On inaugural day of yesteryear, March the 4th, 1957, and today we are going to inaugurate Control. Nobody else is gonna inaugurate anybody, we're gonna inaugurate something. Control. Exclamation point. Now, I already see in looking around here that some of this has already taken root.

I know at least one or two people have begun to suspect that control exists as a word in the English language. And that's real advance. Because "control" to America and to, I am afraid, the greater part of the British Empire at this time, is a word which has been given a prefix. And that prefix is "bad". And it's been given a suffix. And that's "worse". So you have bad/worse control as being the; or bad-control-worse, or worse-control-bad; as associatives. And this is a slave master mechanism. And if you ever conceive it to be anything else, then you'se headin' for the chute, too.

Obsessive control only comes about through inability to control. Failures in control. Consistent and continual failure to control gives one then, the feeling that, to control is to fail, to control is to die. To control is to have horrible things happen.

Now, control is a games condition. It is a games condition. It's not a good thetan condition to amount to anything, but that is what life happens to consist of. Life consists of communication, control and havingness, and when it consists of much else, it isn't life.

Now, if control is successful, then it ceases to be bad control.

Now then, let's wrap this all up in a nice small package and comprehend it as something that is not incomprehensible. First and foremost, when control is a consistent and consecutive failure, it becomes bad control. Do you understand? It also becomes obsessive control. The inability to control something causes one to press harder and harder and harder in the direction of trying to control it, don't you see. And therefore, an unknowing games condition arrives in that state; and you're expected to know all about games conditions as laid out in Scientology Fundamentals of Thought and more so; arrives at that state through failed controls. Alright, we try to control a street sweeper. First he's sweeping the streets and everything's going along. We can't get this person to sweep the gutters, too. This is the way a government goes. So they pass all sorts of regulations with regard to the street sweeper. They try to make selective entrance examinations for street sweepers. They do all sorts of novel and interesting things to make sure that only the best men are sweeping streets. "See, we've got to get perfection here in terms of personnel because we aren't getting the gutters swept." And then one day we realize that we are never going to get the gutter swept, no matter how much duress, selective service, pay, or anything else. So now, we're going to have to sweep the gutters ourselves.

A fella tries to get some books kept in an organization. He can't get the books kept, and he can't get the books kept. See, in other words, he's trying to control somebody in an effort to get books kept, and he fails to do this, and he eventually controls it himself. Now, what does this amount to?

That failed control amounts to interiorization. The consequence of failed control is interiorization into that area or beingness. One becomes that which he fails to control. You got that? Because if you've got that you've got everything you need to know about the exteriorization and interiorization of thetans into life, bodies, telephone poles and wrecked cars. Got it?

Now, what is an engram in suspension but an interiorization? Into the incident, and therefore, into the mental image picture. If one can't handle his mental image pictures, and if these do not obey, (and they do not, wherever they mirror failed control), then eventually one begins to feel that he cannot handle his mental image pictures, and he gets such a far departure from this fact that eventually he is not willing to handle any mental image pictures or even willing to admit they exist. And you get the state of psychology today. The best they can do with a mental image picture is to say there is such a thing as identic recall. Ahhh! You talk about a weak statement. And into that chasm had to drive Dianetics. Failure to control the picture.

But what does this mean? This means that somebody was stuck on the track, is interiorized into a picture in a particular segment of time, and when he is stuck at a particular segment of time that means he was interiorized into a picture. Well how did he get interiorized into the picture? Well, there are lots of things. There is such a thing as a mystery sandwich and all of this sort of thing. A thetan is a mystery sandwich really. He's a, you know, there's thetan/mystery/picture, or thetan/mystery/body. But what was the mystery? What's the basic mystery?

It's, "How the hell didn't I control it? How come I failed? What is this all about in terms of control? There must have been something here I did not what-not of. There must be some other factor here I am not controlling because I certainly failed to control this situation and that's what I am doing here, but what is it?" And this curiosity of, "What was there there to be controlled and how does one go about controlling it and how impossible it is to control it, and is control necessary?" eventually develops there. "Is control necessary? One really doesn't have to control it anyhow, does he? Why take responsibility for that thing?" And after that, "Why take responsibility for anything?" These all sort of follow as a natural consequence, and you get at length a 1957 citizen. He's interiorized into all the dynamics without any ability to control any of them. He doesn't even know what they are.

Now, the first necessity for to control, is isness. And if you can resolve isness you resolve control. Now we know that, but you would have to have some security about controlling it before one can bring himself to admit that there is an isness. This dodge-back from a good state of case, which you sometimes see, you'll sometimes be auditing somebody and he all of a sudden gets in terrific condition and then go out of terrific condition just like that. Boom bang! He has a great revelation of some sort or another, engram moves through, he's caught in a fly trap on the whole track or something of the sort, and he's got this great revelation, and something terrific has occurred here, and all that sort of thing, and he doesn't stay that way. Well, why doesn't he stay that way?

He obviously has the ability to be that way if anything around can whisper something to him and make him be that way. Do you understand that? I mean the engram never "be's" anything, but the thetan can be the engram, and if a thetan can be suddenly better just by having an engram collapse on him, which is one of these manic engram situations, he naturally has the ability to be that much better.

Well, why does he withdraw from that? Well that's too much isness as far as he's concerned. It's an uncontrollable situation and he is faced by too many uncontrollables and so he disadmits the isness. He says, "The isness ain't." That's his favorite method of getting out of control, is to not-is, declaim, cast away, throw aside, discount and have nothing to do with.

If he has any possible control over something, then he will admit its' isness. And you know isness is just isness, just the way it is in Creation of Human Ability, it's just the isness. Something is or it isn't. Well how does it get to be both of these things at the same time? What is not-isness? Not-isness is an isness which the person conceives himself unable to control, unmock, or do anything about, and so he not-ises it. So, not-isness is the immediate consequence of the recognition of failure to control.

A game becomes an unknowing games condition only when one has failed in the factors of control.

Now, the final answer, you understand, is isness. But how do you get there? What knocks isness out? You could say to somebody "Look at the wall. Is there a wall there?" And the fellow says "Yes". If he admits there's a wall there, if he can really tolerate a wall being there and so forth, he gets into better shape right away, he's in present time.

Now Step 7 of SOP-8 was very interesting. We asked somebody to look around and find something that was really real to them. Every once in a while somebody would, clutch it to his bosom, and be awfully sane and everything would be wonderful thereafter. What was this little funny mechanism? A girl was asked this by an auditor, a California auditor, too, and asked this by this auditor and said, "Look around and find something really real to you", you know? The preclear, strictly fruitcake, all ready to be stuffed and sold for Christmas, and the preclear saw a sugar bowl, a little silver sugar bowl, went over to it, looked at it, let out an ecstatic cry and pressed it to her bosom, fondled it and wouldn't give it up, but was sane after that. One item. It's quite interesting. That is the result of isness, but how do you get there, huh? What makes a person deny isness?

Well, the bridge answer is control. The bridge answer IS control. Isness can exist if a person can, to some slight degree, control something. Now he doesn't have to go on controlling it, that is an obsession. To have to control something morning, noon and night, all week and Saturdays too, like you do a body, is an obsession. Therefore, we consider interiorization into a body as a non-optimum condition if it exceeds the preclear's power of choice to exteriorize. Well the only way he gets stuck in a body is his failure to control bodies.

Now, you can blow somebody out of his head by just running this dichotomy; this is occasionally, I mean this doesn't work in every case, because sometimes your preclear never does it. You know, these are these subjective auditing commands that very often don't work because your preclear doesn't run 'em? It's quite interesting. You ask this fellow, "Mock up a cat", and he conceives a horse and says "Yes". Only he never tells you he conceived a horse, you see, and you sitting there as the auditor think he mocked up a cat. He didn't. And then you will say, "Well, mocking up cats doesn't work in this case". But the fellow has yet to mock up a cat. You wouldn't know that. So these subjective-type commands very often break down and fail.

Engram running quite often failed, even on a preclear that should have been able to run engrams, simply because the preclear never did what the auditor told him to do. Here again you have this control factor entering into the running of control. And here you have it very directly, Q and A. You ask the preclear to run this dichotomy, "Get the idea you can control this body. Get the idea you can't control the body. Get the idea you can control the body. Get the idea you can't control the body", just back and forth and he'll blow out of his head. If he runs it. Quite interesting.

A much more certain way of getting a preclear out of his head is "Keep his head from going away", and that blows 'em. It'll make somebody who's on an obsessive kick like that do a bunk too, occasionally. And just as he's passing Arcturus, why, you will be pleading with him to come back and pick up the mock-up. You object to dead bodies being left in the auditing room. And you are then and there called upon to bring a resurrection into being, and this may be a bit above your priceliness. But it better not be, because you'll have a dead body lying there if you don't resurrect him. You've got to whistle him back.

Interesting and amusing case of that happening one time. I'll just pass this as I'm speaking of somebody begging the preclear to come back. He'd asked the preclear be three feet back of his head and the next thing he knew, why, the preclear's body just slumped in the chair like, like a pat of butter, you know, just sort of bleh, gone, dead, and so on, flop. "Be three feet back of your head." Flop. And he said, "Well, think of your children, think of your children, think of your children, they have no mother." A girl preclear, come to remember. "Think of your children, they'd have no mother; think of your poor husband, he'd have no wife; think of how much the society needs you." And "Well, just come back for the society's sake, come back!" you know. A totally irresponsive body, you know, just sitting there. "Come on back for your children, come on back", and he went through these things and begged and pleaded "For your father, for your mother." No response at all. And finally he says "Well, please, then come back for your poor auditor!" The preclear came back, picked the body up and went it's way.

Well, now, this control factor is something which has been with us here for a long, long while as an understood thing. But we never understood it to the degree that we do today. We've known that this dichotomy of can and cannot control, and in old ridge running the ability of the thetan to control the body is very often manifested, and when it did then the preclear would exteriorize. And we've done a lot of things with control, but not until recently, not until the last year are we coming up to the degree that we can see controls' relationship in exteriorization and interiorization.

A person will interiorize into those things, to some degree, at least to the degree of a mental image picture, which cause him to fail in control. To some degree.

A fellow gets into a steam shovel he's been controlling for years and he pulls the lever that lifts the bucket and the bucket depresses. Well, you'll find him in there fighting that steam shovel for quite a while. There's just a little example of interiorization. He will fight around with the steam shovel and if he's pulled off the steam shovel and told he mustn't control the steam shovel; in other words "the manufacturers will send out somebody to repair the steam shovel", something on this order; you will find the guy worrying and fussing and fuming about his steam shovel all night and going through an interesting state of rationale.

Now, you get a broken down automobile, automobile breaks down. Why the devil people play around with broken machinery must have been perplexing to you at one time or another. You've seen somebody playing with something that is obviously so busted that nobody would ever be able to put it back together again, and yet they keep monkeying with it and monkeying with it and monkeying with it. Well now, add that to the fellow, oh let's take, let's take a person that's an electronics man who keeps around every tube, part; an electronics man who does this is simply interiorized into, to some slight degree, every piece of equipment that didn't work. And electronics is a new subject, and many, many things don't work. And when somebody starts this kick of saving every single item that has ever passed through his hands, and just accumulates room after room of just junk, junk, junk, junk that's no good for anything, you know? You couldn't even melt the wire and get any copper out of it. It's all made out of cast iron anyhow. And, what's that boy doing? Well, it tells you that he's failed, failed, failed, failed, failed to control electronic items. And here, in a new subject, you always to some degree get this phenomenon. The way is not cleared. Pioneering is still in progress. And you'll here and there find people getting pretty interiorized into a situation. And in auditing, an auditor who's had too many failures, has a tendency to sit around and gloom, and even starts self auditing or something like that. Well he didn't fail on his own case, he failed on a preclear. But he then picks up this thing called a valence and he seeks to control the preclears' valence by retaining the preclears' bank in some fashion or another, and going on and running it and mauling around with it and fooling with it. Of course this is, also must be taken with the idea that this is not always a serious condition.

You ask somebody, for instance, "Who's bank wouldn't you mind having?" Or, you find out he's in his mothers' valence and you ask him to "Tell me a bank of comparable magnitude." This is a Scientologist, you see. He sometimes'll have to think for minutes before he will finally come up with another bank that would be as good as, in terms of complication and upset and mismanagement, as his mothers', you see? And he'll eventually get one, however, and you could slip him in and out of valences rather rapidly this way, by the way. But it takes a Scientologist. What are you profiting from? You are profiting from all of his understanding of what he's doing anyhow, you see? This isn't something you could run on a preclear that you pick up cold because he just wouldn't understand what you were doing. You're getting a bank of comparable magnitude, it's nice; it's an interesting process for slipping somebody out.

For instance, if you had guns that could fire a thousand shots a minute, just sprayed them all over the horizon, and they were big guns, your necessity of controlling one slug would not be as great until you get what the U.S. Army does these days. U.S. Army's been talking for years and years and years about volume of fire. Volume of fire, "this gets around everything you know". The hell it does. One well controlled bullet can do more than a regiment throwing out a volume of fire. But, they've got this idea, you see. It shows you these ideas are associated and connected, at least.

Now it's an odd thing that havingness is influenced, as I have said, by control. A person will not have things, if he can help it, over which he has totally no control. He just doesn't like that. Furthermore, control is influenced by havingness. A person feels he doesn't have to exert as much control if there's a lot of them. By volume of fire. Alright, we take this volume of fire idea, and whereby the idea itself is no more accurate than volume of fire is intended to be accurate, we are nevertheless persuaded to an interrelationship between havingness and control. Quite neat how these two things go together.

Now, the essence of control is communication. And the essence of isness is communication. You let, you let something exist, in other words be, so long as you can, with any degree of security, communicate with it. But when you find you can no longer communicate with it you're not quite so comfortable about letting it be. You see that? And if you can't communicate with it at all in one fashion or another you can get quite frantic about it.

One of the best ways in the world, if you're a government, to get yourself utterly destroyed, is to just fail to keep your doors wide open to the public. All you have to do is shut those doors, lock those gates, lock up all the gates down at the White House, get a bunch of fast talking young men who sit inside offices to grab any interview you want to have with anybody in the government, and make nothing out of it fast, derail everything, never acknowledge a letter that the public writes you, accept from them nothing but cold, hard cash and do that if possible with great duress of no communication, always put out bulletins as to how they're to pay their taxes so incomprehensible that they aren't communication. You just want to get yourself just royally hated sometimes and the government eventually overthrown and pitched into the gutter, why by all means, block the control factor. You got that? Hmmm?

Now if you as an auditor wish to get yourself into a great deal of trouble with your preclears (plural), refuse to communicate with them after the fact of auditing. That's a championship way to break a practice up. You say, "Well that old gal is loopy and I don't want to have anything more to do with her, and therefore I won't see her anymore," and you say, "This is the best way to have no more trouble with this old gal". See, she's an old gal and she's 99 years old, and been crazy since she's two, and you audited her for 2 hours and didn't resolve the case. You say, "I don't want anything more to do with her! And that way I will have no more trouble with her." And that is the downfall of every thetan since the beginning of time.

"The best way to further prevent trouble is to cut communication." A thetan does this on the postulate that there is an insecurity or an unsafe situation into which a thetan can get. And of course that's not possible. So he has to make this statement, as I talked to you about in the last lecture, that he has to protect or safeguard before he gets this other computation. No, the way to handle this poor old gal who's 99 and been spinning since she was two, I very much am afraid, is contained in communication with terrific control. If you add havingness you've got auditing. In an auditing room with a session going. But if you don't want to audit her I'll tell you exactly how to get into the deepest trouble with her, and that is to cut communication. Eventually she sort of disappears, but she always kinda hangs around in the air. You get the idea? This situation is not handled. You didn't handle her.

Then you get some 79 year old tobacco chewin', didn't-smell-good preclear, a man that cussed and swore and blew up in your face every time you turned around and you say, "I don't want anymore communication with him." And three years later you start to chew tobacco. Get the idea here?

In other words, communication is a universal solvent. Everybody believes it is. But the funny part of it is, that there is no havingness without it. So it's also the universal haver.

Well, how can one have anything? How can one continue to have anything? Well the bridge between the two seems to be control. Unless one has some control over an object, one will have a hard time having it. There must be some slight control, or at least willingness to control, or a feeling there's control over it.

For instance, let's take this vast monument of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I think Delano Franklin Roosevelt and Teddy Roosevelt and uh, in other words the Roosevelt Dynasty in America that Gutson Borgland gutted out of a mountain out here in some mountains out in North Dakota or South Dakota or Central Ioway or wherever it was, and we say, "We-he-he-hell that, that's permanent." And one day Gutson Borgland found out that he didn't have any more control over what went up on that memorial, that Mount Rushmore memorial, than a pebble in it. He was being pushed around on the subject of it. His concept of it was being abused, he was being run off sideways, and the general park itself was being replanned, there was a whole lot of trouble involved in this whole thing. If you ever saw a man blow up and get upset…it was bad for his case. And yet you say, "Well he certainly could have that forever." No, the fact that he couldn't continue a tiny little bit of control over it, you see, this fact all by itself was enough just to throw him.

Well how about the U.S. citizen? He looks at the monument there, and he says, "Well, that's quite a monument", and so forth. You know that he wouldn't see it at all if he didn't feel that he would at some time in the future have a say so as to whether or not it was disposed of or not? Or moved, or changed in some fashion? Now, we set that up and everybody got used to that memorial and people went up there.

I think there is the first week in August, I think you can get up into that part of the country without freezing your head off. Now, if you went up there and you liked this, you liked this a lot, and then somebody in the National Park Service, oh somebody who was employed, he'd been sweeping out the offices of the J.P. Morgan Company or something of the sort, he's you know, a very capable man. And he was made chief of the entire National Park Service (I think that's the way they do it), all of a sudden decided, all of a sudden decided that he was going to surround this thing with barbed wire fences and he was going to put in striped red, white and blue trash cans on top of each one of the statues, and he decided he'd rather have them in full color anyhow, and so they decided they'd paint the whole works, and the only reason he's doing all this is because some company that he's connected with is now going to get a percentage of doing the work, you know? And you heard about this. You'd be upset. You'd be upset.

In other words, somebody could change this thing around without your say so. Now, supposing you found out that you had no say so at all over it. No protest you made to your congressman, no protest you made in a writing statement or excitement of any kind or another prevented this tremendous erosion and destruction and interference with the isness of this particular memorial. Supposing you discovered that you could have no effect upon that at all. You know it would disappear as far as you're concerned? If you really decided you could have no effect on it. Although it might still be there, you wouldn't see it. You certainly wouldn't go to see it anymore. Just take that as one point. But if you did see it, I mean it'd have a tendency not to be. Do you understand? Something has been too much changed.

Now, do you know that you could make a child's toys disappear? Give him a train for Christmas, let him play with it for two hours just to find out that it exists, and then you play with it the rest of the day, and then tell him how to play with it and you situate it someplace, and you lay the tracks yourself, and you set up all the switches yourself, and so forth, and you wonder, "Why is it that Johnnie comes in at the door, falls over the tracks and so on, never seems to see that train sitting there?" Certainly never plays with it. Uses maybe the engine for a hammer. He needed to pound a nail one day and the engine was lying there and he used it for a hammer, and he broke it, and doesn't seem to be upset as to how come the engine'd gotten broken. Well that's because the control of the object was wrested from Johnnies' hands. And he, in his effort to continue his control over it, continue to play with it, was continually balked. And his consistent failures in the thing then mounted up to a not-isness of the situation. Now, his not-isness takes the form of breaking it up. But I'll tell you something very funny. In his bank he is stuck to a marked degree in that present. He's stuck in there. It'll be an upsetting thing to him.

You'll be running him sometime or another and you'll all of a sudden have a stuck picture of a railroad locomotive. And you say, "Well this man didn't care." Ah, but there's no such thing. There's below apathy, he could be below apathy about it. He is stuck in this thing. He tried to control this present he was given, it was changed too much for him. Two things happened. Visually it not-ises, and in the bank he interiorizes into it. Now that is the history of a thetan. That is his history. That is the basic game he plays.

Now we have a process known as CCH. Procedure CCH, rather. It's a procedure. And that is communication, with the exertion of control on havingness, result in tremendous case gains for the preclear. Why do we set this up this way? That's because it's a power package, it's a tremendous combination of factors. There isn't very much gonna get in his road that'll remain in one piece.

Communication, exerted control and havingness. Those three factors are just an almost perfect combination of auditing. They handle existence of things, they handle the considerations of those things because those considerations are monitored by the doingness or control of those things, and this is accomplished by communication about those things. And if you handle this this way, you can rehabilitate ones' ability to conceive the isness of things, to control things, which is to say, it goes without saying, take responsibility for them. Responsibility is part of control. And you make it possible for him to communicate not only on the subject but with those items.

So we have that great organization, I won't get sarcastic, no, I've been talking too sarcastically in this lecture already, so I'll be very, very light on the situation. Anyway, this crowd of bums, the Roman Catholic Church, has invented one that you must do unto others the way you'd have them do you in. And you must love thy neighbor and under no circumstances must ever do anything except so and so. And at all times communicate with a god who is totally space. And that's best. Don't have any havingness there. And you can't do anything with god, and he wouldn't do anything you wanted him to do, but he's up there to kind of punish you somehow or another. Only he isn't there. Look at this mechanism. One of the wildest mechanisms you ever wanted to look at.

Now, from mechanisms of that character we get the idea that when we see somebody going down the street and doing something wrong, that as far as we're concerned, going in a loopy fashion or falling into the gutter or something of this sort, we should have nothing to do with him. Where the devil did that idea come from? A total irresponsibility for your fellow man? You would be utterly fascinated at what happens when you do take responsibility for another person who was stumbling up and down the street, or when you take a small crowd of people standing around the collision or something of this sort, and you immediately start doing things, on a good CCH level. Wow! They never saw anything like this before. They just fall into line. You don't exist. Men who can control things are no longer alive. The society doesn't have them anymore. If they find out about you they're liable to be rather nasty about it, but at the same time they wouldn't have a chance if you could really CCH the situation. You see?

You could take control of a situation. And everybody says, "Well should you?" You say, "Well if you do control things which are in your immediate vicinity then you're interrupting the self determinism of others." Let me show you something. If you can find any self determinism where control is needed, then of course it would be very bad. But you won't find any self determinism there to interrupt. Comes under the heading of "What self determinism?"

Now, what is the value of knowing about control? What is the value of this? Well, I'm just asking you to climb a hill, straight up and vertical, and slick all the way, with no spiked shoes, over everything which has disabused you of the idea that you should run good, solid, certain start, change and stop on everything you're connected with. And all of these things say, "No, no you shouldn't do that." But if they say that, they say, "No, no, we don't exist."

That's all we're asking you to do in this unit, is just fly into the teeth of 76 trillion years of education in not controlling things. But you might as well fly into the teeth because there's no other way to run. 99 and 44.500% of your bank will argue with you over these control factors when you first begin. You'd say "WHAT?" or "You mean…?" You'd be surprised, I mean if you were doing a wide instruction job as instructors in the academy and how many people utterly flinch at the idea of putting their hands on their fellow man. This is something we must not do. I don't know, what have we got here? A hundred and seventy million untouchables? Well, you'd think so when you start teaching people heavy control auditing.

Alright. Now, the ability, the willingness, to start, change and stop, both of those things, the ability and the willingness, but remember it's the willingness that monitors the ability; to start, change and stop objects, and things, and people, and stuff, monitors your ability to a marked degree to have these things. Also monitors your ability to communicate with isness. And if you're to have, if you're to be able to conceive of a universe, and have it or be free of it one way or the other, I'm afraid that control is part of the answer. And havingness is the other part. Havingness monitors control, control monitors havingness.

We actually have a little triangle here, which really isn't a triangle, in the CCH thing. In these three factors: You can have something if you can communicate with it. You won't be willing to communicate with it unless you at least have some notion that there's some control involved concerning it. Now, you won't control things unless they're there, or you can communicate with them. So we get an interactive triangle. Quite amazing in its simplicity.

Let me sum up this whole thing in a very, very, very new technique. And it is a technique which is peculiarly fitted to procedure CCH. And this technique is so simple that it would, of course, have evaded everybody. But it is a technique which at once spreads ones' anchor points out quite remarkably, and at once permits somebody to conceive all sorts of new vistas which he had not before conceived. And that is simply "Look around the room and find something you could control." "Look around the room and find something…" of course that's havingness, and "you could control", is the rest of it, and you'll find his ability to run Trio just goes up like a skyrocket. Now that is the, you might say, central process of procedure CCH. "Look around the room and find something you could control." Alright.

Now what is the peculiar, the peculiar ability of using control? What does control do? What is this, what rehabilitation would control bring about if you used nothing but control on a preclear? Of course you couldn't use nothing but control, you would also have to have communication, and you couldn't skip havingness because he is havingness. But what if you, what if you just did nothing but insist that the preclear execute the exact order given? And with good ARC, without getting mad at him or misemotional in any way, you simply, no matter how manually, with your hands and your shoulder, crowded him over and made him do these things, and what if you did nothing but that?

Well, I am afraid it is your inability to be that manual that keeps you from making psychos sane in a single session. Because if you can demonstrate to them that their body can be controlled to that degree, then they get the idea by example; and everything in the bank, and association, and so forth is categorized by "example", associative reasoning, duplication, and so forth, it's all by example; you give them the example of a body being controlled. And having given them this example of their body being controlled, they say, "Hark", and they say, "What do you know? Maybe I can control this thing."

So, heavy, positive control, used by you, without consulting his power of choice to any degree, is better than his bank running him all the time, because that certainly never consulted his power of choice, he never even knew it was there. You at least, in never consulting it, at least know it's there. And you'll find that his choice is to control the body. His actual basic choice is to control that body. So his power of choice is not being violated, even though his bank's objecting.

Now, supposing you did this, supposing you found a bad little boy and he was running around in circles and doing nip-ups and biting people and so on, and you were just having a bad time. The way the society has handled such a case in the past is to break him of running around in circles and biting people. How'd they do that? Well, they just made him stop. They spanked him every time he did it. And of course, oddly enough it never cured him of biting people. It submerged him below biting people and that's all it did. Someday you make him better and he all of a sudden snaps his teeth at you or something of the sort. This manifestation is liable to come up again. Why? It's been submerged so that the handling of a society by submerging all of its' controllability becomes an unworkability because some day somebody's going to start to make it well, and then everybody'll start clawing everybodys' eyes out unless it's really being done well. You understand? We have really a tremendous responsibility in Scientology.

You've seen preclears start up the line. They start up the line and you abandon your control of the preclear and they flip. Wow! Interesting. You've got to carry them over that point. We can do it rapidly today. Alright. Let's take this little boy and let's do something; this bad little boy that's running around in circles and biting people; and let's do something very, very peculiar. We will say to him, we will say to him, "Billy, walk over to that chair and touch it." "Yeow yeow yeow yeow" try to bite, try to bite, and we actually take our hands, we have uttered the command now; we take our hands and we make his feet walk and his body move, over to the chair and we take his hand and we put it on the chair. And then we tell him, "Billy, that's fine." When we say, "Billy, that's fine", we give him the idea that he has some capability of doing it. But he fought us the whole way, we had to practically drag him across the floor and then we say now, "Billy, walk over to that door and touch it", and we take our hands and we walk his body over to the door and we make him touch the door. I mean if, if he would lie down, he would lie down and scream and stamp his heels and shout and everything else, if you didn't walk his hands, you see? I mean, you didn't walk him with your hands. But he didn't have a single obvious volition in the whole thing. You practically dragged him across the room and you made him touch the door and then you said to him "Billy, that's fine," In the meantime he's lost one of his shoes in the wrassling match, and you say to him "Billy, go over there and pick up that shoe", and you're not quite sure he heard you this time. You feel he must be getting better. And you say, "Billy, go over and pick up that shoe. Did you hear me?" "Er wir wir." "Billy, go over and pick up that shoe." "Er wir wir." "Billy, go over and pick up that shoe." And he'll at least glance in that direction and that's your signal to grab hold of his legs and arms and walk him over, and reach his hand down and close his fingers over the shoe and pick it up. This is a terrible wrassling match, this is for sure. It should be on TV, probably. And now let's do practically the same thing for about eight more commands. Do we find a Billy who is in apathy? No we don't. We find a Billy who is perfectly happy. Ah, it's a test you should make, it's a test you should make. Billy did not one of those actions by his own volition, obviously. Yet his volition was actually to cooperate and make the body controlled, him, be controlled. Alright.

Now, his, his volition then was evidently interrupted by an auditor hauling him around with this thing. But the auditor didn't shake him, the auditor didn't say, "If you don't go over to that chair and touch it, I will spank you", you see, there were no threats, nothing involved here except positive control.

Why use punishment for control when you've got hands or could mock up beams? What's the matter with you? Are you lazy? Why tell a preclear, "Well, I'm not going to audit you anymore if you don't snap into it." What's the matter with you, you weak or something? You don't tell a preclear something like that. Don't put threat! Don't try to get him not to do things! Get him to do things. And that's what control is. Control could be said to do. Even stop is doing something.

Don't try to make him refrain from communicating. Now this is the one point where you will make a mistake, always, in the disciplining of children, the whole country suffers from it. And the handling of preclears. You'll try to break him of doing something. You'll try to stop him from doing something. Well, you could also make a mistake if you made him do that thing, like in psychoanalysis they find out somebody is spinning, they find out somebody is spinning, so they make him go out and have an affair. I mean total, see, they try to make him do the thing that is causing him to spin. They at least have this dramatization just that far, but that is not a workable fact at all. No. Control is the answer to this. You control the being. Not by a mechanism, but directly.

You have a thetan trying to control a body. You're setting the example of controlling that body. Now, you can sometimes control a body so superlatively well that you can throw him into apathy. You wouldn't make his, you wouldn't get into his head and do a bunch of acrobatic flip-ups. You know, stand on, put one finger in the neck of a bottle and do a one finger stand, and say, "Now why can't you do that?" Why? Because you've not established any ability as far as he's concerned. You've set him an impossible model, and he makes the postulate at once that he cannot do it.

Well, when you put your hands on his body and make it do something, then he finds out it can be done. If you drive a car around the block when you're teaching somebody to drive, and then let them drive the car around the block, you'll teach them to drive, you understand? If you fly the airplane and then let them fly the airplane, you understand? They will learn much, much more rapidly. Why? Same thing as you taking your hands and walking the little boy over to the chair. Or taking a preclear and making him do 8-C. Follow me?

Now, I am afraid all of you have yet to learn, on a subjective basis, that control, good ARC control, you understand, but veeerry positive that nobody could back up against, all by itself will bring a preclear into better tone. We're asking you to fly into the teeth of all the propaganda on the whole track. People want you to be slaves, they say, "Don't control anybody. Don't control anything. Except us, we're gonna control you." Like our friends the Roman Catholic Church always did.

The Roman Catholic Church must have failed to control people consistently enough to make it believe it had failed, because it invented the Spanish Inquisition, which was of course the end of the Roman Catholic Church. That was what? That was obsessive control. They'd gone mad along about that time. Now they're probably on a "Everybody should do as he pleases" basis, but that's not right either. Remember that. That's never right. "Everybody should do as he pleases." The great beast 666, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", heh-heh. So much for his philosophy, because that is not the whole of the law. Many things of the beast 666 was quite right, but in that one, boy, was he wrong.

No, "Do what thou canst get away with" might be closer to what he was trying to do. But when you are asked to control somebody directly, and when you do control somebody directly, and when you do see that he comes up in tone through having been that positively and directly controlled, that he comes up in tone spectacularly and suddenly, then I will understand that you at last understand what is meant by control.

Now, I don't think anybody just starting in to the small end of this thing has any idea of how much control control is until he's really been through it. But I can tell you this very, very positively, if you please: This society at this time, by the restimulation of radiation in the air, and by other factors, economic and political, is getting to a point where to get any individual being to do any part of his job requires an auditor who can run CCH, and run it very well.

And we might call it auditing here, but in the years to come you will call it living, and this is why you will be alive, because you understand these things.

Thank you.