Well now, wouldn't you like to know a little bit of technical development?

Thank you. I'm glad you're here. In fact, thank you for being here.

Audience: Yes.

We're actually now in the embarrassing position of being smaller in the United Kingdom than we are in Australia and being a smaller organization in the United Kingdom than we are in South Africa. We, of course, are not smaller than we are in the United States in the United Kingdom, but I decided that we better have a program for the United Kingdom. I decided that would be an awfully good idea if we had a program for the United Kingdom.

It starts with why people don't progress in processing. I have already told you that it is a tremendous liability for any practitioner to work on any human being in order to render that human being well, better, improved, or just work on them without knowing all of the gen, all of the data about the subject. This is a tremendous liability.

Not that there's anything wrong with the United Kingdom except we've become complacent. We've been going for a very long time, and we are now on the treadmill grind. And you know, that's sort of, "That's the way it is."

Now, in the field of human relations, the data is a little bit more complex and a little less known than in several other fields. And the liability is considerably greater. The liability of a radio technician working on your radio who doesn't know very much about your radio — the liability is mainly yours. You'll lose the radio, it's the radio that catches it.

Well, that isn't the way it is. You can't hold a level without falling off. You've either got to go up or go down. And so, we have two programs for the United Kingdom.

But in a human being, oddly enough, a fact which is not even known, I mean so little data is actually known to psychiatry that they don't know there's any liability in it, in spite of the fact that nurses in mental hospitals, and so forth, are routinely and regularly sent into the wards as patients. In spite of the fact that of all the creaking wrecks physically you ever wanted to see, you'll find an abundance of amongst medical doctors. In spite of this observation, they do not know that they don't know the triggers and gimmicks. They don't know those little odd bits and pieces.

One's a Special Zone Plan about which you know a great deal and about which a great deal more could be said. I, however, do not consider that program number 1 for the United Kingdom. Program number 1 for the United Kingdom starts at 7:30 tomorrow morning at the Charing Cross–Embankment Underground where the bus leaves for Saint Hill. That's when that program starts.

The first thing which you must not do in any practice in human relations is fail. You can fail with radios. And politically, it is sometimes hard on people to fail with atomic bombs. But you can even fail with those without the tremendous repercussions involved.

Now, you may think this is just an effort to fill up an ACC or to get somebody in, and so forth. But look-a-here, you've had two only mediumly successful ACCs in the United Kingdom in the distant past — only two. And they didn't turn out the percentages that they should have in terms of Clear or anything else. You understand?

No, the field of human relations — and I have understood this with great clarity since 1947 and have worked very, very hard actually on it since sometime in that period when I began to realize, without articulating it, that the one thing you mustn't do about this is fail. You mustn't fail along this line, that was the liability. Don't you see?

So that's why about 24 or 36 hours ago (you ought to be part of the organization; if you are, you know how dizzy things can get) I suddenly decided with a crash that this had gone far enough, and the best thing we could possibly do for the United Kingdom — not that anybody is worried about it — but if something remains that static, it'll as-is. (Joke.)

And I articulated this first, perhaps '52, '53, '54 — losses, and so on. And this came out very strong and clear about '56, '57. Talked a lot about losses and losing, and we started talking about wins, and so on. We knew more about it.

Now, much to the horror of HCO Worldwide and HCO London, and with a little minor gulp in HASI London, I said, "Well, I'm going to sit on this ACC tight." And I said, "This one I'm going to teach personal for the United Kingdom, and I'm going to turn out at the other end nothing but Clears, 100 percent. I'm bored with this business of sitting around patty-caking," and so forth.

But this is the one field where you must not leave unknown any data. Because that unknownness becomes a liability out of proportion to merely repairing a machine.

Now look, if you had twenty-five–thirty-five Clears in the United Kingdom, it would make one fantastic lot of difference, wouldn't it? Hm? And if you had twenty-five or thirty-five people in the United Kingdom, each one of whom could be absolutely trusted to sit down in front of a pc and dear the pc, what do you think that'd do to the United Kingdom?

Now if medicine and psychiatry, if other fields of practice, regard human beings as a machine they feel they can escape the liability of not knowing anything about human beings. And it's not true. Because regarding a human being as a machine is an overt act. So it starts right there, that's wrong.

That's why they say, "Well, man after all is only 97 cents worth. So he died, I mean, so what. So what, send the family a bill."

In the first place it's not very hard to clear anybody. It's not difficult to clear people, not now. The operating climate is changed. It has been changed here now in the United Kingdom for not more than seven or eight weeks, but it has changed. Definitely. Because HGCs all over the world are reporting in all of their profiles as they always do to HCO WW. And in 25 hours, those cases which were lying on the bottom are up toward the bottom middle of the graph.

You know, this attitude can only come out of that. They have this mechanism of (quote) "lessening the overt." Lessening the overt. They try to make it less by saying what they're operating on is worthless, that it is unimportant. And you will find almost anybody with overt acts against people, organizations, offices, posts, positions or anything else are saying it is no good in order to lessen their overts against it.

In other words, they go from off the bottom up toward the middle of the graph. Another 25 hours of processing, they go up just above the middle of the graph. Another 25 hours of processing and they start sailing up in the Clear range.

There's two sides to this. It might be no good. It's like sometimes — we had somebody in the old Elizabeth Foundation about ten years ago, and he came in and he acted like a crazy man. He said some of the craziest things were going on. He kept talking about all these crazy things going on in his environment. And at that time we had a lot of people who were hanging around from psychiatry, medicine, and so forth. If you think I'm being hard on these men, I'm not. They just happen to be our precursors in the field.

The only funny story about all this is, of course, this stuff comes in — just in by the ton. The postmaster general loves us. We send so much mail out and get so much in. Keeps the morale up.

The body of experience which they had in the nineteenth century, and so forth, becomes an object lesson to us. That is all. Our interest ceases at that point. We're not trying to become successors to them or anything else. But they did do a lot of things. And we do have that data. So we should be grateful to them rather than otherwise.

Oh, factually, every Central Organization pc in the world — and that's an awful lot of them — are reported in full at Saint Hill. And we've kept our eye on this, and for the last — oh, we haven't got every Central Organization absolutely smooth or every auditor in the world yet absolutely smooth, but we have found something fabulous. Found something utterly fabulous. The only thing that prevents anybody from being Clear on the processes we are now using — and we're going right up and out the top — is some gross error. A gross error. It is not a small error. It's something like the auditor sat there for 25 hours and talked about his ulcers.

We had a lot of these fellows around, hanging around and falling in and out of auditing rooms, and so forth. And these chaps all took a look at this poor fellow, and they said .. .

You ask Robin. She sits there and agonizes over them. Once in a while I get a despatch on the lines from her. "Can't I tell the auditors in Northumbria or Upper Slobithgovia or something — can't I please tell them to audit the pc, not the D of P?" Or something like that, you know.

Well, the auditor auditing him didn't think so. He thought, "Well, there's something, there's something going on here that I don't know anything about, and I'd better find out about it." Now, that was the smart thing to do, you see.

But it's a gross error. A fantastically gross error.

This fellow was a fairly wealthy man, and he was married to a fairly unscrupulous woman who tailor-made a psychotic environment around him, and made him think certain things were happening. She talked to him in his sleep and things of this character, don't you see.

Now look. We've been in the operating climate for a very, very long time of you had to be very careful to follow the Auditor's Code. You had to be rely careful how you gave that acknowledgment. You had to walk that tightrope all the way through the session. It was a critical proposition clearing people. Well, that's very true. The processes we had made clearing a very critical proposition. But that now has only laid a good foundation for auditing. It makes a good auditor, if he's trained that way and oriented that way, that he does that careful a job.

It's like some poor guy that was undergoing the CO2 experimentation by some psyrologist or phrenologist or somebody, and they were giving him CO2. And in order to orient them, why, just before they went under, they'd say, "Where's the picture?"

But, the things that are preventing people from getting cleared are not these, not these tiny little differences. The things that are preventing them from getting cleared is something on the order of the auditor never came to the session.

And the fellow would look around and look over the fireplace, and he'd say, "Well, it's over there over the fireplace."

Oh, yeah, you-it's that goofy. I'm not even exaggerating. It's something fabulous. The fellow was supposed to have 121/2 hours of-the pc is supposed to have 121/2 hours of processing, and it got goofed around, so it got cut way down, of course, this would upset a pc and you get no auditing in, or something like this would happen. Or consistent and continual changes of auditors. Or the auditor just didn't even vaguely run any terminal had anything to do with the case. You know, I mean, it's gross.

And then they'd put him out and go hocus-pocus or dance their dance with their gourd rattles — whatever it was, it's historical — and bring him out again and say, "Where's the picture?"

And we're now looking — we're now looking at an entirely changed picture in Scientology.

And the guy would go, "Mmmmmhnnnnnaaa. It's on the wall over there." And he thought he'd gone mad.

Now look, I maybe could be accused of crying wolf too often and say, "Well, we're making Clears now. Yeah, this is clearing. Clearing is fine," and so forth. Well, maybe you could be perfectly justified in saying, "Well, he said it too often."

But this is the standard procedure they use with CO2. They haven't any overt act in mind when they change the position of the picture, they change the position of the picture. It isn't because he went mad while he was having CO2. They change the position of the picture so the fellow can reorient himself, and they can be sure that he isn't just remembering the picture is over the fireplace. You see, they don't know enough about the mind to know that a fellow sees what he sees.

Well, there are two reasons for that. All of my experience, the most direct, subjective experience, and so forth, which I have is in my auditing people. And for something on the order of about 10 years I've been dreaming up a process which is, "Hold the two back corners of the room." And I say to the pc, "All right, you hold the two back corners of the room," something like that. "Just sit there in the chair and get the idea of holding those two back corners of the room." And wild, weird and incredible things would occur and I tell an auditor, "All right, now have your pc hold the two back corners of the room," and wild and incredible things don't occur.

And we got this case, the fellow thought he was mad because every time he'd wake up out of this CO2 series, and so forth, the picture was someplace else. And he thought he couldn't remember where pictures were.

Another thing is, my next pair of eyes is through auditors doing immediate and direct research. And these boys were auditing pcs and girls were auditing pcs directly, but on a process that Ron had told them to run exactly as Ron had told them to run it. And of course, the pc knew that. Pc agreement, usually, was gotten to run an experimental process. So once more, what is that? This is altitude at work.

In other words, this is a mad environment. There are always two things. So it might actually be true that the navy stopped advancing along about Nelson's day and hasn't done anything else ever since, don't you see?

Now, when I say to somebody, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" All right. Student auditor says this, you know, he says, "Now what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

It might be true, you see, that it isn't being run right. But on the other hand if it were an absolutely perfect navy in modern times, and you had a sailor or an officer, who had tremendous hidden overts against that organization, he would tell you it was no good.

And the pc says, "Well, let's see, what part of the problem, this isn't very important."

In the presence of ovens, in the presence of hidden crimes and deeds, a person's power of observation becomes poor and he tries to lessen the overt. So, it isn't whether the navy is bad or good. It's just that the person you're listening to probably doesn't know. He hasn't been able to observe it, don't you see?

Somebody with altitude tells them that, "Now what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

Well, people facing up to patients who don't know anything about the patients, who are consistently and continually being guilty of ovens about the patients, would be the very last people you would ever find any real data from about patients.

The pc says, "Who? Me? Me? Me be responsible for something? Let's see now. Me be responsible for something? Me? Well, who does he mean by me? Me? You know, I think this guy is talking to me. Well, let's see. What part could I be responsible for? By George, not very much of it. Ah, yes, yes. I know what I could be responsible for. I could be responsible for avoiding it."

And yet, go down to the library and read the textbooks. Just go down and read the textbooks on old healing practices and you will be fascinated. You'd just be fascinated. You can pick up some old book on psychiatry or something like that which is just full of case histories, and all the data is there.

All right. All right. This is the question of altitude. This is the question of altitude. And I assure you, it should pay [play] a minimal part. It's been with us as a problem now since the first days I myself was auditing directly and immediately, which takes us back to very early 1947. I put in a lot of hours in the auditor's chair back from the last year of the war on up, and was making first Clears back there at that time.

To a Dianeticist, he realizes he's just reading an engram the fellow is stuck in. And all the data is there, what the patient was saying, and so forth. And then you'll hear, "... and so we convinced this patient that this was not the case. And the patient still said, 'I don't know. It still seems it's awfully real.' "

Well now, let me give you something that is very interesting. There's such a thing as a valence. A person is in somebody else's valence. He isn't being himself at all.

Well, well, you look into — you look into these various views and we find, however, that where you don't know and you're committing overt acts against the thing which you are supposedly studying, you just never find out.

Now as soon as a person is in somebody else's valence, somebody else's beingness, only then can he experience pain, discomfort, upset, unrest and worry. We needn't worry too much about why that is, but it's just there. That's it.

Perhaps the only thing that has happened here that is the least bit fantastic is that our subject matter has not become deranged by the study of the subject matter. In other words, we still are observing the subject.

A person's identity, in other words, has to be highly false before he can have any bad luck. If he's ever saying, "I am being me," or acting as he himself would act, he doesn't have. Falsity is always the basis of all injury, pain, upset, bad luck, fate, karma, anything else you want to call it.

Well, that was only possible because we were getting more wins than loses more often than not, but where an auditor has been practicing on-preclears for a long time, he has stacked up a few loses. He's stacked up a few, even though he got a lot of wins. And after a while he feels — rrrrr. He isn't quite sure what he's looking at. It — rrwwwrr. He knows there's something he doesn't know. Well, that was the state we couldn't be in. That is the state we must not be in.

Now, Mary Sue is smiling down here. She used to write an ad and put it in Fate magazine once in a while. Out of her own personal puckishness, she'd say, "You can erase your karma." It's true, you can. But the fundamental of erasing your karma would simply just be yourself. Because your karma applies to somebody else called Joe, Bill or Pete that you aren't. Don't you see?

First, starting in, we must know that there was little or nothing known about the mind in spite of eight-million-dollar advertising campaigns. We must know that. And we can see that readily by looking at the statistics. And the statistics are on a high, soaring climb all over the world.

All right. Here we've got a problem in altitude whenever somebody is auditing somebody with technology which is not strong enough to resolve that particular difficulty in auditing.

Now two things influence these statistics — is more and more people are believed to be insane who were once considered merely eccentric. And the other one is that more people are going insane, and there are less people being treated for insanity effectively but are suffering from iatrogenic psychoses. Boy, isn't that a nice word? You never heard me use words like that before, did you? I didn't think I remembered that one. I think that's from three lives ago.

A student auditor or somebody auditing without much conviction, he's sitting there, and he's saying, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" You know, with good Tone 40, and so forth.

It means psychoses caused by the practitioner. Isn't that a lovely name though? Iatrogenic.

And he says this, and pc says, "What part of the problem could I — Mother, what part of the problem could Mother be responsible for? Let's see. I guess she could be responsible for the whole shooting match. The whole ruddy works, that's for sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, be responsible for the whole thing." (Pc's answer.)

Now what do we find — what do we find in this area? We find that we ourselves have had so few of these, that is to say we've caused things to be bad so rarely, if at all, that we haven't been guilty of that much overt. So we're still in there pitching.

Well, by the way, this is just one of several accidentals which have stood in the line — one of several. Auditing without altitude, without punch, without conviction, without a desire to be helped on the part of a pc. All of these things add up to a long tough play — a long one and a tough one.

But where an auditor has had one too many loses, he hasn't had all the data available, he himself is liable to become liable to a nonobservation or a restimulation or something of this character.

Auditors throughout the world have set me the rather fantastic problem of finding out what they were going to do next to outguess the whole situation. Back two or three years ago, I used to go at it like this: There'd be a perfectly clean, clear problem — process. Or there would be a perfectly good undercut process of some kind or another like, well, an old one was, "Invent something worse than that leg or a leg." That was a couple of years ago. You've seen refinements come in, even on this line. But I get hold of a pc, and I say, "Invent something worse than a leg." Pc's got a bad leg, see. Pang pang, pang pang. Forty-five minutes, an hour, and so forth. The fellow says, "Ow, ow, ow, ow."

It's just losses and the realization that he doesn't know, so he actually starts trying to find out. Well, he'll start trying to find out in himself or in others or in some other way and try to make up his mind about what this is that he doesn't know about the thing. And he's apt to drift or he's apt to find something or he's apt to do most anything, but the point is that progress stops right at that point. He's still looking, he realizes. So therefore the one thing we couldn't do in Dianetics and Scientology was to leave it not wrapped up.

And I say, "What's the matter?"

All right. It at least had to be wrapped up to a point where the remaining data was insufficiently great to produce a spin on the part of the practitioner. See? We had to know enough so that if we did have to find out more, the more that we had to find out was data of minor magnitude. We certainly had to have the data of major magnitude, and that is the state which the subject and the field shortly will be, and the subject is in right this minute. In other words, there is no major data left undiscovered. There are probably tremendous quantities of minor data. Now how do we know that?

He says, "Ow, ow, ow," he says, "My leg hurts."

It's the grossness of error that keeps people from being Clear. It isn't the state of cases that we're clearing. They're "What wall?" you know. They're "Well, I don't know whether I ought to touch that tiger or not." The auditor wisely doesn't say, "What tiger?" because there's none in the room.

I say, "Fine. Invent something worse than that leg."

We're actually picking these people up from the basement on their profiles, and so forth, which you get on such people — they just lie flat over here on the left side of the profiles. And we're bringing those up with the clearing techniques we are using, and we're not even going into the CCHs to produce this.

"Oh, I don't know. Boiled in oil. Rah, rah, rub, rah." And all of a sudden, boom!

But when you get down below that, we've still got another whole set of procedures which, operating properly, can bring them up to a point where they can be audited by something else. That still will bring them up, but factually the CCHs bring them up to the bottom of the graph. That's just about what the CCHs do.

I say, "What's the matter here?"

Oh, you can — you'll get tremendous upper improvements, but the mechanics of auditing must be working in there as entirely independent of the process of the CCHs, don't you see? There must be something else working in there. Either the interest of another person or a more hopeful outlook or something like this probably takes place in there to bring up these tremendous increases on the CCHs. Not that CCHs are bad, but they — you know, you can run those on an unconscious person. A person can be lying there in a coma — been in a coma for seven weeks or something like that — an auditor can come along and by running CCH 1, and so on, can bring them out of a coma. It's happened many times.

And he'll look down. Any sores or anything on his leg (snap), gone. That miraculous, absolutely miraculous. Run the BMA right out of business.

The most notable time that it happened was in New Zealand where an auditor did this, visiting the hospital and bringing this person out of a coma. A person was pretty well up, getting up, was beginning to recognize things, and so forth, and instantly the heart rate and respiration rate were so improved that all the medicos in the hospital became very worried and kicked everybody out and closed the room down tight, and the woman died.

But when I released that one, I said now what are they going to do with it that'll muck it up. I was getting cynical because it could be mucked up. It could be. And it was. And you hardly see that process around today, but it's one of the finest processes you ever saw in your life.

All right. The gross error in that wise was an environmental error. It was force beyond the control of the auditor — restraint of princes or acts of God or something like the old English sea contracts used to read, you know.

You could set up your shingle right next to the BMA central headquarters and build a bigger building in three months. You could! I mean that's a fact. There are few things wrong with the processes originally worded. So what happens is a process comes back to me, I have to reshape the process and fix it up so that in the absence of tremendous altitude and things of this character, it will still work.

Well, we can even pick them up off the center of the Earth and bring them up to the basement. But that basement is what worries us. We're not interested in what we can do with somebody in an almost magical line, like a dead person lying there, an auditor comes along, says, "Dead." The pulmotor doesn't work, nothing is happening here, and so forth. And the auditor says, looks down at the corpse and says quite angrily, "Come on back here and pick up that body. What do you think you're doing?" And the person comes awake and . . . searches ... Sounds utterly fantastic, but that works. That's happened several times, too.

Well, it's taken almost two years to sort that one out. So the first piece of data you've got at the congress in a technical fashion is just, "Think of something worse than a (whatever is wrong with the pc)."

I didn't do it one time — overt act. That's been kind of sticking around. Every once in a blue moon I think about this — I didn't do it. The fellow had been dead for about twenty minutes or something like that, but it looked to me like he had so overtly gone and drowned himself that I figured out he must be having an awful time of it at home. You know, I just delayed long enough from doing it so that it — I didn't do it. And I picked him up and put him in the morgue.

You say to the pc, "What's wrong with you? What's wrong with your body?"

But anyhow, the mechanics of this sort of thing are, of course, what would make headlines and what we are the least interested in. That's one of the reasons — the magical operation, the magic appearance of things, and so forth, magic healing.

And he says, "Well, I think it's my kidneys."

Well, perhaps you may have wondered why we never push magic healing or why we never push magic recoveries or something like that. I'll argue with somebody who can suddenly push MEST or move MEST or something like that.

And you say, "Well, that's fine. Think of something worse than kidneys."

All right. You let me catch you — you let me catch you pushing all the people off of a bus or doing something in that direction, and I'll nail you back in your head with tenpenny spikes — they remember this. You don't want this kind of thing. Do you know what could happen to Earth right now? If we were just to go ahead and do nothing but magical operations, we would be pulling an awful overt act. We'd drive everybody down into propitiation, see.

It's "Think of something worse than kidneys." You cut the bottom out from underneath the condition, in other words, because he's resisting getting worse. And that's what makes him bad. He's resisting getting ill, sick, worse, and so forth, and that is the downward spiral. His resistance to decay. And it works. It works very, very well, and it works marvelously — providing he's in-session. A little footnote on that, asterisk, bottom line: providing pc is in-session.

I think when people have discovered a few pieces of life in the past, such as in Egypt or Chaldea — well, take Chaldea. That's an interesting side of it. Somebody figured out how to predict eclipses. Maybe it was one of you. And figured out how to predict eclipses and knew when the eclipses were going to happen. Instead of publishing it in the Chaldean astronomer's journal, it became a priesthood. And they figured out just the day before the eclipse and would make some pronunciamento to the local prince — and even when the Chaldean became the Babylonian magic man — say to this prince, "If you don't grant amnesty, freedom, liberty and 10,000 talents to the local temple, the sun will go out tomorrow, and we won't turn it back on."

But that's really not tough — not tough to get him in-session now because there is such a thing called presessioning. Again, that I am going to tell you something about in this congress because there's new data on it that has not even been released in a bulletin.

And the local prince would say, "Yeah, pool Heard that before," you know. And then the sun goes out. And he says, "Where is that checkbook?" And the sun comes back on again.

All right. But when we look over this picture, what do we see? We see various things have intervened between the preclear and Clear. It really didn't have too much to do with bad auditing, but it had a lot to do with having to do auditing with such care that the auditing itself could prove ineffectual in many cases, and the auditor himself having the difficult time trying to steer this very cranky bark called a pc over the troubled seas of his aberrations. And it was a piece of helmsmanship that would have — would do credit to the defender of the international cup. You had to be too confounded good, that's all.

Well, it was merely a piece of natural science. For instance, old Moses, interesting case in point. He was a Red Sea guide for a number of years. He was. He was over in the Red Sea areas, he knew all about the tides, he knew how the — they do it to this day in the Red Sea.

Lacking altitude, you had to be perfect. Don't you see? Now I could make a mistake. You can't. Lacking altitude the pc will bring it up and it'll fester. If I do it, well, he says, "That must be the way it's done. Ron did it," which, of course, has made a difficulty for you. Now actually, the first clearing done by other people occurred in 1957, late in the year. And I knew there was something still needful because I didn't think we would get to the very, very rough bottom scale cases. I thought some other things would probably intervene up the line, and you saw that sometime late in 1958 I stopped talking about it to a marked degree. I got very quiet about it.

The tides there sweep out such a tremendous distance they leave the sands utterly bare and come in with an avalanche of water. Just a crash of water comes in and covers everything up suddenly just in time to catch the Pharaoh's troops, you know. All of that kind of stuff. Well, that's natural science. Nothing against Moses, he was a good guy, we all liked him. But he was not above a little hocus-pocus.

Well, that wasn't because we weren't making Clears. We still could have along that line except for one thing. We were only getting a percentage, we were only getting something between 50 and 30 percent and it was just not enough. And it was taking auditors in HGCs and the field at large fantastic numbers of hours. It was just a long long long long look. The hour estimates were out.

So anyway, that little bit of science moving in was adequate to take control of tremendous numbers of people. And it was a control which, apparently, never worked out for the benefit of people. It put them in mystery, unknowingness, and so forth. It did not free people. And anybody who did it, of course, himself was liable because he was causing an overt act. He knew very well how he was producing these effects, and he didn't say how. He skipped it. After a while the magic didn't work.

So I dropped it and decided to solve one problem and decided to solve that problem well, completely and utterly. Is the pc at cause? Must he really be audited at cause and only cause? And from that time until just this April, you will find that all the work done is done around that alone.

Oh, I could probably study up and bring up vases on the stage here and have them bloom fire, you know, and then explode or something of the sort, or ladies' hats appear in my hand or something stupid like this, you know. Work on it for a year or two or three and get to a point of where you really had a good grasp of these things and didn't flinch every time you touched a lady's hat or something like this, and you're out of your head. Make them sail around in the air or something like that, and come back and sit on the lady's lap with a message from God in it or something. -

We have to understand now, we've got to face it now that there is a new law involved with cases that any effect a person receives of a bad or unwanted nature was originally caused by himself and has gone through the vias of other-determinisms. In other words, unless he authored the effect, it never hit him and never will hit him.

Now, what would be the possible use of it? Oh, yes, you say you could produce an immediate short-term effect. Well, that's what we've just had too many times in too many places — immediate short-term effects.

Now you know quite a bit about this. There have been lots of bulletins out on it and those people just got — hearing too much about this first time might have their hair stand on end.

Some fellow says, 'Well, I know best," and shows everybody that they should be in propitiation, and then says, "Well, the message from headquarters is something or other, and they . . ." you know, "And this is

Well, look, I'll call something to your attention. Man's never done anything with man. Well, that's a fact, that's a fact. If you read all the ads and blurbs of the medical association and psychiatric associations, and so forth, very faithfully, you will look in vain for cures. You'll see a lot of procedure. You'll see a lot of must do's — first, the sulfa drugs and now penicillin. Then there was penicillin, and penicillin, oh, man, that cured anything from broken legs to falling hair. All you had to do was get a horse needle and hold the patient down with one knee, see, and go sssssew. And they even got it so it'd stay in him for days, and you didn't have to wake him up every three hours, and you didn't have to let it drip into him from bottles. They really got this one down pat.

what you do with your life, and you're all supposed to go out and immolate yourself on tigers," or something. Whatever it is, we don't care. It's just that it didn't restore to man any freedom, any dignity, decency or control over his environment.

And now it's stopped curing anything. That's a fact. Tremendous numbers of people are allergic to this stuff now. It's stopped working. You don't hear any ads on the subject, but why Aureomycetin? Why Chloromycetin? Why all these new wonder drugs after wonder drugs after wonder drugs? It makes you wonder, let me tell you.

And this was basically because of a misconcept about man; they thought man was evil. Well, there's a very interesting experiment that you can run, if you have some minor ailment in some part of your body or something of the sort. Let's say you have a knock in the head or something that hasn't gotten well. If you'll just run a Touch Assist on yourself for a while, just keep touching it and looking at your fingers. And you may have to do it for several days or something like this because it might be quite severe — or if you know of an old injury, something like this — you keep doing it, you know. Keep noticing your fingers, not feeling them but kind of looking at them.

I think even the BMA and the rest of them are wondering about it by now. But here we have — here we have somebody putting all his chips on a cure, a drug. Well, we know the word "abracadabra" familiarly in all of our magic and that sort of thing.

You know, maybe it's back of your ear and you get so you can see your fingers. You know. And you say, "Well, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah" Each time you see your fingers, you know.

Well, the Roman had a cure, too, and maybe it worked in its day, which was you put a triangle on the fellow's chest. And it had abracadabra, and it was all written so that you could take off one letter a day or something like that. And when they were all gone, it'd be cleared.

Well, the funny part of it is what disappears is the bump. This is an interesting demonstration as to the goodness or badness of man. The bump disappears. Who's looking at it? You are. Well, what did you cause to have happen? You caused a bump to disappear. That's what you had happen.

Now this was a wonderful amulet. This is a marvelous amulet and maybe it worked in its day. But it was so far from anything like a total answer and there were so many other factors that could crop up in it, that any continuous reliance upon it would have been folly. Hence, new cures, until we get the magic amulet of the bottle of Aureomycetin. Well, you shoot somebody with it and he gets well. And then the germs recondition themselves or some fallout comes down, and they mutate, and boom! Here we've got something else on our hands.

Well, why didn't your head disappear? That's an interesting thing. Just think it over for a while.

I tell you, I feel for the medico. Factually, I never fight medical doctors. Those medical doctors I know are good Joes. Only they've gotten so they run, kind of, when they come near me and talk to me in a professional capacity any length of time. They become superstitious. I start asking them about their warts and things, you know. And then I'm liable to get overt enough to roll up my sleeves and offer to audit them.

It demonstrates that your presence or attention on anything is beneficial to a body. It's fascinating. I mean you look it over. You've got enough philosophy in those few words to have stunned Chaldea. They never suspected this.

And they've really gotten down till one of them said to Mary Sue not too long ago this fantastic statement. And I know you couldn't imagine this statement as having any part whatsoever of a medical doctor's makeup. He said, "All I'm asking to do in front of you Scientologists," and so forth, and the rest of all these things, "just let me go along and practice medicine the way I know it and get what results I can."

And you find all of their mumbo jumbo is mixed up with the evil eye. If you walk down the street and look fixedly at some — well, if you look fixedly at a house door, why, you'd probably — they'd jump on you with staves and beaten you to death. I think you could still go into parts of Arabia and fix a baleful glance on somebody, you know, and have the gendarmerie come down and pick you up and arrest you for having an evil eye.

We have at least — have taken out a little bit of pomposity on the subject. But I'm not even angry with or upset with medical doctors, and I never have been because I know they've got a rough beef that is a tough one. It's a very, very tough one because they so far from have all the answers that healing is a tremendous liability. It's a tremendous liability for them to sock into it and heal. Look what happens to them.

Now, we don't know what an evil eye is, but we know definitely that people heal things when they fix their attention on them and that things. only go wrong when they take their attention off of them. Now, how do you like that? It's a fascinating demonstration of the goodness of man.

Look at psychiatry. They're still saying, "Well, is it chemical? Is it mental?" I just read they put an eight-million-dollar campaign out in the United States a short time ago — eight million dollars they spent to advertise. So I got very curious as to what they were advertising, so I whistled up their advertisements.

If you were evil, you'd probably produce cancer instead of a bump. But you're not. You look at it and the bump goes away. No, man is basically good, and the more you punish man, the more you suppress him into uncontrolled, unwatched chaos. And it's the uncontrolled, unwatched chaos that is evil. You define it as evil. Well, nobody's got his eye on it, you might say, nobody is taking care of it and it just occurs. I'm afraid that evil is pretty well a demonstration of nobody taking responsibility for something.

And their advertisements were mainly — I think their professional journal is the Reader's Digest, something like that. Or Look magazine and I read in this thing — over here I think it's the Graphic, isn't it, the Daily Graphic or something of that sort? Anyway, Look magazine has this, "Psychiatry didn't know what insanity was and couldn't cure it but were arguing whether or not it was chemical or mental" — insanity was.

Now anybody that would be crazy enough to come along and use evil must himself be about seven valences removed from anything he could control. So he might be convinced that he is chaos using chaos to produce chaos. And that would be a pretty good statement of politics on Earth today.

Now, it sounds incredible. You'd think this organization or these people professing to be the sole proprietors of insanity in the world would at least know or have decided amongst themselves, rightly or wrongly, what insanity was before they hold themselves forth as the only authorities on the subject. Because if the only authority on any subject is an authority because he says, "I don't know what it is and I can't cure it," I'm sure somebody else is going to find another authority.

Now what is this — what is this factor then? It simply means that completely aside from the fact that if you know all there is to know about anything, it ceases to trouble you, aside from that — that's fact — but we have another factor here, and that is to say that if you put your attention carefully on something, you don't have to do much about it, all you have to do is watch it and know it and watch it, something of that sort, it'll straighten out.

Now, again we're not even interested in being sole proprietors of the insane. We have a hard enough time with our own people, let alone the insane. But these poor devils, because they don't know the answers, wind up in their own mental hospitals at a fantastic rate.

It straightens out all out of proportion to the mechanics of what you do about it. Therefore, your power of observation or power of look or power of glance on a situation works way out of proportion to what it should.

They keep saying, "There are only 3,400 psychiatrists in the United States." Now, they've been saying this for a number of years. And the number of psychiatrists then graduating from hospitals and intern schools for psychiatry, and so forth, would have to be then, wouldn't it, the number of psychiatrists which go mad out the top or die. And that would tell you immediately how many psychiatrists went mad every year. Well, wouldn't it?

The normally considered thing is, 'Well, if you study it very carefully — if you study it very carefully and then do something about it, why, it'll get all right." Well, actually, the reductio ad absurdum of this: if you studied something very carefully it would turn good. Therefore, we'd look in the most evil subjects to find the greatest number of unknowns or non-observations, which is why atomic fission is secret. It's all out of proportion to the observation.

And there's some — of course, that's one — that's mathematics a la psychiatry. But nevertheless, they wind up mad all the time. They have no answer to what insanity is. They go in there and they do something violent and vigorous to insanity, you know, electric shock people and give them metrazol and pizzas and — I don't know what all they give them, but they're going to do something.

You say, "Well, if we studied this, we would get to know about it and so we could do something about it. Well, the fact that our mere study of it leaves it in poor shape, says that there must be a bunch of tiny data, at least, that we don't know about yet or we're not sure about because it doesn't get well instantly." All right. Well, we're in that state right now.

And with grand pomposity they say they know what they're talking about themselves, and then this stuff comes back and takes their head off. Well, they — it must be a terribly dangerous profession, let me assure you.

We know enough now in order to do what is necessary to overcome the tiny data that we don't immediately and directly know about. Do you follow me? We're not in any critical stage. We still have to do something about it. We still have to audit a person to make him well.

Now again, I have no arguments with those fellows. Probably what's wrong with me in their eyes is I don't fight with them. You know, therefore, they're — I am either terribly dangerous or don't know anything. And they've never quite made up their minds which one this is. But they're kind of leery on the subject.

Well, one of the reasons for this is quite interesting: is we take the responsibility for his lookingness, and it's only his lookingness that can cure his ills. But the auditor just makes sure that he looks, and looks in such a way as to make sure that he is looking, and things straighten out if the auditor does that. That is probably — might be an oversimplified statement of auditing, but certainly it's a basic statement on the subject of auditing. The auditor is necessary.

If they weren't nervous, they wouldn't invest money trying to say we were no good. You know, they occupy more space saying we're bums and tramps and fakes, and so forth. You know, they just work at it real hard. And they just can't seem to convince anybody. And that, too, must be a failure which winds them up in their own spinbins.

Well, I know the auditor is necessary just for this reason alone. That people start looking and get so happy about it, they stop looking. And it's something like you say to this fellow, "Hey! How would ... how would you like to . . . how would you like to take a trip to Cornwall?"

Now, here's the point, however. In handling a case, you mustn't get 30 to 50 percent results because that tells us at once that we don't know about 50 percent of the cases or 70 percent of the cases. Don't you see? So there must be that much that we don't know because we don't get broad results on that many. And that was what I socked into in the winter of '57 — '58 on the subject of clearing.

And he says, "Fine. I'd really like to take a trip to Cornwall."

I said, "Well, there's some factor around here which is just, eeeeh, some factor." Well, I could only think of two factors. One was valences, and the other was whether or not a person was aberrated by others or only was able to aberrate himself.

And you say, "Well, you go down that road and you'll get to Cornwall, and the weather will be warmer and everything will be fine. And maybe even the sun will be shining down there in Cornwall."

In other words, was aberration from the outside in or was from — aberration from the inside out. Which direction? Which direction had to be attacked in order to resolve this thing called aberration?

So he says, "Good! Fine!" And he starts out and he's up here in London someplace and he notices a sign that says "Croydon," so he thinks he'll go to Cornwall through Croydon. He passes Croydon and he thinks, "Gee, isn't that nice," and he gets down someplace and he sees that it's very nice over in Kent. And he winds up in Kent and it's very nice, but he's not in Cornwall. He's not in Cornwall and you ask him — you ask him, you say to this fellow who just barely released, and so forth, "How you doing?"

Well, all that time — mid-1958 right straight on through till this April — was spent shaking that problem out, and I hope you will forgive me for taking so long because it became a very involved problem indeed.

"Oh, I'm doing fine. I'm just doing wonderful. I must be Clear. Just doing fine, fine. It's beautiful here in Kent." Well, what you've got to do then is point out the obvious fact to him that he's not in Cornwall. It's nicer in Cornwall.

Tremendous numbers of tests had to be run on this. And it's only the person — it's the fellow himself and the reasons why he won't undo it have to do with valences. So valences is the other part of it. So we had to solve valences and get that really solved.

And he says, "Well, I'm perfectly satisfied here in Kent." He says, "My lumbago, I hardly feel it at all except at night." You know, this kind of a thing, it — "I don't have the sensation of beating myself over the head with the hammer anymore, I just have a headache." It is so much better that it's wonderful.

So the pc has to be at cause, really and actually, and has to be audited at cause and has to be moved over into his own valence. Actually, it's no careless statement I make to you that the only time a person can feel pain is when he is not being himself. He is actually being another personality than himself if he can feel pain, discomfort, bad luck, and so forth. Because it's the valence that gets in the road.

Well, this would be good enough. Maybe you could just publish a book. And the fellow reads the book and he picks up a little — two little, three data, and it says, "Look at things and observe things, and life gets a little bit better, and . . ." And he's satisfied about it, and so on.

Because why? He says, "I am this other being and this other being here is being responsible for everything I do." So the individual now runs on a total irresponsibility for himself and he can get it in the teeth. It's actually as simple as this, but that was necessary to unravel this thing called clearing. What kept the 50 to 70 percent of the people who were being processed toward Clear — what kept them from attaining the goal of Clear? And it's just that techniques were insufficiently powerful to plow in to 100 percent of the human race. Well, I overshot the goal.

But he still has the liability that before he can do anything for anybody else, he has to know pretty well all about it. So much so that about the only overt act that we could pull now in Scientology is fail to disseminate it properly: (1) fail to disseminate it and (2) fail to disseminate it properly. That would be the main line of the ovens that we'd pull on it. There wouldn't be any other overt.

I swear the auditor could sit there now, half asleep, as long as he'd run the auditing commands and the person would come Clear at the other end of the line. Now, that's what you've made me do.

Actually, it wouldn't be an oven perhaps not to audit somebody. But it might be an overt to let somebody stumble around on it without showing him what the score of what he's fooling with is because, look, it took an awful lot of years — why, heaven's sakes, we're celebrating our thirtieth anniversary of research on this subject. And if anybody had paid the bill of the research in Dianetics and Scientology, why — duh, I don't know.

Now, wherever we look in Scientology today, we find some consciousness now of a person's own ovens. Everyone's pretty well got this one taped, you know.

The way foundations do research this day, I don't know. Somebody was telling me the other day that somebody spent twenty-six million dollars to study something. Well, they'd just built the building for him to study it in, and he decided, well, that was it, he had done enough. Hadn't even studied it yet and twenty-six million dollars were gone.

If he's feeling bad about something, it must be because he has ovens against it. And certainly enough, it works out. You don't have to educate a pc into this.

Some fantastic bill, some fantastic amount of concentration, a tremendous coordination of data, an awful lot of research, codification — all of these things have taken place. Well, fail to disseminate it, why, it's kind of an overt act. If you know about it — that's for me. In other words, it could be an overt act for me to just not put out in any kind of an assimilable form what is now known about life and human beings, see.

You take the disgruntled employee out of the office and you pull him aside, and you sit him down in a chair, and he's saying, "Justify, justify and they did this to me, and they did that to me," and so on. And even though it chops him up a little bit, you say, "Look, son, what have you done and what have you withheld?"

If I just skipped it right now, it'd probably about cave me in. I was looking at this the other day and it becomes an overt act. Your responsibility cannot stop merely by knowing for yourself, simply because you were tied into a world which doesn't know.

Now, the test is that we could run out endlessly, out of this uneducated, uninformed person on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, we could run out all of these motivators. He'd be all right. But oh, that takes a long time. He's been working in the place — he's been working in the place eight years. He's been bawled out, chopped up, his pay increased, decreased, he's been promoted, reduced. He's been chopped down about this. He's had boxes fall on him. He's had .. .

Well, anyway, looking this over, we find that there are considerable numbers of data that we could do without. They're not broad, general data. For instance, we don't really have to know the name of the pc. We don't have to know his exact relationship to the general staff in a war a trillion years ago, you see. There's all kinds of particularities in data. We do not have to know exactly how a Martian loads and recharges a blaster. Don't have to know that.

All right, so we had to put him in shape to run engrams, see. And we had to very carefully put him in shape to be able to run all these things. And then if we erased all these things with Dianetic procedure, we'd eventually make it.

But we sure have to know how a guy becomes and unbecomes a body or a being, and how snarled up he can get becoming bodies and beingnesses.

The funny part of it is we could actually make it. That's what's peculiar because it's almost impossible to. Look, we did something that was utterly impossible in Dianetics. The whole orientation of Dianetics is it's done to the person. And the orientation of Scientology is he did it. These are two reverse philosophies actually.

And we have to know how a man loses control of the material universe, and thereby loses control of an awful lot of his environment and so can spread a considerable amount of chaos that he didn't intend. It's quite interesting. How does he do it?

You actually can get there with Dianetics, but this accounts for the thousand hours to make somebody well, don't you see? It's erasing those motivators, you know. And they're just innumerable. And it's sort of over the preclear's dead body that you really get them all, too. But you can kneel on his chest and push him through those engrams and get them erased anyhow. Takes an awful lot of auditing skill and cleverness and so forth to do it.

Well, he goes out of agreement with the physical universe, and that which you go out of agreement with, you can no longer control. Isn't that interesting? It's a law. It's a law — that which you go out of agreement with, you can no longer control.

But let's look at the other side. We sit down this shipping clerk and we say to this shipping clerk — we say, "Now think of something you've done to the boss. Think of something you withheld from him." We flatten that sort of thing off. It doesn't take too long. "Think of something that you have done to the organization. Think of something you have withheld from the organization."

Now you can go out of agreement with the actions of a car but if you're totally out of agreement with a car, believe me, it'll do nothing but act up. Try it sometime.

These things start going clip, clip, clip, clip. Bip, bip, bip, bip, bip, bip. And he thinks of what he's really done to them, and so forth. And at first he starts out and he says, "Well I ... what I've done to them, I have ... I have faithfully punched the time clock," or something like this. Some big vicious stunt he's pulled, you see.

If you've got an old heap you don't care what happens to, and if you feel the need of an accident . . . No, as road safety organizer, Sussex, I can't, I can't go on with that sentence. It's untrue. No, here's the thing. If you withdrew all of your agreement from a car, you might say, pulled your knowingness out of a car — ha! — it'd ruddy well collapse as far as you're concerned. It's very remarkable.

And it finally boils down to why he's so upset about the organization was that up until three years ago, every day practically, he took home a shoe box full of ump-gumps which the organization made, unbeknownst to anybody else. Don't you see? He's got overts by the ton against this organization.

Motorcycle shops are very alert to this because motorcycles are a little more tender than cars for some reason or other, and your motorcycle repairmen all apparently know this, I've asked a lot of them. They look at you sneeringly and contemptuously if you say to them, "Did you know that one person's motorbike runs better than another person's motorbike and that it depends on the rider?"

Well, it doesn't take too long to strip these things off and all of a sudden he feels all right about the organization. Well, that's a Scientology look at running the pc exactly and only at cause — just ignoring what's been done to him and just running him on what he's done.

And they look at you sneeringly and say, "Who doesn't know that?"

Well, it works out numerically like this. There are millions of people around one person. Well, the millions of people do millions of things, of course. And tremendous numbers of things happen to this person we're talking about — who will become a pc. But he himself really doesn't have too much time to do more than a few things. And it's very lucky for us because it gives us the minority of incidents to audit. It's quite remarkable. In other words, you could get the shipping clerk happy about the firm he's working for.

Because there's two motorbikes, they both came off the assembly line at the same time, they're owned by two different riders. And one motorbike just never starts and goes to pieces and folds up in spite of how many repair bills he racks up on the thing, it just won't run. And the other fellow's motorbike seems to be running ten years later without ever anything having been done to it.

You could get anybody — well, marriage counseling, marriage counseling is a field that ought to open up. Somebody ought to really start doing this thing. I showed somebody how to do it, and they went to another place and found a couple and straightened them out. And it's going sort of like this, but only by subjective reality. It's apparently something that sounds good theoretically. So therefore, nobody really should do it because it's — probably wouldn't work. Something like that.

What's the explanation of this? Well, one of them is out of agreement with motorbikes and MEST. That's all. He just doesn't agree somehow or another. You put this to test. If you find anybody around with an old heap that won't stay together, why, you just ask him, "What part of that car are you in agreement with?"_

What happens is the auditor gets a husband and a wife. He doesn't audit the husband, he doesn't audit the wife, see. In fact, there's a case right out in front of me that should have been done to a long time ago. And it all would have straightened out very easily.

And he'll say, "Rararrooor. "

Get the — the case would have straightened out — get the husband and get the wife in the same room at the same time, no matter what the antagonism involved is, and give one or the other of them the electrodes on an E-Meter. And just get them talking about what they've done to the other person. The other person is right there. Auditor does this. It doesn't become involved because at some times you have to pull one of them off of the other one, you know, sort of like this.

It's almost an immediate reaction that you get on the thing.

And then when he's got this kind of shaken out, why, you do the reverse and you take the other person and make him get those ovens off against the other person. And the funniest doggone thing, it just starts clearing up like mad, and all is sweetness and light, and everything is fine — as long as they're both in the same room, and the auditor audits each one of them on overt-withholds only in the presence of the other person. That is marriage counseling.

Well now, if you don't know the points, you can't do anything for the person, and the points are not very many. It's — the best, fast summary of them is the Axioms. Those are all important points. But there's some mechanical points which are purely mechanical, which I think also are contained in the Dianetic Axioms as purely mechanical points, which are also necessary to know. And first and foremost amongst these is the cycle-of-action.

Believe me, that is so wrapped up, I am amazed that it isn't being done more. It's being done quite a bit, but nobody has stressed that that is the way you straighten up an interpersonal relationship. Now of course, there are numerous reasons why this can't be done and why it's difficult and all kinds of excuses. But there is no substitute for that way to do it. No matter how difficult it is, that's the only way to do it.

The cycle-of-action is terribly important. And recently, I developed the double cycle. And the double cycle answers the problem of: there's two girls, one is Marybelle and the other is Annabelle. And you threaten to kick Annabelle and she does what you want, but you threaten to kick Marybelle and she practically scratches your eyes out. Well, is there any explanation for this which is fast and easily stated? Yes, there sure is. There sure is. It's a double cycle-of-action.

Now there might be other ways, and somewhere up the line there might — other ways turn up, but we've tried most of them. Yeah, I look over the number of techniques, and so forth that have been developed in this particular field, and I would say immediately and directly that the chances of thinking up another one are very rare. Ha!

There are six combinations of the cycle-of-action. Be: Create-create, survive-survive, destroy-destroy, that's three of them. But then there's surviving in order to destroy, there's creating in order to survive, there's destroying in order to create. See, there's all these interactions. It's a double cycle. Any one part of the cycle can be combined with any other part of the cycle, and we get one of these weird ones.

Yeah, you get that way after a while when you — when you pick up a file and it almost breaks your back. And it's nothing but single sheet methods of doing something, you know. It's that kind of thing.

Now the funny part of it is that a person sits on a double cycle, not a single cycle, which is one of the things that's been baffling about people. We say this fellow just manages to get along all right because he is surviving. And we don't know why everything goes to pieces around him. Well, this fellow is destroying there in order to survive here, don't you see?

But this one works. And about the only reason it doesn't work is if one of them can't be kept in the room or something like that, but that's easy to solve. Just get two auditors on the same deal. One of them keeps them in the room and the other one audits them. But that is the way you do it. And that is the way to straighten up a marriage.

Now another fellow is, we say, "Well, he just gets along all right, and he's very productive," and so on. Well, he's creating in order to survive. A weapons maker and that sort of thing, of course, creates in order to destroy, which is all very doubled up. But the funny part of it is that if you locate what part — what doubleness of the cycle a person is on, you punch what he's doing, and you get what he is.

You just straighten it out right there, bang! And it will straighten out because each one of them is saying, "Look what he or she has done to poor me." That's what each one of them is saying.

Give you an example of that. You threaten to destroy him, and he decides to survive. In other words, this fellow is destroying in order to survive, so you threaten to destroy him, and you make him survive. How many people there must be like this since nearly all businesses conduct themselves on that principle. That must be a predominant number of people.

Well, maybe they have done things to each other. And maybe their own sins on the whole track all the way back, all the times they've been alive — maybe all of these sins composite up to the fact that it becomes very painful to have this done to him or her. See? Maybe — we can't argue with the fact that it's probably painful. It's very upsetting. Undoubtedly, they believe it is but we take them and we get off what they've done to the other one. It's very hard to get at sometimes because there's so many justifiers in the middle of all of the Confessional, you know.

Well, what kind of a fellow is this in the workshop? In order to survive, he busts up the tools. That's true. In other words, when he really is settled down into this, if this is the only part of the cycle-of-action he's on — well, frankly, the military is the best example of it.

You practically just have to stamp on it with hobnail boots and say, "Oh, yes, I know. She stayed away for three weeks living with another man. That's good. We got that story. I heard you before. That's fine. Thank you very much. We got it. I heard it. That's good. Good. What did you do?"

Did you ever watch military equipment, secondhand military equipment? Did you ever look it over? Did you ever find anything right with it? Now military equipment is all right as long as the sergeants are going up and down and saying, "Repair that truck!" See. "Change that tire!" Or you, of course, will be shot or destroyed in some way, or reduced to no rations for a couple of days. You get the idea? He threatens destruction, and he makes them make the things survive. But in essence, the equipment all falls to pieces because, in order to survive, everybody in the group has got to destroy.

"Well, the year before, when I went away with that girl, I only stayed a week."

Get one of these going in a greenhouse sometime, you'll have fun. All the plants collapse. But apparently the guy is going all right, you know, but everything seems to collapse. It doesn't matter much what's happening. It all goes wrong somehow. Well, that's — he's just on this double cycle.

That makes it all right, see.

There must be enough fellows in a plant that is successful — I mean, a manufacturing organization that's successful. There must be enough fellows in that organization — there just must be — who are creating in order to survive, to get something built. But if you take out the fellows who are destroying in order to survive and reorient them, production oddly enough doesn't increase in direct ratio to how much their replacements produce. It goes up something like 8, 10, 20 times.

But you could straighten out more interpersonal relations. We look around in the society at large and we find marriage is supposed to be going by the boards and a lot of things are supposed to be going by the boards. Well, it's — you could put it back together again in quite a rush.

All right. You've got a pc sitting in front of you who's destroying in order to survive. Oh, well, that's very interesting. He said, "You just did this to me, and you did that to me, and you've chopped me up, and you've thrown me out the window, and you've gunned me down," and so forth.

I imagine you could go so far as just look up in the overdue alimony payments or something of this sort and find a lot of customers. You know, just find the lists of people who have been cited during the past month or something like that for not paying their alimony or for not receiving it. They're already divorced. See, the whole thing is already smashed. Run it the hard way. Get each one of them by the ear, set them down in the room, get between them and the door, and run off the overts and motivators. They'd be back together again. It's very remarkable, I mean the power and authority contained in this.

Well, if you really haven't done anything — of course, there's also the other condition you might have done something. But yap, yap, yap. Well,

But isn't it — something is very, very remarkable about this? There's something very remarkable about this that you should know — is that it doesn't particularly change profiles or IQs. It just makes people happier.

this person is obsessively destroying in order to survive. The person thinks you want him to survive, so he destroys himself. You see, you can swap those two any way. Whichever end of it you pick up, he's going to pick up the other end. You get the idea?

Of course, you say that's enough to lead a successful life, for heaven's sakes. But it doesn't really, markedly, rapidly shift IQs and profiles. That takes a whole new battery of processes.

So you say to this fellow, "Survive," and he tries to destroy himself, or something or anything. Now if you tell him to destroy, he'll survive, making his facsimiles stick. Now, if you tell him to mock up facsimiles, he can't. See, that's totally out of his perimeter. He can't create. He's not part of that cycle.

And if you shift all the profiles, all the overts blow anyhow because a person is now upscale enough to be able to look at them for what they are. And if that is the case, then why run the other process? But don't lose the value of a year and a half's hard work because the other process is very valuable.

Well, there's an immediate and direct way to approach this, and this is one of the oldest techniques known. Very, very old — all of a sudden resurrected. I used to use it years ago. I think any old-timer has heard of this one way or the other.

Whatever a person is worried about or whatever a person is being harmed by or injured by, in any way, is injuring him or harming him because he has left all the doors open for it to do so. And that's the most practical statement that could be made on the subject

There's the person who is succumbing, and you're trying to get that person to survive. And his direction is succumb, and your direction is survive, and so there's an immediate disagreement between the auditor and the preclear. And no matter what you do from there on out, you're not going to get anything done because the basic orientation is wrong for auditing. The person came to you and sat down in order to die.

By his own acts, he opened up the doors. When somebody looks at that, for years, he's been going on being chopped to bits from some particular quarter. Just being cut to ribbons from this quarter, not succeeding at all in some way. And we look — he looks and he finds the doors that are being left open. It's the things he did, no matter when, where or how, but they are directly traceable, and he recognizes them as being the immediate cause of his present difficulty. And they fold up.

Well, I used to use this a great deal. I used to argue them out of it, talk about them, have them mock themselves up dead. I used to do all sorts of things and changed them on the cycle-of-action. But I haven't done it since almost '54 to amount to anything, and here it shows up again as an undercutting step to Help in presessioning.

Well, this may not change profiles, but it gives a considerable value. May not change profiles, but it's valuable. It's very valuable.

So presessioning — if you wanted to do a thorough job and hit all of the pcs — a person had to be able to sit there and give a reasonable, not totally crazy response. That's the condition a pc must be in these days. Only some of his responses are totally roaring psychotic. See, he's got to have a few reasonable responses amongst the thing. He can't be crazy all the time. That's how low you can reach with verbal processing though. All right.

It tells you this. You might not become a different person on all fronts, but you could become immune to atomic fission in a world where a bunch of psychotics, under the guise of politicians, are shooting dice loaded with plutonium with the fate of nations.

Now, you do something about this cycle-of-action, whether by Two-way Comm or by a repetitive process. And one of the best processes, to reorient this thing, picks up all those points where he's trying to succumb. Picks them all up and knocks that out of your road so that you can go on auditing. I'll probably talk about that a little more later.

Why are you worried about the antics and activity of some clown that lives south of the pole and somebody else that is about to go out of office? Why are you worried about these people? The only reason you're worried about these people is they, for — somehow or another, can have an effect upon you!

The next step is you have to clear him up on Help, whether he wants help or not. Now of course, some of — the help he wants may be help to knock himself off. See, that's maybe the kind of help he's looking for. And there must be an awful lot of these people, or medicos wouldn't drive big cars.

Well, how can they have an effect on you if you're the only one that can cause an effect on you?

Don't get the idea I'm against the medico. We've almost ruined him in several places and we don't intend to go on doing so. I'm saying very factually we don't intend to. My God, pardon my French, swearing, but you don't want to set bones, do you? Well, I don't. Better be somebody around that can set bones. This guy is going to survive in spite of himself, I can tell you.

Oh, I think it'd be the most colossal joke in the world to be totally immune to atomic fission, its burns, blast, wind or anything else. I think that'd be very funny. That is a fantastic shortcut to defenses against the atom bomb or political situations so rerigged so that we will all interprotect something. Probably they'll wind up interprotecting everything except button A.

Now the correction of Help, whether or not to survive or succumb, is your second step of presessioning. The correction of Help. That's: Will the person receive help? Is help possible? Is it possible for him to help anybody? The key question if you're just talking to people just to disseminate Scientology, and so forth, and knock them out on this — the key question, of course, if you say, "Do you think you could be helped?"

I know how this next war is going to start, you know. It's just obvious — char, coming in with a cigarette in her mouth one day is dusting this panel. But in a world like that, I think it'd be a very amusing thing for an entire group to be totally immune to atomic fission. I know so much about it already that it's become a simple problem.

And the fellow says, "Well, not, I don't think so," so on. It doesn't matter whether he said, "Not today" or something like this. All you have to do to him is say, "Whom have you failed to help?"

In the first place, gamma rays can't even stop inside you. They can't even stay with you. There's some kind of a signal system which, when they go through you, you decide you have a motivator. Well, why? Because they don't even physically damage you. The damage occurs months later or weeks later or sometimes in a very bad burn, days later.

He gives you the answers — brrrrrp! "Oh," he says, "my father and my mother," and so forth and so on. He's in-session as far as you're concerned. (snap) Happens just that fast. "Whom have you failed to help?" You go-brrrrrrrp! That's still help. Recognition that one has failed to help is better than no concept of help at all. And he's on the subject of help and he can be brought up the line on this just with Two-way Comm or some process.

But having already seen an atomic burn disappear on a twenty minute Touch Assist — an atomic burn, a bad one — and having already seen, "Where were you and where are you now? Where were you? Where are you now? Where were you? Where are you now?" cure up somebody whose eyeballs were about burned out by an atomic flash — I'd begun to think it was not a very tough problem.

Your next line up is Control. Well, actually, Control has many harmonics. There are very low controls which occur and these are most of the controls visible in the society now that when people don't help, they jolly well get controlled. There's where most of the public experiences control. They are being controlled wherever they won't help. You got the idea? That's a nice, low, psychotic harmonic of control. They refuse, you see, utterly, to help in some particular direction so somebody comes in and says, "Well, we're going to arrest you unless you pay your taxes." You got the idea? Drives the tax department batty. A tax department finally becomes a department of chief and subchief executioners for the state, practically, because people are refusing to help all the time. As soon as taxes become exorbitant, people refuse to help the government with that much taxes. Then the government has to put on more and more penalty and this penalty is looked upon by the public as control. That's about — so they think control is bad.

So I've ordered up some X-ray machines for Saint Hill and ordered up some hard radiation and a few things like that, and we're going to have a crack at this thing. You know, I know we can hit it theoretically and guess that's the way it is, but what we'll actually do is burn the daylights out of some — I'll have to tell you some more about ... I have to also tell you about some of this plant research because that's become very amusing. Everybody thinks I'm researching plants.

Well, actually, they couldn't drive a car without control, so we get up a higher harmonic that control isn't bad. So there's all these rationales and arguments and they lodge in people's minds. And they'll argue with these quite a bit. But how can an auditor make him sit in the chair and receive auditing commands if he can't — if your pc can't accept a little bit of control? How is this, see? He couldn't.

But in theme, I believe now, as far as a program for the United Kingdom is concerned — I believe that what we've done is not likely to get very real, very fast to anybody because it's hardly real to me or tech staff yet. We're still watching this stuff come through, you know, bottom to top, four weeks, bottom to top, you know, just bang!

So you have to clear up this point and then comes communication. Communication is a fascinating point because it won't occur if the person thinks it's going to be harmful. If a person thinks he's going to knock you dead by talking to you, he won't talk to you. And if he's guilty of a great many overt acts, he is almost certain to believe that his communication to you is bad.

It is so unreal to Ds of Ps — I'm going to let you in on something that's very amusing. It's so unreal to Directors of Processing throughout the world, that they are routinely and regularly letting pcs leave as good Releases without even sending them near HCO to get checked out for Clear, who are Clears.

All of his overt acts have as their common denominator, communication or lack of it. It's a communication factor. But if he has overts on the auditor, it's quite remarkable. If he has overts on the auditor, he won't talk to the auditor. He won't tell the auditor straight dope. Or if he has overts and withholds buried in his lifetime, he withholds them from the auditor, then he'll withhold all communication of the auditor that is vital communication. And he'll actually disperse to a point where he sees a green picture, he'll tell the auditor it's purple. Or he'll say he had a somatic in his stomach. He won't give the auditor the straight information. So communication is necessary to an auditing session.

"We've got to . . . we ... it's too bad that we couldn't hold him over for another week or he'd be Clear, or two more weeks at the outside, but we couldn't hold him over, and so we had to release him," and so on. "But he'll be back this fall sometime in order to have the clearing finished." He's reading this with amazement, see, because there sits the profile, there sits the discussion of the needle, there sits the IQ of a MEST Clear. And it's something like — we've been critical for so long that we're being hypercritical of a result level right in Central Organizations, technically. And we see these things come by and they're just walking on out the front door.

And then comes the last one. A pc has to be interested in his case or what is going on. And if he's not interested in his case, his case makes very little forward progress.

And an HCO Secretary the other day said to me, "Oh, I'm alert to this. The first Clear that comes up in this organization — make sure, I'll check her or him." And we had some profiles of them right in front of our desk. I don't know. Maybe it's expected that the profile or something disappears.

So we get a summary of this. Look it all over, no matter which way it is. First, an auditor has to have enough information so that he doesn't fail. Well, if the pc walked off, the auditor at least knows why. He knows exactly why the pc walked off or what happened. He can understand what's going on, in other words.

Now we've been at this for a long time. I've been trying now for ten years to get somebody else to produce regularly and routinely Clears. It had to be a pretty gross auditing job to produce a maximum result that — in both ways.

The funny part of it is, if he is totally out of agreement with the pc, he can't control him anyway because of this factor about MEST and control. You have to have some agreement with a car before you can control it.

In other words, we had to make very good auditors who, even if they didn't audit very well, would still, using these technologies, produce Clears, and people would become Clear, and that would be that. And all we're trying to do is produce MEST Clears. Actually, we've done better than that. We are producing people who, in two or three more weeks, would have been Theta Clear. That's what the Ds of Ps are all striking for without knowing it.

Well, it works with people, too. You have to have some agreement with this person or you can't control him or do anything with him at all. So you have to know that there is at least something there to agree with about this person. And the most basic thing would simply be the composition of the person. You know where approximately he is and what condition he's in. Well, that's enough. That's enough. If you merely know the mechanics of his beingness and more or less what shape he's in, well, that is agreement. And control can occur just knowing just that little. And he won't walk off, providing you know these other technical points of presessioning.

Almost every piece of data which they have or are striking for or have held on to or pressed close to their bosoms, has been the data relating to a Theta Clear. And it occurs to nobody to go and open up Book One and read the chapter on Clears, and read it! Not just alter-is it all the way down the line.

Now presessioning is very new. It hasn't been talked about in a congress before although there have been some bulletins on it. But this new step on presessioning is brand-new and hasn't even been announced.

Scan down all the words and say, 'Well, I know what a Clear is. A Clear is somebody who never walks on the ground." "I know what a Clear is. They can as-is policemen's hats." They've got their own peculiar definitions. If you go and read that definition, you'll find out we've delivered the goods for some time.

Now that step is — as I said, has an old and ancient history. I've had people walk in and give me all sorts of things about this and say, oh, they wanted to be all OTs, and so forth. And before I'd gone very far, I found out what they really wanted. And that was if they just sat there in the chair, they figured out I'd probably bump them off or something and that was exactly what they wanted. They thought that was what should happen to

There are quite — lots of Clears around by the first book definition. We are actually being extreme with our definition now because we've measured it up against profiles. We've said that the E-Meter needle has got to be utterly flat on all questions relating to help, that the profile has to be up in the last third of the graph, and that the IQ has got to, I think, be in excess of 135 or something, I've forgotten what the IQ figure is.

them in auditing. And if I tried to make them well, why, they'd go mad. But as I said, I'll talk about that later.

We've got so many of them, the file — we've got to buy new file cases by now. But people go away, and what do they realize? As soon as they got their foot on the ladder, they suddenly realized that they're themselves and that they've got a long way to go. Well, that's true.

But straightening out this point — which means placing on the action cycle, which is a long and involved word — but you've got to place this pc on the action cycle and adjust the cycle so that you can handle him.

They tell you, "Well, I've just got my foot on the bottom of the ladder now. I've just realized I'm myself for the first time." Well, that's almost the first statement that a Clear makes. Yes, they've got an awful long way to go. I agree with them. I agree with them. But they better find out where they've arrived, for heaven's sakes, before they take off.

Your next one, which you could call, in short, adjustment of cycle. That would communicate and anybody could understand it. The next one is adjustment of Help. His understanding of Help on a button.

Yes, I think that's perfectly right. I think that a person, however, who was immune to atomic fission blasts, a person who did not have to eat, a person who didn't particularly need a body could leave a body parked in — on the bed, you see, and go off by himself — and if he saw a friend, why, all of a sudden appear. Aw, this is way upscale. This is not a Clear. This is way up around OT. Now, that's pretty high, but has ceased to be theoretical.

Your next one, of course, is adjustment of Control. The individual in other words has to be able to look at control and get a little bit closer to what the truth of control is before he's willing to do that. And you, in talking to him, of course, can adjust the control button simply by understanding what he's all about, oddly enough. You just sit there and understand what he's all about and you've got the Control button going. Frightening. It goes almost into a rapport if you go too far.

We've advanced so far on this thing called Clear that the upper ranges, the upper states, keep showing up, and people keep trying to settle for these upper states. Well, I laud their ambition, but I deplore their inability to recognize where they are. And I'm very happy they want to be better, but why don't they ever recognize that they've gotten pretty good?

Well, that's one of the little crosses I have to bear. But we've got it, we've got it taped. And with me riding on somebody's backs and the HCO tech staff bearing right down hard on this subject, we intend to turn out Clears down at Saint Hill in these next six weeks who are also well enough, thoroughly enough grooved, trained and convinced as to what they've done, that they can go out and in a finite period of time, clear people in their own vicinity.

Anyway, as we look over this, we find these four buttons which mean in-session. Until you've got them all four adjusted, the pc cannot be considered to be in-session. But when you've got them all adjusted, he's interested. Up to that time, he wouldn't be interested. As long as any one of those four buttons is out of adjustment, the pc will somewhere or another become disinterested or is disinterested in his case.

All we've got to do is carry out that program, and I think we'll have the whole thing adequately and voluminously taped as far as England is concerned.

If a pc starts looking bored, you will know at once that a button is out. That's all. There's one of these buttons is out. It's one of these four. He's slipped on the cycle-of-action to such a point as he is no longer in accord with getting well. He has decided the very best possible thing for him to do is kick the bucket here and now. And you're still trying to make him well and he's skidded.

All we've got to do is set an example in ourselves and it's made anyway, so I think that's the best way to go about it. What do you think?

All right. Of course, that happens often in an auditing session, but it flips back the other way. What you've got to know is that if it doesn't flip back, you had better slide the session to a graceful close, give him a nice break, and start the session all over again so that you've got the opportunity before you start it to run all the presession buttons again.

Audience: Yes. Yes.

And you'll catch it there, and you can readjust it It's nothing to worry about If it goes on for longer than a couple of auditing sessions — you know, the pc is getting gloomier and gloomier and doesn't seem to be getting any better, and so forth, why, you'd better pay an awful lot of attention to this button.

Well, that's the program. I hope you agree with it. And I frankly don't care whether anybody's got any money or anything else or not. I want to see anybody who has been trained up to HPA, down at that underground Charing Cross, outside the station on the Embankment there at 7:30. Catch that bus to Saint Hill tomorrow morning because I want to see this country go, hear? I want to see it really start to roll, and we can't afford to remain static anymore.

There's just this: the cycle-of-action, Help, Control and Communication. These are the only things that have to be straightened out in a human being.

So that's my program. I hope you make it yours.

But completely aside from auditing, if you straightened out those points with every associate, or if you straightened out those points in every group, no matter what kind of a group, familial, business, military, it doesn't matter what, if you just straightened those things out, just those four, it'd operate practically like a cleared group, regardless of the state of beingness of the people who composed it, which is quite remarkable.

So these are the first prerequisites to auditing, whatever else one knows, and I would say, are really the first prerequisites to living. How can they live without them? And I think the answer is they haven't been living.

Well, these developments are brand-new. They have a lot to do with dissemination. You can go out and use these points on your friends, and all of a sudden they'll be mysteriously interested in Scientology when they never were before.

You can get people into session you never dreamed was possible before. You can do various things with these. They're all prerequisites to auditing. So go ahead and use them. Hope you have a lot of luck with them.