HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 JUNE 1984
Limited	Issue III
Distribution:
FSO
AOs
SH’s
Continental Orgs
Class IV Orgs

HUBBARD FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR COURSE

NAME:	ORG:	

DATE STARTED:	DATE COMPLETED:	

POST:	

PREREQUISITE: HUBBARD SENIOR SECURITY CHECKER COURSE (It is preferable but not mandatory that the student be a Class 4 Auditor or above.)

LENGTH OF COURSE: 2 weeks full time.

STUDY TECH: Study Tech is applied in full. The items marked * are starrated by students who are not Fast Flow. All drills to be done. The student may be credited with checksheet theory items studied in earlier auditor training.

PRODUCT: A COMPETENT FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR.

CERTIFICATE: Upon completion of this checksheet the student may be awarded the certificate of HUBBARD FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR (Provisional).

CO-AUDIT: Students may co-audit the False Purpose RD while on this course, after completing Section Three of the checksheet.

SECTION ZERO: KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING

1. 	HCO PL 7 Feb 65	KSW Series 1,
	Reiss. 27.8.80	KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING	_________
2. 	HCO PL 17 Jun 70RB	KSW Series 5R,
	Re-rev. 25.10.83	TECHNICAL DEGRADES	_________
3. 	HCO PL 14 Feb 65	KSW Series 4,
		SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY	_________

SECTION ONE: BASIC THEORY

0. 	BOOK: SCIENTOLOGY 0-8, Chapter: “Consideration and Mechanics”	_________
1. 	Clear the following definitions in the Tech Dictionary or a good English Dictionary:

Evil	_________	Destructive	_________
Harmful 	_________	Non-Survival	_________
Survival	_________	Intention	_________
Impulse 	_________	Purpose	_________
Postulate 	_________	Evil Purpose	_________
Psychotic 	_________	Service Fac	_________
Computation	_________	Responsibility	_________

2. 	BOOK: ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS 
	( The whole book to be read before the course is completed.)	_________
3. 	HCOB 15 Dec 73	THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H	
		AND CONTINUOUS OVERT WITH
		DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS AND
		FALSE PTS CONDITIONS	_________
4. 	HCOB 20 Oct 76	PTS HANDLING	_________
5. 	DEMO: What “False PTS” is and what underlies it	_________
6. *	HCOB 28 Feb 84 	C/S Series 118, 
		PRETENDED PTS
7. 	HCOB 17 Jun 84 	C/S Series 118-1, 
		EVIL PURPOSES AND FALSE PR	_________
8. 	DEMO: What “pretended PTS” is and how it can be detected.	_________
9. *	HCOB 28 Nov 70 	C/S Series 22,
		PSYCHOSIS	_________
10.	TAPE: 7203C02 ESTO 3, 	EVALUATION AND
		HANDLING OF PERSONNEL	_________
11. 	CLAY DEMO: Psychosis.		_________
12. 	Clear in a biographical dictionary or encyclopedia:

Ivan the Terrible	_________ 	Napoleon	_________
Stalin 	_________	Hitler	_________

13.*	HCOB 9 May 77 II 	PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT	_________
14. 	CLAY DEMO: “The actual basis of all psychosis is motive. 
	It is not competence or incompetence.”	_________
15.*	HCOB 15 Sep 81 	THE CRIMINAL MIND	_________
16. 	DEMO: Each datum given in capitals in HCOB 15 Sep 81	_________
17. 	HCOB 26 Apr 82	THE CRIMINAL MIND AND THE
		PSYCHS	_________
18. 	HCOB 6 May 82	THE CAUSE OF CRIME	_________
19. 	HCO PL 5 Apr 65	HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE
		PERSON, THE BASIS OF INSANITY	_________
20.*	HCOB 10 Aug 76R	R/SES, WHAT THEY MEAN	_________
	Rev. 5.9.78
21.*	HCOB 6 Jun 84 I	R/Ses, MORE ABOUT	_________
22.	HCOB 29 Sep 65	THE CONTINUING OVERT ACT	_________
23.*	HCOB 10 Uay 72	ROBOTISM	_________
24. 	CLAY DEMO: 	a) The relationship of evil purposes to overts. 	_________
			b) Why evil purposes and overts would cause a 
			person to restrain himself	_________
25.	HCOB 5 Feb 77	C/S Series 100,
		JOKERS AND DEGRADERS	_________
26. 	HCOB 16 Mar 77	THE GAMBLER	_________
27.	HCOB 27 Mar 84	C/S Series 119,
		STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR:
		SOLVED	_________
28.	DEMO: 	a) Why evil purposes could stall someone on the Bridge. 	_________
	b) How getting off a person’s evil purposes could unstall 
	his progress on the Bridge.	_________

SECTION TWO:  EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURES
1. 	TAPE: 7203C30 	EXPANDED DIANETICS
		LECTURE I	_________
2. 	CLAY DEMO: 	(a) What an OCA down on the left
		indicates.	_________
		(b) What an OCA down on the right
		indicates.	_________
3.	TAPE: 7204C07 	EXPANDED DIANETICS
		LECTURE II	_________
4. 	CLAY DEMO: Parallelling the pc’s mind with auditing.
5.	TAPE: 7204C07	EXPANDED DIANETICS
		LECTURE III	_________
6.	TAPE: 7204C07	EXPANDED DIANETICS
		LECTURE IV	_________

SECTION THREE: PROCEDURE

1. 	Clear the itollowing words in the Technical Dictionary:

	Confusion	_________	Prior confusion	_________
	Justification 	_________

2. *	HCOB 5 Jun 84	False Purpose Rundown Series 1, 
		FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN	_________
3. *	HCO PL 6 Jun 84	False Purpose Rundown Series 2, 
		THE “LOST TECH” OF HANDLING 
		OVERTS AND EVIL PURPOSES	_________
4. 	CLAY DEMO: What full successful handling of overts must include.	_________
5. *	HCOB 2 Nov 61	THE PRIOR CONFUSION	_________
6. 	HCOB 30 Jul 62	A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR
		INTENSIVE	_________
7. 	TAPE: 6110C03	THE PRIOR CONFUSION	_________
8. *	HCOB 7 Jun 84	False Purpose Rundown Series 3, 
		THE PRIOR CONFUSION: 
		NEW TECH BREAKTHROUGH	_________
9. 	CLAY DEMO: A prior confusion and its relationship to problems, 
	overts and evil purposes.
10.*	HCOB 8 Jun 84 	False Purpose Rundown Series 4, 
		CLEARING JUSTIFICATIONS	_________
11. 	DRILL: Using a non-significant question (such as “have you ever stolen 
	apples?”) drill the use of Guiding Style to get on to an overt chain, null 
	the overts and the justifications.	
 	a) 	Unbullbaited		_________
	b) 	Bullbaited		_________
12.*	HCOB 9 Jun 84	False Purpose Rundown Series 5, 
		AUDITING THE FALSE PURPOSE 
		RUNDOWN	_________
13.*	HCOB 10 Jun 84 	False Purpose Rundown Series 6, 
		FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN 
		COMMANDS	_________
14. 	CLAY DEMO: The full False Purpose RD procedure.	_________
15. 	HCOB 11 Jun 84	False Purpose Rundown Series 7, 
		C/Sing THE FALSE PURPOSE 
		RUNDOWN	_________
16.*	HCOB 12 Jun 84 	False Purpose Rundown Series 8, 
		FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN 
		AUDITOR ERRORS	_________
17.*	HCOB	6 Nov 64 STYLES OF AUDITING	_________
18. 	TAPE: 6403C19 	FLATTENING A PROCESS	_________
19. 	DEMO: How an auditor restimulates something to be run.	_________
20. 	DRILL: Using a non-significant question, get it grooved in to restimulate 
	what is there to be run		_________
21.*	HCOB 8 Oct 70 	C/S Series 20,
		PERSISTENT F/N	_________
22.*	HCOB 21 Mar 74 	END PHENOMENA	_________
23. 	DRILL: The full procedure of the False Purpose RD
	a) 	Unbullbaited		_________
	b) 	Bullbaited		_________
24. 	HCOB 5 Sep 78 	ANATOMY OF A SERVICE
		FACSIMILE	_________
25. 	HCOB 6 Sep 78 II 	SERVICE FACSIMILES AND
		ROCKSLAMS	_________
26. 	CLAY DEMO: Relationship between a Service Fac and an Evil Purpose.	_________
27. 	HCOB 22 Apr 80	ASSESSMENT DRILLS	_________
28. 	DRILL:
TR 1-Q1 	_________	TR 1-Q4	_________
TR 1-Q2	_________	TR 8-Q	_________
TR 1-Q3	_________	TR 4/8-Q1	_________
29.*	HCOB 13 Jun 84	False Purpose Rundown Series 9, 
		FALSE PURPOSE RD
		CORRECTION LIST	_________
30. 	DRILL: False Purpose RD Correction list and the handlings until smooth 
	and professional 
	a) 	Unbullbaited		_________
	b) 	Bullbaited		_________
31. 	HCOB 14 Jun 84	False Purpose Rundown Series 10-A, 
		BASIC FORM	_________
32. 	HCOB 15 Jun 84 II	FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN 
		INFO FOR ORGS AND MISSIONS	_________

SECTION FOUR: STUDENT AUDITING

1. 	Student audits at least 1 preclear on the False Purpose Rundown to  
	spectacular result, with consistent Well Done or Very Well Done sessions.	_________

SECTION FIVE. STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION

1. 	I attest that I have fully completed the above checksheet, have no misunderstoods on the course materials, and can consistently and successfully apply the materials of the course.

STUDENT: 	DATE: 	

2. 	I have trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the requirements of this checksheet and knows and can apply the checksheet data.

COURSE SUPERVISOR: 	DATE: 	

CASE SUPERVISOR: 	DATE: 	

3. 	CONDITIONAL: If the student has not completed Method 1 Word Clearing and the Student Hat, or the Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown, a written examination is to be done in Qual on the materials of this checksheet. Pass is 85%.

DIR VALIDITY: 	DATE:	
4. 	The student attests to having:

(a) properly enrolled on the course, (b) paid for the course, (c) studied and understood all the materials of the checksheet, (d) done the drills called for on the checksheet and (e) can produce the results required in the materials Of the course, and is awarded the certificate of SUBBARD FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR (Provisional).

STUDENT: 	DATE: 	

CERTS & AWARDS: 	DATE: 	

5. 	QUAL SEC or C&A informs the graduate that to make his provisional certificate permanent he will have to be interned within one year. 

QUAL SEC or C&A: 	DATE:	

Route the graduate onto the False Purpose Rundown Auditor Internship and this form to the Course Administrator for filing in the student’s folder.

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

Checksheet compilation 
assisted by 
LRH Technical Research 
and Compilations

Adopted as Official 
Church Policy 
by the 
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 
INTERNATIONAL

LRH: CSI: RTRC: rw: iw

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965
REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970
Remimeo  	(Corrected per Flag Issue 28.1.73)
Sthil Students
Assn/Org Sec Hat
HCO Sec Hat
Case Sup Hat
Ds of P Hat
Ds of T Hat
Staff Member Hat
Franchise
(issued May 1965)

Note:     Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2 year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it. 

ALL LEVELS

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
HCO Sec or Communicator Hat Check
on all personnel and new personnel
as taken on.

	We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology. 

	The only thing now is getting the technology applied. 

	If you can’t get the technology applied then you can’t deliver what’s promised. It’s as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you can deliver what’s promised. 

	The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is “no results”. Trouble spots occur only where there are “no results”. Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are “no results” or “bad results”. 

	Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied. 

	So it is the task of the Assn or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied. 

Getting the correct technology applied consists of: 

One: Having the correct technology. 

Two: Knowing the technology. 

Three: Knowing it is correct. 
Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. 

Five: Applying the technology. 

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. 

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. 

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. 

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. 

One above has been done. 

Two has been achieved by many. 

Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way. 

Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world. 

Five is consistently accomplished daily. 

Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently. 

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point. 

Eight is not worked on hard enough. 

Nine is impeded by the “reasonable” attitude of the not quite bright. 

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. 

Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area. 

	The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad. 

	Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
 
	In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”. 

	On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular” “egotistical” and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point And I don’t see that popular measures, self- abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorse degraded novels, self- abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. 

	Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had no supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that  in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. 

	The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. 

	We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact-the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve-psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum. 

	So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. 

	So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. But it’s not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this. 

	Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight. Nine and Ten has been relaxed the whole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N.Y., Wichita, the early organizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up you saw the obvious “reasons” for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in other reasons. 

	The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell-and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by “public opinion” media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves. 

	Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive. 

	When you don’t do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for the Bank dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application. 

	It’s the Bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It’s the Bank that says we must fail. 

	So just don’t play that tune. Do Seven. Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knock out of your road all the future thorns. 

	Here’s an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of a pc spin:   A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that “It didn’t work.” Instructor A was weak on Three above and didn’t really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor “Process X didn’t work on Preclear C.” Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of “new technology” and to failure. 

	What happened here? Instructor A didn’t jump down Auditor B’s throat, that’s all that happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the Auditor’s report and looked it over, When a higher executive on this case did so she found what the Case Supervisor and the rest missed: that. Process X increased Preclear C’s TA to 25 TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Qed and Aed with a cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off running one of Auditor B’s own manufacture, which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B’s IQ on examination turned out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was found to be “too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases”. 

	All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your auditor’s report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?” Then the Pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty. 

	In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked! 

	Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases. 

	Here’s an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student “because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!” Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. “Of course his model session is poor but it’s just knack he has” is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertake because nobody at levels O to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-Meter dial! And no instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he “overcompensated” nervously swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at “set”. So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and model session because this one student “got such remarkable TA”. They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough model session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. 

	I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole track on other students after course hours. The academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren’t quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. 

	Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-comprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. 

	When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology under instruction in Scientology they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate instructions. hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him. 

	With what we know now, there is no student we enrol who cannot be properly trained. As an instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with our sleeve rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He’s slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don’t wait until next week. By then he’s got other messes stuck to him. If you can’t graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining graduate them in such a state of shock they’ll have nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and they’ll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing. 

	When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe- never permit an “open-minded” approach. If they’re going to quit let then quit fast. If they enroled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It’s a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive-and even they have a hard time. We’ll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don’t make students into good Scientologists and that let’s everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in he eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she’ll win and we’ll all win. Humour her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, “You’re here so you’re a Scientologist Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead that incapable.” Fitting that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you see the cross we have to bear. 

	But we won’t have to bear it forever. The bigger we get the more economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we’ll be able to grow. Fast. And as we grow our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One to  Ten, will make us grow less. 

	So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It’s our possible failure to retain and practise our technology. 

	An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of “unworkability”. They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done.                        

	If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of all the rest. 

	We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. 

	The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. 

	This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. 

	Remember, this is a our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. 

	Do them and we’ll win.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1965, 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970

Remimeo
Applies to all
SHs and	URGENT AND
Academies	IMPORTANT
Franchises

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

(This PL and HCO PL Feb 7, 1965 must be made part of every study pack as the first items and must be listed on checksheets. )

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV Checksheets SH carry “A. Background Material—This section is included as an historical background, but has much interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood.” This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself, all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us “Quickie Grades”, ARC Broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH Courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty, will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES.

1. 	Abbreviating an official Course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

2. 	Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labelling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.

3. 	Employing after 1 Sept 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized by myself and the SO Organizing Bureau Flag.

4. 	Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as “historical”, “background”, “not used”, “old”, etc. or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. 	Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc’s own determinism without hint or evaluation.

6. 	Running only one process for a grade between 0 to IV.

7. 	Failing to use all processes for a level.

8. 	Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as “I put in Grade zero in 3 minutes.” Etc.

9. 	Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or laborsaving considerations.

10. 	Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student’s progress is by using 2 way comm and applying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer to any recovery.

The product of an org is well taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1965
(Reissued on 7 June 1967, with the word
Remimeo                              “instructor” replaced by “supervisor”.)
All Hats
BPI
SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY

	For some years we have had a word “squirreling”. It means altering Scientology, off-beat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why. 

	Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system. 

	In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. 

	Man is caught in a huge and complex labyrinth. To get out of it requires that he follow the closely taped path of Scientology. 

	Scientology will take him out of the labyrinth. But only if he follows the exact markings in the tunnels. 

	It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out. 

	It has been proven that efforts by Man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be travelled. 

	What would you think of a guide who, because his party said it was dark and the road rough and who said another tunnel looked better, abandoned the route he knew would lead out and led his party to a lost nowhere in the dark. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy guide. 

	What would you think of a supervisor who let a student depart from procedure the supervisor knew worked. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy supervisor. 

	What would happen in a labyrinth if the guide let some girl stop in a pretty canyon and left her there forever to contemplate the rocks? You’d think he was a pretty heartless guide. You’d expect him to say at least, “Miss, those rocks may be pretty, but the road out doesn’t go that way.” 

	All right, how about an auditor who abandons the procedure which will make his preclear eventually clear just because the preclear had a cognition? 

	People have following the route mixed up with “the right to have their own ideas.” Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions—so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It white tapes the road out of the labyrinth If there were no white tapes marking the right tunnels, Man would just go on wandering around and around the way he has for eons, darting off on wrong roads, going in circles, ending up in the sticky dark, alone. 

	Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess. 

	So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route. 

	Scientology is a new thing- it is a road out. There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in the world can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery. 

	Scientology is the only workable system Man has It has already taken people toward higher I.Q., better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked. 

	So put the feet of students and preclears on that route. Don’t let them off of it no matter how fascinating the side roads seem to them. And move them on up and out. 

	Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system. 

	Don’t let your party down. By whatever means, keep them on the route. And they’ll be free. If you don’t, they won’t. 

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:nt:rd
Copyright © 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1973
Remimeo
All Levels
Add Level II
Ethics Officers	THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H
Masters at Arms	AND CONTINUOUS OVERT
C/Ses	WITH DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS
AND FALSE PTS CONDITIONS

Reference: (1) Tape List and HCO B List of Level II,
Page 4 HCO P/L 26.1.72, Issue VI, concerning Withholds and Overts.
(2) “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67.

There are two special  cases of withholds and overts. They do not occur in all cases by a long ways. But they do occur on a few cases. These are CONTINUOUS MISSED WITHHOLDS and CONTINUOUS OVERTS.

This is not quite the same as “The Continuing Overt Act” HCO B 29 September 65. In that type the person is repeating overt acts against something usually named.

THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H

A Continuous Missed Withhold occurs when a person feels some way and anyone who sees him misses it.

Example: A doctor feels very unconfident of his skill. Every patient who sees him misses the fact that he is not confident.  This reacts as a missed withhold.

It is of course based upon some bad incident that destroyed his confidence (usually of an engramic intensity).

But as the person actively withholds this, then those seeing him miss the withhold.

This could work in thousands of variations. A woman feels continuous disdain for her child but withholds it. The child therefore continuously misses a withhold. All the phenomena of the missed w/h would continuously react against the child.

Probably all dishonest social conduct brings about a Continuous Missed Withhold. The politician who hates people, the minister who no longer believes in God, the mechanic who privately believes he is a jinx on machinery, these all then set up the phenomena of missed withholds on themselves and can dramatize it in their conduct.

THE CONTINUOUS OVERT

A person who believes he is harmful to others may also believe that many of his common ordinary actions are harmful.

He may feel he is committing a Continuous Overt on others.

Example: A clothing model believes she is committing a fraud on older women by displaying clothing to them in which they will look poorly. In her estimation this is a Continuous Overt Act.  Of course all older women miss it on her.
Appearance, just being alive, can be considered by some as an overt.

Missed withhold phenomena will result.

DEGRADED BEINGS

The Continuous Withhold and Continuous Overt are probably a basis of feeling degraded.

Degraded Beings, as described in “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67, are that way at least in part because they have some Continuous Missed Withhold or a fancied Continuous Overt Act.

This makes them feel degraded and act that way.

HANDLING

One can add to any program a check for a Continuous Missed Withhold or Continuous Overt as an additional version of rudiments.

A master question, which could be broken down into three lists which would have to be done by the laws of L&N, would be, “When anyone looks at you what feeling (action, attitude) of yours do they miss?” Then, “When was it missed?” “Who missed it?” and “What did he do that made you believe it had been missed?”

Another approach, less dangerous in that lists aren’t made, would be:

For Continuous Missed Withhold the question could be, “Is there some way you feel that others don’t realize?” And with 2wc uncover it. Then ask, “Who misses this?” with answer, followed by, “When has someone missed it?” with E/S to an earlier time. Followed by, “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?” This will key it out and can change behavior.

For Continuous Overt Act it would be, “Is there something you do that others do not know about?” With 2wc to cover it and get what it is. Then ask, “Who has not found out about it?” with an answer. And then, “When did someone almost find out?” “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?”

Each of the above questions should be F/Ned.

MOTION

People who have Continuous Withholds or Overts tend to be very slow, flubby and impositive. They have to be very careful. And they make mistakes. Slowness or robotness are keys to the presence of Continuous Missed Withholds or Overts.

PTS

Quite often a case is FALSELY LABELED PTS when in fact it is really a matter of Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts.

When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling easily then you know you are dealing with Continuous Missed Withholds and/or Continuous Overts.

SUMMARY

These conditions are not present in all cases. When they are you have a Degraded Being. When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling, try Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts. You can prevent blows, handle much HE and R and change character in this way.

LRH:nt.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1973	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER 1976
Remimeo
DPE
Ethics Officer	Issue II
PTS/SP Checksheet	
PTS HANDLING

Once in a while I hear of PTS handlings that “didn’t work” or “still PTS” or some such. Or I’ll come across such extremes as a PTS is virtually an incurable leper to be shunned and kept isolated or almost everyone is PTS to some degree so what can you really do about it. The basic thing to realize is that PTSness, like any other case condition afflicting Man, responds to plain old standard tech. But one has to have studied and understood that tech to apply it, naturally.

I recall years ago in handling PTSes, that none of them at first knew what PTS really meant or what it was all about even when they used the term freely! So I recently called for a pilot to see what would be the effect of a study method of curing PTSes.

FIRST PILOT

Before the final pilot was done, an earlier pilot was attempted by an Aide which was not conducted as laid down. CS-5 reviewed the failed pilot to find why so many failed on it. 4 out of 6 were never completed and the 2 that did failed.

CS-5 reported “What I found on these was that they uniformly were not PTS in the first place or were PTS but that was not the major trouble with the person. Three of the cases (2 on auditing and I on study) were out-ethics, R/Sing, Exp Dn cases who were trying to use PTS as the reason for their behavior. Thus handling their PTSness would not resolve anything. The most interesting case here was the study one who realized that he was not PTS and that that had been a wrong indication and that what was really wrong with him was that he had bad intentions and was committing overts. One of the audited cases had a similar realization but has not done as well on post and did get very sick 2 months or so later. Of the other 3 pilot cases in this first batch one could only come up with in-the-org terminals so is another Exp Dn case and the other 2 assigned to study were severely bugged students so never got off the ground (one has now finished the course 4 months later). So that’s what happened to the original pilot.”

The second pilot was then ordered to determine the original possibility, that people could study their way out of being PTS.

SECOND PILOT

Three were put onto the PTS/SP Checksheet to study and three were handled by internes who had done the PTS/SP Checksheet themselves. The cases handled by auditing/interview steps completed their handlings within 10 hours. The study cases averaged 4-6 weeks of part-time study. Two studiers from the original pilot also completed the course. All were then watched for bad originations to the Examiner, medical reports, ethics trouble or trouble on post. In all cases, including those not yet complete on study, none of these indicators showed up. One case originated case troubles but this turned out to be one of the “Exp Dn” cases not PTSness.

On the study pilot the daily reports and success stories on completion uniformly mention more certainty, more stability and being more at cause with the data. Of particular interest is that three of the participants “cogged” they were not actually PTS (yet evidence of real PTS sits had gotten them on the project) but while they were studying they would align past PTS handlings they didn’t fully understand at the time, spot why past PTS terminals were correct or incorrect, spot terminals who gave them a hard time in the past and see why certain people behaved the way they did. In short it appears the studiers were blowing charge on their past PTS handlings and on terminals in their life almost like an auditing session and while they were saying not PTS, no longer PTS (now that they had the data) is probably closer to the truth. All are reported to be doing well on post with no illness, roller-coaster or ethics trouble.

The PTS handlers (who had done the PTS/SP pack) were of particular use where the person had a study bug that needed handling before study could be done and assisting in working out the handlings for PTS sits that were uncovered. Also S&Ds and 10 Aug HCOB handlings and PTS interviews are not Solo actions. And it takes hours, not intensives to handle.

FALSE PTS

As noted from the first pilot false PTSness must be watched for as unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness. This should be suspected when your “PTSes” start going above 20% of staff and public.

SUMMARY

We have had the tech of PTSness for years, but it wasn’t being fully used and then got mixed in with Exp Dn. PTSness can be handled routinely when the tech is fully known and applied. A PTS person can be brought to cause over his situation through study of the PTS tech. This is vitally important for staff. We can handle and the person himself can handle.

There is no substitute for understanding.

LRH:JE:nt	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1976	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	As assisted by CS-5

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1984
Remimeo
Execs	(Also issued as an HCO PL,
MAA/EO Hat	same date and title. )
Tech/Qual
C/Ses
Sec Checkers
De-PTSers
PTS Packs
SSOs
C/S Series 118

PRETENDED PTS

(This data is also issued as an HCO PL so that executives know what to look for when somebody that they have requested be handled in Ethics hasn’t been handled.)

Refs:
	HCOB  19 June 70 II	C/S Series 8
		CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION
	HCOB  3 May 80	PC INDICATORS
	HCOB  13 Oct. 82	C/S Series 116
		ETHICS AND THE C/S
	HCO PL 11 May 65	ETHICS OFFICER HAT
	HCOB  9 May 77 II	PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT
	HCOB  28 Nov. 70	C/S Series 22
		PSYCHOSIS
	HCO Info Letter 2 Apr. 64	TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE
	HUBBARD CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION

It is evident that asking directly for evil purposes as part of Sec Checking has been knocked out of use over the years by SPs.

It recently occurred that, in using Sec Checking to clean up several persons who had gotten into ethics trouble on their posts, a peculiar phenomenon and pattern came to light. The persons being handled had been asked for “overts” before and had “gotten them off” but would continue committing the overts. In each case they had blamed their difficulty on having been the effect of false data and black PR fed them by bad hats long since detected and removed from the area. However, these particular cases did not straighten out with de-PTSing actions.

These persons were then asked directly for evil purposes and this action finally got to the root of the matter.

APPARENT SEQUENCE

Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:

a. 	They “get off overts” but then continue committing them.
 
b. 	When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having “gone effect of others’ black PR or false data.” In other words, the person appears to be PTS.

c. 	They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that’s the end of the investigation.

d. 	If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).

In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.

What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.

We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which such people skid through the lines undetected. 

This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn’t work because the staff wasn’t handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.

This sequence shows the exact “failure” to handle people in RPFs, etc.

HANDLING

In handling a PTS, the C/S must monitor the person’s progress closely. This means inspection of all interviews and session worksheets, observing the results of each PTS handling action, his change of position (or lack of) on the Chart of Human Evaluation as evident from the pc folder and so forth.

Also, it is important that the Ethics Officer advise the D of P when a staff or public person is undergoing an ethics or justice action so that this can be noted in the person’s pc folder. In this way, the C/S can also find out if the pc has landed in ethics trouble. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S)

If the person is not making change, or repeatedly slipping into further out-ethics behavior, the C/S must recognize this. It is, possibly, the (a) to (d) sequence above in action. If the C/S suspects this to be the case, his action is to begin to handle the case with Sec Checking by a competent Sec Checker. And such Sec Checking must include questions about the person’s purposes and intentions.

Instead of only Sec Checking on, for example, “Have you committed an overt on the org?” one would also ask, “Have you had an evil purpose regarding the org?” Handled standardly in this way, the person can be expected to experience tremendous relief and case change.

CAUTION

If a person is progressing well on a de-PTSing program (such as PTS interview, PTS RD, Suppressed Person RD), is making change, keeping his personal ethics in and moving up the Chart of Human Evaluation, then it would be a C/S error to suddenly interject a Sec Check into his program.

ETHICS

None of this sets aside standard ethics and justice procedures. Such a person as would be found with a pretended-PTS situation is quite likely already under some justice action, and in fact doesn’t deserve immediate handling other than what HCO deals out.

SUMMARY

Some executives have gotten in the frame of mind that it is a waste of time trying to handle a bad hat. It is true the bad hat probably doesn’t deserve to be handled but it is nevertheless true that we do have the tools to handle one.

We’re not out to handle the insane, but whether we like it or not we live in a pretty insane civilization. Any data which handles that or amplifies it technically or solves it is of course extremely vital.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JUNE 1984

Remimeo 
Auditors 
C/Ses 
HCO Tech/Qual 
MAAs/Ethics Offs

C/S Series 118-1

EVIL PURPOSES AND FALSE PR

Refs:
	HCOB  28 Feb. 84	C/S Series 118
		PRETENDED PTS
	HCO PL  2 Apr. 65	FALSE REPORTS
	HCO PL  4 Apr. 72	Esto Series 14
		ETHICS

An additional point in the behavior of people with evil purposes has been found: They often covet their evil purposes up and usually with PR statements. These are actually false reports of one kind or another. The dominating behavior action is false reports and neglect of the real situation. Under all of that can generally be found an evil purpose.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 NOVEMBER 1970 
Remimeo 
Class VIIIs 
Class VIII Chksheet
C/S Series 22

PSYCHOSIS

Through a slight change of procedure on certain preclears I have been able to view the underlying motives and mechanisms of psychosis.

Very possibly this is the first time the mechanisms which bring about insanity have been fully viewed. I must say that it requires a bit of confronting.

The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been accomplished now and the footnote in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health concerning future research into this field can be considered fulfilled.

The things a C/S should know about insanity are as follows:

HIGHER PERCENT

About 15% to 20% of the human race apparently is insane or certainly a much higher percent than was estimated.

The truly insane do not necessarily act insane visibly. They are not the psychiatric obvious cases who go rigid for years or scream for days. This is observed only in the last stages or during temporary stress.

Under apparent social behavior the continual crimes knowingly committed by the insane are much more vicious than ever has been catalogued in psychiatric texts.

The actions of the insane are not “unconscious”. They are completely aware of what they are doing.

All insane actions are entirely justified and seem wholly rational to them. As they have no reality on the harmful and irrational nature of their conduct it does not often register on an E-Meter.

The product of their post duties is destructive but is excused as ignorance or errors.

As cases in normal processing they roller coaster continually.

They nearly always have a fixed emotional tone. It does not vary in nearly all insane people. In a very few it is cyclic, high then low.

All characteristics classified as those of the “suppressive person” are in fact those of an insane person.

The easiest ways for a C/S to detect the insane are:

1. 	Pretending to do a post or duties, the real consistent result is destructive to the group in terms of breakage, lost items, injured business, etc.

2. 	The case is no case gain or roller coaster and is covered under “PTS symptoms”.

3. 	They are usually chronically physically ill.

4. 	They have a deep but carefully masked hatred of anyone who seeks to help them.

5. 	The result of their “help” is actually injurious.

6. 	They often seek transfers or wish to leave.

7. 	They are involved in warfare with conflicts around them which are invisible to others. One wonders how they can be so involved or get so involved in so much hostility.

TYPES

The German psychiatric 1500 or so “different types of insanity” are just different symptoms of the same cause. There is only one insanity and from it springs different manifestations. Psychiatry erred in calling these different types and trying to invent different treatments.

DEFINITION

Insanity can now be precisely defined.

The definition is:

INSANITY IS THE OVERT OR COVERT BUT ALWAYS COMPLEX AND CONTINUOUS DETERMINATION TO HARM OR DESTROY.

Possibly the only frightening thing about it is the cleverness with which it can be hidden.

Whereas a sane person can become angry or upset and a bit destructive for short periods, he or she recovers. The insane mask it, are misemotional continuously and do not recover. (Except by modern processing.)

THE NATURE OF MAN

Man is basically good. This is obvious. For when he begins to do evil he seeks to destroy his memory in order to change and seeks to destroy his body. He seeks to check his evil impulses by inhibiting his own skill and strength.

He can act in a very evil fashion but his basic nature then makes it mandatory that he lessens himself in many ways.

The towering “strength” of a madman is a rarity and is compensated by efforts at self-destruction.

Man’s mortality, his “one life” fixation, all stem from his efforts to check himself, obliterate his memory in a fruitless effort to change his conduct and his self-destructive habits and impulses and losses of skills and abilities.

As this rationale proves out completely in processing and fits all cases observed, we have for the first time proof of his actual nature.

As only around 20% are insane, and as those who previously worked in the mental field were themselves mainly insane, Man as a whole has been assigned an evil repute. Govemments, where such personalities exist, listen to the opinion of the insane and apply the characteristic of 20% to the entire hundred percent.

This gives an 80% wrong diagnosis. Which is why mental science itself was destructive when used by states.

TECHNIQUES

The only technique available at this writing which will benefit the insane is contained in all the overt-motivator sequences and Grade II technology.

At Flag at this writing new improvement on this exists but it is so powerful that slight errors in use can cause a psychotic break in the insane. It therefore will only be exported for use by specially trained persons and this programming will require quite a while.

MEANWHILE it helps the C/S to know and use these firm rules:

ALWAYS RUN DIANETIC TRIPLES.

Never run Singles. The overt side (Flow 2) is vital. If you only run Flow 1 Motivators, the pc will not recover fully. Further running Flow 1 (Motivator only) any psychotic being processed will not recover but may even trigger into a psychotic break. If one never ran anything but motivators, psychotic manifestations would not erase.

DEPEND ON EXPANDED GRADE II TECHNOLOGY TO EASE OFF OR HANDLE THE INSANE.

Don’t keep asking what’s been done to him as he’ll trigger.

A new discovery on this is that when you run out the motivator the person gets a higher reality on his overts. If you ran out all his motivators he would have no reason for his overts. If these are not then run out he might cave himself in.

PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

The APPARENT pattern of insane behavior is to come in (ask for processing, go on staff, etc) with the advertised intention of being helped or helping, then mess up either as a pc or on post, then state how bad it all is and leave. It looks obvious enough. He came, found it bad, left.

That is only the APPARENT behavior. APPARENT REASONS.

Based on numerous cases, this is the real cycle. Hearing of something good that might help these hateful awful rotten nasty people, the psycho comes in, wrecks this, upsets that, caves in this one, chops up that one and WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS “NO!” the psychotic either

(a) 	Caves himself in physically or

(b) 	Runs away.

The psychotic is motivated by intent to harm.

If he realizes he is harming things he shouldn’t, he caves himself in. If he is afraid he will be found out, he runs.
In the psychotic the impulse is quite conscious.

CONCLUSION

None of this is very nice. It is hard to confront. Even I find it so.

Freud thought all men had a hidden monster in them for he dealt mainly with the psychotic and their behavior was what he saw.

All men are not like this. The percentage that are is greater than I supposed but is a long way from all men.

Sometimes one only becomes aware of these when things are getting worked on and improved. They stay on as long as it can be made bad or there is hope it can be destroyed. Then when attention is given to improvement they blow.

Artists, writers often have these types hanging around them as there is someone or something there to be destroyed. When success or failure to destroy or possible detection appears on the scene they blow, often as destructively as possible.

Orgs are subjected to a lot of this. A psychotic sometimes succeeds in blowing off good staff. And then sooner or later realizes how evil he is acting and sickens or leaves.

The society is not geared to any of this at all. The insane walk around wrecking the place and decent people think it’s “human nature” or “inevitable” or a “bad childhood”.

As of this writing the insane can be handled. The proof of any pudding is the processing. And this is successful. It is also rather swift. But, as I say, it is so swift the special technique has to be done by the specially trained flubless auditor.

For a long while I’ve realized that we would have to be able to handle insane people as the psychiatrist is fading. I have had opportunity to work on the problem. And have it handled. Until it is fully released, the C/S will benefit greatly from knowing the above as these come on his lines far more often than he has suspected.

The insane can be helped. They are not hopeless.

I trust this data will be of use.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 
LRH: rr.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 MAY 1977
Issue II
Remimeo
Ex Dn Course
Ex Dn Auditors
Ex Dn C/Ses
Expanded Dianetics Series 29

PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT
(Excerpted from HCOB 17 June 1971)

All aberration is to a greater or lesser degree nonsurvival.

To be rid of major aberrations is to have a new life.

To understand this one must understand the most severe aberration which is psychosis.

The actual basis of all psychosis is motive. It is NOT competence or incompetence.

Below all psychotic conduct lies an evil purpose.

Because psychiatry and psychology did not have this single technical fact they defined psychosis as “incompetence,” had the wrong target and so could not and never did understand psychosis and were thereby led into atrocities such as shocks and brain surgery and, in the country where these subjects originated (Germany), slaughtered 300,000 insane in gas chambers some time before Hitler came to power.

A true psychotic can be brilliant or stupid, competent or incompetent. It is his general motive or purpose that determines whether or not he is insane or sane.

Famous psychotics like Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin and Hitler were all quite brilliant yet wound up destroying everything in sight including their own people.

They had a destructive basic purpose. Every psychotic has one. It is usually covert, hidden, but in full play against his unsuspecting friends.

The sole difference in motive is whether it is destructive or constructive.

Everyone has a basic purpose. The psychotic has a destructive one.

The test of a personality then, is whether the result of a person’s activity is destructive or constructive.

Man is basically good. When he finds he is being too destructive he recognizes he is bad for others and seeks to leave. He will also try to become less powerful, ill or to kill himself.

The progress of psychosis then begins with a belief something is evil. This is followed with an effort to stop it. This stop becomes general. A basic purpose is then formed which contains an evil intent.

The being then goes on from disaster to disaster, seeking overtly or covertly to destroy everything around him.

At a guess about 15% to 25% of living human beings are psychotic and bring covert disaster to those around them and themselves.

The evil purpose is expressed by committing harmful acts and withholding them.

Ordinary overt/withhold processes, as in Grade II Expanded, can handle this condition providing the person can be audited and providing the evil purpose is also brought to view.

About 1/3rd of the psychotics handled in this way recover their sanity fully and lead constructive decent lives. Two-thirds are either so far gone or irresponsible hard to audit that they improve but are of little use.

Those already subjected to the brutalities of psychiatric “treatment” or psychological “counseling” are the most difficult.

Those who have been on drugs, particularly LSD 25 as developed by psychiatry “so their nurses would be able to experience what being insane feels like” around 1950, are very difficult cases.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Excerpted by 
FMO 1709 I/C

LRH:RS:lf 
Copyright © 1971, 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1981

Remimeo
THE CRIMINAL MIND

Definition: A criminal is one who is motivated by evil intentions and who has committed so many harmful overt acts that he considers such activities ordinary.

There is a datum of value in detecting overts and withholds in criminal individuals:

THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF IS DOING.

As an example, the psychiatrist accuses others engaged in mental practice of harming others or worsening their condition, yet the majority of psychiatrists maim and kill their patients and, by record, in all history have only worsened mental conditions. After all, that’s what they seem to be paid to do by the government.

The psychologist accuses others of misrepresenting what they do and lobbies in legislature continually to outlaw others on the accusation of misrepresenting but there is no psychologist who doesn’t know that he himself is a fake, can accomplish nothing of value and that his certificates aren’t even worth the printing ink. The psychologist goes further: He educates little children in all the schools to believe all men are soulless animals and criminals so that when the possible day of reckoning comes and the psychologist is exposed for what he is, the population will not be the least bit surprised and will consider the psychologist is “normal.”

The psychologist accuses others of sexual irregularities when this is, actually, his entire profession.

Jack the Ripper of English fame who gruesomely murdered prostitutes now turns out to have been a medical doctor and was undoubtedly of enormous assistance to the police in pointing out “the real murderer.”

The FBI agent or executive accuses others of graft and even sets up “abscams” to manufacture the crime. But an FBI agent regularly pockets money supposed to be paid to informers and then screams to protect informer sources that do not exist.

The FBI agent is terrified of being infiltrated and accuses others of it when, as standard practice, he infiltrates groups, manufactures evidence and then gets others charged for crimes his own plants have committed.

The FBI acts like a terrorist group posing as law enforcement officers. Their targets seem to be legislators and Congress and public individuals who might someday have power over public opinion, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
From all this we get another datum:

THE CRIMINAL MIND RELENTLESSLY SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYONE IT IMAGINES MIGHT EXPOSE IT.

You have to be very alert when criminals are around.

J. Edgar Hoover, who organized the present FBI and is still deified by it— they have his name in huge, brass letters on Washington, DC’s biggest thoroughfare—and that town doesn’t even have the names of former presidents up in lights—has been shown by subsequent records to have been a blackmailer and traitor to his country. He carefully, personally sat on the information for four months that Pearl Harbor was going to happen. Right up to the US entrance into World War II, he was autographing his photo for pals in the deadly German SS. He even sacked an FBI agent (Tureau) who dared to catch some German spies.

Doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and the government form a tight clique. Only the government would support such people as the public hates them.

From all this we get another datum:

INDIVIDUALS WITH CRIMINAL MINDS TEND TO BAND TOGETHER SINCE THE PRESENCE OF OTHER CRIMINALS ABOUT THEM TENDS TO PROVE THEIR OWN DISTORTED IDEAS OF MAN IN GENERAL.

It is not true that where any person accuses another of a crime the accuser is always guilty of the crime or that type of cri tme. But it is true that when a criminal is doing the accusing it is more than probable that the criminal is disclosing his own type of crime.

Apparently they add it up this way: “If I accuse him of robbing, then it would be assumed by others that I have not robbed a bank.” By loudly voicing a condemnation of a crime, the criminal, with a crooked think, supposes people will now suppose he is above bank robbery and won’t suspect him.

Groups like psychologists who declare as fact that all men are criminals are of course just dramatizing their own inclinations.

People assume that others have their own case. The psychologist pushes his own case off on the whole world.

Anyone researching in the mind should be very aware of this point and be sure not to do it. Subjective reality seems to them to be the only reality there is, for such people are too introverted to really know the minds and motivations of others.

When working with the criminal, one can get a very good idea of that person’s own mental state by getting him to say what other people want and do or are guilty of. It is inconceivable to the criminal that anyone could possibly be decent or honest or do a selfless act. It would do no good whatever to try to convince him, for he knows all men are like himself.

 Thus, one gets another datum of value:

THE CRIMINAL ONLY SEES OTHERS AS HE HIMSELF IS.

One of the reasons he does this, of course, is to justify injuring others. Because everyone else is useless, worthless, criminal, an animal and insane, why then, he reasons, it is perfectly all right to injure them.

Thus, we come to another datum:

THE CRIMINAL IS NOT MUCH BENEFITED BY THE GIVING OFF OF CURRENT WITHHOLDS AND IS NOT LIKELY TO REFORM BECAUSE OF THIS.

One, therefore, has to get down to the basic evil intentions, as in Expanded Dianetics.

There is another approach in that same area of technology which is finding what act the person really can take responsibility for. It is a gradient approach. The criminal is basically so subjective that an auditor will find, in the short run, that improving the reality of such a person is needful before any effective, overall improvement is obtained through pulling withholds.
Thus, TRs and 8-C and even ARC Straightwire are indicated as first steps. If these are done, and as responsibility rises, expect that overts could begin to pop up almost of their own accord.

It is interesting that if a criminal were to face up suddenly to the enormity of his crimes he would go into degradation and self-destruction. Thus, a gradient scale is definitely indicated.

As the person has more R (reality), he can take more responsibility and only then with pulling withholds can he have any real benefit.

This HCOB is simply some data on the criminal mind that might help.

At the very least it should give some understanding of why some individuals insist with such apparent conviction that all men are evil, why all men are insane, why all men are criminals.

And it also tells you how silly it is to try to argue with them. Who’s there?

The criminal mind is a bitter and unsavory subject. The percentage of criminals is relatively small but the majority of grief and turmoil in the world caused by criminals is a majority percent. Thus, the criminal mind is a subject one cannot avoid in research as it is a major factor in the distortion of a culture.

It is a mind like any other mind but it has gone wrong. It is motivated by evil intentions which, even if idiotic, are greater than the possessor’s ability to reason. The criminal, even when he seems most clever, is really very, very stupid. The evil intentions get dramatized by senseless overt acts which are then withheld, and the final result is a person who is more dead than alive and who faces a future so agonizing that any person would shudder at it. The criminal, in fact, has forfeited his life and any meaning to it even when he remains “uncaught” and “unpunished,” for in the long run, he has caught himself and punishes himself for all eternity. No common judge can give a sentence as stiff as that. They know down deep that this is true and that is why they scream with such ferocity that men have no souls. They can’t confront the smallest part of what awaits them.
When you understand what the criminal mind consists of, you can also understand how ghastly must be the feelings or lack of them with which the criminal has to live within himself and for all his days forever. He is more to be pitied than punished. Neither bold nor brave, for all his pretense, he is really just a panicky, whimpering coward inside. When he bares his breast against the bullets, he does so with the actual hope that he will be killed. But of course that doesn’t save him. He’s got an eternity of it left to go. And his scoff of any such data hides the whimper, for he knows, deep down, it’s true.

Thus, we have another datum:

THE CRIMINAL, NO MATTER WHAT HARM HE IS DOING TO OTHERS, IS ALSO SEEKING TO DESTROY HIMSELF. HE IS IN PROTEST AGAINST HIS OWN SURVIVAL.

If you have to work with criminals in pastoring, recognize what you are working with. He can be helped—if he will let you near him.

Fortunately, there are still a lot of decent people left in the world.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1982

Remimeo

THE CRIMINAL MIND AND THE PSYCHS

It has often been noted (and reported routinely in the papers) that criminals “treated” by psychologists and psychiatrists go out and commit crimes.

It could be suspected that these “practitioners” used pain-drug-hypnosis and other means (under the guise of treatment) to induce the criminal to go out and commit more crimes. And possibly they do.

But I have just made a discovery that sheds some light on this scene.

Morality and good conduct are sensible. That is the theme of The Way to Happiness. It follows (and can be proven) that immorality and bad conduct are stupid.

This bears out under further investigation. One could lay aside the ancient Greek speculations of “Good and Bad” and go on an easier and less contentious logic of “Bright and Stupid.”

Anything that a criminal seeks to obtain can be obtained without crime if one is bright enough. Criminals, as police can tell you, are usually very, very stupid. The things they do and clues they leave around are hallmarks of very low IQ. The “bright” criminal is found only in fiction. Now and then a Hitler comes along and begins a myth that the highly positioned are criminal—but Hitler (and Napoleon and all their ilk) were stupid beyond belief. Hitler destroyed himself and Germany, didn’t he? And Napoleon destroyed himself and France. So not even the highly placed criminals are bright. Had they really been bright, they could have accomplished a successful reign without crime.

The bones of old civilizations are signboards of stupidity. The jails are bursting with people so stupid they did bad things and even did those uncleverly.

So let us look at psychs again—what they call “treatment” is a suppression (by shocks, drugs, etc.) of the ability to think. They are not honest enough, these psychs, being just dramatizing psychotics themselves for the most part, to publish the fact that all their “treatments” (mayhem, really, when it is not murder) make people more stupid.

These actions of shock and crazy evaluative counseling, etc., lower IQ like an express elevator going down to the basement. They do not tell legislators this or put it in their books. This is why they say “no one can change IQ.” They are hiding the fact that they ruin it.

So the psych in prisons is engaging in an action (shocking or whatever) that makes people who are already criminal even stupider.

 Although they obviously tell their victims to go out and commit more crimes (the psychoanalysts urge wives to commit adultery, for instance), they would not have to do this at all to manufacture more crime.

Their “treatments” make the criminals more stupid. The stupid commit more crimes.

It is pretty simple, really, when you look at it.

Why does the state support psychiatrists and psychologists? Because the state is stupid? Or does it want more citizens robbed and killed? It’s one or the other. Take your choice.

One is bright and is moral and honest and does well or one is stupid and does badly.

The answer to crime is raising IQ. But only the Scientologist can do that.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MAY 1982
Remimeo

THE CAUSE OF CRIME

	They say poverty makes crime. They say if one improved education there would be less crime. They say if one cured the lot of the underprivileged one would have solved crime.

	All these “remedies” have proven blatantly false.

	In very poor countries there is little crime. The “improving” education, it was tailored to “social reform,” not teaching skills. And it is a total failure. The fact that rewarding the underprivileged has simply wrecked schools and neighborhoods and cost billions is missing.

	So who is “they”? The psychologist and psychiatrist, of course. These were their crackpot remedies for crime. And it’s wrecked a civilization.

	So what IS the cause of crime? The treatment, of course! Electric shocks, behavior modification, abuse of the soul. These are the causes of crime. There would be no criminals at all if the psychs had not begun to oppress beings into vengeance against society.

	There’s only one remedy for crime—get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!

	Ah yes, it’s true on cases and cases of research on criminals. And what’s it all go back to? The psychs!

	Their brutality and heartlessness is renowned.

	The data is rolling in. Any more you pick up off a criminal or anyone, send it in.

	On crime we have an epidemic running on this planet. The wrong causes psychs assign for crime plus their own “treatments” make them a deadly virus.

	The psychs should not be let to get away with “treatment” which amounts to criminal acts, mayhem and murder. They are not above the law. In fact, there are no laws at all which protect them, for what sane society would sanction crime against its citizens even as science? They should be handled like any other criminals. They are at best dramatizing psychotics and dangerous, but more dangerous to society at large than the psychotics they keep in their offices and loony bins because they lie and are treacherous. Why the government funds them I do not know. They are the last ones that should be let loose to handle children.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 APRIL 1965
Remimeo
HCO 	JUSTICE DATA RE ACADEMY & HGC
D of P Hat	HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
D of T Hat	THE BASIS OF INSANITY

The suppressive person (whom we’ve called a Merchant of Fear or Chaos Merchant and which we can now technically call the suppressive person) can’t stand the idea of Scientology. If people became better, the suppressive person would have lost. The suppressive person answers this by attacking covertly or overtly Scientology. This thing is, he thinks, his mortal enemy since it undoes his (or her) “good work” in putting people down where they should be.

There are three “operations” such a case seeks to engage upon regarding Scientology: (a) to disperse it, (b) to try to crush it and (c) to pretend it didn’t exist.

Dispersal would consist of several things such as attributing its source to others and altering its processes or structure.

If you feel a bit dispersed reading this Policy Letter, then realize it is about a being whose whole “protective colouration’ is to disperse others and so remain invisible. Such people generalize all entheta and create ARC Breaks madly.

The second (b) is done by covert or overt means Covertly a suppressive person leaves the org door unlocked, loses the E-Meters, runs up fantastic bills, and energetically and unseen seeks to pull out the plug and get Scientology poured down the drain. We, poor fools, consider all this just “human error” or “stupidity”. We rarely realize that such actions, far from being accidents, are carefully thought out. The proof that this is so is simply If we fun down the source of these errors we wind up with only one or two people in the whole group. Now isn’t it odd that the majorfry of errors that kept the group enturbulated were attributable to a minority of peons present? Even a very “reasonable” person could not make anything else out of that except that it was very odd and indicated that the minority mentioned were interested in smiashing the group and that the behaviour was not common to the whole group—meaning it isn’t “normal” behaviour.

These people aren’t Communists or Fascists or any other ists. They are just very sick people. They easily become parts of suppressive groups such as Communists or Fascists because these groups, like criminals, are suppressive.

The Suppressive Person is hard to spot because of the dispersal factor mentioned above. One looks at them and has his attention dispersed by their “everybody is bad”.

The Suppressive Person who is vfsfbly seeking to knock out people or Scientology iS easy to see. He or she is making such a fuss about it. The attacks are quite vicious and full of lies. But even here when the Suppressive Person exists on the “other side” of a potential trouble source, visibility is not good. One sees a case going up and down. On the other side of that case, out of the auditor’s view, is the Suppressive Person.

The whole trick they use is to generalize entheta. “Everybody is bad.” “The Russians are all bad” “Everybody hates you.” “The People versus John Doe” on warrants. “The masses” “The Secret Police will get you.”

Suppressive groups use the ARC Break mechanisms of generalizing entheta so it seems “everywhere”.

The Suppressive Person is a specialist in making others ARC Break with generalized entheta that is mostly lies.

He or she is also a no-gain-case.

So avid are such for the smashing of others by covert or overt means that their case is bogged and won it move under routfne processing.

 The technical fact is that they have a huge problem, long gone and no longer known even to themselves which they use hidden or forthright vicious acts continually to “handle”. They do not act to solve the environment they are in. They are solving one environment, yesterday’s, in which they are stuck.

The only reason the insane were hard to understand is that they are handling situations which no longer exist. The situation probably existed at one time. They think they have to hold their own, with overts against a non-existent enemy to solve a non-existont problem.

Because their overts are continuous they have withholds.

Since such a person has withholds, he or she can’t communicate freely to as-is the block on the track that keeps them in some yesterday. Hence, a “no-case-gain”.

That alone is the way to locate a Suppressive Person By viewing the case. Never judge such a person by their conduct. That is too difficult. Judge by no-case-gains; Don’t even use tests.

One asks these questions:

1. 	Will the person permit auditing at all? or

2. 	Does their history of routine auditing reveal any gains?

If (1) is present one is safe to treat the person as suppressive. It is not always correct but it is always safe. Some errors will be made but it is better to make them than to take a chance on it. When people refuse auditing they are (a) a potential trouble source (connected to a Suppressive Person), (b) a person with a big discreditable withhold; (c) a Suppressive Person or (d) have had the bad luck to be “audited” too often by a Suppressive Person or (a) hare been audited by an untrained auditor or one “trained” by a Suppressive Person.

[The last category (e) (untrained auditor) is rather slight but (d) (audited by a Suppressive Person) can have been pretty serious, resulting in continual ARC Breaks during which auditing was pressed on without regard to the ARC Break.]

Thus there are several possibilities where somebody refuses auditing. One has to sort them out in an HGC and handle the right one. But HCO by policy simply treats the person with the same admin policy procedure as that used on a Suppressive Personand lets HGC sort it out. Get that difference-its “with the same admin policy procedure ash not “the same as”.

For treating a person “the same as” a Suppressive Person when he or she is not only adds to the confusion. One treats a real Suppressive Person pretty rough. One has to-handle the bank.

As to (2) here is the real test and the only valid test: Does their history of routine auditing reveal any gains?

If the answer is NO then there is your Suppressive Persons loud and very unclear!

That is the test.
There are several ways of detecting. When fair auditors or good ones have had to vary routine procedure or do unusual things on this case in an effort to make it gain when there are lots of notes from Ds of P in the folder saying do this-do that-you know that this case was trouble.

This means it was one of three things: 1. a potential trouble source 2 a person with a big withhold 3. a Suppressive Person.

If despite all that trouble and care, the case did not gain-or if the case simply didn’t gain despite auditing no matter how many years or intensives, then you’ve caught your Suppressive Person.

That’s the boy. Or the girl.

This case performs continual calculating covert hostile acts damaging to otllers. This case puts the enturbulence and upset into the environment, breaks the chairs, messes up the rugs and spoils the traffic flow with “goofs” done intentionally.

One should lock criminals out of the environment if one wants security. But one first has to locate the criminal. Don’t lock everybody out because you can’t find the criminal.

The cyclic case (gains and collapses routinely) is connected to a Suppressive Person. We have policy on that.

The case that continually pleads “hold my hand I am so ARC broken” is just somebody with a big withhold, not an ARC Break.

The Suppressive Person just gets no-case-gain on routine student auditing.

This person is actively suppressing Scientology. If such will sit still and pretend to be audited the suppression is by hidden hostile acts which includes:

1. 	Chopping up auditors;
2. 	Pretendmg withholds which are actually criticisms;
3. 	Giving out “data” about their past lives and/or whole track that really holds such subjects up to scorn and makes people who do remember wince;
4. 	Chopping up orgs;
5. 	Alterising technology to mess it up;
6. 	Spreading rumours about prominent persons in Scientology;
7. 	Attributing Scientology to other source;
8. 	Criticizing auditors as a group;
9. 	Rolling up Dev-T, off policy, off origin, off line;
10. 	Giving fragmentary or generalized reports about entheta that cave people in—and isn’t actual;
11. 	Refusing to repair ARC Breaks;
12. 	Engaging in discreditable sexual acts (also true of potential trouble sources);
13. 	Reporting a session good when the pc went bad;
14. 	Reporting a session bad when the pc went up in tone;
15. 	Snapping terminals with lecturers and executives to make critical remarks or spread ARC Break type “news” to them;
16.	Failing to relay comm or report;
17. 	Making an org go to pieces (note one uses “making” not “letting”);
18. 	Committing small criminal acts around the org;
19. 	Making “mistakes” which get their seniors in trouble;
20. 	Refusing to abide by policy;
21. 	Non-compliance with instructions;
22. 	Alter-is of instructions or orders so that the programme fouls up;
23.	Hiding data that is vital to prevent upsets;
24. 	Altering orders to make a senior look bad;
25 	Organizing revolts or mass protest meetings;
26. 	Snarling about Justice.

And so on. One does not up the catalogue, however one only uses this one fact-no case gain by routine auditing over a longish period.

This is the fellow that makes life miserable for the rest of us. This is the one who overworks executives. This is the auditor killer. This is the course enturbulator or pc killer.

There’s the cancer. Burn it out.

In short, you begin to see that it’s this one who is the only one who makes harsh discipline seem necessary. The rest of the staff suffers when one or two of these is present.

 One hears a whine about “process didn’t work” or sees an alter-is of tech. Go look. You’d find it now and then leads to a Suppressive Person inside or outside the org.

Now that one knows who it is, one can handle it.

But more than that, I can now crack this case!

The technology is useful in all cases, of course. But only this cracks the “no-gain-case”.

The person is in a mad, howling situation of some yesteryear and is “handling it” by committing overt acts today. I say condition of yesteryear but the case thinks it’s today.

Yes, you’re right. They are nuts. The spin bins are full of either them or their victims There’s no other real psycho in a spin bin!

What? That means we’ve cracked insanity itself? That’s right. And it’s given us the key to the Suppressive Person and his or her effect on the environment. This is the multitude of “types” of insanity of the 19th century psychiatrist. All in one. Schizophrenia, paranoia, fancy names galore. Only one other type exists=the person the Suppressive Person got “at”. This is the “manic-depressive” a type who is up one day and down the next. This is the Potential Trouble Source gone mad. But them are in a minority in the spin bin, usually put there by Suppressive Persons and not crazy at all! The real mad ones are the Suppressive Persons. They are the only psychos.

Over simplification? No indeed. I can prove it! We could empty the spin bins now. If we want to. But we have better uses for technology than saving a lot of Suppressive Persons who themselves ant only to scuttle the rest of us.

You see, when they get down to no-case-gain where a routine process won’t bite, they can no longer as-is their daily life so it all starts to stack up into a horror. They “solve” this horror by continuous covert acts against their surroundings and associates. After a while the covert ones don’t seem to hold off the fancied “horror” and they commit some senseless violence in broad daylight-or collapse-and so they can get identified as insane and are lugged off to the spin bin.

Anybody can “get mad” and bust a few chairs when a Suppressive Person goes too far. But there’s traceable sense to it. Getting mad doesn’t make a madman It’s damaging actions that have no sensible detectable reasons that’s the trail of madness. Any thetan can get angry. Only a madman damages without reason.

All actions have them lower scale discreditable mockery. The difference is, does one get over his angers The no~casesin of course can’t. He or she stays misemotional and adds each new burst to the flre. It never gets less. It grows. And a long way from all Suppressive Persons are violent. They are more likely to look resentful.

A Suppressive Person can get to one solid dispassionate state of damaging things. Here is the accident prone, the home wrecker, the group wrecker.

Now here one must realize something The Suppressive Person finds outlet for his or her unexpressed rage by carefully needling those they are connected with into howling anger.

You see the people around them get dragged into this long gone incident by mistaken identity. And it is a maddening situation to be continually misidentified, accused, worked on, double crossed. For one is not the being the Suppressive Person supposes The Suppressive Person’s world is pretty hard to live around. And even ordinarily cheerful people often blow up under the strain.

So be careful who you call the Suppressive Person. The person connected with a Suppressive Person is liable to be only visible rage in sight!

You have some experience of this-the mousey little woman who rarely changes expression and is so righteous connected to somebody who now and then Yes into a frenzy.

 POLICY

When an Academy finds it has a Potential Trouble Source, a “withholdy case that ARC Breaks easily” or a Suppressive Person enrolled on a course or a blow the Academy must call for HCO Department of Inspection & Reports, Justice section. This can be any HCO personnel available, even the HCO Sec.

The HCO representative must wear some readily identified HCO symbol and must take a report sheet with a carbon copy on a clip board.

HCO must have present other staff adequate to handle possible physical violence.

The student, if still present must be taken to a place where an interview will not stop or enturbulate a class, by Tech Division personnel. This can be any Tech Division office, empty auditing room or empty classroom. The point is to localize the commotion and not star up the whole Tech Division.

If Tech Drvision personnel is not available HCO can recruit “other staff’ anywhere by simply saying “HCO requires you” and taking them into the interview place.

HCO has a report sheet for such matters, original and one copy for Justice files.

The HCO representative calls for the sfudent’s folder and looks it over quickly for TA action. If there is none (less than 10 divs/sess) that’s it. It is marked on the report sheet, “No TA actions in auditing” or “Little TA”. HCO is not interested in what processes were run. Or why there is no TA. If the course requires no meters the folder is inspected for alter-is (which denotes a rough pc) or no case changes.

If there are no TA notations in the folder HCO should put the person on a mater, making sure the person is not wearing a ring. One asks no questions, merely reads the TA portion and notes the needle and marks these in the report sheet. The Tone Arm will be very high (5 or above) or very low (2 or less) or dead thetan (2 or 3) and the needle would be an occasional RS or stuck or sticky if the person is a Suppressive Person. This is noted in the report sheet.

If the folder or the student in question says he has had no case gain this is again confirming of a Suppressive Person.
If two of these three points (folders meters statement) indicate a Suppressive Person, HCO is looking for two possible students when so called in—the one who caused the upset and that student’s coach or student’s auditor. There very likely may be a Suppressive Person on the course that is not this student. Therefore one looks for that one too, the second one.

If a bit of questioning seems to reveal that the student’s auditor was responsible, test that student too, and enter it on a second HCO report form. And order the other one to auditing at the student’s own expense.

In short be alert. There’s been an upset. There may be other persons about who caused it. Don’t just concentrate on the student. There is a condition on the course that causes upsets. That is really all one knows.

When one walks in on it. Find out why and what.

If the HCO tests indicate some doubt about either student being a Suppressive Person, HCO asks about a possible withhold and enters any result on the sheet and sends the students and sheet separately to the Tech Division, Dept of Estimation. The procedure is the same for a Suppresswef Person but is “a withholdy pc who ARC Breaks easily” or simply “a withholdy pc” if no ARC Breaks are noted. “Auditing recommended”.

But there is a third category for which HCO is very alert in this interview. And that is the POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE.

For this person may only be audited further if he or she disconnects or handles the Suppressive Person or group to which he or she is connected and can’t be sent to the HGC or back to the course either until the status is cleared up.

 How to tell them apart? Easy! Just ask this question:

Which gets a case gain easily?

Well, it’s even simpler than that! Put the two on an E-Meter. Don’t do anything but read the dial and needle. The Suppressive one has the high stuck T.A The other has a lower T.A Simple?

Not all Suppressive Persons have high T.A. The T.A can be anywhere especially very low (1.0). But the needle is weird. It is stuck tight or it RSes without reason (the pc wearing no rings to cause an RS).

Suppressive Persons also can have the “dead” thetan clear read!

You see people around a Suppressive Person Q and A and disperse. They seek to “get even” with the Suppressive Person and often exhibit the same symptoms temporarily

Sometimes two Suppressive Persons are found together. So one can’t always say which is the Suppressive Person in a pair. The usual combination is the Suppressive Person and the Potential Trouble Source.

However you don’t neat to guess about it or observe their conduct.

For this poor soul can no longer as-is easily. Too many overts. Too many withholds. Stuck in an incident that they call “present time”. Handling a problem that does not exist Supposing those around are the personnel in their own delirium.

They look all right. They sound reasonable. They are often clever. But they are solid poison. They can’t asks anything. Day by day their pile grows Day by day their new overts and withholds pin them down tighter. They aren’t here. But they sure can wreck the place.
There is the true psycho.

And he or she is dying before your very eyes. Kind of horrible.

The resolution of the case is a clever application of problems processes, never o/w. What was the condition? How did you handle it? is the key type of process.

I don’t know what the percentage of these are in a society. I know only that they make up about 10% of any group so far observed. The data is obscured by the fact that they ARC Break others and make them misemotional—thus one of them seems to be, by contagion, half a dozen such

Therefore simple inspection of conduct does not reveal the Suppressive Person. Only a case folder puts the seal on it. No Case Gain by routine processes.

However this test too may soon become untrustworthy for now we can crack them by a special approach However we will also generally use the same approach on routine cases as it maka cases go upward fast and we may catch the Suppressive Person accidentally and cure him or her before we are aware of it.

And that would be wonderful.

But still we’ll have such on our lines in Justice matters from now on. So it’s good to know ad about them, how they are identified, how to handle.

HCO must handle such cases as per the HCO Justice Codes on Suppressive Acts when they blow Scientology or seek to suppress Scientologists or orgy One should study up on these.

The Academy should be careful of this and report them to HCO promptly Gas they would potential trouble sources or withholds that won’t be delivered). The Academy must nor fool about with Suppressive Persons It’s a sure way to deteriorate a course and cave in students
 
If this seems the case, there is no point in continuing the person in the Tech Division and HCO takes over fully, applying the policy related to Potential Trouble Sources.

This type of case will probably not be dangerous but quite co-operative, and probably dazed by having to do something about his situation. He or she has been hammered with invalidation by a Suppressive Person and may be rather wobbly but if the Justice steps are taken exactly on policy there should be no trouble. HCO can take a Potential Trouble Source (but never a Suppressive Person) out of the Tech Division premises and back to HCO to complete such briefing. Remember, it is all one to us if the Potential Trouble Source handles it or not. Until it’s handled or disconnected we don’t want it around as it’s just more trouble and the person will cave in if audited under those conditions (connected to a Suppressive Person or group).

A Suppressive Person found in an Academy is ordered to H(;C processing always. And always at hit or her own expense.

If the Suppressive Person won’t buy auditing, or co-operate, HCO follows steps A to E in policy on Suppressive Persons in the Justice Codes, HCO may be assisted in this by Tech personnel.

The point is, the situation must be handled fully there and then. The student buys his auditing or gets A to E or both. There is no “We’ll put you on probation in the course and if . . .” because I’ve not fount it to work. Auditing or Suppressive Person A to E. Or both.

THE BLOWN STUDENT

The student however may have blown off the premises or he has gone entirely. On a minor, momentary blow, where all it took was the student’s auditor and a few words to get the student back, the matter is not a real blow.

But where the student leaves the premises in a blow or doesn’t turn up for class, the Tech Division must send an Instructor and the student’s auditor over to HCO Department of Inspection and Reports An HCO representative should go with them at once to pick up the student.

The student is brought back with as little public commotion as possible and the procedure of HCO checkout, ctc. is followed as above.

THE GONE STUDENT

Where the student can’t be gotten back (or in all such cases) the real cause may be a Suppressive Person in the Course itself, not the blown student or the upset student.

If the Suppressive Person is on the course (and is not the blown student) HCO will want to know this. In all such cases the one who caused the environment may not be the culprit.

The HCO representative calls for the blown student’s case folder and looks for TA. If there is none or for some reason the student wasn’t audited, or if no meters were used on that course, HCO seeks to find out what the case’s responses were to processing

If the case seemed to change or improve yet the student is gone, HCO looks over the blown student’s ex-auditor for suppressive characteristics such as satisfaction the pc blew, critical statements about tech or instructors, case rough or difficult, lies about the circumstances, eta and if such signs are present, HCO orders the blown student’s ex-auditor to the HGC at the student’s own expense.

If this interview with the blown student’s auditor seems to indicate a Suppressive Person beyond any doubt HCO orders the student to the HGC at the student’s own expense.

The blown student’s course auditor will not be found usually to be a Potential Trouble Source as these are seldom bad or rough auditors, so questions about this possibility don’t really apply.
 
But if this student (the blown student’s auditor) is Suppressive, it’s HGC or A to E. If the student gives on A to E he or she may be returned to course or to the HGC as HCO deems best.

In all such cases where a Suppressive Person is found, watch out for legal repercussions by having reliable witnesses present during such negotiations or upsets and take liberal notes for possible Comm Ev. This is why there also must be an HCO representative handling it.

If there is no agreement to be audited and the student who is found to be a Suppressive Person will not respond to A to E (because student has blown and can’t be found or because the student flatly refuses), the student is considered terminated.

A waiver or quit claim is given or sent the student stating:

Date 
Place

I ............................having refused to abide by the Codes of (name and place of org) do hereby waive any further rights I may have as a Scientologist and in return for my course fee of..........I do hereby quit any claim I may have On (name or org) or any Scientologist personnel or any person or group or
organization of Scientology.

Signed
Witnesses

Only when this is signed the student may have his course fee returned, but no other fees as he accepted that service.

The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and outside our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind beyond refund. And after signing can only return to Scientology as per policy on Fair Game.

The HGC audits such a Suppressive Person sent to it on special processes specially issued by HCO B for Suppressive Persons. It will be found that adherence to these policies will make in Academies very calm.

Note: Nothing in this policy letter waives or sets aside any policy concerning the auditing of known institutional cases in an HGC Persons with histories of institutionalized insanity may not be audited in HGC.

L RON HUBBARD

P.S. If you’ve wondered if you are a Suppressive Person while reading this—you aren’t! A Suppressive Person never does wonder, not for a moment! THEY KNOW THEY’RE SANE!

LRH:wm:ccden 
Copyright © 1965 
by L Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1976R
REVISED 5 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Only revision is the correction of the definition of a
rock slam. Revisions in this type style.)
Remimeo
All Sec
Checkers
All HCO	Ref: HCOB 3 Sep 78,
All Meter	DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM
Operators

R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN

(HANDLING OF CONFESSIONALS CHECKSHEETS)
(PTS PROCESSING CHECKSHEETS)
(EXPANDED DIANETICS CHECKSHEETS)
(METER OPERATION CHECKSHEETS)
(VARIOUS RUNDOWN CHECKSHEETS)

The crazy, irregular, left-right slashing motion of the needle in the E-Meter dial is called “A rock slam” or “R/S.” It repeats left and right slashes unevenly and savagely, faster than the eye easily follows. The needle is frantic. The width of an R/S depends largely on sensitivity setting. It goes from one-fourth inch to whole dial. But it slams back and forth.

The term was taken from a process in the 50s which sought to locate “A rock” on the pc’s early time track; the “slam” is a description of the needle violence, meaning it “slams” back and forth. For a time all left-right motions of the needle were considered and called “rock slams” until it was found that a smooth left-right flow was a symptom of release or key-out and this became the “floating needle.” There is yet another left-right motion of the needle called the “theta bop.” This occurs when the person has or is trying to exteriorize. “Theta” is the symbol for the person as a spirit or goodness; “bop” is an electronic term for a slight hitch in the sweep of a needle. A “theta bop” hitches evenly at each end of the sweep left and right and is very even in the middle of the sweep.

Neither the “floating needle” nor the “theta bop” can be confused with a “rock slam.” The difference of the rock slam is uneven, frantic slashing left and right; even the distances traveled left and right are likely to be different in each swing from the last.

A “rock slam” can be caused sometimes by leaving rings on the pc’s fingers or by a short circuit in the meter or by the cans (electrodes) touching something like a dress. These are the mechanical considerations and must be ruled out before the pc can be considered to have “rock slammed.” If the pc is not wearing rings and if the meter needle is calm with the lead unplugged, if the lead is okay, and if the pc is not jiggling the ends of the cans against his clothes, then the pc’s rock slam is caused by the pc’s bank .

One has to be very careful about the correctness of the pc actually having rock slammed while on the meter, that it was actually observed, that it was not mechanically caused as above. One puts the R/S down on the worksheet and also gives exactly what was asked. And also that the mechanical points were checked without distracting the pc.

ONE MUST ALWAYS REPORT A ROCK SLAM IN THE AUDITING REPORT, NOTE IT WITH SESSION DATE AND PAGE INSIDE THE LEFT COVER OF THE PC’S FOLDER AND REPORT IT TO ETHICS INCLUDING THE QUESTION OR SUBJECT WHICH ROCK SLAMMED, PHRASED EXACTLY.

Why? Because the rock slam is the most important needle manifestation! It gives the clue to the pc’s case.

In 1970 I began a full-scale research project into the subject of insanity and its relationship to cases and case gains and suppression. It was only then that the full significance of the rock slam was unearthed. This research developed into what is now called EXPANDED DIANETICS, a series of special processes and actions with their drills and training which permits the auditor to handle a specific case type. This was, by the way, Man’s first system of positive detection and handling of psychosis and the first full understanding of what psychosis is.

While this bulletin is not in any way a two-minute course in or a substitute for full training in Expanded Dianetics, any auditor who audits, Sec Checks, or handles people on a meter has to know what a rock slam is and how it behaves and what he should do about it.

The first thing is to be able to recognize one and to quickly with the scan of the eye and unplug of the meter cord (without any distraction of or notice by the pc) make the checks for a mechanical rock slam as given above.

You can make a meter “rock slam” with no pc or cord connected to it by (a) turning it on; (b) put the sensitivity at perhaps 2; © put the needle at “set”; (d) rapidly, very rapidly, move the TA back and forth maybe a quarter of an inch and do it unevenly. That, if you did it very fast and unevenly, would be something that resembled a rock slam. But no matter how fast you made your fingers move, a real R/S is a trifle faster. If you do that you will see what an R/S looks like. The needle in this experiment is not made to hit the sides of the meter.

Now if you take the same set-up and smoothly slowly move the tone arm back and forth about 2 times a second without any roughness and the same distance right and left, you will have a floating needle. Note it very well as this comes at a time of release and is the thing a good auditor hopes to see and gives him the end-off signal for a process. It has to be well known as you NEVER bypass one in a session and to do so makes an uncomfortable pc. (The pc will often cognite—get a realization about himself or life at this point and one does not stop him from doing this.) This is the thing you indicate to the pc. You don’t ever indicate rock slams or theta bops. When you see it, and without stopping or interrupting the pc’s cognition, you always say, “Your needle is floating.”

Now the theta bop can also be shown to yourself by you. Set up the meter as above. Only this time, you smoothly swing it to the right and give it a tiny twitch in the same direction. Then you smoothly, at once, swing it to the left and give it a tiny twitch in the same direction. Then do it to the right. And so on. This is a theta bop. It is different than a floating needle only in that it hitches at each end of the swing. So learn to recognize it.

There is a vicious smooth right direction slash that occurs when a pc hits a certain area of the bank that is called a “rocket read” and there is of course the small fall, long fall (which both go to the right and indicate a charged question or reaction) and there is the gradual rise to the left. But these do not repeat back and forth which is the characteristic of the rock slam, floating needle and theta bop.

All right, so we know exactly what it looks like when we talk about a ROCK SLAM as a read of the meter. We know how it can be mechanically caused. And we know what we have to record and report when it is seen.

But exactly what does a rock slam mean with regards to the pc?

If you don’t know this you can miss on the pc, on the case, on the org and humanity.
A ROCK SLAM MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OR QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION OR AUDITING.

Two things underlie insanity, or to be more specific, there are two causes and conditions both of which have been lumped together by man and called insanity. He could not of course define it as he didn’t know what caused it.

The first of these two things does not concern us overly much here and is the subject of a separate checksheet and training and is called PTS or Potential Trouble Source handling. A “PTS” is a person who has been or is connected with somebody who has evil intentions. A PTS can feel uncomfortable in life or be neurotic or go insane because of the actions upon him of a person with evil intentions. Most of the people in institutions are probable PTSes.

The second of these two things is insanity caused to the individual himself (let alone others) by hidden evil intentions.

The extent of these intentions and what the person will do (and hide) in order to carry them out is quite shocking. These people are covert or overt criminals and many of them are insane—meaning beyond all rationality in their acts. Because their evil intentions are hidden and because they are often very plausible such individuals are what make “behavior so mysterious” and “Man look so evil when you see what Mankind does” and all sorts of fallacies.

It is this last type, the chronic, heavy rock slammer, which Expanded Dianetics handles.

One rock slam doesn’t make a psychotic. Or a total menace to everyone. But it does mean there could be more and it might in rare cases mean you have, seeing enough of these R/Ses, a very dangerous person on your hands and in your vicinity. And that person must be handled by Expanded Dianetics.

You won’t see a great many rock slams in auditing people so you could be totally thrown off by surprise when you see one. And mess it all up because you are surprised. So know what it is and don’t get all quivery and make mistakes and blow your confront. Just carry on.

If you don’t note the EXACT question that was asked and the EXACTLY worded statement the pc made when the R/S was seen, you can muck it up for the Expanded Dianetics guys. They won’t be able to get it turned back on again easily and will lose a lot of time. So you have to be sure your auditing report is accurate, that the R/S is written BIG on the column and circled and, no matter what else you do in the session, you have to get it recorded in the left front cover of the folder giving the date and page of the session and you have to report it to Ethics. And also you don’t third party the pc and give him a bad time in the session because of it.

Now R/Ses most easily turn on during Sec Checks or Integrity Processing or when pulling withholds or trying to investigate something. So the people who see these most often are those engaged in that activity and not routine auditing (when they can also but more rarely turn on). Further the most likely person to collide with “needing to be Sec Checked” is an R/Ser, which again increases the numbers of R/Ses seen in these activities compared to routine auditing. But a very heavy R/Ser will also turn them on in routine auditing.

It is the exact point of the R/S in the session, the exact question that was asked and the exact subject or phrase where the R/S turned on that are important. And these are very important as then the person can be fully handled with a full Expanded Dianetics Rundown by a qualified Expanded Dianetics Specialist. When, of course, the person gets to that point on his Grade Chart. The Grade Chart points are after Dianetics (like Drug RDs, etc.) but before grades, after grades but before Power, after Power but before Solo, and after OT III or after any single grade above OT III. These are the only points where Expanded Dianetics can be delivered and the R/S fully and completely handled.

Now here is how you can turn off an R/S and mistakenly think it is handled:

1. 	The overt-motivator sequence has two sides. One is what the person has done (overt) and what is done to the person (motivator). You can ask, when the person R/Ses on something, if anyone has ever INVALIDATED him on that subject or action. He will find some and the R/S will turn off AND WON’T EVEN BE FAINTLY HANDLED BUT ONLY SUBMERGED. One can believe he has “handled” the R/S. Not true. He has just turned it off and maybe made it harder to find next time. One can ask what the person has done TO the subject mentioned and while this may unburden the case and make the person a bit better, the R/S is NOT handled, only turned off or submerged. It’s almost as if there are so many overts and motivators on this subject or in this area that the push-pull of it makes the needle go wild (R/S). And indeed, this may be the energy cause, in the bank, of the needle reaction. But neither overt nor motivator handles an R/S finally because the CAUSE of the R/S is an INTENTION to harm and it isn’t all that likely the basic intention will be reached.

2. 	Another apparent way the R/S can get “handled” and isn’t is to take the R/Ser earlier similar on the subject of the R/S. The R/S will probably cease, go “clean.” But in actual fact it is still there, hidden.

3. 	The third way an R/S can be falsely “handled” is to direct the person’s attention to something else. If, when this is done, the exact subject of the R/S is not noted by the auditor, it will be difficult to find it again when the person goes into Expanded Dianetic auditing.

4. 	Yet another, and probably the last way to falsely “handle” an R/S is to abuse the person about his conduct or behavior or the R/S, or to “educate” him to do better, or to “modify” his behavior with shocks or surgery or other tortures like the psychiatrists do. In other words one can seek to suppress the R/S in numerous ways. Maybe the R/S won’t occur (being too overburdened now) but it is still there, buried very deep and possibly beyond reach now.

So if you understand the above four points you will see that although you can ease off the R/S, you have not handled it. It has merely gone out of sight.

All right, what then DOES HANDLE an R/S?

I warned you that this isn’t a two-minute course on Expanded Dianetics and it isn’t. An R/S is HANDLED by a fully qualified Expanded Dianetics auditor delivering full Expanded Dianetics to the person at that point on the Grade Chart where Expanded Dianetics is supposed to be delivered. If anyone thinks it can be done effectively any other way or if he C/Ses it to be done and the auditor is stupid enough to try to do that C/S, then it’s Committees of Evidence and suspended certificates all around.

With that warning, and only with that warning, I can briefly state what has to be done with the case. This is not what YOU do if you are not delivering full Expanded Dianetics at the right point on the Grade Chart. It is a brief statement so that you can understand what lies under that R/S.

The pc with an R/S on any given subject and who R/Ses while discussing that or related subjects HAS AN EVIL INTENTION TOWARD THE SUBJECT DISCUSSED OR SOME CLOSELY RELATED SUBJECT. The pc intends that subject or area of life nothing but calculating, covert, underhanded HARM which will be at all times carefully hidden from that subject.

Thus, the Expanded Dianetics Specialist, in handling that case (at the proper point on the Grade Chart) has to be able to locate each and every subject and question and R/S in that person’s folder as noted by Sec Checkers and previous auditors or Cramming Officers or Why Finders. He has to have the complete list of R/S subjects. If they are noted as to session date and page and if all Sec Checking papers and cramming papers are in that person’s folder, then the Expanded Dianetics Specialist can do a full and complete job. Otherwise he has to do a lot of other time wasting actions to get the R/Ses found and turned on again.

What the Expanded Dianetics Specialist actually does is locate EXACTLY the actual evil intention for every R/S on the case and handle each one to total conclusion. When he is finished, if he has done his job well, the person’s behavior will be magically improved and as to his social presence, menace and conduct, well that will be toward survival.

When you see an R/S, if you are not an Expanded Dianetic Specialist doing Expanded Dianetics at the correct point on the Grade Chart, you don’t say “Hey, you’ve got an evil intention!” and you don’t ask “Say, what’s that evil intention?” or do corny things like that because you’ll get the pc self-listing, you may get a wrong item, you won’t know what to do with it and you’re just likely to get the auditing room wrapped around your neck right there.

No, you quietly note it, make sure it isn’t a mechanical fault, write it big on the worksheet, write down everything the pc is saying swiftly, note what question you were asking and let the pc talk and ack him and go on with what you are doing with the pc at the time. And after session you note it in the left-hand cover of the folder and send a report to Ethics.

And some day, when he’s done his Drug Rundown or gotten to one of the points on the Grade Chart where a full XDn can be done, why then it will be handled. And a good C/S will program or tip the case for that to be done.

So that’s the know-how you have to know about R/Ses to really help the guy and the society and your group.

We’re not in the business of curing psychos. The governments at this writing pay the psychiatrists billions a year to torture and kill because of R/Ses they don’t know anything about. The crime in the society out there is caused by people who R/S. Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar were probably the most loaded R/Sers of all time unless it was Jack the Ripper or your local friendly psychiatrist.

So know what you are seeing when you see it and know what to do about it. And don’t kid yourself. Or vilify or mow down people who R/S; we’re not in that business.

And the Expanded Dianetic Specialist and the pc someday will love you dearly for knowing your job and doing it right.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.dr 
Copyright © 1976, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JUNE 1984
Remimeo	Issue I
Auditors
C/Ses
HCO
Tech/Qual
MAAs/Ethics Offs
New Class IX
(ACS) Auditors
False Purpose RD
C/S Course
ROCK SLAMS, MORE ABOUT

Refs:
	HCOB3 Sept. 78	DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM
	HCOB 10 Aug. 76R	R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN
	Rev. 5.9.78
	HCOB 1 Nov. 74RA	ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK SLAMMERS
	Rev. 5.9.78

It is true that an R/S indicates an underlying evil intention. And if one occurs it is vital that it be noted clearly. But an R/S is only an indicator.

R/Ses found in folders sometimes can’t be made to repeat due to additional overburden or new withholds or something of the sort. A rock slam is a definite indicator but it is not THE indicator. There are various reasons for this—the auditor might be looking somewhere else, the meter may be discharged and the R/Ses missed or, on the other hand, a bad connection in the line or the pc wearing rings can also turn on a false R/S.

The point is that in detecting an evil purpose one would not rely totally on whether or not an R/S did or did not turn on. It is just an indicator. It’s not proof. A person ‘ s conduct and his actions are a proof. Thus, behavior and production records are a more reliable indicator.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1965
Issue II
Remimeo	
Franchise
Students
BPI
All Levels

THE CONTINUING OVERT ACT

Pity the poor fellow who commits daily harmful acts.

He’ll never make it.

A criminal pilfering the cash box once a week has himself stopped cold as far as case gains are concerned.

In 1954 I counted some noses. I checked up on 21 cases who had never had any gains since 1950. 17 turned out to be criminals! The other 4 were beyond the reach of investigation.

That gave me my first clue.

For some years then, I watched for no-gain cases and carefully followed up those that I could. They had major or minor criminal backgrounds.

This gave the 1959 breakthrough on the meter checks (Sec Checking).

Following it further since 1959 I have finally amassed enough histories to state:

THE PERSON WHO IS NOT GETTING CASE GAINS IS COMMITTING CONTINUING OVERTS.

While this sounds like a very good “out” for us, we assume that the auditor at least tried something sensible.

Today—the running of a pc by grades is a saving grace for merely “tough cases”. Directors of Processing are doing well with the modern graded process approach, level by level, and the D of P Washington has just told me they were cracking cases with the lowest grade processes DC had never been able to handle well before.

So, given processing by Grades (the best case approach we’ve ever had), we crack the rough ones.

But will that be all cases?

There’s still one. The case who continually commits overts before, during and after processing.

He won’t make it.

One thing helps this, however.

You have seen the Ethics Codes appear.
By putting a bit of control in the Scientology environment we have enough threat to restrain dramatization.

The phenomena is this: The reactive bank can exert stress on the pc if it is not obeyed. Discipline must exert just a shade more stress against dramatization than the bank does. This checks the performance of the continual overt long enough to let processing bite.

Not everyone is a continuous overt committer by a thousand to one. But this phenomenon is not confined to the no-gain case.

The slow gain case is also committing overts the auditor doesn’t see.

Therefore a little discipline in the environment speeds the slow gain case, the one we’re more interested in.

The no-gain case, frankly, is one I am not panting to solve. If a fellow wants to sell his next hundred trillion for the sake of the broken toy he stole, I’m afraid I can’t be bothered. I have no contract with any Big Thetan to save the world complete.

It is enough for me to know:

1. 	Where bottom is, and

2. 	How to help speed slow gain cases.

Bottom is the chap who eats your lunch apple and says the children did it. Bottom is the fellow who sows the environment with secret suppressive acts and vicious generalities.

The slow gain case responds to a bit of “keep your nose clean, please, while I apply the thetan-booster.”

The fast gain case does his job and doesn’t give a hoot about threatened discipline if it’s fair. And the fast gain case helps out and the fast gain case can be helped by a more orderly environment. The good worker works more happily when bad workers see the pitfalls and desist from distracting him.

So we all win.

The no-gain case? Well, he sure doesn’t deserve any gain. One pc in a thousand. And he yaps and groans and says “Prove it works” and blames us and raises hell. He makes us think we fail.

Look down in our Sthil files. There are actually thousands upon thousands of Scientologists there who each one comment on how wonderful it is and how good they feel. There are a few dozen or so who howl they haven’t been helped! What a ratio! Yet I believe some on staff think we have a lot of dissatisfied people. These no-gain characters strew so much entheta around that we think we fail. Look in the Saint Hill files sometime! Those many thousands of reports continue to pour in from around the world with hurrah! Only the few dozen groan.

But long ago I closed my book on the no-gain case. Each of those few dozen no-gains tell frightening lies to little children, pour ink on shoes, say how abused they are while tearing the guts out of those unlucky enough to be around them. They are suppressive persons, every one. I know. I’ve seen them all the way down to the little clinker they call their soul. And I don’t like what I saw.

The people who come to you with wild discreditable rumours, who seek to tear people’s attention off Scientology, who chew up orgs, are suppressive persons.
Well, give them a good rock and let them suppress it!

I can’t end this HCO B without a confession. I know how to cure them rather easily.

Maybe I’ll never let it be done.

For had they had their way we would have lost our chance. It’s too near to think about.

After all, we have to earn our freedom. I don’t care much for those who didn’t help.

The rest of us had to sweat a lot harder than was necessary to make it come true.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ml.rd 
Copyright © 1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 1972

Remimeo
ROBOTISM

(Reference HCOB 28 Nov 1970, C/S Series 22,
“Psychosis” . )

A technical advance has been made in relation to the inactivity, slowness or incompetence of human beings.

This discovery proceeds from a two and a half year intense study of aberration as it affects the ability to function as a group member.

The ideal group member is capable of working causatively in full cooperation with his fellows in the achievement of group goals and the realization of his own happiness.

The primary human failing is an inability to function as himself or contribute to group achievements.

Wars, political upsets, organizational duress, growing crime rates, increasingly heavy “justice”, growing demands for excessive welfare, economic failure and other age long and repeating conditions find a common denominator in the inability of human beings to coordinate.

The current political answer, in vogue in this century and growing, is totalitarianism where the state orders the whole life of the individual. The production figures of such states are very low and their crimes against the individual are numerous.

A discovery therefore of what this factor is, that makes the humanoid the victim of oppression, would be a valuable one.

The opening lines of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health comment on Man’s lack of an answer for himself.

The group needs such an answer in order to survive and for its individual members to be happy.

SCALE

NEEDING ORDERS

The exact mechanism of needing orders is to be found as an outgrowth of the mental condition outlined in HCOB 28 Nov 1970, “Psychosis”.

The individual with an evil purpose has to withhold himself because he may do destructive things.

When he fails to withhold himself he commits overt acts on his fellows or other dynamics and occasionally loses control and does so.

This of course makes him quite inactive.

To overcome this he refuses any responsibility for his own actions.

Any motion he makes must be on the responsibility of others.

He operates then only when given orders.

Thus he must have orders to operate.

Therefore one could term such a person a robot. And the malady could be called robotism.

PERCEPTION

Studies of perception undertaken since HCOB 28 Nov 70 reveal that sight, hearing and other channels of awareness decrease in proportion to the number of overt acts—and therefore withholds—which the person has committed on the whole track.

By relieving these sight has been remarkably brightened.

Therefore a person who is withholding himself from committing overt acts because of his own undesired purposes has very poor perception.

He does not see the environment around him.

Thus, combined with his unwillingness to act on his own initiative, there is a blindness to the environment.

OVERT PRODUCTS
(see P/L 14 Nov 70, Org Series 14)

Since he does not act upon orders he is taking responsibility for, he executes orders without fully understanding them.

Further he executes them in an environment he does not see.

Thus when forced to produce he will produce overt products. These are called so because they are not in actual fact useful products but something no one wants and are overt acts in themselves—such as inedible biscuits or a “repair” that is just further breakage.

SLOWNESS

The person is slow because he is moving on other-determinism, is carefully withholding himself and cannot see anyway.

Thus he feels lost, confused or unsafe and cannot move positively.

Because he produces overt products he gets slapped around or goes unthanked and so begins a decline.

He cannot move swiftly and if he does has accidents. So he teaches himself to be careful and cautious.

JUSTICE

Group justice is of some use but all it really does is make the person withhold himself even harder and while a necessary restraint, nevertheless does not itself bring a lasting improvement.

Threats and “heads on a pike” (meaning examples of discipline) do however jar the person into giving his attention and channeling his actions into a more desirable path from the group viewpoint.

Justice is necessary in a society of such people but it is not a remedy for improvement.

MALICE

Despite the viciousness of the truly insane, there is little or no real malice in the robot.

The truly insane cannot control or withhold their evil purposes and dramatize them at least covertly.

The insane are not always visible. But they are visible enough. And they are malicious.

The robot on the other hand does control his evil impulses to a great extent.

He is not malicious.

His danger mainly stems from the incompetent things he does, the time of others he consumes, the waste of time and material and the brakes he puts on the general group endeavor.

He does not do all these things intentionally. He does not really know he is doing them.

He looks in wounded surprise at the wrath he generates when he breaks things, wrecks programs and gets in the way. He does not know he is doing these things. For he cannot see that he is. He may go along for some time doing (slowly wasteful) well and then carelessly smashes the exact thing that wrecks the whole activity.

People suppose he cunningly intended to do so. He seldom does.

He winds up even more convinced he can’t be trusted and that he should withhold harder!

FALSE REPORTS

The robot gives many false reports. Unable to see, how can he know what is true?

He seeks to fend off wrath and attract good will by “PR” (public relations boasts) without realizing he is giving false reports.

MORALE

The robot goes into morale declines easily. Since production is the basis of morale, and since he does not really produce much, left to his own devices, his morale sags heavily.

PHYSICAL INERTIA

The body is a physical object. It is not the being himself.

As a body has mass it tends to remain motionless unless moved and tends to keep going in a certain direction unless steered.

As he is not really running his body, the robot has to be moved when not moving or diverted if moving on a wrong course.
Thus anyone with one or more of such beings around him tends to get exhausted with shoving them into motion or halting them when they go wrong.

Exhaustion only occurs when one does not understand the robot.

It is the exasperation that exhausts one.

With understanding one is not exasperated because he can handle the situation. But only if he knows what it is.

PTS

Potential Trouble Sources are not necessarily robots.

A PTS person generally is withholding himself from a Suppressive Person or group or thing.

Toward that SP person or group or thing he is a robot! He takes orders from them if only in opposites.

His overts on the SP person make him blind and non-self-determined.

BASIC WHY

The basic reason behind persons who cannot function, are slow or inactive or incompetent and who do not produce is

WITHHOLDING SELF FROM DOING DESTRUCTIVE THINGS, AND THUS UNWILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND THEREFORE NEEDING ORDERS.

The exact wording of this WHY must be done by the individual himself after examining and grasping this principle.

If one writes this principle down on the top of a sheet and then asks the person to word it exactly as it applies to himself one will attain the individual why for inaction and incompetence. It will produce GIs and F/N at the Examiner.

PROCESSING

Physical work in the physical universe, general confronting, reach and withdraw; and Objective Processes go far in remedying this condition.

Touch assists regularly and correctly given to proper End Phenomena will handle illnesses of such persons.

Word Clearing is vital tech to open the person’s comm lines, wipe out earlier misunderstoods and increase his understanding.
PTS tech will handle the person’s robotism toward SP individuals, groups or things. To this and the PTS Rundown can be added the WHY above as it relates to the things or beings found as suppressive as a last step.

The why above can be used in Danger Formula work such as HCO P/L 9 April 72, Correct Danger Formula, and HCO P/L 3 May 72, “Ethics and Executives”. Other individual whys can exist in these instances.

EXPANDED DIANETICS

The miracle of well done perfectly executed Expanded Dianetics eradicates both insanity and robotism. Drug handling and other actions may be necessary.

END PRODUCT

The end product when one has fully handled robotism is not a person who cannot follow orders or who operates solely on his own.

Totalitarian states fear any relief of the condition as they foolishly actively promote and hope for such beings. But this is only a deficiency in their own causes and their lack of experience with fully self-determined beings. Yet education, advertising and amusements have been designed only for robots. Even religions existed to suppress “Man’s Evil Nature”.

Lacking any examples or understanding many have feared to free the robot to his own control and think even with horror on it.

But you see, beings are NOT basically robots. They are miserable when they are.

Basically they prosper only when they are self-determined and can be pandetermined to help in the prosperity of all.

LRH:sb.bh 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1977
(Also published as HCO PL, same date.)
Remimeo
EDs. COs
HESes. S/Cs
HCOs
HASes
Sec Checkers	C/S Series 100
Case Supervisors
Staff Section Officers
JOKERS AND DEGRADERS

It is an old principle that people who do not understand something occasionally make fun of it.

A recent investigation however into the backgrounds and case condition of a small handful of people who were joking about their posts and those around them showed a somewhat more sinister scene.

Each of these persons fell into one or more of the following categories:

1. 	Were rock slammers. (Some List 1.)

2. 	Were institutional type cases.

3. 	Were “NCG” (meaning no case gain) (the only cause of which is continuous present time overts).

4. 	Were severely PTS (Potential Trouble Source) (connected to rock slammers).

It might be supposed that misunderstood word phenomena could also be part of this. The rebellious student in universities is usually handled by clearing up his misunderstoods or curing his hopelessness for his future. However, the investigation did not find that any of these jokers or degraders were acting that way solely because of misunderstood words, but the possibility cannot be ruled out.

The four categories above were, however, fully verified.

All the persons investigated were found to be the subject of declining statistics, both having them and causing them. Their areas were enturbulated. At least one of the jokers was physically driving basic course students out of an org.

In some cultural areas, wit and humor are looked upon as a healthy release. However, in the case of orgs, this was not found to be the case. Intentional destruction of the org or fellow staff members was the direct purpose.

Therefore all executives, HCO personnel and Case Supervisors as well as Qual personnel and Staff Section Officers have a valuable indicator. Where they have a joker or degrader on their hands they also have one or more of the above four conditions in that person.

This opens the door to handling such people.

Properly assigned and then fully done conditions are the correct ethics handlings.
Correctly done Expanded Dianetics, which includes Confessionals and fully done PTS handlings are the case remedies.

Where ethics tech itself is not known or neglected and where there are no HCOs one can, of course, not expect the matter to be handled. And this would be too bad because the case gain and life improvement available in proper ethics handlings, when fully followed through, can be quite miraculous.

Where rock slammers have been undermining the tech and it is not fully known or used or is altered into unworkability one cannot expect Confessionals to be properly done or Expanded Dianetics to be known and properly applied.

The joker is advertising his symptoms. He is also advertising an area of the org where there is enturbulation and down statistics as well as staff members being victimized.

Therefore this is an administrative and technical indicator which cannot be overlooked and should be followed up.

Spotted, investigated and handled, this can be the beginning of an upward spiral for an organization.

Where someone is driving ethics out, tech is not likely to go in. You have to get in ethics and tech before you can begin to get in admin.

The next time you, as an executive, wonder why you are working so hard, look for the joker in the deck.

Humor is one thing. Destroyed orgs and human beings are quite something else.

It is our business to get the show on the road and get the job done.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH: If 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 MARCH 1977

Remimeo
Expanded Dianetics Series 25

THE GAMBLER

An obsessive gambler is a psychotic just like a drug addict or an alcoholic.

They are handled the way you handle any other psychotic. They don’t have to do anything for real in life because it all depends on chance and never on themselves. So you have them on the minus effect scale.

Life isn’t real to a psychotic gambler and therefore they never really buckle down to anything. Consequences are unreal to them and criminal acts are incomprehensible as nothing is real anyway.

Getting off overts is nothing to such people because they are not there and take no responsibility for them. Everything else is responsible—not them. Thus you have to find the trail to the R/Ses on the subject and discharge those.

This aspect of such a case is the emergency number one handling.

It has to be recognized for what it is—PSYCHOSIS.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH: if 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MARCH 1984
Remimeo
All Orgs
Tech/Qual
C/Ses
Auditors
Sec Checkers
Solo C/Ses	URGENT—IMPORTANT

C/S Series 119

STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR: SOLVED

(This bulletin modifies any earlier HCOBs on the subject
of what can or cannot be run on Dianetic Clears.)

Refs:
	Book: Advanced Procedure and Axioms, 1951, Chapter “Postulates”
	Book: Scientology 0-8, Chapter 3, “Consideration and Mechanics”
	HCOB6 Sept. 78 II	SERVICE FACSIMILES AND
		ROCK SLAMS
	HCOB6 Sept. 78 III	ROUTINE THREE SC-A
		FULL SERVICE FACSIMILE
		HANDLING UPDATED WITH
		NEW ERA DIANETICS
	HCOB 12 Sept. 78	DIANETICS FORBIDDEN ON
		CLEARS AND OTs
	HCOB 3 May 80	PC INDICATORS
	HCOB 30 July 80	THE NATURE OF A BEING
	HCOB 14 Dec. 81	THE STATE OF CLEAR
	HCOB 8 Mar. 82R	CONFESSIONALS AND THE
		NON-INTERFERENCE ZONE
	HCOB 28 Feb. 84	C/S Series 118
		PRETENDED PTS

Note: Earlier, various persons carefully obliterated the technical data given below (and the tech of Expanded Dianetics) from use, to effectively bar Dianetic Clears from going any further up the Bridge and becoming fully powerful beings.

The major steps for a Dianetic Clear moving up the Bridge are:

CCRD and the Sunshine Rundown
Solo Auditor Course Part 1
OT Preparations/Solo Setups
Solo Auditor Course Part 2
Eligibility for OT Levels Check.

There is no reason to interfere with a Dianetic Clear who is progressing on that route or who is progressing on the route between OT I and OT III and doing well. They should not be interfered with by Sec Checking or anything else, really.
 
But where the person in this zone is moving slowly or stalled, there is a technical factor which must be known and taken into consideration:

Dianetic Clears who do not go up the Bridge are still subject to the vagaries and pressures of life.

Therefore, to handle any of the points of possible hang up, the following are included as allowed handlings on a Dianetic Clear:

PTS handlings, but no Dianetics

Confessionals, including Sec Checking on evil purposes

The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or evil intentions

False purpose checks

O/Ws

Disagreement Checks

Black PR handling

Service fac handling (by the bracket method only, which does NOT use engram running)

Rudiments

Happiness Rundown

Scientology Drug Rundown (as it uses Recalls), only if required
Method One Word Clearing

End of Endless Int Rundown, only if required (Note: This is a major rundown, not a repair action.)

and the Flag-only rundowns of L10, L11, L12.

The following actions can also be done to assist a Dianetic Clear who is stalled or not actively moving up the Bridge:

Ethics condition formulas

Repair of Past Ethics Conditions

Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics

Actions given in the Product Debug Series HCOBs (False Data Stripping, Crashing Mis-U Word Finding, Product Debug Checklist, etc.)
POSTULATES

The fact that one can sec check a Dianetic Clear and can locate purposes and nonsurvival considerations does not in the least make less of the state of Clear. It is simply a matter of a different case phenomena on a Clear than on a preclear.

The definition of Clear is:

A BEING WHO NO LONGER HAS HIS OWN REACTIVE MIND.

Postulates and considerations can stand independently of mental mass. Therefore, if anybody said you couldn’t find postulates or try to spot them on Dianetic Clears then that is false data.

One can locate all the postulates one wants on a Dianetic Clear so long as he doesn’t go into running engrams. Finding postulates and considerations is a free field on a Dianetic Clear; there is no slightest prevention of it. Finding and handling evil purposes is also in the area of postulates. And a Dianetic Clear can also be black PRed and go PTS.

Because someone is Dianetic Clear is no reason he does not still have postulates in place or counter-survival considerations which, cleared up, could improve his power as a being.

You will find that people who are not burdened with overts and black PR and evil purposes ARE going on up the route to the top. What stalls the person is lack of Sec Checking and discovery of any PTSness or black PR or evil purposes and the like—all of them counter-survival.

THE TECHNICAL FACT IS THAT IF THE PERSON IS NOT GETTING ON UP THE LEVELS, IF HE IS CLEAR AND/OR IS IN THE NON-INTERFERENCE ZONE AND IS MOVING SLOWLY OR STALLED, HE IS A CANDIDATE FOR HANDLING OF THESE FACTORS.

The handling of a Dianetic Clear on these is the same as for any preclear, with the proviso that no engram running may be attempted. One CAN handle postulates, purposes, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or intentions and O/Ws. One can do false purpose checks, Disagreement Checks, black PR handlings, service fac handling (without running engrams) and rudiments on a Dianetic Clear, and one can also do all types of PTS handling that do not call for running engrams. And one had better get the appropriate handling done in such cases. You’ll find the person experiences huge relief from being rid of these nonsurvival factors and he can then move on up to his next level and get the gains that are there to be achieved.

SUMMARY

It is expected that responsible technical terminals will ensure the needed handling gets done where a Dianetic Clear is not progressing well.

A person at the point of Clear should take effective measures to get himself
 up the Bridge. But where this is not occurring, he needs help in the form of the exact technical action that will enable him to progress.

We are in the business of making beings more able. Here we have restored to use powerful tools with which to do it.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE No. 1

A lecture given to the Flag Dianetic Auditing Team on the 30 March 1972

7203C30 SO

EXPANDED DIANETICS

All right. This is 30th of March ‘72 and I’m about to roll up your misunderstood word record. We have here the ED 149 Flag. Cheer up, it doesn’t look that bad. It isn’t that bad, really, honest. Could be much worse. They might not be getting any help at all. They might just be thrown away in a garbage can someplace. 

All right. this is, this was a Dianetic project and this is ED 149 Flag that we’re activating. And the situation was, we have too many chronic sickies and the probable why is Quickie Dianetics. And the auditing stats are low. Dianetic auditors cannot find pcs. And the ideal scene is Dianetics working to proper pc completion on each case. 

And the program with this was a leading auditor to be appointed from Interns and that was done. And the leading auditor to, the leading auditor to select four auditors— one to fly ruds and three Dianetics to make a team—by the leading auditor. That’s been done. Three—team to be fully cleared on what really is a Dianetic completion— Director of Personnel Enhancement. Was that done? All right. Now four—folders of the MO’s chronic sickies list furnished by the MO to be assembled. You did that, he had already gotten his list, which was really what prompted the program. And five— FESes done on their cases. Now you’ve done that. And six—folders brought to LRH and LRH to gen in the team. And we’re at that stage right now. And then we’ve got programs to be written for each case to briefly repair and do real Dianetics on. All right. 

Now, hand me that first folder that I had there a moment ago. All right. Now let’s take, let’s take a look at this pc and you’ve done a Folder Error Summary on this pc of some kind or another here. And here’s an OCA in here someplace. This isn’t the one I was looking at but that doesn’t matter. 

And there’s no excuse for an auditor not knowing about OCAs, just no excuse at all. He should, of course, be able to give one, he should be able to grade one and so forth. But read one, that is where the auditor comes in. 

Now all of this stuff they write on the back of the OCA means nothing. That is for the graduation of somebody from PE over to auditing or something. And they can tell them things like this, and they’re all perfectly true. But that is not, in actual fact, what an auditor does with one of these. 

The first thing an auditor does, one of these things is look to see whether or not there is any point below the center line. Now what in actual fact is the center line? The American APA has a center line which is zero, above which we get plus and below which we get minus. You’ve seen those, haven’t you? All right. Well, this is essentially the same thing except the OCA has a better center graph. 

Now the center line here of 00 is the critical point of the graph. Now just a little bit into this lower gray shaded area is not too bad. But when they go down into the white, like a minus 62 or a minus 76 or a minus 26 or something like that, they’re said to be in the white. So there’d be two conditions here, is below the center line, which would mean  any negative, and in the white. Now this is such a gross thing that an auditor does that it is hardly worth writing text books about. And people will tell you there’s much more to know about this. There isn’t. 

When they’re in the white on the left, they’re out of valence. I don’t care where on the left or at what point we call the middle, left or right of the graph. It’s when they’re low on the left, in the white on the left, they’re out of valence. 

When they’re low on the right, they’re crazy. And I’m just using that advisedly. This happens to be a fact. See, it’s not the usual social statement, “Oh, oh, he’s crazy.” See, this guy is psychotic. 

So low on the left, out of valence; low on the right, crazy. When they’re low on the left, it means the case is too heavily charged. It is very, very, very heavily charged. so the person cannot even come to the center of his bank. He can’t be in the middle of his bank and look at it. He has been living for eons watching himself so that the pictures he takes are outside. Now you can get that kind of a condition from somebody who’s exterior. But there’s two conditions of exteriorization: one is looking at oneself and one is making pictures of oneself over there. So, when you have that condition, you know that if you have a low on the left, it’s a very heavily charged case On running such a case you have to be very careful only to run things that read very well. Prefer to run secondaries. 

Now when you do narrative running on such a case, C/S , that’s your health form and so forth, you bleed that. In other words, you just get all you can out of that on the subject of emotional stresses on a low on the left—deaths, losses of brothers and sisters and dogs and cats, see’? You bleed that for emotional stress situations. Now there are three lists and it’s perfectly legitimate for you to use these lists. All of your tools haven’t been assembled in Dianetics or the Dianetic auditor has not fully used his tools. There’s LX3 LX2 and LX1. Now because those are listed in the Class 8 materials, the Dianetic auditor never seems to know about them. 

Now when you’ve bled the white form of emotional   situations, you do not now bleed the white form of painful situations. Noooo. You get  an LX3, LX2, LX1. And you take the best reads that you can get. And you run that and they will come snap into valence providing you’ve done it more or less in that sequence. You’ve bled the deaths off the case or something like that. Now you go into your LX3, LX2 , LX1 thing. Now you’re going to get some more emotions off the case. 

Now you’re still running secondaries. Now secondaries will very often drop through into engrams. All right, so they drop through into engrams. Run the chain. But be careful you haven’t jumped chains.   

All right. So much for the left side of the graph. You will find out if you do what I’ve just told you it will suddenly come up and it will be above the center line. Now when you think of all of the difficulty people have in trying to raise one of these graphs . . . 

Now the instructions I’m giving you are simply to bleed the case for any charge. Now if it doesn’t come up above the center line at that point, more LX3, 2,1. Try to get them to F/Ning lists. Now maybe he’s remembered a whole bunch of horrible experiences he’s had, and you might be able to do LX3, LX2, LX1. And go back now and do a new white form and find out you have an entirely new white form on the subject of horrible experiences that were terribly emotional, and losses of business and things like that. 

Now what will happen at the same time is the fellow’s memory will push back. Now a person who is very low on the left side does very, very well if he can remember back to the time when he was 1, or, the 16-year-old will do a, he can remember back to, she can remember back when she was twelve or something like this. Now you start pushing back his memory without treating this at all. His memory will simply go back. His memory will go back to extreme youth. Now you’re not paying much attention to that, but it’s just one of the things that comes up. The fellow can remember better. You’re not even running recall processes, don’t you see. But then you’ll get somebody telling you, “You know, why that’s a funny thing. I just never remember that old house and so forth” and start waf waf waf waffle waffle waffle. 

All right, now that bleeds the case of the emotional charge. So if you’ve got a low on the left, this is how you enter the case. All right, so much for that. 

You, as I say, you could probably do your LXes, you could probably come back and bleed it and you’d finally find some more deaths and you might even go back and find new reads on the LXes; who knows? He might even find by this time and volunteer there’s an emotion that isn’t on the LX list or something of this sort, you see. Who knows what? That happens. 

But your end phenomena, as far as you’re concerned, is this thing up above the center line on the left side. Soon as you got that up above the center line on that side, great three cheers, you’re away because the fellow’ll be in valence. Now he’ll be able to confront something. 

All right, so now let’s take it low on the right. Now this person’s crazy .Now when they’re low on the left and low on the right, you handle the left side. And it will come up and then you handle the right side. When they’re only low on the right and slightly low on the left, you still handle them from the left. In other words, it’s left to right. Got it? 

Now this person who’s low on the right - research on this - this person opened the door to the human mind. What the psychiatrists and psychologist should have been doing, the alienists and the Aesculapians and everybody who worked in this particular field — only the Aesculapian was working in both mental and physical healing back at Greek times. This, solving this, solved the human mind for its first time in history. That is an evil purpose. And that is all it is. 

Now by evil purpose we mean the fellow has destructive intentions. And he’d be very difficult to audit sometimes. Sometimes he’s very smooth to audit. But this case will roller coaster. You audit him today and he’s fine and tomorrow he’s complaining. You, at first, you let him out of the session and “Oh, feeling fine, you know, I’ve never felt so good in my life.” and he walks right straight to the examiner “Had an awful session.” He roller coastered just in that distance because you see, he’s trying to do himself in on all dynamics. Even though he says to do others in, he is still doing himself in because an evil purpose makes him restrain himself. A thetan is basically good. So he knows he’s being evil so therefore he had better put on his brakes.  So this includes never, under any circumstances, letting himself go. And that includes the fellow who is committing evil acts all the time. He’s still got the brakes on but can’t put them on hard enough.  Brakes are burned out. But he’s still trying just as that driver would be stamping his foot through the floor board, he’s still trying. It gives him a very heavy massive bank, very heavy. You’ll run in them black, a few masses and you’ll run into this and invisibilities and so forth. 

Now a great many people can’t go into Dianetics at all. They can’t run an engram at all. That is uniformly one of two things. It is drills or the commands have not been cleared. So, the second you start running one of these fellows and he says, “Well, you know, I really don’t like Dianetics.” Now you’re in a cleft stick. Now what do you do? Down on the left, down on the right, and doesn’t know how to, doesn’t like to run Dianetics. Well, now you’ve had it. But fortunately for us, why, there is a remedy to it—is he will be able to run the drugs because that’s what he’s stuck in. He’ll run those automatically . 

So if you run into that condition you are one more step away from home. You’ve got to handle the drugs, handle the emotions, handle the engrams, see. 

Now there’s some areas that can he worked on here by other auditors and by, that is to say, by people with upper scale auditing but let me tell you something here, all these postulates, evil purposes and everything else are stuck in an engram. Now there are other phenomena in the bank than this but they’re all stuck in that heavy energy. And if you pull too many thoughts, one after the other, out of the bank which has not been properly discharged on the left side here of it’s emotional charge, and of the right side of it’s pain and heavy energy mass - if you just kept running, pull the postulate out , get the goals out of it, get the this out of it, get something else out of it - you’re just leaving that stuff there. Actually it’s starting to group. And if it has been misrun in any way, it will group.
So let’s go one step further away from home now. Somebody started a drug rundown but botched it up. Now we’re way away from home. Now if any of these cases are in this condition, you run out the auditing. And then you run out the drugs and then you run out the emotions, and then you run out the pain. Now you got it? Now there are fast ways to run out auditing by an assessment. But auditing actually also can be run out by straight Dianetics and you will get all of it out. Do you see where we’re going here? In other words, if you approach what you’re doing here from a totally Dianetic viewpoint and do it in the sequence that it can be done in Dianetics, you’re away. 

Now there are other ways to short-circuit these other things. That is to say, bring them up, get them done fast, pull the evil purpose out of the bank, do this, do that, do the other thing, you see. You understand? You can do a tremendous job of X or XI Class dating, and locating and blow that stuff. And you can do these other things. 

The only one I know of that you get hung up on is where rudiments are out long duration. Now did it ever occur to you that you could run rudiments with engrams? Did it ever occur to you? The way you’d run an ARC break; you would simply assess affinity, reality, communication and understanding, and you would run a time that you did not. And what do you know—it’ll run. Only this time you’ll really run it. 

So if a person won’t talk to you, you could actually list a list of which way he was withholding, like false withholds, suppressed withholds. Run it with R3R. Now you would find a very, very interesting thing happening here. You’ll find out this would go all the way back to China and off the planet and into outer space, see. So you don’t necessarily have to have an upper scale auditor hanging over you all the time. 

Now when you bung one up in the session, you can still do an L1C, if the guy’s bunged up in the session and so forth. If the case has to be generally repaired, there could be something very wrong with the ease, and you can do a GF. A GF5 can be done on the case. So there is review action can be done for the Dianetic auditor. Somebody can do an L1C, somebody can fly his ruds, somebody can something or other, don’t you see. Your 0 to VI. But you actually could, I’m just trying to tell you, you could do any of these ruds with Dianetics. 

So let’s go back all the way now. You could run out the auditing and then you found out that the person was ARC broken and had been for a long time with something, you could even assess that. You’d have to find out if it was a break in affinity, reality or communication or understanding. You could even  run that out and run it out triple, and it would go back on a Dianetic chain just like anything else. That’s well within the skill of a Dianetic auditor.  

Alright. You could get the auditing out, you could get the ruds in, you could get the charge off the case, you could get the pain off the case and what do you know? you could also get the evil purposes off the case, without even asking direct for it. You’d   be looking for the R/S chain. The evil purpose guys all R/S, sooner or later. A down on the right will R/S. And you want to list that loud and clear when you did. 

Now in L9S, in some other ways these chaps with, working with that, actually can pull that out from underneath it and do this, that and the other thing with it, don’t you see. They can do these things. But let’s say you have a Dianetic list—I don’t want to lose you anyplace. You’ve got a, you’ve done something with, either you’ve had a VI fly the ruds which is perfectly all right, see, or you’ve had somebody do an L1C or something like that, perfectly all right, and maybe somebody’s even prepchecked past auditing for you, which is perfectly all right. You’ve got this think, somebody’s done a GF—case has always been resistive so they do a GF40. In other words, somebody can do a set-up for you or somebody can do a repair for you. But that doesn’t stop you utterly just because you’re only auditing Dianetics. I’m trying to change your frame of reference. So you shouldn’t be saying, “Well nobody or we can’t find any Class VIs to . . .”  You get the point of view!  In other words you’re not blocked. 

Now. Dianetic auditors these days are being taught to fly ruds—perfectly legitimate. Only don’t be knuckle headed and try to get a high TA down with an ARC break. It won’t come down. If you’re going to start into the Scientology side of auditing, you had better just roll up your sleeves and abide by it’s rules. It does have rules. I’ve seen several cases absolutely butchered, high TA and they try to get it down with ARC breaks or something like that. Or they’ve got a high TA that is high on some other factor, see. So your high TA person, the high TA person is more of a puzzle to a Scientology auditor than he is to a Dianetic auditor because a Dianetic auditor just keeps on auditing. If he only takes BD items will day by day by clay bring the TA down and stay within range. He doesn’t even have to run exteriorization as such. It will come down, it will come down. And this is a little more painful to the person. It lasts longer. You don’t get as many F/Ns at the examiner but it will come down. We’ve had cases right here on Flag. Don’t know why anybody was worried about them. We just ran Dianetics and so on. 

You have to be careful when their TA is high to take a BD item. That is what you have to be careful of. Very often you could use two way comm and get a BD item and then phrase that as an R3R and the case will come down. This is all, this is all possible. Another way to do it, turn it over to a Scientology auditor and get a CS 53RRR, and they will probably find what it is. 

So there’s lots of tools, the case can be repaired. It is a question whether or not it is worth wasting time running ruds by Dianetics. It might be much more swift, don’t you see, to get somebody to patch it up. But remember this: it would really be patched up if you ran it. It would really be patched up if you ran it. It will never see the light of day again.

Now I am just trying to give you the breath of what you can do. Now you can take any of these FESes. Here we have, here we have a person who is wildly down on the right-hand side. Now that person’s going to rockslam. But, how would we approach this case? Do you see that it is slightly down on the left? Aaah-so. So somebody sailed into this case for a quick completion, didn’t run out all the available emotion, and so it stayed down on he left hand side. Somebody bypassed the death of her cat or her mother or something. You got it? 

Now if you were to do a white form brand new and just stress this loss little section on the white form, “Yeah, well who else did you lose and what else is it to this?” and so on and etcetera, the next thing you know why you will get a hot one. Run it, run it just narrative and that left hand side will go up, zoom. And then your next procedure and so forth would be to start working on the engram side of it. 

Now possibly you think this case might need a great deal of repair. Maybe the case does need repair. If it’s indicated the case needs repair, nobody knows how to repair-the thing or something or else, turn it over to a VI by all means. But if you’re going to dump everything you do on a VI, you’re going to feel very limited. You’re going to feel very, very limited, right? You sort of feel like you’re dependent on some line. Actually you’re not. 

And we get August 68, we get a white form done and we get under “Treatment”, the pc 53ys “psychotherapy 1966”, and under interest and hobby, pc says, “psychic phenomena and drugs,” and drugs were not handled until much later. Now you get an oddily here that you could audit at once, if it appeared on the case and if it read. Those are always the things—did it read? 

Now she was audited all that time then over out-drugs, out-psychic phenomena and out-psychotherapy. The auditing itself might very well be charged. Do you see how you could approach this? 

You could simply ask her, “In auditing . . .” something or other, something or other, something or other, list, list, list, list, list, “did you ever feel emotionally upset in any way” or something like that. You’ll hit the emotional bing right there and you can lift it on the left hand side. Do I make myself clear? 

All right. Now the ruds were begun with a TA high and no F/N gotten—well, of course not. And the GF were done in review and it reads on the pc told a lie, and she was in a horrible state. She had an infection of some sort. And when they did an L1B and they got no F/N, and nothing was flown. That would be an interesting one right there, when you look over folder error summaries like that. She’s probably had an L1B since, now an L1C, but if you were to dig up that L1B as a VI and just fly each one of those, they would either no longer he there or they would F/N and the case would have a resurge. But you would have to say, “Were you ever audited over that?” Oh yes, the case has been audited over all those. So the case is emotionally charged in auditing. 

So looking at this now as all investigation, one of your best chances of straightening   out this case is just handle the subject of auditing. Bleed it of its emotional content. Run it R3R and you would find your left hand side would rise. And you will run into all of this sort of thing. 

Now it goes on and on and on and on and on here. Now this is an awful lot of auditing. Now even Power is out. In other words, the person has had Power with no F/N. So you will run into this and later on somebody fooled around with it. So Lord knows what you will run into running this, but that’s the way I’d approach the case. I would bleed the person’s auditing of all of its emotion. 

Now, if you get inventive—now all I’m doing is trying to show you how you can bleed the whole subject of Dianetics for practically all of your auditing. And if you ever got very inventive you could actually take an LX list and assess it on auditing— “While you were being audited did you have . . .”, you see. “Were you”, I think It would be phrased. Do you follow? And then you just run them as secondaries, secondaries, secondaries. So you would do that, however, if she wouldn’t, couldn’t really come up with anything, you would say, “What emotions did you have during auditing?” All right, and then having done that, you would run that out. You would find this case came up pretty bright and shiny. 

When you get over into your painful emotion sides, remember that you are dealing with somebody who has been, on the track, very destructive. And without even knowing what that is, you will eventually run the incident where it comes off. Now right down here at the end of the seaway, right at the end of the breakwater down here, there was a young fellow who had just come out to the Ship and he let go at the top of the ladder and fell backwards about 20 feet onto the rocks. And he hit his head, and he was pretty bad off for a while. He’s all right now. But the thing that was holding it in place was. he had decided to just, he decided to knock himself off just before he let go. Therefore, his Dianetic assist is very much in question. He was given a Dianetic assist—must be very much in question. If anybody were to look into his folder, nobody said, “EB”. It may not even have F/Ned. But somebody auditing him out at AOLA—he was in pretty sad shape to audit—but somebody auditing him out at AOLA apparently collided with this in Dianetics, and he decided to do it. Now that was held in place against himself as a self overt. He didn’t recover. Now there’s data like this—what, where do these evil Purposes come from? They come just before or just after an engram. AN ENGRAM. Don’t conceive the bank as something that sits out here with the purposes over here in this column and all of the energy and pain over in this column. 

Now some future time you will be busy running some chain and you will probably run into the ARC break with Dianetics. You’ll run into the ARC break that occurred before that time, while you’re busy running some other chain. 

Now the primary mistake that an auditor in Dianetics does that gives him quickie Dianetics is he assesses pain, sensation, emotions and attitudes in one sentence. Now I know it doesn’t break it down materially in HCOBs but I’m trying to teach the old dogs new tricks now, so look at this. By doing that all in one lump sum, you could miss on the left side and the right side, couldn’t you? So during this whole project I don’t want to see you ever assess in one sentence, “Do you have any pain, sensations, emotions or attitudes connected with this, something or other?” No. As a matter of fact the sentence is even slightly backwards because the emotions come after the pain. So you do your assessments singly. You can just go backwards on this, you can assess for attitudes. Now we’re really going downstairs. Now this would be a person on the left hand side, the right hand side both on the bottom of the graph. Now the only thing you’re going to get out of this person is attitudes, not even emotions. Look at it. And then you might get some emotions out of them. But one of the things that a person like that complains about is he doesn’t have any emotions. So remember that each one of these pain, sensations, emotions and attitudes has a negative and don’t sit there sometimes with a BD on “no attitude” and not recognize that you have an incident, because I see that perpetually on Dianetic lists. “No emotion at all”—long fall BD. “Well, list was clean.” Zzzzzzzz. List was clean, hell. It hadn’t even been started. Do you see, so it should—so there’s a negative aspect to all these things. 

Now you can get some kind of a thing like an attitude of purposelessness or something like that. That is a perfectly valid attitude. But God help you when you start running that because that is going to chunk right straight along cross to the other side fast. You can get him into more pain and more this and more that and more something or other than you can shake a slick at. Because of course it’s on that button—evil purpose, intention and so forth. So when you get those recognize now that you do know about insanity. Now I’m not telling you necessarily to avoid them but just make sure you’ve got an awful good read. Make sure you got an awful good read before you run anything with regard to purposes—for two reasons. These reasons are very, very big reasons. It will he imbedded in an incident either just at the beginning of it or just after it. Now you can pluck it out of the incident and cause the incident to sort of fade out and so forth. But now you’re gelling into the VI level of action and it’s not necessarily the best level of action, see. It’s faster but it’s not necessarily more thorough. 

So purposelessness or purposes and so on is something you don’t list. If the pc says it, put it on the list. Unless it gives you one hell of a good read, leave it alone. But just to recapitulate, to go back over what I was just saying, now don’t use this standard, pardon me, formerly standard line. Don’t, don’t use this—”Do you have any pains, somatics, emotions, (mumble) attitudes, and so on bla dib daa daa.” Don’t use that. Break it clown. Break it down. Now there’s two ways you can break it down and this is a clever way to break it down. You write down here on a little slip or you get yourself some mimeographed slips, and you say, this guy’s got a chronic stomach ache, you say, “About a stomach ache, what is it? Is it the pain, or is it the emotion, it’s the sensations, the attitude?” Zoooo. Now the E-meter tells you what is real to the pc. That is why it doesn’t work as a lie detector because it never reads on a real criminal because crime isn’t real to a real criminal so it won’t read on the meter. And the only people you ever catch with sec checking are honest people because dishonesty is real to them, do you follow? The reason why you only read items that read, the only, the only items you use are those that read well. And the only reason that you do that is to make sure that it’s real to the pc. 

Now you could break down this pain, “What is this stomach thing you’re talking about. Is it the pain, is it the sensation, is it the emotion in it, is it the attitude in it?” Zoom! “Give me some attitudes about this”. Now you could work that person’s somatic over on that same list, reassessing and making new lists and reassessing and making new lists and reassessing, you see, pain, sensations, emotions, making a new list until it would just F/N all over the place, it’s gone. Do you follow? 

Now, so let’s, let’s not, let’s just abandon that portmanteau that everything in the same grip approach, because it is very unthorough. Now, here we have somebody who is, she’s had a GF with no reads taken to F/N in July 69 and she’s had a way to waste money with no EP. Now you right, you know right now that you, there’s, from a Dianetic auditor’s viewpoint, we have two potential chains. There was something read on that GF. Now it’s either since been handled or it’s there but there is an auditing chain there. Now you could say, “In former auditing, did you have any, did you have any, pain or . . .” and so on. You could look on this GF and let’s say it said, “Invalidated, long read” and it was never taken to an F/N. “Well, let’s see, do you have anything about being invalidated?” something like that? See? Wham! You get yourself read. It’s now hot, it’s still hot. You could run it. In other words you could bleed this FES even off an old list. But the test would be would it read again? Now to get something to read again you often have to say, “On this item has anything been suppressed? On this item has anything been invalidated?” Voom, voom. If you get a read on either suppressed or invalidated, the item is valid. You don’t have to go back and ask the item itself because invalidated transfers the read from the item to invalidated. You can be, if you ask it again you would now get a read on what the item was. But the read transfers. But you’re looking for something that moves the meter, see, it moves that needle good, and that is within the reality of the pc. And if it doesn’t move it good, it isn’t in the reality of the person. 

Now the only real thing, you got this now on assessing your pains, emotions and so forth, right? All right, now there’s this, there is a line of country here in the running of any pc. If the person has had a read on the list and then the read disappears, and then  you come back and call the read again and you can t. get a read and the pc is upset, always use the “suppress”. “invalidated and sometimes the word “abandoned” will work. “Has this item been abandoned?” “Oh, yes.” Read. Got it?

So it’s your job to make an old list like this, if you’re doing a repeat or an old Dianetic list and it didn’t seem to be handled, to make it, to make it come live again. If you can’t make it come live, skip it because it’s probably gone, it’s probably this, probably that.

Now it’s important to you that the most chronic, hideous, unbelievable conditions will in actual fact surrender to Dianetics if you know how to play this piano. This person’s practically got a hidden standard. Let’s say this person has a terrible eczema, some psoriasis or something—skin all turned into scale. Now you can start hitting away at this as your only target. In the first place, this person’s got failed help all over this thing in trying to do something about it for years. So you have to approach this with good sense. It isn’t just a condition which just occurred and you are now just going to audit it, that’s not so. Now that is comparable to an OCA. It s down on the left and down on the right physically.

So you can shake out of that attitude for which you’ll probably get “nothing can be done about it”. Good, it reads well, R3R, run it.

Now after you knock this down for a while, this seems to be what the pc’s interest is in, after you’ve knocked this thing down for a while, all of a sudden some computation will come out of all this. You figure it out. It’ll be some big cognition come out of this of some kind or another. Well, that is the idea which is held in place by the energy. The energy is so ferocious he’s never been able to look at the idea before. Now you’re actually taking the energy off so the idea will come out. In Scientology they take the idea out. You get the reversed angle.

So in other words, you’ve got this thing and now it gets a little better, and the most serious thing that you can do now at this time is to figure you have failed. Do you know that one of those engrams that you ran in connection with this . . . first you got off some attitudes, you got off some emotion, “shame”, and then you got off this and that and so forth. And it seemed to run a whole bunch of disrelated things and they somehow or another always seem to come up with this arm. And eventually there’s some sort of an incident There where the person was scalded to death or something—and there you’ve got this. You’ve obviously run the incident. This is where the person got it. You run the incident out and the thing’s still there. It’s not as bad as it was it’s still there. That’s what we call quickie Dianetics. Too brushed off and so forth. You’ve got to work on it.

Now you just start  running general things. You go on and you keep on auditing the person. You’ve got to bleed this case down for things to run. I don’t care how many ways you bleed it down for things to run. And do you know that something very remarkable will happen. When you least expect somewhere up along the line, a whole interior section of the engram you thought was totally run will suddenly appear on another chain and that will be the end of his psoriasis. It was in there with a mental image picture but a piece of the picture was so submerged and out of the person’s reality that it was never touched.

I’ve seen some of the most remarkable things with regard to this. A person’s goiter, a person’s this, a person’s that, tabulous numbers of odds and ends, don’t you see? They’re always, the medico is always talking about rushing them right into the ambulance and getting them out or “Well, we’ll have to have an operation.” “That failed”, and all that sort of thing. Well, the operation just gives you another engram.

Now the reason he’s got it will also audit out. Now you recognize that if you continue to get the mental energy off the case, the ideas will then fly off. This is the reverse mirror view of Scientology. So it’s F/N, GIs, Cog, Cog F/N, Cog, VGIs, Cog, Cog.

Now the reason a person does not cognite is he is being run against a no reality. And his reality might be included in his attitudes and he might run beautifully on attitudes. He might run beautifully on ideas. Now you couldn’t imagine somebody running engrams on ideas but the think he has thought maybe in the last 24 hours is about as heavily as he can get into engrams. Basic might only lie three days ago on having thought that he might someday be hungry.

Now as soon as you include R3R on attitudes, and that line of country, as soon as you include that, you are actually running R3R out on a recall basis. But you’re getting what went with it. You’re really doing recall but you’re running it R3R. It’s perfectly legitimate.

Now here’s the $62 question about all this. This is very interesting to you. The failure to clear up all the words in the commands with the pc and the failure to clear every isolated different word in the list, including the tiny screwball little English words of “is”, “the”, “from”, “such” can cause you to get reads on the items the pc himself has given you that aren’t valid. And where ever you’ve seen a small fall that didn’t read then, the auditor has skipped out the idea of interest. He hasn’t consulted that and you’ll find the LXs, somebody will tell you, “Oh, well you never”—we had this here the other day—”You never consult whether or not the pc is interested on an LX item because it doesn’t say so on the VIII tapes.” You see, because it says it on the VIII tapes, that changes the whole business of Dianetics, huh? Quite remarkable.

So somebody’s not checked interest or he’s disregard the pc’s statement of no interest and what do you know? Both of those things have occurred in the last 48 hours. Ah, a little bit more than that—in the last 5 days. The auditor auditing somebody on a misunderstood word in the middle of a phrase that was picked off a list and swearing up and down that it was a perfectly valid item because it gave a small fall even while it was checked. But the item wouldn’t run and the TA went right straight on up to 5 while the auditor ground on and on and on and on.  The auditor had never bothered to say very much about interest. It was a read on a misunderstood word. It was a misunderstood word. It was off of the canned list. Horrible, huh?

Now we’ve just taken somebody who has been trained all the way up the line and never understood any words in the English language before she was trained. You hear me? It wasn’t that she didn’t understand the words in Scientology and Dianetics, it’s she just never understood the English language. Been speaking it all her life, been speaking it all her life but never bothered to find out what the words meant.

Now the most remarkable program is on the front of that case because it says in each case “clear up each word on a list.” The person supposedly had had a drug rundown. Now how could the person have had a Drug Rundown? The person didn’t know 5 or 6 of the words in R3R. The Dianetic C/S 1 was a brush off. This is one of these persons, “Oh, yes, I know what all that means, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,” while knowing none of them. Clearing the command is what is out. So this program is quite remarkable because it says, very carefully, I wrote it up for this one girl, and boy, did she come up shining! Wow! From the bottom of the pit. Clear each word on the list then assess the list.

Now I’ve got to tell you how to do that. You do not at any time read them the question. You just start in on the list and you take every word, do you see, and now if you really want to avoid stirring up the bank and getting the question, you clear them, the list backwards or the questions backwards. Clear them all isolatedly. Now you know you’ve already cleared that word so you don’t clear it again, you see, when it occurs someplace else. Now it’s quite a stunt and I would advise you before you go into this very much that you get a little hit of a drill on asking them that.

Now it is not, “Do you know what this word means?” The graveyard is full on that one. No room for any more corpses. You ask, “What is the definition of . . . ?” They can’t give it to you, have your stuff right to hand, look it up. Clear a whole L3B, all 80 questions backwards, with each of the things backwards. The pc, by the way, you’d think would be bored stiff and all confused and so forth. No, they get quite excited about it. But you got to have a dictionary, you got to have a dictionary stand.

Every one of these sickies you’ve got has never understood the words in the commands, nor the list to repair them. The communication has never occurred. Now you say, it’s the auditor’s TRs, it’s this, it’s that, it’s the other thing. Well, have all those perfect, have your metering perfect and all the rest of that. But clear up those words and you’ll get the pcs that fail.

So the content of the bank could make it fail by being run backwards. Run out all the pain, you got it? That can be run backwards. And then you never got a communication. See, your TRs are perfect, but you never got a communication. And then the drugs. Drugs can prevent you right now from getting the person to look at anything because they hallucinated. Hallucination. It means bugginess. It means seeing things that aren’t there. A good hallucination would be a lion sitting in the middle of the floor that nobody else could see and there has never been a lion in the middle of the floor. So it doesn’t run well as an engram.

But what really happens to them is the R6 stuff and lower bank stuff kicks in on them while they’re on drugs and scares them to death. And then they don’t ever bother to tell even themselves about this. They had that horrible day when .... Took this poor little innocent pot that everybody was smoking and, oh my god, and these spiders started leaping out of the walls and jumping all over them, you know, something happened. Now if you ran the spiders, make sure that it’s a spider chain and not a drug chain otherwise you’ll be running what they call dub-in.

Now, dub-in is normally a heavily charged case, and if your pcs ever see the dub-in to run it, you’ve already entered the case too deeply. So your dub-in case is solved with attitudes, emotions or sensations, then pain. A dub-in case is so out of valence that it is amazing. So these dub-in cases is some thing you don’t need to worry about. You don’t have to have any special solution for a dub-in case. Just run the case right side to, run the case against the OCA or APA and you’ll be all right. You got it now?

But your job basically is to bleed them down: Give me another one of these things. Oh there’s, this one, this one has got a very sour OCA. And you’ll see that this case has been, they plucked the ideas out of the case with upper level auditing here and they’ve left all the energy on the case. So this case is going to require that auditing be run. You see what case that is?

Now somewhere in here there’s, here’s, aaah, here. If you look at this OCA, you’ll see it was down on the left and is very down on the right. Now this case has had every upper level rundown that you can think of, practically, without ever having been set up by Dianetics. The case has body inflammation, skin inflammations, these are just psychosomatic illnesses. Now your other index is your Chart of Human Evaluation of Science of Survival.

Now if you trace out one of these characters, give me another one, and you find them down some place on the Chart of Human Evaluation, you’ve got a parallel comparison to your OCA/APA, and the Chart of Human evaluations is more valid.

Now so this person has had their graph raised, they’ve had a graph rise. Fine, but they still have psoriasis. Now what is all that about? Well, their attitudes and ideas and so forth have shifted but the body has been left there. Now when they don’t do a good solid beginning preparation with Dianetics, then when they start to pull these idea out of the engrams they will tend to group. So that when a case is not thoroughly run on Dianetics, when you have quicky Dianetics you can expect some, a case that had very bad psychosomatic difficulties you could expect that case to hang fire. And that is why we don’t let anybody on Advanced Courses now with a low OCA. Do you follow it?

So these cases that you’re auditing, in many, many instances have gone onto Advanced Courses without having been set up. Here’s one here. Now this case had what she called a Clear cognition,  and I’m sure that was the case and etceteras. But for some reason best known to man or beast, it left all of her attitudes in place which have never been run out. So her attitudes are very poor indeed and they’re kicking her brains out right now. It’s interesting that this case is apparently being, not been run against an OCA. I don’t see any OCA.

Now I’ll tell you why—ah, here’s an OCA. I’ll tell you why the Chart of Attitudes is more valid. Because an OCA or an APA can be all along the top and then in auditing sink. And it will go down either on the left or the right. and it will come back up again. Now a person who is terribly out of valence can be very theetie-wheetie and this is what you call a theetie wheetie. It’s a person with a terribly high OCA who is absolutely for the birds. You got it? Your Chart of Attitudes will tell you the truth. The OCA/APA or any other test will not because the person has various characteristics which you’ll find on the Chart of Attitudes, I mean the Chart of Human Evaluation, pardon me. They’ll have communication twists and they will have Psychosomatic illnesses and they will have this and they will have that. And you look along here and you will see that that case is reading at about 1.8 or about, you know, 2.1 or 0.3.

You can imagine some pcs say, “Oh, I just adore death. Yes, funerals, I just can’t stay away from funerals. They are so nice.” You give them a message to give down at the corner and that message never arrives, or you tell them, “Tell Joe I thought that was nice of him.” Joe comes along and hits you in the nose. Why? Well, they said, “Bessie Ann said you were a dirty stinker.” Twisted communications and there you are, there you are. It’s a down on the right.

Now this person had a very interesting quick, fast Dianetic run with a super cognition, had a Clear cognition and that was that—person’s very sick. Why is the person sick? I don’t know why the person’s sick. Her auditing is all for the birds. So the attitudes in auditing, the person’s an auditor also, so the attitude in auditing is of interest to you as an auditor. There’s an evil purpose sitting there, never been hit, never been touched. Person’s going to go on and do themselves in.

Now some of these people are on OT grades and somebody’s going to tell you that it’s impossible for you to run these. So I hope that there are amongst you somebody who is at least in the middle band of the advanced courses to run such a case as that because you will run into some OT phenomena trying to run it out. Is that true? You got that pretty well taped, all right. You ought to watch it because you could blow your own head off. It’s not that it’s terribly dangerous but it’s very restimulative.

Now this poor guy is in constant ethics trouble. All he has to do is sit down and he’s immediately  in ethics trouble. I mean, he’s got some kind of magnet on him that drags in Ethics Officers like he had a chain on them and he was running a huge car salvage winch. He roller coasters. He went uptone. He went very uptone briefly and then he went downtone again when life became just a little bit too thick. I don’t see his OCA, I don’t see an OCA. Now this guy had an improvement of skin, he had an improvement in skin. You don’t even need an OCA—all you had to do was look at him. No joking about it, I mean, he’s visually, visibly psychosomatic ill. It’s sitting right there. And it roller coasters and he feels very bad indeed.

Now I can’t find an OCA and it’s quite remarkable that this person has been audited
without one. What the hell did they think they were doing? That’s great.

Now there’s another one, you make sure you get OCAs on these characters before you start auditing them where they don’t have them. I can’t find one here. You get him an OCA.
Now once more he’s probably being audited over his head in some fashion or another. First Dianetics, single grades, and not apparently on board and no record of them in the tank. Well, that is very helpful. You’re running into missing folders. Doesn’t matter much in your case. MO report “Pc wants Dianetics, sores on knuckles.” And he actually has gotten up to a point where he did lose some of his skin difficulties. But there’s plenty more there to be done.

Now you start bringing this case down on the basis of, what is it, his attitudes or his this-a’s or his that-a’s or the other thing. You start breaking that down on that type of assessment which I gave you and you’ll get something. And I would take it first and foremost immediately straight off in auditing, you see. And he’s such an ethics magnet that you probably would get it in ethics, see. So you could do a little assessment or some kind or another.

Now that brings you up to how you could double or treble assess. You can say, you can take all the areas where the guy is, you know, like ethics, post, Flag, so on, so on, so on. Assess that down, you see. You got no former folders, you don’t know what he’s been run on. You assess that down one way or the other and you get a nice read there and you take your nice read and you bring it over here to pain, you know, sensation, emotion, attitude, which one is that by saying, “On Flag has there been pain, there’s been . . .” and so forth. Take your best read as that, get your, then immediately draw up your R3R list - “What attitudes?” see, “What emotions?”. You bring it right across. Actually this is the trick of restimulating a guy or putting  his attention on something so you can run it out. Pinpointing, you don’t necessarily take Flag, you see, and just run Flag. That’s narrative, see.

Now lets look at this prize. Now this guy is a prize because he has been sick, sick, sick, sick, see. Now look at that - way down on the left, way down twice on the right see. He’s trying to do himself in and do other people in. But he isn’t really even there to do himself in, you get the idea? See, he’s out of valence so he wouldn’t be doing himself in.

All right, here’s two right here, “disgust” and “depressed”, and there’s no EP on either in ‘69—an incorrect R3R “wanting to cry” and “nervousness”, no EPs. Somebody really had a ball.

So you obviously, you would take his present time environment then you could take his auditing—now you get into life. See how this works. Gives you adequate stuff, here he’s obviously super-misemotional and couldn’t run it. Therefore, an attitude is an engram. Nobody’s ever noticed it. So they ask him in auditing for an engram, pardon me, they ask him in auditing for an ARC break and it just pulls an engram right up with it, you see. So that you give an emotion and where people would just normally blow the emotion and that would be that, you know, something like that. No. He couldn’t, apparently the auditor—don’t always blame the auditor—he couldn’t get down the bank on emotions in general. So that shows you the case has been utterly missed.

Now, somewhere he’ll read on a meter, be some current zone of his life or current zone of his own activity and that will have pains, sensations, emotions or attitudes and that will match up and all of a sudden—boom. And then that will read well and you do R3R on that and all of a sudden why, he will have an interesting win.

Now some of these people, some of these people can’t get an engram to erase. Now that is a peculiar thing. That is very peculiar. And that is too much auditing, and that is just L3B. And that normally would be an L3B cleared. Now in doing this project there are certain things you will do. You’re not going to clear an L3B twice. So you want to mark it over here on your folder summary when you’ve done one of these things, loud and clear, so that it can be C/Sed. Do you see that? So what have you got here? You’ve got a, there are certain things you have to do on all of these cases because they’re just, they’re just missed. The skipped gradient, Dianetics.

Now you’ve done a, somebody was doing L-, well here’s one that’s really no cogs on ARC straightwire, F1 only. Secondaries and engrams run in ‘66, both with pc surprised at the F/N. Pc very nervous of auditing. Ah, that’s itself, it’s just the same thing I’m telling you over and over and over. Probably present time environment “What is it? What’s the pain, sensation, emotion”, run it, something like that. “What’s been your at-, who’s been auditing”, and get that run. “Oh, I’ve had so much trouble running engrams and it’s this and that and the other thing.” Well, take an L3B.

Now the L3B can be itself a rundown. It can he a rundown all by itself. You just do L3B general and you just R3R on doing L3B, all 80, and you just keep on doing L3B. And the normal way you do it is to do L3B method 5, just the whole thing. And then you take up these various, well, what you do, I’ll, you clear the L3B even though they’ve been around. And then you do an L3B method 5 and then you take the best reads off it. Now you can take up, if you want to, and fly them, small falls but you never take up ticks or stops. Never take up a rise. That is the reverse, that is the guy going into restimulation. And then you handle those things the way you’re supposed to handle it and then you assess it again but you don’t get an F/N all the way through. And you get another read and you hit that one and you assess it all the way through again and you get another read, and you assess that one. And what you’re working for is a method 5 that F/Ns just from the beginning to the end.

Now the way you can cheat on this is to give the guy one hell of a win. Now you really got quickie auditing. You give the guy a hell of a win and he’s got a persistent F/N and so, very very hastily call off the whole list rapidly while he’s not listening to you at all, and you will get it every time. So you don’t reassess after the persistent win. Wait until tomorrow. So, that is letting the pc have his win. Right?

Now you can get a pc protesting just because he feels so good about everything that he doesn’t want to look at his bank anymore and he’s all extroverted and that sort of thing. Well, that’s the time to know off and find another pc. 

Jesus God, has this person had auditing! Wow, wow, wow! Now you re right away going to ask me, “What about tripling? What about tripling up somatics and that sort of thing?” Actually I regard this as a little bit dicey, definitely dicey. Now quad is perfectly OK except it’s dicey.

There’s something I got to mention to you. If you run quad after a person has been run triple, you leave bypassed charge. And the only thing about tripling up is just so that you won’t leave bypassed charge. Because if you run triple after the person has been run single without bringing it up, he gets bypassed charge. Got it? And he’ll feel all ARC broken and he’ll want to know how or why or anything else. Well, that’s just keyed in the bypassed charge that had been left sitting there.  Quad is, been really unnecessarily maligned. But trying to quad the guy up after he has been singled or tripled is so difficult, and you get so many flubs on it and so on that you could only start a brand new person out on Dianetics on quad, four flow, adding the zero.

But there’s a sort of a lie about the zero anyhow and there’s a lie about flows anyhow because they’re to a marked degree they’re all his own flows. So I do not, I do not—I think you will probably have to bring some of these cases up to triple. But that will be difficult because the case isn’t ready to run on that sort of thing. The way to do it in actual fact, just thinking on my feet how to get over this bridge because this is a tough one, I would try to just triple it. And if the person felt ARC breaky or that sort of thing, then go back. I mean, just run it triple. You assess something, run it triple, and if he’s too chopped up or something like that or starts getting ARC breaky or something like that, then go back and assess your former single list and finish up it’s triples. Don’t try to put in every one of them. Put in only those that read. You won’t find many or them that do triple up.

It’s difficult for an auditor to do this, you know, run two and three as flows and so on. And I’ve had a lot of students, when I’ve been C/Sing, I’ve had a lot of trouble with this. So it’s sort or, would, might make more trouble for the pc by trying to triple it up than just trying to now run it triple. Do you see what I mean? So I think you should meet the trouble after you get to it rather than try to super-prevent the trouble. Because we’ve got one guy with singles but we don’t have any lists so we’ll have to do that anyway.

There is no OCA. You’ll have to get an OCA out of this one. I know that it is probably way up at the top of the graph.

Had a false TA check and list corrected and VA corrected and Int was corrected, and a lot of things were corrected here. Jeeesus, God, a drug rundown not complete. No single action’s been completed on this pc except recent correction lists, Ad Course review. I feel like it’s a new beginning, oh good.

Now you want to look and see if she’s got an L3B and she’d be very suspect as having been run over misunderstood words. Anybody’s had that much trouble, they didn’t understand what the auditor was talking about anyhow. It must be a very, very rough case. I don’t see that. This case has run up a championship number of dev-T chits.

I am absolutely amazed that some of these haven’t had OCAs. You get OCAs on these things. I won’t C/S without one of these things and you shouldn’t either. You shouldn’t, be running them you should know what you are running. Not a trace of one. That funny? Because Otto’s been auditing this case. Otto’s been auditing this case and he’s been auditing this case without an OCA.

Student: (We usually put them in a Scientology folder.)

Huh?

Student: (We usually put them in a Scientology folder.)

You don’t tell me that you guys have changed the folders? Oh. Of all the people not to have an OCA, that one’s for the birds. It will fall under the same category. This person tends to be theetie-wheetie and so forth. You’d address it in just the same way.

And this one, oh, my god, yes. This one, oh, my god. I would absolutely insist that this person had a Primary Rundown before I would touch it. HCO B 30 March. Don’t, for god’s sakes, go near it without a Primary Rundown, you got it? You don’t see the person’s name here. Because this person has cognitions which are very strange cognitions. You know, about tech and things like that, you know. Almost as bad as, “I just realized that the command has something to do with what the pc is doing on his bank.” It’s far out. And she’s probably had some piece of a Primary Rundown, see? But I would clear this case like mad.

I haven’t seen this case’s OCA. There’s an OCA. Oooooh. Now, they claim they’ve done great here and maybe they have done great. But look where this case was. The case has probably had some very nice XII auditing, something like that, see. But look at that—on the bottom on the left and almost on the bottom on the rlaht. And now has come up into a different range. But your point here would be to look at this person from the viewpoint of a psychosomatic illness on the Chart of Human Evaluation. Person still got some or these, still got bad eyesight, still got  this, still got that, ooh.

Now here is a bunch of folder errors. That’s really corny. Grade IV rehabbed but never run previously. I think that’s marvelous. White form done but not handled. Scatter brain stuff. And it normally will show up. I don’t see an OCA here either so this - person—where were you—just make it. a rule wherever you haven’t got one of these OCAs and you can’t find one or it isn’t recent, why - chase one up. You merely want it for improvement.

Now I’ll tell you something. If the OCA has ever been down - expect that it’s all there - always choose your lowest OCA. The one I just showed you, down on the left, down on the right, you treat that that way. In Dianetics, treat that that way. Well, what they’ve done is pull the ideas out of the bank rather than otherwise.
All right, now here’s a guy. Now he’s way down over there but I dare say, that is probably, that’s 31/10/71 that that one was taken and that’s all the one’s they’ve done. Now he’s, he’s not making it because of here. You see, that’s a bit low. It probably has been lower but this would be a case of misunderstood words.

On all these cats, you understand, you’ve got a sort of a rundown on all these people. You’ve got a problem in misunderstood words or it would have communicated. You’ve got a problem as there was engrams there and they didn’t get run. You normally, because of a chronic this long and been audited this long and so forth, you’ve got a problem that the auditing itself formed engrams. You have a problem that their present time environment must seem very dangerous or charged to them.

So you can almost work out as, just from the principles I’m telling you, you can almost work out a very standard treatment of this particular lot of pcs—all of whom are chronically ill, see. That, it makes a difference. So you’ve got a rundown of, find out what charged in the present time environment. Transfer that over into your PSEA list, you know. Shake it out, run it and so forth with regard to the present time environment and run it with regard to auditing and so on.

Now one or two or three of them will be PTS or upset, so a PTS Rundown, the Dianetic PTS Rundown has to come up. But don’t get too enthusiastic because a PTS Rundown, doesn’t matter how PTS you think the person is or how sick you think the person is, you don’t run what the auditor thinks the pc is. You got it? You don’t quite have it. It’s what reads on the meter that is real to the pc. Now when you say, this person’s got to have a PTS Rundown, well, you’ll get away with it a lot of times don’t you see? You’ll get away with it because the person’s a normal running case. But on none of these cases could you run a PTS Rundown. That would immediately and directly violate everything I’m telling you about these cases. They’re chronic sick people. You would be running somebody over on the right in pain or something or something or something on a very specialized narrative sort of rundown that they might not have any clue of. You see what’d be wrong with it?

When you say, “This person must have a PTS Rundown”, you’re saying this person has people next to him who are antipathetic to or antagonistic towards Scientology so therefore he should have a PTS Rundown. Perfectly true. Is the pc ready for the PTS Rundown? Usually not. In none of these cases would he be. Now that’s why you, the auditor, knowing what is wrong with the pc, see, can make a hell of a mistake. So the pc is limping around on 3 canes and he’s got a loss of a missing leg, and you can say right away, “Well, the guy s got a missing leg so therefore he must have engrams of all of that so let’s just run . . .” oh, boy. You say, “What’s wrong with you?” And he says, “My nose itches”, see. That’s the only thing you can get to read.

Now for instance we’ve got a case in Washington, Louie Belucci, would solve up on this. He would solve up immediately on this if you just did this same rundown to his environment and then took and shook it down for his, broke down your pain and so forth and ran that, and then ran down new, his auditing, ran that out. Because a lot of it has been over his head. He’s got a steel shaft in his leg so everybody, he included, comes around and keeps presenting, presenting, presenting this as the problem, see. And auditors either do or don’t run it or something of that sort. But it still remains a problem to him. He actually, probably isn’t having a problem with his leg at all. He’s probably having a problem with the body, see. Maybe that leg is just his revenge on bodies in general. Who knows what this is? It’s what would read. What’s the pc worried about.

Now he isn’t worried about these people who are antagonistic to him yet you know they exist so you say, “Well, he’s got to have a PTS Rundown.” No, PTS Rundown would come around when it came up. Be alright, so that, but what part of it can run? So don’t try to wish off on the pc something that he’s not ready to get, you got it? So it’s what reads. And as long as you’re there, you’re safe, you’re safe, and everything’s great.

BD item, oh, that’ll run like a bomb. A BD item that F/Ned when he said it, oh that’s great, that’s marvelous. Run it. Because it F/Ned has nothing whatsotver to do . . That’s just there, it’s keyed out for a moment, it’ll key back in ten minutes or six months, who knows. Let’s immediately, let’s grab it, let’s run that thing see. But is he in a state that runs, what? What’s he going to run with regard to this? The pc, half the time, he’s so afraid of running pain, that his mind concentrates on pain.  It doesn’t occur to him that there’s any emotion connected with the fact. that he hasn’t got any left ear. Do you see? So the question actually doesn’t communicate.

This person has had a rough time from time to time. This person is in ethics trouble from time to time and I imagine there should be an OCA here. Yup! Here we are. See, down on the left somewhat, down on the right more than somewhat, see? Same treatment.

All right, that’s good enough. I’ve shown you enough of these things. You know what the general theory of it is. Now you start running out psychiatry as a narrative item that doesn’t read well and you’re going to be in trouble. Pc’s going to be in trouble. They’ve been practicing psychiatry as long as there’ve been implanters. And he can go right back into the bank. So that’s why I give you this other gradient scale, a gradient scale of running. Yes, it’d be very nice. Psychiatry would have to read like mad. It would have to be really real to this guy before you start running something like that. Now you run all the attitudes out of it or you run all of the emotions out of it or all of this out of it or that out of it, or something like that, and then after you’re running it for a long time, you run an entirely different chain and you find, suddenly find yourself, the guy’s blowing psychiatric engrams that he didn’t even know he had. Do you see what’s the difference? So you’re actually, you run down, run a little bit deeper, run a little bit heavier, more, more, you finally get there. Got it?

Now you, in running this sort of thing, are the person who will be with the pc. So therefore it is very difficult for a C/S to see what would be available with the pc. So therefore your C/Ses as auditors must take into consideration what I’ve been telling you. You have to take into consideration what’s sitting there in front of you. How does this guy react? How does he respond? Guys that are very slow and have awfully slow comm lags and don’t cognite very much and so forth, you’re running them too deep. They’re just running too deep. You better find something feather, you better find a featherweight something for that person to run, that’s all. And you can fish him out of it.

You see, actually, if you choose the depth at which you’re running the person that fits the person, all pcs are easy pianola cases which F/N, Cog, VGIs. See, it is you regulating what you ask him and put his attention on. It’s what you’re, you regulate that. You don’t say, “The trouble with this fellow is . . .” and then sort of hit him with it, see? You got it? You sort of ask him what he thinks is the trouble with him. And then you take it at, by test, at what depth is good. And you’ll, he’ll do nothing but run that.

There isn’t any reason, the only reason, the only reason under the sun, anybody for instance would be having skin trouble, inflammation, breakouts, anything like that, any of those things and so forth is simply engrams. They’re all engrams.

Now I’m talking to you by the way on material research up to about OT, oh I don’t know, 20. It would be so difficult to run some of this stuff engramically, the person would never go near it probably. And when they’re not thoroughly prepared with Dianetics and when they don’t have all of their drugs off or anything else, they could never really come within it. So then, they don’t get much benefit out of it and it really, they can restimulate themselves, see?

But I’m telling you that all of them are engrams. It doesn’t matter what level you’re running. You’re still running Dianetics.

And I was busy researching the other day and this is one of the things that caused this project to come about—is I was busy researching and I looked this thing over from one end to the other and I looked over anything I had run into on the back track. We’re still running engrams. And just exactly what happens?

There’s one more caution I’d like to give you, is the sequence or a person getting injured is he decides to. And his purposes very often come after an injury. Now let me show you how this works. He gets a motivator so he says I’m going to ruin those people, see. The motivator, “ruin those people”, etc. But now, this thing will operate as a prior decision and it will even operate as a prior decision to injure himself. So when you’re busy running this, when you’re busy running these things and so forth, remember not to skimp your EB. Also don’t over-do your EB. But don’t skimp it. When you start grinding, it’s either EB or ES, earlier beginning or earlier similar. Don’t grind, find that out right away. About the third or fourth time that you’ve undone ABCD, something like that, boy, if you haven’t got on that basic, if you haven’t got an erasure, you’ve got an EB. Well don’t be dilatory in asking for it. Don’t slow down in asking for it— dilatory—(slow down, loaf). You got it?

All right. So all this really amounts to, all this really amounts to when you look it all over from one end to the other, all it really amounts to is bleeding the case of every single piece of Dianetics that you can get to read—anything that you can get to read well on the person. That’s what’s important about the whole thing. And the way to get the person winning all the way and not bogging down all the way is uniformly to choose from the light to the heavy. And after you’ve run them a while, and run pain, you may find you have a whole new bank area.

By the way, it was very amusing on this pc who didn’t understand any words. It was interesting. I mean, this person’s very glib. They said, “Oh yes, yes.” They knew what “can’t” and “is” and so on. It isn’t the hard words, you see, it’s the stupid ones, you know the little ones. And this person’s glib as hell. And oh she knew all those things but drugs hadn’t run and she couldn’t go back track and it was all very difficult and all bogged down and so on. The commands were all out but she couldn’t be corrected because the words in the correction lists were all out. But the correction lists had been used on her and the commands had all been used  on her and it was these things which had prevented her from going back track. She didn’t even know what she was supposed to do.

Now and auditor just with intention, can run the pc up and down the track but imagine trying to get erasures or something like that when the pc didn’t know what case meant or something of this sort, see. Nonsense.

Now going back to, really, when I was really knocking around Dianetics in ‘69, I mean, I was doing a lot of C/Sing on the line, there was one mistake that was very often made which I want to call to attention so that it won’t get made again, and that is the one more time through would have brought the TA down. The picture disappeared, it was erased but the energy was still there and that is a rather constant error, was in those days. It took the one more time through, and sometimes what the guys would get would be a high TA with a person saying that it had erased. They just missed the one time through or the EB postulate on the beginning of the thing. The TA would have come right on down, boom. of they wouldn’t get a cognition because they didn’t run it that one more time through. They pack it up, they chop it.

So if you re running at the level of depth which I’m describing to you, you should get a cognition. So don’t cut it off at the end of the line. All right, so your needle started to F/N, the pc hasn’t had a cognition yet and so forth. Don’t give him “that’s an F/N, that’s it”, so forth. Because now he’ll be sitting there with the decision he made at that time still on the bank. That, funny things happen about something like this. He’ll come up maybe days later and say he just had an idea that something or other, see. Sometimes they write up, like, you get it on a Daily Report, “I had a good session and I’m still cogniting.” Oh brother. Auditor cut the F/N see. He’s still in session.

Now be perfectly frank to ask questions along in this line. I’ll keep an idea on the thing. I won’t ask, do you have any questions right now?

Student: (Some of these people are already on rundowns.)

Are already . . . ?

Student: (On the rundowns, like the ones that Otto has gotten and David’s got one.)

Yeah, alright, so let them finish the rundown. You don’t need them all at once. It’s a matter of scheduling. It’s all right. Good. I don’t say they won’t make it, but I won’t say they will, not about the people who’ve been around this long. You see, because they’re still pulling this of pulling the idea out of the bank, getting the person to change his mind, you know, click, click.

Some of your OT III, OT phenomena and so forth, will get in your road but it isn’t, you needn’t pay too much attention to it. You needn’t pay too much attention to it. It’ll handle anyhow. So the guy s clear and he doesn’t have any more engrams and the body seems to be putting engrams. Run ‘em, see. 

All right. Any other questions?

Student: (Just one. In one of the cases, she’s in the middle of the Clearing Course).

One of these in the middle of the Clearing Course, that’s in a No Interference Area. Never should have gotten onto the Clearing Course. Must have come aboard, right?

Student: (Oh, she’s been aboard for a while but she never have been on the Clearing Course.)

Oh, never should have been on the Clearing Course. That’s some, that was a gross error, gross error. She been on it for some time?

Student: (She been auditing?)

Another student: (Yeah, she’s been soloing for quite a while.)

Ah, it’s too bad, it’s too bad. You’re gonna mess ‘em up. That’s bum. There is a way you could handle it. If she isn’t coming through and she isn’t finishing up the Clearing Course, she could run out her auditing. That is, that is feasible, don’t try to run out anything else, and get her back on the Clearing Course. It’s about all you could do. You could try to run, you maybe could run environment and auditing. You wouldn’t dare go any deeper. Just the way I told you, you see, an assessment of the environment, what read, assessment of persons sensation, emotions and attitudes and what those read, in auditing. You run the environment that way and then take auditing the same way. You could run auditor, auditing, you know, the old VIII list. You look into the VIII materials and so forth. There’s a whole list of, the standard one - Dianetics.

Scientology, auditors, auditing. You know, that list. You can go down that list and instead of using it as a prepcheck just use it just as a detector list of what in auditing to hit. Perfectly OK.

I heard the other day these were all confidential. Actually there’s only a few things in VIII that are confidential. It’s those that apply to the OT levels. That’s confidential just to keep from knocking people’s heads off.

All right. Any other questions? OK. Now I want to be very close on this line so who’s going to do this C/Sing? We haven’t decided who’s going to do this C/Sing. It isn’t on this, is it?

Student:  Was going to be David (Meyers)

Huh?

Student: (David Meyers)
Well, he would have to check out very heavily, yeah, “Such is to be C/Sed with LRH as senior C/S”. That might or might not occur. That, there is a bug here. I haven’t in actually, the least aversion to C/Sing. That’s something I’m perfectly happy to do and the probability is that the output of three or four Dianetic auditors, see, takes about as long to C/S as it does to eat dinner. I mean, there’s nothing much to that, if the auditors are doing a good job. If the auditors are doing a good job, piece of cake. If the auditors are not doing a smooth, standard job, are running into trouble of one kind or another, it’s rough. That’s very rough C/Sing, can take you quite a while.

So I’ll do the C/Sing on this perfectly alright with me. In spite of the fact that my own hats are kind of pushed off  but I’ve got this sort of cooled off a bit, crossing my fingers. Getting the ESTO system is working and that’s going in better. And I’m suddenly finding out that there were certain camouflaged holes on the line so I’m getting those adjusted and there were certain missings. When we, we came off momentarily just because of the ESTO system, we came off the org, Product/Org Officer System, and when the Org Officers were forgotten—and by the way, they came, they went off before the ESTO system came in. Boy, didn’t that throw the cat amongst the pigeons because it leaves a Product Officer busy getting a hold of all of his programs. He can’t run them down, it can’t be done.

As a result, the missing Org Officers on this ship are being made up by me. There’re several Org Officers. I don’t mind displacing two or three hundred people but sometimes it gets a little bit thick—when I can’t also wear my own hats, that is.

So I will C/S this line but “cases to be lined up” and so forth, “the D of P, Dianetics HCC”, now you’ve got some D of P people, and so on. “The program’s to be written for each case to briefly repair and do real Dianetics on.” You got that one? All right. Well, that one you can get busy on and when it gets down here to the C/Sing when you’ve got one of these cases fully programmed and so forth, send it up to me, I’ll give you an OK and send it on down. All right?

My C/Sing for you sometimes has the disadvantage that I’m not on deck instantly available on something like that but the way to get around that is to don’t get in that much trouble.

All right. Thank you very much.

Students: (Thank you sir.)

END OF TAPE

EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE No.2

A lecture given to the Flag Dianetic Auditing Team on 7 April 1972.

C7204C07 SO

EXPANDED DIANETICS AND WORD CLEARING

All right. This is the 7th April ‘72 and have you got your misunderstood words cleaned up from the last lecture? Are you sure? All right, well that’s fine. Then we can proceed with this one.

And this is a specialist Dianetics lecture which is the Graduate Dianetics Course, actually. The first thing I want to talk to you about a little bit is word clearing. It’s obvious that a Dianetic specialist would really have to know his business on the subject of word clearing. And that’s interesting because word clearing then also contains, if you’re going to correct it, you have to know what rudiment actions in order to pick the ruds out bit by bit and run those with R3R. And so it’s quite obvious that word clearing is a necessary action.

It’s interesting that you and the team are doing very well, and that your word clearing is very good. If they don’t have uniform success with word clearing, the auditor’s TRs leave something to be desired or his metering or something. And they every once in a while, why, will have a catastrophe on the subject of word clearing which occurs in the middle of a rundown. And then they really have a catastrophe.

And the main difficulty with that is they don’t clear the Word Clearing Correction List, and we already have taken this up on the folder line. But if you don’t clear the Word Clearing Correction List at the time when there are no flubs in word clearing, then when you get a flub in word clearing you have lost your correction tool.

But this, “Clear the list first”, can go a little bit too far. Let us get a situation where a pc is in a screaming ARC break and somebody clears the L1C before he handles the ARC break. Now that came up on the line the other day and I thought, “Well, if that pc had really been ARC broken,” - it turned out that the pc had a withhold or something - “but if the pc had really had an ARC break, that would have been it.” Because, of course, auditing over the top of an ARC break just pushes a person down and they get sadder and sadder and sadder and sadder. But in general - he got away with it. But if a pc has a serious ARC break in the last session, why, your best bet if you do not have a word cleared L1C, you best bet would be adrift if you had never cleared the word ARC break. So to protect the pc it is quite obvious that at the beginning of his auditing, we had better clear this word “ARC break” and we had better clear this word “present time problem” and we had better clear this word “withhold”. Otherwise we’ll find ourselves somewhere along the line adrift. And then we would have the proposition of having to spend two hours clearing a list while the pc was nattering about how bad the auditor was. I don’t think it would be very easy to do.

So the rudiments would probably be the first thing you would clear. We can make a rule about that and so on. Not that he has one, it’s just “Let’s do it just in case” so that he suddenly recognizes when you say it what you are asking for.

So word clearing here is of considerable interest and it is, of course, just itself as a technology. And that can be studied in it’s own frame of reference.

But where it comes in, in this particular field of specialist Dianetics, is you will find the bulk of the people who have had any difficulty whatsoever have been audited over misunderstood words. And there are two big things that give people a very bad start on auditing. If they don’t know the meaning of “how do you do” and “is” and “what” and “did” and a few words like that. And then he’s had it because Axiom 28 is violated. You don’t have communication so you won’t get duplication so therefore they can’t do what you said and so on.

Now this is a considerable breakthrough in its own right because I never realized that auditors stopped clearing words in the commands. And I understand now that it dropped out to a marked degree where the auditor would read the command and ask the pc if he understood that, or not even ask the pc that - just read the command, take a word and sail off into the wide blue horizon. He would think he had a reading item when he didn’t. He would have a reading misunderstood word. And that in itself would make a great deal of difficulty.

There’s probably many a drug addict who does not know the meaning of the word “amphetamine” which is the commoner drug which, of course, they call speed. And somebody told me the other day that it was Benzedrine, which is one of the keep awake drugs of yesteryear, and that say that is an amphetamine. I don’t believe that. But in any event you understand just with the words I was using these are just the names of drugs. Well, you can imagine this 10 year old kid - I think that’s when they start on drugs now or is it 8? This 10 year old kid or 8 year old kid you ask him now, “When were you on amphetamines?” or “Were you on Benadryl or Benzedrine, now which were you on?” and you get a read and you say “Ah ha!”. But he’s never heard of this stuff. See, actually he was on LSD but he’s never heard of it as LSD anyhow. That’s acid.

And actually not even the news papers reporters know the name of the stuff because they keep calling it LSD and LSD isn’t, isn’t its name. It’s LSD 25 if you want to be very purist about it.

So you can imagine taking this drug addict who’s already all fogged up on drugs - should carry a little foghorn on his shoulder when he’s walking down the street. And what do you find? You wouldn’t know anything about it because he didn’t know anything about it.

Now how you would get over that point is you would have to clear up with him what drugs he was on. You couldn’t take a canned list of drugs and expect very much action because he would require some sort of an education on the subject of chemistry. So what did they call these things? You can probably identify them from such things as acid. “I was on acid, kid, you know. I was on acid, you know.” They don’t even know what the hell, you talk about the stupidity of things. It’s absolutely marvelous, you know.

I was tracing this back intelligence wise and it is the perfect intelligence drug—very very simple to make, a few kitchen utensils. And probably originated in Germany. And it is probably an intelligence drug of some type or other. Terribly cheap and then drives a person stark staring mad. And these dumb yips are actually taking this stuff.

A girl was, gruesome tales occur on that drug, very gruesome. A girl got a scratch on the back of her hand, wasn’t bleeding very much, took it to a doctor. Ah, it was all right, he let her go. And it, hand got to swelling up but it was just a little scratch. And all of a sudden her hand swelled up and she got gangrene, which is just rotting flesh, and they had to amputate her hand and arm. She was on LSD which basically is a drug called ergo or ergot which is used to constrict the blood vessels so that blood won’t circulate. And if anybody gets any kind of a whee out of LSD, that would be quite remarkable because it is simply they don’t get any blood in their brain and that must be the whole kick. It’s pretty marvelous, see.

So now you’re busy auditing somebody who doesn’t really know he has been on this, and you ask him if he’s ever been on that. You might get a read on it. But he’s liable to run something else or not know what you’re talking about.

I probably should clarify something here a little bit. The reason why the scratch infected is all the time when she scratched her hand. And all the time she was on LSD which contains ergot, which is the constriction lysergic acid. It constricts all the blood vessels and the arteries and so on. So there couldn’t be any blood get to it and it wouldn’t circulate, no blood circulate and it wouldn’t heal. So the doctor took his finger off his number on that one.
So this would make quite an interesting engram of some kind or another if you were to run it on somebody. She wouldn’t know the word ergot, she wouldn’t know the word LSD 25, she wouldn’t know LSD, she wouldn’t know lysergic acid. And maybe they called it something locally. Maybe they didn’t even call it acid.

So it is the pc’s nomenclature. Now the pc isn’t really likely to use words he doesn’t know the meaning of when he’s giving you some kind of an item. He isn’t likely to. It would be possible but not necessarily true. So you don’t have to clear the item list.

I noticed there was somebody clearing an item list and this, useless. Why clear the item list?

Now it would work the same way with a drug list so that you wouldn’t really want a canned list. Or you need to know what I mean by a canned list—one that has been pre-prepared and issued. You really wouldn’t want that. But he might not know the meaning of the word drug and I notice that people occasionally will have been on some awful medicine of some kind or another. You know, like there is a medicine puts people to sleep called bromine. And this doctor was simply giving her these tranquilizers and it was just bromine, and they don’t give it to you as a drug. And then people who have epilepsy, which is a type of disease which gives them seizures, are almost always found on some minor drug that prevents them from getting these—they call them petit mal seizures. That’s epilepsy. I don’t care how they call it. Sometimes they really seize and sometimes it’s just slight.

One of those, if an epileptic ever took you by the hand and so forth, he’s liable to break every bone in your hand, if he suddenly had a seizure. But the doctors keep them on something to prevent this. It’s just a tranquilizer and they keep them on that one year, year in and year out. And then you come along as an auditor and you try to audit the pc and you tell the pc that he’ll have to go off that drug. And then all of a sudden, why something will happen from someplace or another that the pc will tell the doctor that they have been taken off the drug by the auditor. And the doctor will call up plaintively asking you to please put her back on the drug because she needs this. And you get into a collision between medical treatment and so on.  

Now I’ve been using a lot of medical words here or chemical words really. Just don’t pay any attention to them because they’re mostly gobbledygook, and there’s an awful lot of gobbledygook words. Gobbledygook just means nonsense chatter, you see. There’s an awful lot of them.

I remember in ancient Greece trying to disentangle Latin names for diseases into the Greek and Greek’s names for the same diseases. And then the Greeks telling you they had certain diseases when they were speaking a dialect nobody else spoke and it gets pretty gobbledygook.

So actually then, what do you clear? Do you see? You could find yourself starting to give somebody a total college education in chemistry or medicine.

Now Mary Sue’s brother, who is a radiologist, an X-ray doctor. He actually was in the Navy and he specialized in this field and he came out and he’s down in Texas or someplace now. He was talking to Mary Sue not too long ago when she was over in the States, and he said, “But you can’t get”,—he’s very disgusted with the patients. He’s done his internship and all that but he’s very disgusted with patients because they can’t tell you what’s wrong. And you ask them and you ask them and you ask them and they can’t tell you what’s wrong and they come in and they can’t tell you what’s wrong. And they tell you some of the, they just don’t talk to you see and so on. And I’ve been on the verge of sending him one of these little put-together dolls which is plastic, you know. They’re about 11” tall, something like that, and they have all the organs inside of them so that his patients could point to them and say, “This is where I hurt,” you know, and he would get someplace with it.

But you cannot expect somebody to say to you, “Well, I have been taking 2cc of morphine, I’ve been using a dirty needle, and originally I was being given an injection in the “gluteus maximus”—meaning his butt. “But now it is all in the biceps.” He comes in and he says, “I got a concrete arm,” see. It means he’s injected himself so much in the arm that the arm has gone solid to the touch or something like that. You might expect him to say something like that but the chances are he won’t. And the chances are he will just simply sit there and expect you to do something magical without his volunteering a thing. But what he will volunteer he has tremendous interest on. And that is a technical datum.

Now what blows down is what is really real to him. And what he volunteers will usually read and blow down. So that although you have to word clear correction lists, clearing the pc’s own list is not necessary. But that isn’t the real problem. The real problem is getting him to make one. There is a person on these lines who has had murder, rape, death, who has been audited for years and has never mentioned these; death of people around her, perversion in the family, the wildest family background you ever heard of. The pc’s not been intensively on my lines. In other words, I haven’t been C/Sing this pc or I would have. But this person was sort of going downhill and so I got interested in this folder, and I took a look at it. And the information isn’t there. The information is on a rumor line. l started getting it into the folder. But that information came in on a rumor line.

This pc as far as I know, it could be wrong, maybe, that I didn’t check the folder. I haven’t gone exhaustively through the folder—but just looking at the pc’s condition. This hair-raising existence she led is not part of any list, not part of any white form, not part of any record. And 1/100th of it would be enough to send somebody around the bend.

Now hold your hat—she was also a psychiatric nurse. Suffering god, and you’ve been trying to audit that with all kinds of upper level processes and everything else but nobody ever got to the nitty-gritty, meaning the important core of the case.

So therefore your success will enormously depend upon your ability to sniff out the real hot dope. If the medical doctor thinks he has trouble on this, think of trying to pull a withhold on somebody who was cheating on her husband for 39 years and keeping him from ever knowing anything about it—with his best friend.

Now, I’ve mentioned the case before, is the dear little old lady that would never give up any withholds and had never done anything until we suddenly started going at it this way; “Did you murder somebody?”, “Did you poison people?”, “Have you robbed banks?” She’s sitting there with a little flower in her hat, dear little person with mittens on, don’t you see and . . . That’s really taking the long way around. And of course it came up, “Oh, I didn’t do any of those things. All I did was . . .” and there it was and that was that.

Now you’re not necessarily going to be running much in the way of ruds. But I’m giving you the basis of why people don’t talk. So therefore chains of things they have withheld, that is to say, times of withholding and so forth, will get you quite a bit of information. But it will also pull out from underneath the case one of the basic, the basic chains that are keeping them very pinned down.

So the case that doesn’t talk to you is, normally speaking, the normal case. I mean, the case that you bring on off the street, why, he has all kinds of ideas, like certain people shouldn’t inquire into certain privacies. And nobody should know anything about anybody. In fact, here is a book that was just put out, and one of our people just sent it in to me, and it’s just been published by the University of Michigan press. And the name of it is—it’s a pocketbook, probably all over the US newsstands right now—and it’s the Assault on Privacy, computers, data banks and dossiers. Quote, “What misuse of computers is doing and can do to individual freedoms—a warning of a new form of human slavery”, unquote. Now that’s by Ralph Nader, by the way.

So if a smart guy like that can propagandize against the exchange of information, why then there must be something wrong with giving up information. Now to run consequences in Dianetics would find you doing what? Running the back end of the engram, you would never get the beginning of the engram. If you can’t get to the beginning of the engram, you won’t get to the beginning of the chain and the TA will go up like mad.  
                           -     -
So let’s have an item—”being scared after battles”. Now that’s pretty obvious that every one of those you ran, see, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it, every one of those you ran, of course, has got a battle as the beginning of it. There he is, he’s got, he says, “I have this somatic in my shoulder,” and so on. And you say, “What is the item?” “Well, it’s being scared after a battle.” You’re going to grind a long, long time and you’re not going to get that somatic in his shoulder or anything else because it didn’t occur. There was such an item run a year or so ago and it was “running away from a battle”. That’s marvelous when you come right down to it, see. Now that is an invitation to run the back end of the engram, and I must warn you about this because it will give you sudden and then weird high TAs.

So you actually shouldn’t run a withhold as a chain. Why? It’s after the incident. But you could run all the overts you wanted to and all the motivators you wanted to because you would get the withhold. But he isn’t going to tell you the overt because he’s withholding it. Do you see what goes on here?

So you can get an “out of communication-ness” with the pc. And there’d be certain chains will remain seized up in the bank which nobody has touched. So this person has gone on for a long time and he has all these chains that have never been touched and never been run, and by preference he runs other chains. And that is just a case of the pc who won’t talk.

You have such a pc, you’re auditing him right now. He’s on the lines. He’s run the same thing seven times he said, I mean. Well, he’s an engram specialist, do you follow? He specializes in one chain. You got it.

Why? Because there’s something very wrong with the way he’s been audited and the way he’s been talking to auditors, and there’s something very wrong with his track, and there’s something very wrong in all directions. And whenever you see this kind of thing you say, “There is something VERY wrong.” And the first thing you can select out is there may be something wrong with his PT environment. And the next thing you can select out is maybe there was something wrong with his auditing. And the next thing you can select out is maybe he has just been avoiding running. Because when a fellow tells you he’s run the same thing seven times and it isn’t gone yet, well, he’s certainly avoiding something.

Now you could say right away, “Well, you could run ‘avoiding’, you know.” Now I do want to call to your attention—that’s not the right answer. I do want to call to your, I’ll give it to you in a minute, but I do want to call to your attention, just to close off this other subject—watch these after the fact things. Because you’ll be sitting there, “Help, the TA has now gone to 6.5.” And then all of a sudden the wrong time to realize that is you’re running “finished”. Seemed like a good item at the time, “a time you were finished.” That was pretty good.

It comes under the same rules as interiorization and you should have a familiarity with interiorization processing. And the thing which cracks the back of interiorization is when the fellow goes out of something he must have gone into it. So you have to run going into it. Now the Interiorization Rundown has been under overhaul and I should give you this one too because you’re doing word clearing.

Interiorization Rundown, you’ll find yourself being called upon to do an Int/Ext Correction List every time you see interiorization read on a Word Clearing Correction form. Now it’s there for a purpose. But it worries people because it reads. Now it can go out from day to day and some people, particularly C/Ses, become frantic and they handle it and handle it and handle it and handle it and they worry and worry and worry.

Now there was something wrong with the original Interiorization Rundown. Flow 1 was what you call “permissive” or “general”. It permitted the pc to go in any direction. So Flow 1 was often some other kind of a flow. So the flow situation is “put in”. Flow 0 is “went in”. So you can run the flows wrong. And if you’re correcting one of these things the fastest thing to do is just to, if the guy’s in a heck of a lot of mass and all that sort of thing and you’re trying to straighten it out is this wrong flow situation. Because there was a missing flow “put in” a time you were “put in”.

And that’s what they’re all afraid of—going to jail. Do you see it? Now you can even figure out they were put in this universe. So there’s a missing flow. That is actually the flow 1. So the original issues on the thing was perfectly valid and it works but sometimes when it has to be corrected and corrected and corrected and corrected nobody really asks this burning question. This really can be a missing chain called “put in” and it will probably be corrected and the Int pack will he corrected and so forth on this. We usually don’t correct things unless we’re having a lot of trouble with them. They’re having a little trouble with this in the field but that isn’t the trouble with it. The trouble is they just don’t run 1 to 9. A to D and they say . . . Now here’s the main trouble with it is they’ve never got the word defined. It’s a brain cracking word.

So if the word has never been well cleared on a Word Clearing Correction List it will continue to read. Now you just had one come through where it did read and you were going to do an Int/Ext. Well now the test is simply this: TA was not misbehaving. Only do an Int Ext correction list when you’ve got a TA misbehavior—too high or really too low. You see that?

Now you call separate out a tremendous amount if you just recognize and remember; don’t go panic on Interiorization read. Don’t panic on it the hell with it. TA wasn’t high. Now Interiorization is only run to cure a high TA. It is not run to exteriorize somebody. So therefore if the TA wasn’t high you have a no situation. So Int read, two way comm, so forth, “How do you feel about interiorization?” “Do you understand what the word means?”. You don’t ask them one after the other “How do you feel about interiorization?” Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap F/N. So that s it. That takes a weight off of your shoulders.

And the other one is if just “waffle, waffle...(etc.)” “Give me a definition for it”. And he’ll say, “Well, I just never knew that”. And get him to define it and it’ll stop reading.

So those, those, that point is something you should know something about. Thank you very much.

END OF TAPE

EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE No. 3

To the Flag Dianetic Auditing Team on 7 April 1972

7204C07 SOII

AUDITOR ADMINISTRATION

All right. Now, actually your auditing has been very good. It’s been very, very good. And the only thing I’m picking you up on is just on a, I haven’t picked you up as hard as I could on it, is just the common old garden variety form of the administrative actions. So I’ll go over those.

The form of a folder: it is a folder and it does have the consecutive sessions and examiner reports and C/Ses, page by page, from way back at the bottom up to the top of it. The folder mustn’t get too fat. The program is on the left-hand inside cover. The pc’s name is on the edge of the back; the pc’s name is on the top face of the folder. It’s on the edge so that you can pull it out of a stack when they’re lying in packs. Now you know all that sort of thing. But there’s a little bit more to know about it, and that is, you always check off the step on the program that you have done. That doesn’t seem like much, but actually that gives, it gives another terminal in the Org the information he looks for. He wants to know how far the program is done so he knows when this guy will be finished, that’s the Host. He wants to know when this person will be finished and he can estimate in some very, very odd fashion if he looks at the date of the last session, or the last C/S, which is uppermost, and then looks over on the red program sheet (the ink written program sheet), and he looks and sees that’s checked off and there’s just two more steps to do. Now, he does have enough sense to know about how long it takes to do what’s left. But he is not a technical terminal, so therefore, the Folder Summary would be meaningless to him. It’s usually abbreviated and it’s this and that. But all he wants to know is how far does that program got to go. Now, that’s all, actually, a D of P wants to know. He isn’t paying any attention to the folder summary either. But he is paying attention to that program sheet.

Now, that program sheet was laid out by the C/S as a hopeful action. Now, you’ve just been doing a lot of these, but it’s the hopeful action that these steps will bring this case back to battery. “Back to battery” artillery term. A gun after it fires is said “out of battery” which is to say it recoils. And then after it fires is supposed to go back to battery which is sitting the way you see them in photographs. And they use the term in slang to indicate somebody who is now fixed up. So this guy will be all right for something or what he has had will now be over.

Most of the time when you read these things, the C/S, I could give you a purer definition and say it is a completed case for that level. But the C/S normally doesn’t think like that he’s looking through there and he sees all of these mistakes in the FES and he sees all of this and that, and something or other has happened with the case, and this or that is wrong with the case and he really doesn’t even think, most of the time, of what he’s trying to make right with the case. But he knows these things have to be handled. So therefore he writes this program down and the end of that program should be, well, this guy is safe to go off on a mission, he’s all right to go home, he will do all right on his post. That’s the way they normally think of this, and so on. And your point of view; it would be a well person, something of that sort, for such a program.

Now, technically speaking, when you are doing something to bring a case back up to where the case  ought to he on his Grade Chart, that is to say, the big Grade Chart, that is a Progress Program. You’re not putting him through another grade. Now, we’ve got a little split in Specialist Dianetics because, actually, we’re writing these things up on a Red Sheet when they’re really Expanded Dianetics and are a grade really in themselves So, we’ve written all those on Red Sheets, but actually they ought to be two sheets. They ought to be; the actions necessary to get them up to Expanded Dianetics would be the repair, and then when you start running Expanded Dianetics it should be on a Green Sheet because in actual fact is a grade.

Now, it wouldn’t much matter where this fellow was, he is still getting a grade. It doesn’t matter whether this grade fits on his grade chart now, it’s going to fit clear up there after OT III.  It doesn’t matter if it fits before he’s going to have more or any Dianetics at all. It doesn’t matter if it fits after Dianetics, it’s an entirely separate grade. And what it’s going to-do is fix him up, as a Grade, to make a well person out of him. Now, you will find then, that these sheets will start, and they look like a repair of Dianetics, but it isn’t really a repair of Dianetics, he just couldn’t run it. So, they didn’t run Dianetics He didn’t like engrams or something. He didn’t understand the words. So, therefore, you’re really doing a specialist action which would permit him to run Dianetics. But, in doing that, you’re going to cure him.

Now, you see, Dianetics isn’t just a health action. It can do two more things. One of those products is a person who will continue to be well for a long time. And the other one is, it will increase his abilities. Now, when you bridge over to the point where he’s well you’re really just doing Dianetics. So what you’re really working is for a well person. Not a person who will continue to he physically well for a long time. Because that would be Dianetics.

So, you’ll find out that interns, others, will say, “Well, this Expanded Dianetics that we’re running actually is just like Dianetics and we’ve got to clear the lists anyhow, and so on “Well, the trouble with that is, the length of time it would take to make a Dianetic Auditor who was capable of doing Expanded Dianetics would interrupt the whole show right there. Because there are a lot of people that can run Dianetics. It’s quite successful in lots of peoples’ hands on lots of pcs. So, now we’re going to teach him all of Dianetics and with no experience with running Dianetics whatsoever, we’re going to launch him off into very, being very fancy at handling Dianetics. Oh yeah! Oh, we won’t make it. So, this influences your programming.

So, you really have two green sheets. You’ve got your repair to get him up there. Now, where you have drawn a line here and there, and have marked in (printed in) Expanded Dianetics, if you want to he very stylized about it all. That is over, that repair is over, that is it. That’s the red sheet, finished. We’re going to give him, let us say, a Primary Rundown and we’re going to, and so on, we’re going to send him to the doctor to get his epiglottis cured. That’s a fictitious term. And so, you’ve probably noticed it, that your people are sort of out of phase. You don’t know quite where you’re starting on them and where you’re not starting on them and so forth, because there are some beginning steps every now and then. They’re supposed to get Word Clearing Number One and that sort of thing. They’re supposed to get this, that or the other thing and then they’re going to have, so on. Well, now, if they bog down on Word Clearing you’re going to have to handle that and finish up their Word Clearing Number One. Right? That’s a repair
You shouldn’t start out and pick up somebody and do a Word Clearing Number One and say that you’re starting Expanded Dianetics. There’s nothing wrong with his Word Clearing, you’re just going to clear, give him Word Clearing Number One and then you’re going to start Expanded Dianetics. It’s actually the waste of a specialist.

So, all of these prior actions that you have to take to get the person up there might or might not be by the Dianetic Specialist but certainly Expanded Dianetics will be by the Dianetic Specialist. And it would be up to judgment on who’d repair it. Well, a frequent change of auditors upsets people like mad. So if these are not very extensive, well, I’d go ahead and do a Word Clearing Correction List or something like that. But particularly if it’s a Word Clearing Correction List or something like that, yeah, well, you’d want to do that yourself. But you’re going to start this fellow out and you’re going to give him Word Clearing Number One and then you’re going to take all the things that he has ever read up to date, and you’re going to clear those with Word Clearing Number Two. And then you’re going to get him entirely through the Primary Correction Rundown of Study Tapes and finding his “why” and you’re going to do all this, huh? No Wrong hat.

Now, if you start adding those things in, and if you don’t have a good idea of exactly where you belong on the Grade Chart or your action, then you’re going to go adrift. Because all of a sudden, you’ll start inheriting all the bits and pieces and odds and ends that nobody can figure out where to go. Now you just inherited one. Girl came in here, auditing her, I just had her folder. You did a Word Clearing Correction List on her, something like that and WHAM, she was incomplete, middle of the rundown, read like mad. On Advanced Courses! She had no more business under gods earth being any place but over on Advanced Courses because if you ran anything else on her until she finished that up she would still he getting audited in the middle of another rundown. You can’t perpetuate the error, that is continue the error forever. She didn’t belong to you at all. They goofed. And what do you know, just got through goofing again. The auditor looked over the list after the session, found out she still had a reading item on the list she’d forgotten to handle, so decided she would get her back into session next time, handle that.

The time the person got ill, she was rather chronically ill for a long period of time, but the time the person really got ill, currently, is she was declared complete on an AO rundown, promptly got ill. The A0, the Advanced Courses Unit lost the pc off the lines, that is all. It didn’t call the pc back in, didn’t review the pc, didn’t at that time, which is why that was reorganized at that time early February. Had no slightest idea of who was on the lines, just let them, just lost them all over the place. So a guy would go out and give himself a solo session, fall on his head, red tabbed, never be called back into the Advanced Courses, didn’t have a review auditor . So it was an untidy scene, to say the least.

And here, all of a sudden, you’ve got this folder. Now you want to know what to do with this. So, routing, you see, is important to you. What do you do with this guy? All right, you’re perfectly willing to go on and do it. I marked it, because I didn’t know whether Advanced Courses would repair the person or not. I marked it that you could do it if you wanted to, if they didn’t. No reason to just stall the pc and again lose the pc off the lines.     
                            
But it s just been done and what happened was, is repair actions continuously were taking place on this pc in the middle of an AO rundown since 1968 and it’s now ‘72. And then the person finally said, in some off hand way that she thought she was finished. They put another C/S in that folder and - it might have been there in the review folder where it shouldn’t have been - but, I don’t think there was any declare? They then lost the folder. And she promptly afterwards got sick and the AO didn’t route any exam report into the folder and they never kept track in Advanced Course line of their pre-OT’s, what business have you got to do with that? None, none whatsoever.

Now, if at some time, when that action, which is a red, red sheet action, don’t you see, but Advanced Courses, when they finish that up and the person is still falling on their head and that sort of thing, and etcetera. But when that level is completed why that is the time to come over. Actually, the Review Auditor at this particular time doesn’t want to be there. You normally find people who were doing a bad job aren’t quite on the post. They either haven gotten onto the post, not that they aren’t hatted, they just don’t, haven’t gotten onto the post yet, or they’re leaving the post, or they want to leave the post, or they are somebody else while holding that title, or they have a wrong product which is changing their post hat but they don’t ever notice it, which can be very interesting.

You know, that the D of P can have completed programs as his product and he’s of course the C/S. I want you to take a look at that. Now, let’s exaggerate it. Let’s exaggerate it, so you can really see it. Supposing the Folder Page had “well pcs”, as a product. Now, the Folder Page of course is not even in connection with the pcs or the auditors but is only with the C/S. It was interesting, I had a couple of my Messengers the other day trying to work out their product, on folder paging. We found out that it didn’t really describe it. I think they came up with finally, the action was “feeding folders to the Senior C/S and routing them to tech”, which have, of course, the product. Should he “a folder fed to the Senior C/S and routed to Tech.” And that was what these messengers were doing up there. By ‘‘fed” we mean put on the deck, opened, so that it could be handled and taken off the deck and routed and so on. Soon as we cleared that they went, whizz-whizz-whizz-whizz-whizz-whizz-whizz-whizz, a whole great big stack of folders went down bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzmmm. Up to that time, I would have them, I was having to yell for them for each folder, they didn’t have a product.

So a product can be very, very, very important. It can be so important that the slowness that you are trying to get handled can simply be something is wrong about the product. They either don’t have one at all, they haven’t named the product, they’re really, mentally, working for the wrong product, never having  straightened it out. Am I making my point now? So that if you, as a Dianetic Specialist, are working for an AO product—ahhh, the bell begins to toll, huh? So, the second that you find yourself off product by reason of programs you know you’re handling something that doesn’t belong to you.

Now, I’ll tell you something very funny. The pending basket, the center pending basket of the three tiers of baskets top is the ‘‘IN”, center is “PENDlNG”, bottom “OUT”, all right. Very good Or, they were reversed if I remember rightly. The stuff in that center basket, if you go into an executive’s office, will be found not to belong to him, and that’s why it’s in pending. And you can go into that middle pending basket and just take all the stuff out and sit down with the executive, if you’re a communicator, and you can just take them one by one and say, “who does this belong to?” And all of a sudden, the bulk of all that stuff he’s been holding onto, one belongs to Address, somebody else belongs to something else, somebody belongs to something else and so on. They’re all parts of the, see. Not the wrong parts of the, they’re all in the parts of the that he isn’t having anything to do with.

So, this tells you, just on that example that you could accumulate a tremendous number of pcs that nothing would happen with if you continued to work on the wrong product and that they belong to somebody else for some reason. And when you get backlogs, let me give you this very sound advice, look over and see that those pcs belong to you. Now that is why you have the programs very, very well sharply done, particularly as the Dianetics Specialist. That top one is red, you don’t have to change all of your stuff, making you redo your programs, you’re going on down through the line fine, you did very good programs. That top one, that top red one, that’s to get him up to a place where you can work on him. Now it might be that the repairs are so slight or something like that, like Word Clearing, so on. Well, fine, correction list. Got to correct his Word Clearing, nobody else is going to. But you should realize at that moment that you’re really working on another product, see. It’s almost worth a chit. “FMAA, person word cleared, such and such a time, place, according to the folder, such and such an auditor, found out.”

Now we sent one out the other day, we sent one to the AOLA Rap-rap-rap, couple of nice, juicy conditions. They sent a guy in here, after his Word Clearing he had a horrible headache so they ran a couple of Class VI processes that have very little to do with headaches. And it didn’t occur to a single soul that he had just had Word Clearing and he should have a Word Clearing Correction List run on him. He’s running like a hot bomb now because we ran a Word Clearing Correction List on him. But we also sent a chit and that isn’t being mean, that’s just trying to keep the lines policed. If you don’t ever make any effort to keep the lines policed they’ll cave in on you. It isn’t even of great concern to you that this gets handled by the MAA or something. You just write it down, who it was, and where, and what you got, and you can go ahead and handle it. But that makes you aware of the fact that you’re handling somebody else’s product of one kind or another and keeps you from scrambling up your products. And that’s the only thing I’m trying to ask you not to do.

Now, if you’re going to make this person well and you’re going to use Expanded Dianetics on, well, you have to do a little bit of repair to get him up to that point. But your Expanded Dianetics is an action and it is a grade in its own right. Really, the AMA would jump me for saying it, and I think California has laws that nobody can cure cancer. And they’ve just disobeyed that law in England because a doctor up there, who is a Dianetic Auditor, has just cured somebody of totally proven cancer. Has taken him over to the medical association and a big conference and so on, and displayed him complete with the X-rays and so forth. So, gee it’s a good thing he didn’t do that in California.
We had all auditor, in 1950s, who was actually arrested for the fact of, proven conclusively, because he’d audited somebody and they had gotten well and it was against the law to cure that disease. He got off, there wasn’t anything happened to him at all, somebody was just making a push on it locally. Pretty crazy, huh? Proved it conclusively. Against the law to heal it and he’d done it.  Man. Man unaimed sometimes is idiocy.

Anyway, I’m not warning you not to cure things but saying that this product of “a cured person” can’t be stated that way, it has to be stated as “a well person,” illegal. I’ve worked it out one time, I think it’s because the undertaker’s percentage to the AMA, and so forth, would lose and drop as a stat if you - That’s the only reason I could find for it. I’m sure they get ten or twenty percent of all the funeral fees. Anyhow, it must be.

But in this field, in this field, that’s the product, that’s your product, it’s a well person. All right, fine, but if the other actions have to be taken, like sending him to a medical doctor or getting their head sewn up or something like this why that is quite another action. That is quite another action than what you’re supposed to be doing. Well, you can send him to the medical doctor, that’s beside the point. But it’s another, it’s not the product you are working for. They won’t get well anyhow but, it’s not what you’re working for. But there has to he a certain number of actions that bring you up to where you are going to do this Expanded Dianetics, and then that should be on a Green Sheet. And then if you’re going to do Dianetics, why that ought to be included, that is, sooner or later this guy is going to be well, see. Well, you’re not going to audit him forever. That’s it. Turn him over to the HSDC. You get the point? So, that has a lot to do with what it is.

All right. Now, always mark in a folder summary, mark in your session, and your admin time, and approximately whether it ran and what, approximately what was run, and what happened with the Exam report. Now, you know all those things, but do you know they get omitted? And all you got to do is omit one of those things and you’ve had it. Now, there’s something else, it sounds so petty and so little and so tiny. Number your pages back and front The first page of the Work Sheet is number one, and the second page of the work sheet is number two, and the third page of the work sheet is the next sheet. Now why all that? Well, you’ve possibly haven’t been working with a meticulous, meaning a very precise, C/S and it makes a difference. You want to be able to say, “it’s page twenty-six” or “page twenty-five” “Now the R/S which occurred on page twenty-five,’’ in writing this, your C/S, up. And it just saves more time than you ever cared to look at. And furthermore, it gives you the proper number of pages that the session went It doesn’t matter whether you write big or small. Now, if you write big, that’s fine, but write legibly. I mean readable.

So a work sheet is fixed up at the end of the session. Go through it and glance through it and see whether or not there are any words that nobody could make out. And if they are, put it in BLOCK PRINT. Now you can overdo this to an extent, that it’s almost sarcasm. At the most it’d just run one or two corrections to a page or something like that. But if you’re having to correct 3 pages like that, then the auditor should learn how to write rapidly, legibly, and people can do that.

A newspaper reporter, by the way, of 1898, could write faster than a man could talk, longhand, beautifully. And I have seen notes taken by the Columbian College Association, George Washington University. I wrote their Historical Supplement. I didn’t go there by the way, you know, I merely was a - that’s what they tell people - that’s very funny. Before they lie like that they ought to go in and look at some of their things I used to, I used to write their supplements, like their magazine supplements, and that sort of thing. I always was on the front page. And you go in and find out who was the President of the American Society of Civil Engineers and that sort of thing, in such and such a year, and I got my name up in gold on the wall. They’re not clever, and so on.

But actually, that is an organization that was dominated by a fellow named Oberholzer. They were dominated there through their psychology department. And he’s World Federation of Mental Health, (SMERSH) I shouldn’t speak harshly of the World Federation of Mental Health at this particular time because you never speak of those that are dying. But that’s where all that came from. Hasn’t anything to do with anything else. I expect in another 50 years they’ll probably have a gold plaque out in front of the building, you know. So I tell everybody I didn’t go there, that fixes them.

Well, now, when you find an Ethics situation in a folder you mark it. You don’t necessarily turn it in because you can’t try a guy on his work sheets in his auditing, it’s illegal. But you, for heaven’s sakes, at least make mention of it on your Auditor’s C/S. And if he R/Ses you make mention of it. “R/S on page 21” And when you’re doing that and you’re doing, your administration, you pick up that R/S, circle it with a red pencil.

Now if an Evil Purpose suddenly leaps into view with a crash and a bang or a very very juicy item leaps up with a crash and a bang, it’s a little bit dramatic to pick up a red pencil in the session and circle it, but you can put a bar along side of it to be circled. Now when an Evil Purpose jumps up you mark it over on the side of the program. And when this person is suddenly found to be R/Sing you mark it over on the edge, the left-hand edge of the program, the topmost program, “R/Ses “ That’s all you have to say. But on your work sheet and so on, why, you should say what page it’s on. Now if you wanted to be very fancy on the thing, you would say date and work sheet page on the program. And you should do that for an Evil Purpose because somebody up the line is going to want to date and locate that thing and he doesn’t want to go through seventeen feet of folders just to find one lousy evil purpose. You got it?

So, the upshot of this is that it’s information. Now, that for sure is marked on your Folder Summary, and it’s usually marked in red, and the evil purpose is similarly marked. Your Dianetic items are for sure marked, “ran so and so and so and so “Well, you know that and you’re doing that, but that evil purpose there, mark that in red with a bit of a circle on it also, back there on the Folder Summary because somebody else up the line is going to mark “I hate everybody” or whatever the evil purpose is, that isn’t one. He’s going to mark that, that it was dated and located, so you can check a Folder Summary and find out whether things were handled.

A lot of things wrong with an FES is that they’ve already been handled. And it’s very very difficult to track whether or not they’ve been handled. So, the mark down of handling and so forth is correct.

Now, when you correct a list, a list is brought forward and corrected and so on, why, it should be marked as corrected. Otherwise, somebody will be correcting it again, somebody’s TA will go up and they’ll wonder what in the hell is going on. Now, we’re just talking about common little old garden variety admin that makes the lines flow smoothly. They are otherwise; the auditor writes out his C/S and the C/S gives the session grade and all that. You know these things, these are fine. But I’m just giving you just these little tiny fine points that make it a lot easier to run. Now, when you get those things in you’ll find it is.

Now, I notice you’re putting a slip on the outside of your folder, totally unnecessary. But you could put some Christmas tape on it. That marks the folder as being on Expanded Dianetics. I don’t care what color tape you use. Usually they’re marked, when you’re marking a folder, mark it around the back, that is, from the cover around the back of the bind, so it can be picked out of a folder stack Now, they use green as advanced courses, but we’ve, more of less, ceased to use red, so you might as well use red. And that is enough.

Now, they know those folders are coming up and there’s no reason to mark a routing slip on them. It is that stack and you should have a place to put that stack of folders “GO TO” or you bring them up. And then there is, should be an arrangement of that stack of folders, goes back and appears in this place And then you won’t be into a horrible scramble. The folder, completely aside from the pc has its own routing lines. And people sometimes don’t recognize that they’re routing a folder, they’re routing an auditor, they’re routing a pc. And that’s why they have a scramble and confusion, because they’ve just got one of the items, like the auditor. They don’t get the auditor something. It’s one of these things that’s left out and you get an omitted datum continuously and that messes up the scene.

All right. Now, all of that’s well and good. How many misunderstood words have you picked up now? Have you picked up any or anything, speak up if you have? All right, thank you very much.

END OF TAPE

EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE No. 4

To the Flag Dianetic Auditing Team on 7 April 1972

ILLNESS BREAKTHROUGH

I have been researching very, very hard. I have been researching very, very, very hard actually to find out why they kick in bad pictures and why they kick in pictures at all. And, well, it’s been a very long time I’ve been looking at this, a long time. And I finally unraveled it. So it is one hell of breakthrough.

I’ve been interested in it because we’re working with Expanded Dianetics, and it is one hell of a breakthrough. It is actually why people get sick.

Pasteur came along in the last part of the 19th century and he invented germs, and it gave everyone and his brother an awful curve, because they do exist. But in the practice there is a thing called predisposition. Here’s some marvelous words for you— predisposition. In other words, before the fact, the guy is disposed to get sick. And then there’s precipitation and that means what precipitates this illness.

Now he’s already predisposed; this guy’s going to get sick. Now he’s suddenly sick; that’s precipitated. The illness precipitated. And then he doesn’t get well and that’s called prolongation. In other words, it’s just continuously gone on with. There’s these three factors: predisposition, precipitation, prolongation.

Now in most of these cases you were handling prolongation. But you also could be handling Preventive Dianetics—precipitation. Now those facts are merely academic, and they have been known to medical professions on this and other planets for a very long time. They’ve never known how anybody got sick.

Now why do you get sick? Well, actually a body is made sick or is given accidents by the being who is running it. Now a fellow can be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and be hit by an artillery shell that is the only one fired in this century in Central Park. Well, that’s not necessarily his fault. So barring that accident, which is sort of the thing that triggers it in the first place. He predisposes himself to a very marked degree to become ill. If he’s going to become ill he predisposes himself to becoming ill.

How does he do that? Well, he misses the boat. He takes his finger off his number, other clichés of this character. He forgets to eat his Wheeties for two months, you know. Something like this you see. He does something. He knows this babe he’s going with is out-ethics and yet he goes on going with her, that sort of thing. She knows this guy has already had 115 girlfriends but she thinks she’s going to be permanent. In other words, she predisposes herself. You got the idea?

Now the precipitation is exactly at this point, EXACTLY at this point - the threat of loss. Any inkling or belief or idea that the person is going to be unsafe or insecure or is going to lose and go a little bit further south and a little less viable, if you want to use such a word. It would be innumerable, absolutely innumerable reasons why a person believes that this is going to occur. But that is what is going to occur. It’s going to be some loss. His existence is threatened. His positions or possessions are threatened or somebody around him is threatened. It could he on the other two flows. It could also be on flow 0.

In other words, he’s going to become less secure, because he’s going to lose a body. Something happens to his friends, therefore, he’s not going to have any friends. So, not going to have any friends, why that will make him stand alone. He knows he can’t— quote, unquote—that he can’t stand alone so therefore it is inevitable that then something will happen to him and then he won’t be able to support the body and then . . . Do you get the chain, the chain think? And that will come down to his loss of a body. And that will come down to loss.

All right. Well we know people get sick when they’re threatened with loss. We have known this for a long time. As a matter of fact, on TV, in front of half of San Francisco that was at their TV sets one time, I took the announcer or the girl who was showing this. She was on before the camera, she had a cold and she was before the camera with a cold. She went off the camera. I saw her in the waiting room. I had just given a talk, by the way, on TV. Saw her in the outside vestibule waiting to go on again, saw that she had a cold, just gave her a couple of commands of straightwire. Ping, ping and that was the end of her cold. I just asked her who she’d lost lately or something like this. And got the exact person and that was it. And she all of a sudden brightened up madly. Terrific, terrific PR. And she walks back in the room to announce her next product and instead of announcing what she’s selling, she says, “You know that fellow who was just on here . . . You know I had a cold when I was talking to you before and he said a couple of things to me and it’s gone.” Very good PR.

I used to do this occasionally, almost a parlor trick. And I tried to teach the MOs to do it down here, and so on. They kept it up for a little while but because TRs are not, you know, just not, not being swift about the thing, they dropped it out. But it probably would he, bunged up anyway.

But there you have an interesting display on a minor recall basis of somebody getting well by having a threatened loss spotted or a loss spotted, see?

You can actually take somebody who looks about 49 or something, some girl maybe about 30 and she looks about 49. She’s lost her husband. You erase it just as a narrative. It might take you hours and hours and hours and all of a sudden have her again looking good. And if you carried it up and did the whole chain and that sort of thing why you’d have somebody looking about 25, see.

Well, we’ve done that sort of thing. We know about that but what’s the mechanism? Why does this exact thing happen? We know that it happens but why it happens? Now if you knew why it happened, boy could you do something with it.

Well, I’ll tell you why it happens. The thetan promptly and immediately mocks up mass to substitute for the loss instantly. And that is exactly what he does. And if his acceptance level or he is feeling goof-goof, his acceptance level, you know, what he really could have - is low - that is, he couldn’t have very much - he will mock up pretty bad things because nobody else wants those. 

And now hold your hat. One of the basic uses of mock-ups was magic curing, curing by magic. Now the way the magician works in even primitive tribes, like in the Philippines, is a woman has a horrible pain in her stomach. And the magician, with sleight of hands, will lie clown and groan and so forth and produce a brightly red painted stone from his own stomach, at which moment she gets well and walks away.

Well, that would he very difficult to understand if you didn’t know old time match terminaling. You can actually get two things to discharge, one against the other if they are the same or very similar. So she’s got a pain in her stomach and she’s told him that it just feels like a red hot stone is in there and she’s chattered along. So he goes out and he gets his boy to paint a stone red in a hurry and he comes back in, he lies there and he got rid of it and so therefore she would get rid of it. And he’s given her a matched terminal.

There’s a lot of technical stuff that we used to have about this. This is all out of creative processing. But the way a thetan cured himself—quote, unquote—was if he, body got bashed in, he mocked up the incident so that the body would recover from it.

Let’s say his face was bashed in. So if he mocked up a bashed in face—I’m really giving you stuff way the hell and gone out of levels to end off the thing - but if he got a bashed in face, the body got a bashed in face, then if he mocked up that bashed in face, then the bashed in-ness of the body’s face would of course discharge against his mock-up. And, theoretically the body’s face would get all right. Well, what do you know? It works once in a while. What an idiot trick. And that’s why he has mock-ups of all his accidents, and all of his illnesses. And because he did this urgently when loss is suddenly threatened and he urgently mocks up, he tricks the other mechanism. He tricks the cure mechanism. Curing by mocking up bashed in faces.

So he’s about to lose the body, so the thing to do is to suddenly mock up. And his impulse to mock up will unfortunately trigger the fact that he has mocked up in the past - bashed in faces; gutted stomach, half eaten by a lion - but that was loss too. So it’s a sympathetic note in it. You see, one incident’s similar to the other incident. He didn’t mock up a bashed in face excerpt he’s might going to lose his body. So his impulse to mock up is just (shout word) see. And he just hits. He doesn’t say, “Now I’m going to mock up about 8 witches”, nice, you see. He doesn’t do that. It’s pung!

So Bessie Ann standing there, you suddenly say, “Your father was just killed.” And she goes, “Pow!” and she turns white and she does this or she does that and she has a horrible pain in her stomach, you got it? But because he’s now lost, she will continue to mock that up and you’ll get prolongation.

Now she either ceases to mock it up and she gets well or she continues to mock it up and will feel sick. And I don’t care how many gallons of antibiotics you pour into this girl, if this happened to also result in a stomach somatic or an infectious type of wound or something, it’s not going to recover. It’s just not going to recover. You can pump the penicillin to him just left and right and any other antibiotic or drug that you can think of. And you could make them more comfortable but that’s about all. And then they suddenly break out with it again and the trick is, it’s just whether or not they cease to mock up.

Now when they first were working with penicillin, it, they thought, prevented inhibited, suppressed the reproduction of the disease cell. The disease couldn’t breed anymore In other words, couldn’t mock up. That was one of the first theories on it. I don’t know what theory they’re operating on now. But that was one of the first theories—that it prevented mockup. And I think it does just that, only I don’t think it had anything to do with the bugs.

If you can restore circulation to an area, the body itself is perfectly capable of healing up almost anything except maybe having lost both legs. But there are some animals which even grow new tails. I remember a bunch of little lizards that I had terrible overts on in my teens. Because a lizard would be sitting there and so forth and you put your finger on his tail, and he’d walk off and separate from his tail That was it; he’d just leave his tail sitting right there and so forth and you watch him a few days later if he crawled around on screens and that sort of thing He’d just grow a new tail.

So Lord knows what bodies will or won’t do because they are so considerably interfered with. I’m not saying that bodies will grow new bodies and all that sort of thing. So what is this cycle, see?

Threat of loss, mock up. Mock up what? Mock up having matched terminals, something to cure it. He’d double terminalled the thing. If I remember rightly, matched terminals was four. But he’d just “bang”.
So you tell this fellow that he has lost all of his money in the bank. You can’t say now that he will always get tuberculosis. You can’t say he’s going to get a cold. You can’t say he’s going to get pneumonia, you can’t say he’s going to come down with a nervous breakdown. You can’t tell what the hell he’s going to do. do you follow? Because it’s only what he has in the past mocked up, to match what things have happened in the past. So the sky’s the limit.

So you’ve got this terrific variation, see. You got almost infinite variation so nobody could get down to the bottom of the mechanism because they just ran into pieces of the mechanism. Threat of loss, pong!

Now we already have had people running secondaries of loss and all that, and there’s a lot of technology about that. We’re not necessarily talking about that now.

Now I could give you more, I could go on talking about this in its theory. But I’m sure you grasp it. There are various reasons why they do this, that and the other thing. But the main point that we’ve got here is that Expanded Dianetics has just moved into the realm of havingness.

Now we used to run havingness for a few months and then we would forget it for six months. And then I would say to people, “I don’t know why this works but it’s a good thing to run havingness.” If you listen to old tapes and that sort of thing you will find that was the case, see. It’s the discussion of the thing. Puzzled me. How come? How come? “Look around here and find something you can have. Good. Look around here and find something you can have. Good,” and the guy feels better.

You say, “All right, all right, but the physical universe isn’t necessarily his friend.” Now yes, by observation, running havingness in any one of its hundreds of different processes or forms would do some remarkable things. It often did very remarkable things. Objective processes like the CCHs, they do remarkable things. You know this is Command Control Havingness whatever this line is. Havingness is all I’m giving you the point on. Havingness, see, was part of the CCHs. It gave people havingness.

And what is havingness? Is that is simply the idea that they can have something. It’s changing their mind and basically you could put it down to a reassurance. So they’re sick, so the cycle goes this way. Pardon me. They’re threatened with loss, they mock up something obsessively that they used to cure themselves with, bang, and then you come along with havingness. And you show them they still have something, and so they cease to mock these pictures up.

Now as you run these things out, you are also performing a very remarkable thing because they did those obsessively and they really don’t know they’re doing them, and they appear so magically and there are some other factors involved, which you needn’t pay much attention to. But there they are. So the next time they lose something they don’t mock up that chain.

Now this can go so far that a person knows that he’s losing and he’s got to keep it mocked up all the time. And you try to audit him, and he’s rather resistive. He isn’t quite sure that he wants to, “What do you mean....” So it looks like he wants his stomach ache. He doesn’t know where his stomach ache comes from. He just knows above all other things that he had better continue to mock up as solidly as possible, because he’s had it.

Now if you run out the shocks of loss, his fathers death, you run out these various things, any somatic chain, do down the chain, any emotion, any attitude - you are in to some degree or another straightening out this threat. But the fellow who will only run one chain, and I told you earlier that I was going to tell you some more about that. Now what he’s really withholding is the fact that he’s not about to give up any mass because, boy has he had it.

Now the acceptance level of people is what gets in your road in havingness. They have the idea that if they’ve lost something they can’t have - And havingness is just an idea. Like money, money is just an idea backed up by confidence but don’t try to tell a pawnbroker that. It’s terribly real to him. If you tried to tell somebody in one of these international bankers and so forth that, or not, no, they know money isn’t anything. They just throw it around in scoop shovelfuls. But you try to tell the local small town rich man, who counts on his cash as the totality of his power. Otherwise a very nasty character. You take this guy and now you try to tell him and educate him into the idea that money is not that important, you’re going to lose. And you’re going to lose that argument. As a matter of fact, he’s going to think you’re a silly ass. He knows what’s important.

Now that’s what you’re doing when you’re talking to some pc and he just runs one chain after another chain. Now there can be something very bugged in this pc’s auditing that causes him loss. Now the strange part of it is that a person can’t exteriorize and apparently not have anything, and he perfectly happy. Now there’s an oddity. But they didn’t at that moment really lose anything.

Now why is it that after they’ve been exteriorized their TA goes up? If they accidentally exteriorized and weren’t smoothed out in any way, what would happen to them? You hang him out of his head, all of a sudden he said, “I’ve lost,” mock up— boom—mass, high TA.

If he accidentally startles himself half to death as having exteriorized or something— I’ve had a pc stuck on the ceiling that was begging me, for Christ’s sakes, to do something. I’ve had phone calls in the middle of the nights from auditors and so forth. “What do we do, she is in the attic and we can’t get her out.” That’s right, fact!

Five auditors sitting around, one of them had exteriorized and he couldn’t get her back in her head and dumped her body. And there she lies. Nobody could . . .

The funniest tale of all of that is, we’ve never had a catastrophe with it. But the funniest tale of all of that is the auditor who all of a sudden had a pc—the English slang term was “do a bunk”, which meant run away or desert—and they started calling this “do a bunk”. Actually, this auditor had a pc and the pc did a bunk. Well, when they really do a bunk, boy they do a bunk. They’re going past Arcturus, as I’ve said before, at 90 miles an hour, or two light years a second, and really did a bunk. When they do that the whole body collapses and their arms will hang down and they look like an old rag doll that somebody has just grabbed half the stuffing’s out of. They really Bzuhhhh, that’s it. They don’t roll up on the floor in a prenatal or something like that. They just go. That’s it, you know, boom.

And this auditor talked and talked because they’re still in dim communication, you see. And he talked and talked to her—”Think of your husband, think of your children, think of . . .” and so on and he talked and talked to her. He couldn’t get her to come back and pick up the body at all. Till all of a sudden he happened to think, “Think of your poor auditor,” and she came back and picked up the body.

I was just a couple of minutes late. State cops were in my way, but a Negro had been drowned and I was just . . . They were in my road to a point where I couldn’t get to the guy and tell him to pick up the body again, where he would have, don’t you see. And they were busy resuscitating him and that was the end of that. It was too late. He really had done a bunk. He finished.

We’ve actually brought little kids back to life and that sort of thing—just tell them “pick up the body,” you know. Now, you just tell them with tone 40, just say it around the vicinity. They’re still around. And back they come again.

As a matter of fact, Washington, DC. got very mad at a Scientologist one time. He decided he was going to do a bunk and he was, going to drop the body and he did. He just had an unpleasant afternoon with IRS, and he came back and he just kicked the bucket. That was it, colder than ice and he just wouldn’t pick up the body again. And they told him and they told him and they told him and he wouldn’t. That was it. He, by the way, has shown up again calling for his favorite cigars at two years old.

But anyhow, the upshot of all of this is, is this opens the door to a fabulous amount of action on your part which will sometimes look very magical, because remedy of havingness in various ways. Now the only thing that gets wrong with the thing is, “What can the guy have?”

And you will find that I have just given a demonstration here to the Flag Medical officers which is HCO B 7 Apr 1972, “Touch Assists, Correct Ones”, which I call your attention to. Now what’s that all about? Yes, well, this is all about equalizing and it says at the beginning that this is how you tell a medical doctor about it. “On assists, when you are speaking with medicos you talk to them in terms of restoring comm in blood and nerve channels.” Notice that is in there; because that isn’t what you’re doing. You’re giving him back the havingness of his body. And if he finds he can occupy this body and he call have it back, he will start turning off the obsessive ‘mock it up’. Guy runs into a wall with a car. First thought—lose the body, mock it up. So he’s got a nice engram sitting there and he will let go of it when you run a touch assist because he becomes aware of the fact that he still has the body. It might be in a little second hand shape but he’s still got one. And if you remind him of this today, and the other thing that people don’t do with a touch assist is they don’t give them the next day. I don’t know, what the hell, we got quickie touch assists of all other things. Sure, it’s short sessions. You just run it to a cognition. But where’s the touch assist the next day, and where’s the touch assist the day after that and where’s the touch assist the next day? Oh, the guy didn’t get totally well, so there must be something still there.

The body’s ability to recover is phenomenal. Why won’t it recover? Well, he gets to thinking it over and he meets a friend and he says, and the friend says to him, “Boy, you sure were lucky. I had my brother was killed in an accident like that. Yeah . . .” It’s a little loss, you see, And he goes out and sees his wrecked car, a loss. You give him another touch assist, the guy says, “Well, I still got a body.” You get the idea.

Now that could keep up, you could also run out the incident, which is fine, and what you should do. But the touch assist will go all the way down to somebody who was very unconscious. And you tell them to, they can say yes by squeezing your hand once and say no by squeezing it twice. And they’re unconscious and they’ve been in a coma for weeks and you come in and you start picking up their hand and making them touch the bed and make them touch the pillow and that’s another type of touch assist. Now all of a sudden they come out of the coma but it’s sort of little by little. They’re just mocking up being awful dead, that’s the only thing they’re doing. They got a loss so, well, I’m dead now.”

So they’re just mocking it up so thoroughly and it’s too horrible, facing life is just too horrible for words so that on a gradient, why, they come up the line gradually and come out. It looks quite magical. Well, what are you really doing? You’re restoring their havingness. In other words, you are bringing about, again, a higher state of security.

You’ll find out that every person you are operating with at this particular moment and anyone who will be run on Dianetics, on Expanded Dianetics, is suffering if - because they’re in and not doing well - they’re suffering from a threat of loss. Their security is bad. You’ll find out that you’ll pick up people after their comm evs or before their comm evs or something or they’re about to be off loaded or shot or demoted or, this goes hand in glove with it. What is that? Security.

Now their security is so had that nothing will restore this security apparently. If you just go on auditing out those pictures, they themselves are the last thing they’ve got, in spite of the fact they’re killing them.

John McMasters, after he got tagged and so forth, the poor guy let himself in for a hell of a blackmail line-up. And this guy, however, afterwards began to go around and say, “Well now, Ron should let people have their pictures.” But he said that after he himself got into severe trouble. He actually apparently got across the lines of the Mafia. They really set him up to fall on his face. And the loss was great and then he was busy trying to compensate for this one way or the other, which he easily could have done. But he was finding some fault about it and the though, you know, “Well Ron ought to let people have their pictures”. Well, what the hell.

It says a Clear can mock anything up. But you don’t have to do it unknowingly. It says it in Book 1. You want to know how far a Clear can go. The ability to mock up is an ability. But if it is done unconsciously it’s hell of a liability. But nobody says people shouldn’t have pictures. Only let’s be a little selective about it.

Now if the guy was good enough, he could mock up another body. So he dimly recalls that this is true. And that probably is what gives him this sudden impulse to mock it up. But he knows he can’t have, and knows he can’t mock up another body so he’s got to repair the one he’s got. So the first thing he does is send for a doctor. Because the doctor comes in, he, himself, is engaged in curing himself.

Now how is he engaged in curing himself? Now he’s engaged in curing himself by mocking up the terminal which matches the condition of his body when it was killed in the Roman Army in, only that isn’t what’s wrong with him.

So anyhow, the doctor comes in. He instantly keys in. But he still has some reassurance. So the bedside manner is very, very important to a doctor. Because, because he’s there reassuring the guy, he’s trying to reassure the guy the guy will at least still go on having this body. So actually if his bedside manner was good enough, the guy would get well.

Now, I mention to you and have mentioned in lectures, a guy who treated TB could always detect TB just by laying his hands on a person’s chest. Now the people got well because he expected them to. Just as simple as that. And that was all there was to it. It sounds too simple. But he was very, he’s a person that you would be very aware of. So they expected him to, he expected the patient to get well. The patient had no other choice, to get well. He was down there just south of Pasadena in California. He had a hospital down there for a long time. He was very famous. He’s probably the most famous name in TB and his work was. So what’s this? What’s this?

Well actually, if you run out the bad pictures, now the guy has an explanation for what has been worrying him. Because each time, do you see, he was about to lose something and then he mocked something up and so forth, he was worrying about whether or not he was doing to lose it and this problem and so forth. So he’s still got the problem of how he might have lost it, and he’s still trying to answer that. And when you pull the engram chain you erase that and then you erase his overts on the things and you erase a few other things, and what have you got? 

Well, he is relieved now because he isn’t obsessively mocking this up. But he will only be relieved if, at the same time, you haven’t overwhelmed him by trying to take too much away.

Now if you suddenly go down the track and try to run pain out of this character and try to run heavy engrams out of this character, that’s too much loss. So he doesn’t do that, so he will come back and not respond. He’ll natter at you and so forth, and he sounds like he’s got withholds. Well, yes he does have withholds. And the main withhold that he’s got is he’s just not ,about to give up any mass, thank you. He’s finished it, only he doesn’t even really know that he himself has the withhold.

So he’s very uncommunicative. So therefore, we have two things that a Dianetic  specialist would have to be able to do. And one of those things would be to run a touch assist. Sounds remarkable. And then run a touch assist sufficiently well that you remember to run it the next day, and the next day and the next day. And really run a proper touch assist. And we have this 7 April HCO B. I did this quite a little time ago. It is not the date of the touch assist. It’s the date of the HCO B just to keep the time track straight.

But this gives an explanation that will pass most anything, and it does respond like that. Standing waves, and the thing you’re liable to come up against is the standing wave is not necessarily described in basic elementary physics. Now you’re talking about nuclear physics and so forth, and that is, a wave form comes up and either because it meets another wave form, or for some other reason, it just becomes a rigid form. And if you can imagine an ocean wave not any longer rolling but just sitting there all peaked. Well, electricity strangely enough will do this and a thetan is very good at this because he’s trying to stop further injury so when he mocks up at that point, he mocks it up with a stop. And he’s got the standing wave stuck in his spine and his arms, legs. They’re all through the body. He’ll just be a mass of standing waves. As you do a touch assist, two things happen. It smooths those out because his intention is, attention’s going down the line. But that’s just the mechanical action. The truth of the matter is you’re making him aware of the fact that he’s still got a body—smoothly, smoothly, smoothly.

Now if you add to this a good bedside manner and you expect that he will recover, he is reassured. And his reassurance is such that he’s willing to have another go at it, without keeping it all so muddily mocked up. There’s some hope.

Now the medical profession and other, the drug professions and so forth talk about hope. That’s all they talk about—hope, hope, hope, hope. So it must be a somewhat interesting thing. But it’s a rather pathetic thing to read a medical conference where they’ve talked for 7 days and it’s all about some miracle drug that somebody someday might develop. It’s really remarkable.

“We have a series of two cases we have tried this on and there is much hope for it and we expect, and of course we must be conservative in it.” These wild, wild imaginative something or others. They don’t read their last decades’ minutes. They had the same number of drugs for which they had great hope ten years ago but most of them are gone. Most of them are gone.

Now it’s not that they can’t do a job. It’s not that they aren’t needed. Nobody’s saying anything about this at all. When you get a broken leg, you had certainly better have somebody who could put the leg back together again.

But now to get it healed. Because the guy has got a broken leg over this broken leg. And now we’re into the whole explanation of what is psychosomatic medicine. That is the whole explanation of it.

Now latter on, if somebody said to him, “You’re a dog,” at the moment he got his leg broken, he will think of himself as a dog while he limps, perhaps. And there we get mental aberration. This strange thought that keeps occurring to him. You got it?

So there really isn’t anything else to it but the fact that you, by reassurance—you’ve got a hope factor there. You can imagine running a touch assist now, “Well, feel my finger. Thank you, very good. Well, there’s probably not much chance for him so I. . . Feel my finger, you know. OK, fine.” You could say, “Well that matches his tone.” But it doesn’t match what’s wrong with him.

Now sometimes he’ll tell you, “Oh, there just isn’t any hope for it anyhow,” and so forth. He’s just chattering. He was responding to the same mechanism. But his havingness is so low that he doesn’t think it’s possible. But at the same time he doesn’t think it’s possible and he’s given up and practically quit and so forth. Why, he is still accepting, to some degree or another, his havingness.

So therefore your first level of entrance which you can pick them up from, from all the way into total unconsciousness, coma for three months m a hospital on up through to doing a touch assist to do something or other. The guy is really quite, he’s quite ill. He has pneumonia or something. He’s quite ill. They’ve come in, pumped him full of antibiotics, fine, alright. Touch assist is about all you can do to him. He can’t even, he can’t even concentrate long enough to talk to you. High temperature, something like that. It makes him aware of the fact he’s got it. You say, “Yeah, well it’s a sick body so who’d want it?” Well, once in a while you run into somebody who says, “I don’t want this body anymore. It’s too old and too messed up and I don’t want this body anymore. And I don’t want this body anymore,” and so forth and they’re going on and on and on. You’re just talking to somebody at the lowest rungs of havingness. Their idea of loss is fabulous.

So a person who is very, very ill, you could pick them up the line with techniques like a touch assist, of which there are several. I won’t even try to catalog them at this particular time. There’s an awful lot of literature on this. I did this basically because there’s some errors in the literature. Other people have written them. They’ve never seen me do one. So I did one, so let somebody write it up.

You call actually make an unconscious person touch a blanket, “Touch that blanket, you know,” “Touch that blanket.” Still talking, still communicating, “Touch that blanket, thank you,” moving their hand. And so forth. You can do a touch assist on them and so forth. Hold onto their hand and say, “When you have felt my finger, squeeze your hand.” The guy’s totally unconscious. You wouldn’t believe that he would, but he will. He’ll give you a little pulse, a little pulse and so on. Touch at the knees, thighs and the feet, the head and the ears and so forth each time. And he’ll start picking up on it after a while. He’s getting what medical care he can, fine. That’s all part of the same thing.

Now where does havingness come in? Well, now you’ve got the session, and you had certainly better learn how to run havingness. And if you’re going to do anything at all with Specialist Dianetics, you better learn something about using havingness. And I’m not going to tell you all there is to know about havingness in this particular lecture because there’s a lot to know about it. But PAB 72, page 25, gives you material about havingness.

Now you realize, of course, that all of this material is giving you, by observation and experimentation, is giving you the observation experimentation and so forth, that went on about the subject of havingness. It isn’t until now that you have the exact reason it works. Now in the tapes on the subject, in lectures and in this literature itself—I haven’t read it all—it maybe, I said I do not know how it works or why it works, so just ignore that in the literature. This just tells you how to do some of these things.

We also have PAB 23, 2nd April 54, and it’s an item—Havingness, “Starvation for energy is the keynote of any case that maintains facsimiles in restimulation.” Now as you read all this, you will say, “Well he knew all this all the time. Why are we talking about this now?” No, that’s an observation. I didn’t know why. See, I didn’t know how, it’s true starvation for energy. Yeah, but starvation for energy, that’s saying something else. So the guy’s energy-starved. so he’ll maintain a facsimile and so forth. What, what, see that’s not quite on the groove. You got it? But again it is perfectly honest because I did not know exactly why it worked. But I knew it’s a starvation for energy. Guy’s starved for energy, he’ll maintain a facsimile. Why?

All right. There’s Professional Auditor’s Bulletin number 49, The Remedy of Havingness. Just why a thetan should let himself so completely snarled up in energy might be an entire mystery to anyone who did not realize that a thetan has to cut down his knowingness and his total presence in order to have a game. True, perfectly true, but it is not the basic reason.

All this, however, is material which you should know. Now it’s not for release HCO Training Bulletin June 11th, 1957 “Training and CCH processes not to be copied. The variations in some of the most potent processes are not included in this Training Bulletin but will appear in the Student Manual when published in September, ‘57.” Now this was labeled that way simply because it was experimental at that time. You find out this is all standard now. What are you looking at? You’re looking at the TRs. But they basically were a havingness process.

Now we have CCH 88, Enforced Nothingness - HCO B April 11th ‘58. Now you’d say, “Well, the easy way out of this is just to cure him of mocking up these facsimiles and take away this automaticity. This automatic “mock-it-up” the second he’s going to lose something. That’d be easy. Noooooo, nooo, no. I’m afraid that isn’t true and that’s why you saw creative havingness, the creative processing laid away in mothballs, it’s not in its grave. Because he can restimulate moments of loss and think he is losing harder and therefore mock up harder and they get solid. You can shoot a TA up every now and then on pcs. You could do remarkable things with creative processing but it has a limited action in that every few pcs you really lay an egg. So it’s too limited, see.

HCO B of September 12th ‘58 gives havingness, new commands. Factual havingness— “Look around here and find something you have. Look around here and find something that you would continue. Look around here and find something that you would permit to vanish.” Now that isn’t one, two, three because they can’t do the third one usually until you’ve done the first one. But sometimes they’ll obsessively do the third one - Permit to vanish and so forth.

Now that opens up a process which I don’t know if we have on record here. That opens up a process which is fabulous. it’s absolutely fabulous. It’s the weirdest process that anybody ever had anything do to with. And you know the process but it may not he expressed in these issues which I’m giving you here. And that is, “What will be here in ...?” “What around here will be here in one minute?” Now that’s right on the button because that’s continuum into the future. And that’s why it was so weird. The reactions to that process. “Look around here and find something that will be here in ... “ and you keep extending the time span. And sometimes you, the guy is, says no, he can’t find anything, you see, for a minute, you know. Well, it’s too bad because you’ve given him a lose. So you always cut it early, you know. What’ll be here in one half a second? One second? Something like that. Oh, yeah, he can find things that will be here in a second. Then you can build him up to a minute. “What’ll be here in ten minutes?” “Uhhhhhh.” But you keep building him up. You see what you’re doing? You’re giving him a future, which is right on the groove of this. Loss, he thinks he’s going to lose it forever. All right.

Now we’re really getting down someplace here. Here’s April 21, HCO B April 21, ‘60 “Presession Processes”, HCO B 1 September 1960, “Presession II”, HCO B of September 8th 1960 which is the Presession of the first Saint Hill ACC and it gives commands for presession II-X—that’s experimental. And by the time that had been grooved in, we then got 20—HCO B 22 September 1960, “Presessions and Regimens”. Regimen would be a certain settled schedule of things. Now strangely enough this Regimen One-Six in here is ask the pc what’s wrong with him and we will run, something else. Sounds like if you read it fast and if an auditor just did it time and time again, it’d be perfect Q & A. So it’s things like that that laid some of these, so that the auditor starts going something like this: “What do you think is wrong with you?” “My wife.” “OK, we’ll run a wife. All right, what about your wife? Good. All right, what’s wrong with you?” It won’t work. You’d have to flatten what you ran. You had to know something about F/Ns and so forth.

All right. And then we’ve got 29 September 1960, HCO B, Havingness and Duplication. And then we’ve got 6 October 1960, Thirty-Six New Presessions. Got such things on it as “Point out something in this room you could confront”. And what this did would be have and confront which merely asked the fellow to go slightly toward something when you said confront. You know, there it is, don’t run away. And have would be an actual flow of some kind or another. But actually these are not necessarily “run a have and a confront”. You can still do this. These things are all runnable but it isn’t necessarily true that you would have to run an alternate side. The only, you’re not worried about flows. Most of these things were put out on the basis that there were flows, and there could be a stuck flow and the fellow would boil off and so on. So there had to be a balanced flow of some kind. Boil off is usually a flow running too long in one direction, is the datum back of that. So you broke the command to get the flow going the other way.

And here’s October 27,1960 “Revised Case Entrance”, and it gives you failed help which, of course, is reassurance. Did you ever think of help as a havingness process? Yeah, well, that’s the bedside manner of the doctor. If you’re a confident sounding and looking auditor why you will find out there is no great difficulty in getting a pc up the line. Well, so if you ran out all the time he wasn’t helped he might have some . . . and he’s sure been trying to help himself.

Now this gives you 14 September ‘61 is “New Rudiments Commands”. But we wouldn’t be too interested in that at this time. And CCH data. I remember when I really ran some CCHs at Saint Hill on a TV demonstration. And all of the, all of the auditors in the lecture hall groaned and Reg Sharpe was terribly disappointed and people were actually quite upset because it was quite obvious that I didn’t know how to run CCHs. The way you ran the CCHs is you acted like you were mad as hell and overran each process. And I was just going to a change or a no change on the pc from one to the next to the next to the next to the next. The pc felt great, but that was beside the point. You could have knocked me down with a feather. They were all very polite about it, of course. I had to reteach everybody how to run CCHs and they started getting some results.

HCO B 9 February ‘69, here’s some havingness and so on. And then there is Scientology 8-8008 and in this edition at least there is Expanded GITA. Now this was a mockup process, positive gain and this is a mockup process. But this all of a sudden opens the door to something with you, because this is a marvelous list of items, what a gorgeous list of items. You’re gonna half kill a pc if you ran some of these, I mean, ran them as engrams. I’m just looking, men stopping all motion, changing motion, women changing motion and so forth. Things, God, the devil, spirits, bacteria, glory, dependence, responsibility, wrongness, rightness, insanity and so on. A lot of those items, though, are very hot attitudes, very, very hot attitudes.

When you ask a pc to give you his altitudes, you’re really leaving him in the dark. The guy has got 1,665 misunderstood words just on the morning papers he’s read, much less anything sensible. You expect this guy to say something to you; he isn’t going to say anything to you. Say, “What attitude do you have?” They don’t know the word for it, see? But if you did this sort of thing you’d have to clear words. See, if you’re giving him the words they have to be cleared. If he’s giving them to you, why, you usually don’t.
But this is interesting because it gives you really what’s going on. A person can waste something before they can have it. And you can actually watch somebody walking around and working and you can tell after a little while exactly what he has to waste. That’s the funniest thing you ever saw in your life. You know what he can have but, you’ll be able to you’ll be able to spot  finally what he can have. But you can spot what he’ll have to waste. One of the tricks.

Well, one guy, he could waste file cards. I was watching somebody work one day and boy could he waste file cards. Wow. He actually needed about four file cards, so he wasted about 50 to get about 4. I was watching all this proceeding and so on. That was all he was wasting around there. He was wasting file cards. He really could waste them. Gave him a great deal of pleasure too. Now, by the simple action of just handing him file cards and which file card did he have, so on and throw them away dramatically not covertly, and put a hundred file cards in the waist basket one at a time and so forth. Why, the guy finally got reluctant to do this. What’s the matter? “Well, they might have some value, you know.”

I used to wonder if sometime some persons weren’t wasting, if some persons actually weren’t wasting processing or wasting something like that. They couldn’t have it and so on. And I’ve never, found anything to support this really. But I know they will waste things in an organization, like machines and things like that. And they will sometimes say they don’t want to, be audited or something like that. But it usually has another explanation. Processing is terribly valuable.

Page 120 of Scientology 8-8008 and then we have PABs Book 4, PAB No. 50, “Remedy of Havingness - The Process”. It says, “When in doubt remedy havingness.” This was a motto which can well be followed by an auditor doing any process on the preclear. That’s so true.

Now what does this do, what does this do to your Expanded Dianetics? I’m going to tell you everything you do with havingness because, as you see, there’s quite a few references there and there’s probably quite a few tapes on the subject, if they’re still around. Well it means you can start a session with havingness. And it means you could end one with havingness. And it would be something like putting a high speed zip onto your line up.

We’ve got one case right now who always runs the same thing. He’s not about to run anything. It doesn’t handle what’s wrong with him, too, he said. I think it’s remarkable. Been audited all over the place and now he’s telling us he has a hidden standard. He’s sort of fending off the auditor, he’s being rather contemptuous, sneering, snide is the term being used and so on. But he’s - here he is now telling us that he never made any case gain, or words to that effect, or something of that sort, and he always runs the same thing and we haven’t handled what he did. Well, he’s had XII auditing and everything else. Now what’s the matter with this guy. From what I’ve told you in this lecture, it should be rather obvious! He is on his last thetan penny, boy! If you made him spend that he would be a bankrupt thetan.

So, now, I can’t tell you precisely whether this is true or not, whether he would best respond to some touch assists or to some havingness, but that would depend on how sick he is. That would depend on how sick he is. If he’s so sick that it’s difficult for him to sit in the chair, it certainly would be touch assists. Where the touch assist might have some slight advantage over trying to talk to him, because he’s very withholdy. If you can get him to answer you on a touch assist you could at least get him into communication.

Now, in-sessionness could always be increased with a touch assist. Now I find out touch assists have normally been thrown into—relegated, I was going to say, which means put over into—the category of, the guy has banged his hand or burned his wrist, and they think that is it. Otherwise, if he’s just got a slow pain in the back or something like this, or a constant earache or all infected boil or something, you wouldn’t use a touch assist. Well, I don’t know where that think would come from. You see, it was never there to begin with, it’s just that they get used for that, so people think they are for that. Somebody has a tremendous amount of stomach upset. Well, if you gave him a touch assist, you couldn’t audit him maybe too much, but you could give him a touch assist every day you would find, until all of a sudden, he’d start improving. As a matter of fact, if you gave touch assists long enough you can get rid of warts. He’s probably weeks and weeks of five or ten minutes of touch assists a day, weeks. See, two things have happened, nobody has continued the process to find out what it could do and it’s just been relegated to a quickie emergency on a little local injury. Well, it has much wider application because you’re giving the guy a body. He knows he hasn’t got one, so he can only waste one or something. But you can change 
his orientation.

Now you leave a touch assist flat or you overrun one or something like that and you mess it up one way or the other, and then, of course, you’re in trouble. But it’s pretty hard to mess one up unless you get very absent-minded. The guy has the faintest of cognition’s and so forth, come off the thing. Where he has a surge of pain, and so on, that was a jolt somatic, you say “Well, that’s good, that’s fine.” If the person was in very good condition it would be fine too. It wouldn’t be needed the next day. But you’re dealing with sick people. They’re going to be sick the next day, and do you follow? They’ve been knocking themselves off for the last many quadrillion so they’re expected to get sick in a split instant - I mean, get well in a split instant when they been sick so long, it isn’t going to be done. There is no magic button because a thetan doesn’t convince that fast.

So, the long and the short of it is that you could take that case that we were just discussing and you might find out just experimentally, just run him on a bit of a touch assist or something like that. You could also find his hidden standard because there’s a computation sitting there someplace or another. But, it would be very very smart, before you began that session to find out anything about hidden standard or something like that, is find a havingness process that worked. Run that, briefly at the beginning of the session. If you can get a havingness process to run to an F/N, why great. Then if you get the right one why, it’ll produce an F/N. And at the end of the session, why, finish him off so as to make up for the mass you’ve taken away. That’s what’s important. Now, what you’re doing, is straightening up his obsessive, cockeyed mocking-upedness. So you see, as you’re running it out you’re straightening up the bank. Well, that’s important to do, that because, that’s what’s making him goofy. But at the same time you give him back some physical universe.

Now, you’re going to find some guys who won’t want anything to do with this physical universe. Now they’re not about to have anything to do with it, and so forth, but they will take some reassurance and that’s havingness too. So, in such a case they will respond to one or another havingness process. And the test of a havingness process is to go way the hell and gone back, I’ll give you a thing, is you get a can squeeze, run a couple of commands of the thing and if it broadens the command squeeze you’ve got his havingness process.

Now, it might be of interest to you on this case we were just discussing, that if we simply gave him a little bit of a can squeeze, you might find that he had a very very small movement. Now, as long as, then, a person on a can squeeze has a short movement you know you’re up against havingness. That is, it doesn’t give you much of a surge when the cans get squeezed. So you just better make it the standard operating procedure; pick up the cans and he’s comfortable and you’ve got the session all going and so forth, give it a can squeeze. Now, if he’s got a whole dial wham, and that sort of thing you’re just going to be wasting your time running any havingness. Go ahead and run what you’re going to run. But if this person was ill you would still follow it up with some havingness at the end of the session. Now, you say “Well but he had this terrific win and he’s F/N, cog, VGIs and he just feels marvelous and something changed then and boy that’s great!” Well let him tell you all about that and so forth and run some havingness. Because he’s been sick. Now what’s the test? He’s been sick that’s the test. He wouldn’t be getting Expanded Dianetics unless he were running a bit sick. Do you follow?

Well, why is he sick? Because he is mocking up obsessively trying to make up for his great loss! That’s all there is to it. That’s why he’s sick. And it’s as simple as that. So now if you weave havingness into it by a can squeeze test, if you don’t get much surge, you better find his havingness process right away. And it doesn’t matter, you don’t wear one out today, and never use it again tomorrow, and that sort of thing. They run for a long time, eventually they’ll run out. And then you find a new havingness process. You’re alerted by the fact that the fact this guy isn’t doing too well on this havingness process now. He was, but he isn’t now. And it’s not a precise action.

But it is a precise action to get a can squeeze, find out how long it goes. If it isn’t going to go very much he’s not going to give you any engram. Also, he isn’t going to erase his pictures. And you have somebody who will not erase a picture, who does not get an erasure. Now, you can straighten it out with an L3B, and you should. But, you will find, magically, that the individual will, all of a sudden, begin to erase pictures when his havingness is up enough to make up for the fact that he is certain that he has lost all. It’s certain he’s losing, losing all, mocking up obsessively, and so forth. Well, you show him he’s still got something left.

Now, there’s probably more that can be worked out on this subject because you make a breakthrough like this, there’s more can be worked out. But there’s sure plenty of material here to work with. And if you do that, and you make that your standard operating procedure on the thing, well, I can assure you, you will have some remarkable changes of case. Not only will the guy then straighten out his bank, but then he gets into the reassurance that it’s okay.

Now those incidents then which have to do with threat and loss and that sort of thing are of great interest to you. They’re of considerable interest to you. And when he gives one of those, let us say, you had a long fall on “mother’s death” and you had a long-fall on “exhilaration” I am sure that you would take “mother’s death.” You’re not going to push the whole subject over into running nothing but losses because there’s many covert ways to lose things.

Now, do these guys make sense to you that you’re auditing right now? They make more sense. All right. Well, I’m sure we can make some fast headway on the thing. And there’s one or two or three of these cases you would find yourself grinding a bit on, otherwise. But the thing to do with them, the thing to do with them is to restore their havingness. Those that are chronically ill and are gimping around and falling on their heads, of course, hard to get into an auditing chair, and talk, that sort of thing, well, you’ve still got touch assists that you can work on them. So, just as a standard action you can add it in the program.

One more thing I want to tell you about a program is every time you add something onto a C/S except rudiments, you put it over on the margin in the program. In other words, you don’t write a C/S, something or other, something or other, without putting it over on the program, if it’s extra to the program. 

TRANSCRIPT ENDS HERE

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JUNE 1984R
REVISED 11 JANUARY 1990
Remimeo
Auditors
C/Ses
False Purpose RD
Auditors and C/Ses

False Purpose Rundown Series 1R

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN

Refs:
	Book: Advanced Procedure & Axioms, Chapter “Postulates”
	Book: Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics, Chapter “Consideration and
	Mechanics”
	HCOB 27 Mar. 84 	C/S Series 119
		STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR: SOLVED
	HCOB 30 July 80 	THE NATURE OF A BEING

That beings are basically good and are seeking to survive are two fundamental principles of Scientology.

A being’s basic goodness can be made brightly evident or be heavily obscured, the quality of his life and survival potential can be enhanced or reduced, all through a factor fundamental to the thetan himself: PURPOSES.

Where a being has accumulated nonsurvival purposes and intentions, he will be found to be having, doing and being far below his potential. Having committed overt acts (prompted by false, nonsurvival intentions and purposes), he then restrains himself from action. Achievement, stability, certainty, respect for self, and even the thetan’s innate power can seem to deteriorate or disappear altogether.

And it can be found that many of these contrasurvival purposes have been fettering the being for a VERY long time. Recent upper-level research breakthroughs have led to the development of a new rundown designed to slash straight through to the root of such false purposes and unwanted intentions and BLOW them.

The name of this new rundown is the FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN.

RESEARCH

The tech research done was quite extensive and involves several major discoveries. But I’ll let you in on one thing: There were psychiatrists who existed ways way back on the track.

It was the aim of these psychs back on the whole track to very carefully push in people ‘ s anchor points to prevent them from reaching. The psychs were, themselves, a bunch of terrified cowards, and the prevention of reaching was one facet of their operation. Handling overts, withholds and nonsurvival purposes with the False Purpose Rundown has proven highly effective in undoing the effects of the “work” of psychs on the whole track, and restoring the thetan’s willingness and ability to reach.

DELIVERY

The False Purpose Rundown may only be delivered by an auditor who has completed the HUBBARD FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR (HFPRDA) Course, where one studies the materials of the new tech breakthroughs and masters the laser-precise techniques of False Purpose Rundown auditing. The rundown may only be C/Sed by a Class V Graduate C/S (or above) who also has been thoroughly trained in the tech of the False Purpose Rundown as both an auditor AND a Case Supervisor.

The auditing is very fast and very direct.

And—hold your hat—though it is the result of research into the far reaches of the OT band, it can be delivered to persons who have just begun on their way up the Bridge! Case prerequisites for the rundown are determined by the Case Supervisor, based on the pc’s drug history and personality test results. Some pcs will need no prior case actions at all. (Ref: HCOB 12 Nov. 81RB, GRADE CHART STREAMLINED FOR LOWER GRADES)

RESULTS

Pcs and pre-OTs report—and folder studies confirm—a very high rate of case gain per hour of auditing on this rundown, with unwanted fixed conditions and considerations dropping away left and right.

Barriers to enjoyment of life and attainment of goals that before seemed solid and formidable can be whisked away like a puff of smoke before a fresh gust of wind. What would be left if such barriers were gone? Certainty of self and one’s basic purposes and intentions—and a revitalized reach, drive and confidence in one’s ability to achieve them, free from self-restraint.

And that spells a better game!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JUNE 1984R
Remimeo	Issue IV
Auditors	REVISED 12 JANUARY 1990
C/Ses
MAAs/Ethics Officers
Cramming Officers	(Also Issued as an HCO PL,
HCO	same date and title.)
HSSC Checksheet
False Purpose RD
Auditors and C/Ses
False Purpose Rundown Series 2R

THE “LOST TECH” OF HANDLING
OVERTS AND EVIL PURPOSES

Refs:
	HCO PL 7 Feb. 65	KSW Series 1
		KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
	HCO PL 17 June 70RB I	KSW Series 5R
	Rev. 25.10.83	TECHNICAL DEGRADES
	HCOB28 Feb.84	C/S Series 118
		PRETENDED PTS
	HCOB13 Oct.82	C/S Series 116
		ETHICS AND THE C/S
	HCOB9 Feb. 79R 	KSW Series 23R
	Rev. 23.8.84	HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH
		CHECKLIST
	HCOB 15 Feb. 79	KSW Series 24
		VERBAL TECH: PENALTIES
	HCO PL 17 Jan. 79A 	NEW TYPE OF CRIME

In a recent review of several cases, I’ve unearthed some vital tech in the fields of pulling overts and handling evil purposes that had been “lost” (buried) by certain SPs who’ve long since departed. This tech has now been put fully back into use and—with the addition of totally new breakthroughs on the handling of evil purposes—is more powerful than ever.

HISTORY

In early days I developed Security Checking to a high skill, whereby the meter was used to get the exact time, place, form and event nailed down on every overt.

In later years, in rundowns such as Expanded Dianetics, Sec Checking was covertly knocked out of use through verbal tech. This got to the point where some cases, not having been unburdened of later overts and withholds with Sec Checking, were sent off down the track in search of early overts and evil purposes well beyond the confront and reality of the preclear. Attempts were sometimes made to use high-powered L&N questions on such pcs to locate evil purposes and intentions to run. Burdened with unpulled overts, the pcs had a hard time answering such questions.

 A few unscrupulous persons who themselves were strenuously avoiding being sec checked put this “tech” out in issues. It of course threw a wrench into the works and was one of the main tricks they pulled in an effort to undermine the workability of Expanded Dianetics. Sec Checking tech was, some years later, put back into use with a vengeance and many pcs got excellent gains from it. But not all of the tech was restored: The tech of handling evil purposes had been omitted!

What happened was that a “pendulum swing” effect had occurred. At one extreme, only straight pulling of overts and withholds close to present time was stressed. And at the other extreme, scant attention was paid to skilled sec checking of the pc’s current or recent withholds and, instead, auditors were guiding pcs in a search for whole track incidents and evil purposes exclusively.

SUCCESS

The fact is that any auditing aimed at handling the basic factors that can stall a case cannot succeed up to its full potential unless it includes BOTH:

A. 	THOROUGH, VIGOROUS PULLING OF THE PC’S OVERTS, AND

B. 	TRACING THE OVERT BACK TO E/S OVERTS ON THAT CHAIN AND BACK TO THE UNDERLYING EVIL PURPOSE AND CARRYING IT THROUGH TO A FULL BLOW.

I have since restored the tech of Sec Checking to full use and it is working very well in the hands of skilled auditors.

But now we have the brand-new, startlingly direct and powerful tech of the False Purpose Rundown! Based on discoveries made in upper level research this new rundown has produced spectacular results, including the undoing of psychs’ suppressive actions of long, long ago. But for an auditor to be able to use this new tech he must first be a skilled Sec Checker.

This does not mean that the technology of Sec Checking cannot be used, nor is this HCOB intended to prevent people from being sec checked as part of HCO investigatory or justice actions. Sec Checking is a vital tool in its own right.

ETHICS

If in the future any person is found to be omitting or refusing to deliver the False Purpose RD or related RDs when needed, or doing something else and calling it “False Purpose RD,” he may be called before a Committee of Evidence on a charge of:

ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE OR ADVISING OR ENCOURAGING OR CONDONING THE ABANDONMENT OR REDUCTION OF USE OF THE FULL TECHNOLOGY OF LOCATING AND HANDLING OVERTS, EVIL PURPOSES, DESTRUCTIVE INTENTIONS AND NONSURVIVAL CONSIDERATIONS.

 This offense is classified as a high crime, and if proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a Committee of Evidence, the offender may be declared suppressive and expelled from the Church.

SUMMARY

In this technology lies the key to sanity, certainty, reach and ability. Only the truly suppressive would wish to see it neglected or abandoned.

With this tech in your good hands and well applied, their wish will fade away as they do.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 NOVEMBER 1961

Franchise

THE PRIOR CONFUSION

A recent discovery I have made may well do away with the need to directly run problems, particularly on people who find them hard to confront.

The mechanism is this:

All problems are preceded by a Prior Confusion.

The handling consists of locating the problem, then locating the Prior Confusion and then Sec Checking that Prior Confusion.

The preclear tends to edge forward in time to the problem continuously and to ‘bounce’ out of the Prior Confusion once located. The remedy is to locate the O/Ws in the Prior Confusion and keep the preclear out of the moment of the Problem.

All somatics, circuits, problems and difficulties including ARC breaks are all preceded by a Prior Confusion. Therefore it is possible (but not always feasible at the moment) to eradicate somatics by Sec Checking the Area of Confusion which occurred just before the pc noticed the somatic for the first time.

This is part of a Class II Auditor’s skills.

A problem could be regarded as a mechanism by which to locate hidden Areas of Confusion in a pc’s life.

All Hidden Standards are the result of a Prior Confusion.

The mechanism is extremely valuable. All rudiments could be run by finding the rudiment out, getting the difficulty expressed, locating the Prior Confusion and then finding the pc’s O/Ws in that Area of Confusion.

A Problems Intensive based on this mechanism is under design and I will release it for Class II use when I am satisfied the form is complete.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:vbn.cden 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JULY 1962
Franchise

A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE

Here is the pattern for a new Problems Intensive that can be given by HGC or field auditors and which will get them marvellous results on new or old pcs.

This arrangement makes prepchecking come into its own, for if it is well done then the pc is fairly well set up for having his goal found.

This intensive is amazingly easy to run providing that the auditor does it pretty well muzzled and does not violate repetitive prepchecking drill. Of course if the auditor’s meter reading is not perfect and if the auditor is not cognizant of recent HCO Bulletins on the meter and if the auditor misses as many as two reads in a session, this whole result can wind up in a fiasco. If the pc doesn’t feel better on this one then the auditor just didn’t read the meter or miserably flubbed current drill. Of these two the D of P had better suspect the meter readings if anything goes wrong.

The first thing to do is complete the old case assessment form. We do this in Model Session and check after each small section of it as to whether we’ve missed a withhold on the pc.

We then assess the self-determined change list (and don’t goof and put other determined changes on the pc’s change list, or we’ll be assessing engrams).

We find the most important, most reacting change in the pc’s life by the largest read. This can also be done by elimination.

We then locate the prior confusion to that change. In no case will it be earlier than two weeks from the incident. These confusions, so often missed by the auditor, take place from two weeks to five minutes before the actual decision to change.

Having located the time of the prior confusion, but not done anything else about it, no lists of names or anything like that, we then go one month earlier in date.

This gives us an exact date for our questions. Let us say the self-determined change was June 1, 1955. The prior confusion was May 20, 1955, and the arbitrary month earlier was April 20, 1955. We get the pc to spot this arbitrary date more or less to his own satisfaction.

We now form a question as follows: “Since (date) is there anything you have.......?”

The endings are in this order: Suppressed, Suggested, Been careful of, Invalidated and Failed to reveal.

The question with one end is completely cleaned by Repetitive Prepchecking. One asks it off the meter until the pc says there is no more. Then one checks it on the meter and steers the pc with any read, and then continues the question off the meter, etc, etc.

In turn we clean each one of the buttons above. This will take many hours in most cases. It is vital not to clean anything that’s clean or to miss cleaning a read that reacts. In other words, do a clean meter job of it all the way at sensitivity 16.

When we have in turn cleaned each of the buttons above, we do a new assessment of the change list and get us a new time just as before and handle that just as before.

When the second area is clean we assess for a third.

Frequently, particularly if the needle gets dirty, we ask for missed withholds. Indeed one can use all the Middle Rudiments at least once each session.

With expert needle reading that intensive will give the pc more gain per hour of auditing than anything else short of Routine 3GA.

I wish you lots of success with it. Remember, the more variables you introduce into such a system the less confidence the pc will have in you.

Good hunting.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH: dr.rd 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THE PRIOR CONFUSION

A lecture given on
3 October 1961

Thank you.

Okay. This is one of those days. What’s the date? 3rd of October?

Audience: That’s right. Yes.

And my watch stopped last night. How would I know? And 1961. Special Briefing Course, Saint Hill.

Now, Suzie has been giving you an explanation up here as to the prior confusion. And I’d better give you some material on this and some other things. I could give you a lecture on a brand-new series of discoveries, but you haven’t caught up with these. I’ll mention these in passing just to get them as a matter of record, however. There is a great deal to be known about mutual motion. Mutual motion is a terribly interesting subject. It’s the motion of two generating sources. This has something to do with problems. And mutual motion runs with great rapidity, and so on. There’s a lot more about that, but I just wanted to get this little slight note on record.

You’re interested in the prior confusion, the hidden standard, because this puts into your hands what the hakim, the witch doctor, the bone rattler, the medical doctor, and all such ilk have been trying to do something with here, now, for a good many thousands of years. This puts something into your hands. And if you grasp this, you’ve grasped something. And if you haven’t grasped it, you’re stuck in one.

Chronic somatic is a stuck moment on a time track which is the stable datum of a prior confusion. A hidden standard is the stable datum of a prior confusion. Prior confusion.

Now, in trying to explain this to you, you take a look at a chronic somatic, you try to look at the prior confusion and you swing back up into the chronic somatic again, and you don’t even know that you looked at the prior confusion. This is a very, very easy one to forget. It’s a very easy one to slip on because it is, actually, the basic anatomy of how pictures and illnesses and concepts of one kind or another get very, very stuck.

The way they get stuck is the confusion and the stable datum. Now, that confusion and the stable datum has been known to us for mans! many years. And what we’ve done to it is add time to the span. The confusion is in one place and the stable datum at a later place. So in all time-track plotting. you get the confusion, and then you get, after that, the stable datum. So actually, they’re linear in time. In other words, you don’t have the stable datum and the confusion occurring necessarily—and certainly not very aberratedly—you don’t have these two things occurring simultaneously in time. In other words, the stable datum and the confusion do not occur in time, if they’re going to become aberrative, which is the same time—you don’t have the stable datum and the confusion in the same instant of time.

Now, by that we mean twelve o’clock, second of October 1961: There’s a confusion while a person is sitting at a table. Well, the confusion doesn’t make the person necessarily sit more solidly at the table. That’s not the kind of stuck that we’re mixed up with.

This is the way we get the person if the person is going to be stuck at the table: At eleven o’clock there was a hell of a confusion, and the person had an upset and had an upset stomach at twelve o’clock, and sat down in the table— at the table to ease their upset stomach, and somehow or another it didn’t ease.

Well, there was no confusion at twelve o’clock. The confusion was at eleven o’clock, just an hour before. Do you see this now?

In other words, the confusion is at an earlier instant of time than the stable datum that the person adopted afterwards. But we find that the stable datum which is adopted afterwards is the sticker. Of course, you can always adopt a stable datum in the middle of a confusion. This is it. But that isn’t the one that sticks. The one that sticks is where you have a stable datum adopted after the fact of the confusion.

The United States goes to war with Japan; nothing much occurs as a result of the war, perhaps. And then we all of a sudden have President Eisenhower talking about loss of face. Well, it’s very interesting to have an American president use a Japanese term.

We give the Wehrmacht a hell of a shellacking, and during the war nobody is being the Wehrmacht, that’s for sure. The 88s are going on one side and the 22s are going on the other side, and we have a good, solid, flat-out, knock-down-drag-out war. And nothing happens during this period of time that is at all upsetting, except people getting killed and buildings blown down, and so forth. But everybody is too interested to have any stable data to amount to anything.

And then after the war, there’s a discussion about “should American troops goose-step?” There was, you know? Now we add in World War I to it and we find American troops wearing German helmets. It’s fascinating. This gets more and more fascinating.

Now, we can understand the Confederacy all wearing Federal uniforms during the Civil War, because they didn’t have any but there were lots of Federal dead to take them off of. That wasn’t much of a stable datum. But today we find the Confederacy is very stuck in the Confederacy.

Now, we think that something happened, like the assassination of Lincoln or something, and all of this. Well, we certainly know all about Lincoln’s assassination. Well, how about a lot of the other people who got assassinated by bullets in that war? You see, we’re not worried about them. That stable datum isn’t sticking, but something that happened after the action is sticking like mad.

This is a peculiarity, and it’s not necessarily sensible. It doesn’t necessarily follow any logic; this is an empirical fact. By empirical fact I mean one that is established by observation, not established by theory or reason. This is true only because it’s observed to be true.

Now, you can develop a lot of theories about why water doesn’t flow uphill. There could be lots of theories developed about it, but you stand alongside of a river, and then you go find another river, and then you go find another river, and then you go find another river, and you observe all of these rivers, and you find out finally that the common denominator of all rivers was that water was flowing downhill. The points downstream are at less altitude than the points upstream. And we establish the fact, then, that water flows downhill. We don’t have to have the theory of gravity; we don’t have to have any other theory connected with it at all. All we have to have is the observation
 that all rivers we are able to contact are flowing downhill. That’s an empirical datum.

All right. Now, this “prior confusion” is an empirical datum, and that is all it is. It’s empirical. It’s just observed that this is the case: that the person is not stuck in the marriage that they are complaining about but are stuck in the marriage because of the confusion that existed before the marriage; they’re not stuck in the marriage because of the confusion of the marriage.

Now, you’ve always been assuming that the marriage got stuck because of the confusion of the marriage. All right. Now let’s get down to workability Solid, sound workability. How many marriages have you squared sup by knocking all the confusion out of the marriage? Well, it’s sort of a lot of little failed lines on that. We’ve straightened up a lot about marriages, and so forth, by knocking out their confusion. We’ve done a lot about marriages by knocking out the confusion of the marriage. But the reason we couldn’t do it rapidly, and the reason we got bored stiff trying to do something about it, is if a person is stuck on the subject of a marriage, the reason they are stuck has nothing to do with that period of time but has to do with the prior period of time that predated the marriage. And if you free up that prior period of time to the marriage, the difficulties of the marriage blow. Now, this is an empirical oddity, an oddity of magnitude.

We’ve got somebody who has got to have their liver operated on; something wrong with their liver. We find them stuck in an operation on a liver. They’ve got to have another operation on a liver. They know it’s their liver. Their attention is stuck solidly on the liver, and so we go ahead and process the liver, but we never find the basic-basic on the chain of when their attention got stuck on the liver.

When did their attention get stuck on the liver? Actually, it got stuck on the liver immediately after a confusion. Immediately after a confusion. So the way to blow this operation on the liver is to blow the confusion which preceded the difficulty with the liver. It’s so peculiar. It’s sufficiently peculiar that this occurs when you try to learn it: You immediately think of your own chronic somatic. You try to swing your attention before you had the chronic somatic, and you wind up with the chronic somatic. And you say, “Well, there is the chronic somatic, and of course, that is all there is to it.”

And then one tells you again right away, “Now look. Let’s look before you had that chronic somatic.”

And you say, “Yes. Chronic somatic.” It’s just as though we’re trying to put your attention on top of a spring. And as you put your attention on the spring, it rebounds, and blows you back into the chronic somatic, do you see? And your attention just doesn’t go on to the prior confusion. It’s quite remarkable.

You say to somebody, “All right”—you’ll do this as an auditor, now, many times. You’ll say, “Put your attention now on the period”—or “What happened,” you say in some other fashion—”What happened just before you got all upset with this marriage?”

And they say, “Well, I got all upset with the marriage.”

And you say, “Well, what happened just before you met this person and so forth?”

“Oh, well, just before I met this person, um... Uh, yeah, well, we certainly had a hell of a time in that marriage.”

And you say, “Well now, look-a-here. We’re talking about just before you met the person. What was the date before you met the person?”

Well, they’re liable to do something like “Well, I had an awful lot of trouble when I was a little child.”

You say, “Yeah. But just before this marriage. Just before the marriage.” And they say, “Yeah. Well, I had an awful lot of trouble in that marriage.” What’s happening is, is the PC’s attention bounces to later periods of time. Chronic somatics are always the result and solution of an unconfrontable disturbance which occurred immediately before them. Hidden standards and present time problems are always the result of a confusion which immediately preceded the difficulty. And when you get the PC to put his attention on the confusion, you are asking him to do what he couldn’t do, and why he pinned his attention just after the confusion. You see? He looks at the confusion, and then his attention, without his recognizing anything, bounces straight into the stable datum.

Man has a broken leg. And this broken leg has just been going on and on and on for years and years and years. He doesn’t recognize it as a broken leg. The medicos say it’s a “tibiosis of the filamoriasis,’’ and that he’s suffering from a decay of the tendon.

Well, he busted his leg sometime or another. Let’s get it down to simple language us folks can understand, and—you see, if you don’t know anything about a subject, you can get awfully fancy. As a matter of fact, the more fanciness and the more oddball opinion and crosscurrent of opinion you find in a subject, you can assume that that is in direct relation to the amount known about the subject.

The more confusion in the subject, the more crisscross, the more learnedness, the more pretended knowingness there is in the subject, the less is actually known about it. You can get a terribly complicated idea about life and the mind from fields where it isn’t known. You understand? There’s a lot of invented, pretended knowingness on the thing. For instance, I don’t know how many medical terms there are for a leg, and yet this leg won’t heal, and they can’t make it heal fast, but they can sure call it by lots of names and have lots of opinions on it, don’t you see?

Well, they’re sort of bouncing off the confusion. All right. So the person has got a busted leg. Well, the leg should have healed up in five or six weeks and that should have been all there was to it, and that’s it—finished. But it isn’t. Seven years later, like the children’s doctor, the fellow is still limping—I think two years ago.

He kids me every time he sees me. You know, he comes in limp, limp— masking the limp very consciously as soon as he’s on the premises, trying very hard not to limp. He was in a skiing accident 8 couple of years ago, and I told him I was going to process him, and it scared him within an inch of his life. And so he always has some kidding remark to make to me when he comes in to look at the children’s tongues about whether or not I’m going to process him.

But look, it’s been two years and he’s still limping. Ah, well, then this isn’t just a skiing accident, because there’s nothing really in bad shape about the bones. They were all put together by the very best orthopedic surgeons. He had the best of care; he’s a doctor.

So what must have happened? Well, he busted his leg in a skiing accident. And two years later it has yet to heal, really. Oh, well, the bones are grown together and it isn’t bleeding anymore, but it isn’t operating. All right. Now let’s take a look at that.

Was it the instant of the accident? Ah, well, we know more about the mind than they do.

We know very well that before some fellow does a practiced action . . . If he’s in a smooth frame of mind, he’s used to doing this action, he goes down the slope and slaloms like mad, and everything is just dandy, and he winds up at the bottom upright and saying “Whee!”

But if a fellow is in a disturbed frame of mind, and his attention is on many other things—he just received a letter from his wife or his girl saying, “Well, I’ve just gone out again with Pete,” don’t you see? And there’s nothing he can do anything to but himself. He can’t do anything to anybody but himself. There’s nobody else around or he’s powerless or something like that. Then this practiced skier starts at the top of the slope, and he goes halfway down and he says, “This is a good place,” and wraps himself around a tree.

Then they put him pathetically in the hospital and bring him home by ambulance plane and so on, and it goes on for years, don’t you see?

So the high probability is that the accident had nothing to do with the motions of skiing. Skiing probably has nothing to do with the confusion which resulted in a broken leg, mentally. Because we have to ask the question, how did he get himself bunged up, and why?

Now, a fellow doesn’t get himself bunged up by accident. See, it’s not by accident. That’s the first thing you have to recognize—that there’s some kind of a postulate in there to bung himself up. And he’ll manage it every time.

All right. So this medico: all right, we ask him, “Now, what happened just before you broke your leg?”

And he’ll say, “Well, the snow was flying all around, and the wind was going whee, and . . . and so forth. And then there was this condemned Switzerland pine tree, and it pulled itself up by the roots and moved over in the middle of the ski track.”

And you say, “Good.”

And we keep on running this. And at the end of many hours, we actually do get the thing to remove to a marked degree. We get an abatement of the chronic somatic. Yes, we can do that. We have done that many times.

Well, how would you like to see that chronic somatic vanish? Well, that would be a much better procedure and much faster than that. Ah, well, we’d have to find out what went on before he went skiing that day.

Well, he was on vacation, we know, and we know that he felt he needed a vacation. Why did he feel he needed a vacation? An odd thing to need (me particularly, I never get one, so I don’t dare need one!). He needed a vacation. Well, what was the randomity that preceded that? What was his mail like while he was on vacation? Let’s search in this area. Let’s find out anywhere in the last six months what had been going on. And all of a sudden we wind up with the damnedest, knockdown-drag-out confusion. If it was enough to make him break his leg, it will be sufficient to bar out his inspection of it. And at first he won’t be able to inspect the prior confusion.

It takes an auditor sitting across from him to chonk his attention into that period and do an assessment of it. And all of a sudden he finds out that he thought the broken leg happened last year, when it happened two years ago. And he’s completely forgotten that he broke the same leg when he was five; and all kinds of oddball forgettingnesses turn up.

Now, what causes forgettingness? It’s the inability to confront a motion. The inability to confront a motion brings about an occlusion of that area of time. Now, you’ve got postulate—the first-, second-, third-, fourth-postulate theory. The first postulate is not-know. The second postulate is know.

All right. So you’ve got a big not-know, you see? He had a big lot of mysteries and a lot of confusion’s he couldn’t confront, and nothing he could do anything about of any kind whatsoever, and he got himself a “know” which immediately succeeded it in time. In other words, this not-know area, this confusion area, is followed by a know area later in time. Now, this is quite interesting because he follows a not-know by a know, and the know might be quite stupid, and it might be quite painful, and it might be quite destructive, but nevertheless it’s a knowingness. Some fellow who is gimping around with a bad leg certainly knows something: He knows he’s got a bad leg.
 
You might say all psychosomatics and hidden standards are cures for mystery. They give themself a knowingness, following a period of not-knowingness.

Now, people can get stuck in relief, and very often when your PC feels better, he will feel better momentarily and quite artificially and not feel better at all. Now, for instance, supposing we were all sitting here and we heard a high whine and a dull thud out in the park, and an airplane full of screaming passengers had apparently just crashed, you know, and we could hear the whole works, sitting here. And so we in a big flurry crowd out the door and rush outside to see this airplane that’s crashed, and so on. And it’s just Peter left one of his record players on.

See? Quite a feeling of relief, but the relief followed a period of confusion. Now, I’m not saying this is very aberrative. This would be so light that it’s very easy to face indeed. Then, you see, we’d have a little period of relief, and it actually would stick slightly on the track. See, it’s a period of relief. It’s a period of know.

Now, you see, at the moment we heard it crash, we didn’t know what was happening, so we’ve got a not-know. And then we go out and we find out what happened, we find out nothing happened and that it’s all all right, so we know. You get this. This is just in vignette. What I’m talking about is not at all aberrative. It takes much greater volume of magnitude to make one of these things.

All right. Now, let’s go into what Mary Sue was showing you here just before I came in. And we have ourselves a period there, which we see as a big, white chalk mark up at the top, and then there’s a little chalk mark down the line, and we’ve got a vertical time track here; and it’s got a big blob of white chalk at the up part, and a little blob, and then below that a big blob, and then below that a little blob, and some more little blobs. All right. Now, I’m not making fun of her cartooning here. But anyway, taking a look at this now, we see the time track plots linearly. Now, she’s got herself plotted from a zero at the top to 1961 at the bottom. Well, all right. We’ll take it that way because time tracks don’t run in any direction. All right.

Now, we take that little tiny, last, bottom white blob, and that’s a chronic somatic. The person has a chest wheeze, and every time you process them, they look at their chest to find out if they’re still wheezing. And they know the auditing command worked because the wheeze is less, or they think the auditing command didn’t work because the wheeze is more. This is how they know, you see? This is how they know. Well, isn’t it interesting that this know would occur in connection with a chronic somatic?

Now, a person must have a hell of an avidity for knowingness if they have to find out if their back is still broke or their chest is still caved in or if their rib cage is squashed. What kind of knowingness is this? Well, it must have followed one God-awful confusion, man. If that’s the acceptable level of knowingness—wow!—what must have happened before that? So we take this PC, and we say to this PC, pointing to that last white blob there, “yell, what was going on in your life immediately before you noticed this difficulty with your chest?”

And your first, usual, immediate response, if this is a hot subject, is “Well, my chest has always hurt me.” It’ll be something “intelligible” like this.

They haven’t answered the question at all. You say, “No, no, no. Just before you noticed this—before you noticed this—what happened in your life?”

And they say, “Well, um . . . I don’t know.”

That’s right. There you got it hot. That’s hot and heavy. And, boy, they never—they never spake more sooth than that. They were spaking sooth with all front teeth. They didn’t know, that’s for sure, or they wouldn’t have this chest difficulty. All right.
 
So we punch it a little harder—you see, it’s the auditor compelling the PC’s attention into that area—and we say, “Well, when did it turn on? What period of time was it when it turned on?”

“Well,” he said, “well, it must have been—must have been the summer of ‘59 or something like that. I know I had it then.”

You see, they haven’t said anything “before” yet, you see? They know they had it in the summer of ‘59. You say, “Now, that’s good. Now, just what happened just before the summer of ‘59?”

“Well, I had it in the spring of ‘59 too.”

See, they haven’t answered your question yet, you know? All right. But you see what’s happening here? You’re plowing their attention back toward an unconfrontable area. So you say, “Well, all right. What happened before that? Well, what was going on before you noticed this chest somatic and so forth?”

And they say, “Well . . . Oh, well, uh . . . yeah, well, it uh . . .” (And we notice this little upper white blob here, see?) They say, “Yeah, well, it turned off for a long time.” Haven’t answered your question yet. See, it’s off from the first white blob to the second white blob, see? Well, it’s off.

“Yeah. Well, I wasn’t troubled with it then, and uh . . . I remember—oh, Yes! Yes, that’s right. I recall in ‘56, I had medical treatment for this” See, they’ve told you nothing about “before” yet. But they’ve got it stretched back in time. And then all of a sudden they’ll come up and say, “Well, let’s see, ‘56.” (And we’ll call that earlier blob there 1956.) They’ll say, “Well, let’s see.”

You say, “What were you doing in ‘56?”

“Well, I . . . ‘55. That was when I was down at camp in Cornwall. No. No, no, no. Come to think about it, that was ‘52.” And they’re liable to come up with the adjudication that they don’t know what happened from 1952 to 1956. This is a curious blank period. And they figure it all out, and they say, well, it must have been this and it must have been that, and it might have been this and might have been that. And then all of a sudden they say, “Well, the truth of the matter is, I was . . . Well, I’m not sure. I’m not sure. But do you know, I had this when I was a child?”

See, way back now. Way, way back. Boom!

“Yes, I had this when I was a child. They thought that I had consumption and so forth, and I—actually I hadn’t remembered that, but I had a lot of consumption, and I remember 1 was living with my grandmother, and so forth. And uh . . . they—they had me to the doctor a lot of times, and that sort of thing. And I just had overlooked this fact.”

Now we’re up at the first white blob up there, see?

You say, “Well, what happened just before you were living with your grandmother?”

“Well, I wouldn’t know. I was awfully young. I was eleven.”

“Well, yeah. Well, where were your parents at that time?”

“Well, let’s see.”

And brother, we’ve got another blank spot, and we’ve got a nice, big, juicy blank spot. Now, we keep plowing into this blank spot, and we finally find out that Mother and Father had agreed to separate just before this, and there had been a lot of domestic difficulties, and we think we’ve got it now, and we’re trying to really pin it down. We think we’ve got it. And they were trying to separate, and this was happening, and that was happening; it was all very clouded up, and it was all very this and that. And we’re just about to get a touching short story about this whole thing, when suddenly the PC remembers that he burned down the house.

And that will be the end of that chronic somatic. Just by assessment only. See? That’s just by assessment. But your assessment is, doggedly, to find out what happened before they noticed this.
 
Now, perhaps it’s a bad thing to say “for the first time” because this is always a lie. One of the stable data of auditing is always make your auditing question as truthful and as factual as possible. Don’t make auditing questions that are nonfactual. So you say, “Well, what is the first time you remembered this?” or “What is the first time you noticed this?” Of course the PC cannot answer this because he’s going to give you fifty more first times after he’s given you the first time. So it’s much cleverer to say, “What is a time that you noticed this? When did you notice this? What happened before you noticed this?” And then just keep chugging it in.

Now, it’s not a repetitive command, and this is actually getting rid of chronic somatics by assessment. If you are very clever at assessing, you can just go on and assess and assess and assess, and you finally find out the confusion; and you pin the confusion down to such a degree that you’ve made the PC confront the confusion, the confusion will as-is. Right there. Bang! And everything else will blow after it, and that is it. You can do it by assessment only with an E-Meter. That requires a rather clever auditor to do the whole job by assessment only.

Now, here’s an easier way to do it. We finally spot the area of confusion by assessment, and then we put together Security Checks to fit that area. We find out that this person had this when they were eleven: Well, it’s some kind of a childhood activity that is all messed up. Well, you can actually take the Child’s Security Check, and bend it around one way or the other, question by question, and add your own questions to it, and so on; and you’re going to get yourself some interesting data that this PC has never seen before.

And you’re going to blow out those zones of confusion, and you’re going to find the dissipation of the hidden standard of the chronic somatic. That is a more standardized method of going about one of these things.

All right. Let’s take another example. This girl finds that she has headaches. She finds she has lots of headaches. And in auditing, she’s always sort of aware of this headache. And she knows the auditing process is working because the headache turns on or turns off, and if nothing affects the headache, she of course doesn’t think the auditing process is working. That’s her hidden standard—that by which she finds out whether or not auditing is working. That is the definition of a hidden standard.

Well, naturally, your rudiments are out as long as the PC has this condition. Why? Well, the PC is via-ing the auditing command.

Now, in all cases where a PC is not making progress on Routine 3, you can bet your bottom peseta that the PC has not and is not doing the auditing command. They might be doing the auditing command plus, plus, plus, see, or they might not be doing it at all.

I do remember back in Wichita, long, long ago, a PC coming around to me after a twenty-five hour intensive and bragging to me that they had succeeded in not answering an auditing command once, and they thought this was awfully clever of them. Yes sir, the PC was really bragging about it. What was the matter with the auditor that he didn’t find it out?

Now, here is the more usual thing: The PC does the auditing command and applies it to a certain area of the mind or body in order to find out if it has affected something else. And they do the auditing command by applying the auditing command to something in the mind, and then they look over here to see what is going on and if anything happened. And they do this continually. They’re not just doing the auditing command. They are doing something else. Now, they know they did the auditing command right or they know they did it wrong, or they know the command is right or wrong, in direct comparison to how much happens to alleviate this difficulty.

You are auditing a PC who has an attention fixed, not on the bank in general but on some particular, peculiar activity. And they’re doing something peculiar with every auditing command. You feed them the auditing command, they do something peculiar with it. Even though they verbally answer it and so on, and apparently have executed it, they do something else with it.

And when a PC is not making progress, you can say his attention is stuck someplace. Well, that’s a shortened form of saying the rudiments are out. One of the rudiments are out. The PC is not really in session. The PC is on auto. The PC is not under the auditing control, the PC is under his own control. He’s under his own control to this degree: You say something, then the PC takes over as auditor and executes the auditing command, and then gives the session back to you. And you ask the next question, and when you ask the question, then the PC takes the auditing command, goes on auto, audits the auditing command on himself and then gives the auditing session back to you. Have you got the idea? And the PC, during the entire period of execution of the auditing command, is not in session. Any PC who hasn’t gone Clear in 150 hours is doing it. PC has got a hidden standard.

What is this hidden standard? Maybe he’s got six hidden standards. Well, every one of those hidden standards is totally this stable datum stuck after the fact of the confusion. They all have the same anatomy. PC takes the session away from you, does the auditing command, finds out whether or not it moves this electronic, then sees whether or not the electronic is affecting whether or not he’s a boy or a girl.

That’s right. That was how we moved into this, with just that action on the part of a PC. We knew about this for a long time, but we’ve never really seen it in action to this flagrant degree.

This PC had been audited for about a thousand hours, and had applied every single auditing command ever given to the PC to the resolution of an electronic incident which the PC was convinced, if it were run out, he would turn from a man to a woman. Thousand hours—no progress. Well, why? The PC was never in session.

So the rudiments are out. The basic rudiment that is out is present time problem of long duration, where you have a hidden standard.

All right. Very good. Now if we take ourselves a PC, and we audit along with Routine 3, we can find the PC’s goal, we can find the PC’s terminal; oh, yes, with some difficulty, but we can find them in relatively short order, certainly under twenty-five hours of auditing, if we’re really in there. We keep the most flagrant rudiments in, don’t you see? But we haven’t noticed this hidden standard yet. Now—and then we assess the PC on the Prehav Scale, and we run the PC on the Prehav Scale, and we run the PC and we run the PC and we run the PC and nothing happens. Well, there’s where it’ll show up.

See, we can do the action of finding a goal, because the PC’s attentions are very, very solidly on goals. We can certainly find the action of a terminal, we can find this terminal, because we actually haven’t really asked the PC to do an auditing command. It’s all between you and the meter, see? We can find the assessed level of the Prehav Scale very easily, but now we go into the repetitive auditing command and the PC goes on auto.

Why does the PC go on auto? Well, the PC has got a hidden standard. The PC is auditing himself on making his nose well. PC is not running—not at all running—the terminal of a railroad engineer. He’s running a nose. And so he doesn’t go Clear.

Now, very often, in worse cases, the PC will be very resistive toward an auditor’s inquiring questions. The auditor says, “What are you doing? What did you do with that auditing command?” You’ve all of a sudden got a knockdown-drag-out fight on y our hands. PC does not like you inquiring into it.

The first time you ever notice anything like that, you say to yourself, “This PC has a hidden standard. Let’s find out what it is.”

Now, although you can find the person’s goal, terminal and level, you actually can’t run the PC on that in the presence of hidden standards. It is a waste of time.

Now, there’s one earlier action that can be taken with the PC, that the PC will do and that will produce results. But there is only one earlier action can be taken before a Routine 3 assessment, and that is a Security Check. This can be done without knowing the PC’s terminal and will produce lasting, excellent results. There is no other process—now we have all the facts in over the years—will produce easy and lasting gains on a PC. No other process will produce easy, good, solid, lasting, positive gains on a PC. You have a Security Check and you’ve got the assessment and you’ve got the running of the assessment.

So, this leaves us with a Security Check as a very powerful auditing weapon, because it will operate whether you’re running the goals terminal or not. The Security Check will operate, and those gains you make with a Security Check will be lasting gains.

Hence, we divide up auditors into: Class I—run any process on which they have a certainty. This will probably be some kind of a control process, by the way. It’ll be some cousin to the CCHs, if the auditor is wise, because that at least works out the control factors of the PC, and you do make a sort of gain. You’re running in order, and something is going to happen with this PC, and it doesn’t come under the heading, however, of a fast, easy gain. It is not a fast, easy gain. It is a lasting gain, but it is a hard, long gain, and that’s all you can say for it. That’s the CCHs, SCS—all these various things. They are long, hard, arduous things to handle, and they do produce a lasting gain, but at what cost! So it doesn’t come under the heading of a nice, easy, stable gain achieved by the auditor at all.

But Class I auditors had better be employed, even though it is very hard to achieve a long, lasting proposition. No matter how arduously, they had better be put to work doing some auditing, because any auditing is better than no auditing, and this type of gain will be quite beneficial in the long run, and so forth. And this argues that a Class I auditor is doing something, as long as he’s doing one of these types of processes.

All right. We move up to Class II auditor, and a Class II auditor can security check. All right. Security Checking produces a lasting gain, and it is very easy. It is very easy to do. It is very nice. It is very, very fast, and it is a lasting result. So we have the Class II auditor doing Security Checks. And actually when we’re talking about the hidden standard, and that sort of thing, we can envision that a Class II auditor would have set up a PC on the basis of having gotten rid of all of his hidden standards, and that’s what we look Go a Class II auditor to do, not just to sit there and prate off a Sec Check 3.

We’re asking him to do something else. We’re asking him to Sec Check in the direction of getting rid of all of the stuck points in this lifetime. We’re asking him to get rid of the confusions of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth marriages. We’re asking all of the . . . We’re asking him to get rid of that crooked neck. We’re asking him to get rid of the odd habit he has that every time you say something to him he goes drvvvvvkh! It seems rather odd this person would do that, you know? Because you haven’t asked him to smell a thing.

In other words, these things all surrender to Security Checking. All of them, now, the lot. But what kind of Security Checking does it take? Well, it takes a standard Security Check. That is always a good thing to bang into a case. The first and foremost thing you do. That’s a good thing—just go on and pick out the probable Security Check.

Let’s take an old-time auditor, he’s been knocking around and into God knows what. Well, the first Security Check we want to shove into him is the last two pages of a Sec 3, plus Sec Check 6. There’s no reason to do the first many, many pages of 3 or do anything very fancy, because he’s not going to get any benefit of something that he has overts on, and so on. So let’s get that out of the road.

And now having done this, let us get clever and apply this data about the stable datum and the prior confusion. Now, this is different than the stable datum and the confusion—the idea that we get all of the stable—we get all the confusions off the case and we will of course knock out at once all of the person’s activities, and so forth. No, that isn’t quite true. We have to knock them out selectively—has to be very selective.

So after you got the last two pages of a Form 3 and all of a 6 done, you should roll up your sleeves at about that point, and let’s go for the hidden standards. Let’s find out if there is anything by which this person measures gain or no gain.

“What would have to happen for you to know that Scientology works?” that’s the clue question.

And you get these things, and sometimes these things are detached things. Sometime these things are “Well, my mother would have to get well.” Well, he doesn’t really mean—perhaps he does, but he really, probably, doesn’t mean—that his mother would have to be sold on Scientology and brought to an auditor. No. The auditing command which he is doing, if applied to himself, would have to cure his mother. You see, he often means that, too. So this idea, this—he says, “Well, my mother would have to get well.” Well, this is marvelous. It means his mother is a stuck . . . a stuck chronic somatic.

Now, the way you would have handled this in the past—the way you would have handled this in the past—is not the fastest way to handle it. You could have handled it in the past, and it would have worked out all right in the past, but that is not the fastest way to handle it. I’m just giving you a much faster method.

When did this occur that Mother became a stable datum? And what confusion preceded it? Ahhh. In other words, we don’t run O/W on Mama, and we don’t security check Mama, and we don’t have very much to do with Mama. We want to find out what happened before Mama became a chronic somatic. Because Mama is a stable datum for a confusion before the fact of accepting Mama as a stable datum. There’s some confusion prior. Remember, it’s always prior.

Let’s reorient your thinking on this. Now, the fellow says, “Well, uhhh . . . I just have to get over hating my father. That’s what would have to happen. Yes, sir. To know Scientology worked, I’d have to get over hating my father.”

“Well,” you say, “that’s good.” So obviously you can do something about that. You do a Security Check about his father. That’s obvious, isn’t it? This is past thinking on it. And you get all of his overts against his father, and all of his withholds from his father, and you clean up Father. And what do you know? You could do it, I mean, you could have gotten a long way in this direction .

Ah-ha, there’s a much faster method. Let’s find out what happened before “hating Father” became his stable data in life. “Hating Father” must be an activity he can confront, as a retreat from earlier activities he can’t confront. And they probably have nothing to do with his father. Hatred of Father was much more acceptable to him than the tremendous confusion he had with— who knows? Probably not Father. Who knows who it is? Lord knows.

So, what do you do? You assess. And you find the area of prior confusion to the hatred of Father. Now, at first the PC is going to tell you it’s something that Father did, and it’s something that had to do with Father. But remember, it can’t have anything to do with Father if Father is the stuck somatic. Can’t have anything to do with Father, you see, if Father is the stuck personnel. If Father is the broken leg on this case, it hasn’t anything to do with Father, because he can confront Father. Well, if he can confront Father and he’s spent all these years confronting Father and so forth—it hasn’t got him well— why do you, in an auditing session, put in more hours confronting Father? Waste of time, see?

No, let’s find out what happened before this occurred. So you’d want to know, “When did you notice that you hated your father, and what happened before that?”

First answer, well, inevitably, “My father did this, my father did that.”

And you say, “Good, fine.” Give him a cheery old acknowledgment and then find out what happened before that with other people. Oh, you find out his old man hasn’t been anybody—man, his old man has been nobody in this fellow’s life. There is some kind of a person on a broomstick that has been flying around in this person’s belfry.

You know, as a child, why, this person would see—well, maybe it was his father’s mother or something, you know? And the child would see her sitting there quietly knitting and rocking in the rocking chair or something, and he absolutely just couldn’t resist, you see, spilling the cat on her, or you know, or pulling up the ball of yarn, or somehow or another stealing all of the bread dough, or putting salt in the plum pudding—just anything, see, anything. And you’ll find that these are overts, but they won’t come through that way at all.

He will finally recover the character on the broomstick, see? Total occlusion. Recover this character on the broomstick, and you will try to do a Security Check on this, and “She beat me and she socked me and she used to hold me over the well and say she was going to drop me . . .” And he’ll just go motivator, motivator, motivator, motivator, motivator, see? Of course. Why? Because he can observe the inflow, but he can’t observe his outflow.

Yeah, but what did he do? That’s what’s getting interesting here. What did he do? Did he steal her broom? Because you’ll find inevitably that this is what happened. So you make up some kind of a roster of the personnel involved prior to the stuck personnel. And you make a roster of the “missing persons bureau.” And your little list is a “missing persons bureau.” And boy, you’re really going to find missing people. PC doesn’t even know they exist. There’s going to be sections out of his life he don’t know are gone.

And you’re going to find those sections and find out who is in them and then write up a Security Check, any old kind of a Security Check, to find out what he did to them—these other people, not Father. Skip Father; he was a confrontable character. Why bother with Father? Just a waste of time. That’s what the PC is complaining about.

Now, whatever the PC complains about, do something earlier. There is your stable datum. Whatever the PC complains about, you do something earlier. And don’t pay any attention to handling the object about which he is complaining. You pay attention to his complaint. But if you continue to handle the object about which he’s complaining, such as his big ears, why, you’re not going to get anyplace. He’s complaining about big ears. “Well, I’m seeing . . . Every time I . . .” You find out every time he answers an auditing command that he finds out if his ears shrunk.

You find stuff weird like this, man. Well, did his ears shrink? Okay. “When is the first time you ever notice”—that would be wrong. “Now, when did you notice that you had big ears? When did you notice this?”

“Oh, well, I have had big ears for some time,” you see? That’s your inevitable reply.

Now, if you get a reply of this character which is a non sequitur, you know you are on to a hot area of disturbance, because the PC’s attention went onto it, and then flick!—came right up the track to the big ears. Your effort to put his attention on the area of confusion results in putting his area Attention] on the object. Whenever you try to put his area [attention] on the confusion, and then you only succeed in putting his area—attention on the object, you know you’ve got it made. You know you’re looking at one God-awful area of occlusion.

You say to him, “When did you first notice that you had big ears? Now, what happened before you first noticed you had big ears?” Any such question.

And he says, “Well, I’ve just worried about it for years—my big ears.”

Well, now, you see the mechanism at work? You asked him about a time before “big ears,” and he answered “big ears.” So it’s obvious that his attention deflected from the area you tried to put his attention on. You have located a hidden springboard. He doesn’t know it’s there, but you now do. He coasts right up the track to it. Every time you put that hull in the water it goes straight to that particular dock with a crash. It won’t head out to sea It won’t go anyplace, you see? You just put it in the water, and it hits this dock. “Father” or “ears” or something, see? Bang! And there it is.

You say, “Well, now in your—in your early life, what went on there? What went on in your early life?”

Now, this would be just asking for a whole bunch of balderdash. Now, it would take an awful lot of millions of words for the PC to tell you every single, horrible thing that’s been done to him in his early life. There’s no sense in having much of a synopsis on it. It’s up to the auditor to continue to direct the PC’s attention where he wants the PC’s attention directed, not to listen to a recount—a blow-by-blow recount—of all the beatings the dock gave him. See, that’s silly, because that’s all he’s going to tell you.

He hates his father—this is his hidden standard—he doesn’t feel better yet about his father, so not feeling better yet about his father, he knows the auditing isn’t working. And you say, “Well, tell me about your early life.”

So he says, “Well, my father . . . and he used to take me out in the woodshed, and then he did this to me and he did that to me. And he did this and he did that, and my father this and my father that.” Well, are you doing anything for this PC? No. No, you’re not doing anything for him at all, because you’re leaving his attention stuck on a refuge.

Any chronic somatic, any stuck personnel, anything of that nature is a refuge on which the PC can put his attention. And you are not doing your job as an auditor unless you get his attention eased over on to what makes him stick his attention on it. And you do that by a gradient scale, and the PC can get very restive if you jump your gradient too hard.

So you say, “All right. Big ears. Now let’s see. What happened just before you noticed that, or when did you notice that you had big ears? Tell me a time you noticed you had big ears. What’s some early period when you noticed that?”

And the PC says, “Well, well, well, well, well, well . . . I was working in London for an attorney’s firm. I used to notice it.”

“Good.” You say, “Is there any earlier time than that?”

“Oh, well . . . no. In the attorney’s firm . . .”

Oh, well, hell, you got his attention stuck there. And you say, “No, earlier—earlier than the attorney’s firm. What’d you do earlier than that?”

“Oh. Oh, well, what did I do earlier than that? Uh . . . I don’t know! What did I do earlier? Let’s see now. I went to prep school, and then I went to college, and then—so on, and that was 1952. And I got out of there, and then ‘52 and then 1955 . . . 1955, and I went to work. Yes, it must have been ‘55 I went to work—I remember that, yes. It was ‘55. Went to work for the attorney’s firm in 1955. And I got out of college in 1952.”

“Oh good,” you say, “Well, what did you do between ‘52 and ‘55?”

“I just don’t know. Now let’s see, what did I do? No, I—I met a girl. Ah, yes, I remember now. I met a girl, and she . . . Uh, yeah. I met this girl and she had a boyfriend. And we had an awful . . . No, that was ‘58. Let me see. No, no. I—I’ll get it in a minute. It’s 1952, 1955. Now, there’s a period of three years. Now, let’s see. After I got out of college, I must have gorse home for a little while. And then I must have done this, and then I must have done that, and I must have done something or other—probably. Yeah, I’m sure I must have done something like this, because, you see, you just wouldn’t ordinarily just go from college to an attorney’s firm

“Now, let me see. Oh, I know. I had an awful fight with a fellow. Yeah. Oh, that was pretty terrible. We met down in this bar, and he had some kind of a criticism of me one way or the other, and we had this hor ... No, that was ‘57. No, no. That wasn’t ‘55, that was ‘57.”

And that’s the way he’ll go on. You understand? And you say, “Well, what happened in this period of—anything that might have occurred between 1952 and 1955?”

“Oh, uhh-uh, ruh, ruh, ruh, ruh-ruh, ruh, ruh-ruh. . .”

“Well, did you ever think about big ears before 1952?”

“No, no, no, no, no, I didn’t think about that before 1952,” and so forth.

“Well, did you think about big ears after 1955?”

“Well, yes. Oh, yes, oh, yes, all the time. Used to sit there at my desk with ink all over me, and I used to sometimes get it on my ears, and they used to call me ‘ink ears’ sometimes, and so on . . . That was probably it. Actually, the firm really hated me. And the senior partners . . .” this and that.

And you say, “That’s good. Thanks! Good! Good! Good! Fine! Thank you! Thanks. Good. All right, now. Good. Now, we want ‘52 to ‘55. Now, who did you know in that period?”

“Well, I must have known my father and mother.”

“All right. Well, who introduced you to get work at the attorney’s firm?”

“Uh . . . must have been some connection with my father.”

And you know, you’re liable to find some damn-fool thing like a marriage? You’re liable to, man. You’re liable to find anything. But you will find something, and it’ll be a period there of total occlusion.

What you’re trying to do is not necessarily solve the big mystery of it all. If you were very clever, you could do the whole thing by assessment. On the meter, one of the ways you do it by assessment is “Well, ‘54: did you have a long vacation there after you left college? Was it two years? One year? Six months?”

“Oh, I went to work, something of the sort. I was doing something. I’m sure I was doing something. I must have been doing something. Over a period of three years a young man doesn’t do anything, you see? And I went up . . . I’m sure. Yes. Yeah. I’m absolutely sure. No.”

You finally dredge up a name, Agnes. Ohhhh, Agnes. Ahhhh. All right. Now, in essence—as much as you can find out about Agnes—you just do it on an interrogation basis and assess “The worst confusion you ever had with Agnes. When is the worst time you ever had with Agnes?” and so forth. And this finally peters out and you find Agnes is just a red herring. She’s hardly a girl at all, and in actual fact it was Isabel.

Isabel turns up along about this time, and now we have got a honey by the ear, and we find out that she used to stand there constantly, and say what she said, and she used to do this and do that, and she was the one who got him arrested. Arrested? ‘Where the hell did this come from? Don’t you see? We don’t find out, usually, anything about big ears. Agnes never said anything about big ears, nothing of this sort, but she went off with a boy who had big ears. And Isabel, Isabel, she went off with a boy who had big ears. Something stupid like this. So big ears got to be something in here. And in some of the wild, devious way that all of a sudden works out and becomes completely sensible, we find out how he wound up with a stable datum of big ears.

This person says, “Well, I have a ball of light and it is just back of my eyeballs, and when the ball of light glows, then I know the auditing question worked. And when it doesn’t glow, it didn’t work.

You want to find out “When did you notice this?” And then you want to find out what happened before that. “Now, what happened before that?”

And the person said, “I—well, I haven’t got the faintest idea. I’m . . . Let’s see, now. What happened before that?”

And we run into some kind of a blank period. Then all of a sudden, marvel of marvels, we find out that between 1945 and 1948 the person was deeply immersed in the Temple of Black Magic, someplace or another, and all this seems to have dropped out of sight. And what they did, really, there, was “see the light.” And he’s been seeing the light ever since, but it was one awful confusion. Because after the police raided the joint, you see . . . It wasn’t so much that, it was being sued for being the father of the child. That was what got him.

But all of this has been fantastically occluded, you see? And all of these stable data that the person has lead back to a prior unknown, and it’s just the not-know followed by the know. It’s the confusion followed by the stillness. The confusion, then the stillness.

All right. Now I’ll give you something I’ve got some kind of a reality on. It works like this: You find the bird . . . This works out on a broader track basis. You find this PC standing on a rock in the middle of the sea waiting for somebody to pick him up. And he has this pain in his stomach, and he had that pain in his stomach for many lifetimes. Many, many lifetimes he’s had the pain in his stomach.

And you say, “All right. Let’s run this out.” So we run him standing on the rock in the middle of the sea. And we I guarantee you—we can run it and we can run it and we can run it and we can run it and we can run it, and he will still have a pain in his stomach and still be standing on a rock in the middle of the sea. And this is the old engram that wouldn’t resolve.

And this is why finding the earlier on the chain resolved the later engrams —the engrams that wouldn’t erase: Because, of course, in finding the earlier engram you accidentally went across the confusion, and you got the confusion knocked out. Well, there’s nothing precedes that incident that’s hardly worth recounting except mutiny, shipwreck, sudden disaster, half drowning seven times, and there’s something kind of strange and spooky about the whole thing. And then we finally find out that he’s standing on the rock without a body and hasn’t noticed he’s dead. And this finally resolves the whole thing.

Up to that time he knew all about it. But trying to get his attention immediately before the incident when this occurred will be one of the tougher jobs, because you say, “All right. How did you get on the rock?”

And he says, “I was just standing there. Well, I must have gotten there some way. Uh . . . oh, I get a picture now of the surf. I must have come to the rock through the surf.”

Well, any fool could tell that, man. He didn’t land there by helicopter, that’s for sure. But he’ll make these suppositional actions.

Now, a person trying to do this, all by himself, begins after a while to appreciate an auditor, because his attention is pinned in a certain category.
 
And as it tries to go back to areas that are unknown to him, it of course deflects onto the chronic somatics. So he tries to put his attention back on this and then comes up into the chronic somatic, and then he’s stuck with the chronic somatic; his attention is on it, so he starts auditing the chronic somatic, and he never does put his attention back on the earlier incident, see? So he leaves himself stuck with chronic somatics.

See, his attention goes back up, and he needs an auditor sitting there to tell him to put his attention back again. You know? “What happened before that? What’s the worst kind of motion you possibly could experience on a ship?”

“Well, it wouldn’t be a ship. It’d be a submarine. I don’t know why I said that.”

“Well, what’s the worse kind of motion you could experience on a ship?”

“Well, being torpedoed by a submarine. Let’s see. Or torpedoing a ship by submarine? Being torpedoed by a submarine. Let’s see, torpedoing a ship or a ship torpedoing you? No, a ship wouldn’t torpedo you, you see? And the ship . . . It’s the worst kind of motion . . . worst kind of motion . . . Be standing on a rock waiting for a ship to come in.”

You see exactly where the attention goes. Then he’ll get all interested in the thing. “Worst kind of motion. Let’s see. Well, what might have preceded that? Must be some kind of bad motion.”

“What kind of a bad action could a person perform that that would pay for?” You know, asking him for a direct overt—just suppositional.

“Oh, oh, oh, well, you’ve really asked one now, you know? I get a picture of a foredeck of a galley. And all the galley slaves are there. And they’re all chained and their blood is running down underneath the fetters. And the overseers walk up and down the ramp, and the whips go wham! you see, and so forth. And in a battle, in a battle, when they start throwing Greek fire in amongst the galley slaves . . . No, that was much earlier. That isn’t the same period at all. I got that. That was much earlier. Much earlier.”

And you say, “Well, how much earlier was that?”

“Well, that was another lifetime. That’s a completely different lifetime. I don’t know what I was doing in this thing. It just seems kind of blank, the whole thing seems sort of blank. There’s this sailing ship, you see? And it’s sailing along, and I think I actually stood on the rock, and I managed to coerce a ship to come in and wreck itself on the rocks. Or maybe . . . or maybe . . .” And we finally find out that it wasn’t very dramatic. He just got dead drunk as a captain of a ship and ran it square aground on the rocks and killed off all the crew, and they all died in the jagged reef, and they were all screaming around him and so forth. But it wasn’t so much that. He had stolen the ship and was guilty of barratry.

Oh, we’re getting someplace now, yes. Actually, he had murdered the owner’s agent the second day out of port. Now we’re getting someplace. And the next thing you know, he isn’t standing on the rock anymore. See what happens? You get the overts and that sort of thing off on the prior confusion and it blows. And that is the end of standing on the rock.

But the more you Q-and-A with the PC and let him stand there on the rock, the less you’re going to get done. It get pretty obvious? The less you’re going to get done.

Now, you can keep chasing a PC’s attention back, back, back, back, back, back, back, and wind him up at the beginning of track, probably. Of course, that’s a kind of a Q and A too, because that’s a method of not confronting. He puts his attention on an incident much earlier that he can confront, rather than confront the incident immediately before. We’re much more interested in that span of time just before, that seems so mysterious, and that keeps landing him back on the rock. That’s the period we’re interested in. We’re not necessarily interested in his whole career as a space commander. We’re not interested in that period, because space commanders very seldom take ships to sea. All right. So what we’re interested in is the period which we have encountered.

Now, you’re going to find this technique very interesting in the handling of engrams, just to branch off on to something else. You’re going to find this very, very interesting.

When you’ve got a person’s hidden standards and he’s been running well, and he’s running his goals terminal on the Prehav Scale, and you get up to Class IV-type auditing and you’re going to run some engrams, you find these are usually very easy engrams and you haven’t got to resort to very much trickery to run them. Because the PC, with the rudiments in, he’s in valence, he’s already contacted these pictures many times as he runs up and down the track; and you find out they kind of run like hot butter. Take about a half an hour to run one of the things, an hour and a half. Three hours is the longest I’ve had so far. And they run very easily.

But let’s suppose in some peculiar way that we didn’t really get this thing wheeling, and the person seems to be stuck in it, and there’s a hell of a “burp” someplace in this engram we’re running, you see? And the person goes—every time they go through this area, they go “burp.” And every time they go through the area, they go “burp.” And we’re having trouble running the engram, we should assume that something confusing happened just before that, and try to get that up rather than try to knock the burp out. Get the incident just before, and he will blow whatever is hanging.

Now, of course, the whole engram is hanging up, isn’t it?

Now, how does a person get stuck on the track in the first place? Oh, let’s ask a much more important question than that: How does a person get on a time track in the first place, and what are you doing on the time track in this universe? That’s an interesting question. Why are you plodding along the time track with such orderliness? Could it be that there’s a confusion at the beginning of track that you can’t face? I find that a very fascinating question. I won’t bother to give you any answers to that particularly. But what is time? Time very possibly could be retreat from a confusion we cared not to confront. So we retreated en masse and have been going ever since.

But that gives you, now, a basic rundown on the prior confusion—trying to find the prior confusion to find the stuck datum. A person’s ability to confront confusions, improved, of course will blow a lot of chronic somatics. But I wouldn’t count on it. I wouldn’t count on just improving their ability to confront and then having it all work out magically. I would much rather that you just sawed into it from the word go and picked up these things and blew them selectively, one by one and very intelligently. Because a goals terminal run on the Prehav Scale will give them lots of confrontingness and it’ll give them lots of changes and that sort of thing, and you’re much more interested in that.

Trying to run a person, though, with a present time problem of long duration—one special kind of which is a hidden standard—trying to run a person on the Prehav Scale with five-, six-way brackets and that sort of thing is highly profitless, because the PC never does the auditing command.

When analyzing whether or not a case is running, look to find out whether or not the PC is materially advancing, the sensitivity is coming down and the needle is getting progressively looser.

All right. That all betokens advance of the case. Now we go just a little bit further than that and we say, if the case has not gone Clear in 150 hours of Routine 3, which includes, of course, Security Checks and assessment and runs, we’d better say to ourselves right about there, this case has never done an auditing command. This case has done something else too, or has done something else, or has not done it at all. And that would be the ne plus ultra of being kind of stupid to wait that long, now that we know this. But if it did reach that time, then we would say, well, there’s hidden standards here, and we would determine what they are. And determining what they are, we would get rid of them on this basis of a prior confusion or any refinement thereof. We’d blow these hidden standards. We’d straighten out these things. We return to a goals run. If the case still hung up, we would suspect another hidden standard. We would blow that and go on. So it might be a very good idea to blow all the hidden standards that you could blow on a case before you do very much worrying about the case getting on the way with a goals run.

In other words, by all means get their goal. By all means, get their terminal. By all means, assess a level on the Prehav Scale. By all means, give them some running on this sort of thing.

But on a Security Check angle, first, let’s get off those last two pages of Form 3, and let’s get off all of Form 6 on an old auditor. On new people, let’s straighten up Security Check in general, let’s get this pretty well ironed out, and then let’s find out if the person has any hidden standards. And then let’s undercut those by finding the prior confusions; let’s fill in these blank spots, at least in this lifetime. Let’s get them sailing so that they can actually do a straight auditing command. And then, doing that, you’ll find you make very rapid progress with clearing.

All summer and all last spring, I’ve just been working on speed of clearing. That is all I’ve been working on. And this is another seven-league-boot stride in that particular direction.

Thank you.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JUNE 1984

Remimeo 
False Purpose RD
Auditors and C/Ses 
Cramming Officers

False Purpose Rundown Series 3

THE PRIOR CONFUSION:
NEW TECH BREAKTHROUGH

Refs:
	HCOB  2 Nov. 61	THE PRIOR CONFUSION
	HCOB  9 Nov. 61	THE PROBLEMS INTENSIVE
		USE OF THE PRIOR CONFUSION
	HCOB  5 Apr. 71RA	TRIPLE RERUNS
	HCOB  26 June 78RA II	NED Series 6RA
		ROUTINE 3RA
		ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
		(Section on Narrative R3RA)
	HCOB 13 Sept. 78	R3RA ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
		AND NARRATIVE R3RA
		AN ADDITIONAL DIFFERENCE
	HCOB 28 May 69	HOW NOT TO ERASE
	HCOB 6 Oct. 61	TRAINING OF STAFF AUDITORS
	HCOB 30 July 62	A SMOOTH HGC 25-HOUR INTENSIVE
	Tape: 6110C03	“The Prior Confusion”

The highly effective tech of handling problems on a pc by finding the prior confusion to the problem and pulling O/Ws in that area has been in use since its discovery in the early 60s.

The theory of this is that any fixed idea or condition is the result of a postulate made by the thetan. Just prior to that postulate there was a confusion —an unconfrontable disturbance. The postulate is a stable datum, adopted in an attempt to solve that confusion. By getting off the pc’s O/Ws in the area of the confusion, one can key out the postulate and fixed condition.

BREAKTHROUGH

I have just made a breakthrough of magnitude on the subject of the prior confusion while engaged in whole track research. This tech has a broader application than was originally envisioned.

What has actually been spotted here is that the psychs on the whole track created a confusion originally and used the overwhelm of that as the knockout for the implant. They didn’t, at that stage of the track, have any other tools to knock beings out. So the mechanism of prior confusion is very early and very dominant.

 This breakthrough on the prior confusion comes from spotting the first moment of the confusion.

This does not mean that a pc, in running back an evil purpose, is necessarily going to contact an incident containing a psychiatrist. But you as the auditor should know that that is what this tech discovery is based upon.
HANDLING EVIL PURPOSES

This has immediate application in auditing addressed to the locating and handling of a pc’s accumulated evil purposes and nonsurvival considerations.

Once such a purpose or consideration is found, one locates the confusion which occurred just before it. If there is no blow of the purpose or no visible reaction, then one gets an earlier time for the same evil purpose and an earlier confusion to that. WHEN ONE FINDS THE FIRST MOMENT OF THE FIRST CONFUSION WHICH LED TO THAT EVIL PURPOSE, ONE CAN BLOW THE WHOLE THING.

Once the FIRST MOMENT of that first confusion on that chain is found, you will normally get a blowdown of the tone arm, a cognition, VVGIs in the pc and a persistent F/N, if not a floating TA.

Getting the first moment of the confusion is crucial. This follows the fundamental auditing principle of the “earlier beginning,” as described in the basic books and in New Era Dianetics tech. By locating the earliest moment when the pc had an awareness of the confusion, it can be blown.

SOURCE

The false purpose or evil intention may have been generated by the person himself or directly implanted by another. This new application of prior confusion tech as given in the False Purpose Rundown has been shown to be highly effective regardless of the source of the purpose or intention.

ERRORS

On the False Purpose RD if one gets the prior confusion but the evil purpose doesn’t spectacularly blow, it could be due to a number of reasons. But it is primarily one of these two things:

1. 	The auditor failed to get the EARLIER TIME THE PC HAD THAT SAME PURPOSE and then get the prior confusion beneath it; or

2. 	The auditor did get the basic prior confusion on that evil purpose, but failed to get the FIRST MOMENT OF THAT CONFUSION.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1984

Remimeo
False Purpose RD
Auditors and C/Ses
Cramming Officers
All Sec Checkers
HSSC Checksheet
False Purpose RD
Checksheet

False Purpose Rundown Series 4

CLEARING JUSTIFICATIONS

(Modifies: HCOB 30 Nov. 78,
CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE)

Refs:
	HCOB  21 Jan. 60	JUSTIFICATION
	HCOB  7 July 64	JUSTIFICATIONS
	HCOB  8 July 64	MORE JUSTIFICATIONS
	Tape: 6406C09	“The Cycle of Action,
		Its Interpretation on the E-Meter”
	Tape: 6406C16	“Communication, Overts and
		Responsibility “

One of the tools of the successful auditor is the technique of getting off the pc’s justifications when pulling overts and withholds. When this tech has fallen out of use, auditing has been less effective. Therefore, in auditing the False Purpose RD it is mandatory that on each overt pulled the pc’s justifications of that overt must be cleared.

Additionally, a step is added to Sec Checking procedure of getting the pc’s justifications off on each overt that is found.

THEORY

Where the pc is justifying, he is in a nonconfront of his own causation. By justifying he is lessening the severity of the overt, and as long as he has an overt justified, he hasn’t taken responsibility for it and it will still be charged. Thus, pulling off the pc’s justifications is invaluable in raising his cause and responsibility level.

PROCEDURE

Justifications are asked for after the time, place, form and event of the overt have been gotten and before asking for “who missed it” and E/S.

The pc’s justifications can be gotten by asking, “Have you justified that overt?” or “Why wasn’t that an overt?” getting that answered and asking for any more justifications until all are gotten. Quite often they will come off in a torrent, to the great relief of the pc.
 Example: Auditor is running the Confessional question, “Have you ever stolen an apple?” After getting the pc to answer and give the what, when and so forth of the overt, the auditor asks:

Auditor: “Have you justified that overt?”

Pc: “Yes, I decided it was okay to steal the apples because I was hungry.”

Auditor: “Thank you. How else did you justify it?”

Pc: “Well, the store had so many apples in stock that I knew it wouldn’t hurt them to lose a few . . . and after all, they’ve overcharged me before, so they actually sort of owed it to me, and I always shop there so they’re still making plenty of money from me.”

Auditor: “Okay. How else did you justify it?”

Pc: “That covers it. Boy, I really had that one loaded up with reasons for its being all right!”

Auditor: “Thanks very much. Who missed it?” (Auditor continues on with the “missed” step and then, if no EP, goes E/S on the Sec Check question.)

GRADE IV

This HCOB in no way changes or replaces the “Overt-Justification” process which is run as part of Expanded Grade IV.

Ls

The L Rundowns are audited exactly per the Class X, XI and XII materials and are not added to or modified in any way by this HCOB.

This is quite a powerful bit of tech. Its application can make all the difference in cleaning up an overt.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JUNE 1984R
REVISED 3 MAY 1985
Remimeo
False Purpose RD
Auditors
False Purpose RD
C/Ses
Cramming Officers
False Purpose Rundown Series 5R

AUDITING THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN

Refs:
	HCOB 5 June 84R 	FPRD Series 1R
	Rev. 11.1.90 	FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
	Book: Advanced Procedure and Axioms, Chapter “Postulates”
	HCOB 28 Nov. 70	C/S Series 22
		PSYCHOSIS
	HCOB 9 May 77 II 	ExDn Series 29
		PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT
	HCOB 28 Feb.84	C/S Series 118
		PRETENDED PTS
	HCOB 27 Mar.84	C/S Series 119
		STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR:
		SOLVED
	HCOB 7 June 84 	FPRD Series 3
		THE PRIOR CONFUSION:
		NEW TECH BREAKTHROUGH
	HCOB 8 June 84 	FPRD Series 4
		CLEARING JUSTIFICATIONS
	HCOB 6 Nov. 64 	STYLES OF AUDITING
		(Level II—Guiding Style)
	HCOB 21 Mar. 74	END PHENOMENA
	HCOB 1 Mar. 77 II	CONFESSIONAL FORMS

The False Purpose Rundown is a brand-new development in the handling of overts, withholds, evil purposes and destructive intentions. Using this new technique they are traced straight down to their origins and BLOWN.

EVIL PURPOSES

An evil purpose is a destructive purpose, intention or postulate.

I discovered in 1970 that evil purposes are the basis of insanity. A person who continuously commits harmful acts has evil purposes. He is prompted by these purposes to commit overts. (Such a person often tries to keep these overts carefully hidden while continuing to commit them.)

This does not mean that every pc who gives off an evil purpose is a raving psychotic or a John Dillinger or is bent only on destruction. It does not mean that any pc who discovers he has been dramatizing a destructive intention is an SP.

 What it does mean is that this is an area that will cause (or, more likely, has already caused) a great deal of difficulty or conflict not only for the pc himself but for those around him.
POSTULATES

Evil purposes are, in effect, postulates.

Research on purposes and postulates and their role in the general aberration of a case goes back as early as 1950, and a lot of material exists on this in HCOBs and in basic Dianetics and Scientology books.

In dealing with this subject we are, in reality, dealing with a whole spectrum of what are actually postulates: considerations, intentions, purposes, service facsimiles and computations. These are all postulates.

Such false purposes, false considerations, quasi-evil purposes and the like can sit squarely in the road of attempts to hat or train or get case gain on a person.

NEW TECH BREAKTHROUGH

Underlying an overt chain you will very often find an evil purpose or destructive intention. In other words, when you start tracking down O/Ws with E/Ses keeping on a certain type of O/W, you will very likely run into an evil purpose on a case. The underlying evil purpose prompts the person to commit and continue committing harmful acts.

The breakthrough that I have made on this line is in the application of prior confusion tech to the handling of overts and evil purposes. Just as an evil purpose can be found at the bottom of a chain of overts, so can a confusion be found just prior to an evil purpose.

Once the first underlying prior confusion on that chain is located, it is only necessary to have the pc spot the FIRST MOMENT of it to cause it to blow.

AUDITOR REQUIREMENTS

A False Purpose RD Auditor must be a graduate of the new HUBBARD FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR COURSE and provenly competent in handling the high-precision tech of the rundown. A prerequisite to this course is the HUBBARD SENIOR SECURITY CHECKER COURSE, where one becomes a highly skilled Sec Checker. NO ONE who has not successfully completed these two courses may audit the False Purpose Rundown.

The exact requirements to deliver the False Purpose RD are:

1. 	Student Hat

2. 	Pro TR Course
3. 	Class IV Auditor
 
4. 	Upper Indoc TR Course (or Upper Indoc TRs previously drilled on any training course)

5. 	Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course

6. 	Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor Course (Provisional until interned).

To deliver the False Purpose Rundown to an OT III or New OT IV (which would only be done in an AO or at the FSO) one must have done 1-6 above PLUS:

7. 	Qualified to audit OT III reviews.
To deliver the False Purpose Rundown to a NOTs pre-OT one must have done all of 1-7 above PLUS:

8. 	Full training as a Class IX Auditor (Hubbard Advanced Courses Specialist).

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN FORMS

The False Purpose Rundown procedure utilizes a form that consists of a series of questions related to a specific subject or area. There are different False Purpose RD forms which the C/S may include in the pc’s program. Whatever form is used, the auditor does the whole form on the pc. Every question is cleared and checked on the meter as per basic Sec Checking tech.

Some of the questions on the form ask for overts (e.g., “Have you ever stolen materials from a school?”) and other questions ask directly for evil purposes and destructive intentions (e.g., “Have you had an evil purpose towards a school teacher? “ ) .

Form questions which simply ask for overts are taken E/S to basic, and usually lead right to an evil purpose. (See Steps A to G below.)

On questions which directly ask for evil purposes the auditor takes up the procedure from Step C and carries through to EP.

The whole aim in doing this rundown is to locate overts and evil purposes on the case and fully blow them. These two types of Sec Check questions simply give two different approaches to one thing: getting onto the trail that leads to an evil purpose and, once found, blowing the evil purpose.

AUDITING PROCEDURE

IMPORTANT: Before the rundown is started, the pc must have a clear understanding of what is meant by an evil or destructive intention, and what a confusion and prior confusion are, as per the Technical Dictionary. The commands themselves must also be thoroughly cleared. (Ref: HCOB 9 Aug. 78 II, CLEARING COMMANDS)
 
STEP A: 	Auditor clears and asks the question from the False Purpose RD form.

	Example: “Do you have an overt on cats?”
	On each reading Sec Check question get the question answered fully and the overt pulled with time, place, form and event and pull any justifications of the overt as part of this. This is done with full Sec Checking tech. If no persistent F/N or spectacular release on getting off the overt, go E/S on the overt chain, with each overt question being taken to basic. Just pulling an overt might result in a huge release and persistent F/N which would be the EP for that chain.

	You may get an F/N accompanied by a cog and VGIs while going down an overt chain. An F/N indicates a release point. What occurs in a case when you get an F/N on going down an overt chain is a key-out; by pursuing it you resume the chain and can pull it down to its underlying evil purpose.

	It is very important in running down these overt chains that the auditor keeps the pc ON the same chain. Should the pc offer up some other overt or even an evil purpose disrelated to the chain being run, it is just noted in the worksheet for later reference. It would be an auditor error of magnitude to Q-and-A with such an origination and pursue it in the middle of handling the overt chain that was started with. (Ref: HCOB 21 Mar. 62, PREPCHECKING DATA, WHEN TO DO A WHAT)

	Note: In running an overt chain E/S, the pc may spot the evil purpose that prompted the overts on that chain. If this occurs, i.e., the pc (without prompting) volunteers the evil purpose or intention that underlies that overt chain, and it is reading on the meter, the auditor goes straight to Step C.

STEP B: 	If running the overt E/S (to the point where there is apparently no earlier overt) does not result in a spectacular release and persistent F/N, the auditor asks:

	“WAS THERE SOME EVIL PURPOSE OR DESTRUCTIVE INTENTION THAT PROMPTED YOU TO COMMIT THAT OVERT?”

	and, if this reads, he pulls the evil purpose or destructive intention. The auditor is expected to put in “Suppress” and “Invalidate” if this question is not reading.

	(AN “F/N AND VGIs” IS NOT THE EP BEING SOUGHT IN FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN PROCEDURE. THE EP IS A SPECTACULAR RELEASE ANp A PERSISTENT F/N. THE PC SHOULD F/N ON THE E/S OVERT CHAIN ITSELF AND THE F/N SHOULD BE INDICATED, BUT THE PROCEDURE IS CONTINUED UNTIL THE FULL EP IS REACHED.)
 	(If this question [“Was there an evil purpose . . .”] does not read, this puts one back at Step A. The original question one started with [e.g., “Do you have an overt on cats?”] is rechecked as per standard Confessional procedure. Once that original question F/Ns on being checked, carry on with the next question listed on the False Purpose RD form.)

	The purpose or intention should read when the pc gives it. If it isn’t reading, do not pursue the item with Steps C1, C2, etc.

STEP C: 	If there is no great relief and persistent F/N from the pc on finding the evil purpose, get the prior confusion which occurred just before that evil purpose. Then ask for and find the first moment of that prior confusion which led to that evil purpose.

	This is done as follows:

C1: 	The auditor asks: “WAS THERE A CONFUSION THAT OCCURRED JUST BEFORE YOU HAD THE PURPOSE (the wording of the evil purpose given by the pc)?”

	(Example: “Was there a confusion that occurred just before you had the purpose ‘to kill cats’?”)

	and, by using the meter, the auditor finds this confusion.

C2: 	The auditor then asks: “WHEN WAS THE FIRST MOMENT OF THAT CONFUSION?” and gets the pc to find this.

STEP D: 	If there is no spectacular release and persistent F/N on finding the first moment of that prior confusion, ask the pc:

	“WAS THERE AN EARLIER TIME YOU HAD THE PURPOSE (the wording of the evil purpose given by the pc)?”

	(Example: “Was there an earlier time you had the purpose ‘to kill cats’?”)

	and find this earlier time the pc had that purpose. What is being looked for is NOT an earlier-similar purpose, but an earlier time the pc had THAT SAME EXACT PURPOSE.

STEP E: 	If there is no spectacular release or persistent F/N on finding the earlier time, find the CONFUSION PRIOR TO THAT TIME as per Steps Cl and C2 above, and proceed to Step D.

STEP F: 	The auditor continues going earlier as per Steps D and E, until the pc has found the first moment of the first confusion which led to THAT evil purpose.

STEP G: 	If all Steps A through F have been done yet there is still no spectacular release and persistent F/N, assess and handle a False Purpose RD Correction List.

STYLE OF AUDITING

The style of auditing used on the False Purpose RD is Level II, Guiding Style. The auditor must be well drilled in this style of auditing to be successful with the rundown.

GOOD INTENTIONS

ONLY evil or destructive intentions are picked up and handled in this auditing. DO NOT run good intentions.

PAST TRACK

Do not limit the pc to this lifetime when going E/S on overts or when asking for an earlier time he had that evil purpose. These chains very often go whole track.

LISTING

By following the False Purpose RD procedure exactly, the auditor should be able to easily find and pull the pc’s evil purposes. The pc is not asked listing questions, nor is L&N any part of the procedure. But it is possible that a pc could start listing and the auditor must be able to recognize and handle such a situation per standard listing tech.

The auditor would handle an out-list per HCOB 11 Apr. 77, LIST ERRORS, CORRECTION OF, and HCOB 17 Mar. 74, TWO-WAY COMM, USING WRONG QUESTIONS.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON SERVICE FACS

Upon reviewing the session worksheets, the C/S may find that a service fac was found and F/Ned, but not fully blown. In such an instance the C/S can order the service fac run in the R3SC brackets in a later session, to fully blow it. It is the auditor’s responsibility to ensure the item reads; if it isn’t reading, it is not run.

However, if one is doing a False Purpose RD Correction List and in doing so locates a reading service fac, the auditor should run it out with R3SC in that session.

REPAIR

During a chain if the auditor hits an impasse, it is expected that he would apply the appropriate Sec Checking tools right then and there to handle: Murder Routine, checking for a missed withhold, use of buttons, etc.

If there is some bog that the auditor is unable to rapidly handle using the routine Sec Check debug tools, a False Purpose Rundown Correction List should be assessed and handled.

ENDING THE SESSION

When at some point in doing these steps the pc has a spectacular release and a persistent F/N, end off the session at that point and turn the folder in to the C/S. That would be the EP for that chain and that session. In the next session the auditor rechecks the last question run on the False Purpose RD form, and if reading, repeats Steps A to G on it. When that question no longer reads on checking, one proceeds on to the next question on the form.

SUMMARY

The importance of using this tech of purposes and considerations is immeasurable.

It can make the difference between complete failure and successful hatting; between a hell-bound existence and a pleasurable productive life.

This tech is for use. Use it well.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1984

Limited Distribution: 
False Purpose RD 
Auditors and C/Ses 
Cramming Officers
False Purpose Rundown Series 6

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN COMMANDS

The following are the commands of False Purpose Rundown procedure. The full data on each of these commands and its application is contained in HCOB 9 June 84, FPRD Series 5, AUDITING THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN.

STEP A: 	Clear, check for read and ask the question from the False Purpose RD form being used. If it reads, get the question answered fully and the overt pulled with full time, place, form and event, also pulling the pc’s justifications. This is done with full Sec Checking tech. Take this E/S as a chain of overts, down to the basic overt on the chain.

STEP B: 	If no spectacular release or persistent F/N, find the underlying evil purpose, using the question:

	“WAS THERE SOME EVIL PURPOSE OR DESTRUCTIVE INTENTION THAT PROMPTED YOU TO COMMIT THAT OVERT?”

STEP C: 	If there’s no great relief and persistent F/N from the pc spotting the evil purpose, find the confusion before it, and get the pc to spot the first moment of that prior confusion:

C1: 	“WAS THERE A CONFUSION THAT OCCURRED JUST BEFORE YOU HAD THE PURPOSE (the wording of the evil purpose the pc gave)?”

C2: 	“WHEN WAS THE FIRST MOMENT OF THAT CONFUSION?”

STEP D: 	If still no EP, get the earlier time he had that same exact purpose: “WAS THERE AN EARLIER TIME YOU HAD THE PURPOSE ?”

STEP E: 	If no EP, find the confusion prior to that time as per Steps C1 and C2 above, then proceed to Step D.

STEP F.: 	Continue with Steps D and E as needed to get the first moment of the first confusion which led to that evil purpose.

STEP G: 	A False Purpose Rundown Correction List should be assessed if full EP is not reached by this point.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1984

Remimeo
FPRD Auditors
FPRD C/Ses
Cramming Officers

False Purpose Rundown Series 7

C/Sing THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN

Refs:
	HCOB 5 June 84 R	FPRD Series 1R
	Rev. 11.1.90	FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
	HCOB 9 June 84 R	FPRD Series 5R
	Rev. 3.5.85	AUDITING THE FALSE PURPOSE 
		RUNDOWN
	HCOB 12 June 84	FPRD Series 8
		FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
		AUDITOR ERRORS
	HCOB 16 June 70	C/S Series 6
		KSW Series 20
		WHAT THE C/S IS DOING
	HCOB 1 Mar. 77 II 	CONFESSIONAL FORMS
	HCOB 13 Oct.82	C/S Series 116
		ETHICS AND THE C/S
	HCOB 28 Feb.84	C/S Series 118
		PRETENDED PTS
	HCOB 27 Mar.84	C/S Series 119
		STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR:
		SOLVED
	HCOB 21 Mar. 74	END PHENOMENA

This rundown is a very powerful C/S tool for case advancement. Utilizing technical breakthroughs made in whole track research, it is unique in its direct approach to the handling of evil purposes and destructive intentions. It is actually a brand-new look at the subject: Guiding the pc down to basic on overt chains with thorough Sec Checking of each overt itself, then carrying through with special steps designed to blow the factors that originally prompted the overt.

C/S REQUIREMENTS

In order to C/S the False Purpose Rundown one must have successfully completed the Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor Course and internship and must have graduated the Hubbard False Purpose RD C/S Course.

WHO CAN RECEIVE THE RUNDOWN

Case prerequisites for the rundown are Purification Rundown and Objectives. The only exception would be a pc who is in Case Category 4 per HCOB 12 Nov. 81RD, GRADE CHART STREAMLINED FOR LOWER GRADES: OCA all in the upper half of graph, no heavy drug history. Such a pc could be put straight onto the rundown provided he had been fully educated as a pc with a Scientology C/S-1. But the False Purpose RD is not an introductory-type action and would not ordinarily be programed on a “raw meat” case.
 It would also be a mistake to program someone for the False Purpose RD whose track was heavily blocked off with drugs, as the pc needs to be able to go E/S. If the C/S has such a case on his hands, despite the person having completed a standard Purif and battery of Objectives, then a Drug RD must be done.

The False Purpose Rundown is primarily used to unstick a stalled case and get it moving up the Grade Chart again. It is not a grade or level in itself.

Where a Dianetic Clear or any pre-OT has stalled in his progress up the Bridge, the False Purpose Rundown can give him a tremendous boost in blasting through the barriers he is faced with and make it possible for him to make it on up the line to full OT.

As an example, a pc receiving HRD auditing might plow into an inability to free up on something, and not come around with handlings specific to the HRD. If through folder study and assessment of prepared lists the C/S discovers that the primary factor holding the pc back lies in the area of evil purposes in conflict with one or more of the precepts of The Way to Happiness, such a pc would need to be shifted over to the False Purpose RD—and completed on a specific False Purpose RD form—and then returned to the HRD and the HRD carried through to completion.

Another example would be a pc receiving PTS handling. Should it become evident that the pc is actually a pretended PTS (per HCOB 28 Feb. 84, C/S Series 118, PRETENDED PTS) he can be smoothly moved over onto the False Purpose RD.

The False Purpose RD is not a panacea to be used in place of other standard case debug and repair tools such as drug handlings or the Expanded GF 40. It is used when the C/S has determined that what is stalling a case is evil purposes. It is programed so as to locate and handle the evil purposes and false purposes and nonsurvival considerations, after which the pc is returned to and moved on up the Grade Chart. Some repair lists, such as the GF 40X, contain questions which can detect evil purposes on a case. Such questions reading would alert the C/S to the need to ensure that the False Purpose RD was included in the pc’s future programing.

PROGRAMING

Though the False Purpose Rundown reaches more deeply into the heart of a pc’s case than Sec Checking, and incorporates brand-new tech discoveries from whole track research, its C/Sing and programing follow the same basic C/Sing and programing rules applicable to Sec Checking.

One could for example have a case that is in the middle of a grade or level, not in any sort of ethics trouble, and running fine in session, who simply originates to a Reg that he would like to receive the False Purpose RD. The Reg and C/S would handle this as they would any pc request for a particular rundown, as per HCOB 12 Nov. 81RD, GRADE CHART STREAMLINED FOR LOWER GRADES, section “PROGRAMING.” The C/S would not interrupt the grade the pc was in the middle of and interject the False Purpose RD.
 On the other hand, one could have a pc who is very evidently in need of this RD right now—not later.

In all such cases the C/S follows HCOB 28 Sept. 82, C/S Series 115, MIXING RUNDOWNS AND REPAIRS, and HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S, which give the rules.

SETUPS

Before a pc is begun on the False Purpose Rundown he must be properly set up, with an F/N and VGIs.

CLEARING WORDS

The preclear must have a full understanding of the words and commands of the False Purpose Rundown. The pc has to have a very clear understanding of what is an overt, a withhold, an evil purpose, a confusion and so on.

BEGINNING THE RUNDOWN

A pc or pre-OT beginning the rundown is first put onto the False Purpose Rundown Basic Form (HCOB 14 June 84, False Purpose Rundown Series 10-A).

Other forms may be used in addition to the basic form. For example, a pc might be a field auditor in for some case cleanup and tech update; he could be programed for the False Purpose Rundown using an “auditor form.” If additional forms are used, the questions are handled per the A-G steps of the False Purpose Rundown procedure. In any case, questions are not deleted from the form.

Any form may have questions added to it by the C/S that pertain to the individual person’s background and occupation(s) and current scene (Ref: HCOB 1 Mar. 77 II, CONFESSIONAL FORMS).

ETHICS

The False Purpose RD does not take the place of standard ethics. If a person is currently involved in an out-ethics situation and is thereby harming the org or those around him in some fashion, or has gross downtrending statistics as a group member, that person should be hauled into Ethics and sorted out. Such handling might even include a rapid HCO Sec Check as a means of getting to the root of some PT situation, so that ethics can be gotten in.

Example (correct): A sum of money has been reported missing from the Treasury cash box. At the same time, staff member Pete begins insisting he must leave staff for one “reason” or another. Well, here is an obvious candidate for some pointed investigatory questioning by a skilled Sec Checker. The C/S in this case needs to get a certain set of Sec Check questions answered, fast. In this illustration it would be incorrect to embark on the False Purpose RD, as the auditor would be bound by the HCOBs to take the first question all the way through the rundown steps to persistent F/N, end session, start another session later and take up question number two, and so on. It is simply a matter for a straight HCO Confessional, get the questions answered and the overts pulled, each to F/N, and that’s it.

The False Purpose Rundown is a TECH handling. Handling tech before ethics is incorrect sequence.

Once the person has been interviewed or sec checked by an MAA, (or been before a court or committee) and physical universe handlings for any PT outethics have been done, or are at least in progress with the person’s ethics going in, the False Purpose RD can be used as a tool to assist him to handle the situation terminatedly. As long as ethics has gone in on the person, one can safely start him on the False Purpose RD.

Example (incorrect): Course Supervisor Elliot is found to be crashing the Academy stats, giving out verbal tech and caving in students with invalidation. Exec asks the C/S to “please get Elliot audited on the False Purpose RD right away as we must handle his destructiveness.” The C/S goes along with this. Elliot isn’t comm-eved or put through lower ethics conditions or otherwise given any ethics handling. He gets several sessions but doesn’t make any real case change. The Academy empties out. Reason: They are trying to get tech in when he is still in the ethics band. The handling is not “double the number of sessions per day he’s getting.” That would be out-sequence.

Example (correct): Betsy damaged org property and falsified an FSM commission. Turns herself in to the Ethics Officer who has her write up her O/Ws and do ethics condition formulas starting at Confusion. She works up through the conditions to Liability and writes up overts and confronts the fact that she has been out-ethics. She is, at this point, started on the False Purpose RD. Between sessions she carries on with the rest of the condition formulas, amends work, studying an ethics course, etc. The rundown is very successful. And it was successful because the sequence applied was ethics and then tech.

EP OF A SINGLE FALSE PURPOSE RD FORM

The False Purpose Rundown, similar to Sec Checking, is an unlimited process (Ref: HCOB 2 Nov. 68R, CASE SUPERVISOR CLASS VIII, THE BASIC PROCESSES). In other words, a person could receive False Purpose RD auditing any number of times, with an EP achieved for each False Purpose RD form done.

Example: Pc has had some auditing, some grades, then is inactive for a while (“falls off the Bridge”). He is involved in out-ethics, etc. He is recovered, and given False Purpose Rundown Series 10-A, the Basic Form. On completion of his auditing on this form he is doing extremely well and is ready to continue up the Bridge. He is sent to attest to completion of “False Purpose RD Basic Form.”

Example: A pc is having trouble with her marriage. She is audited on the False Purpose RD Basic Form, attests to it, and is then run on a False Purpose RD 2D Form. On completion of the 2D Form she is doing very well and her 2D situation is fully and happily resolved. She is sent to attest to completion of “False Purpose RD, Second Dynamic Form.”
 
When the person being audited on the False Purpose Rundown has been successfully completed on the last question of a particular form, the following indicators should be present:

1. 	The tone arm action has flattened off.

2. 	A marked shift of viewpoint accompanied by a cognition about the subject that was being sec checked, such as now being free from having to restrain oneself from committing harmful acts, etc. This would be a very big, embracive cognition, or number of them.

With these phenomena present, the pc may be sent to declare completion of that form. If they are not present, have the auditor assess a False Purpose Rundown Correction List and handle it M3 to an F/Ning list. If the EP as above is still not present, the case needs to be FESed and, taking care to use the data obtained from the correction list assessment, programed for any needed repair and then to complete that False Purpose Rundown form.

EP OF PROGRAM

Completing a whole program is a different matter than completing one form.

A stalled Dianetic Clear might, for example, have a case program that consists of several False Purpose Rundown forms (each carried to EP), followed by False Data Stripping and then Method One Word Clearing.

The overall program would be ended, and the pc sent to declare to the program, when the end phenomena of that program had been attained. This would mean achieving the end product that program was intended to achieve, as per the C/S Series HCOBs, and would include a marked rise in the person’s OCA from the range it was in before the program was begun.

AUDITOR HANDLING

The C/S must ensure that his False Purpose Rundown auditors are well trained and interned to begin with and effectively crammed on any goofs of the procedure.

A point which must be particularly watched for is the auditor’s handling of F/Ns that occur before the full EP of a chain is reached. Some auditors, accustomed to ending off an action at the first F/N, cog, VGIs will tend to end off at an F/N rather than carrying through to the full EP (persistent F/N, cog, VVGIs, evil purpose blown).

SUMMARY

With this new rundown and its direct address to factors that underlie nonsurvival conduct, the C/S is equipped to dramatically boost a pc or pre-OT on his way up the Bridge to full restoration of his power as a being.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JUNE 1984

Limited Distribution: 
Remimeo 
FPRD 
Auditors and C/Ses 
Cramming Officers

False Purpose Rundown Series 8

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN AUDITOR ERRORS

Refs:
	HCOB 9 June 84	FPRD Series 5
		AUDITING THE FALSE
		PURPOSE RUNDOWN
	HCOB 11 June 84	FPRD Series 7
		C/Sing THE FALSE
		PURPOSE RUNDOWN
	HCOB 8 June 84 	FPRD Series 4
		CLEARING JUSTIFICATIONS
	HCOB 7 June 84 	FPRD Series 3
		THE PRIOR CONFUSION:
		NEW TECH BREAKTHROUGH
	HCOB 30 Nov. 78	CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE
	HCOB 13 Oct. 82	C/S Series 116
		ETHICS AND THE C/S

The following are common errors that were made by some of the first auditors learning to audit the False Purpose Rundown. These errors can lessen or nullify results on the rundown and must be watched for closely by the C/S and thoroughly handled if they occur—by both cramming the erring auditor and repairing the pc:

1. 	FAILING TO VIGOROUSLY PULL THE OVERTS GOTTEN WHILE FOLLOWING DOWN THE OVERT CHAIN. Effective, no-Q&A overt pulling which nails down the overt in its entirety is a must. Patty-cake, sweaty-palmed auditors who did not master the tech of Sec Checking will not succeed with the False Purpose Rundown.

2. 	NOT TAKING THE OVERT CHAIN EARLIER-SIMILAR TO EARLIER OVERTS. Quite often the E/S O/W chain will go backtrack. The evil purpose will be found to be underneath the earliest overt on that chain. This error often shows up in the auditor attempting to get off an evil purpose after having pulled only a light PT overt.

3. 	FAILURE TO DIRECT PROPER ETHICS HANDLING WHEN NEEDED. Ethics must be in before tech will go in. Some persons will need ethics handlings before the False Purpose RD will even begin to bite at all. Trying to “handle” someone’s PT out-ethics situation with False Purpose RD auditing alone will result in loses.

 4. 	ATTEMPTING TO “DO THE FALSE PURPOSE RD” OVER THE TOP OF PC NATTER OR OUT-OF-SESSIONNESS OR OTHER SYMPTOMS OF MISSED WITHHOLDS. This of course comes under the heading of “auditing a pc over out ruds.”

5. 	QUICKYING. Example: Auditor calling a persistent F/N when there obviously is no persistent F/N present. Example: Auditor saying something was an EP which wasn’t.

6. 	FAILING TO PULL OFF THE PC’S JUSTIFICATIONS FOR EACH OVERT AS THE CHAIN IS FOLLOWED DOWN. Includes asking for justifications just once (brush off), when the pc may need to be asked the question several times before all the justifications are gotten.

7. 	NOT GETTING ALL OF THE OVERT FIRST BEFORE ASKING FOR THE PC’S JUSTIFICATIONS OF THAT OVERT.

8. 	Q&A OFF THE O/W CHAIN, ONTO SOME OTHER O/W CHAIN OR ONTO SOMETHING ELSE.

9. 	BASIC OVERT PULLING ERRORS SUCH AS MISSING READS, NOT RAISING THE SENSITIVITY ON QUESTIONS, Q&A, NOT VARYING THE QUESTION OR PULLING STRINGS WHEN NEEDED, ETC.

10. 	NOT USING “LEFT-HAND BUTTONS” (e.g., “SUPPRESS” AND “INVALIDATE” ) WHEN A FALSE PURPOSE RD FORM QUESTION DOESN’T READ, OR WHEN THE STEP B QUESTION OF THE FALSE PURPOSE RD PROCEDURE DOES NOT READ.

11. 	FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHEN BASIC ON THE OVERT CHAIN HAS BEEN REACHED AND THE CHAIN FLATTENED.

12. 	OVERRUNNING A SESSION OR CHAIN BY TRYING TO CARRY ON PAST A SPECTACULAR RELEASE OR PERSISTENT F/N.

13. 	AUDITOR NOT KNOWING WHAT AN EVIL PURPOSE OR DESTRUCTIVE INTENTION IS AND TAKING UP GOOD INTENTIONS, RANDOM STATEMENTS, COMPUTATIONS, ETC., AS “EVIL PURPOSES.” Includes failing to clear these terms thoroughly with the pc before beginning him on the rundown.

14. 	NOT TAKING THE EVIL PURPOSE EARLIER (to the earlier time the pc had that same evil purpose), when needed as per Step D of False Purpose RD procedure.

15. 	COMMANDS NOT FULLY CLEARED, AND/OR PC NOT GROOVED IN TO THE PROCEDURE SO THAT HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS TO BE DONE AND WHAT IS EXPECTED OF HIM.

16. 	PICKING UP AND ATTEMPTING TO RUN RANDOM EVIL PURPOSES THAT THE PC ORIGINATES WHILE BEING RUN DOWN A SPECIFIC CHAIN.
 
17. 	TURNING STEP B OF THE FALSE PURPOSE RD PROCEDURE (PULLING THE EVIL PURPOSE) INTO AN L&N ACTION.

18. 	NOT USING THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST WHEN NEEDED ON A CASE.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER AD14
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
STYLES OF AUDITING

Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint Hill Graduates, have been trained at one time or another in these auditing styles. Here they are given names and assigned to Levels so that they can be taught more easily and so that general auditing can be improved.

(Note 2: These have not been written before because I had not determined the results vital to each Level.)

There is a Style of auditing for each class. By Style is meant a method or custom of performing actions.

A Style is not really determined by the process being run so much. A Style is how the auditor addresses his task.

Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps, but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better job not only of CT Healing but of any repetitive process.

Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all, but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of Class. It is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle the tools of auditing.

LEVEL ZERO
LISTEN STYLE

At Level 0 the Style is Listen Style Auditing. Here the auditor is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring) the auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style. Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening.

Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating, invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS student.

Listen Style should not be complicated by expecting more of the auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating, invalidating or interrupting.

Adding on higher skills like “Is the pc talking interestingly?” or even “Is the pc talking?” is no part of this style. When this auditor gets in trouble and the pc won’t talk or isn’t interested, a higher classed auditor is called in, a new question given by the supervisor, etc.

It really isn’t “Itsa” to be very technical. Itsa is the action of the pc saying, “It’s a this” or “It’s a that.” Getting the pc to Itsa is quite beyond Listen Style auditors where the pc won’t. It’s the supervisor or the question on the blackboard that gets the pc to Itsa.

The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up through the grades. One doesn’t cease to use it even at Level VI. But one has to learn it somewhere and that’s at Level Zero. So Listen Style Auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into the other styles.

LEVEL ONE
MUZZLED AUDITING

This could also be called rote style auditing.

Muzzled Auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added.

It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Qed and Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session. Muzzle meant a “muzzle was put on them”, figuratively speaking, so they would only state the auditing command and ack.

Repetitive Command Auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level One is done completely muzzled.

This could be called Muzzled Repetitive Auditing Style but will be called “Muzzled Style” for the sake of brevity.

It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn’t make gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way comm, did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit, not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question or comment.

At Level One we don’t expect the auditor to do anything but state the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge the pc’s answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and acknowledging what the pc said.

Those processes used at Level One actually respond best to muzzled auditing and worst to misguided efforts to “Two-Way Comm”.

Listen Style combines with Muzzled Style easily. But watch out that Level One sessions don’t disintegrate to Level Zero.

Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered often, are the road out—not pc wanderings.

A pc at this Level is instructed in exactly what is expected of him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through a few “do birds fly?” cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the processing works.

An auditor trying to do Muzzled Repetitive Auditing on a pc who, through past “therapy experience”, is rambling on and on is a sad sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got above Level Zero).

It’s the number of commands given and answered in a unit of auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen repetitive process and you have a release in short order, using the processes of this Level.

To follow limp Listen Style with crisp, controlled Muzzled Style may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families of auditing styles—Totally Permissive and Totally Controlled. And they are so different each is easy to learn with no confusion. It’s been the lack of difference amongst styles that confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are different enough—Listen Style and Muzzled Style—to set anybody straight.

LEVEL TWO
GUIDING STYLE AUDITING

An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two separate names: (a) Two-Way Comm and (b) Formal Auditing.

We condense these two old styles under one new name: Guiding Style Auditing.

One first guides the pc by “two-way comm” into some subject that has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands.

Guiding Style Auditing becomes feasible only when a student can do Listen Style and Muzzled Style Auditing well.

Formerly the student who couldn’t confront or duplicate a command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called it auditing or “Two-Way Comm”.

The first thing to know about Guiding Style is that one lets the pc talk and Itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive commands.

We presuppose the auditor at this Level has had enough case gain to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this Level that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation before one: otherwise a being is delusion-determined or other-determined.)

Thus in Guiding Style Auditing, the auditor is there to find out what’s what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy.

Most of the processes in the Book of Remedies are included in this Level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc, discover what the pc is doing, and remedy the pc’s case accordingly.

The result for the pc is a far-reaching re-orientation in Life.

Thus the essentials of Guiding Style Auditing consist of Two-Way Comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a repetitive process to handle what has been revealed.

One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one, establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the pc.

One runs at this Level against Tone Arm Action, paying little or no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA position. One even establishes what’s to be done by the action of the Tone Arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc by seeing what fell when he was running what’s being run, now belongs at this Level (II) and will be re-numbered accordingly.)

At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks with Life (but not session ARC Breaks, that being a needle action, session ARC Breaks being sorted out by a higher classed auditor if they occur).

To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the session the auditor must have a pc “willing to talk to the auditor about his difficulties”. That presupposes we have an auditor at this Level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be handled.

Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level I. One understands, when one doesn’t, by asking more questions, and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood it.

Guided comm is the clue to control at this Level. One should easily guide the pc’s comm in and out and around without chopping the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP. Example: Auditor has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so pc is not bothered about it (and isn’t being driven to do something about it) as the finite result.

The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA.

The Book of Remedies is the key to this Level and this auditing style.

One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc’s case.

O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn’t an overt and so eventually blow it.

Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II—the ways of keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2.

Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off when the pc is going off the subject.

LEVEL III
ABRIDGED STYLE AUDITING

By Abridged is meant “abbreviated”, shorn of extras. Any not actually needful auditing command is deleted.

For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc wanders off the subject, “I will repeat the auditing command” and does so. In Abridged Style the auditor omits this when it isn’t necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten it.

In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly, but we don’t use rote that is unnecessary to the situation.

Two-Way Comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use of repetitive commands.

At this Level we have as the primary process, Clay Table Healing. In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual command is answered by the pc.

But at the same time, one doesn’t necessarily give every auditing command the process has in its rundown.

In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than command. Yet it is done.

We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine shape and can observe. Thus we see the pc is satisfied and don’t mention it. Thus we see when the pc is not certain and so we get something the pc is certain of in answering the question.

On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply and definitely and gets them executed.

Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In Abridged Style Auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn’t stop the pc from doing so, one half acknowledges, and lets the pc go on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle, that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is acknowledged.

One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of questions that invalidate all the pc’s relief. And one sees it isn’t clean by the continued puzzle on the pc’s face.

There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn’t tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat. And so doesn’t check it again. Example: “Has anything else been suppressed?” One eye on pc, one on needle, needle didn’t quiver. Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, “All right, on      “ and goes on to next question, eliminating a pc’s possible protest read that can be mistaken for another “suppress”.

In Abridged Style Auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn’t mean one wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with Abridged Style Auditing than in rote.

One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve the expected result.

By “Abridged” is meant getting the exact job done—the shortest way between two points—with no waste questions.

By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve that result in the smallest amount of time.

The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide excursions.

The processes at this Level are all rat-a-tat-tat processes—CT Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List.

Again it’s the number of times the question is answered per unit of auditing time that makes for speed of result.

LEVEL IV
DIRECT STYLE AUDITING

By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a direct manner.
We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to guide. We mean it is direct.

By direct, we don’t mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put the pc’s attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated only to make that attention more direct.

It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make somebody clear.

Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed.

At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have Assessment type processes.

These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They are aimed directly at the Reactive Mind. They are done in a direct manner.

In CT Clearing we have almost total work and Itsa from pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few auditing commands. For a pc on CT Clearing does almost all the work if he is in session at all.

Thus we have another implication in the word “direct”. The pc is talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why in CT Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all.

In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc’s bank and wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or Itsaing. Thus this assessment is a very direct action.

All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style, it is straight as a Toledo blade.

The trick is to be direct in what’s wanted and not deviate. The auditor settles what’s to be done, gives the command and then the pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive, completely relaxed.

In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at all, as in ARC Breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list.

And in CT Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at a stretch.

The tests are: Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing without ARC Breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and interrupt alertly only when he doesn’t understand and get the pc to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC Breaking the pc.

You could confuse this Direct Style with Listen Style if you merely glanced at a session of CT Clearing. But what a difference. In Listen Style the pc is blundering on and on and on. In Direct Style the pc wanders off the line an inch and starts to Itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you’d see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc, very interestedly and say, “Let’s see that in Clay.” Or the pc doesn’t really give an ability he wants to improve and you’d hear a quiet persuasive auditor voice, “Are you quite certain you want to improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some ability you know, you’d like to improve.”

You could call this style One-Way Auditing. When the pc is given his orders, after that it’s all from the pc to the auditor, and all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When the auditor is assessing it is all from the auditor to the pc. Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there any other auditing style used.

This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward—direct.

But when needful, as in any Level, the styles learned below it are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of getting CT Clearing and Assessment done.

(Note: Level V would be the same style as VI below.)

LEVEL VI
ALL STYLE

So far, we have dealt with simple actions.

Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who Itsa’s and Cognites and gets PTPs and ARC Breaks and Line Charges and Cognites and who finds Items and lists and who must be handled, handled, handled all the way.

As auditing TA for a 2l/2 hour session can go to 79 or 125 divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect ability at each lower level vital when they combine into All Style. For each is now faster.

So, we learn All Style by learning each of the lower styles well, and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute!

The best way to learn All Style is to become expert at each lower style so that one does the style correct for the situation each time the situation requiring that style occurs.

It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding.

Use the wrong style on a situation and you’ve had it. ARC Break! No progress!

Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets dirty. The auditor can’t continue—or shouldn’t. The auditor, in Direct Style, looks up to see a-puzzled frown. The auditor has to shift to Guiding Style to find out what ails the pc (who probably doesn’t really know), then to Listen Style while the pc cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc, then to Direct Style to finish the Assessment that was in progress.

The only way an auditor can get confused by All Style is by not being good at one of the lower level styles.

Careful inspection will show where the student using All Style is slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was not well learned and practice it a bit.

So All Style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it will be in error on one or more of the lower level styles. And as all these can be independently taught, the whole can be co-ordinated. All Style is hard to do only when one hasn’t mastered one of the lower level styles.

SUMMARY

These are the important Styles of Auditing. There have been others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO Bulletin. Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing. It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no longer used in practice.

As it was necessary to have every result and every process for each Level to finalize Styles of Auditing, I left this until last and here it is.

Please note that none of these Styles violate the auditing comm cycle or the TRs.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH :jw.rd 							
Copyright ©1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

FLATTENING A PROCESS

A lecture given on
19 March 1964

How are you today? Good. Thank you.

What’s the date?

Audience: 19th of March.

19 March. 19 March, 14.

All right with you if I begin this lecture now?

What would you like to know about today? Anything you want to know?

Well, in view of the fact that you have no preference, I’ll talk to you about auditing. And this is some of the basic know-hows of auditing.

Somewhere along the line, many an auditor lays aside some of his basic information on the subject of auditing. He hides it under his E-Meter, or something of the sort, and starts doing something silly and then wonders all of a sudden why he’s having trouble. And it’s very interesting how silly some of these things can be.

Now, there was a subject called flattening a process. Now, this has been mostly forgotten. It’s even part of the Auditor’s Code, but it gets forgotten. It gets forgotten.

And what you need to know about this—what you need to know about this—is that there are two aspects to ending a process. There are two aspects to this thing, and they are both concerned with what are you doing with the process? That’s the main question. What are you doing with the process?

Well, what you are doing with it tells you how to end it and how you can end it. And these two things are: you’re trying to fix up the PC so he can be audited—that’s number one—and number two, you are trying to audit the PC. And they give you two different endings.

Now, you can see at once that number one is basically concerned with rudiments.

“You got a present time problem?”

“Well, yeah, I have a present time problem. So on, so on and so on.”

“All right. Very good. All right.”

“And I—yeah, I did. I had an awful problem and so forth. And well, I guess it was mostly my fault.” Cognition, see? Serves as a cognition.

“All right. Do you have a present time problem?” No, you don’t get any read on the meter, you don’t anything, and that’s the end of that process. What was the process? Well, the process was just doing enough to cure the elsewhereness of the PC. Trying to get him into the room.

Now, if you don’t know that there are two different directions in processing, then you will seldom have a PC in front of you to be audited. And you will never finish a cycle of action. Let me show you what happens to a cycle of action. You start in a Prepcheck on “gooper feathers,” you see? You start in this Prepcheck on “gooper feathers” (that’s the fuzz from peaches). And you start this thing and you got it going in the session on the twelfth; and you got it going and you got one or two buttons in.

And the PC comes into the next session with a big present time problem about Los Angeles or something. So now you run a process about the present time problem in Los Angeles, and you get a couple of buttons in on that.

But he comes to the session the next time, you see, with an even worse problem, you see, about Seattle. So you audit the problem about Seattle, so forth. Well, that’s just because you as an auditor wouldn’t know the purpose of your tools.

You got a little hatful of tools that takes out of the road what is getting in your road in trying to complete a cycle of action on your PC. You have no business whatsoever—present time problem, storm, rain, night, income tax, any other catastrophe, see?—you have no business whatsoever permitting any present time catastrophe to get in the road of your auditing.

Well, you’ve been presented with a little kit and it says on it, “How to get the PC going in a session.” And included in that is keying out, knocking out, destimulating, getting rid of the things which have him so distracted that you can’t go on. Now, if you never use that kit, you will do nothing but Q and A, you will do nothing but leave unseat cycles of action.

Do you see what happens? You get something started in session A, and the PC comes into session B and he’s got a present time problem about something or other, and he’s just had a big cognition that what’s really wrong with his lumbosis is something or other—so you audit this!

No! No, no, no, please! Please, please, please! What in essence have you done? You have mistaken your tools. Made a complete bust as far as what you’re supposed to be doing is concerned.

You got this big set of tools over here, you understand? And they got hydraulic high-pressure drills and dump trucks and all that sort of thing. That’s all sitting over here, you see? And you got this little bunch of shiny instruments of some kind or other over here, and they’re just supposed to get something out of the road fast, see?

And the PC comes in, “Oh, I had this big cognition about once upon a time in Los Angeles. Wof-wof-wog!” You’re halfway through this Prepcheck on gooper feathers, you see? So look! Look—look how idiotic it is. You reach for these dump trucks and hydraulic drills over here to handle this problem about Los Angeles!

Oh man, you know, just sad. It’s sad! All you need is this little whisk broom. See? You’re supposed to take this problem and this cognition and you’re just supposed to take this little whisk broom, the little kit that comes in on top, about half the size of the tool box on the hydraulic drill, see? You’re supposed to take this little kit, and you take out the little brush out of it, and you go fat, oft, oft. That’s the end of that process, see? And you put that back in again and you say, “All right, now. On the subject of gooper feathers—on gooper feathers, in this lifetime, has anything been . . .” And then we’re away. You understand?

So, it’s just basically making a mistake in the purpose of the tools. And therefore, this leads an auditor into this kind of nonsense: Well, he’s always had trouble—he’s always had trouble with his back. So for some reason or other, we’re doing a Prepcheck on his back. I don’t say this is a good process or a bad process, you see, but we’re doing a Prepcheck on his back. And we’re going to end this after five minutes on a cognition? Hey! What’s this? Now, that is, we have shoved the hydraulic drills and the dump trucks over here, and we’ve picked up this little tiny kit. And we’ve got this thing that’s bothered him all of his whole lifetime, and we’ve taken this little brush out of the kit and we’ve gone flick, flick, and nothing happens, see? So we kind of brush the brush off, see? And we take this other little thing and brush at it and nothing happens. And we say, “Well, auditing doesn’t work.”

See, you’re using the wrong pickax. You see what I mean? Naw. Really, you have to audit a thing proportionately to the amount of trouble it has given the PC

So there are two ways to end a process, and they all depend on what you’re trying to do So, we’re processing this guy on gooper feathers. Big Prepcheck in progress. It’s all compounded with all kinds of oddities, ramifications and cognitions, and it’s going on and on and on and on and on. Well now, that is done only with one blunt instrument called a tone arm. And that tells you when it is flat.

And you, frankly, have to unflatten the whole subject before you flatten it. He’s got it beautifully suppressed. That’s tone arm flattening. And today you only flatten with the tone arm while using dump trucks, hydraulic drills and so forth.

You’re handling the big case. You’re handling the big stuff of the case. And you handle that by tone arm. And that is how you end the process, and that is the one) way you end the process. And that is auditing with an exclamation point! That’s main-session auditing! All done with the TA.

Rudiment-type auditing is simply there to have an undistracted, comfortable PC who is happy about sitting in the chair and getting the main performance on. And that’s rudiment-type processing. And what I’ve seen of your auditor’s reports, what I’ve heard of your auditor’s reports, in recent times . . . I may be very unjustly cruel. Maybe I am being cynical and sardonic, professorially “sneeresque,” but the truth of the matter is, I think you are using rudiment approach to main-session processing. I think you’ve gotten it mixed up to the point where you take the main-session process, the big Prepcheck “on . . . ,” and you’re ending it as though it were a rudiment process, as though you were merely trying to get the PC to sit still so he could be audited. How much auditing do you think you’re really going to accomplish? You’re not going to accomplish very much, because you’re using the wrong ending.

So, you take this big thing over here: you’re going to get rid of this bad back, you see? And “On a back, has anything been suppressed?” See?

“No, I don’t think so,” PC says.

I would sit there with my eyes rather wide open, as an auditor. “Does your back bother you or doesn’t it?”

“Well, yes, it bothers me.”

“Don’t you think someplace in your lifetime, somewhere or another in your lifetime, in some place or another, there’s a—for instance, did you ever have any accidents with it when you were a kid? Something like that? You ever have anything going on?” You know, a restimulation.

And the guy gives away, “I guess I have! Must have, because I have a bad back now.”

“All right, now you let me repeat this question: On a bad back, or on a back—now, listen to me carefully now. Listen to this auditing question. Listen now: On a back, has anything been suppressed? Suppressed? You got that now? Got the question? All right, now go ahead and answer that question. Got it now?” Huh, we’re away for the long haul, man.

Now, this is the reverse.

That’s the main session. That’s the big-show way of getting this thing on the line, see? That’s the way of getting it all squared! Now, get this approach. Just get this other, brush-off approach: “Well, you say your back has been troubling you. All right. Is that a present time problem?”

“Uh . . . yes, it is. Heh! Come to think about it, it is!”

“Well, good. You’ve had a cognition. That’s the end of the session.”

Do I make my “pernt?” You got to get in there and sweat!

You’re going to see a lot of auditing by lists. This is moving up. The first auditing by lists we saw was O/W, and so forth, but there are many types of lists that can be designed. And I’ve got this right on the assembly line for HGCs: auditing by list. It’s auditing by list, not ARC Break Assessments by list. But you could use an ARC Break Assessment sheet to audit by list, you see? But you do it differently. It’s handled like old R2H was. Take each point that you get a read on up with the PC, see?

So you take this old O/W, this list of overts, you know? The old Johannesburg—the Joburg Sec Check list.

Well, do you know that by very carefully modulating your voice and making no impingement on the PC—being very careful not to make any impingement on the PC; covering the questions in a sort of a throwaway tone of voice, you see?—”You ever stolen anything?” “Ah, I guess not,” so on. “Well, that’s fine. That’s flat. Nothing to that. All right. Did you ever work under an assumed name? Of course you wouldn’t; I know that, and so on. So we’ve got that. Well, that’s flat.”

“Uh . . . it’s all flat. It’s all flat. It’s all flat. Oh, this fellow’s passed his Prepcheck!”

I’ve seen Herbie here almost, just growing sparks out of his head on the subject of checking out somebody who has been sec checked on that old Joburg list, you see? Keow!

As an auditor you should be able to make an impingement. So the instructor checking the thing out, with that altitude, fixes the person who is being checked out for a clean sheet, you see, with a gimlet eye and says, “Have you ever worked under an assumed name?” Pow! The meter blows up, see?

The poor student says, “Why didn’t that happen to me?” See?

You know, “That’s a flunk! flunk! flunk! Your checksheet is not complete! You’ve got to do this whole case over again,” you know?

“What’s happened to me?” You know? “How come? How come?”

Well, he didn’t bother to restimulate anything to pick up, that was how come!

Well, now, in main-session auditing, that which fits between the start of the body of the session and the end of the body of the session, that sort of stuff is laid in with a club! You purposely restimulate what you are trying to pick up! You don’t want this to end in a hurry, you want this auditing to go on for a while.

Now, this auditing that occurs outside of the body of the session, you know, in the rudiments: that is just “Well, you don’t have a present time problem, do you? Good. Ah, thank you!” That’s the approach you use, then. You restimulate nothing.

“Well, you look pretty good! How are you doing? Ah, you’re doing all right. All right. Is it okay with you if we start the body of the session?”

I know you don’t have that in your Model Session right now, but I’m putting it down here as emphasis, and maybe it ought to be put into Model Session to show you where the “club” fits!

But first, before that starts, you see, that’s just “Well. All right. Well, your tone arm is nice and loose here. Tone arm seems to be low, rather. And your needle’s nice and loose and everything seems to be okay. Ah, nothing worrying you is it? All right, all right. Good. Good. Good. I’m glad of that. Yeah. All right. Oh, you say you do have a present time problem? What was it about? Ah . . . oh, yeah? Yeah? All right. Yeah? All right. All right. Good. Good. All right. Well, how’s the present time problem now? That didn’t read. All right.

“Now. Now, is it all right with you if we get to work here on this subject of gooper feathers that we were prepchecking, now? You had any thoughts about this since the last time I audited you there, you know? Have you gone over this in your mind? Any—any improvement at all on the subject of anything? So forth? Oh, you have, huh?”

(Restimulation, see? Getting his mind, getting his main concentration.)

“Oh, you have, huh? Oh, is that so! Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You tell me you used to—telling me you used to have nightmares about this. Did you have a nightmare about it or anything like that last night? Oh, yeah? Yeah? Is that so?

“Well, let’s see. We’ve gotten along here pretty well down on the subject— we’ve gotten on to ‘suggested’ here pretty well. And I think your last answer to this had something to do with . . . What was your last answer to that?

“Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that was on the subject. Yeah. All right. Well, here’s the next question on that. Here’s the next question on that: On gooper feathers, has anything been suggested? You got that question? All right. Good. Now, on gooper feathers, has anything been suggested?”

All right. And here we go, watching that tone arm. It’s just sitting there, taking down the tone arm reads and keeping the PC going. And the PC finally says, “Well, that isn’t any more. There—it just that—there isn’t any more. l haven’t got any more answers to that. I’m protesting the question.”

“All right. Is this question being protested? I’m sorry, there’s no read there. Ah . . . now, what else might we have run into on this? You might run into something else there that you haven’t told me or something like that? Did I miss an answer or something of this sort? Oh, I did miss a ‘suggest’ answer? Oh, all right. Well, good. Thank you. I’m glad we got that cleared up. And here’s your next question: On gooper feathers, has anything been suggested?”

Get the idea? You’re just keeping it in there, man! Keeping that in the groove. Keeping that grinding on and on and on, see? Tone arm action. When do you leave it? Needle isn’t flashing around anymore and tone arm isn’t blowing down on this particular subject—well, let’s unload!

Tone arms have tendencies to go very, very quiet. I give you something lice a twenty-minute test. That’s a little bit cruel on the PC sometimes. An auditor can tell when a tone arm is flat: It isn’t moving. Also, when you tend to flatten one of these things the meter starts to look gummy.

You can tell when they’re flat. Shift to your next question.

You’re trying to cover a subject in the main body of the session, and you are trying to recover a PC for your session in the rudiment approach. So realize that there are two targets for auditing in a session. And that gives you two different endings. You don’t want this PC to be dispersed out of what you are already doing, so you put in a rudiment-type approach. “Since the last time I audited you, has anything been suppressed?” Well, you spend fifteen, twenty minutes getting in those “since” BMRs—oh, marvelous! Marvelous! That’s good! Now you can start in your main session.

But it is not with the same approach! You’re not doing the same thing.

I could be very cruel at this point and say, “Well, I want to congratulate most auditors, because they’ve gotten up to a point now, to where they are ready to learn how to run the body of a session, having handled rudi— .” That’d be a shade too cruel, wouldn’t it? Bitter! Bitter.

But I watch this; I watch this consistently. And I notice that auditors vary in this approach. And they very often start treating body-of-session material as though they’re just rudiments. And believe me, they don’t do very much for PCs. In fact, they damage PCs. How? By leaving unflat cycles of action.

If you really want to lash a PC around the telegraph pole, man, just start cycle of action after cycle of action and don’t flatten any of them. You just get enough cycles of action unflat on your PC and he’ll be in a mess.

Let me give you some idea of how to really sock a PC. Let’s take Class VI. Not because we have to reach into that zone. Because that is the most brutal area, where things stand up in tremendously bold relief. You make some mistakes in that area and you know it. You get the evidence immediately. The little men in—the ambulance backs up to the door, don’t you see? And it’s quite embarrassing. The neighbors talk.

You start to sort out goal A, but you don’t sort it out; and then you get interested in goal B. but you never bring it to a conclusion. And then you wonder if something is happening with the E-Meter, because you don’t seem to be able to get any reads. (In other words, you really can’t think of anything to ask the PC that gets a read on it.) So you start asking some questions about the E-Meter. But you really don’t clean up the subject of the E-Meter, don’t you see? And then you wonder if there’s any wrong goals that the person has had that are troubling him, but you really don’t find all of those and clean those up.

And believe me, about that time the PC practically goes straight through the bottom of the chair. He will be dealing with a “wog” and he’ll be turning on pain. He will be turning on dizziness. The corners of the room will start going out of plumb on him. He can’t focus the auditor. The winds of space start blowing his eyeballs into the back of his skull. You know you’ve done it!

And what happened? It’s just incomplete cycle of action followed by an incomplete cycle of action, followed by an incomplete cycle of action, followed by an incomplete cycle of action. You really didn’t do anything wrong. You just didn’t do anything complete. And that all by itself will wind a PC up in a ball.

Well now, that’s a very exaggerated level, but things stand out in such bas-relief at that level that it brought me around to inspecting the lower levels of auditing. And I found out that the lower levels of auditing are peculiarly subject to this, but it’s not so dramatic. In other words, it takes a while for it to sneak up. And you don’t see it all in twenty minutes of auditing, you see? You see it over a year’s worth of auditing. You get lots less action. And the PC is just feeling sort of groggy these days. He just doesn’t feel too good, and so forth.

Well, if you were to take almost any PC in the place and say, “Has any process ever been left unflat on you?” and you just ran that as a process . . . Don’t Q and A with him and try to flatten any of the processes, just run a process, “Has any process ever been left unflat on you?” And you’ll see your PC start brightening up. Somebody who’s had quite a lot of auditing, he’ll start brightening up. Even though it is not serious on his case, it is quite capable of producing a considerable improvement or result.

He’ll give you the considerations concerning it just as a matter of fact of the question. But it’s just a repetitive-question process.

Now, what do you think happens when you start a Prepcheck on gooper feathers and shift over to a bad back before gooper feathers are flat? And get into a bad back and then get into this and get into that. All kinds of oddball things start occurring. The PC’s ability to be prepchecked starts bloc ing up, amongst other things. PC can’t be prepchecked easily anymore. The auditing tool starts getting all blunted up and messed up. Oh, I think that’s quite remarkable. The tool has been abused.

Now, you can put in bad comm cycle with an auditing tool also, like Prepchecking, and get the tool very badly blunted up. So that you can actually prepcheck Prepchecking. See? Prepchecking. Just put in all the Prepcheck buttons on Prepcheck.

“On Prepchecking . . .” and 80 forth. You can do this several ways. “On suppress, has anything been suppressed? Has anything been invalidated?” you know? Put in all the buttons on suppress. There are several ways you could go about this. Just as a general subject, put in all the buttons, you see? As each button.

It’s quite remarkable. I’ve seen a case all hung up in a mess on the subject of a goals checkout and so forth, till somebody was suddenly bright enough to say, “On suppress, has anything been suppressed?” All of a sudden it’s an operating button again. Quite a remarkable revelation.

But the basic reason the button goes out is an incomplete cycle of action.

Now, you should, as an auditor, be very, very well aware of this thing called a cycle of action. It predicates this one basis: that things have a point where they start, that they have a period when they continue and that there is a point when they end. blow, that is a cycle of action. It’s your create-survive-destroy cycle of action. It’s start, change and stop.

Actually, you could put it down probably less effectively as a philosophic definition, but more workably, as a start and an action and a stop. See? A start and an action and a stop. You could be more explicit by saying “a start, an action which then continues, and then a stop.” And that is a cycle of action. That is just in that whole line.

Life is probably cruel because things seldom stop. There is a great deal of thought put into continuation. Continuance is one of the bugs that thetans are addicted to. They like to see things continue.

And you’ve got actions going right now which began with the beginning of the universe and nobody has stopped them since. See? They’ve never been stopped. And that alone gives the longevity and mass of the physical universe. Actions which were begun were never unbegun, you know, or stopped. Time itself is probably some basic agreed-upon postulate which nobody has ever thought the end of, so you’ve still got time, you see?

Now, these things, of course, are done by postulate, but at a low level an individual is subject to them. And any case is subject to the cycle of action. Maybe he will get up to a point sooner or later where he is above the cycle of action. Oh, I say maybe: Yes, undoubtedly! Class VI, we’ve got all the stuff to put him there. And you get such oddities as a guy being able to move around in time. This is one of the more peculiar aspects of high-level action. You’re not fixed in a time span. You can widen your time span almost at will. And there doesn’t have to be anything there in the past time, but you can be in that past-time period, and so on.

It gives you all sorts of involvement’s. For instance, you can be at the event while it is occurring by having been in the future and come back to it, and undo it before it goes on. It’s very confusing.

Well, because it’s confusing and because it’s upsetting . . . Let’s take two armies fighting each other. And army A attacks army B. So therefore army B knows that if it is in this position where it is being attacked at the time it is attacked, why, then, it will be attacked. So the thing to do is to be in yesterday and not march to that place. And we very soon have generals out of a job. We have various things going awry. A game becomes very difficult to follow and trace. So the thetan settles for the simpler life. And that is “What is, is. What will be, will be. Insh’allah,” see? “Fate . . .”

Well, what they’re involved with there—kismet and everything else— they’re just involved with the inevitability of the cycle of action. Fatalism is the total subjugation of the individual by the cycle of action. “What will be, will be.” “If he starts going [in] the car, he will then go down the road, and eventually the car will stop.” Well, they even have it rigged that way. They’ve got oil prices up to a point where it’ll run out of fuel. And they’ve got tires to a point where they wear out. And the time payments will catch up with him, and the skip men will come and Bet him. Something will stop this car.

In the main universe by friction and other conflicts, a particle traveling is acted upon until it stops. In other words, it’s all—below the level of time, everything is sort of geared up to follow in along the time. If an action begins —I mean a single, individual action, not a postulate like time—if it begins, it is sort of geared up to stop.

Now, there are some of these things have not stopped, as I said a moment ago, which might be the composition of matter and such things as that. But even those things have a tendency to deteriorate as they go along.

Now, the point I’m trying to make here is that everybody is used to and in agreement with this thing called a cycle of action.

You aren’t using it in your auditing because it is true. I spoke to you the other day about gradient realities. Well, it’s one of the realities and it reaches pretty high at case level. It’s a reality which fades out just before a person can put some universal laws under control. I mean, it’s way up! So the reality of the PC that you process is tied in from the very lowest to a fairly advanced level with this thing called a cycle of action. And because the PC’s reality is tied in with it, violations of it bring about an unreality.

So if you want to tell him “What can you find unreal?” just start busting his cycle of action as part of the auditing: Start a process, don’t end it; get a process going, drop it. And the next thing you know, he starts going all unreal on you.

You’ve got an agreement with him that he is going to get processed in a certain direction to a certain distance and then that’s going to all come about. He’s still sitting in the middle of his bank, not yet having as-ised all the material available on this, and suddenly there he is parked. There is nothing more done about it. And he’s got this mass now, and these questions which he finished up—”finished up” with, since he didn’t finish up—and he carries those on over into the next process. And then he never gets that finished, so he carries on both of these now into the next process. And he never gets that finished so he carries all three into the next process. And you’ll find yourself all of a sudden dealing with a PC who is unflat on four processes.

Well, he won’t smoothly as-is anything, only for this reason: because it looks very complicated to him. It’s getting more and more complicated. He’s not getting free, he’s getting bogged down! His idea of freedom is finishing up some cycles of action. And let me assure you that that is a very, very good observation, well within his zones of agreement. He knows that if he finishes his work he can quit. See? These are realities. Their truth is—well, it’s very funny to tell you this, but their truth is limited. But everybody agrees with it.

So therefore, when you start snarling somebody up, you have these two factors: The mass he is mixed up with in his mind is restimulated but not as-ised, so he’s left with some mass hanging around. And he carries this incomplete cycle of action over into the next-begun cycle of action. And he will start accumulating mass and start accumulating upsets and he’ll start getting loses.

Now, the idea of a win is very closely tied in with the cycle of action. Very intimately. This fellow wins, ordinarily, by having accomplished something. You could even win to the point of having gone to a point and then not having been destroyed when reaching that point, so therefore you would have accomplished something. You could even have a negative approach, you see? “Well, I’ve accomplished something: I came downtown today and didn’t get killed.” See? Even at that low level, that’s a win. Now, where does all that come from? Now, what is the upper echelon to what I’ve just been talking to you about? What is the upper echelon of this?

Let’s really have an esoteric flight here. It comes under the heading of intention. Intention is part of the comm cycle, but intention is senior to the comm cycle. Intention: the ability to intend. An intention contains in it every power the thetan has—every power the thetan has. The ability to throw a lightning bolt, the ability to hold something in position, the ability to make something continue, the ability to do away with something, strength, accomplishment, power, wit, ability—these things are all wrapped up on the one common denominator of intention. Intention.

When you’re just half—oh, no, no. Well, when you’re just half-shot as a thetan, and you’ve almost had it and you think you’re on your last legs . . . Not in the condition you’re in, I mean, but pretty bad off, you know. You’re not yet wearing a body. You’re probably packing around an effigy. You have to be recognized and people have to say good morning to you or you’re unhappy, this kind of thing. You’re pretty “plowed-in” with mass. Your own actual GPMs are wrapped around your gullet. Your intention (this is a low-level skill, this is not a high-level skill) is quite good enough to, for instance, intend this crayon into the air in front of you, to intend this E-Meter over to the other side of the desk. This is low-level stuff I’m talking to you about. A guy is, oh, practically on his last legs when he can do this.

Answering a telephone, one simply intends the telephone up into his vicinity where he is listening and can talk. He intends it off the cradle up to his “ear” and intends it back onto the cradle. Giving you straight stuff now. This is almost recent time. You’ve been able to do this in recent times. It baffles you sometimes when a piece of MEST does not instantly and immediately obey you. But that’s simply intention. That’s low-level intention.

I’m not talking to you now about something very esoteric. This would sound very startling and make a newspaper reporter turn gray overnight. But intend him in a horizontal position outside the door, five feet off the pavement, and let him stay there for a while and cool off. I doubt he’d write it, because he of all people knows he couldn’t do it.

But there is intention. You get what I mean, now, by intention? You intend something to happen and it happens. The ability to intend. And that is 811 there is to a thetan’s power. There is no more to his power than that. There is his ability to throw a lightning bolt, to set a house on fire, to make the roof fly off, to turn a planet upside down. That is everything—his intention.

So all you have to do to weaken a thetan is to get in the road of his intentions—foul up his intentions. Now, if you can foul up a thetan’s intentions, you can weaken him.

Now, what do I mean by weaken him? A person picks up, on Monday, a five-hundred-pound weight, but on Tuesday can only pick up a three-hundred pound weight. Between Monday and Tuesday he has been weakened, right? Do you understand? It’s this graphic. It’s not the philosophic derivation of his morals become weak, don’t you know?

Well, on Monday he can throw a raw energy beam a hundred yards On Tuesday morning he can only throw one ten feet. Between Monday and Tuesday he has become weakened. That’s what I mean by weakened, see? And the say that is done is to give him loses on his intentions. All you’ve got to do is foul up or counter or blunt his intentions and he becomes weaker.

Weakness and strength in a thetan, and of course well, his weakness is the only thing that holds him entrapped. Weakness is the only thing that keeps masses pulled in on him. Weakness is the only thing that keeps him pinned down. You can only trap a thetan when he is weak.

And you need only really be afraid of things that are very weak, with, of course, the proviso of certain magazine editors; we skip them. Leave them out of that category, because they’ve had it.

The main thing that we have to watch in this, then, in auditing, is that we do not weaken the actual intention of the PC by blunting his actual intentions. And in order to do this, we must differentiate between his reactive intention— his dramatization, in other words—and his own intention. So we have the subdivision of the PC and his bank.

A person who is dramatizing during an ARC break actually is not intending anything they say. This is simply bank dramatized, do you see? It’s all bank dramatized. “Roar, roar, roar, roar, roar!” He isn’t intending anything. That falls out, then. That’s a recording or something going off, you see? That is not his intention. So we don’t say that everything somebody must do we must validate. You start validating the bank 100 percent and you’ve had it as an auditor.

But we’re talking about, now, the actual intentions of the person.

He intended to have a two-hour-and-a-half session. And you give him a three-hour-and-a-half session. You have blunted his intention. He intended to get off this stuff about Aunt Hattie, and you called the process flat long before it were flat. So therefore, you have blunted his intention.

You can’t ruin a PC. I’m just talking about how smoothly you can audit. You understand this? Because you’re not going to spoil anybody’s intentions or cave them in by auditing, let me assure you, see? But you can key in incidents on him, and so forth, where his intention is very badly blunted by simply taking an auditing cycle of action and not completing it. In other words, he intends, so forth. You intend, so on. And there you go. And you finish it off, and you wind it up. You’ve completed a cycle of action. That intention has gone through a complete cycle of action then. If you interrupt it halfway, no intention.

Goals for the session. Goals for the session. Here’s a good point. You get a PC to put in goals for the session; that’s actually a participating intention. So I always work hard on giving a PC goals for the session. I almost work harder to give the PC his goals for the session than I do to give him a session. See?

I can give anybody a session and cure anything or straighten them up, see? That doesn’t worry me. But this PC sitting down there has just got through saying “To feel better about my lumbosis.” I’ll put that in. I won’t take up the body of the session till Eve got the oddball goal out of the road. But any PC that is trying to break or stop or not go through with a Fattening and so forth, putting in a bunch of sideways goals, could actually stop you from auditing or completing your cycle of action and roll himself up in a ball.

A reactive barrier can arise out of this situation. So he puts in a lot of oddball goals that don’t have anything to do about the price of the thing. I’ll still clean them up. I’ll still clear them up.

But I take out the little kit, you know? The little kit with the little whisk broom. I get those out of the road. And notice the PC apparently has a present time problem.

This is in R6 auditing. This is not ordinary auditing. I mean, this is therefore, any kind of auditing. If you’d pay attention to the PC’s goals for the session at R6 when you’re totally capable of getting a hundred TA divisions, you see, in two and a half hours, well, good heavens, how much would it apply down at the levels when he’s getting fifteen in a two-and-a-half-hour session and lucky to get it, see? So this very definitely applies.

Person’s got goals for the session. I’d look those things over—pickety-powpow! He’s got a present time problem here. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ho, ho-ho-ho. Let’s get the considerations for that present time problem. “Well, you—I notice you have a present time problem here. What considerations have you had about that? All right. That’s fine. Okay. And you had a bad neck? Been bothering you, and so forth. All right, is that an R6 phenomenon? Is that from goals and . . . ? Yeah, doesn’t seem to be from a goals GPM.

“Ah . . . Something else seems to have gone on here with regard to this. What was the first you noticed this? All right. Good. All right. Well, let’s date this.” Pow! Pow! Pow!

We’re doing about a four- and five-minute process, don’t you see? I mean, we’re driving it right straight along the line. We got the PC on it. We’re just brushing this thing off, see, getting this out of the road. But we’re doing this other thing: We’re giving him the goal for the session, see?

Oh, we got that out of the road. We dated it, the somatic blew and so forth. You have to be quick on this kind of auditing. He’s made that goal for the session right there. I haven’t even started the body of the session.

The session, now, is—with “since” mid ruds and everything else that has happened—is only thirty-five minutes deep, and we’re away into the body of the session on what I want to do. He’s already made his goals for the session.

You want to see the good indicators come in? Ha-ha! Make sure the person gets any PT-problem type of goal for the session and so forth, get him a win on it in the first five minutes of play. Then get down to something important.

“Oh, yeah,” you say, “this takes very skilled, very fast, very tricky auditing. You really have to know what you’re doing to be able to get rid of somebody’s lumbosis that’s been keeping them up all night in the first ten minutes of the session.” No. No, no, no. Who’s getting rid of it? We just keyed it out. We just gave it a swift kick, so it isn’t bothering the PC. Made his goal for the session too. Therefore his intention level is up. So therefore he’s more powerful in the session. Therefore he can look at his bank better. See this?

That’s why a person makes no progress while he has a PTP: His intentions are being blunted or overlooked. And so he cannot rise superior to his bank. So he makes no progress.

What is a PTP? It is postulate-counter-postulate. You could just as easily interpret this as intention-counter-intention.

You will not find a present time problem where a person’s intentions have not been blunted. Something is fighting his intention. And it seems to him that it’s of equal magnitude—intention versus intention. He has an intention, somebody else has another intention. These two intentions lock together and you get a present time problem. It tends to hang up in time. And that’s how you get a time hang-up, basic time hang-up: intention-counter-intention.

Let’s look at Class V for a moment—not because we’re teaching anything about Class V but because this is a marvelous field of demonstration.

Why do you think, in the Helatrobus and the trillions-two, and other implant areas, oppose was in vogue? It isn’t even the actual GPM. The actual GPM is a subvolitional intention which is way downstairs. It goes in with an ax. “Everything inevitably brings about something else. Doesn’t matter what happens if something else is going to be brought about.” It’s very apathetic, very low.

But these brisker levels, more ambitious levels: how did they knock out the power of a thetan? How could they possibly do anything to a thetan? Well, the implant means, by using key goals like “to go,” “to stay,” “to move,” “to go away,” “to forget,” “to remember”—this type of goal, all mucked up with innumerable variations of that goal, serve as key intentions. So when he intends to remember, he of course will get “nix to remember.” He’ll get an automatic and instant blunting of intention. That was the intention of the implant.

Very far from flawlessly works. Thetans transcend this stuff rather easily. But there—there is the woof and warp of implants and how they are done and why.

Anybody setting up implants that are going to be successful would simply blunt intentions. Blunt intentions, that’s the whole thing. So he says “to move,” he immediately gets “not to move.” See? And then the implant GPMs interact one against the other, so if he gets the idea to stay then he feels he has to move. And if he gets the idea to move, then he feels he’s got to stay. So they counter-oppose each other too.

So opposition or oppose is the keynote to an implant. And this is the only way they’re aberrative. There is no other reason. Bah! The amount of mass and—mass-mass. The thetan only keeps the mass of these things around because he can’t get rid of them and he’s automatically creating it and he’s doing other things, but an implant GPM has too little mass to be very upsetting to the individual, but it upsets his ideas. So he gets the idea to go and he gets the counter-intention—hits him in the face.

The way they “civilize” a child, for instance, all they have to do is break all his intentions. Somebody talking about spoiling a child or upsetting a child: That’s very silly to say that by giving a child everything, you spoil the child, or by being nice to a child, you spoil a child. They’re just drawing a longbow. They couldn’t be further from the mark.

It’s blunting every intention the child has. And remember that there are reactive intentions and that there are analytical intentions—two varieties.

So we let the reactive intention have its way. Child cries, screams and throws a tantrum: we instantly give him what he wanted. That validated the reactive intention. The child wants to sit quietly and look out the window— analytical intention 30 we get him busy doing something else. By the time we’ve crossed these things—in other words, validated the reactive intentions by rewarding the child and obeying the reactions, and blunted every analytical intention the child has—we’ll of course have weakened the thetan (becomes susceptible to illness and that sort of thing), simply because masses move in on hum.

I mean, a person who is weakened is unable to hold anything at a distance, so everything collapses on him.

You understand what I’m talking about? This is terribly simple. And it evades understanding just by being in itself so idiotically simple.

So your PC has two types of intentions. And one is totally reactive—it’s just a dramatization—so we won’t call it an intention; we call it a dramatization. Every time your PC dramatizes, you let him have his way; and every time your PC pleasantly, nicely wants to do something, analytically, you blunt his intention. After a while, you’re going to have your PC practically spinny on the subject of auditing reaction. He won’t be able to handle things in session. You’ll find the PC isn’t cogniting. You find this and that and so forth. There’s many an auditor pays no attention to the PC until the PC starts ARC breaking.

Now the auditor knows something is happening, so he decides to do something for the PC because the PC has ARC broken. But actually the PC has been sitting there auditing splendidly, beautifully and smoothly. His pacing is very nice. And he sort of timidly brings up the fact that he’d really like to—you know, he’d really like to look at this engram he’s seen there just a moment longer. He brings this up; he says it’s bothering him a little bit. He doesn’t quite know what it’s all about. It’s a little bit of an origin, you see? It isn’t going to take any time. You don’t give him an additional restimulation. You say, “Yes? All right. All right. Well, what’s it all about?”—something like that.

“So-and-so and so-and-so and so-so.” “All right, that’s fine.” You get that out of the road and you go on, don’t you see?

But every time he says, “Well, I . . . uh . . . I don’t know. I don’t really . . . I don’t really have any more answers to that question. Uh . . . I uh . . .”

“Well, you’re damn well going to answer the question!” See? Lois is getting on to the borderline of intention, don’t you see? So he kind of gets upset one way or the other.

But the auditor doesn’t pay any attention to what’s going on, there. We’ve got an uncomfortable situation. PC’s intention, cycles of action, what he’s doing and so forth are all kind of getting mixed up. And the auditor’s paying no attention to this because the PC is still in a fairly sweet frame of mind, you see?

When the PC finally loses—you understand, a PC doesn’t turn nasty; a PC gets overwhumped by his bank. That’s always the case. And the PC, own intentions having been blunted badly, then loses control. And the bank, powered up, overwhelms him and takes over control, and on an automaticity, starts blowing its head off—going into all sorts of dramatization of one kind or other, even though it’s just the dramatization of apathy. Bank is in a dramatization.

Well, of course the auditor acts. That’s what we know as acting too late. Catching a slipping situation too late gives you these explosive ARC breaks. They generally telegraph themselves way ahead. But what’s happened there is really the PC has become overwhelmed by his own bank. You’re not watching the PC’s intentions now, you’re watching the PC’s dramatization. But you don’t do anything about the PC’s intentions, you will eventually get the PC’s dramatizations. That’s quite an elementary situation. It’s one which an auditor should understand.

Now, I spoke to you some time ago in a lecture about what is a win and what is a lose. Just going over that cursorily: A win is accomplishing what you intend to accomplish, or accomplishing the not-accomplishment of something you didn’t intend to accomplish. You get the idea? You intended not to have any ARC breaks, and in the session you not-had any ARC breaks. You understand? Well, that’s a win, see?

And a lose is just exactly the reverse just exactly the reverse. Things you intended not to happen happened, and things which you intended to happen didn’t happen. That’s a lose. And that’s all a win is and that’s all a lose is. That’s all.

So when we compare this situation to auditing, we find out, then, that the auditor’s intention is valuable to the session. And because he’s less susceptible to dramatization from the bank in the PC—since he’s not really at all greatly susceptible to the bank of the PC; it’s PC’s bank, it’s not hitting the auditor —and because the auditor is capable of standing outside that perimeter of potential dramatization, the auditor’s intention in a session is therefore senior to the PC’s intention. But if the PC’s intention is totally neglected with regard to a session, we again get a weakening of the PC and an encroachment of dramatization.

So the auditor intends to flatten off such-and-such a process. And the PC intends to take care of something else he has thought about overnight. Well, that PC has been subject to dramatization because of restimulation. You’d be very foolish not to flatten off the original process, because that was the original intention, wasn’t it? That wasn’t finished, and yet the PC wants to do another one. Well, this is going to hang him up with an intention loss whether he likes it or not. And the auditor, standing outside this perimeter, of course, can complete the cycle of action on which he began. And that gives a win to the auditor and the PC. You follow this? PC’s analytical intentions, then, are valuable to a session. And they are very often expressed in the goals of the session, and they are cared for accordingly. That’s the way it is.

Now, he intends to get a certain distance, and actually, down deep he really intends to become OT. He’s never investigated this. It’s running far too deep. But way down underneath all the layers of God-help-us he intends to get to be OT, that’s for sure. In other words, he intends to recover.

He doesn’t even, though, have enough analytical awareness of where he is going to know what he intends. He intends freedom and a return of power— which is to say, he intends freedom and a return of intention. Well, he now can go all the way. He now can go all the way. That is well within grasp. If he walks along a certain path, and doesn’t keep jumping off the cliff and so forth, why, he will arrive. Well, therefore, the intention for him to arrive is very sotto voce in him. And an auditor with some experience and action on this, intending him to arrive the auditor’s intention is actually more reliable than the PC’s, even though the PC’s is more deep and fundamental than the auditors Why? Because every time he starts coming up the line, this PC is going to short-circuit into some direction, fail to complete a cycle of action someplace, leave a rock in the road somewhere or another. And he’ll get some wild idea and—well, I’ve seen it happen, man.

This PC is supposed to be prepchecked on something or other in order to get something or other accomplished so that he won’t always be coming to session with this gross PTP about his domestic affairs or something like this, don’t you see? And somebody has decided to get this out of the road so they can proceed. And he’s thrown that all sideways, and he’s spent the night listing goals. See?

Well, in the first place is, the reason he listed goals had to do with the fact that his intention about his marital problem was being blunted. So case advance is now reinterpreted into some kind of an escape from his present time problem. So he doesn’t know which way he’s going; he doesn’t know what cycle of action he’s on. Is he on the cycle of action of completing his present time problem with his domestic affairs? Or is he on the cycle of action of becoming a free being? Well, he’s on the cycle of action of becoming free from his wife. He’s not on the cycle of action of becoming a free being.

Well, something weird goes on when you’ve got this kind of thing happening. He’s on a small perimeter. He’s on a little cycle of action, and he’s using a huge cycle of action potential to accomplish this little cycle of action, you see? He’s using a 20-millimeter machine gun to shoot a grasshopper, see? And of course he can’t shoot this grasshopper, because actually you can’t get the muzzle depressed enough. You get this kind of. .. Yet he’s got freedom mixed up with escape. He wants to fix it so he doesn’t have to confront things anymore. All this kind of thing goes on. And all that can get in an auditor’s road hugely.

I’m talking to you now about fine points. You know? You know, in spite of all this, you can blunder through. You know? I’m just giving you some fine points here.

You could get there somehow, prepchecking the rough edge off of a person’s lumbosis, and somehow or another this. And somebody puts him together with sticky plaster because too many unflat processes exist on the case. And then somehow or another you finally find a GPM, and you get enough tone arm action out of the GPM to—you get the idea—to sort of cancel out some of the other sins and ills that have occurred in it. You’d get there somehow; you could muddle through.

But these are the fine points. These are the fine points of the business.

He’s as weak as his intentions are blunted. He will become as strong as his intentions are free. The greatest bolder-backer of intentions is the person himself, because he puts himself in danger every time he has a dangerous intention. I think your international champions in boxing, let us say, or something like that, probably have an awful time. They probably educate themselves right out of a hard punch, merely because they are walking through the society all the time. It’d be very, very dangerous indeed for them to uncork a hard punch in the Bide-A-Wee Cocktail Bar, see? That’s supposed to be reserved only for the stage, see? So here’s an intention that is becoming narrowed and specialized. They eventually become quite weak.

I’m not talking about something that you could measure by the diameter of the biceps, the number of foot-pounds of punch deliverable. You see, they’re having to withhold this intention. This intention has got to be very much pulled down. They’ve got to condition this intention.

If they have a trainer and a manager that tells him “Now, only hit with your right hand during moments of” something or other. Some fellow across —as their opponent in the ring could stand there with his guard dropped, the person’s left hand in perfectly good condition to deliver the final blow that would end the whole match, you see, and yet would never strike the blow. See, his intention: his intention, now, is far, far too specialized and channeled.

And you ask a fellow, “What restraints do you have to put on yourself in your everyday living?” You’re going to get almost a roaring automaticity, see? He has been taught that his intentions are dangerous to him. He’s been taught that he can get a dangerous intention. He’s been taught as well that his intentions can get out of his control and he can accidentally intend something.

So every once in a while you have somebody walking around in circles— there’s been a fire in Birmingham or something of the sort—and there will be somebody walking around in circles worrying because he might have let an intention out from underneath his hat and started the fire in Birmingham. See? And he’ll actively worry about this. You see? Whereas the guy couldn’t even warm up a cup of coffee if he had a stove, see?

But thetans become very worried about this sort of thing. And they become very protestive. And one of the big games is to make somebody protest his intentions, you see? “What are your intentions toward me, sir?” You see, that’s the standard girl’s question. “Clarify your intentions,” and so forth.

Wasn’t it Voltaire that won every argument before he even began it? He said somebody had to define his terms before he could argue with him. Well, that’s very interesting. But if you carried that a little further, you’d find the guy would get so busy defining his terms that his intention to have anything else happening would be nil. And you wouldn’t find much of a debate in progress here. Don’t you see?

“You must define your intentions, or what you’re doing.” Society does this to us in Scientology. Fortunately, they don’t know what our intentions are. And frankly, we’ve never really sat down and mapped it all out as to what our intentions should be which is probably the way it should be, don’t you see? Because therefore there’s nothing to blunt. Nobody has ever expressed the matter. Sort of a lazy way to go about it.

But they have all sorts of assignments to us in Scientology as to what our intentions are. They wouldn’t believe our real intentions, so we’ll probably make them. But we lose. For instance, “a world without insanity or war,” or something like that: it’s a perfectly valid intention. Well, they consider this too high-flown. “What are their intentions?” So they assign a whole bunch of false intentions to the Scientologist, see? Well, let them. That’s what makes their attacks look so silly, because of course they’re fighting on a set of intentions which don’t exist. So it makes them look like they’re walking around talking to shadows, or something like that. It leaves us completely free and rather unwound, into the battle.

Actually, any broad intention we have is quite clear-cut, appears in many books, but it’s way over their heads, you see? They can’t figure they could blunt that intention because that’s. .. Well, you take “a world without insanity”; you take this as an intention: Well, that’s good roads and good weather; of course, very unreal, unaccomplishable—anybody who’d look this over—so therefore couldn’t have anything to do with that. One of these days they’re going to be awful surprised! See?

We’ll have that intention moving. See? I even spent a little time in on, how would you handle vast numbers of insane, and so forth, see? Out of that original speculation, we got Scientology O processes, by the way. I mean, they’re just an offshoot of that. I’d hate to have to confess that to you, but that was the body of research that came out of, which is just destimulate the environment. Give a stable datum for the environment.

So, intention: intention here is everything in case recovery. If a person is regaining his power or ability or something like that, he’s merely removing out of his road what blunts his intentions and what has blunted his intentions, and that’s really all he’s doing. So if we look this over with a very critical eye, we find out that the auditor, going through almost any sincere job of auditing— even if clumsily done—will inevitably unblunt some of this PC’s intentions. They will be unblunted one way or the other. And we’re talking about the upper esoterics of auditing—how to keep auditing from blunting the PC’s intentions, you see?

Well, an intention is a cycle of action. Any time you say “do,” you add time. So a doingness intention or accomplishingness intention has time added to it.

The moment that you add time or doingness to the thing, you’ve got a cycle of action. So an intention is at its highest echelon, totally independent of time and the cycle of action. Intention is simply pure intention, and is not necessarily tied into time at all! You could just as easily make a postulate in 1492 or in 2658 as you could in 1964. There isn’t any intimate and immediate relationship.

But as the individual has gone downscale, he has of course more and more associated his intentions with a cycle of action. You make the intention and then a certain thing occurs, or the intention goes across a space as in communication, you see—and then it arrives at the other end, and a certain result therefore takes place at the other end. So we have a cycle of action. We have the intention, now, worked into time and space.

So the intention originally is totally free of time and space and has nothing to do with it. And in actual fact, time and space have, as their only reality, the fact that they are made out of an intention. Doesn’t matter whether this intention is an agreed-upon intention or otherwise. There is a basic intention which gives us time and space. So it is actually superior to all MEST. And you’ll have your fingers on something that doesn’t have to be MEST; but as it comes downscale, this becomes expressed to the PC, particularly at the lower levels of a case.

Lower levels of cases, this fellow’s having a dreadful time! He’s just staggering through life, man. He’s hitting both walls and walking backwards and falling on his knees every time he turns around. Well, that individual’s agreement with a cycle of action means that an intention... There are no intentions anymore. There, however, might be a cycle of action. See? The intention has disappeared out of the cycle of action, and you simply have this cycle of action. When he goes down any further, he goes down into pure chaos.

So therefore, you can take a person who is having a terrible time and tell him to touch the wall, and you’ve shown him an intention and shown him a cycle of action. You can short-session him. You can start a session, run a session and end a session. Ten minutes’ worth, see? Then start another session, run a session and end a session. All you’re doing is showing him cycle of action, cycle of action, cycle of action. The auditing command: cycle of action. The auditor’s command, the acknowledgment, and the answer, the acknowledgment: it’s a cycle of action. All you’re showing him is you’re demonstrating the existence of a cycle of action, cycle of action, cycle of action—any one of these things as they come through.

And eventually, the reason he cognites is his own intentions start to free up out of the obsessive MESTiness of it all. And he starts seeing things, and he starts coming back to battery. He starts adding up what’s going on.

Well now, the only way the auditor can get in his road in all this, of course, is to foul up his own cycle of action—the auditor’s cycle of action. Now we could foul this up. One of the ways of fouling it up is to leave processes unflat. Or misinterpret what we’re doing with a process. We’re trying to get rid of this fellow’s lumbosis—a lifetime problem here—so we treat it like it’s a rudiment. We give it a little dust-off and so forth. Well, misapplication of tools. Well, you’re not going to get the intention clear because that back is not going to get better under that kind of treatment, so the auditor’s intention is blunted, the PC s intention to have a better back is blunted, everybody loses under that situation .

So our intention on the thing, laid out: If we’re going to have wins then we must validate analytical intention, knock out dramatization and be very consistent with completing cycles of action. Even though it’s an auditing command or getting rid of his lumbosis. And those are the factors with which you are dealing.

The auditor must flatten a process within the reality of what he is processing—in other words, within the reality of what’s he got here?

He’s got a little problem that’s been generated since last night. So he stops auditing the back, which has been going on for nine or ten years, and starts using heavy artillery on this little problem that came up last night. Well, he didn’t complete the big cycle of action; he’s trying to make too much out of this other cycle of action. He’s misapplying his tools, in other words.

He’s working on this bad back and the only reason he gets last night’s problem out of the way with his little dust kit is, well, just so he can go on and complete this bigger cycle of action. You got to keep the PC on the main chance. You got to flatten the big stuff that you start. You’re doing a Problems Intensive; I don’t think you could prepcheck it in under ten or twelve hours. If you did a proper assessment on the thing, you’d—ten or twelve hours, I’d think that’d be a long—a short haul to cover everything, let us say, from 1949, July, on up to present time.

Well, how do you make it run that long? Well, it isn’t how long you make it run: how much is there there? Well, that depends on how much you impinge on the PC. That depends on how much you make the PC work at it. That depends on how hard you sweat over this particular action, and how clean you keep the PC from ARC breaks, and how clean you keep his interim session difficulties— the between-session difficulties—from interrupting you from doing a cycle of action. And for that kind of thing, we’ve got little brush-off things. We just destimulate this stuff. The rudiment approach, then the main-session approach. And therefore, we can achieve the intentions of the PC, we can achieve the intentions of the auditor.

We flatten a process within the reality of what is there to be flattened, and how much is there to be flattened? How much are we tackling here? Well, the fellow has always had a little problem that had to do with—he’s always had this problem, and 80 forth: he thinks he’s inferior. Well, that’s great. That’s great. Now, you’re going to handle this with a rudiments process? I don’t think so.

The individual comes into session and he stubbed his toe outside the door and it hurts. You’re going to give this a fourteen-hour Prepcheck?

So the magnitude of what you’re trying to handle, the duration of time of what you’re trying to handle, to a large degree establishes how much time it is going to take you and how much heavy action you will have to take on it and how thoroughly you’ll have to flatten it. And those are the establishing factors. But when all else is worked out, you’re trying to complete a cycle of action. And on the very bad-off case, that is all you can do. That is the most basic process there is, is simply get a cycle of action completed.

And I imagine that an auditing question like this: “What did you have to eat for breakfast?” Guy is having an awful time. Practically blind-staggers type PC, see? And two and a half hours later, with a great deal of two-way comm and discussion and so forth, he has answered the auditing question. It sounds incredible, doesn’t it? And yet, you know, the PC would have a win? PC would have a big win.

You went in too high. It should have been “Did you come to the session?” That wouldn’t have taken so long to do. But if you can get an auditing cycle completed, you get a win, and if you don’t get an auditing cycle completed, whatever else you look at or what you think you are looking at, you’re going to get a lose. Elementary as that.

So when the whole thing is squared away, what you’re trying to do as an auditor depends on what you’re trying to handle in the PC, the order of magnitude in terms of time and trouble, duration and so forth, and that determines on what kind of flattening you use.

And the flattening of the main chance, the big long-term one and so forth, is done very arduously indeed. It’s all done by TA. It’s never done by anything else but TA. And, of course, your little stuff that you’re trying to get out of the road so you can keep on with your main action is just a rudiments-type kick-off and you just flatten it to cognition or till it isn’t bothering the PC and it’s out of the road and you’re away. You see why this is now? You see how this is? All right. I hope you can have some wins on this. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much. 

Thank you!

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 OCTOBER 1970

Remimeo
C/Ses
All Auditors
Level 0	C/S Series 20
HGC Checksheet

PERSISTENT F/N

A FLOATING NEEDLE can persist.

This fact tells you at once why you cannot do three major actions in a row in the same ten minutes.

This was the bug behind “Quickie Grades” (0 to IV in one session. This also occurred in Power when it was run all in one day). The auditor would attain a bona fide full dial F/N. The pc was still cogniting, still in a big win. The auditor would “clear the next process command”, he would see an F/N. He would “clear the next process command”, and see an F/N.

BUT IT WAS THE SAME F/N!

Result was that processes 2 and 3 WERE NEVER RUN ON THE CASE.

This is really what is meant by “Quickie Grades”.

In 1958 we got real Releases. You could not kill the F/N for days, weeks.

Several processes had this effect. Today’s real Clear also goes this way. You couldn’t kill the F/N with an axe.

By running a lot of Level Zero processes, for instance, you can get a real swinging unkillable F/N.

It not only gets to the Examiner, it comes in at the start of the next day’s session!

Now if in one session you ran all of Level Zero and went on up to Level One, you would just be auditing a persistent F/N. The pc would get no benefit at all from Level One. He’s still going “Wow” on Level Zero.

If you ran Level Zero with one process that got a big wide floating F/N and then “ran” Level I, II, III and IV, you would have just a Level Zero Release. The pc’s bank was nowhere to be found. So next week he has problems (Level I) or a Service Fac (Level IV) and he is only a Grade Zero yet it says right there in Certs and Awards log he’s a Grade IV. So now we have a “Grade IV” who has Level I, II, III and IV troubles!

A session that tries to go beyond a big dial-wide drifting floating F/N only distracts the pc from his win. BIG WIN.

Any big win (F/N dial-wide, Cog, VGIs) gives you this kind of persistent F/N.

You at least have to let it go until tomorrow and let the pc have his win.

That is what is meant by letting the pc have his win. When you get one of these dial-wide F/Ns, Cog, VGIs WOW you may as well pack it up for the day.

GRADUAL WIDENING

In running a Dianetic chain to basic in triple you will sometimes see in one session a half dial on Flow 1, 3/4 of a dial on Flow 2, a full dial on Flow 3.

Or you may have 4 subjects to two-way comm or prepcheck in one session. First action 1/3 dial F/N. Then no F/N, TA up. Second action l/2 dial F/N. Then no F/N. Third action 3/4 dial F/N. Fourth action full dial-wide floating swinging idling F/N.

You will also notice in the same session-long time for 1st action, shorter, shorter, shorter for the next three actions.

Now you have an F/N that anything you try to clear and run will just F/N WITHOUT AFFECTING THE CASE AT ALL.

If you audit past that you are wasting your time and processes.

You have hit an “unkillable F/N”, properly called a persistent F/N. It’s persistent at least for that day. Do any more and it’s wasted.

If an auditor has never seen this he had better get his TR0 bullbait flat for 2 hours at one unflunked go and his other TRs in and drill out his flubs. For that’s what’s supposed to happen.

F/Ns on pcs audited up to (for that session) a persistent F/N always get to the Examiner.

If you only have a “small F/N” it won’t get to the Examiner. However, on some pcs maybe that’s good enough. May take him several sessions, each one getting a final session F/N a bit wider. Then he gets an F/N that gets to the Examiner. After that, well audited on a continuing basis, the F/N lasts longer and longer.

One day the pc comes into session with a dial-wide floating swinging F/N and anything you say or do does nothing whatever to disturb that F/N.

It’s a real Release man. It may last weeks, months, years.

Tell him to come back when he feels he needs some auditing and chalk up the remaining hours (if sold by the hour) as undelivered. Or if sold by result, chalk up the result.

If the F/N is truly persistent he will have no objections. If it isn’t, he will object. So have him come back tomorrow and carry on whatever you were doing.

SUMMARY

The technical bug back of Quickie Grades or Quickie Power was the Persistent F/N.

This is not to be confused with a Stage 4 (sweep, stick, sweep, stick) or an ARC Broke needle (pc Bad Indicators while F/Ning).

This is not to be used to refuse all further auditing to a pc.

It is to be used to determine when to end a series of major actions in a session.

LRH: rr.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1970 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1974
Remimeo 
AO Auditors 
Class VIII
END PHENOMENA

(Ref: HCO B 20 Feb 1970,
“Floating Needles and End Phenomena”)

Different types of auditing call for different handlings of End Phenomena.

End Phenomena will also vary depending on what you’re running.

The definition of END PHENOMENA is “those indicators in the pc and meter which show that a chain or process is ended”. Misapplication of this definition can result in underrun and overrun processes or actions and the pc snarled up with BPC.

TYPES OF EPs

In Power Processing the auditor waits for a specific  EP and does not indicate an F/N until he has gotten the specific EP for the process. To miss on this in Power is disastrous, thus Power auditors are drilled and drilled on the handling of Power EPs.

In Dianetics, the EP of a chain is erasure, accompanied by an F/N, cognition and good indicators. You wouldn’t necessarily expect rave indicators on a pc in the middle of an assist, under emotional or physical stress until the full assist was completed though. What you would expect is the chain blown with an F/N. Those two things themselves are good indicators. The cognition could simply be “the chain blew”.

In Scientology, End Phenomena vary with what you’re auditing. An ARC Broken pc on an L-1C will peel off charge and come uptone gradually as each reading line is handled. Sometimes it comes in a spectacular huge cog and VVGIs and dial F/N, but that’s usually after charge has been taken off on a gradient. What’s expected is an F/N as that charge being handled moves off.

In Ruds it’s the same idea. When you’ve got your F/N and that charge has moved off, indicate it. Don’t push the pc on and on for some “EP”. You’ve got it.

Now a major grade process will run to F/N, Cog, VGIs and release. You’ll have an ability regained. But that’s a grade  process on a set up flying pc.

F/N ABUSE

Mistakenly applying the Power EP rule to Ruds will have the pc messed up by overrun. It invalidates the pc’s wins and keys the charge back in. The pc will start thinking he hasn’t blown the charge and can’t do anything about it.

In 1970 I had to write the HCO B “F/Ns and End Phenomena” to cure auditors of chopping pc EPs on major actions by indicating F/Ns too soon. This is one type of F/N abuse which has largely been handled.

That bulletin and Power EP handling have been in some instances misapplied in the direction of overrun. “The pc isn’t getting EP on these chains as there’s no cognition, just ‘it erased’,” is one example. Obviously the C/S didn’t understand the definition of cognition or what an EP is. Another example is the pc spots what it is and F/Ns and the auditor carries on, expecting an “EP”.

OTs and EPs

An OT is particularly subject to F/N abuse as he can blow things quite rapidly. If the auditor misses the F/N due to too high a sensitivity setting or doesn’t call it as he’s waiting for an “EP”, overrun occurs. It invalidates an OT’s ability to as-is and causes severe upsets.

This error can also stem from auditor speed. The auditor, used to auditing lower level pcs or never trained to audit OTs, can’t keep up with the OT and misses his F/Ns or reads.

Thus overruns occur and charged areas are bypassed.

This could account for those cases who were flying then fell on their heads with the same problems that blew back again.

REMEDY

The remedy of this problem begins with thoroughly clearing all terms connected with EPs. This is basically Word Clearing Method 6, Key Words.

The next action is to get my HCO Bs on the subject of EPs and also related metering HCO Bs fully understood and starrated. This would be followed by clay demos of various EPs of processes and actions showing the mechanics of the bank and what happens with the pc and meter.

TRs and meter drills on spotting F/Ns would follow, including any needed obnosis drills and correction of meter position so that the auditor could see the pc, meter and his admin at a glance.

Then, the auditor would be gradiently drilled on handling the pc, meter and admin at increasing rates of speed including recognizing and indicating EPs when they occurred. When the auditor could do all of this smoothly at the high rate of speed of an OT blowing things by inspection without fumbling, the last action would be bullbaited drills like TRs 103 and 104, on a gradient to a level of competence whereby the auditor could handle anything that came up at speed and do so smoothly.

Then you’d really have an OT auditor. And that’s what you’ll have to do to make them.

SUMMARY

Overrun and underrun alike mess up cases.

Both stem from an auditor inability to recognize and handle different types of EPs and inexpertness in handling the tools of auditing at speed.

Don’t overrun pcs and have to repair them.

Let the pc have his wins.

LRH:ams.rd    	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974   	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 SEPTEMBER 1978

Remimeo 
Level IV Checksheets 
Class IV Auditors 
Supervisors 
C/Ses

ANATOMY OF A SERVICE FACSIMILE

	Ref:	HCOB 22 Jul 63	YOU CAN BE RIGHT
		HCOB I Sep 63	SCIENTOLOGY THREE CLEARING,
			CLEARING, CLEARING, ROUTINE THREE SC
		HCOB 23 Aug 66	SERVICE FACSIMILE
		HCOB 30 Nov 66	ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE FACSIMILES
		TAPE: 6308C27 SH SPEC 299 RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS
		TAPE: 6309C04 SH SPEC 302 HOW TO FIND A SERVICE FACSIMILE
		TAPE: 6309C03 SH SPEC 302A R3SC
		TAPE: 6309C05 SH SPEC 303 SERVICE FACSIMILE ASSESSMENT
		TAPE: 6309C18 SH SPEC 308 ST HILL SERVICE FAC HANDLING

FACSIMILE: 	A mental picture unknowingly created; a copy of the physical universe environment, complete with all the perceptions, at some time in the past.

SERVICE: 	A method of providing a person with the use of something; the action or result of giving assistance or advantage; work done; duty performed.

COMPUTATION: 	That aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be in a certain state in order to succeed.

SERVICE FACSIMILE: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG: TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE THAT OF OTHERS.

Note that it is a computation, not a doingness, beingness or havingness. We could call this a “service computation” but we will maintain the term we have used to describe this phenomenon throughout the technology: “service facsimile.”

It is a computation that the pc adopted when, in an extreme situation, he felt endangered by something but could not itsa it.

It is called a service facsimile because he uses it; it is “of service” to him.

Aberration, anybody’s aberration on any subject, has been of some use to them at some time or other. You can trace it back. It’s been of some use, otherwise they wouldn’t keep mocking it up. But now, if you put it up against survival standards, you’d find it very non-survival.

The pc adopted this because he couldn’t stand the confusion in a situation. So he adopted a safe solution. A safe solution is always adopted as a retreat from the environmental restimulation. He adopted a safe solution in that instance and he survived. His safe solution became his stable datum. He has hung onto it ever since. It is the computation, the fixed idea, he uses to handle life, his service facsimile.

HOW THE SERVICE FACSIMILE BECOMES FIXED

An idea is the thing most easily substituted for a thetan. An idea doesn’t have any mass connected with it basically. And it appears to have some wisdom in it so it’s very easily substituted for a thetan. Thus the idea, the stable datum he has adopted, is substituted for the thetan.

How does this stable datum become so fixed? It gets fixed, and more and more firmly as time goes on, by the confusion it is supposed to handle but doesn’t.

The stable datum was adopted in lieu of inspection. The person ceased to inspect, he fell back from inspecting, he fell back from living. He put the datum there to substitute for his own observation and his own coping with life, and at that moment he started an accumulation of confusion.

That which is not confronted and inspected tends to persist. Thus in the absence of his own confronting mass collects. The stable datum forbids inspection. It’s an automatic solution. It’s “safe.” It solves everything. He no longer has to inspect to solve, so he never anises the mass. He gets caught in the middle of the mass. And it collects more and more confusion and his ability to inspect becomes less and less. The more he isn’t confronting, the less he can confront. This becomes a dwindling spiral.

So the thing he has adopted to handle his environment for him is the thing which reduces his ability to handle his environment.

Those things which do not respond to routine auditing, that routine auditing won’t change, are rooted in this mechanism.

Therefore, it is important to find the idea on which he is so fixed. Pull the fixed idea and you free the individual for a broader perimeter of inspection.

In service fac handling the reason you get tone arm action when the fixed idea has been pulled is that the confusion which has been amassed and dammed up for so long is now running off.

RIGHT/WRONG, DOMINATE AND SURVIVE

Right and wrong are the tools of survival. In order to survive you have to be right. There is a level at which true rightness is analytical, and there is a level at which rightness and wrongness cease to be analytical or comprehensible. When it drops below that point it’s aberration.

The point you degenerate from survive to succumb is the point you recognize you are wrong. That is the beginning of succumb. The moment one becomes worried about his own survival he enters into the necessity to dominate in order to survive.

It goes: the insistence upon survival, followed by the necessity to dominate, followed then by the necessity to be right. These postulates go downhill. So you get an aberrated rightness or wrongness. The game of domination consists of making the other fellow wrong in order to be right.

That is the essence of the service facsimile.

The reason the service facsimile isn’t rational is because you have A=A=As along the whole line. Coming down the line it works itself back and forth in an aberrated A=A=A. If the individual is surviving he must be right. And people will defend the most fantastic wrongnesses on the basis they are being right.

In PT and at any point along the track, the fellow is trying to be right, trying to be right, trying to be right. Whatever he’s doing he’s trying to be right. In order to survive you have to be right more than you’re wrong, so you get the obsession to be right in order to survive. The lie is that he can’t do anything else except survive.

It isn’t that trying to be right is wrong—it’s obsessively being right about something that’s obviously wrong. That’s when the individual is no longer able to select his own course of behaviour. When he is obsessively following courses of behaviour which are uninspected in order to be right.

There is nothing sane about a service facsimile, there is no rationality to it. The computation does not fit the incident or event occurring. It simply enforces, exaggerates and destroys freedom of choice over the exercise of ability to be happy or powerful or normal or active. It destroys power, destroys freedom of choice.

Wherever that zone or area is you’ll see the individual worsening. He is on a dwindling spiral. But he himself is generating it.

The intention to be right is the strongest intention in the universe. Above it you have the effort to dominate and above that you have the effort to survive. These things are strong. But we’re talking here about a mental activity. A thinking activity. An intentional activity.

Survival—that just happens. Domination—that just happens. Those are not intended things. But you get down along the level of intended and it’s right or wrong. The strongest intention in the universe.

It is always an aberrated solution. It always exists in PT and is part of the environment of the pc. He’s generating it. It’s his solution. Overwhelmed as he is by it, he is still generating it. It’s aberrated because it’s an uninspected solution. And it is something that everyone unintentionally or otherwise is telling the pc is wrong and causing him to assert that it is right. The perfect solution when he first got hold of it. But now it monitors his life; it’s living his life for him. And it doesn’t even vaguely begin to take care of his life.

That is the anatomy of the service facsimile.

You are going to find these on any pc you audit. A service facsimile is the clue, the key to a pc’s case. The route to succumb which he blindly asserts is his route to survival. And every pc has more than one of these.

Fortunately, we have the tech to salvage him. We are the only ones who do.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1978
Issue II
Remimeo
Level IV
Checksheets
Class IV Auditors
Supervisors
C/Ses
SERVICE FACSIMILES AND ROCK SLAMS

	Reference:	HCOB 5 Sep 78	Anatomy Of A Service Facsimile
		HCOB 1 Sep 63	Scientology Three Clearing, Clearing,
			Clearing, Routine Three SC
		HCOB 6 Sep 78	Urgent, Important, Routine Three
		Issue III	SC-A, Full Service Facsimile Handling
			Updated With New Era Dianetics
		TAPE:	6308C27	SH SPEC 299 Rightness & Wrongness
		TAPE:	6309C04	SH SPEC 302 How To Find a Service Facsimile
		TAPE:	6309C03	SH SPEC 302A R3SC
		TAPE:	6309C05	SH SPEC 303 Service Facsimile Assessment
		TAPE:	6309C18	SH SPEC 308 St. Hill Service Fac Handling
		HCOB 3 Sep 78	Definition Of A Rock Slam
		HCOB 10 Aug 76R	R/Ses, What They Mean
__________

A service facsimile is a brother to R/Ses and evil intentions.

This is easily seen when one understands the anatomy of the service fac and the right/wrong, dominate and survive computations that enter into it. And when one understands that an R/S always means a hidden, evil intention and that the total reason for an R/S is to make wrong. In order to get someone to succumb they have to be wrong.

Way back up there the idea preceding the service fac was right, really right. Then it came down a bit and was a method of survival and then it was a method of dominating and then it was a method of being right in order to make others wrong.

And in that contest one got enough overts so that the communication line took a switcheroo. What was right about it is now wrong about it and what was once wrong is now right. A=A=A enters into the situation where rightness becomes wrongness. All of his overts get piled up on one of these fixed ideas, or what we call a service facsimile.

It isn’t actually a facsimile at all. It’s the guy himself keeping facsimiles in restimulation because he “knows” what’s best. The person himself is generating the fixed idea; it is not the bank.

It isn’t what aberration the individual is dramatizing. It’s what aberration does the individual dredge up in order to make somebody wrong. It isn’t the accidental thing you think it is. It’s intended.

The intention is to be right and make others wrong, to dominate others and escape domination oneself, to aid own survival and hinder the survival of others. That is the service fac—blood brother to the hidden, evil intention that is behind the rock slam.

This does not mean you will necessarily see R/Ses on every service fac you run. It does mean that WHERE A PC IS R/SING IN AN AREA YOU HAVE AN AREA OF A HEAVY, A SEVERE, SERVICE FAC.

Know when you see an R/S that the individual is in the grip of an evil intention which he himself is generating. He intends that area or subject on which he is R/Sing nothing but harm. Calculatingly, covertly, he will go to great lengths to carry his intentions out, at all times carefully concealing the fact.

The evil intention is not limited to terminals. He’s not R/Sing on a terminal; he’s R/Sing on the evil intention. The evil intention can associate with many terminals.

The R/S dominates the individual; it is the person. He has been overwhelmed by it. In that area he has no ability to reason; he has no freedom to choose. The evil intention is substituted for livingness. It is his safe solution to life, his service facsimile.

The service fac does not respond to ordinary auditing because in the course of ordinary auditing it does not get inspected. It, by its nature, forbids inspection. But when addressed at the right/wrong level the pc gives it up easily because in that area he has no power of choice.

MORE THAN ONE SERVICE FAC PER PC

We have had, for many years, service fac processing with which to handle these obsessions, and thus to handle the person who R/Ses.

But it is not just finding one service facsimile. You find many service facs which then add up to the big one. At Saint Hill in the mid-60s this was commonly associated with R/Ses.

It was what the pc had done with the service fac to make others wrong which was important, not just finding it. Early on, the tech included auditing them out with Dianetics. And you found many, many more than one on each pc. We used to get complete character changes with this.

The full tech on this has been submerged over the past several years. It is probably this omission of requiring several service facs to be run and then auditing them out with Dianetics that has resulted in so many R/Sers going on up undetected.

As of this writing the full tech has been exhumed and we have now New Era Dianetics tech to help strip these packages down and take them apart at their basics.

So we not only have a more thorough means of handling service facs than ever before—we also have a more reliable route to the handling of an R/Ser.

BUT IT’S MORE THAN ONE SERVICE FAC PER PC.

You may audit off one, two or three apparent service facsimiles that all answer up to the complete description of a service fac. And they will run. But all are actually leaning on the central service fac that is in restimulation in PT. As you take these lesser service facs off the central one comes to view.

On the first ones you find, the most you can hope for is you found something that blew the TA down and moved you closer to finding the main service fac. So you take them.

If you’ve found a service fac the needle will be looser and the TA in reasonable range. And it will run on the right/wrong, etc. brackets and the pc will get off automaticities. When you’ve finally found several and walked it all the way through to the service fac it’s as if all the other service facs you’ve been peeling off are like the bands of trees and sod that lie up against the mountain peak. So you take the service facsimiles and run them as you find them. You unburden the cliffs before you pull the mountain out by the roots.

As you’re running out the first service facs you’re reversing the dwindling spiral, you’re restoring the individual’s ability to handle his environment because he’s now seeing it, he’s now beginning to confront it.

And by the time you’ve pulled the main one—the mountain—out by its roots you’ve returned him to sanity. He is now able to inspect; he no longer needs a “safe solution.”

It is the most dangerous thing in the world to have a safe solution, because that is the hole out of which sanity drains.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:mf
Copyright © 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 April 1980
Remimeo
Auditors
Surveyors
Examiners
Ethics Officers
ASSESSMENT DRILLS

Ref: 	HCOB 6 Dec 73 	C/S Series 90
	THE PRIMARY FAILURE 
	HCOB 28 Feb 71 	C/S Series 24
		METERING READING ITEMS 			HCOB 15 Oct 73 	C/S Series 87
		NULLING AND F/NING 					PREPARED LISTS 
	HCOB 22 Jul 78 	ASSESSMENT TRs 
	THE BOOK OF E-METER DRILLS

(Note: It is required that anyone doing the following drills shall have done a TR course, an Upper Indoc course and the drills of the E-Meter Drill Book.)

According to HCOB 6 Dec 73, the make or break point of an auditor was his ability to get reads on a prepared list. This depended upon (a) His TR 1 and (b) His metering.

In 1978 this was further studied and in HCOB 22 Jul 78 ASSESSMENT TRs, it was found that correct voice pitches had everything to do with assessment.

I have just developed drills which improve this ability to make lists read and to improve an auditor’s auditing in general.

These drills will also be found to have great value to people who do surveys, to Examiners and to Ethics Officers.

E-METER

To begin, an auditor should review his E-Meter drills and practice E-Meter Drill 27 on page 52 of the Book of E-Meter Drills, E-Meter Drill CR0000-4 and, if found necessary, E-Meter Drill CR0000-3. It is called to attention that E-Meter Drill 5 of the Book of E-Meter Drills has been replaced with E-Meter Drill 5RA and is not done, should be done. This E-Meter Drill 5RA is the only change in the original book. Further, it applies to the Mark VI just as well as it applied to the Mark V for which the book was written - the controls and actions of the Mark V and Mark VI are practically identical, though the Mark VI moves up to higher level cases.

Being able to see and read and operate an E-Meter has everything to do with getting reads off a prepared list. Where an auditor misses it is simply that he has not adequately done the drills in the Book of E-Meter Drills and has not practiced up to a point of full, easy familiarity with the E-Meter. The point of being able to make lists read is pointless unless the auditor can set up, handle and read an E-Meter. But the skill is easily acquired.
ASSESSMENT TRAINING DRILLS

The following drills have the letter “Q” after them to mean that they are used for QUESTIONS. The Q is followed by a number to show that they are drilled in that sequence.

In these Q drills, the practice of twinning and any other TR tech normal to TRs is followed.

TR 1-Q1

NUMBER:  TR 1-Q1

NAME: Pitch of the Question.

POSITION: Coach sitting at the keyboard of a piano or organ or any usable instrument, student standing beside instrument.

PURPOSE: To establish the pitch differences of statements and questions.

DATA

TRAINING PROCEDURE: If the student is a girl, the coach asks her to say “Apple” as a statement. The coach then strikes the C above middle C (as given in the data above) and then the G above middle C. If the student is a man, the coach asks him to say “Apple” as a statement and then strikes middle C and then the F below middle C. This is repeated - saying “apple” and striking the two notes until the pitch of a statement can be duplicated by the student. In the event, the student has a voice pitch at variance with these notes, other notes can be found and used by the coach so long as the higher note is first and the second note is four or five whole notes below the first note. It must sound like a statement with the higher, then lower note.) Once the student has grasped this and can duplicate it, have the student use other two syllable words (or single syllable words preceded by an article), using these notes of the statement. Then, using these two notes, have the student make up sentences as statements, the bulk of the sentence said at the pitch of the higher note, but the end of the sentence at the pitch of the lower note. Once the student has this down and can easily do it and it sounds natural and he is satisfied that it does, go on to the question step.

The coach has the student say “apple” as a question. Then the coach (for a male student) strikes the F below middle C and then middle C. For a woman the coach strikes the A above middle C and then the D an octave above middle C. (In case this does not agree with the voice pitch of the student, the coach must work it out providing only that the upper note is three or four whole notes above the lower note. It must sound natural and must sound like a question.) The coach has the student say “apple” as a question and then strikes the lower and higher note until the student can duplicate it. Now take other two syllable words (or single syllable words preceded by an article) and have the student say these as a question, following each one with the two instrument notes, lower to higher. When the student can do this, is satisfied that it sounds natural and doesn’t have to think about dolling it, go on to the next step. Here the student makes up banal questions. The first part of the question is said at the lower note and the last part is said at the higher note. At each question, the coach strikes the lower note and then the upper note. When this sounds natural and the student does not have to think to do it and is satisfied with it, the drill is ended.

END PHENOMENA: A person who can state statements and questions that sound like statements or questions.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, April 1980, while doing the script for the soon to be produced training film “Tone 40 Assessment”.

TR 1-Q2

NUMBER:  TR 1-Q2

NAME: Walkabout Questions.

POSITION: There is no coach. Two students separate and walk around their neighborhood and then meet and compare notes. The object is to detect personal habits in questioning.

PURPOSE: To enlighten the student as to his own communication habits and people’s reactions to his questions.

COMMANDS: The most common everyday social questions such as “How’s it going?” “Do you like the weather?”, etc. appropriate to the activities and circumstances of the person. Only one or two questions to a separate person. The questions must be banal, social and ordinary but they must be questions.

TRAINING STRESS: The two students agree on the areas they will cover next time they will meet again. They then go over individually, not together. The student pauses next to people encountered and asks a social question, and notes the reaction of the person asked. In this drill the student does not necessarily try to use TR 1-Q1 but is just himself, speaking as he would normally speak. The students then meet and compare notes and discuss what they have discovered about themselves on the subject of asking questions. If they have not learned or observed anything, the drill must be repeated.

END PHENOMENA: A person who has detected any habits he has in handling pitch of voice in asking questions so that he can cure these in subsequent drills.

HISTORY: Recommended by L. Ron Hubbard in February 1978, in the pilot for HCOB 22 Jul 78 ASSESSMENT TRs. Developed into a TR in April 1980, by L. Ron Hubbard.

TR 1-Q3

NUMBER:  TR 1-Q3

NAME: Single Word Question.

POSITION: Student and coach facing each other with a table in between them. The E-Meter is not used. The Book of E-Meter Drills used by student and another copy by coach.

PURPOSE: To be able to ask questions using a single word read from a list.

COMMANDS: The coach uses the usual TR directions of start, flunk, that’s it. The student uses single words from the prepared lists of the Book of E-Meter Drills, pages 66 to 72 of the Appendix.

TRAINING STRESS: To get the student to use the pitch of his voice to deliver a question consisting of a single word. It must sound like a question per TR 1-Q1 and use similar pitch’s to TR 1-Q1. The student is flunked for out TR-l, for keeping his eyes glued to the list, for sounding unnatural. The student is also flunked for slow or comm laggy delivery or pauses. The coach designates the list to be used, changes lists. When the student can do this easily, a second part of the drill is entered and the coach begins to use the PC Origination List on Page 58 so as to interrupt the student and make him combine his questions with TR 4. In this case the student acknowledges appropriately, uses “I will repeat the Question.” and does so.

END PHENOMENA: The ability to ask single word questions that will be responded to as questions and to be able to handle pc origins while doing so.

HISTORY: Developed in April 1980, by L. Ron Hubbard.

TR 1-Q4

NUMBER:  TR 1-Q4

NAME: Whole Sentence Questions.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other across a table. The E-Meter is set up and used. Copies of the Book of E-Meter Drills are used.

PURPOSE: To train the student to ask whole questions that sound like questions, read an E-Meter and handle a session at the same time.

COMMANDS: The usual coach commands of TR drills. The Prepared Lists of the Appendix of the Book of E-Meter Drills; the questions in these drills are reworded so that the item occurs as the last word; Example: List 2, pg 65 or the Book of E-Meter Drills states that the Assessment Question is “which tree do you like best?”. This is converted, for each question, to “Do you like	?”; Prepared List 4 is converted to “Do you dislike           ?”; etc. A whole sentence is used in every case.

TRAINING STRESS: The usual TR commands are used by the coach. E-Meter Drill #5RA must be used to start. Any TR errors or Metering errors may be flunked, but special attention is paid to the student’s ability to ask a question that sounds like a question in accordance to TR 1-Q1 and that sounds natural. The drill has three parts. In the first part, although the coach is on the meter, the ability to ask the question is concentrated upon. The second part concentrates upon the student’s ability to look at the written question and then ask the coach directly without undue comm lag or hesitation. The third part is to do the first two parts and read the meter (in accordance with E-Meter Drills 27 and CR0000-4 which may have to be reviewed if flubby) and to keep session admin, all smoothly and accurately. If a question arises about meter accuracy, a third person who can read a meter or a video tape is employed to ensure that the student is actually not missing or dubbing in reads.

END PHENOMENA: A person who can do all the necessary actions of asking questions from a prepared list and run a session smoothly without errors or confusion’s and be confident he can.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in April 1980.

TR 8-Q

 NUMBER:  TR 8-Q

 NAME:  TONE 40 ASSESSMENT

POSITION: Same as TR 8 where the student is in one chair racing another chair on which sits an ashtray, the coach sitting beside the student in a third chair. A square four-cornered ashtray is used.

PURPOSE: To deliver the THOUGHT of a question into an exact position, wide or narrow at decision, that is a question, with or without words.

COMMANDS: For the first part of the drill: Are you an ashtray? Are you made of glass? Are you sitting there? Second part of drill: same questions silently. Third part of drill: Are you a corner? to each corner of the ashtray, verbal and with intention at the same time. Fourth part of drill: Any applicable question, verbal and with intention at the same time put broad and narrow at choice into the ashtray, exact parts of it and the surroundings.

TRAINING STRESS: The coach uses usual TR coaching commands. There are four stages to the drill. The first stage is to land a verbal command into the ashtray. The second stage is to put the question with full intention silently into the ashtray. The third stage is to put verbal command and silent intention at the same time into exact parts of the ashtrays The fourth stage is to put any applicable question both verbally and with intention into any narrow or any broad portion of the ashtray or its surrounds at choice and at will. At the conclusion of the whole drill imagine the ashtray saying “Yes,yes,yes,yes” in an avalanche of yeses to balance the flow (in actual life, people, pcs and meters do respond and return the flow).

END PHENOMENA: The ability to land a question with full intention into an exact target area, broad or narrow, at will and effectively, whether verbally or silently.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in April 1980, as an extension of all earlier work on intention and Tone 40, as now applied to questions and assessments.

TR 4/8-Q1

NUMBER: TR 4/8-Q1 (TR 4 for Pc Origin, TR 8 Intention + Q for Question, 1 for first part.)

NAME: Tone 40 Assessment Prepared List Session Drill.

POSITION: Student and coach sitting across from each other at a table, E-Meter set up and in use, session admin, using prepared lists.

PURPOSE: To train a student to do all the actions necessary to a full, smooth, accurate session using prepared lists and to do Tone 40 Assessment of them.

COMMANDS: Coach commands are the usual TR commands of start, flunk, that’s it. For the student, all commands relating to starting a session, giving an R factor, assessing a prepared list, keeping -the admin, indicating any item round and ending a session. The Book of E-Meter Drills for Prepared Lists as in TR 1-Q4. Origins for coach as per pages 58, 59 and 60 of that book. “Squeeze the cans”, “Take a deep breath and let it out”, “This is the session”, “We are going to assess a prepared list” (assessment), “Your item is        “ (indicate any F/N) “End of Assessment” “End of Session”.

TRAINING STRESS: Permit the student to continue to his first error, then have him drill and correct that error and continue. Finally, to conclude, let the student go through the entire sequence of the drill beginning to end three times without error or flunk for a final pass. It is expected that the student will not flub any TRs or metering or session patter. metering may be finally verified by a third student or video. All assessing must be in proper tone 40 with full intention exactly placed. The student must not wait to see if the meter read but catch the read of the last question as he starts the next one. His vision may shift from list to pc but at all times must embrace list, meter and pc.

(This drill also would be the one used for tape or video passes as it includes all elements of metering and TRs.)
END PHENOMENA: A person who can do a flawless and productive assessment session, Tone 40.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, April 1980.

TR 4/8-Q2

NUMBER:  TR 4/8-Q2

NAME: Listing and Nulling Tone 40 Assessment.

POSITION: Same as TR 4/8-Q1.

PURPOSE: To teach a student to do the action of Listing and Nulling with all metering and admin, using Tone 40 Assessment.

COMMANDS: The usual coach TR commands. Two copies of the Book of E-Meter Drills. A prepared list is chosen by the coach and both use the same prepared list. The student reads the question and asks it and the coach reads the replies from the same list but in his own copy. The student must write down the answers in a proper session worksheet and note and write down any reads. (An F/N terminates the listing if it occurs.) The coach need not use the whole list of replies but only half a dozen chosen at random. The sequence of commands is the same as TR 4/8-Q1 except that the R factor is “We are going to list a question.” And, if no item F/Ns and no significant read has occurred, the additional action of nulling the list is undertaken with the command, “I will now assess the list.”

TRAINING STRESS: The laws of Listing and Nulling HCOB l Aug 68 apply in full as these are very important laws and ignoring them can result in severe ARC breaks not so much in this drill but in actual sessions. The coach may also require suppress and invalidate buttons be put in on the whole list. All errors, omissions, hesitations and lapses from Tone 40 on the part of the student are flunked. Coach similarly to TR 4/8-Q1. Pass when the student can do it flawlessly three consecutive times. (This drill may be used for internship tapes and videos for assessing and metering passes.)

END PHENOMENA: A person able to do a flawless L & N list as the session or as part of a session, with all TRs in, with perfect metering and proper admin and using Tone 40 in his listing and assessing.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in April, 1980.

SUMMARY

The purpose of these drills is to train the student to ask questions that will get answers and to assess prepared lists that will get accurate reads. If a student dolling these drills has difficulty it will be traced to false data, misunderstood words or not having passed earlier TRs including Upper Indoc or his metering drills as contained in the Book of E-Meter Drills. If a satisfactory result is not obtained, the faults in the above items should be located and remedied and these drills repeated. If any earlier omissions are found and repaired and if these drills are honestly done, heightened success as an auditor (or a surveyor or examiner or ethics officer) is assured.

LRH:dr 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1980 						FOUNDER
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JUNE 1984R
REVISED 1 AUGUST 1990
False Purpose RD
Auditors
and C/Ses
Cramming Officers
False Purpose Rundown Series 9R

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST

This list is used in repairing flubs or case upsets on persons receiving the False Purpose RD.

If after a session on the False Purpose Rundown the person red tags at the Examiner or if he gets sick or upset or falls on his head shortly after the auditing, this list should be assessed and handled to straighten the matter out. The repair action would be a 24-hour repair priority per policy.

If there is a bog during a False Purpose Rundown session, the auditor uses this list to sort the matter out and get the pc rolling again.

This list would normally be done Method 3, as the questions are written in a precise sequence: The initial questions cover those items which would have to be handled first, and the rest of the questions are laid out generally in the order of likelihood of what would be found to have caused the difficulty.

The list should be used with a prefix which acts as a time limiter, such as “In this session.....?” or “On the False Purpose Rundown......?”

The majority of the questions on this list are handled by fully clearing a withhold or withholds that were left unhandled in a session. Once such a question is handled, it is rechecked—as per Sec Checking procedure—to ensure that there is no more to be gotten on that question.

1. 	YOU WENT EXTERIOR?	________

	(Indicate it. If pc has never had an Int RD, give him a standard Int RD per Int RD Series 2. On a Clear or OT, do not run any Dianetics; do an End of Endless Int RD. If you are not a Class V Graduate Auditor, end off for a Class V Grad or above to handle. )

2. 	LIST ERROR?	________

	(Indicate. If Class III or above, find out what list, and repair with L4BRB. If not Class III, end off for handling by a Class III or above.)
 
3. 	WRONG ITEM?	________

	(Handle as in #2.)

4. 	DID YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK?	________

	(ARCU, CDEINR, E/S to F/N.)

5. 	WERE YOU AUDITED OVER A PROBLEM?	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N.)

6. 	WAS A WITHHOLD MISSED?	________

	(Pull it fully, and handle as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

7. 	DID YOU TELL PART OF A WITHHOLD BUT NOT THE REST?	________

	(Get all of the withhold, and handle as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

8. 	DID YOU MISDIRECT THE AUDITOR?	________

	(Treat as a M/W/H. Find out what the overt was that the pc misdirected the auditor away from, and handle the overt as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

9. 	WITHHELD SAYING SOMETHING FOR FEAR OF GETTING INTO ETHICS TROUBLE?	________

	(Pull it fully, as per Sec Checking procedure, to find out what exactly the pc withheld. After getting the what, when, etc., also ask:

	I. 	“What appeared there?”

	II. 	“What didn’t appear there?”

	and then carry on with the False Purpose RD procedure steps—A, B and so on.)

10. 	DID YOU WITHHOLD SOMETHING BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHERS MIGHT THINK?	________

	(Handle as in question #9.)

11. 	DID YOU AVOID TELLING ONE OVERT BY GIVING A DIFFERENT ONE?	________

	(Treat as a M/W/H. Find out what the overt was that the pc avoided telling the auditor, and handle the overt as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

12. 	DID THE AUDITOR FAIL TO FIND OUT SOMETHING ABOUT YOU?	________
	
	(Pull it fully and complete its handling as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)
 
13. 	WAS THERE AN EARLIER OVERT UNDISCLOSED?	________

	(Pull it, and complete its handling as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

14. 	WAS A CHAIN OF OVERTS NOT TAKEN BACK TO BASIC?	________

	(Flatten the overt chain and complete its handling as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

15. 	OVERT TOO LATE ON THE CHAIN?	________

	(Get the earlier overt and complete its handling as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

16. 	WAS AN EARLIER WHOLE TRACK OVERT ON THE CHAIN MISSED?	________

	(Get the earlier overt and complete its handling as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

17. 	HAS AN OVERT BEEN JUSTIFIED?	________

	(Pull the justifications off the overt, then complete its handling as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

18. 	WAS THERE SOME OTHER WAY YOU JUSTIFIED THE OVERT?	________

	(Pull the justifications off the overt, then complete its handling as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

19. 	HAVE YOU TRIED TO LESSEN AN OVERT?	________

	(Find out how he tried to lessen the overt. Then get all of the overt, pull all justifications and complete its handling with steps A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

20. 	A CHAIN OR INCIDENT THAT WAS TOO INCREDIBLE TO BE BELIEVED?	________

	(Get what the chain or incident was. Put in the buttons: Suppressed, Invalidated, Protested, Anxious About, Rejected. It will probably blow and F/N. If it doesn’t, handle per the appropriate step of the False Purpose RD procedure, depending on whether the incident was an overt or evil purpose or whatever. )

21. 	WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT REPUTATION?	________

	(Clean it up 2WC E/S to F/N. Then check for an overt or overts before pc became worried about reputation, and handle with False Purpose RD procedure.)
	
22. 	JUMPED TO A DIFFERENT OVERT CHAIN?	________

	(Find out what overt was being pulled just before the pc jumped to some other overt chain, and complete that original overt chain as per A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure. Then take up the overt chain that the pc had jumped to, and handle that one similarly.)
 
23. 	WENT PAST BASIC ON AN OVERT CHAIN?	________

	(Indicate it. Spot the flat point and indicate the overrun. Rehab if needed, to F/N. Continue with False Purpose RD procedure, step B.)

24. 	WAS THERE AN EVIL PURPOSE THAT DID NOT FULLY BLOW?	________
	(Find the prior confusion and handle as per step C of False Purpose RD procedure. If still not blown, continue assessing this repair list.)

25. 	ON AN EVIL PURPOSE, WAS THE PRIOR CONFUSION NOT FOUND?	________

	(Find the prior confusion and handle as per step C of False Purpose RD procedure.)

26. 	ON AN EVIL PURPOSE, WAS THE WRONG PRIOR CONFUSION FOUND?	________

	(Find the correct prior confusion and handle as per the False Purpose RD procedure, from step C onwards.)

27. 	ON AN EVIL PURPOSE, FAILED TO GET THE EXACT PRIOR CONFUSION?	________

	(Find the exact prior confusion and handle as per the False Purpose RD procedure, from step C onwards.)

28. 	WAS THERE AN EARLIER TIME WHEN YOU HAD THAT SAME EVIL PURPOSE?	________

	(Find the earlier time the pc had that same evil purpose, as per step D of False Purpose RD procedure, and if no spectacular release or persistent F/N, carry on with steps E, etc.)

29. 	ON AN EVIL PURPOSE, DID NOT GET THE FIRST MOMENT OF THE FIRST PRIOR CONFUSION?

	(Reorient to the earliest prior confusion found and get the first moment of that confusion. If no EP, continue as per step D of False Purpose RD procedure.)

30. 	HAS A SERVICE FAC BEEN MISSED?	________

	(2WC to F/N. If no spectacular blow on just getting off the service fac, and if you are a Class IV Auditor or above, run it out fully with the R3SC brackets. If you are not Class IV, end off for handling by a Class IV.)

	(Note: R3SC is a major action and must not be run over out-ruds; the pc must be F/N and VGIs before embarking on the R3SC brackets. If in doubt, end off for a new C/S.)

31. 	IS THERE SOME COMPUTATION THAT YOU USE TO MAKE OTHERS WRONG?	________

	(2WC to F/N. If no spectacular blow on just getting off the service fac, and if you are a Class IV Auditor or above, run it out fully with the R3SC brackets. If you are not Class IV, end off for handling by a Class IV.)

 	(Note: R3SC is a major action and must not be run over out-ruds; the pc must be F/N and VGIs before embarking on the R3SC brackets. If in doubt, end off for a new C/S.)

32. 	PRIOR TO HAVING THE EVIL PURPOSE WAS THERE A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD?	________
	(Get what the word was and clear it up to F/N. This may be what was holding the confusion in place and, on finding this, may result in a spectacular release and persistent F/N. If not, continue as per step D of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

33. 	NO PRIOR CONFUSION?	________

	(2WC to F/N. Depending on what comes up in reply to this question, the auditor would continue with the evil purpose chain being addressed or, in the case of a spectacular release and persistent F/N, would end off for that session.)

34. 	UNDISCLOSED OUT-ETHICS SITUATION?	________

	(Pull it as an overt and carry on from there as per the False Purpose RD procedure, steps A, B and so on.)

35. 	HAS A CRIME BEEN COVERED UP?	________

	(Pull the crime and carry on from there as per the False Purpose RD procedure, steps A, B and so on.)

36. 	DID YOU WITHHOLD TELLING THE AUDITOR WHAT THE EVIL PURPOSE WAS?	________

	(Get what the evil purpose is, and continue on as per step C of the False Purpose RD procedure.)
37. 	HAVE YOU BEEN GIVING FALSE REPORTS OR PR TO COVER UP A CRIME?	________

	(Get what the false reports or PR were, then get the crime that was being covered up. Treat the crime as per the False Purpose RD procedure, steps A, B. etc.)

38. 	DID THE AUDITOR TRY TO RUN OUT A GOOD INTENTION?	________

	(Indicate the BPC and that this was incorrect and should not have been done. If no relief, 2WC E/S “times when an auditor tried to run out a good intention” to F/N.)

39. 	NOT YOUR EVIL PURPOSE?	________

	(If so, indicate to the pc this was not his item. Don’t try to find whose it was.)

40. 	WAS THERE SOME EVIL PURPOSE YOU DIDN’T DARE MENTION?	________

	(Get what the evil purpose is, and continue on as per step C of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

41. 	HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN A BLACK PR CAMPAIGN?	________

	(Pull as a withhold, finding out the specific black PR he has spread, about whom and to whom, and handle this as an overt as per the False Purpose RD procedure, steps A, B. etc. Then, get the prior overt the pc committed and handle with steps A to G. Then check for and handle any other such overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #41.)
	(Note for C/S to program the case for additional FPRD actions as needed.)

42. 	WAS A POSTULATE MISSED?	________

	(Get what the postulate was. It may be a false purpose or evil purpose, in which case carry on as per step C of the False Purpose RD procedure. Do not try to run out a good [prosurvival] intention or postulate.)

43. 	HAD THE EVIL PURPOSE ALREADY BLOWN?	________

	(Rehab. )

44. 	WAS IT NOT AN EVIL PURPOSE BUT SOME OTHER SORT OF NONSURVIVAL CONSIDERATION?	________

	(Get what it is. Then do steps C to G of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

45. 	WAS THERE A CRASHING MISUNDERSTOOD WORD?	________

	(Find and handle the Mis-U word as per HCOB 17 June 79, CRASHING MIS-Us: THE KEY TO COMPLETED CYCLES OF ACTION AND PRODUCTS.)

46. 	WAS AN F/N OVERRUN?	________

	(Rehab. )

47. 	WAS AN F/N MISSED?	________

	(Find out on what and rehab.)

48. 	WAS AN IMPLANT RESTIMULATED?	________

	(Indicate. The pc may BD and F/N with relief and VGIs. If not get the pc to recall moments before the implant, until it blows. If still no blow, date/locate it.)

49. 	DID YOU FAIL TO ANSWER A CONFESSIONAL QUESTION?	________

	(Find out which question and handle with the False Purpose RD procedure, starting with step A.)

50. 	IS THERE MORE THAT SHOULD BE KNOWN ABOUT SOME OVERT?	________

	(Get all of it, using Sec Checking tech, and then carry on with the False Purpose RD procedure steps A, B. etc.)
 
51. 	WAS THERE A QUESTION THAT THE AUDITOR SAID DIDN’T READ THAT SHOULD HAVE?	________

	(Find out what question and get in Suppress and Inval on it. Then handle it fully with the False Purpose RD procedure.)

52. 	WAS A QUESTION OR ITEM TAKEN UP THAT WASN’T CHARGED?	________

	(Get what, indicate it was a false read. Itsa E/S to F/N.)
53. 	WAS A HOT QUESTION NOT TAKEN UP?	________

	(Find out what question and get in Suppress and Inval on it. Then handle it fully with the False Purpose RD procedure.)

54. 	DID YOU TELL A LIE?	________

	(Pull this as per Sec Checking tech, including getting what overt he was covering up with the lie—with all specifics—and handle it using the False Purpose RD procedure, steps A, B. etc.)

55. 	WAS A QUESTION LEFT UNFLAT?	________

	(Find out which one and flatten it with the appropriate step of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

56. 	HAD YOU TOLD ALL?	________

	(Indicate it if so. 2WC E/S to F/N.)

57. 	HAS AN OVERT BEEN PROTESTED?	________

	(Get what it was and get in the Protest button on it. Then handle it fully with False Purpose RD procedure.)

58. 	WERE THERE OVERTS OR WITHHOLDS THAT WEREN’T ACCEPTED?	________

	(Get what. Get who wouldn’t accept it. Get off any Protest and Inval, and clean it up E/S to F/N.)

59. 	DID THE AUDITOR NOT HEAR OR ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT YOU SAID?	________

	(Indicate the BPC. Get what the auditor missed and clean it up E/S to F/N.)

60. 	HAS SOMETHING BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD?	________

	(Clean it up, clearing any Mis-U words, each to F/N.)

61. 	WAS ANYTHING PROTESTED?	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N.)

62. 	MISSED WITHHOLD OF NOTHING?	________

	(Indicate it, and 2WC E/S to F/N.)
 
63. 	WRONG DATE?	________

	(Correct the date to a blow, as per the HCOBs on Dating/ Locating. )

64. 	WRONG LOCATION?	________

	(Correct the location to a blow, as per the HCOBs on Dating/ Locating. )

65. 	EARLIER INCIDENT MISSED?	________
	(Get the earlier incident and complete handling from the appropriate step of False Purpose RD procedure.)

66. 	ARE THERE OPINIONS YOU DON’T DARE SAY?	________
	
	(Get what. 2WC E/S to F/N. Then check for an overt or overts before the pc felt he couldn’t state his opinions. Handle with False Purpose RD procedure.)

67. 	WERE YOU WAITING FOR A DIFFERENTLY WORDED OVERT OR WITHHOLD QUESTION?	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N. Then pull any overt chain that was missed and handle with False Purpose RD procedure, steps A, B. etc.)

68. 	ARE YOU WITHHOLDING ANYTHING?	________

	(Get what it is and handle with False Purpose RD procedure.)

69. 	DID YOU TELL ANY HALF-TRUTHS?	________

	(Get all of the withhold and handle with False Purpose RD procedure.)

70. 	WAS THERE SOMETHING THE AUDITOR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT YOU THAT HE DIDN’T?	________

	(Pull it and handle with False Purpose RD procedure.)

71. 	PRIOR TO COMMITTING THE OVERT WAS THERE AN EVIL PURPOSE OR DESTRUCTIVE INTENTION?	________

	(Get what the evil purpose is, and continue on as per step C of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

72. 	DO YOU HAVE A HARMFUL INTENTION TOWARD OTHERS?	________

	(Pull the harmful intention and continue on as per step C of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

73. 	IS THERE SOME PURPOSE OR CONSIDERATION YOU HAVE THAT CONFLICTS WITH SCIENTOLOGY?	________

	(Get what the evil purpose is, and continue on as per step C of the False Purpose RD procedure.)
 
74. 	WAS SOME HIDDEN IMPULSE NOT REVEALED?	________

	(Get what it is and continue its handling as per step C of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

75. 	DID YOU PR AN ETHICS OFFICER INTO BELIEVING A SITUATION WAS HANDLED WHEN IT WASN’T?	________

	(Handle as a withhold and continue with step A of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

76. 	DO YOU INTEND TO GO ON COMMITTING OVERTS SIMILAR TO THOSE YOU’VE GOTTEN OFF?	________
	(Handle as a withhold and continue with step A of the False Purpose RD procedure.)

77. 	WERE YOU PRETENDING TO BE PTS TO AVOID TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOME OVERT OR INTENTION?	________

	(Handle as a withhold and continue handling the overt or intention with the False Purpose RD procedure.)

78. 	DID THE AUDITOR CALL AN F/N WHEN YOU DIDN’T FEEL YOU WERE F/Ning?	________

	(Indicate it if so. 2WC E/S to F/N. Find out what question was being run and complete its handling to F/N. If this turns out to be an unflat overt chain, flatten it fully with the False Purpose RD procedure.)

79. 	DID YOU HAVE TO GET THE SAME W/Hs OFF MORE THAN ONCE?	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N.)

80. 	SOMEONE DEMANDED A W/H YOU DIDN’T HAVE?	________

	(Indicate if so. 2WC E/S to F/N.)

81. 	WAS THERE A WITHHOLD THAT KEPT COMING UP?	________

	(Get what it was and then clean up anything that wasn’t gotten off about the withhold, any unhandled misses of that withhold, and if not then fully handled, take it E/S and find and handle the underlying, unhandled incident as per False Purpose RD. [Ref: HCOB 21 Mar. 62, PREPCHECKING DATA, WHEN TO DO A WHAT; Tape: 6201C11, THE MISSED MISSED WITHHOLD])

82. 	WERE THERE AUDITOR’S CODE BREAKS?	________

	(Get what. Indicate it was illegal and 2WC E/S to F/N. C/S to program for a QUESTIONABLE AUDITING REPAIR LIST, HCOB 11 July 82 I.)

83. 	HAVE YOU WANTED THIS RUNDOWN TO FAIL?	________

	(Handle as a W/H. Pull all of the W/H, and then take the O/W E/S to a full handling as per steps A to G of the False Purpose RD.)

84. 	WERE YOU AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN? 	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N.)

85. 	WAS THERE AN INJUSTICE? 	________
	(2WC E/S to F/N. Then check for any similar overt of the pc’s own and handle any found with False Purpose RD procedure.)

86. 	WAS THERE A BETRAYAL? 	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N. Then check for any similar overt of the pc’s own and handle any found with False Purpose RD procedure.)

87. 	DID THE AUDITOR GET ANGRY AT YOU? 	________
	(If this happened, indicate it is illegal to do so. 2WC E/S to F/N. Clean up any ARC break to F/N.) (C/S to program for a QUESTIONABLE AUDITING REPAIR LIST, HCOB 11 July 82 I.)

88. 	WAS ANYTHING SUPPRESSED? 	________

	(Clean it up E/S to F/N.)

89. 	WAS ANYTHING INVALIDATED? 	________

	(Clean it up E/S to F/N.)

90. 	HAVE YOU NEVER REALLY DONE ANYTHING BAD? 	________

	(Handle with “murder routine,” getting an overt or overts and handling with steps A to G of the False Purpose RD procedure. )

91. 	WAS ANYTHING FALSIFIED? 	________

	(Clean it up as a W/H and complete its handling with False Purpose RD procedure.)

92. 	WAS THERE ANY EVALUATION? 	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N.)

93. 	WERE YOU TIRED OR HUNGRY? 	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N.)

94. 	HAD YOU RECENTLY TAKEN DRUGS? MEDICINE? ALCOHOL? 	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N. Note for C/S.)

95. 	WAS THERE A FALSE READ? 	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N. Indicate the false read if so. Can also clean it up with Suppress, Inval, Protest, if needed.)
 
96. 	WAS THERE A FALSE ACCUSATION?	________

	(2WC E/S to F/N.)
97. 	WAS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE METER OR CANS?	________

	(False TA handling.)

98. 	BYPASSED CHARGE FROM SOME OTHER AUDITING ERROR?	________

	(Find out what auditing action and handle with the appropriate repair list.)

99. 	DRUG INCIDENT RESTIMULATED?	________

	(Handle with L3RH. On a Clear or above, only indicate the reads. )

	(Note for C/S.)

100.	WAS THERE AN OVERT ON SOME OTHER DYNAMIC?	________

	(Pull the overt and handle as per steps A, B. C, etc., of False Purpose RD procedure.)

	(Note for C/S to program the case for any additional Sec Check forms needed, to be done after the current form has been completed.)

101.	WAS THERE AN OVERT ON SOME OTHER SUBJECT OR AREA OF LIFE?	________

	(Pull the overt and handle as per steps A, B. C, etc., of False Purpose RD procedure.)

	(Note for C/S to program the case for any additional Sec Check forms needed, to be done after the current form has been completed.)

102.	IN THIS LIFETIME, HAVE YOU BEEN IMPLANTED BY A PSYCHIATRIST OR PRIEST?	________

	(Applying the tools of Sec Checking tech, find out all of the data of the incident, including: name of implanted the time, place, form and event of the incident; any commands that were given to pc and to what degree the pc has carried out or executed these commands and suggestions.)

	(Note for C/S for further PDH follow-up actions.)

103.	IN THIS LIFETIME, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A VICTIM OF PAIN-DRUG-HYPNOSIS?	________

	(Applying the tools of Sec Checking tech, find out all of the data of the incident, including: name of implanted the time, place, form and event of the incident; any commands that were given to pc and to what degree the pc has carried out or executed these commands and suggestions.)
	(Note for C/S for further PDH follow-up actions to be programed. )
 
104.	IN THIS LIFETIME, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DRUGGED AND THEN ELECTRIC SHOCKED WITHOUT KNOWING IT?	________

	(Handle as in question #103.)

105.	IN THIS LIFETIME, HAVE YOU EVER HAD A STRANGE, DESTRUCTIVE IMPULSE YOU COULDN’T ACCOUNT FOR?	________

	(Handle as in question #103.)

106. IN THIS LIFETIME, WAS THERE A TIME WHEN YOU SAW A PSYCHIATRIST BUT AFTERWARD COULD NOT REMEMBER EVERYTHING THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE?	________

	(Handle as in question #103.)

107.	WHEN ASKED FOR AN OVERT OR EARLIER-SIMILAR OVERT, COULD YOU ONLY SEE BLACKNESS?	________

	(Have the pc close his eyes and then do the following:

I. 	Date/Locate the overt—whatever the pc can see of it—as exactly as you can. This may blow it and result in a persistent F/N. Or it may just change the view slightly.
II. 	If no persistent F/N, run this command repetitive to EP: “What part of that scene you’re looking at could you be responsible for?” continuing to repeat the question no matter how many times the pc repeats the same answer and even if the pc gives you the most strained or vague answers. Run the process to F/N, cognition, VGIs.

III. 	If no spectacular release and persistent F/N, Sec Check the overt as per step A of the rundown and continue with steps B. C, etc.)

108.	WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WRONG?	________

	(If so and it doesn’t clean up on 2WC, GF M5 and handle.)

109.	HAS THE UPSET BEEN HANDLED?	________

	(2WC. If so, indicate it to F/N.)

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 NOVEMBER 1984

C/Ses 
FPRD 
Auditors 
Tech/Qual
False Purpose Rundown Series 9-1

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST
WORD LIST

Refs:
	HCO PL 4 Apr. 72R III	ETHICS AND STUDY TECH
	Rev. 21.6.75
	HCOB 8 July 74R I	Word Clearing Series 53R
	Rev. 24.7.74	CLEAR TO F/N
	HCOB 21 June 72 I	Word Clearing Series 38
		METHOD 5
	HCOB 9 Aug. 78 II	CLEARING COMMANDS
	HCOB 17 July 79RA I	Word Clearing Series 64RA
	Rev. 30.7.83	THE MISUNDERSTOOD WORD DEFINED

These are the words from HCOB 13 June 84, FPRD Series 9, FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST.

These words should be cleared on the pc before the False Purpose Rundown Correction List is actually assessed, per HCOB 9 Aug. 78 II, CLEARING COMMANDS.

The auditor or student must have received high-crime checkouts from Qual on the above references before clearing these words on a pc. The auditor or student uses Method 5 Word Clearing when clearing these words on the pc.

This word list need only be cleared once in the pc’ s auditing if it was correctly cleared the first time. Words previously cleared are not recleared.

WORDS FROM THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
CORRECTION LIST

A, about, accepted, account, accurately, accusation, acknowledge, afraid, afterward, alcohol, all, already, an, angry, answer, any, anything, ARC break, are, area, asked, at, audited, auditing, auditor, Auditor’s Code, avoid.

Back, bad, basic, be, because, been, believed, believing, betrayal, blackness, black PR, blow, blown, breaks, but, by, bypassed, bypassed charge.

Call, campaign, cans, chain, charge, charged, coming up, committing, computation, Confessional, conflicts, confusion, consideration, could, couldn’t, covered up, cover up, Crashing Misunderstood Word, crime.

Dare, date, demanded, destructive, did, didn’t, different, differently, do, done, don’t, drug, drugged, drugs, dynamic.
 
Earlier, electric, else, error, ethics, Ethics Officer, evaluation, ever, everything, evil, exact, exterior.

Fail, failed, false, falsified, fear, feel, find out, first, F/N, F/Ning, for, found, from, fully.

Get, getting, giving, good, go on, gotten, gotten off.

Had, half-truths, handled, happen, harmful, has, have, have to, having, he, hear, hidden, hot, hungry.

Implant, implanted, impulse, in, incident, incredible, injustice, intend, intention, into, invalidated, involved, is, it, item.

Jumped, justified.

Kept, knowing, known.

Late, left, lessen, lie, life, lifetime, list, location.

Make, medicine, mention, meter, might, misdirect, missed, missed withhold, misunderstood, moment, more.

Never, no, nonsurvival, not, nothing.

Of, off, officer, on, once, one, only, opinions, or, other, others, out, out-ethics, over, overrun, overt, overts.

Pain-drug-hypnosis, part, past, postulate, PR, pretending, priest, prior, problem, protested, psychiatrist, PTS, purpose.

Question.

Read, really, recently, remember, reports, reputation, responsibility, rest, restimulated, revealed, run, rundown, run out.

Said, same, saw, say, saying, Scientology, Sec Check, see, service fac, shocked, should, similar, situation, some, someone, something, sort, strange, subject, suppressed.

Taken, taken place, taken up, taking, tell, telling, than, that, the, then, there, think, this, those, time, tired, to, told, too, toward, tried, trouble, try.

Undisclosed, unflat, upset, use.

Victim.

Waiting, wanted, was, wasn’t, way, went, were, weren’t, what, when, whole track, with, withheld, withhold, withholding, withholds, without, word, worded, worried, wrong.

You, your, you’ve.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JUNE 1984

Remimeo 
C/Ses 
FPRD 
Auditors and C/Ses 
Tech/Qual 
MAA/Ethics Offs

False Purpose Rundown Series 10-A

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN BASIC FORM

Refs:
	HCOB 5 June 84R	FPRD Series 1R
	Rev. 11.1.90	FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
	HCOB 9 June 84R	FPRD Series 5R
	Rev. 3.5.85	AUDITING THE FALSE
		PURPOSE RUNDOWN
	HCOB 1 Mar. 77 III	FORMULATING CONFESSIONAL
		QUESTIONS
	HCOB 1 Mar. 77 II	CONFESSIONAL FORMS

Here is the basic form employed on the False Purpose Rundown. It is written for use on any pc or pre-OT beginning the rundown.

This list may have questions added to it by the C/S, but questions are not deleted from it in any case. Other False Purpose RD forms may also be used in the course of the rundown, but this list is given as the basic list to be used for any pc beginning the rundown.

AUDITOR INSTRUCTIONS

The auditor does the whole form on the pc, starting with the Section I questions and proceeding on through to the end of the Section II questions. Every question is cleared and checked on the meter per standard Sec Checking tech.

Reading questions on this list are handled with False Purpose Rundown procedure. The form itself is composed of two sections of questions.

Questions in Section I of this form ask for overts, which are handled with Steps A through G of the False Purpose Rundown procedure.

Questions in Section II ask directly for evil purposes and destructive intentions, and are handled using Steps C through G of False Purpose Rundown procedure.

SECTION I QUESTIONS:

1. 	DO YOU HAVE A BACK-OFF IN HANDLING SOME AREA OF YOUR LIFE?	________

	(Find which area he has a back-off on handling, get when it started and then pull the prior overt. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then recheck the original question, 1.)
2. 	IS THERE SOME OVERT ACT YOU’VE HAD TO RESTRAIN YOURSELF FROM COMMITTING?	________

3. 	IS THERE SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY WITHHELD IN AUDITING OR SEC CHECKING?	________

4. 	DO YOU HAVE A SECRET OVERT?	________

5. 	DO YOU HAVE A BACK-OFF ON HANDLING SOME PERSON?	________

	(Find out which person he has a back-off on handling, get when it started and then pull the prior overt. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then recheck the original question, 5.)

6. 	HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD GET INTO SERIOUS TROUBLE FOR?	________

7. 	HAVE YOU BEEN REASONABLE WITH PERSONS YOU SHOULD HAVE HANDLED?	________

	(Find out what person[s] he has been reasonable with in handling, get when it started and then pull the prior overt. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then recheck the original question, 7.)

8. 	DO YOU HAVE SOME WITHHOLD YOU HAVEN’T WANTED TO DISCUSS?	________

9. 	HAVE YOU EVER BETRAYED A FRIEND?	________

10. 	HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT AGAINST YOURSELF?	________

11. 	HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING THAT WAS HARMFUL TO YOUR OWN BODY?	________

12. 	IS THERE SOMETHING YOU REGRET HAVING DONE TO SOMEONE?	________

13. 	HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SEXUALLY UNFAITHFUL?	________

14. 	HAVE YOU EVER DELIBERATELY HURT SOMEONE YOU LOVED?	________

15. 	HAVE YOU EVER COMPROMISED YOUR INTEGRITY?	________

16. 	HAVE YOU EVER USED DRUGS OR ALCOHOL TO TRAP SOMEONE?	________

17. 	HAVE YOU EVER ILL-TREATED CHILDREN?	________

18. 	HAVE YOU COMMITTED ANY OVERTS AGAINST YOUR FAMILY?	________
 
19. HAVE YOU EVER DONE SOMETHING HARMFUL TO ANOTHER’S MIND?	________

20. 	HAVE YOU DELIBERATELY QUICKIED ANY PRODUCT OR IMPORTANT CYCLE ON YOUR JOB?	________
21. 	HAVE YOU DONE A BRUSH-OFF JOB OF SOMETHING?	________

22. 	HAVE YOU KNOWINGLY GONE BY MIS-Us ON YOUR JOB?	________

23. 	IS THERE SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE YOU THINK MIGHT GET YOU REMOVED FROM YOUR JOB OR GROUP, IF IT WERE KNOWN?	________

24. 	HAVE YOU EVER CONSISTENTLY MADE A PRACTICE OF SEXUAL PERVERSION?	________

25. 	HAVE YOU CHEATED SOMEONE WHO TRUSTED YOU?	________

26. 	HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING TO MAKE YOUR GROUP OR ORGANIZATION LOSE?	________

27. 	HAVE YOU EVER CAVED SOMEONE IN?	________

28. 	HAVE YOU MISREPRESENTED YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL?	________

29. 	HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN ELECTRIC SHOCKING OR IMPLANTING SOMEONE?	________

30. 	HAVE YOU EVER DELIBERATELY INJURED SOMEONE?	________

31. 	HAVE YOU EVER INJURED DIANETICS OR SCIENTOLOGY?	________

32. 	HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT ON A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION?	________

33. 	IS THERE AN OVERT THAT YOU HAVE COVERED UP WITH FALSE PR?	________

	(The act of false PRing should be gotten off, but then pull the actual OVERT that was being covered up, E/S to F/N.)

34. 	HAVE YOU ALTERED LRH TECH?	________

35. 	IS THERE SOME OTHER OVERT YOU HAVE COMMITTED THAT WOULD BE AWFUL TO HAVE TO GET OFF?	________
 
36. 	HAVE YOU EVER CAVED YOURSELF IN?	________

SECTION II QUESTIONS:

37. 	DO YOU HAVE A SECRET DESIRE TO SEE SOMEONE FAIL?	________

38. 	HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN IMPULSE TO COMMIT SUICIDE?	________

39. 	HAVE YOU HAD SOME PURPOSE WHICH IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PURPOSE OF SCIENTOLOGY?	________

40. 	DO YOU HAVE SOME SECRET PURPOSE?	________

41. 	DO YOU INTEND TO HARM SCIENTOLOGY DISSEMINATION?	________

42. 	HAVE YOU HAD A HIDDEN EVIL PURPOSE ON SOME OTHER DYNAMIC?	________

43. 	HAVE YOU HAD A FEELING OF WANTING TO GET EVEN FOR SOMETHING?	________

44. 	HAVE YOU EVER HAD A VICIOUS, CRUEL INTENTION TOWARDS SOMEONE?	________

45. 	IS THERE SOME OUT-ETHICS IMPULSE THAT YOU HAVE FAILED TO RESTRAIN?	________

	(Pull the overt.)

END RUDS:

	(Session withholds are handled with usual withhold rudiment procedure. Undisclosed overts missed in doing the questions on the list are handled with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure.)

1. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD A HALFTRUTH?	________

2. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD AN UNTRUTH?	________

3. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ONLY TO IMPRESS ME?	________

4. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TRIED TO DAMAGE SOMEONE?	________

5. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU DELIBERATELY TRIED TO INFLUENCE THE E-METER?	________

6. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU SUCCESSFULLY WITHHELD SOMETHING?	________
 
7. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU COVERED UP FOR SOMEONE ELSE?	________

8. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYONE SAID YOU HAD A WITHHOLD WHEN YOU DIDN’T HAVE ONE?	________

9. 	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN ASSERTED?	________

10.	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN SUPPRESSED?	________

11.	IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN INVALIDATED?	________

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JUNE 1984
Remimeo	Issue II
All Class IV Orgs
All Missions
Tech/Qual
False Purpose RD
Auditors, C/Ses
and Supervisors
Cramming Officers
D of T

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
INFO FOR ORGS AND MISSIONS

The distribution of False Purpose Rundown Series 10-B, FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN, ELIGIBILITY FOR OT LEVELS FORM (HCOB 15 June 84 I) is limited to Saint Hills, Advanced Orgs and the Flag Service Org.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder