From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Subject: FZ Bible STATE OF MAN TAPES 4/9 [x2]
Date: 04 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <c3304e297c6301f72fa022df96651d20@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) 4/9

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

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-4  2 Jan 60 Why People Don't Like You

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard SMC-4  "State of
Man Congress"


WHY PEOPLE DON'T LIKE YOU

A lecture given on 2 January 1960

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


Hiya.

Well, I'm actually - I'm actually very indebted to you for
the applause and for staying here today. I was fairly sure
we were going to have nothing but empty seats today. But I
see you're making it. I see that those of you whose overts
are not too great are still here.

That's what I'm going to talk to you about today. That's
what I'm going to talk to you about. The title of this
lecture is "Why People Don't Like You." 

Now, you paranoids just polish up the fingernails because
you're in now and the others are out.

Oh, I tell you, something very, very remarkable has just
occurred in Scientology - something very, very remarkable.
You know, I knew sooner or later I would hit some sort of a
button along the line which would make somebody
uncomfortable. You know? And I just had some small notion
that before some people got Clear, they were going to
appear to themselves to be in terrible condition.

I had an idea that some people were going to get up to the
point of finding out they weren't Clear and that in the
process of doing this they might feel a small strain. But I
didn't have any idea whatsoever that it was going to be
quite as bombastic as it has been. This is with violence.

When we put our finger on the exact button necessary to
resolve the case, it was something on the order of pushing
a guided missile trip, as far as some people were
concerned. Where a person had been, a small vacuum now
stood. And in some places in Scientology, unfortunately at
this time, there are small partings in the air where people
left through.

Now, you think I'm kidding. You think this is just
exaggeration but it's not. It's not. Now, factually, you'll
hear - you'll hear all sorts of things from here on out - 
I mean, rumorwise and fieldwise and so forth. You're just
going to hear all kinds of things. That's for sure, because
I've already heard it. I've heard some of the most
interesting things you ever heard of.

Actually, as far as I know, in checking it off; only one
person in the whole world has been sacked. And that was 

> on a course that Dick and Jan were on and that was

because the person wouldn't give anybody any gen and
because the person had the organization in peril because of
his own actual crimes. And that person was pshew! sacked,
and told, "Now, write down all of your overts and come
back." And he has and that's all straightened out. But
beyond that, nothing has happened to anybody except they've
blown on their overts. But they have told people they've
been sacked.

Now, what's this, and why am I talking about this
organizationally? I'm talking about this, ladies and
gentlemen, because I want a third dynamic in Scientology.
And I'm very, very happy that we have discovered this. And
I couldn't care less about the randomity that may be caused
by it. Because we've got to have a third dynamic in
Scientology and that's it.

Unless we are a closely knit group, unless we're each
other's friends in this, why, it'll just go on happening
that I'll somehow or other have to front up and you'll have
to defend, and we'll all have worries about it one way or
the other and we won't really get the show on the road.
It'll just sort of get on there just a little bit. And
that's no good, is it?

All right, so let's have a third dynamic. Let's knit
Scientologists together so they can look each other in the
eye, and so that - the fact that a fellow is a Scientologist,
why, you can immediately and instantly trust him.

Well now, with the materials we have at this time, we can't
do any less than this. Because let me tell you - in the
ancient West, they used to talk about a six-gun being a
dangerous weapon in unknowing hands. But believe me,
believe me, fellow Scientologists, this little instrument
in the hands of somebody whose own ability to handle his
own life or to use information is bad - is worse than any
six-gun ever invented by Mr. Colt. Correct?

Audience: Right. Obvious.

So we have no choice now but to have a very, very clean
organization.

[Please note: At this point there was a break in the
original master recording. We now rejoin the class where
the lecture resumes.]

Whether I have an opportunity to group process you or not,
I've got to use any and all of the time I have at this
congress to try to give you all I know about this
particular facet of Scientology. Isn't that right? That's
the least I could do.

This isn't something - this isn't something that you release
in a slipshod fashion and leave people in the know, halfway. 
Now that's right, isn't it?

Audience: Right.

It can't be released poorly.

Audience: Right.

All right. If we're going to have anything connected
whatsoever with a third dynamic, then it must be that the
people in Scientology will have to have both the technology
and the opportunity to be Clear, and should get there. But
there's evidently now something new about clearing. There
is a stage of clearing, of getting Clear, which is getting
Clear on the third dynamic before they get Clear on the first.

Now, I've told you for a long time that auditing was a
third dynamic situation. And sure enough, we have to clear
somebody on the third dynamic before we clear him on the
first. And all those case failures that we have had to this
time have been because we've been trying to clear people on
the first before we cleared them on the third. Do you see that?

An auditor-preclear situation is a third dynamic situation.
That's a third dynamic situation. And clearing a person
starts right there in that auditing session. Now, any HCA
can tell you better than I can - I think the number of the
Auditor's Code is 9, though, isn't it? Isn't that it?
Whichever one it is. It's "two-way comm must be established." 
 It's a breach of the Auditor's Code actually. We've had it 
with us for years. But what did this mean?

Well, this meant, essentially, that the preclear had to be
willing to talk to the auditor. Well now, several things
have to be guaranteed before this takes place. And one of
the things that has to be guaranteed is that the preclear
has some security in talking to the auditor that that
information will not be falsely used. Isn't that right?

Audience: Yes.

So this leaves us with an organizational responsibility
heavier and bigger than we have ever had in the past. We've
now got to go all out and make sure that a certificate
means, wherever it is to be found, that confidence can be
reposed in the person as a confidant. Isn't that right?

Audience: Yes. Uh-huh.

That organizationnally, the information passing over
organizational channels and so forth is inviolate we have
to be able to guarantee that, right?

Audience: Right.

Well, the technological fact which kicked all this off is
that you did it. And that's a tough bullet to chew. Nobody
on Earth, anywhere, ever had the power to aberrate you,
except you. When you've managed to gulp that one down,
your throat may feel raw but you will feel much better
generally, because you'll stop going around looking for 
all of the bad things that are happening to you.

Now, we've all of us been "motivator kids"; we've all of us
been rnotivator hungry "Look at what's happened to me!"
See? Arrows, bullet holes. arsenic. And us poor victims,
somehow or other, must struggle along to our doubtlessly
degraded destiny of being victimized.

Oh, I'm - it's unfortunate that this is so popular. This 
is so popular that all I would have to do is write a book
saying "You are a victim," and go right back up to the top
of the bestseller list of the Times. But the only truth in
it would be this one fact: You are a victim of your own
delusion that you can be a victim.

And that's not palatable. That's not very palatable because
it says you are responsible. Now, I well remember when
Advanced Procedures and Axioms was released - and we're 
at another point. Advanced Procedures and Axioms - well,
actually, the book was written toward the end of 1951, was
released, I think, in 52, and as soon as that essay in
there about full responsibility hit many sets of hands, we
lost Dianeticists just like pouring them down the chute.
There they went.

That was just responsibility. We didn't even - we just told
these people that to get anyplace they would have to take
some responsibility! They'd have to admit their own
responsibility! And all around the world these people went
boom! "Where is the nearest exit?"

Well, how much worse is it now? We have discovered another
one of those terribly unsavory factors but look, if people
are going to get Clear, it is naturally across the spikes
of unsavory factors. Because the unsavoriness of the factor
was what restrained them from getting Clear. Isn't that right?

Well now, now we have a much worse one than full
responsibility. I'll tell you about responsibility.
Responsibility isn't very tough. It's too easy; it is. 
But we've got one now that's much worse than that.

We say, "Your husband hates you? What did you do to him?"

Look, I have a terrible problem. How am I going to keep all
you people and still - and still tell you that you have to
face up to this one? Honest, it - in workaday world today,
with all of the overts which you've stacked up the track
until now, you can be shot.

That doesn't make a bullet any less painful, you see, to
say that you caused yourself to be shot. A fellow is run
over, he's hurt - whatever the explanation of it is. There
isn't any getting away from this fact. He has finally
gotten his bank and his past and his various factors of
beingness and aberration stacked up to a point where he
can be jolly well killed. And it doesn't do any good to say
to him, as he lies there bleeding, "Your overts brought you
up to a point of getting shot." I'd go so far as to say it
would create an ARC break.

And yet, unfortunate]y, that's essentially what I am
telling you right this minute. I'm saying there you sit
with the engrams this way and that way and - and the
machinery going that way, and the somatic in the skull, and
I say to you this horribly unsavory fact: I say, "Well, you
did it to yourself. Congratulations." And that doesn't make
you feel any better.

But if that was all there was to it, I'm afraid we'd be
finished right at this point. But that isn't all there is
to it. There is another fact along with this: that you can
demonstrate it so fast to a person that he'll get dizzy
practically watching the engrams blow. We've discovered
fast processing - very fast processing!

Now, all you've got to do: The fellow's got a great big
engram. There he sits, you know? There he's been sitting
for years. All you've got to say to him: "All right. What
have you done to the engram? What have you withheld from
the engram?" you know, and it'd go phoo!

I had a person tell me not very long ago, "I had an
intellectual understanding of this causation but nothing
was blowing. All of my overts seemed to be over here on 
one track, totally disconnected with all of my motivators,
which were over here on this track. And I was just paying
attention to motivators over here on this track."

And I had run a redefinition of Responsibility Process on
this person. The person up to that time had been running
Responsibility as "being in charge of." Nothing blew. And 
I got the process Responsibility redefined and run properly
and all of a sudden this track over here connected with
this track over here and this track over here started to go
boom, thud, boom, gong, bing, zoom!

After about a half an hour of this, this person says,
"There's - there's some hope for my case. Yeah, I - I - I - I
got it. We can straighten this out. All - all I've got to do 
is - is admit some causation on these motivators, and I've got
it made." So we have a saving grace. We can actually bring
about a reality on this fact with somebody rather rapidly.

Person's stuck in a session: ah, well, it's all right to
say the auditor did this and the auditor did that. And some
auditors aren't so good; most of them are pretty good. A
lot of them are excellent. And sure, the auditor did
something to the preclear, and the preclear doesn't feel
too good about it. Now, it isn't that it's right for the
auditor to do something to the preclear. That's - it's not
that it's right for an auditor just to butcher a preclear.
That's right, because what he'll do is key in the pc.

But to free the pc out of that session, it's only necessary
to find out what he did to and withheld from the auditor.
As far as auditing is concerned, it doesn't matter a bit
what was done to the preclear. The more attention you pay
to what was done to the preclear, the less auditing and the
less clearing you get done!

Now, we've known this fact one way or the other. We've
known something about this. I've had the definition of
Operating Thetan for a long time. We've been trying to
operate along this line. And what I've done is make the
most fundamental applications of the Operating Thetan
definition that could be made to direct auditing and found
out that it was what blew engrams, track, bank, sornatics
and all the rest of it. These things blew up. Pc at cause.
And you've all heard that, haven't you? Pc at cause. "Well,
yeah, just-naturally. That's it, naturally. That's what I
was saying."

But you were saying at the same time, "Well, PC at effect,
of course, too." Oh, no! Get off of that. Get away from
that horse's head hecause that goes nowhere!

The only effects you can experience are those which you
yourself dream up to experience. That's fantastic! It gives
us a brand-new look at cause, distance, effect. The truth
of the matter is more like cause, distance, cause. All is
cause, The Buddhist, you know, never got this one wrapped
up. And his answer to it was have nothing to do with cause
and have nothing to do with effect-leave them both entirely
alone-making himself, therefore, totally guilty of the sins
of omission of never assuming cause, which was the surest
way in the world to spin anybody in.

But he knew something was wrong with this cause, distance,
effect, and that's all I wish to cafl attention to here. He
did know something was wrong with this cause, distance, effect.

But what's wrong with it is effect! Tsk. You're flattering
yourself if you think you can cause an effect without the
cooperation of the other fellow. All of your ability and
slyness must be devoted to getting that cooperation.

Now, where you have - where you have an individual who is
obviously the effect of somebody, and you audit him as
having been the effect of somebody, nothing happens. Now,
that alone has caused us to mark a lot of time in these
last ten years. We've gotten an awful lot done, an
astonishing amount of things done in the absence of this
particular datum. But now, boy, all of the time that was
wasted on that, totally devoted onto this other thing - wow!
Wow! Man, you ought to see cases go to pieces under this
one. Zip-bang-thud! Because you're not paying attention to
untruths; there are no lies in auditing.

In other words, you're not auditing in the direction of a
lie that the preclear's condition is the result of an
other-determinism than himself. You see, I could have
figured this out ten years ago if I'd been that much
smarter. I have to apologize once in a while for having
been stupid about all this.

But we could have figured it out this way: If auditing pc A
in 1959 can clear up a circumstance which occurred in 1699,
and the circumstance clears up without any of the personnel
in 1699 being present, then obviously the person we're
auditing in 1959 did it all. If it clears up, he must have
done all of it. It's worth looking at, isn't it?

But trying to draw a plot of the universe on this basis
becomes a near... I feel for people like the Jesuits and so
forth when they eventually have to tangle with this one.
They're great figure-figure people, you know? They're great
philosophers. Actually, they're pretty smart people. They
turned out - practically the only educated men in the last
couple of thousand years were turned out in Jesuit schools.

But they're very good at figuring things out and making
graphs of it all and figuring it out and postulating it and
straightening it out. And when they try to make a graph of
everybody in the universe being cause... Actually, it's
dead easy. All you have to say is, "Every man in the
universe is cause of his own participation," and that's it.

And where he has participated unworthily, all you have to
do is knock it out by knocking out the cause of his own
participation, and you'll free that zone of evil or
mishmash or discreditable creation or whatever it is in the
universe.

But as long as he holds that in place, it will continue to
be an evil. And as long as men hold these things in
place - these discreditable participations - as long as 
they hold wrongdoing in place, as long as all this remains
buried and knocked in the head it's going to continue to be
an evil nation, an evil world, an evil universe. You want
to free it up, why - "hear ye, hear ye, the kingdom of
heaven is at hand," But don't "repent ye, repent ye" or 
you will put it a long way in reverse.

Now, man, by holding discreditable participations, by
holding his own overt acts in place and covering them 
up and leaving them there, can actually cause a
stimulus-response mechanism of one kind or another
throughout the various dynamics, which gives life the
appearance of evil. And that's all the evil there is.
Which, alarming truth, will do a lot of monks out of a job
because there's no joss to burn anyplace that will free a
man's evil. You can't burn joss and let some deity
someplace take it all on his back, because you've just
assigned some more responsibility elsewhere, and made it
just that much more difficult to blow anything! Does that
appear to be reasonable?

Well, all right. Why don't people like you? That's what all
this leads up to. They don't like you because they've done
things to you, and there's no other reason. You see? 

> [sound of glass being knocked over.]

More than one way to prove a point.

Now, you actually perform, to some degree, an overt against
a person - looking at this in a very loose, sloppy
fashion - by letting a person do an overt to you. And that's
about as close as you can get to performing an overt is to
let somebody perform an overt against you without doing
something about it. Because he'll wind up with a mechanism
which we will call lessening the overt - the mechanism of
lessening the overt.

The individual who performs an overt act against someone or
thing, person or being has one basic mechanism for making
it less harmful to himself. Remember, it's his own overt
acts that are going to harm him, so he has a mechanism by
keeping this from happening and that is he lessens the
object, or reduces or makes less important the object he
has done the overt to. And if you want to spot an overt
act, just find the critic. The critic is always the little
tag end that sticks out on an overt act having been done.
The person tries to lessen the overt by criticizing or
reducing the thing he has done the overt to. Got the idea?

% [There is a gap here on our old reel which is missing half
% of the above paragraph plus all of the following paragraph
% and the beginning of the paragraph after that.]

Well, I'll give you a mechanism. I come over here and I put
a scratch on this podium. Now, this is a very crude example
here. I put a little scratch on this podium. Actually, all
I've done is stain it with some tears from year to year.
But I put a little scratch on it, and then to make that
less of an overt act to the podium or the management or
something of that sort, what I do is say it's just an old
podium and isn't much good anyway. So that doesn't make my
overt act so great, you see?

Now, I can live with that overt act as long as I believe
that this podium is old and not much good. But if I find
out then, that the management just bought this podium
brand-new - imported it from Malaysia, Honduras or something
especially for this congress, and actually that it has a
piece of the true cross and the bones of Saint Peter in the
thing, then I have to say, "Oh, I'm guilty of an overt
act," and decline accordingly, or recognize that I have
performed an overt act and as-is it. Only that never
occurred to anybody before Dianetics or Scientology.

The reverse was true. The person said, "An old podium, 
no good."

The person says, "True cross, bones of Saint Peter," and
"Oh, my God, I've done it," you know? That's the way it's
gone. You get the idea?

So here's a perfectly - here's a perfectly self-respecting
horse. And you go out and you ride this horse and then -
unfortunately you haven't been careful in saddling the
horse, and you've got a burr under the saddle or something
of the sort and this irritates the horse, and your spurs
are very, very sharp and you rowel up the horse, and then
you keep sawing at the bit, and get the horse all upset and
so forth, and he acts mean at this point, you see? He
conceives that he had better participate with an overt
himself and he flips you into the nearest ditch. You go
around and tell everybody it was a mean horse. It squares
it all up, see? Nothing aches. Feel all right about it. You
recovered okay.

Be careful not to discover that this horse is noted as the
gentlest, most considerate horse in the whole stable, who
is usually reserved for children and is the property of the
owner's eldest daughter who is a paralytic. If you discover
that, the only answer you have, of course, is to say, "I'm
guilty of an overt." See, "I've done something wrong."

Well, all right. No criticism always tells you where the 
overt is.

Now, let's look at it in reverse. Young playwright puts a
play on Broadway. Most of the critics are comme ci comme
ca, you know, usual lukewarm - until they find out what the
public thinks, you know, and then they can cheer or boo and
they might have an opinion of their own and be cause, don't
you see? - except one critic.

And he says, "The play Johnny Come Lately shouldn't have
come at all. A dog could write better dialogue." And this
goes on by the column, you see, and he just destroys the
reputation of this young playwright, you see? Then is the
time to suspect that he knew something earlier in this
relationship, that it didn't start with the play. He's
already done something to this playwright or a playwright
like him. And as a Scientologist you go back on the
backtrack, you find out that he killed a blond playwright
back in 1608 or something, you see? It all comes out of 
an overt. There is practically no such thing as honest 
criticism.

Every once in a while, I strike a comm lag because I'm on
the verge of making some comment on some former life or
something like that. I'll just have to get over withholding
all this in spite of what the psychiatrists say, you know?
But I have read some of the criticisms, pro and con, along
the line about a certain person I was once and still am.

And all of the savage ones apparently were the people on
the opposite side still going along the track, because you
never quite saw so many divergent opinions about one set
of speeches. How could there be this many opinions about
that set of speeches, you know? Having to study them each
time I go to school doesn't help any.

But these things - these things, you eventually say, "There
must be a lacking validity in all this criticism." Now, you
can say that it is this way or it is that way, but to go
from saying, "It isn't too bad, except that..." and then
go into a scathing, personal criticism of the person who
was doing the speaking or something like that, tells us
something entirely different is at work than a speech
criticism. You got the idea?

Well, I can go into this a lot more deeply and show you 
a lot of cases on it. It isn't that we don't have any
liability. It isn't that we don't very often merit getting
our silly heads kicked off for some of the things we do,
but do you know we almost never get shot for our crimes?
You'd be amazed what are picked out as crimes.

You know, a fellow's done this and he's done that and he
knows it, but all of a sudden somebody is shotgunning him
from some other quarter about having done something else
entirely different. He gets the idea after a while it isn't
the crimes; there's something else going on.

Now, there is such a thing as decent conduct and carrying
our weight and all that sort of thing, but there is also
such a thing as living in the vicinity of a great many
people who have committed overt acts against us. And that's
rough! That's rough. And our overt is letting them do it.

Now, the easy manager - the easy manager who permits himself
to he robbed at every hand is a villain, because he's going
to wind up a lot of people in the soup. He makes it too
easy to have overt acts committed against himself; and
eventually degrades their opinion of themselves and
himself. You got the idea?

They used to say "I do not like you, Dr Fell. The reason
why, I cannot tell. I do not like you, Dr. Fell." This was
in keeping with other thinking in 1879, if you want to call
it that.

They - but it had truth in it: "The reason why, I cannot
tell." That was sticking out like a sore, bandaged,
mercurochromed thumb. "The reason why, I cannot tell. I do
not like you, Dr. Fell."

Well, what'd he do to Dr Fell that he couldn't tell anybody
about? And that's why he didn't like Dr Fell.

Well, you say, well, what's Dr Fell? Is he a - just a 
totally negative figure in all this? Oh, yes, unfortunately.
Because if people hadn't done things to him, even though he
kept running into class with pink pantaloons on, or none,
even though he made smart cracks at everybody, if nobody
had done anything to him, they'd think Dr Fell was all right.

They must have done something to Dr Fell in order not to
like Dr Fell. You get the idea? A person breaks down his
own affinity with the universe.

Now, let's look at this lessening the overt. When I kick
the podium and say the podium is no good that lessens the
overt but it also lessens my visibility of the podium. And
what we have connected and collided with here, head-on, is
the whole mechanism of not-isness. And that's a discovery
worth announcing.

That is not-isness. Those things we have done things to, we
must then not-is. And that's all there is to it. And there
goes reality and there goes engram banks and there goes
visio and there goes sonic and there goes confusion of
identities - one can no longer see an identity clearly and
confuses it with other identities because he's what? Got it
not-ised. It means he must have done something to it, and
then his second mechanism is to lessen the overt.

Now, people who criticize you are trying to lessen the
overt. That's right. People who criticize you are trying 
to lessen the overt. People who don't like you are trying 
to lessen the overt. People who are stopping you from
progressing along some perfectly decent path are lessening
the overt. They're saying you don't exist.

And if they suddenly found out that you did exist, they
would be suddenly and tremendously guilty of a tremendous
number of overt acts. I've seen this happen. Pathetically,
I've seen it happen in Dianetics and Scientology; I've
seen it right in front of my eyes. I've seen a fellow go
from a proud, cocky, if somewhat contemptuous individual
right down to a total creep, just poom, on the sudden
recognition of what he was doing something to.

I remember a newspaper reporter, and there was a little
girl in the office and she'd just been straightened out and
she could walk now. And the newspaper reporter was saying
chya! chya! chya! - you know, standard journalism. And the
little girl came out with her mother and she was saying,
"Gee, it really feels good to walk, you know? Gosh! It
really feels good to walk. That's all right." And she was
being very cautious about it and so forth. Newspaper
reporter stood right there and spun in. He went right down
for the count.

Just a couple of years ago, if it was then, one of the most
profound critics of Dianetics and one of the fellows who
had - did the most to Dianeties to slow it down and who got
paid the highest went up to the Mayo Clinic and kicked the
bucket.

Somebody who may or may not be at this congress had been
around and talked to him. But this fellow had been
suffering for years. It didn't take this congress person to
talk to him. He knew. What he'd done is, every time he'd
done something to Dianetics or to one of you or myself or
something like this or slowed us down, he'd have to say,
"Well, it's just a gyp and a cheat and a fraud," you see?
Then he'd do something else and he'd say, "Well, it's just
a gyp and a cheat and a fraud," Get the idea? And onc day
he couldn't say that anymore and that was the end of him.
Do you get the idea? He had to recognize that he was guilty
of overts,

Now, that's the hard way to go out! I'm not holding him up
as a horrible example. I'm trying to show you this
mechanism of lessening the overt. Because it lessens, it
lessens, it lessens, it lessens and then can't hold it,
can't hold it, boom! And it just goes in reverse.

And the terminal it's done to goes up, and the person goes
down. And we get the exact mechanism of propitiation:
Not-isness reversed. See that? It just goes bang! It's a
horrible thing to watch. Now, somebody's been expecting
this to happen someday in Scientology and Dianetics.

The Einstein theory I've occasionally mentioned - it's been
mentioned to me was considered the greatest mathematical
hoax of the late twenties. It was announced from the Berlin
Mathematicians Conference stage as being the most terrible,
the most fiendish, the most awful, the most villainous, the
most fraudulent thing that had ever been perpetrated upon
mathematicians of the world.

Three years this theory was slugged. The very person who
announced it became its greatest authority within six
months, suddenly. Now, people have expected this sort of
thing to happen sooner or later in Dianetics and
Scientology in the United States.

There is some magazine called Comm Lag magazine and someday
you'll see its editorial director walk into the HGC and
say, "Kill me," you know?

But who cares about such a mechanism? Who wants such a
mechanism? Who wants everybody in propitiation? Not I and
not you. You get a pc who is in propitiation, you run -
you say, "Say A."

And he says, "Say A."

You say, "Thank you." You say, "Say B."

He says, "Says B."

And you say, "Thank you."

And you do this for an hour or two, and he says, "I just
feel wonderful now, you know?" He doesn't feel any
different. He's just got to propitiate you because he'll be
'et if he doesn't. That's a person who is no longer capable
of lessening the overt. The only mechanism the person has
is to lessen the overt. You'll find this person has been
chopping up practitioners and auditor-like people for
millennia and billennia. All of a sudden one day, they see
you, and they say thoo, you know? "Yes." Hey, you got an
automaton on your hands; you haven't got a human being.

So who wants this mechanism to take place?

No, let's fool everybody and take it the other way. Let's
just get them all by the scruff of their necks and run out
their overts in life and straighten them up and make them
walk proud.

Boy, that'd be - that'd be something new, wouldn't it? That'd
realy be something new. Actually, you have it in your power
to do so.

And you watch, now. That's what's going to happen, that's
what's going to happen. Therefore, one of the first things
we ought to do is to make sure we are a third dynamic which
is sufficiently trustworthy, sufficiently straightened up
and dedicated and representing what we say and do in
ourselves to a degree that it will inspire confidence.

That's all you have to do from there on out. You talk about
dissemination programs, that's the key dissemination
program of all time. Isn't it?

Now, it's very easy to pull that one off And we're already
off to a quite a start here. I released this information
from Australia and I - there are about twenty-two on staff
at HCO WW - 

> Susie's holding down HCO WW -

and four people blow, just like that. Interesting?

Then they tell everybody they've been fired. They go around
and they say, "Been fired. I mean, Ron's flipped. He's gone
out of his mind. He fired us."

Fired them? As Bonnie said a little while ago, "I've never
known you to be so indirect as firing somebody from 12,500
miles. You usually do it in person." He's right, see? It's
a pleasure.

Somebody that's been chopping us up one way or the other,
been slowing us down, I usually like to take it up with
them. Make sure they know.

Well, I was down in Australia, and all of a sudden, why,
four people blow up in Suzie's face. They just scatter like
quail. They leave her manning the ramparts all by herself.
She's doing accounts over here with this hand and writing
franchise holders with this hand, you know? I don't know
what she was doing with her feet, but it was probably
pumping up the ice machine or something.

I get home, the poor girl is worked half to death, you
know? And I hear from all around, "Ron fired us!" I fired
them? No, I didn't fire them. I didn't even hear about it.
I didn't even know anything about it. 

> Dick and Jan could tell you that.

I thought everything was going along fine, and Suzie just 
didn't want to upset me that far away; and she didn't think 
I'd wander around and notice, so that was it.

But what was all this? Four people go pshew out of
twenty-two. Oh, but we cover up on the backtrack. We look
up these people quickly, after I got back, and we find out
this and this and this and-they had overts. Their nickname
should have been Mr. Plenty Overts. They weren't bad
people; they just had overts, and they were very much
afraid these would be discovered, and they knew very well
from the bulletins I was putting out from Australia that
"Do not send to find for whom the bell tolls; that fire
alarm gong is going for thee." That's what they had it
figured, see?

What would have happened in effect? I would have come back,
and they would have come in, and one of them - another of
them, they would have come in and said, "Ron, we've been
very bad children. We've been very bad people. And we have
done this and this and this."

And I would have been very mean about the whole thing! I
would have said, "Ha! Staff auditor, front and center The
auditing room is the first door on the right. Now, let's
square this thing up and straighten it up." That's what
would have happened. But nobody waited for that to happen.
They went pshew!

Now, the mechanism is that man is basically good, and when
he suddenly discovers that he is guilty of evil, he takes
himself off so he can do no more harm. And that's the
mechanism of blowing. That's the mechanism of sudden
departure. That's the sudden departure from an auditing
session. That's the sudden departure from an auditing qestion.

Pc's sitting there talking about ARC break, ARC break, ARC
break. No, uh-uh. No, what's happening is pc's doing
something to the auditor. Pc's doing something to the
auditor. Main thing the pc is doing to the auditor is
probably withholding vital information about himself and
his case and isn't establishing two-way communication with
the auditor, and this withhold can get so violent and so
tough that it practically blows the pc out back through the
wall! The pc couldn't stay in session if he had both hands
on big steel handles snd was handcuffed to them. He'd blow!
Do you see that?"

Student comes in - student comes in. Student says, "Oh, the
Instructor is bad, and I'm leaving, and no more."

Oh, yes, there - there was something going on that wasn't
quite optimum, but. it wasn't that bad. We check up the
student and we find out: student, day before yesterday
stole an E-Meter from the class. Yeah. Something goofy like
this.

They decide they are harmful to the organization, harmful
to you, harmful to us and take themselves off so they can't
be harmful anymore. And that is what is known as a
blow-off. And it's occasioned totally and completely by
overts and nothing else. Now, the proof of it is as soon as
they gct their overts stripped, they come right hack in. 

This fellow blows session, get him by the nape of the neck,
"What have you done, Son?" Get those overts stripped down
and those withholds stripped down, really break this thing
down, run some Responsibility on the thing, and he comes
right back into session, crash! no matter how many corny
mistakes you're making with auditing. You get the idea?
They weren't what took him off.

Therefore, we've been fooled continually. Well, it's
operated in a very good wise. It has made us concentrate 
on smoothness of auditing, and we have that. It's made us
concentrate on techniques, techniques, techniques. It's
made us develop this, that and the other thing. We've got
all the stuff now. Now it's almost as if planned. Now we
can face the fact that it's somebody's overts. But this
was the inevitable datum.

Now, I'm telling you now, not about a datum that was
dreamed up an hour and a half before the congress started;
I've been living with this one now for several months. And
this one has been stripped down one side and the other
because it is so alarming and so full of potential, it
means so much to us as a group that it had to be examined
from every quarter and every possible flub taken out of the
thing before we got general release on the situation. But
even the interorganizational releases have already begun to
produce blows. People are disappearing before we can get
our hands on them.

So you're going to see some things that appear to you to be
punitive. For heaven's sakes, don't interpret them as
punitive! All we're trying to do is get anybody who holds a
certificate anyplace to hold it with clean hands. That's
all we want.

Any case who comes to us for processing must be processed
by an auditor who has clean hands or that auditor, by the
way, will not locate their overts! It's the darnedest thing
you ever saw. That is tacit consent!

Auditor will sit there, can't confront his own overts, so
boy, does he carefully miss the pc's. And you get nothing
done. So technically it becomes a must. Now therefore -
therefore, we have to straighten this up at an auditor
level - we certainly have got to straighten this up at a
field level, but there isn't very much to straighten up. 
It just runs like this: If a fellow has done overts 
against Dianetics, pcs, Scientology, associated personnel,
organizations, anything like this - we've set up a channel
and a groove right this minute - all he's got to do is sit
down and write them all down and send them to HCO WW if he
just can't stand it. Get the idea? All he's got to do is
write them all down.

Now, how will it be handled? Actually, the individual will
either be told to write down what parts of these he can be
responsble for and send that in, too, or he'll be shoved in
the directioii of some Scientologist who will be all too
happy to help him out. You got the idea?

And as we know, then, we've got this one and that one and
the next one all straightened up, we can simply mark them
"Clean hands," "Clean hands," "Recommended without
reservation." And that way Scientologically, as auditors,
we can straighten it up, but also fieldwise. It isn't that
we've got to be a clean group; it's that technically we now
recognize that the only way were all ever going to get
Clear is to be a clean group. Do you get the difference?

Well, it's a brand-new look. It's got some jolts in it. But
there isn't anybody under the sun going to be punitive
about it. Nobody's ever a punitive when they can be 
effective.

Thank you. Thank you.

[End of tape.]



