Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.