Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 29/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 25 Nov 1999 08:24:45 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 29/35 (20th American Advanced Clinical Course)

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

Contents

20th ACC - First Postulate Cassettes [clearsound]

New #    Old #   Date     Title

20ACC-1  (1)   14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE
20ACC-2  (1A)  14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-3  (2)   15 Jul 58 ACC PROCEDURE OUTLINED E-METER TRS
20ACC-4  (2A)  15 Jul 58 ACC PROC OUTLINED - E-METER TRS - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-5  (3)   16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED
20ACC-6  (3A)  16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-7  (4)   17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION
20ACC-8  (4A)  17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-9  (5)   18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE
20ACC-10 (5A)  18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-11 (6)   21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCIENTOLOGY CLEARING
20ACC-12 (6A)  21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCN - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-13 (7)   22 Jul 58 THE ROCK
20ACC-14 (7A)  22 Jul 58 THE ROCK - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-15 (8)   23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES,  ANATOMY OF
20ACC-16 (8A)  23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES, ANATOMY - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-17 (9)   24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE
20ACC-18 (9A)  24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAG. PROC - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-19 (10)  25 Jul 58 THE ROCK: PUTTING THE PC AT CAUSE
20ACC-20 (10A) 25 Jul 58 Q&A PERIOD - CLEARING THE COMMAND
20ACC-21 (11)  28 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET - GOALS OF AUDITING
20ACC-22 (12)  29 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont.)
20ACC-23 (13)  30 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont. 2)
20ACC-24 (14)  31 Jul 58 RUNNING THE CASE AND THE ROCK
20ACC-25 (15)   1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING
20ACC-26 (15A)  1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont.)
20ACC-27 (16)   4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont. 2)
20ACC-28 (16A)  4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-29 (17)   5 Aug 58 ARC
20ACC-30 (18)   6 Aug 58 THE ROCK - ITS ANATOMY
20ACC-31 (19)   7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL
20ACC-32 (19A)  7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-33 (20)   8 Aug 58 AUDITOR INTEREST
20ACC-34 (20A)  8 Aug 58 REQUISITES AND FUNDAMENTALS OF A SESSION
20ACC-35 (21)  15 Aug 58 SUMMARY OF 20TH ACC

The clearsound set includes an Appendix containing two HCOBs.  This
has been included with the first lecture above.

Note that old 15B "Q & A PERIOD" of 2 Aug 58 was marked as missing in
the Flag Master List and was later found by Gold.  Its absense here
probably means that they found it to be the same as old 16A (20ACC-28
in the above list).

Old number 19B "Q & A Period" of 8 Aug in the Flag Master List
is also omitted but 20ACC-32 (old 19A) is extremely long and probably
contains both old 19A and 19B.

Note 20ACC-2 (1A) does not appear on the Flag Master List but
appears to be genuine.

We were able to check ten of these against the old reels and
found minor omissions [marked ">" in the transcripts.]

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

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

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

20ACC-29 (17)   5 Aug 58 ARC

ARC

A lecture given on 5 August 1958

[Clearsound checked against the old reels. Omissions
marked ">".]

My apologies for keeping you waiting; these classes are
supposed to start on time as you know and I think I'm a
minute or two, or something on that order.

Of course, there's no accounting for ACC time. You guys are
fooling around with your time tracks to such a degree that
no clock around here will do anything at all.

Is there anybody present who has no reality yet on whole
track? Well, we'll continue with the lecture, seventeenth
lecture - seventeenth lecture, 20th ACC, August 5, 1958.

Now, I've gone in considerably into case analysis and
you'll find this is one of the more difficult subjects
today. It is that subject that you should know the most
about next to all the other subjects you should know the
most about.

One of the better aspects of case analysis, however, is
that it does break down to very definite items, objects
and so on.

Now, a list of these cataloged would assist you mightily,
that is for sure.

What has happened to a thetan in seventy-six trillion years?

First and foremost thing that has happened to him is that
he has sought to communicate, he has sought to possess
something and he has sought to like things and be liked.
That is the first thing that has happened to him and all
other things are consequent to that.

And we're right back here at July, I think it was the - July
18th, I think, 1950, at 276 Morris Avenue, Elizabeth, New
Jersey - ARC: affinity, reality and communication.

We didn't at that time look at ARC as anything that was
wrong with somebody. We could tell at once that it was what
was right about the person.

But in 1952 - in the fall of 1952 - I gave a series of lectures
in Philadelphia; there's sixty-four lectures. There are
more in those lectures about thetans and so on than in any
other single series. There are some hi-fi masters of those
still in existence with a streetcar going by every ten minutes.

And at this time - at this time - I took up rather
interestingly, to me, something I didn't know the
importance of until later: the CDEI Scale. Now, that's the
first time we saw this - the CDEI Scale.

Now, the CDEI Scale was Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit
as the spin-in cycle, the dwindling spiral, and I thought
this was interesting. I could demonstrate several things
consequent to it, but not until this very day had I ever
applied it to ARC.

And by applying the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit
dwindling spiral to ARC, you get any Rock - these two things
together.

Now, Science of Survival, with its old Tone Scale;
Scientology 8-80, with its subzero scale, in combination,
demonstrate to us completely what a Rock is.

This will sound very hard at first, and it'll sound like a
complete contradiction of everything to you, so - but only
if you don't listen.

Don't let me hear any wild pitches coming out of this,
because every once in a while somebody will pick up one of
these facts and use it as a justification for being an
illegitimate child. I must remember this is a polite lecture.

Works like this: it is possible to be in a no-ARC condition
upscale without liability. No affinity, no reality, no
communication, see? That's a possibility; that's upscale.

It is only when ARC has been entered into with great
thoroughness that we get the CDEI Scale going down.

A person did not care particularly what he liked; he did
not have to like or not like. He did not have to have
reality on, or not have to have reality on. He did not have
to communicate; he did not have to not communicate, if you
get the idea. None of those things were necessary at all.

And, of course, with ARC we also get the emotional scale
and the R, of course, is havingness, and communication is
simply communication.

There was no necessity to have communication; there was no
necessity to have havingness, do you see? A person didn't
have to know anything. He felt no compulsions or
inhibitions along this line at all, but once having entered
into compulsions and inhibitions along the line, he wound
up at the bottom of the scale.

Now it worked like this: he became curious about something,
and he made the remaining - he made the remaining postulates
necessary; and these remaining postulates which we find in
the Axioms - these agreements practically took him out
through the bottom.

He became curious about affinity, and he agreed with or
made the postulates necessary to achieve this wonderful
thing called affinity. Don't you see? Now, affinity,
basically, was a consideration of space, consideration of
distance. And you will find the A of the ARC triangle most
closely allied with space.

So, don't expect the city slicker to be understood by the
country cousin. The country cousin has trust, and the city
slicker knows he's out to get anybody. Why? The city
slicker doesn't have any space.

The heart of New York is seldom revealed. I know, I lived
there for a number of years in a professional capacity, but
when you have friends in New York, you have friends. Don't
you see? And there's apparently lots of havingness in New
York. You see? And therefore there should be lots of
affinity, so people get upset about the town just as they
get upset about any large city.

With that much havingness you should have lots of affinity.
You get the idea? And so you do have friends and that sort
of thing, but the space at large isn't there. And - people
get trapped in towns like that. You'd be surprised the
number of people who go to New York and expect the town to
throw its doors wide open; go down to Tin Pan Alley to
write the greatest tunes that were ever written and so
forth; and they're going to get that novel and that book of
poetry published; they're going to get that big job in the
advertising agency; they're going to become the greatest
showpiece; they're going to become the finest executive;
they're going to become the best stockbroker; going to do
this and going to do that and wind up selling franks down
at 45th and Broadway! New York sort of lives off such
people. I was taking a check and a count of noses one time
in New York wondering if any native New Yorker ever
amounted to anything. I just wondered; I never came to a
conclusion. But I did find this, that the heads of most of
the major organizations of the town, and the real hot idea
men of the advertising agencies, most of the publishers who
knew what they were doing, were all from out of town. This
is an interesting thing.

Doesn't mean that native New Yorkers can't amount to
anything. But it does say that a tremendous number of
people are attracted to New York.

Now, all we're interested in is that attraction to, not
necessarily the evils of the great city. They're attracted
to New York. They say, "With that much havingness there
ought to be lots of affinity and lots of communication,"
and they find out that the havingness is mostly barriers
and that the affinity is "What can I do for you if you can
do something for me?" Do you see? And they get quite upset
about this sort of thing.

Now, a thetan's curiosity is first piqued by the enormous
successes he vaguely hears about. What would it be like to
be famous? Or what would it be like to be very competent?
What would it be like to be a part of such an organization?
You see? And then the next thing he says, "I'd like to be
famous. I would like to be a part of the organization." You
know? And then he says, "I've got to be liked. I've got to
be a part of this organization." And, of course, "I've got
to communicate. I've got to be communicated with." And he
winds up with "I dare not be liked. I dare not like
anybody. I dare not have. I dare not be had. I dare not
communicate and nobody had better communicate with me."
That's the CDEI Scale as applied to ARC.

And at about this point somewhere, ARC becomes the greatest
curse and liability that a thetan can carry upon his little
old beamed back. If he just hadn't become curious about it
in the first place! You'll see this in problems, inventing
problems. "If - if he just ..."

Somebody was going around Tucson, Arizona one time saying,
"If - if - if I just never heard of Ron! If I just never
heard of him," so forth. It was quite remarkable.

I don't know what's happened to him subsequently. He was
always a fellow, though, who was sort of sitting in there,
you know - he had to be communicated to, but he mustn't hear
anything sort of a thing, you know? And you'd ask him some
points on a little quiz paper or something like that under
training, and you'd say, "What is ARC?" Well, you'd get an
answer, "The trouble with ARC is..." See?

"Yes, why did you ever go on the other side of the mountain
and take a look at that temple? Why? If I only had not ..."
See? "If I'd never met her." "If I'd never listened to
him, I wouldn't be sitting here with all these twelve
children." This is the sad, gypsy-violin solo of the thetan.

Now don't be surprised, then, when I tell you that all
cases can be broken with the application of ARC. And I do
mean all cases.

A sufficient understanding of ARC is necessary on the part
of the auditor; otherwise, he's liable to pick up something
that the person is in good, desired ARC with and run it
out. And boy, his pc will be up the spout! He's just lost a
prosurvival valence - gone. Gone - gone utterly.

Let's say Mother had stood his friend in all travails. He
isn't even complaining about Mother. The auditor says, "It
must be Mother" and runs Mother off the case. Don't be
surprised if this case caves in. Get the idea? You've taken
the wrong ARC terminal.

Now, if you can understand that people really can have
friends, (I know this is hard to understand sometimes) that
people really can have friends, that people really can like
other people, and vice versa, only if you understand that
with great thoroughness can you adventure upon this other
rather rocky case analysis road.

Boy, somebody who is grooved right in there at 1.1 right
now can just pick this up and say, "I knew it. I knew it."
See? Well, he should take a good look at this. He doesn't
know what he knows, because it isn't true that ARC is all
wrong. Do you understand? It's the solvent for all ills.

I was never so shocked ... I've mentioned this before in
a lecture, and I shouldn't have, because it's a sort of
thing that you hide; you always try to appear the man of
the world and never an innocent, you know? Consequence of
lots of ARC - the great shock when I discovered the value
of havingness to a girl. The tremendous shock when I
discovered that if you had a horrible quarrel, and the girl
was going to leave, and everything was all going to bust
up, and that was the end of that, and never see you again,
and they're going back to Joe or something of the sort. And
you came home with a new negligee and gave her a new
negligee, and she said, "Darling." And you say, "What's
this all about?" It's perhaps several lifetimes full of
incidents of this character that made me at last examine
havingness. There's certainly something about it. The
things a box of bonbons will do! And I look back at the
number of times when I was all upset about something or
other, and somebody came home and had very thoughtfully
bought me something, and how suddenly I would purr, you
know? You know, lie down, be good. Mysterious. Mysterious.

What does a lingerie or a box of bonbons, or a dressing
gown, or a new stickpin have to do with human relations?
Boy, that's a wild pitch. I said, "Well, everybody ought to
be sincere and they shouldn't respond to havingness." That
was an interesting thing to sort of feel, wasn't it, huh?
Very fascinating; they shouldn't respond this easily to
havingness.

There's nothing at all wrong with ARC. ARC heals all ills.

> If you join the Christian Science Church, if you've got
> enough money, oh I didn't intend that as a crack, that's
> a fact.

If you haven't fallen for the idea that you're now above
all human likings and ills and human difficulties, and are
now far out and beyond and no longer in contact with such
things - in other words, an inversion on an inversion on an
inversion on an inversion of being awful damn sick - why,
ARC is very handy stuff because it's a healer of all ills.
And it will always heal all ills - always, to the end of this
universe - if this universe outlasts us to any degree at all,
which becomes doubtful.

Now, don't be surprised if ARC makes all ills. And I told
you yesterday about the cure became the sickness, you know?
This is just ARC.

CDEI: Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. And you can take
any object on the track of man and it'll run this cycle.
You know it'll be a very relatively short time, probably
under a century, when guns will be totally, utterly
excommunicated, probably. And they'll probably have some
new, different type of weapon of some kind or another, you
know? But right now, look at the public sitting in front
of their TV sets, glued there watching one badman shoot
another badman, the name of one of them being "hero" -
guns, guns, guns, guns.

Every Hollywood producer for TV or for movies knows better
than to put out anything that isn't full, from one end to
the other, of guns.

It's a love story all centered around the battle of
Atlanta. I don't know how we got there, but that's it. You
know? And we have one of the highest moneymakers that was
sold here in the last decade or two, Margaret Mitchell's
Gone with the Wind, and made money all over the place and
the movie made money all over the place, so forth. And of
all the bloody, shoot'em-up messes, they said that it was
Rhett Butler who was the hero, and they said that it was
Scarlett O'Hara who was the lady of ill fame - I mean, the
heroine of the piece; she was the heroine of the piece, all
right. It wasn't at all; the hero of it was a gun.
Violence! And this appetite for violence seems to be very
peculiar. And we say, "Well, does anybody like a Western
story?" I personally doubt it. It's quite different - they
have to look at them; they can't help themselves. You get
the idea? They don't like it; they don't like violence;
violence is something that is compelling.

So Hollywood has adventured upon a very adventurous thing.
I was telling the head of one of the larger studios out
there one day - we were having an argument, and it was a
pleasant argument. I told him he didn't know anything about
the movie business and he said I didn't know anything about
writing, and so forth. The usual Hollywood yak-yak, you
know? And I told him it was possible to analyze stories, so
that people would go to the theater and pay their money and
sit down and watch the picture so that you would always
have a popular story; and that maybe with Dianetics you
could analyze a story to a point where it would have
audience appeal, and you wouldn't have to continue to put
it to the test of box office.

And I pointed out to him that the test of box office, in
that it is so old, starting perhaps in 1920 or 21, that it
means they only make movies which have proven box office,
which means they take the box office of the movies they
made last year. But last year they took as their criteria
for stories the amount of money arriving in the box office
of the former year, but in that year they took as their
criteria for stories the amount of money arriving in the
box office the year before that. You get the idea? So,
we're actually looking at 1921 movies. Ha-ha-ha-ha. That's
what I told him. Of course, this is heresy.

> You might as well walk up to the Pope you know, and tell
> him it doesn't do a doggone bit of good for him to have
> people kissing that false hand they carry down the street
> in front of him.  Faith heresy.

And this boy - this boy - whole idea concerning entertainment
was having some sort of a - this was what the argument boiled
down to after a while. He didn't want a story analysis or
better entertainment. What he wanted was greater audience
compulsion - compulsion to attend, you see - not on the basis
of its being a good story, but on the basis that they had
to look at it. Then he wasn't interested in entertainment
anymore, was he? He was simply interested in some sort of
a theta trap, as we would say. And he was, he was very
interested in this sort of thing.

And finally, in disgust, why, I said to him - I was
actually - you, alone, would have known that I was kidding
him, because I was very straight-faced about the thing -
I says, "What you want, then, is something that plays
beautiful music out on the street. And as people walk up
they walk into a set of beams which are very soothing, and
the beams guide them into the box office. And they find
themselves utterly compelled to put their - I don't know
what movies cost, is it a hundred and fifty dollars for a
seat now? They complain about nobody attending theaters
and insist on charging prices that nobody ever heard of
before. Movies used to be a dime and two bits. Now, I
think if movies were still a dime and two bits they'd all
play to full houses; it's a good cool place to go and
have a sleep.

And I described to him then how the audience would then
walk in and sit down in a seat and sit there for an exact
stated period of time, at which time the ideas on the
screen would reflect the thing that they had to leave, and
they would be ejected from the place. But it would give
them an implantation to tell everybody to walk down that
street and go to that picture. All it was was music, beams,
an hypnotic trance to tell everybody. You see? And the guy
sat there with a totally straight face, you know, and he
sat there and he listened to that - he says, "Boy," he says,
"maybe there'll be a time when electronics are up to it."
This man had no idea of entertainment at all, and yet he
runs one of the biggest, most - picture production studios
in Hollywood. It's fascinating. No idea of entertainment; it
was the box office, the compulsion value and the implant.

Now, Madison Avenue has totally unsold people from the idea
that if you make a good product, people buy it. The other
thing is that if you put something on the screen of the TV
set or the movie screen that says, "subsonic and - or
supersonic" or something of the sort, and "faster than the
eye can register, but not faster than the brain can
register." They got this out of Dianetics, by the way; we
are guilty characters in this. I know, I had a letter of
complimentation on it from Madison Avenue about three years
ago, four years ago, something to that effect. I tore it
up. What will happen now? I didn't think anything would
come of it.

They said, "Then, what you say is that the mind registers
whether the mind knows it registers or not." And they went
off on this pitch.

So it says, "Buy Coca-Cola! Buy Coca-Cola! Buy Coca-Cola!
Buy Coca-Cola!" See? All the time the people think they are
looking at something else. And this comes on with a very
strong light at stroboscopic speed, but nobody ever sees
it. And they claim they rush out and buy Coca-Cola like mad
as a result of this.

In other words, don't sell Coca-Cola because people like
Coca-Cola, or because Coca-Cola is an honest company and
bottles all of its wares with the best water and the best
ingredients and so forth; "Just go off of that kick
entirely," Madison Avenue says. Advertise it, advertise
it - compel people to buy it. Build in some sort of an
hypnotic command that they must buy this product. And every
dime's worth of salary on Madison Avenue is now based on
this fact. It has a greater workability, they think, but
its workability is over a shorter span. It blows up.

When one of those things backfires, boy, does it backfire.
People find out they are now making Coca-Cola out of shoe
browning, you know, and water.

People who have lost their self-determinism are not
reliable citizens; they are not good people when their
self-determinism is shot.

Now, the motto of the whole track, then, has been "short
expediency." Do it fast, do it quick, be totally effective
and to hell with the future - expediency.

You'll find - every time you hear somebody talking in terms
of expediency, "The reason we do it this way is we haven't
any time," look askance. Boy, there's something basically
awfully wrong with that person's thinking.

What he is saying is, "We are not bright enough to come up
with the right answer; therefore we have to use an
expedient answer." And he says, "We haven't enough ti-
[time]." I'm not talking about the United States Army; I'm
talking about all armies everywhere at any time.

"We haven't time to lay the campaign out properly so we'll
just take the Battle of Gettysburg and apply it to the
Bulge," or whatever they did at that time, you know? "And
send out all the orders in quintuplicate. And so we lose a
lot of people. Well, we can't afford to have any other
solution to the thing because at any moment something
horrible is going to happen, you see. So therefore, so
eighteen divisions get wiped out to the man. That's a small
price to pay!" Aw! Generals.

I met a general one time. I met one once who was a fairly
smart general. He'd been fired. He had an idea of
conservation of troops. He said, "Losing one soldier was
too many to lose to win battles," and he'd consistently won
battles. It wasn't the army way. Conservation of troops -
brand-new idea. Troops are expendable.

Actually, Germany won - two huge losses; they won twice, just
beautifully. The only reason they lost those two wars was
they just expended all of their troops, that's all. They
had the weirdest ideas. They thought that they could kill
off all of their soldiers and somehow or other wind up with
a victory. Then all you had to do was count population and
you had it.

In the Civil War the Southerners believed that gallantry
and that sort of thing had something to do with it, but
they expended troops; and they kept winning victories and
losing the war. Why? Because they would just - you knew who
was going to win the war; it was the people who had the
best foundries and the people who had the most people. And
on a war of attrition, that person who could expend the
most troops wins.

Well, I don't think anybody wins that loses the best young
men he has. I mean, I don't think a nation could possibly
win on this basis.

And yet this short-term thinkingness, this short-term
thinkingness is everywhere about us: that we're doing this
because it's expedient, not because it's bright. And
instead of cultivating self-determinism, expediency demands
that we launch ourselves into the crush or into the
techniques which smash self-determinism, because
self-determinism takes too much time. Do you get how that
is? It takes too long to appeal to somebody's reason; it's
much easier to appeal to something else. And this is
really, probably the - one of the fundamentals back of
the dwindling spiral of ARC.

You know, nobody - nobody could run a political office
without the affection of his staff - a political office.
In other words, he'd have to be backed up, thoroughly, and
that's factual. But look what he'd have to do to do that.
It would take time, it'd take effort, you know? He'd have
to - he'd have to stop around and talk to them once in a
while, and he'd have to ask them how they thought things
were going; he'd have to ask his staff once in a while
whether he was doing all right. Don't you see? It would
take time. He'd have to have a personal relationship with
people who were close to him, wouldn't he? So, quite
ordinarily he says, "Well, I haven't time to do this;
therefore, I am going to simply enforce loyalty, obedience
and so forth." And you get all of the rules and regulations
which stem - stemming from this that are now the rules and
regulations of the army, the navy, the Senate, the House,
the executive branch of the government, each one of the
departments of the United States Government - all stem from
a breakdown of ARC! See? And every time you haven't any ARC,
why, force has to be substituted one way or the other,
doesn't it? You must substitute force, compulsion, fear,
consequence and must always take away self-determinism. Is
that correct?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

So, when ARC walks out, then hypnotic trance, duress and
punishment walk in. You see this? Now, in the absence of
ARC, however, nothing is functional. Boy, and we get one
of the greatest conundrums of any organization in this
universe - the great conundrum.

If nothing will operate without good ARC, then I should
think that the greatest effort would be expended to
cultivate ARC. But ARC adds up to understanding; it
doesn't add up to force.

You know that an officer in the army can be upbraided by a
superior for explaining an order to a private? It's just
against the law! I had an admiral's aide standing on my
bridge with a packet of orders one day just before sailing;
I was talking to the crew. The wind was howling around and
I had to talk pretty loud and I didn't have a megaphone or
anything. The crew was all up on the foredeck and my voice
was reaching on past them, the forward gun, and to the
bridge. And this aide was standing up there.

And I was just telling these fellows that we had to go out
again even though we didn't have very much, and so forth,
and that I didn't think it would be too bad. And I was just
telling them what we were going to do. And I asked them to
please check over their immediate departments because they
probably didn't have more than ten or fifteen minutes to
steal from someplace what gear they'd need, you know? And I
just told them kind of what we were going to do, and what
this was all about, and I'd just received my orders, and
they were their orders too, you know? And I dismissed them,
and they scattered over the side and they were plugging
into the galley, and guys running at a dead run down the
dock to rob something off of the commissary, you know? And
birds with a calculating look in their eye how they were
going to get a few more rounds of ammunition out of
somebody, so forth. Busy.

Well, this young jerk whose experience in bringing the
admiral tea was his best qualification for his job, looked
at me with a big sneer on his face when I came up on the
bridge, and he says, "What are you?" And I said, "Sir?"

He says, "What are you doing? Rabble-rousing people? Is you
a communist or something?" "For Christ's sakes," he says,
"no wonder we hear bad reports of this ship." You know?
Real nasty.

I punished him. I didn't give him a cup of coffee with
medical brandy in it, the way I usually did messengers, and
set him over to the side.

And it got me to thinking - got me to thinking. You know, at
fifteen hundred years ago before you went into battle, if
you didn't give a talk to the troops, that they thought the
whole thing was for the birds, you know? They didn't know
what they were doing. And of course, I hadn't ever read a
textbook on how naval officers were supposed to operate or
act. See? I didn't know.

I do know how Roman generals and things like that should
act; I've had more experience in that line. Rome didn't
have much of a navy, so... And in the Phoenician navy - in
the Phoenician navy it was quite the opposite - quite weird
in the Phoenician navy. Do you know that you had to ask the
whole crew if we should sail? "Should we sail? How do you
think the weather is?" That's right.

And if they said - if they said, "No, I don't think the
weather is so good," why, and the Captain still said, "We
sail," and anything happened to them or their property, the
Captain had to pay for it! Now, that was the way it operated.

As a matter of fact, this is found in the Black Book of the
Admiralty, which is the basis of the king's regulations,
and it's the old Phoenician navy regulations and textbook.
That was a very powerful navy, but it certainly had to
consult with the crew.

Now, get this tremendous gap, this tremendous dwindling
spiral, see? Before you go into battle or something like
that, you always talked to the troops - Roman, you know?
Probably by Roman times it was "Well, you have to!" You
know, it's regulations; you're supposed to. Senate would
frown on it if they had heard you had engaged the enemy
without at least talking to your legion. You know? They'd
think that was a silly thing. Man was not interested in the
action, they would think.

Earlier than that you actually had to consult with the crew
to find out whether to sail or not.

Well, this comes down to the fact that the admiral's office
thinks very poorly of a person who gives any understanding
to a crew about what they're about, and who thinks very
poorly of a ship that has fairly good morale. To have good
morale is a condemnation. Got this? Now, that expediency
goes up to a final peak where - man's walking down the
street, he's picked up, he's taken down to a spaceship,
he's laid in a bunk, he's strapped down, given an
injection. A speaker-phone starts going yap-yap-yap at him,
indoctrinates him as a member of the crew, wipes out all
former memory, works him over in general and he's now part
of the navy. Get the idea? It goes down to total
no-determinism.

Now, you just think I'm showing you a few of my engrams.
They're not my engrams; they're the engrams of this race,
and of all races in all times.

Works like this: Without enough time and with great
expediency, self-determinism disappears and becomes not
only unpopular but becomes against the law.
Self-determinism becomes against the law. Anybody thinking
for himself or understanding anything becomes against the
law, till you have laws where "No slave must be permitted
to read or write." Well, that law was in existence in 1850
and even a little later, down in the South. "No slave must
be permitted to read and write." We have countries in the
world today where huge sections of the population are
forbidden to learn! Well, it isn't that this is wrong; it's
impossible! If you want everything to go to hell, let that
cycle obtain.

And you say, "What's this got to do with case analysis?"
That's all you're looking for in - that's all you're looking
for is the dwindling spiral of ARC on this case. That's all
you're looking for. You're not looking for anything else.

And that dwindling spiral, fortunately for you, the
auditor, happens to be contained in a basic-basic Rock,
which if undone, unsnarls the dwindling spiral and frees
the self-determinism of the individual. You're just lucky -
just lucky, that's all. Didn't have to be that way at
all, you know? But any speedup of clearing depends on this
fact: that the object-havingness - which the individual used
to communicate with - communication - had tremendous "A"
connected with it at one time or another which was so great
that dwindling away left a total vacuum of it, and made it
possible for all of his misemotions to transpire after
that. Now, there is one that on case analysis, you on your
own, had certainly better look for.

There's a great danger here - an enormous danger - that you
pick up the principal likingness ally and flip it out; and
just pull the props from underneath the case so he -
practically unauditable. You insist somebody that he
likes, or somebody who likes him, therefore, must be his
worst enemy.

You see, if ARC is wrong, then any likingness is wrong.
Boy! That is wonderful identification. That identification
has been in the heads of ruling classes from the beginning
of time. "Watch people who like you because they're the
dangerous ones," you know? That sort of thing.

Guy's making cracks to the subject of my - "Beware of your
friends, because you know your enemies are trying to do you
in," you know? There's wisecracks of one kind or another.
You never suspect your friends, however. "Deliver me from a
well-intentioned friend; I can only take care of my
enemies", you know? This sort of thing.

Here's your problem. The basic Rock has several common
denominators and these common denominators are apparently
in total violation of life! It has ARC connected with it!
It isn't something that never talked, never moved, never
breathed. That isn't what it is at all. Yet, it's got ARC
connected with it.

Now, it's in two phases: that at which it was aimed and
that which it is. The target of it is often found on the
case and is often auditable.

For instance, somebody has a production machine going of
some kind or another which has as its target a factory
consumer. Or he has a machine that makes machines that are
consumed over here by a machine that consumes machines.
Don't you see? Some kind of a silly arrangement like this,
but there's always a production unit and a consumption unit
or a stopping unit of some kind or another, or a production
unit and a consumption unit.

There is always the article with which he is communicating
and there's always the recipient of the communication; and
either one of them are liable to stop the line. But let me
point out something between these two things: you don't
want, really, the one that is receiving anything. In other
words, you don't want a consumer as your final Rock; you
want something that is putting out. Got that? And that's an
invariable rule.

If you're running a consumer on somebody you're going to
run into something else sooner or later, so you flatten
what you have to flatten to get to it. But don't do this
too often. You can get away with this for a while.

Don't run only the suppressors on the Rock; don't be a
suppressor specializer. Don't run fields very long before
you start running what the field was, what the field
covers, don't you see? In other words, don't run the cloud,
run the contents of the cloud. You see that? Run the
primary item which was used for ARC and which has gone
through all the dwindling spiral which perhaps a little
tiresomely here I've described to you.

Maybe - maybe for trillions of years an individual used this.
Maybe the whole universe, he feels now, is built out of it.
We get various common denominators to the Rock; one of
those common denominators is: don't know - don't know what
it is.

Person can get very glib on the subject, by the way. His
communication will speed up when you get near the Rock, but
he actually doesn't know about it, he hasn't known about
it. Don't-know is one of those.

Another is that the individual does seem to perk up a bit,
or be more alert, or more puzzled, or more something; you
get a change when you move into an actual Rock. You get a
shift of attitude, that's for sure. He'll become even more
silent or more noisy or more something, but he isn't just
the same pc sitting in the chair. Something has changed
because you moved in on top of this thing. He's liable to
become more defensive or he's liable to become more
aggressive, he - you get the idea? There's something
changed.

You can just watch a pc and hit the Rock. I am not good
enough to hit one absolutely without an E-Meter but,
theoretically, it's possible, if you get the idea of the
pc shifting his manifestations that he's giving you as a
preclear. See? That's just a theoretical indicator.

He doesn't just sit there going on the way he has been
going; a little something shifts. He either starts dodging
or he starts pushing you off of it, or he begins to
disperse, or something of this sort happens. Or he simply
sits there more horribly woodenly than ever before. You
know, he practically congeals. Something - something occurs
here.

Now, you wouldn't suspect, perhaps at first glance, some
other common denominators to the thing. One of these is the
factory attitude. Factories are born from force. You know,
it wasn't just the thetan, he mocked this thing up and he
thought that would be a good idea. You get the idea? Your
upper-level factories, particularly the inverted ones, are
dependent on more basic objects and the engrams associated
with them. These things are very forceful; when these
disintegrate you get a factory or you get a consumer, don't
you see? That's for your upper - upper level.

Now, a thetan can, basically and originally, simply mock up
a factory. But the factories you find on a case, when you
first find factories on the case, are dependent on objects
and the force and violence of these things. Do you
understand me? You having any trouble locating anything on
a case and you come up with a production or consumption
unit, you stick with it until it's flattened down the line.
But don't be surprised to find some violence or force on
which the thing is sitting, and that is an object of some
kind or another. You got it? In other words, they're
deriving their force and power - just like an old secondary
- they derive their force and power from this item. See
that? Now, another common denominator is that after a pc
has run it for a while it is quite usual for him to believe
that everything is one - everything has one. Comes to
mind an attention consumer, or an attention grabber of
one kind or another. And person looks around and he says,
"Well, that's an attention consumer, and everything is.
Everything there is, is this thing. Lump of coal - I imagine
everything was a lump of coal for a while. It all had a
connotation with coal." You get the idea? Well, now what is
that but the no-spaceness of it. See? It's wiped out space
one way or the other, so it is everywhere; it is
everything. And this is a sort of an extreme lower-scale
idea of affinity. See? It is everything.

Now, that's another common denominator.

Now, an additional common denominator which might interest
you a great deal is the fact, consequent to that, that the
individual believes that every particle of this universe
came about through the disintegration of his basic Rock.
Now, I'll go over that again.

They believe that this universe came about - see, it's worse
than just believing everything is an attention attractor or
something of the sort, see - they believe that when the Rock
disintegrated, and all like Rocks disintegrated, you got
then the woof and warp of this universe. You got the stuff
of which this universe is made. And this universe is made
out of the disintegrated Rock.

Now, that's an interesting fact, there. That comes up way
along the line someplace.

Now, when curving down toward a Rock, protection or
dispersal mechanisms are occasionally encountered that
every time you come close to one in case analysis you get a
blowout. You get a zizzzth, or a zurrruuuh.

You mention this thing, the needle goes spang-urrrruhll-off.
You mention it again, spang-urrrrrul-up. See? Not necessarily
up and down on the same case. But, you'll get a remarkable
characteristic here that is going along every time you mention
this thing. And sometimes, particularly when you're running a
lock on the Rock, you see, you're running a little later
manifestation, like a consumer or something of this sort,
you'll find fantastic needle behaviors which will suddenly
cease, if only for a split instant, and then resume themselves.

In other words, the thing is a self-dispersing mechanism;
it blows everything away from it or off of it. In other
words, it blows the thetan off of it too.

Now, you have to spot one like that on the fly and that's
probably about the only one that will really give you any
trouble. That one could give you trouble. You run it.
Anything that consistently and continually stops the needle
no matter how briefly, in the absence of anything else that
stops it better, should be run. Got that? And by the way,
you could never get into any real trouble running the wrong
Rock. You'll probably all be going on a little bit of a
supposition that you could get into trouble running the Rock.

Now, the other thing about the Rock is, it is that item
most susceptible to ARC breaks. And we have in a nutshell
why cases do not advance after an ARC break. The Rock is
ARC. Do you understand? It is an object. It is used to
communicate, and from which one derives affinity and so on.

It has a big purpose and this - it's an object, you know,
it isn't just law - it's an item in the final run.

And this thing, being itself so fundamentally the ARC of
the case, is so susceptible to invalidation that you can
blow a person right off of it. And where you can't find the
Rock, look for the ARC breaks and fix them up - particularly
with you, or with other auditors. Got that? And a lot of
you will have lots of trouble in Rock hunting when it's
merely an ARC break.

Now, almost with malice aforethought I conducted a little
test last night. I had a Rock that behaved beautifully and
right at the beginning of session I challenged the
preclear's first response. I demanded that the English
definition of the word that described the Rock be more
descriptive. I demanded that the first answer of the pc be
not allowed because it really wasn't within the definition.
I did it very nicely and after that the Rock disappeared.
And I made this test without any idea that I - but what I
could come back and patch the thing up, you know? That Rock
went. Wouldn't have done me any good to come near that
Rock. It was just a constantly rising needle. And I ran
three or four brackets after I did that with the needle
rising, hoping the Rock would settle back, and it did not
settle back in place. In other words, I'd seen the last of
the Rock because of an ARC break. You got the idea? I'd
seen the last of the Rock - that was it! That Rock was no
longer in view.

And I had to go back and clean off the ARC break, first
with a big broom and shovel, you know? And then I had to
clean it off with a much more delicate broom, and then I
got on down to the last little drops of ARC and flipped
those off with one of these camel's hair brushes you use
to - for camera lenses, you know? When I got that thing clean
and slick as a whistle, the Rock came back. I permitted the
preclear any definition the preclear wanted for the Rock; I
permitted any auditing command the pc thought was valid.
And at once we had the Rock, its manifestation, and as a
matter of fact had it a little better than I had ever had
it before. And then it ran like a startled gazelle.

In other words, the thing can disappear because of an ARC
break, not because it's flat. And some Rocks have
disappeared in that fashion right here. They've just
dropped out of sight.

Present time problem, ARC break - those two things lead the
van in keeping sessions from occurring. And why? Because
the Rock is basically that thing that entered the dwindling
spiral of ARC for the case for all the rest of the
trillions of years. It's the item that's changed the
person's mind from not caring about ARC to caring about
it, and that's what you are looking for.

Therefore, a distracted attention is not on the Rock, and
therefore ARC breaks obscure the Rock at once. That's why
auditing has to be so good and so careful; why ARC breaks
have to be patched up at once.

The Rock is the dominant thing in determining the aspect of
the preclear with regard to ARC.

Don't you ever dare tell me, however, after this, that ARC
is bad. It is not. Like anything else, like good chocolate
cake, it can be used for a trap. Because chocolate cake is
used for a trap, is no reason you should never again eat
chocolate cake.

And just because ARC is the basic characteristic of the
Rock, and just because the Rock itself totally colors ARC,
is no reason ARC is bad.

The basic therapy of any case is ARC; the basic Rock of any
case is that thing which entered the person in upon the
channel of ARC and then, of course, failed him.

Do you understand?

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


