Thank you. I'm glad you're here. In fact, thank you for being here.

We're actually now in the embarrassing position of being smaller in the United Kingdom than we are in Australia and being a smaller organization in the United Kingdom than we are in South Africa. We, of course, are not smaller than we are in the United States in the United Kingdom, but I decided that we better have a program for the United Kingdom. I decided that would be an awfully good idea if we had a program for the United Kingdom.

Not that there's anything wrong with the United Kingdom except we've become complacent. We've been going for a very long time, and we are now on the treadmill grind. And you know, that's sort of, "That's the way it is."

Well, that isn't the way it is. You can't hold a level without falling off. You've either got to go up or go down. And so, we have two programs for the United Kingdom.

One's a Special Zone Plan about which you know a great deal and about which a great deal more could be said. I, however, do not consider that program number 1 for the United Kingdom. Program number 1 for the United Kingdom starts at 7:30 tomorrow morning at the Charing Cross–Embankment Underground where the bus leaves for Saint Hill. That's when that program starts.

Now, you may think this is just an effort to fill up an ACC or to get somebody in, and so forth. But look-a-here, you've had two only mediumly successful ACCs in the United Kingdom in the distant past — only two. And they didn't turn out the percentages that they should have in terms of Clear or anything else. You understand?

So that's why about 24 or 36 hours ago (you ought to be part of the organization; if you are, you know how dizzy things can get) I suddenly decided with a crash that this had gone far enough, and the best thing we could possibly do for the United Kingdom — not that anybody is worried about it — but if something remains that static, it'll as-is. (Joke.)

Now, much to the horror of HCO Worldwide and HCO London, and with a little minor gulp in HASI London, I said, "Well, I'm going to sit on this ACC tight." And I said, "This one I'm going to teach personal for the United Kingdom, and I'm going to turn out at the other end nothing but Clears, 100 percent. I'm bored with this business of sitting around patty-caking," and so forth.

Now look, if you had twenty-five–thirty-five Clears in the United Kingdom, it would make one fantastic lot of difference, wouldn't it? Hm? And if you had twenty-five or thirty-five people in the United Kingdom, each one of whom could be absolutely trusted to sit down in front of a pc and dear the pc, what do you think that'd do to the United Kingdom?

In the first place it's not very hard to clear anybody. It's not difficult to clear people, not now. The operating climate is changed. It has been changed here now in the United Kingdom for not more than seven or eight weeks, but it has changed. Definitely. Because HGCs all over the world are reporting in all of their profiles as they always do to HCO WW. And in 25 hours, those cases which were lying on the bottom are up toward the bottom middle of the graph.

In other words, they go from off the bottom up toward the middle of the graph. Another 25 hours of processing, they go up just above the middle of the graph. Another 25 hours of processing and they start sailing up in the Clear range.

The only funny story about all this is, of course, this stuff comes in — just in by the ton. The postmaster general loves us. We send so much mail out and get so much in. Keeps the morale up.

Oh, factually, every Central Organization pc in the world — and that's an awful lot of them — are reported in full at Saint Hill. And we've kept our eye on this, and for the last — oh, we haven't got every Central Organization absolutely smooth or every auditor in the world yet absolutely smooth, but we have found something fabulous. Found something utterly fabulous. The only thing that prevents anybody from being Clear on the processes we are now using — and we're going right up and out the top — is some gross error. A gross error. It is not a small error. It's something like the auditor sat there for 25 hours and talked about his ulcers.

You ask Robin. She sits there and agonizes over them. Once in a while I get a despatch on the lines from her. "Can't I tell the auditors in Northumbria or Upper Slobithgovia or something — can't I please tell them to audit the pc, not the D of P?" Or something like that, you know.

But it's a gross error. A fantastically gross error.

Now look. We've been in the operating climate for a very, very long time of you had to be very careful to follow the Auditor's Code. You had to be rely careful how you gave that acknowledgment. You had to walk that tightrope all the way through the session. It was a critical proposition clearing people. Well, that's very true. The processes we had made clearing a very critical proposition. But that now has only laid a good foundation for auditing. It makes a good auditor, if he's trained that way and oriented that way, that he does that careful a job.

But, the things that are preventing people from getting cleared are not these, not these tiny little differences. The things that are preventing them from getting cleared is something on the order of the auditor never came to the session.

Oh, yeah, you-it's that goofy. I'm not even exaggerating. It's something fabulous. The fellow was supposed to have 121/2 hours of-the pc is supposed to have 121/2 hours of processing, and it got goofed around, so it got cut way down, of course, this would upset a pc and you get no auditing in, or something like this would happen. Or consistent and continual changes of auditors. Or the auditor just didn't even vaguely run any terminal had anything to do with the case. You know, I mean, it's gross.

And we're now looking — we're now looking at an entirely changed picture in Scientology.

Now look, I maybe could be accused of crying wolf too often and say, "Well, we're making Clears now. Yeah, this is clearing. Clearing is fine," and so forth. Well, maybe you could be perfectly justified in saying, "Well, he said it too often."

Well, there are two reasons for that. All of my experience, the most direct, subjective experience, and so forth, which I have is in my auditing people. And for something on the order of about 10 years I've been dreaming up a process which is, "Hold the two back corners of the room." And I say to the pc, "All right, you hold the two back corners of the room," something like that. "Just sit there in the chair and get the idea of holding those two back corners of the room." And wild, weird and incredible things would occur and I tell an auditor, "All right, now have your pc hold the two back corners of the room," and wild and incredible things don't occur.

Another thing is, my next pair of eyes is through auditors doing immediate and direct research. And these boys were auditing pcs and girls were auditing pcs directly, but on a process that Ron had told them to run exactly as Ron had told them to run it. And of course, the pc knew that. Pc agreement, usually, was gotten to run an experimental process. So once more, what is that? This is altitude at work.

Now, when I say to somebody, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" All right. Student auditor says this, you know, he says, "Now what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

And the pc says, "Well, let's see, what part of the problem, this isn't very important."

Somebody with altitude tells them that, "Now what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

The pc says, "Who? Me? Me? Me be responsible for something? Let's see now. Me be responsible for something? Me? Well, who does he mean by me? Me? You know, I think this guy is talking to me. Well, let's see. What part could I be responsible for? By George, not very much of it. Ah, yes, yes. I know what I could be responsible for. I could be responsible for avoiding it."

All right. All right. This is the question of altitude. This is the question of altitude. And I assure you, it should pay [play] a minimal part. It's been with us as a problem now since the first days I myself was auditing directly and immediately, which takes us back to very early 1947. I put in a lot of hours in the auditor's chair back from the last year of the war on up, and was making first Clears back there at that time.

Well now, let me give you something that is very interesting. There's such a thing as a valence. A person is in somebody else's valence. He isn't being himself at all.

Now as soon as a person is in somebody else's valence, somebody else's beingness, only then can he experience pain, discomfort, upset, unrest and worry. We needn't worry too much about why that is, but it's just there. That's it.

A person's identity, in other words, has to be highly false before he can have any bad luck. If he's ever saying, "I am being me," or acting as he himself would act, he doesn't have. Falsity is always the basis of all injury, pain, upset, bad luck, fate, karma, anything else you want to call it.

Now, Mary Sue is smiling down here. She used to write an ad and put it in Fate magazine once in a while. Out of her own personal puckishness, she'd say, "You can erase your karma." It's true, you can. But the fundamental of erasing your karma would simply just be yourself. Because your karma applies to somebody else called Joe, Bill or Pete that you aren't. Don't you see?

All right. Here we've got a problem in altitude whenever somebody is auditing somebody with technology which is not strong enough to resolve that particular difficulty in auditing.

A student auditor or somebody auditing without much conviction, he's sitting there, and he's saying, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" You know, with good Tone 40, and so forth.

And he says this, and pc says, "What part of the problem could I — Mother, what part of the problem could Mother be responsible for? Let's see. I guess she could be responsible for the whole shooting match. The whole ruddy works, that's for sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, be responsible for the whole thing." (Pc's answer.)

Well, by the way, this is just one of several accidentals which have stood in the line — one of several. Auditing without altitude, without punch, without conviction, without a desire to be helped on the part of a pc. All of these things add up to a long tough play — a long one and a tough one.

Auditors throughout the world have set me the rather fantastic problem of finding out what they were going to do next to outguess the whole situation. Back two or three years ago, I used to go at it like this: There'd be a perfectly clean, clear problem — process. Or there would be a perfectly good undercut process of some kind or another like, well, an old one was, "Invent something worse than that leg or a leg." That was a couple of years ago. You've seen refinements come in, even on this line. But I get hold of a pc, and I say, "Invent something worse than a leg." Pc's got a bad leg, see. Pang pang, pang pang. Forty-five minutes, an hour, and so forth. The fellow says, "Ow, ow, ow, ow."

And I say, "What's the matter?"

He says, "Ow, ow, ow," he says, "My leg hurts."

I say, "Fine. Invent something worse than that leg."

"Oh, I don't know. Boiled in oil. Rah, rah, rub, rah." And all of a sudden, boom!

I say, "What's the matter here?"

And he'll look down. Any sores or anything on his leg (snap), gone. That miraculous, absolutely miraculous. Run the BMA right out of business.

But when I released that one, I said now what are they going to do with it that'll muck it up. I was getting cynical because it could be mucked up. It could be. And it was. And you hardly see that process around today, but it's one of the finest processes you ever saw in your life.

You could set up your shingle right next to the BMA central headquarters and build a bigger building in three months. You could! I mean that's a fact. There are few things wrong with the processes originally worded. So what happens is a process comes back to me, I have to reshape the process and fix it up so that in the absence of tremendous altitude and things of this character, it will still work.

Well, it's taken almost two years to sort that one out. So the first piece of data you've got at the congress in a technical fashion is just, "Think of something worse than a (whatever is wrong with the pc)."

You say to the pc, "What's wrong with you? What's wrong with your body?"

And he says, "Well, I think it's my kidneys."

And you say, "Well, that's fine. Think of something worse than kidneys."

It's "Think of something worse than kidneys." You cut the bottom out from underneath the condition, in other words, because he's resisting getting worse. And that's what makes him bad. He's resisting getting ill, sick, worse, and so forth, and that is the downward spiral. His resistance to decay. And it works. It works very, very well, and it works marvelously — providing he's in-session. A little footnote on that, asterisk, bottom line: providing pc is in-session.

But that's really not tough — not tough to get him in-session now because there is such a thing called presessioning. Again, that I am going to tell you something about in this congress because there's new data on it that has not even been released in a bulletin.

All right. But when we look over this picture, what do we see? We see various things have intervened between the preclear and Clear. It really didn't have too much to do with bad auditing, but it had a lot to do with having to do auditing with such care that the auditing itself could prove ineffectual in many cases, and the auditor himself having the difficult time trying to steer this very cranky bark called a pc over the troubled seas of his aberrations. And it was a piece of helmsmanship that would have — would do credit to the defender of the international cup. You had to be too confounded good, that's all.

Lacking altitude, you had to be perfect. Don't you see? Now I could make a mistake. You can't. Lacking altitude the pc will bring it up and it'll fester. If I do it, well, he says, "That must be the way it's done. Ron did it," which, of course, has made a difficulty for you. Now actually, the first clearing done by other people occurred in 1957, late in the year. And I knew there was something still needful because I didn't think we would get to the very, very rough bottom scale cases. I thought some other things would probably intervene up the line, and you saw that sometime late in 1958 I stopped talking about it to a marked degree. I got very quiet about it.

Well, that wasn't because we weren't making Clears. We still could have along that line except for one thing. We were only getting a percentage, we were only getting something between 50 and 30 percent and it was just not enough. And it was taking auditors in HGCs and the field at large fantastic numbers of hours. It was just a long long long long look. The hour estimates were out.

So I dropped it and decided to solve one problem and decided to solve that problem well, completely and utterly. Is the pc at cause? Must he really be audited at cause and only cause? And from that time until just this April, you will find that all the work done is done around that alone.

We have to understand now, we've got to face it now that there is a new law involved with cases that any effect a person receives of a bad or unwanted nature was originally caused by himself and has gone through the vias of other-determinisms. In other words, unless he authored the effect, it never hit him and never will hit him.

Now you know quite a bit about this. There have been lots of bulletins out on it and those people just got — hearing too much about this first time might have their hair stand on end.

Well, look, I'll call something to your attention. Man's never done anything with man. Well, that's a fact, that's a fact. If you read all the ads and blurbs of the medical association and psychiatric associations, and so forth, very faithfully, you will look in vain for cures. You'll see a lot of procedure. You'll see a lot of must do's — first, the sulfa drugs and now penicillin. Then there was penicillin, and penicillin, oh, man, that cured anything from broken legs to falling hair. All you had to do was get a horse needle and hold the patient down with one knee, see, and go sssssew. And they even got it so it'd stay in him for days, and you didn't have to wake him up every three hours, and you didn't have to let it drip into him from bottles. They really got this one down pat.

And now it's stopped curing anything. That's a fact. Tremendous numbers of people are allergic to this stuff now. It's stopped working. You don't hear any ads on the subject, but why Aureomycetin? Why Chloromycetin? Why all these new wonder drugs after wonder drugs after wonder drugs? It makes you wonder, let me tell you.

I think even the BMA and the rest of them are wondering about it by now. But here we have — here we have somebody putting all his chips on a cure, a drug. Well, we know the word "abracadabra" familiarly in all of our magic and that sort of thing.

Well, the Roman had a cure, too, and maybe it worked in its day, which was you put a triangle on the fellow's chest. And it had abracadabra, and it was all written so that you could take off one letter a day or something like that. And when they were all gone, it'd be cleared.

Now this was a wonderful amulet. This is a marvelous amulet and maybe it worked in its day. But it was so far from anything like a total answer and there were so many other factors that could crop up in it, that any continuous reliance upon it would have been folly. Hence, new cures, until we get the magic amulet of the bottle of Aureomycetin. Well, you shoot somebody with it and he gets well. And then the germs recondition themselves or some fallout comes down, and they mutate, and boom! Here we've got something else on our hands.

I tell you, I feel for the medico. Factually, I never fight medical doctors. Those medical doctors I know are good Joes. Only they've gotten so they run, kind of, when they come near me and talk to me in a professional capacity any length of time. They become superstitious. I start asking them about their warts and things, you know. And then I'm liable to get overt enough to roll up my sleeves and offer to audit them.

And they've really gotten down till one of them said to Mary Sue not too long ago this fantastic statement. And I know you couldn't imagine this statement as having any part whatsoever of a medical doctor's makeup. He said, "All I'm asking to do in front of you Scientologists," and so forth, and the rest of all these things, "just let me go along and practice medicine the way I know it and get what results I can."

We have at least — have taken out a little bit of pomposity on the subject. But I'm not even angry with or upset with medical doctors, and I never have been because I know they've got a rough beef that is a tough one. It's a very, very tough one because they so far from have all the answers that healing is a tremendous liability. It's a tremendous liability for them to sock into it and heal. Look what happens to them.

Look at psychiatry. They're still saying, "Well, is it chemical? Is it mental?" I just read they put an eight-million-dollar campaign out in the United States a short time ago — eight million dollars they spent to advertise. So I got very curious as to what they were advertising, so I whistled up their advertisements.

And their advertisements were mainly — I think their professional journal is the Reader's Digest, something like that. Or Look magazine and I read in this thing — over here I think it's the Graphic, isn't it, the Daily Graphic or something of that sort? Anyway, Look magazine has this, "Psychiatry didn't know what insanity was and couldn't cure it but were arguing whether or not it was chemical or mental" — insanity was.

Now, it sounds incredible. You'd think this organization or these people professing to be the sole proprietors of insanity in the world would at least know or have decided amongst themselves, rightly or wrongly, what insanity was before they hold themselves forth as the only authorities on the subject. Because if the only authority on any subject is an authority because he says, "I don't know what it is and I can't cure it," I'm sure somebody else is going to find another authority.

Now, again we're not even interested in being sole proprietors of the insane. We have a hard enough time with our own people, let alone the insane. But these poor devils, because they don't know the answers, wind up in their own mental hospitals at a fantastic rate.

They keep saying, "There are only 3,400 psychiatrists in the United States." Now, they've been saying this for a number of years. And the number of psychiatrists then graduating from hospitals and intern schools for psychiatry, and so forth, would have to be then, wouldn't it, the number of psychiatrists which go mad out the top or die. And that would tell you immediately how many psychiatrists went mad every year. Well, wouldn't it?

And there's some — of course, that's one — that's mathematics a la psychiatry. But nevertheless, they wind up mad all the time. They have no answer to what insanity is. They go in there and they do something violent and vigorous to insanity, you know, electric shock people and give them metrazol and pizzas and — I don't know what all they give them, but they're going to do something.

And with grand pomposity they say they know what they're talking about themselves, and then this stuff comes back and takes their head off. Well, they — it must be a terribly dangerous profession, let me assure you.

Now again, I have no arguments with those fellows. Probably what's wrong with me in their eyes is I don't fight with them. You know, therefore, they're — I am either terribly dangerous or don't know anything. And they've never quite made up their minds which one this is. But they're kind of leery on the subject.

If they weren't nervous, they wouldn't invest money trying to say we were no good. You know, they occupy more space saying we're bums and tramps and fakes, and so forth. You know, they just work at it real hard. And they just can't seem to convince anybody. And that, too, must be a failure which winds them up in their own spinbins.

Now, here's the point, however. In handling a case, you mustn't get 30 to 50 percent results because that tells us at once that we don't know about 50 percent of the cases or 70 percent of the cases. Don't you see? So there must be that much that we don't know because we don't get broad results on that many. And that was what I socked into in the winter of '57 — '58 on the subject of clearing.

I said, "Well, there's some factor around here which is just, eeeeh, some factor." Well, I could only think of two factors. One was valences, and the other was whether or not a person was aberrated by others or only was able to aberrate himself.

In other words, was aberration from the outside in or was from — aberration from the inside out. Which direction? Which direction had to be attacked in order to resolve this thing called aberration?

Well, all that time — mid-1958 right straight on through till this April — was spent shaking that problem out, and I hope you will forgive me for taking so long because it became a very involved problem indeed.

Tremendous numbers of tests had to be run on this. And it's only the person — it's the fellow himself and the reasons why he won't undo it have to do with valences. So valences is the other part of it. So we had to solve valences and get that really solved.

So the pc has to be at cause, really and actually, and has to be audited at cause and has to be moved over into his own valence. Actually, it's no careless statement I make to you that the only time a person can feel pain is when he is not being himself. He is actually being another personality than himself if he can feel pain, discomfort, bad luck, and so forth. Because it's the valence that gets in the road.

Because why? He says, "I am this other being and this other being here is being responsible for everything I do." So the individual now runs on a total irresponsibility for himself and he can get it in the teeth. It's actually as simple as this, but that was necessary to unravel this thing called clearing. What kept the 50 to 70 percent of the people who were being processed toward Clear — what kept them from attaining the goal of Clear? And it's just that techniques were insufficiently powerful to plow in to 100 percent of the human race. Well, I overshot the goal.

I swear the auditor could sit there now, half asleep, as long as he'd run the auditing commands and the person would come Clear at the other end of the line. Now, that's what you've made me do.

Now, wherever we look in Scientology today, we find some consciousness now of a person's own ovens. Everyone's pretty well got this one taped, you know.

If he's feeling bad about something, it must be because he has ovens against it. And certainly enough, it works out. You don't have to educate a pc into this.

You take the disgruntled employee out of the office and you pull him aside, and you sit him down in a chair, and he's saying, "Justify, justify and they did this to me, and they did that to me," and so on. And even though it chops him up a little bit, you say, "Look, son, what have you done and what have you withheld?"

Now, the test is that we could run out endlessly, out of this uneducated, uninformed person on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, we could run out all of these motivators. He'd be all right. But oh, that takes a long time. He's been working in the place — he's been working in the place eight years. He's been bawled out, chopped up, his pay increased, decreased, he's been promoted, reduced. He's been chopped down about this. He's had boxes fall on him. He's had .. .

All right, so we had to put him in shape to run engrams, see. And we had to very carefully put him in shape to be able to run all these things. And then if we erased all these things with Dianetic procedure, we'd eventually make it.

The funny part of it is we could actually make it. That's what's peculiar because it's almost impossible to. Look, we did something that was utterly impossible in Dianetics. The whole orientation of Dianetics is it's done to the person. And the orientation of Scientology is he did it. These are two reverse philosophies actually.

You actually can get there with Dianetics, but this accounts for the thousand hours to make somebody well, don't you see? It's erasing those motivators, you know. And they're just innumerable. And it's sort of over the preclear's dead body that you really get them all, too. But you can kneel on his chest and push him through those engrams and get them erased anyhow. Takes an awful lot of auditing skill and cleverness and so forth to do it.

But let's look at the other side. We sit down this shipping clerk and we say to this shipping clerk — we say, "Now think of something you've done to the boss. Think of something you withheld from him." We flatten that sort of thing off. It doesn't take too long. "Think of something that you have done to the organization. Think of something you have withheld from the organization."

These things start going clip, clip, clip, clip. Bip, bip, bip, bip, bip, bip. And he thinks of what he's really done to them, and so forth. And at first he starts out and he says, "Well I … what I've done to them, I have … I have faithfully punched the time clock," or something like this. Some big vicious stunt he's pulled, you see.

And it finally boils down to why he's so upset about the organization was that up until three years ago, every day practically, he took home a shoe box full of ump-gumps which the organization made, unbeknownst to anybody else. Don't you see? He's got overts by the ton against this organization.

Well, it doesn't take too long to strip these things off and all of a sudden he feels all right about the organization. Well, that's a Scientology look at running the pc exactly and only at cause — just ignoring what's been done to him and just running him on what he's done.

Well, it works out numerically like this. There are millions of people around one person. Well, the millions of people do millions of things, of course. And tremendous numbers of things happen to this person we're talking about — who will become a pc. But he himself really doesn't have too much time to do more than a few things. And it's very lucky for us because it gives us the minority of incidents to audit. It's quite remarkable. In other words, you could get the shipping clerk happy about the firm he's working for.

You could get anybody — well, marriage counseling, marriage counseling is a field that ought to open up. Somebody ought to really start doing this thing. I showed somebody how to do it, and they went to another place and found a couple and straightened them out. And it's going sort of like this, but only by subjective reality. It's apparently something that sounds good theoretically. So therefore, nobody really should do it because it's — probably wouldn't work. Something like that.

What happens is the auditor gets a husband and a wife. He doesn't audit the husband, he doesn't audit the wife, see. In fact, there's a case right out in front of me that should have been done to a long time ago. And it all would have straightened out very easily.

Get the — the case would have straightened out — get the husband and get the wife in the same room at the same time, no matter what the antagonism involved is, and give one or the other of them the electrodes on an E-Meter. And just get them talking about what they've done to the other person. The other person is right there. Auditor does this. It doesn't become involved because at some times you have to pull one of them off of the other one, you know, sort of like this.

And then when he's got this kind of shaken out, why, you do the reverse and you take the other person and make him get those ovens off against the other person. And the funniest doggone thing, it just starts clearing up like mad, and all is sweetness and light, and everything is fine — as long as they're both in the same room, and the auditor audits each one of them on overt-withholds only in the presence of the other person. That is marriage counseling.

Believe me, that is so wrapped up, I am amazed that it isn't being done more. It's being done quite a bit, but nobody has stressed that that is the way you straighten up an interpersonal relationship. Now of course, there are numerous reasons why this can't be done and why it's difficult and all kinds of excuses. But there is no substitute for that way to do it. No matter how difficult it is, that's the only way to do it.

Now there might be other ways, and somewhere up the line there might — other ways turn up, but we've tried most of them. Yeah, I look over the number of techniques, and so forth that have been developed in this particular field, and I would say immediately and directly that the chances of thinking up another one are very rare. Ha!

Yeah, you get that way after a while when you — when you pick up a file and it almost breaks your back. And it's nothing but single sheet methods of doing something, you know. It's that kind of thing.

But this one works. And about the only reason it doesn't work is if one of them can't be kept in the room or something like that, but that's easy to solve. Just get two auditors on the same deal. One of them keeps them in the room and the other one audits them. But that is the way you do it. And that is the way to straighten up a marriage.

You just straighten it out right there, bang! And it will straighten out because each one of them is saying, "Look what he or she has done to poor me." That's what each one of them is saying.

Well, maybe they have done things to each other. And maybe their own sins on the whole track all the way back, all the times they've been alive — maybe all of these sins composite up to the fact that it becomes very painful to have this done to him or her. See? Maybe — we can't argue with the fact that it's probably painful. It's very upsetting. Undoubtedly, they believe it is but we take them and we get off what they've done to the other one. It's very hard to get at sometimes because there's so many justifiers in the middle of all of the Confessional, you know.

You practically just have to stamp on it with hobnail boots and say, "Oh, yes, I know. She stayed away for three weeks living with another man. That's good. We got that story. I heard you before. That's fine. Thank you very much. We got it. I heard it. That's good. Good. What did you do?"

"Well, the year before, when I went away with that girl, I only stayed a week."

That makes it all right, see.

But you could straighten out more interpersonal relations. We look around in the society at large and we find marriage is supposed to be going by the boards and a lot of things are supposed to be going by the boards. Well, it's — you could put it back together again in quite a rush.

I imagine you could go so far as just look up in the overdue alimony payments or something of this sort and find a lot of customers. You know, just find the lists of people who have been cited during the past month or something like that for not paying their alimony or for not receiving it. They're already divorced. See, the whole thing is already smashed. Run it the hard way. Get each one of them by the ear, set them down in the room, get between them and the door, and run off the overts and motivators. They'd be back together again. It's very remarkable, I mean the power and authority contained in this.

But isn't it — something is very, very remarkable about this? There's something very remarkable about this that you should know — is that it doesn't particularly change profiles or IQs. It just makes people happier.

Of course, you say that's enough to lead a successful life, for heaven's sakes. But it doesn't really, markedly, rapidly shift IQs and profiles. That takes a whole new battery of processes.

And if you shift all the profiles, all the overts blow anyhow because a person is now upscale enough to be able to look at them for what they are. And if that is the case, then why run the other process? But don't lose the value of a year and a half's hard work because the other process is very valuable.

Whatever a person is worried about or whatever a person is being harmed by or injured by, in any way, is injuring him or harming him because he has left all the doors open for it to do so. And that's the most practical statement that could be made on the subject

By his own acts, he opened up the doors. When somebody looks at that, for years, he's been going on being chopped to bits from some particular quarter. Just being cut to ribbons from this quarter, not succeeding at all in some way. And we look — he looks and he finds the doors that are being left open. It's the things he did, no matter when, where or how, but they are directly traceable, and he recognizes them as being the immediate cause of his present difficulty. And they fold up.

Well, this may not change profiles, but it gives a considerable value. May not change profiles, but it's valuable. It's very valuable.

It tells you this. You might not become a different person on all fronts, but you could become immune to atomic fission in a world where a bunch of psychotics, under the guise of politicians, are shooting dice loaded with plutonium with the fate of nations.

Why are you worried about the antics and activity of some clown that lives south of the pole and somebody else that is about to go out of office? Why are you worried about these people? The only reason you're worried about these people is they, for — somehow or another, can have an effect upon you!

Well, how can they have an effect on you if you're the only one that can cause an effect on you?

Oh, I think it'd be the most colossal joke in the world to be totally immune to atomic fission, its burns, blast, wind or anything else. I think that'd be very funny. That is a fantastic shortcut to defenses against the atom bomb or political situations so rerigged so that we will all interprotect something. Probably they'll wind up interprotecting everything except button A.

I know how this next war is going to start, you know. It's just obvious — char, coming in with a cigarette in her mouth one day is dusting this panel. But in a world like that, I think it'd be a very amusing thing for an entire group to be totally immune to atomic fission. I know so much about it already that it's become a simple problem.

In the first place, gamma rays can't even stop inside you. They can't even stay with you. There's some kind of a signal system which, when they go through you, you decide you have a motivator. Well, why? Because they don't even physically damage you. The damage occurs months later or weeks later or sometimes in a very bad burn, days later.

But having already seen an atomic burn disappear on a twenty minute Touch Assist — an atomic burn, a bad one — and having already seen, "Where were you and where are you now? Where were you? Where are you now? Where were you? Where are you now?" cure up somebody whose eyeballs were about burned out by an atomic flash — I'd begun to think it was not a very tough problem.

So I've ordered up some X-ray machines for Saint Hill and ordered up some hard radiation and a few things like that, and we're going to have a crack at this thing. You know, I know we can hit it theoretically and guess that's the way it is, but what we'll actually do is burn the daylights out of some — I'll have to tell you some more about … I have to also tell you about some of this plant research because that's become very amusing. Everybody thinks I'm researching plants.

But in theme, I believe now, as far as a program for the United Kingdom is concerned — I believe that what we've done is not likely to get very real, very fast to anybody because it's hardly real to me or tech staff yet. We're still watching this stuff come through, you know, bottom to top, four weeks, bottom to top, you know, just bang!

It is so unreal to Ds of Ps — I'm going to let you in on something that's very amusing. It's so unreal to Directors of Processing throughout the world, that they are routinely and regularly letting pcs leave as good Releases without even sending them near HCO to get checked out for Clear, who are Clears.

"We've got to . . . we … it's too bad that we couldn't hold him over for another week or he'd be Clear, or two more weeks at the outside, but we couldn't hold him over, and so we had to release him," and so on. "But he'll be back this fall sometime in order to have the clearing finished." He's reading this with amazement, see, because there sits the profile, there sits the discussion of the needle, there sits the IQ of a MEST Clear. And it's something like — we've been critical for so long that we're being hypercritical of a result level right in Central Organizations, technically. And we see these things come by and they're just walking on out the front door.

And an HCO Secretary the other day said to me, "Oh, I'm alert to this. The first Clear that comes up in this organization — make sure, I'll check her or him." And we had some profiles of them right in front of our desk. I don't know. Maybe it's expected that the profile or something disappears.

Now we've been at this for a long time. I've been trying now for ten years to get somebody else to produce regularly and routinely Clears. It had to be a pretty gross auditing job to produce a maximum result that — in both ways.

In other words, we had to make very good auditors who, even if they didn't audit very well, would still, using these technologies, produce Clears, and people would become Clear, and that would be that. And all we're trying to do is produce MEST Clears. Actually, we've done better than that. We are producing people who, in two or three more weeks, would have been Theta Clear. That's what the Ds of Ps are all striking for without knowing it.

Almost every piece of data which they have or are striking for or have held on to or pressed close to their bosoms, has been the data relating to a Theta Clear. And it occurs to nobody to go and open up Book One and read the chapter on Clears, and read it! Not just alter-is it all the way down the line.

Scan down all the words and say, 'Well, I know what a Clear is. A Clear is somebody who never walks on the ground." "I know what a Clear is. They can as-is policemen's hats." They've got their own peculiar definitions. If you go and read that definition, you'll find out we've delivered the goods for some time.

There are quite — lots of Clears around by the first book definition. We are actually being extreme with our definition now because we've measured it up against profiles. We've said that the E-Meter needle has got to be utterly flat on all questions relating to help, that the profile has to be up in the last third of the graph, and that the IQ has got to, I think, be in excess of 135 or something, I've forgotten what the IQ figure is.

We've got so many of them, the file — we've got to buy new file cases by now. But people go away, and what do they realize? As soon as they got their foot on the ladder, they suddenly realized that they're themselves and that they've got a long way to go. Well, that's true.

They tell you, "Well, I've just got my foot on the bottom of the ladder now. I've just realized I'm myself for the first time." Well, that's almost the first statement that a Clear makes. Yes, they've got an awful long way to go. I agree with them. I agree with them. But they better find out where they've arrived, for heaven's sakes, before they take off.

Yes, I think that's perfectly right. I think that a person, however, who was immune to atomic fission blasts, a person who did not have to eat, a person who didn't particularly need a body could leave a body parked in — on the bed, you see, and go off by himself — and if he saw a friend, why, all of a sudden appear. Aw, this is way upscale. This is not a Clear. This is way up around OT. Now, that's pretty high, but has ceased to be theoretical.

We've advanced so far on this thing called Clear that the upper ranges, the upper states, keep showing up, and people keep trying to settle for these upper states. Well, I laud their ambition, but I deplore their inability to recognize where they are. And I'm very happy they want to be better, but why don't they ever recognize that they've gotten pretty good?

Well, that's one of the little crosses I have to bear. But we've got it, we've got it taped. And with me riding on somebody's backs and the HCO tech staff bearing right down hard on this subject, we intend to turn out Clears down at Saint Hill in these next six weeks who are also well enough, thoroughly enough grooved, trained and convinced as to what they've done, that they can go out and in a finite period of time, clear people in their own vicinity.

All we've got to do is carry out that program, and I think we'll have the whole thing adequately and voluminously taped as far as England is concerned.

All we've got to do is set an example in ourselves and it's made anyway, so I think that's the best way to go about it. What do you think?

Audience: Yes. Yes.

Well, that's the program. I hope you agree with it. And I frankly don't care whether anybody's got any money or anything else or not. I want to see anybody who has been trained up to HPA, down at that underground Charing Cross, outside the station on the Embankment there at 7:30. Catch that bus to Saint Hill tomorrow morning because I want to see this country go, hear? I want to see it really start to roll, and we can't afford to remain static anymore.

So that's my program. I hope you make it yours.