Thank you. By the way, do you have a congress yet?

Audience: Yes!

Thank you.

Well, all right, all right.

& Well first, you know, I think we ought to make sure that we take care of some of our better people. I think we ought to thank Mary Adams for that beautiful job she's doing on that organ as usual.

Now, I think you are arranged here for some purpose or another, and I'm not quite sure what. What purpose are they arranged for? Does anybody - anybody have any - is - the stage manager know what they're arranged for down here?

& Where was she?

Male voice: Yeah, for Group Processing.

& Voice from audience: [unintelligible]

Oh, thank you, thank you. Group Processing. Yes. Well now, let's see who are we going to get to group process you? Let's see, there's Jack; we could get him to do it. There's Chuck; we could get him to do it. Is there anybody you'd like?

& Stand up! There she is.

Audience: You! Yes!

& And I see that somebody just blew in from damp old - I mean dear old England. Here's Pam and Ray Kemp - stand up.

Boy, sometimes you really have to work for them, you know?

& Here a few telegrams and a ...

Of course, it's just pure cruelty on my part to stand here and delay the beginning of this because you're all wondering what I'm going to run. Now, the only reason I am willing to group process you at all is because, believe it or not, Mary Sue, when D of P here and there and elsewhere - Director of Processing, taking care of cases and that sort of thing - keeps getting stuff on the subject of „What auditing have you had?“ And people will invariably put down, somewhere along the line, „I've had Group Processing from Ron. Results: fine.“

& By the way - I - this is a beautiful globe. I'm told that Eisenhower's globe is just exactly like this one and that this is one of the biggest and fanciest made anywhere. And that the globe in the White House is just like this. So that I can have the only globe like this, somebody will have to get that back from the White House. [laughter]

Now, people had me more or less believing that I had occasionally messed up cases at congresses and so forth and for the last many congresses I have more or less dropped it off as part of the routine and regimen. Well, when this preponderance of evidence came through of the number of good results which had been obtained by Group Processing at congresses run - had - this broadly, of this many people by me, you see, I said, „Well, we can't let it go any longer,“ so I've got it back in the run. And I hope this one will live up to these expectancies. And it's cruelty on my part not telling you what I'm going to run on you.

& I understand little old Indonesia over here has twelve of them though. I don't know what they were doing with twelve of them, I didn't know they were going to conquer that much space. They're that dark spot there.

Is it all right if I give you a session?

& But let me read off a few of these telegrams to you here.

Audience: Yes!

& Here's first and foremost on the list here is: „Ron we send you and congress delegates our very best for a very successful congress, HASI New Zealand.“ Right down there. [Indicating locations on the globe to the audience.]

All right. Start!

& And here's one: „Best wishes for the most successful congress ever, love HCO and HASI South Africa.“ Right there.

Think of a goal you would like to achieve for this session.

& And „Ron all the best for a responsibly responsive congress, Love HASI London.“ Clear up here.

You got one?

& And here's one: „Ron all best for congress and following course, HASI and HCO Australia.“

Audience: Yes.

& And „Ron and delegates, here's wishing you everything for the bestest ever congress, Love HCO London.“

Who hasn't got one? Good. All right.

& And „Best wishes to Ron, Mary Sue, Staff, and all congress attendees for a fine congress and a prosperous 1960, from all staff at HCO WW Saint Hill.”

Now, you got a goal for this session, good. We'll try to achieve that goal.

& Now there's some more of them here, but most of these people are represented. And I'm sure that HASI DC and FC DC wishes us a very fine congress since they're giving it.

Now, in the last day or two I have been giving you some heavy, over-the-hedges stuff on overts and withholds and so forth, and have given you to believe that there may have been sinners in the past but, ha-ha-ha-ha, they don't compare to you, huh? Have any of you had that idea? Well, if you haven't had that idea then you've missed some of the things I've said.

& And HASI Los Angeles is right in there pitching and well attended at this congress and thank them for carrying on out there in the jungle.

Anyway. Now, having made you - by the way, the greatest overt act is making people guilty of overt acts, as you know. So I am not trying to make you guilty of overt acts at all; I'm trying to make you Clear. Therefore, I can call your overt acts to your attention because the end product of same will be some cleared people. And this is one of the processes we're going to run now. This is one of the processes (America - processes) that you actually should run sometime down toward the end of auditing a pc, not at the beginning, but somewhere toward the end of it.

& Actually you know I started the nucleus of one here in Calcutta. There is one here that is firing in Greece. There is one in Paris. The one in Germany is doing much better. There is something doing down here in South America. We're doing just fine.

This is the one Group Process that gives you the overts and withholds but puts them into a condition where they can be, to some slight degree, lived with without violating particularly the privacy of a preclear Actually, this is not a total - you can't run this only and expect everybody to come clean. So those of you who have dreaded telling somebody something and for a second there thought that I had a process whereby you could get Clear without telling anybody, just come off of it because you'll have to tell them sooner or later. But at the same time this is the leveling off process and actually does take some of the kick, some of the dynamite out of trying to live with one. And what I'm going to run on you is „Think of something you could admit doing,“ alternated with „Think of something you could withhold.“ Got it? All right.

& Nobody yet has conquered Mexico. Would some Texan please take note.

Now, when I say „admit doing“ - „Think of something you could admit doing,“ that would just mean anybody or anything you could admit it to, you understand?

& Now there's no doubt about it, we're winning hot and heavy. But we certainly can win from here on out providing we can sort of hold on to it long enough that we don't blow.

And when I say, „Think of something you could withhold,“ that is just from anyone or anything or something. I won't run the tough one. The tough one would be almost unrunnable „Think of something you have done to me,“ „Think of something you could withhold from me.“ I'm not going to tag you with that one. That's a rough one. Okay?

& Now I'm going to set you a good example - I haven't blown.

So it's going to be „Think of something you could admit doing“ and „Think of something you could withhold.“ All right? Now, I'm going to give you just a few seconds spacing and if you miss out a command or two and draw a blank, why, just let it skid and pick up the next command. Just don't sit there in a - in a fog. I won't hold it against you if you miss one, okay?

& Now if we can abide by this example, we'll have it made. And one of the problems that we face actually, is not so much people leaving Central Organizations, but

Audience: Okay.

I'm going to talk to you very close now if you want to hear it, about the second dynamic - marriage. You like to hear about marriage?

All right. You all set now?

Audience: Yeah.

Audience: Yes.

Now, you can salvage more marriages per square house than ever before.

All right, here is the first command:

Let's take a look at marriage.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Our actual index of breakup on marriage is probably less than for the world at large, but it's too high. It's too high. It shouldn't be up there at all. And there have been a lot of marriages that have stayed there together through thick and thin in Scientology, and people are to be congratulated on it because really, occasionally it's been through thick and thin.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

& Now I wasn't just pretending to set an example a little while ago telling you I was still on post - I'll let you in on a little secret -

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Mary Sue and I, you know, have been married now for eight years. We went down to Oklahoma and hooked it up about eight years ago. Smart move on my part; probably not so smart on hers. But if you look over that and a few other little things, you see that I am not the philosopher in the ivory tower, talking about something I know not what of, which I think in earlier generations was the requisite for all philosophers and advisers - to have no experience of any kind whatsoever in any subject about which they were advising.

Think of something you could withhold. All right. Now how's that going, huh?

And as I used to be president of the American Fiction Guild, author's league up in New York, when I was a kid - that's right, I was a kid - it was very funny to me; I used to laugh myself silly; all of the confession stories written in America are written by unmarried ladies who have reached forty or fifty.

Audience: Fine.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being an unmarried lady reaching forty or fifty. This is perfectly fine. But how come all these confession stories? Yeah, that's interesting. Because it was out of the current lifetime's field of experience. I realize now they were writing about past lives - that they were picking it up whole track and just putting it in modern dress - but they didn't know what they were writing about, basically, in this lifetime.

Is that too fast for anybody?

And they didn't know what they were advising the younger generation about -

Audience: No.

& the old Bernard MacFadden and Fawcett Publications with their „come to realize,“ you know, plots and all that sort of thing.

No, that's all right. All right, very good.

And you can advise people about things you don't know anything about. That's perfectly easy to do, in fact, one of the easiest things to do man does.

Think of something you could admit doing, Thank you.

But I was sitting around with a bunch of these ladies one day - had a luncheon - and they all came around afterwards. They were having some drinks. I gave them some advice about writing. It upset them very much. I was the old high-speed kid on writing. You know, I could sit down and turn out five, ten thousand words in a single day of production, send it off, get a check. Ninety-four percent acceptance was my record first time out. Now, fifteen million words in print. This was - this was good, hot, heavy production. It brought back the coffee and cakes and paid for a lot of research and other things. But anyway, these people were all there, and I said, „You know,“ I said, „you get pretty high rates in the confession-story racket.“ I said, „I ought to write some of those.“

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you,

And they all said, „Ha! Ha! Ha!“

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

So leaving them with my bottle of corn, I went upstairs, wrote a confession story and got a thousand dollars for it from Bernarr MacFadden.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you

„Yes, I remember. I was just a young maid, trusting and inexperienced, and he was a handsome devil...“ Ah, very easy. Very easy.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you

I saw then that you could do things you didn't know anything about. They weren't necessarily good but you could do something about them.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Almost as adventurous as getting married. Because when you're getting married, you're doing something you don't know anything about. Did you ever think of that? Hm, did you ever think about it? That's the one trip, one lifetime sort of a thing, don't you see? And when you try it a couple of times, why, usually you know less about it the second time than you did the first time.

Think of something you could admit doing, Thank you

Now, it doesn't say that operating manuals haven't been written for marriages. I know there are several extant, all written by bachelors or people who have not been - like most of the care-of-children-for-the-mother books are always written by bachelors.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Now, marriage is an interesting boat to steer. It's not a third dynamic activity, and yet it is kind of. It generally ceases to be a second dynamic activity but has to remain so.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

The genus of marriage is one of these things that is a big pose on the early track. And that is thetan association. Thetans early on the track very often got the idea that they would mock each other up, you know, as - they would be brothers, or they would be a family or something of the sort, and they would all appear to be related: cousins, sisters, uncles, aunts, mothers, fathers.

Think of something you could withhold, Okay, now how is that? Getting a little easier? Is anybody missing out totally? A little easier? All right. All right.

Mothers/fathers actually comes later on the track. Earlier it was just thetan brotherhoods. And this pretense at association was something that seldom worked out very well because everybody knew they were just pretending and they knew there was no real familial relationship. This falsity or the ideas of this falsity actually continue forward into the modern family. It's very easy to break down a family because there is no relationship in a family except a pretended relationship. Think of it for a moment and you realize that you're supporting a thing which can't exist. A thetan was never the daughter of another thetan. No thetan was ever the father of another thetan, no matter what the Good Book says. That's the truth of the matter.

Now, you're a part of this, now. Let's get in there and pitch hard, now. This is your chance here. Might never have another one. You might blow, you know? Nah, you're not going to blow after I do this. Here's the next command:

Now, any time you have a relationship which isn't inherent or based on immediate and direct fact, you have to work at it.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Now, I'm not saying that marriage is a false relationship. It isn't. In this society and time, a family is the closest knit, self-perpetuating, self-protecting unit and is necessary economically and otherwise to the society the way it's rigged at this present time. And who destroys marriage, destroys the civilization. That's fairly sure.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

& That's why the commies try so hard.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

A culture will go by the boards if its basic building block, the family, is removed as a valid building block. But this is no reason we should get mocked up and silly about what the relationship is. The relationship, basically, is a postulated relationship. There is no truth in the relationship. It is a postulated relationship.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

And when people stop postulating it, it ceases to exist! And that's what happens to most marriages. People stop mocking up the family unit, and the moment they stop mocking it up, it isn't. You see what happens to marriages?

Getting easier? Tougher? Getting a little tougher in spots here. It'll be getting a little easier. I notice there are a few wheezes of relief coming off there. Let them come off. All right. Here's the next one:

It isn't the other way around: It isn't that all men are evil, so therefore, contracts such as marriage dissolve usually in infidelity and go all to pieces. That is not true. The reverse is true; that when you have a purely postulated relationship which has no real existence in fact, you have to continue to create it. And a family which doesn't continue to create itself as a family will cease to exist as a family. That's about all you need to know about it.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

When I was a little kid, most people in this society at this time had a considerable formula. All over the world people are having trouble with this thing. They're having lots of trouble with this thing because they're running on an automaticity; they think this thing will hang together through no effort of their own. And if it hangs together through no effort of their own, I've never heard of it. It won't.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Now, you have unhappy experiences familiarly. Father's taking his role very seriously. He is arbiter of the destiny of it all. He must be totally contributed to. Actually, the Greek and Roman family had the power of life and death vested in the role of father. He could order executed any family member. They must have had a lot of trouble, mustn't they have?

All right. Is anybody having any - feel like you're going out of your head or anything of this sort? If you are, why - if you are, fine. Here's the next command:

You want to know how much trouble any society had, look at what laws they had to pass. The vigor of the law is directly proportional to the might - amount of trouble they were having. You think the Puritans were pure - read their list of laws.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Where people aren't having trouble with crime, they don't take many precautions against it. But where they are having trouble with crime, they pass lots of laws. That you know for sure.

Think of something you could withhold. Okay.

Well, mother - mother decides that she's been victimized and should have married the other fellow - which is obvious.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Your father and mother weren't making perhaps - maybe they were making - but perhaps they weren't making too good a go of it. And if they weren't making too good a go of it, then you looked at this and you said, „Now, look at that! This institution which is inherent in nature, and nothing will ever change, doesn't perpetuate itself and is not much good. Because, look, it isn't hanging together“

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

You had a failure. You probably tried to postulate the family into a unit when you were a little kid. You know, you were - you were working at it. You were working at it. You were trying to postulate it into a unit. You were trying to square the thing up one way or the other. You were trying to get a Papa-loves-Mama thing going one way or the other. You were trying to show them that they had something to live for and so forth.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

As a matter of fact, one of the reasons you would get hurt was to make Papa and Mama realize they had responsibilities for the family. Childhood illness and all this sort of thing comes directly after familial upsets. Just trace it down. And maybe you had some failures because it's pretty hard when you don't have very much body to make an effect on very big bodies. Or you've got it figured that way, so you don't have much effect on big bodies.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Actually, you were probably something to reckon with. But you might have or might not have had a good example. Let me acquaint you that it has nothing to do with whether or not you can make a marriage, because the example you were looking at existed without benefit of any knowledge of how men worked or what they were all about, or how women worked and what they were all about. And existing without that information, how could they do anything but run along and get flat tires every quarter of a mile. That was pretty rough one way or the other.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Now, if you go at this and realize that a marriage is something you have to postulate into existence and keep mocked up, and when you stop working at it, it will cease, but then everything else is rigged to perpetuate it while you're not trying to keep it going, of course it will be a destruction. If you realize that, and if you know the technology I've been giving you at this congress, you can make any marriage stick or you can recover any facet of any marriage or plaster one back together again any way you want to. It takes a little doing and it takes a little guts.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

And that's an understatement if I ever made one.

How are you doing?

Now, Suzie and I have been working at this, so we'd have some kind of a reality on the situation. And if she and I have got anything to patch up, wow. Because we've - everything has been pretty darn smooth compared to most marriages, see?

Audience: Fine.

We decided we would take this new technology, you see, and we would apply it just right on down the groove as prescribed and straighten it all up and straighten out all the overts and withholds, boom, boom, and fix it ail up.

Making it now?

Well, we didn't do it because it was on the rocks and it was the easiest look at anything you ever took, and honest to Pete, we almost had each other's heads there for a week or so. So I said, „Well, I've got the data, but it's kind of odd data that if Suzie and I, who have no real trouble and who have no real overts or withholds to amount to anything, can almost cut each other's heads off doing this, what's some poor guy going to do out in Oshkosh trying to patch it up with his wife?“

Audience: Sure.

As I say, we didn't have anything. You know, the overt and withhold of the value of Christmas presents. Just withholds on Christmas presents, things like this, you know? Overt thoughts, critical thoughts occasionally, you know? Something rough like, „Well, he cares more about that preclear than he does about me because he's been auditing all night,“ you know, sort of thing. Snarl, snarl, you know?

Feel any better than you felt?

But we found out something fantastic. We thought we were fond of each other. And we got all this stuff cleaned up, wow!

Audience: Yes.

So I would say that it's very difficult to postulate a marriage. I hate to touch upon a personal thing like that and so forth, and maybe it upsets you a little bit - I hope not, but I'm not in the mood to withhold anything from you.

Oh, you're getting - got over that little hump there, some of you, huh? Well, how many feel no different at all? Well good, then I don't have to snarl, „Well, answer the auditing question,“ see? I don't have to do that; I can remain pleasant. All right, here's the next auditing command:

Now, a marriage which has broken down into a superseparateness of overts and withholds is almost impossible to put back in the run again simply by postulating it into existence. After people have separated themselves out from each other, they have to unseparate themselves again. It's all very well with sweetness and light coming in some June day tra-la, tra-la, tra-la, and you see this handsome brute (or not so handsome), and you see this beautiful girl (and not so beautiful), and they come together, and they say, „Well, we will do or die until end do us doth,“ or whatever it is. And they think they've made a marriage. Why, they haven't started yet.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Now they've got to find out how they look before breakfast. You think this thing has a lot to do with the second dynamic. It doesn't; it. has mostly to do with cosmetics and razor blades. They've got to learn to live with each other if they can. Now, to some degree, they have wiped out, sort of, by the act of getting married what they were doing before that that's by more or less tacit consent and so forth and they start from there.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Now, what happens from there on out is what counts. But sometimes things they have done before, that they are violently withholding from each other, don't even let the marriage get started. Forty-eight hours later, they're on the rocks. Why? Well, there's just too much overt and withhold before they even knew each other.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Well, even that one can be salvaged - even that one. But how about one that has ground on for years and years and the overts have mounted up - and the overts and the withholds, and they've fallen apart? And - do you know it's traditional that at the end of three years, husbands and wives don't get any kick out of each other. This is sort of in the textbook. All the psychologists know that,

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

But if at the end of three years this is the case, how about at the end of ten? Well, they've kind of learned to endure, or they're both in propitiation. They're getting along somehow and they would rather have it that way than have it some other way. They'd rather be married than not. They think they're making it okay. And they don't think too much about the girl or the guy that they should have married instead, anymore. It's going along somehow.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Now into that relationship we can introduce one of the most startling pieces of bombardism you ever heard of: We can clear up the marriage! And it really goes. All a divorce is, for instance, or all an inclination or a withdrawal is: simply too many overts and withholds against the marital partner. That's all! It's as uncomplicated as that.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

And all of these strainings and leavings and „I ought to go“ and „I ought not to stay“ and „I ought to do something else“ and „We ought to split it up“ or „I'd be much better off if we hadn't,“ and „Maybe if I...“ something, yap-yap, you know? - all of those rationales stem immediately from the partner who is making those rationales, from that partner's overts and withholds against the other partner.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Actually, he's trying to protect the other partner from his own viciousness. That's the basic reason. So he said, „Well, I'd better leave, we'd better break it up“ or „cool it off.“ And that's usually the gradient scale of a marriage breakup is „Cool it off.“ „We ought to leave,“ „We part,“ see? But that „cool it off“ usually occurs. And, boy, we can take these things now and uncool them off.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you..

Now, to ask you to take one of these things and set it down across from the marital partner, give him the cans and say, „Well...“ (It's very easy, very interesting. I postulated a marital partner, and I got two.) And we say, „Well now, George (or Agnes), come clean. Let's level it here.“

All right. Is that going okay now?

There's a process that goes this way - a very deadly process. Not particularly advised but it's terribly workable: „What have you done? What have you withheld? what have you done? What have you withheld? What have you done?“ - not necessarily „to me,“ you see?

Audience: Fine.

Now, that's the deadly shotgun. That takes them all on all dynamics. But if you're just cleaning up a marriage, it's „What have you done to me?“ (keeping the Auditor's Code) „What have you withheld from me? What have you done to me? What have you withheld from me?“

You finding out this is taking some of the edge off of that stuff? All right, feel a little better?

The person that takes the beating is the auditor. You really have to look this one over. And remembering, every time we find a big one, run Responsibility, as I'll give it to you, on that incident. Got the idea? „What part of that incident could you be responsible for?“ „What part of that incident could you be responsible for?“ or some other process command.

Audience: Yes.

And next night - oh, man, you spend days not talking to each other, let me tell you. But the funny part of it is, is the only time you start to claw each other up doing something like this is when you as the auditor goofed and had a loss. And then everything starts to go rickety-rackety. As long as you can actually be effective and feel the thing is going forward and you're winning, you're all right. You're just all right.

Is it all right now for me to louse you up the way I have the last few hours? You forgiven me yet? Okay.

But you all of a sudden get detoured and talked out of running what you should have run and talked out of going someplace else. You feel you've got it all mishmashed and you find yourself auditing some incident whereby they were a Phoenician galley slave - that had nothing to do with the marriage. Only once in a blue moon is a button so hot that you have to pull the button, you know, like broken shoelaces or something of this sort, you know?

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

All of a sudden this person, this marital partner, keeps coming up with the fact, „Yes, I know, but I withheld from you that I noticed your shoelaces were broken and had been retied.“ We seem to get this one again and again and again. You know, „Your shoelaces were broken,“ and „You didn't pay attention to your shoelaces“ and „You didn't pay attention to your shoelaces and didn't...“

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Yeah, what the hell is this all about, you know? Shoelaces! Well, we just better run this one down. What's this business about shoelaces? And we find out they hanged themselves in the county jail three lives ago with some broken shoelaces or something. It's a - has something to do with it.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

But the point is that as long as we're successful, it goes along fine. It's only when we get a little bit detoured that people get unhappy about it.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

I would say there's a formula for this sort of thing: that a couple of people who know how to audit ought to get an E-Meter. By the way, you really can't - you really need one of those things today; you can't audit without one of those things. I mean it just can't be done. And of course, it's - they're real dynamite to have around a business. You can just go down the line, take all the criminals out, patch up all the right places and square it up and go to the boss and say, „All right. Now, what are you withholding, son?“

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

And he says, „Well, I didn't mean you were to make a check on me!“

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

And you say, „Oh, come now.“

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

„Well, all right, all right, all - oh, blast it! Well, I haven't embezzled any funds anyhow.“

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Yeah, you can check out a business these days and really make one whiz. Before this congress is over, I'll tell you how to check out a government; you're in business, man. But maritally, you need one of those confounded things just to break it down. Not so much that the other person has tremendous things they're withholding, but they very often can't get the nerve to tell you unless you know about it already via the meter. And you just don't succeed in cleaning them up, that's all.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Furthermore, you don't know these days how long to run something unless you've got a person on a meter, because you run it until the tone arm goes to Clear for their sex. You run against the tone arm, not the needle. That's right, that's right. That's when a process is flat. I can just give you that in passing here, but it's not an incidental datum. If you're running one of these Responsibility or other allied processes that's a good process, you audit that thing for a man until it is stably at 3.0 before you leave that incident alone. Or - and for a Woman, when it's stably at 2.0 and isn't varying any, you get it right there so it's stable. Otherwise the incident itself is not flat, You can take any part of a case and clear it down to the Clear reading, and that's done by the tone arm.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

You know when you have a hot incident or a hot part of the case because the arm goes up on the meter! Not the needle! The hell with the needle! The arm! We're only interested in incidents with enough charge to move this tone arm! Do you get that?

How you doing?

These things that go click click, click, oh, they'd aberrate somebody, I guess, if he was already nuts. But these little sweeps that go over here, „What did you just think of? Well that’s too bad.“ No, no, no.

Audience: Fine.

For instance, you'll find that the little wife was actually out in bars all during that week you were in Syracuse, and you start talking about bars... You say, „Well, what do you know? There must be something there.“ Yeah, there's something there and it won't come down until you find out what it is, too.

Doing a little better? Anybody doing worse? Anybody gone into another decline? Well, just let that be a warning to you, run the process now. Here we go.

Now, three, four times probably while you're trying to clean up a marriage between you, you will undoubtedly decide that it's all over and there's no reason to go on with it because one couldn't possibly. The thing that saves the day each time is remember what you did. Just keep that thought firmly in mind, and it'll come through to a perfect completion.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

You start clearing up a marriage by establishing two-way communication in the marriage and you've got it made. But if little Suzie and I with as little trouble as we've had in life can go round and round for a couple of weeks - we got to laughing about this. One night it got ridiculous. We said, „Oh, think of somebody trying to do with - this in San Francisco without even a professional certificate.“ Do it off of the textbook, you know? Oh. No trained forbearance, you see? No schooling in how to sit there with gritted teeth and take it, you know? No built-in supports of „Give the command and the acknowledgment,“ you know? Guy going totally wog-wog-wog - a trained auditor doing that can still say the command and give the acknowledgment; he might not appear bright.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

And I said then, „Well, I'll have to tell people about this at the congress because they're going to start trying it anyhow, and we'd better tell them the right way to go about it.“

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

And we'd say offhand that it runs like this: If you want - if you think that your marriage can be made better and you are not, both of you, trained auditors, then for people who are sort of in - you know, they're in Scientology - I'm not whipping up any business for auditors - the wrong way to go about it is get audited through on it. If you want to get audited, get audited through to Clear. (And you should be, you understand?) But the right way to get audited on a marriage would have to do with the marital partners facing each other with the meter; you understand?

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Male voice: Yeah.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Otherwise, a phenomenon of transference or upset or supersympathy and so forth can set in, and it just shouldn't be there. You understand?

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

So if a PC comes to you - he's having trouble with the marriage, the best thing that you can possibly do is say, „Well, are you both willing to settle up this marriage before we go any further?“

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

„Settle up the marriage, yes, but my wife wouldn't have anything to do with Scientology.“

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

„Oh, is that so? Well, better bring her over. I want to show her how an E-Meter works!“

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Set them both down in the session with the meter between them and let them go at it back and forth. And they'll be in-session!

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

But you shouldn't really take one marital partner at a time and pluck them off someplace into an auditing room and do it all very supersecret and all that sort of thing. You ought to get them both by the scruff of the neck and sit them down across from each other with an E-Meter between them, and if they don't know how to do it and so forth, you sit there and hold the meter, you know, and audit them. Any auditing you're doing, though, have one of the partners back of you. Works.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Don't do it in absentia - got the idea? - if you really want to keep their marriage together They'd probably go home and beat each other's heads off. But that's better than leaving each other! Almost anybody who has been deserted will tell you that. That's right.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

But where we have a - where we have a marriage to clean up, we could do it with a pro. (Insufficient skill, you know?) I'd say don't flinch at trying to do it up totally untrained. Go ahead and take a rap at it. There's enough Scientologists around now that they can pick you up out of the corner and put you back together again.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

That would be the roughest way to go about it but I wouldn't flinch at tackling it. No real training. Just read a book about an E-Meter and got one, you know, and then, you know, somehow or other going to straighten this out with Grace or with Edgar. Uh-hew. And you probably would come through all right. But of course, that's not the problem of most of the people here.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

The next workable thing would be to get a pro to help you out and do a double audit. But undoubtedly the most workable thing of all would be for the husband and wife to save up a little bit and get it all squared around and then go to school, carefully keeping - both of them keeping their noses clean and knowing what they were doing and get trained. When they're all finished with school, then have at it! That requires a lot of self-restraint, but that would be the most perfect fix-up. But I would, of course, only tell Scientologists that one. Otherwise, people would have to be more or less straightened up by a pro.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Now, to take anybody that knows nothing about Scientology, give him one of these things, aw, nah, nah. Why kill people? They'd just kill each other off that's all.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

In the first place, only one person would be doing it. The other would have no cooperation. It'd probably be totally covert. They'd have the total idea it was what the other person had done that had wrecked the marriage. You get that they - all these misconceptions would stack together to a total bust. They'd simply use it as some kind of a police detector.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

It was a sad day when instrumentation got into the hands of the police - called lie detectors. First place, there is no such thing as a lie detector These things don't detect lies. They detect unrealities and disagreements and mis-emotions. But they don't detect lies. They detect those things the person is sorry he did. But what police officer, untrained in Scientology, could ever get that forgiving to admit that the person was sorry he did it. Because he knows what's wrong with criminals: Criminals are people who are never sorry about anything.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Now, he doesn't even know about criminals. A criminal is somebody who is on automatic and who isn't there. But he's on automatic and isn't there because he'd better not participate because he knows he's a criminal. „The machine is more reliable than the man,“ by the way, is the slogan a criminal operates on.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Now, I didn't say that a space opera society always wound up as a criminal society. I didn't say that, but you can quote me.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Now maritally the soundest plan, if somebody - if a couple knew a bit about auditing and so forth - the - soundest plan would actually to - be to go through a Comm Course/Upper Indoc all over again. You know, just - find somebody who's teaching a Comm Course and Upper Indoc and just go through it. Both of them you know? And just groove it in, you know; and get the discipline in there. Get it pounded in with a little bit of spikes, you know. Then take this and get the overts and withholds off on the whole thing and Responsibility run on each and every part of them, and the marriage would go back together again, click.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Don t believe that it'll go together without a few flying frying pans, See? Man, you're a perfectionist if you believe that's going to happen. Don't believe that you can all put it together again in one night because the number of overts and withholds usually take a little longer to detail.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Now all of this simply adds up to the fact that we have our paws on this thing called a family. Because what is the most upsetting thing about children? The most upsetting thing about children is that they blow; children blow the family. In America they routinely blow the family in their teens. And man has been looking at this for so long, he believes this is a good thing. It is? „Well, the child, obviously, at thirteen-fourteen has to become critical of his or her parents, naturally. That's the way it should be, and then has to become more and more estranged, and eventually goes out and makes a family of her own, and that's the way life works.“ It is?

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Some of the best families I've ever seen put together were by kids who hadn't blown their own families. That's interesting, isn't it?

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Do you know how young you can E-Meter a kid in his overts and withholds? Goo-goo-chi-goo fellows. I wouldn't say how young, but it's awful young.

All right. Now how's it going, huh?

And you take a child of six, five, seven, something like that - that's easy. That's a simple one. They're as easy to audit as adult preclears if you short session them; give them very short sessions and very simple semantic processes. Don't give them anything tough in semantics and they audit just perfectly.

Audience: Fine. Great.

And you always give them formal sessions, you know? Don't ever shortchange them with a little pat-on-the-back auditing and a little lick and a promise and an assist here and an assist there and never end the session, so forth. Give them more dignity than that.

Have you got any idea of what you're walking into here? Do you get a little insight in this now? Get a little insight on where you're going here? Look it over. Let's get a little subjective reality on this now. You able to find more things now? Hm?

And a child will stop trying to pull the family to pieces.

Audience: Yes.

Now, the upset and uproar that is supposed to be the common lot of all families because of children, actually hasn't much to do with the family. I know my kids recently became unhysterical. They had a nanny who was treating them fairly decently - had a Scientologist as a nanny, you know - and they settled down, you know? And they calmed down. They'd - they've never been very boisterous or uproarious in disturbing things. They've been loud enough, but they're very free-spoken children, you know? They're very free in motion, very outflowing.

Easier to do?

But this new Scientologist that had just come on to take care of them, you know, was not necessarily giving them good 8-C or bad 8-C, but wasn't doing anything to upset them particularly, and they were going along just dandy. And they got so calm and cooperative, you see, with the rest of staff that we had a couple of people on staff that were coming around saying, „Something's the matter with the children. They're sick.“

Audience: Yes.

I was interested enough to go and look, you know, and I didn't find anything going wrong at all. They were about twice as free spoken as they had been before, you know? But they just weren't running in hysterical circles making everybody miserable. So of course, they thought they were sick because they weren't behaving as „everybody knows“ children should.

Fine, fine. All right, here's the next auditing command!

Now, when children have too many overts and withholds against their parents, they make life miserable for their parents. This is the darnedest thing you ever heard of. When they have too many overts and withholds against their parents, they make life miserable for their parents. It's silly.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

And if the parents permit them to go on having this many overts and withholds against the parents, then they really start making life miserable for everybody and then they start blowing the family. And by the time they're sixteen or seventeen this „natural phenomenon“ of their leaving the family will take place. We don't care if they left the family or not. Actually, Roman children used to get official posts and jobs and get married by the time they were fourteen or fifteen, which is about the right time. You think I'm joking now. I'm not.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

One of the wicked things you can do to a child is to prevent them from starting their life. And I'm not saying that college is totally a bad operation. I didn't say that. I just think so; that's just an opinion.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

But it does seem that it puts an awful postponement on marriage. And this „got to wait to live - got to wait to live,“ you know, gets people so they just go totally irresponsible on the third dynamic.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you

You get little kids around twelve, thirteen - they start picking up responsibilities on the third dynamic. Have you noticed that? And if you let that go too long, why, they start running irresponsibilities on the third dynamic, and you have - well, you have a government like this one.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Now, marriage then would consist of putting together a thetan association without overts and withholds, postulated into existence, continued for the mutual perpetuation and protection of the members and the group. Very, very simple arrangement actually. A highly satisfactory arrangement if it continues to be simple but a very complex arrangement if it doesn't be.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Now, it isn't that mother-in-laws are the people who always wreck marriages. You could say offhand that mother-in-laws should all be shot and so forth, and then we would have free marriages and it'd be nice. Or we could have woman's suffrage and then marriage would be okay, or that we could have complete emancipation, instantaneous divorce, and marriage could be okay.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

And there - all of these social, sticky-plaster pieces of nonsense are just efforts to have a marriage without ever really having a marriage. None of these things ever made a marriage - quick divorce or preventing this or that.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

The Chinese go the opposite, you know? A marriage occurs but it really doesn't occur because the oldest man of the father's - of the husband's family is still the head of the family, and the wife still serves the husband's mother, and - oh, I don't know, it's all - they all get very complicated.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

We get surrounded by bunches of rules and that sort of thing. We don't care what rules they're surrounded by as long as there is free communication amongst the members of that group. And if there's free communication amongst the members of that group, their affinity is sufficiently high to take the shocks and hammers and pounds of life. Now, life does hand out a few hammers and pounds and shocks.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

And if the individuals connected with a family are not self-supportive, then these shocks can be rough one way or the other. The person does something and apparently thinks things are done to him, and he's trying to make it and can't and all that sort of thing. But on a self-supportive, mutually co-supportive basis, why, people have a better chance of making it than alone. And that's one of the basic philosophies on which marriage is based.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Of course, a little kid wouldn't make it at all, and none of you would have made it at all, if it hadn't have been for a marriage - on the line you're going on. Unless you have the power of mocking up a body right there, spat, why the geological [geneological]-biological pattern of familial relationships and growth and all that sort of thing is the thing which will carry it on.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

When the state comes along and tries to supplant the family with barracks, watch out. Somebody has man down to a criminal level where he has to implant people to get anything done.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

But a marriage can exist. A marriage no matter how strained can he put back together again. And a marriage can exist.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

But at the same time I'm saying that, of course, I'm saying that a group can exist. But a group cannot exist without two-way communication. And a group cannot exist unless it continues to he postulated into existence by members of the group. And when large numbers of the group are engaged in unpostulating it, or in postulating it out of existence - as revolutionary parties and that sort of thing are concerned then, of course, the rest of the group has to work much harder to keep the group back in. Eventually they get tired of keeping the group back in and it falls apart.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

But if we're going to have a group then we have to work at a group. The group has to be clean as far as the individuals in the group are concerned. There has to be free communication and there has to be a continued wish to continue to postulate the group into existence. If we do those things, we have a group. And whether it applies to marriage or whether it applies to a company or whether it applies to a government or whether it applies to something just a little bit bigger - Scientology around the world - why, that's how you make a group. And I hope we can benefit from that information.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

How's it going?

Audience: Great. Good.

Hm? Some of - parts of it rough there? A little rough, huh? Well, you think you'll survive here till the end of the session? Possibility? Okay. Here we go. Here's the next auditing command:

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

All right. Now we're just going to run this a few more commands and end the process if that's all right with you. Okay?

Audience: Okay.

All right.

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

And here's the last pair of commands:

Think of something you could admit doing. Thank you.

And here's the last command:

Think of something you could withhold. Thank you.

All right now, that was the last command.

Audience: Thank you.

Okay? You're welcome. All right now if we end that process totally, huh?

Audience: Yes.

All right. That's the end of that process.

Audience: Yes.

Now, do you remember the goal you set for this session?

Audience: Yes.

Well, did you attain it to any degree?

Audience: Yes. No. Yes.

If you didn't, do you think you might in some future session?

Audience: Yes. Yeah.

Do you think it's an overt act against me that you didn't attain it in this session?

Audience: No.

Well now, look it over again, did you attain any part of that goal?

Audience: Yes.

All right, thank you. I thought so in the first place.

All right, that's the end of that process and that's the end of that session. Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you.

Okay, now you're all in PT, I trust, and so forth. Are you in PT? You in present time? You here? All right. You're here. How about the seminar leaders, they here, too? All right. Sound man? Huh! We still got a sound man. We often lose him in those Group Processes.

Well now, what do you think you just ran? You ran the basic commands of Responsibility. It's not necessarily „think of;“ that was just for the Group Process. But to admit doing and to be able to withhold - now that's the anatomy of responsibility. At any time you say „admit causing“ with regard to anything you're running Responsibility on it. You could run just that. „What could you admit causing? What could you admit causing?“ Now, that runs responsibility. Now, many people you say „responsibility“ to them and they say that means, well, „that's being in charge of“ or „that's taking the blame for“ or something of this sort. Most anybody who has much sense has got responsibility right end to and can run the process just as responsibility.

But the process runs, oddly enough, very positively in „admit causing.“ And „admit causing“ does sum up responsibility because „admit causing a doingness“ or „admit causing a withholdingness“ - those are the two causingnesses. So „admit causing“ is the keynote of responsibility and you can run that on any preclear, and you'll find out that works just dandy.

You're welcome.

That's the anatomy - that's the anatomy of responsibility. We've looked for a long time.

Actually now, you know we needn't talk learnedly and horribly and come down on people with an iron heel and say; „You must take responsibility for your life,“ because what they think - what they think you mean is they must be blamed for living, see, or various other odd definitions. They don't know what you're talking about, and they'd probably take responsibility if they could face up to what it was.

Instead of that you could say to them very cleanly and clearly, „You must be cause over your existence or your deeds, or you're dead. You must take cause over these things. You must become cause over these things. You must be causative over your own life. You must be able to assume the position of admitted causation,“ if you're talking to somebody who likes syllables. Get the idea?

You don't have to say, „Well, you take responsibility for everything, you got it made.“ He knows what you mean. „It means,“ if he gets elected mayor, why, he's got it made, you know? Doesn't communicate too well, mostly because responsibility is too aberrated a word in an aberrated society. But „admit causing“ hasn't been kicked to pieces and you can use that very well.

Unless you become cause over your own life you won't live. Got the idea? Well, people buy that sort of an argument. Okay? Well, I thought it was better to run the definition on you than explain it to you. Now I think maybe you got some subjective reality on it.

That, by the way, is quite a killer as a Group Process, if you want to run Group Processing into any PE Course or anything like that that you have anything to do with and so forth.

There's another one. There's another one: „What would you let us know? What could you withhold from us?“ „What would you let us know? What could you withhold from us?“ That's the overt/withhold basic process. Of course, the highest level of anything is knowingness, so that's the highest echelon process. And you can run that on an individual in a group - I mean, pardon me, in an individual session, and you'll see the needle slam all over the dial.

There's a very, very cute way of running one of these things, by the way, is you set the person down, you take Mr E-Meter, and you look at him very snidely, and he thinks you're going to pry into his past. I'll give you a little more dope. You up in PT enough to get some hot dope here?

Audience: Yes.

You in PT enough?

Audience: Yes. Sure.

Well, any of you that aren't, come up to present time! Come on up to present time, it's nice up here. We're all friendly up here. The Battle of Acre was no good; come up to present time.

Now, you take an E-Meter and you say to somebody - you just set it up, you know? You set him up where he belongs. It's about right. Average politician or something like that.

Anyway, if a pc is reading up here he's practically dead. I mean, he's so close to dead there's hardly any worry about it, you know? He's almost dead as a thetan. Over here he's a mindless object. That's right. He's a mindless object below 2.0.

Anyway, but this pc sits down there, and he sits up here, you know, and you set him up, and you're going to ask him some questions. Well look, there's no sense in asking this person any questions about what he did because the probability is if he reads up here he - he won't read enough responsibility to read on the meter. You got the idea? His overts don't drop on the meter. So he can fool you. Unless you get the overt he's sitting in or something like that and that drops a little bit. He's just sitting up here all the time. He's just one solid overt act. His being there and saying anything has for the last two billion years been a constant and continuous overt act of magnitude anywhere he has been. You get the idea?

So you run this process on him. You say, „Now think of something you could let me know. Good.“ „Now think of something you could withhold from me.“

All right, you do that for a little while and you say, „How's it going? How's it going?“

„Oh, it's going all right.“

„Well, is there anything you'd like to tell me?“

He says, „No. Been a pure boy and a good boy. Been a good girl and a pure girl. Recall vividly establishing the whole motives of Sunday schools. I was the one who knocked out beer in the United States. I've been good, good all of my life and all of my lives. No, I haven't ...“

And you say, „Think of something - think of something that you'd let me know. Think of something you could withhold from me.“

Sooner or later, running this along the line you say, „How you doing? How's it going? Now, is there anything you'd like to tell me?“ Sooner or later this is going to go pthruuuummmm-thrvuuumm - vruuummm.

„Well, nothing very much except I murdered my father.“

That's an interesting way of tackling a case, by the way. But the process all by the self - all by itself would take some edge off the case for the first dynamic but you're auditing in the third. See?

But did you notice things kind of lighten up and you start feeling a little bit better, some of you? Huh?

Audience: Yeah.

Did you notice that?

Audience: Yes.

Well, that's - that's plain magic.

Of course, a Scientologist now has a terrible liability. And I hope - I hope we don't get caught in this one - it just happens to be a fact. But it's as one of your very well-known personalities told me when I was running him over the jumps on an E-Meter. He named off three women and I said, „You mean you just took a fancy to them? You didn't go any further than that?“

He said, „Well, they were all in Scientology.“

I said, „Yes, I know, but this is straight, is it, that you just looked at them and you consider that a little bit of an overt act against their boyfriends or husbands and so on?“

„Yes, that's right.“

Said, „You didn't go any further than that?“

And he says, „No!“ He says, “And I'm goddamn glad now I didn't! Look what - look what I'd have to be telling you!“

Well, fortunately as an individual goes up in tone he goes up in moral caliber. Otherwise it'd be too tough to bear on all of us. But the main thing about it is - the main thing about it is - you can run a higher degree of responsibility in with the process I just audited on you.

Oddly enough, an individual - an individual is as self-controlled, as well-controlled, gets along as well as he can take responsibility and gets in as much trouble and difficulty as he cannot take responsibility. There's a - it's a direct ratio.

Irresponsibility: difficulties and trouble. Responsibilities: everything goes along fine and so forth and he has a lot of fun, too.

Now, if randomity is fun then remember that an irresponsible person never has any fun. So, if you're going to have any randomity, you're going to have to postulate it from the top scale taking full responsibility for it. And then it'll be a lot of fun. That’s not a trap. But I hope we don't get trapped in any of these particular things because I hate to - I'd hate to spoil some of your games.

Well all right, I trust now - I trust now, you will be able to sleep tonight where maybe you didn't sleep well last night. I trust that your consciences will be ligher or, if they need to be squared around, that they are heavy enough for you to tag an auditor quick.

Now this is the end of the second day of this Congress.

Male voice: We have the seminars.

Isn't it?

Audience: No. No. Not yet. Seminars.

You got the seminars coming yet?

Audience: Yeah. Yes.

You mean you're going to get some more auditing?

Audience: Yes. Yeah. Yes.

Well all right. That's very good. That's very good. Do you think you're going to profit by it?

Audience: Yes.

Do you think you're getting any results in it?

Audience: Yes.

Well, all right. By the end of the second day of this congress, do you suppose that you'll ever be the same again?

Audience: No.

Good.

It's not that I object to you as you are. As a matter of fact I was very fond of you the way you were. But there's a lot to be done; there's a lot of hand to be borne here. Truth of the matter is tomorrow - I don't know how I'm going to get it all in tomorrow to tell you the truth, because there's just too much dope and data and things and stuff and all the rest of it to give you, but I'll make a good try at it. And meantime, meantime, after your auditing sessions tonight - after your auditing sessions tonight - why, make sure that you sleep the sleep of the just and the blameless and that you are - that you are free of your conscience and so forth for the first time. As a matter of fact the HGC back there has a booth and you can check your conscience at it any time you want to.

I'll see you tomorrow and good night.