Home

falling off bike

By Bernie Wimbush

Motivator (definition): 1. An aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. It is called a motivator because it tends to prompt that one pays it back – it motivates a new overt. 2. Something which the person feels has been done to him, which he is not willing to have happen. 3. An act received by the person

The overt-motivator sequence was always an area of concern for me. I remember when Ethics was first released and my overzealous senior put me in a condition of ‘Doubt’. I was banned from the org until I had completed the formula. It took a few submissions before I satisfied his demands. I had been awarded this condition because I had failed to achieve an impossible target he had set.

I was most upset. Here I was working for nothing trying to forward the cause and I was being punished.

Someone suggested that I must have done something pretty bad in my past to ‘pull that in’.

That’s karma they suggested.

Many times I tried to find this overt that would explain it all — but there seemed to be nothing.

The Christian belief system is riddled with punishment for overts and transgressions, and I see that imported into Scientology.

Karma belongs to Hinduism.

“If you’re naughty, Father Xmas won’t come”, is a fairytale promoted by parents to control over-excited children.

And the tooth fairy not coming is a laugh.

The term ‘pulled it in’ seems to have been used for decades by those who don’t understand what the overt-motivator sequence actually is.

Yes, an overt is “an aggressive or destructive ACT by the individual against one or another of the 8 dynamics (self, family, group, Mankind, animals or plants, MEST, Life or the Infinite)”.

Yes, a motivator is “an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics”.

But to be clear – LRH does not state anywhere that every bad thing that happens to a person is a “motivator”, or that it has to be proceeded by an overt committed by that individual. If something bad or destructive happens to an individual, it is not always proceeded by an overt by that person.

Someone had to throw the first stone.

Native Indians were slaughtered and poisoned…  did they have prior overts against the white man?

Natural disasters occur that wipe out whole villages, towns and cities…. do those only occur because thousands of people had committed overts and ‘pulled it in’?

Of course not. It is an absurdity.

If you look up the lectures and bulletins where LRH talks about the overt-motivator sequence, you will find that the motivator is what the person BELIEVES to have occurred, that then justifies a committing of another overt. And that stands to reason. The very first overt committed had to be committed against some poor innocent soul. “Even though it hasn’t occurred, human beings on a low reactive basis will insist that it has occurred. And that is the overt-motivator sequence”. LRH Lecture The Things of Scientology, 31 Dec 1960.

LRH also states “One doesn’t have to be crazy to be subject to the Overt-Motivator sequence. It is not only used on him continually by others, it is also a basic part of his own “case”.

Pulled it in? Rubbish! That is a pure justification.

It is unfortunately a term used to introvert and control another person — having nothing to do with the actual application of the overt-motivator sequence to assist a person case-wise, or technically. The roots of the overt-motivator sequence go back to Dianetics and the auditing of engrams. It is a fascinating subject and truly does help a being to move up out of engrams or secondaries they are/were stuck in. It is something worth knowing well, as an auditor.

But it should not be used to make another wrong for something they did not do. I have even heard of a Scientologist telling another Scientology couple that they “pulled it in’ when they gave birth to a child with a severe disability. Say what???

And a person receiving an (unjust) SP declare is another that we commonly see these days. No — that was not ‘pulled in’.

That wrong condition was caused by my senior trying to get done what couldn’t be done and was borne out of his frustration. It was an overt none the less and no doubt justified by ‘the greatest good’ (which it was not).

If my senior had sat down with me and we had both worked on the problem, no doubt we could have found a way, rather than have me searching for the withhold of nothingness and being alienated from a irrational senior.

 

 

49 thoughts on “You ‘pulled it in’

  1. When I was working at the Int base, the term “pulled it in” was one I heard regularly.
    If a person was removed from post — he pulled it in.
    If a person was badly injured – he pulled it in.
    If a person got cancer — she pulled it in.
    If a person was off-loaded from the base — they pulled it in.
    There was no regard to the circumstances, the justice (or injustice) of the circumstance, the PTSness, or any other situation.

    It was, from a group perspective, a way of not caring for, not helping, and not giving needed assistance to a person. It was black and white. If a person was in the shit, for whatever reason — they ‘pulled it in’. And on the heels of this came the introversion demands for overts, withholds and crimes that would explain why this was occurring (particularly for those that ended up in the Hole, but also for many many others).

    A person in trouble (any of the above, or more), was generally treated with “no sympathy”, which was accompanied by a dropping of ARC with the person, and often cutting the comm line or shunning the person entirely. In a place that was in a tone level of fear, the group would avoid anyone who was not “in good” with the powers that be.

    I found it completely entheta, on all flows. I experienced it personally, I watched it happen to others, and I, along with the others in the group, participated in the same. But it made no sense to me, and seemed completely at odds with the basic philosophy and technology of LRH.

    Which it is.

    It took me getting away from that location and the continual suppression, to get exterior to the whole thing and spot what was occurring. And to start to see how off the rails the whole situation was.

    Since being out I have met people who have experienced the same treatment, but at lower levels of the org board, in local orgs, in missions, and as parishioners. Some the stories I have heard about people being accused of “pulling it in” are horrid.

    If you were in a session, and running motivators, you would not hear an auditor state — “You pulled it in — now what did YOU do”. Of course not. The auditor would follow the process and take it to full EP on all flows, to a floating needle and cognition and VGIs.

    Pity the C of S does not practice the same….

    • Lana,

      Funny thing as in *ironic*. The list of Famous Justifications lists “He was dragging it in” as a justification.

      He or she “pulled it in” is just a variation of the same theme that is used to justify hash ethics and general injustice.

      Though I will say it is not limited to Scientology but is used by the “Defense” (an Orwellian name if there ever was one) Department every time they whack some poor civilians who happen to be in the company “known terrorist” with a hell fire missile.

      That or “collateral damage” or whatever they use to justify killing non combatants these days.

      But anyway the consensus is that they dragged or pulled it in because they happened to be near a terrorist or live under a regime the US Government doesn’t approve of.

      Anyway back to Scientology. I remember this “philosophy” in play when the FBI raided the entire Complex going beyond the limits set by their own warrant which was basically to search the GO offices then later when the CMOI raided the GO offices using similar tactics as the FBI in both cases based on a totally rogue operation that few GO members even knew about. Then after that when they labeled the entire GO a bunch of crims and abolished them and replaced them with the even more criminal OSA.

      It is just another dramatization of the bank that is used inside and outside of Scientology basically as a control mechanism and when applied to an individual causes them to *introvert* on what they must have done to “pull this in” when in fact it could be as simple as being in the wrong place at the wrong time which is similar to the old Hindu philosophy of “Karma” or the old Christian idea that one is paying for one’s sins etc.

      True confessionals and giving off one’s overts has value. I mean its probably why the RC Church has been so successful but it is no end all and be all that many in the Church these days think it is.

      Not only that. Is the fact that like any mental or spiritual technology it can be perverted to give suppressive individuals the upper hand.

      Take Miscavige(not because he is doing this all by himself but because he is the most obvious SP) please!

      You could probably run a Joburg on him and not find a single overt.

      (He probably wouldn’t F/N either and probably would R/S several times especially on questions related to Mary Sue and Ron which is probably why he avoids being audited like the plague.)

      Just as you wouldn’t find one on Dillinger, Pol Pot, Hitler, Gacy, Manson or any other famous criminal.

      Unfortunately it seems that the only people that this mechanism works on is people of good intention. Who can examine themselves and their past actions. Just as Ron says in the PL on the Anti Social Personality.

  2. It has always seemed completely wrong-headed to me that SO members tended to receive the short end of the stick when it comes to Standard Tech as compared to public. It should be the other way around because most of them (at least when starting out) work very hard and for a very high purpose.
    The negative things I have witnessed SO members perpetrate upon other SO members has ranged from simply mean to outright suppressive. I have seen a SO member’s PC folder “edited” because it “contained sensitive information”. (Whatever was meant by THAT!) The SO is a trap because these days if a staff member tries to correct, they are accused of nattering. If they refuse to follow out tech or out ethics orders, they lose their jobs.
    And all thanks to the SP at the very top of the org board who has been creating this culture.
    As someone put it recently on one of the blogs, many of these SO “executives” couldn’t run a coffee shop in the real world.

    • My personal view is that SO has a place and a job to do — but it is not as you see it today in the C of S – an administrative giant that simply cross orders itself daily and feeds upon/eats itself. The SO should be made up of trained OTs. It is supposed to be “many are called – few are chosen” and instead it is the exact opposite — anyone will be snatched up and used/abused/discarded.

      If it was a small group of trained OTs, actually doing as LRH laid out, it would be a different scene.

      I was in the SO for 17 years and have no regrets — despite a ton of injustices, accidents, stresses and engramic situations. Truth is that I learnt a great deal while there, and those skills have been very valuable once out. Not to mention the camaraderie and friendships that exist within the team. Still miss many dear friends.
      Good people, well intentioned and with high ideals and purposes.

      • I agree Lana.

        The SO at one time had a purpose which like the GO and WW it eventually strayed off of at some point.

        In my opinion the SO took over like a Military Junta after WW and later the GO failed to carry out their purposes. You could say they took over in a Danger Condition but never fully applied the formula and now the Organization falling below way below non-extistence and is now in treason because of it.

  3. I think we can all agree that there has been many injustices perpetrated, inside and outside Church Membership – the world is full of examples. However, LRH stated (paraphrasing) that those who use heavy ethics on others (injustice) are simply dramatizing their own inability to put ethics in on themselves. Of course the best example of this is Miscavige and those who work for and support him in The Biggest Overt In History, The Suppression of Scientology and Scientologist!

  4. An interesting view from LRH (HCOB 20 May 1968), chock-full of interesting data:

    “AN OVERT, in Dianetics and Scientology, is an aggressive or destructive ACT by the individual against one or another of the 8 dynamics (self, family, group, Mankind, animals or plants, MEST, Life or the Infinite).

    A MOTIVATOR is an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics.

    The viewpoint from which the act is viewed resolves whether the act is an overt or a motivator.

    The reason it is called a “Motivator” is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it “motivates” a new overt.

    When one has done something bad to someone or something one tends to believe it must have been “motivated”.

    When one has received something bad, he also may tend to feel he must have done something to deserve it.

    The above points are true. The actions and reactions of people on the subject are often very falsified.

    People go about believing they were in an auto accident when in actual fact they caused one.

    Also people may believe they caused an accident when they were only in one.

    Some people, on hearing of a death, at once believe they must have killed the person even though they were far away.

    Police in large cities have people turn up and confess to almost every murder as a routine.

    One doesn’t have to be crazy to be subject to the Overt-Motivator sequence. It is not only used on him continually by others, it also is a basic part of his own “case”.”

  5. I always objected (publicly or privately) when someone would tell me that I pulled something in. It could reasonably be said that, in trillions of years of living, at some point you did in fact do something which reacts back on you now. I certainly remember some bad acts which would merit me being squashed like a bug for many lifetimes in a row.

    But so what? Pointing out to someone that they “pulled it in” does exactly how much good? Do you really expect them to start rummaging through millions of lifetimes for whatever they might have done which echoes what might have just happened to them? Does pointing out the fact make them feel better or relieve whatever distress they feel?

    Ron’s many explanations about the overt-motivator sequence mostly served as guideposts for auditors and C/Ses to follow in explaining and being able to handle human behavior. There was never such a thing as the “you pulled it in” therapeutic rundown. And pointing it out would normally only serve to make a person start listing on their own case.

    The real answer is to get the person up the Bridge so that they have more control over their lives, and so they have more power to prevent the bad things from happening to them. Pulling overts and withholds might well be a part of that, but only a small part in the overall scheme of things.

    Personally I love the “karma game”. Whenever my wife does something like stubbing her toe, I enjoy carefully explaining to her how this is karma because of the last time she made fun of me for something. I tease her about having a “book of transgressions” in which I painstakingly enter each and every “crime” she commits against me. And I continually let her know how fat the book is getting, and that I’ll soon have to create a new volume just to hold all her crimes against me. Of course, all of this is just a joke, and we both laugh about it.

    One other comment I’d make. It seems as though SO members were subjected to some of the harshest justice treatment. This is paradoxical for several reasons. First, LRH made the point that Scientology justice is particularly powerful, and should be administered lightly and with great care. Second, as with anyone subject to justice, prior contribution and performance should be considered when adjudging crimes. Third, simply by virtue of signing up and being willing to endure the tough living conditions and tasks expected of SO members, there should be some extra consideration given to them when it comes to justice. Fourth, it’s been my experience that most people who actually have a conscience are tortured enough by their bad acts, without the group coming in and thrashing them as well. That only appears to make the being feel even more degraded. Fifth, there is the matter of ethics gradients. I don’t recall the issue (“Ethic Review”?), but LRH makes clear the full range of ethics (actually justice) gradients which could be used on people to encourage them to change their behavior, if such was considered desirable.

    And yet with all this, even from what appears to be the earliest days of the Sea Org, members were positively thrashed for even the least of transgressions. X bad act = Y horrible consequence, no matter what. If Sea Org members treated their own members (and the rest of us peons) poorly, it may be no wonder why. They were busy trying to dodge the next 16 ton weight being aimed at their heads on a continuing basis.

    Paul

  6. One could could always ask, to someone stating to one “you pulled that in” – “do you mean I pulled in someone giving me the wrong indication of me pulling bad stuff in? Yeah, I wonder what kind of integrity violation I committed to allow such a jerk to enter into my space….

    wouldn’t work in the SO though, too much solid bank agreement probably

  7. On April 3, 1962 Ron explained in the lecture, “The Overt-Motivator-Sequence” that he always knew that there was something wrong with the concept of the overt-motivator-sequence. And then he explained what he just had found out, correcting and amending the earlier data.

    I should post now half of the transcript – it is that good. To not create a mystery, in short: The concepts of the overt-motivator sequence, carma, etc. are control mechanisms, designed to make sheeple, people who are “good” and follow the group-think. They are the ruin of a group, because the kill the ability to observe, decide and to act in its members.

      • Lana, I take you by the word and will post “half of the transcript” in six sections. (Posted below to use full lenth of the lines.) I will mail you the complete transript, also.
        I used this tape to get a number of people out of the C of S. In fact, if someone understands it, I wouldn’t be able to see how he could still be in it or be inactive.

  8. I think the SO staff were particularly subjected to insane reverse Scientology because they were the closest to DM. He is an SP.

    I find the more I solo audit the better my perceptions, consequently, the less and less I go along with stupid things or bad things happening to me.

    DM and his cohorts made auditing very hard to get and what auditing you did get was to introvert you with how bad you are. And since you can never get rid of enough of your overts you are a walking motivator……. Shakespeare would have had a field day!

  9. There is a lot of charge on this because for one it can be a wrong Why”. No wonder the abuses of the church are not resolved, they are too busy making itself right.

    • The Church and really what I am referring to is DM and his cohorts are extreme on the subject of being right! Of course, the PTSs robotically follow in this ser facy route!

  10. I did spend a lot of time looking at a blank piece of paper after being told to write up the OW’s which had presumably caused the trouble I was now in. Unfortunately it caused a lot of confusion for me during my staff career as I didn’t spot it as a control/introverting mechanism until after leaving staff.
    Thanks Bernie for putting that out there.

  11. My view was that I would always turn any motion to advantage; I always postulated gain and change for the better. I always knew I’d come out stronger and more able no matter what. And I did. I believe everything has to do with attitude/perspective, and much of that comes from training and auditing – KNOWING.

  12. Quotations Part One from:
    “THE OVERT MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE”
    A lecture given on 3 April 1962

    “… because I’m terrifically interested in it – the overt-motivator-sequence. How the hell did it ever get that way, you know? And can it be undone?
    I’ve been asking that question for ages. Instead of having to run it, can’t you undo it? Because I know it’d be a junior phenomenon, see? And sure enough, apparently you can undo it. And so that’s a good piece of news.
    So anyhow, I’m not going to give you any more about that in particular right now. End of withhold. I’m delighted, you see, because if you think of running out all the things which you have done and from which you are suffering at the present time, you see, when you run these out one by one, and selectively on the whole track, it becomes one of these things like running out every engram on the whole track. It’s just an impossible action, it’s so long and arduous.
    You take Jim over there, for instance, or you take Dick or somebody like this, and you get all of these overts—you get the idea? We won’t even mention Peter. You get these fantastic numbers of overts. And if you’re going to suffer from every overt you have ever committed—see, that’s impossible. I mean, mathematically, on one lifetime, you’d be dead a dozen livesover, don’t you see? And if you got a motivator for every overt, for instance, and so forth, how could you live?
    So I’ve been fooling around with a lot of combinations that have to do with energy and MESTuniverse ideas, and ideas and that sort of thing, and it’s—comes out rather well. And apparently it’s a very junior idea to prevent people from attacking.
    And I have now told you about all there is to know about it, even though I would love to go on discussing it for a long time. It’s just a mechanism to do just that one thing—nothing else. That’s it. Well, end of withhold.

    And it’s just a mechanism. It is not even an axiom. See, it’s nothing. Because every way you look at it, it can’t be. It’d be impossible. And there wouldn’t be any way by which this could be.
    … See? So from all these sides . . . You know, I’ve told you for years, the overt act-motivator sequence was limited. You know, I knew it was limited, but I couldn’t find the entrance point of how the hell you ran it out.
    … But I knew at the same time that everybody had fallen for this malarkey and that everybody responded to it.
    Well, if everybody responds to it and everybody has fallen for it and it processes—you ask a fellow what he’s done, and this immediately relieves things. And his withholds and all that sort of thing—these things are all pertinent to this. And they all relieve, don’t you see? I mean, you can work with this; you can operate with this.
    So it doesn’t wipe out all processes which do things with it. Doesn’t wipe out Prepchecking. You can sit down and prepcheck somebody, you know. And that’s fine. But how about just knocking the whole ruddy computation in the ‘ead? And now I have just opened up a nice, wide-open, twelve-pass express highway that does. It is just a mechanism to prevent people
    from attacking. That’s all.
    … It’s just a mechanism by which people have dreamed up ways and means to prevent other people from attacking. That is all.
    Of course, you don’t want people attacking you, so of course you tell them – that you shouldn’t be attacked. And you tell them how you shouldn’t be attacked, and then you tell them what they shouldn’t attack, don’t you see? And what you overlook is, at the same time, they’re teaching you what you shouldn’t attack—the same time you’re doing this. So eventually it looks like you have an overt-motivator sequence.
    … But a withhold is basically nothing more than your unwillingness to attack or your unwillingness to be attacked. And that’s all a withhold is.
    … I’m sure you will excuse my absorption with this particular scene, in view of the fact that it is the single complication that makes your case awfully complicated. You get so that you won’t bawl out cops and you go around being “good”, and all kinds of wild things accumulate as a reason for this.
    … The definition of being “good” -as long as I find myself talking about this – the definition of being “good” is the definition of being overwhelmed, you see? A person who is good is overwhelmed.
    I first began this study nautically in this life. It was a naval study with me. There’s one thing: I’ll hold something that bugs me, that I don’t understand and I’ll put it in a bull pen. And I’ll put it over on the side. And I’ll say, “This green puzzle doesn’t fit with these pink pieces, you know? What is this thing, you know?”
    Well, one of those things was the fact that every fighting man I ever had under me was always in bad with other people at a time when they needed fighting men. And the only people that were getting any pats on the back with the shore patrols and so forth were people who weren’t worth a damn. I mean that—just weren’t worth a damn. There was definitely something wrong here.
    I’d have six or seven sailors out of a couple of hundred, you know, and they’d – man, action be engaged, one of those fellows (I don’t think the period could have been longer than about a minute or thirty seconds, or something like that), he was at the wheel correcting the course, he was up on the gunnery platform correcting the training of the guns, he was down studying the chemical recorder, and he was handling the engine room telegraphs; and while he was doing all this, he was carrying on a conversation with me. And on almost any ship I ever had in action, there’d not be more than four or five people on the ship that would help me fight her.
    And you had this enormous supernumerary, you see, out there. That always bugged me, because these boys were the boys who were always in trouble. The people didn’t like these fellows. They were always in bad. They weren’t particularly bad people, but they were just always in trouble.
    I’ve seen it now, you know? Some fellow—God, he’d have hash marks, and he’d have gold chevrons and eagles, you know, clear up to his shoulder, and he’d come aboard, you know, reading Horace or something, you know? He’d walk aboard with his package of laundry or something or other, and check himself in at the gangway and go below and put away his book and his nice, clean uniform. And his record would be beautiful and he’d always say “Yes, sir,” and everything would be so nice. And he was a very pleasant fellow and not very obtrusive. Nice man, you know, and so forth. And he’d have all of the bonuses, you know? And he’d have all of the stuff that anybody ever awarded anybody. Service records, you know: “laudable,” “terrific,” “marvelous,” you know, and just rave notices in this damn thing.
    And in action you would just have to knock him out of your road. That was all. Always be in your damn road. “Go on up forward someplace and— you know—stand down there with the damage control party. Don’t get in the road “ You know, some totally ineffective function. Get him out of the road. Ammunition passer—maybe you’d get the ammunition there and maybe you wouldn’t, you see? But there’d just—oh! There’d just be dozens of these guys, see, just dozens of these birds, drawing all the pay, getting all the pats on the back.
    And then here would be these madmen: always in trouble, always upset. When the ship was engaged, it would have sunk without them. Well, there’s something here, see?
    These weren’t necessarily bad-men. Looking them over, they weren’t criminals, nothing like that, but just nobody liked them. This fact used to stick in my craw. I used to study this. I did an awful lot of studying of men and Life and things like this, and it’s something I didn’t quite understand. But the shore patrol just loved these other fellows. I never knew what to do with them -use them for spare anchors or something like that? It wasn’t that I didn’t have their loyalty and affection; I did. But action would be engaged, they would be just as calm as they always were…
    End of Part 1

  13. Part 2
    …And you study men under stress and men in various guises and men under various actions of this particular character, and you find out that the world has built up a series of superstitions about people. And they’re not facts—they’re superstitions. They hardly even are dignified as findings.
    Your animal psychologist has categorized the whole lousy lot. I mean, he’s got them all. His textbooks are nothing else but the mirage of ought-to-be, see? There’s no facts in there. It’s just a bunch of ought-to-be.
    He tells everybody, “Beware of anybody who is active.” Isn’t that interesting? “Beware of anybody who is active.” You will find in the civil-defense manuals of the United States government, in that area delegated to (ha!) psychology, that the whole provision that they have made is for anybody who gets active: and if a citizen were to start flying around and talking about what should be done or what shouldn’t be done or blaming the government or saying anything like this, he is the one you have the butterfly nets for. And this is why you have psychological units in civil-defense teams. They’re the butterfly-net people, and they’re supposed to pick up these guys who get active. And that’s exactly what it says.
    I’m not minimizing this or I’m not stretching it or—I don’t have to. I mean, it’s a marvellous example-of “be good.” You see, the whole U.S. civil defense system is based on the idea that there is a thing called the government which is composed of people (which already is silly), and they’re going to take over the country at the moment of an attack, see? They aren’t there now.
    They’re not part of the people, and they’re not human, you see? And they’re parked up
    someplace in Canada along the DEW line or down in Mexico or out on some island—and they don’t exist there now. And at the moment of an attack, nobody is supposed to do anything but be taken over by the government. That’s what you’re supposed to do in an attack.
    Consider it absolutely fascinating! It’s just as bad as Eisenhower’s design for the Normandy landing. I mean, there was nothing worse than that. I didn’t know this until the other day. I’m going to write a book on it. I’m going to call it “The Great Myth.” You see, I was a Pacific amphibious-warfare officer before these Normandy landings occurred. And there are certain ways you’re supposed to make landings. Well, they didn’t make them that way at Normandy -ha-ha! They killed men instead.
    So anyhow, I didn’t know it was that bad. But this is some more of your the-government knows-all sort of a situation and “no individual is going to do anything.” You got that? No individual – we’re not going to count on any individuals. The government is going to do these things. You get the idea? The government is going to. Somehow or another totally disassociated from anything that is made out of skin and blood, see, this is- all going to be attended to.
    So the government teams are going to take over in certain zones of the city, and so on. And it’s all worked out. And the only thing they’ve overlooked is these people are people. And apparently, looking over the Normandy beachhead landing schedule, there weren’t going to be any people involved and there was going to be no war involved. I think this was interesting – those two oversights that they made.
    As early as 1941 I noticed something that probably nobody has noticed, that I might comment one and—that war is the antithesis of organization. And if you organize in some dim hope that when battle is joined that organization is going to prevail, you’re going to lose your war, because then it breaks down to the being, the person, the man on the job. And the other schedules never go off right. They just never, never go off right.
    The fellow who is supposed to be there at 5:61, well, I can tell you from experience that he is never there till 561, if he appears at all. And if the whole intricate machinery depends utterly upon this man pushing a button at 5:61, man, you’ve had it. Because this—look, this fellow is flesh and blood. This fellow is die-able. And war is the antithesis of organization. War is chaos. And the only thing that you can organize for is chaos. And if you’re going to organize it, organize for chaos; and that’s the only way you can organize.
    And if you’re going to organize for chaos, there’s one thing that you must count on utterly: the individual. There can be no great third-dynamic shadow which suddenly spreads out across the land and makes everything all right. Who are these beings that are going to take over the middle of these huge cities and set it all to rights after the bombs have landed? See? Who are they?
    Well, they’re human beings. Well, by that very fact, you can count on the fact that some of them are going to be missing.
    …This Normandy beachhead: Demolition teams had twenty minutes to knock out all the underwater obstacles on the whole of the Normandy beach. Pfft!
    In the Pacific we used to spend three days and use certain tools, but they didn’t do it over there. They had a schedule, and it ran off—bzzzzzt! And for seven minutes this happened and then seven minutes this happened. No part of this schedule is pinned to an actual event, don’t you see? No part of this schedule is pinned to anything having happened. It’s only pinned to the clock. Do you see that?
    You get how mad this will get after a while, see? Unless you pin something to an event and say “Seven minutes after this happens or has occurred, then you start the next event”—well, you can do that. But you for sure can’t say “At 6:00 this happens, and then at seven minutes after six this happens, and at fifteen minutes after six this happens, and at 6:30 this happens.” Well, you can count, you see, on whatever is happening at 6:15 has probably not quite arrived and is probably taking place at 6:35. So the team that is enroute to do this thing at 6:30 runs into the team that hasn’t done what it was supposed to do at 6:35, and—oooooh!
    Don’t you see what happens? A confusion is an untimed, uncontrolled area. Well, you’ve only got one guy. You’ve only got one guy. I don’t care how many textbooks you write or how many psychologists you give degrees to, you’ve, in the final analysis, only got one thing. And that is a being, an individual being. That’s the only thing you’ve got.
    Now, he may have responsibilities, and he may have dynamics and he may have a lot of other things, but that’s all you’ve got and don’t forget it.
    … You know, I can see some South American reformer, some Simon Bolivar. A great guy, Simon Bolivar. No doubt about it whatsoever. And this is not what he did, but I can see some lofty, ivory-towered character, and he says, “Now, let’s see. Our people should do this. And our people should do that. And the government should do this. And the government should do that. And then all will work out to a marvelous utopia Yes. So here is the schedule.”
    Well, man, I’d let that poor fellow in on something: He is working with the individuals he is working with, and he is working with nobody else.
    Now, every once in a while somebody runs an ought-to-be on me on organizations. And I noticed from an essay Peter wrote one day over a telex spontaneously—oh, it’s a snide piece of thing. You can’t mock up a thetan. But they run it on other people besides me.
    And people are always saying to me, “Well, why don’t you get some ‘good people’ in central organizations?” That’s a hell of a dam, isn’t it? People on the outside, Why don’t you get some ‘good people’ in Scientology?” you see? Where’s this fantastic reservoir called “good people”? Where is it?
    Well, I can tell you the last one to have a monopoly on it is the United States government or any other government. They don’t even know that it might exist.
    But all of their actions are based on the fact that in some mysterious way “good people” are suddenly going to occur without anybody doing anything about it, you know. Just from somewhere, “good people.”
    … No, there isn’t any such reservoir. There isn’t any such reservoir, and that’s basically what everybody has got on automatic at this particular time. They’ve basically got it all on automatic.
    “Good people.” That’s what they got on automatic. All the systems are geared for “good people.”
    Government selection. Military selections. School teachers. Everything else. Any body that you can think of, it’s all geared to the fact that from some mysterious reservoir someplace, some “good people” are going to come along and pass some examinations, and it’ll all be all right.
    … And that is what the psychologist in an atomic war is being trained to do: to pick up the active person. I consider this fabulous, you know? I studied civil defense in the United States, and then my stomach gave out. Actually, there are probably only about five thousand people in the United States that know anything about disaster relief, and not one of those people has ever been called to the civil-defense department, which I consider very, very interesting. They were the people who handled civil defense in the various war theaters under chaos, and so forth.
    But these beautiful organizations, man: “Yeah, George, Bill and Pete will go in Joe’s car three and a half minutes after the first alarm, from the south entrance of the building.” Oh, no, you know? You can see it now: They never get out of the car park. Just one of the things that happened: Bill didn’t bring his car to work that morning See?
    You’re dealing with beings, you’re not dealing with punched-tape card systems and that sort of thing. You’re dealing with individuals. And I don’t care whether you’re trying to make a perfect government or if you’re trying to make a perfect civilization or a more livable world or anything else, the basic building block with which you build is an individual, and there is no other building block. God isn’t a building block; government isn’t a building block; the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Uniformed Cats isn’t a building block. None of these things are building blocks. It all comes down to the individual .
    Is he any good or isn’t he? And that’s the other question. Is he competent or incompetent?
    End of Part 2

  14. Part 3
    …If you want to get something done, you depend on the competence of an individual, not his socialness or whether he’s a good fellow. It’s “Can he do his job?” That is all. Can he do his job?
    Now, yes, it is true that an individual can be so mean and so vicious and so something or other that he gets in the road of doing his own job. Never met one myself, but I’m sure that can exist.
    No, an individual is either competent or incompetent.
    Now, when an individual ceases to be able to run his own life, you always can have communism. You can always have these group idiocies which take responsibility for conduct out of the hands of the individual and place it in the hands of some God-awful, God-help-us monster whereby everybody decides this. Everybody decides what he’s supposed to do and what he isn’t supposed to do, and whether he can spit, and whether he can breathe, and so forth.
    But let me ask the burning question: Who’s going to tell him? See? You get the point. This is the idea they never think. They never think this one other step. After you’ve destroyed all the individuals, who’s going to tell them? They never think of that one.
    It’s a fascinating point. It’s the automaticity of competence, the automaticity of this vast reservoir of competence, which somehow or another is always going to rise up someplace.
    One of the ways they meet this is they’ve got everything all geneticized. You know, you raise good horses? You know, if you breed the right mares with the right stallions, why, you get an intelligent horse. I don’t think anybody has ever been able to make animal husbandry work, but it’s still a popular superstition. If you make being a horse so uncomfortable that Do thetan—no self-respecting thetan—will have anything to do with it, you’ll have a bunch of creep horses.
    You will, too! You can see them at the horse show now, misbehaving.
    All right. Now, the basis of the individual is his ability to observe and make decisions and to act. And that is ability: his ability to observe, to make decisions, and to act. He has to be able to inspect and know what he is looking is what he is looking at. He has to be able to make a sensible summary of what he is looking at, and he has to be able to act in accordance to what he’s inspected.
    Now, I don’t care if you go into the field of study. This is true of a student, this is true of a soldier, this is true of anybody: If he can’t observe and can’t make decisions about what he observes, why, he’s in bad shape. He’s in a bad way, very promptly.
    Well, he couldn’t help but be. I mean, if you knock out any one of those points . . . All right.
    He can observe and he can make a decision, but he can’t act—in any way, shape or form cannot act on his data: You’ve got a fool.
    Now you take somebody who can observe all right and see what he’s looking at, but is unable to make a decision before he acts. He’s a nut.
    Now you’ve got somebody that’s perfectly competent to make a decision— perfectly competent to make a decision—and perfectly competent to act, but always does so without observing anything. You’ve got a catastrophe, man! That’s a catastrophe.
    … The main thing I’m trying to say is, here, that just if you haven’t got the individual, you have nothing! And if you go in the direction of a system, if that system isn’t designed to eventually make individuals, then it’s a system which will fail. And it’s the only kind of a system that you dare embark upon.
    You embark upon any other system that ends up in slavery or ends up in the total subjugation of individual ability to observe, ability to decide and ability-to act—if you impede any one of those three things—you’re going to find yourself with a slave society on your hands. I don’t care how many labels the thing has. So the only system that is justified is any stopgap system which pushes people forward in this direction.
    End of Part 3

  15. Part 4
    Now, if we have systems which depend utterly on making people “good”, we can never get out of the Soup. But we can’t have systems which make everybody “good” if we mean, by this, blind acceptance of a now-I’m-supposed-to without inspection, without decision, but only by action. If we totally concentrate on an action, an automatic action, and if we call that automatic action “Being good” see, you see an old lady crossing the street, so you’re being good, you must help the old lady cross the street. “So now I’m supposed to help the old lady across the street.” You get the idea?
    She just got through shooting her daughter-in-law in the guts, you know, and she’s carrying the .45 in the bag. But that’s beside the point. “Now I’m supposed to,” you see? Without observation, you’re supposed to act in certain set patterns. That is what they call being good.
    And the only way that is achieved is by overwhelming a person with energy. You overwhelm a person. You show him that he will get into too much action—more action than he can stand—if he does not concur with this action. In other words, he chooses to have this minor act or actingness, see; he chooses this minor actingness in lieu of all of this rwooooooooowrwooooowr, see, of krwow, see?
    You know, the way to make little Johnny eat his peas is to take a whip, don’t you see, and to whirl it around in the air a few times and hit him across in the behind and scream at him real loud. Well, that is action he cannot confront, isn’t it? So you get him to not confront this action in order to do the action of eating his peas. See how that works?
    There are other ways you go about this, of total loss, total ostracism: “You’re going to be expelled from school if you don’t study . . .” Oh, I don’t know-what they study in a school.
    I’ve never been able to find out, but, “If you don’t study it, why, you’re going to be expelled, and your father and mother will never speak to you again and they won’t feed you, and you’ll be thrown into the gutter, and socially you will be totally ostracized.” And that’s what an E, F or G grade would mean when you’re in the fourth or fifth grade, see? You’re ostracized.
    As a matter of fact, this even works on you, see? I use it simply on the basis of you better get a rush on, or something of the sort. You don’t take it that way. You take it on ostracism—”Ron is mad at me,” and so on. I never feel that way at all.
    No, it’s the out-create of action which brings about the fixed actingness that we know as “being good.” See, “We can create more action and energy than you can, so therefore your only choice is to fit into this small actingness and energyness pattern.” You got the idea? Well, you get into this on the basis of coordination. You coordinate the actions of quite a few people. Yeah, you can snarl them into line and so forth; it has a certain workability. But it only works up to the basis where they know it works or where they know it should work that way, or something.
    In other words, it’ll only work in the direction of consulting their observation of things. If they can now observe that this is workable, or that they would do it anyhow, and they would have decided to have done it anyhow, and got on this actingness, then perhaps you would be justified for a while in saying, “Ra-ra-ra-ra-ra-ra-ra, and I’m going to out-create you until you do so-and-so, and so forth.” You get the idea? “I can shout louder than you can, so therefore you’re going to do this actingness.” You get that?
    Ah, but that is not the road the world follows. The world follows a total different one. It’s “Regardless of whether this is reasonable or unreasonable or anything else, man, you’re going to do it and you’re going to be blind to everything else from there on.” We call it “faith.” We call it “discipline.”
    They used to take a soldier who deserted from his post and stand him out in front of the rest of the troops and shoot him down, or spread-eagle him on a wheel and beat him to death, or hang a sailor over the gangway and slash him to death, or just, you know, something like this. A Sunday—you’d never go to church on Sunday three hundred years ago but what you didn’t pass some guy in the stocks who had been doing something or other, been drinking beer or something like that on a Saturday night, or some other criminal action.
    In other words, there were various actions by which more energy was thrown at the individual than he thought he could confront. This is the idea of making people good, do you see?
    So therefore, he fixed in this pattern of action because it was a choice of either fixing in this pattern of action or trying to face all of this unfaceable and unconfrontable energy. Do you
    follow me?
    That’s “being good”.
    Now, when you have a totally disciplined nation, you have a total failure. A nation which would make everybody good and sacrifice every individual characteristic in it, sacrifice everybody’s observingness, everybody’s decidingness – you got a complete end product: complete failure. That’s what you’d wind up with – a complete flop. And there’s where every old civilization goes, and that is why they become old civilizations. That is why they decay, that is why they become decadent. Because people just become gooder and gooder and gooder, by which we mean they observe less and less and they decide less and less.
    You have this fellow walking down the middle of the street taking a certain mincing gait and so forth, not because he thinks it’s anything, but because he’s supposed to do it because his ancestors did it.
    Oh, you can think of thousands of examples of this sort of thing. And when you finally get a totally decadent, totally gone society, it gets licked up by any chaos that hits it. It can be overwhelmed. By what?
    Well, if everybody in it was trained to be “good” by being trained that they couldn’t confront certain energy masses, then of course any hostile energy mass that shows up can conquer it.
    So an old civilization is set up by its own premises to become conquered, and you have the cycle of civilizations. And that is how they age and that is how they die.
    Now, the way an individual ages, the way he dies, is to give up his power of observation and his power of decision, and acts on the basis that he cannot do as much as he used to be able to do, he can’t stand as much as he used to be able to stand. And he attributes this to advancing age. He never attributes it to being able to stand less. The source of advancing age is being able to stand less. Advancing age is not the cause of being able to stand less.
    In other words, aging is caused by a lessening ability to confront action. That is all. It’s not because the person can’t, but he merely ages because he believes that he can’t. Do you see how that goes?
    End of Part 4

  16. Part 5
    … Your size in relationship to the universe is directly determined by only one thing: is the amount of randomity you care to confront in the universe, or the amount of attack you think you’re subjected to or care to subject the universe to. That determines your thetan size. That’s how big you are as a thetan. It’s how much you feel you can take on, or how much you feel may take you on
    …Now, let’s look at the mathematics of a civilization. We have 100,000 people in this particular civilized strata—let’s take some ancient civilization of no great size—100,000 people in this civilization. And at first we say to these 99,999 people, other than self—we say to these fellows, “Well, I am as good as any of you and can take any one of you on. And maybe even take on two or three of you, or six or eight or twelve or fourteen. Who knows? In fact, I’m liable to take on anybody who messes me up.” And they think this way equally, see? And they’re liable to take it out on you, too, you see? But—so on.
    And then one day somebody breaks his neck or breaks his brain or something some other vital part—and he can’t fight. So he invents justice. And then he gets some other fellows that are pretty weak, and they band together, and they invent this thing called “justice.” And that is, justice consists only of this: that when the one individual errs, all other individuals in the society are banded together against him. And in the final analysis, that is justice.
    You go out here and you lay your hand on a man’s shoulder that’s an assault. So you have every member of the entire British Isles, collectively called the government, issuing a summons for your arrest. That makes you versus the government. Right?
    Now, look. You were willing to take on one or two or three or four, or five or six, or when you were feeling good one morning, maybe ten or twelve. But now you’re opposed with the idea of some tens of millions.
    … But think over this proposition called civilization. It’s rigged so that the individual, if he commits a fault, finds himself pitted against every other being in that whole realm.
    And that, he conceives—I don’t know really why he conceives this, by the way – but he conceives this a too-manyness. So he is overwhelmed and he is good and he obeys the law of the realm – not because he thinks it’s a good law, not because he observes that it is right or not because he’s decided upon it; but he just obeys the law of the realm.
    … Now, when you get old and you get creaky, and the climate of France and England has at last entered your bones to the point of arthritis, you of course subscribe to justice, and you invent this thing. Instead of you there with a strong right arm, you see, you say, “Well, look, ‘the people’ will get after you.” See, a considerable police force. But it’s “the people” who will get after you, and you’re being hung by “the people.”
    I never really bought that sort of justice. Any justice that I ever brought to an area was exactly this other type of justice, as crude as that may be.
    “All right, you robbed the coach, we’re hanging you.”
    And guy would say, “Well, my laws and my rights, and the Magna Carta, and so forth,” and he’d go right on talking right up to the time when you pulled the rope check.
    But I’d always let them know that it hasn’t anything to do—”This is a peculiarity of mine. We have peace in this area. And we’re going to have peace in this area. And we’re going to have lots of peace in the area, not because you want it and not because the people want it, but just because I say so.” And in that way may have escaped a lot of motivators and overts, because it was honest.
    I’d always hated this other idea. I knew there was something wrong with this other idea. I couldn’t quite figure out what was wrong with the other idea.
    But isn’t it a masterly gimmick? Look it over as a mechanism. You do wrong, and instantly you are going to have as your enemy several tens of millions of people. Isn’t that a muchness?
    Huh?
    … Well, all “goodness” is brought about by force, whether individually delivered or delivered collectively. And “goodness” is never brought about by philosophic persuasion.
    Three guys observe that they get a lot of planting and hunting done as long as they don’t knock each other’s heads off. They observe that one day they knock each other’s around, and they don’t get so much hunting done the next day, and they say, “That’s a stupid idea. Let’s have some peace and declare war on somebody else.”
    Well, all right. That’s an incipient and a quite proper civilization, became it’s based upon the fact that they have observed, they have decided, and that is the way they act.
    “Ah, but, you see, law and order and justice actually are the best things, and they’re the best principles, and you should be a very lawful person, and—or your father and I will hate you.
    And uh . . . we uh . . . And you see that policeman down the street. Well, he’ll arrest you. And there are thousands of them.” And I wouldn’t say any duress had ever been brought against you to be “good”.
    Now, and one of the oddities of it is that man is basically good. This is the oddity. But that he gets a synthetic bad valence. He gets a synthetic valence. He gets a mocked-up “baddy,” see?
    And then he can get into this valence of being bad, and after that you have bad men. It’s quite amazing.
    End of part 5

  17. Part 6
    … Well, it adds up to the fact that if man is basically good the only thing wrong with him is his imprisonment in evil. But the evil is false. This is quite interesting. If the evil is false, what would happen if you set him free? He becomes good.
    Ah, then what witchcraft has been worked here? We tell a fellow he is evil, and we convince him one way or the other that he shouldn’t attack, because other things are good and he is evil.
    And we just have another civilization mechanism.
    And one of the ways of phrasing it is that everything done by you will be revisited upon you. That’s karma.
    “You will pay for everything you have ever done”: that’s karma. And a lot of people get the overt-motivator sequence mixed up with karma. They are not the same thing.
    The overt-motivator sequence means that you have to lay yourself open to feeling bad about something – o a motivator – with an overt. That’s true, too. But do you know how it’s true? It says there’s an area you mustn’t attack. And that becomes the keynote and the whole swan song of a people: There are things you mustn’t attack.
    … And that’s why you have withholds. The reason you withhold something is to prevent yourself from being attacked. You’ve all done something at some time or another, anyone has done something at some time or another, in a civilization, where this civilization mechanism goes into effect. You would be attacked if it were known, see? You’d be attacked if it were known.
    … And that’s the overt-motivator sequence. Where did it come from?
    It comes from this one mechanism of “You attack things, you will be hurt.” And if you can teach enough people that, you have a civilization. But they will all be enslaved, they will all be trapped; and none of them will be able to clearly observe, to clearly decide or to decisively act.
    And they will all sooner or later go crazy.
    Now, when I have said these few choice words, I’ve described everything there is really wrong with the human mind. There isn’t anything else. There’s no other outstanding
    phenomena, in the final analysis. Once you know the basic phenomena of Scientology – that is, the as-ising and energy and pictures and what the universe is composed of, and the Axioms and things of this particular character – you get down to that as far as processing is concerned, the only thing that you’ve got in your thetan bank at the particular moment that is giving you an awful lot of trouble is something you know you had better not attack.
    The consequences of attack overweigh you so heavily that you will not attack it. Otherwise it will disappear. If you attack it, it will disappear. That’s one penalty, but it is the only penalty.
    There are no other penalties. All other penalties are totally imaginary, and at this stage of development of Scientology can be considered so, wholly and completely.
    I’m not now giving you processes to run on this. I’m trying to get you to understand this philosophically—understand it, on the head end, that there is no liability for attacking anything, but there is tremendous liability for not attacking. There’s tremendous liability.
    That sounds like we’re going to make a lot of vicious people. Well, if they all become vicious before they come good again on the other end, I’ll just have to live through it, and so will you, because that’s the way it is.
    But there is obsessive attack – people could no longer control their ability to attack; there’s all kinds of species of wildness and gyratingness and upsettedness and so forth. They’re all misemotional and none of it under control. Overt attack never got anybody in trouble. Never –
    really never did.
    The only thing that you ever lose when you do that is some havingness or something like that. It’s about the only thing. But if it’s a havingness you don’t want, what’s the difference?
    Well, that doesn’t erase the fact that the overt-motivator sequence, you understand – that doesn’t erase the fact that it works. You can take it apart, you can get withholds, you can do all these things which you know how to do. I have just been busily trying to get to the root of the structure and find out exactly how it stood, and so forth, to find out if it could be swept away when we reach into Class IV with 3D Criss Cross items. And I find out that it can be swept away, and the residuals and so forth of the bank have as their common denominator things that must not be attacked, reasons why one shouldn’t attack, reasons why one shouldn’t be attacked, reasons why one shouldn’t attack others, ways and means of restraining oneself from attacking others, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. You understand?
    And out of this you get all kinds of minor things like criticism, and you get all this kind of thing. And you also get overt-motivator sequence. But it’s just one phenomena amongst many.
    Okay?
    Thank you very much for staying over. Good night.
    End of Part 6

  18. Thanks for posting this Worsel. LRH always has the answers for those who care to look. I was re-reading 8-8008 recently and had some great cogs on the sad route that is the dwindling spiral of those we see who we once thought were Scientologist, and now are just plain suppressive – the path of the MEST Universe.

  19. The concept of , “You pulled that in” is one grossly misunderstood by many scientologists and used by the “not so wise” to push people’s anchor points in instead of helping them to assume Cause with its resulting expansion of reach and control level.

    Having said that , the concept by itself , is true , nevertheless.

    Now , before anybody jump all over me to bite me , allow me to develop the subject a little bit further and you’ll understand.

    My biggest win in Scn so far (and I don’t think that any future one will ever surpass this one) is having understood and made my own datum , the following LRH quote :

    “But we are saying just this and I am telling you just this: True recovery of one’s beingness goes along with one’s realization that he has been the cause of any difficulty he has ever had. And that’s an awful tough bullet. That’s so tough that you probably won’t make it for hundreds of hours of auditing. ”

    “Now, the point I’m trying to make is simply this: That the state of Clear is the state of being admitted cause on all dynamics. And you have been, but you haven’t admitted it. And that’s the auditor’s job; to get you to.” LRH (from lecture 1 Jan ’60 , “Responsibility”)

    I have handle so many life sits with that datum alone that I can’t possible remember. And I have helped so many to go from a “no beingness” state to Causative one , just by applying that one datum : “A being causes his own difficulties and was always the Cause of any one he ever had”.

    This one is a very tough one to understand and internalize. I spent years to fully comprehend the ramifications of this one datum and I can honestly say that it saved my life in more than one occasion and have got me out of so many sits that would have utterly destroyed my existence otherwise.

    At any bad sit that I face , be it an attack from anyone (very rarely as I seldom have trouble with people, not to amount to anything , at least) or any counter-effort from the environment (which include case) ; I apply that one datum to the sit and have always been able to identify how I caused it in the first place. I handle in myself , using that one datum, the most huge ARCxs and BPC w/out even touching an e-meter , to the end product of feeling totally recovered from it with no att whatsoever in the item and with a recovered ability to be cause over it.

    It is such a freeing and liberating sensation to feel that you can handle any being , any where. I play being the “victim” many times too , don’t get me wrong. But I always KNOW that I am doing so , and after I get bored with it (which usually happens within a 24 hrs period) I just drop it and laugh at myself.

    The exact mechanics of how one loses control of any area or terminal in contained in this quote from LRH :

    “I have a subjective reality on some of this, and so do you. You know some zone of life -right this minute – you know some zone of life that apparently has the power to injure you. Let’s just think about it for a minute. Do you do you know of such a zone?”

    “Well, all right. The exact mechanic is that you committed overt acts against the terminals representing that zone that you now don’t know about; you’ve buried them. All you see is the menace. But the overt acts are there. On a reciprocal, that area can now do something harmful to you. And horribly enough, it becomes more harmful the less responsibility you take for it. You really want to get caved in, just back off totally from an area” LRH (from lecture 3 Jan ’60 , “Zones Of Control And Responsibilities Of Governments”)

    The overts against the zone one is being the effect of , are usually buried from ourselves. At one point in my life I was the total effect of one particular zone in my life. I had a “divorce” and was experiencing this incredible loss that was killing me. I really cared for the terminal involved and wanted to help her very much to handle her loss too and her life sits. She had this immense antago towards me , so much hostility , blaming me completely for her condition. I was not able to establish any ARC with her to be able to make up for any damages done. I didn’t care about what she had done to me , I only cared about doing the right thing.

    I am of the belief that if you have a 2D relationship with anybody and it goes wrong, you are not relieved of your responsibility to ensure you end up in good terms and repair your part of the responsibility for it having go wrong in the first place. That leaves you stuck on it. Even if the person is being very hostile and motivatorish towards you , one should not take the easy route and just say ,”to hell with it , at least I tried”. I am not accustom to giving up.

    I asked for help at my Org with highly trained HCO SO terminals. Their “advice” after analyzing the sit and talking with her was to tell me : “to hell with her , she is just blaming you for everything and she hates your guts. Why you want to lose your time with her ?”

    I , being as stubborn as I am , didn’t agree with that “assessment” of theirs. So , I dug up , adviced by a good old mentor of mine, that datum from LRH. And I begun to just write all my O/Ws on the area specially on her. Applying the “20-10 rule” (20 mins of O/W pull off and 10 mins of havingness , to unbury them) , I started the longest O/W write up I have ever written , getting my havingness with “Take A Walk” process.

    Boy , did I had them buried !!!

    They were buried under tons and tons of past justifications and Not-issness. It was a very rough road for me , but suddently and magically she started to change her behavior towards me and even allowed me to audit her. I did a repair on her with the tools I had available back then , including very light stuff like 2wcs on charged subjects , presessions processes but in 2wc , “Take a Walk” and “Look Them Over” daily. She had incredible wins and went back to the Org to receive a 50 hrs auditing packaged I paid her as part of my liability (done by me , not by any evaluative asshole).

    She had great wins then she went back to course. We remained great friends and still are. WE just don’t talk much now ; work , the kids , the husband , you know.

    So I am not talking out of an Ivory Tower here being an Arm-Chair philosopher. And that was just one example of many in my life. So I guess that gives me the privilege to talk about it and try to get others to follow it.

    Now , when somebody is in the middle of a huge confusion , is it no good to tell him , “you pulled that in” , even though it is always true. Here is LRH on it :

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

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

    “That doesn’t make a bullet any less painful, you see, to say that you caused yourself to be shot. A fellow is run over, he’s hurt – whatever the explanation of it is. There isn’t any getting away from this fact. He has finally gotten his bank and his past and his various factors of beingness and aberration stacked up to a point where he can be jolly well killed. And it doesn’t do any good to say to him, as he lies there bleeding,“Your overts brought you up to a point of getting shot.” I’d go so far as to say it would create an ARC break.” LRH (from lecture 2 Jan ’60, “Why People Don’t Like You”).

    Actually is a huge overt act to make others guilty of overs acts. Here LRH on it :

    “And if we were a religious organization going to town on the sin of man, we would at this moment have it made! We could convince with what violence, with what brim stone that you sinners had better come clean, or hellfire and damnation was going to be your lot! Man, we’d have it made.”

    “Fortunately, we’re not. So we can get something done. The greatest overt act in the world is making other people guilty of overt acts. That is the greatest overt act in the world – about which, more later. So don’t think at this moment that I’m trying to make you guilty of overt acts! The only thing I’m trying to do to you is get you Clear! That’s all I’ve got in mind.” LRH (from lecture 1 Jan ’60 , “Responsibility”)

    There are others mechanisms at play too. Here LRH on it :

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

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

    “Now, there is such a thing as decent conduct and carrying our weight and all that sort of thing, but there is also such a thing as living in the vicinity of a great many people who have committed overt acts against us. And that’s rough! That’s rough. And our overt is letting them do it.” LRH (from lecture 2 Jan ’60, “Why People Don’t Like You”).

    But you’ll find to it is a lot easier to just get your O/Ws off any area you are or was the effect of to fully recover your control over it. Arbitrarily electing others as Cause , always wind us in trouble. We grant them power and control over us. It is an overt act against you and denying of self.

    So , by all means , sent to hell whoever asshole tell you , “you pulled that in”. But on your own , free from suppressive influence , DO look how you caused it in the first place by overt acts committed in the more general area and by failing to keep your Code of Honor in and by failing to get ethics in on others,which are,after all,overt acts too.

    I hope that I don’t get too many tomatoes thrown at me as it happened recently at other blog. I only want you Cause.

    ARC Peter

  20. One viewpoint I’ve long held is that if something is affecting me on one of my dynamics, then I am fully responsible for it, for its impact on me and for any effects it has created in my life and on my dynamics. This puts me at Cause on the scale of Effect – Cause. (See “Effect Scale”, “Havingness Scale”, “A Pan Determinism Scale” and “Responsibility Scale’ in Scientology 0-8.) I’d much rather be Master and Commander than serf or yeoman. So it’s not that one has “pulled it in”; but it is how one deals with it and one’s attitude towards those effects along one’s dynamics. After all, they are MY dynamics, no one else’s. It’s my game, my portrayal of me.

    “When one falls away from responsibility on the various dynamics he can then become less and less able to influence those dynamics and therefore becomes a victim of them. One must have done to other dynamics those things which other dynamics now seem to have the power to do to him. Therefore one can be injured. One can lose control. One can become in fact a zero of influence and a vacuum for trouble.” LRH (HCOB 23 Dec 59, Responsibility)

    “Pan Determinism — Full responsibility for both sides of game.” LRH (HCOB 17 Jan 62, Responsibility Again)

    • Great refs Chri ; great viewpoint !

      You are really beginning to promt me to go over Canada and chat with you over coffee and possibly get some excellent auditing from you.

      ARC
      PETER

      • I second that, thetaclear. I have long been “looking for “THE” auditor, who would fulfill “that” role. I am basing my decision on the “willingness to remain in two-way comm, which is the final deciding factor. Travelling abroad, for auditing, can be an expensive exercise, and I feel necessitates, that one’s choice of auditor, is not going to disappoint, through a wavering level of ARC.

        To me, the best indicator, is the degree of “good manners”, displayed by an auditor, including their expected acknowledgements, with ANY given comm cycle.

        Chris gets my nod, purely on his high ARC display.

        So thank you Chris! 🙂

    • Regarding the part of the quote “One must have done to other dynamics those things which other dynamics now seem to have the power to do to him. Therefore one can be injured.”
      I think this is one of the statements LRH corrected in ’62 in the lecture given above.
      I had a discussion once about that and someone referred to the example of Hiroshima and we started to speculate what kind of overt all these people there might have had done. It was finally solved by using the Data Series and “Your Post and Life” HCOPL.
      The inhabitants of Hiroshima had permitted that their government had gone into war. They had not effectively stopped that and therefore they could get involved in that disaster following. Actions to protest and to stop their government would have been within their sphere of control.
      From HCO PL 30 January 1982, Your Post and Life,:
      “A vital datum has emerged in my recent whole-track reseach.
      If one knows the tech or how to do something and can do it und uses it, he CANNOT be the adverse effect of it.
      This applies in many, many ways and is in fact a key point of life – a fundamental that may underlie all others.”..
      “The list (of examples LRH gave in the text before) could go on and on since the datum pervades all sectors of life itself….
      There is a corollary: If one is experiencing an adverse effect on a post or in life, then he does not know or has not applied the tech or policy covering it.”
      In helping people I make use of the above datum and have noticed that it permits them to look at matters much from a causative viewpoint. I go over the points “What tech didn’t you know, didn’t you master or didn’t you apply? And then go from there. And if out-ethics, O/W or responsibility come up there we look into that as well, then.
      The remaining part of the quote has my full agreement.

      • That PL definitely applies, as do the RJs 35, 36 & 37. Application is key, which is why training is so vital to being OT. However, I believe Ron delineated his concept of “responsibility” quite clearly in AP&A, and which I hold as a truth. I think a study of the Axioms, Logics (Qs), flows and the dynamics as LIFE, demonstrate this. Perhaps, as Ron says here, it is not only a willingness, but an ability.

        “DEFINITION: Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics.

        There is no compromise with full responsibility. It lies above 20.0 on the tone scale and is descended from in order to effect randomity but is descended from with the full knowledge of its assumptions. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own. It includes such “disrelated” data as the death of an individual one has never met on a highway on which one has never travelled at the hands of a stranger no matter how culpable. One does not send to find for whom the bell tolls without full willingness to have tolled it and to have caused the cause of its tolling [ital.].”

  21. Bernie,
    Good to see you are active still and positive (as always).

    I recently spent some time with an Indian student of Hindu and he explained Karma to me as thus:

    Karma is about the DOER, no one else.
    When the DOER does a positive act that goes into the positive karma bin.
    When the DOER does a negative act that goes into the negative bin.

    What others do to the DOER is their Karma. There is no such a thing as undoing a negative Karma act by having another do a negative act to ‘balance’ the books. No. The only way to undo negative Karma is for the DOER to perform a positive act of balancing. The balancing of positive and negative acts creates a null effect on the spirit. He agreed that this is like acts of atonement, but where the DOER perceives that the negative act is negated or absolved with the other party.

    When the spirit meets the Hindu god, similar to our St. Peter, the books are inspected and the spirit is sent to the appropriate level.

    This makes more sense to me than I have been taught or elsewhere read.
    jim

  22. “Another thing which Freud assumed was that guilt underlay these hidden memories as their primary propulsive mechanism. This was not necessarily true, for you will discover that anyone, no matter how innocent, who has been struck, if he has been struck hard enough, will begin to believe that he must have been guilty of something. In other words, he gets a reason why he has been punished, which may or may not have any actuality in fact. In other words, any sudden blow or duress can be expected to have as its consequence the feeling that one has been guilty. In order to stay a reasonable or rational being, an individual has to assume that there must be a reason for everything. This is not necessarily true at all. Thus, guilt comes about merely from a blow or duress. I imagine if you put a man in prison long enough he would be absolutely certain at the end of that time that he had committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. I suppose if you questioned a man long enough about his guilt, if this questioning were under duress, that he would begin to feel he was guilty of the crime of which he was being accused, which accounts for many of the confessions which are brought forth by third-degree methods. Even the police have begun to question these, having discovered all too often that the person was really innocent although he now believed he was completely guilty. Thus, we have the fact that physical pain and unconsciousness in a memory would produce a HIDINGNESS in the memory, since a person would not want to confront a painful picture, and would bring about a feeling of guilt. All this is resolved simply by MAKING THE INDIVIDUAL CAPABLE OF HANDLING ENERGY PICTURES OR ENERGY MASSES OR SPACES REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE, SHAPE OR THREAT.” STRAIGHTWIRE, A MANUAL OF OPERATION, Ability, early July 1955, section Psychoanalysis and Straightwire.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s