Well, here we come down the line to the last hour of the congress here in Washington - the Freedom Congress.

It is absolutely fantastic how long I have held back from saying anything vital about children, or really giving you any kind of an authoritative rundown at all on the subject. Really fabulous! A little later this afternoon, I'm going to give you some more and give you a little rundown on CCH, the way she is done, if you want me to. And it's absolutely necessary that I do that, by the way, because some of you are not going to be able to restrain yourself in trying to run Tone 40 processes on children. I know that you will do it, whether you've had the drills or not, and Child Scientology is almost totally based on Tone 40 processes. Child Scientology is not workable without Tone 40 processes and, therefore, for the first time, I can tell you very, very pertinently that we have arrived somewhere. I am willing, now, to talk about children, for the excellent reason that we aren't going to miss on the subject.

I'd like to circulate a questionnaire: Is anybody more free than he was at the beginning of the congress?

& Up to this time, I would say that our liabilities and our misses were many with regard to processing of children. But they're not, now. They're really not.

Audience: Yes!

It is quite remarkable, the number of misconceptions which have existed concerning children - the child mind and child processing - and that is the first thing I'll have to take up here. Those misconceptions are so considerable that they are woven into the woof and warp of everyone's lives here in this nation. And they're a pack of stinking lies! When you're talking about children, you are not talking about everybody's case. That is something psychoanalysis gave us. There is probably no slightest connection between your case and your childhood! It is just incidental that you were a child.

All right.

Now, that's a sweeping statement, when you come to think about it, because the psychologist and the psychoanalysis people have, all of them, maintained that, „If you could just clear up childhood, you'd be all right.“ Jerks! I say „the jerks“ because they led ME astray and I don't like people who fool me.

Well, we have a tremendous program ahead of us, an enormously interesting program. And I think this time we can really take the fort without much difficulty.

When I first started research and investigation into the field of the mind, my attitudes were a bit colored, I will inform you, by Freudian analysis which I knew very, very well. I had studied it, not suffered it. Also, I knew psychology, I knew what passed for child psychology. I used to sit over in the engineering school and some of my pals in the Columbian College would come over and they'd say, „Oh, my God, I can't pass this examination or write this paper.“ And I'd take their textbook on psychology and write the paper for them - they'd do my mathematics. Anyway, (laughter) children have less connection, and observation of children has less connection, with the field of the mind, if anything, than death. Death has a much more intimate connection than childhood, very much so. But more important than this... Oh, there's only one thing that has even less connection, and that's mice. Mice have practically NO connection with the field of the mind. I mean, you probably couldn't get further from the point than to study mice. They got almost that far, though, by studying children.

I'm going to start to beaver in on those areas that could really use some higher IQs and so forth. I'm right now working on a book on the use of Scientology in education. And that book is very much overdue, but I couldn't have written it until now. Except for one thing: The axioms of education have been in existence for a very, very long time and are, in fact, the Logics of Dianetics.

Now, here's why the study of children has been such a booby trap to all of our thinkingnesses. This is, this is very important because it changes the whole basic concept, if you can see this, it changes, it will change your whole basic concept of values as to what behavior is. These characters, with a princenez and a VanDyke beard, back in the '90s, who were adventuring to foist their opinions off in the guise of scientific fact, were actually basically working at what would turn out to be eventually the destruction of the people of Earth, because they insisted upon certain basic principles which were VERY very incorrect.

I think they probably still have a copy of Advanced Procedure and Axioms or A Handbook for Preclears back there if you want to get a copy of it to look it over. You'll certainly agree with me, but I never had brought it straight through.

The first of these principles is this, and you can see what I'm talking about at once here, because here, here we have an idea that the CHILD is the primitive or native state of Man. You got that, now? You know, you've read that opinion around, haven't you? In order to find out - I've even erred in this direction, just to show you how much you can color people's opinions - in order to find out how an adult would act or how a primitive would act, or something or other, we compared it to childhood. Childhood was being used as the standard base for behavior. You see this now? We took a look at childhood and we said, „Now, that is a standard by which we can evaluate human behavior.“ It's just like taking an old piece of copper wire somebody found on a dump out here someplace, just at random, and saying, „This is a foot and everybody now will have to call this old wound up piece of wire one foot. That's one foot, now.“ Just a complete arbitrary run into the whole thing, because it isn't even basically, it doesn't even compare. There isn't any such standard as „child behavior.“ Child behavior is no more a standard than psychotic behavior is a standard for the basis of HUMAN behavior. Anybody who claims that child behavior progresses through a number of clear-cut stages, which are then comparable to every other child, DESERVES to be psychoanalyzed. (laughter)

Only recently, only in the last few ACCs have we had Learning Processes that we could teach somebody something directly and straightly. I'll give you a cute one to take home with you - one of these Learning Processes.

This is quite peculiar, because it brings about this misconception in the social activities of Man. They say that a child is anti-social. He comes into the world aware only of himself, and progresses through various stages of awareness, until he gets to be a social character. And only the duress, and hammer and pound, punishment and so forth, makes this child a social character. Look! They've accepted „child behavior“ as the standard, as the middle, as the common denominator, as THE thing called human behavior, and it isn't even vaguely resembling it. It doesn't even resemble it, there's no comparison. Don't you see? They say that, „We have to take this person and lead him out into the world from this state of childhood, and if we didn't do so-and-so with human beings, they would then act in their native state,“ which is what? A child. Childhood is no more a native state for Man than mice. It is, in essence and actually, a very trying period of mental duress. And to tell everybody that this is the way everybody would be if they weren't socially trained and so forth, is to tell everybody that they're psychotic. And I wouldn't say that this was the end goal of the people perpetuating this idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were, to tell everybody that their basic standard of conduct would be psychotic activity.

You say to somebody, „One, two, three.“

:!: You take Karl, ha-ha, Menninger. Menninger believes this so well, he confessed the other day to being totally insane. He did. It was on the front page a few months ago of the Washington Post. Washington Post has four or five psychologists on staff just to make sure that their murders are juicy enough. He said he wouldn't say that one out of ten or ten out of fifteen people were psychotic, he wouldn't give an average, because he said everybody in the world was. Oh yes, he did. Some time or another during his life, everybody in the world was nuts. So therefore, everybody was crazy, so you couldn't say ten out of fifteen, it was actually fifteen out of fifteen - direct quote. That included Will Menninger, only he didn't notice it.

And have this other person say, „One, two, three.“ And then you say, „What did I say?“

:!: Some of these characters go around, try to discourage a loss of practice, you know, they don't like to lose their practice any more than an auditor does, and they try to keep the practice from being lost by telling people I'm crazy. I'm probably the only one that they would find, I wouldn't be terrifically disturbed or flattered by the remark of being called crazy, because who is calling who crazy? It's quite interesting, I mean, it's one of these fascinating things. Who is calling who crazy? Well, they believe everybody is crazy, so what is this idea of „crazy“ and what do we mean by „crazy“? Well, it must be because the standard of behavior looks pretty crazy to all of us.

And he says, „One, two, three.“ And you say, „What did you say?“ And he says, „One, two, three.“ You say, „Good.“

Actually, the standard of behavior of a child, to use that as a standard of behavior, is to brand everybody with, at least, eccentric behavior, irrationality and so forth. Look at the, look at the tremendous thing that has happened here. They've said, „Man is stupid until he's educated. He is anti-social until he's beaten into being social.“ Do you get the idea? Well the core of all of that ideology, if that's what it is, is that standard behavior is the behavior of a child. And to find out how people behave before they're colored or messed up by the society, you should study children. You see how that would be? I mean, and immediately, we then would have this idea that everybody, everybody must be beaten and hammered and pushed and educated and so forth. And nobody has given a being this possibility that maybe, if they just left him alone for a little while and let him relax, he'd straighten out. You got the idea? It's very true, by the way, if people in sanitariums were simply permitted to rest and eat - some of them would die, they would just lie down and die - but the greater number of them would probably say, well, they'd get get enough sleep eventually, and come out of it. In other words, stop fooling with them.

This is a gradient scale of getting him into a situation where a datum can get to him. Your standing around and explaining something by the hour to somebody that can't receive a datum is wasted time. And this is the process by which you do it.

Well, similarly with children, we start to work children over with unworkable theories, unworkable duresses, unworkable tricks, and most of these child psychology things and so forth are just a whole series of gags and tricks which, if you worked them on a preclear, he'd be mad as the devil at you. And these, these children could just be left to relax, they could be permitted to relax. Do you get the idea? Why keep working with them? It's a funny thing, but if you take a child who is having a, a, well, he's having a fight with some other child, and if you merely assume that he's either tired or hungry, you're right. See? He's having a fight so you assume he's tired or hungry, feed him and put him to bed. He's very cross and he's having a great deal of libido complex or something of the sort, or he can't control his constipation or something, assume that if he's upset that he's tired or hungry or both, feed him and put him to bed. (laughter)

Now, there isn't really anything else to the process than this type of repetitive action until you come up to stable data. But you go on this way.

Now, if a child is having a very great deal of trouble in school and being extremely anti-social with his playmates and that sort of thing, before Scientology, all you could have done to him that was effective would be feed him and put him to bed. Why? You mean to tell me, you can teach a thetan anything? You can UNteach him. You can restimulate and snap out into the clear a bunch of teachings, what we do in Scientology, as-is them and straighten them out, and an individual can then do better. You should think of this, you should think of this as very peculiar that when we audit somebody in the direction of erasing a bunch of his concepts of one character or another, blowing a lot of his past misconceptions about life, that he suddenly becomes more intelligent, his IQ goes up.

You say, „Fourteen, twenty, nine.“

Now, that's very interesting, isn't it? Because child psychology has never at any time, done anything but say, „It is impossible to change anybody's IQ. IQ changes as the years go along and it changes along a certain pattern where the person is never smarter than a person is smart...“ In other words, they shoot you from a gun and in flight, your course will never be changed. I'd say the boys who were doing this must have been educated in, in fatalism. I think the god Kismet must be the god of psychology. It's all fate, and there's nothing you can do about it. Very well. Before Scientology, this idea that the child was a standard of human behavior and that an individual got in bad shape if not supereducated and put under super-social stress, have actually colored the entire field of human behavior to such a degree that I think you'd have a little bit of difficulty dispelling all of it, suddenly. Why?

And he says, „Fourteen, twenty, nine.“

Because we have to enter a relatively forbidden field to find out what a child is all about, and that relatively forbidden field is para-Scientology. Well, it's time for us to face up to it. It's all right for us to tell the truth and then say it's a fairy tale, I guess. But there comes a time when it is necessary to front up to the actual nature of Man if you're going to do anything for him. There is a CCH process called Then And Now Solids. It's very doubtful if a person could be run on Then And Now Solids, for any length of time at all, without falling through. He's running full track material before you can stop him. In other words, you say, „Well, let's just stick to this present lifetime and let's erase childhood and that'll make him all right.“ It's not true. And you start running Then And Now Solids and you at once will find yourself confronting the phenomena of whole track, which is to say, Man has lived before. And which also tells us that Man will inherit, in the next life, all he didn't do in this one, which, I guess, is the idea of fate.

You say, „What did you say? What did I say?“ See, he has to answer these things. And then you finally say, „Well, what did I say the first time?“

Karma. Karma isn't true. But it's true that if somebody kicked off all the bodies... I've had it explained to me that it was perfectly all right to kick all the bodies off in this life because, you see, ha-ha - the fellow saying this is old, you know - and he says, „Well, I'm old and I don't care whether I'm kicked off by some disease or by an atom bomb. What difference does it make?“ Pfah, what a goon, what a stupe. Imagine his embarrassment. He comes back and he tries to pick up a body on a planet where there ain't none nohow. Well, if he was in the field of psychology, I can only hope that he picked up a particularly obnoxious mouse. (laughter)

And he says, „One, two, three.“

The future is quite interesting in that regard. Where do you go from here? Well, we know in Scientology where you go from here. There's no use kidding ourselves and saying, „Well, the public doesn't like us to talk about things like that.“ We know where you go from here. You go and pick up another baby and you're on your way. Well, if that's the case, we have to take up where you've been.

You say, „That's fine. That's fine.“

Now, an E-meter is a very interesting thing and an E-meter tells us... We still have them around, by the way. And every once in a while, we use an electropsychometer, we use one to track things down. And you can take one of these E-meters, or you could take the biggest and most beautiful police lie-detector you ever laid your eyes on, and get exactly the same results, because that's all an E-meter is, it's a more accurate police lie-detector. You take either of these instruments and you could trace somebody back earlier than this life. Now, I'm not, I'm not telling you, now, a bunch of Eastern superstition, I'm telling you something that's probably much better founded than MV squared. I mean, this is demonstrable, this is very easily demonstrable - demonstrable with an E-meter, demonstrable in other ways. And the individual, who starts to get well in processing, falls through, he falls out of this life into earlier lives and starts knocking stuff out of them. And he finds it's much more aberrative to become...

Now, you can actually teach somebody a stable datum as long as you, the auditor or the educator, make it up originally. Now, you make it up and get him to rephrase it and give you an example of it. You show him a couple of chairs or something like that, you see? You're trying to teach this fellow something, let us say, about accounting. And so you just dream up a stable datum about accounting.

Well, let's say he is having trouble with his present wife, and his last wife fed him cyanide. Now, you're going to get this fellow over his worries about his present wife, and leave the fact that he's been killed by a wife just utterly neglected? Hah! How silly. In other words, he's worried about women because they've knocked him off. So, the auditor could sit there and saw away on little pieces and chips of a log, you know, and chip at it with a teaspoon. And he could do some interesting things, he could wipe out all the times his wife has been nasty to him, he could wipe out all the times his mother has kicked him down the stairs, and he, the auditor could erase and deal with numerous other incidents dealing with women in the current lifetime. And the mystery of it would be that, at the end of the time, the fellow wouldn't feel quite as bad about his wife, but women wouldn't be solved. Alright. We, we erase this getting knocked off with cyanide in the last life and, all of a sudden, why, the fellow'll say, „Well, to handle

You say, „Accountants are people who put down figures that balance. Now, would you accept that as a stable datum for accounting?“

women, I'll just buy up all the cyanide in the world and ...“ In other words, being killed was a much more serious experience than having a teacup slammed in front of him angrily. Do you see that?

And the fellow says, „Mmm-mmm-m mm.“

So, when we deal with the magnitude of human aberration, we're dealing with the drama of life and death which has happened many, many times. Now, an E-meter demonstrates this, processing demonstrates this. And when all of this Bridey Murphy came out, I imagine a few of you wondered why we didn't plunge in. Well, as a matter of fact, we plunged out, at once. The London Express people were quite upset with us because we told them, „Can it, can it. Lay off of it, lay off of it. Skip it.“ They came forward to us with a program whereby they were going to offer reward for any other people who had remembered former existences. We said, „Can it!“ And they said, „Why? Why? I mean, gee whiz, we think this is a good idea!“ We said, „Look, it isn't how to find people who have lived before. That isn't the trick. It's to get them OUT of having lived before that's the trick.“ And sure enough, in three days they cancelled their entire program - on our advice, originally, but they had found out that they were flooded by people who remembered having lived before, and they were plunging all over the track and getting stuck into things and so forth, and having a wonderful time. And the London Express came off of this whole program immediately.

You say, „Now, what did I say?“ (You see, now he has to repeat this.) And you say, ''Well now, is that - a stable datum for accounting?“

The trick is not getting people into past lives - it's getting them out of them, that's the trick. And you start to run Then and Now Solids today on the most innocuous, skeptical person that you ever saw at all, and you've gotten him up with CCH to a point where he could run it, and the next thing you know, why, he's running a life here and a life there. And he sees a little girl running, he sees a little girl running around, and he says, in auditing, „What's all that? Little girl running around... My god, no wonder, no wonder I'm having trouble with sex, I was a little girl in my last life.“ See? I mean, you get, you get all sorts of things. You worry about homosexuality. I don't know how there could be anything else, the way you get scrambled on sexes on the track. It's quite remarkable that the sexes stay straight, I mean, I think that's the remarkable thing.

And he says, „Ah, no, no.“ He doesn't think that would be.

Now, you take Creative Processing. Creative Processing works. We have somebody mock up - create the mental image picture of - women or men or cycles of action, something like this. Those pictures are not usually hitting against this lifetime. They are actually dealing with earlier existences. I'm sorry we have to face up to this, I'm sorry we have to be brave and strong and say that's it. Of course, it's a good thing that, that something has forced us out into the open on this, because any inquiring mind can pick up an E-meter, do some auditing and so forth, and run into this phenomena. The phenomena is not just there to be run into, it is inescapably present. We have been aware of this phenomena, by the way, since middle 1950.

„Well, can you rephrase it in some way?“

Well, we never had any real reason to go outside the field of auditing and say anything about it until children, as a subject, came along. And now it becomes vital that we say something about it. Why? Look, this little child has just gone through the experience of death and his tiny, his havingness is not up to the larger body that he just lost, he is insecure, he is entirely disoriented, he has lost all of his possessions, he's lost all of his friends, and he's lost his memory. And yet, he's still aware of all of these things having been, and he picks up this body and he tries to get oriented somehow. Now, listen, if you had somebody with that much loss on his immediate backtrack, you would find him in an „only one“ state, wouldn't you? You would find him pared down to nothing, wouldn't you? He would really be STRICKEN. That's a child. All you have to know about children is cases. And if you don't stop compartmenting children out as a special category, which is the standard for the human being, or if you don't stop just compartmenting them out, you'll continue to have trouble trying to instruct them, trying to do something with them and so forth. They're in AWFUL condition. It's a wonder they're not psycho, but they're not. They're the ones that didn't go psycho, they went and picked up another body. You got that? So, they actually represent the tougher strata of thetans. They're still in there, willing to pitch.

„Well, accountants are people who put down figures that sometimes balance.”

But, boy! What kind of a state is he in? He's terribly easily exhausted, his havingness is shot. You can't give him, you can't give him a Buick roadster. All you can give him, on a gradient scale, is a little tiny plastic car, that long. He can have that, he lost his Buick roadster. Now, do you see the function and this fixation on toys? They build back a gradient scale of havingness, that's all.

You could work it back and forth this way. It's a sort of a discussive process, you see? Back and forth. Back and forth. Until he finally cognites or accepts a stable datum for accounting which will then permit him to as-is or withstand the confusion of his particular post or action or duty. See this?

Now the kid's got to wait for eighteen, twenty years, everybody tells him, until he can have a body that he can do something with. They tell him also that he won't be able to work until he's got gray hair. They tell him he's got to remain totally dependent. They tell him he doesn't have any role in the society. Look-a-here, he's just been kicked out by death, and now somebody's going to make him wait all these years to be enfranchised again or have any duties. You know that a little kid is tremendous. He will actually try to work to the best of his ability. Most parents are too impatient with children to just let them work, because the children mess things up and so forth. So, the average child, by the time he's five, six years old, is somewhat disabused of the idea of working. That's how you'd really ruin a society.

You state the datum. You get him to rephrase it and give you an example of it. We don't care whether he has to give the example out in the physical universe or just give an example of it. We just keep on with the subject. We feed him stable data; we ask him to do something about the stable data. First, we ask him to repeat it. Then we ask him to rephrase it. Then we ask him to give an example of it. You got the idea? But it's done on an auditing basis. And it begins with „One, two, three.“ Then he says, „One, two, three.“

You've got to spend time... Little girl comes in, she's about 3-4 years old, and you're mopping the floor, something like that, and the little girl takes a sloppy rag and bangs it into the wallpaper and so forth. Aw, give her a break, give her a break, show her how to wring it out and guide her hand a little bit on the floor and let her mop the floor, too. She comes up smiling. „What do you know, you mean I could really maybe be some use someday!“ Don't just say, „Get out of here now, you're messing things up,“ and all that sort of thing.

Now, you think this is very, very easy and that people that don't know of Scientology can do this very, very well. And you will continue in this error until you work it the first time.

Children are people. Don't forget it, because the whole problem becomes unworkable the moment you assume anything else. Children are people. Alright.

You'll say, „One, two, three.“

We've got another factor that's a bug factor that we will have to do something about, and that is this idea of attention span. You get all these stable data about children which aren't data at all. „Children have a short attention span.“ That's not true. „People who are in an exhausted frame of mind have a short attention span.“ That's true. And the shortness of child attention is not something that you, as an auditor, should pay any attention to, at ALL. It is something you should just totally neglect beyond it is a sign that your preclear is having a little bit of a tired time of it.

And the person will look at you and say, „Why?“

Then what is child processing? It is not the processing of psychotics, because these children are exhausted sane people. They're kind of shook-up sane people, you got the idea? They're not batty, they've got a future, but they are certainly not the kind of preclear that you would handle carelessly. And the first thing that a child requires, as a preclear, is good, formal auditing. And the one thing he ordinarily gets is careless, patch-up auditing. And if you had just lost all of your possessions in the last couple of years and an auditor came along to do something for you, you certainly would not appreciate an assist which didn't start with any kind of rudiments, no formality of a session, ended when the process wasn't flat. You got the idea? You just wouldn't appreciate that, would you? Well, this speaks well for Scientology that it's functional in this area.

And you say, „Well, now, no, I just want you to repeat after me 'One, two, three.'„

Children are people. They have been through some very rough experiences, they are not in very good shape, their possessions are very small, their dependence is tremendous. That they pick up some engrams and locks in childhood is almost beside the point, of no consequence. It's just bluntly of no consequence the childhood is aberrative, to some extent, because all of these aberrative locks of childhood sit on heavier engrams of great duress earlier on the track. Don't you see? How about somebody who was diving on a Jap battleship and got his teeth full of explosive machine gun bullets, hm? And now you've got him as a little boy who can't even have a toy airplane. It's quite interesting. Sometimes, you take a child and he has these, all of these odd fetishes and symbols and difficulties that children ran into are, were quite remarkable, because they were not understandable. You couldn't quite add them up, one way or the other. I remember little Tinny-tin... You know, by the way, I'm not occupying the interestingly, the absolute - to be an authority on any subject, you mustn't have had any experience with it - and I'm not occupying that tremendously advantageous spot of having no practical experience in what I'm talking about. It's very advantageous to be in that position. The number of kids I've got are quite numerous.

„Yeah, I know, but why?“

Little Tinny-tin was doing all right - my little boy, he's about 3 now - he was doing all right. One day, when the maid, the girl that was taking care of him, came in and she took him into her room and she had a clown on her mantelpiece. And Tinny-tin took one look at the clown and went all to pieces, just went to pieces, cried and sobbed and everything else. As a matter of fact, he had headaches for another year and was banging his head to pieces on concrete and every other darn thing until I finally got to him with CCH, fairly recently. Remarkable, huh? It all went back to a clown on a mantelpiece. He'd just gotten killed as one. And it was more havingness, this little tiny clown, you see, than he could take. He just couldn't take it, he just shattered, right on the spot. The reason I know this is a fact is because he has also become nervous with later clowns. But he isn't nervous with the subject now.

Well, he isn't asking for an explanation. All you're running into is the flashback on the case. There's no reason why a thetan shouldn't be able to repeat something another thetan said. It won't hurt him and it won't kill him. But you'd think, listening to people, it was the most murderous thing that ever happened.

His head would ache so badly that he would roll his head from side to side, and it wasn't until I suddenly noticed that his motions were that of a person who would be in considerable pain that I finally dug this thing up and figured it out. He was hurting his head because it hurt, he was shaking his head because he couldn't stand it to stay still. When I first found this out many, many months ago, I simply gave him an aspirin. See, you can't ask a child what's wrong, he can't talk to you too well. That aspirin just made him all right and he went to sleep. That was that. And when he'd get these headaches, why, I'd give him a little child aspirin. Then I gave him some CCH and he hasn't been troubled that way. It blew his, blew his head somatics and so forth. I don't know what he did as a clown, I don't even know what the facsimile was. I haven't a clue as to what it was all about, except I know Tinny-tin had never been hurt in this lifetime. But he'd gotten a key-in, one day somebody had bumped his head, and his other key-in was the clown. Bang bang, and there we had a little boy who was in trouble. He was nervous, he couldn't learn and he couldn't do anything, he felt quite destructive and he was in pain.

Well, with this kind of a basic you could understand, if you were doing something with an office, why it was that when you came in and said, „Well, I want all the place cleaned up by five o'clock,“ and then walked out again and came in at five-thirty and found the chairs all upside down and the wastebaskets emptied out on the floor - you could understand what had happened.

You'd say that all bad children are in pain and all bad children are in trouble, but it's necessary for YOU to understand exactly WHAT trouble they're in. And that requires tremendous power of observation, of which child psychology is nothing, there is no observation possible in that field. There is no specialized state of mind known as childhood. Now, that's an awful makenothing-out-of-it, wipe-it-all-out, but I've got to tell you that and give you the, the idea pretty clearly so as to persuade you to use the most formal processing of which you are capable. You process a one-day-old baby, start the session! It doesn't matter that the kid can't answer you, that has no bearing on it at all. Start the session. Audit the child in a proper auditing room. Use communication bridges when you change the process. Bridge out of the session and end the session smoothly, when the process is flat.

Man is too prone to assume that the people in the office were unwilling to do that for you. He's too prone to assume this. He's too prone to assume that these people had a mean streak in them or were lazy or something else. And he seldom assumes the truth of the matter: nine times out of ten they simply didn't hear what you said; they heard something else. You see that?

Don't pick up a kid sitting in the living room, kid's sitting in the living room and you come in, and you say, „Well, I'll run some processing on the kid,“ and then dinner's ready and you leave. You wouldn't like that. And your kid, after a while, will become extremely allergic to processing. Why? He's received very bad auditing. You can make a, you can make a bad preclear out of him. It's pretty hard to do, but it can be done.

And you'll find that it is necessary for you to do this on the job until people groove up. In view of the fact that people become more receptive and more relaxed in doing this, you'll find out their communication level goes up and, as a result, they will function better themselves, because they'll take this trick and work it on somebody else in a great hurry. You will learn to do this sort of thing.

Now, the only thing that works on children, and I say this, say this - sounds like an adventurous statement, it isn't - the only thing that works on children, with any degree of uniformity, is Tone 40 auditing. That works and the rest of it doesn't work. Now, I have processed a child on less than Tone 40 auditing, here and there, with marked success, don't you see, I mean, here and there with good success. But it wasn't until Tone 40 processing came along that I got a look at a child, and found out that I had an adult on my hands. I ran enough Tone 40 on a child, on one child, to discover that I was auditing a person. Child began to talk like one, began to act like one. Because his body was lighter than an adult body, he could get around better. Therefore, he was livelier. And because he had the hope of growing up and acquiring more havingness, he had a little brighter outlook and didn't have to take things too seriously. Heh, you could tell any adult that he was about to inherit a huge estate down in Florida and he'd brighten up too, see? No difference. I found out I was auditing people.

You will say, „I want you to clean up all the office at five o'clock. Now, what did I say?“

Now, over in London, we have audited children, audited children in the clinic, very successfully, and we've done so here. Audit them just exactly like you would audit any other preclear. Only, please, audit them like you would audit an adult preclear. You've got it made. Attention span? Forget it! Cute sayings, being cute with them? Forget it! Somebody came along to you and said like this, you'd think he was nuts, „Goo-goo dada.“

And the fellow says, „Well, you - you want things picked up somewhat.“

Now, you'll find children will pick up more successful phases of earlier lives in their choice of toys, just as any adult. Diana, for instance, undoubtedly had something to do with the telephone company in the last, last life. She undoubtedly did, because she paid no attention to any toys, had nothing to do with any toys, until one day we brought in a telephone. And she said, this little baby, you know, „(Sigh!) Klonk.“ (laughter) And even today, she holds long complicated conversations over dummy phones, and her telephone manners are very, very good. You walk in and talk to her, she may give you a good social interview and maybe not, but you can call her up over the phone and you would find the politest, most mature little lady that you ever wished to talk to. Quite remarkable. I phoned her up this morning, by the way, and asked her how she was doing and so forth, and we had a very pleasant conversation. The meticulousness of her telephone manners is what is fabulous. This she knows well, she's had something to do with switchboards and telephones. It's the only thing she pays any attention to. Her one ambition is to go dancing in the pictures - that hasn't changed since she was about six months old. She's going to go dancing in pictures, that's what Diana's going to do. I suppose there's nothing you can do about it. It's probably the one activity on the backtrack that she hasn't been killed at. (laughter)

And you say, „I said, 'I want you to clean up the office by five o'clock.' What did I say?“

No, you really have to, have to limber up your mind and open up your mind on the subject of concepts of one kind or another, concepts of life, to look at a child, and you realize that you are looking at an adult with less body. He's got more future and less body and that's about the only difference. Now, when you run CCH on a child at Tone 40, you run CCH on a child at Tone 40. You open sessions, bridge them, end them. It's a formal auditing session.

„Well, you want things all squared around and uh - and so on.“

Now, the other tremendously important thing, the other tremendously important thing about children, is this whole area where the child is trying to participate in society and in its activities, and unless you can frame a child into society and its activities, with something like 8-C and that sort of thing, the child is still stuck. So, what you're trying to do is bring the child up to present time. Of course, the child comes up to present time, he has less body than he had if he's stuck on the backtrack in an adult body. Do you see that clearly? Alright.

„All right. I want the office all cleaned up by five o'clock. Now, what did I say?“

And part of that is this. Every Scientologist is trying to lead his kid too far. He's leading him, leading him, leading him. Now, this kid is growing up, but leading him is the sin. Nothing he does anywhere is all right, it has always got to be better. And you breed him into an apathy eventually, his recognition that he cannot do anything to please you. You never give him a win when you do that. You got it? You say, „Lean forward, talk better, get better educated, go on up scale better, grow better, do this better, do that better.“ When I see Scientologists handling children, the only crime that they're committing - they're handling children beautifully on the whole, just gorgeously, except this one little crime - which, if not spotted and isolated, can actually make a child very unhappy. Lead him, lead him, lead him.

„Well, you - you want things in better shape sometime today.“

It isn't don't let him, don't, don't fall off on the cliché of, „Well, let him be a child once in a while,“ or something like that. Most play is simply hysteria. You watch a bunch of children running around in the yard and, all of a sudden, they become very hysterical and their eyes start staring around and they start clawing each other, boy, and their voices go up in high C, and you say, „Oh, look at the little children playing.“ They're going nuts! They're too tired and they're probably hungry, they're probably worn out, and the thing to do is to get them inside and calmed down - not just because you don't like to hear them yell. It's because they're going to get worse and worse, and then somebody is going to get hurt. They only get bunged up when they go completely spinning. But this idea of „letting them be a child once in a while“ is not what I'm talking about. Let them be as adult as you want, demand they be as adult as they can be or as a child as they can be - that isn't it. It's give them a win once in a while. See, I mean, here you have this child, and he's growing up here and he's just, and all the time you're saying, „Well, he's going to be better,“ and so on. And you're getting him to take five steps - he's taking four, you want him to take five, see? Once in a while, let him take four. And here's the key to it. In processing them and living with children, every now and then, tell them to do something they CAN do, not something you HOPE they can do. (applause)

„I want the office cleaned up by five o'clock. Now, what did I say?“

This is, by the way, one of these simple observations that is SO simple that it usually entirely evades observation. Got that? It usually does. Now, the best child process we had, up to CCH, was simply Withdraw. We'd put out our hand and the baby would reach for our hand, we'd withdraw our hand slightly. That was the best we had, the same process that worked on cats and so forth. But the whole of CCH will work on a child, eventually, and certainly the first two steps are very functional on any child that can even vaguely walk. And that leaves one process at the bottom for those that aren't ambulant. Fortunately, it's a fine process, has three sections. CCH 1, „Give me your hand,“ „Thank you.“ Right hand, left hand and both hands, and that, that works on a child who isn't ambulant and can't talk yet. But as they go on up the line, the rest of them work. Don't worry about, don't worry about, is he old enough for the process. No. Has his CASE progressed enough to take the process.

„You said you wanted everything uh - washed.“

Now, when you realize that you're teaching a child arithmetic who knows arithmetic, you realize that education is normally invalidative. You know, you can mark him wrong all the time about his arithmetic. He possibly knew arithmetic, but he couldn't talk or handle a pencil. By the time education, quite normally, gets through with him, why, they've gone on a wrong assumption: they have assumed that he did not know any arithmetic and they're going to teach him arithmetic. You got it? Well, that's an incorrect assumption. The proper assumption, the workable, I should say, assumption in this case is assume that he has a college education, if he could just get at it. Assume he knows how to drive a car, if he could just sit up high enough behind the wheel. What he's held down with is size and control and mechanics, do you see, that's, that's holding him down. But whenever you teach him something, for heaven sakes, as I said before, give him an occasional win.

And you will discover to your horror that your belief that your postulates don't work stems immediately from the point that your orders are seldom heard. Got that? And therefore you think, „Well, I can't executive anymore,“ or „I'm no good in charge of things,“ or

I'll give you a very amusing example of this. There was a little baby and he was lying in his crib and he was crying, crying, crying, crying, crying. And I'd noticed both of his parents, Scientologists, just been leading this little kid and leading him you know, I mean, they'd given him more than he could do. And so I got alongside the crib and I said, „Hello,“ I said, „Lie in your crib. Thank you. Lie in your crib. Thank you. Lie in your crib.“ That's what he was doing, see, and he heaved a tremendous sigh of relief and shut up. (laughter) So, you see, you can get, it's pretty simple, it's pretty simple. You gave him a win. You gave him a win, you told him to do something he could do. Do you see that?

„It's just too much work.“

Well, that's the size of child processing. It actually requires a good auditor. It requires a very good auditor. And when they blow sessions, you don't let them blow and you carry right on through, you don't let them wash it up just because they became upset about something. That's the time you carry on. And Tone 40 processing cracks these cases. I cannot tell you, at this time, how high a child could be raised or into what concept of existence or how adult he could become. I can only tell you that we can fix him up on most anything that's wrong with him. I don't know how far north a child will go on CCH, it has not been tried. Everybody is so astonished at some nowmannerly little lady or little boy or something like that, who seems to have good sense and is carrying along and is much happier about life, that they never try to push him any further. Their ideas of what a child should be hamper them to such a degree that they never push them on up to being able to speak French and Latin, too. I don't know how high this can go, I haven't any idea, I haven't a clue. This is in its infancy, but it's quite remarkable that it has reached infancy as a subject.

No, it isn't too much work. It's not enough say.

The subject is, to all intents and purposes, wrapped up as you look at it from the bottom. That is to say, you can't take a child now and flop. If you know how to run CCH, you will do something for it. By the way, kids make terrific auditors, they make terrific auditors. They haven't had to mislearn so many things or something of this sort, or maybe they're just naturally bright, or maybe they're just perceptive, or maybe they're interested, or maybe they're more human beings than older people after they've been processed. But every kid that I've ever run into, who has studied Dianetics or Scientology has wound up being a fine auditor. It's rather fantastic. So, it tells us that there is something to be known about that, that there is something to be done about it, and we've got things in pretty good shape, in general, on this particular subject.

Whenever you're having trouble or randomity in an organization, it is based routinely, usually, on just not enough say.

I'm very, I must stress to you that a child deserves a formal session and should always be given a formal session, and that the processes which work on children are the Tone 40 CCH processes. And those are pretty well wrapped-up conclusions with tremendous experience behind them. I hope this information can be of service to you.

You can do it in various ways. You can say, „I want the office cleaned up at five o'clock.“

Immediately after the end of this lecture, practically right now, we are going to christen a couple of kids. So, don't go 'way. (applause)

„Clean up the whole office by five o'clock.“ You could say it in various ways. But you'll find out the most effective long-run process is not to rephrase it, it's simply to say the same thing over again. And the person will at first believe that you're simply being cranky or mean, or he'll tell you so, or you'll get emotional flashback. But you should understand that you're simply discharging these things off the bank and handle them accordingly; which is to say, ignore them.

OK. If the parents of these here chilluns will bring 'em front and center.

And if you know exactly what you're looking at, you'll after a while begin to understand what this anatomy of man is. You'll understand that he has a tremendous faculty for protecting himself against things which aren't attacking him. That's possibly his greatest ability. He protects himself „in case.“

& OK. This is Mr. Bloomquist, Mr. Bloomquist here. (applause) And this is Mrs. Bloomquist, and introducing to the audience right now. And George Sidler and Ethel Fredericks and decided to be godfather and godmother. So we're all set.

But this sort of thing and these sort of things are all germane to the field of education, aren't they?

Now, as a matter of sober fact, I want you to realize that one of these christening ceremonies is, we've, we've got it right down. I'll show you how you do this. OK? (baby fussing) Somebody's protesting. Here we go. Now, how are you, huh? Oh, that's better, huh? Alright. Now, your name is Kevin Jonathan Bloomquist. You got that? Kevin Jonathan Bloomquist. Good. There you are. Did that upset you? Now, do you realize that you're a member of the HASI? Pretty good, huh? Alright. Now, I want to introduce you to your father, this is Mr. Bloomquist. Come over here. (baby babbling) Oh, that's all right. No, it's OK, it's OK. That's all right. That's right. Turn it into a laugh. And here's your mother. (baby babbling) OK. OK. It's all right. That's right. And now, in case you get into trouble and want to borrow some quarters, whoa, there's Mr. Sidler. See him? He's your godfather. Now take a look at him. That's right. And here's Ethel Fredericks, in case you want some real good auditing, she's your grandmother, your godmother. Got it? (baby babbling) Ha ha. Alright. Now, you is suitably christened. Don't worry about it. It could be worse. (Ron laughs) OK. Thank you very much.

I was flabbergasted one time at a senior engineering class to find that none of the senior engineers knew the fundamental laws of physics verbatim. I thought, oh, no! They knew nothing about fulcrums, balances; they couldn't quote you any of these laws at all; and they were all adrift in their subject. They were just having a very brutal time slugging into it. Actually, they had begun it the wrong way. They had not taken and understood the basic data of physics as stable data, therefore the whole of physics was a confusion to them.

Female voice: Thank you. You bet.

Well, so we do have that one coming up - soon as I get around to it. I'm pretty lazy, you know; I almost never get anything done. But I may possibly be able to scare myself into some sort of activity on this and get it done.

Male voice: Thank you. (applause)

But there's another book that will be out sooner than that, which is more important to you, and that is The Student Manual. Now, The Student Manual is just what it says: a student manual. It is designed, of course, for an Academy student, but this does not make it less usable. And it collects all the facts of Scientology - nothing but facts, there aren't examples or anything else there - all of the Training Drills, all of their alternates, all their B, C and D and E parts, all the CCHs. Practically every process we've ever had of any moment is in this Student Manual: the Factors, the Axioms of

They'll treat you all right. OK. You bethca.

Dianetics, the Logics - oh, just on and on and on and on - and an article on something which we've never had an article on before, which is the theory of auditing. That's weird, but we've just never had an article on the theory of auditing. That and many other things are covered.

Well, hello, hello. This is the first time I've seen you. Good for you. Now, come here, come here. Fine. Here we are, other way to. There we go. There we are. That's a nice smile, that's a good smile. Yes, sir. Now, you are Galen Farrell, you got that? Hm? Galen Farrell. Yes. And you are also a member of the organization. Got that? Oh, you're a good baby, aren't you? Yeees, well, you know when you're safe. Alright. And this is your pop, John Farrell. Introduce you to your pop, this is John Farrell, and he's your father. And introduce you to this Tuc Farrell, and she's a real good auditor, and she's your mama. That's right. That's a girl. Yeah. Alright. Now, I want to show you that you're real lucky, you're real lucky. Now here's your godfather, Wing Angell. And he's very rich and has an absolutely inexhaustible number of quarters, when you grow up. Just take a look at him, take a look at him. There he is. That's your godfather. And this is your godmother, Smokey. This is a gorgeous godmother you've got over here. Isn't that pretty good, huh? Alright, now that's fine. And you're a member of the organization, and everything is just fine. And thank you for coming up here to be christened. You betcha. Alright.

The theory of auditing, by the way, is covered in Dianetics in The Original Thesis, which is still good reading. I was reading it the other day, and I was quite amazed at its simplicity. I said, „Well,“ I said, „it's just that I've gone along all these years and gotten stupider and stupider because I look this over and I know exactly what this is all about,“ and didn't realize that the book is illuminated by an additional ten years of study. That's very funny. I mean, Dianetics is now beginning to be illuminated by a more... higher concept of Dianetics. But it has a theory of auditing in it. But just exactly why people get better when they're audited is quite germane.

Female voice: Thanks, Ron.

Well anyway, that book is coming up, and we're trying to rush that through the printers. And it started out to be a little paperback book - tsk - and now it's about that thick. Poundage. It's a real textbook, real honest-to-goodness textbook - probably the first textbook-looking textbook that we've had in Scientology. We would have been very happy to put this out as a paperback for a dollar, but as a matter of fact the printing prices and everything else have gone up, so it looks like it'll be a very nicely done hardcover for about ten dollars. It's an encyclopedia. That book is important. We hope to get that out in six or eight weeks. It'd be a miracle if we made the deadline but the text is all there; it's all written, it's all ready to go - which is one thing. I haven't been doing anything, so I got around to it one way or the other.

You betcha. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Now, the CCHs and exactly how they are done are not now in any available published form. That's an awful thing, isn't it? They're not now in an available published form. The first available published form will be The Student Manual. That will be the first available published form of the CCHs. Six - eight weeks to go.

Now, you see, that's a real complicated ceremony, you Scientologists, that's real complicated. The truth of the matter is, though, nobody's done it, nobody. They might have told the doctor, but they never told the kid what his name was, did they? And nobody's ever introduced him to his father and mother. So, that's the way we do it.

Therefore, if I had any question about them or how, so on - I'm going to watch all the staff auditors flinch now - why, find one of these people with a red brassard on before you get out or grab them at the party tonight (that's a good idea! Everybody grabs me at the party, you see, they never grab anybody else) and get the thing clarified - if you're going to go home - if you want to have a question about it.

Thank you.

But right now I'm going to show you a fantastically easy piece of CCH, which is immediately above our good friend the Hand Space Mimicry or Book Mimicry. The step that's immediately above there has gotten idiotically simple. Come here, Dick Steves.

Now, this process is not a Tone 40 process if you don't want it to be, but it can be run on a Tone 40 basis. And it's most effective when run on a Tone 40 basis. But it is effective regardless of how you run it.

Now Dr. Steves here has „volunteered“ to be the preclear. And I'm going to show him how to run - just use you as a preclear here - and I'm going to show you no more, no less than how to run Contact, Location by Contact.

LRH: Okay? All right, now the process we're going to run on you is Location by Contact. Is that all right with you?

PC: Mm-mm.

LRH: All right, I'll tell you how this process is run. I'm going to ask you to touch certain things here in the room, and you touch them. Okay?

PC: Mm-mm.

LRH: Got that?

PC: Gotcha.

LRH: All right. The auditing command is, is „Touch that (indicated object).“ That is the auditing command.

PC: Mm-mm.

LRH: There's no other auditing command.

PC: All right.

LRH: And then I will acknowledge when I believe you've touched it. Okay?

PC: Fine.

LRH: How's that?

PC: Good.

LRH: All right. You all set to go?

PC: Yep.

LRH: All right. Touch that podium. Thank you.

Touch that curtain. (Notice I didn't tell him to let go.) Thank you. Touch that chair. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much.

PC: Hm-mm.

LRH: All right. And how are you getting along?

PC: Very good.

LRH: Is it all right if I do this just one more time.

PC: Oh, yeah.

LRH: ... and then finish it? All right. Touch that chair. Thank you. All right, that's the end of that process. Thank you.

Now, you got that? Got that? Isn't that remarkable? Why do we run such a fundamental process such as that?

Well, CCH has a basic theory. First we take the body and get the body under control so that the auditor or the preclear could control it. And then we take the mind under control by controlling attention, you see? First we get the body, then we get the mind under control - by controlling attention.

This is quite markedly an attention process, isn't it?

So I showed you „Give Me Your Hand.“ Such processes as that would take the body under control, wouldn't it? All right. This one takes attention under control. And it need be no more complicated than this and actually works better in its less complicated form.

It doesn't work too well this way: „Look at that chair. Walk over to that chair. Touch that chair. Thank you.“ No, because that is not a barrier, see? That's the 8-C on it is, you know... It's the barriers which are running into the case on 8-C that do the most to it. And all this is, is making an individual contact MEST.

Now, you notice that none of these processes right up here to CCH 5 have anything to do with thinkingness, see? And there's the tiniest shadow of thinkingness in telling him to touch it. But certainly you could tell at once when it was violated. If the person didn't touch it, he didn't touch it. Don't you see?

[To pc] So, all right, all right. You refuse to touch the chair now. All right. Touch that chair. Thank you.

Got it? It looks awful simple, doesn't it? Now, actually you shouldn't expect anything spectacular from this process; you shouldn't expect cases to blow up in your face and that sort of thing. But you shouldn't overlook the real gains that cases make running this. And the biggest danger in running this process is, is you overlook the fact that the guy's coming right on up the line just as smooth as could be. Because it's a very smooth process. It's almost a total communication process.

All right. Now, that's the first one of these. Of course, there's another Training Drill that goes in there that they teach them at the Academy.

It's [to pc]: Notice that wall. Thank you. Notice the floor.

PC: Mm-mm.

LRH: Thank you. Notice the ceiling.

PC: Mm-mm.

LRH: Thank you.

That's old-time Locational Processing. (Thank you. End of process.) Okay. This is just a Training Drill today. It's just to teach the auditor to put somebody's attention around on things.

It's this touch process that starts to get pay dirt. Now, this touch process has a numerous number of applications. Of course people go around touching things with their hands, don't they? But of course they never touch anything with their feet, do they? This process does some of the most fabulous things when run with the feet.

[To pc] All right. Now we're going to use your feet.

Touch that chair. Thank you. Good. Touch that chair. Thank you.

I'm not going to run this very long on him because he's been a long time on his feet around here at the congress and I'd give him a somatic, just like that.

But what if a preclear refused to do this? What if a preclear refused to do one of these?

You know, touching the feet to the chair is quite a trick here. You know? That's what we'd have to do.

Supposing he laid down on the floor and refused to go any further? Then there'd be a time we'd have to take hold of his foot and tow him over to the chair and touch it. Got it? Now, that's the way it'd be done. But touching it with the feet then we can touch it with the feet, one, two... [To pc] Touch it with both feet, one and then the other. We could make him touch each object with that. Except we just put that in as an understanding and run the process that way You got it?

Now, these people that get very tired and exhausted standing around for short lengths of time - they can't stand up and that sort of thing - actually, that type of tiredness runs out on that process alone. It's a very effective process. It's idiotically simple!

That's the trouble: the truth has been lying out there in the hot sun painted bright red.

All right. Now, that's one of these. Now let's take the next one, CCH 6. This is Body- Room, both random. And this is run this way.

LRH: I am going to run Body-Room Locational on you, by contact. All right. And I'm going to ask you to touch some part of your body and then touch an object. Is that clear?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. The auditing commands are „Touch your chin. Thank you. Touch that chair. Thank you. Touch your shoulder. Thank you,“ so on. Got it?

PC: Got ya.

LRH: All right. Good. Here we go. All right. Touch your chin. Thank you. Touch that chair. Thank you.

Touch your shoulder. Thank you. Touch that rug. Thank you.

Touch your knee. Thank you.

Touch the rung of the chair. Thank you. Touch your chest. Thank you.

Touch the carpet. Thank you.

Got this? Get it, though, now, this is a different process. Do you know that all you have to do is put somebody's attention on himself, most of the time, to give him a somatic? Did you know you could make somebody have a sudden pain simply by saying, „Look at you!“ I got some somatics right through there.

So we flatten down the room by touch and then, on a random basis, have the individual touch some part of his body - randomly, you know, different parts - and touch objects and touch the body and touch objects and touch the body and touch objects. That's a different process. You see that?

Now we get up to the next one up, CCH 7. And that is Contact by Duplication, or Duplication by Contact. Now, here we get something that looks like Book and Bottle but isn't.

[To pc] Let's take this over here. Now, if you'll step around here.

This has two variations; it has two variations one after the other that could be used. And that is to say, we'd have him touch... now, the way you do this, you touch the chair and then touch the podium and touch the chair and touch the podium. That's one.

We would choose up some body part or another and have him touch the chair, touch the body part, touch the podium, touch the body part, touch the chair. You got that?

Now, that is CCH 7, see? „Touch the chair.“ „Touch the body part.“ „Touch the podium.“

That is the process. And that's the process we're going to demonstrate here.

LRH: All right, I'm going to give you a series of auditing commands. But first I want you ... when I ask you to touch the chair, I want you to touch the chair.

PC: Okay.

LRH: And I'll thank you for doing so. Then I'm going to ask you to touch the tip of your nose.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. And I'll thank you for doing so. I'm going to ask you to touch the podium, thank you for doing so; then touch the tip of your nose.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Okay? All right.

PC: Gotcha.

LRH: All right. Here we go. First auditing command. All right. Touch the chair. Thank you.

Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you. Touch the podium. Thank you.

Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you.

Touch the chair. Thank you.

Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you. Touch the podium. Thank you.

Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you. Touch the chair. Thank you.

That's it - for hours. Now listen, you start running some duplicative process on somebody, run it till it's flat in the same session it is started. You got that now? Don't start running Book and Bottle thirty minutes worth on somebody; you just run it till it's flat. Now, this one is the same as any other duplication process; it'd have to be run until it's flat.

Now, what's the value of it? Oh, nothing, except it'd probably plow a complete psychosomatic right out of existence. Let's say - nothing wrong with him - but let's say he was wearing a piece of armor on his left shoulder or something of the sort. We would pick up that body part as an affected part. We'd have him touch an object, see, like touch the chair here, touch the body part, touch the podium, touch the body part, touch the chair, touch the body part, touch the podium, touch the body part, touch the chair. You see that? And we can actually effectively treat a psychosomatic illness in that fashion.

Now that is, in essence, the easiest, smoothest-looking sort of process you ever wanted to see. It also processes very effectively, but it processes very smoothly. Now, you got that one? That's Contact by Duplication. Now, I've shown you three Contact Processes. One is simply contact random objects in the room, one after the other. Then contact random objects alternate with contacting randomly a body part - see, Body-Room. And then Contact by Duplication, which are two fixed objects with the preclear caught in between. Got that one?

All right. Now, those are the first seven steps of CCH and just about all a fellow needs have there until he goes into the subjective processes. You say, „Well, by golly, that's not very many processes, just seven, and then to have him go into subjective processes entirely.“

Yeah, well, it's a lot of processes. These I've shown you are bearcats. You start running these on people and you'll find out things happen.

LRH: Thank you very much, Dr. Steves.

PC: Thank you.

LRH: It's all right if we end that session?

PC: Right.

LRH: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good.

Now, here is the essence of auditing. People can always get more complex. The trick is to get more simple. They can always get more complex.

Now, as we go upstairs further in CCH we run into our old friend, the Trio, just a straight Havingness Process. That process is described in Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought.

We go upstairs from that and we get the solid mock-ups and so on.

But there's a bracket of three important processes which until you flatten Tone 40 Training Drills you shouldn't attempt, because it's hard enough to run 8-C without running the graduate scale of solids with 8-C. And these three CCH processes fit in, one right after the other here, on solids.

But we're now addressing thinkingness - let me be very clear - so therefore we have gotten subjective. And that's why I say the first seven processes of CCH are extremely objective.

The auditor can observe it at once. The preclear cannot possibly disobey the auditing command because it is too simple. The auditor can observe whether or not the command was obeyed. And where you fall down on preclears, when you fall down, is you tell the preclear to think something, he doesn't think it, and that's that - he's out of session. Do you see that?

You say, „Get the idea you're a green cat.“

And he gets the idea that this is silly and says, „Yes.“ And you say, „Fine.“ You follow that?

It's control of thought, control of thought has been the main bugbear in auditing.

In order to control thought - you see, in the final analysis the only processing there is, is changing somebody's mind, isn't that right? Now, his mind has to be changeable in order for him to change it. That's fairly sure, isn't it? Well, you show him his mind is changeable, and after that he can change his mind and he's in good shape. Well, that's all processing amounts to in the final analysis.

But in order to do this you first take over the most obvious thing, person, and show him that it's possible to control that - in other words change it. And then you take over this thing called attention and show him it's possible to control that. And he can take over the control of that.

You understand the Scientologist's idea of control isn't what it used to be in the army or anything like that: „We take over control of somebody to keep control of that person.“ That is not what we're doing. We are taking over control of the person to show him that that is controllable, and then we ask him to control it. And then he says, „Hey, what do you know? Huh-huh, ha-ha! I can control that.“ And of course at that moment he becomes far freer and more capable. All ability is, is the ability to handle, control, direction or determine. Isn't it?

All right. Now let's take a look at this thinkingness. If we control his person, and then he finds out he can control it, and we control his mind (these mental image pictures) and then he sees he can control those (we do that by controlling his attention), only then could we ask him in some simple way to do something with his thinkingness. And we've at once gone into subjective processes.

So you might say the total Objective Processes of CCH are those first seven which I have just given you.

Now we go up into these Havingness Processes, mock-ups and all that sort of thing, finally winding up with Then and Now Solids. But the modus operandi from here on is again relatively simple: We want to conquer this solid factor. The individual that has trouble cannot make things solid - things make him solid. He can't make things solid. That is the almost unsolvable case, you might say. That is the common denominator of the old-time unsolvable case: The person couldn't make walls and things solid. Sometimes they were terribly solid to him, but he couldn't have any influence on it, don't you see?

There's a solved mystery here which I'd like to announce to you. Remember the old case that we call the wide-open case that you could just run engrams on and engrams and they got no better and had no subjective reality, and they just behaved beautifully but nothing ever happened - remember that case? Well, that case had a totally solid engram bank which was totally real, which maneuvered under the auditor's steering only. The preclear couldn't do a thing with it. But they would audit beautifully as long as you would audit them.

Sometimes they'd hit automaticities and go off one way or the other. But the characteristic was the engrams were much more solid than the preclear ever dreamed of and the engrams made the preclear solid. But the preclear never could have made anything in that entire mental image picture category solid. Nothing could have been made solid in the bank. Don't you see that?

So, the remainder of CCH is aimed at these solids. And there are various ways of getting him to do this thinkingness called Make It More Solid.

Now, the way you get a person up to making it more solid - I got that solved several months ago - is „Keep it from going away“; „Hold it still.“ And then he can make it solid. First, if he can keep it from going away, do that successfully, he can then be graduated up into hold it still. And if he does that successfully, he can then make things more solid.

So we can salvage one of these cases because there were two missing links on a gradient scale that we didn't know about; and we know about them now, and so we can solve this case.

So we take 8-C and go subjective with an 8-C. The auditing commands are - this is just the same as anything else - we'd say... Tone 40, we'd say: „Look at that chair. Thank you. Walk over to that chair. Thank you. Touch that chair. Thank you. Keep it from going away. Did you keep it from going away? Thank you. Turn around.“ Got that?

The next process is simply „Look at that chair. Thank you. Walk over to that chair. Thank you. Touch that chair. Thank you. Hold it still. Did you hold it still? Thank you. Turn around. Thank you.“ Got it?

And the next one is simply, „Look at that chair. Walk over to that chair. Touch that chair. And make that chair a little more solid. Did you make it a little more solid? Thank you. Turn around.“ Got that?

Well, each one of those has to be flattened. That's a lot of 8-Cs, isn't it, for somebody that's having a rough time. But actually he graduates up.

Now that he can make things in the room solid, we now turn around and make him make things in the bank solid. „What can you mock up?“ we say.

Fellow says, „I can mock up dogs.“

You say, „All right, mock up a dog. Good. Make him a little more solid. Thank you. Do what you please with him.“

And he finally gets so that he can make up independent mock-ups solid. And then we can go into Then and Now Solids.

And we can put a time track back together today the like of which you never heard of - a Dianeticist's dream.

We say, „Can you get a picture?“

The guy said, „Yup.“

„All right,“ you say, „get a picture.“

He does.

You say, „Make it a little more solid.“ All right, we say „Fine.“ We say, „Look at that chair and make it a little more solid. Thank you. Get a picture and make it a little more solid. Thank you. Look at that table, make it a little more solid. Thank you.“

There are just two auditing commands, with a little drag in the middle. Just two auditing commands, that's all. First we get him the idea... can he get a picture - we have to ascertain that. „Get a picture and make it a little more solid.“ We don't say, „Get a picture. Thank you. Make it a little more solid. Thank you.“

Why?

Because he got a picture and just by looking at it, it appeared to be more solid. And he thought he was disobeying the auditing command. He thought he was prematurely making it more solid, and he has a tendency to go out of session. So we say, „Get a picture and make it a little more solid.“ And he says, „ .“ Say, „Thank you. Look at that chair .. „

Now, when he just looks up... I want you to do this. All of you look at that chair, see? You can look at that chair? Well now, when you're looking at the chair, the chair's more solid than when you were looking at me. Now, look at me and get a concept of how solid the chair is, see? You see that? So when you tell him to look at the chair he doesn't really get a... You see, it starts to look a little more solid and all of a sudden he thinks, „You know, I'm disobeying this auditing command,“ just because things look more solid when he's looking directly at them.

So the auditing commands of Then and Now Solids are simply those. „Get a picture and make it a little more solid. Thank you. Look at that chair and make it a little more solid. Thank you.“ And that's all there is.

Now, an auditor could direct this around one way or the other He could run valences. He's obviously in Mother's valence. He says, „Get a picture of Mother. Can you get a picture of Mother?“

„Yes.“

„All right. Get a picture of Mother and make it a little more solid. Good. Look at that chair and make it a little more solid. Good. Get another picture of Mother and make it a little more solid. Good. Look at that table and make it a little more solid. Good.“ See? That would be a valence addressed to this thing.

But actually calling for the picture is sometimes adventurous. You will get a further action and the case will go further, ordinarily, if you simply run it direct, straight and simple. „Get a picture and make it a little more solid. Look at that chair and make it a little more solid.“ That's Then and Now Solids - and runs the track the way Dianetics processes never did. It's really fabulous. We got this track licked.

Now, if you start to run this on a preclear, don't become impatient with him when he falls through onto the whole track and goes out of this life. Because he does this very soon. I don't think it would be possible to prevent it from happening eventually if the process were run at all well. He'd all of a sudden get the Roman arena and make it a little more solid. And look at that wall and make it a little more solid. And he'd get the Roman lion and make it a little more solid. And you say, „Look at the table and make it a little more solid.“ You say, „How's it going?“ That's not a Tone 40 process, by the way. You say, „How's it going?“

He says, „Well, I wouldn't stop here if I were you; the lion... I have just found out why I detest priests. I was martyred in early Rome.“

They don't tell you too much about these things. It isn't necessary that they fully describe everything they run into. But this runs more engrams in less time than any other process you ever heard of. People asking for a fast clearing process; well, that is one.

But the trick of Then and Now Solids is this. It is a subjective process, isn't it? Well, all right, if it's that subjective you could expect sooner or later that he'd run into things on the track that would tend to throw him out of control. He's liable to run into something that would throw him out of control. In other words, he's liable to get a little bit out of session on you. So the trick on Then and Now Solids is not to work all the way up the steps of CCH and then grind each one.

Marcia Estrada had a phrase for it the other day which I think you'll love: Auditors don't flatten a process; they kill it dead.

Now, what you want to do, you see, is just flatten it - get it to a point where you can safely change it. And that is when three responses have been of exactly the same communication lag, when an ability is regained or when the person has a good cognition. You could change the process at any one of those points.

So we run CCH up to Then and Now Solids, run Then and Now Solids for a while and we'll suddenly find out that Then and Now Solids is not running speedily, it is now running slowly. There's no great change occurring. We've run it for three and a half hours and no great change is occurring. Boy, that's the time for „Give me your hand. Thank you.“ Got it? Then you go right up the same scale again. See?

Any one of these processes hits a peak of workability within two or three hours of beginning it. They hit a peak of workability. The only thing that isn't true of is Book and Bottle, which is Op Pro by Dup. That does not hit a peak; that flattens. That either kills itself or the preclear dead.

Well, here is a design of processes which require a certain expertness and a considerable amount of skill by the auditor. But salted in amongst these things, you see, there was old Locational Processing. Anybody could do these contact processes. Of course, you get some recalcitrant preclear that starts to wrastle around, you'll wish that you had had flattened on you High School Indoc, like we were showing you yesterday.

But you can go on up the scale running one of these right after the other. And you're demonstrating to him these three important things: that control is possible, that communication is possible and that havingness is possible. And when he learns that this is the case all the way up the line, why, there isn't anything more could be done for him for the simple reason that nothing more, really, is - I don't know.

Then and Now Solids flattens when a person can make any part of the track from the beginning of the universe to the end of it - that's future too. (Remember, you didn't tell him just to get pictures of the past. He usually does that, primarily; he'll start getting pictures of the future after a while.) When all of these from the beginning to the end of the universe can, any one of them, be made totally solid enough so that he in his then body could independently and newly walk around in the scene, the process is flat.

Boy, you can get some of these real flat. Sometimes when you first run into these, it's quite amusing - when you run into whole track. There's the British all lined up in their red coats, you know, all ready to fire the volley. And the fellow runs into this picture, and you know, it makes itself solid with the greatest of ease. And he makes something in the room solid, and then he makes the picture of the redcoats solid again, and he all of a sudden notices that there are some other militiamen standing on both sides of him. Then the next thing you know it's totally real to him - 100 percent there.

We ran into this phenomena in old Dianetics. But this fellow is putting himself 100 percent there. The grass is still the grass, you see, it is now green; and the breeze is the breeze, and the soldiers are the soldiers. And everything is what it is. And very often this occurs on an automaticity when he tried to make it terribly real so as to hold onto it one instant after the volley hit. See? And then he tried to make it all solid so he wouldn't have to give up that militiaman body. One split second after that, he falls dead.

And you'll hit these automaticities of past track effort to make everything more solid. And when you hit one of those things, don't be fooled that isn't an ability, that's a calamity. He'll get up to this where he can do it all the way up and down the track at will. But you can trigger these old ones.

Now, the funny part of it is, is originally on the whole track these are the ones he at first runs into. He'll say, „Boy, those British look awful real! Huh-huh-huh-huh-huh-huh! I wonder if I should make this any more solid.“

And you say, „Well, look at the chair. Get a picture. Make it a little more sol ...“

„I got the same picture ba-a-ck. It doesn't seem like I ought to make it a little more solid.“

„Well, go ahead; make it a little more solid.“ Bow!!

Of course, in view of the fact that for the last 160 years he's been dreading the arrival of that volley, he has never permitted it to be fired; so he had a tendency to get stuck on the track.

Well, it certainly looks like you have a complete picture from Dianetics to Scientology. And we find ourselves back at Dianetics again. I think it's very interesting.

Don't fool yourselves, though, because Dianetics is not being run from the same viewpoint. All we're trying to do is improve somebody's ability to handle pictures; we're not trying to do something to the pictures. Dianetics we did things to the pictures. Now we're only doing things to people to make them handle pictures better, you get the idea?

Instead of being controlled by the pictures, we put them in control of the pictures - and that's Scientology. Scientology is a science addressed to the individual himself. Dianetics was a science which was addressed to the mechanics of the mind.

All right. We have arrived at where we have arrived, both in the level of technology and development. And we've arrived where we have arrived here at this congress, which is the last few minutes of the last hour, except for the party. And of course the party is what counts. That's what counts. We have managed somehow or another to get through from the beginning of the congress to the end, just as we have managed one way or the other to get through from the beginning of Dianetics on up till now.

Well, now, this is a long way from the end of research and the end of track and the wind-up of everything. We have simply found that skills can be uniformly well imparted to auditors. We have found a number of processes which are apparently completely necessary, regardless of what else we learn. And we have found that we have a plateau from which we can walk off into any higher north, you might say. If there's any better abilities to be found, they will be reached from the plateau where we find ourselves now. Nobody, I am sure, is going to find a magic button which simply makes the whole track solid.

You see, we've just found out that it isn't possible for the auditor to control the preclear's thinkingness, and that is what is wrong with the preclear. His thinkingness is out of his control.

Now, we've found a gradient scale of how to get the preclear's thinkingness back under control: first under the auditor's, then under the preclear's. The auditor only takes it under his control in order to give that control of thinkingness back to the preclear. And that is why we're doing it and what is happening here.

It's a highly entertaining adventure to run your own whole track, something like being yanked out of the middle of a movie - color movie with Gary Cooper and all that sort of thing, and everybody's... They're just about to walk out of the swinging doors onto the street for the evening duel and somebody comes in and grabs you and says there's an emergency and you have to leave. To have somebody stop running Then and Now Solids on you, it's quite disappointing, you... At first they're terribly unreal. You say, „Well I don't have any of the mass of my whole track anymore so therefore it isn't.“

Well, its mass isn't, but you'd be surprised how fast its mass recovers. And as fast as its mass starts coming up and you have some confidence in the fact that you still have some replicas and relics kicking around from this and that, then you consent to get some dim, glimmering memory of what it was all about. And soon as that confidence comes on, then you're liable to turn on full and start quoting the textbooks.

For instance, lawyers have an awful lot of trouble with me. They rather uniformly have trouble with me because I studied English common law at Oxford in 1804. And I maintain that American law is based on English common law. I went over to England and came back here again, and I did well, I did well. But I was taught sufficiently well that I can't forget certain basic principles. And some of these attorneys come around in the organization and they say, „But so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so and so-and-so.“ Every once in a while I find myself just on the verge of quoting Jenks versus the King, 1602, you see? So in a world as aberrated as this one, this can also be embarrassing. But it's a lot of fun. It's a lot of fun.

Why, I think we have had here a very, very fine congress. I know I've never had an easier time at a congress. I've never had a better time. I've been very, very pleased with you. I'm pleased with the way you went through the seminars, the way you've received this information. I was almost overawed with the courage with which you tackled those two hours of group auditing. Well, I want to thank you very much for being good preclears in that and being an excellent audience in general. I am very proud to be able to have the privilege of presenting to you this material that I have over the last four days. And I think we have found this an awfully technical congress.

I hope the new people who haven't been around too much, haven't been upset by the tremendous new nomenclature and activities and so forth which have been going on. But from the grapevine reports that filter back to me, I don't think they feel anything but pleased concerning all of this technical material.

I have gotten quite used to the idea of presenting material to old-timers and to new people at the same time. Sometimes I do it successfully, sometimes not so successfully. But I present it anyhow.

I want to thank very much, you, the audience, for your tremendous enthusiasm for coming here in this hot July of Washington and for being such a very fine audience.

And thank you for being here and for your interest in Scientology. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Goodbye.