Okay. This is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 24 July AD 12. Another lecture, briefer one on Routine 3GA.

Thank you very much. This is the what of what?

The way you detect whether or not a person is running well on Routine 3GA is as follows:

Audience: 24th.

They’ve got tone arm action, and the tone arm is routinely and regularly coming down as well as going up. The pc looks good, and the pc is not very ARC breaky, and the Want line gives the pc an occasional somatic, by which I mean pain. Pc wants to know what pain is, take a pin and shove it in him, that’s pain.

The what?

Sometimes a pc will tell you, „Yes, I have somatics.“ And by that they mean a sensation or a dull thump or a twitch, see? Now, we want pain, actual pain, pain on the Want line, occasional pain on the Want line, and nothing else on the Want line. No sen — no sensation — you know, wog — wog, dizziness and that sort of thing. And on the pull back from the goal, occasional pains. See, that’s the old Not — want line.

Audience: 24th of July.

And on the Oppose the Goal line, sen, winds of space, wog, bzmm — bzmm, twitches, thumps, see, but not pain. I would say so far as maybe occasionally, why, the pc get mixed up and name the wrong terminal, and they get a small pain on that line. But it would be wog — wog, mug — mug, and the who or what would pull back the opposition to the goal on that fourth line, or whatever the third — line three of listing is, also a bit of sen — sensation, dizziness, motion, that sort of thing — that occasionally turns on, or winds of space, momentarily, not to any great excessive degree.

It is? Imagine that. It's gotten to be the 24th and you didn't even know it.

Now, that’s what happens when a pc is going right and the auditor can read the meter and it’s the right goal and the lines are being listed okay and the mid ruds are being kept in, and so forth. That’s what should happen.

First lecture, 24 July AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

If that isn’t happening there are certain things going wrong, and I will tell you what those things are on the whole of Routine 3GA in a moment.

All right. Now, I'm going to give you a lecture now on bits and pieces of Routine 3GA. And I do not intend this lecture to be a complete summary lecture on the subject, but it covers changes, up-to-dateness and improvements on 3GA which will make it easier for you to get along and find the pc's goal and get your job done.

But let me tell you what happens if 3GA is going wrong. It doesn’t matter whether it is in — at what stage of listing the goal these things happen or at what stage of nulling or something of the sort — that is nulling goals — you haven’t found the goal yet, don’t you see, so the only thing that can be wrong before you find the goal is actually bad sessioning and bad metering. That’s all that can go wrong, see; that’s the only thing that can go wrong on finding them. There is something wrong with session form — well, TR 2 is bad, TR 1 is horrible, auditor can’t read the meter, this sort of thing. And I can give you a lot of other materials to make sure that that goes right. But if that is really going wrong, then it is just bad sessioning or bad metering. And pc isn’t ARC breaky, nothing is really going haywire if your — if your sessioning is all right and your metering is all right, you know.

Now, although you have seen over the past couple of months a new plateau in auditing formulating rather rapidly and it was quite apparent that I must be working exclusively on things like Prepchecking and that sort of thing, that isn't the case. Most of my attention is very squarely on Routine 3GA and lots of Clears. Now, that is very much to the point — very, very much to the point.

But let’s take after the goal is found. Let’s take after the goal is found and you start listing it. And now we’re going to find several symptoms if it is the wrong goal. And these things are very, very important for you to know, because by George, no pc ever went Clear on the wrong goal, because you list the wrong goal and it’s just more alter — is and more alter — is and more alter — is.

Why you aren't getting Clears goes something like this: The first Routine 3 cleared those who were lucky enough to have found on them a goal which contained their terminal name. It's as simple as that. They found a goal, offhandedly found a terminal and then it turned out that the pc could be run on the goal which included the terminal; that's — we have an example right here.

There are four things out which can make a goal read. It’s the wrong goal, but it’ll read — boy, will it read, beautifully every time. Something has been suggested on the goal, something has been suppressed, something has been invalidated or something has been a failure to reveal — something has not been revealed.

Now that was the first of the Routine 3 successes and, of course this wasn't a very high percentage because the "to be" goals are in the minority. And we had a "to be." If you had a "to be" goal and you were lucky enough to have found the "To be (blank)" that "blank" as the terminal for the goal that was found, why they went Clear and that was fine.

You in actual fact only have three of these which are capable of making a goal read that isn’t the goal — only three of them — but the fourth is supplementary to it: Suppressed. Because the wrongness, you see, won’t read. If you’ve suppressed an invalidation you don’t get the invalidation to read, don’t you see?

Now, the next thing that was necessary was a better method of handling this particular goal. And the first Clears made way back when, were found by isolation of a rock. I did the assessments. That doesn't count. I could probably clear people with fifty dozen different technologies, but the point is not whether I can clear people. That's not what we are trying to prove. We wouldn't get very far if that was all that ever happened in Scientology. It would be something on the order of two a year or — you know something like that — three a year between fishing trips and... you know how idle I am anyway.

So you’ve got — that’s right, you suppress an invalidation, you can suppress a failed to reveal, you can suppress a suggestion and you can’t get the thing to read. So you get Suppress in first. First you get in Suppress and then you get in Suggested — if you want to know the actual apple pie order here — and then you get in Invalidated and then you get in Failed to Reveal.

But we use the same 5-way bracket with the addition of a — of a Prehav Scale. With 5-way bracket — was on the original twentieth — Clears and then we used this same thing, but we additionally added in the Prehav Scale to that and that isn't actually adequate to do more than key out the GPM.

Now, this is quite elementary because anybody can tell a Failed to Reveal. It’s the dirty needle. It’s the little, tiny, minute rock slam; that little agitated rock slam multiple read. You say the goal and you get a multiple read. You say the goal and you get a multiple read. You get — say the goal and it goes bzzt — bzzt — bzzt. Well, that’s a Failed to Reveal. You can always identify a Failed to Reveal. A Failed to Reveal never reads any other way. It can be such a tiny bzzt that at first glance it might look like a tick, but even that is rare. Usually it’s a — it’s a bzzt usually about at sensitivity 16 that is about an eighth of an inch wide, or something like that. If you can imagine a rock slam an eighth of an inch wide, well that’s that dirty needle, and that’s something hasn’t been revealed.

Now, it is rather remarkable that you can key out the GPM, because if you found two, three, four, five wrong goals on a pc and tried to list each one in turn, you'll find this, this GPM is enough to get him down on the mat and break his flaming neck. you know, this is nothing to monkey with.

So that leaves only two things that will make a goal tick — tick, and one is a suggestion, which is evaluation, our old two first lines of the Auditor’s Code, for God’s sakes, way back then, and the other is an invalidation. The two „ — tions“ and that’s the only thing oddly enough that can make a goal go tick — tick — tick, like a goal when it isn’t the goal.

There's practically nothing disturbs the GPM; that I can guarantee. All experimental activities in an effort to take the Goals Problem Mass and dispel it by ordinary repetitive processing have failed. The best they have ever done was when the goal was very accurately found, was to key the goal out temporarily up to the time the person made his next heavy postulate.

Now, any goal on the list, any goal on the list can be made to read like the goal by a knuckleheaded auditor — any goal on the list. We’ve got a goal „to catch catfish,“ and it is no more the pc’s goal, see, than „climbing clouds“ is, see. But the auditor looks very hard at this goal, and he says „to catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish. Say you know, that reads every time. To climb clouds, to climb clouds, to climb clouds, that doesn’t read,“ and so on down the list. Now, he comes back through, and so help me Pete, „to catch catfish,“ tick, „to catch catfish,“ tick, „to catch catfish,“ tick. It’ll go right on through till the end of the session, too. It’ll go right on through to the end of the goals list, too, huh — huh. Why? There was a hidden invalidation along with the evaluation. The auditor seemed to give the goal an isness. The auditor, in any way at any stage, even at the end, misreads his meter, or he’s got an invalidated goal that’s already invalidated, and looks up brightly, and looks like he’s found the goal, and he says, „Well, that — that — that reads; that reads every time.“

Of course, you've improved him to a point where he can make better postulates. That's great. That's a self-defeating activity, isn't it? At any given moment he is liable to make a postulate of, "I don't have . . ." And all Clears go through this stage for the first few weeks, you see — "I really don't quite know whether — what I'm walking a tightrope and dare I breathe." And this sort of a state of mind exists and they have been known to say, "Well, I miss talking to my fellows and I feel all out of sorts with everyone and if I were just aberrated again why I would be happier," see. And they've had it, see. "I'll be aberrated," they say.

Now, just prior to that, as the auditor went over the final list, let us say — usually this is a condition happening on final lists because the goal has to be a little bit sticky to get into this shape — as the auditor went over it the pc might have said to himself, „To catch catfish, that’s a silly damn goal, ho — ho.“

Now, the GPM was there to help them out and it would key back in again. In other words, you put an individual into a temporary state and improve his ability to do something and then he goes on and does this thing and if the temporary state you put him into is a temporary state and not a permanent state, why he, of course, hits the banana peel right at that point.

On the next pass around on the nulling the auditor says — of course now, the thing will tick every time because the pc has invalidated it — “Now, let’s really hang this thing up but good, let’s just drive it in with spikes and make this thing look just like a goal.“

Now, I want to call to your attention that everything that has come along in states has been achieved, at least temporarily, many times. The data on this is good.

The auditor says, „Well, hahhhhh, that reads every time. To catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch cat — .“

Now, early Clears were freed from engrams by an accustoment to masses. You accustomed him to confronting masses by gradient scales was the first method of clearing That's clear back 1948, something like that, see.

The pc has already said, „That isn’t my goal.“ The pc says, „Are you sure?“ — see, invalidation number two, see?

Now, any observation that I have done as it comes along is based on the actual observation of the critter. Now, you bang somebody out of his head, you take a — take a roaring psycho and you bang him out of his head and he goes out of his head clean, not dragging a mass with him and he's out there, twenty/thirty feet away, but still talking through his body — you've just got about the sanest, wisest man you ever had anything to do with. This is quite remarkable. He would stay that way for minutes. You talk about achieving a temporary state, if you wanted to be excessively cruel to somebody, just do this several times to demonstrate to people how you could change things and you'll louse him up but good.

The auditor says, „Oh yeah, yeah. It reads. To catch catfish, to catch catfish. It reads every time, ha — ha — ha — ha.“

But that temporary state of Theta Clear has been achieved many times, minutes, days — but in no case longer than five or six days, that I have any record of.

Pc says, „My God, that doesn’t sound like my goal.“ Invalidation number three, evaluation, invalidation, evaluation, inval — . Get the idea? Bang, bang, bang, bang.

A guy is beautifully Theta Clear — this is why the principle of banging him out of his head, don't you see, you know and he's exteriorized. And he takes his car and he drives downtown and he gets interested in the skyscraper tops around him, you see and he forgets the car as it is sitting there and there is his body in the car at the stop light, you know. And the next thing you know everybody starts hooting horns and there is a lot of confusion. And then he suddenly realizes he's totally capable of abandoning both body and car and he goes back in his head and the next time you can't get him out with an hydraulic jack. The same action will not work this next time, because he has learned that he can't trust himself and all the mechanisms of aberration are still there ready to snoffle him up again. See, he's got all the ridges all ready to pounce, see. All he's got to do is hit the right associative restimuli and bang, there he goes.

Wow, this thing will check out by any knuckleheaded checker, and you start listing it — here we go. The tone arm will start going up and stop moving. Maybe this is after ten or twelve hours of listing. Don’t expect it to happen right away. Usually four and a half, five, something like that, sticks. Pc starts to look awfully bad, bla — bla — glaa — glaa, and so on and sort of caved in.

Operating Thetan to a lesser degree, but observed, but observed. People have spoken in the middle of the room. People have lifted match sticks. People have mocked-up something that was a shimmering something sitting out there and everybody looking at it saying, "uugghhhh," you know. And of course everybody said, "uugghhhh," and the guy didn't do it anymore, you know.

In session they are ARC breaky as hell when you’re trying to list. Yap — yap — yap — yap — yap, chop — chop — chop — chop — chop, you just can’t keep your rudiments in during listing. And the somatics are wrong. If you get any pain at all, which is highly unlikely — so unlikely that you say: An absence of pain equals wrong goal. No pain: wrong goal.

Release — oh, there probably isn't a person in this room that isn't a Release. But the state is so downgraded in relationship to other states, that very few Scientologists ever realized they've ever attained it, you know. They just know that they're on their way and they'll get better and everything will be fine, and so forth. They never think of this in terms of a Release.

The pc gets sensation, dizziness and so forth, on the Want line. Who or what would want goal? And now the pc after a while, after ten or twelve hours, starts going wog — wog — wog — wog, gets sensation, winds of space. If there is any pain at all occurs, it will occur, perhaps, on the oppose — which is highly unlikely that any will occur — but oppose is more comfortable to run than want — Want line. The other two just compound the felony.

And we've got a bunch of Release buttons. If you want to apply for a Release button do so. Beautiful little S and double triangle with a great big red R in the middle of it. Those pretty little stick pins is what they are and they'll be along shortly. They are coming from Ireland. I think they are probably held up in customs.

Oddly enough a pc very often, if it’s anywhere close to his goal at all, will run it with great, apparent satisfaction; will go around and tell people this is his goal; will figure out his life by it, although there are some blank sections that don’t quite add up. But he won’t be unhappy with it. He won’t be going around telling you it’s a wrong goal. Matter of fact, may even get mad at you when you try to tell him it isn’t his goal, because he’s so anxious to have a goal, don’t you see. Any goal is better than no goal. It gets him off the horror of search, search, search for the goal, don’t you see? He’s more likely to hold on to it than he is to give it up.

The future of the British nation is held up in customs! Anything — anything you haven't got, why if you want to know where to lay your hands on it, the best chance is just customs, you see.

And those are the only symptoms: high TA that sticks, pc looks bad, pc ARC breaky and the somatics are wrong. They are reversed if they exist at all. They’re all opposition somatics, actually. Opposition somatics are sensation, dizziness, winds of space, that sort of thing, and anything he lists gives him those.

We brought a little boat in the other day from Norway and customs is just down there worried sick. I mean the customs officers are pacing up and down the dock. They're afraid they won't get their few pounds duty for the stamps, you see; and they were on the phone to Peter. The engines had hardly cooled off, you see, before they were on the phone.

Now, if you keep going in this direction you’re adding more and more alter — is to the bank, and the bank gets heavier and heavier, and thicker and thicker, and the pc feels all bowed down and crushed.

We had no complaints though. They held up — all they did was, it — I think it was only a month or two that they held up the children's toys from America recently. They were doing well. The beep meter I think was held up for a year.

Now, in actual listing of the right goal there is a certain amount of bank gets thicker, there is a certain amount of wog, there is a certain amount of these other things, so very often a pc will persist hoping that they will go by and they will run out. But they do not; they get worse and they get worse and they get worse and they get worse and they never get any better. And that is the difficulties of running a wrong goal.

So if you've lost anything or aren't receiving anything, phone customs. Probably get it there.

Now, a wrong goal is found by bad sessioning and bad metering, and by not hitting the thing right or checking the goal out right at the end. It’s pretty easy to find a right goal.

Well, customs on a national scale is a sort of a ridge. If you don't believe it go down to any customs in any country and you'll see the stuff trying to get out of the country banged up against the stuff trying to get into the country and it's just about the wildest ridge you ever laid your eyes on.

Now, I’ve told you what is the symptoms of bad 3GA are. Somebody doing 3GA wrong after the goal has been (quote) found (unquote), you get those manifestations that I have just given you. Those things occur in the pc.

I remember the first time I ever mentioned this was during the Philadelphia lectures. And one of the boys there in that particular unit had to go down to customs to get some books that Mary Sue was busy mimeographing over in London. And he had just heard about this, you see, in a lecture and he had thought, "Well, it's one of Ron's exaggerations, hyperbole, you see and metaphor." Or something like that. And he came back and his eyes were as round as saucers, you see. He couldn't even get into the shed because of this ridge, you know. It was the wildest ridge he'd ever looked at.

And the remedies of 3GA are these: In listing on goals, the goal is unrevealed — it’s unrevealed yet — so get list complete or find out why pc won’t give it. That’s a highly generalized statement. These are the things that you as — if you were a D of P or something like that and somebody said, „Well I just can’t find the goal,“ and so forth, you know. That’s number one that you would tell him, see. „Well, your list is incomplete so go on listing and get the goal,“ you see? That’s that. That’s what you’d tell him, just automatically.

Well, a thetan advancing to higher states, if he advances through the barbed wire, ridges, barriers, impasses, trigger mechanisms, booby traps that the mind is replete with, of course moves into these states bypassing these things. Why, he's taken too short a cut and the next thing you know he winds himself up in a ridge or something And that's what happens, that's how they — how they nose dive. you can shortcut any of these states, in other words, to some degree. And then because you haven't actually solved why he is in that — in the state he was in and then he gets pulled in like a demonstration vacuum cleaner, you see?

There aren’t any other reasons except this one: bad metering. We assume the fellow is running 3GA, don’t you see. Let’s not get picky as to whether or not when he reads the E — Meter he is holding his pinkie at exactly fifty — three degrees from the horizontal while he shifts the tone arm. You understand? That is not what’s wrong. See, that’s not what’s wrong. It’s the goal isn’t on the list or the metering is bad. See that? It’s elementary my dear Watson. That’s the only two things that really go wrong, assuming that the guy sits in the chair and goes through Model Session and gets the goals listed and nulled. You are not even assuming that’s good, and you are not going to find fault with it particularly. That’s not what you are going to pick on.

Now, the isolation of why and what pulls him back in marked a tremendous upsurge in clearing because we had our paws right on what happened to the bank, why the bank was that way and so forth. And we called this the Goals Problem Mass because the individual has had problems. And he has had problems as identities and these problems as identities of course, found him as an identity part of a larger problem. And, of course, he was the mass, the identity and the mass, which was countering another identity and mass and you got these two masses counter-opposed — and you made a problem which hung up in time, very exactly balanced. And then he got to be another identity and this hung another one up and then that was opposed to another mass. And then, then he gets along and his conglomerate aberration by this time is enough to pose him — as a problem to other masses and other masses as a problem to him, don't you see.

You are D of Ping some auditor, and he just can’t seem to get to first base, and he can’t ever find the goal; then you are going to tell him two things. „Well, the goal isn’t on the list so get it complete,“ or „Your metering stinks.“ It’s one or the other, and of course bad metering would have missed the goal. Prepcheck would have revealed a wrong goal. You see? All that would have been — been remedied actually in the — in just the standard rundown of 3GA. So only these two things stand out as being things that could be wrong with trying to find somebody’s goal, and those are the things that are wrong — goal hasn’t been revealed or the metering is bad, one or the other. Could be both, you know, too.

And you get this thing and it's just adding up. And if you want to know how many of these identities there actually are in the bank, irrespective of the person's goal, just go by doubles. Do about five hundred doubles and you would have the first trillion years of his existence, you see. About five hundred doubles. Now, how many is five hundred doubles?

And the next one is when the goal has been found and the pc is turning up with these upper symptoms, which I’ve just given you, and the goal has been found, then this is what you do: There are only three things that can be wrong. In listing from a goal, the only thing that can be wrong is the goal or the lines or the metering. Now, that’s all that can be wrong.

Well, is — if you — if you started the first day and saved a penny and you doubled your money every day thereafter at the end of thirty days I think you have some, oh, it's — I think it's better than a million dollars.

And if you were D of Ping somebody and he was listing on lines, and the pc was starting to get a high tone arm and it was sticky and the pc looked bad, let’s just say, „that’s enough.“ Nothing else going on, the pc isn’t particularly screaming, and — and the somatics — well, he’s not getting anything. He really can’t tell about the somatics. No, he isn’t getting any sensation, or something like that, and yet you’re listing, and this is what you’d pick on. Or if the pc was screaming ARC break session after session after session, he just couldn’t hold any rudiments in at all, these three things are what you do: You recheck the goal and recheck the lines and remedy the bad metering, see?

Doubling goes very fast. So this as an individual is opposing the world as an identity and the world is opposing him as identities and we eventually get this thing stacked up and it becomes pretty wild. And he packs this around and we call it a reactive mind.

And if the somatics didn’t exist, there was no pain of any kind whatsoever, and there was plenty of sen, sen, sen, and the bank getting thicker and thicker, and bearing the pc down harder and harder, and more and more, and all that sort of thing, then it’s these three lines that you would check, see? These three things, is recheck the goal, recheck the lines and remedy the bad metering. That’s all you’d tell this auditor. Don’t tell him anything else. Don’t say, „Well, we’ve got to reform the lines, and I think the best thing that we can do in the reformation of the lines — I — I — think you’re better — perhaps it’s your TR 4, or maybe the pc has a missed withhold.“

Now, the anatomy of the reactive mind is what we are attacking when we are clearing somebody. And if we want this fellow to - assume a stable case gain then we have to get out of the road what is going to unstabilize the gain we give him.

I’ll tell you a missed withhold a pc had who was very ARC breaky in session. One of the lines was wrong, and no auditor would listen to him. It was a missed withhold. It was totally missed on and on and on, and the pc only required a few more hours of listing to go Clear after the line was corrected, which is quite interesting. See, missed withhold.

So the problem of clearing is actually not making a Clear, but making a Clear who will stay Clear. That, that is the — that is the problem. This state has been achieved temporarily, you see, many times. Some of them quite with good longevity, as far as clearing is concerned. Not speaking now of theta clearing. But the GPM had been keyed out and there it was still waiting — and he looked at the wrong blond or something like that and — bow! There he went again. That was his favorite oppterm, don't you see, and snap and bang and we have the GPM all confounded and complicated once more.

So we just don’t go into those things. Don’t go into the mechanics of anything. There’s only three things wrong if 3GA starts wrong, and that’s you recheck the goal and you recheck the lines and you check the metering. That’s it.

In other words, we are dealing here with a conglomerate mass which goes in pairs, but the pairs oddly enough do not come apart easily unless you get the other pairs restraining the pairs. You are really basically dealing in pairs, but you have another identity opposite each one of the pairs. Don't you see? So it's a four, it's a four-item package by the time it gets up into its full, highest blown complexities.

Now, it’s very fortunate for you that nothing else can be wrong with 3GA. That’s all that can be wrong because we assume the fellow — the auditor can sit in the chair, we assume that he can go through his Model Session. We can assume that his TR 1 is understandable. See, we can under — we can assume all of these things because they vary in degree from auditor to auditor, and it isn’t their varying in degree which causes the pc to have a high TA, to look bad, to be ARC breaky and have sensation instead of pain, see? It isn’t those things doing it, so don’t ever look for anything small.

You've got just the pair, which is the Goals Problem Mass and then just for good measure the thetan stacks in two more identities outside the pair, each one of which reinforce the collision of the pair.

Now, you think you’re jumping off for something adventurous when you try to find out a pc’s goal. That’s nothing compared to jumping off for listing his lines, because you have now hit the silk, and it is in the lap of the gods whether the chute opens or not, see. It’s just that. You’ve jumped off into nowhere. You’re committed because if you are wrong, the next time you try to find the pc’s goal it’s going to be much more difficult than it was.

These last two went undetected until some months ago, and then realized that we could smooth it out much faster by taking into account these others. You don't go above this four.

And supposing you found two wrong goals on the pc, one after the other, and listed both of them. Well, the thing you’d do would be to find — try to find the right goal again and you take a third one. And supposing that was the wrong goal, how harder — much harder do you think the goal will be found next time?

You, by the way could go to sixteen because frankly, fortunately for you, they blow. But outside, you see, these first two, well, you actually could pressure in and get rid of the collision of these two and disintegrate the mass. That's theoretically, see, but you do it much more easily by taking in the retarding pair on the outside of the identity. See, so you got four.

Well, I know whereof I speak because I’ve had five wrong goals found on me in the name of research. I could go on the mother plea, you know, „What I have suffered for you children,“ you know?

Now, in actuality there are two more outside those and two more outside those and two more outside those, up to the number of about sixteen. And then frankly, added into the GPM, but not particularly — you pay no attention to it in clearing. You have a whole new sixteen known as "the other" see. So now you've got sixteen versus sixteen. Do you see how that is? Well, there's thirty-two flows, you see. And of course you can get a terminal that represents any one of them. You'll find them in cluster.

But actually I know what I am talking about here. Very much on the groove, both from watching you, subjective reality, experimentation on it. It has not been easy to pioneer this particular track into 3GA because the GPM is nothing to stand up and box with, man. And I would say this, „I have been standing up and boxing with it without any information about it at all, originally, and it’s got teeth, man. The thing’s got teeth.“ Boy, you never felt some of the somatics like can turn on when you do it completely wrong. Let’s really be wrong with it. Man, that’s a matter of waking up screaming.

Now, of course if you wanted to be idiotic about it, you could spring it on up the line, if you had to and you don't have to. You'd have thirty-two versus thirty-two and you could also have sixty-four versus sixty-four. And then, of course, you could have the hundred and twenty-eight versus the hundred and twenty-eight. You get the idea? And then you make up another few years of a thetan's travail on the track.

I’m not trying to exaggerate this. 3GA is pretty good, but you mishandle the GPM, you mishandle auditing, you let auditors start auditing goals and finding goals on pcs that don’t know — even know how to sit in a chair, you’ll regret it. I can hear it now, two o’clock in the morning your Telephone will be ringing. „My God, what do I do?“

And by the time you've added this up by doubles on top of the — of any cycle that the fellow has lived on the track. Oh, well, let's say the last hundred million years, see. Let's call that a cycle. That's very, probably a very short cycle. Cycles ere as short as sixty thousand years, ten thousand years, and so forth. But for goals purposes, the way we are assessing now, you will find out that the cycles you're handling usually exceed a hundred million. They are greater than that. We've reached that far back and we're probably cleaning up dozens actually of — of cycle GPM. You see we have reached that far back into the bank.

Well, the pc, after they’ve been wrong listed for a while, are not in a state of mind to have another goal found on them, because any auditing at this point starts to beef up the bank. Now, that the bank has started to beef up, anything goes on from there and beefs up the bank further. And they don’t want to be audited, and that is another little manifestation that you can put down. A goal that has been wrong and it has been listed — that person will then pretty well routinely tell you they don’t want any auditing. And the only hope in hell for them is some good auditing.

Well now, look at the multiplicity of items. Now, how many items do you finally list? How many items do you finally list when you are listing out a goal? Well, a very ordinary figure is four lists of ten thousand each. I would consider that an ordinary figure.

So you see, I’m not trying to make you scared of the GPM. I’m not, I’m not, because I go on the basis that if I could stand up and box with some critter, you can. And it won’t kill you dead; you’ll just wish you were, but you’ll come out all right.

In actual fact it isn't quite that wild. I mean, I wouldn't — I wouldn't be upset, you see, if it took that many. see that's within an auditor's expectancy. Four lists of twenty-five hundred each is about, I think from first glance if I remember rightly, it would be considered more or less normal at the moment. We've got data on this now, you see. We've got quite a bit of data.

Now, how do you go about these various operations? Well, I’m not trying to give you a summary lecture of all of 3GA. You’ve already got the parts of 3GA. I want to give you a few little modifications and changes and some stuff that I’ve dug up here in the last few weeks on 3GA that will be of great value to you.

But we don't care how many. All we care about is how Clear? That's the thing. We want a free needle on each one of the four lists we are going to list from the goal found. Each one listed to free needle and then you're fairly — you're fairly well off then in a stability.

You must complete the list. I’ve already told you that it takes about 850 goals plus to get a complete goals list. A pc can do this on his own. And actually I’d keep — if I had a pc, I’d just keep kicking him in the head till he gave me a goals list 850 long. Why? Because it’s unembarrassing for him to sit in the quiet of the evening with nobody around and write down these appalling goals, you see? In fact, you are more likely to get the goal on the list, see. He isn’t embarrassed by your presence, or she isn’t embarrassed by your presence, you know? They write down the goals that occur to them. So you want about 850 plus. That’s absolute minimum, 850.

Now, why are you well off in a stability? I mean, why do you think this fellow will stay Clear — any clearer than a 5-way bracket by the Prehav Scale? Well, it's because we're taking what was alter-ised and unalter-ising it, if you follow me.

But what makes a minimum goals list? It is not for your benefit, because you’ve been having a hard time establishing this, an absence of TA action. Take that as a matter of course. It’s actually an absence of needle action.

The fellow made a basic postulate of some sort or another. He had this basic postulate and then he couldn't follow out this basic postulate and every time he tried to follow it out or didn't follow it out, why, he'd run into alterises. And these alter-ises or alterations of his basic would form mass and this mass thus formed accumulated and accumulated and accumulated.

You want a goals list so complete that when you read a series of goals on that list to the pc, five or six goals, half of them will give you no twitch at all; another one will twitch maybe once in three reads; another one will possibly twitch once, and one will twitch twice to stay in. And that would be about it. It’s about — actually six is an unhappy number — it’s more like — more like ten. You want about one in, in ten.

And it's something like there's one log can be pulled out of a log jam and cause the whole log jam to go swish down the river. See there might be millions of logs in the jam, but there's just one key log You pull that one out and nothing else can hold.

Now, this violates a datum you’ve had for a long time, that if the needle stopped twitching on goals — you’re going to get a twitch anyway someplace or another. I find, recently, on very careful experimentation, that you can list the goals list down so completely that goal after goal, read after read, three reads per goal, and you get no single twitch for three and four goals in a row. And about the time you decide the middle rudiments must be out, out, out, why, all of a sudden one ticks. You say, „Well that’s nice.“ You get a tick, so you know the pc is still reading on the meter. But that’s about all it would tell you.

Well, the difference in the simile here is that when you pull out the key log, the goal and so on, when you pull that out the logs vanish, see. you — when you finally listed this thing out no logs go down the river. See, the trick is there were no logs there in the first place, that weren't alter-ised logs, see. The log existed because it was an alter-is of the prime postulate, see. So in the absence of the prime postulate you haven't got any logs. And that's why we know it doesn't key in, because we have reached the state of "ain't."

On first nulling you get three in per page — per sheet. And on second nulling, why, you get almost a scrub. It goes down to about thirty goals. Now, that’s how complete a list can be. These ticks that you get are specific ticks. If you get a little, tiny rock slam when you read a goal as an instant read — of course they’re classic instant reads. None of this slightly early, or anything like that. Man, you really got to watch that with goals, you see? You could leave something in if you weren’t sure. Don’t go beating your brains out because it isn’t important whether or not you leave it on the list the first time. But don’t go to the point of leaving them all on the list the first time because the pc has a constant dirty needle. That’d be nonsense.

Now, it took me quite a while to find out, even after we started these later — these later Clearing Processes, it took me quite a while to find out what happens to the logs, see. Where'd they go, you know? I thought they might go backtrack. I had to be sure, you see. They might go backtrack or they sort of, you know, disappear somewhere on the track or they fit themselves on the track and there they sit, you see, so they are not bunched up now. And the fellow is safe for a long time because they won't bunch up like that again except by accident.

But you’ve got all of these goals, and they’re falling off left and right, and they’re nulling down, bangety — bangety — bangety — bangety — bang, an occasional tick is all you require to tell you that the pc is still reading on the meter. Goals lists can be complete enough to leave a completely limp goals list.

Well, that doesn't happen to be the case. The answer is there are no logs. See, because the logs are composed of an alter-isness of the basic purpose and that is the mass of which they are composed. That's the only way they can continue to exist and that's the only mass in them. And when you get the alter — the thing that is alter-ised out, you get no mass. So that it's a vanishment of mass. It's not an erasure of mass, it just — because all the mass is just an alter-is.

Now, if that goals list doesn’t add up to a complete limpness, make absolutely sure that it isn’t your rudiments that are giving you action. Rudiments might be wildly out, you see? Make sure your rudiments are in well.

All this is quite fortuitous. You're just lucky, that's all. I didn't plan it that way. Needn't thank me when your bank as-ises. Only thank me for the fact that it does, not why it does, you see. Because the basics of the thing are, of course, have been hunted up.

When you’re reading that list don’t be alarmed if two or three times a page, particularly early in sessioning — if your meter reading is good this can happen to you — I mean even if your meter reading is good this can happen to you — that early on, on nulling of a goals list your pc goes bzzt all — every once in a while, and tick, tick, tick, tick, and slash, slash, and then constant dirty needle and oh dah and random, and don’t be upset if the pc’s needle goes to hell. You just get competent in straightening out pcs’ needles. That’s all.

Now, it's on the basis of the fact that what a thetan made he can unmake. And it is not based on this premise of the thetan that anything you make is better than making nothing, because this bank is wholly composed of things he wishes to Pete he had never made. And that's why it's so invisible to him. It's the things — it's the things that if he just sat down and thought about it for a little while he just wouldn't want to have anything to do with it at all. So he puts it into an invisible crush. He makes a superinvisibility out of this bank and only after you begin to audit the right goal does it start showing up to any degree. And then all of a sudden he becomes aware, "Where did this come from?" You got it? "Oh, no wonder I squinch my eyes all the time. you see there's a black ridge been sitting across from. . ." as the thing dissolves, you know. Where did it go? Well, it didn't go anywhere, see. It was composed of an alter-isness, which now not alter-ised, isn't.

Now, I’ve seen a pc’s needle straightened out in many different ways. The easiest way to straighten them out is get a fast check on the middle ruds. That is the most predictable and easy way. Now, you can introduce a lot of corny rudiments and dream ups of one kind or another. You can introduce a lot of extraordinary activities here to clean this thing up, but fish and fumble, of just sitting back, is something that you are eventually sometimes driven to. You can’t get it in with the middle ruds, and you don’t know what the hell it is. You’re just in a drift. Well, sit back and say, „Well I’m going to see what this is doing,“ and just do it by steering, fish and fumble. You see the needle go bzzzt and bzzzt, and over again. You say, „What did you think of then? Whatcha looking at? There. There. There.“

It's like making taffy. It's like making taffy and then uninventing sugar and water. Of course, there would be no taffy. You've uninvented them. you picked them up prior to the time you made the taffy and then of course, there is no taffy. This is the — no matter how sticky the taffy was of course, if you took a time prior to the time you made it and made the sugar and the water and the flavoring cease to exist, then, of course, the taffy's gone too. No matter how many times you'd pulled it or anything else, it would still go.

„Oh, nothing, I — I just — just the pattern of the table here in front of me, that’s all I keep looking at. It’s just like my mother’s boudoir table, you know!“ Bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzzt, you know?

That, by the way, is a happy thought to those who had been stirring their banks for a long time.

And you say, „Well, anybody miss a withhold about that?“ or something like this, see?

Now, it doesn't happen to matter — it doesn't happen to matter what happened to you in auditing or what got keyed in, if you get the basic postulate and that section of track from then till now goes. Because, of course, any bad auditing or upsetting situations in auditing or ARC breaks or not liking this, that — those all go. They're all pieces of log too that are made out of alter-is. Don't you see? And you don't have to go back and erase all the bad sessions you have ever had or something like that, after you have gotten Clear. You're also lucky there if you have ever had any.

„Oh yeah, I broke all of her perfume one day, ha — ha. I nearly forgot about that.“ And so on.

Now, to a large degree clearing depends upon an automaticity of perfection, which isn't an automaticity, but a truth. You see, if you'd look at it, you say, "If you took off all of these other things, why, something would be left." Well, fortunately for you something is left, which is you. But you have a sort of an automaticity which isn't an automaticity. I mean it — it's just an isness. It's a total isness.

The needle is fine, goes. That’s kind of an extraordinary solution, but I have been driven to it.

Your predilection for perfection is the only thing that causes you to find fault with the universe and this manifests itself on lower scale in nattering. And on upper scale just things straighten out.

Pc’s needle becomes utterly unreadable. It doesn’t matter whether you are reading a goal to them or not reading a goal to them, it just keeps going bzzt — bzzt — bzzt — bzzt. You don’t know whether it’s falling on this or falling on that, and it’s just gone dirty in the process of reading the goals no matter how limp the list was. Doesn’t mean the list was charged. The pc gets kind of anxious, the pc goes out of session, and remember those goals are awful, doggone restimulative, and they kick in Prepcheck chains, and they do all kinds of weird things.

Now, frankly, as a philosophy of existence this is much, much too simple to pay anybody who is writing at so much per word. The isness of the individual is perfection. It's only his alter-isness that is imperfect.

But don’t go on struggling against reading goals with a pc’s needle dirty enough to be washed by the Empire Laundry, see? Don’t do that. Don’t keep trying to read through a dirty needle. What the hell are you doing that for? The pc’s out of session. You don’t know what the goal is reading on. Even though the pc’s rudiments are in, the pc is out of session as long as that needle is ticking on other things that you’ve got nothing to do with, because you are not talking to the pc. The pc isn’t re — the pc isn’t reacting to the things you want him to react to, so therefore the pc’s out of session.

When you get an individual up to a point where the things he has alterised are not causing him now to think in an alter-is, he thinks in a perfection, which is an automatic sort of perfection, don't you see. I mean there it is. We use this word automatic in another way in Scientology. I just say it goes on without his paying any attention to it, which is also a very interesting point and once more you are lucky.

So you keep going, and you keep going, „Oh God, there’s that dirty needle again. Let’s see, ‘To catch catfish,’ all right, it’s equivocal, ah, ‘to catch . . .’ That’s it. It’s still doing it, I’m not saying anything. ‘In this session,“’ — you are shortly going to see a change for goals processing in the middle rudiments, by the way — “is there anything you have suppressed, suggested, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of? That read, Careful of. What’s that? What’s that? „

Let us say you had always — you always — well, it'd give you a very, very easily understood — let's say you had motes in front of your eyes. you always had these motes, little sparks and so forth and whenever you looked at things, why you normally saw these motes. Well, now you don't see those motes. See, when you've got the bank cleared up, you see right. That's what I mean. There's a — let's instead of calling it automaticity of perfection, let's call it a — the isness of perfection. It simply exists. You see right without any further effort or action. That's where you're lucky, you see.

„Oh, I’m just careful not to think. I’ve been sitting here concentrating, car — concentrating on not thinking.“

Now, a body can go beyond the point of no return and it does not right itself to a totality — well, particularly if it's been tampered with surgically or something like that. But within meaningful limits and these are interesting enough to be very useful to us. That is the meaningful limits of this situation, the body, to the degree that it is possible, reverts to a perfection.

And you say, „Good. Thank you. I’ll check that on the meter. All right. In this session is there anything you have been careful of?“

Now, the individual, let us say, had always suffered from ulcers. Well, you clear him up, he ceases to suffer from ulcers, you see, which is quite, quite interesting. In other words he doesn't do anything else to patch up his ulcers.

„Yeah, just not to think, ha — ha.“

This is so much so that you could say that this universe is only an accumulation of imperfections. It's, as I say, it doesn't make a very wordy philosophy and that is why the thetan protests. But by his protest and his effort to attain perfection by a doingness, he of course alter-ises the existing imperfections further and fixes them right there — boom! There they are.

„Good. Thank you. I’ll check that out. In this session is there anything you have been careful of? That’s clean. Do you agree that’s clean? Do you agree that’s clean? All right, thank you very much. To catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish, see. To hit polar bears, to hit polar bears, to hit po — . Okay. If it’s all right with you there, we’ll . . . „ Because the second you started to say „to hit polar bears,“ it started going all the way across.

It's something like a fellow having dents in the fenders of his car and he goes out and with a big wrench and a hammer, you see, twists the fenders around. And he says, "Well, they look more crumpled than before. Maybe if I banged the car for a while against the fence the fenders would come straight." So he does that and he goes around and he looks at the fenders and he says that, "You know, that isn't so good. Those aren't so good," and so forth and "Maybe, maybe if we — maybe if we got out in thick traffic jams, maybe other cars butting up against the fenders might iron them out." And that doesn't work either. He tries that. He has a final solution — he had two final solutions — he finally rolls the car up in a ball, you know. He can do that in various ways. Take it down to a junk merchant. They have these pneumatic presses.

After you’ve done this for fifteen or twenty minutes with a pc, then all of a sudden — you’ve cleaned it up two or three times — this starts happening: The auditor will say „To catch catfish,“ tick, tick, „to catch catfish,“ tick, „to catch catfish. Yeah, well, that’s out.“

Actually it's very funny to see a car after it's been hit with one of these super-ton pneumatic presses. It's a — it's a flat sheet, but you can still see the impressions of head lamps and things. So he does that and rolls it up in some fashion or another. But look, if he couldn't actually sell it or get rid of it, you see, he'd have to have that around the yard. So he has a solution for that. He doesn't see it. Those are his last two solutions, you see. Squash it up in a ball. See, that's not so good, so he doesn't see it.

Once in a while be bright enough to stay in two — way comm with your pc because very often the omission of two — way comm means the intermission and intervention of a tremendous amount of middle rudiments.

Now, when he's done all these odd actions he now has some — some bits and pieces that he can't account for. And in view of the fact that these bits and pieces are collided with other bits and pieces, with nicely balanced velocities and that sort of thing, you get a built-up GPM. And that's how it is, see.

This is the way to handle something like that. This is the kind of answer you get. You say, „What’s going on? What’s happening?“

He lives this life correcting imperfections, you see. you know, straightening out the fenders with sledge hammers and smashing the car up. Finally he rolls it up in a ball and then doesn't see it. It's a sort of a give up of the whole lot, you see. He's sorry he ever started it in the first place.

„Ha — ha, knew when you read that slow that my needle had gotten dirty, and I was worrying about what I might be stuck in now.“

Well, nearly every thetan has free track and if you take too much free track away from him he often gets unhappy. You know, he's got a nice picture of a brunette and she's got a picture of a muscle man, bulging muscles, superperfection of some kind or another. I dare you to try to erase one of those one time. If you can find one on the pc, try to erase it. You're not going to get anyplace trying to erase it, see. That's the old secret in Book One of why you couldn't erase pleasure moments. You couldn't do anything with pleasure moments.

You say, „Thank you,“ and the needle clears right up. See, two — way comm is always marvelous. Two — way comm has this limitation: If you can’t find out by asking once, you shut up and do something else. That is the rule back of two — way comm. You can always ask any question of the pc. It’s not a metered question, don’t you see, in the line of two — way comm.

So you do have free track. Well, this free track is visible and you can run the pc on it. And you can actually erase less unhappy incidents on this free track and you can actually straighten out what we once called his whole track. But it is whole — something like the idea that you have a thousandmile-long fence composed of a stake every foot. Got that, a thousand-milelong fence, there's a stake every foot. All right. Let's omit all but one stake per mile. Just leave one stake per mile on this thousand-mile fence and that would be a fragment of his free track. One stake per mile.

Cut comments to a minimum. The more you comment the worse off the pc will get. Don’t comment. That’s an evaluation of sorts. But you can ask the pc any kind of a question you want to. You can ask, „How are you getting along?“ You see a dirty needle start up, you can’t read through it, „How are you getting along“

What happened to the other stakes? Well, they're over in the field back of the fence, crunch, and we don't see them anymore. Those are the ones he wants nothing to do with.

„Oh, I’ve been very nervous the last few minutes ever since you read that goal ‘to hit lions.’ I’ve had a feeling here like I haven’t got any top to my body.“

Now, these things are compounded into identities. Actually every one of these balls is an identity and it contains in it a full track all by itself. And you will sometimes see one of these things start disintegrating and it will scare you half to death because it looks like you've suddenly accumul--- . oh, there's various phenomena, not necessarily this one, but it will look like you have a fantastic magazine of 35-millimeter-slide pictures or something. And, "Where are these from?" you know and you start pawing away at these things and all of a sudden everything goes black.

„All right,“ you say, „thank you.“ Dirty needle continues. Get in your middle ruds, see?

But for a little while — for a little while it's very interesting Everything is sort of down in size and there are all kinds of little mechanisms that thetans use, not necessarily the 35-millimeter mechanism. They have many more. Sometimes they are in motion-picture reels that just unreel. He suddenly pulls off part of it and he'll get something unreeling How interesting, you know. Clank! "I'd better not go through that." He forgets himself, you know.

Don’t go on and on and on, „Well, what about this lion? When did you first think about this lion? Have you always been troubled with lions?“ No, you are not running a session having to do with running engrams connected with lions. And you go on and violate this rule of „It’s all right to ask him anything once,“ you violate that rule — that’s a good rule, you can ask a pc anything once — you violate that rule and you’ll find yourself running engrams and whole track and God knows what and all messed up and then running an engram so that you can clean up his needle.

Well, you've got various phenomena associated with this sort of thing, but you start running him up and down free track and one day you'll run him into an engram that has a black edge. You'll say, "I wonder what else is over there." And you just say, "Well, go up and down the free track."

Oh man, it’s just getting dirtier and dirtier, and stickier and stickier, and messier and messier, and of course the less auditing you do the less auditing he gets, the more anxious the pc gets, the dirtier the needle gets. You see how it defeats itself? Because you’re doing an alter — is, you are jamming him up in the bank, you see? Just goes on the basic principles of what the GPM is. So the more you alter — is what your intention is here — your intention is to find the guy’s goal — and the more you depart from that, why, the unhappier the pc gets.

"Oh I'm not so sure about that, mmmm-mmmm. What's that little black edge? What's in there?" you know. And he looks very hard in there and there is a shattering sound and a big chunk of the GPM closes in and he doesn't — "Where's the track? It's dark in here," see. That's the immediate response.

Now, it’s when the pc begins to realize that you can read a meter, you’re not leaving him hanging, or her hanging in midair, you know. „Do you have a present time problem?“ The pc is about to say, „Yes, as a matter of fact I was sued for a thousand dollars today, and as a matter of fact the court is going to hold me in contempt, and let…“ He’s about to say something like this, you see? The pc says, „Ahhh,“ and the auditor says, „Do you agree that’s clean?“ Pc goes into a little bit of a state of shock, see? He’s been not — ised, see? TR — meter TR 4 is very poor at this point. You only have to make a few of those mistakes and the pc doesn’t have any confidence in you anymore.

What happened? Well, the only thing that happened is all these pieces that he has carefully scrunched, all these lives he has lead that he doesn't want to lead anymore and he's carefully scrunched these things, you see and then has said he isn't going to see them anymore, they're not-ised totally. What's happened is, is one of these things has come back and he has seen it against his postulate of never seeing it again.

Now, you make him straightway. You make him, you know, calling it every time, calling it every time, right on the button, never miss a read, you know, bang — bang. Pc eventually forgets about the meter and his problems. He knows you’ll take care and he’ll sit back further and further and relax more and more and life is wonderful and he sure doesn’t get in your road in a — in a Goals Assessment, see?

Fortunately, that's not much of a basic postulate and doesn't get in the road of clearing. But it certainly makes life rather incomprehensible. It makes it exciting to say the least. You start somebody up and down the free track and he has beautiful, clear, three-dimensional pictures, except the train of the wedding gown in the marriage is black and that whole corner of the church is black, actually. And he says, "What's over there?" And you run him into there and, well, actually probably what's beyond this is half a dozen lives as the Master Inquisitor, see, using churches for the sole and exclusive purpose of saving souls by burning bodies, you see. And he'll have all of these lives stacked up and when he went to this wedding — first time he'd been in a church for a long time, you see — and something that he had beautifully notised and said he isn't going to see anymore, you see, that has appeared to a point of where it is slightly noticeable.

And after you’ve been assessing him for a day or two, and he’s learned that you are to be trusted, and that sort of thing, the needle doesn’t dirty up. But the more extraordinary solutions, the more meter goofs, why, the dirtier the pc’s needle is going to get. That’s for sure.

This is a tremendous magnification of the ordinary manifestation of somebody being uncomfortable in a locale. This fellow isn't uncomfortable. He thinks it's getting married. You trace it down, it will be all these lives as a Master Inquisitor, don't you see. And it's the church that keyed it in. He didn't even know this.

And after you’ve been doing goals on a pc for a couple of days, a couple of days, and you find out his needle is getting worse than it was, then that means that every time you put in the mid ruds you must have driven half of them out, see? That’s it, that’s it. You just miss, miss, miss, miss, miss. I mean, there isn’t any argument with this. It isn’t because your tone of voice is this or you’re that. It’s just bad metering. That’s the end of it. Bad metering is what makes the needle go bzzt — bzzt.

He goes along after that thinking it's marriages upset him. That won't be the case at all. He goes near a church and goes kind of screen Every time he goes near one he sees a little plainer this mechanism of the blackness, don't you see. And he finally says he doesn't like noise so that's why church bells get on his nerves you, see.

All right. Enough of that berating. The point I’m trying to make here is you want to audit the right goal. That is desirable. That is productive of live thetans. That doesn’t leave you in the embarrassing position of the pc all of a sudden can’t use his legs and can’t hear by reason of the auditing session. That doesn’t leave you in the interesting position of having a pc with a siren going off hour after hour that you can’t hear but he sure can.

And oddly enough he has some predilection for graveyards. He seems to find them very nice and soothing to walk in. As a matter of fact, there's sort of a sensation comes over him, a sort of a — a beautiful sadness comes over him. So he stays away from churches and walks in graveyards, you see.

There’s no substitute for the right goal. It is thoroughly recommended.

Well by staying away from the church he's keying it in. By walking in the graveyard he's keying it in. By going in the church he's walking it in and staying out of graveyards he's keying it in. He hasn't got a prayer, see. That is the life he lived. That is part of his experience. That is part of the recorded experience of that individual which he has packaged up and said, "This is an individual and I am now dead and this is all put away and I won't have anything more to do with this. And now, I am all reborn again and isn't it wonderful."

Now, how do you find out if you’ve got a right goal? And I’ll tell you exactly how to do a fast check on a right goal. This is an Instructor — type check, but you can pull this thing off in ten or fifteen minutes rather than make yourself look silly. There is no real reason to give a Prepcheck every five sessions, mathematically. There’s no reason at all to do so. There is every reason to give a Prepcheck every time you’re having trouble with the pc. That might be oftener than five sessions, and if you’re that smooth it might go up to ten or twelve. You understand? Five sessions was given as an arbitrary figure, entirely and completely arbitrary, just to make sure that you did prepcheck the pc. But there’s no real reason to do it oftener than is necessary, because it can amount to no auditing for the pc, and can give you a roughed — up needle because of the anxiety of the pc. And you come out the other side of the Prepcheck with a rougher needle than you start into it. See? All right.

It's something like the fellow who has a number of murdered bodies in the closet. And he's put just a few too many in the closet to close the door and he never can really get the door shut. Now, he'll take anything rather than open the door. He will just suffer anything — arthritis, rhombosis, medicos, he 11 suffer the most fantastic things rather than let that door open another crack.

Now, the way you do a fast check is based on the data I gave you earlier. A goal reads on itself, as itself, on it’s own charge in the bank, or it doesn’t read because of invalidations or evaluations. That is a true goal.

The funny part of it is he doesn't dare let it open. He hasn't dared in all this trillennia, because aside from Scientology there was nothing could have as-ised it.

Or a goal reads because it has been invalidated, and after you have cleaned it up, it for a moment doesn’t read, and then starts to read again on it’s own. But the only thing that make a — can make a goal read wrong are Suppress, Suggest — Suppress because of course you don’t get the — the needle action — Suppress, Suggest, Invalidate, Failed to Reveal, see? Those are the four things. There are no others. There isn’t concentrate upon a shift of attention, you see, and there aren’t a whole bunch of other buttons.

I know whereof I speak because I've tried to do a number of things with the GPM and no ordinary repetitive process works on the GPM. Nothing works on the Goals Problem Mass, to date, except just exactly what we are doing with it.

Of these, only two can introduce a goal — like read. Failed to Reveal introduces a minute rock slam which is quite recognizable. But Suggest — which is Evaluate — and Invalidate can, either of them, introduce a goal — like read which is indistinguishable in size, frequency and magnitude from a true goal. Indistinguishable.

We finally find the prime postulate. He said, "I am going to be good." That's what he said, trillennia ago. And then he ran into men who were bad. So of course, he'd better straighten these fellows out.

You can take a wrong goal, evaluate for the pc on it and make it go tick, tick, tick. Which after that, if you did not, if you did not check it, if it wasn’t checked out well, would look like the pc’s goal, and thereafter would be as wrong as a Confederate seven — dollar bill. And that’s how people get on to wrong goals.

You find this fellow with this postulate sitting in Sing Sing, you see. And the odd part of it is he'll still tell you the computations from the basic postulate. "I'm just a good boy" and all that sort of thing Hell give you the lot.

So here’s a fast check that tells you whether the goal is the goal or not. You read the goal to the pc, „Bark, bark, bark,“ you know, and you say, „That reads.“ Now, a read of a goal at sensitivity 16 is never more than about a half a division. It can be cleaned up to a point where it might register a little bit more half of a division, but you are really priming, you are really pouring the petrol and alcohol into the cylinders, you know. You’re not adding to its power, but it is so clean that it — nothing can stay that clean, and five minutes later it’ll slump. But that is the most it reads, and it always reads with a fall. It never reads with a rise.

But of course this thing has been going on. Now, it isn't one every life. You can actually find a postulate or a goal, if you please, in front of every engram, in front of every life, in front of anything and everything you can find a goal. you don't get anyplace much running these things.

Now, if announced, however, against a rising needle it will cause a stick, and against a very fast rising needle will cause a slow. But in actual essence its action is a fall, a tick. And that tick is — well, you just won’t see one more than — more than one and one — quarter dial divisions here, meaning about, I don’t know, three — eighths of an inch. That’s big, see. And the one that you will normally see, when you first see it, is about a sixteenth of an inch fall, instant fall. You say the goal, and right on the last letter of the goal, the last letter in the whole line, it’ll go tick — sixteenth of an inch. That can be as small as a thirty — secondth of an inch. It can be as small as a stick, depending on how much invalidation — evaluation is on it. And if there is tremendous invalidation and evaluation on it, it cannot read at all. In other words, the true goal can be squashed right out of existence and not read.

There is a process if you're interested that would be handier than others to do something with and, "Tell me something you have decided." That's a sort of a reverse angle on a postulate. Not, "What goal have you made?" but, "What decision have you made after the facts?" And it's quite interesting in helping out psychosomatic ills and that sort of thing. But it doesn't do anything really to the GPM.

So a false goal can be made to read with an invalidation — evaluation, and a true goal can be made not to read. Oddly enough if you invalidate a false goal enough it will cease to read again in its turn, and a real goal invalidated enough will cease — will star — start reading in its turn once more on the false reads for which you can make it go through the cycle. You can make a bad one go through the cycle of read, not read, read, not read, read, not read, just with repetitive evaluations and invalidations, don’t you see? And you can — whether the goal is right or wrong it will go through those cycles.

No wisdom which has come up before Scientology has even scratched the GPM. People could learn to live with it, see. People could suffer themselves, they could suffer themselves to be sufficiently able to act in spite of Don't you see? Or in an effort — in an effort actually to experience and condition themselves to it if they could do this, this is always the hope — if they can experience themselves sufficiently, why, they would no longer mind it and it would go.

Now, they — keep that in mind that those are the only four things that have to be remedied to make sure that a goal does read properly. You can recognize the Failed to Reveal, but you’re going to use it in the check anyhow. The Suppress does not give a tick, but can make the Evaluate or the Invalidate squash out of sight so that you can’t find them. So you have to use a Suppress.

These were philosophies of one kind and another. Seldom has man had the fortitude to get up to a point of experience where he no longer minded it. You see, this was not a very general track.

So, you compose a repetitive Prepcheck which simply contains these four things and the name of the goal.

Now, if there was — you'll find this philosophy around. You will find some people in Scientology, I remember one of them in Brisbane. He thought after you ran an engram you had to experience for a while in order to right the engram. All right, okay, that's true. you have to be in the environment a while, see.

Now, I’ll go through this thing fairly rapidly for you just on demonstration. You say to the pc, „All right, I’m — I’m going to give this goal a fast check, and I want to read to — the goal to you a few times and then I’m going to carefully get in the four goals middle rudiments, and then I’m going to see if the goal reads, and then I’m going to give it a fast check and then read the goal again and then we’ll know for sure what that is. What do you say to that?“

But let's go further than this. This philosophy has existed, in extremis — undoubtedly has worked. But is there any other way of attacking the situation whereby you suddenly find yourself missing this GPM. Now, that's what's interesting to us. Yes, well, there is and you have to examine the anatomy of this thing and you find out how it got there. And you got there from a man's lack of integrity to himself. And that is the basic evil.

And the pc says, „No, I don’t want that.“ And you go ahead and do it.

You want to know what evil is — it's man's lack of integrity to himself. Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 3 — Act 1, Scene 3, can't quite — "And this above all to thine own self be true." He knew whereof he spake, undoubtedly there's a lot of other advice in the exact speech — same speech that isn't true. But the point — the point here is one's lack of integrity troubles him, that is to himself, it is not to others, troubles him to such a degree that he has to forget what he is being faithful about, in order to live at all. So the hole that a thetan can put in his own isness of perfection is to be false to himself. He makes the postulate that launches him off on to a career and then he cannot be true to that postulate and he accumulates masses and he goes astray and he accumulates imperfections and all sorts of wild, bad experiences exist and he has to bury that thing. He doesn't unmake it, he just buries it. And he goes on and on and on with that, dragging that buried corpse behind him of his own lack of integrity to himself.

The pc very often says he doesn’t want this. You have to persuade him, say, „Wouldn’t it be much better to have your mind completely at rest?“ The goal is at rest, you know. The goal is to be active, and the pc says, „No, under no circumstances do I want my mind at rest.“ You know.

Now, oddly enough man actually can betray families, sell West Point — do all sorts of mad things and find himself not greatly affected over any term of lives. Oh, it will make one go smash, you see — but he recovers from that sort of thing.

So, you say to the pc, „To catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish. That read. Thank you very much. We are now going into the repetitive rudiments,“ — sensitivity 16, you see, of course — and you say, „On the goal ‘to catch catfish’ has anything been suppressed?“ That’s run repetitive, you see. And same question, same question, same question. The pc finally says, „No.“ And you say, „All right. I will check that on the meter.“ And you look at the meter and you do, and you find another read and you look back at the pc and you give him the more repetitive. And you finally get all the suppress, suppress that you can possibly get off this goal, and then you go tearing in and that suppress is good and clean. That’s polished up like Dutch cleanser, see? That’s bright.

It's not even in the same order of magnitude to be faithless to oneself, one's own postulates. Not even of the same order of magnitude. Unfaithfulness on the first dynamic would rank as high, let us say, as the Washington Monument. And unfaithfulness on other dynamics would be about as high as a blade of grass in the park alongside of it.

So we move over then into our next one which, of course, is Suggested, and we run Suggested. „On the goal ‘to catch catfish’ has anything been suggested?“ over and over and over until the pc says, „No.“ And let’s check it on the meter, and you find one. You look back at the pc and you ask him again, over and over and over, until he finally says, „No“ again. You Check it on the meter, something like that. Anyway, this thing is eventually clean.

That is not any invitation to sin, but if you are — if you think I am weighing heavily upon you to be awfully good these days because I want you to pick up your overts or that sort of thing — think of me looking over your shoulder and supervising your behavior because of the overt-motivator sequence. You can take that off during Prepchecking and that's just dandy. And it does a very — bunch of nice, little, interesting things and it will straighten out this and that and make a person feel happier. And you pick up his missed withholds and he will be nicer to his fellows and all that sort of thing.

Similarly, you handle the word Invalidated. „Has anything been invalidated?“ And you handle that till that is clean and polished. By the way, it is a very good policy at this time to be in a state of operating a meter where you miss no reads, ever, and you miss no cleans ever, see? That’s optimum. In fact, it’s the only way this check will work.

Well, when you are handling Routine 3 you are up to the top of the Empire State Building in terms of magnitude, you see. This is tall. This is big as the other is small. And what you are doing is picking up the basic overt against self. And the basic overt against self that a thetan is capable of is to betray his own postulates.

So you go through that; and then Failed to Reveal. And — see how that would be worded? „Is there anything you have failed to reveal?“ is the best wording there. „On the goal ‘to catch catfish’ is there anything you have failed to reveal?“ All right, let’s get that all clean by repetitive, and so forth. All right. That’s that. Don’t bother with Careful of.

You see some of this. A fellow feels real bad sometimes. He makes a bunch of New Year's resolutions. He says, "I'm going to be nice to the little woman. I'm going to give her some of the paycheck," you know. And, "I'm going to be — I'm not going to shout at the kids anymore. I'm going to stop running over dogs for fun," you know, all these sort of things.

Now, let’s go through this thing, and we say, „All right, I’m going to read the goal to you now, ‘to catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish’.“ And tell the pc what’s happening, see. Tell him, „Well, that reads.“ It possibly will if it’s the real goal. „To catch catfish,“ three times, see, bang, that’s it. You say, „All right, that’s reading. Thank you. Now, I’m going to have to do a fast check of these same rudiments, and check the goal.“ And this is what condition you’ve got to get those first four repetitive questions in so that you get a no read, pshaaaw, right across them, you see?

A few weeks later — a few weeks later, why, he comes home and he's got the paycheck and the wife's had a hard day, you see and she's sort of nattering around one way or the other. And he said, "Well, why should I give her any of the paycheck?" you see, after all. And he sticks it in his pocket. He sort of feels a little bit degraded about it. And then the kids come roaring out of the — out of the street and shout and scream, something of the sort, just as he's sitting down to read his newspaper, you know. And he looks at them and he says, "Shut up," see. And somehow or another he feels just a little bit degraded, you see. And then he's going down the street and a dog starts barking at him. It's a particularly mangy, ornery-looking dog, you see, so that lessens the overt and he all of a sudden steps on the brakes fast, swerves the car and runs over the dog, you see. He goes on.

All right, you do it just like this: „On the goal ‘to catch catfish’ has anything been suppressed, suggested, invalidated or nonrevealed?“ Wrong wording. „To catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish,“ see? If it’s not the goal, if there’s no read anywhere on that line, that’s it, man. But you get the trick here? Don’t go puttering around picking geraniums. Don’t give him any opportunity to invalidate or evaluate or breathe while you are saying that sentence. Just rip that thing right off brrrrrrrrrr, see. Even omit the acknowledgment, who cares?

And he's talking to a friend about a week later and he said, "Well, you know, I used to when I was young have a lot of pride and that sort of thing, but these days, you know, I realize that as you go on in life that — that life is a degrading sort of thing, you see and being married is the most degrading." You see. He'll have some big rationale, don't you see. No, he just disobeyed all of his New Year's resolutions — that the overt against self is of greater magnitude than the overt on any other dynamic.

Ordinarily you would say, „Thank you. To catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish,“ see? Bang — bang — bang — bang, that’s the goal. If none of those read, if none of those mid — type ruds read, and the goal read, the chances are a thousand to one that that’s the goal. And if none of those read, and you, by repetitive check, had found answers, you know, your meter is active on the pc, and none of them read, and the goal didn’t read, it isn’t even a cousin to the right goal. And that’s how you do a fast check on a goal. And you tell the pc, „Very much — thank you very much.“

Now, of course, underlying and back of all postulates there is another overt, which is an unspoken overt. He didn't postulate anything ahead of this overt, see. I mean, he didn't postulate this one. This one is and he actually can have an overt on himself greater than an articulated postulate. He can simply be imperfect. That — it's quite interesting.

Actually that’s about a — that’s really in actual practice, that’s about a fifteen, twenty, twenty — five minute fast verification of a goal. And that’s the way a goal has to be verified. If a goal won’t beform — perform this way, it’s not the goal.

And if you have a heart-to-heart talk — if you want to — if you run into Socrates or something and you don't know what to talk about and — or if you run into somebody who is terrific in the field of philosophy and he's a great figure-figure merchant, why, you can tie up the whole evening or the whole debate just on the subject of man's recognition of his own imperfection. Honest, it's a subject that they just can't help but discuss with you. Not recognition of the imperfection with others. They all know about that, but this other is a more fundamental fundamental — man's desire and reach for perfection of self and so forth.

Now, you understand that if you’ve got a read on Invalidated, and ignore it, and read the goal, you are going to read the read for Invalidated, and it will be just exactly like the goal tick. If there’s an Evaluate, there’s a read on Suggest or Suggested, see, and there’s a read on the goal, that’s Suggested reading on the goal. And if the goal reads with a dirty needle, it’s simply a — it’s a missed withhold on the goal. The goal is — withheld it from somebody — has been withheld, that’s all.

Now, most of them — most of them will go at it on an entirely reverse vector. They will say, "Man is evil, will be nothing but evil and is trying to attain nothing but evil." That's how far they have lost sight of it. And when somebody starts to preach that philosophy, you know how many overts he's got against the first dynamic. You know how many of his own postulates he has thrown aside and you know how big his GPM is. you can also estimate the number of times he's going to be sick. you can do all sorts of things, see. That's your — those are judgments that you can make along this line.

Now, that’s the way the pendulum swings. And that’s how you verify one of these things, and this is how you tell if it is the goal, and if it isn’t the goal.

Now, people with high critical — people with other manifestations are actually — are actually not as bad off as people who are not critical at all anymore, but they get in our hair so we often detest them.

Actually, there’s no arguments about this. I mean that is the way it is, you see? And you could do it that easily and that well. But remember you have to read your meter perfectly. You have to read your meter every time, and when you read off that last sentence, brrrrr, you have to read that without a lot of halts, or gulps.

Well, remember there's a state below that, that's probably normal. It's, "Well, why should I interfere with the other fellow? Live and let live. That is none of my business. Who would want any responsibility for that? Well, I would have no business interfering with the lives of my fellows." Don't you see, all of this sort of thing.

If you read it something on this fashion, „On the goal ‘to catch catfish,’ is, ah, there — anything, ah, that, ah, you — no, I mean, ah, that you have suggested,“ why, it then reads, see. You say, „No — no, no — no. I mean suppressed, excuse me.“ See. Well, don’t be so confounded upset if you’ve done your TR 1 that poorly, that to be surprised if you get reads on these things when you just cleaned them because the reads just happened. The pc invalidated your reading of it or something like that, that’ll now read. So now you have to go into it and you have to clean up those rudiments, see.

That is all saying, "I've had it." It's also saying by this time, "I am — you want to know who I am . . ." you see the fellow was saying to you, "Well I am a GPM, that's who I am." And you can also hang a sign on his nose and say, "No thetan lives here."

Now, this is what happens if you read that across the line, you got a read on some. You clean it up on a fast — check basis, see. And you clean it all up on a fast — check basis until you’ve got all of them, and then you don’t read the goal after this until you’ve got them all clean on a fast — check basis, see? Then when you’ve got them all clean on a fast — check basis you read that goal „to catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish. Thank you.“ That’s his goal. You see what happens there?

But the significances of clearing are based upon the mechanics and fundamentals I have just talked to you about. It's out of these fundamentals and mechanics that you get an understanding of clearing. And I've given you — in spite of the rapidity and colloquialosity of it — given you the basic fundamentals from which you could extrapolate or predict what it would amount to or what you could do wrong in attaining the state.

Now, on the actual goal, oddly enough, the read will disappear off of the goal, and appear over on the Invalidate and the Suggest. And when you take them off the Eva — Invalidate and Suggest, it will reappear on the goal.

Now, it points out, for instance, that if you clear somebody you don't wind up with a criminal. See, it gives the moral aspects of clearing. And if you fail to get a prime postulate, that all you were doing is adding more logs to the logjam by running it, because you've not pulled the key log. And you've pulled the wrong log and of course it just gets more jammed up. At least more water appears to be jamming up back of the logs. And it tells you that alterisness of the bank itself will increase the mass of the bank and increase its activity or reactivity.

And when you’ve got this thing over here — you’ve got a wrong goal reading with a read, you’ll find Invalidate reads, or Suggest reads. And you take the reads off Invalidate and Suggest, clean that all up, see. What happened to the goal? Where did he go, Charley? Which way did they go? Where? Where?

Well, that is what you are finding in a pc, but you are not actually looking. . . This is why I have always told you "Don't process what's wrong with the pc, see. Process against what's right with the pc and you'll win." you must process the thetan, you see, not the engram. And if you process directly and immediately at the target of a prime postulate, you will find that the GPM gets in your way to the degree that you are inexpert in reaching back toward the prime postulate, directly.

That’s dead easy to get a wrong goal. Don’t be upset about that. You come tearing down the last summation sheet, and you’ve just gone across „to bully potatoes.“ And the pc says, „What the hell was that?“ you know?

Now, the less expertness you have the more GPM you collide with in trying to audit the pc. So, if you were just sloppy, sloppy, sloppy in all departments and activities — terribly sloppy — you would collide with nothing but GPM and you would never clear the pc.

You go tearing down the line, and then you come back to it after you’ve nulled everything else, and you say, „Well, I’ve got two left in, ‘to bully potatoes’ and ‘to soar gracefully.“’ And, „To bully potatoes, to bully potatoes, to bully potatoes. That reads every time. To soar gracefully. To soar gracefully. Doesn’t read, that doesn’t read, now. Well, I guess we got it, ha — ha — ha, guess we got it, reads every time, ‘to bully potatoes.“’

This is quite interesting. The more rapidly that you can locate a goal, the more chance you have of finding a goal. you see, it gives you all that kind of a maxim to go on, you see. The less directly you reach for the pc's goal and find it, the more GPM you are going to collide with. This is quite interesting. And, of course, then, the more alter-is you are going to introduce into the sessions and the bank and so forth.

Brother, it’s going to take an artist to pull that thing apart, see. Boy, that’s in there because hidden is the invalidation of the pc, and what’s apparent, you see, is the evaluation of the auditor. And those two things will lock against each other and you try to clean this up. First you’ll get Invalidate read and then you’ll get Evaluate read, and it may be lost clear back there during the assessment sometime, and pretty occluded and suppressed.

You spend any time condemning a pc for being aberrated during an auditing session and after that you've had it. You've had it. Now, you've got lots of GPM to monkey with because you keyed it in like mad because that's what he's against, see. The pc, you will find, is almost uniformly, no matter what his manifestations are in session, will go in the direction of the decent thing, the good thing and that sort of thing. And the more you recognize that fact, the easier pcs are to audit.

The pc said, „Well, I really want a goal at this time, and he said so, and he’s a good auditor, and who am I to argue,“ you see, and suppressed it. And then casual inspection of this doesn’t — doesn’t locate it.

So a missed concept of the nature of man can stand in the way of an auditor as it has stood in the way of all people who have tried to attack the problem of the human mind over the trillennia. A misconception of the nature of man. Therefore you should have a fairly good concept of the nature of man and his anatomy, in order to do anything about man.

Then you find yourself listing a wrong goal. And then the tone arm rises and goes up to 4.5 or 5.0, and the needle gets very sticky, pc starts looking terribly bad, gets very ARC breaky in the sessions and the somatics are all wrong and backwards. And obviously your lines are right and your metering seems to be okay. What is it? Can’t be a wrong goal because we get a read every time we say, „Has it been suggested?“ Must be the right goal, you see.

Now, the states that we produce are producible on the route of Routine 3GA, all pcs, to the degree that we can find the basic postulate and audit that out.

„I keep asking him ‘Has it been — would you suggest this as a goal,’ you know, and I get a read every time, you know. And I keep telling him it’s his goal, and he just — he finally has accepted it.“ And it does, it reads every time.

Now, therefore, you see, my time has been spent as it has been spent for a long while, but is spent very successfully over the last two or three months getting together more rapid, faster, more positive clearing technology. That is the important sphere of auditing. Oddly enough, the contributive factors to this are — because if they are dropped, make it impossible — as important as the fact of clearing itself.

Now, the funny part of it is that a heavily invalidated goal will read better than a real one, because it doesn’t blur out. It doesn’t have nasty tricks. It doesn’t fade and dull things like that. It just keeps on going bang — bang — bang every time, a thirty — second of an inch. Never varies, nothing does anything to it except the second you pull the invalidation — no goal.

I wish it were simpler. I had one the other day, I thought, "Well, I've got it now. Everybody all has the same goal. I'm going to make a test, if everybody's got this same goal why — you know just taking the, taking the Axioms and Factors — if everybody's got this same goal, if we can reach it in all pcs you never have to assess goals anymore."

All right, there’s one more thing I could say about it, is that ä goal, routinely and normally, fades out when the rudiments go out, and comes back in when you get the rudiments in.

I worked like mad, did some tests on the thing — worked like mad to prove it up. I — I just worked on that like mad. All I had to do was tell you what the pc's goal is. Then you suggest it to him and then run out the suggestion, and you've got it, see and you're right on the road to listing it once and so forth. And this was a brave effort and a beautiful thought and, it doesn't work.

Now, when during listing a goal starts to disappear is very hard to say, but it probably isn’t until the last three — quarters that it’s totally gone and then the read is still detectable at the end of the lines. But an awful lot of listing has to be done before that goal goes so that you can’t check it anymore. And it never starts reading early and latent and other screwball things. If the goal starts to read screwball, it isn’t the goal.

So I'm still chugging away at it even though you've got Routine 3GA. Meantime we have a workable technology and at the present moment I don't see much signs of it getting much simpler. I can simply tell you more ways to do it easier, but the same fundamentals are in our road and the way we are tackling them at this moment are successful.

The real goal, when the rudiments — the four I just gave you — are cleaner than a wolf’s tooth, fires every time, fires every time except at a very fast rise, because the impulse of the fire, you see, merely gives it a tiny slow and you might not see that tiny slow. If you’ve got a fast rising needle you won’t see this every time. But every time the needle can be influenced by the goal, and not a fast rise, you’ll get that snap, snap, snap. It’s just marvelous to watch one of the things fire.

Thank you.

If you want to know what a goal looks like, and if you want to get very, very critical and investigate it very thoroughly, get ahold of somebody and pick up the goals list, take a goal at random and say, „Which one do you favor on this sheet?“

And the fellow looks at it and finally says, „Well actually, to kiss blonds, you know.“

„Well, that isn’t actually your type of goal. I know by experience. Actually, here is a goal here ‘to whistle at men.’ Now, that’s really — I think that’s a better goal. Let’s put you on the meter here for a moment, to whistle at men, to whistle at men, to — it reads every time — to whistle at men — reads, reads, reads, every time, you know — to whistle at men.“

Then you can sit back and just by the hour say „To whistle at men, to whistle at men, to whistle at men.“ You will get exactly what a goal looks like. And until you suddenly turn around to the pc and say, „Has anything been suggested on this goal?“

And he’ll say, „Yes, damn it, so and so, and so, and so.“

„Anything been invalidated?“

„Yes, I said to myself every time, It cant be.“ You see, and yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, you get it all cleaned up, and so forth.

And you say, „To whistle at men, whistle at men, whistle at men.“ There’s nothing. You can make any goal read.

If you want to know what a goal looks like reading every time just invalidate the hell out of somebody’s offbeat goal, and you’ll see a goal read. Interesting, isn’t it.

All right, well, that’s 3GA. You want to continue your list until the ticks you’re getting are about the size — and if you do continue a list that long hit it at sensitivity 16 for the whole list. If you can get a list that long first crack out of the box, or if you’ve been adding to a list that’s been well nulled, and that sort of thing, do all the rest of it at sensitivity 16 because you won’t get any other reads if the list is that limp.

And I’d say a list done as I’ve been telling you, and so forth, listed completely should be thoroughly, completely and all of it done at sensitivity 16 now. I know of no other immediate changes.

Okay? Thank you.

Good night.