Thank you.

Here we have the next to the last, next to the next to the last since I'm going to give you a Monday night lecture. Of course I don't have to. Wake up!

All right. This is what? Twenty-seventh of November. And this is the 29th lecture of the 1st Melbourne ACC and the title of it is, "A Brand-New Type of Auditing."

Well, it isn't brand-new to this course but it's a brand-new type. I want you to understand that it is a new type and I've already told you to get out of your monkey suits and stop being a wound-up doll. I've already told you this. I tell ACCs this quite periodically and they always believe me. Of course they go too far and start ARC breaking the preclears and throwing them — the E-Meter down in disgust because the pc won't answer questions, and so forth. But I frankly want you to start auditing the case which is sitting in the chair in front of you. That would be something different.

New type of auditing. I could clear a person without a single repetitive command. Just by knowledge of mechanics and what's going on. Take an E-Meter and just sit down and start banging and slamming through overts but not on a repetitive command basis. Just find out all of the gen on the whole track from beginning to end, capping each handy new little piece, "Now what did you do to make them feel guilty?" or "How did you — what mechanism would convince such people that they had overts on you?" or "Who were the victims in that racket?" and so on.

Or, "Tell me, was the captain of that spaceship ..." and they go victim, victim, victim, too hard, you see. "Well was the captain of that spaceship the actual villain of the piece or was it the crew or was it somebody else?" Or "Tell me, did you ever make a spaceship crash?" Well good, good. "Now how would you go about making people make spaceships crash?"

Just using the mechanics, don't you see, of what is the basic overt act? The basic overt act is making people guilty of overt acts. Do you follow that? All right.

Now, you can saw this one to death and wear it out and ARC break with it and chop people up with it like mad. Pc volunteers a piece of information, he's feeling like a victim at the moment and he's feeling rather griefy. Well, please have enough sensitivity while playing upon that organ to realize that Brahms cut into with circus music is jarring on the nerves.

And while he is busy being a victim, don't say, "Well, you know, you did it yourself." Get the idea? Let him be a victim. See, he feels like a victim in the piece. And don't counter and cap it and use this to invalidate.

It's all too easy to use a piece of mechanism to invalidate the pc, but please understand that you, the auditor, are only dramatizing making the pc guilty of overt acts when you do so. Do you understand that?

Audience: Yes.

Obviously, the best auditor is a cleared auditor because a cleared auditor would not be obsessed with making the pc guilty of overt acts but would per­mit the pc to get off making people believe they were guilty of overt acts, without the auditor interjecting and doing the same Q-and-A with the pc. Do you savvy that? Most invalidation comes from that immediate source. And that is the only danger of total "freewheel auditing" total nonmechanical auditing, because freewheel was an old-time term.

The only danger coming off — let me be very accurate — totally off mechani­cal procedure-ridden, repetitive question auditing — the only danger of coming off of that, is it permits the auditor to dramatize with great ease making the pc guilty of all overt acts.

Now, of course the auditor has a deadly weapon in his hand — that is: what is wrong with the pc. He knows that.

And although the pc's sitting in there, they says, "They drowned me, they drowned me, yes, they took me right out to the end of the ship and they drowned me and I was such a beautiful boy."

And the auditor says, "Yeah, well what did you do to the crew?"

There's more auditors been wounded this way. It's too jarring a note. It isn't in keeping with the pace. The auditor's saying too clearly to the case that he is not interested in the case.

It's up to the auditor — just mark this down — the pc at one time or another has slain a great many beautiful young boys but not necessarily on that ship or in that lifetime. And he's certainly not yet prepared to face the fact. Anything the pc feels victimish about is certainly that zone of action where the pc has manufactured victims.

Now what you cut to pieces with this brand-new type of auditing is the case that is sitting right in front of you and you cut to pieces the reason the case does not move in your hands. Because the case is making you feel — you guilty of an overt act, of course. And where you've got a lot of whole track psychiatry and things like that mixed up and which you find all too com­monly in Scientologists, you'll find that they've got overt — motivator sequences on whole track psychiatry.

So, you get out in the public, you're liable to pick up guy after guy after guy and you not find — they say, "Uh, implants, uh, I've never been implanted and they never did this" and they're just stupid about the whole thing, and so forth. But, "Smashing foremen, yeah, that's the thing to do," you see. And had nothing to do with mental activities. They haven't been close to mentalities, they haven't been close to magic, they've been in and out of space opera as "Tubeman Third Class," you know? But they haven't been very active.

But in Scientology, you find a great many Scientologists, have at one time or another, served in the fields of mysticism, magic, have served in whole track psychiatry of one kind or another, back and forth. Oh, yeah, you can frown, but you've been there, kid, you've been there. You've been there with an electrode in each hand. That I can tell you, one time or another, even though it was way back amongst the glare fights — you've used juice against your fellow man and done things. Now, you just might as well face up to it, this is life.

You are not, oddly enough, dramatizing psychiatry. The people who are dramatizing psychiatry are psychiatrists. And so, basically a Scientologist is a rather different breed of cat.

Somebody asked me the other day, by the way, "How was it ..." I've already mentioned this to you, "How was it I got off better than the rest of you?" and so forth. It was quite a question, "How did I come off any better than anybody else?" and so on.

Well, I haven't got any pat answer for the thing except I just like to win, see? Now, nevertheless the line up which I've gone along the line of, and so forth, and the line that you've gone along the line of, and so on, have some distinct parallels. There are some distinct parallels.

And every once in a while somebody says to me, "Well, what are we doing? Are we the Fifth Invader Force that's knocking out the Fourth Invader Force? And it's all going according to some plan which is written on the fly-leaf of something or other and in which we've been all implanted and we're supposed to do this and that with this planet, and go along like marching little dolls and so forth?"

Well, there's news for you if you think that. Is, aren't you tired of being a puppet in somebody else's game? Well, all right, this is an opportunity to get free. That's what Scientology's all about.

Scientology, as Dick Halpern said last night, is the joker in the deck. That's one that isn't on plans, although they always know there's liable to be a joker in the deck someplace when they start making up big and horrendous plans and so forth. Well, I could give you the whole program and campaign and exactly how it's all supposed to go and what the exact time schedule is right straight on out to the end of time, only Scientology's no part of that plan.

See, all these plans are the activities of slave masters of one kind or another. They don't want anybody free. They're scared stiff that somebody might get out of the cage, don't you see?

Well, if you remain scared stiff about somebody getting out of the cage, you'll ARC break them, invalidate them, chop them up, misread your E-Meter and drop the ashtray on their toes about the time they're ready to spill a grief charge, and you just won't make too much progress in cases. And that's about the only thing that would keep you from making any progress in a case — if you basically were rather frightened at somebody getting free. If you were a little bit frightened about it.

Well, you would willy-nilly be able to drill yourself forward in old audit­ing types into making somebody free. Now, I'm not going to mention this other thing again about the Fourth Invader and the Fifth Invader and that sort of thing. Don't sit there in such a puzzle. I can just ask you, aren't you tired of being a puppet?

Well, I got tired of being a leader in another game, that's all. I'm a ruddy revolutionary. That's what it all amounts to, and so forth.

Talk about overt acts, why, if it's an overt act to carry along some game, and apparently do your job and that sort of thing, well, I am guilty of that sort of an overt act. I'll give you one little clue, one little clue.

The authority on which Christianity is established on Earth is on the authority of the three Magi. Now, you want a little clue. Now you can guess from there. Now let's dismiss the whole subject.

Now, here's a type of auditing that requires from you a command of your subject and a free heart and a fairly clear idea of what you are doing and where you are going. Because if you think you're carrying on some big dress parade which was all planned on the ENIACs and UNIVACs of the Marcab Confederacy and so forth, you're not. If you're following part of the plans of the Marcab Confederacy or were following parts of the plans of the Marcab Confederacy, get ready for an ARC break because what you're doing right this minute has nothing to do with it. See?

And with what amazement any further motion from the Marcab Confed­eracy on forward into this galaxy will reach this planetary area and find Scientology! I think that's very funny. It is a tremendous joke and that's why it's a joker in the deck.

But people have a right to be free. Every now and then people have a right to be free, you see? Well, if you think that way, you can audit this way, you see? So you'd go ahead and free the guy up.

Now, if you don't trust yourself in that particular zone or department, of course the safest thing to do is mechanically audit. You know, make him free in spite of yourself. But you can do a very rapid job with this type of auditing and you already know all of its principles, or most of them. And those that hadn't been stressed I'm going to mention to you with great rapidity right here, right now.

But — that's pulling the tone arm down originally by looking for overts. Now there's the overt about overts which, of course, is the one that is the overt. Which is the overt that makes people guilty of overts — making people guilty, making people believe they have committed overts, and that sort of thing.

Well, you start shredding those things off PT and the present lifetime, and you start straightening it out, you're going to run straight back into some puzzles. And they are nice, great big, juicy puzzles. The darnedest puz­zles anybody ever got into. Because thetans have gotten this far along the line, that they don't know what they're doing.

Female voice: Oh, I agree.

That's right. They don't know what they're doing. They're shifting identi­ties and dramatizing and following out this, and they've got eighteen differ­ent machines which were built by eighteen different high commands at eighteen different periods back into the past, and one or another of them comes alive and they say, "What's that?" You know?

And they consider they're this and consider they're that, and go appetite over tin cup in some other direction and stumble around, and the first thing you run into is the puzzle — how did he get here?

Well, if the case is having any difficulty whatsoever, he got here in the most curious and odd way. I won't even bother to describe to you exactly how, what, when or where he attained his present identity or his identity immedi­ately before this. But if the case cannot remember into childhood, watch out. There is something wrong.

The person says, "I can't remember back of eleven years of age."

Watch out, there's something wrong. He either has got his childhood of this life confused with the childhood of the life before this life, or he didn't pick up the body at birth but picked it up out of an automobile accident or something. Get the idea? Or he's his own grandfather.

I mentioned in a short bit there this afternoon this racing sequence. It's back there about 31,000 — 42,000 years ago in the Marcab Confederacy. About the only thing that's a louse-up on it I didn't mention to the auditor. And that is the fact that every time I got into that particular circuit again, that — a racing circuit, you see, of that area — why, I'd hear about an "old-timer" who had terrific records. And I was beating my brains out beating the old-timer's records. And the "old-timer" about 25 times was myself.

Which simply had that little piece of track so confounded jammed, there was hardly anything you could do about it. Because you're getting invalidated the second you come aboard again, you see? You're getting invalidated, invali­dated, invalidated.

"You should have been here when the Red Rocket was here, see? He was killed back there in such and such a date, you see, but his time for these lapses was so-and-so and so-and-so, and you're just not making it. So, you go ahead and beat the time of the Red Rocket."

So, you say, "Well, that dirty ugly ..." (typical racetrack nomenclature from that point on for four or five paragraphs). You see? Invalidate, invali­date, invalidate, invalidate. See, he was no good and beat his ..." Who was I invalidating? See, I knew doggone well I was the Red Rocket. Get the idea?

So, as the Blue Rocket I invalidate the record of the Red Rocket, you see, but then go up the track a little bit further and I hear all about the Blue Rocket, and he's no good as far as I was concerned.

So, I just got into a slight dramatization of knocking off, mentally, lives that had been knocked off and I think most everybody is in this kind of a condition. They withhold their death and knock off the lives that they have already been knocked off with. They Q-and-A against these, bury them, occlude them, get them out of sight. All right.

This is neither here nor there — I didn't spend much of that time being a race jockey. That was just a handy way of getting rid of used bodies.

What I'm talking about is this: there's something wrong there with iden­tity. Identity flips of some kind or another, identity changes, time-space changes. Another reason that circuit is particularly stuck is because of the marathons that began at the beginning of the thing and they just went round and round and round and round and round and round and round — same space area, you see. Round and round and round with a crash here, and a crash there. But every time you crashed you'd be in the same crash area. So, you couldn't tell the difference between one crash and the next crash and pretty near — all the crashes are all stacked in the same time, place area. Don't you see?

This is a sample of randomity, not terribly important. It probably keys some of you in right this minute, because some of you were probably through that. There was hardly anybody through that area, zone and timespan in that particular area, that didn't get meshed up one way or the other with some of these super-powerful social mechanisms. Not necessarily that one, but another one, because it was a very restless society and it had a very restless populace. And the populace had to always be amused. And it was a plus-randomity — minus-randomity area.

You keep running into these things in pcs and every time you run into them, you find on the E-Meter a change of tone arm and wild changes of tone arm on an E-Meter after you've talked one down and gotten the guy kind of — got this life patched up. The E-Meter will be registering Clear. And then the next thing that you walk into will be some earlier period that makes the tone arm go up again.

Well, you clear up that and straighten up that by finding out the story of it, the overts on it, the overts that make the overts, anything else you want to find out about it. You get this thing more or less taped and you've got that one straightened out and you drop straight back into the life before that or the sequence of lives before that. And you start getting a plot and you start plotting the thing out and you pull the overts off and you let the thing roll and you find out if the pc is stuck too long with one picture and then you find out something about that picture. There's something wrong with that pic­ture. It's messed up.

Now this is simply, you might say, piloting your way through somebody's track and taking the charge off the various areas and putting his know-how back together again. And you can do that very easily with an E-Meter. It is actually rather rapid clearing and is more rapid than Alternate Confront. But Alternate Confront is safer. So therefore any of this type of work that you run through should be patted back in place with Alternate Confront.

And when it's too tamed down you can do an assessment, pick up some object that drops a little bit on the meter and run Create on it until you've got that tone arm going "flip." As soon as the tone arm has shifted wildly and so forth, well let's explore the whole area that he has now shifted into.

We could run him back with a Create Process, flatten it off with Con-front Processes, but find out what the case is all about. And if we were doing those three things I would consider this very good auditing. If we ran Con-front until he was so comfortable that you didn't even think you had a pc there. You know, they're comfortable and extroverted and feels very happy, and then I would reach in and find the next button that made all hell cut loose.

He's just doing fine. I'd flatten the whole case out, you see, with a couple of hours of Confront and it was all smooth — Alternate Confront, you know — it's all smooth now and it's all taped and he knows everything that he did. There was a lifetime — they don't go consecutively and smoothly back, they're all mishmashed. Earlier lives are later and later lives are earlier and you don't quite know what you're taking apart.

Don't make the mistake just because you're taking apart a life of two hundred thousand years ago, that you got everything cleared back to two hundred thousand years. There's probably a patch just twelve years ago that's muddy as the dickens. Got the idea? And that all of a sudden blows into view.

But you're — you've got him all patted together and that two hundred thousand year ago life, well that's all smooth and everything is just dandy, and the track is apparently in excellent condition.

You say, "Well now, do you have any questions about your life?" (as though you were a fortuneteller or something you know).

The fellow says, "Well, no, no, no and it couldn't — no, I don't have any real questions about my life. Except, of course, why my father kept beating me." "Oh, your father beat you?"

Now, in Dianetics we used to run into this every once in a while. We didn't know quite what we were looking at.

The pc says, "Father beat me incessantly."

And we trace the thing back and we can't find a single beating by his father. The pc believed it, therefore he's got a father mixed up with a father. He's got a cross of identities someplace.

Or he's saying, "My mother was a beautiful sweet angel and was nothing but lovely to me, always nice to me, my mother was always nice to me."

We check the thing out and we find out his mother did nothing twenty-four hours a day but rock around the house with a whiskey bottle in her hand hitting the kid over the head. Well, he's taken a mother off the back-track and he's put it up into this lifetime so that he wouldn't have had a bad mother in this lifetime, but this mother he's now got someplace else and she's totally occluded, see? Well, this makes such a mishmash that he can't think his way through it.

So he keeps running up against this, "Why did my father beat me?" he says, innocently.

Well, now you don't know what lifetime you're going to examine from that request, and if you're just going to stick with the theory of "present life-time is the only life there is," (1) you will never clear anybody and (2) you'll not resolve any really difficult cases. Because there's very few of them get difficult in the present lifetime. It's the present lifetime latched up else-where.

See, everybody's going on a huge basic lie and the first thing you'd want to take off the case is a lie. Well one of the first things that you do take off a case is the lie of "I've never lived before." You can just rip that off a case with the greatest of ease. You can smooth this lifetime out, get the guy feeling fine, he knows this lifetime has just been wonderful, you can run Confront on it, and all that sort of thing, and you can play the dirtiest tricks on him.

You can find one little thing that still clicks in this lifetime, and that's a footstool. And you just ask him, "What part of a footstool would you be will­ing to create?" And he will just go zzzrrruuup! back into the past. All of a sudden he's surrounded by pictures and he never heard of these things before, and vacuums, and this and that and other th — .

He says, "I think I must go — be going mad."

Well, of course the joke's on him. He's been mad for ages. Anybody who thinks a total untruth is true is guilty of a little bit of madness.

So, he goes back into it and you start straightening that out and he looks this over in great shock and surprise. And you dig this up, and then flatten out the Create that you ran by running some Confront, and you get that patched back into place, get his questions answered, you know. Flicking back and forth on the E-Meter, spot things in time for him, help him out any way you possibly can, get it all smoothed, he's feeling very, very cheerful, you know he's just feeling fine now! It's not necessary to keep a pc feeling bad the entire intensive or series of intensives. That's not part of auditing.

You can make him feel fine with Confront, see. Alternate Confront, they just smooth out and get to feeling great. I think you've got a subjective real­ity on that now, haven't you?

Audience: Yeah.

They just smooth out, feel very nice.

Well, he's just doing fine. Now's your time to find another rug corner. He knows all the time, he will tell you, that he has never been able to walk down a street comfortably and you have now found out why. Lord knows why. He was a street contractor in Athens or something of the sort and did nothing but gyp the government, see. Something like this and they finally — finally threatened to exile him and did exile him, and let him back in, and let him out, and he had a bad time one way or the other and lost a body over it and ever since this time, why, hates pavement, and — you know, all kind of squirreled up, and then stretch it out and you got — well, it's not bothering him now.

Well, every time something bothers him that's worth auditing, the tone arm goes up. The tone arm, not the needle. Therefore needle sensitivity always has to be set down where it reads properly. Read a needle that is motionless on any ordinary reaction. Always set the sensitivity of an E-Meter so that the needle is motionless for ordinary reactions and thereafter read only the significant actions.

And of course that sensitivity's going to have to be shifted, from time to time, because all of a sudden the needle starts flopping all over the place, and you say, "Well, did you know a girl in that life?" Which would be the most ordinary question in the world. Of course he knew a girl in that life. You get a big fall!

And you say, "Oh, that's very significant, yes, he got a big fall," you know.

You could say, "Well, did you have a body in that life?" And he gets a big fall, you see. "Oh, that's very significant. Let's see, a girl, a body, he must have killed a girl, a body and so forth," and you're just adding up, add — all wrong! You haven't got the E-Meter set sensitively enough that it won't read "Did you know a girl in that life?" See?

But the right question — boy does it read! You say, "Well, let's see, you're talking about the days of Garibaldi. Did you turn traitor on anybody or do anything you shouldn't as one of the troopers of Garibaldi?" you see.

The person says, "No." A big fall on the needle, you know.

"Well, just what did happen?"

The guy thinks it over and boy he can't make out any part of it. Yeah, what did happen? Lord knows what did happen. But if your E-Meter reads for that lifetime on everything that happened in that lifetime, you won't even be able to pick out the little twitches and drops, you see? You won't be able to pick out anything that's worth auditing.

Because on whole track, the drop of a dial can be as great as sixteen dials on the needle. And you wouldn't even read that with a high set sensitiv­ity. You don't want needles flipping around every time the pc answers an auditing question. You only want that needle flipping around when the pc answers a tough auditing question. It makes a tremendous difference. Then you can see what the score is.

Then you see the pc has it — that you can reset these things. You notice the pc has a kind of an ARC break and you ask if he's got an ARC break, the needle doesn't move, you say, "Well, there's something wrong here one way or the other," and turn up the sensitivity a little bit and say, "Do you have an ARC break?" and he says, "Well, yes." But the needle said, "Yes." See?

You can turn that thing up and down. The only way you can learn to do it is by experience. But the rule is: Read from a routinely still needle the significances that you really would want to audit. And they are not all that frequent on cases.

Cases do not have billions and billions and billions and billions of cross factors on them. You'll find that they narrow down to dozens and you're fol­lowing through and all of a sudden the pattern of this case will start to emerge. This case cannot stand the thought, just can't stand the thought of a government, anyplace, anywhere. This case is a third dynamic bug, see. And it all goes back, and any experience he has winds up to the destruction of a government. His overts are usually destructions of governments.

And you might say that in any case the principal overts of the case will line up on one dynamic at a time. And you eventually will get most of the pattern overts. They dramatize these overts. It takes a long time to get an obsessive overt. The person has to be in lots of trouble over a long period of time to have an obsessive, obsessive overt.

They don't happen quick. A guy doesn't accidentally trip over a cop's left foot and after that hate policemen. No, he's shot them and burned them and murdered them and been them and hired them and fired them and hanged them and framed them and imprisoned them and overthrown police forces and he's been a Chief of Police and he's been the leading criminal of the land, and so forth. And after a while it's just totally automatic, you see. And he looks at a cop and he says, "Rarrrrrrr. Obviously cops must be all killed!" It took a long time for him to build up to that however.

But it can be keyed in. And what you make an error about, is you look at the key-in that keys in all this whole track stuff, and you look how light that key-in was, and you say, "Well, that was enough to do it." Well that isn't enough to do it, that was enough to key it in. That was all. See?

And you start looking back of this key-in. The key-in just tells you there's something there, that's all. And you start running this thing down and — Wow!

Well, there's several errors you can make in unveiling a case this way, and in plotting the track and squaring a case up and answering its questions, and so on, and one of the principal errors that you can make is to swamp the case. In other words, get — the case gets too much data, gets too lost, loses its equilibrium, is falling all over the place, without you smoothing the case out with some Alternate Confront or something. Get the idea?

You just got a whole life and you said, "Well, that's good, now I'll get another whole life, and I'll get another one, and I'll get another one, and I'll get another one, and I'll get another ..." Oh, whoa! Whoa, oh, wa — wait-wait — wait a minute, boy!

You got enough debris hanging around this time to hang most anybody.

So, after you have a case running in this particular direction and you've cleaned up rather cleanly and clearly one area or more; whatever you had to clean up to clean up an area or something like this so that the gen on the area is pretty good. And you got the overts, you know, and you got the — making people guilty of overts — and you've got this thing pretty straightened out with just talk and two-way comm and plot and so on, now you need some Alternate Confront.

Now, let's smooth this whole thing out with Alternate Confront and make it disappear. Make it go back into place again. Because you have a process that no matter what you bring up, it can be put back into place. The actual auditing you'd get done hour for hour that will be the most profitable to you, will be that auditing which is done rather freely with overts. Finding the overts, see, and that auditing gets an awful lot of track cleaned up in an awful hurry.

You say "How do you do it?" Well, that's great. That's how you do it. Nobody can tell you the exact pattern of how to go about it because you're back onto repetitive command. What I am asking you to do is to understand. I'm just asking you to understand. I'm asking you to get a subjective reality on getting it done and get a reality on doing it with somebody. And after that it'll get easier and easier and easier. And ...

Now, I tell you that masses of track are not incidents, they're masses. You run into an occluded area, the person never knew it was there, never suspected it, for some reason or other never looked at it. That's up to the auditor to call his attention to it. Never looked at it. All of a sudden, why, you call his attention to it — Up goes that tone arm! Wham!

Tone arm is what it reads on. And you keep talking about robots, "Uh, robots. Yes, well how are robots use — ." The needle dipped rather heavily on — you mentioned robot and you say — and so forth, and other mechanical contraptions and nothing happened you see, and you say, "Well, how many robots are — interesting aren't they? Robots, see, robots."

Well, the guy's been pretty clean up to about now, you see. And you say, "Well, could you name two or three principal kinds of old robots?" Up comes that tone arm. You've got a hot area. You've got a hot area, and you sure better clean up robots! Got the idea? Destructive robots and constructive robots and creative robots, and robots, robots, robots.

Let's just find out about robots. "How's it feel to be a robot?" and that sort of thing. And the guy all of a sudden you know, starts ... You can almost hear him go — you can almost hear him go, "Eeeng, cling, clng, clng." It's very funny. He's totally lost in the type of incident that he just hit!

Now, if you were to ask him about the relative mental energy masses which moved into view around him about that time, if he's in a hot area and that tone arm's up, he's got masses.

Now some people are below ridges. Well, I remember one person was audited for about two years — hit or miss, very poorly audited — one day comes up to me and says, "Well, when you got off into ridges, you left me. I had a reality on everything you were talking about but not ridges. You started talking about people having ridges and black masses and that sort of thing, I just didn't know what you were talking about. Well, I've been gone ever since, I mean I just couldn't — couldn't put up with that, that was too much, I ..." so forth. "But, I was being audited last night and I ran into a great big ridge and I know what you're talking about now and so I'm coming back into Dianetics."

People's realities! The person must have been sitting in the middle of one of these tremendous ridges. So the phenomena is there but this is a wonder­ful case of not-is, a gorgeous case of not-isness. This person was not-ising the exact thing that he was sitting in — like mad.

Now you're going to run into all kinds of identity problems. And identity problems are very interesting problems. You very often will find in any given fifty preclears at least two or three Christs. Don't think this is unusual because the Christ implant has been in use 1,250,000 years. You usually find Virgin Marys. Same implant series. It doesn't mean the guy was Christ or Virgin Mary however, but it means they certainly were headed in that direction.

You'll find altogether too many Napoleons. But let me tell you that any soldier that served in the Grand Army of the Republic was tremendously impressed by his commanding officer and much more importantly, Napoleon was fought by practically every man that could be brought into the field in Europe over a period of a couple of decades. And they were chewing up Napo­leon, left, right, and upside down. And if any man has had overts pulled on him, it must have been Napoleon. It made a lot of Napoleons, see?

I ran into Catherine I of Russia one time, apparently. And then I found out that I was actually dealing with a peasant girl who led the revolt against Catherine I, that caused Catherine I to slaughter so many peasants. And the pc's answer to this was of course, to answer up after that to the winning valence: Catherine I of Russia. Got the idea?

And then one day I found Catherine I. Really did! I know where she is. Was mentioning to you the other day, I know the man who was George III but he doesn't know it. Ordinarily you'd have to plow around to get a real hot identity of this character.

Everybody who ever sawed on a bull fiddle or something like that is lia­ble to nominate himself for a Beethoven. Why? He's a winning valence. But somewhere along the line there's Beethoven. Get the idea? It takes judgment. Now let me tell you, if he's Beethoven and you try to get him out of the valence of Beethoven you're not going to make it.

But very similarly, very, very, very similarly, if he was a girl who used to hang around the stage door or someplace all the time trying to make passes and dates with Beethoven and eventually answers up to Beethoven, you audit this girl as Beethoven, you're not going to get anyplace either. In other words, the identity has to be straightened out — no matter how incredible the iden­tity may seem to you.

Now, people love to add to their importance by telling you they're Alex­ander the Great or somebody of this character, you see? There's lots of those around — they add to their importance. But somewhere in that mishmash is Alexander the Great because he was no punk. See, he's a strong thetan.

Now although a lot of people may be detoured and gone down and become crabs and sewer fish at the bottom of the sea or something of that sort by this time, the fairly dominant personalities that come along the track are still coming along the track! Get the idea? They may be a little bit tired here and there, but they're still on their way.

Similarly, because they made such a whopping big impression upon their times, they were very badly counter-created against, and the people who thoroughly counter-created against them, expiate their sins of course in the next life by kind of thinking they were them. You pays your money and you takes your chance. You get the idea?

Audience: Yes.

And although this poor, weak little soldier, who had to be carried every time they reached a muddy walk — not just a river — but every time they came to a muddy walk or something, he had to be picked up and carried because slippery pavement made him sick, sooner or later is going to wind up the track up here someplace as Hitler! See? Because he had a lot of overt thoughts against and envies against. But it's — he has a much better chance of winding up as Hit­ler if he were part of the victorious Allied arms, you see; but he wasn't part of the victorious Allied arms but he — because, you see, he was in the German Army back in the Rhine days, you see, and he attacked France.

But this time he's attacking this way, and Hitler's the great leader and the truth of the matter is he murdered a great German leader in the first century B.C., don't you see, and this is a tremendous overt against a German leader, so he's actually been every German leader since. You see? But he hasn't been any of them. He was the guy somebody gave two pieces of silver to, to slip the ground glass in the fellow's tea. Tea not being drunk in that period had nothing to do with it.

Now you start adding up engram data and say, "It didn't work this way and that way and I'll go and look it all up and figure it all out and so forth." Man, you got the pc in front of you and if it's right, it'll come free and if it isn't right it won't. And you're only interested in straightening him out — not in history.

Very often though we run into some rather fantastic ones. Dick was just telling me about one at the Le Mans track. He had a pc who was at the Le Mans Race, 1926. And big mystery and a tremendous squabble and a mess on the track because he was shot in the back with a rifle bullet and — on the track. Shot in the back.

Look, race drivers in 1926 were not ordinarily shot in the back with rifle bullets! Who shot him? Where? He didn't know. Why? Nothing of the sort. He just didn't know. Tremendous mystery sitting there. Well, he finally got this mystery off the track and the guy moved out of the position undoubtedly.

Dick was reading sometime later about the Le Mans Race, 1926, and there was a mystery until this day. One of the drivers was shot in the back with a rifle bullet. Get the idea?

All right, you go along there and you'll find confirmatory evidence and otherwise but the second the pc thinks you're looking for confirmatory evi­dence you are being too invalidative. Get the idea? But you check these things through and you wait for them to fall apart and you wait for them to come back together again and you'll learn a great deal about people and life and the track and all that sort of thing.

The trick is not to let the pc chatter too much, don't talk too much your-self and don't cut the pc off too short. You'll get more done with a rather buoyant interested attitude on the part of the pc than a pounded down, "I've got to make it short, he's not really interested" attitude. See? It's a big differ­ence here.

Now, you'll find all sorts of people, you'll find all sorts of identities, you'll find all sorts of incomprehensibles, but they're incomprehensible to you because they're incomprehensible to the pc. The funny part of it is, most of these things are comprehensible and as you get them squared away, if you finally understand them and so does the pc, you can leave it. But if you don't dig any part of it, don't just sit there and say, "Yes, yes, yes," and say that, "Well, the pc's got it, so that's all right." Oh, no, no, no. If it's true it can be communicated. Do you understand?

And don't sit there and say, "Well, he's not talking very loud, so I better not ask him again because I'll ARC break him and so forth."

I have been known to say, "Your story is sufficiently interesting, I would like to hear some of it. If you don't mind, talk up."

He says, "Well, am I talking quietly?"

"Yes, you're talking quietly, now let's really give here and let's sort this out now. You got something that's banging on the meter, you know, you got something. Let's sort this out."

"Oh, I thought we were all finished with that."

"Well, you might be, but I'm not. Let's sort it out. I don't understand it." And he'll explain it all again to you. About halfway through his explana­tion he says, "Huh, it doesn't make sense, does it? Huh-huh."

All right. But back on the identity thing again, you will find some incredible things. People have done things in the past occasionally that have set up such a thing as a "Frankenstein monster." Now you know that's a technical term. That's creating something that you thereafter can't stop.

Now, we in Scientology today, all of us, are setting up something. You realize that? This thing has probably more horsepower than anything that's been put on the track for a very long time. As long as we play it straight to set people free, it's okay. And as long as we make sure that it goes on in that tradition, it's okay. But the moment it doesn't, every one of us is guilty of an overt act — not just me. Get the idea? Because it becomes a Frankenstein monster. So it's all in our interest to keep the data straight, to make it work and to keep it ethical.

Now, I'm going to tell you a sad story. Once upon a time there was a fellow known as Karl Marx. Did you ever hear of Karl Marx?

Audience: Yes.

He wrote Das Kapital. And thought it was just a philosophic disserta­tion and that nobody would pay much attention to it. Now what do you think Karl Marx did? Well, he published a book, didn't he?

Audience: Uh-huh.

And he was interested in revolutionary activities of one kind or another, wasn't he?

Audience: Yes.

And finally out of a great many revolutionary groups and interests and other things, a country by the name of Russia revolted in the 17 — 18 area and communism was established in Russia. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, since that time this philosophy has been spreading out across the world assisted by the military arms and aims of Russia and any other selfish group that could attach itself to that particular zone and area.

Now what if Karl Marx's basic principles in all of this were pure and good and honest, and so forth, and he were to appear today, and running as a case, have to take a square look at the fact of where that work has landed? What if he — what if he were to appear today, let's say in this organization, as a pc? Now, what — what would this person feel?

Male voice: Pretty sick.

Female voice: A Frankenstein monster was created.

Yeah, a Frankenstein monster.

All right, now, let's take a look at this. This person says, "I can't possibly take any responsibility for it because if I took any responsibility for it, I'd have to stop it and nobody can stop it." Get the idea?

Then the person says, "Well, if I really took any responsibility for it and if I were responsibility for it I'd probably get in and push it and it's gone too far already."

"And this is a horrible overt act — look, Stalin all by himself killed ten million peasants of his own people who were busy being good communists, and so on. Well, wow! you know."

"Can I take responsibility for it? Oh, no, no, no, no! Oh, no! I'm — no, I'm not anything to do with Karl Marx, I'm over here. Huh-huh-huh-huh. Yes, here I am. I'm — I did think that for a while but that's just nonsense."

Now look, they're so out of valence they'll hardly read on the meter. They'll go out — and when you start watching this "I shouldn't take responsi­bility for it — I should take responsibility for it." You're getting in there pretty hot. You're dealing with the identity you are dealing with. So just carry it forward and solve it out. Got the idea?

Because when it comes up to whether or not a person should take responsibility for his deeds or actions, that's something the phony valence never worries about — because he took the valence to take responsibility for his phony deeds and actions.

So he's not worried — that person took responsibility? "Yes. Oh, yes, yes, I was Alexander the Great and Alexander the Great conquered India and so forth and so on, and we had quite a time. I remember as Alexander the Great crossing the Bosporus mounted on Bucephalus, yes, yes, yes, we had a great time and so on."

And there's no question of responsibility in this person's mind whatso­ever. And he's a phony. He'll all of a sudden start reading much harder on the meter as Alexander the Great's valet de chambre, or as one of Darius's wives who turned coat on Darius, if you remember.

Now Alexander the Great had a very, very straightforward life. He had a mother who was raised in Lesbos — she was a high priestess of Lesbos. She taught him at birth that she had been con — she was the first immaculate conception by the way — it got to be the fashion afterwards.

Agamemnon in the form of a snake had visited her in the middle of the night, and she had conceived Alexander who sprung full-armed then, as the son of a god. Alexander was carefully taught to hate his father, Philip, who nevertheless got together an army and when Philip got together and trained an army and so forth, all Alexander had to do — who was a rather brilliant young fellow and so forth, and a good horseman, and a hail fellow well met and so forth — well, just go conquer Asia. And a very straightforward life — he just went and conquered Asia. He did put the Greek states together again, and so forth, but he hardly even had any overts against Greece.

Now, the person who's being Alexander the Great and falling like mad against Alexander the Great, must feel that Alexander the Great is surrounded by overts of some kind or another. Well, sure Alexander the Great must have had overts. But a key question would be, "An overt against Alexander the Great?" Don't you see? That would kind of clear it up, tend to clear it up.

But a person will flick on and off, and you start seeing this on and off manifestation, either the person is that identity or isn't that identity. And I'm talking to you about this not because it's important to cases at all. I'm talk­ing about this because you're going to think it's important and you're going to get intrigued. And you're going to say, "Here I am, sitting here talking to Madame Pompadour." Well, are you or aren't you?

Now that isn't the burning question. The burning question is, does the pc get clear of this particular lifetime and get it disentangled? Well, the way you get it disentangled is find out if you are or are not talking to Madame Pompadour. Do you understand?

Audience: Yes.

Well, on this new type of auditing — and I think you'll agree it's a new type of auditing — you run the process, find the story, get more story into view, flatten it, make the pc comfortable, get it all squared around, get more story into view, examine that, flatten, get the overts off of it, make the pc comfortable, get more story into view. You get the idea? And you just go on and on.

And you have to remember this, however, that those things wrong with the pc are never in the pc's view. The pc's run into some of them but he's not looking at them because if he confronted them they wouldn't be charged, would they?

So, this takes a pretty clever auditor. You start scanning track with this pc, just start looking over track, and — not scanning it as a mechanical proc­ess but just start looking over track — and you'll find some of the doggonedest things. You'll find some of the most interesting things you ever went into, and some of the most incredible things because life is lived the way life is lived, not the way it's been in the textbooks and you were taught in Sunday school. It's not the way it's taught in the history books either. History was called by Voltaire "a Mississippi of lies." Well, he's basically right because various groups have vested interest in knocking about various bits of history.

Roman history, for instance, is a total shambles. It's served every pur­pose best known to the enemies of Rome because the Romans aren't here to defend their history anymore. But you would see an entirely different history if the Romans were writing it. So, why don't you write a better history?

Now, you have various problems to solve but these problems resolve themselves in merely scouting it out, finding out the overts, straightening out the thing by some Confront. You get the idea? Looking it over, finding other patches of track, calling things to pc's attention, being very bright and smart and being interested in the case.

If you do this, you'll find all sorts of interesting things, just like we found Karl Marx in this organization.

Thank you very much.