Thank you.

Well, here we are with the last lecture of the 19th ACC. We at least got to the last lecture. I don't know where else we might have got, but we got there. It's February the fourteenth, isn't it?

Audience: Yes.

AD 8. Okay.

Now, today — today I ought to really just moralize. I do have a few things to say along that line. We're finishing up with about 50 percent of the class Clear, which agrees with my postulate, thank you.

And now that we're all through, practically — just a few more hours of auditing to go — it would be timely for me to come up with a solution to all those cases that hung fire. So I will do so.

The responsibility for a mock-up will solve almost anything. Now, apparently it washes out by taking responsibility for it, but that's actually an inversion. You should be able to make a mock-up stand there even if misowned. And there are a lot of people around who get rid of mock-ups whenever they own them, and that's most people at large.

The truth of the matter is, this misownership via is not necessary to perpetuate a mock-up. You see that? It's not necessary to say, well — for the preclear to make it and then say, "Joe made it," in order to get the mock-up to persist. In other words, misownership. That's not necessary.

A person can simply postulate it and say that it'll persist. Of course, if he doesn't say that it persists as he postulates it, it won't, which probably causes him a great deal of upset — that if he doesn't say so, it isn't. Lot of responsibility being king in your own universe, you know? Nothing happens automatically. You don't get caved in suddenly on Saturday afternoon and, you know, that sort of thing.

Now, what about such a process of responsibility for mock-ups? All you have to do is process a person who "cannot mock something up" in this wise, to really see some fireworks and comm lags. Runs like this: "What mock-up could you take responsibility for making?"

Very crude wording there — that's not any final wording for a command, but it gives you the gist of the situation.

Now, an extreme . . . Now, go on, don't — stop making mock-ups, now. Come on, now. Wait till after the lecture. (laughter)

The extreme case would be this: We have a person who is professionally a railroad locomotive engineer. (Evidently, by the way, he can't call himself an engineer here in the District of Columbia because he'll get arrested. That's because he's an engineer, you see?) Now, supposing this fellow — supposing this fellow came into your hands as a preclear and everything was all foggy, and you were having an awful time and so on. You know that you could get some relief on the case just from backtrack 1954 Havingness — by having him mock up railroad locomotives. You know that would be easy. And maybe you could just have him mock up railroad locomotives until he was able to mock something up. I mean, this is highly probable, although he'll tend to jump around on the track.

I did that to one fellow; he — had him mock up the machine he'd been married to for about twenty years. The next thing you know, he mocked up a destroyer — destroyer, Battle of Jutland. He was an American, this pc, and he mocked up a des, all of a sudden was mocking up a destroyer. And we tried to get back onto engines and we couldn't do that. I mean, it was just physically impossible, and he kept mocking up the destroyer. So I said, "Well all right, let's mock up the destroyer twenty times and get back onto machines."

And midflight he says, "Gor, gorblimey!" He was in the Royal Navy, way back when, Battle of Jutland. Got himself killed. Destroyer was sunk out from underneath him with a few well-placed salvos from a battlewagon. And that was the end of his destroyer. And that took his havingness right on out the bottom and cost him one body, too.

So he says, "The devil with the British Empire," and he promptly flitted across the Atlantic, evidently, and picked up an American baby. Then he became a machinist, the jerk; and there he was standing looking at gray steel. Gray steel, gray steel.

Well, that case to a marked degree cracked up. This boy was having a hard time being a professional auditor; after that, he didn't have any difficulty at all.

But supposing we had asked this fellow this sort of a command (this is a very extreme case, you see? I mean, this was a rough case), we'd ask him, "What part of a machine would you be responsible for mocking up?" or ". . . could you be responsible for mocking up?" See?

Now, we would have encountered one of the beefier comm lags — one of the more interesting comm lags. And he would have gotten very, very far afield before he finally came up with an answer. And the answer wouldn't have been any part of the machine. It would have been something else. Oh, he could be responsible for the wrench that set the machine up in the first place or something like this. Or he could be responsible for the place the machine had been, providing it wasn't there anymore. Vague, abstruse answers.

Now this, hammered on for quite a while often — now, underscore that word often; this is not one of these open-and-shut propositions because there are too many vagaries. For instance, it's your choice as an auditor what you pick out of the preclear to run, you know? And although he obviously must be hung up in a Cadillac in this life, it probably is a jet plane two hundred thousand years ago. You get the idea? I mean, you can err in trying to pick the lock. But the lock can be picked just that expertly if you E-Metered it enough. You know, you'd have to pick the right lock to just bang the bank into fragments and have him be able to mock up again.

But you could eventually lead him forward, lead a preclear forward with this process, and it'd be most often the case that he was thereafter able to mock up something — which is to say, willing to.

And you're on your willingness button. For instance, a painter of pictures might very well be very diffident about mocking up any part of a picture. But look, this man's business is the painting of pictures. Well, when he was young and foolish he was very happy to be responsible for any part of a picture he mocked up. And then he ran into the critics, see? And then he'd been married eight or nine or twelve times, or whatever the accepted number of times is for an artist at this day and age.

It's actually not their fault. They're not paying any attention to the women. And the woman comes around and sees all this beautiful attention and doesn't get any, and she leaves; another woman takes her place and the guy doesn't even notice.

Now, here — here you'd say, "Well! Well, this boy — this boy certainly can take responsibility for a picture because he's still painting."

Well, they have something — they say something about an artist. An artist, by the way, is a better example than an artisan for this reason: He is normally under a heavier stress critically, one way or the other, and he normally isn't working with the same masses. The mass actually, far from being a liability, is rather a saving grace.

Now, this boy, this artist, is still painting pictures but his quality has declined to the degree that he is not taking responsibility for what he paints. Criticism, starvation and the number of awards he didn't get for continuing his work and so forth, all add up to moving him back off into an irresponsibility, you see?

Unless he takes responsibility for what he paints, he can't make it. Well now, when you ask him to mock up something, he will run directly into this refusal to take responsibility.

And the first thing he'll think of, if you ask an artist who is having a hard time with his profession, first thing he'd think of, he'd say, "Well, the one thing I can mock up," he will say — ta-da, ta-da, ta-da, "is a picture."

You could say, "Go ahead." And he'll get copies, copies, you know, flicker-flack, and then all of a sudden it'll all go. He himself is no longer able to mock the things up.

Now, if you just had him mock up something he would take the responsibility for mocking up, and you graduated him — you see, you don't have to hit, whambo, into the middle of his particular profession, but you would come back to it; he'd take responsibility for mocking something up. We would walk him back with his mock-ups into his basic profession, and we'd still have a picnic.

But when he was at length able to mock up something and take responsibility for it, he would again get mock-ups. And more important, he would be able to handle his profession.

Now, this would also go for an admiral, you see? It would also go for a lawyer, it would go for a piano player, it would go for a fellow who sharpens lawn mowers. It would go for anybody. It's the one thing he has done long enough so that he can be driven off of it, you get the idea?

The actual science of life as practiced by Time magazine, the better part of the criminals of the country and so forth, this is that any time anybody is doing a good job, cut his stinking throat. Drive him back off of it, you see? Make him finally say that he's unwilling to be responsible for it. Got it?

Now, if you could just drive him back hard enough, why, you'll get him so he won't mock it up anymore, and you're not troubled with living things around. See? After all, we all know the difficulty is that things are alive and move. And sometimes smile, goddamn them! The cure for that, of course, is to make somebody so unhappy about what he is doing that he'll stop doing it. Now, to ask him to take responsibility for it is something else.

And now, this is peculiar. This is, of course, a professional type of address, and this is peculiar to the case of an auditor. And an auditor very often gets into this sort of thing where — well, let's say he's stupid enough to be auditing in Hollywood. Let's say he's stupid enough to be doing this or stupid enough to be auditing in Greenwich Village. There we get nothing but spun-in l.ls. There's no other type of case in the whole area, you see? I don't wish to make any sweeping statements, but. . . Occasionally one of these l.ls sinks to a lower level.

But you run in, actually, in those two areas, into a predominant number of cases — it's just too many to be comfortable about. Person comes in, he's apparently very well dressed, he's apparently in charge of some part of his life, and he sits down. And the next thing you know — the second you just trigger his case a little bit, you get a blast on the subject of "Aw, you're a fake and you're a quack, you know da-da, and you're doing no good" and so forth. I mean, he just — just routine. Person is a 1.1 in that the moment that you shake his control to any degree at all, why, you find you're sitting on a venomous volcano.

Now when an auditor runs into too many such cases, if he himself is not aware of the mechanism — of course, all you've got to be is aware of the mechanism and you'll laugh like mad. The man is unwilling to help — that's all that's wrong with him. But if you ran into too many of the cases or an auditor ran into too many such cases, and if he had criticism from Father and criticism from Mother and criticism from the wife or criticism from the husband, you see, and criticism locally and wah-da and the magazines came out and they said everything he was doing was all bad, next thing you know he would be unwilling to take responsibility for a preclear. Got it? He'd be driven back off.

Now, all you'd have to ask him to do is "What part of a preclear would he be willing to mock up." And this other stuff starts flying off the case.

There's probably no such process as — I wouldn't say this finally, but as far as I know — there's no such process, "What part of a preclear would you be irresponsible for?"

As a matter of fact, I have run this. I've run irresponsibility tests and I have never yet found an auditing combination that would demonstrate there was such a thing as irresponsibility — that is to say, that it was a thing. There is, however, lack of responsibility. But the negative of responsibility is not operative in processing. Do you see that?

Therefore, the rehabilitation of responsibility in any zone of livingness or activity is the rehabilitation of a person's effectiveness and ability in that area.

Now, you've often heard me mention this fellow who we give an ability back to, such as the fellow who wants to be able to speak Arabic and cannot seem to learn it.

Now, of course that's a can't-reach-must-reach, can't-withdraw — must-withdraw situation. He's been speaking Arabic in one life or another, and things happened and he is no longer willing to take responsibility for Arabic — that's all there is to that.

You wonder why somebody lived a whole fulsome life in Germany, and … Of course there's — of course there's no mystery about it now. I suppose some fellow who just spent a life in Germany and was somewhere else now would have a bit of a flinch connected with it. It was a tough thing to be alive in Germany, last couple of dozen years.

But nevertheless, you'll see what you'd run into. Now we get this fellow, he's a high-school student. And he wants to take up going to the university and take up diplomatic usages or something like that — he wants to be poor-paid the rest of his life.

The best way to take up diplomatic usages is to win forward to the top of General Electric or to get to the top of General Motors or something of this sort. Then, you see, you become a diplomat at once. It's obvious, obvious why, because you don't know a damn thing about it. Perfectly willing to take total irresponsibility for the whole world.

I was fascinated the other day at the reorganization of the armed forces of the United States, which reorganization was under total review, was being advised by the person of and the committee headed by the head of General Electric. So I tried to find out if this man ever heard of a soldier's suit or knew anything about "hard right rudder" or "full speed astern" and so forth. And he was innocent enough to make all sorts of mistakes without suffering any in his conscience, you see?

And the US government was entertaining the idea of this fellow's plan, you see? Quite wonderful. So you don't want to study diplomacy if you want to get into diplomacy; you want to be something else.

But let's say you were trying to fix this young man up — he was foolish and he couldn't speak German. He had to have German. This is a problem today a Scientologist could handle. It's been hard to handle before. You could — always, it's always been in the realm of mock-up.

But the way to do it would be, "What part of the German language" or "What German word could you take responsibility for?"

And, man, you've never seen such a flinch as you would get. He would just flinch, flinch, flinch, flinch. And he'd get all sorts of bank disturbances and so forth, and finally say, "Well, ach — take responsibility for ach. But that's all!"

Naturally that is a very bad example because you're processing a thing that doesn't have any mass. Do you see that? But it would be the entrance point of the problem. Here is something sticking out into this life that wouldn't otherwise be noticed. The individual starts to study German and he runs into it with a dull thud that he can't learn German. But he feels he must learn German. But he can't learn German. But he must learn German. And here we go. And we have a fine little psychotic ridge going here.

Now, to really solve this thing, you'd have to ask him what part of Germany could he be responsible for mocking up. And that would be the solution to it.

You take somebody who is doing a wonderfully sour job of driving a vehicle. You could run the same thing there and rehabilitate his ability in this life on a vehicle. You could say, "What part of that vehicle could you be responsible for mocking up?"

See, this cuts through all the vias, and therefore is very hard on him. But it's nevertheless undoubtedly a good lead-in process to anything.

Now, I'll tell you the process holdup that we are experiencing in clearing. The process holdup is dual: One, an individual is so mired down on Help that he's deep into Destroy, and he doesn't have enough havingness to run it. Now, this is a rough, rough deal. Now obviously, that's a rough deal. You've got to get through that thing with CCH 1, you've got to persuade it one way or the other, pick the right flows. It's a nice lock to pick. Don't kid yourselves that it's easy. But at the same time, realize that you can do it. But it takes a nice approach. Don't worry if it took you a week to get the case going. But once you have it going, you've got 99 percent of it licked.

Now, on the other hang-up — the other hang-up — this, so you understand, is the totally unwilling preclear: low, very low havingness, and he won't sit still in the first place and you're going to run Help on him, but he's totally on Destroy. Now, there's the boy. There's the boy. That's the rough one.

The other point on the case — the very same case or another case that seemed willing — that would come up is this thing about a mock-up. Now, it is worse than fields. Fields are merely the prevention of a mock-up. What you're trying to solve when you're solving a field is the ability to confront a mock-up. Now, you can solve the field as such on a gradient scale, and it works out mechanically that if you have him mock up a terminal which is just like the field, you have something there that he can mock up, that he is mocking up and that is still visible to him.

There are tremendous numbers of things which are no longer visible to him but he is still mocking up. Think of that for a moment. You have the problem with the spook: You process this fellow for a little while, and he suddenly discovers that his cousin has been standing there looking at him for a very long time — years and years and years. His cousin has been right in the room, he never noticed him.

Now, this was a failure of perception, not a failure of a mock-up. A failure of perception. He didn't see it. He was mocking it up, but he didn't see the mock-up. See that? All right.

When you extend his willingness to look — which is to say, his willingness to be responsible for something — he looks. So that you could say perception is responsibility; responsibility is perception.

Perception probably only takes place in the presence of telepathy, and if an individual is out of communication with something, he won't even know it is there. Now, this is what it amounts to.

Now in the future, in processing, you can expect that there will be other — I'll get something — other data concerning the starting of a case. The more cases we start, the more we know about it. The barrier right now is surmountable. It's merely a little arduous with a few cases.

And as far as mock-ups are concerned, that in its turn is not insurmountable. We have ways and means of doing that, but it may seem just a little bit difficult with this case or that case. Something that'll make you think about it, make you after the session say, "Gee-whiz, what is wrong with that guy? Now, let me see . . ." you know? "What will I do next?"

You know, it'll just get a little bit like that, and then you'll crack through. You're not worrying about an impossible problem as I have been for the last few years, see? The problem from the end of 1950 on looked almost totally insurmountable. It looked impossible. It loomed large because it did seem that there was no coordination of entrance that could be communicated to an auditor so an auditor would look at a case. Don't you see, that was the main difficulty. And it took an awful simple know-how to get this thing oriented and across.

But the case that you approach as an impossible case will, of course, be impossible if you postulate it as such. That we can guarantee. But you have right now, without what I'm giving you today here, the answer to cases. You can crack through these cases, it won't cause too much difficulty even in there in the roughest state, such as the fellow who's been in a coma for three months, and you have to woo him back to consciousness. And then you find out he was — been nuts for eight years anyhow, and you have to get him through that. And when you get him all through being nutty, you find out that his field is still there like solid concrete, you know, and so on. These are some — simply a few things to sigh about. You have the processes which gets over each one of these humps. I wish it were easier; it doesn't happen to be at this time.

Now, there will be breakthroughs in these areas. And I'll just describe the areas to you again so you will know where the breakthroughs should be expected. Now, that's quite interesting that we can simply sketch them just like that. And the major breakthrough will be in some very facile method of bringing somebody back to consciousness and alertness who is in a comatose state. That's one. Now, there'll probably — undoubtedly be an easier method developed for that. We have one now, and that method is, "Lie in that bed. Thank you," a variation of TR 5. And you do this just on a verbal command basis and until the individual is alert.

Now, the first communication you get from a person who is in a state of coma is hand pressures. All your communication will be by hand pressures. You don't expect them to speak, but they communicate with you by hand pressure. You can actually describe to an unconscious person, one press means yes, two means no, or something like that. And he will give you ones and twos even though the medicos will say this man has been unconscious and hasn't been able to speak for years. Quite amusing. Just shows you the medico needs to know something more than he knows. He needs to know a few Scientologists — they'd make a citizen out of him.

Now, that's one breakthrough area. How can that be done more easily? The next area is insanity. How can you snap a person into sanity more easily?

We already have methods for both of these things, and it is not beyond imagination to handle an insane case for as little as three, four days at sporadic intervals and so on, and have them snap to — just on your Help brackets. Maybe it's all you need. We don't know that yet; we have no means, really, of researching in this particular area. And our material on the insane accumulates very slowly, while the insane accumulate very rapidly.

Now, our next area is in this thing, black field. Now, there may be a better answer to cracking up a black field, but I now have about ten. The best answer on cracking one up that I know at this time is the Help bracket.

Now, we may or may not come to a solid agreement with that uniformly, but from my viewpoint fields do weird things on Help brackets, particularly if they're well run, if the flows are expertly chosen and so on.

The next area is getting him to make a mock-up that he knows he is making. There are probably easier methods of doing that. Undoubtedly, there is an easy method of doing that, all other things swept aside. Now of course, we have methods of doing that; you've been taught methods of doing it. I'm merely saying that there will be easier methods of that developed.

And finally, there will undoubtedly be simpler tests of condition developed. These things are certain breakthroughs. You can expect a little randomity on each one of these points.

But if you have learned what you have learned here in this 19th ACC, you certainly have answers to all of these points. Perseverance and your own wit will get you through in any piece of randomity that you run into.

I am very sure that you don't need or have to have more data than you have. I merely say that in view of shortness, ease or positiveness, or something like that, more data will certainly be developed. We would be very, very stupid indeed if we did not realize that fact.

The fact, however, of what we are doing, is now done. That's very important. That it takes place in a very finite number of hours is already accomplished as a fact. Now, I am sure you will all agree with that.

There is an optimum length of time in processing, which I would say would be certainly above twenty hours. Fellow would never know he'd been anyplace. The amount of jolt of the change factor would be too great for him to support if you did it in one minute. Why, he'd probably go stark, staring mad right on the spot, don't you see, from just the sudden shift — the curve, see? One moment he's stupid and aberrated, and the next moment, why, he's Clear. Well, he'd undoubtedly go nuts. Something would happen to him. Without any expectation of any such state or anything of the sort, he suddenly achieved it, he'd be shaken to the core, let me assure you. Furthermore, he'd never get to know his auditor, and it'd never give you a break.

And I'd say that the probabilities of a Clear shorter than twenty hours would be very, very remote. Too many factors stand in its road, none of which have to do with auditing at all. See, they're not auditing factors. They're social factors. They're economic factors. They're all sorts of things. And therefore I wouldn't be casting sheep's eyes at "capsule-clearing."

Now, there are always people around who have to do it all at once. You know, it's got to be done right now. Let me assure you of this: They are dramatizing a whole track psychiatric postulate. "I've got to get rid of it all at once. Little by little won't count. I've got to get rid of it all at once." Pretty amazing, such a sweeping idea.

You'll find somebody who is just — practically shatters on the idea that it's going to take any time at all to wash the dishes. You know, the person will just sit there and just (sigh) because it's going to take five minutes to wash the dishes. You get the idea?

Well, that person has a time intolerance that denotes a considerable nuttiness. And don't you go Q-and-Aing with it. Because every time I have had one of these people who had to do it all in the next five minutes, it has taken me the devil's own time to get the case into some kind of shape to sit still to get audited.

I know of such a case. The case used to say, "Well, I can do mock-ups as long as the auditor will go fast enough." Now, this is a rather common one, and I'm not being critical of this case, but this gets very extreme.

"Well, I just won't let you audit me anymore because you're not giving me the commands fast enough. And if you're not giving me the commands fast enough, why, I just can't keep up with you. After all, I'm a Tone 8.0 and I have great difficulty in going as slow as you."

Actually, the person would mock up a cat, mock up a cat, mock up a cat, mock up a cat; they actually could go j — j — j — j — i — it's just barely tolerable.

Case would have blown to flinders if you'd said, "Now, mock up a cat and slowly move the cat from where you have it over to the right side of the body."

Or — and don't forget this process — SCS on an object when you run into such anxieties: "Slowly move that object on the table toward the right. Slowly."

The person will experience an urge to slam the object over against the wall. It's just more than they could do, see? And where you would really get them would be in CCH 4 Book Mimicry. You take the book and you have them make this motion . . . (pause) and you say, "There."

Oooooooh!

Just a little parallel movement that's going about one inch a second. He'll just say, "Vrro-oo-oh!" You got that?

This same person will want to be cleared in thirty seconds, but unfortunately will require four or five hours of "Sit in that chair" before they can be audited. Such a case is totally unaware of the auditor, and you should, when somebody starts giving you this old stuff of how much longer will it take and so forth, you should look into this.

The best way to look into it is CCH 3 or CCH 4 — slow movement. I've seen their brains practically spatter over the ceiling.

Now, this anxiety level for speed is an inversion of actual speed. And the funny part of it is, the person in his usual life goes very, very slowly, is very poky, is highly procrastinative and can't get anything done. So, you see somebody arguing for speed who, at the same time, can't get anything done, you know what you're looking at. Do you see that?

Well, don't get thrown by such a case's anxiety. It's an anxiety about time, and time is the single highest aberration. It's an intolerance of mest. It's lots of things.

Now, the difficulties of research have actually been more economic than they have been technical. At any time if a few hundred thousand dollars had been made available, why, this thing could have been brushed off much more rapidly and with greater positiveness. However, it was never made available except by individuals in the purchase of service and in their own activities.

Therefore, we have emerged with an ability to clear, into a rather interesting universe of our own. We are not beholden to any organization; we can tell them all to go to hell, which is a wonderful state of beingness.

With what horror and disgust and so forth, a member of the American Phrenological Society said to me the other day — a few months ago, he said, "Well, if I could change IQs like that, I'd keep it — how I did it to myself, too." All sorts of accusations. You know, very accusative about us keeping these techniques to ourselves.

We evidently have been a secret society all this time! Of course, that becomes very, very funny when every single one of us have been trying to give this information out here any way that we could for the last eight years.

Well, that is the general, official belief about Scientology — that it's carefully kept its information and data to itself. We're a mystery. We're a total mystery. Wonderful. Let them stick.

I don't think you could give the information away now. I mean, somebody comes in, he said, "Now, how do you — how do you audit people?" and you told him. And "Well, now exactly what are the exact techniques you use?" and you told him. And he'd go away and . . . You get the idea?

Now, we fortunately, as far as I'm concerned, don't have any breakthroughs to make in the field of dissemination. The subject goes as far as it works and that's the stable datum I'm stuck with. Won't go any further than that. But we used to have some randomity on this particular subject in which you would be very interested.

Now, this person who was so anxious to have it all done at once was not above telling people that he had already arrived. And we found some of the nuttier people in the country running around in circles telling everybody they were Clear. Until by '52, I think it was, just the fact that somebody said he was Clear was enough for everybody to know he was a nut!

This randomity must not be allowed to occur. Now, the way it's being prevented and the way it can be prevented very easily — since you will make the bulk of the Clears that are made here across the world — the way it can be prevented very easily is for every issue or two of Ability and every few PABs to carry a notation to this effect: " If he says he's Clear, ask him for his bracelet."

Now, by making it possible for a professional validated auditor to administer a Clear test to a person he has processed or somebody else has processed, make out a proper form and swear to those findings — since I found out there is no slightest reason in the world to distrust you — and send it in to the HCO, a bracelet could be forwarded, providing it was paid for.

Now, the fact is that the only bracelet which has been contracted for — two bracelets, actually, been contracted for, and one is as massive as this Explorers Club bracelet I am wearing here, which is a pretty massive bracelet — sterling silver. As a matter of fact, I think the links are even a little more massive than that. And the other is a lady's bracelet which is more delicate but is still on this subject of having mass.

Costs money to make such things because it is essentially jewelry. It isn't just a service ID stamp-out, you see? The top face of the disk on this identification bracelet has the "S" and double triangle, of which you're all familiar, embossed. Very large and embossed. Very pretty.

The other side of it has, on the lower half of it, has "Scientology Clear" and my initial. And up above, on the upper half of the inside of the bracelet, the person's name and the date of the test, all of which, of course, has to be engraved.

Now, that is a Clear bracelet. And I just had an interview yesterday to get these things underway and manufactured and so on; that's rather easy to do. And, of course, by the time anybody — well, within a finite period of time, they certainly are — will be ready. There's always going to be a slight delay because it's an individualized basis of where somebody's name has to be engraved, and that is an engraving process which takes a day or two at the plant, don't you see?

Now, this bracelet is sufficiently jewelry that somebody would wear it, and it does cut down this particular randomity. There is even a staff member who is far from here, who has unfortunately carefully confided to a couple of people that the state of Clear had been attained by this staff member. Now, of course, this staff member was under discussion to be hauled in and be audited, same time this occurred. Almost tells you why, doesn't it? The person made a couple of mistakes and was about to be pulled in; the next thing we hear, there's a rumor going around about Clear.

You must keep people from saying more than they will say because they'll say things anyhow. But you must keep them from having ammunition in this particular line, otherwise the state will be invalidated and our work will be very definitely halted.

Now, don't you think that's fair: that a person that you cleared, and willing to say that was Clear and so forth, should be able, then, to get a proper identification from the HCO?

Audience: Yes.

Don't you think that's …

Audience: Yes.

All right.

People spend money on jewelry anyhow, and the truth of the matter is that this is a very low price to pay for this piece of jewelry. I mean, just if you went down to the jewelry store and bought it, you'd say, "Holy cats! You can get one of those for that much?"

And the argument is, on the other side, that if it's very crude and it's made out of some base metal, nobody would wear it. They would get the ladies' wrists black and — or turn green with the spring.

Now, an individual — nobody is asking an individual to advertise himself or his wares or anything like that — but if an individual becomes aware of the fact, it is worth something to him to be known as such. People pay more attention to what he's saying, for one thing. And it is true that an awful lot of people to date now have said, "Now, don't breathe a word of this," you know? "Don't get people caving in on my head. Because I don't want to be in a cage." And with the same breath, in the same breath, heard about the ID bracelet and wanted one. I don't know how these things compare . . . There's nothing wrong with this at all.

I think, then, that a little propaganda along this line and a little cooperation here could prevent a great deal of the randomity which was taking place several years ago. What do you think about it?

Audience: Yeah, great. Yes.

Okay.

Now, on future organizational setups, I must say something about that. You should have something a little clearer about (quote) "organizations" (unquote) than you have.

We have had this sort of a situation: We have had what we called the field auditor and then we had the organizational member. And we have built up to some degree an artificial piece of randomity here and these two elements to some degree have snarled at each other from time to time and so forth. There's nothing wrong with this. It's rather standard to have people who are working away from a Central Organization be snarling or snarl at it, you know? That's quite common. And it's quite common to have people in the Central Organization snarl at people who are working a long way away. I mean, if you were working for an insurance company, you'd find the same thing would be true.

We must face this possibility, that we are not being entirely factual. That's a possibility. Truth of the matter is, as I tried to tell you in '55 at the congress, this thing called organization is a total frost. There is no such thing, whether it's Prudential Life or anything else, as an organization which is then something. It's a collection of individuals. And it operates as well as these people are competent. And that's about all there is to it.

My view of this situation is far different than other people's views. I look rather broadly at people in Scientology as people who are giving a hand; people who are helping out. And I don't see all this difference.

There are some people whose wages I am directly responsible for, and some people whose income I am a little less responsible for but not much less. You understand that?

I don't care how far away they are from the organization — the clean nose, the propaganda campaign, the communication lines, the workability of the technique still established income, didn't it?

So you had some people who were scrounging without any guarantee of salary, and some people who were scrounging with a guarantee of salary. And that's about all the difference I would have ever been able to see between the field auditor and the organizational auditor.

Now, people (quote) "in the organization" (unquote) sometimes become impatient with me for defending a field auditor. See, I say, "Well, I don't know he's doing all that," I will say rather coolly.

"Oh, you don't, huh?" See? "Yow-yow-yow! It's all bad over there, it's all bad over there." And generally, when I had reservations about it, my reservations were right. I made it so that they were right.

Anyway, the point — the point I'm making here is we are saddled with a pattern that we have taken from the Dark Ages. We are saddled with a pattern which is foisted off on us from the society itself, not something we have evolved.

Because insurance companies and armies and other organizations, "act this way," we are prone to fall into this same pattern. Like, it would be very, very hard to totally break down an embryo HCA's idea of what education was and to educate him on an entirely different pattern than he was accustomed to, don't you see?

He brings his educational pattern in from the schooling he has had. And if you don't give him something like an educational pattern, he doesn't believe it.

Now, it's a very funny thing how artificial this pattern is. It's almost unbelievably artificial. And if you think of the schools of Asia, the way they conduct themselves, and if you can just shift your viewpoint so as to consider that unusual [usual], and then look at a Western school, then you'd see how unusual the Western school really is. You get the idea? Or, if you just look at an Asiatic school and see how unusual it looks to you, some of the things they do.

You see, there are different patterns of education. We don't have to have that sort of a pattern. Well, similarly, there doesn't have to be this amount of randomity between the field auditor and an organizational member. Doesn't have to be any such randomity at all.

And don't let your hair fly off of your scalp when I say so, but I have been actually thinking in terms of smoothing out these channels as well as possible and deintensifying this difference of identity between the field auditor and the staff auditor and so forth, you see? And I have been looking at that very, very thoroughly.

I am trying to get the organizational house in order. Now, we do have an (quote) "organizational know-how." But all an organization is, is a series of terminals and communication lines, and it's a group of individuals who have a purpose. Each one has an individual purpose, and the whole group may have a collective purpose, but that's about as far as you get organizationally.

Well, I'd like to know where this collective purpose stops. When it's — does it stop with the Central Organization or does it stop with the whole field and the Central Organization, or does it stop with the Central Organization, the whole field and the rest of the world? I think by this time we are looking at a sufficiently high echelon of agreement that it doesn't exclude anybody out.

I'll tell you a ghastly joke. This is a very, very, very funny thing. The sort of a funny thing that you would throw yourself in a pit and cry over. It's a horrible joke. Just terrible: Do you realize, what you know with the Help button, that a person who is dead against the Central Organization won't blow Clear? What a ghastly joke. It doesn't happen to be because I say so or anything else. The person couldn't run — be running a flow of no-help in the direction of the Central Organization, don't you see, and still clear, because it's the source of the information on which he's being cleared.

I think it's the most ghastly thing that has been seen here for a long time. I mean, it doesn't happen to be because I say so. You can put it to actual test. And I've smelled this for years. I mean, I've mentioned it a time or two, as a curiosa. I knew there was a button there, but I didn't know what the button was. And the button was this Help thing.

Therefore, you will see automatically that the attainment of a state of Clear should leave no further question in the minds of anyone concerning — in the Central Organization or the field, with regard to the intentions of the person.

Absolute guarantee of good intentions, isn't it? This is one of the ghastliest jokes — it's one of the most horrible tricks of fate I have ever seen.

Now, the mystics all had this rigged this way: they had another one, they said, "You won't be given any power until you can be trusted with it."

Well, they must have smelled this one somehow. They were around within breathing range of it. It wasn't workable because, believe me, when that was first said to me, I said, "That is perfectly true, and therefore — and if I assume any power, I shall certainly be — try to be worthy of it."

Oh, what was I saying? "I'll continue to help," was all I was saying. "I won't go running off someplace and chop everybody up."

Now, we look at this and we see, then, that the dreams we had in 1950 could all come true. And they included such things as this: That you didn't keep shoving people off post or firing them. You audited them. Easy as that. You didn't keep shifting organizational patterns, you simply made more able individuals. You didn't reach into your hip pocket for the last penny, you simply made more because you could somehow postulate it into existence if you were serving a worthy cause.

We had all sorts of very roseate dreams in 1950. And then I realized that I should have done it years and years before 1950, but it actually required that much randomity and that many people and that much help to get the total show on the road.

Well, it's pretty close to a total show on the road today. And all those dreams we had in '50 can come true. So let's make them so, shall we?

Audience: Yes.

Thank you.