All right I usually just read these things on that sort of thing. Once in a while I get halfway through them and get embarrassed, but not ordinarily.

The first ones we’ll go into here — I won’t say I’ll get all of these but I’m going to give the earliest ones which I received first.

Says, „Has the importance of assessment lessened with the latest techniques?“

Well, no. No, pathetic as it may seem, although you may gunshot a case very easily. I well recall about five months ago, more or less with the techniques which you’re using now, me processing a lady for four hours. I don’t want to talk about my auditing, but processing somebody for four hours is a long time unless I’m doing just research processing.

And at the end of four hours I suddenly found out that although she could mock up everything in the world with great ease, she could not get a mock-up of her mother. And when asked to get a mock-up of her mother, she broke down and wept, I mean, just ping-pang. We blew the charge and that was the end of the case. But I would have picked that up on an E-Meter in the first five minutes of play if I’d done an assessment and if — merely asked her on the subject of creating and destroying, list of people, the standard people: Papa, Mama, so on. So I should have done an assessment on the case.

An assessment practically will always save you time as well as letting the preclear, possibly for the first time in his life, put out an anchor point He can say to somebody who’s fairly — who at least looks interested, so on, he can say, „Well, my family was mean to me.“ And the auditor doesn’t say immediately, „Well, my family was mean to me, too.“

The importance of assessment has lessened to the degree that you can proceed on groups and on individuals without assessing. But if you want to save yourself a lot of time, a lot of energy and a lot of auditing, you will assess people still.

And the best method of assessment I know, by the way, is the one which appeared in the Journal which is simply — goes down create and destroy on these various dynamics and that’s all hid out for you there in tine Journal.

When you get to the point of destroying Christ, most people hardly quiver. But once in a while a person in very, very bad condition (a condition you wouldn’t suspect otherwise) will jump off the pin on an E-Meter. And just the idea of destroying Christ, they practically faint. You see, Christ actually is a method of — this is — I mean, this is therapy I’m talking about, the hell with religion — Christ is a method of wasting admiration on spirits.

People are trying to waste in the MEST universe what they can’t have in their own universe. And if they can’t have admiration, they’ll waste it in various ways and they’ll finally get up to a point where they waste it on Christ and God. That means that they, as a thetan, are in terrible condition — I mean brutal condition. It just shouldn’t happen to somebody.

That’s why I sometimes smile on the subject of religion because it’s such an accurate index of exactly what’s happening to this poor preclear — this poor citizen, you see? He’s got to waste admiration on a spirit Well, boy, if he’s got to waste admiration on a spirit… And you start running this, by the way, on preclears and you’ll find very interesting material suddenly start to fly up.

Waste ghosts. Nobody in this society today can have a ghost Science’s main throat-cut to the whole society is to say, „Now that we are scientific, we of course don’t believe in ghosts.“ And the preclear goes neyeaw.

One of the main things wrong with science today is the fact that it runs a „We can’t have,“ because it’s got a set communication system. And this very rigid, set communication system forbids many things, but the most important one is ghosts. You can always get a bang out of a preclear by wasting ghosts.

But when somebody is trying to get bade to battery, they go down the dynamics and they start wasting first themselves, and then they’ll start wasting the second dynamic and then the third dynamic and the fourth dynamic and the fifth, sixth. And you can run this case on an E-Meter and you’ll find out he went just in that progression. And when he gets to the point where he’s got to waste the seventh dynamic, he’s practically ready to be shut up in a small box. And that’s where religion enters.

And when they’re real, real, real bad off in sanitariums and so forth, they go around reading the Bible all the time — reading the Bible, reading the Bible hectically. They’re trying to waste that last fragment of admiration that they can waste. But the horrible part about it is, is you can’t waste admiration in that fashion therapeutically. If you try to waste it in real life, it doesn’t solve the case subjectively. And you see, it’s the more they waste, the more they want. You can’t waste it out in the MEST universe.

Perhaps this tells you immediately why or gives you some inkling of why you see so very much religion in a sanitarium. And religion is all right in its own place, but it doesn’t belong in a booby hatch. I don’t know if they’re capable of embarrassment, but I think it possibly might be embarrassing to some churches if they knew. There’s one church in particular, one in particular, that just lists the majority of the roster in sanitariums.

That’s not a condemnation of the religion. It isn’t the religion doing this the way that we used to think Religion isn’t doing this. Religion just gives them a method — and somebody always invents some method — gives them a method to waste admiration of a thetan. That’s all there is to it.

So, if you start doing an assessment and you start running down the line on it and all of a sudden the idea of creating Christ or destroying Christ suddenly knocks that needle off the pin — you take it awful easy with that preclear. And if the biggest charge is on God, oh-oh, he’s got to waste the whole MEST universe, all the space and everything in it.

Now, here’s the kind of a question I like to see: „In the beginning I was full of questions. I faced myself, Q and A, and found the answer is ‘Thank you.’ „

Here’s how to run a bracket, the basic way to run a bracket.

There are several progressive complexities of bracket The first part of a bracket, the most important part, is to run it for yourself, and then somebody else running it for himself, and then other people running it for other people. How would you do that? People have a little trouble with this bracket once in a while, but it’s essentially very easy.

You have your preclear — let’s take admiration for stealing a baby. That’s a complicated one a little bit, more than other ones. Well, you’d have the preclear mock up below him and looking up at him, just hordes of people, no matter how poorly these mock-ups were, these hordes of people looking up at him, admiring him for stealing a baby.

Then you’d say, „Now get somebody else in front of you. Now have them mock up hordes of people admiring them for stealing a baby.“ Now, that’s the two basic points.

Now, the next point would be „Get two people out in front of you or a lot of people out in front of you, and have half of them admire the other half of them for stealing a baby, or have one of these people mock up a lot of people admiring the other one for stealing a baby.“ You follow that? You’ve got two people out here and you have this person mock up a lot of people admiring the other person for stealing a baby.

Now, you go over on this side and you have this person over here mock up a lot of people admiring the other person for stealing a baby. This is the most complex bracket there is.

Now, I’m going on with that bracket We really want to extend this bracket out to the end product of all brackets. All right We have the preclear then mock up a lot of people admiring somebody else for having stolen a baby. We then get the preclear to mock up somebody else who is mocking up an awful lot of people admiring the preclear for having stolen a baby.

And then if you want to really finish off a bracket and knock off all this manifestation in para-Scientology that we call bodies in pawn and so forth, you get somebody way out there running the same whole set — the whole bracket — somebody sitting way out there. First for himself, then mocking — this person way out there setting up somebody else who sets up all these people admiring himself. You get this backwards bracket?

That’s a mirror effect Now, that’s very fascinating. Every once in a while somebody’s got this spooky notion that there’s somebody out there. And the joker is, of course, there is. So he can get that somebody out there identified with people in the MEST universe and so he feels in ARC with these people.

That’s the only reason people stay in the MEST environment, is they get split in half, or that is to say, there’s somebody else that is them, too. This is an interesting manifestation that you needn’t bother with. It’s not terribly important; it’s not terribly interesting.

But you’ll get preclears obsessed with it There’s somebody out there. This witch doctor that ran this patient’s life all the time. That was just a mock-up of a something else out there. Bodies in pawn as they show up are just that sort of thing. You see how that is?

You want to run a bracket, a simple bracket that just runs, have the preclear mock up a lot of people admiring him for stealing a baby. Have him mock up somebody else who then mocks up a lot of people admiring this mock-up for having stolen a baby. And then other people mocking up lots of people admiring somebody else for stealing a baby, and then reversewise, out there, a lot of people being mocked up for the person who did the mock-up first And that’s a bracket That takes care of all flows and adjustments. You don’t have to worry too much about that.

But, by the way, a case will hang up — speaking of brackets, there’s probably a lot of questions in here about brackets — a case will hang up if self is run pam, pam, pam, pam, pam, pam, and all of a sudden the case goes chug. And you wonder what’s the matter with this person? You’re just getting a worse somatic and a worse somatic and a worse somatic, and nothing is happening. Well, you just haven’t run the rest of the bracket.

And it’s very interesting that you’ll run this case for a while, and „Well, we’ll have somebody else run this out in front; we’ll get somebody else mocking up this and that,“ and so on. Pam, pam, pam — all of a sudden, it’ll go chug chug, grrrrr. And so you get others mocking it up for others and all of a sudden there’s a complete relief along the line.

It’s an empirical datum; it merely follows the pattern of flows. I figured it out from — just sat down and figured out pencil-lined flows, where all the flows would be, and then can — didn’t think about it after that Noticed preclears were bogging, then just tested it out and ran another part of the bracket Noticed they still bog and figured out the other part of the bracket, ran that and they stopped bogging.

You can run practically anything this way because it takes care of the overt act and the motivator, the DED and the DEDEX. And it takes care, more or less, of two — the other fellow’s and one’s own — universes.

Don’t comprehend this one. It says something about a European degree setup. That is very definitely in the works. Matter of fact I’m back here getting the wheels under it but I am not prepared to announce anything about that now.

„Now, on Expanded GITA: Is wasting, alone, run in brackets, or is accepting under duress, wanting, taking and so forth run in brackets also?“

Yes, everything is run in brackets. You have Waste in brackets, Accept in brackets. Now, I’ll give you another little one in there. There’s another little one in there: Save in brackets.

Save is a lock-up that comes between wasting and accepting. A save is, „I can’t accept it and I can’t waste it“ I wouldn’t say that your grandmother or somebody like that was loopy for saving everything, but she sure was hanging up on about the biggest maybe there is which is: „I can’t have it,“ see, „and I can’t accept it, I can’t waste it and I don’t dare give it away.“

Something for you to remember what saving is. Go down and look at these big banks. They get people to saving money. I haven’t the least idea why anybody ever saves any money — really don’t.

I was raised in the hard school in the US — the real tough school. That’s just to say, one depression. And I saw people who had worked and worked and worked all their lives up till 1929, Black Friday — crash, all their savings gone, and then we entered the Great Depression. And Frankie, that was a fellow we had back then — a fellow by the name of Frankie. He fixed it up so that all the little banks in the country that were sound could be bought up by all the big banking chains which then went crash and there, that was the rest of the country’s savings — 1932. And people who had saved all their lives were destitute.

Oh, they just got their savings at first, by the way. The second big sweep was what was known as — they got big casino that time. They got their checking accounts. Ah, that was a great swindle. That was a great swindle. They really had boys back in those days — Scarface Al Capone, so on. There were a lot of them — FDR. Anyway. They really took a beating.

And I, ever since, have looked at this business of saving just in an effort to find out what was happening. I find out what happens: They get people to save things and then they get this big pile of masonry and they get bigger piles of masonry and bigger piles of masonry and fancier front offices and more people save and they get bigger piles of masonry and bigger front offices. „Saving is security“ is a motto that they put up in front of these buildings, and boy, it sure is, for the bank.

And Philadelphia is quite interesting this way. The only nice buildings they have in Philadelphia are erected by the pennies that are saved in savings accounts. So I don’t see any beautiful homes erected by savings accounts but I do see a lot of nice banks. So saving isn’t bad; it’s just bad for people.

But a man’s security in the future, his security, is dependent upon his own ability to continue to use effort, and that’s his security. And really, when that fails, he gets an emotional insecurity within himself which hasn’t really anything to do with the financial problems with which he’s faced. His bank just starts collapsing.

When he becomes unwilling or unable to use effort, he can no longer feel secure, of course, because security is based upon the ability to use effort And you’ll see this working out numerous ways. The „can’t work,“ as I said often, is the common denominator of neurosis and psychosis. They can’t work.

Well, when they answer this — when they answer this with this relatively weird computation of „We will save,“ they’re just working it all backwards again. If you were to have saved ten dollars in 1938, and you took it out of the bank today at 2 percent interest, you would find yourself with ten dollars which would buy about one-quarter of the commodity or one-eighth of the commodity and you’ve made 2 percent or 8 percent or 12 percent or, I don’t know, you might have made quite a bit of percentage. You might have made twenty bucks out of this ten dollars in 1938. But now it costs you a hundred bucks to buy the same commodity. Why didn’t you buy a diamond ring or why didn’t you buy a watch or why didn’t you just go down to the corner and give it to a beggar and think of all the time you would have saved yourself.

When you start to save, you begin to worry about the fact that you might not be able to work someday. You can always work. They need switchmen down at — they need train watchers and so on. The streets are dirty and there’s all sorts of things a guy can do, actually — probably much more interesting than you’re doing now.

You’ll find the entrepreneur is an interesting character in the society. He’s the manager who is the promoter — the entrepreneur. Society really hasn’t taken a good look at him. But it’s the entrepreneur usually who has the beautiful home and the fleet of cars and the warm — and hot-running secretaries. These people will look at this person and they’ll say he’s a capitalist And the poor guy really hasn’t got a dime in the bank. He’s really poor. And he — it’s just his ability and he just goes on at this level of ability.

A fellow by the name of Lucky Baldwin has left huge piles of masonry and racetracks all over California And it’s doubtful if old Lucky Baldwin could ever write an acceptable check at the end of a week. The man was just — his effort was rewarded continually. No worries — he just spent every dime he ever got his hands on. And, I think, toward the end, that somebody — he fell down on something or other and he was finished completely before he ever didn’t have any money.

Don’t worry. Capitalism today will take care of you if you’ve got an awful lot of money and you’re suddenly unable to work; they’ll take care of you. You suddenly get unable to work, how are you going to defend this money? The government won’t; they take it away from you. They say, „That fellow’s got money. Ha! Where’s the officers of the law? Let’s…“

How about having — I didn’t mean to get off on an economic dissertation. I wanted — I’ve been trying to beat home covertly and surreptitiously during this congress — one datum is: The unwillingness to put out effort is the root of evil — if anything can be said to be. It’s the unwillingness to exert effort — unwillingness to put out and receive in anchor points — effort And this is mirrored in every strata of life. And the decline of a society is measured by the amount they have to save and the littleness they hope to do.

„How about having real communication in our organization? Specifically, a directing of members complete with full…“

A directory! Well, you’re sure going to get that „… complete with addresses and distributed amongst the members and also a regular monthly newspaper to contain news from, about and by the field.“

Okay. Okay.

You know, every once in a while somebody gets this beautiful dream. And it’s a wonderful dream. And you send out letters to people in the field who should send you letters to tell you what they were doing. The columns sit there empty. You’re writing to people who obviously can’t put out anchor points, I guess. Because you never get any news from the field to include in it because nobody sends you any.

Now, somebody can excuse this and say it’s because you wouldn’t print it if it were sent. Well, believe me, I have printed a lot more than I have ever received from the field.

I had had one of the editors indoctrinated into making enough complaints in the mails. The early issues of the Journal, by the way, contain alternate letters which are complaints. We just never receive complaints to amount to anything, and people love to read complaints. So he kept saying, „But nobody’s complaining about anything.“

And so I said, „Well, get in a foul mood some night and write us half a hundred letters and we’ll just draw on these.“ We did. Nobody complains. Most of the news coming in is very pleasant But there’s a lot of it that I would like to have and people send it in — gorgeous.

Now — also asks about the various steps necessary qualifying for the degrees.

Well, we’ve been starving along on this against the time when we would have everything set up to accommodate for that rather than announce it first as I used to.

I’m finding a wonderful facility these days for sitting exactly on the time track, you know? Ptock. And people rush up to me and they say, „Why don’t you do something…“

See, and it’s on the time track ten days away. That’s up there.

„Well, yes, but they got to get ready for it.“

„No, ten days away is when we start planning it.“

It’s very funny, if you’re not terribly concerned about it, you start operating on a hairline with time. You’re not very concerned about it; you find out that a feeling of hecticness that you might otherwise have departs. You know, you’re trying to crowd that time track, you know — so little time to get in and so on. And you go back and find out that all the crowding of the time track ever did was to get you to do less because you wasted all of your effort in pushing against time and it’s awfully unresistive.

If you want to get a preclear feeling very funny, you say, „All right Now, get a large area of nothing.“ „Okay.“ „Now, get the idea you’re fighting it.“ That’s the MEST universe par excellence.

When people’s voices start coming at you, and people are quarreling with you verbally, so forth, people get that same feeling. It’s the identical feeling, you see, because they’re fighting nothing. And they just feel like they’re falling on their faces and everybody goes downscale and everything else.

The way to fight is just hit somebody! I mean, don’t fight nothing — fall into that trap. Or don’t fight! Or if you fight, why, just fight. But fighting is not bandying words around and so on. A lot of people have got this so bad that that’s all they’ll do is bandy words. And you say, „Well, let’s get the brass knuckles!“ Or, „All right, what’s the matter with a couple of can openers at ten feet?“

This is terrifically visible in bullfighting. They get the bull to fight the picador. And the bull fights the picador by plowing in with those horns, see? And he’s got a good, solid horse in front of him and a good solid man in front of him. And boy, he really shoves and very often the horse goes down and the bull’s horns… Of course, that horse is terrifically padded and shielded, and it’s quite often, though, the bull’s horns will penetrate those quilts and shields and disembowel the horse and smash the rider back down against the fence and so on. That bull’s got a lot of drive.

But all the time he’s driving, Mr. Picador has a double-pronged spear that he’s mounted in the bull’s spine at a very tender spot at the base of the neck, and he just leans on that spear hard, see? The audience will boo if two picadors in a row put their spears in the same places on the bull’s back so as to cause fountains of blood. The audience doesn’t like this because it takes too much fight out of the bull.

But the point is they give him a nice big engram and there he’s fighting something, you see, in getting this engram. After that, people come up and throw these banderillas, they just mount these banderillas into his back — two-spiked sticks. They come all up in front of him and drive them into his back and sail away. And then they give him capes and more capes and more capes, and it’s just nothing. He’s just fighting nothing, you see, from there on.

What’s he fighting? He’s fighting the engram the picador gave him. It’s the most beautiful — gruesomely beautiful example of what an engram is and what it can do.

After that, he won’t buck and the harder — the more you give him fighting nothing, the sicker he gets. The bull, just before he’s killed, is about the sickest, scaredest animal you ever saw.

America would not go for bullfights at all. Not because they’re too bloody, but because they’re too monotonous. It’s the same bullfight.

Once in a while, you get a really good matador, and they’re quite rare and they do fabulous things. They are fantastic. And to watch one of those boys at work, knowing very well the work is quite dangerous, is something that you just stand and hold your breath over. Because they will fix the bull the second the bull comes into the arena — no engram yet And they will do such things as kneel in the middle of the arena with a red cape wrapped around their knees and just wait for the bull. And the bull will see that red cape and come up like an express train and go right straight through them. They’re not there at the moment the bull hits.

And then they go through a process of hypnotizing the bull after the engram and so forth. A toreador will — or a matador will fix him — just fix him and then make him come ahead two steps. And then fix him again. And it’s fascinating. They’ll just make the bull do anything. But that is a magnificent matador. That’s the top — the cream of the cream.

The rest of the boys and most of the fellows you see doing matador work and so on, they’re poor. They’re quick — poor. They turn around before they’ve adequately fixed the bull and walk five paces away to bow to the audience and the bull says, „Well, to hell with him!“ see, and comes in under him and throws him in the air!

But it’s interesting too, commenting on that, because quite a few people have mentioned it to me — that here’s a society which every day is perfectly willing to waste killing. And there’s a society that is perfectly willing to sit around and watch the killing.

Every time you eat a steak, there was a fellow down there at the slaughterhouse — he stood up alongside of a chute with a baseball bat and hit the cow on the head, pong. And they come through, they hit them in the head. In other words, you’re wasting killing of meat.

And if you were to check over the society at all, you would find out that very few people had any comprehension of this interesting item: that every time you eat meat, an animal had to die. And you’re eating the meat at some very late, late, later date than it was killed and you’re eating carrion. The meat is really no good unless it’s still alive to eat. It’s the only time it’s got any admiration in it and that’s all you’re really — you’re looking for.

And meat which is killed in fear — meat of an animal which was afraid when it died has a terrifically foul flavor. A lot of your Western beef and so forth has that flavor in it That animal was in terror when killed. And yet here sits around people saying, „I love animals!" Chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp!

Your vegetarian — your vegetarian thinks to get around this and argues against eating meat, which is carrion, by eating live cells — eating raw vegetables. In other words, the food is still alive. Raw vegetables are very delicious.

If you left little kids alone, very few of them would ever get into eating meat. They would eat raw vegetables preferably because they’re, of course, quite admiring. You take a stalk of celery and carrot, something like that, before it’s been cooked. But when they get older, they want to make sure it’s dead, so they boil it and so on.

You see, what’s amusing is there’s apparently no food value in any of this. There’s a sensation value and so on. I’m not quite sure, but I know I like to eat But it’s just something you like to do.

And then people get obsessive about it They think they have to eat Of course, a person who thinks he has to eat and then can’t eat and starts starving, oh, he gets in terrible shape. And you can almost tell a family that has not fed their children well by looking over some fellow. He’s funny about food. He’s upset about food.

And you get any of your preclears coming by, one after the other, you’ll find out that the preclears that you get would normally come to you, each one has had familial upset about food — not Mama (very young) — but just about food, about hamburgers and vegetables and so on. This kid has been bullied about food. It’s a center aberration because it’s the first decline of man into debasement.

I’m not saying stop eating, but stop being so serious about eating. It’s not very serious. That GE that built the bull, he just goes back and builds another bull Probably this bull, probably, has enough of a shock left in him — you see, he probably has enough shock left in him that he’ll never be selected for the bullring again. So the race survives.

„How can an occluded case get any certainty on a mock-up when he’s not sure that merely getting the concept of a mock-up is out there? Will such be of any value? How can an occluded case get any certainty on a mock-up when he’s not sure that merely getting the concept that a mock-up is out there will be of any value?“

Oh, I see. This business of put a mock-up, put a mock-up, put a mock-up out there — but you’re talking about an occluded case. In high-level processing today, we don’t talk about an occluded case getting mock-ups.

I can tell you how to get occluded cases to get mock-ups and so forth. Well, there are dozens of ways of running occlusion. The hottest one of running occlusion is: Get all of that blackness out there as a something, and then the answer as a nothing. We haven’t come away from Something-Nothingness Processing with Q and A.

Get all that blackness as a something, and then get himself looking at it as a nothing. Get the blackness — re-turned around, in other words — turn it around as a nothing. If he can’t turn it around, just leave it there and say it’s now nothing. It’s something-nothing.

Because that’s the big question: It’s black so you can’t see it, but is there something in it? And that’s the type of maybe, so people get into that maybe and there goes the case. So you don’t worry about this fellow.

You solve the blackness with this and then you get it as silent And then silent is the answer. And you solve it in this fashion and then he gets mock-ups. It’s very easy. You don’t have to get mock-ups to exteriorize anybody anymore, actually.

Actually, there are a few auditors around — I don’t do this because I consider that it’s impolite. Sometimes it makes it feel like a piece of skull is coming off or something of the sort But there are some auditors around, actually, that simply reach over and grab ahold of the thetan and yank. They got a Theta Clear. Kind of uncomfortable but the person gets pretty good certainty on having been exteriorized. Of course he gets back into this mess again and he’ll bog down some more but he knows something happened to him.

You can maintain an occluded case’s interest in processing very easily. You don’t use mock-ups of it. Whoever wrote this question believes that mock-ups are the center of processing, that’s because probably he’s concerned about mock-ups. He can’t get them. If you’ll just run that „Blackness is a something“ as a question: „Something?“ and then himself, Nothing, he’s got that maybe apart.

Q and A, you see, can go from — not an identity but two different things like a Something-Nothing. But it isn’t advisable to do that on anything less than just Something-Nothing. The blackness is „Something?“ And then turn it around as Nothing as the answer because that’s relief.

By the way, before I forget it — before I forget it, you’re going to find some cases around that ought to be run this way — they ought to be run this way. They’ve been in Dianetics a long time, been in Scientology a long time, and you want to wrap up the case and you aren’t getting anywhere much with what you’re doing. This case is still fighting around. Well, you will remember that the case — yeah, this is — you run into a lot of those people. Yes. All right

Cycle of Action Processing. Get the idea of a cycle of action. You know, a person wants to finish those cycles of action. I told you about that in the lectures. So they didn’t run out the engram. So they’ve got to finish the cycle of action. And how do you do this? You get the engram — nothing. That’s the end of the cycle of action. All right

„Get that picture you were trying to work with?“ „Now get nothing of it“ „Now get present time.“ „Now get the erasure of an engram, just as a concept“ See?

And then get this in a bracket. And you’ve finished off the cycle of action of every session they’ve had, see? An engram and nothing of it — that is to say, erased, nothing — is a very silly thing because all you’re doing is running nothings. But it’s running nothings with the idea in them, and they’re still disturbed and still chewing up against this engram they never erased and so on. This is a highly specialized technique. You’d never bother to use this on the public.

You just say, „Now get running an engram and nothing.“ And „Get the feeling of present time.“ You know, „Now get the feeling of being back on the track and then present time,“ and so on. That cares for all the times they didn’t come back to present time when some auditor stuck them down the bank. And if you run this in brackets, you’ll actually run out all the bad auditing.

It sounds very silly, a very light technique; you’ll overestimate it You’ll talk too much to the preclear, I know you will because it’s just a matter of, „All right…“ (you don’t even tell him you’re running out auditing) „… get the fact that there was an engram and now there’s nothing.“ „Now get somebody else, the fact there was an engram and now there’s nothing.“ And „All right. Get the fact that a fellow was back in time and is now in present time.“ „Get the fact that you were back in time and are now in present time.“ „Now, get other people who had an engram, had nothing.“

You get the idea? „Other people auditing other people.“ Finish the session. And then to end all this: „All right Get the idea of being aberrated and then being Clear — aberrated and Clear.“ You just work out these goals, you see? You don’t have to run it very long.

The fellow says, „Gee, you know, I feel fine! It makes me a dog, doesn’t it?“ Okay.

We’ve got here quite a few questions of… Oh! Oh, by the way, I’m just reading this question. I’m not going to answer the question because it just mentions Group Processing and I don’t think everybody would be interested in it.

I think I’m going to shoot some auditor. I always wind up that way and something of the sort In running Six Steps to Better Beingness, an auditor whom I loved very dearly (I’ll kick his teeth out just the same) ran this during the congress, ran Q and A in place of Opposite Poles, the sixth step — ran Q and A in place of Opposite Poles and then followed it with Self Analysis. What’s wrong with that?

Male voice: It’s double — the same way.

Yeah, that’s introvert, introvert. And the people he was auditing hung up and got blurry, naturally. And he then said, „Where are you people? Where are you?“ while they were anaten.

Now, I fished out a couple of them out of that group. But please, if you’re going to vary techniques, let me tell you the secret of varying techniques. Introversion technique which would be Opposite Poles and anything like that, Q and A — that’s an introverted technique. It has to do with the subjective — the subjective being. Always follow it with the objective being.

Now, if you’ll notice in Six Steps to Better Beingness, Opposite Poles is followed by step one again — Ten Minutes of Nothing. Now, Ten Minutes of Nothing is actually not a subjective technique. If the fellow starts running it, he’ll get nothing here and then he’ll start to get interested in the walls or something like that and he’ll become aware after a while that he — realize he’s still surrounded by walls. So he’ll eventually bite off and get nothing of the walls, and then he’ll get nothing of the town and nothing of the planet. He’s going out. He’s very definitely going out, and it’s an extroversion technique if there ever was one. But, if you followed it with Self Analysis, which is more mock-ups on top of the mock-ups which appear in Q and A, people would have a tendency to get very foggy. See why that is?

So it’s introvert technique, subjective reality, and then objective. Subjective-objective, subjective-objective — and if you’re going to put together or vary techniques, you should do that.

And you should never ask anaten people questions or anything like that.

More important than that, Q and A is run for a group just as I ran it in a demonstration. We pull people in on the preclear and then had the preclear put himself backwards on people out in front of him. Now, why did we do that?

Here we have a situation of extending the anchor point. Putting on the body backwards collapses his anchor points. Now, we put it out there and extend his anchor points — now, just recall this. You see, that was in the process. We don’t just put it in.

Now, you’ll notice Opposite Poles is a much gentler version, but it has its outpoint too. Opposite Poles has to do with points out here. There’s things out here saying, „I’m going to betray you.“ In other words, he has to look out here a ways and then he plays these heads dose up. So it’s an out-in technique although all of it is a subjective technique.

Now, let’s look at Q and A. He put on Mama, Papa and so forth backwards and turned them around each time as the answer. And then he got Mama and Papa out here and he put his body on them backwards. You remember that in the demonstration? In other words, if you did that to him, all you’d work out was motivators, and a fellow hasn’t got enough motivators anyhow. So for heaven’s sakes, put his body out here, have him mock up Papa and then have him put his own body on Papa’s backwards and then turn it around as the answer. Have him mock up Mama, put his body on Mama’s body as the question and then turn it around as the answer. And you’ve got his points out again.

There are very few things that could go wrong in this, but if you find anything going wrong, it’s trying to run into a present time problem with the preclear which you then don’t complete. And so you would leave alone those people with whom the preclear was more or less tied up in present time.

You would use standardly — if you were doing it with Group Processing, you would leave alone, really, the husband or the wife, working with a group. Why? Because it’s going to be too hot to handle. You can just be sure that two people living together have a lot of problems which are unsolved and so on, and you’ve got to spend a long time on this if you start using husbands and wives and so on.

So you start shooting this at the group, „Now put your marital partner’s body on backwards and turn it around.“ By the time you’ve done that a few times, there’s two or three members of your group aren’t going to be with you. They’ll be into a boil-off or something. So you want to avoid the present time problems.

Truth of the matter is, just Wearing Heads, you see, doesn’t have this question and answer connotation and they get big line charges out of it-groups do a lot of times.

„Put on your first-grade teacher’s head,“ „Put on a cop’s head.“ „Put on Papa’s head.“ And so on, and they get a big bang out of this. It’s very amusing.

One case I had reported to me, the girl had been afflicted most horribly with a mustache for years and was very sensitive about it and the auditor knew it was an aberration of some sort, when he ran into Opposite Poles, just Wearing Heads. „Now, put on the head of somebody you detest,“ he said. And she puts on this head, and it’s a very, very, early, early teacher she had, who had a mustache that she detested and had been wearing it ever since. And in twenty-four hours it was gone. Just the (snap) realization that fast.

So Wearing Heads is a little bit different, you see, than Q and A and it’s a lighter technique and can be used more easily on a group. And I would actually advise you to use Opposite Poles rather than Q and A on a group. But you can use Q and A on a group but use the whole bracket That is, use at least for self and for others on the bracket And at least throw into the process, past people and leave alone people who are obviously present time problems.

Yeah, last night at one o’clock, I was auditing. That’s really ornery. I thought I’d ended this a long time ago. But I didn’t know this process could be done wrong — Q and A. Actually can’t be done wrong. There wouldn’t have been any damage there if the auditor had not said, „Where are you?“ Because both of these people began to wonder where they were. And they — well, were dazed enough to think maybe they were in birth or maybe, „I don’t know, where am I on the track? Maybe I’m a baby on the track. Maybe I’m just…“ See, real dizzy.

Nothing wrong with it That would have worn off in a day or two anyhow and it wouldn’t have killed them. If you think you’re going to mess anybody up with these techniques, it’s pretty hard to do. All right.

Oh! „Would you discuss the mechanical aids you touched upon?“

Yeah, but I tell you, I don’t myself have enough case histories on these mechanical aids to make any kind of a report and all I’m doing is going on preliminary findings and data. And that’s one of the things I’ve got to do across the river over there. That’s one of the things this group working with me has got to do. We’ve got to get our hands dirty on the subject of mechanical aids.

I can see it now. One of these has to do with mirrors and another has to do with cans and so on. There are four mechanical aids, and one of them is vitamins. How far can you go with vitamins as a mechanical aid?

He’s — also puts a question here: „How about vitamins?“

There are four of these mechanical aids: One of them has to do with mirrors, the other has to do with cans, one of them has to do with vitamins, and another one is called distraction. And any one of these — any one of these is strictly mechanical. They’re just for psychotics, that’s all. It’s just an effort to mass-handle psychosis.

And your mirrors automatically double-terminal the person. You just put him in the box and strap him down and he looks up and he’s double-terminaled. That’s real grim.

If you want to know how that works, go yourself sometime and look fixedly at a mirror for about three or four minutes and you all of a sudden will flip into the mirror on that side and back of the mirror this side and back there and back there and it’s very, very baffling.

I discovered this, one day, was a little bit too much for a preclear. I’d sent him over to the mirror and then noticed a fixed look got in his eye, and I said, „Well, let’s just carry this out just a little bit further.“ And I carried it out for about ten minutes. And at the end of that time discovered that he did not and could not tell me which side of the mirror he was really on or whether he was in front of his face or behind his face.

And the fixation of people upon mirrors gives them the idea that they’re in front of their faces and they’ll often establish this viewpoint They’re putting up a good picture and they would like to look at themselves so they have…

Matter of fact, you want to get a little kick this morning here? Just get the idea about a spot out in front of you that is facing you, „How I’d love to have that viewpoint!“ Just get that now. Just get that as a concept A spot out in front of you here, looking back this way at you and get the idea, „How I’d love to have that viewpoint!“ Hit it again.

That desire to behold oneself, you see, when you give it all over to a mirror and so on, it’ll swing people out in front of their faces. You very often say, „Be three feet back of your head.“ Well, he’s already two feet in front of his head.

Vitamins, by the way, have the same validity they’ve always had for us which is the fact that you start running a person with too many hours and an insufficiency of food, and the GE just can’t take it I said, a little while ago, food wasn’t necessary, but I said, until a person is well downscale, his whole sanity isn’t monitored by food.

But when a person hasn’t much storage capacity, has an idea of tremendous scarcity on the subject of food, you start auditing them, and they’re unable to work. And very often, as a matter of fact, every time I have found what was called an auditing failure — when I found an auditing failure being very serious to people, extremely serious — the preclear was hungry, starved when audited, insufficiency of food. I don’t mean he’s just had the sensation of hunger; I mean he hadn’t been eating for days or weeks.

We used to give intensives up at Elizabeth (a little town up the line up here) and they used to give intensives up there and the people would come in there and they’d eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee for lunch, eat no breakfast and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee for supper. And then at two o’clock in the morning somebody would be on the phone saying, „We have somebody here that just can’t seem to reach present time,“ and you hear this — faint screams going on in the background. You have to patch this character up but you’ve already passed this margin of safety.

Two o’clock in the morning! You should never audit anybody at two o’clock in the morning. Traditionally, that’s the time of day when people die. If you’re ever going to spin anybody, you’ll spin him at two o’clock in the morning.

And these conditions will be followed — if you ever spin anybody, these conditions will have been answered: You audited him too many hours, and at the moment of the spin it was between one and four in the morning. He will not have eaten sufficiently for the preceding week. He is very deficient on calcium lactate and vitamin B1. It just will follow just like that pam, pam, pam.

Regardless of what you did to him in auditing, we — not interested in that — let’s just look at these other factors, and you’ll find out that they’re present if the preclear spins. The auditing is just something else. You see? It’s something for you to remember.

They’ve got to be well fed. They’ve got to have good rest, and they will start having nightmares, dreams and hallucinations if they don’t get enough vitamin B1 and calcium lactate.

You give somebody a bunch of — oh, once in a while you’ll get this patient — a patient, this time, not a preclear. Some doctor or somebody will have really flubbed the dub. And this patient will come to you and they’re seeing spiders. And they’re seeing horrible things and they don’t know what these things are and they’re very upset emotionally, and you check back on them. You can always ask a man a question, „Have you been to the doctor and are you on any drugs?“

And the fellow will answer to this question, „Well, yes, I’ve been taking some medicine, but it doesn’t amount to anything.“ The doctor’s had him on something like sulfathiazole and it’s productive of hallucination and there’s nothing wrong with this fellow except the doctor didn’t give him the B1 to go along with the sulfathiazole. This manifestation does not occur in the presence of adequate B1 — neither does alcoholism.

You get an alcoholic. Well, he’s so deficient on B1, he’s got to waste it. He can’t have it. He’s in bad shape. And you have to really pump him full if you’re going to audit him. And people will try to audit alcoholics under alcohol or something like that Oh, no — B1, B1.

B1 is wonderful stuff. I don’t know who sold the cells a bill of goods on it, but they sure bought it.

And this hallucinatory condition which you will often hear about from a preclear will just clear up. And if you audited him madly and intensely and on and on and on and on and on in the presence of insufficient food or something like that, all of a sudden he mil — he’ll start to get hallucinations. The way you remedy it…

Female voice: How much are you calling „filling full of B1“ at this present time?

What?

Female voice: How much are you calling „filling full of B1" in terms of…

Oh, not very much: fifty, a hundred milligrams — one tablet, two tablets. That is, they’re fifty milligrams, a hundred milligrams. That’s lots of B1. Matter of fact, it will make him easy as a good car to drive for about an hour after you take it. It has a euphoric edge. Take two or three, oh, maybe ten grains of calcium lactate. That’s awful cheap. That’s something like sixty-five cents for hundreds of pills, and B1 is rather expensive.

But don’t go dabbling around with five milligrams of B1 and ten milligrams of B1. And don’t get upset or excited about the fact that you’re not giving him balanced rations — you actually can — of drugs or balanced rations of minerals or something like that Boy, you can get so precise about this.

I’ve worked with this quite a bit and I’ve found — never got into trouble — never have gotten into trouble yet by simply giving B1 and, if possible, backing it up with some calcium lactate. And giving lots of B1 — it doesn’t upset the system.

But a lot of other vitamins and minerals packed on top of this have to be in very precise balance. You could pick up probably a scoop shovel of B1 and load it into the preclear. And you could probably put five milligrams into the preclear and it’d do some tiny fragment of good. A tiny amount or a large amount, you could back it up with any quantity in the world of calcium and it wouldn’t do anything. It’s like eating chalk. It goes into solution in the body a little bit better in the presence of calcium, I understand.

And it’s not anything dangerous or critical. There is neither a dangerous nor critical aspect on the administration of it. It’s not really a drug or anything. But we go off into other tablets, minerals, proteins and so on, we can have a picnic.

Thank you very much.