View source for Processes (1MACC 591130)

'''Series:''' 1st Middle-American ACC (1MACC)

'''Date:''' 30 November 1959

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

Thank you.

Well, this is going to be a very short lecture. And this is the last lecture of the 1st Melbourne ACC. And most last lectures have to do with future, what are you going to do and why shouldn't you do it.

And this one has to do with processes.

Give me one of those slips. No, I mean your bulletin.

And you just had a bulletin released here. I'm going to read it to you."

"Allowed Processes 1st Melbourne ACC."

"The following processes are to be run in the last three weeks of the ACC at the option and discretion Of the Instructors in consultation with individual auditors."

You have absolutely free choice in what process to run on your preclear as long as you run the exact one your Instructors tell you to.

And we've named these after the ACC.

"Melbourne ACC 1."

"Arduous Case Assessment by dynamics and other means: Overt- Withhold Straightwire only on terminals having mass and no terminals of significance only. General terminals preferred."

Which means that you're going to have to have something with some mass in it. And it better not be a "dead dog," "a boy with German measles." I don't want any adjectival terminals of any kind whatsoever, no matter what they read on an E-Meter. No adjectival terminals.

If you're going to run "a boy with German measles" it's going to be run as "a boy." Do you hear me?

If you ever get to be D of P, any organization, the staff auditors inevitably will go off on a kick somewhere along the line of inserting adjectives because "a boy with German measles" or something like this is what drops on the E-Meter. Well, that only means they've got a boy up toward the destroy end of the curve and it means that a boy needs to be run. You got the idea?

But you run "a boy with German measles" and you fix it on the curve, of course. You run "a dead dog" and you fix it on the curve of course, and after that the curve won't shift. And you wonder, what in the name of common sense. So, it isn't that you can't run a dead terminal but if you do run one the cycle of action on it will never adjust. Simple, huh? All right, very good.

That, by the way, is a process which runs on people who are still withholding violently from the auditor without smashing the case up. But you run a Communication Process, much less a Create or Confront Process, on somebody who is withholding badly on life or any of the dynamics or the auditor, and you will blow that case just as sure as shooting. The case will sit there and ARC break with you, the case will – will try to blow the session because the case is merely reacting as the backfire to the withhold.

The withhold gets withheld so fast that it – they withhold themselves right out of the session. You got the idea?

Or they start dramatizing the overt which means, "Look what you're doing to me. Look what you're doing to me. Look what you're doing to me."

Any young man, by the way, can always get a mock-up of a gun but they never like to be shot. Right?

So, you either run off the overts on the subject of guns or you get him "willing to experience being shot." And until that happens, he will remain on the cause-distance-effect line at cause-point – violently, and never able to get off of it because if he did, he'd be shot. Is that obvious?

Audience: Yes.

So, overt-withhold would basically be – if you had something like a gun, which in itself is a kind of a pin on the curve, because it creates death. Well, that's a very short cycle of action.

He gets on one end of this line – almost any man and a lot of very nice,

sweet, inoffensive women, actually can get fantastic gun automaticities. Why? Well, they're not willing to be shot. Because their intention while shooting somebody was to kill them. And they don't want to be dead, so, there's only one place to be where a gun is concerned, and that's holding and firing one.

So, there's another process which isn't allowed to you in this course, but which you'd better have some comment on, is, if you assessed a terminal as in this Melbourne ACC 1 process, to be "a gun" it would go something like this. You could run it like this:

You say, "It's a gun, has to be there" and so forth. You could say, "Who should be shot?" "Who should be shot?" "When did you shoot them?" "When did you shoot a similar person?" Any such wording, you see, would get the overts off.

Now, that's a gag process. It works something on this order – that's an overt and a withhold and so forth all in itself. It's a gag process.

You see some object over here, you see a chair. You ask a person, "What bad thing could you do with a chair?" Answer that right now. "What bad thing could you do with a chair?" You got it?

Audience: Right.

Good. When did you do it?

Now, think it over, When did you do it?

Did you find it?

Audience: Yeah. Sure.

Hm?

Interesting, isn't it?

Audience: Yeah.

Huh?

You could just pick these things off the line like mad.

Now, running a person at the effect end of the scale is simply running him on a victim basis but there's a scale that goes this way:

First substitute – and below that could be many substitutes of pictures –

but the "first substitute" would be a dubbed-in picture of a picture.

Then the next layer above that on the scale – above that would be black.

Next, invisible.

Next above that would be the real picture.

But with that, of course, it'd be the real picture because we've got confront, haven't we?

Now, above that, we've got a three-dimensional picture. And the thing that accompanies the three-dimensional picture is experience.

So, "What would you be willing to experience that could be done with a gun?" is a process that would really fix up the overts on a gun.

Now, you either run the overts off or add the "willing to experience" on, huh? One or the other.

Only "willing to experience" is identified by most pes as being at effect. And that's as bad as being at cause. So, that's your basic setup.

Now, a person in certain categories could only run on something like Overt-Withhold on some terminal in order to change their state of case. They're so fixedly at the cause-point on it that they're never going to move on the track, or anywhere else, than the exact location in time in the physical universe where they did that particular overt action. You follow that?

And that is your best bet, because it won't blow people out of it, for PE Co-audit, Overt-Withhold on some assessed terminal by the Instructor. Got it?

Female voice; Yes. All right.

Here's "Melbourne 2,"

"Preclear's put in two-way communication with auditor by, 'Think of something you are willing to let me know?' 'Think of something you could withhold.'"

That's not "from me" you notice. It's just "could withhold." That's because you'll get other withholds.

"And by other means if indicated by Instructor. Occasionally auditor asks, 'How are you going?' 'Is there anything you'd like to tell me?' And this is followed by 'What would you like to confront?' alternated with 'What would you rather not confront?'"

Well now, this of course would be a pc that you were trying to loosen up one way or the other and was getting into the run of the thing, and you just put the pc in some sort of a condition where in spite of a withheld overt or a terribly unknown obsessive overt of some kind or another that he and you, and nobody else could get to, or something of this sort, it would still make case gains on the thing. Because you keep running the Overt-Withhold on this, you see, and then he'll start running the Confront on it, and then the Overt-Withhold, and the Confront, and pretty soon he'll work out to a point, and, "Oh, is that what I am," you know? And he gets up into a pretty good state with regard to this. That's a pretty good process.

Now, "Two-way comm is reestablished frequently by above method where pc is in or near PT on process."

Now, don't go running off into, "Think of something you c – " you've been running, "What could you confront?" "What would you rather not confront?" And don't suddenly do a shifteroo here. You know, the pc is only back there about five billion years and stuck in a Fac One, and you suddenly decide to shift the process and say, "Think of something you could withhold." Because you're going to run it right straight in the middle of the Fac One. And the process is not designed for that at all.

In other words, you could get somebody way back on the track, be very, very incautious about checking where he is, and run back to the withhold idea, change off the process and just foul the case up very, very nicely indeed. Got it?

All right.

"Melbourne 3."

"Establish two-way comm with the pc and get tone arm down by getting off all overts and withholds on any dynamic."

That's talking down the tone arm. That's it. That's smoothing out, talking down the tone arm just like we've talked about for a long time here. That's just that particular process in action.

Generally the way that goes is you peel the little ones off, and you find the bigger ones, and you peel the bigger ones off, and you find the bigger ones, and then you peel the bigger ones off, and then you – uhdahaahhlahahh.

Then he all of a sudden says, "Gee-whiz, I didn't have any idea I was Hitler," you know? That's a joke. I know where Hitler is. No, I only have him located very indifferently. Can't imagine why he went to America.

Anyway. Then on – continuing on Melbourne 3, "Run Dynamic Assessment. Run small amounts of Alternate Create with large amounts of Alternate Confront on the same terminal Create was run on.

"Commands of Alternate Create are: 'What part of a (blank) would you be willing to create?' 'What part of a (blank) would you rather not create?'

"Commands of Alternate Confront: 'What part of a (same terminal as used for Create) could you confront?' 'What part of a (blank) would you rather not confront?'

"Alternate means two questions one run – run one after the other consecutively, one command positive followed by one negative."

In other words, you say, "What part of a cat could you confront?" "What part of a cat would you rather not confront?" "What part of a cat would you confront?" "What part of a cat would you rather not confront?" All right.

Now there's a variation on this that isn't stated in this first bulletin which is perfectly allowable and that is the omission of Create, the Create step. This can be run without the Create step providing you do this – and by the way, it's very funny to have this be a side note because it is undoubtedly one of the best processes ever invented. You find out what the individual has been working at to produce. Find out what he's been producing. Well, we – don't get esoteric about this. Cats make kittens, you know. Painters paint paintings. You've got the notion here? Farmers grow wheat.

And we just check this fellow over for the last lifetime and we found out what he's been producing. This is the assessment that you do on this. It says, "Run Dynamic Assessment" you got that? Run a Dynamic Assessment and find out what the fellow's been producing. You do this in lieu of the Create step, particularly on any case that's being at all sticky. Find out what he's been producing and then run it on Confront.

Look, he's already run the process Create. I've already mentioned this to you in lectures, you see. He's already run Create. Now, why do you want to come along and compound the felony. You won't want to do Create – artificial restimulation of Create – until you get him pretty well squared around on some other things and then you want to pull track in and that sort of thing, well, make him create a little bit of it. It's gone flat on the needle on you or something like that. You want to stir things up, get anything that assesses even slightly, run a little bit of Create on it and it'll be right there ready to run with Confront. See? It pulls it in.

So, what you're interested in here is what has a fellow been creating?

And this is very important to you because this will be the subject of a book, The Rehabilitation of Artistry – Scientology, Its Use by Artists. And this is the primary thing.

We're going to find out what the fellow's been producing for the last few lives and any crisscross or variation thereof, and we simply run Confront on that as a terminal. We get some generalized form of it.

Now a generalized form of an airplane engine – -the fellow's been making airplane engines – a generalized form of an airplane engine is, "a m chine" or "an engine" or "a motor." But, if you said, "a machine" this thing's going to go way back, so you might want to take something a little less hot. So, you would take "a motor." But don't you dare take "airplane motor!" You hear me?

Audience-. Yes.

See, that's an adjectival terminal! And just forget these adjectival terminals, see. It's a qualified motor. No, motors are motors.

You'll find out the reason he's had a hard time in this life building airplane motors is because he had an awful hard time building triple expansion engines back in 1915 in his last life up in Scotland. And here he has this fantastic job and he has a terrible time – great massive things – and he couldn't build enough of them.

Here he is and he finds himself building motors again, you know? Only they're airplane motors and he hopes he'll get away with it because it's adjectival but he won't. Sooner or later he'll be building an engine of some kind or another.

So, you want to fish around and get the plainest description, the most generalized description you could possibly get of this. "A motor." "An engine."

Now, if you run "a machine," of course, you're going to go back and pick up the mental machinery. That's inevitable.

So, if a fellow has been actually building machines and motors in the last lifetime or two, don't you dare run "machine" as a general process before you get this last one off. Because boy, hell be in a ball up the like of which you never heard of.

Take a case off the top. Don't keep going on this "total effect on you" basis. You got it? Cut a little cabbage leaf, you know, before you start digging for China.

Now, this rehabilitates artistry. And this would probably be one of the things for which you would be most thanked as an auditor.

The head of one of the largest banks in England – is not really a Scientologist but had a lot of Scientology processing – is actually also an amateur concert pianist and was getting to a point where he was hitting high C with a low Q, you know, and he wasn't making it.

And an auditor got hold of him and processed him, straightened him out and all of a sudden, why, he was right back in there with championship quality, see. He was doing a wonderful job on it.

It was quite interesting, I – this fellow actually was – moved a couple of small skyscrapers and some things like that to have me over to lunch and we sat there and talked about a lot of things. I realized that he didn't know terribly much about Scientology but he sure knew he'd gotten results. He sure knew he'd gotten results. He was right back in there tickling the ivories and polishing the rosewood the like of which nobody'd heard from a long time. See?

They'd found some kind of a series of lives playing pianos, got to be a habit. Naturally, one too many lives he decides to create the piano music – that was that. Only it wasn't the creation of music that was the hang-up. It was the odd bits and parts needed to create music and the scarcity thereof, you see? And the oddest, scarcest thing in the creation of music happens to be a musician – just for your benefit.

Now, wherever you look in – in assessing cases, the pc has something to say about it. And on a hot terminal will tell you, "That's not it." "Well, you missed the boat that time," you know. "Bullfighters. I never had anything to do with bullfighters. I've never been interested in bulls. I've never had anything to do with anything. Don't get a quiver out of it. Does nothing for me." Except it moves the tone arm all over the dial. He's just running a total irresponsibility.

What he had to be was on the cause end, cause end, cause end, cause end – slip. Now, he can't conceive of it. Only he can't ever be in position anymore and in Book One you hear this described as valence, out of valence. Remember, Book One? "Out of valence."

Well, he couldn't be in the cause-point anymore because he couldn't stand to be guilty of that many overts anymore. Couldn't be at cause-point, couldn't be at effect-point. Couldn't be at cause-point, couldn't be at effect- point and so went and got lost.

And you get your "separate case." Only this case is not just separate from something like a wall. He's separate from being cause. He's gone. He'll very often put a machine in at cause-point or something like that, and say, "Well, got nothing to do with me." And the pc will sit there and say, "Well, it's nothing to do with me. Nothing at all to do with me, I don't know why you keep running it. I can't imagine anything more boring than a bulldog. A dog. A dog. I've never had anything to do with dogs. I never owned one. Don't ever remember any dogs being in the neighborhood. I don't think any of the neighbors ever had any dogs. I've never seen any dogs in any circuses. And I don't know why you're running dogs."

Got total not-is on dogs, that's why we're running dogs. And of course he doesn't know it, and of course he can't take any responsibility for it. And sometimes you're doggone lucky to get it just to click once on the – on the needle.

Everything else seems flat but "dogs" goes flip. And then you say, "What was that again?"

"What was what again?"

"What I just said."

"Well, I don't know. What did you just say?"

"Well, what did I say?"

"I don't know."

"Did you say anything?"

"Yes, I said dogs!"

The needle's motionless. "Dogs," "Dogs."

Now, if you really want to upset him, say "Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs. Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs!" You really had to bring the pressure on there.

Anyway, that is a highly effective method of going about things. To take what he has aberrated himself with creating, take the bits, pieces and stuff that his livingness, his life has thrown into view, you see? Oh, yeah, let's take somebody, any – anybody that's building anything has been producing, producing, producing. And let's take particularly the manufacturer of a textile firm. Boy, I tell you, that man will run on textiles the like of which you never heard of. Only you'll have to choose some appropriate terminal. Whatever it will be, "cloth" or something of that sort. It's whatever he has been producing a lot.

And you get, "What cloth or what part of cloth," or however you could put the thing together, "What cloth could you confront?" "What cloth would you rather not confront?"

He's a textile manufacturer and the weird part of it is, is he will get burnt cloth, torn cloth, dirty cloth, ripped cloth, but he never gets a whole

bolt of cloth. Bolts of cloth suddenly fly out that way, and go this way, and untangle themselves across the room and . . .

He's wondered why he's felt tired. Huge ridges have collapsed on him and so forth. Whatever you can pick up in anything the fellow has been doing in that category, in other words, will come about and to a point where it forms ridges. And you get some sort of a general situation which is a very poor one in the case and the case will experience immediate relief and immediate satisfaction and become very, very happy with the processing.

Now, there's a – a highly effective process so don't lose sight of it. And don't go take some poor textile manufacturer that already has cloth on total automatic, and run "What cloth could you create?" See, don't do that. Life set him up for the process. Why do you have to?

He by the way, will run it quite avidly. Boy, he'll really run that process, "What cloth could you create?" He – he thinks – he thinks that's a wonderful process, that's just – just the right process. Down, down, down, just the right process. Down, down, down, just the right process, you know. Just the right process. Just the ri – . "Always very – I'm very happy with this process." That's what he's doing obsessively.

One time wrote in Book One, if you could just parallel what the mind was doing, find out what the mind was doing and parallel it with processing, you had it made.

Well, that's absolutely correct. But the truth of the matter is, the mind has overdone it. The mind isn't creating and confronting, you see. It's creating but it's not confronting and then it gets all messed up.

All right, let's go on to the rest of these.

"Two-way comm established – Melbourne 4."

"Two-way comm established and continued by auditor with pc during session."

And here – make a correction on your bulletin.

"Get the story established." No, "Get the story, establish the overts, pinpoint the incidents in time helpfully for pc." Those three things.

Now, that's – that's pretty gorgeous processing if you can do that. I mean, if you can get a case to run this way and if you're good enough yourself to get a case to run this way, you've got it made, made, made. And it's very nice, very nice.

I'll read it to you again.

"You establish two-way comm and continue it during session."

Now, that means very subtly that you don't establish two-way comm by clearing the needle and then skip it. You keep picking up the ARC breaks, you keep picking up the overts during session, you keep the needle clean, you keep it as clean as a whistle between auditor, pc and environment, so the pc can give some of his attention to the bank, and then you win everytime. You keep the environment clean of needle drop.

All right. Now, you plot out the story of the pc, particularly the last few lives as you start in. Get this squared around one way or the other by discovering the overts. Soon as you've discovered the overts, why you blow them.

There are several ways you can blow overts. The best way of blowing overts is to get the pc to recall them. He won't do them to you. It's safe to get them recalled. And don't you – any of you dare ever let me hear you running a pc as though he were a victim.

You can occasionally say as he's weeping bitterly, you could say, "Well, that's okay." Understandingly. But, don't sit there and tell him, "Now, what did they do to you?" "Good. That's fine. That's fine." "Now, what did they do

to you then?" "You sure you weren't betrayed about that point?" That's just a dramatization of being a cause-point on the part of the auditor. In other words, "get the story, establish the overts and you pinpoint the incidents in time helpfully for pc."

In other words, if he's got a stuck picture, something like that, and he can't do anything about it, let's move it right on down in time and let's get it pinned as close as we have to pin it to make it blow. Let's get the overts off of it, that'll also make it blow. Let's pin it in time and make it blow. Put it on the time track properly.

Now, you may have occasion to run assists – not necessarily in this course – but if you have occasion to run assists, we have:

"Melbourne ACC 5."

"Assists on body to be run by Communication Processes."

This fellow has a bad arm, so we say, "Prom where could you communicate to an arm?" Now that – that's the fastest thing I know to clean up an arm. As long as you've got an arm present, a Communication Process works like mad. As long as you've got something present that is in the process or one of the class of terminal you're trying to run, as soon as you've got one of a class of terminal you're trying to run in the room with you, a Communication Process runs very fast, is very rapid and is practically a different process than a su – totally subjective process.

In other words, you got – the pc's got an arm, you can run arm. Got the idea?

The pc's got a head, you could actually run head – not recommended. The pc's got a

head that's upset or – by something or other, you can run – you know, he's got a headache or something like that, you could run head – rough process though.

And here's a brand-new one: "To what could you communicate from this room?" Of course, you've got a room present so it's very easy to run a Communication Process.

Yeah, well what could you do with that? Why is it in there? Well, it has many reasons for being in there.

This is a wonderful one to run on Registrars and so forth. Take her into her office, make her sit down at the desk and run on her, of course, "To what (or to whom) could you communicate from this room?" And you find out that usually the inflow and hammer and pound has got her cut off to the wall or something like that. Her letter volume and responsibility area goes way out because she begins to realize that she can communicate to the whole ruddy world from that room, you see, but she goes out in steps.

But this is a nice one to clean up auditing sessions. It does all kinds of interesting things and if – it's down here because in this ACC, and later on, in running pes for a long time in one room or something like that, you want to clean up the auditing session, you should get off the overts, clean up the ARC breaks, you see, and get the overts off, straighten all that up. And then when the needle is totally clean, then run this process at the end of an intensive for a little while. And you'll find out that all of the introversion the person's been doing has not necessarily as-ised and he'd get a great big win, see, right at the end of the intensive. He's won, you see, and he feels fine. But you don't wait for him to settle out, you just run this process and that settles the case out right then, bang! And that's pretty slippy. Very good, a very nice process.

"To where or to what could you communicate from this room?"

Now, as far as any other ways of cracking cases now known, these will only be run by the Instructors. But, I could mention one in passing.

One of the simplest havingness remedies if you dared get away with it, which someday you will probably be using – you may see your Instructors use

this one. Well, it has to be run with very, very smooth auditing and with a total absence of ARC breaks and there must be a very clean needle, kept clean all the way on the thing – it's got to be smooth, you understand, so that it doesn't reduce havingness.

Because to chop up a pc makes him individuate further and you get havingness reduction. And this process – fascinating process – in that you do a Dynamic Assessment of some kind or another and you fumble around trying to find the hottest automaticities on the case you can. In other words, what terminal turns on the hottest automaticity?

And you realize that there are a lot of cases around that turn on an automaticity with planets. They turn on automaticities with this, with that, with the other thing, they – just lots of automaticities. And you fish around, and see what you get there with the biggest drop and see what the pc is late – least willing to be responsible for and so forth, and then you remedy his havingness with it.

Now, this is only a Remedy of Havingness if it's a totally smooth session which doesn't blow his havingness because it's a very delicate balance. And the process mustn't be run on a qualified terminal. It must be just a terminal. Otherwise it won't change on the cycle of action.

In other words, if you're going to run a man with this terminal, you simply run "a man." Not "a frightened man" or "a dead man" or "a nuhdinahya"

You could run "a soldier" you see, or "a painter" or something of this sort, or something of that sort. But not an adjectival man that would pin anybody on the cycle of action.

The auditing command of it is simply, "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you."

You're doing an odd thing here. You're taking over the automaticity of the engram bank with a postulate. The postulate concerns an existence and you're making the pc assert existence, existence, existence, existence, existence. See, whatever the pc does, the pc exerts existence, existence.

And the fact that something exists is contrary to his belief. He thinks it's become very scarce – doesn't exist.

And the reason people kill off other people is because they believe they don't exist and they're too scarce.

You'd think the "scarcer something got the more valuable it is." Well, that's only up to a certain point.

Now, beyond that point, the scarcer it gets the more it's to be destroyed.

Many a marriage is going on the rocks because some man can't have a wife or some woman can't have a husband. So the remedy in such a thing is you simply set them down – clean up that needle, get that slicker than a wolf's tooth, you see – because there mustn't be any – any bad feeling or ARC breaks or anything, and there mustn't be any rough auditing.

And then you say to this – this man, you say, "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you."

At first she gets it all invisible and then the next thing you know she gets a kind of a dull haze. And then after a while she gets only dead men for a long time. And then the next thing you know, there's a picture of somebody. Fantastic, first picture she ever saw. Get the idea?

Now, you could take this fellow who was short on machinery, and you'd say, you already assessed it, you've pegged it, you know what it is, and you say, "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you " "Think of a motor. Thank you." Every time he says, "Yes" you know, you say, "Thank you."

He's going to give you long, involved stories and you'd better listen to them, and particularly the last – the pictures which concern the last few lives, you'd certainly better look into those pictures because he's liable to get some kind of a disentanglement concerning this life that has his whole case licked. But nevertheless, it'll come out in the long run in any event. So, you pay particular attention to that.

But, you just – it's just, "Think of a terminal" you see? Whatever terminal he's scarce on, just, "Think of a terminal." And this has got – run in this fashion across a clear needle with an E-Meter and so forth, and the session kept clean of ARC breaks and so on as you go – this has got Expanded GITA beat about a thousand ways from the middle. But Expanded GITA has in its list several items which are qualified as adjectival terminals. In other words, they're too qualified.

A scarcity of various things, a scarcity, abundance of these various things – well, you just wouldn't have to worry about any scarcity of that – several of them are not terminals. So that list is not necessarily the best list in the world for this but could be resorted to and you could look that over in a case assessment.

If you just read the Expanded GITA list off to a person, watched the meter, took the thing that dropped and just said to the person, "Think of a man. Thank you," or whatever that terminal was, "Think of a man. Thank

you." "Think of a man. Thank you." You'd have it licked. Because you would have remedied the scarcity, also remedied the postulate, also remedied the automaticity of the bank and also squared around the pc on cause and effect.

It's quite a process. And you can run it if you successfully graduate from this course as qualified to audit smoothly.

Okay?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right, there's your candy. Thank you very, very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, all good courses come to an end as far as I am concerned, but this course isn't coming to an end as far as you're concerned. The hard work is ahead of you.

As long as I am around your Instructors are tenderhearted. Your Instructors are – are kind. They don't let their tempers get away with them, they don't show their impatience and so forth. I serve as a check on them. I put them in weak valences in other words.

But, the second it's happened before, during last weeks and things like that – is the second I have disappeared in the past, I have known them, actually known them to go out and have their teeth filed.

Now, I am extremely – I am extremely happy that you are being left in very competent hands.

And as you realize, Dick and Jan's work in Scientology is entirely volunteer and unrecompensed. Their being down here is actually a considerable sacrifice to themselves and nevertheless, why, I'm very glad they could come, but we're actually quite indebted to them. So, I want to thank them personally for being here.

I also want to extend my thanks to HASI Australia and HCO Australia for their very fine activities, and for their very good auspices, for an excellent congress and a good follow-through. And they've given me a very easy time of

it. I had a staff meeting with them this afternoon and I was very pleased to be able to tell them with considerable truth – you know, you always say pleasant things at the end of the thing, you know, like when people die, you always say, "Isn't he a good fellow." "Doesn't he look natural."

But, the truth of the matter is – the truth of the matter is this is actually the first ACC I had anything to do with for some time where I wasn't totally overworked all day and all night with super administrative affairs – was actually able to get something constructive done more or less off my own hook, and I didn't have to patch up anything at all to amount to anything in HASI while I was here in spite of the size of this course, and the strain on the communication lines, and some of my own despatches coming in. My own despatches came in very lightly but those that came in, they were, well, pretty well handled.

And I was quite amazed to be able to have as easy a run of it. Now, this HASI being ostensibly the least educated HASI, with the least orderly history and background back of last year – known by the way to be a holy terror. And as we've only had it straightened out and functioning well since some time in the middle of the year and it's been improving, and improving, and improving, and getting better and better and with the very good staff it's got, it surprised the living daylights out of me. I didn't expect it would get that good this quick. I am extremely pleased with it. And I think you've got a good HASI in Australia, and I want you to stand behind it and back it up. Will you do that for me?

Audience: We will. Sure.

Now I'll be going back to London from here and I was very pleased to find out that I would have a swim at Waikiki Beach. That's the only candy I get on the return trip.

Naturally, I've been – I'm overdue considerably on my return. HASI Limited has apparently been pretty well finished up and has been sitting on the back burner, and South Africa let out one of the most painful little squeaks today that I heard of for some time. I don't know what's going wrong down there but it'll just have to go wrong – if they want it to.

But, I've got to take ahold of some reins back at Saint Hill and get things squared away. Saint Hill is a rather large running concern – oddly enough – you wouldn't believe that as much communication was handled by any small group of people as is handled at Saint Hill. There's only a staff there of a little more than 20, and wow, the amount of traffic and activity that staff handles is utterly fantastic.

The trouble with Saint Hill is everything that it handles is already out of proportion of a Central Organization – in other words, it – it's usually something Central Organizations don't handle. You know, I mean it's already too big for the Central Organization to handle.

Boy, if you don't think that isn't a staff personnel problem and a comm line problem and everything else because everything is going through there at about ten times the velocity of anything. I hope in the very near future that Australia will be connected with Saint Hill by telex, and if that is the case, why, we will be in much better shape, even though I don't think Australia needs all that help. I would be very pleased with that much ARC communication.

The basic immediate program of Scientology, you know all about, and if you don't, why, you just have to trust me. And you've got your own plans in many respects, and go ahead and carry them out.

It is a very, very, very bad officer of disciplined, veteran troops who does not exert discipline at every turn of the trail with such force and solidity that everything is totally held in tight grooves.

And it's a very, very bad officer of guerrilla troops who pays much attention

when they start charging ramparts and. rounding up and stealing horses and so forth, beyond trying to keep them out of trouble with the law. I've led highly disciplined forces but I'm not leading them now.

You're definitely – you're definitely the guerrilla troops if I ever saw any.

But much more than that, you might think it was very flowery if I told you that you held the fate of this planet in your hands. And here in Australia particularly you hold the fate of this planet in your hands. You really do.

I won't bother to go into why, where, something of the sort, but you certainly do. And I'd add to it, except it probably exceeds your imagination but there are a great many planets in a very short day's sail, you might say, that you also hold in your hands. You don't know it yet, you haven't looked in your palm lately.

But the upshot of this is that we are for the first time reversing the current on the usual disintegrating, go-to-pieces, get very corrupt, totally disciplined society. Where it all goes to pieces and it looks so good except everybody is horribly miserable with it and there's no real randomity in it and it's a total upset across the boards.

We're the first time, when a planet starts into this particular cycle and curve, we are sitting there with the answer, which is to say, they can get as good as they want, we can still make man better, and that's quite remarkable.

But these big automatic machines of planetary governments, and confederacies and so forth get going and there's nothing you can do about them thereafter – they've had it. Nobody can stop them. Nobody can stop these Frankenstein monsters after they get released – except us. We don't necessarily want to inherit the monster but we do hope that the hands on the monster's reins will not be dropped and we can make sure that fairly able hands are placed in those reins. As long as Scientology exists, why, some freedom and decency can exist in this universe.

It isn't a very high mission from a standpoint of many goals and organizations and so forth of the past but I think it's a very factual one. And oddly enough all we have to do is keep going just the way we're going and we'll do just fine.

So, thank you for being here, and thank you for keeping going.

It's actually been a great pleasure lecturing to you, I haven't had an easier time of it for some time. I don't know if you know it or not but I have now given 38 lectures in a space of almost exactly three weeks.

And those – that's quite a lot of gen, and you were getting it so hot and heavy and there were some who came into the course late and some that were asleep early. And you're going to get a replay all the way through of these lectures.

But the exact course pattern which you are going through and the exact lectures which you have been given, will form in the future the BScn courses and so on. Naturally they will not be taught – the same Instructors, and they will not be taught to the grade and stiffness that this one is, perhaps, but nevertheless we have established a pattern. These lectures will now be used by every Scientology organization at Continental level, and this constitutes the new BScn regimen and course. You understand? Well, that puts you on top as far as that sort of thing is concerned and it puts you up to the people who got the course.

Now where Central Organizations are trying to make new auditors and that sort of thing, why, they'll probably try to whistle at quite a few of you people one way or the other to get them to come over and show them how the course was really taught. And any assistance you can give them will be greatly appreciated by them and by me.

It's been a pleasure to be here with you. I'm leaving tomorrow morning, I won't see you again.

Goodbye.

[Editor's note: The bulletin being referred to is HCOB 30 Nov. 59, ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC.]

PROCESSES PAGE 12 1MACC-32 – 30.11.15

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1MACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1959]]