Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, today you're - if you haven't got the data now, you'll just never have it.

Today we're going to take a departure from the highly standardized material which you've been getting. I'm going to talk to you about some specialized kinds of auditing. So you might say specialized auditing.

What was the matter today, by the way? You bogged down in engrams or something of the sort? Little bit bogged down? Huh?

First amongst these, of course, is Group Auditing.

Well, if you're bogged down in an engram, you've been bogged down in it for a long time. Don't tell me it makes you sad to find out.

A professional auditor who cannot do Group Auditing makes a rather silly picture. So you'd better get some experience in doing Group Auditing. And I don't care where you find the group or how you group audit them or anything, you nevertheless should take a stab at it. Doesn't matter if the group is - consists of two or two thousand.

The - having to take responsibility for one's crimes is awfully - an awfully tough bullet to chew.

Now Group Auditing requires a certain presence. And the first thing I should mention in Group Auditing is that an auditor who has to talk to many because he cannot confront one is not a good Group Auditor.

Well, we'll talk about something light and airy. Talk about - talk about something light. Doesn't have much to do with what you're running - children, the processing of children.

Now, it sort of runs a scale all by itself. And that is lowly and basically, and first and foremost, we have we have the auditor at the bottom of the scale who can't group audit, of course. Well, he just can't confront a group.

You have many specialized problems in auditing. Most of these, you see them when you see them, and you cope with them when you run into them.

Then just above that, why, we'd have the fellow who has to confront a group because he can't confront one (individual), you see?

Some fine day, you're going to process a diabetic, and you're going to get desperate because you don't quite know what to run on a diabetic. And you're going to say, "Doggone it! Ron didn't tell us what to run on a diabetic." Yeah, that's right. Well, Ron knows what to run on a diabetic, and I am telling you.

And above that is the fellow who confronts the individual but has a bit of difficulty with a group.

So, I'll give you the rule: that which a person cannot tolerate, he has to be brought into a toleration of. That which a person cannot tolerate, he is the total effect of. All you have to do is reverse effect

And above that's the fellow who can confront an individual and confront a group, both. And he is the most effective Group Auditor. He isn't confronting a great many people because he can't confront one.

– total - to cause, and you got it whipped.

This is... You perhaps feel I'm weighing on this a bit heavily, but the truth of the matter is that this just is what Group Auditing skill is all about: it's the ability to confront a group. And the ability to confront a group, of course, would include the ability to confront one member of the group individually. Therefore, that person who can confront a group can do a good job of Group Auditing. You'll find that he can also run a PE Course - a Personal Efficiency Course. He's - people who - we always test a Personal Efficiency Course in this wise: how many did he have on Monday night? And how many does he still have on Friday night?

Diabetic? What can't a diabetic tolerate? You don't require any medical knowledge. It's not a medical problem, the processing of a diabetic. The administration of insulin and so forth is a medical problem, but the processing of one isn't. And you have to find out what this man can't tolerate. This man tells you that he cannot tolerate sugar. And that is the clue to a diabetic. Simple as that.

There's many a - many a fellow starts out with sixteen people on Monday night and winds up with two people on Friday. That's no good. It's no good. It tells you that this person cannot confront both a group and a person. He's somewhere below thisability.

Old processes: Scientology 8-8008, which is a good standard from way back - SOP 8.

Now, this is all it takes to remedy it. You see, it isn't - you don't have to give him large lessons in elocution. It helps to be able to speak the same language as the group, but you don't have to give him directions as to how to hold his hands while he's lecturing to the group, you know?

You merely got the fellow to waste sugar for a while, something would happen to his diabetes, see. It's simple as that. You get him to do something about what he is the total effect of and you've made him well, and that's the formula. It's as simple as that. You see?

He's - did you ever get one of these old-time books on how to elocute? It's wonderful. The gestures - what they mean, you know? Gorgeous.

Now, what can he do about it? Well, the least he can do about it is to substitute for it.

But all it takes - well, if you're running an organization, you get an auditor and you want to know whether or not he can confront a group, the only test is simply this: were the people still sitting there at the end of the series? You get that? If they had any opportunity at all to leave, did they avail themselves of it?

Look at your Reality Scale, you see. Occlude it, invisibilize it, get elsewhere from it, confront it, experience it, and not have to do anything about it at all. And you'll find out in all of these things he "has to do something about it" finds itself most often in your auditing chalr. "Has to do something about it."

And as it works, this is just Monday night to Friday night's test. And you very often wind up with a unit of twenty or something like that. Why some - depends on dilettantism, how much of that there is there. They just - some people came in to see what it was all about, you know, something like that. Well, you quite commonly lose these people, but they are a small percentage ordinarily.

How do you suppose he keeps the thing there all that times and why? He keeps the difficulty present so that he can do something about it. I know this sounds idiotic, but that is true of all aberration - it's idiotic. The individual keeps an allergy of sugar present so that he can do something about it. That's - that's too simple a statement, isn't it? But that is why it is there, so that he can do something about it. But why does he keep it there so that he can do somethingabout it? Because he's got to do something about it, of course.

So if he started out with twenty and he wound up with eighteen, you'd say, well, he's doing all right - doing all right. It's fair, you know. It's not too bad. I mean, people didn't scream quietly all night after they left or something like that. It wasn't too bad. And that's fairly acceptable. That's fairly acceptable.

Now, as you cover something obvious, like sugar in a diabetic, you'll find out there's some fundamental that he used to have to do something about, but he's now in apathy about, and that's a much more legitimate target.

Now, I'll just give you an idea of what can happen though. If an individual evidently can confront an individual person and confront a group as well, and he does these things well, he will build during the week. This almost never happens, so don't look for it to happen, but it builds during the week.

"Oh," he says, "I - arthritis? I haven't had arthritis for years. I'm a diabetic now. Haven't had arthritis for years."

You start on Monday night, and by Wednesday you got five more people, and by Friday night, why, eight or ten more have appeared. You get the idea? Building. This is always the test.

Well, sometime you would be just fascinated how difficult it is for a person to keep the condition there so that he can do something about it. It's very difficult. And you, with processing, can very easily trip the condition out of the road.

I know, for instance, in a public lecture series, whether or not that lecture series is going over well as itself (if it's just a repetitive lecture series, let's say once a week or something like that) if it continues to increase in numbers. If it continues to increase in numbers, then everything is going very fine indeed. If it stays static, I say, "I'm slipping." And if it starts losing some people, why, I decide that the advertising was at fault. (laughter)

With arthritis, particularly, you can throw a man from 1.5, or a slight lower harmonic, down into apathy; and the apparency of arthritis disappears.

Now, if you are a very good Group Auditor, and if you're giving Group Auditing to a Scientology group somewhere, routinely and regularly, quite often Group Auditing goes something on the basis of one late afternoon or evening a week. Why, the group has a meeting and an hour of the two hour meeting is devoted to Group Auditing, something like that. And if you're handling a group like that you want to watch the attendance figure to know how well you are getting along. Because if that attendance figure doesn't dwindle any, you're doing all right. If it dwindles, boy, there's something wrong. There is something wrong, definitely - not just the advertising.

He's not better off is he? No. Funny part of it is, he'll get arthritis all over again if you process him up scale. Therefore, simply hitting somebody in the head will very often cure things. Why? Because it throws him down below the Tone Scale which permits him to support it. This is the great panacea called shock: hitting somebody in the head, so you go below the tone level where he can keep the illness there.

Now, if it starts increasing, well, you're definitely doing fine. Now basically, that's what it should do, is increase. If you increase a group, you're getting word of mouth.

Now, he's still trying to do something about it. The fellow is still trying to do something about it. The girl, the child, these people are still trying to do something about it. And all you have to do is say, "Well, the cure for this is very obvious. You take a wet sack, you soak it in coal dust very thoroughly, and then you wipe his face with it three times a day, meanwhile, kicking him in the stomach. And he'll get all over his sciatica."

Every once in a while somebody rushes up to me and says, "Can't we have an ad in the Sunday Expectorial?" or something like this and, "It only costs sixty-four quid or a couple of thousand dollars or something of this sort. You know, it's a minor expenditure. Can't we just have this big display ad?"

Well, the possibility is he will. He'll drop to a point where he can no longer keep sciatica where he can do something about it. Of course, it's idiotic of him to have the sciatica there to do something about it -that's idiotic. But you can get him down to a point where he realizes he can't do anything about it and then he develops illnesses which are not easily reached or diagnosed.

And they often wonder why I - I look at them, you know, and I say, "Well, I don't know. Let's, if you're going to run any ads let's run small ads, and let's have many insertions rather than just one big splash. That's always better advertising policy and so on. But basically, I'm being a little dishonest with them. If their group isn't building, they aren't getting the only advertising they can get. You cannot buy word of mouth.

You see, he's got something wrong with him now, and you start processing him up scale and something turns on, and that's - we call a "somatic." And the individual gets it transiently in processing. He'll go through things in processing that would practically kill him if he lived through them in the walkabout world.

Press relations agents - they call them public relations people, they're just press agents of one kind or another - these fellows know first and foremost that you can't buy word of mouth. And they try very hard by getting actresses to have their jewels stolen, you know, and stunts of one kind or another. Set the hotel on fire while they're taking a bath. You know, anything to - anything to get it up there in the public press. And they get basically just a little flash. And if the actress isn't really a good actress, it doesn't do anything for the picture, which is quite remarkable. This breaks more hearts in press agentry than have been counted. If it's a lousy picture, to use a Hollywood technical term, lousy.

Oh, you can run somebody into a violent fever in processing, that if that fever turned on, while he was at work, he would be rushed to a hospital. Yet in the auditing chair - it's a truism, I might as well tell you, that there is no condition known to man that does not turn on transiently in auditing sessions. There's no condition known to man that doesn't turn on. Some shadow of it, some counterfeit of it or some violent actuality of it is liable to turn on in an auditing session. And that's simply, the person is going up scale through it.

It reminds me of the producer, speaking of terms in Hollywood, the producer that said, "How are things going?"

The way out is the way through. The way through is the way out. Those are processing maxims.

And the other producer said, "Well actually, they're pretty terrible. How are things going with you?"

All right, this individual has had arthritis. He's been hit in the head - latest cure: gold shots. I think the cure for gold shots, though, cures his pocketbook much faster than it cures his arthritis.

And he says, "Well, they're pretty terrible, too." He says, "Things have gotten down to just being colossal."

They say there's a bunch of - bunch of stuff called "CH" or something like that or "RB" (or maybe that's for rabies, I don't follow this too much) And it produces some. sort of a condition, and if the individual takes it from there on out, he's cured. Now, I don't call anything a cure that a person has to have from there on out as medication. You see? It's a crutch.

Now, these boys operate along this line because of this one fact of word of mouth. They realize that they haven't too much influence. They are simply the person trying to convey news into the papers. They are not the people doing the acting or really producing the word of mouth. They're not the producer who is making a good picture. They're not the writer who is writing a good script, you see? And they're just trying to boom something along. And they know this isn't very possible.

All right, you take this away from him and he will respond in some different way. You take the medication away and he responds in some different way. You see?

And so they develop a very low point on the Effect Scale. They're trying to make a total effect - big total effect on everybody, you see? Great big ads and great big billboards.

All right. You process him, he'll respond in some different way, too. And if you're processing him correctly, he goes up scale. And if you're processing what's really wrong with him, he goes up scale to apathy. And apathy is way up scale.

And they say, "Well, the people won't come to see our silent pictures, why, we'll make them talk," and that's all right, that's just a technical development. But how about the next one up? "Well, they won't look at black and white, so we'll blind them with color." Well now that wasn't too bad, but how about the next one up? "Well, they won't look at a small screen, so we will take a screen that totally surrounds the theater and then everybody is totally surrounded."

He goes from not knowing what's wrong with him and so forth, you know, into being kind of ashamed because he doesn't know what, to blaming things, to regretting that he ever got processed, to being apathetic and he's liable to cry a little bit about it or something like that. Well, he's getting well, let me tell you, he's getting up on the main Tone Scale to that degree. You see?

Now you're getting up into - beyond merely technical development - just to an obsession for an effect. There is no reason under the sun why people will attend bigger screens than smaller screens.

But going up scale, he goes through these things again, that he has dropped below. Now, in an auditing session, he goes through them easily. There is no tremendous pain associated with them the way there would be if he went through them in livingness. You can turn on a migraine headache and get the individual right on up through a migraine headache. But for a few minutes in an auditing chair, he can have a migraine headache. You get the idea?

As a matter of fact, a lot of movies I've enjoyed have been enjoyed with l6mm rather poor sound production. As a matter of fact, if they were a good movie, why, l6mm in a living room was plenty good.

But if it turned on in the workaday world, he would have to have his head soaked in a bucket of ice water or something and he'd be in screaming agony. But because he is being processed, he is already to some slight degree doing something about it, you see? And it takes the edge off of the thing, and he moves on up through the thing. Doesn't really so much require courage in an auditor perhaps, but understanding of this fact. And this has a great deal to do with the processing of children.

Down in Hollywood, heads of a - well, the head of a major studio has always got his homework. He's always got to drag home the picture. And I don't know why they need company to sit there and watch the picture, but you very often find yourself dragged out to look at the latest opus. And he runs the machine himself, you know. He sits there and looks at this thing. A little, tiny screen, so on.

To really process children, you had better know all about processing adults. A child requires more know-how than an adult, any day of the week, twice on Sundays. Why? Because he can't tell you what he has to do something about. He is not articulate. His descriptive language and his inability to long dwell on anything, alike, keep the auditor from having an easy time of it.

If it's a good picture on a small screen, it's a good picture on a big screen. But it doesn't make it a better picture to have eight hundred thousand extras and all Rome burning. That's what they'd have you believe, though. But that's just the Effect Scale at work, and you should recognize it as such. These people don't have word of mouth and they try to force it into being.

A child is much worse off - not because I have anything on children, just cold experience - a child is much worse off than most adults. A little kid running around, you think he's happy, so on? Ah - ah, let's look at him, let's look at him. Yeah, he's got every chance in the world. He has hope. He's got the future. He has the hopes of growing up. That's what's keeping him going.

Now, the moment somebody moved a small screen into the house called TV, the motion-picture industry started to decline and it declined with great rapidity.

But let's look at him actually. How many hours of sleep does he need? How often does he have to eat in order to keep going? What is his commonest response of protest? There's a nice index of Tone Scale, isn't it? He cries. Well, a lot of children are too far down scale to cry. A child that cries easily is in pretty good shape.

Well, if they had been able to make this terrific total effect, if they had been able to smash through the lines somehow or another, they'd still be smashed through, wouldn't they? And they're not. Somebody invented a shadow box that prattles merrily in the reception hall and that's it. The movies have had it.

By the way, almost all books on the handling of children have been written with people who didn't have any. I'm not in that category, not in that category.

Well, what happened to all of this? Well, it's because the movies basically never did develop as good a word of mouth as the stage. Why is the stage still here? You see very few stage plays advertised tremendously. There's very much less press agentry goes on a stage. That's because it's live. That's because there are actual masses involved there. And there was something wrong with the two-dimensional screen in the first place. It didn't have any mass connected with it.

I remember definitely shoving little Diana above grief. She was crying very easily and so forth, so one day, I thought, "Well, my, this is a good opportunity." She'd cry about this and cry about that. So I said to her, I said, "Diana," I said, "Cry." So she cried and lost control of it. You see? I said, "That's fine. Good. Now, cry again." So, she cried and lost control of it, and so on, but a little less so. I worked her on up through tears. And she got so she could turn on actual tears on and off at will, totally conscious of tears. Well, she stopped crying, but she started getting frightened easily. Isn't that interesting? This - typical Tone Scale proposition.

And so the stage play, good mass, good presentation, good script, that sort of thing, gets attended whether it is advertised very much or not. All they had to do was merely inform the public that so-and-so is playing someplace or another. And if that play is good, the public has got good opinion in general of those actors, those writers, so on, well, they sell the house out for the next year or so.

Now, a child is not in good condition, by and large. Let's look at this child now: his attention span - very poor; his havingness - shattered; havingness - very bad. Child's reaction on havingness is something to be amazed about. His communication level - quite fascinating, and if he's really stirred up, his ability to follow orders and instructions is very poor indeed.

The critics come in, try to add their two bits' worth. Doesn't matter a darn. It's almost a sure thing to have a sellout if all the critics in New York City got together and uniformly damned the latest play. It wouldn't influence it at all, but if they can agree on the fact that it's no good, why, usually the producer's made it. The critic doesn't influence it. The advertising doesn't influence it. It doesn't matter whether your newspaper says that you're a bum and a louse and you ought to be shot, and you're a mental quack. (I don't know what a mental quack is. I think they killed most of them off toward the end of the nineteenth century.)

Now, just look at him as a case, not as a child. Then you have the secret of child processing. Don't keep saying, "Well, he's a little child so. . ." so on and so on and so on and follow out the social dramatization of "All is excused, because children are children and boys will be boys and platitudes will be platitudes," and on and on and on, see? These are all just not-isnesses of observation.

But he says, "You're no good and nobody - and it's a cult and yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap." The only mistake you can make is listening to all this, you see? You - it's probably got an audience of one: you. You worry, worry, worry over this. Man, if I worried about bad press or good press, we'd be no place because we've certainly had plenty of both.

The obnosis is that he is a case and he is in a certain kind of a condition. See, he is responding in a certain way. And being a child, he is no different than being an adult, except in terms of size and case shape.

And I found out directly - I'm not talking randomly here at all, I'm just talking about a group and handling a group and presence of a group and what you get done.

Now, because he has so much hope and because he has a very light body which doesn't get much gravity reaction compared to an adult body, we get an apparency of somebody who's buoyant. And we're fooled in this particular direction. He is seldom buoyant. It's a remarkable child who is going around being buoyant all the time, you know? But they can run easily and skip easily and apparently have a lot of energy. Well, they don't, not in comparison to an adult. Look how long they can pick up bricks, for instance. Actually get them to go through the action of picking up bricks. They pick up about two bricks and they get worn out. See?

That's the only thing that measures it. I have seen news story after news story occur in a town, all kinds of stuff, good stories, bad stories and so forth, and have it move the actual business and attendance of a Central Organization not one person. The attendance did not vary one person, whether there was press or no press.

Now, their attention span is short because every time you try to improve their cases, they run into more somatics than they or you can handle easily. Hence, this prelude about they go up through somatics. And every time they try to put their attention on something, some somatic hits them.

Now, the only thing that did vary it, the only thing I ever saw vary attendance madly on public dissemination: I made a series of fifteen-minute lectures - sixty-four of them - played them over a little tiny music station. I think it had three peanuts' power and you could almost hear it down the hall from the antenna if you had a strong receiver. And these lectures, which were just lectures, that's all - they were just fifteen-minute lectures - packed people in at 125 new people every night. That was the average as long as those things ran. But this again is presence, not advertising You get the idea?

Now, they can keep their attention on something for a few minutes, sometimes that long, and then they're keyed-in.

Now, it wasn t the presence was good or the presence was bad. Something was happening there. The public did appreciate being lectured to. See, you have two things: You have what you are doing and what people themselves think about it resultantly, how they talk about it. You see, those are the two things that you're interested in - You're interested in, first and fore most, what you are doing, the service that you are rendering, the amount of interest which you yourself can generate. And the second one is the public personal reaction to that exact service.

What are they running? They're running some kind of a process called "confront." Just as easily as that, when you ask them to get their attention. And shortness of attention span is simply a symptom of getting kicked every time they confront. See, an individual tries to put his attention on the light, he keeps his attention on the light for a very short time, takes his attention off the light mostly because it seems too much for him. And this is typical of a child - it seems too much for him.

Now, we can polish it all up and say, "Well, we need press relations people, and we need advertisements, and we need advertisements here and advertisements there and a thousand pounds there and we need special alertness here and..," Aw, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not one of the factors.

The greatest difficulty you have with children - in the past it's been attention span but not in Scientology. It's not attention span in Scientology. Greatest difficulty you have with children is getting them to do something they can do. It's typical of any low-scale case. Getting them to do something they can do, and then improving it. They can't do very much! And this is where auditors have difficulty. They're always overrating the case.

Remember, we're moving into nine years internationally. We're still on the road. Scientology today in its combined activities has more income and handles more people than any area or field of mental activity in the world. That's not an idle boast, you see? And we do very little advertising. We advertise a few books. We make announcements in papers. We tell people where they can find us. And that's about it.

With children, they say "Well, tra-la, tra-la, tra-la," and they think out of the poetry, and other things they've read that "Childhood is the happy time! Childhood is the time of life when one is happiest. And therefore, life is a gentle breeze, and it's all a sort of a little fantasy." You bet it's a fantasy. They're at substitute on the Tone Scale. And therefore, "Oh, to be a child again." Well, "Oh, to have that much hope again." "Oh, to have that much life, and body time in front of one again." But certainly, let's not be envious of trying to adjust to an environment after an experience such as the child has just had.

So don't you ever blame the dwindling of a group on anything but group presence in the person who is addressing that group, handling that group or group-auditing that group. There is where it belongs. Right there. That's how important that is.

Now, he's pretty difficult mostly because he just had his silly head blown off. You see? She's just had a pretty bad time of it - maybe died in the hospital with cancer or something like that, you see. Lost everything - sick, maybe old. Or maybe - maybe he just committed suicide maybe, this little boy, you know? Maybe just committed suicide just three, four years ago. You know, went for a header off the top of a high building, splattered all over the sidcewalk, by golly. Girl said, "Goodbye. Never want to see you again." You know? Bang! And maybe she was riding with all of her family in the car, and the usual incident of the highway occurs, and everybody got killed, you know - total wipeout.

The total responsibility in the thing is service. Don't ever think that walking out onto a platform in pink tights is going to interest the public enough that they'll come back the next time. That has nothing to do with it. It's what you can do for them. And that is all.

Well boy, there - a child is awfully close to a death, in a new environment and with all of the reservations in this new environment of the experience they have just experienced. Life is not safe. It is not safe to touch things, really. But, of course, it doesn't matter what you touch, it'll all go to hell anyhow, so let's just fall off of anything or walk into anything. This sort of a mixed-up attitude.

And the amount of service which you render in Group Auditing, or in any group activity, is the exact amount of response you get from the public. Don't suck to your bosom the idea that they don't come around just because of this, that and the other thing. They don't come around because you didn't give service and that's it.

If you watch children playing, you will see this at once. It is quite common for people to believe that children should get noisy and excited. Well, I suppose children do get noisy and excited. But if you watch them, particularly toward evening, getting noisier and noisier, and more and more upset, more excited - watch that their screams and yells and laughter are all sandwiched in with grief and pain and upset, see? And they go up into just a greater and greater hysteria, greater and greater hysteria, greater and greater hysteria, and practically blow their tops off finally.

Now, service is monitored this way: it's how much you give versus how much people can afford. There's always a two-way flow on service. If you don't let the person who is being served contribute, you get him on a stuck flow. He's got to be able to contribute back in some fashion or another. Now, he'll contribute back in money or more service.

And it's fascinating to me to watch some mother sit there, you know, benignly, and say, "Well, that's - you know, that's just childhood, and that's the way children are, and so forth. Aren't they having a good time?"

But part of service and the test of service is whether or not there's a contribution. People who don't get any results from an intensive and who still owe money for the intensive are very loath to pay for the intensive. And when people start telling you that they don't want to pay for the intensive, you can chalk it up to the fact that they somehow or another didn't get the results they thought they should have gotten. So they cut down their contribution to the degree that they don't think they've been contributed to, you see?

Pick up one of them someday, and say "Are you having a good time?" He'll tell you automatically, "Oh, yes, I'm having a good..."

You don't have any trouble getting people to pay their bills if you've given them, in their reality and understanding, what they thought they were - should have bought. You get the idea? You don't have any real trouble.

"Come on now, are you having a good time?" Nobody ever asked children questions like that, or they seldom get answers.

Now this is mirrored into the accounts department. You look into the accounts department and you look over every delinquent account. Then you go down to CF and all you are looking at is ARC breaks with the processing department. You're not looking at delinquent accounts at all. You're looking at inability to serve or not having served. That's all. Unwillingness to serve, a failure to exchange service.

No, it's a rough case. It's a rough case. You process an adult a year after an operation that almost killed him, and you've got a rough case on your hands. You get the idea?

The way to get contributed to is to contribute. Therefore, a Group Auditor who does a fine job of 8-C on a group in general and does good Group Auditing and has good presence and can confront every individual in the group, confront the group at large, doesn't have any difficulty whatsoever getting lots of people to group audit. There's no great difficulty about this, or getting people to come in and listen to him. This is what it takes. That's all that it takes, too, and we're kidding ourselves if we think it's anything else.

Well, how about processing somebody who is defenseless in the environment who, five years ago, was killed? See, you get your magnitude of look here.

I had a "Scientologist" (quote) (unquote) one time who just hadn't - he just never seemed to be able to get around to reading The Fundamentals of Thought or something informative on the subject. He could get up and make a lecture off the cuff, and actually didn't know what he was talking about at all. And we finally caught him and primed him up a little bit. Then some of the professionals around the neighborhood would come in and say, "Oh my God! Why don't you muzzle that fellow?" No, this fellow was - his public presence, you see, was very good in that he could confront an individual or confront a group and he did! And when they asked questions, he answered them! And some of his answers were unfortunate, but they were still very positive.

Another thing is, they may have gone into this silly thing called the between-lives area, which is still extant. And they've had right on top of the death, a nice juicy implant - a wipeout of one kind or another and they wouldn't know from nothing. It's quite interesting. You're processing there, a rough combination.

Now, if he'd done this, he wouldn't have had a group. He would have said, "Well, I have a lot of different ideas. Hubbard's all right, you know, of course, but I have a lot of different ideas, and this is all different," and then the public doesn't like this because it's a via line of some kind or another. That's a fine way to fold up an organization, is to tell people there are differences and schisms of some sort or another, you know, from one person's opinion to the other person and get enturbulence. Public thinks they're looking at enturbulence and they're not looking at 8-C. So we get to our first thing about either Group Auditing or handling a group, and that is simply: bad 8-C or enturbulence keeps them away in droves.

Well, there are several mistakes you can make. Chief amongst these mistakes is not to give the child a regular session, to give the child bit and piece processing. Pick them up, never open the session, never end the session, give him a few auditing - you know, sub-coffee shop sort of thing.

Most failures in Group Auditing come about through, perhaps, an unwillingness to produce that much effect upon people. An individual says, "Wa-wa-wuh," and he starts getting up out of his chair, you know, during the Group Auditing session, and the person who's walking as the floor monitor, he doesn't slam him back into the chair and get him to go through the process. He lets him - he Q's and A's with it and argues with the fellow and lets him walk outside and doesn't keep him in-session, you know. This much enturbulence all by itself will break up the smooth 8-C of a Group Auditor. Just that all by itself.

You'd be amazed how much better auditing works on a little baby to open the session, "Find the auditor, find the pc, find the room.

The proper thing to do is quite something else. You simply slam the fellow into the chair and say, "Do it!" "Do it. Do it. Do it." "Do it!" Rrrr! That disturbance doesn't bother the rest of the group. It only bothers them when it keeps on and the fellow isn't snapped right down into the exact groove of the group.

In auditing children, you have to get over minding the way other adults hanging around the children snicker and laugh and mock the idea that the child can understand you if you talk to the child. Communication to a child seems very silly to most adults. They don't talk to the child.

Now, handling a group is, of course, an activity, a know-how, a something, but it's something that is best accomplished through familiarity. And you learn most about it by just making up your mind you're going to handle a group, you know? And then you go ahead and handle them. And you're going to group process them, well, you just go ahead and group process them. You get the idea?

Little baby maybe five, six months old - I've had nursemaids - they get over this very rapidly, something cures them. I'd walk up to a little baby five, six months old, something like this, and say, "Hello, how are you getting along'?" I talked to him perfect - you know vis-a-vis, and little kid levels out and looks at me, you know, and looks relaxed. Explain to some little kid what's going to happen now, you know, some baby, maybe only a two months old baby, and say, "I'm going to take your picture now," and walk up to a little child and tell him what's going to happen.

You have to know the processes, and that's easy. It's PAB 114. There have been no later or better processes for Group Auditing. It's just pure gradient scale on isness, the whole works, and it does a very good job on groups. lt's Tone 40. You don't Q and A with anything that happens in the group. You have a floor monitor, Anything that happens on the floor while you're auditing the whole group, well, the floor monitor takes care of it. Somebody isn't doing the commands? Why, the floor monitor takes care of it. This person's the monitor, and he just goes right on down the line and makes sure that the Group Auditor's cominands are enforced.

For instance, little Arthur the other day - medico had him with his mouth open looking down his throat trying to find a watch somebody had lost or sornething. And he - little kid was a little shocky. You know, he was, "Wha-ah-ah."

For an auditor to start group processing a group without a monitor is a considerable mistake, and he should not do it. You start group processing only three people, you've had it if one of them kicks up on you. It'd be much better if you were processing three people to take one, appoint him the monitor. Of course, he'll stand around and do the processes half the time and get all grogged up, but that's beside the point.

I walked over and I picked him up and said, "Now, it's all right. They're through with you now." He'd been watching, and went, "Whew!" you know, "That's good!" you know.

We used to get ahold of the seminar leaders and the floor monitors when I would group process a whole congress, you see? And I'd get ahold of them afterwards - have done this on several occasions - and run them on processes they were - or "Ron's auditing commands that they were trying not to do." Recall one, you know? And they were stuck in resisting all of these commands, you see, and particularly on Tone 40. That's wicked, you see? Monitoring Tone 40 is quite remarkable.

And the medico caught this out of the corner of his eye, and he looked. Some thing had happened. He had seen a communication where he didn't suspect a communication existed. And so you do, generally, get a reaction from people when you start talking to children as though they're people. You have to learn not to Q and A with this, because all they're doing is not-ising communication with children - their sniggers, embarrassment, discouragement, so forth.

But you should nevertheless appoint one person to monitor the other two. You'll be happier that way, because the second one of them gets out of the groove, your 8-C of the whole group breaks down if you, the Group Auditor, have to break pace and handle that situation. So you must never do that.

Usually nursemaids get over this by - I make up a practical demonstration. I usually show them conclusively that the baby's much smarter than they are.

It doesn't matter if you walk into an area, you're all by yourself, there's a group there, they know you're a professional and they think you want to do some - they'd like to have you do some Group Processing, something like that, you don't have anybody else, well, you'd just better select somebody else and tell them what happens.

Now, where you Q and A with the extreme smallness, the inability to communicate and so forth of a child, and therefore, fail to give the child a regular session, fail to treat the child as a pc, fail to understand that the child can be talked to and can understand you, regardless of his age or mental condition, you aren't going to get any results. You're going to - you're going to get in a terrible situation, because you're cutting your own comm lines.

If a person is not doing the process, or is doping off, or is trying to blow, why, their job is to get them to do the postulate then. And that was just - that's not a slip. It's to make the Group Auditor's postulate stick and that's it. That's the only purpose the monitor has. And the Group Auditor's postulate is simply the auditing command. The person isn't sitting there, he isn't doing it obviously, so blowing comes under the head of it too. Anaten comes under the head of that. You're just trying to make the Group Auditor's postulates or commands stick. That's all. That's the whole job of the monitor.

You open a session with a child, you run a session with a child, you bridge it, you end it, and that's it. It's a formal session. Now, it doesn't matter whether that session is ten minutes long or an hour or two hours long. It's still a formal session.

Therefore, he's ambulant. Therefore, your group is spaced out in such a way that the monitor can get up and down, back and forth amongst the group. You know, if the chairs are so stacked up that a person can't pass down the line without falling over other people, why, he just won't monitor the centers of the rows, that's all. So you have to set your group up so it can be monitored.

Now, there's one exception to this when you're trying to get a child oriented in its family, you don't necessarily mind if some of the other children are around, so long as you have them under control - the other children - because you're using them as spotting terminals. But you have to be a pretty good auditor to audit a little kid with four or five brothers or sisters in the same room. You got to be pretty good, you really got to have that environment under a clamp.

Now, if you do that and your own approach to the individual is good, your own confrontingness is good in the individual, your own confrontingness is good on the group, you've got it. That's it! Just go on - PAB 114, right straight on down the line. It'll take you through many Group Auditing sessions, PAB 114 will, because you can go rapidly through it or you can take one section of it at a time, or you can beat one section half to death for about five sessions, you see, and then go to the next session. You can proportion it in different ways. It doesn't matter whether it's flat on the people or not. The whole thing will eventually be flat if the people stay with you.

But ordinarily, you give them the same dignity that you give an adult. And you take them into a quiet area. You make sure they're not going to be bothered. You make sure that they understand what you're doing, and you go ahead and give them a regular session. Now it doesn't matter whether the session is CCH 1, which works wonderfully on little children - with some reservations on adults. The adults around the child becomes absolutely certain you're butchering the child, and is liable to interrupt the session.

A lot of technical problems have been handled and solved in Group Auditing. And it is found that subjective processes are poor and objective processes are very good. So a Group Auditing is done on a demonstrable isness.

I'll just make a broader comment on that, because the child begins to cry, you see, and right away the adults think you're hurting the child. Actually, the child is coming up through something, and is not in pain, and would, if you stopped and talked to him about it, would come out of it and go on. You know? And adults hear the kid scream or cry or something like that, and they're right in there on top of you, you know, busting the whole thing up.

In other words, they're looking at walls or ceilings or floors or holding on to something, and if they're "Thinking a thought," or something like that, you have difficulty trying to get them to think a thought every time you get them to think a thought. They - some members of the group will think four or five thoughts or something like that. And they go out of control and it's just bad 8-C and they don't get any - very far with the Group Processing, that's all.

It's always a liability to have the parents around when you're processing a child. And even sometimes, when you're a parent of the child, to have the other parent around, because the same thing is liable to happen, you know, and they get upset because the child is upset. They just - the child gets upset, so the other parent gets upset. You see?

And then there's always the troublemaker in the group. He wants the attention. He's the terminal snapper. You run into the terminal snapper. He will become someday the bane of your existence. If you're teaching courses or trying to handle large crowds of people, why, you always get terminal snappers.

Now, for instance, I used to interview little children under a very heavy drill. In other words, the drill of interviewing a child was much more precise than interviewing an adult. I made absolutely sure that neither Mama nor Papa or any accompanying relative ever came into the conference room. Just "Out, man. Scat!" This was taught to me the hard way. I've learned a lot of these things the hard way. It's not theoretical.

It's - in I don't know how many congresses, tremendous numbers of people trying to have appointments with me, and tremendous numbers having appointments with me exactly at the end of the congress, and so forth, have yet to bring up any vital business concerning anything. These people have got to have appointments, you see, but they just - there isn't any reason for it at all. All they're doing is snapping terminals.

A little child who was supposed to be mentally retarded - I was running her on some Creative Processing, and I let Mama be in the room. And right away Mama was butting in, evaluating, evaluating, evaluating, telling the child what to think and so forth and it got pretty sloppy in very short order. We got rid of Mama and finished off the process with the child.

And that you put out an order restimulates the overt acts of the person in himself putting out orders to such a degree, and you just get a snap of terminals. It's just totally mechanical. You're causing - well, they do a flip on it - and if you're causing, they snap, that's all. The overt act-motivator sequence just brings them right straight up to you. You always have the one, two, three, four of these in a group.

But they chop up the situation. Furthermore, the child is in the relationship with that adult, not in an auditing session relationship, because they're so fixated on the accompanying adult, usually. They don't go into session, you might say. So you have to pull them off from the most familiar adult to get them in-session. Get the idea?

You're very, very lucky if - if you don't have more than two. Now, you can cope with that sort of thing.

This same little girl, as long as Mama was present, was a drooling idiot. The second I got rid of Mama - it wasn't Mama was at fault, particularly, the kid was just in rough shape - as soon as I got Mama out of the room, the kid says, "Well, ha ha, I'm not in a totally insulated environment now. I guess I'll have to level with this guy." See? And we had a heart-to-heart talk. And it was very much like you'd have a heart-to-heart talk with any pc.

So, your monitor essentially has another duty and that is to keep terminal snappers from snapping terminals with you during breaks, or you never get a chance to breathe during a break. Got the idea? You shouldn't spend a break, whether you're teaching a course or processing a group or doing anything else, standing around talking to the people who snap terminals with you. In the first place they generally didn't want anything - there's no reason for them to. And if you're going on for a second session of Group Auditing, you owe it to yourself to have a breather, that's all.

It was quite amazing. And the little girl started coming up the line with great rapidity and actually responded quite beautifully to processing as long as no member of the family was around when the child had to go into its idiot act. It's interesting. Eventually, the child didn't have to go into its idiot act just because the family showed up. This was a mentally retarded child, by the way.

So your monitor has a dual job. In view of the fact he isn't taking any great responsibility in the matter, he has to do a protective action with regard to the Group Auditor, particularly in a very large group.

The same drill is applicable, by the way, to psychos. You never interview a psycho with its attendants present. Man or woman, doesn't matter, you just never let the attendants come in or be handy or be around or any accompanying adult.

Now, it isn't true that everybody who comes up to speak to you is simply a terminal snapper. That isn't true. But the people who do it consistently and obsessively are. And generally if you've got friends in a group, why, they'll come around and say something to you. That's natural, nothing much to that.

Around organizations, the HGC has a rule that any person who is definitely a psycho, who is being processed - this rule by the way is not much of a rule, because they don't process psychos in Central Organizations and it doesn't get exercised very often. Somebody suddenly turns out to be pretty psycho, and is accompanied by an attendant or a husband or a wife or the family in some fashion or other. The rule is always to process those people, too. See? Set them up for processing. And you get rid of them hanging around outside the auditing room door.

But if you were to process a group of five hundred people without any covering or any cover during the breaks, you'd just be trampled in the rush and that would be that. Got the idea? I mean, there are just - that many people off the street would have such a proportion of terminal snappers in it that they would practically knock you out.

Well, so therefore, you might say you couldn't carry a child very far without cleaning up his environment. And it's always a good thing if you're going to process a child to process the parents. As a matter of fact, it is so good that if you process the parents, you are really safeguarding the fact the child will get better. And if you did nothing but process the parents, you would still win to some degree.

Now, how many floor monitors do you need for how many people? Ah, that's a question you can settle, but we've handled fairly well seventy-five or eighty people per monitor, when it gets up into large numbers.

You should watch some parents and children - it's absolutely colossal. Talk about 8-C, it's strictly "What wall?"

Now therefore, it isn't true that one auditor can process an unlimited number of people. He can process as many people as he can also provide monitors for and reach. Therefore, you couldn't group process over a radio, not very successfully. Been tried - never terribly successful. In the first place, the people aren't under direct control and so forth. The thing to do would be give a talk over radio and invite the people down to be group audited. See, that would be the proper thing.

"Now, Johnny, now - now Johnny sit down in that... No, don't sit there. Mama... Johnny, go get me a cup of... No, no, Johnny, you're too small. No, I'll open it. Johnny, what are you doing in the house with your hat on?"

You'd have to have monitors for at least every seventy-five or eighty people present. There'd have to be at least that many monitors. Now, you'd probably be much more comfortable with a monitor for every thirty. That would be much happier state of affairs. Nevertheless you could certainly process an awful lot of people, given monitors. The monitor doesn't have to be a trained Scientologist, so it's perfectly all right.

"Well you told me to go outsi--."

How many people could be processed in a group and how much good could it do? Well, it'd be probably the number of people you could get into the largest visible space. Take the Yankee Stadium, something of that sort, but you'd still have to provide for monitors. You'd still have to have arrangements whereby your commands could be policed. Otherwise, the whole thing will start to go out of gear. You've lost your grip on the situation and your control of it.

"Well, go on outside. What are you - what are you doing near the door, Johnny? Where are your rubbers?" Dzzzeh! You know?

You could easily use a PA system to group process. There'd be nothing wrong with using a PA system. But at the same time, if you're reaching or trying to reach that many people, if you haven't got terminals that can take care of the enturbulence, you won't get much Group Processing done.

You can demonstrate this to some adult simply by telling him to sit down in the chair, and then tell him to stand up before he can sit down, and give him a whole number of orders without getting any one of them executed - demonstrate to him what bad control is. Of course, it's no control at all.

Now, given an ability to confront an individual person, given an ability to confront a group, given the know-how in PAB 114 - that, given the know-how on monitors, they're supposed to make the Group Auditor's postulate stick, you couldn't help but have an increasing group. It'd be pretty hard to do. Your group would keep increasing.

Well, they do this. Usually a child is getting this too. It would be a mistake on your part, however, to assume that the child's condition stems from the conduct of the adults around the child. It influences. It influences definitely. It's a key-in factor but it is not the most responsible factor.

This is highly effective, highly effective dissemination because you get word of mouth. If you're not getting word of mouth, you're not getting results. You're just fooling yourself.

What's just happened to the kid has more bearing on the situation.

Now on individual pcs, you don't expect much word of mouth. They have their own private lives and the society at large feels that if they have to - if they want to get better, there's something wrong with them. They very often don't do a great deal of talking about it, unless you get very spectacular results. You get very spectacular results, why, they do something about it. But they will talk about - that's on an individual basis, they don't talk about it much. But on a group basis they do talk about it.

Now, if you gave them a very good 8-C environment, and the adults treated them very well - and 8-C isn't all just sweetness and light, you know, it's 8-C.

So you actually, in the absence of other programs, owe it to your own peace of mind... I don't care what you're working at, whether you have a professional practice or not, you owe it to yourself and your own repute to scrape yourself up a group one way or the other. Keep it building. Give them good processing, give them some talks, give them some data; play them a tape once in a while, and give them good Group Auditing. You owe it to yourself to do that. In that way, why, you keep up your familiarity and life's much better.

A person - you know, I don't believe people work on posts where they aren't needed. If a person isn't needed, he really doesn't work. I don't believe - well, let's say this: if you knocked out the need of somebody or knocked out wages, I'm almost certain that knocking out the need would get rid of them faster than knocking out the wages. It may sound funny in this very materialistic world.

Group Auditing, of course, will never clear Earth. Don't underestimate it, but don't overestimate it.

I believe military services are a terrific reverse thing. I believe they go downhill merely because they're not really needed, they feel not needed and so forth. It possibly is no more than that. They are in service, they are not needed, they can't get out. And it produces a considerable lethargy.

Now, right now HAS Co-audit is so powerful and is so thoroughly off to the races in the direction of Clear, Clear, Clear, that you are going to believe that it supersedes Group Auditing, and people will have a tendency to forget good old Group Auditing.

Well now, this works out this way with children. A child is not needed, you know? No use is being made of the child, and the child will go downhill faster.

Let's not forget it. Group Auditing wiped out class after class of backward children. Just wiped out their backwardness, that's all. And it wasn't even good Group Auditing. You or I with a professional eye would have gurked to watch the lousy, stupid auditing they were calling Group Auditing. Oh, just dreadful! Horrible!

I don't wish to particularly compare dogs and children. But I will say this - it's a comparable example. Had a dog once, totally psycho. All of a sudden I started training the dog very rigorously, vigorously, working the dog half to death - dog turned totally sane. Stopped working the dog; went down to 1.1, started killing all the neighbors' chickens. You see, there was no processing applied to this dog. It was just the dog was worked instead of neglected.

"Well, of course, you don't have to do that, Johnny, because you didn't want to do the last one. But that's. . ."

And you'll find in this society, at this time, people don't work children, people don't show they need children. You understand? And that possibly is one of the main factors involved in the thing. The child isn't being utilized. The child has no purpose for being.

"Now, Billy, you don't seem to be doing the process. Now come up here, Billy. Come up here, Billy. Now, you certainly can do the process."

Little babies' tricks - they're quite interesting to watch, if you watch this factor of need. A child is furnishing a need of entertainment to the parents. See, he's doing what he can to fill a hole somehow. See, it's this help button, the all-important, very, very important button called "help" you see? And he's trying to amuse his parents, and he's trying to be there one way or the other. A little child - maybe develop a new trick every day, something like that. Little bahies will do this - it's quite interesting to watch, see.

When you do that, you know, the rest of the children have to have difficulties so they can get attention. And it downgrades the whole class to call one up front who couldn't do it.

And if you pay no attention to it at all, they'll eventually go into apathy and not do it. But if you pay attention all you've got to do is watch this new trick, say, "Hooray! That's terrific," you know, "that's fine." And they're pleased all over the place, you know. And they're quite happy about the whole thing. They don't usually go on doing it, after it's been acknowledged. But they've given you

This Group Auditing basically was done without monitors. It was done with a lick and a promise. It was done with Creative Processes. It was done.... Oh! It just should never have happened. And yet it was this tremendously successful thing that it actually did upgrade these people with actually no further auditing.

- given you something that they knew you needed in the environment, which is some amusement or something of the sort.

They - the kid that had energy enough to get to school and enough sense to sit at his desk evidently could be improved by Group Auditing. That doesn't mean all mentally retarded children could be improved by Group Auditing. You understand? Because they're already selected out by the fact that this child could sit at a desk. That was a skill. It's probably the only skill that upper-level government has. Now, that's not a bitter remark - I've been reading the papers lately. It's just - just is an effort to as-is the situation.

Well, most children get in the condition of having lost a whole life and a body, and then gone through the hash and gotten born, and then come up into an environment that doesn't need them, particularly, in which bad 8-C is being run. Well, you've just about finished it right there. You see? This is the case you confront when you confront a child, you see. It's just the ohservation of what case are you confronting.

Now, take such a thing as a team. It's going out. It's going to play a game for dear old do-and-die. You actually haven't anything better to do for that team than to do some of the processes in PAB 114. There's nothing better you can do for them.

Well, you're confronting a case that is low, almost nonextant on havingness, isn't needed very much, is getting bad ARC, is not used to the environment - familiarity factor very poor - not used to the body; a person that's been through a lot of mischief and all it's know-how is all shot and can't use it anymore - because what do you get for using that know-how, you get killed of course. It's been obviously proven.

That's it. Just grab them all off. You're going to process all of these fellows. Well, you don't want to get them onto the idea of processing people and all that sort of thing. They're just sportsmen and you know sportsmen, you know?

You get a person who is totally insecure. You know a little - a little two year old kid, they can't walk out and get a job. Just - next time you're two, try it. It just won't happen.

Nothing wrong with being a sportsman. I have many indoor sports myself, see, all interesting and so forth; chess, other exciting games. Outdoor sports - I'd rather navigate than pull on ropes but - or something of that sort. But sportsmen in general, you know, it's muscle. It's duration. It's perseverance. They handle themselves like a bunch of livestock. It's quite interesting. You know, they run up and down with a sweater on so that they work up a sweat, and then they go in at the proper moment and then they play through the proper number of innings or chukkas, or whatever it is. And then they come out and then a blanket is put over them and then they're exercised to be cooled down and they take them into the barn and feed them more hay. And they're generally in terrible mental-physical condition.

If you're around me, I'll give you a job. That's a fact. I always can find a job for a kid just about as fast as he can crawl - some nonsensical job of some kind or another it'd appear to thee and me.

The. one thing - if you ever go into sports, sports auditing and the handling of sports, and so forth, you're going to be just - just flabbergasted.

Well, boy, they hang on to these things like mad. And then you have to be careful not to violate them, if that's their duty and job, you know.

You say, "How can these internationally famous athletes hang together another ten minutes?" Because the trainer and all these boys that are running around, and the water boy - boy, it's just one long roll of adhesive tape, let me tell you! They're gluing them together and patching them up and so forth and bandaging the ankle that had a strain that morning and putting arnica on the shoulder that's under strain. These guys are a bunch of prima donnas.

And you'd be amazed, if you started to - building them up from about the age of about two and a half or three - you get somebody when they're about ten, boy, could they get rid of a load of work, and would they be happy. Work doesn't hurt anybody. It's absence of work that makes it detestable.

You listen to them, you know, while they, "Oh-oh! Oh-oh-oh-I-ah-um-um oh-oh I - I just - I had a pain. I had a pain right there. Ah-ah ah-ah ah-ah. I don't know-I don't know. What's my pulse? What's my pulse? I wonder if I'll be able to bat this afternoon? What's my pulse? Umm..."

Now, a child, then, should be understood. And to understand a child, we have to forget about the social nonsense that this - past cultures have agreed upon with regard to the beingness of a child. All this super-saccharine stuff about this sweet little bundle of joy was brought in by a crane or a stork or something - ornithology all entered into it. And "It's a little soul sent to us from heaven." Boy, somebody certainly is a long way from any reality on a between-lives area to call it "heaven."

They're a bunch of hypochondriacs It's really fascinating. I'm not downgrading them. I'm just - that's just the way it is. If you get out, fool around about the only totally abandoned characters I know are jockeys. And the jockeys, they're so interested in keeping weight off and so forth, that it's the mental exercise or something of the sort, keeps them sane or interested. They're quite alert. Most other sports aren't.

All right, here's this kid. Just forget the fairy tales, process what you see. When you start looking at children, two things will happen: You'll become better friends with them, and you'll definitely - definitely have a different opinion with regard to childhood.

Of course, you take a heavy mental sport such as golf and its isolationism and so forth, you look for something different than team sports. But there's nothing better that you can do than the isness of things for anybody engaged in sports, because he's always attacking MEST with violence. And the isness of things tends to even it out and you put him at cause-point over MEST and he becomes a much better sportsman.

Now, that they recover rapidly I've already mentioned before is simply, totally due and owing to the fact that they have so much hope on the line. They actually have a feeling they can make it. Just try and process somebody with the PT problem of being hung tomorrow, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Now, once in a blue moon you will get into a situation whereby you have you want to process two or three fellows who are members of teams or something of the sort.

Person has a PT problem. You're not going to get anyplace processing him until you handle the PT problem. PT problem can hang the whole case right up. Well, a child doesn't have a PT problem, the child actually has track ahead of him. You take an older person who's going to be hanged, try to process him. They're not going to process; they process in a very difficult - if at all. Now, let's take a child with a whole life ahead of it, and so forth, processes very easily.

Now, you're in for another surprise. The total apparency of the situation is they're just cases that are out the bottom. The truth of the matter is, they're simply simple cases. Their simplicity of an injury or a strain worries them like mad. This worries them. At the same time they can do practically anything you ask them to do in processing. And these two things are hard for a pro to reconcile.

Now the ease of processing is not the index of the case. The case is severe; the processing is quick and fast, if done properly.

You say, "Be three feet back of your head." Bang! They go three feet back of their head.

What processes do you run on a child? The maxim, the golden rule of auditing is: Find something the pc can do, and get him to do it better.

You say, "Now concentrate and control over a certain area," you know?

You're going to make a terrible mistake with a child if you try to lead him, lead him, lead him, always making him do something he can't do. Because what are you doing? You're handing him failure, failure, failure, failure.

They concentrate and control. "Hold that gun still." Next thing you know, he's national champion. "Keep the gun from going away," you know? Just nothing but a drill like this and the fellow becomes a terrific marksman.

Let's take a little baby, tie his hands behind his back, then stand in front of him and say, "Give me your hand. Thank you. Give me your hand. Thank you. Give me your hand. Thank you." If you did that you'd watch him sink into apathy, because he knows what you're saying. You've made it impossible - in spite of the fact he can't do it, you've made it impossible for him to do it. And he responds just like an adult preclear would; he just goes right on out the bottom.

They process very easily in spite of the horrible condition they're apparently in.

All right, now, let's not tie his hands in back of him, he's just a little baby, you say, "Give me your hand." Well, he doesn't have control of his hands. All right, that's new failure, new failure, new failure, see? And it - once more, kid will go out the bottom.

And you can take a team and group audit them. Just as crude as, "Look at that grass. Look at the sky. Look at the bleachers." Or "Look at the wicket. Look at the coach. Look at that car. Look at the fence." This is crude, you know? All of a sudden they're all feeling wonderful. It's fantastic! It's fantastic! And you can create such - such magic that the poor trainer and so on is just put in the shade. And the trained doctor that they have hanging around, he's in the shade too.

All right, let's - let's look at something reasonable then. What can this child do? This requires considerable observation on your part, because it all - isn't all in this simple level that I'm giving it to you here on this next command, see.

Oh, these fellows that come off with a sprain, something like that, you know, I don't know if you've maybe ever processed a sprain or not, but if you just ask the individual to touch things with his - a sprained ankle for instance - ask the indjvidual to touch things with his foot.

"You make that body lie on that bed. Thank you." See, you look at him and you find out he can make a body lie in a bed. Obviously, he's doing just that. So, you let him do what he can do! And you make him cause over what he is doing. Now, it requires some observation on your part to find out what a child is doing. You can always get him to do what he's doing.

You know, "Touch the ground with your foot. Touch the car with your foot. Touch the bench with your foot. Touch that cushion with your foot, you know? Touch the shoe with your foot."

You take a child that can't take orders, is pretty well up the spout, bad restimulation, sick half the time and so forth, can't take any orders of any kind, can't understand anything of any kind. And the child just sits there woodenly with his fists gripped, not going to do a thing you say.

Just got a - get - naked foot and just have him touch things with it, you know? Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. And boom! All of a sudden, he hasn't got a sprained ankle anymore and he's back on the playing field again, when everybody knew he was going to be laid off for six weeks, see? This is magic!

Well now, darn you if you don't remember this one! What's he doing? Look at him, see. Look at him. Now, what's he doing? He's sitting there with his fists gripped. Good. "All right, lie on the couch with your fists gripped. Thank you. Lie on the. . ." Dirty trick, isn't it?

Broken bones? Well, you can get somebody with a broken bone back in action in about a week with individual processing. These fellows are so worried about their health, their health is so important, that it makes them look like a lot of very sick people. They're not. But there's such vested interest, such importance to ill health that it materializes and you can knock it out rather easily, particularly with Group Processing.

You get a kid, and he insists on flying about the room, running about the room, running about the room, running about the room. You totally trigger his game when you say to him, "Run about the room. Thank you. Run about the room. Thank you." That's awfully elementary, you know. That's talking to you on a very simple level. But a child can obviously do what he's doing, but he isn't at cause over it. So, what he's doing is an other-determinism that you can take over and make a self- determinism. Quite fascinating!

If you were to walk in to the manager of a team and ask him if you couldn't group process his team, maybe he'd say yes. You could explain to him what it was all about. You could show him what you're going to do. Possibly work out fine. You might get there. It's doubtful if he'd pay you very much to do it. The way to make money on that, is simply to get a team before a game, put a very large money bet down, you see, on that particular team, and then in one fashion or another worm yourself in, group process the living daylights out again and collect your bet.

You can do this with psychos, too. Not that children are psychos but - same thing.

That works very easily with boxers. You can take some boxer that has a famous name or something like that and put yourself in chips rather rapidly. He had a famous name. Now he's a has-been. Just fix him up, get him so he can confront another fellow in the ring, that's all. All punch-drunkenness is, is the inability to confront another fighter. And you could win.

If you can find out what the mind is doing and parallel it with a process this is another old maxim - why, the PC will get better. We understand today this much better than we used to. Why? Because you - he's doing what he's doing on an other-determinism; you get him to do what he's doing on a self-determinism. It's as easy as this, don't you see?

Well, Group Processing has so many spheres and has so many values that a professional auditor who can't do it would be something like a professional auditor that can't do an assist. You know, he sees an injury, he can't do anything about it. He'll soon become the effect of such things.

Now, directional processes are very good on children. The lowest level of these directional processes - where the child points, indicates a direction; well, it requires that a child be two and a half or something like that or better. The best one of these is "Where is (familiar object)?" See? "Where is the table?" And if the child merely knows self and auditor, see, you haven't but two terminals you can go on, you see. And that would cut in maybe about two years. "Where am I?

The Group Auditor should handle a group with great 8-C. He should handle a group very effectively, and he shouldn't be upset if one or two people - those are the terminal snappers - come forward and say, "We didn't get any results." That is an indication that he has almost reached them.

Where are you? Where am I? Where are you?"

Something you should know about that, that the first thing a fellow tells you that you are almost reaching, is that you've got no effect on him. Because he's a no-effect case, an effect on him restimulates his statement, which is a dramatized statement, that he has received no effect. So that's the first thing he tells you. So the first thing you know about a case that tells you he had no effect - you've got someplace.

Now, the child fails to point to you, when you say where are you, you take the child's finger and point it at you. You don't let him escape the auditing command - that's always fatal. But you do it very kindly, and so forth. "Where are you? And where am I? And where are you? And where am I?" That's just about the simplest level of a verbal thinkingness command.

If there are two or three people in the room that are strictly, "What wall?" and apparently did the processes and who didn't afterwards tell the monitor or you that they got no effect, you didn't do a good job of processing. See how that is? They're always a good index.

Now, they don't do such a thing as "Look at that wall" easily, because they can’t look at that wall.

Now, in Group Processing it is always best to issue some kind of a test, we don't care what kind of a test it is, before and after. Appoint a series of processes. Say, "This series is going to be ten weeks. And for ten weeks on Friday evening, you're all going to rally round and we're going to have some Group Processing." Well, give them a test when you start the series. Run a certain number of processes, and then give them a test to end the series, and then compare the results and give them to the people you have group processed. They've got something to show for it. They like a piece of MEST.

They're too far downscale to really look at the wall, and it throws off too much confusion. So they can't take this much of a direction, but they can answer a question. And that's a lower-scale process as always. Lower-scale process is answering a question rather than executing an order.

You will find that the amount of gain which you can make over a wide group is very, very sizable; is very, very real. It's very, very satisfactory, too.

Now, "Where's the table? Where's the chair? Where's Mama?" You know?

Now, when I say, "You group process with vitality, you group process with verve, you group process with a little pinkie held at a certain angle, you group process always wearing a jacket," you get the rules that could be set down for this now? "When you group process people, never pace back and forth rapidly. Pace slowly, you see? It shows deliberation. It shows confidence." We could just go on and on and on, you see, and with rules, rules, rules, rules.

Just this sort of thing. You know, it's excusable to have a location - get the child to locate a terminal that's not in sight, occasionally. See, that's excusable. It's not really perfect auditing, but it keeps the child reassured.

When people feel pretty lost, and they don't have much confidence, they try to substitute rules for action. They get them totally reversed. You don't need many rules. You do need the processes, because they were very hardly won with a tremendous amount of research and action over a great many years. It's a very thorough branch of Scientology. It's very well worked out.

"Where's Mama?" "Well, Mama's outside."

And there are some old textbooks called the Group Auditor's Manual. I think there's a newer Group Auditor's Manual that's available. These tell you various things to do about groups and are quite useful and handy. The exact processes you ought to run on a group, however, are in PAB 114.

"Good." See? Perfectly all right. This - this is a type of Locational. It's very, very workable.

Now, whenever you use poor 8-C, you get poor results. And the only thing which you have to overcome is any inability that you have to confront an individual, and any inability you have to confront a group. Given the auditing commands, you've got it made. You'll always do a good job of Group Processing, that's it! You don't have to worry about it any further than that.

Now, "Where did it happen? Where are you now? Where did it happen? Where are you now? Where did it happen? Where are you now?" This sort of thing will patch up an awful lot of bruises on kids very rapidly.

It's a very funny thing that people are apparently more appreciative of Group Processing than they are of individual processing. And if you think your morale could stand a boost every Thursday night or something like that, well, by all means run a Group Processing unit. Because it'll always boost your morale.

Fascinate you sometime to see how fast a child will blow a somatic. They'll blow it quite rapidly. But, someday you'll be running a process and it will start to bite into something you know not what of; and the child starts to turn on a somatic the child cannot even vaguely confront. You've had it. What are you going to do? What are you going to do? Well, somehow or another, Tone 40-wise, you're going to press on through. So you better not be running a process that can't be pressed through on a child ever. Because the child will not even vaguely confront pain or a somatic of some kind or another.

Now, the most fun to process probably, in groups, is children. They don't need anything different than anybody else. They run the same processes.

You want to know where a child is? Take a child that you know very well and pick it up and say, "Hit me." If the child will smack you a good one, they're probably sailing around 1.5, something like that - just smack you a whale of a one with malice aforethought, you know. Child will start boxing with you and laughing and so forth, they're up above that level. But at lower levels, why, first, if they do touch you, they will cry, and below that, why, they just won't. "But I like you. I don't want to hit you." And all this sort of thing. You get into all kinds of argument with the child about touching you or hitting you.

You don't have to make it all cute, say, "Now, mock up a bunny rabbit." They get along just fine on "Look at that wall." "Say hello." You know, any kind of a process that's a communication process. Children get along beautifully on it.

Well, these are - that's not an indicated process, it's just a demonstration. It's just a little test. You'd say to the kid, "Hit me." And he won't have anything to do with hitting you, well, just peg him accordingly.

You'll find out that you can get the most appreciation from your neighbors with vocal Group Processes, which had a vogue. They'll wonder, "What the hell is going on there?" You know? They'll probably come in to find out and wind up in a - in a session. Another way of advertising.

All right. There's the "cat process," the processing of animals. You reach for the cat's front paws and then just leave your hand there and wait for the cat to reach for your hand And when the cat reaches for your hand, slowly, not rapidly (because you'll frighten the cat), withdraw your hand, because the cat is pawing at your hand. And the cat swats at your hand again, withdraw your hand a little bit further.

When we look over the successes which have been had by Group Auditing and when we look over its limitations, we should realize that it is far too good to be abandoned, and it is a piece of skill which an auditor is hardly a professional if he is without.

And this cat will become eight times as big as a lion, finally, if you do this every day on a regular processing schedule of just a few minutes a day, play with this cat. Ah, that cat will get so he'll eat men, see. Yeah, that cat gets tough, tough!

You can group audit people off of a sheet of paper, keeping the sheet in front of you and so forth, but don't make it a habit. You should actually memorize the commands in PAB 114, the order of the processes, know exactly what's going to happen. You should try to run every process that you run so the majority of the people have it flat. Don't develop a guilty conscience because a quarter of them are still very badly restimulated. They always come up and tell you you're - they're very badly restimulated, and the rest of them all look happy. You say, "Ah-ha. I got to them." See? They must have had some result if they're badly restimulated.

Now, because the cat is getting tough, old-time psychotherapists, lacking guts, would never have kept on processing the cat. He wouldn't have realized it had to go through this toughness to get kind, see. They thought that propitiation or apathy or something like that was the desirable level for other beings to be in. If they process these other beings, these beings will gradually go through various lines and eventually get tough, and get very tough before they can get kind.

It takes a somewhat cavalier attitude to group process people. It's - you have to be capable of sadism because you'll always have cases present that should have been run another hundred hours on "Look at that wall." You just said one command, "Look at that wall," and they immediately needed another hundred hours of it. That's true.

Similarly with children, they come up through the line, and individuals have a tendency to believe for a short time, during a child's course of processing, that the child is much worse. Every now and then, you face this same problem with psychos. Psycho starts to move or do something in the society, and all your - all the person's relatives are down on your neck. Same way with children.

Well, I'd just try to sign them up for individual processing. Not worry about it any further. Not use this restimulation factor to get individuals - process cases, although that works beautifully.

The child - boy, a child is rrr-rur-mmm-rrhh-rmm-rr. Turn around to his father and say, "Oh, shut up, you old bum," or something like this, you know. Papa objects! Papa objects.

"Look at - oh, yes. Look at that wall. Look at that wall. Look at that wall. Look at the floor. All right. Now, I'm going to change the process. All right. Hold on to your head and keep it fr om going into your body. Thank you. A few processes of that character and you'd have some cases on your hands, that's true.

Familial problems around a psycho, familial problems around a child are sufficient to interrupt the course of auditing. The environment is sufficiently psycho so as to suspend operations now and then. Therefore, it is always the best idea to process a child in the absence of its most familiar environment over a period of several days, if it could be arranged.

The Auditor's Code, by and large, applies to Group Processing. But it is a specialized activity. It is something to do. It's something you'd better not forget about, because there would be terrific uses for it.

To process children adequately would require, on an individual basis, particularly children who are bad off and had lots of bad things wrong with them, would require a hospital environment. You would make a mistake, if you didn't have a sort of hospital way to take care of the child, during the course of processing. Therefore, it requires something like a child hospital, which you'll have one of these days.

If you want to know exactly how you group process somebody, get so you can confront a person, get so you can confront a group, and get the familiarity of doing it. And that's exactly how you do it.

And the person who is attempting to process a child in a private domicile, which is going to be returned to its parents at once if the child is bad off; that person attempting the processing has bitten off; on the average, much more than he will be able to masticate. That's very factual. It's - that's too much of a load. That's asking too much.

Thank you.

Child is pretty wog, you know? The child is pretty wog. Auditor will get beaten on this, after a while. He'll wonder why this child isn't getting any better. He processes him, leaves the child feeling wonderful, comes back, child's aahhh, and process the child again, child's feeling wonderful. He comes back and the child's going dahh.

He says, "Ah! For goodness sakes! What's happening here? Well, it's - obviously he's having a sag." No, he's having a family. Family sees the child getting a little more active, they slap him down. This is going on behind the auditor's back. Don't think anybody will ever come in and issue you a newspaper bulletin on the subject.

Take a mentally retarded child, particularly a child that's having an extraordinary physical difficulty, same way, that child is in trouble. And before they get well they're going to get active, they're going to get nasty, they're going to lash back, they're going to do things that are antisocial to some degree before they get up to a point of where they can handle and control things.

They're going to go through a center point, and every time they try to go through this center point, the rest of the family and the rest of the world is going to knock them down - unless they're in a special environment. So, you drag them up halfway, and the environment knocks them down, and you drag them up halfway and the environment knocks them down, and you drag them up half - How long do you want to keep up with something like that?

So, a better action, more covert perhaps, is to group audit children who are on a sub-basis Then nobody knows what to attribute it to, and they just keep bringing them back.

Now, if we - if we try to categorize children as a special case, and say "Well, children are a special case and you have to be a terrific expert," we would be playing you false. This is not true. The main message on it is children are preclears.

Mentally retarded children do form a special address, but it's mostly the address of terrifically good persistent auditing. Because a mentally retarded child usually has not the hope, you see? He, for some reason or another, doesn't hope to live. He's been interrupted in his dream, you might say, and he - he's still being the adult he was just at the time he died or something like that. He has valence trouble and so forth.

But this is not a special thing. You'd have to get used to it, and get familiar with it in order to handle it better. That would be the main reason that you would study it. It's just a matter of familiarity. You'd have to be around it awhile, and get familiar to it, and then you feel fairly confident with regard to it; and that is your best approach. But the mentally retarded child is not all children, by a long way.

The funny part of it is that people very often spend a great deal of money on the ill child and will do nothing for the genius. And I'd rather - I'd rather make a very bright child a very, very, very bright child. I'd rather make a well-adjusted child a very, very, very, very well-adjustable child, you see. A person that could adjust anything - that's my idea of a good, well-adjusted child. He well adjusts anything he addresses. That's nineteenth century psychology. If you were totally adjusted, why, you had it made. Well, if you're totally adjusted, you were a piece of MEST.

Now, children - children snap to it very easily, but you'll find out that any rough case requires a great deal of ARC. A child requires so much ARC because their insecurity and attention span is so, so great - their lack of attention span rather.

When you get into an auditing room with a child, first few times, you'll wish you hadn't. You remember what I tell you. Just not to get optimistic about the case, don't get optimistic about the results.

The best and happiest way to process children is get a whole mob of them, get them together in a room and get them to do communication processes.

In order to do that, you have to be able to handle adults. If you can handle adult groups well, well, you can certainly handle a child group. You have to keep the clamps on them. The 8-C you have to run on a child group is fabulous, but boy, can you really get them going with a verve. You can practically knock the ruddy walls out. And they'll come back every Saturday and they'll get better and they'll feel better and so forth.

Now, children oddly enough come up the line sufficiently rapidly. They are hopeful, therefore, their willingness is high. They are willing to learn and so forth. Children oddly enough make very good auditors. And you can start training a child as an auditor at about the age of six. And you could put them through a course by the time they're ten or eleven.

The only reason they keep them going to school forever is because they don't want to afford baby sitters. That's true of the eighteen to twenty-five year old college students in the US too. They just can't afford baby sitters for them anymore, so they keep sending them to school - not that they learn anything.

I think a child could practically learn everything he wanted to know, really, by the age of ten or twelve - pretty nearly everything, provided he was started in and provided he was really taught - not given a whole bunch of randomness.

Education has been upset in many people, and their learning rate and so forth has been very upset by the fact that their education has been so random. So, if you're going to teach children anything, why, just teach them as an auditor and teach them well. Don't particularly gum it up by making it gooily interesting and so forth. You'd be surprised how they'll listen to you, if you simply tell them what the score is.

Now, the best attitude toward a child in processing is man to man, or man to girl, or girl to girl, or girl to boy. Just, let's not have an age difference.

Now, you don't reduce the age difference by becoming yourself three years old. You reduce the age difference by treating the child as though he's twenty-five. That seems like an unreality, because you're overwhelming his understanding level. Well, no, I've talked to a few twenty-five year olds lately.

Now, if you expect children who have serious psychosomatic illnesses, visual difficulties, hearing difficulties and all that sort of thing to respond magically and instantly simply because you wave a couple of processes over their head, get it out of your mind.

Communication difficulties in the child are more difficult than in an adult. It takes a lot of processing. It takes a lot of careful processing. It takes a lot of auditing - quiet. It takes a good environment, takes a lot of things. It's - and given those things, why, sail ahead, and you'll have tremendous success.

Lacking that, your best opportunity is good, bad or indifferent, bright, stupid or noisy, we don't care what, get them all together in a mob and Tone 40 group auditing the living daylights out of them.

And you'll find out they all make a gain, and everybody will be happy about it, and here we go.

If they need very special attention, then you better have very special places to put them to give them that attention, because no parent can argue with a wild and unruly group, but they certainly can argue with a practitioner who dared make little Johnny better.

The auditor who makes a specialty out of children and this sort of thing could far - do far worse. The society pays more to keep its children going than it does its grown-ups. They're always happier, these Western societies, to keep the children going. And Eastern societies, they practically worship the child - it's even more so there. An auditor could be tremendously successful doing nothing but child practice.

But if he does nothing but child practice, then he has to be a better auditor than the average by a lot. He has to abide by the Code far more vigorously, and he has to be capable of coping not only with children but parents.

Thank you.