Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 08/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 24 Nov 1999 23:47:42 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 08/35 (20th American Advanced Clinical Course)

**************************************************

Contents

20th ACC - First Postulate Cassettes [clearsound]

New #    Old #   Date     Title

20ACC-1  (1)   14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE
20ACC-2  (1A)  14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-3  (2)   15 Jul 58 ACC PROCEDURE OUTLINED E-METER TRS
20ACC-4  (2A)  15 Jul 58 ACC PROC OUTLINED - E-METER TRS - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-5  (3)   16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED
20ACC-6  (3A)  16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-7  (4)   17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION
20ACC-8  (4A)  17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-9  (5)   18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE
20ACC-10 (5A)  18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-11 (6)   21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCIENTOLOGY CLEARING
20ACC-12 (6A)  21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCN - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-13 (7)   22 Jul 58 THE ROCK
20ACC-14 (7A)  22 Jul 58 THE ROCK - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-15 (8)   23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES,  ANATOMY OF
20ACC-16 (8A)  23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES, ANATOMY - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-17 (9)   24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE
20ACC-18 (9A)  24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAG. PROC - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-19 (10)  25 Jul 58 THE ROCK: PUTTING THE PC AT CAUSE
20ACC-20 (10A) 25 Jul 58 Q&A PERIOD - CLEARING THE COMMAND
20ACC-21 (11)  28 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET - GOALS OF AUDITING
20ACC-22 (12)  29 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont.)
20ACC-23 (13)  30 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont. 2)
20ACC-24 (14)  31 Jul 58 RUNNING THE CASE AND THE ROCK
20ACC-25 (15)   1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING
20ACC-26 (15A)  1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont.)
20ACC-27 (16)   4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont. 2)
20ACC-28 (16A)  4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-29 (17)   5 Aug 58 ARC
20ACC-30 (18)   6 Aug 58 THE ROCK - ITS ANATOMY
20ACC-31 (19)   7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL
20ACC-32 (19A)  7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-33 (20)   8 Aug 58 AUDITOR INTEREST
20ACC-34 (20A)  8 Aug 58 REQUISITES AND FUNDAMENTALS OF A SESSION
20ACC-35 (21)  15 Aug 58 SUMMARY OF 20TH ACC

The clearsound set includes an Appendix containing two HCOBs.  This
has been included with the first lecture above.

Note that old 15B "Q & A PERIOD" of 2 Aug 58 was marked as missing in
the Flag Master List and was later found by Gold.  Its absense here
probably means that they found it to be the same as old 16A (20ACC-28
in the above list).

Old number 19B "Q & A Period" of 8 Aug in the Flag Master List
is also omitted but 20ACC-32 (old 19A) is extremely long and probably
contains both old 19A and 19B.

Note 20ACC-2 (1A) does not appear on the Flag Master List but
appears to be genuine.

We were able to check ten of these against the old reels and
found minor omissions [marked ">" in the transcripts.]

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

20ACC-8  (4A)  17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION - Q AND A PERIOD

BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION - QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

A lecture given on 17 July 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

Yes?

Male voice: I would like for you to go into that thing
about your intention to help is so strong that it surpassed
or exceeded the point where you decided you'd failed. You
picked up the guy's identity to continue with. Could you
straighten that out some?

Well, it's probably the primary basis of valence shifts.
You tried to help somebody, tried to help somebody, tried
to help somebody.

All right. In life, let us say you got married, you got a
job, you did this, you did that, you gave up a lot of
pursuits one way or the other to help somebody. Help your
wife, you know. She didn't like dancing so you forgot about
dancing. You know? And she was very fond of living in the
country; you didn't much care for it but you went into the
country. Get the idea? You made certain investments, you
took some special training so that you could improve your
job so that you could work from nine till five instead of
working the midnight shift, or something of the sort. You
know? All these things you did - you were trying to help
somebody. See? All right. They blow up, leave, disappear
out of your life for some reason or other, you see? Now
you're hung with all of the computations which you did for
their sake so you make that person responsible for those
computations. And you go flip. Get the idea? Because you
don't put the brakes on all of your help. If you were to
cut off each method of help which you used to assist that
person and terminate each one of those, you'd never do a
valence flip.

They disappear, run off with the chauffeur or something of
the sort. And you suddenly realize this is happening and if
you realize at the same time that you're still strong and
good-looking and can get a hundred thousand girls if you
want - very few fellows who are suddenly deserted ever
remember this, by the way and girls never remember this
either. They forget all about this sort of thing. But if
they're clever and they know something about life and
livingness, and so on, all they would have to do is turn
around and see all of the places where they had grooved in
to help this person, you see, and terminate those too and
they'd never do an apparent valence shift.

They convince themselves of the valence shift because all
of these helping mechanisms are still in continuance. The
person must be there if the person who is doing the helping
is still doing the helping. There must be something there
to help. And a person explains it to himself by itself.
See, it's obvious the person's still there if you still
live in the country, are working on this nine to five
shift. If life is going along in that way, then you must
still be helping that person. But they're not there so you
must be helping somebody so it must have been yourself. But
it really helped you - flip - you have become the person
and then you are helping that person. You've done a valence
shift and you're sort of schizzy from there on. Get the
idea?

Audience: Uh-huh.

That explain it?

Male voice: There's still a little...

It's a carry-over, is all.

Male voice: Yeah.

The first postulate is the valid one. I'll give you the old
one, two, three, four postulate, see. But the first
postulate is always the valid one. And the first postulate
was to help and the next postulate, to destroy, is invalid.

Yes?

Female voice: Doesn't it also really kind of prove what you
were saying here? You said if he'd just turn around and
look. If he doesn't turn around, he just keeps going right
out and then becomes that terminal.

That's right. That's right, particularly if he refuses to
look at the terminal anymore and turns away from the
terminal, then he doesn't as-is the shadows of it and the
shadows are still there and he runs straight into the
shadows. Then after that he's a shadow.

Yes?

Male voice: Does this begin with a matter of opposing goals?

Usually.

Male voice: Trying to help someone with opposing goals than yours?

Yes. And it's already in extremis to change all of your
goals to help somebody.

Male voice: Yeah.

Just like it would be in extremis for an auditor to assume
the goal of succumb for the preclear.

Male voice: Right.

That would be something if - if I'd have a goal that it -
a Scientologist doesn't have goals of this character but
let's just use one. He has the goal that this person is
going to go back to work and become a reputable citizen.
See? He's got this as a goal. And the person wants to
become a disreputable citizen and never work again. And in
order to help him, then the Scientologist would say, "Well,
we'll have to audit him in the direction to uninhibit him
so that he can be a disreputable citizen and never have to
work again." By the way, it wouldn't work, his doing this,
and it would be a total surrender of your original
intentions. So you've been a traitor to yourself. You see?
So your task, if you are going in that direction at all,
is to shift the direction of the fellow's goals - sometimes
quite tricky.

Male voice: Hm.

But it's done on a basis of contribution. If he'll help you
enough, he will also help you by assuming your goals on the
basis that they're your goals. So if your goals are always
the goals of an optimum solution, they covertly were his
goals in the first place too. See? And you always win. An
auditor is liable to get, if he gets too good, in being in
the horrible situation of always winning.

Yes, Jack?

Male voice: Yeah. Uh, it looks to me, Ron, as though
affinity is the creation of willingness all the way up the
line. So, therefore, if the auditor can create a
pan-determined willingness in the session, he's got it made
because he can - not all the time violate mechanics, but he
can to some extent violate mechanics and yet, with the
creation of willingness, still achieve his goals. I'm not
suggesting he should, I'm just saying it's possible.

If his willingness parallels an optimum solution...

Male voice: Yeah.

.. he can pan-determine it without having to pan-determine
it really at all because it's already there in the preclear.

Male voice: Well, the willingness - what I'm getting at here
is, you can get a mechanical two-way situation. Remember,
we used to run, "Hello..."

Mm-huh.

Male voice: "... I'm fine." You know, that bit.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: If you could run it for hours nothing would
happen. No willingness there. But if you create willingness
you have affinity and, therefore, the creation of reality
and communication too.

Right. Right. Very good.

Male voice: Thank you.

Okay. Any questions germane to these short cycles you're running?

Yes?

Male voice: Question on that end of session. How would it
be if you bridged into the end of session, got his
agreement and then said, "Say with me, say with me, 'End of
session'?" Yeah, that's nothing wrong with that. There's
nothing wrong with that. I go so far as to make the
preclear tell me that the session is over. And I tell them
that's for me and make them consider they've contributed an
end of session. That's quite overt. If you make them
contribute your end of session - they have already been
contributing to you and what you've just said would be
workable, of course. You bet.

All right. Now, is there anything you are running into
still with the TRs? Hm? Who feels he's had it with TRs?
Can't get anyplace, can't do anything about it, hm? Boy,
nobody will own up to that one.

Yes?

Female voice: Well, I still feel very stiff indeed when I'm
asked just to sit upright and keep a completely straight face.

Yeah.

Female voice: And I don't want to carry that over into
regular auditing. That's a terrible battle. Now, I never
did slop over preclears. I've always looked at them. But
this stiff thing seems as though it was a cage or something.

Well, just for the theoretical sake of it, you should be
able to do it without worrying about it and I think that's
what your Instructor is working on.

Female voice: I know.

That's what your Instructor is working on. There must be
something there your Instructor is trying to get at, one
way or the other.

Female voice: That's how it is.

Yeah. I'm afraid.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, Ron, I'm having a little bit of trouble
with the TRs in this respect: that the TRs are running me
while I'm running the session. In other words, I'm always
aware of, well, did I create my space? Am I confronting?
Oh, yeah? Something like asking a sculptor how he sculpts.

Male voice: That's right. That's right.

Uh, sure.

Male voice: Why I gave you this, I wanted to know how do
you get back from this and just know you're doing it all
right? Well, it sounds like one of these brush-off answers,
but it isn't. It's: you do it. You just make up your mind
to do a session that way...

Male voice: Oh, yeah, I get it.

.. and not to consider that there's any other way and just
to do a session that way. And you all of a sudden will find
yourself at cause over the TRs and as soon as you do that,
they smooth right out.

You can take somebody who's been auditing fairly well and
then shove all of the horrible, skeletal bric-a-brac at him
of communication and all the rest of this sort of thing and
get him terribly aware of the bones. And after that he
can't tell a hip joint from an eye socket, you know? The
way to get him back in the groove - he hasn't lost anything.
He's in some sort of a borderline between "It's
uncomfortable to know," you see, and an attempt to suppress
what he is already doing, which is probably right. You
know? And it's like somebody studying the Axioms. They very
often, a third or half of the way through studying an axiom
will restimulate the forgetter, the inhibitor, that they
have put on the axiom in the first place. And the axiom is
very close to home, you see and this doggone inhibitor will
get restimulated to such a degree that they lose their
memory of the axiom. And they go over the axiom and they've
got it just fine and then the person who is coaching them -
helping them with it, you know - looks alertly for them to
quote the axiom now and the fellow goes, daaaaaaah. See,
it's gone. And then in a moment or two it'll flicker back
again and then it will flicker out. And it'll flicker back.
And it's just not consistently there.

Well, if he continues to create the axiom, you know, he
continues to create the Axiom, he will blow the necessity
for the inhibitor and the axiom will blow into view.

And something can happen in studying the Axioms which is
fascinating: is that they can actually be blown out of the
considerations of the person. Quite often happens. The
person feels much freer after they've studied the Axioms.
They don't quite realize what's taken place.

Well, similarly, the rules of communication are also buried
and you can go through a period of the TRs going
flicker-flack. They're in view, very prominent, you know?
But then you get at it again and it seems to be going
smoothly and then they'll sort of flip-flop on you and you
have to retreat and it's whether you're the cause of the
TRs or not. As long as the TRs, in your opinion, belong to
somebody else they'll continue to raise their heads and
bite. But when you yourself are willing to adopt them and
take them for your own and create them as you go, why, then
they just smoothly flow out and after that not only do the
TRs not bother you but neither does auditing.

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, on the very touchy subject of money...

Yes?

Female voice: ... would you mind telling me why it seems to
be that around HASIs there has to be a mocked-up shortage
of this stuff? It's an interesting fact, isn't it?

Female voice: Yes, it is.

We have talks to the staff about this every once in a
while. It's true, we do. We do. There isn't any real
shortage of it. The truth of the matter is people on staff
would rather give away what we are doing than charge for
it. This is the first thing we run into, you see.

Female voice: Oh, yeah, I see.

And they don't like going through a via, particularly. And
they forget this every once in a while and they'd give away
the front of the building if you'd let them.

And then the other way this happens is equally simple: is,
the organization does so much - one of these organizations -
one of the most complicated organizations in the world from
the standpoint of the number of things that it's doing -
and to do all these things comfortably would require, oh,
it would require the annual contribution that the government
makes to psychiatry and psychology. It would require the
annual budget of the Ford Foundation or something of this
character. And we buy so darn much for so very little that
there's always a shortage. There's always so much more we
could be doing.

Talking to somebody the other day, he said, "Why don't
we - why don't we just set up a clinic and audit the
government?" Simple, isn't it? Love to do it - be very
successful. I never go up on Capitol Hill but what I find
myself in an auditing session with some bigwig; get him to
start telling me his troubles and we're right off to the
races, you know? He generally doesn't know what's happened
to him.

It'd be a very simple thing. All you would do is open a
nice, big clinic that's very imposing and you - it merely
said the Psychological Orientation Clinic or something of
the sort, you know, and it had some noncommittal name and
just start writing letters. Probably years would go by
before they found out it wasn't a government department.
It's quite simple but it's just beyond our ability to finance.

Now, that is a shortage of money. That definitely is a
shortage of money when we can't do something like that.
Now, that's the one we're trying to solve. We're trying to
solve that one heavily. How can we get enough money to do
these things and still not violate the help-contribute
angle and so on? For instance, I run all sorts of help
curves. The one that is totally unhelpful and this seems to
be utterly non sequitur - Alexandre Dumas wrote an enormous
cookbook, Alexandre Dumas, Senior. It's probably the
world's finest cookbook. I don't think any copies of it are
available in English.

I was in an American restaurant the other day; they didn't
even know they were eating Spanish food. Spanish food is
what's served here in America. Everybody thinks Spanish
food, you know, is tortillas and frijoles and that sort of
thing. Nobody's ever heard of those in Spain. It's
beefsteak and potatoes and salad and just what we eat in
this country. We eat almost totally Spanish cookery.

Now here's all of this - this tremendous tome of French
cookery which is lying there undistributed, you know. It's
one of the most fascinating books you ever got your nose
into. It's how they buy peaches at the royal palace, for
instance; long dissertation on the subject of how you tell
a good peach from a bad peach and - just this fantastic man
wrote this fantastic cookbook, you know? And I'd like to
publish it. Utterly non sequitur. There's no reason for it
at all, you know. I just think it would be an amusing thing
to do; bring out this book with this great big title across
the top of it, you know, "Alexandre Dumas," you know, write
it BIG, you know, and then "Cookbook." It would be an awful
shock to people. They would undoubtedly have his cookery
confused with d'Artagnan's rapier. But that's just a
foolish project, an amusing project.

Anything foolish or amusing just has to go by the boards
around this organization. You have to cut it close. You
generally can appropriate a budget which will be adequate
for about one-fifth and then do twice as much work with it.

Well, we've had suggestions of running the staff on money.
As a matter of fact, by the way, we started doing that some
time ago.

Female voice: Good.

You know how to cure somebody of money difficulties?

It's quite easy. You give them a dollar bill and a
fifty-cent piece or a pound note and a shilling. And you
have them alternate - place them alternately left to right.
Have him keep them from going away and hold them still and
make them more solid. And if you run it properly, why, you
will first run Help on money, you see, and then you'll run
this one on money. And the first thing, you know, he's
worried. He's trying to stop his abilities because it would
ruin the game if he could - he realizes suddenly that he
might be able to mock up money. You know, just mock up a
perfectly valid stack of twenty-dollar bills or five-pound
notes or something of the sort. And if everybody could do
that, money would have no value and then he can't conceive
how you would solve the barter system and we're off to the
races.

I've had people get worried. Every time this has ever been
run, the person, sooner or later, gets worried about this
factor but you certainly can solve money.

Yes?

Male voice: Doesn't this - in running this, don't they go on
a gradient scale up on this? First they start to collect
the result of the money before they actually collect money?

Yes. You mean the results of running the process on
somebody? Yeah.

Male voice: Because then they collect a lot of mass, a lot
of MEST and still no money.

Yeah.

Male voice: Then they go to no MEST and a lot of money.

Yeah.

Male voice: And then they go to no money and no MEST.

Maybe not quite that bad. If you're good enough with an
intention, you could walk up to somebody and without saying
anything to him, why, have him hand you a dollar bill. If
you're good enough with Tone 40.

Yes, Jack?

Male voice: I've - just a comment on that, Ron. When I was
down here during the 19th you told me about that. And on
the airplane back, when I went back to Chicago, I mocked up
twenty-dollar bills and kept them from going away. And for
about the next two months I had a stack of twenty-dollar
bills, one way or another, in my wallet..

Yeah.

Male voice: ... until I finally got kind of worried about
that and carried tens around instead.

Works too good.

Yes?

Male voice: Ron, I had an idea on the money there. I was
looking at an auditor when he's not willing to charge money
when he's auditing, this appears to be a lack of certainty
as to the value of what he's giving out. Well now, it seems
to me that with a HASI or a Scientologist, he doesn't want
money. What he wants is a flow and he will get money in and
out to the degree that he is certain on the third dynamic
that what he is doing is valuable. It just seems to me that
all an auditor or an organization needs is a group
certainty on the third dynamic of their value therein.

Hm. Very good comment. Very good comment.

An auditor will also refuse money if he can't receive some
help. You find it works both... But the value and certainty
of what he is doing, yeah. You'll notice an auditor who has
muffed a case do a bad downcurve for a few days, sometimes.
Every once in a while an auditor gets somebody who kicks
the bucket or does something like that. It isn't very
often. And he wants to help somebody, you know, and a lot
of factors enter into it and get in his road and prevent
him; his certainty gets pretty shattered for a short time.

The thing for him to do is go and build his certainty back
up again and he'd be okay. The thing he has done when he
does that, by the way, is interesting. It's - was in the
lecture today. It's the survive-succumb, opposite goals and
he only gets a failure when he muffs that one. He muffed goals.

Male voice: He's Q-and-Aed with the succumb goals?

Yeah, that's right.

Male voice: Yeah.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, could you tell me the value of an
intensive as against running, say, two sessions a week of,
say, two-and-a-half hours each? What is the value of an
intensive over just a time span of five hours a week
carried over, say, about five or six weeks?

Oh, the main value is that you get the person up above the
environmental invalidation and you get him uphill faster
than people can knock him down. And most people who are
getting auditing, lots of people, have people around them
who would, you know, try to chip at them, invalidate them
a bit. And the value of an intensive is to get them up
there in a hurry and they can't be kicked downstairs again.

There's another value in that if you give auditing sessions
too infrequently, you'll find nearly all of your sessions
are involved with the PT problems which have occurred
between sessions. And an intensive minimizes this. So there
are advantages to an intensive but it isn't at all
destructive to audit a person at wide intervals; it just
isn't as efficient.

Female voice: May I ask one more question on that please?

Yes.

Female voice: What about the question of process lag, which
has more of a chance to run out over a period of time and
if you're running an intensive, you're not allowing process
lag a chance?

It shouldn't happen. Process lag, theoretically, shouldn't
happen and is actually a mistake or an error. It's an
auditor error.

When you get an unstable gain there are three methods by
which you determine the failures of profiles to improve.
Profile unchanged, beginning and end of an intensive,
profile unchanged. PT problem not resolved. In other words,
preclear not contributing to the auditing session. That's
invariable.

ARC break is profile depressed. At the end of the
intensive, the profile is lower than it was at the
beginning of the intensive. This is definitely and always
an ARC break between the auditor and the preclear which the
auditor has not repaired. And again, the preclear is not
contributing to the session, but so much less is he
contributing that he actually gets worse receiving help
he's not willing to have.

And the third one is the unstable gain. The profile goes up
and then a few days later we give him another profile and
we find a sag from where it was. Well, this is unflattened
processes and where you have an unflattened process, the
physical universe will complete the running out of the
process. So anything might happen. It might go up, it might
go down but it's certainly unstable.

If an auditor has audited properly and has audited to get
each one of his processes flat, has left the case in a very
stable condition, that is to say, with each process
flattened, each one taken care of, the gain attained will
remain there not for just a week or two weeks but actually,
in our experience, has been found to stay there for three
or four years. Right there, bang! So the process lag of the
process running out is also discovered in clearing. You
clear somebody and then he runs on out. What you've got
there is the accumulation of incomplete processes at work.
And these processes have been left incomplete one way or
the other from maybe way back when, you see. Some process
run on him two or three years ago now decides to run itself
out. Now, he's - runs that out and he runs something else out
but in each case it's an unflattened process.

In an intensive you don't run into it as often because
you're keeping much closer check on the preclear and fewer
present time difficulties are coming up. So you're not
spending much time in cleaning up the present time or
taking care of the existing situation. You are merely
spending time plugging right straight ahead, whamity-bam,
on the project of auditing. So you do flatten the processes
that you run and you get very little process lag and you
get a considerable stability that you would not get otherwise.

That's another argument in favor of an intensive. You get
to complete what you start. And when you're auditing
sporadically and it's only two-and-a-half hours a crack and
it happens every week or two times a week, you'll sometimes
slip, you know, and you'll have been running Step 6. And
the next time he comes back he's apparently flat on it, you
know, kind of, so we go into Help, but we just didn't run
Step 6 on that full cycle.

Well, the MEST universe is going to run it out someday and
you'll get much more variability of case on seldom
auditing. As a matter of fact, staff auditors and staff in
general, were they here, would be saying at this moment,
"You said it!" You know? That's certainly true. Because
these poor guys - these poor guys running on their own Clear
project work so hard day and night that they seldom get a
chance to get in their co-auditing sessions and they often
have a change of auditors.

And all of a sudden they won't get any auditing for a
couple of weeks on this Clear project, you see? And their
auditor, expecting to audit them the next night - see, he's
running Help on something or other. A couple of weeks later
they're involved with something else and they get some
other thing run on them or they change auditors and they're
not up-to-date with the thing and they can be very
uncomfortable for a few days.

There's one staff member I know of, particularly, who's
very, very uncomfortable, or was, over a period of about
ten days. Auditor left the area for an out-in-the-field job
for the organization and won't be back for a while. See?
This poor pc was halfway through Help on the Rock itself
and, man, that was rough. That was rough. Finally, somebody
started in on the case and patched it up a little bit, just
continued it through to a flatter spot.

But this auditor, her auditor, believed implicitly that
tomorrow night was the next session and so didn't much care
where he left the Rock, see? But tomorrow night never
arrived. The following morning there was an emergency call
somewhere far away from here and the auditor went. It's
amusing, the complications that evolve from this sort of thing.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, in the case of the points being up to a
hundred plus, would the drop still be undesirable?

Well, now, I didn't quite get that now.

Female voice: Oh, where the points are up to a hundred plus
on the profile...

Yeah.

Female voice:... would a drop in the after-intensive - would
that still be desirable?

If they're up, they're up. Up is up. Anybody that's tried to
tell you that you should adjust your profile downwards told
you that you should agree with the human race.

Back in Wichita - back in Wichita we got to kicking around
how right you could get. And we had a very interesting
conversation on this subject of whether you could be right
at all. And the outcome of the conversation was that it
would be utterly impossible to be right and be human. You
couldn't possibly be right and be human. And you had to be
wrong enough to agree with your environment and that kept
you from being right. I wish I had a tape of the
conversation. It was the most complicated conversation I've
ever been part of. It was a very complicated conversation
but it all worked on down and all the explanations were
highly explicit. It was just a gag; we were just fooling
around, you know. It was pretty wild, though. You can't be
right and be human; no slightest possibility of it ever
occurring.

So somebody tells you you ought to downgrade a profile to
be more what? To be more human. Well, that would be to be
more wrong, obviously.

Yes?

Female voice: Well, I was told that if it was above ninety,
why, it was unreality, the pc had no reality on.

Oh, I doubt that.

Female voice: Oh, it was.

I doubt that. An awful lot of randomity resulted, by the
way, from these Clear tests that were given at the
congress. They were highly specific and we know our
business around here as far as Clear tests are concerned,
you know? And it is true - it is true that somebody could be
Clear tested and then could slip. It is true, particularly
if they're Clear tested immediately at the end of the
intensive and not rechecked a few days later or something
like this.

We found out, though, that when those profiles and IQs are
not met, the Clear check won't meet it on the meter either.
It takes that much profile and IQ to meet it on the meter.
And where you get a profile and IQ which is less than the
Clear standard, you also get vagaries on the E-Meter and
vice versa. When you get vagaries on the E-Meter, you find
the Clear checkout specifications are not met.

That's how they were arrived at, by the way. You know, you
could artificially establish what a Clear should get as a
profile and what he should get as an IQ. Just take the
fifty-one of the fifty percent of the human race that can
be exteriorized easily and can operate for a few days
exterior, bang him out of his head, give him an APA and IQ
real quick and you're getting one that's uninfluenced by
body considerations, you see? And you'll get in excess of
135 and you'll get an APA in excess of that. It'll all
collapse in a very short time but that's testing a Theta
Clear, which is just a roundabout method of testing a ME5T
Clear. Do you see? But a MEST Clear meets these standards
in spite of body influences. That's much harder to do, much
harder to do.

Yes, Anne?

Female voice: I think where some of this is coming from is
the APA manual itself and its explanation in correlating
some of those traits with the others. It definitely
mentions if certain traits are above 90, well, this is an
indication of a martyr complex and that is telling...

Who's telling this?

Female voice: The APA manual itself gives this explanation.

Oh, it does, huh?

Female voice: Oh, yes. It's all through there on - on how if
the affinity is too high - well, this is more of a sort of a
cultural thing, you know, and not quite true. There's quite
a bit on here in explanation.

Is that so?

Female voice: Yes. Certain traits being above 90 it
definitely says that the preferable place is around 75 and
above 90 is a little too high, that it's going out of reality.

Well, out of reality...

Female voice: It's detailed in this manual that we go by.

Well, then that - it's still true. It's going out of reality
of the human race, that's for true. You must - you must
remember - you must remember this one fact that that is a
psychological test of some age and standing. So are the IQ
tests that we use. And we use those tests and keep them to
themselves and keep them as they are with malice
aforethought. We have purposely never developed Scientology
tests to take their place because they themselves are a
frame of reference in agreement with the society.
Therefore, these tests mean something to psychology.

But I'm glad you called that to my attention. I'll have to
look at that manual.

Female voice: It - it's all there when you're ready.

That's very amusing. I've never read the manual on them.
What I have read on them is not their administration but
I've read their rationale, description and development. And
I had a good laugh over it.

The tests are supposed to be the most stable tests
psychology has to offer, both those tests. That's why they
are there. They will not change and under no circumstances
can they change more than a plus or minus 4, regardless of
what happens to the person. And they're an arrow into the
teeth of vested interests, you see, and it frightens them.
The effect that one produces with these tests, groups of
these tests, when he submits them to a government agency or
a bunch of psychologists and so on, is very gratifying.
They fall back and they faint and they looked frightened
and they start shivering.

Now, you think I'm exaggerating this reaction but I'm
really not exaggerating the reaction. I've had witnesses to
this when I have suddenly, casually pulled these tests out,
said what tests they were and have laid them on a table, a
hundred such tests, you see, a hundred profiles, you know,
and a hundred IQs and just laid them on the table casually
in front of some psychologist, you know, who is very
authoritative and so forth. In one case, one of the
psychologists of the group who were present - we just use
these things to make sure our anchor points are out, see;
we don't intend them to do anything about it particularly
because they wouldn't. They - they wouldn't be capable of
doing anything about it. Now, and this psychologist began
to shake visibly, you know, like this: "So just-just-just
one of these tests - just-just-just-just one of these tests
pub-published in the psychological journal would upset the
whole field of ps-psychology."

Male voice: It sure would, Ron.

"And our press..."

Male voice: They would all go to pieces.

Oh, sure. Our press relations man was sitting there and I
actually had to kick him sideways underneath the table to
keep him from bursting out loud with laughter. It was such
a pat fright.

A very high officer of the government just a few days ago
wrote us a panic letter - panic - on this. It was fascinating.
I've still got the letter up there. You'd be surprised at
the person - who it is. I wouldn't say - not with the tape
running.

And we submitted a standard submission. You see, we're in
the position of possibly withholding from government use
valuable materials which could be used in the defense
picture. And we must keep ourselves innocent of this
action. So we continue to submit to all agencies. Anybody
who comes up and suddenly takes over some big defense post
or something like that gets dropped in his lap a very neat
presentation of Scientology. It's actually not only neat,
but it's really got mass. It's a series of envelopes about
that high, 8 1/2" x 11" envelopes, one sheet at a time, you
know, each sheet very significant, stacked up that high. It
requires a very strong porter to deliver them. And he gets
something like this.

Quite often he will write us for it; quite often we receive
a request for this sort of thing, you know? Please tell us
what you are doing these days, you know. Defense
mobilization, something like that. Well, we give him three
or four days so that it looked like we just got the thing
together, you know, and we change the headline on the
letter of submission and so forth and we send it over by
messenger to his office, something like this, see. And they
always give it personal attention.

But in this particular case we got a panic letter. It said
over and over that there was no way... We always ask for a
government contract. You know, we shove it right on home.
We tell them how much money we need, what the government is
supposed to do, exactly how this thing shapes up. We even
tell them names and addresses of the people who will be in
charge of the project. You know? It's just tailor-made.

Somebody has asked me a couple of times, "Why don't you do
it on a gradient scale?" Because they might buy it! Then
we'd find ourselves totally tied down in the defense picture.

This letter first told us that he couldn't possibly be
instrumental in getting us a government contract to process
all the scientists and military officers and aviators and
so forth in the country. He couldn't possibly do this. And
then he repeated it, see, and said he couldn't possibly do
this. And then he said he couldn't possibly do this. And
then he said he couldn't possibly comment on the value of
the findings. The whole letter added up that he couldn't
possibly. Very amusing.

You probably didn't know that we were a pressure point,
that we made Scientology a pressure point. You possibly
weren't aware of the fact.

See, it would be folly to get a Republican administration
to buy Scientology because Democrats would kick it out as
soon as they came in, something like that. If we were to
submit anything in earnest, it would be after the next
election. We had a lot of fun, a lot of fun with this sort
of thing.

The NAAP, for instance, is causing much more of a stir than
you would ordinarily think and has caused the American
Psychiatric Association to completely change its line of
dissemination. The APA has sent over people to talk to us
and that sort of thing. We've already had many visitors on
this line and so forth.

And if you'll notice the articles which are being put out
are less and less now devoted to how horrible it all is,
but to how humane psychiatry is. You noticed any articles
lately about how humane it all is? Well, there have been
several in their favorite media. The Reader's Digest, I
think, is their journal, isn't it?

Male voice: Writer's Digest.

Yeah. These people are very much influenced by what we do.
It's quite amusing. We're not being stupidly - not stupidly
assuming ourselves at cause where we are not. That would be
a dull thing to do too. But being right here in Washington
and they're right around the corner, we have a very easy
grapevine.

There's another organization in the country called the
American Management Association, that you'll see all over
the place and that Eisenhower spoke at the other day. He
gave them a talk. They're quite important people. And all
we've got to do is change our format of a congress and they
change their formats of their congresses. They now hold
congresses and they have seminars and the same hours are
used and the same program format. That's a stupid program
format. It's totally designed about the fact that Ron
hasn't got time to tell the rest of the office what he's
going to talk about at the congress. So they just lay this
program format out so that anything can happen, you know?
And the APA - I mean the AMA, the American Management
Association, adopted this program format about four or five
months after our first program format and they've still
adhered to it. They have their seminars at the same time
and it's the same number of days and all of this sort of
thing.

And it's no joke that we're at cause on a lot of lines in
this society that we're actually unaware of.

We're actually at cause-point also in another line, which
is space opera. We're scared to death that they're going to
forget space opera, you know, and start having a war here
on Earth. We want them to have a war out there and our
whole concentration is making them aware of this sort of
thing. And we fight a rather continuing little
rat-a-tat-tat on the barricades with our machine gun
bullets on this particular subject.

And I got a release the other day from General Gavin. And
this is another officer who is now quoting our article
Fortress in the Sky about the moon and so forth. And this
is a release to be given to the papers four, five weeks
hence but it's just totally right down the line. And that
he and his office mailed it directly to Dr. R. F. Steves is
also interesting. It's as close to a credit line as the
government would ever give you for anything.

We just try to stay at cause in a mild organizational sort
of way where we can. We don't devote too much time to it.
It would be an incredible situation if we sat back and
never ourselves put out a communication line in these
directions because then we would get the total effect of
these directions, don't you see? So we have to keep a
little line going out and we do so. It's just a line of
awareness, not a line of effectiveness or action.

And it's quite amusing, some of the results of this sort of
thing. And it's quite amusing what just a letter can do,
what a communication line sent out unexpectedly in a
certain direction, what havoc it can wreak in the best-laid
plans of mice and psychiatrists, to say nothing of men.

Undoubtedly we're a dangerous organization to have around,
but the truth of the matter is that it would be very
dangerous to us to live in this society without ever
communicating with the various parts and centers of the
society which influence the rest of society. And so we do
so - in our spare time.

Okay. Know anything more about this cycle of sessions
you're running?

Audience: Yes.

Okay. If you do pick up any data in the lectures, if you
happen to notice anything going by, you have my permission
to use it.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


