Thank you.

Well now, how are you doing?

Audience: Fine. Okay.

You — probably all of your cases are bogged, and there’s probably nothing can be done about it. If you keep making me mm out presessions, why, we’re going to find bottom yet.

The trick which we are doing, the trick which we are up to here, is just trying to undercut with verbal processes what we have before had only and entirely as CCHs or manual processes.

Now, formal auditing can be accomplished apparendy on any person who is willing to sit still and be audited. Now, if a person however is totally stark staring mad, they are not willing to come in, sit down, or countenance or confront auditing. Got the difference there?

This does not mean then that the CCHs are relegated only to people who will — who are unconscious or in an institution. It doesn’t mean that But it does mean that a person who volunteers for auditing certainly should be able to be audited with formal auditing. You get the point we’re making here? In other words, he has some idea of help, and he already has some notion of what he’s all about This doesn’t make your further south case, and you should have a very good grip on that It doesn’t at all make your further south case. That’s an important fact to you.

You get Annie the parlormaid or Jo-Jo the bus driver or Mr. Got-Rocks-In-His-Head, the great manager of Krupp or something, who, just stark staring mad actually, but is on the post he’s apparently alert and so on — you’ve got another problem. If none of these people are the least bit concerned or haven’t any idea of making anything better or improving or needing anything or so on, well now, don’t get into the happy state of mind here that formal auditing will apply to anybody that can breathe. You got that? That is not necessarily true at ah The vast number of cases in the world, the vast majority of them, are not up to knowing they’re nuts. You got that? I mean, it’s a — they’re just not up there at all.

This fellow — you’re trying to interview this fellow that’s doing something or other, and he’s apparently able to function in some way in life. And oh, I don’t know, take one of these boys that’s laughingly and ludicrously playing at being politicians in Africa at this moment, see. Why, they know they’re sane. And even while you were talking about auditing the fellow, sitting maybe in his office or something of the sort, and he’d have to get up every few minutes to make sure that the windows were closed because — the thousands of butterflies that keep flying in the windows, and that sort of thing. And you look at this boy and you say, “Now, wait a minute, this guy is in charge of a state. And he’s in charge of lots of people and therefore he could be audited by formal auditing.” That doesn’t follow at all.

There is a certain humbleness about existence or a certain humbleness in one’s attitude to existence necessary to live and become better and to get the show on the road, and so on.

And although it’s very all right for us to talk about “it’s self-confidence that makes it right,” you see, and “it’s the belief in being able to do,” and so on, that makes one able to do, it’s all right to go on that line, but how about when this is a just a screaming manic circuit or a superparanoid “got to get even with” that is confident See, I mean, you’ve got the fact that a circuit can be awfully confident. It’s really pretty funny to watch one of these circuit confidences at work, I have already had that opportunity.

Well, take a gunner: He keeps saying that he’s the best gunner in the world, and every time he fires the gun off, why, it blows off a piece of the bridge, or it plows up the water a few feet from the ship, or loads it incorrecdy and gets flarebacks. And, you know, all kinds of wild things going on around this gun, and this guy is asserting at the same time that he’s the world’s finest gunner. You can always notice this. This is always noticeable.

False confidence goes along with ineffectiveness. You can combine those two things.

Now, if you see somebody who is really being effective — this is on the line of assessment, which I’ll be talking about this week — if you see somebody who was really effective, be prepared to find either confidence, or not particularly thinking about it, or a knowledge of the fact that he could do it a lot better. See, be prepared to find those attitudes, not the attitude of “I am the world’s greatest gunner.” Boom! There goes a piece of the bridge, you see?

You have to have some comparison of performance in life before you can make an adjudication on this subject of confidence.

You can ask this horrible question about it Is that confidence misplaced?

And you’ll find out, particularly in political spheres today, that it definitely is. Definitely. The most misplaced confidences in the world are found right this minute in politics.

By George, I don’t believe there’s a — I don’t believe there’s a head of state on Earth knows what he’s doing.

But man pays attention to wrongnesses and to confusions because they contain so much motion. They contain tremendous quantities of motions, so therefore his attention is attracted to them. He either doesn’t see them at all — you know, on the idea of the total not-is — or he doesn’t see them as they are, which is simply ineffectivenesses, and so forth.

The Western governments have all but lost the ability to govern. They don’t know what government is, what government is all about, they don’t know what they’re supposed to do. They don’t know the functions of government, they don’t know the definitions of sovereignty. It’s a — I don’t know, it’s a — basically the principle of a government: it’s supposed to govern its people and protea and take care of its lands. And it’s supposed to take responsibility for its citizens — individual citizens, and so forth.

And, right now, I know of three or four Western nations that if anybody dared get into trouble in Jungobulooland they would be the last people to be approached — their own governments, you see. If some citizen happened to be present, why, the government would say, “What’s that got to do with us? Nothing to do with us. What do you mean? Nothing to do with us.”

So, the man is a citizen of Grand NATO or whatever the country is, and, “Well how does this make — what’s the connection? He’s a citizen of this country and you say we should do something about it? That’s nonsense. Everybody knows that’s nonsense.”

And you’re watching some — one of the wildest political flips you ever saw. I’m just pointing this out for one reason only. These wild political flips are what? Some kind of a weird irresponsibility which is sometimes a reverse responsibility. You know, they’re responsible for the wrong thing.

So, irresponsibility is your other due on looking over whether a case could be audited or not with formal auditing.

This case says he’s the “world’s greatest governor,” while being totally irresponsible for all of his citizens. This case says he’s the “world’s greatest shop steward,” and you look down the line and there’s nothing but busted machinery and the men are standing there apathetic, you know, turning out nothing, and so forth.

So, it must be that the confidence is resident only in his skull, or back of it or over there someplace, you see? The confidence is misplaced because it isn’t compared to a responsibility for what he’s really doing. And you’ll find that is all too frequent. All too frequent.

So, the responsibility factor of a case is one of the things which you would look at before you tried to beat your brains out, beating his brains into shape. You’d look at this factor. You’d say, “How responsible is this person?”

Now, you are auditors and you have soft hearts. And very often your soft hearts make you have soft heads.

It is not right to run things with punishment, duress and force. That is only a short time action. That is something that fits into the emergency only. And that is all it fits into. And I don’t even know that it would justify it in an emergency.

An individual who is handling something can normally handle it with help.

And here’s your next factor on assessment If he can handle it with help he doesn’t need force, but when he can no longer help, then the control mechanisms don’t exist, but force and destructive mechanisms do exist. Do you follow this?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Probably the best way in the world to handle — well, let’s take an existing political situation: the African Congo mess, and so forth, would be to straighten out everyone concerned on the subject of help. Because to those people right now — they know how to “help” their citizens: You shoot them down in cold blood. Help is betrayal. All kinds of oddities are continuing out of that point.

So, somebody who thinks he has to handle things with force, duress and savageness, continuously, is terribly low on the subject of help — very, very low.

So there’s another way you can adjudicate how a case can be run. Now that case would be a real roughy to undercut This is another factor involved with it, don’t you see. I’m speaking on the third dynamic because you can always get a comparison on — between that and the first dynamic.

So, what does this add up to? That if an individual is handling his total environment with force, then your efforts to help him are very far from — to be abandoned — you’d continue to try to help him. But remember that it’s a low case that has to be undercut, and such a case can be audited with formal auditing.

You’re actually coming upscale. A person who can handle things with force is still handling something, don’t you see?

But your softheadedness normally consists of believing your preclear to the exclusion of your predear’s environment. And you say, “This person has had an awfully hard time.”

Well, now, I’ll let you in on something very coldbloodedly and very horribly, and so forth: It’s not possible for anybody to have, at anybody else’s total complete responsibility and instigation, a very hard time. That’s not possible. That just defies all you should know about the overt-motivator sequence.

Now, if this wife, for instance, if this wife says that she’s being denied money, and is being denied this and is being denied that and is being denied something else, and she is all but crushed — yes, yes, yes, probably, possibly, this could be going on right here in present time.

But you have to ask yourself how come this person can accumulate that many motivators. And we get our next point of assessment which is quite important. Is how many motivators does this person accumulate? Because there’s a direct index between the number they accumulate and how many they’ve done. And the more motivators which a person is advertising, the more overts the person has pulled. Oh, honest, this is just one of these one-for-one, open-and-shut — there aren’t any exceptions. That’s the way it is. It’s hard to believe at first.

So, the case which has psychosomatic ills, which is having very bad luck, which can’t have a job, can’t hold down a job, never can get his hands on any money, everybody is mean to this person and he has leprosy.

Well look, don’t be so softheaded about it Let’s take a look. He must have denied people jobs, he must have hellish overts on the subject of money, he must have done more people in, in more lives or he wouldn’t have leprosy, and you’ve just got the “world’s own” here. See?

All right Now, that is a rough case. Now, you tackle that case — you tackle that case and say, “Well, we’re just going to come off here, all we’re going to do is dust off lightly, and audit a few processes and nothing to it” Oh, no you’re not! No sir.

If you’re operating down on skid row and pulling them out of the gutters, you’ve got your hands full. Because you have people whose overts are pushing people into skid rows and gutters. That’s the entire geometric size, design and dimension of the thing.

Now, all these various factors all add up to a no-change. And as you work on the case, well, I tell you, there’s really no bad off cases in this unit compared to the cases which exist in this universe, see?

Now, you’ve already seen some people in this unit that were very hard to get off the launching pad, and you notice that change factor was very hard to handle, you know. I mean, to do something, to get this person to change.

Now look. It’s had you working and it’s had me working, and it’s had your Instructors practically in tears, trying to bring about a change, trying to bring about a change in this case!

How about skid row characters, huh? How about these characters with fantastic overts? How about these characters that can only handle things with force and duress? How about the other cases I’ve mentioned here? You think they’re going to change easy?

Ah, let’s not be so hopeful, huh? Let’s not be quite so optimistic.

Now, what it takes to get somebody rolling that is below the level of this class is, of course, something on the order of the CCHs and the — well about the darnedest lowest process undercuts that you could possibly get hold of, all these things would add up to being a rough beef.

Now, I’m trying to tell you, let’s be sensible about this thing of whom can we dear? We can dear easiest, of course, those people who don’t have too much resistance to being deared. And we can dear people right on down to the level where they hear about it, they understand it, they get interested in it and are willing to sit still and cooperate in auditing. And that’s the exact depth we are at this moment.

Well, you should recognize that these are assets, rather fantastic assets, to the auditor. The fellow actually can understand something about Scientology, will actually show up, will actually sit down in an auditing chair and answer questions. Three cheers!

Now, what we have done exactly in this unit — and given enough time on processes we would make it all the way — what we’ve done exactly in this unit, is to successfully undercut nearly all of this type of case. So we’ve arrived somewhere. But it’s a good thing for you to recognize where we have arrived.

Even though it’s a slow pull on some of it, and so on, we have undercut the cases of that particular category and we can do something for those cases, and that is the way it is. That’s how far we’ve gone now in what percentage of the human race could you clear. I wouldn’t even guess how many — what the percentage of that is. But noticing what passes for rational conduct by heads of states, noticing what passes for a totally pleasant life on the part of so many people, and so on, I would say that we haven’t yet got the majority, because I don’t think they would come in and sit down and answer questions. They would be on some kind of a challenging basis.

“Well? What are you trying to do? What are you people up to? Are you sure you’re not uh… uh… some kind of a. .. well, doesn’t it weaken somebody to uh… look into one’s brains? Uh… uh … how . .. how can we be sure that um… uh …”

This is what’s known as confidence. It’s just your confidence factor and nothing else.

Now, you’d say offhand, if you looked over all of this picture and pattern, you’d say it was about time we got to work. Because cases on this planet are getting no better, and they’re getting no easier.

In the absence of auditing, just give it another couple of generations and god knows what. That would just be about it.

But this doesn’t tell you what the common denominator is of all cases, this just gives you some data with which to observe. And I hope you don’t just take the generalities of this data and just toss it off, and say, “Well, of course,” and so forth. Actually look for these points in cases that you’re assaying to audit, because it’s part of the assessment, is “Will the guy sit still and answer auditing questions?” is part of the assessment, as stupidly elementary as that may sound.

Now, what’s going on here?

We’ve got the theory of the sixth and the seventh dynamic Now, we’re trying to take the sixth off of the seventh, but we run into inversions where in order to take the sixth off of the seventh, we’ve got to take the seventh off of the sixth before we can take the sixth off of the seventh. You got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well now, these types of inversions indicate then we have two types of processes, and one of these types goes toward beingness, and one of these goes toward MEST; so we have two sets of processes.

Now, your first assessment would be to check somebody out on an E-Meter and find out if they got a change of pattern on the sixth or a change of pattern on the seventh. You could assess them for all dynamics, but you would simply be alert to the difference between the sixth and the seventh.

And if the sixth has more reaction, you would look down your list of presessions and you would pick those which were dedicated to sixth cases, and those will be designated. And if the seventh got more of a reaction, you would run the seventh dynamic-type presession.

See, so you’d look for sixth and you’d look for seventh, and you try to find out which one of these was most pronounced on the case. Now, it’s very easy to tell. I won’t say the needle of a sixth always goes whee-bop, and the needle of the seventh always goes skitter-boo. They don’t.

If you assess all of the dynamics, you will find that the sixth on some cases is the same as all the rest of them, and that the seventh gets a change of pattern. You’ll find that some show the seventh as the same as all other dynamics, and the sixth gets a change of pattera.

Now, the change of pattern tells you accessibility of it, but the no change of pattern tells you the identification of all dynamics with it.

In assessing you have to establish which is most available on this case. Is it seventh dynamic of which they will consider thought part of, or is it sixth dynamic. Is everything going to be expressed in terms of force — matter, energy, space and time, or is everything expressed in terms of thetans and beingnesses, and so forth.

Now, you can tell that by talking to the person and if this were a difficult thing to tell, I would give you a lot of trick ways to do it, but it is not a difficult thing to do. If you talk to a case for a very few minutes, you will be alert to which stress this case is giving. Now, whichever it is, whatever the stress the person is giving, take — and take your presessions out of those presessions which address the sixth or when you’ve found a seventh, those presessions which address the seventh.

Now, that immediately cuts in half the number of presessions which you could run on that case. You got it? It’s just as easy as that.

Now, you would take the Havingnesses and try to get a coordination between the Havingness this person could run and a Confront this person could run, and you could make up a new presession out of any existing presession that you had. You’ve cut them in half now. Now just try and get one of these Havingnesses to work, and one of these Confronts to work.

Now, the one you choose first and do first is the Havingness. Try to get the Havingness that works on this case and don’t run very many commands. If you can run several commands without getting any change of needle pattern or tone-arm shift, that’s not the Havingness for that case. You got it? That’s very simple. You watch that — that tone arm as more important than the needle. And you want the Havingness that will shift the tone arm.

Now, you’re going to run into a case which isn’t shifted by any of the havingnesses which you have. So, you pick the one he seemed most interested in. You’ve got it? That will probably shift the tone arm eventually, you’ve just run into a low change case.

Now, the confront — the type of Confront Process is adjudicated just exactly the same way: what shifts the tone arm best? And if nothing in the confront line shifted the tone arm best, then take the one the pc was most interested in.

Now, in following out this exact routine you will find that you have a presession with a Havingness and a presession with a Confront which will run on the pc and which will change the tone arm.

If after a great deal of experience, let’s say five, six hours of this sort of thing, you still aren’t getting tone arm responses the way you should, you had now better look it over. You’ve probably already changed the case somewhat You had better reassess for another pair of presessions. You got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, sooner or later, both because you were running many presessions, and because you were learning more about the case, you’re going to hit on a combination of Havingness and Confront Processes that the case can run rather easily, and which shifts their tone arm back to the Clear read. You run them until — no matter how long it took — until you’ve got a Clear read on the case with some consistency. Now we can tackle Regimen 3, Regimen 4 or one of the regimens, adding that in, and using the same thing that we finally found out would bring the needle down to 2.0 or 3.0. See? You use the same pair in the regimen.

Now, you have now found the combination that will move that case. Don’t expea to find the combination without experience, expea to find oddball inversions that just don’t particularly add up. It just doesn’t add up at all, you say to yourselves, it just doesn’t add up that this person runs best on “Where not to throw shoes through the window,” but that’s apparently it And you’ve got it.

Now, you’ve got to have an Objective Process, and you have got to have a Subjective Process and then you’ve got to have something that will handle motion, and in the absence of those three items you’re not going to get Clear. And all we’re doing here is just — I’m giving you the data of how you take a case apart and make the case run.

And I’m asking you not to go in like a ruddy optimist and say, “Well, it’s all very simple, snap, snap, requires no judgment on my part, snap, snap. And all cases will now move rapidly, snap, snap. And this fellow has just sent his wife in and told his wife to be audited, and here she sits in the chair and so therefore there’s nothing to it” Well, look, you don’t even know whether or not she wanted to come in. What was the blackmail that got her there, you see? What duress is sitting on this pc?

Well, there’s your original assessment Have you got somebody who is sitting in the auditing chair? Have you got somebody who is sitting there of their own accord and they think they want some auditing? That’s your first — that’s your first assessment, and that you’d better straighten out. Because it’s very embarrassing at the end of seventy-five hours to find out that the person was actually sent there by their boss, or to find out they actually came down from the BMA to prove you were a fake or something stupid like this, see?

So before you take on a pc and audit him any length of time, let’s not have any of the nonsense of your assumption of things you have no right to assume. Is this a person who is sitting there in the chair willing to be audited and answer questions, who understood something about Scientology and came in as one of their own goals or decisions? Well, if you haven’t got that person, you probably could still make it. Probably there are ways and means by which you could still make it, but the CCHs are your best bet.

It’s not that “They haven’t heard about it,” and “It hasn’t been sold to them properly” and all of your rationalizations on these answers. No. It’s just this person is nuts! They really don’t have enough on the ball to understand what it’s all about and why they’re there. Look, somebody else has already told them about Scientology and tried to give them a good sales talk and told them it was a good thing, and so on. Somebody else has already told them about this, you see?

That they’re sitting there is not evidence that they came there.

On this little point all by itself we lose a large number of cases: We fail to establish the willingness of the pc.

I’ll tell you, somebody who is simply sitting there because they have cancer and don’t tell you, and they’re going to die unless something cures it, may not be a willing pc. Might look like one, but you’re going to have to establish some degree of willingness before anything happens at all.

Therefore, you still have old Presession One and there is more or less where Presession One enters in. Presession One is the world’s greatest sales talk. And if you clear up the points of Presession One with somebody, you may not crack or start their case, but you can use it to make somebody sit in the chair, don’t you see? And if you can’t, well, they’re stark staring mad, you might as well run the CCHs on them. Got it?

Well, now there is the way you look at cases. By far, the larger number of the cases that you will audit come to you voluntarily and will respond to exactly what you have learned in this unit. They will respond, and this putting together your own presession for the case out of the existing processes which undercut cases, and so forth, putting together your own setup for this particular case — testing it out making sure that your tone arm is moving, that sort of thing, what you’ve learned here, that will move cases. It will particularly — will move them where you’re auditing someplace with altitude, you’re auditing someplace where everybody doesn’t know you’re a student.

I notice that this has gotten very weary with you, you don’t even look up and blink when I say that Has this ceased to be a problem to you?

Audience: Yes.

Yeah, it pretty well ceased to be a problem. Well, what do you know. Well, we’ve won to that degree, haven’t we?

Thank you very much.