Never Give Interviews
Audio = Stream from the arrow or download from the dots.
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1987-08-13 (0273)
AKS/News condensed = see below
Transcript = See Below
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = See Below #123
UFN = Unidentified Flying Nevers at the end of the tape
Diagram # 123 illustration
Jan Cox Talk #273 ** Aug 13, 1987 ** – 1:55
Notes by TK
Kyroot reading to :06.
J.’s “talk” is all entirely invented and therefore subject to continual quality control and correctness vs. mere ‘truth’. Reform, change and revolution: there is a difference between reform and Real Change. Reform is the altering or substitution of habits (e.g., drinking for not drinking), but this is not real change. To announce your accomplished change is to announce the exact opposite.
The announcement never ceases; it is coupled always with confession. Real Change cannot be habitual; requires continual effort–is a transcending of the habitual. Also, Real Change is not tied to the ‘idea’ of change –of doing better–and involves no discussion in the internal partnership. It is therefore unsettling and useless for the horizontal nervous system.
The Real Powers of the State must control speech, or they are not in control. The Official language of the Ruling Powers must become the official language of the People of the State. To refrain from uncontrolled speech is the dictate of your internal monarchy; Fred must speak the official ‘Fred’ language. As long as the people accept the official language they are powerless. The language of rebellion in the official State tongue is the mere call for reform.
The Real Revolutionist never, never, never confesses ‘sins’. To confess is to assume responsibility for your actions where no responsibility is possible.
Sight is considered to be the dominant sense mode–but it is really not the most influential: what you tell yourself you see is more so. Example of people giving different versions of the same mutually observed event. The Real Revolutionist never talks to himself; never confirms verbally his experience. The Real Revolutionist can explore things w/o talking to himself about them: he can Neuralize.
The Few have got to be able to feel/act as an enlightened being w/o even believing in it; w/o the mechanical underpinning/context of ‘being’ so. A new acronym: MOV–(M)inimal (0)perating (V)erbiage. This is related to the increasing urge in The Few to less and less talk. There is almost nothing to talk about anymore for the Few.
The meanest repayment of another is the attempted reform of them.
1:39 Epilog reading of UFN’s
1:47 Epilog comments re: repayment as a correct and necessary energy transfer.
And Kyroot Said…
Don’t ever confuse human consciousness with anything
A breath-taking slogan to a Revolutionist is worth a library
of philosophy and analysis. This can also sometimes seem true
for the ordinary, but you better “Watch your step” here least you
When it comes right down to it, only your mother, with any
apparent grace, can put up with you and your smelly ole opinions.
Just as there are no men who are “drunks,” but only those
suffering from an alcohol deficiency, there are likewise none
who are “dumb,” only those suffering from a……. ah, this ain’t
gonna fly right.
Does it truly seem that Life has made Man ergonomically
efficient? And if so, for whose benefit, do you suppose?
The Real Revolutionist would always remember: If you can be
“typed, classified, or otherwise identified,” you can be trapped.
Memory is a foregone conclusion.
It is Man’s Yellow Circuits that are the ultimate
prestidigitator; right before your very eyes, with nary a faux
pas, turning verbs into nouns.
You may sometimes think you’re high and mighty, but just
remember this: everything you’ve got is used.
If the Real Revolutionist did not understand the nature of
4-dimensional recycling of energy, He would run the distinct risk
of starvation in the bushes.
Don’t ever try to impress your own systems and circuits; the
danger is that it might work.
If the avant garde doesn’t suffer immediate losses, it was
not the avant garde.
The Real Revolutionist could make time for almost
anything except “self-improvement,” for with Him such an affair
is not a proper hobby, but his chosen profession.
…this was so funny I just had to pass it along.
…I don’t mean to say it’s not correct, just funny.
Yeah, ole smart-mouth, tell me all about it… like I
didn’t read a book once myself.
Everyone’s born a yokel. This kind of activity is like
coming-to-the-city, moving uptown, in fact.
A real chemist would be one who might refinish the periodic
Can either team ever be declared the winner if neither are
ever allowed to leave the stadium?
It is only with the ordinary that everything is taken as
either being “extremely important”, or “totally meaningless.”
The Real Revolutionist, however, sees this distinction as out-
dated and supremely useless.
I’ve heard men warn of the dangers of the “Big Lie,” but
never about the much more threatening “Big Truth.”
A real bus driver would be one who would take short cuts to
The populace always resists change on the theory that they
will just be exchanging one irritation for another.
Granted that Man is a miraculous, conquering creature, but I
have yet to see one successfully survive a prolonged attack of
While there are those in Placid City who say, “What is there
to profitably resist? What need is there to resist?” the Real
Revolutionist knows that it’s all a question of resistance, and
mutters, “In a tight, I’ll even resist the urge to resist.”
The Efficient Ruler understands it’s more cost effective to
have the People go to war for His ideas than to try and put them
Some of the best advice I ever gave a Man regarding those
“times of gloom” was, “Look yourself dead in the ears and say,
‘Hey, you’re nothing but office furniture, and rented at that.'”
The dumber the Ruler, the more laws he proclaims.
The Real Revolutionist would understand the judicious use of
Men are mistaken when they say, “Nature never does anything
in vain”; they should add “twice.” So near again, and yet…
Just as He was falling prey to the firing squad’s joy, one
Revolutionist shouted out, “Remember the squirrels” , and only a
few bushy rodents and one old white pine understood what he
NEVER GIVE INTERVIEWS
Document: 273, August 13, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
I want you to consider something regarding this process of my speaking to you on a continuing basis. The redeeming aspect of what I say is that I have entirely invented it all. I have invented it for the specific purpose of This Activity. Thus, I can continually see to its correctness and exercise quality control as I go along. That is the only reason it has any potential value. Under any ordinary conditions, you would be subject merely to the truth, while in this case you are hearing that which is correct. The difference between the two is that which is correct is usable while that which is true is merely debatable. As long as something is correct you can use it because it has no 3-D relationship to what is merely true.
I’m going to point out the difference between reform and Real, Revolutionary change. At Line level, reform is the only available possibility, but reform is not change; it is merely the alteration or substitution of habit. Reform is what passes for change out in the ordinary world. Although I have noted for you that people do not change, everything in your two-dimensional consciousness says that people do change. Your internal voices say, “Anybody can change. It happens all the time. My uncle quit smoking cigars, my sister underwent a spiritual rebirth and a friend of mine kicked his drug habit.” All of this is either the alteration or the substitution of habits. By substitution I mean, for example, the substitution of the habit of not-drinking for the habit of drinking. The alteration in this example would be, “Well, I used to drink a fifth of vodka every day, but now I’ve got it down to just two beers before work and a martini in the evening.” Or the person might totally give up alcohol and replace that habit with the new habit of talking about how he used to drink. He might even join the lecture circuit, speaking about the dangers of alcohol.
I’m not playing with words. If this seems verbally confusing, let me put it to you another way. If you announce that you have changed, you haven’t. The electrochemical noise in you tells itself, (and tells other people) “Yes, I used to do that, but I’ve changed.” You haven’t. You are dealing in ordinary reform. A reformed alcoholic or a born again sinner must announce to everybody continually that they have changed. And if no one is around, they must tell themselves. This verbal affirmation is part of the new habit. As a slight aside, have you noticed that it is common in everyone at Line level to have almost no tolerance for anyone who has reformed? It is a fairly mechanical phenomenon and I am not defending it per se, but nobody likes to hear someone talk about how they used to drink and then they saw the error of their ways and quit. You should find this curious.
Revolutionary, Real change transcends not only old habit, but all habit. That is, Real change doesn’t become habitual in your lifetime. It is foreign to the kind of mechanical progression of reform that can take place in anyone’s single lifetime. That is why Revolution takes some kind of continual effort.
If you try to neuralize, or even just sit down and think about it, you will see that there is really no comparison available to describe the difference between what you once considered “change” and your efforts in This. It cannot be described because Revolutionary change is, from a very real viewpoint, a useless change. It’s the attempt to do something that could ultimately prove to be useless because at Line level the nervous system sees no need for it. At the ordinary level, Real change makes no sense to your standard molecular equipment.
I have told you before that you cannot tell yourself what you are going to do. Real change is not possible otherwise. Let us say that you have decided to cease some behavior that is habitual to you, such as eating white sugar. (It could be anything, just fill in the blank.) You simply quit doing it, but you absolutely do not tell yourself what you are doing. You “decide” and act without talking to yourself about it.
But your nervous system does want to talk about it. It wants to say, “I’ve noticed that you stopped eating white sugar. You haven’t eaten any in the last three months…tell me, have you stopped eating it? Just admit it; you know you can tell me. Not only have you stopped, but you haven’t mentioned the fact to your best friend or your spouse, and worse still, you haven’t told me! Who do you think you are fooling? I’m no idiot, so why won’t you tell me that you have stopped? And on top of that, tell me why. What’s the point of all this? There must be a reason…” Your internal noise wants to know, “Tell me, have we stopped eating white sugar?” But what it really wants to know is, “Is our new habit not eating white sugar?” If you don’t admit it to yourself, if you refuse to discuss it in any manner whatsoever, a distinct message is sent to the nervous system: “I haven’t really quit.” It is unnerving, it is unsettling; it is unnatural. Proceeding in this manner will have an unsettling effect on your nervous system. Such a mode of operation is not ordinary reform; it is a right-angle Revolution. But to the populace, to the people in you it seems to be an absolutely useless, unfathomable revolution.
Reform is gravity bound. It is tied to the habitual horizontal world. Real Revolution is not so tied — it is free. Then the nervous system may well say, “Yes, free. But free to do what? If it’s freedom we’re after, why don’t you tell me what you’re doing and I’ll join in and help you.” If you believe that then you believe that your high school principal and your truant officer were your best friends. In a sense, if you begin to See in a manner not tied to gravity, that is, to the weight of horizontal experience, you will See that the Revolutionist has no friends. He doesn’t believe in anything, but he doesn’t not believe in anything either. Ordinary people either believe in something or they don’t believe in it, which is all the same habit. The Real Revolutionist transcends that by developing in his lifetime a part of his nervous system that is meaningless right now. The Revolutionist is, in effect, bringing on stage during the third act of a play an actor who has no lines until the fourth act. He knows what is going on, but he’s got no lines — he’s got nothing to say. The other actors try to feed him lines but he’s useless to them. Their feeling is, “Who needs you? You’ve got no part here now. What the hell are you doing here? Speak up!” The Real Revolutionist is not tied to the sequential, horizontal chain of events in the play.
In the 3-D world, you can take it as a rule that if you say you have changed, you haven’t. That includes telling yourself internally. I refer you to my map of the screen of consciousness and the pickup full of bricklayers driving by and yelling, “Hey, you fat slob!” Your nervous system forms an automatic response and you can see it coming — it is similar to the common phenomenon of pre-echo on phonograph records. When you put the needle of a record player on the beginning groove of a record it often picks up half a bar of the song before it actually begins to play. You can see what your nervous system is going to say and you do not say it. The Revolutionary sees what his nervous system is; he can stop the mechanical responses from reaching the screen of consciousness. Ordinary people simply react. When the guys in the truck speed by yelling they respond with, “Same to you buddy!” And then think, “I really must do away with these violent aggressive feelings toward my fellow man.” They feel guilty after the fact; they feel it is necessary to reform their feelings of hatred for their fellow men. Everybody on the planet feels that. A psychologist might say, “This or that in human society seems to be based on violence.” In a sense, at the Red Circuit level everything is based upon what 3-D consciousness calls violence. It is part of being alive. I have spoken of this as a kind of tension that holds everything together.
I’m telling you the difference between ordinary men and the Revolutionary. He realizes that it is not a matter of foolishly trying to wrestle with his nervous system because he Sees that it cannot be changed. He sees that he can simply stop it. As an immediate refinement, I’ll go further and say that it’s not really a matter of stopping it — it gets better than that. It’s not a matter of stopping it any more than you can stop your stomach from grumbling. But do you take that personally? Will you take the noise of your nervous system personally?
The beginning basis of doing This is to find out that the internal noise you have always listened to and taken as yourself bears about as much relationship to you as sap does to a tree. And what is the point of accusing a tree of being sappy? Do you accuse a skunk of smelling bad? It is necessary that Line level humanity take the internal noise as being themselves. It is necessary that they take it personally. The higher up in Life’s nervous system you are — the more mechanically conscious you are — the more you do take it personally: “What I think and feel, I am responsible for.” Only those who realize that, “Thus far, I have not been responsible,” can ever be responsible.
If you tell yourself that you’ve changed with This Activity, you have not. Revolutionary change goes beyond that. It’s not even in the same direction; it’s not doing better or worse — it’s not taking a habit and flipping it over. Whatever the habit might be, Real change is not the opposite. It literally cannot be described.
Now for some capital “P” political talk concerning your State, your People, and the Ruling Powers. The Ruling Powers truly have no power, they have no lasting control over a civilized, literate people unless they control the speech of the populace. The Ruling Powers MUST control speech or they control nothing.
In your State the Ruling Powers have established control over your speech. They started out controlling behavior, such as, “Don’t go to the bathroom in your pants,” or, “Don’t stick a pencil in your sister’s eye.” But the real control is over speech. The official language of the Ruling Powers has become the official language of your people. All of you have an official language; it’s the Herbert language, the Fred or the Mary Anne language. As you matured, you progressed from an apparent state of anarchy into an apparent state of Monarchy. You seemed to develop a stable, internal “I,” a stable “personality.” And you now have an official language.
Within your internal State, your people speak the official language, and they are thereby captured. As long as someone else is controlling your language, you’ve been had. Even if you try to verbally rebel, you have to use the official language. That’s why the Ruling Powers will put up with a certain kind of rebellion. From their point of view, it is nothing more than a harmless hobby of the people — it’s not going anywhere. When the ammunition, the vehicle for rebellion is supplied and controlled by the State, the people in you may shout “rebellion!” but what they are really shouting is “reform!” The Ruling Powers might even reply, “That’s fine. There’s certainly some validity in what you say. We’ll take it under advisement.” You should realize that monarchies do not “take things under advisement.” If that were possible, there would be no need for This Activity because reform would equal change. You would simply think, “Well, I think I’ll change,” and then go forth and do it. You’ve had your whole life to see that change like that is not possible.
As long as you are using the official language of the king, you can talk rebellion all you want, but don’t hold your breath waiting for change to happen. The king is not going to change because all ruling powers are the eternal foe of change. Even if they apparently agree with your talk of rebellion, you are dealing in their currency; you are speaking their official language. Once you get a glimpse of this, you will see how silly it is to talk about change. You will see that even if you do what you say you are going to do, it won’t be change. You aren’t talking about anything that you own. You are not using materials, that is, words, that belong to you.
Now let me point out to you that you must never, never confess your sins. I don’t mean “sins” in some limited religious sense, but since everybody still vibrates internally to mentions of religion, let me be more specific and point out that all religions require a verbal admission of past transgressions. In a broader sense, ordinarily you must confess your failures. At the ordinary level you MUST say it to hold yourself responsible. It is not a psychological trick, it is a molecular reality. You have got to confess to properly take responsibility: “I have an I. I am the “I” saying this. I am the “I” standing here talking. It was I, yes, I and only I who has done these sinful things in the past and now it is I standing here confessing to you. I have sinned and I am trying to do better.”
You should suspect that the Real Revolutionist would never confess. He knows that there was no individual “I” that did anything up until now, much less anything sinful or wrong. He Sees that his nervous system might as well have belonged to a skunk, and along with that, the futility of looking for the origins of his stink. He Sees that he can’t take the stink personally.
You cannot confess sins of any nature. There is nothing to confess. You are not helping yourself in the Revolution. If you confess you are simply reinforcing what you are wired up to be already.
Now I’m going to approach this from another, apparently unrelated angle. It is an accepted, biological fact that the majority of the information from which consciousness seems to be derived comes from sight as opposed to the other senses. Even though this may be true, it is what man’s nervous system says to itself about what it sees that is the most influential source of information. In other words, it is not what people see, it is what they tell themselves about what they see. What you tell yourself about what you see, hear, and feel is the most influential thing that happens. If a group of people are standing around and suddenly one of them clutches his chest and falls dead, and you ask each person present to describe what they saw, there will be as many versions as there are witnesses. This biological fact gives rise to such sayings as, “Appearances can be deceiving.” Such notions are flawed from the outset because, from a 4-D viewpoint, appearances are not a characteristic of something seen, they are a characteristic of the molecular information handling process of sight.
This is why the Real Revolutionist doesn’t talk to himself. He refuses to do interviews and he never confesses. He never tells himself what he sees. That is the way ordinary man knows who they are and what they are doing. The Revolutionist knows that no matter what he tells himself, he has immediately misled himself.
Line-level consciousness not only has to tell itself what it is doing, it must tell other people. A psychologist might say, “Talking to others helps relieve the tensions of life. We need feedback from our fellow men. It helps shore up our tenuous hold on sanity.” It is a chemical, molecular fact that Line-level consciousness must tell itself what it has seen, heard, thought, and read. Only then does it really exist. Only then does it become true. If you talk to yourself about what you’ve seen, it becomes part of your 3-D reality. When that happens, you’ve confessed again; you’ve done another interview.
You cannot live out in the bushes having nothing, believing in nothing, while talking to yourself. A Real Revolutionist doesn’t tell himself what he sees. If he did, sometime later he must go back and untell himself. At some point he’s got to think, “Well, I’ve got to change my mind. I’ve got to rethink my position.”
A Real Revolutionist doesn’t have to change his mind. He’s got no mind. There’s no occasion for him to alter his opinions because he has none. If you can grasp this, then you can see a new definition for Neuralizing: To discuss something without talking about it. That is, you can discuss, probe and ponder something without talking about it, especially to yourself.
And now something that has to do with the reality behind my term Operational Directive. This term refers to the process of forcing yourself to act in accordance with anything that has struck you as being correct. Even if you do not fully Understand something at all times, you must still act upon it on the basis that you once saw the correctness of it.
You are not a Revolutionist if you cannot take the heart of your forefather’s religion — the code of behavior and thought that epitomizes an ideal member of that religion, and specifically DO it. You must be able to think, feel and act the way a first-class member of ANY religion would, even without any mechanical background to lean on. You’ve got to be able to do it without believing in it. I bring this up for a reason — there is a useful reality to these ideals and religious paradigms or Life would not still be using them.
Now I have a new term for you: Minimal Operating Verbiage. As you begin to Understand, you will begin to free yourself from the mechanical restraints, the gravity of your own nervous system. You may find that you will talk less. You will simply have nothing to say other than what you must say to get along in the world.
Remember that we’re still using 3-D words and what I’m describing doesn’t go in a straight line. But I suggest that you will want to talk less and less and you won’t even know it. So let me ask you, what the hell is there to say anyway? If I didn’t invent what I tell you, I would have nothing to say. Nothing. I have no opinions and no story to sell.
Some of you will find that there is a level of Minimal Operating Verbiage. It comes and it goes, so don’t worry that suddenly it will happen to you and you’ll never talk again.
Consider this: What is there to say about what has already happened? And yet what constitutes the majority of human conversation? The subject is always the past — what happened a month ago, a week ago, or two seconds ago. If you are ordinary there is nothing wrong with that. But what purpose can it serve if you are trying to revolt? What is there to say about what has already happened? In what way are you trying to feed yourself? Can you imagine a Real Revolutionist crouching out in the cold wet bushes talking to himself? Can you picture him commenting on the conversations that he can hear going on in the city? You call that running a Revolution? That is merely being a would-be revolutionist. That is wearing a hat and brandishing a cardboard sword. If you are talking to yourself, you are just playing at revolution. You are just going out to the bushes on the weekends and imagining that you are Long John Silver or John Lee Hooker. As long as you are talking about it you are imagining it all.
I’m telling you that there is almost nothing to talk about except the necessary degree of factual information as opposed to social information. All mechanical talk, anything that you are not required to say for your own well-being, is a reinforcement of your belief in a mirage.
The most influential thing that happens within the ordinary nervous system, with the molecular structure of consciousness, is the process of telling yourself what you are, what you believe, what you have done and what you are going to do. You say it, you listen to it and then it is real. You have confessed, and your confession is, “Yes, this is me. I am me. I am I.” As long as you believe that, you are stuck in the city. You are part of the populace. In that position, you can forget about change. Forget about Revolution. All you can do is reform. And you’ll never find the Real fun of This.