This is a discussion of an auditing procedure which is based upon various data which has been assembled, and which I've been discovering, putting together, testing out and so forth, during these professional units, mostly on this basis: What have people been getting big results with, you know? What's causing a change of case?

Now, if we were to put all these things together, one after the other, then we would have a process which we would simply call something like "Effective Procedure," or something of that sort.

Well, this is actually no effort to do that. One of these days I'll probably come up with something like that — I mean, which is just a summation of processes which are effective at various case levels, string them all out from the worst-case level forward to the best-case level and call it a procedure.

But this is, you might say, a selected procedure out of selected procedures. And this would be a very arduous discipline, as a process. This doesn't say there are many procedures that don't work, and maybe some per preclear would work better than one of these. But this particular procedure certainly has two characteristics: One, it produces results, it produces an effect — different thing, you know, a procedure which produces results and one which produces effects. Did you ever realize that's not necessarily related at all?

I have to laugh at somebody, they got ahold of a piece of Scientology and call it Bucksology or Hexogomy or Purselectolomy or something, and just because something creates a tremendous effect, you see? And then they call this a procedure. And you as an auditor will run into this — well, it's just something that goes along with any push in a society — and you'll find out that the procedure created an effect, it didn't create a result.

And so you have a long, continuing, boggy sort of a thing, usually, or very spectacular. Of course, shooting a guy with a shotgun produces both effect and a result. It kills him, and removes him from the environment. This, of course, is both combined in one.

We are not interested in that type of therapy because it has already been taken care of by Mr. Winchester. He has it patented. We shouldn't be concerned with that.

Well, this procedure we're talking about, that we're going to call, just for no really good reason, Procedure 30. Just going to call that Procedure 30. Of course, there is a radio significance to this, but the less significance there is to a title the more likely it is to stay around, so we'll just call this Procedure 30 and let it go at that.

Now, how would this procedure go, and to whom would it be addressed on, and a bunch of other questions: Well, let's take these things up in order of importance. What will it do and how easy is it to use? Well, it'll produce a Book One Clear out of a Resistive V. That's what it'll do. And how easy is it to use? Well, it'd probably do this in maybe less than twenty hours — maybe — if you were using really Procedure 30. That's a slight difference, if you were really using Procedure 30.

Now, this procedure to date has been addressed, actually, only to very difficult cases. That's the only test series that the procedure has had. It has not been applied to Step I's. Why? Well, one assumes, rightly or wrongly, that a procedure which works well on a Resistive V, of course, would improve the case of a Step I.

Now, this may or may not be true, and it may or may not work out this way. That's up to you. Why don't you look it over and find out if that's the case. But I think you will discover that is the case. I think you will discover, too, the reason why a Step I comes up just so far and then moves no farther up, is another case of having hit this particular set of buttons.

What we were doing really seems to be, we were making people well, within this perimeter. In the absence of this particular process, the inherent recovery of the individual was being tremendously consulted by the auditor.

The potentiality of recovery of the case was a monitoring factor in the auditing. You see that? So we had a condition which might be over into a condition of no return. And we had that rather easily and rather soon. We'd been advancing that into the dark unknown — and I do mean dark unknown — of the point of no return on cases quite readily.

Well, now this procedure does seem to go way in past the points of no return, you see. But it also, more importantly, seemed to be sitting as a roof on how high cases would go. And if these elements weren't handled in the case, then the case would simply get as well as the case could get within the potentials of the case to get well.

Now, up to this point, you see, then, a case was sort of bound down. Well, what would happen if you as an auditor were able to monitor how well this case could get? See, that's a new look. You see, the case wouldn't be getting as well as the case could get; the case would get as well as you could make the case.

That enters in auditor determinism. Now, that seems to be present in Procedure 30. Now, this procedure has not been used (at this moment that I'm giving it to you) by any other auditor than myself. Thereby and therefore, it has to be used a bit to find out if it has to be altered. But I don't think it has to be altered, because I have seen its various parts and types of processes like that being used capably by auditors today.

Now, the one thing it would require from the auditor is a tremendous stick-to-ivity: How easy is it to use? It would require a tremendous stick-to-ivity — quite a bit of patience, mostly because of its opening steps. And if an auditor has a tendency to be flighty with a case, you know, and to be upset with a case he should tend to stick to other procedures, lighter procedures — if he himself can't duplicate — until he's had this procedure run on him. Because this procedure evidently will knock out certain of the blocks that haunt auditors, such as not being able to duplicate commands, only being able to give a preclear a command a few times, only to have a certain span of attention for the case.

The attention — span of attention — of an auditor is a factor with which we have to deal. And the span of attention of an auditor sometimes is very short. I know of one auditor who is — oh, is he good for the first twenty minutes, and for the remainder of a two-hour session, he just fixes up the poultry business and creates an enormous abundance of eggs.

Well, for those first twenty minutes, boy, is he hot! What's this? His span of attention is very short. Well, we'd have to have something, then, that would increase his span of attention, wouldn't we, to really be getting there?

Well, sure enough, this Procedure 30 does that if it doesn't do anything else — it increases the span of attention.

Then, too, somebody ought to be able to say," I can turn on sonic and visio with this technique because, what do you know, it improved, or turned on, my sonic and Visio." See, so therefore he has a lot of hopefulness about the case.

Well, I give it to you now, without any further window dressing, simply as it has been worked out, and don't in any way assure you that this will be a final form. This is Procedure 30, Issue I.

It goes this way: We get into communication with the preclear. Naturally, if your preclear is psycho, getting into communication will require mimicry and other such activities on your part — anything that would be communication.

But we get into a two-way communication with this preclear, and then we sort of talk to him, you know, to keep up the communication to get some sort of idea of some sort of a present time problem, if he has any. You're interested in him and you are in communication now about something which is real to him.

Well, having proceeded that far, we would then tackle this problem bluntly and head on: We would tackle any possibility that this individual was unable to duplicate a command many times. And we would go into Opening Procedure and we would do Opening Procedure, just as such, very lightly, for a very short space of time.

We would have him go over and put his hand on the desk and locate something that's real in the room and go over and take ahold of it and withdraw from it. And we'd march him around the room for a very short space of time — and I do mean short space of time. Because what we're getting down to is the reason he won't be able to perform Opening Procedure very easily. We're going to find two locations in the room and — let's just codify this — and we'll have an object in each location. We will have a book on the table and on another side table or window sill, something like that, we will have another object, preferably a dissimilar object. Oh, we might have a hat or an ashtray or any kind of an object like that. One object on the table, one object in some other location in the room-dissimilar, whatever they are. Don't have them, two books.

All right, we've got these two objects. Now, we ask the preclear to go to the first object and pick it up, ask him to describe it, ask him how much it weighs and what its temperature is. Then we have him put it down. Of course a repetition of "Put it down" is possibly not good, being a repeater technique in itself, but believe me, that command will work out as the case proceeds. So we have him lay it down. We have him put it down in the same place, by the way — this first object — that he got it. He'll have a tendency to put it in some other place. We want it put in the same place exactly, to the millimeter.

And then we have him go over to the window and pick up object two and have him look at it, describe it. Why do we have him describe it? That's to keep him in a two-way communication system. See that? We have him describe it verbally, and have him feel the weight of it and have him get its temperature, and then we have him put it down right where he picked it up.

And then we have him go to object one. And we have him pick it up and describe it and feel its weight and feel its temperature. And having really ascertained this — we want to make certain that he did ascertain this, and that's the one thing we hound him about through this process, is make sure that he really feels the weight of it, you see, that he really gets what temperature it is, that he really tells you what the colors are and the appearance of the object is. And put it down. Then go over to the position two and pick up that second object and get what its weight, its color and its temperature is. And we have him put it down in the same place that he picked it up — be very insistent on that — and then have him go back to position one.

How long do we do this? We do this till he can do it happy as a jaybird for about ten minutes without a single upset — till he can do this time after time and just be just as cheerful about it!

Well, how long is it going to take you to do this? Fifteen hours? Well, of course, you realize that an individual would die if he were asked to do this for fifteen hours and that the auditor would commit suicide long before that time.

You realize this to be the case and then go right ahead and do it for fifteen hours, if necessary.

Well, let's be factual. How many hours do you think it would take to get a rather bad case — I mean a pretty bad case — squared away with this? How many hours would it take, really? Well, the shortest time I have been able to do it effectively has been one hour. And I got the character all the way from apathy, tears — real tears (real apathy, too, by the way, you know) — a horrible stomachache, feet fell off at one point (preclear was absolutely sure of this), through rage, antagonism, contempt, boredom, apathy again, fear, anger, antagonism, contempt, apathy, grief, fear, antagonism, enthusiasm, apathy, and so on up again to — first time the guy had ever been on the first-level Know to Sex Scale — to sexual excitement, to symbols, to anger, to laughter, to apathy, to sex again, eating (showed up there just as plain as could be). "Well, I suppose I could eat the book. I suppose that's what you want me to do now: eat it. Well, I won't eat it. So there!" And another time, by the way, the other object: "I suppose you're supposed to use it for sexual purposes now. That's what you want, isn't it?"

These various manifestations, until finally the case simply booted right on up the tone scale and stayed up there.

I mean, they went through sex and then they went into effort and they said, "Well, I don't know, it's exercise walking back and forth," and so forth. He went up to emotion. He began to be very interested in the fact that he had had emotions regarding this process. That this process would make him emotional was now curious to him. He became rather curious about the process — the first time we had gotten into curiosity, even vaguely. And all of a sudden, tremendously brilliant visio turned on, and then went on some further till their sonic picked up and became intolerable and then shut down again to a tolerable level.

But what's the longest I myself have done this on a case? Five and one-half hours is as long as I have done it on a case. That's a long time. Of course, I have a slight advantage there: I can set the GE up automatic and go off and lean on a chimney or something, you know, and just let it run.

But actually, I didn't ever, while I was running this, have any real tendency to, you know, myself, get awfully bored, or upset with it, because it's enormously interesting how many kinds of reaction this simple process produces. It's very interesting.

One of the things that they ascertain is — immediately — that you are trying to get them under complete control. They are sure of this. They become sure of various things — all of them bad — concerning you, an auditor, if they're having a bad time of it.

Now, a case that is under good control may do this for a half an hour; he may do this for half an hour — well controlled, emotionally stable, doing it just fine, and then go to pieces. Just goes to pieces; he just can't stand it anymore, that's all.

And so you can expect, I suppose, that the entrance to many cases would be that you got a very well behaved preclear for a little while. He was being social and then, boy, did he go antisocial.

Now, this procedure, of course, utilizes duplication to an arduous, wicked extent. Duplication is an essential part of any communication. And if you want to get in communication with your preclear, you'd better get him so he can duplicate.

Well, this is the kind of a process where you practically lay somebody down and chop their heads off. I mean, it's this order of magnitude. But it does two things: It produces an effect; you can be sure of that. But it also produces a result (which is the only reason we're using it), and produces that result faster than any other process I know.

Now, what do you know? It produces the result faster.

Now, we've all known that Opening Procedure was pretty good. But what part of Opening Procedure was really hot, since you could run anything in 8-C — any step of 8-C could be run by Opening Procedure? You could make a fellow move around and do whatever that step was; take a little figuring on the part of the auditor to get this done, but that's a fact.

Well, duplication is tremendously important — tremendously important. It just can't be overemphasized in a case.

Well, when Opening Procedure ran into duplication, we got an enormous effectiveness, and where it was not used to level out duplication but was used to produce random activity, it was not as effective — anywhere near.

So, we have this Procedure 30 built up this far, now. We have it built up to, first, twoway communication — find out if there's a present time problem. Then we can do just a little bit of common Opening Procedure, you know, just to get him used to the idea of moving around and not being embarrassed because they're doing something kind of silly (they often think it very silly, some fellow, that he moves around the room, puts his hand on the table; he can do that, and so forth) — into duplication by Opening Procedure with two objects, picking them up, feeling them, describing them (that makes him communicate, see, he has to describe them) and putting them down in the same place, picking up the other object, describing it and putting it down in the same place, and so on.

All right. So far so good. What would be our next step? Problems: How the preclear is being a problem. He should recognize that he's being his own problem and that he's liable to sit there and be a problem to the auditor.

His total feeling for the race is that it's in such horrible state because it has so many problems. He has never realized that every man is being his own problems, and without those problems he'd have no randomity.

He hasn't realized, for instance, that the physical universe is there to create problems, and life is there to solve them. So, when a person is creating problems, he is just to that degree (that he is creating problems) enmeshed with the physical universe. See that? That's an exact ratio; it's an exact geometric progression. It's just to the degree that he is creating problems that he is enmeshed in the mest universe. This is direct coordination.

We take some little girl, a maybe juvenile delinquent, something of that sort. You could say lots of things about why she's a juvenile delinquent, but certainly it would be this: she's certainly creating a problem. You see? And so therefore, she is being the problem, not being the solver of problems. Well, we want this preclear to be the solver of problems because that is life — where that's the person that adds up and summates ideas and problems — life, the livingness of a person.

The physical-universe part of a person sets up problems. So when our preclear has become totally an unsolvable problem, what have we got? We've got somebody who has completely closed terminals with the physical universe, you see? Can't solve the problem. Somebody else will have to solve him. There he sits, ready to be solved. And he doesn't get solved, because you don't solve him.

Now, one of the ways to audit this fellow — and psychoanalysis has made, I would say, somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty, ninety million dollars doing this — is for somebody to sit there and tell him what's wrong with him. He'll go for this. Somebody will solve his problem for him.

"Now, the reason and the trouble with you is that so-and-so, and so-and-so, and your Oedipus has crossed with your Electra. This is very causative and your reconscious has oblongated. And we recognize this, and at all times you realize that you have problems."

Well, they actually wouldn't buy that as well as they'd buy the statement "You are a problem, you are a problem, you are a problem" — which is what they tell little kids. This is how you get kids under control. You keep saying to them, "You're a problem."

"Oh, I get so discouraged with you. You're always creating some sort of an upset." Of course the kid is creating an upset. If he isn't permitted to solve upsets himself, he'll create an upset. And there's how he got back into the mest-universe valence.

Well then, life is winning as long as it's solving problems, and life is losing as long as it is being a problem. When life itself becomes a problem, it is itself losing. Because he just goes on, it loses sight of the fact that it's a solver of problems.

So what do we do with this case? We could handle him Straightwire. And the first question we'd ask him is "Give me some problems that you don't have to solve at this moment." "Oh, yes, you can certainly get one. Get one problem that you don't have at this moment." "All right — you don't have to solve at this moment, you don't have at this moment." And he could think that over. He'd finally find a series and he'd probably line charge on this, who knows. But he certainly would get a series of these. Now, this takes a little bit of an edge off of it.

And then you would go immediately into this one – immediately: "Well, let's see what kind of a problem you can be that would cause trouble to — – — – " (preclear's name). Preclear is named Joe. You say to him, "Now, let's see what kind of a problem you could be that would cause Joe trouble."

And there's your immediate question; you ask him this question quite a few times.

Now, you could search into this considerably more, and always with benefit, but we're trying to get, in this Procedure 30, maximum benefit. So we don't fool with it very long.

Now, we did stick with this Opening Procedure Duplication for quite a while. We stayed with it until our preclear could do it calmly — not apathetically, in an apathetic obedience, but till he could do it, you know? Didn't worry him a bit.

Our next up was to solve this business of him being a problem. Because, listen, if you don't solve that, you might have improved his communications a little bit, but if this individual is totally convinced that he is a problem, he will go on looking for you, the auditor, to solve it.

All solutions are other-determined to himself, which means all life is other-determined to himself. So he's in a horrible state. And he'll just sit there in that auditing chair as a problem till the end of time.

Now, let's just blast in and just blast him out of this idea. Well, how long do we run this? We would certainly run it until he got the idea very clearly — without our telling him any further than that — that by golly, he was being an awful lot of problems for himself to solve. But he thinks of himself as somebody else who has to solve him as a problem. And this is a very cute gimmick. And until he recognizes that other people are doing this… And that's the important one! It's really not the important one that he himself is doing it, but that other people are doing it too.

We'd find this a very conversational process, by the way. In our conversation as this goes along, we discover that our preclear is inclining more and more on the third dynamic and less and less on the first dynamic.

Of course, where he is being one thing and the problem is being something else, we've already given him an edge up on the third dynamic. There's two present: there's Joe and his problem. And he's probably being the problem.

We get him to be all kinds of things that he could be that would create a problem for Joe. Well, we could ask him, of course, amplifying the procedure, "Be something that would cause a problem for Mother," "… for Father," for this, for that. Anybody, you know — a teacher.

We could ask him these things, but actually not with the degree of profit when we actually work him out of his own bank. How do you work a guy out of his own bank? Well, that's where he is. He's in the bank.

Now, you'll occasionally find that he's being a series of pictures which cause him trouble. He's being the facsimiles, you see, and the preclear is somebody else. And this is this funny, detached thing that we get in these preclears.

And that brings us up to the piece de resistance. That at least gets our case into some degree of workability. We've gotten him over the central hubs. He's been using a computing machine up till the time when we ran problems, and after that he might think.

We get problems out of the road, he'll stop using that computer and he'll start thinking about himself. And so we've got him ready and set up in order to shoot the business to him on granting of beingness.

Now, we work that out. And, of course, when he's willing to go into granting of beingness widely, why, he is really evidently, from what I have observed, a terrifically solved boy.

Now, this is really all there is to Procedure 30.