Hiya.

Thank you.

Well, I'm actually - I'm actually very indebted to you for the applause and for staying here today. I was fairly sure we were going to have nothing but empty seats today. But I see you're making it. I see that those of you whose overts are not too great are still here.

& Well first, you know, I think we ought to make sure that we take care of some of our better people. I think we ought to thank Mary Adams for that beautiful job she's doing on that organ as usual.

That's what I'm going to talk to you about today. That's what I'm going to talk to you about. The title of this lecture is „Why People Don't Like You.“

& Where was she?

Now, you paranoids just polish up the fingernails because you're in now and the others are out.

& Voice from audience: [unintelligible]

Oh, I tell you, something very, very remarkable has just occurred in Scientology - something very, very remarkable. You know, I knew sooner or later I would hit some sort of a button along the line which would make somebody uncomfortable. You know? And I just had some small notion that before some people got Clear, they were going to appear to themselves to be in terrible condition.

& Stand up! There she is.

I had an idea that some people were going to get up to the point of finding out they weren't Clear and that in the process of doing this they might feel a small strain. But I didn't have any idea whatsoever that it was going to be quite as bombastic as it has been. This is with violence.

& And I see that somebody just blew in from damp old - I mean dear old England. Here's Pam and Ray Kemp - stand up.

When we put our finger on the exact button necessary to resolve the case, it was something on the order of pushing a guided missile trip, as far as some people were concerned. Where a person had been, a small vacuum now stood. And in some places in Scientology, unfortunately at this time, there are small partings in the air where people left through.

& Here a few telegrams and a ...

Now, you think I'm kidding. You think this is just exaggeration but it's not. It's not. Now, factually, you'll hear - you'll hear all sorts of things from here on out - I mean, rumorwise and fieldwise and so forth. You're just going to hear all kinds of things. That's for sure, because I've already heard it. I've heard some of the most interesting things you ever heard of.

& By the way - I - this is a beautiful globe. I'm told that Eisenhower's globe is just exactly like this one and that this is one of the biggest and fanciest made anywhere. And that the globe in the White House is just like this. So that I can have the only globe like this, somebody will have to get that back from the White House. [laughter]

Actually, as far as I know, in checking it off; only one person in the whole world has been sacked. And that was

& I understand little old Indonesia over here has twelve of them though. I don't know what they were doing with twelve of them, I didn't know they were going to conquer that much space. They're that dark spot there.

& on a course that Dick and Jan were on and that was

& But let me read off a few of these telegrams to you here.

- because the person wouldn't give anybody any gen and because the person had the organization in peril because of his own actual crimes. And that person was pshew! sacked, and told, „Now, write down all of your overts and come back.“ And he has and that's all straightened out. But beyond that, nothing has happened to anybody except they've blown on their overts. But they have told people they've been sacked.

& Here's first and foremost on the list here is: „Ron we send you and congress delegates our very best for a very successful congress, HASI New Zealand.“ Right down there. [Indicating locations on the globe to the audience.]

Now, what's this, and why am I talking about this organizationally? I'm talking about this, ladies and gentlemen, because I want a third dynamic in Scientology. And I'm very, very happy that we have discovered this. And I couldn't care less about the randomity that may be caused by it. Because we've got to have a third dynamic in Scientology and that's it.

& And here's one: „Best wishes for the most successful congress ever, love HCO and HASI South Africa.“ Right there.

Unless we are a closely knit group, unless we're each other's friends in this, why, it'll just go on happening that I'll somehow or other have to front up and you'll have to defend, and we'll all have worries about it one way or the other and we won't really get the show on the road. It'll just sort of get on there just a little bit. And that's no good, is it?

& And „Ron all the best for a responsibly responsive congress, Love HASI London.“ Clear up here.

All right, so let's have a third dynamic. Let's knit Scientologists together so they can look each other in the eye, and so that - the fact that a fellow is a Scientologist, why, you can immediately and instantly trust him.

& And here's one: „Ron all best for congress and following course, HASI and HCO Australia.“

Well now, with the materials we have at this time, we can't do any less than this. Because let me tell you - in the ancient West, they used to talk about a six-gun being a dangerous weapon in unknowing hands. But believe me, believe me, fellow Scientologists, this little instrument in the hands of somebody whose own ability to handle his own life or to use information is bad - is worse than any six-gun ever invented by Mr. Colt. Correct?

& And „Ron and delegates, here's wishing you everything for the bestest ever congress, Love HCO London.“

Audience: Right. Obvious.

& And „Best wishes to Ron, Mary Sue, Staff, and all congress attendees for a fine congress and a prosperous 1960, from all staff at HCO WW Saint Hill.”

So we have no choice now but to have a very, very clean organization.

& Now there's some more of them here, but most of these people are represented. And I'm sure that HASI DC and FC DC wishes us a very fine congress since they're giving it.

[Please note: At this point there was a break in the original master recording. We now rejoin the class where the lecture resumes.]

& And HASI Los Angeles is right in there pitching and well attended at this congress and thank them for carrying on out there in the jungle.

Whether I have an opportunity to group process you or not, I've got to use any and all of the time I have at this congress to try to give you all I know about this particular facet of Scientology. Isn't that right? That's the least I could do.

& Actually you know I started the nucleus of one here in Calcutta. There is one here that is firing in Greece. There is one in Paris. The one in Germany is doing much better. There is something doing down here in South America. We're doing just fine.

This isn't something - this isn't something that you release in a slipshod fashion and leave people in the know, halfway. Now that's right, isn't it?

& Nobody yet has conquered Mexico. Would some Texan please take note.

Audience: Right.

& Now there's no doubt about it, we're winning hot and heavy. But we certainly can win from here on out providing we can sort of hold on to it long enough that we don't blow.

It can't be released poorly.

& Now I'm going to set you a good example - I haven't blown.

Audience: Right.

& Now if we can abide by this example, we'll have it made. And one of the problems that we face actually, is not so much people leaving Central Organizations, but

All right. If we're going to have anything connected whatsoever with a third dynamic, then it must be that the people in Scientology will have to have both the technology and the opportunity to be Clear, and should get there. But there's evidently now something new about clearing. There is a stage of clearing, of getting Clear, which is getting Clear on the third dynamic before they get Clear on the first.

I'm going to talk to you very close now if you want to hear it, about the second dynamic - marriage. You like to hear about marriage?

Now, I've told you for a long time that auditing was a third dynamic situation. And sure enough, we have to clear somebody on the third dynamic before we clear him on the first. And all those case failures that we have had to this time have been because we've been trying to clear people on the first before we cleared them on the third. Do you see that?

Audience: Yeah.

An auditor-preclear situation is a third dynamic situation. That's a third dynamic situation. And clearing a person starts right there in that auditing session. Now, any HCA can tell you better than I can - I think the number of the Auditor's Code is 9, though, isn't it? Isn't that it? Whichever one it is. It's „two-way comm must be established.“ It's a breach of the Auditor's Code actually. We've had it with us for years. But what did this mean?

Now, you can salvage more marriages per square house than ever before.

Well, this meant, essentially, that the preclear had to be willing to talk to the auditor. Well now, several things have to be guaranteed before this takes place. And one of the things that has to be guaranteed is that the preclear has some security in talking to the auditor that that information will not be falsely used. Isn't that right?

Let's take a look at marriage.

Audience: Yes.

Our actual index of breakup on marriage is probably less than for the world at large, but it's too high. It's too high. It shouldn't be up there at all. And there have been a lot of marriages that have stayed there together through thick and thin in Scientology, and people are to be congratulated on it because really, occasionally it's been through thick and thin.

So this leaves us with an organizational responsibility heavier and bigger than we have ever had in the past. We've now got to go all out and make sure that a certificate means, wherever it is to be found, that confidence can be reposed in the person as a confidant. Isn't that right?

& Now I wasn't just pretending to set an example a little while ago telling you I was still on post - I'll let you in on a little secret -

Audience: Yes. Uh-huh.

Mary Sue and I, you know, have been married now for eight years. We went down to Oklahoma and hooked it up about eight years ago. Smart move on my part; probably not so smart on hers. But if you look over that and a few other little things, you see that I am not the philosopher in the ivory tower, talking about something I know not what of, which I think in earlier generations was the requisite for all philosophers and advisers - to have no experience of any kind whatsoever in any subject about which they were advising.

That organizationally, the information passing over organizational channels and so forth is inviolate we have to be able to guarantee that, right?

And as I used to be president of the American Fiction Guild, author's league up in New York, when I was a kid - that's right, I was a kid - it was very funny to me; I used to laugh myself silly; all of the confession stories written in America are written by unmarried ladies who have reached forty or fifty.

Audience: Right.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being an unmarried lady reaching forty or fifty. This is perfectly fine. But how come all these confession stories? Yeah, that's interesting. Because it was out of the current lifetime's field of experience. I realize now they were writing about past lives - that they were picking it up whole track and just putting it in modern dress - but they didn't know what they were writing about, basically, in this lifetime.

Well, the technological fact which kicked all this off is that you did it. And that's a tough bullet to chew. Nobody on Earth, anywhere, ever had the power to aberrate you, except you. When you've managed to gulp that one down, your throat may feel raw but you will feel much better generally, because you'll stop going around looking for all of the bad things that are happening to you.

And they didn't know what they were advising the younger generation about -

Now, we've all of us been „motivator kids“; we've all of us been motivator hungry „Look at what's happened to me!“ See? Arrows, bullet holes. arsenic. And us poor victims, somehow or other, must struggle along to our doubtlessly degraded destiny of being victimized.

& the old Bernard MacFadden and Fawcett Publications with their „come to realize,“ you know, plots and all that sort of thing.

Oh, I'm - it's unfortunate that this is so popular. This is so popular that all I would have to do is write a book saying „You are a victim,“ and go right back up to the top of the bestseller list of the Times. But the only truth in it would be this one fact: You are a victim of your own delusion that you can be a victim.

And you can advise people about things you don't know anything about. That's perfectly easy to do, in fact, one of the easiest things to do man does.

And that's not palatable. That's not very palatable because it says you are responsible. Now, I well remember when Advanced Procedures and Axioms was released - and we're at another point. Advanced Procedures and Axioms - well, actually, the book was written toward the end of 1951, was released, I think, in 52, and as soon as that essay in there about full responsibility hit many sets of hands, we lost Dianeticists just like pouring them down the chute. There they went.

But I was sitting around with a bunch of these ladies one day - had a luncheon - and they all came around afterwards. They were having some drinks. I gave them some advice about writing. It upset them very much. I was the old high-speed kid on writing. You know, I could sit down and turn out five, ten thousand words in a single day of production, send it off, get a check. Ninety-four percent acceptance was my record first time out. Now, fifteen million words in print. This was - this was good, hot, heavy production. It brought back the coffee and cakes and paid for a lot of research and other things. But anyway, these people were all there, and I said, „You know,“ I said, „you get pretty high rates in the confession-story racket.“ I said, „I ought to write some of those.“

That was just responsibility. We didn't even - we just told these people that to get anyplace they would have to take some responsibility! They'd have to admit their own responsibility! And all around the world these people went boom! „Where is the nearest exit?“

And they all said, „Ha! Ha! Ha!“

Well, how much worse is it now? We have discovered another one of those terribly unsavory factors but look, if people are going to get Clear, it is naturally across the spikes of unsavory factors. Because the unsavoriness of the factor was what restrained them from getting Clear. Isn't that right?

So leaving them with my bottle of corn, I went upstairs, wrote a confession story and got a thousand dollars for it from Bernarr MacFadden.

Well now, now we have a much worse one than full responsibility. I'll tell you about responsibility. Responsibility isn't very tough. It's too easy; it is. But we've got one now that's much worse than that.

„Yes, I remember. I was just a young maid, trusting and inexperienced, and he was a handsome devil...“ Ah, very easy. Very easy.

We say, „Your husband hates you? What did you do to him?“

I saw then that you could do things you didn't know anything about. They weren't necessarily good but you could do something about them.

Look, I have a terrible problem. How am I going to keep all you people and still - and still tell you that you have to face up to this one? Honest, it - in workaday world today, with all of the overts which you've stacked up the track until now, you can be shot.

Almost as adventurous as getting married. Because when you're getting married, you're doing something you don't know anything about. Did you ever think of that? Hm, did you ever think about it? That's the one trip, one lifetime sort of a thing, don't you see? And when you try it a couple of times, why, usually you know less about it the second time than you did the first time.

That doesn't make a bullet any less painful, you see, to say that you caused yourself to be shot. A fellow is run over, he's hurt - whatever the explanation of it is. There isn't any getting away from this fact. He has finally gotten his bank and his past and his various factors of beingness and aberration stacked up to a point where he can be jolly well killed. And it doesn't do any good to say to him, as he lies there bleeding, „Your overts brought you up to a point of getting shot.“ I'd go so far as to say it would create an ARC break.

Now, it doesn't say that operating manuals haven't been written for marriages. I know there are several extant, all written by bachelors or people who have not been - like most of the care-of-children-for-the-mother books are always written by bachelors.

And yet, unfortunate]y, that's essentially what I am telling you right this minute. I'm saying there you sit with the engrams this way and that way and - and the machinery going that way, and the somatic in the skull, and I say to you this horribly unsavory fact: I say, „Well, you did it to yourself. Congratulations.“ And that doesn't make you feel any better.

Now, marriage is an interesting boat to steer. It's not a third dynamic activity, and yet it is kind of. It generally ceases to be a second dynamic activity but has to remain so.

But if that was all there was to it, I'm afraid we'd be finished right at this point. But that isn't all there is to it. There is another fact along with this: that you can demonstrate it so fast to a person that he'll get dizzy practically watching the engrams blow. We've discovered fast processing - very fast processing!

The genus of marriage is one of these things that is a big pose on the early track. And that is thetan association. Thetans early on the track very often got the idea that they would mock each other up, you know, as - they would be brothers, or they would be a family or something of the sort, and they would all appear to be related: cousins, sisters, uncles, aunts, mothers, fathers.

Now, all you've got to do: The fellow's got a great big engram. There he sits, you know? There he's been sitting for years. All you've got to say to him: „All right. What have you done to the engram? What have you withheld from the engram?“ you know, and it'd go phoo!

Mothers/fathers actually comes later on the track. Earlier it was just thetan brotherhoods. And this pretense at association was something that seldom worked out very well because everybody knew they were just pretending and they knew there was no real familial relationship. This falsity or the ideas of this falsity actually continue forward into the modern family. It's very easy to break down a family because there is no relationship in a family except a pretended relationship. Think of it for a moment and you realize that you're supporting a thing which can't exist. A thetan was never the daughter of another thetan. No thetan was ever the father of another thetan, no matter what the Good Book says. That's the truth of the matter.

I had a person tell me not very long ago, „I had an intellectual understanding of this causation but nothing was blowing. All of my overts seemed to be over here on one track, totally disconnected with all of my motivators, which were over here on this track. And I was just paying attention to motivators over here on this track.“

Now, any time you have a relationship which isn't inherent or based on immediate and direct fact, you have to work at it.

And I had run a redefinition of Responsibility Process on this person. The person up to that time had been running Responsibility as „being in charge of.“ Nothing blew. And I got the process Responsibility redefined and run properly and all of a sudden this track over here connected with this track over here and this track over here started to go boom, thud, boom, gong, bing, zoom!

Now, I'm not saying that marriage is a false relationship. It isn't. In this society and time, a family is the closest knit, self-perpetuating, self-protecting unit and is necessary economically and otherwise to the society the way it's rigged at this present time. And who destroys marriage, destroys the civilization. That's fairly sure.

After about a half an hour of this, this person says, „There's - there's some hope for my case. Yeah, I - I - I - I got it. We can straighten this out. All - all I've got to do is - is admit some causation on these motivators, and I've got it made.“ So we have a saving grace. We can actually bring about a reality on this fact with somebody rather rapidly.

& That's why the commies try so hard.

Person's stuck in a session: ah, well, it's all right to say the auditor did this and the auditor did that. And some auditors aren't so good; most of them are pretty good. A lot of them are excellent. And sure, the auditor did something to the preclear, and the preclear doesn't feel too good about it. Now, it isn't that it's right for the auditor to do something to the preclear. That's - it's not that it's right for an auditor just to butcher a preclear. That's right, because what he'll do is key in the pc.

A culture will go by the boards if its basic building block, the family, is removed as a valid building block. But this is no reason we should get mocked up and silly about what the relationship is. The relationship, basically, is a postulated relationship. There is no truth in the relationship. It is a postulated relationship.

But to free the pc out of that session, it's only necessary to find out what he did to and withheld from the auditor. As far as auditing is concerned, it doesn't matter a bit what was done to the preclear. The more attention you pay to what was done to the preclear, the less auditing and the less clearing you get done!

And when people stop postulating it, it ceases to exist! And that's what happens to most marriages. People stop mocking up the family unit, and the moment they stop mocking it up, it isn't. You see what happens to marriages?

Now, we've known this fact one way or the other. We've known something about this. I've had the definition of Operating Thetan for a long time. We've been trying to operate along this line. And what I've done is make the most fundamental applications of the Operating Thetan definition that could be made to direct auditing and found out that it was what blew engrams, track, bank, somatics and all the rest of it. These things blew up. Pc at cause. And you've all heard that, haven't you? Pc at cause. „Well, yeah, just-naturally. That's it, naturally. That's what I was saying.“

It isn't the other way around: It isn't that all men are evil, so therefore, contracts such as marriage dissolve usually in infidelity and go all to pieces. That is not true. The reverse is true; that when you have a purely postulated relationship which has no real existence in fact, you have to continue to create it. And a family which doesn't continue to create itself as a family will cease to exist as a family. That's about all you need to know about it.

But you were saying at the same time, „Well, PC at effect, of course, too.“ Oh, no! Get off of that. Get away from that horse's head because that goes nowhere!

When I was a little kid, most people in this society at this time had a considerable formula. All over the world people are having trouble with this thing. They're having lots of trouble with this thing because they're running on an automaticity; they think this thing will hang together through no effort of their own. And if it hangs together through no effort of their own, I've never heard of it. It won't.

The only effects you can experience are those which you yourself dream up to experience. That's fantastic! It gives us a brand-new look at cause, distance, effect. The truth of the matter is more like cause, distance, cause. All is cause, The Buddhist, you know, never got this one wrapped up. And his answer to it was have nothing to do with cause and have nothing to do with effect-leave them both entirely alone-making himself, therefore, totally guilty of the sins of omission of never assuming cause, which was the surest way in the world to spin anybody in.

Now, you have unhappy experiences familiarly. Father's taking his role very seriously. He is arbiter of the destiny of it all. He must be totally contributed to. Actually, the Greek and Roman family had the power of life and death vested in the role of father. He could order executed any family member. They must have had a lot of trouble, mustn't they have?

But he knew something was wrong with this cause, distance, effect, and that's all I wish to call attention to here. He did know something was wrong with this cause, distance, effect.

You want to know how much trouble any society had, look at what laws they had to pass. The vigor of the law is directly proportional to the might - amount of trouble they were having. You think the Puritans were pure - read their list of laws.

But what's wrong with it is effect! Tsk. You're flattering yourself if you think you can cause an effect without the cooperation of the other fellow. All of your ability and slyness must be devoted to getting that cooperation.

Where people aren't having trouble with crime, they don't take many precautions against it. But where they are having trouble with crime, they pass lots of laws. That you know for sure.

Now, where you have - where you have an individual who is obviously the effect of somebody, and you audit him as having been the effect of somebody, nothing happens. Now, that alone has caused us to mark a lot of time in these last ten years. We've gotten an awful lot done, an astonishing amount of things done in the absence of this particular datum. But now, boy, all of the time that was wasted on that, totally devoted onto this other thing - wow! Wow! Man, you ought to see cases go to pieces under this one. Zip-bang-thud! Because you're not paying attention to untruths; there are no lies in auditing.

Well, mother - mother decides that she's been victimized and should have married the other fellow - which is obvious.

In other words, you're not auditing in the direction of a lie that the preclear's condition is the result of an other-determinism than himself. You see, I could have figured this out ten years ago if I'd been that much smarter. I have to apologize once in a while for having been stupid about all this.

Your father and mother weren't making perhaps - maybe they were making - but perhaps they weren't making too good a go of it. And if they weren't making too good a go of it, then you looked at this and you said, „Now, look at that! This institution which is inherent in nature, and nothing will ever change, doesn't perpetuate itself and is not much good. Because, look, it isn't hanging together“

But we could have figured it out this way: If auditing pc A in 1959 can clear up a circumstance which occurred in 1699, and the circumstance clears up without any of the personnel in 1699 being present, then obviously the person we're auditing in 1959 did it all. If it clears up, he must have done all of it. It's worth looking at, isn't it?

You had a failure. You probably tried to postulate the family into a unit when you were a little kid. You know, you were - you were working at it. You were working at it. You were trying to postulate it into a unit. You were trying to square the thing up one way or the other. You were trying to get a Papa-loves-Mama thing going one way or the other. You were trying to show them that they had something to live for and so forth.

But trying to draw a plot of the universe on this basis becomes a near... I feel for people like the Jesuits and so forth when they eventually have to tangle with this one. They're great figure-figure people, you know? They're great philosophers. Actually, they're pretty smart people. They turned out - practically the only educated men in the last couple of thousand years were turned out in Jesuit schools.

As a matter of fact, one of the reasons you would get hurt was to make Papa and Mama realize they had responsibilities for the family. Childhood illness and all this sort of thing comes directly after familial upsets. Just trace it down. And maybe you had some failures because it's pretty hard when you don't have very much body to make an effect on very big bodies. Or you've got it figured that way, so you don't have much effect on big bodies.

But they're very good at figuring things out and making graphs of it all and figuring it out and postulating it and straightening it out. And when they try to make a graph of everybody in the universe being cause... Actually, it's dead easy. All you have to say is, „Every man in the universe is cause of his own participation,“ and that's it.

Actually, you were probably something to reckon with. But you might have or might not have had a good example. Let me acquaint you that it has nothing to do with whether or not you can make a marriage, because the example you were looking at existed without benefit of any knowledge of how men worked or what they were all about, or how women worked and what they were all about. And existing without that information, how could they do anything but run along and get flat tires every quarter of a mile. That was pretty rough one way or the other.

And where he has participated unworthily, all you have to do is knock it out by knocking out the cause of his own participation, and you'll free that zone of evil or mishmash or discreditable creation or whatever it is in the universe.

Now, if you go at this and realize that a marriage is something you have to postulate into existence and keep mocked up, and when you stop working at it, it will cease, but then everything else is rigged to perpetuate it while you're not trying to keep it going, of course it will be a destruction. If you realize that, and if you know the technology I've been giving you at this congress, you can make any marriage stick or you can recover any facet of any marriage or plaster one back together again any way you want to. It takes a little doing and it takes a little guts.

But as long as he holds that in place, it will continue to be an evil. And as long as men hold these things in place - these discreditable participations - as long as they hold wrongdoing in place, as long as all this remains buried and knocked in the head it's going to continue to be an evil nation, an evil world, an evil universe. You want to free it up, why - „hear ye, hear ye, the kingdom of heaven is at hand,“ But don't „repent ye, repent ye“ or you will put it a long way in reverse.

And that's an understatement if I ever made one.

Now, man, by holding discreditable participations, by holding his own overt acts in place and covering them up and leaving them there, can actually cause a stimulus-response mechanism of one kind or another throughout the various dynamics, which gives life the appearance of evil. And that's all the evil there is. Which, alarming truth, will do a lot of monks out of a job because there's no joss to burn anyplace that will free a man's evil. You can't burn joss and let some deity someplace take it all on his back, because you've just assigned some more responsibility elsewhere, and made it just that much more difficult to blow anything! Does that appear to be reasonable?

Now, Suzie and I have been working at this, so we'd have some kind of a reality on the situation. And if she and I have got anything to patch up, wow. Because we've - everything has been pretty darn smooth compared to most marriages, see?

Well, all right. Why don't people like you? That's what all this leads up to. They don't like you because they've done things to you, and there's no other reason. You see?

We decided we would take this new technology, you see, and we would apply it just right on down the groove as prescribed and straighten it all up and straighten out all the overts and withholds, boom, boom, and fix it ail up.

& [sound of glass being knocked over.]

Well, we didn't do it because it was on the rocks and it was the easiest look at anything you ever took, and honest to Pete, we almost had each other's heads there for a week or so. So I said, „Well, I've got the data, but it's kind of odd data that if Suzie and I, who have no real trouble and who have no real overts or withholds to amount to anything, can almost cut each other's heads off doing this, what's some poor guy going to do out in Oshkosh trying to patch it up with his wife?“

More than one way to prove a point.

As I say, we didn't have anything. You know, the overt and withhold of the value of Christmas presents. Just withholds on Christmas presents, things like this, you know? Overt thoughts, critical thoughts occasionally, you know? Something rough like, „Well, he cares more about that preclear than he does about me because he's been auditing all night,“ you know, sort of thing. Snarl, snarl, you know?

Now, you actually perform, to some degree, an overt against a person - looking at this in a very loose, sloppy fashion - by letting a person do an overt to you. And that's about as close as you can get to performing an overt is to let somebody perform an overt against you without doing something about it. Because he'll wind up with a mechanism which we will call lessening the overt - the mechanism of lessening the overt.

But we found out something fantastic. We thought we were fond of each other. And we got all this stuff cleaned up, wow!

The individual who performs an overt act against someone or thing, person or being has one basic mechanism for making it less harmful to himself. Remember, it's his own overt acts that are going to harm him, so he has a mechanism by keeping this from happening and that is he lessens the object, or reduces or makes less important the object he has done the overt to. And if you want to spot an overt act, just find the critic. The critic is always the little tag end that sticks out on an overt act having been done. The person tries to lessen the overt by criticizing or reducing the thing he has done the overt to. Got the idea?

So I would say that it's very difficult to postulate a marriage. I hate to touch upon a personal thing like that and so forth, and maybe it upsets you a little bit - I hope not, but I'm not in the mood to withhold anything from you.

% [There is a gap here on our old reel which is missing half % of the above paragraph plus all of the following paragraph % and the beginning of the paragraph after that.]

Now, a marriage which has broken down into a superseparateness of overts and withholds is almost impossible to put back in the run again simply by postulating it into existence. After people have separated themselves out from each other, they have to unseparate themselves again. It's all very well with sweetness and light coming in some June day tra-la, tra-la, tra-la, and you see this handsome brute (or not so handsome), and you see this beautiful girl (and not so beautiful), and they come together, and they say, „Well, we will do or die until end do us doth,“ or whatever it is. And they think they've made a marriage. Why, they haven't started yet.

Well, I'll give you a mechanism. I come over here and I put a scratch on this podium. Now, this is a very crude example here. I put a little scratch on this podium. Actually, all I've done is stain it with some tears from year to year. But I put a little scratch on it, and then to make that less of an overt act to the podium or the management or something of that sort, what I do is say it's just an old podium and isn't much good anyway. So that doesn't make my overt act so great, you see?

Now they've got to find out how they look before breakfast. You think this thing has a lot to do with the second dynamic. It doesn't; it. has mostly to do with cosmetics and razor blades. They've got to learn to live with each other if they can. Now, to some degree, they have wiped out, sort of, by the act of getting married what they were doing before that that's by more or less tacit consent and so forth and they start from there.

Now, I can live with that overt act as long as I believe that this podium is old and not much good. But if I find out then, that the management just bought this podium brand-new - imported it from Malaysia, Honduras or something especially for this congress, and actually that it has a piece of the true cross and the bones of Saint Peter in the thing, then I have to say, „Oh, I'm guilty of an overt act,“ and decline accordingly, or recognize that I have performed an overt act and as-is it. Only that never occurred to anybody before Dianetics or Scientology.

Now, what happens from there on out is what counts. But sometimes things they have done before, that they are violently withholding from each other, don't even let the marriage get started. Forty-eight hours later, they're on the rocks. Why? Well, there's just too much overt and withhold before they even knew each other.

The reverse was true. The person said, „An old podium, no good.“

Well, even that one can be salvaged - even that one. But how about one that has ground on for years and years and the overts have mounted up - and the overts and the withholds, and they've fallen apart? And - do you know it's traditional that at the end of three years, husbands and wives don't get any kick out of each other. This is sort of in the textbook. All the psychologists know that,

The person says, „True cross, bones of Saint Peter,“ and „Oh, my God, I've done it,“ you know? That's the way it's gone. You get the idea?

But if at the end of three years this is the case, how about at the end of ten? Well, they've kind of learned to endure, or they're both in propitiation. They're getting along somehow and they would rather have it that way than have it some other way. They'd rather be married than not. They think they're making it okay. And they don't think too much about the girl or the guy that they should have married instead, anymore. It's going along somehow.

So here's a perfectly - here's a perfectly self-respecting horse. And you go out and you ride this horse and then - unfortunately you haven't been careful in saddling the horse, and you've got a burr under the saddle or something of the sort and this irritates the horse, and your spurs are very, very sharp and you rowel up the horse, and then you keep sawing at the bit, and get the horse all upset and so forth, and he acts mean at this point, you see? He conceives that he had better participate with an overt himself and he flips you into the nearest ditch. You go around and tell everybody it was a mean horse. It squares it all up, see? Nothing aches. Feel all right about it. You recovered okay.

Now into that relationship we can introduce one of the most startling pieces of bombardism you ever heard of: We can clear up the marriage! And it really goes. All a divorce is, for instance, or all an inclination or a withdrawal is: simply too many overts and withholds against the marital partner. That's all! It's as uncomplicated as that.

Be careful not to discover that this horse is noted as the gentlest, most considerate horse in the whole stable, who is usually reserved for children and is the property of the owner's eldest daughter who is a paralytic. If you discover that, the only answer you have, of course, is to say, „I'm guilty of an overt.“ See, „I've done something wrong.“

And all of these strainings and leavings and „I ought to go“ and „I ought not to stay“ and „I ought to do something else“ and „We ought to split it up“ or „I'd be much better off if we hadn't,“ and „Maybe if I...“ something, yap-yap, you know? - all of those rationales stem immediately from the partner who is making those rationales, from that partner's overts and withholds against the other partner.

Well, all right. No criticism always tells you where the overt is.

Actually, he's trying to protect the other partner from his own viciousness. That's the basic reason. So he said, „Well, I'd better leave, we'd better break it up“ or „cool it off.“ And that's usually the gradient scale of a marriage breakup is „Cool it off.“ „We ought to leave,“ „We part,“ see? But that „cool it off“ usually occurs. And, boy, we can take these things now and uncool them off.

Now, let's look at it in reverse. Young playwright puts a play on Broadway. Most of the critics are comme ci comme ca, you know, usual lukewarm - until they find out what the public thinks, you know, and then they can cheer or boo and they might have an opinion of their own and be cause, don't you see? - except one critic.

Now, to ask you to take one of these things and set it down across from the marital partner, give him the cans and say, „Well...“ (It's very easy, very interesting. I postulated a marital partner, and I got two.) And we say, „Well now, George (or Agnes), come clean. Let's level it here.“

And he says, „The play Johnny Come Lately shouldn't have come at all. A dog could write better dialogue.“ And this goes on by the column, you see, and he just destroys the reputation of this young playwright, you see? Then is the time to suspect that he knew something earlier in this relationship, that it didn't start with the play. He's already done something to this playwright or a playwright like him. And as a Scientologist you go back on the backtrack, you find out that he killed a blond playwright back in 1608 or something, you see? It all comes out of an overt. There is practically no such thing as honest criticism.

There's a process that goes this way - a very deadly process. Not particularly advised but it's terribly workable: „What have you done? What have you withheld? what have you done? What have you withheld? What have you done?“ - not necessarily „to me,“ you see?

Every once in a while, I strike a comm lag because I'm on the verge of making some comment on some former life or something like that. I'll just have to get over withholding all this in spite of what the psychiatrists say, you know? But I have read some of the criticisms, pro and con, along the line about a certain person I was once and still am.

Now, that's the deadly shotgun. That takes them all on all dynamics. But if you're just cleaning up a marriage, it's „What have you done to me?“ (keeping the Auditor's Code) „What have you withheld from me? What have you done to me? What have you withheld from me?“

And all of the savage ones apparently were the people on the opposite side still going along the track, because you never quite saw so many divergent opinions about one set of speeches. How could there be this many opinions about that set of speeches, you know? Having to study them each time I go to school doesn't help any.

The person that takes the beating is the auditor. You really have to look this one over. And remembering, every time we find a big one, run Responsibility, as I'll give it to you, on that incident. Got the idea? „What part of that incident could you be responsible for?“ „What part of that incident could you be responsible for?“ or some other process command.

But these things - these things, you eventually say, „There must be a lacking validity in all this criticism.“ Now, you can say that it is this way or it is that way, but to go from saying, „It isn't too bad, except that...“ and then go into a scathing, personal criticism of the person who was doing the speaking or something like that, tells us something entirely different is at work than a speech criticism. You got the idea?

And next night - oh, man, you spend days not talking to each other, let me tell you. But the funny part of it is, is the only time you start to claw each other up doing something like this is when you as the auditor goofed and had a loss. And then everything starts to go rickety-rackety. As long as you can actually be effective and feel the thing is going forward and you're winning, you're all right. You're just all right.

Well, I can go into this a lot more deeply and show you a lot of cases on it. It isn't that we don't have any liability. It isn't that we don't very often merit getting our silly heads kicked off for some of the things we do, but do you know we almost never get shot for our crimes? You'd be amazed what are picked out as crimes.

But you all of a sudden get detoured and talked out of running what you should have run and talked out of going someplace else. You feel you've got it all mishmashed and you find yourself auditing some incident whereby they were a Phoenician galley slave - that had nothing to do with the marriage. Only once in a blue moon is a button so hot that you have to pull the button, you know, like broken shoelaces or something of this sort, you know?

You know, a fellow's done this and he's done that and he knows it, but all of a sudden somebody is shotgunning him from some other quarter about having done something else entirely different. He gets the idea after a while it isn't the crimes; there's something else going on.

All of a sudden this person, this marital partner, keeps coming up with the fact, „Yes, I know, but I withheld from you that I noticed your shoelaces were broken and had been retied.“ We seem to get this one again and again and again. You know, „Your shoelaces were broken,“ and „You didn't pay attention to your shoelaces“ and „You didn't pay attention to your shoelaces and didn't...“

Now, there is such a thing as decent conduct and carrying our weight and all that sort of thing, but there is also such a thing as living in the vicinity of a great many people who have committed overt acts against us. And that's rough! That's rough. And our overt is letting them do it.

Yeah, what the hell is this all about, you know? Shoelaces! Well, we just better run this one down. What's this business about shoelaces? And we find out they hanged themselves in the county jail three lives ago with some broken shoelaces or something. It's a - has something to do with it.

Now, the easy manager - the easy manager who permits himself to he robbed at every hand is a villain, because he's going to wind up a lot of people in the soup. He makes it too easy to have overt acts committed against himself; and eventually degrades their opinion of themselves and himself. You got the idea?

But the point is that as long as we're successful, it goes along fine. It's only when we get a little bit detoured that people get unhappy about it.

They used to say „I do not like you, Dr Fell. The reason why, I cannot tell. I do not like you, Dr. Fell.“ This was in keeping with other thinking in 1879, if you want to call it that.

I would say there's a formula for this sort of thing: that a couple of people who know how to audit ought to get an E-Meter. By the way, you really can't - you really need one of those things today; you can't audit without one of those things. I mean it just can't be done. And of course, it's - they're real dynamite to have around a business. You can just go down the line, take all the criminals out, patch up all the right places and square it up and go to the boss and say, „All right. Now, what are you withholding, son?“

They - but it had truth in it: „The reason why, I cannot tell.“ That was sticking out like a sore, bandaged, mercurochromed thumb. „The reason why, I cannot tell. I do not like you, Dr. Fell.“

And he says, „Well, I didn't mean you were to make a check on me!“

Well, what'd he do to Dr Fell that he couldn't tell anybody about? And that's why he didn't like Dr Fell.

And you say, „Oh, come now.“

Well, you say, well, what's Dr Fell? Is he a - just a totally negative figure in all this? Oh, yes, unfortunately. Because if people hadn't done things to him, even though he kept running into class with pink pantaloons on, or none, even though he made smart cracks at everybody, if nobody had done anything to him, they'd think Dr Fell was all right.

„Well, all right, all right, all - oh, blast it! Well, I haven't embezzled any funds anyhow.“

They must have done something to Dr Fell in order not to like Dr Fell. You get the idea? A person breaks down his own affinity with the universe.

Yeah, you can check out a business these days and really make one whiz. Before this congress is over, I'll tell you how to check out a government; you're in business, man. But maritally, you need one of those confounded things just to break it down. Not so much that the other person has tremendous things they're withholding, but they very often can't get the nerve to tell you unless you know about it already via the meter. And you just don't succeed in cleaning them up, that's all.

Now, let's look at this lessening the overt. When I kick the podium and say the podium is no good that lessens the overt but it also lessens my visibility of the podium. And what we have connected and collided with here, head-on, is the whole mechanism of not-isness. And that's a discovery worth announcing.

Furthermore, you don't know these days how long to run something unless you've got a person on a meter, because you run it until the tone arm goes to Clear for their sex. You run against the tone arm, not the needle. That's right, that's right. That's when a process is flat. I can just give you that in passing here, but it's not an incidental datum. If you're running one of these Responsibility or other allied processes that's a good process, you audit that thing for a man until it is stably at 3.0 before you leave that incident alone. Or - and for a Woman, when it's stably at 2.0 and isn't varying any, you get it right there so it's stable. Otherwise the incident itself is not flat, You can take any part of a case and clear it down to the Clear reading, and that's done by the tone arm.

That is not-isness. Those things we have done things to, we must then not-is. And that's all there is to it. And there goes reality and there goes engram banks and there goes visio and there goes sonic and there goes confusion of identities - one can no longer see an identity clearly and confuses it with other identities because he's what? Got it not-ised. It means he must have done something to it, and then his second mechanism is to lessen the overt.

You know when you have a hot incident or a hot part of the case because the arm goes up on the meter! Not the needle! The hell with the needle! The arm! We're only interested in incidents with enough charge to move this tone arm! Do you get that?

Now, people who criticize you are trying to lessen the overt. That's right. People who criticize you are trying to lessen the overt. People who don't like you are trying to lessen the overt. People who are stopping you from progressing along some perfectly decent path are lessening the overt. They're saying you don't exist.

These things that go click click, click, oh, they'd aberrate somebody, I guess, if he was already nuts. But these little sweeps that go over here, „What did you just think of? Well that’s too bad.“ No, no, no.

And if they suddenly found out that you did exist, they would be suddenly and tremendously guilty of a tremendous number of overt acts. I've seen this happen. Pathetically, I've seen it happen in Dianetics and Scientology; I've seen it right in front of my eyes. I've seen a fellow go from a proud, cocky, if somewhat contemptuous individual right down to a total creep, just poom, on the sudden recognition of what he was doing something to.

For instance, you'll find that the little wife was actually out in bars all during that week you were in Syracuse, and you start talking about bars... You say, „Well, what do you know? There must be something there.“ Yeah, there's something there and it won't come down until you find out what it is, too.

I remember a newspaper reporter, and there was a little girl in the office and she'd just been straightened out and she could walk now. And the newspaper reporter was saying chya! chya! chya! - you know, standard journalism. And the little girl came out with her mother and she was saying, „Gee, it really feels good to walk, you know? Gosh! It really feels good to walk. That's all right.“ And she was being very cautious about it and so forth. Newspaper reporter stood right there and spun in. He went right down for the count.

Now, three, four times probably while you're trying to clean up a marriage between you, you will undoubtedly decide that it's all over and there's no reason to go on with it because one couldn't possibly. The thing that saves the day each time is remember what you did. Just keep that thought firmly in mind, and it'll come through to a perfect completion.

Just a couple of years ago, if it was then, one of the most profound critics of Dianetics and one of the fellows who had - did the most to Dianetics to slow it down and who got paid the highest went up to the Mayo Clinic and kicked the bucket.

You start clearing up a marriage by establishing two-way communication in the marriage and you've got it made. But if little Suzie and I with as little trouble as we've had in life can go round and round for a couple of weeks - we got to laughing about this. One night it got ridiculous. We said, „Oh, think of somebody trying to do with - this in San Francisco without even a professional certificate.“ Do it off of the textbook, you know? Oh. No trained forbearance, you see? No schooling in how to sit there with gritted teeth and take it, you know? No built-in supports of „Give the command and the acknowledgment,“ you know? Guy going totally wog-wog-wog - a trained auditor doing that can still say the command and give the acknowledgment; he might not appear bright.

Somebody who may or may not be at this congress had been around and talked to him. But this fellow had been suffering for years. It didn't take this congress person to talk to him. He knew. What he'd done is, every time he'd done something to Dianetics or to one of you or myself or something like this or slowed us down, he'd have to say, „Well, it's just a gyp and a cheat and a fraud,“ you see? Then he'd do something else and he'd say, „Well, it's just a gyp and a cheat and a fraud,“ Get the idea? And one day he couldn't say that anymore and that was the end of him. Do you get the idea? He had to recognize that he was guilty of overts,

And I said then, „Well, I'll have to tell people about this at the congress because they're going to start trying it anyhow, and we'd better tell them the right way to go about it.“

Now, that's the hard way to go out! I'm not holding him up as a horrible example. I'm trying to show you this mechanism of lessening the overt. Because it lessens, it lessens, it lessens, it lessens and then can't hold it, can't hold it, boom! And it just goes in reverse.

And we'd say offhand that it runs like this: If you want - if you think that your marriage can be made better and you are not, both of you, trained auditors, then for people who are sort of in - you know, they're in Scientology - I'm not whipping up any business for auditors - the wrong way to go about it is get audited through on it. If you want to get audited, get audited through to Clear. (And you should be, you understand?) But the right way to get audited on a marriage would have to do with the marital partners facing each other with the meter; you understand?

And the terminal it's done to goes up, and the person goes down. And we get the exact mechanism of propitiation: Not-isness reversed. See that? It just goes bang! It's a horrible thing to watch. Now, somebody's been expecting this to happen someday in Scientology and Dianetics.

Male voice: Yeah.

The Einstein theory I've occasionally mentioned - it's been mentioned to me was considered the greatest mathematical hoax of the late twenties. It was announced from the Berlin Mathematicians Conference stage as being the most terrible, the most fiendish, the most awful, the most villainous, the most fraudulent thing that had ever been perpetrated upon mathematicians of the world.

Otherwise, a phenomenon of transference or upset or supersympathy and so forth can set in, and it just shouldn't be there. You understand?

Three years this theory was slugged. The very person who announced it became its greatest authority within six months, suddenly. Now, people have expected this sort of thing to happen sooner or later in Dianetics and Scientology in the United States.

So if a PC comes to you - he's having trouble with the marriage, the best thing that you can possibly do is say, „Well, are you both willing to settle up this marriage before we go any further?“

There is some magazine called Comm Lag magazine and someday you'll see its editorial director walk into the HGC and say, „Kill me,“ you know?

„Settle up the marriage, yes, but my wife wouldn't have anything to do with Scientology.“

But who cares about such a mechanism? Who wants such a mechanism? Who wants everybody in propitiation? Not I and not you. You get a pc who is in propitiation, you run - you say, „Say A.“

„Oh, is that so? Well, better bring her over. I want to show her how an E-Meter works!“

And he says, „Say A.“

Set them both down in the session with the meter between them and let them go at it back and forth. And they'll be in-session!

You say, „Thank you.“ You say, „Say B.“

But you shouldn't really take one marital partner at a time and pluck them off someplace into an auditing room and do it all very supersecret and all that sort of thing. You ought to get them both by the scruff of the neck and sit them down across from each other with an E-Meter between them, and if they don't know how to do it and so forth, you sit there and hold the meter, you know, and audit them. Any auditing you're doing, though, have one of the partners back of you. Works.

He says, „Says B.“

Don't do it in absentia - got the idea? - if you really want to keep their marriage together They'd probably go home and beat each other's heads off. But that's better than leaving each other! Almost anybody who has been deserted will tell you that. That's right.

And you say, „Thank you.“

But where we have a - where we have a marriage to clean up, we could do it with a pro. (Insufficient skill, you know?) I'd say don't flinch at trying to do it up totally untrained. Go ahead and take a rap at it. There's enough Scientologists around now that they can pick you up out of the corner and put you back together again.

And you do this for an hour or two, and he says, „I just feel wonderful now, you know?“ He doesn't feel any different. He's just got to propitiate you because he'll be 'et if he doesn't. That's a person who is no longer capable of lessening the overt. The only mechanism the person has is to lessen the overt. You'll find this person has been chopping up practitioners and auditor-like people for millennia and billennia. All of a sudden one day, they see you, and they say thoo, you know? „Yes.“ Hey, you got an automaton on your hands; you haven't got a human being.

That would be the roughest way to go about it but I wouldn't flinch at tackling it. No real training. Just read a book about an E-Meter and got one, you know, and then, you know, somehow or other going to straighten this out with Grace or with Edgar. Uh-hew. And you probably would come through all right. But of course, that's not the problem of most of the people here.

So who wants this mechanism to take place?

The next workable thing would be to get a pro to help you out and do a double audit. But undoubtedly the most workable thing of all would be for the husband and wife to save up a little bit and get it all squared around and then go to school, carefully keeping - both of them keeping their noses clean and knowing what they were doing and get trained. When they're all finished with school, then have at it! That requires a lot of self-restraint, but that would be the most perfect fix-up. But I would, of course, only tell Scientologists that one. Otherwise, people would have to be more or less straightened up by a pro.

No, let's fool everybody and take it the other way. Let's just get them all by the scruff of their necks and run out their overts in life and straighten them up and make them walk proud.

Now, to take anybody that knows nothing about Scientology, give him one of these things, aw, nah, nah. Why kill people? They'd just kill each other off that's all.

Boy, that'd be - that'd be something new, wouldn't it? That'd really be something new. Actually, you have it in your power to do so.

In the first place, only one person would be doing it. The other would have no cooperation. It'd probably be totally covert. They'd have the total idea it was what the other person had done that had wrecked the marriage. You get that they - all these misconceptions would stack together to a total bust. They'd simply use it as some kind of a police detector.

And you watch, now. That's what's going to happen, that's what's going to happen. Therefore, one of the first things we ought to do is to make sure we are a third dynamic which is sufficiently trustworthy, sufficiently straightened up and dedicated and representing what we say and do in ourselves to a degree that it will inspire confidence.

It was a sad day when instrumentation got into the hands of the police - called lie detectors. First place, there is no such thing as a lie detector These things don't detect lies. They detect unrealities and disagreements and mis-emotions. But they don't detect lies. They detect those things the person is sorry he did. But what police officer, untrained in Scientology, could ever get that forgiving to admit that the person was sorry he did it. Because he knows what's wrong with criminals: Criminals are people who are never sorry about anything.

That's all you have to do from there on out. You talk about dissemination programs, that's the key dissemination program of all time. Isn't it?

Now, he doesn't even know about criminals. A criminal is somebody who is on automatic and who isn't there. But he's on automatic and isn't there because he'd better not participate because he knows he's a criminal. „The machine is more reliable than the man,“ by the way, is the slogan a criminal operates on.

Now, it's very easy to pull that one off And we're already off to a quite a start here. I released this information from Australia and I - there are about twenty-two on staff at HCO WW -

Now, I didn't say that a space opera society always wound up as a criminal society. I didn't say that, but you can quote me.

& Susie's holding down HCO WW -

Now maritally the soundest plan, if somebody - if a couple knew a bit about auditing and so forth - the - soundest plan would actually to - be to go through a Comm Course/Upper Indoc all over again. You know, just - find somebody who's teaching a Comm Course and Upper Indoc and just go through it. Both of them you know? And just groove it in, you know; and get the discipline in there. Get it pounded in with a little bit of spikes, you know. Then take this and get the overts and withholds off on the whole thing and Responsibility run on each and every part of them, and the marriage would go back together again, click.

and four people blow, just like that. Interesting?

Don t believe that it'll go together without a few flying frying pans, See? Man, you're a perfectionist if you believe that's going to happen. Don't believe that you can all put it together again in one night because the number of overts and withholds usually take a little longer to detail.

Then they tell everybody they've been fired. They go around and they say, „Been fired. I mean, Ron's flipped. He's gone out of his mind. He fired us.“

Now all of this simply adds up to the fact that we have our paws on this thing called a family. Because what is the most upsetting thing about children? The most upsetting thing about children is that they blow; children blow the family. In America they routinely blow the family in their teens. And man has been looking at this for so long, he believes this is a good thing. It is? „Well, the child, obviously, at thirteen-fourteen has to become critical of his or her parents, naturally. That's the way it should be, and then has to become more and more estranged, and eventually goes out and makes a family of her own, and that's the way life works.“ It is?

Fired them? As Bonnie said a little while ago, „I've never known you to be so indirect as firing somebody from 12,500 miles. You usually do it in person.“ He's right, see? It's a pleasure.

Some of the best families I've ever seen put together were by kids who hadn't blown their own families. That's interesting, isn't it?

Somebody that's been chopping us up one way or the other, been slowing us down, I usually like to take it up with them. Make sure they know.

Do you know how young you can E-Meter a kid in his overts and withholds? Goo-goo-chi-goo fellows. I wouldn't say how young, but it's awful young.

Well, I was down in Australia, and all of a sudden, why, four people blow up in Suzie's face. They just scatter like quail. They leave her manning the ramparts all by herself. She's doing accounts over here with this hand and writing franchise holders with this hand, you know? I don't know what she was doing with her feet, but it was probably pumping up the ice machine or something.

And you take a child of six, five, seven, something like that - that's easy. That's a simple one. They're as easy to audit as adult preclears if you short session them; give them very short sessions and very simple semantic processes. Don't give them anything tough in semantics and they audit just perfectly.

I get home, the poor girl is worked half to death, you know? And I hear from all around, „Ron fired us!“ I fired them? No, I didn't fire them. I didn't even hear about it. I didn't even know anything about it.

And you always give them formal sessions, you know? Don't ever shortchange them with a little pat-on-the-back auditing and a little lick and a promise and an assist here and an assist there and never end the session, so forth. Give them more dignity than that.

& Dick and Jan could tell you that.

And a child will stop trying to pull the family to pieces.

I thought everything was going along fine, and Suzie just didn't want to upset me that far away; and she didn't think I'd wander around and notice, so that was it.

Now, the upset and uproar that is supposed to be the common lot of all families because of children, actually hasn't much to do with the family. I know my kids recently became unhysterical. They had a nanny who was treating them fairly decently - had a Scientologist as a nanny, you know - and they settled down, you know? And they calmed down. They'd - they've never been very boisterous or uproarious in disturbing things. They've been loud enough, but they're very free-spoken children, you know? They're very free in motion, very outflowing.

But what was all this? Four people go pshew out of twenty-two. Oh, but we cover up on the backtrack. We look up these people quickly, after I got back, and we find out this and this and this and-they had overts. Their nickname should have been Mr. Plenty Overts. They weren't bad people; they just had overts, and they were very much afraid these would be discovered, and they knew very well from the bulletins I was putting out from Australia that „Do not send to find for whom the bell tolls; that fire alarm gong is going for thee.“ That's what they had it figured, see?

But this new Scientologist that had just come on to take care of them, you know, was not necessarily giving them good 8-C or bad 8-C, but wasn't doing anything to upset them particularly, and they were going along just dandy. And they got so calm and cooperative, you see, with the rest of staff that we had a couple of people on staff that were coming around saying, „Something's the matter with the children. They're sick.“

What would have happened in effect? I would have come back, and they would have come in, and one of them - another of them, they would have come in and said, „Ron, we've been very bad children. We've been very bad people. And we have done this and this and this.“

I was interested enough to go and look, you know, and I didn't find anything going wrong at all. They were about twice as free spoken as they had been before, you know? But they just weren't running in hysterical circles making everybody miserable. So of course, they thought they were sick because they weren't behaving as „everybody knows“ children should.

And I would have been very mean about the whole thing! I would have said, „Ha! Staff auditor, front and center The auditing room is the first door on the right. Now, let's square this thing up and straighten it up.“ That's what would have happened. But nobody waited for that to happen. They went pshew!

Now, when children have too many overts and withholds against their parents, they make life miserable for their parents. This is the darnedest thing you ever heard of. When they have too many overts and withholds against their parents, they make life miserable for their parents. It's silly.

Now, the mechanism is that man is basically good, and when he suddenly discovers that he is guilty of evil, he takes himself off so he can do no more harm. And that's the mechanism of blowing. That's the mechanism of sudden departure. That's the sudden departure from an auditing session. That's the sudden departure from an auditing question.

And if the parents permit them to go on having this many overts and withholds against the parents, then they really start making life miserable for everybody and then they start blowing the family. And by the time they're sixteen or seventeen this „natural phenomenon“ of their leaving the family will take place. We don't care if they left the family or not. Actually, Roman children used to get official posts and jobs and get married by the time they were fourteen or fifteen, which is about the right time. You think I'm joking now. I'm not.

Pc's sitting there talking about ARC break, ARC break, ARC break. No, uh-uh. No, what's happening is pc's doing something to the auditor. Pc's doing something to the auditor. Main thing the pc is doing to the auditor is probably withholding vital information about himself and his case and isn't establishing two-way communication with the auditor, and this withhold can get so violent and so tough that it practically blows the pc out back through the wall! The pc couldn't stay in session if he had both hands on big steel handles and was handcuffed to them. He'd blow! Do you see that?

One of the wicked things you can do to a child is to prevent them from starting their life. And I'm not saying that college is totally a bad operation. I didn't say that. I just think so; that's just an opinion.

Student comes in - student comes in. Student says, „Oh, the Instructor is bad, and I'm leaving, and no more.“

But it does seem that it puts an awful postponement on marriage. And this „got to wait to live - got to wait to live,“ you know, gets people so they just go totally irresponsible on the third dynamic.

Oh, yes, there - there was something going on that wasn't quite optimum, but. it wasn't that bad. We check up the student and we find out: student, day before yesterday stole an E-Meter from the class. Yeah. Something goofy like this.

You get little kids around twelve, thirteen - they start picking up responsibilities on the third dynamic. Have you noticed that? And if you let that go too long, why, they start running irresponsibilities on the third dynamic, and you have - well, you have a government like this one.

They decide they are harmful to the organization, harmful to you, harmful to us and take themselves off so they can't be harmful anymore. And that is what is known as a blow-off. And it's occasioned totally and completely by overts and nothing else. Now, the proof of it is as soon as they get their overts stripped, they come right hack in.

Now, marriage then would consist of putting together a thetan association without overts and withholds, postulated into existence, continued for the mutual perpetuation and protection of the members and the group. Very, very simple arrangement actually. A highly satisfactory arrangement if it continues to be simple but a very complex arrangement if it doesn't be.

This fellow blows session, get him by the nape of the neck, „What have you done, Son?“ Get those overts stripped down and those withholds stripped down, really break this thing down, run some Responsibility on the thing, and he comes right back into session, crash! no matter how many corny mistakes you're making with auditing. You get the idea? They weren't what took him off.

Now, it isn't that mother-in-laws are the people who always wreck marriages. You could say offhand that mother-in-laws should all be shot and so forth, and then we would have free marriages and it'd be nice. Or we could have woman's suffrage and then marriage would be okay, or that we could have complete emancipation, instantaneous divorce, and marriage could be okay.

Therefore, we've been fooled continually. Well, it's operated in a very good wise. It has made us concentrate on smoothness of auditing, and we have that. It's made us concentrate on techniques, techniques, techniques. It's made us develop this, that and the other thing. We've got all the stuff now. Now it's almost as if planned. Now we can face the fact that it's somebody's overts. But this was the inevitable datum.

And there - all of these social, sticky-plaster pieces of nonsense are just efforts to have a marriage without ever really having a marriage. None of these things ever made a marriage - quick divorce or preventing this or that.

Now, I'm telling you now, not about a datum that was dreamed up an hour and a half before the congress started; I've been living with this one now for several months. And this one has been stripped down one side and the other because it is so alarming and so full of potential, it means so much to us as a group that it had to be examined from every quarter and every possible flub taken out of the thing before we got general release on the situation. But even the interorganizational releases have already begun to produce blows. People are disappearing before we can get our hands on them.

The Chinese go the opposite, you know? A marriage occurs but it really doesn't occur because the oldest man of the father's - of the husband's family is still the head of the family, and the wife still serves the husband's mother, and - oh, I don't know, it's all - they all get very complicated.

So you're going to see some things that appear to you to be punitive. For heaven's sakes, don't interpret them as punitive! All we're trying to do is get anybody who holds a certificate anyplace to hold it with clean hands. That's all we want.

We get surrounded by bunches of rules and that sort of thing. We don't care what rules they're surrounded by as long as there is free communication amongst the members of that group. And if there's free communication amongst the members of that group, their affinity is sufficiently high to take the shocks and hammers and pounds of life. Now, life does hand out a few hammers and pounds and shocks.

Any case who comes to us for processing must be processed by an auditor who has clean hands or that auditor, by the way, will not locate their overts! It's the darnedest thing you ever saw. That is tacit consent!

And if the individuals connected with a family are not self-supportive, then these shocks can be rough one way or the other. The person does something and apparently thinks things are done to him, and he's trying to make it and can't and all that sort of thing. But on a self-supportive, mutually co-supportive basis, why, people have a better chance of making it than alone. And that's one of the basic philosophies on which marriage is based.

Auditor will sit there, can't confront his own overts, so boy, does he carefully miss the pc's. And you get nothing done. So technically it becomes a must. Now therefore - therefore, we have to straighten this up at an auditor level - we certainly have got to straighten this up at a field level, but there isn't very much to straighten up. It just runs like this: If a fellow has done overts against Dianetics, pcs, Scientology, associated personnel, organizations, anything like this - we've set up a channel and a groove right this minute - all he's got to do is sit down and write them all down and send them to HCO WW if he just can't stand it. Get the idea? All he's got to do is write them all down.

Of course, a little kid wouldn't make it at all, and none of you would have made it at all, if it hadn't have been for a marriage - on the line you're going on. Unless you have the power of mocking up a body right there, spat, why the geological [geneological]-biological pattern of familial relationships and growth and all that sort of thing is the thing which will carry it on.

Now, how will it be handled? Actually, the individual will either be told to write down what parts of these he can be responsible for and send that in, too, or he'll be shoved in the direction of some Scientologist who will be all too happy to help him out. You got the idea?

When the state comes along and tries to supplant the family with barracks, watch out. Somebody has man down to a criminal level where he has to implant people to get anything done.

And as we know, then, we've got this one and that one and the next one all straightened up, we can simply mark them „Clean hands,“ „Clean hands,“ „Recommended without reservation.“ And that way Scientologically, as auditors, we can straighten it up, but also fieldwise. It isn't that we've got to be a clean group; it's that technically we now recognize that the only way were all ever going to get Clear is to be a clean group. Do you get the difference?

But a marriage can exist. A marriage no matter how strained can he put back together again. And a marriage can exist.

Well, it's a brand-new look. It's got some jolts in it. But there isn't anybody under the sun going to be punitive about it. Nobody's ever a punitive when they can be effective.

But at the same time I'm saying that, of course, I'm saying that a group can exist. But a group cannot exist without two-way communication. And a group cannot exist unless it continues to he postulated into existence by members of the group. And when large numbers of the group are engaged in unpostulating it, or in postulating it out of existence - as revolutionary parties and that sort of thing are concerned then, of course, the rest of the group has to work much harder to keep the group back in. Eventually they get tired of keeping the group back in and it falls apart.

Thank you. Thank you.

But if we're going to have a group then we have to work at a group. The group has to be clean as far as the individuals in the group are concerned. There has to be free communication and there has to be a continued wish to continue to postulate the group into existence. If we do those things, we have a group. And whether it applies to marriage or whether it applies to a company or whether it applies to a government or whether it applies to something just a little bit bigger - Scientology around the world - why, that's how you make a group. And I hope we can benefit from that information.

Thank you.

Thank you.