Thank you.

Well now, wouldn't you like to know a little bit of technical development?

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.

Audience: Yes.

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.

It starts with why people don't progress in processing. I have already told you that it is a tremendous liability for any practitioner to work on any human being in order to render that human being well, better, improved, or just work on them without knowing all of the gen, all of the data about the subject. This is a tremendous liability.

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.

Now, in the field of human relations, the data is a little bit more complex and a little less known than in several other fields. And the liability is considerably greater. The liability of a radio technician working on your radio who doesn't know very much about your radio — the liability is mainly yours. You'll lose the radio, it's the radio that catches it.

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

But in a human being, oddly enough, a fact which is not even known, I mean so little data is actually known to psychiatry that they don't know there's any liability in it, in spite of the fact that nurses in mental hospitals, and so forth, are routinely and regularly sent into the wards as patients. In spite of the fact that of all the creaking wrecks physically you ever wanted to see, you'll find an abundance of amongst medical doctors. In spite of this observation, they do not know that they don't know the triggers and gimmicks. They don't know those little odd bits and pieces.

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.

The first thing which you must not do in any practice in human relations is fail. You can fail with radios. And politically, it is sometimes hard on people to fail with atomic bombs. But you can even fail with those without the tremendous repercussions involved.

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.

No, the field of human relations — and I have understood this with great clarity since 1947 and have worked very, very hard actually on it since sometime in that period when I began to realize, without articulating it, that the one thing you mustn't do about this is fail. You mustn't fail along this line, that was the liability. Don't you see?

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.

And I articulated this first, perhaps '52, '53, '54 — losses, and so on. And this came out very strong and clear about '56, '57. Talked a lot about losses and losing, and we started talking about wins, and so on. We knew more about it.

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.

But this is the one field where you must not leave unknown any data. Because that unknownness becomes a liability out of proportion to merely repairing a machine.

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.

Now if medicine and psychiatry, if other fields of practice, regard human beings as a machine they feel they can escape the liability of not knowing anything about human beings. And it's not true. Because regarding a human being as a machine is an overt act. So it starts right there, that's wrong.

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.

That's why they say, "Well, man after all is only 97 cents worth. So he died, I mean, so what. So what, send the family a bill."

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.

You know, this attitude can only come out of that. They have this mechanism of (quote) "lessening the overt." Lessening the overt. They try to make it less by saying what they're operating on is worthless, that it is unimportant. And you will find almost anybody with overt acts against people, organizations, offices, posts, positions or anything else are saying it is no good in order to lessen their overts against it.

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

There's two sides to this. It might be no good. It's like sometimes — we had somebody in the old Elizabeth Foundation about ten years ago, and he came in and he acted like a crazy man. He said some of the craziest things were going on. He kept talking about all these crazy things going on in his environment. And at that time we had a lot of people who were hanging around from psychiatry, medicine, and so forth. If you think I'm being hard on these men, I'm not. They just happen to be our precursors in the field.

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."

The body of experience which they had in the nineteenth century, and so forth, becomes an object lesson to us. That is all. Our interest ceases at that point. We're not trying to become successors to them or anything else. But they did do a lot of things. And we do have that data. So we should be grateful to them rather than otherwise.

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

We had a lot of these fellows around, hanging around and falling in and out of auditing rooms, and so forth. And these chaps all took a look at this poor fellow, and they said .. .

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.

Well, the auditor auditing him didn't think so. He thought, "Well, there's something, there's something going on here that I don't know anything about, and I'd better find out about it." Now, that was the smart thing to do, you see.

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.

This fellow was a fairly wealthy man, and he was married to a fairly unscrupulous woman who tailor-made a psychotic environment around him, and made him think certain things were happening. She talked to him in his sleep and things of this character, don't you see.

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

It's like some poor guy that was undergoing the CO2 experimentation by some psyrologist or phrenologist or somebody, and they were giving him CO2. And in order to orient them, why, just before they went under, they'd say, "Where's the picture?"

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.

And the fellow would look around and look over the fireplace, and he'd say, "Well, it's over there over the fireplace."

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 then they'd put him out and go hocus-pocus or dance their dance with their gourd rattles — whatever it was, it's historical — and bring him out again and say, "Where's the picture?"

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

And the guy would go, "Mmmmmhnnnnnaaa. It's on the wall over there." And he thought he'd gone mad.

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.

But this is the standard procedure they use with CO2. They haven't any overt act in mind when they change the position of the picture, they change the position of the picture. It isn't because he went mad while he was having CO2. They change the position of the picture so the fellow can reorient himself, and they can be sure that he isn't just remembering the picture is over the fireplace. You see, they don't know enough about the mind to know that a fellow sees what he sees.

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.

And we got this case, the fellow thought he was mad because every time he'd wake up out of this CO2 series, and so forth, the picture was someplace else. And he thought he couldn't remember where pictures were.

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.

In other words, this is a mad environment. There are always two things. So it might actually be true that the navy stopped advancing along about Nelson's day and hasn't done anything else ever since, don't you see?

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.

It might be true, you see, that it isn't being run right. But on the other hand if it were an absolutely perfect navy in modern times, and you had a sailor or an officer, who had tremendous hidden overts against that organization, he would tell you it was no good.

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.

In the presence of ovens, in the presence of hidden crimes and deeds, a person's power of observation becomes poor and he tries to lessen the overt. So, it isn't whether the navy is bad or good. It's just that the person you're listening to probably doesn't know. He hasn't been able to observe it, don't you see?

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."

Well, people facing up to patients who don't know anything about the patients, who are consistently and continually being guilty of ovens about the patients, would be the very last people you would ever find any real data from about patients.

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?

And yet, go down to the library and read the textbooks. Just go down and read the textbooks on old healing practices and you will be fascinated. You'd just be fascinated. You can pick up some old book on psychiatry or something like that which is just full of case histories, and all the data is there.

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

To a Dianeticist, he realizes he's just reading an engram the fellow is stuck in. And all the data is there, what the patient was saying, and so forth. And then you'll hear, "... and so we convinced this patient that this was not the case. And the patient still said, 'I don't know. It still seems it's awfully real.' "

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.

Well, well, you look into — you look into these various views and we find, however, that where you don't know and you're committing overt acts against the thing which you are supposedly studying, you just never find out.

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.

Perhaps the only thing that has happened here that is the least bit fantastic is that our subject matter has not become deranged by the study of the subject matter. In other words, we still are observing the subject.

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.

Well, that was only possible because we were getting more wins than loses more often than not, but where an auditor has been practicing on-preclears for a long time, he has stacked up a few loses. He's stacked up a few, even though he got a lot of wins. And after a while he feels — rrrrr. He isn't quite sure what he's looking at. It — rrwwwrr. He knows there's something he doesn't know. Well, that was the state we couldn't be in. That is the state we must not be in.

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.

First, starting in, we must know that there was little or nothing known about the mind in spite of eight-million-dollar advertising campaigns. We must know that. And we can see that readily by looking at the statistics. And the statistics are on a high, soaring climb all over the world.

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?

Now two things influence these statistics — is more and more people are believed to be insane who were once considered merely eccentric. And the other one is that more people are going insane, and there are less people being treated for insanity effectively but are suffering from iatrogenic psychoses. Boy, isn't that a nice word? You never heard me use words like that before, did you? I didn't think I remembered that one. I think that's from three lives ago.

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?

It means psychoses caused by the practitioner. Isn't that a lovely name though? Iatrogenic.

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.

Now what do we find — what do we find in this area? We find that we ourselves have had so few of these, that is to say we've caused things to be bad so rarely, if at all, that we haven't been guilty of that much overt. So we're still in there pitching.

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

But where an auditor has had one too many loses, he hasn't had all the data available, he himself is liable to become liable to a nonobservation or a restimulation or something of this character.

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.

It's just losses and the realization that he doesn't know, so he actually starts trying to find out. Well, he'll start trying to find out in himself or in others or in some other way and try to make up his mind about what this is that he doesn't know about the thing. And he's apt to drift or he's apt to find something or he's apt to do most anything, but the point is that progress stops right at that point. He's still looking, he realizes. So therefore the one thing we couldn't do in Dianetics and Scientology was to leave it not wrapped up.

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.

All right. It at least had to be wrapped up to a point where the remaining data was insufficiently great to produce a spin on the part of the practitioner. See? We had to know enough so that if we did have to find out more, the more that we had to find out was data of minor magnitude. We certainly had to have the data of major magnitude, and that is the state which the subject and the field shortly will be, and the subject is in right this minute. In other words, there is no major data left undiscovered. There are probably tremendous quantities of minor data. Now how do we know that?

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.

It's the grossness of error that keeps people from being Clear. It isn't the state of cases that we're clearing. They're "What wall?" you know. They're "Well, I don't know whether I ought to touch that tiger or not." The auditor wisely doesn't say, "What tiger?" because there's none in the room.

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.

We're actually picking these people up from the basement on their profiles, and so forth, which you get on such people — they just lie flat over here on the left side of the profiles. And we're bringing those up with the clearing techniques we are using, and we're not even going into the CCHs to produce this.

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.

But when you get down below that, we've still got another whole set of procedures which, operating properly, can bring them up to a point where they can be audited by something else. That still will bring them up, but factually the CCHs bring them up to the bottom of the graph. That's just about what the CCHs do.

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.

Oh, you can — you'll get tremendous upper improvements, but the mechanics of auditing must be working in there as entirely independent of the process of the CCHs, don't you see? There must be something else working in there. Either the interest of another person or a more hopeful outlook or something like this probably takes place in there to bring up these tremendous increases on the CCHs. Not that CCHs are bad, but they — you know, you can run those on an unconscious person. A person can be lying there in a coma — been in a coma for seven weeks or something like that — an auditor can come along and by running CCH 1, and so on, can bring them out of a coma. It's happened many times.

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.

The most notable time that it happened was in New Zealand where an auditor did this, visiting the hospital and bringing this person out of a coma. A person was pretty well up, getting up, was beginning to recognize things, and so forth, and instantly the heart rate and respiration rate were so improved that all the medicos in the hospital became very worried and kicked everybody out and closed the room down tight, and the woman died.

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.

All right. The gross error in that wise was an environmental error. It was force beyond the control of the auditor — restraint of princes or acts of God or something like the old English sea contracts used to read, you know.

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, we can even pick them up off the center of the Earth and bring them up to the basement. But that basement is what worries us. We're not interested in what we can do with somebody in an almost magical line, like a dead person lying there, an auditor comes along, says, "Dead." The pulmotor doesn't work, nothing is happening here, and so forth. And the auditor says, looks down at the corpse and says quite angrily, "Come on back here and pick up that body. What do you think you're doing?" And the person comes awake and . . . searches ... Sounds utterly fantastic, but that works. That's happened several times, too.

"No, nothing."

I didn't do it one time — overt act. That's been kind of sticking around. Every once in a blue moon I think about this — I didn't do it. The fellow had been dead for about twenty minutes or something like that, but it looked to me like he had so overtly gone and drowned himself that I figured out he must be having an awful time of it at home. You know, I just delayed long enough from doing it so that it — I didn't do it. And I picked him up and put him in the morgue.

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.

But anyhow, the mechanics of this sort of thing are, of course, what would make headlines and what we are the least interested in. That's one of the reasons — the magical operation, the magic appearance of things, and so forth, magic healing.

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.

Well, perhaps you may have wondered why we never push magic healing or why we never push magic recoveries or something like that. I'll argue with somebody who can suddenly push MEST or move MEST or something like that.

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.

All right. You let me catch you — you let me catch you pushing all the people off of a bus or doing something in that direction, and I'll nail you back in your head with tenpenny spikes — they remember this. You don't want this kind of thing. Do you know what could happen to Earth right now? If we were just to go ahead and do nothing but magical operations, we would be pulling an awful overt act. We'd drive everybody down into propitiation, see.

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.

I think when people have discovered a few pieces of life in the past, such as in Egypt or Chaldea — well, take Chaldea. That's an interesting side of it. Somebody figured out how to predict eclipses. Maybe it was one of you. And figured out how to predict eclipses and knew when the eclipses were going to happen. Instead of publishing it in the Chaldean astronomer's journal, it became a priesthood. And they figured out just the day before the eclipse and would make some pronunciamento to the local prince — and even when the Chaldean became the Babylonian magic man — say to this prince, "If you don't grant amnesty, freedom, liberty and 10,000 talents to the local temple, the sun will go out tomorrow, and we won't turn it back on."

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

And the local prince would say, "Yeah, pool Heard that before," you know. And then the sun goes out. And he says, "Where is that checkbook?" And the sun comes back on again.

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.

Well, it was merely a piece of natural science. For instance, old Moses, interesting case in point. He was a Red Sea guide for a number of years. He was. He was over in the Red Sea areas, he knew all about the tides, he knew how the — they do it to this day in the Red Sea.

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

The tides there sweep out such a tremendous distance they leave the sands utterly bare and come in with an avalanche of water. Just a crash of water comes in and covers everything up suddenly just in time to catch the Pharaoh's troops, you know. All of that kind of stuff. Well, that's natural science. Nothing against Moses, he was a good guy, we all liked him. But he was not above a little hocus-pocus.

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 anyway, that little bit of science moving in was adequate to take control of tremendous numbers of people. And it was a control which, apparently, never worked out for the benefit of people. It put them in mystery, unknowingness, and so forth. It did not free people. And anybody who did it, of course, himself was liable because he was causing an overt act. He knew very well how he was producing these effects, and he didn't say how. He skipped it. After a while the magic didn't work.

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.

Oh, I could probably study up and bring up vases on the stage here and have them bloom fire, you know, and then explode or something of the sort, or ladies' hats appear in my hand or something stupid like this, you know. Work on it for a year or two or three and get to a point of where you really had a good grasp of these things and didn't flinch every time you touched a lady's hat or something like this, and you're out of your head. Make them sail around in the air or something like that, and come back and sit on the lady's lap with a message from God in it or something. -

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, what would be the possible use of it? Oh, yes, you say you could produce an immediate short-term effect. Well, that's what we've just had too many times in too many places — immediate short-term effects.

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.

Some fellow says, 'Well, I know best," and shows everybody that they should be in propitiation, and then says, "Well, the message from headquarters is something or other, and they . . ." you know, "And this is

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!

what you do with your life, and you're all supposed to go out and immolate yourself on tigers," or something. Whatever it is, we don't care. It's just that it didn't restore to man any freedom, any dignity, decency or control over his environment.

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?"

And this was basically because of a misconcept about man; they thought man was evil. Well, there's a very interesting experiment that you can run, if you have some minor ailment in some part of your body or something of the sort. Let's say you have a knock in the head or something that hasn't gotten well. If you'll just run a Touch Assist on yourself for a while, just keep touching it and looking at your fingers. And you may have to do it for several days or something like this because it might be quite severe — or if you know of an old injury, something like this — you keep doing it, you know. Keep noticing your fingers, not feeling them but kind of looking at them.

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."_

You know, maybe it's back of your ear and you get so you can see your fingers. You know. And you say, "Well, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah" Each time you see your fingers, you know.

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

Well, the funny part of it is what disappears is the bump. This is an interesting demonstration as to the goodness or badness of man. The bump disappears. Who's looking at it? You are. Well, what did you cause to have happen? You caused a bump to disappear. That's what you had happen.

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.

Well, why didn't your head disappear? That's an interesting thing. Just think it over for a while.

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.

It demonstrates that your presence or attention on anything is beneficial to a body. It's fascinating. I mean you look it over. You've got enough philosophy in those few words to have stunned Chaldea. They never suspected this.

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.-

And you find all of their mumbo jumbo is mixed up with the evil eye. If you walk down the street and look fixedly at some — well, if you look fixedly at a house door, why, you'd probably — they'd jump on you with staves and beaten you to death. I think you could still go into parts of Arabia and fix a baleful glance on somebody, you know, and have the gendarmerie come down and pick you up and arrest you for having an evil eye.

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.

Now, we don't know what an evil eye is, but we know definitely that people heal things when they fix their attention on them and that things. only go wrong when they take their attention off of them. Now, how do you like that? It's a fascinating demonstration of the goodness of man.

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.

If you were evil, you'd probably produce cancer instead of a bump. But you're not. You look at it and the bump goes away. No, man is basically good, and the more you punish man, the more you suppress him into uncontrolled, unwatched chaos. And it's the uncontrolled, unwatched chaos that is evil. You define it as evil. Well, nobody's got his eye on it, you might say, nobody is taking care of it and it just occurs. I'm afraid that evil is pretty well a demonstration of nobody taking responsibility for something.

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 anybody that would be crazy enough to come along and use evil must himself be about seven valences removed from anything he could control. So he might be convinced that he is chaos using chaos to produce chaos. And that would be a pretty good statement of politics on Earth today.

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 what is this — what is this factor then? It simply means that completely aside from the fact that if you know all there is to know about anything, it ceases to trouble you, aside from that — that's fact — but we have another factor here, and that is to say that if you put your attention carefully on something, you don't have to do much about it, all you have to do is watch it and know it and watch it, something of that sort, it'll straighten out.

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

It straightens out all out of proportion to the mechanics of what you do about it. Therefore, your power of observation or power of look or power of glance on a situation works way out of proportion to what it should.

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

The normally considered thing is, 'Well, if you study it very carefully — if you study it very carefully and then do something about it, why, it'll get all right." Well, actually, the reductio ad absurdum of this: if you studied something very carefully it would turn good. Therefore, we'd look in the most evil subjects to find the greatest number of unknowns or non-observations, which is why atomic fission is secret. It's all out of proportion to the observation.

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.

You say, "Well, if we studied this, we would get to know about it and so we could do something about it. Well, the fact that our mere study of it leaves it in poor shape, says that there must be a bunch of tiny data, at least, that we don't know about yet or we're not sure about because it doesn't get well instantly." All right. Well, we're in that state right now.

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.

We know enough now in order to do what is necessary to overcome the tiny data that we don't immediately and directly know about. Do you follow me? We're not in any critical stage. We still have to do something about it. We still have to audit a person to make him well.

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.

Well, one of the reasons for this is quite interesting: is we take the responsibility for his lookingness, and it's only his lookingness that can cure his ills. But the auditor just makes sure that he looks, and looks in such a way as to make sure that he is looking, and things straighten out if the auditor does that. That is probably — might be an oversimplified statement of auditing, but certainly it's a basic statement on the subject of auditing. The auditor is necessary.

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.

Well, I know the auditor is necessary just for this reason alone. That people start looking and get so happy about it, they stop looking. And it's something like you say to this fellow, "Hey! How would ... how would you like to . . . how would you like to take a trip to Cornwall?"

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.

And he says, "Fine. I'd really like to take a trip to Cornwall."

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.

And you say, "Well, you go down that road and you'll get to Cornwall, and the weather will be warmer and everything will be fine. And maybe even the sun will be shining down there in Cornwall."

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.

So he says, "Good! Fine!" And he starts out and he's up here in London someplace and he notices a sign that says "Croydon," so he thinks he'll go to Cornwall through Croydon. He passes Croydon and he thinks, "Gee, isn't that nice," and he gets down someplace and he sees that it's very nice over in Kent. And he winds up in Kent and it's very nice, but he's not in Cornwall. He's not in Cornwall and you ask him — you ask him, you say to this fellow who just barely released, and so forth, "How you doing?"

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.

"Oh, I'm doing fine. I'm just doing wonderful. I must be Clear. Just doing fine, fine. It's beautiful here in Kent." Well, what you've got to do then is point out the obvious fact to him that he's not in Cornwall. It's nicer in Cornwall.

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.

And he says, "Well, I'm perfectly satisfied here in Kent." He says, "My lumbago, I hardly feel it at all except at night." You know, this kind of a thing, it — "I don't have the sensation of beating myself over the head with the hammer anymore, I just have a headache." It is so much better that it's wonderful.

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!"

Well, this would be good enough. Maybe you could just publish a book. And the fellow reads the book and he picks up a little — two little, three data, and it says, "Look at things and observe things, and life gets a little bit better, and . . ." And he's satisfied about it, and so on.

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.

But he still has the liability that before he can do anything for anybody else, he has to know pretty well all about it. So much so that about the only overt act that we could pull now in Scientology is fail to disseminate it properly: (1) fail to disseminate it and (2) fail to disseminate it properly. That would be the main line of the ovens that we'd pull on it. There wouldn't be any other overt.

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.

Actually, it wouldn't be an oven perhaps not to audit somebody. But it might be an overt to let somebody stumble around on it without showing him what the score of what he's fooling with is because, look, it took an awful lot of years — why, heaven's sakes, we're celebrating our thirtieth anniversary of research on this subject. And if anybody had paid the bill of the research in Dianetics and Scientology, why — duh, I don't 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?"

The way foundations do research this day, I don't know. Somebody was telling me the other day that somebody spent twenty-six million dollars to study something. Well, they'd just built the building for him to study it in, and he decided, well, that was it, he had done enough. Hadn't even studied it yet and twenty-six million dollars were gone.

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."

Some fantastic bill, some fantastic amount of concentration, a tremendous coordination of data, an awful lot of research, codification — all of these things have taken place. Well, fail to disseminate it, why, it's kind of an overt act. If you know about it — that's for me. In other words, it could be an overt act for me to just not put out in any kind of an assimilable form what is now known about life and human beings, see.

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."

If I just skipped it right now, it'd probably about cave me in. I was looking at this the other day and it becomes an overt act. Your responsibility cannot stop merely by knowing for yourself, simply because you were tied into a world which doesn't know.

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.

Well, anyway, looking this over, we find that there are considerable numbers of data that we could do without. They're not broad, general data. For instance, we don't really have to know the name of the pc. We don't have to know his exact relationship to the general staff in a war a trillion years ago, you see. There's all kinds of particularities in data. We do not have to know exactly how a Martian loads and recharges a blaster. Don't have to know that.

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.

But we sure have to know how a guy becomes and unbecomes a body or a being, and how snarled up he can get becoming bodies and beingnesses.

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.

And we have to know how a man loses control of the material universe, and thereby loses control of an awful lot of his environment and so can spread a considerable amount of chaos that he didn't intend. It's quite interesting. How does he 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!

Well, he goes out of agreement with the physical universe, and that which you go out of agreement with, you can no longer control. Isn't that interesting? It's a law. It's a law — that which you go out of agreement with, you can no longer control.

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.

Now you can go out of agreement with the actions of a car but if you're totally out of agreement with a car, believe me, it'll do nothing but act up. Try it sometime.

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

If you've got an old heap you don't care what happens to, and if you feel the need of an accident . . . No, as road safety organizer, Sussex, I can't, I can't go on with that sentence. It's untrue. No, here's the thing. If you withdrew all of your agreement from a car, you might say, pulled your knowingness out of a car — ha! — it'd ruddy well collapse as far as you're concerned. It's very remarkable.

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?"

Motorcycle shops are very alert to this because motorcycles are a little more tender than cars for some reason or other, and your motorcycle repairmen all apparently know this, I've asked a lot of them. They look at you sneeringly and contemptuously if you say to them, "Did you know that one person's motorbike runs better than another person's motorbike and that it depends on the rider?"

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

And they look at you sneeringly and say, "Who doesn't know that?"

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.

Because there's two motorbikes, they both came off the assembly line at the same time, they're owned by two different riders. And one motorbike just never starts and goes to pieces and folds up in spite of how many repair bills he racks up on the thing, it just won't run. And the other fellow's motorbike seems to be running ten years later without ever anything having been done to it.

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's the explanation of this? Well, one of them is out of agreement with motorbikes and MEST. That's all. He just doesn't agree somehow or another. You put this to test. If you find anybody around with an old heap that won't stay together, why, you just ask him, "What part of that car are you in agreement with?"_

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.

And he'll say, "Rararrooor. "

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."

It's almost an immediate reaction that you get on the thing.

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.

Well now, if you don't know the points, you can't do anything for the person, and the points are not very many. It's — the best, fast summary of them is the Axioms. Those are all important points. But there's some mechanical points which are purely mechanical, which I think also are contained in the Dianetic Axioms as purely mechanical points, which are also necessary to know. And first and foremost amongst these is the cycle-of-action.

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."

The cycle-of-action is terribly important. And recently, I developed the double cycle. And the double cycle answers the problem of: there's two girls, one is Marybelle and the other is Annabelle. And you threaten to kick Annabelle and she does what you want, but you threaten to kick Marybelle and she practically scratches your eyes out. Well, is there any explanation for this which is fast and easily stated? Yes, there sure is. There sure is. It's a double cycle-of-action.

"Well, he's well."

There are six combinations of the cycle-of-action. Be: Create-create, survive-survive, destroy-destroy, that's three of them. But then there's surviving in order to destroy, there's creating in order to survive, there's destroying in order to create. See, there's all these interactions. It's a double cycle. Any one part of the cycle can be combined with any other part of the cycle, and we get one of these weird ones.

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

Now the funny part of it is that a person sits on a double cycle, not a single cycle, which is one of the things that's been baffling about people. We say this fellow just manages to get along all right because he is surviving. And we don't know why everything goes to pieces around him. Well, this fellow is destroying there in order to survive here, don't you see?

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.

Now another fellow is, we say, "Well, he just gets along all right, and he's very productive," and so on. Well, he's creating in order to survive. A weapons maker and that sort of thing, of course, creates in order to destroy, which is all very doubled up. But the funny part of it is that if you locate what part — what doubleness of the cycle a person is on, you punch what he's doing, and you get what he is.

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.

Give you an example of that. You threaten to destroy him, and he decides to survive. In other words, this fellow is destroying in order to survive, so you threaten to destroy him, and you make him survive. How many people there must be like this since nearly all businesses conduct themselves on that principle. That must be a predominant number of people.

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.

Well, what kind of a fellow is this in the workshop? In order to survive, he busts up the tools. That's true. In other words, when he really is settled down into this, if this is the only part of the cycle-of-action he's on — well, frankly, the military is the best example of it.

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.

Did you ever watch military equipment, secondhand military equipment? Did you ever look it over? Did you ever find anything right with it? Now military equipment is all right as long as the sergeants are going up and down and saying, "Repair that truck!" See. "Change that tire!" Or you, of course, will be shot or destroyed in some way, or reduced to no rations for a couple of days. You get the idea? He threatens destruction, and he makes them make the things survive. But in essence, the equipment all falls to pieces because, in order to survive, everybody in the group has got to destroy.

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."

Get one of these going in a greenhouse sometime, you'll have fun. All the plants collapse. But apparently the guy is going all right, you know, but everything seems to collapse. It doesn't matter much what's happening. It all goes wrong somehow. Well, that's — he's just on this double cycle.

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.

There must be enough fellows in a plant that is successful — I mean, a manufacturing organization that's successful. There must be enough fellows in that organization — there just must be — who are creating in order to survive, to get something built. But if you take out the fellows who are destroying in order to survive and reorient them, production oddly enough doesn't increase in direct ratio to how much their replacements produce. It goes up something like 8, 10, 20 times.

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.

All right. You've got a pc sitting in front of you who's destroying in order to survive. Oh, well, that's very interesting. He said, "You just did this to me, and you did that to me, and you've chopped me up, and you've thrown me out the window, and you've gunned me down," and so forth.

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.

Well, if you really haven't done anything — of course, there's also the other condition you might have done something. But yap, yap, yap. Well,

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.

this person is obsessively destroying in order to survive. The person thinks you want him to survive, so he destroys himself. You see, you can swap those two any way. Whichever end of it you pick up, he's going to pick up the other end. You get the idea?

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.

So you say to this fellow, "Survive," and he tries to destroy himself, or something or anything. Now if you tell him to destroy, he'll survive, making his facsimiles stick. Now, if you tell him to mock up facsimiles, he can't. See, that's totally out of his perimeter. He can't create. He's not part of that cycle.

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.

Well, there's an immediate and direct way to approach this, and this is one of the oldest techniques known. Very, very old — all of a sudden resurrected. I used to use it years ago. I think any old-timer has heard of this one way or the other.

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.

There's the person who is succumbing, and you're trying to get that person to survive. And his direction is succumb, and your direction is survive, and so there's an immediate disagreement between the auditor and the preclear. And no matter what you do from there on out, you're not going to get anything done because the basic orientation is wrong for auditing. The person came to you and sat down in order to die.

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, I used to use this a great deal. I used to argue them out of it, talk about them, have them mock themselves up dead. I used to do all sorts of things and changed them on the cycle-of-action. But I haven't done it since almost '54 to amount to anything, and here it shows up again as an undercutting step to Help in presessioning.

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.

So presessioning — if you wanted to do a thorough job and hit all of the pcs — a person had to be able to sit there and give a reasonable, not totally crazy response. That's the condition a pc must be in these days. Only some of his responses are totally roaring psychotic. See, he's got to have a few reasonable responses amongst the thing. He can't be crazy all the time. That's how low you can reach with verbal processing though. All right.

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.

Now, you do something about this cycle-of-action, whether by Two-way Comm or by a repetitive process. And one of the best processes, to reorient this thing, picks up all those points where he's trying to succumb. Picks them all up and knocks that out of your road so that you can go on auditing. I'll probably talk about that a little more later.

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.

The next step is you have to clear him up on Help, whether he wants help or not. Now of course, some of — the help he wants may be help to knock himself off. See, that's maybe the kind of help he's looking for. And there must be an awful lot of these people, or medicos wouldn't drive big cars.

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."

Don't get the idea I'm against the medico. We've almost ruined him in several places and we don't intend to go on doing so. I'm saying very factually we don't intend to. My God, pardon my French, swearing, but you don't want to set bones, do you? Well, I don't. Better be somebody around that can set bones. This guy is going to survive in spite of himself, I can tell you.

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

Now the correction of Help, whether or not to survive or succumb, is your second step of presessioning. The correction of Help. That's: Will the person receive help? Is help possible? Is it possible for him to help anybody? The key question if you're just talking to people just to disseminate Scientology, and so forth, and knock them out on this — the key question, of course, if you say, "Do you think you could be helped?"

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?

And the fellow says, "Well, not, I don't think so," so on. It doesn't matter whether he said, "Not today" or something like this. All you have to do to him is say, "Whom have you failed to help?"

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.

He gives you the answers — brrrrrp! "Oh," he says, "my father and my mother," and so forth and so on. He's in-session as far as you're concerned. (snap) Happens just that fast. "Whom have you failed to help?" You go-brrrrrrrp! That's still help. Recognition that one has failed to help is better than no concept of help at all. And he's on the subject of help and he can be brought up the line on this just with Two-way Comm or some process.

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.

Your next line up is Control. Well, actually, Control has many harmonics. There are very low controls which occur and these are most of the controls visible in the society now that when people don't help, they jolly well get controlled. There's where most of the public experiences control. They are being controlled wherever they won't help. You got the idea? That's a nice, low, psychotic harmonic of control. They refuse, you see, utterly, to help in some particular direction so somebody comes in and says, "Well, we're going to arrest you unless you pay your taxes." You got the idea? Drives the tax department batty. A tax department finally becomes a department of chief and subchief executioners for the state, practically, because people are refusing to help all the time. As soon as taxes become exorbitant, people refuse to help the government with that much taxes. Then the government has to put on more and more penalty and this penalty is looked upon by the public as control. That's about — so they think control is bad.

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.

Well, actually, they couldn't drive a car without control, so we get up a higher harmonic that control isn't bad. So there's all these rationales and arguments and they lodge in people's minds. And they'll argue with these quite a bit. But how can an auditor make him sit in the chair and receive auditing commands if he can't — if your pc can't accept a little bit of control? How is this, see? He couldn't.

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.

So you have to clear up this point and then comes communication. Communication is a fascinating point because it won't occur if the person thinks it's going to be harmful. If a person thinks he's going to knock you dead by talking to you, he won't talk to you. And if he's guilty of a great many overt acts, he is almost certain to believe that his communication to you is bad.

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.

All of his overt acts have as their common denominator, communication or lack of it. It's a communication factor. But if he has overts on the auditor, it's quite remarkable. If he has overts on the auditor, he won't talk to the auditor. He won't tell the auditor straight dope. Or if he has overts and withholds buried in his lifetime, he withholds them from the auditor, then he'll withhold all communication of the auditor that is vital communication. And he'll actually disperse to a point where he sees a green picture, he'll tell the auditor it's purple. Or he'll say he had a somatic in his stomach. He won't give the auditor the straight information. So communication is necessary to an auditing session.

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 then comes the last one. A pc has to be interested in his case or what is going on. And if he's not interested in his case, his case makes very little forward progress.

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.

So we get a summary of this. Look it all over, no matter which way it is. First, an auditor has to have enough information so that he doesn't fail. Well, if the pc walked off, the auditor at least knows why. He knows exactly why the pc walked off or what happened. He can understand what's going on, in other words.

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.

The funny part of it is, if he is totally out of agreement with the pc, he can't control him anyway because of this factor about MEST and control. You have to have some agreement with a car before you can control 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.

Well, it works with people, too. You have to have some agreement with this person or you can't control him or do anything with him at all. So you have to know that there is at least something there to agree with about this person. And the most basic thing would simply be the composition of the person. You know where approximately he is and what condition he's in. Well, that's enough. That's enough. If you merely know the mechanics of his beingness and more or less what shape he's in, well, that is agreement. And control can occur just knowing just that little. And he won't walk off, providing you know these other technical points of presessioning.

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.

Now presessioning is very new. It hasn't been talked about in a congress before although there have been some bulletins on it. But this new step on presessioning is brand-new and hasn't even been announced.

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?

Now that step is — as I said, has an old and ancient history. I've had people walk in and give me all sorts of things about this and say, oh, they wanted to be all OTs, and so forth. And before I'd gone very far, I found out what they really wanted. And that was if they just sat there in the chair, they figured out I'd probably bump them off or something and that was exactly what they wanted. They thought that was what should happen to

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."

them in auditing. And if I tried to make them well, why, they'd go mad. But as I said, I'll talk about that later.

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.

But straightening out this point — which means placing on the action cycle, which is a long and involved word — but you've got to place this pc on the action cycle and adjust the cycle so that you can handle him.

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.

Your next one, which you could call, in short, adjustment of cycle. That would communicate and anybody could understand it. The next one is adjustment of Help. His understanding of Help on a button.

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.

Your next one, of course, is adjustment of Control. The individual in other words has to be able to look at control and get a little bit closer to what the truth of control is before he's willing to do that. And you, in talking to him, of course, can adjust the control button simply by understanding what he's all about, oddly enough. You just sit there and understand what he's all about and you've got the Control button going. Frightening. It goes almost into a rapport if you go too far.

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.

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.

Anyway, as we look over this, we find these four buttons which mean in-session. Until you've got them all four adjusted, the pc cannot be considered to be in-session. But when you've got them all adjusted, he's interested. Up to that time, he wouldn't be interested. As long as any one of those four buttons is out of adjustment, the pc will somewhere or another become disinterested or is disinterested in his case.

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

If a pc starts looking bored, you will know at once that a button is out. That's all. There's one of these buttons is out. It's one of these four. He's slipped on the cycle-of-action to such a point as he is no longer in accord with getting well. He has decided the very best possible thing for him to do is kick the bucket here and now. And you're still trying to make him well and he's skidded.

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._

All right. Of course, that happens often in an auditing session, but it flips back the other way. What you've got to know is that if it doesn't flip back, you had better slide the session to a graceful close, give him a nice break, and start the session all over again so that you've got the opportunity before you start it to run all the presession buttons again.

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.

And you'll catch it there, and you can readjust it It's nothing to worry about If it goes on for longer than a couple of auditing sessions — you know, the pc is getting gloomier and gloomier and doesn't seem to be getting any better, and so forth, why, you'd better pay an awful lot of attention to this button.

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.

There's just this: the cycle-of-action, Help, Control and Communication. These are the only things that have to be straightened out in a human being.

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."

But completely aside from auditing, if you straightened out those points with every associate, or if you straightened out those points in every group, no matter what kind of a group, familial, business, military, it doesn't matter what, if you just straightened those things out, just those four, it'd operate practically like a cleared group, regardless of the state of beingness of the people who composed it, which is quite remarkable.

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

So these are the first prerequisites to auditing, whatever else one knows, and I would say, are really the first prerequisites to living. How can they live without them? And I think the answer is they haven't been living.

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.

Well, these developments are brand-new. They have a lot to do with dissemination. You can go out and use these points on your friends, and all of a sudden they'll be mysteriously interested in Scientology when they never were before.

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.

You can get people into session you never dreamed was possible before. You can do various things with these. They're all prerequisites to auditing. So go ahead and use them. Hope you have a lot of luck with them.

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.