Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 31/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 25 Nov 1999 01:58:20 -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 31/35 (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-31 (19)   7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL

[Original title The Most Basic Of All Rocks]

THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL

A lecture given on 7 August 1958

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

Hiya.

Thank you.

I got a couple of pieces of news for you.

This, of course, is the next to the last -

> two lectures, the last nearly being the final lecture
> of the course of the ACC.  There's just this nineteenth
> and twentieth lectures.

You're coming down - you haven't realized that you're coming
down on the fifth week. And next week I want you to get all
the time you can get in on auditing. And I want to have some
time to walk around and peek over your shoulders and give you
a good swift kick if you haven't got your case up the line.

> In order to do that of course, we don't have, we normally
> have four weeks of lecture in these ACCs, and this is it.
> They've gone awfully fast, but I would much rather do this
> next week, than that.
>
> Thing is getting a hum.  No, no, no, just turn it down.
>
> Now the number of, of cases that we're ... - turn that down,
> don't like my voice bouncing back in my face.  The number
> of lectures amount then actually, for this ACC, to
> twenty-two.  Now this is the nineteenth lecture, but there
> was an extra lecture, if you remember.  And then there is
> of course, the final lecture of the course.  And that ends
> that.
>
> Next week, as I said, I want to get in there and pitch, as
> far as your cases are concerned, look this over.

And I've got a bunch of Clear checkouts to do, I'm certain.

Now, we have just ordered your name on a bracelet. Your
name has just been ordered on a bracelet.

And if you make it before the bracelet date, I'm making you
a present of the bracelet. The bracelet date is Aug. 15.
You make it before August the 15th or up to midnight as it
says on all the contests ... Any later date than that,
there'll be a bracelet sitting there for you, but it'll
cost you the usual ACC price for a bracelet. Okay? Well,
you can make it, I am sure, without much difficulty,
particularly since I could probably clear any one of you
now in about fifteen minutes; you've probably undoubtedly
got the Rock in sight. No, that's straight. I mean, I'm not
even kidding you. You guys monkey, monkey, monkey, you
know? Got to have it all right; got to have the little
finger up here properly while we hold the teacup - much
more important than getting that guy Clear.

Okay, and so we begin the nineteenth lecture of the
2Oth ACC, August the 7th, 1958. And today we're going to
talk about the basic Rock of all Rocks.

I've been talking a lot about the Rock but these - describes
the Rock, gives you a command that run to the Rock - most of
you're running on this command right now - and actually goes
hand in glove with HCO Bulletin of August 5th, AD 8, Issue
II, Revised.

Now, you must realize that it was inevitable that the
conclusions be drawn that were drawn, and the further you
are run and the further - the longer you run people on these
particular techniques, the more you will recognize the
inevitability of the conclusions and theory.

Now, Dianetics and Scientology didn't get born because some
angel stood in the cloud and whispered sweet formulas in my
ear.

> This is the favorite method of new, hot dope here on
> Earth.  You go up a mountain, meet a psychiatrist who
> gives you an electric shock, you come down and write the
> ten commandments and get everybody in trouble.  Honor thy
> psychiatrist, and other such things get into vogue.

Essentially, any of this work came about through very
careful observation. And once in a while somebody gets
superstitious about this work. I don't blame them; so do I.
How the devil... I vary - vacillate between two ideas
concerning this work; there's two.

One is "Good heavens, how is it possible for man in all
these millions of years never to have fallen across this
material?" I vacillate between that one and "I'm not that
bright!" You know? "That's not possible, and therefore man
must be awful stupid." See? That's the other one then.

It's a matter - it's a matter of lookingness. And if I've
ever done anything here, I merely looked and not been upset
about what I looked at but looked at it to see what it was,
don't you see? Possibly you could add it up to a simple
matter of confrontingness.

Now, when we look over - when we look over past efforts, we
find in all of the research, all the writing, all of the
airy nothings and the whisperings of the angel from back of
cloud nine, we find non-confrontingness.

Apparently everybody had a pitch. There was a big pitch
here of some kind or another. They were trying to sell
something, pie in the sky or something of this sort, and a
lot of English on the curve, you know, and Irish too.
Something - something else was in there.

Well, actually it looks quite vicious, but the truth of the
matter is, I just think it was a matter of, I mean,
incapable of confronting something. I think that was more
the case than anything else.

Here you look at the common denominator of all past
activities which sought to discipline, socialize or free
man. Any activity under those three headings - discipline,
socialize or free the individual man - had, each one of
them, a dramatization of enforcement and inhibit of
communication, reality and affinity.

You see, "Thou must not love thy mistress; thou must love
thy wife." You get the idea, you know? "It's very, very bad
for you not to..." See? "Thou must love thy wife; thou
must not fail to include her mother," you know? That sort
of thing.

What they were trying to do was heal up something. And even
where a fellow had part of the truth - you know, they thought
they had a social evil in view and that the way to handle
this social evil was just some more enforcement and
inhibition of affinity, reality and communication which
they hadn't even isolated, you see? And when they sought to
free him, why, they went out on another tack and made whole
nations ill.

Karl, the black Marx - Mr. Marx told more lies per paragraph
about what he had seen in the world than any man alive.
Sometime you want to read Das Kapital if you want a good
belly laugh. Of course it has been rewritten so often to
follow party line that it's practically not recognizable
from his original manuscript and I think it's now against
the law. Supreme Court, I think, recently passed a decision
that the original Karl Marx books would be banned and that
it was only legal to read the party rewrite of them. Oh,
I'm not saying the Supreme Court is totally communist; I
think there are three judges left, or four, that aren't.
Anyway.

Their last - their last psychological - they came afoul of
us, by the way, not to get digressive at all, but they came
afoul of us very thoroughly here in just the last couple of
years. They took as legal fact psychological texts written
by communists, and that is a matter of record in the
integration laws.

And I refer you to Senator Eastland's speech in the United
States Senate to further investigate the fact that the
Supreme Court has used for its fact, for its legal opinion,
the psychological textbooks written by people who uniformly
had been up before the House and Senate un-American
activities committees for subversion and desire to
overthrow the United States by force. And he wanted to
investigate this and he didn't get very far doing it.

Here was psychology. Now, does psychology have a pitch? You
said it. It's the A=A=A pitch. You know, it's the "masses"
idea. And you find in their textual material, accompanying
observation... See, this is merely contemporary. I
mention it simply because it's a matter of slight contempt
as far as I'm concerned. I mention these boys in passing
because you yourself can go right into the society at this
moment and look at their textbooks, and you probably have
never read one, and you should, you should.

And you say, "Well, I just thought Ron was kidding us and
making jokes. It's not possible. What!" You know? You ought
to, to find out how far we have come.

But the point is that they had a pitch, that's the only
point I'm making. They're trying to sell the animalistic
nature of man in order to make it more feasible to
discipline him. They're trying to take conscience away
from people who have to discipline people.

It's quite interesting. They say, "Well, he's just a brain
and he's not a spirit, and you're not really destroying
anything but some meat." You get the idea? And the reason
the rulers of the world buy this so avidly is because they
say, "Well, when we ordered that fellow to be executed, we
were just sending a machine to the chair." You get the
idea? And you ask the rulers of the world who have to
punish people, they think... I found out it doesn't pay.
In any nation's history, I found out that it failed, by
punishment. It never won with it, never.

And you find out these people wouldn't buy something that
said they were a bunch of dramatizing psychotics when they
used electric shock and electric chairs and hangman's
nooses in order to discipline the society. You see, they
would rather buy something that sold them something which
they hoped was an easy conscience. Get the idea? Now, the
political philosophies which are extant today are
indistinguishable between what they call democracy and what
they call communism and boy, this is heresy. That's why the
United States can make no forward progress against a
communism at all, and why communism, by the way, will never
make any real forward progress against democracy, because
you can't tell the difference between them.

Now, that's a horrible thing! That's a horrible thing for
anybody to say. But let's compare their basics. Let's go
right down and compare their basics. Let's look them over
very carefully and we find out that the champion of the
common man who had to be like everybody else was the United
States of America in the year 1776.

And the grammar and rhetoric surrounding the common man and
how he should be permitted to get along, and how rich and
powerful landlords ought to all be kicked in the teeth, is
in the literature of the United States a hundred years
before Karl Marx was telling any lies and is the woof and
warp of this country's political philosophy.

Go up to the Capitol and look in the rotunda and you'll see
the champion of the common man is not Russia but the United
States. And Russia is going out along the line telling
everybody that "The US are composed of a bunch of
capitalists." The US listens to the propaganda and begins
to believe it. In other words, they're making lies out of
lies; you see why I've introduced this fact. You make lies
out of lies out of lies.

Russia is saying, "We're the only champions of the common
man." They got the Arab all sold on this fact now. They got
him all sold on this. That's a fabulous thing to have
happen - that Russia is the champion of the common man? The
laborer? Oh, never! Karl Marx told a whole string of lies
which he probably copied. He came over here about 63 or
some such - 1863 - and he saw young boys, "who when they
died at their post on the mill, were thrown on the garbage
dump." Oh, this is corn, you know.

Now, what he actually did see in this country was the
standard of the common man raised at last amongst the
nations of the world. And he took it home - never realizing
what he looked at and wrote a book about communism. Well,
boy, people now look at communism and think they're looking
at something. Here's a fantastic picture, don't you see?
Here are two great nations arguing about their "different
political philosophies." As a matter of fact, their basic
aims and goals are almost identical. This comes from an
inability on the part of either nation or its leaders to
inspect anything. They believe and theorize without
looking. From one milligram of fact they make a thousand
tons of produce.

And then the scholars of our times and of earlier times
thought it their job not to look at the world but to look
at the thousand tons of produce already manufactured from
the milligram of fact.

And so we get this enormous unwieldy structure that we call
philosophy. We get this crazy, politically-pitched offshoot
called psychology.

Christianity was something that first saluted the common
man. And if we look at our immediate forebears that were
busy putting their necks in a noose by signing the
Declaration of Independence, and think of them as
originators or authors, we had better look at the early
Christian church when it first came in toward Rome. Boy,
they were more commie than commies. There they believed in
the common man. They overthrew a whole empire by simply
saying - by simply saying that men had souls and should
be treated something better than animals and that nobody
should own them. They tried to free people.

And then they gave that a big pitch, particularly when
Alexander the IV, Lucrezia Borgia's, Cesare Borgia's uncle,
came in and made a big business out of the Roman Catholic
Church. Wasn't really a big business up to that time but he
made a big business out of it; it's been a big business
ever since.

He enhanced his riches a great deal by the use... I don't
know what she used, it was arsenic or something of that
sort, but they kept marrying Lucrezia off to some new
millionaire and then bumping him off and inheriting his
dough. That's the sad and horrible story of it reduced to
its most tabloid simplicity.

Here you have the United States going around today - my God,
I don't think the leaders of the government know whether
they're leading a fascism or an industrial clique or what
they're leading, or why they're leading it or anything
else - they're lost. They never bothered to look; they
aren't bothering to look.

If anybody stood back from this row that's going on right
now with the Middle East and so forth, he'd laugh himself
sick. What are we arguing about? Look at the history of
Baghdad.

Baghdad's history can be written with only one fact: the
assassination of its kings. We're excited about the history
of a country that has always assassinated its kings. Well,
if you just look at this, you say, "Why should we get
excited in 1958 about the assassination of some new Arab
ruler?" Well, let's just look ten years earlier or ten
years earlier or ten years earlier or ten years earli-
clear on back to the time when Tamerlane came in and did
some very broad assassinations.

And we find what? We find what? We find that man is
apparently incapable of changing his conduct, which goes
hand in glove with: he's apparently incapable of observing
fact! It's very easy for me to talk to you about the third
dynamic and show you a first dynamic as a result, because a
third dynamic is only a first dynamic plus one gone awry.
And you get the same model - you get the same model on the
broader scale of a nation as you do in an individual. And
it's very easy, then, to apply these things to that area of
a third dynamic.

Now, the Arab nations dramatize an engram which is an ARC
break between the ruler and his people. And this culminates
with an assassination. And then they get a new ruler and
everything is going to be fine and then he decides to slip
up on a few of the Prophet's best rules of conduct which he
got from an angel back of cloud nine and he starts to get
cruel to the people. And we eventually get an ARC break
which adds up to the assassination of a ruler, which then
succeeding, gets a popular ruler who adds up all of the
things the people have done to him and finally dramatizes
an ARC break and gets assassinated and we get a new ruler...

Now this begins to look like an engram chain, doesn't it?
Hm? Begins to look like an engram chain. It's a
dramatization of what? Well, the first thing we should know
is there's only one thing ever dramatized. And the broad
analysis of the bases of all dramatizations, which makes it
the basis, is: ARC break. That is what is dramatized
constantly and continually.

Now, the text of the drama is furnished by engrams and this
makes the dramatizations particular. He has an engram by
which he is going to leave his wife. Get the idea? Got an
engram, but this is an ARC break. He has an ARC break with
his wife and he's going to leave. He has an ARC break with
his wife and he's going to leave. He has an ARC break with
his wife and he's going to leave. That's textual but that
is very close to ARC.

Now, exactly what he says as he decides to leave his wife
and does so is furnished by a script known as an engram. In
other words, when she doesn't serve hot coffee - see, he
doesn't even know this - when she doesn't serve hot coffee
that is his signal for him to get peeved about the fact she
didn't wash his underwear. And the fact that she can then
demonstrate to him that she has washed all of his underwear
and it is now in a drawer, clean, is of course an
invalidation of his statement which he then uses as the
reason why he has to leave! Now, that's the text.

Now, don't you go ever confusing "text" with the fact of
the ARC break dramatization. We have a picture that looks
like this: Thetan: he getting along all right. Hasn't met
anybody; hasn't seen anybody; hasn't heard from anybody;
hasn't talked to anybody; has never thought particularly
he'd like to! One day he gets the idea he'd like to talk to
somebody. He's had it.

But the fact that he finds that it's fun obviously
outweighs the travail of the consequences because he keeps
on doing it! Well, now the communication itself per se, is
not a dramatization.

This is what it takes to make the dramatization:
communication requires a reality, by which we say an
agreement. And it requires some small affinity, even if
it's on "I'm on bad terms with him." See? You even have to
be at least on bad terms with somebody to have an argument.
Well, bad terms to a thetan are better than no terms,
evidently.

So we get this cycle, and don't lose sight of this cycle
because as you run a preclear, you see this cycle repeated
over and over and over and over. And it runs like this:
"Want to communicate. Gee! Here I am communicating. They -
whoa, boy, man, this is wonderful! They're all
communicating with me. Gee, life is terrific!" See? Some
psychiatrist were to hear this, he would at once say, "Ah,
we're describing manic-depressive." No, we're not
describing manic-depressive, we're describing psychiatrists
as well as other people. "Paranoia" is where it gets stuck
with the communication inflow resisted. "Schizophrenia" is
when the personality has to split and face in a couple or
more different directions in order to communicate.

You see, all of these goofball manifestations are how you
write the script. See, that's just the engram writing the
script. And mental illness, neurosis, difficulties,
boredom, having to listen to a presidential speech,
anything else, could be a series of dramatizations. You
got it? But that's the script.

Now, what I'm talking about is the fundamental that
underlies the script. And we have eventually been able to
pick up this script called an engram and say, "What's
common to all these doggone scripts?" People act so
differently person to person, yet they all to some degree
must have some meeting ground because they can still talk.

So therefore there must be something that underlies these
scripts. And that is essentially what I've just done; I've
looked. Instead of looking at the masses of compiled data
which were born in the first place out of a milligram of
truth, I've gone back and found the milligram of truth and
said, "Well, what do you know? Huh!" And that wasn't much
of a trick. It required at once a contempt for a phony.
People accuse me sometimes of having "something on" certain
buttons. Yes, I have a button; I have a definite button:
Something pretending to be what it is not. I have a button.
Someday when you're feeling dangerous, you'll have the same
button.

And when somebody is pretending to be what he is not or
what she is not, and doesn't know it, you get a totally
forgivable situation. But how about the fellow who is
pretending to be something he is not and knows it all the
time and goes on pretending to be it. Man, he has no
responsibility at all for the rest of the human race,
that's for sure. In other words, he's interjecting there an
unknowing thing, as far as everybody else is concerned, so
he is creating stupidity on earth. See, he's pretending to
be what he is not. He's pretending that something is true
which is not. Then, people who believe him do not know that
it is not, see? So therefore they become stupid or they
don't know, don't you see? So these are the stupidity
breeders. I like bright people. That's a button. All right.

Now, when we look this over very carefully, we will see
that this cycle is present amongst all the scripts. He
wanted to communicate, he wanted to agree, he wanted to
have, and he wanted to feel affinity for, and he went ahead
and did it. And he got this tremendously successful
circumstance of communication. And it was so good and he
considered it (stupidly) so rare, that he wanted to hold on
to it. So he protected it.

And boy, any time you protect a communication you're just
drawing a little gauze shield down across the line, you
see? And the next time you worry about it, you bring
another little shield down the line. And what do you have?
You have a communication barrier, not a communication line.
See this? Every time you start worrying about, "Gosh, this
is too good to go on forever," you know, this sort of
thing? "It's too good to be true," and you start worrying
about it, why, you've cut your own communication line.

So this fellow, he put out all his communication,
everything was going along splendidly and then he got a
fancied or real ... Real or fancied - you always find that
with your pc. The communication break with the auditor is
"imagined or real," but it's still a communication break,
whether it's imagined or real, see? And somebody said,
"Well, we don't have to pay any attention to that because
he just imagined there was a communication break." No, you
can't do that. You imagine it or it is real, it doesn't
matter which it is, it's still a communication break. And
it's the imagined ones that are the tough ones to get at
because your own sense of justice is outraged.

He says, "Well, when you reached over and slapped me in the
face, there, the last time I doped off, I felt bad every
since." And you feel like saying, "Slapped you in the face!
Who the hell slapped you in the face?" You know? And he
says, "Well," he would say, "well, I remember it clearly
and vividly. I woke up out of the boil-off with this
stinging cheek, you know? You must have been the only one
who could have done it." I'm afraid that you have to patch
that up as a communication break. It's totally imagined and
this is awfully hard on your auditor discipline sometimes.
Has happened. I have patched up more communication breaks
where I threatened to throw pcs out windows and set them
on fire. And I still patched them up. So it was real or
imagined. Well the funny part of it is, it had to be
imagined in the first place before it could be real. So
an imaginary communication break is usually much more
fundamental than a real one.

Hence you get delusion having a superiority over truth. So
people read stories like I used to write rather than good
solid fact articles like some of the political experts
write, you know? Oh, yes, yes, they turn away from the
paper and say, "Well now, I'll read something that's a
little bit better," you know, and read a total delusion.
Let's not kid ourselves. Fiction is a delusion if you want
to put it that way. It's totally illusory. It never
happened. And when you pretend that it did happen, it's
written so convincingly and so forth, people seem to think
this is wonderful. It's this fantastic thing. But it's good
communication and it's safe communication because it isn't
real.

But this is primary. Thetans like to do this. They will
discuss things that don't exist. And out of that desire to,
you get this later pyramiding of false facts. And they
completely lose sight of what they are doing and after a
while get lost and actually get physically upset and in
pain and crazy and everything else just because they've
lost what they were talking about in the first place.

What was the communication break? Well, they never - they
know there was one but they start looking for the real ones
and they miss a senior one, an "imaginary" break.

Guy got to worrying about what would happen if he lost his
girl. Boy, you'd certainly rarely look for that one as a
communication break. She didn't say a thing to him. He just
realized he spent a long time there with no girl and now
he's got a girl, and suddenly strikes him some night - not
even as a restimulation. A thetan is capable of primary
thought. Remember that. Don't ever blame everything on
everything else.

And he gets to thinking, he's lying in bed, maybe - maybe
- perfectly delightful evening, you know? And he comes
home and he gets to lying in bed, and he's lying there
and he's thinking about it and he says, "Gee, what if
I lost her, you know?" He's got a nice game going, nice
drama now. And he thinks over, "Boy, that would be pretty
tough. I wouldn't have anybody to talk to, nobody to dance
with and so on. Why, that'd be pretty bad, you know?" Whew!
Never thought about it before; he thinks about it then. And
he walks up her front steps the next time and he noticed a
man's hat on the swing on the porch, see? He doesn't say
anything about it. He has no evidence of any kind. There's
nothing to say about it at all. And he's a little bit cool.
She isn't feeling too well so she chops him up. Now, we've
got a good communication break going, haven't we? It was
the gardener's hat that has been there since last fall,
only he just now noticed it.

Now, he can do this all on his own behalf. He doesn't have
to have a machine to do it for him, but he apparently has
manufactured machines to do it for him.

So you get this big communication, big agreement, you know,
big affinity, everything going along fine and then you get
an imagined or real communication break. And then the next
thing you know it has dwindled on out to some shocking
circumstance.

Now, some people get into a state of total bewilderment.
They say, "What did I say that made me so totally
ostracized by that family or that group? What did I say or
do?" Well, you didn't have to say or do very much, you
know? It's no sense in him trying to model his future
conduct on it. That's usually what he does. He analyzes
things, gets an imaginary reason, models his future conduct
on the thing that he must not have a circumstance of that
character again, you know? Mustn't do it twice because
it'll cause a communication break with the group.

I remember one time I came to a party and I'd had a - was
very late - and I'd had couple too much to drink, at another
house. And I came to a party, and it was a costume party,
and this girl had a very fancy dress on and I lurched
against her and spilled a cup of tea all over her lap, you
know? And well, we cleaned her up and so forth, but the
point is, is I was absolutely sure for the next thirty days
or so, you see, that that group wouldn't want to see me
again, you know, or talk to me.

I met this girl on the street one day and she was upset.
What was she upset about? Well, I hadn't been around to see
them. See, I'd - I had decided - I decided there must be a
communication break there, you see, because I was guilty of
an overt act, and then I made one. And I had to do some
tall talking with those people the next time I saw them.
No! I wasn't mad at them, and no, nothing had happened, and
so forth. It was the weirdest thing you ever saw. They'd
forgotten all about the cup of tea. It was an old dress
that somebody had dragged out of the attic, you see? It
didn't have anything to do with it. You get how a thetan
works at these things, see? Well, unfortunately after he's
had some tremendous experiences on this cycle: big ARC,
imagined or real break with, then a real, actual break
containing physical pain and unconsciousness and all the
rest of it.

You walk up to a fellow, you say, "Hello, Joe." And he
hauls off and he knocks every tooth you've got down your
throat, breaks your jaw and puts you in the hospital. That
is the sort of a communication break. Well, he runs into a
few of these, you see, and he starts to get text for his
script. And he buries these things out of sight. Every time
he dies, he said, "I'm no longer responsible for any of
those things," so they can really bite his head off.

There's the primary reason why you've got to pay attention
to whole track, because that is what is occluded.

See, "You don't remember? What was your address in your
last life? What! You don't know your own address? What's
the matter?" Yet you can ask anybody this and they say,
"Well, must be something wrong with him because - you know?
I..."

See, this is crazy. There is a totally buried thing. And do
you know the address thereafter has the potential of being
aberrative? People who go in for numerology have simply
forgotten their house numbers for too many lifetimes.

But underlying all of this, you've got big communication,
big agreement, big reality, big affinity, dwindling,
falling off for imagined reasons resulting in a real break
which has the potential of causing pain.

Now, all pain is, is the suddenness of the comm break.
That's all pain is, see? And all unconsciousness is, is the
retreat from the comm break. "Unconscious" is a total
nonconfront of the comm break, and the pain is the
suddenness, the speed of the comm break. I say, "suddenness"
incorrectly by the way. It's the suddenness or slowness of
the comm break, either one. One, it stretches the lines and
the other one condenses the lines. Pain and worry are
actually versus each other.

A fellow doesn't hear and doesn't hear and doesn't hear and
doesn't hear for a very, very, very long time and he's
wanting to pull those lines tight and they remain
stretched, see? Well, he wants the lines to remain
stretched and they get awfully tight. Fellow comes up and
hits him in the jaw, see, he wants those lines stretched.
Well, those lines insist on tightening, see? So it's too
stretched or too tight.

So, a miss - a pain, unconsciousness, worry, anxiety, all
of these things are just maladjustments of communication
lines and aberrations consequent to the mass and affinity.
You see, the communication is what monitors the other two;
communication is always senior.

So therefore - therefore, when we're auditing a case, we
have a pattern process. Now this is - this is quite important
to you. These conclusions became absolutely inevitable.

Up in the files I have a dozen profiles, and I don't even
think I've talked this over with HGC auditors because each
one of them audited one of these cases for a short time
with this as an auditing command: destruction, auditing
destruction on a preclear. And there are twelve profiles in
which destruction was used as a process. "Get the idea," or
"What part of that person wouldn't you mind destroying?" or
"Get the idea of destruction." You get the idea? They were
destruction processes. And all twelve of those profiles did
a dive. You got that? Boy, that is something to look at.
That tells you that you must be entering something new in
on the case! You're making him worse by auditing a part of
the physical universe cycle. Well now, some conclusion
should be drawn from this.

Another inevitability is this technique - there's several
techniques - but this technique gave us a real inevitability:
"Recall a time you communicated." Now, you run that process
and you'll run all sorts of things right in the case. But
you run the process, "Recall a time you didn't communicate,"
doesn't work. Now, those are tests.

Now, why is it that every case is speeded up by "In front
of that body mock up a person pleased with your condition?"
Yeah, how come that's speeded up? Well, there's a bunch of
rationales behind that, but it leaves us to the inevitable
conclusion that the Rock, of all things - and sometime you
ought to think this thought all the way through and see how
those things did lead to such an inevitable conclusion -
that the Rock must be the biggest communication area of the
early track.

It's pretty wild. Another test that was run was every time
you monkey with somebody's field, you make him worse. In
other words, audit the field as a field; handle the field
as a field. In other words, "Mock up a confusion. Mock up a
confusion. Mock up a confusion. Mock up a confusion." And
I've got more profiles that say every time you tell people
to mock up confusions, you make them worse. Every time you
try to open up somebody's field, just as a field without
doing anything else about it, you upset them and make them
worse. Now, that's something to remember, isn't it? So a
field must be a secondary manifestation - to what? Must be
a secondary manifestation to something. It's not primary
because it doesn't surrender at all.

People - black curtains and things like that - you can audit
this to some degree. You can gradually turn on somebody's
mock-ups. But I don't know that it isn't just the auditor
ARC that's turning them on. See? You make people worse when
you audit their fields.

Out of these conclusions you must realize then, that if ARC
is the primary aberration, then the break of the ARC is
secondary. And so we get that thing which inhibited people
as being secondary to that which pleased them. Now,
inhibiting people would be fooling with fields. Inhibiting
people would be running destruction. And these things don't
run. Inhibiting people would be running cut communications.
"Look around this room and find something you wouldn't mind
going out of communication with." Boy, it sounds so
reasonable! It's such a lovely process. Run it on somebody
sometime if you don't believe what I say. They go wheeeew,
thud. The agreeability with which they'll run it is always
wonderful. They're absolutely sure it must be a process.
They're sure it must be good.

Well now, if this secondary manifestation - uniformly and
continually - if this secondary manifestation is the one
that can't be hit; if every time you hit destruction,
fields, disintegration, noncommunication, so forth, the
case deteriorates, we're left with the inevitable
conclusion that it must be communication that upset things!
But that is unthinkable because that's a fellow's pay. So
we decide that communication must be all so far as power is
concerned.

"Communication" must be power, force, any other thing that
you want; it must be contained in this thing called
communication. Therefore, how do aberrations obtain force
or power in the bank? Obviously from the evil things. I've
gone into this before over the years. It's been fairly
obvious that evil itself had no power. It was good that
powered up things. Interesting fact. The chopped comm had
no power except that imparted to it by the comm.

You can conduct an experiment sometime. You're putting out
truth, decency. Watch somebody who tries to cut the line.
Don't fight them, but just watch somebody who tries to cut
the line. Watch him blow his silly head off. Do you know
that's the rationale behind one of the clauses of the Code
of a Scientologist? "Do not argue with the uninformed," you
know? Some guy wants to raise the devil with you in
somebody's front parlor because "You're one of those
Scientologists," and he knows, he's studied psychology at
the barber college, you know? And he's the hot boy as far
as that's concerned. And he knows so-and-so, and he starts
going on like this. The wrong thing for you to do really is
shut up to the people you were talking to in the first
place. You just go on talking and all of a sudden this
fellow will get more - you see, the condition is that you
go on talking, see? You go on as though nothing had happened.
You never pay any attention to him.

The next thing you know, not because of the attention
factor, this guy will start to get more and more nervous
and he'll blow right out of the room. He'll become very
upset and his upset will be entirely out of proportion with
what you did. His attempt to block your communication has
in itself no power! Your ability to communicate is what has
the power. And if you fix your communication on him and
tangle with his argument one way or the other and get
yourself mired down, you have no further power behind your
communication because you're giving cognizance to a
communication break! If you ignore the break and keep on
communicating in spite of what the fellow is saying...

That's how you get into every argument you ever get into,
by the way, is you give the validity to the comm break. You
sometimes are startled into it or you're surprised.
Somebody gives you a non sequitur to what you're trying to
tell them, you know? You say, "Well, I made $100 this
morning and so forth." And they say - she surprises you -
the other person says, "Well, that's not enough to pay for
the car I just wrecked, you know," something like that. And,
"If you hadn't locked the steering wheel," or something of
the sort, you know, "why, I wouldn't have wrecked it and..."

You're stupid when you say, "How did you wreck the car?"
You should go and say, "Well, I made $100 this morning. I
think things are going to run along pretty well." "Yeah,
but the car ran over the side of the driveway and ran into
the flower bed and picked up all of your beautiful new
begonias.

"I made $100 this morning." And if you've got the ability
to keep up putting out a comm line, the person who is doing
this to you will absolutely blow a piece of their skull
right up through the ceiling. Try it sometime, see? It's
the communication which gives power! ARC in its totality -
since communication actually cannot exist in the absence
of "R" and "A," so we have to say ARC, but the major one
is communication - now, ARC then, areas of, are what
give all the power there is to the reactive mind, no
matter how many witches are burned in it, no matter how
many people are wiped out, no matter how many nations have
failed diplomatically and therefore atomically. You see? To
hell with the script! If you'll pardon my crudity.

A motion-picture film derives its ability to be shown on a
screen by a clear light which burns behind it and the
picture on the screen is shadow. You understand that? So
you can just keep in mind when you're auditing people, or
handling yourself socially, to stay in command of the
situation, all you have to do is be the clear bright light
and let their shadows fall where they may.

There's nothing more horrifying. It sounds - it sounds so
impossible until you've tried it that a fellow would say,
"What I - you mean this cop arrests me and I go on being
cheery and bright and communicating? Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
That's a real life situation, you know. That's not a
theoretical classroom situation. A warrant is a warrant.
Heh-heh-heh-heh." Oh, brother, I pulled this once in
Philadelphia. I think there are two or three here that were
there at the time. Purcell wanted me as a witness in his
stinking bankruptcy setup, so he had me arrested, you know?
When you have - when you want a witness in a bankruptcy it's
perfectly okay to arrest them. Now, maybe you didn't know
that, but it's - is, you know? And I was dragged off a
lecture platform by a bunch of Philadelphia cops. Dreadful
mess - dreadful mess involved. But after I got over my
startlement on the situation, I did the most horrible thing
I could have done. I just went on being cheery. And I had
three federal marshals practically mopping up the floor in
case, when I walked over it, I might get my feet dirty
before I got through.

And in court, the 1.5 federal judge - they always have 1.5s;
when they drop to 1.1 they fire them; as long as they're
1.5 they can be federal judges - and this federal judge up
there was 1.5ing around and he says... He'd evidently
been slipped a little wad of dough back of the side, you
know, to make this as embarrassing as he could, because
it's very silly to arrest somebody to be a witness. You
know, it's under "Holding person as a material witness,"
you know, and to get out they have to post bail and
everything else, you know, the general illegal setup that
they call law? And anyhow, here this judge was saying,
"Can't I hold this man for anything else?" And the marshal,
the United States marshal, United States attorney and the
United States deputy marshal and Purcell's own lawyer
rushed up to the front of the bar and they says, "No! No,
your Honor, you've got this whole thing wrong!" And they
told me there must have been some dreadful mistake here.
I'd never told them anything; I never testified to
anything; I never said anything. You get the idea? All I
went on - I went on not being upset. That is all! Because
after I found out what it was all about, I wasn't upset.

Now, this certainly doesn't make me any nine feet tall, but
it certainly blew them out of this firmament. People, when
they are put into this kind of a pitch, when that much
injustice, when somebody has been hired to embarrass
somebody, are supposed to be upset, and it didn't follow
any part of the pattern. And I went on, horribly enough,
communicating with them, not being reserved and worried and
upset, but I went on talking! I went on being pleasant to
them. I went on offering them cigarettes, hoping I hadn't
taken them too much out of their way. And these guys
practically committed suicide.

> I did it one other time and a guy did attempt suicide.
> They had him in the hospital for ten days.

Don't think for a moment - don't think for a moment that the
ability to communicate does not have greater power than the
ability to shoot and kill. You understand? A bullet's final
effect derives its total power from an earlier ability to
communicate with high ARC. The bullet would disappear in
force the moment the earlier ability to communicate
vanished. Anything which can be killed must consent to
be communicated with on that channel.

Boy, now you look at this. I'm not - I haven't been giving
you - these are rather wild adventures I've been talking
to you about. It upsets some of you because you were there,
you know, and - but you were probably much more worried about
it than I was.

But the point is that no matter how worrisome a thing got,
no matter how many bodies you lose, if there's one lesson
you had never learned - one lesson - you'd be OTs today.
See, there's one lesson you never should have learned and
that is: stop communicating.

Yes, when you first start communicating into the teeth of
some ravening, roaring beast, you say it's much better when
a rhinoceros goes by to get back over - back behind the tree,
don't go waving something at him. That's just because you
customarily don't wave things at rhinoceri. Remember that.
Remember that. You haven't reacquired the aplomb necessary
to do so and it takes a considerable aplomb to wave at a
rhinoceri.

I used to get a big kick out of dogs - embarrassing dogs. A
dog rushes off the front porch or something as you come up
the steps you know, in a strange house, you know, and he
rushes down the steps and he's going all bay on the fire,
you know, and he just going to tear you limb from limb and
gnaw quietly on your bones and bury them in the garden.
This is what he's trying to tell you, see? You're going to
have it in just about a moment or two.

The most horrible thing to do with one is stand there and
smile at him, not propitiatively but just stand there with
a good, free heart and smile at him and say, "Hiya, Rover,"
or something like that. And he gets so embarrassed and he
gets so upset. Of course, you say, "Nice doggy, nice doggy,
nice doggy," why he's - he's going to chew you up. But if
you never admit the fact that he can bite you, he never will.
It sounds utterly peculiar. And experiments along this line
are attended with some small risk, until you get your
aplomb back.

But in auditing somebody then, the only incidents and the
only parts of incidents you are actually interested in, is
those moments of communication which have been so totally
successful as to become a total solution for an entire
series of lifetimes. And those ARC moments which are a
total solution are clutched to the preclear's bosom. And
they're what give power to the consequent and subsequent
ARC breaks all the way up the track.

And so we have a technique: "How could you help a people
pleaser?" as an item bracket. Now, you let this pc go over
into too much entheta and you've had it. You've had it in
its entirety. You keep him on the pleasing part of the
people pleaser, not the rough part. Something for you to
remember.

If you hit a late lock you, of course, are going to have
pain in it; when you hit the earlier one, you'll see the
case fold up. You understand that? Every time he slides
into a somatic, he's slid late in the incident. Well, don't
necessarily check him when he slides late in the incident,
but just know that he has.

So this big communication, imagined or real communication
break, physical pain and unconsciousness; big
communication, real or imagined comm break, physical pain
and unconsciousness - you get that as the cycle? Well now,
that is the milligram of truth behind the billion tons of
doubtful fact. And once you see this running out, it is
entirely too simple to be believed. So it probably, few
thousands of years hence, will have to be rediscovered all
over again. But the point of the matter is, is we know it
now, so let's use it.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


