(This can be used in any official Scientology Magazine) There is a new process allowed in HGC. It is —

This process belongs after S-C-S and Factual Havingness and before What Can You Confront.

ARC Break Straight Wire is a form of TR 5 ARC Break. Its processing number, however, is CCH-50.

Any and all rules governing Straight Wire apply, including —

1. The pc cycles into past and back to pt. Therefore, ask and pin point when.
2. Stop the process only with the pc near pt. Put in a bridge, therefore, without specified number of “more times”. Wrong: “I am going to ask this question three more times and end the process.” Right: “I am going to ask this question until your answers are close to present time and then end it if that’s all right with you.” Then check when on each reply, get pc into present time and say, “Are you near present time? All right, this is the end of the process.”

The Command to a Scientologist is, “Recall an ARC Break.” This is for an unlimited type process. “Recall an ARC Break between us”, or “. . . in an auditing session” or “. .. with your mother” to limit process to this life. The first form is preferred. The second form is used on a sticky valence that has been isolated.

The unlimited version rapidly dives for whole track and into engrams. This is all right. But don’t stop and change the process. Just continue to run “Recall an ARC Break” when the pc gets into heavy weather.

Be very careful with this process to keep the Auditor’s Code. Otherwise, 50% of the time is spent getting rid of ARC Breaks in the session itself — and with this process these are heavy. (However, two auditors co-auditing who are a bit clumsy can use this process better than other processes and it and Factual Havingness should be the total activity of an auditor who is having trouble with a pc who is having trouble with ARC Breaks.)

The pc, in diving for whole track, gets into and out of heavy incidents. So long as he answers the question, fine. Don’t let him fail to answer every question.

Reality on the whole track leaps up with this process. This is the first process that accomplishes this easily.

In running it, remember that the overt act is as important as the motivator (see A History of Man, Chap. 9). The reason A gets mad at B is as often because A has done something to B as it is because B has done something to A.

Here is a fine, smooth process that is a one-shot Clear, and can be used by auditors not ACC-trained to run engrams.

ARC Break Straight Wire is very useful in husband-wife co-auditing teams and, with Factual Havingness, is the only process that should be used in a co-auditing relationship that is already intimate to a point of easily gathering ARC Breaks.

From two standpoints the process is the best we have ever had —

1. It handles touchy pcs well, and
2. It is the first to open up whole track in general with as great a reality or greater than the R on present life.

From two other viewpoints the process is vulnerable:

1. It requires strict observance of the Auditor’s Code if you don’t want to waste 50% to 75% of the auditing time.
2. It runs the pc into heavy incidents and the process must be continued until pc is again in pt-making an uncertainty in session timing.

However, the shortcomings are far outweighed by the value of ARC Break Straight Wire.

There is one “bug” in the process. The non-Scientologist does not readily grasp the command-and there is no substitute for a quick question.

ARC Break means, “The assignment of responsibility for a sudden drop in Affinity, Reality or Communication.” Thee and me have a “feel” for this.

Substitute commands are many, none as good. “Recall something you have done to a person” — ”Recall something that has been done to you” is fair but misses by a mile.

History: This process is, in genus, very old. I introduced its rudiments at the June 1952 first Congress in Phoenix, Arizona. ARC is even older and goes to July of 1950. The present version in a narrower form was first used by Mary Sue Hubbard in 1958.

The valuable lesson this gives us is that Mary or Joe or Pete may be mad at us because Mary or Joe or Pete did something to us. We may or may not have done anything to Mary or Joe or Pete to make them mad at us. In other words, the pc who comes back into session furious with the auditor, may have committed an overt act against the auditor out of session and not prompted by an action of the auditor. The wife may be mad at the husband because of something she did to the husband. She talked about him behind his back (prompted by some old engram about husbands) and, now having committed this overt act, she becomes furious with the husband. Etc. Etc. The person mad at Scientology may only be motivated by having done something to Scientology. Etc. Etc. A whole new view of human behaviour opens when you see this point. Therefore, caution the pc to “pick up his overt acts against things, too” while he’s running it, if he’s only getting overt acts against him.

The only reason the process won’t work is that the pc isn’t doing it, but only pretending to, or he doesn’t understand it.

But all in all, we’ve a wonderful weapon here to straighten out a lot of lives. Use it with wild abandon and get the results in. It’s good.