Thank you.

Well, you know, a lot of people have been talking about my plant research. I'd just like to tell you something about plant research.

In view of the fact that it's hit the press of the world, round and round and round, and much to the dismay of the most learned, great, pompous-uhm, excuse me — scientific societies in the United States, appeared as a lead in This Week magazine in the United States, at least one of the items was, which caused a scientific society to just get down and gnaw the rug because they have a philosophy. And that is if anybody creates anything, he's supposed to take full irresponsibility for it at once, and turn it over to the government or turn it over to a corporation, and immediately run away, and so forth. That's how we got the atom bomb.

A bunch of guys that should have known better said, "Well, here it is. We don't care what you do with it. It's all right with us. Go ahead and bomb the world with it." And we got an atom bomb, leaving the rest of us with the problem of how do you handle their irresponsibility. Well, we'll handle it — we'll fool them.

Scientific irresponsibility is — of course, pays big money in some quarters and gives lots of power into the wrong hands.

Well, anyway, this society was really gibbering. "You know, for years we've tried to tell everybody Hubbard is no good, and here everybody goes … urrhh . . . here he is again. Well, what are we going to do? What are we going to do?" So I wrote and told them what they could do.

But plant research is apparently of great, great interest, great interest. Doesn't matter whether it's over in Europe or South Africa or Australia or anyplace. I mean stories keep occurring on this. "A scientist does so-and-so," you see? And so on.

And I've had the compliment of being copied by the University of Texas on this stuff. The University of Texas came up with some of my experiments and got the wrong answers. I've been laughing ever since. There's light experiments — light experiments. And they have determined quite erroneously that it's red light which is best.

Now, I ran the experiment over and over and over and over and over. It isn't, it's yellow light that's best, but they ran it once and put more fertilizer in one pot, so they got the wrong result.

Well, I couldn't care less about plants. It's fun. It's fun. You put a seed in the pot, and it comes up and grows. That's fun. But as far as research on the matter, they've had a grip on this for some time. I mean you've seen plants and fruit and flowers and things in the stores, haven't you? So they can grow plants, there's no problem about this.

Well, to get any kind of a splash, you see, you have to grow them six times as big and twice as fast or something like this, you know, superlatives.

Well, that's rather easy to do too, providing you — Mary Sue's — I was holding forth with, "There are five factors of plant growth and these are …" you know, "and you have to keep them constant," and so forth.

And she says, "You've forgotten the one other factor."

I said, "No, I haven't forgotten. Let's see, there's air." And she really got me on this one. I said, "There's . . . well, there's a constancy of air, and you have to have a constancy of humidity and a constancy of vitamins and minerals and a constancy of water, and you have to have a constancy of a temperature." If those are the five, I've not forgotten them. I went over it very carefully and I said, "Well, those are the constants, and so forth."

"You've forgotten the most important factor with why those tomatoes out there are three times as big," she said, "the Ron factor."

And of course, this will throw an experiment out any time. It's actually — there's something about it, is something about it. You look at them, you know, and you say, "Grow," you know, and they grow.

There's some marigolds out there that tall, they're growing right now and they're very, very nice, very nice marigolds, but I don't know why they're that tall. There's nothing real different happened to these marigolds than happened to any other marigold.

The reporters come by and they say, "Wow! Look at those marigolds." I go, "Oh, yes, yes, yes …"

Now I'll tell you what this plant research is all about. A plant runs a fast cycle-of-action. It runs from growth to death in a matter of days. That is to say, you get sixty days, eighty days, something like this, and you have a complete cycle of life.

Insects give you a very fast cycle of life — a very rapid, rapid cycle of life. But you can't do some things with insects that you can do with plants. The insect kingdom is a little bit too swift, and it's too hard to observe.

But plants are very good to observe and I was trying to find the answer to illness.

Illness. What is it? Is it a bunch of bacteria? Or Pasteurs? Or AM or BMAs? What is it? What is sickness? Is it the maladjustment of the ruddy rod? I think practically every nonsense on Earth has been assigned as the cause of sickness — the evil eye, the demons.

Well, for centuries they were busy exorcising demons, you know. All you had to do was burn enough sulfur in the sick person's room, and the demon didn't like sulfur and would leave, in spite of the fact that the devil in all textbooks smells like sulfur. They were just a little bit mixed up but they believed this. And this was sickness.

Well, in view of the fact that penicillin doesn't work very well anymore and various strains of bacteria are busy straining themselves up past the very best antiseptics, I thought maybe it might be a good idea if we knew what sickness was.

So I rolled up my hypothetical sleeves and plunged into the greenhouses, having some available down at Saint Hill. First had to find out how you raise something so it would grow with a constancy, that is to say, so that you could count on its growth. You know, it just wasn't a case of just putting something in the ground and it grew, and there was — a few flowers here grew, and so you say they grew and you picked those, you see. You had to be certain that what you planted would grow. Otherwise, you've thrown a series of factors or variables into the problem which could throw out the solution.

Well, knowing that, then I had to find out what grew a healthy plant and what didn't grow a healthy plant. And I didn't really know what I was going to find out when I first started to work, I got no preconcept of the thing.

I said, "Well, we'll just grow a bunch of plants and work with these plants. And we'll find out what we can find out about illness, and so forth, from these plants because plants get diseased."

Well, I made a double check on this. One of them was an E-Meter. Do thetans put up plants as mock-ups or are plants put up as mock-ups by thetans or is the life in plants of the same order of magnitude as the life in human beings?

In other words, are these thetans at work in some fashion or another?

The best check on that was Mr. E-Meter. So I started putting E-Meters on plants and on human beings and they have the same reactions. And the British press probably is going to take its revenge out against the American press because the American press said the British press couldn't observe, when they saw these experiments done by me and saw these reactions they called it mere animism — that we were just assigning life to things which were dead.

Well, I don't know how they could come to that conclusion. They didn't do or see the experiment. But they had an opinion without doing or seeing the experiment, which is more and more modern science.

But the British press is mad because they said the reporters didn't observe anything. Well, these poor reporters were going in circles and were actually saying, "Urk, " and "I'll never eat another tomato," and "Wow!" and so forth.

Somebody started hearing about this and the press kept coming down and we kept letting them in. And there wasn't anything else you could do about it — they would have banged the door down or written something anyway.

But put the electrodes in a reporter's hands and ask him to think of death, and then show him the needle. Of course, it's doing a theta bop, tick, tick, tick, tick. Exact needle pattern on an E-Meter. See?

And then say, "Now think of somebody who was very lively and alive," you see, and theta bop would stop at once. With demonstrations of this character on the live reporter, I'd turn around and hook up the E-Meter to a living plant and then take a slip off of it. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, theta bop, see. And then it'd calm down and wouldn't disturb anything, wouldn't move it, wouldn't talk at it, and so forth, and calm down, and get all right again. See?

And reporters would look at this and say, "Now look, this thing looks like it — thinks it's going to die. Now let's take another one off." Snip. You know? Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. And then it would calm down. Take it off the plant, put the electrodes in the reporter's hands, say, "Now think of being happy or don't think." No reaction.

"Now do you know anybody who's dead." Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.

Because all this apparently demonstrates — then I'd take it over and I'd put it on inanimate matter like pieces of wood, you see, or dead plants, or something like this, and you'd get no read. It wouldn't do anything. And then we'd try to jiggle the electrodes and do everything else to make this thing read, and of course it wouldn't read. Put it back on the plant again, give theta bops, and then get a reporter to feeling anxious. You know? Talk to him about his job, talk to him about — talk to him about his boss, and about things like this, and show him the climbing needle of anxiety.

You know, get him to feel he's just about to pack up, you know. Or put it on his photographer and let him watch it, and harass the photographer saving, "Wouldn't it be terrible if all the fallout in the world, you see, which comes down all the time," you know that, "and you never could expose films again because they'd all be pre-exposed or something like this, and you never could develop them." Stuff like this, you know, get him worried, get him upset and watch that climbing needle. Take a tomato, put the electrodes on the tomato, and punch a nail in it. Psheeeeeeeeew! Get the anxiety reaction on the tomato and anxiety reaction on the man, both of the same order of magnitude.

What's astonishing is that it responds to the same current. Of course, the psychologist a hundred years ago (when he first had anything to do with a Wheatstone bridge) made a rather amazing and interesting assumption. He assumed that it was sweat on the palms. I've had an argument with a lot of them, they still talked about it, they still say, "Well, the reason the E-Meter works is because people's palms sweat. And when somebody becomes very anxious, their palms sweat more. And so that — the meter will register palm sweat." They still think this today. They couldn't possibly read palm sweat because when — after a fellow has been nervous, his palms do not un-sweat when he becomes calm again. Don't you see? They're still wet.

And yet the E-Meter shows that he's become calm again. There's a lot of little obvious explanations on this line, but it was the same order of magnitude.

Well, as soon as I found out that it was the same order of magnitude, it might have knocked a number of people out for a number of days from eating tomatoes or something of the sort, you know. They'd just about get the tomato there, and they'd say, "Well . . ." Couldn't go through with it, you see.

So I got my experiments lined up and took enough data and enough observations to discover something very peculiar. We won't go into the tortured ramifications of it because there are many. It simply adds up to this. A plant that wants to live lives.

You give him the constant environment in which it can live, and it lives. And you give it an environment that it doesn't like, and it packs up.

Well, all right, that's so far so good. Naturally, you don't give a plant any fertilizer and it dies, naturally all this, naturally … Yeah, but explain this one. Let's take a plant, injure it, and then key it in, and watch it die although it has the optimum environment. Give it engrams. Actually, give it engrams, key him in. I won't go into the ramifications of how you give plants engrams, it's rather simple, particularly if you have some gardeners around, see.

The worst about plant research is a good gardener comes in and sees that the plant is falling over on its head, and he says, "Poor little plant," and straightens it all up and makes it look perfect. And you come back out and you say, "What happened to the experiment? It isn't working. Have you done anything in the greenhouse?"

"No, nothing."

Of course, he's done nothing except be a gardener. You try to mutate plants. You have a picnic. You take plants and expose them to hard radiation or something like this. Take atomic seed and you scatter them all out in a seed box and a good gardener looks them over carefully and for rogues. You know, the one that has too many leaves, or one that's a little stunted or one that has a difference in it somehow or another. And he picks the rogue out and throws it away. He leaves you with the exact variety that you've already got, you see. Because it's these rogues that develop the mutation.

And of course, in atomic work, you get something on the order of 80 percent rogues or something like this if you're using heavy radiation. And so there's practically nothing left of the seed boxes but the least changed ones which, of course, you don't want anyhow. You've already got them.

Well, radiation aside, a plant apparently could be made unwilling to live after which it would get sick. It would develop diseases. It would apparently not repel insects as soon as it was made uncomfortable or something of the sort.

Now what's funny is, is to take plant A and plant B and give plant A a perfectly happy environment the same as plant B, but give plant B over here a few early engrams, almost prenatals. You get the idea? A few early engrams, and let them go on growing and then into the box pour some insects or let them stand up there with some insects flying around. It's very hard to do, only a Scientologist could do this. And the only reason these plants are behaving in such a peculiar fashion is simply — apply the principles of Scientology to them.

But this plant over here that's got the engrams, apparently doesn't repel the insects and they eat it up.

And the plant over here, that hasn't got any engrams, doesn't accumulate very many insects and doesn't die if it does. How interesting. Well, innumerable experiments of this character finally worked out this factor and this was all we wanted out of the whole thing. We just wanted one thing out of it.

Is will to live, the only predisposition to disease or health?

Is lack of will to live, an immediate predisposition to disease. Is illness — you see, this was all part of this tremendously long run of overts and withholds — is it what the person does out, more or less, which keyed in, makes him sick or aberrated, see?

He can get things happening from the outside because he's willed it and you can take it late on the cycle and apparently give him motivators. But he couldn't get a motivator unless he had something evil on the line earlier, you see. So we assume these plants did have.

But the point is the will to live, when knocked out, brought about illness. And when the will to live was still there, we didn't get illness.

So illness probably is some self-generated mechanism whether disease or otherwise. Now, man has had lots of figures on this. In England there was a great plague. Why? Why? Why only 50 percent of the population? Look, the remaining 50 percent were as thoroughly subjected certainly to the fleas from the rats and mice and from the bacteria of the plague. Yet they didn't get sick. Why not? Well, they just didn't want the bubonic plague. They didn't cooperate.

They didn't go through the "Now-I'm-supposed-to's" that become the symptoms of bubonic plague. That's all. Apparently, that's correct. Why is it out of so many human beings — a totally violent, totally this and that, totally some other kind — only knocked off 50 percent? Well, you could say, well, those people had developed immunity in some fashion or it didn't work or something of the sort. Well, I dare say this is probably the case. But that's also mechanical. That's the mechanical fact. There must have been 50 percent of people in England who wanted to die along about that time. Ah, they sure did. Swish!

I know I was — dear old George Wichelow one night — was over at the Queen's Poplar Theater down here, watching one of his plays, and so forth. And I got out of there afterwards and I said, "George," I said, "what's buried underneath that theater?"

And he says, "Buried underneath the theater? Buried underneath the theater. Oh, yeah." He said, "Well, how would you know that?" He said, "That's one of the plague burial spots."_

Yeah, the Queen's Poplar Theater is built on one. Yeah? Well, how come? How come that anybody got the plague?

Well, let's look at the conditions of the times and let's not wonder about it. The conditions of the times had some rough spots in them. But apparently not the right kind of rough spots to make people want to survive over the top of them but to quit and do something else or go somewhere else. But we have a sweeping epidemic, and there is — certainly true that there is such a thing as bacteria. But it doesn't bite unless one has bacterial ovens of some kind or another — which is quite interesting.

The mechanics of the thing are beside the point. Men die. It sounds so fantastically supersimplified. Men die because they don't want to live. Sounds too simple, doesn't it? They die because they don't want to live. And that's why they die.

Well, let's go a little bit further. Why do they want to die? It's because they think they're going to damage something. They think they ought to withstrain, restrain or withhold that much evil. They eventually observe their own conduct and consider it evil, and after that they start wrapping it up. And if they can't wrap it up by going over a cliff someplace, why, they wrap it up by getting a cold and turning it into pneumonia and caving in and kicking off.-

The mechanics of how they die are so complex and diverse that they have formed such a vast field of interest that nobody ever apparently looked at the simple fact that men do die. And how they die could form an enormous study. They die covertly and they die overtly. And it's all suicide.

There's some fellows commit suicide in a hurry. You know, they walk up to a lion, but they have plenty of ovens on lions on the whole track, you see. They particularly would choose a lion if they had ovens on lions. And they kick him in the teeth. Or they carefully fix it up so that one of the bullets that they have in their jacket has lain in the water for some time in a puddle in the tent. And then they stick that one up as the first one up and load their gun with it, you see. And they wait till the lion is very close, see, and then they go click. And they're lionized at once.

Or they just somehow or another don't ever take their car in and have its wheels checked. You know, they keep walking around the car watching this wheel wobble. You know, they kick the wheel, and the wheel turns about that far out of line. They say, "I'll have to get that fixed, you know."

And they drive faster and faster and faster and walk around the car and kick the wheel, you know, and by this time it turns this way, and so forth. "I see. I'll just have to get that fixed."

Why don't they get it fixed? Mm-hm. You could come along and say, "Hey! Fix that wheel."

Get down there, put all the lugs in place on the wheel, fix the wheel on tight.

Guy will drive down the road for just about two or three days and then hit a lorry head-on. And you fixed him. It didn't work.

In some modus operandi, this fellow is trying to die slowly or fast. And fundamentally, where we are right now, susceptible to demonstration on human beings, apparently one command would make anybody well. Not change him on the profile or change his IQ or anything like that, but just make him well.

If you at any moment suspected that — well, if he was sick or if he had ever been sick, you would consider that he must have considered his actions evil enough to withhold at sometime or another. And then he had pulled them back to a point where he decided his actions were so bad that the world could do very easily without them at this time in that identity. There's still a postulate there. There's still a postulate there.

And so we get the first step of presessioning would be the adjustment of the cycle-of-action which we have before called goals. We made the preclear postulate new goals.

Well, you can do that in its proper place in a Model Session, but goals don't necessarily, the way they're handled, adjust him on the cycle-of-action. And by simply adjusting a pc on the cycle-of-action so that he's going in the direction of create and survive, you could make him well. You could by shaking out of him all the reasons why he had to die. That's just your blunt, theoretical assumption.

The command, one of any dozen commands that could be used on this — Lord knows how many commands could be used on this or how many process combinations — there also, you're looking into the mechanics of the situation. Some question such as, "Find a reason not to live." Use it pretty nearly repetitively. Of course, that would have to be followed in that form with "What is it?" if you wanted to know it. Otherwise, the pc would merely nod that he had found a reason.

But you could cover an awful lot of it if you didn't make him explain it particularly and just got him. And he can actually pick them up by the barrelful. And evidently we've been on this kick for so long that anything can hit us.

And that is our security that we don't have to go on living when we consider ourselves too inhibitive and mean to the environment to go on living. We use these things in some covert way because it's very bad to die, as a matter of fact, it's so very bad to die that you couldn't possibly do it. You can forget. You can assume an oblivion over a past, but you can't die. So this is quite a trick.

So a thetan keeps — very often will have a lot of these on the back burner, and they surprise him. And he makes mistakes. Nobody ever said he was absolutely letter-perfect in everything he did. And he keeps them back here someplace on a shelf or handy at the rear of the stove or something like that. And he figures, "Well, one of these lives I'm going to — huh! I'm going to really pull one and the best thing to do then is reach back for one of these things and — double lumbarpneumonia!Ha-ooo-ooo-ooo. I'm dead." That's a good one. That's a good one. And he'll work this out somehow or another.

And then one day he's cooking something, you know. And he slips one in just about the time he inherited a million dollars or something and gets double lumbar pneumonia. And he says, "This is a mistake!"

I had a fellow tell me that one time. He didn't mean to. Well, it's gone so on automatic, he's lost his control, you see, of the function or factor. And he can do that easily if he's got these things stacked up.

So you're busy processing a preclear and you shake one of these loose, the double lumbar pneumonia thing, see. And he coughs and he wheezes, and he says, "Well, what's this? Well, was — was — I was supposed to get well," and so forth. And you're processing him. Immediately it accompanies a package of all the reasons why you shouldn't get well. And he really goes over the jumps while you process this thing out.

Meantime he's disclaiming any possible responsibility for this, you see. Ku-oo-oo — temperature running up. Funny thing what convinces some observers, and so on, you run a pc through a fever engram and change his temperature just by the count, you know. And you say, "Did you ever have a very high temperature in your life?"

And the fellow says, "Oh, yes, I did. I had a champion temperature one time. I had a temperature of 105. Doctors didn't possibly know how I was going to live. Didn't think I'd live at all, but I did."

He just slipped this double off and missed and lived and the medicos said, "You've got to live." So he said, "Well, all right. I'll fail."

And whatever it was. So you go back and you find this engram, and throw him back down the track and run him through that engram. His temperature will go up to 105. You'll only do it about the first time.

You put a thermometer in his mouth, and his temperature will go up. Make him go over it maybe three, four times till you get 105. That really, really upsets some observers. Only be careful because the observer, if a medico, will say, "Get him to bed at once!" Of course it's the last thing in the world you would want to do with the pc, it would leave him with a temperature of 105. You have to run him through the engram another half a dozen times, bring him up to present time, the temperature's gone. It's very impressive.

Look. Why is he keeping around a mental image picture which contains as one of its physical manifestations a temperature of 105? Why? Now that's just one of those things handy on the back burner in case he gets into a spot that he can't get out of. That's a nice one to have.

You know, gets drafted in the army or something. Man, how they turn them on. The guy — you can just see some of these boys, you know, claw all over the back of the stove trying to pick them up in handfuls. You know. Stick them in their pockets. Wow!

Or he goes to prison or he finds he's married the wrong woman or anything. He decides he's taken the wrong course and is liable to be very bad or evil to his environment. He might rationalize it as a self-protection, but he really never does otherwise than protect the environment which is kind of funny.

Now, when he wants to protect the environment enormously, why, he knocks himself off or disables himself.-

Now, you can ask some fellow who's gimping along, he's gimping along and you ask him, "What would happen" — this is quite an interesting study and exercise for you to do when you see somebody like this — "What would happen if you weren't limping?"

Mmmmmmmm. You really shouldn't have asked that question because, well, he's liable to kick somebody to death, you see. He's liable to do almost anything. You find out at some time or another maybe he was a champion runner or something of the sort

But he has to inhibit this ability, but this ability at one time was demonstrated to him to be tremendously harmful to his fellows. So if it was harmful to his fellows, he had better cut it off and that's what he does.

And he picks up these engrams or incidents of one kind or another, and fits them on like somebody putting on a — oh, the iron maiden or something, and holds himself in. And he uses engrams to do it. And as long as his cycle is out of adjustment, that is to say, as long as he believes he is going to be evil to the environment, he will try to destroy himself.

Now there's a less creditable motive at first glance, and that is try to make somebody else guilty. That's the game of victim. But he tries to make them guilty for their own good by being sick himself and setting up an example. And you'll get those coming off. Those come off of children rather easily. Little boys and little girls who have a lot of coughs and sicknesses and lamenesses and that sort of thing will tell you as their first rationale that they're trying to make their parents guilty.

Well, a little — little kid says, "They will be sorry. There I'll be lying in that coffin. And they will look down on me and they'll say, 'I wish I had of let him eat more apples.' That's what they'll say."

Well, in that form it's a control mechanism, but how can he make a control mechanism out of it and why did he adapt the mechanism in the first place? Well, the mechanism is that he feels he'll be harmful to the environment, and just the fact of punishing him or upsetting him in some particular way tells him he isn't helping his environment. Tells him he mustn't act. He mustn't act toward the environment. It educates him into believing that he mustn't or he is being evil to the environment. He adjudicates his own efforts. He's adjudicated the efforts of others as being evil to the environment, and so he gets himself wrapped up in this little squirrel cage here, and he can postulate himself sick. Illness always contains this postulate.

It is too involved for a direct look. It's too involved to say to somebody, "Well, the principles are these. You wanted to be sick, so you're sick. Now you got that straight? Good."

"Well, he's well."

And you turn around and you look, and there he is in his wheelchair still rolling along, see.

Well, that's because basically it's so interwoven he's forgotten when and why and how he did it. He's operating on very unknown and covert lines as far as he's concerned, and he has to be able to inspect the data. And all you gave him was the data.

And the data itself might let him start looking, but just like the fellow who wound up in Kent when he should have been going to Cornwall, he doesn't have the rationale back of it, he hasn't really looked at it, he finds one. He finds out when he wished desperately that he were very sick so he wouldn't have to go to school. And this lends a lot of reality to the thing because nearly everybody has got this one.

There was one time or another when they didn't want to go to school or didn't want to work or didn't want to do something or other, and so they wished they were sick. And they got sick.

Well, how did they get sick? Well, they didn't actually plot it. They just simply restimulated a time when they were — could make themselves good and sick — when they were more able than they are now.

So we look at this and he picks one off the top, see. And then he says, "Well, I'm still sick. I feel a little better but not very much."

No, I'm afraid he's got to go down there about 462 times or something to get into one, and you do that by some kind of repetitive question of, "Find a reason not to live." Any such question, that is not the optimum question, that is just one tossed off on the principles. You'd make him as-is death as a solution to livingness.

Now, problems are very peculiar. The more you solve problems, the more they come in on you. You've got to as-is the problem. If you refuse to confront the problem that you're faced with in life, you say, 'Well, that's there, but this is a solution to it" and then fixate on the solution, you see, this problem walks right in.

Now, if one's attention is fixed on the solution, and he refuses to confront the actual problem, he gets a collapsed space. He's got to actually knock out this fixation on the solution and confront the problem. And when he does that, he gets more space and the thing goes away, as you would say, but going away in intimate — well, it means through space.

Now, this is an interesting thing because you get him to doing this — "Find a reason to die." Well, you've said a reason to die, and he — you restimulate it. This is not the optimum process, I repeat, but by this you would find a reason to die that restimulates the fact that he's wanted to die and the problem was the reason. "Confront a problem" is actually — would be the same thing that was run, but it's a specialized problem. Well, this moves him all over the cycle-of-action.

You have to rehabilitate a man's will to live before he will get well. And because he has no good observation of his environment, he is very often making the mistake of dying because he should have died in 1220. And he dies in 1959 or '60. It's a slight miscalculation. But in view of the length of the track at large, I wouldn't say its percentile was very high, only a few hundred years. But it's nevertheless a miscalculation.

Now this fellow gimps in on the scene in 1940 and sees a duck and gets sick. Well, the facts of the matter was the last time that he did something very, very bad, way back when was to steal and kill a duck for which he was hanged. And this wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't been the executioner of France for so many years several lives before this. So he's proven to a lot of people that they're wrong by hanging them which, of course, opens his door to being hanged. Now he can be hanged. He has an overt on it.

You can't — nothing can be done to you, you yourself haven't opened the doors for, you see. If you haven't done it to somebody, it won't happen to you. That's about the way that — or if you erase it, it won't happen. It doesn't matter which way. Fortunately, with Scientology, it's not a fixed fate.

But, so he was Chief Executioner and he hanged all these fellows. Then later on he stole a royal duck or something of the sort, you see, and got hanged. And a duck means "bad" means "hanged." But this all goes back to the magic track when he used to kill ducks by postulates just to annoy the princess of the kingdom, you see, and turned her husband into a swan or something, you know. And there's no telling what kind of a silly rationale goes behind it. You start cross-checking this and, boy, it gets as complicated as one of these chemistry formulas with the circle and S and double E triangle and everything. It gets very, very complex and it walks very far off into the far horizon. And you say, "Well, how on earth could this fellow go through all of this reasoning?"

Well, fortunately, you don't have to know. I'll tell you when it's flat. When he's well. He's gone through it all when he's well. And that's how you know you've gone all the way through it.

Now by doing this, you won't really change his position on the graph. You might by accident by being pleasant to him or something. You won't really change his IQ. All you will do is change his concept of what he ought to do with his mock-up to efface or erase or put it up. And that's the only thing that you change his mind about, which is what we've been calling goals.

His idea of fate is what determines his goals, if you follow me. He's got to have a concept of his fate, and then he'll rig his bank to do his fate. - And these poor people that have been Cyruses. You know what a Cyrus is, it's not an ogle. Well, I tell you, they had them in Greece — oracle. Oh, that's it, that's it, an oracle. And they used to sit over the steam and vapor, you know. And then they had a lot of spies and they'd get all this political gen, see. They'd write it all down, and then they'd get a couple of quick talents from Sparta, you see, in order to give Athens the wrong dope. You see — all on the grapevine, and so forth.

So they'd go through this trance, you see. Bong! And then they would say, "The gods have told me that Sparta ought to sink its navy."

"Is that right?" "Yeah." "Okay." See?

That's what's known as an overt. Don't be surprised if that person were to become the king of Germany or something, or something at some later date and lose his whole ruddy fleet. See? Boom! Fleet's gone. What?

But there's no reason for it to be gone. Yes, there was. As an oracle, this person caused somebody to lose a whole fleet with just a postulate. You get the idea? These crooked, overt postulates that bring damage or destruction inevitably are at first not very real. Sparta isn't real. That isn't real. It seems to be just a mechanical fact. Then they realize later that the thing was an overt.

Well, this gets tangled up with the idea that they postulate fate, and fate is laid out this way, and fate is all very intricate. And then they suddenly foresee that in the future something terrible is going to happen to them, and they'll just cave the bank in and shift themselves on the cycle-of-action all on an automaticity so as to be over here on the death side.

And then they're not quite sure that's true, so they'll hang right over close to the edge so they can knock off any time it's an absolute emergency, you see, but don't have to really die today. Yeah, they're — all kinds of computations go along with this thing, but they're so complex that anybody looking at it would miss the mechanism. And that is that a cycle-of-action is actually in its most fundamental state, create-survive-destroy, in a truer thing is, create, create-create, and no create or counter-create.

The anatomy of the cycle-of-action is very interesting, and the cycle-of-action is what is back of all this. They remain masters of their destiny so long as they can in any way shift their position on the cycle-of-action. And because of the pressure and habit of time, they mostly shift forward on the cycle-of-action toward destroy.

It's easier if it's "survive" to shift toward destroy than to shift back to create, but there's no particular reason why the cycle-of-action should read that way. It's just a consideration.

Create-survive-destroy might as well be destroy-survive-create plotted in time, but it happens to be the other way. And that's why we've got this kind of a universe.

Well, if you start shifting your preclear around on this cycle-of-action, he feels old. And then he'll hit another part of the cycle and then he feels young and he'll feel old, and he'll feel destructive. So he gets to feel old again and he cuts his action down.

In other words, he goes up and down, up and down, up and down. Well, you could shift that simply by finding any equivalent question to reasons to die.

A man hides the fact very well, even from himself, that he is still the master of his own fate. But he's so pokey about it that he really suffers around about it after a while, and he will tell you quite honestly I don't know why I'm sick. He doesn't know why he's sick.

He's lost all track of it. It's just total chaos as far as he's concerned. When you start tracking back his postulates, you'll find out he didn't even know he felt threatened in his environment the day he got sick.

Well, all of a sudden, it'll turn out that a widow walked up the front steps and rang the doorbell. And he went and talked to the widow and she sounded exactly like the wife of the man he murdered just for kicks, you see, in 1603. Get the idea?

So this makes him feel (snap!) — he gets the automatic response, "Well, I'm not doing worthwhile things," or something of the sort, see. He gets this feeling and then he looks around. The automatic mechanism he's got up, "Someday I may become so irresponsible," he says, "that I better fix it up so that every time I have an impulse to kill anybody, this postulate over here keys in and I get too sick and weak to do it. That's the smart way to go about the whole thing."

So the widow walks up to the door, pushes the doorbell. He opens the door and he looks at this girl, and she looks just the same as the widow of the man he kills in '62. Frumph, boomph, boomph. He goes back inside, lies down and feels terribly ill.

And you ask anybody if they've had any moment of their life when they inexplicably, suddenly felt sick, that they can't quite trace.

Well, just start sorting out of reasons not to live and you'll shift their cycle-of-action around, but you'll also disclose to them that on that very day something occurred which demonstrated to them that they had gone too far. Maybe strangling a baby wasn't going too far, but looking at this widow was.

Now there must be something to this because I've just had a lot of fun down in Sussex as road safety organizer. I kept threatening the population down there with a float with a widow on it. I wanted them to protest accidents a bit. You know, make a little more yap-yap in the community, and so on. Say, "Let there be less accidents in the community," or something like that. Drive carefully. So I kept putting up mock-ups in the newspaper of what kind of floats were going to be in the carnival parade, you see.

And they were very helpful, these people are. People are nothing if not terribly helpful. I told them to protest so they just protested like mad, you know. People writing in letters from every place protesting these floats. And they were protesting a float of a widow as a road safety device, you see.

We mustn't see a picture of a widow. Smashed cars, blood, corpses — yes, but not a picture of a widow, please.

And five years ago here in England, I traced back the history of this — practically nobody knew the history of this but the ministry furnished up the history. That was the Ministry of Transport, not a RSPA poster. And it was not banned. It went the whole period but, boy, the public went mad! Sometime in 1955. It was just a picture of a widow looking very sad and I think it had the words like "drive safely" or something of the sort. That was all it was. It drove the public berserk._

They could face the blood but not the thing they'd really never confronted — was the victim's family. Get the idea? They just couldn't face that one. Of course, you want to work on this principle, you get into the whole rationale of confront, but that's subject for the ACC.

You could dream up other floats they'd really cringe at, like these little kids looking up with a wreck in the background and looking up at the policeman. And they're saying, "Where's our daddy?" See. Something like that, you know. You could just dream them up ad infinitum.

But the public was very helpful. So then we put up a float and said, "This float has been banned as too horrible to be seen."

Factually, I don't know how much Scientology they've got mixed up in all that down there.

Of course, we're going for broke on that. One of these days, why, we'll take off and end accidents on the British highways. But let me tell you that we won't end accidents so long as people see in an automobile a very, very handy means of knocking themselves off when they need knocking off.

And this is thoughtless of them because they very often, when they knock themselves off, miscalculate and don't run into a tree or an abutment and don't pick a moment when they have no passengers, but just key it all in and run into the front end of a lorry and kill somebody in the lorry and kill themselves and kill their passengers, and so forth, and so on. This is because they mustn't do it, but they must do it. But it's a good thing to do so that's why they don't do it — but why they do it.

It's pretty spinny. You look over somebody as to why he had an accident and something like "reasons to have an accident" would cover such a thing.

By the way, the rehabilitation of an artist, of course, would be covered by such a thing as, not reasons to die but reasons not to create.

You could just sit there and make him as-is, as-is, as-is, as-is. Get him to explain to you carefully over and over many times why he mustn't paint or why he mustn't draw, or so forth, and he'll explain it all to you. Be careful to acknowledge him completely and then ask him again.

Well, it's not the perfect, mechanical form of the process. That's merely the theory of it. And where you have a rehabilitation, we should ask the question, "Why was there deterioration?"

Well, there was a deterioration because be began to believe that what he was doing was harmful, that it wasn't helping, but the reverse. What he was doing wasn't helping, so he'd better withhold it. That was the last way he could help. And his last answer to help was to withhold certain actions — not actually to participate anymore, but to withhold certain actions.-

Well, when he found he couldn't withhold these actions, always and continually, and succeed, then he'd punish himself for not withholding them. And we get into death and deterioration and other things.

But adjustment on the cycle-of-action, you could say, "Well, give us reasons to survive" to somebody who had too heavy a ridge. Let's look at somebody with a terrific stuck picture. He's always walking around with a stuck picture. Always got a stuck picture in front of his face. Always got a stuck … Boy! He's surviving, man. He's surviving because the next stuck picture after that, he's dead. Some such rationale as this.

Don't shake the position of this picture, please, because immediately after this, little Liza runs across the ice and falls in. It's all right to have all this ice and snow around here. It's all right, but — and it's cold, I know the picture is cold. But, of course, just two frames later we freeze to death. And this slight chill we're in all the time is vastly preferable to all this.

Well, let's find out why he's got to have that picture or what that picture inhibits or what he would do if he didn't have the picture or any other line of approach on this on the basis that the person wouldn't have the picture at all, not for a moment, if the person totally trusted himself.

If the person was absolutely confident about what he was going to do in life and knew where he was all the time, he wouldn't use such mechanisms. So there's — another approach to the thing is, "What about your actions could you absolutely trust?" See, this would again build up this point line and would change the guy on the cycle-of-action.

These things, whatever mechanisms are used on this — we do know now that an individual places himself on the cycle-of-action in case he is going to die or needs to die — he will have the modus operandi to do it with.

The highest suicide rates are in those states which offer the least opportunity to kick the bucket — the highest sickness rates, and so forth.

Now insanity, of course, keeps somebody from being bright enough to tear everybody to pieces, so they go insane and tear everybody to pieces. Good answer. Not very workable.

When you combine all these things together, well, we find we have learned something new about life. And what we've learned about life is that you can cause a person — well, all you have to say, for instance, to a girl — this girl's in love with a fellow and the fellow says to her, "Well, I don't love you anymore and I'm going to marry Eunice, and so forth." She immediately wants to die. Well, that's a failure in present time. Don't you see?

Well now, we have key-ins, and this thing is surrounded around. Life becomes less worthwhile so she kicks in one of these mechanisms and becomes ill. Then later on, this itself becomes a package. And she sees on the screen one day the actor tell the actress, "Well, I don't love you anymore. I'm going to marry your sister, Eunice." And she inexplicably goes home and she is terribly sick. And she doesn't know why because she was just at the pictures. Then she says experience is no good.

Well, experience is no good only if you don't want to live. If you want to live, you can have all the experience in the world because if you want to live, nothing can hurt you. It's only when you want to die that you can get hurt.

And of course, people open the doors to wanting to die by finding out that their own actions were harmful to others. And then after that, they inhibited them and didn't act, and so forth.

There are innumerable things you could do about this.

Clearing a person today would handle this and other things. Actually, it's such a small point now that it would come along as a matter of course. Clearing would occur.

But the point is well worth looking at. Of course, if you ask a person repetitively, "Give me a reason to live. Give me a reason to live," he might run out. You know, leave all the reasons to die on automatic. They're both valid. The best one to take out is the reason to die. It shifts the person most easily, particularly at this time and place.

Today we want more Clears. That's very easy. Why? Well, all you have to do is put one Clear around in the society and his ability and willingness to help and be and do, and so forth, accelerates or puts together that particular zone or area of the society. More important than this, he really wouldn't have to do very much in order to improve that particular zone or area of the society.

I feel right now that we're in a position where if we took responsibility for what we know and applied it and got ourselves in good condition — swung on up the line — I think that the world would have to work awfully hard to keep itself in the trouble it's in.

I think they'd have to work day and night. I can see summit conferences and U-2s and Khrushchevs just being manufactured left and right trying to get the thing all set up so that we'd still have this much trouble. They'd have to work hard. They'd have to work hard because those are the third and fourth dynamics' wills to die.

There's only one country on Earth has an overt at this time with an A-bomb, and that's the United States. But somebody else has been talking an awful lot about it and has been threatening with them lately. Threatened Britain in the Suez crisis, the first time, and that laid Russia open to an A-bomb. So that makes two countries on Earth that are prone to disaster from A-bombs.

Well, an A-bomb is such a piece of mechanical claptrap and nonsense that I don't even believe anybody could be hurt by one unless he'd been throwing them around. Yeah, I'm sure you have.

So our next zone of research is how we proof everybody up on this, how we square it up, how we straighten this one out. And we'll really have it made. But right now our program consists of you getting Clear.

Now we're going to do our part down at Saint Hill by putting into existence here at least twenty-five thirty people that are very good at auditing people to Clear. I'm going to clear those people, make them good at auditing people to Clear and take the program from there.

Meantime, the HGC is busy auditing people up to Clear, and the Academy is also teaching techniques immediately in this direction.

So we're covering it everywhere we can. We have tremendous responsibilities out through the world today. I don't mean that lightly. If you looked at the stuff that goes across my desk, you would say, "Well, nobody could ever handle it." That's right. That's right. Nobody could ever handle it. Not without your help.

I'm son of standing around here knee-deep in detail hoping I don't get waist-deep in detail, hoping it doesn't go clean over my head before you get Clear. You hear me? Well, I'll hold the walls up till then and then you can put your shoulder to it. Okay?-

Audience: Yes. Okay.

Thank you very much for coming to the congress. It's been a pleasure to talk to you.