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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Oh, all right."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Oh, could you do that?"

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

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

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

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

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

Audience: No.

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

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

Audience: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"How do you feel about overrunning countries?"

"I feel all right about overrunning countries."

"How do you feel about spreading disease?"

"I feel all right about spreading disease."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience: Yes.

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

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

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

Case said, "What you doing?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience: Yes.

Okay. Thank you.