View source for Anchor Points, Justice (2ACC 531127)

'''Series:''' 2nd Advanced Clinical Course (2ACC)

'''Date:''' 27 November 1953

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

And this is November the 27th, first morning lecture. And this morning we're going to take up, once more, consecutively, methods of exteriorization.

You know, there's not very much to learn in theory. Your theory is so simple that one of these days you're going to say, "Gee, I sure have been stumbling around in the brush!" And you'll find yourself out in this good, broad highway, and there you are. It's much harder, really, to get into the brush than it is on the highway, which is peculiar.

All you're handling, in essence, is this: There's this guy or this gal, and they've come from someplace else, and they're in a state of fog and unreality, and they're sitting in a head, of all things. That's peculiar, see. I mean, it's real weird. And there they are, and they don't know whether this is the—Christmas or applejack, and this confuses them. And in their confusion, they turn to all sorts of things. They turn to psychology, mesmerism, electric shocks, broken legs, education, religion (so that they save their soul, which is something they put at some distance from them and save it, I guess). And they get into this state of confusion about "which way is 9th and Chestnut." And they don't know these things.

And you find this person walks in—now, sometimes they walk in, they're not very badly disoriented and so what do you for—do? You either get them out of the head, or get the head away from them. Well, the easiest thing to do is to get them out of their head, usually. So you say, "Be three feet back of your head"—the fellow's very surprised and is, or he "kind of" is three feet back of his head, you know, kind of. Well, if he's just "kind of" three feet back of his head, he's using viewpoints. I mean, that's just—that's one, two, three—I mean, he's just using viewpoints. He's putting a viewpoint back of his head.

One of the ways to get rid of that is have him put viewpoints around places and use them for a while. And then say in a nasty tone of voice, "Well, now be there." And he rather routinely is. And if you fail on that one, you'll waste a lot of time for yourself.

And so he isn't three feet back of his head, and he can't put any viewpoints anyplace. Why, your next choice, just in standard operation—just looking over the way I've been operating lately and looking over a series of cases and so forth—if he isn't, why, certain, or he isn't certain of viewpoints or anything, why, I start polishing up anchor points for him.

I use various methods of polishing them up, and it's very often you can put that intermediate step in there, see, just—"Put your body—mock up your body three or four times," something like that. I found out I've been doing that less often lately. Usually, if the guy is uncertain, why, I try to remedy it on viewpoints, and it remedies right away. And the next thing I know, why, I just say, "All right. Now put up a network of anchor points which vaguely approximate the shape of a body. And make them disappear, and put them away, and make them disappear."

And he says, "They're coming back."

"All right. Make them disappear, and make them come back. Make them disappear, and make them come back."

And now, when I've done that for a little while, before or after that, I ask him, "Can you look around in your head and find any anchor points that are out of position?"

This, by the way, is a little package technique that I suddenly looked at myself, and found, myself, that I'd used many, many times and never particularly codified. Because this isn't stuff you think about, it's stuff you look at. Ask him if he can find any of these points in his head that are out of position. Have him mock up some more patterns of anchor points. Have him mock up some anchor points inside of his head. Every time he finds an anchor point out of position or something like that, why, mock up a flock more anchor points. I mean, mock it up and unmock it and mock it up and unmock it and mock it up and unmock it until it gets real clear, and all of a sudden he says, "It's jiggling."

And you say, "All right. Mock one up and make it jiggle." And you just follow the pattern of the anchor point, and so control it.

And he adjusts this anchor point in his head—real anchor point, a GE point—and he looks around and he finds some more. And ask him to mock up more patterns of anchor points out in front of him.

So I've actually been converting Step II here, little by little, and finally caught on to myself what I was doing, as been converting Step II of "Mock up your body," to "Mock up a pattern of anchor points," see, "that represent the body." And I found out that the preclear was mocking up a flesh-and-blood body. This might seem amusing to you, but I found out he was mocking up a flesh-and-blood body rather than the space in which the body appeared, so that the body would appear in the space. This is the way it's done, you see. And you have to find out what people are doing backwards and so forth.

And I found out they were mocking up a body—you know, it had a head and shoulders and so forth—instead of mocking up a bunch of star-points in which a body could be made to appear and disappear. Follow me? Very simple.

Step II, actually, is this kind of a step, but this is Step II and varied down to Step III. And you push these anchor points around in his head and finally found—find every anchor point you can find in his body or in his head that's out of position and push each one into position. Then you ask him to be back of his head again.

Now, about this time he has an objection, and so on. And this objection is that "Hrmph-hrmph-nyar-nyar"—he doesn't know—"It isn't even there!" And he shudders or something of the sort.

And you say, "Well, mock yourself up as a thetan out in front of you, in terrible condition and shuddering and—because you don't like to leave a body." You do that a few times. And then you have him put something in the walls, like: "Put shuddering in the walls and get it back, and get everything shuddering. And now, be three feet back of your head now."

And the fellow is, and very often will tell you, "Yes, I was for a moment."

Now, well, if you searched into it a little more deeply, you would find out that he simply—he knew he could get back of his head, but he thinks you're asking him to leave his body. And bodies to this person are scarce. And that's about the only reason somebody won't get back of his head, if you want to be real mechanical, is bodies are scarce. He's got the idea they're scarce. So you just go on and remedy this—scarcity of bodies.

You can remedy it in dozens of ways. The most effective way to remedy it is just mock him up abandoned and forgotten and alone and getting no attention—as a thetan, you know—because he's lost his body. And mock him up as having gotten out of his body—End of Cycle Processing, see—mock him up as having gotten out of his body and the body's been stolen.

If the preclear suddenly gets an awful sharp pain in the leg, or something else happens, you can be almost certain that somebody else walked out of their body one day, and he picked up their body and walked it into the brush somewhere or got its teeth knocked out or … It was just like somebody stealing a car, see?

See? He walked off with that body, and it's an overt act-motivator sequence that you're running. You're right into overt act-motivator sequence. And you remedy this by—have him mock up other bodies being stolen and all messed up and thrown in the mud; and his own body stolen the second he was out of it, and run into the mud and dead (see, end of cycle) and messy; and mock up his own body very beautiful, and then it gets stolen, and then he can never get another body, and—you get the idea. You know, just end of cycle, end of cycle—terrible consequences of.

And this comes under this terrific button; there's a button there that's just hotter than a piece of dynamite, called "consequences." And if you were just to ask a preclear to sit there and get the concept of "the consequences of (blank)," see—brother! It's—practically tear him to pieces, because that's what he's running on, and that is the overt act-motivator sequence described as a concept.

So you mock up end of cycle, which—you finish the consequences of having walked out of the body and so on. Get the body going crazy and being uncontrollable, and the body being stolen, and just because he moved out of the body, it falls over on the stove and burns its hair off or something of the sort. (Thetans don't like unaesthetic things.) And then, finally, "Be three feet back of your head." Something like that.

He keeps telling you, "Still all black." Well, you haven't paid any attention to this until you've gone through all these various ramifications and "It's still all black." He can be back of his head, but it's still all black. Well, just have him do some "Where isn't he in the room?" And he starts checking off the room. You say, "Now, start checking off the corners of the room, one after the other. Start checking them off, checking them off, checking them off." And he just goes over them and looks and finds he's not there and not there and not there.

And he has—"Still all black," he says. "I don't get a good idea of this at all," so on. Well, break down and have him outside of his body and have him waste a machine that makes blackness.

Have him waste a machine that makes blackness because of the fact that somebody will see his body if he steps out of it; a machine that will cover up mock-ups so they won't get swiped. Some sort of machinery of that character.

You run—in other words, you just follow this pattern. You get him out of his head and you handle his automaticity. What is this sudden idea that the body's going to be stolen the second he gets out of it? He really doesn't think you're going to steal it. That's an automaticity; it's an idea that occurred to him. And so, as an idea that occurred to him, why, you remedy it—by making him get the idea. You see, this is of essence.

And then something occurs to him automatic, like he all of a sudden has a shudder or he gets real upset or he starts to cave in on himself and he's—that's an automaticity. So what do you do? You just remedy it. So a mock-up won't disappear, that's an automaticity—remedy it. So a mock-up disappears and appears again, so that's an automaticity—handle it. That's why I tell you, "My God, you'd better know how to handle automaticities!" Because that's all these sudden ideas of consequences are: they're automaticities, see?

That's just the same as he gets a mock-up and it all of a sudden begins to wave its hands around just furiously. The second you ask him to stay out of his body, he says, "Oh, no!" and he feels kind of sick. That's an automaticity. Well, now you dig on that just a little deeper, and you'll find out he's sitting in some kind of an incident connected with the body. And you don't have to handle the incident at all. But the incident itself, that it came up at that moment, is an automaticity.

Anything that happens that he didn't predict, or feels he can't handle himself, is a severe automaticity. And you only worry about those automaticities which the person feels he's unable to handle.

Now, I've had you, earlier in this course, handling very light little two-bit automaticities that didn't amount to anything, see. Like mock-ups fly around, this guy with a spacesuit keeps appearing, he vanishes it and so forth, but it keeps coming back all the time. Well, you just get him to get it back. Have him vanish it and get it back, vanish it and get it back. That's what the machine is doing, so you just make him do it and follow out the same laws, same rules that we've had before.

Well, anyway, I just kind of play this one way against the other and get rid of the blackness this way and by wasting and accepting machines that make blackness. But, when? When he's exteriorized. And we're off onto running SOP 8-C on an exteriorized thetan. The second we've got him out, and he knows he's out and he's—he could take a finger off that body for a moment, we've got nothing more and nothing less than SOP 8 -C, just as given to you on the steps. And these steps are very easy steps to follow.

But up to that point, this point of exteriorization, you're just playing these two facts one against the other: that the guy is in a body or the body is over a guy. And you want him elsewhere so that he isn't being reinfluenced all the time by the body. And you want him comfortable about walking out of a body, and you want him stable, and you don't want him to use viewpoints. And the only real uncertainty he gets is using viewpoints.

Now this astral walking—this mystic astral walking that I was talking to you about—is an educated automaticity with viewpoints. Now, there's educated emotional automaticities, too. I know one school of thought in India which is fabulous on this. But it—they practice it. Now, any time you get a school that practices something, you've got one that's setting up an automaticity.

Well, you'd better get as far away from setting up an automaticity on auditing as you can. Because the machine turns around on you and starts to audit you after a while and that's self-auditing. There's no sense in learning some kind of a pattern. You just have to know how to look.

And I'm telling you, if there's any discovery, which is of—an interesting discovery in the whole field of Scientology, two discoveries actually; we won't deal with theory or mathematics or composition of the universe or anything else—there are two very pertinent discoveries as far as we're concerned here.

And that is, that there's a guy in the body—what do you know? That's a discovery of magnitude. And two—you know, he's in the body, and he doesn't function well in a body, you see; you can just put that all down under the same discovery. And the other discovery is that he is handling things automatically and that this is his reduction of self-determinism. He's reduced himself by handling—letting everything be handled automatically, and we remedy that simply by making him do it, instead of do it automatically.

Giving those two points, and an ability on your part (God help you) to look, you can be the best condemned auditor that ever walked—just given those two points and knowing how to handle those two points. And then, please, putting a little imagination on it. You know? Just a little imagination. Well, there's nothing like lookingness to stimulate the imagination. So just look at the guy and listen to him.

Now, I've seen more preclears being audited on this basis: The preclear says, "But I'm going down for the third time."

And the auditor simply says, "All right. Now, let's get a recall on your mother. And let's get her standing at the stove."

And the fellow says, "But I'm going down for the third time."

And the auditor says, "Well, get another recall on your mother," and so on.

He's being calm, he's taking my advice about being courageous. Being courageous has nothing to do with being a stick of wood. It's very nice—it's a happy but unusual state—when an auditor is actually in communication with his preclear. It's a nice state, because then the preclear gets cleared. But if the auditor isn't in communication with the preclear …

Now, how much communication do you want? You just want to hear what he's doing that is important. So you have to separate out of all the gibberish he's liable to hand you, something that's important. What's important? He's in a body—that's important. And the other one is, he's—it's some automaticity has cut in. That's important. But only when the automaticity inhibits his exteriorization. Because you'll find soon as he gets away from a body, his automaticities drop by about 999 percent. You'd be surprised, they just practically vanish.

And after that he's dealing with rather simple machinery which is just put there by simple postulates. You just drill him into a point where he can make space and energy, and know, and be places, and get tough, and—so that he will have enough imagination to interest himself in existence.

That's all that's ever going to interest him, by the way. You take most pcs, when you exteriorize them, they haven't got enough imagination to be a drama critic. I mean, I couldn't be more scathing. What they think, they think because somebody else thinks that they should think and so forth, and they're just kind of dull on the whole thing.

They've been so condemned and kicked around about imaginings, and they're so afraid of delusion—they think that if they imagine lots of things, this brings about delusion. This is not true: Their setting up imagination as something they can't have makes it an automaticity which then gives them delusion.

Inhibiting a child from imagining is almost sure to produce the delusion in the child that he is living well, and he must do certain things in the year of 1953, 1954, and that he should vote Republican and so forth. It's the finest way in the world to control somebody, is to blunt out and black out his imagination.

And—because if a fellow has imagination, why, it's—then the fellows in charge of things have to have imagination, see. They have to out-imagine the situation, and if anybody had to really think, that would make it a hard job.

They wouldn't be able to just throw in the cops every time something went wrong. They'd have to get down and be reasonable, you know?

They'd have to say, "Well, let's see—crops, food supply, this sort of thing, that's a real problem. There are human values involved in it, and there are land values, and there are future generations involved in this, and we'll have to figure out now what's best on this situation."

And they won't figure it out by what they did in 1861—that's an automaticity.

And the whole—all of law is set up as this horrible, ponderous, rusting, rotten machine that just grinds on and on from the year when. Well, do you know the bulk of it is grinding on and on from the year 500 B.C.—Roman law; which is the base of English law, which is the base of our law. But English law hasn't invaded us (well, they actually, not technically since they burned the White House, but—in 1812)—but hasn't invaded us since 1776.

So it's an automatic machine. The legal procedures are set up on a—are just continuing an automatic machine that was last given a little punch in 1776. And we said, "We're all independent." And we added that to the law and wrote a constitution about it.

Actually our Constitution in the United States is not as good as the original British Magna Carta. If you want a confirmation of that, read the two documents someday.

The Magna Carta was taken away from King John, I think it was, at the point of a blunderbuss—or what was serving in those days as blunderbuss; probably a few well-aimed longbow arrows. And he recognized his kingly duty, and signed the fact that people had freedom, and that men could own land, and that men had rights to their own domiciles and so forth, and had protection of one kind and another against the state.

Later on they wrote this Constitution. The Constitution is beautiful, but not enforced. Its Bill of Rights, for instance, that follow it on as an amendment today in the United States is just plaahhh. (I know this tape's going abroad. It's perfectly true.) Rights of seizure by force, entrance by law, search—these are just violated just day after day after day after day across the length and breadth of the land.

In Great Britain, a bobby comes up to somebody's house and says—if he thinks there's a criminal harbored there, why, he knocks on the door politely and he said, "You might ask him if he would step out."

And they say, "No," and—the British equivalent of an American equivalent. And the bobby has to go away and get proper seizures and search and entrance warrants and so forth. Meantime, the cop has lost his quarry: he's in some other place.

And you think this is very, very terrible. You get the reverse on it: British justice is awful sudden. When they lay their hands on somebody who is convicted of something, they're often much too fast, by the way. They hang them quick. They sentence them and hang them the same week or the next week, you know? Boom! Just enough time to get the—dust the trial off the guy a little bit and get him steadied up so he'll stand on the platform and they drop him through.

They—by the way, this leads occasionally to miscarriages of justice. There was a young man hanged there in the Christie case. He was hanged for killing—for a murder which Christie had committed. And a year or so later they found the real murderer, and this was just one of the murderers—one of the murders which this other murderer had committed, you see. And this young man who had a wife and a baby was—had been hanged a year before for the murder of the wife and baby. And he'd said at the time Christie did it. But they hanged him—quick, see?

But that's beside the point. Justice is always going to miscarry. The point is, the longer it takes to grind, the more automatic it becomes. And when civil rights and personal rights are not immediately recognized and enforced, all justice has lost its point, which is the safeguarding of the individual in the society. And you just can't have the two words sitting together: no "civil rights" and "justice." They just don't exist together. I mean, it's like saying "green is purple" or "elephants are kept in music stores." You just can't make a closure of those two terminals.

Today in the United States this is quite common to civil rights and so forth. I understand the Department of Justice—if you can imagine, all these years after, the Department of Justice was recently empowered to enforce breaches of the Bill of Rights. And the FBI was given the right to investigate them. They did this the other day—great triumph! I mean, imagine it. They're going to be surprised: I'm going to tap on their door in a couple of days—you know, come Monday, Tuesday, something like that. I'm going to say, "Well, you boys can stop fooling now, I got a couple for you." It isn't that any—I've been wrong, but I know a couple of guys who are—just plain got mauled to pieces.

So I think this is a good place to enter into the society. It might be that we can take some of the stone axes and clubs out of people's hands in this fashion. You know, civil rights.

Now, civil rights, at the same time, is what your thetan is worried about. Because he's operating outside—as poor as the law is, he doesn't have any legal power. None. He has no jurisprudence in his community of action, and this is mainly what your thetan is worried about. He's worried about, one shape or another, justice. He can't safeguard this private property called a body. The body has an identity; he doesn't have an identity. And this worries him. And he very often thinks that this body can easily be taken away from him.

Well he'd be much heartened to know that the last of the roaring lions amongst thetans was actually damped out some long time ago here on Earth. These things used to happen and they still happen in the mildest, tiniest little way imaginable, but they don't happen now. And he's been guilty of them on the past track—he's stolen people's bodies. He's asked them to step out of the body, you know, and then simply made the body walk away.

There can be justice only when there is fair justice which administers protection of the individual and gives him the right to redress under law. In the absence of that, he doesn't have any law. His home must be his castle, his possessions must be his and so on.

A second that justice falls a tiny bit short of that, there is no justice. And this is not a gradient scale of justice. There is no such thing as a gradient scale of justice, you see? I mean, it isn't things are more just than other justness. If you're going to deal with a community, and laws to handle the community, if you're going to deal with that as a community, you're going to have to have complete protection of the individual, his possessions. Otherwise you're simply hamstringing him. If you say he has protection; if you say such things as the Bill of Rights are in force and that he lives in that framework, and yet he doesn't live in that framework; if the law operates for anybody who can buy it; if the law operates to let him be sued but doesn't permit him to sue—justice has ceased anytime any one of these conditions occur, no matter how slightly. Justice is about as close to an absolute thing as one can get.

So out of this, where justice is not possible in a large group, we get justice on a small group basis within the large group. And this is the revolution. Taking place slowly, it is called an evolution; taking place swiftly and with violence, it is called a revolution. But the revolution is always against the lack of justice. It is never against anything else. It is man's complaint that—or a group's complaint—that it has entrusted some larger beingness of itself with its own protection and enforcement, and that this entrustment has been betrayed. And we have that as the basic thought underlying every revolutionary manifesto written by any group since the beginning of time.

Now, he takes it up on a small group basis and, of course, then, we don't have large group justice because we have a small group within the large group employing force toward special means. And this is chaos. And it results in such things, in the French Revolution, as the loss of practically all the literate people in France. It results, in the United States, in such organizations as the Communist Party.

Now, such pressure groups occur in any society when a decent justice is departed from and where such things as the Bill of Rights begin to lose their purpose and meaning.

And so we have smaller groups sitting up and barking wildly. And then we get individuals all through the group who themselves, recognizing the complete lack of justice, have taken justice into their own hands. And some of them take it one way, and some of them take it another. Some are strong men and some are very weak men, and some are criminals and some become slaves. But in one way or the other, they throw the social world out of balance very markedly.

The criminal, for instance, is a product—100 percent a product—of injustice. I don't care how tough a pill it is for the state to swallow: It is parental injustice plus state injustice that makes a criminal. And these two factors are always present in the criminal. You can go down to the prisons and you can start asking people as to what the situation has been in their life. And they—you find out it starts out with some parental injustice that is quite marked, and then they find out that they are not protected in the state. And a state, by the way, which takes no responsibility for, and gives no redress, no recourse to the teenager or child, which keeps a child disenfranchised of civil rights, shouldn't ever wonder for two seconds why it has juvenile delinquency.

Now, under this little set of laws I've just been—these are sort of natural laws that kind of underlie all this structure—you can see immediately that any group, then, which is deprived of rights, to its need of rights, so as to suffer wrong at the hands of many, is going to become a revolutionary or protesting group, and any individual in a group is going to become the same way. He's going to be very wary. And his primary philosophy will be: "I have to administer justice myself." There is either, then, an absolute justice or, in terms of an individual as a member of a group or just as an individual, the person has to feel that he can handle or render justice. You get these two things? I mean, there's got to be some sort of a justice involved.

And what you're dealing with, when you're dealing with a preclear who is difficult to exteriorize, is a person who has come in conflict with these basic fundamentals. He's come in conflict with them to such an extent that he feels he has no right to protect his own property. He has been disenfranchised one way or the other.

A whole series of techniques to remedy his problems immediately display themselves the moment you understand what is justice. It means that he either must have in himself the feeling that sooner or later he can have enough force and power of his own to balance the books—when they need balancing, not because of past scores—but to protect himself, to protect his body, to protect his beingness and protect those dependent upon him.

Man is not quite as egocentric as some of the past superstitions, such as voodooism or psychology, would have us believe. But—he's not that egocentric. Matter of fact, the only button that runs on problems and runs like mad is "other people's problems"; the button never runs on "my problems." It's fascinating. It's "other people's problem"—responsibility to others.

Well, so you have, in anybody difficult to exteriorize, a person who is interested in the vested interest called a body. And he feels that he can protect it—if he stays right close to it and right near to hand, you see, possibly there's some chance of protecting it. And—but if he moves away from it in any way, shape or form, he feels that he will have abandoned, somewhat, his right to it, and he will let—make it less defensible. And his problem is one of defenses.

The answer to this—where there exists no rightful justice with regard to the property of a thetan and the identity of a thetan so that he can have property; or the lack of necessity on the part of a thetan to have property, because he can simply create it at will—lacking those various solutions, the best solution doesn't quite occur to this fellow.

The best solution, if he can't have justice, is to be himself justice. And he can only be justice to the ratio that he is able to generate and use force.

And a person who is inside a body doesn't dare—any more than a person on any other theta trap—doesn't dare use any force because he'll just blow the body to atoms. So the only way he can really protect a body is to be outside of a body and in command of sufficient force in order to reach a level of desirable justice. That's his solution; that's his best bet. But he's inverted on this to a point where he doesn't feel that he can do this. Too many things have been taken from him.

Therefore, the remedy of anchor points is the problem. Because the loss of anchor points and the ownership of anchor points, their destruction, their untimely creation (so as to impede other activities), is the problem of justice. Justice concerns itself with points, and it only indifferently concerns itself with the space enclosed in the points.

So that your preclear who is difficult to exteriorize—if you understand him well, he is a person who is involved with justice. And he feels that he himself would have to be justice in order to continue to own his body in any kind of an altered condition. And you have posed him a very weighty problem. Anytime you say, "Be three feet back of your head," you have posed him this problem. And if he's already been disabused of any belief in any future justice on the part of this society, he, of course, is not going to move an inch away from the property if he can possibly help it.

It's no good to give him a lecture and tell him that justice is desirable only when he can knock people's heads off, because he immediately goes into a furious rage against all the heads that have been knocked off. But the problem is an overt act-motivator sequence having to do with the property of bodies—overt act-motivator sequence.

Well, there are many light things that you can run in order to remedy this. Let's think of the number of anchor points that a person customarily has in terms of bodies. Let's treat a body as an anchor point—that's kind of silly, because a body is a collection of anchor points.

But let's treat a body as an anchor point, and let's find out that every time an actor died, the person lost an awful lot of screen time. See? The body of the actor was one of his anchor points. Every time a celebrity died, he lost an anchor point. And this, by the way, is the gradient scale which leads up finally to his loss of Mother or his loss of Father or his loss of a wife. You see? The loss of anchor points is his problem. He can't even see anchor points. He doesn't dare see anchor points. And furthermore, if he created them, he'd have to protect them by painting them black. So he can't locate the anchor points in his head easily.

This is the rationale, if there's any rationale, and these really are reasons—and these are quite valid reasons—behind the failure to exteriorize. It is a problem in property. It's really a mechanical problem. But he has gotten himself to the point where he feels he needs this body, he wants to continue with this body, he wishes it well, he wants it to function well. All of his goals have to do with bodies, his ends of cycle have to do with bodies, his entire orientation is care of the body, and now you all of a sudden ask him to be three feet out!

And if he does not think that this society is capable of administering justice to him, he won't exteriorize. If his belief has chronically been in the past that injustice was a commoner practice than justice, you'll have difficulty with your preclear right at that moment. He's lost too much property, he's lost too much of this and too much of that, and he's had too many things taken away from him, you might say, in the name of justice, in order for him to easily give up another piece of MEST. You're trying to reduce his havingness to an intolerable point and it makes him frantic! Just the thought of doing so will make him frantic. He'll do all sorts of things. He's even liable to kind of curl up and get convulsive and so forth.

Well, so what's back of this automaticity he suddenly displays? He says, "Yeah, I did that for a second, and oh, I just feel terrible! I just feel terrible." What's back of this? Just—"If I'm back of this body, I can't protect it or control it, I can't defend it, and this is the main problem with which I am faced because I have lost too much." He might as well tell you that, see. If he says, "I just feel bad, and I don't like that, and I keep snapping back in"—all these remarks immediately translate to "I have problems of justice which have never been resolved." See?

He also has this concept: "I am not going to have justice, even when I ask for it, anywhere in the universe." That is his full belief. He believes this.

He believes, sometimes—when he's really, really, very, very, very hard to exteriorize, he believes at this level: "Anybody in the world can ask for any judgment or arrest against me, no matter how unreasonable, and it will be immediately granted them. But if I were to ask for, no matter how reasonably—for the slightest redress of wrong, even though I paid millions of dollars to the finest attorneys alive, it would never be granted to me." And there's his orientation. He can't have any justice!

Well, the second that you give him a smell of the idea that he can be his own justice, he starts to whip up some horsepower and starts to think about what he's going to do to them. See? They've got revenge! So we're resisting, right away, the enemy. We're using force and all that sort of thing.

Well, this kind of a churn goes on in his mind. It shows up in this form of ethics. "What are ethics?" he'll say. "What's justice? What's ethics? What's moral?" And you'll get into a tumult on these things. And I can give you, without you going over and over and over it, his—the final conclusion that comes to him. That conclusion, at length and at last, is that the only immorality, and the only failure in ethics, is to deny oneself. It finally reduces down to this, in the final analysis.

But there isn't any reason to get philosophic with him. You've got somebody on your hands that's being driven around by … What big general term is he being driven about by? Hm?

Male voice: Automaticity.

That's right. He's just being pounded around by automaticities, which themselves are built out of an effort to remedy and keep even a score and balance of justice in the societies and communities in which he lives.

And you're just dealing with these automaticities, and he may, if he's in terrible shape—you might say (quote) "out of space," we have said, and so forth; he's occluded and all that sort of thing—you're just dealing with this one problem. You're not dealing with eighty problems. As far as thinking is concerned and knowing is concerned, you're only dealing with one problem and that is the problem of property. You're dealing with somebody who has to own something in order to have it. Many ways to state this. Or you're dealing with somebody who continues to protect but is actually, he realizes, failing to protect. This person has problems. Well, when you say he has problems, they're not really problems of the future or anything of the sort.

Now, a person who is quite psychotic or neurotic has problems of this nature to such a degree that they now not only cannot have property, but the property which they perceive must be different than the actual property, because they've even been disenfranchised of their right to perceive properly.

Now, a person who is occluded has merely been disenfranchised of his right to perceive. And a person who is delusive has been disenfranchised to such a degree that he can only perceive when he perceives something wrong, something out of the—order, something weird. He could see an elephant coming through the door, but he couldn't see his mother. You get the idea? So he's—his automaticity has mounted up and is running him to such a degree that it puts elephants coming through the door.

And by the way, how would you handle that? How would you handle that? How would you handle that?

Male voice: Increase it.

You'd—he—you got a pc has elephants coming through the door, what do you say to him?

Male voice: Well, get him to put more of them there.

Mm-hm. Would you do it "more of them" or would you get him to put elephants through the door?

Male voice: Well, I'd have him put lots of them through. And then finally slow one up and—oh, look through one, make some more come, so he'd have control of them.

Okay. That's right. That's right. All right.

The perception problem is, then—it becomes actually, by evolution, a justice problem. We have the justice first appearing when we first worry about "the right to look." And when it goes into the field of reason and so on, why, we have "right to own" and so on, long after we have the right to look.

So if he's dealing with perceptic difficulties, you know that low on the scale in his immediate society, he has problems dealing with the fact that he can't have justice but other people probably can, and that everything is crooked and backwards and be—going to be used against him one way or the other. And we go up the scale and we wonder why this fellow can't perceive. Other people can look, but he can't. This is the way you translate justice as you go up into perception in space, you see. That means other people can have space but he can't have any space.

And all of this breaks down—as we get into the rationale in this universe, it just breaks down into this fundamental problem of justice—which you probably think I have been beating to death at long ends trying to get around one way or the other to spend some time, but I'm not; I'm talking about a preclear.

I'm also talking about a sick society. Anytime a society runs fresh out of justice, it's run out of society—it's like that. You know, the best way in the world to make a bunch of savage beasts is to be unjust.

Even if you're running a small group or something like that, small organization—say you're a corporal in charge of a squad—you're continually dealing with this problem: problems of justice, problems of justice. And it takes a pretty skilled corporal to handle a squad. It does, to have a good squad and so forth.

How skilled does a mother with three or four kids have to be? Well, let me assure you, they're not that skilled! I don't care how skilled she has to be—they're not that skilled. They don't—ordinarily, don't function in terms of justice. And when they do, you've got a good mother, got a good father. You've got certainty. It's—even if it's only his certainty that somebody's going to get his block knocked off, you've at least got certainty!

That's a certainty of sorts. It's poor, but it's better than "knock off their blocks today, and kiss them tomorrow, and then buy them anything they want on Tuesday, and then deny them anything to eat for a week because they've been so bad." I mean, you know, this is uncertainty. And that's randomity. That's the definition of randomity, is unpredictability.

If you could always predict that some guy was going to do something bad to you—if you could always predict this—why, you see, you'd have the certainty. It's that he might do something good to you that upsets the whole equation. The only enemies—the only enemies you have that stand up and stick around are these enemies that were not predictably 100 percent bad or good. They were 50 percent bad and 50 percent good, and hung up in a bunch of maybes and so forth. One day Papa was perfectly willing to play ball with you, and then he never looked at you for two weeks. And then you complained about this and it was explained to you by Mother how he'd played ball with you every day for the last two weeks. This is the sort of squirrel bait that kids fool with.

Well, your preclear, if he's difficult to exteriorize, has suffered a great deal of injustice in youth, and it goes right back to that. It goes back to something very simple: It goes back to anchor points, loss of. You find somebody who is difficult to exteriorize had no good property rights enforced for him. He'll have his keenest memory and his best recall on that period of his life when somebody was around who enforced his property rights—or even vaguely enforced them, you know?

You'll—for instance, he'll have this terrific memory of being at his aunt's. You know, he was at his aunt's every summer, and he can remember these. And you could say, very logically, "Well, of course, it was summer and he was having a good time. That's why he remembers all those summers. And he was away from his other things and so on." And then you find out that his mother and father were also at his aunt's all these times, and he's kind of forgotten that. But it's true.

And then what pertinent questions would you start asking right about there if you just wanted to clean up somebody's track on some certain subject? Just Straightwire on the recovery of anchor points. This is what we're talking about now: recovery of anchor points. That, justice, and perception—that's all in the same band.

His memory of his youth is very good during a certain period. If you examine that period you will find out that his property rights were enforced. So, of course, he has memory. Memory itself depends upon being able to get in when you want some anchor points. It doesn't depend on that, but people think it does. It just depends on knowing what happened. It's a much simpler statement than a flock of mechanical anchor points coming in. But trained memories operate with: forgettingness is throwing them away—throwing away anchor points; and memory is pulling them in.

So if a person starts losing too many anchor points, he starts forgetting everything. So if he's around home and he has no justice and his rights of property cannot be enforced, he doesn't have any memory on his childhood.

I can tell you in a moment—I can be with a preclear a minute, not even look at him, and just get the answer to that: "Can you recall your childhood easily?"

And the person says, "No, it's very occluded."

I can tell you immediately what—his status with regard to property, then and now. What was his status then, what is his status now, with regard to property? How does he feel about justice? What will he vote politically? He'll vote for anything politically which tends to give a better right to property and safeguard his rights to property in particular. That's what he'll vote for politically.

Anybody wants to go down here and sweep a national election—I don't care if his name was known to the people ten minutes before he was suddenly put up on the ballot—if his voice could be heard simply advocating better rights to property, better protection of property and more justice, and if he sounded really like he meant it, boy, he'd sweep any office he wanted to possibly sweep. Because this is the one thing people can't have in this society today. They're very leery of this sort of thing.

We've had a rough time in this country because we've run on two standards, and one is the political standard and the other is an economic standard completely at variance from the political standard. In the political standard we've had two standards again in there, which is what we say happens and what happens.

You say, "Well, any country runs like that, what they say happens and what happens. The hell it is. I mean, no country under the sun has ever been so anxious to convince schoolchildren of the greatness and justice of liberty, fraternity, and equality as they exist in the United States. They just pound it in. Textbooks, textbooks, textbooks, beat it and pound it in: "Our American citizen has rights to justice, he has rights to property, he has good rights, and there's nothing more wonderful than the"—whatever amendment it is, the Fifth Amendment, I think. Is it the Fifth Amendment? or whatever it is. Oh, maybe it's the first ten amendments. Anyway, this Bill of Rights, so called. I've gotten so disgusted with it, I've even kicked it out of my memory. Because they keep talking about this thing, and then it doesn't come true.

The first time the little boy is down at the end of the block and gets picked up by a cop for stealing something he didn't steal or gets beaten around for breaking a window he didn't break, and then it's backed up by the whole family and he has no court of appeal, he all of a sudden looks around and realizes there's no justice anywhere he can see. And the second he realizes that thoroughly, he's a juvenile delinquent because he's in revolt against the society. And when he really realizes it, then he's down the street knocking your wife over the head or gunning some cop through the guts just to see the fellow belch. This guy gets into a terrible state. Why? Because he's been lied to continually about the complete power of the Constitution and the complete sanctity and security of the central government, and then he finds out it doesn't work!

If you want to make a calm country, just keep telling them that the federal government is crooked and has no intentions of enforcing anything. Everybody will be calm. But you put everybody on this double maybe. And the only reason pcs are hard to—harder to fish out of their heads in this country than other countries in the world is simply that one factor in education. And if you want to pick on any factor, it's that one.

Sure enough, it's up to you and it's up to me and it's up to the rest of us to see that there is some justice, there's rights before law, that there is right as written in the Constitution, which is the law of the land. The Constitution says it is the law of the land—okay, it's the law of the land. Just make sure it is, that's all. Don't write up the Constitution as the law of the land and then put that in your hip pocket every time you want to do a fast pitch for the Democratic Party or something. See? I mean, it doesn't work that way. If you're going to operate on a high advertised ethic, you certainly better deliver the high advertised ethic.

Now, Mama and Papa who talk to your preclear consistently and continually and forever and aye about "they were so just, and they did so much for the preclear" and he knows damn well they're lying in their teeth—gets so darn stuck in his body, he doesn't know whether he's going or coming. Because they never regarded his property rights as rights at all, they just talked about it. And when it came to his ownership and conduct of property, they weren't there.

You exteriorize him, you've got a problem in anchor points immediately. What's the gradient scale of anchor points? The least important losses which he has suffered, to the most terrible loss which he suffered, which was the person who enforced his rights to property while a child. I don't care who he says was the terrible loss, it's that one that was the loss. And that's the one who is sticking him, if you're going to go into the past. But there is no real reason to go into the past.

Now, I've laid down to you here—if you're trying to understand the preclear, you just get this idea of anchor points, ownership and justice as they're associated. Just realize he's scared somebody's going to grab this thing. They've grabbed everything else he owns.

Realize he's probably done some injustice in the past on grabbing. I'm not in—you see, it's a different thing: Theft and injustice are not a—that isn't the same bracket of words. Overt acts and injustice. Justice doesn't mean, as it's normally interpreted, "no overt acts or motivators"; it doesn't mean "no action." It merely means that if you hacked a guy's head off, certainly that guy has the right to appeal somewhere to get your head hacked off, if this was an overt act and he can't [can] prove that he shouldn't have had his head knocked off. That's really the statement of justice about this.

You'll find out your preclear's up against this problem in terms of ethics. And he's turning this round and round and round and round in his head, one way or the other. And it all boils down to this: loss of anchor points. Which means what? Anchor points out of position or gone. And if the anchor points of the body themselves are disarranged by impacts and so forth, he can't exteriorize from them because he can't find what he's exteriorizing for.

The only real view a thetan has of the body, the brightest view he has of the body, is this pattern of anchor points. If he's upset about justice, he's upset about anchor points. If he's upset about anchor points, his body anchor points undoubtedly are out of line. And if they're out of line, he can't get out of them because the space in them is warped, therefore his thinkingness is warped and so on.

Do you know what you face when you face a preclear? You aren't facing anything that has to do with whether or not he was properly toilet trained—has nothing to do with it. You aren't worrying about whether or not he has horrible sexual inhibitions or whether or not he wants to get out of the body or not. It's just whether or not he has enough feeling of security to be three feet away from that darn body, and whether he can still control it, you see, and whether or not it's going to be taken away from him.

He's also got to feel a pretty good security about you. Because the trick's been pulled on him in the past that he's left a body and somebody else grabbed it immediately. The fellow who asked him out of it took it away from him! This has happened. And it's not going to happen here. Not while I still have the power to zap somebody.

Okay.

ANCHOR POINTS, JUSTICE PAGE 2 2ACC-11A - 27.11.53

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 2ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1953]]