Well, thank you. Thank you. We thought we'd have some props up here. And this is a good prop. It's a very good prop for the excellent reason that it's liable to become a billiard ball any time now. I just wanted to give you a nostalgic view of this planet. It's a nice planet. I know we used to take care of it in the biological survey. It was a park. It was a nice park at that time. It was well cared for, then the Republicans came along.

But we are not on a militant basis now of trying to prevent atomic warfare. We're not out on a "ban the bomb" proposition. We're not beating the drum in this particular line. I think they're too lazy to push the button. Give us another three years and we'll give them peace.

And this very nice globe here is a nice piece of havingness and that's what this lecture is all about — havingness. Been a long time since you've heard about havingness and I thought it was opportune while we still had a planet to tell you about havingness.

Now those of you who are brand-new to Scientology and haven't been with us very long, make up your mind to one thing. You will either go away and we will pick you up next life or you will stay with us and be much happier this life.

But one of the things you should know about is havingness. And this is so basic and elementary that all Scientologists forget it routinely and regularly.

Havingness has to go in fits and starts and fads so that every couple of years we have a big forward push to rehabilitate this subject — havingness. Every couple of years it has to be done all over again and then everybody forgets it. Why?

Well, I don't know. I think their havingness must run down and mine too, you see. And then we have to go through it all over again. Now, there were thirty-six Havingness commands — thirty-six Havingness commands released by the First Saint Hill ACC. And they exist in HCO Bulletins and they're the pc's Havingness commands. And by walking through that thirtysix — just the Havingness commands for themselves — forget the Confront commands, just wipe those out — you can rehabilitate a pc's havingness. And havingness is a very marvelous thing to have a clue to in a pc.

What does he consider havingness? Well, these thirty-six different auditing commands should be gone through at least to the distance that you findout they loosen the needle and give you a little tone arm action on a meter.That is very important because if you are running a Havingness Process which tightens the needle, it is not improving the pc's havingness. Quite the contrary. If you are running a Havingness Process which loosens the needle, you are improving the pc's havingness; and what auditors often forget is that their processes change the pc, and therefore the Havingness Process, particularly if it's an offbeat Havingness Process out of the thirty-six, is very susceptible to changing.

And all during the first part of the week it works beautifully. And then they don't notice that during the last part of the week, it is simply tightening the needle. So you test the Havingness Process every time you use it. You test it at the beginning. You give a can squeeze. You tell the pc, "Squeeze the cans," and notice the looseness of the needle and then you say the Havingness command. We give him the Havingness command five, six times. And then once more, "Squeeze the cans," and notice whether or not the needle has in actual fact loosened.

And if it has not loosened, find a new Havingness command out of the thirty-six. And those are tested exactly that way. You take command number one. They're stated in order of frequency that they occur in people so that your — the early commands of the list are more likely to be the command for your pc. And the ones late on the list are those that are only happening in freak instances.

So you take the first command, and you give them the command a few times with this can squeeze test, and find out if it loosens the needle. If it doesn't loosen the needle, you don't even bridge out. You simply say, "All right. Thank you." And run the next command a few times between the can squeeze test. You just keep going down the list until you find one that loosens the needle. And that is the pc's Havingness command.

And this is a very, very simple, easy thing to do. It's not very difficult and personally I don't think I would run a pc without his Havingness Process because his Havingness Process has the marvelous quality of being able to run out all of his PTPs and ARC breaks and everything else except his with-holds. And therefore — pc has an ARC break which is — a little bit upset. He gets upset somehow or another.

All right. You can pull the withhold or you can run his Havingness Process. But what about this particular circumstance? The pc gets so mired in to what he is in that he is going wog, wog, wog, wog and he doesn't seem to be able to come out the other side of it. And you're getting no change of tone arm and you're getting no change of needle. And the pc feels terrible and you probably are wrong.

Well, this is not any condition with which to reassess or anything else, so the best thing to do is to run the pc's Havingness Process. That is all. If you've got his Havingness Process, of course, you can run it, and he will come out. And he'll start feeling much better. The world will stop going around in a circle.

You can always make a pc feel better if you know his Havingness Process, so it's a good thing to have a pc's Havingness Process. We don't have any campaign in progress at the moment — get rid of the pc at all costs.

Therefore, havingness is quite an important subject. A few years ago, I could have told you in just so many words that I could have listed — and I did tell you — that I could list at least forty-three reasons why Havingness worked, why Havingness influenced the mind to the degree that it influenced it. I could give you forty-three reasons. And today I can give you just one. There is only one reason Havingness works.

This is quite historic because I've been telling you we didn't know what

Havingness did and why Havingness worked for all the years since we've had it, which is seven years. Earliest Havingness activities were seven years ago. And all that time we've just been using it because it worked. We did not know why it worked.

But today, knowing about withholds, we know why Havingness works. And the reason Havingness works is very elementary.

Havingness can be defined as the ability to reach. Ability to reach equals the ability to have. If the pc feels he can reach something — I know this is so elementary. That very nice little boy that was sitting down in front here a moment ago, he could tell me. That's right. Everybody knows that. If you can reach an apple, you can have it. If you can reach a cookie, you can have it. That's elementary, isn't it? Everybody knows that. Well, why didn't you tell me?

Now, the pc has to have the idea he can reach before he can have. Now, it's the idea that he can reach, not the possession. The idea that he can reach, not the action of reaching, which remedies havingness.

Now, of course, you could make him practice reaching until he gets the idea that he can reach. Or you can get him to get the idea that he can reach, and then he can reach. But he doesn't have to reach in order to get the idea that he can have.

All right. This planet here is a very, very good example — an excellent example of all kinds of wild misconcepts on the subject of havingness.

How many times in the last couple of hundred years has somebody set out to have the world? Our last casualty in this line — a fellow by the name of Schicklgruber, a house painter. Very interesting. His idea of being able to have was in direct ratio to the number of people killed. And I think he got rid of some 30 million human beings trying to reach Earth. But he knew that he couldn't have Earth so he had to actively reach with an overt.

His only method of reaching was an overt: war. Many of his intelligence officers and political officers could have told him that Germany had rehabilitated herself by about 1936 and all she had to do was sit there and make cameras and putter with the chemicals, and she would have practically conquered Earth because nobody else was interested. But what did he do?

He had to get armed men to plunge out against the German borders to wind up — I think it was a — five gallons of gasoline and a small square of earth that he finally had. Quite interesting, wasn't it? His idea of reach was an overt. Why?

Because when one has withholds, one can't reach, so therefore when one has withholds, one can't have. So one's only possible reach when one has withholds is by an overt.

Why do people commit overts? Because they can't have. Why can't they have? Because they have the idea they can't reach. All you have to do is get some house painter named Schicklgruber and get him to get the total idea that he cannot have any part of Earth and that Germany cannot have any part of Earth. And then, of course, you get somebody who can only reach with an overt.

So he knew how to reach Earth: with guns and men and armies. Sort of stupid, but he did it. And you right here, all of you, even you little kids — weren't born yet — you had your share of that war, one way or the other, even though you were just pushing a jackhammer in some shipyard. All because one man couldn't reach and one nation thought it couldn't reach.

One Scientologist, knowing what I am telling you in this lecture — working for two hours with Schicklgruber, the house painter — could have prevented in its entirety World War II. That's why I say give us another three years and we'll give them peace. Interesting, huh?

All he would have had to have done was run his Havingness Process. And if they'd run enough Havingness on him and gotten off his withholds at the same time — if they had done those two things, his major withholds, and if they hadn't missed one … It isn't that you could have gotten all SchickLgruber's withholds off in two hours. You merely could have eased his case. He wouldn't have been quite so certain he was doing the right thing.

Psychosis is a very easy thing to unsettle because it is a very hard thing for a thetan to maintain it.

A neurosis — I don't know why a neurosis gave Freud as much trouble as it gave him because I have difficulty getting a pc to hold on to a neurosis long enough to inspect it.

But the entirety of neurosis and psychosis is insufficiently magnitudinous to constitute an individual study from the mind. It is a tremendously tiny fragment of the entirety of mental technology and knowledge. It is so minor and so fragmentary that it's hardly even worth studying because almost any process you have today will work on a madman. And it is so difficult for him to maintain his madness that you can unsettle it very easily. All you have to do is security check him.

Insanity, the feeling of insanity, is the feeling that one must reach but one can't reach. One must withdraw but one can't withdraw. If you want somebody to feel how it is to be insane, have him get the idea that he must reach but he can't reach.

And if you tell him to get that idea very good and very well, he all of a sudden for a moment will feel the glee of insanity. That's how insane people feel. It is as elementary as that.

Well, what makes this condition? If one must reach but one can't reach, what is it that makes them feel they can't reach? Well, they must then have withholds. Because nobody else is telling them they can't reach, so they must be telling themselves. Well, how are they telling themselves they can't reach? By having withholds, of course.

And the surest way in the world to run one's havingness out the bottom is to have a nice, handsome pack of withholds. Go out and commit a bit of a flub and then don't tell anybody about it and you have just a little less of this planet. And then go out and commit another flub and then carefully don't tell anybody about that. And you have just a little bit less of this planet.

And then commit another flub and don't tell anybody about that and then have a little bit less of this planet. And finally you live in Moscow. Where is it? It's a small town here someplace — Moskva, yeah. That's it. Gorki, Gorki is one of its suburbs.

And you get pulled down to the Kremlin. And then you commit another flub. You have ten thousand Georgians murdered or ten million or whatever it was that Stalin the Great did. He had a withered arm, by the way. Wonder how he got it.

And after you've knocked off ten million of your fellow countrymen, of course, you can't reach any further than the Mausoleum and the Kremlin in the Red Square. That's all the further you can reach — is the confines of a glass coffin.

And then because you haven't had anything anyhow, your successor gets you removed. That is simply based on a cycle done of overts and withholds. Now, we see the overts so they appear to be very spectacular because they're quite visible. Actually, they're not as serious in deranging the mind as the withholds which follow them. So the fellow has the overt and every-body can see the overt, but then some part of it he withholds.

Now it isn't that the overts are unaberrative because it's the overts and the shame of them and the overt act mechanism and all of that which then brings about the feeling that they just have to withhold themselves from doing that again. But it's the feeling they've got to withhold themselves from doing it again that drives them around the bend. Not that they knocked Uncle George over the head with a baseball bat, but it's the feeling they must never again touch a baseball bat because they might knock Uncle George over the head.

Well, of course, there were withholds that preceded knocking Uncle George over the head with a baseball bat because that, of course, was an overt action so it must have been preceded by withholds.

So criminal actions always follow a sequence of withholds. A gradient scale of withholds becoming larger and larger and larger eventually result in a criminal action. And that has filled the prisons of Earth. The criminal can only have by committing an overt. And we have carefully educated them into that and followed it along the line.

Now let's look at Germany again and its 1939 effort to take over planet Earth.

Do you know that Germany — Now this, I said, "Havingness is the ability to reach." Now let me tell you what no havingness is because that is where the trick comes in.

Let's take a third dynamic example here and we have Germany, country of forests. I know, I was there and some of you were, too.

And these characters kept trying to come out of these forests. It was damp in there, you know, and all you had was mud huts and it was kind of blooey. And they kept trying to come out of the forests and go down into the Roman Empire. And it was a very interesting cycle, see?

They'd come out of these forests here and they had originally come in from Poland's — Polish and Russian plains. And they got into these forests and they tried to come across the Rhine and get some sunshine.

And there was an outfit called Rome. And they had some armies and they were pretty good — we were pretty good. And we just made sure these characters could never cross the Rhine. We just made sure they never could cross the Rhine.

Every time they started to cross the Rhine, we knocked them back across the Rhine. We used to have punitive expeditions go in and burn a bunch of villages just to teach them that they shouldn't cross the Rhine. And they mustn't cross the Danube, and they mustn't cross the Rhine and they mustn't cross the Danube.

The whole reason Paris was built was just to rehabilitate troops that were keeping Germans from crossing the Rhine. And it doesn't perform any other function to this day but rehabilitate troops if they .. .

Now, down through the centuries, this action continued. They mustn't cross the Rhine. So when they finally did cross the Rhine, they actually did want Christianity. They did want the civilization of the Roman Empire. They did want culture and they were perfectly willing to join up with Rome, but they — when they finally were able to cross the Rhine, they had to cross it with an overt. See, they had to cross it by conquering and destroying Rome. That was the one thing that they never had in mind at the first time.

But the prevented reach carried on as an engram. The prevented reach of the German areas of Europe. The prevented reach. And the German gradually became totally convinced that he mustn't reach Earth. And so he goes to war, 1870, 1914, 1939. And right now England and the United States are in contest with each other as to which one will sell the most arms to Germany. And everybody seems bound and determined to rearm Germany. Why?

Well, obviously, "the engram must go forward." That isn't intended as any criticism of the United States and England. But I consider it fascinating. We have carefully prevented them from reaching over a long period of time and some of you were there, too.

Those marks that itch on your shins were probably greaves. The difficulties one has had with the Germans was restraining the Germans from reaching. And you always have trouble with anybody that you have prevented too thoroughly from reaching. Why? Because that's no havingness.

The way you create the condition of no havingness is the prevention of reach. All you have to do is prevent a reach and you have brought about the condition of no havingness. Therefore, you have brought about a condition where an enforced withhold has been put in and the person will then get other withholds on their own, which are much more aberrative to them, you see — the "must reach" — the "must be prevented from reaching," you see. And you have run the other side of the withhold. And the other side of the withhold is prevention of reaching. You could almost run this on a pc. Whom have you prevented from reaching? You ever prevent anybody from reaching? Have you?

Audience: Yes.

Then you set yourself up to have withholds, that's all.

When I ask you that question, "Have you ever prevented anybody from reaching?" here and there through the audience, you got a brrrrrrrrrr automaticity of it. Oh, no, you know.

Did you ever prevent a child from reaching? And you husbands, have you ever prevented another male from reaching? And you girls, have you ever prevented a man from reaching? Have you?

Audience: Yes.

Now don't come around and tell me it's a mystery to you why you have withholds, because that's the overt which brings about the withhold. There-fore, the withhold ties directly into havingness. Why does havingness deteriorate? Let me tell you this phenomenon about havingness. The thirty-six processes? You must have them. You must be able to do something about these thirty-six processes and get the pc's havingness and so forth.

But there is this characteristic to havingness which you should be very interested in. You can run Havingness for a hundred hours on a pc and he will slump. All Havingness does is make somebody feel good and boost the case and make him easier to process.

But Havingness itself run on the pc just as havingness — "Look around here and find something you can have." "Point out something." "Where is that room object?" — "Where is the room object?" rather. Any one of those commands can be run and run and run and run and run and they are not therapeutic or — on a lasting basis. They are a very temporary basis. Why? Because the no-have condition is the condition of withhold and therefore as you have these withholds and as you get more withholds — as fast as your havingness is run up, it, of course, is pulled right back down again onto the Goals Problem Mass by the existence of withholds.

So you could run the Havingness on somebody forever without removing a single withhold if you're very, very careful, you see, never to remove a with-hold. Use a squirrel meter and it doesn't register anything but can squeeze. Put a cricket in the potentiometer so that you get needle action.

You know, any kind of idiocy like this. Don't find any withholds on the pc and then audit him like blue blazes. Just audit and audit but never find a with-hold. Be very careful never to find a withhold, see. Audit and audit and audit and find things and audit him and find things and run Havingness and run Havingness and run Havingness and audit him, but don't take a withhold off.

And the case goes creak, creak, creak, creak, whooooom, boomp! Creak, creak, creak, booooom, boomp! The guy's pulling his havingness down faster than you can pull it up. You've got the frog, the traditional frog who is climbing up out of the well; and in the story he climbs up three inches all night and falls back two during the day, or vice versa. Only you are doing it now on the basis of three inches up and three inches down and three inches up and three inches down and three inches up and three inches down. And after you've audited him for ten thousand hours, you will conclude that you have gotten nowhere. And I'm giving you the sole reason for long auditing without lasting gain.

If you don't pull the withholds, nothing is permanent. Everything slumps because the havingness runs down. And the Goals Problem Mass continues to be pulled in on the pc. See? Isn't that an interesting mechanism?

Well, more graphically, you stand back of the guy and you kick him and you say, "Go forward." And then you have a big, strong elastic belt around his waist and you kick him and he goes forward; and then, of course, the belt tightens up and he flies backwards.

And you say, "What are you doing back here?" And you feel very upset with this fellow for not having gone forward and you kick him again, this time harder. And he goes forward a few feet and then he springs back in your lap again, so you say something has got to be done about this.

And you get somebody else to kick him harder. And then by the time you've brought in baseball bats and you've dreamed up large pneumatic motors that put out pneumatic hammers that push him forward and keep him out to the extreme end of the belt, you have now invented psychiatry. That's right.

I'm not hard on psychiatry. I actually take it much easier than I should. But there — there's pure idiocy, of course. The fellow's withholds are going to bring him back. It doesn't matter how hard or violently you process him. He's going to go no further than those withholds remain unpulled. And that's it because his havingness goes down because the withhold tells him he can't have anything. And he can't have the gain he's making. He can't have the — a forward life. He can't have more in life. He can't have a better view of things. Don't you see?

He can't even see better. How many people have you worried over — you auditors — how many people have you worried over trying to improve their eyesight? Well, you keep trying to improve their eyesight and trying to improve their eyesight and trying to improve their eyesight and trying to improve their eyesight, and so forth.

Well, the guy can't have a brighter physical universe. How can he have a better eyesight? He can have that exact, dim blur that is out in front of him. Why? Because he prevents himself from reaching. He knows better than to touch a baseball bat because he'll hit Uncle George over the head with it. So he knows better than to see well. No telling what he will do.

If this could be done and it can't, fortunately — if you could take a criminal and improve his abilities a thousand percent, he could then be a very, very effective criminal. Couldn't he? Unfortunately, that can't be done. This is the booby trap in all efforts to go forward while remaining very evil. This is why the mystic begins to believe after a while that a person will never achieve more power than he can be trusted with. It's a built-in mechanism and it doesn't have anything to do with mysticism or anything else. That is an observation of the mystic.

The truth of the matter is that the individual cannot have a greater ability as long as he is withholding. One of the most pathetic cases — although he didn't look pathetic — that I ever processed was on an experimental run of a fellow who made his living by grabbing fellows off the street, taking him up a dark alley and hitting them over the jaw and robbing them of their pocketbook — or getting them into a hotel room, hitting them in the jaw and taking their pocketbook and leaving.

And he had a withered arm. And I tried to cure his withered arm just with straight processing. Oddly enough, I did it a little bit of good. His mother had awakened him suddenly when he was a little boy — and a newspaper boy he was — and they were quite poor; and he used to be beat up every day by the boys in the streets, and they'd take his paper money away from him — and he was lying in bed and his mother woke him up suddenly and he pulled back his fist and almost struck her. And from that moment forward in his life, for the next thirty-five years, that fellow was still holding his arm back. That was the overt. Interesting?

But he dramatized hitting people in the jaw and taking their money. That's also interesting, isn't it? I find it very interesting. His disability was his criminality.

I got a little bit of this off and he felt better and he felt he might not have to do it anymore. He told me. So maybe I've saved a lot of guys' broken jaws. But anyhow, I might not have lived in vain.

But you see how that sequence went? An interesting sequence. He couldn't have except with an overt after that, of course, because he was so withheld that he couldn't reach. So if he couldn't reach, of course, he couldn't have. That's all there is to that. A fellow wears glasses; he'd like to get rid of his glasses. Well, he's got withholds, not necessarily this lifetime's withholds, but he's got enough withholds to last him. He's been busy on the whole track. He's been real busy.

But basically, today, he's become afraid that he will get busy again.

It's very interesting. You see a pc and this pc says to you his goal for the session.

"Well, I'd like to get more active in life."

Well, that's fine. Of course, if you were running an average, routine session, you would not question this in any way, shape or form; but I'm talking about experimentally now. And we were to examine this: He wants to get more active in life.

If you were to ask him, "Are you active in life?"_ "No."

"Are you active in life?"

He'd say, "No."

"All right. Now, what would you be liable to do if you became more active in life than you are?"

You practically will have keyed him in across the boards. Ooh. He can't tell you offhand what he'd be more likely to do. He suddenly feels this thing that he had better not. And then if you said — because this would be experimental auditing, and certainly not auditing — then you were to say to him, "Well, now how do you feel about becoming more active in life?"

And he would simply sigh and give you another goal such as, "I want to be able to live with myself," or something like that, you know. Just a very rapid one-two.

Now you could do this trick. Now, this goes a little further than that. It goes a little further. We could do this trick. These, of course, are not auditing processes. These are simply experimental demonstration actions. We know all about that.

But if we were to take somebody and take an offbeat chord on a violin intermittently and not rhythmically played, and we were simply to play that sporadically and oddly and peculiarly, note after note after note, and we did it like this: we'd say, "All right. Look around here and find something you can have."

And the fellow looks around and says, "Well, I can have the far wall."

And then we took our violin and we played some horrible, screeching chords on it one way or the other and then we said to him, "Look around here and find something you can have." And he'd probably say, "Well, I could have uh — I could have that chair in the middle of the room." And then we played some horrible, screeching chords on the violin and we said, "Look around here and find something you can have."

And he'd look at you rather grimly. And not — you could rationalize it all out. Actually, it's going out on a mechanical basis.

And he'd say, "Well, now I could uh — uh — uh — I could have the end of the violin there, the head of the violin."

All right. And you played some more horrible, screeching chords one way or the other.

And you say, "Well, look around here and find something you can have." He'd say, "I could have the end of my nose."

And the more horrible, screeching chords on the violin and you say, "Look around here and find something you can have."

And he says, "Well, I could have this black mass inside my head."

And then some more horrible, screeching chords on the violin. "Look around here and find something you can have."

No response. Because you are preventing his attention from reaching by giving him a sensory perception against him.

Those machines which make the loudest and most sporadic noise will bring about the greatest number of accidents in industry. Because, of course, they're preventing the fellow from having them. So therefore, the machine becomes randomity and also, under the care of management will be those which are broke down most often by the workmen. Interesting.

You could actually draw up a coordination. You could walk through a plant with all the machines running. And you could look them over and pick up the one that has the intermittent, loudest, noisiest action. And you could say, "Well, that one and that one and that one. Those machines break down more often than others, don't they?" And the management would say, "Yes, how do you know?" "Elementary, my dear Watson," or "My dear Ron."

They prevent people from having them — prevention of havingness, you see. Quite interesting. So therefore, in a noisy or an enturbulated environment, a person's havingness is reduced. This is, by the way — was known on the whole track empirically. It was known in this wise. It was simply known that if you set up enough drumming and screaming and howling around an individual, he might go mad. He didn't inevitably go mad but he could be driven mad; and just enough random motion and action, and everybody pressing the motion and action in on him, he would eventually snap, you might say. He would get into a condition where he couldn't reach at all. His havingness would be out the bottom.

Now a thetan is as well off as he can reach. He is no better off than he can reach. That is it. The character of his reach is monitored or the quality of his reach is monitored or established or becomes the belief, the limit of the belief of reach.

In other words, as we go down scale — as a person is unable to reach — the savageness of his reach increases. And then below that level, the covertness of the reach sets in and increases. And this ability to reach, oddly enough, suddenly becomes our old Tone Scale. And what do you know? The thing's right. Quite amazing. It is in its proper perspective, but it is the index of reach. There might be some things that could be adjusted slightly in it to make it absolutely on the button; but the thing was right from the start, which is quite a triumphant extrapolation way in advance of an actual datum. The ability to reach or the quality of the reach — these two things are monitored one way or the other.

As a person has an ability to reach, as the ability to reach improves, the quality or tone of the reach improves. And as the reach deteriorates and the ability of the reach deteriorates, the quality of the reach deteriorates.

So there is no such thing of beating a worker until he works better. That cannot be done. You can beat a worker until he creates the low-scale action one way or the other, but he'll start building in booby traps into what he creates. And all of his work will be booby-trapped.

I can see a car built by some factory where everybody feels they are driven with whips. Well, a Russian car, something of that sort. Man, I wouldn't want to go ac — much less go down the road — I wouldn't want to go across the running board and get into the thing because the quality of their reach is monitored by this fact: that a thetan never gives up. A thetan really never quits. He only can seem to so as to reach another way.

I tell you, a thetan is an awful insistent bunny. I congratulate you. I never saw such an insistence. It doesn't matter how much the reach has been blunted. He will still try, even by making an impression of apathy. He is still trying to reach.

Did you ever see a very apathetic person putting up one awful show of being very apathetic? Well, they're simply trying to reach, for heaven's sakes, with apathy. They do, too. Look at the number of do-gooders in the United Nations. All they've got to find is some part of the world where everybody is sitting in apathy and they start saying, "Those poor people. Those poor people. Where can we borrow another six bombers?" That's not — not — not the way they've done it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We've got to be careful of them because they're on a war of conquest.

Now those people are the next people who will be trying it. Not the United States or Russia. Count them out. You've got a Frankenstein monster going. You've got a government without a people and they have no reason to reach. The people are sent there; they have no interest in it. You've got a low-quality reach. Well, Lord knows how it'll reach. Be the last way in the world I would ever try to get anybody to reach with a high tone. Just tell them they were not responsible for anything and that they could only bring peace and that they must never reach in anger and you — they'd lead you into a shooting war every time. And the UN has just led into a shooting war. I mean, another interesting war.

They've had nothing but trouble ever since they've been around. America lost more in the Korean war — I think 365,000 casualties — wasn't it that way? More casualties than in World War I. Wasn't even our war.

But this country now — the quality of this country's reach is lying propaganda at the present time. I don't mean to malign Russia. I don't think you could. But they're reaching. They're still trying to reach. They're still trying to reach.

And the Chinese. They're trying to reach like mad and everybody is still trying to reach. Well, the quality of the reach is what we're interested in. And the quality and length of the reach is totally dependent upon the lack of withholds. It's a direct index. The less withholds, the more quality of the reach and the further the reach. Isn't that — isn't that elementary?

Well, am I talking about the dissemination of Scientology? See?

You want to sell Joe Blow on Scientology and he's been down the street. And he's been falling on his head every time he turns around and you think it might be a good thing to his family because their screams late at night are keeping you awake. You think it might be a good thing if somebody did some-thing for this boy.

Well, I assure you that you're not going to do much for him as long as you've got withholds, because you're too individuated. You cannot get up to a pan-determinism. See, you're being you. You're so convinced yourself of being you while he is being him that you then have to talk to him persuasively and sometimes sort of, well, "Scientology doesn't amount to much. And it's probably not much of an idea but possibly, sometimes by accident — something — you know and . . ." You could get down to a low-tone sell of this particular type, you see. I don't say that you would. Somebody could run it out afterwards.

But you're sitting here and he's sitting there. Well, that isn't the way you reach. You also don't reach over and pick him up by the scruff of the collar and hit him in the jaw and say, "Now there, go to the nearest auditor." That's not the way to do it. You don't call for the boys in white coats the way the psychiatrists — I didn't mean to mention a nasty word. After all, children are present. Those things are not quality reaches of any kind whatsoever, you see. Those are very low-toned reaches.

You actually, if you had — well, look, look — just supposing you had — supposing you were over here at the Central Organization's HGC and you had 75 hours of nothing but a Joburg. And all he did was plow along and, "Did you ever cook a company's books?" You see. And "Did you ever take any change when you thought you shouldn't have?" And on and on.

Of course, it might stick in you that somebody was getting evidence on you. No, that's what you used to do. We're just trying to get off your with-holds. And it's just get off your withholds and get off your withholds. And all of a sudden, why, you'll reach further and you'll reach further. And the quality of your reach, of course, is better and the quality of your reach is better. And your tone comes up and you can reach further. And there it is. And that's all the explanation there is to it.

I mean, it has no moral values or immoral values or anything else. But you find out a fellow with all the withholds off, of course, becomes a very dangerous person — extremely dangerous — because he has a high-toned reach and his intentions are good. And he does reach. And he's very dangerous to people who wish to mess everybody up. See how dangerous he is? Because he reaches them and they can't mess people up, he actually prevents their reach.

So in order to keep from committing the overt, you then — after you've improved your reach — have the responsibility of improving the other fellow's reach. Don't you? That's right. Otherwise, you'd always be guilty of an overt.

All right. I'll run that out in my next auditing session.

No. Actually, a high-toned reach doesn't aberrate or upset anybody. I'm just joking with you.

But all right. We have this fellow down the street and every night, why, we've been coming to pieces because of the screams of his family and so forth. And we got all our withholds off and we're in pretty good shape. And we go down and we say, "Hey, Mr. Smithers, so-and-so and so-and-so, and why don't you go over and see an auditor," or something like that. That wouldn't be a real good reason to have anybody audited, but you just tell him this, you know.

And he looks at you with high hostility and snarls and the next day asks you what the fellow's address is. And you give it to him and he goes over.

In other words, he recognizes your command value through your ability to reach. See, your command value is totally dependent upon your ability to reach. Factually, altitude is totally dependent upon the ability to reach. It's worked out that way. It's basically the ability to reach. It's quite curious but you could land on a planet, total stranger; and if your ability to reach was excellent, you would have both altitude and command value. Not through your reputation. A reputation and an identity is a substitute for command value.

I go out and talk to people out in the sticks someplace — never heard of me, nothing like this and — just turn around and ask me what to do. Why? I don't have any overts on them or withholds. And you'd do the same thing. It's not even any trick involved to it. You talk about dissemination. Wow!

You have failed to disseminate and pass on ideas and betterment to people to the exact degree that you had withholds. Isn't that horrible? That's accusative, isn't it? Makes everybody guilty, doesn't it? Well, there should have been somebody else around a long time ago making people guilty along the same line instead of saying, "Don't reach. Don't reach, ye, because the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Oh, you sinners. Oh, you'd better not do any reaching around here. Stop reaching. Repent. Repent. Stop reaching. You recognize you're a sinner. You're all evil, that's what."

I can hear it now rolling around the chautauqua circuits and rolling across the land — an educated, prevented reaching which would reduce havingness down to a criminality. And the end product of a great civilization is a criminal civilization because it has taught one another too well not to reach. It's very simple. Very simple. There's nothing much to it. Once you know about it. Once you know about it.

It's all very easy once you know about it but when you first look over the ocean, it is full of drops of water. And the only trick is to pick out the right drop of water. That's all. There's just an ocean full of drops of water and that happens to be the drop of water which describes havingness — it's reachingness.

Now, for instance, you could have me — not to the degree that I have roughed you up or yapped at you or screamed at you — but to the degree that you believe you can communicate to me. See? The degree you can communicate. And you'll be very interested that over the years it has been the amount of traffic and mail which I have — of course, it's utterly impossible to individually answer nearly everything that comes in. It would be a twenty-four hour a day job because the mail has never stopped rolling since the first and early days. It has never stopped rolling. Until a Scientologist has gotten eventually a built-in mechanism to the effect that you — "Ron is very busy, and he can't see you, and you mustn't communicate to him." Heard that before?

Audience: Yes.

That's a prevented reach, isn't it?

Audience: Yes.

And you know, every person on my staff knows that he ought to do it because he feels guilty as the devil. I mean any staff in the world. They feel guilty as the devil occupying any of — more of my time than is being occupied because they know very well that if you just add another thirteen and a half seconds to my day, my back will snap. And they go around saying, "Well, you can't talk to Ron," and "He's very busy," and "I'm awfully sorry." And they hate like the devil to do it.

So when I put out Standing Order No. 1, Standing Order No. 2, and Standing Order No. 3 and Standing Order No. 4 HCO Policy Letters as of last month, the people in the immediate vicinity of Saint Hill started throwing a horrible sigh of relief even though they felt it was a horrible overt. Because these orders simply consist of this one fact: That you must not stop a communication to Ron. It must go to Ron and be received by Ron and read by Ron and answered by Ron.

So let's forget the other old philosophy of "Ron is too busy to be communicated with" because, frankly, I never have been. If I need a couple of more hours in the day, I can always fit them in. It's just as easy to make thirty hours as twenty-eight.

Now, disabuse yourself of that idea because it's factually true that the bulk of your communications I do see. And now I can guarantee you that I will see all of them.

That is all into the subject of reach, prevent reach and havingness, but it isn't for that reason. It isn't for that reason only. It's, I'm over the bumps now. I'm over the jumps. I've got the administrative lines pretty well nailed. I've got things pretty well squared down. The research work is pretty well taped. We know exactly where we're going and I think you will see exactly where we are going. It's very easy. There is no bad pitch or curve on our future intentions. It's quite inevitable what will occur. It's all for the good. The bulk of my work is done along this particular line and there would actually be no reason to keep up such barriers. That would be all there was to that because I do have more time.

1950, I said Scientology, Dianetics, would go as far as it worked. Well, it's working — working very nicely, thank you.

Havingness — havingness could then be tackled by an auditor — just reverting to the subject for a moment — could be tackled by an auditor in several ways. If he knows the definitions of it, then he could handle it by definition. Instead of, "Look around here and find something you could have," to find out if something was wrong with the room — although that will remain the standard rudiment — you could also say, "Is there anything around here that would prevent you from reaching the room?" And the person will almost at once spot anything that is there that would give you a needle tick on the room rudiment. Be another way to say the same thing, right?

Male voice: Yes.

Now horribly enough, you — it doesn't run well to say to a person, "What prevents you from reaching? Thank you very much. What prevents you from reaching? Thank you very much," because that's the motivator side of it. You'd have to say, "Whom have you prevented from reaching? Thank you. Whom have you prevented from reaching? Thank you."

And that would just be another Security Check question, wouldn't it? So we come right back to Joburgs and withholds and any trick methods we've got but with the understanding of why a withhold is so deadly: because it cuts down the person's havingness and will never let the havingness restore.

When you were young, the world was bright. What has happened since? Same world. You've got the same eyeballs. Must have been that between then and now, you have accumulated some withholds and prevented a few people from reaching. And that is about all there is to it. It's as simple as that.

Havingness is an interesting subject. It's a subject that has been a very complex subject. It is not very complex now, but just because it drops into such an easy category, for heaven's sakes, don't forget it. Because if you security check and then run Havingness and security check and then run Havingness, the Havingness stirs up withholds and the Security Check takes them off. And you can play one against the other and you can increase the velocity, of course, of a Joburg madly. That makes it a very interesting, fast, much faster, action to run the two that way.

Perhaps you didn't suspect before this hour that the withhold was connected with the Havingness and I must confess to you that neither did I until a couple of days ago. I didn't know that they were intimately related. They are sufficiently intimately related, however, to be practically the same thing. A no-have equals a withhold. A withhold equals a no-have. A no-have equals aberration. A no-have or quality of no-have equals the quality of reach or the lack of it and gives you the tone of the person. It's as easy as that.

So it turns out to be a very simple subject just like all of Scientology is. Turns out to be very elementary. But the trick is to understand it well enough to know what is elementary and what isn't. I'll leave that up to you or maybe we'll settle it in the lectures tomorrow.

Thank you very much.