Female voice: Someone says it takes a Clear to validate a Clear. Uh-uh. Not true. You've had three examples of it, right here in this Unit.

Thank you.

Female voice: I didn't mean to audit one.

Well, here we are with the last lecture of the 19th ACC. We at least got to the last lecture. I don't know where else we might have got, but we got there. It's February the fourteenth, isn't it?

Yeah. But, "It takes a Clear to validate a Clear" — no, you don't have to lay down much of an artificial stress on this. There is such a thing as a Clear check sheet. And if an auditor thinks he's got a Clear on his hands, he ought to send for the Clear check sheet. After all, all of the tests are available to any individual auditor. He can send for them. He can do them. He can even send them back for correction.

Audience: Yes.

It would be expected that the person's APA and IQ test would be included in the Clear sheet request. And I see no reason why the auditor who does the job shouldn't be the one answering a question very flatly.

AD 8. Okay.

Female voice: Thank you.

Now, today — today I ought to really just moralize. I do have a few things to say along that line. We're finishing up with about 50 percent of the class Clear, which agrees with my postulate, thank you.

Some people will be alarmed about this. But I am not. An HCO could always issue one. In this case, by the way, it'd be the HCO Secretary — the HCO Board of Review or the HCO Secretary.

And now that we're all through, practically — just a few more hours of auditing to go — it would be timely for me to come up with a solution to all those cases that hung fire. So I will do so.

Now that the HCO Secretary is gone, I can say "I never had an HCO Secretary around who isn't a crackerjack of an auditor." I find out they have to do more auditing in ten minutes than anybody you ever saw on the job. Staff streams by in a mad rate, people come in with tears puddling all over the carpet, "I've just been shot." The HCO Secretary's life is very random, I can assure you — almost as random as the Technical Director's.

The responsibility for a mock-up will solve almost anything. Now, apparently it washes out by taking responsibility for it, but that's actually an inversion. You should be able to make a mock-up stand there even if misowned. And there are a lot of people around who get rid of mock-ups whenever they own them, and that's most people at large.

HGC preclears, by the way, will be given a Clear bracelet. But that's only because it can well afford it.

The truth of the matter is, this misownership via is not necessary to perpetuate a mock-up. You see that? It's not necessary to say, well — for the preclear to make it and then say, "Joe made it," in order to get the mock-up to persist. In other words, misownership. That's not necessary.

I tried to get these bracelets, by the way; I tried to get some kind of a price which would be a dollar and a half or something like that. But it was junk — junk. About the cheapest you can get a piece of jewelry for and then handle it and engrave it and so forth, is up in the teens of dollars.

A person can simply postulate it and say that it'll persist. Of course, if he doesn't say that it persists as he postulates it, it won't, which probably causes him a great deal of upset — that if he doesn't say so, it isn't. Lot of responsibility being king in your own universe, you know? Nothing happens automatically. You don't get caved in suddenly on Saturday afternoon and, you know, that sort of thing.

This thing that's coming as a Clear bracelet is gorgeous as a piece of jewelry. No kidding. It even conies in a jewel box. And the lady's is a very small chain, and the plaque on the lady's bracelet is much smaller than the man's. But nevertheless, that's quite a solid piece of metal. It's sterling silver, but it's sterling silver with cadmium .04, I guess, percent not-pure. And that .04 percent is cadmium and . . .

Now, what about such a process of responsibility for mock-ups? All you have to do is process a person who "cannot mock something up" in this wise, to really see some fireworks and comm lags. Runs like this: "What mock-up could you take responsibility for making?"

Male voice: Pure silver is too soft to be of much use.

Very crude wording there — that's not any final wording for a command, but it gives you the gist of the situation.

Well, this is — this is tougher than the ordinary sterling. Because the links wear right in half. I know — I wore an Explorers Club bracelet through the war, and about halfway through the war — I was fortunately sitting at the wardroom table when it happened — the thing just fell off my wrist. I took it ashore to a jeweler and he had to build all the links back together again. Its links, particularly next to the plaque, had just come in half.

Now, an extreme . . . Now, go on, don't — stop making mock-ups, now. Come on, now. Wait till after the lecture. (laughter)

Female voice: How about the size of the bracelets? Will they be adjustable? Fit on anybody's wrist?

The extreme case would be this: We have a person who is professionally a railroad locomotive engineer. (Evidently, by the way, he can't call himself an engineer here in the District of Columbia because he'll get arrested. That's because he's an engineer, you see?) Now, supposing this fellow — supposing this fellow came into your hands as a preclear and everything was all foggy, and you were having an awful time and so on. You know that you could get some relief on the case just from backtrack 1954 Havingness — by having him mock up railroad locomotives. You know that would be easy. And maybe you could just have him mock up railroad locomotives until he was able to mock something up. I mean, this is highly probable, although he'll tend to jump around on the track.

Yes, ma'am. Any jeweler can adjust it. But if you're here when you receive it, the place that is making them — which is the biggest jeweler here in this area and so forth — all you have to do is walk in there and he'll take off or add links, as many as you want. That was definitely part of the arrangement.

I did that to one fellow; he — had him mock up the machine he'd been married to for about twenty years. The next thing you know, he mocked up a destroyer — destroyer, Battle of Jutland. He was an American, this pc, and he mocked up a des, all of a sudden was mocking up a destroyer. And we tried to get back onto engines and we couldn't do that. I mean, it was just physically impossible, and he kept mocking up the destroyer. So I said, "Well all right, let's mock up the destroyer twenty times and get back onto machines."

I used to wear one of these things soldered on, by the way. Never did take it off.

And midflight he says, "Gor, gorblimey!" He was in the Royal Navy, way back when, Battle of Jutland. Got himself killed. Destroyer was sunk out from underneath him with a few well-placed salvos from a battlewagon. And that was the end of his destroyer. And that took his havingness right on out the bottom and cost him one body, too.

This one, just by accident, still has its clasp on it.

So he says, "The devil with the British Empire," and he promptly flitted across the Atlantic, evidently, and picked up an American baby. Then he became a machinist, the jerk; and there he was standing looking at gray steel. Gray steel, gray steel.

Male voice: When do you expect these bracelets to be available?

Well, that case to a marked degree cracked up. This boy was having a hard time being a professional auditor; after that, he didn't have any difficulty at all.

They'll be available in exactly three weeks. And that — I said exactly three weeks, let me amend that — absolute maximum, three weeks. I told him to put the time in on making precise dies. And he could have gotten them here in a week, but they would have been a sloppier bracelet. Three weeks, exactly. It takes two or three days to get one of the things engraved with your name on it.

But supposing we had asked this fellow this sort of a command (this is a very extreme case, you see? I mean, this was a rough case), we'd ask him, "What part of a machine would you be responsible for mocking up?" or ". . . could you be responsible for mocking up?" See?

Male voice: It seems to me the business of randomity between the "field auditor" and the "staff auditor" or the organization is a matter of the field auditor individuating from the organization due to some consideration of an inability to contribute.

Now, we would have encountered one of the beefier comm lags — one of the more interesting comm lags. And he would have gotten very, very far afield before he finally came up with an answer. And the answer wouldn't have been any part of the machine. It would have been something else. Oh, he could be responsible for the wrench that set the machine up in the first place or something like this. Or he could be responsible for the place the machine had been, providing it wasn't there anymore. Vague, abstruse answers.

Possibly. I think that this has been, to a large degree, economic. I mean, I think it has not been able to use that many people. And I mean, it's just an economic thing. I mean, I think that was what happened from the beginning. Hm?

Now this, hammered on for quite a while often — now, underscore that word often; this is not one of these open-and-shut propositions because there are too many vagaries. For instance, it's your choice as an auditor what you pick out of the preclear to run, you know? And although he obviously must be hung up in a Cadillac in this life, it probably is a jet plane two hundred thousand years ago. You get the idea? I mean, you can err in trying to pick the lock. But the lock can be picked just that expertly if you E-Metered it enough. You know, you'd have to pick the right lock to just bang the bank into fragments and have him be able to mock up again.

Male voice: That is contribute.

But you could eventually lead him forward, lead a preclear forward with this process, and it'd be most often the case that he was thereafter able to mock up something — which is to say, willing to.

That's — so there's a contribution the other way, too. It was economic contributions. In times of scarcity, you get an every-man-for-himself sort of a situation. And I think that was probably — as ugly as that is — I think that was probably the basic on it. Because in 1950 I think there were very few people that — or in England in the early days — there probably were very, very few people that wouldn't have happily just gone on working with the Central Organization, had there been enough cash to keep body and soul together.

And you're on your willingness button. For instance, a painter of pictures might very well be very diffident about mocking up any part of a picture. But look, this man's business is the painting of pictures. Well, when he was young and foolish he was very happy to be responsible for any part of a picture he mocked up. And then he ran into the critics, see? And then he'd been married eight or nine or twelve times, or whatever the accepted number of times is for an artist at this day and age.

I don't know why it takes cash to put the two together. A very close investigation of it has demonstrated that it is mystery, and . . . You don't suppose cash is mystery, do you?

It's actually not their fault. They're not paying any attention to the women. And the woman comes around and sees all this beautiful attention and doesn't get any, and she leaves; another woman takes her place and the guy doesn't even notice.

Yes?

Now, here — here you'd say, "Well! Well, this boy — this boy certainly can take responsibility for a picture because he's still painting."

Male voice: The way the cash in this country is put together is certainly a mystery.

Well, they have something — they say something about an artist. An artist, by the way, is a better example than an artisan for this reason: He is normally under a heavier stress critically, one way or the other, and he normally isn't working with the same masses. The mass actually, far from being a liability, is rather a saving grace.

Oh, that's for sure. That's for sure. Right now we have a situation where it's rather difficult to get people in the Central Organizations. It's rather difficult. We actually have to pick them up and put them together and put them in shape and so forth. But that's mainly because we follow this policy. This policy might interest you because it is more than a policy. It is something we will not do otherwise than, just now.

Now, this boy, this artist, is still painting pictures but his quality has declined to the degree that he is not taking responsibility for what he paints. Criticism, starvation and the number of awards he didn't get for continuing his work and so forth, all add up to moving him back off into an irresponsibility, you see?

We have found that it doesn't matter where the person is placed in the organization — with the exception, perhaps, of a typist — person must be a good auditor. It isn't a matter of having all Scientologists in the Central Organization; it is a matter of having good auditors. And we found out that a person who is a good auditor will be able on almost any other post. This is quite a wild one to be as pervasive as it has become.

Unless he takes responsibility for what he paints, he can't make it. Well now, when you ask him to mock up something, he will run directly into this refusal to take responsibility.

As a result, you have a lot of good auditors in the Central Organization who aren't auditing. You have some real good auditors in London and here. John is a bearcat as an auditor, for instance, and here he is sitting over in London as an Association Secretary.

And the first thing he'll think of, if you ask an artist who is having a hard time with his profession, first thing he'd think of, he'd say, "Well, the one thing I can mock up," he will say — ta-da, ta-da, ta-da, "is a picture."

And there was a very fine auditor, and a very fine Instructor, one of the very, very best — he was sitting there as an Association Secretary. He's now down in Africa. One of the happiest things that he found in South Africa, of course, was the fact that he didn't have enough business to occupy all of his time, compared to the London organization. And he suddenly grabbed ahold of a preclear — slurp, slurp — and he started auditing. And there was nobody around to tell him he couldn't. And he busily and happily took one of the earlier Clear sheets, and he was walking somebody up toward Clear. Instead of getting administrative reports, I began to get a flood, daily report air letters, on the terrific things he was doing with this preclear. See? Just all rave notices, you know?

You could say, "Go ahead." And he'll get copies, copies, you know, flicker-flack, and then all of a sudden it'll all go. He himself is no longer able to mock the things up.

And I realized what was happening there. The individual's basic goal, of course, was to make people better, and he was off the paper chain — very, very happy about it.

Now, if you just had him mock up something he would take the responsibility for mocking up, and you graduated him — you see, you don't have to hit, whambo, into the middle of his particular profession, but you would come back to it; he'd take responsibility for mocking something up. We would walk him back with his mock-ups into his basic profession, and we'd still have a picnic.

You don't find — you don't find a person who can't audit well being able to function well in a Scientology organization. It's quite weird. Quite weird.

But when he was at length able to mock up something and take responsibility for it, he would again get mock-ups. And more important, he would be able to handle his profession.

It wouldn't have been the sort of a coordination that the army would have made. The army says that a — says that a good doctor, of course, has to be cared for like a — like a scurvy pup or something. And they put administrators in the hospitals — do the same thing in the navy. They have a whole series of ranks that are merely administrators. And these administrators are hanging around the fringes keeping the hospitals running and so on, while the doctors merely doctor.

Now, this would also go for an admiral, you see? It would also go for a lawyer, it would go for a piano player, it would go for a fellow who sharpens lawn mowers. It would go for anybody. It's the one thing he has done long enough so that he can be driven off of it, you get the idea?

So we're in a different field entirely. It's probably true for the army or the navy, you see, but it's not true for Scientology.

The actual science of life as practiced by Time magazine, the better part of the criminals of the country and so forth, this is that any time anybody is doing a good job, cut his stinking throat. Drive him back off of it, you see? Make him finally say that he's unwilling to be responsible for it. Got it?

Male voice: This also turned up a few years ago in engineering firms. They found that for darn near any job in an engineering firm an engineer could do the job better than a non-engineer.

Now, if you could just drive him back hard enough, why, you'll get him so he won't mock it up anymore, and you're not troubled with living things around. See? After all, we all know the difficulty is that things are alive and move. And sometimes smile, goddamn them! The cure for that, of course, is to make somebody so unhappy about what he is doing that he'll stop doing it. Now, to ask him to take responsibility for it is something else.

That's right. That's right.

And now, this is peculiar. This is, of course, a professional type of address, and this is peculiar to the case of an auditor. And an auditor very often gets into this sort of thing where — well, let's say he's stupid enough to be auditing in Hollywood. Let's say he's stupid enough to be doing this or stupid enough to be auditing in Greenwich Village. There we get nothing but spun-in l.ls. There's no other type of case in the whole area, you see? I don't wish to make any sweeping statements, but. . . Occasionally one of these l.ls sinks to a lower level.

Male voice: As a point of interest, they don't do that in the Royal Navy now.

But you run in, actually, in those two areas, into a predominant number of cases — it's just too many to be comfortable about. Person comes in, he's apparently very well dressed, he's apparently in charge of some part of his life, and he sits down. And the next thing you know — the second you just trigger his case a little bit, you get a blast on the subject of "Aw, you're a fake and you're a quack, you know da-da, and you're doing no good" and so forth. I mean, he just — just routine. Person is a 1.1 in that the moment that you shake his control to any degree at all, why, you find you're sitting on a venomous volcano.

What do they do now?

Now when an auditor runs into too many such cases, if he himself is not aware of the mechanism — of course, all you've got to be is aware of the mechanism and you'll laugh like mad. The man is unwilling to help — that's all that's wrong with him. But if you ran into too many of the cases or an auditor ran into too many such cases, and if he had criticism from Father and criticism from Mother and criticism from the wife or criticism from the husband, you see, and criticism locally and wah-da and the magazines came out and they said everything he was doing was all bad, next thing you know he would be unwilling to take responsibility for a preclear. Got it? He'd be driven back off.

Male voice: Mountbatten squashed that.

Now, all you'd have to ask him to do is "What part of a preclear would he be willing to mock up." And this other stuff starts flying off the case.

Oh yeah?

There's probably no such process as — I wouldn't say this finally, but as far as I know — there's no such process, "What part of a preclear would you be irresponsible for?"

Male voice: Every single man who is a man, as opposed to an NCO or an officer, is in bell-bottom and jumper.

As a matter of fact, I have run this. I've run irresponsibility tests and I have never yet found an auditing combination that would demonstrate there was such a thing as irresponsibility — that is to say, that it was a thing. There is, however, lack of responsibility. But the negative of responsibility is not operative in processing. Do you see that?

Hm.

Therefore, the rehabilitation of responsibility in any zone of livingness or activity is the rehabilitation of a person's effectiveness and ability in that area.

Male voice: And he's a sailor. And he'll take turn at a gun whether he's a typist or a sick-berth attendant, or what he is. He's a sailor and he's going to run that ship.

Now, you've often heard me mention this fellow who we give an ability back to, such as the fellow who wants to be able to speak Arabic and cannot seem to learn it.

This would be the only way you'd ever get anywhere.

Now, of course that's a can't-reach-must-reach, can't-withdraw — must-withdraw situation. He's been speaking Arabic in one life or another, and things happened and he is no longer willing to take responsibility for Arabic — that's all there is to that.

Male voice: He's really cleaned it up.

You wonder why somebody lived a whole fulsome life in Germany, and ... Of course there's — of course there's no mystery about it now. I suppose some fellow who just spent a life in Germany and was somewhere else now would have a bit of a flinch connected with it. It was a tough thing to be alive in Germany, last couple of dozen years.

Yeah. Too bad we didn't have that here during the war.

But nevertheless, you'll see what you'd run into. Now we get this fellow, he's a high-school student. And he wants to take up going to the university and take up diplomatic usages or something like that — he wants to be poor-paid the rest of his life.

Female voice: With this bulletin on February the thirteenth, what happens to that present time problem process of, "What part of that problem can you be responsible for?"

The best way to take up diplomatic usages is to win forward to the top of General Electric or to get to the top of General Motors or something of this sort. Then, you see, you become a diplomat at once. It's obvious, obvious why, because you don't know a damn thing about it. Perfectly willing to take total irresponsibility for the whole world.

I'm sorry if that bulletin gave the impression that that was dropped. Doesn't the bulletin say it handled — you handle the present time problem?

I was fascinated the other day at the reorganization of the armed forces of the United States, which reorganization was under total review, was being advised by the person of and the committee headed by the head of General Electric. So I tried to find out if this man ever heard of a soldier's suit or knew anything about "hard right rudder" or "full speed astern" and so forth. And he was innocent enough to make all sorts of mistakes without suffering any in his conscience, you see?

Female voice: Well, it mentions Problems of Comparable Magnitude, and Help in brackets. It doesn't mention the other one at all. I wondered if you were dropping that as ...

And the US government was entertaining the idea of this fellow's plan, you see? Quite wonderful. So you don't want to study diplomacy if you want to get into diplomacy; you want to be something else.

Well, I am sorry. This will require something. You know what most of these HCO Bulletins come from? A pack of profiles come in, and I look these over and I see where goofing is occurring from an ACC; I see where people are sliding or see some specialized piece of information they need. This — you could still get away with this just the way it is written, but this is not a procedure. You handle a PT problem just as you always did. But if the person had one, the terminals of it are still a problem.

But let's say you were trying to fix this young man up — he was foolish and he couldn't speak German. He had to have German. This is a problem today a Scientologist could handle. It's been hard to handle before. You could — always, it's always been in the realm of mock-up.

Remember, you only handled the problem. See? "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" you said. You didn't handle the terminals, did you?

But the way to do it would be, "What part of the German language" or "What German word could you take responsibility for?"

Now, it finds out that when we start to run Help, the case will again hang up on the PT problem because these terminals are still randomity. Do you understand that?

And, man, you've never seen such a flinch as you would get. He would just flinch, flinch, flinch, flinch. And he'd get all sorts of bank disturbances and so forth, and finally say, "Well, ach — take responsibility for ach. But that's all!"

You handle the PT problem this way: You say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

Naturally that is a very bad example because you're processing a thing that doesn't have any mass. Do you see that? But it would be the entrance point of the problem. Here is something sticking out into this life that wouldn't otherwise be noticed. The individual starts to study German and he runs into it with a dull thud that he can't learn German. But he feels he must learn German. But he can't learn German. But he must learn German. And here we go. And we have a fine little psychotic ridge going here.

The fellow drops. He says, "Yes I do; I'm being sued."

Now, to really solve this thing, you'd have to ask him what part of Germany could he be responsible for mocking up. And that would be the solution to it.

You say, "All right. Now, what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

You take somebody who is doing a wonderfully sour job of driving a vehicle. You could run the same thing there and rehabilitate his ability in this life on a vehicle. You could say, "What part of that vehicle could you be responsible for mocking up?"

And he finally orients this. Well, it disappears as a bop on the meter.

See, this cuts through all the vias, and therefore is very hard on him. But it's nevertheless undoubtedly a good lead-in process to anything.

Now we go into Help. Oh, we merely eradicated a problem, didn't we? But there are a couple of people on Earth that he would rather shoot than help. You got that? Now, as long as that state of mind obtains, you have a couple of nice juicy terminals that are going to get in your road in running Help.

Now, I'll tell you the process holdup that we are experiencing in clearing. The process holdup is dual: One, an individual is so mired down on Help that he's deep into Destroy, and he doesn't have enough havingness to run it. Now, this is a rough, rough deal. Now obviously, that's a rough deal. You've got to get through that thing with CCH 1, you've got to persuade it one way or the other, pick the right flows. It's a nice lock to pick. Don't kid yourselves that it's easy. But at the same time, realize that you can do it. But it takes a nice approach. Don't worry if it took you a week to get the case going. But once you have it going, you've got 99 percent of it licked.

This was on — this was based, by the way, on an HGC preclear who wouldn't unwind or unravel. We ran "What part of the problem could you be responsible for?" and we got this all damped out. And then we started to run Help and we found out the preclear wouldn't run Help. But he was running Help with a high generality, and he would just yap. And it just was not true, and he was going out of session, he was trying to blow and so on. And I finally got hold of this one and I says, "Now, wait a minute. You got rid of the problem this man was having with his wife and her lover. But you certainly have not gotten rid of wife or lover as terminals. Why don't you turn around and run wife and lover as Help brackets?" Almost blew the guy's head off. And he was hung up right there. And as soon as he got those two people cleared up on Help as terminals he sailed in and cleaned up the rest of Help, and he is now running right on down through the line.

Now, on the other hang-up — the other hang-up — this, so you understand, is the totally unwilling preclear: low, very low havingness, and he won't sit still in the first place and you're going to run Help on him, but he's totally on Destroy. Now, there's the boy. There's the boy. That's the rough one.

You know, it is one thing simply to observe that a present time problem hangs up a case. But I'm reporting to you simply an observation. There's no explanation for this. See, I've known this for several years; there's been no explanation for it. The explanation is this: The individual on the PT problem is hung up on Help in the material universe, on one or more terminals that he won't — so his case doesn't progress.

The other point on the case — the very same case or another case that seemed willing — that would come up is this thing about a mock-up. Now, it is worse than fields. Fields are merely the prevention of a mock-up. What you're trying to solve when you're solving a field is the ability to confront a mock-up. Now, you can solve the field as such on a gradient scale, and it works out mechanically that if you have him mock up a terminal which is just like the field, you have something there that he can mock up, that he is mocking up and that is still visible to him.

He sits there, and every time the case veers around toward this person, he comes off of it at once and he won't have anything to do with that section of his life, you see? And he keeps flinching, and the case tries to run around this thing. Well, this is the explanation for it.

There are tremendous numbers of things which are no longer visible to him but he is still mocking up. Think of that for a moment. You have the problem with the spook: You process this fellow for a little while, and he suddenly discovers that his cousin has been standing there looking at him for a very long time — years and years and years. His cousin has been right in the room, he never noticed him.

You can run the problem, and you better had run the problem. "You got a present time problem?"

Now, this was a failure of perception, not a failure of a mock-up. A failure of perception. He didn't see it. He was mocking it up, but he didn't see the mock-up. See that? All right.

And the fellow says, "Yes."

When you extend his willingness to look — which is to say, his willingness to be responsible for something — he looks. So that you could say perception is responsibility; responsibility is perception.

Well, you'd better run it. "What part of the problem can you be responsible for?" "Problem of comparable magnitude to it," or any other way you want to handle this present time problem, since nobody is telling you how to handle a present time problem beyond giving you all available ways of handling it.

Perception probably only takes place in the presence of telepathy, and if an individual is out of communication with something, he won't even know it is there. Now, this is what it amounts to.

Now, you start to clear Help on him. And you notice that this is rules governing the running of CCH Ob, Help. Well, at this stage when you start to run that, this should have said, " If the pc had a PT problem which the auditor had to clear up," (got that?) "then he should select the most intimate terminals on these and run Help in brackets, a few commands in each bracket." Just to make sure that these people aren't any longer hung up. Do you understand that?

Now in the future, in processing, you can expect that there will be other — I'll get something — other data concerning the starting of a case. The more cases we start, the more we know about it. The barrier right now is surmountable. It's merely a little arduous with a few cases.

Female voice: Yes.

And as far as mock-ups are concerned, that in its turn is not insurmountable. We have ways and means of doing that, but it may seem just a little bit difficult with this case or that case. Something that'll make you think about it, make you after the session say, "Gee-whiz, what is wrong with that guy? Now, let me see . . ." you know? "What will I do next?"

The person can — the case can hang up because a problem is there, and then can hang up because the terminals are there that he would rather kill than not.

You know, it'll just get a little bit like that, and then you'll crack through. You're not worrying about an impossible problem as I have been for the last few years, see? The problem from the end of 1950 on looked almost totally insurmountable. It looked impossible. It loomed large because it did seem that there was no coordination of entrance that could be communicated to an auditor so an auditor would look at a case. Don't you see, that was the main difficulty. And it took an awful simple know-how to get this thing oriented and across.

Yes?

But the case that you approach as an impossible case will, of course, be impossible if you postulate it as such. That we can guarantee. But you have right now, without what I'm giving you today here, the answer to cases. You can crack through these cases, it won't cause too much difficulty even in there in the roughest state, such as the fellow who's been in a coma for three months, and you have to woo him back to consciousness. And then you find out he was — been nuts for eight years anyhow, and you have to get him through that. And when you get him all through being nutty, you find out that his field is still there like solid concrete, you know, and so on. These are some — simply a few things to sigh about. You have the processes which gets over each one of these humps. I wish it were easier; it doesn't happen to be at this time.

Female voice: Do you always run that, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" without terminals, just using the word "problem"?

Now, there will be breakthroughs in these areas. And I'll just describe the areas to you again so you will know where the breakthroughs should be expected. Now, that's quite interesting that we can simply sketch them just like that. And the major breakthrough will be in some very facile method of bringing somebody back to consciousness and alertness who is in a comatose state. That's one. Now, there'll probably — undoubtedly be an easier method developed for that. We have one now, and that method is, "Lie in that bed. Thank you," a variation of TR 5. And you do this just on a verbal command basis and until the individual is alert.

Oh, you can run that. That's a limited run. His havingness will chew up like mad, but you can still run it.

Now, the first communication you get from a person who is in a state of coma is hand pressures. All your communication will be by hand pressures. You don't expect them to speak, but they communicate with you by hand pressure. You can actually describe to an unconscious person, one press means yes, two means no, or something like that. And he will give you ones and twos even though the medicos will say this man has been unconscious and hasn't been able to speak for years. Quite amusing. Just shows you the medico needs to know something more than he knows. He needs to know a few Scientologists — they'd make a citizen out of him.

Female voice: Well, I thought you had to have a terminal there.

Now, that's one breakthrough area. How can that be done more easily? The next area is insanity. How can you snap a person into sanity more easily?

I see what you're hung up on. You don't want to run a condition. And you have been thoroughly told, coached and you believe that you must never run a condition, that you must always run a terminal.

We already have methods for both of these things, and it is not beyond imagination to handle an insane case for as little as three, four days at sporadic intervals and so on, and have them snap to — just on your Help brackets. Maybe it's all you need. We don't know that yet; we have no means, really, of researching in this particular area. And our material on the insane accumulates very slowly, while the insane accumulate very rapidly.

Now, I'll tell you something: Auditing is something you get away with. That is what auditing is. And for a little while — now listen to me — for a little while before the Havingness button gets too thoroughly chewed, you can always run a condition. But if his Havingness button is chewed right at the beginning, you're going to have trouble.

Now, our next area is in this thing, black field. Now, there may be a better answer to cracking up a black field, but I now have about ten. The best answer on cracking one up that I know at this time is the Help bracket.

So you could say to be safe always run a terminal, never a condition. That's a safe look, don't you see?

Now, we may or may not come to a solid agreement with that uniformly, but from my viewpoint fields do weird things on Help brackets, particularly if they're well run, if the flows are expertly chosen and so on.

Female voice: Yes.

The next area is getting him to make a mock-up that he knows he is making. There are probably easier methods of doing that. Undoubtedly, there is an easy method of doing that, all other things swept aside. Now of course, we have methods of doing that; you've been taught methods of doing it. I'm merely saying that there will be easier methods of that developed.

But you can get away with an awful lot. You can get around the edges of this thing and sweep at it. How else would you ever undo an Axiom?

And finally, there will undoubtedly be simpler tests of condition developed. These things are certain breakthroughs. You can expect a little randomity on each one of these points.

You know you can take all of the Axioms and just tear them to pieces? One right after the other. A datum of incomparable magnitude to the definition for space — that's running a condition, isn't it? You're liable to get the fellow up along the line somewhere and all of a sudden he'll have some space. You've shaken up the definition. The definition is right there in the preclear. You've got all these — rack of Axioms; you could take them from the bottom to the top or the top to the bottom. You could, actually, if you did this and . . . But as you go up toward the top you get more and more conditional. And then when you run into the fact of a thetan, you say, "Give me a datum of incomparable magnitude . . ." " Invent a datum of incomparable magnitude to a thetan." Oh-oh. This is a murderous operation; it is just totally inoperative; it is not something that would work, that is all.

But if you have learned what you have learned here in this 19th ACC, you certainly have answers to all of these points. Perseverance and your own wit will get you through in any piece of randomity that you run into.

But you can say a datum of comparable magnitude on almost any other Axiom and get somewhere, providing you didn't strain at it. You'll get somewhere for maybe forty-five minutes. Case will feel fine. You shake him by the hand, get off of it, get away from it, run something that has a little havingness connected with it, (clap) and you never notice the difference.

I am very sure that you don't need or have to have more data than you have. I merely say that in view of shortness, ease or positiveness, or something like that, more data will certainly be developed. We would be very, very stupid indeed if we did not realize that fact.

Run it, maybe, for an hour and a half or two hours, or something of this nature. Case all of a sudden goes grog and bog and wiggle and agitate and two or three ridges collapse on him, and you've had it then. Now how are you going to dig him out of this one?

The fact, however, of what we are doing, is now done. That's very important. That it takes place in a very finite number of hours is already accomplished as a fact. Now, I am sure you will all agree with that.

Well, you just have to wait three days and try over again. That's what I always do.

There is an optimum length of time in processing, which I would say would be certainly above twenty hours. Fellow would never know he'd been anyplace. The amount of jolt of the change factor would be too great for him to support if you did it in one minute. Why, he'd probably go stark, staring mad right on the spot, don't you see, from just the sudden shift — the curve, see? One moment he's stupid and aberrated, and the next moment, why, he's Clear. Well, he'd undoubtedly go nuts. Something would happen to him. Without any expectation of any such state or anything of the sort, he suddenly achieved it, he'd be shaken to the core, let me assure you. Furthermore, he'd never get to know his auditor, and it'd never give you a break.

Okay. Does that answer a question?

And I'd say that the probabilities of a Clear shorter than twenty hours would be very, very remote. Too many factors stand in its road, none of which have to do with auditing at all. See, they're not auditing factors. They're social factors. They're economic factors. They're all sorts of things. And therefore I wouldn't be casting sheep's eyes at "capsule-clearing."

Female voice: Yes. Thank you.

Now, there are always people around who have to do it all at once. You know, it's got to be done right now. Let me assure you of this: They are dramatizing a whole track psychiatric postulate. "I've got to get rid of it all at once. Little by little won't count. I've got to get rid of it all at once." Pretty amazing, such a sweeping idea.

I'm glad the question came up, because you realize that although auditing runs safely on fixed rules, an auditor can be a reckless driver. See, he can still get around a few curves.

You'll find somebody who is just — practically shatters on the idea that it's going to take any time at all to wash the dishes. You know, the person will just sit there and just (sigh) because it's going to take five minutes to wash the dishes. You get the idea?

Yes?

Well, that person has a time intolerance that denotes a considerable nuttiness. And don't you go Q-and-Aing with it. Because every time I have had one of these people who had to do it all in the next five minutes, it has taken me the devil's own time to get the case into some kind of shape to sit still to get audited.

Male voice: How would you phrase the Help question on a preclear who has a stuck flow to trying to help a person, who failed and they died? How would you run that bracket?

I know of such a case. The case used to say, "Well, I can do mock-ups as long as the auditor will go fast enough." Now, this is a rather common one, and I'm not being critical of this case, but this gets very extreme.

I'd handle it the same way as any other bracket. I don't see anything special about it.

"Well, I just won't let you audit me anymore because you're not giving me the commands fast enough. And if you're not giving me the commands fast enough, why, I just can't keep up with you. After all, I'm a Tone 8.0 and I have great difficulty in going as slow as you."

Male voice: The person's been dead twenty years. Can you say, "How could they help you?"

Actually, the person would mock up a cat, mock up a cat, mock up a cat, mock up a cat; they actually could go j — j — j — j — i — it's just barely tolerable.

Oh, sure.

Case would have blown to flinders if you'd said, "Now, mock up a cat and slowly move the cat from where you have it over to the right side of the body."

Male voice: And the preclear keeps saying, "Well they can't anymore; they can't do that..."

Or — and don't forget this process — SCS on an object when you run into such anxieties: "Slowly move that object on the table toward the right. Slowly."

Good. Well, he'll say that for forty times, and then come up with one.

The person will experience an urge to slam the object over against the wall. It's just more than they could do, see? And where you would really get them would be in CCH 4 Book Mimicry. You take the book and you have them make this motion . . . (pause) and you say, "There."

Male voice: I see. All right. I wonder if there's a gimmick we could use.

Oooooooh!

No. Well, you could do a lot of things with that. You understand? You've got — always got a lot of answers to it. You could sit down and run the secondary of the person's death. That's one thing you could do. Another thing, you could just have him mock up the person and mock up the person and mock up the person and mock up the person, and all of a sudden something else would blow on the thing. You know? That'd be another answer to the same problem.

Just a little parallel movement that's going about one inch a second. He'll just say, "Vrro-oo-oh!" You got that?

Another thing is just to persevere with what you're doing. Or lead him in a little bit, make it conditional, "What if they were still alive, what — how could they help you?" You know?

This same person will want to be cleared in thirty seconds, but unfortunately will require four or five hours of "Sit in that chair" before they can be audited. Such a case is totally unaware of the auditor, and you should, when somebody starts giving you this old stuff of how much longer will it take and so forth, you should look into this.

Remember a thetan is always in a time called a thetan's time. See? Only, you couldn't call it a thetan's time because he's just — he's just not in a time stream. So that any facsimile that he has, has the time tag of "now" on it; then later on gets altered and has the time tag of "then" on it. And you get this sort of thing: Every once in a while a fellow cheats and they get déjà vu; he knows he's been there before, he knows he's done this exact thing, he knows this circumstance, this moment is happening once more. He cheats, in other words. And he thinks it's happening over again. But that isn't what it is; he merely has a terrific knowingness on what is happening.

The best way to look into it is CCH 3 or CCH 4 — slow movement. I've seen their brains practically spatter over the ceiling.

British movie of the fellow gets invited to a party and he knows horrible things are happening. The thing keeps running this idiotic cycle through and through and through.

Now, this anxiety level for speed is an inversion of actual speed. And the funny part of it is, the person in his usual life goes very, very slowly, is very poky, is highly procrastinative and can't get anything done. So, you see somebody arguing for speed who, at the same time, can't get anything done, you know what you're looking at. Do you see that?

For instance, I have an interesting gimmick. I sometimes have to consciously concentrate to watch the nowness of a television screen, because it is much, much too easy — since the whole program is in existence anyhow — it's much too easy to look at the will-be-ness of the television screen. Don't you see? Much too easy.

Well, don't get thrown by such a case's anxiety. It's an anxiety about time, and time is the single highest aberration. It's an intolerance of mest. It's lots of things.

Or it's very, very easy to read the back of a book before you read the front of it, just as you start to read the front of it, you know? Say, "What's this all about?" Well, you have to localize yourself very precisely in time, see, and you say, "Now I am reading this book, now, and it is two minutes after eight on this date of February the thirteenth, and this is the beginning of the book." It's almost by postulate that you see now.

Now, the difficulties of research have actually been more economic than they have been technical. At any time if a few hundred thousand dollars had been made available, why, this thing could have been brushed off much more rapidly and with greater positiveness. However, it was never made available except by individuals in the purchase of service and in their own activities.

So an individual answering a question about a person who's been dead, you see, is actually running the thenness of his deadness too thoroughly. And the whole engram is in there with the nowness of the deadness.

Therefore, we have emerged with an ability to clear, into a rather interesting universe of our own. We are not beholden to any organization; we can tell them all to go to hell, which is a wonderful state of beingness.

You know that was why Dianetics — that was one of the things Dianetics took apart. It was "it was happening now," and you told the preclear to go back on the track. What is interesting was that that was an incorrect command. Actually the track had to go up on the preclear and . . .

With what horror and disgust and so forth, a member of the American Phrenological Society said to me the other day — a few months ago, he said, "Well, if I could change IQs like that, I'd keep it — how I did it to myself, too." All sorts of accusations. You know, very accusative about us keeping these techniques to ourselves.

Yes?

We evidently have been a secret society all this time! Of course, that becomes very, very funny when every single one of us have been trying to give this information out here any way that we could for the last eight years.

Male voice: Would there be any possible value on helping a preclear to get mock-ups, of running a control-type process, something on the order of "You get the idea of making a mock-up you can see"?

Well, that is the general, official belief about Scientology — that it's carefully kept its information and data to itself. We're a mystery. We're a total mystery. Wonderful. Let them stick.

Yeah. Interesting.

I don't think you could give the information away now. I mean, somebody comes in, he said, "Now, how do you — how do you audit people?" and you told him. And "Well, now exactly what are the exact techniques you use?" and you told him. And he'd go away and . . . You get the idea?

Male voice: Might turn up some interesting things.

Now, we fortunately, as far as I'm concerned, don't have any breakthroughs to make in the field of dissemination. The subject goes as far as it works and that's the stable datum I'm stuck with. Won't go any further than that. But we used to have some randomity on this particular subject in which you would be very interested.

Oh yes. I can turn on somebody's mock-ups with an awful wham on this one: "Get the idea of making a brilliant mock-up. Now get the idea that would spoil the game and decide not to." They'll turn on mock-ups that are . . .

Now, this person who was so anxious to have it all done at once was not above telling people that he had already arrived. And we found some of the nuttier people in the country running around in circles telling everybody they were Clear. Until by '52, I think it was, just the fact that somebody said he was Clear was enough for everybody to know he was a nut!

That, by the way, was the critical process which told us that ability was never lost. Unwillingness was gained, but ability was never lost. And they'll turn up mock-ups. You can even say this to a preclear who was the blackest black V you ever saw and you — but the shock is so great you have to audit him for shock. And that is, say, "Get the idea of not putting a mock-up out in front of you." And a mock-up will appear. This is old reversal processing — "Try not to be three feet back of your head," you know?

This randomity must not be allowed to occur. Now, the way it's being prevented and the way it can be prevented very easily — since you will make the bulk of the Clears that are made here across the world — the way it can be prevented very easily is for every issue or two of Ability and every few PABs to carry a notation to this effect: " If he says he's Clear, ask him for his bracelet."

Yes?

Now, by making it possible for a professional validated auditor to administer a Clear test to a person he has processed or somebody else has processed, make out a proper form and swear to those findings — since I found out there is no slightest reason in the world to distrust you — and send it in to the HCO, a bracelet could be forwarded, providing it was paid for.

Female voice: I'd like to ask whether you think that clearing the word "help" in the sense of definition, as we did in the PE Courses, would pick up a group that's kind of snarling at each other.

Now, the fact is that the only bracelet which has been contracted for — two bracelets, actually, been contracted for, and one is as massive as this Explorers Club bracelet I am wearing here, which is a pretty massive bracelet — sterling silver. As a matter of fact, I think the links are even a little more massive than that. And the other is a lady's bracelet which is more delicate but is still on this subject of having mass.

A group?

Costs money to make such things because it is essentially jewelry. It isn't just a service ID stamp-out, you see? The top face of the disk on this identification bracelet has the "S" and double triangle, of which you're all familiar, embossed. Very large and embossed. Very pretty.

Female voice: Yes.

The other side of it has, on the lower half of it, has "Scientology Clear" and my initial. And up above, on the upper half of the inside of the bracelet, the person's name and the date of the test, all of which, of course, has to be engraved.

Oh yes. I think that would be a terrific idea.

Now, that is a Clear bracelet. And I just had an interview yesterday to get these things underway and manufactured and so on; that's rather easy to do. And, of course, by the time anybody — well, within a finite period of time, they certainly are — will be ready. There's always going to be a slight delay because it's an individualized basis of where somebody's name has to be engraved, and that is an engraving process which takes a day or two at the plant, don't you see?

Female voice: Just throw it out and let them hack it over.

Now, this bracelet is sufficiently jewelry that somebody would wear it, and it does cut down this particular randomity. There is even a staff member who is far from here, who has unfortunately carefully confided to a couple of people that the state of Clear had been attained by this staff member. Now, of course, this staff member was under discussion to be hauled in and be audited, same time this occurred. Almost tells you why, doesn't it? The person made a couple of mistakes and was about to be pulled in; the next thing we hear, there's a rumor going around about Clear.

That's a very interesting idea, clearing Help for a group.

You must keep people from saying more than they will say because they'll say things anyhow. But you must keep them from having ammunition in this particular line, otherwise the state will be invalidated and our work will be very definitely halted.

I could say something about clearing Help individually, on individual auditing. You know that if you clear carefully each word of the command separately, all by itself, all the way through, every time you bridge, you really shake this case up. And you'll find out somewhere along the line his definitions for these words begin to shift. And I have been doing this lately, with considerable profit. And I finally got a person who was giving me a dictionary definition of help to actually look at the word. That was quite a triumph. The person says, "Help — well, that's just help" and so on, "and somebody helps you." That was his definition for help, which I think was very cute. I let him get away with it. And after we'd run it for a little while, he says, "Help: that means if somebody is sick you do something for them." I knew we'd get to that sooner or later. That's help. He finally came out with a definition for help.

Now, don't you think that's fair: that a person that you cleared, and willing to say that was Clear and so forth, should be able, then, to get a proper identification from the HCO?

Yes?

Audience: Yes.

Male voice: The other day, talking about running flows on Help, you said you would change when you got the wide swings . . .

Don't you think that's ...

Yep.

Audience: Yes.

Male voice: . . . and as you continued going through the bracket these wide swings would narrow down till they approached null. Now, should we run it till it has come back, so it is pretty nearly null again, or while it's still swinging very widely?

All right.

Oh, I'd just keep running it wide. After a while it won't swing at all. It doesn't go down to a null, it just goes down to a no-react.

People spend money on jewelry anyhow, and the truth of the matter is that this is a very low price to pay for this piece of jewelry. I mean, just if you went down to the jewelry store and bought it, you'd say, "Holy cats! You can get one of those for that much?"

Male voice: Well, to less and less swing.

And the argument is, on the other side, that if it's very crude and it's made out of some base metal, nobody would wear it. They would get the ladies' wrists black and — or turn green with the spring.

Yeah. Well, it just doesn't act anymore. You keep holding up your hand as though the needle is registering something. The needle no longer registers.

Now, an individual — nobody is asking an individual to advertise himself or his wares or anything like that — but if an individual becomes aware of the fact, it is worth something to him to be known as such. People pay more attention to what he's saying, for one thing. And it is true that an awful lot of people to date now have said, "Now, don't breathe a word of this," you know? "Don't get people caving in on my head. Because I don't want to be in a cage." And with the same breath, in the same breath, heard about the ID bracelet and wanted one. I don't know how these things compare . . . There's nothing wrong with this at all.

Male voice: It just nulls.

I think, then, that a little propaganda along this line and a little cooperation here could prevent a great deal of the randomity which was taking place several years ago. What do you think about it?

You get .the idea?

Audience: Yeah, great. Yes.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Okay.

So it could swing or not swing, or rise or not. And all of these would be just the action — that what you're doing now with the preclear has no relation to the needle. And that's what you run into.

Now, on future organizational setups, I must say something about that. You should have something a little clearer about (quote) "organizations" (unquote) than you have.

Now, if you wanted to define that as null, and you wanted to say that the needle was being set for body resistance at that point, yes, you'd get a needle . . . You see what I'm making here?

We have had this sort of a situation: We have had what we called the field auditor and then we had the organizational member. And we have built up to some degree an artificial piece of randomity here and these two elements to some degree have snarled at each other from time to time and so forth. There's nothing wrong with this. It's rather standard to have people who are working away from a Central Organization be snarling or snarl at it, you know? That's quite common. And it's quite common to have people in the Central Organization snarl at people who are working a long way away. I mean, if you were working for an insurance company, you'd find the same thing would be true.

Male voice: Oh, I see.

We must face this possibility, that we are not being entirely factual. That's a possibility. Truth of the matter is, as I tried to tell you in '55 at the congress, this thing called organization is a total frost. There is no such thing, whether it's Prudential Life or anything else, as an organization which is then something. It's a collection of individuals. And it operates as well as these people are competent. And that's about all there is to it.

I'm just cautioning you against assuming that the idea of help is now doing anything at all with the needle.

My view of this situation is far different than other people's views. I look rather broadly at people in Scientology as people who are giving a hand; people who are helping out. And I don't see all this difference.

Male voice: Oh, I see.

There are some people whose wages I am directly responsible for, and some people whose income I am a little less responsible for but not much less. You understand that?

What it does is just swing it wider and wider and looser and looser, and after that it just settles down to being the simple resistance of the body on the meter. See, it actually — the actual thing about it is it gets wider and wider and then goes off the meter. And that you still have a reading, however, is no longer a reading on Help.

I don't care how far away they are from the organization — the clean nose, the propaganda campaign, the communication lines, the workability of the technique still established income, didn't it?

Male voice: One other question is, the most intimate terminal on this sheet, what's the "intimate" mean?

So you had some people who were scrounging without any guarantee of salary, and some people who were scrounging with a guarantee of salary. And that's about all the difference I would have ever been able to see between the field auditor and the organizational auditor.

To the problem. Let's say his problem of comparable magnitude is the fact that he's getting divorced on Tuesday. Most intimate terminal would be his wife, of course.

Now, people (quote) "in the organization" (unquote) sometimes become impatient with me for defending a field auditor. See, I say, "Well, I don't know he's doing all that," I will say rather coolly.

Let's say that he'd been fired yesterday. The most intimate terminal is the boss, or the person who fired him. See?

"Oh, you don't, huh?" See? "Yow-yow-yow! It's all bad over there, it's all bad over there." And generally, when I had reservations about it, my reservations were right. I made it so that they were right.

Male voice: Then it would be — would it be necessarily the one nearest to present time?

Anyway, the point — the point I'm making here is we are saddled with a pattern that we have taken from the Dark Ages. We are saddled with a pattern which is foisted off on us from the society itself, not something we have evolved.

Yeah. You'll find the fellow will comb back onto other bosses, other wives. The tremendous number of wives that men have had and the tremendous number of husbands that women have had make marital relations quite complicated, you know? But you're Q-and-Aing with the bank if you take another one. And you shouldn't Q-and-A with the bank. You can go right on down and trace this thing clear back to 1000 b.c., you know? Almost every time a person lives he gets married, if he lives long enough.

Because insurance companies and armies and other organizations, "act this way," we are prone to fall into this same pattern. Like, it would be very, very hard to totally break down an embryo HCA's idea of what education was and to educate him on an entirely different pattern than he was accustomed to, don't you see?

Male voice: Wasn't there a whole track incident called the Helper?

He brings his educational pattern in from the schooling he has had. And if you don't give him something like an educational pattern, he doesn't believe it.

Oh yes, there sure was.

Now, it's a very funny thing how artificial this pattern is. It's almost unbelievably artificial. And if you think of the schools of Asia, the way they conduct themselves, and if you can just shift your viewpoint so as to consider that unusual [usual], and then look at a Western school, then you'd see how unusual the Western school really is. You get the idea? Or, if you just look at an Asiatic school and see how unusual it looks to you, some of the things they do.

Audience: (various responses)

You see, there are different patterns of education. We don't have to have that sort of a pattern. Well, similarly, there doesn't have to be this amount of randomity between the field auditor and an organizational member. Doesn't have to be any such randomity at all.

Yeah. Yeah, you're liable to run into that. You run into almost anything.

And don't let your hair fly off of your scalp when I say so, but I have been actually thinking in terms of smoothing out these channels as well as possible and deintensifying this difference of identity between the field auditor and the staff auditor and so forth, you see? And I have been looking at that very, very thoroughly.

Male voice: And practically all of these volunteer deals on the track, too — "Won't you help us?"

I am trying to get the organizational house in order. Now, we do have an (quote) "organizational know-how." But all an organization is, is a series of terminals and communication lines, and it's a group of individuals who have a purpose. Each one has an individual purpose, and the whole group may have a collective purpose, but that's about as far as you get organizationally.

Oh yeah.

Well, I'd like to know where this collective purpose stops. When it's — does it stop with the Central Organization or does it stop with the whole field and the Central Organization, or does it stop with the Central Organization, the whole field and the rest of the world? I think by this time we are looking at a sufficiently high echelon of agreement that it doesn't exclude anybody out.

You can always count on this factor: That any time you had a road which led out of the morass, somebody used it to go in. The greatest argument against putting a good highway to Alaska was the fact that it could be used to come from Alaska to the US by tanks, which otherwise would have had a hell of a time getting here. Get the idea? So any time you had men of ill will, or thetans of ill will, you could be absolutely sure of two things: One, that they would use any button which would have freed, to trap; and the other, that they weren't around very long and got quickly trapped.

I'll tell you a ghastly joke. This is a very, very, very funny thing. The sort of a funny thing that you would throw yourself in a pit and cry over. It's a horrible joke. Just terrible: Do you realize, what you know with the Help button, that a person who is dead against the Central Organization won't blow Clear? What a ghastly joke. It doesn't happen to be because I say so or anything else. The person couldn't run — be running a flow of no-help in the direction of the Central Organization, don't you see, and still clear, because it's the source of the information on which he's being cleared.

Male voice: Yeah.

I think it's the most ghastly thing that has been seen here for a long time. I mean, it doesn't happen to be because I say so. You can put it to actual test. And I've smelled this for years. I mean, I've mentioned it a time or two, as a curiosa. I knew there was a button there, but I didn't know what the button was. And the button was this Help thing.

You could be sure of those two things. The second is very gratifying.

Therefore, you will see automatically that the attainment of a state of Clear should leave no further question in the minds of anyone concerning — in the Central Organization or the field, with regard to the intentions of the person.

Male voice: This brings up a point here. You mentioned the other day that ability goes along with willingness to help.

Absolute guarantee of good intentions, isn't it? This is one of the ghastliest jokes — it's one of the most horrible tricks of fate I have ever seen.

Mm-hm.

Now, the mystics all had this rigged this way: they had another one, they said, "You won't be given any power until you can be trusted with it."

Male voice: But there seemed to be some apparent variances from this. Such people as Hitler and Mussolini who apparently had a great deal of ability along some lines — at least, by golly, they sure caused effects all over the place — and yet, I wouldn't call that particularly high on the Help button. How would you explain that?

Well, they must have smelled this one somehow. They were around within breathing range of it. It wasn't workable because, believe me, when that was first said to me, I said, "That is perfectly true, and therefore — and if I assume any power, I shall certainly be — try to be worthy of it."

I wouldn't even try, beyond saying that the ability of the man that was left, the ability of the man that was still apparent, that was still functional, was only a small portion of the actual ability he could have exerted. I would say here you had somebody who was practically in a Clear state who was in no understanding at all, whose understanding was very poor and whose hates overrode his good sense. And the faster they overrode it, why, the quicker he went down the slot.

Oh, what was I saying? "I'll continue to help," was all I was saying. "I won't go running off someplace and chop everybody up."

Yes?

Now, we look at this and we see, then, that the dreams we had in 1950 could all come true. And they included such things as this: That you didn't keep shoving people off post or firing them. You audited them. Easy as that. You didn't keep shifting organizational patterns, you simply made more able individuals. You didn't reach into your hip pocket for the last penny, you simply made more because you could somehow postulate it into existence if you were serving a worthy cause.

Male voice: There's one thing that hasn't been cleared up on this specific universe terminal: Do you use the entire nine-way bracket, nine-step bracket, on the specific terminal?

We had all sorts of very roseate dreams in 1950. And then I realized that I should have done it years and years before 1950, but it actually required that much randomity and that many people and that much help to get the total show on the road.

Yes.

Well, it's pretty close to a total show on the road today. And all those dreams we had in '50 can come true. So let's make them so, shall we?

Male voice: Oh, you do.

Audience: Yes.

Sure.

Thank you.

Male voice: Thank you.

You don't have to. That's actually banging it around too much.

Male voice: Yeah. I use five.

Yeah, you've got a five-bracket that still works just fine. You can even get away with a three-bracket, you know?

Male voice: Okay.

It's what you can get away with, you know?

Male voice: I see.

If the fellow seems to be having difficulty with them, he's struggling with it and so forth, then is the time you pour on the coal. Then you say, "Well, we'll just run this nine ways and get it really cleaned up."

Take some guy whose father, for instance, sent him through school, whose father gave him all of his money, whose father stopped him at every turn, you know, so he could help him and so forth.

Male voice: How do you know?

And he's having a hell of a time. Yeah. Now, we run, "How could Father help you?" and he gets a brrrr — automatic. "How could you help Father?" and he goes into a total decline.

Well, right away we would say, "Father. Aha! Nine-way bracket, if you please. We'll beat this one to death." Get the idea?

Second male voice: Hm.

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Female voice: If you ran Not-know Union Station on a recent Clear, what would you expect?

Oh, I'd expect that he would probably enjoy the novelty of it, and it would probably flatten rather rapidly.

Female voice: Okay.

You bet.

Male voice: A real fast comment on this Help thing. Apparently, comm lag by itself is not an indication of stickiness, this is something we came up with.

Interesting, isn't it?

Male voice: But one level of comm lag was definitely stickiness — there just were no ways around. And another level of comm lag was, out at the higher level, was looking at the individual saying what his goals were and whatnot, for sure, with a certainty there was a way to help increase knowingness of the individual. And it was apparently a fairly free needle there, although the comm lags were, some of them, fairly long.

Yeah.

Second male voice: And the — now — the preclear can tell what the needle's doing, too.

Yeah. Should be able to.

Yes?

Female voice: Would taking Dianazene help in making faster progress?

Would taking Dianazene make for faster progress — the answer is no. Dianazene has been found to slow down auditing, not speed it up.

Female voice: Oh. Thank you.

You bet.

Male voice: Dianazene and pregnancy?

Rather violent. Dianazene moves engrams up and down and around and about and so forth.

Female voice: How about just taking extra b1 ,something like that?

Well, if you're going to take B1 , you will have to take calcium and ascorbic acid with it. If you do not take those two with B1 , you won't have any bones after a while. And that the chemical industry has not found this out tells us that they're not as serious as they might be about what they're doing.

Female voice: Well, would it help to take those three?

For fifty-five minutes of a session, you get a faster, more alert run, any time you take some B1 , at the beginning of a session. Any time a preclear begins to have nightmares while he's being audited, he should be fed some B1 If you feed him some B1 ,at the rate of every 50 milligrams of B1 he must have a minimum of 20 to 25 grains of dicalcium phosphate and must have a minimum of 250 milligrams of ascorbic acid. He must have that. And if you give that in that proportion, his nightmares will cease and desist.

Female voice: That's been my problem . . .

Yeah, well . . .

Female voice: . . . in processing.

. . . you just take all you want of it. But of course that tells you that if you take — I'm not prescribing for you, I'm telling you the chemical reactions of this — one, if you take 100 milligrams of Bl ,you have something between 30 and 50 grains of dicalcium phosphate and somewhere around 500 milligrams of C. And that's getting to be a real horse pill.

You know about the fellow that was given the pill by the veterinarian that he was supposed to give the horse? And he couldn't get the horse to take the pill, so the veterinarian gave him a big tube. And he was supposed to put this tube in the horse's mouth and take the pill, and he was supposed to blow the pill into the horse's mouth. The fellow came back the next day, he was looking very ill; the veterinarian said, "Did you put the tube in his mouth?"

And he said, "Yes."

And he says, "Well, what happened?"

And he says, "The horse blew first."

On that horrible and corny joke, we will terminate this.

It's been very, very, very much of a privilege to talk to you and give you this series of lectures. I hope they've done you some good.

Thank you very much.