Thank you.

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

First amongst these, of course, is Group Auditing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.