No matching fragments found in this document.
The
Technical Bulletins
of
Dianetics and Scientology
by
L. Ron Hubbard
FOUNDER OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
Volume
IV
1960-1961
_____________________________________________________________________
I will not always be here on guard.
The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.
You won't always be here.
But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
And their sons -
"The work was free.
Keep it so. "
L. RON HUBBARD
[pic]
L. Ron Hubbard
Founder of Dianetics and Scientology
EDITORS' NOTE
"A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete
training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the
subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of
development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and
terms for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with
considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods."
-L. Ron Hubbard
The first eight volumes of the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and
Scientology contain, exclusively, issues written by L. Ron Hubbard, thus
providing a chronological time track of the development of Dianetics and
Scientology. Volume IX, The Auditing Series, and Volume X, The Case
Supervisor Series, contain Board Technical Bulletins that are part of the
series. They are LRH data even though compiled or written by another.
So that the time track of the subject may be studied in its entirety,
all HCO Bs have been included, excluding only those upper level materials
which will be found on courses to which they apply. If an issue has been
revised, replaced, or cancelled, this has been indicated in the upper right-
hand corner along with the page number of the issue which should be
referred to.
The points at which Ron gave tape recorded lectures have been indicated
as they occurred. Where they were given as part of an event or course,
information is given on that event or course on the page in the
chronological volumes which corresponds to the date. The symbol "**"
preceding a tape title means that copies are available from both
Publications Organizations. A tape preceded by "*" means that it will soon
be available. No asterisk (*) means that neither Publications Organization
nor Flag has a master copy of that lecture. If you have, or know anyone who
has, copies of these tapes, please contact the Flag Audio Chief, P.O. Box
23751, Tampa, Florida, 33623, U.S.A. The number in the tape title is a code
for the date; example: 5505C07-55 = year, 1955; 05 = month, May; C = copy;
07 = day, 7th; 7 May 1955. The abbreviation tells what group the tape is a
part of. For an explanation of the abbreviations see Volume X, page 539.
At the back of this volume is a Subject Index covering only the
material in this volume. Use the index to locate the LRH source material in
context, don't just get data from the index. This index has been combined
with indexes from other volumes to form the Cumulative Index which is in
Volume X, starting on page 287.
TECHNICAL BULLETINS
1960-1961
CONTENTS
1960
Jan. Administrative Procedure for Reducing Overts (HCO
PL) OEC Vol. 4-514
2 Jan. HAS Certificates
Jan. State of Man Congress Lectures (1 Jan.-3 Jan. )
3 Jan. A Third Dynamic for Scientology 2
4 Jan. Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course Lectures (4 Jan.-8
Jan.) 3
7 Jan. The Unmoving Case 4
8 Jan. OT Procedures for HCS/BScn Courses 6
14 Jan. The Black Case 9
19 Jan. Tapes for Sale 10
19 Jan. Casualties 11
21 Jan. Justification 12
21 Jan. Responsibility 14
24 Jan. OT Procedure 15
25 Jan. OT-3 Procedure-HGC Allowed Processes 16
28 Jan. The Key to All Cases-Responsibility 18
2 Feb. The Co-Audit Team 21
3 Feb. Security Check 23
4 Feb. Theory of Responsibility Processing 24
4 Feb. Overt Manifestations on a Low Toned Case 26
8 Feb. Honest People Have Rights, Too 27
8 Feb. The Reputation of Saint Hill 29
8 Feb. Security Checks 30
9 Feb. Cancellation of Certificates 30
9 Feb. Research Advances 31
10 Feb. British E-Meter Operation 32
10 Feb. Restoration of Certificates 34
11 Feb. Create and Confront 35
18 Feb. How to Run O/W and Responsibility 37
23 Feb. HPA Course Change Proposal to London 40
25 Feb. The Model Session 41
25 Feb. Scientology Can Have a Group Win 45
Mar. Have You Lived Before This Life? 47
Mar. HPA Course Change Proposal to London see- 40
1960 (cont.)
3 Mar. OT-3A Procedure-HGC Allowed Processes (cancelled-see 325)
48
9 Mar. Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, Step Two-HGC Allowed
Processes 51
17 Mar. Standardized Sessions 53
21 Mar. Research Project 55
24 Mar. Goals in the Rudiments 56
30 Mar. Interrogation 59
31 Mar. The Present Time Problem 61
7 Apr. A New Summary of Auditing 64
7 Apr. Check Sheet for HGC 68
11 Apr. New Training Schedule 69
14 Apr. New PE Data 70
21 Apr. Pre-session Processes 72
24 Apr. Concerning the Campaign for Presidency 76
25 Apr. Send Your Clipping Files 77
28 Apr. Books Are Dissemination 78
29 Apr. The Scientific Treatment of the Insane 82
4 May Association Secretary Letter-Tapes 84
5 May Help 85
10 May Our Technical Programme 89
12 May Help Processing 92
19 May How Help Became Betrayal 94
22 May De-certification, How You Should Support It 96
26 May Security Checks 97
27 May Dear Scientologist 99
28 May By Their Actions . . . . 101
9 June The Basic Assumptions of Scientology Versus Overts 102
10 June What We Expect of a Scientologist 106
10 June HGC Preclear Assessment 108
16 June Hints on Running Cases with Help 109
23 June Special Zone Plan-The Scientologist's Role in Life 111
23 June London Open Evening Lectures (23 June-7 July) 115
30 June Create Again 116
6 July Making Clears and Picking Up HGC Quality 117
7 July The Assessment of Help 119
14 July Current Rundown-Concept Help 121
21 July Some Help Terminals 124
27 July Double Action Cycles 126
4 Aug. Regimen 1 128
7 Aug. London Congress on Dissemination and Help Lectures
(6 Aug.-7 Aug.) 130
11 Aug. The Laws of Assessment 131
1960 (cont.)
18 Aug. Vital Information 133
25 Aug. Powerful Presession Additions 134
25 Aug. New Definition of Psychosis 136
26 Aug. Regimen Two 137
29 Aug. 1st Saint Hill Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (8 Aug.-
16 Sept.) 138
1 Sept. Presession Two 139
8 Sept. The Presessions of the 1st Saint Hill ACC 142
15 Sept. The Tone Arm 144
17 Sept. Giving the Pc Full Hours (HCO PL) 145
19 Sept. Captive Brains 146
19 Sept. ACC Lecture Tapes 149
22 Sept. Announcing New Technology 150
23 Sept. Order of Test of Havingness and Confront Commands
151
28 Sept. Tips on How to Crack an HGC Case 154
29 Sept. Havingness and Duplication 155
6 Oct. Thirty-Six New Presessions (revised 8 May 1974) 156
10 Oct. Current News 161
13 Oct. Script of a Model Session (cancelled-see 220) 163
18 Oct. Terminal Stable Data 165
20 Oct. Theory 67 166
27 Oct. Revised Case Entrance 167
3 Nov. Failed Help 170
10 Nov. Formula 13 171
11 Nov. Change on Model Session 172
12 Nov. Clearing Routine 173
17 Nov. Starting Cases 175
18 Nov. Preclear Assessment Sheet see footnote-401
19 Nov. Pc Scheduling (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-117
20 Nov. HAS Co-Audit Ended 176
24 Nov. The Unmoving Case 178
Dec. New Formulas 179
8 Dec. Clearing Routine see-173
15 Dec. Presession 37 180
19 Dec. PE Change 182
21 Dec. Curriculum for ACCs (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-355
22 Dec. HAS Co-Audit Resumed 185
22 Dec. O-W A Limited Theory 186
29 Dec. The New PE and the New HAS Co-Audit 188
31 Dec. Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress Lectures
(31 Dec.-1 Jan. 1961) 190
1961
2 Jan. 22nd American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (2 Jan.-10
Feb.) 190
5 Jan. O-W A Limited Theory
see-186
10 Jan. A Brief Outline of an HGC as Currently Done (HCO PL)
OEC Vol. 4-518
12 Jan. New Help Data 191
19 Jan. Additional HAS Processes 192
21 Jan. Anatomy Congress-South Africa Lectures (21 Jan.-22 Jan.)
193
23 Jan. 3rd South African Advanced Clinical Course Lectures
23 Jan.-17 Feb.) 193
25 Jan. Handling of Rudiments 194
26 Jan. The "Ultimate" Processes 195
28 Jan. New Assessment Scale 197
30 Jan. Case Files (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-117
2 Feb. Command Sheet-Pre-Havingness Scale 199
2 Feb. UK Cases Different 202
ca. Feb. Personal Integrity (Ability 125) 203
9 Feb. New Presession Data and Script Change 204
16 Feb. Formula 19 205
18 Feb. S.O.P. Goals-Marvellous New Breakthrough-Be-Do-Have
Coordinated 206
20 Feb. Important Data on Goals S.O.P. 209
23 Feb. PT Problem and Goals 210
2 Mar. New Pre-Hav Command 211
2 Mar. Use of S.O.P. Goals Procedure 212
2 Mar. Formula 20 213
9 Mar. New Assessment Scale see-197
9 Mar. Command Sheet-Pre-Havingness Scale see-199
20 Mar. Basic Staff Auditor's Hat (HCO PL) 214
21 Mar. Script of a Model Session (cancelled-see 453) 220
23 Mar. S.O.P. Goals 224
24 Mar. HGC Admin Partial Hat-Staff Auditor Assignment
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-118
31 Mar. S.O.P. Goals Modified 227
31 Mar. The Director of Processing's Case Checking Hat (HCO
PL) 228
5 Apr. HCA/HPA Rundown or Practical Course Rundown for
Academies (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-285
5 Apr. S.O.P. Goals Goofs (HCO PL) 234
6 Apr. S.O.P. Goals-Goals Assessment Problems Sorted Out 236
6 Apr. S.O.P. Goals-Repairing a Case 238
7 Apr. Assessing for Goals and Terminals or Elimination 239
7 Apr. S.O.P. Goals-Modification I 241
7 Apr. Johannesburg Security Check (HCO PL)(revised-see Vol.
VIII, 419) 242
11 Apr. S.O.P. Goals-Errors 246
1961 (cont.)
12 Apr. Training Drills 247
17 Apr. Training Drills Modernized (reissued 5 Jan. 1971)
(cancelled-see Vol. VII, 348) 249
23 Apr. Change Processes 253
25 Apr. D of P Form-Check Type One (HCO PL) 254
27 Apr. Change Processes 256
30 Apr. Change Brackets and Commands (reissued 19 Sept.
1974) 258
May E-Meter Essentials 260
4 May Process Levels-Necessity for Training 261
7 May Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lectures (7 May-13 Dec.
1966) 263
10 May Staff Auditors (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-534
11 May E-Meter Horror 264
11 May Assessment by Elimination-S.O.P. Goals 265
13 May Assessing for S.O.P. Goals Improved 270
19 May Assessment Data 273
22 May The Only Valid Security Check (HCO PL) 275
23 May Pre-Hav Scale Revised 282
ca. May Secondary Scale 286
24 May S.O.P. Goals Assessments (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-535
25 May Releasing and Preparing a Case for S.O.P. Goals 317
26 May Basic Staff Auditor's Hat (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-536
26 May Modification of HPA/HCA, BScn/HCS Schedule
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-296
29 May Clarification of "Change Processing" 320
June The Sad Tail of PDH (Ability 129) 321
1 June Assessing 324
5 June Processes Allowed 325
7 June Academy Schedule, Clarification of 329
8 June E-Meter Watching 331
12 June The Rising Needle: Skip It! 333
16 June CCHs and Routine 1 334
17 June Primary Scale Amended 335
19 June Sec Check Whole Track 337
23 June Running CCHs 347
27 June Routine One 348
29 June Scientology Students' Security Check (HCO PL) 349
6 July Routine 1A 354
7 July HGC Auditor's Sec Check (HCO PL) 356
10 July Metering Rudiments 363
13 July Change Processing and CCHs see footnote-320
1961 (cont.)
10 Aug. Information on Clears 364
23 Aug. New Clearing Breakthrough! 367
24 Aug. Valences Key to Clearing 368
24 Aug. HGC Allowed Processes (HCO PL) (cancelled-see 385) 369
31 Aug. Advances in Technology 370
7 Sept. New Facts of Life 372
12 Sept. Curriculum for Clearing Courses (HCO PL) 374
13 Sept. HCO WW Security Form 7A (HCO PL) see-381
14 Sept. New Rudiments Commands 377
18 Sept. HCO WW Security Form 7B (HCO PL) see-381
21 Sept. Security Check Children 378
28 Sept. HCO WW Security Forms 7A and 7B 381
29 Sept. HGC Allowed Processes (HCO PL) 385
5 Oct. Clean Hands Make a Happy Life 387
6 Oct. Training of Staff Auditors 389
9 Oct. Rudiments, Change in 391
9 Oct. Academy Training (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-302
9 Oct. HPA/HCA Rundown Change (HCO PL) see footnote-330
10 Oct. Problems Intensive for Staff Clearing (HCO PL) 392
12 Oct. Student Practice Check 400
17 Oct. Problems Intensives 401
19 Oct. Security Questions Must Be Nulled 402
23 Oct. HGC Pre-Processing Security Check (HCO PL) 403
26 Oct. Safe Auditing Table 406
Nov. HCOWW Security Form 5A (HCO PL) 407
2 Nov. The Prior Confusion 409
2 Nov. Rudiments and Clearing 410
7 Nov. Routine 3A 412
9 Nov. The Problems Intensive-Use of the Prior Confusion 414
14 Nov. Routine 3D (HCO Info. Ltr.) 416
16 Nov. Sec Checking-Generalities Won't Do 424
20 Nov. Routine 3 D Commands 426
22 Nov. Training Course Rules and Regulations (HCO PL) OEC
Vol. 4-152
23 Nov. Meter Reading 432
23 Nov. Auxiliary Pre-Have 3D Scale 434
27 Nov. Routine 3D Command Sheet 437
28 Nov. Routine 3D Improved Commands of 28 Nov. 61 438
29 Nov. Class of Auditors (HCO PL) 439
30 Nov. Routine 3D Improved Commands of November 30,1961 441
30 Nov. ARC Process 1961 442
1961 (cont.)
3 Dec. Running 3D Levels 443
7 Dec. Sec Checks Vital 445
7 Dec. Command Sheet for Routine 3D 447
13 Dec. Varying Sec Check Questions 449
14 Dec. Rudiments Modernized 450
20 Dec. Student E-Metering (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-307
21 Dec. Model Session Script, Revised (cancelled-see Vol. V, 85)
453
26 Dec. Command Sheet Routine 3 D 457
28 Dec. E-Meter Electrodes-A Dissertation on Soup Cans 459
28 Dec. 3-D Rules of Thumb 462
30 Dec. Clean Hands Congress Lectures r30 Dec.-1 Jan. 1962)
463
Subject Index 465
Alphabetical List of Titles 491
PERIODICALS BY ISSUE NUMBER
Ability Magazines
125 Feb. 61 Personal Integrity 203
129 June 61 The Sad Tail of PDH 321
LONG CONTENTS
HCO B 2 Jan. 1960 HAS CERTIFICATES, 1
HCO B 3 Jan. 1960 A THIRD DYNAMIC FOR SCIENTOLOGY, 2
HCO B 7 Jan. 1960 THE UNMOVING CASE, 4
Symptoms of case with overts and withholds, 4
Failed case can't confront overts, 5
HCO B 8 Jan. 1960 OT PROCEDURES FOR HCS/BSCN COURSES, 6
Session data, 6
Auditing attitude, 6
First stage actions, 6
Second stage actions, 7
Scale of increasing confidence, 8
HCO B 14 Jan. 1960 THE BLACK CASE, 9
Formula to handle Black Case, 9
HCO B 19 Jan. 1960 TAPES FOR SALE, 10
HCO B 19 Jan. 1960 CASUALTIES, 11
Blows from Scientology orgs, 11
HCO B 21 Jan. 1960 JUSTIFICATION, 12
Mechanisms of justification, 12
Churches used mechanism of confession, 12
Mechanism of the effort to lessen the size and pressure of the overt,
12
Mechanism of punishment, 13
HCO B 21 Jan. 1960 RESPONSIBILITY, 14
HCO B 24 Jan. 1960 OT PROCEDURE, 15
HCO B 25 Jan. 1960 OT-3 PROCEDURE-HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 16
Step one: Rudiments, 16
Step two: Scout for present life overts and withholds, 16
Step three: Clear the pc's field with Responsibility, 16
Step four: Run "What about a victim could you be responsible for?", 16
Step five: Explore the immediate past lifetime or lifetimes of the pc,
17
Step six: Run down any famous or enduring identities of the pc on the
whole track, 17
Step seven: Do a Dynamic Assessment on the pc, 17
Step eight: Chronic somatic, 17
Step nine: Flatten once more Responsibility on a victim, 17
Step ten: Rehabilitate the pc's ability to withhold, 17
HCO B 28 Jan. 1960 THE KEY TO ALL CASES-RESPONSIBILITY, 18
Tone arm, rather than the needle, is foremost in analyzing the case,
18
Anatomy of responsibility, 18
Relationship of responsibility and cause/withhold, 19
HCO B 2 Feb. 1960 THE CO-AUDIT TEAM, 21
Co-audit teams should run O/W, 21
HCO B 3 Feb. 1960 SECURITY CHECK, 23
HCO B 4 Feb. 1960 THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY PROCESSING, 24
Power of choice is senior to responsibility, 24
Unwillingness to do, 24
Rehabilitation of willingness to do, 25
HCO B 4 Feb. 1960 OVERT MANIFESTATIONS ON A LOW TONED CASE, 2
How to recognize low toned case, 26
Overt/Withhold Process on terminal representing dynamic, 26
HCO B 8 Feb. 1960 HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO, 27
Freedom is for honest people, 27
What freedom means, 27
HCO B 8 Feb. 1960 THE REPUTATION OF SAINT HILL, 29
HCO B 8 Feb. 1960 SECURITY CHECKS, 30
HCO B 9 Feb. 1960 CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES, 30
HCO B 9 Feb. 1960 RESEARCH ADVANCES, 31
HCO B 10 Feb. 1960 BRITISH E-METER OPERATION, 32
Instructions on how to set up and use E-Meter, 32
Diagram of E-Meter face, 33
HCO B 10 Feb. 1960 RESTORATION OF CERTIFICATES, 34
HCO B 11 Feb. 1960 CREATE AND CONFRONT, 35
Cycle of action, 35
Create Processes are limited, 35
Responsibility Processes, Havingness, Confront, O/W, Responsibility,
35
HCO B 18 Feb. 1960 HOW TO RUN O/W AND RESPONSIBILITY, 37
Overts and withholds are the same as irresponsibility, 37
Run Responsibility Process after O/W, 37
Aberration is made and held active by person himself, 38
HCO B 23 Feb. 1960 HPA COURSE CHANGE PROPOSAL TO LONDON, 40
HCO B 25 Feb. 1960 THE MODEL SESSION, 41
How to start a session, 41
Rudiments, 4 1
Starting a process, 42
Ending a process, 42
Repeated commands, 42
Cognitions, 42
Keep the pc in session, 43
Take full responsibility for the session, 43
A restless or ARC breaky pc, 43
Ending a session, 43
End rudiments, 43
Final commands of session, 43
Warnings, 44
HCO B 25 Feb. 1960 SCIENTOLOGY CAN HAVE A GROUP WIN, 45
Overts and withholds cause social aberration, 45
Clearing of one's transgressions, 46
HCO B 3 Mar. 1960 OT-3A PROCEDURE-HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 48
[CANCELLED]
Step one: Rudiments, 48
Step two: Run Cause ARC Straight Wire to give pc a win on getting
audited, 48
Step three: S-C-S, 48
Step four: Scout for present life overts and withholds, 48
Step five: Clear the pc's field with responsibility, 49
Step six: "What about a victim could you be responsible for?", 49
Step seven: Explore the immediate past lifetime or lifetimes of the
pc, 49
Step eight: Run down any famous or enduring identities of the pc on
the whole track, 49
Step nine: Do a Dynamic Assessment on the pc, 49
Step ten: Do a survey of case, 49
Step eleven: Find anything pc has created arduously for a long time,
50
Step twelve: Run Responsibility on matter, energy, space, time, motion
and thought, 50
HCO B 9 Mar. 1960 EXPANSION OF OT-3A PROCEDURE, STEP TWO
-HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 51
Cause ARC Straight Wire, 51
Ending Cause ARC Straight Wire, 51
Two further cyclic processes, 52
HCO B 17 Mar. 1960 STANDARDIZED SESSIONS, 53
Why sessions should be standardized, 53
"Necessity for havingness", 53
Problem and Solution Processes, 54
HCO B 21 Mar. 1960 RESEARCH PROJECT, 55
Past deaths, "Where Are You Buried?" project, 55
HCO B 24 Mar. 1960 GOALS IN THE RUDIMENTS, 56
Parts of modern rudiments, 56
Reason for session goals, 56
Three basic types of goals: improvement goal, no-change goal,
deterioration goal, 57
HCO B 30 Mar. 1960 INTERROGATION, 59
How to read an E-Meter on a silent subject, 59
HCO B 31 Mar. 1960 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM, 61
What is a PTP, 61
Processes on PTPs, 61
Confusion and the stable datum, 62
The dual universe, 62
Reasons for pc out of session, 62
HCO B 7 Apr. 1960 A NEW SUMMARY OF AUDITING, 64
What auditing results depend on, 64
Processes were developed to facilitate application, 64
First rule of auditing, 65 Use a gradient approach to bank, 65
What session depends on, 66
Points which should be in before starting session, 67
HCO B 7 Apr. 1960 CHECK SHEET FOR HGC, 68
HCO B 11 Apr. 1960 NEW TRAINING SCHEDULE, 69
"We don't treat wrongness. We treat people", 69
HCO B 14 Apr. 1960 NEW PE DATA, 70
Supervising PE Co-audit, 70
PE Co-audit assessment, 70
PE Co-audit processes, 70
PE procurement, 70
HAS certificates, 71
HCO B 21 Apr. 1960 PRE-SESSION PROCESSES, 72
What a pre-session process is used for, 72
Pre-session processes handle: help factor, control factor, pc
communication factor, interest factor, 72
Use of pre-sessions for dissemination, 73
Pre-session processes, 74
HCO B 24 Apr. 1960 CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENCY, 76
Richard M. Nixon, a citizen aspiring to the Presidency of the United
States, 76
HCO B 25 Apr. 1960 SEND YOUR CLIPPING FILES, 77
HCO B 28 Apr. 1960 BOOKS ARE DISSEMINATION, 78
Dissemination fails without books distributed, 78
Why Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was written, 78
What to do for person after presession processes, 79
DMSMH handles public arguments concerning the mind, 81
HCO B 29 Apr. 1960 THE SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF THE INSANE, 82
South Africa insanity rate, 82
Keynote of insanity, 82
Cure of insanity, 83
HCO B 4 May 1960 ASSOCIATION SECRETARY LETTER, 84
HCO B 5 May 1960 HELP, 85
Help is the make-break point between sanity and insanity, 85
Help is always betrayal to a thoroughly aberrated person, 85
Clearing Help, 86
Insane regard help as betrayal, 88
HCO B 10 May 1960 OUR TECHNICAL PROGRAMME, 89
Confessional pre-presession stage, 89
Sequence of processes, 90
Groups need time to assimilate new concept, 91
HCO B 12 May 1960 HELP PROCESSING, 92
Overt/withhold theory, 92
Ways Help could be run, 92
HCO B 19 May 1960 HOW HELP BECAME BETRAYAL, 94
"Help-is-injury" mechanism, 94
Aberration on help is a barrier to Scientology, 95
HCO B 22 May 1960 DE-CERTIFICATION, HOW YOU SHOULD SUPPORT IT, 96
Reason for cancellation of auditor's certificates, 96
HCO B 26 May 1960 SECURITY CHECKS, 97
How to do a security check, 97
Use of E-Meter in security check, 97
HCO B 27 May 1960 DEAR SCIENTOLOGIST, 99
Ron wearing Ethics hat, 99
Overt-Withhold and Help can handle out-ethics, 99
Get Scientologists audited, 99
HCO B 28 May 1960 BY THEIR ACTIONS . . ., 101
Judge people from what they think of help, 101
HCO B 9 June 1960 THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTOLOGY
VERSUS OVERTS, 102
Secret of all overt-withhold mechanisms is valences, 102
Assumption points of sciences, 102
Psychiatry's basic assumption: shock cures aberration, 103
Scientology results verify its basic assumption, 104
Freeing of valences remedies pain and aberration, 105
HCO B 10 June 1960 WHAT WE EXPECT OF A SCIENTOLOGIST, 106
Professional Scientologist is one who expertly uses Scientology on any
area or level of the society, 106
Scientologists also belong out in society, 107
HCO B 10 June 1960 HGC PRECLEAR ASSESSMENT, 108
Start case on first terminal ever run, 108
HGC auditing should convert earlier auditing losses to wins, 108
HCO B 16 June 1960 HINTS ON RUNNING CASES WITH HELP, 109
Flatten the terminals, 109
Help as valence problem, 109
Finishing off a difficult terminal, 110
General processes which assist Help, 110
HCO B 23 June 1960 SPECIAL ZONE PLAN
-THE SCIENTOLOGIST'S ROLE IN LIFE, 111
Development of knowledge on dynamics, 111
What our third dynamic organization should do, 113
Examples of Scientology applied to third dynamic, 114
Sell Scientology by action, 115
HCO B 30 June 1960 CREATE AGAIN, 116
Basis of reactive mind, 116
How to handle the subject of create, 116
HCO B 6 July 1960 MAKING CLEARS AND PICKING UP HGC QUALITY, 117
Regimen 1, 117
Instruction points to follow, 118
HCO B 7 July 1960 THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP, 119
Help is a restimulative process, 119
Why general terminals run better than specific, 119
HCO B 14 July 1960 CURRENT RUNDOWN-CONCEPT HELP, 121
Alternate Confront, 121
Aberration consists of wrong-way assistance, 122
Identification, 122
HCO B 21 July 1960 SOME HELP TERMINALS, 124
Assessments, 124
Terminals by profession, 124
Assessment by goals, 124 Recovery of past skills, 125
Help terminals, 125
HCO B 27 July 1960 DOUBLE ACTION CYCLES, 126
Policy on new data, 126
Old action cycles, 126
Double cycles, 126
HCO B 4 Aug. 1960 REGIMEN 1, 128
Steps of Regimen 1, 128
General requirements of sessions, 129
Auditor's reality vs. pc's reality, 129
HCO B 11 Aug. 1960 THE LAWS OF ASSESSMENT, 131
Law I, 131
Scale of pc reality on terminals, 131
Law II, 132
Law III, 132
HCO B 18 Aug. 1960 VITAL INFORMATION, 133
Process package which makes mest clears, theta clears and OTs, 133
Help is run on motion, 133
HCO B 25 Aug. 1960 POWERFUL PRESESSION ADDITIONS, 134
Altitude is the factor that makes a pc receive and execute an auditing
command, 134
Presession Control Processing, 134
Presession commands for interest, help, control, communication, 134
HCO B 25 Aug. 1960 NEW DEFINITION OF PSYCHOSIS, 136
Persons who refuse orders, 136
HCO B 26 Aug. 1960 REGIMEN TWO, 137
Model Session, 137
Assessment, 137
Clear indication, 137
Steps of Regimen Two, 137
HCO B 1 Sept. 1960 PRESESSION TWO, 139
No significance process moves a low graph case, 139
Steps of Presession Two, 139
Commands of Alternate Confront, 140
An auditing presession, 141
HCO B 8 Sept. 1960 THE PRESESSIONS OF THE 1ST SAINT HILL ACC, 142
Commands for Presessions II-X, Havingness and Confront, 142
HCO B 15 Sept. 1960 THE TONE ARM, 144
What the tone arm tells you, 144
HCO PL 17 Sept. 1960 GIVING THE PC FULL HOURS, 145
Auditing breaks are not counted as auditing time, 145
Havingness injunction, 145
HCO B 19 Sept. 1960 CAPTIVE BRAINS, 146
Scientists as slaves, 146
Slavery of thought, 147
HCO B 19 Sept. 1960 ACC LECTURE TAPES, 149
To whom tapes are played, 149
HCO B 22 Sept. 1960 ANNOUNCING NEW TECHNOLOGY, 150
First Saint Hill ACC, 150
HCO B 23 Sept. 1960 ORDER OF TEST OF HAVINGNESS
AND CONFRONT COMMANDS, 151
Havingness commands in order of test for pcs, 152
Confront commands in order of test for pcs, 152
HCO B 28 Sept. 1960 TIPS ON HOW TO CRACK AN HGC CASE, 154
New experimental Havingness Processes, 154
Confront Processes, 154
HCO B 29 Sept. 1960 HAVINGNESS AND DUPLICATION, 155
Precise mechanics of havingness, 155
Remedy of objective havingness determines entrance point of the case,
155
HCO B 6 Oct. 1960R THIRTY-SIX NEW PRESESSIONS, 156
HCO B 10 Oct. 1960 CURRENT NEWS, 161
Scientology's situation in South Africa, 161
The problem of South Africa, 161
HCO B 13 Oct. 1960 SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION, 163 [CANCELLED]
To start session, 163
Rudiments, 163
Starting a process, 163
Ending a process, 164
Repeated commands, 164
Cognition, 164
End rudiments, 164
Final commands of session, 164
HCO B 18 Oct. 1960 TERMINAL STABLE DATA, 165
HCO B 20 Oct. 1960 THEORY 67, 166
Taking the sixth dynamic off the seventh, 166
How to make a theta clear, 166
Target of Theory 67 is mest, 166
HCO B 27 Oct. 1960 REVISED CASE ENTRANCE, 167
Check for the Havingness Process, 167
O/W is needed to make a Havingness Process work, 167
Failed Help lowest verbal entrance point, 168
Processes for average cases, 168
Processes for poor cases, 168
Processes for low cases, 169
HCO B 3 Nov. 1960 FAILED HELP, 170
How to run Failed Help, 170
HCO B 10 Nov. 1960 FORMULA 13, 171
Run Failed Help as the Confront Process, 171
Run O/W as the Havingness Process, 171
HCO B 11 Nov. 1960 CHANGE ON MODEL SESSION, 172
HCO B 12 Nov. 1960 CLEARING ROUTINE, 173
Steps of clearing routine, 173
HCO B 17 Nov. 1960 STARTING CASES, 175
The key to fast, high results is "pc in session", 175
Degrees of being out of session, 175
How to get pc in session, 175
HCO B 20 Nov. 1960 HAS CO-AUDIT ENDED, 176
Why HAS Co-Audits are suspended, 176
HCO B 24 Nov. 1960 THE UNMOVING CASE, 178
The hyper-critical case, 178
The big withhold case, 178
The case that wants no processing, 178
HCO B 1 Dec. 1960 NEW FORMULAS, 179
Formula 13, 179
Formula 14, 179
Formula 15, 179
Regimen 3, 179
Regimen 8, 179
HCO B 15 Dec. 1960 PRESESSION 37, 180
Presession 37 is a method of getting off withholds, 180
Formula 16, 180
Formula 17, 181
HCO B 19 Dec. 1960 PE CHANGE, 182
PE test section, 182
PE becomes a dissertation in Scientology and a Comm Course, 182
PE personnel and admin, 183
HCO B 22 Dec. 1960 HAS CO-AUDIT RESUMED, 185
How Co-Audit stalled cases, 185
HCO B 22 Dec. 1960 O-W A LIMITED THEORY, 186
When O-W sets in, 186
Cycle of deterioration, 186
Why O-W is run, 186
Worry Process, 187
HCO B 29 Dec. 1960 THE NEW PE AND THE NEW HAS CO-AUDIT, 188
PE Course, 188
HAS Co-Audit, 188
HAS Co-Audit Process I, 189
HAS Co-Audit Process II, 189
HCO B 12 Jan. 1961 NEW HELP DATA, 191
Failures to help can bring about confusion of identities, 191
O/W and individuation, 191
Help on a pan-determined basis, 191
HCO B 19 Jan. 1961 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES, 192
HAS Processes III-VIII, 192
HCO B 25 Jan. 1961 HANDLING OF RUDIMENTS, 194
The auditor accepts and acknowledges any and all goals the pc has for
the session and for life and livingness, 194
Handling the environment, 194
Auditor clearance, 194
Handling present time problem, 194
HCO B 26 Jan. 1961 THE "ULTIMATE" PROCESSES, 195
Ultimate 1-6, 195
HCO B 28 Jan. 1961 NEW ASSESSMENT SCALE, 197
The Pre-Havingness Scale, 197
Use of Pre-Hav Scale, 198
HCO B 2 Feb. 1961 COMMAND SHEET-PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE, 199
HCO B 2 Feb. 1961 UK CASES DIFFERENT, 202
Control is more easily inverted on UK case, 202
S-C-S "stand still" step, 202
Ability Issue 125, ca. Feb. 1961 PERSONAL INTEGRITY, 203
HCO B 9 Feb. 1961 NEW PRESESSION DATA AND SCRIPT CHANGE, 204
Presessions, 204
Model Session script change, 204
HCO B 16 Feb. 1961 FORMULA 19, 205
Formula 19 theory and commands, 205
HCO B 18 Feb. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS-MARVELLOUS NEW BREAKTHROUGH
BE-DO-HAVE COORDINATED, 206
S.O.P. Goals intensives, 206
Pre-Hav Scale assessment, 207
S.O.P. Goals session example, 208
HCO B 20 Feb. 1961 IMPORTANT DATA ON GOALS S.O.P., 209
Cases may slump between sessions until Pre-Hav Scale is flat, 209
Flatten terminals, 209
When is a goals terminal flat, 209
HCO B 23 Feb. 1961 PT PROBLEM AND GOALS, 210
Handling of PTPs that exist as goals, 210
HCO B 2 Mar. 1961 NEW PRE-HAV COMMAND, 211
Command for Communication on the Pre-Hav Scale, 211
HCO B 2 Mar. 1961 USE OF S.O.P. GOALS PROCEDURE, 212
HCO B 2 Mar. 1961 FORMULA 20, 213
HCO PL 20 Mar. 1961 BASIC STAFF AUDITOR'S HAT, 214
Case Assessment, 214
First auditing, 214
Second session, 215
Third session, 215
Fourth session, 215
Fifth session, 215
Pre-Hav Scale, when the first terminal is flat, 216
Pcs priorly audited, 216
Clearing by S.O.P. Goals, 217
Things that prevent clearing, 217
Causes for pc blows, 217
Auditing maxims, 217
Newcomers, 2 18
Cases not on S.O.P. Goals, 218
Stopping processes, 218
Handling of unchanging pc, 219
End of intensives, 219
A completed pc, 219
Additional staff auditor duties, 219
Staff auditor reports, 219
HCO B 21 Mar. 1961 SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION, 220 [CANCELLED]
Start of session, 220
Rudiments, 220
Start of process, 221
End of process, 221
Repeated commands, 222
Cognition, 222
End rudiments, 222
End of session, 223
HCO B 23 Mar. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS, 224
S.O.P. Goals intensives, 224
S.O.P. Goals session example, 226
HCO B 31 Mar. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS MODIFIED, 227
HCO PL 31 Mar. 1961 THE DIRECTOR OF PROCESSING'S
CASE CHECKING HAT, 228
Role of D of P, 228
HCO WW Form CT1: Pre-Intensive Interview and pre-Goals Assessment
Check, 228
HCO WW Form CT2: Assessment Confirmation, 229
HCO WW Form CT3: General Check-up on a Session, 230
HCO WW Form CT4: Rudiments Check, 231
HCO WW Form CT5: Flat Check, 232
HCO WW Form CT6: Bog Check, 232
HCO WW Form CT7: A "Release" Check Sheet, 233
HCO WW Form CT8: Clear Check, 233
HCO PL 5 Apr. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS GOOFS, 234
HCO B 6 Apr. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS
-GOALS ASSESSMENT PROBLEMS SORTED OUT, 236
How to assess a goals list, 236
Preliminary goal, 236
Principal goal, 237
HCO B 6 Apr. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS-REPAIRING A CASE, 238
TA behavior on Pre-Hav levels, 238
HCO B 7 Apr. 1961 ASSESSING FOR GOALS AND TERMINALS OR
ELIMINATION; 239
Assessing goals list by elimination, 239
Assessing terminal list by elimination, 240
Five-way bracket, 240
HCO B 7 Apr. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS-MODIFICATION I, 241
S.O.P. Goals intensives, 241
HCO PL 7 Apr. 1961 JOHANNESBURG SECURITY CHECK, 242 [REVISED]
HCO Security Form 2, 242
HCO B 11 Apr. 1961 S.O.P. GOALS-ERRORS, 246
Primary sources of wasted time on S.O.P. Goals, 246
Things to be stressed in training, 246
HCO B 12 Apr. 1961 TRAINING DRILLS, 247
TR 0, Confronting Preclear, 247
TR 1, Dear Alice, 247
TR 2, Acknowledgements, 247
TR 3, Duplicative Question, 248
TR 4, Preclear Originations, 248
TR 5, Hand Mimicry, 248
HCO B 17 Apr. 1961 TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED, 249 [CANCELLED]
TR 0, Confronting Preclear, 249
TR 1, Dear Alice, 250
TR 2, Acknowledgements, 250
TR 3, Duplicative Question, 251
TR 4, Preclear Originations, 252
HCO B 23 Apr. 1961 CHANGE PROCESSES, 253
Change Processes are to be run before S.O.P. Goals, 253
HCO PL 25 Apr. 1961 D OF P FORM-CHECK TYPE ONE, 254
Pre-Intensive interview and Pre-Goals Assessment Check, 254
HCO B 27 Apr. 1961 CHANGE PROCESSES, 256
Resisted change discovery, 256
Safe rules for Change Process, 256
Commands of Change Processes, 256
HCO B 30 Apr. 1961R CHANGE BRACKETS AND COMMANDS, 258
Basic curve of change compares to the cycle of action, 258
Change 5-way bracket, 258
Change 15-way bracket, 259
HCO B 4 May 1961 PROCESS LEVELS-NECESSITY FOR TRAINING, 261
HCA/HPA level, 261
B.Scn./HCS, 261
D.Scn./HGA, 262
HCO B 11 May 1961 E-METER HORROR, 264
Students didn't know E-Meter Essentials, 264
HCO B 11 May 1961 ASSESSMENT BY ELIMINATION-S.O.P. GOALS, 265
Right way to do an assessment, 265
Assessment by Elimination steps, 265
Do a full list of goals on the pc, 265
Select the goal, 266
Prove up the goal, 267
Do a terminals list, 267
Assess for the terminal by elimination, 267
Prove the terminal, 268
Assess for Pre-Hav level, 268
Choose a command, 269
Audit the pc's terminal and level, 269
Null all Pre-Hav levels that react on assessment on the first
terminal, 269
Find new terminals, 269
Find new goals, 269
HCO B 13 May 1961 ASSESSING FOR S.O.P. GOALS IMPROVED, 270
Joburg Sec Check as preparation for assessment, 270
Complete goals list, 270
Eliminate nulled goals, 270
Always recheck goals list, 270
Importance of accurate assessment, 270
Two types of terminals to assess, 270
Eliminate null terminals, 271
Always recheck terminals list, 271
Perfect assessment, 271
Needle manifestations, 271
Use Model Session, clean rudiments, 271
Long duration PTPs, 271
You can redo assessments any time, 272
Beware sticking a tone arm, 272
Rock slams different, 272
HCO B 19 May 1961 ASSESSMENT DATA, 273
S.O.P. Goals assessments mistakes, 273
Assess with sensitivity set for one-third of a dial drop on can
squeeze, 273
Assessment on Pre-Hav Scale is not by elimination, 273
Rising needles are disregarded, 274
HCO PL 22 May 1961 THE ONLY VALID SECURITY CHECK, 275
HCO Sec Form 3, 275
Joburg Sec Check, 275
When a person is flunked on a Sec Check, 275
HCO B 23 May 1961 PRE-HAV SCALE REVISED, 282
Pre-Havingness Primary and Secondary Scale, 282
Use of Pre-Hav Scale, 282
General run assessment example, 282
Example for assessing a goals terminal, 283
Handling Pre-Hav level rock slams, 283
Pre-Havingness Scale-Primary Scale, 285
Pre-Havingness Secondary Scale, 286
HCO B 25 May 1961 RELEASING AND PREPARING A CASE FOR
S.O.P. GOALS, 317
Preparatory steps of S.O.P. Goals, 317
Joburg Security Check, 317
General runs on Pre-Hav Scale, 317
Release, 318
Mistakes, 318
HCO B 29 May 1961 CLARIFICATION OF "CHANGE PROCESSING", 320
Change belongs at "Inverted Control" on Pre-Hav Scale, 320
Ability Issue 129, June 1961 THE SAD TAIL OF PDH, 321
False E-Meter reactions, 321
Compartmenting the question, 322
HCO B 1 June 1961 ASSESSING, 324
How to do assessment on the Pre-Hav Scale, Primary and Secondary, 324
HCO B 5 June 1961 PROCESSES ALLOWED, 325
Routine One, 3 25
CCHs, 325
Johannesburg Processing Check, 325
Routine Two, 326
Routine Three, 326
Mistakes in running Pre-Hav levels, 327
HCO B 7 June 1961 ACADEMY SCHEDULE, CLARIFICATION OF, 329
Use checksheets, 329
Train individuals, not a class, 329
Academy unit one and two, 330
HCO B 8 June 1961 E-METER WATCHING, 331
Reactive mind responds instantly, 331
Pc response, analytical vs. reactive, 331
E-Meter responds instantly, 332
How to assess Pre-Hav Scale, 332
HCO B 12 June 1961 THE RISING NEEDLE: SKIP IT!, 333
Needle reactions, 333
Rising needle means pc can't confront it, 333
HCO B 16 June 1961 CCHs AND ROUTINE 1, 334
Criteria on Routine I, 334
Pcs D of P may refuse to audit, 334
HCO B 17 June 1961 PRIMARY SCALE AMENDED, 335
Pre-Havingness Scale-Primary Scale (amended), 336
HCO B 19 June 1961 SEC CHECK WHOLE TRACK, 337
HCO WW Sec Form 4, 337
HCO B 23 June 1961 RUNNING CCHs, 347
Correct way to run CCHs, 347
HCO B 27 June 1961 ROUTINE ONE, 348
CCHs and Joburg Sec Check, 348
HCO PL 29 June 1961 SCIENTOLOGY STUDENTS' SECURITY CHECK, 349
HCO WW Sec Form 5, 349
HCO B 6 July 1961 ROUTINE 1A, 354
Problems and alter-is, 354
Routine 1A steps, 354
Problem Process, 354
Security Check, 355
Ratio between Problem and Sec Check, 355
Value of Routine 1A, 355
HCO PL 7 July 1961 HGC AUDITOR'S SEC CHECK, 356
HCO WW Sec Form 6, 356
HCO B 10 July 1961 METERING RUDIMENTS, 363
Difference between needle fall and change of needle pattern, 363
HCO B 10 Aug. 1961 INFORMATION ON CLEARS, 364
Clears in South Africa, 364
HGC clear, 364
An HGC clear, 365
A post-clear auditing session, 365
HCO B 23 Aug. 1961 NEW CLEARING BREAKTHROUGH!, 367
HCO B 24 Aug. 1961 VALENCES KEY TO CLEARING, 368
Goals as escape, 368
Improve the pc, not the valence, 368
HCO PL 24 Aug. 1961 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 369 [CANCELLED]
Routine 1, Routine 1A, Routine 3, 369
Flatten Routine 1 A before starting or continuing goals, 369
HCO B 31 Aug. 1961 ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY, 370
Materials used for clearing, 370
HCO B 7 Sept. 1961 NEW FACTS OF LIFE, 372
Security Checks, 372
Not Know version of Security Checking, 372
Engram running using "unknown", 372
ARC break prevention, 373
Pc permitted to be responsible for session will ARC break, 373
HCO PL 12 Sept. 1961 CURRICULUM FOR CLEARING COURSES, 374
Out rudiments bury goal, 374
Clearing lies in confronting, not escaping, 374
"Unknown" used on pictures, 374
Pre-Hav Primary Scale amended, 375
HCO B 14 Sept. 1961 NEW RUDIMENTS COMMANDS, 377
Room, 377
Auditor, 377
PT problem, 377
Withholds, 377
ARC break, 377
HCO B 21 Sept. 1961 SECURITY CHECK CHILDREN, 378
HCO WW Security Form 8, 378
Children's Security Check, ages 6-12, 378
HCO B 28 Sept. 1961 HCO WW SECURITY FORMS 7A AND 7B, 381
HCO WW Security Form 7A (for staff applicants), 381
HCO WW Security Form 7B (for persons now employed), 383
HCO PL 29 Sept. 1961 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 385
Class One auditor, 385
Class Two auditor, 385
Class Three auditor, 385
Class Four auditor, 386
HCO B 5 Oct. 1961 CLEAN HANDS MAKE A HAPPY LIFE, 387
Transgressions against the mores of one's race, group, family cause
unhappiness, 387
Mutual action is the key to all our overt acts, 387
Overt-motivator sequence, 388
HCO B 6 Oct. 1961 TRAINING OF STAFF AUDITORS, 389
Sec Checking against a chronic somatic, 389
Security Checking includes the ability to locate the area of prior
confusion, 390
HCO B 9 Oct. 1961 RUDIMENTS, CHANGE IN, 391
Withholds, half truths and untruths, 391
HCO PL 10 Oct. 1961 PROBLEMS INTENSIVE FOR STAFF CLEARING, 392
Preclear Assessment Sheet, 392
HCO B 12 Oct. 1961 STUDENT PRACTICE CHECK, 400
HCO B 17 Oct. 1961 PROBLEMS INTENSIVES, 401
Turning points, or changes, in the preclear's life, 401
Prior confusion, 401
HCO B 19 Oct. 1961 SECURITY QUESTIONS MUST BE NULLED, 402
Prevention of Security Check being left unflat, 402
HCO PL 23 Oct. 1961 HGC PRE-PROCESSING SECURITY CHECK, 403
HCO WW Sec Form 8 (for pcs beginning intensives), 403
HCO B 26 Oct. 1961 SAFE AUDITING TABLE, 406
Safe processes, 406
HCO PL 1 Nov. 1961 HCO WW SECURITY FORM 5A, 407
For all HPC/HCA and above students before acceptance on courses, 407
HCO B 2 Nov. 1961 THE PRIOR CONFUSION, 409
All problems are preceded by a prior confusion, 409
Hidden standards are the result of a prior confusion, 409
HCO B 2 Nov. 1961 RUDIMENTS AND CLEARING, 410
Example of out rudiments preventing clearing, 410
HCO B 7 Nov. 1961 ROUTINE 3A, 412
Routine 3A steps, 412
Goal and modifier, 413
HCO B 9 Nov. 1961 THE PROBLEMS INTENSIVE
-USE OF THE PRIOR CONFUSION, 414
Why problems hang and float in time, 414
The Problems Intensive, 414
Complete change list, 414
Assess change list, 414
Obtain problem, 414
Date the problem, 415
Find prior confusion, 415
Compose Sec Check, 415
Sec check confused area, 415
Test for problem, 415
Assess for new change, 415
HCO Info. Ltr. 14 Nov. 1961 ROUTINE 3D, 416
Dynamic clears, 416
Goals assessment, 417
Opposition assessment, 417
Opposition goal, 417
Modifier, 4 18
Goals terminal for pc's goal + modifier, 418
Pre-Hav level, 418
Compose command, 418
Goals test, 419
R3D vocabulary, 419
Cautions, 420
Procedure of assessment, 422
Security Checks, 422
Rudiments, 423
HCO B 16 Nov. 1961 SEC CHECKING-GENERALITIES WON'T DO, 424
How to get withholds off the irresponsible pc, 424
Preventing a missed Sec Check question, 425
20 Nov. 1961 ROUTINE 3D COMMANDS, 426
Goal Problem Mass described, 426
Meter behavior on Routine 3D commands, 426
Tips on assessment, 427
Tips on running levels, 429
Rules of using the process, 430
Administration and records, 431
HCO B 23 Nov. 1961 METER READING, 432
Errors in reading E-Meter, 432
HCO B 23 Nov. 1961 AUXILIARY PRE-HAVE 3D SCALE, 434
27 Nov. 1961 ROUTINE 3D COMMAND SHEET, 437
28 Nov. 1961 ROUTINE 3D IMPROVED COMMANDS OF 28 NOV. 61, 438
HCO PL 29 Nov. 1961 CLASS OF AUDITORS, 439
What the Class I, II, III can audit, 439
Unauthorized processes, 439
30 Nov. 1961 ROUTINE 3D IMPROVED COMMANDS
OF NOVEMBER 30, 1961, 441
HCO B 30 Nov. 1961 ARC PROCESS 1961, 442
E-Meter doesn't register on ARC broken pc, 442
HCO B 3 Dec. 1961 RUNNING 3D LEVELS, 443
Steps of running levels on 3D terminal and "oppterm", 443
Reruns, 444
Third run of levels, 444
HCO B 7 Dec. 1961 SEC CHECKS VITAL, 445
Routine 3D prerequisites, 445
Auditor training, 445
7 Dec. 1961 COMMAND SHEET FOR ROUTINE 3D, 447
HCO B 13 Dec. 1961 VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS, 449
Always flatten original question, 449
HCO B 14 Dec. 1961 RUDIMENTS MODERNIZED, 450
List of rudiments bulletins, 450
Meter can go out if ARC break is present, 450
Rudiments at the beginning of session, 451
End rudiments, 451
HCO B 21 Dec. 1961 MODEL SESSION SCRIPT, REVISED, 453 [CANCELLED]
Use of 'R' factor, 453
Start of session, 453
Beginning rudiments, 453
Start of process, 454
End of process, 454
Repeated commands, 455
Cognition, 455
End rudiments, 455
End of session, 456
26 Dec. 1961 COMMAND SHEET ROUTINE 3D, 457
3D commands whole track O/W, 458
HCO B 28 Dec. 1961 E-METER ELECTRODES
-A DISSERTATION ON SOUP CANS, 459
History of E-Meter, 459
Use correct electrodes, 460
HCO B 28 Dec. 1961 3-D RULES OF THUMB, 462
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JANUARY 1960
(Originally issued in Washington, D.C.)
BPI
HAS CERTIFICATES
(Cancels existing directions)
The qualifications for a HAS Certificate are changed to fit the reality
of existing courses.
Great success is being obtained by placing people in the Co-audit
directly from PE, according to U.S. and some other Franchise Holders.
Therefore a modified HAS Certificate will be issued to all persons
attending Central Organization or Franchise PE Co-audit Courses; such
persons must have: cleared the present lifetime of overts and withholds of
one other person and have their own overts and withholds cleaned up, all
incidents discovered to have had responsibility flattened on them.
LRH:rlw.js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
STATE OF MAN CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
1-3 January 1960
L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to the State of Man
Congress held at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C:
** 6001C01 SMC-1 Opening Lecture
** 6001C01 SMC-2 Responsibility
** 6001C01 SMC-3 Overts and Withholds
** 6001C02 SMC-4 A Third Dynamic in Scientology-Why People Don't
Like You
** 6001C02 SMC-5 Marriage
* 6001C02 SMC-6 Group Processing
** 6001C03 SMC-7 Zones of Control and Responsibility of Governments
* 6001C03 SMC-8 Create and Confront
* 6001C03 SMC-9 Your Case
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JANUARY AD 10
(Originally Issued in Washington DC)
BPI
A THIRD DYNAMIC FOR SCIENTOLOGY
To bring about a Scientology third dynamic greater than any group has
ever before had, your co-operation, whether pro or layman, is requested.
Any Scientologist, whether certified or not, may participate. There are
two ways you can participate:
1. To get off your own overts and withholds, and
2. Urge other people to get off theirs.
To accomplish this and provide an orderly check on this and to prevent
any overt being used by anyone, the following procedure is recommended:
(a) That a full list of present lifetime overts and withholds be
made, with or without the assistance of sessions, particularly as
they apply to Scientology or related groups and personnel, and
signed and sent to HCO WW, Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
Sussex, England.
(b) That a second list then be made giving what responsibility one
could take for these. Instead of the second list an auditor's
report saying it has been done, the auditor attesting it, may be
forwarded.
That these files exist in my personal possession should make it
effectively impossible for anyone to try to use the information.
In this way we can cover all existing certificates and people and by
following this with new people keep an expanding group clean and clear.
I appreciate any co-operation you can give me in forwarding this
programme and will doubly appreciate any auditing you do toward this direct
goal.
All persons so cleared on overts would be listed from time to time in
HCO publications as "people you can trust".
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[For further information, see HCO PL 1 January 1960, Administrative
Procedure for Reducing Overts, OEC Volume 4, page 514.]
HUBBARD CLEARING SCIENTOLOGIST COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
4-8 January 1960
L. Ron Hubbard addressed the students of the Hubbard Clearing
Scientologist Course Unit which began on 4 January 1960.
** 6001C04 HCS-1 E-Meter Phenomena
6001C04 HCS-2 E-Meter and Time Track Structure
6001C05 HCS-3 Title unknown
6001C05 HCS-4 Title unknown
6001C06 HCS-5 Title unknown
** 6001C06 HCS-6 Identity
** 6001C07 HCS-7 Inability to Withhold
6001C07 HCS-8 Case Level and Needle State
60 .. C .. HCS Supplementary Lecture 8: Specialized Problems
** 6001C08 HCS-9 Sessioning and Withholds
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JANUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
HCO Staff &
Cen Orgs
THE UNMOVING CASE
And here we are ten years after the date I wrote the first book with
the solution to both types of cases that give us trouble. And that's a good
anniversary release.
Of course you saw the first book after January of 1950 but in the cold
bitter winter of Bay Head, New Jersey, I was busy writing down the research
of years which would become first a best seller and then a long term steady
seller across the world, beating most book records.
You know "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" and you know
its data, and you know also that any case could be cleared if you could run
all the engrams off the case. And you know as well that you have run into
cases that resisted all efforts to run engrams or penetrate the bank. It
was only these cases that kept Dianetics and all its goals from being
realised by all auditors.
We have concocted many dodges and much training skill has been
perfected, all to run just two types of cases-for most of the cases around
in the public could still be cleared by straight Dianetic processing right
out of Book One.
In this and the next bulletin I am going to take up these two types of
cases and their solution. Valuable data? You stated it correctly.
The first of these two types was the case which didn't experience any
improvement even after you had run the exact engram necessary to resolve
the case.
The hallmark of this case was unreality. It either went through it all
with no emotional change or it jumped all over the track and de-railed at
unlikely moments. This case also ARC broke very easily and was plain hell
to keep in session, or it was so apathetic it continually slumped. When the
case did make a gain it promptly relapsed and was telling everyone how bad
the auditor was.
Well, we've actually been talking about this case for several
bulletins. It is the case which mustn't let anyone find out. Its earmarks
are one or more of the following:
l. Runs with no reality
2. Skids around on the track
3. Goes out of Communication easily
4. Experiences little if any gain in processing
5. Criticises the Auditor
6. Propitiates
7. Tries to blow
Any one of the above and probably several more characteristics may be
present in such a case. But it just can't run engrams whatever else can be
said about it and it just doesn't make progress.
One of the things this case is doing is using auditing to make people
guilty of
overt acts. As an auditor this case won't really get down to auditing and
as a preclear the case just doesn't ever get up and fly.
There are various degrees of this case. Almost anyone has sooner or
later run into one or another of these. But the whole summary is contained
in one fact: The person gets little benefit from Dianetics or Scientology.
If all the cases in Scientology were really wheeling we'd get no hold-
ups either as auditor or as pc. Further we wouldn't be tiptoeing around
holding on to so many pc secrets that we ourselves get giddy making sure
nobody tries to capitalise on them. We would be in fact a free people, the
only free people on earth.
Further we can only be harmed by those things we have harmed and if all
of us-for you have an influence in this too, remember-had our worst overts
and withholds off no person or agency on earth would be able to touch a
Scientologist harmfully. And that's worth working for isn't it?
The failed case doesn't move (as listed above) and doesn't audit very
well, since it just can't confront overts from another and turns them away.
Well, that's the Dianetic failed case. And it's the Scientology failed
case. And knowing this we begin the road to freedom as a group as well as
individuals.
The case that does not advance under auditing is the case that has
undisclosed overts and withholds. The main ones that are harmful to an
advance of the case are in the present lifetime and are known to the
preclear (but sometimes are a trifle out of sight and bounce into view
quite suddenly and painfully).
Get the overts and withholds off the case and run responsibility on
them and you have a case that is wheeling at last. It can run anything and
it can be cleared.
Well that's the main Dianetic failed case and why.
Remember that when a pc tells you his current lifetime overts and
withholds you are code bound to run responsibility on them.
Now, let's face up to it and do it, do it, do it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JANUARY AD10
(Originally issued in Washington, D.C.)
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
Ds of P
Staff Auditors
OT PROCEDURES FOR HCS/BScn COURSES
AS RECORDED IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ACADEMY
JAN 1960 LRH TAPES, 9 HOURS, 71/2 ips.
SESSION DATA
Rudiments:
(a) Auditor checked out-o/w's off on auditor or auditors or pcs
until OK to be audited.
(b) Environment checked out-o/w's on auditing room, associated
personnel and people.
(c) PTP checked out-o/w's on people connected with PTP unless it
can be done by Problems of Comparable Magnitude or two-way comm.
(d) ARC breaks-check earlier sessions. TR5N.
(e) Goals for session.
Omit any or all of above except goals if pc already in session. Use any or
all of above at any time if session bogs down or pc gets upset or choppy.
AUDITING ATTITUDE
You do the auditing. This is all HGC type auditing, not PE Co-Audit.
The auditor handles pc and improves pc on his own responsibility.
Instructions which violate this (making auditor a via, not cause) may be
disregarded both by student and staff auditors.
Audit the pc on the whole track as a general rule only when pc's tone
arm is sitting at Clear as a consequence of setting up the session, getting
off present life overts, rehabilitating ability to withhold, getting
responsibility run on incidents pc has revealed, getting off discreditable
creations and getting responsibility run on them.
Don't wound-up doll on pc. Keep finding out what he is doing and how he
is doing it and if he is doing anything else. Be interested.
Use heavy control, as extreme as you feel necessary, as mild as works.
If pc is ARC breaky work rudiments over or look hard for present life
overts and withholds discreditable to pc.
Enfin DO WHAT YOU DO THOROUGHLY. If you only do a small portion of
this, do it well and finish it before looking for greener pastures.
First Stage
1. Clean up and continue to keep cleaned up pc's overts and
withholds in life which would interrupt two-way comm with auditor.
This includes anything pc has done in his life which disturbs the
tone arm.
Rehabilitate pc's ability to withhold on any terminal he has done
lots of overts against.
(Overts include making another person guilty of anything. Don't
overlook these.) Always run responsibility on any major overts
discovered.
2. Only when a pc has a needle reading at clear reading for
his sex should you go for chronic somatics, etc.
Note: The following steps are not necessarily to be run in the order
they are listed here. It is at the auditor's discretion which is
tackled when.
3. Hunt up pc's "discreditable creations" (use wording that best
communicates to pc in asking for these), starting with his present
lifetime. Run responsibility on these. Use some such commands as:
"What part of that incident could you admit causing?"-"What could
you withhold from that person (those people)?"
4. Check well into his goals. What goals does he particularly want
rehabilitated? Clean up his earliest present life "discreditable
creation" on this goal line by running responsibility on it. You
may do well to run several of these. This, of course, may be done
much later in session after whole track. This is artistic
rehabilitation.
5. Find out how he feels about generally improving himself.
Burning question: Does he deserve to get well? Investigate his
chronic somatics and find out who he is making guilty by having
them. Do this by clever two-way comm, not by repetitive auditing
command. This is the make-break point of a case. Get real real
about it. This step applies ordinarily to the very boggy case that
isn't running well. Any case can benefit from it but it is a must
on a boggy case.
6. Clean up "social atmosphere" of present life by getting off 2nd
and 3rd dynamic overt-withholds. Family, job, etc. This step would
be more germane to an HGC pc and may be omitted by students.
However, a bad tone arm that won't adjust to clear by the above
will possibly adjust with this step if you rehabilitate the pc's
ability to withhold from such areas.
General Note on Above. Always run some responsibility when a pc
communicates an overt or withhold of magnitude. The tone arm will not come
down or go up when pc communicates overt or withhold unless he assumes
responsibility for the act.
Always rehabilitate pc's ability to withhold, especially when auditor is
getting him to spill a great deal. "Mindless Object" reading ( 1.5)
indicates pc's ability to withhold has been badly shaken. Good command:
"Think of something you could withhold." Runs well, alternated with various
forms of "What could you admit causing?"
Second Stage
1. If pc has a field, somatics, malformity or aberration, clean it up as
follows:
(a) Find out what he is looking at.
(b) Date it with the meter.
(c) Run "What part of the scene could you admit causing?" (Keep on
with the same command no matter how much the scene changes, until
pc is in PT when he will most likely come up with the scene of
present auditor and auditing environment within the last day or
two. It is then flat for your purposes.
2. Disassociation from identities. Stable Datum: Any "identity" is a
misidentification, therefore get it off case.
(a) Identity most in restimulation. (Whole track.)
(b) Identities of the last two or three lives, with special
attention to the shifts of identity involved.
(c) Any identities you can get hold of. Be sure to get his most
creative life. (Whole track.)
3. Immediate past lives. Most cases crack when the last life before this
one and perhaps the last few lives are well explored. Tackle these with
the E-Meter. Find out all about them.
The rule is that in stage one you set the pc up to be audited and clean up
present life. In stage two you clean up immediate past life or lives and
then the whole track.
SUMMARY
The keynote is INCREASE CONFIDENCE by increasing ability. The gradient
scale is:
(a) Confidence in being audited.
(b) Confidence in present existence (immediate time track).
(c) Confidence in present life.
(d) Confidence in regaining health by running off chronic somatics.
(e) Confidence in regaining memory of and recovering from past few
lives, particularly the last one.
(f) Confidence on the whole track by removing overts and re-
establishing withhold ability on the whole track.
If a step is done well and thoroughly, the next step is done more
easily by pc. If no thoroughness is present and if pc never wins on any
step, recovery is only partial.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH : mg js .rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JANUARY AD 10
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
HCO and HASI Staffs
THE BLACK CASE
In the last bulletin I mentioned that two case types held us up in
Dianetics and that I had now solved these ten years after the first book's
writing.
The first type was the case that had so many overts and withholds in
this lifetime that it could not be gotten into two way communication. The
remedy for this is to get the overts and withholds confessed and run
responsibility on these acts.
The second type is the "Black Field" case. The case with a field could
not run engrams because he could not see them. Before I started to teach
people to audit I never found this case. I didn't find it because I merely
assumed that the case was stuck on the track and I persuaded the case to
get unstuck. In May 1950 in teaching a class in Washington, D.C., I found
that at the exact moment of stuck there was sonic, visio and the rest.
After I started teaching people how to audit this case eluded them and
after a while I found some that eluded me too. Naturally anyone knowing
that this was an unauditable case (for the fact was quite well advertised)
used the mechanism to cover up overts and withholds.
The mechanism I am about to give you relieves however any such case and
changes it around considerably. This remedy applies not only to Black Field
cases but any kind of constant view including invisible fields and stuck
pictures.
This formula has proven sufficiently good that the only way to get
around it is for the pc to run like the dickens-and you can keep him from
doing that by getting off his overts and withholds.
Whether or not you have relieved his overts and withholds, you can use
this formula with great profit-and just because it's simple, let's keep it
as simple as it is. It will work.
In taking hold of a new case, the first thing to do is start the
session letter-perfect with rudiments and goals, whether the case has ever
been audited before or not. Then ask the person to close his or her eyes
and find out what the person is looking at. If it is PT, okay to proceed
along any process line. If not PT but a stuck picture, a field or "nothing"
at once put the pc on the meter (where he should have been all along) and
do a time scout. Pin whatever the person sees in time as exactly as you
can, right down to the minute of the day.
This may blow the pc up to PT in some cases. But usually it will only
change the view slightly.
Now understand this: If a pc is stuck on the track all the auditing you
are doing is around an out of PT area and is not valid for present life. So
it is very valuable to handle just what it is that's sitting there and not
scramble it up with any other process than this one.
It does not matter, for this formula, where the pc's tone arm is
located for its
reading will be more or less for the stuck incident and not as a result of
present life material. So disregard the tone arm and the injunction never
to audit a pc with a high tone arm when you are doing this. Attend to the
tone arm after you've got the pc in PT.
All right, we've got the time of the incident. The pc is still sitting
there with his eyes closed. His data is very vague, perhaps he may be
totally unco-operative. Who cares. Do this anyway.
Run now "What part of that scene you're looking at could you be
responsible for?"
He may give you the most strained or vague answers. That's all right.
This will still work. Keep running it no matter how many times he repeats
the same answer.
The picture will start to shift. It may shift with slowness or enormous
rapidity or both, but it will shift. Well, just go on and run the process
as above right up to PT and then skip it except for noting where he was
stuck.
When you have the pc in PT get off his overts and withholds and let the
tone arm down. "What would you let me know?" "What would you withhold from
me?" alternated will do very well to clean it all up providing you run
responsibility on any incident of importance the pc comes up with.
Well, that's the case that couldn't see pictures. That's the
psychologist who says they don't exist. That's the rough case that wouldn't
move on the track.
Despite all the randomity I'm getting some things done lately, eh?
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jsjh.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1960
BPI
Franchise Holders
TAPES FOR SALE
The 5th and 6th London ACC tapes and the Melbourne ACC tapes and all
1959 and prior Congresses are now for sale to Franchise Holders.
Price: �5 ($15) per hour, less all discounts. At least two hours must
be ordered at any one time.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1960
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
CASUALTIES
(not confidential)
There are a few casualties along the line of getting off overts, and by
my telling you about them, you may be able to prevent others and to better
understand what is going on.
Only about eight people have "run for the brush" to date because of an
unwillingness to reveal their overts against Scientology. There may be a
few more but the data is not to hand. The overwhelming majority of
Scientologists have embraced these new techniques and measures with
enthusiasm.
Factually, those that blew were not in possession of much data on
overts. I feel that if they had been they would have stood up to it.
In early November I ordered all organizations to give an E-Meter check
on all staffs preliminary to auditing these on the new overt/withhold-
responsibility combination. I also forbade Central Orgs to employ persons
with hidden social crimes that might be used to hurt Scientology
(blackmail) until expiation could be accomplished and auditing completed.
This began by suspending one Doug Moon in HASI Melbourne until he had
been cleared since he was such a social liability.
Almost instantly on receipt of the E-Meter check order Iain Thompson in
HASI London, long-time friend of Moon, unexpectedly resigned and caused
Kaye Thompson to resign from HCO WW.
All that had happened at Saint Hill up to that moment was my release of
casual non-Scientology personnel and a liquor stealing butler before I left
for Australia so Mary Sue could carry on more easily.
The day I returned to Saint Hill Norma Webb, a Peter Stumbke and
another non-Scientologist named Dinah Day resigned and ran away.
On November 23rd at the urgings of Nina West, close friend of Webb,
Nibs Hubbard deserted his post in Washington and left no forwarding
address. It transpires that he had been caught up in the Moon-Webb-West
connections. He tried to find nerve to face an E-Meter the Saturday he left
but did not report for his scheduled session with his Washington auditor on
that day. He has since been heard of here and there borrowing money and
staying out of sight.
The registrar in Melbourne subsequently left before she could be put on
a meter.
The only action taken concerning these people is suspension or
cancellation of certificates pending E-Meter checks and clearing of overts
against Scientology. None except Moon were dismissed, but they have been
heard to say that they were. They resigned without notice to me.
Any Scientologist encountering any of these personnel would do all of
us a favour by getting them on a Meter and getting their overts against us
off and reporting having done so to HCO WW.
If any further blows occur as a result of present know-how, the same
procedure will be followed.
As Nibs Hubbard was probably being blackmailed it is creditable that he
removed himself from post before he could be made to harm the Washington
Organization.
LRH js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY AD10
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
HCO and HASI Staffs
JUSTIFICATION
When a person has committed an overt act and then withholds it, he or
she usually employs the social mechanism of justification.
We have all heard people attempt to justify their actions and all of us
have known instinctively that justification was tantamount to a confession
of guilt. But not until now have we understood the exact mechanism behind
justification.
Short of Scientology Auditing there was no means by which a person
could relieve himself of consciousness of having done an overt act except
to try to lessen the overt.
Some churches used a mechanism of confession. This was a limited effort
to relieve a person of the pressure of his overt acts. Later the mechanism
of confession was employed as a kind of blackmail by which increased
contribution could be obtained from the person confessing. Factually this
is a limited mechanism to such an extent that it can be extremely
dangerous. Religious confession does not carry with it any real stress of
responsibility for the individual but on the contrary seeks to lay
responsibility at the door of the Divinity-a sort of blasphemy in itself. I
have no axe to grind here with religion. Religion as religion is fairly
natural. But psychotherapy must be in itself a completed fact or, as we all
know, it can become a dangerous fact. That's why we flatten engrams and
processes. Confession to be non-dangerous and effective must be accompanied
by a full acceptance of responsibility. All overt acts are the product of
irresponsibility on one or more of the dynamics.
Withholds are a sort of overt act in themselves but have a different
source. Oddly enough we have just proven conclusively that man is basically
good-a fact which flies in the teeth of old religious beliefs that man is
basically evil. Man is good to such an extent that when he realizes he is
being very dangerous and in error he seeks to minimize his power and if
that doesn't work and he still finds himself committing overt acts he then
seeks to dispose of himself either by leaving or by getting caught and
executed. Without this computation Police would be powerless to detect
crime-the criminal always assists himself to be caught. Why Police punish
the caught criminal is the mystery. The caught criminal wants to be
rendered less harmful to the society and wants rehabilitation. Well, if
this is true then why does he not unburden himself? The fact is this:
unburdening is considered by him to be an overt act. People withhold overt
acts because they conceive that telling them would be another overt act. It
is as though Thetans are trying to absorb and hold out of sight all the
evil of the world. This is wrong-headed, by withholding overt acts these
are kept afloat in the universe and are themselves as withholds entirely
the cause of continued evil. Man is basically good but he could not attain
expression of this until now. Nobody but the individual could die for his
own sins-to arrange things otherwise was to keep man in chains.
In view of these mechanisms, when the burden became too great man was
driven to another mechanism-the effort to lessen the size and pressure of
the overt. He or she could only do this by attempting to reduce the size
and repute of the terminal. Hence, not-isness. Hence when a man or a woman
has done an overt act there usually follows an effort to reduce the
goodness or importance of the target of the overt. Hence the husband who
betrays his wife must then state that the wife was no good in some way.
Thus the wife who betrayed her husband had to reduce the husband to reduce
the overt. This works on all dynamics. In this light most criticism is
justification of having done an overt.
This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere
is ever merited. Man is not happy. He is faced with total destruction
unless we toughen up our postulates. And the overt act mechanism is simply
a sordid game condition man has slipped into without knowing where he was
going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and
life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact
is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one
can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticise unjustly and
lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact
workable.
Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral. One commits overt acts
unwittingly. He seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing blame.
This leads him into further overts against the same terminals which leads
to a degradation of himself and sometimes those terminals.
Scientologists have been completely right in objecting to the idea of
punishment. Punishment is just another worsening of the overt sequence and
degrades the punisher. But people who are guilty of overts demand
punishment. They use it to help restrain themselves from (they hope)
further violation of the dynamics. It is the victim who demands punishment
and it is a wrong-headed society that awards it. People get right down and
beg to be executed. And when you don't oblige, the woman scorned is sweet-
tempered by comparison. I ought to know-I have more people try to elect me
an executioner than you would care to imagine. And many a preclear who sits
down in your pc chair for a session is there just to be executed and when
you insist on making such a pc better, why you've had it, for they start on
this desire for execution as a new overt chain and seek to justify it by
telling people you're a bad auditor.
When you hear scathing and brutal criticism of someone which sounds
just a bit strained, know that you have your eye on overts against that
criticised person and next chance you get pull the overts and remove just
that much evil from the world.
And remember, by and by, that if you make your pc write these overts
and withholds down and sign them and send them off to me he'll be less
reluctant to hold on to the shreds of them-it makes for a further blow of
overts and less blow of pc. And always run responsibility on a pc when he
unloads a lot of overts or just one.
We have our hands here on the mechanism that makes this a crazy
universe so let's go for broke on it and play it all the way out.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1960
BPI
Franchise Hldrs
RESPONSIBILITY
Responsibility is often misdefined by the pc.
The definition for auditing of responsibility is "Admit causing," "able
to withhold." Usable commands would be "What about a (terminal) could you
admit causing?" "What could you withhold from a (terminal)?" "What could
you admit causing?"
Responsibility as a word can still be used as itself in an auditing
command.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JANUARY 1960
All Staff Members
OT PROCEDURE
I have tested and released a new OT procedure for your use on Staff
Clearing Course, in the HGC and in your own co-auditing which I know will
give you theta clears in a relatively short time.
I am well embarked on a program now for the UK to release this new
material.
We can get one theta clear a month off the HGC.
We can work successfully toward the goal of having nothing but theta
clears on staff.
The Washington Congress blew the lid off in the US. People finishing
the HCS Course there are fanning out all over the country giving non-
certificate courses to old auditors by sweeping demands from the field.
The new PE program is also working wonders. It omits the Comm Course
and puts people straight from the PE into the Co-audit, and there runs-
"What could you admit causing a person?" "What could you withhold from a
person?" This is advocated now for HASI London.
We are getting together a UK Congress that gives the Washington
Congress over again and which is rigged to succeed as a Tape Congress.
To begin this decade of 1960's we are well away from the mark and have
the majority of the countries with us. We now have to make a hard push on
the UK to get things wheeling like we mean it.
I thank you for your forbearance and hard work, and can assure you that
it is all in the direction of the biggest win man has ever had.
This one we are going to make.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:rf.nm
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JANUARY 1960
Cent Orgs
OT-3 PROCEDURE
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
This bulletin supersedes all previous bulletins.
Any case that cannot adequately define simple words like "change",
"problem", "responsibility": run CCHs 1, 2, 3, 4, as per their earliest
bulletins.
STEP ONE:
Rudiments:
Check for present time problem. Run by any good method. Check for ARC
breaks with auditor and environment. Erase by any effective method. Set
goals for session when PT problem and ARC breaks handled.
Establish rudiments at the beginning of each session. Re-establish
rudiments if pc goes out of session. Check over what pc got towards his
goals at session end.
STEP TWO:
Scout for present life overts and withholds. If found, run "What about
that incident could you be responsible for?" (see note on "responsible").
Flatten off all present life overt/withholds and zones of irresponsibility
(high or low needle).
This should bring the needle into quietness and the tone arm down to
clear reading for the pc's sex.
On a low tone arm case, particularly below two, find any terminal that
dips the needle, however slightly, and run withhold on that terminal: "What
could you withhold from a ?"
"What could you make (terminal) contribute?" run alternately with "What
would you rather not contribute to (terminal)?" has also made a low tone
arm rise. S-C-S and CCHs have also done so. The low tone arm is supposed to
be the tougher one. Actually it's the valence of a mindless object and the
last resort of the pc to withhold, so rehabilitating withhold cleverly
should get it easily.
STEP THREE:
Clear the pc's field with responsibility as per recent HCO Bulletin on
black, invisible or dub-in cases. When pc sees pictures of PT then go at
case in general.
STEP FOUR:
Run "What about a victim could you be responsible for?" until the tone
arm tends to read at clear reading for sex in this lifetime.
Whenever the pc encounters an incident that seems very sticky, which is
to say when the picture sticks many commands by the E-Meter, spot the time
in terms of years ago and down to the month and day. When the incident is
spotted, if it continues to hang up run it as an incident with this
command: "What about that incident could you be responsible for?" and, as
needful, on a two way comm basis, and by any process as needed get off its
overts and withholds and "Who would it make feel guilty?"
When any incident is reasonably flat continue with "What about a victim
could you be responsible for?"
This does not mean that you spot and run every incident encountered.
Spot and run only those that stick.
STEP FIVE:
Explore the immediate past lifetime or lifetimes of the pc. Get the
pc's identity and form (sometimes they were animals), and if lifetime
alters position of tone arm, run "What about (name) would you be willing to
be?" "What about (name) would you rather not be?"
Do this until incident is flat. If heavy engrams in such a lifetime
stick, run "What about that incident could you be responsible for?"
STEP SIX:
Run down any famous or enduring identities of the pc on the whole
track, and handle as above.
Ease off this with responsibility as a victim.
STEP SEVEN:
Do a dynamic assessment on the pc and locate any terminal that drops,
and run on this "What could you withhold from a ?" until pc can
withhold.
If any severe incident turns up flatten with responsibility.
STEP EIGHT:
Any chronic somatic or disability of the pc, if still not located,
should be tackled with "What about that (name it) could you be responsible
for?" and untangle the resulting pictures by placing them in time and
running responsibility on any that stick hard.
STEP NINE:
Flatten once more responsibility on a victim.
STEP TEN:
Rehabilitate the pc's ability to withhold by running cause-withhold
version of responsibility (see note below) on all dynamics with various
terminals.
Cautions: Until some responsibility is run on some cases no present
life overts show up. Responsibility is the key to high and low tone arms,
not overts. Handle any severe overts that turn up on a case with
responsibility process.
Do not run a mass-less terminal such as "sex" or "help". Find instead
some actual terminal, not a significance.
Beware running adjectival commands such as "frigid woman" or "a little
boy with a mole under his left grind'. Run instead the plainest terminal
that drops.
Do not run things that are not real to the pc as he has made them
unreal to lessen the overt. Instead run lots of overt finding processes
such as "What could you admit causing a (terminal real to pc)?" alternated
with "What could you withhold from a (same terminal)?"
Much of the material here is on the Washington 1960 HCS tapes. But this
rundown here is to be followed in the event of any conflict of procedure.
IMPORTANT NOTE: WHERE RESPONSIBILITY IS USED ABOVE IT CAN ALSO READ
"WHAT COULD YOU ADMIT CAUSING (TERMINAL)?" "WHAT COULD YOU WITHHOLD FROM
(TERMINAL)?" THIS ALTERNATE COMMAND IS A BETTER PROCESS THAN "WHAT ABOUT
(TERMINAL) COULD YOU BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?"
Note: Usage of this rundown should be taught on staff theta clearing
courses.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard [Superseded by HCO B 3 March 1960, OT-3A
Procedure-
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HGC Allowed Processes, page 48.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JANUARY 1960
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
Fran Hldrs
THE KEY TO ALL CASES-RESPONSIBILITY
During the past three months I have made several important discoveries
in the field of the human mind which iron out the bits and pieces that were
getting in our road in making broad clearing programmes possible.
First of these was the discovery that the tone arm of the E-Meter
rather than the needle was foremost in analysing the case. When the tone
arm reads at three for males and two for females on the modern meter a
process can be considered flat. Aside from various special states such as
valence shifts, this will hold true. When the tone arm reads at clear for
the person's sex no matter what one attempts to restimulate on the case you
have a clear. Additionally the hot areas of the time track are located
because they throw the tone arm to higher or lower readings. Good auditing
today cannot be done without an E-Meter of good reliable quality as
distributed by HCO WW in the UK and by Wingate Enterprises in the United
States. It could be said that the E-Meter has just now become an absolute
necessity in auditing and general analysis-using the E-Meter RIGHT we can
achieve clears.
Next, but not next in importance was the discovery of the anatomy of
RESPONSIBILITY. Although Responsibility has been known as a case factor
since 1951 (just as the overt-motivator sequence has been) it has not been
until now that I have been able to get it to run well on cases.
Responsibility is a significance. Pcs define it in various ways. And
all rather tend to run from it. Pcs in general pretend they would much
rather be victims than causative sources-which is what is wrong with their
cases. In order to get responsibility to run I had to find out a lot more
about it and not until the very end of 1959 was I able to define it in any
way that made it run and come into being on a case.
Now I mentioned the E-Meter first in this because it is RESPONSIBILITY-
LEVEL OF which causes the tone arm of the E-Meter to fluctuate. Place the
pc in an area which has a very high tone arm reading or a very low one and
you find the pc in an area in time when he was being very irresponsible.
It is not always true that a pc picked up as reading at the clear
reading of his sex is high on responsibility. There is an inversion of the
matter where the pc is so very low on responsibility that he just gets a
body reading for his sex and that is that. The test of this is the running
of responsibility, as given in this bulletin. If the pc, run on
responsibility, changes the position of the tone arm from the clear reading
then that pc has a very long way to go perhaps before he can achieve any
responsibility. If a pc is run on responsibility as given herein, if his
track is explored, and if the tone arm reads and continues to read at clear
then he is very responsible and very clear. But you would have to run the
pc a bit not just read him on the meter in order to get an accurate view of
the matter. In other words, don't look for overts to check out on a case.
Look for tone arm fluctuations when responsibility is run. It takes at
least a certain level of responsibility to show up overt acts on E-Meter.
What exactly does the E-Meter read? It reads the degree of mental mass
surrounding the thetan in a body.
A thetan accumulates mental mass, pictures, ridges, circuits, etc, to
the degree that he misassigns responsibility. If he does something and then
says that it was done
by something or someone else then he has failed to assign cause rightly
and, doing so, he is of course left with an apparently uncaused mental
mass. This to us is the "bank". To Freud it was the "unconscious". To the
psychiatrist it is lunacy. He therefore has as much bank as he has denied
cause. As he is the only cause that could hang himself with a mass, the
only misassigned cause therefore is self cause. Other people's causation is
not aberrative and does not hang up except to the degree that the pc is
provoked to misassigning cause. Other people's cause is therefore never
audited.
Here then we have the anatomy of the reactive mind. The common
denominator of all these unwanted ridges, masses, pictures, engrams, etc,
is RESPONSIBILITY.
The discovery of the direct anatomy of RESPONSIBILITY is as follows:
Able to admit causation.
Able to withhold from.
This you will recognize as old reach and withdraw and as the
fundamental of every successful process. But now we can refine this into
the exact process that accomplishes a removal of the reactive mind and re-
establishment of causation and responsibility.
A thetan will not restore his own ability until he is certain he can
withhold from things. When he finds he cannot then he reduces his own
power. He will not let himself be more powerful than he believes he can use
power. When he gets mad he of course can control nothing, neither can he
really direct anything. When he causes something that he thinks is bad, he
next seeks to withhold. If he cannot withhold then he begins to
compulsively cause things that are bad and you have overt acts happening.
What we call responsibility is restored on any subject or in any case
by selecting a terminal (not a significance) and running on it:
WHAT COULD YOU ADMIT CAUSING A (TERMINAL)? THINK OF SOMETHING YOU COULD
WITHHOLD FROM A (TERMINAL).
Overt acts proceed from irresponsibility. Therefore when responsibility
declines, overt acts can occur. When responsibility declines to zero then a
person doing overt acts no longer conceives them to be overt acts and YOU
DO NOT EVEN GET A WIGGLE ON THE E-METER NEEDLE when looking for overts and
withholds on such a case. Thus some criminals would not register on overts
at all even though they had the loot in their pockets! And it is often
necessary on any case to run cause/withhold on present life terminals as
given above before the person can conceive of having committed any overts
against those terminals.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: No case will run well and many cases will not
run at all with present life overts and withholds undisclosed and
unflattened. These overts and withholds may not even come into view UNTIL
THE VERSION OF RESPONSIBILITY GIVEN HEREIN IS LIBERALLY RUN ON THE CASE.
Choose any area where the pc conceives himself to be a victim. Select a
terminal to represent that area that falls on an E-Meter. Run
cause/withhold as given herein on that terminal and watch the overts pop
into view. It is not necessary to handle these overts when they come up
with any other process than cause/withhold since cause/ withhold given here
is responsibility.
There are other factors on cases that need handling but these are all
handled with responsibility processes. If all the factors involved in a
case are well handled as given herein you will have a theta clear who will
be able to do a lot of things humans can't do. And if you handled a case
totally with this material and its specialized skills then you would have
an Operating Thetan. Fortunately for this universe no thetan will let
himself go free unless he can operate without danger to others and the
responsibility factor is way up on all dynamics.
This material is covered in tape lectures from the Washington January
Congress 1960 (nine hours) and in the HCS Course lectures, Washington,
January 1960 (nine hours). The Congress, which was very warmly received in
Washington, is being replayed in many areas by public demand and the HCS
Course is being given as the HCS/BScn Course in all Central Organizations.
This is the major breakthrough we are starting the 1960s with. We are
counting on HGCs turning out theta clears at regular intervals and we are
working to get all staffs of Central Organizations through to theta clear
on Staff Clearing Courses.
This material is also being used on PE Courses which now should run as
follows: One week PE Course with TR demonstrations, this free. People pass
from this course directly into Co-Audit (no Comm Course) at a fee, on the
following process: "What could you admit causing a person?" "What could you
withhold from a person?" Terminals other than "person" may be selected by
the Co-Audit Instructor. A full intensive given by HGCs on the basis of OT-
3 Procedure is sufficiently in advance of this to make individual auditing
necessary in most cases. OT-3 has been released to all Central Orgs who
have the Washington HCS tapes. The CCHs are used on cases incapable of
defining terms.
In view of this material and what is now known of responsibility and
overts and what they do to case level, a new kind of justice comes into
being, making it completely unnecessary to punish. You can know a person by
his case level. Does it advance or doesn't it? Does he elect others ogres
when he himself has been doing things or does he show Scientology in
himself?
This is a brand new look and it can be made a brand new earth. We
started the 1960s the right way as I think you will discover.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 FEBRUARY AD 10
BPI
THE CO-AUDIT TEAM
The running of a co-audit team as done on a staff theta clearing
course, as done on staff and at home by Scientologists, can be either a
very trying and unsuccessful activity or it can be a wonderful success,
depending on whether it is done wrong or right. A fine example of this is
the old time inability of a large percentage of husband-wife teams to
succeed. But even a husband-wife co-audit team can succeed these days and
come out clear if they follow the rules laid down in this bulletin.
Co-audit teams fail not because either partner is unwilling but because
they dive into the deep without preparing the weather in advance.
The first requisite of any co-audit team is to thoroughly prepare the
auditing climate and keep it repaired. This is true of any new team, no
matter what either member of it did on any old team.
Therefore co-audit procedure must do the following before any cases are
tackled:
Audit alternate sessions (not alternate intensives).
Run as the first process to be flattened:
"What have you done to me?"
"What have you withheld from me?"
and they run this every time the ARC breaks stack up.
Assess the case with an E-Meter as to whether Dianetics and Scientology
on one hand or the sex of the auditor on the other hand get the biggest
fall on the meter or change on the tone arm.
This action determines whether Dianetics and Scientology or the sex of
the auditor get run first. They are both to be run. A11 we want to
determine is which to run ahead of the other.
Find one or more terminals that represent Dianetics and Scientology.
Run each (the one with the biggest meter reaction ahead of the rest) on
"What have you done to (terminal)?" "What have you withheld from
(terminal)?" Run them all. Run only until each one is relatively flat and
only as long as the pc has ready answers. Check them all over again.
Running the sex of the auditor must also be done. If the auditor is a
woman then run "What have you done to a woman?" "What have you withheld
from a woman?" If the sex of the auditor is male then run "What have you
done to a man?" "What have you withheld from a man?"
All the above must be clean as a whistle before one tackles a case. So
making sure of the above, no matter how many hours it's devouring, will
give wins all the way.
Every session one handles all the rudiments.
"Is it alright to be audited by me?"
If not let's get into O/W again and clean up Dianetics and Scientology
again.
"Is it alright to be audited in this new environment?"
If not, get off the overts and withholds on the environment-finding some
terminal that represents it as a general terminal.
"Do you have a present time problem?"
If so get it out of the road by two-way comm if possible, picking up the
overts and withholds and guilt on the terminals involved. But don't handle
PTPs endlessly and skip other auditing.
"What goal would you like to set for this session?"
Buy the goal the pc sets so long as it's real to him. Don't force pc into
the auditor's goals or goals unreal to pc.
When one gets down to the pc's case the auditor does a dynamic
assessment and finds where the tone arm is moved by one or another of the
dynamics. If the tone arm (not the needle) is moved by a dynamic, then
using the needle motion, find the hottest terminal that represents that
dynamic and run overt/withhold on that terminal. When this is flat, do
another whole dynamic assessment. Find a terminal that represents that
dynamic and run it. And so on. Always use general rather than particular
terminals. Avoid adjectival commands. Never run a significance. A terminal
is flat when overt/withhold no longer moves the tone arm around and the
needle is not stuck. The tone arm does not have to be reading at clear for
the pc's sex if the terminal is flat-it must only be that the terminal no
longer influences the tone arm and doesn't drop the needle when mentioned.
When the pc reads more or less constantly at clear reading for his sex
after doing all the above, then finish the case off with "What have you
done to yourself?" "What have you withheld from yourself?"
And now get this: In co-auditing there are greater strains than
professional auditing. Therefore havingness problems arise. So make it a
rule that for every two hours of auditing on rudiments or O/W or anything
else (which I hope not), run one half hour of objective havingness with the
following single command "Look around here and find something you could
have."
I am at the present moment working on more co-auditing manual material,
but it won't be ready for quite a while and it contains more or less what
you find shorthanded above. If one of the co-auditors has no HPA or HCA
it's worthwhile to get training before co-auditing.
I am giving you this in the interest of making clears. I have piloted
this out as probably the only safe procedure for everyone available in
present technology. These are both the fastest processes and least
liability. The above regimen is not just pretty good. It's a winner. But if
you go running engrams or assuming the pc likes womankind or etc, etc, etc,
or if you plunge into the case without clearing up the idea of auditing and
sessions you are in for trouble, co-audit or professional.
Now let's see some more clears around here.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1960
Sthil
SECURITY CHECK
In keeping with policy carried out by all Central Organizations, an E-
Meter check will be made on all new and existing staff at Saint Hill.
An E-Meter is better known as a "lie-detector" and is used to ascertain
truth of background and conduct.
The following points will be covered by the examiner:
Any criminal background
Any Communist or subversive connection
Spreading of slander concerning Saint Hill or its people
Discouraging new employees by malicious lies
Receipt of commissions on purchases for Saint Hill
Overts against Doctor or Mrs. Hubbard.
No staff at Saint Hill are exempt.
No suspicion is necessarily attached to any person at Saint Hill. This
is a security check. It is an effort to clear the air.
The test will be administered by Robin Harper, Technical Secretary, and
any undesirable results will be rechecked by Mrs. Hubbard.
L. RON
HUBBARD
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY PROCESSING
In order to make up one's mind to be responsible for things it is
necessary to get over the idea that one is being forced into
responsibility.
The power of choice is still senior to responsibility. What one does
against his will operates as an overt act against oneself. But where one's
will to do has deteriorated to unwillingness to do anything, lack of will
is itself an aberration.
Variations in the reactions of pcs to responsibility processes stem
from the pc's belief that his power of choice is being or has been
overthrown. Where an auditor has a pc balking against a responsibility
process, the pc has conceived that the auditor is forcing responsibility on
the pc and very little good comes of the session.
There is nothing wrong, basically, with doingness. But where one is
doing something he is unwilling to do, aberration results. One does, in
such a case, while unwilling to do. The result is doingness without
responsibility.
In the decline of any state into slavery as in Greece, or into economic
strangulation of the individual as in our modern western society, doingness
is more and more enforced and willingness to do is less and less in
evidence. At length people are doing without being responsible. From this
results bad workmanship, crime, indigence and its necessities for
welfarism. At length there are so many people who are unwilling to do that
the few left have to take full burden of the society upon their backs.
Where high unwillingness to do exists, democracy is then impossible, for it
but votes for the biggest handout.
Where high unwillingness to do exists then we have a constant
restimulation of all the things one is really unwilling to do such as overt
acts. Forcing people who do not want to work to yet work restimulates the
mechanism of overt acts with, thereby, higher and higher crime ratio, more
and more strikes and less and less understanding of what it is all about.
The individual who has done something bad that he was not willing to do
then identifies anything he does with any unwillingness to do-when of
course he has done this many times. Therefore all doingness becomes bad.
Dancing becomes bad. Playing games becomes bad. Even eating and procreation
become bad. And all because unwillingness to do something bad has evolved
and identified into unwillingness to do.
The person who has done something bad restrains himself by withholding
doingness in that direction. When at length he conceives he has done many
many bad things, he becomes a total withhold. As you process him you
encounter the recurring phenomenon of his realization that he has not been
as bad as he thought he was. And that's the wonderful part of it. People
are never as bad as they think they are-and certainly other people are
never as bad as one thinks they have been.
The basic wonder is that people police themselves. Out of a concept of
good they conceive themselves to be bad, and after that seek every way they
can to protect others from self. A person does this by reducing his own
ability. He does it by reducing his own activity. He does this by reducing
his own knowingness.
Where you see a thetan who sleeps too much and does too little, where
you see a person who conceives bad doingness on every hand, you see a
person who is safeguarding others from the badness of himself or herself.
Now there is another extreme. A person who must do because of economic
or other whips, and yet because of his own concept of his own badness dares
not do, is liable to become criminal. Such a person's only answer to
doingness is to do without
taking any responsibility and this, when you examine the dynamics, falls
easily into a pattern of dramatized overt acts. Here you have a body that
is not being controlled, where most knowledge is obscured and where
responsibility for others or even self is lacking. It is an easy step from
criminality to insanity, if indeed there is any step at all. Such people
cannot be policed since being policed admits of some obedience. Lacking
control there is no ability to obey, and so they wind up simply hating
police and that is that.
Only when economic grips are so tight or political pressure is so great
as it is in Russia do we get high criminality and neurotic or psychotic
indexes. Whenever doing is accompanied by no will to do, irresponsibility
for one's own acts can result.
Basically, then, when one is processing a pc, one is seeking to
rehabilitate a willingness to do. In order to accomplish this one must
rehabilitate the ability to withhold on the pc's own determinism (not by
punishment) further bad actions. Only then will the pc be willing to
recover from anything wrong with the pc-since anything wrong with the pc is
self-imposed in order to prevent wrongdoing at some past time.
All types of responsibility processes have this as their goal: to
rehabilitate the willingness to do and the ability to withhold on one's own
determinism.
Restraint in doing something one knows he should do is a secondary
deterrent but comes with other offshoots of responsibility into the
cognition area.
Thus we have a formula of attack on any given area where the pc cannot
do, is having trouble or cannot take responsibility: (a) Locate the area.
(b) Find a terminal to represent it. (c) Find what the pc has done to that
terminal that he thinks he should have withheld. (d) Reduce all such
incidents.
In short all we have to do to rehabilitate any case is find an area
where the terminal is still real to the preclear and then get rid of what
he has done and withheld, and we come up with an improved responsibility.
Of all the responsibility processes, the oldest one I developed is
still the best one by test and that is:
"What have you done to a (terminal)?"
"What have you withheld from a (terminal)?"
The processing results depend in large part on the accuracy of
assessment, on the willingness of the auditor to process the pc and upon
running the process as flat as it will go before finding another terminal.
Assessment accuracy depends upon skilled use of the E-Meter. Dynamic
Straight Wire is best, and a weather eye upon the tone arm to see what
terminal varies it, once one has the dynamic and from that has selected a
terminal.
The willingness of the auditor to process the pc depends upon the
confidence of the auditor to obtain results-and this is established by
deletion of things the auditor has done to pcs and withheld from pcs in
general and this pc in particular. Thus co-audit teams would be right
always if they took each other as the terminals to be run first, get these
pretty flat (and keep them flat during processing with "What have you done
to me?" "What have you withheld from me?"), then as the next thing to do
run the sex of the auditor off the pc, then clean up Dianetics or
Scientology (or use this as step two). And only then go into "case". That
would be a pretty fine co-audit team after they have survived the first
explosions and gotten them gone.
Then in searching out areas to run as a case, care should be taken not
to over-run a terminal or under-run one. A pc running out of answers can
get very restless.
Responsibility can be rehabilitated on any case and when it has been
you have a clear and that's all there is to it.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1960
CenO
OVERT MANIFESTATIONS ON A LOW TONED CASE
Every high scale manifestation or activity has a low scale mockery:
There can be an apparent clear reading on a case that has never been
successfully audited. This case is too low toned to register at all as a
thetan. The resulting read is therefore that of the body minus a bank. No
overts will show up on the needle of this case.
Only when responsibility has been run does this case shift off the low
reading and get different tone arm and needle responses.
Such a case is fairly easy to recognize. The case has obvious areas of
great irresponsibility and yet reads like a clear. But once you scout out
the case this state of affairs becomes upset and the case reads otherwise,
and then eventually comes back after an awful lot of sessions and
intensives into the clear range and stays there. But now the case is able
where it was before very apathetic and really useless.
Any clear check out must include the following exercise and indeed this
is the process which gets these low level cases really cracking. This is
both a clear examination and a good entrance to cases. It is also the best
way to check out overts when in doubt.
You run on the E-Meter a dynamic assessment and pick up any dynamic
that gives a change of needle pattern, or take any dynamic which makes
needle drop no matter how slightly.
Having located the dynamic we now ask the pc for any terminal he or she
thinks would represent that dynamic. We take any terminal that has any drop
on it as given or suggested by the pc.
On this terminal we now run overt/withhold as follows:
"What have you done to a (terminal)?"
"What have you withheld from a (terminal)?"
This was the terminal realest to the pc, therefore when responsibility
is increased on it you have generally increased responsibility.
When we have flattened this off mildly we go through the whole
operation above again.
Before we have done this many times overts will begin to show up on the
case and will be recognized by the pc.
Doing this well just once unsettles the false clear reading and that
reading will not return until the case is actually cleared.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.mw.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1960
MA
Sthil
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
Fran Holders
HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO
After you have achieved a high level of ability you will be the first
to insist upon your rights to live with honest people.
When you know the technology of the mind you know that it is a mistake
to use "individual rights" and "freedom" as arguments to protect those who
would only destroy.
Individual rights were not originated to protect criminals but to bring
freedom to honest men. Into this area of protection then dived those who
needed "freedom" and "individual liberty" to cover their own questionable
activities.
Freedom is for honest people. No man who is not himself honest can be
free-he is in his own trap. When his own deeds cannot be disclosed then he
is a prisoner; he must withhold himself from his fellows and he is a slave
to his own conscience. Freedom must be deserved before there is any freedom
possible.
To protect dishonest people is to condemn them to their own hells. By
making "individual rights" a synonym for "protect the criminal" one helps
to bring about a slave state for all; for where "individual liberty" is
abused, an impatience with it arises which at length sweeps us all away.
The targets of all disciplinary laws are the few who err. Such laws
unfortunately also injure and restrict those who do not err. If all were
honest there would be no disciplinary threats.
There is only one way out for a dishonest person-facing up to his
responsibilities in the society and putting himself back into communication
with his fellow man, his family, the world at large. By seeking to invoke
his "individual rights" to protect himself from an examination of his
deeds, he reduces just that much the future of individual liberty, for he
himself is not free. Yet he infects others who are honest by using their
rights to freedom to protect himself.
Uneasy lies the head that wears a guilty conscience.
And it will lie no more easily by seeking to protect misdeeds by pleas
of "freedom means that you must never look at me". The right of a person to
survive is directly related to his honesty.
Freedom for man does not mean freedom to injure man. Freedom of speech
does not mean freedom to harm by lies.
Man cannot be free while there are those amongst him who are slaves to
their own terrors.
The mission of a techno-space society is to subordinate the individual
and control him, by economic and political duress. The only casualty in a
machine age is the individual and his freedom.
To preserve that freedom one must not permit men to hide their evil
intentions under the protection of that freedom. To be free a man must be
honest with himself and with his fellows.
If a man uses his own honesty to protect the unmasking of dishonesty, then
that man is an enemy of his own freedom.
We can stand in the sun only so long as we don't let the deeds of
others bring the darkness.
Freedom is for honest men. Individual liberty exists only for those who
have the ability to be free.
Today in Scientology we know the gaoler-the person himself. And we can
restore the right to stand in the sun by eradicating the evil men do to
themselves.
So do not say that the investigation of a person or the past is a step
forward to slavery. For in Scientology such a step is the first step toward
freeing a man from the guilt of self.
Were it the intention of the Scientologist to punish the guilty, then
and only then would a look into the past of another be wrong.
But we are not the police. Our look is the first step toward unlocking
the doors-for they are all barred from within.
Who would punish when he could salvage?
Only a madman would break a wanted object he could repair-and we are
not mad.
The individual must not die in this machine age-rights or no rights.
The criminal and the madman must not triumph with their new-found tools of
destruction.
The least free person is the person who cannot reveal his own acts and
who protests the revelation of the improper acts of others. On such people
will be built a future political slavery where we all have numbers-and our
guilt-unless we act.
It is fascinating that blackmail and punishment are the keynotes of all
dark operations. What would happen if these two commodities no longer
existed? What would happen if all men were free enough to speak? Then and
only then would you have freedom.
On the day when we can fully trust each other, there will be peace on
Earth.
Don't stand in the road of that freedom. Be free, yourself.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1960
Sthil
THE REPUTATION OF SAINT HILL
During the war it was often stated that "a loose lip could sink a
ship". Today this applies to Saint Hill. Irresponsible statements in East
Grinstead concerning Saint Hill could injure our relations with the town.
Here are some facts we would be happy to let anyone know:
Saint Hill releases into East Grinstead some �2,000 every month in new
money through merchants and in wages as well as other ways. All of this
money comes from outside England and the economy of East Grinstead receives
the full benefit of it. If the status of Saint Hill were altered this
machine would be denied East Grinstead and its people.
There are no unpaid bills.
No person who did his job well and who caused no trouble has been
dismissed at Saint Hill The staff turnover in the garden and the house has
been incidental to any new establishment seeking to settle down with the
best possible staff. My basic staff policy is responsible for the turnover.
I will not compromise with poor work and I will not drive bad workers into
working. I ease them off or they leave.
Some discoveries of considerable interest to horticulture have been
made at Saint Hill. All this research is private and its findings are given
away without charge. Several of our experiments have now been repeated and
accepted by U.S. laboratories.
Several advances in the understanding of the human mind have been made
at Saint Hill. Saint Hill has been on National Television several times.
Sometime this year outside lighting of the Manor House will be
installed.
Saint Hill Manor is the best example of Sussex sandstone structure in
existence. It was completed in 1733.
Saint Hill has only had a half dozen owners in all that time. It will
be continued in its original status as a Manor House. Amongst the owners
are:
The Crawfords (the Sussex iron family who built it),
Doctor Cruikshank (who did the more recent work on the grounds and
pool),
Mr. Lasky (once the richest man in England),
Mrs. Biddle, the wife of the American Ambassador (who had the monkey
room done and who modernized the baths),
The Maharajah of Jaipur who bought it for his wife (whose bell call
boards we have left up).
Saint Hill has sent several members to parliament. We are currently
putting tropical controlled climates into the glass houses.
We will complete the swimming pool this spring.
LRH:js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1960
HCO Secs
Assoc Secs
SECURITY CHECKS
A letter written on HCO stationery and signed by the HCO Secretary
should be given (or sent) to each person checked out successfully on an E-
Meter security check. The text of this letter should be as follows:
"Dear.......
"I am pleased to inform you that you have passed a full security check
which demonstrates conclusively your value and reliability on a responsible
post.
(signature)"
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 FEBRUARY 1960
HCO Secs
Assoc Secs
HCO Board of Review
CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES
Nina West's certificates and awards in Scientology and Dianetics are
hereby cancelled, due in part to evidence of use of PDH on Central Org
Personnel.
She may apply for restoration after being thoroughly checked out on
overts and withholds on Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard,
Scientology Orgs, and related personnel, and after passing a security
check.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 FEBRUARY 1960
HCOs
Central Orgs Post
But not London
Paying Fran Holders Only
RESEARCH ADVANCES
I wish to thank all HCOs and Central Orgs outside the United Kingdom
for their financial support of existing research lines.
Much of the research advances I have made in the last few months were
possible because:
1. The increasing self-determinism of HCOs and Central Organizations, as
attested by their increasing size and income, has freed me from much
administrative labour and worry, thus giving me more research time, and
2. Increasing financial support from HCOs and Central Organizations as
well as some Franchise Holders, while not yet furnishing me all the
needed facilities, has made it possible for me to extend research lines
further and faster than they otherwise would have gone and has reduced
and lightened the labour involved.
I wish to thank in particular all HCO Secretaries, all heads of Central
Orgs, all HCO and Central Organizations' staffs for the splendid work they
are doing and for the mainstay of research support. And I wish to thank
those Franchise Holders who have contributed regularly to research and who
are expanding Scientology throughout the World.
We are starting this decade right!
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 FEBRUARY 1960
CenOCon
Place 1 in each
British E-Meter
BRITISH E-METER OPERATION
(see diagram on following page)
To operate the British version of the Electrometer designed under my
guidance by Fowler and Allen, a British instrument firm, the following
steps must be done at the beginning of each session.
The instrument has a 5,000 ohm calibration knob (a) and switch (b) not
present on the U.S. Meter.
Before (or after) plugging in the electrodes at (e), with the tone arm
at "off", throw the 5,000 ohm switch (b) downwards from "off". Then turn
the instrument on with the tone arm (c) and place the tone arm at 2.
Now move the otherwise unmarked calibration knob (a) left or right
until the needle is exactly on "set" on the dial.
Then move the tone arm to the white dot (g) between 2 and 3. The needle
should move over to "test". If it does the batteries are properly up (they
last a year or more unless you carelessly leave the meter "on" for days
when not in use).
Now click the 5,000 ohm switch (b) up to "off".
Hand the pc the electrodes.
Have the pc squeeze the electrodes. The needle should fall 1/3 of the
dial or more. Shift the 1-16 sensitivity arm (d) up or down until the pc,
squeezing the cans, does, on one squeeze, get a 3rd of a dial drop.
You are now ready to audit.
Keep the needle around the "set" mark. Keep the sensitivity low so that
you only get significant readings (not breath or heart beat). Most pcs run
around 1 on sensitivity on this meter which is very live. Sticky pcs have
to have a higher sensitivity setting.
When finished with the session and the meter, turn the tone arm to
"off" or your battery will wear out much faster.
Stow the cord to the electrodes inside the electrodes which are hollow.
A little examination will show you how. Then stow the electrodes in the
case and close it.
Use the U.S. E-Meter book for all other meter particulars.
If your meter ceases to function ship to Fowler and Allen, 39 Mackenzie
Rd, Beckenham, Kent, at your postage expense. Enclose return postage.
Unless due to carelessness or breakage, they will service and re-battery
your meter. Opening the panel or changing the meter about inside voids the
guarantee.
LRH:js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[pic]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 FEBRUARY 1960
Issue II
CenO
BPI
HCO Boards of Review
RESTORATION OF CERTIFICATES
The certificates and awards of Nile Adams have been restored with
apologies.
Investigation has disclosed that Nile, in attempting to assist the
setting up and financing of Scientology Centres, became the target of a
push to prevent such centres from being formed.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js. h
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 FEBRUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
D of Ps
D of Ts
Staff Auditors
CREATE AND CONFRONT
The cycle of action (create, survive, destroy) and the communication
formula (cause, distance, effect) with Axiom 10 (the highest purpose etc,
creation of an effect) become identified in the mind with one another.
The preclear who is having a difficult time is on an inversion of the
cycle of action (counter-create, counter-survive, counter-destroy).
Any preclear is somewhere on this cycle. The preclear who only gets
death pictures or bad pictures is somewhere late on the cycle of action or
late on an inversion cycle.
This preclear believes that every cause brings about a destruction.
Thus he falls out of communication, since any and all received
communication will destroy him, he thinks.
All this is covered in the First Melbourne ACC Tapes and will probably
not be covered to such a degree again. The Melbourne ACC Tapes are
consecutive with the Philadelphia lecture series (fall 1952), and are a
little out of the way of our present theory, but have a special place in
know-how.
Out of this we now have an understanding of what a limited process is.
Any process which makes the preclear create is a limited process and should
be avoided. Such processes as "Tell a Lie" are creative processes.
The preclear has creation tangled up with cause and cause tangled up
with the overt-motivator sequence. The thing that straightens all this out
is any version of responsibility run with the pc at cause. Earlier the best
we had to straighten this out was confront. Responsibility is confront and
is very senior to confront as a process.
When a pc over-creates he accumulates the unconfronted debris. All you
have to do to restimulate debris (stiffen up the bank) is to run the pc on
some version of create process.
Havingness is a confront process and straightens out the create factor.
Havingness is the lowest version of responsibility; Confront is the
next lowest; Overt-Withhold is the next; and at our present top for
practical purposes is just plain responsibility. Actually all these are
responsibility processes.
Create is bad only when one does not take responsibility for the
creation.
The key process of all processes at this writing is being responsible
for having been irresponsible.
There is a great deal of anatomy to responsibility. A great many
answers lie waiting on its track. When one maligns another, he has not
taken responsibility for the acts of that other person and so is separate
from that other person.
One of the highest points of knowingness which is not at this time
known is whether we are all one or if we are actually separate beings.
Enough responsibility run achieves a subjective answer to this.
While several offshoots of this present technology are under test at
this time it
can be said with certainty now that the best version of responsibility for
most cases is:
"What have you done to a (terminal)?"
"What have you withheld from a (terminal)?"
It will be seen at once that what could you do to and what could you
withhold from a terminal is a create process, and is therefore slightly
limited and leaves debris. Thus it can be said with finality overt/withhold
rather than cause/withhold is the best process.
In the presence of ARC breaks, havingness is a must on any
responsibility process and is always a good preventive for flops. Don't
forget havingness. We know now that it is the lowest rung of
responsibility. This becomes evident when we examine the withhold aspects
of havingness.
Plain ordinary "What could you be responsible for" is of course a very
fine process and oddly enough often goes lower (for a short run) than
overt/withhold. Responsibility isn't just a high level process. It works
where it works.
It is interesting that while running pure raw responsibility in its non-
create form (what have you been responsible for) we see anew the old know-
to-mystery scale revealed.
Factual Havingness can be run in its trio form with good results:
"Look around here and find something you could have"
"Look around here and find something you would permit to
continue"
"Look around here and find something you would let vanish"
The old restrictions and know-how of running this still apply.
"Look around here and find something you could have" is of course a
wonderful process. And whenever you run an hour and a half of any other
version of responsibility you had better run half an hour of "Look around
here and find something you could have" and be on the safe side.
SUMMARY:
The data in this bulletin is far from merely theoretical. To some
auditors it will come as an emergency super frantic hysterical rush item
for they should shift over any version of responsibility they are running
to the above versions.
Don't run any other version of overt/withhold than that given above.
You can run responsibility as itself on any incident or terminal if the pc
can take it. Run a half hour of havingness for every hour and a half of any
responsibility subjective process.
NOTE:
Instead of the CCHs for that low low level case, why not get it going
with havingness as above and then find any terminal that ticks on a meter
and run O/W on that terminal. Then run more havingness. Then find another
terminal that ticks and run O/W on that. Then run more havingness. And so
on and on with the same pattern until you get the case shifted on the cycle
of action and functional.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 18 FEBRUARY 1960
Staff Auditors
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
HOW TO RUN O/W AND RESPONSIBILITY
I have just yesterday finally sorted out the exact relation of
overt/withhold and responsibility as they apply to life and to auditing and
have pretty well wrapped up the optimum auditing commands: therefore I want
to get this data off to you as fast as possible and get it in use as soon
as possible because here again is an increase in auditing effectiveness
over and above our existing successes. In the next bulletin up I want to
give you a revised form of a model auditing session and after that
procedure OT 3A. However you can use this following material right now and
without those, and I recommend that you recognize what you have here as a
modification which changes all earlier statements even if they seem to you
slightly in conflict.
To begin: A person who does an overt act to another life form has
already abandoned responsibility for that other life form. An overt act and
a withhold are evidently expressions of abandoning responsibility already
extant and are therefore a manifestation of irresponsibility.
Therefore, for the sake of auditing skill as well as theory, overts and
withholds are the same as irresponsibility.
When running overts and withholds, according to the evidence now to
hand, you are actually running irresponsibility off the case. You are
taking away the lower inversion of responsibility.
The way to run an overt/withhold process is to choose a terminal with
an E-Meter. Early in the case choose terminals that are specific and close
to PT. When you have chosen the terminal by reason of its drop on the
needle and its reality in the pc's life, you run on it the following:
"What have you done to a ?"
"What have you withheld from a ?"
When addressed to a specific terminal it is worded:
"What have you done to ?"
"What have you withheld from ?"
Now this may require up to thirty hours to flatten on some cases. But
whatever you choose to do on a case then do that thing well. The tone arm
may or may not go down on this process. But it will become very different.
Try to end up the process with the tone arm lower than it was at the start.
If the pc runs out of answers well that's it. Don't force him hard. Just go
on to the second stage on the same terminal in a very generalized form.
By this time you have no more than discharged an irresponsibility and
you have the responsibility all to handle. Indeed, according to the many
cases I have now looked over, the tone arm may not even begin to come down
properly or come up properly until the second stage is run and flattened.
The second stage process is responsibility. You take the same terminal
you ran the O/W on and (if it was a specific form you now use a general
form, i.e. O/W on your mother becomes responsibility on a mother) run as
follows:
"What responsibility have you taken for a ?"
This is the process which will bring the tone arm down or up, but only
when the O/W is fully flattened first.
This above combination of processes is the fastest and surest main line
of auditing procedure now known. The above commands are far and above the
best proven commands.
As you can see the slightly older process "What could you admit doing
to a ?" and "What could you withhold from a ?" are indeed
manifestations of responsibility and factually are an index of
responsibility. But when it comes right down to cases the above versions
cover all cases and do it right.
What a lot there is to know about auditing today. Getting a combination
of processes such as the above for the general handling of cases relieves
us of the constant tension of what should I run and gives us time to
concentrate on a perfection of running it extremely well.
An auditor ought to be adept at CCHs and running the above. He ought to
be very sharp with an E-Meter and he ought to be able to run a model
session with no blunders. This done equals clearing people.
There is no substitute for training at the level of HCS/BScn. Running a
session right and handling an E-Meter and pc successfully are auditors'
skills. It must be admitted that very few auditors are possessed at this
time of complete and near perfect auditing ability. I take my own
responsibility for this and that responsibility lies in not having
established an inflexible regimen of auditing. I did not do so because
there was ample room for the improvement of techniques and auditing
routines. But these last five months of work have brought us closer and
closer to the exact right ways to handle cases and the exact processes to
run on them. This has arrived with a much fuller understanding of what
complexity man is accomplishing toward aberration with the fifty-five
axioms. Man got pretty complicated in digging himself in. It has been my
job to get pretty simple about digging him out.
The new key data which has emerged as clear-cut fact includes as an
invariable that the person himself dug himself in, lost sight of why, and
is holding himself in a state of stupidity, aberration and even insanity.
We suspected this for years, but a way to prove it and then give a person
personal reality on it was not mapped through. Now it is as tough as this.
If you run "What have you done?" "What have I done?" you can hold a tone
arm inactive. Every gain is balanced with a counter accusation, which is to
say a new overt, and so the process gets nowhere after a few questions. No,
the pc did it all himself and must gradually come to realize that with
total subjective reality through processing, not because the auditor told
him.
The pc made the facsimile to restrain himself from ever doing it again.
Basically good, he goes wrong by failing to keep his own high standards and
so loses control of himself.
Another datum: A high tone arm shows loss of the ability to start or
reach-a low tone arm (below the clear reading) shows the loss of ability to
stop or withhold.
In locating a terminal on an E-Meter (and why try to audit without one
of these key tools), remember that the needle drops only on those terminals
that the pc still feels some responsibility for. There is some
responsibility to be found on these. The drop does not mean that this is
what is wrong with the case so much as this is that thing wrong with the
case that can be remedied at this time. Overts don't even show up on a
terribly irresponsible case until some responsibility is restored. But a
rather irresponsible case run on the above procedures on any terminal that
does drop will get changes away from the clear reading on the tone arm.
To clear a case it is not so much necessary to run everything off the
case as it is to run whatever you run so well that the confidence of the
case is restored. Restoration of
confidence in being able to handle the bank and therefore life is a better
goal than trying to flatten the whole case indifferently. What you contact,
do it well no matter how long it takes. A good proceeding is to find
anything close to PT and in the environment of a pc (PTPs give a real good
clue) and then handle it with great thoroughness with the above procedure.
Any constant restimulator of PTPs aches to be audited with the above and
will do more for the case as a whole if the auditing is well done and
thorough than running any amount of back track. Confidence is the keynote
of clearing. That is what the pc lost on his way down.
Don't worry if the needle stays high or low and don't believe the pc is
still hiding something from you. You can take the above rundown and do it
all. The overts of the pc will eventually out. He doesn't tell you about
overts at first because he doesn't see them as overts. They were all
justified and the target has been lessened, etc, etc. Then when he has O/W
and responsibility run on any terminal that drops, his general
responsibility comes up to a point where he knows an overt was an overt.
I trust the above will correct any small disturbances that have been
occurring or any stalls you have been running into.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.jh
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
CenO HCO BULLETIN OF 23 FEBRUARY 1960
D of Ts
HPA COURSE CHANGE PROPOSAL TO LONDON
The following changed HPA/HCA Course schedule has been proposed to D of
T in London by Ron:
1 week Comm Course
1 week Upper Indoc
1 week CCHs
E-Meter practice
Some ACC TRs
1 week model sessions with E-Meter, using Cause ARC Straight Wire
Dynamic Assessment The six types of processes (Winter 56/57 from D.C.)
Great stress on running a perfect model session (HCO Bulletin of 25th
February 1960)
10 hours given and received on Op Pro by Dup.
Student trained to audit:
Cause ARC Straight Wire: (Three Commands)
1. "Recall a time you communicated to someone"
2. "Recall a time you felt affinity for someone"
3. "Recall something that was really real to you"
"What would you be willing to forget?"
Factual Havingness (Trio) and walkabout version (same process but
walking about in streets or in stores).
"Describe the problem etc" for Problems in Rudiments (don't use the
word "invent").
Engram Confront and Responsibility-how to run on them.
O/W and Responsibility on specific and general terminals.
Rising Scale.
A fast rundown on Route One.
Any and all versions of Confront.
Vocabulary of Dianetics and Scientology.
The Time Track. Circuits. Machines.
Create and Confront principles ( 1st Melbourne ACC).
Valences.
The Dynamics.
O/W and why people blow.
Muzzled auditing.
PE Foundation type work.
Marriage counselling (See D.C. tape on marriage, Jan '60).
Assists.
Short sessioning.
Be-Do-Have.
M-E-S-T.
Teach all these. Find morning tapes from HPA and ACC courses. Play
other HPA tapes '59 and selections from HCS and other ACCs (5th and 6th
London and 1st Melbourne) and play them straight through every late
afternoon, one hour per school day.
You don't have tapes to cover all the above, but HCO Bulletins do exist
on most.
Make students keep notebooks now as you are covering more than is
assembled in one place, and they'll need their notes outside.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.nm
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B was reissued on 1 March 1960 by HCO London.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Fran Hldrs HCO BULLETIN OF 25 FEBRUARY 1960
HCO Secs Assn
Secs Staff Auditors
For use in Academies
All courses
THE MODEL SESSION
It has been some time since anything like a proper model session has
been released. I have been researching on this for some little time now
looking over the proper wording, and although the do's and don'ts could
fill a considerable book (and will), the exact form and sequence of a
session and the exact wording of one can now be laid down for formal
repetitive command type auditing such as we are doing with O/W and
Responsibility and similar processes. I did not previously lay one down
because I considered there was wide room for change. I find now that there
are certain inevitable phenomena in an auditing session with all preclears,
and these mechanisms are handled by using the following set sequences and
wordings. In other languages some paraphrase of the words should be used
but the sequences and sense remain the same.
There are good reasons back of these exact proceedings but it would
take a book to set them all out exactly with examples. In this HCO Bulletin
let it suffice that we lay down the form and wordings.
TO START A SESSION
Adjust and calibrate as needful the E-Meter (don't audit without a
meter). Adjust pc's chair (never let him place it. If he does, give it
another slight shift as a control point).
Wording: "Is it all right with you if we begin this session now?" If
not, two-way comm it out and repeat.
"All right; Start of session" (tone forty this). Drop it thoroughly
over pc's head. If you have any doubts say "Has the session started for
you?" If he says "No" do it again and better. Emphasize that the session is
started. This means in effect that it's now the auditor's ball and that the
auditor will exert control from here on out in the session.
The instant this happens the Auditor's Code is in full force on the
auditor. There are no restrictions on the pc. The auditor's control
establishes the pc's behavior as far as possible and the processes pick up
the ARC breaks, etc.
RUDIMENTS
Always use rudiments and use them in this order. Use them even with a
child. Make a stab at them even with an unconscious person. The rudiments
are in this order because the last three parts of rudiments may require
some auditing, and if so you have started a session with no goals
established, hence goals come first.
GOALS: "What goals would you like to set for this session?" "All
right, any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?" Don't
challenge or question goals. Take what the pc says. Remember what he said
because you will check it at session end.
ENVIRONMENT: Is it all right to audit in this room?" If not, two-way
comm it until it is all right or run Factual Havingness on the room. "Look
around here and find something you could have."
AUDITOR CLEARANCE: "Is it all right if I audit you?" If not and you get
a meter fall, two-way comm it until it doesn't fall or run O/W on the
auditor. "What have you done to me?" "What have you withheld from me?"
Until meter doesn't fall. If this is going to be the session process anyway
as in a co-audit team, ease it off here.
PRESENT TIME PROBLEM: "Do you have any present time problem?" If meter
falls, run "Describe the problem to me." "How does it seem now?" Run this
until meter does not fall on the problem and tone arm is below where you
started.
STARTING A PROCESS: "Now I would like to run this process on you (name
it). What would you say to that?" Work out the wording by any means briefly
or longly. Don't challenge the pc's definition of words. The auditor has
reserved the right to change his mind. If it seems that the pc won't be
able to handle the announced process the auditor has said only that he
would like to run it and may now say "According to what we have been
talking about then it would seem better if I ran (name another process)."
If this is all right with the pc then begin the process.
"Here is the first command." (Give it.)
Acknowledge it.
Carry on with the session. Always audit a process until the tone arm is
lower on it than when the process was started. A process even when it isn't
flat may stop dropping on the meter needle but it will still be able to
move the tone arm from time to time. Abolish the idea that a rising needle
tells you anything but that the pc is being irresponsible. Dropping needles
tell you charge and shifting tone arms tell you increased or decreased
responsibility. Things that start the needle rising are of no great use to
you except to spot an irresponsibility and you don't use it on the needle
you use it on the tone arm.
If you start another process in the session start it exactly like the
above.
ENDING A PROCESS
If you are going to end a process in the session, bridge out of it
smoothly. If the pc seems a bit alert and won't be startled, tell the pc
that "If it's all right with you in a few more commands I am going to end
this process." Then do so, warning just before the last command "This is
the last command" and then give it.
On all processes which cycle the pc in and out of present time use
another wording as follows: "The next time you come close to present time I
am going to end this process." Then add before the acknowledgement "When
was that?" to each pc answer and then acknoweldge. When you get an answer
in the last day or two or in the same hour, end it. This is tricky going.
Be careful with it. Be smooth. But end it in close to pt.
You can always get a pc into pt (when you've been running an engram or
some process that leaves him back on the track) by starting a new process
(which has to be started as above): "Recall something" "When was that?"
Acknowledge. This is far, far better than "Come to present time"-you of
course bridge out of this at the same time you start it. "We are going to
run this only until you are close to present time and then end it!"
REPEATED COMMANDS
If a pc dopes off and then says something (not a cognition), or if a pc
says something instead of an answer (not a cognition), the auditor
understands it, acknowledges it and then says "I will repeat the auditing
command" and does so. This must not be used as an invalidation. If the pc
thinks he is answering the command or did answer it then apologize and give
him the next one.
COGNITIONS
If the pc comes up with a cognition (something he suddenly understands
or feels) ("Well what do you know about that?"), and yet has not answered
the command, the auditor does not say, "I will repeat the auditing
command." The auditor understands the cognition carefully, then
acknowledges it and repeats the command without saying that he is going to.
To say, "I will now repeat the auditing command" after the pc has come up
with a cognition is sometimes invalidative, since it yanks the pc's
attention to the auditor, the pc in the interest of the cognition having
forgotten the command utterly.
KEEP THE PC IN SESSION
The definition of in session is: PC INTERESTED IN OWN CASE AND WILLING
TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR.
Yanking the pc's attention to the auditor, making surprising motion
toward the pc and sudden noises, or doing something off beat yanks the pc's
attention to the auditor and is the source of a lot of ARC breaks. This is
quite painful to a pc sometimes and snaps whatever he is holding out from
him down on him by spoiling his confront of it.
Audit the pc where the pc's mind is. If you get drops on the meter you
have where the pc's mind is fixed. Run him on it, keep him on it until it's
flat. Don't distract him.
TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SESSION
If something goes wrong in the session it's the auditor's fault always.
So if people knock or a phone rings, promptly apologize to the pc "I'm
sorry." If the disturbance knocked the pc clean out of session handle it as
a present time problem as in the rudiments.
A RESTLESS OR ARC BREAKY PC
Establish the rudiments often and keep the pc from blowing. Never
justify errors. Be effective and keep the code. You'll win eventually even
with the worst pc if you follow the Auditor's Code and this model session.
ENDING A SESSION
Always end a session just as you began one-with full rudiments.
Therefore, leave time to get it all done, and if you have time to spare
then spend more time on end of session Rudiments, particularly havingness.
END RUDIMENTS
GOALS: "Do you feel you have made any part of your goals for this
session?" Take this up and take what the pc says. This is a fairly rapid
action, not to be prolonged as you will get him into problems from goals
and mess it up if you hang around on it.
AUDITOR AND ARC BREAKS: "How do you feel about my auditing in this
session?" If there is the faintest twitch of the needle, add: "I am going
to run some overt/withhold on you so here's the first command." "What have
you done to me in this session?" Acknowledge. "What have you withheld from
me in this session?" Acknowledge. As soon as you have the needle behaving
on the meter ask the pc how it is now, and if it's much better bridge it
out: "I will run a few more commands on this." And do so, warn for the last
command and give it and then drop it.
AUDITING ROOM: "Look around here and see if you can have anything." If
the E-Meter flicks about on this, at once start the process Factual
Havingness, "I am going to run a bit of havingness on this. Here is the
first command." "Look around here and find something you could have." Get
the flick out of the meter needle and bridge it off.
PRESENT TIME PROBLEM: "Do you have a present time problem now?" If so run
"Describe the problem to me." "How does it seem to you now?" until it no
longer flicks on meter. If the PTP didn't flick on the needle, skip it.
FINAL COMMANDS OF SESSION
Conclude the session when the end rudiments are done by saying "Is it
all right with you if we end this session now?" "All right, here it is. End
of Session" (tone 40).
The auditor can now say "All right, tell me I am no longer auditing
you."
When the pc does so, that's that.
When a session is over it is over and the Auditor's Code is over, but it's
poor taste and you'll have a rough time next time if you criticize the pc
or what he did or said in the session.
WARNINGS
Always get the auditing command answered. Never let the pc skip an
auditing command. If it isn't answered to the pc's satisfaction, there you
are until it is answered. Never let any auditing command go unanswered.
With O/W, responsibility or a rough session in general, always run a
lot of Havingness at the end of it.
Never restart a process the moment it is ended. You may suddenly see it
wasn't flat or he wasn't really in pt. Well, that's tough. Get it next time
or get him into pt with "Recall something", but don't make a bad control
example by restarting what you just now ended. In other words, never double
bridge, note it down and get it next session.
Run at the case reality of the pc so he gets wins. If he ARC broke
heavily last session you probably had him in over his or her head, so use
an easier process this next time. That terminal is real to the pc that
drops on the E-Meter even when he says it's unreal or didn't even know
about it. Run things that fall and you will have interested pcs-clean them
up on the tone arm once you've begun and you'll have cooperative pcs.
Whatever you start do it well no matter how many sessions it takes or
how minor it seems to be. Do one thing well on the case and you advance the
case. Do one thing poorly and you drop the pc down tone. Two hundred hours
on one engram (that's an exaggeration) is better than one hour each on two
hundred engrams. Do it well. It's confidence regained that makes clears,
not quantity of stuff run.
Run the pc always at cause.
If the pc is worn out with having created something in the last few
lives or in this present lifetime, run anything that drops about the
creativeness on "What about a (that terminal) can you confront?"
To get the pc over any condition or aberration that he is agonizing to
get rid of, find a terminal that adds up to it and run single confront on
that terminal. Example: If the pc is sick, the process would be "What about
a sick person could you confront?" If the person is homo, it's "What about
a homosexual could you confront?" Just like old-time 8-8008 creative
processes and SOP 8, but with terminals and confront. A person going round
the bend on an obsession or a compulsion or a fixation shouldn't be audited
on sweetness and light. They are too desperate; run them where the mind is
fixated and get their attention freed. Don't run alternate confront
anymore. It stalls the tone arm.
Don't use "If it's wrong with you then you did it", or snide "Well what
did you do?" when the pc is upset. Let him have a motivator or few as you
ease him into the groove. But running the motivator and overt one after the
other gives little or no gain. The motivator mentioned is a new overt and
stalls the case.
The essence of good auditing is smooth confident CONTROL. The essence
of control is smooth Start Change and Stop. Control is the background music
to all overts and responsibility, knowledge and everything else, so let's
have a smooth Start Change and Stop in sessions and you'll see it begin to
win win win where it limped before. Academies really knock auditors into
shape so they can. There is no substitute for good pro training. But pro or
no it's a smooth session that wins. People that won't control can't audit.
So here is the model session and I hope for you brand new gains. Use it
thoroughly and by the rote and you'll have no arguments.
LRH js.mm.rd L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 FEBRUARY 1960
MA
BPI
SCIENTOLOGY CAN HAVE A GROUP WIN
If every one of us relieved his conscience of all his transgressions
against others, what would happen to society?
The social ills of Man are chiefly a composite of his personal
difficulties. The combined dishonesties of individuals add into the
formidable total of aberrated Third and Fourth Dynamics.
Criminality and war (and is there a difference? ) came about because of
a staggering social aberration. This is only a composite of individual
aberrations. People who believe otherwise are just being irresponsible for
their share.
Each man and woman on Earth has contributed to this massive tangle of
transgression. The overts and withholds of each are added to the total mass
of social ills. Further, one man or one woman failing to take his or her
share in the general responsibility which makes society sane works as a
further subtractive from group or world effectiveness.
There are many, many instances on record now of a whole social
situation clearing up with others when one person was processed on the
problem. A wife, estranged for years, processed on her husband and his
family, quite commonly hears from them. The enmity, vanquished in her,
vanished from them.
There is, therefore, more to this than an arithmetical one for one
throughout the world. It would not be necessary to process, apparently,
every person on Earth to bring sanity to Earth.
First there is the easily seen advantage of returning communication and
honesty to just one person by removing his overts and withholds from the
total sum. On this proposition alone we could win. And we should try to win
on this, whatever else we do. Each person should restore himself to
communication with Mankind and the world by removing from himself his own
transgressions and failures.
To this we add the fact that each person so processed becomes a strong
point of effectiveness which then influences his associates and eventually,
even if only by this influence, discharges their confusions.
And then to this we add the fact that when one's own transgressions are
dismissed the persons involved in them, even when not processed, tend to
become unburdened.
And if we strongly influence others to become honest by getting their
overts and withholds processed, we have approached with thorough and hard-
headed practicality a resolution of the social ills of Man.
This is an impulse which can become a wave, and from a wave can grow
into an avalanche that would sweep away the snarled tangles from human life
on Earth.
All great cathedrals began their building by the placement of a single
stone.
The building unit of a great society is the individual.
We can speak of clearing in a broader sense and we can discuss its
potentials for Earth. But while we work at that there is today another
meaning to the word-a smaller meaning to the individual perhaps but a
greater meaning to all men. Since it can happen now, in a few hours of good
processing: the clearing of one's transgressions in this lifetime and the
taking of responsibility therefore.
We are a group inured to high-flown tasks. This is an easy task to
confront.
HGCs can do this for people. Field Auditors can do this for people. We
can demonstrably and easily clear in under a hundred hours all the key
overts and withholds from a case in all directions and restoring
responsibility thereon. We have the skills. I know we have the will.
Every Scientologist can get this done. And every Auditor can do it
using an E-Meter, and the processes of HCO Bulletin of February 18th, 1960
and the session model of HCO Bulletin of February 25th, 1960. The task is
well within the scope of the skills of even the newly trained.
I think you will agree with me that this one we can do. And I assure
you that doing it on a case gives that case its fastest available relief.
Later we can carry the case forward to higher levels with all the gain that
would bring-but just now can we not assume a goal that falls within the
reality of all of us?
For it is no accusation for any person living in our times to say that
he can be relieved of transgressions against his fellows. And even that
small amount picked up from the great web of lies leaves the tangle surely
less.
This programme is a simplicity. Its technology is to hand, proven and
rechecked. And it points ahead to a big win.
Shall we take this step to a clearer Earth as our first great group
accomplishment?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HAVE YOU LIVED BEFORE THIS LIFE
by
L. Ron Hubbard
Published March 1960
Have You Lived Before This Life?, subtitled "A Scientific Survey," is a
study of past life incidents discovered during the 5th London Advanced
Clinical Course of 21 October-29 November 1958. It contains an introduction
to the subject, a statement of how the survey was conducted and by whom,
and reports of forty-two incidents recalled by Scientologists attending the
course. These incidents are dated between the twentieth century and many
billions of years ago, and their locations range from England, Norway and
Tibet to planets many galaxies distant.
Not only are these incidents fascinating, but their narration reflects
how Scientology engram running was done.
The 21st American ACC (January-February 1959) also covered Scientology
engram running; however, case histories in this book come only from the 5th
London ACC.
176 pages, hardcover with dust jacket, glossary. Available from your
nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers:
Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V,
Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West
Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MARCH 1960
Fran Hldrs
Central Orgs
OT-3A PROCEDURE
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
This bulletin supersedes all earlier bulletins.
Any case that cannot adequately define simple words like help, change,
problem, control, responsibility: Run CCHs 1, 2, 3, 4 as per their earliest
bulletins.
STEP ONE:
Rudiments-(See Model Session HCO Bulletin of February 25th, 1960.)
Goals
Surroundings
Auditor and ARC Breaks
Present Time Problem
Establish Rudiments every session. Establish them more often with
touchy pcs.
STEP TWO:
Run Cause ARC Straight Wire to give pc a win on getting audited. Once
each over and over. End process only with pc in present time on cycle.
"Recall communicating to someone"
"Recall a time you felt affinity for someone"
"Recall something that is really real to you"
STEP THREE:
S-C-S
High Needle Case: Run with emphasis on START
Low Needle Case: Run with emphasis on STOP
STEP FOUR:
Scout for present life overts and withholds. If found run "What about
that incident could you be responsible for?" (See note on Responsible.)
Flatten off all present life overt/withholds and zones of irresponsibility
(high or low needle).
This should bring the needle into quietness and the tone arm down to
clear reading for the pc's sex.
On a low tone arm case, particularly below two, find a terminal that is
in a stuck picture and run withhold on that terminal: "What could you
withhold from a ?"
If an overt is a very bad one that the pc can take little
responsibility for, run O/W on the specific terminal involved, then
generalize the terminal form in the command and run responsibility.
Commands here are "What have you done to ?" "What have you withheld
from ?" Then "What responsibility have you taken for a
?"
When a pc has done a very bad overt to a person or thinks he has, his
level of responsibility is already below zero on that type of person.
Therefore responsibility run on the specific terminal (such as "Agnes")
won't work as pc's responsibility on "a
woman" was very low before he did an overt to "Agnes". Therefore it would
be O/W on "Agnes" and responsibility on "a woman".
The whole essence of clearing in this lifetime is done by the steps up
to and including this one. The procedure would be to locate the present
life overts (or personnel in PT Problems), run O/W on them and then
responsibility on the general form.
STEP FIVE:
Clear the pc's field with responsibility as per recent HCO Bulletin on
black, invisible or dub-in cases. When pc sees pictures of PT then go at
case in general. O/W on persons in a stuck picture will move it. Running
withhold only on such persons will raise a low needle case.
STEP SIX:
Run "What about a victim could you be responsible for?" until tone arm
tends to read at clear reading for sex in this lifetime.
Whenever the pc encounters an incident that seems very sticky, which is
to say when the picture sticks many commands by the E-Meter, spot the time
in terms of years ago and down to the month and day. When the incident is
spotted, if it continues to hang up run it as an incident with this
command: "What about that incident could you be responsible for?" and as
needful on a two way comm basis, and by any process as needed get off its
overts and withholds and 'who would it make feel guilty?"
When any incident is reasonably flat continue with "What about a victim
could you be responsible for?"
This does not mean that you spot and run every incident encountered.
Spot and run only those that stick.
STEP SEVEN:
Explore the immediate past lifetime or lifetimes of the pc. Get the
pc's identity and form (sometimes they were animals), and if lifetime
alters position of tone arm run "What about (name) would you be willing to
be?" "What about (name) would you rather not be?"
Do this until incident is flat. If heavy engram in such lifetime
sticks, run "What about that incident could you be responsible for?"
STEP EIGHT:
Run down any famous or enduring identities of the pc on the whole
track, and handle as above.
Ease off this with responsibility on a victim.
STEP NINE:
Do a dynamic assessment on the pc and locate any terminal that drops,
and run on this "What responsibility could you take for a ?"
If a severe incident turns up flatten with responsibility on the
incident.
This step can be done many times. Most of the pc's case will be found
connected with some general terminal.
STEP TEN:
Do a survey of case, finding anything that the pc has trouble
confronting and run responsibility on it.
Clues: Sick Person-Insane Person-Robot-Prize Fighter-Worker.
STEP ELEVEN:
Find anything pc has created arduously for a long time and run
responsibility on it.
STEP TWELVE:
Run Responsibility on Matter, Energy, Space, Time, Motion and Thought.
Confront can be run first on these as a kinder step.
Caution: Until some confront and responsibility are run on some cases
no present life overts show up. Control, Confront and Responsibility are
the key to high and low tone arms. Always handle any severe overts that
turn up on case with responsibility process.
Do not run a massless terminal such as "sex" or "help". Find instead
some actual terminal, not a significance.
Beware running adjectival commands such as "Frigid woman" or "a little
boy with a mole under his left grin". Run instead the plainest terminal
that drops.
Do not run things that are not real to the pc as he has made them
unreal to lessen the overt. Instead run lots of overt finding processes
such as "What could you admit causing a (terminal real to pc)?" alternated
with "What could you withhold from a (same terminal)?"
NOTE: Confront can be run as a prelude to any and all responsibility, with
the following command "What about (....) could you confront?" Do not use
the dichotomy version (rather not). Confront is sometimes easier, sometimes
harder than responsibility.
Much of the material here is on the Washington 1960 HCS tapes.
Usage of the rundown should be taught on staff theta clearing courses.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.pl.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 MARCH 1960
Fran Hldrs
Central Orgs
EXPANSION OF OT-3A PROCEDURE, STEP TWO
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
Step Two of OT-3A Procedure is as follows:
Run Cause ARC Straight Wire to give pc a win on getting audited. Once
each over and over. End process only with pc in present time on cycle.
"Recall communicating to someone"
"Recall a time you felt affinity for someone"
"Recall something that is really real to you"
Now people do have time tracks, the time span of the individual from
beingness to present time on which lies the sequence of events of his total
existence. And when the preclear is in session and is being run on a recall
type process, he, with his attention, goes up and down this time track. He
may recall things only from this life or he may recall things from his
whole past track; but however that may be, his attention cycles from early
on the track to present time or from present time to early on the track to
present time. This is known as the cycle aspect of recall type processes.
In ending such a process, it is of utmost importance that the auditor end
it with the preclear in present time on the cycle. The auditor wants to
watch ending the process when the preclear has not made a smooth cycle into
present time, but has made a big jump from way back in the past to present
time. In such a case, the preclear has really bounced out of the past
incident into present time, and it is only an apparency that the preclear
is in present time.
So when ending such a process, the auditor must exert caution to be
certain the preclear is in present time. Being left with one's attention
back on the track is not a comfortable sensation and sometimes can be quite
painful, despite any justification offered by an auditor who himself has no
reality on the time track, and I hope there are no such auditors.
With Cause ARC Straight Wire, the auditor must forget his
fastidiousness about ending the process precisely so on the last command,
"Recall something that is really real to you." He ends the process, no
matter on what command of Cause ARC Straight Wire, when the preclear's
attention has come into or close to present time, close to present time
being the last day or two.
In ending such a process the communication bridge used is as follows:
"The next time you come close to present time I am going to end this
process." He continues to give the commands using the question, "When was
that?", after each answer the preclear gives and before the
acknowledgement. When the preclear gives an answer close to present time,
he says, "That was the last command of that process; end of process." Bang.
With processes that cycle, there can be no communication bridges like, "If
it's alright with you in a few more commands I am going to end this
process." It could take fifty more commands until the preclear is close to
present time; and by that time, the preclear has entirely forgotten that
there ever was any intention on the auditor's part to end the process as it
seems to him that the auditor must have changed his mind and decided to run
the process longer than a few commands.
An auditor should not get upset with a preclear when the auditor, in an
effort to get the preclear to give an answer right in present time, starts
the preclear back down
the time track again. Remember it is the auditor who calls the shot, and if
he misses, then he had better learn to gage it a bit better. A good auditor
allows himself time in which to properly end a process.
Now two further cyclic processes which can be seen under Step Two of OT-
3A are:
1. "What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?"
2. "What would you permit to have happen again?"
These are called Cause Elementary Straight Wire and are two separate
processes which are not to be run alternately.
The first process puts the preclear at cause over forgetting, and the
second process rehabilitates the preclear's ability to duplicate. These are
both terrific processes in turning on recall in the preclear. All processes
under Step Two are unlimited, with the "make forgotten" one only slightly
less unlimited as it has a bit of a tendency to run down havingness.
Havingness, however, should be checked upon in each session and run as
needed.
The auditor should not consider Step Two of OT-3A lightly. These
processes are, in reality, very potent and will certainly do more for CCH-
step cases than anything we have had before. An example of this is how
preclears broke through from psychosis to neurosis to sanity with the
simplified version of ARC Straight Wire as given in the original Self
Analysis. So use these processes and win faster.
Note: On second thoughts for purposes of differentiation, the first
process, "What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?", should be
termed Cause Elementary Straight Wire; and the second process, "What would
you permit to have happen again?", shall be called Duplication Straight
Wire. These two processes were first used in early Advanced Clinical
Courses in Phoenix and were called at that time "Elementary Straightwire".
The commands of "Elementary Straightwire" as given in Dianetics 1955 were:
"Give me something you wouldn't mind remembering" and "Give me something
you wouldn't mind forgetting". As the ability to recall depends upon the
mechanisms of forgetting and remembering (the ability to duplicate) you can
easily understand the importance of these in Step Two of OT-3A.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1960
Fran Hldrs
STANDARDIZED SESSIONS
There are many reasons why sessions should be standardized and held in
pattern. First of these is confidence. The auditor, going over practised
ground, feels more confident and, startled by some sudden action or new
development, does not lose session control by seeming incapable to the pc.
The preclear, accustomed to repetitive session pattern, feels a security
when all his sessions are predictable as to pattern of address. And if he
changes auditors he is still able to feel confident that he is getting real
auditing.
A second reason is duplication: Just as old repeater technique done by
the auditor to the pc will run out a phrase or charged word, so do session
patterns, well followed, tend to run out earlier sessions. Duplication does
not make all things seem alike. Duplication of a session adds communication
to the session and speeds up the willingness of the pc to communicate to
the auditor.
The basic freeing action of auditing depends upon the separation of
thought from form, matter, energy, space and time and other life.
We see in "science" as currently practised a nearly total
identification by the "scientist" of mass with thought. "Man from mud" is a
natural conclusion by anyone who has all his thought bound up in mass.
The reason a clear's needle is so free (and you've seen, certainly, how
an E-Meter needle gets sticky, then freer and freer) is that his thought is
separated from a matter, energy, space, time consequence.
The "deadin-'is-'ead" case is totally associating all thought with
mass. Thus he reads peculiarly on the meter. As he is audited he frees his
thinkingness so that he can think without mass connotations.
What auditing is doing is making the preclear think key thoughts until
they can be thought without creating or disturbing matter, energy, space
and time.
As most pcs associate themselves with thought, only when they can think
a thought without ploughing anew into mass can they exteriorize. Difficult
exteriorization or exteriorization with bad consequences is all caused by a
person's considerations of thought being matter, self being matter, etc,
etc.
The basic overt act is making somebody else want mest. This recoils so
that self wants mest. Thus we have the "necessity for havingness". Running
havingness restores the pc at cause over matter, permits him to be separate
from matter to some degree.
Thinking, then, is separated from mest by repetitive thinking on the
exact points that pin a particular person to mest.
If a person is aberrated, say, on the subject of women, the shortest
cut to de-aberration (barring havingness difficulties-see below) would be
the repeated command "Think of a woman." At last he would no longer have
pictures or masses just because he thought that thought and you would then
find he could think about women as opposed to reacting about women.
This naturally leads to an obvious basic process, "Think about matter"
"Think about energy" "Think about space" "Think about time" "Think about a
thetan." In theory each one could be run flat in turn and then all run
again.
In actual practice this is pretty steep for most cases and would not be
real to many. A more complex approach containing more significance is more
real to the pc.
The pc's mind is trapped into forms of mest and life, rather than
merely mest and life. Thus, what falls on the E-Meter needle shows what
form of mest and life his attention is fixed upon.
Havingness is a complicated subject when viewed in a pc's mind.
Familiarity, which is to say, predictability, is strongly connected with
his ability to have or own. When he receives shocks or surprises, his
ability to predict is invalidated and he can't have.
The reason a thetan "dies" is his loss of the familiar by the
introduction of the unpredictable. Rapidity of change of state,
unpredicted, would be a definition of surprise, also of death and
forgetfulness.
The more change he is subjected to, that he did not predict, the less
he can have.
Thus when he is given a "rough session", the pc's havingness goes down.
Not predicting the shifts and changes of the auditor, the pc ceases to be
able to have the session or its appurtenances-the auditor, the room, etc.
The smoother the auditing the better the pc's havingness stays up.
The model session is designed to avoid unpredictable changes. Thus it
is designed to retain havingness by retaining pattern, which is to say,
retaining predictability by l;he pc.
Auditing, done smoothly, duplicatively session by session as to session
pattern, runs itself out, even if the pc has a constantly changing bank.
A pc began to use pictures when he changed lives and sometimes,
therefore, language, but only after he had already adopted language for
thought. So an ultimate step in processing could concern itself with
separating the pc from the significance of words. Some such process as
"Think of a word," followed by "Think of a meaning," would in theory, if it
could be run (but has not been tested and would violate havingness),
discharge the pc of his dependence on language for thought and would find
him less fixated on having pictures (which of course bridge the language
barrier).
Appearing in a form composed of matter, running on energy, existing in
space and keeping pace with others in time is a favour pcs do one another
(or an overt act depending on how cynical you may feel when you consider
it).
The games condition of havingness is have for self, can't have for
others. Appearing in a form violates this games condition. Also, giving
another words violates it. Thus actors and writers tend to go downhill by
violating their own games condition if they are in one. A games condition
evolves from separateness. Running some form of separateness can then
result in exteriorization not from willingness to lose the mass of the body
but by curing the games condition. Separateness is of course handled on
lower cases by running out obsessive connectedness. But separateness itself
can be run.
Any auditing is a solution: Solutions are ordinarily an alter-is of
problems. Thus getting people to confront problems or even solutions can
resolve not only case but auditing where auditing itself has now and then,
in absence of smooth analysis and session handling, become a problem to the
preclear.
A fine process for this is "Tell me a problem that auditing would be a
solution to," and for that matter, this also applies to any psychosomatic
illness. A person with a bad leg would experience relief if audited on
"Tell me a problem a bad leg would be a solution to," as a repetitive
process. Similarly, it might work if one asked "Tell me a solution to a bad
leg you could confront," or "What problem about a leg could you confront?"
which last is very good as a process.
The separation of thinkingness from a problem, from particular forms, and
from Life and Mest are the primary targets of auditing. And just as the
repetitive auditing command runs out not only the connection with a mass
but itself, so does a repetitive session design eventually free the pc from
not only his aberrations but auditing itself.
A person gets as able as he regains confidence-and he gets as free as
his auditing is a constant not itself a wild variable.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1960
RESEARCH PROJECT
May I request the assistance of all auditors in the following research
programme:
Have You Lived Before This Life?, the new HASI book, has elicited such
deep interest that it will be followed in a few months by a sequel: Where
Are You Buried?
You can help by doing the following. (a) Check out your pcs for recent
deaths, and any you find have died in the last century in the country where
you are, (b) write down all particulars for record. (c) Then go to the
place of burial and locate grave or get a copy of the death roll from
official sources or both. And (d) send all data, the story of the life and
death, to HCO WW, Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex. Be sure you
have pc's permission for data to be used. Be sure the data is authentic in
every possible way. The resulting collection may be published in book form.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.jh
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MARCH 1960
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
All Staff Auditors
D of P
D of T
GOALS IN THE RUDIMENTS
A session is a cycle of action.
Unless it is started, continued and ended properly the preclear is put
in continuous session. If it is not given a proper cycle of action it does
not result in any control of the preclear.
Rudiments are not something it is nice to do. Rudiments are something
that must be done.
A great deal of the value of auditing lies in the mechanics of the
session itself. If you wish to demonstrate this for yourself all you have
to do is try short sessioning. This consists of starting, continuing for a
few minutes, a session, and ending the session. It has good gain qualities
for a pc who has poor concentration. It does not matter what is run. What
matters is that direct control of thought results in setting an example
that thought can be controlled.
A session without proper rudiments is a session without control. A
session without control gets no gains of any note.
After working with this for years I believe a nearly foolproof method
of handling the rudiments has been developed.
The parts of modern rudiments are as follows:
Goals
Surroundings
Auditor and ARC breaks
Present Time Problem
End rudiments:
Present Time Problem
Auditor and ARC breaks
Surroundings
Goals
(Note the end rudiments are changed in order from HCO Bulletin of February
25, 1960.)
GOALS
Goals are set at the beginning of the session in order to make the
preclear postulate session occurrence. If the pc says nothing about goals
or even says nothing will happen, probably nothing will happen of any note
in the session. Goals are taken up first in a session before environment,
auditor or problems because these may entail auditing if they are not
right, and the moment you start to audit the last three then you are
running a session without setting goals and may run the entire session of
the auditor or the present time problem and muff it because no goal was
ever set. The auditor who does not set up goals immediately following the
start of a session may wind up without getting a chance to set goals.
There is a lot to know about goals. There have been processes entirely
devoted to goals. A great many more processes could be developed about
goals. However the value of these tools or processes does not compare to
just getting a goal or three set for the session itself. If you run into
difficulties about goals there are two processes which can be used, and
perhaps other old processes might also be worked on the subject.
The basic reason we give stress to goals is to keep the auditor from
making one of the greatest fundamental errors he can make: The auditor is
processing in one direction and the pc wants to go in another. This creates
a basic disagreement between auditor and pc which prevents auditing from
getting anywhere and results squarely in ARC breaks and upsets. Where these
are frequent this mistake must be supposed to exist and must be cleared up.
There are only three things a pc can do in a session so far as results
are concerned: he can get better, he can stay the same, he can get worse.
Therefore there are only three basic types of goals: improvement goal, no-
change goal, deterioration goal. All this derives from survive and succumb
as the two opposite poles.
The auditor may be seeking improvement while all the pc wants to do is
succumb. The auditor may be trying to keep the pc from getting worse and
the pc wants only to get better. The auditor (but let's hope not) may be
working unconsciously or otherwise on a particular pc to make him or her
worse and the pc is trying to get better. Of course in the last case O/W is
indicated for the auditor on this type of pc. Fortunately the last type is
rare.
The commonest disagreement on goals comes about on the first mentioned.
The auditor wants improvement and the pc wants deterioration. Some auditor
trying wildly to make a pc better gets a failure only because he has never
closely observed the pc's goals and hasn't got this straight with the pc.
If goals go wrong the simplest process to clear the pc on direction is
a problem process. This might sound odd, but it is quite true. The fastest
goals process is a general problems process. This occurs because the pc in
looking over problems falls into realizing what his actual desires are. The
quickie version of this process handles solutions in this fashion:
The auditor looks over the preclear and sees that the pc has some
obvious disability. He asks the pc if the pc has any disability and steers
it into getting the pc to bring this one to light. This would be something
like a bad foot or cough. One selects a mass terminal for this disability,
such as chest for the cough (whatever the pc says it is), and runs the
following command, "What problem would a bad foot be a solution to?" Using
this on one or more disabilities and running it a while (until pc is in pt
on it) shows the pc at once that at least as far as a foot is concerned he
has been trying to succumb.
This is a very ordinary occurrence since factually any chronic
psychosomatic is an effort to succumb. Remember that the doors are all
locked from within by the pc himself.
If pc is still reluctant and upset about goals or isn't getting better
faster because of the solutions process above, run some consequences in
this fashion: "What would you be likely to do if you didn't have a bad
foot?" This makes the pc look at it some more, and some responsibility run
on what he has said he might do will clear the thing away.
The general process that uncovers most of this is "Tell me a problem";
when pc has, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" When
pc has, the auditor says again, "Tell me a problem," etc, etc, etc, on a
repetitive basis.
Now remember that we weren't trying to make his foot well. That may or
may not happen with any rapidity. What we are trying to get the pc to look
at is that his goal alignment is not an improvement but a deterioration.
The old process of worse than, minus the invent part, also accomplishes the
same end: "Think of something worse than a bad foot." This on a repetitive
basis will turn up all sorts of horrible consequences to not having a bad
foot. Of course having a victim with his face kicked in before one and the
police sirens sounding is worse than having a bad foot by the pc's
rationale.
Because people hold in and cripple themselves mentally and physically
to keep from doing things they know are wrong, goals, more frequently than
you would like to find, are in the direction of getting worse. Until you
untangle this one as an auditor you may not be able to make any lasting
progress with a pc.
Factually a pc in bad condition is more likely to have succumb goals
than survive goals.
When handling rudiments, get the pc to set a goal, any goal or even two
or three goals he really thinks he can make in the session. But if after
two or three sessions it is apparent that he is not achieving his goals as
set by him in the session, despite care to handle them by the auditor with
processing, it should be suspected that the pc is technically an "opposite
vector" case and has private goals quite the reverse to getting better.
When one has uncovered this fact as the auditor, without evaluation, he had
better get it uncovered to the pc.
There are no auditing failures. There are only errors in auditing.
Chief amongst these errors is failure to take up and straighten out the
pc's goals. That is the first amongst the rudiments and last in the end
rudiments so it must be pretty important. Don't discount its value, and
handle it with the attention it deserves.
Once upon a time or two I have asked some auditor auditing me what his
goals for the session were. It produced some interesting randomity. But a
pc is under no orders but the auditor's and it isn't something that is
needed in the session. Also I have just up and told the pc what I would
like to get done in the session and sometimes it worked and sometimes it
didn't, and I found that what the pc wanted to get done and what the pc
said he or she wanted to get done were more important.
Unless the pc postulates his recovery, it won't last even if you make
him recover in spite of himself or herself. The way to make the pc
postulate it is by handling goals as above. The pc is often very startled
by what he finds out about his actual intentions.
I have stopped being startled by what pcs do. I find that when they
don't recover very fast they don't want to and I start working over their
goals no matter what else seems to be the matter.
The CCHs work better if rudiments are used, but sometimes that's
impossible due to state of the pc. Take up goals with such a pc at the
first available chance however and make your work easier.
Life is a series of attained goals. Auditing requires at least the
setting of goals and their attainment.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MARCH 1960
All Auditors in
South Africa
CenOCon
INTERROGATION
(How to read an E-Meter on a silent subject)
When the subject placed on a meter will not talk but can be made to
hold the cans (or can be held while the cans are strapped to the soles or
placed under the armpit, I am sorry if that sounds brutal, it isn't), it is
still possible to obtain full information from the subject.
Asking questions, one expects no reply, asks for no pictures. The
auditor just watches the needle for dips when questions are asked.
It is best to start with several nul questions: "Will it rain?" "Do you
like bread?" etc. And then shift off to heavier leads. At any time the
subject gets too agitated to read, return to asking nul questions or use
the agitation as a dip.
Meter response for "No" or negative or don't know = no fall.
Meter response for "Maybe" "You're getting close" = slight fall.
Meter response for "Yes" or "Correct" = steep fall.
Sample interrogation: Subject is given cans. Nul questions are asked.
Then:
"Were you persuaded to make trouble?" (fall)
"Was the person who persuaded you a native?" (fall)
"What was the person's name?" (no verbal answer, heavy fall)
"Do you know where the person who persuaded you lives?" (heavy fall)
(Name various nearby towns.)
"Does the person live in .. ?"
Take town with heaviest fall.
Divide town named into streets, sections, sort out the exact part of
the town named. Give leads on location until you know the house.
If person were educated you would use: "Considering the alphabet to
divide at 0, does the person's last name start with a letter in the first
half of the alphabet (pause, look at meter) or the last half of the
alphabet" (pause, look at meter, compare the two readings-you may have to
ask this two or three times). "All right, it was the first half. Now was it
A, B, C, was it D, E, F, etc." "Now the second letter of the person's last
name ... ", (repeat the same performance).
It's a good idea to mark down your findings on a blackboard where the
subject can see them if he's very reluctant and can read.
A phonetic system can be worked out for subjects who are not educated.
Maps of town areas are useful. With one eye on the meter you just point to
areas of the map and let the meter guide you in.
When you have worked out an area or name, repeat it several times and
shift it around until you get maximum drop.
A whole mine of information can be picked up from a silent person.
On reporters, looking for possible accidents is a good convincer. Tell
the reporter
not to speak and use over and under times "Have you ever had an accident?"
"Was it more than five years ago?" "Was it less than five years ago?" Watch
the needle, pin it down to maximum fall. That's the year. Now get the month
(first or last half of year, then, for first half, ask about Jan, Feb,
Mar). Month found get the day. Then the hour of the day. Then the type of
vehicle or accident. Then who was hurt, etc. Reporters always start talking
somewhere along about this time. Don't pay any attention. Just go on and
nail it down.
In a security check, you want the person who persuaded the person you
have on the cans to engage in a riot. When you locate and have brought this
new person, you do the same thing. But now you have a whole committee of
names to get and your subject is better educated.
Taking ten people from a strike or riot, you can find the instigator of
their group. Finding the instigator and getting him on the cans you can run
it back to a higher command level.
The end product is the discovery of a terrorist, usually paid, usually
a criminal, often trained abroad.
Given a dozen people from any riot or strike, you can find the
instigator of that group or more than one. Finding that one, you can get
his boss.
Twenty or thirty paid agents provocateurs can keep a whole country in
revolt. Clean them up and the riots collapse.
Thousands are trained every year in Moscow in the ungentle art of
making slave states. Don't be surprised if you wind up with a white.
Revolts kill an awful lot of natives. Only when security has been
established can a reform be applied.
Use E-Meter "clean hands" to convince people that a population is loyal
and that reforms are in order.
In the riots in London, anybody arrested has his fine paid for him by
some mysterious group. Demonstrators are recruited. So this isn't limited
to South Africa.
Crack the agents provocateurs' identities and you've cracked the new
slavery of Earth-the worker's production demanded by the state for nothing.
We have a lot of reforms ourselves but we don't need criminal agents or
dead people killed in riots to put them in effect. Don't use guns, use E-
Meters to make a country secure.
By the way, the answer to passive resistance is for the government to
passive strike against any district from which it occurs. No water, lights,
pay, government or service. Simply use the same tactic back. Don't use
guns, cordon the area off and shut off power and water.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright � 1960 by
L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[HCO B 2 January 1967, Dating-Forbidden Words, Volume VI, page 191, changes
the words used for dating. See The Book of E-Meter Drills, Drill EM-25, for
correct E-Meter dating procedure. ]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1960
Fran Holders
THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM
Everybody has present time problems at times. They come up
unexpectedly. They happen, between intensives. They pop up between
sessions. They, indeed, occur within sessions. And the auditor who neglects
to handle them when they arise will get little auditing done.
It's the present time problem that sticks the graph, makes it register
no change. (It's ARC breaks that drop one.)
What is a "PTP", as the auditors write it in their reports?
It is basically the inability to confront the dual terminal nature of
this universe.
It is an inability to span attention and denotes that the pc who is
having lots of PTPs has his attention very fixed on something.
The definition of a problem is intention v. intention or "two or more
opposing and conflicting views on the same subject".
If the pc has problems with wife or husband, we can be sure that they
have divergent views on some basic thing in life. Thus the auditor who has
a pc who always has PTPs with one, the same, person, had better run O/W
(overt-withhold) on that terminal in a specific form (George) and then
responsibility on the general form (a husband). Thus a PTP is as good as an
assessment. Find what terminals the pc has PTPs about and handle that
terminal as above. Indeed this is more than a trick-it's a great time-
saver. One can waste hours on a pc who repeatedly comes up with a PTP on
the same person. But that person in the PTP is often the current clue to
the case. "Grace the wife" leads to "a wife" leads to "a woman".
Present time problems are not always concerned with the world outside
auditing. Auditors can be a PTP to the pc, especially when the pc has big
withholds!
PROCESSES ON PTPs
Present time problem processes are many. The earliest was two-way comm.
A later one was "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to ........" But
this one of course is a create type process and is therefore very limited.
Still another process was "Tell me your problem." "How does it seem to
you now?" This almost runs the whole case.
A recent one that has workability is "What problem could you confront?"
This finds out for the pc that he can't confront a problem at first without
doing something about it. That isn't confronting the problem. This is an
amusing, effective and educative process.
Problems tend to snap in on the pc. The mechanism here is that he
cannot confront them so, of course, they snap in upon him. When he invents
a few the first problem he had visibly moves away from him. This last is
now a demonstration, not a process, because of the create factor.
The fastest current process is "Tell me your problem." "What part of that
problem have you been responsible for?" This is an alternate question
process. You will find the problem changes and changes. It runs the whole
case.
A general process on problems, which is a very healthy process, is
"What problem have you been (or might you have been) responsible for?"
The easiest process on problems to run, if slower, is "Tell me your
problem." "What part of that problem could you confront?"
CONFUSION AND THE STABLE DATUM
Problems are nasty case stickers because in a problem one has an old
solution causing new problems. This is the principle of confusion and the
stable datum. The confusion (two or more opposed views or actions) stays in
position because it is hung on a single fixed point. If you want to see a
pc go into confusion ask him what solution he could confront. (This is not
a good process, it's a demonstration.)
A preclear is sometimes chary of motion in the bank. He seizes upon
fixed particles to avoid moving particles. A very top scale process that
does some fabulous things to a pc also illustrates this: "What motion have
you been responsible for?" This truly sets a bank whizzing, particularly
black cases or stuck picture cases. Running this, it is possible to
discharge pc liability to problems.
THE DUAL UNIVERSE
The basic unit of this universe is two not one.
The less a pc can confront two things, the more he fixes on one. This
is the highly individual person, also the self-auditing case.
This is probably the basic trap of a thetan. He is a single unit that
has not cared to confront dual units and is therefore subject to the
persistence of all dual things. As he does not seem to care as much for two
as he does for one that which is not admired tends to persist and we have a
persisting dual universe.
Also, when he is with somebody else, he tends to confront the other
person but not to confront himself. "What about you could you confront?" is
a murderous process. It is all right to run. It picks up the times when his
attention was off self and yet self was creating. This is the genus of a
reactive bank. It is probably what pain is.
However, a better and more spectacular process that demonstrates this
and gets to the heart of problems is "What two things can you confront?"
This increases ability and reduces one's liability to problems. I suppose
one could go gradiently up in number and have at last a pc that could
tolerate any motion or number.
It is quantity not quality which makes a bank. Thus running
significances is of little worth. A thetan gets ideas of too many and too
few. He cannot have, at length, anything that becomes too scarce-one of the
old important rules of havingness given in Scientology 8-8008.
OUT OF SESSION
A pc is in session when (a) he is willing to talk to the auditor and
(b) he is interested in his own case.
The primary violation of part (a) is overts and withholds-the pc is
afraid to talk or talks to cover up.
The second violation (b) occurs when the pc's attention is "over there"
in present time, fixed on some concern that is "right now" somewhere in the
physical universe. Technically a present time problem is a special problem
that exists in the physical
universe now on which the pc has his attention fixed. This violates the "in
session" rule part (b). The pc's attention is "over there" not on his case.
If the auditor overlooks or doesn't run the PTP then the pc is never in
session, grows agitated, ARC breaks, etc. And no gains are made because the
pc is not in session. Hence the unchanged graph when the pc has a PTP that
is overlooked or not properly handled.
PTPs are easy to handle. If you, the auditor, become impatient at
having to "waste time" handling a PTP or if the pc considers it a waste of
time to handle it, a mistake is being made. So long as a PTP falls on a
meter even slightly, it had better be handled until it no longer falls when
checked.
If the same type of PTP keeps coming up, use it as a case assessment
and run it out-out-out as given above, using O/W and responsibility.
And if the pc always has problems, better note he also has motionless
pictures, is only-one and self-audits heavily and get him used to motion
and two particles as given in processes above and he'll be a better case
very soon indeed.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1960
Franchise Hldrs
All Staff Auditors
Note HCO Secs
send to every certified
auditor in your area.
A NEW SUMMARY OF AUDITING
(This bulletin is the first major break-through in processing in
1960. It is a new statement of processing you will appreciate.)
In ten years, the chief thing which needed improvement in the
dissemination of Dianetics and Scientology was more and faster processing
results.
A good result in processing depends on two things:
(a) The workability of the technical process; and
(b) The ability of the Auditor to apply processing to a preclear.
The bulk of my own work for ten years, then, has been on these two
things.
However, you should not make a mistake in thinking that the first
released processes did not work as processes. Book One Engram Running, as
any old time Dianeticist can tell you, works.
Engram running from "away back" works so well that I probably would not
have advanced auditing technically to any degree, if people at large had
been able to apply Book One engram running as given in 1950.
Personally I have rarely failed to resolve a case and bring it to a
happy conclusion solely with engram running. I would have gone on
researching to resolve the mystery of life but not to improve auditing if a
majority of auditors had been able to get excellent results.
Alas (or happily) there were too many cases that didn't change when
audited by some auditors. And so I tied further researches on life with the
development of processes most auditors could handle and with which they
could obtain spectacular results rather easily. I do not say that to
condemn auditors, only to show the why of further processes, the basic
impulse behind the release of new processes. They make it easier to do it
faster and they reach the few cases we now and then failed to reach before.
For a long, long, long time I've felt we have been there. I have wanted
it to be positive enough so that all auditors could experience being there
at a process level.
Training is better and easier. Theory today goes light years beyond
what I would have considered as necessary years ago. Processes reach even
unconscious people.
But in all this wealth of technology, we still have the problem of
auditor application. Here is an example: In spring 1959, I gave the exact
way to handle a co-audit group (London HPA and 6th London ACC tapes). To
obtain maximum results, I had learned, the instructor was the auditor to
each pc in the room. Each case was assessed by him. Each person run by him
on a via of the co-audit auditor. Here and there I hear of a co-audit
losing people. I hear of an instructor saying, "I only have to look in on
them (the co-audit people) once in a while during an evening." And I hear
of a spectacularly spectacular co-audit group, fully successful, several
clears in fact, where the only thing that was done was the exact
duplication of the London HPA and ACC instructions!
Now do you see what I mean by processing results depending upon the
auditor?
Co-auditing in groups was wrapped up, complete, in the spring of 1959.
The task
now is to get it adhered to so there will be more clears. A whole year
later we are just starting to win on this.
The programme of research may present a myriad of new data. It has not
changed certain fundamentals about auditing. It has not changed the exact
way to make a clear. Let's not lose sight of these facts.
The first and foremost rule of auditing is FIND SOMETHING THE PRECLEAR
CAN DO AND PROCESS HIM TO IMPROVE THAT ABILITY.
A lot of auditors audit quite oppositely and fail here and there and
say they don't know why. The auditor finds "what is wrong" with the pc and
tries to remedy it. That has nothing to do with the goal of auditing.
That's a Q and A with the pc's bank. The pc thinks something is wrong with
him and restrains himself. All you have to do to make a pc clear is to help
him build his confidence back in the things about him that are right!
To clear a pc all you have to do is give him or her a series of wins he
or she realizes are wins.
The 1947 scale of wins was this: Get a pc to have pictures by any
device. Get the pc to erase light locks. Get the pc to be more and more
able to handle gradiently heavier bits of bank. When pc was fully
confident, pc was clear.
(That wasn't all, by the way, that's been overlooked in clearing. Read
the Book One clear definition again.)
Of course as time has gone on we have been more and more articulate. I
have found ways to say things, found ways to describe things that I thought
everybody knew. I have erred consistently in overestimating understanding.
I seek to remedy that by stating things more clearly. I feel I am winning
on this.
But there are certain things I myself find very hard to understand.
Among these is how I can run any engram flat in a few hours unless its
overt has to be run first; and that some auditors take 50 to 75 hours to
flatten an engram. How is that? Well, I'm sure I don't know unless it is as
follows:
All you have to do to run an engram is first get the pc accustomed to
his bank and track by various mild processes, get him under good control,
contact the least incident necessary to resolve the case and flatten it.
Well, that's it. To flatten an incident Dianetically, you only erase it. To
flatten it Scientologically you run it until pc has it back again fully and
is total cause over it (you run it after it has erased). To accomplish all
this apply the rule in capitals above. No auditing tricks are necessary
unless you have thrown the pc in over his head without a gradient approach
to the bank.
Recently I had some auditors complain that they were being forced,
using OT-3A to start at step one on new pcs when "auditor discretion should
be used as to what step should be first taken". And what was auditor
discretion? Throw the pc in over his head, I guess; new pcs deserve at
least some recall process to start out.
The rule I audit by is the one in caps above. By gradients I recover
for the pc confidence in handling himself. At length analytical handling
replaces reactive handling.
Here are the first winning sessions on two pcs and the point of first
win on each:
PC "A" 1952: No pictures. All unreal. Suicidal. Now most people would
have tackled the suicidal trait or some such. This pc had had at least 200
hours on engrams. No results. I found pc had an allergy to milk.
By using "think processes" I managed to get Expanded Gita run without
creating mock-ups. "Think how you could waste milk," etc.
The pc was able to drink milk after that. Big win! Pc made steady gains
of like nature afterwards. The pc could drink water. That was an ability. I
made the pc able to drink milk too!
PC "B" 1959: Pc never before audited and had a mysterious field. No relief
or release on scouting the present life. No change. Got the pc to describe
field. Found it was a window. Ran "What part of that picture could you be
responsible for?" for a half an hour with pc's only response, "I could be
responsible for looking out of this window." Then suddenly all shifted, pc
got a big kinesthetic of jumping into his car and tearing off in it.
We stopped right there. Pc had a big win, felt there was a change. Felt
he could be helped by auditing.
The indicated procedure after was to run responsibility on anything pc
saw in the bank until he was in present time with his pictures and then,
little by little accustom him to locks, secondaries and engrams, a win
every time, until he was clear.
Clearing is a qualitative return of confidence in self not quantitative
handling of bank. By returning confidence, one achieves clearing in a short
while.
By the quantity approach one drags the hours out endlessly since
there's an endless supply of engrams. The regained ability to handle one
fully is better than ploughing through a thousand briefly.
Well some day somebody will hear me. And we'll have lots of clears.
There's also this matter of having a session going before we tackle a
bank, for the pc is always tackling his bank out of session and doesn't
recover, so there must be a session if he tackles his bank and does
recover.
A session depends mostly on these conditions:
1. Pc willing to be helped by auditor (or as in an unconscious pc,
unable to prevent being helped);
2. Pc under auditor's control to the extent of doing the process;
3. Pc willing to talk freely to the auditor;
4. Pc interested in own case; and
5. Auditor well-trained enough to handle a session form properly.
Then and only then can we begin the gradient approach of recovering
pc's confidence in analytically handling himself and abandoning his
reactive withholds and restraints and self-imposed barriers.
To accomplish 1 above, run two way help. Even an alcoholic bum,
antagonistic and vicious, will come around eventually on two way help more
or less two-way commed until it is running like a process.
"How could you help me?"
"How could I help you?"
Those are the magic words on the reluctant or unwilling pc. Eventually
the pc becomes willing to be under the auditor's control.
To accomplish 2 above, it is sometimes necessary to run "You make that
body sit in that chair" or "You make that body stand still" or both for a
long time, pc doing command each time, before control exists sufficient to
run S-C-S. These can be big wins for a pc.
To do 3 above, the auditor can run "Think of something you could tell
me," "Think of something you might withhold from me," until the E-Meter arm
dives. Pc will eventually talk if the pc was under control enough to do the
process.
To accomplish 4 we have only to be lengthy in discussing the
aspirations and upsets of the pc's life.
To accomplish 5 we should have started a long time ago.
To give pc Big Wins we tackle small targets. Open up the recalls with
Cause ARC Straight Wire and "What would you be willing to forget?" Erase
and put back a lock.
Erase and put back a moment of pain (stubbed toe, cut finger). Erase and
put back a secondary. Erase and put back a minor engram. Erase and put back
a rougher overt engram. Do every little job well. Handle every session
well. finish what you start. If pc goes greasy on the track and skids,
return to control processes via 1 to 4 above. Then win up some more wins.
Straighten up women and men and other terminals with O/Ws.
Do what you like, but keep it no heavier than pc can win with. Give him
wins, not a caved-in bank.
Sometimes you have to patch up a whole case that was long ago flubbed.
Go at it just as above and then run out the first engram that pc was ever
thrown into and then run out that auditor.
This is the basic philosophy of auditing. The main reason any auditor
has lost on a case is his misunderstanding of his approach. He knows
"What's wrong" with the pc and attacks it. And the pc loses before he wins.
The only thing wrong with a pc is his lack of confidence in handling
himself without hurting others. So he creates disabilities which
automatically restrain him from making the same mistakes again. Try to
relieve those disabilities without returning confidence to the pc and you
are liable to lose every time.
It would help you if you made up a chart for each pc and checked it off
each session.
1. Pc still willing to be helped
2. Pc under control and executing every command
3. Pc willing to talk to me
4. Pc interested in own case
5. I am following model session exactly
6. Pc havingness is up
7. Pc is having wins
If you check these off every time before a session, you won't miss. And
you'll know what to tackle if the intensive is not going too well. The
answers are there in those seven points, not in a startling new departure
in processes!
Look, I want you to have even more wins than you are having.
I'm not really growling about it. I'll even concede I've never said it
so succinctly before or lined it up so smoothly. But study it well, won't
you? It contains the whole "secret" of auditing. We want more clears.
Whip me up some more won't you?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1960
Issue II
D of Ps
Cent Orgs IMPORTANT
CHECK SHEET FOR HGC
The following check sheet is to be made up in a mimeo form and issued
to your staff auditors to be used at the beginning of each session. The
data relative to it is in HCO Bulletin of April 7, 1960. Teach your staff
auditors that bulletin. Insist heavily on the use of the check sheet before
session commences while sitting down with pc. And thereby watch your
results and number of clearings soar. This is IMPORTANT.
Check Sheet:
Pc Name Date Auditor
1. Pc still willing to be helped by me and HGC
2. Pc under control and executing every command
3. Pc willing to talk to me freely
4. Pc interested in own case
5. I have been following model session exactly except to establish the
above
6. Pc's havingness is up
7. Pc is getting wins he knows about
The following has been handled on pc's case:
Pc has been run on objective havingness
Cause ARC Straight Wire
Forget
Pc willing to recall something without regret
Pc's field has been cleared with responsibility
A minor painless lock run as an engram with confront and responsibility
A minor recent physical injury has been run with confront and
responsibility and finally reappeared
A secondary has been contacted and run, erased and made to reappear
A mild engram has been run with confront and responsibility until it
was erased and run further until it reappeared
A past death has been run fully
O/W has been run on necessary general terminals as indicated by meter
The case is progressing.
___________________________
Auditor's
signature
The above check sheet does not supplant the Auditor's report. It is
turned in with the report.
Its purpose, in 1 to 7, is to keep Auditors alert to what makes cases
advance.
LRH:js.rd L. RON
HUBBARD
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1960
Assn Sec
HCO Secs
D Of Training Hat
NEW TRAINING SCHEDULE
Earlier bulletins this year have presented a new training line up, more
or less as follows.
Based on eight weeks, the weeks are divided as follows:
I. Comm Course
II. Upper Indoc Course
III. Model Session
IV. CCHs
V. to VIII. Theory and practice as per London HPA/BScn tapes.
It will be seen that the order of weeks I to IV can be changed around
save for Comm Course.
You have just received HCO Bulletin April 7, 1960, which gives a new
rationale of training. It affects the stress but not the programme. It
means in short that the HPA will have to know how to run Straight Wire,
locks, secondaries and engrams and how to use an E-Meter. Further they have
to know the six types of processes.
Now this is asking a lot at HCA/HPA level, in view of the fact that the
South African ACC on the Model Session at the end of one week quiz flunked
out at the rate of 2/3rds of the class.
The Model Session (HCO Bulletin of February 25, 1960) can be broken
down into sections like the Comm Course and a Straight Wire process run, or
it can be run from the sheet enough times to make students familiar with
it.
You will have a new book on auditing based on HCO Bulletins since
December 23, AD9, but it will not be in circulation for a while.
Teach people light taps not heavy slugs. Go on this basis-Doctors treat
injuries because they cannot confront bodies. We confront people. We can
always see what is wrong with a person. It takes real genius to find
something right and improve it. A pc is ill because he is restraining
himself from doing wrong. We have to convince him he can do right. Reactive
self-restraint is the purpose of all engrams. This must be replaced with
analytical control. Until one can confront his bank and win he does not
regain confidence in controlling himself. So he has engrams. "We don't
treat wrongness. We treat people."
Until a student has that down pat, you won't get any real training done
anyway. He'll go out and lose. And we'll then lose him.
Hence the push on training and the half price course offers (when
accompanied by a letter signed by a certified auditor).
I hope you are going to have to cope with a lot of students.
If you arrange your course well now, you will have wins later.
And when you teach a student to get little wins to make big wins we'll
really have this show on the road.
LRH :js.jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 APRIL 1960
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
PE Director Hat
Franchise Holders
NEW PE DATA
SUPERVISING PE CO-AUDIT
The best way to run a PE course was given in the London 1959 HPA/BScn
tapes and the 6th London ACC tapes.
This consisted of supervising the PE as though you were the only
auditor present, all the co-auditing auditors to be used only as your
mouthpiece. The "Instructor" audits each case through the co-auditor.
All pcs present can be put on one meter at the instructor's desk by
means of leads and a multiple switch. This is of considerable use and is
authorized for all Central Orgs, PE Foundations.
ASSESSMENT
An assessment is a necessity on each case. At the course's start,
assess rapidly with a meter and then when the majority are running on
terminals go back and do a longer assessment on the hard one. Keep a record
of your assessment. But don't spend all your time favouring hard cases. It
makes other cases tend to toughen to get your attention.
If a case isn't getting meter fluctuation on the meter at the
instructor's desk, check into it. A running case gets a changing needle and
a changing tone arm.
Keeping a record of tone arm position and needle state for each case
helps you keep track. It's done by making a three column roster, the same
one you used for assessment.
PROCESSES
You have three processes you may now use.
1. O/W on a selected terminal "What have you done to ?" "What have you
withheld from ?" A good assessment for this is: "What person do
you have problems about?" Run that person.
2. Comm process on a body part. "From where could you communicate to a
?" on an E-Meter, assess for a body part that falls not what the pc
says. The part that falls will be real to the pc. An obviously ill
part may not be real. When the chosen part is flat or reasonably so,
assess for a new body part. Body parts are safer to run on co-audit
than indefinite terminals. But "friend" or "car" can still be used. Use
the paper trick on all co-audit comm processes.
3. Responsibility process "What part of your life have you been
responsible for?" This requires no assessment but it is rather rougher
than the first two above.
PROCUREMENT
Your best procurement comes from word of mouth and happy cases.
If you supervise well and make sure the co-audit pc gets gains, you will
have good word of mouth.
Free co-audit weeks given for one reason or another (such as highest
scores of PE course quiz) is good procurement.
Well advertised free PE and a good comm course are the best
procurements. A good info package mailed to everyone on your list and all
callers is a necessity.
Being on time, handling bodies in an orderly way are good procurement.
HAS CERTIFICATES
HAS certificate requirements have changed.
A passing grade on an examination of materials covered is all it takes
at this time.
Later we may require that they pass a comm course too. But not now.
So examine your past students on essentials they've been taught and as
they pass send their names and addresses to your central organization and
the student will receive a nice HAS certificate.
Your student having a certificate will help procurement.
SUMMARY
PE co-audit is running well where auditors are doing it by the book,
running badly where the handling of processes, students and paper work is
sloppy. Good total 8-C = good course. Courses where regular charges are
made and collected get better graphs.
Here and there a PE co-audit set up is running poorly because the
auditor instructor does not have info packages and does not even try to
handle bodies walking in.
Most everywhere PE co-audit is doing well. I am very proud of the way
most auditors are trying and winning. Thank You.
By the way, the Scientology population of earth has exactly doubled in
the last ten months!
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1960
Franchise Hldrs
PRESESSION PROCESSES
Have you ever wondered how to persuade a stranger to get audited? Have
you ever had to "sell" a hostile family member Scientology before you could
audit someone? Have you ever had trouble auditing anyone?
Well, you'll be pleased to know that these problems have been
vanquished by some material I've developed. You see-I do think of you!
Pre-session processes are a new idea. They were hinted at in HCO
Bulletin April 7, 1960. But there's more to it.
A pre-session process is a process that is used to get into session:
(a) A stranger who isn't receiving well;
(b) A person antagonistic to Scientology;
(c) A person who ARC breaks easily in session;
(d) A person who makes few gains in session;
(e) A person who relapses after being helped;
(f) A person who makes no gains in auditing;
(g) A person who, having been audited, refuses further auditing;
(h) Any person being audited as a check-off before session, aloud
to pc or silently by auditor.
Pre-session processes parallel in importance the auditing of
unconscious people. But I feel they have wider use and will assist
dissemination enormously as well as improve graph gains.
These processes are four in number. They are designed as classes of
processes to handle these four points:
1. Help factor
2. Control factor
3. Pc Communication factor
4. Interest factor.
Unless these four points are present in a session, it is improbable, in
a great number of cases, that any real, lasting gain will be made. This is
old data.
It is new data to consider these as pre-session points.
Before one has a pc in session he cannot really run a Model Session or
any session at all.
The usual struggle is to start a session and then try to start a
session by having the pc go into session.
This is a confusion of long standing and leads auditors to run
processes like the CCHs when they could be running higher processes. The
CCHs are often necessary, but not necessary on a pc who could be put into
session easily and could then run higher level processes for faster gains.
The only thing this changes about a Model Session (HCO Bulletin February
25, 1960) is the START. If a pc is in the auditing room and auditing is to
be attempted, then one starts, not Tone 40, but formal. "We are going to
begin auditing now." The auditor then goes over his check list and ticks
off the pre-session points 1, 2, 3, 4, and satisfied, goes into the
rudiments and carries forward a Model Session. Naturally, if he wants to
put the pc into session with pre-session processes, when the pc is finally
in session we would startle him out with a Tone 40 "START".
A pc who is running extraordinarily well and making fast gains should
be checked over silently at beginning and then given "START" Tone 40 as in
the Model Session and the auditor proceeds at once to rudiments. But this
would be used only after the pc was really getting along. A new pc or new
to the auditor should be pre-sessioned as above for many sessions.
A pre-session type of session might find the auditor not satisfied with
more than the first two of the four points by session end. If so, end the
session easily with a location of pc's attention on the room and simply end
it by saying so.
While many processes may be developed out of the four classes of help,
control, communication and interest, it is certain that these classes will
remain stable, since these four are vital to auditing itself and imply no
wrongness in the pc. All other known factors of life and the mind can be
handled by a session and improved. But these four-help, control,
communication and interest-are vital to auditing itself and without them
auditing doesn't happen.
One or more of these four items was awry in every pc who, one, did not
take auditing, two, on whom gains were poor or slow, and three, who failed
to complete auditing. So you see that is a number of pcs and the pre-
session processes are the important remedy. Why make the same error again.
One of my jobs is to improve auditing results. This may be, as you may
find, the biggest single step in that direction since Book One, since it
includes them all. The auditor can cause help, control, communication and
interest rather than hope they will come to pass. As such these four
factors are practically clubs.
I would almost rather not give you some processes to fit these four
conditions. I certainly desire you to be free in inspecting, understanding
and employing them. What great art could arise from this innocent
scientific quartet. I would rather you used them as a maestro rather than
play sheet music.
How adroit, how clever, how subtle we could become with them!
Example of what I mean:
Grouchy car salesman. Knows that anything Scientologist friend Bill
takes up is "rot". Hates people.
Scientologist approaches. Gets a scoff at Bill's enthusiasms.
Scientologist handles help. "Don't you think people can be helped?"
Lazy argument, all very casual. Car salesman finally wins by losing
utterly. He concedes something or someone could help him.
Another day. Scientologist approaches. Asks car salesman to move here
and there, do this and that, all by pretending interest in cars. Really
it's 8-C. All casual. Salesman wins again by losing.
Another day. Scientologist gets on subject of communication with car
salesman. Finally salesman concedes he doesn't mind telling Scientologist
about his shady deals. Does. Salesman wins and so does Scientologist.
Another day. Scientologist gets car salesman to see pictures or blackness
by any smooth conversation. Salesman becomes interested in getting his flat
feet fixed up.
Negative result: One scoffer less Positive result: One new pc.
Any way you handle them the Deadly Quartet must be present before
auditing, or even interest in Scientology, can exist.
Talk about John Wellington Wells. The Scientologist can weave even
greater magical spells with help, control, communication and interest.
Talk to a new club. What about? Help, of course. Get them to agree they
could be helped or could help.
And when they ask you to come back talk about good and bad control. And
when they want you again, it's communication you stress.
And interest of course, when you give that talk, will find you ready
people.
In Scientology everybody wins. It's the only game in which everyone
does. With these four factors you can't lose and neither can they.
As a Scientologist you know several processes under each heading. It's
establishing each point in turn that's important.
Ah, what a shock you'll get on some pc when you find he wasn't ever
interested in his own case. He was getting audited for his wife! You'll
only find that out if you get the three forerunners flat first.
PROCESSES
On processes, under help you have two-way comm about help, two-way
help, help in brackets, dichotomies of can-help can't-help, rising scale on
help; lots of forms.
On control you have two-way comm, TR 5 (You make that body sit in that
chair), CCH 2, old-time 8-C, object S-C-S, S-C-S, etc, etc.
On communication you have two-way comm, "Recall a time you
communicated," etc, but much more basically, two-way comm to get off
overts, O/W on the auditor, "Think of something you have done to somebody"
"Think of something you have withheld from somebody" with occasional,
"Anything you would like to tell me?" when meter acts up. Nothing helps
communication like getting off fundamental overts that would keep pc out of
session or ARC with auditor. That's the point of this step, whether done
casually in a drawing room or in an auditing room. "Surely, Mrs.
Screamstack, you can't sit there and tell me that, unlike the rest of the
human race, you have never done a single wrong thing in your whole life!"
Well, that's one way to knock apart a case at a formal dinner party.
Interest is the place where your knowledge of the mind comes into heavy
play. But note that this is Number Four. How often have we used it for
Number One and flopped ! That was because the correct One was missing, to
say nothing of Two and Three! I can see you now trying to interest a family
member with Four without teaching on the first three. Why, I've done it
myself! Just like you.
I audited an official of a government after a dinner party for two
hopeless hours one night. He knew he'd been run over. But he surely was no
sparkling result. I shamefully and vividly recall now that, not touched by
me, his idea of help was to kill off the whole human race!
The first steps of OT-3A will gain interest from almost anyone. Even
the Black Fives will get confounded when they find what state their recalls
are in.
AND THEN?
And then follow a gradient scale of gain. Find something the pc can do
and improve it.
When the four points, the Deadly Quartet, are covered, we have the
rudiments and they must cover facts, not glibitity.
After the four points you improve the case by gradient scales.
And you keep the four points established.
SUMMARY
If it takes you a hundred hours to establish the four points of
sessioning, you'll still win faster because you will win.
If it takes only two hours the first time you do them on a pc, feel
lucky.
Be thorough.
Establish the four points. Use a Model Session. Follow a course in
processing of finding something the pc knows he can do and improve that
ability.
And you'll have clears.
And if your use of the Deadly Quartet becomes as adroit and smooth as I
think it will, we will have this planet licked and be scouting the stars
before we're too much older.
At last, we've created the basic weapon in Scientology dissemination
and processing that makes us a lot more effective on Earth than a lot of
drooling politicians scrubbing their hands around an atomic warhead. By
golly, they better watch out now.
But don't tell them. Just run (1) Help, (2) Control, (3) Communication
and (4) Interest.
Now go tackle somebody who wouldn't buy Scientology-use the Deadly
Quartet. And win!
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1960
U.S. Fran Hldrs
CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENCY
A person named Richard M. Nixon will enter his name this Fall at a
convention as a citizen aspiring to the Presidency of the United States.
Many Scientologists think he is all right because I once quoted him. This
is very far from the facts and I hasten to give you the real story why
Richard M. Nixon must be prevented at all costs from becoming president.
Two years ago in Washington this man's name appeared in a newspaper
article as uttering an opinion about psychology. I called attention to this
opinion as a matter of banal interest in an article.
Shortly two members of the United States Secret Service, stating they
had been sent directly by Nixon, entered the establishment of the Founding
Church of Washington, D.C., armed with pistols, but without warrant or
formal complaint, and with foul and abusive language threatened the girls
on duty there.
Hulking over desks, shouting violently, they stated that they daily had
to make such calls on "lots of people" to prevent Nixon's name from being
used in ways Nixon disliked.
These two men stated they were part of Nixon's office and were acting
on his express orders. They said that Nixon believed in nothing the
Founding Church or Scientology stood for.
Their conduct before the ladies present was so intolerable that Mary
Sue, having heard the shouting and curses from her office, had to come and
force these men to leave, which they finally did, but only after she
threatened to call the police.
As Scientologists were present, much information was obtained, of
course, from these agents as to their routine activities. These were not
creditable. Nixon constantly used the service against the voteless and
helpless people of Washington to suppress the use of his name.
I am informing you of an exact event. It convinced me that in my
opinion Nixon is not fitted to be a president. I do not believe any public
figure has a right to suppress the use of his name in articles. I do not
believe a public figure should enforce his will on writers or organizations
by use of the Secret Service. I believe a democracy ceases to exist when
deprived of freedom of speech. I do not believe any man closely connected
with psychiatry should hold a high public office since psychiatry has lent
its violence to political purposes.
Would you please write your papers and tell your friends that Nixon did
this and that his actions against private people in Washington cause us to
defy his cravings to be president.
It's my hope you'll vote and make your friends vote. But please don't
vote for Nixon. Even his own Secret Service agents assure us he stands for
nothing we do.
I do not tell you this because Mary Sue came close to serious injury at
Nixon's hands. I tell you this because I think psychiatry and all Fascist-
Commie forces have had their day.
We want clean hands in public office in the United States. Let's begin by
doggedly denying Nixon the presidency no matter what his Secret Service
tries to do to us now in Washington. It is better, far better, for us to
run the risk of saying this now, while there's still a chance, than to fail
to tell you of it for fear of reprisals and then be wiped out without
defence by the Secret Service or other agency if Nixon became president. He
hates us and has used what police force was available to him to say so. So
please get busy on it. I am only telling a few friends.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 APRIL 1960
HCO Secs
SEND YOUR CLIPPING FILES
Please look into your Central Org files and desk drawers and bundle up
every magazine and newspaper clipping you have and ship them surface mail
to me at HCO WW.
I am going to write a booklet on social conditions and psychiatry as
The Philosophy That Failed.
People have been sending and giving you clippings for a long while.
They may have been filed under various headings. If it is a mag or
newspaper clipping, please send it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 APRIL 1960
All Fran Auditors
HCO Secretaries
Assoc Secretaries
BOOKS ARE DISSEMINATION
One of the oldest Organizational Health Charts states "...given books
in distribution, the remainder of these facts are true. . .".
No matter what you do with an organization, no matter how much writing
of letters you do, the dissemination success of a group will not accomplish
any security unless books are distributed.
Seeing to it that the newly interested person is provided with the
proper reading materials is a far more important step than most HCO Secs
and PE directors have realized, but these are not the worst offenders. The
field auditor, attempting to run a group and keep afloat, fails most often,
when he does fail, in the Book Department.
Making sure that interested people get books is making sure that they
will continue their interest.
Assuring then they will read and understand the books, it is necessary
to get them into an extension course.
If you think you can interest a person in Scientology and yet avoid
your responsibility in getting him or her to read books on the subject, you
are wasting a tremendous amount of effort.
Do you know why the first book DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL
HEALTH was written? Word of mouth on Dianetics was going forward so rapidly
that my letter volume, even before the first book, was startling. Each one
of these people expected me, either to write them a long letter and tell
them what it was all about, or to be given a chance to come and see me so
that I could tell them personally what it was all about. In other words, my
time was going to be consumed, not in further research, but in writing
letters and talking to people. My answer to this was to write DIANETICS:
THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH which rapidly informed the newly
interested person what this new science was all about.
I will make you a wager. I think you are wasting most of your time
answering questions which are answered in books. I think you are talking
yourself hoarse to friends, and other people, and groups, explaining over
and over and over things that are already taken up in books. I think your
time is being devoured by attempts to reach through the natural
conversational barriers of people.
You are not giving, I am sure, the newly interested person an
opportunity to go and sit down quietly by himself, without any social
strain, and study a book on the subject. Only in this way will he come to a
decision about the subject which is his own independent decision having
inspected the materials. This has to be done quietly and it is best done
through the pages of a book.
Without any reservations, I can tell you that DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE
OF MENTAL HEALTH, based as it is upon mental image pictures and energy
masses, those things which are most real to people, is the best forward
vanguard in our possession. It was written at a time when I was very
interested in bridging the gap between an uninformed public and an informed
public, and contains in it most of the arguments necessary to quiet the
suspicions of the newly interested person and contains as well most of the
answers to that person's questions.
DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH contains today a
perfectly workable therapy. But more importantly it contains a bridge
between the uninformed and the informed public on the subject of
Scientology.
If you are not furiously pushing DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF
MENTAL HEALTH and if you are not insisting that each newly interested
person read it as something new, startling and strange in the world, you
will be wasting most of your dissemination efforts.
Oddly enough, this book, to this day, sells more copies around the
world than the average best seller in any given year. Where it has been
pushed, Scientology is booming. Where it has not been pushed, Scientology
is limp.
Just inspect the number of simple, startling items in DIANETICS: THE
MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. Here you find the Dynamics, here you find
several of the earliest Axioms, here you even find the rudimentary ARC tone
scale. You find as well a thoroughly accurate description of clears and the
reactive mind.
Do you realize that the world does not yet know anything about the
reactive mind? Here is the total answer to Freud's subconscious. Here is
the resolution of most of the problems of psychotherapy.
You know so many things that are new and wonderful and strange that you
forget that Bill and Joe and Mary have never heard of any part of them.
They are not interested in past lives. They are interested in what makes
them do strange and peculiar things. They have heard vaguely about the
tenets of psychology. They do not know that these have all been answered in
DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.
When people are asking you questions about Dianetics and Scientology,
no matter how obtuse or abstruse the questions are, your best answer to
these questions was my earliest answer and that was, "Read DIANETICS: THE
MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH and that will answer your question".
In the last HCO Bulletin I gave you presession processes. This makes a
complete cycle. With presession processes we can take a new person and by
running the course of help, control, communication and interest, put him in
a frame of mind to want to know more about the subject.
In this Bulletin I am trying to tell you what to do about the person
once you have brought him up to this point. It is all right for you to go
on and audit him but I assure you he will never get anywhere until he has
read DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. All the questions and
counter arguments and upsets which are boiling through his mind now are
answered in that book, bringing him up to a point where he wants auditing,
where he successfully goes through PE. Give him auditing, let him co-audit,
do anything you want with him, but insist, insist, insist that he reads
DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.
You would be completely amazed at the ideas some people have of
Scientology even after they have gone through a PE Course and have read
Problems of Work or some other manual pushed off on them simply because it
is cheap. Problems of Work is all right and should be distributed but it is
not informative on the subject of the human mind.
Let's get down to basics here and see what we have really done. We have
made a breakthrough. The moment of the breakthrough is recorded at public
level with DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. If people do not
read this book, they just will not have broken through.
Any "sales tricks" you employ after you have succeeded by use of help,
control, communication and interest in arousing that interest, to get them
now to inform themselves of the moment of breakthrough, will be well
expended by you, otherwise these people will be talking through a fog and
will experience a sensation of having been brought up to some high plateau
without having climbed a cliff. It is factual that you can bring a person
all the way to clear and have on your hands a mentally illiterate person. I
know, because I have done just that. All the clears I made twelve to
thirteen years ago evaporated into the society. I did them a great deal of
good. Some of them are now occupying high positions, but none of them have
ever associated me and my work in Dianetics and Scientology with what
happened to them. They are, for the most part, convinced that what I did
was some fabulously magical thing which was done for them only, and for
them especially, something like a spiritual revival, but nothing to be
understood. These people never did gain that understanding because I never
explained to them what was happening. It was only after DIANETICS: THE
MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH was written and distributed that we began
to get somewhere in the world. People we processed might have been led to
worry more about their own cases than those I processed, but at the same
time their worrying was at least intelligent. I can still clear people with
the technologies of twelve and thirteen years ago and, indeed, have been
carefully reintroducing you to these technologies. Now the time has come
for us to realize that there are very close to two and a half billion
people on this planet who are mentally illiterate. They do not know what
makes them tick. They have no concept whatsoever of the basis of human
reaction. They are intolerant. They are at war with one another. They
follow strange leaders and wind up in strange places. They have no hope
that anything will ever dig them out. Only a minute percentage of these
people have ever been introduced to DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL
HEALTH.
Do not believe for a moment that just because I wrote a book on the
subject cases became harder. As a matter of fact they became more co-
operative. We are making a great many clears today. Hardly a week passes on
my correspondence lines without clears being reported. But look at the
mental illiteracy even of some auditors. Do you know that people report me
clears and call them releases. These people have never studied the
definition and capabilities of clear in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF
MENTAL HEALTH. They bring preclears up to this standard, find there is a
considerable distance to go and start striking for theta-clear before they
say anybody is clear. You yourself may have made a clear and classified the
clear as a release just because you were not totally familiar with the
conditions of clear. I still think the best statement of a clear occurred
in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. I have had no reason to
revise that statement. Pushed at, however, by many Scientologists, I have
tried to find way stops between clear, as defined in DIANETICS: THE MODERN
SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, and OT. There are quite a few. I almost laughed
in somebody's face the other day when he said to me that a notable person
on one central organization's staff was being audited by him and that he
had gotten her up to a state of release "with a free needle on anything you
asked her", and added that he would soon have her clear if he kept working
at it. Concerning the same person, visitors at that central organization
for some time have been saying, "She has a sort of feeling about her as
though she might be clear". The truth of the matter is she has been clear
for several months but her auditor is straining so hard, seeing as he does
how far human capability can be made to reach, that it has never occurred
to him that he has passed clear some time back. Any PC that has a
relatively free needle has probably been cleared by the standards laid down
in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.
Now that we can interest people, let's take the next inevitable step.
Let's push this book. Let's crowd it into people's hands and demand that
they buy it. Let's develop the trick, when they ask us complicated
questions, of stating that they should read DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE
OF MENTAL HEALTH.
After all, we have a brand new science in the world. DIANETICS: THE MODERN
SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH is a brand new book that describes it at public
level and it is a good thing if you want to get people into a house to get
them to come in the front door. The front door we have is DIANETICS: THE
MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. I, personally, do not believe the book
could ever be written again, since it was written at a time when I was well
aware of the public arguments concerning the mind. For the indifferently
literate person it forms the necessary bridge from knowing nothing to
knowing something. It is an exciting book. Push it. Get your people to read
it. Now let's get going.
If you cause cards to be printed concerning the whereabouts of PE
Courses, always add to them:
"To know more about this subject read DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF
MENTAL HEALTH, available at (give the place). The greatest scientific
development in this century has happened."
To all Central Orgs. Push this book with every possible display and
mention. Where you find people have not bought it in your Central Files,
you'll find interest has been lagging. Play down all other PE books,
display DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH as the book they
must now buy. Tell them so during the breaks. "DIANETICS: THE MODERN
SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH answers your questions."
Unlimited stocks are available at HCO WW and even more are already
printed and being bound now in New Zealand for N.Z., Australian and South
African shipment. Order all Southern Hemisphere stock of DIANETICS: THE
MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH through HCO WW.
We've lost the people in a maze of many titles. Take down all your many
book displays. Concentrate on one, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL
HEALTH.
I am asking Australia for instance to have a huge wooden book,
DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, erected on their marquee
and spotlighted.
We can absorb the world's confusion on one stable datum. Let's do it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL AD10
Auditors of South Africa
THE SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF THE INSANE
The insanity rate per capita in South Africa is appalling. Through the
papers and reports of Peggy Conway and other sources, it is easily seen
that a primary requisite in any programme of the rehabilitation of the
Bantu in South Africa would be mental health.
Any race which lives in poverty is already overwhelmed by bad food and
disease without adding insanity amongst its familial units.
For instance, a white family in the United States which has amongst its
number one insane person is crippled economically through concern and
confusion. In a family already burdened by the environment, one insane or
even neurotic person could become the back-breaking straw.
However, my records show (and will have to do until I can make a closer
survey myself) that the number of insane and neurotic persons runs much
higher than amongst comparable populations. The subject has not been
studied well probably because "native customs" or "tribal characteristics"
are too often advanced as an explanation of irrational conduct. True, there
are native customs and tribal characteristics but it would take a
Scientologist to separate out the ethnic factors and understand the
remainder as neurosis and psychosis.
Malnutrition and anxiety in any person, as we well know, can produce
all the symptoms of insanity.
Having studied twelve separate primitive peoples in far flung parts of
Earth in this life, it has become obvious that when a state of
primitiveness is veneered by white customs the incidence of insanity rises
amongst the primitives. For example, the American Indian, when he lost his
tribal lands and hunting diet, turned to alcoholism and other degraded
forms of insanity. The whites then adjudicated these as characteristics of
the Indian rather than insanity.
Any race which is seeking survival under adjusted conditions
experiences a high incidence of mental illness.
The keynote of insanity is destructive efforts on various dynamics.
It is doubtful if anyone has realized the part insanity has played in
various disturbances, nor how it has prevented the bettering of various
conditions in the world.
Mental Health, a real programme of mental health, is vital to the
public peace and public safety.
Here we have a hardworking man, trying to adjust, trying to hold his
head up. At home he has a wife too neurotic to help, a teenage son that has
gone the route of criminal insanity, a father who has taken to drink, all
of them hanging upon his work and pay. It's rough trying to remain steady,
hardworking and sane under such conditions. The temptation to quit is
strong. Before a populace can be a credit it must have some hope it can
live through it-and insanity is the biggest threat to that hope.
Yet insanity in any population is not limited to the poor. Indeed, the
incidence of insanity in the United States is as high in the very rich as
it is amongst the very poor.
Real mental health, which the Scientologist can accomplish as the
practitioner of the only validated psychotherapy in the world today, would
reduce the statistics.
South Africa lately suffered from insane have-nots and even worse at
the hands of an insane "have".
Insanity is a problem that is both legal and scientific. A criminal is
in fact insane. A terrorist is insane. People can be policed only so far.
The insane, as we know so well on a scientific level, are so far from being
policed that they cannot follow the simplest order.
Insanity is neither hard to understand or treat. But only Scientology
could say this.
Insanity divides into eight general types. These are easily plotted,
they are irrationally destructive or succumb impulses on each dynamic.
Assign the tone scale to each type and you have all the insanities there
are.
The cure of insanity is accomplished in its deeper stages by very light
and careful handling. A person has to be brought up to the level of being
processed. The first step is rest. The second step is mild exercise. The
third step is group processing. Above this level processing is possible.
The cost of treatment is not high if undertaken sensibly. But 1 9th Century
practitioners who knew little about it got on a compulsive "do" and,
failing with milder methods, resorted to brutality. Fortunately, such
practices are now fading out under our influence. Rest camps and hospitals
would do more for insanity than all the violence in the world. But only a
Scientologist would be wise enough to refuse to Q and A with the violence
of insanity by using violence to "cure" it.
Scientology could handle the problem of insanity in South Africa. Only
when insanity has been handled could there be broad guarantees of a calm
future. What is a riot but a third dynamic insanity?
The tremendous work done by Peggy Conway, bless her, in her surveys and
contacts now comes to great use.
Without in any way transgressing, we have already formed a programme on
this.
We must legally establish ourselves, support the government in its
desire to handle this problem, and coordinate our efforts.
The government and the population need our help. And if we help we will
bring order in our sphere of activity. We will be wearing our own hats.
I am in deadly earnest about our role in public peace. It is not
political but technical and as such we have no peers.
All we need to work on at the moment is getting people convinced of the
truth that we can help the situation and that only we can help in this
sphere.
So here we go. Are you with me?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dm.nm
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1960
All Assoc Secs
ASSOCIATION SECRETARY LETTER
Tapes
The D of T Washington has just collected the titles of the 65 hours of
tape necessary for a total play of an HCA/HPA course.
These include the London HPA/HCA tapes. The additional ones are
probably not in your possession, at least in good condition.
Therefore we are doing the additional tapes to those you already have
so you will be able to play through a whole course, all the selected tapes.
Please signify your willingness to have these additional tapes 33/4
ips, 2 hrs per reel to complete your HCA/HPA course routine.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MAY 1960
All Fran Auditors
Assoc Secs
HCO Secs
HELP
We have known for some time the importance of the button Help. It is
first and foremost amongst the key buttons of Scientology. Thoroughly
clearing Help alone, and on back track terminals, has made clears.
In an essay published on the otherwise unpublished Students' Manual, I
stressed the fact that unless the preclear and the auditor had Help
straightened out they were not not likely to make very much progress. Help
is the key button which admits auditing. The remaining buttons of Control,
Communication and Interest, give us a session. But ill we cannot even start
presessioning with any other button than Help.
Since the winter of 1957/58 when this was used in an American ACC I
have been working with this trying to get a better understanding of it for
you.
It now appears that Help is the make-break point between sanity and
insanity. That a person cannot accept help along some minor line does not
mean that he is insane, but it certainly means he has some neurotic traits.
The inference level of this condition of aberration on the subject of
Help would be a fear of dependency. This means that Help has already gone
wrong with the person. We see in children occasionally an enormous striving
to be self-reliant. We ordinarily applaud this but if we inspect the child
carefully we will find that resistance to being helped goes along with an
obsession to help. Parents themselves, disbelieving that the child can help
them, usually inhibit the child's help and thus worsen the condition. I
have seen one child go downhill to "normal" by reason of a thwarting of
help by the parents. But no matter how fondly the psychologist used to
believe in the nineteenth century that childhood was a good pattern to use
for estimating future social conduct, we in Scientology know that the child
has already become aberrated on the subject before it is manifested in this
light.
My examinations have now led me to the conclusion that a person has a
make-break point of sanity on any given subject. This point is help. On the
tone scale it would compare at 2.0 for any dynamic. The whole index of a
personality could be adjudicated by an examination of the person's
reactions to various types of help. Above this point a person can help, and
can be helped, providing, of course, the help is sincere, and really is
help. Below this point help becomes betrayal.
Help is always betrayal to a thoroughly aberrated person. This explains
a great deal to us when we understand it. The first example that comes
readily to notice is the reaction of a very low scale pc undergoing
auditing. He invariably thinks, and may even sometimes tell the auditor,
that the auditor has not helped him but betrayed him.
All auditing protests except those against flagrant breaches of code
denote a breakdown of the help button in the auditing session. While it
does no good to run Help on a preclear and continue while running it to
repeat flagrant code breaks, it does do a great deal of good to clarify the
whole subject of help if a session seems to be full of ARC breaks, no
matter what the auditor tries to do to patch them up.
It is unfortunately true that help can be as wrong with the auditor as
it can be with the preclear where we have uncleared people doing auditing.
However, it has been my experience that even while some of their efforts
were completely knuckleheaded,
practically no auditors exist who are not sincerely trying to help the
preclear. The trouble comes about when the preclear clips the effort of the
auditor into the category of betrayal. This makes the auditor react against
the preclear, and the situation deteriorates.
We have, in the immediate past of this civilization, the deterioration
of several of the practices which began as a sincere effort to help and
which are not now classifiable as anything better than betrayal. Psychiatry
and medicine are both good examples of this. The person who goes to a
psychiatrist usually finds himself betrayed. He does not receive help, he
receives brutality in the form of electric shocks, brain surgery and other
degrading experiences. Even in the highest form of psychiatry it was common
advice for the psychiatrist to tell the wife that the best cure for her
troubles was to betray her husband, and vice versa.
The psychiatrist was caught in this help-betrayal deterioration.
Psychiatry had so long attempted to help the insane without success that at
last they began to Q and A with their patients. Of course, to an insane
patient help is always betrayal. Medicine is now going a similar course
unwittingly, and has lost most of its public repute through not having
stayed on a research line that would bring medicine upscale, but continued
with a line of application which considered man a body and would not
consider him anything else. Considering a person to be a "hunk of meat" is
a sort of a betrayal in itself. Naturally one betrays a thetan when he
regards the thetan as a piece of meat.
World War Two pretty well saw the end of the last dregs of sincere help
in psychiatry, most governments involved in the war employed psychiatry, it
now turns out, for political purposes. They were set a very good example by
one, Hitler. Thus the last embers of sincere help in psychiatry were more
or less extinguished. Nothing like this would happen in Scientology because
we are dealing with basic truths rather than basic ambitions. Where
ambition becomes greater than truth any sphere of activity goes to pieces.
Indeed, in the final analysis that is the fundamental deterioration of the
track.
Another excellent example is found in the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya.
The terrorists killed only twenty whites as compared to thousands of
natives, but the whites they chose to kill were only those who had sought
to help them. The Kikuyu was evidently completely certain that anyone
seeking to help him was only betraying him. Their reaction, then, in
killing their best friends becomes more understandable. The action remains
insane, but in their frame of reference it was entirely comprehensible. Any
time we go about the task of handling large bodies of insane people or
illiterate and fearful native populaces, we would do well to keep in mind
the importance of this help button, realizing that to these help is totally
betrayal. The thing to betray is this help-betrayal identification, not the
people.
If you sort this out and find your own examples and see whether or not
it holds true for you, I think you have a small gasp of relief coming to
you. No Scientologist has been without a preclear who has not become
absolutely certain somewhere in the course of auditing that the entire goal
of the auditor was to betray. This left one hanging with an unsolved
riddle. Our own sincerity was beyond question. How to be misinterpreted
this wildly was so incomprehensible that we often assigned the reasons to
ourselves. Perhaps some of these reasons did lie with ourselves.
Nevertheless, in the final analysis the only thing we did wrong was not to
clear the Help button with the preclear.
CLEARING HELP
There are many ways to clear the Help button. As this is the first step
on presessioning, it may be that the button has to be cleared several times
in the course of auditing.
The first thing to do is to put the preclear on a meter. If you don't
have a good meter, and you don't know what a meter does, order one fast and
get instruction. Discuss help with the preclear, and note the needle
reactions. If the needle tended to stiffen and stick on any discussion of
help, then you have your work set out for you. If
the needle remains free and continues to be free on the subject of help, no
matter what you run or how you discuss it, of course the button remains
free.
It is important that any attack you make upon this button be continued
as a presession activity for auditing period after auditing period, if
necessary, until the meter needle is free on this subject. There is no need
to go on, in fact there is no point in going on, if the preclear thinks
that you are going to betray. Somewhere this will manifest itself as ARC
breaks, the whole auditing programme will go to pieces, and you will wind
up without a preclear, as well as an unfinished cycle of action. So pay
attention to what I tell you here, where auditing is concerned: work with
help and nothing but help until the needle is free on the subject.
What processes should you run? The first process, of course, is
ordinary two-way comm. One discusses the preclear helping others and others
helping the preclear. One gets the preclear's views on the subject of help,
and without evaluating for the preclear, lets the preclear express these
views.
The next process is Help on a two-way bracket. This is, "How could you
help me?", alternated with "How could I help you?" Do not expect this to do
very much to the tone arm, because it won't. A two-way flow of this
character is not a reliable way to bring a tone arm down. But it does do
something, and does tend to free up the needle on this particular subject.
The old five-way bracket on help can then be employed: "How could you
help another person?" "How could another person help another person?" "How
could another person help you?" "How could you help me?" "How could I help
you?"
This is a rough bracket but it is useful and should not be dropped out
of the repertoire.
Is there any process which would clear up the help button thoroughly
and totally?
Naturally, since it moved forward again into such importance, I have
been doing work on it and have developed up to a stage of conditional
application (which means, I leave myself free to change my mind when broad
experience has been gained) a new way of loosening up any solution. I have
been applying this to the central buttons in Scientology and have found it
working. The general formula is to take the button one wants to clear and
ask the pc what problem a certain solution could be to him.
Applying this to help, one would repetitively ask the pc, "What problem
could help be to you?"
I first used this on the button responsibility with very good results,
since I found that responsibility is very aberrated in its reactive
definitions and, because one is often being a valence, is run
irresponsibly. This version of running responsibility to a flat point seems
to be quite workable.
If the preclear is inventing answers rather than picking them up off
the track, you might do better to ask him the following version, "What
problem has help been to you?" If invention was present one always has the
remedy, in spite of the fact that no terminal is apparently present, of
running, "What help could you confront?" "What help would you rather not
confront?" I don't know how far this would go as I have not tested it over
a long period, but at least in its first stages it works. Responsibility,
oddly enough, can be run on a no-mass terminal or significance. I have not
had much chance to test out confront, but on the theory that anything you
could run responsibility on you could also run confront on, I would say at
first glance this is probably a workable process. I will know more about it
soon and I would appreciate your telling me anything you have on it.
You have, therefore, several processes by which help can be flattened.
Unfortunately, none of these processes reach an unconscious or insane
person. Of course, when I say unconscious, I mean somebody with his eyes
shut, and when I say
insane, I mean somebody who is institutionalized, and should be. In the
matter of the unconscious person, you have the CCHs and you also have them
with the insane person to some extent. However, the best thing for an
insane person is not processing, but rest, and when the person has had
considerable rest, still processing is not yet the answer, exercise is. And
when the person has had some exercise over a long period of time, you will
find that group processing with other insane persons is still better than
individual auditing. Only at this time is it possible to do very much for
the insane. The first reason, of course, that one takes this approach is
the auditor. Why attack large numbers of insane cases with individual
auditing when other methods are far more economical and efficacious, so
long as those other methods are only rest, exercise, group processing,
hobby work, and such. Efforts to reach the insane with help, of course,
simply restimulate the insane idea that help is betrayal. This is why
psychiatry resorted to such savage and bestial "treatments" as shock and
surgery. They were up against people who apparently would not be helped.
Thus psychiatry went into total effect. This is why psychiatry failed, and
is in a failed state today and has lost all of its public repute.
People have been betrayed so often on the whole track that it is no
wonder they get help mixed up with betrayal, but help became betrayal only
at those periods of the track where the dwindling spiral had been reached
for any civilization. Even the upstanding Roman by the third century A.D.
was happily using the political mechanism of inviting all the Germanic
chiefs, that would accept, to feasts and then poisoning them, after vast
assurances that Rome was about to help the chief's country. A deterioration
of help can occur on any dynamic and in any area, but, as I said above, it
occurs at the make-break point of sanity-insanity.
One word on all this. The preclear may be sane analytically and still
react violently at times in session. Remember that he is reacting in
session because he has been thrown into the area of his reactive mind. In
reactive zones and areas help is almost always betrayal. Thus when running
a rough engram do not be amazed to find the pc (whom you have carefully
cleared on the subject of help) getting rabid about betrayal. He is in the
middle of an engram and, of course, the hard core of any engram is
betrayal. Don't break off and start running help on him, just run him on
through the engram. He will come out of it all right, if you do your job.
Help should be handled as a presession process and should be handled well
and thoroughly and if in any series of sessions the preclear's idea of help
apparently deterioriates, you have gotten him into a series of incidents
where help is betrayal and he should be cleared once more as a presession
activity in some later session on the subject of help.
There are many possible processes, there are many possible approaches.
As a Scientologist, understanding this, you should not permit yourself too
far into the frame of mind of believing a pc is evil or cannot be helped,
simply because he apparently will not be helped. All pcs can be helped.
Most pcs have aberrated ideas on the subject. It's up to you to take hold
of these as a first order of business and clean them up, at least until the
meter needle is free on the subject, no matter how many hours that takes.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.gh.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 1960
HCO Secs
Ds of P
All HGC Auditors
OUR TECHNICAL PROGRAMME
(This applies to all HCO and Central Org Staffs everywhere)
As the data has come in and I have had a chance to view what has been
happening, I would say that many riddles are answered and that we are now
embarked upon broad HGC pc and Central Org staff clearing programmes. I
will be talking more about this and you will see the pattern shaping so
here is a forecast of it.
From October to March I stressed security on Central Org staffs and
heavy withholds on HGC pcs as the important point. Now we have broad
experience with this. We will continue to use it and not forget what we
know about O/Ws and we will continue to teach it.
Don't let a bad security risk near a staff position ever whether you
know the overt or not. It's enough if the needle falls badly on key
questions. That's it. The person is not put on any post until audited.
(Don't retain on post while auditing for you'll get Dev-T and other evils.)
On an HGC pc a bad O/W picture must be cleaned up before you can get too
far as the first thing to do. Not even Help bites on a non-confessed
criminal. Such persons know their own overts. We're kidding ourselves if we
think they don't. So shake the pc down when you see a wild tone arm.
Getting the O/Ws confessed is all you do; the tone arm may not change much.
But the pc will stop dodging it all and you can begin "Help", for
responsibility is too steep at this stage and the pc too far down for real
high auditing.
In other words there's a pre-presession stage for all staff members and
a wild tone arm HGC pc. It's not auditing, really. It's a confessional.
Cure the analytical "I'm afraid he'll find out ...." the pc is holding to.
Don't run anything on it as though it were a real session. Just shake the
info out by any means or process. That's enough.
Now we begin on Help. Two way help is probably the hottest PE process
there is. You can shift to that in PE. But remember to get the PE Co-audit
team to a more general form of help within a couple of weeks. The five way
bracket would be good enough for PE (complicated enough).
For the staff member we go from getting off a few of the hotter O/Ws to
help. And we run help flat-flat-flat. Any version, type or kind. We run
help until the pc can be asked "How could you help your worst enemy?"
without registering the tiniest change on a needle. All we run is help, any
version for hours and hours. We take up terminals. We take up dynamic
assessment. But we only run help on anything we find. We flatten help until
you couldn't get its width with a micro electronic caliper. Nothing else.
And you'll hear me on this for months to come.
The same applies to the HGC pc. Once the worst O/Ws are confessed we
run help in suitable versions. And we run it for weeks if need be until we
get a needle flat, free, utterly calm on any help question. (Of course if
the pc can't talk sensibly at all, we use the CCHs.)
Remember, Help was the primary reason for the clears in 1957-58.
Remember, at 2.0 there is the make-break point. Help is betrayal. How
to help? Betray! What is help? A way to do you in! So we audit pcs up to
2.0 with other processes, they blow, they don't come back. "The auditor
.........yak yak yak." So
why run any other process? If you do you'll evidently lose the pc in lots
and lots of cases.
Flatten help until the pc can be helped and can help without any
qualms.
You've learned a lot about help. Apply it.
Now when we have help flat we'll go to other things. We'll follow up
the scales of processes like this:
For a staff member in an HCO or Central Org:
O/Ws confessed only
(don't employ a wild tone arm)
Help flattened
Control flattened
Communication flattened
Communication re-established thoroughly
(by O/W and responsibility)
Havingness completely rehabilitated.
For an HGC pc:
O/Ws confessed
Help flattened
Control flattened
Communication re-established thoroughly (O/Ws and resp)
Locks, secondaries, etc as per the "light touch" bulletin.
If you have to use CCHs you probably are auditing somebody who
shouldn't be in an HGC.
On an HGC pc havingness can be run on any presession type session. End
it up each day with an hour of "Look around here and find something you can
have" and have a comfortable pc. But in using havingness while
presessioning before control is flat to a free needle remember to make sure
pc has done each command before you give the next.
On the field auditors and anybody who has been trained we ought to
carry on a programme like:
Get O/Ws confessed
Get help flat-flat-flat
Make sure they get the highest cert they trained for
Get them in for modern training
Get them validated for 1960
Get them audited the rest of the way.
If we attack the field in that order, flattening ourselves, each step
we take with them, and taking this step by step with each new Academy
trainee, we'll be clearing the field.
Ah, so you penetrate what I'm trying to do! Yes you're right. I've
stayed on post and not gone off hunting lions and have re-researched ten
years of work and successes and have plotted out the broadest clearing
programme I could practically apply. I am clearing every staff member in
Central Orgs and HCOs on a timed programme of a few months for each step as
given above. You've had the first step, confessed O/Ws. It worked well. By
the way, income came way up and flubs went way down. From an October of
strewn wreckage we have moved to a May that sees us in pretty wonderful
shape organizationally. Income is moving up everywhere. Comm lines are
better. Staffs are happier. What did it? The first step for staff members-
O/Ws confessed and their use in establishing security.
In my programme, just to make sure we thoroughly win, I've calculated how
long it takes to move a new concept in. It's about 5 months. O/Ws info is
now grass common. Almost everybody on staffs is aware of meter action and
potential. We won't forget or lose it. All right. We conclude this stage
for staffs as of now and move into help. You're going to get help for
months! Run it, PE it. Co-Audit it. HGC it. Staff clear on it.
Any one of you can grasp all this in minutes. But as a group we have to
experience it, learn about it, know it, use it. So it's months now coming
on Help. After that we'll move on up.
This is a long-range clearing effort. I want to see nothing but clear
staff members the world around. And we'll do it. In just twenty months from
now it will be done. That's the timetable. We're five months on our way.
Like it?
Now when I'm stressing this on staff members and HGCs are hitting it
hard (HGC will continue to run the scale for HGC as given here on each pc),
you are going to hit the field auditors and the public with the subject in
vogue. Thus you'll be stressing help now until five months are up to all
the people you reach. Of course even after that you'll stress it, but for
five months we're monomanic on it. Dig up the help essays in lectures and
Abilities. Use them in mags and letters. Get familiar with handling help,
talking to people about help, handling help in all its phases. You get
clever on the subject. That's all part of it, you'll see another resurgence
in Central Orgs and the field just by flattening this one for five months.
O/W doubled our success. See what help does now.
What formidable people we'd be if we had all five steps flat! We're
already the most effective group on Earth. Let's upgrade our own group
ability.
So that's the programme. A staff member is lucky to be aboard just now.
Has been lucky especially since Autumn 1959. That was when the bell went.
And do not send to find for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for an aberrated
Earth.
I audit you. You audit the field and Scientologists, they audit Earth.
Is it a bargain?
So get hot on the staff co-audit programme. Get hot on the PE with
help. Grind help to pieces on the HGC. Picasso had his blue period. This is
the help period.
So let's get clear!
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 MAY 1960
Franchise Holders
HCO Secs Assn Secs
HELP PROCESSING
At last we've found the button almost any case and all the world can
run.
Help may not be everything that is wrong with the world but it is the
only common denominator the world can understand.
I have known about help for some years and in 1957, autumn, used it,
with fateful Step 6, in clearing people. The first clears made easily by
others were done with meter assessments and five-way help brackets on
terminals.
It was found that Step 6, being a creative process, was bad on some
cases. The clearing formula was help and Step 6. We tended to abandon both
when Step 6 became an overt. It blew us off.
The next big technical development was O/W. Overt-withhold, of course,
is as old as 1954 (Phoenix) when reach-withdraw was introduced. But the
full knowledge of what overt-withhold meant to cases was not released until
November, 1959. Here came much new technical data, all of it vital to
clearing. A person with large withholds from the auditor will not go into
session. This is true, valid and useful. We could not clear many people
even now without it. Further, we find all losses in Scientology personnel
in Central Orgs and the field stem from O/W.
In researching O/W, as early as December, 1958 (Washington, D.C.), it
was found and proven conclusively that it was what the person himself did
to others that was aberrative, not what was done to him. The test of this
can be made easily. Given: an ARC break between auditor and pc who have
known each other some time. Note the position of the meter tone arm. Run
"What have you done to me?" "What have I done to you?" Observe that after
some small variation the limited value of this two-way flow (which assumes
the auditor's bad action was half what was wrong with the pc) shows up in a
stuck tone arm. This two-way process is too limited to alter the tone arm
after a few minutes. A lie has been introduced. This lie sticks the tone
arm. Now shift to "What have you done to me?" "What have you withheld from
me?" And watch the tone arm free up and eventually go toward clear reading.
In other words, the situation freed wholly only when we assumed that only
what the pc had done had any aberrative value.
This and other vital material learned between 1957 autumn and now was
the technology necessary to do full clearing on everyone except the wholly
psychotic and unconscious people (where we have the CCHs).
Everything learned about O/W is still necessary to clearing. But
everything that applied in O/W also applies to running help.
It's marvellous that a five-way bracket on help cleared people. It did
clear some. But where it failed it ran into the rule that it's only what
the pc does that is aberrative, what is done to him is not. Thus, what help
the pc has given and what help he has denied or failed to give are
aberrative. What help the pc received, in the long run is not (no matter
how the psychologists cut it).
There are probably thousands of ways help could be run. You can think
of
dozens. All of them would be effective in greater or lesser degree. Just
add help into any process form we know. But the one general process on help
that would rank high would be "What have you helped?" "What have you not
helped?" alternated.
This is not a dichotomy. This is the best way I know of to run the
sense of what help one has given plus what help one has withheld. This is
the O/W version and we will call it "Help O/W" to keep ourselves oriented
and not introduce too many new terms. I find "failure to help" instantly
upsets "What help have you given?" "What help have you withheld?" This
version does not run. The correct sense wording is "What help have you
given?" "What help have you not given?" This lets the pc as-is his failures
to help as well as his denials of help.
This is only the general form. Think how much more we know about O/W.
Apply it to help.
Two-way help would have use. But would be limited. Use it. Know it's
limited.
Five-way bracket help would have use. But would be limited. Use it.
Know it's limited.
This pair has enough power to gain more constant attendance in a PE Co-
audit than we have had. So use them in PE Co-audit. Two-way help has just
moved a PE Co-audit case that has been in co-audit for one year without
moving on any other process.
Two-way comm on help has value. It's the presession version. No matter
who is helping who, a discussion of it can get the pc closer to session.
Now here is data you've been wondering about. Does help in presession
become an end all in the HGC. No. Hit the presession points lightly, then
in Model Session form use help as the process to be run. And run it until
it's flat-flat-flat.
When the Model Session has begun, run a meter assessment. Find any
terminal that drops. On that terminal, in specific or general form, "How
have you helped ....?" "How have you not helped ....?"
Any experience you've had with O/W and meters and assessments, apply it
to help.
And that's how you're going to clear people. It's amazingly fast, even
on a psychosomatic illness.
Now get your own reality on this.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.gh.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MAY 1960
Franchise Holders
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
HOW HELP BECAME BETRAYAL
Help is the button the world spun in on a few million years ago. It's
where we find our pc. "Help is betrayal", so there is no way out.
Scientology "must be bad" because "help is betrayal". Everybody knows that.
So if Scientologists help people then we "must be betrayers" !
We've heard it, seen it. But now we know what it is and can laugh
quietly when people try to chew us up.
When they really wanted to make a trap of it all, it was propaganda
given out that "help is betrayal". None must have any help lest they be
betrayed. So the thetans stay in their cages.
It is interesting how this mechanism developed. The game of victim is
very old. It intended to arouse mercy and safeguard possessions. It became
a trap. Once one believed in victims thoroughly he started to help only
victims.
So this sequence began-one hurt another (who played victim), one felt
sorry for the other, one sought to help the other. (Ever see a professional
help sponge?) When this was very old, the action of injury became
identified with the action of helping. As the cycle was injure-victim-help,
as soon as the time gets vague in it, the parts of the cycle become injury-
is-help or help-is-injury.
It has long been true that help could be injury as a common
denominator. Out of this rose self-reliance as a virtue. You've known
people who refused help because they were "proud" or "self reliant". Well,
that's only the first stage of "help-is-injury".
The second phase is not so old. I think it's only been reversed for the
last two million years or so in this quarter of the universe. The "complete
flip" is not an identification of help with injury but a disassociation, a
complete dispersal on the subject. How-to-injure becomes help. This is
betrayal. With the intention to injure, one offers help to create a
dependence on something disguised, which on use becomes injurious. It is
this psychotic action which finalized the trap as a trap. "Don't dare
accept any help because it is only an effort to betray", is the fixed idea
which has become prevalent. One can have neither games nor life with that
idea. It's this idea which poisoned Christianity.
Now that may be hard for you to see because, by the very virtue of
being a Scientologist, you don't think all help is offered just to injure.
But others have that idea and so you find them hard to understand. We are
few because we few didn't believe all help was injury. But as soon as we
sought to help others, who didn't accept Scientology, we ran into a wall.
What was the wall? The above idee fixe. The majority in the world evidently
believe that help is only an intention to injure. This is more than help-
can-injure. This is "all-help-is-dangerous-because-anyone-offering-to-help-
intends only-to-injure" .
There are too many examples around for you to need many more. You can
find your numerous own. But the Mau-Mau people killed only those whites
that had sought to help the blacks. And just as I was wrapping up the
research on this technology (which is now beyond being only a theory) I
received a letter from a white attorney who had been asked to help. In a
panic he was demanding to be let off quick! It was very funny. With my
research papers on my desk before me, I was presented with a
perfect example of the technology! Poor man-little did he know what his
letter was arriving into. I wrote him back and his next letter was so
confused! He may even recover.
These ideas, as fixed convictions, are all about us and across the
world. This is the idea which blocked our way in our sincere intention to
make men free. This is how we have caught it in the press and, some of us,
from our dearest friends and relatives.
We have been confused. But so is Man. Man is still confused. We are
not. By studying and knowing our data on this, the "wall" will go "poof".
Any psychosis, neurosis or illness is fragile, no matter how fierce it
seems. These can only thrive in lies.
Now what will happen to the barriers we have had when they are hit by
truth?
I give us twenty months to having all cleared staffs on Central Orgs,
three years to all cleared Scientologists, two decades to a large
proportion of Earth cleared. That's my idea of it now.
So learn to handle help. Get cleared on it in co-auditing or in the
HGC. Learn a dozen ways to discuss it so as to break down the barricade of
"disinterest" (which is really fear) and get the show on the road.
Help is not injurious. Help is not the best way to hurt.
Help is just help. Let's flatten it until we'll always know it and
never forget it again, and learn adroitly to collapse the help psychosis in
others by talk alone.
We have bought our own Freedom to Help.
Use it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
(In the next bulletin I will give you the exact way to use help in Model
Sessions.)
LRH :dm.cden
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1960
MA
(Run in U.S. as soon
as possible as a
2nd, not lead, article)
DE-CERTIFICATION, HOW YOU SHOULD SUPPORT IT
The Cancellation of an Auditor's certificates is a measure taken by HCO
when these conditions exist: (a) The auditor has consistently refused
supervised processing; and (b) the auditor has committed anti-social acts
liable for prosecution under criminal law; or (c) continues to associate
with a de-certified auditor and balk efforts of HCO to bring the person
into an HGC for auditing.
Wild tales and rumours are often spread by a person who has been de-
certified and his "friends" to prevent the public from recognizing the
truth of the action. That truth is: HCO is trying to get somebody to have
auditing that is effective before he irrevocably harms himself, and that
HCO has evidence of criminal activity or association.
Support HCO's efforts to get auditors in for supervised processing when
they have gone wrong. You can assist HCO by doing the following: (a)
Realize that the whole "punishment" by HCO consists of getting the auditor
to have processing that is effective and at very low rates, (b) realize
that HCO has evidence of criminal actions or association when the
certificate is "pulled" and (c) support HCO's efforts to keep certificates
in clean hands and the repute of Scientology beyond reproach.
If they don't believe Scientology will help them, why are they
auditing?
Please assist HCO to make auditors keep their code. Don't buy auditing
from de-certified auditors. Don't pay bills to de-certified auditors (they
have no right left to sell processing for money). Force them in to the HGC
where we can care for them. Very few get de-certified. But they do all the
public damage to Scientology. In HCO we have to choose between two overt
acts:
1. An overt act against the offending auditor by de-certifying or
2. An overt act against you, the public and Scientology by
ignoring their anti-social actions.
In HCO we always choose 1.
Many are the cunning rebuttals and tales put out by an auditor whose
certificate has been pulled. Just remember when you hear them that the
person putting them out refused auditing for a long time before he lost his
certificates and that HCO has evidence of criminal activities by that
person it is not publishing. We don't "pull" two certificates a year in all
the thousands around the world. Help us keep it low by making our demand
that offenders get audited, where we can supervise it, stick. It's only
kindness. When we don't get them to an HGC they sometimes die, sometimes
ruin their lives, and they hurt all of us. Back HCO so HCO can back the
honest and the good.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 MAY 1960
Franchise Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assoc Secs
SECURITY CHECKS
The Organization Secretary in Washington is here at Saint Hill for
briefing on future US campaigns.
When I showed her how to do a security check and gave her a
demonstration, she made the following notes. They are of considerable
interest to all Central Orgs and HCOs as well as auditors. Therefore, I
give them to you in full.
Security Check
1. Stable data-you are not processing but looking for needle or tone arm
action that will not blow off. (Clear up on investigation-further
questioning and E-Meter exploration. )
2. Rising needle means nothing except you aren't asking right questions.
3. You are looking for significant drops or tone arm changes that will
not clear up. It is something that person is consciously withholding
and as he continues to withhold it on further questioning the needle or
the tone arm action will increase.
4. You start out by asking non-significant questions-50% of questions
are to be these, i.e., if you have 10 significant (security) questions
to ask you start out with 10 non-significant questions. If you have a
needle pattern on non-significant questions you note it and it doesn't
count on security questions.
5. On significant questions-any question that gets drop or TA action-you
don't go any further but explore on this question. You may be getting
action on past life or rather unimportant this life acts-i.e., sniping
a balloon from a store as a small child. Clear this out. The needle may
cool off (less action) but still be reacting. If so, explore further-
see if you can clear it off. If on exploration the action increases,
the person is consciously sitting on something he doesn't want you to
know. If he's handing you up something else to explain the needle
action (i.e., trying to clear it up by handing you something else) the
action will increase because he's basically lying. If the action
increases you can tell him he's sitting on something he won't tell and
that he's a risk. He may break down and let go of it at this time. If
so-he still needs processing on it and is a risk until he's responsible
for it. Just letting go of the withhold doesn't make him responsible
for it. He is not retained on staff while being processed to clear it
up. What you are looking for is that which won't cool off. You can cool
something off and go on to the next security check question and then
later come back to the reacting question. It may have built up again.
If so, explore some more.
6. On a Security Check Sheet you only note those questions that wouldn't
clear. If something won't clear or cool off the person is a security
risk. If he does tell you and clear it, if it's a heavy crime, note it.
7. E-Meter-use of in security check-check out meter before connecting
person to be checked. See former bulletin on checking out E-Meter.
Generally you set the sensitivity straight up on American meter unless
the needle is very very sticky. English meter is more sensitive-so you
set it lower. Then set the TA-have the person squeeze the cans. You
want about a 1/3 dial drop so you can adjust the
sensitivity if the action is too much or too small on the can
squeeze. Put the person at ease. Don't act accusative. You don't want
to restimulate all the interrogation in the bank. It'll just take that
much longer to clear it off.
8. There may once in a while be a person who reads nicely at their clear
reading with no action and you're very suspicious the guy isn't clear.
This could be a complete "blab" no responsibility case-a mockery of
clear. You can check this out as follows. Make a somewhat accusative
statement to the person that would be real to him-i.e., "You never get
your work done." The mockery of clear person will wildly justify and
blame. Check this person out on help-2-way-on an employer, etc. They
will be real nowhere on help-i.e., can't conceive of helping an
employer-can't run 2-way help, etc. This person, no matter how secure
he may seem, is an employment risk because he can't help and will only
cause difficulties on a post. He'll be a camouflaged hole.
9. Along with security check on staffs a help check should be given. If
the person is sticky on help (can conceive of some help in some areas
but has several areas of no help, especially on 3rd dynamic), he needs
processing before he can be hired. If he's nowhere on help-can't run 2-
way or can't conceive of helping an employer or an organization, he is
not hirable until he's flat on help which will probably take many
hours. He's probably a CCH case.
10. Remember, as a security checker you are not merely an observer, or an
auditor, you are a detective.
I trust these notes will be of use.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dm.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1960
MA (not a lead
article Issue II
but a 2nd place)
Dear Scientologist:
For a long ten years I have had to wear many hats. Amongst them is an
Ethics hat by which I have had to protect, often with small support, the
good name and standards of conduct of Dianetics and Scientology.
To say the least the hat and necessary actions of counter-attack and
defense have been distasteful to me. And in this regard, I humbly ask your
help.
We have the answers today as to the why of "squirrels". We know the
reason for their overts against Dianetics and Scientology. Technically,
with overt-withhold and the phenomena of help we not only understand them
but can straighten out their insecurity and hates to their own benefit.
Could you help me in this? It must be evident by now after ten long
years that if there were any twist or untruth, betrayal or insincerity
intended by me or organizational people, we long since would have passed
away. The rumours that are put out by unbalanced people achieve only harder
work for me and for good people everywhere.
In ten consistent years you should have proof enough that I'll stay at
my post and do my job and overcome barriers, technical or administrative,
organizational and field, somehow.
I dislike punishments and quarrels and entheta as much as any of you.
Sometimes I haven't handled these things well, but I have tried to do my
job as best I could here on a muddy earth.
Today nothing can destroy us or our works. I have no fear for our
future and I know what we can do. Available to your hands is the technology
necessary to handle rumor mongers, unethical persons and enturbulators. You
can help me by handling them and getting them to good auditors, preferably
an HGC, and preventing them from upsetting others and our task. Winning is
so easy now, success is in our very grasp.
What failure do you think I feel when I am asked to cancel a
certificate? With all the wealth of truth before him, someone avails
himself or herself of no part of it and with a glass of water held in hand,
dies of thirst.
Yet some of this burden lies with you. When an auditor forgets his
personal auditing, and audits without being clear, why does the field
permit him to crack up? Why haven't his friends and associates thought
enough of him to force him to get processing from a reliable source? Why do
they wait for him, overworked already, to emerge from the tangle of some
emotional crisis utterly unstrung and hating everything, before they offer
processing?
Clearing the executives, the auditors, the people of Scientology is
your job now. When you hear somebody "going bad", running away and raving
against us all, don't harbour him and sympathize-you'll kill him. Make him
go to the nearest HGC or an auditor with altitude over him and get his
overts off and his ability to help increased.
There are thousands of auditors across the world. Few of them are
clear. Once or twice a year amongst all these one of them turns upon us.
Rumours fly. People wonder. Eyebrows raise. Why? In a few years they'll be
clear. We've just begun the project. Right now they are not. Instead of
standing around blinking, wondering even
believing such wild tales, why aren't you being effective? The person doing
bad and untrue things needs assistance. The least you can do is drive or
force him to an HGC where supervised auditing (and not patty-cake) will
straighten the person out and make life bright again.
My lines are heavy. My days are long. To these should we also add my
Ethics hat?
A breakthrough has happened here in 1960's spring bigger even than O/W.
We're clearing people fast in HGCs. It just began to happen. But it isn't
happening to auditors in the field yet and it won't for quite some while.
Meanwhile must I go on and act to minimize the damage being done by people
not only not yet clear but heavily caved in?
You could help me by pressing these people in toward auditing, by
understanding the why of their rumours and hates and getting them
processed. And you can help by insisting that "names" in Scientology get
processed regularly by competent auditors in an HGC (not by some "friend"
who'll patty-cake) until they're really cleared. I myself have had scores
of hours of processing since last fall. If I could be clearer than I am,
what's that make the case of other Scientologists?
You could lighten my lines, and my heart, if you'd share this burden
even a little bit. Hold the field together until they are all clear.
Now, certain you will help in this and let me get on to wider work, I
wish to celebrate the occasion of HGCs, using new technology, beginning to
make clears again, by announcing the complete and unqualified restoration
of all certificates and awards ever cancelled since 1950. They're all in
force again. Let's get on with our job.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 MAY 1960
BPI
MA
BY THEIR ACTIONS ......
By their actions you shall know them, whether bad or good, whether on
another side or ours.
And what in their actions gives us the keenest insight? Their ability
to help.
Some think that help cannot be done. Shun them. Some think that help is
always an effort to betray. Process them for here you have the criminals of
Earth.
Some people cannot help. They can only injure and destroy. And if in
the name of help they only injure and destroy then know them carefully for
they are criminals.
What is a criminal? One who thinks help cannot be on any dynamic or
uses help on anyone to injure and destroy.
Who are these men with covert ways who bring Earth its pain? They are
the men who cannot help. Who are the women who must be helped but who can
only maim? They say, these men and women, that they'll help and then they
make a thorough shambles of it all.
From where did Earth conceive her traps and aspects that are grim?
Earth would be a lovely place if all men helped to help, not to destroy.
Think heavily on this point. Judge men from what they think of help.
Judge women too and find the good ones from the bad.
The good can help. The bad will not or if they do, they "help" only to
betray.
The good of Earth comes from above the point of make and break where
help is help and honestly. The pain of Earth comes from the tones where
help does not exist or where it's used to pull us into agony.
Know your friends. It's strange that those who argue with us against
our goals and Scientology cannot conceive of honest help. Discuss help with
them and you'll find their tone and whether they are worth a lot as
friends.
This is the test that you can use to separate the good from bad and
then clear-eyed begin to make a world in which all life can live.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JUNE 1960
Fran Hldrs
Central Orgs
HCOs
THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTOLOGY VERSUS OVERTS
The entire secret of all overt-withhold mechanisms is valences.
I have known for a long while that a profile on our tests is a picture
of a valence.
If the preclear were in no valence, but was himself completely, he
would have a perfect test response and would be wholly clear. In this
statement we have one of the background structure points of Scientology.
This was an assumption point for some time, a point of departure, like
"conservation of energy" in physics is the primary assumption point of 19th
Century physics-if we assume this point then we have the "truths", axioms
and other data in elementary physics. The point, assumed and never proven
(and not even well phrased) is the start point in physics from which all
deductions are made. It is an "understood", a non-examined theory. Physics
was demonstrable truth, but only in a limited and finite sense. The moment
nuclear physics, my dear companion that haunted my college days, came into
action, the assumption point began to crumble and is not now considered to
be truth. Hence while elementary physics works in a finite limited sense,
it is not a considered true science any longer-it is only elementary
science.
Freud, for instance, had as his start point (or assumption point), the
Libido Theory of 1894 in which he based all on sex.
It is rare that a science ever embraces its own assumption point and
resolves it. Freud was stuck with his Libido Theory, just as Newton's
successors were stuck with "Conservation of Energy". So long as elementary
physicists were concerned only with energy which "could not be destroyed or
created" they tread-milled themselves into a dead-end mirrored in such
things as inadequate costly engines, difficult construction and a complete
lock out from space and other planets.
The great Einstein, not a physicist but a mathematician, established a
new science which deserved the name of the physical science "physics", a
name already purloined by the natural philosophy of the 1 9th Century. Old
time physics was the science of the age of fire and ended with the age of
fire. It died to whimpering embers under the down blast of atomic fission.
We are no longer scientifically nor politically in the age of fire. We are
in the age of freed energy. We do not yet have an atomic physical science.
We have only a number of guestimates like the bronze worker of early Greece
who knew nothing of the facts of fire metallurgy. The fire age, begun by
Prometheus, whoever he really was, is ending on Earth. The raw energy age
has begun with all the teething troubles of any new era. Called the "Atomic
Age" just now, it started with hints of others before Einstein but was
actually born when Einstein wrote his Theory of Relativity. This, a crude
guestimate, was yet a great departure point in the history of this planet.
It has unlocked space to Man, promised him new engines, widened his scope.
Unhappily it has also unlocked vast opportunities for political bungling-
but I would rather say that it exposed political diplomacy as a bungling
subject which must now urgently improve. Nations can no longer afford
political ineptness.
Now the assumption point of physics, the science of the fire age,
became disproved and the science is in question and the fire age is in fact
over. The holes in physics have begun to glare. Some day a new science will
be organized from the assumption point of Einstein's work (no matter if
he's debunked, forgotten or becomes a legend like Prometheus, the
professors of tomorrow can teach as a myth [Einstein
stole the secret of eternal fission from a Heaven named Princeton where the
goals... ] ) And ages hence somebody will prove or expose the basic
assumption and the fission age will resurge or die, depending on whether or
not the assumption is found to be true or false.
In Freud's case in a lesser sense, a short and ineffective but highly
interesting age of psychotherapy began with the Libido Theory in 1894 and
began to disintegrate through lack of progress and development about 1920
although the subject itself became an intellectual football in the late
20s, an artist's cross in the early 30s and a teenager's subject in the
late 50s. His contemporaries added nothing effective to Freud's work and
the subject, like psychology, which originated in 1879 and assumed men were
animals, failed in all fields but wide popularity.
Back of all work on mental states, however, lie various assumption
points, most of them hidden or undelineated, from which the remainder of
the subject evolves and grows. If the cornerstone is proven only relatively
factual, a long enduring career is guaranteed to the subject. Freud used as
his assumption point more than his Libido Theory that all impulses and
behaviors are sex-motivated. He assumed that if one were sex-motivated,
then if one unblocked this drive by removing an early traumatic sex
experience that was impeding the drive, the patient would recover from
neurosis. All manner of interesting complications proceed from this: art,
being considered a sublimation or aberration of the sex drive, had to be
considered wholly neurotic: success, being most desirable as sexual
success, was a product of a blessed neurosis if achieved in any other
field. As treatment it was common for a Freudian practitioner to cut
through the Gordian knot by ordering a patient to go out and have sex with
everyone, prove his or her prowess and thus become well and happy. While
this secured the popularity of the subject, it did little to reduce asylum
statistics as these were on the increase throughout the Freudian age and
were highest at its end, and indeed were higher in Freudian dominated areas
than in others where Freudian treatment was not used. (Not my propaganda,
just a recorded fact.)
The psychiatrist, following a Russian science, has a more basic and
brutal assumption point which is that a shock cures aberration. The idea
goes back a very long way, making psychiatry a long, if sporadic, age.
Psychiatry ebbs and rises in use since it is a dramatization rather than a
science. It springs from the same impulse that assumes punishment cures
wrong-doing. The limited workability of this is apparent around us on every
hand. We could do nothing socially about crime so we inhibited crime by
striking at criminals. This gave us suppressed criminality and more
criminals but it must be said that lacking any solution that worked well,
then any solution that even seemed to work occasionally was considered
better than nothing.
Perhaps at some early date in whole history this worked better, but all
expedient cures tend to become a new illness. Alcohol, in any alcoholic,
once cured something but now produces with amazing similarity the malady it
once cured. These are stop-gap cures that do this, not cures in any
absolute sense.
As the earliest punishment was the production of a shock in the
offender whole track history continues to repeat the treatment for
misbehavior as a dramatized action, not an intellectual undertaking. If a
person misbehaves, he should be punished. Thus if a person misbehaves
insanely he must be punished. Psychiatry is not, then, a science, but a
legalized, at present, dramatization. And this is the very dramatization
that makes this a cruel universe when it is. Punishment is unworkable as
all the statistics show. Punish the criminal and he becomes, too often, a
confirmed and hardened criminal.
All this, however, is based on a yet earlier lie. The last two years of
my researches have been devoted to establishing or not, as the case may be,
whether anything could actually be done to a person, or whether it was not
the person himself who did it. I "knew" the latter was theoretically true
but I had not found means to demonstrate it-and indeed was quite prepared
to discover that something could be done to a person without his being
prior cause. This work will be found under all 1958-59 data released all
overts and withholds.
The earlier assumption to punishment is that something can be done to
another being.
By evidences to date, odd as it may seem, it appears, by all processing
tests, that one becomes aberrated only by means of his own, not another's
actions. I do not say that nothing can be done to a person or a being by
another person or being. Obviously communication exists. I am only saying
that all aberrative effects of action are created by the person who has
them. Indeed none could be processed successfully through a burn or engram
unless he himself were holding the aberration there-for the fire, location
and other people are not consulted and are not even there in fact at the
time of processing. A preclear being audited on a past incident can recover
from its ill effects. Therefore it seems conclusive that he himself must be
causing the ill effects in present time or he could not eradicate them
since the "sources are not present". Thus they must not have been the
sources of his "ill effects". The preclear must have been.
Inspecting the assumption points of Dianetics and Scientology one finds
now that what was originally assumed is fact. Thus we are to be here as a
science for a very long time.
As no science before ever proved its assumption point that I know
about, we are suddenly unique in that our results tend to verify more than
our basic truths. The further we go forward, in other words, the more basic
are the assumption points. Unlike, then, physics or psychoanalysis or other
sciences, we have examined and improved our assumption points.
We assumed in Dianetics that if we removed engrams, life would resurge
and become good. This assumed that a being was all right until injured and
that eradicating the injury would find him all right again. This is not the
same as Freud for Freud never assumed goodness or rightness in Man, but on
the contrary seemed to warn that we had better not go too far, art and all
that depending on the madness of us all. As God seems to be blamed for most
of the art work in this universe this seems a most impudent evaluation of
God's sanity on Freud's part, although I do not think he ever displayed an
actual professional sign saying "S. Freud, Psychotherapist by Appointment
to God".
The Dianetic assumption that Man is basically good and is damaged by
punishment holds valid in practical practice and in some tens of thousands
of cases (and we're the only ones in history that validated our findings by
strict long, long precise testing on cases); we find that the more we
process successfully, the kinder and more ethical our people become. That
disposes of the vile nature of Man by staggering poundage of evidence. The
assumption that "all art is derived from aberration" is discounted by the
numbers of singers and artists who sang better and painted better after
they were made saner by us.
The basic psychiatric assumption that enough punishment will restore
sanity is disproven, not only by psychiatric statistics but by actual
observation and removal of the effects of "punishment" by processing.
That a being, without aberration, would be good, ethical, artistic and
powerful, is still a basic assumption in Scientology. It has just been
demonstrated as factual for our practice. This is news. Our assumption
point has just become a basic truth. It is not just an assumption.
Therefore we will now find ourselves on a new plane of progress, perhaps
with new teething troubles, certainly with even further goals.
The truth was demonstrated in this wise:
I knew valences, those mocked up other-beingnesses a person thinks he
is, were the source of test profile patterns.
When we rid the pc of an undesirable valence his profile rose on the
graph and he felt and acted better. When we did not alter the valence in
tested cases the profile remained much the same. If the preclear were
driven into undesirable valences by
experiment, his profile worsened apparently, although this is more
difficult to verify, since the tone of the existing valence was undoubtedly
dropped as well.
Now from this I have found the mechanism by which a being gives himself
pain that is actually self-inflicted but is apparently other-inflicted. And
this is a vast stride for it resolves O/Ws and we can consider it a broadly
completed cycle of research ending two years with a victory for our
assumption point.
By being a valence, not himself, a person confuses the source of pain.
Inflicting it himself upon the valence he is in, and by experiencing the
pain from the valence, a being can counterfeit the effect of being an
effect of punishment. By being Valence A, he can conceive the environment
is guilty of striking Valence A, but as this is in fact an overt by himself
against Valence A (if only by failing to protect it) he feels the pain of
Valence A. As he thinks of himself as Valence A, he can then feel his own
pain.
The conclusion is that to feel pain and for pain to persist one must be
in a valence.
The remedy for pain, illness, aberration, insanity and the lot, then,
is to free the preclear of valences. Apparently, freed of all valences of
an unconscious level, the preclear would yet be able to experience, but
would not be involved with pain, etc, except by postulate.
The way to free him of all valences or unconscious counterfeit
beingness is not the purpose of this paper.
Here I only wish to examine with you the aspects of assumption points
of subjects and sciences (each of which has one, usually unknown to the
originator) and to pass along the interesting intelligence that our former
assumption point of "remove the aberration and you have a worthwhile
person" has become demonstrable in practice and can be considered truth.
This means a new level has opened to the future with new certainty.
An overt recoils upon one because one is already in a valence similar
to that of the being against whom the overt is leveled.
The mechanism is exposed. And as it is exposed, we find it is not
needed since a being without valences is basically good. Only a being with
valences has his overts recoil upon him. Only a being with valences commits
overts harmful to others as he is behaving as he supposes the "evil"
valence would behave but as no unvalenced being does.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1960
MA
WHAT WE EXPECT OF A SCIENTOLOGIST
We inherited, when we began, a great many hidden errors in the society,
so deeply laid they seemed right. "Everybody knows that ...." is a
tombstone of progress for it contains uninspected lies that bring the
wittiest of us to grief. "Everybody knows that Man is Evil" was only one of
the many things we found wrong, exposed and dropped from our own knowledge.
However, in the field of what is expected of a Scientologist, we have
for ten years carried along an inherited error. It is this: "Everybody
knows that a specialist in a science hangs out a shingle and, if a
professional, becomes a private practitioner."
Now listen. Psycho-analysis was developed in 1894 by Sigmund Freud.
Everybody who studied it was expected to hang out a shingle and start
practising. It took half a century for psycho-analysis to become generally
known by the people. Yet how could it miss? Its tenet was that if you were
sexually uninhibited you would be happy.
The psycho-analyst took his cue from the medico of his day. If you
could heal you were a healer with a shingle.
Well, I'm afraid a lot of us have bought this too. If we were trained
in Scientology as a professional we should hang out our shingle as a
practitioner. With all due respect to the Scientologist in professional
practice (where they have every right to be) this is not a true idea. It is
a borrowed idea. It's as old as the witch doctor.
A Scientologist is the being three feet behind society's head. And
society runs on eight dynamics, not in a sick room. Some of us, of course,
would become professional practitioners. But a professional Scientologist
is one who expertly uses Scientology on any area or level of the society.
A housewife who does not have professional level skill in Scientology
could not expect to run a wholly successful family or keep order in her
neighbourhood and keep her family well. A factory foreman could not
possibly handle his crews with full effectiveness without professional
Scientology skill. The personal assistant to a corporation executive could
not do a fully effective job without being a professional Scientologist. A
corporation president without a certificate will someday fail. And the head
of a country would go to pieces if he didn't know Scientology from a
professional angle.
How can these people handle life if they have no expert knowledge of
how to handle life.
Now we don't expect everyone in the world to become a trained auditor.
But we expect the people who are making the world to have a knowledge of
how to make it go.
A trained Scientologist is not a doctor. He is someone with special
knowledge in the handling of life.
We have many, many personal success stories in Scientology. They begin
with a book acquaintance and bloom when professional skill enters the
background. These people, small people, big people, drove a wedge for
themselves into companies, societies, with Scientology and then took over
control of the area. They succeeded
where they never would have dreamed they could. And every time one of us
drives in such a wedge, we all win because the world is brought nearer to a
sane and decent world.
The factories, the marts of trade, the homes, the neighbourhoods, these
are the places we want trained Scientologists. In that way alone, we're on
the busy, still healthy communication lines of the world.
Some of us need to run centres and schools just to give the rest of us
service when required. Training at a pro level must continue and must be
kept good. And service and communication must be given. Hence, we have
Central Organizations on every continent and HCOs. But if we avoid the
throbbing comm lines of the world and act like doctors, we will not win
soon enough as a group.
Any trained Scientologist can win to success in society. Heightened IQ,
a knowledge of life, a forthright attitude-with these things it is easy for
him or her to improve 2 social or business position, to get higher pay, to
exert wider personal influence. This we know we can do, we have done it so
often so let's improve the ability.
Process people weekends, run a co-audit some evenings of the week at
home, but get on the active lines of the world and make your presence felt.
It takes full training to do it. It's been done from our books alone
but not always well. It takes tough Academy training to make a
Scientologist, so don't go at it half armed.
And stop feeling apologetic because you are not a "full time auditor".
We are the auditors to the world, not to a handful of the sick.
We are not doctors. We are the world's trouble shooters. When we make a
company win, the whole world wins, when we make a neighbourhood win, we all
win.
A full time Scientologist makes life better wherever he is. And that is
enough pro activity for anyone.
What do we expect of you? To become the best Scientologist that can be
and to get on the comm lines of the world and bring a big win where it
counts. We don't expect you to hang up a shingle as a doctor and have a
private practice. We'll respect you if you do. But we'll respect you just
as much and even more if you get trained as a pro and go out and up in the
world of action and of life.
Hit for the key spots by whatever means, the head of the women's club,
the personnel director of a company, the leader of a good orchestra, the
president's secretary, the advisor of the trade union-any key spot. Make a
good sound living at it, drive a good car, but get your job done, handle
and better the people you meet and bring about a better earth.
And stop feeling hangdog because you "aren't auditing full time".
Nobody expects you to.
We'll keep centres going to service your needs, some of us, we'll
provide ammunition and books. And the rest of us had better invade every
activity there is on a high level of success and make our influence felt on
the comm lines of the world.
Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins.
So let's help the world win.
LRH:js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1960
All HGCs
HGC PRECLEAR ASSESSMENT
With considerable data accumulating on Help when used in conjunction
with Alternate Confront and Havingness, and with Help even working on vague
past terminals in concept form ("Get the idea of helping a " "Get the
idea of not helping a "), it is time to pick up any cases that have
been in processing more recently, by starting them again on the first
terminal they were ever run on.
You will find that Help O/W will move a case that was begun
unsuccessfully no matter how long ago, providing that you discover with a
meter what terminal the case was started on originally and address that
terminal and audit it until it is flat.
This experimental approach should work, because it has worked that when
cases were started again and the first process ever run was flattened, the
case began to move.
This will work even though the first approach was engram running or
straight wire away back. It should be discovered what the pc's first goal
in auditing ever was, or his first hope for auditing, and get the terminal
closest to that goal. It will often be found that the pc was trying to help
his eyes or his wife or himself as the first Help terminal in auditing.
When this terminal was not totally flattened the pc, finding he had not
helped whatever he was trying to help, got an auditing lose. By finding out
what the pc was trying to help at the very first contact with Scientology
and by giving him sessions on it with Help O/W a most important win can be
obtained.
This bulletin should be given very serious attention in HGCs where the
cases always come that have real heavy auditing problems. HGCs get the
toughest cases and usually all the old time cases. Where any case is being
handled in an HGC it should be suspected that there has been an auditing
flub somewhere along the line. Perhaps the pc won wonderfully with the
first auditing session but failed heavily down the line somewhere. In such
a circumstance always convert the loss to a win.
HGCs do more patch-up than virgin work. Thus it is safe to assume first
that any applying pc has had something he tried to help in his own auditing
that he received, and that it isn't flat, and second that the pc has had a
lose on some terminal.
HGC auditing as a rule should regard itself as parasitic upon other
auditing already done. HGC staff auditors should rarely be attempting the
new and strange in an assessment of a case but should be trying to recover
past data dredged up in earlier than HGC sessions and converting the losses
to wins. This is a type of assessment peculiar to an HGC and we should
study it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :j s.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1960
Fran Hldrs
HINTS ON RUNNING CASES WITH HELP
Presession Help-Two Way Comm.
Rudiments Help-2 way Help, Auditor and pc.
PTP-Use ordinary overt-withhold not help on personnel involved with
PTP.
Assessments-There are several Assessments. Dynamic Assessment (HCO
Bulletin of May 30, 1960, "Dynamic Assessment on Help", covered this)
terminals found should be handled with Concept Help. Use lots of havingness
when running such a terminal.
There is another new assessment, Know to Mystery Scale Assessment. This
is done by using the E-Meter on the buttons of the Know to Mystery Scale.
That level which most changes the pattern of the needle is the target. Use
Concept Help on it.
The most profitable, fast way to get a case moving is to find out what
the person was most trying to help when he or she came into Dianetics and
Scientology.
This may be "an arm" or "my friends" or "myself". But whatever it is
run it on any help process until it is flat. Concept Help is a good starter
for the terminal thus located. This gives the pc a big primary win.
Flatten the Terminals
We stalled on ACC Clearing Procedures because auditors did not flatten
help before starting on Step 6. Let's not lose this horrible lesson.
The technical reason for this is that when help is unflat, a pc is
still in a valence. Running Step 6 in a valence is courting disaster as the
pc is in a picture that increases in mass and gives him somatics.
We are not returning to Step 6. We have better processes. But we are
returning to help with far more knowledge of it.
Flatten every terminal on which you run help. By flatten is meant no
needle change when the terminal is mentioned. A way to test this is to
depart by two way comm from the terminal and then ask about it again. If
the needle reacts the terminal mentioned is not flat. Just talk about
something else, like the weather, and then mention the terminal again.
You'll see.
It is better to use a general form of a terminal than a specific form.
It is better to run "a young man" than "Joe". If the E-Meter reacts to
"Joe" it is best to find out what Joe is to the pc and find the general
form that reacts most ("a friend", "a young man", "a bum") and run that,
not "Joe". You will get a lot further than when you run a specific close to
present time terminal.
Help As Valence Problem
When people become a valence, they do so for at least two reasons.
First and probably most powerful: The thetan takes a valence that he
believes will help others or the universe.
Second and more mechanical: The thetan tries to help something or
somebody and fails and the last stage of his effort is to mock up a picture
of the thing and try to help it.
There are various aspects of all this, more and more complicated. The
thetan becomes a man to help women. He fails and thinks men can't help
women. So he restrains men, or he becomes a woman.
A thetan can become very involved with his computations on the subject
of help. One black case I know is seeking to help others by absorbing all
the blackness in the universe !
There is a formula for handling 1. above. Find out what a thetan is
being and find
out what that beingness helps and not helps by using the command, "What
would ____help?" "What would not help?"
There is a general form which discovers beingnesses in a pc. Find out
something, very general, that a pc is trying to help or has failed to help
and run "What would help ____?" "What would not help____?" on the
discovered terminal. The pc will get cognitions on what he or she is being
and what the pc is restraining himself or herself from being.
Finishing Off a Difficult Terminal
Any terminal that is being run on help that was unwisely chosen can be
eased off by running old overt/withhold, alternate confront or
responsibility. This is a crude way out but it will work.
In any event, any session should contain general alternate confront
"What can you confront?" "What would you rather not confront?" and
havingness. These take the edge off unwise choices, any rough auditing and
make the case feel better.
If the pc can do it, responsibility can get a pc off a bad choice
fastest. If a pc can run responsibility easily. The pc has to be running
rather well in general before it can be attempted. The pcs who are
suffering because of an auditor choice of-wrong terminal usually can't run
responsibility easily. Of course, successful auditing is "What you can get
away with".
The best and smoothest way to get off a bogged terminal is alternate
confront. But when the case has afterwards been run on other terminals with
help, it's best to go back and clean up the ones that earlier bogged with
help by running more help on them.
General Processes
The general processes which assist help sessions are alternate confront-
"What can you confront?" "What would you rather not confront?" and
Havingness, "Look around here and find something you could have."
Any couple hours of help should be followed in the same session with
fifteen minutes of alternate confront and fifteen minutes of havingness.
These times are approximate and are given just to communicate some idea of
ratio. A truly boggy case could do with a ratio of 1:1:1 such as 45 minutes
of help, 45 minutes of alternate confront, 45 minutes of havingness. As the
case gets out of long, long comm lags on help, increase help in the ratio
to 1 :1/2:1/2 or one hour of help, a half hour of alternate confront, a
half hour of havingness. All this is auditor judgment established by
observation. As it is the help in any form that does it, remember to use
help to advance the case, and alternate confront and havingness to make the
pc feel good.
Alternate confront and havingness improve a case, of course, but are
long, long hauls as processes if we think of clearing with them.
Help on near present time terminals is far less effective in clearing
than help on general terminals that have a lot of track to them. As general
terminals can get a pc into a lot of confusion on the back track, alternate
confront and havingness keep the pc from getting too bogged to run.
Alternate confront also takes the edge off invented answers by the pc.
(Create-confront phenomena.)
There are lots of help processes and many ways to run them. They all
win to some degree. It is the amount of help run rather than the number of
terminals cleared that clears the case.
Help basically sheds valences. Therefore havingness is needed. But the
valences are all "can't-haves" so when the valence is off at last the
havingness of the pc comes up.
Almost any brand of help run long enough by good auditing should clear
a pc. Hence, the idea is to run help and run it flat.
LRH:dm.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[HCO B 30 May 1960, Dynamic Assessment on Help, referred to in the fourth
paragraph on the previous page, was reissued on 23 July 1974 as BTB 30 May
1960.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE AD10
Important MA
Franchise Holders
SPECIAL ZONE PLAN
The Scientologist's Role in Life
Ten years ago, on about this date, I was up against third dynamic
confusion of such magnitude that within a few months, I was to decide to
forget organization problems and concentrate on research.
Because of this decision for years we were poorer in numbers but richer
by far in knowledge.
It evidently was not enough to be able to help the basic problems of an
individual. There were eight dynamics. It was necessary to take in at least
some of all eight dynamics before we could be effective.
And toward the end of June in 1950, I first sensed that truth. And the
maxim-bring order to your own house before you attempt order next door.
In June, 1950, the Foundations were already beginning to shatter under
the enthusiastic door pounding of the public. I had built the proverbial
better mousetrap and all the world was beating a path to our door-and was
breaking the door down!
Yes, we could do wonders with people. Greater wonders than had been
done in recent millenia. But we were ignorant beyond the first two
dynamics. The moment we sought to handle the third we were done.
That was ten years ago. Within months of that date all that was left of
the first organizations was rubble and newspapers blowing by in the wind.
I worked hard, and studied and researched, never friendless, often
helped and worked ahead for ten years.
The First Dynamic, self, fluctuated in results and has stabilized with
unsurpassed processing technology. In proof, our people are individually in
better shape than any other group.
On the Second Dynamic, family and sex, we have gotten into a winning
position. We know the answers to marriage, children and sex. The material
isn't all published broadly enough yet even for Scientologists to know it
but it's there and we're living better lives.
The Third Dynamic, groups, is the spectacular breakthrough of today.
It's happened so gradiently we've hardly realized we have won. But observe:
we have a magnificent organization. In America, England, South Africa and
Australia we have just about the most wonderful organizations Man has seen
for their size, cost and defensibility. Here we have achieved spectacular
stability. Largely self-determined, yet co-operating smoothly these third
dynamic examples compare with June, 1950, Foundations like the Royal Ballet
compares with the aftermath of Hiroshima.
Just as we can represent in ourselves the grip we have on the first
dynamic, so do we represent in our organizations that we have the third
dynamic well in hand.
The technology of our third dynamic in organizations and the field is an
exact one, as skilled as an auditor's know-how. And having applied it to
organizations we are now applying it to the field, which is the main
subject of this bulletin. You in "the field", you are about to win, too,
with a complete new level of policy and action if you want it: you are
about to be included "in".
The Fourth Dynamic, Mankind, is now an understood zone of operation and
is declared herewith to be operational for a Scientologist. The prize of
understanding Man as a racial and political species has fallen to our hand.
Don't smile. I know it's an incredible announcement. But it's factual.
On the Fifth Dynamic, that of living things, I have been making headway
since last year and know quite a bit now about them. Many of the secrets
have dropped into our hands.
On the Sixth Dynamic, the physical universe, we have for some time
stood well above what they know in physics.
On the Seventh Dynamic, the spirit, we covered this ground very
thoroughly in 1953-54-55 and it's still all true but too advanced for
general consumption. The best record of this was in the 1953 Philadelphia
Lecture Series of 64 hours.
On the Eighth Dynamic, the Supreme Being, we have at least found the
key question and in a little while we should have it answered on a
demonstrable basis. Far from presumptuous it is about time somebody neither
atheist nor zealot asked some questions, and arrived at some answers that
have no self-interested curves in them.
So you can see where we are going and have at least a passing
acquaintance with developments. Here we are with the largest fund of
information of life and its patterns that has been assembled in a factual
package on Earth.
Now the question is, what are we going to do with it?
Until we had the third and fourth dynamics demonstrably in hand
technically we could not answer the question. We've each had his own idea
of what we should be doing with it and each of these ideas is right to the
degree that it's right for each of us. I have never discussed this point
strongly because I did not want to shake anyone into an uncertainty. So
let's say that all these ideas are right and then add a Third Dynamic Idea
with which we can all agree.
Improvement is the common denominator of all our ideas. And of course
each one has a zone of interest where he or she feels improvement is most
needed or where he or she would be most comfortable in doing the work of
improvement.
And that's the gist of this Third Dynamic Idea. It's a rather deceptive
idea at first glance since we are each of us doing something of that.
But let us be far more definite. And let us expose a fallacy that has
long been riding with us, as an unknown passenger.
People think of professional practitioners as doctors who, aloof from
all other concerns, practise on the sick. This is a very novel idea.
Dreamed up, probably, by the first lazy witch doctor and used forever
thereafter by most specialists in human livingness. And here I want to as-
is and banish that idea from amongst us all.
If we are doctors (by which might be meant "repairers") then we are
doctors on the third and fourth dynamics and handle the first and second
dynamics only to achieve better function on the third and fourth.
And true enough, most Scientologists agree, I think, with this concept.
But it itself is as new and novel as the idea of being a professional
practitioner to individual health once was.
I believe our third dynamic organization, taking in all Scientologists,
should go this way:
The Central Organization and Centre Scientologists should service the
remaining Scientologists, doing administration, instructing and auditing.
Instruction to a professional level of all Scientologists should be entered
upon as a must. Central Organization and Centre Auditing should be special
and referred cases and the Scientologists themselves when they want it as
part of service.
Being trained and cleared need not hold up the next zone of action,
though it is taken for granted that these will occur for each.
The "field auditor" should be included wholly "in" to the general
activity as a large zone divided into smaller specialized zones. The "field
auditor" should of course run a group some evenings (he will find he has
to) and audit not only members of his family but contacts in his zone on
weekends or evenings. But, as you will see, he or she is largely wasting
time by trying to be an individual doctor type practitioner where he or she
is only partly successful at it. Some of course will have to work full time
in centres as we get into action but centres are mentioned above as a
special activity along with Central Organizations.
The largest majority of Scientologists should, I feel, consider
themselves as "doctors" on the third and fourth dynamics. And if we work
well at this, we will have answered all our various needs and brought it
off on the third and fourth as well.
Now I wouldn't be talking to you like this if I didn't feel I had this
studied to a conclusion.
Consider our position: we have arrived at a very special plateau of
knowledge as has been reviewed above. Data on our know-how is being
codified for use in these zones of action.
Consider the position of the world. The story is often repeated on the
whole track. As Mest is made to help too much, a plateau of civilization is
reached in which the individual is downgraded to a number. The end of this-
the lights eventually go out through lack of personal initiative and
ability.
We are in a fantastic position, at the right time and place, to halt
this cycle of decay and start a new one on Earth. And I believe we should
overtly do so.
How?
We are masters of IQ and ability. We have know-how. Any of us could
select out a zone of life in which we are interested and then, entering it,
bring order and victory to it.
Of course, there's a heavy challenge in doing this. Some of the
victories would be hardly won. But we would win across the world if we kept
our vision bright.
The third and fourth dynamics subdivide. Any third breaks down into
many activities and professions, a neighborhood, a business concern, a
military group, a city government, etc, etc, etc. The fourth dynamic breaks
down just now mainly to races and nations.
Now just suppose a Scientologist were to consider himself a
professional only for the purposes of treating and repairing or even
starting again these third and fourth zones?
See this: a housewife, already successfully employing Scientology in
her own home, trained to professional level, takes over a woman's club as
Secretary or some key position. She straightens up the club affairs by
applying comm practice and making peace and then, incidental to the club's
main function, pushes Scientology into a
zone of special interest in the club-children, straightening up marriages,
whatever comes to hand and even taking fees for it-meanwhile of course
going on being a successful and contributing wife.
Or this: a Scientologist, a lesser executive or even a clerk in a
company, trains as a professional auditor, and seeing where the company is
heading, begins to pick up its loose ends by strengthening its comm lines
or its personnel abilities. Without "selling" anybody Scientology, just
studies out the bogs and remedies them. If only as "an able person" he
would rapidly expand a zone of control, to say nothing of his personal
standing in the company. This has been and is being done steadily across
the world. Now that we have presessioning, it's easy to straighten up other
people. Our unreleased technology on handling third dynamic business
situations is staggeringly large. You'd be surprised how easy it is to
audit seniors. They and their families have so many troubles. Or how easy
it is to spot the emergency-maker and audit him.
And see this: a race is staggering along making difficulties for
itself. Locate its leaders. Get a paid post as a secretary or officer of
the staff of the leaders of that race. And by any means, audit them into
ability and handle their affairs to bring co-operation not trouble. Every
race that is in turmoil in a nation has quasi-social groups around its
leaders.
And this: a nation or a state runs on the ability of its department
heads, its governors, or any other leaders. It is easy to get posts in such
areas unless one has delusions of grandeur or fear of it. Don't bother to
get elected. Get a job on the secretarial staff or the bodyguard, use any
talent one has to get a place close in, go to work on the environment and
make it function better. Occasionally one might lose, but in the large
majority, doing a good job and making the environment function will result
in promotion, better contacts, a widening zone.
The cue in all this is don't seek the co-operation of groups. Don't ask
for permission. Just enter them and start functioning to make the group win
through effectiveness and sanity.
If we were revolutionaries this HCO Bulletin would be a very dangerous
document. We are not revolutionaries any more than we are doctors of
sickness in individual patients. But we are not revolutionaries, we are
humanitarians. We are not political. And we can be the most important force
for good that the world has ever known. Who objects to a company
functioning better to produce a better civilization? Who objects to a race
becoming sane and a stable asset to its communities? Who objects to a
neighborhood smoothing out?
Only the very criminal would object and they are relatively ineffectual
when you can know and spot them. And there are no criminals except the
mentally disabled.
So this is a challenge on the third and fourth. Almost all
Scientologists are in a position to begin to help on such a programme.
And I am studying now first the popularity with you of this plan and,
if great, how best to help us all achieve it. The first thing required is
an understandable designation for Scientologists undertaking their portion
of this Special Zone Plan. I should think the word "Counselor" is
acceptable with an appropriate additional designation such as "Family
Counselor" or "Company Counselor" or "Child Counselor" or "Organization
Counselor". What we would do is issue an HPA or HCA as a certificate as
always and would issue a special zone certificate to any person operating
in that zone after he or she had completed an additional correspondence
type briefing course covering that general zone. In other words anyone
would have to have a professional certificate before he or she could be
designated as a special zone counselor. The costs of obtaining such a
certificate would be kept slight, no more than bare administration. The
advantages of having such a designation are plain. A clerk with a
certificate on the wall from the Academy of Scientology designating that he
or she has been graduated as a "Company Counselor" would startle even a
complacent executive into conversation about what was wrong with the place
and as he was talking
to a pro auditor any scepticism would quickly fade. A pro would know! As it
all starts with being a good auditor and as the additional technology is
exact in any of these fields, the programme is feasible.
We are at this stage of this programme: I have found that
Scientologists operate with high success on the third and fourth but that
it rarely occurs to them to try it and when they do they think I want them
to audit full time and they are apologetic about their attempt. I have the
technology pretty well to hand and can write zone manuals. I feel we now
have clearing well in hand in Central Orgs and will soon have it broadly so
for Scientologists in "the field'' but I do not feel we need wait on that
but take it and further training in stride. I feel that we are ripe for an
overt attack on the third and fourth down spiral. I feel our auditors
should take advantage of their increased personal ability and should be
regarded accordingly by society and its zones. I see clearly that we have
to win on the third and fourth if we are to attain our goals of a better
world.
The special zone plan is made possible by a slight shift of approach.
Take the case of a police officer who got interested on a PE course and
read some books. He tried to "sell" his chief on Scientology as a subject
and was given a heavy loss. One, our PE level trainee was insufficiently
schooled to be effective. Two, as a pro his approach could have been any
one of several. He could have eased himself nearer a command source area in
the department, or he could have taken over a pistol marksman on the force
and made him a champion as we did with the Olympics team once. The slight
shift is that we would have made this police officer get pro training
before telling him "sell Scientology" to the force and then would have
advised him to sell it by action, not words. Handling the familial problems
of the commissioner as his driver or making the rookies gasp at how fast he
could train them would be selling by action only. And no other kind of
selling would be needed. He'd be running an evening coaching class for his
fellows or superiors on Scientology in a few months and making some of them
follow the same route. How long before he had altered the whole character,
ability and effectiveness of the police force and through that how long
before he would have civilized the whole approach to law enforcement in
that area? For, once we have created an opening, we always avalanche to
fantastically swift gains.
That's the Special Zone Plan. Several hundred thousand are ready for
the first steps. Those that aren't trained as pro HPAs and HCAs could start
in soon. There are special ways to get training at an Academy now. And even
while awaiting this training and working toward clearing such
Scientologists could begin to determine their zone goals and work on them.
Our impact on the society is already weighty. With Special Zone Plans
we could move that impact up thousands of times greater and have in our
present lifetimes our goals at least in part accomplished and a decent
world to come back to again.
What do you think of it? Write to me in care of Central Organization
HCO in your area to give me your views on the Special Zone Plan.
When you write please advise me as follows: whether you like or do not
like the idea. If you like it tell me the zone you are in or would like to
be in (what area do you want to help?). But whatever you say please write
as your letter will be considered as a vote. We have arrived at a
crossroads where our action now could well affect the future history of
this planet.
LRH :js.rdjh
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON
HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
LONDON OPEN EVENING LECTURES
6006C23 LOE-1 Title unknown (possibly: The Difference Between
Scientology and Other Studies)
6006C23 LOE-2 Title unknown (possibly: Help on the Case)
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1960
Franchise Holders
CREATE AGAIN
As you know, the basis of a reactive mind is creativeness done below
the level of consciousness.
The source of all engrams is the pc who creates a picture of the
incident below his level of knowingness and recreates it into a "key-in".
He uses the engram to warn and restrain himself, but this as a solution to
trouble is a faulty one. It might have cured trouble once but like all
cures became itself a new trouble.
In 1957-58 we attempted to handle this before we had HELP flat-flat-
flat. Step 6, used then, made the whole bank toughen up, if HELP was
unflat.
If a person is in any valence, he is victimized by his own creation. To
produce or create anything is to invite a toughening of the reactive mind.
If HELP is flat on numerous terminals and if the E-Meter no longer
reacts to help questions of any kind, the person is Mest clear. Only now is
it really safe for any auditor to handle the subject of create.
Several things reduce the toughening up of a reactive mind due to
aberrations concerning creation. Chief amongst these are alternate confront
in any form, particularly general. Responsibility processes also reduce the
bank's heaviness. Havingness also takes the edge off a bank. And of course
help on terminals reduces a heavy or thick bank. Therefore Help, alternate
confront and havingness are the keys. Responsibility is less workable in
early stages since the pc is usually in some valence and when he says "I
could be responsible for...." he means "Valence could be responsible
for...." which runs in fact irresponsibility, not responsibility, since
valence, not pc, is responsible.
There are some ways to run "create" in early stages before help is
wholly flat on other terminals. Best of these subordinate methods is "What
creation have you helped?" "What creation have you not helped?" One that is
pretty high but sometimes works well if the person is not in a valence is
"What creation could you be responsible for?" (Combination suggested by
Dick Foster.)
O/W on other people's creations is not very good but very spectacular.
Using create with alternate confront ("What creation could you confront?"
"What creation would you rather not confront?") is of course workable.
Enough people are coming up toward or have arrived at Mest clear now
that you had better have the next stage.
I would advise help and not help on creations until the needle is
floating with no reaction to questions of any kind on them. Alternate
confront on creations and havingness should still be used as in help.
But first be sure help is flat on all terminals including the thing the
person came into Dianetics or Scientology to help and also flatten help on
every terminal that has been contacted or run on O/W processes or any help
process first. Then you can try the
above.
LRH :js.rd
copyright �1960 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
LONDON OPEN EVENING LECTURE.
30 June 1960
** 6006C30 LOE-3 Some Aspects of Help
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JULY 1960
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
D of Ps
MAKING CLEARS AND PICKING UP HGC QUALITY
To the HCO Sec: IMPORTANT
To improve the auditing results of an HGC, put the following programme
into effect: Results are good today but they can get faster in any HGC.
Appoint a competent Instructor from the Academy (not a staff auditor).
Give this Instructor the many HCO Bulletins on Pre-sessioning, Model
Sessions, Help, Alternate Confront, Havingness. Have him gen himself up on
those and this present HCO Bulletin.
Convene the HGC, including the D of P, for one hour three days a week
immediately after they complete auditing for the day.
Have the Instructor drill them on the following subjects:
First - Teach them Regimen 1.
Second - Get them easy with Model Sessioning.
Third - Get them easy on Pre-sessioning.
Fourth - Make them study all the data on Help, Alternate Confront,
Havingness.
Fifth - Check them out on Dynamic Assessment, meters and flat needles.
Lay down and permit them to run as your first step, as of now, only the
following:
REGIMEN 1
(Only Regimen I can be used until an auditor has
excellent results on several pcs)
(a) Assessment-ask the pc what is wrong with him. Take the pc's answer,
make it into a general terminal. Run that and nothing else. When it's
cooled off, assess again, same way, run that. Don't argue or dispute or
change what the pc says except to convert it to a general terminal.
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "My wife."
Auditor: "OK, we'll run a wife."
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "I'm impatient."
Auditor: "Can you think of somebody who was impatient?"
PC: "My Father."
Auditor: "OK, we'll run a Father."
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "Well, I think I'm attenuated."
Auditor: "Did you ever know an attenuated person?"
PC: "Yes."
Auditor: "Who was it?"
PC: "George James."
Auditor: (since this is a specific terminal and we want a general
one) "What was George James?"
PC: "A Loafer!"
Auditor: "OK, we'll run help on 'a loafer', all right?"
PC: "Fine."
When "a loafer" is flat, flat, we do the same assessment again and as
above get a new general terminal.
(b) Use as a process two-way concept help. Example: "Think of a father
helping you," "Think of you helping a father," etc. Flatten it down to
a no reaction on meter. (Lay meter aside for most of sessions. Use only
to check.)
(c) For a quarter of any session time run alternate confront. "What
could you confront?" "What would you rather not confront?"
(d) For a quarter of every session's time run havingness to end with-
"Look around here and find something you could have."
(e) Start session with checking for PTPs and ARC breaks. Handle PTP with
"What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" only.
(f) Handle ARC break with "What have I done to you?" "What have you done
to me?" only.
Regimen 1 omits pre-sessioning. It does a rough kind of Model Session,
as good as one can get but skip being critical of it.
It will take the instructor a week or two to get the staff to buckle
down on Regimen 1 only. Don't let the instructor get off into anything else
than Regimen 1 while teaching it, except these above points and the
following:
1. Handle pc pleasantly.
2. Don't chatter at pc.
3. Get pc to execute every command given.
4. Run good TRs.
Now with the D of P, stress all auditing points and handling the
auditors with heavy 8c. Teach D of P not to Q and A with auditor problems.
Example: Auditor comes in, demands unusual solution. D of P gives it.
Auditor comes back saying "It didn't work." It didn't work of course,
because auditor never used D of P's solution. The only reply of D of P
should be "What didn't work?" and all is revealed. D of P is taught not to
give solutions or sympathy, just to demand adherence to instructions and
get results. Auditors don't have personal cases where the D of P is
concerned. The instructor must get this effective attitude into effect.
Good 8c on staff auditors. No excuses accepted.
The instructor can be given this as an added assignment and can still
instruct in the Academy. It's only 1 hour 3 days a week, probably between
3.30 and 4.30. Switch the tape hour in the Academy or something.
Now on all new staff auditors, use Regimen 1, no matter what else comes
out that's new. While he's learning Regimen 1 he can still audit pcs. How?
You ask the new staff auditor, "What process have you been most successful
with?" He says, "8c." You say, "OK, that's what you run on pcs until
further notice." Meanwhile he learns Regimen 1 out of session and when he
has it cool, switch him to that. You could do this on the whole HGC staff
while they learn Regimen 1 if desired.
SUMMARY
Here's the point on the above. An uncertain D of P or staff auditor is
guaranteed if he or she is using stuff that's unfamiliar. Raise familiarity
with the simplest version of modern processes and you raise confidence.
This is good for any HGC even if it is doing well.
And this is the way to handle new staff auditors.
You want clears? OK, build up the confidence of the HGC on a gradient
scale. You'll have clears.
It is envisioned this programme will go on for months until it is
complete and all auditors are handling all varieties of help and doing
assessments well enough with meters to be turned loose with everything.
They are turned loose on a gradient scale as they win.
It is also envisioned that staff auditors, like other staff members,
will be getting auditing evenings or on staff clearing courses.
Regimen 1 is recommended for staff clearing courses.
LRH :vbn.rd L. RON HUBBARD
copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1960
Fran Hldrs
THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP
You should realize at this stage that we are still feeling around for
the most adequate and fastest method of running HELP. Everything which has
been given to you thus far is near the mark, and pre-sessioning, model
session and flattening help are right on the mark. However there are
certain things that make auditors unhappy with running help. Chief amongst
these is the fact that it is a tremendously restimulative process when one
has not had any run. This means that we had better get the staff theta
clearing course or staff co-auditing going fast on a supervised basis.
The second thing is that help does not flatten very easily on a late
specific terminal. Of course, this is true of all processes. But help is a
peculiar process and is slower on late terminals than other buttons, and
here is why.
Help resolves cases because it is the basis of all association, and as
you know association leads to identification. And identification is the
basis of all mental upsets. The action of help is not aberrative. The
failure to help is what does it, or the lack of things to help. However all
valences and all identification stem from this button and no other. Now do
lights dawn and bells ring? Help is the button which, if run, settles all
difficulties with association and identification and all problems of
beingness.
Thus there is something peculiar about help which is not true of any
other button. Any help run is a gain even (Gawdelpus) if it is left wholly
bogged with a half hour comm lag. All bits of help run are chewing away at
all tangles of identification. So chew away and to the Dickens with it. Any
help run is better than no help run. And because the PC is a bundle of
aberrated identifications, any help run untangles some of him. And any help
run on any terminal tends to "get at" any other terminal.
So that's why help run in any old way will sooner or later make the
grade. But this is no reason to believe there are not also smart ways to
run help.
Any late specific terminal, being so confounded far from basic-basic on
the time track, runs tough and endlessly. Therefore as always it is better
to run general terminals than to run specific terminals. However in the
case of a PTP you can go ahead if you have to and run help on the PTP
personnel, but as soon as the edge is off the PTP for Heaven's sakes shift
to the general form of the specific terminals you have been running, and
flatten those a lot or a little.
Keep a very close record of what you have run on help as the only
precaution you have to take, and when the PC is running toward mest clear
check back with help on these terminals and make sure they are flat. When a
lot of help has been run on basic material then of course you will find
that what ran very arduously before will now run much better. It is almost
a waste of time to run specific terminals, but still you must run things
that are real to the PC, and if only yesterday was real to him then you are
stuck with running the PC on later terminals or even specific terminals.
A much faster way to run help than by sorting out real terminals on an
E-Meter (which is still necessary sometimes) is to do an assessment on the
PC using help and the dynamics, and finding a button that is entirely off
dynamic and that the PC can't imagine helping. This is a trigger to a case.
Unusual results happen very fast.
Another way to go about this is a simple questioning of the PC on the
subject of
his dislikes. Watch the meter and when you get a silly reaction on a
dislike, like a rock slam or a heavy drop or a sudden theta bop, then pick
this out, make a general form out of it that registers like the first
mention, and run that on the PC. This is a rather loose and sometimes
misleading assessment. But remember that all help run leads to untangling
all buttons and so it is a perfectly good approach, and as the PC gets run
on something he is awful darn sure he ought to be run on he is often very
happy and co-operative in this. Whereas on a dynamic assessment he is made
intensely curious as he didn't know he was aberrated on what you found out.
In other words just asking the PC what is wrong with him, getting it into a
general form that registers on the meter and running Help O/W or concept
help on it, is good reasonably fast processing. It is better than assessing
for just a terminal that drops or for a specific late terminal that drops.
As a comment it should be noted that help is the last thing that folds
up in the dwindling spiral of aberration. About the first thing that folds
up is interest. But when it is gone there are still three buttons left on
which the person can function. The next one to go is communication. This
becomes a contest of overts as in the ARC breaky case. Anybody below this
lives his or her life this way. The next one to vanish is control. So don't
be surprised to find somebody around who does plenty of overts and who
can't stand control who can yet be run on help and who can still function
in life. When interest, communication, control and help are gone, that's
it. You haven't got a person left. So beware people who are below help.
Beware of them in living. But in auditing when you can't get HELP to bite
at all (and if he can talk to you you can get help to bite) you have
nothing left but the CCHs. You can make it on them too but with tremendous
investment in hours. And when you've got the CCHs flat then you can start
running help.
But as I said above I have not yet been able to say the PERFECT way of
running help. I am still investigating it like mad and am giving you all
the gen as it comes visible. However have patience with me. I have learned
that people not only have it twisted a bit, they've got it shattered, and
that's the majority of people. So we're in there slugging away and we're
making clears, and if I get hold of any faster ways to do you'll be the
first to get the gen.
LRH:js.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
LONDON OPEN EVENING LECTURE
7 July 1960
** 6007C07 LOE-4 Help
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1960
Fran Hldrs
CURRENT RUNDOWN
CONCEPT HELP
Concept processing is very old (1953). The original version of concepts
goes:
"Get the idea of ............."
The modern version of Concept Help O/W goes:
"Think of helping a ............."
"Think of not helping a ........."
Two-way Concept Help goes:
"Think of a ...helping you"
"Think of you helping a ............"
Five-way Concept Help would go:
(a) "Think of a ..helping you"
(b) "Think of you helping a ..........."
(c) "Think of a ..helping others"
(d) "Think of others helping a .."
(e) "Think of a ..helping a .."
Concept Help has the value of being below, in its effect, the level of
articulate thought which of course means that it bangs away at reactive
thought.
Just exercising a pc in thinking at command is a sort of CCH on
thinkingness, with which, of course, pcs have trouble. They have more
trouble with creating than thinking and concepts are more in kind with
confronting than with creating. Making a pc invent answers is, of course,
right on his worst button. Therefore Concept Help goes a long ways on a
case. It is quite unlimited, no matter what form is run, so long as some
attention is paid to flow direction. (A flow run too long in one direction
gives anaten-unconsciousness, remember?)
ALTERNATE CONFRONT
Concept Help, however, has the liability of making things "muggy" at
times because of its indefiniteness.
Aside from create, the primary button that is awry (but which cannot be
directly attacked without often overshooting the case or involving it in
heavy bank reaction), the next things mechanically wrong with a pc would be
unconsciousness and confusion. Help, of course, is the primary point of
association and identification and is WHY things go wrong with a pc. But a
scale of WHAT is right with a pc in descending order of importance would
be, as above:
Creativeness
Consciousness
Order
Control
and these would be flanked by the things wrong with these items which make
them decline:
Create-Irresponsibility
Consciousness-Refusal to confront
Order-Unwillingness to bring order
Control-Lack of control.
Help fits in somewhat on this order. One creates to help (and fails).
One goes unconscious to help or makes another unconscious to help him/her
(and fails). One sees difficulty for others in too much order, seeing that
two systems of order clash, and lets down his to help.
One conceives that control is bad and ceases to control and resists
control to help others. These are all wrong helps, apparently, and when
done, bring about aberration.
Aberration consists, evidently, of wrong-way assistance as follows:
Optimum Condition -----> Response -----> Resulting Condition
Creativeness -----> Irresponsibility -----> Disowned Creations
Consciousness -----> Non-Confront -----> Unconsciousness
Orderliness -----> Unwilling conflict -----> Confusion
Ability to Control -----> Consequence of control -----> Mis-
control.
Confront is a remedy for the consequences of the first three conditions
and also communication. An auditing session itself by its TR mechanics,
improves control and communication. Therefore Confront in one form or
another is needed in routine sessions.
Havingness is an objective and somewhat obscure method of confronting
and using it as we do objectively, it is a specialized form of confronting,
possibly its best form, objective or subjective, even though a series of
subjective havingness in Washington in 1955 tended to show that profile
gains were not made by subjective confront, a conclusion still subject to
further checking.
Confront straightens out any "mugginess" churned up by Concept Help. No
vast tone arm improvements should be expected from Alternate Confront, but
even if it doesn't work well, like havingness, as a primary process, it has
very good uses. Alternate Confront gives us a stabilizing tool. Pc feels
weird = run Alternate Confront. He'll feel saner. Following this subjective
process with the best objective process, havingness, we achieve stability
for the gains reached by a help process.
As a comment, beingness is more involved with havingness than with
confront.
Confront, on short test, can be run lop-sided, and does disturb the
tone arm. "What would you rather not confront?" run all by itself in one pc
(a BMA type test series!) did very well. "What can you confront?" of course
did very well. Alternate Confront has enough wrong with it to be poor as a
process for getting gains but wonderful as a process for stabilizing a
case. I'll run some more tests on Negative Confront and let you know. But
it is a fluke. By theory it is improbable as it is a cousin to the no-good
"What could you go out of communication with?" But "What could you
withhold?" is the greatest IQ raiser known! And it works. So perhaps
Negative Confront, "What would you rather not confront?", will work too. Of
course it's a fundamental button. All unconsciousness, stupidity,
forgetfulness and enforced beingness result from problems in confronting.
IDENTIFICATION
A=A=A=A is as true today as it ever was. The inability to differentiate
is, of course, a decline in awareness. Identifying Joe with Bill or Rocks
with Smoke is loony.
This is identification, a word that is amusing semantically, as its exact
opposite, "Identify", is its cure, but is the same word!
Association of things or thoughts into classes is considered all right
and may even be necessary to "learn" things. But this is the middle ground,
already half way to lazy thinking.
Help, as assistance, is an identification of mutual interest in
survival. Thus we have (1) possible confusion of beingness and (2)
continuation. This makes help ripe for trouble. When one fails to help he
keeps on helping! No matter how. He does keep on helping what he has failed
to help. One of many mechanisms is to keep the scene in mock-up.
Help is a fundamental necessity, it appears, to every person. But it is
dynamite when it goes wrong.
As a symptom of its continuance (survival factor-see Book ONE) pcs
running help readily get the idea that help on some terminal "will never
flatten" even though it is flattening nicely!
To handle this as a special item, one can run the confront part of a
session with "Continuous Confront", the Alternate form of which is:
(a) "What could you continue to confront?"
(b) "What would you rather not continue to confront?"
The positive form (a) can be run alone for case gain. And I am going to
test the negative form (b) as a single run to see if it can be "gotten away
with". In theory, as all anaten is unwillingness to confront and as all
help is continuous survival, form (b), Negative Continuous Confront, should
do marvels for IQ and may become the proper companion for help processes if
the session is ended with havingness.
At the present moment auditing routine is:
Pre-session
Model Session
Help Processes
Alternate Confront
Havingness
all in every session.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1960
Fran Hldrs
SOME HELP TERMINALS
ASSESSMENTS
The basic method of finding a help terminal is of course the E-Meter,
using an ordinary or dynamic assessment.
A simple and very satisfactory way of making a pc happy and getting
results is to ask the pc what he thinks is wrong with him/her and run
whatever the pc says-providing it's a terminal-in a general form. If it's
not a terminal, get the pc to convert it to one.
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "My wife."
Auditor: "OK, we'll run a wife."
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "I'm impatient."
Auditor: "Can you think of somebody who was impatient?"
PC: "My Father."
Auditor: "OK, we'll run a Father."
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "Well, I think I am attenuated."
Auditor: "Did you ever know an attenuated person?"
PC: "Yes."
Auditor: "Who was it?"
PC: "George James."
Auditor: (since this is a specific terminal and we want a
general one) "What was George James?"
PC: "A Loafer!" Auditor: "OK, we'll run help on 'a loafer', all
right?"
PC: "Fine."
TERMINALS BY PROFESSION
There are however some "professional" terminals you can run which do a
lot for a case.
Find out what the pc was professionally in this lifetime and sort out
what this profession helped as a terminal and run that.
Then run the beingness of the pc in this lifetime as a terminal and
you've cleaned up a lot of track.
Always use, of course, the general form of any terminal-not Aunt Agatha
but an Aunt. Not "the works mechanic at Pulman" but a works mechanic or a
mechanic. The less adjectives the better.
This does much for a case, and rapidly.
ASSESSMENT BY GOALS
A pc also gets very happy when you run a beingness the pc is trying to
be or hopes to be or even once hoped to be.
For instance, the pc wants to be a painter or wishes he were a painter
or wishes he could be a painter again. Fine, just run help on "a painter".
The pc wanted to be a singer. Run it as "a singer".
The pc is trying to be a good housewife or husband. Fine, run "a housewife"
or "a husband".
In short, when you explore why the pc wants to be processed the pc
often is either trying to correct something wrong (see above) or is trying
to be something. Your assessment is done when you establish either item and
the pc will recover, do better and be very happy with you.
RECOVERY OF PAST SKILLS
When a pc is getting processed to be able to recall Sanskrit or German,
if the pc is in good shape by reason of other processing as above, you can
recover it for him by finding out what spoke the language or had the skill
and run Concept Help on that terminal.
Example: (typical) Pc can't learn Spanish, desperately wants to learn
Spanish. E-Meter will tell you it's overts against the Spanish people (or
Iberians) that occludes it all. Overts, run, will improve the situation but
help, neglecting the overts, should recover the ability. Run "Think of
helping the Spanish people (or Spain or whatever falls hardest on the
overts)" and "Think of the Spanish people (or same as first command
terminal) helping you." Level it off with a version of Continuous Confront
and Havingness on the room and you should attain the goal.
ODDBALL PROCESSES
Some particularly vicious and penetrating terminals can be run on a pc
providing his case is already in good shape.
These terminals stem from HCO Bulletin of July 14, 1960. They are run
in the order below:
a confusion
an unconscious person
a creative person.
Two other deadly terminals that probably should be used to finish off
the last stage before clear on an auditor should be "a victim" and "a
practitioner".
Concept Help is the only known version of help that can be run on the
five terminals named here as the first three are the fundamentals of a
reactive mind.
"A responsible person" can be run before "a creative person".
These are all rather deadly, over-the-average-ability-to-run, terminals
so they should be reserved for the end of clearing.
By the way, just as a comment, clearing is happening with help
processed in various forms and by various auditors, around the 250 hr mark,
with no reference to time spent on earlier auditing. This is an early
datum, based on two cases. On one of these there was auditor trouble and a
change of auditors. The processes used were:
Help O/W
Concept Help
Confront Havingness.
The terminals used on these two cases were selected by myself, which
renders this data specialized.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JULY 1960
Fran Hldrs
DOUBLE ACTION CYCLES
POLICY ON NEW DATA
Although no change is anticipated on current processes, Regimen 1,
Presession, Model Session, and Help, since these are making clears very
easily when well assessed and letter-perfectly run, I still have a research
line running and new facts appear. Thus I will continue to present this
data even though it is not for immediate use in processes.
OLD ACTION CYCLES
The oldest cycle of action is of course the early Vedic hymn, probably
written by the monk Dharma himself, so far as I recollect. It shows the
dawn becoming the day, becoming the night, and out of nothingness a
progressive development into a new nothingness. This has been written as, I
think, "The Hymn to the Dawn Child", available probably in most libraries
as the Vedic Hymn.
The next cycle of action is the Create-Survive-Destroy of early
Scientology. The dominant part of this cycle of course appeared in
Dianetics as the primary law of Book One-Survive. The Dynamic Principle
which motivates most biological life is SURVIVE.
The more fundamental urge of a thetan, as different from biological
existence, is Create. Thus, in Fundamentals of Thought, the cycle of action
becomes Create-Create-create-create-No create (or Counter-create).
Survival is the apparency of creating. Creation brings about an effort
to continuously create which becomes "Survive".
DOUBLE CYCLES
It is interesting now that behaviour, particularly as applied to work,
is easier to understand by a closer viewing of the cycle of action.
There are two "double actions" in the cycle which give a better grasp
of the actual value of a worker, as well as other areas of life. These then
become valuable, at this time, as an evaluation of human beings.
The lowest double action in the cycle is the most difficult to handle
when it is present in an organization. This is "destroy in order to
survive".
We see this most easily to-day on the Fifth Dynamic with Eating. One
destroys form in order not to die. One kills to live. Of course this
involves some very degrading consequences as it is not a duplication. Out
of this we can evolve the overt-motivator sequence.
Duplication would be "killing in order to die" or "making survive in
order to survive". As soon as one "Destroys in order to Survive" he is in a
mis-communication situation. There is no duplication possible.
Individuation results. The intention is double and contrary. One destroys
something over there in order not to be destroyed over here. The violation
of duplication brings about the upset of feeling bad here when one tries to
kill there.
There are too many workmen who enter this upon the whole programme of
work. Around them machines, structures and people collapse. Such workmen
are trying to
survive only by destroying everything around them. And this reaction is not
confined to workmen. Anyone in an aberrated state may have some tinge of
it.
Another double cycle action is to create in order to survive. This is
fairly sane. An artist sometimes will not work unless his survival is
threatened. Then he creates. This principle of threatening survival is
common to most actions in business and the arts.
The middle ground double is of course making things survive in order to
survive. As Survival is translated for processing as Continuous Confront
("What could you continue to confront" + rather not continue, etc) we can
find persistences in this category.
We also see "destroy in order to be destroyed" and "create in order to
be created" in phases of life.
Probably the worst double is "destroying in order to survive" and the
most susceptible to psychosis is "creating in order to destroy". Science,
dedicated to the last as weapons people, go quite mad. And even the
farmer's decline is found here.
Concept running on these doubles is quite interesting. "Destroying in
order to survive" is the first concept to be run, being the lowest.
USE IN PROCESSING
All this data is of value in the area of theta clear processing to
operating thetan.
L. RON
HUBBARD
P.S. I am developing some processes which promise to run out engrams about
one thousand an hour for a theta clear while holding havingness up.
P.P.S. I am getting some intensives and am stabilising along the + theta
clear level. It's wonderful. Standard modern processes are being used.
L.R.H.
LRH:iet.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 AUGUST 1960
Fran Hldrs
REGIMEN 1
For some time it has been obvious that we needed an auditing procedure
that would serve to train auditors using for the first time Model Sessions.
Some weeks ago I developed "Regimen 1". This was primarily for use in
training HGC auditors. It has been so sweepingly successful that it is here
given for general field use.
It must be clearly understood that a complete session would consist of
pre-sessioning, the exact use of Model Sessions, and the new techniques
that are producing Clears. Regimen 1 then is a stop-gap bridge between old
style formal auditing and a complete grasp of pre-sessioning and Model
Sessions.
It is intended when using Regimen 1 that the auditor come as close as
possible to a Model Session but not be critical of it. As Regimen 1 is more
and more used by the auditor he should continue to study Model Sessions
(HCO Bulletin of February 25, 1960) until he can do one letter perfect.
Once he has the Model Session pat he should then study up on pre-
sessioning until he has that perfect.
Naturally all the TRs and knowledge of the E-Meter go into a session.
These, with pre-sessioning, the Model Session, give us an auditing form
which should be mastered before complete clearing results become
inevitable.
REGIMEN 1
(Only Regimen 1 can be used until an auditor has
excellent results on several pcs)
(a) Assessment-ask the pc what is wrong with him. Take the pc's answer,
make it into a general terminal. Run that and nothing else. When it's
cooled off, assess again, same way, run that. Don't argue or dispute or
change what the pc says except to convert it to a general terminal.
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "My wife."
Auditor: "OK, we'll run a wife."
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "I'm impatient."
Auditor: "Can you think of somebody who was impatient?"
PC: "My father."
Auditor: "OK, we'll run a father."
Example: Auditor: "What do you think is wrong with you?"
PC: "Well, I think I'm attenuated."
Auditor: "Did you ever know an attenuated person?"
PC: "Yes."
Auditor: "Who was it?"
PC: "George James."
Auditor: (since this is a specific terminal and we want a
general one) "What was George James?"
PC: "A Loafer!"
Auditor: "OK, we'll run help on 'a loafer', all right?"
PC: "Fine."
When "a loafer" is flat, flat, we do the same assessment again and as above
get a new general terminal.
(b) Use as a process two-way concept help. Example: "Think of a father
helping you," "Think of you helping a father," etc. Flatten it down to
a no reaction on meter. (Lay meter aside for most of sessions. Use only
to check.)
(c) For a quarter of any session time run alternate confront. "What could
you confront?" "What would you rather not confront?"
(d) For a quarter of every session's time run havingness to end with-
"Look around here and find something you could have."
(e) Start session with checking for PTPs and ARC breaks. Handle PTP with
"What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" only.
(f) Handle ARC break with "What have I done to you?" "What have you done
to me?" only.
Regimen 1 omits pre-sessioning. It does a rough kind of Model Session,
as good as one can get but skip being critical of it.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Naturally there are some general requirements which make up the
background music, or lack of it, in sessions, and while there may be many
of these, four of them are vitally important. These are:
1. Handle pc pleasantly
2. Don't chatter at pc
3. Get pc to execute every command given
4. Run good TRs.
It also goes without saying that one should follow the Auditor's Code
in session as well as the Code of a Scientologist out of it.
So far as the Auditor's Code is concerned, the only modern error which
keeps repeating itself and coming to attention is "evaluation". Apparently
this is because very few newly trained auditors have a good grasp of what
evaluation is. Briefly, evaluation consists of telling the pc what to think
about his case. This is something an auditor should never do. It is
directly contrary to Scientology practice, and enormously inhibits a pc's
gains. Nothing will cause an ARC break like an evaluation. An example of
this is to say "Good" with a question mark on it, or to say "All right" as
though you don't believe the pc.
Another difficult point in auditing consists of the auditor thinking he
has to believe the pc utterly and accept his story completely in order to
have any reality with the pc. A little study of this will demonstrate that
one acknowledges what the pc believes. He acknowledges it as something
which is believed by the pc. The auditor is quite entitled to his own
opinion of it and quite ordinarily supposes that the pc will change his
idea of it after more auditing, but this does not mean that one should take
what the pc says in a state of mind of "Well that's reality for you, but I
have my own reality on the situation."
There is at this late date, now that we have the various TRs, no excuse
for command flubs. An auditor should not make errors. If an auditor is
found to be making errors he should get himself run on Op Pro by Dup.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
LONDON CONGRESS ON DISSEMINATION AND HELP LECTURES
London, England
6-7 August 1960
On Saturday and Sunday, August 6th and 7th, 1960, HCO and HASI London
sponsored a Congress with the theme of "Dissemination and Help" at the
Royal Commonwealth Society Hall in London, England. Attendees co-audited
and received the following lectures by L. Ron Hubbard.
6008C07 LCDH-1 Title unknown
6008C07 LCDH-2 Pre-sessioning
** 6008C07 LCDH-3 Plant Research-Sickness-Will to Live-
Adjustment
of the Cycle of Action in Presessioning (alternative
title: Victim & Succumb)
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1960
Franchise Hldrs
THE LAWS OF ASSESSMENT
The most important part of auditing is assessment.
This became apparent when I realized that I had assessed all the clears
of the 20th ACC and most other clears. Therefore, it follows, I must have
been doing something in assessing that I had never articulated and with the
advent of the 1st Saint Hill ACC, I managed to do this for Dick and Jan. I
have reduced a file cabinet of data on assessing, not before co-ordinated,
to two primary laws as the common denominators of assessing.
While assessing still requires judgment, we now can check proper
assessment and can begin to teach accurate assessment.
This is a preliminary paper on the subject.
The Laws of Assessment are:
I: A thetan's Reality on a terminal depends upon the degree of outflow a
thetan can tolerate from that class of terminals.
II: A thetan tends to become that on which he has produced non-beneficial
effects. A thetan tends to move from source beingness to effect
beingness.
III: A thetan tends to maintain a position on the tone scale where inflows
are comfortable and to change that position it is necessary to accustom
him by auditing, to higher terminals.
LAW I
The fall registered on the E-Meter, when a terminal is mentioned,
registers the amount of inflow the thetan is aware of. When he is not aware
of inflow he is totally unreal on it or he is completely aware of the
terminal.
Therefore when any terminal is mentioned to a pc it will be:
(a) Too forceful
(b) Barely tolerable
(c) Completely real
(d) Too weak
(e) Ignored
The E-Meter registers on (b) type terminals with a fall. It registers
on (a) type with a rise or no reaction. It does not register on (c) type.
A pc has no concept of (a) type. Even though he flinches from it
(steady needle rise) he does not know it. He cannot confront on (a) type
but may not even realize it.
A pc reacts to (b) type because it is slightly above his tone scale
position but is difficult to confront. Therefore he can be run with
moderate success on any terminal that produces a fall.
A pc does not react to type (c) since he can confront it with comfort.
Type (d) is so weak that a thetan at a higher position tends to outflow
toward it and thus possibly interiorize into it.
Type (e) terminals are too insignificant to a thetan in any given tone
scale position and tend to be ignored. They are still real.
LAW II
A thetan moves from source beingness to effect beingness so therefore
any time a fall is noted on an E-Meter, it can be assumed that the thetan
has become an effect beingness. It is necessary to find what would create
or handle the terminal that caused the fall. This is better to run than the
fall terminal, even though it barely checks a rise.
One runs causative terminals always, never effect terminals. But what
may seem an effect terminal to the auditor may be a causative terminal to
the preclear.
LAW III
Always seek to run terminals that do not clear by two-way comm and
which are causative to some slight degree to terminals that produce a fall
on an E-Meter.
A TERMINAL IS IMPROPERLY ASSESSED IF IT DOES NOT DURING AUDITING
1. Produce a loosening and a tightening of needle action;
2. Produce a change of position on the tone arm of at least
(minimum) three tones of difference up or down per hour of
auditing;
3. Produce longer and longer periods of loose needle as the
intensives continue;
4. Produce a change of comm lag from command to command in the pc;
5. Produce cognitions; and
6. Improve the ability of the case to confront.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 18 AUGUST 1960
HCO Secs
Assn Secs VITAL INFORMATION
Franchise Holders
Having developed now a process package which makes Mest Clears, Theta
Clears and OTs without further special uses on many cases, I hasten to send
you the data and ask that you yourself at once get audited on it and audit
those persons who are surest and best around you in order to obtain a
"control of areas" with the increased ability.
Nothing in this process discards the main line of theory of Dianetics
and Scientology but since results can be obtained so swiftly with it, it
must be asked that persons uneducated in Scientology must not be run too
far on it, as they will obtain high levels of action without any
understanding which would be an overt against them. In short, do not
complete this process on any pc beyond the level of Mest Clear unless the
pc has been sent for a course. This will save considerable upset and
instability in the long run. It is a technical fact having nothing to do
with economics of Central Orgs.
The only overt we can do is to fail to disseminate correct data. We can
refuse to process without any overt occurring. But we cannot fail to
disseminate without an overt. Study it out and you'll see it's true.
I will not give you much theory on this at this writing beyond a
statement that all apparent dynamics on people are inverted from their
sixth dynamic and that the theory of confusion and the stable datum is
paramount here.
In the process we remove the confusion and permit the pc to release the
various terminals and ideas.
Later assessment and the running of terminals is probably needful.
The basic process was looked for first in 1951. There was a lecture on
it called "Motion and Emotion" and a talk about the "governor" of a pc's
speed of advance. Since then I have had to search very hard and it has
taken eight years to match up processes to hit at this.
I have now done this.
The rundown is as follows, every session:
Presession
Model Session
Help
Alternate Confront
Havingness
The thing on which Help is run is MOTION. The commands are these:
"What motion have you helped?"
"What motion have you not helped?"
Do not run "What motion could you help" or any invent process. Help,
being a responsibility process, gives us the only practical way to get the
pc to face a non-terminal like Motion.
This is Mest Clear Route, Theta Clear Route, OT Route.
If the pc runs to flat meter, assess for a terminal, run that terminal
flat, then run more Motion as above exactly. The assessment is the most
difficult part. If the assessment is right one gets a fast run, if wrong,
it takes ages.
But start now on Motion.
We're off the launching pad. Glad you're with us.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.cden Copyright � 1960 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 AUGUST 1960
Franchised Auditors
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
POWERFUL PRESESSION ADDITIONS
Presessioning had some missing points in it which I have been filling
in in order to clear as many 1st Saint Hill ACC students as possible.
Seeing that students were not obtaining as much tone arm action as HGC
auditors would for the same amount of auditing it was necessary to study
the fact. Students audit each other without altitude and so I had to
resolve altitude as such.
Altitude is the factor that makes a pc receive and execute an auditing
command. Any good auditor in the field and certainly HGC auditors audit
from altitude. Therefore they get more tone arm action and faster clearing.
Students auditing each other audit without altitude. As one can't build up
the altitude of students to one another, it was necessary to reduce the
need of altitude on the part of the pc.
I have developed then a new presession step at the level of control to
care for altitude. It turned out to be a possible one-shot clear command.
This step should be run hard on any pc and very hard on pcs who do not
have much effect on their banks. Many pcs cannot run a "think" command. The
gradient of cases is the increasing ability to affect the bank with new
thought. A low level case can't. A high level case can.
As low level cases also cannot execute an auditing command cleanly
without alterations, vias or non-execution, it follows that the process run
is not in question. What is in question is the pc's ability to follow a
command.
Therefore if a tone arm on an E-Meter does not swing at least through 3
tones in an hour of auditing the pc is not following the command clearly or
the pc can produce small effect on his own bank. If such a condition exists
then the pc is allergic to orders and will be a slow case or hangfire in
auditing.
The remedy of this is a presession process at the level of Control.
The process is Presession Control Processing.
The commands are:
(a) "What order was disobeyed?" or
(b) "What intention was not followed?"
If (a) does not work go to (b). In any event eventually run both (a)
and (b) at the level of Control in Presessioning.
As this is a heavy gain process, if the pc is low scale on a graph, run
it instead of help in a Model Session for many sessions.
Presession Commands which are now set are:
PRESESSION INTEREST: (Live or Die)
"What is worse than death?"
PRESESSION HELP: (two-way help on auditor-pc)
"How could I help you?"
"How could you help me?"
PRESESSION CONTROL:
"What order was disobeyed?" or
"What intention was not followed?"
PRESESSION COMMUNICATION: Rapid handling of possible overts. There is a
set procedure for this that removes life computations which will be
expanded later.
As noted, Presession Interest (Live or Die) belongs actually fourth as
Interest and may be so placed later.
On the new Presession Control Process the tone arm is the clue. If it
doesn't shift rapidly (3 tones at least per hour of Help processing) the
remedy is the Presession Control Process as given above.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.jh
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 AUGUST 1960
Issue II
NEW DEFINITION OF PSYCHOSIS
After a careful study of cases, based on new data, I have a method of
detecting and an answer to psychosis which is simple and useful.
The lower a person is on the tone scale the less they can receive and
follow orders and directions.
That person who raves and screams at the very thought of receiving an
order is of course completely insane.
That person who obsessively fights an organization that gives him clean
instructions to help him is, of course, insane.
All persons who have been too much around a bad military or who have
had military fathers are very likely to be subject to a derangement. This
derangement multiplying brings an insanity. They rave and scream if even
their best friends try to help them.
What is gone is the control level. Help may still be there but on
obsessive cause of help only. No help may be received.
Look around you, look it over. The criminal will not receive the orders
called law. The psychotic will not receive the orders that bring real help.
This gives you a real weapon.
A psychotic is that person who cannot receive orders of any kind, who
sits unmoving or goes berserk at the thought of doing anything told him by
another determinism.
Want to know if they're crazy? Give them a simple order.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST 1960
1st Sthil ACC
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
REGIMEN TWO
Regimen Two requires no assessment.
This regimen is run with presession and Model Session and contains a
complete set of processes for the Model Session.
MODEL SESSION
It should be noted that the patter wording of a Model Session is what
is set and fixed. By always using the same words to open, continue and
close a session, to begin and end processes, a duplication of sessions is
achieved which as they continue, runs them out. The patter wording of a
Model Session should be learned by heart and not changed. The commands of
regimens of processes used in Model Sessions may change. But not the
patter. It is this patter which makes a Model Session a Model Session, not
the commands run in it.
ASSESSMENT
No assessment is used in Regimen Two. The E-Meter is employed to
determine the advance and stage of case. Advance is determined by change of
tone arm position and loosening or tightening of needle, per unit time of
processing, the sensitivity knob always being set the same, session after
session. The stage of case is judged by the rapidity of the repetitive
loosening and tightening of needle action and the width and rapidity of
change of the tone arm.
CLEAR INDICATION
When a case has at last a steady tone arm near clear reading for the
sex of the pc and when the needle is loose and does not respond to
elementary presession questions, the person is Mest Clear. (See chapter on
this in Book I and read it carefully.)
STEPS OF REGIMEN TWO
Step (a) "What motion have you helped?"
"What motion have you not helped?"
Step (b) "What can you confront?"
"What would you rather not confront?"
Step (c) "Look around here and find something you could have."
Step (a) is run for the bulk of the session and Steps (b) and (c) are
given equal times at session end.
Step (c) may be run at any time if pc's havingness drops. Step (c) must
however always be run until the pc can have each one the bulk of the
objects ;n the room.
Cases which do not respond to Regimen Two should be presessioned until
the tone arm becomes active, no matter how many sessions this requires.
LRH:js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1ST SAINT HILL ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
8 August-16 September 1960
In order to improve ACCs L. Ron Hubbard brought the 7th London ACC to
Saint Hill and made it the 1st Saint Hill ACC. The goal of the ACC was
advancing all cases.
The last twelve lectures were recorded and contain data on the use of
the new presessions and processes that undercut cases. All twelve lectures
are listed below. They are also shown on the following pages in
chronological sequence with the written materials of the time.
6008C29 1SHACC-1 The Importance of an E-Meter
** 6008C30 1SHACC-2 Circuits and Havingness
** 6008C31 1SHACC-3 Theory 67
** 6009C01 1SHACC-4 Theory 67
6009C02 1SHACC-5 Case I mprovements
** 6009C05 1SHACC-6 Successful Processes for Handling MEST
** 6009C06 1SHACC-7 Correct Use of E-Meter
** 6009C12 1SHACC-8 In-Sessionness
** 6009C13 1SHACC-9 How Havingness Relates to Circuits
** 6009C14 1SHACC-10 Formula of Havingness
6009C15 1SHACC-11 In-Sessionness and Havingness
6009C16 1SHACC-12 Final Lecture-6th and 7th Dynamics
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1960
Franchise Hldrs
ACC Students
Ds of P
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
PRESESSION TWO
A reshuffling of theory during the past few weeks in order to improve
all ACC cases and clear as many of them as possible has given us new
weapons for the difficult case and new heights for all cases with evidence
of increased speed in processing and easier handling of processes by
auditors. I have been very busy on this and myself received some eighty
hours of processing to iron out commands and get a subjective reality by
case synthesis on these new approaches.
I evolved a new basic theory of processing from observation of what did
not move some ACC cases and what did.
This has been a strenuous research period and though by no means at
end, results should now become much easier to obtain in other areas.
Presession Two is not composed of new processes but is a new
combination.
In 1956 I discovered that talking reduced a difficult pc's tone level.
Now it is obvious that no significance process moves a low graph case.
Therefore, Presession Two is to be used on all cases until a pronounced
change of tone arm and needle reaction is attained as below.
Presession Two cannot be run without a good E-Meter.
When a pc has been steadied at his clear reading by many sessions of
Presession Two then Regimen Two (or Three as will be issued) may be
embarked upon.
PRESESSION TWO
The presession is begun by stating to the pc, "If it is all right with
you, we will begin auditing." On his assent the auditor says (Tone 40),
"Start of session. We will begin by running havingness. Here is the first
command," and gives it.
No discussion is begun or permitted with the pc, no rudiments. No
chatter. The auditor starts briskly and crisply and invites no discussion
of anything and if any is offered by pc, says, "We will take that up later
on in processing. Right now we have to begin."
A case can be retarded by talk in its first stages. Therefore, no talk,
just processing.
The Havingness Process is "Look around here and find something you
could have."
This is run to a loose needle and any closer approach (up or down) of
the tone arm to the clear reading. The best action on which to end the
process is a "blow down" of the tone arm (or a "blow up" in the low tone
arm case), meaning a sudden approach of the arm from a non-optimum reading
toward the optimum read. The first "blow down" (or "blow up") is the signal
to change to the second process.
The auditor then says, "I will run two more commands of this and end
the process if that is all right with you." And then does so. When he
reaches the last command he says, "That was the last command of this
process. Is there anything you would care to say before I end the process?"
He acks whatever pc says, keeps it brief
and then says, "End of process." At once the auditor adds, "We will now
begin alternate confront if that is all right with you. Here is the first
command." And gives it.
The commands of alternate confront are:
"What could you confront?"
"What would you rather not confront?"
This process is run to a relatively tight or sticky needle and,
secondarily, to an abnormally high or low tone arm.
As soon as the meter shows the pc is now "getting sticky" the auditor
says, "I will run two more commands of this and end the process if that is
all right with you." He does so and says, "Is there anything you would care
to say before I end this process?" The auditor acks whatever pc says, keeps
it brief and says, "End of process (not Tone 40)."
At once the auditor says, "We will now begin havingness if that is all
right with you." He acks pc's consent and does so. "Here is the first
command. Etc."
The action of the tone arm is the signal to change processes-loose
needle to change from havingness, tight needle to change from alternate
confront. This may take three minutes to happen on either process or a half
an hour. There is no set time. It is all done by the E-Meter.
One runs these two processes one after the other, on and on, presession
after presession, until the tone arm is stabilized at the clear reading.
Then one begins Regimen Two (or Three).
That is the entirety of Presession Two. No goals, no check-out on help,
control, comm, no PTPs, no ARC breaks handled. It runs out PTPs and ARC
breaks anyway.
It is smoothly audited, crisply with good TRs, almost muzzled.
This will move any case that can go through the action of the commands.
Even if the havingness does not seem real to pc, keep pc at it. It will
become real by and by.
The alternate confront answers do not have to be subjective but usually
will be.
Here is an auditor trick that permits better attention on pc's answers
and less command mistakes on alternate command processes. When you give the
plus command (could you) put your thumb on your index finger. Hold it there
until it is answered. When the minus command (rather not) is given, put
your thumb on the second finger tip until it is answered. This sets up a
physical universe tally and keeps one from mucking up the command sequence
without having to "hold it in mind". This permits better observation of the
pc. If he fogs out and needs the question again, thumb position tells the
auditor which one it is without recall. I have been using this to free up
all attention units for observation of pc and meter and find the additional
attention helps the pc. The thumb system is done unobtrusively, of course.
This may seem a bit silly to propose but your auditing attention is for the
pc and the state of the meter, not holding a command like a concept. The
mental holding of the command starts some uncleared auditors into self-
audit during a session and may be a cause of session self-audit.
A presession is ended by the auditor asking after his last "End of
process", "Do you have anything you would like to say before we end this
session?" He can now take up whatever the pc says and gracefully ease the
session to a close. The presession activity is closed by saying, "I am now
going to end processing for (this morning) (this afternoon) (today)
(tonight). Here it is. (Tone 40) End of session." He can add, "Now tell me
I am no longer auditing you (this morning) (this afternoon) (today)
(tonight)."
AN AUDITING PRESESSION
In actuality, a presession of this type is a session of sorts, minus
rudiments and end rudiments. But in very real actuality I now find a pc
isn't enough there before he is consistently reading at clear to do
anything but cut up his havingness with talk in session. His postulates
aren't sticking well yet. He ARC breaks unexpectedly. Any talk by the
auditor invites upsets. And havingness and alternate confront handle PTPs
and ARC breaks better for somebody who reads off clear than most other
processes. Further, as above, the more pc talk, the more chance for flubs
and ARC breaks.
SUMMARY
Presession Two is based on the theory that one is taking the 6th
Dynamic off the Seventh Dynamic. This is opposed to taking the Seventh
Dynamic out of the Sixth Dynamic. There's so much to this and so many
mechanical facts involved that I'm going to write a book about it shortly
as it's too lengthy for bulletins.
We're going right ahead now and make lots of Book One Clears through
the HGCs and the field. Only these will be whole track Book One Clears.
Presession Two and Regimen Three are the first process arrangements I have
done which require only repetitive commands, no assessment or judgement of
a case beyond E-Meter needle and tone arm readings. As assessment and
discussion with the pc have been the major impediments to broad modern
clearing by others, I am happy to be able to remove them. It has been quite
a feat. As this also gets those stuck arm, stuck needle cases really going,
some moving swiftly for the first time, I feel we've achieved something.
The processes have been to hand but a new theory of processing had to be
evolved to isolate them from thousands of other good processes and to get
them run exactly right in the correct order.
Presession Two, by the way, is not for HAS Co-audit use or any co-audit
use, where meters are not in every auditor's hands. It is vital that they
be run by meter. Otherwise these two processes just stall each other. Co-
audit people would just get involved in engrams here and there and be
unhappy. Use help on supervisor-assessed terminals in co-audits. It's good.
Don't run alternate confront. Run havingness afterwards if you like.
One further comment on needle action in running Presession Two. The
fastest case advance is probably achieved by getting off alternate confront
and back to havingness immediately after a consistent needle rise or steady
creep downward (for a low arm case) sets in. A steady rise means the pc has
just hit something he can't confront (the source of rise or steady slow
fall for a low tone arm). It's all no have from there. This requires
watchfulness. Be certain to catch it and return to havingness again each
time there is a sticky needle coming about.
(All comments on needle and meter reaction in this bulletin are subject
to review as the matter is still under study but the above meter data is
already proven to be workable and should be used for now.)
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.jh
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6009C01 1SHACC-4 Theory 67
6009C02 1SHACC-5 Case Improvements
** 6009C05 1SHACC-6 Successful Processes for Handling MEST
** 6009C06 1SHACC-7 Correct Use of E-Meter
** 6009C12 1SHACC-8 In-Sessionness
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1960
Fran Hldrs
THE PRESESSIONS OF THE 1ST SAINT HILL ACC
The 1st Saint Hill ACC is being very successful.
The advanced process used on higher cases is Regimen 3. Help on Motion,
Alt. Conf., and Havingness done in a Model Session. (Regimen 3/II.)
This has been preceded by Presessions. The presession only is used
until pc rides at clear reading with a loose needle during session. Then
the presession that cracked the case is combined with Help on Motion as a
new Regimen 3. This is designated as follows: Regimen 3/V. This means that
a Model Session is run with Help on Motion, the Confront command being that
of Presession V, the Havingness command being that of Presession V. In the
Model Session, the sequence of processes is the Havingness process, the
Help-Motion process, the Havingness process, the Confront process, the
Havingness process, the Help-Motion process, etc. The Havingness process is
run briefly until Havingness is up. The Confront is run until pc is in p.t.
Help-Motion is run until pc gets high on the arm or gummy on the needle.
The following presessions are those that have been effective on one or
another of the ACC cases. A more detailed report will be made later.
Presession II is for a fairly easy case. Presessions V to VII inclusive
moved, one or another of them, all difficult cases, Presessions VIII and IX
have not been used but are included for completeness.
The rule is that if a tone arm does not shift more than one division on
a meter dial in an hour of processing, you should try another presession.
If you have the right one for the case, you should get rapid shifts of
the tone arm and should flatten it as a presession (pc reading during its
use at clear read) and then go into Model Session using your same
presession as the Havingness and Confront commands of Regimen 3.
No rudiments, no two way comm of any kind is used while auditing the
presession only.
COMMANDS FOR PRESESSIONS II-X
PRESESSION II:
Havingness: "Look around here and find something you could have."
Confront: "What could you confront?" "What would you rather not
confront?"
PRESESSION III:
Havingness: "Point out something in this room you could confront."
"Point out something in this room you would rather not confront."
Confront: "What unconfrontable thing could you present?"
PRESESSION IV:
Havingness: "What part of a beingness around here could you have?"
Confront: "What beingness could others not confront?"
PRESESSION V:
Havingness: "Point out something in this room you could confront."
"Point out something in this room you would rather not confront."
Confront: "Point out a place where you are not being confronted."
PRESESSION VI:
Havingness: "Look around here and point out an effect you could
prevent."
Confront: "What would deter another?" "Where would you put it?"
PRESESSION VII:
Havingness: "Point out something."
Confront: "Tell me something I am not doing to you."
PRESESSION VIII:
Havingness: "Where is the (room object)?"
Confront: "Recall something really real to you."
"Recall a time you liked something."
"Recall a time you communicated with something."
PRESESSION IX:
Havingness: "Look around here and find an object you are not in."
Confront: "Recall somebody who was real to you."
"Recall somebody you really liked."
"Recall somebody you could communicate with."
PRESESSION X:
Havingness: "Look around here and find something you could have."
Confront: "What beingness could you confront?"
"What beingness would you rather not confront?"
Notes:
By finding the Presession Havingness process that moved the tone arm
well and the Confront process that moved the tone arm well, the auditor can
make a presession out of this new pair.
On all "POINT OUT" commands: Have pc hold both E-Meter cans in one hand
with a piece of paper, or cardboard, between to prevent shorting out, so pc
has one hand free to point with.
Havingness command of Presession IV: Unless more than one auditing team
present in auditing room, must be run as a walk-about, or in room where pc
can see people from window.
Confront command of Presession VI: Use either no acknowledgement, or a
very light, continuing sort of acknowledgement, between these two
questions.
(Data on the use of Presessions as part of Regimen 3 as given in this
HCO Bulletin is subject to further study.)
LRH :js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6009C13 1SHACC-9 How Havingness Relates to Circuits
** 6009C14 1SHACC-10 Formula of Havingness
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1960
Fran Hldrs
THE TONE ARM
If you haven't got an E-Meter, you can't clear people. That has now
emerged as a final datum.
For without an E-Meter you cannot tell, the way it has now developed,
whether a case is really moving or not or whether a process is biting.
This startling fact was proven in the 1st Saint Hill ACC (7th London).
In late 1959 I began to study the tone arm as a means of discovering
more data about a case.
A year later I can assure you of the following truths:
1. A case which is not registering a rapidly moving tone arm during a
session is not progressing well.
2. A case which has no wide tone arm movement during processing has not
remedied objective havingness.
3. Extreme low arm and extreme high arm cases only have low objective
havingness.
4. A case should move three tone divisions of the tone arm dial up or
down in an hour of processing before it can be considered to be running
well.
5. If a tone arm doesn't change under processing the case is not
progressing.
6. The keys to a moving tone arm are:
(a) Havingness
(b) Overts
7. No case should be processed on anything else but some form of
objective havingness or O/W before the tone arm is moving freely.
8. Extreme high and extreme low tone arm cases alike are unable to have
the room of the session.
9. Extreme high and extreme low tone arm cases alike cannot have the
auditor or people.
10. Until a case is made to read around the clear read, it should not be
processed on anything but havingness, O/W, confront (or duplication)
processes.
The tone arm tells you, by its motion, the extent of case advance, long
before you get another graph. Inadequate tone arm motion during processing
means inadequate case gain.
If the case isn't gaining, try another objective havingness process.
LRH:js.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
6009C15 1SHACC-11 In-Sessionness and Havingness
6009C16 1SHACC-12 Final Lecture-6th and 7th Dynamics
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 SEPTEMBER 1960
D of Ps
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
GIVING THE PC FULL HOURS
It has come to attention that pcs are sometimes deprived of a part of
their full 25 hours in an intensive by including coffee breaks in the
auditing time.
As this is one of the most fruitful sources of pc dissatisfaction even
when unexpressed, the practice is forbidden.
If the pc demands a break or if the auditor declares one, the time so
spent is added to the 25 hours, which is to say the time is made up in
actual auditing in the same day it occurred. Careful count must be kept of
a break since it must be added to session time and given in actual
auditing.
Auditing time is very precious to pcs. Please don't waste it.
HAVINGNESS INJUNCTION
No pc may be run on two-way comm, confront, help or other process until
a process has been found that remedies his havingness and brings the tone
arm to clear read.
Overt-withhold on the auditor or other terminal may be considered a
preliminary process as it assists duplication and therefore havingness. It
is not, however, to be considered a havingness process for purposes of
running a case.
Havingness processes meant herein are those of the 1st Saint Hill ACC
issued in contemporary bulletins.
MODEL SESSION
HGCs will hereafter use Model Session form immediately that a
havingness and a confront process are established for a particular pc.
Thereafter all sessions shall be in Model Session form.
The purpose of this is to get the rudiments covered to the end of
obviating ARC breaks and present time problems, the only two things which
can stall a case which has once gotten started.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dm.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1960
BPI
CAPTIVE BRAINS
Pity the poor Scientist. He is a captive brain.
Today he has no liberty. He may not, must not utter blasphemy against
his captors.
All he is permitted to do is slave.
The cause for which he slaves derives from an accident of geography. If
he was born in the "West" he gets to slave for the Extreme right. If born
in the "East" he slaves for the Extreme left.
Should he find anything or invent anything, his discovery becomes the
boast of Leftist or Rightist.
At once, he has been persuaded, he must deny all further responsibility
for his creation and sign over the whole thing for a rouble or one dollar
to his captors and must remain anonymous.
And then he must also wear his old school tie and belong to the right
society. His credentials must always be in order. If he invents or
discovers anything his credentials are examined first, its political use is
examined next and then he's given his microcosm of security and sent back
to his cell.
His govemment, his society, his employer all have managed to insist
that these conditions exist and, more, are normal and fitting.
If he utters blasphemy such as "I feel radiation is not assimilable for
babies" or "Science was invented to serve Man", he is sacked. His security
is taken roughly away and they tear up his old school tie. They say nasty
things about him in the papers and glare at his former fellows hoping they
start no nonsense now.
When you make a man grind enough years at the mouldy texts of
yesterday's prejudices, he is already on the ropes. He is dimly peeping
through bad eyesight at a myopic world. He has been made to feel that if he
doesn't treat life like a tightrope, he'll fall.
And so he is piteously grateful to receive his old school tie. He is
cringing with gratitude when they offer him anonymous rewards. If he
destroys Mankind thereby by dreaming up a bomb, he never finds it out. He
forgot Mankind. He denied all responsibility for his creation.
Once scientists stood for Truth and tried to serve humanity. Now they
serve economics and political creeds.
Why has no defence been built against fission? Because nobody wrote a
cheque to build it. Scientifically it is a problem only slightly more
complex than Atom Bombs. Why has no scientist started to work on it, cheque
or no cheque?
Can it be they gutted scientists of guts when they perverted Newton?
Can it be he or she is a coward, this scientist? Can it be a pay cheque and
old school tie mean more to him than life?
Ah yes-I well recall seeking to shame some apple-cheeked young
officers, strayed like blinking lambs, into a man-of-war. I graded them on
their watch standing with A and B and C and put gold stars on their records
on the bulletin board. Such was my irony, so heavy was my hand, as I stood
back, that finally I could only weep. They thanked me!
So the product of the group-think, the death of the individual in a
university of today, extends further than the scientist.
Slaves it has been said, love their chains. No more so than a scientist
who sells his tiny spark of a soul for a pat on the head from a political
boss.
And so, as the responsibility of the individual for his creation dies,
so we enter in upon a madness of destruction where all human suffering is
made available to all.
The man who would destroy all Man for pay, not even vengeance, is so
far below contempt he is no longer man but animal, a beast unclean who
cares not what he kills so long as he is fed.
You want to end the threat of bombs, then please awake. Politics died
with Victoria. Government is no longer done that way. It's done not by
appeals to men but appeals to their bellies and their fears. The world is
now controlled by economic groups who debase laws and rewrite texts and so
make slaves.
For anything to happen now, enough to end this crazy dance, it will be
needful to amend Man's pride and confidence and teach him he can stand
alone on his two feet. The re-creation of the individual is all that's
left, no matter what you would improve.
Man buys his lies from cowardice. Afraid to face the truth he cannot
view his death-coming fast, for all Mankind.
In companies, in every path of life, show men they can be free and
you'll have courage back for them.
How do I know this about Scientists? For thirty years I've been a
maverick, an iconoclast. Each old school tie they sought to hang me with I
painted its stripes comically. And I have watched in thirty years almost
every other maverick go down. I've seen them denied security, given bad
notices. I've seen them produce brilliant work and have it lie neglected
even though their nation bled.
America had the V-2 in 1932. Why did she have to import a foreign
Scientist to "recover its secret"?
America had helicopters in 1936. Why did she copy a German machine, the
Focke-Wulf, ten years later?
America had a thousand things she would not buy from men who would not
wear the old school tie and bow their heads in abandonment of their
creations.
I was myself once threatened with expulsion from a university because I
said that students should be allowed to think. A terrible crime.
We go into the teeth today, we Scientologists, of the greatest slavery
of them all, the slavery of thought. The battle is not ended yet-but
listen, we've broken through!
We today are the only group on earth that is not owned by either camp
or any creed. We serve no flighty masters.
Once there was only me, sickened sometimes by Lying press inspired
because I
would not be a slave. But now there's you and you and you. Sometimes we've
lost a man or a girl but only because they were not brave enough to stand
upon a mountain top and say "I'm me! I think. I feel. I am no slave. Come
on! Be free!"
But even in our very trying days, we still kept most of us and now we
grow into a crowd whose mutters shake the cornerstone of prisons.
And we've won technology. Why should I give you sales talks now? Upon
every continent an HGC is turning people into clears.
We're winning or why should the press begin again to growl? On one hand
on the stands we read that a grayayayt university now believes that IQ can
change, while in the same day a huge scientific group says we are no good.
Our hands lie heavily on destiny, yours and mine. We've turned a
downward trend upward again. And so as we mount higher, be clever and
understand what's happening.
Attacks in press and elsewhere will mount up. Upon me. Upon us. No. No
violence. Just entheta. And money, lots of money will be sent to scream out
more and more. Be gratified. Their hysteria is our index of win, nothing
less.
Pity the poor slave master! There in his Extreme Right or Extreme Left
den, he's penned successfully the cream of brains and wit. And just as he
licks his chops to say, "You're now all slaves!", a mighty host cries back,
"Who us?" and strikes the fetters from his prey. Poor fellows. Commissar
Gulpski and Capitalistic Grab will have to unite to have a quorum in their
caves.
Oh no. It's no mad dream. Politics is dead. Economics now dominates the
world. And we sit laughing with technology to undo all their buttons and
their charms.
As we improve organisations, we will improve people. And as we improve
people we make men brave. And then at last the slave looks down and says,
"Why, what are these chains?" and shakes them off.
The vested interest of the world, since its beginning, made but one
mistake. They thought that punishment and hard duress were all that made
Man work. But Man just worked so long as he could help. And when his wares
were turned to bringing hate and death, he struck. Until someone, you and
me, give back his willingness to help, the world, like tired wheels, will
grind down to a stop.
It is an overt act by you and me to leave in power any group that
denies men freedom, knowing what we know. Therefore, attack.
We are the only men and women left on Earth who are no longer slaves.
And we are now all past the point in knowledge and in numbers where we
will wear their chains.
The men who need us most are the slave masters.
We will get around to them last, I think. It is more fitting so.
P.S. And now do you wonder why the mutter grows: "Scientologists are
dangerous". But Scientology is the only game where all dynamics win!
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright �1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1960
D of Ts
D of Ps
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
ACC LECTURE TAPES
The 1st Saint Hill ACC lecture tapes, selected package, should be in
your possession for staff use.
These contain the data on the use of the new presessions and processes
that undercut these cases.
There are twelve lectures in this package each from 35 to 45 minutes
long.
These should be played to your HGC staff auditors and the staff. They
contain all the odd bits that aren't in bulletins.
This is the easiest way we can get the data to you.
Therefore we are shipping these tapes at once. They are billed to you
through customs at cost of tape. There are three 1,800 ft. reels with four
lectures on each.
They cover what is known as Scientology Theory 67 completely with all
tips of assessment and case handling. As this is the most important advance
in recent years, and as these tapes give it thorough and concise coverage,
you need them.
We will bill you for air express and other charges, invoice them for
customs at tape cost. This classifies as technical data.
To Whom Tapes Are Played
As these tapes are for advanced auditors only, they may not be played
to field auditor gatherings, or at Congresses.
They may be played to Central Org and HCO staffs, to HGCs and to HCS or
higher level classes, and may be played at HCA/HPA level at the D of T's
discretion.
A tape recorder with earphones in HCOs should be available to break in
newly hired staff auditors who meanwhile may run simpler processes as per
earlier issues. The tapes should be kept in HCO and not let out to
individuals to be taken outside the Org.
The tapes are numbered 1 to 12 although in fact they are the last 12
lectures of the 1st Saint Hill ACC. They may be played in any order.
This is my immediate programme for faster HGC gains. You have been
given bits and pieces of this. It will work better if you have the whole
story given as it was worked out as the only other full rundown will be a
book.
You are doing very well already with what you have. For that I thank
you. You will do even better with these tapes.
LRH:js.nm
Copyright � 1960 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1960
(Originally issued in Johannesburg)
HGCs
ORDER OF TEST OF HAVINGNESS AND CONFRONT COMMANDS
Based on data of the 1st Saint Hill ACC which I have now tabulated for
what moved cases it is possible that the following processes should be
tested on pc in the given order.
The Havingness Processes should bring needle down or up toward clear
read for pc's sex with a loosening needle.
The Confront process should move the tone arm at least 3 tones per hour
of processing. The test should at least move arm and change needle pattern.
While testing Confront processes run the Havingness process already found
between tests until the needle is free and back at clear read.
In testing, first find the Havingness Process that suits the pc. If you
can't get one on the list to return the tone arm to clear read, use CCH 3
or 4 or both until Tone Arm is at clear read with a loose needle.
O/W also assists obtaining a clear read, so does a PTP run with O/W or
an ARC break run with O/W. A PTP or an ARC break can stop or prevent a
process from being found or from continuing to work when it has already
worked before. Get off the PTP or the ARC break and the former workable
Havingness will work again. If pc ARC breaks too easily to permit a cleanup
with O/W, use Havingness XXXI (two objects) or CCH 3 or 4 or both. If pc
still can't be handled use CCH I and CCH 2, then get run what pc wouldn't
run.
A dozen commands is enough to show if a Havingness process is going to
work or not. If the needle fails to free and the Tone Arm starts to go away
from clear read, stop at once and bridge to next test process.
Only when the Havingness process is found should the Confront process
needed be searched for.
When the two have been found, this is the pair which should be
flattened. When they seem flat, combine them with a Help O/W process and
run a regimen in this order:
The pc's Havingness Process.
Help O/W on a terminal assessed or on a factor of Mest (Matter, energy,
space, time, form or location as assessed per Regimen 6). (For Regimen 6
hear ACC tapes.)
The pc's Havingness process.
The pc's Confront process.
The pc's Havingness process.
The pc's Help O/W process.
The pc's Havingness process. Etc. Etc.
A Havingness process is always run to Tone Arm clear read with a freed
needle. The Help process is run to a sticky needle and off Tone Arm. The
Confront process is run to present time if possible.
Don't run anything else on pc until you have found pc's Havingness process
or proved out what he says it was according to last auditor.
By definition:
A pc's Havingness process is one that returns the Tone Arm to clear
read and frees the needle.
A pc's Help process is one that moves the Tone Arm at least 3 tones per
hour and brings the reading always a bit closer to the clear read. (5 to 6,
5 to 6 on and on won't do.)
A pc's Confront process is defined in the same way as his Help process,
except that it should move pc on the track, going further and further into
the past and easier and easier into present time. Pc's pictures should
improve on a confront process.
Run all tests and processes in Model Session Form in HGCs now.
Here are the commands in possible order of likelihood they will locate
the pc's Havingness process and Confront process.
Havingness Commands in Order of Test for Pcs
VII "Point out something."
VI "Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent."
XIX "What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?"
XI "Notice that (indicated object)." (No acknowledgement) "What aren't
you putting into it?"
XIII "Look around here and find something you could have."
"Look around here and find something you could withhold."
XXIV Outside Process. "What is the condition of that person?"
XXXI (Two small objects in auditor's hands.) Exposes them alternately to
pc, with as little motion of arms and hands as possible.
"Look at this." (No acknowledgement) "What around here isn't this
duplicating?"
VIII "Where is the (room object)?" (Pc points.)
IX "Look around here and find an object you are not in."
XII "Look around here and find something you can agree with."
XVI "Point out something around here that is like something else."
XVII "Where isn't that (indicated object)?"
XX "What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?"
XXI "What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?"
XXVI "What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?"
II "Look around here and find something you could have."
Confront Commands in Order of Test for Pcs
VII "Tell me something I am not doing to you."
X "What beingness could you confront?"
"What beingness would you rather not confront?"
IV "What beingness could others not confront?"
XVI "What is something?"
"What makes sense?"
XVII "What unkind thought have you withheld?"
XI "Tell me something you might not be confronting."
VI "What would deter another?"
"Where would you put it?"
III "What unconfrontable thing could you present?"
XXIV "What is a bad object?"
XXVI "How would you not duplicate a bad person?"
"How would you not duplicate a bad thing?"
V "Point out a place where you are not being confronted."
IX "Recall somebody who was real to you."
"Recall somebody you really liked."
"Recall somebody you could really communicate with."
XIX "What intention failed?"
XXII "What would be a betrayal?"
XV "What would you rather not duplicate?"
XII "What is understandable?"
"What is understanding?"
XIII "What have you done?"
"What have you withheld?"
XXI "What past beingness would best suit you?"
"What past thing would best suit you?"
II "What could you confront?"
"What would you rather not confront?"
The following Havingness Presession Process may be considered nul:
XXII.
The following Confront processes may be considered nul:
XX; XXIII; XXV.
None of the above four moved cases in the 1st Saint Hill ACC.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:aecjs.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1960
Originally issued from Johannesburg
Central Orgs
HGCs
TIPS ON HOW TO CRACK AN HGC CASE
Run lots of "What question shouldn't I ask you?", and get them all off.
Find and solve all PTPs with O/W on the terminals involved.
Lots of O/W in general.
____________
Lots of discussion about failed help. Have pc check over many help
failures.
____________
Then check for havingness process.
____________
Here are some good tips.
"Look around here and find something you can have" always works on any
pc if the rudiments are done, done, done thoroughly.
New Experimental Havingness Processes:
"Look around here and find something you don't have to make duplicate
you."
"Feel that (indicated room object)."
"How could you have that (indicated room object)?"
"How could that (indicated room object) make somebody guilty?"
"Notice that (room object). How long can you be absolutely sure it will
be there?"
"What problem could that wall be?"
Confront Processes:
"What unworkable situation could you confront?"
"What unworkable situation would you rather not confront?"
____________
"What sexual activity could you confront?"
"What sexual activity would you rather not confront?"
____________
"What sound (or other perception) could you confront?"
"What sound (or other perception) would you rather not confront?"
"Think of a problem."
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:aec js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1960
Franchise holders
HAVINGNESS AND DUPLICATION
After several years of trying to find the precise mechanics of
havingness, I think I've come very close.
Havingness is apparently the willingness and ability to duplicate in
all senses of the word. It also has many lesser connotations but the
havingness ability of a pc apparently depends upon his willingness and
ability to duplicate, again in all senses of the word.
That which makes communication work in processes is the duplication
part of the communications formula (Axiom 28).
The position of a being on the tone scale is determined by his
willingness and ability to duplicate. The lower the tone of the being the
less willing the being is to permit similar incidents to happen again. This
outlaws the experience factor and leaves the being with an "experience-
scarcity" which causes him to refuse further experience.
All this is remedied by objective havingness processes (objective
duplication increase). The bank additionally must be adjusted by subjective
confront processes (subjective duplication increase).
A case will not advance appreciably until the being can remedy
objective havingness. Objective havingness, the ability to remedy it,
determines the entrance point of a case. Before a process to improve a pc's
objective havingness is well established, the case will not advance, no
matter what else is run. After a process that remedies objective havingness
is sufficiently established to bring the E-Meter tone arm down to the clear
read for the pc's sex, the case will advance on confront and help and other
processes so long as objective havingness is re-established frequently.
Objective havingness is probably incapable of making a case totally
stable in the absence of other subjective processes.
As havingness is the willingness to duplicate room objects (Axiom 28),
then anything which improves the pc's ability to duplicate improves his or
her havingness.
If a verbal process, after considerable test of various verbal command
objective havingness processes, fails to work, the pc may be run on the new
Presession XXXI or CCH 3 or CCH 4 or both CCH 3 and CCH 4.
Various old mimicry processes have some workability and we now know
why. They are duplication processes and work only because they raise
havingness.
I feel sort of slow on this one. It took me six years to find and
establish it. But it gives us now the entrance point of all cases. This is
why they did or did not make gains. They could or could not remedy
objective havingness. Possibly (by 1st Saint Hill ACC case standards only)
some 25 out of 40 pcs are not able to run "Look around here and find
something you could have" and successfully remedy their havingness without
havingness undercuts being used. Therefore this is a critical point in
cases and demands care at the very start of a case.
An objective havingness process must be found for every case which will
reduce or increase the tone arm to clear read for the pc.
Thirty-seven new havingness processes now exist. Use them.
People go out of present time because they can't have the mest of
present time. That's it. Present time is the only referral point that
exists. In its absence all becomes "bank".
LRH:dm.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 OCTOBER 1960R
REVISED 8 MAY 1974
(Revision in this type style)
Remimeo
THIRTY-SIX NEW PRESESSIONS
The following material was developed for the 1st Saint Hill ACC. All
cases of this ACC were well started toward clear, 25 of them started for
the first time. These new presessions were employed. Two of the cases
started with two-way comm on failed help only after which some of the
presessions following worked.
NOTE: These presessions are subject to revision after my further study.
Their numbers will not be changed. I will probably change some of the
processes and commands. They are given here exactly as developed and in the
order of development, not workability.
NOTE: The assistance of Dick and Jan Halpern, ACC Instructors, is
gratefully acknowledged for the discussion and testing of these
presessions.
NOTE: Presession I is to be found in HCO Bulletin of 25 August 1960 and
is not actually part of this series, not being a havingness confront
presession.
PRESESSION II:
Havingness: "Look around here and find something you could have."
Confront: "What could you confront?" "What would you rather not
confront?"
PRESESSION III:
Havingness: "Point out something in this room you could confront."
"Point out something in this room you would rather not confront."
Confront: "What unconfrontable thing could you present?"
PRESESSION I V:
Havingness: "What part of a beingness around here could you have?"
Confront: "What beingness could others not confront?"
PRESESSION V:
Havingness: "Point out something in this room you could confront."
"Point out something in this room you would rather not confront."
Confront: "Point out a place where you are not being confronted."
PRESESSION VI:
Havingness: "Look around here and point out an effect you could
prevent."
Confront: "What would deter another?" "Where would you put it?"
PRESESSION VII:
Havingness: "Point out something."
Confront: "Tell me something I am not doing to you."
PRESESSION VIII:
Havingness: "Where is the (room object)?"
Confront: "Recall something really real to you."
"Recall a time you liked something."
"Recall a time you communicated with something."
PRESESSION IX:
Havingness: "Look around here and find an object you are not in."
Confront: "Recall somebody who was real to you."
"Recall somebody you really liked."
"Recall somebody you could really communicate with."
PRESESSION X:
Havingness: "Look around here and find something you could have."
Confront: "What beingness could you confront?"
"What beingness would you rather not confront?"
PRESESSION XI:
Have: "Notice that (indicated object)." (No acknowledgement.)
"What aren't you putting into it?"
Confront: "Tell me something you might not be confronting."
PRESESSION XII:
Have: "Look around here and find something you can agree with."
Confront: "What is understandable?"
"What is understanding?"
PRESESSION XIII:
Have: "Look around here and find something you could have."
"Look around here and find something you could withhold."
Confront: "What have you done?"
"What have you withheld?"
PRESESSION XIV:
Have: "Notice that (room object). Get the idea of making it connect with
you. "
Confront: (First ask: "Is there anything around here that is absolutely
still?" If the answer is yes, continue. If no, use another
presession.) "Look around here and find something you could
stop," (to change of needle pattern or tone arm) then: "Look
around here and find something you could start," (to change of
needle pattern or tone arm) then, when neither command
unsettles needle pattern or tone arm any more, use 5 or 6
commands of "Look around here and find something you could
change." Then return to "stop".
PRESESSION XV:
Have: "Look around here and find something you could withhold."
Confront: "What would you rather not duplicate?"
PRESESSION XVI:
Have: "Point out something around here that is like something else."
Confront: "What is something?" "What makes sense?"
PRESESSION XVII:
Have: "Where isn't that (indicated object)?"
Confront: "What unkind thought have you withheld?"
PRESESSION XVIII:
Have: "What else is that (indicated object)?"
Confront: "What would make everything the same?"
PRESESSION XIX:
Have: "What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?"
Confront: "What intention failed?"
PRESESSION XX:
Have: "What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?"
Confront: "What two thoughts aren't the same?"
PRESESSION XXI:
Have: "What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?"
Confront: "What past beingness would best suit you?"
"What past thing would best suit you?"
PRESESSION XXII:
Have: "Duplicate something."
Confront: "What would be a betrayal?"
PRESESSION XXIII:
Have: "What is the condition of that (indicated object)?"
Confront: "Describe a bad case."
PRESESSION XXI V:
Have: "What is the condition of that person?"
Confront: "What is a bad object?"
PRESESSION XXV:
Have: "What aren't you putting into that body?"
Confront: "What beingness would it be all right to confront?"
PRESESSION XXVI:
Have: "What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?"
Confront: "How would you not duplicate a bad person?"
"How would you not duplicate a bad thing?"
PRESESSION XXVII:
Have: "Where would that wall have to be located so you wouldn't have
to restrain it?"
Confront: "Describe an unpleasant environment."
PRESESSION XX VIII:
Have: (a) "What around here would you permit to be duplicated?" or,
(b) "What is the safest thing in this room?"
Confront: "Describe a removal."
PRESESSION XXIX:
Have: "Who would that (indicated object) be a good example to?"
Confront: "What would that person be a good example to?"
PRESESSION XXX:
Have: "What would you have to do to that (indicated object) in order
to have it?"
Confront: "Spot a change in your life."
PRESESSION XXXI:
Have: (Auditor holds two small objects, one in each hand. Exposes
them alternately to pc, with as little motion of arms and hands
as possible.) "Look at this." (No acknowledgement.) "What
around here isn't this duplicating?"
PRESESSION XXXII:
Have: "How could you deter a ......?"
"What have you not given a ......?"
Confront: "What could you own?"
"What have you denied owning?"
(To clean up Scientology auditing or instruction run on ''auditor'',
"pc", "instructors'', "student", as indicated.
''What would a.....own?"
"What would a .....not own?'')
PRESESSION XXXIII: (This is used as a "post-session" to clear up an
intensive at the end.)
Have: Whatever havingness runs best on pc, as havingness command.
Confront: "What have you done in this room?"
"What have you withheld in this room?"
(To clean up all auditing, use "an auditing room".)
PRESESSION XXXIV:
Have: Whatever pc runs best, as havingness command.
Confront: "Who have you overwhelmed?"
"Who have you not overwhelmed?"
PRESESSION XXXV:
Have: "Notice that (indicated room object)." "How could you get it to
help you?"
Confront: "Whom have you failed to help?"
(This will fish up a case who is out the bottom with ARC Breaks.
Corrects alter-isness.)
PRESESSION XXXVI:
Have: "Notice that (room object)." "How could you fail to help it?"
Confront: "Think of a victim."
Replace Havingness of Presession XXV with:
Have: "Notice that body."
"What aren't you putting into it?"
3 Versions of-Regimen 6 O/W Commands:
1. "Get the idea of doing something to ......"*
"Get the idea of withholding something from ......"*
2. "What have you done to ........ ?"*
"What have you withheld from .......?"*
3. "Get the idea of having done something to ........"*
"Get the idea of having withheld something from ......"*
*Assessed 6th Dynamic terminal.
(Number 3 runs regret.)
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.esc.ntm.jh
Copyright � 1960, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[The 8 May 1974 revision of Presession XXXII simply incorporates a
correction previously issued on 20 October 1960. Presession XXXI has been
corrected above per HCO B 23 September 1960, page 151.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 OCTOBER 1960
BPI
Central Orgs
Post copy
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
CURRENT NEWS
Two weeks ago tomorrow I arrived in South Africa to review and assist
the situation.
The Central Org in Johannesburg is amongst the best we have and
Scientology interest is way up in South Africa.
Further, I am fairly sure now that in South Africa we have a starting
point for broader activities. Our first action here is to put in a magazine
for newsstand circulation. Another magazine for native consumption will
probably follow.
It has become obvious to me that we must seize or create communication
lines if we ever hope to advance rapidly. Newspapers and governments have
been our stumbling blocks. Therefore we recently created a Dept of Govt
Relations in each HASI. Its job is to get comm lines out and help
governments.
All such activities will be handled under HCO which is just now
attaining limited status. We should be able to acquire a few millions worth
of public comm lines in the coming years.
The problem of South Africa is different than the world thinks. There
is no native problem. The native worker gets more than white workers do in
England!
Russia wants South African diamonds and gold, oil and uranium. Russia
starts trouble here whenever she can. The South African government is not a
police state. It's easier on people than the United States government!
The South African government is under raid by Russia. Radio broadcasts
slam in here nightly trying to incite riots. The South African govemment is
dismayed because it can't believe anybody-like Russia-could tell so many
lies.
We, as Scientology, are in good shape here. As a lasting tribute to
Peggy Conway's early work, that of other auditors, and in particular Jack
and Alison Parkhouse, the South African organization is strong and able and
good friends with everybody. That makes it an ideal springboard.
With magazines, radio and TV stations we are going to consolidate here
and move north with action.
If you look at a globe of the world you can trace our most direct
forward thrusts. By using similar patterns of approach we will eventually
get to every other country, consolidating each in turn.
Your area is on our work list. Your job is to hold your area and
support our forward push until we get to you. The advance has already begun
here and by that we have already started in your direction.
This jump-off coincides with a wrap-up of cases. I am also writing new
texts for a new Basic Course any auditor can teach. This will, by about
next April, be a requisite for HPA/HCA. An ms. edition will first be
available from HASI South Africa and
printed editions will be available to you in your area sometime later. The
book is called: The Anatomy of the Human Mind. It's the first large book
since 1951.
In South Africa we are shaping up properties and comm lines to the
value of several million pounds. I have often said our subject would go as
far as it worked. It is now working thoroughly. It will go anyway. But we
are backing its thrust hard. Did you ever try to control a pc with no comm
line? We won't control society without one either.
I am personally getting along fine. The Org here is wonderful. We have
a lovely home. Mary Sue and the children will be here soon.
Have patience and support our push. We have only one major problem.
Who's to be Assn Sec for Moscow?
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER 1960
Fran Hldrs
SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION
A Model Session is a Model session because of its "patter", not because
of specific processes. This is a handy script of the "patter of a Model
Session". Use it. Don't vary it. Know it by heart. It's the mark of a well
trained auditor. By making all patter the same later sessions run out
earlier sessions.
This does not enjoin against two-way comm. But keep auditor comments
and chatter out of sessions if you want smooth results and no ARC breaks.
TO START SESSION:
Auditor: "Is it all right with you if we begin this session now?"
Pc: "Yes."
Auditor: "All right. Start of session!" (Tone 40)
Note I: If pc says "No", Auditor two-way comms concerning objections,
then asks again, "Is it all right with you if we begin this session
now?"
Note II: If pc doubtful as to whether session has started:
Auditor: "Has the session started for you?"
Pc: "No."
Auditor: "All right, Start of session." (Tone 40)
RUDIMENTS:
1. Goals:
Auditor: "What goals would you like to set for this session?"
Pc: Sets goals.
Auditor: "All right. Any goals you would like to set for life or
livingness?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: "Good."
2. Environment:
Auditor: "Is it all right to audit in this room?"
3. Auditor Clearance:
Auditor: "Is it all right if I audit you?"
4. Present Time Problems:
Auditor: "Do you have any present time problem?"
STARTING A PROCESS:
Auditor: "Now I would like to run this process on you." (Name it.) "What
would you say to that?"*
Pc: "All right."
Auditor: (Clears command with pc) then-
Auditor: "Here is the first command." (Gives command.)
Pc: Answers. Auditor: Acknowledges.
*Note I : If, after discussion, it seems that the pc will not be able to
handle the
announced process, auditor says, "According to what we have been
talking about then it would seem better if I ran (names another
process)."
ENDING A PROCESS:
Auditor: "If it is all right with you I will ask the question two more
times and end the process."
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: (after last command) "Is there anything you would care to say
before I end the process?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: "End of Process."
REPEATED COMMANDS:
Auditor: (Gives command.)
Pc: "I don't know, I can't find any answer."
Auditor: "All right, I'll repeat the auditing command." (Repeats
command.)
COGNITION:
Auditor: (Gives command.)
Pc: (not having answered command yet) "Say, that mass in front of
my face just moved off."
Auditor: "Very good." (Repeats command without announcing that it is a
repeat.)
END RUDIMENTS:
1. Present Time Problem.
Auditor: "Do you have a present time problem now?"
2. Auditor and ARC Breaks:
Auditor: "How do you feel about my auditing in this session?" (needle
twitches)
Auditor: "I am going to run some (name of process) on you, so here is
the first command."
3 Auditing Room:
Auditor: "Look around here and see if you can have anything." (needle
twitches)
Auditor: "I am going to run a bit of havingness on this. Here is the
first command."
4. Goals:
Auditor: "Do you feel you have made any part of your goals for this
session?"
FINAL COMMANDS OF SESSION:
Auditor: "Is it all right with you if we end the session now?"
Pc: "Yes."
Auditor: "All right. Here it is. End of session." (Tone 40)
Auditor: (optional) "All right. Tell me I am no longer auditing you."
Pc: "You are no longer auditing me."
Auditor: "Good. "
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is changed by HCO B 11 November 1960, Change on Model Session,
page 172.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 18 OCTOBER 1960
Originally issued from Johannesburg
HCOs
Central Orgs
TERMINAL STABLE DATA
Terminal chosen must:
Fall on meter
Fit pc's case (interest)
Must cover lots of track
Avoid adjectives
If Man is run, then sometime in the future, Woman and then human being
must be run, then body must be run.
Run any terminal assessed flat before any reassessment.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER 1960
Franchise Holders
THEORY 67
Midway in the 1st Saint Hill ACC it became obvious to me that cases
would not move adequately on significances.
As all cases (and banks) are an inversion of the 8 dynamics into the
Sixth Dynamic and that they then invert into the Seventh Dynamic, it seemed
better sense to me to take the Sixth Dynamic off the Seventh rather than
the Seventh off the Sixth.
This is Theory 67.
It at once produced results. The new presessions and then the new
definition of havingness came out of Theory 67.
Several correlative data were observable. If you exteriorize a pc he
does not remain stable but goes back sooner or later into his head. Only a
theta clear would remain out. Therefore taking the Seventh out of the Sixth
has limited workability. If a thetan were to be able to stay out it would
be because he was used to Mest. Therefore the way to make a theta clear
would be to handle the Sixth to obtain a straight Seventh Dynamic.
Also, pcs permitted to talk too long go down tone scale.
Therefore to clear a circuit, don't strip the thought out of it. Take
the motion and Mest off the thought.
The target of Theory 67 is Mest. Mest has six parts-Matter, energy,
space, time, form and location.
Get the pc to handle Mest and you can clear him easily.
Some pcs are further inverted so that the Seventh is the Sixth (see
"modern" science). In such one has to handle the Seventh first, then the pc
finds the Sixth. Thus the new presessions have some beingness havingness
commands.
Theory 67 revolutionized Scientology. It was first announced at the
beginning of the fourth week of the 1st Saint Hill ACC 29th August, 1960.
It has ended failed cases according to the results of the 1st Saint
Hill.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 OCTOBER 1960
Franchise Hldrs
REVISED CASE ENTRANCE
I am having no technical difficulty in South Africa getting cases
started. As these have included the roughest cases in Scientology, you can
see that my confidence in processing as it exists right now is well taken.
The only difficulty I am having is compliance with auditing rundown and
this is not much of a barrier as, in general, the South African staff
auditor is very good. -So D of Ps, be warned. If cases aren't moving today
with the following rundown in use, look for gross auditing errors.
This is what I am using on all cases:
Check for the Havingness process. If the one that works is found it
will loosen the E-Meter needle and bring the tone arm toward (not
necessarily to) the clear read for the pc's sex. The right Havingness
process will do this in a dozen commands. So only use a dozen commands to
test each Havingness process. If the process doesn't work in 12 commands
(which is to say, doesn't loosen the needle), then skip it and go to the
next for test.
If you have found the Havingness process for the case, and it ceases to
work after a session or two, look for ARC Breaks, PTPs between sessions.
With these cleaned up the Havingness process will start working again.
Rule: The Make-Break Point of any case is getting the case to run
consistently on an Objective Havingness process. No gains will be stable
unless an Objective Havingness process is established for it and used often
in sessions.
Rule: When a Havingness process ceases to work, ARC Breaks and PTPs
must be cleaned up before the Havingness process will work again.
In clearing up PTPs and ARC Breaks use only O/W on related terminals
which is the havingness version.
Rule: A case must be prepared and repaired with O/W to make a
Havingness process work.
Exception: If a Havingness process is not clearly established in a few
hours (not more than ten) revert to "Failed Help" only.
To prepare a case to run a Havingness process, I have been "shaking the
case down" for withholds as follows:
Run "What question shouldn't I ask you?" until needle no longer quivers
in response even though meter sensitivity is increased to 16.
Run "What have you done", "What have you withheld" (general form) until
needle is unresponsive and tone arm moves toward clear.
If case does not respond well, if case gives thinkingness answers for
mass, I at once go to Failed Help.
Failed Help
This is the best case-cracking process now known. I have worked with it
since 1957 as a line of examination and it emerges as the lowest verbal
entrance process. Therefore this process is a very important one.
Help is actually the most effective version of taking responsibility.
When O/W will not run well, when the case just doesn't respond on the meter
even though giving out with hair-raising overts, the responsibility button
is out. This is recovered by "Failed Help".
Failed Help is run in this fashion, alternately.
"Who have you failed to help?"
"What have you failed to help?"
Two-way comm on failed help is not always well handled. The auditor
should not direct the pc's attention to time periods or terminals. The
process is run permissively.
All cases will run on Failed Help. It is a one-shot clear process. But
used exclusively it introverts too hard. Havingness must be discovered as a
process and run, as havingness is the make-break point of the case.
To go further, here is the proceeding so far:
For Average Cases
Try for Havingness.
If you find it go on to locate the right Confront process.
If you have the Havingness and the Confront, assess for a good, general
whole track terminal. Using the Havingness and the Confront liberally, run
Alternate Help on the terminal found.
Typical session thereafter is run with Model Session Form (all in one
session).
1st Process - Objective Havingness.
2nd Process - Alternate Help on the assessed terminal.
3rd Process - The Objective Havingness process.
4th Process - The Confront process.
5th Process - The Objective Havingness process.
6th Process - Alternate Help on the terminal.
7th Process - The Objective Havingness process.
8th Process - Alternate Help.
9th Process - The Objective Havingness process.
How long to run each? Run Havingness always to a loose needle and TA
nearer clear. Run Alternate Help or Confront process to a tight needle and
pc near present time (cyclic aspect). If needle gets very sticky and TA
ceases to move well on the Confront or Help, get over to Havingness fast.
Run Havingness only until needle is loose and case feels better. Don't run
Havingness as the process that solves the case. Run Havingness only as the
process that stabilizes the case. Havingness runs to loose needle. All
other processes run to a tight needle. All processes (except Objective
Havingness) if they are working make the TA move. If the TA doesn't move,
the process isn't working. Run Havingness and try again.
Poor Cases
If Havingness cannot be found at once, go into "What question-" and
O/W. Then try to find Havingness. Be very careful to keep ARC Breaks and
PTPs cleaned up.
Find the Confront process and proceed as in an average case.
Low Cases
If pc is diffident about having auditing, if pc critical of others, if
pc ARC Breaks easily, if pc favours significances over objects, start in
with Failed Help as above and try as above to get case up to Havingness.
Patch up case frequently with Failed Help, O/Ws. Keep the case running
and the Havingness established and effective.
The difference between average/poor cases and low cases is that one
keeps up the Havingness with O/W in the average/poor and in the low case
keeps Havingness running with Failed Help and O/Ws.
This should get some understanding around.
I believe as of now that there are no impossible cases.
If a case won't talk or be audited as a chronic condition (not just as
a result of ARC Breaks) we still have the CCHs.
The lions say to tell you hello.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js. rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise
Holders
FAILED HELP
Probably the most sensational case cracker of all time is Failed Help.
In that the pc has many times tried to help his own case and failed,
the most accessible button is failed help.
This is run as "Who have you failed to help?" "What have you failed to
help?" alternately. More difficult cases run on either one or the other. It
can be distracting when the pc hits an automaticity on who or what. However
even the alternate version will win.
This flattens PTPs and ARC breaks, so on a very low case whose
havingness is down, the rudiments may be omitted the first few sessions.
Failed Help may also be run on a terminal. If the pc is always having
PTPs with a certain type of terminal (woman, man, etc) then failed help can
be run in a specific or general fashion. How have you failed to help your
wife? This is run repetitively. Or: How could you fail to help a woman?
A lower dichotomy could be run in this fashion. How could you prevent
help? How could you fail to help? This last pair are experimental. They
would be run alternately.
While running failed help one should attempt every now and then to find
the pc's havingness process.
If the pc's havingness process cannot be found even with overts off,
run failed help as above, but continue to search for the havingness process
at least once a session. If failed help is running very well indeed do not
chop into it to search for the havingness process. Do that toward the end
of the session.
A quarter of a division of the Tone Arm in three hours auditing is a
good shift for a low case on failed help. Do not expect big changes at
first.
As any failed help run is good, it's all right to make an error and use
it on cases that could have better gains on something else. Cases that
don't need it move the least on the Tone Arm with it.
No one has yet run 75 hours of failed help on a previous CCH case. So I
cannot tell you how much it will take or how far it will go. But I would be
prepared to run 75 hours of it of the Who-What version on a case before it
could run a havingness process.
This is a marvellous process. I thoroughly recommend it. Just be
careful not to lay in ARC breaks and try to keep the case coaxed along and
I think you'll make it with some version of failed help on cases we found
hard to start before.
LRH:js.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise
Holders
FORMULA 13
I am having very good luck undercutting beginning or old unmoving cases
in Scientology by using a new formula called Formula 13. This consists of
running failed help as the confront process and O/W on specific present
time terminals as the havingness process.
Failed Help is almost the lowest rung of help processes. It is run with
the commands "Who have you failed to help?" "What have you failed to help?"
alternated. There's a lower help process than this. That is "Who have you
intended not to help?" "Who have you helped?", but this is not Formula 13.
Overt Withhold is a havingness process. This comes about since
havingness is duplication and one will not care to duplicate what he has
overts against. Therefore the source of low havingness is overts against
people and mest. It might be commented that overts against mest are more
important than against people in the reduction of havingness, but this
again is not Formula 13.
The essence of running Formula 13 is running in model session form a
little failed help, with O/W on a present time terminal. It is done in this
fashion. One opens the session, even uses Presession I if needed, does
rudiments using O/W to clear PTPs and ARC breaks, and then does about ten
minutes on failed help. Then he makes an assessment from a prepared list of
people the pc knows in PT, and assesses for a needle fall on one of these.
Then O/W is run on that specific person until the fall vanishes regardless
of TA position, and returns to failed help for ten minutes or so, then
reassesses for a PT terminal from his list until he finds one that falls,
and flattens O/W on this, and then runs failed help and so on.
It will be found that this is the best case undercutter for general use
I have so far developed. It is generally recommended and urged for all
HGCs.
Formula 13 is followed by finding the havingness process then the
confront process, and then Regimen Three is used, assessing for a general
terminal and with the havingness and confront process running alternate
help on the general terminal.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 NOVEMBER 1960
All Orgs
Franchise Holders
CHANGE ON MODEL SESSION
A gross typographical error is found in HCO Bulletin of October 13,
1960, "Script of a Model Session", under "Starting a Process".
The line, "Auditor: (Clears Command with pc) then-", is completely
incorrect and in error. This at the most would be done on a vague pc and
then only once in his auditing career. Delete the line.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.nm
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1960
Rush to all
Central Orgs
From S.A.
Sthill reissue as
HCO B 8 Dec 60
CLEARING ROUTINE
It is urgent that the following clearing routine be adhered to if
clears are to be made. These are musts. Some are new, some are old. Some of
the old ones are being ignored grandly.
1. Get the pc in session. Definition: Interested in own case and willing
to talk to the auditor.
2. Use Model Session script exactly and continuously. (Delete command
clearing except once on low graph cases.) Learn the script exactly.
3. Clear PTPs with O/W on connected terminals. Never neglect a PTP.
4. Clear ARC Breaks whenever they occur with O/W on the session's
auditor ("me").
5. Get case started with Presession One or a Formula.
6. Early in auditing don't scout for more than 15 minutes without
running Who/What Failed Help or some version of it.
7. Early in auditing don't run any O/W for more than 15 minutes without
running 10 minutes of Failed Help or a new help version.
8. When case knows improvement has occurred on a Formula and E-Meter is
changing-(not clear reading), check for Havingness process.
9. Don't scout for more than 15 minutes for the Havingness without
running more Failed Help for 10 minutes.
10. When Havingness is found, use it and Failed Help while looking for
the Confront process.
11. When both Havingness and Confront processes are found, run them one
after the other until case seems stable. (Two hours to two sessions.)
12. Regardless of the clear read on the TA run Havingness and Confront
while scouting for the help terminal.
13. Regardless of later data than July, 1960, find the help terminal by
doing a dynamic assessment, find the dynamic that changes needle
pattern, then ask pc what represents that dynamic. Search around for
terminals associated with what pc said on same dynamic you found until
you get one that drops most. This must take in lots of whole track, be
without adjectives and understood by pc.
14. Start Regimen 8. Using Havingness, Confront and Help on the terminal
found.
15. Put the most time in sessions in on Alternate Concept Help or Help
O/W on this terminal found. Get in some of the Confront and run a bit
of Havingness often.
16. Run the help terminal for at least 75 hours regardless of needle
action freeing, tone arm movement or lack of it. DO NOT CHANGE THIS
TERMINAL for 75
hours of sessions. Graphs demonstrate poor gains when terminals are
changed because they are "flat". Graphs demonstrate high stable gains
if the terminal for help is run at least 75 hours. It's an auditing
error to change a help terminal once begun. It's help that clears, not
the terminal.
17. You can change the Havingness process, change the Confront process in
Regimen 8 but never the help terminal.
18. Havingness is only required to loosen the needle. It need not shift
the TA. It is run only until it loosens the needle. This may be 5 to 12
commands. A good test for loose needle is to have the pc squeeze the
cans before the 1st command of Havingness, squeeze the cans after 5
commands. If the drop is greater on the second squeeze, the Havingness
is working. If Havingness tightens the needle after an overrun like 10
minutes pc has picked up an ARC Break.
19. Don't overrun Havingness. It is only to stabilize the gains and the
pc.
20. The Confront process must move the TA. If it consistently doesn't,
find a new Confront process.
21. The Havingness and Confront process may be changed in Regimen 8, the
help terminal never.
22. The way help is being run may be changed in Regimen 8 from, say,
Alternate Concept Help to Help O/W or Two Way Help on the terminal, but
the terminal may not be changed.
23. End a long period of auditing such as several intensives with O/W on
the auditor, the room, Scientology, etc.
24. New Formulas of getting cases started do not alter the above stable
data.
25. From Mest Clear to Theta Clear requires an address to the 6th Dynamic
with help processes.
One assesses for the greatest fall on Matter, energy, space, time,
form or location and runs help on it in the same pattern as Regimen 8.
26. OT requires all parts of the 6th and 7th to be cleared on help and
responsibility using a Regimen 8 pattern.
The above are musts if you want to make clears.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:aec.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 17 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise Holders
STARTING CASES
It should be remembered that most processes and routines for auditing
require first that the pc be in session.
This is a factor often lost in processing.
Unless an auditor is aware of the definition for "in session" and uses
it, very low, slow results will occur. The key to fast, high results is "pc
in session".
There are various degrees of being out of session. The most severe of
these is the person who refuses auditing. The answer is usually old
Presession One (Help, Control, Communication, Interest). The next degree is
sitting in the chair but refusing to answer questions. Presession One or
its Two-Way Help part is generally the answer. Failed Help is a useful tool
here. The next degree is sitting in the chair and being uncooperative or
even choppy. The best answer is Presession One or Two-Way Help.
Now in all the above "out of sessions" is meant the pc coming to have
processing for the first time. There are similar aspects from different
causes during session.
A pc used to processing can go out of session in varying degrees. A pc
who refuses to answer questions is suffering from an ARC break or has a
withhold.
If it's an ARC break, then run O/W on "me" (the auditor) or, better,
run O/W on an auditor. If the pc appears vague or nervous, it's probably a
PTP, and the specific terminal or terminals connected with it should be run
on O/W. The withhold case can be handled with "What have you done?" "What
have you withheld?" alternated.
The definition of "in session" is (a) Interested in own case, (b)
Willing to talk to the auditor. When either of these is violated the pc is
"out of session" and is receiving no benefit from processing.
For the beginning pc, these two factors must be established. If the
above remedies do not suffice, then the auditor must run by definition. The
auditor must find something in the pc's case in which the pc is interested
and something about which the pc will talk to the auditor. An E-Meter will
fall on things that the pc is interested in and will talk about.
If a case already accustomed to processing goes out of session, the
rudiments long ago were designed to get the pc running again. Rudiments can
be used at any time during a session.
All the clever processes in the world will fail if the pc is out of
session.
It is a high sign of auditing skill to get the pc into session-which is
to say, interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor.
There is an exception to case interest-when the pc goes upscale on any
one process he or she will hit boredom before enthusiasm. Don't stop at
that point. Go on even if pc infers it will slay him or her with boredom.
The period of time they hang up in this is brief-a few minutes or at most a
session.
Discussions of people the prospective or out of session beginning pc
has failed to help usually solves this difficulty. Here is a lower point-
people the pc intended not to help.
But however they get started, start them and get them into session
before you worry too much about what's wrong and what's to be run. It pays
off in results.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1960
BPI
Franchise Hldrs
HAS CO-AUDIT ENDED
After a long trial, HAS Co-Audit is suspended.
While it did do well on procurement and in its original state, got good
results (communication processes), it has been abused and has caused some
to blow Scientology.
Unreported to me for a long while, HAS Co-Audit and Franchise Holders
have been converting any individual process released into an HAS Co-Audit
process.
This has worked great hardship on many cases. First, newcomers to
Scientology in crowded rooms have not dared to get off their overts and
auditing became stagnant. Further, the very processes that could clear them
have thus been abused and nulled.
Formulas and Regimens were never for co-audits, yet many instructors
have been putting into effect in co-audits anything released for individual
use.
Thus, HAS Co-Audit has been abused and has stalled some cases. The idea
is good, in many places the results were good and if we had no better ideas
I would go on with it, stating only not to use Formulas and Regimens on it
but only communication processes and Presession One.
The facts are that for new people, Group Auditing from Group Auditor's
Handbooks One and Two were better for early mass case gains.
I have just completed a repatterning of all PE type activities which I
will give you in due course and which stampede the people in. HAS Co-Audit
is omitted from the rundown for the above reasons as well as the strength
of the new pattern.
But HAS Co-Audit deserves by itself a special mention with its decease.
Run by careful instructors on the original rundown it has done some
wonders.
It would still be used, and may be used in the future if I had any idea
that instructors would not go crazy enough to run individual clearing
processes on it and make rash promises or have ambitious hopes for clearing
on it.
HAS Co-Audits are out because:
a. They may mess up the only processes known that will clear people at
individual processing level, thus barring the road;
b. Instructors have not noted or realized the stress done cases when
they had to hold on to heavy overts, thus making the person blow
Scientology;
c. They do not procure well in comparison to other activities now under
development by me in Johannesburg;
d. They develop a false sense in attendees of knowing all about
Scientology when they have not begun;
e. They slow clearing by making individual auditing seem like a Co-Audit
and therefore lacking value;
f. They have not resulted in large numbers of people getting
clear.
The new Johannesburg routine for PE courses is easier to run, makes
more informed people, paves the road to clearing, and tends to keep people
with us.
Furthermore, now that I can guarantee that any trained auditor can
crack any case (a fact borne out daily for months now), I am turning
Scientology activities all the way up. We will shortly have thousands where
we had one.
The new programme for Central Orgs and Franchise Holders procures at a
fantastic rate never before known. It is the largest administrative-
procurement development since the PE and is thousands of times as
effective. 25 new people a day are enrolling in the Central Org in
Johannesburg.
So stand by to re-organize. A first step is to shift HAS Co-Audit to
one hour early type group auditing sessions.
More will be sent on this. But meanwhile groove group auditing in.
Any Group Auditing session begins, by the way, with the group auditor
explaining what he means to do and why. Otherwise some newcomers think it
is pointless. Then he opens session and runs the random type processes of
1953 and onward.
But a final salute to HAS Co-Audit-if instructors hadn't been so
fixated on turning every individual process issued into an HAS Co-Audit
process, it might be in the line-up still-and if people learn this lesson,
may be with us again in a more exact form.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.nm
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise Holders
THE UNMOVING CASE
Formula 13 will move almost all cases satisfactorily up to finding the
havingness, finding the confront, help O/W terminal and thus clear.
But there remain certain very few cases that do not move on Formula 13
as such. A variation is required. These are:
1. The hyper-critical case
2. The big withhold case
3. The case that wants no processing
Case 1 does not move because he is continually chopping Scientology,
Auditors, the Org, etc behind the auditor. This should be suspected when
Formula 13 does not work. The chopping is severe to prevent ordinary
Formula 13 from working. The answer is to run Formula 13 with assessment on
Scientology terminals for the O/W PLUS any Scientology invalidative person
or persons our pc is in contact with in PT.
Case 2, the Big Withhold, has a crime of magnitude when it will not
move on Formula 13. "What question shouldn't I ask you?" may not remedy
this if it's big. "Think of something you've withheld" interspersed with
the casual question, "Is there anything you'd like to tell me?" every half
dozen O/W questions should produce an unburdening of the withhold to the
auditor. There may be more than one withhold of this nature.
Case 3 is the person who has never had processing and wants no
processing but sits in the chair and runs off answers misemotionally. The
oldest approach was "Tell me why you shouldn't have processing." Presession
One is more modern. The latest experimental process is "Tell me something
you don't want," repetitively.
All cases above are followed by Formula 13 when willing to be audited
or make gains.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1960
Franchise Holders
NEW FORMULAS
A Formula is a method of getting a case started. The numbers are in
order of development, not case level.
Formula 13: Model Session. Run 10 minutes or so of Who/What Failed
Help. Make a list of everyone pc knows in pt. Assess from list until needle
drops. Run O/W on that terminal only until drop is off (10-20 mins at
most). Run 10 minutes Failed Help. Assess from list (add to it if new names
come up) only until one gets a drop. Run drop off with O/W, 10 minutes
Failed Help, etc, etc. When pc's condition warrants go on to locate
Havingness process, running Failed Help between tries.
Formula 14: Same as 13 except one uses the present time mest objects of
pc instead of people for O/W. Failed Help and O/W handled the same as 13.
Formula 15: Case ( 1) of HCO Bulletin of November 24, 1960. List
Scientology, Scientology terms and Org and persons instead of pt people as
in Formula 13. This is for hypercritical unmoving pcs. It is also used for
other reasons on students and old time Scientologists.
REGIMENS
A Regimen is the workhorse combination of processes that boosts the
case to clear after it has been started.
Regimen 3: Alternate Help on a terminal, Alternate Confront, Factual
Havingness.
Regimen 8: Find Havingness process from the presessions while running
Failed Help between tests for 10 minutes or so. When established (loosens
needle), find Confront process from the presessions, (changes TA well). Use
Havingness process between Confront tests. When established, run these two
found processes, the Confront to a tight needle or pt, the Havingness to a
loose needle (as little as 8 commands, rarely more than 20). When pc reads
around his clear reading, assess for a terminal to run Help O/W upon. When
found, run session as follows: Havingness, long time on Help O/W,
Havingness, Confront, Havingness, Help O/W, Havingness, Confront,
Havingness, Help O/W, Havingness, etc, etc.
All Formulas and Regimens are run in Model Session form with the exact
patter wording.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :j s.msp.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1960
Franchise Holders
PRESESSION 37
A presession is run without a model session.
Presession 1 and 37 are the only presessions now in regular use.
Presession 37 is a method of getting off withholds. This problem is the
primary case problem. Presession 37 resolves it. This presession is now the
proper way to run "What question shouldn't I ask you?"
The auditor runs "What question shouldn't I ask you?" for a few times.
Then the auditor runs "Think of something you've done." "Think of
something you have withheld." Alternated for a short time (maximum five
minutes).
Then the auditor runs "What question. . ." a few more times.
If the pc develops an evasion system such as "You shouldn't ask me if I
have murdered anybody," the auditor asks it. The pc says, "No, I never
have," etc. Then the auditor must reword "What question . . ." to "What
question would embarrass you?" or "What would you hate to have the police
or your husband or whatever find out about you?" Vary "What question" so
that you get off the withholds.
Always run Presession 37 until you have a no-response to question
needle with E-Meter sensitivity at 16.
The O/W on this is to keep up the havingness.
FORMULA 16
A formula is always run in model session early in the case or to get it
moving again.
Formula 16 is as follows:
Failed help is run with:
"Whom have you intended not to help?"
"Whom have you helped?"
This is run for about 10 minutes, then the following is run for about
twenty commands or so:
Assess PT terminals. Take first one that falls. Assess every time. Run:
"What unkind thought have you had about (terminal)?"
Then switch back to the above failed help version.
This is for cases that don't respond well on ordinary O/W.
FORMULA 17
Help is run as two-way failed help on an assessed terminal which has to
do with a healing profession or religious or mystic person.
Then "What unkind thought have you withheld from a person?" is run for
havingness.
This is for the person who has been to healers, hypnotists,
spiritualists, psychologists, ministers, religious family members,
psychoanalysts, etc, etc. This also works on doctors, psychologists, etc.
One makes the assessment list from general terminals and specific
persons connected with pc's past. One assesses each time from the list and
takes the first one that drops. The drop is barely run off before switching
to the thought O/W on "a person".
Two-way failed help is run as follows:
"How could you fail to help a .... ?"
"How could a .... fail to help you?"
Positive failed help:
"How could you help a .... ?"
"How could a .... help you?" should also be run if indicated. (If
pc insists they helped.)
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 DECEMBER 1960
SAl'burg-Durban
-Capetown
All Central Orgs
PE CHANGE
(Disregard PE Free Course data in the HCO Bulletin December 29,1960
Other materials in that HCO Bulletin are valid)
We are going to try a new type PE beginning course and a new type of
test Evaluation in Johannesburg.
I am trying to groove in the PE Foundation to give maximum returns.
Therefore you can expect changes to be laid out on this line as my data
increases. I am not happy with PE free course returns into the old co-audit
or the organization. I feel that at least in Johannesburg we should test
out a change. It is not mandatory for other Orgs to follow right now.
We are having no trouble getting people to be tested. We are having
trouble getting any high percentage to buy the Anatomy Course. Therefore,
as soon as a new evaluation system is ready we will handle test evaluation
this way. We keep the Test Section open from 1:30 to 9:30 daily. We give
the IQ, the Personality Analysis (OCA, APA, whatever) and an E-Meter check
all at the same time (omit aptitude). The meter check gets definitions,
tone arm and needle reaction to the five basic buttons plus Money, Marriage
and Health, making a simple, fast test from which we can read future.
The Test Section marks the test and makes 2 copies of the graph. Then
it goes to Letter Registrar Section for a new type of automatic evaluation
which will be available in a week or two. Make no changes until this
evaluation system is complete. It is a slip system that obviates dictation
and typing except for a transmission letter. It is being set up so that a
clerk can handle evaluation with enormous accuracy and completeness.
Until this system is ready, test evaluation should go on with live
evaluation.
The original test sheets and a graph are held in Test Files. An address
plate is cut from the test card. One copy of the graph, the original of the
analysis sheet and three duplistickers from the plate go to the Letter
Registrar who has it packaged and mailed.
The Test Analysis and a graph copy are grouped with a transmission
letter (the contents of which are merely indicated on a form for typing)
and some literature. The letter states that the organization is here to
help and that individual processing or other service is available if the
person calls on the Registrar (this is the Body Registrar) who is there to
advise. (PE Registrar is relegated to PE Administration, book sales and
evening course sign-ups which must not be neglected just because of the
test line.)
Attached to the package going to the person who was tested is a
prominent piece of literature which stresses Do It Yourself Processing.
This says that by five evenings of preparation in one week (PE Course) at a
cost of (very small-�1 in Johannesburg) one can be coached up to giving and
receiving PROCESSING, the remedy of the graph, IQ and the future, can learn
to communicate better and can continue on in the Co-audit. For this five
evening course (2 weeks) one receives an HAS Certificate and is eligible to
engage in the HAS Co-audit, the world's least expensive processing. The Co-
audit is described but that it costs anything is only hinted at. Three free
test tickets for the person's friends are added to the package.
PE then becomes a dissertation in Scientology and a Comm Course to
teach one to Communicate and process. Two hours per night are given, one
hour of Training drills and one of tape or live lectures.
Before end of course Address gives out the HAS cert to the instructor for
handing to the students at course end-last night.
A new cert will be designed for the Anatomy Course. Meanwhile give an
HAS.
The student is expected to appear on HAS Co-audit all during the PE
Course.
Of course the person who was tested is also informed of other services.
Some will come in and sign up for straight processing and should not be
locked out. Some will sign up directly on HCA/HPA. Some will go to Anatomy.
My theory is that if they receive a complete evaluation by mail without
being called in for it, they will enroll in a very cheap course very
easily, even if from curiosity. The idea is to get them to pay on a
gradient scale, to make them at least spend a tiny amount. This should keep
them on course (few blows) because they did pay for it.
That we give an HAS for a PE is old policy but the cert keeps getting
barriered. Examinations, so many weeks required on Co-audit, etc, all
prevent the new person from belonging to the Org easily. We don't want non-
certified people auditing even on a Co-audilt. A big point can be made of
this in certificate presentation. HAS certs are confetti. The idea is to
get them in, separate them from at least a tiny amount of money (�1.0.0-
�1.10.0, $3-5, some such amount) and get them to belong by reason of a
cert. If we can do these 3 things-get them in, get them to pay a little,
get them to belong, we will be developing new people. It is better to
develop a few new ones than to handle thousands without developing many or
to get big payments from a very few.
I also think some basic good quality tapes in the second hour of each
PE would save us some strain. I am gathering up all our old Hi Fi Congress
tapes to make Hi Fi copies for tape play evenings. Maybe I should also do
five special PE tapes of excellent quality. But I haven't made them yet so
don't hold your breath. I want the lines and promotion good first.
The new PE can occur before the new evaluation system is being used and
Registrars can sell it as soon as the PE Director has it running.
I also have a new accounts-cashier procedure for all these PE
activities. The applicant buys two cards for a fee. No invoicing. He writes
his name on both, gives one back at once, presents the other for punching
on the edge each night he attends the course. A different colour is used
for each activity. The cards are "sold" to the PE Director by Accounts and
invoiced in mass, one invoice for each colour, by Accounts when the money
is turned in by PE. Fast selling-collection is needed by PE, rapid checking
to be sure all have paid. I will write this up further when samples exist
in Johannesburg. The public buys cards. The cards are numbered. The release
is on the back of the card. There is no invoice line. The Instructor
collects cards. They unobtrusively get pattern-punched with a conductor's
punch, are returned at the break, have to be surrendered to get a cert. The
Extra card turned in in advance is for Address and in case a student loses
a card. A Forgotten Card slip is filled out if an attendee forgets to bring
his. Ltr Reg via Address also has to know who didn't finish, hence the two
cards.
One can handle dozens of people fast with cards rather than invoices
and PE Accounting becomes simple and the money gets collected, a fact often
neglected in PE Foundations.
This is an adaption of a theatre system.
The PE Foundation now needs two rooms of size every night to give HAS
Co-audit on Mon, Weds and Fri, PE 5 nights and Anatomy on Tues and Thurs.
Group Processing is not being attended in Johannesburg and so is being
dropped. A tape play will be instituted instead at some future date.
Two other rooms are needed for the night HPA which is now enrolling almost
every Monday and has two units only.
Thus four large rooms are required at night for activities in a Central
Org.
I am thus scaling PE personnel down to Test-in-Charge, test marker, PE
Admin, two evening instructors and of course PE Director. No test
evaluators will be necessary after the slip system is working. The regular
registrars are competent to handle those who, having been tested, demand
training or processing. PE Director or Admin can sell Anatomy or PE Courses
to newcomers as well as old-timers as the newcomer will have been sold, we
hope, by literature before coming in again.
Address must know the right name and address of every person who
enrolls in any PE activity and every person who completes that activity.
These are separate categories. The Ltr Reg will know where ARC breaks
exist if an enrolled category stays enrolled but doesn't become a complete.
PE Foundation in Johannesburg is successful. I am trying to increase
returns, decrease admin and make it possible to handle the traffic easily.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1960
Franchise (Merry Christmas)
HAS CO-AUDIT RESUMED
I am testing a new series of processes I have developed to replace all
former processes used on HAS Co-Audit.
Co-Audit stalled cases when:
1. HGC Processes were used (ruining the process for the pc because
of its being run against heavy O/Ws still on case) and
2. Pcs on Co-Audit felt unable to get off their overts amid so
much company (the processes would not bite and even upset cases
since the pc was not free to run his withholds), and
3. Rudiments were not used or were badly used to the end of
driving people away.
I have remedied these matters and as soon as I have any bugs out,
probably by next week, I will release the new Co-Audit processes.
Co-Audit will only be permitted if the new routine is followed and no
other. I dislike losing people we could help and messing up cases.
The new series by-passes the need of rudiments, O/W or HGC processes,
yet gives, by a startling new advance and process type, very good results-
better than the average obtained two years ago in individual auditing. I am
sure they will keep the people coming and advancing.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.nm
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1960
Franchise
O-W A LIMITED THEORY
Before I would permit you to believe that the overt-withhold mechanism
was a total way of life, I would point out that it applies only to a strata
of existence and that it stems from failures to help.
The theory that what you do to others will then happen to you is a
punishment control mechanism peculiar to this universe. It derives from a
deteriorated willingness to duplicate. It is the law of physics of
Interaction-for every action there is an equal and contrary reaction.
"Love thy neighbour", when it is no longer a willingness, is enforced
by the theory of O-W. "Love thy neighbour" can exist only when help,
control and communication are high. When all these go, then O-W comes into
vogue as a method of enforcing peace.
O-W is a theory which sets in when aberration sets in. It is not a high
natural law. It is junior to the various laws of Communication, Control and
Help.
O-W can occur only when help has failed. Help is a co-joining of
vectors of life. When two beings who have joined forces to help fail each
other, only then does O-W come into existence.
The forces of two beings cannot come into dispute until after they have
first joined. Thus there is no war like that seen between brothers or
husband and wife.
The cycle is this:
INDEPENDENT BEINGS
COMMUNICATION
MIS-COMMUNICATION
CONTROL
MIS-CONTROL
HELP
FAILED HELP
OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS
OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS BY TRANSFER
WORRYING OTHERS
WORRYING ABOUT OTHERS
BEING CRITICAL
BEING CRITICAL OF SELF
Basically, O-W is an effort to regain the status of independent being
without taking responsibility for any of the intervening steps.
The reason we run O-Ws is that most pcs are on O-W by Transfer, which
is to say, when they kick George in the head they get a headache
themselves. This makes them think they are George. We use O-W since it
explains phenomena found at a low humanoid level. We do not use it because
it is a senior governing law of the universe.
When Help comes up, O-W as a mechanism drops out. We could run a full
case, it would appear, with Help. However, in practice it is better to run
lots of O-W with
failed help as they complement each other and move the case faster. By
running O-W we disclose many new failed helps. Why? Look at the cycle above
and see that O-W occurs only when Help has failed.
Similarly, on the same cycle we see that worry undercuts O-W. But if it
is run, it should be worked with O-W. The worry cure has commands as
follows:
Get the idea of worrying something. Get the idea of not worrying
something. Get the idea of something being worrisome.
People, animals, things can be used in place of "something". The
process, going rapidly up toward failed help, is a bit limited and should
be run with another process of the type of "Get the idea of attacking
something" "Get the idea of not attacking something" to keep it going. The
worry process bogs if run too long just by itself. It is a very valuable
process as it explains many reactions and undercuts many cases. Worrying
something is close to the lowest level of overt. It is the lowest effort to
individuate.
But just as worry is not a way of life nor an answer to all of life,
neither is the O-W mechanism an end-all law.
Many cases are not up to recognizing their overts. They will also have
trouble recognizing their failures to help. Usually, then, they can
recognize being worried or worrying people and thinking unkind thoughts and
even attacking things.
Failed help also lies as a harmonic below O-W and so runs on any case
if assisted with O-W as in Formula 13 or assisted with the Worry Process as
above.
Worrying people is almost a way of life for the juvenile, just as O-W
is with a criminal. People who feel childish or act that way are stuck in
the violent motion of childhood and worrying others. Many pcs use their
processing just to worry the auditor. Worry is the most easily dramatized O-
W.
O-W, whether as worry or being critical (unkind thoughts), is the
result of failure to help. O-W is the reason one gets another's valence. O-
W is why pcs have somatics. But O-W is not a high order law.
You will not always have to be careful not to bump Joe. It would be a
horrible universe indeed if O-W was its senior law, for one could then
never do anything.
Fortunately, it drops out, both as a governing law and a necessity in
life.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: pe.cden
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B was later reissued from Saint Hill Manor on 5 January 1961
with the distribution "Franchise Holders".]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 DECEMBER 1960
Franchise Holders
THE NEW PE AND THE NEW HAS CO-AUDIT
The new HAS Co-audit takes company in a PE Foundation with the free PE
Course, the new Anatomy of the Human Mind Course (requisite for HPA/HCA)
and a tape play.
The PE Course can run 3 nights a week or 5 nights. The Anatomy Course
(consisting of 20 lectures) should run 2 nights a week. HAS Co-audit can
run 3 to 5 nights a week but might work better running the same nights as
free PE. The tape play can be run at any time-5 nights or two hours on
Saturday afternoon or Sunday.
As to materials, I am now assembling these. This HCO Bulletin gives the
backbone of the HAS Co-audit. I am readying up full texts of the Anatomy
Lectures. PE Text will shortly be more fully released. I have installed a
new PE Foundation in HASI Johannesburg and it is successful at the rate of
30 new people a day. But to smooth it out and make it economical is taking
me a bit longer.
An HAS Co-audit should be run only for people who have been "trained"
on a PE free Course. The PE free Course should consider itself a training
activity for the Co-audit, rather than a selling activity for Scientology.
One should assume in teaching a PE that the student wants to help people
and get help for himself. Elementary (very) Comm Course TRs should be
sketched in and a touch assist taught. The only selling is defining
Scientology and saying that to know the parts of the mind one should take
an Anatomy Course.
The following is conditional, subject to review:
People who take a Free PE and an Anatomy Course get an HAS Certificate.
It is also required that they spend 3 weeks on the Co-audit. Free PE is the
only requisite for Co-audit attendance.
The HAS Co-audit consists of the same elements as always. The people
come in, show the Instructor their paid invoices, are put in their chairs
and auditing started by the Instructor. Cans can be held by the pc if a
switchboard E-Meter rig exists. But individual E-Meters are not used.
At the end of the first period of auditing, the teams are shifted but
not just exchanged. People are not audited by their pcs. They are started
again by the Instructor. The session is ended by the Instructor.
Extreme muzzle is used. The auditor needing help puts his hand back of
his chair for the Instructor to arrive.
The commands are written on one or two boards for the auditors to see.
They are also issued on sheets of paper.
The pc faces outward into the room. The auditor inward.
The fee should now be per evening, perhaps 5s. or 50 � per person.
There are just two processes to be used. These are to be called the HAS
Co-audit Process I and HAS Co-audit Process II. They are complicated enough
to hold interest. HAS Co-audit Process I runs ARC breaks, PTPs, Somatics,
the bank and the room and hits all case levels. Leave standard O/W, help
and other clearing processes alone, no matter the temptation. The HAS Co-
audit processes are what the attendee can do, not what the Instructor can
do in individual session. The Instructor runs all cases present, and he
needs something that bites just enough to improve the case but not enough
to make a bog.
The HAS Co-audit Process I, I developed from the 1950 ARC triangle. A new
process type that is permissive between bank and room makes this new
development unique.
HAS CO-AUDIT PROCESS I
The commands are as follows:
"Find something you disagree with"
"Find something you agree with"
"Find something you would rather not communicate with"
"Find something you would communicate with"
"Find something that seems unreal"
"Find something that is real"
HAS CO-AUDIT PROCESS II
The commands are as follows:
"Get the idea of attacking"
"Get the idea of not attacking"
HAS Co-audit Process I is of course a fundamental way of raising tone.
It also has a taste of Rising Scale (8-8008) in it. This is the confront
process. If the pc gets sticky or dopey or choppy, one shifts to II but HAS
Co-audit I is the workhorse-it is done longer than II.
HAS Co-audit Process II is of course the havingness process. If a pc
looks too belligerent or too mild, the Instructor should run II heavily on
the pc. The worse off a case is, the more automatic the attack factor is
and the less the pc can attack anything. All psychosis is is dramatized
attack, so this process runs from low to high. Naturally you can see that
it is an O/W version, but no withholds need be announced.
In HAS Co-audit Process II the Instructor may substitute "think" for
"get the idea" at his discretion with cases that have trouble with "Get the
idea", but a higher percentage of cases, I believe, bog on "think" than on
"get the idea". In II the Instructor may in some cases at his option assess
a generalised terminal and add it after "attacking" in the command.
Process II may be run on a case before I. But a little II goes a long
way. If a central meter switchboard is used, cases that get sticky on I can
be shifted to II. Try to end a session on I, not II.
I think you will find that II makes roaring tigers out of pcs and I
makes them into serene angels.
Both processes are unlimited. I and II could be run for 500 hours. They
might actually clear people if used long enough but the fact is not yet
known.
If a pc continually stays in PT and uses only the room on I, shift the
pc to II for he is afraid of his bank, just as some are afraid of past
lives.
These are both new, powerful processes. I think you will find Co-audit
attendees very happy with them.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js. rd
Copyright � 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Free PE Course data in this HCO B is to be disregarded per HCO B 19
December 1960, PE Change, page 182.]
ANATOMY OF THE HUMAN MIND CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
31 December 1960-1 January 1961
At the end of December 1960, L. Ron Hubbard traveled 20,000 miles round
trip from Johannesburg, South Africa, to Washington, D.C., to give the
Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress and to open and conduct the first week
of the 22nd American Advanced Clinical Course.
** 6012C31 AHMC-1 The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology
** 6012C31 AHMC-2 The Things of Scientology
** 6012C31 AHMC-3 A Talk on South Africa
** 6101C01 AHMC-4 Dianetics 1961 and the Whole Answer to the
Problems of the Mind
** 6101C01 AHMC-5 The Field of Scientology
** 6101C01 AHMC-6 Scientology Organizations
22ND AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
2 January-10 February 1961
Immediately following the Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress L. Ron
Hubbard opened the 22nd American ACC and during the first week gave ten
lectures to the students. Lectures 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 give very detailed data
on the E-Meter and particularly Presession 39, the Dianetic Assist. On
February 17th LRH said, "These five tapes wrap up Dianetics. Every HGC must
have and study them."
** 6101C02 22ACC-1 Present Time Problems-Why Cases Don't Move
6101C02 22ACC-2 Present Time Problems and Withholds
** 6101C03 22ACC-3 E-Meter
6101C03 22ACC-4 Withholds
** 6101C04 22ACC-5 What a Reactive Bank Is-The Mechanics of the
Reactive Bank
6101C04 22ACC-6 Clearing Procedure
6101C05 22ACC-7 Dianetics and Present Time Problems
** 6101C05 22ACC-8 Methods of Clearing Technology-Finding of
Havingness and Confront Processes-Presession 37
6101C06 22ACC-9 Dianetic Assist and Presession 38
6101C06 22ACC-10 Clearing Routine
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JANUARY 1961
Franchise
NEW HELP DATA
Failures to help on the various dynamics can bring about confusion of
identities.
This is normally resolved by a thetan by obsessive efforts to
individuate (blow phenomena or merely insistences upon individuation).
The end product of failures to help is aberrated self-determinism.
At an overt-withhold level, the thetan is trying to individuate and is
therefore proceeding to individuate after failing to help. Thus a thetan is
at obsessive cause while trying to do overts or get motivators.
As I have stated before it makes little theoretical difference whether
help is run two-way or on an O/W basis.
I also promised to inform you when more data was to be had on this.
Apparently there may be some virtue (in terms of case gain and saved
time) in running help on a pan-determined basis.
The theoretical look at this (see recent table in HCO Bulletin of
January 5th, 1961, "O-W A Limited Theory") is that overts are below help
and that when one enters upon an improvement in help, obsessive
individuated cause falls out and pan-determinism moves in.
Possibly, very early in running help at Regimen 3 level one could run
Help O/W but after a few hours on the same terminal could shift to two-way
help, and after a few more hours could change to 5-way help and finish the
bulk of the 75 hours of run of help on the same terminal with the 5-way
version.
I think not doing this is slowing clearing.
In other words, when the pc starts on his help on a terminal, he is
still rather in the O/W band. Very soon he is moving higher and into pan-
determinism. And shortly after this should move very broadly into pan-
determinism.
My evidence on this is technically light at the moment but I do know of
at least one case that needed this. So let's shift now and run this
gradient for a while and see if it isn't generally faster.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1961
Franchise
ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES
HAS III
"Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" unlimited. Run in particular
on any pc who has the goal of improving his memory. This process may also
be used in the HGC where the pc has the chief goal of getting reality on
the whole track or just improving memory.
HAS IV
"Get the idea of changing."
"Get the idea of not changing."
The Instructor may add "something" (HAS IVa), "somebody" (HAS IVb) or a
meter selected terminal (HAS IVc) to these commands at his discretion.
HAS V
"Get the idea of solving a problem."
"Get the idea of not solving a problem."
The HAS Instructor may add a terminal if the pc complains about having
lots of problems with that terminal.
HAS VI
"Communicate with (body part)."
"Don't communicate with (body part)."
For persons who come into a co-audit chronically or temporarily ill.
The person is asked by the Instructor what part of the body is ill. The
Instructor takes whatever body part the pc names, not body condition, and
uses it in above process.
HAS VII
"Tell me something worse than a (body part)."
For more violent chronic or temporary illnesses assessed by Instructor
exactly as above in HAS VI.
HAS VIII
"Get the idea of making people friendly."
"Get the idea of making people unfriendly."
Instructor may use a specific person or the singular "a person" at
discretion.
In all HAS Co-audits, the newcomer should fill out a goals sheet once a
week and the Instructor should pay attention to it in choosing processes.
Further HAS Co-audit processes will be released when checked over.
LRH:jms.rd L. RON
HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ANATOMY CONGRESS LECTURES
Johannesburg, South Africa
21-22 January 1961
After giving the Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress and first week of
the 22nd American ACC, L. Ron Hubbard flew back to South Africa where he
addressed his first South African Congress. The six hours of the South
African Anatomy Congress are more detailed on the Anatomy Course data than
the Washington Congress
* 6101C21 ACSA-1 Opening Lecture
** 6101C21 ACSA-2 The Parts of the Mind
** 6101C21 ACSA-3 Aberration and the Handling of
** 6101C22 ACSA-4 Evolution of Early Research-Prehav Scale
** 6101C22 ACSA-5 Cycle of Action, Time Track, Terminals,
Stable Datum, Reactive Thought
6101C22 ACSA-6 Johannesburg Staff Intros, Lecture: Clearing,
Certs for Clears
3RD SOUTH AFRICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Johannesburg, South Africa
23 January-17 February 1961
The 3rd South African Advanced Clinical Course was actually the first
one personally conducted by L. Ron Hubbard. The 1st and 2nd South African
ACCs were conducted by an assistant, using taped lectures made by LRH at
previous ACCs.
Writing on the last day of this ACC, L. Ron Hubbard said, "The best
clearing series to date, extremely comprehensive, are the 17 hours made for
the Joburg ACC. Very little data on Presession 38 is given but the entirety
of the three scales for Havingness, Confront and 'Pre-Havingness' (or
Doingness) Scale and their uses are on these tapes."
Later, on March 19, he said, "You may have gathered that a new attitude
has entered Scientology. For many years I have been trying for technology
that in the hands of other auditors would get all cases started to their
entire satisfaction. The 3rd South African ACC achieved it All graphs
improved and one Clear was made. I n effect, we had one Clear and the rest
Releases with the road wide open to becoming Clear.
"These cases were all rough cases, long in processing and training
without adequate gain. The 3rd South African ACC got them all going again."
** 6101C23 3SA ACC-1 HAS Co-audit Processes and E-Meter
6101C24 3SA ACC-2 Presession 38
** 6101C25 3SA ACC-3 Model Session Revised
The list of lectures given to the 3rd South African ACC continues on
pages 196, 201, 204 and 205 in chronological sequence with materials issued
at the time.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JANUARY 1961
Fran Holders
HANDLING OF RUDIMENTS
On goals, the preclear should never be challenged as to what he
establishes as his goals. The auditor accepts and acknowledges any and all
goals the preclear has for the session and for life and livingness.
In handling the environment, if there is charge on the E-Meter after
asking, "Is it all right to audit in this room?" and if charge does not
blow with a little two-way comm, then run TR 10, "Notice that ."
However, if you have already located the Havingness process for the case,
you would run that Havingness process until there was no longer any charge
as far as the auditing environment is concerned. Only be careful in using
TR 10 to flatten any somatic turned on while running it.
Auditor clearance is the most important of the rudiments, because if
the auditor is not cleared, negative results will be obtained on the
profile of the preclear. To handle charge on the auditor, TR 5N should be
run, if charge does not blow on a little two-way comm. TR 5N is:
"What have I done to you?"
"What have you done to me?"
Overt-withhold on the auditor is far too accusative and invalidates the
pc.
If the relationship between the auditor and pc is one of long standing
then you would run TR 5N as follows:
"What have I done to you in this session?"
"What have you done to me in this session?"
On asking "Are you withholding anything?" under auditor clearance, you
can say, "What did you think when the needle dropped? There it is again.
What did you just think?" This can blow the charge on this question;
however, if the charge does not blow, Presession 37 ("What question
shouldn't I ask you?") or Formula 19 ("Who have you failed to help?" "Who
has failed to help you?" "What have you failed to help?") with General
Overt/Withhold can be run.
As regards a Present Time Problem, the first thing you want to know is
whether it is a problem of long duration or a problem of short duration.
Only short duration problems are handled. If the pc has a problem with
regard to the fact that he promised to call his wife at 4:00 p.m., and it
is 4:00 p.m., the best way to handle this problem is to end the session and
let him call his wife. When the session is resumed, you start the session
again and go to where you were in the rudiments and ask, "Do you have a
present time problem?" If the pc has a present time problem of being
excused, you would not in this case end the session, as he will remain in
the building and be back shortly.
The process of handling the present time problem of short duration and
one which cannot be handled as above, is: "What part of that problem have
you been responsible for?"
Problems of long duration are run on Presession 38, as will be given.
These problems of long duration are not handled as a part of rudiments, but
these long duration problems tell the auditor what it is he will have to
process on the case.
Overt/Withhold on the auditor, or on an auditor, or on a practitioner,
may also be used in Auditor Clearance, if considered advisable-see Note 17,
HCO Bulletin of 21 March 1961, "Script of a Model Session".
LRH :jl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JANUARY 1961
Franchise
THE "ULTIMATE" PROCESSES
The "ultimate" processes-when they can be run on the pc-now exist. And
they can be run providing the pc is first brought up into the vicinity of
Mest Clear by the current rundown (Presession 37, Formula 15, 14, 13 or 16
as needed, Regimen 3 derived from Presessions 2 to 36-SCS and Connectedness
also for some-with the Regimen being run with Help on a terminal for at
least 75 hours without changing terminals).
If all this is gotten out of the way, the pc should be in very good
shape indeed. Then, after perhaps another process or two, these ultimates
could be attempted.
It is very important to remember these as they wipe out any liability
of having been active in mental "healing" on the whole track, or, more
importantly, having abused the field of the arts.
Remember, however, that, just as it says in Creation of Human Ability,
there is a lot of agony attached to running "a thetan" or some allied word.
Unless havingness is away up and stable, as is achieved in Regimen 3, it
can't be done.
With these warnings, here are the basic versions of the processes:
ULTIMATE l
"Get the idea of doing something to a thetan."
"Get the idea of not doing something to a thetan."
and
ULTIMATE 2
"Get the idea of doing something to a thetan's pictures."
"Get the idea of not doing something to a thetan's pictures."
and
ULTIMATE 3
5 way help on a thetan
and
ULTIMATE 4
5 way help on a thetan's pictures
and
ULTIMATE 5
"Get the idea of allying oneself."
"Get the idea of not allying oneself."
and
ULTIMATE 6
"Get the idea of creating."
"Get the idea of not creating."
These processes should probably be run with a Regimen 3 form, certainly
with model session.
Each should be flattened in turn several times around.
This is our nearest data approach to OT at this time. Only Ultimate 5 could
be run without having brought the pc to Mest Clear first.
The word "picture" is used instead of "creation" because of Step 6
phenomena and for other reasons.
Responsibility could be run afterwards on all items mentioned in these
"Ultimates".
------------------
Although you get this at a much later date, this HCO Bulletin was
written on Christmas Day, 1960, in Johannesburg. So it's a Christmas
present. And I hope all of you, regardless of any fancied differences, had
a Very Merry Christmas and will have a very fine and successful AD 11.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
3RD SOUTH AFRICAN ACC LECTURES
Johannesburg, South Africa
26-27 January 1961
6101C26 3SA ACC-4 Difference Between Dianetics and Scientology-
Presession 38
** 6101C27 3SA ACC-5 Creative Ability
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JANUARY 1961
Continental HGCs
Copy to Sthil
Eventual Franchise
NEW ASSESSMENT SCALE
I have developed a new assessment scale which takes in most possible
formulas and regimens.
The scale and its use follows:
The Pre-Havingness Scale
Havingness
Failed Havingness
Interest
Failed Interest
Communication
Failed Communication
Control
Failed Control
Help
Failed Help
Overts
Failed Overts
Withholds
Failed Withholds
Importance
Failed Importance
Leave
Failed Leave
Protect
Failed Protect
Abandon
Failed Abandon
Inverted Help
Inverted Control
Inverted Communication
Inverted Interest
Obsessive Can't Have
This scale may have other points I have not located yet.
ITS USE
The use of the Havingness Scale in auditing is as follows:
Havingness is the make-break point of a case. Before havingness can be
tested for, all heavy areas on the lower part of the scale must be flat.
The most elementary use of the scale and the one recommended at this
time is to assess the points on the scale upwards until a fall is observed
and then to run this fall out. Then to assess again from the bottom until a
fall is observed and run it out.
All auditing to be done in Model Session form. The assessment follows
either after the rudiments or after a discovered button has been flattened.
The upper nine points of the scale are best run as Regimens (from Help
upwards).
I have not accumulated cases using this type of approach on this scale
but I feel, by past experience, that it should catch even those cases that
"failed help" hasn't reached.
I do not know how long it should take to flatten one button on this
scale. I would guess, from failed help down, that it would take a few hours
per button.
Probably this will develop into running pairs as in all formulas but
until it is established how that should be done, the above simple system
should be used.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:aecjh
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B was later reissued from Saint Hill Manor on 9 March 1961 with
the distribution, 'Continental HGCs, Franchise".]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 FEBRUARY 1961
HCOs
HGCs
ACCs
COMMAND SHEET
PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE
The following commands have been conditionally developed for use with
the Pre-Havingness Scale.
It should be noted that "Endure", "Failed Endure" are added to the
scale just below "Failed Abandon" and that "No Effect" is added to end of
scale.
It should be noted that the commands are given in reverse order to
Scale.
NO EFFECT
What would you rather not have a bad effect upon?
OBSESSIVE CAN'T HAVE
Tell me something others don't want.
INVERTED INTEREST
What would you consider interesting?
What would another consider uninteresting?
What would you consider uninteresting?
What would another consider interesting?
INVERTED COMMUNICATION
What communication would you consider bad?
What communication would another consider good?
INVERTED CONTROL
What control would you consider bad?
What control would another consider good?
INVERTED HELP
What help would you consider bad?
What help would another consider good?
FAILED TO ENDURE
What continued?
ENDURE
What have you endured?
FAILED TO ABANDON
Who couldn't you abandon?
What couldn't you abandon?
ABANDON
Who have you abandoned?
What have you abandoned?
FAILED PROTECT
Who have you failed to protect?
What have you failed to protect?
PROTECT
Who have you protected?
What have you protected?
FAILED LEAVE
Who wouldn't you let leave?
What should another keep?
LEAVE
Where would you rather not be?
When would you rather not be?
FAILED IMPORTANCE
Who has been considered unimportant?
What has been considered unimportant?
IMPORTANCE
Who did another consider important?
What did another consider important?
FAILED WITHHOLD
What have you failed to withhold?
WITHHOLD
What have you withheld?
FAILED OVERT
To whom have you failed to do something?
What have you not done?
OVERTS
What have you done?
FAILED HELP
Who have you failed to help?
What have you failed to help?
HELP
Who have you helped?
Who has helped you?
What have you helped?
What has helped you?
FAILED CONTROL
Who has failed to control you?
Who have you failed to control?
What has failed to control you?
What have you failed to control?
CONTROL
Who have you controlled?
Who has controlled you?
What have you controlled?
What has controlled you?
FAILED COMMUNICATION
Who has failed to communicate to you?
With whom have you failed to communicate?
What has failed to communicate to you?
With what have you failed to communicate?
COMMUNICATION
Who has communicated to you?
With whom have you communicated?
What has communicated to you?
With what have you communicated?
FAILED INTEREST
Who has failed to interest you?
Who have you failed to interest?
What has not been interesting?
What have you failed to make interesting?
INTEREST
How have you interested another?
How has another interested you?
What could you make interesting?
What could another make interesting?
FAILED HAVINGNESS
What should another not have?
HAVINGNESS
The havingness command for the pc.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:aec.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B was later reissued from Saint Hill Manor on 9 March 1961 with
"Franchise" added to the distribution. The commands for "Communication"
above are replaced by commands given in HCO B 2 March 1961, New Pre-Hav
Command.]
3RD SOUTH AFRICAN ACC LECTURES
Johannesburg, South Africa
2-8 February 1961
** 6102C02 3SA ACC-6 Auditor Failures
6102C03 3SA ACC-7 Regimen and Prehavingness-Advances
6102C06 3SA ACC-8 Making Formulas Out of the Prehav Scale
6102C07 3SA ACC-9 What Are You Auditing?
6102C08 3SA ACC-10 Case Behavior Under Processing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 FEBRUARY 1961
Franchise
UK CASES DIFFERENT
In finding the bugs in running the South African case, I also had a
chance to study the UK case somewhat as the country is full of English
people fresh from home and I've already had years of experience with it in
England.
I believe that clearing a UK case easily requires between finishing off
the Formulas and starting the Regimen a lot of S-C-S or 8C + the Havingness
found effective for the case.
Control seems to get inverted on a UK case more easily than on some
other nationalities and I think the inversion must be cleared up before
Help (as in Regimen 3) can be effectively run.
This isn't a criticism on the UK case. It's just an effort to speed up
clearing. A close study indicates that the UK case tends strongly to alter-
is a command. It's no wonder, looking over the country's history, that
commands got dangerous.
Therefore, in the HGC in London, I am now going to require an addition
to procedure for clearing as follows:
When the Formulas are gotten out of the way and, while still running
Failed Help between tests for havingness, the Havingness is found, a period
of at least forty-five hours is instituted where the pc is run on S-C-S or
8C interspersed with a few commands of his Havingness every half hour. The
last five hours will be run on Op-Pro-by-Dup.
Only when this is done will the auditor locate the Confront and then
continue with Regimen 3.
If a test by the auditor, on any case, regardless of nationality, shows
that the pc is poor on control, the above routine should be followed.
This data is backed up by enormous success with S-C-S and Op-Pro-by-Dup
in England and the general success of 8C.
I have been looking for the bug in UK clearing for some time and feel
that this is its remedy.
S-C-S
S-C-S now has four stages, instead of three. It has been found that at
least one pc never flattened start because the body was "already started"
being in constant motion and so the pc never could start it. The added
command is "When I tell you to stand still, I want you to make that body
stand still." "All right?" "Stand still."
The remainder of S-C-S is as always.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jms.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[pic]
Issue 125 [1961, ca. February]
The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.
Personal Integrity
L. Ron Hubbard
WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself
And when you lose that you have lost everything.
What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know-
What you know is what you know-
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
And that is integrity
And there is no other integrity.
Of course we can talk about honor, truth, all these things,
These esoteric terms.
But I think they'd all be covered very well
If what we really observed was what we observed,
That we took care to observe what we were observing,
That we always observed to observe.
And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude,
A critical attitude, or an open mind.
But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity
And sufficient personal belief and confidence in self
And courage that we can observe what we observe
And say what we have observed.
Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all.
L. RON
HUBBARD
Copyright �1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 FEBRUARY 1961
Franchise
NEW PRESESSION DATA AND SCRIPT CHANGE
Presessions
The use of Presession 37 should be limited to about 2 hours at the
most.
As a case progresses it becomes conscious of more withholds. Therefore
Presession 37 can be run at intervals as a case goes along, briefly each
time.
Model Session Script Change
For the purpose of getting all the withholds off a case, a new line is
now added to the Model Session.
Immediately after "Is it all right if I audit you?" insert the line
"Are you withholding anything?"
With the discovery that many non-progress cases are not progressing
because of heavy undisclosed withholds, the subject of withholding is
graduated up to take permanent residence in the rudiments as above.
Therefore it could be said that Presession 37 is actually repeated in the
rudiments but, of course, remains itself.
Formula 19 is a better thing with which to slug a case than long runs
of Presession 37. If you suspect withholds you can't rapidly get, Formula
19 speeds up the whole case and gets real gains at the same time.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.bh
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
(Note: Formula 19 is described in HCO Bulletin of February 16,1961.)
3RD SOUTH AFRICAN ACC LECTURES
Johannesburg, South Africa
9-15 February 1961
** 6102C09 3SA ACC-11 Mental Healing: Sanity and Insanity
6102C10 3SA ACC-12 Organization Lines
** 6102C13 3SA ACC-13 The Three Therapies of Earth
** 6102C14 3SA ACC-14 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 6102C15 3SA ACC-15 Havingness and Confront Scales
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 FEBRUARY 1961
Franchise
FORMULA 19
Formula 19 is developed to give a general form to Failed Help and O/W
running.
It is better to use this than Presession 37 for long runs. Presession
37 must be done. Formula 19 is, however, a better case digger as it
improves case up to where pc realizes he has withholds. As a case improves
it becomes more aware of overts and withholds since the overts "unlessen"
and the case responsibility rises.
Formula 19 improves responsibility and brings up awareness of withholds
and improves the case.
Formula 19 consists of Who/What Two Way Failed Help and general O/W,
about a ten minute or a to present time run for each.
The commands are:
"Who has failed to help you?"
"Who have you failed to help?"
"What has failed to help you?"
"What have you failed to help?"
The above commands are run consecutively.
"What have you done?"
"What have you withheld?"
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
3RD SOUTH AFRICAN ACC LECTURES
Johannesburg, South Africa
16-17 February 1961
** 6102C16 3SA ACC-16 Machines and Havingness
6102C17 3SA ACC-17 Case Conditions
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 18 FEBRUARY 1961
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
Ds of P
All HGC Personnel
All Auditors
Auditing Staff S.O.P. GOALS
All 22nd American
ACC Students Marvellous New Breakthrough
All 3rd S.A. BE-DO-HAVE Coordinated
ACC Students
On all staff cases without exception the following Goals Standard
Operating Procedure will be used.
This data I developed for the 3rd S.A. ACC is a major breakthrough. I
want it run on all staff cases now no matter what was being run before.
Take note of what was being run for later application or for use as
terminals after Goals Assessment if they fit and are only partially flat on
older processes.
S.O.P. Goals Intensives
Use Model Session throughout. Heavily stress Rudiments. Use "What part
of that problem could you be responsible for" for PTPs. Use TR 5N for ARC
breaks ("What have I done to you", "What have you done to me").
1. Go over Rudiments carefully .
2. Do a Goals Assessment.
Find out every goal the pc can recall ever having. Make a list. Get
in particular any secret goals, or withheld goals. Go over list
with a meter. Take goal that falls the most.
3. Convert goal to a terminal.
Get wording of terminal simple but make sure the version you select
falls as much as possible on meter. HCO Bulletin of February 2nd,
1961 (some issues were dated March 9, 1961, from HCO Saint Hill),
gives sample general commands to which terminal can be added.
4. Assess this terminal on the Pre-Havingness Scale from bottom to
top.
Take level that falls the most.
5. Develop an auditing command, preferably two-way, that uses
terminal and pre-havingness level.
The right commands fall as much as goal or terminal did.
6. Run the command until tone arm becomes less active.
7. Go one down on the Pre-Havingness Scale.
Develop a command for next level that falls.
8. Run the command until the tone arm becomes less active.
9. Return to first commands and run them (the first level found).
Alternate the higher and one-down level commands, ten minutes of one
level, ten minutes or so of the other level.
10. When the tone arm loses its action on these two commands
and tends to stick, no matter whether high or low arm (one half
hour is a good test), REASSESS TERMINAL ON PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE
from bottom up until a level falls hard.
11. Proceed as in Steps 5 to 11.
12. When the first terminal selected, run at several levels of the
scale and the one just below, seems flat, return to Goals
Assessment, REASSESS GOALS. Proceed from Steps 5 to 12.
13. When tone arm stabilizing around clear read (two or three
terminals run), LOCATE HAVINGNESS PROCESS from the 36 Presessions.
14. Add the havingness process into the processes run, using it at
appropriate places (certainly at session end) while continuing
Goals S.O.P.
15. When havingness process has been used for a couple of sessions
to help Goals S.O.P., find the CONFRONT PROCESS.
16. Add the Confront Process into the Model Session.
17. If you run out of goals, get a NEW LIST OF GOALS from the pc
and proceed as above.
Beingness, Doingness and Havingness must be balanced. Each must be
flexible in the pc for a stable gain.
Goals processing finds the beingness and the mind's doingness toward it
(Pre-Hav Scale) and results in Havingness.
On Assessments you may find, going from bottom toward top of the
PreHavingness Scale (No Effect upwards), that after several levels the pc's
needle begins to rise consistently. It is probably useless to go higher on
the scale as a rising needle means "no confront". A quicker way than
assessing the whole scale would be, then, to assess upwards to a rising
needle action and then go back down until the needle stops rising. Hunt
from that point down for the biggest fall and you won't go very wrong.
------------------
Tone arm movement is the keynote to Case gain-No tone arm action = no
gain. 1 to 2 Divisions of the Six Divisions of the Tone Arm Circle movement
per half hour is good movement.
-----------------
If a pc does not respond well to Goals S.O.P. (about 15% won't) do the
following: Go over Rudiments with high sensitivity setting on meter. Clean
up the withholds.
If that doesn't work, run the following for a few hours (it's the
lowest but most general process now known):
What was your attention concentrated upon? When was your attention
shifted?
This should get the tone arm moving. When tone arm is moving well for a
few hours move back into Goals S.O.P. Step 2 and get the case going. It may
be necessary to run Formula 15 and/or Formula 13 on some cases if Goals
S.O.P. still finds a quiet tone arm.
Cases don't move when heavy withholds or PTPs are present. Cover
Rudiments and End Rudiments carefully every session.
Example
Model Session is begun. Rudiments well covered. Goals Assessment shows
up strongest goal to be "to get over having a painful body". Terminal is
chosen, "Painful Body" is shown to fall most as terminal wording.
"Painful Body" is assessed on Pre-Havingness Scale. Endure falls most.
Auditing command is developed which falls on meter, "What should a
painful body endure?" No additional command developed for Endure.
Developed command is run (heavy somatics) until the tone arm ceases to
get 2 divisions of action, gets only one. Process ended.
Command is developed for Failed Endure, next lower level, "What has a
painful body failed to endure?" This starts heavy tone arm action again.
When action cooled, same "endure" command is run again.
After three runs of Endure and two of Failed Endure command tone arm
stiffens at 5 on the scale. A 15 minute test of both commands fails to get
it moving; "Painful Body" is reassessed in the Pre-Havingness Scale and is
found now to drop at Withheld.
Command is developed for Withheld that falls on meter (the command
causes the fall), "What should be withheld from a painful body?"
This new command run and tone arm again in motion. TA motion gets less.
Dropping down one level of Pre-Havingness Scale to Failed Withhold,
command is developed that falls on needle-"What have you failed to withhold
from a painful body?"
Command is run and restores motion to tone arm. When motion dies down a
bit, Withhold command is resumed.
After 2 runs of Withhold and two of Failed Withhold, tone arm became
slow at 3.
"Painful Body" reassessed on Pre-Havingness Scale, is now found at
Inverted Communication. "Painful Body" added to command given on HCO
Bulletin, 2nd February, 1961, for Inverted Communication. This run for 1
hour. Then Inverted Interest run on "Painful Body". Etc. Etc.
Data on all this will be found on the 17 hours of tape lectures of the
3rd S.A. ACC. This condensation is not on the tapes.
The Pre-Havingness Scale referred to has been the subject of two
February 1961 HCO Bulletins. (Some issues were dated March 9, 1961, from
HCO Saint Hill.)
An expanded scale will shortly be released. The shorter scale works,
however.
-----------------
As this is the fastest road to Clear, I want all staff members to be
processed on nothing else, from scratch, former auditing not to be taken
into account. We want clear staffs. They deserve it.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:aecjs.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is modified by HCO B 31 March 1961, S.O.P. Coals Modified .]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO Secs
Assoc Secs HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY 1961
Ds of P
All HGC Personnel
All Auditors
Auditing Staff
All 22nd American
ACC Students
All 3rd S.A.
ACC Students
IMPORTANT DATA ON GOALS S.O.P.
It is vital to know that cases run on Goals S.O.P. or the Pre-
Havingness Scale may slump between sessions and become misemotional even
out of session until the scale is flat-flat-flat on any assessed terminal.
It is also important to know that a case run on the Pre-Havingness
Scale in such a way as to leave a level unflat may hang-fire thereafter and
will move only when that process is completed.
This scale is hot and fast, but its very workability can unstabilize
cases during an intensive.
Use the scale. But use it intelligently. Do not permit it to be used by
untrained unsupervised Auditors.
Flatten Terminals
Flatten every level started, get tone arm and needle to a stick or no
action before assessing another level for the terminal.
It is all right to alternate two levels, running the one assessed and
the one below, back and forth. But do not leave either level unflat before
assessing again.
When is a Goals Terminal Flat?
An assessed terminal taken from the heaviest reacting goal of the pc
must be run, reassessed and run at various levels of the scale until the
goal terminal has no reaction on a cranked up sensitivity needle for any
level of the Pre-Havingness Scale. If a reaction is found, run it off and
check again.
Don't quit a terminal because the pc wants to. Quit it only when meter
has no reaction.
Use the Pre-Havingness Scale.
Don't be disturbed by the misemotion of a pc during or between
sessions.
Run any goals terminal you assess flat on all levels of the scale
before going on to assess new goals.
LRH :js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 FEBRUARY 1961
Franchise
PT PROBLEM AND GOALS
It will be found that PT Problems are often disclosed by the goals
announced by the pc.
A PT Problem can wholly stall a case. Only withholds, PT Problems, and
ARC Breaks (gross auditing errors) can stop a case now.
Definitions: A problem is an intention counter intention that worries
the preclear.
A Present Time Problem is a problem that exists now in the physical
universe.
The pc often announces a PT Problem when asked for his goals.
Example: Asked for goals, pc says he wants to improve his memory.
Memory is a PT Problem to him. Until something is done about this, the case
stalls. Auditor runs "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting," so long as
pc is happy with it and unhappy with memory. This may be 25 hours or more.
Example: Pc says his goal is to get rid of paralysis in his leg. This
is his PT Problem. Auditor runs "Tell me something worse than a leg" until
it is no longer a problem to the pc.
The Dianetic Assist is Presession 38. Finding an engram or secondary
and running it, but only to resolve pc's PT Problem and only as a prelude
to formulas, takes care of the goal-PT Problem situation in most cases. In
any event you have 11 years of technology to handle these PTPs that exist
as goals.
I'm happy to have found this data and to have found new ways of
handling engrams. But it does not supplant Formulas and Regimens as
announced.
Most of this modern rundown will be found on the 22nd American ACC
tapes, January 1961, 10 hours, now being used to train Central Org
Personnel.
Research wise, I am trying to find a way to resolve the goal-PT Problem
situation with new ways of handling failed help on the basis that whatever
the pc thinks is wrong he has failed to help.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
Ds of P
All HGC Personnel
All Auditors Auditing Staff
All 22nd American ACC students
All 3rd S.A. ACC students
NEW PRE-HAV COMMAND
Here is a new command for Communication on the Pre-Hav Scale.
It comes as a surprise to me to find a new Comm process after Comm
being in prominence 11 years, but that's what's happened. Also this process
is foreshadowed by the Code of Honor.
It replaces the Pre-Hav Command in HCO Bulletin of February 2, 1961
(dated March 9, 1961 from Saint Hill).
The basic command from which the others are derived is:
"RECALL NOT WANTING TO COMMUNICATE."
The full commands that can be run in sequence are:
"Recall not wanting to communicate."
"Recall another not wanting to communicate."
"Recall not wanting another to communicate."
"Recall another not wanting you to communicate."
"Recall another not wanting others to communicate."
"Recall a communication."
"Recall a no-communication."
"Recall a communication."
"Recall a no-communication."
"Recall a communication."
"Recall a no-communication."
The command structure, having so many possibilities, has only been
partially sorted out. The first five commands of the above or the last six
commands of the above or all of the above may be run. The last six, of
course, handle loss incidents.
It just may be that the first line as a process underlies all withholds
and gives later withholds power. This may then, just as a process,
considerably ease the task set in getting off withholds on secretive cases.
Using all the first five lines in sequence is probably easiest on the
pc, afterwards flattening the last six commands.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: ph.rd
Copyright �1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961
CenOCon
USE OF S.O.P. GOALS PROCEDURE
(HCO Area Secs-IMPORTANT to ENFORCE)
Staff Auditors may use S.O.P. Goals Procedure on paying preclears the
moment they have the procedure well understood and have passed a thorough
hat check on its Bulletins and continue its study through the 17 hours of
lecture tapes.
I don't want this one goofed up (and it very well can be) before its
use is understood thoroughly. Nor do I want HGC pcs getting disturbed and
upset through being left with levels unflat on terminals.
The 17 hours of lecture of the 3rd Johannesburg ACC are on this
subject. Only field auditors who have attended and passed a course using
these tapes and skills (no evening briefing course for field auditors may
play these tapes) may use S.O.P. Goals Procedure. The odd numbered hours of
the 10 22nd American tapes on Presession 38 are also part of this series of
study.
This is very far from ordinary technology even in Scientology. It's
good. Learn it before using it.
Its power is too great for slapdash use. Don't wait until you've upset
some pcs before you believe me.
Teaching of S.O.P. Goals Procedure and the Pre-Havingness Scale is
forbidden in Academies for the HCA/HPA and practical courses. HCS/BScn
training level only may be taught S.O.P. Goals Procedure.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961
Franchise
FORMULA 20
Formula 20 is an effort to run Control on a thought level. It is
relatively experimental.
It is for cases that have much alter-is as represented by inability to
duplicate commands. Also for cases that have unsteady engram banks that
shift.
The commands are:
"Who has failed to control you?"
"Who have you failed to control?"
"What has failed to control you?"
"What have you failed to control?"
and
"Who have you helped?"
"Who has helped you?"
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 MARCH 1961
Issue II
CenOCon
D of P
All Staff Auditors
HCO Area Sec: Hat Check
thoroughly and often
and on all new auditors
BASIC STAFF AUDITOR'S HAT
(This applies mainly to the relationship of the Staff Auditor
to the pc and the D of P and does not modify existing policies
but bears directly on Case Assessments and SOP Goals. This hat
is needed to smooth out its use and Admin of SOP Goals on pcs.)
The staff auditor is directly responsible for the HGC preclear assigned
to him. Results, lack of results, ARC breaks, recovering the pc after
"blows", getting the pc to the D of P for interviews, getting the pc to the
D of P and Registrar for after intensive interviews and handling all
matters relating the pc to the Org during the delivery of auditing are all
up to the staff auditor.
The staff auditor may refuse to accept a pc and may refuse to release a
pc from auditing. The staff auditor may also refuse to give a particular
session if in giving one the Auditor's Code is violated as to the pc's need
for food, rest or the lateness of the hour.
The staff auditor is to deliver all the hours of auditing purchased by
the pc. Case Assessments and Goals Assessments are part of the pc's
auditing time when done by the staff auditor. No time spent on the case by
the D of P in conferences, interviews or assessments are part of the pc's
auditing time.
Any time missed by reason of auditor lateness, unavailability of rooms,
breaks, travel to see the D of P, etc, must be made up on the pc by the
staff auditor.
Case Assessment
(See HCO B of Nov 18, 1960 for exact form)
The first action of an auditor with a pc new to him is to fill in the
Case Assessment Form. This is done on the pc's auditing time.
If a Case Assessment has already been done and is part of the pc's
record, but was not done by the same auditor, it may be checked over with
the pc by his new auditor. In any event the staff auditor's first action
with a new pc is Case Assessment, whether done from an existing completed
form or on a new Case Assessment Form. This does not apply to assists. This
does apply to staff cases as well as outside pcs.
First Auditing
The first formal auditing that the pc receives is given at once when
the Case Assessment Form is complete.
ALL sessions given in an HGC except those devoted to Assists, CCH
sessions or "Coffee shop" auditing (inevitably done casually out of
auditing rooms by staff on staff or students on friends and students even
when you try to prevent it) are done in Model Session form (HCO Bulletin of
March 21, 1961). To repeat, Assists and CCHs are not done in Model Session
form. ALL Assessments even are done in Model Session form in an HGC.
Assists or CCHs can be explained first and the pc should be started in such
a way as not to cause ARC breaks, but are not Model Session.
A Goals Assessment should now be done in Model Session. This permits
the auditor two cracks at withholds, PTPs and ARC breaks twice in every
session, using Model Session HCO B of March 21, 1961, which includes
withholds in End Rudiments as well as Beginning Rudiments. This makes a
smoother picture than trying to get off withholds with no ARC and no
session properly going. Further, even a Goals Assessment really puts the pc
in session in Goals SOP, so a Model Session is better all around.
The first formal session, then, is run by Model Session.
The staff auditor takes off ARC breaks, a few withholds and any PTP and
then, in lieu of a process, does an SOP Goals Assessment.
When the assessment is completed, even down to terminal Pre-Hav level
and finding the auditing command that falls, the staff auditor takes the pc
to the D of P and has the assessment checked. The D of P, at this time,
does not touch rudiments, but only sees that goal falls more than other
listed goals and that terminal and command fall at least as much as the
main goal.
Unless only a few minutes remain of the day's auditing, the auditor
then takes the pc back to the auditing room and starts the second session.
Second Session
In this session as in all remaining sessions the staff auditor runs SOP
Goals in Model Session form.
The auditor must allow, always, enough time to end the session for the
day. He makes a nice judgment on this. Half an hour is often spent on End
Rudiments. Early in the first intensive, the withholds and ARC breaks take
precedence in End Rudiments. PTPs, ARC breaks and Withholds take precedence
in Beginning Rudiments. A session cannot be gotten going with a PTP
unhandled. And a session cannot be ended with an ARC break in full bloom.
However, a session can be ended with a PTP unhandled, and this is the most
lengthy item usually encountered in rudiments.
Thus if only one hour remained in the first day's schedule for the
second session, the staff auditor would run Beginning Rudiments, then End
Rudiments with no process run in the middle of the Model Session.
Third Session
This session like any other is run in Model Session form.
If the pc is still falling on the meter when asked about withholds,
even with sensitivity raised, at least half an hour should be spent getting
them off. Even if the needle still falls a bit after that half hour, one
goes on to run the PT Problem and then the process of SOP Goals, which is
run exactly according to its bulletin. This process occupies the bulk of
the auditing period. Then in the last half hour, one runs the End Rudiments
and of course has another crack at withholds.
Fourth Session
Runs the same as the Third Session.
In a 5-day intensive, the 3rd and 4th Sessions probably occurred on
same day.
Fifth Session
During this auditing day or before the Fifth Session, the pc is taken
by the staff auditor to the D of P, who checks the pc out on rudiments.
The D of P finds out what is being run from the pc, and checks out but
does not run anything on the Rudiments.
The whole record of the pc including the Case Assessment and SOP Goals
Assessment Sheets are in a folder along with all session reports. The
folder is in the hands of the staff auditor before the D of P interview,
the last session report on top.
The D of P adds any and all advices and comments to the last session
report.
The staff auditor takes the pc back to the auditing room. The Fifth
Session is then begun. If the interview took place after the session was
started, the Model Session was of course completed before the interview.
The auditor follows the D of P's advices in the next session after the
interview. This may be, then, the Fifth Session or the Sixth Session.
A difficulty may now occur in the next session after the interview. The
pc, because of D of P altitude, may have "transferred" to the D of P, which
is to say, may now consider the D of P his auditor.
Therefore, in the next auditing after this D of P interview, heavy
attention must be given to No. 3 of the Beginning Rudiments. A new process
could be used here in lieu of TR 5N to correct this. The process is "Who
should I be in order to audit you?" or "Who am I?" This, run briefly, takes
off any "transfer" to the D of P and is a good basic rudiment type process
anyway. A little of it goes a long way, however.
The SOP Goals terminal (or the D of P's advice) is run in Model Session
form.
Subsequent Sessions
In subsequent sessions the case is continued on up the line, with
reassessments for new level each time the tone arm stops moving well and
for a new goals assessment, adding to the old list any goals the pc now has
as a result of auditing.
When the First Terminal is Flat
When the first terminal gets no needle reaction on any part of the Pre-
Hav Scale, it is flat. If needle action is still found, take the level with
heaviest reaction, put together a command that falls also and go on with
the terminal at that level. But when this no longer occurs, the first
terminal is said to be flat. This may take a few or many hours. But the
thing is to be sure it's flat.
Now and now only the auditor is to find the Havingness Process and the
Confront Process of the pc in accordance with earlier bulletins. He then
runs these enough to stabilize them. He now does his next complete Goals
Assessment.
The auditor now uses the Havingness and Confront Processes along with
his new Goals Terminal. This is like old Regimen 3 except that the Goals
Terminal and Pre-Hav Scale are used instead of Help. The bulk of auditing
is spent, of course, on the PreHav Terminal on the Pre-Hav Scale in
accordance with SOP Goals.
The Third D of P check-out occurs when the Havingness, Confront and new
Goals Terminal are all found. The D of P checks each one of these and,
briefly, the Rudiments. The D of P does not run any of these.
When this is done, the staff auditor goes back to the auditing room and
starts his next session, remembering to again give attention to the
"transfer" possibility and to again use at level 3 of the Beginning
Rudiments "Who should I be in order to audit you?" or "Who am I?"
The Intensive or new intensives continue. The D of P must check out
rudiments at least every 10 hours of auditing time and, until toward the
end of the pc's clearing, must check all new goals and terminals.
The D of P is not permitted to do Goals Assessments except for
demonstration or when the staff auditor completely fails. The D of P is not
permitted to audit rudiments for the staff auditor, only to check them.
Pcs Priorly Audited
Pcs who have been audited before in the HGC but not by the present
staff auditor are handled much in the same way as a new pc.
The whole record and all auditor reports are taken into the auditing
room. The staff auditor looks for the Case Assessment. If he or she doesn't
find one, a new one is made. If the Case Assessment is present, the staff
auditor reads it all off, verifying each point with the pc.
This done, the staff auditor checks in the reports for any terminals
that were run on the pc or any Goals SOP run or Goals Assessments done
before.
Only if a Goals Assessment has been done does he pay much attention to
the records. If one has been done (but never run) the staff auditor checks
it over with the meter. He or she accepts it or rejects it and uses his or
her own assessment. If it was ever run, the staff auditor cannot reject it
but must carry on.
If any Goals SOP has been run, the terminal that has been run is
thoroughly meter checked on the Pre-Hav Scale. Any reactions found are
flattened as per SOP Goals, in Model Session form. In short, the staff
auditor, locating unflatness on the terminal first
found by some other for SOP Goals running, starts his Model Session, does
the rudiments thoroughly and then assesses the first terminal ever run on
the Pre-Hav Scale again (as he did before he started session), finds the
level accurately, gets a command that will work and carries on.
The new auditor on the old case checks out and flattens on the whole
Pre-Hav Scale, as indicated by meter reaction for any level, every Goals
Terminal ever found by any other auditor before he does his own Goals
Assessment.
If the staff auditor finds a Havingness and Confront Process already
listed as found in the records he or she may use it or find new ones as
best judgment seems to indicate on inspection.
If Help terminals or Dynamic Assessment terminals are listed as run in
the days before Pre-Hav, they can be neglected.
Clearing
When all terminals seem flat and the assessments find terminals only to
"blow" almost at once, the pc is near-Clear. SOP Goals is carried right on
until no assessments register on the meter, but the meter remains free.
Old Help and Dynamic terminals from the pc's file or memory are now
checked out and run like Goals terminals.
When all this is done, the pc is Clear.
Things That Prevent Clearing
If the pc is run with a PTP in full bloom, or if a goal is really a
long time PTP and is not audited, the pc will not change toward Clear.
Remedy: Reduce any PTP that produces needle reaction during Beginning
Rudiments. Run as the first goal the one which assesses best on the meter,
whether you agree with it or not-if in doubt choose by meter the goal which
is the reason the pc is being audited according to the pc.
If the pc has heavy ARC breaks registering he will not only not
progress, he may worsen the graph. Reduce all ARC breaks found by meter
falls in the Beginning and End Rudiments of the Model Session.
If the pc has heavy withholds which register on the meter and yet the
pc will not give them, the case will not progress.
If a terminal being run on Goals is left unflat (if it registers on the
needle for any part of the Pre-Hav Scale and that is not flattened) the
next terminal addressed will not run well and pc will not clear. Check over
every level of Pre-Hav by needle reaction and flatten any residue, before
you go on to assessing another terminal.
Overts or overt thinking on Scientology Orgs or personnel can prevent
Clearing.
Always follow the Auditor's Code.
Pc Blows
A pc is most likely to blow (leave) if withholds are not given good
attention and pulled. If withholds still register, and pc after several
hours of auditing still won't give, run a Joburg Security Check on the pc
as part of Model Session Rudiments 4.
A pc will blow if ARC breaks are not repaired properly when they
happen. An ARC break can be repaired at any time in the session by TR5N.
Only repair ARC breaks that fall on the meter.
A PTP unhandled can cause a no-gain and therefore an eventual blow.
If the pc blows, his or her staff auditor alone is responsible for
getting him or her back into session. If all else fails the D of P can
help. It's a black mark for a staff auditor if a pc blows.
The whole prevention of blowing is contained in this section if we add
that the staff auditor's air of competence and facile command of his tools
are sufficient to inspire pc confidence.
Auditing Maxims
Follow the Code. Particularly Clauses 1 and 2.
Get an answer for every question asked before asking another question.
Ask a question or give a command for every answer you expect. Don't
expect two answers for one auditor question or command.
Assess and run only what the pc says and the meter says. Don't write
script and try to audit your own troubles out of the pc or avoid the pc's
troubles because you have an aversion for them.
Follow the Model Session Script and the TRs exactly. These are the
badges of a skilled auditor.
The clearer you get the better you will audit. But case is no excuse
for bad auditing.
Always be real. Don't have big withholds on the pc. Tell the pc the
truth without violating 1 and 2 of the Code. If you are tired, carry on but
say so. If the pc wants to see the meter read show it to the pc briefly.
Only cover a meter during an assessment as pc will start pushing at it.
Tell the pc what he wants to know about the meter reads.
Don't try to educate the pc on Scientology while you're auditing him or
her. Tell the pc to be sure to take a PE if they haven't.
Newcomers
Getting a pc started who has never been given any data on Scientology
is simple now. Just do the sessions of Goals SOP as given above. They
respond to Case Assessment and Goals Assessments with total interest.
A pc is in session when he or she is interested in own case and willing
to talk to the auditor.
Cases Not On SOP Goals
About 3 out of 22 cases cannot be started with SOP Goals.
The test is only this: Does the needle move enough, even on high
sensitivity, to do a Goals Assessment? If it can, do one.
If totally stuck run the concentrate-shift attention process in regular
Model Session in lieu of Goals Assessment until the Tone Arm is moving
well, at least 3 tone arm dial divisions per half hour. This process,
coupled with heavy rudiments, will start most cases so that they can then
be assessed.
If the case is incapable of answering sensibly various questions, run
the CCHs. By answering sensibly is meant "an intelligible response dealing
at least vaguely with the question".
CCHs are not run in Model Session.
Stopping Processes
Processes are run as long as they produce Tone Arm change. Processes
which do not produce Tone Arm change are then stopped. If a process doesn't
produce a Tone Arm change in a half an hour, it must be stopped. Processes
which freeze a needle and do not free it must be stopped.
A process is never stopped on the recommendation of the pc or because
of the pc's objections. Such objections in SOP Goals always precede huge
gains on the process. A process is stopped only when it no longer produces
meter change.
A process that produces change must be flattened.
The process that turns on a bizarre or unwanted condition will always
turn it off. If in doubt, flatten the process.
Don't "Q and A". That is where the change in the pc causes the auditor
to stop or change the process. If the pc changes, continue the process. If
the pc isn't changing, change the process.
Stop processes and sessions on the auditor's determination, never the
pc's. The auditor's determination is established by meter reaction, never
pc reaction. If the meter doesn't act, change the process or end the
session according to session time. If the meter is acting, don't change the
process and don't stop the session unless time is up.
Before Giving Up
Before chucking in your hand on a trying and unchanging pc and leaving
it up to the D of P or the Org, do the following:
1. Thoroughly check rudiments with high sensitivity and get them flat on
the needle with the Model Session Rudiments Processes.
2. Run a Johannesburg Security Check on the pc and clear every drop of
the needle fully.
3. Run Formula 16.
4. Run Formula 13.
5. Run Formula 15.
6. Run "Concentrate-shift attention" process from SOP Goals until Tone
Arm is very active.
7. Keep rudiments cleared while doing the above.
If you do all these and still get no action, see the D of P. Of course,
it's impossible to do all the above well on a case and not get it going
providing only that you do do them well with good TRs.
End of Intensives
At the end of the intensive be sure, if the pc is continuing, that all
is in order with the Registrar and D of P before you continue on into the
next intensive.
At the end of all the intensives the pc has bought, be sure the pc sees
the D of P and the Registrar before the pc leaves the Org.
These actions are wholly up to the staff auditor.
A Completed Pc
Be sure, when all the intensives given are over, that the pc's complete
record, with all its papers, assessments and session reports are turned in,
in a folder, to HGC Admin for filing. You may add to this file your own
summary and recommendation on the case if you wish so the next auditor who
gets it will be assisted.
Additional Staff Auditor Duties
Other staff auditor duties are assigned by the D of P only. No other
executive may issue direct orders to a staff auditor about his duties or
cases.
Reports
All staff auditor reports go to the D of P. Copies go to myself at HCO
WW via the HCO Area and HCO WW Technical Secretary.
Nothing gets as much attention from me as the results, graphs, reports
and comments of the staff auditor.
The whole future stability of the Org rests on the technical skill of
the staff auditor.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1961
Franchise Holders
Central Orgs
SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION
(Cancels HCO B of October 13,1960, same title)
I have brought the Model Session up to date, including "withholds" and
changing "we" to "I" and "the" to "this" session throughout to reduce
randomity. I have also added the proper processes to run at Rudiment level.
A Model Session is a Model Session because of its "patter", not because
of specific processes. This is a handy script of the "patter of a Model
Session". Use it. Don't vary it. Know it by heart. It is the mark of a well
trained auditor. By making all patter the same, later sessions run out
earlier sessions.
This does not enjoin against two-way comm; but reduce auditor comments
and chatter in sessions, if you want smooth results and no ARC breaks.
START OF SESSION
Auditor: "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?"
Pc: "Yes."
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Start of Session!" (Tone 40)
Note 1: If pc says "No", Auditor two-way comms concerning objections,
then asks again, "Is it all right with you if I begin this session
now?"
Note 2: If pc is doubtful as to whether the session has started:
Auditor: "Has this session started for you?"
Pc: "No."
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Start of Session!" (Tone 40) Then, "Now has the
session started for you?" If pc still says "No", the Auditor says,
"We will cover it in the Rudiments," and continues the session.
RUDIMENTS
1. Goals
Auditor: "What goals would you like to set for this session?"
Pc: Sets goals.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Are there any goals you would like to set for
life or livingness?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges.
2. Environment
Auditor: "Is it all right to audit in this room?"
Note 3: If not, use TR 10 (see Note 15) or pc's Havingness process.
3 . Auditor Clearance
Auditor: "Is it all right if I audit you?"
Note 4: If not, clear objection, or use TR 5N (see Note 16) or "Who
should I be to audit you?" or "Who am I?" depending on nature of
difficulty. If TR 5N seems to worsen the ARC break, run O/W on
Auditor (see Note 17).
4. Withholds
Auditor: "Are you withholding anything?"
Note 5: If so, get withhold off or run Presession 37 (HCO B Dec 15,
1960).
5. Present Time Problem
Auditor: "Do you have any present time problem?"
Note 6: If so, clear problem, or use "What part of that problem have
you been responsible for?"
START OF PROCESS
Auditor: "Now I would like to run this process on you (name it). What
would you say to that?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. Clears the command for pc only for the first time
the command is used.
Note 7: If, during clearing of the command or failure of needle to
react, it seems that the pc will not be able to handle or do the
announced process profitably, Auditor says: "According to what we
have been talking about, it would seem better if I ran (name
another process)."
END OF PROCESS
1. Cyclical
Auditor: (Wishing to end process) "Where are you now on the time track?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "If it is all right with you, I will continue
this process until you are close to present time and then end this
process."
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. Auditor continues the process, asking after each
pc answer, "When?" until the pc is close to present time.
Pc: Answers close to present time.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "That was the last command. Is there anything you
would care to say before I end this process?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "End of process."
2. Non-Cyclical
Auditor: "If it is all right with you I will give this command two more
times and then end this process."
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges and gives the command two more times.
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Is there anything you would care to say before I
end this process?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "End of process."
Note 7a: The cyclical ending is only used on terminals that exist also
in present time, or when pc is going into the past in his answers.
It is not used after pc says he is in present time. Non-cyclical is
used when the pc is running terminals which do not exist in present
time or when the cyclic aspect can be neglected.
REPEATED COMMANDS
Auditor: Gives command.
Pc: "I don't know. I can't find and answer."
Auditor: Acknowledges. "I will repeat the auditing command." Repeats the
command.
Note 8: If pc still cannot answer, two-way comm to discover why.
COGNITION
Auditor: Gives command.
Pc: (Not having answered command yet) "Say, that mass in front of
my face just moved off."
Auditor: Acknowledges. Repeats command without announcing that it is a
repeat.
END RUDIMENTS
5. Present Time Problem
Auditor: "Do you have any present time problem now?"
Note 9: If so, run "What part of that problem have you been responsible
for?"
4. Withholds
Auditor: "Are you withholding anything?"
Note 10. Pulls withhold or runs Presession 37.
3. Auditor Clearance
Auditor: "How do you feel about my auditing in this session?"
Note 11: Use only TR 5N or O/W on present auditor, "What have you (done
to) (withheld from) me in this session?"
2. Environment
Auditor: "Look around here and see if you can have anything."
Note 12: Run TR 10 or pc's Havingness process.
1. Goals
Auditor: "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?"
Note 13: Auditor may remind pc of session goals if pc can't remember
them.
END OF SESSION
Auditor: "Is there anything you would care to say or ask before I end
this session?"
Note 14: Auditor may show pc relative TA positions reached in session
or tell pc what he cares to know about session.
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Is it all right with you if I end this session
now?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Here it is. End of Session!" (Tone 40)
Auditor: (Optional) "Tell me I am no longer auditing you."
Pc: "You are no longer auditing me."
Auditor: Acknowledges.
Note 15: Commands of TR 10: "Notice that (room object)."
Note 16: Commands of TR 5N: "What have I done to you?" "What have you
done to me?" alternated. "In this session" may be added if auditor-
pc have long known each other.
Note l 7: Commands of O/W: "What have you done to me?" "What have you
withheld from me?" or in general form if pc berates auditors, "What
have you done to an auditor?" "What have you withheld from an
auditor?" or if the pc has been psychoanalyzed heavily, "What have
you done to a practitioner?" "What have you withheld from a
practitioner?"
Note 18: Present Time Problem for the purpose of rudiments must be what
is called "a problem of short duration". A problem of long duration
(such as a goal or psychosomatic difficulty) is not handled as in
rudiments but in proper session and will emerge in the normal
course of assessing S.O.P. Goals.
Note 19: If any rudiment difficulty can be blown with a very small
amount of two-way comm, no process is run.
Note 20: Only the meter reaction shows if the environment, ARC break,
withhold or PTP is still in existence. In all questions of whether
something is blown or not or if a terminal is flat or if the
process is flat, take what the meter says if it is different from
what the pc says. The meter knows even if the pc says something
else.
Note 21: After running a process on a rudiment because a meter reaction
showed it should be run, always ask the rudiment question again
before bridging to end the process. If it still reacts, audit the
process further. Do not abandon a rudiment until the meter gives no
reaction to the question.
Note 22: Always get an answer to every auditing command.
Note 23: Never expect two answers for one question even in doing an
assessment.
Note 24: It is not obligatory for the pc to actually set goals. He must
always be asked. He cannot be forced to do so. Ordinarily when he
does not care to set goals for this part of the rudiments, he is
suffering from an ARC break.
Note 25: Follow the Auditor's Code.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MARCH 1961
Franchise
S.O.P. GOALS
(This is the Franchise Issue, slightly rewritten, of S.O.P. Goals
HCO Bulletin of February 18,1961. Do not issue HCO Bulletin of February
18th,
only this one to Franchise.)
This is Standard Operating Procedure Goals, the technology that made
history in the 3rd S.A. ACC.
Caution: There is a great deal to know about S.O.P. Goals. It is the
right way to use the Pre-Hav Scales. With skilled use this can produce
Releases and Clears. With fumbling use it can upset a pc thoroughly because
it is so fast.
HCOs in all Central Orgs are running Special Events Courses to instruct
in this procedure and to let the student hear the 27 hours of taped lecture
that gives its basics and background.
With this we are on our way to making Clears in quantity with speed. So
don't mess it up by failing to flatten what you start with it.
This is called "Standard Operating Procedure" because it has proved
itself in skilled hands on the toughest of cases. You can safely put in a
long time studying its use. It can clear some in only 18 hours. It can
clear all but CCH cases in under 175 hours. It is valuable. Don't mess it
up for a pc.
Enormous efforts are being made to make everything known about this
available to you in Central Organizations.
We're off the launching pad. Use this well. It's the technology you've
needed for eleven years, that you can use to get them clear.
S.O.P. Goals Intensives
Use Model Session throughout. Heavily stress Rudiments. Use "What part
of that problem could you be responsible for" for PTPs. Use TR 5N for ARC
breaks ("What have I done to you", "What have you done to me").
1. Go over Rudiments carefully.
2. Do a Goals Assessment.
Find out every goal the pc can recall ever having. Make a list. Get
in particular any secret goals, or withheld goals. Go over list
with a meter. Take goal that falls the most.
3. Convert goal to a terminal.
Get wording of terminal simple but make sure the version you select
falls as much as possible on meter. HCO Bulletin of February 2nd,
1961 (some issues were dated March 9, 1961, from HCO Saint Hill),
gives sample-general commands to which terminal can be added.
4. Assess this terminal on the Pre-Havingness Scale from bottom to
top.
Take level that falls the most.
5. Develop an auditing command, preferably two-way that uses
terminal and pre-havingness level.
6. Run the command until tone arm becomes less active.
7. Go one down on the Pre-Havingness Scale.
Develop a command for next level that falls.
8. Run the command until the tone arm becomes less active.
9. Return to first commands and run them (the first level found).
Alternate the higher and one-down level commands, ten minutes of one
level, ten minutes or so of the other level.
10. When the tone arm loses its action on these two commands and
tends to stick, no matter whether high or low arm (one half hour is
a good test), REASSESS TERMINAL ON PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE from bottom
up until a level falls hard.
11. Proceed as in Steps 5 to 11.
12. When the first terminal selected, run at several levels of the
scale and the one just below, seems flat, return to Goals
Assessment, REASSESS GOALS. Proceed from Steps 5 to 12.
13. When the tone arm stabilizing around clear read (two or three
terminals run), LOCATE HAVINGNESS PROCESS from the 36 Presessions.
14. Add the havingness process into the processes run, using it at
appropriate places (certainly at session end) while continuing
Goals S.O.P.
15. When havingness process has been used for a couple of sessions
to help Goals S.O.P. find the CONFRONT PROCESS.
16. Add the Confront Process into the Model Session.
17. If you run out of goals, get a NEW LIST OF GOALS from the pc
and proceed as above.
-------------------
Beingness, Doingness and Havingness must be balanced. Each must be
flexible in the pc for a stable gain.
Goals processing finds the beingness and the mind's doingness toward it
(Pre-Hav Scale) and results in Havingness.
--------------------
On Assessments you may find, going from bottom toward top of the
PreHavingness Scale (No Effect upwards), what after several levels the pc's
needle begins to rise consistently. It is probably useless to go higher on
the scale as a rising needle means "no confront". A quicker way than
assessing the whole scale would be, then, to assess upwards to a rising
needle action and then go back down until the needle stops rising. Hunt
from that point down for the biggest fall and you won't go very wrong.
--------------------
Tone arm movement is the keynote to Case gain-No tone arm action = no
gain. 1 to 2 Divisions of the Six Divisions of the Tone Arm Circle movement
per half hour is good movement.
---------------------
If a pc does not respond well to Goals S.O.P. (about 15% won't) do the
following: Go over Rudiments with high sensitivity setting on meter. Clean
up the withholds.
If that doesn't work, run the following for a few hours (it's the
lowest but most general process now known):
What was your attention concentrated upon? When was your attention
shifted?
This should get the tone arm moving. When tone arm is moving well for a
few hours move back into Goals S.O.P. Step 2 and get the case going. It may
be necessary to run Formula 15 and/or Formula 13 on some cases if Goals
S.O.P. still finds a quiet tone arm.
Cases don't move when heavy withholds or PTPs are present. Cover Rudiments
and End Rudiments carefully every session.
Example
Model Session is begun. Rudiments well covered. Goals Assessment shows
up strongest goal to be "to get over having a painful body". Terminal is
chosen, "Painful Body" is shown to fall most as terminal wording.
"Painful Body" is assessed on Pre-Havingness Scale. Endure falls most.
Auditing command is developed which falls on meter, "What should a
painful body endure?" No additional command developed for Endure.
Developed command is run (heavy somatics) until the tone arm ceases to
get 2 divisions of action, gets only one. Process ended.
Command is developed for Failed Endure, next lower level, "What has a
painful body failed to endure?" This starts heavy tone arm action again.
When action cooled, same "endure" command is run again.
After three runs of Endure and two of Failed Endure command tone arm
stiffens at 5 on the scale. A 15 minute test of both commands fails to get
it moving; "Painful Body" is reassessed in the Pre-Havingness Scale and is
found now to drop at Withheld.
Command is developed for Withheld that falls on meter (the command
causes the fall), "What should be withheld from a painful body?"
This new command run and tone arm again in motion. TA motion gets less.
Dropping down one level of Pre-Havingness Scale to Failed Withhold,
command is developed that falls on needle-"What have you failed to withhold
from a painful body?"
Command is run and restores motion to tone arm. When motion dies down a
bit, Withhold command is resumed.
After 2 runs of Withhold and two of Failed Withhold, tone arm became
slow at 3.
"Painful Body" reassessed on Pre-Havingness Scale, is now found at
Inverted Communication. "Painful Body" added to command given on HCO
Bulletin, 2nd February, 1961, for Inverted Communication. This run for 1
hour. Then Inverted Interest run on "Painful Body". Etc. Etc.
Data on all this will be found on the 17 hours of tape lectures of the
3rd S.A. ACC. This condensation is not on the tapes.
The Pre-Havingness Scale referred to has been the subject of two
February 1961 HCO Bulletins. (Some issues were dated March 9, 1961, from
HCO Saint Hill.)
An expanded scale will shortly be released. The shorter scale works,
however.
----------------------
As this is the fastest road to Clear, I want all staff members to be
processed on nothing else, from scratch, former auditing not to be taken
into account. We want clear staffs. They deserve it.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[See also HCO B 31 March 1961, S.O.P. Goals Modified, on the next page.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1961
CenOCon
Fran Holders
S.O.P. GOALS MODIFIED
A slight modification to make S.O.P. Goals easier to run is made
herewith:
As I am expanding the Pre-Hav Scale with several new levels and as
these levels are not necessarily in exact position, it is no longer
possible to derive an exact formula using two levels. Only one level will
be run for each assessment.
Strike out Steps 6, 7, 8 and 9 of HCO Bulletin of February 18, 1961.
Strike out the word "two" in Step 10, first line.
At Step 11, add: "omitting Steps 6, 7, 8 and 9."
At Step 12, first and second line, omit "and the one just below". Add
to end of step: "omitting Steps 6, 7, 8 and 9."
Adjust example accordingly.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:ph.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 MARCH 1961
Assn Sec
HCO Sec
D of P
All Staff Auditors
Mimeo Directions: Mimeo whole report as a Policy Letter.
Then mimeo each form separately for D of P. Then have
them letterpressed on flimsy paper.
THE DIRECTOR OF PROCESSING'S CASE CHECKING HAT
A system has been set up whereby a double check of every case at its
most difficult crossroads in processing can be done.
While the staff auditor does all of the basic work and actual
assessments, the D of P thoroughly checks each decisional step which would
commit the case to an erroneous track or which would permit the case to
continue less swiftly than is possible.
This checking system does not arise because staff auditors are
unskilled. It arises from the fact that two points of view on a case are
better than one. As an example of this it can occur that a staff auditor
has the same withhold as the pc resulting at times in the staff auditor
unconsciously avoiding that withhold. As another example, the pc terminal
may be one to which the staff auditor has an antipathy resulting in an
avoidance of that terminal. But in addition to these unlikely instances the
pc will very often give up something to the D of P, thinking in terms of
altitude, that he will not say to the staff auditor.
Our whole interest here is case speed of advance. The more accurately
assessments are done and the more accurately rudiments are handled the more
rapidly the case progresses.
The D of P only checks. The D of P does not actually audit the pc. It
can happen that the pc gives up withholds to the D of P rather than the
staff auditor. This is quite in order but the D of P may not drum for them
the way a staff auditor would.
There are eight types of checkouts that the D of P does on a pc. Each
one of these as below is the subject of a technical report form. These
forms should be mimeoed out at first and later printed on flimsy paper by
letterpress. They are in red ink on white paper.
We are not now checking arbitrarily every five hours. We are checking
only when the pc has reached certain stages. Now that SOP Goals is proving
itself we must smooth out every possibility of error in its running. It is
a complex process but it is invariable. It has many steps but these are
unchanging. Very little if anything in it is equivocal. Its answers are all
in the black and white of being right or wrong once one actually reads the
meter with precision.
CHECK TYPE ONE
HCO WW Form CT1
Pre-Intensive interview and Pre-Goals Assessment Check.
Before the preclear is audited in an intensive where SOP Goals may be
employed the following check sheet is filled out by the D of P and passed
by pc before a Goals assessment is made.
Name of
Pc...................................................................Date...
..............................................
Location of HGC
............................................................................
.....................................
The Pc is put on the Meter.
The following statement is read to the pc: "You are about to receive
Hubbard Guidance Centre Processing. Your auditor will do your case
assessment in your first session. All I am going to do here is test your
meter reaction for technical purposes."
TA............................................ Needle
Character..................................................................
Have you ever received mental treatment of any
kind?..................................................................
TA............................................ Needle
Character..................................................................
How do you feel about
help?.......................................................................
............................
TA............................................ Needle
Character..................................................................
Do you wish to attain the state of
release?....................................................................
.............
TA............................................ Needle
Character..................................................................
Does any of your family oppose
Scientology?................................................................
............
TA............................................ Needle
Character..................................................................
How do you feel about
control?....................................................................
...........................
TA............................................ Needle
Character..................................................................
Are you prepared to answer your auditor truthfully when he or she asks you
questions about your past?
............................................................................
.............................................................
TA............................................ Needle
Character..................................................................
"This is the end of this check out. Please be sure to get good food and
plenty of rest during the time of your processing. I will see you again
from time to time to make certain your processing is going well. Best of
luck to you."
Adjudication (No other significance than TA and needle are given heed at
this time): (given to auditor): Did TA move during questioning?
Did needle move during questioning?
If both moved, the auditor is to go right on and assess with a case
assessment and then SOP Goals assessment in accordance with staff auditor's
partial hat. If TA did not move but needle moved, the auditor is to run the
concentrate-shift attention process given in SOP Goals and come back for
this type check again. If neither TA nor needle moved during questioning
auditor is to run: "How have you tried to change a person?" "How have you
failed to change a person?" "How have you tried to change yourself?" "How
have you failed to change yourself?" If pc gave no intelligible answers to
the questions, regardless of TA and needle motion, tell auditor to run
CCHs.
Assess..............................................................Attentio
n Process ..........................................
Change
Process................................................................CCHs.
...........................................
Signed......................................................................
......D of P...........................................
Repeat this form without reading beginning and end to pc but reading only
questions when the auditor says TA is moving well and comes back for
recheck. If CCHs were assigned tell auditor to now do Change Process.
Auditor returns for recheck when TA moving well. When Change Process doing
fine, assign Attention Process. When Attention Process doing fine assess
for SOP Goals.
Use new check type one sheet for every D of P check on above.
Include this sheet in pc folder.
CHECK TYPE TWO
HCO WW Form CT2
Assessment Confirmation
Name of
Pc...................................................................Date...
..............................................
Location of HGC
............................................................................
.....................................
Check by D of P to confirm case assessment, Goals Assessment, Terminal
level and command.
Done before any of these are run on pc. Questions are made to pc with pc on
the meter.
Has the auditor asked you all about your family and former
life?.....................................................
About how many goals did you find?..................................(Should
be 50 or more).......................
Did the auditor cover secret or withheld goals
too?.......................................................................
Did you cover childhood goals as
well?.......................................................................
...............
What was the principal goal
found?......................................................................
.....................
(D of P looks at assessment sheet):
Was.........................................................................
.......the
principal goal found? (Note number of meter divisions it
falls).......................................................
What was the terminal found for
this?.......................................................................
................
(D of P looks at assessment sheet):
Was.........................................................................
.......the
principal terminal found?
...................................................(number of divisions it
falls on meter).
If the number of divisions the terminal falls does not equal or exceed the
number of divisions the goal fell auditor must reassess.
If reassessment ordered end check here. Sign and put in folder.
What level of scale was found for this
terminal?...................................................................
.......
(D of P looks at assessment sheet):
Was.........................................................................
...........
the level of scale found for the
terminal?...................................................................
.................
Meter must fall the same number of divisions for the level as for the goal
and the terminal. If this does not happen even when terminal and level are
repeated by D of P to Pc, tell auditor to reassess and end check at this
point.
What command did you evolve for
this?.......................................................................
..............
(D of P looks at assessment sheet):
Was.........................................................................
...........
the command evolved for this? (Notes divisions of
fall)................................................................
If the command does not fall as much as the goal, terminal and level the D
of P may try a better command remembering to take into account the
phenomena of stuck flows and putting the pc at cause.
New command evolved which falls as much as Goals, Terminal and
Level.......................................
............................................................................
..............................................................
............................................................................
..............................................................
Auditor told
to..........................................................................
............................................
Signed........................................................D of
P................................................................
CHECK TYPE THREE
HCO WW Form CT3
General Check-up on a Session
May be done at any time or
when D of P unconvinced of Case Progress
Name of
Pc..........................................................................
.......Date...................................
Location of
HGC.........................................................................
.........................................
All questions are addressed to pc who is on a meter.
What processes are being run on
you?........................................................................
...............
Do you have any ARC breaks with your
Auditor?....................................................................
...
Are you worried about something in your
life?.......................................................................
....
Have you done anything while you have been in the HGC you shouldn't have
done?.........................
............................................................................
..............................................................
Do you think what we are doing with you is in
error?..................................................................
............................................................................
..............................................................
Is your auditor doing anything that upsets
you?........................................................................
...
............................................................................
..............................................................
If needle did a marked dip on any of the above the D of P should continue
the question until the dip vanishes, using various different forms of the
question until he gets the whole story to his satisfaction.
D of P findings:
Recommendation to Auditor:
Signed........................................................D of
P................................................................
CHECK TYPE FOUR
HCO WW Form CT4
Rudiments Check
Name of
Pc..........................................................................
.......Date...................................
Location of
HGC.........................................................................
.........................................
After eight or ten hours of auditing on processes that were in Model
Session (not CCHs) the D of P checks rudiments to make sure that they are
cleaned up.
Check done on Pc who is on a meter.
What goals have you been setting for your sessions?
Do you have any upset with your auditor about anything at all?
Are you withholding anything from us about yourself or your processing?
Do you have any present time problems?
Is there anything you dislike about your auditing?
Is there anything you would like to change about your auditor?
Is there anything it would embarrass you to tell us about?
Is there something you wouldn't want known?
Is there anything in your life right now that is very upsetting to you?
D of P sorts out any needle fall until he is sure that there is something
there that needs attention and either it has cleared by his asking or he
gives the auditor an alert to it so it can be handled.
Recommendation to auditor:
Signed..........................................................D of P.
CHECK TYPE FIVE
HCO WW Form CT 5
Flat Check
When the staff auditor states that the terminal he has been running is now
flat the D of P makes a very careful check before he permits a new
assessment to be started. The TA does not have to be on clear read for a
terminal to be flat.
Name of
Pc..........................................................................
.......Date...................................
Location of
HGC.........................................................................
.........................................
Terminal that has been run "flat" according to
auditor...................................................................
Check terminal on every level of the Pre-Hav Scale against the needle only.
Check from bottom to top of scale then back to bottom of scale.
Needle changed characteristic or fell on the following
levels...........................................................
............................................................................
..............................................................
If any change or fall noted, send auditor back to flatten that level, or
those levels and do his own recheck and flattening before returning.
Use this form for D of P recheck.
If no level reacted on the terminal, take the Goal which the terminal
represented and check it out thoroughly on the meter.
Goal Terminal
Represented.................................................................
.....................................
Reaction of the
Goal:.......................................................................
......................................
If Goal had a reaction send auditor back to find another terminal that
reacts as much as the Goal reacts, flatten that terminal on any and all
levels and return for recheck on this same form.
1. Return for
recheck.....................................................................
.....................................or
2. Do new Goals, Terminal, Level, Command
Assessment...........................................................
Signed.........................................................D of P.
CHECK TYPE SIX
HCO WW Form CT6
Bog Check
Name of
Pc..........................................................................
.......Date...................................
Location of
HGC.........................................................................
.........................................
When the Auditor reports or D of P thinks case is not progressing well the
following check-offs are done: (This is a "When all else fails" check-off.)
D of P does check type one without the message to the
Pc:...........................................................
D of P does check type
three:......................................................................
.............................
D of P orders Johannesburg Security Check.
Done:......................................................................
D of P does check type
four:.......................................................................
.............................
If SOP Goals has been "flattened" on one or more terminals D of P does
check type five on all SOP terminals run to
date:.......................................................................
......................................
Only when all of this has been cared for according to each check type
listed and the Johannesburg Security Check has been fully cleared on all
questions does the D of P make further recommendation to the Staff Auditor:
Recommendation:
Signed..........................................................D of P.
CHECK TYPE SEVEN
HCO WW Form CT7
A "Release" Check Sheet
Name of
Pc..........................................................................
.......Date...................................
Location of
HGC.........................................................................
.........................................
The following may be made out on the pc at any time but preferably at a
time when the pc is to receive no further intensives at the moment or is
leaving the HGC.
This whole check sheet is rechecked by HCO Area as indicated:
Pc is put on a meter and asked:
Are you happy with the auditing you have had?
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
Do you think you will get any worse?
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
Do you intend to get more auditing?
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
Did they find your Havingness process?
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
Did they find your Confront process?
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
Do you think you can handle life any better?
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
Do you think Scientology works?
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
If satisfactory meter reaction (fairly free needle) and if Tone Arm is not
abnormally high or low, and if pc answers "Yes" to above, a D of P sends
the pc with this form to HCO Area, and HCO Area again checks it out, has
Address prepare a Certificate, HCO Continental gets Certificate and this
form and signs, and Certificate is handed to or mailed to the pc. A pin is
also given or sent when available, denoting pc is a "Release".
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
CHECK TYPE EIGHT
HCO WW Form CT8
Clear Check
D of P checks out this form and then sends it to HCO Area Sec for a second
check out. The whole pc file folder with all filed forms, Assessments,
various sheets and auditor's reports are to hand when this check out is
done.
Check over all goals listed on the Goals Assessment Sheet and any
subsequent additions. Look for a fall of the needle on any of them.
Any fall disqualifies the pc.
Check over all terminals listed in all auditor's reports and note any fall
on any of them with high sensitivity.
Any fall disqualifies pc.
We find the needle without reaction and pronounce this person to be clear.
D of
P...................................................................HCO
Area Sec..........................................
Give letter to HCO Continental and send bracelet to pc.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 APRIL 1961
CenOCon
S.O.P. GOALS GOOFS
Having examined the reports of several HGCs I must assume the following:
1. That the many situations arising in Admin and staff in some
HGCs stem directly from an unconscious avoidance of clearing or of
running SOP Goals.
2. That getting SOP Goals run properly is my one and only goal for
HGCs at this time.
3. That I have no interest in reasons why it is not being run
properly.
4. That all organization and staff problems will resolve with the
attainment of successful clearing of staffs.
5. That problems blow into view as this is being attempted and
should get no more attention from me than a pc's protests would in
a session.
6. That we can and will win out in getting SOP Goals properly
applied.
7. That sooner or later staff auditors will realize it is a simple
procedure with many steps and apply it bravely.
8. That auditors will suddenly realize it does work and clear and
is to be used.
9. That staff auditors will read and follow the bulletins and
policy letters on SOP Goals.
10. That my job is to insist that it be run, whether people on
staff are trained or not trained.
11. That all difficulty stems from lack of successful technical
application and that technical, fully repaired, solves all Admin
problems.
12. That we can and will get SOP Goals in proper use, not only
through existing staff but new staff as they arrive.
13. That neither you nor I can Q and A with reasons it is not being
run.
I am very, very earnest about these matters.
Typical goofs: Terminal started at Pre-Hav level run for a while with
good TA motion. Motion of TA vanishes (as it should). Auditor non-plussed.
Promptly starts Attention process and does 20 hours of it, where he should
have reassessed same terminal for new level.
Auditor finds goal dips only one division. Decides it isn't enough
(which it is), runs off and runs Change process.
D of P does assessment in 45 minutes (D of P shouldn't, and also it
takes me 2 hours for a goals assessment), gives it to auditor. Auditor runs
with no Model Session or rudiments for 100 hours with pc going mad from
PTPs. Never changes level. Never checks rudiments. Nobody ever re-checks
for level. E-Meter ignored.
Auditor has goal, terminal, level, command, all set to roll, and D of P
says, "Needle seems a little sticky, run the Attention process." SOP Goals
promptly abandoned in favour of wasting 4 days of auditing.
Goofs like this are just a dramatization of wasting auditing.
It's in the bulletins. There's no reason to goof. It's just a question
of doing it!
As soon as somebody, anybody on staff gets clear or near clear on SOP
Goals, this situation will change. The more that get clear or near clear,
the more effective the Org will be, the better SOP Goals will run.
My policy then is clearly to get SOP Goals run in every HGC on every
pc, staff and outside, not waiting "until staff are trained" or "when we
get a new Admin", or "as soon as staff auditors can read an E-Meter".
My brand-new idea on SOP Goals is "Do It". Only familiarity will beget
confidence.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ph.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 APRIL 1961
CenOCon
S.O.P. GOALS
GOALS ASSESSMENT PROBLEMS SORTED OUT
A D of P confessed she could not get a goal to fall whenever an auditor
did an assessment. The auditor would do an assessment, bring the pc in for
D of P check, but the goal would not fall again.
This, of course, is improper assessment.
HOW TO ASSESS A GOALS LIST
The auditor should get a full list of goals including childhood goals,
withheld goals, anti-social goals, and (by meter reaction on question) "Any
goal you have not told me about".
Auditor gets every possible goal until the meter is nul on the question
of goals the pc might have.
Then the auditor reads the whole list of goals to the pc and writes in
divisions and fractions of divisions of fall for each. One division on the
meter dial is marked "I" after the goal. One half a division is marked
''1/2'', etc after the written goal.
The auditor then covers the whole list again, reading them to the pc.
Pc does not have to answer verbally any of these questions, "How do you
feel about (goals)?" And auditor can tell pc so. The meter does it all.
On the second read the auditor lightly crosses out all goals that get
no response or marks in the amount each goal now falls.
The auditor does a third read of only those goals that fall on the
second reading and marks down how much they fell by a division figure and
crosses out all those goals that now no longer fall.
By this time the list will be getting pretty short. Goals keep going
nul. They blow, in other words.
The auditor now does end rudiments, picks up any PTPs and ARC breaks
and gives the pc a short break and copies off only those goals that still
fell on a new sheet of paper.
The auditor now returns the pc to session, runs beginning rudiments and
goes over this new short list noting divisions of fall for each goal on it.
It is probable that these remaining goals are all the same goal or are
opposite goals (if one can't do one, he does the other sort of thing).
Once more the auditor writes down the divisions of fall as he goes over
the list again with the pc.
More of these goals can be expected to fall out and go nul.
The preliminary goal now becomes unmistakable as having the consistent
largest fall.
The pc may suddenly re-define this goal with great interest. That is fine.
Note the re-definition or re-definitions as such. Re-check the last list
and take the greatest consistent fall. Take the wording of the goal that
falls most.
The auditor now has the principal goal. He writes it on a new piece of
paper and puts the date of the assessment on it.
The auditor now starts his search for a terminal with considerable
attention to what the pc says it is and finally finds one that falls as
much as or more than the goal fell and that continues to fall.
The auditor now finds the Pre-Hav level of this terminal and its
command and, noting all this on the new sheet, saving all papers in the pc
record, goes to the D of P for a re-check.
This goal will always fall. This level will always fall. This command
will always fall. Each right up to the instant the pc starts to get
audited.
Most goals, all off-beat terminals, any incorrect level goes nul on the
two-way comm incident to assessment. Only the goal, terminal, level that
have to be audited remain.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: ph.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 APRIL 1961
Issue II
CenOCon
S.O.P. GOALS
REPAIRING A CASE
An auditor, after a proper assessment, was afraid to let the TA go too
tight on running any Pre-Hav level.
He ran, then, four levels worth of processes in the first two hours of
S.O.P. Goals running.
The pc bogged and no further assessment for Pre-Hav level could be
done.
REMEDY
An auditor must keep his pc's record in full including all assessments
and even rough notes and lists.
The auditor above should return to the process of the first level he
ran and run it again until the Tone Arm is fairly motionless and looks like
it is going to remain so after a 20-minute additional test.
Then the auditor should take the second process he had run and run it
until the Tone Arm is motionless and remains so for 20 minutes.
Then the auditor should take the third process he had already run and
run it until the Tone Arm remains motionless for 20 minutes.
Then the auditor should take the fourth process and run that until the
TA remains motionless for 20 minutes.
Now the auditor should find he can reassess for a new Pre-Hav level.
Before doing such, however, he should cover Rudiments with great care,
cleaning up every possible ARC break and getting any withhold that shows.
Just as a series of unflat levels on a terminal may have to be gone
over again in sequence, so may a list of terminals previously run have to
be taken up one after another if the case hangs up late in processing-as
too many terminals can also be run too fast.
Further, the Attention and Change process will loosen a needle but not
be used before the above remedy is done.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: ph.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1961
CenOCon
D of P
Staff Auditors
Franchise
ASSESSING FOR GOALS AND TERMINALS
OR ELIMINATION
As the only weak spot in S.O.P. Goals is assessing for the right goal
and terminal, I have given this a lot of study and am utilizing something
new I have observed that should cancel out any doubts about rightness in
the auditor's mind.
Do all S.O.P. Goals steps in Model Session form. This gives you two
cracks at the withholds and ARC breaks. If in doubt about how the pc is
standing up to a long assessment end the session, give pc a short break and
start a new session.
GOALS LIST
To do Goals, get pc to give you every goal he or she can think of. Then
start using the meter to find goals and keep on finding goals until when
you ask for one you get no drop on the meter. In other words, look for
goals like you look for withholds.
Ask for:
Secret goals.
Withheld goals.
Anti-social goals.
Childhood goals.
Goals you've just remembered.
Silly goals.
Goals you've failed at.
Your resulting list may be as long as a hundred or more or as short as
fifty. Just clear the meter on the subject. Make sure you write down every
goal you get.
Now to assess the goals. Tell pc he or she doesn't have to answer
aloud, and start reading the goals off to the pc. Write down how much each
goal fell by divisions or fractions of divisions. Lightly cross out every
goal that does not fall.
Go over list to pc again, still watching needle. Read off to pc every
goal that fell before. You will find some of these have gone nul. Mark
present divisions of fall for each goal. Cross out every goal that now does
not fall.
Read remaining goals off to pc. Mark divisions they fell and cross out
those that went nul.
Read now the goals that remain and cross out those that go nul.
Keep doing this until you have only two or three goals.
Discuss these with the pc. They may be all the same goal. Get a better
definition of the goal.
Now read the remaining goals to pc and cross out the ones that go nul.
You will have at least one heavily falling goal left that does not go
nul on two way comm. This of course has to be run.
This assessment is assessment of goals by elimination.
TERMINAL LIST
We have the goal. Now to get the terminal.
We get the pc to suggest terminals that represent this goal we have
found.
We keep on urging the pc to give us more terminals for that goal.
We list every terminal the pc thinks up. We are not content until we
have a list of about thirty possible terminals.
We now treat this list exactly as we did the goals list.
We read the list to the pc, marking divisions of fall and crossing out
terminals that don't fall now.
We take the uncrossed-out terminals and read these to the pc. We mark
divisions they fall and cross out those that no longer fall.
We keep doing this until we are left with one terminal.
This is our terminal. The only way it will nul is by auditing.
This is terminal assessment by elimination.
------------------
Commands are pretty easy to get.
The best command is the five-way bracket as follows:
You terminal.
Terminal you.
Terminal another.
Another terminal.
Terminal terminal.
The How type of command is very good.
The additional data on terminals commands is to add "bad" or "badly" at
the inverted levels.
On the Pre-Havingness Scale you should add WASTE below FAILED ABANDON.
You should add REGRET, SHAME and BLAME going upwards from somewhere
around PROTECT. I will give you the full Pre-Hav chart in a week or two,
but you need these right now.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:ph.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1961
Issue II
Central Orgs
City Offices S.O.P. GOALS
Processing Depts MODIFICATION I
Franchise
On all staff and outside cases without exception the following Goals
Standard Operating Procedure will be used.
S.O.P. Goals Intensives
Use Model Session throughout on assessments and all sessions.
l. Go over rudiments carefully.
2. Do a Goals Assessment.
Find out every goal the pc can recall ever having.
Make a list. Get in particular any secret goals, withheld goals,
childhood goals, anti-social goals.
Go over list with a meter, as per HCO Bulletin of April 6, 1961 and
later.
3. Convert goal to a terminal. Use HCO Bulletin of April 6, 1961 and
later.
4. Assess this terminal on the Pre-Havingness Scale from bottom toward
top. Take level that falls the most.
5. Develop an auditing command, preferably five-way bracket, that uses
terminal and pre-havingness level. See HCO Bulletin of April 6, 1961
and later HCO Bulletins.
6. Run the command until tone arm becomes inactive for at least twenty
minutes.
7. DELETED.
8. DELETED.
9. DELETED.
10. When the tone arm loses its action on these commands and tends to
stick, no matter whether high or low arm (20 minutes is a good test),
RE-ASSESS TERMINAL ON PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE from bottom up until a new
level falls.
11. Proceed as in Steps 5 to 11.
12. When the first terminal selected and the goal produce no needle
action and seem flat, return to Goals Assessment, add any new goals pc
has now, RE-ASSESS GOALS. Proceed from Steps 5 to 12.
13. When tone arm stabilizing around clear read, LOCATE HAVINGNESS
PROCESS from the 36 Presessions. (May be done earlier.)
14. Add the Havingness process into the processes run, using it at
appropriate places (certainly at session end) while continuing Goals
S.O.P.
15. When Havingness process has been used for a couple of sessions to
help Goals S.O.P. find the CONFRONT PROCESS.
16. Add the Confront process into the Model Session.
17. If you run out of goals, get a NEW LIST OF GOALS from the pc and
proceed as above.
LRH: ph.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 APRIL 1961
HCO Secs
Any Directors
of Security
Remimeo only for use
JOHANNESBURG SECURITY CHECK
This is the Johannesburg Security Check sheet further amplified by
myself. This is the roughest Security Check in Scientology. We will call it
the "Jo'burg Security Check". It does not necessarily replace other check
sheets but it is probably the most thorough one we have now.
In reprinting this form use legal (foolscap) length and double-space
everything except directions.
Joburg Security Check Sheet
HCO Security Form 2
_________________________________ _____________________
Name of Person Date
_________________________________
Name of Security Checker
Directions: Attempt to clear any fall observed. Mark any fall observed
or any meter reaction change elicited by the question. Then write what it
cleared on. Mark largely if the fall could not be cleared since this
constitutes a failure to pass. Only fail somebody if there is no needle
motion of any kind even with sensitivity at 16 on any question. If they are
failing because it is hard to clear a question, work very thoroughly on it
in an effort to clear it. In all cases complete the test.
If an important question fails to clear even after Security Checker has
worked very hard to get it off, the test is flunked.
The following statement should be read or quoted to the person being
Security Checked:
"We are about to begin a Security Check. We are not moralists. We are
able to change people. We are not here to condemn them. While we cannot
guarantee you that matters revealed in this check will be held forever
secret, we can promise you faithfully that no part of it nor any answer you
make here will be given to the Police or the State. No Scientologist will
ever bear witness against you in Court by reason of answers to this
Security Check. This Security Check is exclusively for Scientology
purposes. The only ways you can fail this Security Check are to refuse to
take the test, to fail to answer its questions truthfully or if you are
here knowingly to injure Scientology. The only penalty attached to failure
of this check is processing or our refusal to employ you or issue you a
certificate, and this will only happen if we find that you are trying
knowingly to injure Scientology. You can pass this test by (l) agreeing to
take it, (2) answering each question truthfully and (3) not being a member
of a subversive group seeking to injure Scientology."
The first questions are nul questions to determine your reaction
pattern.
We will now begin-
Lie Reaction:
Are you sitting in a chair?
Are you on the moon?
Are all cats black?
Am I an ostrich?
Is this Earth?
Have you ever drunk water?
Are you holding up a tree?
Am I an elephant?
Are you a table?
Is this a Security Check?
Have you ever lived or worked under an assumed name?
Have you given me your right name?
Are you here for a different purpose than you say?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you ever forged someone else's signature?
Have you ever blackmailed anybody?
Have you ever been blackmailed?
Have you ever smuggled anything?
Have you ever been in prison?
Have you ever indulged in drunkenness?
Have you ever done any reckless driving?
Have you ever burglared any place?
Have you ever embezzled money?
Have you ever assaulted anyone?
Have you ever been in jail?
Have you ever told lies in Court?
Have you ever had anything to do with Pornography?
Have you ever committed Arson?
Have you ever been a Drug Addict?
Have you ever peddled Dope?
Have you had any dealings with stolen goods?
Do you have a Police Record?
Have you ever raped anyone?
Have you ever been involved in an abortion?
Have you assisted in any abortion?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever practised Homosexuality?
Have you ever had intercourse with a member of your family?
Have you ever been sexually unfaithful?
Have you ever practised Sodomy?
Have you ever consistently made a practice of sexual perversion?
Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another colour?
Have you ever committed culpable homicide?
Have you ever bombed anything?
Have you ever murdered anyone?
Have you ever kidnapped anyone?
Have you ever done any illicit Diamond buying?
Have you ever betrayed anyone for money?
Have you ever threatened anyone with a fire-arm?
Have you been in illegal possession of fire-arms?
Have you ever been paid for giving evidence?
Have you ever destroyed something belonging to someone else?
Have you ever been a spy for an Organization?
Have you ever had anything to do with Communism or been a Communist?
Have you ever been a newspaper reporter?
Have you ever had intercourse while under the influence of drugs?
Have you ever had intercourse while under the influence of alcohol?
Have you ever used drugs or blackmail to procure sex?
Have you ever ill-treated children?
Have you ever taken money for giving anyone sexual intercourse?
Have you ever had any connection with a brothel?
Have you ever had anything to do with a baby farm?
Have you ever been a spy for the Police?
Are you afraid of the Police?
Have you ever done anything you are afraid the Police may find out?
Have you ever falsified the books in any firm you worked for?
Have you ever done anything your Mother would be ashamed to find out?
How could you help yourself generally?
What represents yourself?
How could you help your family?
What represents your family?
How do you feel about sex?
What represents (the Org (others (a group to you?
How could you help (the Org? (others? (a group?
How could you help mankind?
Have you ever controlled people?
How do you feel about being controlled?
What represents mankind to you?
How could you help animals and plants?
What represents animals and plants to you?
How could you help material things?
What represents Matter, Energy, Space and Time to you?
How could you help Spirits?
What represents Spirits to you?
How could you help God or Infinity?
What represents God or Infinity to you?
What is Communism?
Do you feel Communism has some good points?
Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Have you ever been a member of any group with similar ideals as the
Communist Party?
Do you know any Communist personally?
Have you ever injured Dianetics or Scientology?
Have you ever committed any overts on a Scientology Organization?
Have you ever stolen anything from a Scientology Org?
Do you have any overts on LRH?
Have you ever had unkind thoughts about LRH?
Do you have any overts on Mary Sue?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Mary Sue?
Have you ever injured any Scientologists?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Scientologists?
Have you ever betrayed Scientology?
Do you know of any secret plans against Scientology?
Have you ever taken money to injure Scientology?
Have you ever used Dianetics or Scientology to force sex upon someone?
Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientology Organization?
Are you upset about this Security Check?
______________________________ _________________________________
Passed Failed
_____________________________________________________________________
Why?
_________________________________
Signed by Examiner
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:lmw.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1961
CenOCon
S.O.P. GOALS
ERRORS
The primary sources of wasted time on S.O.P. Goals and the only real
errors that can be made are as follows:
1. Bad Technical approach.
Remedy: Be expert on TRs and Model Session and E-Meter.
2. Improper Assessments.
Remedy: Assessment by Elimination.
3. Failure to flatten a level before re-assessing for a new level.
Remedy: Run a level until the Tone Arm has remained still for 20
minutes.
"Still" is defined as only one-eighth of a division of motion
on the Tone Arm dial-e.g., an eighth of the distance from 4 to 5.
4. Failure to detect and handle a PTP.
Remedy: Do rudiments carefully watching meter needle for falls,
not listening to what pc says.
5. Failure to detect and handle an ARC break.
Remedy: Do rudiments carefully and often.
6. Failure to detect and pull a withhold.
Remedy: Do rudiments carefully.
----------------
Honest, there aren't any more difficulties than the above.
I doubt any other errors could be introduced than the above that would
keep a case from moving.
In all auditors' conferences and in all training, these things must be
stressed.
Know the TRs.
Know Model Session.
Know the E-Meter.
Do proper assessments by the meter. Use elimination for goals,
terminals.
Choose the right level by the amount of fall of the needle.
Run the right amount of processing by the Tone Arm.
Inspect rudiments often. Detect and handle all PTPs, ARC breaks and
Withholds.
There are no other barriers to success in S.O.P. Goals.
But do the above wrong and you can add hundreds of hours to clearing.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:phrd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 APRIL 1961
CenOCon
TRAINING DRILLS
These "TRs" are those released to the 18th ACC. They are in their
original form. They are the correct drills for use in all instruction.
L. RON
HUBBARD
------------------
NUMBER: TR 0
NAME: Confronting Preclear. COMMANDS: None.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance
apart-about five feet.
PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with
nothing.
TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither
making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look
at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not
speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. Coach may speak only if
student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and
bank of preclear.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train
students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or
conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be "interesting".
NUMBER: TR 1
NAME: Dear Alice.
COMMANDS: A phrase (with the "he saids" omitted) is picked out of the book
"Alice in Wonderland" and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach
is satisfied it arrived where he is.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable
distance apart.
PURPOSE: To teach the student to send an intention from himself to a
preclear in one unit of time without vias.
TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his
own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound
natural, not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness
may have.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the
communication formula to new students.
NUMBER: TR 2
NAME: Acknowledgements.
COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from "Alice in Wonderland" omitting "He
saids" and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any
line he feels was not truly acknowledged.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable
distance apart.
PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgement is a method of
controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgement is a full
stop.
TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so that
preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said.
Curb over and under acknowledgement. Let student do anything at first to
get acknowledgements across, then even him out. Teach him that an
acknowledgement is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or
an encouragement to the preclear to go on.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new
students that an acknowledgement ends a communication cycle and a period of
time, that a new command begins a new period of time.
NUMBER: TR 3
NAME: Duplicative Question.
COMMANDS: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" Communication bridge between.
POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.
PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing
question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with
other questions, and to acknowledge it; and to teach him how to shift from
one question to another with a communication bridge rather than an abrupt
change.
TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgement of its answer in
one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into
variations of command. To insist on communication bridge when question is
changed. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it
had never occurred to anyone before. To teach student that a communication
bridge consists of getting three agreements-one agreement to end this
question, second agreement to continue session in general and maintain ARC,
third agreement to begin a new question. Teach student that preclear is
part of these agreements. To teach student never to vary question or shift
question or command without a bridge.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to overcome
variations and sudden changes in sessions.
NUMBER: TR 4
NAME: Preclear Originations.
COMMANDS: The student runs "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" on coach.
Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared
list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction
of coach.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance
apart.
PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off
session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear
throughout an origination.
TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three
things: 1. Understand it; 2. Acknowledge it; and 3. Return preclear to
session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of
comprehension, he corrects the coach into better handling.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach
auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out.
NUMBER: TR 5
NAME: Hand Mimicry.
COMMANDS: All Commands are by motions of one or two hands. The auditor
makes a simple hand motion, holding his hand or hands in the final
position. The coach bobs his head as having received it. The coach then,
mirror-wise, makes the same motion with his hand or hands. The student then
acknowledges. If the motion was not correctly done by coach the student
acknowledges doubtfully, then repeats the motion to the coach. If the coach
does it well, student thanks coach by shaking own two hands together (prize
fighter fashion). Keep motions simple. Student must always be able to
duplicate own motions.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a short
distance, coach's knees inside student's.
PURPOSE: To educate student that verbal commands are not entirely
necessary. To make student physically telegraph an intention. To show
student necessity of having preclear obey commands.
TRAINING STRESS: Accuracy of student repeating own commands. Teaching
student to give preclear wins. Teaching student that an intention is
different from words.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, from the
principles of body mimicry developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, N.J., in
1954.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ph.bh
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo
All Checksheets HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1961
Franchise
TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED
(Reissued 5 January 71, substituting word "supervisors"
for "instructors", adding the words "a command" to TR 3
and substituting the words "and coach's remarks about self as
pc" in TR 4 in place of "and remarks aimed only at the student.")
Due to the following factors, I have modernized TRs 0 to 4:
1. The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do
his TRs.
2. Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to
audit.
3. If the TRs are not well learned early in the HPA/HCA, BScn/HCS
Courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND SUPERVISORS AT UPPER
LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS.
4. Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and SOP Goals stem
directly from inability to do the TRs.
5. A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything
further.
6. SOP Goals will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear
is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to
TR flubs without ARC breaks.
Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften.
Comm Courses are not a tea party.
These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor
training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed.
Seven weeks on a Comm Course until he does the TRs perfectly lets the
student receive at least one week's training in the eight. A poor Comm
Course in one week can wipe out the whole eight weeks.
NUMBER: TR 0 Revised 1961
NAME: Confronting Preclear.
COMMANDS: None.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance
apart- about three feet.
PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with
nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to hold a position three
feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE
there.
TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither
making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look
at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not
speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the
student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or
to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is
misnamed if Confront means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is
to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear
without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending
self. After a student has become able to just sit there for two hours "bull
baiting" can begin. Anything added to BEING THERE is sharply flunked by the
coach. Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there
is promptly flunked, with the reason why.
Patter: Student coughs. Coach: "Flunk! you coughed. Start." This is the
whole of the coach's patter as a coach.
Patter as a confronted subject: The coach may say anything or do anything
except leave the chair. The student's "buttons" can be found and tromped on
hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from the
student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see
patter above).
Supervisors should have coaches let student have some wins (coach does not
mention these) and then, by gradient stress, get the coaches to start in on
the student to invite flunks and then flunk them. This is "bull baiting".
The student flunks each time he or she reacts, no matter how minutely, to
being baited.
This TR should be taught rough-rough-rough and not left until the student
can do it. Training is considered satisfactory at this level only if the
student can BE three feet in front of a person without flinching,
concentrating or confronting with, regardless of what the confronted person
says or does.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train
students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or
conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be "interesting".
Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for
its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes.
NUMBER: TR 1 Revised 1961
NAME: Dear Alice.
PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit
of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a
via.
COMMANDS: A phrase (with the "he saids" omitted) is picked out of the book
"Alice in Wonderland" and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach
is satisfied it arrived where he is.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable
distance apart.
TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his
own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural
not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may
have.
The coach must have received the command (or question) clearly and have
understood it before he says "Good".
Patter: The coach says "Start", says "Good" without a new start if the
command is received or says "Flunk" if the command is not received. "Start"
is not used again. "That's it" is used to terminate for a discussion or to
end the activity. If session is terminated for a discussion, coach must say
"Start" again before it resumes.
This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command
naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and
gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the
communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to
increase auditing ability.
NUMBER: TR 2 Revised 1961
NAME: Acknowledgements.
PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgement is a method of
controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgement is a full
stop.
COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from "Alice in Wonderland" omitting "He
saids" and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any
line he feels was not truly acknowledged.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable
distance apart.
TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so
preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said.
Curb over and under acknowledgement. Let student do anything at first to
get acknowledgements across, then even him out. Teach him that an
acknowledgement is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or
an encouragement to the preclear to go on.
To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgement across or can
fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgement or can take a pc's head off with
an acknowledgement.
Patter: The coach says "Start", reads a line and says "Flunk" every time
the coach feels there has been an improper acknowledgement. The coach
repeats the same line each time the coach says "Flunk". "That's it" may be
used to terminate for discussion or terminate the session. "Start" must be
used to begin new coaching after a "That's it".
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new
students that an acknowledgement ends a communication cycle and a period of
time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L.
Ron Hubbard.
NUMBER: TR 3 Revised 1961
NAME: Duplicative question.
PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing
question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with
other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a
second question until he has received an answer to the one asked.
COMMANDS: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?"
POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.
TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgement of its answer in
one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into
variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked
as though it had never occurred to anyone before.
The student must learn to give a command and receive an answer and to
acknowledge it in one unit of time.
The student is flunked if he or she fails to get an answer to the question
asked, if he or she fails to repeat the exact question, if he or she Q and
As with excursions taken by the coach.
Patter: The coach uses "Start" and "That's it", as in earlier TRs. The
coach is not bound after starting to answer the student's question but may
comm lag or give a commenting type answer to throw the student off. Often
the coach should answer. Somewhat less often the coach attempts to pull the
student in to a Q and A or upset the student. Example:
Student: "Do fish swim?"
Coach: "Yes"
Student: "Good"
Student: "Do fish swim?"
Coach: "Aren't you hungry?"
Student: "Yes"
Coach: "Flunk"
When the question is not answered, the student must say gently, "I'll
repeat the auditing question," and do so until he gets an answer. Anything
except commands, acknowledgement and, as needed, the repeat statement is
flunked. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is flunked. A poor command
is flunked. A poor acknowledgement is flunked. A Q and A is flunked (as in
example). Student misemotion or confusion is flunked. Student failure to
utter the next command without a long comm lag is flunked. A choppy or
premature acknowledgement is flunked. Lack of an acknowledgement (or with a
distinct comm lag) is flunked.
Any words from the coach except an answer to the question, "Start" "Flunk"
"Good" or "That's it" should have no influence on the student except to get
him to give a repeat statement and the command again. By repeat statement
is meant, "I'll repeat the auditing command".
"Start", "Flunk", "Good" and "That's it" may not be used to fluster or trap
the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to
leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is a flunk.
The coach should not use introverted statements such as "I just had a
cognition." "Coach divertive" statements should all concern the student,
and should be designed to throw the student off and cause the student to
lose session control or track of what the student is doing.
The student's job is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using
only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgement.
The student may use his or her hands to prevent a "blow" (leaving) of the
coach. If the student does anything else than the above, it is a flunk and
the coach must say so.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to overcome
variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard.
The old TR had a comm bridge as part of its training but this is now part
of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this level.
Auditors have been frail in getting their questions answered. This TR was
redesigned to improve that frailty.
NUMBER: TR 4 Revised 1961
NAME: Preclear originations.
PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off
session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear
throughout an origination.
COMMANDS: The student runs "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" on coach.
Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared
list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction
of coach.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance
apart.
TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three
things: 1. Understand it; 2. Acknowledge it; and 3. Return preclear to
session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of
comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling.
Patter: All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or
difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as
in earlier TRs. The student's patter is governed by: 1. Clarifying and
understanding the origin. 2. Acknowledging the origin. 3. Giving the repeat
statement "I'll repeat the auditing command," and then giving it. Anything
else is a flunk.
The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks and differentiate between
a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere effort to blow session. (TR
3 Revised.) Flunks are given if the student does more than 1. Understand;
2. Acknowledge; 3. Return pc to session.
Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student's
failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and
coach's remarks about self as "pc" is a flunk.
Student's failure to persist is always a flunk in any TR but here more so.
Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at
student when about to comment. By Originate is meant a statement or remark
referring to the state of the coach or fancied case. By Comment is meant a
statement or remark aimed only at student or room. Originations are
handled, Comments are disregarded by the student.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach
auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L. Ron
Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and
preventing ARC breaks.
As TR 5 is also part of the CCHs it can be disregarded in the Comm Course
TRs despite its appearance on earlier lists for students and staff
auditors.
Training Note
It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each
time than to hang up on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student
goes into a decline.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jw.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1961
Central Orgs
Post Staff B. Board
CHANGE PROCESSES
The following telegram has been sent to Peter Williams, now instructing
the Australian ACC. It is valid for all special briefing courses and HGCs
as of receipt:
LT=
SIENTOLOGY MELBOURNE=
PETER TELL CLASS AND USE ON THEM AND ESPECIALLY HGC DEFINITION OF RELEASE
ALL VERSIONS CHANGE PROCESS FLAT ON TONE ARM STOP ON ALL LAGGARD CASES ALL
HGC CASES FLATTEN TONE ARM MOTION ON CHANGE BEFORE RUNNING SOP GOALS STOP
CHANGE PROCESS IS LOCATED ON AND CHECKED BY EMETER THINK GET THE IDEA
DICHOTOMIES FIVE OR TEN COMMAND BRACKETS ANYTHING THAT WILL ANSWER UP AND
RUN STOP WHEN ONE VERSION OF CHANGE HAS NO MORE TA MOTION TRY ANOTHER
VERSION UNTIL ALL VERSIONS FLAT STOP THIS IS A BREAKTHROUGH AS IMPORTANT AS
SOP GOALS BEST TO EVERYONE=
RON
+++++++++
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[At the beginning of the above telegram, the letters "LT" mean night
letter, a form of cable, which travels overnight (per HCO PL 9 August 1966,
Use of Telex Machine, OEC Volume 1, page 228).]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 APRIL 1961
Assn Sec
HCO Sec
D of P
All Staff Auditors
Mimeo Directions: Mimeo whole report as a Policy Letter.
Then mimeo the form separately for D of P. Then have it
letterpressed on flimsy paper.
D OF P FORM
CHECK TYPE ONE
(Rewritten, Modifies HCO Policy Letter March 31, 1961)
In view of improved technology and the fact that I've found there
aren't enough questions to produce a tone arm shift in D of P's Check Type
One, I have rewritten it as follows. Destroy the first issue of it and use
this Check Type One instead.
CHECK TYPE ONE
HCO WW Form CT1
Pre-Intensive interview and Pre-Goals Assessment Check.
Before the preclear is audited in an intensive where SOP Goals may be
employed the following check sheet is filled out by the D of P and passed
by pc before a Goals assessment is made.
Name of Pc .........................................................Date
.........................
Location of
HGC.........................................................................
.........
The Pc is put on the Meter.
TA Reading.......................................Sensitivity
Reading..........................
The following statement is read to the pc: "You are about to receive
Scientology Auditing. I am .....................................(name)
Director of Processing of the Hubbard Guidance Centre. Your auditor's name
is .................................... All I am going to do here is check
your case. I am not auditing you. Your auditor will do that. We are your
friends. We want you to make the fastest possible gains. Now please
answer the following questions."
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Have you ever received mental treatment of any kind?
.......................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
How do you feel about
help?.....................................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Do you wish to attain the state of release?
.....................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Does any of your family oppose
Scientology?.................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
How do you feel about
control?..................................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Are you prepared to answer your auditor truthfully when he or she asks you
questions about your
past?.......................................................................
.............
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Would you be embarrassed if we found out all about
you?...................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Do you realize you will prevent yourself from being released if you
withhold information from your
auditor?..................................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Do you realize that if you indulge in alcohol at any time during the
intensive you will slow down the
results?....................................................................
........
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Do you understand that if you get insufficient sleep each night you will
have a harder time in processing?
............................................................................
....
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Is it clear to you that you should not stay with antagonistic persons or
restimulative people while getting your processing?
..........................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Character Do you know you should eat breakfast each morning before being
audited? TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Do you understand you could add three hundred percent or more to the time
it takes to clear you by withholding data from your
auditor?.............................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Do you know we will do our best for you?
....................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Are you aware that you are one of the people selected to become
clear?....................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Will you cooperate with us in every way you can to achieve that
goal?.....................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
"That is the last of these questions. Is there anything you would care to
know before we end this check out?
............................................................................
TA ...............................Needle Character
...............................................
Thank you. Best of luck in your auditing. You may go now."
Adjudication
Total TA Motion (TA Dial Divs) Average Character of needle_______
If average sensitivity knob was above 1.5 to get a 3rd of a dial drop
(regardless of TA motion), run a Change Process.
If answers didn't make sense, run CCHs.
If needle was sticky and Tone Arm moved less than 1 division of TA dial
during questioning, run Change Process.
If TA moved at least 1 division of TA dial, begin SOP Goals.
If puzzled or in doubt, run a Change Process.
Recommendation to Auditor
CCHs___________________
Change Process ________________________
SOP Goals ____________________________
If CCHs, return for check without pc. Run until pc is intelligible. If
Change Process, run all but 1/8 of a TA division out of the TA motion and
then return for ok to do SOP Goals before starting on SOP Goals.
If SOP Goals, do all Assessments and return for Check Type Two when done.
Signed .............................................D of P.
Use new check type one sheet for every D of P Check on above.
Include this sheet in pc folder.
LRH :jl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 APRIL 1961
CenOCon
Franchise
CHANGE PROCESSES
I have been studying change processes in relation to the tendency of
the pc to alter-is commands and have found that if a pc is bad off on
change (which includes about eighty per cent of the pcs you get), he cannot
run another auditing command cleanly as he never really runs the command
but runs something else. Therefore the only thing that can be run is a
change process and it must be run until motion is removed from the Tone
Arm. (This does not mean a "stuck" Tone Arm, but a motion of about one-
sixteenth of a division on the Tone Arm dial.)
DISCOVERY
What has made the change process so important is a recent discovery I
made that resisted change is the basis of all mass in the physical
universe. Resisted change is the basis of every stuck point on the track.
There are probably dozens of versions of change processes.
The safest way to dope out what change process to run on the pc is to
read it on the needle and get each different command of the whole process
to fall properly, and then to run whatever has been figured out.
SAFE RULES FOR CHANGE PROCESS
Run at least two ways of flow.
Run positive and negative change.
Run a version that is real to the pc, with each command cleared on the
meter (to get each command to fall before actually using it). This is meter
clearing the command. It's new.
Examples:
"Think" vs. "Get the idea of" can be sorted out on the meter. The right
one will fall. The wrong one won't or will fall less.
Get the flows sorted out with commands.
Process Versions:
"Get the idea of changing yourself."
"Get the idea of another changing himself."
"Get the idea of changing another."
"Get the idea of another trying to change you."
"Get the idea of another trying to change another."
"Get the idea of not changing yourself."
"Get the idea of another not changing himself."
"Get the idea of not changing another."
"Get the idea of another not changing you."
"Get the idea of another not changing another."
Another Version:
"How have you changed another?"
"How have you failed to change another?"
Another Process:
"How have you tried to change yourself?"
"How have you tried to change another?"
"How has another tried to change you?"
"How has another tried to change himself?"
"How has another tried to change another?"
Another Process:
"Think of something changing."
"Think of something failing to change."
"Think of changing somebody."
"Think of failing to change somebody."
Another Process:
"Get the idea of changing another."
"Get the idea of failing to change another."
Another Process:
"Recall a change. "
"Recall a failure to change."
SUMMARY
There are many many versions of change. To get the best result, adapt a
process to the pc. Before leaving a change process you have been running,
because motion has come out of the Tone Arm, try to find another change
process that will get the motion going again.
Change does not particularly cut down havingness, but after a while you
can scout the pc's havingness process out and use it from time to time
during and at the end of a session. The reason change does wreck havingness
is that resistance to change prevents the pc from having, and as the ideas
of change are sorted out the pc has increased havingness anyway, similar to
O/W which is a havingness process.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1961R
REVISED 25 NOVEMBER 1973
REISSUED 19 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)
Remimeo
CHANGE BRACKETS AND COMMANDS
(Only changes are correction of typo errors whereby
"not" was omitted from commands 8, 9 and 10 of the
15 Way Bracket and inclusion of the terminal assessment.)
The basic commands of CHANGE form a series of brackets.
The basic curve of change compares to the CYCLE OF ACTION.
[pic]
Therefore the basic versions of CHANGE would consist of Change, No
Change and Failed Change.
The Standard bracket is a five way bracket. The general form of this is
as follows:
You .................... Terminal
Terminal.................You
Terminal ................Another
Another .................Terminal
Terminal ................Terminal
Change as a five way bracket would be somebody or something as the
terminal (whichever falls most on a meter) and:
Assess: Somebody__________
Something__________
5 Way Bracket
(Use whichever gave best read above.)
1. "How have you changed something?"
2. "How has something tried to change you?"
3. "How has something changed another?"
4. "How has another changed something?"
5. "How has something changed?"
or:
1. "How have you changed somebody?"
2. "How has somebody tried to change you?"
3. "How has somebody changed another?"
4. "How has another changed somebody?"
5. "How has somebody changed self?"
15 Way Bracket
(something or somebody)
1. "How have you changed something?"
2. "How has something tried to change you?"
3. "How has something changed another?"
4. "How has another changed something?"
5. "How has something changed?"
6. "What have you not changed?"
7. "What has not changed you?"
8. "What has not changed something?"
9. "What has something not changed?"
10. "What has not changed self?"
11. "What have you failed to change?"
12. "What has failed to change you?"
13. "What has something failed to change?"
14. "What has failed to change something?"
15. "What has failed to change self?"
The above commands are run consecutively as one process. This process
is the basic Release Process.
Another version:
1. "What change have you avoided?"
2. "What change have you sought?"
3. "What no change have you avoided?"
4. "What no change have you sought?"
5. "What failed change have you avoided?"
6. "What failed change have you sought?"
__________
Another version:
1. "Recall a change."
2. "Recall a no-change."
3. "Recall a failed change."
__________
Another version:
Sort out "Think" or "Get the idea" by the meter's reaction. Use one
that produces the most fall.
1. "Think (get the idea) of a change."
2. "Think of a no-change."
3. "Think of a failed change."
L. RON
HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd
Copyright � 1961, 1973,1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
E-METER ESSENTIALS
by
L. Ron Hubbard
Published May 1961
E-Meter Essentials by L. Ron Hubbard was published in England in May
1961, just as the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course was starting at Saint
Hill Manor in East Grinstead, Sussex, England. In May 1961, L. Ron Hubbard
said of the book, "It covers everything I have discovered about the
OPERATION of the E-Meter in the past ten years." It is Volume I of the
Clearing Series.
It is a concise statement of the essential points concerning the E-
Meter which must be known to an auditor, including the facts that "There is
no known way to clear anyone without using a meter," and "The only way
known to learn to use an E-Meter is to use one, handle one, practice with
one."
Ron tells the reader what the parts of the E-Meter are and how they
work; and what all the needle and tone arm actions and reactions look like
and what is going on in the preclear when they occur, as well as what
auditing action is indicated when one occurs. There are sections on the
oddities and frailties of E-Meters.
As a bonus, there is data on the use of an E-Meter in Security
Checking, locating Havingness and Confront processes, and in doing
Assessments, particularly in S.O.P. Goals.
32 pages, one photograph, soft-cover with comb binding, index.
Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct
from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6,
1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications
Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026,
U.S.A.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1961
Franchise
PROCESS LEVELS
NECESSITY FOR TRAINING
Here is some good news and some bad:
After considerable study of the use of SOP Goals by Auditors, it is
apparent that the technology, while very effective in the strictly
supervised auditing of HGCs is beyond the average training level of the
field at this time in TRs, E-Meter and Model Session.
This means that we can do Releasing at once but we are confronted by an
enormous retraining programme before broad field auditor clearing can
begin. But great advances can be made on cases now with the Change
Processes.
My findings indicate that the chief reason auditors fail to handle the
E-Meter expertly is to be found in the TR failures, mainly confront.
SOP Goals, to be effective, demands a precision of auditing skill
common only in HGCs. SOP Goals is pure dynamite to cases, but it becomes
pure backfire when used by a poorly trained auditor.
SOP Goals works too fast to admit of bad technical application. Before
SOP Goals becomes effective it must be applied with perfect technical
precision.
However, there is no cause here for alarm because concurrent with SOP
Goals, I have made another discovery which was released in last week's HCO
Bulletin, Change Processes, which wrap up (really and truly) all cases from
"answers intelligibly" to Release.
Thus we have a simple basic process which takes a preclear to Release,
a basic accurate test for Release (all brackets of change nul on the
needle), and another full process package from Release to Clear in SOP
Goals.
This gives us the most orderly division of training levels we have ever
had and rather smooths out what we do, where we go and why.
HCA /HPA LEVEL
Training to perfection in the use of TRs, Model Session and E-Meters
and CCHs.
One Basic Process taught: Change Processes.
Goal of Auditing: Release.
Level of training for HPA/HCA: To accomplish without exception the
state of Release in all pcs audited.
B. Scn/HCS
Training to perfection in the use of the E-Meter in SOP Goals.
One SOP taught: SOP Goals.
Goal of Auditing: Clear.
Level of training of B.Scn/HCS: To accomplish clearing in persons who
have already obtained a State of Release.
D. Scn/HGA
Training in theory and practice of Dianetics and Scientology and the
use of advanced meters.
Processes Taught: Theta Clearing.
Goal of Auditing: Theta Clear.
Level of training of D.Scn/HGA: To accomplish Theta Clearing in persons
who have already attained the State of Clear.
The levels of Release and Clear are established facts process-wise as
of now.
The level of Theta Clear and Advanced meters is still under research.
I have to hand adequate evidence now to see that auditors can and will
audit Change Processes easily and successfully with enormously swift
results on pcs.
When all Change Processes are flat on a pc, the State of Release is
easily tested and observed.
When SOP Goals is flat on a pc you have a Clear.
Apparently SOP Goals should not be run on a pc by an average auditor
until all Change Processes are flat, since many pcs don't do the actual
commands until change is flat.
Thus I am very happy to be able to tell you of lots of wins and orderly
progress ahead even if I have to warn you not to run SOP Goals until your
pc is a Release and you are a perfect technician.
__________
Any auditor should use all the Change Processes he wishes on a pc, and
until Change is fully flat, and until the auditor is perfectly trained in
TRs, Model Session and the E-Meter, no SOP Goals should be run.
__________
I hope you are happy with this news. I am.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
7 May 1961-13 December 1966
Saint Hill Manor was acquired by Ron in Spring 1959. It is a grand
building nestling on the side of the hill and is surrounded by some 57
acres of its own beautiful grounds, comprising park land, meadows, woods,
shrubberies, swimming pool and tennis courts. In addition there is a lake
covering an area of 21/2 acres. The whole is set in the delightful County
of Sussex, renowned for its lush green grass downs and the Ashdown Forest.
Ron wanted a quiet place where he could carry on with his researches,
and from which HCO WW could handle the world-wide concerns of Scientology.
He needed time for this research, but didn't want to deny Scientologists
his personal instruction and, as has always been his custom, he wanted to
make known his discoveries as soon as they had been unearthed. He had
already taught one ACC at Saint Hill-so it was possible to have students
there, and the idea of a continuous course was feasible.
Thus on March 24, 1961, the doors of the Manor were opened to the first
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course students, marking the beginning of Saint
Hill as a Service Organization.
For the next five and a half years Ron lectured regularly to the
students. In the following pages and volumes, points where these lectures
occurred are indicated.
** 6105C07 SHSBC-1 E-Meter Talk and Demo
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 MAY 1961
Franchise
E-METER HORROR
Dick Halpern reports from the 22nd American ACC that out of 48
students, many trained on earlier ACCs, 48 did not know what FALLS, RISES
or THETA BOPS were or meant on the E-Meter.
The moment one starts on SOP Goals it becomes painfully apparent when
he or she cannot do TRs, Model Session or read an E-Meter. SOP Goals works
when one knows it and these items.
I have just written a book, E-Meter Essentials, which details these
things. You better study it.
I am opening up Unit One of Academies for retread on TRs, METER and
Model Session.
Special Briefing courses will be taught.
A very special clearing course is being taught at Saint Hill.
Every effort is being made to enable you to release and clear pcs fast.
You have to make the effort too to avail yourself of this data.
IF you know TRs, MODEL SESSION, METER, CHANGE PROCESSES and SOP Goals
you can Release and Clear Anyone. We're proving it daily.
Auditors who can't run or read a meter (100% of the 22nd American,
remember, that had old-timers in the majority, did not know how to read a
meter) can't release or clear anyone.
Auditors who can't do TR 0 Revised 1961 aren't enough there to read a
meter. (An actual fact.)
Auditors who make technical flubs on SOP Goals wind up wasting 66 2/3
of the auditing time. (We just proved that, too.)
We've got the tools. They're easily available. Let's go.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 MAY 1961
Central Orgs
Franchise Holders
URGENT
ASSESSMENT BY ELIMINATION
S.O.P. GOALS
Enough errors are being made by auditors in assessing to prevent
clearing.
A correct assessment could require ten hours of time. It could not be
done in less than three hours. I myself take now about five hours.
A correct assessment means a chance to clear. An incorrect assessment
means an infinity of auditing without clearing.
All failures to clear are:
1. Incorrect assessment or
2. (At this time) An incomplete Pre-Hav Scale (which I am
completing in a workable form and which includes all common verbs
in the English language properly arranged in a primary and
secondary scale).
THE RIGHT WAY
The right way to do an assessment is:
1. Know and pass and be able to do TR 0 and TRs 1 to 4 perfectly;
2. Know an E-Meter perfectly;
3. Know Model Session perfectly;
4. Know how to set up a case for a Goals Assessment;
5. Know Assessment by Elimination.
Given these, you can assess. Failing these you confront not a pc but an
infinity of hours on one pc.
These can be gotten at Saint Hill in Special Briefing Courses and in
HPA Retread, one or another of them.
ASSESSMENT BY ELIMINATION
Do Assessment in Model Session Form.
1. Do a full list of goals on the pc.
He can write out his goals before coming to session or the auditor can
write them all, a rather lengthy business.
Number each goal, leaving a short space in the left-hand margin.
Add goals until the question "Have you had another goal?" no longer
produces a reaction on the needle of the meter. Add goals until you have a
nul needle on the questions of Secret goals, Childhood goals, Anti-Social
goals, Embarrassing goals, "Goals you haven't told me" and "What would have
to happen to make you know Scientology works?" Get, finally, a nul needle
for every category mentioned here.
Only now do you have a Goals List.
If you for any reason feel you do not have a complete Goals List, don't
go any further. Complete the list.
2. Select the Goal.
This is entirely a matter of E-Metering.
Assessment by Elimination is used.
There will remain, when you finish, just one goal that reacts on the
needle of the meter. Don't bother why only one remains active. But if you
have two remain or none, go back to Step 1 above and complete your Goals
List again and start Step 2 all over again. Be thorough.
You tell the pc he doesn't have to answer unless he wants to. You look
at your meter needle. You ignore the Tone Arm. You don't have to look at
the pc all the time but don't fail to glance at him now and then.
Read the Goals List you compiled to the pc. Take one level at a time.
By repeating the goal over and over (Repeater Technique, Book One) try to
make any reaction of the needle elicited by this repeating go nul. This
only applies if the needle changes characteristic because you are saying
the goal. If the reading of the goal does not produce a Rock Slam, a Fall
or a Theta Bop after several repetitions of the goal, put an X in front of
the goal on the Goals List, designating it as nul. That ends that goal. The
X eliminates it for now from the list.
If, after eight or a dozen repetitions, the goal still falls, rock
slams or theta bops constantly or sporadically, mark a slant / in front of
it. This means it is still on the list and is not nul. To the right of the
written goal you may note "Rock Slam" or "Theta Bop" if they occurred. No
need to mark fall or divisions of fall in Assessment by Elimination.
IGNORE ALL RISES OF THE NEEDLE. This is meaningless on a Goals
Assessment.
Cover the whole Goals List in this way.
Add any changed goals or new goals the pc may give you to the Goals
List.
Do end Rudiments.
Give the pc a short break.
Restart the session.
Do beginning Rudiments (and in the body of the session, clean up any
occurring ARC breaks as in Rudiments).
Read, as before, the goals now marked slant / on the Goals List. Try to
nul each one of these by repeating it eight or a dozen times.
When a goal goes nul, add the other bar to the slant, making an X. That
eliminates it as a goal.
General Rule: On any goal, if in doubt about the needle reaction, leave the
goal on the list. Don't strike a goal off with an X unless you're sure it's
nul.
When the remaining goals on the Goals List have been covered, return to
the top again and try to nul those that now remain, one by one, still using
Repeater Technique.
Go over the list again and again until you have left only one goal that
changes the characteristic of the needle.
3. Prove up the Goal.
Take several goals already nulled on the needle and read them,
occasionally, amongst this read, also reading out the one goal. Be sure it
continues to fall.
If it goes nul,
(a) Check for ARC breaks.
(b) Ask for any new goals and list them.
(c) Cover the whole Goals List again, making sure they are all nul.
See if the pc's whole list compares nicely, here and there, to the goal
you have found. Does this goal, in other words, exist also, faintly, in
other goals.
See if the pc is deeply interested in the goal found. If not, re-do
your assessment from the beginning.
4. Do a Terminals List.
Taking the pc's one goal, now found and proved, compile a Terminals
List for it. "What beingness would fulfill this goal?" "What terminal would
this be?"
Write at least thirty terminals down. Use a Hartrampff's Vocabularies
and help the pc if he wants you to. Put down every terminal he thinks of or
agrees to. Don't put down or push what he says wouldn't be it.
Run this sort of question to nul on the meter: "Would any other person,
beingness, terminal fit with this goal?" Only when the needle goes nul do
you end the Terminals List. Don't end it until you have exhausted every
possible terminal for this goal.
It is not enough that a terminal is included in the goal. If the goal
is "I want to be a jockey" it is highly improbable that "jockey" is the
exact terminal. You get two or three dozen beingnesses that add up to
jockey. A rider. A horseman. A steeplechaser. A racer. A man. A human
being. A horse pilot. Etc, etc. Take anything the pc says it might be.
Write them down. Now dig for more. And more. Look it up. Suggest things but
only put them down if pc buys.
Remember, a pc is most stupid on the point of goal and even more stupid
trying to think of its terminal. So help the pc. And get a very complete
list.
5. Assess for the Terminal by Elimination.
Using Repeater Technique, repeat the terminal enough times to make it
go nul or not on the needle (eight or twelve repetitions eliminates most of
them from the meter).
Put an X in front of the terminal if it goes nul. Put a slant / in
front of the terminal if it continues to react. Mark Rock Slam or Theta Bop
after the terminal if it won't go nul and gets these reactions.
You will have several terminals left. Ask the pc for any new ones and
write them down.
Cover the list items marked slant / again. Try to nul each one as before,
including any new ones.
Those that cease to react, eliminate with an X as before. Finish the
list reading.
Add any new terminals the pc may now have.
Eliminate more terminals with a new reading and Repeater Technique as
before.
Add any new terminals.
Continue this action as above until the pc is left with just one
terminal that reacts on the meter.
If in doubt, do the whole Terminals Assessment List again, putting in
new Xs, /s and Xs, according to whether they vanish off the needle or stay
active as you go by, repeating each one several times.
End up with only one terminal active on the needle, all others nul.
This is the terminal.
6. Prove the Terminal.
Clean up rudiments.
Say the pc's one goal as found from the Goals List to the pc several
times and note its reaction on the needle.
Say a nul goal to the pc to quiet the needle until it does quiet down.
Say the pc's one terminal for that goal several times. Note its
reaction.
The terminal must react as much as the goal.
The terminal needle action must be the same as the goal's needle
action.
Example: Goal got 5 divisions of fall on the needle dial. Then the
terminal must get at least 5 divisions of fall on the needle dial.
If this is true, you are right.
If this is not true go back to I and do a whole Goals Assessment again.
It will save time in auditing if you do.
Example: If the goal rock slams, the terminal must rock slam just as
much as the goal to be right.
Note: Theta bops turn into falls. A theta bopping goal, in assessment,
usually becomes a falling goal. In short the goal wouldn't be expected to
continue to theta bop. But if it does now, the terminal must also theta
bop. But both could turn into falls instead.
7. Assess for Pre-Hav Level.
Take the terminal. Start from the bottom of the original Pre-Hav Scale.
Take the first heavy fall you find as you go up and run it.
For the new Pre-Hav Scale when issued:
Take the terminal and go up the levels of the Primary Scale until you
find the best fall on one climb. Move over into the Secondary Scale and go
from bottom to top once. Take the best fall or reaction found.
Mark down the Pre-Hav Level for the terminal.
WARNING: Do not use Repeater Technique on the Pre-Hav Scale. Say the
level only once. Go up only once.
If you go up once and, wherever the needle starts to rise, go down the
scale again once (no repeater either way) all but one level usually
eliminates. You may not find it safe to do this. Biggest needle reaction is
good enough.
You can run a wrong Pre-Hav Level without damage and still clear. You
can't run a wrong goal and a wrong terminal and still clear a pc.
A perfect Pre-Hav assessment finds the level that reacts as much as
goal and terminal. But Repeater Technique on many levels can upset a case!
8. Choose a Command.
Assess for these: Think, Get the Idea, How, What, Have done, Could do.
Take those that fall most and make up a 5 or 10 way bracket command.
9. Audit the pc's terminal and level.
WARNING: Audit on the Tone Arm not the needle.
WARNING: Run as a complete process as long as the Tone Arm shows
motion. Don't run a still Tone Arm less than or more than twenty minutes.
If it's still, change, reassess the same terminal on the Pre-Hav Scale, get
new commands for the new level and continue the auditing.
10. Nul all Pre-Hav Levels that react on assessment on the first
terminal.
11. Find new terminals if any for same goal and run as above.
12. Find new goals when old goal and all terminals that react for
it are nul on the Pre-Hav Scale (old or new Pre-Hav). Proceed to
assess as before just as though case was being started all over
again.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jljh
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
12 May 1961
** 6105C12 SHSBC-2 Assessment
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 MAY 1961
Central Orgs
HGCs
ASSESSING FOR S.O.P. GOALS
IMPROVED
It is vital to get an absolutely correct assessment of the preclear,
first on goal and then on terminal, in order to make S.O.P. Goals work.
There is no such thing as a nearly correct assessment. The assessment must
be perfect.
Preparation for Assessment
Preparation for S.O.P. Goals as standard practice now is to do a Joburg
Security Check and clear all levels completely. Run the pc on the Pre-
Havingness Scale in general without terminal if the tone arm seems stuck.
This is done by assessing on the Pre-Hav Scale for a level and then run a
five-way bracket, probably "think" or "get the idea" whichever falls most.
Do the Joburg but omit the Pre-Hav run if the pc drops a third of a dial on
a can squeeze without increasing the sensitivity knob of the meter. If the
sensitivity must be increased to two or above after the Joburg is done in
order to get a third of a dial drop, then a general concept type run as
assessed from the Pre-Hav Scale will be indicated in order to get an
accurate assessment.
Complete Goals List
Assess for goals first by making sure the meter is nul every time you
ask for a new goal. If it isn't nul on this question, ask for withheld
goals, different goals, etc, etc. Then there are more goals.
Eliminate Nulled Goals
Then assess by Elimination. Put a cross in front of those that cease to
produce a needle action when they were repeated a few times to the pc. If
after three repeats they are still reading, put a slant in front of the
goal to show that it is still in the list. Go over the goals list the first
time. If in doubt about a reaction then, leave the goal in. After the first
read of the whole list and every completion of the whole list ask for new
goals against the meter and write them all down as the pc gives them. Then
go over the list again crossing out those that have ceased to read on the
needle when repeated to pc.
Always Recheck Goals List
You will wind up with one goal. Check this by asking for additional
goals of various types. Check every possible way. I don't care how much
time you spend. An inaccurate assessment puts auditing hours to infinity.
Importance of Accurate Assessment
An accurate assessment means a finite number of hours to clear. Beware
of artistic goals as these read strongly at first and then tend to drop
out.
Two Types of Terminals to Assess
Do the terminals list just like you did a goals list. Except there are
two lists of terminals, one is the causative list of the selected goal and
the other is the effect end of the goal.
Example:
Goal: I want to shoot sparrows.
Causative list consists of "Who would want to shoot sparrows?"
Effect list: "What would you call sparrows?"
In short there is one terminals list for "I" in the goal and one for
",Sparrows". When adding to this list add on both ends.
Eliminate Nul Terminals
When a list of terminals for the goal is complete and requests for more
goals do not fall on the meter then begin a repeat type read of the
terminals to the pc just like you did goals. If it is still registering
after three reads, leave it in. If it looks like it is fading read it many
times and if it goes nul cross it out with an X . If in doubt leave it in.
Each time you complete the whole terminals list ask for more terminals for
the causative and also for the effect end of the goal and add to terminals
list. Then reassess the list again.
Always Recheck Terminals List
You will wind up with one terminal if you go over the list often
enough. All others as in goals will become nul on the needle on repeat.
When you are sure you have the terminal check by asking for more terminals
and go over any suspicions you may have. Sometimes the goal falls out just
when you are sure you have the goal. Sometimes the terminal falls out when
you are sure you have the terminal.
Perfect Assessment
If finally you have the consistent falling terminal and nothing shakes
it out, you have your perfect assessment.
Needle Manifestations
Forget rises. They mean nothing because they can't be differentiated as
to what made them rise. So forget them and ignore them.
Change of characteristic of any kind (except rise) is a needle reaction
for the purpose of assessment. In short, if the needle does something
different than it just did (except rise), that is a read. If the needle no
longer reads (except rises) then the goal or terminal is nul.
Rock slam: When the read of the goal is a rock slam or the read of the
terminal is a rock slam this will probably become the read of the final
goal and at last the final terminal. However do not assess only for rock
slams. Rock slams are just the strongest indicator. Also note after a goal
or a terminal if it theta bopped or rock slammed. Don't bother to note
extent of fall now.
Use Model Session, Clean Rudiments
Always be very sure to run an assessment in model session. Be sure to
keep ARC breaks and PTPs nul on the needle by cleaning them up when you
note them.
Long Duration PTPs
If the pc has a long duration present time problem, ask him for the
terminal or terminals involved in this problem. Roughly take the one that
falls most and run it on the Pre-Hav Scale Assessment like you would in
S.O.P. Goals. But this isn't a goals run. It is just the fastest way of
getting a recurrent PTP out of the road. This means PTPs of long duration
as different than PTPs of short duration, which are run only as in the
Model Session Form process consisting of responsibility.
You Can Redo Assessments Any Time
Doing an assessment is very easy but must be very thorough. An improper
assessment condemns the pc to an infinity of auditing. He will never go
clear. It is no crime to do this and no pc should complain. You can do a
new assessment any time it becomes apparent (say the pc is still unclear
and showing no signs of it in fifty hours) that the old assessment was
incorrect.
If an inaccurate assessment has been done, and the pc run no matter how
long on it, then a new assessment can always be done.
Beware Sticking a Tone Arm
Do not run a stuck tone arm more than twenty minutes before reassessing
on the Pre-Hav Scale. This is the only severe way you can goof a pc because
he can't easily be reassessed on the Pre-Hav Scale.
Rock Slams Different
If the goal and terminal rock slammed when found you can probably
expect that you will have to run Pre-Hav levels more briefly, as a rock
slam means all five brackets are stuck and the Pre-Hav Scale jammed into it
as well. Probably you should assess for rock slam on the Pre-Hav Scale and
reassess each time the rock slam runs out on a level.
This rule apparently sends the rule of auditing only on tone arm action
by the boards, but, if you kept the rock slam steady needled at set, the
tone arm would be wildly waving back and forth. So it's the same rule in
effect.
Comment
This is the latest gen on assessments. I have written it all down for
you to make sure that you would have another look at it all.
I think staff auditors are doing very well and I am proud of their
work.
Staff auditing quality is so far ahead of field auditing quality that I
shudder. The reports I get in here on field auditing on Pre-Hav and S.O.P.
Goals are so grim that it tempts one to put them all back in the Academy
fast before they goof up any more pcs.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MAY 1961
CenOCon
URGENT
ASSESSMENT DATA
On SOP Goals assessments the following mistakes are being made:
1. Auditors are assessing with a high sensitivity knob setting.
2. Auditors are taking up to an hour and a half to assess on the
Pre-Hav Scale.
3. Auditors are trying to run the whole case on Rudiments only.
These rules which follow become very important. They prevent endless
assessing for goals and terminals on SOP Goals and save session time.
RULE ONE
Assess with the sensitivity knob set for one third of a dial drop on
the can squeeze, no more. Rule: High sensitivity knob settings for more
than a third of a dial drop are for any Joburg Security Check or getting
off withholds only. Only increase sensitivity beyond a third of a dial on
withholds. Assess with only a third of a dial drop sensitivity setting.
If the sensitivity knob setting won't decrease enough to get only a
third of a dial drop get your meter rebuilt.
If you have a larger setting than above, the SOP Goals assessment by
elimination will take ten times as long.
RULE TWO
Assessment on Pre-Hav Scale is not by elimination. One assesses with
one read up and one read down and takes the largest (not the lowest) read
on the needle. The needle read for the proper Pre-Hav level will repeat on
the trip up and the trip down. Only say the level once. Don't keep saying
one level over and over. That's auditing.
You can get all the Pre-Hav data you want with one coverage upward from
scale bottom and one coverage downward to scale bottom.
This rule applies to assessing for a general command and assessing for
a terminal.
Goals and terminal searches require a repeat over and over of the goal
or terminal on the list in order to get them to go nul (as nul as they go
with the sensitivity set for a third of a dial drop as above). The Pre-Hav
assessment for level does not require a repeat of a level over and over in
assessing. In fact you had better not.
This one time Pre-Hav Rule will also apply to the new Pre-Hav Scale now
being compiled. In that one you will read levels once upwards, once
downwards on the Primary Scale. Taking the largest reaction of the needle
as your level, go over to the Secondary Scale and do the same thing-once
up, once down, and then take the resultant greatest needle reaction.
For purposes of assessment a RISING NEEDLE has NO meaning. Don't even
remark that it is rising. You don't know what the pc couldn't confront that
starts the rise so you ignore a rising needle ALWAYS in any modern
assessment. Anything that
Stops a Rise is meaningful. The Rise has no meaning. Don't even list Rise
on an auditor's report.
Further, RISE means nothing as a reaction in Rudiments.
RULE THREE
Don't ever run a rudiment only because a needle was rising. Only run a
rudiment if the needle rock slams, theta bops, or falls. Only run a
rudiment as long as a reaction (rock slam, theta bop, fall) remains on that
rudiment. A Rise indicates no meaningful data.
The rule about Rudiments is this:
Don't run a case by rudiments. The reason you use and clean rudiments
is to get the pc in session so you can have the pc 1 ) in communication
with the auditor and 2) interested in own case. Therefore you run rudiments
with the sensitivity set that will give the needle a third of a dial drop
with a can squeeze. You can increase sensitivity when asking for withholds
in rudiments but if you do, decrease it when finished with withholds back
to a third of a dial drop.
The purpose of rudiments is to set up a case to run, not to run a case.
SUMMARY
I developed the above rules to correct various mistakes being made that
were taking an assessment as high as thirty-five hours (the auditor was
erasing goals by repeater technique with the sensitivity set to a full dial
drop), and to help auditors get on with auditing, not trying to solve the
whole case with rudiments.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: ph.bh
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
19 May 1961
** 6105C19 SHSBC-3 E-Meter
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 MAY 1961
CenOCon
Franchise
THE ONLY VALID SECURITY CHECK
(Amends all existing data on Security Checks)
HCO Sec Form 3.
Name of Person Date_________________
Name of Security Checker Location _____________
Since a Security Check failure can compromise or injure a person's
position or economics, and because we are not moralists, it is better to be
more positive on the subject of a Security Check failure, leaving no part
of it up to judgment.
The question of what constitutes a Security- Check failure has now
troubled enough people to make it necessary to lay down the following
policies.
A Security Check to be used for any organizational reason must be made
on an HCO WW form.
There are only three ways a Security Checker may flunk any person.
1. The Security Check may be considered flunked if there is no
needle response of any kind to any question with meter sensitivity even at
extreme high. Rise as a reaction is ignored throughout a Security Check. A
rise is not a useful reaction.
2. The Security Check may be considered flunked if any
compromising or important question still persists in getting a consistent
reaction (not a rise) even after the Security Checker has done his best to
get the person being checked to clear it by answering truthfully.
3. Refusal to be checked.
Lie Reaction failure may no longer be considered a flunk. Important
questions always have enough charge on them to cause a reaction even on bad
criminals and the reaction will continue consistently or sporadically if
the person is still withholding information.
The question of something reacting because of past life crimes is ruled
out if, when a question fails to clear, the Security Checker adds "In this
lifetime?" to or in the question and works on that question continuing to
use that added phrase. Reactions by reason of past lives tend to drop out
and clear if this is done.
The task of the Security Checker is to carefully question and clear if
possible changes of meter needle behaviour caused by the question. Plainly
note any level that failed to clear. This fails the person.
The Lie Reaction questions were originally used in Scientology only to
study the needle pattern of the person being checked so that changes in it
could then be judged in their true light. Some pcs, for instance, get a
slight reaction every time any question is asked. Some get a reaction only
when there is heavy charge. Both can be Security Checked by studying the
common pattern of the needle demonstrated in asking the Lie Reaction
questions. The purpose of the Lie Reaction questions is returned to the
original intention.
A totally stuck needle can be freed by processing, or by getting off
withholds. If a person is flunked by reason of I above, they require
auditing before another check is taken, the auditing to be taken at the
responsibility of the person being checked.
All Security Check sheets of persons Security Checked should be
forwarded to Saint Hill, complete with all markings and the reason why the
question would not at first clear, if important, or the drop marked which
would not clear and whether or not the person was passed or failed.
Nothing in this Policy Letter changes the responsibility of the
Director of Training in preventing Scientology from being taught to persons
who would use it in violation of the Code of a Scientologist.
In reprinting this check sheet leave all directions as part of every
sheet.
Directions: Attempt to clear any reaction observed. A Rise is not
classed as a reaction. Mark any reaction observed or any meter reaction
change elicited by the question. Then write what it cleared on. Mark
largely if the reaction could not be cleared since this constitutes a
failure to pass. Only fail somebody if there is no needle motion of any
kind even with sensitivity at 16 on any question. (Rise is not a reaction.)
If they are failing because it is hard to clear a question, work very
thoroughly on it in an effort to clear it. In all cases complete the test.
Run check with a high sensitivity setting (more than 1/3 of a dial drop).
If an important question fails to clear even after Security Checker has
worked very hard to get it off, the test is flunked.
The following statement should be read or quoted to the person being
Security Checked:
"We are about to begin a Security Check. We are not moralists. We are
able to change people. We are not here to condemn them. While we cannot
guarantee you that matters revealed in this check will be held forever
secret, we can promise you faithfully that no part of it nor any answer you
make here will be given to the police or state. No Scientologist will ever
bear witness against you in Court by reason of answers to this Security
Check. This Security Check is exclusively for Scientology purposes. The
only ways you can fail this Security Check are to refuse to take the test,
to fail to answer its questions truthfully or if you are here knowingly to
injure Scientology. The only penalty attached to failure of this check is
processing or our refusal to employ you or issue you a certificate, and
this will only happen if we find that you are trying knowingly to injure
Scientology. You can pass this test by (1) agreeing to take it, (2)
answering each question truthfully and (3) not being a member of a
subversive group seeking to injure Scientology.
"The first questions are nul questions to determine your reaction
pattern.
"We will now begin-"
Establish needle pattern:
________________TA Sensitivity for 1/3 dial drop
________________Sensitivity setting for check.
Are you sitting in a chair?
Are you on the moon?
Are all cats black?
Am I an ostrich?
Is this Earth?
Have you ever drunk water?
Are you holding up a tree?
Am I an elephant?
Are you a table?
Is this a Security Check?
Needle Pattern
Have you ever lived or worked under an assumed name?
Have you given me your right name?
Are you here for a different purpose than you say?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you ever done any shoplifting?
Have you ever forged a signature, cheque or document?
Have you ever blackmailed anybody?
Have you ever been blackmailed?
Have you ever cheated?
Have you ever smuggled anything?
Have you ever entered a country illegally?
Have you ever been in prison?
Have you ever tried to act normal?
Have you ever indulged in drunkenness?
Have you ever done any reckless driving?
Have you ever hit and run with a car?
Have you ever burglared any place?
Are you guilty of anything?
Have you ever embezzled money?
Do you have a secret you are afraid I'll find out?
Have you ever assaulted anyone?
Have you ever practised Cannibalism?
Have you ever been in gaol?
Have you ever told lies in Court?
Have you ever been Court-martialed?
Have you ever deserted from a military service?
Have you ever illegally prevented conscription?
Have you ever been a mutineer?
Have you ever had anything to do with Pornography?
Have you ever committed Arson?
Have you ever been a drug addict?
Have you ever made anyone into a drug addict?
Have you ever peddled Dope?
Have you ever PDH'd anyone?
Have you had any dealings with stolen goods?
Have you ever divulged government secrets for pay or political reasons?
Do you have a Police Record?
Have you ever raped anyone or been raped?
Have you ever been involved in an abortion?
Have you ever assisted in any abortion?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever committed bigamy?
Have you ever practised Homosexuality?
Have you ever practised or assisted intercourse between women?
Have you ever had intercourse with a member of your family?
Have you ever been sexually unfaithful?
Have you ever practised sex with animals?
Have you ever publicly exhibited yourself sexually?
Have you ever hidden to watch sexual practices?
Have you ever practised Sodomy?
Have you ever consistently made a practice of sex with a member of your own
sex?
Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another colour?
Have you ever committed culpable homicide?
Have you ever committed a justifiable crime?
Have you ever bombed anything?
Have you ever murdered anyone?
Have you ever hidden a body?
Have you ever attempted suicide?
Have you ever caused a suicide?
Have you ever kidnapped anyone?
Have you ever done any illicit Diamond buying?
Have you ever acted as an informer?
Have you ever betrayed anyone for money?
Have you ever betrayed a trust?
Have you ever betrayed an employer's trust?
Have you ever speculated with somebody else's funds?
Have you ever knowingly implicated an innocent person?
Have you ever withheld a communication concerning a crime or misdemeanour
committed by another?
Have you ever threatened anyone with a fire-arm?
Have you ever been in illegal possession of fire-arms?
Are my questions embarrassing?
Have you ever been paid for giving evidence?
Have you ever acted as an informer?
Have you ever injured somebody's reputation by knowingly spreading lies?
Have you ever injured somebody by spreading tales you knew were true?
Have you ever destroyed something belonging to someone else?
Have you ever plotted to destroy a member of your family?
Have you ever had a member of your family in an insane asylum?
Have you ever been pronounced insane?
Have you ever been a spy for an organization?
Have you ever looted any place?
Have you ever stolen from the armed forces?
Have you ever conspired with anyone?
Have you ever had anything to do with Communism or been a Communist?
Have you practised fraud?
Have you ever been a newspaper reporter?
Are you hiding anything?
Have you ever had intercourse after placing another under alcohol or drugs?
Have you ever used hypnotism to procure sex or money?
Do you collect sexual objects? Have you ever ill-treated children?
Have you ever practised sex with children?
Have you ever practised masturbation?
Have you ever taken money for giving anyone sexual intercourse?
Have you ever sexually coerced a servant?
Do you have any bastards?
Are you withholding anything?
Have you ever had any connection with a brothel?
Have you ever coerced anyone into giving you sex?
Have you had anything to do with a baby farm?
Have you ever killed or crippled animals for pleasure?
Have you ever crippled a person?
Have you ever been a spy for the Police?
Have you ever pretended a disability?
Are you afraid of the Police?
Have you ever committed a misdemeanour?
Have you ever committed a felony?
Have you ever committed a capital offense?
Have you ever done anything you are afraid the police may find out?
Have you ever falsified the books in any firm you worked for?
Have you ever criminally avoided taxes?
Have you ever counterfeited money?
Have you ever fraudulently altered or issued certificates or documents?
Have you ever obtained money under false pretences?
Have you ever done anything your mother would be ashamed to find out?
How could you help yourself generally?
What represents yourself?
How could you help your family?
What represents your family?
How do you feel about sex?
What represents ( the Org
( others
( a group to you?
How could you help ( the Org?
( others?
( a group?
How could you help mankind?
Have you ever controlled people?
How do you feel about being controlled?
What is Communism?
Do you feel Communism has some good points?
Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any associated group?
Have you ever been a member of any group with similar ideals as the
Communist Party?
Do you know any Communists personally?
Have you ever injured Dianetics or Scientology?
Have you committed any overts on a Scientology Organization?
Have you wronged anyone in a Scientology Organization?
Have you ever stolen anything from a Scientology Organization?
Do you have anything in your possession that you shouldn't have?
Do you have any overts on L. Ron Hubbard?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?
Do you have any overts on Mary Sue Hubbard?
Have you done bad things to leaders in Scientology or Scientology Orgs?
Have you withheld anything from executives in Scientology?
Have you sought to get any staff member dismissed?
Have you knowingly planned not to do your job?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Mary Sue Hubbard?
Have you ever injured any Scientologists?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Scientologists?
Have you ever betrayed Scientology?
Do you know of any secret plans against Scientology?
Do you plan to steal a Scientology Organization?
Have you ever taken money to injure Scientology?
Do you deserve to be helped by Scientology?
Have you ever used Dianetics or Scientology to force sex upon someone?
Have you ever falsified a claim for money to be repaid to you or to be paid
you?
Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientology Organization?
Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientologist?
Are you upset about this Security Check?
What question in this check shouldn't I ask you again?
Have you withheld from answering anything because it might injure someone?
What unkind thoughts have you thought while I have been doing this check?
Have any of your answers here been designed to injure another?
Are you upset about this Security Check?
Passed Failed______________________
Why?________________________________________________________________
___________________________
Signed by Examiner
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1961
Central Orgs
Urgent for Use on All Cases
PREHAV SCALE REVISED
(This is the rough version. The Primary Scale is Accurate and
Complete. The Secondary Scale is not necessarily complete or
edited.)
This is the first major revision of the Pre-Havingness Scale I
originated in January of 1961. This Scale now contains a Primary Scale and
a Secondary Scale. The Secondary Scale contains nearly all simple verbs in
the English Language, properly placed for Level and repeated on other
Levels.
USE
The Scale is used for General Running of Levels (without specified
terminal) in brackets of 5 or 10, using "Someone" or "Something" as the
terminal, sometimes using plus and minus (Change, No Change).
The Scale is also used for terminals found for S.O.P. Goals by Goals
and Terminal Assessment.
The two uses of the Scale are done exactly the same way with the single
exception that for a general run one says, "Do you have_____(Pre-Hav
Level)" or "Are you_____(Pre-Hav Level)" or "Do you_____(Pre-Hav Level)",
and in the use for goals terminals one says, "Would the (or 'a')_____(goals
terminal) (Pre-Hav Level)?"
General Run Assessment Example: Start at Bottom of Primary Scale 65
(Faith). Go up Pre-Hav Primary Scale asking about each level once only and
carefully noting E-Meter Needle Reaction (ignore Rises of the needle) that
responds or doesn't respond to the question. Convert the level to a
sensible question without varying the actual level. The questions: "Do you
have Faith?" "Are you Cause?" "Do things have No Effect upon you?" "Are you
the Effect of things?" "Do you think people run a Can't Have on you?" "Do
you Create?" "Do you Think?" etc, etc. When you have reached the top of the
Scale, go back down again (from Level 1 to 65), still noting reaction. The
one that reacted most when you went up and when you went down the Primary
Scale is the Level. (Do not take the lowest level, take the level that
reacted most, as the worse off people are, the higher terminals tend to be
found on the Scale as a loose rule. Terminals come down scale as the pc
goes up on successive assessments after runs.)
You now take the Primary Level found by E-Meter needle reaction and GO
TO THE SECONDARY SCALE FOR THAT LEVEL. Assess this Secondary Scale for the
level exactly as you did the Primary Scale. Go from the highest number
(lowest point) up to the top (lowest number), asking once about each level
and noting needle reaction (not rise). Take the Level that reacted most on
the needle. Form it into a five way bracket (or 10 way) consulting the
needle for the best expression of each "leg" of the bracket. Then run it.
The motion of the TA should increase, then decrease, then tend to halt. If
it remains unchanged (1/8 to 1/4 of a Tone Arm Division of motion only in
20 minutes) Reassess.
When reassessing on the Pre-Hav for a new level, assess exactly and as
carefully as you did the first time-first assess on the Primary. Then
assess on the Secondary Scale for that level.
Example for assessing a goals terminal (or a PT Problem or ARC break
terminal). The assessment is done the same way as in a general run
assessment except all questions have to do with the terminal. Example: If
the goals terminal were "woman". Start at the bottom (highest number) of
the Primary Pre-Hav Scale and assess one level at a time. "Would a woman
have Faith?" "Would a woman Cause things?" "Would there be No Effect on a
woman?" etc, etc, noting the needle reaction (not rise). Then come down
(lowest to highest number) the Pre-Hav Primary Scale one level at a time,
again noting the needle reaction (always ignore rises). The right level
will react going up and going down in much the same way. Take this level
and go to the Pre-Hav Secondary Scale. Assess it from bottom (highest
number) to top (lowest number) and then back down again. Choose the level
that reacted both going up and down.
Any levels found may be checked cautiously (repeating only once) by
comparing it to other levels in terms of needle reaction. You want the
level with most reaction always.
If you take more than fifteen minutes to do a level assessment, you are
doing something odd or unnecessary such as saying the levels several times
or expecting the pc to answer you aloud (the pc should remain silent during
an assessment) or you are unfamiliar with the Scale.
In asking assessment questions on the Scale always speak with the same
degree of loudness and inflection, and always make the level the hardest
and most stressed word in the question. If you vary loudness from question
to question or change emotional tone, the needle may react to your change,
not the Pre-Hav Level, giving you an inaccurate reading based on your goofs
or changes, not on different Scale levels.
You can do an Assessment twice. You should come out with the same
Primary and Secondary Levels. If you don't, run, don't walk, to the nearest
Academy.
The Secondary Level is the one used in Commands. You will note that the
Primary Level words are repeated in the Secondary Scale. Thus if the level
comes out to be that Primary word, you'll still have it as a Secondary word
and can use it in the command.
Audit only one level at a time. Use only the word that caused the
needle to react to make up your command. Do not combine two levels.
If you get Tone Arm motion running a level either generally or as a
goals terminal, PTP or ARC break level, flatten it before choosing and
running a new level. One knows when level is flat. The Tone Arm doesn't
move any more. You can cause a pc to feel "spinny" by starting a new level
before the old one is flat.
Do not overrun a level. The test of "flat" is the TA moving only 1/4 to
1/8 of a division up or down in 20 minutes of auditing (not cumulative
movement such as "The TA moves 1/16th twice so that's 1/8th of a division"-
this is wrong. If it moves from 2.25 to 2.50 to 2.25 two or three times in
twenty minutes, this is called "flat" and has moved only 1/4 of a TA
division. This is right.)
The Secondary Level, if not the word in the Primary Level, may react on
the needle far more than the Primary Level.
The Primary Level may not react at all in rare cases. If this happens,
assess the whole Secondary Scale, all groups, independent of the Primary
Scale, starting with the Secondary group for Faith and going right on
through the groups. This is only likely to happen with rough beginning
cases or with persons nearly clear who are being shaped up and stabilized.
When a pc assesses as a Rock Slam, it may be necessary after a level
turns on the Rock Slam to say a nul word to the pc like "Floor, Floor,
Floor...." until the Rock Slam turns off. Rock Slam carries over many
levels unless it is shaken out of the needle in this way. Mark the Level
that turned it on "Rock Slam". This is
the strongest react there is. If several levels turn on a Rock Slam, choose
by reading the Rock Slam levels once each again (using a nulling word
several times between each one) and choose the widest Rock Slam or the one
that didn't fall out (which will probably be the widest).
In auditing a Rock Slam, the rule "Assess by the Needle, Audit by the
Tone Arm" seems to have an exception. However, if the needle that is Rock
Slamming could be held at SET on the needle dial by moving the TA you would
see that a Rock Slam is a Tone Arm reaction. Thus one can't call a process
flat while a Rock Slamming needle still exists on a level. The Rock Slam
has to be run out before the level is flat.
_____________
The Complete and Edited Version of the Secondary Scale and the Primary
Scale will appear first in the Clearing Series Book S.O.P. Goals to be
published in about two months. This rough version will however serve your
purposes for the moment.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:iet.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
(Note: This bulletin is being sent to you with the completed Primary Scale
attached. The Secondary Scale will be sent to you in parts as it is run off
the mimeograph machine. More copies may be mimeographed locally if
required.)
PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE
PRIMARY SCALE
66. TR 10 33. FAILED LEAVE
65. FAITH 32. LEAVE
64. CAUSE 31. WAIT
63. NO EFFECT 30. SURVIVE
62. EFFECT 29. FAILED TO ARRIVE
61. OBSESSIVE CAN'T HAVE 28. ARRIVE
60. CREATE 27. FAILED IMPORTANCE
59. THINK 26. IMPORTANCE
58. INVERTED INTEREST 25. PROPITIATE
(PECULIAR INTEREST)
24. ATTENTION
57. DISPERSE
23. SEPARATE
56. INVERTED COMMUNICATION
(INTEND TO NOT COMMUNICATE) 22. FAILED WITHHOLD
55. INVERTED CONTROL 21. WITHHOLD
54. INVERTED HELP 20. MIS-EMOTIONAL
(BETRAY)
19. DESTROY
53. COLLECT
l 8. MOTION
52. SUBSTITUTE
17. FAILED OVERT
51. WITHDRAW (FAILED ATTACK)
50. DUPLICATE 16. OVERTS
(ATTACK)
49. ENTER
15. DISLIKE
48. INHIBIT
14. LIKE
47. DISAGREE
13. COMPETE
46. ENFORCE
12. FAILED HELP
45. AGREE
11. HELP
44. DESIRE
10. FAILED CONTROL
43. WANT TO KNOW
9. CONTROL
42. FAILED TO ENDURE
8. EMOTIONAL
41. ENDURE
7. FAILED COMMUNICATION
40. NO MOTION
6. COMMUNICATION
39. FAILED TO ABANDON
5. FAILED INTEREST
38. ABANDON
4. INTEREST
37. FAILED WASTE
3. CONNECT
36. WASTE
2. FAILED HAVINGNESS
35. FAILED TO PROTECT
1. HAVINGNESS
34. PROTECT
SECONDARY SCALE
1 - H A V I N G N E S S
This is the Secondary Scale of Havingness. It is not usually used for
assessment as subjective havingness does not run with benefit. If a case
is, however, "live" on a havingness level, run them on it, using their
objective havingness process at frequent brief intervals ( 10 to 12
commands of objective havingness).
OBTAIN EARN TAKE REGAIN RECLAIM PURCHASE PROCURE INHERIT AFFORD ACCEPT
PROFIT DEPOSIT AMASS GET POSSESS ACQUIRE HAVE RETAIN GAIN SHARE SALVAGE
SUSTAIN TENDER SUPPLY REPLETE STOW FILL SUFFICE FINANCE REIMBURSE ENDOW
REDEEM BESTOW CONTRIBUTE REFIT OFFER PROVIDE EQUIP CULTIVATE PAY REPAY
REMUNERATE TRAFFIC TRADE REMIT IMPORT RAFFLE WEAR DISTRIBUTE RAID PRE-EMPT
SPOIL COMMANDEER FORAGE DRAW REQUISITION SEIZE DESPOIL SACK SNATCH EXPLOIT
WREST BOARD IMPRESS CAPTURE EXTORT IMPOUND GRASP PLUNDER REPLACE RECEIVE
REPLENISH RESTORE PERMEATE PERVADE LOOT CONSERVE KEEP CLAIM CHERISH
TREASURE CATCH ENTRAP HAVINGNESS CACHE SECURE
2 - F A I L E D H A V I N G N E S S
COVET PIECE EXACT CONSERVE PAWN PETITION WANT DISCARD PREPAY LOSE AMPUTATE
DISBURDEN RAID CASTRATE CROP DESPOIL GUT EVISCERATE DISEMBOWEL TAX SACK
SCALP STARVE WREST SINK DEPRIVE OSTRACIZE BANISH EXILE MAROON IMPOVERISH
IMPOUND DEMOTE SPILL SWINDLE ADULTERATE BEHEAD SQUEEZE SPOIL SURRENDER DROP
PLUNDER ISOLATE DIE ABOLISH OBLITERATE ERADICATE EXPUNGE LIQUIDATE
ERADICATE EXTIRPATE DISINTEGRATE LAPSE FINISH FAIL EXPIRE WITHER EFFACE
ANNUL ELIMINATE ELAPSE ESTRANGE TERMINATE EXPEND DISPOSE ENGULF OCCLUDE
DELETE ERASE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DESTROY ANNIHILATE RUIN ERODE CONSUME
DISPERSE STRAY STREW LOOT SEPARATE ZONE DIVIDE DIFFER OUTLAW EXCOMMUNICATE
DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD DISROBE EXCLUDE STRADDLE SUNDER SCRAPE BICKER QUARREL
REMONSTRATE CONTRADICT DISSENT PROTEST CONCEDE DECLINE RECEDE SLOP REFRAIN
EXCEED TRY FORGO WEAN REFUSE DWINDLE DISABLE DISSUADE DEPRIVE ENTRAP ESCHEW
CAGE ENFEEBLE MISS DENY CURTAIL DEMUR FUMBLE DEDUCT DEBIT BEMOAN BEWAIL
LOSE MISPLACE MISLAY DISALLOW DESPAIR ENVY SURFEIT DWINDLE MOURN REGRET EKE
FAILED HAVINGNESS
3 - C O N N E C T
CONNECT MISIDENTIFY LINK IDENTIFY ASSOCIATE CIRCUMSTANTIATE WEAR APPLY
CONCILIATE SUPPORT RECONCILE ENTWINE YOKE CLING SPEAR TIE BIND BOARD NAIL
DISPERSE DRAW CONSORT LINK JOIN ATTACH PERMEATE ACCOMPANY PERVADE CONJUGATE
MEET ENCOUNTER ADJOIN PERTAIN REJOIN APPEND INTERSECT COMBINE EMBRACE
SPLICE KNIT REUNITE FRATERNIZE TOUCH MARRY WED BETROTH CONFUSE CRUCIFY
GRAFT HANDCUFF FETTER MANACLE CONFUSE ESCORT CHAIN TRUSS ENTANGLE SEIZE
TRICE GRAB PASTE INVOLVE FIND UNITE HAMMER HANG HIT INDENT INCRIMINATE
IMPLICATE WIPE LASH LICK INTERCEPT SHACKLE TIE SHEATHE FASTEN SUSPEND BIND
CLUTCH TACK WEAVE WELD LIKE ASSOCIATE
4 - I N T E R E S T
TOUT PROFFER PROMULGATE CANVASS CIRCULARIZE QUIZ PEDDLE QUERY INCLINE
SAMPLE URGE ILLUMINE BID INFORM INITIATE EVOKE ILLUMINATE ILLUSTRATE
ANTICIPATE POPULARIZE IGNITE INFUSE AROUSE ROUSE TEASE TEMPT FLIRT WOO
ELECTRIFY EXCITE ENKINDLE ALLURE SCINTILLATE TRANCE IMPRESS CAPTIVATE
FASCINATE ATTRACT TANTALIZE PERFORM ENGROSS STUNT PARTICIPATE WAGER ATTEND
DETERMINE INSPIRE COMPETE MARVEL GOGGLE PROBE FIND PURSUE SEARCH TRAIL
AWAKE WAKE
WAKEN DISPLAY UNFOLD UNROLL UNFURL UNVEIL UNDRESS UNEARTH UNCOVER EXPLORE
TRACK SCOUT TRACE INTEREST PERK RECREATE REVIVE VOLUNTEER ENLIVEN DELIGHT
DIVERT RECALL LECTURE DESCRIBE ADDRESS ANNOUNCE SPEAK CHAT PREACH PEN
RECITE TRAIN TEACH WRITE DISPORT DEMONSTRATE NARRATE DECORATE TATTOO TALK
SING SERENADE WARBLE HUM WHISTLE EXHIBIT SHOW QUESTION INVESTIGATE QUIZ
INTERROGATE REACT DISPOSE EXPEND VIVISECT PICNIC SOJOURN LIKE CRAVE
PERMEATE PERVADE RADIATE RANGE BURST HUNT HAUNT GROPE DEBATE COAX THRALL
RUMMAGE RISK EDUCATE SPECIALIZE BESIEGE TURN TUG SHOW INSTIL INSPECT LOVE
TRANSCEND RECOMPENSE POSE PREFER PRESENT PROMOTE PROPAGATE CATCH ENTRAP
EMBELLISH SURPRISE AMAZE GARNISH TRIM CACHE DESIRE EXHUME PRY CONNIVE
BETRAY INSPIRIT ASPIRE ADORN BOAST BRAG PICK PREOCCUPY TOP INLAY APPRECIATE
PRESENT DESPISE
5 - F A I L E D I N T E R E S T
REJECT NAP YAWN SLEEP SLUMBER BORE DROWSE DOZE NOD PALL FAILED INTEREST
DIVERT DAZE STUN STUPEFY STULTIFY DESERT STRAGGLE PROLONG OCCLUDE LAPSE
FINISH FAIL WILT EXPIRE WITHER EFFACE ANNUL ELIMINATE ADJOURN ELAPSE
ESTRANGE TERMINATE DESIST QUIESCE ABIDE OSSIFY FREEZE RELAX RUSTICATE
BECALM LOAF STRAGGLE STREW DISPERSE STRAY INDISPOSE CONCEDE DECLINE RECEDE
SHIRK GARBLE SLOP IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT JUMBLE BOGGLE REFRAIN BOTCH TRY
FORGO SHRUG LEAP TOY TURN FORGET CLOY EMBITTER DESPAIR DISPLEASE DISLIKE
MOPE DRUDGE ENCUMBER COMMISERATE REGRET BEGRUDGE MEDICATE MIRE BOTHER
CURTAIL DISHEARTEN DENY DISCOURAGE ESCHEW CRITICIZE DISSUADE SUBMERGE
IGNORE
6 - C O M M U N I C A T I O N
MANIFEST EMBLAZON WARRANT PROMISE PROPOUND WITNESS PROPOSE X-RAY DISPENSE
PERSUADE TRAFFIC PURPOSE TRADE REMIT AGREE FORWARD YARN RENDER REMUNERATE
SANCTION IMPORT OSCULATE WEAR RAFFLE THROW RATIFY SIGNIFY SIGN PROJECT
DISTRIBUTE NOTIFY CONFRONT INDICATE PERUSE EXHORT CORRESPOND REPAY ACQUAINT
UNDERSTAND SPECIFY PHRASE ACKNOWLEDGE ASSENT APPLY APPEAL WELCOME REMARK
REPLY REQUEST ADDRESS CONVEY PARTAKE DOT CIRCUMSTANTIATE DESIGNATE
DEMONSTRATE PROCLAIM ALLUDE ASK VOICE UTTER DISPUTE STATE DISPATCH WRITE
RESPOND RETAIL TRUMPET DESCRIBE SUGGEST HAIL DISCUSS ASSERT REPORT DECLAIM
NARRATE CONSENT DELINEATE HEAR CONSULT LECTURE CONTRACT TRAIN PURVEY
DECLARE PROFESS CABLE PARAPHRASE TEACH PEN SOUND CALL SPEAK ANNOUNCE
EXPOUND DISCOVER PREACH EVINCE ELUCIDATE RECITE PRELUDE SCRIBE FACE CHAT
DETECT INTRODUCE INTERVIEW DECREE EXPRESS DISCOURSE PUBLISH PRONOUNCE
PREAMBLE ATTEST AFFIRM ENUNCIATE MAIL PAY DISPORT VIEW ESPY SPOT SURVEY
GAZE GLANCE BEHOLD GLIMPSE SEE SCRUTINIZE INSPECT LOOK SCAN OGLE OBSERVE
SNIFF WHIFF SMELL TASTE TAP FEEL RUB STROKE CUDDLE CARESS HUG SING SERENADE
WARBLE HUM VOCALIZE WHISTLE EXCLAIM EXHIBIT REVEAL SHOUT SHOW REACH TELL
TALK DISCLOSE PLEA CALM EXPLAIN COMFORT SOOTHE SOLACE RECOMMEND REASSURE
CONTRIBUTE CONSOLE ENLIGHTEN ENCOURAGE ADVISE ASSURE INSTRUCT COMMAND ORDER
HANDLE HEAVE MANIPULATE OPERATE TOW MIX DRILL HOIST LOAD PUT PUSH HAUL
FETCH START STEER SHUT MANAGE SUPERVISE SUPERINTEND ADMINISTER MEDIATE
NEGOTIATE TREAT SEND CONSIGN AIM AWARD UTILIZE ALLOT ALLOCATE APPOINT
ASSIGN COMPLY DISBURSE SHAPE DISABUSE ORIENTATE ARRANGE STIPULATE PRESCRIBE
HUSH NAVIGATE PILOT USHER EMEND EDIT REGULATE ADJUST CORRECT SUMMON SUBDUE
CHALLENGE RECALL HITCH TAG UNTANGLE ORGANIZE REIGN ENUMERATE SPACE HEFT
HABITUATE OFFICIATE IDENTIFY TACKLE REWARD PRESIDE REQUIRE VOTE ASSORT
MASTER DEPUTE DELEGATE VEST ACTUATE ALTER ENGAGE DEPLOY JOCKEY JUGGLE TEST
HOLD HALT STOP DISCIPLINE DIRECT RULE EMPOWER APPROVE DISSUADE CATCH
PERCEIVE DISTINGUISH PLAY DISPLAY IMPLY INFORM INTERSECT INVIGORATE ADVANCE
TUG TURN TUSSLE DIVULGE PRESENT REJECT CITE INSCRIBE PROMOTE ARBITRATE AVOW
ELECT RENT SHAPE HIRE COMMUNICATION RECALL QUESTION
INTERROGATE INTIMATE QUIZ ISSUE ORIGINATE EMIT EMANATE PULSATE SMART TINGLE
THROB SWELTER STINK SPARKLE GLISTEN PATTER SWISH CLACK CLANG CLINK PEAL
JINGLE REVERBERATE RIPPLE RING DRIP SLUMP SLIP SLOUCH REACT RECIPROCATE
RESTORE REPLACE REPLENISH REHEARSE MIME PRACTISE PORTRAY IMITATE ENACT
SKETCH DEPICT REPRODUCE RECORD TRANSCRIBE PRINT REPRINT COPY REDUPLICATE
DUPLICATE EMULATE CHARACTERIZE TRANSMIT RECOUNT REFER RELAY QUOTE REITERATE
ITERATE RECAPITULATE TESTIFY SUBSTANTIATE RELATE REPEAT RETRACE REVIEW
RECOGNIZE REMEMBER REMIND RECEIVE UNDERSTUDY COMPREHEND MULTIPLY EXECUTE
EAT GNAW DEVOUR EXPLODE FLAME VIVISECT EMBOWEL DRINK NIBBLE SWIG SWALLOW
QUAFF SUP SLAY SLAUGHTER CRUSH SWILL GUZZLE TIPPLE CRUNCH ERODE CRUMPLE
GOBBLE GRUMBLE EFFUSE STIMULATE DUB GLOW PROMULGATE PIN SECURE SITE BELAY
LOCATE PARK CAMP BATTEN DWELL ABIDE RESIDE SOJOURN BASK RECLINE SPRAWL SIT
SQUAT POISE PICNIC NESTLE POSE STICK INFORM PERCH QUERY CIRCULARIZE MISS
POPULARIZE PROFFER BID URGE ILLUSTRATE CANVASS DEMEAN CONNECT COMBINE
ENTWINE KNIT LINK JOIN ATTACH PERVADE PERMEATE APPEND CONSORT ENCOUNTER
FRATERNIZE ACCOMPANY UNITE REUNITE REJOIN MEET TOUCH CLING EMBRACE YOKE
SPLICE SHOWER RADIATE RANGE SPREAD SPATTER DISROBE ZONE CLEAVE FILTER
SUNDER CHASE SEPARATE HUNT HAUNT COLLIDE IMMERSE EDUCATE PETITION MISTAKE
CLARIFY SORT ARTICULATE LEVEL INTERCHANGE DEMAND DISALLOW CONVINCE
FAMILIARIZE ENTREAT DICTATE BETRAY CONNIVE DELIVER SALUTE REGARD PRAISE
7 - F A I L E D C O M M U N I C A T I O N
FAILED COMMUNICATION PERSUADE EXHORT PROCLAIM SPEAK STATE SUGGEST ASK
ASSENT BLIND DEAFEN EXILE MAROON DECEIVE GAG STALK SQUELCH IMPRISON ISOLATE
CHOKE KIDNAP INTERDICT CHEAT CONFOUND INCARCERATE INFILTRATE SINK DESERT
OSTRACIZE QUARREL FIGHT WRANGLE BANISH RASP FINISH DEODORIZE TERMINATE
DISPOSE EXPEND ESTRANGE ENGULF DESPATCH CONSUME DELETE ERASE ELAPSE ADJOURN
EXTINGUISH EXPURGATE ELIMINATE ABOLISH ANNUL OBLITERATE EFFACE ERADICATE
EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE DEVASTATE DEMOLISH EXECUTE PURGE
ANNIHILATE DESTROY DISINTEGRATE LAPSE WILT WITHER EXPIRE FAIL QUIESCE
OSSIFY FREEZE REPOSE RELAX RUSTICATE BECALM IMPAWN LOAF DESIST DISPERSE
STRAY STREW STRAGGLE STAMPEDE DIFFUSE INTERSPERSE BURST ROUT BESTREW
UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE SEPARATE
EXCLUDE CLEAVE SUNDER SHATTER RECEDE GARBLE IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT RISK WISH
SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE HESITATE EDUCATE FORGO AMPUTATE LOSE RETRACT WEAN
BESIEGE FOUL BOTHER MIRE MEDICATE FUMBLE BEGRUDGE CHIDE COMMISERATE REGRET
JUMBLE CARP CHEW CONDEMN COMPLAIN BLAME REPROACH FULMINATE REPREHEND AVENGE
CENSURE UPBRAID SWERVE SUCCUMB RETCH WAVER WRITHE SQUIRM VOMIT WINCE
NAUSEATE FALTER TIRE HATE PANT PUFF CAPITULATE CRY FIGHT DESPAIR ZONE
DESPOND DEMAND DICTATE DISALLOW CLAIM REJECT SCORN SHRUG TURN TUSSLE IGNORE
PLOT CONSPIRE GESTICULATE CONNIVE CONVINCE DOMINATE COMPEL COERCE ENFORCE
DEPRIVE MORTIFY ESCHEW SHAME EMBARRASS CAGE DISOBEY CRITICIZE CURSE
DISCOURAGE DENY DISHEARTEN DISTRACT DISAPPROVE CURTAIL MISCONCEIVE OVERLOOK
PEER DECLINE CONCEDE PROTEST DISSENT CONTEND CONTRADICT BICKER REMONSTRATE
QUARREL HUNT HAUNT GROPE DEBATE COAX LISP HARP
8 - E M O T I O N A L
EMOTIONAL DISPUTE RESPOND EXHORT WELCOME UNDERSTAND APPEAL PLEA IRRITATE
TERRIFY TERRORIZE IRK TORMENT DENOUNCE DEPRESS DISGRACE DISHONOUR DISAFFECT
DERANGE DISMAY DEMORALIZE IMPRECATE FRIGHTEN GRIEVE ALARM SCARE PERK SOOTHE
EXHILARATE ENLIVEN CHEER DELIGHT BRUTALIZE BULLY DEJECT DEGRADE DEMENT
AGGRAVATE BENUMB BEDEVIL APPALL STUPEFY STUN VEX UNNERVE WORRY RASP PAIN
QUARREL OFFEND NETTLE BEATIFY ANIMATE ENGROSS TANTALIZE ATTRACT FASCINATE
CAPTIVATE IMPRESS TRANCE SCINTILLATE ENKINDLE
EXCITE AROUSE ROUSE MARVEL ELECTRIFY INSPIRE TRANSPORT SHRUG HIDE NEED
APPROVAL FROM OWN PROTECT CONTROL BLAME PUNISH BE KILL MAKE APATHETIC MAKE
AMENDS GRIEVE PROPITIATE SYMPATHIZE FEAR NOT SYMPATHIZE RESENT COVERTLY
ANGER PAIN BORE MAKE INDIFFERENT CONTENT MILDLY INTEREST INTEREST STRONGLY
ENTHUSE MAKE EAGER MAKE SERENE CONVICT DESPISE HUMILIATE BETRAY SIGH REPENT
RUE YELP AGONIZE SORROW WEEP SADDEN MOAN MOPE MOURN ENVY DESPAIR EMBITTER
WAVER FALTER AVOID CAPITULATE COMMISERATE REGRET DEMUR DISHEARTEN EMBARRASS
BEMOAN BEWAIL SULK OUTCRY SCORN INFURIATE RAGE RANKLE GROWL POUT GRUMBLE
NAG YAP DISGUST DISLIKE DISPLEASE DETEST HATE INCULPATE ASCRIBE UPBRAID
CHIDE COMPLAIN CHEW CONDEMN OBJURGATE CARP IMPLY FULMINATE REPREHEND
REPROACH AVENGE RESENT CENSURE DEPLORE RECRIMINATE DARE DISAPPROVE ABUSE
REBUKE CRITICIZE CRY FOUL ENFEEBLE MORTIFY DARE SHAME ASHAME INSANE ENTREAT
BE SERENE AMUSE EXULT ENJOY SMILE NUZZLE JUBILATE FROLIC FONDLE REJOICE
GRIN GLADDEN LIKE REVEL TRUST LOVE RELISH ESTEEM
9 - C O N T R O L
EXPAND DILATE ELONGATE AMPLIFY ENLARGE MAGNIFY EMPHASIZE BEGIN ABATE ALLOW
MODERATE SITUATE SET TAME ACCOUNT DETAIL ACQUIT DEMAGNETIZE UNRUFFLE
PREDISPOSE HIRE RENT ELECT APPROVE EMPOWER RULE DIRECT DISCIPLINE STOP HALT
HOLD TEST JUGGLE JOCKEY DEPLOY ENGAGE ALTER ACTUATE VEST DELEGATE DEPUTE
MASTER ASSORT VOTE REQUIRE PRESIDE REMAND TACKLE IDENTIFY OFFICIATE
HABITUATE HEFT SPACE ENUMERATE REIGN ORGANIZE UNTANGLE TAG HITCH RECALL
CHALLENGE SUBDUE SUMMON CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE EDIT EMEND USHER PILOT
NAVIGATE HUSH PRESCRIBE STIPULATE ARRANGE ORIENTATE DISABUSE SHAPE DISBURSE
COMPLY ASSIGN APPOINT ALLOCATE ALLOT UTILIZE AWARD AIM CONSIGN SEND TREAT
NEGOTIATE MEDIATE ADMINISTER SUPERINTEND SUPERVISE MANAGE SHUT STEER START
FETCH HAUL PUSH PUT LOAD HOIST DRILL MIX TOW OPERATE MANIPULATE HEAVE
HANDLE ORDER COMMAND CIVILIZE DRIVE DIVERT DEVELOP CULTIVATE EXPEDITE
ENABLE SPONSOR REHABILITATE FACILITATE REFORM RECTIFY LEAN EXTEND PREPARE
PERMIT SERVE INSTRUCT CONTROL OBSERVE WIN CONTINUE RECUPERATE RECOVER
REPRIEVE REINSTATE PROSPER LUXURIATE SUCCEED FLOURISH SURMOUNT GROW THRIVE
LIVE SURVIVE MAINTAIN RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW GRUB LABOUR TOIL NURTURE
FIX NOURISH MATURE PERPETUATE TIME DARN VALET LAY MEND INHALE RESPIRE
OPPRESS REPRESS OVERWHELM OVERPOWER TYRANNIZE COMMIT DRAG CHARGE DEPOSE
QUELL INTERDICT TROUNCE ISOLATE STEADY STEER GRASP COERCE FORCE FOX
VANQUISH IMPLANT ADMONISH ENSLAVE SUBJUGATE SWITCH IMPOUND CAPTURE PRESS
IMPRESS CONQUER DOUSE EXILE SURVIVE REPLENISH REPLACE EXECUTE FINISH
DEODORIZE TERMINATE DISPOSE EXPEND BATTEN CAMP QUIESCE PARK LOCATE BELAY
SITE SECURE PIN PERVADE PERMEATE APPEND REUNITE REJOIN ENTWINE YOKE SPLICE
CONNECT COMBINE KNIT LINK JOIN ATTACH BETROTH WED MARRY RADIATE DIFFUSE
INTERSPERSE SPREAD SHOWER BESTREW RANGE CLEAVE STRADDLE DECOCT FILTER
EXCLUDE SORT SEPARATE ZONE DIVIDE DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE
INJECT INSERT INVITE MATRICULATE INSTALL INVEST INOCULATE ENTRUST HUNT
CONTRADICT DEBATE DECLINE REMONSTRATE PROTEST COAX CONCEDE EXTRICATE LIMIT
SHACKLE TIE ISOLATE LOCALIZE IMMERSE THRALL FASTEN PROHIBIT PREVENT EDUCATE
STILL FORBID PETITION RESTRICT WEDGE ARREST SUSPEND BOUND DISPOSE PLAY
DISSUADE PREDETERMINE DENY CAGE ENTRAP ENJOIN CATCH CHECK CURTAIL CAUTION
READJUST LEGISLATE PROVE FAMILIARIZE DESIRE ENTREAT DISALLOW DICTATE DEMAND
PREVAIL DELIVER ALIGHT CONNIVE CLAIM REJECT RESPECT PREDOMINATE LIFT SHOVE
LEAP TURN TUG SHIFT CURB PROTRACT RETARD IGNORE ADVANCE TRANSPORT TEACH
INTERVENE TRAIN SECURE SHAKE EDUCATE
10 - F A I L E D C O N T R O L
PROLONG PROTRUDE EXCEED POTTER DRIBBLE BOTCH BOGGLE STUMBLE SLOP WISH
JUMBLE RISK RESORT RUMMAGE HUMOUR IMMERSE GARBLE
COLLIDE FAILED CONTROL LOSE WRANGLE WALLOP WRECK FIGHT QUARREL WRENCH WREST
DESERT WHIP MUTINY SINK PILLORY SLAP SMACK UNSETTLE STICK SLAM DROWN DOPE
DRUG BUMP COLLIDE BURN GAS BULLY ELECTROCUTE KEELHAUL POACH BRAND MAIM
DISABLE MANGLE SCOURGE SCORCH INCAPACITATE SCALD IMPOSE FLOOD PLAGUE
INUNDATE SMUDGE HASH SHAKE INCARCERATE HANG SIN SMUGGLE BOOTLEG CRIPPLE
STRAGGLE SACK THROW SCRATCH CLAW COMMIT TRANSGRESS DISSIPATE DERANGE DRENCH
CAPITULATE DUCK CRUCIFY DISLOCATE DENT FETTER TRUSS HANDCUFF CHAIN MANACLE
SEIZE GOOF ENTANGLE TRIP SICKEN BESIEGE TORTURE TRIFLE DECAPITATE LOOT
STRIKE DAMAGE TRICE JERK RACK PARALYZE FLOG EXECUTE SLACK GOLDBRICK SHIRK
IMPRISON PENALIZE RAVAGE PESTER REND PLUNDER PROSECUTE REVOLT REBEL JOLT
DROP JOSTLE STUN INTOXICATE CONQUER VANQUISH BIND TIE INEBRIATE SURRENDER
SMASH SPANK SPLIT VIOLATE BROACH SPLASH STAIN SPRAIN SPOIL GAG STORM FLAIL
SWAMP LOSE NICK BASH BATTER ASSAIL THRASH SWITCH BELABOUR BESLAVER SLAVER
DROOL BESET BESLOBBER BESMEAR BESPATTER ADMONISH SPREADEAGLE BITE SHELL
BOMB BOMBARD BREAK SPILL IMPLANT IMPALE CORRUPT DEBAUCH DEFACE FRACTURE
CAPSIZE PRICK PUNCTURE PUNISH DISTURB CANE MUTILATE PIERCE BUTCHER MOB RUIN
MAR MASH MASSACRE BRUISE SMASH REACT SLOUCH SLIP PULSATE THROB TINGLE SMART
SLAVE SWELTER STINK TOPPLE CRUMBLE FAIL RUIN GOBBLE ERODE CRUNCH TIPPLE
GUZZLE EXPIRE SWILL WITHER WILT LAPSE DISINTEGRATE DESTROY CRUSH BURST
STREW ROUT SPATTER BESTREW DISPERSE STRAY STRAGGLE SPREAD STAMPEDE LOOT
HACK IMPERIL DIVEST DIVERGE EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW FILTER INFEST EVADE
TRESPASS LACERATE RE-ENTER ADMIT PENETRATE LISP DEAFEN GROPE BICKER DISSENT
QUARREL CONTEND HARP HAUNT RECEDE SHIRK THWART GARBLE THREATEN HUMOUR
RESORT RISK JUMBLE REFRAIN BOTCH TRY REFRAIN HESITATE RESIST FORBEAR
AMPUTATE LOSE BESIEGE DISTRACT DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE MEDICATE FUMBLE MINCE
BOTHER REGRET COMMISERATE WET FEAR DISAPPROVE SURRENDER FULMINATE CHIDE
COMPLAIN CONDEMN CHEW CARP BLAME REPROACH RESENT CENSURE UPBRAID ATTEMPT
PUTREFY PANT PUFF SAY CRY DRAIN TIRE DOMINATE COMPEL COERCE ENFORCE WIGGLE
STAGGER RETCH WOBBLE WAVER WRITHE VOMIT WINCE NAUSEATE ROT FALTER DESPOND
ENTREAT DESIRE DESPAIR CRITICIZE EXHUME PRY SQUIRM NAG FIDGET FIGHT PLOT
REVOLT IMPLORE CONSPIRE BETRAY CONNIVE SLOBBER WITHSTAND STRUGGLE SHIVER
TOLERATE SHRUG SHOVE LEAP TURN SHIFT CLUTCH YIELD REJECT DEMAND CONVINCE
EXERT DICTATE DISALLOW DENY SHAME ERR ENFEEBLE CAGE EMBARRASS DARE ENTRAP
ENJOIN DEPRIVE SQUABBLE TANGLE LIMP STAMMER STUTTER DISABLE DIVERT BREAK
SCATTER MORTIFY
11 - H E L P
INSTRUCT SHARE INNERVATE SERVE TRAVAIL ASSIST HEAL HARMONIZE SALVAGE
SATISFY SALVE HELP HABILITATE SUSTAIN ASSURE BEFRIEND BESPEAK ABSOLVE
ALLEVIATE ADVISE ALLAY MITIGATE PARDON PALLIATE PERFUME PERMIT PERK EASE
EDIFY PLEASE ENCOURAGE PREPARE ENDEAR ENERGIZE ENHANCE ENLIGHTEN TENDER
REIMBURSE ENDOW FINANCE BESTOW SUPPLY REPLETE STOW SURFEIT FILL SUFFICE
FULFIL CONSOLE EXTEND CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE AVAIL LEAD LEND SIMPLIFY
IRRADIATE RAISE REASSURE RECOMMEND RECONCILE REDEEM RECTIFY RECREATE REFORM
REFIT REDRESS REFRESH RE-ENFORCE FACILITATE REGENERATE REHABILITATE
REJUVENATE REINFORCE RELIEVE RELY REPAIR FORGIVE RESPITE RESUSCITATE RESCUE
FURTHER RETOUCH REVIVE REVISE OFFER RETRIEVE REVIVIFY OBLIGE UNDERTAKE
SMOOTH UPHOLD SOLACE VALIDATE VERIFY SOOTHE SPELL SPONSOR WILE VOLUNTEER
VINDICATE VOUCH STAUNCH STRENGTHEN STOKE SUBSCRIBE SUCKLE SUCCOUR SURCEASE
SUPPORT ENABLE EXHILARATE PROVIDE ENLIVEN EQUIP CHEER EXCEL EXCULPATE
COMFORT EXCUSE CONCILIATE EXPEDITE EXPLAIN DEFRAY DELIGHT CULTIVATE DEVELOP
DIVERT DISBURDEN DRESS DRIVE WINE CALM CIVILIZE BURNISH CURE INVIGORATE
ENGAGE HEAVE HANDLE MANIPULATE ACTUATE EMPOWER OPERATE ALTER ORDER COMMAND
RULE DIRECT DISCIPLINE STOP RADIATE HALT HOLD TEST JUGGLE JOCKEY DEPLOY TOW
MIX DRILL PUSH PUT LOAD HOIST DILATE EXPAND HAUL FETCH START STEER STRUT
MANAGE SUPERVISE SUPERINTEND ADMINISTER NEGOTIATE MEDIATE TREAT SEND ELECT
APPROVE CONSIGN RENT HIRE
VEST ELONGATE AMPLIFY DELEGATE DEPUTE EMPHASIZE AIM AWARD MAGNIFY ENLARGE
UTILIZE ALLOT ALLOCATE APPOINT ASSIGN COMPLY DISBURSE BEGIN ABATE ALLOW
MASTER SHAPE ASSORT DISABUSE ORIENTATE ARRANGE MODERATE PRESCRIBE STIPULATE
HUSH PILOT NAVIGATE USHER VOTE SITUATE SET EMEND EDIT REGULATE ADJUST
CORRECT SUMMON REQUIRE SUBDUE CHALLENGE RECALL TAKE HITCH PRESIDE ACCOUNT
TAG ORGANIZE UNTANGLE HABITUATE PREDISPOSE OFFICIATE IDENTIFY REWARD TACKLE
DETAIL REIGN ENUMERATE SPACE ACQUIT DEMAGNETIZE HEFT UNRUFFLE HELP REQUEST
PURVEY ELUCIDATE PARTAKE CONSENT CONSULT CONVEY DEMONSTRATE WELCOME
UNDERSTAND TRADE AGREE REMIT REMUNERATE FORWARD RENDER DISTRIBUTE
CORRESPOND REPAY TRAIN TEACH PLEA TIE BIND BUTCHER DOUSE STEADY EXTRACT
BOIL STAVE PENETRATE SMEAR FIX FORCE GRASP ISOLATE GRAB PASTE FORAGE QUENCH
SEIZE BOTHER STICK INVESTIGATE DOCK NAIL MEND TIME DARN VALET LAY GRUB
LABOUR TOIL NURTURE REPAIR NOURISH MATURE PERSIST PERPETUATE MAINTAIN
RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW CONTINUE RECUPERATE RECOVER REPRIEVE REINSTATE
PROSPER LUXURIATE SUCCEED FLOURISH WIN SURMOUNT GROW THRIVE LIVE REMIND
REMEMBER IMITATE REVIEW REPEAT RELATE TESTIFY RECAPITULATE REITERATE QUOTE
RECOUNT PRACTISE REHEARSE REPLENISH REPLACE RESTORE ENACT DEPICT SKETCH
REPRODUCE UNDERSTUDY COMPREHEND REFER SUBSTANTIATE RETRACE RECOGNIZE
RECIPROCATE PRINT REPRINT COPY REDUPLICATE DUPLICATE TRANSMIT RELAY
TRANSCRIBE RECORD EXECUTE FINISH DEODORIZE TERMINATE DISPOSE EXPEND BEATIFY
PROCREATE PROFFER INFORM PARK LOCATE SITE SECURE PIN BATTEN CAMP BELAY
PARTICIPATE YOKE BETROTH PERMEATE PERVADE REUNITE REJOIN SPLICE CONNECT
COMBINE KNIT LINK JOIN ATTACH MARRY WED EMBRACE TOUCH MEET ACCOMPANY
FRATERNIZE CONSORT BESTREW DIFFUSE INTERSPERSE ROUGE EXCLUDE SORT SEPARATE
ZONE DIVIDE DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE LICK LANCE INOCULATE
INVEST PENETRATE ADMIT INSTALL INVITE RE-ENTER INHABIT INHUME INTRUST
INSERT INJECT COAX CONCEDE INCREASE HUMOUR RISK TRY EDUCATE PIECE CONSERVE
PAWN DISCARD FORBEAR AMPUTATE LOSE WARD WARN SPARE COMMEND CLEANSE CATCH
OBVIATE POLISH PACE MOISTEN PRETTIFY CLARIFY CAUTERIZE PURIFY PREFER SOLVE
ENTRAP INTERVENE DENY MODIFY MODULATE SWEETEN SWEEP BEAUTIFY AMEND PERFECT
MODERNIZE INVIGORATE INTERVENE LOVE SHADE TRANSPORT DEVOTE DEDICATE ADORN
ARBITRATE COMPLIMENT DISCOUNT GRANT UNCHAIN RELEASE UNFETTER UNTIE UNLOCK
LIBERATE SHIFT EXEMPT EMANCIPATE LUG SHOVE LEAP TURN LIFT IMMIGRATE ADVANCE
HURRY ACCOMPLISH ACHIEVE ATTAIN ANOINT ADAPT INSPIRIT ACCUSTOM REWARD
FOSTER PROMOTE PROVE FAMILIARIZE DELIVER DONATE DESIRE PACIFY AMELIORATE
SHELTER COMFORT FEED LAVE SAVE TEND COVER LEGITIMIZE CACHE WIPE WASH
FERTILIZE LUBRICATE SEW INTERVENE IMPROVE TRANSFORM CHECK CAUTION PROSPER
SPRAY VARNISH EXTRICATE STANDARDIZE LIKE QUIESCE
12 - F A I L E D H E L P
CUMBER SYMPATHIZE REMAND TACKLE FAILED HELP PROLONG PERSIST NICK LOSE
SWELTER STINK SMASH BRUISE CRUSH MAROON MAR RUIN MOB MUTILATE DISTURB
PUNISH PUNCTURE CONQUER PRICE PROSTRATE FRACTURE DEFLATE CONVICT DEFRAUD
DAZE DEFACE DEBASE EXCRUCIATE CORRUPT DEBAUCH DECEIVE EXTORT DEJECT DEGRADE
DELUDE IMPOVERISH SPILL DIVORCE DEMOTE AMBUSH KILL BREAK BESPATTER BESMIRCH
BESET BEDEVIL SWINDLE SULLY SUBJUGATE ENSLAVE STRAIN SPOIL SPRAIN VITIATE
STAIN SPLASH VIOLATE VANQUISH VICTIMIZE VEX UNDERMINE UNDERCUT SMEAR
SURRENDER INEBRIATE INTOXICATE DROP NETTLE REVENGE PESTER PLAGUE PERSECUTE
INFECT MAUL GOLDBRICK SLACK SHIRK PAUPERIZE PARALYSE TERRIFY TERRORIZE DUPE
TROUBLE IRK DAMAGE TRIFLE TORMENT TRIP SICKEN INCRIMINATE DENOUNCE DEPRESS
DEPOSE CAPITULATE DISGRACE DRENCH DISHONOUR DESPOIL DISAFFECT DERANGE
DERAIL DISMAY TRANSGRESS SCRATCH TAX STRAGGLE CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE EXPLOIT
CONFOUND SMUDGE FLOOD TRICK IMPOSE BOTHER STARVE SCALD INCAPACITATE
FRIGHTEN GRIEVE ALARM SCARE SCORCH MANGLE DISABLE MAIM MOLEST BRUTALIZE
BULLY UNSETTLE TYRANNIZE SINK WEARY ULCERATE UNNERVE WOUND WORRY MUTINY
DESERT DEPRIVE
PAIN QUARREL FIGHT WRECK OPPRESS LOSE EAT DEVOUR ESTRANGE CRUMPLE GOBBLE
GNAW EXPLODE FLAME ERODE ENGULF RUIN ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER SLAY PURGE
EXECUTE CRUSH DEMOLISH DESTROY DEVASTATE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE TOPPLE DOOM
DESPATCH EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE ERADICATE OBLITERATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE FAIL
VIVISECT GRUMBLE EMBOWEL CRUNCH LOAF DESIST IMPAWN BECALM TEMPT ENTWINE
YOKE CLING STAMPEDE STRAGGLE STRAY DISPERSE SPATTER ROUT STREW BURST
DIVERGE DIVEST DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE ZONE SEPARATE
EXCLUDE SUNDER CLEAVE HUNT DEAFEN GROPE HAUNT HARP CONTRADICT BICKER
DECLINE DISSENT REMONSTRATE QUARREL PROTEST CONTEND COLLIDE GARBLE IMMERSE
RESORT RISK JUMBLE BOGGLE REFRAIN BOTCH EXCEED TRY HESITATE EDUCATE FORGO
EXACT WANT DISCARD FORBEAR LOSE AMPUTATE WEAN ABSTAIN ENTREAT RESENT
CENSURE UPBRAID CHIDE COMPLAIN CONDEMN CARP REGRET COMMISERATE BOTHER FOUL
MIRE MEDICATE SHRUG TURN IMMIGRATE FUMBLE BEGRUDGE DISHEARTEN DENY
DISCOURAGE CURSE CRITICIZE DISAPPOINT ENFEEBLE SUFFER RENOUNCE ABANDON
FORSAKE REPUDIATE FORSWEAR REJECT IGNORE WEEP BETRAY CONSPIRE REVOLT PLOT
GRIEVE GROAN POUT PRY DISPLEASE CRY DESPAIR DESPOND SUCCUMB SUBSIDE SUBMIT
TIRE AVOID HATE PERISH CAPITULATE BLAME REPROACH AVENGE DESIRE CAGE ENTRAP
ENERVATE DEPRIVE DISABLE
13 - C O M P E T E
RACE RUN SPAR PURSUE HUNT TRACK BREAST SUBVERT CONTEST JOUST BOX CHASE
BELEAGUER BATTLE BET COMBAT WRESTLE SCUFFLE ANGLE STEM COMPETE BUFFET FIGHT
ENGAGE LAY STRUGGLE STRIVE FISH CRUSADE ENCOUNTER STAKE WAGER SKIRMISH
MILITATE CONFLICT PLAY TUSSLE WAGE ANTAGONIZE GRAPPLE ATTACK CAMPAIGN
SUPPLANT DISPLACE DISCREDIT UNDERMINE OUST SWEEP PRETEND REDUCE BETRAY ENVY
HATE RESENT DEFY SURMOUNT EXCEL DEFEAT WIN LOSE CONFOUND EXPLOIT CRIPPLE
DEMORALIZE CHEAT DISMAY DESPOIL CAPITULATE DUCK CHARGE ENSNARE TRAP FENCE
DUEL SEIZE BESIEGE TROUBLE TROUNCE COUNTERFEIT DUPE SIEGE RAID PARALYSE
PENALIZE REVENGE COERCE REVOLT FORCE REBEL RETALIATE TIE SURRENDER UNDERCUT
UNDERMINE VANQUISH PENETRATE SQUELCH STAVE STALK SUBJUGATE BEAT ATTACK
BESET CAPTURE DECEIVE CONQUER CRUSH PRACTISE REHEARSE WAGE PARTICIPATE
PERFORM WAGER RADIATE HECKLE DIFFER SCORE LICK SCUFFLE INFRINGE INVEST
CONTEND DEBATE HUNT LIMIT INTERCEPT TIE SEIZE COLLIDE THREATEN THRASH
GARBLE RESORT RISK PREVENT YIELD OVERPOWER VIE COVET FRUSTRATE RESIST FOIL
LITIGATE OUTWIT OUTWORK OVERWHELM SURPASS OUTSTRIP WIN TRIUMPH LITIGATE
CHASE SCRIMMAGE DISAGREE CONTRAVENE CONTEST COMBAT RACE WRESTLE TUSSLE
TAUNT COMPETE DIVERT LEAD RE-ENFORCE REINFORCE UPHOLD STRENGTHEN EXCEL
DISPUTE FACE PURPOSE THROW CONFRONT SUE SUCCEED SURMOUNT TIME LIVE SURVIVE
THRASH LOSE WRANGLE QUARREL FIGHT WRING DEPRIVE WREST OVERPOWER OVERWHELM
WORRY WHIP UNSETTLE INFILTRATE DISABLE INCAPACITATE BOTHER IMPOSE TRICK
INVADE GAMBLE CONTEND COPE PIT RIVAL DUEL GAMBLE
14 - L I K E
SAVOUR SNUGGLE PET RELISH ESTEEM LIKE BEFRIEND PLEASE ENCOURAGE ENDEAR
DELIGHT SANCTION UNDERSTAND WELCOME ACKNOWLEDGE RESPOND HUG CARESS STROKE
CUDDLE FEEL RUB EMULATE COPY COMPREHEND RESTORE DUPLICATE REPRODUCE
REPLENISH INCLINE SHOWER BESTOW RADIATE BURST CLEAVE TOY WANT APPROACH LEAP
REVERE RESPECT COMMEND COMPLIMENT CHERISH TREASURE SELECT APPRECIATE
IDOLIZE REGARD PRAISE APPLAUD VALUE LOVE-HATE LIKE-DISLIKE FAMILIARIZE
DESIRE LOVE BE SERENE AMUSE EXULT ENJOY SMILE NUZZLE JUBILATE REVEL FROLIC
FONDLE REJOICE GRIN GLADDEN LIKE TRUST FAVOUR PREFER FANCY LOVE DOTE ADMIRE
ENJOY APPRECIATE APPROVE
15 - D I S L I K E
DISLIKE OFFEND DISMAY DISAFFECT IRK PERSECUTE GRIPE BITCH MIMIC RIDICULE
IMITATE MIME ANNUL ABOLISH ELIMINATE EXPURGATE ANNIHILATE
SLAUGHTER SLAY PURGE EXECUTE CRUSH DEMOLISH DESTROY DEVASTATE LIQUIDATE
IRRADICATE TOPPLE DOOM EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE ERADICATE OBLITERATE EFFACE
DISINTEGRATE FINISH ESTRANGE STREW ROUT RADIATE SPATTER INSULT HORRIFY HIT
ABUSE EXCLUDE SEPARATE ZONE DIVIDE DIFFER OUTLAW EXCOMMUNICATE LOATHE
PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE DISSENT CONTEND DECLINE BICKER CONTRADICT HARP
RECEDE DISMISS SHUN SHIRK SPURN RESENT VILIFY PREJUDICE RESIST LITIGATE
RESENT SADDEN ABOMINATE EXECRATE CONDEMN BLAME DESPISE HATE DISCARD GARBLE
LEAP TOY TUG DISPARAGE REJECT PROHIBIT HESITATE HATE-LOVE DISLIKE-LIKE SULK
OUTRAGE ABHOR ABOMINATE ANGER SCORN INFURIATE COLLIDE BETRAY CONNIVE RAGE
RANKLE POUT GRUMBLE FIGHT DISPLEASE DETEST AGONIZE ENVY DISGUST DISLIKE
HATE
16 - O V E R T S
INTRUDE TERRIFY TERRORIZE BURGLE GASH RACK RAID COMMANDEER QUARTER RAM RAPE
RAP FORAGE RANSACK PARALYSE DEVASTATE FLOG PASTE SLUG RASE GOAD PAUPERIZE
EXECUTE GRAB RASP KIDNAP IMPERSONATE COUNTERFEIT FORGE DUPE REQUISITION
THRUST SIEGE CHOKE THUMP THROTTLE TROUNCE INTERDICT TORTURE TORMENT QUENCH
QUELL TRIFLE QUASH DECAPITATE DAMAGE TRICE JERK IRK TICKLE TROUBLE TRIP
SICKEN BESIEGE JAB SPY INTERROGATE SEIZE GOOF ENTANGLE TRUSS CHAIN MANACLE
INTIMATE DEMOLISH DENT FETTER HANDCUFF ENSNARE SNIPE FENCE DUEL INCRIMINATE
TRAP DRENCH DISGRACE DISMEMBER CASTRATE DISSECT DUCK CAPITULATE CHARGE
DEPOSE DEPRESS CRUCIFY DISLOCATE DEPRAVE CUT DENOUNCE CROP DISHONOUR DRAG
DESPOIL GUT DRAW DISAFFECT DERANGE DERAIL DISMAY EVISCERATE CLAW DISEMBOWEL
DISSIPATE CHEAT TRANSGRESS COMMIT SCRATCH THROW CHOP TAX DAZZLE SACK RUSTLE
STRAGGLE SNATCH STEAL PREVARICATE EMBEZZLE LIE CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE EXPLOIT
CONFOUND CRIMINATE AXE SMUGGLE GAMBLE SIN BOOTLEG INVADE GOUGE KICK
INCARCERATE SMUDGE SKIN INUNDATE FLOOD TRICK IMPOSE SCALP BOTHER STARVE WRY
SAVAGE SCALD IMPRECATE INCAPACITATE GRIEVE FRIGHTEN ALARM SCARE INCINERATE
SCORCH INCISE SCOURGE KNOCK MANGLE DISABLE MAIM BRAND POACH MOLEST KEELHAUL
GAS ELECTROCUTE BRUTALIZE BULLY BURN COLLIDE BUMP DRUG DOPE SMOTHER DROWN
EMASCULATE IMMOBILIZE NEUTER SPAY POISON SMITE INFILTRATE SLAM SLICE STICK
QUIZ SLAP INVESTIGATE UNSETTLE SMACK SIZZLE SLIT TYRRANIZE DOCK PILLORY
REPRESS NAIL SINK WHELM WEARY WHACK PROD ULCERATE WHIP UNNERVE ANNEX WOUND
WORRY OVERWHELM OVERPOWER WARP MUTINY WAYLAY DESERT WREST DEPRIVE PAIN
WRENCH WRINKLE ROUGH WRING OSTRACIZE QUARREL FIGHT WRECK WALLOP WRANGLE
OPPRESS BANISH OFFEND LOSE NICK NIP RASP MASH THIEVE CRUSH MASSACRE MOB
EXILE BRUISE BRUTIFY SMASH MAROON DOUSE CANE PIERCE MUTILATE PINCH BUTT
BUTCHER SQUEAL RUIN DISTURB MAR DEBAUCH CORRUPT EXCRUCIATE DEBASE BOARD
DEFACE EXPOSE DAZE DEFRAUD CONVICT DEFLATE FRACTURE PRESS PRICK CAPSIZE
PROSTRATE PROSCRIBE IMPRESS PULVERIZE PUNCH SHOOT CONQUER PUNCTURE PUNISH
CLUB DECEIVE IMPLANT DEGRADE DEJECT EXTRACT CAPTURE IMPALE EXTORT SHELL
IMPOVERISH DECORTICATE DEMENT DELUDE IMPOUND BOMB GAG BOMBARD BREAK KILL
AMBUSH DEMOTE MURDER DIVORCE HEW SPILL AGGRAVATE SWITCH BELABOUR BENUMB
BESLAVER BESET BESLOBBER BESMEAR BESMIRCH BESPATTER ADMONISH STULTIFY
SPREADEAGLE BITE BOIL STORM STRANGLE STRAFE YANK STRAIN STUN FLAIL SWAMP
STUPEFY ENSLAVE SUBJUGATE SULLY SUFFOCATE SWEAT APPAL SWINDLE ADULTERATE
BASH BATTER ASSAIL BEFOUL BEAT BEHEAD BEDEVIL ATTACK THRASH STIFLE STRIKE
STALK STARTLE STAVE SQUELCH SQUEEZE STAB DEAFEN SMASH SMEAR UNDERCUT
UNDERMINE SMOKE SPANK SOCK SOIL VICTIMIZE VANQUISH SPLIT VEX VIOLATE SPLASH
BOOBYTRAP STAIN SPEAR VITIATE SPRAIN SPOIL PENETRATE GOSSIP SQUASH SPIT
SURRENDER BLIND INEBRIATE BIND INTOXICATE FOMENT RETALIATE RIVE FIX JOLT
NETTLE DROP JOSTLE RAZE GRASP RAVISH RAVAGE INFECT PERSECUTE PLAGUE GRILL
PESTER RECK REVENGE REND PLUNDER POKE GRIPE BITCH POUND PROSECUTE TIE
FLAGELLATE FLAY COERCE REVOLT FLOOR FORCE REBEL IMPRISON RIP RIFLE IRRITATE
SHIRK GOLDBRICK SLACK MAUL CRIMP ASSASSINATE PECK ISOLATE PENALIZE PRY
QUESTION BESTRIDE SHATTER LOATHE TRESPASS LYNCH LASH LACERATE LAME TRAP
SENTENCE LICK SEAR LANCE INJURE SCUFFLE INFRINGE SCRATCH TRAMPLE
INFLICT TUT SCORE INFILTRATE INFEST SCRAPE INDISPOSE IMMURE HATCH IMMOLATE
HURT HARRY HOUND HANG HORRIFY HECKLE HACK HASH HIT HARASS HAMMER HAZE SHOCK
SHRED LOOT INSULT ATTACK ENGAGE TACKLE HEAVE HANDLE MANIPULATE ACTUATE
EMPOWER OPERATE ALTER REMAND ORDER COMMAND RULE DIRECT DISCIPLINE STOP HALT
HOLD TEST REPAY THROW TRAFFIC PERSUADE EXHORT TEACH PEN SUGGEST ALLUDE
LECTURE DISCUSS DISPUTE DISCLOSE REVEAL SHOUT TAP SMELL OGLE INSTIGATE
CONTRIVE STINK TESTIFY MIMIC GOBBLE GNAW EAT DEVOUR ESTRANGE CRUMPLE
EXPLODE FLAME ERODE ENGULF RUIN SLAUGHTER SLAY PURGE EXECUTE CRUSH DEMOLISH
DESTROY DEVASTATE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE TOPPLE DOOM DESPATCH EXTIRPATE
EXPUNGE ERADICATE OBLITERATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE FAIL VIVISECT GRUMBLE
EMBOWEL CRUNCH STIR PROVOKE INVOLVE PLANT MAKE SPAWN IMPREGNATE DAB STICK
LOAF FREEZE PURSUE TRACK PROBE TRAIL ROUSE AROUSE ELECTRIFY TEASE TEMPT
CLING YOKE ENTWINE BETROTH CONSORT MEET TOUCH EMBRACE WED MARRY JOIN LINK
COMBINE PERVADE PERMEATE STREW BURST ROUT RADIATE ROUGE STAMPEDE SPREAD
SHOWER SPATTER STRAGGLE STRAY INTERSPERSE DISPERSE BITCH DISROBE DIVEST
DIVERGE DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE ZONE SEPARATE EXCLUDE
SUNDER CLEAVE EXTRADITE INOCULATE INVEST PENETRATE INSTALL INHUME INSERT
INJECT HAUNT DEAFEN HUNT HARP CONTRADICT BICKER DISSENT CONTEND QUARREL
YANK DISMISS INTERCEPT SHIRK SHACKLE SEGREGATE THWART TIE ISOLATE SEIZE
COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN THRASH IMMERSE RISK JUMBLE SLOP STUMBLE BOTCH GAG
EXCEED FETTER AMPUTATE LOSE DISCARD EXACT COVET REPRESS ARREST SURROUND
SUSPEND BESIEGE HURRY ADVANCE TRAMP STOVE LEAP TOY TURN TUG SHIFT TOSS HURL
ENCHAIN INFORM IMPACT INSINUATE STARVE STEAL PILFER PURGE CALUMNIATE CURSE
PHILANDER SCOLD FLAUNT INTRUDE SATIRIZE SCATTER IMPLY SHAKE INVEIGH ROB
CONDEMN DISCREDIT DISOBEY DISMISS DISQUALIFY EMBEZZLE MISAPPROPRIATE
BEREAVE SWIPE STEAL THIEVE DISABLE BLIND SLANDER DEPRIVE POLLUTE PERJURE
DAMN INVALIDATE PROFANE CATCH ENERVATE ENTRAP MORTIFY SHAME DARE ABORT ROB
EMBARRASS CAGE ENFEEBLE CRIPPLE DISOBEY CHASTISE ERR ENDANGER MISTREAT
ABUSE MISBEHAVE SUBJECT CRITICIZE CURSE DISCOURAGE DEFORM DENY DISHEARTEN
PEPPER DISAPPROVE DISTRACT RACK CARVE FLAY MASSACRE MEDICATE BEGRUDGE
BOTHER FOUL STAMP SPRAY COMMISERATE WIPE SKEWER LEVEL TEAR SMUGGLE MUTINY
REBEL REVOLT CARP CHEW OBJURGATE CHIDE COMPLAIN UPBRAID CENSURE INCULPATE
IMPLY RESENT ASCRIBE AVENGE REPROACH BLAME REPREHEND OVERTHROW OVERWHELM
KNIFE DISTRESS DISLIKE DISPLEASE PERFORATE MINCE DISCHARGE WASTE DEVASTATE
DISALLOW DICTATE DEMAND CONVINCE DOMINATE COMPEL COERCE ENFORCE HATE EXHUME
GLOAT FIGHT AGGRIEVE MADDEN SADDEN PROVE PRY RECANT IMPUTE IMPUGN TRADUCE
REVOLT PLOT CONSPIRE CONNIVE COLLUDE INFURIATE BETRAY OUTRAGE ANNOY TRUMP
CERTIFY OVERPOWER UNDERBID DEVEST DEROGATE DESECRATE DETRACT DISRATE
PROTRACT RETARD DISPARAGE DISCREDIT
17 - F A I L E D O V E R T
EDUCATE HESITATE TRY FAILED OVERT INVIGORATE EXPEDITE COMFORT CHEER EQUIP
ENABLE SUPPORT SUCCOUR STRENGTHEN OBLIGE RESPITE RELIEVE FACILITATE
RECONCILE REASSURE CO-OPERATE CONTRIBUTE SUPPLY ENERGIZE ENDEAR ENCOURAGE
PLEASE EASE HELP ASSIST INNERVATE CAPITULATE SURRENDER PARRY SHIELD WARD
TURN CONCEDE RECEDE THWART TIE LOCALIZE LATCH THREATEN HUMOUR RESORT BOGGLE
PREVENT BESIEGE BOTCH DESPAIR RESIST FORBID FORBEAR REPRESS FOIL WARD WARN
RETRACT SPARE REFRAIN STRIVE WITHSTAND REGRET TURN SHRUG
18 - M O T I O N
TUNNEL TRENCH DAB FLAP POP DESCEND DIP PROD EFFUSE BROWSE CRUISE PITCH
PLUNGE PLY POUR PRANCE POWER PROCEED PROGRESS PROWL PULL CAPER DISLODGE
DISPLACE CAREEN CARRY CAST DODGE CLUMP COAST COIL DABBLE CREEP CLIMB SOAR
SPIN SPEED SPRINT SPRING SPURT STAGNATE STEP STEM STRIDE STROLL STRUM SURGE
SWAY SWIM SWIRL ARISE SWING BESTIR BLOW BOOST BRANDISH MARCH BUDGE BUSTLE
PASS
MOVE MOUNT EBB ELEVATE WRESTLE WHIZ WHIRL WHISK WEND WHEEL WEIGH SLINK
SLING SLOG SLIDE SLUSH SKIM HURL HUSTLE HASTEN FLANK TEEM FLARE FLING FLIP
FLICK RETURN FLIT FLOAT FLOP FLOW FLUTTER FOLLOW FLY REPASS REVOLVE RISE
ROAM ROMP ROLL ROTATE ROW ROVE JOG JOIST JOURNEY JUMP ZOOM WABBLE WADE
WADDLE WANDER WALTZ WAGGLE WALK WAG WAFT WAVE WIELD TREMBLE TREK TOTTER
TOSS TODDLE TILT THRUM LEAN TICK TOUR LEVER LILT LIMBER LIMP LOWER LUNGE
LURCH FALL GALLOP RACE GLIDE RAMBLE GLIMMER PACE PADDLE PARADE PEDAL FARE
PLOD GUSH REDOUBLE SHUFFLE LAP SIDLE IMPEL SKID TROLL IMPRINT DANCE DASH
DART QUAKE QUIVER QUAVER TRILL TWIRL TWIDDLE TREND TROT TRICKLE LAUNCH
TREAD TRAVERSE TRAVEL TUMBLE SHIFT TUSSLE TUG TURN SHIP TOY SHAMBLE LEAP
SHEER LUG SHOVE SHRUG TRUCK LIFT TRUDGE ADVANCE TRAMP TRANSPORT SAUNTER
SCALE IMMIGRATE HURRY ASCEND AMBLE APPROACH SAIL MOTION JUGGLE JOCKEY
DEPLOY TOW MIX DRILL PUSH PUT LOAD HOIST DILATE TACKLE EXPAND HAUL HEAVE
FETCH START STEER HANDLE SHUT DISPORT OSCULATE HUG CARESS STROKE CUDDLE TAP
FEEL RUB TRANSACT COMMENCE PATTER SWISH CLACK CLANG CLINK PEAL JINGLE
REVERBERATE RIPPLE RING DRIP SLUMP SLOUCH REACT SLIP PULSATE THROB SLAVE
HIT GRAB PUNCH RASP GOAD SLUG FLOG RAP RAM GASH BANG THUMP THRUST JERK JAB
CROP CUT DUCK DRAG DRAW CLAW CHOP SNATCH AXE GORGE KICK INCISE SCOURGE
KNOCK COLLIDE BUMP SMITE SLAM SLICE SLASH UNSETTLE SMACK SLAP SLIT DOCK
NAIL SINK PROD WHACK WHIP WARP WREST SCREW WRENCH WRINKLE WRY WRING WALLOP
NIP NICK CRUSH MASH BUTT PINCH PIERCE CANE DOUSE CLUB PUNCTURE PUNCH
PULVERIZE SPUR PRICK EXTRACT SPILL BITE BESMEAR BESPATTER SWITCH BEAT
BATTER BASH FLAIL STRAIN YANK STRIKE STALK STAVE STAB SQUEEZE SQUASH
PENETRATE SPRAIN PRY SPEAR SPLASH SPLIT SMEAR JOSTLE DROP JOLT FORCE COERCE
POUND POKE REND RIP SLACK SUFFUSE STIMULATE STIR TOPPLE BUILD MAKE PRODUCE
ERECT NIBBLE INNOVATE MANUFACTURE ESTABLISH CONSTRUCT INITIATE INCLINE
UNCOVER UNEARTH UNDRESS UNVEIL UNFURL UNROLL ENGAGE DISPLAY TRAIL SCOUT
TRACE TRAIL SEARCH PURSUE TRACK EXPLORE PARTICIPATE PERFORM KNIT STREW
BURST ROUT RADIATE RANGE BESTREW STAMPEDE SPREAD SHOWER SPATTER STRAGGLE
STRAY HARRY DISROBE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST DETACH CLEAVE EVADE EXTRICATE GO
EMERGE YANK REBOUND RECEDE RECOIL SHAKE INJECT INSERT RE-ENTER INSTALL
ADMIT PENETRATE INVEST HUNT EVADE EXTRACT IMMERSE STUMBLE BOUND BOLT HAUL
HASTEN HURL HOIST HUSTLE PUSH HEAVE TOW SCATTER SEND SHUT RAISE VIBRATE
PRECIPITATE MEANDER BEND SURFACE SWERVE EXHUME EVICT RUSH SCRAM SKIP VACATE
SCATTER RUN RETREAT EMIGRATE UPHEAVE PASTE TRUNDLE SLOP
19-D E S T R O Y
ABOLISH OBLITERATE ERADICATE EXPUNGE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE EXTIRPATE
DISINTEGRATE LAPSE FINISH FAIL EXPIRE WILT WITHER EFFACE ANNUL ELIMINATE
ADJOURN ELAPSE ESTRANGE TERMINATE EXPEND DISPOSE ENGULF DELETE ERASE
EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DESTROY ANNIHILATE RUIN CONSUME ERODE TOPPLE VIVISECT
EXECUTE DEMOLISH DEVASTATE PURGE DOOM DEPRECIATE DEODORIZE DESPATCH EAT
GNAW DEVOUR EXPLODE FLAME EMBOWEL DRINK NIBBLE SWIG SWALLOW QUAFF SUP SLAY
SLAUGHTER CRUSH SWILL GUZZLE TIPPLE CRUNCH CRUMPLE GOBBLE CRUMBLE DESTROY
WEAR SMASH ASSASSINATE RAZE RAVAGE FLAY RIVE WRECK SINK POISON DROWN
SMOTHER EMASCULATE NEUTER SPAY CASTRATE DEAFEN BLIND SMASH UNDERMINE SPLIT
SPEAR VITIATE SPOIL SQUASH SPIT STAB EXPOSE STIFLE STRANGLE SWAMP SUFFOCATE
BASH BATTER BEHEAD BOIL BOMB SHELL BOMBARD BREAK KILL SLAY MURDER IMPALE
DEFACE PULVERIZE SHOOT CLUB DOUSE MUTILATE BUTCHER MOB RUIN MASH CRUSH
MASSACRE MAUL BURN GAS ELECTROCUTE KEELHAUL MAIM DISABLE MANGLE SKIN SCORCH
INCINERATE INCAPACITATE SCALD SAVAGE STARVE SCALP FLOOD INUNDATE AXE
CRIPPLE SACK CHOP CLAW DISEMBOWEL EVISCERATE GUT DERAIL DRAW DRAG DISMEMBER
DISSECT CRUCIFY DEMOLISH QUENCH QUASH DECAPITATE DAMAGE CHOKE THROTTLE
QUARTER RAM PARALYSE DEVASTATE RASE EXECUTE RADIATE ROUT BURST DISPERSE
STREW SHRED HANG HACK HASH IMMOLATE IMPALE CLEAVE SUNDER SHATTER LYNCH SEAR
TRAMPLE INFLICT PENETRATE INVEST INOCULATE BICKER QUARREL DEAFEN EXTRACT
COLLIDE GARBLE JUMBLE SLOP BOGGLE
BOTCH LOSE AMPUTATE DISCARD REPRESS LEAP SPAY WEED LEVEL SHRED AVENGE
UPROOT WASTE DEVASTATE REVOLT COLLUDE BETRAY REJECT SHRIVEL RETARD HANG
SHATTER LYNCH INCINERATE IMMOLATE CREMATE DISABLE DEPRIVE ENERVATE ABORT
CURSE SACRIFICE ENFEEBLE DESICCATE CURTAIL MASSACRE DISSOLVE MASTICATE
DEDUCT MEDICATE STERILIZE
20 - M I S - E M O T I O N A L
MIS-EMOTIONAL RESPOND DISPUTE EXHORT WELCOME UNDERSTAND APPEAL PLEA
IRRITATE TERRIFY TERRORIZE IRK TORMENT DENOUNCE DEPRESS DISGRACE DISHONOUR
DISAFFECT DERANGE DISMAY DEMORALIZE IMPRECATE PERK SOOTHE EMBITTER ENLIVEN
CHEER DELIGHT FRIGHTEN GRIEVE ALARM SCARE BRUTALIZE BULLY DEJECT DEGRADE
DEMENT AGGRAVATE BENUMB BEDEVIL APPAL STUPEFY STUN VEX UNNERVE WORRY PAIN
QUARREL OFFEND NETTLE STIR PROVOKE ANTICIPATE QUAIL LOATHE HAUNT LISP HARP
BICKER PROTEST WISH BOGGLE TRANSPORT SHRUG STUMBLE SYMPATHIZE RELISH ESTEEM
HUMILIATE HIDE NEED APPROVAL FROM OWN PROTECT CONTROL BLAME PUNISH BE KILL
MAKE APATHETIC MAKE AMENDS GRIEVE PROPITIATE SYMPATHIZE FEAR NOT-SYMPATHIZE
RESENT COVERTLY ANGER PAIN RESENT OVERTLY BORE MAKE INDIFFERENT CONTENT
MILDLY INTEREST INTEREST STRONGLY ENTHUSE EXHILARATE MAKE EAGER MAKE SERENE
DESPISE WAIL SORROW SIGH BETRAY GRIEVE GROAN REPENT RUE YELP AGONIZE MOAN
MOPE MOURN ENVY CRY DESPAIR EMBITTER WAVER FALTER AVOID CAPITULATE
COMMISERATE REGRET DEMUR DISHEARTEN EMBARRASS BEMOAN BEWAIL WEEP AGONIZE
DISGUST ENTREAT CENSURE UPBRAID FOUL DISAPPROVE ENFEEBLE HUMILIATE MORTIFY
DARE SHAME ASHAME SULK OUTCRY SCORN INFURIATE RAGE RANKLE GROWL POUT
GRUMBLE NAG YELP YAP DISGUST DISLIKE DISPLEASE DETEST HATE INCULPATE
ASCRIBE CHIDE COMPLAIN CHEW CONDEMN OBJURGATE CARP IMPLY FULMINATE
REPREHEND REPROACH AVENGE RESENT DEPLORE RECRIMINATE DISAPPROVE ABUSE
REBUKE CRITICIZE CONVICT INSANE OUTRAGE WHOOP SLOBBER ABHOR ABOMINATE ANGER
ANNOY SCORN INFURIATE SENTIMENTALIZE SHUDDER SIGH QUIBBLE IMPLORE
GESTICULATE RAGE RAMP GLOAT PANIC GNASH FAINT FIDGET FIGHT REPENT FRET
DREAD RUE YELL AGGRIEVE MADDEN PALPITATE DISLIKE DISPLEASE DISTRESS DESPAIR
DESPOND DETEST AMERCE MORTIFY SHAME RESENT CURSE DISCOURAGE DISTRACT BOTHER
COMMISERATE REGRET BLAME HATE
21 - W I T H H O L D
ACCUSE ABUSE ACCOST PURLOIN IMPEACH AGITATE IMPERIL IMPAIR IMPALE AFFLICT
IMPLICATE TRANSFIX SCAR INCRIMINATE INDENT INDICT SEGREGATE SEAL SHACKLE
TUCK SHIRK SECLUDE INTERCEPT SHUN HIDE HIBERNATE HINDER LIMIT INSULATE
EXEMPT CLAM EXCEPT CONCEAL CONTAIN CONSTRICT CONSTRAIN CURB ENCHAIN CLUTCH
ENGORGE PRECLUDE PINION MUZZLE MUFFLE BOUND BOLT BIND ABSTAIN BESIEGE BAN
ARREST SWADDLE SURROUND SUSPEND APPREHEND STILL SPECIALIZE SPARE WEDGE
SNARE WEAN WARD WARN RETRACT WITHHOLD STOW REFORM SOOTHE STAUNCH EXCUSE
CIVILIZE CALM HOLD HALT STOP SHUT HITCH DISCIPLINE TAME RECALL CHALLENGE
SUBDUE REQUIRE SUMMON HANDLE CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE EDIT EMEND SET SITUATE
VOTE STEER USHER NAVIGATE PILOT HUSH STIPULATE PRESCRIBE DIRECT MODERATE
ARRANGE ORIENTATE ASSORT DISABUSE SHAPE RULE COMMAND MASTER ORDER ABATE
PARRY SQUEEZE TIE BIND NAIL DESERT DEPRIVE OSTRACIZE BANISH FIX GRASP TRAP
CRIMP COMMANDEER REQUISITION KIDNAP INTERDICT TRICE QUELL SEIZE MANACLE
CHAIN TRUSS ENSNARE HANDCUFF FETTER CRUCIFY DEPOSE CAPITULATE COMMIT STEAL
SNATCH INCARCERATE STARVE EXILE MAROON EXPOSE EXCRUCIATE TAX DEFACE EXTORT
CAPTURE EXTRACT SPILL MURDER FORGET DESIST IMPRESS IMPRISON IMMURE SORT
ZONE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVIDE CLEAVE EXCLUDE INDISPOSE YANK RECOIL INOCULATE
INHUME CONTRADICT DECLINE RECEDE HUMOUR GAG EDUCATE CONSERVE PAWN CAGE
CEASE COMMIT CONSECRATE COVER DISABLE DEPRIVE CATCH ENJOIN ENTRAP ESCHEW
CAGE ENFEEBLE DENY SUPPRESS CURTAIL MIRE FOUL PLOT CAUTION CHECK CACHE
COVER DISARM DISALLOW CONSPIRE GO CONNIVE COLLUDE CLAIM RETARD FORGET
FILTER RESTRAIN RESTRICT SECRETE FRUSTRATE RESIST RESERVE FORGO FORBID
REPRESS FOIL FETTER
FASTEN PROHIBIT PREVENT REFRAIN GAG RECOMMIT LOCALIZE LATCH THREATEN
THRASH THRALL TIE ISOLATE SHEATHE SEIZE IMMURE FORBEAR THWART
22 - F A I L E D W I T H H O L D
SHRIVE LOOSE GASP GRANT RELEASE FLAUNT YIELD LIBERATE PHILANDER OUTBREAK
UNCHAIN UNLOOSE UNLOCK UPHEAVE UNTIE UNGIRD UNFETTER ACQUIESCE ACCEDE BLAB
BLURT PEACH EMANCIPATE CLOY DISGORGE DIVULGE FAILED WITHHOLD WHIMPER SHARE
SATISFY RECOMMEND ADVISE PARDON PERMIT TENDER REIMBURSE ENDOW COAX PANIC
FINANCE BESTOW SUPPLY REPLETE OBLIGE SURFEIT FILL SUFFICE FULFIL EXTEND
CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE AVAIL LEND REDRESS RE-ENFORCE REINFORCE OFFER
REVIVIFY UNDERTAKE VOLUNTEER SUCKLE SUPPORT DEFRAY PROVIDE EQUIP DRIVE
MANIFEST REMAND ALLOW START BEGIN FETCH HEAVE HAUL DISBURSE COMPLY ASSIGN
APPOINT ALLOCATE ALLOT UTILIZE ENLARGE MAGNIFY EXPAND AWARD AIM ALTER
EMPHASIZE DEPUTE DELEGATE TACKLE OPERATE EMPOWER DILATE AMPLIFY ELONGATE
VEST ACTUATE HIRE RENT CONSIGN APPROVE ELECT HOIST MANIPULATE LOAD PUT SEND
REMAND PROFESS APPEAL RESPOND REPORT REMARK REPLY ASK VOICE UTTER SPEAK
CALL SOUND BREAK DISCLOSE REACH TELL TALK EXCLAIM EXHIBIT REVEAL SHOUT SHOW
SMELL SLUMP SLOUCH REACT STINK SLIP SMART PULSATE THROB TINGLE DRIP RECOUNT
QUOTE REITERATE RECAPITULATE TESTIFY RELATE REPEAT REVIEW REMEMBER REMIND
IMITATE BREAK BOMBARD SHELL AGGRAVATE BITE BESPATTER BESMIRCH BESMEAR
BESLOBBER BESET BESLAVER BELABOUR ATTACK BEDEVIL BEFOUL ASSAIL BATTER BASH
FLOOD SWAMP FLAIL STORM STRIKE STAB SQUELCH SQUASH GOSSIP SPOIL PRY STAIN
SPLASH VIOLATE SPLIT VEX SOCK SOIL SMEAR SMASH SURRENDER SMITE INFILTRATE
SLAM SLICE SLASH SMACK SLAP SINK WHACK WOUND WORRY OVERWHELM MUTINY PAIN
WRENCH QUARREL WRECK WALLOP OPPRESS OFFEND NIP NICK JOSTLE DROP NETTLE JOLT
RETALIATE REBEL FORCE REVOLT POUND POKE PLUNDER REND REVENGE RECK PESTER
PLAGUE PERSECUTE RAVAGE RAVISH RAZE IMPRISON RIFLE RIP PECK GRAB GOAD SLUG
PASTE DEVASTATE RANSACK RAP RAPE RAID GASH BURGLE THUMP THRUST TROUNCE
TROUBLE IRK DAMAGE TORMENT TORTURE SPY JAB TRIP INTIMATE INCRIMINATE DUEL
SNIPE DENT DENOUNCE CUT CHARGE DRENCH DISSIPATE TRANSGRESS COMMIT CLAW
DAZZLE SACK EXPLOIT CRIMINATE SMUGGLE INVADE KICK SIN SMUDGE INUNDATE
IMPOSE BOTHER SAVAGE SCALD SCORCH KNOCK MANGLE POACH MOLEST BUMP MAUL
MASSACRE SQUEAL MOB BUTT BUTCHER PIERCE CANE DISTURB CLUB SHOOT PUNCH
IMPRESS PRESS IMPALE IMPOUND LIQUIDATE DEVASTATE DESTROY DEMOLISH CRUSH
EXECUTE PURGE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE WILT ERODE FLAME
EXPLODE CRUMPLE EXPEND ESTRANGE CONSUME DEVOUR SWILL EAT GUZZLE SWIG GNAW
GOBBLE TIPPLE NIBBLE DRINK TOPPLE IRRADICATE IMPREGNATE DIVULGE SQUEAL
UNCOVER UNEARTH UNDRESS UNVEIL UNFURL DISPLAY UNROLL UNFOLD EXTRACT ENTWINE
CONSORT TOUCH WED MARRY EMBRACE PERVADE PERMEATE ENCOUNTER CLING DISPERSE
DIFFUSE STRAY STRUGGLE STREW SPATTER SHOWER BURST SPREAD ROUT STAMPEDE
HAMMER HAZE SHOCK LOOT INSULT BITCH HORRIFY HECKLE HIT HARASS IMMOLATE HURT
HARRY HOUND INCRIMINATE IMPLICATE AFFLICT ACCOST ABUSE DISROBE UNCLASP
CLEAVE UNLOAD DIVEST DIVERGE SUNDER DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER
DIVIDE ZONE SEPARATE TRESPASS SHAKE LYNCH INJURE SCRATCH INFLICT ADMIT
PENETRATE INJECT INSERT INVEST HARP HUNT LISP DEAFEN CONCEDE CONTRADICT
PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE DISSENT CONTEND BICKER TIE COLLIDE GARBLE
IMMERSE JUMBLE SLOP STUMBLE BOTCH EXACT PAWN WANT DISCARD SHOVE LEAP TOY
TURN TUG SHIFT ENVY AGONIZE MOAN YELL YAP YELP RUE REPENT GRUMBLE FIGHT
POUT GROAN GLOAT REVOLT IMPUGN RECANT TRADUCE BETRAY SHUDDER INFURIATE
ANGER SLOBBER WEEP WAIL OUTRAGE OUTCRY SHIVER BROOK CONFESS PRY DESIRE
ENTREAT DESPAIR VOMIT NAUSEATE SUCCUMB RETCH REVEAL DISCLOSE SPILL STOOL
SING TALK TATTLE DEDUCT ELUDE ENFEEBLE ENTRAP INFORM SQUEAL DISTRESS BULLY
RAM ACCUSE INFRINGE
23 - S E P A R A T E
SUNDER STRADDLE REFRACT DECOCT EXCLUDE FILTER DISROBE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST
DIVERGE DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE
ZONE SEPARATE SORT CLEAVE DILATE INDIVIDUATE SHARE RIVE ISOLATE IMPRISON
SECEDE BANISH DIVORCE OSTRACIZE WRENCH DEPRIVE DESERT SLIT SEVER SLASH
SPILL SPLIT PRY BEHEAD IMPOUND MAROON INCISE AXE SNATCH STRAGGLE CHOP
DISEMBOWEL EVISCERATE DRAW DESPOIL DISMEMBER CASTRATE DISSECT CUT CROP
KIDNAP BANISH STRAY INTERSPERSE STREW SPATTER DIFFUSE DISPERSE RADIATE
RANGE SHRED LOOT HEW HASH PURLOIN EXTRACT DEBATE PROTEST QUARREL
REMONSTRATE DISSENT CONTEND BICKER CONTRADICT RECEDE YANK EMERGE DISMISS
HIBERNATE SHUN SECLUDE SEGREGATE ISOLATE LATCH THRASH AMPUTATE DISCARD
RESERVE WEDGE WEAN PARTICULARIZE DISTINGUISH TABULATE ITEMIZE DIVERSIFY
BISECT DEDUCT DISCRIMINATE DISCHARGE DEPORT EXILE FIRE EXPEL BANISH SECEDE
SELECT EXORCIZE EXCEPT CLEAVE
24 - A T T E N T I O N
FIX FIXATE DAZZLE DAZE IMPLANT STARTLE WORRY PESTER HELP ASSIST SERVE
INVOLVE EVOKE WAKE WAKEN AWAKEN ENGROSS TEMPT ATTRACT TANTALIZE MARVEL
ALLURE TRANCE IMPRESS CAPTIVATE FASCINATE ELECTRIFY HORRIFY HARASS HOUND
TRANSFIX DIVIDE SEPARATE SORT ZONE THRALL BOGGLE EDUCATE SPECIALIZE SHIFT
PREOCCUPY USE PURSUE PRACTISE FREQUENT EXERCISE EMPLOY WELCOME THANK
SYMPATHIZE REMEMBER RECOGNIZE INGRATIATE HOB-NOB FAVOUR ENDEAR EMBOSOM
BEFRIEND ACKNOWLEDGE WORSHIP VENERATE VALUE TREASURE REVERE PRIZE LOVE LIKE
IDOLIZE HONOUR HARBOUR HALLOW GLORIFY ESTEEM DOTE CHERISH APPRECIATE ADORE
ADMIRE AWAIT WATCH GUARD BEWARE TREK OVERHAUL MARAUD FORAGE DISSECT CANVASS
TRAVERSE SCOUR PIERCE EXPLORE VENTURE STALK FOLLOW CHASE SOUND PROBE FUMBLE
FATHOM DELVE TEST EXPERIMENT WINNOW SIFT ANALYSE SPECULATE REGARD OBSERVE
MARK CONTEMPLATE BEHOLD STARE PEER PEEP OGLE GLOAT GAZE SPY SCAN QUIZ PRY
EYE SEEK SEARCH RUMMAGE RANSACK QUEST NOSE LOOK HUNT FERRET SCHEME PLOT
PLAN GET THE IDEA ATTENTION FIXED THINK FORESEE RECALL RECONSIDER VALIDATE
PREMEDITATE DELIBERATE CONCENTRATE BETHINK ABSORB VIEW SENSE PERCEIVE
IMAGINE FEEL CONCEIVE CATCH APPREHEND THEORIZE CON RECKON REASON
PHILOSOPHIZE COGITATE REVOLVE RUMINATE PONDER MUSE MEDITATE CUDGEL CHEW
REGARD PERUSE BROOD SPECULATE TEST COMPARE WEIGH MIND HEED ENTERTAIN
CONSIDER ATTEND STUDY SCRUTINIZE AWAKE EXAMINE CONSULT ATTENTION SHIFTED
ATTENTION
25 - P R O P I T I A T E
GRATIFY PACIFY PANDER PAMPER PRAY FAWN FLATTER APPEASE STOOP SUPPLICATE
SYNCOPATE PLEAD BESEECH BOW PROPITIATE EXPATIATE EXPIATE DEFER CRINGE DOTE
INDEMNIFY AMELIORATE LULL THANK PAY WINE DIVERT CULTIVATE CONCILIATE WILE
SOOTHE ALLAY SMOOTH OBLIGE APPEAL WELCOME PROMISE PERSUADE REMUNERATE
SANCTION REPAY CONSENT PROFESS ASK RESPOND SATISFY PLEA SLAVE EMULATE ADMIT
PROSTRATE ABASE CLING ENTWINE CONSORT FRATERNIZE JOIN COMBINE REJOIN
REUNITE SHOWER BESTREW IMMOLATE CLEAVE DISROBE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST INVITE
CONCEDE COAX CONTRADICT HUMOUR WISH TRY CONSERVE LOSE PETITION PREPAY DEIFY
SHRUG SHAMBLE SYMPATHIZE TRUCKLE EXTOL DEDICATE EXALT CROUCH ENTREAT APPEAL
GRIN SACRIFICE WORSHIP CAJOLE INDULGE SIMPER TRY COMMISERATE WHEEDLE
APPLAUD LIONIZE SHINE SIGNALIZE AWE GLORIFY PRAISE IDOLIZE INFLATE WEEP
SLOBBER IMPLORE REPENT DREAD WORSHIP ANOINT CAPITULATE
26 - I M P O R T A N C E
TRUCKLE TRUMP TROW DEVOTE DEVOLVE DESERVE CROW DEIFY CONSECRATE EXTOL
DEDICATE CONGRATULATE PROMOTE ENNOBLE CAPITALIZE ESTIMATE CERTIFY CHERISH
EXALT CITE COMPLIMENT COMMEND PRESENT FELICITATE REPUTE FOSTER RESPECT
REVERE REWARD JUDGE OUTNUMBER WAX WORSHIP SLATE VALUE SOLEMNIZE VOW STRESS
STRUT SUPERPOSE SURPASS ANOINT SWAGGER SWANK APPLAUD ARBITRATE ASPIRE ASSAY
AVOW ADJUDGE ADJUDICATE ADORN BLAZON BOAST BRAG MILITATE PICK PLEDGE
POSTURE PRECEDE PREDOMINATE PREEN PREOCCUPY LIONIZE
INSTIL SHINE SIGNALIZE TRIUMPH TOP AWE RANK GLORIFY RATE GRADE PRAISE
REGARD IDEALIZE IDOLIZE IMMORTALIZE ACCREDIT APPRECIATE TOWER INAUGURATE
SALUTE INFLATE SELECT TREASURE INLAY INSCRIBE INSPIRIT EDIFY ENCOURAGE
ENDEAR ENHANCE EXTEND CONTRIBUTE RAISE REINFORCE RE-ENFORCE RELY FURTHER
UPHOLD VALIDATE SPONSOR STRENGTHEN EXCEL DELIGHT LIVE CULTIVATE DEVELOP
CIVILIZE PAY EMBLAZON DECORATE TATTOO EXHIBIT PERSIST PERSEVERE PERPETUATE
MAINTAIN RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW CONTINUE PROSPER SUCCEED WIN SURMOUNT
GROW SURVIVE IMPRESS BRAND EXPLOIT GOAD DUB ATTRIBUTE CRAVE SHOWER BESTREW
RADIATE STAMPEDE HORRIFY ZONE EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW FILTER DECOCT SORT
DIFFER CLEAVE SCORE INTRUST BICKER CONTEND COAX DISSENT REMONSTRATE QUARREL
PROTEST DEBATE HARP SEAL ISOLATE THRALL HUMOUR RISK EDUCATE SECRETE COVET
CONSERVE WARN SPECIALIZE SURROUND BESIEGE ASCEND HURRY ADVANCE TURN FLAUNT
ESTEEM BLUSTER INITIATE INSPIRE RECOMPENSE PREFER SWEAR RAVE CATCH SCORE
ENTRAP DARE ELABORATE EMBELLISH SWELL GARNISH TRIM TRANSFIGURE CACHE BLESS
WORSHIP FLATTER PROVE EXHUME PRY ENVY AGONIZE NAG DREAD YELL GROAN GLOAT
RAMP PLOT CONSPIRE QUIBBLE CONNIVE COLLUDE SHUDDER ABOMINATE BETRAY ABHOR
WEEP WHOOP PALE STRIVE PREVAIL INSURE PROCLAIM PLEDGE PROMISE CONCENTRATE
DISPLAY DRAMATIZE DISTINGUISH EXAGGERATE BEDAZZLE IMPORTANCE
27-F A I L E D I M P O R T A N C E
IMBRUE DESPISE DESECRATE DEROGATE DISDAIN DISPARAGE DISRATE DISCREDIT
DISCOUNT CROUCH DEIGN CRIMP DETRACT DWINDLE DEVEST BLUSTER SUPERANNUATE
SUBMERGE STANDARDIZE UNDERBID UNDERESTIMATE UNDERRATE UNBEND UNDERVALUE
OVERPOWER OUTSTRIP OUTWIT OUTWORK WAIVE RELEGATE WANE REDUCE GLOZE IGNORE
SHRINK SHRIVEL CRITICIZE DISCOURAGE HEAL SALVE ABSOLVE ALLEVIATE ALLAY
MITIGATE PARDON PALLIATE CONSOLE RECONCILE FORGIVE SMOOTH SOOTHE EXCULPATE
COMFORT DEFRAY DISBURDEN ABASE DEGRADE DEBASE DEFLATE SHAME CONQUER CRUSH
EXILE DISABLE INCAPACITATE DEPRESS DEPOSE QUELL TRIFLE QUASH DAMAGE
ASSASSINATE OVERWHELM SINK REPRESS SMASH SMEAR UNDERMINE UNDERCUT VANQUISH
SQUASH SQUELCH STULTIFY ENSLAVE SUBJUGATE DEMOTE LOAF REPOSE RELAX
RUSTICATE SPATTER BURST STREW DIFFUSE ROUT STRAY STRAGGLE DISPERSE INSULT
IMPEACH EXCLUDE SUNDER DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE DIVIDE SEPARATE
CLEAVE INHUME CONCEDE DECLINE SHIRK LOCALIZE HUMOUR RISK FORGO LOSE DISCARD
RETRACT RETREAT RETIRE INURE OUTCRY SCORN MOPE MOURN ENVY EXHUME DESPAIR
DESPOND BELITTLE CAPITULATE PERISH PUTREFY ROT SUBMIT SUCCUMB IGNORE STOOP
MOCK BOW FOUL DECREASE ENFEEBLE RANK RESCIND REPUDIATE RESIGN FORSAKE
RENOUNCE SHIFT LEAP TURN SHRUG REJECT FORGET CLOY TAUNT DISAPPROVE CURTAIL
WHITTLE REGRET DEGRADE DEMOTE HUMILIATE JEER DECRY DEFAME GIBE RAG REBUFF
CATCH SCOFF MORTIFY EMBARRASS MINIMIZE SLUR RIDICULE RIB DEPRIVE JIBE
INVALIDATE DEPRECATE SPURN SNUB SNEER DISPROVE DISCLAIM OMIT DISABLE
RELINQUISH PROSTITUTE FAILED IMPORTANCE
28 - A R R I V E
ATTAIN ALIGHT ACHIEVE ACCOMPLISH ENCAMP CONCLUDE CULMINATE DETRAIN ARRIVE
END COME DELIVER BARRACK CONFRONT FACE REVEAL EXHIBIT SUCCEED WIN SURVIVE
MATURE COMPREHEND SUBSTANTIATE TESTIFY RECOGNIZE RELAY TRANSMIT REPLACE
RESTORE REPLENISH DUPLICATE REMEMBER COPY PRINT QUOTE RECEIVE INFILTRATE
RAM RAID SMUGGLE INVADE INUNDATE BOARD BESET STORM PENETRATE MATERIALIZE
FIND ABIDE DWELL SOJOURN CAMP PARK PERCH SITE ATTEND WED MARRY JOIN REJOIN
REUNITE CONNECT LINK MEET INTERSECT ENCOUNTER COMBINE MATRICULATE INSTALL
ADMIT PENETRATE INJECT INSERT INVEST INOCULATE INTRUST EMERGE IMMIGRATE
LEAP CATCH
29 - F A I L E D T O A R R I V E
PROTRACT RETARD FAILED TO ARRIVE RECAPITULATE REITERATE PRACTISE REHEARSE
RETRACE TRANSCRIBE REPEAT RECORD REMIND REDUPLICATE
REPRODUCE REVIEW MULTIPLY RECOUNT DERAIL STRAGGLE MAROON IMPOUND AMBUSH
DROWN IMMOBILIZE WAYLAY WRECK RUSTICATE RELAX REPOSE LOAF BECALM BASK
IMPAWN RECLINE SPRAWL SIT SQUAT STICK DESIST POISE BURST STREW DIFFUSE
RADIATE RANGE STAMPEDE ROUT DISPERSE STRAY STRAGGLE HANG STRADDLE EXCLUDE
ZONE SUNDER DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW FILTER CLEAVE DISMISS
GARBLE RESORT STUMBLE BOTCH BOGGLE PREVENT BESIEGE MIRE SUCCUMB PERISH
SWERVE STAGGER WAVER FALTER DESIRE MOPE FIDGET FRET STRIVE STRUGGLE RETREAT
SAUNTER TURN DEPRIVE DISSUADE DISABLE EVADE
30 - S U R V I V E
PROSPER RECOVER RECUPERATE WIN SUCCEED SURMOUNT TIME GRUB LIVE VALET DARN
REPRIEVE RENEW LUXURIATE THRIVE FLOURISH RECUR CONTINUE TOIL LABOUR SURVIVE
PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST PROLONG LAY INHALE RESPIRE NURTURE
NOURISH RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE REINSTATE GROW MATURE FIX INVIGORATE CIVILIZE
DEVELOP CULTIVATE EXCEL ENLIVEN PROVIDE EXHILARATE ENABLE SUPPORT SUCCOUR
REINFORCE RE-ENFORCE STRENGTHEN VOLUNTEER UPHOLD UNDERTAKE REVIVIFY REVIVE
FURTHER RESCUE RESUSCITATE REJUVENATE REGENERATE RAISE CO-OPERATE
CONTRIBUTE EXTEND FULFIL ENERGIZE SUSTAIN HELP TRAVAIL SERVE INNERVATE
LENGTHEN DUPLICATE MULTIPLY IMITATE REPRODUCE RESTORE REPLACE REPLENISH
REMEMBER REMIND EMULATE COPY RECORD PORTRAY PRINT REPRINT DEPICT QUOTE
REPEAT REDUPLICATE VANQUISH EXPLOIT PROSECUTE PROPAGATE POPULATE BREED
PROCREATE INBREED BEGET IMPREGNATE SECURE RELAX REPOSE LOAF SOJOURN DWELL
ABIDE RESIDE SITE RUSTICATE FREEZE OSSIFY INHABIT CONSERVE PIECE REIGN
PREVAIL EVOLVE ENDEAVOUR QUALIFY TRANSPORT ADVANCE PROTRACT IMMORTALIZE
TRIUMPH WAX EXIST PREVAIL ENDURE EKE LAST WITHSTAND SUBSIST CLEAVE
31 - W A I T
PROCRASTINATE EXPECT DELAY DETAIN DETER LURK DALLY DANGLE DAWDLE QUEUE
LOUNGE WAIT LANGUISH LIGHT IMPEND TEMPORIZE LOITER LOLL AWAIT MUSE PAUSE
POSTPONE BIDE WAIT MEDIATE NEGOTIATE REMAND HOLD HALT STOP SHUT ENGAGE
TREAT DRILL PERSIST PERPETUATE MAINTAIN PERSEVERE CONTINUE RECUPERATE TIME
PROLONG WAYLAY HANG STICK IMMOBILIZE AMBUSH STALL LAG LURK BESIEGE SEIZE
ANTICIPATE ABIDE RESIDE LOCATE SITE STICK RUSTICATE PERCH POSE SQUAT SIT
SPRAWL RECLINE BASK BECALM NESTLE IMPAWN PIN BATTEN BELAY FREEZE CAMP
SECURE OSSIFY POISE RELAX REPOSE LOAF PARK SOJOURN DWELL CLING ENTWINE
BETROTH HANG CLEAVE INHUME DEBATE HAUNT HIDE BOGGLE HESITATE CONSERVE
SUSPEND TOY PARK AMBLE SAUNTER FIDGET DESIRE FRET RELAPSE MOPE RETARD
SUBMIT STALL DISSUADE DEFER ENTRAP CAGE PROTRACT
32 - L E A V E
EXPEL EXPORT DEPORT DESERT DISAPPEAR DISCHARGE EXUVIATE WITHDRAW UPROOT
EXHALE EXTRUDE EXUDE BANISH EJACULATE EJECT ELOPE ESCAPE EMBARK ENTRAIN
APOSTATIZE EVACUATE EXHAUST DECAMP QUIT PERSPIRE ABSCOND ABSENT SECEDE
LEAVE HIE HIKE ABDICATE ABDUCT LEAVE START BEGIN ALLOW RELAY TRANSMIT WILL
RETREAT SINK DESERT BANISH DISSIPATE EXILE DEVISE QUIT PURSUE DESIST DECAMP
RADIATE RANGE STAMPEDE ROUT DISPERSE STRAY STRAGGLE OUTLAW EXCOMMUNICATE
UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE DIVEST DETACH SUNDER DIVERGE DIVIDE SEPARATE
EXTRICATE GO DISMISS EMERGE YANK REBOUND RECEDE RECOIL CONCEDE REBOUND LOSE
AMPUTATE MIGRATE CURTAIL DISSUADE DEPART FLY RETREAT FLEE MARCH SAIL RETIRE
RESIGN PERISH AVOID TIRE UNFIT ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT RETCH SWOON PUTREFY DRAIN
CAPITULATE SUCCUMB END VACATE SCATTER RUN EXORCISE FLUSH SKIP RUSH SCRAM
BETAKE EVICT FORSAKE EMIGRATE FORSWEAR CEASE REJECT OUTBREAK SHIFT TURN
LEAP SHOVE TRANSPORT IMMIGRATE BOLT TRAVEL JOURNEY SEPARATE EVAPORATE
DEPRIVE
33 - F A I L E D L E A V E
FREQUENT ENWRAP ENCOMPASS ENVELOP ENCLOSE ENCIRCLE OVERTAKE SETTLE HOVER
REMAIN VOLUNTEER HELP ASSIST REMAND HITCH STOP TAME RECALL MEDIATE
NEGOTIATE CHALLENGE MIX ENGAGE TREAT FETCH SUBDUE DEMAND REQUIRE SUMMON
HEAVE HAUL HOLD HALT DISCIPLINE INTRUDE RECALL RECOVER REPRIEVE REINSTATE
PROLONG RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RECUR RENEW PERSIST PERPETUATE MAINTAIN
PERSEVERE CONTINUE RECUPERATE PILLORY RESTORE REPLENISH DUPLICATE REPRODUCE
REDUPLICATE REMIND REMEMBER RECORD COPY PORTRAY PRINT REPRINT DEPICT QUOTE
REPEAT TRANSCRIBE RECEIVE CHARACTERIZE ITERATE RETRACE REHEARSE PRACTISE
REITERATE RECAPITULATE REVIEW REPLACE PENETRATE TIE DROWN BIND IMMOBILIZE
WARD WAYLAY FIX PESTER PLAGUE RAVAGE IMPRISON RAM QUARTER RACK TRICE
BESIEGE SIEGE TRUSS CHAIN MANACLE SEIZE TRAP FETTER ENSNARE CRUCIFY COMMIT
INVADE INCARCERATE DISABLE MAROON BECALM IMPRESS PRESS BOARD IMPALE IMPOUND
SECURE CAMP FREEZE BELAY BATTEN PIN IMPAWN NESTLE BASK RECLINE SPRAWL SIT
SQUAT POSE PERCH RUSTICATE STICK SITE LOCATE RESIDE ABIDE DWELL SOJOURN
PARK LOAF REPOSE RELAX QUIESCE OSSIFY EMBRACE CLING ENTWINE MARRY WED
REUNITE REJOIN HANG HECKLE IMMURE HARRY IMPERIL INFILTRATE INFEST TRESPASS
INFRINGE RE-ENTER INHABIT HAUNT HARP LIMIT INTERCEPT SECLUDE SHACKLE SEIZE
LATCH THRALL HUMOUR FASTEN PREVENT HESITATE FETTER RESIST RESTRICT SNARE
ARREST SURROUND APPREHEND LAST DESPAIR MOPE UNDERGO ENDURE WITHSTAND EXIST
PREVAIL RETARD BOUND BIND BOLT CUMBER ENTRAP MIRE CACHE ABIDE HAUNT STICK
INFEST DELAY HOLD CAGE FIDGET TURN TUG CATCH FAILED LEAVE
34 - P R O T E C T
COVER DISPEL EMBANK EVERT DISCRIMINATE CODDLE PRESERVE PROTECT ENTRENCH
ESCORT KEEP DEFEND LAVE LEGALIZE LEGITIMIZE LEGISLATE LICENSE GUARD GIRD
FEND FORTIFY REPULSE REPEL FRANCHISE THATCH AVERT BLESS PARRY PATROL PICKET
SAVE DISARM SAFE TEND DEFLECT HELP SUSTAIN ASSURE ALLEVIATE ALLAY MITIGATE
PALLIATE EASE STOW RAISE REASSURE REFORM REDRESS RE-ENFORCE REINFORCE
RESCUE FURTHER UPHOLD SPONSOR VINDICATE STRENGTHEN SUCCOUR SUPPORT PROVIDE
EQUIP CULTIVATE DRESS ADMINISTER SUPERINTEND SUPERVISE MANAGE PRESIDE
HANDLE ASSIGN APPOINT ALLOCATE ALLOT TOW ACCOUNT TAG UTILIZE HOLD TEST
ORGANIZE UNTANGLE CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE DISCIPLINE HALT EDIT STOP DETAIL
ENUMERATE ENLARGE MAGNIFY EXPAND AWARD AIM EMPHASIZE DRILL TAME EMEND ALTER
DELEGATE DEPUTE SHUT RECALL NEGOTIATE MEDIATE TACKLE CHALLENGE SET OPERATE
DEPLOY EMPOWER START SITUATE REIGN DILATE AMPLIFY ELONGATE VEST VOTE SPACE
MIX DEMAGNETIZE ACTUATE ACQUIT UNRUFFLE RENT HIRE ENGAGE CONSIGN STEER
TREAT HITCH HEFT JOCKEY JUGGLE USHER NAVIGATE PILOT OFFICIATE IDENTIFY
FETCH BEGIN SUBDUE REMAND PREDISPOSE HUSH APPROVE STIPULATE PRESCRIBE
DIRECT REQUIRE ELECT MODERATE ARRANGE HABITUATE ALLOW ORIENTATE ASSORT
DISABUSE SUMMON HOIST SHAPE MANIPULATE RULE COMMAND MASTER ORDER LOAD PUT
PUSH HEAVE HAUL SEND COMPLY ABATE DISBURSE RENDER CIRCUMSTANTIATE SPEAK
PLEA REPRIEVE REINSTATE REPAIR RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW PERSIST
PERPETUATE MAINTAIN PERSEVERE CONTINUE RECUPERATE NOURISH FIX NURTURE
LABOUR TOIL DARN LAY GRUB VALET REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY TESTIFY
COMPREHEND RECOGNIZE REPLACE RESTORE REPLENISH REMEMBER PICKET PATROL DODGE
STAVE DUCK SECURE FREEZE BELAY BATTEN PIN IMPAWN LOAF OSSIFY CAMP REPOSE
RELAX NESTLE CONNECT CLING ENTWINE MARRY WED BETROTH JOIN COMBINE EMBRACE
PERSUADE PERMEATE LINK HECKLE HURT ZONE SEPARATE EXCLUDE FILTER OUTLAW
EXCOMMUNICATE UNLOAD UNCLASP CLEAVE DISROBE DIFFER DIVEST DETACH SUNDER
DIVERGE DIVIDE LASH INOCULATE CONTEND HUNT INSULATE HIBERNATE HIDE SECLUDE
TUCK SHACKLE SEAL SEGREGATE THWART ISOLATE SHEATHE LOCALIZE LATCH THREATEN
IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT RISK FASTEN PROHIBIT PREVENT EDUCATE RESIST FORBID
FORBEAR FOIL WARD WARN SPARE SWADDLE SURROUND SHELTER ENCLOSE ENCOMPASS
HARBOUR COLLUDE CONNIVE ENTREAT ENFORCE DOMINATE DISALLOW DICTATE
COMPEL TIRE SWERVE SWOON GUARANTEE WALL SAFEGUARD MUFFLE BOLT LEAP TURN TUG
CLUTCH EXEMPT RETARD CLAIM CHERISH FOSTER VALUE INSURE BETRAY INTERVENE
CACHE JUSTIFY CONDEMN CAUTION MEDICATE DISTRACT CURSE ENTRAP CAGE CATCH
CONSERVE PREPARE CAMOUFLAGE
35 - F A I L E D P R O T E C T
SURRENDER STAKE OVERWHELM UNARM OVERTHROW GAMBLE COMPLY ALLOW DISBURSE PAIN
AGGRAVATE CAPTURE DEGRADE DEJECT TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE
TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH CRUSH DEMOLISH DELETE
EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER
ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE
EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DEPRECIATE FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE
EXPEND EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE ADJOURN SWALLOW EMBOWEL
DEVOUR CONSUME EAT SHAKE IMPLORE SWILL SWIG GUZZLE GOBBLE GNAW TIPPLE QUAFF
SUP DRINK CRUNCH NIBBLE TERMINATE IMPREGNATE SEIZE TROUBLE TROUNCE KIDNAP
REQUISITION TORTURE TORMENT QUASH DAMAGE TERRORIZE TERRIFY GASH COMMANDEER
RAM RAPE RANSACK PARALYSE DEVASTATE PAUPERIZE RIP RIFLE RAZE PERSECUTE
PLAGUE PESTER REND PLUNDER PROSECUTE JOLT DROP OPPRESS WRECK ROUGH WRINKLE
OVERPOWER OVERWHELM WORRY WOUND SINK REPRESS TYRANNIZE UNSETTLE SLASH
SURRENDER SMASH SMEAR UNDERMINE SOIL VEX VICTIMIZE VANQUISH VIOLATE STAIN
VITIATE SPOIL PENETRATE SQUASH SQUELCH STARTLE STORM STRAFE STRAIN ENSLAVE
SUBJUGATE SULLY BATTER BASH BEFOUL BEDEVIL BESET BESMEAR BESMIRCH BESPATTER
SHELL BOMBARD BREAK EXTORT BOARD DEBASE EXCRUCIATE CORRUPT DEBAUCH EXPOSE
DEFACE FRACTURE PRICK CAPSIZE PROSTRATE CONQUER DISTURB MUTILATE MOB MAR
MASH CRUSH MASSACRE BRUISE BRUTIFY SNARL BUMP BULLY BRUTALIZE MOLEST
TRESPASS POACH MAIM DISABLE MANGLE SCORCH ALARM FRIGHTEN SCARE INCAPACITATE
SCALD SAVAGE BOTHER IMPOVERISH IMPOSE INVADE VIVISECT EXPLOIT DEMORALIZE
CRIPPLE STEAL SNATCH RUSTLE SACK DISMAY DERANGE DESPOIL DRENCH DISHONOUR
DISGRACE DENT DENOUNCE INCRIMINATE IMBRUE OSSIFY PIN IMPAWN BECALM STRAY
STRAGGLE DISPERSE SHOWER SPATTER ROUT STAMPEDE BURST BESTREW STREW HAZE
SHOCK SHRED LOOT INSULT HANG HORRIFY HACK HIT HARASS HARRY HOUND
INCRIMINATE SCAR IMPLICATE AFFLICT IMPAIR IMPERIL AGITATE ACCUSE ABUSE
DIVIDE CLEAVE DIFFER DIVEST DETACH SUNDER SCORE INFILTRATE INFEST SHATTER
LYNCH LICK INJURE INFRINGE INFLICT INVEST INJECT PENETRATE DECLINE DEAFEN
REMONSTRATE PROTEST HUNT RECEDE SEIZE COLLIDE THREATEN THRASH IMMERSE RISK
JUMBLE BOTCH REFRAIN FORBEAR ENFEEBLE CURTAIL AVENGE SLOBBER SORROW ANNOY
SHUDDER BETRAY CONNIVE ENVELOP PERISH EMBITTER ABANDON FLINCH CRINGE
DISTRESS DESPOND DESPAIR SUCCUMB ROT PUTREFY DREAD PRY EXHUME AGONIZE
PALPITATE FAINT AGGRIEVE PANIC EMBROIL TRAMP ADVANCE LEAP TREASURE EVICT
RESCIND RENOUNCE REPUDIATE RELINQUISH FORSAKE FORSWEAR ABANDON RETREAT
SUFFER PALE WAIL END OUTRAGE FRET DISABLE SACRIFICE WORRY UPSET PERTURB
CATCH ENTRAP CAGE DEPRIVE DISROBE FAILED PROTECT
36 - W A S T E
SCRAP WASTE SPEND SQUANDER ATTEMPT BURY REPLETE SURFEIT MEDIATE DETAIL
ENUMERATE EXPAND MAGNIFY ENLARGE EMPHASIZE DRILL TAME EMEND ALTER DELEGATE
DEPUTE SHUT RECALL NEGOTIATE REVIEW PRACTISE REHEARSE RETRACE ENGULF FORGET
BREAK STULTIFY STRIKE SQUELCH SQUASH SPOIL VITIATE SPILL SURRENDER
IMMOBILIZE EMASCULATE ABORT CONTRACEPT NEUTER SPAY POISON SINK WRECK DROP
REND RAVAGE RAZE IMPRISON EXECUTE DEVASTATE DAMAGE TRIFLE DUEL CASTRATE GUT
SACK CRIPPLE FLOOD INUNDATE IMPOUND INCAPACITATE SCORCH INCINERATE MANGLE
DISABLE MAIM BURN EXILE MASSACRE CRUSH MASH MAROON MAR BUTCHER MUTILATE
DEFACE DEBASE IGNITE RUSTICATE LOAF REPOSE QUIESCE SIT SPRAWL RELAX RECLINE
BASK IMPAWN DESIST BECALM ABIDE BETROTH WED MARRY BESTREW STREW SPATTER
SHOWER STRAY STRAGGLE DISPERSE SPREAD HACK IMMOLATE
ZONE DIVEST SEPARATE EXCLUDE EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW SUNDER SHATTER LOATHE
LAME INJURE DECLINE SHUN SECLUDE SHIRK SEGREGATE GARBLE RISK SLOP BOTCH
PROHIBIT EDUCATE CONSERVE PAWN DISCARD FORGE FORBID REPRESS BAN PERISH
PUTREFY VOID ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT RETCH SUCCUMB REJECT SPOIL DEMUR MIRE FOUL
DENY ENTRAP ESCHEW DEPRIVE CATCH PROSTITUTE DISABLE CAGE LOSE DAWDLE LOUNGE
SEVER ABANDON SKIP UNDERVALUE UNDERESTIMATE UNDERRATE TRAMP TOY CLUTCH
FORGET DISGORGE PROTRACT DISCARD LOAF IDLE FRITTER EXPAND MISAPPLY MISUSE
DESTROY DEVASTATE OVERLOOK IGNORE WISH
37 - F A I L E D W A S T E
GLUT GORGE LAVISH FAILED WASTE SHARE SALVAGE BESPEAK CONTRIBUTE AVAIL LEND
REDEEM REFORM REFIT REHABILITATE REJUVENATE REPAIR RESCUE RESUSCITATE OFFER
RETRIEVE STAUNCH SUCKLE HOLD UTILIZE ACCOUNT TAG RATION ALLOCATE ALLOT
AWARD ASSIGN APPOINT AIM TOW HANDLE ORGANIZE SUPERINTEND ADMINISTER
SUPERVISE MANAGE PRESIDE TEST UNTANGLE CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE DISCIPLINE
EDIT HALT STOP RENOVATE RECONSTRUCT REINSTATE RENEW REPRIEVE CONTINUE
PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST FIX REPAIR DARN VALET PROLONG RECOVER
REVIEW RECAPITULATE REITERATE TRANSCRIBE REPEAT RECORD REDUPLICATE RECOUNT
RELAY TRANSMIT DUPLICATE COPY PRINT QUOTE RECEIVE RELATE EMULATE IMITATE
PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY REPLACE RESTORE REPLENISH
REMEMBER WREST PLUNDER GRASP RIFLE GRAB FORAGE RANSACK QUARTER RAID BURGLE
COMMANDEER REQUISITION SEIZE TRAP DESPOIL RUSTLE SNATCH EXPLOIT SMUGGLE
SCALP POACH IMPRESS PRESS EXTORT EXTRACT SCRAPE INFRINGE TUCK GARBLE HUMOUR
FASTEN PREVENT EDUCATE COVET WANT RESERVE SPARE WEAN LAST ADAPT EXIST
ENCUMBER ENGORGE ABSTAIN DETEST EXCEED BLOAT
38 - A B A N D O N
FLUSH EXORCIZE VACATE SCATTER DISCONTINUE RUN SKIP EMIGRATE RETREAT CEASE
RELAPSE SCRAM SEVER SHED RUSH BETAKE EVICT RENOUNCE RESCIND REPUDIATE
RETIRE RELINQUISH FORSAKE FORSWEAR RESIGN ABANDON REFORM EDIT DIVERT COMPLY
EMEND ALTER DISBURSE ABATE DEPUTE DELEGATE SHUT RECALL NEGOTIATE MEDIATE
STOP HALT BREAK SLACK STRAGGLE QUIT DODGE FALTER DROP BANISH OSTRACIZE
DESERT SURRENDER MAROON EXILE LOAF DISSIPATE DERAIL RUSTICATE DESIST IMPAWN
BELAY PARK SPRAWL RELAX BASK RECLINE QUIESCE REPOSE DISPERSE STAMPEDE STRAY
SUNDER ROUT DIVERGE UNLOAD UNCLASP OUTLAW FILTER EXCOMMUNICATE DETACH
EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIVEST EVADE EXTRICATE GO REBOUND RECOIL CONCEDE DECLINE
QUAIL RECEDE SHUN SECLUDE SHIRK THRALL JUMBLE BOTCH AMPUTATE LOSE RESERVE
FORGO RETRACT BOLT IMMIGRATE SHRUG SHOVE LEAP TURN SHIFT FORGET PERISH
REJECT AVOID TIRE UNFIT ROT SUCCUMB SWOON PUTREFY CAPITULATE ABDICATE
RESIGN RETIRE DECAMP ESCAPE APOSTATIZE EVACUATE QUIT RUN RETREAT FLY FLEE
DESERT SURRENDER MIGRATE DEMUR CURTAIL DISCARD ESCHEW END SUSPEND DISALLOW
DUMP DISSUADE DEPRIVE ENJOIN SHEER
39 - F A I L E D T O A B A N D O N
FAILED TO ABANDON DEVELOP SUPPORT SUCCOUR STRENGTHEN VINDICATE SPONSOR
SPELL SOLACE UNDERTAKE REVIVIFY RETRIEVE REVIVE FURTHER RESCUE REPAIR RELY
RELIEVE REINFORCE REHABILITATE RE-ENFORCE REFIT RAISE LEAD CO-OPERATE
CONTRIBUTE EXTEND CONSOLE STOW SUPPLY ENCOURAGE BEFRIEND SUSTAIN HELP
SALVAGE ASSIST SERVE HOLD HALT STOP TACKLE MEDIATE NEGOTIATE CHALLENGE
INTRUDE RECALL RENOVATE RECONSTRUCT REINSTATE RENEW REPRIEVE CONTINUE
PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST FIX DARN VALET PROLONG RECOVER LIVE
SURVIVE MATURE RECUPERATE PILLORY REPLENISH REMEMBER PRACTISE RETRACE
REHEARSE REFER RELAY TRANSMIT REPLACE RESTORE REVIEW RECOUNT DUPLICATE COPY
PRINT QUOTE
RELATE PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY RECAPITULATE
REITERATE REPEAT RECORD TRANSCRIBE REDUPLICATE INFILTRATE STEAL ENSNARE
FETTER TRAP SEIZE MANACLE CHAIN TRUSS KIDNAP REQUISITION COMMANDEER BESIEGE
TORMENT TRICE GOAD GRAB GRASP RAVAGE PERSECUTE PLAGUE PESTER PLUNDER FIX
WRENCH WREST WAYLAY WORRY STICK BIND TIE VEX SWEAT ASSAIL ATTACK BELABOUR
BESET BOMBARD MOB MAUL SAVAGE IMPOUND DESPOIL DRAG CHARGE ABIDE DWELL
SOJOURN OSSIFY BASK NESTLE SIT POSE PERCH IMPAWN PIN FREEZE SECURE STICK
LOCATE RESIDE DESERT DECAMP ENTWINE CLING REUNITE REJOIN BETROTH WED MARRY
HANG HECKLE HEW HOUND HARRY INDENT STRADDLE INFILTRATE INFEST INDISPOSE
TRESPASS INFRINGE INHIBIT CONTEND COAX DISSENT HARP GROPE REMONSTRATE
PROTEST BICKER CONTRADICT HAUNT TUCK SHACKLE TIE SEIZE SIEGE RECOMMIT LATCH
HUMOUR BOGGLE FASTEN PREVENT FETTER SECRETE RESIST SNARE ARREST DEBATE
SURROUND STRIVE FIDGET FAMILIARIZE PROVE EXHUME DESPAIR DESPOND WAIT DELAY
LANGUISH ENFORCE CACHE SUBMIT MIRE CAGE ENTRAP REMAIN PARK CLAIM TUG CLUTCH
BOLT BIND BESIEGE ACCUSTOM ENCUMBER EKE ENDURE PREVAIL DEVOLVE INSURE
STRUGGLE WITHSTAND BOUND
40 - N O M O T I O N
SET HOLD SHUT STOP HALT FOSSILIZE PIN QUIESCE ABIDE OSSIFY FREEZE RELAX
RUSTICATE BECALM LOAF DESIST PICNIC SOJOURN IMPAWN STICK REPOSE NESTLE POSE
POISE SQUAT SIT SPRAWL RECLINE BASK PERCH RESIDE DWELL BATTEN CAMP PARK
LOCATE BELAY SITE SECURE FIX PILLORY BECALM MAROON IMPALE CRUCIFY CRIPPLE
IMPOUND SPREADEAGLE STUN TIE BRAND IMMOBILIZE STICK NAIL STALL FLOOR
IMPRISON PARALYSE TRICE BESIEGE SIEGE TRUSS TRAP SEIZE MANACLE CHAIN FETTER
PLACE PLANT INCARCERATE ANTICIPATE KNIT ENTWINE HANG IMMURE IMPALE ZONE
INHUME SHACKLE GARBLE BOGGLE HESITATE PAWN ARREST SWADDLE SUSPEND STILL
SETTLE DISABLE ABIDE HITCH DISSUADE CATCH ENTRAP ENERVATE CHECK MIRE SUBMIT
SUBSIDE BOLT CUMBER WITHSTAND NO MOTION
41 - E N D U R E
DRUDGE EXIST PREVAIL ENDURE EKE ENCUMBER ACCUSTOM ADAPT LAST INSURE INURE
TOLERATE WITHSTAND UNDERGO STRUGGLE STRIVE SUBSIST SUFFER BEAR BROOK
TRAVAIL SUSTAIN UPHOLD REVIVE RESUSCITATE REFIT REPAIR REJWENATE REGENERATE
FACE CONFRONT DRILL SITUATE REIGN CONTINUE PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE
PERSIST PROLONG SURVIVE MATURE GROW RECUR TOIL LABOUR COPY PRINT QUOTE
RELATE PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY REPLACE RESTORE
REPLENISH REMEMBER PRACTISE RETRACE REHEARSE REFER RELAY TRANSMIT ENACT
SKETCH SUBSTANTIATE CHARACTERIZE ITERATE TESTIFY RECOGNIZE IMITATE EMULATE
RECAPITULATE REITERATE REPEAT RECORD TRANSCRIBE REDUPLICATE REVIEW RECOUNT
DUPLICATE DETERMINE OSSIFY PARK CAMP SOJOURN DWELL PICNIC ABIDE RESIDE
LOCATE SITE STICK SECURE FREEZE BELAY BATTEN PIN BECALM IMPAWN REUNITE
REJOIN KNIT SPLICE ATTACH CONSORT CONNECT LINK PERVADE PERMEATE JOIN
COMBINE WED MARRY CLING ENTWINE YOKE ACCOMPANY CLEAVE STRADDLE SHAKE
INHABIT BICKER CONTEND IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT RISK WISH STOP BOTCH EDUCATE
RESIST FORBEAR STAGNATE ABSTAIN TRANSPORT TRAMP TRUDGE ADVANCE SHRUG
IMMORTALIZE PROTRACT CONFRONT FIDGET FRET FAMILIARIZE DESPOND ENTRAP
CURTAIL COERCE COMPEL EXERT
42 - F A I L E D E N D U R E
RETCH AVOID SUCCUMB NAUSEATE PANT PERISH PUFF DRAIN CAPITULATE HATE SAG CRY
VOMIT SWOON ROT FALTER TIRE PUTREFY UNFIT WINCE SQUIRM WRITHE WAVER WRIGGLE
WOBBLE SUBMIT STAGGER SUBSIDE BLANCH SWERVE PALE SHIVER WHIMPER WEAR
RESPOND APPEAL DISCIPLINE PUNISH RULE RECALL CORRECT STOP HUSH EMEND EDIT
ALTER REMAND SHUT HOLD SUBDUE UNTANGLE HALT BREAK SHOUT PLEA FEEL THROB
PULSATE SMART SLIP STINK SLOUCH SLAVE REACT SLUMP SWELTER
TINGLE DRIP SLACK SHIFT EXTINGUISH TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE
TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH CRUSH DEMOLISH DELETE
EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER
ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE
EXPURGATE DEPRECIATE FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE VIVISECT WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE
EXPEND EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE ADJOURN SWALLOW EMBOWEL
DEVOUR CONSUME EAT SWILL SWIG GUZZLE GOBBLE GNAW TOPPLE QUAFF SUP DRINK
DODGE YIELD SICKEN REVOLT REBEL WRECK DESERT MUTINY SURRENDER CAPITULATE
BREAK DISABLE INCAPACITATE DISMAY DEPOSE FOLD SQUEAL FALTER FLAG QUIT ROUT
STAMPEDE STRAY STREW STRAGGLE BURST DISPERSE BITCH HORRIFY HARASS HURT
IMPAIR AGITATE DIVIDE DIVERGE UNLOAD UNCLASP SUNDER OUTLAW ZONE CLEAVE
EXCOMMUNICATE SPATTER CRUNCH DISROBE DETACH EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIVEST DIFFER
INDISPOSE EXTRICATE GO EMERGE REBOUND EVADE SHATTER LOATHE INJURE SCRATCH
HAUNT HUNT DEBATE DECLINE DEAFEN BICKER CONCEDE PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE
HARP DISSENT CONTRADICT QUAIL RECEDE EVADE EXTRACT HIBERNATE HIDE SHUN
SECLUDE SHIRK RISK SEGREGATE THREATEN WISH SLOP BOGGLE PROHIBIT PREVENT
PIECE LOSE AMPUTATE DISCARD PETITION WARD RETRACT YELL AGONIZE PALPITATE
MOAN MOURN DISGUST DISLIKE GROAN POUT GRUMBLE FAINT DREAD NAG YELP YAP
MADDEN CRY ENTREAT DESPAIR DETEST EMBITTER BOLT SHRUG SHOVE SHEER LEAP
SHAMBLE TURN PANT FORGET YIELD GASP SQUEAL SHRINK DUCK SHRIVEL QUIVER
TREMBLE FALTER FADE WANE SUPERANNUATE REJECT ABANDON CEASE FORSWEAR RESIGN
RETIRE RETREAT VACATE FORSAKE SCATTER DISCONTINUE SKIP RELAPSE SCRAM SHED
BETAKE ABHOR MOPE END CULMINATE OUTCRY WAIL WEEP OUTRAGE WHOOP SLOBBER
ABOMINATE ANGER ANNOY INFURIATE BETRAY PANIC GRIEVE DISTRESS SHUDDER
SHATTER COLLAPSE FLINCH CRINGE PERSPIRE SURRENDER DECOMPOSE SIGH FADE FAG
REGRET MEDICATE DISTRACT DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE ENFEEBLE SAP EMBARRASS
MORTIFY ENTRAP ENERVATE SCREAM SHRIEK HOWL SOB WHINE RUN DEPRIVE SNIVEL
SQUAWK BAWL DISMAY BREAK RECOIL FAILED ENDURE
43 - W A N T T O K N O W
PROVE FAMILIARIZE EXHUME PRY WANT TO KNOW INTERVIEW CONSULT TEST CIVILIZE
EXPLAIN VOUCH VALIDATE VERIFY RELIEVE RECOMMEND REASSURE ENLIGHTEN ADVISE
ASSURE INSTRUCT TIME PROVOKE RECONNOITRE SCOUT PICKET PATROL INFILTRATE
QUERY QUIZ EXTORT EXTRACT SQUEEZE PRY QUIZ INVESTIGATE WRING GRILL QUESTION
RIFLE SPY INTERROGATE EXPLORE SEARCH PROBE PURSUE TRACK TRAIL TRACE SCOUT
DETACH SEPARATE SORT DISROBE REFRACT FILTER SPECIALIZE APPROACH SCOOP
DREDGE DARE SNOOP DISCOVER BETRAY
44 - D E S I R E
DESIRE ENTREAT REQUEST PARTAKE DELIGHT OBLIGE FULFIL SUFFICE SURFEIT
REPLETE ENDEAR PLEASE BESPEAK ELECT PREDISPOSE APPROVE STIPULATE PRESCRIBE
DIRECT REQUIRE TINGLE THROB PULSATE WILL INCLINE CAPTIVATE EXCITE ROUSE
AROUSE ATTRACT WOO TANTALIZE FASCINATE FLIRT TEMPT INSPIRE FRATERNIZE
CONSORT PERVADE EMBRACE PERMEATE JOIN COMBINE WED MARRY CLING ENTWINE LINK
CONNECT BETROTH CONJUGATE TOUCH CRAVE CLEAVE DISROBE COAX RISK EXACT
PETITION WANT APPROACH IMMIGRATE LEAP PANT HANKER YEARN LUST ITCH ENJOY
LOVE LIKE SELECT SIGH MADDEN ENVY
45 - A G R E E
ENDORSE SUPERSCRIBE CLAIM PREDISPOSE UNRUFFLE VOTE ALLOW DEPUTE DELEGATE
VEST APPROVE ELECT HIRE RENT AGREE RATIFY SANCTION WARRANT PROMISE AFFIRM
ATTEST ASSENT UNDERSTAND ACKNOWLEDGE CONTRACT CONSENT CONCILIATE SUPPORT
SUBSCRIBE SPONSOR VERIFY VALIDATE FURTHER RECONCILE CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE
ENCOURAGE PLEASE PERMIT HARMONIZE SHARE COMPLY PREDISPOSE NEGOTIATE MEDIATE
MODERATE ARRANGE HABITUATE ALLOW APPROVE ORIENTATE
ORDER ASSORT ADJUST REGULATE OBSERVE REACT COPY DUPLICATE REPRODUCE
REMEMBER SUBSTANTIATE TESTIFY EMULATE COMPREHEND SLAVE INCLINE BETROTH
FRATERNIZE CONSORT EMBRACE PERMEATE JOIN COMBINE WED MARRY CLING ENTWINE
LINK CONNECT MEET SPLICE ACCOMPANY PERTAIN KNIT REJOIN REUNITE SPREAD
DIFFUSE HATCH CLEAVE CONCEDE SEAL THRALL HUMOUR EDUCATE PREPAY ESTEEM
RESPECT COMMEND COMPLIMENT CERTIFY APPRECIATE ACCREDIT PRAISE PLEDGE
APPLAUD VOW AGREE-DISAGREE TOLERATE COLLUDE PROVE FAMILIARIZE DESIRE
ENTREAT CONCUR LICENSE FRANCHISE APPROVE OKAY CONSENT PROMISE SWEAR AGREE
ACQUIESCE SHIFT SYMPATHIZE ACCEDE
46 - E N F O R C E
DISALLOW CONVINCE EXERT DOMINATE COMPEL ENFORCE COERCE DECLAIM DECREE
DECLARE ASSERT EXPOUND UPHOLD REINFORCE RE-ENFORCE STRENGTHEN INTRUDE
PERSEVERE STOP CHALLENGE HALT SHUT HOLD SUBDUE TACKLE STIPULATE TAME
DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBE REMAND CORRECT SUMMON HOIST ADJUST SHAPE MANIPULATE
RULE COMMAND MASTER ORDER DIRECT REGULATE LOAD PUT PUSH HEAVE HAUL REQUIRE
SEND EMPOWER DRILL START EMPHASIZE ENLARGE MAGNIFY EXPAND SET TOIL MAINTAIN
PERPETUATE PERSIST PROLONG LABOUR LAY TRANSFIX GRUB BREATHE RESPIRE INHALE
NOURISH NURTURE WIN REMIND SUCCEED SURMOUNT RECOVER FIX RECONSTRUCT REPEAT
REPLACE REITERATE RECAPITULATE REVIEW RECOUNT REDUPLICATE RECORD MULTIPLY
PRACTISE REHEARSE RETRACE SUBSTANTIATE TESTIFY REMEMBER SCREEN WILL
STIMULATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH FINISH
DEMOLISH CRUSH EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER
ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF VIVISECT
FLAME EXPLODE CRUMPLE CRUMBLE SWALLOW EMBOWEL CONSUME DEVOUR EAT GOBBLE
CRUNCH TIE INVOLVE BESTRIDE ORDAIN URGE SQUEEZE PENALIZE CONTRACEPT FETTER
TROUNCE RECK PROSECUTE COERCE FORCE OPPRESS OVERPOWER OVERWHELM TYRANNIZE
BIND VANQUISH SUBJUGATE BELABOUR ADMONISH IMPOSE TAX COMMIT CHARGE IMPLANT
COAX SENTENCE CONVICT IMPRESS PRESS PUNISH CONQUER IMPAWN STICK SECURE
FREEZE QUIESCE RUSTICATE DESIST BELAY PIN BATTEN BECALM COMBINE WED MARRY
CLING ENTWINE LINK SPLICE KNIT ATTACH YOKE BETROTH JOIN EMBRACE RANGE
RADIATE INTERSPERSE ROUT SHOWER SPATTER SPREAD STAMPEDE STREW BURST HAMMER
SHOCK HANG HIT HARASS HURT HARRY HOUND INDENT INDICT INCRIMINATE AFFLICT
DIVEST DIVERGE DECOCT SUNDER OUTLAW ZONE FILTER REFRACT CLEAVE DIVIDE
EXCOMMUNICATE DISROBE DETACH EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIFFER INDISPOSE INFILTRATE
INFEST SHAKE SENTENCE LASH LICK SCUFFLE INFRINGE INFLICT TRAMPLE INOCULATE
INJECT INSERT INVEST INSTALL PENETRATE CONTEND CONTRADICT DECLINE DEAFEN
BICKER PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE HARP YANK DISMISS SHACKLE RECOMMIT LATCH
COLLIDE THREATEN THRASH IMMERSE FASTEN EXCEED EDUCATE EXACT CONSERVE WARM
WEDGE FIGHT NAG PROVE DICTATE DEMAND HURRY SCALE ADVANCE LIFT SHOVE LEAP
TUG POWER CONSTRAIN PROTRACT RETARD INSTILL PREDOMINATE STRESS PREVAIL
ENCUMBER INSURE CORRECT CONDEMN MEDICATE CRITICIZE DENY SUBJECT CAGE ENTRAP
CATCH OBTRUDE DRIVE
47 -D I S A G R E E
CHALLENGE CORRECT HALT STOP HUSH EDIT ALTER DISABUSE ESTRANGE TINGLE THROB
PULSATE SMART SLUMP SWELTER DRIP SLOUCH SLIP STINK REACT PROVOKE SNIPE
MUTINY REVOLT DENOUNCE DISAFFECT ATTACK ASSAIL VIOLATE OSTRACIZE QUARREL
WRANGLE OFFEND NETTLE FOMENT EMEND DISPUTE REBEL PROSECUTE PECK IRK
INTERDICT ARGUE STRAGGLE STRAY INTERSPERSE SHREAD INSULT BITCH HECKLE HIT
ABUSE DIVIDE DIFFER SEPARATE EXCLUDE DISAGREE CLEAVE ZONE OUTLAW SUNDER
DIVERGE DIVEST SCORE LOATHE TUT SEAR SCUFFLE HARP REMONSTRATE QUARREL
PROTEST BICKER DECLINE DEBATE DISSENT CONTRADICT CONTEND QUAIL RECEDE
DISMISS HINDER SHIRK THWART COLLIDE THREATEN GARBLE BOGGLE BOTCH PROHIBIT
PREVENT EXCEED HESITATE DISCARD RESIST REPRESS DISAGREE-AGREE SULK OUTCRY
OUTRAGE ABHOR EXCOMMUNICATE ABOMINATE ANGER SCORN INFURIATE BETRAY QUIBBLE
CONNIVE REVOLT TRADUCE RECANT RAGE RANKLE POUT GRUMBLE FIGHT NAG REJECT
ENVY DISLIKE DISPLEASE FLOUT DISOBEY CROSS UPBRAID CENSURE CONDEMN DEPLORE
DISSUADE PROVOKE SQUABBLE BANDY OBSTRUCT FLOUT REFUTE REFUSE REBUKE RANT
RAVE INVALIDATE SCOFF HAGGLE DENY DISAPPROVE CHIDE COMPLAIN CENSURE CARP
REPREHEND REPROACH DEMUR OBJURGATE CRITICIZE DISGUST SHOVE TUG SHIFT
DISPARAGE
48 - I N H I B I T
INHIBIT DEDUCT DEBIT CHECK CAUTION DEMUR CURTAIL DENY ENFEEBLE CAGE ESCHEW
ENTRAP ENJOIN ENERVATE CATCH DEPRIVE DISSUADE DISTRAIN ILLEGITIMATE DISABLE
EXHORT CIVILIZE PALLIATE MITIGATE ALLAY ALLEVIATE STOP CHALLENGE HALT HOLD
SHUT SUBDUE DISABUSE TACKLE EDIT EMEND ALTER STIPULATE TAME DISCIPLINE
PRESCRIBE ABATE ANNUL WILL DEPRIVE IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE DISPOSE DEVASTATE
DESTROY DESPATCH TERMINATE FINISH DELETE DEMOLISH CRUSH EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE
EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH
ELIMINATE EFFUSE DISINTEGRATE EXPIRE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DEPRECIATE FAIL
LAPSE WITHER WILT ELAPSE ERODE DEODORIZE CRUMPLE EXPEND CRUMBLE ESTRANGE
SWALLOW EMBOWEL CONSUME DEVOUR GNAW GOBBLE ADJOURN DRINK CRUNCH INCARCERATE
IMMOBILIZE HANDCUFF CHAIN MANACLE TRUSS QUENCH QUELL QUASH TRICE THROTTLE
TERRORIZE TERRIFY PARALYSE PENALIZE PERSECUTE OVERPOWER OVERWHELM REPRESS
BIND TIE SQUASH SQUELCH STIFLE STUN STULTIFY SUBJUGATE BENUMB ADMONISH MAIM
DISABLE FRIGHTEN SCARE INCAPACITATE DEMORALIZE CRIPPLE CHOP DEPRESS PUNISH
MASH CRUSH IMPRESS STUNT IMPRISON STICK SECURE FREEZE OSSIFY LOAF QUIESCE
RUSTICATE REPOSE DESIST BELAY BATTEN PIN BECALM IMPAWN JOIN EMBRACE BETROTH
CONNECT COMBINE WED ENTWINE MARRY CLING LINK YOKE ROUT INTERSPERSE SHOWER
SPATTER STAMPEDE BURST DISPERSE DIFFUSE HANG HIT HARASS IMMURE DIVEST
SUNDER OUTLAW ZONE CLEAVE EXCOMMUNICATE DETACH EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIFFER
DIVIDE LAME TRAP SCUFFLE TRAMPLE INHUME INOCULATE CONTEND CONTRADICT
DISSENT HAUNT LISP HUNT DEBATE DECLINE DEAFEN BICKER PROTEST QUARREL
REMONSTRATE HARP CONSERVE QUAIL RECEDE DISMISS INSULATE LIMIT HINDER
INTERCEPT SECLUDE SHACKLE SEAL SEGREGATE TIE THWART SEIZE ISOLATE LOCALIZE
LATCH THREATEN THRASH GARBLE IMMERSE JUMBLE SLOP BOGGLE BOTCH PROHIBIT
PREVENT REFRAIN GAG HESITATE EDUCATE AMPUTATE FETTER DISCARD FRUSTRATE
RESIST RESERVE FORBID FORBEAR REPRESS FOIL WARD WARN RESTRICT SNARE WEDGE
WEAN BAN ARREST SWADDLE SURROUND BOLT ABSTAIN BIND BESIEGE BOUND STILL
MUFFLE REJECT MILITATE REDUCE SHRUG LEAP CLUTCH CONCEAL CONSTRICT CURB
ENCHAIN PRECLUDE PINION FORGET RETARD COLLUDE BETRAY CONNIVE PLOT CONSPIRE
RECANT FIGHT REPENT NAG DISLIKE EMBITTER REGRET TIRE DETER DISALLOW UPBRAID
COMPLAIN CONDEMN CENSURE CHEW CARP BLAME REPROACH BOTHER MIRE MEDICATE
DISAPPROVE DISTRACT COMPRESS DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE CURSE CRITICIZE CASTRATE
REVOKE EMBARRASS MORTIFY SHAME BEWARE FOREWARN REFUSE CURB CLUTCH HUSH
IMPEDE SUPPRESS CONTROVERT
49 - E N T E R
INOCULATE INVEST PENETRATE ADMIT INSTALL MATRICULATE INVITE SIP RE-ENTER
INHABIT INHUME INTRUST INSERT INJECT ENTER X-RAY IMPORT INTRUDE IMPREGNATE
INFUSE IMPACT PROBE TRESPASS PIERCE PUNCTURE PRICK BOARD INFILTRATE INVADE
INUNDATE BREAK INRUSH STORM STAB PENETRATE SLASH SLIT FORCE RAPE RAM RAID
JAB IMPAWN CAMP PARK PERMEATE PERVADE EMBRACE MARRY WED BETROTH TRANSFIX
TRESPASS LANCE SHEATHE IMMERSE EDUCATE INSINUATE IMMIGRATE ADVANCE INSTIL
INVADE PRY
50 - D U P L I C A T E
DUPLICATE REPLACE RECEIVE RECIPROCATE RESTORE REPLENISH EMULATE TRANSMIT
REITERATE REMIND REMEMBER REPEAT RECOGNIZE RECORD RECAPITULATE DEPICT
RETRACE REVIEW COMPREHEND REFER REHEARSE PRACTISE REDUPLICATE REPRODUCE
MULTIPLY RELAY ITERATE REPRINT
RELATE UNDERSTUDY QUOTE COPY SKETCH CHARACTERIZE IMITATE MIME PORTRAY
TESTIFY SUBSTANTIATE RECOUNT ENACT PRINT DEMONSTRATE PARAPHRASE UNDERSTAND
VALIDATE VERIFY REVIVIFY RETOUCH REPAIR REJUVENATE REHABILITATE REGENERATE
REFIT RECUR DISGUISE BEGET INBREED PROCREATE BREED GERMINATE PROPAGATE
TRACE IMITATE FORGE COUNTERFEIT IMPERSONATE HIT INFRINGE RE-ENTER EMBODY
DRAW COUNTERFEIT ENGRAVE ETCH APPROXIMATE EDUCATE FAMILIARIZE VIZUALIZE
DEFINE TYPIFY RECOLLECT EXEMPLIFY PERSONIFY PLAY IMPERSONATE PAINT RECOMMIT
TRANSLATE CORRESPOND SPELL TRANSCRIBE
51 - W I T H D R A W
EXTRACT EXTRADITE EVADE EXTRICATE GO DISMISS EMERGE YANK REBOUND RECEDE
RECOIL WITHDRAW FETCH RECALL ABATE SUMMON SCRATCH ADJOURN JERK WRING WRENCH
DESERT YANK DECAMP DRAW SNATCH EVISCERATE DISEMBOWEL DRAG EXTRACT REPOSE
RELAX RUSTICATE QUIESCE SIT PARK PERCH IMPAWN CAMP RESIST STRAGGLE STRAY
ROUT STAMPEDE DIVEST DISROBE DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE EXCLUDE FILTER ZONE
OUTLAW SEPARATE SUNDER UNCLASP DIVERGE DIFFER SCRATCH CONCEDE DECLINE
DISSENT QUAIL MIGRATE DEMUR DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE DENY EMBARRASS MORTIFY
ESCHEW ENJOIN TUG DEPRIVE DISSUADE VANISH RETREAT INSULATE HIBERNATE
DISCARD SHRUG FAINT EXHUME SUBSIDE WITHDRAW REGRET RESORT BOGGLE HESITATE
EXACT LOSE AMPUTATE HIDE RETRACT REFRAIN SHIRK SECLUDE
52 - S U B S T I T U T E
BARTER COMPENSATE COST COUNTERFEIT DRAMATIZE EMBODY EXEMPLIFY IMPERSONATE
IMPROVISE INCARNATE INTERPRET MEAN PERSONATE PERSONIFY PLAY PRETEND PUN
PURPORT REBATE REPRESENT RECOMPENSE SIMULATE SUBLIMATE SPELL SUBSTITUTE
SUPERSEDE SUPERVENE TRANSLATE BETOKEN VOTE RELIEVE DEPUTE ELECT VEST
EMPOWER DELEGATE RECORD RECOUNT REMIND REPLACE ENACT SKETCH CHARACTERIZE
IMITATE MIME UNDERSTUDY TRANSCRIBE PRINT RELATE PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT
MIMIC EMULATE MASQUERADE ACT DISGUISE DUB SWITCH ADULTERATE PRETEND
COUNTERFEIT IMPERSONATE FORGE IMPAWN INSERT GARBLE BOTCH DECOY EDUCATE LIE
DILUTE EXCHANGE VARY INDEMNIFY SWAP SHIFT IMAGINE FIB
53 - C O L L E C T
COHERE CONVENE FUSE FORAGE FEDERALIZE GLOMERATE PACK RECRUIT RALLY GLEAN
GATHER SUMMARIZE LUMP ABSORB ACCRUE ACCUMULATE INTEGRATE TROOP INCLUDE
UNITE INCORPORATE UNIFY VISIT STACK AMALGAMATE AGGLOMERATE AGGLUTINATE
ADOPT AGGREGATE MINGLE PARCEL MOBILIZE MONOPOLIZE PILE ENLIST COLLECT
COMPILE CONGREGATE CONSCRIPT CONVOKE CRAM CONCRETE COAGULATE HUDDLE
RETICULATE NATURALIZE PELLET POUCH COLLECT SALVAGE CONSIST COMPRISE
COMPREHEND CANVASS RAID RUSTLE SWAG SACK HERD CORRAL IMPRESS PRESS SITE
IMPAWN CAMP LOCATE COMBINE CONJUGATE MEET LOOT SORT CLEAVE MOB ZONE INVEST
INTRUST ADMIT HUNT LOCALIZE RUMMAGE JUMBLE EDUCATE EXACT SURROUND PAWN
PREPAY CONNIVE CONCENTRATE COLLUDE CONTAIN CATCH ENTRAP CAGE
54 - I N V E R T E D H E L P
BOTHER MIRE FOUL MEDICATE BEGRUDGE FUMBLE PUBLISH DISCUSS SUGGEST ALLUDE
SPEAK STOP CHALLENGE HALT HOLD SHUT TAME SUBDUE DISABUSE HOIST TACKLE PEN
IDENTIFY SUMMON CENSOR EDIT EMEND ALTER ADJUST SHAPE MANIPULATE TEST REVEAL
CONTRIVE INSTIGATE EAT DRIP TINGLE THROB PULSATE SLUMP SMART SLOUCH SLIP
SWELTER STINK SLAVE REACT GOLDBRICK REMIND REPLACE SKETCH CHARACTERIZE
IMITATE MIME PORTRAY DEPICT COPY QUOTE RECOGNIZE REFER REMEMBER TESTIFY
RECORD SUBSTANTIATE PAIN INVOLVE INVENT CONCOCT ANNUL SLAY ABOLISH
ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER OBLITERATE ERADICATE SUP ERASE PURGE EXECUTE EXPUNGE
EXTIRPATE DELETE CRUSH DEMOLISH DESPATCH DESTROY DEVASTATE DISPOSE FINISH
TERMINATE IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM SWALLOW GUZZLE SWIG SWILL GOBBLE
GNAW TIPPLE QUAFF WILT EMBOWEL DRINK DEVOUR CRUNCH CONSUME NIBBLE ADJOURN
ESTRANGE CRUMPLE CRUMBLE DEODORIZE EXPLODE EXPEND ERODE FLAME WITHER
VIVISECT ELAPSE LAPSE FAIL DEPRECIATE EXTINGUISH EXPURGATE EXPIRE ENGULF
RUIN DISINTEGRATE EFFACE ELIMINATE IMPREGNATE INFORM MAR MUTILATE MOLEST
PROSTRATE DISTURB EXCRUCIATE DEBASE DEFACE CONVICT IMPLANT DEGRADE DEJECT
DENOUNCE DEPRESS DISGRACE DISHONOUR DESPOIL DERANGE DISMAY CRIMINATE
DEMORALIZE CONFOUND IMPOVERISH INCAPACITATE DISABLE MANGLE MAIM AGGRAVATE
BESET ATTACK BEDEVIL STALK SQUASH SQUELCH SPOIL VITIATE VICTIMIZE VEX
UNSETTLE UNNERVE INVERTED HELP WORRY OPPRESS OFFEND NETTLE PROSECUTE
PLUNDER REVENGE PLAGUE PESTER PERSECUTE RAVAGE PARALYSE TORTURE TORMENT
DAMAGE TROUBLE TRIP PARK LOCATE SIT SPRAWL BECALM SECURE STICK FREEZE LOAF
QUIESCE PIN RUSTICATE REPOSE RELAX DESIST IMPAWN ENTWINE YOKE CONSORT
FRATERNIZE CLING HAZE SHOCK SHRED LOOT INSULT ROUT RANGE SHOWER STAMPEDE
STRAY STREW BESTREW STRAGGLE BURST DISPERSE HECKLE HIT HARASS HURT HARRY
HOUND IMPLICATE AFFLICT IMPAIR IMPERIL AGITATE DIVIDE DIFFER DIVERGE UNLOAD
STRADDLE SUNDER SEPARATE OUTLAW ZONE CLEAVE EXCLUDE EXCOMMUNICATE DETACH
DIVEST ABUSE ACCUSE INFILTRATE LOATHE TRESPASS SHAKE LAME TRAP INJURE
INFRINGE INFLICT INVEST INSERT INOCULATE INJECT INHUME ADMIT PENETRATE
HAUNT HUNT DEBATE DECLINE BICKER GROPE HARP REMONSTRATE QUARREL PROTEST
CONCEDE CONTRADICT CONTEND DISSENT QUAIL RECEDE EVADE EXTRACT HINDER
INTERCEPT SHIRK THWART COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN IMMERSE RESORT RISK JUMBLE
WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE REFRAIN BOTCH EXCEED TRY HESITATE EDUCATE
FRUSTRATE COVET WANT DISCARD AMPUTATE LOSE FOIL SNARE BAN SWADDLE BESIEGE
AMBLE HURRY SHRUG SHOVE TOY SYMPATHIZE RETARD REJECT ENCUMBER SUFFER BEAR
END CONCLUDE SORROW ANNOY SENTIMENTALIZE CONNIVE BETRAY REVOLT RECANT PLOT
CONSPIRE GRIEVE DENY CRITICIZE AGGRIEVE PRY EXHUME DISLIKE DISTRESS
DISPLEASE DESPAIR DETEST EMBITTER AMUSE CAPITULATE PERISH HATE PUTREFY
AVOID TIRE ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT RETCH SUBMIT SUBSIDE SUCCUMB SWOON ENFORCE
DISALLOW COMPEL COERCE EMBROIL AVENGE REPREHEND REPROACH FULMINATE BLAME
UPBRAID CARP CENSURE CHEW CONDEMN COMPLAIN CHIDE INVERT COMMISERATE DEDUCT
CAUTION CHECK CRITICIZE CURSE DISCOURAGE DISHEARTEN DISAPPROVE DISTRACT
MEDDLE MISLEAD ENFEEBLE TRADUCE ENTRAP DISPARAGE DISABLE OPPOSE DISSENT
CATCH DEPRIVE ENERVATE FRET CONSPIRE IMPUGN IMPUTE GLOAT RANKLE PROTRACT
BETRAY CONNIVE MAKE CONNIVE PLOT REVOLT COLLUDE CONSPIRE ENSNARE COZEN
DECEIVE DEFRAUD DELUDE DEPOSE DEPRAVE INCRIMINATE CRIPPLE CHEAT TRICK
IMPOSE SWINDLE STAB VIOLATE VICTIMIZE UNDERCUT UNDERMINE WAYLAY FOMENT IRK
DAMAGE DUPE HARASS SHOCK SPATTER HORRIFY HIT HATCH HURT ACCUSE GARBLE FOIL
REJECT RETARD TURN DISCLOSE FORSWEAR FAIL HATE EMBITTER DISPLEASE PROVE
BOTHER DENY CAGE DARE SHAME MORTIFY ENTRAP CATCH DEPRIVE SPY SCHEME DUPE
PROSTITUTE PLANT KNIFE STOOL TALK SING TURN LEAK
55 - I N V E R T E D C O N T R O L
MISLEAD MISFIT MISBEHAVE MEDDLE SUPPRESS SUBJECT FLURRY SENSUALIZE SEDUCE
TANGLE BEWITCH HYPNOTIZE CONFUSE CADGE ERR ELUDE ENCROACH ENDANGER
ENDEAVOUR EMBROIL MUDDLE MORALIZE MISTREAT MISTAKE MISS MISPLACE RIOT
CORRUPT CONVULSE DECOY CONTROVERT DISORDER DISOBEY DISHEVEL CROSS
DISCONCERT DISCOMPOSE DISBAND DISARRAY DISARRANGE DISAPPOINT MISDEMEAN
PROMISE PERSUADE THROW CONFRONT EXHORT APPEAL RESPOND TRAIN TEACH FACE
DRIVE SHOUT ASSASSINATE COERCE FLAY FLAGELLATE SPANK GAG THRASH BEAT
ENSLAVE SPREADEAGLE SWITCH MURDER KILL IMPALE IMPLANT PUNISH CAPSIZE
CONVICT CANE WALLOP WRING WRENCH WHIP WHACK DOCK PILLORY SMACK SLAP POISON
SPAY NEUTER EMASCULATE DOPE DRUG COLLIDE BURN GAS BULLY BRUTALIZE
ELECTROCUTE KEELHAUL BRAND SCOURGE INCARCERATE TAX COMMIT CROP CRUCIFY
CASTRATE HANDCUFF FETTER MANACLE TRICE SEIZE TRUSS CHAIN TORMENT TORTURE
EXECUTE SLUG PASTE FLOG RACK PRECIPITATE STINK
SWELTER SMART SLUMP PULSATE THROB TINGLE DRIP REACT SLAVE SLOUCH SLIP WILL
STRAGGLE INNOVATE TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE
DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH CRUSH DEMOLISH DELETE EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE
PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL
ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH
DEPRECIATE FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE VIVISECT WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE EXPEND
EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE ADJOURN EAT NIBBLE CONSUME
CRUNCH DEVOUR DRINK EMBOWEL SUP QUAFF TIPPLE GNAW GOBBLE SWALLOW SWILL SWIG
GUZZLE BULLY MUTINY IMPRESS VITIATE VIOLATE FORCE COERCE REBEL REVOLT
STRIKE TRIP TROUBLE JERK DAMAGE IRK TRIFLE TORMENT RAM GOAD GRAB PENALIZE
PESTER PLAGUE WRECK WORRY OVERWHELM DOPE DRUG VEX SPRAIN STRAIN SWAMP
SUBJUGATE BEDEVIL BELABOUR BESET PRICK DISABLE INCAPACITATE SAVAGE IMPOSE
TRICK CONFOUND EXPLOIT DEMORALIZE TAX SACK TRANSGRESS DERAIL DERANGE
DISAFFECT DEPOSE DEMENT IMPLANT DEBAUCH EXTORT DISTURB CAPSIZE PRESS POACH
MOB BUMP MAUL IMPAWN DESIST RELAX REPOSE RUSTICATE LAZE QUIESCE LOAF ABIDE
OSSIFY FREEZE STICK SECURE BECALM NESTLE RECLINE SPRAWL PICNIC BASK SIT
HAZE SHOCK SHREAD LOOT STAMPEDE STRAY STREW BESTREW STRAGGLE BURST DISPERSE
HANG HECKLE HACK HASH HARASS IMMURE HURT HARRY HOUND INDICT INDENT
INCRIMINATE AFFLICT IMPALE IMPERIL AGITATE IMPEACH DIVEST DETACH
EXCOMMUNICATE EXCLUDE CLEAVE ZONE OUTLAW UNLOAD DIVIDE DIFFER IMPEACH ABUSE
INFILTRATE EXTRACT EXTRADITE EXTRICATE GO DISMISS YANK REBOUND RECOIL
SHATTER SHAKE LYNCH LASH LAME SENTENCE LICK INJURE SCUFFLE INFLICT INSTALL
PENETRATE INHUME INJECT INSERT DISSENT QUAIL RECEDE EVADE EXTRACT HINDER
SHACKLE THWART TIE COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN THRASH RUMMAGE RESORT RISK
JUMBLE WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE BOTCH REFRAIN EXCEED TRY HESITATE EDUCATE
FETTER PETITION EXACT RESIST REPRESS SNARE COMPLAIN CHEW CONDEMN VACILLATE
COMMISERATE INVERT TAMPER RESENT AVENGE REPREHEND UPBRAID REPROACH BLAME
CENSURE CAUTION CHECK BEGRUDGE BOTHER MIRE FUMBLE FOUL CURTAIL MORTIFY
CRITICIZE DISCOURAGE DENY DISHEARTEN DISAPPROVE DISTRACT ENFEEBLE REBEL
MUTINY REVOLT DISSUADE DISABLE EMBARRASS SURRENDER CACHE MISUSE SAG CRY
DRAIN MISAPPLY BESIEGE ARREST SWADDLE BIND ABSTAIN TRANSPORT TRUDGE SHOVE
SHAMBLE TOY TURN TUG TUSSLE LIMP CUMBER EMANCIPATE LOOSE DISTRACT PROTRACT
RETARD REJECT EMIGRATE EVICT TOLERATE WITHSTAND UNDERGO SUFFER BEAR BROOK
END CONCLUDE ATTAIN SULK SLOBBER ABHOR ABOMINATE INFURIATE CONNIVE BETRAY
IMPUTE CONSPIRE REVOLT TRADUCE IMPUGN IMPUTE PLOT QUIBBLE FIGHT NAG PRY
EXHUME PROVE DISTRESS ENTREAT DESIRE DESPAIR ENFORCE DICTATE DISALLOW
CRIPPLE DOMINATE DEMAND CONVINCE COMPEL COERCE STAGGER RETCH WOBBLE WIGGLE
WAVER SQUIRM VOMIT WINCE NAUSEATE ROT FALTER TIRE PUTREFY PANT PUFF SHAME
ENTRAP ENJOIN INTERFERE WHEEDLE INVEIGLE FLOUT DEPRIVE OBSTRUCT PERTURB
DISTORT CAGE PUNISH CHASTISE CONSPIRE CONNIVE DISCOLOUR CHANGE HAPPEN OCCUR
TRANSPIRE BEFALL BETIDE COMPRESS DISCOLOUR DIVERSIFY DREDGE PAINT ETIOLATE
PEPPER SLOT PREFIX ENGRAVE PRUNE PUCKER PRETTIFY PUDDLE PUNCTUATE PURIFY
CALCIFY PURL CARVE ETCH CAUTERIZE BISECT BLOAT BOB SYMMETRIZE MACERATE
BRAID BRAISE EVAPORATE DISSOLVE EVOLVE CHANGE CHIP CLARIFY CLASSIFY CLEANSE
EXCHANGE COMPOUND COCK CLIP CONDENSE CONTORT CRITICIZE CONVERT CORRUGATE
DEFORM CREMATE CRINKLE CURVE DESICCATE DISTEND DEVIATE DIGRESS DRAPE DILUTE
INTERCHANGE TRANSPOSE ZIGZAG WASH WRAP UNDULATE WIPE WHITTLE OSCILLATE
WIDEN WHET WET WEED WEAVE WELD SIZE SMELT SOAK VACILLATE VARIEGATE SNIP
VARY VARNISH SOLIDIFY SOPHISTICATE VIBRATE VOLATILIZE SPRINKLE VITRIFY
SPRAY VULCANIZE SQUIRT STAMP FOUL STERILIZE STEAM STIPPLE STREAK STRETCH
STITCH TUNE STROP SUPPLE AMEND SURFACE AMAZE SWELL SWAP SWEETEN SWEEP
APPROXIMATE BAKE ARTICULATE BESPRINKLE BEAUTIFY BEND SURPRISE BROIL BREW
MASTICATE MEANDER MIGRATE MINCE PERCOLATE PERFECT PERFORATE PARCH MODERNIZE
MODIFY MODULATE MOISTEN PAVE PEEL PETRIFY PICKLE PIT ELABORATE EMBOSS PLUCK
POLISH EMBELLISH SCOOP SATURATE HOLLOW RUMPLE TACK TRANSFUSE SEW SERRATE
SHEAR UPHOLSTER TAMPER TAINT TEMPER TOUSLE SIMMER IMBUE TRANSFER SIFT
INTERVENE SIEVE
EMBITTER IMPROVE TRANSUDE TRANSVERSE LIQUEFY LENGTHEN TRANSMUTE TATTER
SCRUB TRANSFORM TRANSPLANT TEAR TAPER TARNISH ADULTERATE TRANSFIGURE SEAM
TRIM SCREW SCOUR LEVEL SLACK SKEWER KINDLE INVERT INTENSIFY DECANT
DECOMPOSE DECREASE TWIST TINGE TIP TIGHTEN TINT LUBRICATE VARNISH RAREFY
GLAZE GRAFT GRANULATE READJUST REAP GRATE GRAVE GRIND FABRICATE REFRIGERATE
FADE FAG FERMENT FERTILIZE FLUCTUATE FORGE FRIZZLE RINSE RUFFLE THAW
COMPLICATE SIMPLIFY PARAPHRASE EXTEND ENHANCE PREPARE EDIFY PERFUME REFORM
REFIT RE-ENFORCE REHABILITATE REINFORCE REJUVENATE REPAIR RETOUCH CURE
STRENGTHEN ENLIVEN DEVELOP DIVERT CIVILIZE BURNISH DEMAGNETIZE DILATE
ELONGATE EMPHASIZE EXPAND ENLARGE MIX SPACE AMPLIFY MAGNIFY EDIT EMEND
CORRECT SHAPE ADJUST ALTER SPARK SWITCH SICKEN DAMAGE GASH RASP PARALYSE
PAUPERIZE RIP RAZE GRILL REND POUND WRY WRINKLE WARP SIZZLE SLIT UNSETTLE
SLASH SLICE NEUTER SMASH SMOKE SOIL SPLIT STAIN SPOIL SQUASH SQUELCH
STARTLE STUN STULTIFY STUPEFY SULLY BEFOUL BENUMB BESMEAR BESMIRCH
BESPATTER BOIL BREAK MAIM MANGLE INCISE INCINERATE SCORCH SCALD SMUDGE AXE
CHOP DRENCH DISMEMBER DISSECT DEPRESS CUT DEPRAVE DEPOSE CROP DEMEAN DEJECT
DEGRADE DEFLATE DEFACE DOUSE PULVERIZE PUNCTURE FRACTURE PIERCE BURN
BRUTIFY BRUISE MANGLE CRIPPLE DISLOCATE DENT MUTILATE MASH MAR YOKE
IDENTIFY CONSORT COMBINE EMBRACE LINK CONNECT JOIN SPLICE KNIT ATTACH
INTERSECT APPEND REUNITE REJOIN ENTWINE CLING SHRED SPATTER HEW IMPAIR
AGITATE DECOCT REFRACT FILTER GARBLE JUMBLE EDUCATE AMPUTATE DISCARD
DISSUADE DEDUCT SHIFT SCRAPE CHEW TURN IMMIGRATE ADVANCE SHIFT PROTRACT
RETARD SHED SCATTER ADAPT INURE PUTREFY SHRED ROT PREPARE VACATE SUBVERT
INVERTED CONTROL
56 - I N V E R T E D C O M M U N I C A T I O N
DISGUISE DUPE CAMOUFLAGE DOGMATIZE DERIDE DRIVEL DISSEMBLE DEPRECATE
DEPLORE EXECRATE EXCORIATE EXAGGERATE COZEN CAVIL DISTORT CANT CALUMNIATE
HUFF MURMUR DRONE CLAMOUR CAJOLE CACKLE PREJUDICE PRATTLE PRATE MUMBLE
PERTURB MOCK MISSPELL MISREPRESENT MISNOMER MISAPPREHEND BUZZ MEW MALIGN
BRAY BOYCOTT ALLEGE BOOM BLEAT STIGMATIZE BLARE BEWILDER BEWAIL BEMOAN
BELLOW BELIE BEGUILE BEDAZZLE BAWL BANTER BANDY BAMBOOZLE BAFFLE BACKBITE
BABBLE VILIFY GRUNT SUBVERT STUTTER STARE STAMMER SQUINT OBVIATE OFFSET
OBSCURE OBSTRUCT SPURN SPUTTER SQUAWK SPY SQUEAK SQUABBLE SPOUT SPLUTTER
SOUR SPAR SOB SOLICIT SNUFFLE SNIGGLE SNUB SNIVEL VAGUE SNOOP SNORT SNEAK
SNEER SNICKER SNIGGER SMUT SNAP SMUGGLE SMIRCH SNARL SLUR SMIRK SLANDER
SIMPER RETORT WHIMPER UNBELIEVE WHEEZE SWEAR WHEEDLE WHINE WHISPER OBTRUDE
OVERHEAR ROAR RIDICULE RIB FOOL FLOUT FIB SIBILATE FEIGN FALSIFY REHASH
REFUTE REFUSE PROFANE RECRIMINATE POLLUTE REBUKE REBUFF PERJURE RAVE RATTLE
RANT RAG GIBE GAPE GABBLE TITTER TWITTER QUIP HOWL DEFILE DEFAME DECRY DAMN
JEER INVESTIGATE JIB INVEIGH KID JIBE INVALIDATE INVEIGLE TITTLE SHRIEK
INTERRUPT INTERPOSE INTERFERE LEER INSINUATE LIE SHADE SHAM SERMONIZE SEEM
SCRAWL SCOWL SCRIBBLE ARGUE TATTLE HOOT HISS SCREECH SCREAM INFER SCORE
SCOFF SCOLD SATIRIZE IMPEDE HINT HAGGLE TAUNT INVERTED COMMUNICATION
PERSUADE EXHORT REPAY ALLUDE DISPUTE SUGGEST LECTURE TEACH PREACH SPEAK
INTRUDE STOP CHALLENGE HALT HOLD SHUT SET SUBDUE DISABUSE GAG POISON SHOOT
BOMBARD BOMB SHELL MOTIVATE INSTIGATE CONTRIVE INVOKE TINGLE THROB SPARKLE
SWISH PATTER PULSATE STINK REACT SMART SLUMP SWELTER JINGLE GLISTEN
REVERBERATE RING RIPPLE PEAL CLINK CLANG CLACK DRIP GOSSIP FIB PREVARICATE
STIMULATE STIR PROVOKE FORGET DEAFEN BLIND INVOLVE GAG ENGULF RUIN
DISINTEGRATE EFFACE ELIMINATE ANNUL ABOLISH ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER SLAY
OBLITERATE ERADICATE ERASE PURGE EXECUTE EXPUNGE EXTIRPATE DELETE DEMOLISH
CRUSH DESPATCH DESTROY DEVASTATE DISPOSE TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE
LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM GUZZLE SWIG SWILL SWALLOW GOBBLE GNAW TIPPLE QUAFF
SUP EMBOWEL DRINK DEVOUR CRUNCH CONSUME NIBBLE EAT ADJOURN ESTRANGE CRUMPLE
CRUMBLE DEODORIZE EXPLODE EXPEND ERODE FLAME WITHER WILT VIVISECT ELAPSE
LAPSE FAIL DEPRECIATE EXTINGUISH EXPURGATE EXPIRE SMEAR INVENT DUB
CONCOCT GRIPE SNIPE ROUSE AROUSE TEASE TEMPT FLIRT WOO ELECTRIFY EXCITE
ENKINDLE ALLURE SCINTILLATE TRANCE IMPRESS ATTRACT TANTALIZE TOUT CAPTIVATE
FASCINATE QUARREL SMUGGLE PRETEND DUPE FORGE COUNTERFEIT IMPERSONATE COZEN
IMPAWN DESIST RELAX REPOSE RUSTICATE QUIESCE LOAF OSSIFY IMPOSE TRICK
CONFOUND CHEAT DENOUNCE DELUDE IMPLANT DEFRAUD EXPOSE DAZE DECEIVE EXILE
MAROON BOMBARD AGGRAVATE ADMONISH ATTACK STUPEFY STULTIFY STARTLE QUARREL
OSTRACIZE WRANGLE PLAGUE GOAD GRILL PESTER INTERDICT INTERROGATE INTIMATE
HAZE SHOCK INSULT BITCH INTERSPERSE SPATTER STAMPEDE STRAY STREW BESTREW
STRAGGLE DISPERSE HORRIFY HECKLE HIT HARASS IMMURE HATCH HURT HOUND
INCRIMINATE IMPLICATE DIVIDE STRADDLE UNLOAD SUNDER SEPARATE OUTLAW ZONE
FILTER EXCLUDE EXCOMMUNICATE IMPEACH ACCOST ABUSE ACCUSE SCORE INFILTRATE
INDISPOSE LOATHE TRESPASS TUT SENTENCE INJURE INFLICT CONTRADICT CONCEDE
COAX PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE HARP BICKER DEAFEN DECLINE DEBATE LISP
HAUNT HUNT QUAIL EVADE EXTRACT INSULATE LIMIT HIBERNATE HIDE SHUN SECLUDE
SEAL SEGREGATE THWART ISOLATE SHEATHE LATCH GARBLE THREATEN HUMOUR RUMMAGE
RESORT RISK JUMBLE WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE PREVENT BOTCH REFRAIN GAG
EXCEED HESITATE EDUCATE SECRETE RESERVE FORGO WARN FORBID WARD RETRACT
RESTRICT BAN STILL MUFFLE SHRUG SHOVE SHEER ABSTAIN SHAMBLE TOY TURN SHIFT
CONCEAL CLAM MUZZLE FORGET BLAB PEACH DIVULGE PROTECT PET SNARE GLOZE
DISDAIN DISPARAGE DEROGATE DISCREDIT DETRACT REJECT CROW POSTURE BRAG BOAST
SULK OUTCRY WAIL OUTRAGE SLOBBER ABOMINATE ABHOR ANGER ANNOY SCORN
INFURIATE SENTIMENTALIZE CONNIVE COLLUDE BETRAY IMPUGN IMPUTE CONSPIRE PLOT
RECANT SIGH QUIBBLE IMPLORE RAGE GLOAT GROWL POUT GRUMBLE FIGHT NAG YELP
YAP YELL MOAN PRY EXHUME DISGUST ENTREAT DESPAIR EMBITTER CONVINCE DEMAND
DICTATE DISALLOW SWERVE SUCCUMB RETCH WAVER WRITHE SQUIRM VOMIT WINCE
NAUSEATE FALTER TIRE HATE PANT PUFF CAPITULATE CRY IGNORE CACHE PUZZLE
CURSE CONSPIRE CONNIVE DISSUADE PROVOKE DEPRIVE INTERVENE INTERSECT INFORM
SLANT HUSH IMPLICATE SURPRISE DEMUR OBJURGATE AMAZE INCULPATE COMMISERATE
FABRICATE TWIST INVERT MORTIFY ESCHEW SHAME DISHEARTEN DISAPPROVE DISTRACT
FOUL BOTHER MEDICATE MISCONCEIVE CHIDE COMPLAIN CONDEMN CHEW CENSURE CARP
BLAME UPBRAID FULMINATE REPROACH REPREHEND AVENGE ASCRIBE RESENT IMPLY
EMBARRASS DECOY EMBROIL MORALIZE MISLEAD DIGRESS CRITICIZE CURSE DISCOURAGE
DENY PRAY KID LIE PREVARICATE PRETEND CRITICIZE SUSPECT RANKLE WORSHIP
WHOOP INTEND TO NOT COMMUNICATE
57 - D I S P E R S E
STREW STRAGGLE DISPERSE SPREAD SHOWER RADIATE RANGE BURST SPATTER STAMPEDE
BESTREW ROUT INTERSPERSE DIFFUSE DISPERSE DISTRIBUTE DISPENSE DEPLOY SOW
PROPAGATE DISSIPATE PULVERIZE SCARE UNSETTLE STRAFE CHARGE DISMEMBER DEMENT
UNNERVE LITTER HOUND SCATTER AGITATE SHATTER QUAIL EVADE RUMMAGE JUMBLE
BOGGLE BOTCH DISCARD OUTBREAK SCATTER EMBARRASS SHUDDER PANIC SWERVE
SQUANDER EXPORT DISPEL VOLATILIZE SPRINKLE DISBAND FLURRY DISTRACT
DISTRIBUTE STRAY
58 - I N V E R T E D I N T E R E S T
INDULGE INCITE INCULCATE SCANDALIZE ASTOUND INDUCE LIKE LUST INFLAME
INFATUATE WALLOW GIGGLE THRILL TITILLATE TITIVATE QUIRK PEEP MYSTIFY
ENCHANT PROSTITUTE IMBIBE INEBRIATE INVERTED INTEREST BENUMB BELABOUR MASH
MAR MANGLE MAIM BESPATTER BESMIRCH PERFUME BESMEAR BESLOBBER BESLAVER BESET
BIND CAMP SOJOURN ABIDE RESIDE DWELL LOCATE IMPAWN REPOSE NESTLE LOAD
DISABLE TRUSS TOY PLAY WED BETROTH MARRY PERVADE PERMEATE TOUCH ACCOMPANY
REUNITE ATTACH KNIT SPLICE JOIN CONNECT LINK EMBRACE COMBINE CONSORT YOKE
ENTWINE CLING MURMUR TWEAK CRAVE PRICK PRESS FRACTURE MOLEST PENETRATE
PIERCE MUTILATE PINCH BUTCHER BUTT MOB BRAND BURN BUMP MAUL BRUTIFY AWAKEN
AROUSE SATISFY GRATIFY STIMULATE EXCITE BRUISE HABITUATE ENUMERATE DETAIL
OPERATE TEST DISCIPLINE MANIPULATE PRESCRIBE PREDISPOSE COMPLY REMAND
SUMMON STOP ELONGATE DILATE ENLARGE EXPAND EMPHASIZE CORRECT EMEND EDIT
MAGNIFY AMPLIFY ALTER ADJUST SHAPE RIFLE RANSACK SPY INFILTRATE PRY GRILL
PERSECUTE PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST PROLONG RESPIRE NURTURE
NOURISH RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE REINSTATE MATURE FIX MARTYR SURVIVE BULLY
PREDESTINATE DROOL SLAVER VIOLATE REACT STINK SLUMP SMART SLAVE SWELTER
SLIP SLOUCH PULSATE PATTER SWISH SPARKLE THROB TINGLE DRIP CLACK CLANG
CLINK PEAL RIPPLE RING REVERBERATE GLISTEN REPRODUCE RETRACE QUOTE COPY
REMIND SKETCH CHARACTERIZE IMITATE MIME PORTRAY DEPICT REPLACE RECOGNIZE
REMEMBER TESTIFY SUBSTANTIATE RECORD RECOUNT ENACT PRINT EMULATE RESTORE
DUPLICATE RECIPROCATE RECEIVE REPLENISH TRANSMIT PRACTISE REHEARSE MULTIPLY
REITERATE REPEAT RECAPITULATE REVIEW REDUPLICATE BANG SCREW RUIN STIMULATE
STIR PROVOKE MAKE GUZZLE SWIG SWILL SWALLOW GOBBLE GNAW QUAFF SUP EMBOWEL
FRATERNIZE DRINK DEVOUR CRUNCH CONSUME NIBBLE EAT ADJOURN ESTRANGE CRUMPLE
CRUMBLE DEODORIZE EXPLODE EXPEND ERODE FLAME WITHER WILT VIVISECT ELAPSE
LAY INHALE GROW CONJURE JINGLE TIPPLE LAPSE FAIL DEPRECIATE EXTINGUISH
EXPURGATE EXPIRE ENGULF RUIN DISINTEGRATE EFFACE ELIMINATE ANNUL ABOLISH
ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER SLAY OBLITERATE ERADICATE ERASE PURGE EXECUTE EXPUNGE
EXTIRPATE DELETE DEMOLISH CRUSH DESPATCH DESTROY DEVASTATE DISPOSE DOOM
TOPPLE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE FINISH TERMINATE ENSNARE DISPLAY ENGROSS
ENKINDLE CAPTIVATE EXCITE FASCINATE FLIRT ROUSE AROUSE ATTRACT IMPRESS
TRANCE SCINTILLATE ALLURE GOGGLE MARVEL ELECTRIFY TANTALIZE WOO TEASE TEMPT
INTOXICATE SMUGGLE DEPRAVE FETTER FORCE WINE BED SLEEP LIE UNDRESS DRESS
DIVERT CULTIVATE DELIGHT COMFORT EXHILARATE ENLIVEN SUCKLE WILE SOOTHE
SOLACE OBLIGE RELIEVE REJUVENATE INNERVATE SATISFY PERFUME PERMIT PLEASE
ENCOURAGE ENDEAR ENHANCE BESTOW SURFEIT CONSOLE BEDEVIL ATTACK BEAT BEFOUL
BATTER ASSAULT BASH ASSAIL SWEAT SULLY SUFFOCATE SUBJUGATE STUPEFY STUN
STRAIN STRANGLE STRIKE STIFLE STALK SPOIL STAIN VIOLATE SPRAWL LOLL
VICTIMIZE SOCK SOIL UNDERMINE HANDCUFF MANACLE FETTER CHAIN SMEAR GRASP
COERCE POUND POKE REVENGE GRILL PLAGUE PESTER PERSECUTE RIP GRAB GOAD
PARALYSE RACK GASH TORMENT END TOLERATE IDOLIZE PET FORGET PHILANDER CLOY
PINION CLUTCH CRAVE HANKER PANT MASTURBATE JOLT RETALIATE FORCE FLAY
FLAGELLATE SLASH SLICE SLAP SLIT TYRANNIZE EXHAUST WHACK WHIP WOUND
OVERWHELM OVERPOWER WARP WRENCH WRING TWIST WRY ROUGH WALLOP OPPRESS OFFEND
NIP NICK SMACK SMITE SLAM NEUTER EMASCULATE SPAY SMOTHER DROWN DOPE DRUG
SMASH NIBBLE SNIFF STROKE RUB APPEAL ATTRACT ENTICE FRIG COHABIT FUCK
FORNICATE COPULATE LAY MAKE JAZZ DRUG JERK PLAY TEASE TWITCH DESPAIR
DELIVER COME TRIFLE TRICE JAB SICKEN INTIMATE INTERROGATE TWIST BRUTALIZE
HAMMER HAZE SHOCK INSULT SPATTER STAMPEDE STRAY BESTREW BURST DISPERSE HANG
HORRIFY HECKLE HIT HARASS IMMOLATE HURT HOUND HARRY SCAR AFFLICT IMPALE
AGITATE ZONE DISROBE EXCLUDE OUTLAW SEPARATE DOPE SUNDER UNLOAD DIVERGE
TOSS ROLL WRITHE DIFFER DIVIDE DIVEST LASH ACCOST ABUSE INFILTRATE LOATHE
TRESPASS LYNCH LAME LACERATE LICK INJURE SCUFFLE SCRATCH INFLICT INJECT
INHUME PENETRATE ADMIT INVITE INOCULATE INSERT SIP HAUNT YANK EXTRACT HIDE
SHUN SECLUDE SHACKLE SEIZE THWART TIE COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN THRASH THRALL
IMMERSE RUMMAGE RESORT RISK SLOP STUMBLE PROHIBIT REFRAIN GAG EXCEED TRY
FETTER FRUSTRATE SECRETE GO COVET EXACT CONSERVE LOSE PETITION AMPUTATE
DISCARD WANT FORBID REPRESS SPECIALIZE SNARE TWEAK TONGUE ENJOY LOVE LIKE
SUCKLE SQUEEZE TARNISH TAINT SCREW KINDLE INVERT INTENSIFY HUMILIATE
DEGRADE REGRET NIP COMMISERATE LURK JUMBLE FONDLE NUZZLE SUCCUMB SWOON BURY
EJACULATE COME STAY SLEEP PROCURE COVER PAW CACHE DEFILE DALLY DISLIKE
DISTRESS DESIRE DISGUST SIGH GLOAT GROAN AGONIZE MADDEN PALPITATE MOAN EAT
EXHUME COLLUDE RECANT TRADUCE BETRAY SENTIMENTALIZE CONSPIRE PLOT CONNIVE
SHUDDER SUFFER CONCLUDE ACHIEVE ATTAIN WAIL OUTRAGE WEEP SLOBBER CULMINATE
ENDURE SHIVER TRANSPORT SHAMBLE SUSPEND BIND TURN TUSSLE LIMP PROWL DABBLE
ENFEEBLE FONDLE ABUSE CORRUPT TUG EMBARRASS SHAME MORTIFY ENTRAP ALLURE
PINCH REVEL SQUIRT SOPHISTICATE PUCKER CRITICIZE CONTORT BOTHER FOUL DEFORM
DEVIATE
BEWITCH SEDUCE SENSUALIZE CATCH ENERVATE INSINUATE LEER DEFILE TITTER
POLLUTE TOY WHISPER DEPRIVE SMIRK SMIRCH CORRUPT SNIGGER SMUT SNEAK SOLICIT
RAPE RAVISH PASSION PERVERT FOREBODE FOREWARN YEN OBSESS SUCK BESOT BEWARE
BITE BAN PROCURE BEGUILE CREEP STRIP INITIATE FEEL BARE PRY PAINT KISS LICK
TATTOO FLOG CASTRATE HYPNOTIZE WHIP SEDUCE CARESS TICKLE DISABLE BIND
TORTURE IMPLICATE IMPOSE SCALP SAVAGE INCISE SCOURGE SKIN KNOCK SIN TRICK
WRIGGLE KICK SMUDGE DAZZLE SNATCH EMBROIL CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE CRIMINATE
EXPLOIT COMMIT SCRATCH CLAW CHOP TRANSGRESS CHEAT DISSECT DISMEMBER
DISGRACE DISHONOUR DRAG DESPOIL DERANGE DISEMBOWEL EVISCERATE DISLOCATE
DEPRAVE CRUCIFY CROP DEMENT DEMEAN DELUDE DEGRADE ERECT DEFACE DISSIPATE
EXPOSE DECEIVE CANE DEBAUCH DEBASE EXCRUCIATE EXTORT CAPTURE CONQUER CUT
PUNISH PUNCTURE PUNCH DETRACT CLEAVE
59 - T H I N K
CONSTITUTE COMPRISE CONSIST NEOLOGIZE SCHEME WONDER OUTLINE JUSTIFY
NUMERATE THEORIZE GENERALIZE THINK PARTICULARIZE RATIONALIZE PERCEIVE
REALIZE CONCUR CONCERN CONCENTRATE CONCEIVE COMPARE COGITATE DOUBT
DISTINGUISH DISPROVE DISQUALIFY CALCULATE PRESUPPOSE PRESUME PREPENSE
PREJUDGE PREFER PREDICT EDUCE PREDICATE PRECONCEIVE PHILOSOPHIZE METHODIZE
BETHINK BEMUSE BELIEVE ASSUME SYMBOLIZE SYSTEMATIZE ANALYSE SURMISE SUSPECT
SUPPOSE SPECULATE EXCOGITATE VISUALIZE SOLVE WEEN EQUATE AMOUNT COMPUTE
INFLECT DERIVE DENOTE DEFINE DEEM COUNT CONTEMPLATE CONSTRUE CONSIDER
ASCERTAIN ASSESS TRANSCEND ASSOCIATE LIST DECIDE DEDUCE QUALIFY ITEMIZE
QUANTIFY PLAN RECKON PONDER RECOLLECT POSTULATE RECONSIDER PREDETERMINE
REFLECT FORECAST RESOLVE RUMINATE TOT TYPIFY DISCERN TABULATE TALLY IMAGINE
PUZZLE THINK UNDERSTAND RECALL REVISE SIMPLIFY IDENTIFY ASSORT STIPULATE
DETAIL ENUMERATE GRASP RECOGNIZE REMEMBER REMIND RECORD REVIEW RETRACE
RECAPITULATE MULTIPLY REPRODUCE DEPICT COMPREHEND REFER FORGET ELIMINATE
MANUFACTURE CONCOCT CONSTRUCT INVENT ESTABLISH DEVISE EVOKE PROBE PURSUE
EXPLORE DETERMINE APPEND ADJOIN INTERSECT COMBINE LINK CONNECT PERMEATE
PERVADE CONJUGATE STULTIFY STUPEFY DAZE BENUMB DEMENT DERANGE DIVIDE DIFFER
EXCLUDE SORT SEPARATE EXTRACT WISH BOGGLE EDUCATE MISCONCEIVE FUMBLE BOTHER
REGRET CLASSIFY CRITICIZE INFER INFORM RECALL WORRY REGARD GRADE RATE RANK
VALVE ADJUDGE ADJUDICATE PROVE DESPAIR MUSE SUMMARIZE APPREHEND ESTIMATE
TROW IDEALIZE CONCLUDE CONFUSE INSPIRE ADDUCE
60 - C R E A T E
GENERATE ISSUE MOTIVATE EMIT EMANATE ENGENDER PERPETRATE INVOKE TRANSACT
COMMENCE CONTRIVE PREDESTINATE CONJURE INSTITUTE NOMINATE DESIGN ORIGINATE
PRECIPITATE INSTIGATE PROPAGATE BEGET POPULATE PROCREATE INBREED BREED
IMPREGNATE GEMINATE DEVISE INCUBATE VIVIFY ORDAIN VITALIZE DECORATE INVENT
MANUFACTURE CONSTRUCT SPROUT INCREASE DUB CONCOCT ESTABLISH ANIMATE GLOW
ATTRIBUTE INNOVATE WAGE CREATE WRITE PEN DISCOVER EXPRESS ENDOW RECREATE
REGENERATE PLANT MATERIALIZE BUILD MAKE PRODUCE SOW SPAWN CREATE STAY PLACE
CLING JOIN EMBRACE LINK MEET LOCATE FOMENT IMPROVISE IMAGINE ERECT NARRATE
61 - O B S E S S I V E C A N ' T H A V E
DISAVOW DISBELIEVE DISCLAIM DUMP DISOWN EMACIATE EMBEZZLE YEARN OPPOSE OWE
SKIMP STARVE STEAL STINT STRIP SWIPE SURCHARGE BEREAVE MISAPPROPRIATE
MISTRUST MOULT ECONOMIZE PILFER PINE LACK REMOVE FAST RATION THIEVE THIRST
RID SCRIMP SCAMP SAP SACRIFICE HOG ABORT ROB RETRENCH REVOKE OBSESSIVE
CAN'T HAVE DISBURDEN CURE RAID PRE-EMPT SEIZE DEMOLISH CUT GUT TAX GORGE
SLAVE STINK SLIP SWELTER SLOUCH REPLACE REACT DUPLICATE REHEARSE PRACTISE
REDUPLICATE REPRODUCE MULTIPLY CROP DOCK DEPRIVE STEAL OBLITERATE
DEMAGNETIZE TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE CRUSH
LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH DEMOLISH DELETE
EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER
ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE CENSOR RUIN ENGULF
EXPIRE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DEPRECIATE BATTEN FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE VIVISECT
WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE EXPEND EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE
ADJOURN EAT NIBBLE CONSUME CRUNCH DEVOUR DRINK EMBOWEL SUP QUAFF TIPPLE
GNAW GOBBLE SWALLOW SWILL SWIG GUZZLE REQUISITION INTERDICT GUT KIDNAP
ANNEX IMPOUND OSSIFY LOAF FREEZE QUIESCE CLING ENTWINE YOKE CONSORT LINK
JOIN ATTACH ACCOMPANY CRAVE EMASCULATE NEUTER ALTER SPAY RIFLE RANSACK TAX
SACK IMPOVERISH SCALP FLAY SKIN SNATCH RUSTLE EXPLOIT CHEAT DESPOIL CROP
DECORTICATE DEFRAUD CAPTURE EXTORT POACH PINCH BEHEAD SWINDLE SPOIL WRING
WREST OSTRACIZE PLUNDER GRASP RAVAGE RAZE PAUPERIZE DECAPITATE BESIEGE
SIEGE COMMANDEER SHRED LOOT SHOWER STREW BESTREW STRAGGLE DISPERSE IMMOLATE
EXCOMMUNICATE EXCLUDE FILTER SEPARATE ZONE OUTLAW SUNDER STRADDLE UNLOAD
DETACH DIVERGE DIFFER DIVIDE DIVEST PURLOIN DISMISS EVADE SHATTER INFRINGE
REMONSTRATE BICKER GROPE DECLINE DEBATE HUNT HAUNT DISSENT CONTEND
CONTRADICT CONCEDE PROTEST QUARREL HARP RECEDE RECOIL YANK EXTRACT DISMISS
INSULATE LIMIT HINDER SHUN SEGREGATE THWART ISOLATE SEIZE LATCH COLLIDE
GARBLE IMMERSE RUMMAGE RISK RESORT JUMBLE WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE BOTCH
PROHIBIT PREVENT REFRAIN TRY HESITATE EDUCATE WANT DISCARD PAWN FRUSTRATE
RESIST SECRETE AMPUTATE LOSE COVET CONSERVE FORGO FORBID WARN RESTRICT WEAN
BAN ABSTAIN SHOVE SHEER LEAP SHAMBLE TUG SHIFT FORGET RETARD REDUCE DISDAIN
CRIMP DEVEST REJECT FORSWEAR VACATE FORSAKE EKE REPUDIATE RENOUNCE
RELINQUISH SHED ENCUMBER INURE WAIL WEEP SORROW ABHOR ABOMINATE RECANT SIGH
GRIEVE FRET DREAD MOAN MOPE MOURN ENVY DISGUST DISLIKE DESPAIR SUCCUMB
PUTREFY ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT ABDUCT DISARM SURRENDER SACRIFICE DEPOSIT AMASS
POSSESS ACQUIRE RETAIN CAUTION CACHE BEGRUDGE ESCHEW CONDEMN SHEAR SOAK
DEDUCT TAKE DEMUR CURTAIL PLUCK PRUNE BOB DISAPPROVE DISHEARTEN DENY
DISCOURAGE CLIP CRITICIZE FOUL BEGRUDGE MIRE DESICCATE ENFEEBLE ENCROACH
CADGE CAGE DISCARD DISPOSE POACH PURLOIN IMPOVERISH RUSTLE ENTRAP ENJOIN
ENERVATE HAGGLE CATCH DEPRIVE DISSUADE COZEN DISABLE CASTRATE CHEAT DESIRE
DESPOND ENFORCE RETCH
62 - E F F E C T
EFFECT REACT SLOUCH SLUMP SLIP PULSATE SMART TINGLE THROB SWELTER STINK
SPARKLE GLISTEN PATTER SWISH CLACK CLANG CLINK PEAL JINGLE REVERBERATE
RIPPLE RING DRIP SLAVE RESPOND THUMB CONSOLE SURFEIT REPLETE ENLIGHTEN
ENHANCE ENERGIZE PREPARE ENCOURAGE EDIFY PERK PERFUME HABILITATE SALVE HEAL
INNERVATE INSTRUCT LEAD REASSURE REFORM REFRESH REGENERATE REHABILITATE
REJUVENATE RELIEVE REPAIR RESPITE RESCUE RESUSCITATE RETOUCH REVIVE SMOOTH
SOLACE SOOTHE STRENGTHEN SUCCOUR SURCEASE SUPPORT EXHILARATE ENLIVEN CHEER
COMFORT DELIGHT CULTIVATE DEVELOP DIVERT DRESS DRIVE WINE CALM CIVILIZE
BURNISH CURE INVIGORATE SMELL FEEL WILL ORDAIN IMPOVERISH SCALD
INCAPACITATE SCORCH INCISE KNOCK KICK SMUDGE CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE CONFOUND
CHOP DRENCH DRAG DISAFFECT DERANGE DEPRESS DISMAY DISLOCATE CUT DEPRAVE
DENT CROP DEMENT DEJECT DEGRADE DEFLATE DEFACE DAZE DEBAUCH DEBASE
EXCRUCIATE EXTORT CAPTURE CONQUER DOUSE DISTURB PULVERIZE PUNISH PUNCTURE
PUNCH PROSTRATE CAPSIZE PRICK PRESS PIERCE MUTILATE MOLEST BUTT BURN BUMP
MASH BRUISE MAR MANGLE MAIM BREAK BOIL AGGRAVATE BESET BENUMB BELABOUR
BEDEVIL BEFOUL BEAT BATTER BASH APPAL SWEAT SULLY SUFFOCATE SUBJUGATE SWAMP
STRAIN STORM STRANGLE STIFLE STARTLE SQUEEZE SQUELCH STAIN SQUASH SPOIL
SPRAIN SPLASH SPRAWL SPLIT SPILL VICTIMIZE VEX SOIL SMOKE UNDERCUT
UNDERMINE SMEAR SMOTHER SLAM SINK SIZZLE TYRANNIZE WEARY ULCERATE UNNERVE
WORRY WOUND WRY WRING WRINKLE OPPRESS JOSTLE JOLT FLOOR PLAGUE PESTER
PERSECUTE GOAD RASP RAP TERRORIZE THUMP TICKLE QUELL QUENCH QUASH IRK
DAMAGE JERK SICKEN TROUBLE HOUND HARRY HURT HARASS HIT HECKLE
HORRIFY INSULT SHOCK HAZE HAMMER AFFLICT SCAR IMPAIR AGITATE ABUSE ACCUSE
INDISPOSE SHATTER SHAKE LACERATE LAME INJURE QUAIL THREATEN MORTIFY
COMMISERATE REGRET FOUL MEDICATE MIRE DISTRACT DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE CURSE
EMBARRASS SHAME BLANCH
63 - N O E F F E C T
VANISH MINIMIZE OMIT NO EFFECT PARDON EXCUSE PARRY CONTRACEPT VITIATE
PETRIFY ABIDE FREEZE STICK SECURE BECALM IMPAWN DESIST QUIESCE OSSIFY STAVE
DUCK EVADE INSULATE HIBERNATE SECLUDE THWART HUMOUR PREVENT REFRAIN TRY
CONSERVE WARD DENY ENFEEBLE WITHSTAND DESPAIR DESPOND SHRUG WAIVE REJECT
FORSAKE RETREAT RETIRE FORSWEAR RESIGN DISSUADE
64 - C A U S E
BUILD MAKE PRODUCE MATERIALIZE PLANT EFFECT AFFECT SOW ERECT SPAWN BEATIFY
STIMULATE SPARK NECESSITATE PROVOKE INVOLVE WILL CAUSE PROJECT PURPOSE
DISCOVER EXPEDITE INVIGORATE CIVILIZE DRIVE DIVERT DEVELOP CULTIVATE
DELIGHT EXCEL ENLIVEN EXHILARATE ENABLE STRENGTHEN SPONSOR VERIFY VALIDATE
UPHOLD UNDERTAKE REVISE FURTHER REPAIR REHABILITATE FACILITATE RE-ENFORCE
RECTIFY RAISE LEAD INSTRUCT ASSIST HEAL SUSTAIN ASSURE ALLEVIATE PREPARE
ENERGIZE SUPPLY REPLETE SURFEIT FILL FULFIL EXTEND CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE
COMMAND PRESIDE RULE REIGN JUDGE JOCKEY JUGGLE USHER NAVIGATE PILOT
OFFICIATE REGULATE DIRECT UNTANGLE ORDER ORIENTATE ORGANIZE OPERATE
ADMINISTER SUPERINTEND SUPERVISE MANAGE MASTER CONSTITUTE INSTITUTE
ORIGINATE GENERATE CONTRIVE CONJURE DESIGN ENGENDER MOTIVATE SUFFUSE ORDAIN
ATTRIBUTE INVENT INNOVATE INITIATE LOCATE SITE TEMPT INSPIRE PERVADE
PERMEATE FOMENT TROUBLE SICKEN DAMAGE QUELL TORMENT TERRORIZE RAID PARALYSE
PAUPERIZE PENALIZE PERSECUTE PROSECUTE FORCE OFFEND OPPRESS WORRY WHELM
WEARY TYRANNIZE UNSETTLE VEX VICTIMIZE SPOIL VITIATE SUBJUGATE APPAL
BELABOUR AGGRAVATE PRESS DISTURB DISSIPATE DEPOSE DEPRESS DERANGE DESPOIL
DEMORALIZE DISAFFECT DISGRACE COMMIT CONFOUND EXPLOIT INUNDATE INVADE
IMPOVERISH INCAPACITATE IMPOSE RADIATE SHOWER SPATTER BURST FILTER EXCLUDE
ZONE SEPARATE OUTLAW SUNDER DIVERGE DIVEST DIVIDE INDISPOSE INFLICT COAX
BOTHER FABRICATE DICTATE DEMAND DISALLOW CONVINCE EXERT DOMINATE COMPEL
ENFORCE COERCE INAUGURATE FOSTER PREDETERMINE POSTULATE CONCEIVE DIFFER
SORT STIR
65 - F A I T H
HOPE CREDIT FAITH ENTRUST DEPEND MEDITATE CALM DISBURDEN COMFORT EXCULPATE
CHEER PROVIDE SUPPORT SURCEASE SUCCOUR VINDICATE VOUCH SOOTH SOLACE OBLIGE
REVIVIFY OFFER CURE REVIVE RESPITE FORGIVE RELY RELIEVE REJWENATE
REGENERATE REFRESH REFORM RECREATE RECTIFY REDEEM RECONCILE REASSURE
IRRADICATE LEAD SERVE TRAVAIL HEAL SALVE HELP SUSTAIN ASSURE BESPEAK
ABSOLVE ALLAY MITIGATE PARDON PALLIATE EASE EDIFY ENCOURAGE ENHANCE
ENLIGHTEN ENDOW BESTOW SUFFICE CONSOLE AVAIL PREDESTINATE TESTIFY EMULATE
REPLENISH TRANSMIT NEOLOGIZE INSPIRE REPOSE IMPAWN DWELL SOJOURN ABIDE
RESIDE DENOUNCE PROSELYTIZE CONVERT CONFESS CONFIRM BAPTIZE IMPLANT CLING
YOKE JOIN PERMEATE PERVADE REJOIN COMBINE EMBRACE CONNECT REUNITE
FRATERNIZE WED MARRY BETROTH ENTWINE BESET BELABOUR BESMIRCH ADMONISH BREAK
BURN MOB MOLEST PROSTRATE CONQUER DEFLATE DEFRAUD DELUDE DENOUNCE CRUCIFY
DEPRAVE DISAFFECT CHEAT CONFOUND DEMORALIZE DAZZLE SIN TRICK SCOURGE
FLAGELLATE IMPRECATE IMPOSE TRANSGRESS TRESPASS UNFROCK BEDEVIL ASSAIL
SWINDLE SUBJUGATE STUPEFY STULTIFY VICTIMIZE VANQUISH UNDERMINE SMITE WREST
PERSECUTE PARALYSE RACK QUENCH INTIMATE RADIATE HEW CLEAVE EXCOMMUNICATE
REBOUND EMERGE IMMERSE WISH REVERE DEIFY AWE WORSHIP ACHIEVE ATTAIN LOVE
TRUST ASCEND TRANSPORT ASPIRE BELIEVE EXCLUDE
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1961
Franchise
RELEASING AND PREPARING A CASE FOR
S.O.P. GOALS
S.O.P. Goals takes a great deal of accurate Scientology to run. One has
to be the kind of expert one would become from studying at Saint Hill or
under a person who has been here who graduated with honors.
One has to have his TRs 0 to 4 perfect. One has to know an E-Meter
backwards and forwards. One has to know Model Session so well that he or
she can pass all TRs while doing it. And one has to know assessment.
There is nothing, however, so bad as to get a wrong S.O.P. Goals
Assessment on a case. It condemns the pc to an infinity of auditing. He or
she will never get Clear until a right assessment is done. And the auditing
in between is wasted.
So until you get to Saint Hill or get a special course in S.O.P. Goals
from a Saint Hill honor graduate, or from Australia's Peter Williams, whom
I taught in South Africa, or unless I am right on the other end of a Telex
as I am for London, may I please ask you to content yourself (and get
marvellous case gains) releasing people with the preparatory steps of
S.O.P. Goals and skip trying to run S.O.P. Goals on wrong assessments.
These Steps release people.
The Preparatory Steps of S.O.P. Goals consist of only two things:
1. The Johannesburg Security Check, well done (the revised issue
of which will come to you next week), and
2. General runs on the Pre-Hav Scale after proper assessment of
the pc on that scale.
You can easily learn to give a "Joburg". You can easily learn to assess
on a Pre-Hav Scale. And you can't do any real damage and can get the
fastest case gains you've ever seen.
THE JOBURG CHECK
If withholds make the pc get no gains, then what better way to clear
them up than by a fabulously thorough check on withholds such as is found
in the "Joburg Check".
Ask every question in various ways until the pc gets no further needle
action on that question with sensitivity raised way up.
The General Runs on Pre-Hav: Assess the Pre-Hav Scale saying each level
once to the pc on the meter going up it. Saying each level once to the pc
going back down it. Write down every fall, theta bop or rock slam and how
much. Take the level which gave the most reaction going up and down.
Take that Pre-Hav level that reacted most.
Using your good sense, make up a five-way bracket auditing command from
the level.
Suppose the most reactive level was Overts. This translates as "DONE TO".
The 5-way command is "What have you done to someone?" "What has someone
done to you?" "What has someone done to another?" "What has another done to
others?" "What has someone done to himself?"
Run the process watching the meter Tone Arm.
When the Tone Arm moves more than 1/4 of a Tone Arm Division movement
up or down (no matter how many times it went up or down), continue the
process, no matter what the pc says about its being flat.
When the Tone Arm moves less than 1/4 Of a division of the Tone Arm
Dial in 20 minutes, change the process. Bridge out, reassess on the Pre-Hav
Scale as before. Take the next level, make up a five-way bracket the pc can
do and flatten it off as above.
Audit by the Tone Arm (except in rock slam). Assess by the needle. For
rock slam, just run the slam out of the level until it's gone for 20
minutes.
Then, with two Pre-Hav levels flat on the Tone Arm, do a new "Joburg"
Security Check.
It will have changed!
Do it all in Model Session. Handle the Rudiments. Do a "Joburg", then a
couple of Pre-Hav levels, then a "Joburg", then a couple of Pre-Hav levels,
then a "Joburg", etc, etc, on and on.
The case will soar.
RELEASE
This is the production of a Release.
It is the simplest and fastest way to produce a Release.
It has to be done anyway to set a case up for an S.O.P. Goals
Assessment.
MISTAKES
You can louse up a pc by:
1. Failing to get a nul needle on every "Joburg" question as and when
you ask it. Get each question cleared, not by Auditing, just by
watching the needle and asking until the pc tells you the withhold.
2. Running several levels without flattening any. This puts the whole
case in a stew. The movement of the Tone Arm as you run it tells you
when something is still unflat. As long as the Tone Arm of the Meter is
moved by the process, continue the process. It's a code breach not to!
3. Running a level too long. You can stick the Tone Arm by overrunning
the level. This is more serious than leaving one slightly unflat. If a
Tone Arm for twenty minutes is only moving between, say, 3.25 and 3.35,
you are already in danger of sticking the Tone Arm. Get off of it! If
you do overrun, it's hard to reassess for the new level and hard also
on the pc. A remedy for overrunning is to assess the auditor on the Pre-
Hav Scale and run the auditor out of the pc for about ten, fifteen
minutes-if the needle moves at all.
4. Dwelling on levels in the Assessment, repeating them over and over
instead of just once each, can start an avalanche on the pc. Don't do
it. Take the meter needle reads when they happen. Jot them down. Then
take the most reaction. That's it.
5. Sad to relate, it's been done. But don't think you just take
the first level of the Pre-Hav and run it and then go up one and run it
and then the next one up. That's murder. Assess them with an E-Meter
and run the levels of the Pre-Hav that react when they react.
6. Don't skip the "Joburgs" because they make pcs squirm. This is how
you find and get the withholds off. The case won't move if you don't.
And give many Joburgs, one after every long Pre-Hav run, one or two
levels, for the case responsibility comes up and as it comes up new
overts are realized and they've got to come off.
SUMMARY
You'll do the most for the pc by taking him or her to release with
Preparatory S.O.P. Goals runs.
This is strong, powerful auditing. The pcs will thank you. They won't
if you try S.O.P. Goals when you don't know how. That's the way to make
enemies.
E-Meter Essentials is coming out soon. A new Pre-Hav (same one you have
but extended) Scale is being issued in another Clearing Series book. And
I'm giving you straight dope and the best tools in these Bulletins. How can
you lose. You're sunk. You can't!
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :im-.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
26 May 1961
** 6105C26 SHSBC-4 On Auditing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1961
Central Orgs
CLARIFICATION OF "CHANGE PROCESSING"
The following despatch to D of P Washington, D.C., who had been using
"Change" exclusive of the whole Pre-Hav Scale and had been having trouble,
is of interest to all Technical staff.
29th May, 1961
Wayne-
Change is only one part of Pre-Hav Assessment. It is the only one that
has a Secondary Scale. To "Assess on Pre-Hav" means to assess the whole Pre-
Hav Scale of which Change is a part.
Change belongs at "Inverted Control". Cross out "Inverted Control",
write in "Change" instead. Assess only on the whole Primary Pre-Hav. If and
only if you get a reaction on "Change", you assess Change Scale. When a
level is flat you return to the whole Pre-Hav Scale and assess the whole
scale.
Every Pre-Hav Level of the Primary will soon have its own Secondary
Level. You always assess on any new assessment for level the whole Primary
Pre-Hav Scale. You choose the most reactive (reacting on the needle) level
of the Primary. Then you move over into that level's Secondary Scale. You
find the most reactive Secondary Level. You run just and only that level
flat. Then you take the whole Primary Pre-Hav Scale for the next
assessment. Once more you find the most reactive Primary Level. Then you
move over into its Secondary and so on.
"Change" is the first one to have a Secondary Level. Every level now
has one and they will be issued shortly.
So put "Change" at "Inverted Control" instead of "Inverted Control" and
carry on.
The best routine is HCO Bulletin of May 13, 1961. It modifies nothing
of this but gives you a sure approach to release, provided you keep
rudiments cleaned up every session.
Best,
Ron.
LRH:jl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[HCO B 13 July 1961, Change Processing and CCHs, which had a "Franchise"
distribution, was a combination of the above HCO B, with the last paragraph
deleted, and HCO B 23 June 1961, Running CCHs, page 347.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
1 June 1961
** 6106C01 SHSBC-5 Flattening Process and E-Meter
[pic]
Issue 129 [June 1961]
The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.
The Sad Tail of PDH
L. Ron Hubbard
Every time we get up to a high roar, such as now when we're clearing
people as never before, we measure our progress by the violence of reaction
in squirreldom.
They come down from the trees and start looking for nuts to convince
how we're all wrong. If they weren't paid to do it I'd be happier.
The latest brainwave to greet our highest peak of helping Man is rumors
of "PDH." This is Pain-DrugHypnotism as practiced by the Communists.
Brainwashing, in fact. It is interesting that when the Commies fight you,
they try to convince people that you're guilty of their own overts. It is
also fascinating that a Commie rumor line is international in scope. The
same rumor bursts out in a dozen quarters around the world, spread by paid
agents at the same time.
This rumor of PDH started in Australia, where Scientologists laughed at
it, went to South Africa where Scientologists got mad about it and then
sprang up in the U.S. where some Scientologists "didn't know." Well,
disregarding the fact that such don't know anything anyway, we now know who
is helping the little red brothers with the sickle in one hand and the
hammer in the other to make trouble in the U.S.
Anyway, I'm not writing this article to scold. I'm really laughing at
the idiocy of it.
I've been showing the students here at Saint Hill who've come for
special briefing and clearing (and who are getting clear) how to convince a
pc, by flagrant meter reaction, that the cat has "PDH'd" him. It's very
funny. But you'd have to know how an E-Meter works to appreciate the joke.
Here is the drill:
You put anybody on an E-Meter and say, "Have you ever been a victim of
Pain-Drug-Hypnotism?" The meter reacts strongly. So of course the test
subject on the meter is startled. He begins to gape. The meter action is so
strong. It's so convincing.
"Now," you say, "who did this to you? Was it ?" and name some
person the subject knows or knows of. And we see another fall. The subject
gapes, astounded. Has dear old Frank been giving him PDH's? How horrible.
He never would have thought this of poor old Frank. And you leave it at
that and your test subject
Copyright �1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.
now believes he has been brainwashed by his best friend. But you don't
leave it at that.
"All right," you say, "do you know of any pets?"
The test subject says, "Yes. I have a cat."
"Well!" you say, "did this cat give you a dose of Pain-Drug-Hypnosis?"
And the meter falls!
The test subject is bewildered or ridiculing now. But there it is.
"Did your cat make you a victim of Pain-Drug-Hypnosis?" you insist.
And the meter reacts!
"What date?" you say. And the meter reads for midnight 12 July 1960.
Our subject now has horrible visions of his cat sitting on his chest
while he sleeps PDHing him.
Why?
Well, people who believe bad things instinctively often aren't capable
of learning. But you are capable of learning so here's the explanation:
You say to the test subject, "Is this meter falling on the word: PAIN?"
The subject wriggles. Giggles. "I sure don't like pain," says the
subject. The meter clears up on it.
You say, "Is the meter falling on the word: Drugs?" And that fall comes
off as the person says, "No, drugs are pretty bad."
"Is the meter falling on the word: Hypnotism?" And that fall comes off
because the subject realizes that he doesn't like hypnotists and says so.
"Or did the meter fall on the word: VICTIM?"
The subject now laughs or responds.
The meter is cleared up in this way.
"Now," you say, "have you ever been the VICTIM of PAIN-DRUG HYPNOTISM?"
The subject laughs. You repeat the question. The meter doesn't react at
all.
"Now how about this cat?" you say. (Or J. Edgar Hoover or whoever.)
"Did you ever kick this cat? Do you have overts on this cat?"
"Well, yes," says the subject. "I didn't kick the cat. I drowned a cat
once."
"When?"
And after dating it on the meter, "Midnight 12 July 1960!!!" The exact
date of the "PDH" (or one should say, the overt on the person [cat] ).
For the meter reacts on any person or thing on whom the subject has
committed overt acts !
And when these things are inquired into, the question, "Have you ever
been the victim of Pain-Drug-Hypnotism?" draws a nul meter. If it were
really true, the meter would still respond.
You have to compartment any meter question to get the truth. The E-
Meter never lies. But you can ask a sloppy question. When a question, the
basis of which is false, contains restimulative or charged words, one has
to break the question down to phrases or words, get the charge off them and
then ask the question again. Now if the fact is true the meter reacts on
the question not the words in the question.
Example: (asking a pc about a goal) "Do you want to be a freeman and
climb ladders and rescue beautiful women?" The meter falls madly. What is
it falling on? To sort the goal out one must know. The whole goal is true
or part of it or none of it. So one asks, "Do you want to be a fireman?''
Meter is nul. "Do you want to climb ladders?" Meter is nul. "Do you want to
rescue?" Meter is nul. "Beautiful women?" Meter falls off the pin. "Do you
have a goal to have beautiful women?" Meter falls off the pin again. It was
Beautiful Women, not Fireman that made the meter fall.
Meters are accurate. But sometimes people are sort of stupid.
L. RON
HUBBARD
PS: If there were any advantage in Brainwashing (which there isn't) and if
anybody were really PDH'd, it will clear up in a few minutes by assessing
the PDHer on the Pre-Hav Scale and running the person off the bank. Takes
about 30 minutes by the new processes. It takes the Russians 70 days to lay
one in.
We're winning.
LRH
PPS: If the meter falls only on Overts, won't somebody please tie these
squirrels down for a Johannesburg Security Check? Their PDH screams rather
point the bony finger! Certificates must be in clean hands. Any HCO will
give any certified auditor a security check, with or without witnesses. And
any HCO can now stamp certificates "Clean Hands 1961." Personally I
wouldn't let myself be audited by people who haven't had security checks.
Every person in a Central Organization is security checked. There you are
in clean hands. And don't try to tell people otherwise after all the work I
do to keep orgs clean for you or I'll revoke not only your certificate but
your Thetan, too.
LRH
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
Tech Staff
ASSESSING
Clarifying how to do assessment on the Pre-Hav Scale, Primary and
Secondary:
Assess Primary Pre-Hav. Locate most reactive level by most reactive
needle response. If several levels react, clarify them by asking about one,
then another, very briefly.
At the Primary Level you discovered (say "withhold") move over to
Secondary Scale (say, Withhold Secondary) for that level. In the same way
as on the Primary Scale, find the most reactive verb on the Secondary Scale
(say the Withhold Secondary).
Run that verb only. Don't try to run nothing but that Secondary Scale
for the next 5000 hours. Run only the one verb, made up into a multi-
bracket command.
When that one verb no longer produces Tone Arm motion (less than 1/4 of
a TA Division of motion in 20 minutes of auditing means flat, get off) the
"level" assessed is flat.
You now assess again on the Primary Scale. You find the most reactive
level of the Primary Scale as before.
Taking this Primary Level you move into its Secondary Scale. You assess
the Secondary just like you assess the Primary.
You find one word, (one level) of this Secondary Scale, just one verb
that reacts on the needle more than the rest. You choose this one verb. You
run it flat on the Tone Arm. You don't reassess inside this Secondary again
unless its Primary comes up again in new assessments. You assess newly on
the Primary Level, etc.
It is always the same system. You always do the same steps of
selection. Find Primary Level. Find the One Point of its Secondary that
reacts. Make up a command with brackets. Run the Tone Arm flat. Assess
again on the Primary Scale. Go to its Secondary. Find the Secondary. Make
up command and run the Secondary flat, etc, etc, etc.
At this writing only one Primary Level has had its Secondary Scale
issued. That is Change which belongs at Inverted Control. But as this is
written, all the Secondary Scales for 65 levels of the new Primary Scale
are sitting in a box near my desk, being mimeoed one by one. Mary Sue, Jan
and Dick Halpern assisted in the assembly for nights on end or it wouldn't
have been ready for 20 years if done by Ford Foundation or U of Pishtush
standards.
So very shortly you will have all Secondary Levels complete. I will
later cull them out and arrange them a bit neater in gradients but you need
them and so they are being mimeographed and sent as they are.
When you have them all, don't do as one person did-read that you ran
the "Secondary Level" and so ran every one of the words in the whole
Secondary Scale without further assessment. Ruined more pcs it did.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright �1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6106C02 SHSBC-6 Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JUNE 1961
CenOCon
Franchise
PROCESSES ALLOWED
(Cancels earlier Process directives)
(D of P Re-evaluate all cases, staff and public, on the basis of
this bulletin and apply this bulletin at once to all cases.)
As of this date only the following processes may be used in HGCs,
Central or City Offices, excepting only Academies where any process may be
used for training.
Process Routines
Routine One
For all cases that show one or more points near the very bottom of the
graph on Traits A, B, C, D, E, F, and G regardless of other test or meter
criteria, and for all cases that show all points within 25 points of the
top of the graph, again regardless of other meter or test criteria:
1. CCHs.
2. Joburg Processing Checks.
1. The CCHs are to be run by their earliest criteria-London '57-
which is to say CCHs 1, 2, 3, 4, are run in rotation and each only so long
as it produces change and no longer. Change is measured by Comm Lag or
alterations of pc in doing process. Do, for instance, CCH 1 only so long as
it is producing changes in pc's responses to doing it. Twenty minutes of no-
change of response should be regarded as nul for the moment. One then goes
on to CCH 2. The same rule applies. Only if pc's responses are faster or
slower or different each time, continue the process. Test for twenty
minutes, again all of which must produce no marked difference of response
to the process. If process is now nul, go on to CCH 3. Same rules apply. Go
on to CCH 4. Same rules apply. Go to CCH 1. Same rules apply. Etc, etc. It
is a Code Break (Clause 13) to change the process while the pc is giving
differences of timing (comm lag) or attitudes of response. It is a Code
Break (Clause 13) to fail to change the process when the pc is not giving
any differences in timing or attitudes of response.
If done this way and with good Tone 40 wonderful results are achieved
by the CCHs.
The case criteria is meant to embrace the "no auditor" case at the
bottom and the "Theetie Weetie Case" (sweetness and light) case at the
extreme top of the graph (who will go to graph bottom before the case
starts up again as though the profile were a cylinder which when it goes
off the top, then appears on the bottom when people are in "serene"
valences [meaning they are wholly overwhelmed as a thetan].)
2. The Johannesburg Processing Check is the same as the Joburg
Security Check only it is now being used for processing purposes with great
results. I have rewritten it in HCO WW Form 3 as the Joburg Security Check
and will rewrite it as HCO WW Form 4 calling it "HGC Gain Control Check" or
some such name, but the questions are about the same. Meanwhile use Form 3
as is in HGCs. Don't rewrite or omit.
The directions are on the Check form. The difference is that in using
the Joburg in Processing, these rules apply:
1. Clear all needle reaction from any question before going on to the
next question. By-pass no reaction you see on the meter to the question. If
you do let one slide, the pc will shortly complain about being given the
check. If a pc starts complaining about the check, you have either passed a
hot question without getting the withhold, or he has a hot withhold.
Remedy: if pc complains continually while being checked during processing
(not in pure Security Checking for the Org but in using the check in
processing) you go back to the beginning and start over.
2. The Joburg used in processing only is done in Model Session
only. However on the question, "Are you withholding anything?", don't spend
more time than needed to clear PT withholds on the auditor as the whole
check is devoted to withholds.
3. If pc refuses check altogether and you can't get on, return pc
to CCHs, do them a few more hours and try the check again.
This is all there is to Routine One. CCHs and Joburgs. And the graph is
now the full criteria of when you use Routine One.
Routine Two
This is covered very fully in HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1961, "Releasing
and Preparing a Case for SOP Goals" and other current HCO Bulletins.
Routine Two consists of two steps only.
1. Joburg checks, given as above in Routine One.
2. General Runs on Pre-Hav Scale without terminal, using Primary
and Secondary Scales.
3. On PT Problems of Long Duration (years or within this lifetime
only) assess on meter for terminal and nul the Tone Arm for each
level, level after level, using mainly the Primary Scale.
4. Find the pc's Havingness and Confront Processes and use them
briefly early in each session and at each session's end and where
needed.
For every general level flattened fully on the Pre-Hav Level found, do
a Joburg. For every PTP of Long Duration, completed, run a Joburg.
The Hav and Confront Processes can be found at any time but are better
found after one Joburg and one general level flattened.
Why all these Joburgs? As a case gains it gains in responsibility. As
it gains in responsibility, the pc remembers more withholds and considers
the things he has done more in the light of having been overts. If the case
isn't given a chance to get rid of these, it stalls. Or the pc is half
killed by realizations that he has been bad when the targets of his overts
unlessen from pigs to people. Therefore it is brutally unkind to improve a
case without then removing the withholds now realized. This is also an
excellent therapeutic mechanism. It is also an excellent test of a pc's
progress, i.e: if he has no more withholds on a new Joburg that weren't
found on his last, the pc isn't progressing. On successive Joburgs if no
new overts and withholds show up that weren't there before, the pc is not
progressing. Yes, I've found why cases stalled and gained only so far and
then blew. Your thanks are in order.
This Routine Two, closely followed and carried out, will bring out the
state of Release in from 50 to 75 hours.
Routine Three
1. SOP Goals Assessments for goals and Terminals;
2. Running SOP Goals Terminals Flat on every level;
3. Joburg Processing checks (as in One and Two above);
4. Use of Hav and Confront Processes as in Routine Two or finding
new Hav and Confront Processes as case gets more able.
This is the full extent of the things used in Routine 3.
Routines 2 and 3 are not crossed or intermixed.
Routine 3, if one is expert indeed, can be done on any case but one can
make mistakes, find the wrong goal or terminal, and so, until fully briefed
and flawless in TRs, E-Meter, Model Session and Assessing, an auditor will
get more case gains per unit of time by using Routine Two. When he or she
is a Release, it is much easier some day to have Routine 3 then completed
if the person is Released first.
In short, for sure gains until you are sure of your tools, as listed
above, use Routines 1 and 2. When you are perfect in handling SOP Goals, do
Routine 3 on pcs.
W A R N I N G
On running general runs and SOP Goals Terminals on Pre-Hav Levels, the
most serious mistake that can be made is not flattening a level before
reassessing.
On a rough case, the TA motion required to end is present at the
beginning and so auditors leave the level and leave it unflat.
If two or more levels are run and left unflat, the pc can feel he is
spinning!
Flatten levels in this wise:
1. Run until TA is showing better motion.
2. Run until needle is practically stuck for the whole of 20
minutes.
3. Reassess.
Example on a sticky meter case:
Level Assessed: "Build"
First three hours of running:
Tone Arm dial reads:
4.2, 4.3, 4.1, 3.9, 4.2.
Second three hours of running:
4.2, 4.4, 4.1, 4.6, 4.0, 3.75, 4.9, 3.5, 4.3, 3.25.
Third period of two hours:
3.25, 3.5, 3.2, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1, 4.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.7, 3.6, 4.8, 5.0, 4.7.
Last twenty minutes:
4.7,5.0,5.0,5.0,4.9,5.0,5.1,5.0.
Note that the "Leave it when the TA moves less than a 1/4 of a TA Dial
in 20 minutes" seems to apply to first three hours. Actually the TA, on a
rough case (sensitivity 2 to get a 1/3 dial drop) does not begin to move
for quite a while. Then it begins to move. Then it nuls.
So be careful. It is better to have a TA stuck for 20 minutes than to leave
a level unflat.
SUMMARY
Since February, 1961, I've been teaching auditors close up and far away
how to clear.
I have now a pretty good grip on what they can and will do. I have been
modifying the tools to fit hands more than to fit cases. They already fit
the cases and have since February.
The auditor who can do CCHs and has a fair command of Routines 1 and 2
and who "keeps the Rudiments in" and doesn't Q and A and who has a good D
of P behind him to see that he does, can get wonderful case results with
Routines 1 and 2.
Only the auditor who has perfect TRs, a total command of the E-Meter,
Perfect Model Session, a good grip on assessing, and whose case is in
excellent shape, should attempt SOP Goals-and that right now isn't two
dozen and aside from Peter and Eliz Williams, their two new ACC Clears and
a few of their ACC Students, aside from the South African Clear Jean
Kennedy and a very few S.A. ACC Students, the rest are right here at Saint
Hill. At this moment there are none in America and there will only be one
there by July 30th, 1961. There are none in England outside the boundaries
of Saint Hill who could clear and only one genned in on Routine Two at HASI
London.
So there's what I've found out after an awful lot of work with you
guys. I've found most of you can do Routine One, some of you can do Routine
Two. None save the above named can (not by permission but by actual fact)
do Routine Three.
I've also found out that all this is very easy to remedy and that your
willingness is superb.
Our work is cut out for us, but boy, do we know where we're going.
We have to get all auditors perfect on the TRs, Model Session, E-Meter,
Security Checking, Pre-Hav Assessing and SOP Goals. And it can be done very
easily. When we've got that we'll have loads of Clears.
And what do you think that will do to this society?
LRH:jl.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[See also HCO PL 24 August 1961, HGC Allowed Processes, page 369.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
5-7 June 1961
** 6106C05 SHSBC-7 Routine One, Two and Three
** 6106C06 SHSBC-8 Routine One, Two and Three
** 6106C07 SHSBC-9 Points in Assessing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
ACADEMY SCHEDULE, CLARIFICATION OF
There is apparently a considerable confusion going on as to what should
be taught in an Academy. Some schedules and advices from various people
have been handed about that didn't really duplicate the intention well, and
I have not before clarified since the issue of the Pre Hav.
A review of Academies and auditors and their skills at the time of
examination, and in application for and early service in HGCs, shows that
Academies have for some time been in violation of one of the stable data
about new auditors. A new auditor should be trained up to a point where he
or she can be employed at once as a staff auditor and put on a pc without
the D of P giving them endless hours of additional training.
This does not mean that all auditors graduating should be employed by
the HGC. It means all graduating should be capable of being employed. Why?
Well, these auditors are going out to audit and haven't got a D of P to
further train them, so they are being handed a career failure if they
cannot audit people without further training.
The attention of all Assn Secs and Ds of T is vigorously called to the
technical calibre desired from an academy student and the necessary
training reality.
You are not training auditors if when they graduate they cannot audit.
Now whatever schedules, classes and other fancy ways of dodging the
necessity to confront students have been employed, just tear them all up.
They are not a good substitute for training. Because we have all been
trained in the educational system circa mid twentieth century we are liable
to think that forming people up into classes and getting them to jump over
books on schedule will educate them. Well it won't. We are here to train
auditors not to educate them. So just train them.
How?
Well you do it by check sheet. You make up a check sheet of all the
items this person must actually know in order to practise auditing
effectively. Then each time the person passes a level he is examined and
checked off on the check sheet, and goes on.
Here is the leader in all this data: You can dawdle around with theory
outside an Academy, read books and so on. But in an Academy only can you
LEARN certain things and not all the books in the world will teach them.
These things are as follows: the TRs 0 to 9, the Model Session while
obeying the TRs, the E-Meter, the CCHs, the Pre Hav Scale and its use in
assessment. The running of general Pre Hav levels, how to do a Security
Check.
Those are the things they can't learn anywhere else. Therefore all
training should not be of a class, for this terminal called a class will
never audit anybody. All training should be of student individuals who will
audit people, for only an individual student, not a class, will do any
auditing.
Now you will also find that if the student doesn't listen to at least
fifty taped lectures of mine he won't know the mood or flavor of all this,
and so will develop rather weird ideas of what we're all about and charge
around making nothing out of people, so a daily hour of tape is quite
important for the whole eight weeks the student is there.
All right, he also has to know the Auditor's Code. And he should know the
Code of a Scientologist. And he should know his axioms.
What else? Not another blistering cotton picking thing, that's what.
NOTHING else. If you try to teach anything else you've had it.
So your check list should be composed of the various parts of just
those things. Now all this frantic motion of getting the student into
classes and regimented doesn't fit in with what we're doing. So it is pure
silliness to say, "How can we enter a student in a Comm Course when we only
run one every few weeks and er what gee can't well er can't dogs alter-is
let's see ...." Actually the first and last part of the sentence make the
same sense. NEITHER make any sense of course.
So you have two UNITS. These two units are called unit one and unit
two. They are not so called because of weeks present or cats on the belfry
or diabums on the scollery. They are called units one and two because the
students in unit one are studying techniques and the students in unit two
are studying processes or applications.
Thus we know a unit one student not by the colour of his glasses or his
voucher of payment. We know him because he has a check sheet in his paw
which says unit one on the top of it and which has under it Code of an
Auditor, the listed TRs, the Model Session, the E-Meter and the CCHs. Then
we have a unit two student and he is obvious not because he has a time
clock in his hand but because we can clearly see that he has in his paw a
sheet which has on it Code of a Scientologist, the Pre Hav Scale,
Assessments how to do, commands how to make up, Security Checking, and
character of auditing review and the axioms, and then follows a list of
fifty or sixty tapes.
All these items have little tails after them four times so he can be
examined four times by instructors and flunked the first three.
Now when he gets out he can take an Extension Course and complete his
theory, but he can also do a creditable job of Routine One and Routine Two
as covered in HCO Bulletin of June 5, 1961.
No classes. He reports. He works with other students. He sweats it out.
He gets no auditing, but may be security checked and security check other
students. He may assess people, but as long as he is in unit one he only
concentrates on mechanics, and can't go on to unit two before he is perfect
perfect perfect perfect perfect perfect perfect in unit one. He can only
leave unit two when he is safe safe safe safe safe safe to employ at once
in the HGC. A student may not be examined by HCO until those check sheets
are all initialled as perfect by instructors.
What's this do to training? It demands that our instructors are all
letter-perfect on the above material and that they impart the personal
touch to every student, and not in big masses but with hammers on
individual heads.
I herewith forbid classes and authorize only one daily seminar. I
forbid more than the above to be taught in the Academy. I forbid as well
length of time present to operate as any criterion of the skill of an
auditor.
Now that's an Academy. Write down your questions and mail them to me
fast.
Then read this again for it's all I will say.
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B has been amended per HCO PL 9 October 1961, HPA/HCA Rundown
Change, which said only that the Auditor's Code should be inserted in Unit
One and omitted from Unit Two.]
** 6106C08 SHSBC-10 Q & A Period and Ending an Intensive
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1961
Sthil Students
Central Orgs
Tech Staff
E-METER WATCHING
ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE METER TO PLAY DIXIE?
I have been a bit surprised by the length of time it is taking people
to do assessments on the Pre-Hav, on Security Checks and Goals.
A query into this, which may reveal more, has discovered that students
wait patiently for the meter to react, which Mary Sue has noticed.
It dawns on me that auditors believe they are doing an Analytical
assessment on the Pre-Hav, etc. This is wrong.
The Pre-Hav Scale is not a picture of analytical thought. It is in the
order it is in because it is a picture of reactive thought. It is how the
reactive mind is stacked up. (See Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health for the chapter on the Reactive Mind. )
Now an E-Meter reacts only on the reactive mind. A Clear doesn't react
because he is able to be conscious. An aberree reacts because he can't
think without thought exciting the reactivity of the reactive mind. This,
being composed of mass, energy, space, time and thought, responds to tiny
electrical impulses.
If your auditing was not aimed at reactivity it would not register on a
meter. Thus, you run what reacts because it reacts and is therefore part of
the Reactive Mind.
The Reactive Mind responds instantly on data a billion years ago. How
is this? Time in the Reactive Mind is out of order. So is Space. So is
Matter, so is Energy. Pin a sign on the Reactive Mind: "Out of Order". It
connects wrong connections. Hence, the E-Meter.
What is wrong with the pc is not known to the pc. Therefore if a pc
knows all about it, it isn't wrong with him.
That's why you never run what the pc says. You run only what the meter
says. Example-pc is sure his current general Pre-Hav level that should be
run now is "Order or Command". "Order" rapidly vanishes. "Command" follows
suit. CONQUER stays in. This is an actual example. I just assessed it a few
minutes ago on a pc who is in pretty good shape. He didn't like CONQUER. He
said Order and Command were long track. Somebody running a Q and A on his
assessment would have said, perhaps, the pc knows best, so we'll run Order.
Even if it doesn't fall. But when I said it was CONQUER that we were going
to run as only it now fell, the pc sighed and gave in. Finding the Conquer
level questions produced a very responsive meter needle. It was wrong with
the pc because he didn't know about it. It was part of his reactive mind.
Order and Command were analytical responses prompted by an entirely
different thing CONQUER. If Order or Command had been run the pc would have
had a lot of auditing time wasted on him.
Now, why are assessments wrong sometimes? Because the auditor is
persuaded by the pc, not the meter. If the pc and the meter agree, so what.
You can still run it. But only if the meter says so, for only then is it
reactive.
Now, what about slow assessments? Well, the auditor thinks the pc must
consider things before he answers, waits for the pc to answer and waits for
the question to sink in so the meter will react.
This is entirely wrong. Based on a misunderstanding of assessment, the
meter and the reactive mind.
1. The pc does not have to be given a chance to think before the
needle responds.
2. The pc does not have to answer or say one word to make the
needle respond.
3. All needle response is reactive.
4. There is no time in the Reactive Mind.
5. If the pc knew what was wrong with him it wouldn't be wrong.
6. Only the meter knows.
7. The auditor has more control over the pc's Reactive Mind than
the pc since the pc is influenced by the Reactive Mind responses
and the auditor is not so influenced.
The Meter responds instantly. The reaction you will get on the needle
starts to occur on the needle a fraction of a second after you utter it.
There is no need to sit there afterwards waiting for the needle to
respond again, for it won't until you push that button again.
The only wait is caused by letting the needle come back at the end of a
fall. This may take one second.
Therefore: TO WAIT MORE THAN THREE SECONDS BEFORE UTTERING THE NEXT
WORD ON THE LIST IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF AUDITING TIME.
All the response you want will begin to occur instantly after you utter
a goal, terminal, level or security question. Thus the maximum time between
questions on the Pre-Hav level is at most a three second interval of
silence while you digest the data.
Further, on an assessment for a Pre-Hav run on the General Scale (as in
Routine 2, HCO B 5 June, 1961), you do not now say, "Do you . . ." or any
other dunnage. You just say the level itself, note response, put a pencil
point down on the level if it responds, say the next word, etc, etc. Takes
about 5 minutes to run the Primary Scale up and down to find its level. You
start at the bottom. You just say the word. If it responds you dot the
sheet (using different symbols to tell them apart like dots, X's, lines).
Then go back down the scale touching only those you marked going up. Add
another dot if they still fall or react. Then play off those left one
against the other, saying a level only once each time. The remaining level
is now the only one that reacts. So you assemble your 5-way bracket and
carry on with auditing.
The pc doesn't have to say a word throughout the whole assessment. You
can even ask him politely not to, as breath going in and out in speech can
vibrate the needle.
When you assess over into the Secondary Scale of the level you found,
you do exactly the same as above. You read them all off once, then only
those that reacted, eliminate them and you've got it. (And, by the way, if
you go over the Secondary Scale, you then don't only run levels on that
Secondary forever; in each new assessment you use the Primary Scale again
to find a new Secondary Level to assess.)
This is also true of a Joburg. If you're going to get a reaction on the
needle, it will come fast. No waiting. If you get a reaction you clear that
reaction, not the pc's whole life. The moment the needle is nul, you go on
to the next question. Of course, in a Joburg, the pc talks. He better!
All auditing actions except the CCHs are now done in Model Session.
And all auditing actions and questions are done effectively, neither
frantically rushed nor slowly.
So it boils down to this. Weeks can be added to Joburgs and assessments
if you think you have to wait for a needle response.
What are you waiting for? The whole action only requires a second.
Don't wait for the E-Meter to play Dixie. It was made in the Nawth.
LRH: rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 196l
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6106C09 SHSBC-11 Reading E-Meter Reactions
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE RISING NEEDLE: SKIP IT!
Former ACC students will well remember the E-Meter drill in which,
among other "reactions", they were to produce a rising needle on their
coach. The time has come to change nomenclature on this one! For practical
auditing purposes-such as deciding if a Sec Check question has been
cleared, or whether a particular level of the Pre-Hav Scale should be run-A
RISING NEEDLE IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A "REACTION".
Of the 10 needle actions described in Ron's new book, E-Meter
Essentials, let's call the following "reactions", in as much as they are of
value to an auditor in deciding what needs to be run on a case, or what
needs further work:
ROCK SLAM
FALL
THETA BOP
STUCK
CHANGE OF NEEDLE CHARACTERISTIC
The following might be called, simply, needle actions, or motions-in
that you don't use them in deciding to do something with a pc:
FREE NEEDLE
NO REACTION (NUL)
STAGE FOUR
RISE BODY
REACTION
About all a rising needle tells you is that the pc can't confront,
therefore has exceedingly low reality, responsibility, and knowingness on
whatever significance it's rising on. So, skip it! Treat a rising needle,
for practical purposes like a Security Check or Assessment, like a nul
needle. You needn't pursue this particular subject any further at this
point in the case, because the pc's knowingness and responsibility on this
subject is practically nil. There may very well be further material
available on this particular subject after the pc has had some more
auditing-but not now. So, let go of it. Skip it! So, it's putting the Tone
Arm up, this rise. All right. That's why E-Meters are built with Tone Arms
that rotate; sometimes they go up! Fine. You don't need to do a blessed
thing about it, and shouldn't try. Just keep on with your check,
assessment, or whatever it is you're doing. Let your auditing guides be the
rock slam, fall, theta bop, chiefly, plus stick and change of pattern.
If it's a rise with sticks in it, you do find out what's putting the
stick into it. If it were a rising needle with rock slam in it you'd
investigate the rock slam. But the rise itself, or a needle that is simply
rising, you ignore.
In this way you will save hours and hours of auditing time. Trying to
kill a rise by finding out what it's rising on is attacking the case at its
least approachable point-the point responsibility, reality, confrontingness
and knowingness are at their lowest, the point when the pc (and the meter!)
is least capable of helping you, or himself. Why try to scale a wall where
it's 20 feet high when you can walk through the breaches in it? So gear him
in instead where the needle is reacting with rock slam, falls, theta bop,
or sticks, where he has some reality and responsibility, where he knows
something about it, and can confront it a little. That way he'll move, and
you'll both win.
LRH:im .rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6106C12 SHSBC-12 E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1961
BPI
Franchise
CCHs AND ROUTINE 1
The criteria on Routine 1 is as follows:
All cases that have had no significant or rapid change over long
periods of auditing shall be run on Routine 1, HCO Bulletin of June 5,
1961, regardless of graph, Meter behaviour or objections.
This applies to over half the Scientologists in the world.
So get over the idea the CCHs are for nuts. And get over diffidence in
having them run or being run on them.
Routine 1, Routine 2 and Routine 3, HCO Bulletin of June 5, 1961, each
one will make Releases. Routines 1, 2 and 3 are choices made for speed. One
is faster than another for different pcs. Some pcs release faster on
Routine 1 than 2 or 3.
Any case could be run on any one of these routines, from any level, and
still make it. The question is "How fast?" One chooses the routine in the
interest of greatest effectiveness in the least time.
Having attained Release, a person then goes to Routine 3 inevitably.
Time economy is our criteria. Not necessarily case level.
So keep your "pride" or be run on Routines 2 or 3 to Release at ten
times the auditing time-or attain Release via Routine I, if it's for you,
in one-tenth the time.
The D of P may refuse to further audit any pc who:
1. Refuses to be run on the process ordered, or:
2. Refuses to take a Joburg, or:
3. Refuses to abide by the regulations of HGCs regarding alcohol,
eating, sleeping, etc.
I don't want any super-defensive valence getting in people's road in
clearing. CCHs, the degradation of being audited on, compares to the little
boy refusing food because it might make him live.
LRH:ph.cden
Copyright � 1961 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
13-16 June 1961
** 6106C13 SHSBC-13 Seminar-Q & A Period
** 6106C14 SHSBC-14 Seminar-Withholds
** 6106C15 SHSBC-15X Not Know
** 6106C16 SHSBC-16X Confront and Havingness-Routine 1, 2, & 3
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
Franchise Holders
PRIMARY SCALE AMENDED
Four additions have been made by me on the Primary Pre-Hav Scale on
evidence of their absence being responsible for slow case gains, and as
they occur more often than would be encountered in Secondary Scales.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
(Attached to HCO Bulletin of 17 June 1961)
PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE
PRIMARY SCALE (Amended)
66. TR 10 33a. MAKE NOTHING OF
65. FAITH 33. FAILED LEAVE
64. CAUSE 32. LEAVE
63a. PREVENT KNOWING 31. WAIT
63. NO EFFECT 30. SURVIVE
62. EFFECT 29. FAILED TO ARRIVE
61. OBSESSIVE CAN'T HAVE 28. ARRIVE
60a. MAKE SOMETHING OF 27. FAILED IMPORTANCE
60. CREATE 26. IMPORTANCE
59. THINK 25. PROPITIATE
58. INVERTED INTEREST 24. ATTENTION
(PECULIAR INTEREST) 23. SEPARATE
57. DISPERSE 22. FAILED WITHHOLD
56. INVERTED COMMUNICATION 21. WITHHOLD
(INTEND TO NOT COMMUNICATE) 20. MIS-EMOTIONAL
55. INVERTED CONTROL 19. DESTROY
54. INVERTED HELP (BETRAY) 18. MOTION
53. COLLECT 17. FAILED OVERT
52. SUBSTITUTE (FAILED ATTACK)
51. WITHDRAW 16. OVERTS (ATTACK)
50. DUPLICATE 15. DISLIKE
49. ENTER 14. LIKE
48. INHIBIT 13. COMPETE
47. DISAGREE 12. FAILED HELP
46. ENFORCE 11. HELP
45. AGREE 10. FAILED CONTROL
44. DESIRE 9. CONTROL
43. KNOW 8. EMOTIONAL
42. FAILED TO ENDURE 7. FAILED COMMUNICATION
41. ENDURE 6. COMMUNICATION
40. NO MOTION 5. FAILED INTEREST
39. FAILED TO ABANDON 4. INTEREST
38. ABANDON 3. CONNECT
37. FAILED WASTE 2. FAILED HAVINGNESS
36. WASTE 1. HAVINGNESS
35. FAILED TO PROTECT
34. PROTECT
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
HGCs
Tech Staff
SEC CHECK WHOLE TRACK
(HCO WW Sec Form 4)
For processing use only. Use only about midway on Routine 3 and from
then on.
(These questions have been contributed by Jan and Dick Halpern.)
L. RON
HUBBARD
Whole Track Sec Check
HCO WW Sec Form 4.
Have you ever enslaved a population?
Have you ever implanted anyone?
Have you ever sacked a city?
Have you ever sunk, or otherwise destroyed, a non-combatant vessel?
Have you ever abused hostages, or prisoners?
Have you ever ordered, or yourself committed, genocide?
Have you ever annihilated a population?
Have you ever poisoned food or drinking supplies?
Have you ever strangled anyone?
Have you ever deliberately spread disease?
Have you ever degraded a religion?
Have you ever raped a child of either sex?
Have you ever warped an educational system?
Have you ever deprived people of hope?
Have you ever committed murder?
Have you ever destroyed a culture?
Have you ever forced anyone into an undesired beingness?
Have you ever stolen a body from another being?
Have you ever destroyed an economy?
Is anybody seeking to discover your whereabouts?
Have you ever violated a nation's neutrality?
Have you ever broken a treaty?
Have you ever blanketed bodies for the sensation kick?
Have you ever upset an ecology?
Have you persecuted others for their religious or political beliefs?
Have you ever interfered with the free flow of trade?
Have you ever been a crook?
Have you ever obliterated a language?
Have you ever stamped out a religion?
Have you ever deliberately trained people in untruths for power, or profit?
Have you ever defiled religious places, persons, or objects?
Have you ever practised terrorism?
Have you ever done anything you would not like to think of yourself as
having done?
Have you ever been a coward?
Have you ever trapped a thetan?
Have you ever prided yourself on your wickedness?
Have you ever destroyed artistic productions, or creations?
Have you burned literature?
Have you ever forbidden people to practise their own customs?
Have you ever perverted a people's customs?
Have you ever done anything which you hoped would be wiped out by the
passage of time?
Do you deserve to be punished into eternity for something you've done?
If so, what is it?
Have you ever exposed infants?
Have you ever bred bodies for degrading purposes?
Is there anything you would have done differently if you had had more data?
Have you ever forced beings into unwanted bodies?
Have you deliberately prevented beings from exteriorizing?
Have you done anything to a person, group, or thing that wasn't deserved?
Have you ever deserted a just cause?
Have you ever debased a nation's currency?
Have you ever deliberately tortured someone?
Have you ever enslaved another being?
Have you ever gained, or maintained, a position by portraying yourself as
victimized?
Have you ever undermined a people's trust?
Have you driven anyone insane?
Have you ever been a professional prostitute?
Have you ever been a criminal?
Have you ever trained people for criminal purposes?
Have you ever been a pervert?
Have you ever recruited anyone for an unworthy purpose?
Have you ever traded in others' bodies for profit or power?
Have you ever stolen a mock-up or facsimile?
Have you ever usurped a location?
Have you ever made things scarce so that you might profit unfairly?
Have you ever made a practice of creating emergencies?
Have you ever practised human sacrifice?
Have you ever assumed a beingness which was not rightfully yours?
Have you ever killed the wrong person?
Have you ever punished an innocent person?
Is anybody looking for you?
Have you ever systematically degraded an individual, or population, or mock-
up?
Have you ever unlawfully, or unethically, deserted a post?
Have you betrayed someone, or something, which deserved your help?
Have you ever set a poor example?
Have you ever perverted the institutions of a culture for your own personal
power or profit?
Have you ever denied yourself?
Have you ever betrayed yourself?
Did you come to Earth for evil purposes?
Have you ever acted contrary to your own principles?
Have you ever failed a friend?
Have you ever sought to render others dependent on you?
Have you ever abused those under your protection?
Have you ever destroyed farmland, crops, or breeding stock?
Have you ever despoiled a planet of its natural resources?
Are you in hiding?
Have you ever made a planet, or nation, radioactive?
Have you ever wrecked a climate?
Have you ever systematically set up mysteries?
Have you ever made nothing of yourself?
Have you made a profession of destruction?
Have you ever enturbulated an orderly environment?
Have you ever been a traitor?
Have you ever deliberately lowered another's knowingness, or ability?
Have you ever maimed, and crippled, other people's bodies?
Have you ever pretended to a power you did not possess?
Have you ever stolen ships, draft, vessels, or vehicles belonging to a
government? Have you ever disappeared?
Have you ever killed your own body?
Have you ever pretended to a knowingness you did not possess?
Have you ever caused a planet to disappear?
Have you ever felt the ends justified the means?
Have you ever given cause a bad name?
Have you ever discredited the creations of others?
Have you ever been off post at a time when you were desperately needed?
Have you ever convinced another that he has mocked up an unconfrontability?
Have you ever deliberately mocked up an unconfrontability?
Have you ever made a practice of confusing people?
Have you penerted historical truths for any reason?
Have you ever deliberately sent someone to the wrong place, or the wrong
person?
Have you ever been a professional spy, or intelligence agent?
Have you made a practice of worrying people?
Have you consistently practised sex in some unnatural fashion?
Have you demonstrated that control is impossible?
Have you ever wrecked a vehicle, or vessel?
Have you ever pretended to be dead?
What question should be on this check for others?
Have you ever convinced another of the injustice of his cause?
Have you ever philosophised when you should have acted instead?
Have you ever claimed it harmed you to do something?
Have you ever deliberately disfigured another's body?
Have you ever torn out someone's tongue?
Have you ever blinded anyone?
Have you ever destroyed another's hearing?
Have you ever knocked someone's teeth out?
Have you ever punished another by cutting off some part of his body?
Have you ever been a parasite?
Is there anything you have sworn off being?
Is there anything you have sworn off doing?
Is there anything you have sworn off having?
Have you ever given a degraded, or debased, example of divinity?
Have you ever penerted a communication system?
Have you ever been a professional critic?
Have you ever held others in pawn for profit?
Have you ever presumed on the natural goodness of another?
Have you ever caused another to mistrust you?
Have you ever made a burden of yourself? Have you ever gone crazy?
Have you ever sought to persuade another of your insanity?
Have you ever deliberately mutilated bodies?
Have you ever deliberately mutilated objects?
Have you heightened sexual sensation by inflicting pain?
Have you ever caused something to appear at an unexpected time?
Have you ever caused something to appear in an unexpected place?
Have you ever maltreated a pregnant woman, or pregnant animal?
Have you ever corrupted a child?
Have you ever sought to convince others of their guilt?
Have you ever started a war?
Have you ever caused your own side to lose?
Have you ever deliberately distorted others' ideas?
Have you ever manipulated beings as though they were MEST?
Have you ever deserted, or betrayed, a great leader?
Have you ever sought to convince beings that they were MEST?
Have you ever tried to persuade others there were thoughts they mustn't
think?
Have you ever sought to put another's thinkingness out of his control?
Have you ever permitted a subordinate of yours to be punished for your
mistakes?
Have you ever tried to shift blame on to a superior of yours?
Have you ever smothered a baby?
Have you ever inflicted physical pain on an insane person for any reason?
Have you ever taken pride in and cultivated a wrongness?
Have you ever worshipped wrongness in others?
Have you ever sought to make others unwilling to produce?
Have you ever wiped out a family?
Have you ever rewarded another, or a group, for a wrongness?
Have you ever had sexual relations with an animal, or bird?
Have you ever participated in a sexual relationship between a doll body and
a human body?
Have you ever destroyed a doll body?
Have you ever lost a doll body entrusted to you?
Have you ever punished another, or group, for a rightness?
Have you ever permitted another to be punished for your misdeed?
Have you ever perpetuated an injustice?
Have you ever been brutal to animals?
Have you ever denied others a means of existence?
Have you ever deserted your own children?
Have you ever refused to support your parents, or grandparents?
Have you ever denied others a redressment of grievances?
Have you ever caused another to distrust himself?
Have you ever caused another to identify himself with a form in order to
enslave him?
Have you ever given anyone the third degree?
Have you ever validated the insanity of another being or group?
Have you ever tried to give sanity a bad name?
Have you ever warped, or distorted, bodies for sexual purposes?
Have you ever wanted to disown a deed of yours?
Do you deserve to have any friends?
Have you ever castrated anyone?
Have you ever wrongfully claimed another's deed as your own?
Have you ever robbed a dead body?
Have you ever made love to a dead body?
Do you deserve to be free?
Do you deserve to be enslaved?
Is there any question on this check I had better not ask you again?
Have you ever considered another didn't deserve to be sane?
Have you ever considered another didn't deserve to be free?
Have you ever considered another didn't deserve to be well?
Have you ever considered another didn't deserve to be alive?
Have you ever made MEST guilty of harming you?
Have you ever made another guilty of doing you permanent harm?
Have you ever forced another to compete?
Have you ever pretended to be unable to repair a form?
Have you ever refused to put back into order a disorder you created?
Have you ever shot, or stabbed, someone in the back?
Have you ever been disloyal?
Have you ever been treacherous?
Have you ever engaged in piracy?
Have you ever made an outrageous, or preposterous, will?
Have you ever thrown the ownership of property into doubt?
Have you ever demonstrated that communication is impossible?
Have you ever withheld useful data?
Have you ever created chaos?
Have you ever consistently made a practice of furnishing useless data?
Have you ever tried to make the physical universe less real?
Have you ever caused another to mistrust his judgement?
Have you ever convinced another he was guilty of a crime, or misdeed, which
he had not in fact committed?
Have you ever sought to convince another that there was something wrong
with him?
Have you ever practised medicine unethically?
Have you ever practised law, or jurisprudence, unethically?
Have you ever sought to convince another that everything was the same as
everything else, so it didn't matter what he did?
Have you ever spread despair?
Have you ever kept effective solutions from working?
Have you ever sought to convince another that there was no difference
between right and wrong?
Have you ever been a pimp?
Have you ever given families a bad name?
Have you ever produced a criminal?
Have you ever assisted an evildoer?
Have you ever driven a population into criminality?
Have you ever used criminality as a means of control of a population?
Have you ever made sanity appear to be psychotic?
Have you ever been a psychiatrist?
Have you ever depopulated an area?
Have you ever deprived another of a livelihood?
Have you ever given God a bad name?
Have you ever been a corrupt priest?
Have you ever given spirits an evil reputation?
Have you ever been an evil spirit?
Have you ever sought to convince others that things were evil?
Have you ever taught others that nothing can be done?
Have you ever tried to convince others that knowing is bad? That perceiving
is bad? That sensation is bad?
Have you ever deliberately caused a sane person to be committed to a mental
institution?
Have you ever performed unnecessary surgery on someone's body?
Have you ever tried to convince others that things are bad? That there are
bad beingnesses? That it is bad to do things?
Have you ever mocked another's ability?
Have you ever mocked another's knowingness?
Have you ever mocked another's creativeness?
Have you ever applied a hot iron to another person's body?
Have you ever tortured another with electrical, or electronic, devices?
Have you ever attacked others for causing effects that you secretly knew
were beneficial, or helpful?
Have you ever deliberately caused others to feel less responsible?
Have you ever beaten a child to death?
Have you ever starved anyone to death?
Have you ever left anyone to die of thirst?
Have you ever misestimated an effort?
Have you ever misjudged another?
Have you ever failed to save someone from drowning?
Have you ever knowingly sponsored a swindle?
Have you ever failed another?
Have you ever wasted time when you ought not to have?
Have you ever retreated from an area where you should have stayed, or
advanced?
Have you ever wasted men? Women? Children? Objects? An ability? Animals?
Thoughts? Spaces? Energy?
Have you ever made nothing of a worthy person? Of a group? Of a universe?
Of a spint?
Have you failed in any way to live up to your own ideas of how you should
be?
Have you ever broken someone's body on a wheel?
Have you ever stretched another's body on a rack?
Have you ever put a criminal in a position of trust?
Have you ever sold people on the idea that people are basically wicked?
Have you ever boiled someone's living body in oil?
Have you ever eaten a human body?
Have you ever eaten the body of a member of your own species?
Have you ever disfigured a beautiful thing? Have you ever exterminated a
species?
Have you ever let your past triumphs discourage you about your future?
Have you ever flayed anyone alive?
Have you ever been a professional executioner?
Have you ever done a bad thing to win approval?
Have you ever been a dishonest policeman?
Have you ever been a brutal gaoler?
Have you ever been a corrupt judge?
Have you ever been a bad soldier?
Have you ever done a bad thing to save yourself?
Have you ever done a bad thing to save another?
Have you ever been an ungrateful child?
Have you ever been a wicked mother?
Have you ever been a bad father?
Have you ever convinced another that his goals were no good?
Have you ever been an abortionist?
Have you ever run a brothel?
Have you ever had a body with a venereal disease? If so, did you spread it?
Have you ever produced a bastard?
Have you ever convinced another that he shouldn't confront someone, or
something?
Have you ever failed to send, or deliver, a vital message?
Have you committed rape?
Have you employed poison gas against life forms?
Have you ever put up a discreditable creation?
Have you ever taught that it was bad for people to have things?
Have you ever deliberately infected life forms with disease?
Have you ever made a body disappear?
Have you ever consistently made a practice of attacking people who helped
you?
Have you ever penerted an ethic?
Have you ever consistently made a practice of attacking those who helped
others?
Have you ever abused, or tortured, life forms?
Have you ever inflicted an unwarranted punishment?
Have you ever enforced breeding?
Have you ever desecrated burial places?
Have you ever attacked helpless persons?
Have you ever denied anyone a desired beingness?
Have you ever caused another being to create against his own wishes or
interests?
Have you ever zapped anyone?
Have you deliberately set property afire?
Have you ever created an effect for which there was no apparent cause?
Have you ever interiorized a being into a machine?
Have you ever forced a body to survive against its owner's wishes?
Have you ever arrested the development of a culture?
Is there any place you'd better not return to?
Is there anything the people of Earth had better not find out about you?
Is there any time you'd better not return to?
Have you done anything that had better not happen again?
Have you ever given creativeness a bad name?
Have you given biological bodies a bad name?
Have you given doll bodies a bad name?
Have you given robots a bad name?
What should others be warned about concerning you?
What don't you trust yourself with?
Is there anything you can't forgive yourself for?
Is there anything others should not forgive you for?
Have you ever caused equipment entrusted to your care to vanish?
Have you ever acted as a double agent?
Have you ever misappropriated equipment entrusted to your care?
Have you ever interrogated another under torture?
Have you ever caused anyone to be burned alive?
Have you ever misappropriated funds entrusted to your care?
Have you ever violated the sanctity of a herald?
Have you ever violated a flag of truce, or a period of truce?
Have you ever caused someone to be flogged to death?
Have you ever been a religious fanatic?
Have you ever assassinated a prominent person?
Have you ever blown anything up?
Have you ever violated a sanctuary?
Have you ever poisoned an atmosphere?
Have you ever set a booby trap?
Have you ever violated the established rules of warfare?
Have you ever made yourself out to be weaker than you in fact were?
Have you ever made yourself out to be stronger than you in fact were?
Have you ever promised help without intending to give it?
Have you ever abandoned your sick, or dead, to the enemy?
Have you ever failed to rescue your leader?
LRH:imj.rd
Copyright �1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19-22 June 1961
** 6106C19 SHSBC-15 Q & A Period-Auditing Slowdowns
** 6106C20 SHSBC-16 Sec Check Questions-Mutual Rudiments
** 6106C21 SHSBC-17 Seminar at Saint Hill (Auditing Speed)
** 6106C22 SHSBC-18 Running CCHs
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
RUNNING CCHs
(from a telex sent by LRH to Johannesburg)
CCHs being run terribly wrong.
Correct version follows: Run a CCH only so long as it produces change
in the pc's general aspect.
If no change in aspect for twenty minutes go on to next CCH.
If CCH producing change do not go on but flatten that CCH.
Then when for twenty minutes it produces no change go on to next CCH.
Run CCHs One Two Three Four, One Two Three Four, One etc.
Use only right hand on One.
Any pc on Routine One is given Joburg Sec Check Form 3 hour for hour
with CCHs or have a second auditor giving Joburg on Routine One to pc on
same day.
CCHs not run in Model Session, not run on E-Meter.
It is code break clause thirteen to run a CCH that is producing no
change or to not flatten in same or subsequent session a CCH that is
producing change.
Some pcs get no reaction at first on any CCH; therefore run each one
the twenty minute period CCH One Two Three Four, One etc, and with Joburg
being given same time you will eventually win.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[HCO B 13 July 1961, Change Processing and CCHs, which had a "Franchise"
distribution, was a combination of the above HCO B and HCO B 29 May 1961,
Clarification of "Change Processing", page 320, with the last paragraph
deleted.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23-26 June 1961
** 6106C23 SHSBC-19 Q & A Period-CCHs-Auditing
** 6106C26 SHSBC-20 Dealing With Attacks on Scientology
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JUNE 1961
Franchise Holders
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
ROUTINE ONE
It has been noted that "hour of Joburg" for "hour of CCHs" has been
taken to mean you run the CCHs for an hour and then the Joburg Sec Check
for an hour. This is very wrong.
If another auditor is giving the Joburg, it should be given in the same
day. An auditor less skilled on CCHs could thus be employed for half the
auditing day giving Joburgs.
But the CCHs must be run as they are supposed to be run. Run One, Two,
Three, Four, One, each one to a temporary flat point (20 minutes of no
Auditor-observed change of comm lag or demeanour [not pc's statements about
change or somatics] ), and when one is biting, you flatten that CCH as per
the 20 minute test.
If one auditor is doing CCHs and Joburg Sec Check, whenever he has pc
temporarily flat on a CCH, he can give a page of Joburg. Probably one-third
of the auditing time is best for a Sec Check, rather than one for one in
time with CCHs if one auditor is doing both.
A pc can go three days on CCHs without a Sec Check. At a time when a
CCH that was unflat but is now temporarily flat, a Sec Check consisting of
a couple of pages or more can be given (in any event about five hours worth
for fifteen hours of CCHs for one auditor).
If you have two auditors on a case, one giving CCHs, one Sec Checks,
this means 2l/2 hours in the morning on CCHs, 2l/2 hours in the afternoon
on Sec Checks or vice versa. Some pcs getting Sec Checks in the morning and
some pcs getting them in the afternoon would keep all auditors busy.
I hope this helps you to handle Routine One.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :imj .rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
27-29 June 1961
** 6106C27 SHSBC-21 CCHs-Circuits
** 6106C28 SHSBC-22 Raw Meat-Trouble Shooting Cases
** 6106C29 SHSBC-23 Wrong Target-Sec Check
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 JUNE 1961
CenOCon
STUDENT SECURITY CHECK
(HCO WW Sec Form 5)
This is a Processing or a Security Check. As a Processing Check it is
given in Model Session.
The following Security Check is the only student security check (in
addition to the standard Joburg and HCO WW Sec Form 6) to be used in
Academies and courses.
HCO WW SEC FORM 5
SCIENTOLOGY STUDENTS' SECURITY CHECK
(For Academies, ACCs, etc.)
The first few questions below are for a student who has registered, but
has not yet started on course, and who has never had a course in
Scientology or Dianetics. The whole battery is given to a student actually
on course, or who has had a previous course in Scientology, or Dianetics.
Has anyone given, or loaned, you money to help cover your tuition, or
expenses, while on this course?
If so: Have you promised them something in return for this?
If so: What exactly have you committed yourself to?
If so: Do you intend to make good this obligation?
Are you coming on this course in order to get away from someone, or
something?
Do you have any goal for being on this course which, if achieved, would
result in harm to another person, his possessions, or his reputation?
Are you here in order to get into anything?
Have you promised anyone auditing which you do not intend to give?
Have you read, or had read to you, the course Rules and Regulations? If so:
Are there any which you do not intend to comply with?
Are you here to find out whether Scientology works?
Are you here to prove that Scientology can't help you?
Are you here to prove that you cannot help others with Scientology?
Is there anything, discreditable to you, going on back home which is liable
to be found out by reason of your being on this course?
Are you neglecting any responsibilities of yours in order to take this
course?
Is there anything important that you are setting aside until after the end
of this course?
Do you already know all there is to know about Scientology?
Are you here for any other reason than to become an expert auditor?
Are you coming on this course with the intention of killing off your
body?
Are you coming on this course with the intention of spinning, or going
insane?
Is any goal that you have for this course harmful to any dynamic?
Are you presently taking tranquilizers, drugs, or medication, of any sort?
Is there anyone you are in communication with that regularly makes a
practice of discrediting Scientology, its personnel, or its
organizations, to you?
Is anyone counting on you to keep something secret while you are on course?
Are you presently suffering from some bodily, or mental, condition that
others have failed to alleviate?
Are you secretly worried about some condition of your body, or your mind?
Are you upset by my questions?
Is there anything about this course, or the Academy, or Scientology, that
you are making allowances for?
Is there anything about your conduct as a Scientology student that others
should be making allowances for?
Have you done any drinking on class days?
Have you told any other students that your instructor's data is wrong?
Have you had sex with another student?
Are you trying to get another student to have sex with you?
Have you had sex with a staff member?
Are you trying to get a staff member to have sex with you?
Have you borrowed any organization property and not returned it?
Have you invalidated, or criticized, any auditors to their preclears?
Do you intend to practice Scientology in the field differently from how you
have been taught it here?
Have you coughed, or distracted others, during a lecture?
Have you done any self-auditing?
Have you done any unauthorized auditing?
Have you received any unauthorized auditing?
Have you criticized your auditor to others?
Have you been thinking unkind, or critical, thoughts about your preclear?
L. Ron Hubbard? Your instructors? Your auditor? Other students? Staff
members?
Have you criticized this course, or the organization, verbally, or in
writing, to non-Scientologists?
Have you criticized your instructors, or the D of T, to others?
Have you said, or done, anything to make field Scientologists think badly
of the central organization, or its staff?
Is there anything here that you feel so uncomfortable about that you
are thinking of leaving?
Have you received any medical, dental, or other treatment while on course
without permission?
Have you tried to teach Scientology to HGC preclears who are not
Scientologists?
Have you been late to any scheduled course periods?
Have you cheated on any course exams?
Have you passed off any other student's work as your own?
Have you tried to persuade any potential preclear to wait and be audited by
you after the course rather than by the HGC?
Have you violated the Auditor's Code while auditing your preclear?
Have you done anything really stupid with your preclear?
Have you violated the Code of a Scientologist in any way?
Have you been absent from any course period without your instructor's
knowledge or consent?
Are you in disagreement with any of the stable data of Scientology?
Have you been getting less sleep than usual?
Have you been eating less than usual?
Is there anything you are withholding from your auditor because he's "only
a student"?
Have you taken tranquilizers, or drugs, of any sort?
Have you deliberately disobeyed your instructor's orders, or directions?
Have you unintentionally failed to follow your instructor's orders, or
directions?
Do you have any overdue Infraction Theses?
Have you been assigned any Infraction Theses which you do not intend to do?
Have you tried to break up anyone's marriage?
Have you secretly violated any course rule, or regulation?
Have you tried to enturbulate the course, or any person connected with it?
Have you taken any other student's property?
Do you have any other student's property in your possession?
Have you taken any staff member's, or HGC pc's, property?
Do you have any staff member's, or HGC pc's, property in your possession?
Have you taken any organization property?
Have you broken, or damaged, anything belonging to the organization, or its
staff?
Have you any organization property in your possession?
Have you passed any restricted data of Scientology to unauthorized persons?
Have you tried in any way to give Scientology a bad name?
Have you tried to give any Scientologist a bad name?
Are you a difficult, or unco-operative, student?
Do you have a grudge against any other student, or any staff member?
Have you tried to get any other student removed from this course?
Have you tried to make any staff member lose his job?
Have you told lies about anyone while on this course?
Have you done anything outside of course hours which you shouldn't have?
Have you been doing less than your best to become an expert auditor?
Are you doing anything which will prevent your becoming an expert
Scientologist?
Have you been spending time, which should have been spent in studying
Scientology, doing something else?
Are you making any Scientologist guilty of anything?
Have you been doing anything you believe is not right to obtain money for
this course?
Have you done anything while on this course that you would hate to have
known back home?
Have you been misapplying anything you have been taught in such a way as to
make it appear that what you've been taught doesn't work?
Have you been doing anything solely because it is "the instructor's idea"?
Have you been doing anything solely because it is "L. Ron Hubbard's idea"?
Have you been putting into practice any method, or datum, that you don't
see the reason for?
Have you done anything that would discredit Ron or Mary Sue Hubbard, or
your instructors, by reason of their having trained you?
Is there anything that L. Ron Hubbard, or your instructors, should mistrust
you for that you haven't told them about?
Is there something you've been wondering about concerning Scientology, or
Scientologists, which you haven't asked your instructor about?
Are you withholding asking any question because you're afraid it will sound
stupid?
Have you been making a practice of getting other students to answer your
questions rather than the instructor? If so, what questions? Why?
Have you been keeping other students from doing their work?
Have you been such a problem to your instructors that you've been robbing
other students of their fair share of the instructors' time?
Have you been writing letters home, or elsewhere, criticizing this course?
The instructors? Your fellow students?
Do you regularly make a practice of gossiping about the affairs of staff,
students, or preclears?
Have you tried out any processes that you've dreamed up yourself on
staff, students, or preclears?
Have you been testing any squirrel processes on anyone?
Is there any process you are certain would resolve your case, or your pc's
case, which is not being used?
Is there anyone to whom you make a regular practice of discrediting
Scientology, its organizations, or its personnel?
Are you in communication with someone who is a much better Scientologist
than your instructor?
Are you in communication with someone who understands more about
Scientology than L. Ron Hubbard?
Have you ever, while on course, felt that you would not achieve your goals
by reason of poor auditing, or poor instructing? If so, who exactly
have you made guilty of this?
Have you prevented anyone, including instructors, from achieving goals
concerning you, or others, in Scientology?
Have you thought so badly of the central organization for any reason that
you would under no circumstances accept a job here on completion of
this course?
Are you in fairly regular communication with anyone who has a lot of ARC
breaks with L. Ron Hubbard, or the central organizations? If so, what
is the nature and frequency of this communication?
Are you in fairly regular communication with any group that is interested
in seeing Scientology fail, or its organizations discredited?
Is anyone hostile to Scientology assisting you financially on this course?
Have you run any unauthorized processes on anyone?
Have you permitted anyone to run unauthorized processes on you?
Is anyone here counting on you to keep a secret for him?
Have you any feeling of "injured innocence" at having been asked these
questions?
Have you been going to some other person rather than your D of T or
instructors to get the "real data" on Scientology?
Have you been critical of the data or quality of tapes?
Have you been critical of the data in or quality of texts on Dianetics and
Scientology?
Have you ever been critical of Scientology terminology?
Have you ever written critical messages to persons in Scientology about how
they ran things?
Have you ever written and then destroyed critical messages addressed to L.
Ron
Hubbard?
How do you feel about these questions?
LRH:imj.rd
Copyright � 1961 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6106C30 SHSBC-24 Training on TRs-Talk on Auditing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JULY 1961
Franchise
ROUTINE 1A
Here is the first refinement of the Routines.
It sometimes happens that certain auditors cannot get results with CCHs
and it also happens that certain pcs have heavy constant problems that
prevent SOP Goals assessment, the problems being hidden standards by which
all auditing progress is judged.
It also happens that Problems as a subject is the only reason why cases
fail to advance (as in rudiments). Therefore problems are probably why some
people clear easily and others don't.
Considerations about the stable datum and the confusion also lead
toward the auditing of problems as such. For a problem consists of two
opposed stable data and therefore two confusions.
The definition of a problem is "Two or more postulates in opposition to
each other".
Probably all pcs should be run on Routine One. The Change Scale was
aimed at handling alter-is in doing auditing commands. Auditing Problems,
you will find, cures alter-isness in a case.
The full rundown on the basic Routine 1A was given to the Sthil
Briefing Course Students on July 3, 1961, and the tape of this date should
be studied for full data on Routine 1A. Routine 1A can however be used
without serious consequences and with great benefit without all its data;
at least it will get better results than poorly run CCHs and will get
results anyway. Try it.
STEPS
Routine 1A only has two steps-
1. Problems
2. Security Check HCO WW Form 3 or HCO WW processing forms.
The original command was "Recall a problem". This is the fundamental
command. A somewhat better command, since it increases ability and does
more than merely as-is track, and since it moves pc off the 1st dynamic,
follows:
"What problem could you confront?"
"What problem don't you have to confront?"
"What problem should another confront?"
"What problem wouldn't another confront?"
"What problem would be confronted by others?"
"What problem wouldn't others confront?"
Note: The third question may be "What problem could another confront?"
also, whichever checks out on meter.
SEC CHECK
This is followed by a Security Check. The Security Check must be an HCO
WW Form Sec Check and not a local version ever. A Sec Check is done with a
full command of the new book E-Meter Essentials now being mailed from HCO
WW. A Security Check is done (and so are goals) only by INSTANT READ and
never by LATENT READ. If the needle falls or reacts within a tenth of a
second after the question is asked pursue it, for this is an Instant Read.
If it doesn't fall or react for a second or more and then reacts, do NOT
pursue it or do anything about it. This is a LATENT Read. Only use the E-
Meter if the pc says "No" or disclaims having done it.
If the pc owns up to a question, don't refer to the meter. Don't even
look at the meter when asking a Sec question the first time. If the pc then
says he hasn't done it, look at the needle and without looking at the pc
ask again. Pc still says "No" or its equivalent and you get an instant
read, pursue it with more questions. Never pass Sec Check question that is
getting an Instant Read. It's hot. Always pass them if they only give a
latent read. It's cold or it's something else. Only use the meter after a
pc denies it. Increase sensitivity high, asking question again, before
leaving any question which a pc disclaims.
RATIO BETWEEN PROBLEM AND SEC CHECK
Run Problems and Sec Checks one for one in terms of time. But never on
the same morning or same afternoon or same evening. Never in the same
session. Sec Check mornings, run Problems afternoons. Or vice versa. Or on
alternate days. Don't wait for Problems to flatten before you Sec Check.
Problems are a long run. Two different auditors can work on one pc, one at
one time of the day, the other auditor at another time of day. The pc may
ARC Break if a Problems session is cut off to Sec Check. So Sec Checks are
one session, Problems are another session. And spread them apart into
different auditing periods.
VALUE OF ROUTINE 1A
Routine 1A should be run on every pc at one time or another when going
to or having arrived near clear. It is best run first as it speeds the
auditing later, removing PIPs and alteris of commands.. It does not go as
far south as the CCHs but almost.
Routine 1A is extremely valuable on any case. It will give you many
wins.
I believe at this time, though I have no broad data on it yet, that
Routine 1A will speed up cases that are hanging fire or taking a long time
to clear. Therefore use
it.
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6107C03 SHSBC-26X Routine 1A-Problems
** 6107C04 SHSBC-27X Routine 1A-Problems and Solutions
** 6107C05 SHSBC-25 Q & A Period-Procedure in Auditing
** 6107C06 SHSBC-26 Routine 1 A-Problems
** 6107C11 SHSBC-27 Routine 1A-Problems and Solutions
** 6107C12 SHSBC-28 Q & A Period
** 6107C14 SHSBC-29 Checking Ruds and Withholds
** 6107C18 SHSBC-30 Can't Have-Create-Fundamentals of all Problems
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JULY 1961
Issue II
CenOCon
PROCESSING SECURITY CHECK
(HCO WW Sec Form 6)
This is a Processing or a Security Check. As a Processing Check it is
given in Model Session.
The following Security Check is the only one permitted on Staff
Auditors or Field Auditors, in addition to HCO WW Sec Forms 3, 4 and 5.
No Security Check form may be edited or modified.
(Credit goes to Jan and Dick Halpern for preparing HCO WW Sec Forms 4,
5 and 6.)
HCO WW SEC FORM 6
HGC AUDITOR'S SEC CHECK
This check is suitable for anyone who has done a fair amount of auditing,
and, also, for students in professional level courses in the later part of
the course.
___________
Have you ever told a preclear what his attitude toward someone or something
ought to be?
Have you ever permitted a preclear to take control of the session?
Have you ever alter-ised orders from L. Ron Hubbard concerning your
preclear?
Are you hiding anything from the Director of Processing? (Or whatever the
appropriate terminal is.)
Have you ever failed to get a preclear to carry out an auditing command?
Have you ever deteriorated a preclear's case?
When running a Model Session, have you ever omitted, or skimped, Rudiments?
Have you ever lost your temper with a preclear?
Have you ever startled a preclear when he was on a comm lag?
Have you ever audited a preclear late at night, or in the small hours of
the morning?
Have you ever, overtly or covertly, got it across to your preclear that he
was wrong?
Have you ever alter-ised your instructions from the Director of Processing?
(Or whatever the appropriate terminal is.)
Have you ever permitted a preclear to blow session? To blow an intensive?
Have you failed to find out whether your preclear was getting adequate
food and rest?
Have you permitted a preclear to have secrets from you?
Have you ever been late for a scheduled auditing session?
Have you ever failed to show up at all for a scheduled auditing session?
Have your sessions frequently run overtime?
Have you ever blamed the pc for running overtime?
Have you frequently ended sessions early?
Have you ever blamed your preclear for his case's not advancing?
Have you ever blamed the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard for your preclear's case
not advancing?
Have you ever ignored, forgotten, or failed to put into practice L. Ron
Hubbard's orders regarding your preclear?
Have you ever ignored, forgotten, or failed to put into practice orders
from the D of P regarding your preclear?
Have you some sort of hidden standard as to what a preclear should be like?
Do you think that everybody really has the same troubles as you?
Is there any sort of preclear that you are certain you cannot help?
Is there any sort of preclear that you would far rather not help?
Has auditing a preclear ever had a bad effect on you? If so, whom did you
make guilty?
Have you ever used the wrong process on a preclear?
When you have made a technical flub, did you hurry on without calling it to
the preclear's notice?
Have you ever justified it to the preclear?
Have you ever shown up, sloppily dressed and badly groomed, to audit a
preclear?
Have you had a lot of trouble confronting your preclears?
Have you ever Q-and-A'd with a preclear?
Have you ever failed to flatten a process when it was still biting?
Have you ever jammed a preclear into a one-way flow and left him stuck in
it?
Do you really know Model Session cold?
Have you read, understood, and put into use the material in the latest
technical bulletins?
Have you ever, while auditing a preclear, sat there worrying about your own
problems, making future plans, mocking up pleasure moments, or self
auditing?
Have you ever kept on running a process that wasn't moving the Tone Arm, or
changing the preclear in any way?
Have you ever audited badly?
Have you ever failed to help a preclear?
Have you failed to notice when your preclear's case has changed, and tried
to audit the person he was yesterday?
Have you ever gone on a machine when auditing?
When auditing Tone 40, have you failed to place an intention in the
preclear's head on each command and acknowledgement to the best of your
ability?
Have you ever, deliberately or carelessly, gone out of communication with
your preclear?
Have you ever used a preclear as a guinea pig for some process?
Have you ever used an exercise or drill from some field other than
Scientology while auditing a preclear?
Have you ever audited anyone solely because you couldn't stand him the way
he was?
Do you regard auditing as punishment?
Have you ever done anything to a preclear which you would be unwilling to
have an auditor do to you?
Have you ever felt that you must solve the preclear's problems?
Have you ever resented it when a preclear criticized you for something
which you hadn't, in fact, done?
Have you ever argued with a preclear?
Have you ever taken your preclear's advice while auditing him?
Have you ever asked a preclear to instruct you in auditing while you were
auditing that person?
Have you ever failed to get good results with a case?
Do you feel that auditing is too good for psychotics, or cripples, or
criminals?
Do you feel you must be kind to preclears?
Have you ever been distressed because of a preclear's physical or emotional
pain under auditing?
Is there any sort of preclear you are afraid you may harm?
Is there any sort of preclear you are afraid may harm you?
Have you ever accepted for auditing a preclear you were fairly sure you
couldn't or wouldn't help?
Have you ever made sexual advances or had intercourse with a preclear of
either sex during an auditing session, or during the course of an
intensive?
Have you ever recommended the use of liquor, or drugs, to a preclear "to
relax him", or for any other reason?
Have you ever stolen from a preclear?
Have you ever audited preclears while a staff member for yourself and
kept quiet?
Have you ever stolen another auditor's preclear?
Have you ever stolen a preclear from a Central Org?
Have you ever sought to persuade a preclear that you were a better auditor
than his auditor?
Have you ever passed a Central Org preclear to an outside auditor?
Is there any question about the way you audit which you would hate to have
the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, ask you?
Is there any question about your preclears which you would hate to be
asked?
Is there any question the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, should have asked you,
and hasn't?
Have you nothing further to learn about auditing?
Have you ever found it hard to become interested in a preclear's case?
Have you ever been utterly baffled by a case?
When a preclear's case is not going right, are you certain there must be
something wrong with the stable data of Scientology?
Have you failed to learn, understand, and regularly employ the stable data
of Scientology?
Do you hope you won't be found out?
Have you ever avoided receiving auditing yourself?
Have you ever mistrusted your E-Meter?
Is there anything mysterious to you about an E-Meter?
Is there any technical question you are afraid to ask the D of P for fear
it would make you look incompetent, or stupid?
Do you think you are an incompetent, or stupid, auditor?
Do you think you audit perfectly at all times?
Have you ever believed a preclear knew more about his own case than you
did?
Have you ever made the D of P guilty of anything?
Have you ever justified your actions to a preclear?
Have you ever let a preclear control you?
Have you ever falsified an Auditor's Report in any way?
Have you ever given the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, a false impression about
your preclear's case?
Have you ever failed to get an instruction concerning your preclear
clarified, if you did not understand it?
Do you think selling auditing is really a swindle?
Have you ever felt that some item in the Auditor's Code didn't really
apply to your auditing?
Have you ever done anything weird, or strange, with a preclear?
Have you ever been a squirrel?
Do you feel there is anything wrong with invading a preclear's privacy?
Do you feel there is anything wrong with having your own privacy invaded?
Have you ever redramatized anything on a preclear?
Have you ever avoided running a standard process on a preclear because you
didn't or wouldn't like having it run on you?
Have you ever refused to run something on a preclear because you didn't
like it?
Are you avoiding using any standard process because you are not sure of
your technique?
Have you ever done a bad assessment?
Have you permitted yourself to get rusty, or unfamiliar, with any standard
Scientology process?
Have you forgotten any parts of the Auditor's Code?
Have you ever had a preclear you felt you had to help?
Have you ever had a preclear you didn't want to help?
Do you deserve to get good results with cases?
Is there any viewpoint that is absolutely intolerable to you?
Have you ever had a preclear that you couldn't stand to be, even for an
instant?
Is there any case you've audited that you still feel badly about?
Have you ever felt that there was something about an auditing room that you
were not responsible for?
Have you ever felt that there was something about a preclear's behavior
under auditing that you were not responsible for?
Have you ever pretended you could use an E-Meter when you couldn't?
Do you believe that any preclear can influence the E-Meter in any
mysterious way?
Do you believe that the preclear can control his reactive bank?
Do you believe that the preclear really knows about and understands his
reactive bank?
Do you believe you can control a preclear's reactive bank?
Have you ever made a practice of so much two-way communication with the
preclear that you were spending very little auditing time in getting a
process run?
Have you ever run a process without feeling that it was your process?
Have you ever decided that the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, was the cause of
some effect which you produced on a preclear?
Do you dislike auditing?
Have you ever felt that auditing another was harmful to you in any way?
Have you ever felt sorry for yourself while auditing a preclear?
Have you ever felt sorry for a preclear?
Have you ever confused social chit-chat with auditing?
Have you ever left an auditing session without ending it properly for the
preclear?
Have you ever felt bound by the Auditor's Code in your relationships with
everyone, in and out of session, 24 hours a day?
Have you ever permitted a preclear to throw you into session outside of
regularly scheduled session time?
Have you ever made a practice of evaluating for, or invalidating, a
preclear of yours between sessions?
Have you ever deliberately encouraged a preclear to believe that you were
clear, or OT, when you had not in fact reached this state?
Have you ever tried to force a preclear to believe he or she was clear?
Have you ever represented yourself to a preclear as being in bad shape?
Have you ever discussed your own case with a preclear you were auditing?
Have you ever blackmailed a preclear by threatening to discontinue his
auditing?
Have you ever tried to get special favors from a preclear, beyond the
agreed-upon payment or remuneration?
Have you ever promised a preclear something which you were not certain you
could fulfill to the letter?
Have you ever promised a preclear something you knew you could not fulfill?
Are you weak in any of the TRs? If so, which? If so, have you failed to
make arrangements to be coached up on them?
Is there anything you can get away with that other auditors shouldn't do?
Have you ever gotten into a games condition with a preclear?
Have you ever deliberately or carelessly given a preclear a command which
was impossible for him to execute at that time?
Have you ever used poor judgement in auditing a preclear?
Have you ever felt that you were a liability to the Hubbard Guidance Center
(or appropriate terminal) as an auditor?
Is there anything about auditing which you alone in all the world know and
understand?
Are you in disagreement with any current practice or theory of Scientology
as L. Ron Hubbard has communicated it?
Have you ever taken orders from a preclear as to what you should run on his
case?
Have you ever yanked the preclear's attention off his case by uncalled-
for statements or actions?
Have you ever stopped running a process because the preclear said it was
flat?
Have you ever stopped running a process because the preclear was tired of
it?
Have you ever stopped a session just to talk to a preclear to amuse
yourself?
Have you ever stopped running a process because you couldn't stand the
preclear's somatics?
Have you ever just stopped auditing a preclear without ending a session or
anything?
Have you ever walked off from a preclear who was halfway through something?
Have you ever felt you had to have a special auditor in order to hide data
gotten from preclears about withholds?
Have you ever felt you would be discredited if you received auditing?
Have you ever advised preclears not be audited?
Have you ever taken a commission for secretly passing a preclear to some
auditor?
Have you ever invalidated the caliber of auditing or training in a Central
Organization?
Have you ever sought to convince a preclear he would injure his case if he
or she went to an HGC?
Have you ever taken money for auditing you did not deliver?
Have you ever taken money from a preclear and handed him over to some
student to audit for you?
Have you ever committed sharp practices in auditing?
Have you ever pestered L. Ron Hubbard with questions already to be found in
bulletins?
Have you ever sought to prove auditing would not work?
Have you ever done anything to slow down L. Ron Hubbard's research?
Have you ever wasted auditing time?
What do you wish you hadn't done?
What about your auditing activities are you trying to forget?
Have you any idea it doesn't matter whether you get results or not?
Are Scientologists' or Ron's goals really false?
Are you upset by this Security Check?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:imj.jh
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY l 961
Central Orgs
City Offices
Tech Depts
Franchise
METERING RUDIMENTS
The following question from HASI London, and my answer are of general
interest:
"From Academy and HGC London.
Ron from Rosalie = 6/7 = 375L
Re Rudiments: Data you gave me was that falls are all one was concerned
with in clearing rudiments.
I have heard all reactions should be taken into consideration-i.e. Falls,
Rock Slams, Theta Bops, Sticks.
Mary Sue issued Bulletin of May 9th 1961-saying Falls, Rock Slams, Theta
Bops, change of characteristic should be considered. Would you please
clarify.
Best
ROS, D of T."
"Ron from Selwyn = 6/7 = 376L
Rosalie's query goes for me too. Best SELWYN, D of P."
------------------
"Ros from Ron Info Selwyn Info MSH
375L2 Regarding the remark that only falls are taken into consideration
while doing rudiments. This is misleading. The word 'FALL' is often used
mistakenly or colloquially for 'CHANGE OF NEEDLE PATTERN' because the
latter is so clumsy in phrasing. Any instant change of reaction in needle
pattern is indicative of charge and so in any metering whether rudiments,
assessment, sec checking, one explores and pursues all reactions of the
needle which change the pattern of what the needle was just doing a moment
before.
On rudiments 'CHANGE OF PATTERN', detectable when and only when the
sensitivity knob is set for a third of a Dial Drop of the needle, one and
one half inches, on the can squeeze test, is explored and cleared. The
sensitivity knob is not advanced to see if the reaction is entirely handled
when the needle reaction vanishes at one third of a Dial Drop sensitivity
setting. Unless this sensitivity setting is also observed in addition to
change of needle pattern the auditor will take forever to clean rudiments
when it is not necessary. Rudiments exist to run enough to get the pc into
session, not to audit the case by rudiments. It will be found that when any
charge on PTPs, ARC Breaks, or Withholds or Room is dissipated by rudiments
so that it does not produce a fall detectable with the sensitivity set for
one third of a Dial Drop or any other change of pattern, the pc will be
able to go into session.
As a further note when running Routine One A it is not necessary when
doing the problems part of it as a main process to handle in rudiments
present time problems.
When doing the Security Check part of Routine One A, PTPs can be
handled to some extent. Also one does not try to get all Withholds off in
running Routine One A beyond clearing them for a sensitivity knob setting
of one third of a Dial Drop as these are being handled by the Security
Check.
I hope this clarifies your question and related matters.
Best
RON."
LRH:imj.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1961
Franchise
INFORMATION ON CLEARS
The following digest of HCO Information Letters gives some interesting
information about the Clears which have been made recently in South Africa:
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 14 JULY 1961
CLEARS IN SOUTH AFRICA
(From telexes received at Saint Hill from the HGA Course in Johannesburg)
RON FROM JEAN 218JB l3/7/6l 2.40PM
RON WE HAVE GOTTEN TWO CLEARS. ONE JOAN JOHNS ONE PETER PAPADAKOS CLEARED
ON ROUTINES ONE TWO THREE BOTH CASES BLOWN CLEAR ON GOALS ASSESSMENT
NOTHING FURTHER MOVES TA THOROUGHLY CLEAR CHECKED ON COMPLETE GOALS AND
TERMINAL LISTS AND PRE-HAV SCALE AND DYNAMICS CHRONIC EMOTIONAL LEVELS ON
BOTH CASES ASSESSED AND PROCESSED OUT ON 5 WAY BRACKET.
BEST,
JEAN.
RON FROM PAUL 219 JB 13/7/61 4.20PM
RON AND ANOTHER JOE VAN STADEN. I TOLE YOU AN I TOLE YOU.......WHERE ARE
THE BRACELETS?
BEST,
PAUL.
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 25 JULY 196l
HGC CLEAR
(From telexes received from Johannesburg)
RON FROM PETER 231JB 20/7/61 2.15PM
RON HAL ROLAND CHECKED OUT CLEAR FROM HGC CONFIRMED D OF P AREA SEC AND
MYSELF. NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. AUDITOR EDITH SPENDER RECENTLY OFF HPA DID
MAGNIFICENTLY EXACT JOB. INTENSIVE OF 125 HOURS ROUTINES 2 AND 3 PREVIOUS
AUDITING 30 HOURS.
PETER GREENE.
RON FROM HAL ROLAND 232JB 20/7/61 2.20PM
RON
THANKS.
HAL ROLAND.
LT=
SIENTOLOGY JOHANNESBURG TELEX JX299 =
231JB2 CONGRATULATIONS ON ROLAND TO SPENDER AND HGC STAFF.
BEST=
RON+
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 4 AUGUST 196l
AN HGC CLEAR
This dispatch received from Peter Greene, Assoc Sec in Johannesburg,
concerns the making of a clear in the HGC there:
I was thrilled to-day to send you the news about Hal Roland. He has
been sitting close for a week ever since he flattened 12 levels of Pre-Hav
on Routine 2.
We weren't able to use an HGA graduate for Routine 3, as Jean and
Arnold wanted them to stay on Course for another week to stabilise the
clears and give the others the best chance to make it too-which was very
reasonable.
Several of the auditors in HGC, are now I believe, up to scratch. Leon
Bosworth runs good control and Steve Roos, his deputy, no longer flounders
since his last intensive. I had several auditors checked on Bulletins-by
Jean Kennedy, and notably Rita Metz and Edith Spender were straight on
their data, so since we had the chance to make a clear, we took it. A
special listening post was set up in a room on HASI premises and Leon was
able to keep tabs on the sessions. Hal passed a clear check yesterday in
HGC, but when I further checked him in Wally's presence something further
was found to still be bugging him.
Well that boy really meant to get clear. He went home that night and
returned for his last session with 3 foolscap pages of terminals, on the
Pre-Hav level that was still reacting. A 2-hours session to-day completely
knocked it out. I have never seen such an unmistakable clear needle. Apart
from that his manner, demeanour, etc, was almost enough in itself. I have
done what you said. Concentrate on clearing and releasing and get the
technical real. Release certificates are regularly being issued for HGC now-
the last 3 HPA graduates checked out release, and Edith Spender has only
been off the HPA a few weeks. Our technical still has bugs in it-but I
believe will compare favourably with any HASI in the world.
Everyone was delighted with 3 clears from HGA Course but felt the only
clears we had knowledge of were all off courses. It is a terrific boost to
have an HGC Clear. Staff attitudes immediately changed with the realisation
not merely that it could be done, but that it has been done. It seems
easier to do it again.
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 9 AUGUST 1961
A POST-CLEAR AUDITING SESSION
The following report received from Arnold Gochin, instructor on the HGA
Course in Johannesburg, will be of interest:
I have given Jean about 6 hours of auditing to flatten out a previously
uncontacted engram (present life operation) which turned on a symptom which
the doctor told her was an acute appendicitis. He ordered her to report for
an appendectomy twelve days ago. The auditing cleared this completely. This
letter to you is to give you some data on the E-Meter reading of people who
are 75 hours past a clear check and thus near theta clear.
(a) The havingness processes didn't work and asking her to confront
the floor or something in the room repaired it after 2 commands.
(b) Every confront command answered brings the tone arm down between 3
and 41/z tones, and every "might not confront" brings it back to 4-5 on
the meter, or up 3 or 4 tones.
(c) Midway through flattening the incident the TA didn't go down lower
than 21/2, on drops, and just before it flattened ( 1 hour or so) it
went down switch on position when drops occurred.
(d) Rises brought the TA to about 4 only just before the incident
flattened. Before this it used to go up to 6.5 plus.
(e) The needle doesn't float much but moves from one side to another, as
though it is going somewhere.
(f) One might say the tone arm floats with a fastish motion.
(g) Can squeeze gives very big drop of course.
(h) After the incident had been flattened as to all terminal and Pre-Hav
levels, dynamics, etc, there was a large regular (inch and half) theta
bop. After sufficient questioning I satisfied myself that Jean's answer
that it was a feeling of freedom explained adequately this movement.
(i) She keeps the needle still while rudiments are done. Sensitivity 0 of
course.
(j) In order to find out which of the terminals in the incident or the
mest objects is important, it is necessary to select between drops of 2
or 3 on the tone arm. It takes very sharp observation indeed-and the
auditor must really be in PT.
(k) End of session reads were the clear read.
(l) It is totally obvious when the body is left and entered. This is
manifested by 2" theta bops, which turn into a drop when the body is
entered.
Two of our clears on course are beginning to show little signs of the
excited tone arm, and your development of the new meter is eagerly awaited.
It would seem that the meter must be set for a minimum of 1000 ohms and an
equivalent of 10 on the tone arm.
LRH :jl. rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19 July-4 August 1961
** 6107C19 SHSBC-31 Q & A Period: Auditor Effect on Meter
** 6107C20 SHSBC-32 Games Conditions
** 6108C03 SHSBC-33 Creation and Goals
** 6108C04 SHSBC-34 Methodology of Auditing-Not Doingness and
Occlusion
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST 1961
CenOCon
NEW CLEARING BREAKTHROUGH!
The failures of auditors to get assessments done rapidly, the failure
of pcs to get their goals and terminals found, and other important factors
of clearing are resolved and covered in full in my lectures of:
August 8-9-l0-15-16-17-18-22-23: Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
No special courses on clearing should be started before the instructors
have heard and understand these tapes. HGCs are, in particular, alerted to
these tapes.
These lectures, each about II/2 hours long, summate findings on
clearing gained this summer at Saint Hill and resolve the clearing problems
being met in HGCs, and lay out clearing for future continental courses to
avoid the errors of the Australian and D.C. courses, where long assessment
reduced student results.
These tapes are available from Washington, D.C. (if you've paid for
your tapes to date, we add commercially).
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
8-23 August 1961
** 6108C08 SHSBC-35 Forgettingness
** 6108C09 SHSBC-36 Q & A-Goals Search
** 6108C10 SHSBC-37 Q & A-Goals Assessment, Behavior of Pc
** 6108C11 SHSBC-38 Basics of Auditing-Matter of Factness
** 6108C15 SHSBC-39 Q & A-Anatomy and Assessment of Goals
** 6108C16 SHSBC-40 Cyclic Aspect of Goals
** 6108C17 SHSBC-41 Rudiments-Valences
** 6108C18 SHSBC-42 Control of Attention
** 6108C22 SHSBC-43 PTPs-Unknownnesses
** 6108C23 SHSBC-44 Basics of Auditing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 AUGUST 1961
Franchise
VALENCES KEY TO CLEARING
If you aren't running in the direction of Valences, you aren't
clearing.
That is the lesson proved by the recent DC course and by this summer's
gathered knowledge.
All summer, indeed spring and summer, I have been working to speed up
clearing.
And I have finally cut away a great deal of extraneous data.
It boils down to this:
Goals made by a person take the person away from areas he or she
doesn't want to be in and therefore does not as-is. Goals are an escape.
One must have them. But when one uses them to be where he or she can't
stand to be, then goals are an escape.
The basic escape is into another being. Thus one acquires beingnesses
to escape.
Therefore Routine 3, as it exists, is the fundamental road to clear.
When you are running anything else except Routine 3, you are not going
toward release of valences. Unless you alter a valence, you can do little
for a case.
All processes then should be addressed to finding valences.
The fastest road is to find a goal that is a lasting one and then find
the valence that matches up with that goal and then run the valence out.
This alone changes and improves the pc.
All other processes not addressed to separating valences are addressed
to a valence and try to make the valence better. One cannot improve a
valence. One must improve the pc not the valence.
Routine 3, used with good technical skill, is the road to clear. There
are faster ways to get goals, faster ways to get valences.
But the fundamental is, get the goal, get the valence off For that
valence is the way the pc used to prevent experience of an environment he
never as-ised.
Not know, forget, unknown, used in security questions and in assessing
are the key to the speed-up. But more of that later.
I want lots of clears, not an isolated few.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jml.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 AUGUST 1961
CenOCon
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
Until further notice the HGC allowed processes shall be:
Routine 1
Routine 1A
Routine 3.
Routine 1A is preferred on all pcs and should be begun as early as
possible and flattened fully before a Routine 3 Assessment is attempted.
Routine 3 has failed only where rudiments are flagrantly out during
assessment or in running.
Routine 1A inhibits out rudiments and ARC breaks. It flattens in from
25 to l00 hours. It speeds goals assessment to as little as 2 1/2 hours if
1A is flattened.
Routine 1A consists of any version of problems and all HCO WW Form
Security Checks.
Not know, unknown version of Problems Processes and Security Checks are
allowed.
It is policy that no preclear on staff or in the HGC be assessed for
goals or run on goals or run further on goals until Routine 1A is flat in
all versions.
This guarantees clearing if auditors are also technically expert and
flatten all processes begun by them.
Saint Hill Tapes of recent date and other materials cover and will
continue to cover this subject.
This is policy. It must be followed.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
24-30 August 1961
** 6108C24 SHSBC-45 Rudiments
** 6108C29 SHSBC-46 Basics of Auditing
** 6108C30 SHSBC-47 Auditing Quality
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 196l
Franchise
ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY
It became obvious earlier this year that clearing was now entirely
dependent upon auditing quality.
Clearing is not dependent on state of case. We have cleared people
since February who had very poor cases to begin-in fact some were almost
famous for no gain before this year.
Clearing is not for only a certain case type. The people cleared had
widely varied case types.
The common denominator of all clearing was good auditing, exactly
according to the principles of auditing. The less the auditor departed from
these, the more rapid was the clearing.
The following data was that data which was known and used by auditors
who accomplished clearing:
TRs 0-4
Model Session
E-Meter Essentials
Rudiments
CCHs
Assessment
Security Checking
Routine l
Routine 1A
Routine 2
Routine 3
Pre-Hav Scale
If an auditor knew these he or she could clear people.
It is lack of knowledge of these elements that prevents clearing.
Therefore since last spring my attention has gone to auditing quality
and how to improve it. As an example, the most clears exist in the area
where I spent the most time. My time in that area was mainly devoted to
improving auditing skill. As of this moment, the best auditors in the world
exist in South Africa, and the most clearing being done is in South Africa.
Next in rank is Australia, spear-headed by Peter Williams who was
trained in South Africa
To do this for all continents, I started Saint Hill training rather
than Saint Hill clearing. Organizations sending people to Saint Hill, or
auditors coming to Saint Hill, can obtain this necessary grooming. And thus
continental clear.
But I am not trying to force this, I am letting areas wake up to it on
their own. Thus a sense of accomplishment is preserved.
Major advances have occurred, of course, in processing and processes since
spring. Many of these are quite startling. Our advance in the theory of
Scientology has been more rapid since January AD 11 than in any other time
except perhaps 1950. The bugs are being taken out of processing to increase
speed of advance, not to reach more cases.
These advances are summed up in Saint Hill tapes. I give three hour and
a half lectures to the students each week and these contain the best
current record of bettered technology. These tapes go to Central
Organizations for use on HGCs and in Special Courses. Made at Saint Hill
with a Neumann Microphone and now on an Ampex 601 Professional recorder,
the tapes are flown to Washington DC and copied there, 1 for 1 speed on a
battery of Ampex 600s on 1 mil Mylar tape. These copies are then flown to
Central Organizations. This is working very smoothly now, thanks to the
staff members concerned.
What is discovered by myself is known to Central Orgs within two weeks
for use in HGCs and Courses. This is no substitute for hand grooming at
Saint Hill but it is a major data record forwarded at high speed with high
quality. This is data at the rate of 27,000 words a week! Or 108,000 words
a month! A small river in itself since that is close to a Modern Science of
Mental Health per month! The data is sorted and re-sorted in the lectures
and, rather than new data, it is mainly an amplification and clarification
that keeps the unknowns out.
In the past 15 days (tapes of the last half of August) some startling
breakthroughs have occurred.
A brand-new speed-up for Security Checking; Why auditors won't let pcs
into session; Why pcs don't gain; Why pcs ARC break; Why many old-time
teams are achieving no gains; How to run a session with full gains; Why
Routine 3 assessment was taking forever instead of ten hours; How to do a
fully accurate assessment in ten hours.
All these and a great many more breakthroughs are on the Saint Hill
tapes of the last half of August of this year.
Essential data also finds release in these HCO Bulletins in a briefer
form.
But all this data depends on the essentials listed above.
Before a person can become a clearing auditor he or she must know,
cold, cold, cold, the items on the first list in this bulletin. Without
these known, data never gets applied to the pc.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jl. rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
31 August-6 September 1961
** 6108C31 SHSBC-48 What is Auditing?
** 6109C05 SHSBC-49 Principles of Auditing
** 6109C06 SHSBC-50 Subjective Reality
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1961
Franchise
NEW FACTS OF LIFE
Security Checks
Our Security Checking has become absorbed into processing and is an
integral part of processing, producing very spectacular gains when well
done.
There is a new "not know" way of giving a Security Check. These are
some data about it:
On your Not Know Version of Security Checking or on any "Security
Check" being used for processing, do not use "this lifetime" or limit the
check to this lifetime in any way.
All the directions given on how to do a Security Check on the HCO WW
Form 3 are for Security Security Checking, not for processing Security
Check use. Omit these directions when you are using a Security Check for
processing.
Do not use a repetitive command when Security Checking. Vary the
question and find out. Use versions of "not know" "forget" "forgotten"
"shouldn't be known about" etc.
Example: (Auditor has reached the rape question on the form. He or she
does not read the question yet.)
Auditor: What shouldn't be known about rape?
PC: Answers.
Auditor: Good. What should be forgotten about rape?
PC: Answers.
Auditor: All right. (Reads question from form.)
PC: Answers.
Auditor: What are you looking at?
PC: This picture that came up about this rape.
Auditor: Is it still there?
PC: Yes.
Auditor (as picture seems stuck or sticky): What is unknown about that
picture? (Goes on asking such questions, does not permit PC to wander
off from that one picture so long as Meter needle is reacting on
questions about unknowingness in that picture.)
PC: (Runs incident.) (Usual time required 10 minutes more or less. Time
is not measured, however, as PC runs on it so long as needle reacts.)
Auditor (needle no longer reacting on picture): All right now. Is there
anything else about rape you'd like to tell me?
PC: Answers.
Auditor: (Looking at meter now reads question from form and notes
needle reactions.)
The point here is that one flattens all pictures contacted with
"unknown" etc questions and flattens all needle action on the Security
Check question.
Do not leave a Sec Check question until
1. All needle action is gone from the question itself with
sensitivity at 16, and
2. All needle action is gone from every incident contacted and
run.
Note: This is a new way and a very effective one to run engrams, the
most important development on engrams since 1950.
Auditors who have not yet mastered the above or who have themselves never
been "on the time track" or who have never seen a picture in which they
were in valence, or who have "no reality on past lives" (have never seen an
engram in 3D) should only use the standard Sec Check procedure of just
reading the question and getting the needle action off the question itself.
ARC Break Prevention
An ARC Breaky PC has only these things wrong, provided an even vaguely
correct auditing job is done:
1. Rudiments are out, particularly withholds.
2. Routine 1A (problems) is unflat.
3. An intolerance of unknowingness which makes PC edgy about what
the auditor is doing.
4. An intolerance of motion.
5. A great scarcity of auditing.
6. Has given auditor an order on his case which auditor then
obeyed.
An Observation of Terrible Truth
If you do just once what the PC tells you to do, the PC is put on auto
auditing (self auditing), the basic Original Thesis laws of Auditing are
violated, the PC's bank collapses and PC will then ARC break.
You may as well face it, auditors. If you let the PC be fully
responsible for the session, there is no session and no progress and ARC
breaks will ensue.
Almost all ARC breaks are preceded by the PC giving the auditor an
auditing order or suggestion about rudiments, what to run, etc.
Example:
PC: You didn't ask about withholds in the rudiments.
Auditor: OK, are you withholding anything?
PC: (ARC breaks, chews out auditor.)
Example:
Auditor: I'm going to run you on women now.
PC: It should be men.
Auditor: Well, all right, Men, then.
PC: Yow, yow, yap! (ARC breaks now or later.)
Why?
PC has just lost an auditor, bank falls in on him.
How to get good and even with a PC: Follow any slightest instruction
the PC makes about the session.
That'll fix the PC.
Look it over. It's a terrible truth.
This is the real meaning of Q and A.
LRH:jl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6109C07 SHSBC-51 Reality in Auditing
** 6109C12 SHSBC-52 Clearing Breakthrough
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF l2 SEPTEMBER l961
All HGCs
All Academies
CURRICULUM FOR CLEARING COURSES
(Note: LA and Melbourne are to begin Special Clearing Courses at the
end of this month. This gives data to be stressed.)
(This data may be used in HGCs.)
In the last DC and Melbourne courses, goals assessments were reported
to be taking so long that very few goals were found in Melbourne and none
in the DC course.
This condition also existed elsewhere and on my very careful research,
in all cases where goals assessment exceeded 150 goals, the actual goal was
to be found in the first 150 goals given by the pc. Out rudiments had
buried it. As soon as rudiments were put in, the goal reappeared, the
terminal was found and all went off routinely.
On all long, arduous runs on the goals terminal rudiments were out, a
chronic PTP or heavy withhold had stopped clearing.
Plainly, auditors are in a games condition on goals and prevent the pc
from having one or attaining one. This and unreality on track is the
probable source of all long or bad auditing.
The general remedy for this is to flatten Routine IA on all auditors,
flatten the games condition process where the auditor won't let the pc win
and get every auditor to have a reality on own track.
Several cases have been found stalled on "treatment", the pc being
wildly allergic to any and all "treatment" and thus taking forever to run.
All bad auditing is done by auditors who have no reality on the track,
and the then-ness of pictures. These are seeking to escape and thus pull
the pc into escaping, whereas clearing lies in confronting. Auditors whose
pictures flick in and out and who never linger are "out of valence" on the
track or are otherwise seeking to escape. The remedy is to make such, as
pcs, run pictures with unknown when found, not escape from them. Several
lectures cover this.
Q and A with the pc is entirely taking what the pc suggests or taking
orders from the pc. One order taken from the pc by the auditor and bang,
ARC breaks. This is the source of ARC breaks.
All this and more is covered in the Saint Hill lectures of the last
half of August and early September.
The exact lectures are being listed and examinations prepared for them.
This list and the examinations will be sent for these two courses.
It is suggested that the students get at least two of these lectures
per day.
To make your students into auditors, skip the TRs in these advanced
courses, relegating TRs to the Academy and Saint Hill. Instead, start the
course cases as follows:
Find if the pc has ever been "in himself" or herself in a picture.
Unbury and run that picture with Unknown with this command:
"What was unknown about that incident?" Keep the pc in the incident.
If the pc has never had a picture 3D in his own valence, run either or
both of the following:
"What was unknown?" and another process,
"What unknown should you escape from?" "What unknown should you
attack?"
"What unknown should another escape from?" "What unknown should another
attack?"
These last two processes also handle problems, treatment and the other
factors mentioned above and class as 1A processes.
Omit Routine 2 out of all instruction.
Rewrite your Pre-Hav Primary Scale to include all emotions from
"serenity" to "hide". Include on the scale in the place of "No Motion",
PROBLEMS. Include also UNKNOWN, FORGET, NOT KNOW. Add also DISLOCATE. Omit
anything that is a brother to "No Motion". Include DENY.
-----------------
Get assessment going only when 1A is flat. 1A can be considered flat
when Escape-Attack on Unknown produces no TA motion after this or other 1A
processes have been run.
-----------------
Get ordinary security checking going at once on HCO WW Sec Form 6. When
students do this well, shift to the Not Know version of Security Checking
on Form 3. Do the last two pages of Form 3 before the rest.
-----------------
In all auditing done on course (or in HGCs) get daily cross-checks on
rudiments. Let a student (or in HGCs another auditor) check (but not run)
the rudiments on every pc and point out to the pc's auditor those that are
OUT.
Let students sec check each other evenings, independent of days
auditing, but make sure they know how it is done. Don't let them assess
evenings. Do all assessment in class auditing time.
Stamp ruthlessly on Q and A (auditor doing whatever the pc says).
Arrange two 2l/2 hour auditing periods a day.
Instructors check out any goal and any terminal found before letting it
be run.
A course completion depends on a student:
1. Doing a good Not Know version of Security Checking. 2. Finding the
goal and terminal of a pc.
3. Doing a proper Pre-Hav Assessment.
4. Having a Form 3 and a Form 6 Sec Check completed on self.
5. Passing a perfect exam on the book E-Meter Essentials plus Instant
and Latent Read.
6. Getting a decent graph change on his pc or clearing.
Any student clearing his pc on either course will instantly be awarded
a D.Scn. Clear status must be checked out by HCO.
Routine l A consists of flattening problems (or unknowns) on the TA and
completing a Not Know Sec Check, HCO WW Form 3.
Routine 3 consists of finding the goals and terminals of the pcs and doing
any available Sec Checks.
These two routines are the only routines to be used or taught on
Special Courses at this time.
The processes to be used to clear rudiments are as follows (supposing
the difficulty has been finally stated by pc):
ROOM: TR 10 or pc's havingness process, run only until question about
room produces no needle reaction.
AUDITOR: What would you be willing to be? What would you rather not be?
(Run TA motion out.)
PT PROBLEM: (When pc has stated it and who) What is unknown about that
problem with ? (Run until needle no longer reacts on terminal, check
any other PTP and run it as necessary.)
WITHHOLDS: To whom wasn't that known? To whom shouldn't that be known?
(Run until needle no longer reacts.)
ARC BREAK: What didn't an auditor do? When? What weren't you able to
tell an auditor? When?
Alter Model Session Script to include the above.
Limit two-way comm to asking what, where, when questions.
SUMMARY
Spend no course time trying to make auditors. Criticise blunders. But
give no long lectures of any kind to the class. Just tell them what to do
individually, exactly as above, and see that it gets done on an individual
basis.
In instructing, confront each student, one at a time. Don't worry about
general confronts of the class, not even a seminar period.
Tell the student to do so and so as above with his pc. Show him or her
how to do it. Skip all extraordinary solutions. Just use the above. Get a
maximum of solid auditing done.
Spread your teams as far apart as possible.
Dispense with check sheet examination except on Saint Hill tapes.
Make auditors by making them audit. If they goof, assume they have no
reality on the track and get the student to confront his bank as above.
Subjective reality alone can make an auditor. Routines IA and 3 alone can
make clears.
All auditor goofs stem from unreality. Reality is found
a. By auditing and b. By familiarity with own bank and track.
If an auditor on your course has already received HPA/HCA and any
further training and still has no hang of it, you won't educate them to
victory. They just don't have reality on the mind yet. See that they get it
subjectively. And so teach them to make clears.
LRH:jl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1961
Franchise
NEW RUDIMENTS COMMANDS
Keeping rudiments in looms to great importance with the realization
that endless goals assessments occur only when rudiments are out. If
rudiments are in, the goal invariably occurs in the first 100 goals the pc
gives.
If rudiments are out the goal, terminal or assessment level vanish when
found or won't appear at all.
Therefore, even better rudiments processes are necessary. Over the past
month or so I have worked out and tested these for your use.
These rudiments processes supersede all earlier rudiments processes.
They do not alter basic Model Session. They do alter all rudiments commands
used in Model Session as noted:
Rudiments on the:
ROOM: TR l0 or pc's havingness process. (Run only until question about
room produces no needle reaction.)
AUDITOR: What would you be willing to be? What would you rather not be?
(Run needle action out only.)
PT PROBLEM: (When pc has stated it and who) What is unknown about that
problem with......? (Run until needle no longer reacts on terminal, check
any other PTP and run it as necessary.)
WITHHOLDS: To whom wasn't that known? To whom shouldn't that be known?
(Run until needle no longer reacts.)
ARC BREAK: What didn't an auditor do? When? What weren't you able to
tell an auditor? When? (Run needle action out only.)
Alter Model Session Script to include the above.
---------------------
Limit two-way comm to asking what, where, when questions.
LRH:jl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright Q1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6109C13 SHSBC-53 Sec Check and Withholds
** 6109C14 SHSBC-54 Goals and Terminals Assessment
** 6109C19 SHSBC-55 Q & A Period-Prehav, Sec Checks, ARC Break
Process, Sec Check and Withholds
** 6109C20 SHSBC-56 Seminar at SH. Q & A Period-What is Knowable
to Pc
(when an E-Meter will react), Attention, Motion,
Still Pictures
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1961
Franchise
SECURITY CHECK CHILDREN
HCO WW Security Form 8
The following is a processing check for use on children.
Be sure the child can understand the question. Rephrase it so he or she
can understand it. The first question is the most potent.
Children's Security Check
Ages 6-12
What has somebody told you not to tell?
Have you ever decided you did not like some member of your family?
Have you ever taken something belonging to somebody else and never
given it back?
Have you ever pretended to be sick (ill)?
Have you ever made yourself sick (ill), or hurt yourself to make
somebody sorry?
Have you ever wanted something very much, but never told anybody about
it?
Have you ever gotten yourself dirty on purpose?
Have you ever refused to eat just to worry someone?
Have you ever remembered something about yourself and not told anybody,
because you thought they wouldn't believe you, or be angry at you?
Have you ever refused to obey an order from someone you should obey?
Have you ever told another child something that wasn't true, just to
frighten or upset him?
Have you ever bullied a smaller child?
Have you ever deliberately got another child, or a grown-up, into
trouble?
Have you ever pestered older children, or grown people, who were trying
to work?
Have you ever been mean, or cruel, to an animal, bird or fish?
Have you ever forgotten to give food or water to a pet entrusted to
your care?
Have you ever broken something belonging to someone else?
Have you ever deliberately spoiled clothing of yours because you didn't
like it?
Do you have a secret?
Have you ever noticed something wrong with your body that you were
afraid to tell anybody about?
Have you ever done anything you were very much ashamed of?
Is there anything about you your parents could not understand, even if
you told them?
Have you ever failed to finish your schoolwork on time?
Have you ever flunked an examination at school?
Have you ever deliberately given a teacher trouble?
Have you ever tried to make others dislike some teacher?
Have you ever tried to make another child unpopular?
Have you ever broken, damaged, or taken, any school property?
Have you ever lied to a teacher?
Have you ever been late to school, or late to a class?
Have you ever stayed away from school, when you could have gone?
Have you ever cheated by copying someone else's work, taking notes into
an examination, or looking up answers in a book when you weren't supposed
to?
Have you ever spoiled things for somebody?
Who have you made guilty?
Have you ever done something you shouldn't when you were supposed to be
in bed or asleep?
Have you ever told others bad stories about someone?
Have you ever tried to make others believe that your parents, or
teachers, were cruel to you?
Have you ever offered as an excuse for something you have done wrong
that you are only a child, or that you haven't grown up yet?
Have you ever felt that your parents and home were too good for you?
Have you ever felt that your parents and home weren't good enough for
you?
Is there anything you should tell your parents, and never have?
Have you ever done something to your body that you shouldn't have?
Have you ever done anything to someone else's body that you shouldn't
have?
Have you ever told anyone that you did something, when you hadn't
really done it?
Have you ever told anyone that you hadn't done something which you
really had done?
Have you ever ganged up on another child and made fun of him because he
was different from the rest of you?
Have you ever made fun of another because of the way he looked?
Have you ever decided never to talk to someone again?
Have you ever made your parents or teachers work harder than they
should?
Have you ever decided that you were too bright, or too smart for the
other kids?
Have you ever annoyed an adult by something you did or said?
Have you ever hurt a child?
Have you ever made a child cry?
Have you ever made a child sulk?
Have you ever kept another child from having something that really
belonged to him?
Have you ever found anything and failed to return it to its owner?
Have you ever told stories about someone behind their back?
Have you ever lied to escape blame?
Have you ever not told the whole truth about something so as to protect
someone?
Have you ever felt ashamed of your parents?
Have you ever felt ashamed of your friends?
Have you ever disappointed your parents?
Have you ever run away when you should have stayed?
Have you ever felt sure your parents wouldn't understand something that
had happened in school, so you didn't tell them?
Have you ever not told teachers something about your family because
they wouldn't understand it?
Have you ever failed to keep another child's secret?
Have you ever felt it was just no use talking to someone?
Have you ever hurt someone you didn't mean to?
Have you ever been sloppy about your clothes or possessions?
Have you ever cried when you shouldn't have?
Have you ever been a coward?
Have you ever made too much fuss over a little hurt?
Have you ever tried to make your parents believe you were doing better
in school than you were?
Have you ever told on anyone?
Have you ever teased younger children?
Have you ever made a mess and not helped to clean it up?
Have you ever broken or damaged something and never told anybody
it was you
Have you ever let someone else get punished for something you did?
Have you ever cried till you got your own way?
Have you ever decided "Someday, when I'm grown up, I'll get even"? If
so, with whom?
Have you ever picked on someone smaller than yourself?
Have you ever upset anyone by throwing a temper tantrum?
Have you ever hurt anyone by telling them you didn't love them any
more?
Have you ever made out that you were more badly damaged than you were
in order to make someone stop picking on you?
Have you ever pretended to like someone that you didn't like in order
to satisfy your parents?
Have you ever done anything wrong according to your own religion?
Have you ever not understood why someone was angry with you?
Have you ever pretended not to understand what you had done wrong?
Have you ever pretended not to understand what someone wanted you to
do?
Have you ever been in places where your parents didn't want you to go?
Have you ever spied on anyone?
Have you ever made friends with people your parents didn't approve of?
Have you ever thought someone was crazy?
Have you ever broken up a friendship?
Have you ever let your team, or school, or club down?
Have you ever tried to keep someone from making friends with another
child?
Have you ever pretended not to hear your parents or teacher?
Have you ever made a fuss about doing something that your parents or
teacher wanted you to do?
Have you ever done something to someone that you'd hate to have done to
you?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jl.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6109C21 SHSBC-57 Smoothness of Auditing
** 6109C26 SHSBC-58 Teaching the Field-Sec Checks
** 6109C27 SHSBC-59 Q & A Period; States of Beingness
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1961
Franchise
HCO WW SECURITY FORMS
7A and 7B
(Employment Sec Checks)
(Reissued from HCO Policy Letters of September 13 and September 18, 1961)
These two Security Checks have been devised specifically for employment-
i.e. to check applicants for employment, or personnel already employed.
Each Sec Check should take no more than twenty minutes, and is completely
effective if expertly done.
HCO WW SECURITY FORM 7A
(For Staff Applicants)
Person's Name Date_____________________
The following Security Check is for Security use. All other Security
Checks have passed into processing use and so can no longer be used for
Security, taking too much time, and the auditor seeking to clear every
question.
DIRECTIONS
Use a standard organization approved or manufactured E-Meter such as
the British Mark IV.
Make certain, by can squeeze, that the instrument is plugged in and
adjusted.
Use the meter strictly in accordance with the manual E-Meter
Essentials.
Read only instant reactions. Do not use latent reactions of the needle.
If the needle reacts within a 1/5th or 1/10th of a second after the
question is asked, it is an instant read. This is valid. If it reacts 1/2
to 1 second after the question, this is invalid. Explore only instant reads
on any check. Ignore all latent reads.
It should take only 10 to 20 minutes to give this check. If it takes
longer you are doing something wrong.
All you do is put the applicant on the meter and read the questions to
him with sensitivity set high ( l dial or more drop for can squeeze).
Keep the needle near centre of dial. Don't adjust it while asking a
question. Don't ask a question if it is uncentred.
If you get no reaction go on to next question.
If you get a reaction, compartment the question, (reading it word by
word and phrase by phrase) and see if any one word or any one phrase falls
rather than the question as a whole. Clear each word or phrase that reads
on the needle. Then read the whole question. If it is the whole question
that reacts, it is a flunk.
Don't clear flunks. Just go on to next question.
The person being checked does not have to answer anything verbally.
The person giving the check does not have to find out or get off any
withhold as this is not a processing check.
A needle reaction must be clearly established to be a reaction to the
question before it can be a flunk.
The tone arm action is ignored.
Rising needle is ignored.
The Auditor's Code is ignored.
Processing is ignored.
You'll find that the main trouble with giving this check is that it is
so easy to give that people try to complicate it.
ANY question still reacting after it has been cleared word for word or
phrase by phrase FLUNKS the Applicant. That's it. One question that reacts
and the person cannot be hired. It is not permitted to hire the person for
anything or for any reason or for any purpose until the person is wholly
cleared. You must not goof on this. Don't hire people who cannot pass this
check.
If a person is guilty of any part of this check, the person will react
on that exact question, providing the question is put to the person
directly (not his shadow).
There are no nul questions to be given the applicant.
The following statement is read to the applicant:
-----------------
"This is a Security Check I am giving you. These are E-Meter
electrodes. This is a very modern instrument developed after ten years of
research. It can and does detect guilt very easily. If you pass this check
you will be trusted. If you fail to pass this check, you cannot be employed
here without extensive processing with Scientology.
"You do not have to speak or answer if you do not want to. It makes no
difference.
"Here is the first question. "
1. If anyone found out about something you've done in this lifetime,
could you be blackmailed about it?
2. Are you a pervert?
3. Have you ever stolen from an employer?
4. Have you ever falsified records to obtain money by fraud?
5. Have you ever tried to get a fellow worker in trouble by telling lies
about him or her?
6. Do you hate all employers?
7. Are you or have you ever been a Communist?
8. If you were employed here would you try to damage this organization?
9. On your last job did you consistently complain about being overworked
and underpaid?
10. Have you ever worked in an organization just to spy on it for others?
11. Have you even taken money for passing on confidential information?
12. Have you ever consciously driven customers away from your employer?
13. Do you privately think we are a fraud or a racket?
14. Have you ever secretly bought anything yourself and sold it to your
employer at a profit?
15. Have you ever taken a bribe or a secret commission to give someone an
employer's business?
16. Is there something about your past jobs you are hoping desperately we
don't find out?
17. Do you hate work of any kind?
18. Do you have a criminal record?
19. Are you wanted anywhere by the police?
20. Do you intend to quit soon after starting work here?
-----------------
The interrogator can smooth out any ARC breaks caused.
-----------------
If the needle gave consistent or unmistakable instant response on any
of the above, the applicant may not be employed at this time.
The applicant, feeling falsely accused, should be informed he has the
right to be security checked by another person with the same form.
Passed Security Checker__________________
Failed Date____________________________
L. RON
HUBBARD
HCO WW SECURITY FORM 7B
(For persons now employed)
Give this check in exactly the same way as HCO WW Security Form 7A.
Failure to pass one or more questions on this check results in
suspension until processing has been given.
The security checker does not attempt to clear or process any of the
following questions if they produce instant needle reaction. Clearing
questions is an auditor's job and is done in an auditing session, not while
receiving this check.
If a question produces instant needle response, clear it word by word
and phrase by phrase until all words and phrases are as nul as they can be
made. Then test for reaction to the whole question. If it reacts then it is
a flunk.
The whole test is always completed.
It should take 10 to 20 minutes at the most.
Read the following to the staff member.
"There is nothing personal about this check. It is for your protection
as well as others. If you pass it you have no worries. If you flunk it you
will be suspended immediately until processed on your own arrangements. If
you feel you have been falsely flunked, if you are flunked, you can demand
that another skilled person give you the same check over again. But you may
only be checked by two people.
"Here is the check. You do not have to answer anything if you don't
care to."
1. Have you ever committed any criminal act for which you could be
blackmailed now?
2. Do you or your close family currently have any connection with
organizations violently opposed to L. Ron Hubbard?
3. Have you ever personally accepted a commission, percentage, bribe or
"gift" for giving any firm or person this organization's business?
4. Have you ever stolen anything here?
5. Have you ever falsified an expense account here? 6. Have you
ever falsely accounted for petty cash?
7. Have you ever maliciously gossiped about your fellow staff members or
your superiors?
8. Are you here purposely to upset or damage Scientology or Scientology
Organizations?
9. Have you ever cautioned anyone about following L. Ron Hubbard's
directions or data or told them not to?
10. Have you ever maliciously criticized Scientology, its organizations,
data or people to persons outside this organization?
11. Have you ever used people you met here to secretly further your
personal gain outside of the organization?
12. Do you feel Scientology is a fraud or racket?
13. Do you complain about how overworked and underpaid you are?
14. Do you ever privately laugh at the antics of your superiors?
15. Have you ever slowed things down just because your superiors wanted
them speeded up?
16. Do you think it really doesn't matter whether you do a good job or
not?
17. Do you intend to quit just as soon as you've achieved your own ends?
18. Do you illegally have anything in your personal possession that
really belongs to us?
19. Do you get satisfaction out of not doing your job?
20. Have you consistently covered up the blunders and mistakes of other
staff members so they won't be found out?
Passed Security Checker__________________
Failed Date____________________________
Findings and Decision:
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
______
____________________________________________________________________________
______
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jl.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
28 September 1961
** 6109C28 SHSBC-60 Grades of Auditors
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1961
All HCO Secs
All Assn Secs
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
(Cancels all previous HCO Bulletins and Policy Letters on
HGC Allowed Processes)
HGCs must begin clearing.
All Academies must get auditors trained up so their skill is adequate
to clear.
-----------------
In an HGC, all auditing is done by staff auditors of course. But if
individual staff auditors cannot handle the skills of clearing, no clearing
will get done.
Therefore a program of increasing skills of staff auditors must be
undertaken, not just in training but in gradient skills they are permitted
to use on pcs. A staff auditor must only use skills he can command and with
which he can win.
-----------------
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Tape of September 26, 1961 is a part
of this Policy Letter. It enjoins that auditors increase and use their
skills as follows:
CLASS ONE: Relatively unskilled. HCA/HPA graduate, field auditor called
in part or full time or current staff auditor or HGC or Academy personnel
or executive. This auditor is asked what process he has had success with on
pcs. What process he has confidence in. Whatever it is, as long as it's
Scientology, a Class One Auditor is not permitted to use any other process
on HGC pcs, regardless of their "case requirements". This is mandatory.
CLASS TWO: Any auditor auditing on staff who has finally passed a
perfect score on HCO quizzes on
1. E-Meter Essentials
2. Model Session
3. Security Checking HCO Bulletins
4. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Tape of September 26, 1961.
(These quizzes must embrace the most minute details of these items.)
This auditor is thereafter permitted only to use Security Checks on HGC
pcs, either standard checks or checks combined with specially devised
checks.
CLASS THREE: Any staff auditor who has graduated up through Class Two
skills and who is having excellent results with Class Two skills and who
thereafter has been specially trained directly by a person who has attended
and passed the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course and who has also passed a
perfect examination by HCO on
l. All HCO Bulletins relating to Routine 3.
2. All Saint Hill Tapes on Routine 3.
3. Who has a good grasp of the technical side of auditing and can
run a smooth session.
This Class Three Auditor may use Routine 3 on HGC pcs but may only utilize
goals and terminals and levels that have been checked out and verified by a
person graduated from the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. He may not
run engrams on HGC pcs.
4. Who can find rudiments when out and get them in.
CLASS FOUR: Any Class Three Auditor who has achieved excellent results
with Routine 3 and who has had his or her goal and terminal found and is a
release and who has had engrams run on his or her own goals terminal chain
and who has excellent subjective reality on engrams. This auditor may run
Routine 3 and engrams on HGC pcs.
-----------------
In an HGC as of receipt of this HCO Policy Letter there are no other
classes of auditors and no special permissions may be granted contrary to
this policy letter.
-----------------
All HCO Area Secretaries are enjoined to make this program stick, get
this HCO Policy Letter immediately hat checked on all Central Org technical
staff and all executives including the Association Secretary. A copy of
this HCO Policy Letter, carrying a list of all those who have passed a
check on it and all who can't or won't, should be airmailed back to me.
-----------------
This is the first positive and effective step toward getting broad
clearing done in HGCs. This is a very important step. It will be with us a
long while. For even when we are routinely clearing, every new staff
auditor will go up this ladder.
-----------------
Rapidity in getting this into effect will bring the HGC that much
closer to clearing.
-----------------
It is not permitted that HGC pcs are security checked or run on Routine
3 or engrams until the auditor doing so has been awarded the class that
permits him to do so.
-----------------
If HCO Area Secs or Assn Secs find anything else more important than
getting this done, pause a bit and ask why.
For only broad general clearing in HGCs and training in Academies
toward clearing skills will resolve any and all of a Central Org's
problems.
(Note: Pcs who are being run contrary to this Policy Letter on its
receipt and who would be upset by a sudden change may be continued on
whatever the auditor was running on receipt.)
LRH :jl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO PL is added to by HCO PL 29 November 1961, Class of Auditors,
page 439.]
** 6110C03 SHSBC-61 The Prior Confusion
** 6110C04 SHSBC-62 Moral Codes: What is a Withhold?
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 OCTOBER 1961
Franchise
CLEAN HANDS MAKE A HAPPY LIFE
For the first time in the soggy stream that's history to the human
race, it's possible that happiness exists.
This goal, repeated many times and sought so heavily, has been
ungraspable as sun motes, unattainable as a loved one's sigh.
What makes Mankind, basically good beings all, such strangers far to
happiness?
The rich man geysers out his wealth. The poor man peers in every crack.
But wealth buys nought and crevices are bare. The child hopes he will
realize it when grown and, grown, wishes he were happy as a child.
We grasp it but like gossamer, it's nought. We marry a most perfect
girl or man and then throughout our lives weep to make the other make us
glad.
Often sought, but seldom found, there are no riches, gems or palaces as
valued as mere happiness.
But listen! Here is happiness, just at our finger tips, awaiting only
magic words "Start Session" to begin its quest.
But like we walk through rain toward a banquet ball, our happiness in
processing is gained by passing through the phantom shadows of our "sins".
What has made all Man a pauper in his happiness?
Transgressions against the mores of his race, his group, his family!
We care but little what these mores were or are. It was transgression
did the trick.
We agree to fixed moralities and then, unthinking, we transgress, or
with "good cause" offend, and there we are, the first dull bars of misery
draw stealthily behind us.
And as we wander on, transgressing more, agreeing to new mores and then
transgressing those, we come into that sunless place, the prison of our
tears and sighs and might-have-beens, unhappiness.
-----------------
Mutual action is the key to all our overt acts. Agreement to what ought
to be and then a shattering of the troth works all the spell that's needed
for a recipe of misery.
There must be pain. So we agreed. For pain restrains and warns, shuts
off, forbids. But goodness now must then consist of bringing in no pain.
Mutual motion is agreed. And then we disagree and part and so are tied
no more-tied not save back there in our minds, with scars of broken faith.
The faith we broke, and said it had to be.
We all agree to feel the sun and then protest it burns. We all agree to
kiss and love and then are startled that such pain can follow in that wake.
Mutual motion is all right-until we act in cruelty to the rest.
Tied by agreements and co-actions, we dare be cruel to that to which
the hard steel clasps of promises have bound us.
And so in being cruel to part of self-extended self as in a couple or a
group-we then find pain in self with great surprise.
The overt act sequence is simple now to grasp. The scope is limited.
But it began when we first had a cruel impulse to others bound to us by
mores or co-acts.
Why does one suffer pain in his own arm when he or she has struck
another's limb?
Because the cruel impulse has been a break of bond with others where
pledge once lived.
The only overt act that can bring pain to self is that cruel act which
then transgresses things to which we had agreed.
Share action with a group or person in your life, agree to mutually
survive by some specific code and then be cruel to them and so transgress
and you'll have pain.
-----------------
All Mankind lives and each man strives by codes of conduct mutually
agreed. Perhaps these codes are good, perhaps they're bad, it's only
evident they're codes; Mores bind the race.
Co-action then occurs. Thought and motion in accord. A oneness then of
purpose and survival so results.
But now against that code there is transgression. And so because the
code was held, whatever code it was, and Man sought comfort in Man's
company, he held back his deed and so entered then the bourne in which no
being laughs or has a freedom in his heart.
So down the curtains come across the brightness of the day and dull-
faced clouds enmist all pleasant circumstance. For one has evilly
transgressed and may not speak of it for fear all happiness will die.
And so we shut ourselves from off the light and enter grey-faced gloom.
And seal within our deepest vault the reasons why we dare not face our
friends.
And afterwards we go on making others guilty with the rest, when like
some scrawny scarecrow of a priest whose tattered filthy robes are rough
with sacrificial blood, we point the way to hell for those who kill.
And deep within us secret gnawings ache. And then at last we cannot
even cry.
-----------------
The road to hell-Man's very good at painting ugly signs that point its
course and way.
The road to heaven-Man's often sent but never yet arrived-more like he
found the "other place".
But now a road that's wide has opened up-in Scientology.
The meter and the process check, when done by auditors with skill, can
open up transgression's rush and loose a cascade out until hell's spent.
And day will once more have a drop of dew upon the morning rose.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jl.vmm.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6110C05 SHSBC-63 Sec Checking-Types of Withholds
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 OCTOBER l961
Central Orgs
HCOs City Offices
TRAINING OF STAFF AUDITORS
The following despatches to the Assn Sec London and HCO Area London,
are of general interest:
HCO LONDON
HCO STHIL EGSTD
JOHN FROM RON INFO HCO
OCT 3 2242
In order to care for your special condition wherein the newcomers cannot
run old processes then temporarily modify the Pol Ltr as follows:
Class such auditors as "Class Two Under Training". Let them go right ahead
and continue with security checking only. HCO should get very ambitious
about making these auditors pass all the necessary Bulletin tape exams on
Class Two, and then confirm their status when they have passed.
Make available a tape recorder with headphones and let auditors standing in
for exams listen to tapes and have HCO give them exams on these tapes.
On the two auditors that have very little reality on auditing, this would
stem of course from their never having gotten any benefit from auditing or
having any subjective reality on it. Therefore they would be rather
dangerous to let near a PC. Suggest you turn them loose on each other with
Sec Checking and make them complete a thorough Form Three and other checks
on each other.
You are going to get your wildest changes on cases at this time by doing
excellent Sec Checking.
There is a current rundown down here which is part of Class Two, which is
Sec Checking against a chronic somatic. The tape of Oct 3 goes into it very
thoroughly. It gets rid of hidden standards and chronic somatics and has
gotten to, under and into every pokey case we have around there. This is
assessing for the prior confusion to the condition, and then Sec Checking
the PC on personnel found in that assessed area. It is easy to do and hell
to teach but when an auditor gets a reality on it-Wow here we go.
I would be very happy to see a lot of wins coming out of Sec Checking only.
This requires model session meter rudiments and TRs, and knowing never to
leave a question as long as there are withholds on it. (Surest way in the
world to blow a PC out of the HGC is to leave a question with charge still
on it.)
I'm real keen to see you hit the easy trail now that it's taped so well. I
have every confidence that if you work like mad in the HGC to make every
auditor a top grade Security Checker and run nothing but Security Checks
(Standard Form and those you specially prepare for a particular PC) you
will be getting quite startling case gains. This data includes assessing
for the prior confusion and doing special Sec Checks on it as per tape here
Oct 3.
With just this you would be curing people left and right.
When you got that jolly well anchored in the hurricane and all staked down
we can then start educating auditors for Routine Three complete. But that's
away-a few months perhaps-up the line.
I feel that if we just settle down on this one programme and saw wood
we'll get a lot of wins and a lot of happy PCs and the bugs out of
procurement and case gains. Then we can move on.
How about it??
Best,
RON
JOAN FROM RON 3R2
I am counting on you to exam staff routinely on the various HCOBs and tapes
relating to:
Model Session
E-Meter Essentials
New Rudiments
How to Security Check
I think we would err in spreading our attention too far on what we expect
them to get down pat. If the TRs are obviously way out, blame the Academy
and return the auditor to there on a weekend basis.
Don't classify any auditor as Class Two until he or she never stutters an
instant on any Exam question on the above items.
The tape of Oct 3 was tailored up to be of assistance in explaining the
data about prior confusion that gets rid of somatics. This is part of Class
Two.
Security Checking includes the ability to locate the area of prior
confusion. As this clears up most of the things a PC is worried about you
are in for a lot of wins.
The people you get in the HGC have Psychosomatics, lots of PTPs of long
duration and hidden standards. It is now very easy to relieve these things
at the level of Class Two by Sec Checking areas before the PC noticed the
somatic.
I think auditors can easily learn these things and I know you will get very
appreciative PCs as a result.
I want you to bear down hard on Examination. The way you examine is very
brief. You bring in the auditor or having studied the auditor comes in. You
have a complete Check Sheet for the auditors, all he or she is supposed to
know about this, Bulletin by Bulletin, Tape by Tape. You have a prepared
Exam. It is very intensive and minute. You keep asking questions from it
until the student misses. The first time the student misses is a flunk and
that is the end of the Exam. This saves you lots of time and it brings the
student up to reading the Bulletin or hearing the tape time after time, and
they get really familiar with the Exam data. A seventy percent pass is no
good. We only want one hundred percent passes.
Well that's it.
Best,
RON
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jl.bh
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 OCTOBER 1961
Franchise
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
RUDIMENTS, CHANGE IN
In End Rudiments only of Model Session, delete "Are you withholding
anything?"
Substitute before ARC breaks in End Rudiments the following:
"Have you told me any half truths or untruths in this session or
have you said anything just to make an impression on me?"
This is to be used in End Rudiments only in all types of sessions.
Be sure you give End Rudiments in general enough time to do. You should
start ending any session one half hour before end of session time. That is
to say, end the process of the session and begin on End Rudiments one half
hour before end of session time.
Fill in any extra time left over by running the havingness process of
the PC or TR l0 as the last stage of End Rudiments.
This new End Rudiments step does not alter Beginning Rudiments. "Are
you withholding anything?" remains in Beginning Rudiments.
This new end step has been developed to overcome the bad effects on the
PC caused by his lying to the Auditor, trying to get others in trouble by
giving false withholds, and trying to make an impression on the Auditor by
half truths, etc.
It will be found that a certain proportion of "withholds" are in fact
lies. If the Auditor accepts these, the PC's case is damaged and session is
hard to maintain on a PC who is consistently allowed to get away with this.
This end rudiment step helps restrain the impulse and cleans off the ill
effects of lying to the Auditor or making bids for sympathy with half
truths.
Clean all instant needle reactions which occur by reason of this
question. Do not leave it until it is free from instant reaction.
LRH:md.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
10-17 October 1961
** 6110C10 SHSBC-64 Problems Intensive
** 6110C11 SHSBC-65 Problems Intensive Assessment
** 6110C12 SHSBC-66 Problems
** 6110C17 SHSBC-67 Problems Intensive Procedures
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 OCTOBER 1961
Sthil
PROBLEMS INTENSIVE FOR STAFF CLEARING
Who Does Assessment
The auditor assigned to audit the preclear does the assessment.
When is Assessment Done
This assessment is done at the beginning of the first intensive the
preclear has. The last questions may be added to and done again at a later
time.
Is this part of the Preclear's auditing time
Yes, it is. The questions asked are to a degree auditing because the
auditor is asking the preclear to look and to recall.
Purpose of Preclear Assessment Sheet
The purpose of this form is to establish auditor control over the
preclear, to better acquaint the auditor with his preclear, to provide
essential information required and to locate hidden standards and PTPs of
long duration.
To Whom is the Preclear Assessment Sheet Routed
This Sheet is routed to the Technical Sec as soon as possible, at the
first session break if the auditor can do so. It must be routed at least by
the end of the auditing day. After the Technical Sec reviews the Sheet, it
is returned to the auditor for keeping in his folder on the preclear.
Neatness of Preclear Assessment Sheet
If you cannot write plainly and neatly, print all the data required.
Information is wanted, not mysterious cryptographics.
PRECLEAR ASSESSMENT SHEET
Name of Pc__________________Age of Pc____________ TA Position at Start of
Assessment___________
Auditor___________________________Tech Sec's Initials_____________________
A. Family:
1. Is mother living? E-Meter reaction______________
2. Date of death E-Meter reaction______________
3. Pc's statement of relationship with mother
______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
E-Meter reaction______________
4. Is father living? E-Meter reaction______________
5. Date of death E-Meter reaction______________
6. Pc's statement of relationship with
father________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________ E-Meter reaction______________
7. List brothers, sisters, and other relatives of the Pc, date of death
of any and E-Meter reaction.
Relation Date of Death E-Meter reaction
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
B. Marital Status.
l. Married Single No. of times divorced_______________
2. Pc's statement of relationship with
spouse_______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
E-Meter reaction______________
3. List any marital difficulties Pc presently
has______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
E-Meter reaction______________
4. If divorced, list reasons for divorce and Pc's emotional feeling
about divorce
_____________________________________________________________________
E-Meter reaction______________
5. List children, date of death of any child and E-Meter reaction.
Children Date of Death E-Meter reaction
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
C. Educational Level:
State the level of schooling Pc has had, University education, or
prof training.
_____________________________________________________________________
E-Meter reaction______________
D. Professional Life:
State main jobs Pc has held.
Job E-Meter reaction
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
E. Accidents:
List any serious accidents Pc has had, the date of such, any
permanent physical damage and E-Meter reaction.
Accident Date Physical Damage E-Meter
reaction
__
__
__
__
F. Illnesses:
List any serious illness (excepting usual childhood diseases, colds,
etc) giving date of such, any permanent physical damage and E-Meter
reaction.
Illness Date Physical Damage E-Meter reaction
__
__
__
__
G. Operations:
List any operation, the date of each and E-Meter reaction.
Operation Date E-Meter reaction
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
H. Present Physical Condition:
List any bad physical condition Pc presently has and E-Meter reaction
to such.
Physical Condition E-Meter reaction
________________________
________________________
________________________
I. Mental Treatment:
List any psychiatric, psychoanalytic, hypnotic, mystical or occult
exercises, or other mental treatment which Pc has had, the date of the
treatment and E-Meter reaction.
Treatment Date E-Meter reaction
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
J. Compulsions, Repressions and Fears.
List any compulsions (things Pc feels compelled to do), repressions
(things Pc must prevent himself from doing) and any fears of Pc.
Compulsions, etc E-Meter reaction
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
K. Criminal Record.
List any crime committed by Pc, prison sentence, if any, and E-Meter
reaction.
Crime Sentence E-Meter reaction
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
L. Interests and Hobbies:
List any Interests and Hobbies of Pc.
lnterests and Hobbies E-Meter reaction
________________________
________________________
________________________
M. Previous Scientology Processing:
1. List auditors, hours and E-Meter reaction to any processing done
other than in the HGC or Academy.
Auditor Hours E-Meter Reaction
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
_______________________ _____________________ __________________
2. List briefly processes
run____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. List goals attained from such processing
________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. List goals not attained from such processing
_____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
N. Present Processing Goals.
List all present goals of Pc and E-Meter reaction to each.
Goal E-Meter reaction
________________________
________________________
________________________
O. LIFE TURNING POINTS:
List each major change the pc has experienced in life.
1. ________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
2. _____________ ___
________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
3. ___
________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
4. ___
________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
5. ___
________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
6. ___
________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
7. ___
________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
8. ___
________________________________________________________________
date ___
Meter ___
9. When did pc newly join any religious group
___
___
10. When did pc start going to Church again
___
___
11. When did pc subscribe to a fad
___
___
12. When did pc begin dieting ___
___
13. When did pc leave a job ___
___
___
___
___
___
14. When did pc have to take a rest
___
___
15. When is the time the pc noticed a body difficulty
___
___
16. When did the pc decide to go away ___
___
___
___
17. Whom did the pc decide to leave and when
___
___
___
18. When did pc decide to start being educated in some new line
___
___
___
___
___
19. When did pc's physical body change characteristics
___
___
___
20. When did pc collapse ___
___
___
21. When did pc start a new life
___
___
___
22. When did pc stop going to parties ___
___
___
23. Who has pc never seen again ___
___
___
24. What does pc now consider his or her major life change
___
___
___
DO SECTION P (FOLLOWING) SEVERAL TIMES.
P. PROCESSING SECTION.
1. Most needle action on above O Section was on number________. (If
necessary read them all off and assess for most reaction-not by
elimination.)
Note Occurrence Assessed ___
___
2. Ask pc "What problem existed immediately before
___
(that occurrence)".
3. Write down problem pc gives ___
___
___
___
4. Run "What was unknown about that problem with
___
(descriptive word)" until all tone arm action is off (20 minute
test).
5. Locate confusion before that change (as per number above).
6. List persons present in the
confusion___________________________________
___
___
___
___
7. Assess persons.
Most needle reaction on
___
8. Run Processing Check of withholds from that person.
9. Assess persons above and any new ones. (Add to above list.) Persons
now reacting ___
___
___
Run Processing Check on that person.
10. Assess persons above and any new ones. (Add to above list.)
11. Person now reacting ___
___
12. Run Processing Check on that person.
13. Return to O. Assess and do all of P again.
LRH:jl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 OCTOBER 1961
Academie
STUDENT PRACTICE CHECK
The following practice Security Check may be used by Academy Students
learning E-Meter use. It was developed by Dir PE Durban hopefully for use
on Co-Audit. But it is doubtful if Co-Audit would win with such. A general
repetitive process would be better. I have changed it to an Academy
Practice Check.
"Do you feel you are making a fool of yourself by being at the Academy?"
"Is someone watching how you get on to 'judge' Scientology?"
"Have you made any derogatory remarks concerning Scientology?"
"Do you think Scientology might be a racket?"
"Is there something you're afraid you might have to face if you continue
training?"
"Are you here for another purpose than you say?"
"Have your friends advised you against taking a course?"
"Have you had any criticisms of the Course Instructor?"
"Have you had any criticisms of the Director of Training?"
"Have you made any criticisms of the way the organization is run?"
"Have you any criticisms of the way the course is run?"
"Have you seen any Scientology staff members who you'd hate to be like?"
"Do you know of anyone who seems to have got worse since they took up
Scientology?"
"Have you got worse since you discovered something about yourself?"
"Do you think your Tests were wrongly evaluated?"
"Do you think Scientology is a violation of your religion?"
"Do you think there is something wrong with making people more able?"
"Is there something you wouldn't dare mention here?"
"Is there something you're afraid you won't do properly?"
"Are you afraid of dealing with the mind?"
"Have you ever been to a psychiatrist/faith healer/numerologist?"
"Are you planning to tell people that Scientology is no good?"
"Do you dislike anybody on the course?"
"Are you shocked by anything that has happened since coming to the
Academy?"
"Did you find it difficult to pay for the course?"
"Do you intend to pay for the course in full?"
"Are you waiting for Scientology to do something for you?"
"Are you looking for an excuse to say Scientology doesn't work?"
"Are you missing or neglecting doing something by coming on to the course?"
"Is there something you should be handling that you are expecting the
course to help you to do?"
"Are you beyond help?"
"Do you deserve to be helped?"
"Do you think that the state of Clear is fictitious?"
"Have you ever been late for class?"
"Have you ever made an excuse to miss a class?"
"Have you ever suspected a Scientologist of anything?"
"Have you ever advised anyone against Scientology?"
"Does the idea of being more responsible frighten you?"
L RON HUBBARD
LRH:md.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1961
HGCs
PROBLEMS INTENSIVES
Two important additions should be made to HCO Bulletin of November 18,
1960, the Preclear Assessment Sheet.
These are Sections O and P, which are attached to this Bulletin.
Section O lists all the turning points, or changes, in the preclear's
life. It forms an additional section to the actual preclear assessment,
which is unchanged in every other respect.
Section P is the Processing Section. Using the data obtained from
Section O, a Class Two auditor can run a complete Problems Intensive,
following the procedure outlined in Section P. Section P is done in Model
Session.
Full details of how to run a Problems Intensive are given in the Saint
Hill tapes of 10th, 11th and 12th October, which will be sent to you soon.
Meanwhile, study Sections O and P carefully. And mimeo out supplies of
Sections O and P for use by staff auditors. (Do not however mimeo more than
enough for your immediate needs, as these sections may be changed in form
or detail.)
A Problems Intensive is very simple. The procedure is outlined very
clearly in Sections O and P.
Turning points are simply self-determined changes in the pc's life.
When did he start doing something new or stop doing something, get married,
get divorced, take up a new activity-any change or turning point in the
pc's life. These are listed briefly, and when-an approximate date will do.
Typical entries would be: "Went to Canada, 1930", "Took up slimming, 1936",
"Went to sea, 1924", etc.
Each change, or turning point, was preceded by a period of confusion,
or a PROBLEM. The Processing Section P consists of finding what problem
existed immediately before the change. Run off the unknowns in the problem.
Locate the confusion. Find the persons present in the confusion. Assess the
persons for most reaction, take the one with most reaction and run a
Processing Check on that person to get the withholds the pc had from that
person.
This procedure is repeated again and again. Assess the changes. Find
the one which reacts most (not by elimination). Run Section P on that
change, find all the persons present in the prior confusion, get the
withholds.
Basic stable datum: The change, or turning point, in the preclear's
life is always the solution to the problem, or confusion, which immediately
preceded it. It is the prior confusion which is the auditor's target. By
sorting out these confusions and the personnel buried in them, a Class II
auditor can do a fine job on any preclear, and prepare the ground for
clearing the pc on SOP Goals.
This programme for Class II auditors should be grooved in as soon as
the data and
tape material are thoroughly understood.
LRH:md.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright �1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Sections O and P mentioned above are part of HCO PL l0 October 1961,
Problems Intensive for Staff Clearing, page 392. HCO B 18 November 1960,
Preclear Assessment Sheet, referred to above is cancelled by BTB 10
December 1974, Issue III, Cancellation of Bulletins-1960, which says, "See
BTB 24 April 69R, Preclear Assessment Sheet." Similar data to the 18
November issue is contained in HCO PL 10 October 1961.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 OCTOBER 1961
Franchise
SECURITY QUESTIONS MUST BE NULLED
The main danger of security checking is not probing a person's past but
failing to do so thoroughly.
When you leave a security check question "live" and go on to the next
one, you set up a nasty situation that will have repercussions. The person
may not immediately react. But the least that will happen is that he will
be more difficult to audit in the future, and will go out of session more
easily. More violently, a pc who has had a security check question left
unflat may leave the session and do himself or Scientology considerable
mischief.
About the most unkind thing you could do to a person would be to leave
a security check question unflat and go on to the next one. Or to fail to
nul the needle on withholds in the rudiments and go on with the session.
One girl, being audited, was left unflat on a security check question.
The auditor blithely went on to the next question. The girl went out after
session, and told everyone she knew the most vicious lies she could create
about the immoral conduct of Scientologists. She wrote a stack of letters
to people she knew out of town, telling gruesome tales of sexual orgies. An
alert Scientologist heard the rumours, rapidly traced them back, got hold
of the girl, sat her down and checked auditing and found the unflat
security check question. The Withhold? Sexual misdemeanors. Once that was
pulled, the girl hastily raced about correcting all her previous efforts to
discredit.
A man had been a stalled case for about a year. He was violent to
audit. The special question was finally asked, "What security check
question was left unflat on you?" It was found and nulled. After that his
case progressed again.
-----------------
The mechanisms of this are many. The reactions of the pc are many. The
summation of it is, when a security check question is left unflat on a pc
and thereafter ignored, the consequences are numerous.
-----------------
THE REMEDY
The prevention of security check being left unflat is easily
accomplished:
1. Know E-Meter Essentials.
2. Know the E-Meter.
3. Work only with an approved E-Meter.
4. Know the various bulletins on security checking.
5. Get off your own withholds so that you won't avoid those in
others.
6. Repeat questions in various ways until absolutely sure there is
no further needle reaction on a question with sensitivity 16.
LRH: md.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6110C18 SHSBC-68 Valences-Circuits
** 6110C19 SHSBC-69 Q & A Period-Flows
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 OCTOBER 1961
HGCs
HGC PREPROCESSING SECURITY CHECK
(for pcs beginning intensives)
HCO WW Sec Form 8
Pc's Name Date_________________
This check is to be given by HGC Admin on interviewing applicant. It is
a pre-processing Security Check. Follow directions exactly. If any question
still produces instant read after clearing any midway reads, report this
fact to the D of P before permitting pc to proceed with other testing or
auditing. Write down on a dispatch paper the questions that produced
instant reads and give them to the auditor prior to the pc's first session
(excepting only questions 1, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16 or 17 which must be referred
to D of P first. If pc is still accepted after this, give these questions
to the auditor as well as any others producing instant read).
DIRECTIONS
Use a standard organization approved or manufactured E-Meter such as
the British Mark IV.
Make certain, by can squeeze, that the instrument is plugged in and
adjusted.
Use the meter strictly in accordance with the manual E-Meter
Essentials.
Read only instant reactions. Do not use latent reactions of the needle.
If the needle reacts within a 1/5th or 1/10th of a second after the
question is asked, it is an instant read. This is valid. If it reacts 1/2
to 1 second after the question, this is invalid. Explore only instant reads
on any check. Ignore all latent reads.
It should take only 10 or 20 minutes to give this check. If it takes
longer you are doing something wrong.
All you do is put the applicant on the meter and read the questions to
him with sensitivity set high ( 1 dial or more drop for can squeeze).
Keep the needle near center of dial. Don't adjust it while asking a
question. Don't ask a question if it is uncentered.
If you get no reaction go on to next question.
If you get a reaction, compartment the question (reading it word by
word and phrase by phrase), and see if any one word or any one phrase falls
rather than the question as a whole. Clear each word or phrase that reads
on the needle. Then read the whole question. If it is the whole question
that reacts, it is a flunk.
Don't clear flunks. (Note: Do not inform pc it is a flunk. This is not
an employment security check.) Just go on to next question.
The person being checked does not have to answer anything verbally.
The person giving the check does not have to find out or get off any
withhold as this is not a processing check.
A needle reaction must be clearly established to be a reaction to the
question before it can be a flunk.
The Tone Arm action is ignored.
Rising needle is ignored.
The Auditor's Code is ignored.
Processing is ignored.
You'll find the main trouble with giving this check is that it is so
easy to give that people will try to complicate it.
If a person is guilty of or has charge on any part of this check, the
person will react on that exact question, providing the question is put to
the person directly (not his shadow).
There are no nul questions to be given to the pc applicant.
The following statement is read to the pc applicant:
"This is a Pre-Processing Check I am giving you. These are E-Meter
electrodes. This is a very modern instrument developed after ten years of
research. You do not have to speak or answer if you do not want to. It
makes no difference.
"Here is the first question:
1. Have you ever had electric shock treatment?
2. Are you a pervert?
3. Do you knowingly intend to cause disorder here?
4. Are you here knowingly to prove Scientology doesn't work?
5. Are you under a doctor's care?
6. Are you suffering from any secret illness?
7. Have you ever been placed in the care of a psychiatrist?
8. Have you ever been classified as legally insane?
9. Are you planning harmful acts to yourself or others?
10. Are you guilty of any major crime in this lifetime?
11. Have you been sent here knowingly to injure Scientology?
12. Are you or have you ever been a Communist?
13. Are you addicted to drugs?
14. Have you falsified the statement of personal history given to the
Consultant?
15. Are you wanted in this country by the police?
16. Are you closely affiliated to any person or organization violently
opposed to L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology?
17. Are you supposed to go insane?"
The interrogator should now smooth out any ARC breaks caused, by asking and
clearing: "Has anything I have done here upset you?"
Note: If the pc applicant is accepted, write down all the questions
that didn't clear after clearing midway reads, give them to the auditor (or
if two auditors or more, the security check auditor) and instruct him to
place those exact questions in the security check form at or very near the
beginning of the sec check. The pc applicant is not to be informed of any
special action on this. These questions are to be cleared, then, as part of
the processing check in the same way as other sec check (processing)
questions.
If any question continues to react, in accordance with instructions
given in "Directions" above, refer this to the D of P for his decision. In
the event D of P cannot make a decision easily (due to any doubt as to
whether policy would be violated on the acceptance of the pc), he is to
refer the matter to the Organization Secretary and HCO Area Sec. If policy
would be violated by the acceptance of a pc and the D of P still wants to
have the pc audited, he must advise L. Ron Hubbard at once. The D of P
should be well advised as to policy however, and only refer cases where
there is more likelihood of doing good than doing harm by having the pc
audited at the HGC. Similarly the HGC Admin, on asking the sec check
questions, should not make a practice of referring matters to the D of P,
but only when the questions mentioned above are in fact still reacting. It
will be found that this will apply to a minority of applicants.
HGC Admin sign here on completion of
interrogation:__________________________
Auditor sign here on receipt of any reacting
questions:__________________________
D of P sign here: Pc has been
accepted:_____________________________________
Pc has not been accepted:__________________________________
Reason if not accepted: ___________________________________
Note: Send completed form to Saint Hill with first week's auditor's
reports. If pc applicant was not accepted, file in HGC unless required
by L. Ron Hubbard.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :iet.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
24-26 October 1961
** 6110C24 SHSBC-70 Clearing
** 6110C25 SHSBC-71 Importance of Goals Terminals
** 6110C26 SHSBC-72 Security Checking Auditing Errors
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 OCTOBER 1961
Franchise
SAFE AUDITING TABLE
I have just isolated the reason why a pc sometimes gets a solidifying
bank on Step 6 and at other times.
The reason is that no terminal, except as below, may be run that is not
the pc's goal's terminal.
A central valence or terminal is built in to demand total attention
from the pc. When attention is given another terminal, too much, in life or
auditing, the bank reacts to prevent that attention.
This is why some pcs gain weight. A terminal not the goals terminal has
been run too long or concentrated upon too hard.
Therefore I have composed a table of safe processes.
SAFE PROCESSES
1. Security (Processing) Checking. As long as O/Ws (times when pc's
attention was fixed on terminals other than goals terminal) are pulled
off by Meter properly per standard or composed Sec Checks. Sec Checking
a single terminal is less safe than Sec Checking in general which is
totally safe unless a question on which pc has withholds is left
unflat.
2. The word "you" as a terminal may be run so long as it does not
eventually stick any flows.
3. Areas of Prior Confusion (prior to a stuck point or problem) may be
run and will free the stuck point that occurs later in time. The run
should be done on the Prior Confusion by Sec Checking the period
earlier than the stuck point or problem. The questions are by deed
rather than by terminal.
4. Concepts including Rising Scale Processing are perfectly safe as they
include no terminals.
5. ARC Straight Wire, ARC Break Straight Wire and Something you
wouldn't mind forgetting? are all completely safe as long as pc is
cycled back up to present time at process period end.
6. CCHs.
7. Touch Assists and all Familiarization Processes.
8. Havingness and Confront Processes (The 36 Commands).
9. Rudiments Processes if briefly used.
10. Routine 3, finding pc's goal and terminal and pre-hav runs and other
processes on the goal and terminal, if found and done by an expert.
Otherwise process is dangerous as incorrect goal and terminal might be
used. By expert is meant a course completion with honours at Saint
Hill. The wrong goal and wrong terminal run in any fashion disturbs the
bank without release. (No goal or terminal found on any student before
that student came to Saint Hill has so far proved correct.)
11. Sec Checking a goals terminal. Running O/W or repetitive commands on
a goals terminal is perfectly safe.
12. Running engrams on the goals terminal chain is perfectly safe if well
done.
Other processes may on a good percentage of pcs produce a heavy bank
reaction and not discharge but only worsen the bank. The bank generally
fades down in from three to ten days, and responds well thereafter to the
above.
LRH:imj.msp.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6110C31 SHSBC-73 Rudiments
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 NOVEMBER 1961
HCO Secs
Assoc Secs
D Of Ts
HCO WW SECURITY FORM 5A
(For all HPA/HCA and above students
before acceptance on courses)
Give this check in exactly the same way as HCO WW SECURITY FORM 7A.
Failure to pass one or more questions on this check results in non-
acceptance of this student on course until processing has been given.
The security checker does not attempt to clear or process any of the
following questions if they produce instant needle reaction. Clearing
questions is an auditor's job and is done in an auditing session, not while
receiving this check.
If a question produces instant needle response, clear it word by word
and phrase by phrase until all phrases and words are as null as they can be
made. Then test for reaction to the whole question. If it reacts it is a
flunk.
The whole test is always completed. It should take 10 to 20 minutes at
the most.
Read the following to the student applicant:
"There is nothing personal about this check. It is for your protection
as well as others'. If you pass it you have no worries. If you flunk it you
will not be accepted on this course until you have been processed on your
own arrangements. Here is the check. You do not have to answer anything if
you do not care to."
1. Have you ever committed any criminal act for which you could be
blackmailed now?
2. Do you or your close family currently have any connection with
organizations violently opposed to L. Ron Hubbard?
3. Are you here purposely to upset or damage Scientology or Scientology
Organizations?
4. Have you ever cautioned anyone about following L. Ron Hubbard's
directions or data or told them not to?
5. Have you ever maliciously criticized Scientology, its organizations,
data or people to people outside these organizations?
6. Do you intend to use people you meet here to secretly further your
personal gain outside this course?
7. Do you feel Scientology is a fraud or racket?
8. Do you think it really doesn't matter whether you do a good job
or not?
9. Do you intend to quit this course just as soon as you have achieved
your own ends?
10. Are you or have you been a Communist?
11. Are you wanted by the Police?
12. Have you come here with the intention of having sex?
13. Have you come on this course to create trouble, directly or
indirectly, to Scientology?
14. Has some group opposed to Scientology, as it is presently practiced,
sent you on this course?
15. Do you intend to use any information gained on this course for any
devious purpose?
16. Have you come here to prove to yourself or others that Scientology
does not work?
17. Are you presently under medication or treatment?
__________________ ___________________________
Passed Security Checker
__________________ ___________________________
Failed Date
Findings and Decisions:__________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
LRH:esc.jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6111C01 SHSBC-74 Formation of Commands
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 NOVEMBER 1961
Franchise
THE PRIOR CONFUSION
A recent discovery I have made may well do away with the need to
directly run problems, particularly on people who find them hard to
confront.
The mechanism is this:
All problems are preceded by a Prior Confusion.
The handling consists of locating the problem, then locating the Prior
Confusion and then Sec Checking that Prior Confusion.
The preclear tends to edge forward in time to the problem continuously
and to 'bounce' out of the Prior Confusion once located. The remedy is to
locate the O/Ws in the Prior Confusion and keep the preclear out of the
moment of the Problem.
All somatics, circuits, problems and difficulties including ARC breaks
are all preceded by a Prior Confusion. Therefore it is possible (but not
always feasible at the moment) to eradicate somatics by Sec Checking the
Area of Confusion which occurred just before the pc noticed the somatic for
the first time.
This is part of a Class II Auditor's skills.
A problem could be regarded as a mechanism by which to locate hidden
Areas of Confusion in a pc's life.
All Hidden Standards are the result of a Prior Confusion.
The mechanism is extremely valuable. All rudiments could be run by
finding the rudiment out, getting the difficulty expressed, locating the
Prior Confusion and then finding the pc's O/Ws in that Area of Confusion.
A Problems Intensive based on this mechanism is under design and I will
release it for Class II use when I am satisfied the form is complete.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:vbn.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
2 November 1961
** 6111C02 SHSBC-75 How to Security Check
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 NOVEMBER 1961
Franchise
RUDIMENTS AND CLEARING
The following report from Saint Hill Special Course Instructor, Herbie
Parkhouse, former Association Secretary, London, is illuminative in the
extreme.
----------------
"Dear Ron,
"Here is a long note on my recent experiences on clearing, beginning
with Problems Intensive Assessment.
"I took over my pc after quite a bit of auditing from Reg Sharpe,
Instructor, who had found the Goal and Terminal, and a fellow student.
"On commencing the Sections A-N of the Assessment Sheet I found the pc
willing to give me the data asked for with an ever mounting interest, but
with an inclination to fight control. This inclination grew stronger on the
O Section especially on asking for self-determined changes rather than
victim changes. However we completed Section O and went on to P where the
problem dropped out OK and I ran the single command. This went fine but
very soon the needle and Tone Arm tightened, and pc became ARC breaky. Upon
instruction from yourself I changed the process to a 4 bracket command.
This eased things considerably and further progress was made with Track
opening up, but not much Tone Arm Action.
"Then you discovered the data re Terminals and on Monday you told me to
go for clear on his Goal Terminal with a 10 way, bracket incorporating
Groups. This shook me but in we went. First session Rudiments took 20
minutes which was longer than ever before. The process ran OK, but not much
Tone Arm change. Pc in session very well, somatics, grief and heavy yawning
and lots and lots of cognitions. Good Session. You remarked, 'Keep
Rudiments in' and I innocently wondered why you bothered to mention it!
Huh!
"Next session I commenced Session feeling terrific, and certain I could
clear him as per your instructions, until I checked Rudiments, which
incidentally on the cross check by another auditor were all OK. I took 48
minutes to clear the Rudiments on the meter, over hill and down dale,
through ARC breaks, complaints and attempts to make me feel guilty. At the
end of all this I didn't have a pc very much in session, so I ran 6
commands of the main process and ended Session, for I figured that by
ending Session I could get two more cracks at what the heck was going on.
In the End Rudiments I took 33 minutes, most of which was on withholds-
thanks for the new W/H Question-and did I get a surprise. It turned out
that if my pc was to go clear he would have to 'level' with certain people
and change his way of life, which he wasn't willing to do, so he worked it
out that if he worried me we would spend so much time on the Rudiments that
we would never get to the main process and thus he would not go clear and
have to do things he was unwilling to do.
"The Beginning Rudiments for the next session took the whole of 5 mins.
In the process the Tone Arm moved, track opened up and out popped Robots, 2
ft high, green in colour with pineapple hand grenade type heads, and some
somatics. End Rudiments also took 5 minutes.
"Next day Rudiments were out again. Withhold on the subject of clearing
and its seeming obligations once again reared its head, but not to the same
degree as before.
Track is opening up at quite a high rate. Tone Arm is moving up to 1 1/2
Tone Arm divisions. Cognitions all over the place. Tomorrow I think we'll
flatten it.
"You have said many times, 'Watch the rudiments'-I have, but I have
never respected them as much as I do now.
"The problem my pc was putting in the way of clearing was very small to
me, but big to him. I never would have guessed it could have held us up in
a million years.
"Thanks for Rudiments."
------------------
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:imj.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER 1961
St Hill
Students
ROUTINE 3A
I have found a way to undercut the speed of a goals terminal run.
This consists of a discovery of a new piece of the puzzle-The Modifier.
By use of the Modifier the basic terminal of a goals chain may be
isolated without running off the upper terminal.
Routine 3 consists of finding a goal, finding a terminal and running it
on the Pre-Hav Scale, combined with sec checking. Then one finds a new
terminal for the goal, etc, etc.
-------------
ROUTINE 3A consists of:
1. Having pc write a goals list.
2. Adding various types of goals to the list (Secret, etc).
3. Assessing the list and locating the goal by elimination.
(The above steps are unchanged from Routine 3.)
4. Compiling a list of MODIFIERS by asking the pc what would make
the goal impossible to attain, what would keep it from happening,
what would be its consequences if attained, etc.
5. Assessing Modifier list by elimination. (Assess Modifiers
without repeating goal.)
6. Combining goal and Modifier as the question for terminal (who
or what would [goal & modifier] ) and compiling a terminals list.
(Otherwise same as Routine 3)
7. Assessing terminals list by elimination to obtain the terminal.
(Same as Routine 3)
8. Assessing Pre-Hav Scale for level.
(Same as Routine 3)
9. Forming multi-bracket commands and running or using a packaged
command.
(Same as Routine 3)
Routine 3A is also combined with ordinary sec checks as well as a
Dynamic sec check gained from a Dynamic Assessment.
Havingness and Confront are also found and used during auditing of
terminal on levels.
-------------
The resulting terminal will be found to be more fundamental than the
Routine 3 type terminal and should run much faster.
-------------
I developed this by deducing that if a goal is held in suspense in
time, it must have another side to it like a problem.
A problem is postulate-counter-postulate.
To stay fixed, a goal must have a counter-postulate.
Both goal and Modifier must be contained in one basic terminal,
otherwise the postulates would not be out of reach of the pc.
This terminal may be far more real to the pc and the whole package may
blow more rapidly.
-------------
In those cases where a goal has been found, do Routine 3A Steps 4
through 9.
Get Modifier and terminal checked out when found.
-------------
So far the Modifier list has been very short, the pc getting it on the
first question in some cases and half a dozen in others. Ten would seem a
fair number.
-------------
Definition: A Modifier is that consideration which opposes the
attainment of a goal and tends to suspend it in time.
In practice all Modifiers so far found have Dianetic type denyers in
them which put them semantically out of sight.
Example: Goal: To be a Willow Wand. Modifier: So as never to be
reached.
Accordingly, the pc also never reaches the Modifier in his thinking but
dramatizes it.
Goal + Modifier for terminal use would be "Who or what would be a
willow wand so as never to be reached". Terminal assessed from list: "A
bending reed".
-------------
In those cases that have gone Clear, the Modifier ran out, almost
unnoticed. In those cases that haven't gone Clear, the pc is still
dramatizing the Modifier while running the goal and cleaning off one
terminal from a chain.
-------------
I suppose we may find in some cases that we have the Modifier but not
the goal. In such a case the question would have to be (in Step 4 above)
"What goal would make one eventually decide to be that way". I do not know
positively of any such cases as yet, I am only providing for the
possibility. Where the person's "goal" seems to be a defeat, I would
suspect it was the Modifier with the goal before it not yet found.
Nothing in this means that all terminals are wrong. Some may be found
to be the same terminal as before. Others will be found to be more basic. A
few will seem not to compare.
-------------
All cases now running on a goals terminal as per Routine 3 should be
reassessed at once as per Routine 3A to save time in auditing.
LRH:esc.rd
copyright �1961 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6111C07 SHSBC-76 Routine 3A
** 6111C08 SHSBC-77 Checking Case Reports
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 NOVEMBER 1961
Franchise
THE PROBLEMS INTENSIVE
USE OF THE PRIOR CONFUSION
All sticks on the time track stick because of a Prior Confusion.
The most stuck point on the track is a Problem.
A Problem is caused by a balanced postulate-counter-postulate. Neither
postulate has dominance. The problem, therefore, hangs in time and floats
in time. Force vs force, endeavour vs endeavour, all these are the anatomy
of a problem.
One cannot have a problem without overts and withholds against the
people involved in it, for one cannot be so individuated as to not
influence others unless one has O/Ws on those others.
All somatics, aberrations, circuits and problems are postulate-counter-
postulate situations.
All these items occur only where one has O/Ws on others.
By finding and Sec Checking the Area of Prior Confusion to any problem,
somatic, circuit or hidden standard, one can alleviate or blow that problem
or condition.
THE PROBLEMS INTENSIVE
To give a Problems Intensive, the auditor first fills in the Preclear
Assessment Form on the pc.
1. Complete Change List
The auditor then asks the pc for all the self-determined changes the pc
has made this life. These are written with date first, followed by two or
three descriptive words. This list is a long column on the page, or two
columns on the page.
It is important that no other-determined changes in his or her life are
recorded as these are occurrences and assess because of engram content as
in operations.
The pc must have made up his or her mind to change, to move, to diet,
to seek adventure, to take up Thackeray, to go to Church, etc, etc.
When the E-Meter no longer reacts to the question "Was there another
time you decided to change your life?", when no needle action remains,
consider list complete.
2. Assess Change List
Now Assess this list. It can be assessed by biggest needle reaction or,
better, by elimination.
One change will react consistently. If none remain, find out about any
more changes.
You will wind up with a charged, self-determined change.
Write it down.
3. Obtain Problem
Ask the pc for the problem that preceded this change.
If you have the right change, the Problem will leap into view. If you
have the wrong change, the pc will appear to be in present time trying to
figure out what problem there might have been.
This last indicates he is not stuck in the problem, therefore it isn't
it. If pc obviously can't find any problem in the area, even when coaxed,
do a better assessment.
When you have the problem, write it down.
4. Date the Problem
By using any dating system on the E-Meter, find the date in this
lifetime when this problem arose. This gets the pc into a time perspective
with regard to the problem.
If the pc insists on going back track, play along with it. Do following
steps anyway on back track. But do not encourage it. A Problems Intensive
concerns this lifetime.
5. Find Prior Confusion
Discuss the problem with the pc. Find out what people or type of person
it concerns.
Locate on the Meter the Confusion which occurred minutes, days, weeks
before this problem.
Find out the names of the people concerned in this confusion.
Write down these names.
Now ask searchingly with Meter for any missing persons.
When satisfied you have the persons (and sometimes things) involved,
end your list.
NOTE: At this point one could assess the list for the most heavily
charged person but the step is not vital nor, in the light of terminal
phenomena, since only a goals terminal can be safely run, is this really
safe.
6. Compose Sec Check
Composing a generalized Sec Check based on the type of confusion, and
using the date of the confusion in every question, make ready to Sec Check
the Area.
7. Sec Check Confused Area
Get off all the pc's overts and withholds in the Area of Confusion.
8. Test for Problem
Test on E-Meter for the Problem found above. If it is still reacting on
Meter, Sec Check further. Do this until problem seems quietened down.
9. Assess for New Change
Return to Change List and any new self-determined changes pc now
recalls.
Assess List.
Continue on with steps as above.
----------------------------
A Problems Intensive can key out present time problems of long
duration, chronic somatics, circuits and hidden standards.
It is one of the skills of a Class II Auditor.
Excellent graph changes have been obtained by giving a Problems
Intensive.
LRH:esc.cden L RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
9 November 1961
** 6111C09 SHSBC-78 Effective Auditing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 14 NOVEMBER 1961
Saint Hill Students
Graduates, Sthil Spcl Brfg Cs
All Trained Auditors to R.3 Level
ROUTINE 3D
This is the first routine to make Dynamic Clears. Earlier Clears were
cleared on only one or two dynamics. Such selectivity also resulted in
clearing procedures not working all the way to clear on a large number of
cases.
On receipt of this preview of Routine 3D transfer any case you are
assessing or running over to this routine at once. Do not bother to end off
unflat processes from Routine 3 or Routine 3A. On all persons already
cleared go back through this routine completely with them. You may use the
first valid checked out goal located on the person to start in all cases.
Beyond that use no other material. Naturally those persons who have been
audited on a goals terminal or who have had considerable auditing or who
have been cleared will go much faster because of that.
You will find that it will be more rapid to do this procedure in full
on any person than to complete any existing activity.
There are several new words in this routine. They are obvious in
meaning.
After I discovered Modifiers I immediately went on to ease the
difficulty auditors were having in finding them. And I found many
additional shortcuts to clearing in general.
The skills necessary to use Routine 3D are the same as those needed to
run Routine 3 with the addition that there is more assessing. Rapidity and
extreme accuracy of assessment are mandatory in using Routine 3D. The
selection of a wrong goal, terminal, modifier, opposition or counter-
postulate and forcing it off on the preclear and running it can do
considerable damage to a case. Any such damage can be remedied by going
back over the whole thing and finding the correct item. If a wrong one has
been found and used the Pre-Hav Scale will show an increasing number of
levels active on each successive assessment. I would prefer that only
auditors trained and graduated at Saint Hill use Routine 3D. It is very
fast but it demands deadly accuracy.
On the first test assessment in full after the goal had been more or
less spotted but not checked, a full first assessment on all parts of
Routine 3D required five and a half hours including getting rudiments in,
keeping them in and final assessment on the Pre-Hav Scale. This will not be
found to be how much time it will averagely take. But is remarked to show
that speed of assessment has nothing to do with accuracy of assessment.
The hardest part of Routine 3D is finding the first goal. After that
the parts of Routine 3D are so plotted as to make easy completion.
The theory back of Routine 3D is that a goal has the anatomy of a
problem and is not only postulate counter-postulate but also terminal
counter-terminal.
NO MATTER WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY FOUND ON THE PRECLEAR OR CLEAR AFTER
THE FIRST GOAL (without Modifier) USE ONLY THE ITEMS TURNED UP BY ROUTINE
3D AS FAR MORE RAPID AND SHORT-CUT THAN ANY DATA FOUND ON THE CASE
PREVIOUSLY. DO NOT LOCATE THE ITEMS IN ANY DIFFERENT ORDER THAN THAT GIVEN
ON THE FOLLOWING STEP
LIST. DO NOT FILL IN THE STEP LIST WITH DATA FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENTS. USF.
ONLY 3D DISCOVERED DATA.
EACH TIME AN ITEM IS FOUND IT WILL BE DISCOVERED TO HAVE THE SAME
NEEDLE PATTERN AS THE LAST ITEM. ALL PARTS FOUND WILL HAVE THE SAME NEEDLE
PATTERN THROUGHOUT. THIS IS FOR CHECKING BY THE AUDITOR ONLY. IF SOME PART
HAS A DIFFERENT NEEDLE PATTERN THAN THE ORIGINAL GOAL IT IS WRONG.
ALL PARTS OF ROUTINE 3D SHOULD BE CHECKED OUT BEFORE BEING RUN.
ROUTINE 3D
USE SEPARATE SHEETS OF PAPER. NUMBER EACH SHEET SO USED WITH THE
SECTION NUMBER OF THE FOLLOWING. WHEN THE ITEM BEING ASSESSED HAS BEEN
PROVED OUT WRITE IT ON THIS SHEET. DO NOT DESTROY ANY OF YOUR EXCESS SHEETS
BUT STAPLE THEM TO THIS SHEET WHEN COMPLETE. ALL ASSESSMENTS LISTS AND
RESULTS FOR ANY ONE PC MUST BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED TO PROVIDE FOR RECHECK
IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG.
PC'S NAME______________________________ DATE______________________
AUDITOR________________________________ LOCATION_________________
1. GOALS ASSESSMENT. (Make sure that any goal found and used is
something the pc has really wanted to do, not a difficulty or
something that came in a dream.)
a. Write or have pc write a complete list of goals.
b. Add to the list by meter any secret or additional goals
the pc may have. Add to list any time pc adds another goal
during assessment.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess goals list by elimination.
PC'S GOAL__________________________________________________________
Checked out by______________________
2. OPPOSITION ASSESSMENT.
a. Ask pc "Who or what would oppose that goal?" and carefully
list every reply.
b. Add to list by meter any additional opposition terminals.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess opposition list by assessment by elimination.
OPPOSITION TERMINAL_______________________________________________
Checked out by_____________________
3. OPPOSITION GOAL.
a. Ask pc "What would be a ______(Opposition Terminal
above)______'s goals that would be in opposition to (pc's
goal)______?" You want to know what ideas the opposition would
have that would directly counter the pc's goal. This must be in
the form of a sort of goal. It is not the basic goal of the
opposition terminal, but the goal that opposes the pc's goal.
b. Add to list by meter.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess Opposition Goals List by elimination.
OPPOSITION GOAL___________________________________________________
Checked out by________________________
4. MODIFIER. (In this you want to know what phrases are missing at
the beginning or ending of the pc's goal. These will be found to be
bouncers, denyers, down bouncers, call backs, etc, in old Dianetic
terminology. Pc can skid all over track while giving these.)
a. Ask pc "If your goal consistently failed what ideas would
you add to it?" Make full list.
b. Add to list by meter.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess by elimination. NOTE: Several of these phrases may
modify the pc's goal. This is the only part of a goal's
assessment that does not reduce to just one. These remaining
phrases will have to be added up and stacked in various ways to
make sense with the pc's goal and to give a smooth meter check
out.
PC'S GOAL MODIFIER_________________________________________________
Checked out by________________________
5. GOALS TERMINAL FOR PC'S GOAL + MODIFIER. (Sec 1 + Sec 4 Abv.)
PC'S GOAL TERMINAL + MODIFIER ____________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
a. Ask pc "Who or what would (pc's g +m)______?" and list every
goals terminal the pc gives you.
b. Complete g.t. list using meter.
c. Get rudiments in well before and during assessment.
d. Assess list by elimination.
PC'S GOAL TERMINAL (Term for g + m)__________________________________
6. PRE-HAV LEVEL.
a. Using goals terminal, reversing the flow every question by
asking "Would (goals terminal)_____you?" for one level and
"Would you_____(goals terminal)?" for the next, assess by
elimination (without repeater technique and repeating only
levels which fell on subsequent coverage of scale) and obtain
the one level that still reacts.
FIRST LEVEL SEVENTH LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL EIGHTH LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL NINTH LEVEL
FOURTH LEVEL TENTH LEVEL
FIFTH LEVEL ELEVENTH LEVEL
SIXTH LEVEL TWELFTH LEVEL
FURTHER LEVELS:
7. COMPOSE COMMAND.
a. Using goals terminal and opposition terminal compose
command:
COMMANDS _______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
b. Clear commands with pc to make sure they make sense to
him. (It is not whether he finds them easy but whether they can
be answered by him despite duress caused.)
CLEARED COMMANDS
c. Run command against TONE ARM, using only a TEN MINUTE test
on an eighth of a TA Division.
d. When commands flat as in c, reassess on Pre-Hav as in 6
above. Compose new commands as in 7 on a separate sheet.
8. GOALS TEST.
a. When the goals terminal is flat from having been run on
levels of the Pre-Hav Scale and out the bottom, recheck all
sections above from I to 5 inclusive for any reads on the
needle.
b. If a new goals terminal can be found on the goals list or
newly added to the goals terminal list, use it in Section 6,
noting it at the end of Section 5 above that you have done so.
c. When no goals terminal can be found that reacts, form up
pc's goal and opposition terminal and run one against the
other. When flat, make new form.
VOCABULARY
GOAL-Something the pc wanted to be, to do or to have, whether the pc
abandoned it, failed in it or not, just as in Routine 3.
MODIFIER-The unseen modification the pc has placed before or after his goal
to insist upon winning or threaten with if he does not win, or to keep the
goal in a games condition unknown even to himself. The Modifier is
difficult to directly reach as it is full of bouncers, denyers, down
bouncers, call backs, etc (see Dianetics). When the opposing factors are
relieved by assessment the Modifier is more easily exposed. Described in
Routine 3A. One never asks for the Modifer when doing step.
OPPOSITION TERMINAL-The person, group or object that has consistently
opposed pc's goal, making it a terminal counter-terminal situation of long
duration.
OPPOSITION GOAL-The idea that is interlocked against the pc's goal, making
it a postulate counter-postulate situation of long duration. It is not
actually the goal of the Opposition Terminal as the Opposition Terminal
would see it, but only what the pc believes it was as it affects him.
GOAL PLUS MODIFIER-The visible goal is added to the heretofore invisible
modifier. This is the G + M, being the true whole track desire of the pc
plus the threat to self or others if that desire is not accomplished.
GOALS TERMINAL-That valence into which pc has interiorized and which
carries the goal, modifier and aberration which the pc attributes to self.
This is the most
important single item and is the "pc's terminal". It is this for which we
are searching and which was the whole target of Routine 3 and which is the
primary target of Routine 3D. This "is" the pc as he exists at the moment
of the start of processing.
PRE-HAV LEVEL-That dominant doingness or thinkingness at the moment of the
goals terminal, as taken from the Primary Pre-Hav Scale.
CAUTIONS
No part given above is valid if it has been forced off on the pc by
suggestions by the auditor. One never suggests any goal, terminal,
opposition goal, opposition terminal, modifier or Pre-Hav level to the pc.
To do so is to prevent the pc going clear. Helpfulness stems from doing
excellent TRs, Model Session and Meter Handling. In Sec Checking one
suggests. In assessing one never suggests. Many case failures can be traced
to the auditor "knowing" better than the pc or the meter on these matters.
An auditor can suppose all he pleases so long as he doesn't suggest it to
the pc. It would be kinder to shoot the pc than to disobey this rule.
------------------
The pc's goal must be the pc's goal, see above definition. It must not
be a difficulty. To invalidate something the pc has given you as a goal (or
other part) is to break down the whole activity of 3D. Out Rudiments alone
make pc's goal, etc, hard to find. The fastest way to drive them out is by
invalidation or non-acceptance. A pc will accept the result of an
assessment if correct. The pc will not accept, though appear to accept, the
auditor's suggestion or even suggestion for assessment.
If the pc gives a difficulty (as different than a goal, a difficulty
being a get-rid-of desire, a goal being an actual desire) the auditor may
not reject it as a "goal" but, putting it down as a "processing goal" (not
to be assessed), the auditor can make up a get-rid-of list as a Processing
Goals List and write all get-rid-of goals on it as Goals which will be
reached in processing. He can even explain this to pc. He then appears to
accept this goal, writes it down on something, acknowledges it and goes on.
But the auditor can explain that he is listing for assessment "things to be
attained in life and livingness". This keeps the pc from feeling
invalidated.
Beware of get-rid-of type goals (get rid of my fear of height) because
they will assess out, being a whole problem-pc vs height, pc vs bank. But
the goal could be missed. So use "Processing Goal" for "Get-rid-ofs", and
"Life and Livingness Goals" for what you will assess and in the body of
which list the pc's goal is going to be found.
------------------
Modifiers are sometimes given as goals. This only happens with an
incomplete goals list. Of course, the Modifier will assess out. Usually
this happens when the goal is discreditable. When this happens the auditor
flubbed in getting all the meter needle actions off the questions about
secret, withheld or discreditable goals. Example: "Goal" assessed was "not
to be found out". This is, of course, a Modifier just by inspection. When
an effort was made to find "the thing that would Modify that goal", the
actual goal came up which was "To tell lies". The G + M was "To tell lies
and not to be found out". The goal, being discreditable in the pc's eyes
(even though every pro playwright would have it), was missed by an inexpert
auditor when the secret-withheld goals were being asked for. Surely it
showed on the meter during the goals listing but was missed.
Modifiers threaten, give consequences, modify. They are not something
the pc ever wanted to be, to do or to have.
Do R 3D by definition and accuracy and you'll obtain accurate results.
------------------
When a pc gets the idea he or she can "beat the meter" all listing and
assessing can go to pieces. Rudiments are hard to keep in, ARC breaks are
frequent.
The primary sources of ARC breaks are, of course, all under the heading
of "no auditing". Auditing is considered scarce and valuable by the pc-
valuable to the point of not being able to have it at all. Bad auditing,
slipshod auditing and even no auditing at all, come under this heading.
When the meter is seen to apparently flub, always by reason of poor
auditing, the pc sees (down deep where he lives as a thetan) a betrayal of
himself and a win for his valence. The pc hates this.
Just miss a withhold and see the eventual fireworks.
The pc who feels guilty will try to beat the meter. If he or she does,
then it's an invalidation of auditing and disappointment causes chop and
upset. The pc then proceeds to express the ARC break in invalidation of the
auditor and, sometimes, the meter.
If a pc can force off a goal or the rest on the auditor by twitching a
finger on the cans or convulsing each time a goal or whatever is mentioned
and the auditor then "buys" it in assessment, the whole case runs
thereafter like a 1918 tank. It doesn't.
It's a sloppy auditor who gets into this trouble but, such are the
powers of persuasion of a valence, even a good auditor sometimes "buys" a
goal, terminal, etc, the pc "sells" him or her by a convulsion every time
or a shift of a finger. Study body reaction patterns as per E-Meter
Essentials until they can be detected and make a convulsing pc sit ramrod
still when being checked out. About 5% of all pcs seem to try to "sell"
with body convulsion. It's uniformly dangerous to "buy" a result
accompanied by a convulsion. Even if it's right, the pc can still be made
to sit still, you know. "It makes me double over" may be true, "It makes my
hand twitch" may be a fact, but don't buy it until it's assessed and
checked without the convulsion.
It's good practice to find out periodically on a pc if any withholds
have been missed. And it's good practice to do the lot of rudiments and
assessment at highest sensitivity if you can. If not, do it at least at a
dial drop.
And when the pc ARC breaks a lot or seeks to invalidate the auditor,
clear up two definite points:
1. Does the pc think auditing will happen? Not if auditing works,
but just if the pc can believe that the auditor will work his very
hardest at it.
2. Has anything invalidated metering to the pc?
------------------
You want only Instant Reads that occur right after you finish question.
You do not want latent reads that occur 1/2 to one second after you end.
You want the instant read on what you're looking for, not the natural read
on the goal or already known item or items. Don't sit staring at a meter
waiting for it to finally read. Get on with the job.
------------------
When you obtain an item, a secondary method of checking before getting
it checked out, is to find if the item drops the same as the other items
already found. If a goal rock slams, then finally, all other items in turn
will rock slam. If a goal theta bops, then all other items of 3D will theta
bop.
This is not used in selecting items. It is used to double check after
they're found. If one is of a different needle reaction than the rest, it
is probably wrong.
PROCEDURE OF ASSESSMENT
In assessing:
Get Rudiments in at highest sensitivity.
With sensitivity at 16, complete list by making sure that pc is nul on
your asking for more terminals or items. Say "Who or what would_____" and
get items until needle is nul.
Get Rudiments in at highest sensitivity.
Assess list by elimination with meter set for a 1 dial drop, on can
squeeze. Read an item only 3 times.
Acknowledge pc as though pc spoke, which pc didn't. (Pcs are silent
during assessment unless they have cognitions or wish to add to list.)
Cover list often. Be rapid, accurate, sure. Tell pc if item is still in or
is out. Go on to next. Read it three times. If it's still reacting on
needle, leave it in by putting 1/2 of a cross beside it. If it didn't
react, complete the X. Always acknowledge. Always tell pc if item was in or
out. Barrel right along. The more chat, the more chance of out Rudiments.
Get Rudiments in any time it looks like they're out.
If whole list nuls, add new ones to it by meter. Get Rudiments in.
Check whole list again even the "out" ones.
When adding to list use secret, discreditable, unworthy in questions
about new items as well as just asking for them.
If a list is still nul and even though all Rudiments are in and you are
very sure they are and there are no more items by meter, go back to the
beginning of the 3D form and check it out. The whole thing may have blown.
Start again at any point where you get a consecutive read and do it all
again. Example: Goal still in. Opp Term still in. OK, do an Opposition Goal
list again. Anytime the goal is gone, get Rudiments in, check goal out. If
it's still gone do a new goals assessment and continue.
Toward the end of clearing, this happens frequently that subsequent
lists blow the goal and all. Eventually, not even a goal will stay in.
When looking for new goals always use the original list all over again
and as added to from time to time. Always nul meter at sensitivity 16 on
question asking for new goals.
------------------
SECURITY CHECKS
A pc should be security checked throughout being run on Routine 3D, by
another auditor or frequently a session on a Security Check form only. Use
standard forms.
Also do a Dynamic Assessment on pc and dream up a Security Check for
that dynamic found or use eventual Dynamic Sec Check forms 11 to 18
inclusive when they have been created and issued.
Sec Checks should be given more time earlier on case than later. Whole
track type checking will eventually become necessary.
COMMANDS
Command patterns for R 3D have not been completely worked out in
formula at this writing.
RUDIMENTS
Slow or unsuccessful assessments occur because of:
1. Unskilled auditing.
2. Out Rudiments.
Before we learned it was Out Rudiments that hid goals and terminals, it
was taking 3 months to find a goal! As it usually took me an hour or two,
this long time for assessment exceeded my reality. I eventually pinned it
down. It was Out Rudiments. As soon as I found that, I had auditors
locating goals within 2 weeks of 2 1/2 hour per day sessions and sometimes
both goal and terminal in that time.
R 3D is easier to do as it removes invalidation to a large extent even
while assessing. But Rules 1 and 2 above are extremely important.
First in assessment is Accuracy.
Second in assessment is Speed.
Don't waste time in assessing but take all you need in getting
Rudiments in and Sec Checking. That's saved time.
------------------
SUMMARY
Here is Routine 3D.
It takes a skilled auditor to use it. Be one. And make Clears!
------------------
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:esc.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14-16 November 1961
** 6111C14 SHSBC-79 Routine 3D
** 6111C15 SHSBC-80 Routine 3D Continued
** 6 111C16 SHSBC-81 Points in Assessing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 NOVEMBER 1961
Franchise
SEC CHECKING
Generalities Won't Do
The most efficient way to upset a pc is to leave a Sec Check question
unflat. This is remedied by occasionally asking, "Has any Sec Check
question been missed on you?" and getting what was missed flattened.
The best way to "miss" a Sec Check question is to let the pc indulge in
generalities or "I thought . . . ."
A Sec Check question should be nulled at Sensitivity 16 as a final
check.
A withhold given as "Oh, I got mad at them lots of times" should be
pulled down to when and where and the first time "you got mad" and finally,
"What did you do to them just before that?" Then you'll really get a nul.
The pc who withholds somebody else's withholds and gives them as
answers is a card. But he isn't helped when the auditor lets him do it.
Situation: You ask the pc for a withhold about Joe. The pc who says, "I
heard that Joe. . ." should be asked right there, "What have you done to
Joe? You. Just you." And it turns out he stole Joe's last blonde. But if
the auditor had let this pc go on and on about how the pc had heard how Joe
was this or that, the session would have gone on and on and the Tone Arm up
and up,
We have pcs who use "withholds" to spread all manner of lies. We ask
this pc, "Have you ever done anything to the Org?" The pc says, "Well, I'm
withholding that I heard . . ." or the pc says, "Well, I thought some
bitter thoughts about the Org." Or the pc says, "I was critical of the Org
when . . ." and we don't sail in and get WHAT THE PC DID, we can
comfortably stretch a 5 minute item to a session or two.
If the pc "heard" and the pc "thought" and the pc "said" in answer to a
Sec Check question, the pc's reactive bank is really saying, "I've got a
crashing big withhold and if I can keep on fooling around by giving
critical thoughts, rumours, and what others did, you'll never get it." And
if he gets away with it, the auditor has missed a withhold question.
We only want to know what the pc did, when he did it, what was the
first time he did it and what he did just before that, and we'll nail it
every time.
------------------
The Irresponsible PC
If you want to get withholds off an "irresponsible pc" you sometimes
can't ask what the pc did or withheld and get a meter reaction.
This problem has bugged us for some time. I finally got very bright and
realized that no matter whether the pc thought it was a crime or not, he or
she will answer up on "don't know" versions as follows:
Situation: "What have you done to your husband?" Pc's answer, "Nothing
bad." E-Meter reaction, nul. Now we know this pc, through our noticing she
is critical of her husband, has overts on him. But she can take no
responsibility for her own acts.
But she can take responsibility for his not knowing. She is making certain
of that.
So we ask, "What have you done that your husband doesn't know about?"
And it takes an hour for her to spill it all, the quantity is so great.
For the question releases the floodgates. The Meter bangs around.
And with these withholds off, her responsibility comes up and she can
take responsibility on the items.
This applies to any zone or area or terminal of Sec Checking.
Situation: We are getting a lot of "I thought", "I heard", "They said",
"They did" in answer to a question. We take the terminal or terminals
involved and put them in this blank.
"What have you done that ----------- (doesn't) (don't) know about?"
And we can get the major overts that lay under the blanket of "How bad
everyone is but me".
------------------
This prevents you missing a Sec Check question. It's a bad crime to do
so. This will shorten the labour involved in getting every question flat.
Every session of Sec Checking you should ask the pc in the end
rudiments, "Have I missed a Sec Check question on you?" In addition to "Are
you withholding anything" and "half truths etc".
And if your pc is very withholdy you can insert this "Have I missed a
Sec Check question on you?" every few questions while doing a Sec Check.
Always clear up what was missed.
A pc can be very upset by reason of a missed Sec Check question. Keep
them going up, not down.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :esc.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Students
20 November 1961
ROUTINE 3D COMMANDS
I hasten to give you advanced information on Routine 3D Commands and
use.
Do not be discouraged on 3D. The routine behaves in a most
disconcerting way after Steps 1 to 5 are completed.
The preclear should experience an enormous case gain just by reason of
assessment. However, the Tone Arm may, by assessment end, be reading higher
than usual or the needle stickier than usual. Don't let this worry you as
long as you're sure Ruds are in. You have, by assessment, brought into view
the Goal Problem Mass.
If the pc has never had any mental masses before, he will have them
now.
THE GOAL PROBLEM MASS
The goal has been baulked for eons by opposing forces. The goal pointed
one way, the opposing forces point exactly opposite and against it.
If you took two fire hoses and pointed them at each other, their
streams would not reach each other's nozzles, but would splatter against
one another in mid air. If this splatter were to hang there, it would be a
ball of messed up water.
Call Hose A the force the pc has used to execute his goal. Call Hose B
the force other dynamics have used to oppose that goal. Where these two
forces have perpetually met, a mental mass is created.
This is the picture of any problem-force opposing force with resultant
mass.
Where the pc's goal meets constant opposition, you have in the reactive
mind, the resultant mass caused by the two forces-goal=force of getting it
done, opposition= force opposing it getting done.
This is the Goal Problem Mass. When contacted it raises the Tone Arm
and sticks the needle.
In Routine 3 you did not run head on into this mass. You pushed around,
more or less hit or miss, and may have keyed it out (on which you would
have made a first dynamic clear) or you may have run into it and not keyed
it out or erased it (at which time the case would have bungled along until
it did key out).
In Routine 3D, the Goal Problem Mass is thrown into view in the
assessment itself.
The running of the case keeps banging away at the Goal Problem Mass.
In Routine 3D, the Goal Problem Mass is erased, not keyed out.
METER BEHAVIOUR ON COMMANDS
In assessment, the relief afforded the case by discovery of the items
of the Goal Problem Mass tends to keep the Tone Arm more or less down most
of the time, even though assessment heads the pc more and more at the mass.
You may not be aware of this until you start to run your first Pre-Hav
level. And then you may not get more than two or three commands in before
the Tone Arm rises and sticks.
In any event, finish the bracket. By that time you will be sure the arm is
stuck. The needle may still twitch in the pattern of the 3D Items. Ignore
it. Except for that the needle too will look stuck.
Reassess the G + M terminal on the Pre-Hav Scale (never assess an
opposition terminal) and form another bracket.
Once more stick the arm. It may go more or less commands than the
earlier level. In any event the arm will shortly stick, the needle freeze
and only the twitch characteristic of the level or the goal will be seen.
Reassess the G + M terminal on the Pre-Hav Scale. Once more form a
bracket. Once more run it. And once more stick the Tone Arm and needle as
above.
Continue to do this level by level. You will find pc's Tone Arm goes
high and sticks. This is the Goals Problem Mass doing this. It is one of
the bogs of the reactive bank. However, on subsequent runs you will notice
that the pc's needle loosens faster after a level is finished and that the
TA comes down quicker and lower after the level is flattened (even though
the level appeared to stick it very hard indeed).
Eventually the G + M terminal is flat and levels if found produce
neither a TA stick nor Tone Arm action.
Using the goal again, assess for a new 2, 3, 4 and 5 for that goal and
try to run the result on the Pre-Hav Scale.
It is important to complete any 3D assessment started.
Get all 3D items. If you can find opposition terminals that react, you
can find all subsequent items even if they are reacting minutely, for a
Goals Problem Mass exists.
Assess on the Pre-Hav and run any item found just as above, no matter
how minute the reactions are, level by level.
When you can no longer find even minutely active opposition terminals
for the goal, with meter sensitivity at 16, assess for a new goal and
repeat the whole procedure as above.
Do not be fooled into thinking that as there is a tiny reaction on a
goal it can be left. Any reaction left must be run into a complete 3D, all
steps.
The by-word in 3D is once started, complete it all on all items.
Also, there is no other process known that runs on the Auxiliary Pre-
Have 3D Scale (HCO Bulletin of 23 Nov '61 or as amended) that will free a
Goals Problem Mass.
TIPS ON ASSESSMENT
The task of assessment is to get the rudiments in, keep them in and
make sure the pc is in session before assessing anything (or later, running
anything).
Out rudiments stem from:
1. Withholds.
2. Present Time Problems.
3. Invalidation of Items.
4. Slow Assessment.
5. Distrust of Auditor.
All in that order of importance.
An ARC breaky pc is best handled by flattening Routine 1A (or as
amended) complete with Sec Checks, before a 3D is attempted. This handles
(I) Withholds and (2) Present Time Problems. It also handles to some extent
(5) Distrust of Auditor.
In actuality the items, 3, 4 & 5 are dependent upon the auditor doing a
fast, expert job of listing and assessing by elimination.
--------------
In assessing, the less chat with the pc the better. You want the lists.
In goals and other items you want the discreditable ones by meter. In goals
listing you want the withheld, anti-social, secret goals by meter. In
others you want the "unseemly" or "discreditable" items by meter.
Once you've got a complete list by meter, that's the list. You don't
add to it every time you cover it. You add, of course, things the pc asks
you to add when he asks you, but always at the bottom of the list.
You always add to lists, using the oldest known list. You don't make
brand-new lists, discarding the old.
If rudiments out have killed all reads (the whole list nuls) you cover
the whole list again, every item, when you've got the rudiments in again.
Because a list nuls does not mean the wanted item isn't on it. It means the
rudiments were out. Get them in by Sec Checks and various means and do all
items on the list newly as though never before nulled.
You can copy lists. You never discard them.
--------------
Keep present time or present life names off opposition terminals lists.
They foul up the reading.
--------------
When you assess, do so briskly, saying the item three times,
acknowledging the pc, saying if it's in or out, marking it and going on to
the next. You should be able to do 400 items per hour, new or old. It takes
about 8 seconds to cover an item.
--------------
During nulling a pc should be made to sit back, relax and be silent. He
can originate new additions. If he does, add them to list end, ack and go
rapidly on. Don't ask pc what he's thinking about or looking at during
assessment. An attitude of relaxed irresponsibility should be cultivated in
the pc during nulling.
--------------
The target of the auditor is the pc's Reactive Mind.
Once a list is made and complete by Meter, the auditor has the meter,
himself and the reactive bank of the pc. That's all he or she works with.
Don't ask any help from the pc. Never ask him for the answer. That makes
him "help" and wrecks the nulling. The pc who has been brought by
inexpertness to "help" is put on a self-audit of anxiety and the whole
operation goes to pieces.
--------------
In "bleeding the meter" for more items on a list, beware of mistaking a
reaction denoting ARC Break for more items present. Check by eliminating
out all ARC Breaks.
Remember that when a pc has an ARC Break he is out of auditor control and
an ARC Break question does not always react because the "rudiments are
out". To be sure you have to vary the ARC Break question. To be very sure,
run a few ARC Break process commands varied to "Have you been unable to
tell me something" and see if these react on the meter.
When a heavy ARC Break is present, the meter can remain inactive until
the ARC Break is out. An ARC Break is the only rudiment that can be
undetectable on the meter, as then the pc is totally undetectable to the
auditor who is auditing him or her. Hence, nul rudiments, nul lists.
Best detection method for an ARC Break is to talk with the pc in a
friendly way for a moment. Friendliness is greeted by friendliness, easy
and unfeigned = no ARC Break. Friendliness greeted by no answer = ARC
Break.
Pc not setting goals for session denotes heavy ARC Break. It will be
heavy enough to nul the whole meter.
This is the only real frailty of an E-Meter. But it's humanly
detectable. Other 3D items are not humanly or spiritually detectable by any
means other than a good meter. Telepathy and intuition used to locate 3D
items are disastrous! Use the meter!
--------------
In end rudiments, for all sessions of assessment, or that had any
session or level to be found, always add "Have you done anything to
influence the E-Meter?" And clean it. Pcs, even Scientologists, try to
throw assessments and sell items.
If you buy what the pc thinks it is, you're sunk. So's the pc. If you
purchase sells done by finger flicks, etc, the pc is sunk indeed. 100 hours
of wasted auditing has been traced to this on one pc.
25% of pcs will do "selling" by efforts to influence the meter, and
wreck a 3D assessment in an effort to "help".
--------------
Short session restive pcs. 2 sessions in 2 hours gives you 4 cracks at
rudiments!
--------------
If you're going to run 1A or Sec Checks or Problems Intensives on a pc, do
it before you start Routine 3D. Only Sec Check when a 3D is in progress and
before you start running levels.
A Sec Check question that always works when ordinary questions fail is
"What have you done that______doesn't know about?" And use various known
proper names involved with the pc. This runs on any pc. Don't abuse it.
It's the last shot in the locker.
--------------
TIPS ON RUNNING LEVELS
The Auxiliary Pre-Have Scale (HCO Bulletin 23 Nov '61 or as amended) is
the correct 3D list of levels.
This is assessed by reading each item only once to the pc and reversing
flows, terminal to pc, pc to terminal. Several levels can be called off on
one flow without mentioning the terminal except on the first level of that
flow.
Cover the whole list, one read each level. Use a symbol on each level
that reacted. Go back up the list on only those levels that did react,
reading levels only once each
time. Come back down, reading only those that reacted the second read, etc,
until only one level is left.
Let the pc have his own Aux Scale in his folder. Note the level symbols
and date on it each time it's used. Use different symbols each time you use
it.
The Model Command (and the only one used for 3D) is:
WHAT HOW WHY (whichever makes the most sense for the level)
YOU---------------------> LEVEL---------------> TERMINAL
TERMINAL------------> LEVEL---------------> YOU
TERMINAL------------> LEVEL---------------> OPPOSITION TERMINAL
OPPOSITION TERMINAL-----> LEVEL---------------> TERMINAL
TERMINAL------------> LEVEL---------------> SELF
Always use MIGHT in Commands.
Example: Pc's Terminal-Waterbuck.
Opposition Terminal-Tiger.
Level-Interest.
Commands:
How might you interest a Waterbuck?
How might a Waterbuck interest you?
How might a Waterbuck interest a Tiger?
How might a Tiger interest a Waterbuck?
How might a Waterbuck interest self?
In running 3D commands be as careful to get your rudiments in as if you
were assessing.
RULES OF USING THE PROCESS
1. If an auditor can't assess accurately and quickly the obvious
auditing error is that he or she can't read an E-Meter fully. Bad or
slow assessments are best countered by (a) Getting the auditor the know-
how to read a Meter and stop covering up his or her ignorance and (b)
Getting the auditor through 3D on his or her own case.
2. The pc's goal and the opposition goal, taken together, look like a
problem to anybody. The pc's terminal and the opposition terminal taken
together look like a conflict.
3. Never suggest a 3D item to a pc or lead him by suggestion into one.
Let the meter, listing and assessment find it. An auditor who suggests
is covering up an inability to read a meter with confidence or is
dramatizing.
4. Always complete a full 3D on anything you start, even when the needle
is floating too free to be read. This applies to clears, half clears,
new people, late in clearing and always. Complete a 3D in all sections.
Always complete all 3D actions on any item that has been started on 3D,
particularly past goals from Routine 3.
5. Don't take clearing for granted. Only when you, the auditor, have
assessed and run out everything you can think of and have been unable
to find any further way to halt a floating needle, should you state
you've cleared someone and only then when you have watched the Life and
Livingness activity of the case for three months after the end of
auditing.
6. Until an auditor can do a perfect Class II auditing job, he or
she should not attempt a 3D. All the skills needed in 3D are to be
found in Class II activities-Sec Checking, rudiments, a Problems
Intensive. When an auditor can do these flawlessly, it's time to permit
him or her to run 3D. Yank a certificate if you find an unqualified
auditor using Routine 3D. He'll kill somebody.
7. Always get a 3D item (sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (except Pre-Hav levels)
checked by another skilled auditor.
8. The moment you find the Pre-Hav Scale getting more items alive on any
one assessment than it did on the previous assessment, scrap the run.
Go back and complete everything from section 1 forward. There's an
error of magnitude. Example: In assessing Interest, 10 other levels
were alive. Next assessment, Withdraw, finds 38 levels alive. Wrong 3D
Assessment or pc self-auditing on other terminals at home. If not
latter, scrap the run.
ADMINISTRATION AND RECORDS
In doing 3D keep a pc's papers all in one folder. Don't be sloppy about
it.
Keep the goals lists, Sec Checks, all 3D lists, a 3D form for the pc
(filled in) and a Pre-Hav Scale for this pc only and auditor's reports and
check sheets all together.
To lose a pc's records, not to make a proper clean copy of the goals
list all in the pc's own words, to fail to keep the pc's 3D form or forms
filled in to date, failure to keep all added assessment sheets, can result
in a case ball-up of magnitude. You need these things.
The pc's own Pre-Hav and Have Scales must be marked in so anyone can
tell if more levels came alive on subsequent runs.
One can't straighten out a pc's 3D run case without records. We have to
do it on elsewhere assessed pcs all the time. (We have yet to find a
correct assessment on Routine 3 here at Sthil where the pc was assessed
elsewhere.)
Further, in filling out auditor's reports, use correct terminology.
Don't call the Opposition Goal "The goal" or the Opposition Terminal "The
terminal". Shorthand it if you wish, but so it can be understood. Opp goal,
Opp term, Pc's Goal, Mod, G + M, are all valid symbols. Call an Opp goal a
"goal" and a case reviewer can't figure out what you were doing.
Keep good records. It will save the cases of a lot of pcs even if
they're mis-run. And you yourself will need them to run 3D.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:esc.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
21-22 November 1961
** 6111C21 SHSBC-82 Running 3D
** 6111C22 SHSBC-83 Reading the E-Meter
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1961
Franchise
METER READING
A survey of auditing has brought up the datum that the gross auditing
error in failure to obtain results from Security Checking and Problems
Intensives lies wholly in the inability to read an E-Meter.
You may some day get a huge reality on the fact that, in supervising
auditing, all failures are gross auditing errors, not flukey case
differences.
Auditors one is supervising often demand "an extraordinary solution"
because such and such a case isn't moving. The unwise supervisor will
actually furnish "extraordinary solution" after "extraordinary solution"
"to handle this different case". It may be John Jones who "cannot think of
any changes in his life" or it may be Mary Smith who "just doesn't respond
to Security Checking". And the supervisor burns the midnight oil and gives
the auditor some new involved solution. Then as often as not, the auditor
comes back the day after and says, "That didn't work either." And the
supervisor goes a quarter around the bend and again burns the midnight oil
.... If this seems familiar to you as a supervisor, know you should have
asked, "What didn't work?" Usually the auditor can't even recall the
solution-it was never used. Or it was applied in some strange fashion.
For today, the reasons for failure all lie under the heading "Gross
Auditing Error".
Such an error would be, the auditor never arrived for the session, the
E-Meter was broken throughout, the pc hadn't eaten or slept for three days,
the din from construction next door made it impossible to give commands or
hear answers. The auditor didn't run any known process. That is the order
of magnitude of a "GROSS AUDITING ERROR". It is never, the pc was unhappy,
the pc has difficulty remembering, etc. In supervising auditing, always
look for the gross auditing error and never give out with an extra-ordinary
solution.
Well, taking my own advice, when I saw some tricky elements in new
clearing processes taking far too much time, I didn't look for "different"
pcs, I looked for the gross auditing error. And found it.
The auditors who were having trouble couldn't read an E-Meter.
Impossible as that may seem, it proved to be true. I put Mary Sue on
this at once and Herbie Parkhouse carried through. The errors found in E-
Meter reading where there had been trouble, were so huge as to have been
missed on any casual inspection.
The errors went like this:
1. The auditor believed the E-Meter could not be read while the
needle was swinging around. The auditor was waiting until it
stopped every time before asking a question.
2. The auditor believed the needle had to be exactly at "set" on
the dial before it could be read.
3. The auditor did not know a rising needle could be read by
stopping the rise with a question or making the needle twitch.
4. The auditor had not done the body reaction drills in E-
Meter Essentials and was reading only body reactions and ignoring
all others.
5. The auditor thought an E-Meter could not be read if it showed
breathing or heart beat.
6. The auditor always looked at the pc for a few seconds after
asking the question, then looked at the meter, and so missed all
but latent (non-significant) reads.
7. The auditor sat staring at the meter for twenty seconds after
the reading had registered.
8. The auditor thought E-Meters could be fooled so easily, it was
more reliable to make up his own mind about what the pc's item or
guilt was.
9. An auditor thought that if the needle rose on a rudiment
question, the rudiment was out.
These and many, many more panned out to be:
IF A SECURITY CHECK OR PROBLEMS INTENSIVE WAS PRODUCING NO RESULTS, IT
WAS BECAUSE THE AUDITOR COULD NOT READ AN E-METER.
That's the gross auditing error.
In this bulletin, I am not trying to give you any methods to remedy
this. I am just calling it widely to everyone's attention.
The fact is big enough to merit study by itself.
And to get cases started by no other mechanism than learning to really
read an E-Meter or by teaching people to read it.
This one point remedied could change the entire future of Scientology,
an organization or an auditor.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: esc.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
23 November 1961
** 6111C23 SHSBC-84 Auxiliary Pre-Have: 3D Scale
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1961
R 3D list
sthil Students
AUXILIARY PRE-HAVE 3D SCALE
For immediate assessment use on running 3D terminals. Do NOT use early
scales
for 3D assessment.
If you run out of levels, use secondary scales or Hartrampff's
Vocabularies.
Do not abandon search for a level if the TA is high.
Always run a level to a stuck TA and needle. Never overrun a stuck TA
by more
than 20 minutes.
Do not leave a level that still shows TA action and needle movement. Do
not
consider the twitching of the otherwise motionless needle, when 3D
items or the level
is mentioned, a still moving needle.
Later in runs after many levels flat, when TA will no longer stick (or
move) on
levels, still look for a new level that will produce TA motion.
--------------
65. FAITH IN
64. CAUSE 30. SURVIVE
63a. PREVENT KNOWING 27. FAILED IN IMPORTANCE TO
63. NO EFFECT ON 26. IMPORTANT TO
62. EFFECT 25. PROPITIATE
61. OBSESSIVELY CAN'T HAVE 24. ATTENTION FOR
60a. MAKE SOMETHING OF 23. SEPARATE FROM
60. CREATE 22. FAILED TO WITHHOLD FROM
59. THINK ABOUT 21. WITHHOLD FROM
58. PECULIAR INTEREST IN 19. DESTROY
57. DISPERSE 18. MOTION OF
56. INTEND TO NOT COMMUNICATE 17. FAILED TO ATTACK
55. BADLY CONTROL 16. ATTACK
54. BETRAY 15. DISLIKE
53. COLLECT FOR 14. LIKE
52. SUBSTITUTE FOR 13. COMPETE WITH
51. WITHDRAW FROM 12. FAILED TO HELP
50. DUPLICATE 11. HELP
49. ENTER 10. FAILED TO CONTROL
48. INHIBIT 9. CONTROL
47. DISAGREE WITH 7. FAILED TO COMMUNICATE
46. ENFORCE UPON 6. COMMUNICATE
45. AGREE WITH 5. FAILED TO INTEREST
44. DESIRE 4. INTEREST
43. KNOW 3. CONNECT WITH
42. FAILED TO ENDURE 1. HAVE
41. ENDURE FAIL
38. ABANDON REASON WITH
36. WASTE CHALLENGE
35. FAILED TO PROTECT POSTULATE
34. PROTECT MAKE BEAUTIFUL
33a. MAKE NOTHING OF TORTURE
MAKE UGLY IDOLIZE
PANIC LIFT
TERRORIZE DROP
HORRIFY PUSH
MAKE SUCCUMB PULL
FEEL AFFINITY FOR RAISE
NO AFFINITY FOR LOWER
START CLOSE WITH
TRY TO STOP EXPOSE
CHANGE SCORN
TRY NOT TO CHANGE PUNISH
CALM CRUSH
WIN MAKE EAGER
UNDERMINE MAKE RESPONSIVE
LOSE MAKE CONTENT
CIVILIZE SCANDALIZE
DISTRUST BE INDIFFERENT
IMAGINE LOVE
SHOW CONTEMPT FOR SPURN
MAKE TRUE NEGLECT
BELIEVE SUPPLICATE
NOT BELIEVE EVADE
OWN ALL IDENTIFY
DENY ASSOCIATE WITH
OWN NOTHING IMPRESS
MAKE RESPONSIBLE GET NO RESPONSE FROM
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR KILL
MAKE RIGHT REVIVE
MAKE WRONG RESIST
TRY TO STAY WITH CONTRIBUTE TO
ESCAPE FROM CONTACT
THROW OUT OF CONTROL DEPRIVE
ACCEPT MOVE
REJECT HUMBLE
DRIVE CRAZY RUIN
UNBALANCE ENNOBLE
DEGRADE CONFUSE
TRY TO MAKE GUILTY DISABLE
BRUTALIZE EDUCATE
EXHIBIT SICKEN
BURY SHUN
PAIN SLANDER
WOUND INJURE
MAKE APATHETIC BE WITH
MOURN FOR TAKE AWAY FROM
PLEAD WITH PART FROM
CONTINUE ENTRANCE
CRITICIZE FEEL
PITY TOUCH
AVOID SMELL
PRESERVE PERCEIVE
LOSE HEAR
FIND SPEAK TO
USE ENJOY
DEFY HOLD OFF
ADJUST ATTRACT
THREATEN DEFEND
MAKE SERIOUS HARASS
HURT NAG
MAKE IRRESOLUTE HEAL
DOUBT DISTRUST
CONSIDER DESPISE
REMEMBER PROBLEM ABOUT
OCCLUDE DISLOCATE
RECEIVE DENY
MAKE UNCONSCIOUS UNKNOWN
DIFFERENTIATE FORGET
IDENTIFY NOT KNOW
DISASSOCIATE FROM HIDE
EAT NEED
SEXUALLY SATISFY APPROVE
SEXUALLY AROUSE OWN
SEXUALLY REPRESS SHAME
CREATE A MYSTERY FOR BLAME
TROUBLE REGRET
WORRY FAIL
FOOL MAKE AMENDS
GET INTO GRIEVE
GET OUT OF SYMPATHIZE WITH
APPROACH FEAR
FORCE RESENT
ENERGIZE FEEL NO SYMPATHY FOR
FREE ANGER
DREAM ABOUT ANTAGONIZE
ASSOCIATE WITH BORE
SATIATE (SATISFY) CONSERVE
LOOK AT ENTHUSE
CONVINCE EXHILARATE
LIE TO TRUST
FIXATE MAKE SERENE
ENTHRALL
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:esc.bh
Copyright Q 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Special Briefing Course 27 November
1961
ROUTINE 3D COMMAND SHEET
(Use No Other Commands for Routine 3D)
Preclear___________________________________ Date_______________________
Auditor___________________________________
LEVEL________________ TERMINAL____________ OPP TERM___________
1. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN (term)__________.
2. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
3. TELL ME A PROBLEM (term)________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
4. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
5. TELL ME A PROBLEM AN (term)_______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN (opp
term)_______.
6. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
7. TELL ME A PROBLEM AN (opp term)______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN
(term)_______.
8. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
9. TELL ME A PROBLEM AN (opp term)_______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
10. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
11. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN (opp term)______.
12. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
RUN LIBERAL QUANTITIES OF PC'S HAVINGNESS PROCESS
WHENEVER THIS PROCESS OR SESSION IS ENDED.
Run to a stuck Tone Arm and test for 15 minutes. Or run all motion out of
the TA. Use a new sheet for every pre-hav level.
Mark all pre-hav levels found into the pc's 3D form.
Get rudiments in before every session. It is as important to get rudiments
in and keep them in for a 3D run as it is for 3D assessment.
Note: This process can be overrun for an hour without damage to the pc. It
cannot be overrun by a session or two and still have the needle loose for
assessment. TA motion may be slow and sluggish long before process is flat.
Note: So far on all tests I have made this is the only process that will
bring the Tone Arm down in anything like a reasonable time. IF OTHER LEVELS
HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY RUN ON OTHER PROCESSES, RUN THEM CONSECUTIVELY IN THE
ORIGINAL ORDER AGAIN, USING THIS PROCESS. The first run on another process
did no damage to the pc but will help this one flatten faster.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:lrh.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [To be deleted per Routine 3D Improved Commands of 28
Nov 61.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Special Briefing Course
Preclear________________ Date_____________
LEVEL_____________________
Auditor ________________ TERMINAL_________________
OPP TERMINAL ____________
ROUTINE 3D IMPROVED COMMANDS OF 28 NOV 61
(Discard or delete all earlier command data)
Note: RUN ONLY AFTER ARC PROCESS IS FLAT TO A STILL ARM, NEEDLE AT SET, 20
MINUTES TEST. RUN THESE COMMANDS TO A STILL ARM, NEEDLE AT SET, 20
MINUTES TEST. GET RUDIMENTS IN THOROUGHLY BEFORE RUNNING, EVEN BETTER
THAN IN ASSESSMENT. RUN PC'S HAVINGNESS COMMAND LIBERALLY DURING
PROCESS, AFTER PROCESS, AFTER END RUDS.
Info: 3D LEVELS CAN BE RUN CONSECUTIVELY OVER AND OVER ON DIFFERENT
PROCESSES.
1. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN (term)__________.
2. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
3. TELL ME A PROBLEM (term)________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
4. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
5. TELL ME A PROBLEM AN (term)_______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN (opp
term)_______.
6. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
7. TELL ME A PROBLEM AN (opp term)______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN
(term)_______.
8. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
9. TELL ME A PROBLEM AN (opp term)_______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
10. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
11. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN (opp term)______.
12. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
13. TELL ME A PROBLEM OTHERS MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A (term)________.
14. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
15. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (term)________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS.
16. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
AFTER ASSESSING CLEAR THE LEVEL WITH THE PC FOR USE IN THE COMMANDS AND
MAKE SURE THE VERSION OF THE LEVEL THAT YOU USE ALSO REACTS ON THE METER
LIKE THE ASSESSED LEVEL DID.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:lrh.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard [To be deleted per Routine 3D Improved
Commands of
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED November 30, 1961, page 441.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 NOVEMBER 1961
Sthil
Franchise
CenOCon
BPI
CLASS OF AUDITORS
(Adds to HCO Pol Ltr of Sept 29,1961-"HGC Allowed Processes")
All auditors shall be considered Class I until validated Class II by a
Saint Hill Graduate or a Central Organization or at Saint Hill.
Classification as Class II may not be awarded by any class. It may be
attained only by severe practical demonstration, and oral examination by an
HCO Secretary or an appointee of HCO.
Class II auditors trained by anyone may not have pay status as Class II
in a Central Organization until given a complete examination after going on
staff by the HCO Area Secretary, regardless of any earlier examination. The
only exception is a Saint Hill Graduate who has been specifically examined
and specifically designated as Class II by HCO examiners at Saint Hill.
No auditor may be designated as or draw pay in a Central Organization
as a Class III auditor unless first designated Class II and thereafter
passing all examinations for Class III under the tutelage of a Saint Hill
Graduate and operating as a Class III auditor. A Class III auditor must
have successfully and correctly assessed and run preclears. Class III
auditors must be examined and their preclears examined by HCO before the
award of Class III is given.
A Class II auditor may assess and run advanced procedures only under
the close personal supervision of a Saint Hill Graduate, and not by mail,
telegrams or long distance telephone, but personally.
At Saint Hill all enrollees will be trained up to and examined as Class
II auditors on arrival, regardless of any earlier training by anyone or any
organization. No assessment or advanced procedures may be run by the Saint
Hill trainee before Class II classification is awarded and only then under
the closest supervision. When examined for Class II the passing grade is
perfect.
(It follows that persons earlier classified as Class II will be able to
reach Class II much more rapidly at Saint Hill. It also follows that a
field classification as Class II may be able to reach Class II more rapidly
in a Central Organization. But prior classification has no bearing on the
Saint Hill Course and field classification has no bearing on Central
Organization or City Office classification.)
Unauthorized Processes
Any auditor found using Class III skills in violation of the above
shall be subject to suspension of certificate and, if continuing in fault,
subject to public warning and revocation of all certificates and awards.
Serious damage can be done to Scientology and preclears by unauthorized
use of Routine 3, 3A and 3D.
While no penalty attaches to a Class I auditor trying to Security Check
and running Problems Intensives, he or she should clearly understand that
all pc upset in their area is traceable to inexpert handling of Security
Checks.
Class I auditors are free to handle and use any procedure earlier than
Security Checking (or October 1, 1960) except "Step 6" and Creative
Processes.
Class I auditors are urged to obtain Class II classification as soon as
possible in order to increase their results and minimize area disturbance.
Good use of Class II skills gives wins. Use by persons not yet classified
gives loses. Any inexpert use of Class III skills can be ruinous by actual
test. We have, in Class III skills, for the first time violated the maxim
that any auditing is better than no auditing. This is still true of
processes prior to October 1, 1960. With clearing at speed has come
liability of misuse. If we're going to have clears, we must have accurate
Class III auditors.
Appended to these policies it is understood that Class II and Class III
auditing will be done only on British Mark IV E-Meters or as improved. The
discovery that 1958-59-60 and 61 American meters are wholly unsuitable for
clearing and that squirrel meters are even less useful, makes it mandatory
upon us, in order to guarantee any result, to insist upon the use only of
meters I have supervised in construction and which have been tested after
manufacture by HCO WW. The only American meter suitable for clearing was
the 1957 blue meter I supervised. Unknown to me the pattern was thereafter
altered. The only suitable U.K. meters prior to the Mark IV were the "Green
and Gold" ACC Meter actually used on that London ACC, the Mark I, the Mark
II, and the Mark III. I cannot guarantee any meter I did not check on. This
is not a commercial statement. It is a vital fact in clearing. Therefore
Class II and III auditors may not be classified as such unless they own or
are issued a British Mark IV (or improved) E-Meter checked out by HCO WW.
These policies are vital and are binding on receipt.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:esc.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
28-30 November 1961
** 6111C28 SHSBC-85 Havingness
** 6111C29 SHSBC-86 E-Meter Tips
** 6111C30 SHSBC-87 Parts of 3D
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Special Briefing Course
ROUTINE 3D IMPROVED COMMANDS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1961
(Discard or delete all earlier command data)
Note: RUN ONLY AFTER ARC PROCESS IS FLAT TO A STILL ARM, NEEDLE AT
SET, 20 MINUTES TEST. RUN THESE COMMANDS TO A STILL ARM, NEEDLE AT
SET, 20 MINUTES TEST. GET RUDIMENTS IN THOROUGHLY BEFORE RUNNING, EVEN
BETTER THAN IN ASSESSMENT. RUN PC'S HAVINGNESS COMMAND LIBERALLY
DURING PROCESS, AFTER PROCESS, AFTER END RUDS.
Info: 3D LEVELS CAN BE RUN CONSECUTIVELY OVER AND OVER ON DIFFERENT
PROCESSES .
1. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH AN (term)__________.
2. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
3. TELL ME A PROBLEM (term)________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
4. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
5. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (term)_______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A (opp
term)_______.
6. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
7. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (opp term)______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(term)_______.
8. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
9. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (term)_______MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH ANOTHER
(term)_______.
10. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
11. TELL ME A PROBLEM ANOTHER (term)_______ MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(term)______.
12. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
13. TELL ME A PROBLEM (oppterm)_______ MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
14. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
15. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A (oppterm)________.
16. HOW MIGHT (phlev)_______HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM?
(Note: Commands 13 & 15 may be term-others or oppterm-you, a tougher
version.)
AFTER ASSESSING CLEAR THE LEVEL WITH THE PC FOR ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF LEVEL
AND MAKE SURE THE VERSION OF THE LEVEL THAT YOU USE ALSO REACTS ON THE
METER LIKE THE ASSESSED LEVEL DID AND
MAKES SENSE TO THE PC IN THE COMMAND.
LRH: esc.rd L RON HUBBARD
copyright �1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 NOVEMBER 1961
Franchise
ARC PROCESS 1961
IMPORTANT: FLATTEN THIS PROCESS ON ALL NEW PRECLEARS, HGC PRECLEARS, RAW
MEAT PRECLEARS BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ELSE IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM MORE EASILY
IN SESSION AND TO GET YOUR E-METER TO READ. THE E-METER KNOWS BEST ON
EVERYTHING BUT ARC BREAKS.
An E-Meter has a frailty I have just discovered. It operates only if
the auditor has some, even small, command value over the pc, and operates
hardly at all when the auditor has no command value over the pc. Thus
rudiments go out only on the ARC break section. When this is out nothing
registers on the E-Meter including a casual question about an ARC break.
Thus the E-Meter must be supplanted by an auditor's ability to recognize
the existence of an ARC break. But once this is out of the way, the E-Meter
is superior to any "knowingness" on the part of the auditor. With this
reservation concerning registry of ARC breaks, the meter knows best, and
auditors who think they know more than the E-Meter do nothing but get pcs
in trouble. But conversely, the auditor who, on asking for ARC breaks
(alone), thinks that the E-Meter knows more than he or she does will also
err. WHEN THE PC HAS A SEVERE ARC BREAK IT WILL NOT REGISTER WHEN ASKED FOR
ON THE E-METER, AND NOTHING ELSE WILL REGISTER EITHER. SO BE SURE THE PC IS
WILLING AND ABLE TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR AFTER DOING GOALS AND BEFORE DOING
ROOM, WITHHOLDS AND PTPS. MODEL SESSION WILL SHORTLY BE RE-WRITTEN TO
ACCOMMODATE THIS AND THE NEW END QUESTION, "Have you done anything in this
session to influence the E-Meter?" and Untruths.
FLATTEN THE FOLLOWING:
Do each question several times by itself in order to get off any
triggered automaticities and to let the pc get through any misemotion. Then
do the whole sequence one time each, over and over consecutively. GET ALL
TONE ARM MOTION OFF THE CONSECUTIVE RUN BEFORE LEAVING PROCESS. Run this
process more or less muzzled. Get session started, set goals and Life and
Livingness. Then run this process:
1. WHO HAVEN'T YOU BEEN WILLING OR ABLE TO TALK TO ABOUT YOUR
DIFFICULTIES?
2. WHO COULD YOU HAVE TALKED TO ABOUT YOUR DIFFICULTIES?
3. WHOSE DIFFICULTIES HAVEN'T YOU WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT?
4. WHOSE DIFFICULTIES HAVE YOU BEEN WILLING TO LISTEN TO?
This process is run to a still Tone Arm for 20 minutes with needle kept
at set.
FUTURE RUDIMENTS QUESTION IN LIEU OF AUDITOR AND ARC BREAK:
"DO YOU FEEL WILLING TO TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR CASE?"
If negative, run above.
-----------------
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:esc.vm:rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 DECEMBER 1961
sthil
RUNNING 3D LEVELS
To run a terminal found by 3D, you use ONLY the commands of 30 November
1961. Use NO OTHER Commands. The old 5-way bracket, any other bracket
system, a two-way bracket WILL ONLY GET YOUR PC IN TROUBLE. You are sending
the pc up against the core of the reactive bank, the Goals Problem Mass,
and so far as auditing commands are concerned, only the commands of 27, 28
and 30 Nov are able to get him through. The 30 Nov commands are best.
The Goals Problem Mass is a problem in structure. It is so tough you
have to run the top off of it. This is done by 3D level runs. Dating bits
of it might work. Prior confusion will not work early in it. All other
known command routine combinations in Scientology do not phase it at all.
Clears went unclear because the Goals Problem Mass could come back in. So
we can only run it. And so far only 30 Nov commands run it out. To use
other previous command combinations, as used in Routine 3, can get your pc
in trouble because you must use the opposition terminal and keep the mass
in to be run.
--------------
To run levels on 3D terminal and "oppterm" (opposition terminal) do
this:
1. Be sure the 3D items you are running are right by careful cross-
checking and various two-way comm and height of PH level tests.
2. Be sure the "story" is right and that you really have the pc running
his own terminal, not the oppterm. The story is logical. The oppterm
can be run but it subjects the pc to more duress than needed and turns
on the "winds of space".
3. Use the Auxiliary Pre-Have Scale for 3D only, or as supplemented. Use
for test the first 65 levels for "height of terminal". Use the whole
Auxiliary Scale for assessment of level to be run.
4. Check out 30 Nov commands for "problem" "situation" etc as will be
released (the exact original version will work anyway).
5. Check out the found item for intensity and wording. Make sure the
command will be answerable by the pc.
6. Run the level to a stuck needle, stuck TA and test for 10 or 20
minutes. (TA shifts because of body motion don't count.)
7. Regardless of any needle action the level already run still gets,
assess again on Aux PH and run the next level.
8. Run 6, 8 or 12 levels in this fashion, disregarding the fact that the
needle may still twitch when a past level is mentioned. The rule here
could be to run to "difficult Aux PH assessment". I don't know this
yet; I do know you need lots of levels run to stuck TA, stuck needle.
This early first run can stick fast (sometimes in 2 commands, but you
always complete a bracket. It does no harm to do 2 or 3 more brackets,
though the pc will get uncomfortable). (It sometimes takes a session or
two to get the pc to approach the Goals Problem Mass. You always run it
muzzled. The pc will get there.) (If nothing sticks, on this first run
of levels in a series, your 3D assessment is for the loons and
cormorants. You should know this when the first level won't stick.)
RERUNS
9. Now having run a series of levels, you stick the final one and then
go back and test the first level you found and ran. You see if it
twitches on the needle. If it does, you run it again to a stuck TA,
stuck needle, you leave it and check the next level. You take, in
sequence, each level you can get to react by observing the needle as
you say it and rerun it. You complete all levels this way.
THIRD RUN OF LEVELS
10. You now go back and repeat 9 as a Third run of levels.
11. You now assess for more Aux PH levels. Each time, however, before you
run a new level, you recheck all former levels for an already run level
still kicking.
--------------
This is a sort of wash out by levels in sequence. You must always run
levels in sequence. On the second and third run you can skip nul levels,
but always test and run in sequence. It doesn't matter how many times a
level gets run. It does matter if you leave it before the needle and TA
stick on the first and second and third run. You leave a level too live and
it upsets the pc. You kill it too dead (by running a stuck TA and needle
for a session or more after it sticks) and either way you get trouble.
Eventually all levels assessed will have to be flat, nul and went.
--------------
Stable data on 3D level runs:
Accurate assessment of items and levels makes Clears. Inaccurate
assessment gives you a bad reputation and will sow all the trouble germs
you'd ever want.
Always complete whatever you start. If an R3 was started, complete it
by 3D using all existing parts that check out (use as much of an R3 as you
can) (this contradicts the 1st B. on 3D but is right, I find). If a person
was cleared on R3, use all R3 items used or run to assemble a 3D and run it
according to book.
Only the assembly of the "story" is subject to judgment on 3D. A11
other 3D actions are by the book.
Me, you and the Mark IV Meter got it licked.
---------------
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:esc.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
5-6 December 1961
** 6112C05 SHSBC-88 Assessing 3D
** 6112C06 SHSBC-89 Sec Checks Necessary
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 DECEMBER 1961
Sthil
Franchise
CenOCon
SEC CHECKS VITAL
It has been brought home to me by careful study of many cases that
Security Checks and Problems Intensives are vital to easy assessment and
accurate clearing by the new and very important Routine 3D.
The command value of the auditor over the pc, the response value to
life and present time of the pc have been so low in all cases studied who
have not had Sec Checking that it is a waste of auditing time not to give a
pc at least a Sec Check and a Problems Intensive before attempting
assessment.
It may take up to 200 hours to assess some 'raw meat' accurately on
Routine 3D, and that with a magnifying glass on the E-Meter.
It may take up to 75 hours to assess on Routine 3D a Scientologist or
processed person who has not been given 1A or a Problems Intensive or a
thorough Security Check on a standard Pol Ltr form.
I can state, and your experience will bear out, that it is wasted time
and causes agony to the pc to do a clearing 3D assessment on a person who
has not had:
1. Sec Checks Standard Forms.
2. A Problems Intensive.
3. The ARC Process 1961.
4. Countless cracks at the rudiments through being given 1 and 2.
To do these may require up to 100 hours of auditing. To try to assess
accurately through the messes of withholds, hidden standards and PTPs of
the preclear will require up to 100 hours and may arrive at an improper
assessment which will waste all the preclear's auditing-and painful
auditing it was.
Now the Scientologist with his prior processing moves into his or her
own. It all counts. Scientologists are easier to assess by half. Raw meat
is either unassessable or assessable with difficulty unless the auditor has
enormous altitude.
If anyone thinks he is saving time getting assessed for clear at once,
let him or her think again. The whole period may be wasted and nothing come
of it because:
The whole of the preliminary steps may have to be done anyway after
assessment if not done before to let the pc survive 'going through the
knothole', which is to say, running Routine 3D levels.
These are very hard to get through. Only one pat set of commands (Nov
30, 1961) get a pc moving through to Dynamic Clear.
Now as to auditor training, no auditor who does not have a quick enough
eye and Meter experience enough to Security Check and run a Problems
Intensive will ever be able to do an accurate Routine 3D Assessment.
Therefore it is economy to train an auditor to Class II level before
permitting him or her to assess.
Class II requires a high ability on the Meter, perfect Model Session, TRs
and a perfect knowledge of Sec Checking.
Sec Check Meter reactions are larger than 3D Assessment reactions. If
an auditor cannot Sec Check, he or she surely can't read a 3D Meter
Assessment.
A pc being given a Routine 3D Assessment for clear by an auditor who
has no perfect rating on the Meter is in for endless wasted hours of upset
and misery. These might better be spent on Rising Scale or Class I
processes (all processes up to February 1961, really). ARC Straight Wire,
'Something you wouldn't mind forgetting' or even old Dianetic Engram
running would do more for the pc than fumbling assessment. Accurate fast
assessment does marvels for a case, but only if done by an accurate fast
auditor.
Class II skills of Sec Checking, Problems Intensives, or even Routine
1A, produce definite plus gains for the pc, greater than those obtainable
by Class I if done by an expert Class II auditor.
A Class III auditor can only become one if he or she has already become
a Class II by examination and you have a rapid assessment on new Routine 3D
toward a high stability as clear-providing that the pc has also had Sec
Checks and other preparatory processes.
--------------
So there it is. Economy in auditing time entails the auditor becoming a
Class II by examination and the pc becoming fit to be assessed through
Class II skills. Very neat.
Micawber, a creation of my old friend Dickens, used to claim that
twenty shillings earned, nineteen and six spent brought happiness, but that
twenty shillings earned and twenty-one spent brought MISERY. I can
paraphrase him broadly by saying, Class II skills reached by auditor and
attained by pc bring happiness. Class I skills on Class III processes bring
misery to auditor and pc alike.
In signing up anyone for auditing, in delivering any auditing, please
point out these facts, please?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :esc.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
7-12 December 1961
** 6112C07 SHSBC-90 Expectancy of 3D
** 6112C12 SHSBC-91 Sec Checks in Processing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Special RUN NO.
Briefing
Course 7 December 1961
COMMAND SHEET FOR ROUTINE 3D
Preclear________________ Date___________________
TERMINAL___________
Auditor________________ Level__________________ OPP TERMINAL
______
Level Number___________ Levels alive this time on PHSc
____________________
RUN COMMANDS CONSECUTIVELY. MAKE SURE EVERY ONE IS ANSWERED. RUN WITH THE
RUDS IN, DO NOT RUN WITH RUDIMENTS OUT. Use plenty of havingness. Flatten
to still TA and still needle for 20 minutes if TA goes up and sticks. If TA
does not stick, run to a completely inactive Tone Arm and be sure neither
goal nor modifier react on retest. Carefully keep rudiments in during run.
Carefully keep pc's havingness up.
METER TEST THE FOLLOWING WORDS AND USE MOST REACTING WORD AFTER "TELL ME"
AND "THAT". PROBLEM SITUATION DIFFICULTY CONFUSION MESS TROUBLE OTHER:
METER TEST THE FOLLOWING AND USE MOST REACTING WORD AFTER "MIGHT" IN EVEN
NUMBERS. SOLUTION SOLVED MADE OKAY CURED FINISHED ENDED OTHER:
(Make Commands make sense. Add ING to ph level if necessary in clearing
command.)
COMMENTS AND ASSESSMENT
TELL ME A____________YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A (term)____________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A______________A (term)__________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________A (term)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH
ANOTHER (term)__________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________ANOTHER (term)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(term)__________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________A (term)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH ANOTHER
(oppterm)__________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________A (oppterm)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(term)__________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________A (term)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS
(term)__________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________OTHERS (term)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(oppterm)__________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________A (term)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________OTHERS________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(term)__________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(oppterm)_________________.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________A (oppterm)________________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
TELL ME A_______________OTHERS MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
HOW MIGHT (phlev)______________HAVE_____________ THAT____________?
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:esc.vmm.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 DECEMBER 1961
Tech Depts
Franchise
VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS
You only vary a sec check question when by repeating it you would
create an impasse.
Example: "Have you stolen anything?"
"Yes, an apple."
"Good. Have you stolen anything?"
"No."
"Good. (Look at meter.)
Have you stolen anything?"
"No. " (Meter reacts. )
NOW vary the question.
And always end by making sure the original question "Have you stolen
anything?" is nul.
This all comes under the heading of getting one auditing question
answered before you ask a second.
If you create an impasse you will pile up missed withholds, throw ruds
out and really mess it up. Therefore, until you do find out what the answer
was on a sec check question, you do NOT repeat the question-only variations
(except to test for nul after getting a withhold) until the meter nuls on
the first question.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: esc.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
13 December 1961
** 6112C13 SHSBC-92 Assessing 3D
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 DECEMBER 1961
Franchise
RUDIMENTS MODERNIZED
I have been threatening to give you new rudiments questions for months.
I am finally satisfied with their form and use and here they are.
The demands made on an auditing session by the new value and
workability of Process Checks (Sec Checking), Problems Intensives and
especially 3D have made it necessary to upgrade the form and use of
rudiments.
-----------------
For auditing to take place at all, the pc must be IN SESSION, i.e.
willing to talk to the auditor, and interested in own case: the new
Rudiment question "Do you feel willing to talk to me about your case?" can
give the auditor an idea as to whether the pc is likely to go into session
or not and can, if any reaction to the question is followed up, indicate
whether the pc is ARC broken or is withholding.
Where an ARC break is found or is stated by the pc, probably the
speediest method of handling is to locate the Prior Confusion to the
disagreement-or whatever caused the ARC break-and run a Sec Check form of
O/W (without mentioning any terminal in any way); e.g. clear, by Sec Check
type questioning, this question, "During that confusion what did you do
wrong?", then-when that no longer reacts-"During that confusion, what did
you withhold?" This brings up the little (and big) overts and withholds
which precede ARC breaks AND PTPs and, indeed, this Sec Check type O/W on
Prior Confusions can be used on any out Rudiment to which it can be
applied. When the meter shows no further reaction to overt or withhold, the
Rudiment question is asked again and if a reaction shows, repeat procedure.
Where a pc is extremely prone to out Rudiments, lots of pc's HAVINGNESS
process (or TR 10) can help, also an extended run on ARC Process 1961 (HCO
B of Nov 30, 1961) run to a motionless Tone Arm for, say, 15-20 minutes.
This can be followed by general O/W: "What have you done?"-"What have you
withheld?" Also self O/W "What have you done to yourself?"-"What have you
withheld from yourself?"
Prerequisites to all this in the auditor, of course, are technical
excellence in TRs, E-Meter reading, and ability to control the pc with ARC,
so that the pc will assign command value to the auditor.
To maintain Rudiments, auditors must be thoroughly familiar with the
following listed HCO Bulletins:
November 30, 1961 - ARC Process 1961.
November 23, 1961 - Meter Reading.
November 16, 1961 - Sec Checking.
November 2, 1961 - The Prior Confusion.
October 19, 1961 - Security Questions Must Be Nulled.
October 9, 1961 - Rudiments, Change in.
There are many more Bulletins, tapes and publications on this subject.
On the actual Rudiments questions, if the rudiments are believed to be
out, it should be remembered that each question should be asked in several
different ways, to make sure that the question is thoroughly understood,
and so that the pc's reality on the meaning of the question is reached.
It should be remembered that the whole meter can go out if ARC break is
present. It alone does not read on the meter (ARC Process 1961 ) when very
severe.
Any havingness process which loosens the needle can be used to handle any
other rudiment.
A rudiment question can get a needle reaction if the pc is ARC broken
about getting on with session. One clears this and asks the question again.
Out rudiments, on assessing for the changes in a Problems Intensive or
3D can cause everything to nul. The remedy is to get the ruds in and go
over the list again with ruds in, at least from the point where ruds went
out.
In 3D, the test before running a level or assessing is to repeat a
known 3D item that has been found and proved to the pc. If it doesn't
react, rudiments are out. Get ruds in until item reacts before continuing
assessment or a level.
Out rudiments are the sole cause of difficulty in finding goals and
other 3D items. It is a saving of time to run a pc on Processing Checks,
and other preparatory measures for as much as 75 hours before an assessment
is done. By that time rudiments can be kept in and needle response should
be adequate for assessment.
Rudiments at the beginning of session involve:
1. Setting Goals.
2. Getting pc comfortable in environment.
3. Getting pc willing to talk to auditor about pc's own case.
4. Getting off withholds.
5. Checking for and handling PTPs.
The above are the Beginning Rudiments. One humanly detects No. 3. All
others are handled by meter only. Excepting No. 3, in rudiments, if the
others do not react you do not handle, but get on with session.
The End Rudiments are:
1. Half Truths or Untruths or effort to impress auditor.
2. Any effort to influence E-Meter.
3. Missed answering commands.
4. Missed withholds.
5. ARC break.
6. Havingness.
7. Goals and gains.
Number 5 is humanly detected. The remainder are meter detected only.
Number 6 may be used profitably to finish up session time.
In Model Session, the Beginning Rudiments questions should be changed
to:
1. "What goals would you like to set for this session?"
"Are there any goals you would like to set for Life or Livingness?"
2. "Look around here and tell me if it's all right to audit in
this room."
3. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"
4. "Are you withholding anything?"
5. "Do you have a present time problem?"
In End Rudiments, the Model Session wording should be changed to:
1. "Have you told me any half truth, untruth, or said something
only to impress me in this session?"
2. "Have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?"
3. "Have you failed to answer any question or command I have given
you in this session?"
4. "Have you withheld anything from me?"
5. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"
6. "Look around here and tell me if you can have anything."
7. "Have you made any part of your goals in this session?" And
"Have you made any other gains you would like to mention?"
Rudiments, as in any assessment or Process Check item, are read on
INSTANT NEEDLE READS only. Latent reads (taking place after a pause of half
a second or more) are not pursued at all, either as Rudiments questions,
Processing Check questions, Problems Intensive items or 3D assessment
items.
(Note: Unapproved meters, many of them, have needle comm lags built
into them "to protect the meter movement" which is usually poor. The needle
acts only after a half of a second or more. Therefore, only 1957 American
and British Mark IV meters can be used with confidence in modern auditing.
This "comm lag" may also be true of most "lie detectors" including some
costing $18,000. The 1957 American was the first fully workable E-Meter.
The British Mark IV is its only fully developed successor. The 1958, '59,
'60 and '61 "American Hubbard Meters" may or may not work as their
manufacturers refused to submit them to be checked out by me and HCO finds
many were cheaply built and do not instant read or read sensitively. Few if
any squirrel meters have ever worked to the level of modern demands.)
No assessment has any value if obtained by a faulty meter.
No session, whether Sec Checking (Process Checking), running a Problems
Intensive, assessing or running 3D has any value if run with the rudiments
out.
To make sessions have value, keep the rudiments in.
---------------
A rudiment is only run long enough to get it in, which is to say to get
the exact rudiment question nul on the meter, or in the case of ARC, to get
the pc to talk easily to the auditor. Rudiments are not sessions. They are
there to make sessions count.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:esc.b.cden
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14-20 December 1961
** 6112C14 SHSBC-93 Anatomy of Problems
6112C19 SHSBC-94 Parts of 3D
** 6112C20 SHSBC-95 Upgrading of Auditors
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 DECEMBER 1961
Franchise
MODEL SESSION SCRIPT, REVISED
(This cancels earlier versions of Model Session
and is for use on all cases except CCHs)
The exactness required of Modern Processing Checks (Sec Checks),
Problems Intensives and 3D assessments and runs have made new demands on
rudiments and their processes.
As described in HCO B of Dec 14, 1961, the rudiments questions,
beginning and end, are changed in the Model Session Script. The body of the
session patter is unaltered.
Model Session is memorized, is used exactly, and is delivered with the
TRs in. Model Session is a requisite of an effective session. All auditing
and assessing are done in Model Session form and no other. Excellent
accurate Model Sessioning is the hallmark of the good auditor.
MODEL SESSION SCRIPT
Auditor sets up E-Meter and adjusts pc's chair. Any agreement
concerning length of time of session is made if there is to be any such
agreement.
"R" FACTOR
A session must have "R" or Reality. If the auditor feels ill or weary,
or out of sorts or under other strain, the auditor should tell the pc,
before session starts, the facts of the situation, giving the pc a chance
to accept auditing under those conditions without feeling it is an overt.
The time to put the pc's attention on the auditor is before the session
starts, not after it starts. The pc is always quick to scent an upset and
if such an upset is evident in session a mystery is created for the pc that
will throw rudiments out. Once the "R" factor is handled it is not again
referred to in the session by the auditor. This should not be used to upset
the pc or make the pc guilty of "the overt of receiving auditing".
START OF SESSION
Auditor: "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?"
Pc: "Yes."
Auditor: Acknowledges. "START OF SESSION." (Tone 40)
Auditor: "Has this session started for you?"
Note 1. If pc says "No," Auditor: Acknowledges. "START OF SESSION."
(Tone 40) Then, "NOW has this session started for you?" If pc still
says "No," the auditor acknowledges and says, "We will cover it in
the rudiments," and continues the session.
BEGINNING RUDIMENTS
1. Goals
Auditor: "What goals would you like to set for this session?"
Pc: Sets goals or doesn't.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Are there any goals you would like to set for
life or livingness?"
Pc: Sets goals or doesn't.
Auditor: Acknowledges. (Goals are usually written down by auditor. If
list goes beyond ten or twelve auditor gently stops writing and
acknowledges.)
2. Environment
Auditor: "Look around here and tell me if it's all right to audit in
this room."
Note 2. If auditor gets a reaction that is not a body motion on the E-
Meter, auditor says: "All right. Thank you. I am going to run some
(TR 10 or pc's havingness process)." And does so. Repeats rudiment
question soon. If now
nul on meter auditor goes on to 3 below. If not nul, runs more
havingness. Etc. The rule is pc should be able to have or observe
large objects before havingness is ended. (This is hard to apply on
some havingness processes.)
3. Auditor Clearance
Auditor: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"
Note 3. If not, run a current process for this rudiment. Test again
with rudiment question.
This is not an E-Meter response rudiment but is done by observation
of pc. This and 5 in end rudiments are the only rudiments so
handled.
4. Withholds
Auditor: "Are you withholding anything?"
Note 4. If meter gets instant reaction (only read meters by instant
reaction in any case for anything), clear it by getting withholds
off. Do not leave any withhold that registers on this rudiment
question. If pc will not give withhold, vary the question. If pc
still will not, run current rudiments withhold process. Leave this
rudiment by asking the rudiment question again and leave it only if
nul. An ARC break can also nul meter. If in doubt repeat rudiment
3, straighten up 3 and then repeat 4. A pc who is being vicious to
auditor at this stage has one or more withholds.
5. Present Time Problem
Auditor: "Do you have a present time problem?"
Note 5. Only if PTP registers on the meter should the PTP be handled.
Question can cause an ARC break in a pc anxious to get on and
needle can register the ARC break rather than a PTP. In this case
clear with two-way comm and repeat PTP rudiment question. If it is
obviously a PTP and not an ARC break, do not ask if it is an ARC
break. Handle PTP with current rudiment process. When handled,
repeat rudiment question. Do not leave unless nul on needle.
START OF PROCESS
Auditor: "Now I would like to run this process on you (name it). What
would you say to that?"
Pc: Answers.
Note 6. If pc is unwilling to run the process, two-way comm objections
away or relieve earlier invalidations of process. Never run a
process dictated by pc as this is self-auditing, throws pc out of
auditor control and throws out all rudiments. Pcs quite routinely
object to certain processes, even though they must be run.
Auditor: Acknowledges. Clears the command for pc only for the first time
the command is used.
Note 7. If, during clearing of the command or failure of needle to
react, it seems that the pc will not be able to handle or do the
announced process profitably, auditor says: "According to what we
have been talking about, it would seem better if I ran (name
another process)."
END OF PROCESS
1. Cyclical
Auditor: (Wishing to end process) "Where are you now on the time-track?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "If it is all right with you, I will continue
this process until you are close to present time and then end this
process."
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. Auditor continues the process, asking after each
pc answer, "When?" until the pc is close to present time.
Pc: Answers close to present time.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "That was the last command. Is there anything you
would care to say before I end this process?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "End of process."
2. Non-Cyclical
Auditor: "If it is all right with you I will give this command two more
times and then end this process."
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges and gives the command two more times.
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Is there anything you would care to say before I
end this process?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "End of process."
Note 8. The cyclical ending is only used on terminals that exist also
in present time, and when pc is going into the past in his answers.
It is not used after pc says he is in present time. Non-cyclical is
used when the pc is running terminals which do not exist in present
time or when the cyclic aspect can be neglected. 3D level runs and
Processing Check answers are never given cyclical endings.
REPEATED COMMANDS
Auditor: Gives command.
Pc: "I don't know. I can't find any answer."
Auditor: Acknowledges. "I will repeat the auditing command." Repeats the
command.
Note 9. If pc still cannot answer, two-way comm to discover why. Then
get the command answered. Never leave an unanswered command.
COGNITION
Auditor: Gives command.
Pc: (Not having answered command yet.) "Say, that mass in front of
my face just moved off."
Auditor: Acknowledges. Repeats command without announcing that it is a
repeat.
END RUDIMENTS
1. Untruths
Auditor: "Have you told me any half-truth, untruth, or said something
only to impress me or tried to damage anyone, in this session?"
Note 10. If meter reacts, clear the reaction fully. In a difficulty,
compartment the command, clear the reacting part. Do not leave
until meter is nul on repeating this rudiment question.
2. Meter Influence
Auditor: "Have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?"
Note 11. If meter reacts, clear it thoroughly, getting, if necessary,
the first time the pc tried it. Invalidations of meter will also be
present if pc has tried to influence it. These must also be removed
with, "Have you ever invalidated the E-Meter?" Also, "Have you ever
tried to prevent an E-Meter from reading?" Clear these on needle.
Clear rudiment question before leaving. (As in all such checking
only vary the command if the pc answers "No" while meter reacts,
otherwise ask same question.) Leave when exact rudiment question is
nul.
3. Missed Answers
Auditor: "Have you failed to answer any question or command I have given
you in this session?"
Note 12. If meter reacts, find the question or command and get it
answered. Leave rudiment with same question and only if nul.
4. Missed Withholds
Auditor: "Have you withheld anything from me?"
Note 13. If meter reacts, find and clear the withhold or withholds. Vary
question only
if pc refuses to give up withholds. If pc still refuses, run
current rudiments process for this. Do not leave until meter clear
on this exact rudiments question.
5. ARC Break
Auditor: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"
Note 14. This is done by observation of pc, not by meter. If the answer
is no, run current process for this rudiment. Leave it only when pc
is willing to talk to auditor. If a process is run for this
rudiment, repeat all end rudiments again.
6. Havingness
Auditor: "Look around here and tell me if you can have anything."
Note 15. If meter shows other than body movement, run TR 10 or pc's
havingness process. Retest the question before leaving this
rudiment.
7. Goals and Gains
Auditor: "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?"
Note 16. Auditor may remind pc of session goals if pc can't remember
them.
Auditor: "Have you made any other gains in this session that you would
care to mention?"
Pc: Answers.
END OF SESSION
Auditor: "Is there anything you would care to say or ask before I end
this session?"
Note 17. Auditor may show pc relative TA positions reached in session
and tell pc what he cares to know about session.
Auditor: "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?"
Pc: Answers.
Auditor: Acknowledges. "Here it is. End of Session !" (Tone 40) "Has the
session ended for you?"
Pc: Answers.
Note 18. If session has not ended for pc, get pc's full attention and
repeat "End of Session." (Tone 40) If session still has not ended
for pc two way comm briefly to find what pc has been doing. If this
doesn't ease it, say reassuringly, "You will be getting more
auditing. End of session." And leave it at that.
Auditor: (Optional) "Tell me I am no longer auditing you."
Pc: "You are no longer auditing me."
Auditor: Acknowledges.
Note 19. The auditor has no further obligation to act as auditor when
session is ended. However, this should not be used to evaluate for
the pc concerning the session. But the auditor need not shun
questions the pc puts to him or her directly concerning the
auditor's own reactions in session if these excite curiosity of
preclear. This is 'R' factor.
Exact Rudiments processes for above will be given from time to time in
future HCOBs.
During early auditing short session a pc so as to handle fully end
rudiments before session ends.
Short sessioning means that two or more sessions can be run in one
auditing
period.
LRH:esc.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6112C21 SHSBC-96 Probabilities of 3D
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
26 December 1961
Special Briefing
Course
COMMAND SHEET ROUTINE 3D
Pc__________________Date____________ level No.___________LALV_________
1. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A (term)__________
2. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
3. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (term)_________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
4. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
5. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (term)__________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH ANOTHER
(term)__________.
6. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
7. TELL ME A PROBLEM ANOTHER (term)__________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(term)__________.
8. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
9. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (term)__________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(oppterm)__________.
10. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
11. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (oppterm)__________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A
(term)__________.
12. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
13. TELL ME A PROBLEM A (term)__________MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS.
14. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
15. TELL ME A PROBLEM OTHERS MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH A (term)__________.
16. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
17. TELL ME A PROBLEM YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD WITH YOU.
18. HOW MIGHT (phlev)__________HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM?
3D COMMANDS WHOLE TRACK O/W
NOTE: USE ON TERMINAL ONLY. BEFORE THIS CAN BE USED MANY LEVELS
SHOULD BE RUN AND IT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT BY
ROUTINE TESTS THAT PC IS RUNNING HIS TERMINAL. THIS IS NOT A
SUBSTITUTE FOR PH LEVEL RUNS BUT IS USED BETWEEN LATER RUNS.
1. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAVE YOU HAD TOWARDS A (term)__________.
2. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAS A (term)__________HAD TOWARD YOU?
3. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAS A (term)__________HAD ABOUT OTHERS?
4. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAVE YOU HAD ABOUT OTHERS?
5. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAVE OTHERS HAD ABOUT A (term)__________.
6. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAVE OTHERS HAD ABOUT YOU?
7. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAVE YOU WITHHELD FROM A (term)__________.
8. WHAT ACTION OR ATTITUDE HAS A (term)__________WITHHELD FROM YOU?
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: ph.mw.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 DECEMBER 1961
Franchise
E-METER ELECTRODES
A DISSERTATION ON SOUP CANS
I have just re-discovered a very important item about E-Meter
electrodes and the behaviour of the instrument in Security Checks and
assessments.
Any "E-Meter" will register proper tone arm position, can squeeze and
body motion. Whether it was built by the Communist Party or the local cat-
food factory. Any meter will register body reactions.
Only a specially built meter will also register mental responses. Thus
any meter can act like an E-Meter so far as body reactions go. The TA and
needle rise and fall, sensitivity increases and decreases. It all looks
just like an E-Meter until you measure amount of mental response to a
security or assessment question. The amount of mental response depends on
the surface area contact and the circuit.
The history of it is this: In early 1951 Mathison delivered the first
pair of mains current meters he had made for me. They responded to body
action but I could get no valuable mental response on the needle. Jim
Elliot and I worked with them and came up with the idea that a bigger
electrode was necessary. Jim took two soup tin cans, put battery (crocodile
jaw) clips on the leads, and we found that only then could we make these
meters work to the mind. The soup can made enough skin contact with the pc
to let his thoughts register as well as his physical tone. The old meters
still would not let some pcs on at the bottom and lots of pcs left them at
the top, but they were valuable.
At length Mathison refused to build anything that would register
thinking, cut back to one-hand electrodes and generally developed his meter
beyond any possible use to us and so we parted.
Many years later, after a lot of work, I had Don Breeding design a
transistor meter. This, often refined and held on the rails by me, and
often derailed by mind-is-matter "improvements" by others, became the modem
meter. In England I did a great deal more developmental work and the
British Mark IV finally resulted.
There are only five pieces of research I have not myself done in
Scientology. One is the effect of vitamins on mental response, done by a
New York nurse for us. One is the effect of restimulation on IQ, which I
proposed and Don Rogers carried out. One is the basic meter made by
Mathison after a lecture by myself. One is the actual circuit of the modern
transistor meter done by Don Breeding. And one is the following, which is
enormously important because there's a mistake in it.
In England, around 1957, the "mains meter" made by HASI London used
aluminium electrodes, small pipes about an inch in diameter. I challenged
their use. We used only soup cans on the 1957 American meter. I turned a
test project over to the electronics department in D.C. and eventually they
reported to me:
"There is no difference of meter response of any kind in using the thin
aluminium tubes and American soup cans."
I relaxed about it then and for some years permitted aluminium tubes to
be used, despite my original work in the early Mathison mains meter. After
all, the experts had said they were okay.
And just two nights ago I found with horror that the aluminium electrodes
are at fault !
You yourself can make the test. The same test I made. Take two old
aluminium electrodes. Put a Kleenex wadded on the end of one for insulation
and have a pc hold both in one hand. Now take a known item that gets
constant mental response on a meter, such as the pc's goal or terminal or
other 3-D item or some hot button. Note that physical response of the
meter, the rise and fall of the tone arm, the can squeeze all look good.
Now say the pc's goal or button and watch the needle. You may not even be
able to detect a needle action!
Now have the pc hold the electrodes one in each hand as is usual. Say
the pc's goal or button. You will be able to see some instant response.
Now remove the aluminium electrodes and put soup cans on the E-Meter
leads. Say the same item to the pc as before.
You will find three times as much needle response as with the aluminium
electrodes.
If the item gave you one dial division reaction with aluminium
electrodes you will get nearly 3 dial divisions of response with soup cans.
So that's that. The moral of the tale is: Use Soup Cans.
Throw away your aluminium electrodes no matter how pretty they are or
how nicely they fit.
Put the battery clip type on your E-Meter leads nearest the pc. These
are a set of spring jaws with a screw in one end to fasten the wire. The
jaws have teeth. The can end is about a third of an inch of teeth. These
are simply bitten onto the edge of the soup can. The soup cans can then be
snapped off or on, stowed or replaced at will.
The double wire of the lead should be pulled apart about two and a half
feet up from the clips so that when the pc stretches, he can hold the cans
as much as five feet apart without their becoming unclipped.
These clips can be bought at any dime store in the electrical
department. Use the same plug-in jack that goes with the meter and came
with the meter. If you buy new wire get a long double plastic-covered wire
of copper, rather heavy so it won't part invisibly in the meter leads.
And as for the most important part, the soup cans, go down to the store
and take a foot rule with you. Find some canned juice or soup with a paper,
not a painted, label. The can should be exactly 3 inches in diameter and
four and a half inches long. That's a very standard can. Don't get them
thinner or thicker than this or shorter or larger. Buy four, so you'll have
two spares.
Now, at home, use great care and a patent opener and open with a smooth
edge. Consume the juice or soup or give it to the poor. In removing the top
make sure you leave no rough edge.
Clip the crocodile jaws over the open edge of the can and you've done
it.
Those withholds you've been missing will now read. 3-D items are a
breeze. Rudiments can be found when out without cranking sensitivity to the
moon.
Soup cans give enough skin contact and steadiness of grip to give you
mental reaction.
Can squeeze tests are unchanged. But are more reliable.
No meter registry is shifted in any way, regardless of the increased size.
Pcs eat the tin off steel cans so be neat and get new cans often. Old
cans get to looking pretty grim and feeling rough. Try new kinds of soup.
Well, it sounds like a fuss or to-do over soup cans.
But it's the difference between withholds found and withholds missed;
rudiments in to rudiments out and 3-D items discovered where none seemed to
exist before.
I have my own additional moral to the story. If I didn't do the actual
research on something, it's liable to be a miss.
So bottoms up with the vegetable juice and onward and upward better
meter reads.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: ph.rd
Copyright � 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 DECEMBER 1961
Issue II
Central Orgs
3-D RULES OF THUMB
Current practice in finding and running 3-D items, according to data to
hand, gives us the following rules of thumb:
1. Get any package you can get that checks out and reads consistently.
2. Orient the pc as to which is term and which is oppterm.
3. Do not try for another package. Assess and run what you've got.
4. The closer to present time and the more downgraded, the more
confusion as to which is term or oppterm, as the items grow more
identified with each other the later they are on track.
5. Watch early runs with a hawk eye to be sure the PH Scale isn't being
brought more alive. The moment the Scale becomes liver on successive
level assessments, get off it and re-orient package and look for new
comparable level items.
6. Sudden beefing up of the whole PH Scale means bad assessment,
choosing wrong items, not making a mistake in which is term or oppterm.
7. Run the side of the package that gives the pc sharp somatics. Avoid
the side that merely makes pc dizzy or feeling fuzzy.
8. When somatics become unchanging and many levels have been run, or
when the first item being run as term blows off, reassess.
9. Ignore comparable level. A present time sort of item as term can be
run against a back track item as oppterm.
10. In reassessing always upgrade the package, never downgrade. Ignore
items of lesser magnitude and later on track than original package.
Seek items of larger magnitude earlier on track.
11. By the rule of Prior Confusion, earlier track items run best.
12. Be as careful in orienting a second package as the first, and as
alert to the PH Scale coming alive.
13. Assessment becomes easier the more any 3-D is run.
14. Attempt to upgrade whenever pc ceases to change for two or three
sessions or the black masses will not move.
15. It is easy to choose wrong 3-D items as the packages are so confused.
Always be alert to the possibility of having done so. The goal may have
been right, the selected terminal slightly off. Goals are more likely
to be correct than terminals and oppterminals.
16. Chanting the term's Modifier at the pc, if it is right, can get the
package reading again.
17. Item reads don't go nul by running so much as nul by invalidation.
Keep invalidation by pc off the package at all times.
LRH:rd
Copyright � 1961 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
CLEAN HANDS CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
30 December 1961-1 January 1962
L. Ron Hubbard delivered nine hours of lectures to the Clean Hands
Congress attendees at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.
** 6112C30 CHC-1 Scientology, Where We Are Going
** 6112C30 CHC-2 Auditing Perfection and Classes of Auditors
** 6112C30 CHC-3 Parts of the 3D Package
6112C31 CHC-4 The Goals Problems Mass
** 6112C31 CHC-5 The E-Meter and Its Use
** 6112C31 CHC-6 Havingness, Quality of Reach
6201C01 CHC-7 The Valence, How It Works
6201C01 CHC-8 Goals Package Balance of Valences and
Identification
** 6201C01 CHC-9 Effectiveness and Your Effectiveness Now
SUBJECT INDEX
1960-1961
altitude is the factor that makes a pc
receive and
A execute an auditing
command, 134
aluminium electrodes, don't use, 460
abandon (Secondary Scale level), 303 analytical thought, Pre-Hav
Scale is not a picture of
aberrated, aberration(s), aberrative, ~, it is a picture
of reactive thought, 331
aberrated self-determinism is end product of fail- analytical
vs. reactive, response of pc, 88, 331
ures tohelp, 191 anaten-unconsciousness, flow run too long
in one
consists of wrong-way assistance, 122 direction
gives, 121
dwindling spiral of aberration related to interest, anxiety
and malnutrition can produce symptoms of
communication, control and help, 120
insanity, 82
effects are created by the person who has them, APA, American
Personality Analysis; see OCA/APA
38,104 ARC break(s), 377
freeing of valences remedies pain and aberration, auditor
taking order from pc causes pc to ~, 374
105 communication becomes a contest of overts
in the
goals terminal is that valence into which pc has
ARC breaky case, 120
interiorized and which carries the goal, modifier
Havingness is a must on any Responsibility Process
and aberration which pc attributes to self, 419
in presence of ARC breaks, 36
help, relationship to aberration; see help Help and, 85
how to clean up aberration [1960], 7 meter can go out if
~ is present, 442, 450
how to get pc over any condition or aberration he pc and
ARC breaks; see preclear, ARC breaks and
is agonizing to get rid of, 44 prevention, 373
other people's causation is not aberrative, 19 primary
sources of ARC breaks are all under the
O/W, what pc has done to others is aberrative, not
heading of "no auditing", 421
what has been done to him, 92 session ~, caused
by running pc over his head, 44
psychiatry's basic assumption: shock cures aberra- session
ARC breaks, running O/W to handle, 43
tion, 103 withholds, PT problems and ~ can stop a
case, 210
Scientology's basic assumption: a being without worsen
the graph, 217
aberration will be good, ethical, artistic and
yanking pc's attention to the auditor is the source
powerful, 104 of a lot of ARC breaks, 43
social aberration is a composite of individual aber- ARC
Process 1961, 442
rations, 45 ARC Straight Wire, Cause ARC Straight
Wire, 51
somatics, aberrations, circuits and problems are arrive
(Secondary Scale level), 299
postulate counter-postulate situations, 414 arts, having
abused, how to handle, 195
thetan is holding himself in a state of stupidity, assess,
assessing, assessment(s), 124, 324
aberration and even insanity, 38 by Elimination (SOP
Goals), 265
third and fourth dynamic aberration, how it comes by goals
to get a Help terminal, 124
about, 45 by needle, audit by tone arm, rock slam
is appar
Academy stable data: new auditors should be able to
ent exception to, 284, 318
audit in HCC [ 1961 ], 329 Case Assessment, 214; see
also Preclear Assessment
Academy unit one and two, 330 Sheet
acknowledgements, TR 2, 247, 250 Change List of Problems
Intensive, 414
action, cycles of; see cycles of action for Help terminals,
Regimen 1 ,1 28
adjectival commands, beware running, 50 for new change (Problems
Intensive), 415
agree (Secondary Scale level), 305 HGC preclear assessment,
108
allergy, example of handling, 65 Know to Mystery Scale
Assessment, 109
alter-is commands, tendency of pc to, relation to laws of
assessment, 131
Change Processing, 256 of help, 119
alter-isness, auditing Problems cures it in a case, 354 OT-3
Procedure assessments; see OT-3 Procedure
alternate commands, how to avoid making mistake in OT-3A
Procedure assessments; see OT-3A Proce giving correct next command,
140 dure
Alternate Confront [process] ,1 16, 121 pc does not have to think
or answer before needle
commands of, 140 responds, 331
Help used in conjunction with Alternate Confront PE Co-
Audit assessment, 70
and Havingness, 108,110 Pre-Hav Scale assessment,
197, 273, 282, 324
stabilizing tool, 122 rising needle treated as a null
needle in assessment,
"What can you confront?" "What would you 273, 333
rather not confront?", 110, 118 Routine 3D
assessment; see Routine 3D
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
assess, assessing, assessment(s) (cont.) audit(ed)(ing) (cont.)
SOP Goals assessment; see SOP Goals assessment self-
auditing, 373
terminal improperly assessed, how to detect during smoother
the auditing, the better pc's havingness
auditing, 132 stays up, 54
to wait more than three seconds before uttering terminal
improperly assessed, how to detect during
next word on list is complete waste of auditing
auditing, 132
time, 332 training, get as well as auditing, 133
Assessment Confirmation by D of P [SOP Goals], TRs, flubs in
TRs are basis of all confusion in
HCO WW Form CT2, 229 subsequent efforts to
audit, 249
association, Help resolves cases because it is the basis
auditor(s)('s), 377
of all ~,1 19 Academy stable data: new auditors
should be able
association leads to identification, 1 19 to audit in
HGC [ 196 1 ], 329
association of things, or thoughts, or classes, is con- accepts
and acknowledges goals pc has for session,
sidered all right but is half way to lazy thinking,
life and livingness, 194
123 attitude to pc's data, 129
assumption points of Scientology, sciences, and other classes
of auditors [1961], 385, 439
subjects, 102 clearance (rudiment), 41, 194
atomic age, 102 confidence increased by standardized sessions,
53
attention, control of session, 373
central valence or terminal is built in to demand
evaluation consists of telling pc what to think
total attention from pc, 406 about his
case, 129
needle fall shows what form of mest and life atten-
failing to handle E-Meter, chief reason is TR fail
tion is fixed upon, 54 ures, 261, 264, 432
pc who is having lots of PTPs has attention very fully
responsible for session, 43, 373
fixed on something, 61, 62 giving pc full hours, 145
yanking pc's attention to auditor is source of a lot
has more control over pc's reactive mind than pc,
of ARC breaks, 43 reason why, 332
attention (Secondary Scale level), 298 HGC Auditor's Sec Check,
356
audit(ed)(ing), how to handle auditor saying "Process didn't
attitude, 6 work", 118, 432
basic freeing action of ~, what it depends upon, 53
make auditors by making them audit, 376
breaks are not counted as auditing time, 145 need
subjective reality on bank, 374, 376
by tone arm (except in rock slam), assess by Q and A,
change in pc causes auditor to stop or
needle, 318 change process, 218
case that wants no processing, handling of, 178 reality
vs. pc's reality, 129
command; see command staff auditor's responsibilities,
214, 219
failures, there are no auditing failures, there are
staff auditors, training of, ~961], 389
only errors in auditing, 58 taking order from pc
causes pc to ARC break, 373,
first auditing, what to run [1961], 214 374
first rule of auditing is find something pc can do target
of auditor is pc's reactive mind, 428
and improve that ability, 65 Auxiliary Pre-Have 3D
Scale, 434
great deal of value of auditing lies in mechanics of
awareness, inability to differentiate is a decline in, 122
session itself, 56 Axiom 10, cycle of action and
communication for gross auditing errors, 432 mula become
identified, 35
help is key button which admits auditing, 85 Axiom 28,
relationship to process workability, 155
HGC ~ should convert earlier ~ losses to wins, 108
how to persuade a stranger to get audited, 72
inflexible regimen vs. experimental auditing, 38
B
insane should get rest and then exercise before
auditing, 88 bad, people are never as bad as they
think they are, 24
make auditors by making them audit, 376 bank; see reactive
mind
maxims, 217 basic unit of this universe is two not one, 62
others can get gains when oneself is processed, 45 be, being,
beingness,
pc refuses auditing use Presession One (Help, Con- basic
escape is into another being, thus one acquires
trol, Communication, Interest), 175
beingnesses to escape, 368
pc where the pc's mind is, 43 be-do-have coordinated,
206
presession; see presession beingness is more involved
with havingness than
results, what they depend on, 64 with confront, 122
room, 43 doingness, havingness and ~ must be
balanced; each
TR 10 on, 194 must be flexible in pc for a
stable gain, 207
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
be, being, beingness (cont.) case(s), starting (cont.)
Goals Processing finds beingness and mind's doing-
how to start an old case, 108
ness toward it (Pre-Hav Scale) and results in
revised case entrance [1960],167
havingness, 207 symptoms of case with overts and
withholds, 4, 5
Help [process] handles problems of ~,1 10, 1 19 TA
action, relationship to case progress, 144, 207,
thetan tends to move from source ~ to effect ~,
225
131 tone arm, rather than needle, is foremost
in
valences are mocked up other-beingnesses a person
analyzing case, 18
thinks he is, 104 types of cases and handling,
"beatingthe meter",421 ARC breaky case, communication
becomes a
beefing up the bank, cause of, 35 contest of overts in, 120
beginning rudiments; see rudiments, beginning average
case, processes for, [1960] ,168
betrayal, medicine considering man a body is a sort of
big withhold case, 178
betrayal, 86 black case, formula to handle,
9
betrayal, relationship to help; see help failed case
can't confront overts, 5
black case, 9 HGC case, tips on how to crack,
[1960], 154
blackmail and punishment are keynotes of all dark hyper-
critical case, 178
operations, 28 low case, processes for,
[1960] ,169
blows, causes for pc blows, 217 low graph case, 139
blows from Scientology orgs [1960] ,1 1 low-toned case,
overt manifestations on, 26
body and E-Meter; see E-Meter "no auditor" case, 325
Bog Check by D of P [SOP Goals], HCO WW Form no
responsibility case, 98
CT6, 232 poor case, processes for, [1960]
,168
books answer people's questions, 78 "theetie weetie
case" (sweetness and light), 325
books, dissemination fails without ~ distributed, 78 UK
case, control is more easily inverted on, 202
B.Scn./HCS [1961], 261 unmoving case, 4, 178
building unit of a great society is the individual, 45 wants no
processing, handling of, 178
button, help is key button which admits auditing, 85 what
makes cases advance, 68
button, needle reaction starts to occur a fraction of a
withholds, as case progresses it becomes conscious
second after you utter the button, 332 of more,
204
buttons, way of clearing, 87 Case Assessment, 214; see also Preclear
Assessment
Sheet
C causation, cause(s),
able to admit causation, able to
withhold from, is
can squeeze, setting correct sensitivity on E-Meter, 32
anatomy of responsibility, 14,19
"can't-haves", valences are all, so when valence is off
Havingness, running Havingness restores pc at
havingness of pc comes up, 110 cause over
matter, 53
case(s); see also preclear other people's causation is not
aberrative, 19
alter-isness in case handled by auditing Problems, pc has
as much bank as he has denied cause, 19
354 pc has creation tangled up with cause and
cause
Co-Audit, how it stalled cases, 185 tangled up
with overt-motivator sequence, 35
Director of Processing's case checking hat, 228 run the
pc always at cause, 44
dynamics and cases, relationship of, 166 (Secondary
Scale level), 316
havingness run asprocess stabilizescase, 168 terminals,
run always causative terminals never
Help, running cases with, 109 effect terminals,
132
how to recognize low-toned case, 26 thetan cannot
withhold, then compulsively causes
key to all cases is inability to have, 150 things that
are bad, 19
keytoallcasesisresponsibility,l8 thetan is at obsessive
cause while trying to do
most of pc's case will be found connected with
overts or get motivators, 191
some general terminal, 49 Cause ARC Straight Wire, 51
no case gain in auditing, case has withholds or
run to give pcwin on gettingaudited,48
PTPs, 207 Cause Elementary Straight Wire turns on recall in pc,
pc interested in own case, 66, 450 52
PTP, person in PTPis often current clue tocase,61
Cause/Withhold version of Responsibility, 17,19
rudiments, don't run a case by, 274, 363 CCHs, 325
starting cases, 175 correct way to run CCHs, 347
entrance point of case determined by ability to
Joburg Sec Check and CCHs, 348
remedy objective havingness, 155 Routine 1 and
CCHs, 334
Formula is a method of getting a case started,
thinking at command is a sort of CCH on thinking
179 ness, 121
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
CCHs (cont.) Clear (cont.)
when to run CCHs before SOP Goals, 255 no responsibility
case, a mockery of Clear, how to
when verbal commands fail, CCH 3 and CCH 4 can
check this out, 98
be used, 155 theta clear, 133,174
wrong idea that they are for nuts, 334 attained by
handling sixth dynamic to attain a
certificates, cancellation of auditor's certificates,
straight seventh, 166
reason for, 30, 96 valence, if pc were in no
valence, but was himself
certificates, restoration of certificates, 34
completely, he would be wholly Clear, 102
change(s), why Clear would go unclear, 443
basic curve of change compares to cycle of action, clear,
clearing,
258 by SOP Goals, 217
belongs at "inverted control" on Pre-Hav Scale,
curriculum for ClearingCourses ~1961], 374
320 lies in confronting, not escaping, 374
Model Session is designed to avoid unpredictable
materials used for clearing [1961], 370
changes, 54 things that prevent clearing, 217
Problems Intensive and ~; see Problems Intensive to clear
pc give him series of realized wins, 65
rapidity of change of state, unpredicted, definition
valences key to clearing, 368
of surprise, death and forgetfulness, 54 Clear Check
by D of P [SOP Goals], HCO WW Form
resisted change is basis of all mass in physical uni-
CT8 [1961], 233
verse and every stuck point on track, 256 co-audit(s),
co-auditor,
turning points are simply self-determined changes Formulas
and Regimens were never for co-audits,
in pc's life, 401 176
unpredicted change lessens havingness, 54 HAS Co-Audit,
188
Change Processes, 253, 256; see also Start-Change- ended,
176
Stop is for people "trained" on a PE
Course, 188
Change brackets and commands, 258 Process I and II,
189
clarification of, 320 resumed, 185
make a release, 261 how Co-Audit stalled cases, 185
tendency of pc to alter-is commands, and ~, 256 in
groups, 64
5-way bracket, 258 Instructor audits each case through
the co-auditor,
15-way bracket, 259 70
checksheets, use in training, 329 PE Co-Audit processes, 70
children and help, 85 team should run O/W [1960], 21, 25
Children's Security Check, ages 6-12, 378 codes of conduct mutually
agreed, 388
choice, power of, is senior to responsibility, 24 cognition, defn.,
something pc suddenly understands
chronic somatic(s); see somatic, chronic or feels, 42
churches used mechanism of confession, 12 cognition, don't use "I
wiU repeat the auditing com
circuits, mental mass, pictures, ridges, thetan accumu-
mand" after a cognition, 42,164, 222, 455
lates to degree that he misassigns responsibility collect
(Secondary Scale level), 308
18 command(s),
circuits, somatics, aberrations and problems are postu- altitude
is the factor that makes a pc receive and
late counter-postulate situations,414 execute
an auditing command, 134
clean hands make a happy life, 387 CCH 3 and CCH 4 can be
used when verbal com
Clear(s), mands fail, 155
confidence regained makes Clears, not quantity of never
let any auditing command go unanswered, 44
stuff run, 44, 65, 66 pc's ability to follow, 134
doesn't react on E-Meter because he is able to be repeated
commands, 42,164, 222, 455
conscious, 331 tendency of pc to alter-is commands,
256
dynamic clears, 416 terminals, beware running adjectival
commands,
false clear read, 26 17, 50
first Clears made easily by others were done with Comm Course,
PE becomes a dissertation in Scien meter assessments and
five-way Help brackets tology and a Comm Course, 182
on terminals, 92 communication; see also presession
is best described inDMSMH, 80 becomes a contest of
overts in the ARC breaky
mest clear,defn, 137 case, 120
Help is flat on ~,1 16 cycle of action,
communication formula and
process package which makes mest clears, theta
Axiom 10 become identified in the mind with
clears and OTs [1960] ,133 one another,
35
to theta clear requires an address to sixth
interest, communication, control, help, sequence
dynamic with Help Processes, 174 of
breakdown in aberration, 120
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
communication (cont.) Confront Processes (cont.)
O/W is junior to various laws of communication, commands
for Presessions II-X, 142
control and help, 186 commands in order of test for
pcs, 152
Pre-Hav Scale command for Communication, 211 Confront is a
Responsibility Process, 35
(Secondary Scale level), 287 Continuous Confront, 123
what makes communication work in processes is
survival is translated for processing as Contin
duplication part of communications formula
uous Confront, 127
(Axiom 28),155 Failed Help as the Confront Process,
171
communication bridge, use of, 51 Havingness is a Confront
Process and straightens
Communication Process on body part, 70 out the create
factor, 35
communists try to convince people that you're guilty
Havingness Processes and ~, finding; see EME
of their overts, 321 order of test of Havingness
and Confront comcompartmenting the question, 322 mands,
151,152
compete (Secondary Scale level), 292 straightens out any
"mugginess" churned up by
Concentrate-Shift Attention Process, run on stuck Concept
Help, 122
needle, 218 confusion,
Concept Help, 121 flubs in TRs are basis of all confusion
in sub
Confront straightens out any "mugginess" churned
sequent efforts to audit, 249
up by Concept Help, 122 prior confusion; see
prior confusion
two-way ~ on general terminal, 117 problem consists of
two opposed stable data and
condition, how to get pc over any unwanted ~ or
therefore two confusions, 354
aberration that he is agonizing to get rid of,
somatics, handling by sec checking area of con
44 fusion, 409
condition, process that turns on bizarre or unwanted stable
datum and confusion, 62
condition will always turn it off, 218 (two or more
opposed views or actions) stays in
conduct, codes of, mutually agreed, 388 position because it
is hung on a single fixed
confession, mechanism used by churches, 12 point, 62
confidence, connect (Secondary Scale level), 286
auditor confidence increased by standardized ses- conscience,
uneasy lies the head that wears a guilty ~,
sions, 53 27
it's confidence regained that makes Clears, not
ConsequencesProcess, 57
quantity of stuff run, 44, 65, 66 Continuous
Confront, survival is translated for pro
only thing wrong with pc is his lack of confidence
cessing as ~,127
in handling himself without hurting others, 67 control,
see also presession
scale of increasing confidence, 8 change belongs at
"inverted control" on Pre-Hav
confront(ing); see also presession Scale, 320
auditors failing to handle E-Meters, chief reason is
Formula 20 is an effort to run control on thought
mainly confront, 261 level, 213
beingness is more involved with havingness than
interest, communication, control, help, sequence
with confront, 122 of breakdown in
aberration, 120
clearing lies in confronting, not escaping, 374 is more
easily inverted on UK case, 202
concepts are more in kind with confronting than pc under
auditor's control to extent of doing the
with creating, 121 process, 66
create and confront, 35 (Secondary Scale level), 289
failed case can't confront overts, 5 session without
proper rudiments is a session with havingness is an objective and
somewhat obscure out control, 56
method of confronting, 122 "counselor", Scientologist as
a -,114
less a pc can confront two things, the more he counter-
postulate;seepostulate
fixes on one, 62 courage that we can observe what we
observe and say
PTP is basically inability to confront dual terminal
what we have observed, 203
nature of universe, 61 create, created, creating,
creation,
Responsibility is confront and is very senior to concepts
are more in kind with confronting than
Confront as a process, 35 with creating, 121
rising needle means pc can't confront it, 333 confront
and create, 35
TR 0; see TR 0 Create Processes are limited, 35
Confront Processes, 151,154 cycle of action: create-survive-
destroy, 126
Alternate Confront, 121 discreditable creations, 7
commands of Alternate Confront, 140 fundamental
urge of a thetan, 126
can be run as a prelude to any and all Responsi-
Havingness is a Confront Process and straightens
bility, 50 out create factor, 35
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
create, created, creating, creation (cont.) death (cont.)
how to handle subject of create, 116 past, "Where Are
You Buried?" project, 55
person in any valence is victimized by his own preclear
who only gets death pictures or bad pic
creation, 116 tures is somewhere late on
cycle of action or
preclear has creation tangled up with cause and
late on an inversion cycle, 35
cause tangled up with overt-motivator sequence,
dependency, aberration on the subject of help would
35 be a fear of dependency, 85
reactive mind, basis of, is creativeness done below
"Describe the problem to me" "How does it seem
level of consciousness, 116 now?", PTP Process,
42
reactive mind toughened up by creating, how to desire
(Secondary Scale level), 305
handle, 116 destroy, destruction, destructive,
responsibility of individual for his creation, 35, criminal
is one who uses help on anyone to injure
147 and destroy, 101
science goes mad when it is "creating in order to in order
to survive is not a duplication, 126
destroy", 127 keynote of insanity is destructive
efforts on
(Secondary Scale level), 314 various dynamics,
82
survival is apparency of creating, 126 preclear who
believes that every cause brings about
Create Processes are limited, 35 a destruction, 35
criminal, criminality, defn., one who thinks help can- science
goes mad when it is "creating in order to
not be on any dynamic or uses help on anyone
destroy", 127
to injure and destroy, 101 (Secondary Scale level),
295
always assistshimself tobe caught, 12 determinism, psychotic
goes berserk at thought of
how a person becomes criminal, 24 doing anything told
him by another deter
individual rights not originated to protect crimi-
minism, 136
nals, 27 Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health,
is in fact insane, 83 Clear best described in DMSMH, 80
war and criminality, 45 contains a bridge between
uninformed and in
will not receive orders called law, 136 formed
public on subject of Scientology, 79,
would not register on overts, 19 81
critical, hyper-critical case, 178 disseminate withDMSMH, 80
criticism is justification of having done an overt, 12 handles
public arguments and questions concern
criticism, 1.1, is effort to reduce size of target of
ing the mind,79,81
overt, 13 why it was written, 78
cures tend to become a new illness, 103 differentiate, inability to,
is a decline in awareness,
cycle of action, 35 122
applied to work, 126 difficulties (ARC Process 1961), 442
basic curve of change compares to cycle of action, difficulty is
a get-rid-of desire, goal is an actual desire,
258 420
communication formula and Axiom 10 become
DirectorofProcessing('s),
identified, 35 case checking hat, 228
create-survive-destroy, 126 checks assessment, new goals
and terminals, and pc
double action cycles, 126 on rudiments, 215, 216
inversion of, 35 Check Type Forms 1-8 [SOP Goals], 228-33,
254
old action cycles, 126 handling of auditors who say "It
didn't work",
session is a cycle of action, 56 118
cycle of deterioration from independent being to pcs D of P
may refuse to audit [1961], 334
being critical of self, 186 pc "transferred" to D of P,
how to handle, 216
cyclical process, how to end, 42, 221 relationship of staff
auditor to, 214
cyclic aspect of recall type processes, phenomena of role of
D of P, 228
pc bouncing into PT, 51 disagree (Secondary Scale
level), 306
disassociation from identities, 7
discreditable creations, 7
D dishonest person, his way out, 27
dislike (Secondary Scale level), 292
dating, stuck picture, handling by dating, Responsi- disperse
(Secondary Scale level), 312
bility and O/W, 16 disseminate, dissemination,
datum, stable datum and confusion, 62 books are dissemination,
78
Dear Alice; see TR I interest is not first step in
dissemination, 74
death, defn., rapidity of change of state, unpredicted,
Presession Processes assist dissemination, 72, 73
54 with DMSMH, 80
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
Dixie, are you waiting for the meter to play ~, 331 dynamic(s)
(cont.)
do, doingness, 6th and 7th dynamics,
beingness, doingness and havingness must be bal-
cases (and banks) are an inversion of 8 dynam
anced; each must be flexible in pc for a stable
ics into sixth dynamic and they then invert
gain, 207 into seventh dynamic, 166
Goals Processing finds beingness and mind's doing-
mest clear to theta clear requires an address to
ness toward it (Pre-Hav Scale) and results in
sixth dynamic with Help Processes, 174
havingness, 207 Presession Two is based on
theory that one is
how all doingness becomes bad, 24 taking the
sixth dynamic off the seventh
rehabilitation of willingness to do, 25 dynamic,
141
unwillingness to do, 24 taking the sixth dynamic
off the seventh, 166
withholding of, 24 theta clear is attained by
handling sixth dynam
D of P; see Director of Processing ic to attain
a straight seventh, 166
"dones", get "dones" not thoughts or natter on with- Dynamic
Assessment on pc, 17, 49
holds, 424 dynamic clears, 416
"don't know" version, Sec Checking, 425
"don't know" version, withhold pulling, 424
double action cycles, 126 E
dramatization, psychiatry is a dramatization, 103
D.Scn./HGA, 262 Earth, peace on, 28
dual universe, 62 eating and fifth dynamic, 126
duplicate, duplication, duplicative, economic strangulation of
individual in western socie communication works in processes due to
dupli- ty, 24
cation part of communications formula (Axiom Effect List
of terminals, 271
28), 155 effect, run causative terminals, never effect
terminals,
deteriorated willingness to duplicate, 186 132
havingness and duplication, 155 effect (Secondary Scale
level), 315
havingness is apparently the willingness and ability effect,
thetan tends to move from source beingness to
to duplicate in all senses of the word, 155
effect beingness, 131
Mimicry Processes are Duplication Processes and Einstein's
theory of relativity, 102
work only because they raise havingness, 155 electrodes;
see E-Meter, electrodes
Overt/Withhold assists duplication and therefore elimination,
assessing [SOP] goals list by, 239, 265,
havingness, 145 266, 270
pc's ability to duplicate, process to rehabilitate,
elimination, assessing [SOP Goals] terminal list by,
52 240, 267
(Secondary Scale level), 307 elimination, assessment on Pre-
Hav Scale is not by,
Tone Scale, position on Tone Scale is determined
273
by willingness and ability to duplicate, 155 E-Meter; see
also E-Meter Essentials
TR 3, Duplicative Ouestion; see TR 3 ARC broken pc, E-
Meter doesn't register on, 442,
Duplication Straight Wire, "What would you permit 450
to have happen again?", 52 auditor having trouble
with, 261, 264, 432
dynamic(s), behavior on Routine 3D commands, 426
development of knowledge on dynamics, 111 body motions
and E-Meter, 421
help and the dynamics, 119 British E-Meter operation, 32
Overt/Withhold Process on terminal representing
compartmenting the question, 322-23
dynamic, 22, 26; see also Dynamic Straightwire
dating on meter, 60; see also EMD
[in full index] dropping needles tell you charge and
shifting tone
1st and 2nd dynamics, Scientologists handle, only
arms tell you increased or decreased responsibil
to achieve better function on third and fourth,
ity, 42
112 electrodes, use soup cans, not aluminium,
459, 460
3rd dynamic, errors in reading E-Meter, 331, 432
examples of Scientology applied to third dynam- fall;
see fall
ic, 114 false E-Meter reactions, 321
for Scientology, 2 frailties;seeE-MeterEssentials
what our third dynamic organization should do,
future E-Meters; see E-Meter Essentials
113 history of, 459
3rd and 4th dynamics, aberrated, 45 how to read an E-
Meter on a silent subject, 59
3rd and 4th dynamics, Scientologists are "doctors" how to
set up and use E-Meter, 32
on 3rd and 4th dynamics, 113 mental responses
only register on specially built
5th dynamic and eating, 126 meters, body reaction
registers on all, 459
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
E-Meter (cont. ) facsimile (s) (cont. )
needle; see needle pc who only gets death pictures or
bad pictures is
never lies, but you can ask a sloppy question, 323
somewhere late on cycle of action or late on an
oddities; see E-Meter Essentials inversion cycle, 3
5
only the meter knows, 332 pictures bridge the language
barrier, 54
overt acts and ~,18, 323 stuck picture, how to handle,
9, 16
pc "beating the meter", 421 run W/H on terminal
in picture, 48
reacts only on reactive mind; Clear doesn't react thetan
accumulates mental mass, pictures, ridges,
because he is able to be conscious; an aberree
circuits, etc., to degree that he misassigns
reacts because he can't think without thought
responsibility, 18
exciting the reactivity of reactive mind, 331
"unknown" used on, 374
reads degree of mental mass surrounding thetan in "What
part of that picture could you be respon
a body, 18 sible for?", 66
reads, tell pc what he wants to know about, 218 Factual
Havingness, trio form, 36
responds instantly, 332 failed communication (Secondary
Scale level), 288
rudiments and meter reactions, 363 failed control (Secondary
Scale level), 289
Security Check, use of E-Meter in, 97 failed endure (Secondary
Scale level), 304
sensitivity; see sensitivity failed havingness (Secondary
Scale level), 286
sensitivity knob; see E-Meter Essentials failed help,
students must know E-MeterEssentials,264 aberrated
self-determinism is end product of fail
theory; see E-MeterEssentials ures to help, 191
tone arm; see tone arm action of help is not aberrative,
failure to help is,
emotional (Secondary Scale level), 288 119
end rudiments; see rudiments, end failures to help can bring
about confusion of
endure (Secondary Scale level), 304 identities, 191
enforce (Secondary Scale level), 306 overt/withhold mechanism
stems from failures to
engram(s), help, 186
reactive self-restraint is the purpose of all , 69 O/W
running discloses failed helps, 187
recall, use before running engrams, 65 (Secondary Scale
level), 291
running [1960], 65 whatever pc thinks is wrong he has
failed tohelp,
running using "unknown" [1961], 372 210
source of engrams, 1 16 Failed Help [process],
enter (Secondary Scale level), 307 how and when to run,
167,168,170
entheta and attacks in press, 148 lowest verbal entrance point,
168
environment, handling, 194 run ~ as the Confront Process
[Formula 13] ,171
environment, session, 41 failed importance (Secondary Scale
level), 299
escape, basic escape is into another being, thus one failed
interest (Secondary Scale level), 287
acquires beingnesses to escape, 368 failed leave
(Secondary Scale level), 301
escaping, clearing lies in confronting, not ~, 374 failed overt
(Secondary Scale level), 294
Ethics hat, Ron wearing, 99 failed protect (Secondary Scale level),
302
ethics, Overt/Withhold and Help can handle out-ethics, failed to
abandon (Secondary Scale level), 303
99 failed to arrive (Secondary Scale level), 299
evaluation consists of telling pc what to think about failed waste
(Secondary Scale level), 303
his case, 129 failed withhold (Secondary Scale level),
297
evil, old religious beliefs that man is basically ,12 faith
(Secondary Scale level), 316
"evil" valence, 105 fall(s),
evil, withholds are cause of continued evil, 12 difference
between needle fall and change of needle
Expanded Gita run without creating mock-ups, 65 pattern,
363
experience-scarcity, 155 dropping needles tell you charge,
and shifting tone
exteriorization, difficult, is caused by person's con-
arms tell you increased or decreased responsibil
siderations of thought being matter, self being
ity, 42
matter, 53 E-Meter falls on things pc is interested
in and will
exteriorization is stable when thetan is used to mest,
talk about, 175
166 E-Meter fall, what it means, 132,175
needle drops only on those
terminals pc still feels
F some
responsibility for, 38
no fall = meter response for "no" or
negative or
facsimile (s), don't know, 59
pc made facsimile to restrain himself from ever shows
thing wrong with case that can be remedied
doing it again, 38 at this time, 38
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
fall(s) (cont.) goal(s) (cont.)
show where pc's mind is fixed, 43, 54 defn, an actual
desire, 420
slight fall = meter response for "maybe" "you're as
escape, 368
getting close", 59 assessing for goals and
terminals by elimination
steep fall = meter response for "yes" or "correct",
[SOP Goals], 239
59 assessment, 239, 267, 417
field, assessment by goals [Help] ,124
black field case, 9 auditor accepts and acknowledges
goals pc has for
clear pc's field with Responsibility, 16, 49 session,
life and livingness, 194
mysterious, 66 basic types of goals: improvement goal,
no-change
pc has a field, somatics, malformity or aberration,
goal, deterioration goal, 57
how to cleanup, 7 D of P must check all new
goals and terminals
fifth dynamic; see dynamic, 5th [SOP Goals], 216
first dynamic; see dynamic, 1st eliminate nulled goals [SOP
Goals], 270
five-way bracket, 240 goal modifier [R3D], 418
five-way Concept Help commands, 121 goal + modifier [R3D],
defn, visible goal is added
Flat Check by D of P [SOP Goals], HCO WW Form to
heretofore invisible modifier; the whole
CT5, 232 track desire of pc plus threat to
self or
flow run too long in one direction gives anaten-
othersifthatdesireisnotaccomplished,419
unconsciousness, 121 goals terminal for pc's
goal + modifier [R3D],
force opposing force with resultant mass, 426 418
forgetfulness, defn, rapidity of change, unpredicted, 54
must be contained in one basic terminal [R3D],
Formula is a method of getting a case started, 179 413
Formulas and Regimens were never for co-audits, 176 has
anatomy of problem and is not only postulate
Formula 13,171,179 counter-postulate but also terminal
counter
cases that do not move on Formula 13, 178 terminal
[R3D], 416
how to run, 171 in rudiments, 56
Formula 14,179 life is a series of attained goals, 58
Formula 1 5,1 79 list,
Formula 16, cases that don't respond well on O/W always
recheck goals list [SOP Goals], 270
use ~,1 80 assessing goals list by elimination
[SOP Goals],
Formula 17,181 239
Formula 19, theory and commands, 205 complete goals list
[SOP Goals], 270
Formula 19, "Who have you failed to help?", 194 do full
list of goals on pc [SOP Goals], 265
Formula 20, theory and commands, 213 how to assess goals
list [SOP Goals], 236
fourth dynamic; see dynamic 4th modifier is that consideration
which opposes the
freedom of speech does not mean freedom to harm
attainment of a goal and tends to suspend it in
by lies, 27 time [R3A], 413
freedom, what freedom means, 27 modifier is unseen
modification pc has placed
freeing action of auditing, what it depends upon, 53
before or after his goal to insist upon winning
free, thetan will not let himself go free unless he can or
threaten with if he does not win, or to keep
operate without danger to others, 19 the goal
in a games condition unknown even to
Freud's libido theory, 103 himself [R3D], 419
modifier on goals [R3A], 412
G opposition goal, 417, defn,
idea that is inter
locked against pc's goal, making it a postulate
counter-postulate situation of
long duration; it
gains, Objective Havingness established and used often is
not actually the goal of the opposition termi
is necessary for stable gains, 167 nal as
the opposition terminal would see it, but
gains, others can get gains when oneself is processed, 45
only what pc believes it was as it affects him,
games condition evolves from separateness, 54 419
General Check-up on a Session by D of P [SOP opposition
terminal; see opposition terminal
Goals], HCO WW Form CT3, 230 out rudiments bury
goal, 374, 423
generalities won't do-Sec Checking, 424 pc in bad condition is
more likely to have succumb
General O/W, co-audit teams run ~, 25 [rudiment] goals
than survive goals, 58
Gita, Expanded, run without creating mock-ups, 65 preliminary
goal [SOP Goals], 236
goal(s); see also SOP Goals principal goal [SOP Goals], 237
defn, something pc wanted to be, to do or to prove up the
goal,howto, [SOPGoals], 267
have, whether pc abandoned it, failed in it or
PTPs expressed as session goals, 210
not, 419 session goals, 41, 56, 210
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
goal(s) (cont.) have, havingness (cont.)
simplest process to clear pc on direction [goal] is a
Goals Processing finds beingness and mind's doing Problem
Process, 57 ness toward it (Pre-Hav Scale) and results in
terminal, defn, that valence into which pc has
havingness,207
interiorized and which carries the goal,
havingness takesedge offbank, 116
modifier and aberration which pc attributes
inability to have, key to all cases, 150
to self, 419 lowest rung of responsibility, 36
assessing goals terminal with Primary Pre-Hav
Model Session is designed to retain havingness by
Scale, 283 retaining pattern, 54
for pc's goal + modifier [R3D], 418 must be up
when running "thetan", 195
when a goals terminal is flat [SOP Goals], 209
necessity for, 53
terminals and goals searches require a repeat over
objective havingness, ability to remedy, determines
and over of goal or terminal on list in order to
entrance point of case, 155
get them to go null [SOP Goals], 273 objective
havingness, high and low TA cases have
test [R3D], 419 low objective ~,144
to stay fixed, goal must have a counter-postulate,
Overt/Withhold assists duplication and therefore
413 havingness, 145
"X" and "/" signs, use of in goals assessment, 266 precise
mechanics of, 155
Goal Problem Mass described, 426 (Secondary Scale level), 286
Goals Problem Mass, core of the reactive bank, 443 smoother the
auditing, the better pc's ~, 54
Goals Problem Mass could come back in, reason TA action,
havingness and overts are keys to, 144
Clears went unclear, 443 unpredicted change
lessens havingness, 54
Goals Processing finds beingness and mind's doingness valences
are all "can't-haves" so when valence is
toward it (Pre-Hav Scale) and results in having-
off havingness of pc comes up, 110
ness [SOP Goals], 207 Havingness Process(es), defn, one
that returns tone
good, man is basically good and is damaged by arm to
clear read and frees needle [1960],152
punishment, 104 can be run on any presession type
session, 90
gross auditing errors are reason for all failure, 432 can help
on out ruds, 450
group(s), check for, 167, 174
auditing session begins with group auditor explain-
commands, a dozen is enough to show if Having-
ing what he means to do and why, 177 ness
Process is going to work or not, 151
co-auditing in groups, 64 commands, list of, 142, 152,
154
need time to assimilate new concept, 91 Confront
Processes and , finding; see EME
Scientology can have a group win, 45 Factual Havingness,
trio form, 36
guilt, guilty, Help used in conjunction with Alternate
Confront
chronic somatics, find out who pc is making guilty
and Havingness, 108, 110
by having them, 7 if it can't be found use O/W,
if still not, use Failed
justification is tantamount to a confession of guilt,
Help, 167,170
12 in presence of ARC breaks, Havingness is
a must
overts include making another person guilty, 6 on
Responsibility Process, 36
uneasy lies the head that wears a guilty conscience, is
a Confront Process and straightens out the
27 create factor, 35
"Look around here and find something
you could
H have", 118,139, 154
objective and somewhat obscure
method of con
Hand Mimicry; see TR 5 fronting, 122
HAS certificates [1960] ,1, 71 Objective Havingness
established and used often is
HAS Co-Audit; see co-audit, HAS Co-Audit necessary for
stable gains, 167
HAS Processes III-VIII, 192 O/W as a Havingness Process, 171
have, havingness; see also presession O/W is needed to make a
Havingness Process work,
defn, willingness and ability to duplicate in all
167
senses of the word, 155 "point out", 143
beingness, doingness and havingness must be bal- run as
process that stabilizes case, 168
anced; each must be flexible in pc for a stable
running Havingness restores pc at cause over mat
gain, 207 ter, 53
beingness is more involved with havingness than HCA/HPAlevel,
[1960] 69, [1961] 261
with confront, 122 HCO WW Form Check Types [SOP Goals],
228-33,
failed havingness (Secondary Scale level), 286
254
familiarity, predictability, is strongly connected HCS/B.Scn.
Courses, OTprocedures for, 6
with ability to have or own, 54 "healing", mental, on
whole track, how to handle, 195
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
help, 85; see also presession Help Processing (cont.)
aberration on help is a barrier to Scientology, 95
assessment of Help, 119
aberration on ~ would be a fear of dependency, 85 Concept
Help; see Concept Help
aberration, sequence of breakdown is interest, does not
flatten very easily on a late specific termi
communication, control, help, 120 nal, 119
ARC breaks and help, 85 Failed Help; see Failed Help
as assistance, is an identification of mutual interest
five-way bracket, 87
in survival; thus we have (1) possible confusion
general processes which assist Help, 110
of beingness and (2) continuation, 123 handles
problems of beingness, 119
betrayal and help, help check as a security check, 98
below 2.0 help is betrayal, 89 Help O/W, commands,
93,108
help-betrayal identification, 85, 86, 88 hints on
running cases with Help, 109
"help-is-injury"mechanism, 94 mest clear to theta
clear requires an address to
how help became betrayal, 94 sixth dynamic
with Help Processes, 174
psychiatry as betrayed help, 86 on terminals
reduces a heavy or thick bank, 116
button the world spun in on, 94 Overt/Withhold and Help
can handle out-ethics, 99
children aberrated on help, 85 O/W data applies to
running Help, 92
clearing help, 86 pcs readily get idea that Help on
some terminal
cojoining of vectors of life, 186 "will never
flatten" even though it is flattening
common denominator world can understand, 92 nicely,
why and handling, 123
criminal is one who thinks help cannot be on any primary
reason for the Clears in 1957-58, 89
dynamic or uses help on anyone to injure and
restimulative process on auditor, how to handle,
destroy, 101 119
degradation of, 86 run on motion, commands, 133
deterioration of, 88 run on pan-determined basis, 191
dynamics and help, 119 two-way bracket, 87
failed help; see failed help two-way comm on help, 87
insane, why they won't be helped, 88 valences, Help
sheds, 110
is key button which admits auditing, 85 ways Help
could be run, 92
is rejected, why, 94 "What help could you confront?"
"What help
judge people from what they think of help, 101
would you rather not confront?", 87
make-break point between sanity and insanity, 85 HGC,
mest clear, Help is flat, 1 16 allowed processes [1961
], 369, 385
pc apparently will not be helped, don't think he is
auditing should convert earlier auditing losses to
evil and cannot be helped, 88 wins, 108
pc protests which denote a breakdown of help but-
Auditor's Sec Check, 356
ton, 85 check sheet for, [1960], 68
Processing; see Help Processing preclear assessment, 108
psychotic will not receive the orders that bring real
Pre-Processing Security Check, 403
help, 136 hidden standards are the result of prior
confusion,
punishment doesn't make man work, he works as
409
long as he can help, 148 hidden standards, problems
being hidden standards
resolves cases because it is the basis of all asso-
by which all auditing progress is judged, 354
ciation, 119 high scale manifestation or activity,
every ~ has a low
(Secondary Scale level), 290 scale mockery, 26
session depends on pc willing to be helped by audi- high TA;
see tone arm, high
tor, 66 honest people are impeded by disciplinary laws
aimed
Step 6 made bank toughen up if ~ was unflat, 116 at
the dishonest, 27
terminals, 124,125 honest people, freedom is for, 27
assessment for Help terminals, 128 horticulture
discoveries at Saint Hill, 29
Regimen 8, never change Help terminal, 174 HPA Course
change proposal to London, 40
valence, help as valence problem, 109 Hubbard Certified
Auditor; see HCA
valences and identification stem from help, 119 Hubbard
Electrometer; see E-Meter
wrong-way help brings about aberration, 122 Hubbard Guidance
Center; see HGC
Help Process, defn, one that moves tone arm atleast Hubbard, L.
Ron, financial support from orgs for
3 tones per hour and brings reading always a bit
research, 31
closer to clear read [ 1960] ,1 52 Hubbard, L. Ron,
wearing Ethics hat, 99
Help Processing, 86, 92; see also presession humanitarians,
Scientologists are ~, not revolution
Alternate Confront, Havingness and ~, 108, 110
aries, 114
any Help run is better than no Help run, 119 hyper-critical
case, 178
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
I integrity, personal, 203
intensives, end of, 219
intention, problem is an intention
counter-intention
identification, 122 that worries pc, 210
association leads to, 119 intention, problem is intention vs.
intention or "two
basis of all mental upsets, 119 or more opposing
and conflicting views on the
valences and identification stem from help, 119
same subject", 61
identity, identities, interaction, law of physics of, 186
any "identity" is a misidentification, 7 interest; see also
presession
confusion of ~, failures to help can bring about,
communication, control, help, sequence of break
191 down in aberration, 120
disassociation from, 7 is not first step in dissemination,
74
past life identities, 7 (Secondary Scale level), 286
famous or enduring, 17, 49 interrogation, 59
recent, 17 invented answers by pc, handling of, 110
Identity Process, "What about (name) would you be inverted
communication (Secondary Scale level), 311
willing to be?" "What about (name) would you inverted
control (Secondary Scale level), 309
rather not be?", 49 inverted help (Secondary Scale
level), 308
illness, cures tend to become a new illness, 103 inverted interest
(Secondary Scale level), 312
ill, pc is ill because he is restraining himself from
irresponsible, irresponsibility,
doing wrong, 69 high or low TA, pc in an area in
time when pc was
ills, social ills of man are a composite of his personal
being very irresponsible, 18
difficulties, 45 how to get withholds off the
irresponsible pc, 424
importance (Secondary Scale level), 298 overt acts proceed from,
19
incidents, difference between flattening Dianetically overts
and withholds are the same as ~, 37
and Scientologically, 65 rising needle tells you
the pc is being , 42
incident, source of engrams is pc who creates a pic
ture of incident below his level of knowingness
and recreates it into a "key-in", 116
J
individual(s),
building unit of a great society is the ~, 45 Johannesburg
Processing Check, 325, 327
responsibility of ~ for his creation, 147 Johannesburg
(Joburg) Security Check; see Security
rights, not originated to protect criminals, 27
Check
social aberration is only a composite of ~ aber-
justification, mechanism of, 12
rations, 45
train individuals, not a class, 329
westem society, economic strangulation of individ-
K
ual, 24
individuation and O/W, 191 key-in, source of engrams is pc who
creates a picture
individuation, how it comes about, 191 of incident below
his level of knowingness and
inflows, thetan tends to maintain position on Tone
recreates it into a "key-in", 116
Scale where inflows are comfortable, 131 Know to
Mystery Scale Assessment, 109
inhibit (Secondary Scale level), 307
insane, insanity,
criminal is in fact insane, 83 L
cure of insanity is light handling, no violence, 83
help and insanity, 85, 86, 88 language barrier, pictures
bridge, 54
keynote of, is destructive efforts on various language,
thought discharges dependency on ~, 54
dynamics, 82 language trouble, example of handling,
125
malnutrition and anxiety can produce all the latent reads,don't
take up, [R-1A], 355
symptoms of insanity, 82 law, criminal will not receive
orders called law, 136
scientific treatment of, 82 laws, honest people are impeded by
disciplinary laws
should get rest and then exercise before auditing,
aimed at the dishonest, 27
88 leave (Secondary Scale level), 300
South Africa insanity rate, 82 lectures by Ron needed to give
student flavor and
thetan holding himself in state of insanity, hand-
idea of Scientology, 329
ling, 38 libido theory, Freud's, 103
in session; see session, in lie reaction questions, purpose of, 275
instant read, defn, needle falls within a tenth of a lies, freedom
of speech, does not mean freedom to
second after question is asked, 355 harm by
lies, 27
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
life, defn, a series of attained goals, 58 mest (cont.)
life, help is a cojoining of vectors of life, 186 people go out
of present time because they can't
life, survive is dynamic principle which motivates have
mest of present time,l55
most biological life, 126 target of Theory 67 is
mest, 166
like (Secondary Scale level), 292 mest clear; see Clear, mest
limited process, any process which makes pc create, meter(ing);
see E-Meter
35 Mimicry Processes are Duplication Processes and
losses to wins, HGC auditing should convert earlier
work only because they raise havingness, 155
auditing ~,108 mind, audit pc where pc's mind is, 43
"Love thy neighbor", when it is no longer a willing- mind, DMSMH
handles public arguments concerning
ness, is enforced by theory of O/W, 186
the mind, 81
low scale mockery, every high scale manifestation or mis-emotional
(Secondary Scale level), 296
activity has a ~, 26 misidentification, identity is a, 7
low TA; see tone arm, low mockery, every high scale manifestation
or activity
low-toned case, how to recognize, 26 has a low scale
mockery, 26
Model Session, 41, 137, 271, defn., exact
form and
sequence of a session and
exact wording of one,
M 41; see also
session
is a Model Session because of its
"patter", not
malnutrition and anxiety can produce all symptoms because
of specific processes, 220
of insanity, 82 is designed to avoid unpredictable
changes, to
man is basically good, 12 retain havingness by retaining
pattem, retaining
and is damaged by punishment, 104 predictability by
pc, 54
massless terminal, do not run ~, 50 presession is run without
a Model Session, 180
mass, problem is force opposing force with resultant script
of a Model Session, [1960] 163, [1961]
~, 426 220
mass, resisted change is basis of all mass in physical
change, 172, 204
universe, 256 revised [1961], 453
matter, difficult exteriorization is all caused by a per-
modifier, 418; see also goals
son's considerations of thought being matter,
defn., that consideration which opposes the attain-
self being matter, 53 ment of a goal and tends
to suspend it in time,
matter, running Havingness restores pc at cause over
413
matter, 53 defn, unseen modification pc has placed
before or
matter, "Think about matter", pretty steep for most
after his goal to insist upon winning or threaten
cases and would not be real to many, 54
with if he does not win, or to keep the goal in a
Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya killed whites who helped games
condition unknown even to himself, 419
them, 86 mores, transgressions against mores of one's
race,
medicine considering man a body is a sort of betrayal,
group and family cause unhappiness, 387
86 motion,
mental, how Help can be run on motion, 133
E-Meter reads degree of mental mass surrounding mutual
motion is all right-until we act in cruelty
thetan in a body, 18 to the rest, 387
"healing" on whole track, how to handle, 195 (Secondary
Scale level), 294
health, real program of mental health is vital, 82 motivators,
thetan is at obsessive cause while trying
identification is basis of all mental upsets, 1 19 to
do overts or get ~,191
mass, pictures, ridges, circuits, etc., thetan accu- mutual
action is key to all our overt acts, 387
mulates, to degree that he misassigns responsi
bility, 18
responses will only register on specially built meters,
N
body reaction registers on all meters, 459
mest, needle; see also each needle characteristic by
name;
basic freeing action of auditing depends upon E-Meter
Essentials
separation of thought from matter, energy, assess
by needle, audit by tone arm, 284, 318
space and time and other life, 53 assessment,
pc does not have to think or answer to
exteriorization is stable when thetan is used to
make needle respond on,331
mest, 166 manifestations on SOP Goals, 271
has six parts-matter, energy, space, time, form
reactions, 333
and location, 166 start to occur a fraction
of a second after you
overt act, basic, is making somebody else want
utter button, 332
mest, 53 response is reactive, 332
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
needle (cont.) overt(s) (cont.)
tone arm, rather than needle, is foremost in basic
overt act is making somebody else want
analyzing the case, 18 mest, 53
Nixon, Richard M., 76-77 communication becomes a contest of
overts in the
"no auditing", ARC breaks are all under the heading
ARC breaky case, 120
of ~, 421 criminals would not register on overts,
19
"no auditor" case, 325 criticism is justification of having done
an overt,
no effect (Secondary Scale level), 316 12,13
no motion (Secondary Scale level), 304 failed case can't
confront overts, 5
"not know" version of Security Checking, 372 high or low TA,
responsibility is the key to them,
null, [SOP Goals] goals and terminals searches not
overts, 17
require a repeat over and over of goal or termi-
how to get them recognized by pc, 26
nal on list in order to get them to go null, 273
include making another person guilty, 6
manifestations on a low-toned case,
26
mechanism of effort to lessen size
and pressure of
O overt, 12, 13
meter reacts on any person or thing
on whom sub
objective havingness, ability to remedy it, determines
ject has committed overt acts, 323
entrance point of case, 155 mutual action is the key
to all our overt acts, 387
obsessive can't have (Secondary Scale level), 314 people guilty
of overts demand punishment, 13
OCA/APA, people withhold overt acts because they
conceive
ARC breaks worsen the graph, 217 that telling them
would be another overt act, 12
present time problem sticks the graph, makes it person
who does an overt act to another life form
register no change, 61 has already
abandoned responsibility for that
profile on our tests is a picture of a valence, 102
other life form, 37
opposition assessment [R3D], 417 proceed from irresponsibility,
19
opposition goal, 417, defn., idea that is interlocked recoils
upon one because one is already in a val
against pc's goal, making it a postulate counter-
ence similar to that of the being against whom
postulate situation of long duration; it is not
the overt is leveled, 105
actually the goal of the opposition terminal as
responsibility increases, then new overts are rea
the opposition terminal would see it, but only
lized, 326
what pc believes it was as it affects him, 419
responsibility level needed for overt to show on
opposition terminal, 417, defn., person, group or meter,
18
object that has consistently opposed pc's goal,
responsibility, when responsibility declines, overt
making it a terminal counter-terminal situation
acts can occur, 19
of long duration, 419 running, don't be snide, 44
steps of running levels on 3D terminal and opp-
(Secondary Scale level), 293
term, 443 TA action, keys to, are havingness and
overts, 144
orders,personswhorefuseorders,l36 thetan is at obsessive cause
while trying to do
organization, what our third dynamic ~ should do, 113
overts or get motivators, 191
organization, why Ron decided in 1950 to concen- valences, why
a being with valences commits
trate on research, 111 overts harmful to
others, 105
orgs, blows from Scientology orgs, 11 overt-motivator sequence, 388
originations; see TR4 pc has creation tangled up with cause and
cause
others can get gains when oneself is processed, 45 tangled
up with the overt-motivator sequence,
OT Procedure [1 960], 1 5 35
for HCS/B.Scn. Courses [1960], 6 overt/withhold(s),
OT-3 Procedure-HGC allowed processes [1960], 16 ARC breaky
pc, look for overts and withholds, 6
OT-3A Procedure-HGC allowed processes [1960], are the same
as irresponsibility,37
48 by transfer, 186
expansion of OT-3A Procedure, Step Two-HGC can occur
only when help has failed, 186
allowed processes, 51 case that does not advance
under auditing has
outflow, thetan's reality on a terminal depends upon
undisclosed overts and withholds, 5
degree of outflow he can tolerate from that cause
social aberration,45
class of terminals, 131 expressions of abandoning
responsibility already
out of session; see session, out of extant, 37
out rudiments; see rudiments, out individuation and ~,191
overt(s), is an effort to regain the status of
independent
basic assumptions of Scientology versus overts,
being without taking responsibility for any of
102 intervening steps, 186
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
overt/withhold(s) (cont.)
is a theory which sets in when aberration sets in; it
P
is not a high natural law; it is junior to various
laws of communication, control and help, 186 pain,
freeing of valences remedies pain and aberra
is not the senior law of the universe, 187 tion,
105
list sent to HCO WW, 2 pan-determined basis, Help on, 191
"Love thy neighbor", when it is no longer a will- passive
resistance, how to handle, 60
ingness, is enforced by the theory of O/W, 186 past
deaths, "Where Are You Buried?" project, 55
mechanism applies only to a strata of existence past life,
past lives; see also HYLBTL?
and it stems from failures to help, 186
identities, 7
on auditor is far too accusative and invalidates pc,
famous, enduring, recent, 17
194 immediate past lifetime or lifetimes of
pc, 17, 49
pc with ~ is afraid to talk or talks to cover up, 62 pc; see
preclear
problem, one cannot have a problem without PDH, defn., pain-
drug-hypnotism, 321
overts and withholds against people involved in PE,
it, reason why, 414 becomes a dissertation in
Scientology and a Comm
secretofall~mechanismsisvalences, 102 Course, 182
symptoms of case with overts and withholds, 4 Co-Audit
processes, 70
theory, 92,186 Course, way to run, 70,188
theory of, poetically described by Ron, 387 personnel and
admin, 183
what pc has done to others is aberrative, not what
procurement, 70
has been done to him, 92 test section, 182
when O/W sets in, 186 peace on Earth, 28
worry is the most easily dramatized O/W, 187 people's questions,
answer with books, 78
Overt/Withhold (O/W) Process(es), personal difficulties, social ills
of man are a composite
assists duplication and therefore havingness, 145 of
his~,45
cases that don't respond well on O/W use Formula personal
efficiency; see PE
16,180 personal integrity, 203
co-audit teams, types of O/W to run, 21, 25 philosophy that
failed, psychiatry, 77
Havingness Process, if it can't be found use O/W, if physics,
law of interaction, 186
still not, use Failed Help, 168,170,171 picture; see
facsimile
Help and ~ can handle out-ethics, 99 political slavery, on
what it is built, 28
how to run O/W and Responsibility, 37 postulate(s),
is needed to make a Havingness Process work, 167 goal has
anatomy of ~ counter-postulate, 416
on terminal that represents dynamic [process], 22, goal
must have a counter-postulate to stay fixed,
26; see also Dynamic Straightwire [in full index]
413
overt finding processes, "What could you admit
opposition goal, a postulate counter-postulate
causing a (terminal real to pc)?" alternated with
situation of long duration, 419
"What could you withhold from a (same termi- problem
is caused by a balanced postulate counter
nal)?", 50 postulate, 413, 414
PE Co-Audit Process, O/W on a selected terminal, problem
is two or more ~ in opposition, 354
70 somatics, aberrations, circuits and
problems are
PTP, repeatedly on same person, run O/W, 39,
postulate counter-postulate situations, 414
61 power of choice is senior to responsibility, 24
Regimen 6 O/W commands, 3 versions of, 160 power, thetan
reduces his own, 19
Responsibility Processes: Havingness, Confront,
practitioners, working alone, banish that idea, 112
O/W, Responsibility, 35 preclear(s)('s); see also case
running ~ discloses failed helps, 187 ability to
duplicate, process to rehabilitate, 52
run Responsibility Process after O/W, 37 ability to
follow auditing command, 134
session ARC breaks, running O/W to handle, 43
auditor's reality vs. pc's reality, 129
stuck picture, handling by dating, Responsibility
auditor's relationship to pc; see auditor
and O/W, 16 ARC break(s) and pc,
why O/W is run, 186 auditor taking order from pc
causes pc to ARC
3D commands whole track O/W, 458 break, 374
own, familiarity, predictability, is strongly connected E-
Meter doesn't register on ARC broken pc,
with ability to have or own, 54 442
Oxford Capacity Analysis; see OCA/APA look for overts and
withholds on ARC breaky
pc, 6
pc permitted to be responsible
for session will
ARC break, 373
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
preclear(s)('s) (cont.) preclear(s)('s) (cont.)
pc who refuses to answer has an ARC break or what is
wrong with pc is not known to pc; if pc
a withhold, 175 knows all about it, it
isn't wrong with him, 331
restless or ARC breaky pc, how to handle, 43 "What
question shouldn't I ask you?", if pc evades
yanking pc's attention to auditor is source of a
this, how to handle, 180
lot of ARC breaks, 43 when pcs don't recover
very fast, they don't want
"beating the meter", 421 to, how to handle, 58
beingnesses in pc, general form of Help which dis- who
always has problems, 63
covers, 110 who believes that every cause brings
about a
blows, causes for, 217 destruction, 35
completedpc, adminhandling, 219 who only gets death
pictures or bad pictures is
confront, less a pc can confront two things, more
somewhere late on cycle of action or late on an
he fixes on one, 62 inversion cycle, 35
did it all himself and must gradually come to rea- willing
to be helped by auditor, 66
lize that with total subjective reality, 38 preclear
assessment, HGC, 108
E-Meter falls on things pc is interested in and will Preclear
Assessment Sheet, purpose of, 392
talk about, 175 predictability is strongly connected with
ability to
feels a security when all his sessions are predictable
have or own, 54
as to pattern, 53 Pre-Have 3D Scale, Auxiliary, 434
feels weird running Concept Help, then run Alter- Pre-
Havingness Scale, 197
nate Confront, 122 amended and revised, 282, 335,
375
going upscale to boredom, continue the process,
assessment, 207, 225, 324
175 not by elimination, 273
has a field, somatics, malformity or aberration,
how to assess Pre-Hav Scale,332
how to clean up, 7 change belongs at "inverted
control" on ~, 320
ill because he is restraining himself from doing
commandforcommunicationon ,211
wrong, 69 command sheet-Pre-Havingness Scale, 199
improve pc, not valence, 368 flat, cases may slump
between sessions until Pre in bad condition is more likely to have
succumb Hav Scale is flat, 209
goals than survive goals, 58 general runs on ~,
317
interested in own case, 43, 66; see also session, in
without terminal, 326
invented answers by pc, handling of, 110 level(s), 418
made facsimile to restrain himself from ever doing
assess for ~ on SOP Goals, how to, 268
it again, 38 flatten a level before
reassessing, 327
may be sane analytically and still react violently at
"flat" when the TA moves only 1/4 to 1/8 of a
times in session, 88 division up or down in 20
minutes of audit
often gives a PT problem when asked for goals,
ing, 283
210 mistakes in running, 327
only thing wrong with pc is his lack of confidence
null all Pre-Hav levels that react on assessment
in handling himself without hurting others,
on the first terminal, 269
67 rock slams, handling, 283
out of session; see session, out of TA behavior
on, 238
priorly audited, how to handle, [1961 ], 21 6 not a
picture of analytical thought; it is in order it
problems tend to snap in on pc, cause of, 61 is in
because it is a picture of reactive thought,
protests that denote a breakdown of the help but-
331
ton, 85 one-time Pre-Hav rule, 273
refuses to answer or refuses auditing, what to run,
Primary Scale, 282, 285
175 amended, 336
response onmeter, analytical vs. reactive, 331 PTPs of
long duration, run on Pre-Havingness
rudiments, establish them more often with touchy
Scale, 271, 326
pcs, 48 Secondary Scale, 286
run thepc always atcause,44 contains nearly all
simple verbs in English
"transferred" to D of P, how to handle, 216
language, properly placed for level and re
trouble, formula of attack on area where pc is
peated on other levels,282
having trouble, 25 use of, 198, 282
unchanging, what to do, 219 in SOP Goals Intensive,
206
unwanted pc condition or aberration, how to when first
terminal is flat, 216
handle, 44 Pre-Intensive Interview and Pre-Goals
Assessment
what is right and wrong with pc, scale of, in order
Check by D of P [SOP Goals], HCO WW Form
of importance, 121 CT1, 228, 254
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
present time, cyclic aspect of recall type processes, Presession
Processes (cont.
phenomena of pc bouncing into PT, 51 Presession 37
(cont.)
present time is only referral point that exists; in its
use of, 204
absence all becomes "bank", 155 "What
question shouldn't I ask you?", 154,
present time, people go out of present time because
194
they can't have the mest of present time, 155
what to do for person after ~, 79
present time problem, 43, 61, 377; see also problem press,
entheta and attacks in, 148
defn, basically the inability to confront the dual Primary
Scale; see Pre-Havingness Scale, Primary Scale
terminal nature of this universe, 61 primitives, help =
betrayal, 86
defn, a special problem that existsinthephysical primitives,
insanity rises when veneered by white
universe now on which pc has his attention
customs, 82
fixed, 62 prior confusion, 401, 409
defn., problem that exists now in physical uni- all
problems are preceded by ,409
verse, 210 finding, 415
ARC breaks, withholds and PT problems can stop hidden
standards are result of ~, 409
a case, 207, 210 sec checking area of prior
confusion, 406, 414
goals and PT problem, 210 Security Checking includes
ability to locate area of
handling, 63,194 prior confusion, 390
long duration PTPs, 271 stuck points on time track
stick because of ~, 414
run on Pre-Hav, 326 use of ~ in Problems Intenshe,
414
out of session, caused by W/Hs and PTPs, 62 problem(s); see
also present time problem
pcoftengivesaPTPwhenaskedforgoals,210 defn., intention
vs. intention or "two or more
pc who is having lots of PTPs has his attention
opposing and conflicting views on same sub
very fixed on something, 61 ject", 61
person in the PTP is often the current clue to the defn.,
an intention counter-intention that worries
case, 61 pc, 210
preventsprogress,217 defn., two or more postulates in
opposition to
run O/W on constant restimulator of PTPs, 39, 61
each other, 354
sticks the graph, makes it register no change, 61 defn,
postulate counter-postulate, 413
what is a PTP, 61 all problems are preceded by a prior
confusion,
Present Time Problem Process, "Describe the problem
409
to me." "How does it seem now?", 42 auditing
Problems cures alter-isness in a case, 354
Present Time Problem Processes, 61 confronting ~ without
doing something about it,
presession(s), 61
additions, 134 consists of two opposed stable data and
therefore
auditing presession, 141 two confusions, 354
help is first button, 86 dating the problem in Problems
Intensive, what it
is run without a Model Session, 180 does, 415
of the 1st Saint Hill ACC, 142 force opposing force with
resultant mass, 426
pre-presession stage that's a confessional, 89 goal has
anatomy of problem, 416
thirty-six new presessions, 156 hidden standards by which
all auditing progress is
type session, havingness can be run on any, 90
judged, 354
Presession Processes, 74 most stuck point on track is a
problem, 414
assist dissemination, 72, 73 old solution causing new
problems, 62
commands for Presessions II-X, Havingness and one
cannot have a~without overtsandwithholds
Confront, 142 against people involved in it,
for one cannot be
handle: help factor, control factor, pc communi- so
individuated as to not influence others unless
cation factor, interest factor, 72 one has O/Ws
on those others, 414
Presession Communication, 135 pc in looking over
problems falls into realizing
Presession Control, 134,135 what his actual desires
are, 57
Presession Help: two-way Help on auditor-pc, 134 pc who
always has problems, 63
Presession Interest: live or die, 134 solutions are
ordinarily an alter-is of problems, 54
Presession One (Help, Control, Communication,
somatics, aberrations, circuits and problems are
Interest), 175 postulate counter-postulate
situations, 414
Presession Two, 139 tend to snap in on the pc, 61
based on theory that one is taking sixth dynam-
why problems hang and float in time, 414
ic off seventh dynamic, 141 Problem Process(es), 61,
354
steps of, 139 Problem and Solution Processes, 54
Presession 37,180 Sec Check and Problem, ratio between
in terms of
method of getting off withholds, 180 time
[R1A], 355
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
Problem Process(es) (cont.) psychotic, defn., that person who cannot
receive
"Tell me your problem." "How does it seem to orders
of any kind, who sits unmoving or goes
you now?", 61 berserk at the thought of
doing anything told
"Tell me your problem." "What part of that prob-
him by another determinism, 136
lem could you confront?", 62 PT; see present time
"Tell me your problem." "What part of that prob- PTP; see
present time problem
lem have you been responsible for?", 62 public
arguments concerning the mind, DMSMH
"What motion have you been responsible for?", 62
handles them, 81
"What problem about a leg could you confront?", public asking
questions, best answer: read DMSMH,
54 79
"What problem could you confront?", 61 public, uninformed and
informed on subject of Scien
"What problem have you been (or might you have
tology, DMSMH contains a bridge between
been) responsible for?", 62 them, 79
"What two things can you confront?", 62 punishment,
ProblemsIntensives,401,414 blackmail and are keynotes of all
dark opera
assessment, example, 410 tions, 28
for staff clearing, 392 doesn't cure anything, 103
turning points are simply self-determined changes doesn't
make man work, he works as long as he
in pc's life, 401 can help, 148
use of the prior confusion,414 earlier assumption to
punishment is that some
process(es), thing can be done to another being,
104
all fail if pc is out of session, 175 is just another
worsening of overt sequence and
allowed [1961], 325, 385 degrades punisher, 13
are run as long as they produce tone arm change, man is
basically good and is damaged by punish
218 ment, 104
developed to facilitate application, 64 mechanisms
of, 13
ending a process, [1960] 42, 164, [1961] 221, people
guilty of overts demand, 13
454 psychiatric basic assumption that enough
punish
how long to run process, 42, 218 ment will restore
sanity is disproven, 104
limited process, any process which makes pc cre
ate, 35
never restart a process the moment it is ended,
Q
44
safe processes, 406 Q and A, defn., auditor doing whatever pc
says, 374,
sequence of, [1960], 90 375
start of ~, [1960] 42, 163, [1961 ] 221, 454 change in pc
causes auditor to stop or change pro
stopping a process, 218 cess, 218
that turns on a bizarre or unwanted condition will
examples, 373
always turn it off, 218 questions, books answer
people's ~, 78
processing; see auditing questions, public asking, best answer:
read DMSMH,
Processing Check, Johannesburg, 325 79
Processing Security Check, 356
process levels-necessity for training, 261 R
professional Scientologist is one who expertly uses
Scientology on any area or level of society, 106 reach,
high tone arm shows loss of ability to start or
profile; see OCA/APA, profile reach, 38
propitiate (Secondary Scale level), 298 reactive,
protect (Secondary Scale leve!), 301 all needle response is
reactive, 332
protests, pc, denote a breakdown of the help button, engrams,
reactive self-restraint is the purpose of
85 all, 69
psychiatry('s), help is almost always betrayal in reactive
zones
as betrayed help, 86 and areas, 88
basic assumption: shock cures aberration, 103 pc
response, analytical vs. reactive, 331
basic assumption that enough punishment will Pre-Hav Scale
is a picture of reactive thought, 331
restore sanity is disproven, 104 responsibility is
very aberrated in its reactive defi dramatization, 103
nitions, 87
philosophy that failed, 77 reactive mind,
why it failed, 88 attention, when too much attention
is given another
psychosis, new definition of, 136 terminal, bank reacts to
prevent that attention,
psychosomatic, chronic, is an effort to succumb, 57
406
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
reactive mind (cont.) Regimen Two, 137
auditor has more control over pc's reactive mind steps of
Regimen Two, 137
than pc since pc is influenced by reactive mind Regimen
3, 179
responses and auditor is not so influenced, 332 Regimen
3/II and 3/V, 142
auditors need subjective reality on bank, 374, 376 Regimen 6 O/W
commands, 3 versions of, 160
basis of a reactive mind is creativeness done below Regimen
8,179
the level of consciousness, 116 never change the
Help terminal, 174
beefing up the bank, cause of, 35 rehabilitation of willingness
to do, 25
before tackling a bank, you have to have a session,
relativity, Einstein's theory of, 102
clearing is a qualitative return of confidence in self Release,
318
not quantitative handling of bank, 66 "Release"
Check Sheet by D of P [SOP Goals], HCO
E-Meter reacts only on the reactive mind, 331
WW Form CT7, 233
Goals Problem Mass, core of reactive bank, 443
religious beliefs, old, that man is basically evil, 12
havingness takes edge off a bank, 116 reports,
staff auditor reports, 219
Help on terminals reduces a heavy or thick bank, 116 research
advances, 31
pc has as much bank as he has denied cause, 19 research
project, 55
present time is only referral point that exists; in its
resistance, passive, how to handle, 60
abscence all becomes "bank", 155 resisted change is basis
of all mass in physical universe
responds instantly, 331 and every stuck point on
track, 256
Responsibility Processes and Help reduce bank's
responsibility, defn, admit causing, able to withhold,
heaviness, 116 14
target of the auditor is pc's reactive mind, 428 anatomy
of ~ is able to admit causation, able to
there is no time in the reactive mind, 332 withhold
from 18,19
toughened up by creating, how to handle, 116 auditor must
take full ~ for the session, 43
use a gradient approach to bank, 65 create is bad only
when one does not take ~ for
read(s), the creation, 35
can occur due to charged words in a question with E-Meter
tone arm, level of ~ causes it to fluctuate,
no charge on question itself, 323 18
clear read, false, 26 Formula 19 improves ~ and brings up
awareness
compartmenting the question, 322 of withholds and
improves case, 205
instant read, defn, needle falls within a tenth of a
havingness is the lowest rung of responsibility, 36
second after question is asked, 355 high and low
tone arms, ~ is key to them, not
latent reads, don't take up, 355 overts, 17
meter reading; see E-Meter is very aberrated in its
reactive definitions, 87
real, reality, key to all cases, 18
auditors need subjective reality on bank, 374, 376 needle
drops only on those terminals that pc still
auditor's reality vs. pc's reality, 129 feels
some responsibility for, 38
case who runs with no reality, 4 new overts are realized
when ~ increases, 326
do not run things that are not real to pc, reason of
individual for his creation, 147
why 17 overt act and withhold are evidently
expressions of
pc did it all himself and must gradually come to
abandoning ~ already extant, 37
realize that with total subjective reality, 38
overt acts on E-Meter, it takes a certain level of
scale of pc reality on terminals, 131
responsibility to show up, 18
recall, Cause Elementary Straight Wire turns on recall O/W is
an effort to regain status of independent
in the pc, 52 being without taking
responsibility for any of
recall, cyclic aspect of recall type processes, phenom-
intervening steps, 186
ena of pc bouncing into PT, 51 person who does an
overt act to another life form
recall,use recall before runningengrams, 65 has already
abandoned responsibility for that
recover, when pcs don't recover very fast, they don't
other life form, 37
want to, 58 power of choice is senior to
responsibility, 24
recovery of past skills, 125 relationship of and Cause/Withhold,
19
Regimen is workhorse combination of processes that shifting tone
arms tell you increased or decreased
boosts case to Clear after it has been started,
responsibility, 42
179 thetan accumulates mental mass, pictures,
ridges,
Regimens and Formulas were never for co-audits, 1 76
circuits, etc., to degree that he misassigns ~,1 8
Regimen 1 , 117, 128 when ~ declines, overt acts can
occur, 19
is a stop-gap bridge between old style formal audit-
Responsibility Process(es)(ing), 14
ing and a complete grasp of pre-sessioning and
can be run on a no-mass terminal or significance,
Model Sessions, 128 87
steps of Regimen 1,128 Cause/Withhold, ~, how to run, 17,19
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
Responsibility Process(es)(ing) (cont.) rock slam(s) (cont.)
chronic somatic, running Responsibility on, 17 Pre-Hav
level rock slams, handling, 283
clearing pc's field with Responsibility, 16, 49 what
rock slams mean, 272
Confront can be run as a prelude to any and all Ron; see
Hubbard, L. Ron
Responsibility, 50 room, rudiment on, 377
generalize terminal if overt is very bad, 48 Routine One [1961],
325, 348, 369
goal of, 25 CCHs and Routine 1, 334
Havingness, Confront, O/W, Responsibility, 35 Routine 1A
[1961], 354, 369
Havingness is a must on any Responsibility Process steps, 354
in presence of ARC breaks, 36 value of Routine
1A, 355
how to run O/W and Responsibility, 37 Routine Two [1961 ], 326
is Confront and is very senior to Confront as a steps,
326
process, 35 Routine Three [1961], 326, 369
is not workable when pc is in a valence, 1 16 Routine 3A
[1961], 412
reduce the bank's heaviness, 116 steps, 412
run Responsibility on matter, energy, space, time, Routine 3D,
416
motion and thought, 50 assessments, tips on, 427
run Responsibility Process after O/W, 37 cautions, 420
stuck picture, handling by dating, Responsibility
commands, 426, 438, 441
and O/W, 16 commands for whole track O/W, 458
theory of Responsibility Processing, 24 command
sheet, 437, 447, 457
"What about a victim could you be responsible
goalsassessment,417
for?", 16,17, 49 levels, tips on running, 429, 443
"What have you done to a (terminal)?" "What meter
behavioron Routine 3Dcommands,426
have you withheld from a (terminal)?", 25, 36
opposition assessment, 417
"What part of your life have you been responsible
prerequisites, 445
for?", PE Co-Audit Process, 70 reruns, 444
restimulator, run O/W on constant restimulator of rules of
thumb,430,462
PTPs, 39 terminal and oppterm, steps of running
levels on,
rest, insane should get rest and then exercise before
443
auditing, 88 vocabulary, 419
restraining, pc is ill because he is restraining himself rudiments,
41,163, 220, 423
from doing wrong, 69 are not something it is nice
to do; they must be
restraint, reactive self-restraint is the purpose of all
done, 56
engrams, 69 are used to get pc in session, 274
revolts kill an awful lot of natives, 60 auditor and ARC
break rudiment, 43
revolutionaries, Scientologists are not ~, we are
auditorclearance,41, 194
humanitarians, 114 beginning rudiments [ 1 96 1
], 451 , 453
R-factor, Security Check, 242, 276 and end rudiments,
215
R-factor, use of in starting session, 453 change in, [1961 ],
391
ridges, thetan accumulates mental mass, pictures, clean
rudiments, 271
ridges, circuits, etc., to degree that he misas-
clearingandrudiments [1961],410
signs responsibility, 18 commands [1961], 377
rights, honest people have rights, too, 27 D of P checks pc
out on rudiments, 215
rights, individual, not originated to protect criminals, don't
run a case by, 274
27 end rudiments, 43,164, 222, 451, 455
riots, 60 establish them more often with touchy
pcs, 48
rising needle(s), exist to run enough to get pc into
session, not to
are disregarded, 274 audit the case by rudiments,
363
has no meaning for purposes of assessment, 273, goals in
the rudiments, 56
333 handling of rudiments [1961 ], 194
means pc can't confront it, 333 Havingness, "Look around
here and find some
SOP Goals assessment, ignore all rises of needle,
thing you can have" always works on any pc if
266 ~ are done thoroughly, 154
tells you the pc is being irresponsible, 42 Havingness
Process (or TR 10) can help on out
rock slam(s), ruds, 450
are strongest indicator [SOP Goals], 271 list of
rudiments bulletins, 450
audit by tone arm (except in rock slam), assess by metering
rudiments [ 1961 ], 363
needle [SOP Goals], 318 modernized [1961], 450
is the strongest reaction there is, 284 out, example
of out ~ preventing clearing, 410
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
rudiments (cont.) S-C-S; see Start-Change-Stop
out ~ hide goals and terminals, 374, 423 second dynamic; see
dynamic, 2nd
overt-withhold on auditor is far too accusative and
Secondary Scale; see Pre-Havingness Scale, Secondary
invalidates pc, 194 Scale
parts of modern rudiments, 56 Security Check(s)(ing), 30,
355, 445; see also con
session without proper rudiments is a session
fessional; Integrity Processing [both in full
without control, 56 index] ;E-MeterEssentials
withholds and rudiments, 204 against a chronic
somatic, 389
Rudiments Check by D of P [SOP Goals], HCO WW always
flatten original question, 449
Form CT4, 231 compose Sec Check, 415
R (number); see Routine (number) confused area, 415
somatics, possible to
eradicate by sec checking
area of confusion, 409
S don't act accusatively,
98
generalities won't do, 424
Saint Hill Manor, data about, 29 help check as a security
check, 98
sane, sanity, how to do, 97
help is the make-break point between sanity and main
danger of, 402
insanity, 85 only valid Security Check, 275
not necessary to process every person on Earth to
preventing a missed Sec Check question, 425
bring sanity to Earth, 45 prevention of ~ being
left unflat, 402
pc may be sane analytically and still react violently
prior confusion and , 390, 406, 409, 415
at times in session, 88 ratio of time run between
Problem and~ [RlA],
psychiatric basic assumption that enough punish-
355
ment will restore sanity is disproven, 104 R-
factor, 242, 276
scale of increasing confidence, 8 R3D, Sec Checks during, 422
scale of pc reality on terminals, 131 types of,
scale of wins [1947], 65 Children's Security Check,
ages 6-12, 378
science goes mad when it is "creating in order to "don't
know" version, 425
destroy", 127 for staff,main points to be
included [1960],23
sciences, assumption points of, 102 HGC Auditor's Sec
Check, 356
scientific treatment of the insane, 82 HGC Pre-Processing
Security Check, 403
scientists once stood for truth and tried to serve
Johannesburg (Joburg) Security Check, 242
humanity; now they serve economics and politi-
275, 317
cal creeds, 146 as preparation for
assessment, 270
Scientologist(s)('s), CCHs and Joburg, 348
are not revolutionaries, we are humanitarians, 114
"not know" version of Security Checking, 372
as a "counselor", 114 Processing Security Check, 356
be part of society and improve it, 107,114
Scientology Students' Security Check, 349
"doctors" on thirdandfourth dynamics, 113 Student
Practice Security Check, used by
handle first and second dynamics only to achieve
Academy students learning E-Meter use, 400
better function on third and fourth, 112
Whole Track Sec Check, 337
professional ~ is one who expertly uses Scien- use of E-
Meter in Security Check, 97
tology on any area or level of society, 106 varying
Sec Check questions, 449
role in life, Special Zone Plan, 111 when a person is
flunked on a Sec Check, 275
what we expect of a Scientologist, 106 withhold pulling
and Sec Check, increase E-Meter
Scientology('s), sensitivity for, 273
assumption points of ~ and other subjects, 102 Security Form
2 (Joburg Security Check Sheet), 242
basic assumption: a being without aberration will Security Form
7A (for staff applicants), 381
be good, ethical, artistic and powerful; this has Security
Form 7B (for persons now employed), 383
become a basic truth, 104 Security Form 8 (Children's
Security Check), 378
described at public level in DMSMH, 79, 81 security risk,
don't let a bad ~ near a staff position, 89
examples of ~ applied to third dynamic, 114 self-auditing, 373
lectures by Ron needed to give student flavor and self-
determinism, aberrated, is end product of failures
idea of Scientology, 329 to help, 191
results verify its basic assumption, 104 sensitivity,
sell Scientology by action, 115 on E-Meter, how to get
correct by pc can squeeze,
situation in South Africa [1960] ,161 32, 273
Theory 67,149 Sec Check and W/H pulling, increase , 273
third dynamic for Scientology, 2 setting on meter, how to
get significant readings, 32
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
separateness, games condition evolves from , 54 slave (s),
separate (Secondary Scale level), 297 masters, 148
session(s); see also Model Session scientists as slaves, 146
ARC break caused by running pc over his head, 44 state,
27
ARC breaks, running O~W to handle, 43 decline into,
24
auditor clearance, 41 slavery of thought, 147
auditor fully responsible for session, 43 slavery, political,
on what it is built, 28
before tackling a bank you have to have a ~, 66 social
aberration is only a composite of individual
ending a session, 43,164, 223, 456 aberrations,
45
environment, 41 social ills of man are a composite of his
personal diffi
first sessions, 214 culties, 45
General Check-up on a Session by D of P [SOP society,
individual is building unit of a great ~, 45
Goals], HCO WW Form CT3, 230 society, Scientologists
should be part of society and
general requirements of sessions, 129 improve it,
107,114
goals, 41 solution, Problem and Solution Processes, 54
reason for session goals, 56 solutions are ordinarily
an alter-is of problems, 54
in session, defn, pc interested in own case and solutions,
why these hangup problems, 62
willing to talk to auditor, 43, 62,173, 175,
somatics,
450 aberrations, circuits, somatics and
problems are
exception to case interest, pc going upscale goes
postulate counter-postulate situations, 414
through boredom, 175 chronic somatic,
howtogetandkeeppcinsession,43,175 find out
who pc is making guilty by having
key to fast, high results is "pc in session", 175
them, 7
rudiments are used to get pc in session, 274 is
an effort to succumb, 57
is a cycle of action, 56 running Responsibility
on, 17
mechanics of session, great deal of value of audit-
sec checking against a chronic somatic, 389
ing lies in, 56 handling ~ by sec checking area of
confusion, 409
out of session, degrees of being, 175 pc has a field,
somatics, malformity or aberration,
out of session, processes all fail if pc is ~,1 75
how to clean them up, 7
out of session, reasons for, 62 SOP Goals, 224
patterns, well followed, tend to run out earlier
assessingfor SOPGoalsimproved, 270
sessions, 53 assessing terminal list by
elimination, 240
pc feels a security when all his sessions are predict-
assessment, 215
able as to pattern, 53 by elimination,
steps, 265
pc permitted to be responsible for session will
for goals and terminals,239,326
ARC break, 373 for Pre-Hav level, 268
rudiments at the beginning of session [1961], 451
for terminal by elimination, 267
rudiments exist to run enough to get pc into ~,
goals assessment problems sorted out, 236
363 ignore all rises of needle, 266
secondsession,215 incorrect assessment on SOP
Goals means an
standardized sessions, 53 infinity of auditing
without clearing, 265
starting ~, [1960] 73,163, [1961] 220, 453 Joburg
Sec Check as preparation for ~, 270
how to start a session [1960], 41
mistakes, 273
points which should be in before starting ~, 67
must be perfect, 270, 271
what session depends on, 66 right way to do ~, 265
without proper rudiments ~ is without control,
sensitivity level during assessment, 273
56 two types of terminals to assess,
270
seventh dynamic; see dynamic, 7th be-do-have coordinated, 206
sex, Freud's libido theory, 103 cases not on SOP Goals, 218
shock cures aberration: psychiatry's basic assump- CCHs, when to
runbefore SOPGoals, 255
tion, 103 Change Process, when to run before ~,
253, 255
significance process, no ~ moves a low graph case, clearing by
SOP Goals, 217
139 data on Goals SOP, 209
significance, Responsibility can be run on a no-mass errors,
246
terminal or significance, 87 goals list, how to
assess, 236, 239
silent subject, how to find out a person's name on a goals
list, how to make, 266
~, E-Meter interrogation, 59 goofs, 234
sixth dynamic; see dynamic, 6th how to prove the terminal, 268
skills, recovery of past skills, 125 intensives, 206, 224, 241
slant, "/" symbol to show a goal reads, 266 Pre-Hav Scale
used in SOP Goals Intensive, 206
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
SOP Goals (cont.) succumb, chronic psychosomatic is an effort to
~, 57
mistakes, 318 succumb goals, pc in bad condition is more
likely to
modified, 227, 241 have ~ than survive goals, 58
pc'spriorly run on SOP Goals, handling of,216 surprise,
defn., rapidity of change of state, unpre
preparatory steps of SOP Goals, 317 dicted, 54
primary sources of wasted time on ~, 246 survive, survival,
procedure,useof,212 creation brings about an effort to
continuously
releasing and preparing a case for ~, 317 create
which becomes "survive", 126
repairing a case, 238 destroy in order to ~ is not a
duplication, 126
session, example, 208, 226 dynamic principle which
motivates most biological
terminals list, how to make, 267 life, 126
tone arm behavior on Pre-Hav levels, 238 help is an
identification of mutual interest in sur
TRs, Model Session, meter, Change Processes, vival,
123
must be known to run SOP Goals, 264 is the
apparency of creating, 126
works too fast to allow bad technical application, 261 is
translated for processing as Continuous Con
soup cans, use ~ as E-Meter electrodes, 460 front, 127
source beingness, thetan tends to move from ~ to primary law
of Book One, dominant part of
effect beingness, 131 create-survive-destroy,
126
South Africa, insanity rate of, 82 (Secondary Scale level),
300
South Africa, Scientology's situation in, [1960] ,161 sweetness and
light, "theetie weetie case", 325
Special Zone Plan, 111, 114
speech, freedom of, does not mean freedom to harm
by lies, 27 T
stable datum and confusion, 62
staff auditor; see auditor, staff TA; see tone arm
staff position, don't let a bad security risk near a ~, 89 talk, pc
with overts and withholds is afraid to talk or
Start-Change-Stop, 48 talks to cover up, 62
"stand still" step, 202 talk, willing to talk about
difficulties, 442
start, high tone arm shows loss of ability to start or tapes, to
whom tapes are sold and played, 10,149
reach, 38 terminal(s),
Step 6 made the whole bank toughen up, if Help was assess for ~
by elimination [SOP Goals], 267, 271
unflat, 116 beware running adjectival commands
such as "frigid
Step 6, running Step 6 in a valence is courting disaster
woman", 17, 50
as pc is in a picture that increases in mass and by
profession [Help] ,124
gives him somatics, 109 central valence or
terminal is built in to demand
Step 6 was abandoned, 92, 109 total attention from pc,
406
stop, low tone arm (below the clear reading) shows do not run a
massless ~ such as "sex" or "help",
loss of ability to stop or withhold, 38 50
Straight Wire, do not run things that are not real to pc,
reason
Cause ARC Straight Wire, 51 why, 17
Cause Elementary Straight Wire turns on recall in dual
terminal nature of this universe, 61
the pc, 52 finishing off a difficult terminal [Help]
,110
Duplication Straight Wire, "What would you per- flatten
the terminals, 109, 209
mit tohave happen again?", 52 generalize terminal
if overt is very bad, for Re
stuck needle [in Sec Checking] can be freed by pro-
sponsibility Process, 48
cessing or bygetting off withholds, 276 general
terminal, most of pc's case will be found
stuck needle, run Concentrate-Shift Attention Pro-
connected with some, 49
cess,218 general terminals run better than
specific, why,
stuck picture, how to handle, 9,16, 48 109,119
stuck point, most ~ on track is a problem, 414 goal and
modifier must be contained in one basic
stuck point on track, resisted change is basis of every ~,
otherwise postulates would not be out of
~, 256 reach of pc [R3A], 413
student(s); see also training goal has anatomy of problem
and is terminal
HCO WW Security Form 5A, for all HPA/HCA and counter-
terminal, 416
above students before acceptance on courses, goals
and terminals, D of P must check all new
407 [SOP Goals], 216
Practice Security Check used by Academy stu- goals and
terminals, out rudiments hide ~, 423
dents learning E-Meter use, 400 goals and terminals
searches require a repeat over
Scientology Students' Security Check, 349 and over
of goal or terminal on list in order to
substitute (Secondary Scale level), 308 get them to go null
[SOP Goals], 273
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
terminal(s) (cont.) thetan(s) (cont.)
goal terminal, 418, defn, that valence into which
exteriorization is stable when thetan is used to
pc has interiorized and which carries goal,
mest, 166
modifier and aberration which pc attributes
havingness must be up to run "thetan", 195
to self, 419 position on Tone Scale, 131
when is a goals terminal flat [SOP Goals], 209
reality on a terminal depends upon degree of out
Help does not flatten very easily on a late specific
flow a thetan can tolerate from that class of
terminal, 119 terminals, 131
Help on ~ reduces a heavy or thick bank, 116 reduces his
own power, 19
Help terminal, Regimen 8, never change ,1 74 takes a
valence that he believes will help others or
Help terminals, 124,125,128 the universe, 109
improperly assessed, how to detect during tends to
become that on which he has produced
auditing, 132 non-beneficial effects, 131
list [SOPGoals], tends to move from source beingness to
effect
always recheck terminals list, 271
beingness, 131
assessing terminal list by elimination, 240 tries to
help something or somebody and fails and
causative list of terminals, 271 last stage of
his effort is to mock up a picture
effect list of terminals, 271 of the thing
and try to help it, 109
how to do a terminals list on SOP Goals assess-
who sleeps too much and does too little, 24
ment, 267 will not let himself go free unless
he can operate
needle drops only on those terminals that pc still
without danger to others, 19
feels some responsibility for, 38 "Think about
matter", pretty steep for most cases
opposition terminal, 417, defn, person, group or
and would not be real to many, 54
object that has consistently opposed pc's goal, thinking
at command is a sort of CCH on thinking
making it a terminal counter-terminal situation
ness, 121
of longduration,419 "Think of something you could
withhold." "What
Overt/Withhold Process on general and specific ~,
could you admit causing?" [process], 7
37 think (Secondary Scale level), 314
Overt/Withhold Process on terminal representing third
dynamic; see dynamic, 3rd
dynamic, 26 thirty-six new presessions, 156; see also
presessions
Pre-Hav Scale, when first terminal is flat, 216 thought(s),
Responsibility can be run on a no-mass terminal or
discharges dependency on language, 54
significance, 87 Formula 20 is an effort to run
Control on thought
run always causative ~, never effect ~,132 level,
213
scale of pc reality on terminals, 131 run Responsibility
on matter, energy, space, time,
SOP Goals assessments for goals and ~, 326 motion
and thought, 50
SOP Goals, how to prove the terminal, 268 slavery of
thought, 147
stable data on selecting terminals, 165 time, there is no
time in reactive mind, 332
start case on first terminal ever run, 108 time track, defn.,
time span of individual from being
thetan's reality on a terminal depends upon degree
ness to present time on which lies sequence of
of outflow thetan can tolerate from that class
events of his total existence, 51
of terminals, 131 most stuck point on track is a
problem, 414
two types of ~ to assess [SOP Goals], 270 sticks on ~
stick because of prior confusion, 414
terrorist is insane, 83 tone arm, 144; see also E-Meter
Essentials
test profile patterns, valences are source of, 102,104 always
audit a process until tone arm is lower on it
test section, PE, what it does, 182 than when process
was started, 42
"theetie weetie case" (sweetness and light), 325 audit by tone
arm (except in rock slam), assess by
lheory 67,149, defn., 166 needle, 284, 318
target of Theory 67 is mest, 166 beware sticking a tone
arm, 272
theta clear; see Clear, theta high and low TA cases have low
objective having
thetan(s), ness, 144
accumulates mental mass, pictures, ridges, circuits,
high and low tone arms, responsibility is key to
etc., to degree that he misassigns responsibility,
them not overts, 17
18 high or low TA, pc in an area in time when pc
was
create, fundamental urge of a thetan, 126 being
very irresponsible, 18
dug himself in, lost sight of why, and is holding high ~
shows loss of ability to start or reach, 38
himself in a state of stupidity, aberration and
low ~ (below clear reading) shows loss of ability
even insanity, 38 to stop or withhold, 38
E-Meter reads degree of mental mass surrounding low tone
arm, processes to make ~ rise [1960],
thetan in a body, 18 16
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
tone arm (cont.)
TA, rather than needle, is foremost in analyzing
U
case, 18
what the tone arm tells you, 144 UK case, control is more
easily inverted on UK case,
tone arm action, 134 202
indicates case progress, 144, 207, 225 "Ultimate" Processes 1-
6,195
keys to ~, (a) havingness, (b) overts, 144 unauthorized
processes, 439
Pre-Hav levels, TA behavior on, 238, 283 unconsciousness,
flow run too long in one direction
processes are run as long as they produce tone arm
gives anaten-unconsciousness, 121
change, 218 universe, basic unit of this universe is
two not one, 62
responsibility, level of, causes TA to fluctuate, 18
universe, O/W is not the senior law of ~, 187
shifting tone arms tell you increased or decreased "unknown",
engram running using, [1961], 372
responsibility, and dropping needles tell you
"unknown" used onpictures, 374
charge, 42 unpredicted change lessens havingness, 54
Tone Scale, position on ~ is determined by willing- unpredicted
change of state, rapidity of, would be a
ness and ability to duplicate, 155
definition of surprise, also of death and forget
Tone Scale, thetan tends to maintain a position on ~
fulness, 54
where inflows are comfortable, 131 unwillingness to
do, 24
track; see time track upsets, identification is basis of all mental ,
119
training; see also students
auditor training, 445
necessity for training, 133, 261 V
schedule [1960],69
staff auditors [1961], 389 valence(s), defn, mocked up other-
beingnesses a per
things to be stressed in training, 246 son thinks he
is, 104
train individuals, not a class, 329 are all "can't-
haves" so when valence is off, having
use checksheets, 329 ness of pc comes up, 110
8-C = good course, 71 central valence or terminal is built
in to demand
training drills or routines; see TRs total attention
from pc, 406
transfer, O/W by transfer, 186 freeing of ~ remedies pain and
aberration, 105
"transferred", pc to D of P, how to handle, 216 goals
terminal is that valence into which pc has
transgressions against the mores of one's race, group,
interiorized and which carries goal, modifier
family cause unhappiness, 387 and
aberration which pc attAbutes to self, 419
transgressions, clearing of one's, 46 help as valence problem,
109
trouble, formula of attack on area where pc is having Help
basically sheds valences, 110
trouble, 25 identification and valences stem
from help, 119
TRs, if pc were in no valence but was himself com
auditors failing to handle E-Meters, chief reason is
pletely, he would have perfect test response and
TR failures, mainly confront, 261 would be
wholly Clear, 102
flubs in TRs are basis of all confusion in sub- improve
thepc,not the valence, 368
sequent efforts to audit, 249 is the way pc used
to prevent experience of an
modernized, 249 environment he never as-ised, 368
must be good to run SOP Goals, 264 key to clearing,
368
TR 0, 247, 249 low tone arm is valence of a mindless
object and
E-Meter reading and TR 0, 264 last resort
of pc to withhold, 16
TR 1, Dear Alice, 247, 250 overts, why they recoil, 105,
490
TR 2, Acknowledgements, 247, 250 person in any ~ is
victimized by his own creation,
TR 3, Duplicative Question, 248, 251 116
TR 4, Preclear Originations, 248, 252 profile on our
tests is picture of a ,102, 104
TR 5, Hand Mimicry, 248 Responsibility is not workable
when pc is in a ~,
TR 5N, Auditor Clearance, 194 116
TR 10 on auditing room, 194 running Step 6 in a valence is
courting disaster as
TR 10 or Havingness Process can help on out ruds, pc
is in a picture that increases in mass and
450 gives him somatics, 109
true, what is true for you, 203 secret of all overt-withhold
mechanisms is ~, 102
turning points are simply self-determined changes in thetan
takes ~ he believes will help others or the
pc's life, 401 universe, 109
two-way Concept Help commands, 121 why a being with valences
commits overts, 105
two-way Concept Help on general terminal, 117 why people
become a valence, 109
Vedic hymn, "The Hymn to the Dawn Child", 126
SUBJECT INDEX- 1960/1961
victim, flatten Responsibility on, 17 withhold(s) (cont.)
victim, game of, 94 low tone arm is the valence of a mindless
object
victim, "What about a victim could you be respon- and last
resort of pc to withhold, 16
sible for?" [process] ,16, 49 out of session,
caused by W/Hs and PTPs, 62
violence, cure of insanity is light handling, no vio- pc who
refuses to answer has an ARC break or ~,
lence, 83 175
people withhold overt acts because they
conceive
W telling them would be
another overt act, 12
Presession 37 is a method of getting off
~,180
wait (Secondary Scale level), 300 prior confusion, get the
withholds in, 401
want to know (Secondary Scale level), 305 pulling, "don't
know" version, 424
war, 45 pulling, increase E-Meter sensitivity, 273
waste (Secondary Scale level), 302 rehabilitate pc's ability
to withhold, 7, 17
western society, economic strangulation of individual,
responsibility, anatomy of, is able to admit causa
24 tion, able to withhold from, 14,19
"What about a victim could you be responsible for?"
(Secondary Scale level), 296
[process] ,16, 49 stuck needle can be freed by
processing or by get
"What creation could you confront?" "What creation ting
off withholds, 276
would you rather not confront?" [process] ,116
stuck picture, run W/H on terminal in picture, 48
"What have you done to a (terminal)?" "What have thetan cannot
withhold then compulsively causes
you withheld from a (terminal)?", Respon-
things that are bad, 19
sibility Process, 25, 36 thetan will not restore
his own ability until he is
"What have you done to me?" "What have I done to certain
he can withhold from things, 19
you?" [process] is of limited value, 92 withholding
of doingness, 24
"What help have you given?" "What help have you Withhold Process,
"What could you withhold from a
notgiven?" [process], 93 ______?",17
"What problem could help be to you?" [process], 87 work, cycle of
action applied to work, 126
"What unkind thought have you had about (termi- work, forcing
people to work, 24
nal)?" [process] ,180 worry is the most easily dramatized
O/W, 187
whole track, Worry Process, 187
goal + modifier is whole track desire of pc plus Worse Than
Process, "Think of something worse than
threat to self or others if that desire is not
abad foot", 58
accomplished, 419 wrong(ness),
mental "healing" on ~, how to handle, 195 if pc knew
what was wrong with him it wouldn't
O/W, 458 be wrong, 332
run down any famous or enduring identities of pc only
thing wrong with pc is his lack of confidence
on whole track, 17, 49 in handling himself
without hurting others, 67
willingness to do, rehabilitation of, 25 pc is ill because
he is restraining himself from
willing to talk about difficulties, 442 doing wrong, 69
wins, to clear a pc give him or her a series of wins he "We
don't treat wrongness. We treat people", 69
or she realizes are wins, 65 whatever pc thinks
is wrong he has failed to help,
wins, 1947 scale of, 65 210
withdraw (Secondary Scale level), 308 what is right and wrong
with pc, scale of, in order
withhold(s), 377; see also overt/withhold of
importance, 121
ability to withhold furthers willingness to do, 25
added to rudiments, 204 X
as a case progresses it becomes conscious of more
withholds, 204 "X" symbol, use of in goals nulling, 266
big withhold case, 178
cases don't move when heavy ~ or PTPs are
Z
present, 5, 207, 210, 217
cause-withhold version of Responsibility, 17, 19 zone, Special
Zone Plan, 111, 114
entirely the cause of continued evil, 12
Formula 19 improves responsibility and brings up
Numerals
awareness of withholds and improves case, 205
get "dones" not thoughts or natter, 424 1.1 criticism,
effort to reduce size of target of overt, 13
half truths and untruths, 391 3D; see Routine 3D
how to get withholds off irresponsible pc, 424 8-C = good
course, 71
low TA (below clear reading) shows loss of ability "/", slant,
symbol to show a goal reads, 266
to stop or withhold, 38 "X" symbol, use of in goals
nulling, 266
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF TITLES
Academy Schedule, Clarification of 329 Concerning the Campaign for
Presidency 76
Academy Training OEC Vol 4-302 Create Again 116
ACC Lecture Tapes 149 Create and Confront 35
Additional HAS Processes 192 Current News 161
Administrative Procedure for Reducing Current Rundown-Concept Help
121
Overts OEC Vol 4-514 Curriculum for ACCs OEC Vol. 4-355
Advances in Technology 370 Curriculum for Clearing Cowses 374
Anatomy Congress-South Africa Lectures 193 Dear Scientologist 99
Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress De-certification, How You
Should
Lectures 190 Support It 96
Announcing New Technology 150 Director of Processing's Case Checking
ARC Process 1961 442 Hat, The 228
Assessing 324 D of P Form-Check Type One 254
Assessing for Goals and Terminals or Double Action Cycles 126
Elimination 239 E-Meter Electrodes-ADissertation on
Assessing for S.O.P. Goals Improved 270 Soup Cans 459
Assessment by Elimination-S.O.P. Goals 265 E-MeterEssentials 260
Assessment Data 273 E-Meter Horror 264
Assessment of Help,The 119 E-MeterWatching 331
Association Secretary Letter-Tapes 84 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure,
Step Two
Auxiliary Pre-Have 3D Scale 434 -HGC Allowed Processes 51
Basic Assumptions of Scientology Versus Failed Help 170
Overts, The 102 Formula 13 171
Basic Staff Auditor's Hat (20 Mar. 61) 214 Formula 19 205
Basic Staff Auditor's Hat (26 May 61) Formula 20 213
OEC Vol 4-536 GeneralitiesWon7t Do-SecChecking 424
Black Case, The 9 Giving the Pc Full Hows 145
Books Are Dissemination 78 Goalsin the Rudiments 56
Brief Outline of an HGC as Cwrently Handling of Rudiments 194
Done, A OEC Vol 4-518 HAS Certificates
British E-Meter Operation 32 HAS Co-Audit Ended 176
By Their Actions ......... 101 HAS Co-Audit
Resumed 185
Cancellation of Certificates 30 Have You Lived Before This Life? 47
Captive Brains 146 Havingness and Duplication 155
Case Files OEC VoL 4-117 HCA/HPA Rwndown or Practical Course
Casualties 11 Rundown for Academies OEC Vol 4-285
CCHs and Routine 1 334 HCO WW Security Form SA 407
Change Brackets and Commands 258 HCO WW Security Forms 7A and 7B 381
Change on Model Session 172 Help 85
Change Processes (23 Apr. 61) 253 Help Processing 92
Change Processes (27 Apr. 61) 256 HGC Admin Partial Hat-Staff Auditor
Change Processing and CCHs see footnote-320 Assignment OEC Vol
4-118
Check Sheet for HGC 68 HGC Allowed Processes (24 Aug. 61) 369
Check Type One-D of P Form 254 HGC Allowed Processes (29 Sept. 61)
385
Clarification of "Change Processing" 320 HGC Allowed Processes-
Expansion of
Class of Auditors 439 OT-3A Procedure, Step Two 51
Clean Hands Congress Lectures 463 HGC Auditor's Sec Check 356
Clean Hands Make a Happy Life 387 HGC Preclear Assessment 108
Clearing Routine 173 HGC Pre-Processing Security Check 403
Co-Audit Team, The 21 Hints on Running Cases with Help 109
Command Sheet for Routine 3D 447 Honest People Have Rights, Too 27
Command Sheet-Pre-Havingness Scale 199 How Help Became Betrayal
94
Command Sheet Routine 3D 457 How to Run O/W and Responsibility 37
Concept Help-Current Rundown 121 HPA Course Change Proposal to London
40
HPA/HCA Rundown Change see footnote-330 Prior Confusion, The
409
Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course Problems Intensive for Staff
Clearing 392
Lectures 3 Problems Intensives 401
Important Data on Goals S.O.P. 209 Problems Intensive, The-Use of the
Information on Clears 364 Prior Confusion 414
Interrogation 59 Processes Allowed 325
Johannesburg Security Check 242 Process Levels-Necessity for Training
261
Justification 12 PT Problem and Goals 210
Key to All Cases, The-Responsibility 18 Regimen Two 137
Laws of Assessment, The 131 Regimen 1 128
London Congress on Dissemination and Releasing and Preparing a Case
for
Help Lectures 130 S.O P. Goals 317
London Open Evening Lectures 115 Reputation of Saint Hill, The 29
Making Clears and Picking Up HGC Quality 117 Research Advances
31
Metering Rudiments 363 Research Project 55
Meter Reading 432 Responsibility 14
Model Session Script, Revised 453 Responsibility-The Key to All Cases
18
Model Session, The 41 Restoration of Certificates 34
Modification of HPA/HCA, BScn/HCS Revised Case Entrance 167
Schedule OEC Vol. 4-296 Rising Needle: Skip It!, The 333
Necessity for Training-Process Levels 261 Routine One 348
New Assessment Scale 197 Routine 1A 354
New Clearing Breakthrough! 367 Routine 3A 412
New Definition of Psychosis 136 Routine 3D 416
New Facts of Life 372 Routine 3D Commands 426
New Formulas 179 Routine 3D Command Sheet (27 Nov. 61) 437
New Help Data 191 Routine 3D Command Sheet (26 Dec. 61) 457
New PE and the New HAS Co-Audit, The 188 Routine 3D, Command Sheet for
447
New PE Data 70 Routine 3D Improved Commands of
New Pre-Hav Command 211 November 30,1961 441
New Presession Data and Script Change 204 Routine 3D Improved Commands
of
New Rudiments Commands 377 28 Nov. 61 438
New Summary of Auditing, A 64 Rudiments and Clearing 410
New Training Schedule 69 Rudiments, Change in 391
Only Valid Security Check, The 275 Rudiments Modernized 450
Order of Test of Havingness and Running CCHs 347
Confront Commands 151 Rwnning 3D Levels 443
OT Procedure 15 Sad Tail of PDH, The 321
OT Procedures for HCS/BScn Courses 6 Safe Auditing Table 406
OT-3 Procedure-HGC Allowed Processes 16 Saint Hill Special Briefing
Course
OT-3A Procedure-HGC Allowed Processes 48 Lectures 263
Our Technical Programme 89 Scientific Treatment of the Insane, The
82
Overt Manifestations on a Low Toned Case 26 Scientologist's Role in
Life, The
O-W A Limited Theory 186 -Special Zone Plan 111
Pc Scheduling OEC Vol 4-117 Scientology Can Have a Group Win 45
PE Change 182 Scientology Students' Security Check 349
Personal Integrity 203 Script of a Model Session (13 Oct. 60) 163
Powerful Presession Additions 134 Script of a Model Session (21 Mar.
61) 220
Preclear Assessment Sheet see footnote-401 Sec Checking-
Generalities Won't Do 424
Pre-Havingness Scale-Command Sheet 199 Sec Checks Vital 445
Pre-Hav Scale Revised 282 Sec Check Whole Track 337
Present Time Problem, The 61 Secondary Scale 286
Pre-session Processes 72 Security Check 23
Presessions of the 1st Saint Hill ACC, The 142 Security Check Children
378
Presession Two 139 Security Checks (8 Feb. 60) 30
Presession 37 180 Security Checks (26 May 60) 97
Primary Scale Amended 335 Security Questions Must Be Nulled 402
Send Your Clipping Files 77 Theory of Responsibility Processing
24
Some Help Terminals 124 Theory 67 166
S.O.P. Goals 224 Third Dynamic for Scientology, A 2
S.O.P. Goals-Assessment by Elimination 265 Thirty-Six New Presessions
156
S.O.P. Goals Assessments OEC Vol 4-535 Tips on How to Crack an HGC
Case 154
S.O.P. Goals-Errors 246 Tone Arm, The 144
S.O.P. Goals-Goals Assessment Problems Training Course Rules and
Regulations
SortedOut 236 OEC Vol 4-152
S.O P. Goals Goofs 234 Training Drills 247
S.O.P. Goals-Marvellous New Breakthrough Training Drills
Modernized 249
-Be-Do-Have Coordinated 206 Training of Staff Auditors 389
S.O.P. Goals-Modification I 241 UK Cases Different 202
S.O.P. Goals Modified 227 "Ultimate" Processes, The 195
S.O.P. Goals-Repairing a Case 238 Unmoving Case, The (7 Jan. 60) 4
Special Zone Plan-The Scientologist's Unmoving Case, The (24Nov. 60)
178
Role in Life 111 Use of S.O.P. Goals Procedure 212
Staff Auditor Assignment-HGC Admin Valences Key to Clearing
368
Partial Hat OEC Vol 4-118 Varying Sec Check Questions 449
Staff Auditors OEC Vol 4-534 Vital Information 133
Standardized Sessions 53 What We Expect of a Scientologist 106
Starting Cases 175 1st Saint Hill Advanced Clinical Course
State of Man Congress Lectures 1 Lectures 138
Student E-Metering OEC Vol 4-307 3-D Rules of Thumb 462
Student Practice Check 400 3rd South African Advanced Clinical
Tapes-Association Secretary Letter 84 CourseLectures 193
Tapes for Sale 10 22nd American Ad vanced Clinical
Terminal Stable Data 165 CourseLectures 190