Thank you.

Well, are you doing all right? Audience:Yes.

Are you winning? Audience:Yes.

All right. Well, today, you'll be happy to know, we're going to take up a very useful subject, which is simply types of auditing. And that is the title of this lecture - Types of Auditing.

At first we have to begin with an historical note. Take a gourd rattle. Take some pepper. You throw the pepper into the patient's eyes and nose and then shake the gourd rattle like mad in one ear while screaming shrilly in the other ear. Got that? Having induced an adequate state of shock, you then say, "You are well. You are well. You are well." You see? And that's possibly the - one of the early, if not the earliest forerunner of auditing.

This technique, however - this technique, however, has been superseded by scientific findings through the years. One of the early developments which superseded the earliest findings there - you see, there were some mechanical appliances even used in those days, such as the pepper, the gourd rattle and that sort of thing. One of the early revisions of technique consisted of horse-tail flies - swatters. You know, they'd take a horse's tail and put it on a little stick. And by swishing this rapidly around the patient's head, he was rendered so confused, you see, that you could then say, "You are well. You are well. You are well," much better and it was a great saving on pepper.

Well, this development rather downgraded as the centuries flowed along and the group of very advanced experimental practitioners began to fill the horsetail fly swatter with fleas. And filling it totally with fleas and switching it over a person and getting the person to realize that the fleas were getting on him brought about a state of introversion. And at that time they discovered that it wasn't necessary to say, "You are well. You are well. You are well." That wasn't necessary to say that. You could also say, "Pay your bill. Pay your bill," or you could say, "You are now hexed," or "Go out and commit suicide."

Now, this group actually had made a considerable advance for itself and it is still withus - this particular school of; you might say, auditing. It's still with us. You might call it Black Dianetics. What you do is put an ether mask over somebody's face, jab him with a knife - it doesn't much matter where - and then say, "Well, he'll probably die anyway" And, of course, he usually does, and you've got it made.

Now, implantation - implantation and therapy are the black and white of all auditing. And don't make the same mistake that we've been making for years - not to consider ourselves successors. We are successors to all of man's activities in the field of mental handling, mental healing, and so on. We really are. That we have come back onto a properly aligned set of goals should not blind us to the fact that we do have predecessors.

This gets in your road as a practitioner. You go around and say to somebody, "Well, I'd like to audit you a bit and maybe we can get rid of the asthma," or "I'd like to audit you a bit and maybe we can get your IQ up to where it belongs, up to 65 or something like that, so you can handle your presidency."

And the fellow says, "Well, you're talking now about psychotherapy, aren't you?"

Well, we tend to make a dodge at this point - we have in the past, and say, "Well, no, we're not talking about psychotherapy, you see, we're actually talking about improving your abilities and that sort of thing." This is actually a dodge. You should recognize it as such and it's hauling ourselves off the line.

What this man is saying, "You are trying to engage upon a discredited practice. Now, you are trying to engage on rearranging my mental plumbing in some fashion and everybody knows that doesn't work." You see? You're being accused of something slightly and you handle the accusation by saying, "No, we are something brand- new."

Well, truthfully, man has never before known the rules of the game. He's never had them isolated, brought them out into the clear and taken a good, sober look at them or handled this profession with near total ethics. See, this is - this is new, but it is the same profession. You understand?

Now, there's the black lodge and the white lodge. The things man knows are used for evil or for good. Evil appears to be very powerful. It is actually very short-termed.

Evil is that which is done in a total emergency, without much thought, on some kind of an odd calculation that several dynamics will benefit if the evil is done. "Society will benefit if we put this man in the electric chair." That's a good idea of it. "Let's take a good, fast solution here. Let's take this murderer and let's put him in an electric chair and let's execute him."

Well, if one doesn't know the rules of the game, it is apparently a proper thing to do. But if one really knows what's going on, if he knows about a thetan, if he knows about how thetans get from life to life, if he knows what a mind is, if he knows about mental image pictures and things in suspension, he will recognize that he is now injecting in the society a man who has been punished, usually, with sufficient thoroughness to bring about a conviction that he must murder. In other words, they get the exact opposite to what they thought was necessary.

So although everybody says, "Well, the best thing to do with a murderer is execute him, put him in an electric chair and so forth," next life comes along, what have we got? Oh, I'm afraid we've still got the same guy. I'm afraid he's now been spattered out through the society where he can't much be identified. I'm afraid we could no longer easily do a diagnosis on this person or straighten him out. And the society has been victimized by the release into its midst of a criminal. I don't care how old this criminal is, he's nevertheless a criminal. Now he's a confirmed criminal to the degree that he's been thoroughly punished.

Yet, this appears to be a good thing to do. You see that?

By the way, the reason capital punishment is quite ordinarily suspended in countries and then resumed again, is mostly because - not because they know the rules of the game but they've just sort of softened up and decided there was nothing you could do about murder anyhow, so why kill people? I mean its rationale is a bit different. We are, to a marked degree - a much greater degree than you would realize at first glance, the people back of the actual fact of a cessation of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. But it wasn't agreed to because it was technically wrong. It was simply agreed to because it was savage and violent.

You can bring about reforms. But there are evil practices in the world. And the definition of an evil practice is one that does the minimum good on the minimal number of dynamics over the shortest period of time. And that is evil.

And good is the maximum good on the maximum number of dynamics over the longest period of time. You can define good. You can define evil. Same way.

Somebody came up the other day and he said "Well, all mentally retarded children should be slain." Great, this thetan is all set to have a mentally retarded child. You get the idea? He has a mentally retarded body, that's an optimum type of body. So what do you do with him? You punish him. Well, if you punish him sufficiently, you confirm it. And if it's nicely confirmed, why, then he'll go pick up another body and you've got one twice as mentally retarded. You get how terribly short-viewed this is. And yet this chap came along, who is apparently a sane man, and says, "The best thing you can do with mentally retarded children is to kill them. Now, that's the best thing you can do with them." Well, that's the best thing he knows how to do with them. You see that?

And so our advances along the line of handling minds, of handling man are - simply amount to this. We know more about it, so therefore we know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil better than other people. It is not that they should be totally condemned and criticized - we do it in fun, but then anybody is liable to make fun of a fool. The fool is the source of most jokes. And when man has acted foolishly he certainly shouldn't complain if you twit him about it a little bit. But basically, all developments come in the direction of greater knowledge - greater knowledge. And that is greater true knowledge, which is demonstrable knowledge.

When man discovers of what he is actually composed and what his behavior actually is motivated by, when man discovers that his road upward is through a recognition of his own substance and not downward through a number of errors such as "I am a brain..." By the way, did you ever see any calves' brains? Did you ever see any calves' brains on sale in a butcher shop? You have - you ought to go look someday and realize why a thetan, totally degraded, would after a while begin to realize that he was just a brain. Because to inhabit the center of that stuff all the time must be interestingly annoying.

Now, he doesn't know more about himself when he finds out that he is a brain. And the proof of the pudding is always its efficacy. The proof of this is by thinking he's a brain, does he get more clever? No, he gets more stupid. By thinking he's a brain, does he have a greater grip on the social sciences? No, he has a worse grip. You get the idea?

So by the reaction to the knowledge, you know the knowledge. Do you understand that? In other words, if-now, knowing he is a thetan, knowing what his mind is, knowing he inhabits a body, knowing he can get another one - if those things produce a greater ability or a greater forward surge in the social sciences, then that is good. You see? Maximum good would be the maximum benefit for the maximum number of dynamics over the maximum period of time.

Now, man has fallen away from this. He's told himself a great many lies and these lies have led him into a division of psychotherapy - you might say, into the black and the white. The evil schools which have developed from time to time can be enumerated as those persons who seek by punishment to cure insanity, or those persons, for political reasons, seek to bring about insanity, or those persons, for personal reasons, who seek to bring about incapacity or insanity on the part of their fellows.

Now, there are several actions of this character. One of these actions, just at random, is the - is a modern thing, the electric shock. Actually, the electric shock of today is merely seeking to produce, by more scientific means, the action once produced by hellebore. They are trying to produce a shock and ancient hellebore will still produce a shock. And they thought they could do it better by electricity. Their idea is that a shock brings sanity. That's the idea. And it doesn't matter what they do to use this. It's all the same category of thought.

Actually, there is no advance in this idea of shock - has been no advance in this idea of shock since a - in written terms, since about 200 B.C. with the Aesculapians who used hellebore. And they're still doing this action and still failing to observe that it (fails to) improve anybody and so on.

In 1894, when Freud was working with dreams, he was squarely on the very best practices of the Aesculapians. They used to administer various soporifics and then one of the practitioners would move into the room and, with chatter and chant, would produce a dream on the part of the person which would forecast a better existence for him or a worse existence or seek to put him in a little bit higher restraint and would give him a dream.

Now, the analysis of dreams comes as a very pale shadow of this, well after the fact. You see, nobody is any longer creating the dream to analyze. They just started in the nineteenth century merely to analyze dreams. You get the idea? Instead of first creating a dream in order to produce a change in a person, why, then they just started analyzing dreams and saying, "Oh, you dreamed of a snake. Oh well, that's a

- that's a sexual dream. It means there's something wrong sexually." I don't know where they got this idea unless some psychotherapist along the line had himself some kind of an engram that crossed up snakes and sex. But they say every young girl dreams of snakes. Well, I don't know. I've talked to an awful lot of young girls who haven't dreamed of snakes, you see?

They say that "Every kleptomaniac who fails in his end at stealing something, always burns down the house." That is a direct quote, I'm afraid, from a textbook of the late nineteenth century having to do with the same branch of psychotherapy that was analyzing dreams. This is not true. It is not supported by evidence, it's not supported by anything. But it's something, I suppose, very interesting to say, that every time a person who has a mania to steal things fails to steal them, why, he always burns down the house. It just doesn't fit. It's like saying jewelers never go anyplace, you see? It's just a stupid statement.

So as they know less and less they grow less and less scientific. They grow less and less effective. And the whole subject of black psychotherapy is the subject of despair. Here we are totally into the field of despair. And the motto along those lines is, first, "Nothing can be done for it but we're being paid to make motions." See that? "Nothing can be done for it. We, the practitioner know that this person having these fits is beyond help, But we're expected to do something. We would lose our position. We'd be thrown out of the tribe. We'd be discredited."

The young assistant who is less ethical and who jumps up at once and says, "Oh yes! Something can be done for that!" The tribe will pay more attention to him because at least that's hope.

Brings us a level of degradation. "Nothing can be done for it but we're going to do something anyway because we're expected to do something. That's our business." You see?

Any time you get in that frame of mind you're right next door to the next fatal step. And the next fatal step is this one, "Nothing can be done for it so it does not matter what we do." You'll find this state of mind more prevalent than you would believe.

If you take a mechanic, who is a rather poor mechanic, who is called upon to start some engine that he knows is pretty old and he doesn't know too much about it anyway, will go through the darnedest series of monkey businesses around this engine. They are terrifically impressive, you know. Oh, he'll drain the gas tank and fill it back up again, you see. He'll put a different type of petrol in it. He'll connect up the wiring some different way and so on. He's working very busily, you know. And the next thing you know there's a dull crash someplace in the middle of this machine and it doesn't operate any more at all. And he says, "Well, it was just too old, that was all."

Now, any black operation or action - by which I mean an evil one - comes about in that progressive scale. Repeated failures to remedy something or to have an effect on something, which brings a person into the dishonesty of going ahead and trying to have an effect on something, even though he knows, actually, through his own experience, that any technique he knows or any action he knows, will not bring about any change in it. And he goes ahead and bring - does this anyhow, down to a point of what - it doesn't matter what he does. And he just gets to be a dishonest criminal, you might say.

And some fellow's lying there unconscious, and he doesn't know how to bring anybody back to consciousness. He hasn't a clue, so he takes a sledgehammer and starts hitting him around the head and the hips and so forth. "Oh yes, this is a fine remedy."

Now we discover this in - although there is something to dietary - we discover that the field of eating is subject to very many, very peculiar and weird phobias. Well, this is quite an easy one because what's wrong with eating is eating. There's already something wrong with eating. And that is to say, it seems rather unnatural that a person has to support his body by eating, even though all bodies you see around are in that line. So it gets down to a point of where it's very important what you eat and very important how you eat it. And you get the most amazing diets recommended and so on. And all you have to do is look over the main diet of a decade that was recommended by practitioners for about ten decades and see the disparity amongst those diets and to see the contradictions amongst those diets - to understand utterly that none of them knew what they were doing. And yet there was something about dietary.

You feed somebody husk-polished rice long enough and he starts missing certain elements in his diet and bad things start happening to his teeth and so forth. So there was something to know about that. But because they really didn't know these things, they just did anything that came to their mind.

Somebody would sit down, "Well, pigs' bladders, yes, fried pig's bladders - fried pig's bladders taken at about five A.M., with steaming - with steaming milk, with dill - with dill in it. Yes, that's the remedy for this particular ailment which you have." The fellow's got hangnails or something, you know. It's just a total dishonesty.

Well now, conscious dishonesty is followed by unconscious dishonesty. And the individual learns from the lips of somebody who is very unprincipled that so and so and such and such is the exact cure for such and so. You see? And he believes this and he goes on doing it. Finally he may observe that it never does anything and that he isn't there anyplace. And so he goes off in some wild one of his own and this becomes more and more involved.

The second you delete actual knowledge from any sphere and get this despair entering in, you get all sorts of weird things occurring, or you get just straight, destructive viciousness - just nothing else but.

Now, the communist would never have dreamed of brainwashing if it had not been for one thing. He could not convince every person he ran into that communism was the best thing. If he'd had an effective means of teaching people the philosophy of communism, he never would have had communists embracing brainwashing.

They, unfortunately, had Pavlov to hand. And Pavlov - although he didn't do much really that wasn't more or less known before by animal trainers and so forth - he did codify this, he did bring about certain conclusions and he did put it on an experimental line whereby it had a certain dignity. He could produce certain definite reactions which could not be produced before and thus must rank one of the giants of research and investigation. Unfortunately, his giantness is totally degraded by the use to which that work has been put, which is all an evil degradation.

Now, he couldn't make anybody well, but he could certainly make people sick. What he learned was that association could be promoted into identification. From a mild association you could bring about a total identification. This is all he learned. He is suspect only for this reason: He never learned from these facts that he would get somebody into a better state of mind by reversing the process. And that he never reversed the process - evidently, unless all of his papers were totally driven out of sight. You see, he's contemporary with the rise of communism; his later work was all conducted at government expense in Russia. Now, perhaps they merely submerged any other conclusion that he had along this line. But all he had to do was say to himself; "Now, look, if identification is arrived at by deepening association, then, if we could bring identification into association" - that's all he had to think, you see - "why, we would have dogs that weren't psychotic." This is all he had to conclude, you see. All he had to do was fix up a dog so he would no longer identify bells with food, you see, and he'd have a sane dog.

Well, to my knowledge - and I may be quite wrong and malign the man and it may be, of course, that his papers were suppressed - as far as I know he did not make this rather obvious conclusion. So he didn't go - out - from association to differentiation would bring about a total sanity. See? Yet he had the data and the experimental findings right in front of him from which he could've drawn these very simple conclusions. And as I say, as far as I know - and this, again, might not be true - he did not make these conclusions.

Now; therefore - therefore, a political wave of enthusiasm, finding that it was unable to get people to espouse the reason of their cause, no matter how reasonable that cause was and finding out that they failed very often to get people in a reasonable state of mind about communism, then figured out how to get people unreasonable enough to espouse communism, you see? And this became the goal of brainwashing.

So they were able then to do an A = A = A = A. And when thoroughly done, evidently by people coached by Pavlov, this was almost 100 percent effective. But it was - had to be done by people who were trained by Pavlov.

When we got as far away as China and got practitioners who had merely, you know, read it in the textbook and started on the rumor line and got an outlying school and all of that sort of thing - when we got as far out as that and we got the prison camps of the Korean War, we got practically no effectiveness at all in brainwashing. It was - it was - if there was anything washed, it was brainwashing. It became totally stupid. Nobody reading their results could even feel of any real fear of brainwashing because by the - by the time it got that diluted down and out they couldn't even do it anyniore. It was very interesting but they didn't convert anybody. And if they did convert anybody, why, he simply was already more or less half converted. In other words, just the pressure of being in prison and that sort of thing, would have converted him.

So the "brainwashing techniques" (quote) (unquote) which were utilized on Korean prisoners, were obviously not the brainwashing techniques but some frail shadow of them - of the techniques used in Moscow to produce the 1927 crimes confession trials that shocked the world. Here were some of the leading figures of Russia stepping up on the platform and confessing all in total sincerity. Confessing to things they couldn't possibly have done. You see? And they just went on confessing. And people said, "Well, maybe it's their families that were under duress or something like that." No, no, they had simply been subjected to implantation of a sufficient violence and magnitude that they had come to a point of believing they had done these things. And that was the end goal of brainwashing.

The assumption of guilt that a person had never himself been responsible for was the end goal of those early brainwashing experiments that - when they first moved out into the political world. And it's those experiments which are scaring the Western powers contemporarily. And it's those experiments which make people feel that brainwashing works.

But actually, it took a level of duress and it took a skill and an understanding which as the couple of decades went away from the point - couple of decades of forgettingness and losses of papers and bad training and all that sort of thing - got out to a point where no effect could be achieved anymore. So half the time all they were doing was simply beating these prisoners. You get the idea? They were no longer brainwashing, they just beat them. You know? They'd just do cruel things.

Didn't matter what they did, they didn't know what to do, so they just did something, see? It didn't matter what they did.

Now, if you set yourself along the line - knowing the rules of Scientology - if you set yourselves out along the line of producing a change of political philosophy by implantation, you would surely win. But I'll let you in on a secret: you wouldn't do it. That's quite amazing. This is quite amazing. If you knew all the rationale of how to do it, you would never do it. And why would you never do it? Not because you're restrained by overt act -motivator sequence and so forth, but because you're not in despair!

Now, the only way Scientology will ever go off the rails and be used for bad purposes is by failing consistently and continually, by having bits and pieces of it forgotten, being dropped away from this and that and the other thing to merely a form preserved and no understanding of it preserved at all. In other words, if people can no longer produce a result with it, they get down into a despair category, "Well, it doesn't matter what you do." And after that why, it's just, "Well, let's just destroy everything and everybody."You see, "We can't do anything and so let's destroy everybody."

Actually, it's - a government has considerable difficulty internally before it declares war externally. It nearly always does. You see, it's lost its ability to produce a state that a government should produce and it finally produces war. It's already in despair, so it commits suicide. And war is a nice way to commit suicide.

Now, all you'd have to do is lose enough bits and pieces, you see, of Scientology - lose - use - lose enough processes, use enough - lose enough pieces of the Code and lose enough Axioms and, you know, and - to eventually wind up to a point where it couldn't produce a result. And only then would any bit or piece of it be used to destroy anything. Why? Because the element of despair is missing.

Therefore, when you are totally effective in being able to better man, it is very highly doubtful if you will worsen him. A foreman who can produce good discipline, good production, a good state of morale and activity in his particular unit, does not have to utter threats. But the same foreman, failing too often, will begin to threaten, punish and sack. You see that? It's the despair that downgrades it.

So this tells us that whenever we train a student we have the responsibility of making him effective. And if we can make him effective in his uses of Scientology then we have totally safeguarded the ethic and the mission of Scientology, and we have prevented it ever from falling into a black category. It is totally safe for a person to know all there is to know about anything, because if he knew all there was to know about anything he could produce any changing or beneficial effect he cared to produce and would never go into despair and destruction.

The reason the child destroys his toys is because he doesn't know how to wind them up. Now, you should run this experiment sometime just as a - just as a - something that backs this up. You should take a person or a child and give them something and convince them that they must be able to do something with it. It doesn't matter whether this thing will ever be able to accomplish this thing or not, but you must convince this person that he must be able to do something with this little mechanism, of one kind or another. And keep saying, "Well, that's odd. It's supposed to do so and so." And, "Can't you make it do it?" and so forth. And watch his final reaction. He will destroy the mechanism. If he can't make it work, he will destroy it. And this is one of the rules of life. He'll go into apathy about it, he'll do this, he'll do that. Maybe he's inhibited in destroying it directly. But if it's left around, he will sooner or later find a way to drop a trunk on it.

Now, there is where psychotherapy has broken down and why it eventually became two schools. The evil school is always, apparently, the more powerful school if we have an absence of a totally powerful school. In other words, amongst evil schools, those slightly less evil than other schools apparently are less powerful than the more evil schools. You see that?

So therefore, people can draw the conclusion and say, "Well, the more evfl the thing is, why, the better it seems to succeed," or something like this, you know? We see if

- in the absence of nobody knowing how to do anything, evil practices can continue. But in the presence of effectivencss and knowledge, the difference between the two things is so great, since the practice of evil is based on despair, that the white activity just wins, that's all. And it suddenly starts winning to such a degree it just starts moving up in greater and greater, you might say, geometric progression to a point where an evil activity is looked upon as merely a stupid activity.

This - a Scientologist in very good condition is evidently capable of postulating. It's quite interesting, We make some MEST Clears and he can - capable of postulating on the first dynamic Well that's understandable. But he can make a pure postulate. He doesn't respect or realize his power; he doesn't have the total mechanism down yet and at a MEST Clear level is very prone to cave himself in. But even at that level a person making postulates not just against himself but postulates out into the society at large - such people have already brought about some rather astonishing occurrences on a broad social picture. You get the idea? I mean, they cannot only postulate on the first dynamic, they can postulate on other dynamics with some make or break "Gee-whiz we don't quite know how to do it" sort of a way, and some of those things get through. Well, they would only postulate destruction in the absence of being able to create an effect with postulates.

So you might say, it's not safe - only for himself - to leave a man at the halfway point. It's not safe to leave a MEST Clear at a halfway point and just let him coast because the next thing you know, he develops aches and pains and he doesn't quite know what he's doing - he's liable to. Some of them go up and keep on going. Do you see this?

But what is wrong with him? He's not sure. He's not sure that he can produce a beneficial effect. And he's therefore prone to destroy something. Well, he doesn't - he says, "That man - I'll make an experiment and I'll see if my postulates really work: That man will devolve into a spinning tower of flame." The fellow burns himself on his cigarette. See, total result. See, something about fire happens, you see, but with all of the gritted teeth and everything else the only thing that happens is the fellow - well, maybe he just lost the ash off his cigarette onto his coat or something, you see. I mean, just utterly belittling sort of reaction to this enormous postulate this fellow's making here.

"Well," we say, "well, why should he want to burn this fellow up in the first place? What's the fellow done to him?" "Well," we say, "there's the law of compensation, the law of balances, the law of overt act-motivator."

No, no, no, no, no, no. There's no reason to burn this fellow up unless you don't know you can do it. As soon as you know you can burn people up, you don't bother. And that's the trouble with the world of atomic fission right at this moment. They don't know they can blow up the world. So they're trying. You get the idea? It's just

- it's no more than that. They're into a sort of a stupidity and a not-know and they don't recognize what their power is and so on.

I think that if you sent all atomic physicists and technicians and all politicians connected with it over to Tokyo and had them investigate the ruins brought about by atomic fission, listen to some stories of survivors and so forth, they'd probably all change their minds, you see? They'd say, "Well, it does have a terrific effect, doesn't it?" It isn't that they'd say, "Well, we shouldn't do it so much." But it - they could say, "Well, it does have a terrific effect, it certainly blew things down, didn't it? It is some kind of a weapon, isn't it?"

And then maybe if we took, and let them bomb a part of Brazil which is inhabited totally by little ants - not that we have anything against ants, but it's an area that nothing else can live in because the ants eat up everything that moves into this huge area. And if we let them drop one with cobalt 60 they would see that everything in the area would die. Then they could say, "Well, what do you know, everything...

That's true then, when you drop cobalt 60. . . It's absolutely true and so forth." And they would probably then move off and use it industrially or something and forget about the rest of it Get the idea?

Now, they don't even know yet that it's very beneficial. As a matter of fact, radiation in most people's minds has just laid an enormous egg. There was a great politician got cancer. They gave him tremendous doses of radiation in order to cure the cancer and the fellow is still dying and he is going to be dead here in very short order. Now, they probably say, "Well, then, radiation isn't so good for people after all." Well, I don't know if it was good for people in the first place, I don't know if it'll ever be any good for people, but I'm sure that man, in making up new toys, can find some beneficial uses for radiation and atomic fission and explosion and fusion and shnusion and so forth. I'm sure that he'd find some use for this. But right now he doesn't know, really, that it has much use and in despair he's going to blow up earth with it. But he already was in despair and the people pushing him are the politicians who have no political philosophy which can embrace the government of earth.

Yet it is so easy for a Scientologist to change the course of that, that we have already changed three major national policies in the world with regard to government - on the vaguest sort of a suggestion, not a postulate made out there, but just a - just a good old standard communication line of "Say, fellow, why don't you..." you know, and give him a good idea.

It was - one of these was adopted very broadly by a liberal party - not the Liberal

Party but a liberal party - in this wise. One night in social conversation, I chirped up and I said, "You know, it's rather silly to give fellows machine guns before you can teach them how to vote."

And they thought, "You know, gee, that's something, you know?"

"In other words, before you can have a democracy you have to have an informed people who know at least how to go to the polls and vote. And if you give them machine guns and rifles and hand grenades before you bring them up to knowing how to vote, then they will go on electing things with machine guns and bombs because they don't know how to vote."

There was a terrible, stunned silence, you see, in this particular small gathering - very social gathering. It was very stunned. "What do you know! You know, that isn't a bad yhh-yhh, zup-zup-zup...that's pretty good, you know? Hey, you shouldn't give them machine guns and so on and so forth. Well, what do you know! You know, that's pretty good. Say, by George, we have been giving them machine guns before we told them where the polls were! No wonder we've been having colonial trouble. Let's see now, is there something we could do?"

And they came out on TV a few nights later and made a program on just this: that they weren't going to give anybody any more total freedom until they knew how to vote. Seems to be terribly obvious, doesn't it?

Well, you either have to be very smart to be obvious or in order to be obvious you must already know that you can make a simple effect and you don't have to make a complicated, destructive effect to make one. Do you see this?

Well, supposing - supposing more people could observe in this wise and more people could think, more people could approach these problems in a simpler vein. Instead of saying, "Well, there are this many blacks and this many whites and we've got a parity of this and that, we've got to legislate this way and that way, we've got to do something," they wouldn't - they wouldn't keep thinking about the laws that they were going to pass. They would look at the actual situation.

And instead of taking a poor lot of blacks that didn't quite know what they were doing in their present state of existence and putting them in line to be machine- gunned because they were insisting on rights or something of the sort - instead of putting them in that line they put them in the line of some information as to how to live in a - in industrially geared society instead of a tribally geared society. You see, the argument isn t even that industrial society is superior to handicraft, hunting societies. See this isn't even the argument.

A much more complicated civilization than we're living in right at this moment is the Eskimo civilization. We had to borrow the Eskimo civilization before we ever got a dogsled to the North Pole. Their language is so complicated and so diverse and has so many nouns and pronouns and verbal forms in it that a white man has never even been able to learn Eskimo. Never!

Well, it isn't a question of whether or not the Eskimos are superior or we're superior. It's just, can they live in their environment? And the Eskimo's environment now evidently consists of - mainly of radar posts on the Russian side trying to find out if bombs are coming from America and on the American side if bombs are coming from Russia. They've been totally invaded to this degree. Their civilization has been undermined, they've been taught to use petrol and paraffin and the quick buck. And they're getting the idea that blubber is looked down on as a steady diet, that one should have a Frigidaire. You know, that sort of thing. And these people are no longer adjusted to their environment, you see, because their environment has had a change of character.

Now, it certainly would take somebody with ways and means of understanding communication, education and so on - just as little basic techniques of these things, somebody would have to understand that - in order to bring about a betterment, you might say, of the Eskimo. You can't pass any laws and better the Eskimo's state, you see.

You aren't going to pass any laws and better a black man's state. He was having a perfectly fine time. He knew how to prove his manhood. You walked out, took a short spear in your hand and knocked off a black-maned lion. You were a man, bang!

Easiest graduation course anybody ever took, if he lived through it! Perfect, you, see. Nothing to it.

All right. Now we take we a - we take this same fellow and we teach him - we don't teach him this. We despise him because he won't walk out and get a job and thus become a man. And nobody's ever told him that this lion business is off. So we say, "Well, it's - they're stupid and no good and downgraded and we should have nothing to do with them." And some people say, "Kill them all off" And other people say, "Well, we'll just have to put them in charge of the whole thing because we can't handle them and..." You know, I mean, this is pretty wild. It's pretty wild.

Well, as a matter of fact, some of the Scientology techniques used in that immediate direction brought about some of the most startling abilities. The whites in a black neighborhood were not at all aware that black men could ever possess themselves of these particular technologies. They didn't believe it was possible and don't right this minute believe it's possible. It's just the race never before has been able to do anything like this so therefore - kind of - they can't do it. What black magic is being used? There must be some thetan standing three feet back of their heads moving their limbs because they couldn't do anything like this. See, they can't even believe it when they see it.

Yet, what was it? It was simply getting a person to be aware of his immediate environment and be able to change his values.

Now the worst thing about black psychotherapy - the worst thing about it is, is does not admit of change. And that's what you find is wrong with most people's engram banks. They don't admit of change.

Little fish swims into a stream, has a yellow sand floor. Everyplace else has got black mud, but this little stream has a yellow sand floor. He swims into it, big fish comes along, bites half his tail off. He swims out of it - he's got an engram now - and he says, "Yellow sand floor, big fish bites tail off. Fine, understand that perfectly and that is an unchanging condition which will be true till the end of time." So, he starts into another little stream one fine day and finds it has a yellow sand floor. Boy, he gets the hell out of there and goes into one with a nice black floor, and a much bigger fish comes up and bites the rest of his tail off and eats him alive.

He permits - he permits conditions - unusual conditions, to overthrow reason and never tries to bring about the average condition or a reasonable condition. All he's trying to do is hold on forever to the unreasonable conditions and he's got it made. You have unchangingness, in other words, as the thing. This bite off of the tail is something that will persist forever, he thinks. Well, nearly all black operations have as their goal something that will persist forever.

Now, I just want to nail the final nail in the coffin of this despair. It is simply this. You can recognize from the unchangingness of the worse off cases you meet - you can recognize from the unchanging qualities of some of the engrams that you run into - the apparent unchangingness - that the basic goal of all black operations is to bring about an unchanging condition.

"We're going to brainwash him and make him a communist and he's never going to be anything else after that but a communist!" Get the idea? He's in space opera.

Well, he's always to be a crew member, he's always to be a tubeman third class, you see, he's always to be that thing, and he's totally implanted in that direction of that thing. You get the idea? He is never, under any circumstances, to touch square doughnuts - implantation. Millions of years afterwards you show him a square doughnut and he develops an awful headache and faints and so forth. See? He's just never to do it.

All right. Black operations have as their goal the same thing that started them. They couldn't change things so they make a cult out of keeping them unchanged. They're just Q-and-Aing, you might say, with their own inability. If you cannot better things, you can certainly make them bad and keep them that way. You see this? They're just Q-and-Aing with their inability to improve the lot of anything or get anything done by making it impossible for anything to get done. And that's all they dramatize.

One fine day - I hope this never happens to you - you may be in some barbaric country where there's people going around - I think they wear dark suits and white linen. And they come in and they come into a case that's slightly spinning, and you've been working with this case and you were taking a gradual line because the family was so enturbulated you hardly could get to the case. They come in - this person comes in, especially called. Big expert, you know. Comes in and he says, "Well, I'll take care of the case." And you turn around and the next thing you know, why, the fellow's got no prefrontal lobes or something, see? And now what are you going to do as an auditor, see? See, he's fixed up the case so it can't be changed. Can't be improved. They dramatize inability to improve.

Then you could say that, basically, as we look over types of auditing, we aren't just looking over our own activities in the field of auditing. We're looking over the broad view of the whole track and we find that every time auditing or psychotherapy became defective or forgotten or inefficient or when it ran up against problems it knew not what of; it then tended to downgrade into doing anything, and then doing anything because it didn't matter, and then simply destroying the things it was supposed to heal.

And where we have an upsurge of understanding, enlightenment, ability to improve, ability to change and so on, we just get a much broader, bettering look at the thing and we go on and make things better and better and better and better and better and better and better.

And so there's these two different directions but they actually do embrace two auditing types. And you should recognize that any bad auditing that you ever do stems from the fact that you didn't believe you could do good auditing. Now, those are hard words. But something has happened to impair your faith in your ability to get results.

And every time we have a big ACC there'll always be some small handful of old-time auditors who had a kind of a lick and a promise training years ago, you know. Been going on, trying to carry on, trying to do well and have had failures and failures and failures and failures. Almost start going out and finding failures to collide with. And these fellows have lost the ability to audit! They ARC break preclears! They drop the ashtray! They don't come in in time for the appointment. Pc gets into a grief charge, the auditor changes his mind and starts running something else. They just bust the Auditor's Code by the clock.

And if you want to know what a totally black operation would be, it'd - just run a negative Auditor's Code on every clause in it and you've got it. It'd make about the blackest operation you ever heard of. But nobody would do that unless he was in total despair.

And we take these fellows, we build them up, we give them some wins. And the second we've given them a few wins, all of a sudden, they start to be able to audit again. And when they've had a few more wins their judgment improves. And the next thing you know, why, they've got a good grip on what they're doing and they're all set once more.

Now, you are not likely to fall into pitfalls such as have been fallen into unless you don't know your business, you've skimped it somehow, you know, you've short- cutted it and if you don't quite have it grooved, you haven't got it settled in your own mind that this is the way it is, you haven't taken a look at it, or you've started stupidly to practice only on psychos or some unlikely or incredible type of case.

I've known an auditor - I've known an auditor who suddenly snapped terminals with some billionaire who had an idiot brother or something like that and he'd just keep this auditor working all the time trying to do something for the idiot brother, you see? And the auditor works all day long to make the idiot brother do something besides drool and say "Blewuh." And the family works all evening and all night long making the idiot brother do something else, because they know nothing can be done. And I've finally seen an auditor like that just drift right on out of our ranks. Plenty of money in his pocket, but he didn't get anyplace.

That sort of a thing can happen to a person even today. But our command of the subject is so much better, the things that we can do are so much more effective, the results are so much quicker, there's probably very few of you would fall into that category or have any such pitfall in your path. About the only way you could do it would be to simply muff your business. And if you didn't understand what you were doing, why, then you could sort of audit by rote or, you know, kind of with no understanding. And sooner or later you're going to run into a case that you have to understand.

And if you run a HAS Co-audit and just do the most careless assessment, you will undoubtedly get at least 80 percent of the cases that get into a co-audit unit. They will be perfectly fine. I mean, they'll all come out right. You just did the most careless assessment. But you've got four cases that didn't come out right. See, out of twenty, there were four that didn't come out right.

All right. I'm afraid about that time you have to start understanding and not just read the dials and put down a result. You get the idea? You've got to look at this pc, and he is a pc. And the difference between a professional and a fellow who can simply go through the motions, is a professional understands what he's looking at and the amateur doesn't think he has to. That's about the only difference between the two.

Now, we get into types of auditing, then. We get into, first, bad auditing, which they have had for several trillion years now. And then we get into good auditing such as we're trying to get you to do.

Don't ever forget, though, that there is a type of auditing which is bad auditing. Recognize what it stems from, look it over, realize that people who are doing bad things in the field of psychotherapy simply do not understand what they are doing and grade it up accordingly. Thing for you to do - give them some reality and get the show on the road.

Thank you.