FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 08/15

**************************************************

LEVEL 2 TAPES

CONTENTS:

01 SHSBC-62 ren 66 4 Oct 61 Moral Codes: What is a Withhold? 
02 SHSBC-63 ren 67 5 Oct 61 Sec Checking: Types of Withholds 
03 SHSBC-72 ren 76 26 Oct 61 Security Checking: Auditing Errors
04 SHSBC-75 ren 79 2 Nov 61 How to Security Check 
05 SHSBC-100 ren 104 16 Jan 62 Nature of Withholds 
06 SHSBC-117 ren 117 14 Feb 62 Directing Attention
07 SHSBC-113 ren 119 20 Feb 62 What Is a Withhold?
08 SHSBC-131 ren 135 3 Apr 62 The Overt-Motivator Sequence
09 TVD-4A ren 149 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part I
10 TVD-4B ren 150 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part II
11 SHSBC-142 ren 151 3 May 62 Craftsmanship: Fundamentals 
12 SHSBC-151 ren 159 22 May 62 Missed Withholds 
13 TVD-7 ren 161 23 May 62 TV Demo:Fish & Fumble-Checking Dirty Needles
14 SHSBC-206 ren 235 1 Nov 62 The Missed Missed Withhold 
15 SHSpec-26 ren 389 2 Jul 64 O/W Modernized and Reviewed 

Like most levels tapes, these are SHSBC (St. Hill Special Briefing
Course) lectures. The original numbering has the TV demos (TVD)
numbered independently and restarts the numbering from 1 again
in 1964 (designated SH Special instead of SHSBC). The clearsound
renumbering combines these (SHSBC + TVD + SHSpec) into one
continuous set of numbers shown as "ren" above.

These are based on clearsound and were checked against the
old reels in most cases (as noted). Omissions are marked ">".
Most omissions are of introducing new students etc. but there
were significant omissions of technical material in item 07
"What is a Withhold". Also, item 13 (TVD-7) had significant
omissions in the old reels, marked "#", which were restored in
the clearsound version.


**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. 

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************


THE OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE

Tape #6204C03 SHSBC-131

A lecture given on 3 April 1962

SHSBC-131 renumbered 135 3 Apr 62 The Overt-Motivator Sequence

[Scanned from modern Clearsound set. Checked against the old
reels. Omissions marked ">".]

======== BEGIN LECTURE ========

Thank you.

What is this?

Audience: April the 3rd. The 3rd of April.

3 April? By golly, you're right. One lecture, Saint Hill Briefing 
Course, 3 April A.D. 12, and I haven't got anything to lecture you 
about because I got a withhold.

Female voice: What is it?

Male voice: Tell us. Well?

Yeah, I got a withhold.

Male voice: What's it about?

Are you interested?

Audience: Yes!

Well, I haven't prepared it or revved it up, but I've been taping a 
Class IV. 

Audience: A-a-hhhh.

And I finally just tipped it over - just tipped it over on Class IV, 
and so forth, and now I got it taped. I've been fooling with this 
for some time - what do you do with 3D Criss Cross items and that 
sort of thing?

And what do you know? (This is all I'm going to tell you. This isn't 
a lecture on the subject.) The only thing I was withholding is that 
the solution to what you do with 3D Criss Cross items, of course, is 
the resolution of what makes the overt-motivator sequence; and I've 
suspected this for some time. And I just got some processes and so 
forth, here, which undo the overt-motivator sequence. I think it's 
absolutely fascinating. And the withhold in this lecture would be 
the fact that I, out of my own interest and so forth, would normally 
talk to you garrulously about this particular action, because I'm 
terrifically interested in it - the overt-motivator sequence. How 
the hell did it ever get that way, you know? And can it be undone? 
I've been asking that question for ages. Instead of having to run 
it, can't you undo it? Because I know it'd be a junior phenomenon, 
see? And sure enough, apparently you can undo it. And so that's a 
good piece of news.

So anyhow, I'm not going to give you any more about that in 
particular right now. End of withhold. I'm delighted, you see, 
because if you think of running out all the things which you have 
done and from which you are suffering at the present time, you see, 
when you run these out one by one, and selectively on the whole 
track, it becomes one of these things like running out every engram 
on the whole track. It's just an impossible action, it's so long and 
arduous.

You take Jim over there, for instance, or you take Dick or somebody 
like this, and you get all of these overts - you get the idea? We 
won't even mention Peter. You get these fantastic numbers of overts. 
And if you're going to suffer from every overt you have ever 
committed - see, that's impossible. I mean, mathematically, on one 
lifetime, you'd be dead a dozen lives over, don't you see? And if 
you got a motivator for every overt, for instance, and so forth, how 
could you live?

So I've been fooling around with a lot of combinations that have to 
do with energy and MEST-universe ideas, and ideas and that sort of 
thing, and it's - comes out rather well. And apparently it's a very 
junior idea to prevent people from attacking.

And I have now told you about all there is to know about it, even 
though I would love to go on discussing it for a long time. It's 
just a mechanism to do just that one thing - nothing else. That's 
it. Well, end of withhold.

I'm terrifically interested in the Class IV. You have no idea. This 
has practically laid me in my grave trying to get this thing done, 
because you start going over the top of the whole Goals Problem 
Mass, and just not-is the lot, and sit around and look it square in 
the teeth, and reserve aplomb in one way or the other, it's 
something like living in the middle of the living lightning, don't 
you know? And like to got my head kicked off on this one. But that's 
about all it amounts to. It's fascinating, isn't it?

And it's just a mechanism. It is not even an axiom. See, it's 
nothing. Because every way you look at it, it can't be. It'd be 
impossible. And there wouldn't be any way by which this could be.

You see, if the only thing that ever affected anybody was you, in 
the final analysis - you get this now - then you would have a 
perfect alibi for everything you had ever done to anybody. Don't you 
see that at once you have never done anything to anybody? You see? 
So therefore, looking at that, that makes it look pretty specious, 
you know? You say, "Well, that's - that's kind of a gag.

And now, if nobody ever was affected by anything except what they 
themselves did, do you realize you have never talked to anybody 
anyplace?

Audience: Hm-mm. Yeah.

See? So from all these sides ... You know, I've told you for years, 
the overt act-motivator sequence was limited. You know, I knew it 
was limited, but I couldn't find the entrance point of how the hell 
you ran it out. And I imagine I must have tried at least, oh, I 
don't know, fifteen hundred, two thousand combinations trying to 
blow this thing down just as itself, so - that is, that would run, 
that would run on a case. Just nothing would, except itself.

You look at it from numerous other angles, and it becomes 
impossible. If only you have ever affected you and nobody else has 
ever affected you, numerous things then apply. And amongst those 
things, you wouldn't even be able to keep the same time track. See, 
there's a lot of things wrong with the overt-motivator sequence. 
I've known that these things weren't reasonable. But I knew at the 
same time that everybody had fallen for this malarkey and that 
everybody responded to it.

Well, if everybody responds to it and everybody has fallen for it 
and it processes - you ask a fellow what he's done, and this 
immediately relieves things. And his withholds and all that sort of 
thing - these things are all pertinent to this. And they all 
relieve, don't you see? I mean, you can work with this; you can 
operate with this.

So it doesn't wipe out all processes which do things with it. 
Doesn't wipe out Prepchecking. You can sit down and prepcheck 
somebody, you know. And that's fine. But how about just knocking the 
whole ruddy computation in the 'ead? And now I have just opened up a 
nice, wide-open, twelve-pass express highway that does. It is just a 
mechanism to prevent people from attacking. That's all.

And handled in that fashion in processing, why, it all becomes very 
explicable - runs, in other words. Like to kill you, running it.

But I don't wish to leave you in mystery. I'll give you a specific 
process: "What shouldn't A attack?" "What shouldn't you attack?" 
That should carry you well enough. Of course, to keep in 
communication with the subject, why, you have to add attack, you 
know? And then because that won't be explicit to some people, you 
will have to get synonyms for attack. These are the usual 
complications which arise when you release a process.

So if you do an overt assessment of the Overt Secondary Scale, it'll 
probably give you a better word for your one particular pc. But it 
would be on the basis of "should" and "shouldn't." But this, of 
course, could be expected to be modified to "could" and "couldn't" 
and "have" and "haven't." You see the variations - these are the 
normal variations through which a process goes.

But if you just got somebody to list, who was sitting in a whole 
bunch of motivators and overts and so forth - just list what they 
shouldn't attack, just as easy as that ... That, you should 
remember, was the lead-in. It might not be the final process that 
you run, but that was the lead-in on the research level which gave 
the result and made, all of a sudden, the overt-motivator phenomena 
look, of course, as corny as Christmas tinsel. It's just a mechanism 
by which people have dreamed up ways and means to prevent other 
people from attacking. That is all.

Of course, you don't want people attacking you, so of course you 
tell them that you shouldn't be attacked. And you tell them how you 
shouldn't be attacked, and then you tell them what they shouldn't 
attack, don't you see? And what you overlook is, at the same time, 
they're teaching you what you shouldn't attack - the same time 
you're doing this. So eventually it looks like you have an overt-
motivator sequence.

See, the most sensible thing in the world is, is there's certain 
things which you, in a human body, shouldn't attack. And the lesson 
which you learn from the physical universe: that if you attack these 
things you get hurt. And that is the basic mechanism and the 
learningness which underlies all the overt-motivator phenomena. See?

Well, then, if you don't believe me, take your fist sometime and 
start a buzz saw up, and - oh and let's not be quite that violent, 
lawn mower will do - and hit the lawn mower in the blades while it 
is running. Well, as far as that's concerned, just find a nice, 
rough stone wall and haul off and hit it, and you are immediately 
taught this lesson: that you shouldn't attack it. Because it reduces 
your havingness, of course.

So you teach yourself the lesson that you shouldn't attack, and then 
this goes into a philosophic wingding. And the philosophic wingding 
comes after this fact. You see, after you've learned that you 
shouldn't stick your paws into lawn mowers and shouldn't kick paving 
blocks, and various things - when you've learned all these things - 
why, of course you've learned the remainder: that is, what you do 
unto others will happen to you.

That's not true at all. That's a philosophic extrapolation from the 
fact of what you do you get recoils from. And it comes back to the 
basic law of inertia - Newton's law of inertia. It's a physical
universe law: says what you hit hits back. It's as simple as that.

Now, you can build this up philosophically, that if you say 
something critical of Joe, Joe is going to say something critical of 
you. And if you say something critical of Joe, why, then you can be 
hurt by Joe's criticism.

But a withhold is basically nothing more than your unwillingness to 
attack or your unwillingness to be attacked. And that's all a 
withhold is.

You can take any withhold a person has got: if he gives you this 
withhold, you could ask him, "Well, what shouldn't attack you about 
that?" and run that off. And then, "What shouldn't you attack in 
this particular way?" - any phraseology you care to lose [use]. Your 
withhold is going to evaporate.

See, your withhold system also takes care of it, but there it is. 
It's quite fascinating.

I'm sure you will excuse my absorption with this particular scene, 
in view of the fact that it is the single complication that makes 
your case awfully complicated. You get so that you won't bawl out 
cops and you go around being good, and all kinds of wild things 
accumulate as a reason for this.

Personally, I've never learned this too well. It's not that I've 
been particularly bad in that particular thing, but nobody has ever 
really taught me I shouldn't attack. I mean, it's been rather hard 
to grapple with the thing. People have tried. People have tried.

But I'll give you a little hyster- historical note - a little 
hysterical note here, which you might find amusing. Hasn't anything 
to do with the price of fish.

One of the points where this broke down was, I was examining what on 
the track I felt worst about. I wasn't getting audited; I was trying 
to find out what I felt worst about, see - you know, that I had 
done. I was trying to bracket this thing, this overt-motivator 
sequence, you see? And it was necessary that I do this and get 
studying it, and I've been very reticent about this recently for 
this reason: is it looked for a while that doing anything to 
anybody's mind was the most destructive thing you could possibly do. 
That's quite interesting. I was studying that, you know, and I got 
the bad auditor, and so forth. And I went on and looked at this even 
further, and taking responsibility for somebody else's mind, and 
that sort of thing, it looked like it was a pretty bad show, see? So 
that looked awfully bad for auditors.

Well, I wasn't trying to disprove this, and you can get quite a jolt 
out of this by running it on somebody - "Whose mind have you 
helped?" or something like that, you know. And you would think 
offhand that this would be what tangled up your wits, you see - 
would be helping somebody or doing something with their mind.

And I went through a little period there of looking this thing over, 
and it had a limited workability, and it did make some sense one way 
or the other, and fortunately proved to be not true at all.

It is the energy involved. It's the attack on the energy involved. 
It's the attacking of energy. And it's not even bad to attack 
energy. It's just that you have tried to convince people, and people 
have tried to convince you, that it was very bad to attack energy. 
So you become allergic to energy.

The definition of being good - as long as I find myself talking 
about this - the definition of being good is the definition of being 
overwhelmed, you see? A person who is good is overwhelmed.

I first began this study nautically in this life. It was a naval 
study with me. There's one thing: I'll hold something that bugs me, 
that I don't understand and I'll put it in a bull pen. And I'll put 
it over on the side. And I'll say, "This green puzzle doesn't fit 
with these pink pieces, you know? What is this thing, you know?"

Well, one of those things was the fact that every fighting man I 
ever had under me was always in bad with other people at a time when 
they needed fighting men. And the only people that were getting any 
pats on the back with the shore patrols and so forth were people who 
weren't worth a damn. I mean that - just weren't worth a damn. There 
was definitely something wrong here.

I'd have six or seven sailors out of a couple of hundred, you know, 
and they'd - man, action be engaged, one of those fellows (I don't 
think the period could have been longer than about a minute or 
thirty seconds, or something like that), he was at the wheel 
correcting the course, he was up on the gunnery platform correcting 
the training of the guns, he was down studying the chemical 
recorder, and he was handling the engine room telegraphs; and while 
he was doing all this, he was carrying on a conversation with me. 
And on almost any ship I ever had in action, there'd not be more 
than four or five people on the ship that would help me fight her.

And you had this enormous supernumerary, you see, out there. That 
always bugged me, because these boys were the boys who were always 
in trouble. The people didn't like these fellows. They were always 
in bad. They weren't particularly bad people, but they were just 
always in trouble.

I've seen it now, you know? Some fellow - God, he'd have hash marks, 
and he'd have gold chevrons and eagles, you know, clear up to his 
shoulder, and he'd come aboard, you know, reading Horace or 
something, you know? He'd walk aboard with his package of laundry or 
something or other, and check himself in at the gangway and go below 
and put away his book and his nice, clean uniform. And his record 
would be beautiful and he'd always say "Yes, sir," and everything 
would be so nice. And he was a very pleasant fellow and not very 
obtrusive. Nice man, you know, and so forth. And he'd have all of 
the bonuses, you know? And he'd have all of the stuff that anybody 
ever awarded anybody. Service records, you know: "laudable," 
"terrific," "marvelous," you know, and just rave notices in this 
damn thing.

And in action you would just have to knock him out of your road. 
That was all. Always be in your damn road. "Go on up forward 
someplace and you know - stand down there with the damage control 
party. Don't get in the road." You know, some totally ineffective 
function. Get him out of the road. Ammunition passer - maybe you'd 
get the ammunition there and maybe you wouldn't, you see? But 
there'd just - oh! There'd just be dozens of these guys, see, just 
dozens of these birds, drawing all the pay, getting all the pats on 
the back.

And then here would be these madmen: always in trouble, always 
upset. When the ship was engaged, it would have sunk without them. 
Well, there's something here, see?

These weren't necessarily bad men. Looking them over, they weren't 
criminals, nothing like that, but just nobody liked them. This fact 
used to stick in my craw. I used to study this. I did an awful lot 
of studying of men and life and things like this, and it's something 
I didn't quite understand. But the shore patrol just loved these 
other fellows. I never knew what to do with them - use them for 
spare anchors or something like that? It wasn't that I didn't have 
their loyalty and affection; I did. But action would be engaged, 
they would be just as calm as they always were.

And you study men under stress and men in various guises and men 
under various actions of this particular character, and you find out 
that the world has built up a series of superstitions about people. 
And they're not facts - they're superstitions. They hardly even are 
dignified as findings.

Your animal psychologist has categorized the whole lousy lot. I 
mean, he's got them all. His textbooks are nothing else but the 
mirage of ought-to-be, see? There's no facts in there. It's just a 
bunch of ought-to-be.

He tells everybody, "Beware of anybody who is active." Isn't that 
interesting? "Beware of anybody who is active." You will find in the 
civil-defense manuals of the United States government, in that area 
delegated to (ha!) psychology, that the whole provision that they 
have made is for anybody who gets active: and if a citizen were to 
start flying around and talking about what should be done or what 
shouldn't be done or blaming the government or saying anything like 
this, he is the one you have the butterfly nets for. And this is why 
you have psychological units in civil-defense teams. They're the 
butterfly-net people, and they're supposed to pick up these guys who 
get active. And that's exactly what it says.

I'm not minimizing this or I'm not stretching it or - I don't have 
to. I mean, it's a marvelous example of "be good." You see, the 
whole U.S. civil defense system is based on the idea that there is a 
thing called the government which is composed of people (which 
already is silly), and they're going to take over the country at the 
moment of an attack, see? They aren't there now. They're not part of 
the people, and they're not human, you see? And they're parked up 
someplace in Canada along the DEW line or down in Mexico or out on 
some island - and they don't exist there now. And at the moment of 
an attack, nobody is supposed to do anything but be taken over by 
the government. That's what you're supposed to do in an attack.

Consider it absolutely fascinating! It's just as bad as Eisenhower's 
design for the Normandy landing. I mean, there was nothing worse 
than that. I didn't know this until the other day. I'm going to 
write a book on it. I'm going to call it "The Great Myth." You see, 
I was a Pacific amphibious warfare officer before these Normandy 
landings occurred. And there are certain ways you're supposed to 
make landings. Well, they didn't make them that way at Normandy ha-
ha! They killed men instead.

So anyhow, I didn't know it was that bad. But this is some more of 
your the-government-knows-all sort of a situation and "no individual 
is going to do anything." You got that? No individual - we're not 
going to count on any individuals. The government is going to do 
these things. You get the idea? The government is going to. Somehow 
or another, totally disassociated from anything that is made out of 
skin and blood, see, this is all going to be attended to.

So the government teams are going to take over in certain zones of 
the city, and so on. And it's all worked out. And the only thing 
they've overlooked is these people are people. And apparently, 
looking over the Normandy beachhead landing schedule, there weren't 
going to be any people involved and there was going to be no war 
involved. I think this was interesting - those two oversights that 
they made.

As early as 1941 1 noticed something that probably nobody has 
noticed, that I might comment on, and - that war is the antithesis 
of organization. And if you organize in some dim hope that when 
battle is joined that organization is going to prevail, you're going 
to lose your war, because then it breaks down to the being, the 
person, the man on the job. And the other schedules never go off 
right. They just never, never go off right.

The fellow who is supposed to be there at 5:61, well, I can tell you 
from experience that he is never there till 500 and 61, if he appears 
at all. And if the whole intricate machinery depends utterly upon this 
man pushing a button at 5:61, man, you've had it. Because this - 
look, this fellow is flesh and blood. This fellow is die-able. And 
war is the antithesis of organization. War is chaos. And the only 
thing that you can organize for is chaos. And if you're going to 
organize it, organize for chaos; and that's the only way you can 
organize.

And if you're going to organize for chaos, there's one thing that 
you must count on utterly: the individual. There can be no great 
third-dynamic shadow which suddenly spreads out across the land and 
makes everything all right. Who are these beings that are going to 
take over the middle of these huge cities and set it all to rights 
after the bombs have landed? See? Who are they? Well, they're human 
beings. Well, by that very fact, you can count on the fact that some 
of them are going to be missing.

Now, in space opera we very often tape this better than they do on 
planets. Very often - very often - they have relatively 
indestructible dolls, relatively indestructible robots. But they're
forced into building these things by this other factor: the extreme
destructibility of individuals and beings in areas of disaster. And
even in space opera these fellows disappear. Oh, I love one of these.
It's like the - I don't know what battle that was; I don't know what
the Union called it. It was one of the first battles that Grant
fought. The Confederate general was Johnston - very early, out in
the West someplace or another.

But the only thing the poor Confederates did wrong was draw up a 
wonderful plan of battle; the most marvelous, intricate plan of 
battle you ever saw. At these times these regiments were going to be 
there, and this was going to be there, and everything was going to 
be there, and it was all going to be marked out this way.

And of course, they do all this for a battlefield nobody has been on 
yet, don't you see? They lost. We got clobbered.

This Normandy beachhead: Demolition teams had twenty minutes to 
knock out all the underwater obstacles on the whole of the Normandy 
beach. Pfft!

In the Pacific we used to spend three days and use certain tools, 
but they didn't do it over there. They had a schedule, and it ran 
off - bzzzzzt! And for seven minutes this happened and then seven 
minutes this happened. No part of this schedule is pinned to an 
actual event, don't you see? No part of this schedule is pinned to 
anything having happened. It's only pinned to the clock. Do you see 
that?

You get how mad this will get after a while, see? Unless you pin 
something to an event and say "Seven minutes after this happens or 
has occurred, then you start the next event" - well, you can do 
that. But you for sure can't say "At 6:00 this happens, and then at 
seven minutes after six this happens, and at fifteen minutes after 
six this happens, and at 6:30 this happens." Well, you can count, 
you see, on whatever is happening at 6:15 has probably not quite 
arrived and is probably taking place at 6:35. So the team that is 
enroute to do this thing at 6:30 runs into the team that hasn't done 
what it was supposed to do at 6:35, and - oooooh!

Don't you see what happens? A confusion is an untimed, uncontrolled 
area. Well, you've only got one guy. You've only got one guy. I 
don't care how many textbooks you write or how many psychologists 
you give degrees to, you've, in the final analysis, only got one 
thing. And that is a being, an individual being. That's the only 
thing you've got.

Now, he may have responsibilities, and he may have dynamics and he 
may have a lot of other things, but that's all you've got and don't 
forget it.

You know, I can see some South American reformer, some Simon 
Bolivar. A great guy, Simon Bolivar. No doubt about it whatsoever. 
And this is not what he did, but I can see some lofty, ivory-towered 
character, and he says, "Now, let's see. Our people should do this. 
And our people should do that. And the government should do this. 
And the government should do that. And then all will work out to a 
marvelous utopia. Yes. So here is the schedule."

Well, man, I'd let that poor fellow in on something: He is working 
with the individuals he is working with, and he is working with 
nobody else.

Now, every once in a while somebody runs an ought-to-be on me on 
organizations. And I noticed from an essay Peter wrote one day over 
a telex spontaneously - oh, it's a snide piece of thing. You can't 
mock up a thetan. But they run it on other people besides me.

And people are always saying to me, "Well, why don't you get some 
good people' in central organizations?" That's a hell of a slam, 
isn't it? People on the outside, "Why don't you get some 'good 
people' in Scientology?" you see?

Where's this fantastic reservoir called "good people"? Where is it?

Well, I can tell you the last one to have a monopoly on it is the 
United States government or any other government. They don't even 
know that it might exist.

But all of their actions are based on the fact that in some 
mysterious way good people" are suddenly going to occur without 
anybody doing anything about it, you know. Just from somewhere, 
"good people." It's as pathetic as the Greeks sitting down at a 
battle one time, as it talks about in Plutarch's Lives, sacrificing 
and making auguries until the right moment to repel the attack, you 
know? Greeks are just falling in windrows on all sides of this dumb 
bunny, and he's busy slitting the guts of birds to find out if it's 
all right to make the attack, you see? "No, that liver isn't all 
right. Give me another bird." Slit him up. "No, that liver isn't all 
right." Man.

It's what's known as being auguried to death. Even a private 
commented on it and went down into history.

No, there isn't any such reservoir. There isn't any such reservoir, 
and that's basically what everybody has got on automatic at this 
particular time. They've basically got it all on automatic. "Good 
people." That's what they got on automatic. All the systems are 
geared for "good people."

Government selection. Military selections. School teachers. 
Everything else. Any body that you can think of, it's all geared to 
the fact that from some mysterious reservoir someplace, some "good 
people" are going to come along and pass some examinations, and 
it'll all be all right.

Brother, one of these fine days, St. Louis or Chicago, or somebody 
.. The rest of their atomic plan, by the way, depends utterly on 
the fire engines coming from Chicago to take care of St. Louis, and 
the fire engines from St. Louis going to Chicago to take care of 
Chicago.

It never occurred to these dumb - never occurred to them that any 
elementary atomic planning would cause the bombing of St. Louis and 
Chicago simultaneously.

So anyway, they got it all figured out that from some mysterious 
reservoir, why, these minutemen of steel, impervious to all 
excitement, are going to show up. And what are they going to do? 
What's their first instruction with regard to people? That to take 
anybody who is doing anything - see, any private citizen that isn't 
duly authorized, you know, isn't wearing the magic badge, Fifth Fire 
Brigade or something, or the Royal Atomic Defenders of the Gasworks, 
or something - if he hasn't got the right badge and he's trying to 
say to people, "Go down that street there because it's still open," 
if he's standing there at the corner doing this, then the butterfly 
squad has orders to pick him up. He's the man they want in the 
nearest hoosegow, quick.

And that is what the psychologist in an atomic war is being trained 
to do: to pick up the active person. I consider this fabulous, you 
know? I studied civil defense in the United States, and then my 
stomach gave out. Actually, there are probably only about five 
thousand people in the United States that know anything about 
disaster relief, and not one of those people has ever been called to 
the civil-defense department, which I consider very, very 
interesting. They were the people who handled civil defense in the 
various war theaters under chaos, and so forth.

But these beautiful organizations, man: "Yeah, George, Bill and Pete 
will go in Joe's car three and a half minutes after the first alarm, 
from the south entrance of the building." Oh, no, you know? You can 
see it now: They never get out of the car park. Just one of the 
things that happened: Bill didn't bring his car to work that 
morning. See?

You're dealing with beings, you're not dealing with punched-tape 
card systems and that sort of thing. You're dealing with 
individuals. And I don't care whether you're trying to make a 
perfect government or if you're trying to make a perfect 
civilization or a more livable world or anything else, the basic 
building block with which you build is an individual, and there is 
no other building block. God isn't a building block; government 
isn't a building block; the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
Uniformed Cats isn't a building block. None of these things are 
building blocks. It all comes down to the individual.

Is he any good or isn't he? And that's the other question. Is he 
competent or incompetent? United States today - not roasting the 
United States, particularly - recently passed a rule that no officer 
could be promoted until his wife had been passed on by the admiral.

Well, I suppose I've been an admiral a few times in my past lives, 
but I never went that far to make ... Honest. I never had to go that 
far. I didn't. I never had to go that far. You just look around: 
There's this pretty girl; it's a pretty girl. All right. And you 
used to say "Whhst!" you know, like that. You never had to pass a 
law under Congress that part of an officer's fitness report was the 
availability - I mean, excuse me - the niceness of his wife.

I can just see that wife now, out there on the bridge of the 
destroyer, steering like mad during the battle, can't you? I can see 
it now.

Oh, man, how decadent can you get? What's that got to do with it? 
And yet I've seen officers and officials and organizational people 
promoted simply because they could slap better on the back and hold 
more liquor more asininely than anybody else around. So of course 
they get promoted.

No, it's competence. If you want to get something done, you depend 
on the competence of an individual, not his socialness or whether 
he's a good fellow. It's "Can he do his job?" That is all. Can he do 
his job?

Now, yes, it is true that an individual can be so mean and so 
vicious and so something or other that he gets in the road of doing 
his own job. Never met one myself, but I'm sure that can exist.

No, an individual is either competent or incompetent.

Now, when an individual ceases to be able to run his own life, you 
always can have communism. You can always have these group idiocies 
which take responsibility for conduct out of the hands of the 
individual and place it in the hands of some God-awful, God-help-us 
monster whereby everybody decides this. Everybody decides what he's 
supposed to do and what he isn't supposed to do, and whether he can 
spit, and whether he can breathe, and so forth.

But let me ask the burning question: Who's going to tell him? See? 
You get the point. This is the idea they never think. They never 
think this one other step. After you've destroyed all the 
individuals, who's going to tell them? They never think of that one.

It's a fascinating point. It's the automaticity of competence, the 
automaticity of this vast reservoir of competence, which somehow or 
another is always going to rise up someplace.

One of the ways they meet this is they've got everything all 
geneticized. You know, you raise good horses? You know, if you breed 
the right mares with the right stallions, why, you get an 
intelligent horse. I don't think anybody has ever been able to make 
animal husbandry work, but it's still a popular superstition. If you 
make being a horse so uncomfortable that no thetan - no self-
respecting thetan - will have anything to do with it, you'll have a 
bunch of creep horses. You will, too! You can see them at the horse 
show now, misbehaving.

All right. Now, the basis of the individual is his ability to 
observe and make decisions and to act. And that is ability: his 
ability to observe, to make decisions, and to act. He has to be able 
to inspect and know what he is looking at - what he is looking at. 
He has to be able to make a sensible summary of what he is looking 
at, and he has to be able to act in accordance to what he's 
inspected.

Now, I don't care if you go into the field of study. This is true of 
a student, this is true of a soldier, this is true of anybody: If he 
can't observe and can't make decisions about what he observes, why, 
he's in bad shape. He's in a bad way, very promptly.

Well, he couldn't help but be. I mean, if you knock out any one of 
those points ... All right. He can observe and he can make a 
decision, but he can't act - in any way, shape or form cannot act on 
his data: You've got a fool.

Now you take somebody who can observe all right and see what he's 
looking at, but is unable to make a decision before he acts. He's a 
nut.

Now you've got somebody that's perfectly competent to make a 
decision - perfectly competent to make a decision - and perfectly 
competent to act, but always does so without observing anything. 
You've got a catastrophe, man! That's a catastrophe.

You got Congress. Congress is always building a man-of-war. You 
know, in 1896 they were building a square-rigged, line-of-battle, 
wooden man-of-war. They actually appropriated money enough to build 
that thing. They couldn't observe where they were. They kind of 
slipped on the time track. So anyhow, you got these various things.

Now, the only way you could have a good country, from my point of 
view ... Well, you can have all kinds of systems. Doesn't matter how 
many systems you have. The world is system-happy right now. My God, 
the one thing we don't need is one more governmental system. They 
haven't got a good one, and they probably could use one, but 
actually they haven't got the fundamental on which you would build a 
system.

And the fundamental you'd build a system on would be an individual. 
I don't care how many communisms or "Engelsisms," or something, that 
you dream up, you're never going to have a utopia. You can Plato-ize 
day and night for years and never come up with a utopia that would 
work unless you have individuals who are able to observe, to decide 
and to act.

I'm sure that Mussolini, taking people who were - they had been 
pretty badly knocked around over a long period of time. He was 
making his way, but they were still having to make all the decisions 
in Rome. All the decisions had to be made in Rome. And the only 
trouble with a fascist government in a small town was they could 
maybe observe and they could maybe act, but they had to telephone 
Rome for the decision.

Well, the funny part of it is, you see, Rome wasn't there to observe 
and Rome wasn't there to act. So this got looking pretty weird, and 
their - a government like that gets pretty unwieldy. Nevertheless, 
they were making their way forward until they finally got knocked in 
the head. They got knocked in the head because individually they 
hadn't come up along the line into enough determinism yet to 
actually stand on their own two feet.

The main thing I'm trying to say is, here, that just if you haven't 
got the individual, you have nothing! And if you go in the direction 
of a system, if that system isn't designed to eventually make 
individuals, then it's a system which will fail. And it's the only 
kind of a system that you dare embark upon.

You embark upon any other system that ends up in slavery or ends up 
in the total subjugation of individual ability to observe, ability 
to decide and ability to act - if you impede any one of those three 
things - you're going to find yourself with a slave society on your 
hands. I don't care how many labels the thing has. So the only 
system that is justified is any stopgap system which pushes people 
forward in this direction.

I know I myself am rather proud of the fact that the dispatch 
traffic to me from any Central Organization of five years ago 
consisted easily of five hundred pieces of paper for every one I get 
today. Isn't that interesting?

The volume used to be fantastic! You know, "Ron, can I spit?" Man, 
it'd just be about that bad. And that has just cut down and cut down 
and cut down and cut down, because all the time we're working in the 
direction - we have this tremendous advantage. Of course, 
individuals are becoming more independent and more capable of 
observation, and so forth. I don't go on the basis that it's all 
right for them to make terrible blunders and knock everybody in the 
head before they learn how to walk. But I would incline slightly in 
that direction, that it was better for them to make a few mistakes 
than to be guided every minute of the time.

Their cases are coming up the line, everything is coming up. From 
where I sit, we're making it just this way. We're getting more and 
more autonomy. Our communication lines are longer and longer. We are 
acting, oddly enough, more and more in concert, which is rather 
fantastic, you know? I mean, the further apart we seem to be moving, 
the more in concert we are seen to be acting; and the more we get 
good individuals, the more coordination and agreement we have. Isn't 
that peculiar?

The reason you have an organizational form and the reason I lay down 
organizational forms is basically (1) on experience, and (2) to get 
agreement amongst organization members so that they can move 
forward.

But I myself, in the early days, was the first one to scoff at any 
need of organizational form, as any old-time staff member can tell 
you. I used to say, Oh, for Christ sakes, you're not going to make 
me define that!"

Well, yeah. So there's an interim in which a system can exist, but 
that system gradually goes out of the way to the degree that 
individuals are brought up to being able to observe, to decide and 
to act. And it's the only way you can make any progress, from my 
point of view.

Now I daresay, if I were to talk to some professor of "learnedology" 
in Spinbin U., who had a socialist penchant about it all, I imagine 
that I wouldn't talk this way. I would probably talk to make my 
point with him, because I amuse myself with those jokers. And he 
would be selling me the great value of the system, and I possibly 
would never even dare tell him what I thought or the truth, because 
his realm is in the never-never land of nowhere.

I well remember one debate that I had with such a character. He was 
one of the leading socialists of New York. And before the evening 
was over, in front of a bunch of intellectuals, he had admitted and 
declared, and had now begun to stand up for this one interesting 
fact; he had progressed from "socialism is wonderful" down to this 
interesting fact: that the only way that you could make socialism 
work was to kill every man, woman and child in the world. I finally 
got him to agree to this and was all set to go on forward on a 
program to put it into effect, when he suddenly found the garden 
path down which he had been led. But he still had agreed that this 
was correct.

How he got there was, of course, just by total specious 
spuriousness; you know, making him agree by shades, to agree by 
this, to agree by that. But it was all on this basis, that you 
couldn't have an individual. See?

Obviously, you see, you have a socialism, why, then obviously you 
couldn't have an individual. If you had to have the socialism, 
socialism must exist because you couldn't have an individual. And 
then, of course, I led him on, on this gradient scale, and then 
finally he realized that the only way it would really work was to 
kill every man, woman and child in the world. And then it would 
really work. You might really have a socialism. And he was quite 
sold on the program. That's known as brainwashing by gradients.

But you see whereof I speak here.

Now, if we have systems which depend utterly on making people good, 
we can never get out of the soup. But we can't have systems which 
make everybody good if we mean, by this, blind acceptance of a now-
I'm-supposed-to without inspection, without decision, but only by 
action. If we totally concentrate on an action, an automatic action, 
and if we call that automatic action "being good" - see, you see an 
old lady crossing the street, so you're being good, you must help 
the old lady cross the street. "So now I'm supposed to help the old 
lady across the street." You get the idea?

She just got through shooting her daughter-in-law in the guts, you 
know, and she's carrying the .45 in the bag. But that's beside the 
point. "Now I'm supposed to," you see? Without observation, you're 
supposed to act in certain set patterns. That is what they call 
being good.

And the only way that is achieved is by overwhelming a person with 
energy. You overwhelm a person. You show him that he will get into 
too much action - more action than he can stand - if he does not 
concur with this action. In other words, he chooses to have this 
minor act or actingness, see; he chooses this minor actingness in 
lieu of all of this rwooooooooowrwooooowr, see, of krwow, see?

You know, the way to make little Johnny eat his peas is to take a 
whip, don't you see, and to whirl it around in the air a few times 
and hit him across in the behind and scream at him real loud. Well, 
that is action he cannot confront, isn't it? So you get him to not 
confront this action in order to do the action of eating his peas. 
See how that works?

There are other ways you go about this, of total loss, total 
ostracism: "You're going to be expelled from school if you don't 
study ..." Oh, I don't know what they study in a school. I've never
been able to find out, but, "If you don't study it, why, you're going
to be expelled, and your father and mother will never speak to you
again and they won't feed you, and you'll be thrown into the gutter,
and socially you will be totally ostracized." And that's what an E,
F or G grade would mean when you're in the fourth or fifth grade,
see? You're ostracized.

As a matter of fact, this even works on you, see? I use it simply on 
the basis of you better get a rush on, or something of the sort. You 
don't take it that way. You take it on ostracism - "Ron is mad at 
me," and so on. I never feel that way at all.

No, it's the out-create of action which brings about the fixed 
actingness that we know as "being good." See, "We can create more 
action and energy than you can, so therefore your only choice is to 
fit into this small actingness and energyness pattern." You got the 
idea? Well, you get into this on the basis of coordination. You 
coordinate the actions of quite a few people. Yeah, you can snarl 
them into line and so forth; it has a certain workability. But it 
only works up to the basis where they know it works or where they 
know it should work that way, or something.

In other words, it'll only work in the direction of consulting their 
observation of things. If they can now observe that this is 
workable, or that they would do it anyhow, and they would have 
decided to have done it anyhow, and got on this actingness, then 
perhaps you would be justified for a while in saying, "Ra-ra-ra-ra-
ra-ra-ra, and I'm going to out-create you until you do so-and-so, 
and so forth." You get the idea? "I can shout louder than you can, 
so therefore you're going to do this actingness." You get that?

Ah, but that is not the road the world follows. The world follows a 
total different one. It's "Regardless of whether this is reasonable 
or unreasonable or anything else, man, you're going to do it and 
you're going to be blind to everything else from there on." We call 
it "faith." We call it "discipline."

They used to take a soldier who deserted from his post and stand him 
out in front of the rest of the troops and shoot him down, or 
spreadeagle him on a wheel and beat him to death, or hang a sailor 
over the gangway and slash him to death, or just, you know, 
something like this. A Sunday - you'd never go to church on Sunday 
three hundred years ago but what you didn't pass some guy in the 
stocks who had been doing something or other, been drinking beer or 
something like that on a Saturday night, or some other criminal 
action.

In other words, there were various actions by which more energy was 
thrown at the individual than he thought he could confront. This is 
the idea of making people good, do you see?

So therefore, he fixed in this pattern of action because it was a 
choice of either fixing in this pattern of action or trying to face 
all of this unfaceable and unconfrontable energy. Do you follow me?

That's being good.

Now, when you have a totally disciplined nation, you have a total 
failure. A nation which would make everybody good and sacrifice 
every individual characteristic in it, sacrifice everybody's 
observingness, everybody's decidingness - you got a complete end 
product: complete failure. That's what you'd wind up with - a 
complete flop. And there's where every old civilization goes, and 
that is why they become old civilizations. That is why they decay, 
that is why they become decadent. Because people just become gooder 
and gooder and gooder, by which we mean they observe less and less 
and they decide less and less.

You have this fellow walking down the middle of the street taking a 
certain mincing gait and so forth, not because he thinks it's 
anything, but because he's supposed to do it because his ancestors 
did it.

Oh, you can think of thousands of examples of this sort of thing. 
And when you finally get a totally decadent, totally gone society, 
it gets licked up by any chaos that hits it. It can be overwhelmed. 
By what?

Well, if everybody in it was trained to be good by being trained 
that they couldn't confront certain energy masses, then of course 
any hostile energy mass that shows up can conquer it.

So an old civilization is set up by its own premises to become 
conquered, and you have the cycle of civilizations. And that is how 
they age and that is how they die.

Now, the way an individual ages, the way he dies, is to give up his 
power of observation and his power of decision, and acts on the 
basis that he cannot do as much as he used to be able to do, he 
can't stand as much as he used to be able to stand. And he 
attributes this to advancing age. He never attributes it to being 
able to stand less. The source of advancing age is being able to 
stand less. Advancing age is not the cause of being able to stand 
less.

In other words, aging is caused by a lessening ability to confront 
action. That is all. It's not because the person can't, but he 
merely ages because he believes that he can't. Do you see how that 
goes?

See, it's a reverse look. Well, if the way age is regarded at the 
present time doesn't solve old age, which is that an individual gets 
less and less active the older he gets (do you see that one, the 
less active, you know, the older he gets, the less active he is) - 
if they follow that through uniformly, let me point out to you that 
this does not result in a knock-out of old age. So it couldn't 
possibly be true. See, if everybody believes this implicitly, it 
couldn't be true. Because, boy, they really believe that one. The 
medicos and everybody else believes that one.

The reverse is true: that a person gets as old as he is incapable of 
confronting energy, whether it's a civilization or an individual or 
anything else.

You hear of somebody coming off the beaches at Dunkirk with his hair 
turned white as snow. Yes, well, he aged. Well, why did he age? 
Well, he looked at a lot of fury and ran away from it. See why? See 
how that is?

> By the way it's now past - its about four minutes past your
> leavingness time. Do you want me to let you go on schedule?
> Cause we had the (line?)
> 
> Audience: No.
> 
> Are you being polite?
> 
> Audience: No.
>
> Okay.

Well now, the age of the individual is established by his ability to 
regard action.

The concern of an individual with action is coaction or attack of 
action. You can act with or you can attack an action, or you can 
avoid the attack of an action.

In other words, you either have a lot of energy which you are merely 
utilizing, or you're attacking energy or being attacked by energy. 
See, I mean, turning the band saw on and off and sawing up some 
lumber probably never made anybody insane yet. But attacking 
everybody because they saw up lumber with band saws and going on a 
considerable vendetta on the subject, and then shooting all those 
people, or something like that, or being shot at in return - that 
will cause an aberration, because it singles one out from his 
natural ownership and responsibility of the universe.

An individual is first as big as the universe, and then he selects 
out half of it to fight, and so becomes half the size of the 
universe; and then selects out half of the remaining universe to 
fight, and so becomes one quarter the size of the universe; and then 
selects out half of the remainder to fight, and so becomes one 
eighth the size of the universe. And I could go on and enumerate 
these steps, but why should I when here you are?

Your size in relationship to the universe is directly determined by 
only one thing: is the amount of randomity you care to confront in 
the universe, or the amount of attack you think you're subjected to 
or care to subject the universe to. That determines your thetan 
size. That's how big you are as a thetan. It's how much you feel you 
can take on, or how much you feel may take you on.

Now, let's look at the mathematics of a civilization. We have 
100,000 people in this particular civilized strata - let's take some 
ancient civilization of no great size - 100,000 people in this 
civilization. And at first we say to these 99,999 people, other than 
self - we say to these fellows, "Well, I am as good as any of you 
and can take any one of you on. And maybe even take on two or three 
of you, or six or eight or twelve or fourteen. Who knows? In fact, 
I'm liable to take on anybody who messes me up." And they think this 
way equally, see? And they're liable to take it out on you, too, you 
see? But - so on.

And then one day somebody breaks his neck or breaks his brain or 
something - some other vital part - and he can't fight. So he 
invents justice. And then he gets some other fellows that are pretty 
weak, and they band together, and they invent this thing called 
"justice." And that is, justice consists only of this: that when the 
one individual errs, all other individuals in the society are banded 
together against him. And in the final analysis, that is justice.

You go out here and you lay your hand on a man's shoulder: that's an 
assault. So you have every member of the entire British Isles, 
collectively called the government, issuing a summons for your 
arrest. That makes you versus the government. Right?

Now, look. You were willing to take on one or two or three or four, 
or five or six, or when you were feeling good one morning, maybe ten 
or twelve. But now you're opposed with the idea of some tens of 
millions.

I love this gimmick: "The people versus John Jones." Where the hell 
are these people? Well, they're a collective nonsense that was 
dreamed up by a bunch of birds who couldn't fight. That's about the 
only thing you can say about it.

Now, we expect in a group of men you will get a leading order of 
hens. I'm sorry to mix the metaphor, but ... We expect this. We 
expect this.

You turn a bunch of knights loose in a tourney, and they're all 
going to wind up with a champion and a bird who disgraced himself, 
and between the rest of them, the rest are going to be stretched out 
on a gradient scale of who can lick who. But they very, very seldom 
form a council to go against all the knights of the realm this way, 
until they get into an order of knighthood or something like that. 
And they only get into orders of knighthood when a lot of them have 
been licked. And then you get orders of knighthood. Up to that time, 
nobody bothers, see? Do you see how this works?

But think over this proposition called civilization. It's rigged so 
that the individual, if he commits a fault, finds himself pitted 
against every other being in that whole realm.

And that, he conceives - I don't know really why he conceives this, 
by the way - but he conceives this a too-manyness. So he is 
overwhelmed and he is good and he obeys the law of the realm - not 
because he thinks it's a good law, not because he observes that it 
is right or not because he's decided upon it; but he just obeys the 
law of the realm.

I used to always be able to put this into effect. You race out down 
the highways and you're trying to bring law and order to an area; 
you hang a bunch of guys to the nearest trees. See, you just catch 
some birds that have been cutting purses or burning farms, or 
something like that or - it doesn't matter much where you get the 
bodies. But hang them up on some scaffolds and trees, very visibly, 
you see? And law and order spreads in all direction.

That's because you and maybe four or five men-at-arms are more than 
any robber band. And you are law and order. You get the idea? And 
it's just simply the matter - it's this equation: "You rob somebody, 
without any reason, we will hang you as soon as we can catch you." 
You see, this simple, simple equation, simple arithmetic. So they 
stop robbing people. See, people who would rob people tend not to 
rob people because they figure that guy, and so forth, will 
overwhomp us. You get the idea?

Now, when you get old and you get creaky, and the climate of France 
and England has at last entered your bones to the point of 
arthritis, you of course subscribe to justice, and you invent this 
thing. Instead of you there with a strong right arm, you see, you 
say, "Well, look, 'the people' will get after you." See, a 
considerable police force. But it's "the people" who will get after 
you, and you're being hung by "the people."

I never really bought that sort of justice. Any justice that I ever 
brought to an area was exactly this other type of justice, as crude 
as that may be.

"All right, you robbed the coach, we're hanging you."

And guy would say, "Well, my laws and my rights, and the Magna 
Charta, and so forth," and he'd go right on talking right up to the 
time when you pulled the rope check.

But I'd always let them know that it hasn't anything to do - "This 
is a peculiarity of mine. We have peace in this area. And we're 
going to have peace in this area. And we're going to have lots of 
peace in the area, not because you want it and not because the 
people want it, but just because I say so." And in that way may have 
escaped a lot of motivators and overts, because it was honest.

I'd always hated this other idea. I knew there was something wrong 
with this other idea. I couldn't quite figure out what was wrong 
with the other idea.

But isn't it a masterly gimmick? Look it over as a mechanism. You do 
wrong, and instantly you are going to have as your enemy several 
tens of millions of people. Isn't that a muchness? Huh?

Well, all "goodness" is brought about by force, whether individually 
delivered or delivered collectively. And goodness is never brought 
about by philosophic persuasion.

Three guys observe that they get a lot of planting and hunting done 
as long as they don't knock each other's heads off. They observe 
that one day they knock each other's around, and they don't get so 
much hunting done the next day, and they say, "That's a stupid idea. 
Let's have some peace and declare war on somebody else."

Well, all right. That's an incipient and a quite proper 
civilization, because it's based upon the fact that they have 
observed, they have decided, and that is the way they act.

"Ah, but, you see, law and order and justice actually are the best 
things, and they're the best principles, and you should be a very 
lawful person, and - or your father and I will hate you. And uh ... 
we uh ... And you see that policeman down the street. Well, he'll 
arrest you. And there are thousands of them." And I wouldn't say any 
duress had ever been brought against you to be good.

Now, and one of the oddities of it is that man is basically good. 
This is the oddity. But that he gets a synthetic bad valence. He 
gets a synthetic valence. He gets a mocked-up "baddy," see? And then 
he can get into this valence of being bad, and after that you have 
bad men. It's quite amazing.

If you don't believe this, process somebody someday on the basis of 
bad valences. And you'll find out these are the wildest synthetic 
valences you ever saw in your life. They describe to him, they are 
borrowed from him, they're his concept. You realize every 3D Criss 
Cross item is either some life that you yourself have lived, or its 
oppterm is merely your ideas of somebody else. There isn't a 
somebody-else in the whole bank. Do you see? There's never a 
somebody-else. It's only you and your ideas of. No oppterms of any 
kind whatsoever.

Now, what does this all add up to? Well, it adds up to the fact that 
if man is basically good the only thing wrong with him is his 
imprisonment in evil. But the evil is false. This is quite 
interesting. If the evil is false, what would happen if you set him 
free? He becomes good.

Ah, then what witchcraft has been worked here? We tell a fellow he 
is evil, and we convince him one way or the other that he shouldn't 
attack, because other things are good and he is evil.

And we just have another civilization mechanism.

And one of the ways of phrasing it is that everything done by you 
will be revisited upon you. That's karma.

"You will pay for everything you have ever done": that's karma. And 
a lot of people get the overt-motivator sequence mixed up with 
karma. They are not the same thing.

The overt-motivator sequence means that you have to lay yourself 
open to feeling bad about something - to a motivator - with an 
overt. That's true, too. But do you know how it's true? It says 
there's an area you mustn't attack. And that becomes the keynote and 
the whole swan song of a people: There are things you mustn't 
attack.

The only reason that wall is stably there for you and can trap you 
is because somewhere down deep you consider it sacred. Did you know 
you considered the wall sacred? But you do. You have certain sacred 
valences; they mustn't be attacked. You've convinced everybody they 
mustn't be attacked.

The priestess: She walks up the temple steps and turns around to the 
multitude, and she says, "Peace," and they serve her up for stew. 
She's a religious figure. She shouldn't be attacked.

The toughest valences you are holding on to in 3D Criss Cross are 
the same woof and warp of this civilize structure. They are merely 
mechanisms to prevent you from being attacked.

And that's why you have withholds. The reason you withhold something 
is to prevent yourself from being attacked. You've all done 
something at some time or another, anyone has done something at some 
time or another, in a civilization, where this civilization 
mechanism goes into effect. You would be attacked if it were known, 
see? You'd be attacked if it were known. You know that.

I can think of dozens of police forces, not only in this galaxy, 
that would love to have my name and address right now. As a matter 
of fact, they have it. Well, come to think about it, the shoe is 
slightly on the other foot.

But we've got a matter here of the sacredness of beingness. You got 
the idea? A good, nonattackable beingness. Hoohoo! That's the thing, 
see?

Only trouble is, we fall for the other unattackable beingnesses 
around us. People are horrified when they hear me giving the 
Christian church what-not. Every once in a while we get fantastic 
comments on this subject. I don't see it myself, although I've had 
ample reason to believe that people get upset about this. See? I 
believe people get upset about this; I don't believe you shouldn't 
attack it. I think all mechanisms of slavery should be attacked.

Now, the basic mechanism by which people are persuaded not to attack 
is to show them that attacking will hurt them. And that is the whole 
lesson they try to teach in war. You go over a parapet and across an 
open field up against machine guns, and if you're damn fool enough 
to have a meat body with you, you're liable to get some holes in it, 
you know? The air is liable to start going through where the bullets 
went. You see that? That's a bum thing you're doing, you know? You 
get punished for attacking.

But you kick a stone and you'll get punished for attacking. But why 
does a stone hurt you? Well, you must consider that it shouldn't be 
attacked. You must consider that the MEST universe should not be 
attacked. Well, look-a-here, it's here. Nobody has as-ised it. So 
obviously it's under the curse of no attack. See, you mustn't 
attack. It attacks you though, doesn't it? I think that's 
fascinating. Every once in a while a cliff falls on your head, 
something like that, but you mustn't attack it. Sounds to me like a 
wonderful mechanism for keeping a universe going.

But now we move into the overt-motivator sequence, having observed 
that if you attack into the teeth of spitting machine guns, you get 
your guts full of lead. Having observed this, it is very easy, you 
see, that any evil act you do to others will be visited on you. See, 
after a guy has had the first lesson - you know, he kicks the stone, 
the stone hurts him; he's charged the machine gun, and the machine 
gun has shot him - that he will harm himself for knocking somebody's 
block off.

And the next thing you know, there he is with a withered arm. Didn't 
even hurt him actually. This bird was a totally defenseless goof, 
and he walked along and he went pow! you know? And the other guy's 
head fell right straight off, you know? The next thing you know, the 
guy has got a withered arm. You want to cure it as an auditor, you 
run out the knocking off the other fellow's head. Well, I'll be a 
son of a gun, his arm all of a sudden works! Because you've created 
a miracle.

There's a further miracle that you could create. How come it got 
withered just by knocking off somebody's head? Now, it didn't even 
hurt his hand! Where did that mechanism come from? And that's the 
overt-motivator sequence. Where did it come from?

It comes from this one mechanism of "You attack things, you will 
be hurt." And if you can teach enough people that, you have a 
civilization. But they will all be enslaved, they will all be 
trapped; and none of them will be able to clearly observe, to 
clearly decide or to decisively act. And they will all sooner or 
later go crazy.

Now, when I have said these few choice words, I've described 
everything there is really wrong with the human mind. There isn't 
anything else. There's no other outstanding phenomena, in the final 
analysis. Once you know the basic phenomena of Scientology - that 
is, the as-ising and energy and pictures and what the universe is 
composed of, and the Axioms and things of this particular character 
- you get down to that as far as processinng is concerned, the only 
thing that you've got in your thetan bank at the particular moment 
that is giving you an awful lot of trouble is something you know you 
had better not attack.

The consequences of attack overweigh you so heavily that you will 
not attack it. Otherwise it will disappear. If you attack it, it 
will disappear. That's one penalty, but it is the only penalty. 
There are no other penalties. All other penalties are totally 
imaginary, and at this stage of development of Scientology can be 
considered so, wholly and completely.

I'm not now giving you processes to run on this. I'm trying to get 
you to understand this philosophically - understand it, on the head 
end, that there is no liability for attacking anything, but there is 
tremendous liability for not attacking. There's tremendous 
liability.

That sounds like we're going to make a lot of vicious people. Well, 
if they all become vicious before they come good again on the other 
end, I'll just have to live through it, and so will you, because 
that's the way it is.

But there is obsessive attack - people could no longer control their 
ability to attack; there's all kinds of species of wildness and 
gyratingness and upsettedness and so forth. They're all misemotional 
and none of it under control. Overt attack never got anybody in 
trouble. Never - really never did.

The only thing that you ever lose when you do that is some 
havingness or something like that. It's about the only thing. But if 
it's a havingness you don't want, what's the difference?

Well, that doesn't erase the fact that the overt-motivator sequence, 
you understand - that doesn't erase the fact that it works. You can 
take it apart, you can get withholds, you can do all these things 
which you know how to do. I have just been busily trying to get to 
the root of the structure and find out exactly how it stood, and so 
forth, to find out if it could be swept away when we reach into 
Class IV with 3D Criss Cross items. And I find out that it can be 
swept away, and the residuals and so forth of the bank have as their 
common denominator things that must not be attacked, reasons why one 
shouldn't attack, reasons why one shouldn't be attacked, reasons why 
one shouldn't attack others, ways and means of restraining oneself 
from attacking others, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. You understand?

And out of this you get all kinds of minor things like criticism, 
and you get all this kind of thing. And you also get overt-motivator 
sequence. But it's just one phenomena amongst many. Okay?

Thank you very much for staying over. Good night.


======== END OF LECTURE ========




