From nobody@REPLAY.COM Sat May 16 20:49:50 1998

Path: spln!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 05:49:50 +0200 (MET DST)

Message-ID: <199805170349.FAA29841@basement.replay.com>

Subject: FZ BIBLE 10/12 CLEARING CONGRESS

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)

Organization: Replay Associates, L.L.P.

X-001: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting

X-002: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse@replay.com>

X-URL: http://www.replay.com/remailer/

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net

Lines: 417

Xref: spln alt.religion.scientology:300942 alt.clearing.technology:38561



FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



TRANSCRIPT OF THE CLEARING CONGRESS 10/12





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.



The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings

of Judiasm 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 the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet

are allowed 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



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



Transcript of LRH Video Taped Lecture ...... Number 5 of 6

The Clearing Congress Lectures

Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C.                  July 5, 1958





		       CLEAR  PROCEDURE

			 CCH-0, HELP



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



(lecture continued from part 9/12)





Well, how do you repair an ARC break?  I ran an interesting session once.  

This was the test session which established what havingness was in its 

manifestation.  For half an hour I ran a process which was guaranteed to cut 

to pieces the mass and havingness of a pc.  It was chosen with 

malice-a-fore-thought, as something that choked to pieces the 

preclears concept of mass, his concept of possession, his concept 

of being anything, anywhere, anyhow, and in view of the fact of being among 

friends, I can tell you 

what process this is, "Look around here and find something you could go out of 

communication with".  That's a guaranteed killer.  Now listen, please promise 

me you'll only run this on psychiatrists (chuckle).  Now this was guaranteed 

to just cut everything to ribbons but I ran it for half an hour on this basis.  

Every time the pc would twitch, or squirm, or start to go a little bit anaten, 

I would say, "What have I done wrong?"  The pc would say, "What have you done 

wrong?".  "You sure I didn't do something wrong?".  As a matter of fact, a 

couple of minutes ago there, you, when you made that noise, it upset me."  

There had been no noise, but each time the pc could find something wrong, and 

the session would come back to battery, the pc would wake up, the nervousness 

would drop out, the twitchy feet would go.  You see how this is?  In other 

words, I was patching up havingness with just one auditing command, "What have 

I done wrong?", and the pc was then permitted, little by little, to continue 

ARC with the auditor, even though the auditor, although the pc didn't realize 

it, was cutting the pc to ribbons.  The auditor really was doing something 

wrong.  The auditor was running a process guaranteed to kill anybody, and so, 

it becomes important then to keep the pc in session and one of the best ways of 

doing it is to ask the pc, when he appears to be upset, "Has something gone 

wrong with session?" or "Have I done something wrong?"



Well now, there's something you don't do.  You say, "What have I done wrong?" 

and then the pc says, "Well a moment ago there when you said that command and 

made the mistake, and didn't give me an acknowledgement there, and dropped the 

book, when you did that it, why it upset me a little bit, it distracted me."  

I'll tell you what the auditor can do wrong at this point, what he can do 

wrong.  He can fail to take responsibility for his action.  He can say, "Well, 

actually the book was just teetering there and you put it there when you came 

in the auditing room (chuckle), and you've got a sort of an emanation coming 

off you that makes it very difficult for me to remember the auditing command, 

and it's totally natural that I would make that many mistakes".  In other words, 

the auditor starts to shift responsibility from himself to the preclear, 

removes himself from the session.  The second he does that, why you got it.  

Now he can run, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?"  The 

one shot command that doesn't work, by the way is, "What part of that bank 

could you be responsible for?"  Isn't that a nice command?  Apparently worked 

like mad, "What part of that bank could you be responsible for?",  "What part 

of the physical universe, creation or destruction of, could you be responsible 

for?"  He just went unconscious for some reason or another (laugh).  Obviously, 

it was the perfect command.  Very often we have perfect commands originated, 

and then without checking them, of course, we can always be right. When we 

check them, we're sometimes wrong (chuckle).  But, the auditor has to retain 

responsibility for the auditing session while the preclear recovers 

responsibility for his past, present, and future, and that's really what 

happens in this combination.



Now, given all these things, the auditor gets to the most important process 

ever developed in Scientology.  Easily the most important process, and some of 

the sharpest auditors around have not heard all there is to know about this 

process by one awful long ways, and sitting right there, will be very surprised 

with this process.  HELP - the most important process ever developed.  Why?  

Because running this process - Help - will put into session, and make 

auditable, people who formerly weren't even vaguely auditable.  Now that's 

just one test of it.  It splits valances, it heals psychosomatic illnesses, 

it moves ridges out of heads, it exteriorizes preclears.  It does almost 

anything as a single panacea process that you have ever asked of any process.  

Nobody's ever tried it that far.  They think it's just something you audit in 

Clear Procedure to get it out of the road so that you can get on to something 

important, like step six.



Somebody said to me very, very recently, "I didn't have any idea help had that 

much breadth."  It makes the most lovely assist you ever tried to assist 

anybody with.  Lovely assist.  A person comes in, in a normal state, homo sap, 

you know, got a terrible hangover - hives, you want to get him back to battery, 

something like that, run help.  The test of help is that it shouldn't really 

be run on a condition, it should be run on terminals, but if you can get away 

with running it on a condition, which is quite interesting, gives you the 

command value of the process.  It handles something like TNT.  If you don't 

handle it right, your pc has had it, he's had it.  Now, what are you trying to 

do for a pc, you're trying to help him, and the pc that never got a gain in 

auditing is simply wasting this commodity.  That's the only thing he's doing.  

He came to you for help, didn't he?  He said, "Oh, I'm so bad off you know, I 

have these horrible pains and these awful aches, and I can't see, and I can't 

smell, and I can't talk, and I want you to heal me all up, and so forth, and 

I'll pay you a lot of money if you will do this" and get all this nonsense 

going on.  You sit down and you audit him, he sneers, and does the very things 

he shouldn't do, and he fakes the process, and so on.  What is he doing?  He's 

just wasting help.  He cannot be helped, and Herr Doctor, Sigmund Freud, at 

the end of his 28th lecture, I think it was, said, "And these by us cannot be 

helped."  "And these by us cannot be helped".  This is the one thing that made 

him sad.  There were several types of case that couldn't be helped by him - he 

included the sane, the insane, the ..... (laugh) but he said, "These by us 

cannot be helped".  Now, that becomes fascinating, when you look this over 

carefully, because it tells us definitely, that the case that could not be 

helped, is the case of course, that can't be helped.  So you run help on him. 

(chuckle)  It's one of these horrible simplicities that is just painful in 

its stupid simplicity.  



Now, the auditor who goes along and he audits somebody, you know, out of a 

book, and he says, "Now, what part of this problem could you be responsible 

for?  Thank you",  "What part of this problem could you be responsible for?  

Thank you",  "What part of this problem could you be responsible for?  Thank 

you", and the pc says, "What did you say?"  "Oh you heard the command" (laugh).  

So, we have an auditor who cannot help a pc, really.  What's wrong with his 

auditing?  He can't help preclears. Now in view of the fact that you run into an 

awful lot of preclears who are anxious for just one thing, to convince you 

that you can't help them, you are liable to get the idea, after a while, that 

you can't help them, and this is what gets wrong with your auditing.  The only 

thing that gets wrong with your auditing, is you can't help people.  



Now what about this help?  Is it therapeutic to help people or is it 

aberrative?  Is it right to help people or wrong to help people, or shouldn't 

you go along in your own little cocoon, sailing on the sea of idle dreams, and 

let the rest of all that silly nonsense going on in the world just take care of 

itself.  Is that right, should you help it, or leave it alone, or what should 

you do about it?  Well, these are moral and ethical questions that have to do 

with you.  Whether it's right or wrong for you to help somebody or not help 

somebody should, however, have no bearing on the fact that you have an 

aberration on the subject of help.  You see, there could be two different 

things, whether you should or shouldn't help does not at all influence this 

other factor, could or couldn't. "I can't help him".  The person who has a 

bad habit is always telling you, "I can't help it" (laugh).



Help, you know, is forbidden, it's illegal to help several things.  Did you 

know that?  There are twenty-five illnesses that it is illegal to help in the 

State of California.  They are listed by the  legislature.  Of course, nobody's 

ever asked this burning question, this frying question I should say, "Is the 

State legislature of California capable of helping anyone?"  That's the 

aberrative side of the question, don't you see?  Capability of help is 

entirely independent of the duty or obligation to help.  These two things 

should be entirely different things, and an individual cannot make up his mind 

on the rightfulness or wrongfulness of help so long as he himself is not 

totally clear on the subject of help.



Now then, fellows who run around and are criticized by their fellow man 

because they got to help everybody.  They got to help this or they got to help 

that, they're always helping stray dogs, or they're always helping stray cats.  

I think some lady who can only help stray cats is still luckier than any 

policeman I ever met, who could never help anything til the end of his days.  

We are looking at the heart and soul of the upper dynamics when we are looking 

at help because this is the woof and warp of association.  A man is alive so 

long as he can help things, and so long as he himself can be helped.  If he 

can do this, he's alive and he's dead when he can no longer help anything, and 

nothing can help him.  That is a new definition of death because, really, 

that is death when carried through to a total absolute.  Definition of 

death, that would be the most absolute death there could be.  That wouldn't 

be death of a body, you understand, just some light thing like that, that would 

really be dead.  



The funny part of it is everybody responds somehow and increases on help if it 

is run in this right fashion.  First you have to know about a bracket.  What's 

a bracket?  A bracket is the number of ways, or number of combinations that 

something can occur.  For instance, A can give B a stick, B can give A a stick, 

A can hold a stick for himself, B can hold a stick for himself, B can hold a 

stick for somebody else other than A, this person over here, C can hold a stick 

for himself or for B.  You get the number of combinations?  You just had an 

idea of a stick being passed around and handed to one or another, you get the 

auditing command that this is run in a bracket.  I think somebody added up 

brackets one time, and the highest series of bracket numbers I know about, I 

think, is 139, I think it's something like that, ways of running a bracket.  

What do we call a bracket?  That means to cover all possible flows - artillery 

term - bracket.  Throws the preclear out of the water.  Now, help is run in 

that fashion and the auditing command, is again, a very simple command, and 

it is no other command.  It isn't invent a way to help somebody, that's not 

right, it's an as-ising type of command.  It's a command that really erases 

thoughts and old postulates, and things like this.  You don't care whether you're 

draining somebody's bank or otherwise because every time you increase a 

potential to help, you increase havingness.  So you don't care whether you 

drain the bank or not.  



The optimum way to run this, there's just one way to run it.  Funny thing when 

you say there's just one way to run it, I'm talking now about Clear Procedure.  

I know what I know about Clearing people.  I know you can people to be three 

feet in back of their heads and they stay Clear for two days.  I know you 

can run engrams until they can get used to running engrams, and handle their 

engrams, and to have, to that degree Clear, and I know definitely this 

procedure is producing results when it is used with the provisos which I'm 

giving you.  And, the Help command is:  "How could ____ help ____ ?"  Now, the 

blanks are filled in by the sides of the bracket.  In other words, "How could 

you help mother?",  "How could mother help you?",  "How could mother help 

herself?",  "How could you help yourself?",  "How could another person help 

mother?"  How could mother help another person?".  There's another one out 

there, "How could another person help another person than mother ?"  We could 

keep on going out this way, don't you see, and we get these various commands.  

We get these enormous brackets.  There's a five-way bracket, a nine-way 

bracket, it goes on up, as I said, there's 139 combinations ... (garbled).  I 

think there are more than that.  That was (a person's name) in England got 

that together for me, 139, which was page after page, page after page, and he 

says, "How many sides does a bracket have?",  "Shall I run all these on my 

preclear?" (laugh).  Five, five will produce adequate results.  Nine is quite 

safe.  You could get the listings of exactly what a bracket is from an HCO 

Bulletin.



Now, "How could ____ help ____?"  You understand, you didn't ask him to dream 

up a new way, you didn't ask him not to dream up a new way.  You just asked 

him, more or less, to tell you a way.  Now, if you're allergic to people 

talking while you're auditing, and it gets you upset too much, there is an 

alternate command, which is still workable providing you can police it and 

you've got him there on a E-meter good and solid, and you're watching the 

E-meter.  You could say, "Think of a way to help mother",  "Think of a way 

mother could help you".  You could actually run "Think of a way ...", but 

there's not any particular reason to because I don't think the preclear's 

conversation is going to aberrate you more than he ordinarily would be if you 

were worried about it (chuckle).  If you were worried about it, it probably 

won't aberrate you any more than the (garbled).  How could mother help you, 

this sort of thing that's a .....  Now, how many ways, and different 

combinations, and so forth, how many things could we run this on?  Well, you 

could say, "How could you help bacteria?",  "How could bacteria help you?",  

"How could atomic particles help you?",  "How could you help atomic 

particles?",  "How could atomic particles help another person?",   "How could 

another person help atomic particles?".  You get the idea?  "How could atomic 

particles help themselves?"  You can actually run that and get away with it, 

of course probably burn up the preclear, but you could get away with it.  You 

get the idea? - Help.  You have to settle this idea of help.  



Now what happens, what gets wrong with help?  Well, there are probably many 

other things get wrong with it, but the main one is, you tried to help somebody 

and failed, and after that you could think of only one thing to do, and that 

was kill him.  Probably all savage impulses derive from a failure to have 

assisted.  Anybody you want to kill, you couldn't help.  In other words, 

something gets wrong with the balance of help. There is no hate so pure - not 

the hate of a woman scorned - but the hate of a woman who wouldn't let you 

be helped, or wouldn't help you, or you wouldn't permit to be helped.  In 

other words, there's going to be something wrong with help for her to hate you.  

Now, maybe it was so wrong with the person in the first place, it was already 

wrong before they met, but certainly something happened to key it in.  You 

wonder why you're having domestic troubles.  Wife comes in, says "dear, 

wouldn't you like me to get your slippers?", and you say, "boy! is she 

rubbing it in - get me my slippers, hah, I suppose this is a fast touch for a 

five spot", something like that.  You say, "well, wife shouldn't do that sort 

of thing, she's been busy all day, I feel self-conscious, the idea of her .... 

" In other words, you got an aberration on the subject of help.  So you say, 

"no dear, no thank you".  "Well, couldn't I get you a drink", she says.  "No, 

no, not thirsty, don't bother yourself, you're tired and you've been working 

all day", and so forth, "just go sit down some place , you're tired, and be 

quiet".  "Well, what would you like for dinner?"  "Oh anything, anything".  

A few minutes later why you sit down at the table, and she throws this plate 

of food on the table and says, "Well, I don't know where you're going, but I'm 

going over to see mother for a little while", and you say, "What's wrong?" and 

then she and you are liable to figure out something else that's wrong, see, 

some other squabble.  It has nothing to do with this other sequence.  This 

other sequence was totally hidden, this causation, and you can remember that, 

that morning something or other happened and you refused to let her do 

something of the sort, or you accused her of something, you know.  It will 

all build up on some tremendous aedipus here that had nothing to do with the 

actual activity which began with a pair of slippers.  



You watch it, you watch it.  If you want to take your life in your hands, 

just as an experiment for any given twenty-four hours - make out your will, 

give us your next of kin - refuse every help offered you by everyone for the 

next twenty-four hours.  Now that, that's pretty ...... Wow!  There's some 

stories about people doing other things for twenty-four hours, but this one 

would be suicidal.  Everybody would be mad at you, if they didn't practically 

destroy you.  You just refuse all help offered you.  Actually it's one of the 

more, it's one of the more interesting things to do (laugh), and if you feel 

tired of life, why I advise it strongly.  



I have, unfortunately, on two different occasions, not meaning to at all, 

having no understanding of what was going on, and not at that time having this 

process ... This process, by the way, was evolved for the HCA manual which was 

never published and probably never will be.  I wrote the opening gun of it 

and I had to find the basic fundamental of auditing and the basic fundamental 

of auditing was, of course, Help.  I wrote it down very glibly and wrote a 

nice little essay and got it all set up, and I got down to the end of the 

essay and I said, just a moment, let's look this over again.  Oh, I said, it's 

not important and let it drift for three whole months before I really clamped 

on to it and made a thorough going test, and then, psychosomatics started 

flying off, and valences started breaking up, and all sorts of miraculous 

things started happening with the use of this thing - Help.  I only had to 

work for about a week to find the command it should be run with.  It was quite 

remarkable though, it developed out of auditing itself.  



Now, the individual, the individual is evidently part and parcel of existence 

only so long as he can stay in an exchange of assistance with it, as long as 

he can be of use, as long as he can have a game, or goal, or something -  

common denominator of all these things is Help.  Now, help goes over into 

something very interesting.  You really don't have a dichotomy, it isn't that 

you have help is plus and destroy is minus.  This is not true - help goes into 

destroy, you get a help / destroy interaction, and wherever you have destruction, 

you had a failure of help.  That's just as invariable ... (garbled).  Now this 

dichotomy works to this degree.  A fascist regime comes in, of some kind or 

another, and they know how to make the populace help them - give up produce, 

and so forth - they threaten to destroy them.  For instance, there's one 

country, I don't know, it's not very far from here, it used to be a great 

state.  ... (garbled) ... cave in.  They have income tax, I think, there and 

this, this country, this country threatens to destroy you if you don't give 

it some taxes.  See, your taxes will help that government, but their threat 

is to destroy you.  That's the only way, they think, they can collect.  They 

cannot help you.  They're getting more and more laws forbidding them to help 

you.  You used to be able, you could go in and lean across on the counter and 

say, fix up my return. Then they scribble on for a while and say, oh that's 

alright Joe, and so forth, and take a small amount of money, and that would be 

all there is to it.  Now they're running Help / Destroy.  Well, help/destroy 

goes just down to a point where it becomes destroy/destroy;  and help/destroy 

will become destroy/destroy.  



So that you get help/help;  help begets help and then returns help.  This is 

fairly sane and rather optimum.  Then we get help/destroy and then help/destroy 

the other way, and then destroy/destroy, and clear down here we get a sub-order 

of insanity the like of which, well, you people in this world of course have 

never experienced - it's called war.  Doesn't ever do anybody any good, any 

place, and for years afterwards, now a days, the victor is faced with the 

problem of helping the vanquished enough to wipe out the war, and all you win 

is the right to help.  But that's all anybody ever wins.  Now, isn't it silly 

for somebody to fight for the right to help when all he's got to do is to help 

somebody, and all he'd have to do to help somebody without liability, is to 

make up his mind that he was not necessarily destructible.  If he assumes that 

he himself is relatively indestructible then he is capable of helping 

everybody no matter what they do.  But there are people around that all you 

have to do is offer them some help and they cut your head off.  I went into an 

institution and it happened.  Two cases I've seen spin on this offered help 

proposition.



One girl walked up to me immediately after the first Phoenix Congress and she 

said, I've been told I should help you, and I said, well, there's nothing for 

you to do right now, and I just walked off and left.  She went out on the 

street and spun in, was picked up by the police, put into a local spin bin ... 

(garbled).  I wrote that down in the notebook as inexplicable, and only what 

was inexplicable, I thought for a long time, was there must have been some 

other event took place between my conversation with her and that spin.  No, 

there wasn't.  There is evidently no other thing necessary, I've known two 

such cases where it happened.  They offered help, it was refused, and they 

spun right in.  They're on such a delicate balance of being part of the human 

race that they spin right out of it when they get the least inkling of the 

fact that they can't be of assistance.  Isn't that an interesting commentary?  

This is how much this means to a person.  This is how much of a button this is.  

But to .... You walk up to a raving psycho and you say I want to help you.  

Well, be sure there are no axes or ice picks, or anything around, because 

he'll finish you.  Just offering help to him is enough for him to decide that 

destruction is necessary.  Now, you notice there wasn't a single word I said 

there applicable to a national government (laugh).



Now as we look over help/destroy we begin to understand, so much that for a 

while as we look over the universe and find instances of this, we tend to be 

overwhelmed;  but it's a good thing to do because almost anything equates into 

this help/destroy curve, 

almost anything.  It can be added up, some part of it fundamental, can be 

added up on  help.  A person gets up in a fairly good state, they can tolerate 

an enormous amount of help ... Did you ever see a little kid, little Suzette 

right now is going through a period of not wanting to be helped, she wants to 

be self-sufficient. That's a good thing, a good mechanism, nothing wrong 

with it, but I have eventually let her help things enough that I can now 

help her.  I don't think anybody else in the family can help her, but I can 

help her.  Why?  Because I let her help me.  I don't have to dream it up 

either, she's gotten awfully good at it.  She gets bright and polite and 

dignified as long as I let her help something.  And, of course, there isn't 

any coordination between America's refusal to let children work and juvenile 

delinquency - not much.  If you forbid them to help for years, you wonder why 

then they destroy everything - it's inevitable.  The way to get teeners and so 

forth into an awful state and get them to destroy everything, is to deny them 

the right to help.  



So the biggest right there is, is not the right to vote, is not the right to 

freedom of speech, or press, or religion, or anything else.  The biggest right 

there is in Human Rights, is the right to help.  And now I just want to ask 

you one more question, looking at this, the index of willingness to help 

being the highest index in demonstration of Clearing, do you any longer doubt 

my statement that those people in Dianetics and Scientology are the upper 

tens of thousands of the population of Earth, because they volunteered to 

help, didn't they?  Thank you!





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



(end of lecture)



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