people happier.

Now, this is an interesting thing because you get him to doing this — "Find a reason to die." Well, you've said a reason to die, and he — you restimulate it. This is not the optimum process, I repeat, but by this you would find a reason to die that restimulates the fact that he's wanted to die and the problem was the reason. "Confront a problem" is actually — would be the same thing that was run, but it's a specialized problem. Well, this moves him all over the cycle-of-action.

Of course, you say that's enough to lead a successful life, for heaven's sakes. But it doesn't really, markedly, rapidly shift IQs and profiles. That takes a whole new battery of processes.

You have to rehabilitate a man's will to live before he will get well. And because he has no good observation of his environment, he is very often making the mistake of dying because he should have died in 1220. And he dies in 1959 or '60. It's a slight miscalculation. But in view of the length of the track at large, I wouldn't say its percentile was very high, only a few hundred years. But it's nevertheless a miscalculation.

And if you shift all the profiles, all the overts blow anyhow because a person is now upscale enough to be able to look at them for what they are. And if that is the case, then why run the other process? But don't lose the value of a year and a half's hard work because the other process is very valuable.

Now this fellow gimps in on the scene in 1940 and sees a duck and gets sick. Well, the facts of the matter was the last time that he did something very, very bad, way back when was to steal and kill a duck for which he was hanged. And this wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't been the executioner of France for so many years several lives before this. So he's proven to a lot of people that they're wrong by hanging them which, of course, opens his door to being hanged. Now he can be hanged. He has an overt on it.

Whatever a person is worried about or whatever a person is being harmed by or injured by, in any way, is injuring him or harming him because he has left all the doors open for it to do so. And that's the most practical statement that could be made on the subject

You can't — nothing can be done to you, you yourself haven't opened the doors for, you see. If you haven't done it to somebody, it won't happen to you. That's about the way that — or if you erase it, it won't happen. It doesn't matter which way. Fortunately, with Scientology, it's not a fixed fate.

By his own acts, he opened up the doors. When somebody looks at that, for years, he's been going on being chopped to bits from some particular quarter. Just being cut to ribbons from this quarter, not succeeding at all in some way. And we look — he looks and he finds the doors that are being left open. It's the things he did, no matter when, where or how, but they are directly traceable, and he recognizes them as being the immediate cause of his present difficulty. And they fold up.

But, so he was Chief Executioner and he hanged all these fellows. Then later on he stole a royal duck or something of the sort, you see, and got hanged. And a duck means "bad" means "hanged." But this all goes back to the magic track when he used to kill ducks by postulates just to annoy the princess of the kingdom, you see, and turned her husband into a swan or something, you know. And there's no telling what kind of a silly rationale goes behind it. You start cross-checking this and, boy, it gets as complicated as one of these chemistry formulas with the circle and S and double E triangle and everything. It gets very, very complex and it walks very far off into the far horizon. And you say, "Well, how on earth could this fellow go through all of this reasoning?"

Well, this may not change profiles, but it gives a considerable value. May not change profiles, but it's valuable. It's very valuable.

Well, fortunately, you don't have to know. I'll tell you when it's flat. When he's well. He's gone through it all when he's well. And that's how you know you've gone all the way through it.

It tells you this. You might not become a different person on all fronts, but you could become immune to atomic fission in a world where a bunch of psychotics, under the guise of politicians, are shooting dice loaded with plutonium with the fate of nations.

Now by doing this, you won't really change his position on the graph. You might by accident by being pleasant to him or something. You won't really change his IQ. All you will do is change his concept of what he ought to do with his mock-up to efface or erase or put it up. And that's the only thing that you change his mind about, which is what we've been calling goals.

Why are you worried about the antics and activity of some clown that lives south of the pole and somebody else that is about to go out of office? Why are you worried about these people? The only reason you're worried about these people is they, for — somehow or another, can have an effect upon you!

His idea of fate is what determines his goals, if you follow me. He's got to have a concept of his fate, and then he'll rig his bank to do his fate. - And these poor people that have been Cyruses. You know what a Cyrus is, it's not an ogle. Well, I tell you, they had them in Greece — oracle. Oh, that's it, that's it, an oracle. And they used to sit over the steam and vapor, you know. And then they had a lot of spies and they'd get all this political gen, see. They'd write it all down, and then they'd get a couple of quick talents from Sparta, you see, in order to give Athens the wrong dope. You see — all on the grapevine, and so forth.

Well, how can they have an effect on you if you're the only one that can cause an effect on you?

So they'd go through this trance, you see. Bong! And then they would say, "The gods have told me that Sparta ought to sink its navy."

Oh, I think it'd be the most colossal joke in the world to be totally immune to atomic fission, its burns, blast, wind or anything else. I think that'd be very funny. That is a fantastic shortcut to defenses against the atom bomb or political situations so rerigged so that we will all interprotect something. Probably they'll wind up interprotecting everything except button A.

"Is that right?" "Yeah." "Okay." See?

I know how this next war is going to start, you know. It's just obvious — char, coming in with a cigarette in her mouth one day is dusting this panel. But in a world like that, I think it'd be a very amusing thing for an entire group to be totally immune to atomic fission. I know so much about it already that it's become a simple problem.

That's what's known as an overt. Don't be surprised if that person were to become the king of Germany or something, or something at some later date and lose his whole ruddy fleet. See? Boom! Fleet's gone. What?

In the first place, gamma rays can't even stop inside you. They can't even stay with you. There's some kind of a signal system which, when they go through you, you decide you have a motivator. Well, why? Because they don't even physically damage you. The damage occurs months later or weeks later or sometimes in a very bad burn, days later.

But there's no reason for it to be gone. Yes, there was. As an oracle, this person caused somebody to lose a whole fleet with just a postulate. You get the idea? These crooked, overt postulates that bring damage or destruction inevitably are at first not very real. Sparta isn't real. That isn't real. It seems to be just a mechanical fact. Then they realize later that the thing was an overt.

But having already seen an atomic burn disappear on a twenty minute Touch Assist — an atomic burn, a bad one — and having already seen, "Where were you and where are you now? Where were you? Where are you now? Where were you? Where are you now?" cure up somebody whose eyeballs were about burned out by an atomic flash — I'd begun to think it was not a very tough problem.

Well, this gets tangled up with the idea that they postulate fate, and fate is laid out this way, and fate is all very intricate. And then they suddenly foresee that in the future something terrible is going to happen to them, and they'll just cave the bank in and shift themselves on the cycle-of-action all on an automaticity so as to be over here on the death side.

So I've ordered up some X-ray machines for Saint Hill and ordered up some hard radiation and a few things like that, and we're going to have a crack at this thing. You know, I know we can hit it theoretically and guess that's the way it is, but what we'll actually do is burn the daylights out of some — I'll have to tell you some more about ... I have to also tell you about some of this plant research because that's become very amusing. Everybody thinks I'm researching plants.

And then they're not quite sure that's true, so they'll hang right over close to the edge so they can knock off any time it's an absolute emergency, you see, but don't have to really die today. Yeah, they're — all kinds of computations go along with this thing, but they're so complex that anybody looking at it would miss the mechanism. And that is that a cycle-of-action is actually in its most fundamental state, create-survive-destroy, in a truer thing is, create, create-create, and no create or counter-create.

But in theme, I believe now, as far as a program for the United Kingdom is concerned — I believe that what we've done is not likely to get very real, very fast to anybody because it's hardly real to me or tech staff yet. We're still watching this stuff come through, you know, bottom to top, four weeks, bottom to top, you know, just bang!

The anatomy of the cycle-of-action is very interesting, and the cycle-of-action is what is back of all this. They remain masters of their destiny so long as they can in any way shift their position on the cycle-of-action. And because of the pressure and habit of time, they mostly shift forward on the cycle-of-action toward destroy.

It is so unreal to Ds of Ps — I'm going to let you in on something that's very amusing. It's so unreal to Directors of Processing throughout the world, that they are routinely and regularly letting pcs leave as good Releases without even sending them near HCO to get checked out for Clear, who are Clears.

It's easier if it's "survive" to shift toward destroy than to shift back to create, but there's no particular reason why the cycle-of-action should read that way. It's just a consideration.

"We've got to . . . we ... it's too bad that we couldn't hold him over for another week or he'd be Clear, or two more weeks at the outside, but we couldn't hold him over, and so we had to release him," and so on. "But he'll be back this fall sometime in order to have the clearing finished." He's reading this with amazement, see, because there sits the profile, there sits the discussion of the needle, there sits the IQ of a MEST Clear. And it's something like — we've been critical for so long that we're being hypercritical of a result level right in Central Organizations, technically. And we see these things come by and they're just walking on out the front door.

Create-survive-destroy might as well be destroy-survive-create plotted in time, but it happens to be the other way. And that's why we've got this kind of a universe.

And an HCO Secretary the other day said to me, "Oh, I'm alert to this. The first Clear that comes up in this organization — make sure, I'll check her or him." And we had some profiles of them right in front of our desk. I don't know. Maybe it's expected that the profile or something disappears.

Well, if you start shifting your preclear around on this cycle-of-action, he feels old. And then he'll hit another part of the cycle and then he feels young and he'll feel old, and he'll feel destructive. So he gets to feel old again and he cuts his action down.

Now we've been at this for a long time. I've been trying now for ten years to get somebody else to produce regularly and routinely Clears. It had to be a pretty gross auditing job to produce a maximum result that — in both ways.

In other words, he goes up and down, up and down, up and down. Well, you could shift that simply by finding any equivalent question to reasons to die.

In other words, we had to make very good auditors who, even if they didn't audit very well, would still, using these technologies, produce Clears, and people would become Clear, and that would be that. And all we're trying to do is produce MEST Clears. Actually, we've done better than that. We are producing people who, in two or three more weeks, would have been Theta Clear. That's what the Ds of Ps are all striking for without knowing it.

A man hides the fact very well, even from himself, that he is still the master of his own fate. But he's so pokey about it that he really suffers around about it after a while, and he will tell you quite honestly I don't know why I'm sick. He doesn't know why he's sick.

Almost every piece of data which they have or are striking for or have held on to or pressed close to their bosoms, has been the data relating to a Theta Clear. And it occurs to nobody to go and open up Book One and read the chapter on Clears, and read it! Not just alter-is it all the way down the line.

He's lost all track of it. It's just total chaos as far as he's concerned. When you start tracking back his postulates, you'll find out he didn't even know he felt threatened in his environment the day he got sick.

Scan down all the words and say, 'Well, I know what a Clear is. A Clear is somebody who never walks on the ground." "I know what a Clear is. They can as-is policemen's hats." They've got their own peculiar definitions. If you go and read that definition, you'll find out we've delivered the goods for some time.

Well, all of a sudden, it'll turn out that a widow walked up the front steps and rang the doorbell. And he went and talked to the widow and she sounded exactly like the wife of the man he murdered just for kicks, you see, in 1603. Get the idea?

There are quite — lots of Clears around by the first book definition. We are actually being extreme with our definition now because we've measured it up against profiles. We've said that the E-Meter needle has got to be utterly flat on all questions relating to help, that the profile has to be up in the last third of the graph, and that the IQ has got to, I think, be in excess of 135 or something, I've forgotten what the IQ figure is.

So this makes him feel (snap!) — he gets the automatic response, "Well, I'm not doing worthwhile things," or something of the sort, see. He gets this feeling and then he looks around. The automatic mechanism he's got up, "Someday I may become so irresponsible," he says, "that I better fix it up so that every time I have an impulse to kill anybody, this postulate over here keys in and I get too sick and weak to do it. That's the smart way to go about the whole thing."

We've got so many of them, the file — we've got to buy new file cases by now. But people go away, and what do they realize? As soon as they got their foot on the ladder, they suddenly realized that they're themselves and that they've got a long way to go. Well, that's true.

So the widow walks up to the door, pushes the doorbell. He opens the door and he looks at this girl, and she looks just the same as the widow of the man he kills in '62. Frumph, boomph, boomph. He goes back inside, lies down and feels terribly ill.

They tell you, "Well, I've just got my foot on the bottom of the ladder now. I've just realized I'm myself for the first time." Well, that's almost the first statement that a Clear makes. Yes, they've got an awful long way to go. I agree with them. I agree with them. But they better find out where they've arrived, for heaven's sakes, before they take off.

And you ask anybody if they've had any moment of their life when they inexplicably, suddenly felt sick, that they can't quite trace.

Yes, I think that's perfectly right. I think that a person, however, who was immune to atomic fission blasts, a person who did not have to eat, a person who didn't particularly need a body could leave a body parked in — on the bed, you see, and go off by himself — and if he saw a friend, why, all of a sudden appear. Aw, this is way upscale. This is not a Clear. This is way up around OT. Now, that's pretty high, but has ceased to be theoretical.

Well, just start sorting out of reasons not to live and you'll shift their cycle-of-action around, but you'll also disclose to them that on that very day something occurred which demonstrated to them that they had gone too far. Maybe strangling a baby wasn't going too far, but looking at this widow was.

We've advanced so far on this thing called Clear that the upper ranges, the upper states, keep showing up, and people keep trying to settle for these upper states. Well, I laud their ambition, but I deplore their inability to recognize where they are. And I'm very happy they want to be better, but why don't they ever recognize that they've gotten pretty good?

Now there must be something to this because I've just had a lot of fun down in Sussex as road safety organizer. I kept threatening the population down there with a float with a widow on it. I wanted them to protest accidents a bit. You know, make a little more yap-yap in the community, and so on. Say, "Let there be less accidents in the community," or something like that. Drive carefully. So I kept putting up mock-ups in the newspaper of what kind of floats were going to be in the carnival parade, you see.

Well, that's one of the little crosses I have to bear. But we've got it, we've got it taped. And with me riding on somebody's backs and the HCO tech staff bearing right down hard on this subject, we intend to turn out Clears down at Saint Hill in these next six weeks who are also well enough, thoroughly enough grooved, trained and convinced as to what they've done, that they can go out and in a finite period of time, clear people in their own vicinity.

And they were very helpful, these people are. People are nothing if not terribly helpful. I told them to protest so they just protested like mad, you know. People writing in letters from every place protesting these floats. And they were protesting a float of a widow as a road safety device, you see.

All we've got to do is carry out that program, and I think we'll have the whole thing adequately and voluminously taped as far as England is concerned.

We mustn't see a picture of a widow. Smashed cars, blood, corpses — yes, but not a picture of a widow, please.

All we've got to do is set an example in ourselves and it's made anyway, so I think that's the best way to go about it. What do you think?

And five years ago here in England, I traced back the history of this — practically nobody knew the history of this but the ministry furnished up the history. That was the Ministry of Transport, not a RSPA poster. And it was not banned. It went the whole period but, boy, the public went mad! Sometime in 1955. It was just a picture of a widow looking very sad and I think it had the words like "drive safely" or something of the sort. That was all it was. It drove the public berserk._

Audience: Yes. Yes.

They could face the blood but not the thing they'd really never confronted — was the victim's family. Get the idea? They just couldn't face that one. Of course, you want to work on this principle, you get into the whole rationale of confront, but that's subject for the ACC.

Well, that's the program. I hope you agree with it. And I frankly don't care whether anybody's got any money or anything else or not. I want to see anybody who has been trained up to HPA, down at that underground Charing Cross, outside the station on the Embankment there at 7:30. Catch that bus to Saint Hill tomorrow morning because I want to see this country go, hear? I want to see it really start to roll, and we can't afford to remain static anymore.

You could dream up other floats they'd really cringe at, like these little kids looking up with a wreck in the background and looking up at the policeman. And they're saying, "Where's our daddy?" See. Something like that, you know. You could just dream them up ad infinitum.

So that's my program. I hope you make it yours.

But the public was very helpful. So then we put up a float and said, "This float has been banned as too horrible to be seen."

Factually, I don't know how much Scientology they've got mixed up in all that down there.

Of course, we're going for broke on that. One of these days, why, we'll take off and end accidents on the British highways. But let me tell you that we won't end accidents so long as people see in an automobile a very, very handy means of knocking themselves off when they need knocking off.

And this is thoughtless of them because they very often, when they knock themselves off, miscalculate and don't run into a tree or an abutment and don't pick a moment when they have no passengers, but just key it all in and run into the front end of a lorry and kill somebody in the lorry and kill themselves and kill their passengers, and so forth, and so on. This is because they mustn't do it, but they must do it. But it's a good thing to do so that's why they don't do it — but why they do it.

It's pretty spinny. You look over somebody as to why he had an accident and something like "reasons to have an accident" would cover such a thing.

By the way, the rehabilitation of an artist, of course, would be covered by such a thing as, not reasons to die but reasons not to create.

You could just sit there and make him as-is, as-is, as-is, as-is. Get him to explain to you carefully over and over many times why he mustn't paint or why he mustn't draw, or so forth, and he'll explain it all to you. Be careful to acknowledge him completely and then ask him again.

Well, it's not the perfect, mechanical form of the process. That's merely the theory of it. And where you have a rehabilitation, we should ask the question, "Why was there deterioration?"

Well, there was a deterioration because be began to believe that what he was doing was harmful, that it wasn't helping, but the reverse. What he was doing wasn't helping, so he'd better withhold it. That was the last way he could help. And his last answer to help was to withhold certain actions — not actually to participate anymore, but to withhold certain actions.-

Well, when he found he couldn't withhold these actions, always and continually, and succeed, then he'd punish himself for not withholding them. And we get into death and deterioration and other things.

But adjustment on the cycle-of-action, you could say, "Well, give us reasons to survive" to somebody who had too heavy a ridge. Let's look at somebody with a terrific stuck picture. He's always walking around with a stuck picture. Always got a stuck picture in front of his face. Always got a stuck ... Boy! He's surviving, man. He's surviving because the next stuck picture after that, he's dead. Some such rationale as this.

Don't shake the position of this picture, please, because immediately after this, little Liza runs across the ice and falls in. It's all right to have all this ice and snow around here. It's all right, but — and it's cold, I know the picture is cold. But, of course, just two frames later we freeze to death. And this slight chill we're in all the time is vastly preferable to all this.

Well, let's find out why he's got to have that picture or what that picture inhibits or what he would do if he didn't have the picture or any other line of approach on this on the basis that the person wouldn't have the picture at all, not for a moment, if the person totally trusted himself.

If the person was absolutely confident about what he was going to do in life and knew where he was all the time, he wouldn't use such mechanisms. So there's — another approach to the thing is, "What about your actions could you absolutely trust?" See, this would again build up this point line and would change the guy on the cycle-of-action.

These things, whatever mechanisms are used on this — we do know now that an individual places himself on the cycle-of-action in case he is going to die or needs to die — he will have the modus operandi to do it with.

The highest suicide rates are in those states which offer the least opportunity to kick the bucket — the highest sickness rates, and so forth.

Now insanity, of course, keeps somebody from being bright enough to tear everybody to pieces, so they go insane and tear everybody to pieces. Good answer. Not very workable.

When you combine all these things together, well, we find we have learned something new about life. And what we've learned about life is that you can cause a person — well, all you have to say, for instance, to a girl — this girl's in love with a fellow and the fellow says to her, "Well, I don't love you anymore and I'm going to marry Eunice, and so forth." She immediately wants to die. Well, that's a failure in present time. Don't you see?

Well now, we have key-ins, and this thing is surrounded around. Life becomes less worthwhile so she kicks in one of these mechanisms and becomes ill. Then later on, this itself becomes a package. And she sees on the screen one day the actor tell the actress, "Well, I don't love you anymore. I'm going to marry your sister, Eunice." And she inexplicably goes home and she is terribly sick. And she doesn't know why because she was just at the pictures. Then she says experience is no good.

Well, experience is no good only if you don't want to live. If you want to live, you can have all the experience in the world because if you want to live, nothing can hurt you. It's only when you want to die that you can get hurt.

And of course, people open the doors to wanting to die by finding out that their own actions were harmful to others. And then after that, they inhibited them and didn't act, and so forth.

There are innumerable things you could do about this.

Clearing a person today would handle this and other things. Actually, it's such a small point now that it would come along as a matter of course. Clearing would occur.

But the point is well worth looking at. Of course, if you ask a person repetitively, "Give me a reason to live. Give me a reason to live," he might run out. You know, leave all the reasons to die on automatic. They're both valid. The best one to take out is the reason to die. It shifts the person most easily, particularly at this time and place.

Today we want more Clears. That's very easy. Why? Well, all you have to do is put one Clear around in the society and his ability and willingness to help and be and do, and so forth, accelerates or puts together that particular zone or area of the society. More important than this, he really wouldn't have to do very much in order to improve that particular zone or area of the society.

I feel right now that we're in a position where if we took responsibility for what we know and applied it and got ourselves in good condition — swung on up the line — I think that the world would have to work awfully hard to keep itself in the trouble it's in.

I think they'd have to work day and night. I can see summit conferences and U-2s and Khrushchevs just being manufactured left and right trying to get the thing all set up so that we'd still have this much trouble. They'd have to work hard. They'd have to work hard because those are the third and fourth dynamics' wills to die.

There's only one country on Earth has an overt at this time with an A-bomb, and that's the United States. But somebody else has been talking an awful lot about it and has been threatening with them lately. Threatened Britain in the Suez crisis, the first time, and that laid Russia open to an A-bomb. So that makes two countries on Earth that are prone to disaster from A-bombs.

Well, an A-bomb is such a piece of mechanical claptrap and nonsense that I don't even believe anybody could be hurt by one unless he'd been throwing them around. Yeah, I'm sure you have.

So our next zone of research is how we proof everybody up on this, how we square it up, how we straighten this one out. And we'll really have it made. But right now our program consists of you getting Clear.

Now we're going to do our part down at Saint Hill by putting into existence here at least twenty-five thirty people that are very good at auditing people to Clear. I'm going to clear those people, make them good at auditing people to Clear and take the program from there.

Meantime, the HGC is busy auditing people up to Clear, and the Academy is also teaching techniques immediately in this direction.

So we're covering it everywhere we can. We have tremendous responsibilities out through the world today. I don't mean that lightly. If you looked at the stuff that goes across my desk, you would say, "Well, nobody could ever handle it." That's right. That's right. Nobody could ever handle it. Not without your help.

I'm son of standing around here knee-deep in detail hoping I don't get waist-deep in detail, hoping it doesn't go clean over my head before you get Clear. You hear me? Well, I'll hold the walls up till then and then you can put your shoulder to it. Okay?-

Audience: Yes. Okay.

Thank you very much for coming to the congress. It's been a pleasure to talk to you.