
PROJECT 80

A lecture given on 22 August 1963

SHSBC-298 ren 327 22 Aug 63 Project 80

[Clearsound.]


Thank you. Well, what is the day? 

Audience: 22nd of August.

Twenty-second of August. Boy, you're lucky! You got all the
way up to the 22nd of August. And you're still alive. Boy!
Some people have all the luck!

All right, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture. And
we're going to recapitulate now on the itsa line and levels
of auditing and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Going to
talk to you first about Project 80.

Why 80? Why does Ron always use these 80s and so forth?
Well, 80 is a mathematical trick, because you turn it over
on its side, you see, and you have infinity. And it's a
sort of a mathematical joke. You've got an infinity, you
see, and you've got a zero. So you have embraced the
totality. So it's just a mathematical trick of saying "all."

Now, Project 80 has to do with organization targets and
dissemination and technical planning. And this has a great
deal to do with organizations, and it has a great deal to
do with anybody who is in practice and has a great deal to
do with anybody who is in Scientology.

And the only reason a designation of Project 80 has been
assigned to it at all, is because there's a whole cluster
and collection of bulletins and policy letters which will
be coming out along this line, and there are a great many
publications will be coming out along this line. And you'll
recognize them when you see them because they will have
designations like "Scientology One," or "Scientology Two."
And the embracive action of what to do with these things is
included in Project 80.

Now, you're watching here now the dawning of 1964, which is
the year of Scientology for everyone, you see? And what has
happened here precisely is a lot of guys have come along,
and we've been all together in plowing through the research
and it's been very trying at various times. Research is
very far from ended when you can make a breakthrough of the
magnitude of the itsa line, here, just in the last couple,
three weeks. But we've come all the way along this line,
and we've seen it changing, changing, changing, and this
and that coming and going, and stable gains and a lot of
hope going along the line and all that sort of thing.

Well, this has made in essence a special breed of cat. And
we're not in a situation where we're going to lose such
people, see? Most organizations' activities, forward pushes, 
in this particular universe are up against continuous loss 
of personnel. It's one of the most crippling things that 
they have - the loss through death and casualty and implant 
and this, that and the other thing all the way on up the 
line, you see? And frankly, if anybody could live long 
enough he would be rich. Just think of that for a moment. 
Supposing you went on with some - at least the vigor that 
you might have at thirty or forty, and just keep going! 
Keep going with no wipeouts.

Well, let's take movie stars. Let's take movie stars. All
during the - all during the 40s and 50s you had the movie
stars who had made it in the 30s and 20s, which is quite
remarkable. Those that came up in the 30s, particularly.
John Wayne, Gary Cooper - these characters, you see? And you
just saw them on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on. My God, he's - Gary Cooper playing the lover
at sixty-five was quite interesting, I think. But they
simply were not necessarily good, they simply were persistent.

I don't know anybody who ever handled dialogue worse than
Cooper. But they were persistent. And what happened to
their rivals? Well, it wasn't that their rivals didn't make
it or weren't so good or something like that; they simply
fell by the wayside, preys to various ills. And even those
that were prey to considerable ills still made it. Like,
look at Judy Garland, the ups and downs and so forth.
Persistence. If you could just keep going, you yourself
become a sort of an institution, don't you see?

Well, we've got this particular factor, to some degree,
licked - at least the solution of it is well in view. As I
told you yesterday at the end of the lecture, why, give me
a problem and I'll get the solution to it, usually. I've
been operating on the basis that if I can conceive of the
problem - I amplify that a little bit further - if I can
conceive of the problem, why, I know we're about forty-eight
hours from what made it a problem. Not the solution to that
problem, which is a MEST universe reverse-end way of
looking at the thing, but how did it become a problem? And
this is organizational, you see? And we see this pretty
well, so that I've become cocky to this degree: I know that
if I can conceive of what we're up against, and I know if
we can conceive of what we're up against, we can - in
dissemination and technical and that sort of thing, we can
whip it.

It's all very important to our future progress. Now, we 
are also, incidentally, working here with the problem of
vanishing people. And that problem is the one that causes
most organizations to deteriorate and go by the boards.

Now, we've had quite a struggle coming up the line one way
or the other. That struggle's a long way from over, but the
murderous - the most murderous aspect, organizationally, is
well within our realm of resolution, which is losing all
your people. In any given - any given twenty, thirty, forty
years on this planet - on this planet, any organization
practically loses the totality of its people. Now, we're
not up against that. We have a lot of people here who in
the last (some less than this) five, six, seven, twelve,
some thirteen years, have been going along this research
line with me, see? And things have ebbed and flowed and
you've seen it all changing and reversing, and the ink was
dry on the bulletin so therefore it must be out of
date - this kind of thing. Right here this particular unit
of Saint Hill has had to cope with shifts and changes, but
I myself have never compromised with this for a moment. And
I think you're awfully good sports, all of you who have put
up with this, to put up with it, because I'm sure you
understood that if there were something better coming up
you didn't want the something worse just for the benefit of
stability.

You see, in essence we are the stability, when it finally
works out. Well now, it may not be apparent to you, and it 
may be apparent to you, particularly those in Z Unit, that 
we've pretty well got Level Four - Scientology Four, the 
road to OT - that's pretty well wrapped up. You could know 
a few shortcuts, there's a few refinements, there's a 
terrific number of releases to be made on this subject. For
instance, I discover lots of exciting things along in Four
that aren't yet released. For instance, just last night I
got my hands on the pattern of the O/W sequence itself - the
overt-motivator sequence, rather - got the whole pattern,
tailor-made. And it's a lolly, man! It's a doll! It's a GPM
of sorts and its own special breed of cat. And there goes
your overt motivator sequence. Well, there's a lot of
stuff coming out like this, you see?

But the modus operandi by which you find that material is
there, and the type of material which is going to be found
has already been established, and the various ways by which
you use this material on the pc has all been established,
don't you see? And you call that a wrap-up, see? It's an
incomplete release, but a research wrap-up. Nobody is going
to be working very, very hard to find some new type of
incident, or something like this. They just aren't. There
was one more type to be found after the GPM, and that was
the screen-type incident. There's some ramifications of
postulation-type incidents and so forth, but these we
already have the technology for. We already have - any kind
of a drill you ever heard of for a Thetan Exterior has
already been wrapped up years ago.

So call that level a wrap-up. It's just practically office
work to put the stuff together, see, if - that which isn't
together. Anybody finishing the Z Unit here at this
particular time is perfectly competent to handle all of
this. He'll pick it up and say, "Oh, oh, yeah, yeah. Well,
that's one of those," you know?

So, in view - in view, of course, is a wrap-up of the
between lives, and stripping it out so a person doesn't do
a report-back. Now, that's very, very pertinent - very
pertinent situation, and I thought that was going to be
very tough. It is a little bit tougher than I thought it
was going to be. You can undoubtedly strip out the
report-back mechanism without doing much else, but the
between lives is full of GPMs. Ha-ha, isn't that nice! And
they're all negative on the beginning end of the screen and
they're all positive on the "end" end of the screen, so of
course the positive-negative type goals, the di - it's a
dichotomy, you see? Those that are positive dichotomy are
as you leave, and those as you arrive are negative, so of
course that collapses one on the other to a marked degree
and makes it a very nice mess.

Fortunately they're not given with very much violence and
the earlier sequence and series of these things is given
much earlier, before one has actually entered the
civilization which you now unwittingly find yourselves.
They're the Train goals, and we have the pattern. I've got
to confirm this and dabble around with it for a while, but
it's that kind of work which we're doing.

Exciting enough in its way and certainly valuable enough
and vital enough to make OTs. But I don't think that
anybody has very much doubt, except if he's been dropped in
the middle of session, that we're going to have all of this
worked out and it's mostly a matter of grind away and get
the GPMs out of the road and keep the tone arm flying and
so forth, and gradually work it out, work it out, and hold
the pc's hand through the rougher passages of it and rough
it out and then we'll finally have arrived at that.

It's a matter of - once more it's a matter of shovel work.
It's more comparable now to moving a pile of coal from
point A to infinity-zero, see? It's just - it's just auditing. 
It's a number of auditing hours. There are some rules I'm 
working out that make it faster and easier, such as if you 
get your paws on a GPM, the running of which gives you tone 
arm action, do not let it go till you have run it and its 
whole series. This is the faster ways to do this sort of 
thing, you see?

If you are stripping off a between-lives screen and you
suddenly find some incident that's way back in
something-or-other land, just don't just date it and let it
go - run it. And when you've got it run, come back to the
screen lives - between-lives screen to strip it down some
more, don't you see? And eventually the whole puzzle all
comes apart and everything falls apart in your hands, case
all goes back to battery, and bang - that's it.

That's just a matter of working at it. But what is the
central action of this? The central action of this is
auditing. And auditing's central action has to do with
keeping the pc's attention directed to those significant
portions of the track which give him tone arm action and
which take his case apart. That's the highest level of
professional auditing. There it is.

Well now, look. You know how long you've been on the road,
and look how much you've studied, and how much you've
sweated and groaned and that sort of thing in order to
achieve the technical level which you right now have
achieved. That applies to anybody here. You know how far
you've gone. That's quite a ways. That's quite a ways. If
we expected everybody to go that similar distance, we would
lose. And what we happen to have - we have a group now who
have come along over a tremendously long distance and who
then form an advised cadre. They would know which way these
cats are going to jump; they've been exposed to just about
every brand of process that you can imagine and so forth.

Now, this is very important. This is very important to have
such people. We're not going to lose these people. It's
going to go on for quite a while. But how about all of
those other blokes, huh? How about all those other people?
Well, to expect them to graduate up the hard way - it's too
much to expect. A lot too much to expect.

They're operating at certain levels of reality, and that
level of reality establishes their ARC. And if we're going
to bring off any coup with regard to large public
acceptance, broad dissemination - if we're going to bring
off any coup on this particular planet, we're going to have
to pay attention to that ARC.

Now, this bloke is plodding along there, and the highest
level of his understanding of mentality is "Women are all
alike." This he knows. When he finally decided that, wisdom
burst upon him. He felt pretty good. Every time somebody
throws a coffee pot at him or something like this, why, he
just sits there and he's satisfied as can be. He grabs hold
of that stable datum, inserts it into the middle of his
thinkingness, and he knows now the answer to it: Women are
all alike, see? And that explains the coffee pot, and that
explains everything, you see?

And we come along to this bird and we say, "Hey, bud,
you're a convict. You live on a planet called Earth; it's
part of the Marcab Confederacy. What you got is a whole lot
of GPMs and you got to run these out, see, because they're
positive-negative items that go into a dichotomy." Now, you
give me his ARC. What is his ARC at that moment, see?

Audience: Broke!

Broke but good, that's right. Correct! At least it's just
going to be kind of unreal. He's not going to be very happy
with us. Well, what then in essence has happened - is we've
carried along here by our bootstraps, at many times
great personal sacrifice, certainly through lots of
disappointments, upsets, through tremendous loses, all
kinds of things - we've carried along here, and we have been
making our way and we've been getting along just fine, and
the gap between us and them has been getting wider and
wider and wider, and eventually we find ourselves in an
informed ivory tower which of course we can take off from,
to Lord knows what but we've left no bridge behind us.

So the particular cadre of Dianeticists and Scientologists
who have come forward to this point could very well just
sever at that point and we all goes our ways selectively,
or we do or we don't, but we have left no bridge behind us.
I consider that somewhat important. Particularly since it's
going to take a long time to bail out things and square
things around and that sort of thing.

I want to point out to you, this planet is in a slightly
different situation than other planets in that - not to go
space opera on you - but this planet has a prayer of not
getting tilted. That is, what you put into this planet has
a tendency of remaining here. There's a probability that it
will, don't you see? Well, this is not necessarily true of
the other planets in the immediate vicinity of this planet,
because very often you get into a condition of warfare of
some kind or another and things happen.

Now, all I'm talking about is that to get any kind of
entrance into the social strata of nearby planets and so
forth, to get any entrance into that is fairly improbable.
They're far more likely to explode - being very tightly and
intimately governed, they're far more likely to explode and
go up in smoke. Do you see what I mean?

The - you've got your feet into this one, and this one does
make a rehabilitation center of one kind or another. It's
worth salvaging - with all the other crude expletives I've
been using about planetary tilting and so forth - it is
worth salvaging.

Now, what happens to the other immediate planets that are
connected with this confederacy in this system I could not
bet on just for two seconds. I just could not bet on it. In
the first place, these are invasionary planets; they
possibly were facing some type of invasion here into this
particular galaxy. There's probably political situations in
existence and you and I would not know what of, don't you
see? And I know they've made a considerable incursion into
the thing, because I know that the Espinol Confederacy used
to control this very much and I found out the other day
that their return platforms were closed, were barred off
with speakers, you know, saying "Get away from here," and
"Report to the ones we told you to report to," and "Get
away from here," and "We don't want anything to do with
you." In other words, their return points are closed.

Well, that just spells nothing but defeat, see? So what is
this? Now, is there some other planetary system - is there
some other empire system which is deeper in to the heart of
this galaxy which is going to backfire against this one? I
would say probably yes. Probably yes. There - probably this
is coming right up over the hill. I mean it probably is not
long. Maybe this confederacy or this activity right now is
in trouble. But conquerors nearly always spare the jails.
Did you realize that? The Allied troops going in - Auschwitz, 
Belsen, places like that, they didn't knock those apart. 
They knocked apart the belligerents' property, but they 
didn't knock apart their jails. All kinds of political 
situations complicate this picture.

I'm not trying to tell you what they are about or the
solutions to them. I'm merely saying that these are
complicated and I've only vaguely touched on how complicated 
it might be, see? We can't bet on that. We actually can't 
bet on the preservation of Earth. But we can bet on
this - that this planet has a better chance of becoming a
rehabilitation center than other planets, see. That's a
very faint bet, don't you see? But supposing - supposing
now, you have not left any bridge to - in the rehabilitation
center, don't you see? Well then, everybody in this area,
now, just keeps floundering around without any contact and
no way to get up on it, and very mad at the only group of
people that could assist them. I don't think that's a
desirable situation at all. In fact, I think it's a highly
undesirable situation and I think it could actually impede
what we ourselves are trying to do. We've got to leave - 
we've got to leave a bridge.

Now, organizationally and in private practice and other
functions, our feeder lines into the public are very, very
weak - extremely weak. But they are not weak administratively, 
they are weak technically. It's technical weakness. Now, 
that's why I've circled around and come back to Scientology 
One as a heavy point of concentration in research and 
development.

Now, this is all very, very interesting that we would
consider Scientology One a heavy area of research and
development. Well, the other is wrapped up. I'm working on
it as fast as I can. You see little things sandwiched in
amongst other things. For instance, you just saw a
bulletin - if you've gotten it yet - how to handle the pc's
postulates when encountered in GPMs and engrams and that
sort of thing, you see? Well, you see stuff like that all
the time. But this other stuff is coming out now which is
this bridge. And that bridge is Project 80. See, that's
just Scientology for everyone. Now it requires, actually,
that we study Joe and Bill and Pete a bit and find out what
they agree with and utilize that agreement to improve their
ARC - not with us, but just to improve their ARC - up to a
point where we can hit another level of agreement. See? In
other words, raise them from a level of ARC, from where
they are, to a next gradient point of ARC. And then at that
next point of ARC put them in the way of getting their ARC
improved up to the next level. And they come to Scientology
Three, Clear. And then put them up from that up into a
higher level. Do it by gradients, in other words, not with
crush and crash.

Now, the eight dynamics, various scales, the ARC triangle,
the dynamic principle of existence - all of these things are
too high for Scientology One. Interesting, isn't it? So
they comprise Scientology Two - HCA/HPA level. And you're 
back to - you're back to what you might call thirty-,
sixty-day HPA training. That means a lot for a Central
Organization.

Well now, how could we possibly make an HCA or an HPA in
that length of time? It's because of our breakthrough on
the itsa line. It's this piece of technology which has made
this possible. And we couldn't have climbed this hill with 
the technology we had, because we had to have technology 
that could be grasped so easily that even if misinterpreted 
somewhat would still work. Now, that's an easy one. So we 
come back to that. And we get various definitions for these 
various levels.

Now, in studying over this problem, I am now supported by a
tremendous amount, and growing rapidly, technical
data - technical results - from the itsa line and this exact
approach. And I'm very, very interested. Why, I'm also very
interested that some of you, as auditors, haven't yet coped
with the level of win. See? You're living here on cloud
nineteen, see, and you know what a terrific win would be in
auditing, you know? Well, run out a whole series of GPMs on
somebody with terrific tone arm action and so forth. You're
hoping for that level because you know you're setting them
right straight up for OT you see? And you overlook what is a 
big win to a pc. For instance, our Staff Auditor has just 
made that mistake. He's worried. Of course, he's trained up 
to the nines, you see. And he got a perfectly raw piece of 
meat and their first session she couldn't say a word, really. 
No benefit, nothing. A few repetitive questions were asked her,
practically spun her.

Next session, she was very happy to have been able to talk
to the auditor about these things. Now, that was her gain
for the session. But the auditor hadn't been able to get
her to talk about and get good TA action on what he wanted
her to talk about, so he was regarding this as a lose. See,
he was getting worried about the case. Isn't that right? I
just saw her folder and I haven't had a chance to talk to
the auditor yet; he's at a disadvantage here. Well, he's
getting his itsa line in on a brand-new, fresh pc. And
probably what he doesn't realize is she is violently
pro-medicine oriented, and would ordinarily be what you
would consider an impossible case to process. In a couple
of sessions she's got him - she's talking to the auditor and
getting a little TA action doing so. Well, I consider this
is terrific, because this case would have barred us out a
few years ago, or even a year ago, even a few months ago.
It's at the level of win. See? You have to learn to settle
for these little wins, see? See, you have to settle for
these wins on a gradient. So he's winning. He must be doing
an awful smooth job of auditing to get over all of that.
And in actual fact, the moment he started putting in the
itsa line, just as such - even though she wasn't particularly 
interested in talking about what he was putting the itsa 
line in - he had a win. Think of that! I consider it 
fascinating!

Tells me at once the auditor must be doing a splendid job.
And it tells me the case must be winning and it tells me
this case, which I would have considered unauditable, who
has been refusing auditing left and right - not really
refusing it, just ignoring it; much worse than really
refusing it - and he gets the itsa line on this person a
little bit and he gets a win. So I think he must be doing
well. That case must be doing well. And he doesn't have to
do anything very, very extraordinary about what to get this
case to talk about. See, as long as he can keep the case
talking she'll win. Aw, that's an awful easy level of auditing.

So here we are, operating in the operating climate of where
we've known this is very hard to do. So hard to do we've
almost forgotten that we ever hoped it could be done! And
there it is, sitting in front of us, doing it! And it's
almost too spectacular to be accepted.

How long has it been since you took somebody who was
half-seas over or upset in existence and tried to audit
him, and wouldn't be audited and had to then fall into an
unauditable category. When's the first one of those you
ever had, and when was the last one? Well, now those are
the real loses, man. Because, you see, you didn't get to
process him at all! So it's a win if you processed him at
all. And you actually, when you get your hands on this, you
will be completely surprised to find out that in this
kindergarten of auditing you have very stellar results 
obtainable - so obtainable that medical healing is contained
in this line - solutions to the problems of medical healing.

Now, I'm not saying we are going to do medical healing. I
wouldn't be caught dead with it! I've done my - I've served
my time that way. And pretty poor. So don't think we're
downgrading a result, is all I'm trying to put across to
you. We're not downgrading a result, but it's going to take
us a little while to get used to the level of result.

I had quite a shock on this the first time. First time, I
just - I had worked out completely, in the absence of tone
arm action the pc wasn't winning. See, I'd worked this out, 
theoretically and so forth, and I started putting it to use 
and kept very close tally on it and found out that the 
significance which I would erase off the case did not have 
a value comparable to the amount of charge that was tone-armed 
off the case. And I was completely flabbergasted. It was a 
matter of watching pcs over twenty-four hour to forty-eight 
hour periods after a session, and it was astonishing that 
the session following good tone arm action on the pc -
 regardless of the completion of that session, regardless 
of the significance of the session - established a very 
high level of win for the pc. Pc felt brighter, more alert 
and so forth.

Now, you could get tone arm action and too much
significance entered into the situation and be pressuring
the pc along very hard in the direction the pc had to go,
and yes, you were driving the pc toward his ultimate goal
and that sort of thing, but the pc wasn't particularly
happy about it. It was trying - like trying to get speed out
of a motor boat half-full of water. Not lots of charge was
being released, and slopped over, and the pc felt groggy
and weary and sluggish and so forth. You nevertheless were
making it, you understand.

So the optimum level of cheerfulness as far as the pc is
concerned, and the feeling of getting a case advance,
as well as actual case advances, lies just in the direction
of the itsa line in and the tone arm moving. You can almost 
delete "on what," see, at your lower levels of auditing.

Now, when I say - I used that "medical healing" unadvisedly
because they'll be wiped out soon if our plans mature.
These birds - here we've got a guy who is - who's got a - 
he's got a wonderful case of lumbosis and so forth, and his
lumbar has been bothering him for a long time. It's Douglas
fir or something, and termites have gotten in there, and
this is predisposed toward disease, this area. A
predisposition toward disease.

Well, I think this is quite remarkable, because if they
treat the disease they never get at the predisposition, so
something else has got to happen to the lumbar. So the
obvious thing to do to the lumbar is to surgicalize it - cut
it out so there is no lumbar. Obviously the solution to
trouble with the lumbar is no lumbar, see? But they've
completely overlooked the predisposition of the lumbar to
disease because of trauma. They keep concentrating on the
bugs, you see?

Well, this has a - perhaps has its limitations. But what
exactly does this do? Do you know that if you could get
somebody talking about his health, or his lumbar - for
instance, you're handling that right now; you actually are
trying to head in and get her to talk about something about
her health. Something. And you'd probably have to make a
very fancy assessment to find out what it is. But the final
analysis here is if we can get her talking, this pc, about
her health, we'll eventually get her talking about her
lumbar, and we'll find out that the cures and solutions and
decisions and discoveries and cognitions and comments and
considerations and hopes concerning that lumbar, in their
aggregate, caused her to have lumbosis. And if we can get
those off with TA action, we will then have a recovered
lumbar. It sounds utterly incredible. Doesn't apply to
broken legs yet. See? Probably have to set a broken leg.

I'm just trying to give you where the zone goes. Your
Scientology Two is probably the open-sesame to healing.
We've got to accumulate a lot more material on this, and
I've - as I've said already in descriptions of Scientology
Two and in the process of getting this material together - 
well, my whole statement is, is we're not putting in this 
HCA or HPA's hands weak tools!

Just because they're simple, they're not weak. And by using
the itsa line, we possibly could take this person and cause
him to be very effective in the treatment of some physical
conditions from a spiritual/mental level that have never
before easily surrendered. See, I mean we've got a door
open there. It isn't just cracked open, it's crashed open!

Now that means, then, that your HPA/HCA level training is
just exactly in the zone of where you've been here with the
itsa line and the TA action, with a slight direction of the
pc's attention - method of direction of the pc's attention - 
mostly to this lifetime, to limbs, to conditions in their 
life and so forth. So we have to train him at this level. 
We have to train him in the Auditor's Code; we have to give 
him, of course, some TRs; we have to tell him about the 
Axioms so he sees that the subject has breadth and depth; 
but mostly, we tell him about the ARC triangle, the CDEI 
Scale, matter, energy, space, time, form and location;
we tell him about the dynamics - see what I mean? And when
we get him all grooved into this line we teach him the tone
arm of the meter, and that's it.

Now, this is certainly several cuts above Scientology One
and is an expectable cut, because he'll be able to use that
information, particularly if we put it together so he can
use it. Now, puppy to the root, with great curiosity and
facing the unknown, he will of course (and his instructors
may of course) wish to charge up into the character of this
bloke and his name, rank and serial number before he came
into the Marcab Confederacy, and considering it very
important that the auditor know this, and then it's very
important that the auditor know something about 3N, it's
very important they really know how to run an engram, and
it's very, very important that they know how to run this
and run that - and in the course of a few weeks they try to
press in an education which has actually taken you something 
on the order of what? That's heading for no success.

But if they could learn these other factors and well, and
if they effectively produced a result for them, then that
whole group undergoing that training and handling that
processing would win. They would win all the way across the
line. Their ARC, then, would again come up.

Let's take Scientology One again. We study this guy and
that guy, and we find out what they are in agreement
with - already what they are in agreement with and what they
are antagonistic toward. And studying these factors, we
give it a Scientological orientation and organization -
that's Scientology One. You got a datum, something - if 
you realize that psychology has not even come up to that 
level that we're aspiring toward in Scientology One - you 
realize these guys dabble around with stuff like this and 
consider it very wise? Such as, "When troops get letters 
from home their morale rises." - psychological report
rendered to the commanding officer - "Therefore I advise
that you have more mail transports to the front lines.
Chief and God almighty of the Psychiatric Division of the
Army of the Republic, signed this date..." Scientologists
look at that and say "Oh, pfft! Why is the morale of
front-line troops down? The morale of front-line troops is
down because they don't get mail from home. Bull!" This
bird, then, is occupying a point of swindle to some degree,
because he's supposed to be a high-caste character that
knows about these things, but what he does is put out these
fantastic banalities. See, we're not even - we're not even
going to go that low for Scientology One.

Scientology One says that it is possible to have a happy
marriage. Improbable, but im - not completely impossible to
have a happy marriage, see? That's its level of discussion
of marriage, you see? Not "Marriage is a marvelous
experience which can be..." you see, all built up on the
line. And, "How do you actually live a happy marriage? How
do you get along with children?" Well, you make the whole
of child psychology something on the basis of - something on
the basis of "When the kid tries to tell you something,
understand it and acknowledge it. Don't ignore it."

Employee-boss relationship. Communication formula with
regard to the employee, with regard to the boss. The
project of saying, "Good morning" to somebody over a period
of forty days, until they finally say, "Good morning" back.
You know, the use of. It's just getting into communication.
See, your common denominator of all that.

Now, you turn - you turn you loose on a platform, talking to
the mothers of East Orange, New Jersey, about their
children. Now, look at your levels of choice. There you
are, facing all of these girls, and they know you know your
business. Now, you can say, "Your little Rollo has just
been through the between lives area, has the following
GPMs..." Or, you, can say - or you can say, "Your problem
with little Rollo is basically one of communication..." I
think you could take off from there. I think you could
really take off. What is he trying to say when he cries?
How to handle him. How to handle him.

I'll give you a case in point. The stuff's effective! But
it takes a while. One little boy - one little boy went - I
don't know, it must have been the better part of four, five
months - without feeling anything but hostility, but at the
end of that time became very anxious to please. And what
exactly was being used? Every time he said something, great
care was taken to find out what he'd said and to
acknowledge it. Every time he showed up one said hello to
him. This brought about the total reform, as long as we
deleted out of existence any punishment the child was
getting during that period. And this reformed a very bad
boy. That doesn't sound like much, but you'd find people
who were not particularly ambitious would care to undertake
a project of that character within their own limits long
before they would undertake a more complicated project, and
the joke is that that project happens to be real, the case
history I gave you is perfectly correct, and it is a way of
handling the situation and is quite remarkable.

Now, there's - odd thing about it is, is once you've given
them a single datum, you have an enormous series of
complexities that add on to the datum, and you'd just be
amazed at how many questions there are that arise around
that complexity, and you can ama - imagine after you've
answered a few questions from the floor on the subject of
what you have just told them you'd be surprised how your
repertoire goes up and how you finally find out what they
want to know. And you may be incredulous at what they want
to know, but nevertheless that is what they want to know,
don't you see? And you, with a great deal of technology at
your fingertips, of course are able to evolve that rather
easily. Now, it doesn't really put you on a withhold with
regard to the thing.

"I understand that you Scientologists believe that
everybody has lived before. Is that true of little Rollo?"

"Well, Madame, that would be up to little Rollo. If he
wanted to tell you that, why, I'm sure he could, or would."

Experiment of exact nature was carried on at Wichita,
Kansas one time. Little Rollo in this particular case was
about five, six years old, and he was over at the swimming
pool when Mama was asking this somewhat snide question. She
was intending to be rather nasty. And she said - I said,
"Well, why don't you ask little Rollo - involved?" and so 
forth.

And she called little Rollo over and she said, "Now
darling," she says, "you don't remember when you were a
baby, do you?"

"Oh yes, Mommy!" he said, "I remember when I was in your
tummy," and went off and dived into the swimming pool. It's
all very interesting.

Now, where you cut this line and how you design it and what
you do with it, and so forth is all regulated by what
people can go into ARC with. And there's the only point
where a dissemination program or training program would
fall down.

Now, you have not any good example in me. Just_I'm not a
good example of this, because I'm mainly talking to you.
And I don't care if stuff wanders out into outlaw and
wildcat hands - I can take it. I simply say what is with
regard to what I am now looking at, at Scientologists, and
some of them think I'm kind of unreal lately, or batty and
so forth. I am sufficiently insouciant and confident, and
confident of my ARC with Scientologists in general to know
that they will forgive me, and also know that they will
look it over and run into it themselves and say, "Hey, what
do you know!" and all of this sort of thing, so I'm
operating on a different - on a different basis to a marked
degree in that particular regard.

It doesn't mean that you have to withhold what you know
about it. But you certainly have to talk to people at a
level where people can talk, if you intend to have any ARC
with those people. And therefore your basic dissemination
area throughout the public must be at a level that people
can go into ARC with. The technical material must be such
that they can use it, and there we go.

Now, you could make a Book Auditor who will get fantastic
results, and I'm - I was just telling you I was very proud
of the fact I've been studying some of this in just the
last few days, and I've been getting a lot of material on
this itsa line and so on. And R1C is - you'll be getting it
in proper bulletin form - but it is simply a list of
questions that anybody can add to, that you get people to
talk about to get in the itsa line. That is all; that is
what you do.

And it's a bunch of canned questions, but it actually could
be thousands of questions. And I can see it now! I can see
some Book Auditor with a dictionary of these questions.
Guy's got lumbosis, and here are the cross-referenced
things with regard to what this guy can talk to that will
cure up his lumbosis. See, this is how you get the R1C run
on his lumbosis. And you can get a very complicated
cross-coordination of the number of questions he could
answer that would finally add up to his lumbosis, see? And
it would - which is much more surprising - it would answer 
up to his lumbosis.

Now, that's Book Auditor line. Of course, we expect a Book
Auditor to have many more failures, flubs, be incapable of
possessing sufficient selfcontrol and discipline to keep
from flying in the pc's face. We expect this kind of
catastrophe, but oddly enough, my experience at this level
of auditing has been rather good. It has been rather good.
And if we put into their hands very, very securely, stuff
which they actually can co-audit on and get results
with - merveilleuse! And that's your R1C, don't you see?

And you hear somebody starting to dive for GPMs, something
like that, say, "Well, perfectly all right for you to dive
for GPMs, perfectly all right. But your pc - your pc
probably feel better if you take the HCA Course and the HHS
Course and go to Saint Hill and then come back and run it
on him. You're liable not to make as great a mistake."

And he'll say, "Oh well, I can still run it." Call you up
in a couple of days and say, "What do I do?" you know?

Say, "Well, all right. That's good. Why don't you ask him
about things he has not quite liked about auditing, or..."

You'll find your brains are sufficiently stretched even
handling that level of co-audit, you see, with just R1C,
that type of question. But they gonna get results! And that
type of processing going to raise their level of ARC. And
if this type of processing also exists on co-audits and so
forth, you actually can divide Scientology One into two
grades: the nonauditing and the auditing. Well, the
nonauditing are going to stay much less advancing and so
forth, but remember they will still exist. Old Dianetic and
Scientology groups always had people in them who wouldn't
ever audit or be audited but were members of the group. And
they very often would form a majority of the group. They
hung around the fringes of this and they never dared quite
get their toe wet. And you had other members of that group
who considered themselves very, very upscale because they
did audit, and they were auditing somebody and being
audited and so on.

Well, the natural evolution of this thing, then, divides it
into two, is the nonauditing and the auditing levels of
Scientology One. So therefore, you've got to have quite a
bit of theory that matches up with Scientology One that
people can talk about. A lot of theory going along with it.

Scientology Two - Scientology Two is capable of getting
tremendous results. I think even an old-time auditor
wouldn't really believe the results that are obtainable at
that level. The backbone processes - the backbone processes
are R2C - any assist line, or anything like that - but R2C.
And getting complicated now with R2C  - this is a complicated 
process. This is R1C, but an assessment predetermines the 
thing. I can give you a very rapid rundown of what R2C is, 
and I think you'll find it's a workhorse process. It's with 
an assessment. You have your new expanded CDEI Scale, and 
you have an expanded scale of eight dynamics. That gives 
you two lists. The session is begun and the tone arm is used, 
no needle actions take place, and the person is given the 
expanded CDEI Scale to inspect to find out which one of 
these things best characterize his life.

Now, you don't expect this assessment to take place in any
specific period of time. It might take ten minutes and it 
might take fifty hours. As long as you can get tone arm 
action out of the assessment, why, you're in! You don't 
care how long it takes him to pick over this little CDEI
Scale of cards and try to figure out which one most applied
at what times in his life and where and how and which and
what they are and how they relate and that this is a pretty
clever scale and - I can see some guy getting stuck for a
hundred and fifty hours just doing nothing but examining
this scale, see? See, so I'd never discourage him or speed
him up from examining the scale, because there's a lot of
residual tone arm action to be gained right there with that
scale.

Well, let's say he finally came up - anywhere between ten
minutes and five hundred hours - he finally comes up with a
level. See, you don't care if he picked it right out or it
took a long time, as long he was getting tone arm action
while he was doing it, that's the only condition. And
we - he's picked out this level. He's decided that that is
the one which most applies to his existence. He's got that
now. All right, that's level X.

And now he thinks he's all set and you're now going to do
something else, but you don't give him any chance to do
that; you repeat the operation, you give him the eight
dynamics, expanded. They're expanded with their subdivisional 
dynamics, you see? And he has to inspect that list and tell 
us which one he has been most concerned about and how, in 
this lifetime. What one has he been most concerned about in 
this lifetime? And that's again anywheres between ten minutes 
and five hundred hours, you see? That's a repeat and a replay 
of this thing.

It actually doesn't matter whether he does this slow or
fast, don't you see? As far as his case gain is concerned,
it doesn't matter a darn whether he does a fast assessment
or a slow assessment.

So we've got these two scales now, and we have - Y has been
picked out as that dynamic he is most interested in.
Therefore our question for R2C now becomes XY, all in one
question - "False actions about animals." Anything that you
want to do. Now, there's a third one - if you want to put
your auditing question together perfectly, you could have a
third one which has "decision, solution, cure, consideration, 
ideas about, concern for," don't you see? You'd have a whole 
bunch of verbal actions if you needed it to continue to put 
your question together again. That just makes your question 
neat. What has he been with regard to animals and so forth? 
Well, he's had concern for them. All right, that's fine.

Now "concern about falsity about animals," and you just
plow right down the middle of his case, man. You've got a
wide-open significance that - and. it'll make that tone arm
flow like mad. And what have you done, essentially - you've
matched up the ARC triangle against matter, energy, space,
time, form and location in a neat little package, and he's
away. See? And you've matched it up on gradients so that it
first starts out ARC versus ARC, and he gradually gets
around to where he can confront MEST a little bit, you find
out he'd eventually swing into the sixth dynamic, and he'd
eventually swing into the seventh dynamic as you repeated
this operation.

I think you are looking at clearing this lifetime. I think
that's what you're looking at. I think this is a process
which would bring about a free needle. Now in Two you also
have - this is upper Grade Two, and we would expect this on
a retread. We expect this on a retread. You would have R2H,
and you would have any other process that - such as
Prepchecking and so on, is relegated more or less to that
band, not really to the band of HPA, because that's a
needle action.

So what do you do? You just take up the itsa line, purely,
and then at the lowest professional level you take up the
tone arm, and then at the retread professional level you
take up the needle. You're moving these things up
gradually, consistently, on a gradient, and you've got
people who at every level can produce a result. It's
whether or not they can produce a result that permits us to
do this trick, don't you see? If they were unable to
produce a result at these levels we wouldn't be able to do
this trick. So I've just been glowing - glowing like a
well-oiled halo on the subject here of watching this itsa
line produce some remarkable results with regard to it.

Now, if you're going to run anything like this type of an
activity, you're going to pay any attention to this at all,
you'll find out that another element enters the scene. Just
as the devil always entered Paradise according to the very
best implants of the O/W sequence - the overt-motivator
sequence, rather - they're all apparently associated with the
devil and hell. I think it's quite interesting. Devil, hell
and punishment. The - we already found heaven, now we've
found hell. Very good.

But just as the devil always enters in, so does the ARC
break. There's always the auditor who couldn't keep his
mouth shut. And we have a tool which requires the use of
the needle. So we make the ARC break assessment a specialized 
activity. And we try to bring it home to everybody that if 
this person is ARC breaking all the time, that the person has 
to have an ARC break assessment. Well, this gives us a crack
at the auditor as well as the pc. So you say bring the pc
in for an ARC break assessment, and you go ahead and give 
the pc an ARC break assessment.

Now, as a Central Organization operating a special division
or department in which this is done can also keep an awful
lot of co-audit activities running here and there throughout 
the field, and can keep a lot of teams straightened out (when 
I said co-audit I meant just individual teams) and can keep 
an awful lot of stuff on the fire and can keep a lot of - 
actually, professional auditors who are having trouble one 
way or the other, can keep them patched up by giving their 
pcs some ARC break assessments and straighten them out. We 
also would have a crack at the auditor at that time. Right? 
And we lay the fear of something or other into him on the 
subject of breaking up the itsa line and chopping off the 
pc, or evaluating for the pc, basically by pointing out - 
follow the Auditor's Code.

And in such a way - in such a way, you'd have a high level
of effective activity going in a community or an area. If
you add such things as testing and very cheap co-audits,
and if you add some little course in which an HBA can get a
classification - you know, he can come in and he can study
these drills - this little basic drill on how you listen,
see, and how not to cut the line, and give him some gen
about the Auditor's Code, and that's it - he's a classified
auditor, see?

We straighten him out to that degree - the organization or
the auditor in private practice is always willing to give
an ARC break assessment to somebody who is falling apart,
and straighten out somebody's pc for him, don't you
see - why, you'd have a well-knit, well running, very
orderly forward progress in the community, providing that
ARC is maintained to agree with the public at large, to
agree with the partially indoctrinated, to agree with the 
first levels of professional. If the ARC is there to match, 
why, of course we will communicate like mad.

The whole secret of our communication is the fact that it's
up to us to establish the level of the communication line.
And we have to some degree considered it rather dishonest
to establish a line less than everything we knew. Well,
it's not true. It's not true. There's no particular reason
to hit everybody in the head with everything we know. But
we all do it. We all do it one way or the other. I suppose
we'll continue doing it. I can hear it now - this Book
Auditor, he's sitting there, and he's - we're trying to do 
an ARC break assessment and he keeps coming up and he says,
"But all this person will talk about is wanting to moo. And
they just keep saying 'to moo, to moo, to moo and so
forth, and I've gotten them to repeat it several times but
it gives them a headache!" I can hear you now. He gets the
equivalent of a Saint Hill Course in the next fifteen
minutes, you know? At high velocity!

But I'm not at a - for any instant even vaguely pretending
that this won't happen. See, I'm not pretending for a
moment that the program will go forward perfectly and
without a hitch. There are various reasons why it won't go
forward without a hitch. And one of those reasons is, is
some people get nervous when they see action in their
vicinity. Gets them nervous! Gets them nervous. They see
fifteen people in the Registrar's office and they know
that's too disorderly. People have no place to sit down or
anything like that, the place is crowded, the Registrar
can't do her work. She's putting money in cash registers,
you know, and they keep dashing around having trouble with
the invoicing machine, and commotion going on, she's
leaving pieces of paper on the floor - very, very unneat. 
And so they know what to do, so they cut down the line 
going in to see the Registrar. That's obviously the right 
solution to the situation, because they want things neat.

And you see testing being knocked out in various ways. I
think testing - there was some forty-some ways testing was
knocked out in Johannesburg one time after it was put in.
Those forty ways were counted. I think they were the subject 
of an Info Letter. I've forgotten how many there were. Such 
things as leaving bicycles across the walk into the testing 
office, don't you see? Making sure that no forms or blanks 
were available. Making sure that the person in charge of 
testing had too many other things to do and couldn't test.

Now, that isn't being really vicious; this is the
consequence of people who are upset about motion. And they
get too much traffic and there's too much going on, and
they get - they get emotionally disturbed about the whole
thing, so they want to shut it off. You find that kind of
action. And you finally find people who think that if they
could just be left quietly to - by themselves, the best
solution to the whole thing is to go get a rich man
someplace and have two auditors process him and audit each
other, and a hundred years from now, why, somebody will
make it. I've had that advanced to me, by the way, two or
three times as the only real solution to Scientology.

Well, that's awfully quiet! But the funny part of it is,
it's been tried and it always failed. I think that's the
most remarkable condemnation of it. Oh, they'll have other
things going along that will be hashed up one way or the
other. You'll have situations of the unusual solution. They
can't get the tone arm moving. They can't get the tone arm
moving on an itsa line, can't hit the right questions, so
they ask you. And they - you give them a qu- the answer, and
they despair of ever fitting in the answer and they go off
and run something unusual. And then they can't get any tone
arm motion there, as a matter of fact it's a little higher,
so they run something more unusual. And the tone arm is a
bit higher and they run some - needle getting tight now - so
they run something that is even more unusual. And you keep
telling them to do the usual, and then you find out to your
horror that you have a pc you've got to put together again
with tweezers practically. You can only bleed off charge
one microamp at a time, see?

There will be casualties of this sort of thing. There's
going to be some - you say to this husband and wife team,
they have no training of any kind whatsoever and you tell
them that they should co-audit. All right, and they go off
and they co-audit, and you hear the house is burned down or
something. They're busy getting divorced now, because they
got rid of some O/Ws inadvertently, don't you see, and the
other one couldn't take it and blew up in their face in the
middle of session, and all this sort of thing. This is
not - you see, this doesn't make for peace! That's what I'm
bringing home. There's a certain amount of catastrophe
involved in this sort of thing and the only thing you can
do is minimize the catastrophe. Just minimize it. And hold
it down and keep it along the line, and then not get pinned
on this dissident member of the congregation and that
character who is raising trouble and that situation, and
then just get pinned totally against these things and
forget that everywhere else it's just running fine. These
various things occur.

Actually you can practically destroy an organization by
getting your attention too fixated on two or three small
evils of one kind or another, and you don't realize that
the rest of the organization is running wonderfully well. 
I had that happen to me in Johannesburg. My attention got
riveted and I had - the situation was picked up long after 
I could do anything about it and the attention and so forth 
got riveted on everything but the fact that the staff was 
doing extremely well. And the traffic was going as well as 
could be expected. They were getting their throats cut from 
a certain quarter and I think to this day don't even realize 
that they got their throats cut from that particular quarter.

Outside pcs were being used to collect money individually
and the poor staff was not getting any of the money it was 
working for and therefore was working for practically nothing, 
and then being told by the very people who were doing it to 
them that it's all very sad and they should do something
extraordinary, and so forth. And these guys were cutting
their throat. And the second I tried to do something about
it, the situation was so triggered and so explosive and so
forth that it practically spattered over that corner of
Africa. Just now getting back together again.

This kind of thing occurs. And that occurred from the
result of getting your attention too fixated upon some evil
and trying to take this evil apart, forgetting the rest of
the organization, don't you see? And it was running all
right. It comes from what you could call "crusading. 
Crusading in ill-advised directions.

You've got mobs of people who are walking in for the PE
lectures. Mobs of people, see, they're just walking in, and
they sit down and so forth. And the PE director makes his
biggest mistake when there's that guy named Swinkopf. And
damn that fellow, you know! He comes in and he sits down in
the front row, and he sits there with a sneer on his face,
you know and so forth, and the whole lecture gets twisted
around Swinkopf. Guy's talking to fifty-five people out in
front of him, you see, and yet addresses his lecture to
this one dissident character who is probably a commie
anyhow. See, it doesn't make sense, you know? If Swinkopfs 
get too much in my road, why, I always tip off a couple of 
guys, the next - in the next lecture when he comes in, why, 
you put him out. They always do it very gladly.

There's no sense in, then, narrowing down the whole of the 
forward progress and all the information you've got and all 
the theta you could generate, you see, to take care of
Swinkopf. The odd part of it is there probably aren't a
dozen people in the United States, actually, who are
against Scientology. I mean, count them numerically. There
are probably not a dozen. Look at the amount of time and
effort being invested in that particular line. Great!

Two birds at the AMA, fellow by the name of Keaton and a
fellow by the name of Field. And these birds throw all the
brickbats, generate all the press, kick all the fuss up that 
is kicked up, and so forth. Well, there's probably a member 
or two of the AMA board that sicked them on, and there's 
probably some bird down in the FDA, who - I don't know, 
maybe he's done something - I don't know, maybe he got 
somebody in a family way at some time or another, or maybe 
he takes all the drugs that are sent in - something. Anyway, 
this guy feels absolutely imperiled by something or other, 
so he's just Johnny to the root on it, and so forth.

Well, there's no doubt about it, they can cause a lot of
fuss. But just let me point out something to you. You don't
see me spending very much time concentrating on that
particular dozen. Because every moment of time I spend on
them is wasted on the remaining - count them, man - a hundred
and eighty millions. It just isn't a figure, you see,
that's proportionate one way or the other. Probably all
evil generates from too great a concentration on evil. You
can neglect a fantastic amount of entheta and still get by.
And you keep the show on the road and you make it very
easily. But the way not to keep the shaw on the road is get
so fascinated with how the show is not on the road while it 
is still on the road, that you, of course, contribute to not 
getting it on the road. You eventually contribute to stopping 
the show, don't you see? You have to be very careful along in
this line.

So there are fifteen co-audit teams going in your immediate
vicinity and so forth, and there's one team that is always
in trouble. Every Saturday night that you have off, it's an
ARC break assessment for this pair. They've blown up in
smoke, see? And there it is, there it is. Now what are you
going to do about it? Man, I'd lay down the law! I'd say,
"Now, look! Either sign up for professional auditing, go
into the local HGC - something on this situation." Because
why? Because they're taking up all the time you actually
should be spending with the remaining fourteen teams - which
is a bad economy, a bad estimation of effort, don't you
see? There are means of taking care of these situations.
And what you want to do is form up ways of taking care of
these things and take care of them on a routine basis, not
on an emergency basis all the time, well appreciating and 
predicting that things like this are going to occur. And 
then traffic will run. And then the consequences of stirring 
up such a tremendous activity in the public at large and so 
forth, actually will be very easy to handle. And when we get -
finally get through with this thing, we'll be handling a lot 
more than we're handling now.

This thing has fallen out into its natural consequences.
Finally when you go out through the top you can generally
pick up a simplification at the bottom. We are a very long
way from totally finished with research, but I think that
when we've gotten down to the basis of where we have shaped
auditing at its lower levels totally around the definition
of"auditor" - one who listens - if you can get any simpler
than that, I would like to hear about it.

Therefore, I think that we have laid in a safe basic, and
have made a safe assumption that this is good dissemination
channel material, and will remain constant enough for us to
project it very easily and heavily and consistently and
keep it going for a long time and get it all grooved in,
and get things shaped up in that direction, and take the
general public and make 1964 the year of Scientology for
everyone.

Okay? Thank you!


===================

