

MELBOURNE CONGRESS - PART 3 OF 8



THE ROUTE THROUGH STEP SIX

A lecture given on 7 November 1959

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

I heard astonishingly from the seminar leaders that there were
some people present that didn't know what a HASI was and didn't
know what an HCO was, and so forth. And astonishing as this may
seem, I thought I'd better tell you.

Of course, a HASI is the Hubbard Association of Scientologists
International that has offices on every continent and has its
central office for Australia at 157 Spring Street, Melbourne, and
is the Central Organization for Australia. And that's always
familiarly referred to as the HASI. It's the Central Organization
-- it's the service organization. It does the training, the
processing. It handles certification. It does all sorts of odds
and ends and bits and pieces.

And HCO is Hubbard Communications Office. And that's a
spontaneous combustion, that's HCO, that's -- HCOs spring up;
they occur. And it's very, very interesting.

You see, where we stay in agreement with legal we always get into
some kind -- by which I mean, corporate law and all this sort of
thing. We're all very careful in that field and we always try to
stay in it, but things happen that don't necessarily agree with
the laws of states.

Now, a corporation is something that is supposed to be formed by
a number of individuals, preferably pompous and ponderous, who
get together and decide and invest some money, and hold meetings.
You see, that's how they happen. Well, that's never how anything
has happened in Dianetics and Scientology. There's been a
spontaneous frogation of some sort, and boom!

And there's an area of interest, we have to do something about
it, it busily organizes itself in some way -- we try to help the
thing out, and the next thing you know, why, there's this
corporation sitting over there, and we say, "Well, let's see,
we'd better go to the registrar of companies and tell them." And
we always do! We are very, very kind and benign people. We don't
pick on these poor little governments.

But HCO is a particularly wonderful manifestation of this. I'm
liable to wake up any day of a given year and find we have a new
HCO office somewhere.

Now, what happens is a Central Organization or an area of an
enfranchised area organization gets so much traffic, so much is
happening, things start to get so random and they go so far out
of communication that their method of getting into communication
is to take the brightest girl they've got and tell her she's the
HCO Secretary and then they tell the Continental Office that
there's an HCO Secretary over here and then they tell me,
wherever I am, and then I write her a letter and tell her she's
an HCO Secretary. And then she handles the problems of ethics,
technology and awards.

In other words, if somebody's -- somebody hasn't been doing the
public right, but has just been "doing" the public or something
like that, that's the business of the HCO Secretary.

And then there's the problem of technology: What is now currently
allowed in terms of research? What is allowed in the way of
standard processes? And which processes have been found to be
best and how should they be run and who can run them and that
sort of thing. She answers those problems.

And she gets routine issues of bulletins and so forth, material
and so on, that I write, and makes sure they go out.

And then on awards, people who have certificates -- if they can
have a certificate, if they pass their examination, if they are
qualified, all that sort of thing, that's all up to the HCO
Secretary.

She's actually some pumpkins. Therefore they try to efface
themselves and the public seldom hears much about HCO. HCO has as
its general purpose the wearing of the hats that I personally
wear and they wear them for me here and there. And HCO today is
just scattered all over this planet! It's -- it's actually a
tremendously effective, very small, very numerous-officed
organization. And of course, I'm very proud of these girls. They
do a terrific job!

And where you have things straight in an area or where things are
straightened out or where problems are being handled one way or
the other, why, if those problems have to do with ethics,
technology and awards and so forth, why, they're handled by HCO.

But, of course, the HASI is very, very, very important. The HASI
is the Central Organization. And if anything's going to get done
the doingness is done by the HASI and so on.

Now, I wanted to keep this down to an elementary simplicity so
that those people who were brought by trained auditors -- but my
worst nature won.

And I'm going to give you a lecture now, with your permission,
that has to do with an explanation of social behavior, conduct,
government conduct, other things, that is the package explanation
of why things happen the way they happen, and also what happens
in cases.

And I talked to you about Step 6, and this has something to do
with the route around Step 6 and why Step 6 got deadly on some
people. Would you like to hear about that?

Audience: Yes.

All right. I'll just sail out into the blue, and those that don't
know all the basic basics, and -- or their own basic-basic --
keep up with me as you can. I think you will find this much more
comprehensible than you think.

But let us start right out in full stride and call your attention
to the cycle of action. Now, everyone knows there is a cycle of
action and everyone knows that this is part and parcel of
Scientology and it occurs in the book Fundamentals of Thought.
And a cycle of action is a very important part of the basic
mechanics of Scientology.

But that there was this much still to be known about the cycle of
action makes me ashamed of myself. And should -- you should be
ashamed of yourself for never having noticed it. But, as usual, I
have to notice these things. It's the little cross I bear.

Now, the cycle of action, as you will find in Fundamentals of
Thought, has to do with state of existence plotted against time
for any given form or object.

Now, there you are sitting in a chair. Or what is in that chair?
All right, what's in the chair?

Audience: A body.

A body, all right. Now, the body follows this cycle of action.
The body follows this cycle of action. Now, what sort of an
environment do you have? What are your surroundings right here?
Look around. Take a look.

What's there?

Audience: A room.

All right. Those forms follow the cycle of action. Now, who are
you? Go on, who are you?

Audience: A thetan.

Yeah. Well, you're about the only thing around that wouldn't
follow the cycle of action but you sometimes think you do! A
thetan doesn't follow the cycle of action. He observes the cycle
of action.

So, we've got a body and we've got a room, and the forms of the
body and the room follow this cycle of action. And that's very
simple here. I'll just draw a picture of it, a big picture, and
then we'll go on with it.

Now, that's all there is to it. This is plotted against time --
create, survive, destroy. And that is the lot of any form at this
time in the physical universe. It is created, it survives and is
then destroyed. That is the cycle of action.

Now, the first time this was ever noticed was in one of the
unwritten Vedic hymns, Lord knows how long ago. I've forgotten
when I did write it. Let's see? But it runs like this. They don't
have this clean, clear-cut cycle of action. It got a little bit
muddied up and complicated.

It's "Out of the infinite nothingness there arrived a form which
in various aggressions and recessions proceeded on through the
infinity unto the time it declined, degraded and disappeared."

Well, it's written in various ways, some of them much more
colorful than that. But the truth of the matter is something got
created and that which is created survives and is then destroyed.
That's the simplicity of it.

But let us examine this cycle of action as it is examined in
Fundamentals of Thought and we'll find out something very
interesting. Creation to persist, as in survival, has to be
continuously created. So it's create (that was the beginning) and
then you get create-create-create-create-create, see, continuous
creation. We get the persistence of something if it's
continuously created, and then one of two things would happen: It
would either be continuously created or not created at all and
you'd get absolute destruction. But if the continuous creation
changed while it was being continuously created -- you created
something on it to change its form or alter it or vary it in some
way -- you would get the destruction of the original form. You
get the idea?

There is no such thing as an absolute destruction except ceasing
to create. And this -- this is one of the most fundamental
fundamentals of this universe. And these particular discoveries
and so forth take nuclear physicists and leave them with terrible
headaches because they're more simple and more fundamental than
nuclear physics, because it gives you the character of matter.

And you can go off into complications that have gimmicks and
ruddy rods and quantum mechanics and everything else all piled on
top of this thing, gah-woof!

What is still being created that everything else is creating an
alteration of? Well, that is the fundamental building block of
the universe. It's that thing which is still being created that a
great many alter-isnesses have been created about.

Right now you almost never see a pure cycle of action. A pure
cycle of action would simply be this: A fellow creates something,
then he continues to create this thing so that it looks like it's
persisting, you see, and then ceases to create it at which moment
it disappears. Now, that would be a knowing, meaning, clear-cut
cycle of action. That would be in its simplest form, and that's
the only kind of real destruction there would be. You'd just
cease to create somebody and that would be destruction in an
absolute nature.

Now, where -- where do we go astray on destruction and how do
things get so mishmashed and why is everybody so puzzled about it
all? Well, it's just that most destruction is not cessation of
creation. It's an additional creation on top of the object which
is being destroyed. We have a form and we put some dynamite in it
and it goes boom! And we say, "Well, we destroyed that!" Oh, did
we? What are all those fragments lying all over the place?

So, destruction is actually basically an alter-isness. What
people call destruction is an alter-isness. It's never the
cessation of anything. So if you wonder if somebody gets in
trouble if he goes around destroying things -- well, the more he
destroys, the more he doesn't get rid of, because he's got the
bits and pieces left forever lying all over the place because he
still must be creating whatever he tried to destroy.

See, he's -- take a vase, a potter makes a vase and then he
continues to make the vase in order to have a solid form, and you
have to help him make the vase continuously, and it survives and
it gets over, and everybody decides to destroy this vase. So they
break it up. Now, of course, they've got fragments of a vase left
there till the end of time because somebody's still creating a
vase! Otherwise you couldn't break it up. You can't break up that
which isn't being created. It's as stupidly simple as this.

So, two nations go to war and the United States and the Allies
are going to end Japan! Going to finish off the Japanese empire
and so forth. They're going to go to war.

Well, it's a good thing they did. But they -- in destroying it,
they made its bits and pieces persist till you hear President
Eisenhower recently saying that the United States couldn't do
such and such a thing because it would lose face. And it was a
good thing they went to war with Germany because the Germans were
all out on a -- various line. But what do we find now? We find in
the American Army relics of German habits, equipments and names
and titles and things the like of which you never heard of.
They're scattered all over the US Army.

In the First World War the conquest of Germany wound up with
American soldiers wearing, not quite, a German helmet. Did you
ever notice that? In the Second World War they wound up with
their panzer divisions and all kinds of subdivisions and battle
tactics and names and nomenclature and so forth. And you look
over the US Army rule book and you wondered, "Who won?"

You see, they never destroyed Germany. AH they did was alter-is
it. They didn't just cease to create Hitler; they alter-ised all
of Hitler's works. So, of course, basically they're persisting.
And now people are going mad over in

Germany trying to uneducate the Hitler Youth. You ask -- in a
German schoolroom, you ask the boys, "Well, now, what do you
think of Adolf Hitler?"

"Well, he's probably a misguided man in that he was a zealot, and
he made some beautiful autobahns, and he got the German race
better known throughout the world and he purified the blood of
the Aryan people." And they say, "No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no.
What you're supposed to say is, 'Hitler was a dog and a villain
and never should have existed!"' And they say, "Yes, we know
we're supposed to say that."

Very recently a couple of German girls appeared over in London
and were hired organizationally. They were Hitler Youth. Straight
-- straight out of it. They were talking about some people had
pure Aryan blood and some people didn't and -- and so forth.

The very violence which was pressed up against that mocked-up
culture is making that culture persist in some fashion. Even
though it has been conquered, it is still alive. They didn't
cease to create it, in other words, they alter-ised it. And so
you get very few pure cycles of action.

Nowadays with the embalmer's art being what it is -- and by the
way, the medical examiner of the city of New York explained to me
one day, he said, "Well, the Egyptian, well, he might have
thought he knew a thing or two. He, you know, buried a lot of
mummies in tombs and preserved them. But," he says, "as far as
the embalmer's art is concerned," he says, "we in modern times do
a much better job." He says, "Our corpses," he said, "be dug up
10,000 years from now," he said, "they'd be just as good as the
day they were buried." Well, you certainly can't get a very pure
cycle of action while an embalmer's around.

A person's born -- a person is born, a person survives and
something destroys him. That's generally the way this is thought
of. And the destroyed body, you see, is put in a coffin and
filled full of formaldehyde and taped up and painted properly,
and the coffin is put inside of a concrete vault, and then they
bury that in the ground where the seepage won't get to it and it
never does finish its cycle of action, you see, for an awful long
time. And the cycle of action keeps on going.

This bothers thetans! If you look on the backtrack you'll very
often find, though, that what really upsets them is not being up
-- it doesn't upset them to be buried. It upsets them to be left
around unburied.

If I were really wanting -- wanted to get even with somebody, I
would say, "Well, you know, I'm going to wait until you're dead
and then I'm going to dig up your body. I'm going to take it up
on a high hill and expose it to the wind and weather, you see.
And after it's gone along for a while and is kind of weathered
away, I'm going to take the skull and sell it to a carnival with
the jaws so fixed as to flap, you see, and with some sort of a
speaker unit in back of it that will tell the people some kind of
a story. That's what I'm going to do with your skull." Might not
be real to them, but they wouldn't realize that their nightmares
after that had something to do with what I'd told them, because
they're very afraid of just that thing happening.

If they could get an absolute destruction of the body, they'd be
all right, but you can -- oh, every once in a while you pick up
somebody in processing, you find out that he's still been ... A
girl in London -- picked her up, ran it back to a time 1,500
years ago and body, murdered. The Greeks didn't like bodies that
had been murdered. And the body had just been thrown into a grove
and neglected and just deteriorated gradually. And you know,
still part of her consciousness was still there. It wasn't so
much of an engram. Part of her was stuck in a grove in Greece,
right now in present time, see? And that was why she always kind
of felt a little bit absent and not quite here. It wasn't that
she was on the backtrack, it was that she was in a grove in
Greece still hanging around because of evidently a couple of
particles left of this body or something. Couldn't quite make out
why.

But there's persistence, you see, still continuing to mock up
something that wasn't there, still trying to make something
survive that has been destroyed pins the person down to the area.

You see how this would work? The person is -- says, "I don't want
to lose this body. I don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose
it. Don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose it. Don't want to
lose it." And head goes off, you know, and it gets cut in two and
the person says, "I don't want to lose it. Don't want to lose
it." And boy, he's pinned down still protecting -- finally he's
protecting an idea.

And there are people here right this moment that have some kind
of a mass stuck around here someplace, you know. They're
conscious of it occasionally and they're still protecting the
mass energy idea of a body they once had. See, it is still being
created, and it hasn't been destroyed at all because there's
something left of it.

So, absolute destruction is something we see very little of in
this universe.

Now, in Dianetics, the dynamic principle of existence, as agreed
upon by all animals and so forth and beings, was said to be
survive. And we know just a little bit more than that. That was
observable, and you'll find that in Book One, Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health.

In Scientology we've advanced this just a little further and we
know the dynamic principle of existence in Scientology broadens
out to create. The dynamic principle of existence is creating.
The action of creation is the dynamic principle of existence.

Now, don't please, run this back off into Sigmund Freud. What's
the idea of bringing him in? I know he talked about the second
dynamic and sex, and it was all sex and if anybody ate a bad
dinner and it disagreed with him, well, that was sex. And if you
didn't like spaghetti and if you rode horses it was all sex. And
if you got fired, well, that was sex. Confidentially, it's been
my opinion for a long time that he sort of had it on the brain.

No, create means a great deal more than that. Actually, the
second dynamic is simply a body manifestation of sex. Let's see
how far just create goes. Well, it goes into the fact that if
you've got a job you'll continue to have a job. In other words,
your job will survive so long as you create the job. So if you
have somebody -- there's a job called governor general of the
Mishmash Tool Company, see. And that's a tremendous position, you
see. It's been occupied by great men. Has a tremendous salary. We
take this little fellow down here and we say, "You're now
appointed governor general of the Mishmash Tool Company." He goes
in ... He hasn't got a prayer of creating that job, has he? The
job is so much bigger than he is! See, the job's big and he's
little and he couldn't create the job -- well, boy, he doesn't
survive very long or the Mishmash Tool Company doesn't survive
very long either.

And politically, every time you elect to office a man that's
smaller than the job, the job doesn't get created and the
government doesn't function! And that goes right on -- right on
down to janitors. If a guy cannot or is not willing to create the
job of janitor he will never do any janitoring. He'll do
everything else.

You come in, find the water pipes all busted and the furnace all
rinsed and everything going wrong and the roof off. That's what
he's been doing. He hasn't been doing janitoring, because he
wouldn't create the job of janitor.

I don't care whether the post is some tremendously high post or
some very, very low one, one has to continue to create his job!
It isn't something that goes on forever automatically because as
soon as it slides over to going on forever, it slides right on
down the curve and goes into destruction.

He's creating it less and less and then he decides he doesn't
like it, so he'll alter-is it in some fashion in order to destroy
his former beingness. Well, he's still being the same beingness
and alter-ising the same beingness at the same time he's being
it. And he hasn't been -- he hasn't been an executioner for 1,500
years, he hasn't been one. Obviously that cycle of existence
disappeared -- altered it. All the overts on it have all
disappeared. There's nothing left of his life as an executioner
except he can't stand ties! So, there'd be right ways to end
things and wrong ways.

And the right way to end things is simply to cease to create
them. Ah, but to cease to create anything you have to realize
that you were responsible for creating it in the first place.

Now, let's take a reactive bank; there it is. And the person
says, "I don't create it. It's totally other-determined. It just
seems like every time I think of spaghetti I get hit in the face.
And I have nothing to do with it whatsoever."

Well, the reason why he gets hit in the face every time he thinks
of spaghetti -- he gets a somatic, you know, every time he thinks
of spaghetti or something -- some other ridiculous thing like he
hears a typewriter running and gets a cold. Whenever he smells
gas fumes he gets a pain in his hip -- never manages to connect
the two at all. If his wife looks at him crossly, why, he knows
she has put poison in the soup. All of these things that are
absolute knowns he seldom connects up with any other factor. And
seldom even recognizes them.

But not one of these things would he own up to creating! He'd
say, "Wen, that's something I'd never create. Nope. The one thing
I would never do -- would create a wife who would put ground
glass in the soup." And, of course, as soon as he said that he'd
never create a wife that would put ground glass in the soup, if
he has engrams on the subject of the wife putting ground glass in
the soup, then hell always be suspicious of women putting ground
glass in soup!

And it'll go much further than that. His alter-is will start to
get into a scale of substitutes. Any soup might have ground glass
in it. Food has ground glass in it. When you pick up tablecloths
you get ground glass in your fingers. All whitish powder is
ground glass really. (We get a new scientific discovery by some
sane scientist.) Whenever he looks at a white wall (which is the
same as a white tablecloth), he gets a funny feeling in his mouth
as though the skin's raw. See? Alter-is, alter-is, alter-is,
substitute, substitute, substitute.

And what have we got? We've got destroy -- alter-isness and
you're not getting destruction at all. You're just getting
persistence, persistence, persistence. He is unconsciously and
unknowingly continuing to create the thing that kills him. And we
get what's wrong with the reactive bank. And people just will not
create certain things. They won't! They won't! They won't And
that's it. Zrupp! And whatever a person absolutely refuses to
create, if it has ever cut his throat, will then continue to cut
his throat.

People who are alter-ising continuously, changing something, not
just ceasing to create it -- see, the wife says, "I'm not guilty
in this marriage. I'm not the one who's doing any nagging. I've
always been sweet and good. And at night when he's come home
there I've been tired and worn out, and I've been sweet and good
and gotten his dinner and done everything for him and never done
a single thing and encouraged him along the way the whole time."
And the more she thinks like that, you know, the worse her
stomach gets and her back and so on -- "And I've been sweet and
good and I've never done anything but be a good wife."

And of course this isn't his viewpoint at all. He said, "I have
been a model husband. I've been a model husband. Here I come
home, worked hard all day, sweated my fingers to the bone, just
taking it from every corner, just to earn the bread of the
family. Here I come home, tired, exhausted, just for a little
kind word, something of the sort. And what do I get? Yak, yak,
yak, yak, yak!"

Well, to listen to the two. of them, you'll finally form the
opinion that life was never like that either way. If there's any
trouble between them it's because neither one of them is taking
responsibility for creating the existing situation. But somebody
must be creating the existing situation! And there are only two
people present!

Now, it's all very well to invent devils and gods and say, "They
came along and came in through the bay window and got it in for
you because you were blasphemous or didn't put ice cream in the
collection plate or something."

I'm sorry if I've stepped on anybody's Christian principles. If
there are any Christian principles present I honor them. I honor
them deeply -- if they're Christian principles.

But who's responsible for the situation? And you hear these two
people talking and this one says that that one's responsible, and
this one says that one's responsible. And both of them insist on
other-determinism.

This one says, "You are creating the whole situation." And this
one says, "You are creating the whole situation." Neither one of
them will admit to creating any part of the situation. And what
do we get? The situation exists! And if neither one of them
admits to having created it, we get destruction. It just slips --
just like that!

And we get what you might call -- and we could go into this much
more technically and at length. Well, we get what you might call
carelessly a slip on the cycle of action. The less responsibility
there is for creating what is created, the more rapidly the cycle
of action goes from create to destroy. Very -- it's very simple.

But it'll slip so fast that if you find what anybody is trying to
waste or destroy, you will find the thing he won't create.

This person says, "Well, I just can't stand insects. Insects,
they are just terrible. Everywhere insects, insects. And I just
can't stand insects. They just drive me mad! Swoosh-swoosh-
swoosh, swoosh-swoosh-swoosh. Swat. Swat. Kill the insects! Kill
them off, you know! Kill them off! Kill the insects. Kill the
insects. Kill the insects," and so forth.

Now, oddly enough, if you ask this person as a preclear, you
said, "Now mock up an insect," you'd get a dead insect. It just
goes phhsst. "Mock up an insect." Phhsst. And you get a destroyed
insect.

In other words, he can't mock up an insect. He's got to mock up
an insect plus an alter-is. He gets a slip. When he tries to
create it he gets destruction. Got the idea?

So, you'll find anything that a person is trying to destroy one
way or the other -- you ask them to create it, they get the
destruction of it. Very simple.

Sounds incredible. But the living truth of the matter is there
are other phenomena connected with this, but there are people
around that always get destruction on anything they try to
create. That's right. You ask them to create anything and they'll
get it in a destroyed form. Anything created becomes a destroyed
form, just like that -- bang!

In other words, you say, "Now create a pretty girl" to this
person, and this person gets a dead girl eaten up with maggots.
Just like that -- bang! -- automaticity.

You say, "Create a little child." Bang! Under the car wheels, you
see, dead.

Now when that gets too bad, they just never get pictures at all;
it's just all destroyed. They never really create anything but
the destroyed faction of it, therefore they think of nothing but
the destruction when they start to create something. You got the
idea? It's just an automatic slip.

You say, "Create," they say, "Destroy." Just like that -- bing!

This is so much the case that an artist takes his life in his
hands practically when he goes into the public with art. Critics
are people with this slip. There are people who can write and
there are critics. There are people that can paint and there are
critics.

Now, if you were to ask a critic who was a professional critic to
paint a picture, the high probability is he would simply tell
you, "Destroy, destroy, destroy, destroy." Just the thought of
painting a picture causes him to think of destroying a picture.
Well, he wouldn't be able to do that because, you see, the colors
wouldn't come out right and it'd all be streaked with this and
that. But the thought of anybody else creating anything drives
him mad! So, he's got to be a critic.

"Well, there was an exhibit today down at the town hall of some
paintings. We don't know why our city fathers permit such things
to be displayed. Compared to Rubens -- ha!" You know, chop-chop-
chop.

And some of them are overtly destructive and some of them are
covertly destructive and so forth, but these are people with a
slip. And the poor artist, you see, who can create a picture runs
into people who instantly skid on the cycle of action at the
thought of a picture having been created! So the fact that he's
painted a picture touches the button which makes them have to
destroy the picture, and if he continues to paint pictures,
obviously they have to destroy him.

You get then, in an aberrated world, any overtly creative action
being met in many quarters by destruction! It's just one-two. And
these two things come together so that we get the interplay of
people whereas one person starts to create, another person's got
to destroy it. Or two people start creating something and then
destroy each other. Or those things which are created have to be
destroyed. Or people who insist on creating in spite of the fact
that everybody's going to destroy them -- We get all sorts of
variation,; and we get

an interplay between these two things and we get the
interweavings of life. And if you think it over for a little
while -- look it over, I think you will find that most of the
violent reactions, most of the inexplicable reactions which you
have observed in the past had something to do with the
destruction of a creation.

The belief that something has been created is enough for some
people to insist that it must be destroyed so that you get -- a
whole society of some kind or another will do an incredible
thing. They've been formed to help epileptic children, let's say.
You come along and you say, "Well, all right, we're going to help
epileptic children. We could do something for epilepsy." They
immediately say, "Shoot him!" And then the next thing you know
they say, "Anybody who says he can do anything for epileptic
children is a quack. This society was formed to help epileptic
children. There is no cure for epilepsy."

This goes into an additional stage. The Society for the
Prevention of Epilepsy and the Help of Epileptic Children becomes
the Society for the Punishment and Vivisection of Epileptic
Children. They destroy, then.

So, your mental health societies, they -- they just think of
doing something for mental health or about mental health, in
other words, creating a better situation, and they instantly
start killing people who need mental help. Just automatic
reaction. Say -- they think, "Well, I think I will help all these
poor insane..."

"Kill them!" See? It just goes just like that.

If people say, "Well, I will certainly help the people if I am
put in charge of its government. What we will do is create a
fine, good and noble government where everybody will be happy!"
So, everybody puts this fellow in charge. And he takes the
various departments of the government and cuts them to pieces and
changes them all over and stands people up against the wall and
shoots them down with machine guns and so forth. Well, that would
just be a very aberrated choice.

Hitler was making great promises for the German people and how he
was going to help the German Reich, and where's the German Reich
today.? Hasn't been heard of for some time, except in its guise
in the American Army. In other words, this man was so unbalanced
that trying to create a good German state made him destroy the
German state. Do you follow that?

Now, we must be pretty good people in Scientology because almost
never do we have very flagrant examples of this. In
psychoanalysis, old-time nineteenth-century practices,
psychiatry, all these old-hat sort of things, they're legion --
the examples -- that they -- a practitioner starts to help
somebody and instantly kills him.

Now, you think once in a blue moon that this is what the
auditor's doing to you. But, I have great faith in auditors in
Scientology and I have found everywhere I have looked that
whatever an auditor was doing, even though it looked a little bit
miscolored or something of the sort, he was earnestly, honestly
and sincerely trying to help the preclear.

I've followed an awful lot of squawks and beefs and yaps, to be
very colloquial, down of auditors' misconduct and all this sort
of thing, and amongst trained Scientologists they just didn't
have any real basis in fact at all. The fact that somebody was
trying to create a new state of beingness for the person made
that aberrated person want to destroy the practitioner.

This is the automaticity which one runs into when he takes a very
aberrated person, tries to do anything for him. Then all that
person can do is cut him to ribbons! This is typically a
psychotic reaction. You try to help a psychotic, oh boy, wow!
They're all over you, they're tearing you to bits. And if they
can't get at you physically, they'll get at your reputation, try
anything they can think of to cut you to ribbons. Why? Your total
crime was you tried to create a better state of beingness for
them.

So, until you can hand out processing institutionally, where an
institution is taking care of the psychotic, and where he can't
tear everything up just because you're trying to help him -- see,
because he does an automatic slip. The fact that you're trying to
make him survive causes him to destroy. That's the most horrible
crime you can pull on a psychotic is try to make them survive!
And you just go "survive" to a psychotic and he goes "destroy"
instantly -- bing! bing! It isn't even create-destroy, it's
survive-destroy.

He knows what survival is; it's lying down on railroad tracks
being run over by trains. That's -- that's survival.

And until you can put a psychotic in an institution where you've
got -- got padded cells and attendants and they can't hurt the
practitioner and they can't hurt each other and they can't hurt
themselves and so forth -- can't do anything for them. Because
the violence of this skid is so great that they're just left out
in the society. Trying to do something for them causes them to
practically explode in everybody's face! And of course, you're
not going to have control of institutions as long as you have
nothing but avowed killers in institutions running them. I don't
mean to use a strong expression and say everybody in charge of
all the institutions for psychotics in the world are murderers
and killers and bums and so forth. I'll shorten it and merely say
they're psychiatrists.

But Scientology can do as much as it has facilities for in that
direction because of this phenomenon.

But where you see people trying to do something for people and
you see that effort going wrong, look it over and I think you'll
see clearly what you're looking at. I think you'll see that this
fits, that you can see this explanation in action.

Somebody's trying to help somebody and this other person is
trying to do this. And you see somebody trying to get along and
create a job and you see other people in the organization, very
low-scale people, something like that, cutting this person to
pieces. Oh, they're a terrible person, and so forth, and this
person is really the person trying to do a job.

You'll see this -- instances of this all the time. And as you
look at these instances, it gives you an opportunity to evaluate
conduct against sanity. In other words, there are sane actions
and there are insane actions. And you can evaluate the value of
this on the basis of how fast the person skids between create and
destroy. The fact that anybody's trying to create anything, does
that make this person try to destroy that thing.?

You look this over. And I don't ask you to assimilate it all
srrp, and I certainly don't ask you to buy it 100 percent, but
just look it over as an automatic reaction that some people are
so close to this destroy...

You get, by the way -- your Tone Scale goes down and your cycle
of action follows the Tone Scale down. As you get low on the Tone
Scale you get more and more destructive reaction toward creation
until you get no reaction at all.

And you look over the general behavior of man, and I invite you
to inspect these principles of creation and -- versus destruction
as the reactions of different personalities toward different
subjects.

All of us are agreed that certain things need to be destroyed.
There should be certain things destroyed. Well, we also know how
to destroy them and that's to cease to create them. In some
fashion we'll get whoever is creating them and whoever's helping
create them to cease to create them and they'll be destroyed.

Also we can understand what's going on amongst men to the degree
that creative efforts or helpful efforts and so forth are met
with destruction. And I just ask you to apply the cycle of action
and see if it works and if it isn't a useful yardstick to you in
understanding men.

Well, this is the last lecture of this afternoon, and I will see
you again at one o'clock tomorrow.

And you have been very pleasant and I am very glad to be here.
And thank you for having me.

[End of Lecture]
