Hello.

Thank you.

Audience: Hi.

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

It's very warm out today.

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

Audience: Yes. Sure.

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

Summer's coming on.

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

Audience: That's right.

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

I get out of adjustment on that.

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

Well, I think probably I had better read you some of the good wishes that you got today from around the world, as the first gesture.

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

And here's from Saint Hill: „Have a star performance congress in all respects. Love, HCO WW Staff, Saint Hill, East Grinstead, London.“

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

And here's „Welcome to Australia (stop). Best wishes for successful congress. Staff, American College, Perth.“

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

The — tremendous numbers of them here, my goodness! My goodness!

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

„We all wish you a wonderful congress (stop). Excellent clearing at — the ACC. Signed, HASI and HCO New Zealand.“

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

Oh my, there's just too many of these things, too many of them, too many of them. Wow! Wow. Wow.

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

Oh, I have to read you this one. This is actually „unofficially“ from Spain. This is — this is unofficially from Spain. This little girl is the HCO Steno, HASI London, so she sent it through for HCO London. „Ron. Very best wishes for successful, giant congress at ACC. All our love, HCO London.“

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

You know, you talk about „international boundaries.“ The people who want international boundaries and borders had better not want Scientology too. The truth of the matter is two of the star performers in London are Australians. And I was on the telex the other evening...

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

By the way, you know — you know, you're awful close to London. The space is just totally jammed in between on these new jets. I came through so fast that I actually was getting baggage aboard halfway around the world, you know. Some of the HASIs are now connected together by teletypewriter, and all of them will be soon, and you will be connected up with the rest of them by teletypewriter soon, too. And then I look forward to all the franchise holders being connected up by teletypewriter, and we'll have it made.

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

Now, it's really remarkable. We count noses in the various HASIs of staff nationalities, and it runs as high as 16 nationalities — that's right — in a single HASI.

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

It doesn't matter where it is, but they just — Australians are there, and other nationalities are here, and so on. But they just don't seem to get the idea that they're different.

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

Well, some recent developments have occurred technically in the field of Scientology which give us the courage to go for broke on OT.

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

There isn't time in a congress to describe all of these. They will be taught on the 1st Melbourne ACC, complete. But it'd be a very bad thing if I didn't give you a little peek in, wouldn't it?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Yes.

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

That'd be bad show.

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

I know there are people here that don't know too much Scientology. And I know there are going to be auditors afterwards that will tell me, „Well, I brought so-and-so along and they didn't know much about it, and so forth. And all you did was talk tremendous technicalities, and you just talked over their heads entirely, and they were very upset and so forth.“ So, if you want to be a friend of mine, don't tell the auditor who brought you that it was all over your head, huh?

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

But the tremendous developments always come back to tremendous simplicities. The great points of progress — not just in Scientology but almost in any field or area — are based on finding new, more simple fundamentals which themselves illuminate more areas of knowledge.

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

It's the simplicities that are scarce.

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

Now, you can get people out making atomic bombs, and figuring out quanta, and missiles and bigger missiles and rarrr, and brrrr and fixing it up so they land flags on the Sea of Dreams, and — and accidentally land in the Sea of Violence. All kinds of — of complexities exist in this world today. All kinds of complexities, nothing more complex.

Audience: A body.

If there's anything more complex going to be thought up it's by the „more progressive“ scientists of Earth.

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

For instance, the last Lincoln car that was built in the United States is a wonderful example. Lincoln's always been a pretty darn good automobile. And the last one went on total automatic and it's just got gadgets and gimmicks and thingamabobs and you press buttons and they operate solenoids and doors open and windshields flap up and little men come up and dust off the radiator cap. And people — people around Washington, are — in the organization and so forth, are always trying to get me to turn in an old 1954 Capri I have. And so I tell them „I'll turn it in any day that one of your new ones, you see (meaning the car they just bought, the 1958 or 59 or something of the sort) can beat it away from the stoplights and so on.“

What's there?

They haven't managed that yet, so I'm still stuck with this old Lincoln. I finally took it to England so it wouldn't be out of style.

Audience: A room.

But anyway, salesman came up and got ahold of me, and he says, „You've got to come down and look at the new 1995 (or whatever it was) Lincoln. And you just should be ashamed of yourself driving that old car... Want to get this new, big, wonderful, sensational...“ So forth.

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

So, he takes me down, and unfortunately for him I walked through the repair shops into the showroom! And here's nothing but 1959 Lincolns! See? Stacked up one on top of the other, so to speak! And I said, „You haven't been able to sell any Lincolns this year?“

Audience: A thetan.

„Oh, yes, we're selling Lincolns beautifully!“

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

I said, „What are all these Lincolns doing in here?“

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

„Oh, well,“ he says, „uh, ahem, come on into the showroom.“

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

I said, „No. No. No, I'm interested in this Lincoln right here.“

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

And I got in and slid under the seat and started to press switch buttons. It has panels full of buttons, you know. I started operating these panels, you know. Windows didn't open, doors didn't open, hoods didn't fly up, you know, boots stayed shut, lights stayed off. It wasn't operating.

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

It had gotten so mechanically complicated, had so many vias and supercontrols, and little motors and so forth to go wrong, that all you have to do at one of them is sneeze, you see, and something stops operating.

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

You know, it's like these new — these new missiles the same way. They put them on the launching pad and they fill them up full of fuel, and they blow up. They put a new one on the launching pad, they get it full of fuel, but as they're disconnecting the electric razor or something off of it, why, it blows up and so on. And they finally manage to put it all together and back off very carefully and get in and then push the button and it blows up.

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

Well, now the funny part of it is that they think that by adding greater and greater complications onto their mechanical basics that they can get greater and greater performance. And that isn't true at all.

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

When a communication line stops operating, just strip all the gadgets and things off of it and just put the straight line back and it'll start operating again. That's a truism mechanically. And it's certainly true technologically in the development of Scientology research investigation.

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

Now, by achieving a new, even more simple basic — those amongst you that were brought by the auditor and don't know much about Scientology just don't pay any attention to the next thing I'm going to say because it won't do you a bit of good. But the auditors will understand it. It works like this: We could probably go to the moon and erect any number of batteries of flags with no oxygen masks or anything else by simply achieving a few more simple simplicities in Scientology.

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

You see, the conquest of the moon doesn't depend upon supercomplexities. It's much more likely to be achieved by our arriving at supersimplicities.

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

Now, for instance, we've had a map of the back of the moon for about five years. And the last map shot by the Russians when that thing went around back there — its photographic quality is very sour, but it shows that they more or less did send something around the moon. Everybody doubted it for a while, but they did send something around because I've got a chart on my desk that shows they're more or less correct.

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

The achievement of a simplicity is a greater goal in Scientology than the achievement of a super-supercomplexity that nobody can understand.

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

Now, the basics in Scientology can be explained to a little kid and he'll get them right away if they're true. The truths, the valuable truths, and the things that are really going forward in Scientology are that easily communicated. And you can always tell where we're just a little bit off the rails because a little kid can't understand what we're talking about. And if that's the case and it's gotten very complicated, we may be on the verge of a simplicity but we haven't quite reached it because we haven't achieved understanding.

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

You might say that all things worth understanding are infinitely simple. And all things which are very, very difficult to understand aren't worth studying.

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

Well, you take accounting. I'll give you an example, take accounting. Now, if you don't think organizationally around the world we haven't had trouble with accounting. In the first place — in the first place an Australian chartered accountant is at total odds on how to do it (you wouldn't believe this, but it's true) with a London chartered accountant; they don't quite talk the same language. Their columns of figures add up just a little bit different.

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

They get in a balance sheet in the London office and they read the year's report and so forth on it, and they say, „Well, the — eh — he shouldn't have added that up quite that way. That's not quite the way it's done.“ And down here I'm sure they do the same thing. And an American accountant takes a look at the thing and says, „Huh! Internal Revenue will never agree with that!“ I mean, just does that automatically, it doesn't matter what you put down.

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

And you say, „No! No! We want this balance sheet for the Association Secretary. We don't — we want to know what the organization did. Not — not — not what Internal Revenue thinks about it.“

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

„Oh, well, it's got to be for Internal Revenue.“

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

And you say, „No. We want an accounting department that tells our own executives and people what we're doing financially.“

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

„Well, I don't care. Internal Revenue, Inland Revenue, and your income tax and so forth.“

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

You say, „Look, just — just drop them all out the window, will you? We want to find out what we're doing.“

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

We actually have gotten to a point where if it gets — if an organization gets too big, we just set up a partitioned section that does the kind of accounting the government wants, and then just kind of forget them because somebody's got to keep us informed. And government accounting has practically nothing to do with what a businessman or an organization man wants, has nothing to do with it. He wants to know whether he's solvent; the government wants to know how much they can gouge him for. Entirely different thing just as any businessman here will agree.

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

Well, we had to realize finally that accounting was stuck someplace in the eighteenth or nineteenth century; it wasn't in the twentieth century because the governments demand certain things of you, and other people demand certain things of you, you have to know certain things, and no accounting system extant was giving us these things. And everybody was getting all tangled up with accounting! And anybody can tell you, I am sure, that accounting is a very difficult subject, very difficult! Complicated! Well, it's just complicated enough these days so as not to tell us anything.

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

So, every time we move into some zone of human activity we're unfortunately confronted with a muddle and if we go very far into that particular field we wind up having to straighten it out so that we can get someplace, and that's kind of the way it's going.

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

And we had to sit down, of all things, and find out the fundamentals of accounting. What is accounting? What does it do and how do you do it?

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

And we finally wound up with an accounting system that does what the government wants and does what the executives want and does what everybody wants and doesn't take any time. It's all very simple.

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

The government wants records, so all you do is file records and you've got a system that they agree with. And you put the records in file envelopes so that an executive can look up any person or company that he's doing business with — everything about the person or company is in one envelope, not scattered around anyplace; pick that up and he can look in there and he could read it all off.

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

In other words, all we're doing now is assembling records and filing them, and you can file records in a certain way so as to give you any accounting answer that you want.

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

Nineteenth century said that you had to write it all down in books, which is an alter-is. Well, you don't have to do that because the government doesn't want you to keep books, they want you to keep records. They look at your books, you know, they say, „Ha, ha, ha, ha!“ And you say, „Well, these are our books. They're kept by our chartered accountants and so forth.“ And the government says, „Yes, we know. Where's the records?“ They know you can alter the books, but it's harder to alter records, so that's what they call for these days. So, it might as well be a record accounting system, and that's what we've invented.

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

It turns out to be a very simple system, but it had everybody in the organizations on their ear for just ages — accounting. Everybody going mad with accounting.

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

It's like that in any field of human endeavor. And when something is so complicated that you can't understand it, then don't you be criticizing you as not being able to understand it! Because you've been taught that when you see something difficult or incomprehensible that you can't comprehend, that therefore, you, not understanding it, you must be stupid! And you've been taught to criticize yourself as the first reaction to a complexity! Isn't that right?

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

Audience: Yes.

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

Well, we've got a new look at this. We find out this is just an operation. This is just a way to control people. Let's erect something here that has glittering metal bars and balls and transformers and dials and all sorts of things and then write a textbook that has to do with the quanta of the inverse electrode. Get the thing all computed out in compound calculus with analytical figments, get it put into the local university as a necessary subject if you're going to understand engineering, prove it all conclusively. Nobody understands it — „You're flunked! You're stupid! We of the great priesthood understand it. But you, you louse... Therefore, we are very great people. You owe us a debt. Look at all the work we go to understanding this thing.“

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

Man, man has been falling for that one too many years. If you can't understand it, one of two things is true: You haven't looked through it to find if there are any simplicities in it that you can understand, or it is incomprehensible. See, one of those two things is true.

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

True enough, if there's going to be anything to a big machine or structure or something, there will be some sort of a simplicity on which it's based. And even though the thing does look imposing at first glance, if it contains truth and workability and has value, then somewhere in it there is a simplicity that you can understand, and on that simplicity you can simply build the rest of the mechanism and understand the whole thing.

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

It might be that you didn't do it in a second, but if it took you two or three days, begin to suspect that there's something phony about it. You see that?

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

Now, very often you'll come in late on a subject. The simplicities have all been bypassed. In other words, the simplicities are all taken care of, and somebody is using a language which at this stage of the game is incomprehensible. Now, that language means something or it doesn't mean anything. So, the thing to do is to pick out some of the words that are being used and find out if they are simple words in terms of definition. And if you can understand those words defined, then you can understand the subject. But, if you don't understand those words — if „telekinesis“ is „the right bower of the vortical curve put on by God,“ you say, „Well, that's — I don't know about that. I don't know — Gee.“

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

You're usually better off just by picking this subject up by the scruff of the neck and going... Because there's some hocus-pocus in it. Somebody is being quite unreasonable.

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

Now, I well remember in universities taking up the subject of physics. And physics is comprehensible as long as you're dealing with fundamentals, but some of the things they make out of the fundamentals are quite fantastic. You get up into kinetics and it isn't true. But oh, expansion of gases, for instance, something about gases expand or how you balance two things on a lever's arm or something of that sort. That's all comprehensible. And if you understand that clearly and completely where they apply in physics you can understand all of physics and it's an A-B-C subject that even a little kid could understand.

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

Now, there's another method of obfuscating, a subject, one more method of doing it. And that's to take a subject that's basically simple and talk double talk on it so as to make it appear very complicated even though it's very simple. And perhaps many great truths have been lost to man that way. In other words, the truth was there and then somebody came along and „explained it“ and somehow or another forgot to repeat the truth in the explanation. This is another operation.

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

But if you, on close investigation of a specific subject — like looking up the definitions of its various words or something like that, find that you can't understand it, certainly we can say one thing absolutely — that it isn't true for you. We could say that absolutely. But the probability is that it isn't true at all.

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

Of course, complicated words, communication barriers of one kind or another, specialized definitions and so forth, do occasionally give you a complicated-looking word. But, if you look around and you find the definition to that word and you find out that word does describe something that is true to you now, well, there's probably something there. But if you don't understand it, then there's nothing.

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

Now, in research it's my job continuously to suspect complications. Every once in a while, man, we'll find one that looks like it's going right on up to the stars, you know, it's just wonderful rationale; it just seems to work perfectly and so on, but it's pretty complex. It kind of takes an expert to get it crossways into his skull, you know, and he can still feel the points jabbing him a little bit.

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

And you figure it out in long formulas, and then you have to know this and that and the other thing and so on. Well, I'm too old a hand at it by now — I'll just carry one of these things down about half a column and say, „Well, I guess we better look a little bit further. Because I'd say about next Tuesday we'll find the simplicity that makes this whole thing fall apart.“ And we have just found some of these simplicities in Scientology research that have made a whole lot of things that were evidently a little bit complex fall apart.

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

Now, I still suspect a couple of the items in this new work because I don't think I could explain them easily to a seven- year-old kid. So, I'd say, „Well, I don't know, that's — there must be something wrong with them so there's something simpler to know about them.“

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

Once in a while these things look very good and go very bad. But they only really go very bad if they're away from the fundamentals that we have known for years and years and years.

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

Somebody's always coming along and telling you, „Well, Ron's always changing Dianetics and Scientology. He's always changing it, always changing it.“ The person that tells you that doesn't know the fundamentals or simplicities of Dianetics or Scientology. It's very simple — the setup.

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

We're not changing that. We're trying to find something simpler than the simplicities we already know. It's been working for a long time. How does it work faster? How does it work better? And you'll get shifts of emphasis on various types of processes, shifts of emphasis this way and that.

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

Once in a blue moon — I could say we make a mistake; I won't — once in a blue moon I make a mistake; I take full responsibility.

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

But the difference is, is I'm not so anxious to save my face as never to mention it. There are probably a half a dozen bloomers on public releases over the past nine or ten years, and I made every single one of them and corrected them afterwards and said so.

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

One of those was a thing called Step 6. That's a bloomer of vast magnitude. Just because myself and a half-dozen other people that were on the research lines and so forth didn't run into the solid bank phenomena, we went ahead and released it broadly. Just because a number of people were cleared using it, why we thought, „That's it.“ I did say at the time that it was only good for about 50 percent, but I didn't calculate what was going to happen to the 50 percent it didn't clear, and that was pretty grim.

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

You make a picture, a mental image picture, more visible and more solid for an individual whose engrams are still live with big claws. And this beautiful picture of the flowers in the field, it gets prettier — and prettier and prettier and solider, and the blades of grass finally get so he could practically feel them, you see? In the meantime there's something going further and further and more solid into the back of his neck. At the same time you improve the quality of any picture in a person's mind, you improve the quality of every picture in the person's mind!

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

Now, the mental image picture — the mental image picture is of course, by rights the subject of Dianetics. And that people had mental image pictures and that these pictures were the cause — the recording of them, the cause of the continuance of pressure or bad feeling or misemotion or something of the sort, we considered that by desensitizing or erasing these mental image pictures and taking the teeth out of past experience, in other words, we could bring a person up to more optimum operation.

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

Well, that was fine. And, I demonstrated it time and time again, did it often and — and it was highly successful, and even today you can take Book One and open it up, as I have had somebody do, read the „canceller“ or something on it, you know?

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

I've had a person, by the way, read a session to me out of Book One. It's very amusing, you know? It's got places in there where your — the exact way you run a session, you know? Well, they didn't memorize these things. They were using Book One to audit with and they'd simply open Book One, you see, and read it off to the preclear. „Now, I duh-duh-duh-duh-duh.“

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

Well, you can do that and get somebody to — on a couch and „Close your eyes,“ and all the rest of it just as it says in Book One. Return him to the incident necessary to resolve his case, run him from the beginning to the end of the thing through and through and through, make him reexperience the thing fully and totally and so on, and get rid of his sciatica or baldness or almost anything!

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

The things wrong with him tend to get right within certain limits by the erasure of engrams. The only thing that happens wrong in Dianetic clearing is the person suddenly runs out of havingness. In other words, his whole acceptance level was horrible engrams. And the only thing he could really have was gruesome, terrible, horrible mental image pictures! And you erase two or three of these, erasing the wrong ones, not the one that made him want them, and he would just — he just lost two or three perfectly beautiful mental image pictures, didn't he?

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

And if you erase them wrong way to and so forth, people get upset because they're possessions. They're possessions that can never be replaced.

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

Now, engrams have teeth and claws and all sorts of things.

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

I had an attorney one time — he said to me, „Oh,“ he says, „you're that guy — you're that Dianetics guy.“ I said, „That's right.“ He said, „What's the good of that stuff?“ He — „Would it be any use to me?“ I said, „Well, how would you like to be able to snap your fingers in front of a witness in a chair and say a certain magic phrase and have the witness curl up in a ball and roll on the floor?“ „Aw,“ he said, „that would be terrific.“ He said, „But you couldn't do that. Show me!“

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

I put him in a prenatal and he rolled up in a ball on the floor. I never saw that man afterwards at a club or on the street for what he didn't say, „How are you today, Dr. Hubbard?“

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

The horrible part of it is that a mental image picture will obey the other fellow before it will obey his possessor — its possessor. One's own mental image pictures mind the other guy better than they mind the person who has them because their common denominator is other-determinism.

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

Now, where auditors have had difficulty making Dianetics work is they think the preclear has some influence on his mental image pictures. They think the mental image pictures do what the preclear says. In other words, he says, „Go away. Come back. Change. Turn. Run this way.“ See, they expect the preclear to do it! The responsibility is being assigned by the auditor to the preclear!

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

The reason it's a picture in suspension and is still there hanging fire to the end of time is because the preclear has no control over it. It's an other-determined thing!

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

There's this picture of a fellow being beheaded, you see, and the pc, when he gets a little tired or something like that will notice kind of, you know, that he has this picture of this fellow being beheaded, you know? Has nothing to do with him. Thinks it's something he read out of an old book. Maybe he saw it in the movies. Sort of stuck there, you know?

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

He'll be sitting there, won't be thinking about anything, and... Well, that doesn't bother him, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this horrible pain he gets across the back of his neck!

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

Well, everybody has mental image pictures, but some people have found them so painful that they have gone mmmmmm and have squashed them down to an invisibility. They either made them very furry or quite invisible. And you say, „Close your eyes. What do you see?“ Such a person says, „Oh, nothing but this wide — you know, just nothing. Ha. don't see anything. No, nothing. Ow!“

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

And some other people have decided that the invisibility itself was still too terrible, so after they've squashed their mental image pictures down to an invisibility — those that are chronically stuck — then they get some black paint and get it all nice and black!

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

And you say, „Close your eyes. What do you see?“

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

„Oh, nothing. Just this blackness. Ha. Doesn't bother me — cough-cough-cough-cough.“

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

And some people, believe it or not, still feel so insecure that they take the blackness and alter it to something else. And when you start to — run these people, you start to run the something else. You get — all of a sudden it's something else, like little rockets or something like that.

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

„What do you see?“ you know. „Close your eyes. What do you see?“

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

The fellow says, „I see these little rockets. Rockets going across. That's all.“ Yeah, that's all. When you run that you'll get blackness. And when you run the blackness you get invisibility. And when you run the invisibility you'll get a picture, and there's this headsman standing there with his ax. The fellow is just — his whole action toward it was not to take responsibility for it, but to get rid of it in some outrageous way that didn't get rid of it at all. And that's about all the responsibility most preclears take for their mental image pictures. You know — squash!

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

You walk up to a psychologist, you say, „What do you know about mental image pictures?“

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

„Oh, you're talking about Dianetics, aren't you? Well, they don't exist. Oh, we knew about that years ago. Nobody has any.“

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

You say, „Well, do you have any mental image pictures?“

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

„Nah. No, I don't.“ And he just... And you say, „Close your eyes. What do you see?“

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

„Oh, just these little things going this way.“

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

The general — the general status of people's minds varies, of course, according to their pattern of experience.

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

Joe here has not led the same life as Isabel. And so Joe has one set of pictures and Isabel has another set of pictures. And then these pictures are more — have been more impressive to Joe, let us say, than to Isabel, so Joe's pictures are more not-ised or scrunched up or squashed or done away with, you see, than Isabel's.

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

So, Isabel has a picture of something or other that she can see; Joe has a picture that he can't see. So, you get these variations but you get the common denominator and simplicity that people have pictures. People have pictures.

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

And the only people who could have pictures and not have them be a total liability would be a Clear, because the difference between a Clear and a person who is not Clear is not a total absence of pictures, as everybody tries to define it. A Clear can have pictures, but a Clear can do something about them! And the person who isn't Clear can't! It's degree of other-determinism effective on the individual, if you wanted to be very technical about it.

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

And the Clear can determine his pictures. If he wants to see again his being beheaded, whenever it was, he can mock it up, and look at it and even put the pain into it and go the rest of the way through the thing again. After he's gotten rid of a picture he can put it back there again. That's definitely a Clear's relationship to mental image pictures.

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

But, another person who isn't Clear is in this terrible condition: that the pictures don't obey him. They obey anything and anybody else — particularly headsmen.

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

Auditors very often miss when they're very young in their career and don't know their business. You know, they're just fumbling around and trying to get there somehow. They miss this terrible fundamental. And this fundamental is with us today in Scientology as it's never been before. It's a fundamental.

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

It's degree of other-determinism effective upon the individual, and it's represented in his own control over his pictures. But that person learning to be an auditor who doesn't know his business yet, actually believes that the preclear is being a bad pc and is being upsetting and is being mean and is being stupid and willful if he won't go ahead and handle his pictures. And he keeps trying to get the preclear to handle his pictures!

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

And the only person that can handle the preclear's pictures is the auditor — that little simplicity there.

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

Now, as the auditor starts handling them, the preclear finds he can start chipping in. And after a while finally comes up to a point where he can determine something about the picture. And when you're handling pictures directly that's the only thing that happens, is the picture goes from totally other-determined to self-determined. That's all that happens with pictures.

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

And in clearing people you are not trying to erase every picture and every possession and every everything that the poor preclear has. If you take away all of his aches and pains and all of his mental image pictures, all of his own physical possessions and his body, according to some people he would be very Clear! Well, he isn't Clear; he was robbed.

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

The only thing an auditor can do in the final analysis is to restore other-determinism into self-determinism. In other words, he can make the pc able to control his existence rather than existence controlling the pc.

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

Now, that tells us where we are in relationship to Wundtian psychology which was invented in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany on the premise that man is an animal that reacts on neurons and synapses.

Once in a while an auditor hears a lecture by me and I tell them about psychology. I define psychology, or tell them about psychoanalysis and define psychoanalysis and tell them the facts, you know — brrrrrrrr — and they're this and that and so on, and so it all adds up this way and so forth. They think I'm kidding them.

Then they go out to a meeting of psychologists, they go out to a meeting of psychoanalysts or they read a few textbooks. And they come back and they tell me I am very guilty of understatement. It's much more so!

But, psychology believes that the individual must adjust himself to his environment to be happy. Anybody that knows that subject can tell you that's absolute fact. That isn't all! I mean, there's more. But he has to adjust himself to the environment!

If a fellow becomes the effect of all dynamics, he would be happy! Is there anything wrong with that? If a fellow becomes the effect of everybody he knows, then they will all like him. Is that true?

No. A fellow has to come over to a point where he can be cause over his environment and the dynamics and so forth — not obsessive cause, but just be cause over these things in order to have them in some relationship to himself that isn't harmful to himself and others.

The only thing wicked about this universe or this world, the only wicked thing would simply be this: That it is so other-determined where each individual is concerned, that much evil can result since evil itself would be just random chaos never determined by anybody. And I'm sure that would be evil. I think anybody would agree that would be evil. That's all anybody ever really objects to is just chaos just going on, nobody doing anything about it and everybody being subject to the chaos. And if a steamroller gets its motor started somehow and starts down the road it just runs over people. You know, that's the way it should be.

Well, if you followed through the basic goal of psychology you'd have that kind of a world.

Well, that isn't a good enough goal or isn't a good enough level. So, in Dianetics we had to find out what was it that kept a person this convinced that he couldn't do anything about anything. And it's simply the other-determinism character of his mental image pictures. And all the mental image pictures are that do him harm are the pictures of things that happened that he thereafter couldn't do anything about. It's things he couldn't do anything about. And the common denominator of all mental image pictures that are harmful or overwhelm people simply is that — he can't do anything about them. They're other-determined. So, after a while, people turn around and say, „Well, God has charge of them.“ Or they say, „Well, it's the Politburo has charge of them.“

And there are societies that have built things called thought towers. Believe it or not, this is true — thought tower. And this thought tower was supposed to emanate messages into all the minds of the people, and if they thought a thought against the government or if they thought a thought that broke the law, then the thought tower knew about it and would signal them a message to report to the nearest police station to be brainwashed at once. There have been whole societies operated on this thing.

The joke is, of course, the thought tower does nothing. See, the swindle is that the individual turns himself in. And he turns himself in to be brainwashed because he considers himself a menace to the state thinking that badly. And of course, this is whole track and space opera and isn't happening here on Earth — is it? No, no. They're not doing that in Russia! No, no.

You know that people report back for their next electric shocks when they've been sent to institutions? You know they never have any trouble with it? They give this fellow an electric shock that makes him real stupid. Just like that he'll report back for the next one. And he gets the next one, it makes him more stupid. And they tell him, „You've got to come for another one,“ so, he reports back for the next one.

Well, the trick is the shock was of sufficient duress that he couldn't do anything about it. He could have done something about it right up to the moment, but then everything is brought to bear on him to convince him that there is nothing he can do about it! After that it becomes totally other-determined, doesn't it? So, it itself operates as a mental image picture that makes him do most anything he wants it to. And that's the basis of other- determined control in any society! All you have to do is convince everybody that they can't do anything about anything and you've got total chaos.

How anybody can profit out of total chaos I don't know, but people are around who seem to think they can. They seem to think that they would best exist in a society of total chaos. There are. Maybe it's true, maybe they can exist best.

I know there's certain types of worms and flies and things like that that can only exist amongst corpses. I wouldn't go so far as to say such people are of the same strain, breed and variety of these worms and flies. I'd just say I wouldn't insist on it.

So, all these years of research, whatever attack line you find research on, is the best way to convert other-determinism to self-determinism. Because we find that when an individual is once more captain of his destiny he doesn't do wrong things with it. He only does bad things if he can't do anything about anything. Then he has to do bad and ignoble things because he can't do good things. But, given his choice, man is basically good.

All of us know strong men who are very gentle men. And little weak men who are very, very treacherous. We, all of us, have had this experience with people.

The fellow who is in terror or is afraid or feels that all kinds of pressure can be brought against him is liable to do anything.

I don't know how espionage organizations operate at all to tell you the truth, because they're filled full of people who are held there in terror! And the man held there in terror is liable to do most anything. And he seldom does anything that's good. But a man who has some control over his own destiny, who can exert his own determinism and feels that he can and knows that he can very seldom does things which are harmful and evil to others.

You can see this and demonstrate it, but the basic goal is the conversion, then, of other-determinism that should be self- determinism.

Because you have this silly picture of an individual, himself, mocking up pictures which he considers „other-determined“ which then influence him harmfully. And that's what a person's mind is doing. That's what a person is doing. He actually is making these pictures which affect him, but he doesn't think he's making the pictures. And one of the most unpopular thing you can tell anybody is, „You make your own pictures, you know.“

„I don't believe you! No sir!“

That's one thing they know: These things appear and disappear with no volition from self. They are not in any slightest degree responsible for any picture they have in the bank. Consequently your best, if most dishonest, dissemination line is, „You're a victim. You're a victim of your pictures. And these pictures are there and they've been implanted on you. And you can't do anything about them and you're just a victim of them.“ And everybody says, „You know, that's true!“

But once again our principal — our principal gains have been made in a field of such simplicity as the difference between chaos and order is other-determinism and self-determinism. See, that's totally simple. And other gains are — that we have just made on the route to OT are so simple right now that — gee, they're awful simple. They're so simple that all you do is utter one of the commands to a pc and his head sort of splits. It's almost that bad.

There are a few things that you could tell a people to think about now that you — both you and he will wish you hadn't. They just start tearing the bank up in long strips and so on. Not — it's not dangerous, particularly. He comes out of it.

The funny part of it is he's better off having thought them than he was not having thought them. Get the idea? Because if there was this much violence ready to turn loose in his mind just because he thought a thought, look how other-determined his thoughts were.

He daren't think this certain thought, therefore, all of his thoughts are more or less controlled so as to detour around these various thoughts.

And that one of improving people's pictures, improves the whole bank and improves all the engrams. It improves all the self-det — other-determinism — was such a barrier to clearing that I have been trying ever since to move sideways.

Fifty percent of the people don't experience this because they get rid of the pictures before they can bite them. But the other 50 percent half get killed with this phenomenon.

And what I have to announce to this particular congress is I found the route through this Step 6 for the remaining 50 percent. This phenomenon has been handled and we have the answers to it, and again they are very, very simple answers so they have a ghost of a chance of staying with us for a long time.

But, I'll tell you more about that in the next lecture.

Have we got a congress?

Audience: Yes!

Okay, thanks for being here.