Thank you!
Going to have a little talk now about codes. Going to take up the Code of a Scientologist. There are probably several codes that you should know a great deal about. And one of them is the code of chivalry, but you're not practicing that now, so it's purely a philosophic and historical significance - but not the Code of a Scientologist. That certainly isn't of historical significance.
How to get along with a preclear is the way you could say the Auditor's Code reads. But how to get along with the public is the subtitle of the Scientologist's Code. And these are two codes on two different dynamics. It's very important that you should recognize that they have the same basic rationale on both dynamics. This is how to get results on a pc - the Scientologist's Code is actually, to a marked degree, how to get results on the public.
It's very fascinating that very few people have ever understood that ethics are basically, merely good sense.
Kant, I think, wrote a book, didn't he, proving that man had an innate moral sense? Of course I don't trust the man, I don't trust the man. I don't trust him because he said that there were things which transcended things that we could know about. Not having had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him, I never had the opportunity of asking him this one burning question, "If there are things that transcend all the things that we know about, and if we can never know about these things which transcend all the things that we know about, then how is it, Mr. Kant, that you have the cheek and the brass to tell me you know about them?" Unfortunately, we never got in this withering blast.
Now, codes are usually how to get along in the world. A moral code - you know that morals and ethics are interchangeable now in most dictionaries? Certainly a sign of the times. You take small dictionaries, you look up morals, it says "ethics." And you look up ethics, it says "morals." Believe me, there's a world of difference between a "moral" and an "ethic," a tremendous difference.
But let's look at these things, rather than impractically, let's look at them very practically. A moral code is something written up for a bunch of dumb clucks that wouldn't get it otherwise, see? A bunch of squares, you understand? They'd never dig it. So you make it a law. A moral code is a system of shackles by which we restrain man for his own good, without letting him in on what we're restraining him from.
Somebody comes along with a big moral code and - oh, I don't know, writes it down with an electro-pencil while standing on a skyscraper or - I don't know, I'veforgotten. There's some famous moral code, I think, was written in that particular fashion. It was written with a flagpole, or something like that, on a - on a tablet of beryllium or something, or maybe it was - maybe it was a different period.
But they're always getting written this way. Lightning comes down and traces them out, neon bulbs or something, you know. And then somebody comes down from the mountain, he says, "Hear ye! Hear ye! This is the word. This is the law, and you've had it, you clucks. If you don't toe the mark now and walk the straight and narrow hereinafter, if you're not just grooved totally to this little set of handy rules, God's gonna get you. Now, we hate to let you in on this, but we can't even tell you where God is. As a matter of fact, he lives so far away, that you wouldn't even get there if you could get there."
I don't say that has any resemblance to Kant's transcendental logic, but sounds like it though, doesn't it? This thing that you could never reach and that you could never know about is going to get you unless you follow this moral code.
"Always at night, when clipping your toenails, enclose the big toenail in a small casket and hide it underneath the foot of the bed." Thus spake Waganaga!
Well, I don't know, I've always thought - this is just a peculiarity with me - but I've always thought that laws which are made to keep man from hurting himself personally, laws which are passed to restrain man from doing himself injury without letting him in on what, were very stupid laws. Or laws which simply seek to protect an individual against himself - to be more technical - were very bad laws.
I'll give you an example of it. There are certain cities in the world, where if you leave your automobile keys in the lock, the police come along and take the key out and take it to the nearest precinct. Now, you tell me why. That's to keep you from getting your car stolen. But wait a minute! It's your car. It has not been stolen. It is your private property. If you're silly enough to leave the keys in the car so that it can be driven off at any moment, that's your lookout.
And if such things are not left open to choice by people and by individuals, man never learns anything, never improves anything, never has any power of choice, simply goes downhill and becomes a slave. So after a while, somebody has to make up some kind of a law about it. They say the - like this law, "Thou who leavest thy keys in thou car shalt be forced to come to local precinct to get them and thou shalt pay two quid." Silly, silly!
All such laws are unreasonable. So after a while, man becomes unreasonable enough to rebel against unreasonable laws. He might see that there's some sense in this. I know I asked a cop one time - cop, I think, is a polite word for policeman, which is becoming a dirty word in some corners of the world - and I asked a policeman concerning this, and he said, "Well," he said, "you have no right to provide access to your property by a criminal."
And I said, "Well, is it against the law for me to leave a window in my house open?"
"Well," he said, "you could say that, you could say that. Yes, yes, it's against the law because you're aiding a felony."
"Well, is it against the law for me to leave a door unlocked?"
"Yes, yes, you could say that. You could say that. You're aiding a felony."
How far could we go with this sort of thing, you know? We could get down to the point where you can't leave your shoelaces untied because your shoe might drop off and this might encourage somebody to pick up the shoe that didn't own it and run away with it, so therefore you'd go to jail if you lost a shoe because you would have been an accessory to a crime. You see how nebulous this whole thing gets.
Well, when it gets so unreasonable nobody can anymore understand any part of it anywhere, it becomes a moral code. Nobody can understand any part of it and somebody is absolutely certain that there's a great deal of sense to it. But he's also certain that nobody will understand it or comply with it unless he's subjected to terrific duress.
They say, "If you are a good boy, this is what you do" or "If you are a good girl, this is what you do." And there's no reason to this. It's just, "You just do it. If you don't do it, I'll knock your silly head off" See, no reason involved, no rationale, no purpose. Now, maybe there still was an inherent purpose in the thing but the code is not given out this way. It's given, "If you don't do it, we shoot you." That's it! That's the way it is. Nobody ever finds out anything about it.
The next thing you know, people stop objecting to have their heads knocked off, you know, they get very hardened. So they have to invent something up in the sky or out in a cave or something that is going to pounce on them. And if they do die in the process of disobeying this code, why, after death something will get them, too. And you've just got to invent all kinds of duresses and punishment it all surrounds - surrounding this one thing: Once upon a time, it made good sense, usually.
But this good sense got departed from further and further and further. And it became less and less complied with and less and less believed in and after a while enforcement became almost impossible. So unusual enforcement comes in, you have moral codes. This is my peculiar way of looking at it.
Ethics is the study, as much as anything else, of the equity of human intercourse. You might say it's how to keep overt-motivator sequences from forming easily. An ethic or an ethical code is not something that is really enforceable. If a person can't see it, don't expect him to follow it. He can't see it, don't expect him to follow it.
Don't make up a whole bunch of laws about not eating pigs. See, "Don't eat pigs, don't eat pigs, it's unholy. Somebody will get you for eating pigs. Eating pigs is sinful," that sort of thing.
No, you tell somebody, "Well, pigs occasionally have trichinosis and it's quite poisonous. You get quite sick from it. And if you want the rest of the people to be healthy, why you - don't feed them pigs because you're liable to hurt them one way or the other." That's the sense of the thing. That's it.
People say, "Well, what do you know," you know? "You mean pigs have germs and..."
Well, people would have to learn something, wouldn't they? They'd have to learn about infection, and they'd have to learn about bodies, and they couldn't be ignorant anymore, could they? And if they could read and write and weren't ignorant anymore, why boy, they'd be hell to govern. Particularly by people who can barely read with a small amount of lip movement.
So right away you get into ethics and you get into education, you get into enlightenment and you get into awareness and you get into dangerous realms for people who really can't govern. Actually, if you really could govern, there's no trick to government. But if you've got big anxieties on the subject, you better keep everybody less powerful and more stupid. Get the idea?
So ethics is not a direction you will find many societies taking because ethics is in the direction of more awareness.
Now, I told you there were two directions you could go in processing - not in processing but in handling minds. You could make them less and less aware and more and more automatic and more and more spun in and less and less capable and so forth, or you could make them more and more aware, more and more alert, more and more understanding, more and more capable, you know, more knowingness.
Well, if you go in the direction of ethics, you get into more knowingness, see, more capability, more understanding. And if you go into morals, you go into more conditioning and less understanding and more unconsciousness, don't you see?
"Why do you dance that dance around that tree?" "Well, I - that's good luck."
That's great stuff - luck. I can show you how to change somebody's luck. You don't have to dance around a tree to change somebody's luck though. But people will tell you this, little kids particularly when they're pretty fogged up and so forth, when they're just coming out of it, you know? Little kids are in a tough spot. They just died a short time ago and it takes them a little while to get over it. And they'll go by a certain tree and stick a pin in it.
You say, "What're you doing that for?"
"Well, when I do that, that brings me good luck if the pin stays in all day, you know?"
You'll see them going down the street and there are squares in the sidewalk and if they touch any of the lines that's bad luck, and if they miss all the lines that's good luck and so forth.
All these things go back to some unconscious, reactive practice that had something to do with something at some time or another. It's almost impossible to trace where these things come from. But you could probably follow it through on an E-Meter.
You'll probably find the exact rationale that disappeared from view.
So when anybody - if anybody ever does try to foist off a code of morals on you, you know what to do with them. I leave it up to your imagination what to do with them.
The only thing you want to have anything to do with in any kind of learning, much less codes: If it's true for you, it's true; and if it's not true for you, it's not true. You understand? That's - it's as simple as that.
If, after inspection, and if after your awareness has been invited along a certain direction, you do not find what is supposed to be found in that direction, you cannot observe it, there is no reality to be had on it - that's it. There's no reality to be had on it and you can't observe it and that's it! You understand? And that is the only test of true knowledge - if you want to call this true knowledge. It's the only test of true knowledge.
Truth is what is true for you.
Now, you get some poor devil down in the local spinbin, and every night ghosts and demons and devils and dark things dive on him. And they're all built in the shape of dive bombers or something of the sort. And they come whizzing and screaming and passing in and out of his head and tearing his nose off and carrying it away and slicing it up into small onions and putting it in a stew. I'm afraid that's real to him. It's on the Reality Scale - dub-in. But that is real to him because that which caused it could not be faced by him.
So whenever you find yourself into a whole mass of substitutes of one kind or another for anything resembling truth, look a little bit higher up scale and see if you can find if there's something here which isn't being confronted or experienced. It's just an awful lot of substitutes and it's an awful lot of this and it's an awful lot of that and there's a lot of shilly-shally and there's terrific contradictions of one kind or another and it's all just messed up. Well, you just can't look at that much substitute and see anything but substitute. Well, let's just look just a little higher on the scale and see if there isn't something curtained or made invisible that somebody is trying to escape from into that much nonsense.
When you can do that, you have the exact mechanism of obnosis. To observe the obvious, it is necessary that you be able to confront the real. And when you start falling away into, "Well, this is the way it is because Ron said so," or "This is the way it is because I read it in a book. And this is the next thing we do." We get into something like the old, old, old story of the great teacher who taught a neophyte.
And before each lesson, the great teacher tied his cat to the edge of the bed - the bedpost - and then sat down on the bed to teach the neophyte some of the secrets of life - spiritualism, in this particular case. So the years went on and one day the neophyte, now become a master, got ahold of a student to teach the student all the secrets of spiritualism.
Now, he says, "The first thing you do is tie a cat to the post of the bed." He knew all the motions without understanding anything that had gone on, right?
If you look at codes of behavior, which are reasonless, which appear to you to be totally irrational, then you can just count on it, there's something being avoided. It's a very odd thing but the nonsense, the weirdities that have been conceived on the second dynamic by very many religions - I'm not speaking now of Christianity, I'm speaking of almost any religion that's deep in the cave or up the pole - they all pick on the second dynamic for their randomity.
The reason for that is the second dynamic is creativeness. Creativeness to them is totally other-determined. So they invent a god, they say he created everything and they can't permit man ever to feel or think that he ever created anything, so they attack the second dynamic.
And you'll find these boys going up and down the land. Oh, the Manichaeans - that's a religious order, it was part Christian - ah, oh and many, many, many, many, many of these - Indian cults. There are various practices of sexual interest that have been practiced in the religions of Africa and so on. Most of them forbidding -forbidding the second dynamic to occur. You see, forbidding any part of creativeness to occur on man's behalf It's very funny.
The person who started it, I understand in the Christian faith, by the way, was a eunuch. And he had been -when he came over to Rome, he was death on the whole subject of sex and so forth. Well, he'd been pretty badly mauled on the subject. He couldn't confront sex. And one of the first things he started to do was talk about sex this and talk about sex that and you must and you mustn't do this and you mustn't do that and so forth. And then, just this great big pyramid of nonsense grew up out of the fact that he couldn't confront sex. And when you put it that way it - you feel sorry for the guy, you know?
But when you figure out how many young girls and young men and civilizations the thing has attacked and made worm-eaten, it doesn't appear to be so innocent a crime, does it?
Now, no code has any validity to you which is beyond your reason. That's it.
And, the Reality Scale I gave you the other day has another older and more basic parallel scale which can be stated very interestingly. And the top of that scale is a postulate. This, by the way, is the "R" Scale in terms of the broadest look. At the top of the thing is a postulate. That's not the total top, the total top is "no postulate necessary." But, as far as man can see, the reality is a postulate.
Then it becomes a consideration. Consideration, meaning an enduring or continuing postulate. That's all a consideration is. It's a postulate that continues or endures.
These are technical data I'm giving you, by the way.
Now, when we say, "That's his consideration," we don't mean a hit-and-run consideration in Scientology. We mean that is his enduring opinion. And earlier I was talking to you about confusion and the stable data. Well, these stable data that people get hanged with - whether or not they are actual or not actual, they're still hanged with them - those are considerations. They have a certain consideration which means a continuing postulate.
All right, we look down the line a little bit further and we find this continuing postulate gets agreed with. And we have an agreement.
All right now, no terminal necessary, no postulate necessary - that was the top of this thing. And as we went down, we found out that reality was a postulate. And we go down a little bit lower - what is reality? It's a consideration. Go down a little bit lower, it's an agreed-upon consideration. And we're getting into the solidity of agreement. And if we want to form a reality with somebody, we have to get agreement. Agreement is the by-word of reality.
And we go down a little bit further along the line and we find that the agreement becomes solid. And we get something like the physical universe. That wall is solid because we agree that it is solid. And it's a postulate that maybe is agreed with or native to or caused by each and every one of us but it's still solid. And we're into solid terminals, and there's where solid terminals belong on this scale as we go on down. And as we move a little bit further south - further south, in Scientology, means worse off - "amongst the auks and penguins" is a colloquialism that goes along with that - the individual, from solid terminals, passes into lines.
Now, the line exists, but the terminal ceases to exist. And even though terminals were at both ends of the line, the terminals are invisible. So, you get an invisibility of the solid terminal, but the solidity of a line. And then the line winks out. And the - below that - there might be all sorts of things above this point, but as far as the individual can view, there is no communication line amongst terminals. Above that, no terminals - nothing's really solid. Above that, 'Agreements? Agreements- smeements, what are these?"
Writing a contract with such a person is an adventure indeed because he is incapable of an agreement. You wonder why people break contracts all the time. Well, contracts are based on an agreement. In the absence of agreement, you can't have a contract, that's it. People are not up to agreement, they can't have contracts. All other kinds of agreement - they can't agree with anything anyplace at any time.
And we go up a little bit further up the line, we find out - this consideration, and above that, "Consideration?" The person hasn't any idea that anybody else has any considerations about anything. "What? People think? People think? Ah, that's not possible. I think? Oh no, my brain tells me things; I don't think."
And up a little bit higher than that, "Postulate! What are you talking about postulates? What is this thing called a postulate?"
"Well, it's a thought. A person says it, he generates it, he creates it and it's a statement, a condition that he has announced or somethitig of the sort."
"Oh, people don't do that. Oh no! Don't kid us." You get the idea?
See how this Reality Scale would look from the bottom? There's just nothing nowhere!
Now, as a person goes up scale in processing, you'll find it takes him quite a while to get to a point where he starts undoing postulates. He can't yet make them, but he can run into them and erase them. They turn up in engrams and things like that. But they'll run the longest time without any engram. And then he'll run - see, on the Reality Scale properly, it goes down below this into invisibility, blackness and substitutes. That lies below the scale I just gave, you see? This is the older scale.
And these - this individual, he doesn't have any pictures, you know? He doesn't have any pictures. And all of a sudden a terminal shows up and he goes, "Yeah, da-da, da-da, da-da, whatsa-da whatsa, mmm mmm mmm. Or sometimes he says, "What is this long line going off into space?" And then gets up to solid picture, you know?
And he comes all the way up through these agreements and he comes up through considerations and so forth and then after a while he finds a postulate on this whole thing. He's practically got the thing licked and the postulates turn up. Got the idea?
This is how a person goes up scale and down scale. Well, don't look for Anybody on moral codes or anything like that to be above the invisibility line. I mean if it's morals, if it's duress by strange superstitions and so forth, it's just the people are in a state of "from there on down" at the bottom of this old Reality Scale. Of course, we've added in the new Reality Scale. You see what we have added there. We've gone south from invisibility to blackness to dub-in or substitutes. See? And that finishes out your Reality Scale.
Now, as the individual - as the individual can't see anything and he can't feel anything and he can't think, obviously, the best thing to do is to give him everything by duress. No, it isn't at all. It's to bring him up to a point where he can be ethical. Where he can see the reasons for things, where his agreements in life will carry on well without a great many rules of conduct.
He's agreed upon this and he's agreed upon that. Now we don't need tremendous restraints. Well, I don't care how many rules of conduct you have but just - you don't need tremendous numbers of restraints. Why don't you need restraints? Well, people are communicating. If people agree that they are not going to spit in each other's faces, they don't spit in each other's faces, that's it, see? That's enough. That's enough. Why don't you spit in each other's faces? Well, the answer "Because it's impolite" is just as good as any other answer because it's simply a consideration.
We go down scale further below communication lines again, and we'll get explanations of germs, but that's still perfectly reasonable. That's practically behind - Oh, I don't know - half of the moral codes in the world are germs. That's right!
That's right! You look them over and you'll find out that it's prevention of illness and that sort of thing and-long lost sight of and they don't know what's the beginning of all this.
So we're only interested in the fellow who can keep an agreement when we're interested in such a thing as the Code of a Scientologist. Now, only that person can properly reach the public. And you might say - you might say that in order to communicate with the public, it is necessary for you to follow something like the Code of a Scientologist.
Now, this code wasn't as carefully built empirically, but it's just as workable. And it's an odd thing that where this code has failed, consistently and continually, we have a person who has failed consistently and continually.
One of the surest things they say in Scientology - and this has nothing much to do with anything but just the lecture, it's not any moral lesson in disguise. People who go around chopping up Scientology, while trying to do something in Scientology - chopping up the people in Scientology and chopping up their fellow Scientologists and spreading rumors one way or the other - don't look in their bank account because you won't find any reality there, it'll just be invisible.
The surest way in the world - we can always tell who is going to fail. They go around, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop one way or the other. Well, it's not communication. Let's forget whether or not it hurts people or whether or not it influences other people and so on.
The only time I ever get interested in people saying bad things about me is because it - to some degree, it hurts you. It upsets communication lines and so forth. Such people think they can really hurt you by saying something about you and so forth, you must be in a fine state of overt act-motivator sequence, don't you see? They can't hurt you, they can simply turn your communication lines a bit.
In the absence of what we used to call theta communication, as opposed to entheta communication, you'll find that apparently entheta communication has tremendous power, force and lots of speed and zip. But if you look around, you'll find only theta communications are amongst us.
There's another word that we should note in passing, is this thing entheta. It means "enturbulated theta," if you can imagine such a thing. This is an old, old saw. This is a confused thetan - enturbulated theta. They call a theta communication one which is upscale above 2.0. And those things go, even though they're - apparently have no power whatsoever. Only the upper scale theta communication, the good ARC communication has power. The enturbulation of it requires that the theta communication had to exist first.
So you'll find people around chopping at maybe your good repute. Well, why chop at theirs? They're wiping themselves out. There is no natural law by which an individual who wipes somebody else will himself get wiped out. No, no, that's no natural law.
Guy can't communicate - why worry about him? He doesn't reach anything. You say, "Well, other people at that same level of communication listen to him." Well, let him have them.
He doesn't reach - the people that are listening to him don't know what he's talking about. They haven't enough power of reality. They haven't enough ability to observe reality to know what they're hearing one way or the other.
Oh, you get a mad swirl going - who caves in? Usually the person who gets a mad swirl going, and you'll understand that so thoroughly sometime when you run an overt act-motivator sequence.
There's a fellow set him up - self up one time, and he was, oh man, he was dead against the organization. He was dead against this and he was dead against that. I never think about people being dead against me. But he was dead against anything that looked live.
And people told me, "Boy, that guy, he's really constructing a big organization." And I said, "Who's with him?"
And they named off about four people. And I said, "The poor fellow, send him my condolences."
"Your condolences- what are you talking about? The guy's chopping everything up and he's saying Scientology's bad and he's just spreading it all around, and he's just raising the devil and so on."
I said, "Send him my condolences!"
And they arrived in time for the - just before the doors were locked on the organization by others. Awful complicated situation had occurred. But this individual had gathered unto himself only people who could chop. And of course he was chopping them and they were chopping him and the aggregate amount of chop was of course going no-place and the only place that the lines were gettiug any power at all was because a better communication line existed.
And wherever an organization or a field auditor has failed, it's because his communication wasn't straight. He disobeyed this first one.
Oh, it simply says communicate, don't mis-communicate. Look at it from a very practical viewpoint. If you want to get communication going, if you want to hear from the world at large, you have to be in communication with it. Well, chop around and you go out of communication with it and that's just about it.
That there is such a thing as an ARC break, this we admit. But ARC breaks are something that are handled in sessions, not on the street.
One of the oldest gags in the business: A public would walk up to the front door of some clinic or something of the sort and they say, "We teach Dianetics here," and so on.
And the public would say to them, "Oh, you do. That's good. Well, when's your next lecture," that sort of thing, you know.
And they'd say, "Well, of course we teach things a little differently than Hubbard," and so forth.
The public would say, "Thank you." And close the door and go away.
It wasn't whether the public knew what I was teaching or had any confidence in me. It was the fact that they started a ripple on the line. Don't you see? And the public knew instinctively they weren't going to get any straight communication one way or the other on the subject. And the public just stayed away in droves. And that was it.
This is one of the surest tests of how long an organization is going to go along. How much is it in ARC with itself, how much is it in ARC with other people in Scientology, how much is it in ARC with me, is merely - all this thing measures is how much ARC is it capable of being in with. See, that's all it measures.
And if they're capable of ARC, they're going to communicate. And if they communicate, why, they're going to be very successful and here we go. See?
I don't know why it has to be a code at all. Just seems to be good sense.
Well, naturally, if you're not effective, you're not going to get anyplace is the other way of saying this. If you don't get results on your pcs, the first thing you will hear about is your bank manager. Quite interesting! If you don't get results, why, that's it.
Well, it's the best of Scientology that gets results. And so this clause is again self- evident.
Well, if you want to maintain smooth relationships with the public, why you'll promise them the service that you deliver and you'll deliver the service that you promise. And if you don't, God help you - I won't. It's just good communication, that's all.
And number 4. To deter - is it's proper wording - to deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.
People objected to this word punish - that word appeared in the original code.
Every once in a while we find some madman, some hypnotist-not that all hypnotists are madmen - but we find him doing something weird, so forth, and he said, "This is Scientology." Well, he's guilty of a lie. We do our best to keep them from lying.
We've gotten as far as we have basically because we're quite alert to the misuse of Scientology.
We still own Scientology because we haven't sold it out to some government to teach it how to brainwash the Russians or brainwash the Americans or brainwash the South Americans or something, you know?
We can brainwash somebody in twenty seconds. The only people we practice on are people who come and give us contracts to brainwash people. Test after test, terrifically successful.
They say, "Who is this? Who, where am I? What's..."
That startle you a little bit when I say we could brainwash somebody in about twenty seconds? I think that's a long time - twenty seconds.
Man, when you know as much as we do about the human mind and you start using it in reverse, two things are going to happen. You're getting yourself all set for a straitjacket, see, because it's an overt act to end all overt acts. Take something that could make man well and happy and live in the sun, you see, and turn it around backwards to make him live in a dark coal hole. That's quite an overt act, you see?
The other way, why, individuals don't just get a terrific kickback from it, they just kind of fade out along the line.
One of the reasons governments are so transient on earth here - they're very transient. Oh, they last two, three, four, five hundred years, usually. I think the Roman Empire - but you really couldn't call it the same empire; it changed character about four different times, lasted about seven hundred or something like that. Well, of course they tell you different, but it certainly didn't last in its basic state.
The republic went by the boards fairly early and then it changed over into another type of a government and then another type of a government and another type of a government. I think the last of it - the last head of the Holy Roman Empire lives in the Vatican right this minute. Isn't that true? Well, that government certainly doesn't look much like Cicero down there fighting Julius Caesar.
Now, the transiency of governments is because they take what they know in terms of science and start specializing in victimization or duress or force or something like this. They take the best of what they know and they turn it over into the manufacture of weapons and so on. Well, that's a sort of a despair. One could feel very sorry for people who did that sort of thing. It's a despair.
It doesn't matter what you do with what you know is the despair. See, use it to kill people or something like that - it's despair. It means that one can't be effective so he better shoot everybody. See, you can't do anything.
I'll give you a wonderful example of this in Hitler. This man - the chemical industry had developed a tremendous number of new things. And they were very tremendous developments. See, he had the chemical industry of the world practically under his thumb. He had his war almost won right there. And so help me, he didn't do anything with it. He - I think he made some feeble pass. He said, "We will give you Bayer 205," or whatever it was, which was a cure for sleeping sickness or some such thing, "in return for a return to us of our African colonies. And we'll give you the secret of this." And of course, the other governments around heard that there was a cure, figured out about what it was by reading German chemical papers and synthesized the thing and built it behind his back. This might have been upsetting to him.
But, what business did this man have trying to trade or gimmick or enter into politics a cure for sleeping sickness? See, that itself is a misuse, isn't it.
He didn't just say, "Well, here you go." And send a couple of shiploads on down to Africa to pour these pills down the throats of all the natives and knock out sleeping sickness. And "We're the German commission that are knocking out sleeping sickness. Yeah, well, that's right. Thank you very much. Where's your line? Form up on the left, yeah, here we go."
Think what would've happened if he'd had a real militant attitude toward helping. Think of what would have happened.
He had the chemical industry, he had all sorts of things, he had his communication lines up. He couldn't take it. He declared war - against what or why, I've never been able to figure out. That is the mystery of World War II, nothing else. Unless we simply say it's incomprehensible, and we understand it by understanding that it's incomprehensible.
But all governments seem to use what they know to further their own ends and to destroy. And it must be a sort of a despair. It must mean that they are terribly ineffective.
Most of the actions that we take in Scientology of a punitive nature - that are apparently punitive - are simply to take somebody off of the line and shut him up for a short time, till we can get the ARC breaks patched up and get some reality back in the bank and get him on the road.
And there's such a thing as the HCO Manual of Justice which advises you can't have justice without rehabilitation. It's no justice because it omits the first dynamic. There can be no justice without rehabilitation for punishment. If there's got to be punishment, well then, there's got to be rehabilitation.
Probably the individual would be resolved simply by rehabilitation. And so it works out. It's true. People are resolved by rehabilitation. If you take anybody who is chopping you to pieces and rehabilitate them, why punish them?
So deter is actually the proper word there. And how would you best deter them? Process them till they get some reality. And you'll find in every single case - not because your processing overwhelms them in any degree - in every single case, where your processing sufficiently increases the awareness of the person and his alertness, he begins to look around and see what is really going on, understand what is going on and either helps square it around or at least go into ARC with his fellows again.
And all of these protests that you hear, all of these chops, all of these degrading aspects, all these degrading uses, misuses, anything that you hear in this direction in Scientology is being done by somebody who has no high reality. And rehabilitation is the best answer in every case.
It isn't that anybody who doesn't believe like we do is insane. That is not true. It happens to be empirically true, just by actual discovery, that people when rehabilitated can be social.
Now, what do you mean by rehabilitation? Increased awareness of the exact conditions with which the person is surrounded. And when he's aware of these actualities, he's aware of these real conditions and he's aware of the real situation, he can then act sensibly.
Because a person who is living in an environment he is not living in cannot be sensible in the environment he's living in. He's only sensible in the environment he's not living in. And this looks very silly to the rest of us.
So number 4, you would be right every time if you said: "Rehabilitate to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends." Get the idea?
But we would be guilty then of accusing people who didn't agree with us of being crazy. And even though we're right, we mustn't do it.
Well, you notice that's somewhat covered by number 1. To discourage the abuse of it in the press which exists in the middle of this twentieth century is very difficult to do. Because the reason newspapers are failing and going broke and having a hard time in all directions is they're not communicating. You know, it's just all bad news, bad news. And you talk to their poor reporters, and these boys are going total effct, total effect, total effect.
And you say, "Yes, and I think I'm leaving tomorrow."
And they say, "Hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmmm. You say you're not going?"
It's almost impossible to be interviewed by somebody who's giving a total effect because he can receive no effect. How can he interview you? Therefore he has to make up the story before he comes and talks to you.
Oddly enough in all the press we have had, I think I have only had - just one occurred not too long ago - I think I've only had only one press conference in a decade.
Nobody's ever come around and asked me what the score was. Nobody's ever come around to ask me what we were doing. Obviously, they can't confront me. They never do. They go off and they write reams and they publish them all over the place. But they never come around and ask me anything and - isn't that a wonderful thing?
How can some of the most powerful magazine media in the world today publish columns and pages on Dianetics and Scientology and this sort of thing (they're still at it - pops up every once in a while) and never, never, never talk to me or even anybody in a Central Organization directly. How can they do this? Well, they obviously, obviously have a very low sense of reality.
Every once in a while, our people get (quote) suckered in (unquote). And a reporter comes around and he said, "I'm going to give you a good story and I'm a nice guy and we've got it all fixed up and we're going to give you a good story, and everything. It's all set," and a pat on the back and so on and, "Give me the hot dope," and so on.
You spend hours, you know, you process, you make his wife well from lumbosis and you square him all around. And he goes out and writes the story that he wrote the first time before he came to see you, which is that you're all bad and you should be shot or something of the sort.
Well, the press is here serving a very necessary action in the evolution of any particular subject. Just before a subject overwhelms people, they say it's pretty bad. It's always encouraging. I get upset if they don't throw a few brickbats.
By the way, the Einstein theory in 1928 was pronounced at the International Conference of Scientists, held in Berlin, as the greatest mathematical hoax of all time. Did you know that? It was really fabulous.
Best thing to do with the press: don't talk to them. Skip them. That's right, that's right! It's the best thing to do to them.
Well, a person's able to do that to the extent that he has good reality on all the dynamics. Right? So if you're sane, you obey it. Why write it, almost.
But that, by the way, is put in there to preserve a very important datum. This you should know about this particular number 7: that is to preserve the definition of an optimum solution. The definition to an optimum solution is "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics."
Find out that people solve instantaneously on as many dynamics as they are aware of. I could go into a long dissertation on that. I can actually know at once how alert a person is on the dynamics by asking them for a simple solution to any existing social problem. And he'll give me an answer which computes instantaneously the exact number of dynamics he's aware of and no more. And it's very often the first and it's very often an inverted second and it's very often an inverted third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth.
Well, that certainly requires more technical ability than it does a good heart. Tremendous skill processingwise is one thing; trainingwise, it might be quite something else.
You know, the Instructor's Code is quite different than the Auditor's Code, you know? It's - the gag beginning on the thing - you could just read down the Auditor's Code, you know, and just give it the reverse all the way down the line, you got the Instructor's Code. "Never fail to evaluate for a student" - way it starts.
You know why we had to get an Instructor's Code? Because people got too fixed on the Auditor's Code and they couldn't instruct. And they'd go into class, you know, and the student would say, "Well, I know what a thetan is. A thetan is the ring - the ring of warm light which shines around my head. That's what a thetan is."
And the Instructor, of course, he couldn't evaluate for the preclear, so he'd say, "Well, that's right, that's right."
And the person would go along for a year or so thinking that's what a thetan was, you know?
"Really?"
Then the person would say one day, "I know what a thetan is. I'm a thetan, you know? Well, why didn't the Instructor tell me that?"
Well, I'll ask right along with him, why didn't the Instructor tell him that?
Proper answer for an Instructor is saying, "That's very fascinating, that's very interesting. Thank you," if he wants to follow the amenities. But certainly, "No, that is not what a thetan is!" Got the idea?
I've seen Instructors in the old days so anxious to preserve ARC that they never got anybody trained. That's right, that's right! They never got anybody trained. People would walk out not knowing a thing. But they'd be awful happy with the Instructor and very unhappy with everybody else. And they couldn't quite figure this out, see? Instructor has to set them straight.
Well similarly - similarly, if you're going to do any kind of a job that - be effective in any way, you're going to certainly render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or people entrusted to my care. Otherwise, you haven't got anybody, you haven't reached anybody, nobody's reached you, you're not getting any show on the road - why would you do it in the first place unless you did this? But why do it in the first place if you're not going to do it well? It's as simple as that.
Boy, is that a Q and A with the world at large. I might as well spot that one for you as pure corn. I'll just bluntly spot it as just corn - meaning old, untrue and nonsense. But you'd better not do it!
This should read: "To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears." Underscore that "pre-." A person who is in good shape hasn't got any. He doesn't give a darn whether you talk about him - his case or not! He hasn't got any secrets. It's the person who is all fouled up that's creeping around in the woodwork saying, "Well, I hope nobody ever finds this out about me," you know? He's gotten over this idea that he can be destroyed, you know, by having something breathed about him. That's all very well. That's true of every nuttiness. It's a total withholdingness. Every nuttiness is a total withholdingness.
If you're going to process people up to the point where they become sane, you'd certainly better help them safeguard their secrets. Because they're not going to give a doggone about them afterwards and nobody will be taking any care of them after you get them processed up to sanity on all the subjects. But, the public at large demands that. And that's how to reach the public.
If you're going to talk about a case, you better disguise it or give it a number. Got the idea? You can't stop auditors from talking to each other about cases. But they do have good enough sense to talk about them without naming names most of the time. But most auditors are in a kind of a condition where they don't feel that there's any sensibility to this thing, hence, that does belong in the Code of a Scientologist. Has to be pointed out all the time. Got the idea?
I generally handle it this way: I find out from the preclear the things I know about the preclear that I'm not supposed to talk about. If he forgets any, that's his hard luck.
And number 10. To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.
When you have to teach somebody a whole communication code, when you have to take a long time to learn the subject, you're certainly not going to teach anybody in an evening.
The thing that you want to do with somebody like that instead of engaging in unseemly disputes, which is very nonsensical, is put them down in the chair and give them a couple of cans from the E-Meter and process them. That's the way to handle them, not to engage in unseemly disputes.
All right. There's the Code of a Scientologist. It makes good sense. It's an ethical code. Where it disobeys ethics, why, Scientology itself will fail. Because Scientology is not a moral subject, it's a subject that's dedicated to awareness, and not to the dark shadows.
Therefore all you've got to do is keep your communication lines up in the lights, stay in good communication with the public and your fellows, and you got it made. You've already obeyed the code - so that one you really don't have to know by heart, do you?
Thank you. Thank you.