Although you will find the sequence I described to you (counter-effort, emotion, thought) to be invariable; the conditions resulting from it are quite complex. There are 3 circumstances:

1) An individual has something done to him,

2) then he turns around and does it to someone else or something else,

3) and then he says, “I shoudn’ t do that.”

So, he holds himself from doing it again, and he brings the facsimilies of the first time it happened to him, and the times he did it, close together - and they wind up in a ball; no matter whether they are ten billion or ten minutes apart. One is the motivator, the next is the overt act. The same similar efforts. The person received an effort, and he thinks that he should be able to use any effort he ever received.

In comes the effort. It comes in and hits him. He makes a facsimile of it, and he feels that he can put the facsimile into play at any time. So, one day he starts to put it into play (to finish the cycle) and he gets to X (see Figure (b) ) and he says, “NO” - and when he says No on it going out as in Figure (b), he stops it coming in in the original facsimile. Why? Because when it was a counter-effort he tried to stop it from coming in, and so what does he use to stop it from going out? The same force that he used to keep it from coming in, in the original incident. So, this on Figure (a) is the motivator, and is very antipathetic to his survival, being a heavy counter-effort. And as it comes in he says, “No, no, no, you can’t come in,” but it keeps coming in anyhow, and he makes facsimilies of it coming in, and his attempts to stop it, and his failures to stop it. He makes a facsimile of every step of the sequence of the entry into him of this counter-effort. Later, in a similar situation where he wants to do it to someone else he will say, “I want to put this person into apathy, and here is a good strong counter-effort;” and he will start to give him this good stong counter- effort. You will get a co-generation of energy there, and he will say all of a sudden, “I don’t want to put him into apathy, because he is me and I am him, because here it’s happening to him and it happened to me, so therefore I must be the same as him.’ This is very simple and very sensible. You will find that all people that get motivators and try to use them as overt acts come to the conclusion, “I am he,” until they get a cross-identification with the whole human race. They think everybody is them, they pick up all sorts of restimulation. When they have lots of motivators that they have tried to use as overt acts they will eventually come to the conclusion that they and the rest of the human race are the same person. In other words, their individualism is squashed. Why is it squashed? It comes from the counter-effort, and he tries to stop the counter-effort from coming in. He makes a facsimile of it and then starts to use it one day. He decides to put somebody into apathy, or out of action, or nullify them; so they take this thing that has happened to them and they start to use it. He finds the other person putting up the same resistance that he put up, which identifies him with the other person because of an interchange of energy. There is an actual energy flow and the victim says, “No, no, no,” and the person doing it feels, “No, no, no,” as an energy flow, not as words or anything, but as an actual energy kick back. As soon as this energy flow (kick back) hits, it mechanically restimulates the other side of the motivator. So it makes the person who is doing the overt act the same as the victim. It gives him a confusion of identity. The second he gets this confusion of identity he says, “No, no, no, I mustn’t do this to me.” So, he holds it up, he tries to pull it back, he tries to say, “I didn’t do it,” and he feels regret. (Regret is the action of trying to make time run backwards) So, he stops it. It was on the way out, but now he has a facsimile that holds it from going out. Who is he? Is he the person holding it or the person putting it out? Well, he must be both people. If he is both people he must feel sympathy for the person he was doing it to, this makes him the same as the person he was doing it to, because anything you feel sympathy for, you identify with yourself. So it becomes an unsolvable situation unless you have the reduction and erasure techniques of processing. You have these techniques, and you can resolve this. It could not be resolved before.

So, the overt act (a) becomes involved with the motivator (b) and the two of them lock together and make “maybe.”

It hangs up then on the time track. That is a standard situation. When you try to take apart a balled up time track, or a balled up situation, or a compulsive thought level, or an inhibitive thought level, you will find a motivator and an overt act in one way or another mixed up in the bottom of this thing. You will find them inter- locked. You start to run a PC through one and say, “Ah, we’ve got a nice bop on the E-meter, and the E-meter says he did this, and it was on such and such a date.” You have gotten all the information around this overt act - when, who he did it to, etc. and you start to run it. So, he goes through the act, and often when a PC s~arts through these overt acts he gets weak, and goes into his own apathy level. If they are severe overt acts such as choking somebody, the PC will start at the first moment of it and then will say, “It’s funny, but my arms feel all limp.” The odd part of it is that if he is choking somebody he is trying co force them into apathy, and so this person is exuding an apathy wave. He is trying to force somebody into apathy. As he does this his intention matches the return wave. He says, “Go into apathy,” and the victim goes into apathy and emanates the wave length of apathy. So, the apathy wave hits the person doing it and makes him feel weak. The second he feels weak he says, “It must be happening to me,” because how did he feel when it was being done to him in the motivator? Weak. He wanted the answer to this problem: “Here is another being. How do I put the other being into apathy? I have a very sure way of doing so. I was put into apathy once by being choked. Therefore, the way to put this person into apathy is to choke him.” A simple solution, and so he chokes him. His intention is to put the person into apathy. The person exudes apathy. The apathy comes back at him. He says, Therefore, I must be in the motivator - Oh, no I’m not, I’m in the overt - no, I’m not, I’m in the motivator - etc. And that’s the way it acts in auditing.

So, you run it through; you make this fellow run choking somebody. You run through again. He says, “I feel hands around my throat.” There is something else that complicates it. As a matter of fact, as his hands closed around the other persons throat, the cells in the area of that throat exude an area of pain and they will mirror a wave of pain into the cells of your PCs’ throat. The cells in the victims throat start to emanate pain. What are the most likely cells to pick it up? The identical cells in the throat of the person doing the overt act. That is a tiny, mild manifestation. But as he feels this slight impulse it adds to the confusion of the person doing the overt act. He thinks, “Am I the victim again? No, I’m doing this. I was the victim. No....” He doesn’t know, and he starts going down tone scale. Why doesn’t he know? Because the bottom level of the (motivator when it happened to him) was “I don’t know”, so he just doesn’t know what is happening. He gets very confused.

You start to run him through, make him choke somebody. He feels all weak. You make him cut off somebodys’ head with an axe or something. He will say, “Oh, I wouldn’t want to do that.” You make him go through it, and he will say all of a sudden, “Gee! My neck, it feels horrible, I got a somatic, etc.” You can go on and force him through the overt act of choking somebody, but you are to some extent, defeating your own purpose if the person insists on running the motivator. I ran some tests on this, and the thing to do is: run him doing the overt act, and then you run the motivator. You run the motivator until it starts getting very sticky, slows down, and gets hard to audit. The moment it slows down and gets hard to audit, switch to running the overt act. Make him run the overt act until it becomes hard to audit. Then switch to the motivator again. You are reducing them selectively, each one to each ones’ level. If you run one of these overt-motivator ball ups on the track that way, you will find that you get a very speedy reduction. Now, if it is the combination of the overt act and the motivator which is really basic on this case, or if it is at least one of those which is tending towards basic, you will find the locks flying off like mad, long chains of locks. And he will keep trying to tell you anything to keep from running that overt act. He hands you a picture of a brown stone house and says it must be in New York, and there is a girl putting a scarf around her neck. You say, “Go on, go on, choke her again.” He will say, “But, I didn’t choke this girl.” So you say, “Look, let’s choke this girl back here, this cave girl, go on choke her, choke that one.” So he says, “Well, all right.” And he starts in again and says, “No, it’s this fight I had with Og. Yes, I know that is what it is, it’s getting much more clear to me now - yes, I was getting choked by Og.” He starts to gurgle and choke from being choked by Og (see, he has a motivator now .... “See, I’m not such a bad guy, I have an excuse) but when he starts to get pleased from ~eing choked by Og, you know he is justifying to you the fact that he choked her. So, as soon as he looks pleased, less agitated, as if the incident was reducing, get him right in there again choking her. Say, “Go on choke her, bang her head against the rock, watch the blood fly, get your fingers In her throat, now can you feel your fingers sink into the flesh, now can you feel her veins and muscles giving in, caving in, or anything like that? Oh, you feel her jaw breaking. OK. Choke her some more.” And the moment he seems even slightly satisfied with choking her, say, “OK, now get the time Og choked you.” You’ll find he will be a little reluctant, “Oh, I’m having .... I mean .... it’s running out here, so .... In other words, don’t let him feel relieved about either one of these things until they are gone. Just keep jockeying from one to the other, one to the other. It happened to him, and he made it happen to someone else.

You will go back on the track and find some interesting incidents. You will find incidents of tremendous force, electronic fields, and everything else, back there on the track. It’s really wonderful, people sit around in insane asylums and say, “You know, I have the feeling that every time I go to bed I feel these electronic fields, and I know that Western Union has some wires wired up to my brain and they are reading my mind, and etc. etc.” and the psychiatrist says, “Give him another electric shock.” The horrible part of it is that the guy is running evidently, an actual incident. He was psychotic; he got caught up in the overt act, maybe in the motivator side. There he is being hit by these fields, and it was just as real as stamping on the floor. Believe me, it is real to them. All the psychiatrist would have had to say was, “All right, let’s get the time you shot the electronic field at somebody else.” The fellow would say, “I’d never do that.” “Well then, let’s get the time you wanted somebody dead.” If he is a good patient, attracted to psychiatrists, he will say, “You”. (laughter)

There should have been some co-ordination between all these people in insane asylums claiming to be in electronic fields, and something that happened on the track with somebody being hit by electronic fields; co-ordinated with the dramatization of the psychiatrist hitting people with electronic fields (shock). Somebody should have figured out there was something there. It’s something on the order of everybody walking down Main St., and there is a boulder 8 yds. wide and 10 yds. tall sitting there in the middle of the street. Nobody can get around it without going to all sorts of trouble and danger, and the main reason they go around the boulder is to explain to everybody that there is no boulder.

When you get a PC into one of these electronic incidents he will go through the whole cycle of the tone scale. He will have the most wonderful time, he will feel invalidated, he can’t believe it, and he will feel degraded. You want to know why criminals are criminals? It’s because they have lost respect for themselves. How did they lose respect for themselves? By getting into an incident where they are degraded. How are they degraded? By being hit by too much force, by being invalidated - that is degraded. They become a criminal only when they have lost self- respect. Only when a man has lost self-resect will he indulge in criminal acts. So, the best thing to do with criminals is to give them time and space, more time, and more space. Or you can put them in electric chairs so the next generation will have twice as bad a murderer on their hands. In this society of ours we have solved everything except sanity.

There are electronic fields back on the track. When your PC goes into one, you might for your own edification (and perhaps amusement) watch him sail into cne of these electronic fields full tilt. One that is good and solid, such as one I will describe later called: Theta Traps. Watch him go into the “Theta Trap” or the “Body Builder.” Oh brother, and then don’t give him an opportunity to run anything like an overt act. Oh no, make him run the incident, just to find out how bad it can get. It will stick, and it will be gluey, and he will feel this way and that way, and he will squirm, and he will run attentlon unit flows coming in at him and going away from him, and he will twist and turn, and his reality will go to pieces, and his sight will darned near turn off, and his teeth will feel like they are about ready to fall out, his stomach will get all hollow and he will be scared to death, he won’t be able to go to work the next day, he will get sinitus, he will get migraine headaches, and he will get everything he is supposed to get. Just keep on running that incident. Don’t let him go over into anything else, just keep him in the incident solidly and strongly, and keep him going through it. Eventually you will get apathy. Actually, it is probably possible to audit that incident all the way out as the motivator only, not touching the overt act. It would probably only take a thousand hours. You want to know how bad it can get? Try one of those. Boy, you will think merely being hit by a streetcar, dumped into a concrete mixer, or stirred up by the teachers’ paddle is just nothing.

No incident has happened to any human being for hundreds of years that equal the magnitude of some of the real incidents on the whole track. There isn’t any person who is alive today, who has had an incident of sufficient rnagnitude to be called a first line incident. I’ve tried to straighten out a lot of PCs by auditing this life only. I have gotten terrific releases, way up the tone scale on some of them, but I haven’t made them sane. They have manifested clear memory re-call, and they have done all sorts of things, but compared to how high a person CAN go, it ain’t worth doing. You can play around all you want to with this life, but it just isn’t worth it for the amount of energy you put in on it. Besides, you can straighten up all the overt acts, the maybes, and everything else in this life in a few hours. If you can’t, you shouldn’t call yourself an auditor. There is nothing much to it. Oh, they are mad at papa, mama, teacher, or that sort of thing. They have hit somebody over the head with a brick, bat, etc. that’s about all - nothing! Go back on the track, and find out where it’s really rough.

Now, it’s no wonder that people say, “There is no such thing as a past life - No!” Because a past life way back is solid invalidation. They really put you down to the last tiniest spark there is, and that is being invalidated, so of course you could not believe in it. Furthermore, if you believed in past lives, you probably would have to run one, and that’s intolerable. People will even go on to the shabby solution called death, to avoid the type of incident that can happen. But if you know about overt acts, motivators, and deds, there isn’t much stress to it. To get a PC out of it there really isn’t much stress. You audit the one, you audit the other, you audit the one, you audit the other, etc. etc.

Someone was telling me that they were having a lot of trouble auditing Fac. One. They have been running it about 3 months now, and they haven’t audited it out yet. That is silly. Way back somewhere, that PC must have turned that gimmick loose on not one but many, and that probably isn’t even a motivator-overt act situation, It is probably a DED, which I will describe in a moment. This Facsimile One, which could hang on for Lord knows how long, just being audited itself as a motivator - the person is saying, “It happened to me, it happened to me. Please don’t let me think that I could have done this to anybody else. No, no, it just happened to rne. I’m the victim. I’m perfectly justified.” This is what the PC is saying when he says, “It hurts my chest, now I feel it in my feet, now I feel it here, oh the somatics are horrible, they are beyond endurance.” Just interpret those remarks into: “Boy, I sure need a lot of alibi, because if they ever found out what I have done with this!” Do you get the idea? You interpret that remark of, “Gee, this is a tough somatic. Oh, it’s killing me, etc. right into that situation. It’s - I need to be justified, I need to be justified. You say, “Oh gee, it won’t audit out.” NO! “It won’t audit out,” means (I did it). They are simultaneous conclusions. If it won’t audit out - he did it. And that will stand UP and solve anything.

So the fellow has a bad migraine headache. Well, you can Sit down and audit him out of a bad headache. You can even do it with straight wire - get him out to a point where he won’t get migraine headaches; to where he will stay pretty stable. But if you really want to get rid of all the migraine headaches there are on the case, you get the overt act-motivator situation with regard to migraine headaches. And then don’t let him run it as a motivator happening to him,but let him run it half and half. What did he do to give people migraine headaches? That’s what you have got to solve. Then you have to run the motivator of him getting migraine headaches, and the action of him doing it. Back and forth, back and forth. I hope I have stated that forcefully enough, because there isn’t any way to overstress it’s importance.

You can resolve cases best, by finding the heaviest counter-effort incidents on the track, and find out when the PC turned those incidents into efforts. You find that combination and you will see tracks straightening out, whistles blowing, bells ringing, perceptics turn on, and he comes on up the tone scale. The two of them audited out one after the other in combination? one after the other, one - two, one - two will relieve rather easily. If they are relieving hard for you, you are auditing one of them too much.

You will find yourself very prone at first to say, “This poor fellow, look what is happening to him. Yes, let’s audit it happening to him again.” If you are a sadist, do it that way. When you do it this way (running it happening to him) you are saying, “Yes, I need justification for my overt acts too.” It’s a fact that you as an auditor can actually fight yourself from auditing out an overt act of a PC, but by doing so you will put him through the tortures of hades. There is no reason to do that.

Theoretically, if you’re auditing heavy incidents - see, you could get away with it in this life, because there aren’t any heavy incidents in this life. You could audit out all the incidents, effort, counter-effort, very light processing, get rid of somatics, get him well, and he will stay that way. But you have to put in too much time to do it! You can take off every lock, but I don’t know how many hundreds of hours it will take to get it finished. Why should you spend all this time on a case? It isn’t whether or not you believe in the whole track. It’s: Why do you spend that much time on a case? If you audit with the whole track, and you audit with an E-meter, the case resolves. It resolves on the basis of a very heavy overt act, and a very heavy motivator. You audit one against the other, and they are usually electronic incidents.

Do not forget this one: Understanding has a great deal to do with the release of a heavy facsimile. Understanding what it is, and where it is. Understanding is very difficult to achieve on an incident which has heavy force in it, because invalidation is there, disbelief is there, not-know is there, just from the fact that it is a heavy facsimile. If it is a heavy facsimile, it is in the catagory of don’t know, isn’t, unreal, etc., the bottom of the tone scale. They are present for both the overt act and the motivator. But they will bang on an E-meter because the somatic is sitting there, the attention unit pattern is sitting there, the whole thing is right with the PC. You don’t send the PC back on the track to find these things, because the second you get the apathy in both the motivator and in the overt act locked together, you get something that is timeless. If the facsimile is capable of really bothering him; it is sitting right with him, right there. If you are real good at it you can read it like a sign board wrapped around his head.

He hasn’t got this facsimile at some unimaginable distant point in the past. It occurred then, but because it has apathy in it, to that degree it is timeless, and therefore capable of riding in present time. You are going to find incidents in which your PC will be saying, “Timeless, there is something in here which says there is no time or something of the sort, there are a lot of phrases and a lot of words in it.” No, that isn’t in the incident. All there is to it, is: that anything which is in apathy is timeless. It just gives him the sensation ot it being timeless, that’s all. Nobody has to be told. We aren’t interested in who told who anything, because if you start to audit thought before you start to audit emotion, and you start to audit emotion before you start to audit effort, in a heavy facsimile, you will fail. Now, you take this balled up facsimile, and you are going to audit out the thought, then the emotion, and then the effort

.... Oh No! You won’t have the PC last very long, because you are trying to do it completely in reverse. It’s like trying to pick up a coal bucket that is full of coal but is upside down on the floor. Pick that coal bucket up by the bottom and you are in bad shape. You want to get the coal up with it so you can empty it out, otherwise it will go all over the floor. Like the coal, the PC will be all over the time track and he won’t know whether he is in Podunk or Arslycus, he will be in bad shape. So, you should understand then that you are not even vaguely interested in phrases. Sometimes you will get interested in a concept. A concept will come up and he will say, “This is a concept.” The reason you are not interested in a phrase is that the heaviness of the facsimile will give him a concept. You will see that manifested, because sooner or later out of the facsimile will come a concept anyhow. The facsimile is sitting right there with a concept. A concept is timelessness. The fellow keeps trying to run this apathy and he says, “Tt’s timeless, it’s just timeless, it goes on and on and on.” Well, you tell him then to run “The concept of timelessness.” He will get right into the middle of it to the point where he feels it is timeless, and he will run that particular line, and he will get off it. So, you can run the concept, but it is sort of a last resort. Don’t run it on this basis: PC says, “There is no time, I guess it is somebody here saying … there is no time.” The PC runs it … “there is no time, there is no time … I think I’m getting worse, there is no time, there is no time, etc., etc., new somatics, etc. You start to run words and perceptics, because when you run words you are running perceptics. When you start to run concepts you are running something that can be run, but don’t try to run a perceptic out of an incident that you don’t have the effort off of. Get that very clearly then, that you will get every kind of a thought or concept imaginable out of these heavy efforts. If it is sticky, if it won’t audit out, you then know that he has done it to somebody else. That applies to both the overt act or the DED. Either one. If you find your PCs are not getting well rapidly; if they are not getting rid of incidents rapidly, then you get some auditing, because it means you are instinctively avoiding running some overt act that is probably going to be pretty obvious the second you look at it. So, you test how you are about overt acts by the speed with which your PC gets well, how fast does he run an incident. It could be, and is to some degree a psychic situation, but even more importantly - it is a tacit agreement situation. You say, “I’m not going to audit that out of him, because I need it as a justifier myself.”

The DED situation could be called a justifier situation, if it weren’t for the fact that the motivator and the justifier would be synonyms then too. I am going to tell that the difference between the overt act and a DED (a deserved action).

You see that the maybe winds itself up by the person identifying himself with the victim, and the emotional levels intertwining, the person defending, resisting - it is all tangled up. So you run one, you run the other, and the maybe will spring apart. They will go to their proper places on the track, and after it becomes “un-maybe’d” the situation resolves and drops away with great speed. An incident that isn’t involved in, or surrounded by maybes will blow with rapidity. If you find a PC whose locks don’t blow easily, whose secondaries don’t blow at first glance, whose standard effort actions don’t blow - don’t release readily and rapidly, you know he has got an awful lot of maybes in the bank, and it’s just got him all glued up. Those maybes are what are holding the locks together, and so remember that you resolve maybes. When you are auditing, you are auditing maybes, and a maybe consists of motivators and overt acts or deds. The pattern of it lies on the track as counter-effort preceding the thought and the emotion.

Now, the counter-effort, the emotion, and the thought, are in sequence.

The earliest on this is the Counter-effort, then the Emotion, and over here is the Thought. By the way, don’t blink when your PC sometimes won’t get a bop on any incident less than 59 trillion 865 billion 933 million 468 thousand 722 years ago. I saw one, one day that wouldn’t bop unless you got almost that accurate. He really had that maybe spiked.

Now, here is Effort, here is Emotion, and here is Thought (see Diagram above). Thls is the pattern for anything, you understand. Get that clearly, because this incident, the DED, is different from the overt act. It’s really a different manifestation, but it comes in this same sequence. There is one part of it that is backwards. Before there is any Counter-effort, there are a whole flock of overt acts, (and the Diagram above becomes as shown below.)

There is a whole bunch of overt acts earlier than the counter-effort. Here, in the next sketch, Diagram C, is the normal motivator-overt act situation, with the motivator all balled up with the overt acts, but preceeding them:

In this normal case of motivator-overt act situation we get first the Counter-effort, then the Emotion, and then the Thought, as in Diagram A. But in our Ded, as in Diagram B, we have the counter-effort after the overt act.

The person, without having any facsimile of it happening to him, uses a facsimile of doing it. This is perfectly easy to do. It is a situation that is overlooked, because everybody knows that a person is just stimulus-response, and nobody can think up anything. The fact of the matter is that people can imagine, think up, and do things. You face somebody with some kind of a task to do, and- he does not depend upon experience to do it. He will, if he is in good shape, think up a very correct solution to the thing, and go ahead and put it into action witll no experience at all. Now this makes people very spooky, and when they run into one of these fellows, they say he is versatile.Let’s take a this life situation. A little girl is used to playing with dogs. Just out of pure cussedness, nothing else whatsoever; the little girl is sitting on the floor and a little dog comes up and sniffs around, and the little girl with no motivation whatsoever bends forward and bites the dogs nose. This dog has never done anything to the little girl. The little girl just got the idea at the moment to bite the dogs nose, and did so. Snap! This dog by the way, doesn’t go around snapping. He just got snapped. The dog goes “Yipe, yipe, yipe,” and the little girl is unperturbed, no remorse, no nothing. A little time passes and another dog comes along. The little girl is sitting out in the yard and growls at the dog or something, and the dog bites her on the nose. The odd part of it is that the little girl is far more prone to carry, to carry that dog bite to her grave than she would otherwise. Because she can say, “There I was sitting there, and I didn’t do a single thing to him, and he bit me.” Now how is this? This is a worse situation, far worse than the normal motivator-overt act situation. The normal M - O situation at least seems logical. This DED is apparently illogical. The DED has a more short lived reason why it goes into a ball.

You will hear little kids saying, “He hit me.” “Well, he hit me first.” See? “He hit me first,” makes it alright. Everybody goes on that basis. As a matter of fact, all law operates on that basis .... “He did it to me first, so therefore I can do it.” You put that up as a defense and the judge says, “Dismissed”. In other words, that’s logical, we all know it is logical, we have accepted it as the “modus operendi” of the society because it is basically orderly. A fellow gets kicked in the shins, he kicks somebody else in the shins, he doesn’t feel much remorse. Actually the motivator overt act situation, unless it has very high effort magnitude on it, can go on and on without hurting anybody. A fellow walks down the street and somebody shoves a sword in his gullet, he falls in the gutter and dies. In the next life he is walking down the street, sees someone doing something he doesn’t like and he will stick sword in that fellows gullet, that guy falls down in the gutter and bleeds to death.

So what, he walks down the street and sticks someone else in the gullet. After a while, he will get careful about the gullet. He will begin to defend his own, and he won’t like to hit other people in the gullet anymore. He will start sticking them through the abdomen. He will even get to the point finally .... see, they start out using the teeth, then the fist, then a dagger, then a sword, and then a spear. See, they get further and further away from this guy, the victtm. You get an energy flow of pain from the fellow, so you want to be further and further away from the victim.

You get to rifles, long range guns, and then to such a coward ridden society that you use atom bombs. You are mad at somebody clear accross the world. That’s the nearest to you that you can be mad at anybody. Everybody else you have to be in ARC with.

Now, this motivator overt act situation is very orderly, and you will find that these situations are quite usual. It is the unusual situation that is going to give you trouble. You go along sticking fellows in the stomach, and ultimately you will wind up with ulcers or something, but you keep on doing it and everything is all right. But one day something unusual will occur that will ball-up up these fights. You lunge at this guy on the stairs with your rapier and he leaps aside, and behind him was standing the landlords daughter, and your rapier goes right straight through her. A mistake! You will say, “I didn’t mean to,” and in the process of regretting you get it mixed up with all sword fights, and you make a solemn promise to yourself - “I will not stick my rapier through anymore landlords lovely daughters.” And actually every time you see a woman slightly sick to her stomach after that, you get kind of sick in yours. And you have a very sympathetic feeling towards girls with long flaxen hair. You hate to see blood, and you don’t like women to wear too much lipstick and other thlngs, things that grow out of this thing. It is a maybe situation, and gets balled- up badly. Each one of these killings is balled-up a little bit until all of a sudden the overt act itself becomes an indecision and a maybe, and that sort of retro-acts because the guy tries to figure it out - “All the women I ever knew stuck me through the stomach wlth a rapier. No, they didn’t, no, that won’t fit. It won’t figure.”

Then we have this DED of the little girl being bitten on the nose by the dog, and she says, “I didn’t even . . “ You see what she has done? She has tried to go backwards in time to where she bit the dog. She flinched like the dog that she bit flinched. That makes her the dog that she bit, and she doesn’t want to be a dog that is bit so she thinks, “I must not be a dog that is bit, therefore it happened only to me. It didn’t happen to a dog, it happened to me.” She is having a terrible time differentiating. She is saying, “It was a dog that bit me. I am not a dog.” - because the other side of this situation is most horribly, a dog. She is liable to start saying “Woof” at any moment if she lets herself go. Why? Because people who are bitten severely in the nose with teeth, are dogs. That is her definition. She has delivered this counter-effort, and actually it will squirrel her on the subject. You try to run this one incident of her getting bitten in the nose - there she is, a sweet innocent little girl sitting on the front lawn, and this nasty dirty filthy brute comes up and bites her without any provocation whatsoever (of course they took the dog out and shot him afterwards) and she said, “Well, he deserved it, he really deserved it.” That would really make a rough incident. It would be quite aberrative in somebody’s track. They take the dog out and shoot it, and this means that for biting the earlier dog the PC is the one that should have been shot. You see, it won’t figure any way you look at it. Here is the dog being taken out and shot. She can’t be the dog, because if she was this dog she would be shot, and if she was the earlier dog she would be bitten. She was bitten anyway, but she shoudn’t have been bitten, and besides- she has got to be justified. She has got to justify her existence to a degree, and what she is saying is, “I never bit that dog.” She doesn’t even remember biting it, and the way she says it eventually (when this piles up and gets the emotion on it) is, “I deserve to be bitten!” It won’t reduce either.

You run and run this incident, and it reads the same on the E-meter. So, you run it 5 or 6 more times and it reads the same on the E-meter. So you say, “What’s the matter with this PC?” There isn’t anything the matter with this PC that an auditor who knows these techniques can’t blow. He should have suspected the first time that he didn’t get good action on the thing, that it was a DED. The person has to deserve it. He deseves it, so therefore he has to have it. “I deserved it,” is the last ditch! It goes like, “I’ve got to have it, and though I offer it to you to be audited, I’m not going to let it reduce, not me. On the one hand it would get me shot, and on the other hand it would make a dog out of me, so you just go to the devil auditor. I will sit here all day, and I will run this all you want, and I’ll even get tearful about it, and I’ll get worse. I’ll show you that that dog really did it to me, and though he probably deserved everything he got - I really deserved everything I got, I must have deserved it.” But she didn’t! She didn’t deserve this thing at all, obviously. It is labeled correctly, a deserved action, and not sarcastically. If she goes around biting dogs in the nose, she certainly deserved to be bitten, according to our standard laws. So, it is a deserved action. She has one waiting for her. She bites the dog in the nose, and when she gets bit she says, “I really deserve that one.” It’s just waiting on the track for the deserved act to happen.

A person will keep these things because they are deserved, and they will raise the most ruckus about having them, “Oh, I suffer so.” Have you ever known a person that “suffered so?” Sometimes I wonder a little bit about all of the suffering I see going on, but since I have come to find out about the DED, I don’t wonder so much anymore. I’m afraid I’m losing my sympathy button. I tried to keep it, it’s valuable. Somebody comes up to me and says, “So an so, and so and so.” I say, “Well, audit it.” I mean that, I don’t sit there and coax them to tell me more, I just say, “Audit it out.” Therefore, if you are auditing a motivator and an overt act in which the motivator is prior to the overt act, it will resolve. You read it on an E-meter, and this is why an E-meter is very valuable, because you can ask for time bops .... “When did this incident occur, that happened to you?” “I’m not sure.” “What is the order of magnitude, was it hundreds of years ago?” No motion. “Thousands?” A little jump. “Twenty thousand?” No motion. “Greater than twenty thousand?” A tiny bop. “Less than twenty thousand?” No bop. Gradually you narrow it down and narrow it down. It happened 22,000 yrs. ago. “When was this other incident?” you say. “ Did you ever use this incident?” “Oh, no.” and Zing goes the meter. “All right, when did you kill this baby?” or whatever it was that happened. Like, “I was a dear little baby, and I was lying on my bed, and one day this big Saracen (an Arab or Moslem at the time of the Crusades) jumped on me and cut my throat.” All right, let’s go to the time you killed a baby.” “Me? Oh no, not me. Oh no, I never killed any baby.” Zong, says the E-meter.

An E-meter is so valuable on this because people won’t tell the truth. This actually is the basic reason for Iying. You get a person that chronically lies, and this is the reason.

The motivator and overt act lines up with the motivator earlier than the overt act - then you audit it as a maybe, but you check on it. When you think you have found the classical situation, you just check on it to this degree; you have the motivator located at 22,000 yrs. ago, and you know that the overt act is 10,000 yrs. ago. So, obviously the motivator is before the overt act, and everthing is in beautiful order. Before you plunge into this be a little more careful about it. Ask if there are earlier motivators. You will usually find one, and then you ask for an earlier one each time, Remember what you used to do when you had somebody travelling on the time track? You asked for an earlier one, and each time you asked he would give you an earlier one, and you would keep on going back. Each one had to be spotted to reveal the one under it.

So, you keep going earlier, “Did this ever happen to you any earlier than this?” You ask for an EARLIER incident, not the earliest. It invalidates him to ask for the earliest, and then the E-meter can’t give you any truths. It’s invalidated the second it bops, because it isn’t the earliest. There was one under it, but this was the only one it could give you at the time. So back we go, and you finally have the earliest time it ever happened to the PC, it’s in the bag. Then you say, “OK, now earlier than this, did you ever do it to anybody?” You will be surprised how many times that needle goes Zong. Otherwise, there you are fighting like mad, trying to audit the classical situation when it is really a DED situation. It’s deserved; this motivator is deserved. There it is, and you will find out that only 8,622 times did he ride into the burning villages and find little kids running down the streets, and he thought it was such fun to cut their heads or legs off with his sword as he went by. Fun.

This is why he has been pleading with you later than that to say, “There I was laying there, and they dropped me on my head,” and “There I was minding my own business in my little crib, and mother ....” There is why every AA on the bank is on the same track - “They stabbed me, they did this to me, they did that to me, I’m in terrible shape ....” That sort of a situation can more or less resolve out of the motivator-overt act situation, but it is a cinch when it comes out of the DED. You find out how many times earlier he did it without it ever having been done to him, and you will find very serious things. Your PC who doesn’t want to get well, that classic example. That statement made by the great minds who have been worrying about minds here on earth, that statement, “That nobody wanted to get well, and people wanted to keep their aberrations.” Take a look at this answer, because this is why. It’s mechanical, a completely mechanical situation. The person saw somebody do something to somebody and thought it was a good idea, or he simply thought it up himself and figured, “This is a swell way to put everybody into apathy.” They hadn’t done anything to him, there are other counter-efforts perhaps, but not on this chain.

He has never had happen to him, whatever this gimmick is that he has thought up. There is no motivator on it. He is mean, ornery, and cantankerous from completely other things. He has a lot of motivators, but not on this subject. So, instead of dramatizing, this person does the incurable and horrible thing of thinking. He thinks. He says, “l’ve got a wonderful idea, I’m going to poison them all.” So he starts dishing the arsenic into the grape juice. He gets away with it for years, for centuries. Pretty soon he has this down to a pat technique. If you have trouble with the rulers of a city, you have them all to a banquet, the girls come in, fill their wine cups (they are your girls) and PRESTO they are all dead. What a wonderful way to solve a situation. Of course, each time it gets a little bit worse for you are getting counter- emotion from these people, and it’s piling up, which isn’t too good. But the situations continue to happen with sufficient magnitude (they are going to get you, so you get them first) that you can justify yourself, and you keep slipping the arsenic to them. Eventually you will start searching around for something that kills them quicker, for you don’t like that slow way they writhe. So, one day quite accidently (in some life your cook feeds you some slightly over-aged fish that gives you a very mild case of ptomaine poisoning). By golly, you just rave about that the rest of that life. For some reason or other you just can’t seem to get it out of your mind!! Do you see the solution there? There is a little tiny DED sitting there. You knew you had it coming. You had really built the odds up, all along the track. You know that sooner or later you are going to get it, and when you do, you say: “I’ve had enough now, it’s perfectly horrible, I’m not to have anymore, do you understand? I’m not to have anymore, do you understand? I’m not to have anymore, I’m sick, and I know that I have killed 8,622 people at one time or another with poison, but this ptomaine is so painful, so horrible, so terrible, it has upset my life to such a degree, it has cost me my ......etc. and that is enough payment.” This is equity, and with this little case of ptomaine he tries to buy off for thousands of years of hellishness. Every time anything else happens, he gets this mild case of ptomaine. Or it stops being ptomaine and he starts having gas, and he reads the Alka Seltzer ads. You get the idea then?

Now, here is this fellow who was a squadron leader of some invader force. They keep jumping onto these planets, and swamping them up, and having a good time with the babes. They just keep this up, and they have a lot of fun. It doesn’t occur to them for a long long time that they are even vaguely like these other beings, that they have anything in common with these beings. After all, they are invader forces, look at their shiny holsters, look at these helmets, look at those sleek ships. And look at the natives, they live in grass shacks, wicky-ups along river banks, they have pow-wows in wierd temples along the marshes, and worship snakes. You walk in, and their priest says, “The great God “KA” will now spit at you and knock your head off if you don’t stay away from us.” You say, “I have more power than your great god KA. I can stand here 50 feet away from your god KA, and strike from him his head The priest doesn’t believe you, so you just pull out your gun and shoot the head off the great god KA, and the priest says, “Allah, at last we greet you.” You say, “Well, let’s get down to business bud, where are the vestal virgins?” This scene by the way, may seem to you to be comedy in the way of space opera, but I am afraid that it has been enacted more times than any of us could count.

You have a good time, life is rich and full of adventure, etc. and you find the tiniest little things to call motivators. The beer is warm; you shoot the tavern keeper. You see, according to you, he is that low on the tone scale and you are that high. The truth of the matter is, there is that disparity, and every time you shoot a tavern keeper you come just a little bit more down the tone scale.

The paths of overt acts certainly raise hell with you eventually, but you can go on for thousands and millions of years shooting tavern keepers, and blowing up towns. “This is the thing to do,” you think. It would just never occur to you to be otherwise. You are aberrated along a certain line. You feel that it is your mission to take over a certain part of the area. You are under orders or something of the sort, and how you conduct these orders is something else. You will do it on a high ethical level, but who are you ethical to? You are ethical only to your comrades in arms. You are in ARC where you are supposed to be in ARC. You wouldn’t think of turning around and killing a crew member, you would go through a lot to help the guy; but those beings down there! You have nothing in common with them. In reality you DID have something in common with them; they emanated when they were hurt, and you got a kick-back every time you fired a pistol. A every time it hurt them, to a tiny extent it hurt you.

You were very silly; you didn’t know Dianetics, and you didn’t run these things out.

So, you came down tone scale until pretty soon the ship crashed or something, and you found yourself living in a wicky-up for a while. You would make it a nice looking wicky-up and rule the area for a while, but pretty soon it would start looking worse and worse, and you would find yourself perfectly content to live in a mud hut. Why? Because you went into ARC with the kind of people you hurt. One day one of them did something to you, and it makes you so sad. Oh, that they would do a thing like this to you, and it is so painful, etc. Maybe there had been a bunch of slingers out, and while hunting for rabbits one, of them hit you on the head and gave you a slight skull concussion, and boy - they never heard the last of that. Of course, earlier than this the heads of umpteen dozen vestal virgins had been blown off with wild abandon. But you are not going to pay for that; you want to pay for the whole package with one bang on the skull, and you say: “This is terrible, this is horrible, but I really deserved it.” An auditor will be amazed sometimes at the lilly white acts that are called motivators. This fellow will say, “I am in horrible shape. You know I have to be awfully careful about the things I eat; I have to eat special food; I have to be careful not to sleep in a draft, but worst of all is this pain I have in my ear. My mother used to grab me by the ear and swing me around.” Let’s find the numbers of times he bit the ears off things before his mother did that.