Start your own community in Theology.  

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS 13/19
 
**************************************************
 
CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS - CONTENTS
 
01  SEP 24, 1969 WELCOME TO THE CLASS VIII COURSE
02  SEP 25, 1969 WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES
03  SEP 26, 1969 THE LAWS OF CASE SUPERVISION
04  SEP 27, 1969 STANDARD TECH DEFINED
05  SEP 28, 1969 THE STANDARD GREEN FORM AND RUDIMENTS
06  SEP 29, 1969 MECHANICS OF TECHNIQUES AND SUBJECT MATTER
07  SEP 30, 1969 CASE SUPERVISOR DO'S AND DONT'S:
08  OCT  1, 1969 CERTAINTY OF STANDARD TECH
09  OCT  2, 1969 THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING
10  OCT  3, 1969 ASSISTS
11  OCT  7, 1969 ASSESSMENT AND LISTING BASICS
12  OCT  8, 1969 MORE ON BASICS
13  OCT  9, 1969 ETHICS AND CASE SUPERVISION
14  OCT 10, 1969 AUDITOR ATTITUDE AND THE BANK
15  OCT 11, 1969 AUDITORS ADDITIVES, LISTS AND CASE SUPERVISION
16  OCT 12, 1969 STANDARD TECH
17  OCT 13, 1969 THE BASICS AND SIMPLICITY OF STANDARD TECH
18  OCT 14, 1969 THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE
19  OCT 15, 1969 AN EVALUATION OF EXAMINATION ANSWERS
 
 
**************************************************
 
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
 
Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.
 
The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.
 
They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.
 
The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.
 
We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.
 
But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. 
 
We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.
 
We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.
 
Thank You,
 
The FZ Bible Association
 
**************************************************
 
6810C09 Class VIII TAPE 13
 
 
ETHICS AND CASE SUPERVISION
 
Well this is what number lecture? (Thirteen) Ah ha. And the
date? Nine Oct. AD 18. I would like to put a warning on the
tape, he said in a sepulchral voice. That's a great word,
sepulchral.
 
You ever hear that word? It means from a sepulchre, a tomb.
On this cheerful note we begin this lecture.
 
That, if you have something in affluence you apply the
affluence formula. If you have something in power you apply
the power formula. If you have something in emergency you
apply the emergency formula. And if you don't do this you
fall on your heads. It just happens to be in the general
nature of things that you fall on your silly 'ead.
 
Now I have seen a division go into affluence, be assigned
affluence, and then slack off and change everything. And
it's fall is so free fall that it is practically a rocket
assist. It goes down the conditions with a velocity the
like of which you never saw. It is the most fantastic
phenomena you've ever cared to see in your life.
 
There are two things you can do with regard to formulas and
conditions. Two things. One is to assign the wrong
condition. "Well he's been good to us, so we're gonna
assign Pete power." And Pete, hell he couldn't make
emergency if he had one of these fireman's step ladders.
 
So we assign Pete power. Now the law there, and it's an
operating law, is that he will drop one condition below the
condition he is actually in. Let us say he is really in
nonexistence. But some manager, some secretary, some
executive secretary, wants to be a good fellow. Or gets
into propitiation, or something, see? So they give
Oscarvitch a condition of affluence, 'cause they want to
increase his pay or something, you know? They don't really
know what the hell he's doing. He's been sort of wandering
around, stumbling on his head. He's really in non-existence.
 
He doesn't even come to work. But he's an awfully good
fellow. An awfully good fellow. Holds his liquor. Free and
easy with his girlfriends. Something, something. He's
really in non-existence.
 
All you have to do is to assign him a wrong upper
condition, and he promptly drops one below where he
actually is. He's in nonexistence, really. We assign him
affluence. He goes into liability. He now is operating in
liability. In actual fact you will now find out he is
operating in liability. Very remarkable.
 
Let us take the affluence formula on just one point, and
apply it to a nation. One point.
 
Economize. The funny thing about affluence is, is if you
don't economize you've had it. You get in a sudden influx
of this, that and the other thing it's usually a lot of,
and the tendency is, and the reason why people fall on
their heads when they go into affluence is, they suddenly
spend it all and interrupt the operation by which they got
it in. Or by which they made it. See? And at that moment,
whatever actual condition they are in will lower one condition.
 
So, we apply economy to a firm which at best in danger
condition. Firm is really in danger condition, so we start
economizing. That's part of the affluence formula. The firm
will at once go into non-existence.
 
Let us say a government is in danger condition. It's in
danger condition because the head of the government has to
bypass all of his ministers. To get anything done he has to
bypass all of his ministers, or is bypassing all of his
ministers. He isn't really applying the danger formula, but
he's certainly bypassing in all directions, frantically
trying to get something done. And so he enjoins economy. He
says he's not going to change any of his ministries. He
says he's going to stand by his friends, that he's
bypassing like mad. He says, "Our program must go on to
victory." While it's already falling on its' stupid head.
You can expect that government not only to go into
non-existence, but that country to pass into other hands.
Not other political hands, but other racial hands. It
works. It is true.
 
Now the reverse occurs. The reverse occurs. But it's just
under the same formula. A guy is actually in emergency, and
you put him in liability. And he'll go into danger
condition. If the formulas of the wrong condition are then
enforced he might even drop one or two more down below
where he is. And he might actually arrive in liability. Do
you follow? Because the longer the wrong condition is
perpetuated the more it drops. It certainly drops one. But
now, if we don't let the condition upgrade, if we don't do
something about it, if the condition is now perpetuated,
and so on, he will drop another condition. And another
condition. And another condition. So the assignment of
wrong conditions brings about a lowering of condition.
 
There is no way you can assign a wrong condition and get an
improvement of conditions. So therefore you have to know
something about the assignment of conditions.
 
Now even my messenger, no proper assignment of conditions.
A little bit earlier I had to go out and show a messenger
how to turn on a very complicated switch board that she
actually should have been checked out on some time ago. And
I went around, I told her to do it, she couldn't do it, I
went out and did it. She'd already been a little bit slow
and draggy for the last hour or so. And I said, "What
condition should you assign yourself?" And she thought it
over very carefully, and she said quite accurately, "Danger condition." I had had to bypass her to do the job.
 
Now if my messengers know this, and they are very young
indeed this life; of course the one thing they do find out
about in the Sea Org is conditions. They find that out very
accurately.
 
But actually they often err in the direction of a more
severe condition than it warrants, and you'll actually pull
it down one from the condition it is in. So anyway, if my
messengers know it, why you educated cats had certainly
better grab the brass rang.
 
If you're assigned a wrong condition you are grossly,
flagrantly, illegally in error. You will have accepted an
illegal order. And you could be comm-eved for it.
 
I'll show you how bad it is. Somebody assigns you a
condition of liability. You accept the condition of
liability. You become a liability, if you're not in
liability. Somebody assigns you a condition of liability,
you do not at once ask for an ethics hearing, you at that
moment could be comm-eved for accepting an illegal order.
Let us say you were only in emergency and somebody assigns
you liability, and you do not now ask for an ethics hearing
for correction of condition, and prepare your brief and
show exactly what you're doing, exactly where you really
are, you now are a liability because you have assisted in
the destruction of the ethics system. And you could be
comm-eved for it, because it's an illegal order.
 
You go around tamely accepting conditions which are
incorrectly assigned without then asking for an ethics
hearing to correct the condition, you then could be comm-eved.
 
Yeah, but how about the fellow who assigned the condition?
Naturally it's his fault. He's cause. His fault. His fault.
His fault. No. I'm afraid not. Maybe it seemed that that's
the way it was. He wasn't in possession of all the facts.
He's trying to get the job done, something of that sort.
Yes, he could be called into it. But once you start
comm-eving people for assigning conditions the whole
justice system blows up.
 
The responsibility is on the receiver of the condition. Now
if you don't get that enforced in orgs, and if you don't
get that enforced amongst auditors, I'll give you an idea.
You're C/S.
 
You're top dog on the totem pole in your area, as a Class
VIII. So somebody goofs the floof, but good. You assign him
a condition of emergency. He just practically destroyed a
PC. He didn't do your C/S. He's been going around, saying
to the other auditors, "Nya nya nya, and all those
directions I get when I, nya nya nya." And you assign him a condition of emergency and he actually is in doubt. You
assign him emergency because you want to be a good fellow.
 
He's actually in doubt, he'll become an enemy. It's the
wildest mechanism you ever saw in your life. He'll drop
one. He'll drop one below the actual condition assigned.
 
Now, reversely, this character makes a small mistake on his
administrative form as he hands it in. He displaces a
couple of commas, he's assigned a condition of enemy. He
doesn't at that moment ask for an ethics hearing, you
comm-ev him, for accepting an illegal assignment of
condition. Do you follow?
 
Now, you won't be the one, probably, who assigns him enemy.
Somebody else assigns him enemy, he doesn't protest. You're
the top dog on the totem pole, you sea a misapplication of
ethics, comm-ev him for accepting a wrong ethics condition.
And people are liable to get the word. Do you see?
 
He says, "My gods Life is really tough. Already been
assigned enemy, and now I'm going to be comm-eved for
accepting the order. Let's see. Let me figure this out now.
Oh, if you accept a condition, why you get comm-eved. I get
lt. Yeah." Well brother, if he's that stupid he is an
enemy. (Laughter)
 
But what you want to do in an ethics hearing, an ethics
hearing isn't just the guy appears and fluf. No, you do an
ethics hearing by the book. An ethics hearing in this
particular instance must be an actual assessment of what
the guy actually is doing, so as to establish the actual
condition that he is in.
 
Now you can have somebody, chaplains very often mess up the
lines in an effort to cheer up things and keep people from
falling off the org board, they sometimes ask for an
upgrade of conditions, which should be down graded.
Somebody assigns this person a condition of non-existence.
 
And this person gets very upset. This person has just
goofed the floof across the boards. He's guilty of moprey
and doprey on the high seas. He actually overworked about
sixteen seniors and busted up a lot of stuff in the
bargain. He was only assigned non-existence.
 
It's obviously a wrong condition. So he, "Nya nya nya nya
nya." Then somebody comes along, and they say, "Look, he is nattering, so the best thing to do is assign him
emergency.' Now he really goofs the floof. Now he'll go
around the bend. Correct assignment in this particular
instance was liability.
 
Now supposing the fellow did all this and then lied about
it. And made it impossible for anybody to find it out. Man,
his effort of getting the show on the road is so dim and so
thin, that he obviously is in doubt. In the first place, a
person who lies to you doubts your perspicuity. Perspicuitv
is a smart word for awareness. He must think you're stupid.
Some people are so stupid that they can lie about such a
thing that is so obvious, and you have to safeguard
yourself against a false auditors' report.
 
But let us say that the person looked like he submitted a
false report. And you assigned him a liability, or
something like this, and he actually had not submitted a
false report. And he knows this, and he accepts the
condition. He can now be comm eved for having accepted a
condition for a false report when none existed. Because he
will now go around and natter and splatter and so forth. So
as it appears on the surface, you assign the condition as
it looks. If the condition is wrong, the condition should
be protested to the degree of asking for an ethics hearing.
If the condition is wrong, and no ethics hearlng is asked
for, you should comm-ev the guy. Because sometimes this
mechanism occurs. You say, "This was a false auditing
report. Therefore I'm assigning you liability." Or
something out in an org. it would be more germane. And the
guy accepts it. And he goes around in apathy. He didn't
come in and tell you, "Hey, hey, hey, that's not a false
report. That's a correct report." He's now doubly loused up your lines.
 
There are instances of fellows, under duress, and accused
of murder who then, just out of savageness and protest
fully admit to the whole murder. Get themselves hanged.
Just to make somebody good and wrong. This mechanism exists.
 
Now you, in C/Sing, will have to assign some conditions.
Sooner or later, if you do not assign conditions, the
whirlwind will catch up with you. You can sit there like a
good little fellow, and do your job jolly, jolly, jolly,
and stay friends with everybody, good ARC, good ARC, good
ARC. And all of a sudden find a world of hate dumped on
your head. It's the most remarkable phenomenon you ever
heard of. 'Cause you're just perpetually assigning the
wrong condition.
 
You think this auditor's a friend of yours who doesn't even
bother to study his TRs to a point where he chops the
living, screaming god out of a PC, turns you in a false
auditing report, sells everybody on the idea of how you
stink as a C/S because he goes around and says he followed
your C/S exactly, and look what happened. You let something
like that exist and every bit of good that you can do in
the fieid will be destroyed.
 
It's alrignt to be in full ARC and little friends, little
brother to all the wild. It's OK. Until it gets in your
road. Until it gets in your road. You operate, not on the
formula of the greatest good for me and him, you better
stop operating in this narrow, restricted area, and start
operating in the greatest good for the greatest number of
dynamics, and then you'll win.
 
Do you know that you can be looked upon with contempt if
you fail to get ethics in in your area when everything is
going wrong? People begin to think something is wrong with
you. They begin to think there's, you've got something to
hide. They wonder what people have got on you.
 
One time there was a neglected area. I hadn't paid any
attention to it at all. I knew if anything blew up in the
area I had a lot of things to do, and I knew if anything
blew up in this particular area I could handle it anyhow,
and I wasn't paying any attention to it. I had a hundred
and fifty items on the plate at the moment. And apparently
somebody in that area got away with moider.
 
And they were getting away with murder. And some other
people noticed they were getting away with murder. And I
wasn't paying any attention to this area at all. And all of
a sudden somebody wrote me a very circuitous, covert note,
"Does so and so have something on you?" They thought this individual must be under some special protection. They
didn't notice that the individual was so far removed from
my post as not to be noticed. But that's the sort of thing
that'll develop. People begin to wonder.
 
They know, very often, more about the actions of people
than you do. They know that Josey Ann has just got through
goofing the floof. They have continued to watch Josey Ann's
PCs stumble out of the auditing room and fall on their
faces. And be carried off in stretchers to the local
hospital. And you all of a sudden assign Josey Ann and
condition of power, on the basis of a bunch of false
auditing reports. And not even the examiner dared go
against Josey Ann, because they figured Josey Ann had
something on you. Weird, weird situations can occur.
 
This is an aberrated planet, and aberrated things happen.
So therefore, the ethics presence of a Class VIII, and the
ethics presence of a case supervisor must be beyond
reproach, must be accurately carried forward, and must be
established.
 
Now as you first establish an ethics presence, you
establish it hard. After a while you can be careless about
it. But you have to establish an ethics presence hard.
Otherwise, you're just gonna be wrapped around a telegraph
pole. You're gonna be worked to death. Cases are gonna
start falling on their heads. You don't know whether you're
going or coming. You say, "What's going wrong? What's going wrong?" Well you must better look back to about seven or
eight days ago when they carted that PC off to the local
horse piddle, and you didn't assign that auditor enemy.
Auditor submitted you a false report, the auditor didn't
like the person vividly and took that as an opportunity to
cut the person to ribbons. Things like this happen. It's an
aberrated planet. And you didn't do anything about it.
 
Well, you're very unlucky if you also didn't find out about
it. See, because whether you found out about it or not has
nothing to do with whether or not you will accurately do it.
 
So when you're doing a C/S you mustn't talk to the auditor,
you mustn't talk to the PC. You're actually at the mercy,
really, of a false auditing report, and you're at the mercy
of a false examiner. If you run into this situation too
hard and too bad you establish your examination line on a
routing form. You establish the regular routing, the
regular examination report, but in an organization they're
usually routed directly through to the registrar. So you
get a second registrar report. Why they're not going to
sign up? So then you've got an auditors' report, an
examiners' report and a registrars' report. If you're
suspicious about it, why put it on the back burner just as
a note over on the side of your desk. But you're gonna ask
the ethics officer in a couple of weeks about this PC.
Ethics record's OK right now, but in a couple of weeks
we're gonna ask the ethics officer about this person. See,
we're not sure. Seems alright, everybody reassures us that
it's OK, but it's just something... we're a little doubtful
of. Write his name on a piece of paper, "See ethics
officer", and put a time machine date on it.
 
Now you could even, in an org which is well run, send it to
time machine with a two week date on it. So it'll fall off
the time machine to be sent to the ethics officer in
exactly two weeks.
 
"Please give me a report on Josey Ann Bates." Sneaky thing to do, isn't it? Josey Ann Bates, up to that moment they
have no record in the org. She's done nothing bad,
particularly that we can see, but it just doesn't seem
alright to us, and people are reassuring us that this is
alright and she's been audited in a squirrely fashion, and
she came from some famous squirrel group.
 
We're not trying to catch her, we're trying to catch out
tech. So we say, "I don't... I don't... it doesn't really
seem reasonable to me that all this is all OK. Because
look, she's been back in review here now three times, we
seem to each time fix it up but somehow or other it doesn't
get fixed up, and we are applying standard tech according
to the auditors' report, but for some reason or other it
doesn't respond in a standard fashion.' Now the reason for
that is a false auditing report.
 
Now you want an auditor, you want auditors in a frame of
mind that before they will write a false report, they would
lie awake all night shaking with terror. You don't want any
false reports. That you should make very clear. Do you see?
The goof might get liability, but a false auditing report,
Christ knows what you're going to assign for that. Do you
see? Then you can protect it. Then you can do your job.
 
Now I'm merely talking to you from a viewpoint of doing a
job of work. Every now and then we see some crime come
through the lines. Now it seems to be a very, very bad
thing to take an auditing report and turn it over to
ethics. But the funny part of it is, is I've caught two or
three supervisors and five or six auditors, way back, which
has adequately explained to me why there is a certain zone
or area, why it is having a hell of a time. Now we're
putting in a lot of management, let us say, in that zone or
area. We try to manage that area. We're trying to manage
that area. We're trying to smooth it out. We're trying to
straighten it out. We're trying to handle it, and so forth.
Well there's another zone and area. And that is that its'
tech is out, and somebody keeps its' tech pushed out. And
its' tech is very hard out. It is very out indeed.
 
Now, let me teach you something about tech in relationship
to ethics. Although we say this, when admin goes out tech
goes out. Tech goes out, ethics has gone out. The truth of
the matter is, there is a tech ahead of that ethics. So
it's actually, when tech goes out, ethics goes, it becomes
necessary, and if it isn't put in then tech goes further
out. And then admin goes out like screaming crazy. So when
you find an area or an auditor where admin is thoroughly
out, you know, right up the line from that, just one step
back of it, that tech is out - There's something he doesn't
know about tech, or there's something tech-wise mucked up
on his case, or he's doing something weird with tech, or he
hasn't got the word in some fashion or another.
 
And then right ahead of that you know that he has out
ethics. And then you, oddly enough, trace it back a little
bit further and you will find that tech was out. See, it's
actually a four point cycle, not just a three. It is very
true, it is very true that when admin is out tech is out,
when tech is out ethics is out. Do you understand? But it
backs up one more. Tech had to be out in the first place.
 
So where tech goes badly out, here's another maxim here,
and it's an important rule. When tech goes out ethics goes
in heavily and hard. Now I haven't said you must put ethics
in heavily and hard. Or that you should, or anything. I'm
just telling you. It's a phenomenon.
 
This is a phenomenon. Like, when the sun comes up you can
see the mountains. See? There's no more significance to it
than that. When tech goes out ethics goes in hard. So any
area where you find ethics going in hard, you know tech has
already gone out. And then, if ethics doesn't go in hard,
why tech won't come in. So it goes out further, and with
tech out then admin goes all to hell. It's just nothing but
false reports and chicken scraps on old rolls of paper.
 
You can go into a qual, find that their filing is bad, and
all you would have to do; their filing is bad, they can't
seem to find a folder; you glance at their baskets, they
seem to be full and unemptied, and stuff which is coming in
is in the out baskets, and so forth. All you'd have to do
is glance at that, if you know your HCO training. And do
you know that you could actually, at that moment, assign
the Qual Sec a condition of liability without making very
much error? You could assign her a condition of liability
for out tech. You see? Admin's visibly out, well therefore
tech is out, so you look just a little bit further than
that and you'll find out that they should have gotten in
ethics and they didn't. But ethics is out. They're in an
out ethics situation already, not just lightly. And then,
for all that to have gone to pieces, tech had to go out in
the first place.
 
Now when you see ethics going in hard, you also know tech
has been out. And do you know that people will try to solve
things with only ethics? Ethics in, ethics in, ethics in,
ethics in, ethics in. They're sort of stuck on the time
track. See? Ethics in, ethics in, where the hell's the
tech? Now unless tech followed that by going in, pointless.
Stupid even. You can sort of hold the line somehow with
ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics, somehow
hold the line, but eventually it all starts falling to
pieces. Because you haven't moved through the cycle. You've
now go to get tech in. Sure, put the ethics in, put it in
hard. Shoot some people, hang some bodies to the local
church. We don't care what. But get in the ethics, see? To
hold the situation.
 
See?
 
C/S, people standing around, you know, "Yak, yak, yak, you
know, well I audited out the... I had a lot of bank, and ga
ta dee dee... " And they don't do their jobs, and they drift off in the now-wow, and there's nobody on the sea, that
it's all sort of tumble-bumbled and stupid, and so forth.
Oh yeah, get ethics in. You're not going to get tech in
unless you get some ethics in.
 
You can get it in hard, suddenly and shockingly, or you can
get it in on a gradient. It doesn't much matter how you get
it in. But you get ethics in. You start assigning some
conditions. And when things have gone this bad, brother, it
is not a condition of emergency. It is not a condition of
emergency because when tech goes out in an area you're
liable to have even government flaps in that area. That's
how, that's how bad it is. So an organization which has out
tech is attracting the lightning right down on the back of
Scientology, boy. And you never really have government
flaps or anything like this in areas where tech has stayed
in. Because there're too many satisfied people, there's too
many friends. See? But when tech slips, and it isn't
working anymore, then it doesn't seem worth while.
 
When morale is bad in an organization tech had to go out in
the first place. If tech is out, if it's invalidated, if it
isn't being done rlght, if it's non-standardized, if it's
shoved all over the place, then you can be absolutely sure
that morale will be going out because there is no reason
for anybody to be there.
 
Scientology, badly applied, is nothing to protect. And
that's why you have to get tech in in a hurry. And the way
you get tech in in a hurry, when it's madly out, is you put
ethics in hard and follow it straight up with tech. Then
you will find the cycle will go on through, and admin
follows in afterwards. And then you have ethics, tech and
admin are all in.
 
Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.
 
Now you can correct that up in numerous ways. You can
convene some kind of a board of investigation or something,
and call back fifteen PCs, and have them interrogated with
regard to this sort of thing. "What were the results? What
happened in the sessions?" And that sort of thing. And all
of a sudden something will come to light. You've had a
tiger walking all over the place.
 
These are the situations which you meet. These are the
situations which you have to handle.
 
Now a lot of auditors trained on this course will find that
they are going back to become the lonely only. The smart
thing to do is to remain a lonely only for as brief a time
as possible. An organization which does not invest its'
money in getting an adequate number of fully trained Class
VI's is gonna fall on its' head technically. And then, when
Class VIIIs find themselves in a lonely only it's alright
to play god, by all means. It's pleasant. But shove
somebody else along to become a Class VIII, because it's a
very lonely business being god. He is the most lonesome
fellow you ever heard of.
 
Now you try to hold the fort on your lonely only. All by
your little lonesome. Or with just maybe one other or two
other VIIIs in the great, swarming organization, which is
very busy, and people tearing in and out of the place, and
people with their little ant-like two cent opinions based
on data that is so cheap as to not be comparable to any
coin on the planet. Including a milroy, which I don't think
would buy one corner of one cigarette paper. Their opinions
aren't worth shucks. Tech goes out. And you stand there
flat footed and let tech go out. And let me tell you,
you're gonna have more trouble than you can cope with with
a regiment of marines.
 
Tech goes out, all of a sudden ethics starts going in. When
ethics starts going in hard it very often goes in
incorrectly. The next thing you know, tech, if not put in
right at that time, why, a surfeit of ethics tends to start
carrying the organization down instead of bringing it back up.
 
So your steps and actions, if the organization is in
turmoil, if the administration is bad, if people are not
doing what they're supposed to be doing, if it's all sort
of mucky and mucked-up and you hear people around and
they're going, "Nya nya nya nya nya nya, and nya, nya nya
nya nya nya", well just don't order everybody to be sec
checked. To hell with that. But all that it is is that tech
is out. Tech is out, man. How to get it in. That's your
problem. How do you get it in?
 
The solution is put in ethics like a ton of bricks. And
then follow right along behind it with good, standard tech!
And put it in hard! And what do you know? The ethics come
right off of it. Ethics will not lift itself out. All
ethics will do is hold the fort while you're getting tech
in. If you don't hold the fort at all you won't get any
tech in. I can tell you that by experience. Oh, you can be
charming, you can be persuasive, you can give them talks,
you can do everything you want to, but you have to hold
their hands while they're auditing the PC. And you ain't
gonna get there because the environment is inadequately
filled with challenge.
 
Man thrives on challenge. One of the reasons why it's
dangerous to have an AO in a California climate. The only
challenge in it is smog. No slur on California. I'm very
fond of California.
 
But the net result of this is, I'm trying to teach you a
lesson which is just as standard as standard tech. It's how
do you apply the technology which you've got to the area in
which you gonna operate. You gonna walk home, everybody's
gonna be very glad to see you, gonna put you on a pedestal,
"You're a great guy. You know your stuff." You graduated and so on.
 
You're a Class VIII! Great! They're gonna agree with
everything you say. Next thing you're gonna hear is
invitations to squirrel. "Well, Bessy Ann, yes. What about
her case? You know? We could have her in specially and you
can audit her, and we've never been able to crack her case.
You know, we've done all the usual things. You know, you're
gonna tell us now that it's solved by the usual things.
We've tried all those. We've done all those. And can't we
get in Bessy Ann? We can get a lot of money if you can
audit her. And we've advertised every place that you're
going to audit specially for us." ummm. "In fact we had one psychotic PC whose brother owns the steel mill, see, and
we've got that all lined up for you." Well how do you
extricate yourself from such traps and get the show on the
road? Well, you will assume unto yourself some ethics
presence of some kind or another. Now the wrong way to
assume it is to give them, try to teach them a Class VIII
course in the next five minutes after arrival. Or to
impress them with what you now know. They know you know it
anyhow. You don't have to tell 'em. What you have to do is
an ethics presence. So you have to point out to the people
in your immediate vicinity if ethics is out in the area,
that ethics is out. And that ethics has to be put in so
that you can help put tech in. And you do the maximum you
can in order to do so.
 
Now some EC that is very enthusiastic about making some
bucks, but not enthusiastic about running any standard
tech, which they may consider a waste of time or something
of this sort, may louse it up a little bit. But that's a
job endangerment chit, because you as a Class VIII are
being counted on to get tech in in your area. So it's a job
endangerment, isn't it? So therefore you're gonna have the
terrible problem of, the EC will figure that you are now
above them, the Executive Council figures you are now above
them so therefore you ought to be stepped on, put you in
your place. You're even liable to get in a condition where
you get a whole long series of ethics conditions assigned
to you because you put up a small argument on the subject
that you wouldn't process the brother of the steel mill.
The way you solve that, the way you solve that is to insist
that ethics goes in, and goes in correctly. Because a Class
VIII has to know a great deal about ethics. You have to
insist that ethics goes in, and you say, "Ethics is
necessary to go in so that we can get tech in, and then
we're going to go get tech in." Now right now I see that
when PCs report for sessions the auditors are seldom there.
They wander in a half an hour from now. Or don't appear at
all, or something. Well thatch an immediate and automatic
condition of non-existence, with conditions enforced. Guy
isn't there, non-existence.
 
Somebody's going to start arguing with you about this. Well
let me call to your attention that all the Sea Org is
interested in, and all they're interested in, is getting
tech in on the planet. Now it may sound like we're trying
to get ethics in. But that's inevitable. We're trying to
get tech in on the planet. We're trying to audit out the
fourth dynamic engram and furnish an environment in which
it can be done. And that is the general, overall objective
of the Sea Org. We're trying to furnish an environment in
which the forth dynamic engram may be audited out. And
naturally we have to make sure that is also gets audited.
Otherwise there would be no point in putting any ethics in.
 
There is no point in slaughtering all the people in Armenia
under the heading that we were putting ethics in in
Armenia. Ethics all by itself is pointless. All mans'
justice is pointless, really pointless. Modern justice is a
laugh. Just look at the number of times somebody returns to
the penitentiary. Guy gets two years for stealing a car. He
comes out at the end of two years, within four hours he's
stolen a car. So he goes back in for three years. He comes
out at the end of three years, he walks out and he steals a
car. And then he goes in for ten years  and at the end of
that time, why he walks out and he steals a car. I mean,
this is, this is not an uncommon record.
 
As a matter of fact it's so bad that it's as much as your
life's worth apparently, to arrest a bank robber. His
friends just simply get him out of jail at once by force.
It's really, really quite remarkable. But all it is, is
pointless punishment. In 1835 I think, in Philadelphia,
they adopted what is currently passing for a justice
punishment and penal system. And they found out that
although there were many systems of punishment involved,
they found this out by careful observation; one that was
used in Philadelphia where the fellow was put in a little
cell with bars, was the least workable, and had the most
returns. And that is the one that has been used ever since.
The modern penitentiary system is found to be the least
workable in the rehabilitation of the criminal.
 
Now the cop should be charged with public safety. The chief
of police is obviously responsible for public safety. Ten
percent of the people cause ninety percent of the
accidents. There is no action ever taken to make sure that
those ten percent don't drive, or are fixed up. As a matter
of fact, every time you try to put in the program it gets
fought. It's just as though people want to see people
smashed. Yet it's a criminal action, killing people on the
highways - That's manslaughter. And yet nobody takes any
real efforts. They want to slow everybody down.
 
Well if you slow all the cars down you put more cars on the
road per hour. And if all cars are slowed down then your
traffic is so jammed that nobody can drive in it. It isn't
really speed that causes accidents. Some accidents are
caused by speed. But you'll find out that somebody speeding
normally had to speed around the dear old soul who was
driving down the exact middle of the highway, so as not to
run off either side at fifteen miles an hour.
 
So public safety, robbery, burglary, sudden death and so
on, is the business of the chief of police of an area. Or
the superintendent. That's his business. He doesn't even
know it's his job. It's not phrased in his textbook. His
primary purpose is public safety. He thinks your replying
to the fact that little automobiles and bicycles ought to
be patrolled more closely.
 
Safety to him is automobile traffic. Or safety to him is
something else. So they arrest Luke the Glook, and they
send him across the river because the judge got a, his
defense got a psychiatrist or something to say he was
insane, they send him across there, he gets checked out as
being perfectly OK, and released the following day. It's
common practice in Washington, D.C. Standard practice.
Somebody's caught robbing a bank, or something like that,
he goes across the river to Saint Elizabeth, and they
release him the next day. Pleads insanity.
 
Sometimes they spend two or three months around Saint
Elizabeth, but that's about all. Most remarkable Proceeding
you ever saw. Talk about reward of a down stat. If the guy
can prove he's loony, why he's not guilty.
 
Well this kind of drives the chief of police around the
bend, but he doesn't, he doesn't really object to this. So
they take this guy and they throw him into the court, and a
very usual procedure, and they give him a couple of years,
or something like that. And then he goes over and he's
released on parole, back on the public, unrehabilitated in
any way, shape or form, to do the same thing that he did
before, just eight months afterwards. And then after he
does it again, why they pick him up, if they find him, and
they put him in the court again, and then they put him in
the penitentiary system they know, everybody knows didn't
ever work, and then he's back on the public again, and so
forth. You get the idea? This is the cycle by which all
this occurs. This is public safety? That is justice for
its' own sake. Not to get anything done.
 
Let us take putting in justice in a provence in France.
I'll, let us say, 1550. Robbery, murder, sudden death is
occurring in the provence. Somebody rides in on the place,
starts picking up all these marauders and bandits, and that
sort of thing, hanging a few of them, pushing a few of them
into some other zone or area, telling them to be good, and
it all quiets down. Now, let's look, just give you an odd
example. That was one of the ways this sort of thing was
handled in medieval times a lot. But what's the purpose?
There was a purpose then. The purpose was so that the
peasants and middle class and aristocracy of the provence
could produce in peace, and have the results of their
production, and possession of their land, and live lives
which weren't suddenly being interrupted by a spear or
arrow. There was a point. A point. See? There was a point.
You calmed it down so's people could get on with it. And
that was clearly thought in 1550. That was very clear
think. There wasn't any fumble-bumble about it. Nobody had
a dim idea of it. Marauders, operating in an area, reduced
the production and fixed it up so the citizens and people
of that area could not lead normal lives, and they couldn't
get on with it, and there was no production. And it all
went to hell in a balloon. So it was necessary to put law
and order in on the area so that it would calm down and
things could get straightened up, and people who had a
right to live decent lives could go on and live decent
lives. And there was no question about it. Has nothing to
do with modern justice.
 
You may think that think still occurs, but it doesn't.
Justice is put in for its' own sake. Hasn't anything to do
with public safety. So they arrest all the criminals in the
town and throw them in jail, but in a sort of a sequence,
so at any given time there are so many criminals in the
population. And then they put them in jail for a while, and
release them back in to the population, to take the place
of the criminals who've just been arrested and taken out of
circulation.
 
Any time some group starts rioting or causing civil
disorder, tearing shops apart or something like that, why
you give them more money. Give them more votes. Anybody who
was trying to keep the peace in 1550, if he were to look at
the year 1968 he'd be kind of pop-eyed. Because for quite a
while anybody who tried to stop a riot was arrested. Most
remarkable situation you ever heard of. All you had to do
was try to stop a riot, if you were a cop, and you went out
and tried to stop the riot, why you got thrown in the clink
by the federal government. Now I'm not advocating desperate
law and order, or anything of the sort, but it's all
pointless. Why is there anybody there trying to do anything
anyhow, because the riots are just increasing, and nobody
goes in and picks up the people who were starting the riots
so nobody gets to the basis of the civil engram which is
bringing the riot, of which the riot is simply a symptom.
Nobody really gets to the basis of it. All they do is start
rewarding down stats and chopping the police up, and all
kinds of weird, wild things. But there isn't any point in
even doing anything about it.
 
Nobody has any point in doing anything about it. Do you
understand?
 
Justice gets a bad name only when it itself is pointless.
And in Scientology justice is pointless, ethics is
pointless, if it does not bring in standard tech.
Completely pointless. There isn't any reason for it. Why
ever assign a condition? To hell with it. Let them go out
and lie in the gutter.
 
If you weren't going to follow it in with standard tech,
what the hell? Why assign any condition at all?
 
So, what you've got to look at here is how do you get
standard tech in? Well one, you have to know it. There has
to be such a thing, and somebody has to know there is such
a thing. And he has to be able to demonstrate that that
thing is beneficial. And is something that should be
preserved. That sounds terribly elementary, but you'd be
surprised at the number of people that are walking around
in some airy-fairy cloud that don't know that. And then he
has to hold the fort long enough to get it in. And, rightly
or wrongly, the only test of which is, I still seem to keep
the show on the road, century after century. I always hit
an ethics area that is an out-ethics area, hard, until I
can get those elements straightened up which made it a
mess. And that's gone on for a very long time.
 
It hit an area in Asia Minor, something like this, like a
ton of bricks. Bongo! Until I could get it into production.
Until I could get it situated, calmed down, divided up, get
an economy forwarded, get things straightened out, holding
that ethics in hard, boy. Holding justice in hard. Hold it
in hard. All somebody had to do was sneeze and that would
be that. See? Hold it in hard. This is the way we're going,
this is the edges, there we get. This is what we're supposed
to be doing. This is squared up. And then, pretty soon,
there's enough production, enough abundance, enough this,
enough that, you start easing it off. Easing it off,
easing it off.
 
You, one, have to know that you have to put it in hard to
begin with, and two, you have to know when to ease it up.
And you ease it up to the degree that the technology that
you're trying to import into the area is functioning.
Simple. You ease it up to the degree that the technology
you're trying to put in is functioning. It is an exact
measurement.
 
For instance, I'm trying to build up; I'll give you...  It
goes along with other types of economy.
 
Trying to build up a port in Asia Minor, see? Got nobody
but a few squads of troops. No dough, nothing. Could build
it right up to the stars, just put in ethics, justice, hard
into the area, move it up, say this is where we're going,
get the agreement of people to go in that particular
direction, build it up, holding that in hard, not letting
it be knocked over and every time you've got a sheaf of
wheat up not letting some bunch of bandits come in and grab
it. Square it up, square it up, push it ahead. But all the
time there was technology moving in on the area. True, the
technology of the arts and human arts. But a technology was
moving in. And the technology would build up, people would
learn what is was, keep carrying it forward. Ethics, and
then as they started learning this, and so forth, ease off.
I'd know the job was done when troops were bored to death.
 
I like to see an ethics officer down to such a point that
he searches over the entire area, pitifully turning over a
match in his hand which was dropped in the hall, as the
only crime he can discover anyplace. Along about that time,
why, the conditions are upgraded. That is to say, you don't
suddenly start upgrading everybody, but the condition you
are assigning is lighter.
 
That is the proper condition for that time.
 
So, there is another rule. It requires a bit of judgement.
It is: The worse off things are, the harder condition is
assigned for the same crime. You don't always have a
uniform code of justice. When you're going in there as case
supervisor for the first time, and somebody says, "PC felt
wonderful. Floating needle all through the session so I
didn't do it." And when the PC got to the examiner with the needle stuck tight and the TA at four and a half, there is
something very wrong here.
 
Now if you start to involve yourself with what is wrong
there at that stage of the game, you're going to be so,
you're going to be rewarding a down stat. You're going to
be training somebody who is really gonna goof the floof.
You don't bother to tell him. You don't even bother to tell
him what's wrong. And you say, "False report. You're in
doubt." Bong! "Ah, ah, you can't do that to me." "Oh no, not only can't do that to you, if you insist on something
else, why we might really come to blows here over this thing."
 
The essence of the situation is that ethics is out all over
the place because tech has been long out, so the only
excuse you have to use ethics at all is to get tech in! So
it becomes a hell of a crime. The examiner talks to the
person as he's examined. It's a non-compliance with orders,
liability for the examiner. Just like that. No arguments
about it. And the examiner's, he's been on post for a long
time, he knows his business, and PCs come in, "Well how you doing? Well I didn't think very much of that auditor
anyhow. I'd see...  We'll get on the cans nere. I don't
suppose you're very bad off because, I hope you're OK. You
seem to be alive. Let's see now. You had what? At your state
of the case? Well. What do you know?" Well he went in liability and he did it the next day, and he went into doubt, and he
did it the next day, and he went into enemy. Just like that.
 
All of a sudden you are liable to have qualms. You say,
"Now look. If I'm insisting that conditions of this
character are assigned with this violence, the whole
organization is going to fall to pieces, people are going
to say I came back suppressive. I've, everything is wrong
and the whole staff will quit. And this, naturally, it's
all going to fall apart. And we've only got six staff now,
and... " Let me tell you by long experience that's the wrong line of think. The only reason you have small staffs is
because ethics is out. Tech has gone out, ethics is out.
And the only way you can actually increase the numbers of
staff you have, is to put ethics in hard. You say, well
Christ, people won't have anything to do with you if you do
that. Boy that is a civilian think to end it all. Do you
know the one organization which never has any trouble
recruiting is an army. But there's a hell of a lot of
manufacturers patting people on the head that can't get
anybody to work for 'em. That's interesting, isn't it? An
individual feels safe in a harshly disciplined environment.
 
You forget that a guy wandering around out there someplace
is being shot down in flames by people in his immediate
vicinity, who are making mistakes and goofing up, loading
their hats onto him, and so on. If you look at everything
from your own viewpoint only, you will not notice that guys
who do not have your altitude, who do not have your
ability, do not have your command of technology, are really
getting kicked in the stomach. They are much more kicked in
the stomach by the loafer, the bum, the natterer, the guy
who doesn't do his job, than they will ever be kicked in
the stomach by ethics. And they don't, don't feel safe in
an environment where ethics is out. It outrages them. It
outrages the principles and reasons they're there. And when
ethics is out in an area, bad staff stays and good staff
leaves. And when ethics goes into an environment hard, you
will find that good staff stays and bad staff leaves. It's
just as inevitable as anything.
 
We just got through sending a Sea Org officer to an
organization, to take over as something the organization
had never had before. You say we don't have any right to do
this. Actually we've got a right to do anything we please,
as long as it goes in the direction of trying to straighten
something out. Because that organization threatens the
whole economy of an area. They over spent themselves, and
they messed it up, and it's going to really take some doing
to put it back together again. Sea Org officer walked in,
started shooting people down in flames, and instantly they
had three or four blows. Immediately the rest of the staff
united very strongly.
 
The whole organization I think was put in non-existence.
They started working all day and all night to catch up all
their backlogs. And now we've found out that the three or
four people who blew were apparently getting rake offs from
merchants in the vicinity. And were putting it in their
pockets. In other words, the organization had gone crooked,
financially.
 
Well when the tough guy arrived the good guys stayed and
the bad guys blew. Now let me tell you. Had we sent a
member of the Bide-a-Hee Goodwill Society, all the good guy
would have blown and the bad guys would have stayed.
Because they could have kidded her, see? Do you get this?
These are sound, hard principles. These are facts. These
have to do with homo sapiens, these have to do with beings,
these have to do with planets. People do not feel safe in
out-ethics areas.
 
Right now the people of the United States at this
particular time and period do not feel safe because riots
are liable to spring up at any time, any place. A shop
keeper can't call his soul his own because anybody,
apparently, has a right to walk in, smash the windows, and
say, I'm a rioter. And this is all because I don't have
zilch. Ha ha, ha ha. Therefore, I can break your window,
and everything." And some cop tries to arrest him, the COP
is immediately thrown in prison for interfering with civil
rights. What the hell do you think, what the hell do you
think is gonna happen to that economy?
 
We speak of technology as an economy. What do you think's
gonna happen to it? It's gonna go broke, that's whats
gonna happen to it. Its' money's going to devaluate, and be
worth less and less. Its' production's going to be less and
less valuable. Security is going to be less and less. And
people will be less and less happy to be part of that country.
 
Now one of the unstabilizing things in countries today is
the definition of a sovereign power.
 
You don't think that has very much to do with Scientology.
It has a great deal to do with it.
 
Because the international law definition of a sovereign
power is as follows: That government which can protect the
lands and people from foreign aggression is, by fact and
definition, the sovereign power of that area.
 
What did the atom bomb do? There isn't a government on
earth can protect its' lands or its' people from foreign
aggression. All some slap-happy nut has to do in any part
of the world today; with I don't know how many countries
have atom bombs; flop an atom bomb at any country in the
world. And there is goes. Booms And therefore, what does
that mean? That means that the goverrments of nations today
cannot protect their government, cannot protect their
people, cannot protect their land from foreian attack.
Because there is no defense against that weapon. They know
this, they're unstabilized, they're dispersed, and they
know they are fakes. They know they're fakes. They know
they can't protect the land and people. So therefore
they're just sort of, tax hungry bums. They're sort of
marauders, like locusts. So they don't get in ethics
because they think of their technology as something that is
dwindling, something that is going, something that's losing.
 
While you are moving in as a vital, new thrust of life.
Your technology is not solidly moved into the community.
Your technology is not solidly moved into the nations of
the world at this particular speaking. Funny part of it is,
I notice in ads and other places, that they're beginning to
use Scientology phraseology, and Scientology think, more
and more. This is always a flatter. This always flatters
it. They've sort of heard on it, on the undercurrent. They
sort of think in those terms more and more. Simply
preparing the way.
 
A vital philosophy is always preceded by a gradual change
in the area it is being introduced into. The area starts
picking up its' phraseology. Starts picking up its'
technology, starts getting expressed in the arts, long
before the people have even heard of it. But this is a
vital new wave. It's a vital new wave. Justice for the old
orders become pointless. Why should they get in justice?
Why should they even arrest anybody and throw them in jail?
They're just going to let him out again. And if they do
arrest the guy, why it isn't going to improve production
any. Because there is no...  That's gone. We're looking at a
dying scene. It doesn't realize how fast it is dying.
 
We belong to a new world. And as we move forward we have
our own ways of handling things. And the think that goes
along with it is, that as long as any area which we control
we can keep tech precisely practiced in that area and not
squirrelled in any way, as long as we can keep that, morale
will stay up, ethics will be relatively light, prosperity
will be considerable, and everything will go along great.
But when that breaks down we have to put ethics in to the
degree that we have to put it back together again.
 
But now, as we approach a new area where our technology is
not in at all, ethics of course has to go in very hard.
'Cause our tech is so out as to be in a condition of
non-existence in that area. And right now we're really
suffering from the fact that we haven't taken full
responsibility for all mental treatment, all psycho somatic
treatment, on the entire planet. We're actually shrinking
away from our responsibility to that degree. And we're
paying for it.
 
It's inevitable then, that area in which you will not take
responsibility, that area in which you will not take
responsibility is going to kick you in the teeth, bud, to
be philosophic about it. But therefore, as you move in, as
you move forward, you're moving into areas where tech is out.
 
Books, things like that, wouid precede your actual contact.
And you'll find out people have picked up these books,
they've squirrelled, they've done this, they've
cross-advised, they've messed it up. The cycle has been
very, very rugged and ragged, and so forth, to the degree
then that the idea's that a lot of squirrels would have
arisen and people mucked up, and you'll be running into
guys who are running engrams backwards and upside down,
see? And the area's getting muddied up all the time. Right
ahead of you, your area's muddied up. So actually it's
followed with a wave of ethics. And you say, "Well the
public is really staying away from an organization." It
works the same way with the public it works with the staff.
If you want all the lousy public in the world let ethics go
out. All the good public'll stay away from you. If you want
good public to move in, put ethics in. The bad public'll
stay away and the good public'll come in.
 
This is a hard thing to learn, but you can eventually get
reality on it. And it goes hand in glove with what you're
trying to do. I know very well that people to whom I am
talking now and in the future will be facing, time and time
again, being a lonely only, having a rough time of it,
being argued with about this, that and the other thing. The
type of arguments you get into are so nonsensical as to be
unbelievable. You know, it's, "Well how do you explain, how do you explain the fact there are more and more people,
there are more and more people on the planet? Where are all
the spirits coming from? Ba ha ha ha, ha. Explain that now!
Ha ha. Ha ha. Explain that! Ha ha. Ha. We got you there I
guess. Ha ha ha. Anderson, Q.C., Melbourne inquiry.
Complete gibbering psychotic idiot. Up to the gills with
R-6. That was exactly, I think, what he said. You think I
was just gagging it up, huh?
 
Scientology must be wrong, because we cannot explain where
all the new bodies come from.
 
All the new spirits. Where would all the new spirits come
from if everybody had a spirit, why where would all the new
spirits come from, huh? Actually, what he didn't realize,
this silly ass, he was disproving Catholicism. Catholicism
claims there's one spirit per body, so he was asking some
silly little kid question that is asked of his own
religion, Catholicism. And yet he was busy hanging
Scientology because it couldn't...  You get the
irrationality of it? The man occupies a perfectly valid
position. He's looked on. He's a queens' consulate.
 
Actually he's just a gibbering idiot. You probably couldn't
even catch him to get a straight jacket on him.
 
Birds like that, the society in which you operate, it's
awarding down stats, it's got false ideas, things run
backwards and upside down. And somehow or other you have to
maintain your own level of truth. Now you will not show the
wear and tear to the degree that you put in ethics. And to
the degree that you fail to put in ethics you're going to
show the wear and tear of it. That I can assure you.
 
Now you notice the Class VIII Course is taught in AOs, and
is taught by the Sea Org. And the reason for that is, it is
an ultimate in stabilizing technology. It is maybe not the
last course that will ever be taught on the subject. But it
certainly is an ultimate to this degree. It is
standardization, standardization, standardization of
approach, standardization of application, and
standardization of result. And they all can go together.
Which is quite a trick. Quite a trick.
 
Standardization of auditing and auditors. There can't be
any fire fights and arguments. It also happens that it is
the right way to do it. It also happens there isn't any
other right way to do it.
 
Some famous philosopher said there are two ways to do
everything. And then didn't add the psychotic and the correct.
 
So I sympathize with anybody going to North Canyon Station,
which only has in it anyhow a Scientology population of
fifteen, because his tendencies will be because he is so
weak, to do things so weakly. When there are not many of
you you've got to be ten times as tough. You've got to be
ten times as strong. And you would find out that your area
and zone would move up and gather in strength and volume to
the degree that you insisted on standard tech. This is
quite true.
 
These are lessons which are not based on my opinions, but
are lessons learned across the last eighteen years of
trying to relay technology. It is interesting that in those
eighteen years, in the practice and application of the
technology itself, it has been relatively simple all the
way along the line. What has made it complex is one, there
was no language with which to communicate it. And two,
people seemed to add to it faster than you could keep it
stripped down.
 
Now, to give you some idea of how tech goes out in your
area, you yourself at this stage of the game, undoubtedly
have a reality on it. But maybe at some later time no
reality will exist on it.
 
You knew you had TR 1, you had TR 1 down sometime way in
the past. You had it, that was the way it was. Somebody
came along and he flunked you for it, or somebody said that
wasn't the way you did it. Somebody said that was the way
you did it a long time ago, but that isn't the way we do it
now. Something happened that knocked out your TR 1. So you
had it once, and now somebody cross questions it,
invalidates it, it goes by the boards, and you somehow or
other got to reacquire it again somewhere up the line.
Well, you're reacquiring it fully, at VIII.
 
Now one of the ways that is happens is, in the research
line two data are stated at different periods of research
which seem to be in conflict. The earlier data happens to
be correct, the second data is there because somebody
remimeographed and misspelled the bulletin. So, somebody
comes along and says the second datum is correct. They
interpret the material. The material, since time
immemorial, has needed no interpretation. Just recently, in
trying to teach some materials I found this astonishing
fact, that I was trying to tell people it was the simple
basics, the very simple basics, that made the auditor. But
the trouble with auditing is, it was too simple. And their
grasp of the subject was difficult because they thought
they were trying to grasp a lot more than they were trying
to grasp. And it was trying to grasp this simple thing, and
grasp that simply and continuously, and I'll be a son of a
gun if the zone and area of trying to apply this didn't
say, "Don't pay any attention to basics. What you want to
study is the upper theory of the thing."
 
A Class VIII auditor should be a model of simplicity. He
should have a grip on the simple things of life. He should
know what he knows, he should know and see those things
occur so that there is no difficulty with his head or
somebody else's. But this sort of thing can happen.
 
This sort of thing can happen.
 
It would amuse you very much that a few weeks ago I was
doing a case supervision on a folder. And I looked at the
commands that were given, and the reasonability, and the
reason for these commands, and in reading the explanation
of it all, and the folder, I got sufficiently confused that
I sent for the original bulletin. And got it in, just to
restabilize the situation. It was a really violent outness.
But it was an insidious outness. Do you follow? It might
possibly, at one time or another, have sounded reasonable,
and it might at some time or another have been worded that
way. So I sent out for the original bulletin to find out if
it ever had been worded that way. It never had been worded
that way. In other words, even my data, at this particular
point, could be so persuaded, so persuaded that I wanted to
look it up. And it's almost unbelievable that I would look
anything up. Because the data which you use are so well
known to me that it strains my reality to have to tell them
to you. And every once in a while I'll forget perhaps to
tell you something, because I would never dream you didn't
know it. See? I have to think. It's pretty difficult
sometimes, to undercut it all the way. "Now let's see,
what don't they know? What couldn't they possibly know?"
Very often I have to really dream up a production
trying to imagine what to get down to. Now it strikes me...
I remember the first time this ever happened to me. It
didn't happen to me. A guy was watching a TV demonstration.
And he came in and he was absolutely starry-eyed, and he
says, "I just found something that you do that none of the
rest of us do in auditing. You acknowledge." And it never,
I never would have dreamed of telling anybody they had to
acknowledge. It was just so far beyond my reality that
anybody would have to be told, don't you see? So I have a
little bit of a hard time scaling it.
 
It's not that I'm trying to undercut it, or talk down to
anybody. It requires real skill and real ability to be
totally simple. That is the test.
 
If you want to get a commentary on this read Professor
Snorgborg's, or Smorgasborg I think his name is,
dissertation on the Implausibility of Electronic Theory.
The book is eight thousand six hundred and fifty five
pages. It's in several sets. And it won't surprise you that
he died because he didn't know how to push his doorbell and
get in out of the cold. But boy it sure was complex. So you
want to refer people that have complex things, you say,
"Well why don't you read Professor Smorgasbord's
dissertation on the Basic Theory and Reinterpretation of
Scientology Theory? It's a very famous book." And send them down to the library to look for it if they've bothered you
too much. And keep insisting that it is in the library. And
it at least keeps them out of your hair, possibly for some
years.
 
But to be basically, totally simple you have to be
terribly, terribly direct. Terribly direct.
 
Now, the net result of all of this is, is with terrific
simplicity you are trying to get forward a very simple,
fantastically workable technology. The routine by which you
get it in is also very simple. Morale goes out, and
effectiveness and efficiency and administration goes out,
to the degree that the tech itself goes out. To get the
tech back in, or to get it in in the first place, you have
to apply very straight, direct ethics. This is followed
through by putting in tech. You ease up the ethics to the
degree that you get tech practiced in a standard fashion.
Do I make my point? And that is actually what it is all
about.
 
Thank you very much.
 
**************************************************