It is of the utmost importance that HGC Technical continues to be maintained as the world’s best auditing.

Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle.

The whole repute of Scientology on a continent ultimately depends on the quality of technical delivered by Central Organizations.

The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone Scale.

In times of shifting technology this may be considered difficult. However, nothing in the book maintains that an HGC must only deliver “the latest”. The book only says the best.

And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case.

Staff morale, the unit, broad dissemination depend basically upon technical quality.

What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and, before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of "sanity", had no basis in fact but only in opinion.

If you will look into even the oldest HGC files you will find profiles with firm gains. This does not mean, then, that today’s research line has to be installed at once to get gains on pcs.

In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the Eight Dynamics.)

Of course to attain clear or OT today’s research line is vital.

Thus a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it benefits the greatest number of dynamics.

But the problem is not upper echelon processing in HGCs, it is lower level cases.

Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts. This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be, therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater number of dynamics can also be an overt act.

If you go not on the basis of “make clears and OTs” but solely on the basis of “get maximum Tone Arm Action on the pc” you will have very happy pcs and eventual OTs.

An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics.

To get Tone Arm Action it is necessary to

Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts. Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial acts.

1. Have pcs who are getting wins and

The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslavers was a beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the destruction of a disease an overt act.

2. Have staff auditors doing processes they can do successfully.

In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not consist only of not harming.

HGC Gains then depend on:

There is an irrationality about "being right" which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.

A. Getting Tone Arm Action on every pc; and

The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.

B. Training Auditors to handle the five basics well.

We have seen a "defensive person" explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. This is "justification" as well. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness.

Programming for HGC pcs depends on the pc and the auditor available.

We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person's "brand of being right" will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in finding truth. Thus we get strange "scientific truths" from men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they're wrong.

You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness than in being right.

The stable datum for programming a pc is:

A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct.

Rule: Run the highest level process on the pc that can be run that produces good Tone Arm Action.

One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark.

The stable don’t for programming a pc is:

How then, is one ever wrong?

Rule: Don’t run a process a pc feels he or she cannot do or the auditor cannot do.

It is this way:

You don’t need to predetermine (and sometimes downgrade) a pc’s level in order to process him or her.

One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one's necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right.

Programming has nothing to do with tests or hope or critical opinion.

This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error was a right action and so repeats it.

Programming is a trial and error proposition based on:

As a being goes down scale it is harder and harder to admit having been wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining ability or sanity.

C. What highest process gives the pc TA Action?

For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one approaches the last ebb of survival one can only insist on having been right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion.

D. What process has the pc been interested in?

The last defense of any being is "I was right". That applies to anyone. When that defense crumbles, the lights go out.

E. What process can the auditor do confidently?

So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness, or at best a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and insane into further criminality and insanity.

Pc interest is a nearer certainty of needle reads on the meter and Tone Arm Action than many other methods of assessment.

All justice today contains in it this hidden error – that the last defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation.

Any pc who has had earlier auditing can tell you what was or was not interesting. A discussion of this with the pc will establish which type of process it was. Don’t necessarily just go on doing that process. But use it to classify what type of process the pc will most likely have wins doing – i.e. objective processes, repetitive processes, engram running, etc. A lot of pcs are audited at levels they have no idea they can do. They will do them, but a simple discussion about processes they have been interested in doing will reveal to them and the auditor where they are most likely to get TA Action with no strain.

But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic social conditions were it not for one saving fact:

All repeated and "incurable" wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a last defence: "trying to be right". Therefore the compulsive wrongness can be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is insisted upon.

Gains on a pc can be measured in terms of charge discharged, not necessarily in goals run out or some specific action done.

Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being. Therefore the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal workability.

You can run out goals with no TA Action, run out engrams with no TA Action and yet the pc does not change.

But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the wrongness, one then cures it.

The goals set by the pc at session beginning change on a changing pc. In reviewing cases watch those goals on the auditor’s report. If they deteriorate the auditor has messed it up, leaving by-passed charge. If they remain the same session after session there was no real TA Action. If the goals change session by session there’s lots of TA Action, too.

But how?

You can just get lots of TA Action, whatever you run, and eventually see a cleared pc.

By rehabilitating the ability to be right!

No matter what is run, lack of TA Action will clear no one.

This has limitless application – in training, in social skills, in marriage, in law, in life.

Wrong time is the exclusive source of no TA Action. Therefore as a pc’s time concept is improved or his dates corrected you will see more TA Action. But many things contribute to wrong time, including bad meter dating and time disorienting implants. The question is not what corrects the pc’s time so much as: is the pc getting the Tone Arm Action that shows Time is being corrected. Well done auditing cycles alone correct a flawed Time Concept.

Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners. Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners.

So you have Pc Interest, and Tone Arm Action that tell you the programming is right and if the pc is going Clear and OT. Buck these things and the pc won’t go anywhere no matter what is run.

Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You won't find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being hurt. But even they don't believe they did wrong.

A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to realize that not one malefactor sentenced really thought he had done wrong and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by saying so.

Wrong dates, wrong goals, wrong Items, by-passing charge, never flattening a process, running a pc beyond regaining an ability or cogniting the process flat account for most upset in auditing.

The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by it.

There is no valid reason for a pc getting upset now that ARC Break assessments exist, providing that the auditor is auditing as per the next section.

But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living where this applies. These facts embrace all of life. The student who can't learn, the worker who can't work, the boss who can't boss are all caught on one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided. They are being "last-ditch-right". And opposing them, those who would teach them are fixed on the other side "admit-you are-wrong". And out of this we get not only no-change but actual degradation where it "wins". But there are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both.

Thetans on the way down don't believe they are wrong because they don't dare believe it. And so they do not change.

Basic Auditor Skill consists of five things. If an auditor can do these five, little further trouble will be found.

Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes get no-change sessions.

Any staff training programme, any Academy basic goal, any HGC Auditing that produces results depend on these five basics.

And those who won't be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past rightness would, they feel, destroy them.

If you review staff auditors or examine students on these basics by themselves, all auditing would rest on solid ground and get gains. Where any one of the following are out in an auditor there is going to be trouble all along the line. No fancy new process will cure what is wrong in a session if these things are not present.

I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then in sudden defence asserts his own "rightnesses", sometimes close to terror.

The Basic Auditing Skills are:

It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let them commit a serious overt. "What is right about your mind" would produce more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or punishment to make them wrong.

1. Ability to execute the auditing cycle.

You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is right – until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive point of view. You don't have to agree with what they think. You only have to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right.

2. Ability to execute the auditing cycle repetitively.

A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism. It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be gracefully applied – for all of us are reactive to some degree on this subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a right-wrong pair of items on the far back track. But these won't really get in your way.

3. Ability to handle a session.

As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct this. We have one here.

4. Ability to read a meter.

And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale.

5. Ability to study and apply Scientology data.

You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive.

It takes very little to establish the presence or absence of these abilities in an HGC Auditor or a Student. Each one can be reviewed easily.

View an auditor’s ability to audit in the light of the above only. Put him on TV for a half-hour rudiments and havingness actual session of any Model Session he or she is trained to use, and watch l to 4 above. Then give him or her an unstudied short HCO Bulletin and see how long it takes for the auditor to pass a verbal exam on it.

A comparison of this data with a number of the staff auditor’s HGC case reports will show direct co-ordination. To the degree that few results were obtained the auditor missed on l to 5 above. To the degree that good results were obtained the auditor could pass l to 5 above. Inspection of half a dozen different cases the auditor has done is necessary to see a complete co-ordination.

There is your training stress for staff training programmes. Only when the above skills are polished up do you dare to go into involved processes with the auditor. For a more complicated process further throws out any existing errors in the above five abilities and makes hash out of the lot.

During such a period, one can fall back on auditor confidence. What process is the auditor confident he or she will get wins with? Well, let him or her run it on the current pc. And meanwhile, with training, smooth the auditor out and get him or her genned in on higher level or more recent processes.

Without an auditor, a case will not progress. And a case will progress more with a confident auditor who can do something of what he or she is doing than with an auditor who is shaky. For the shakiness will magnify any faults in the five skills that the auditor has.

Auditors do by and large a pretty fine job. It takes a while to gen in a new skill. I can do it in one or two sessions so it’s not causing me any strain. Mary Sue can get one straight in about four sessions. So nobody expects a new skill to appear magically perfect in no time at all. But the length of time it will take to groove in on a new skill depends on the five abilities above.

The main auditor faults will be found in auditors who are trying so hard themselves to be right that thee and me must be proven wrong. That shows up most strongly in No. 5 above. The degree of disagreement an auditor has with data measures the degree of unworkability that auditor will enter into processing and this is the same degree that that auditor thinks he or she has to preserve his or her survival by making others wrong. This also enters into the other four abilities by a covert effort to make the pc wrong. This is rare. But it is best measured by an inability to accept data, and so can be tested by No. 5 above.

Processing on rightness and wrongness remedies this. Other processing remedies it. And just practice remedies it. This factor is easily disclosed as unhandled in some training courses where a blowing student sometimes gives long dissertations on “What they don’t agree with in Scientology.” That what they say doesn’t exist in Scientology does not deter them from believing it does, for their last spark of survival demands that only they be right and all others wrong. Such a state of mind doesn’t make a good auditor since both Scientology and the pc must be made wrong. Squirrels are only Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatizing alter-is on Scientology instead of their track. Even they can be made to audit by long training even in the absence of processing. They aren’t just trying to make others wrong. Essentially that is the characteristic of a Case Level 8, Unaware. There aren’t many of these around. Auditing and training can handle them, even if it takes a long time. Such people would almost die literally if they found they had ever been wrong and they get quite ill with aplomb just to prove you are wrong; it goes that far.

Case Level or sanity have little to do with anything when it comes to training auditors. Insanity is a goal “To be Insane”, not an index of potential auditing ability. And only Case Level 8 does a complete shatter of a session as an auditor.

Take these factors into first account in an HGC.

Don’t keep a staff upset by shifting processes continually. Processing is pretty stable which is why I can give you this expectancy for a new high level performance in HGC. Groove the staff auditor in for wins and TA Action. And all will be well. Groove them in by processes only and all will be chaos.

And in the Academy stress this data and teach the five abilities above beyond all other data and you’ll have auditors. If the HGC could expect from an Academy graduates who had the five abilities listed above, everyone would get more comfortable.

An HGC need not have to run a school of its own to provide itself with auditors.

The data I have given you in this HCO Bulletin is not subject to change or modification.

HGC pcs will only win if they are run so as to obtain good TA Action.

The HGC will have trouble achieving that only to the degree that its staff has not achieved the five abilities above.

We are building on very solid ground. All actions we now undertake in the HGC and Academy should contribute to successful auditing, for out of that alone can clearing be achieved.