From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Subject: FZ Bible STATE OF MAN TAPES 3/9 [x2]
Date: 04 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <a20566535ef94867742425d0e9292c05@anonymous.poster>
Sender: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to <squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

STATE OF MAN (SMC) CONGRESS TAPES (1960) 3/9

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

Contents

SMC-1  1 Jan 60 Opening Lecture
SMC-2  1 Jan 60 Responsibility
SMC-3  1 Jan 60 Overts and Withholds
SMC-4  2 Jan 60 Why People Don't Like You
SMC-5  2 Jan 60 Marriage
SMC-6  2 Jan 60 Group Auditing Session
SMC-7  3 Jan 60 Zones of Control and Responsibility of Governments
SMC-8  3 Jan 60 Create and Confront
SMC-9  3 Jan 60 Your Case
 
We were able to check 4 of these against the old reels.


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

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

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


SMC-3  1 Jan 60 Overts and Withholds

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard SMC-3   "State of
Man Congress"


OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS

A lecture given on 1 January 1960

[Based on the clearsound version only.]


Now tell me something now. Did anybody get restimulated in
that last lecture?

Audience: Oh.

Look, I'm terribly sorry. I'm very, very sorry. I didn't
really mean for you to. The kindest thing - the kindest thing
to do would just be to leave the subject alone after that,
wouldn't it? Huh? 

Audience: No.

Male voice: Keep your process going.

I've just been accused here of a breach of the Auditor's
Code unless I continue to talk about this. Want to hear
some more about this?

Audience: Sure. Yes.

All right. You're for it. You're for it - overts and
withholds. How does a thetan get less space? It is a very
simple mechanism. He does something which he thereafter
can't do again because he mustn't, so he withholds it. And
once upon a time he could reach clear out to infinity,
couldn't he? And then he reached clear out to infinity and
decided he had done something that he shouldn't ought to do
again. You know, reach for the jam pot - "Better not do that
again." So after that he withholds reaching for the jam
pot. Right?

Well now, he continues to withhold reaching for the jam pot
from there on out. So then he does something else that he
shouldn't have "overted," and when he did that he then
realized that he should not have done that so he doesn't
reach in that direction anymore, does he? He withholds! He
not only does not reach - that's what we kind of thought, 
you see, that he just really didn't reach anymore in that
direction. Oh no, that isn't what he does. He withholds
from reaching in that direction. So then he does something
else that he says, "I shouldn't have done that," and he
withholds from reaching.

"I'm blind! Oh well, let's see, now, if I get some
auditing - if I get some auditing, well, I don't necessarily
have to give up any of these withholds because I'm
dangerous. But I will just sit there and the auditor will
audit me. And if he audits me, why, somehow or other,
mysteriously... Let's see, without my ever reaching again
in any of these directions, and if I continue to withhold
real hard, so as not to damage the auditor, I'll get Clear.
Ouch!"

Now, that's the state he's in. That is a pc. And we can
laugh because we have the solution. But until this time it
was "Don't cheer, boys, the poor devils are dying." Get the
idea? Well, we can laugh because it's ridiculous.

Some of the things which people are withholding are
incredibly stupid.

Now, when I made the last lecture there were several people
present - some of those in the back were saved because the 
PA system was down slightly and they didn't hear too well.
But, most of the things that went through your mind that
you were withholding appeared to be pretty durned big with
a kind of a reservation on the tail end of it, "Well, it's
really not so big. I could probably tell an auditor. But of
course, I won't have to but I've got to, but I won't have
to because, of course - no, I ... There was a fellow I knew
once down in Tucson that was very sympathetic. I might be
able to tell him. Um, he couldn't hear good. Now, let's
see, just how would I go about doing this so as not to
injure my reputation?"

Well, this is how we have failed to have as much third
dynumic in Scientology as we could have. Because it's that
reservation of "Who could I tell?" which withholds one's
total participation. That reservation of "I mustn't tell
anyhody ever anything," of course, just eventually
separated one out. That just took him out, not only of
Scientology but took him out of the human race.

Now, this is not a comment upon your particular overt or
withhold. I say that seriously; it's not. But the same
mechanism that you looked at with regard to who you could
tell what to - that same mechanism, blown up Lord knows how
large - is the criminal. I'm not trying to link you on the
same chain in any way, but I'm just trying to show you, you
can get a subjective reality on what this boy is all about
when you realize that he has totally withheld to such a
degree that he isn't at all. And he has assumed a total
uncontrolled valence, or a false beingness over which
nobody or anything has any control of any kind whatsoever
and has moved out into this, and it just fires off
automatically. See? He isn't there; he's withheld himself
right out of the human race, you see? But he has this
valence, or this false beingness, which he says is a self -
that's not your little thing of being in Mama's valence or
Papa's valence or - this is really out - outside of any
livingness. He's dead! But there's this animated structure
that kind of fires off on a stimulus-response. See, he's
withheld himself right straight out of the human race.

He has no responsibility on any dynamic for anything.
Therefore it doesn't matter what he does, and any stimuli
gets any response. And there's a gold fountain pen lying
there and it just leaps of its own accord into his pocket.
And there's a car there with a key in the ignition and
obviously key in the ignition means drive the car; he just
drives it.

Now look, this fellow got there from punishment. And you in
Scientology have been absolutely right: Punishment never
got anybody anyplace. He got there because of enforced
withholds, and these enforced withholds wound up eventually
into putting every action he did on total automatic, and
putting every action on total automatic, then there is no
such thing as right or wrong or criminal or good or
anything else. He becomes an automatic mechanism which just
robots through life doing criminal actions. And you're
going to punish this man? You're going to punish him into
being good?

Oh no. There's only one way that that could work, and there
isn't a police force in the world capable of enough
violence or overts to make it workable and it's not
workable anyhow because we just keep picking him up in the
next life. And that's "Wherever he's found, kill him!" You
see, but that's just more of this, isn't it? And that was 
a stopgap.

So it was either total savagery and remove it all to the
next generation, or it was be effective. And as far as
criminality is concerned we're in the position right today
to be effective. And it's the first time anybody has been
effective.

There's - nothing is going to work of any kind whatsoever
with regard to this particular personality but
rehabilitation as a hunian being and put him back in the
human race because a human race can't run with a lot of
nonhuman robots roving around in its midst!

Now, that is the extreme - that and of course the insane 
and of course the official that goes to war because his
diplomacy has stunk for ages. These criminals, these
insane, cannot be handled by any mechanism the society has
available except what we know. And we have just gotten to a
point where we can handle this.

That gives you some sort of an idea of how far man was into
the dark ages with regard to justice. But it tells you that
somewhere along the line, a halt has to be halted on this
subject of the automatic, self-firing personality that has
no responsibility or [of] any kind on any dynamic. It makes
one's flesh crawl to realize that such a person might
wander in toward the automatic push hutton which sets off
all of the guided missiles. Because basically when he's
gone down into a personality of this character, the only
thing he can do is confuse and destroy. Those are the last
abilities of a person; the last abilities are confusion and
destruction. When you see a criminal, that's what's going
to happen in his vicinity: confusion and destruction.

There's all kinds of interesting automatic-firing
mechanisms in a criminal intelligence. Something like
this: "Oh, I will be good. I have now learned my lesson. I
will now be better and I will go straight." That's just an
automatic-firing mechanism; it has nothing to do with it.
See? You just push the proper button and it says, "I will
now be good. I will now go straight. Oh, please do not
punish me anymore because I am now going good and going
straight." You see?

So we all say, "Well, let's give him another chance. After
all, he has admitted his guilt."

What's admitted his guilt? What has? What little
robot-gimmick machinery fired off and admitted guilt? It's
just another gimmick.

Now, the person, of course, will put up some kind of a
semblance of being auditable. And you've run into such a
case. It evidently is auditable, goes through some sort of
a propitiation, gets no better; is auditable, goes through
a propitiation, gets no better. Of course, it was never
auditable in the first place.

Why? Because there was nothing there to be causative. You
had to find that tiny entering point of the individual
where the person could be cause and increase that point up
to a point where you had a person there. That's a long road.

Now, you compare the things you thought about when I was
giving the last lecture to that extreme case and you see
you haven't gone very far down the line. Just look it over.
You know what you're doing. You know right from wrong. You
can still feel. You do make some progress in auditing,
great or small, so you're not even in an extreme extremis
of cases. All anybody here would be hanging up on would be
some little gimmick like making a pass in the wrong
direction at the wrong time. Seemed like a good idea at the
time, but... Or maybe signing more checks than one had
money in the bank. Something stupid, something minor.

But minor, mind you, out in the broad perimeter of life.
And don't think for a moment that I think you think it's
minor. You don't think its minor. See, you say, "Oh, I
don't know. Looks pretty big to me." Yeah, well, that's 
right.

You know, man is basically good. And you know that's his
difficulty. That's what's wrong with him.

I followed this thing down - I followed this thing down a
long distance, and almost wept when I finally discovered
that the fellow was withholding himself because he didn't
want to do harm to others.

Society has believed that man withheld himself because he
was afraid he would be punished. But when we examine that a
man can only be cause - you'll have to examine that one in
your spare time. It is too incredible to be - embrace in a
single gasp. Nothing can be done to you. Honest. And when
we examine it in that light, we must then realize that a
man is withholding himself not because of fear of what will
be done to him - that he is just excusing things with. He's
just paying a breath to this, he's just saying, "Well,
that's the way it is. That's why I am doing this. If I
steal a car I'll be punished, and therefore I won't steal
any more cars.

And the cops go on the basis that if they catch a kid early
enough, why; he ceases to be a criminal and, you know, and
he won't steal any more cars if he has been scared. And
even some of you have gone for this philosophy. I found the
kid later on, you see, and it hasn't done anything. It just
made him be more vocal on the subject, you see?

Now, if he's brought to a position where he himself on his
own volunteering cannot withhold anymore - you see, he -
when he himself can no longer withhold, he's out of control.

Now, we get this very interesting regimen here: It's the
ability to selectively and knowingly withhold that we are
rehabilitating. We're not trying to shake everybody down
for all of his secrets. Different look, isn't it?

When a person is no longer able to withhold he is no longer
able to be good, so he just abandons himself into a total
degradation, and says, "Well, I'm - I'm just no good. I'm...

I ran into a criminal one time - I think it was in Wichita (I
was processing him; he had a paralyzed left side) - he was
no longer able to withhold his primary dramatization which
was to beat up fellows in alleys and take their money. He'd
find a fellow near an alley or in a room, he'd beat him up
and take his money. He couldn't do anything else. He had
even gone to a point of paralyzing one whole side of his
body to keep from doing it, and it still hadn't worked! So,
he'd just abandoned the whole thing, and he'd just given it
all up and gone over into synthetic valences and wasn't
there anymore, wasn't accountable, couldn't be responsible
for it, anything of the sort; he was a criminal.

All right. So, man is basically good.

Now, somebody comes along and teaches him what being good
is. That's quite a trick. The only moral codes you have in
Scientology have to do with auditing, and that's a
technically moral code if you want to put it that way. If
you don't audit that way, auditing doesn't occur.

But please call to my attention my own words if I ever, in
some lapse of God-'elp-us, write a moral code of what being
good consists of: step A, B, C, D. Get the idea?

People really start skidding when they go up mounts and get
the hot dope out of the lightning zoks. Because whenever
you run into a moral code you run into violations of it as
a code. "Honor thy father and thy mother." Well, that's all
right. That's a nice thought. That's sweet. But unless it's
accompanied with "Honor thy children," it's a stuck flow.
Doesn't work! It's not something that can be broadly
applied. That's the frailty of a moral code.

For instance, somebody says, "Thou shalt not kill." Great,
You like steak? Well? Do you like steak?

Audience:  Yes.

All right, thou shalt kill then. Oh, but they say, "Well,
they didn't mean that." Oh yeah, that's the trouble. with
these moral codes: They just didn't mean that. They didn't
mean it, you know? There's differences. There's variations.

You say, "Well, thy - thou shalt not kill thy feller human 
beings."

"Oh, that's what you mean? Oh, 'You shalt not kill thy
fellow human beings.' All right,"

"Attention! Squads east! Squads west! To the rear hup! To
the rear hup! To the rear hup! Here's a gun. Ready on the
right. Ready on the left. Ready on the firing line. Fire!
It's patriotic, son."

"Yeah, but how about this thing 'Thou shalt not kill'?"

"Well, they were Japs."

"Oh, Japs? They're not human beings then?"

"No, Yes. No. Yes."

Now look, every time you lay down one of these broad ones
whereby you have a code that says, "Thou shalt not" and
"Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" and "Thou shalt" and
"Thou shalt not" then the shalts become shalt-nots and the
shalt-nots become shalts until all of a sudden everybody
goes adrift, and "being good" is the equivalent of being,
oh, I don't know, a Turk pirate, or an archbishop, or
almost any pursuit of lower activities.

Now, you have a problem just in this one fact: the
interpretation of what being good is. And I think it was
Dianetics that first laid this down. Now, this happens to
be a fairly workable one, providing you don't work at it so
hard day and night that it wears your wits out. And that
is: Good would be the greatest benefit for the greatest
number of dynamics involved in any given situation, in
other words, the optimum solution. The greatest good for
the greatest number of dynamics. Now, we've known that for
a very long time.

Well, you can work your way through on this sometimes and
you can kind of make yourself come out right when you
shouldn't occasionally, but the greatest good for the
greatest number of dynamics.

I remember vividly hanging whirling dervishes just as fast
as I could get my hands on whirling dervishes. Any time in
the Middle East that you were trying to get going on some
kind of a military expedition, out of the desert would come
the whirling dervishes, and they would say to your troops,
"Lie down. Go away. Skip it. After all you are now
attacking the bloodline ruler of the prophet Buluhya," and
so forth. And - in other words, you were just dealing with
a bunch of lousy spies or something of the sort, so you'd
just hang the whirling dervishes.

Well, that's an overt act, basically, unless you realize
that if you let the whirling dervishes come in and disrupt
your troops, then the order and discipline of the entire
area and district that you were associated with would just
go by the boards and some king, satrap, sultan, Lord knows
what, that had usurped some power and he was busy killing
people as fast as he could exercise his eunuchs and so
forth, you know, just execute, execute, execute, execute,
execute, you know, tax, tax, tax, tax, disrupt all the
trade. Those boys used to have a wonderful idea: They
thought government consisted of taxing everybody all the
time of everything they had. I don't know. I don't think
any governments since that time have had that idea. But
they totally lost the idea of what a government was. And a
government was - is simply and totally a body of men working
for the public good, and serving the public. And they kind
of miss that one, you know? They get elected, you know, and
they think somebody elected them to be somebody. No, they
elected them to serve the rest of them. They don't get that
idea very well, and it kind of drops out of sight every now
and then and you have to punch it back up and put it back
in line again.

But all right, if you didn't kill the whirling dervishes,
you didn't have any troops and the whole district was
upset, and all of a sudden the men, women, children were
all starving to death and the trade was stopped and
everything had gone boom. So, did you kill whirling
dervishes or didn't you? See, was it an overt act, or it
wasn't.

Well, obviously it couldn't have been an overt act but at
the same time it was an overt act. Get the idea?

But you had to figure it out on the optimum solution. Was
it more harmful to the greater number of dynamics to get
rid of this partcular set of whirling dervishes than not to
get rid of them? And you acted accordingly.

Now, every time you have done that, you've come out all
right. See, you haven't had anything to worry about when
you did that. So, you said, "Well, that was in the line of
duty and that was the way I was supposed to do it. And I
did it!" Ah, it's the things that you did and then you
said, "Oh, I didn't do that. I'm - does bad. I regret it.
Wish I hadn't done that. Don't know what was the matter
with me. Didn't have anything to do with the dynamics." Get
the idea? Those things are the overt acts.

And, boy, they are so hidden! They are so hidden! A person
absolutely buries some of these things so deep that
although he knew about them all the time - he's walking along
the street and he says, "Well, got a clean conscience. I've
told all. I told my auditor about Ruth. Henry. I told the
auditor about that bank thing. I told the auditor about
what I did to that cat when I was a little boy. I told the
auditor about, yes, stealing the apples from the old lady.
You know? Yeah, should feel a lot better than I do feel
but... Let's see, and I told the auditor about - oh, yes,
told the auditor about being nasty to my mother, and
putting the bucket of soapsuds all over the back steps so
that she'd slip and fall.

"Yeah, I'm pretty cleaned up. Scientology doesn't work very
good; I just don't feel very good. Something wrong here.
But I've told him everything anyhow. I've done what Ron
said had to be done. And there's nothing else.

"Oh, no! No. Oh well, that - that was just one of those
things, and there wasn't anything you could do about it
and... Well, I just wasn't myself. Just wasn't myself.
That's what that was. No need to tell him about it
because - just upset him.

"Just upset him. That's right. Just upset him. Well, I'll
just tell myself about it.

"I'm - funny, like I - I kind of knew about that all the time,
but I just never seemed to call it to mind. You know, and I
wonder why I didn't call it to mind. It seems to be very
peculiar.

"Well, it's probably something that was done to me way back
in the past, and therefore I did it then and it probably is
so far out of my perimeter of behavior that I don't have to
worry about it. God, I've got a headache!

"Well, anyhow I've - that didn't have very much to do with me
so we don't have to do anything about that one. Now, I've
done everything Ron said, so now I should get Clear pretty
soon. Well, maybe I'll feel better about it next session!

"Now, how the devil did I ever get into such a thing
anyhow, you know? Could that have been I? Could that have
been me that did that? No, that couldn't have been me. You
know, I think I'm dreaming the whole thing up! Oh, I'll
tell him, Ah, that makes me feel - oh, Christ! I can't tell 
him!"

That's the one! That's the one that's going to get you. But
just go on and ruin your reputation. Throw yourself on the
pikes and skip it!

Now, what's the keynote - what's the keynote - we'll talk 
about this later in the congress but what's actually the 
keynote of such an experience?

This is badly stated because we have too many connotations
for the word responsibility, and the only reason we can do
this trick flow is because I finally have found out the
exact anatomy of what responsibility is and we can run it
in other terms, much better terms that preclears respond to
very rapidly and come up the line. Because you've run
responsibility on a lot of preclears and they didn't go
anyplace. Well, that's just because they thought
responsibility was something else. Well, I've had to be
able to get exactly what definition of responsibility works
as a process. That was the trick.

But it's a matter, shall we say, basically of
responsihflity. And the things a person couldn't take
responsibility for are, of course, the things that are most
alien to him. And he does something, he can't take
responsibility for it and he doesn't know what the devil
got into him, lie can't take responsibility for it but he
did it, but he didn't do it, but he did it, but he didn't
do it but he couldn't have done it! And that's inevitably
an overt act. And one of the things he can't tell you is
what it's an overt act against.

You say, "All right. Which one of the dynamics or which
person is this thing you've done, an overt act against?"

"Oh, well, nobody really. Myself possibly. Nobody else. I'm
the one that suffered for it. Nobody else."

And that's just the whole thing. He just can't even fit
these things to the dynamics. It's a missingness of
responsibility. There has to be a certain amount of
responsibility present to have memory.

Now, identity is one of the big clues to all of this.
Responsibilities on identity is a tremendous process. This
is - this is a - this is one of the great processes, if run
right. But when you no longer feel responsibility for a
person you have been and now are not, you of course forget
him or her That person is no longer extant, even in memory,
because one is no longer responsible.

The unreality one runs into on the whole track. And these
people that just say, "Live before? No, I've never lived
before. I can't get the slightest idea of any past lives. I
never lived before. I have no reality on it. I'll tell you
intellectually I have had people and even preclears that
have told me that they have lived before. And for the
benefit of the auditing and the case, why, I will take it
for granted that they have lived before. But not for me. I
mean, after all, I've just..."

You're just looking at a terrific lack of responsibility on
identities. That's all. And the second you improve
responsibility for identity this person's whole track
memory turns on. That's what's got us into whole track in
the first place, you know?

Just as a side note, I was getting - I was getting amnesia. 
I couldn't remember some places. You know, I'd say, "What 
was my house address in 1610? I'm going crazy, losing my 
mind. Let's see. Yeah, it was 22 Athenian Road, Athens. Yeah,
that was my address in - that was my address in 351 B.C.
Yeah, that's right. And my address then was so-and-so and
then we moved to so-and-so and so forth. And then the next
life it was so-and-so and so-and-so. I can't remember my
address in 1610! I'm going mad."

That's - I've had one goal, by the way, in processing and
so forth. Just to get these amnesia spots cleaned up, you
know? I know I'm nuts!

Then I run into somebody that says, "Past lives" Or
sornebody that says, "I've got a pretty good reality on
having lived before. I've run into a facsimile."

You see, we just get - all we're looking at is degrees of
responsibility, that's all, for identity, for beingness,
for life, for time and so forth. Just degree of
responsibility; that's all it amounts to. One is unwilling
to take responsibility in certain zones and areas, one
forgets.

A person with a bad memory has a bad level of
responsibility, and that's one for you to put down in your
book. Their responsibilities are poor. In other words,
responsibility and memory, responsibility and identity, so
forth: these things go right straight together.
Irresponsibility and amnesia and so forth; these things go
together. And that's what, basically, a lot of this is about.

Now, I - I have had that as an auditing goal to get a lot of
these things patched up and so on. And when I get audited
and so on, why, it's generally to put together things of
this character and a half a dozen other things, because I'm
going for OT and getting not enough auditing to get there.
I'm mad, mad about it.

You're mad - you're mad because you're not getting enough
processing. You ought to hear me sometimes. I frankly don't
know what my address was in 1610, see? Maybe it was the
county jail. Probably was.

We fool ourselves all the time. We fool ourselves
continually about these things. We fool ourselves about
life and fool ourselves about our motives and so forth. But
every time and everywhere that we fool ourselves, we are
simply being irresponsible for the dynamics one way or the
other. And of course, the first dynamic is one of the 
dynamics.

Now, the fellow who embroiders you a fancy fabric of
romanticisni he isn't doing you any harm. But the fellow
that says to you, "I don't have to do anything about you
because I am not responsible for you. You live your life
and I'll live mine" - that fellow's doing harm. Because,
basically, individuals do not live alone. They can't live
alone. That's it.

You were never unhappier than the last time you flew out
into the firmament and went past cloud nine and met no
friends on it. Or a few hundred years ago when you,
swallowed up by various propaganda systems, decided to go
look for heaven and meet Saint Peter or something like
that, see? You got an idea after a while you'd had it,
because you didn't find him. I bet there's more thetans
going around even now, you know, saying, "Gee-whiz. No
gates, you know?" I don't know what theta trap that was
that had gates. And of course, the trick on - I'm sorry if 
I abuse your religious sensibilities. Actually, I'm not at
all, but I will say that just to be polite.

If there's anything that gets my goat, it's somebody that
will foul people up to such a degree that they can't find
their way around. Or who put out a philosophy saying that
"You can do what you want to do in this life and mess up
what you want to in this life. It doesn't matter, because
you will never have to pay for it. You're not ever going to
live again."

And then, by golly, you who didn't straighten out - you
were - you were the head of the whole school system in the
whole district, and you could have straightened out the
various abuses amongst the teachers, and you had this
philosophy, you know, and, "I've never lived, never going
to live again. Never lived before. I'm just here, and I'm
head of this. And when I die I'm dead. And when I'm gone, I
go to heaven or hell or some placc to my just reward, and
that's all there is to it and ..."

You were head of the school system. You step under a truck
or something like that, or eat some of these best-advertised
products on TV, go by the hoards, pick up a body and Miss 
Gooch and all the Miss Gooches that you had ample opportunity 
to straighten up are now teaching you.

Now, thats a very narrow, superpersonalized attitude about
it. But I had a very, very well educated, apperently very
learned professor of physics of Columbia Univeisity tell me
that he had never worried about atomic fission
particularly, because it - he'd be dead before anything
happened to Earth. And didn t matter whether he was killed
by the atom bomb or by some other means didn t matter
because he wasn't long for this world. And he died a short
time afterwards. And I imagine now here he is a kid in New
York or something like that pushing up along the line and
believe me somewhere back in his conciousness is some
little, tickle, tickle, whir-click, you know? Every time he
reads in - the bomb, "Disarmament Proposed," you know? Its
right on his track he's just not taking responsibility for
it - was his conversation with me about the subject of
teaching some of his students some responsibility for their
mechanical advantages and for their machinations on the
subject of atomic fission. I told him he ought to teach
them some responsibility in the field of the humanities if
they were going to fool around in the field of the
sciences. And he said, oh, pooh-pooh-pooh, he was going to
be dead, you see, and all this rigamarole. And here he is.
He must have some inkling of this, see?

That's all very well to sail along up the track with no
responsibilities whatsoever expecting to land someplace,
but nobody's going to be very happy doing it. Their
responsibilities and their memory are actually not adequate
to the situation - to the situation of their own livingness.
That's all that it amounts to.

Now, what is an overt act? An overt act - you could classify
it in various ways. You could say an overt act is something
that was not for the greatest good on all of the dynamics.
Something of this sort. Or something which inhibited the
future survival of; or you could say an overt act was
giving something an experience which it couldn't
experience. There are various ways of doing this, but
there's no reason to define it, because you know all about
it! Now, that's the trick, that's what it's all about.

Now, the thing that was difficult to do was to define
responsibility so that it couldn't miss as a process. See,
that was the trick. All right. Now, we got that. Now, the
other one will come out.

So, there's no sense in defining what an overt act is and
therefore a moral code is just that much wasted lead
pencil, stylus or wax tablet or stone or hammer or chisel
or whatever it is they write them on. Because everybody
knows what an overt act is or they wouldn't suffer from
them. You know, an overt act is what you suffer from, and
that's about as far as you could define the thing, you see?

The thing which you are suppressing and mustn't tell
somebody must have been an overt act! See that? That's what
an overt act is. An overt act is that thing which a person
feels he'd better not do again. Simple as that.

Now, wherever you try to define it further than that you
get into trouble. Man is basically good. He restrains
himself; restrains himself; down to the point where he
loses himself. And after that, unfortunately, the only real
evil takes place. Having lost himself; there's nobody there
representing him but an automaton which is consciencelessly
going through a series of motions, and you get criminality.

So, a basic - a basic overt act could be said to be
irresponsibility for identity. Now there - I'm afraid there
isn't anybody in this room that's committed any real ones.

Female voice: I don't know about that.

But I'll make you a bet that there's nobody in this
room - there's nobody here would have that much confidence 
in himself. In other words, I don't think you'd have that
much - as much confidence in your overt act record as I have
in it. Do you get the idea? That's because I have an
exterior view to it. I have a pretty good idea what's been
done and what hasn't been done on the whole track line.

There was probably nothing terribly wrong with somebody
dreaming up the plan - the last plan that was dreamed up 
that had to do with ice cubes and removal of whole
civilizations, and transplantations of whole peoples and
handling of excess populations and so forth throughout the
planets, and redistribution of skills, and body form and
all of this sort of thing. One of these things that
couldn't have been worked out on a UNIVAC or an ENIAC even
if it was hooked up to a Remington electric shaver.

So anyhow, this plan - inevitably, men'll - and beings will
work on plans - this plan happened to have the drawback that
it was so good and required so much goodness and integrity
on everybody's part that there weren't any people around
good enough to carry out the plan so therefore the only way
the plan could be carried out was with total viciousness,
which made, of course, the whole plan into an overt act.

So, sometime somebody conceives something and it becomes
- it becomes an overt act merely because he didn't foresee
where it was going. That isn't true of all overt acts. But
having done them out of regard for your fellow man, your
fellow women, you busily withhold them.

And one of the reasons you don't tell anybody is because
you think it'll hurt them. That's an interesting thing,
isn't it? Look it over. You say it would shock or harm the
auditor, or it would shock or harm somebody else if this
were to become known. Now, how much evil do you suppose
that continues on the track, huh? Don't you think that's
more harmful? Don't you think that's more harmful than the
immediate thing?

And as far as that's concerned, you actually can't harm
auditors - not possible - except in one way, and that's make 
no progress. An auditor will stand into buzz saws and baths 
of liquid air as long as he thinks he's making progress and
getting wins. About the only way you can harm an auditor is
give him loses, loses, loses, loses.

We found that out in training classes. We found - we usually
have two or three old-time auditors around that have just
had too many loses, and we snap them back by giving them a
few wins, and it works fine. They come right back up!

There's nothing more wonderful than watching an auditor who
is absolutely convinced that he is tired to death of
auditing and wants nothing more to do with auditing than to
watch him get a nice, big win! And he says - he says, "Well,"
he says, "any more candidates? Any more candidates?"
promptly and immediately.

I know I'd - always have had wins of one character or
another, big ones, little ones and so forth. I didn't know
my enthusiasm could go up in such a steep rising climb,
because I'm on a diet of them now. I mean, I'm just on a
diet of them. It's just a matter of what case - what case 
do you want a win on. You know? You want a win on such and
such a case. Well, all right. Process it, that's all.

Once in a while I find my moral purity getting in my road,
even as you will, you see? You say, "Well, I don't know. I
don't know. You know? She really fixed this guy up, you
know? I don't know whether I ought to process her or not.
You know, why should I do that?" You know?

And inevitably, if you think it around just a little bit
further, you'll find out that in 1302 when you were - when
you were a ward of the court of such and such a place, you
knew this guy, see? And you've got an overt act that
absolutely parallels hers. And of course, you can't take
responsibility for the preclear because you're not taking
responsibility for the overt act that you have. You get the
idea?

Well, it looks - a healthy view of this thing - that it's 
a fairly easy climb out of the rat hole. It is. All you've
got to do is first, strip the case down of its overts and
withholds, present lifetime, straighten it up, smooth it
out from a standpoint of that, run Responsibility on every
one of them that comes up (and I'll tell you more about how
to do that later), but don't let this case come up with:
"Well, lets see, I stole a car when I was twelve. Yes.
Well, I'm glad to get that off my chest." Oh, yeah?

Not this auditing command, but you would have to do
something of this sort: "What part of that incident could
you be responsible for?" And run it flat. And where do we
go from there?

Well, you pick up the next one he gives you and locate that
and argue him out of it, and then flatten that one and get
his responsibility in that zone and area fully restored and
straightened out. Get the idea?

You just don't strip a guy down of overts and motivators
and withholds and just let it all go, go, go, you see? You
just don't keep stripping him down of all of his data and
then not running anything on it and just skip the rest of
it. You get what would be wrong with that? There'd be
plenty wrong with that.

Because all a confession is, is the first gradient step of
taking responsibility for it. That's just the first edge
in, and getting him to tell you about it is just to start
the process! And you could practically kill somebody by
getting him to tell you just overts and withholds
endlessly, strip them all off the bank and then never run
any Responsibility on it at all. You could practically kill
somebody with this thing. It's the dirtiest trick that
could be done to anybody - never to run any Responsibility 
of any character on these overts and withholds, see?

Now, I'm not saying any - any organization on Earth does 
that.

And the other thing you've got to rehabilitate - after
you've rehabilitated responsibility, you've got to
rehabilitate the ability to withhold! After you've broken
him down you've got to put him back together again, see?
Because it's only his ability to withhold that has kept him
good. And that's very important.

If a person is still able to restrain himself from
committing antisocial acts, he's in good condition. It's
the person who no longer can that is the criminal.

So, it's very simple what you have to do to straighten out
a case. Of course, this doesn't finish the case off; this
doesn't clear the case. This merely sets the case up to be
cleared.

But the steps are very simple: Break down an overt and a
withhold that the individual has, run Responsibility on it;
find another overt and withhold, present lifetime, run
Responsibility on it; another overt-withhold, run
Responsibility on it; another overt-withhold, run
responsibility on it. When you've got that all set you've
got him down to a point of where he's just obsessively
confessing, you see - he wakes up in the middle of the
night and wntcs you notes to confess some more - then it's
time for you to get in and pitch, you see, and rehabilitate
his whole ability to withhold. In other words, having
poured the garbage into the ditch it's about time that you
let him put up his own tailgates.

Now, that's the essence of getting a case on the road, and
there's no case that can stand up against this. You've got
them all now. If the case can talk, knck! you've got it. I
don't even care if the case doesn't want auditing; you've
still got him as a case.

Take any policeman, or take any anything anyplace and
you've got him in-session before you know it. I'm taking my
revenge out on all the bad press we have ever had by - I
break down every newspaper reporter who comes into my hands
these days and put him in-session instantly on his own
overts and withholds against Dianetics and Scientology.

Now, that actually is the way you start a case. And I
figure that you figured someday I'd possibly come up with
some sort of a kickoff and that is the kickoff for a case.
There's numerous tricks and ways and means of doing this,
but actually they're just as crude as getting an overt and
a withhold and running Responsibility on it, getting
another overt-withhold, running Responsibility on it. You
keep this up for a while, you'll have that case in-session,
and the more you do it, why, the faster they move. Sooner
or later you're going to have to rehabilitate their ability
to withhold, even from you, and you've got it made.

Well, I have ruined you today, giving you all this data on
the first day. We have nothing then for the second and
third days. And I'm very sorry that your banks are so
restimulated. (How insincere can a guy get, huh?)

And I'm very - I am very happy, however, to see you here.
Basically I've given you now everything that I was going to
give you at the congress here, and there's nothing much
else to tell you, and so we needn't worry about it too much
and you can go to sleep peacefully tonight and realize
there are no shockers in store for you tomorrow at all.

Now, if you are too restimulated tonight to sleep, why,
just be comforted by the thought that there are others in
the same boat. And tomorrow, sometime tomorrow, I will try
to run you a Group Process that won't take the edge off -
it'll probably make it worse - but it'll make - it'll make
things much clearer to you.

In the meanwhile, thank you for coming, and I think so far
we've had a good first day, and I wish you a lot of luck in
your seminars this evening.

Thank you very much.

[End of tape.]





