From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Subject: FZ Bible STATE OF MAN TAPES 5/9 [x2]
Date: 04 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <d4ed2bd8d205ae4c723b76edd8315d53@anonymous.poster>
Sender: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to <squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

STATE OF MAN (SMC) CONGRESS TAPES (1960) 5/9

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

Contents

SMC-1  1 Jan 60 Opening Lecture
SMC-2  1 Jan 60 Responsibility
SMC-3  1 Jan 60 Overts and Withholds
SMC-4  2 Jan 60 Why People Don't Like You
SMC-5  2 Jan 60 Marriage
SMC-6  2 Jan 60 Group Auditing Session
SMC-7  3 Jan 60 Zones of Control and Responsibility of Governments
SMC-8  3 Jan 60 Create and Confront
SMC-9  3 Jan 60 Your Case
 
We were able to check 4 of these against the old reels.


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

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

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


SMC-5  2 Jan 60 Marriage

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard SMC-5   "State of
Man Congress"

MARRIAGE

A lecture given on 2 January 1960

[Clearsound checked against the old reel. Omissions marked ">".
Also, a segment marked "%" was cut in the old pre-clearsound 
2D cassettes and is restored in the clearsound version.]

[60 min.]


Thank you.

> Well first, you know, I think we ought to make sure that we
> take care of some of our better people. I think we ought to 
> thank Mary Adams for that beautiful job she's doing on that 
> organ as usual.
> 
> Where was she?
> 
> Voice from audience: [unintelligible]
> 
> Stand up! There she is.
> 
> And I see that somebody just blew in from damp old - I mean dear
> old England.  Here's Pam and Ray Kemp - stand up.
> 
> Here a few telegrams and a ...
> 
> By the way - I - this is a beautiful globe.  I'm told that 
> Eisenhower's globe is just exactly like this one and that this 
> is one of the biggest and fanciest made anywhere. And that the 
> globe in the White House is just like this. So that I can have 
> the only globe like this, somebody will have to get that back 
> from the White House. [laughter]
> 
> I understand little old Indonesia over here has twelve of them
> though.  I don't know what they were doing with twelve of them,
> I didn't know they were going to conquor that much space.
> They're that dark spot there.
> 
> But let me read off a few of these telegrams to you here.
> 
> Here's first and foremost on the list here is: "Ron we send you
> and cogress delegates our very best for a very successful congress, 
> HASI New Zeland." Right down there. [Indicating locations on
> the globe to the audience.]
> 
> And here's one: "Best wishes for the most successful congress
> ever, love HCO and HASI South Africa." Right there.
> 
> And "Ron all the best for a responsibly responsive congress,
> Love HASI London."  Clear up here.
> 
> And here's one: "Ron all best for congress and following course,
> HASI and HCO Australia."
> 
> And "Ron and delegates, here's wishing you everything for the 
> bestest ever congress, Love HCO London."
> 
> And "Best wishes to Ron, Mary Sue, Staff, and all congress
> attenders for a fine congress and a prospherous 1960, from all 
> staff at HCO WW Saint Hill.
> 
> Now there's some more of them here, but most of these people
> are represented. And I'm sure that HASI DC and FC DC wishes us 
> a very fine congress since they're giving it.
> 
> And HASI Los Angeles is right in there pitching and well attended
> at this congress and thank them for carrying on out there in the 
> jungle.
> 
> Actually you know I started the nucleus of one here in Calcutta.  
> There is one here that is firing in Greece. There is one in Paris.
> The one in Germany is doing much better.  There is something
> doing down here in South America.  We're doing just fine.
> 
> Nobody yet has conquored Mexico.  Would some Texan please
> take note.
> 
> Now there's no doubt about it, we're winning hot and heavy.
> But we certainly can win from here on out providing we can 
> sort of hold on to it long enough that we don't blow.
> 
> Now I'm going to set you a good example - I haven't blown. 
>
> Now if we can abide by this example, we'll have it made. And 
> one of the problems that we face actually, is not so much people 
> leaving Central Organizations, but

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

Audience: Yeah.

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

Let's take a look at marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

% the old Bernarr MacFadden and Fawcett Publications with 
% their "come to realize," you know, plots and all that 
% sort of thing. 

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

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

And they all said, "Ha! Ha! Ha!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> That's why the commies try so hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you say, "Oh, come now."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male voice: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]



