Golden era productions

RESPONSIBILITY FOR MOCK-UPS

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

Audience: Yes.

Don't you think that's ...

Audience: Yes.

All right.

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

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

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

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

Audience: Yeah, great. Yes.

Okay.

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

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

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

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

135

136

14 FEBRUARY 1958

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSIBILITY FOR MOCK-UPS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience: Yes.

Thank you.

137

A LECTURE GIVEN ON 14 FEBRUARY 1958

Female voice: Someone says it takes a Clear to validate a Clear. Uh-uh. Not true. You've had three examples of it, right here in this Unit.

Female voice: I didn't mean to audit one.

Yeah. But, "It takes a Clear to validate a Clear"—no, you don't have to lay down much of an artificial stress on this. There is such a thing as a Clear check sheet. And if an auditor thinks he's got a Clear on his hands, he ought to send for the Clear check sheet. After all, all of the tests are available to any individual auditor. He can send for them. He can do them. He can even send them back for correction.

It would be expected that the person's APA and IQ test would be included in the Clear sheet request. And I see no reason why the auditor who does the job shouldn't be the one answering a question very flatly.

Female voice: Thank you.

Some people will be alarmed about this. But I am not. An HCO could always issue one. In this case, by the way, it'd be the HCO Secretary—the HCO Board of Review or the HCO Secretary.

Now that the HCO Secretary is gone, I can say "I never had an HCO Secretary around who isn't a crackerjack of an auditor." I find out they have to do more auditing in ten minutes than anybody you ever saw on the job. Staff streams by in a mad rate, people come in with tears puddling all over the carpet, "I've just been shot." The HCO Secretary's life is very random, I can assure you—almost as random as the Technical Director's.

HGC preclears, by the way, will be given a Clear bracelet. But that's only because it can well afford it.

I tried to get these bracelets, by the way; I tried to get some kind of a price which would be a dollar and a half or something like that. But it was junk—junk. About the cheapest you can get a piece of jewelry for and then handle it and engrave it and so forth, is up in the teens of dollars.

This thing that's coming as a Clear bracelet is gorgeous as a piece of jewelry. No kidding. It even conies in a jewel box. And the lady's is a very small chain, and the plaque on the lady's bracelet is much smaller than the man's. But nevertheless, that's quite a solid piece of metal. It's sterling silver, but it's sterling silver with cadmium .04, I guess, percent not-pure. And that .04 percent is cadmium and . . .

Male voice: Pure silver is too soft to be of much use.

139

140

14 FEBRUARY 1958

Well, this is—this is tougher than the ordinary sterling. Because the links wear right in half. I know—I wore an Explorers Club bracelet through the war, and about halfway through the war—I was fortunately sitting at the wardroom table when it happened—the thing just fell off my wrist. I took it ashore to a jeweler and he had to build all the links back together again. Its links, particularly next to the plaque, had just come in half.

Female voice: How about the size of the bracelets? Will they be adjustable? Fit on anybody's wrist?

Yes, ma'am. Any jeweler can adjust it. But if you're here when you receive it, the place that is making them—which is the biggest jeweler here in this area and so forth—all you have to do is walk in there and he'll take off or add links, as many as you want. That was definitely part of the arrangement.

I used to wear one of these things soldered on, by the way. Never did take it off.

This one, just by accident, still has its clasp on it.

Male voice: When do you expect these bracelets to be available?

They'll be available in exactly three weeks. And that—I said exactly three weeks, let me amend that—absolute maximum, three weeks. I told him to put the time in on making precise dies. And he could have gotten them here in a week, but they would have been a sloppier bracelet. Three weeks, exactly. It takes two or three days to get one of the things engraved with your name on it.

Male voice: It seems to me the business of randomity between the "field auditor" and the "staff auditor" or the organization is a matter of the field auditor individuating from the organization due to some consideration of an inability to contribute.

Possibly. I think that this has been, to a large degree, economic. I mean, I think it has not been able to use that many people. And I mean, it's just an economic thing. I mean, I think that was what happened from the beginning. Hm?

Male voice: That is contribute.

That's—so there's a contribution the other way, too. It was economic contributions. In times of scarcity, you get an every-man-for-himself sort of a situation. And I think that was probably—as ugly as that is—I think that was probably the basic on it. Because in 1950 I think there were very few people that—or in England in the early days—there probably were very, very few people that wouldn't have happily just gone on working with the Central Organization, had there been enough cash to keep body and soul together.

I don't know why it takes cash to put the two together. A very close investigation of it has demonstrated that it is mystery, and . . . You don't suppose cash is mystery, do you?

Yes?

Male voice: The way the cash in this country is put together is certainly a mystery.

Oh, that's for sure. That's for sure. Right now we have a situation where it's rather difficult to get people in the Central Organizations. It's rather difficult. We actually have to pick them up and put them together and put them in shape and so forth. But that's mainly because we follow this policy. This policy might interest you because it is more than a policy. It is something we will not do otherwise than, just now.

We have found that it doesn't matter where the person is placed in the organization—with the exception, perhaps, of a typist—person must be a

RESPONSIBILITY FOR MOCK-UPS: Q&A PERIOD

good auditor. It isn't a matter of having all Scientologists in the Central Organization; it is a matter of having good auditors. And we found out that a person who is a good auditor will be able on almost any other post. This is quite a wild one to be as pervasive as it has become.

As a result, you have a lot of good auditors in the Central Organization who aren't auditing. You have some real good auditors in London and here. John is a bearcat as an auditor, for instance, and here he is sitting over in London as an Association Secretary.

And there was a very fine auditor, and a very fine Instructor, one of the very, very best—he was sitting there as an Association Secretary. He's now down in Africa. One of the happiest things that he found in South Africa, of course, was the fact that he didn't have enough business to occupy all of his time, compared to the London organization. And he suddenly grabbed ahold of a preclear—slurp, slurp—and he started auditing. And there was nobody around to tell him he couldn't. And he busily and happily took one of the earlier Clear sheets, and he was walking somebody up toward Clear. Instead of getting administrative reports, I began to get a flood, daily report air letters, on the terrific things he was doing with this preclear. See? Just all rave notices, you know?

And I realized what was happening there. The individual's basic goal, of course, was to make people better, and he was off the paper chain—very, very happy about it.

You don't find—you don't find a person who can't audit well being able to function well in a Scientology organization. It's quite weird. Quite weird.

It wouldn't have been the sort of a coordination that the army would have made. The army says that a—says that a good doctor, of course, has to be cared for like a—like a scurvy pup or something. And they put administrators in the hospitals — do the same thing in the navy. They have a whole series of ranks that are merely administrators. And these administrators are hanging around the fringes keeping the hospitals running and so on, while the doctors merely doctor.

So we're in a different field entirely. It's probably true for the army or the navy, you see, but it's not true for Scientology.

Male voice: This also turned up a few years ago in engineering firms. They found that for darn near any job in an engineering firm an engineer could do the job better than a non-engineer.

That's right. That's right.

Male voice: As a point of interest, they don't do that in the Royal Navy now.

What do they do now?

Male voice: Mountbatten squashed that.

Oh yeah?

Male voice: Every single man who is a man, as opposed to an NCO or an officer, is in bell-bottom and jumper.

Hm.

Male voice: And he's a sailor. And he'll take turn at a gun whether he's a typist or a sick-berth attendant, or what he is. He's a sailor and he's going to run that ship.

This would be the only way you'd ever get anywhere.

Male voice: He's really cleaned it up.

Yeah. Too bad we didn't have that here during the war.

141

142

14 FEBRUARY 1958

Female voice: With this bulletin on February the thirteenth, what happens to that present time problem process of, "What part of that problem can you be responsible for?"

I'm sorry if that bulletin gave the impression that that was dropped. Doesn't the bulletin say it handled—you handle the present time problem?

Female voice: Well, it mentions Problems of Comparable Magnitude, and Help in brackets. It doesn't mention the other one at all. I wondered if you were dropping that as ...

Well, I am sorry. This will require something. You know what most of these HCO Bulletins come from? A pack of profiles come in, and I look these over and I see where goofing is occurring from an ACC; I see where people are sliding or see some specialized piece of information they need. This—you could still get away with this just the way it is written, but this is not a procedure. You handle a PT problem just as you always did. But if the person had one, the terminals of it are still a problem.

Remember, you only handled the problem. See? "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" you said. You didn't handle the terminals, did you?

Now, it finds out that when we start to run Help, the case will again hang up on the PT problem because these terminals are still randomity. Do you understand that?

You handle the PT problem this way: You say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

The fellow drops. He says, "Yes I do; I'm being sued."

You say, "All right. Now, what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

And he finally orients this. Well, it disappears as a bop on the meter.

Now we go into Help. Oh, we merely eradicated a problem, didn't we? But there are a couple of people on Earth that he would rather shoot than help. You got that? Now, as long as that state of mind obtains, you have a couple of nice juicy terminals that are going to get in your road in running Help.

This was on—this was based, by the way, on an HGC preclear who wouldn't unwind or unravel. We ran "What part of the problem could you be responsible for?" and we got this all damped out. And then we started to run Help and we found out the preclear wouldn't run Help. But he was running Help with a high generality, and he would just yap. And it just was not true, and he was going out of session, he was trying to blow and so on. And I finally got hold of this one and I says, "Now, wait a minute. You got rid of the problem this man was having with his wife and her lover. But you certainly have not gotten rid of wife or lover as terminals. Why don't you turn around and run wife and lover as Help brackets?" Almost blew the guy's head off. And he was hung up right there. And as soon as he got those two people cleared up on Help as terminals he sailed in and cleaned up the rest of Help, and he is now running right on down through the line.

You know, it is one thing simply to observe that a present time problem hangs up a case. But I'm reporting to you simply an observation. There's no explanation for this. See, I've known this for several years; there's been no explanation for it. The explanation is this: The individual on the PT problem is hung up on Help in the material universe, on one or more terminals that he won't—so his case doesn't progress.