Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, this is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, November 15, AD 12. A lot of things I could talk to you about, by the well - known ton, actually. Very hard to select any particular point to discuss because we're pretty well there technologically. All of these points have to be talked about more, have to be sorted out more; there's got to be more data on these things. I'm at a point where I'm getting ready to condense old tapes into bulletins and that sort of thing. I'm in a very patch - up state, you know, of making it all neat.

Well, how are we, tonight? Doesn't that sound cute. Of course, that is referring to you and your valences.

But a lot of data continues to appear and naturally would. Once you've climbed a mountain, why, you idle around and look down the mountainsides and you can find a lot more ways you could have gotten up the mountain. There are always more visible ways. So you can look forward to all manner of stuff like this and speculations. The one thing you mustn't forget is how you got up the mountain in the first place and how you can get people up the mountain. And you start getting too many alternate routes going up this mountain and the next thing you know people start falling in crevasses and so on because the road isn't mapped.

This is lecture one, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. What's the date?

But this first thing I'd like to talk to you about is - it's sort of hard to choose which is what - is a method... This method, by the way - I have not found a goal by this method; I'm just going by data known. This method is an experimental method. But I'm about to plow in and use it like mad and I'm sure that it'll work, as you will be sure in just a moment too.

Audience: 15 November.

And that is, one of the reasons you don't like to see long goals lists these days is because it takes quite a little bit of time to tiger drill every goal. And it's sort of hard to go over long goals lists and so on, whereas an auditor in the past was perfectly willing to cover 250 or 300 goals, and didn't think this was very much. You suddenly give an auditor a list of 300 goals and tell him he's to tiger drill those 300 goals and he tends to blanch. Because he's actually looking at quite a little span of auditing. And particularly if a case is not ready ... This lecture isn't totally concerned with 3GA Criss Cross, therefore I've just given it some notes, and it's just some notes on current processing, is about the only title you could give this lecture.

Nov. 15, AD 12.

Now, he's going to take an average of a minute per goal to get these three hundred goals down, see? But if a case is running very hard and if a case is terribly burdened and should be unburdened before it's audited on 3GA Criss Cross, you're going to have two phenomena occur. While you're doing a goals list, you're going to get a dirty needle.

And there's another item that's posted on the bulletin board, has to do with one R. - I think it is - R. M. Nixon. You notice that on the bulletin board? And John is attributing the fact that we clobbered Nixon to the fact that he's clobbered. I don't know to what point this extends, but it's interesting that that is the first political figure in the United States that we really have clobbered. Of course, we hit him hard.

Now, understand the - remember your somatics bulletin of last week. Dirty needle is a persistent activity, and a dirty read is the instant manifestation of a dirty needle. And so when I say "dirty needle" I mean the persistent dirty needle. I meant to straighten that out with you tonight because I think we've got an auditor who's got them mixed up. He thinks if he gets dirty instant reads on the ends of goals that then this list has a dirty needle. No, no. No, it's those reads that occur during and amongst and after and before and they're all going tickety - skrikety - scratch, and you can't read through the stuff, you know, and so on. It's like trying to tune in Tokyo on a crystal receiver, and it just won't do it. Now, that's a dirty needle, which makes a quite different manifestation than a dirty read.

Mary Sue isn't here. Mary Sue isn't here, so I can tell you that actually I hit him because he hit at Mary Sue. It's almost that corny. But this fellow was using the United States Secret Service as a sort of a private Gestapo. And he'd been doing this all over Washington and so forth. So I just didn't think it was good political - I didn't think he had the right political color, somehow or another. I thought that ...

You know, your dirty read - it just goes instantly bzzzt. There's a little bzrrt to the needle. So what. That doesn't mean anything at all. That - the most that means - well, it - you can get "Fail to reveal," "Careful ofs," "Invalidates," things like that can do it. And goals themselves will sometimes give a dirty read and so on. That doesn't mean anything. Most it means is your mid ruds are out for the session. That's the most it means. And if you're getting too many in and they have all got dirty reads, well, the pc's just got a missed withhold, that's all that's wrong. You'll get used to this and get it sorted out, now I've called some of this to your attention.

But you notice this sort of thing happening, that after country A has defeated country B, you will see not just the spoils of war but the customs of country B showing up in country A. Very interesting thing, here, you see?

No, I'm talking about the persistent static on the needle. That's a dirty needle - persistently staticky. And when you've got a dirty needle and you're trying to go down the list, we used to call it the pc's needle pattern. Only sometimes it's much more serious than just a pattern. Any pattern means something is wrong. Pcs shouldn't have patterns. The pc isn't prepared and the pc hasn't got his rudiments in if you've got a needle pattern. You don't audit with needle patterns. You go around auditing with the belief that there is such a thing as a needle pattern and you'll get in trouble right from the beginning, because of course it merely means that the pc is improperly prepared; it means a lot of things. Some pcs have very, very filthy dirty needles before you find the first item. That is just at the drop of a hat, why, the needle dirties up, and so on.

Now, actually, almost anybody unwittingly will take on the color of his oppterms. That's horrible to behold, but true! Now, I want you to become very expert with that bulletin on somatics - last week's bulletin on somatics. For this reason: is, people tend to rank themselves individually as the cowboys in the white hat. And the oppterm as the cowboy in the black hat. And the only thing that tells you which is which, is whether it turns on pain or sen. You see? Turns on pain, when you chant it one way or the other, as per that bulletin, why, you get - that's a terminal. And if it's - turns on sensation, why, of course, that's an opposition terminal.

Well, to that degree - to that degree, you have an awful time getting in your rudiments so that you can get a clean enough needle to list and assess something, or assess the Prehav Scale so that you can find some level to get an item from or something like that. There is your toughest struggle.

Well, they're quite distinct. But remember, as in the case of a rock slammer, you have separated them. You have already differentiated it for the pc. And now he sees what the score is. But some people also work this in reverse. They consider themselves only the cowboy in the black hat, you see, and the enemy always is the cowboy in the white hat. All of which is quite amazing. And they will get terribly tangled up. And if you get an oppterm on the terminal side, or a terminal on the oppterm side, the consequences of it is great confusion.

But you'll find out that if after you've listed a list and started to null a list, that you have a dirty needle - not dirty reads; you have a dirty needle, a distinct pattern - and you try to get in your mid ruds and you've got a dirty needle still, and that sort of thing, you just - you'll learn better than to box around with a dirty needle with mid ruds. You'll just realize that your list is not complete. And after you've gotten skunked a half a dozen times, maybe you'll remember I told you this. They read with a dirty read. Every item you read reads with a dirty read. There's nothing rock slams. You get down to the end of the list; you've got several reading with a dirty read, you tiger drill them, and it goes bzz - bzz - bzz, and there's nothing in. Oup! Nothing slams. You've gotten nowhere.

Now, when you get one that turns on both pain and sen, you mark it in the middle of your line plot as a combination terminal. They're quite legitimate, and it merely says that you got hold of a deteriorated package. It isn't that this package has collapsed. It's that we now have a new terminal which has the attributes of both terminal and oppterm. You see, it's a sort of the end of the road. Pain and sen turn on with that. Well, that's a combination terminal. Recognize it. It's not a package which has just pushed itself together, it is a new thing which belongs as a lock on both the oppterm chain and the terminal chain. In other words, he's picked up a new identity which had both their characteristics.

Well, the first manifestation you get of that is, given rudiments in and pc prepared - if it has a dirty needle, you see, if it's a dirty needle situation as you start to null - you've got an incomplete list.

When we get into national life - to revert to what I was talking to you about - you get the succeeding generations of politicians performing as combination terminals. You see, you're looking there at combination terminals. The war happens in generation A, and then in generation B we tend to get a combination terminal, see. So the US busily defeats Germany and there'd be a tendency up where - somewhere up the track to - somebody to have a democratic fascism. This all logical, see, we have a democratic fascism. It's perfectly all right for democracy to exist as long as we're capable of also operating the Gestapo.

Now, there's two things you can do. You can list from the wrong thing to list from. You've done a Prehav assessment and it's wrong. This pc can't be approached on "What isn't part of existence?" In other words, your A of that bulletin of last week that gives you the steps of assessment - your A is just dead - wrong. This is a gone dog, you know. You've listed this pc way over his head. You've said, "Well, I know what's wrong with this pc: he blames everybody." And you couldn't get a Prehav assessment anyhow, so you just took, Blame, and say, "Well, who or what would you blame?" or "Has he done something weird?" And you listed this thing out and so on, you go back and start nulling it, why, you're going to get a dirty needle all the way, and it wouldn't matter whether you extended this list to China, you're not going to get an item on it. Do you see that as a liability?

Well, it's that sort of thing that I tend to keep an eye on. But of course, you may not realize it, but you're all members of a secret society. You've been a member of it for a very long time, most of you. And it doesn't matter whether this shows up in your oppterm line or not, sooner or later, why, you pick it up on the track. And that's the "SPG." The "SPG" - it is very nice. And you're authorized, you know, to enlist anyone as a member of the "SPG." There are no dues, only performance is expected. And the "SPG," of course, is the "Society for the Prevention of Government." Of course, any time you natter about your income tax or something like that, you to some degree are preventing government, don't you see. So you willy - nilly are members of this organization; you might as well go in whole hog, you know.

Now, supposing you take off fortuitously in the right direction. When you list the list and an item does and is going to occur on that list, you'll find out when you start to null it you don't have dirty needles. That's the first list you list on a pc, and that's every other list too. But it even takes care of this phenomenon of the - of the case that's chronically a dirty - needle case - at the drop of a hat he turns on a dirty needle, see? You take it from the right source, you list that list, you start to null it and you don't see any vestige of a dirty needle - you have got an item on that list, you have cured his dirty needle. Follow that? You understand what I'm talking to you about?

I find it quite interesting that man hasn't realized yet that government is the source of his wars, see. They haven't taken that one extra step. Man as a whole. But the other day I was quite interested to receive an invitation to become a member of a board of people who were being recruited, willy - nilly, any way possible, to make a consultation panel that should get together and figure out what should be done with governments and man and atom bombs, and all this organization, this society, that's putting this out is doing - it's quite interesting - it's quite interesting - all they've decided to do is just get a bunch of fellows together, see. They haven't postulated any solution. They're trying to get together a bunch of fellows who will correspond with one another and meet with one another, in the hopes that these boys will come up with some kind of an idea or a solution. And all they're taking responsibility for is putting all these people in contact with one another. And they've picked up a few hundred people around the world, and they're now busily trying to get them into communication with one another. That's all they're doing, see.

Audience voices: Yeah.

Well, they haven't stated it, but they realize themselves that this idea of government, you see, is - must be at the cause of it, because they haven't approached governments. I thought it was very interesting, see, that somebody would actually take this effort. Apparently they're spending quite a bit of time and money on it and so on, and that is the total purpose of it. There is no other purpose, except let's get these fellows together and get them talking to one another and get them writing one another and they may come up with a solution. And then we'd be very happy to publish the solution. That's the totality of it.

Yeah. In other words, this even takes care of your first thing. In other words, your jump - off from part A of that bulletin on what - what's the line you're going to list, you know? "Who or what would you rather not have anything to do with?" See? All right, that's correct. And you've listed your list. When you go to null it out, if the list is complete, and everything else, you're not going to have any dirty needle on the thing. And then that follows for all additional lists.

Now, of course, I was worrying about this a few weeks ago. How come government would get into this kind of a mess? Well, naturally, war and antagonism and that sort of thing gets these things going. And then some very pure government - is doing a very good job - tackles some government which is doing a degraded job of some kind or another, and afterwards we get a combination terminal, you see, and the thing isn't - the first government wasn't quite so pure, now, you see. Now we get this compounding up the line, and combinations of this sort of thing, and we eventually get what we now got.

When you've listed from the proper question and you're going to have a slamming item on the list and that question is proper, the only reason thereafter that you will get a dirty needle, and the mid ruds don't put it in, see, and you just have to practically rack the pc up one side and down the other. You just chew him to pieces with mid ruds if you keep going like this. You're never going to get rid of the dirty needle. It'll just stay out two items and it'll be back again, you know? And you give him the mid ruds and the thing is - your needle's nice and smooth now. And then you say, "Waterbuck - tiger," it's dirty again. Your list is not complete. There's no item on the list. The missed withhold on that list is the item. It hasn't been put on it.

Now, the essence of this thing is that I wondered why was it that government would occupy so much of people's attention and newspaper space, and I suddenly realized that government has a salesman but the individual does not. See, the individual does not have a salesman. You're supposed to personally erase yourself, you know, even in common social courtesy. You don't have to go as far as the Japanese, you see, but you self - negate. You know. You mustn't blow your own steam or sound your own horn - that sort of thing, you know. But governments have spokesmen. And every politician that runs for office is selling the idea of government. And that is the chief idea which is being sold. And it's sold now by radio and television - completely aside from soap boxes, and so forth. And everybody is supposed to get out and buy this idea, certain number of times, and vote, and all that sort of thing, you see. It's a heavily sold idea.

So there are two - two variables there: Either your list isn't long enough to include the item or you're not listing from a proper question that gives you the item. Either way you're going to be in trouble and have a hard run of it from the pc, with the pc, you see? You're going to have a tough time of it.

And of course, a democracy has got it worked out to a fine - feathered fury, you see. Everybody is persuaded that they choose their leaders, you see, and therefore it's the people's fault, which of course makes no government. If the head of government - it isn't the head of the government's responsibility to find out what's going on and do the right thing, but the people's fault. But the people have no say about who's the head of government, really, you see. That's a mess.

Now, because there are two variables it makes it a little harder on you, because you don't know which one is really out. And - but by trial and error consider that one is out and then consider the other's out. You understand? I mean, you just take it from some other question. Consider the first step, the question there, as wrong. So you take another question. Man, when you've got the right question, you list that thing down, you list it to a complete list, there's an item on it; the whole characteristic of the pc as far as the meter is concerned looks entirely different. This is the easiest running pc you ever saw in your life.

Anyway, it's the only supersalesmanship that is now going on. And man, it is supersalesmanship. Everybody is selling this idea. So of course you get more and more and more and more government. And you're going to get more and more and more and more government, see. So eventually the individual becomes nothing, the government becomes all. And you get some sort of a communistic, socialistic supermess of some kind or another, where nobody must spit without asking permission of the government and, you know, have a license to breathe, and all that kind of thing. And I worked this out. You might think that government is one of my oppterms; doesn't happen to be. That's why I can still think on this subject.

One of the reasons some of you have trouble trying to find items is, is you've never asked the right question to get the item and have - then have never completed a list long enough to include the item and then never null down to the item. And of course, you always are going to be in trouble. You is a gonna say - auditing is impossible, there isn't any way at all to audit. You can't enter the case, you do nothing for the case and so forth.

It's interesting to me, though, that you collide with government on this single front and basis. The only time you find something wrong with the idea of government is because you are selling the idea of the individual. Unwittingly, willy - nilly, whether you have ever expressed it to yourself or not, you are still selling the idea of the individual. I consider this quite interesting. Now, because you can make things better by handling the individual, of course, you fall into the channel of workability. So you see this as a workable action. You see that this is a workable channel. So you don't even beat the drum and say individuality is everything, you know. You don't have to. But you are to some degree pushing this forward because it is a line of truth.

That just stems from two sources: (1) the question you're listing from is improper, or your list isn't long enough to include the item. See? It's just those two things. There's the only two things that can be wrong on any list that you're nulling. So this also applies to goals.

You want to make some group better. The optimum way to make some group better is - you can't stand back and process something called a group - you've got to get ahold of the members of the group, one after the other, and say, "Where's the wall?" Because the only people you're going to get to talk to in that group is the members of the group. Don't you see? You recognize that as truth, and therefore, it makes you a promoter of the individual.

You get this pc to write 850 goals in Routine 3 - 21. Now, you've been asking me for a long time, what do you do with these goals. Well, I hated to tell you, you have to take 850 goals and tiger drill them on down to the - to the raw depths, see, because this looked to me - like an awful job to me. I spent about fifteen hours on a pc doing this. And I consider this is quite a lot of work. Because it was a dirty needle all the way. I didn't know this rule at that time and that was why I was continuing on down the line.

Now, this, of course, will make you get in the road of governments. You see how this works out? You immediately will get in the road of governments, because they're selling the idea of THE - that's underscore - with Old English and Old American and Old German capital letters - THE government, see? The government must be all. The government must own everything, you see. And you're in the road of that, because you simply say, in your action, that you're going to process some individuals. Well, this is giving individuals attention, and probably a government can't take too much of that. And just the fact that you give some individuals attention will cause you to go against the governmental line.

But this rule of the complete list and the right question applies to the goals. Except there's one other rule you get with goals: If goals go out hard on Tiger Drilling, why, the case is too charged for you to be assessing for goals. You're not asking the right question to get a goals list and you're not writing a long enough list to get the goal on it. You see, all these things apply. You actually have two manifestations: You've got a dirty needle - on a goals list, you've got a _dirty needle, and goals go out hard when tiger drilled. In other words, you sit there and you ask them questions and "Suppress" and you ask them "Invalidate" and "Careful of" and you ask them and ask them and you ask them and you ask them, and they give you more answers, and the thing still reacts, and you get the suppresses off, you get this off. And you say, aah ...

Someday, somebody will swoop down and say that you're a wild - eyed revolutionary. And I just wanted to make these few remarks so that you'd understand wherein you are a revolutionary. You might not realize that treating the individual in a totalitarian world where the government must be all, is in actual fact almost a revolutionary action. Whether you intend to revolt or not - I don't even intend to revolt. It's beneath my dignity. But somebody'll say, well, you - they kind of feel that you might be in revolt, and so forth.

You know that can go on for three three - hour sessions on one lousy goal that will eventually go out in the end? Well, consider what it is. It's just too heavily charged a case to find a goal on. See, that's an additional manifestation. You find goals going out hard, you'd better start finding items. See, that's your rule. Goals go out hard, don't spend the rest of your life ... By all means wash out the goal that you're working on, otherwise the pc'll dramatize it or something. But goals go out hard on the pc? Well, get yourself going on a new lineup.

If you ever want to get along with a communist, I'll give you a little tip. You're scattered all over the world and someday you'll be talking to a communist. I hope that he won't have guns in his hands at the time you're talking to him and have overwhumped the particular society in which you exist, because that is the last dregs of individualism. All he can think of is self - criticism in his highest level of psychotherapy. Of course, he's trying to wipe out the individual. And if you're ever talking to a communist, I can give you the perfect answer, the perfect answer to his communistic arguments - is just tell him you're an anarchist. You don't even have to know too much about what anarchy is. Just tell him you're an anarchist, see. And an anarchist isn't somebody who throws bombs, that was the way the capitalists handled them back around the turn of the century. He's simply a fellow who believes that no government should exist.

Now, the experimental action here that I was talking to you about.. . None of this is - none of what I've just been giving you is experimental at all. This other one is this: You can tiger drill a goals list all the way from the beginning to the end, but the truth of the matter is, that unless a goal has been tampered with - we found the pc's goal and it submerged; see, we found it and prepchecked it, it disappeared from view - it's going to come back in someday if we keep working at it and so on. That's the liability, see: that a badly handled goal will disappear from sight and you can't get a trace of it again. That's a liability.

And you take the poor communist, and he's drilled up, one - two - three - four, his arguments are perfectly laid out, they're all wonderfully grooved, he's been taught them by rote; how to handle the capitalist; how to handle the social democrat; how to handle the royalist. You see, he's been taught all these things, and he's there giving you more or less the common denominator of those arguments, and he gets just about so far, and you look at him innocently and say, "What are you talking to me like that for? You probably don't realize that I'm an anarchist."

But let's take the pc, now, whose goal has not been found. Well, you could do this with a goals list - and this is the experimental step, and you can see at once now you won't care how long a goals list the pc has - you just go ripping down the list saying each goal once. Just go down the list, bang, bang, bang, each goal once, you know? Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow. Don't even tell them they're in or out. And those that react - those that react, put a slant on them. Just mark those that react. Don't mark the goals out, because it's liable to give your pc a bit of an ARC break or something. You can also use that too - I will tell you how - if you did want to mark them out.

And watch him shift his gears, you know. It's one of these ... He can't even make a racing shift out of it, you know. Gear teeth spitting out of the crankshaft, you know, and everything going to hell. And long ago, why, they realized that the anarchist was probably their greatest foe, and they had to cultivate him, and they have fantastic overts on anarchists all over the world, because, of course, their overt is against individualists, you see. And you will get one of the fanciest songs and dances, after he's wrecked the transmission, that you ever wanted to listen to, as to how government is really necessary.

But you go down the line, you're going to find, 850 goals - if your rudiments are in and if the goal is on the list, why, you're going to find that that goal - the residual at the end of your list, reading them all once, may be as few as 40 goals. See, the theory is this - that a goal, if it's the goal, will be somewhat charged. If it's somewhat charged, it's instantaneous in its reaction and it'll fire the first time and the only time you read it, see? So you just make sure you don't miss any reads and just go on down the list reading each goal once, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, see? Keep your eye on that meter. See, don't say it's in or it's out. And if the thing quivers, why, give it a slant mark. Too many stay in, your mid ruds went out.

See, he's been talking about tearing down the state, tearing up everything, trying to - you know, destroy it all and so forth - and then you say you're an anarchist - he has to shift gears, and tell you, "Now, look, some government is necessary." You see? And you immediately make the poor guy become a conservative. And he has to shift from the wild - eyed revolutionary, of course, to the long - jawed conservative.

Now, that gives you a condensed goals list. That gives you the best chances out of this list, and on a short list, of course, you only get two or three staying in, or one or something. That's the one you tiger drill. If you got a reaction on it when you went down it the first time, you tiger drill it. You relegate your Tiger Drill, then, to the residual. The goals that remain after you've read them once.

Of course, I never branded myself as an anarchist, but I have told anarchists that I thought they were far, far, far, too far to the right. And that was - kind of settled the argument - too conservative for me. Ha - ha! Of course you don't know where to go with that argument, you see, because there's nothing over there but a cliff!

Now, that kind of opens the door to an interesting view, here. We don't care how many goals the pc writes. And we're going to take care of all the pc's goals lists. Just take care of them all. And the pc's got goals lists, well, do this with them. Goal may be on it.

But the funny part of it is the communist, because of this collision of term - oppterm, the first thing he's got to destroy is the individual. And anarchy has always been rampant in countries just before communism took over. And they're the one political breed of cat that the communist respects and fears. That is the one thing he fears. He will always try to get the anarchist's cooperation. He isn't likely to stand anarchists up in front of the firing squad, not of course until he's taken over completely, see. But if he feels any security - insecurity whatsoever in his push, he'll always butter up an anarchist, see; always very careful of anarchists, you see. Very, very careful.

Now, if you're not scratching them all out, of course you're not invalidating the pc's goal. Funny part of it is you're liable to turn on a somatic reading that goal just once, so you want to be very careful for the pc to tell you if he gets a pain. And about the bottom of every page of goals remind him to tell you if he gets a pain. This is quite important. Because the pain runs deeper than the meter. Pain goes deeper than a meter. And the funny part of it is that even though the pc's goal has been manhandled, the probability is that a little attention to it will turn on pain before it shows on the meter. It's dead as a mackerel on the meter but you can make it show a somatic on the pc. That's quite interesting. So you want to tell the pc always to give you the hot dope if he got a pain.

Down in Spain, during the Spanish Revolution, and so forth, why, there were anarchists all over the place, you know. And the communists were pushing them on and patting them on the back, and of course they'd eventually get rid of all the anarchists, you know, out of public office and that sort of thing. But they never could quite come up to ... See, it's a matter of too many overts. The thing is almost becoming sacred to them.

Now, allow for the comm lag of the beast. Allow for the pc's comm lag. He probably didn't wake up to the pain, until two or three goals have gone by. So the pc says, the goal the pc says the pain occurred on - the way the old song went, "Ain't necessarily so." It may be three, four or even five goals earlier than when he noticed it. It's quite remarkable that if you read a series of five goals from a goal which bears pain, and the pc is not advised of it in advance, you may be at goal three, four or five before the pc will say, "I had a somatic." You say, "What one did it appear on?" And he'll usually point to the wrong one. He'll point late.

But you watch these evolutions of government, it becomes very amusing. I didn't mean to give you a talk about it, but you have a world here which is tipping over this way, and tipping over that way, and it's kind of hard to understand some of these things. What are these fellows after? What are they doing, and so on. You find many communistic principles are safely ensconced now in US law, you know. The principles of taxation, principles of ownership of property and that sort of thing are going more and more and more into US law. And they're taken straight out of the textbook of Karl Marx.

So what you do in that case; the pc says, "Ow! I had a pain."

Not me saying so - I said so one day and the Wall Street Journal picked it up, which is quite interesting - that the tax laws now used by the United States are taken directly from Karl Marx. This is all very, very fascinating, but it gives you the idea of terminal and oppterm, how these things then become combination terminals and mix up in general.

You say, "Well, where did it turn on?"

Makes it quite a fascinating picture. Because things won't get straighter in the political arena. You can forecast that they will become progressively more confused. And it'll always be that way.

"Well," he says, "just as you read that goal there, 'to shoot game wardens'. "

In the absence of processing, in the absence of somebody straightening out people, in the absence of somebody informing people, they will just become more and more tangled up; more and more confused. Lord knows what political philosophy would emerge out of this, but you could predict it. You could take those political philosophies which are opposed to those political philosophies, take the common denominators of the two - probably the worst points of both - and it'll become the combination terminal which is tomorrow's politics. If you ever want to forecast it, just take a look at the GPM and apply it to mankind on the fourth dynamic, and you probably will have a fairly reliable answer.

You say, "All right. Thank you." Now, just count back up from that several goals, go upstairs, and say, "Now, let's watch for this somatic again. I'm not calling you a liar or anything, but we want to move into it the same we did before, see?" So - so just read him that, and now read them three - just read the thing three times. This has run it long enough for the individual, you see, to find out if it's turning on a somatic. And then see where you are. You might have passed over that goal.

It's rather awe - inspiring. Fortunately, it takes sometimes upwards to a hundred years for this wheel to turn, you see. Sometimes two or three hundred years for it to turn completely, but you can see what will eventually be in charge. I said that and you thought I meant a joke - actually it is the least desirable characteristics of both terminal and oppterm, and you will get the combination terminal that will become. A rather sorry look. But it's on the basis of that which is least admired tends to persist.

Now, if you were marking all the goals out that you didn't get a reaction on and you mark the pc's goals out, he'll ARC break within a page and a half. You could use that to find a pc's goal, too. You could! You could say, "That's out" - X. You're going on down the line, pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa.

And if you can imagine the worst characteristics of the United States and the worst characteristics of Russia, see, combined, and the good characteristics vanished, why, you will get a superstate that will ride up the line someplace or another and is likely to materialize, unless somebody like us comes along and shows them da road. Say, "What you goin' down for in that coal pit? Why don't you walk out here on the grass?" Unless somebody does that, that was - that's exactly what would occur.

Pc says, "Rarrarr."

The situation in handling cases - I've been talking about the fourth dynamic, that gives you a look - when you look at the third and fourth dynamics - at the eventual fate of any individual you process. This is in the argument to the refutation that people give you that you have to do a lot of livingness and if you did enough livingness you would eventually come out with some new, high, desirable state. Well, I'm sorry that that doesn't seem to hold good. To get the data you would clear somebody up so that he could carry on a bit further without it happening.

"What's the matter?"

But supposing that without processing you could find a terminal and oppterm in the individual. Well, you know, you didn't relieve it in any way, you just located these things, you see, in some fashion. Not in any way that was therapeutic. If you located his chief terminal and his chief opposition terminal, and then you took the least desirable characteristics of both, you'll get the combination terminal that this person will become in a few generations.

"Well, I just never had such a lousy auditor in my life, and it's too cold in the room, and everything is going to hell in a balloon."

That's a gloomy look, but it happens to be an accurate one. Now, a lot of you have had terms and oppterms found. And of course, those that were found first were nearest to the top of the stack and therefore would be the ones which were most likely to produce the next pair. Well, they will actually produce a single unit, ordinarily, before they produce anything like new terminals and oppterms. And if you take your first terminal and your first opposition terminal, and then figure out what's the worst characteristics of both of them, you have got a life of yours somewhere in the future mocked up that you're not going to have to live. I know that sounds like it's gloomy and pessimistic and so forth, but there it is. It's not. It's quite accurate.

Do the last page and a half, see? For good measure, do the last two pages. Now, don't - don't underestimate this. The ARC break is exclamatory, man. It'll be the wildest ARC break you've seen in many a day. Some pcs whose goals have been passed over on some list and nobody has found them to this day, have been ARC breaking from that moment forward and they're almost impossible to audit. Did you ever put your two and two together and recognize that somebody's goal was probably ticked last November, and this November they are still yapping? And that's how much force and power there is in the situation, see?

And as your GPM flies off, if you sat still long enough to watch it go by and added it all up, you'd find out that this had been taking place rather consistently. The amount of horsepower and freedom which is there to be freed is fantastic. Because you never touch a case that isn't in a tremendously deteriorated state.

One of the things you want to inspect on a chronically ARC breaky pc is when somebody did a goals list and where is the list. Pc won't know the goal, but he'll be ARC breaky about it. Which is quite, I think, remarkable. Talk about mental mechanisms! So you actually could use that mechanism. Mark them out, read them once and mark them out, read them once and mark them in, you know? If you mark his goal out, man, page and a half, two pages later, you're really going to hear about it certainly by that time. He'll just be getting worse, you see. He'll be smoldering for about a page, you see, and then nattering for a quarter of the next page and then about halfway down the next page he explodes. Most gorgeous thing you ever cared to watch in your life. Not reliable to this degree: you can't count on it having been found last November and the pc still ARC breaking. He probably gave up ARC breaking on it by February and he's been in apathy ever since. He's not necessarily demonstrative on this subject, because he can go below antagonism - as anybody who knows the Tone Scale can see.

Now, when we made the first discoveries - I'm talking to you now about rock slammers and cases and oppterms and so forth - of the tremendous power exerted over the individual of his basic postulate that created each section of the GPM, when we first ran into this, we had a tendency to recognize it as something brand - new. Something brand - new.

All right. Now you've got - you've got yourself a situation then where you can take any quantity of goals lists and if you're worried about how you find a goal after you find items, I just refer you to lists 1 to 10 of the original 3GA, see, on the Criss Cross steps. Those lists with their headings, see. If you were an oppterm see, or if you were part of oppterm, why, what goal of yours would be impossible to achieve? See? What goal of yours would be impossible to achieve? If you were a mason, why, what goal of yours would be impossible to achieve? And so he gives you a list, see. You don't even care if he writes them in session or not. Well, you can always take this list and you can rip on down the list of thirty, forty goals, something like that - just read them once, see? Find out if anything fires. Nothing fires, abandon it, see? One fires, tiger drill it. Starts going out hard, wish you hadn't started tiger drilling it.

And I know it's in the first book - that is, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. It talks about the individual and his basic purpose. It's quite a discussion of that in there. I hadn't - wasn't aware of the fact - Suzie was reading Dianetics: The Original Thesis, 1947. 1 wasn't aware of the fact that it went earlier than that. But it goes back here to the definition of the first dynamic as written in The Original Thesis, on page 14 of the Wichita printing of that. And apropos of nothing particular here we find, startling enough, all eight dynamics on page 14 and 15, and all completely defined, and so on. All properly numbered. This wasn't rewritten for publication - this was published back in 1951. And we get the definition of the first dynamic, is: "The dynamic of self, consists of the dynamic thrust to survive as an individual, to obtain pleasures as an individual and to avoid pain. It covers the general field of food, clothing and shelter, personal ambition and general individual purpose."

Now, you understand, you're not looking for a rocket read on that first elimination. You're not looking for the rocket read. You're just looking for something in. Now, it'll do all sorts of things. A real goal seldom rock slams, but it - they've been known to. And they tick, they stick, steep falls. They just react on the needle - usually your first manifestation on most of them.

I'd forgotten myself that it was woven into the woof and warp of the subject right from the start. Now, this general individual purpose is on top of any mass or general purpose of, you might call, the basic.. . Well, theta has, and follows, certain general laws. We find these in the Axioms.

So therefore, any time one of these stays in, you simply mark it in, and you've got - you've got a goal that you can go back to. Now, I don't know that I would stop right there and tiger drill it. I don't know that I would necessarily do this. But you'll find that you're doing this on a lot of short lists. There are thirty, forty goals, and so forth. And I'd tear down the lot. Because you might get into trouble, tiger drilling every time something flicked. It'd be sort of a bad course to pursue, because most of your short lists, you're only going to have two goals left in - going to have two that reacted slightly.

A thetan does these various basic things. But he also splinters off and postulates some portion of them or some specialization of them. And he postulates this all off his own bat, and then tries to go forward with this as an individual purpose, aside from the basic Axioms. And he tries to go forward with this, moves onward, trying to affect it and builds up a tremendous amount of accumulated mass and all sorts of oddball items, you know: terminals, oppterms, combination terminals, upsets of various kinds or another. And he builds up a section that we call the GPM and then he will postulate something else, and then he builds up another section of the whole GPM, and then that finally dwindles out, and he somehow or another gets himself free of that - that's - I don't say he gets himself free of it, he sort of, you know, he gets out of it someday. Re gets blown up thoroughly enough that he forgets it utterly. Let me put it that way. And he makes up a new individual purpose and goes on from there.

Now, on all assessment, when the mid ruds are out, you can get a persistence of read, so that every time you say something to the pc it stays in. And I look at some of your elimination - I mean, some of your elim - . Your lists - nulling of your lists, and on the first one: in, in, in, in, in, that one's out. And then in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in... Wake up, man! The pc invalidated about the second one in, way up above you someplace. Of course, everything is in since. See? You're not - you're not doing an elimination of goals or items, you're doing an elimination of mid ruds. See, that thing has been out.

Well, actually all these things are in controversion to the basic laws of this universe and theta and the purposes of thetans and so forth. And if there is any reason why it builds up mass, it is because it's an alter - is of the Axioms. Ever think of it that way? See? Fellow's being an individual, but he's being an individual with an exclamation point! He already is in some kind of a games condition with his fellows and the universe at large, and being in this state, why, he decides to be even more different. And he postulates what we're digging up as a goal. His basic purpose, his goal. And then this, of course, is counter to the behavior patterns and former agreements and construction of the universe as contained in the Axioms, and so he is individuated out from that to that degree that he now has pitted himself against the whole lot - the whole works. He's flown in the teeth of every agreement he has previously made, which I consider quite adventurous. But that's all right.

Now, the more complete the list is, the less tendency there is for that to happen. You know, so the pc gets an invalidation of something. Pc says, "Oh, that wasn't it." Your next one - he says it to himself, see; he doesn't say it to you.

What we're finding out when we talk about clearing - we're finding out as we turn on somatics in the individual; as we find items in the person; we find terminals and oppterms; what we're finding out is, is he hasn't gotten away with it. Do you see that as an interesting sidelight on the situation?

And the next one seems in and the next one is in, and the next one in. In, in, in, in, man - I never see more than three in's in a row and I start blowing up. See, I start saying "Ha - ha - ha - ha! Well, now, what happened there?" I'll even hand the list to the pc and say, "Which one of these things, now, did you invalidate? Which one of these?"

There's the GPM and it's killing him, see. He's got a goal, he's got an individual purpose and he can't even execute it.

And he'll look up the line, "Well, it's that one. Oh, yes. Yes, yes. I thought so - and - so and so - and - so."

Find it very difficult even to execute his own individual purpose. Well, of course, to execute it, he's flying in the teeth of all the agreements. And then remember, he's part of these agreements, you see. He's part creator of these original agreements we call the Axioms. So he's called himself a liar to that degree and he is now departed out into the zones and areas of superindividuality and there we go.

"Thank you so much," I say sarcastically. And then do the next two again. They're all invariably out.

Now, as the individual goes forward, postulating a new goal, he of course is flying in the teeth of and alter - ising all of his former agreements. So now he gets up to a point of where he explodes out of the bank or something of the sort and he says, "Well, the bank is over there and I'm here," and he now postulates, again, a new individuation. He postulates a new basic purpose for himself. And he lives that one on out and it accumulates mass and then he adds it to the first mass and somehow or another one day, why, he manages to get an unrestimulated environment, or get blown up or something of the sort, and he suddenly says, "Well, all right, I'm free of all that and that's all gone and that's all passed and so on." He manages to get quite free of it, in actual fact. And he postulates a new basic purpose for himself, you see, and then that's in the teeth of all of his own basic purposes and then that's all in the teeth of all of the basic purposes which he agreed on with everybody else to have anyhow. And you see, so it doesn't take too long for that one to get in a ball. That gets in a ball much more rapidly, actually. It's much easier for that one to create a GPM section.

Now, if your list is complete, this will happen to you very seldom, and your needle won't be giving a continuous dirty manifestation and all that sort of thing. And you really can sail if you've got a complete list and your mid ruds are even vaguely in. The most it takes, if you've got a complete list, to keep your mid ruds in, is, "You want to tell me something or say something?" to the pc. You notice you have three consecutive ones in.

So he's actually going on a shorter and shorter cycle track. The cycles of the track are becoming shorter and he's finding more and more things that he can't do, and more and more things that he can no longer confront, and one day he says, "How come it's all black?" - will be practically his sole comment on the thing. He won't explode out of this mass again, don't you see? This fortuitous circumstance which momentarily freed him from the GPM that he'd already racked up, well, he's just so dug in it just doesn't happen.

I got - I've gotten fooled. I have cleaned up the mid ruds, straightened everything up, had the pc ARC break, straightened it all out - I was cleaning cleans, you see - and you know, and the pc didn't have anything to say and go back to the list after everything is all straightened out and find out that those three are still in. Is my face red, see! That should happen, you know? I had five, once, consecutively stay in. Almost blew up the session. So of course, the next time I had five in I said well maybe it could happen and then when I went around again found out that none of the five were in. The first had simply been invalidated.

Now, the person who is sitting there saying, "Well, I don't really want to be Clear," is just being a ruddy idiot. He's almost beneath an auditor's contempt. If he had the data before him or he'd looked it over, any subjective reality on it at all, and then he said no, he doesn't want to be Clear, or he doesn't want to be free of this, or he doesn't want to be on the straight road again, or anything like this, the guy's an idiot! That's all.

All right, now you're going down a column and the pc says, "Oh, well, none of these could be me. This has no relationship to me whatsoever. And I just hope nothing reads, because it hasn't anything much to do with me. And if I sit here carefully enough, why, we'll be able to get through this." And you go three consecutive pages of Xs. Well, long before you get to three consecutive pages of Xs, it should occur to you to ask the pc "Suppress" and "Careful of." Not all of your mid ruds, just "Suppress" and "Careful of." Should long since have occurred to you.

Now, somebody who gets very angry at Scientology and won't be processed again and has got fantastic personalities getting in his road - how he just can't possibly be processed because the Central Organization's Org Sec Sec, or something like this, has blotted the stationery of the last letter that was written to him, don't you see - has caused this terrible ARC break. Wow! He ought to be glad there is an Org Sec Sec, even though he says - even though the Org Sec Sec says to him whenever he walks in the office, "You blankety - blank - blank." He ought to say - not necessarily take it, but certainly, that from somebody who is perfectly willing to help him on his road and out of his mess ... Look, he's got this stacked up against, not the next two hundred trillion years, really, he's got this stacked up against an oblivion, an oblivion of total pain and sen.

I don't let more than about eight or nine Xs go by before I throw a "Suppress" and "Careful of" in there just to make sure. Then imagine my embarrassment to have a totally complete list, an absolutely flawless reading needle, no rudiment even slightly out and the only one which was going to remain in at the end was the item. Drives you mad, because of course you think the pc is suppressing all the time and you just sort of grit your teeth and hope, you know? It's an interesting rolly coaster.

You want to look and find out what hell is, what's this thing they're talking about? Usually in religions they'll have some metaphorical method of trying to communicate. And if they were ever talking about a hell - this is hell. See, this is hell. They recognize there's something waiting for them in the future. They try to shorten it up, you know, and say it's the next life and this time you die and you'll go to it. Well, that's just enthusiasm. But sooner or later the individual does reach that hell.

Anyway, this gives you an opportunity - this method of elimination of goals; just by reading on down the list of goals once - it gives you an opportunity to get the pc to list lots of goals. And you can tell the pc, "Why don't you list some goals. If you were an oppterm, you know, what goal of yours would be impossible to achieve?" you know? And you've gotten four or five oppterms, so get him to list a raft of them. You know? List against each oppterm.

Now, it's very interesting for somebody to persuade people into believing that he can offer them heaven, and that there is a heaven. I imagine down through the Dark Ages, at one time or another, why, I imagine I must have gotten drunk and kicked off or kicked off while I was drunk, and maybe spent hours going around trying to find the Pearly Gates. I imagine that I've done this. I have no clear recollection of it. I have clear recollection of sneering, but not of doing much looking.

And then, of course, terminals - that's dead easy. You just say, "What would be the goal of a (terminal)?" See? "What goals would a (whatever the terminal is) have?"

But it's often occurred to me: how about this Joe that has bought pie in the sky, you know. He just bought it by the slab, you know. And he kicks off, you know, and he backs up through the window with the whole GPM dragged after him, you know, and sticks to the walls and does various other things, and sits down and waits for the heavenly messenger or something, you know. Or for somebody to blow a couple of toots on an air horn. And supposing at that moment, why, somebody in a Jaguar came by and pushed the button on a horn. Why, he'd be sure, you see, that's Gabriel. Imagine the bird; he wanders around and caroms off the trees, and looks for Pearly Gates, and that sort of thing. That's why I've always been very careful to have black gates on houses and that sort of thing.

You've got several terminals there, all more or less the same breed of cat, the same sort of thing, and you say, "Well, this sort of terminal now - what sort of goal would this sort of terminal have?" You know? And you get yourself a goals list. Lots of ways you can approach this.

But the essence is this guy's been sold, see. He's been sold a bill. And he eventually says, "Well, I must've had my map wrong," or something. He comes back and picks up another body and then somebody starts talking to him about pie in the sky and they're going to save him and he's liable to go to hell. Well, he instinctively knows that he is going to go to hell. That much of it's true. If he lives long enough, he'll be in hell, don't worry about it. And so he'd just as soon have some heaven. And eventually he gets to the point where he can't be sold heaven. See, anytime you say, "You can be free," he gets it tangled up with the number of times he's been up knocking on somebody's wrought iron, thinking that was the Pearly Gates, you know, and nobody let him in, and no harps or halos being issued today, you know. I imagine they get into some awful confused areas, probably wind up over here at Hobbs Barracks, in front of the - in front of the Uniform Issue Department, or something like that. You can imagine. They get tangled, see.

You probably ask yourself, "Well, I know we find items, items, items, items, items; but when do you ever come in and find a goals list, see?" Well, the reason I haven't told you very much is because there really isn't any good answer to it. You can just get yourself a goals list most any time. And the reason I hadn't given you a lot of packaged ways to get goals lists out of it - well, it's just because I felt bad about all this Tiger Drilling of great long lists and I knew I had to get down and solve that.

Anyhow, you don't know what confusion they get into, but they get into this confusion: that they begin to regard the real thing as pie in the sky. So you say to somebody, "All right, well, I can straighten you out," and even though he's sitting in the chair he sometimes has a very wide reservation. He's been straightened out before!

In the first place, a pc, knowing his auditing is going to be tied up by all this Tiger Drilling, becomes very loath to give you long lists of goals. But if that isn't going to take any time at all, why, you've got it, you see? Pc doesn't mind how many goals he gives you if it isn't going to take any time to scoop them up, see? It's very therapeutic for a pc to write goals. I mean, they do just fine. You can sit down and say, "I wonder what's my goal?" and tear off a couple hundred and feel beautiful. It's very good. You can straighten out cases. Nothing like getting rid of a wrong goal if somebody's been run or hung with a wrong goal or something like that. You straighten it out, they really start shining.

Sometimes down in Spain they used to straighten them out with pine fagots. They fixed them up. If they confessed at the last moment, why, they let them die without putting ice on their chest as they burned them at the stake. I think that was what they gave them. And they said they would be saved and wouldn't necessarily go to hell. Yeah, the auto - da - f6, the way they used to slow down the person's death with wet cloths, and that sort of thing.

But - oh, you get somebody off the street, raw meat, and you say, "Write me up some goals you might have had in life." And they give you a long string of them. Gosh, they feel wonderful. They think this is great. They think this is the most. Quite interesting. Mustn't overlook that in the shuffle.

Rather gruesomely got restimulated out here the other night when we did a Guy Fawkes celebration for the kids. Little Arthur was complaining about it, he wanted to put the clothes on one of his dolls or his teddy bears and we insisted on burning them up, and he was rather provoked about the whole thing. He probably was being more smart about it than we were.

But because we didn't want to do all this Tiger Drilling by the hour and the pc didn't want all of his auditing time all devoured by it, why, I myself was rather loath to advise tremendous things. I thought I might come up with some method of copying the goal off in an awful hurry in some tricky method to avoid all this Tiger Drilling. Well, there is no method that will avoid it except find the goal, see? That avoids all further finding of goals, you see, on that particular GPM and that's the best way to avoid it, is to find the goal.

Anyhow, this fellow's been saved in innumerable, painful ways, which have wound him up a great many cul - de - sacs and blind alleys with his feet full of tacks. And so you walk up to somebody and you say you're going to clear him and save him and do something for him, you see. And you're liable to restimulate all this. It comes out in "reasons we can't clear you," you see. "What would be the consequences of our clearing you?" Actually, no matter what he says, it's sort of based on these failures.

Now, the funny part of it is, supposing you went into the pc's goals list, and you read the first page of his 850 goals. Just read them, once at a time. Find out if any of them are in. One of them's in. Tiger drill it. Goes out hard, man! Don't do the second page. Don't do the second page. That case has got to be unburdened before you go any further. See the idea?

Now, you get somebody who has really been made to fail on the whole track, with magnitude in exclamation points, and he's going to - he's going to fight it all the way. He's going to have a lot of trouble. He's going to sense all the time something is wrong. Right up to the time you give him a reality on the fact that something is happening.

All right, now supposing we had - we took the first page, and we start tiger drilling the first page. Pc up till now has been in pretty good condition. We start tiger drilling the first page of the 850 list - dirty needle. Dirty needle. And we straighten it all up and we get the mid ruds in, we polish it all up and we read two more goals; we got a dirty needle. You might as well get off that dead horse. He's going to fall flat on his face in the middle of the pavement. That goal isn't on that list. Never seen it fail. That goal is elsewhere. You've missed it. It's not on that list. You're not going to run into it on the consecutive list of goals which you're now going to do. It's an incomplete list; it hasn't got the goal on it. So the idea of incomplete list still hangs out there.

The kindest way to handle such a person is to give him a fast reality on the fact that you mean business. Not by pulling a magic fire out of the top of a vase and giving him a bunch of overwhump, and that sort of thing. He's seen that before. But actually doing something for him subjectively that he can realize that he is on a road to truth.

I did a beautiful job of this one time. When we were over in Washington, I did a gorgeous job of this. I thought the pc's old goal was not the goal. Did this time after time, actually - twice, very notably - man. Found the pc's goal was not the - thought the pc's - couldn't get it to read, to react, see. So did a couple of - found an item and listed goals against the item, and goal number one on list six rocket read and did beautifully. And after some four or five hours or something like that, of - it just evaporated. It was gone! Never saw such a thing in my life, you know? It left me just bug - eyed. Because, boy, was that goal reading beautifully! I told everybody I'd found the pc's goal. Well, I had, actually, but hadn't realized it.

People that this has happened to, to too great a degree have always got one eye sort of squinted, just a little bit, waiting for the payoff, see. There is liable to be a trick involved with this, and so on. And frankly it makes an auditor's life rather uncomfortable sometimes. The pc is sitting there and the pc has no trust. His trust level is just shot, you know. And therefore, he doesn't answer the auditing commands, he alter - ises them, he does this and that with them. He knows he'd better not put himself in your power, because too often when he has kicked off he's gone looking for those Pearly Gates and he hasn't found any.

Pc all of a sudden - things aren't going well, needle's dirty, and you know, everything is getting goofy and so forth. But still I drilled it out and it rocket read, oh, marvelous! Couldn't get it to stay in, you know. It kept going in and out and couldn't get it to read well and most of the time it didn't rocket read. Pc all of a sudden comes up and says, "That is the end of my goal. Every goal I have put on this list - these lists for you, actually is the end phrase of my goal." And it was, too. The pc had written nothing but modifiers for their own goal. Fascinating.

But the trust level - the trust level on what we are doing, of course, generally is not very, very good. The healing sciences today are frankly almost beneath contempt. They aren't doing anything very much for anybody. They're pretty good plumbers. They can normally set a bone or do something like that. They're not bad at things. Sometimes they can do plastic surgery and so forth. These things are nice. Mechanically they're not bad.

And with that realization and using "in auditing" on the goal, using that phrasing - I today, would have prepchecked it, you see, and it would have come in faster and I wouldn't have made this error, by the way. My goodness, that goal came up and fired just gorgeously. And there it was shooting rockets all over the place, you know? And what I'd been running hard and what was rocket reading, was the last - an additional phrase that could have been on the goal, but wasn't - a sort of a modifier, only it wasn't that either. It looked like a totally independent goal all by its lonesome. You get the freaky things that'll happen when somebody has already found the pc's goal. You get that? The tail of the goal still reads but the beginning of it doesn't; but the tail of the goal isn't on the goal anyhow and you wouldn't use that to list it anyway. Oh, my! Complicated.

But just go in to one of their offices sneezing, the most awful things are liable to happen to you. You know, probes going up your nose and all this sort of thing. You know. You're wildly allergic to one of these wonder drugs, you know, and they shoot you full of it and you break out with the hives and ... It's marvelous, you know. They have very few specifics. Of course, they're handy to have around when they work, but it's no great general level. It's almost fantastic, the degree of clutch which this type of healing has on the environment, until you realize that the environment always accepts it as just sort of a fake anyway. They don't approach it with any trust anyway and so on. Well, it's the type of society you're going up against and this pc you're auditing is bred in that kind of a society. So it's no wonder he doesn't follow your auditing commands.

Anyway, as we go looking over this vista of finding goals, you can list all ten of those lists against any reliable item. You can list all ten of them against any item. You just take the best item the pc - come up with and list lines one and six against that best item and the pc will probably lay his goal right in your lap, see? That's after you've done an unburdening.

You see, he sort of pretends to. He's like the maiden with a large cold bath before her. And she doesn't even put her big toe in. See, she wants to get the temperature of the water by intuition. And it takes quite a little bit to build up against that. You get the most remarkable kickbacks. It is that single thing which is the hardest thing for an auditor to go up against - is just a very bad trust level.

But how about before unburdening? How do we find out if the case has to be unburdened? Well, you take that first 850 list, read each goal once, mark those that are in, in, and go back and start tiger drilling them. Won't take you too long to do that - frankly, won't. Just going to read it once and see if it reacts. Don't miss any reads. And you'll be able to cover an awful lot of goals in an awful hurry.

Now, the mechanics of how it got that way are very valuable and very important to you, but don't overlook the fact that its importance, the importance is actually great in that your dissemination is stopped by practically nothing else. There's hardly anything else stands in the road of dissemination, except that, just that low trust level.

Pc comes back in, gives you a whole bunch of goals, you know, they've got as a - they've got as a "tiger" oppterm, see. Give you a whole bunch of goals against a tiger. And they've got a "filibuster" as an oppterm, see, and a whole bunch of goals against a filibuster. They come in, give you this goals list and so on. There are ten goals on it. All right, fine. How long does it take you to read ten goals? None of them rocket reads and nothing upsets the needle, you can set that aside very nicely and quietly right now.

The people that scream that we're quacks and bums and rats and dogs and fakes and all that sort of thing are usually themselves operating in this. The only people that really get enthusiastic about it are yelling at you as an oppterminal situation, don't you see, in a very remarkable way. The psychologist, of course, must realize - must have realized long ago; the psychoanalyst must have realized long ago, that they had little or no freedom for man and quite often deteriorated his condition beyond all recognition. They must have realized this a long time ago and yet they're the first to call us fakes, you see. The birds with the dirtiest hands are throwing the most mud. And it's always a good way to identify the situation. That is a general factor.

Now, here's the clue: Reading something once has minimal restimulation. You can usually give a pc an auditing command - one auditing command, without restimulating them. You can actually give them up to three without killing them. Beyond that, you're in trouble. You've started to process somebody for sure, after the third command. You are now running a process. But you can always ask them once. Therefore, you can go over a goals list and the only thing that would be hot enough to restimulate a somatic would be the pc's actual goal, in most cases, although you'll trigger somatics that are - on goals that are close to it. So watch for the somatic while you're doing the read once, see? The end of the run - if your rudiments are in and so forth - at the end of the run what have you got? You've got 40 goals out of 850. Start looking them over.

Now, this individual has already fought the physical universe, and the basic laws of the physical universe - after agreeing to them - he now alter - ises them and, of course, those laws concern matter, energy, space and time, so he starts accumulating matter, energy, space and time, and that's what puts it in his bank, you see. Then he makes an individual purpose, which has nothing to do with these other purposes, don't you see? And he tries to go up against them with this individual purpose, and this, of course, accumulates more mass than you can count. And now he's going to think up another individual purpose and that goes against his first individual purpose and all the purposes behind him. And now he's got a third goal that he postulates up there. Oh, this gets very, very interesting.

Maybe - maybe when you got up that morning you found your shoes in the right place, you didn't get shocked while connecting up the water kettle, the car started - you know, just a wonderful lucky day. And you're reading down this list of 30 goals the pc has brought in to you and so forth and number 20 has a rocket read, and you tiger drill it up and it reads and reads and reads, and it reads every time and everything is fine. That gives you then a vast opportunity to take a crack at a lot of goals. You see the benefit of that?

But all that's true, but it must have been based originally on a very low level of confidence and trust anyway. He must have had a very, very low level of confidence to have gone to all this trouble. See, he couldn't possibly have trusted what was going on. He must have thought that it was detrimental, or he wouldn't have taken all this trouble to have individuated from it.

Now, I'm going to give you another method of goals finding. This is another method of goals finding known as the Prepcheck. A lot of people sit around not looking. They do not look. That is their motto. And just as I told you the other day that it was very, very mysterious that a MEST Clear had been made with two consecutive Problems Intensives - it was very mysterious that this hadn't been reported from elsewhere - why, we've had another one.

You find most pcs are mad at the physical universe, to some degree or another; they'll find some complaints against the physical universe. Well, let me tell you, the physical universe is going to stay here for that individual, until that individual ... Now, here's something I've never told you before, but it follows sequitur. It's actually understood in the sixty - four Philadelphia lectures of 1952. I've never mentioned it in connection with modern clearing.

They have run into a problem up at HASI London, a very bad problem, it's worrying them. After a few Problems Intensives the person keeps saying that such - and - so is his goal and they want to know what to do with it.

And that is this: That after you get goal number one ... Now, you see, we're numbering goals backwards, just for the sake of nomenclature. We don't know how many goals the fellow has postulated for himself, so we can't call this the first goal we pick up - as "number thirty - four," don't you see, or something like that, because we don't know what number it is. So we're calling that the first goal. I'm talking about the first goal he postulated after the Axioms. And after we get back to that - what was, for him, the original individuating goal - you think you're going to have a total OT. Well, actually you're not, you know. You've got the Axioms.

Well, I sent a message back to Ray up there, and told her she had to work it out, that I was tired of contributing all the time. But there was a clue, you see - there was a clue - and that was contained in 3 - 21. 1 could give her that hint.

Now, you're going to back up, up the Axioms. Recognize that? Now, sooner or later, this pc's going to start talking to you about the Axioms. You could carefully have hidden from a pc all lists and conversation concerning an - Axioms, and then clear him on up the line, he'll sooner or later start telling you the Axioms. Well, at this time they're getting ready to blow. But his agreement to those Axioms, his contribution to that degree, is of course, you know, the greatest probability, his first basic trap. You may have to get back to them and run them. See, they may not blow at all. Sooner or later he'll collide with them going backwards. And those are all individuating purposes from the basic purpose.

But actually, she should have reported this, because it's only in Central Organizations now that you're getting large numbers of consecutive actions taking place. And a Prepcheck will not only produce a free needle ... They haven't noticed this in London. They notice that they're terribly loose. Making MEST Clears, you know - I mean, that - this is a killer, you know? Everybody sweating away, at it - Jim said last night, he said, "Well," he said, "that's right." He said, "A Clear that would not be connected with a goal wouldn't be real to me." And he's right. He's right. You think of clearing somebody, you think of a goal. Well, how about this character who doesn't have any goal and all of a sudden he's free needle, well, that's still a type of Clear. That is the earliest type of Clear. For heaven's sakes, don't ignore it. It has all the attributes of Clear. Of course, the fellow's liable to cave in in two months or two years, or something like that and he'll be fuzzy around the edges occasionally. But for heaven's sakes don't invalidate it; it's a very valuable state, as I think somebody here could tell us.

It's a funny thing, but you have to go a long way back to pick up more than the first dynamic. You start picking up more than the first dynamic waaaay back on the track, see. A fellow's usually on an - even on today - he's on an inversion of the first. And you'll find out there are about seven dynamics going to invert on you, you know, reverse the inversion process, before he gets to a straight first dynamic. And then when he gets to a straight first dynamic, he's got to go quite a ways before he gets sight of the other dynamics. There's what you're tackling. There's what you're running up against in the bank.

And trying to stabilize it and get it up along the line and keep it stable and so forth requires that you find the goal and finish it off, but that doesn't say the state doesn't exist. And apparently, wherever Problems Intensives have been run with a fair degree of technical skill, and following down the line in a minimum amount of Q and A, why, apparently they're getting free needle MEST Clears. I think this is quite interesting. And you could say this and the report is not as precise as I would like it - but you could say that after three or four Problems Intensives the person may start handing you his goal. That's a new method of goal finding, isn't it?

We're the only people who can go up against opposition terminals or masses or something like that and get away with it. Only a Scientologist is safe in his attacks. See that? A hell of a thing, but it actually gives you an unlimited license for overts. You can always run them out. Nobody else can. Interesting, isn't it?

In other words, you tiger drill the pc until the goal reads. That's another method of goals finding. Quite an amusing one. Sitting - sitting here at Saint Hill and going nowhere near a Central Organization, why, I'm finding out that they're clearing people and finding goals in a brand - new way and getting all set to use this data and all they're doing is worrying about it.

But here is a basic thing that lies in every pc, whether this pc is a rock slammer or otherwise, it's a deteriorated trust. Not only a trust in his fellow man has deteriorated, but also his trust in organizations, in group activities, in any effort whatsoever to do anything for him - he has to some degree or another deteriorated at his level of trust. And he's sort of nervy about it. He gets very nervous when you start going in that direction, because he knows that's always been dangerous to him. And you're reversing his experiential track, so he's going back into areas that he thinks are dangerous. And thinking these areas are dangerous, he's sort of nervous.

You see, some of these needles get so free that you can't read them to get the rudiments in. It's like this fellow keeps complaining, you know, he says, "You know," he says, "every time I put some of this cracked ice in this glass every time I put some of this cracked ice in this glass it doesn't dissolve, you know?" And you look in the glass and you find out there's a refrigerator full of perfect blue - white diamonds. And he says, "Well, it's no good - it won't cool drinks." I mean, they're in that kind of a weird situation, apparently.

Now, this applies to every pc you process. It's just your skill as an auditor and the smoothness of your Model Session and the positiveness of what YOU ire doing and the fact that you can produce a result in the pc on which he has a reality. And he realizes you are going in the direction of freedom. Now the funny part of it is he may be sufficiently low downscale that the fact he is going in the direction of freedom, it looks so good that he can't have it. And you get into another rickle - rackle, you know. He won't let himself have it now, because it's too good, you know. That's unobtainable and you know he - so on ... It's like you pushed a three - story cake at a little kid and said, "It's all yours," you know. And hell stand and look at that thing for hours! He won't touch it. Can't believe it, you know. Probably made out of cardboard and paint. Very suspicious.

If your technical was way up in an HGC, and you weren't getting a lot of guys jumping down the throats of the pcs and they were doing all right and they were going along the line ... And apparently it's quite vital that the problem be properly assessed. The assessment of the problem is the only place they have run into trouble. They run in two or three areas. I don't know what else they did, but they have assessed the wrong problem and run it crazily and madly all over the road, see? And run a pc up the tree. That's the only dynamite contained in a Problems Intensive, is assessing the wrong problem.

Now, if you add to this, this other idea, that if you existed and if you freed man and if you did things for the physical universe, then this person couldn't execute the first and foremost goal or individual purpose that you're going to run into in processing him, see, the first one you're going to pick up on him, that he couldn't have this and he couldn't do it if you or freedom or anything else existed - you got a rock slammer.

But if things were done smoothly and the rudiments were put in and the pc was not Qed - and - Aed with and was permitted to originate and everything went off, apparently - apparently you run enough of these Problems Intensives, twenty - five hours each, and the goal is delivered, apparently. That is what you should expect to have happen.

But I just want to make it clear to you, that when you look at a person who is fighting the auditor or Scientology or the organization or having a hell of a time and can't tell why, and it's - he's just getting all messed up about this thing, and you look at this person; recognize that that distrust is not just built on this individual goal that you're going to run into as goal one. No, that's not built on that. That is built on a quicksand of distrust that goes earlier than that. Of course he's got goal after goal that goes before that, and he's got stuff, stuff, stuff, stuff, stuff. So his level of trust, of course, is very poor to begin with. Then you pop up and you say, "Well, yeah, I'm going to clear you, I'm going to clear men, I'm going to do things for people," and this is all contrary to his basic purpose that you're going for; is the first goal you're going to find - you got a rock slammer. That rock slammer is already built on quicksand that everybody's made out of

Now, what happens is that the needle's stuck up around 5.0, you give the person a Problems Intensive, and the needle will come down to the person's Clear read. You give them another Problems Intensive; it wobbles out one way or the other and then comes down to the Clear read again, and the needle is very floaty, and you give him another Problems Intensive, you see, and the needle stops reading properly on the rudiment so that you really need another meter or something because you can't just read through these free needles. No use for them, you know? And instead of telling the poor Joe he's a MEST Clear, you start nagging him and nattering at him, "What do you mean? You're fixing it up so your rudiments can't be checked out. You can't be checked out for missed withholds and so forth." Apparently you give about four or five of these things and you - Problems Intensives - and the guy starts putting his goal in your lap, you know? "Yeah well, this is my goal. Now, what do I ... T'

As soon as your auditing deteriorates and becomes less than perfect, as soon as you start fumbling and mucking it up and failing to deliver some reality of some kind or another to a pc, you rekindle, or permit to remain - if it's already going at full blast, which it usually is - all of this morass of distrust that has been generated by all the pie in the sky the fellow has ever been promised. A man's reality on hell and his certainty on hell is far, far better than his reality on heaven, because heaven has never existed and hell has.

And the auditor says, "Well, what the hell are you doing offering me that? I've got nothing to do with that. You just go on here, answer the next question."

And all you got to do on this track is flub a little bit. Actually, you have quite a broad margin of the amount of flub you can flub. You don't have to be absolutely down the line, you're not whipping at it on a total perfection, you see. But you let this case drift too far without a good positive result - you let this fellow go hours and hours and hours of sessioning without any kind of a win - you're not keying in just his basic purpose, you're keying in the whole background of "there is no heaven." And you pay the penalty.

You can see some pc going straight up and a mile south, all ARC broke.

And the longer you take to produce a result on a pc, the more difficult it is to produce that result, Just because of this distrust factor which I've been discussing with you.

The auditor wouldn't listen to the fact that it was his goal, wouldn't put - even put it down in the auditor's report, you know? Director of Processing would have nothing to do with the pc because he wouldn't answer the auditing question, he'd just sat there and argued all the time about this thing being his goal. Can't read the meter because the meter has a fairly free needle except for these spurt reads! I mean. . . Oh, you could just imagine this poor organization. I mean, they're just in trouble from one end to the other. These diamonds won't cool their drinks. It's very amusing.

Now, I don't know whether rock slammers deserve it or not, and I probably ought to keep this to myself and never give you the solution to the rock slammer. We're being very hard on rock slammers, and we should recognize ... Actually a lot of people who are simply nattering after they've been processed for a while, will turn out to be rock slammers. You know, there are a lot of people around who are below being rock slammers.

Anyhow - anyhow, that opens the door to another way to find goals. And this would be about the happiest way to find goals that anybody ever heard of Just - you just keep delivering Problems Intensives until the guy volunteers his goal. Pretty wild, huh? Must be valid because that's what's happening in an HGC right now, see?

Your intuition for an individual, that this guy is not all right and he doesn't mean all right, is actually more reliable than your E - Meter where it comes to this, because you may have to process him for some hours before you find out he's a rock slammer. You recognize that's not a vital test, see. That's not totally valid as a test. It's rather conclusive when it does occur. But that it doesn't occur absolves nobody. See, it's sort of like the heaven - hell situation. You see, hell exists, but heaven probably doesn't.

I don't know if all cases would do this or not, but I don't know if all cases would uniformly sit down and be audited in an auditing chair. But the point - the point I'm making here is maybe if we added to this some Routine 2 - remember old Routine 2? Very badly neglected now. But supposing we added a Routine 2 button or two to this. It would certainly happen the person certainly would go Clear, added into the normal buttons that you use in your Problems Intensive. I know that would happen, because I've already seen Routine 2 going on down in this direction. It's just rather lengthy and auditors had an awful time finding the right level, and we didn't at that particular time have a problem - have an Auxiliary Pre - Have Scale. But now that you've got "Roll Your Own," Routine 2 becomes a rather fantastic activity. See, so it forecasts there that there's another zone of operation. But still, the best form to use it in would be the form of the Problems Intensive. That is still your best form.

Similarly, people probably aren't, until they're proven to be. But you couldn't say that nobody is. You can't say positively that this person isn't. You get the notion there? Because there's no absolute test of absolvance, except the person's ability to measure up and your feeling about the person, their progress in processing, when you add these things up, why, you say to yourself, "Well, this guy can't possibly be a rock slammer."

Now, there's only one thing I know of that's wrong with a Problems Intensive. On the Queen Elizabeth, Reg was trying to assess me to find out a self - determined change. And I looked it over very clear - eyed and clearheadedly and finally determined that, I think, twice in this lifetime I myself had independently, without further guidance, made up my mind, twice in this lifetime. The - I find two points which were purely and completely self-determined changes. I went over this rather long, and looked them all over very, very closely and very carefully. And therefore I can assume that most pcs are answering this question fallaciously and realize that the Problems Intensive has a trick built into it. And realized at that time that it had a trick built into it. And the trick is that you expect the pc to give you a change which he believes to be self - determined and then you find the prior confusion and the determination for that change. See?

Well, what about this? What about this rock slammer? What about this manifestation? Well, all it is, is his degree of overt in your direction and his weird belief that if you or whatever he's rock slamming about exists, then he will never be able to achieve his basic, individual purpose. He believes this, so he fights you. Realize that the first moment you find it out and he finds it out has a tendency to pull its teeth. You never really see a rock slammer going full blast after you found out he was a rock slammer and he knows it too. Quite interesting. Just the fact of discovering the fact and he discovers it the same time that you do. He didn't know it before. Sometimes he won't believe you, but he's got a pretty good idea.

That's a trick assessment. But while he was trying to find one of these on me, he kept asking me the question and I kept telling him the truth, see? So we finally wound up with the fact that there were two of these. That's pretty good in one lifetime, I found two times I'd made up my mind totally independently and uninfluencedly. Of course, I took the severe definition of the auditing question. He asked me for self - determined changes and I gave him two, after about two hours, I forget what it was, something like that. We were able to find two.

Now, I don't know whether a rock slammer deserves it or not, for me to give you this other tip. If they cause anybody any trouble, of course you can always forget this. But it's just this: all you have to do is opposition what they're slamming on. Say they're slamming on "an auditor," you know, just the whole subject of "an auditor," all you've got to do is write your opposition list to "an auditor" and you'll - you've - just all you9ve run into is your first package in present time. And it tends to blow up in smoke. Frankly, an auditor capable and able, with 3GA Criss Cross, would not really require any time at all to straighten out a rock slammer. I don't know, two, three hours, at the outside. You see, you9ve got the list and find the item. And actually, the case folds up as a rock slamming case, as such.

So there's probably something wrong with the question. And the question probably shouldn't be asked with a trick to it. Now, I've been meaning to put out a bulletin or something and do something about this ever since. There shouldn't be a trick in that assessment, since the assessment becomes that vital. Probably should just be asking a person for changes.

But, of course, this person can have goals listed against any terminal, you can list a goal against any terminal that rock slams, and you can list a goal against any oppterm that rock slams, see. You can list a goal against an item that rock slams. If it's an oppterm, you say, "What goal of yours would be impossible to achieve if this thing existed?" you know, or something like that. Lists headings already exist for that. You can use that terminal directly. Sometimes you just get the guy's goal laid on the line.

Now, the reason we were saying "self - determined" changes before, and emphasizing that, is because we didn't want to run them into engrams. But in actual fact a Problems Intensive will run a person through and out of engrams. I mean, the button collection now has gotten sufficiently powerful to do some rather wonderful things with his track, you see? And he's not going to get stuck in an engram anyhow, if he doesn't have a missed withhold.

But even if you've got the guy's goal laid on the line - this was the only other point I was making - even if you've got this person's goal laid on the line, opposition it. Get your opposition to whatever he was slamming on. Now, you can always - let's say you have some person in an organization or in your group and this person's been causing quite a bit of trouble and you take him and give him a rock slam test and you find - don't find a rock slam, you only find a dirty needle on Scientology. You tiger drill it for a moment and it doesn't clean up. That thing's going to develop into a rock slam someday. All you've got to do, actually, is opposition it. The person's whole viewpoint on the subject of Scientology will shift. This is a very easy one to handle, in other words. You shouldn't worry about it too much. It means more than it appears to mean. And probably you would neglect it, ordinarily, that elementary step. You would use the rock slam to find the person's goal and you would go on. You shouldn't do that, because the person will give you a lot of trouble. Not as much as they were before, but if you opposition it, the trouble will evaporate. You see?

You want to know why pcs suddenly curl up in a ball while you're tiger drilling them sometimes and go into the engram - and it'll happen to you sooner or later - pc just has a missed withhold, and instead of going on and butchering the pc through the engram you should ask the pc for the missed withhold. Get the missed withhold and he'll come right out of the dramatization, which is quite interesting. That's - we've done that around here quite a bit, to our great advantage. It's the missed withhold that pulls him back into the solidity of the picture.

So the whole case, anyway, is built on quicksand of distrust, and when it comes up to the fact that we are the oppterm and we're the cowboys in the black hat and he's the cowboy in the white hat - the way he looks at it - and to us we're the cowboys in the white hat and he's the cowboy in the black hat, you recognize that you can blow this whole thing up rather easily. You realize the rock slammer most consistently goes out and becomes a squirrel, says he practices Scientology while doing psychiatry or something, see. He gets - he makes himself into a combination terminal, promptly, because he realizes instinctively that he's crazy as a loon to be attacking us.

You get some auditors - all the pc's got to say, "I've got a stuck picture in front of me," and the auditor's going to run it, man. Of course, he hasn't got a prayer of running it, because it's the confusion that occurred before the stuck picture that causes the picture to be stuck, you know? But even asking for the confusion that went ahead of the stuck picture isn't good enough to release that engram. You have to run a whole series of assorted buttons on it.

But you can solve this, and it's pretty easy to do. I hope there's some data in what I have told you that gives you some assistance in handling cases.

But if the pc started to dramatize an operation or an incident or a prenatal or something like this, don't keep charging him on through it. Also don't suddenly change the process just because he starts shivering - that's very bad auditing. But let's say the pc curls up in the ball, and goes into a catatonic bluhh state and so forth. Well, you're justified in shifting off to the random rudiment and back into the process, see? That'd be your only shift, which is all part of Model Session. You're not doing something very different, you're just getting your random rudiment in.

Thank you.

You get your random rudiment in on a dramatizing pc in a session, he generally will drop right out of it. That's well worth knowing, because I hadn1 realized till Jim was talking last night ... He didn't have this answer; Mary Sue told him what the score was on it. But he'd been tiger drilling a pc up in London; the pc curled up in a ball and went straight into a prenatal. And this was quite startling. But actually could only - so, it refreshes some earlier data which we had on this. Pc'll only dramatize like mad if he has a missed withhold. Because, of course, his effort to withhold from the session, or with - you know, keys * his going into the incident. See, he actually can't stay in the session and he retreats into the incident, don't you see? It's the withhold that pulls him back into the incident, if you can figure it out - very elementary.

Anyhow, to give you a clue as to your Problems Intensive, use of, the assessment undoubtedly should be based on a question which simply gets the person changes in a person's life. And you start asking for too many vagaries on this, see, self - determined changes, he starts answering the question absolute, you're going to have a ball. I mean, you're not going to be able to get any. And it depends on this kind of a tricky question. But if you ask him, now, because you don't want other - determined changes, if you just ask him "Times you decided to change," why, you probably have got it pretty close to a dead - center question. I've been meaning to tell you this for some time, when I hadn't written a bulletin on it or gotten around to it at all. Had a few other things on my mind.

And well, it - just ask him for times he decided to change, or his decisions to change; why, you'll wind up with a more reliable assessment. Because the pc doesn't have to tell you any lie then, to assess it. Of course, naturally he decided to change - the house fell in on him, you know? A bad assessment will sometimes wind you up in this kind of a situation and the tone arm won't move. It's, "Will the tone arm move?" that is the criteria of a reliable assessment. If your assessment is good, the tone arm will move. If your assessment is bad, the tone arm won't move.

So in handling Problems Intensives, or in handling auditors running them, why, just lay that point in with a small club and you'll be all set. Keep your eye on that tone arm. Right after the assessment is done, the first action's taken after the assessment is done, using that date. That tone arm doesn't move, you get that guy out of there so fast that the E - Meter turns pale, see? You get him - you get him off of that. You get another assessment quick.

In other words, you want to - you want to know if in the first twenty minutes of run on the first button if you had tone arm action. And if you didn't get tone arm action you get him the hell out of there, man. See, you have to leave - if you're running this in HGCs, you have to run this on a standing order. All right, after the assessment is done - usually done by a goal finder, or the D of P or somebody, see; a confirmation of the assessment or the assessment is done by them - and your first orders after that is, "All right. We've got this date and it's January 3rd, 1941. All right. We've got that date." That took it the - by all the rules of the game, you see, the incident, the decision and the month before and all that. "All right. Now, go ahead and start your question on this thing. 'Since ~ so forth, and for the first twenty minutes, why, you watch your tone arm, keep your needle to center very, very carefully, and give me those tone arm reads. At the end of twenty minutes, if you have inadequate tone arm action, you come back and see me fast." You see, that's your guarantee.

Because it's apparently only those pcs who didn't get tone arm action while running the Problems Intensive that got into any trouble because of one. See, this is a guarantee that your pc isn't going to get into trouble running the wrong problem. So what you want to do, uniformly, is watch for tone arm motion and the rules of what is good tone arm motion and what is poor tone arm motion apply as given in an earlier bulletin.

So this is a killer as long as it's done right - a Problems Intensive is. But apparently you tiger drill the pc, and he will eventually give you a goal. Or you prepcheck the pc off the goal, and you eventually had a goal sitting in the chair. I think it's very worthwhile knowing that - that this can occur. Even if we don't know at this moment that it can occur with every case in every place, it is very interesting that we know it can occur. And by telling you in this lecture, giving you some idea of the number of goals that you could cover just by reading them all at once and marking those that were in and only tiger drilling those, relieves you from, I hope, a fear of letting the pc write goals and getting goals off the pc. I hope that relieves you to some degree.

A lot of you are asking, "Well, what do I do with the 850 goals?" Well, what do you do with them? If you're doing 3GA Criss Cross and you find a couple of items and a terminal or something like this, or you want to list the goals against the oppterms and list the goals for the terminal, get a little list like this, and you start down that list and you don't immediately have a goal smack you in the face. Well, man, you've got 850 of them sitting back on the original list. You've unburdened the case so it would ~ probably run anyway, got the guy under control, nicely. Just read the 850 list off to him; you're liable to find the goal sitting right there. Oddly enough, sizing up the pc, perhaps if you hadn't unburdened it, and you had read the 850 list of the pc, the goal wouldn't have read. See? Or if you did find it, nothing could've happened. A lot of conditions could have existed around it.

On some pc - looks pretty good, he's riding down well, and so forth - just pick up the 850 list and read it to the pc, one each. Won't take you very long to do that. Mark the ones in. The chances are you'll just be reading down the list and you'll see a rocket read. And if you got up that morning and you made the proper obeisance to the rising sun and put your necklace on right end to, there you are. And you say, "To catch catfish" - pow! "To catch catfish" - pow! "To catch catfish" - pow! You see it 90 pow again and say, "What'd you think of?" He says, "To catch catfish." Take it down to the Instructor, pc sits there calmly, Instructor says, "To catch catfish," and there it goes. "To catch catfish. To catch catfish." It reads - rocket reads. Bring it back. List it for sixteen hours. The pc goes Clear, find his second goal; it's number two on the list. You - can do this too!

Okay. Well, I hope that's - will be of some assistance to you. Okay.

Good night.