



 

Explore by clicking here 

 

 





 Message 86 of 311 for search alt.clearing.technology

   » Return to search results help 

 

FZ Tech Lover 6/7 Level 0 Tapes  

Author:   Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 

Date:   1999/03/24 

Forum:   alt.religion.scientology  

      

 

more headers  author posting history   

  







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



6. 297 326 Aug 21,1963 THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)



A Freezone Bible Supporter



Here is a complete set of Level 0 Academy tapes as a

companion piece to the level 0 pack posted earlier this

year.



Much Love,



Tech Lover





**************************************************





LEVEL 0 CASSETTES - CONTENTS



SHSBC Lectures - (old & new lecture numbers shown)



   Old New DAte



1. 148 162 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART I

2. 149 163 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART II

3. 290 319 Jul 25,1963 COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING

4. 291 320 Aug  6,1963 AUDITING COMM CYCLES 

5. 296 325 Aug 20,1963 THE ITSA LINE

6. 297 326 Aug 21,1963 THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)

7.   5 366 Feb  6,1964 THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING





These are the 7 tapes that are in the modern clearsound

version of the Level 0 academy lectures.  The first two

(on the E Meter) were not in the old level zero academy

cassettes, the remaining 5 were checked against the old

tapes and omissions are marked ">".



There was also one case (marked "#") where a paragraph on

translating line plots was omitted from the old cassettes

(probably because of confidentiality) but is included in the 

new clearsound versions. (SHSBC-319)



There was also one case (SHSBC-320) where some material was

edited out of the clearsound academy version but was left

in the clearsound SHSBC version, so that even the modern

clearsound tapes do not quite match in the two versions

that are currently being sold.



Since even the old versions of these tapes have omissions,

it would be of great help if somebody could check these

transcripts against an early set of SHSBC Reels.





**************************************************



FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT



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



**************************************************







THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)



SHSBC 297 renumbered 326



A lecture given on 21 August 1963



(80 min)



[checked against the old level 0 cassettes, omissions marked

with ">"]





[Applause]



> Well you should have a demonstration today you know.

> But Reg was feeling pretty quesy there.  He's having

> good case gain, so we didn't want to have to demonstrate

> on him, you see.  But any of you that are feeling especially

> bad or something like that, we can always give you a

> TV demonstration.



What's the date?



Audience: August 21st.



21st. 21st August A.D. 13.



> New staff member here.  How you doing Joe?



All right. We could cover an awful lot of stuff here. Be

very easy to do.



The main things in which you are involved at the present

moment probably look far more complicated to you than they are.



I'm going to talk to you some more about the tone arm and

the itsa line, and forms of sessions.



Things look to you a lot more involved than they actually are.



Sitting somewhere back of every thetan's bank is some

tremendous insecurity in which he believes implicitly that

the universe is dangerous, or that he himself is in danger

or that he cannot live or survive as a powerful being. And

whatever that state is, and however that state is created

originally is not particularly germane to this lecture.



But the discovery of the itsa line may look to you to be a

highly simple little thing, perhaps even a duplication of

psychoanalysis. After all, they talked. And if you didn't

know anything about the itsa line, you could draw all sorts

of wild conclusions, you see? Make the mistake of saying,

"Well, it's a communication line, and therefore any

communication line is an itsa line, and therefore if you

let anybody talk about anything, why, he will get better."



We already know if you let a fellow talk on an entheta line

very long, he'll run his havingness out the bottom. So the

complexities of the itsa line are really quite something.

It sits on a tremendous amount of technology, but in itself

is very simple to understand. There's nothing much to

understanding it. If you understand it you'd see actions

like this very readily and immediately, and these actions

would be something like this:



Pc said, "I - I don't know uh ... whether it was ...

Let's see, now, it was uh ... uh ... twenty, twenty, twenty 

uh ... I guess about twenty years ago. And uh ... the fellow 

said uh - I don't know what he said, but I know what I think 

about it. I - I - I know that uh ... I - I know I think it 

was a big swindle of some kind or another. And uh ... Come to 

think about it, I don't know whether I said that or he said that."



Auditor: "It reads that he said it."



Oh, wait a minute. What happens at this point? What

occurred there, exactly? Well, you know at once what

occurred, if you know the itsa line. The auditor put in the

itsa with the meter, leaving the pc in a zone and area of

insecurity.



Now, we say, all right, the line plot. The line plot: that

tells the pc what items are in the GPM.



See, just like that, see? So obviously we say, well, this

to some degree puts in the itsa line for the pc. Well, no,

no. That could be said to, but we get across the

proposition of the lesser of two evils. If you've ever seen

a pc wrapped around a telephone pole with undisclosed

charge from running a GPM he knew not what of, or did not

know any of the elements of, you will use line plots.



If the thing is a known line plot, we will use it. Why?

Because that was a predesigned plot in the first place. It

was an other-determined design - you understand that

somebody else determined the design. What's important about 

it is the charge that is on it, and what's important in the 

auditing is to get off the charge and get the pc to identify, 

to his own reality, that itsa.



See, if the line plot you handed him on a sheet of paper

didn't agree with the thing he was running, you will very

shortly hear about it. He can get wrapped around a

telegraph pole with great speed. But that's a shadow of

putting in an itsa line, isn't it? That's a shadow of

putting in the itsa line with the pc - but a necessary action.



Now, I'll give you its similar borderline: Pc says, "Oh,

it's twenty years ago, it was fifteen - no, it's eighteen ... 

eighteen, four ... twenty, twenty-two ... It's

twenty-two year ... I think it was twenty-two year ...

No, no. It - it must have been twenty-five—thirty. No, uh ... 

twenty-one ... I - I don't know. I don't know. I just

don't know when it was. (sniff)" 



He quit, see? He quit cold.



What you going to do? Sit there with a pc who has quit

cold? Or are you going to say, "All right, I'll give you a

hand. Was it more than twenty years ago, less than twenty

years ago? Was it twenty years ago? All right, it's more

than twenty years ago. Is it more than twenty-five years

ago? Less than twenty-five years ago? Less than twenty-five

years ago. You got some idea of it now?"



"Yeah! It was twenty-three years ago."



Or, "Was it more than twenty-five? Less than twenty-five?

It was less than twenty-five. Twenty-three? Twenty-three? 

I'm getting a read here on twenty-three."



"Yeah. It was twenty-three."



Get that? So you didn't totally put in the itsa line. See,

you could start putting the itsa line in and the pc catches

the ball, put it almost totally in and the pc catches it,

see, and get right onto the hour and the minute, and the pc

never caught it, but at least you don't have something

wrong-dated. And those are the gradients of putting in the

itsa line. And the last one - it's a little bit of a lose to

have to put it all the way in for the pc, see?



All right, now, look at the length of time you and other

fellows around have been stumbling around on this planet.

There's a number of thousands of years. And the number of

thousands of years you've been in the Marcab Confederacy

are quite numerous. They probably run up to two or three

hundred thousand years that you've been inside this system.

And let me call to your attention, never during that time

could you put your foot on the first step of the road which

led back to a better life and some happiness and freedom,

see? You couldn't get a foot on that road at all.



All right. Right now you have technology. You have a map.

The map has got all kinds of blank spots in it, but

nevertheless, there's the type of map it is, don't you see?

And those are persuasions toward an itsa line. And the only

time you totally lose - the only time you totally lose - is

when you have to put the whole itsa line in.



Give somebody the pattern for a goal: All right, he has to

list for the actual goal in that sequence and find it. And

he has to list for and get the top oppterm, to make it, in

order to fit the pattern, and then he's got to fit the

pattern together. And this is an awful lot of itsa. See?

Well, all right, so you've got the preprinted pattern. Give

him this, and he just reads it off. You understand? This is

less desirable, but it's still feasible.



All right, now let's put it totally in. Let's put it

totally in. Let's just hit him with a lightning bolt so

that he can't contact any of the facsimiles in it, and we

have medical psychiatry. See, the evil involved in this is

putting in an itsa line in such a way as to have no

self-determinism, no power of choice left in the pc at all.

Total wipeout of power of choice, don't you see?



Now, you can fall short of that in various degrees. Little

kid is going around, see? He's real unhappy about the whole

thing, he's real unhappy about life and he's walking around

in circles and so forth. And you say to him, "That is your

bed." Well, you haven't really done very much for him, but

you have improved his state of mind or his peace, see? Just

to that degree. You understand? You say, "That is your bed."



Nevertheless, you have put in the itsa line. He himself has

not found out that it is his bed, you see? But look, he's

still very happy to have the bed.



Now, when we get down into pure, unadulterated evil, we get

a denial of the itsa line and we go into aberration,

creation of. See, this whole thing inverts, and we get

KUCDEI Zero F - that whole scale of means of perverting the

itsa line.



Now, those means, well, include an inability to ever find

anything, an inability to reach anything, and so forth.

Well now, medical psychiatry (to amend what I was saying a

moment ago) is of the inclination that it is better, you

see, for nobody to have anything to do with anything, see?

See that? Now, look at that as an inversion. That's an

inversion of the fact.



Now, the aberration of this line - perversion of this itsa

line - has to be very direct in order to be very aberrative.

You have to pervert the line, you see - just outrightly put

in something false, or put nothing there, you see, and so

on, or inhibit very directly, and you have to work at it.

It has to be worked at and so on. Given the slightest

chance, why, the pc will start putting in his itsa line.

But what does he put his itsa line in on?



All right, let's take Freudian analysis: He puts in his

itsa line on childhood sexual incidents.



They're not aberrative! Anybody get anyplace? Old Papa

Freud did contribute something. He said there was a

possibility. Great, let's applaud him for that.



But he was putting the itsa line in in directions that

didn't wind up with anything, and then after he got through

he put the line in, totally; the practitioner put the line

in. See, he said, "The reason why you are aberrated now is

we have finally found out that you had a fetish going.



You had a fetishism. And actually, your little brother's

right shoe has aberrated your whole existence, and that is

why you are always talking about the feet on chairs, you

see? And now we've got this all explained, and you are better."



Now, that's all very fine, but he didn't look at the

hypnotic character of the statement "You are better."

That's putting in the itsa line.



All right. We got some guy walking around in circles out

here. (Let's take a look at these various gradients of

putting in the itsa line for somebody; you'll gradually see

what I'm talking about and what I'm driving at here.) Got

some guy walking around in circles and, man, he doesn't

know which way to turn. He's got lumbosis and he's been

aberrated by hearing of a psychiatrist when he was young

and he's got all kinds of things, you see. He's having a

hard time - having a hard time. And you say something can be

done about it.



Well, you've put in some variety of itsa line, haven't you?

And that's what you call a hope factor. And this guy very

often responds to this, and he feels much happier about

this, don't you see? You see that - that the hope factor,

then, is to that slight degree putting in the itsa line,

see? It's not really much an itsa line. But you're saying,

"It is not - it is not hopeless!" See? You're so of putting

in a negative line for him a little bit there, and you

carry him along.



You see, as we look at this problem, we'll see that there

are various degrees of putting in the itsa line for

somebody. See, there are various degrees of this and these

things vary from the very, very evil - which is to say, hand

a guy pomegranate and say, "That's a bomb." See, that's

putting in a false itsa line. They vary from that up to,

well, making it impossible for him to put it in (That's a

lower grade, making it impossible for the person to put in

an itsa line.) Varies up to the little necessary actions

necessary to begin the flow of the itsa line.



See, and these little necessary actions are such as "Start

of session." And the basic intent is what makes the

difference. That's the first fundament difference, although

this, too, can go too far.



But the basic intent is what makes the most fundamental

difference. Do you intend to improve this person's itsaing

ability, or do you intend to knock it into a cocked hat?

Which? So it begins right there with the intention. And

that gives you the difference between the cowboys in the

white hats and the cowboys in the black hats, see? And it's

right there, man, bang! Intention: decrease this person's

ability to itsa - cowboys in the black hats. Intention: by

some or any means, to improve this person's ability

itsa - cowboys in the white hats. That's good and evil,

defined in terms the itsa line. That's the difference

between freedom and slavery, that's the difference between

making freemen and making slaves. You make slaves by the

intention to decrease the ability to put in the itsa line.

That's how you make a slave. And that gives you the whole

textbook of how to make slaves right there, complete with

gold letters and a chain-pattern cover.



And the other way is to improve the person's ability to

itsa. In other words, to identify, to spot, to find out.

And there we have that point from which we can separate the

Scientologist from the medicos, we can separate the decent

civilizations from the lousy ones; we can go right on

through there.



This quarter of the universe, by the way, is suffering from

an overdose lousy civilization. See, that's what it's

suffering from. It apparently has been recently conquered

in recent times (in the last few hundred thousand years) but

those who were conquered had already been - their

governmental action had already been set up for their own

failure, see? They'd been set up be conquered by using,

themselves, mental technology which made slaves. They

implanted their own troops. Oh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho,

ah-ah-ah-ah-a ah-ah-ah.



"We're going to plant somebody up to be a loyal soldier, to

fight bravely, to never give up his body so long as it is

alive, to be true to the empire."



We're going to plant somebody, are we? Remember, every one

of those items we put in, to stick, has to have a negative

item! And that doesn't just cut it down 50 percent, that

puts it in the betrayal line. It cuts it down enormously

because some empire that would do this to somebody gets

their support lines giving them the itch, see? "Yeah, we'll

help the general out," you know? He him into the car so

that he goes through the other side and falls out the

opposite door, you know? It's an accident, you know? When

the planes take off half their motors don't run, you know?

They're just running up against total sabotage, because

they've already got a slave empire.



And you may be able to force a group by slavery and so

forth into semblance of a civilization, but it's only ever

a semblance; there's never anything to which anybody

freely, wholeheartedly contributes. It has no strength, it

has no power because remember, 50 percent of the implant

is "Don't be a good soldier." And then the fact that the

implant occurred at all, of course, is enough to knock

one's loyalty in a cocked hat.



Let's take an earlier and probably still extant

organization, the Galactic Confederacy: eighty trillion

years, smooth as glass. No implanting. Interesting? I don't

know the exact length of the Espinol Confederacy, but it's

probably something on the order of a few hundred thousand

years. Implants - no empire.



The figures read themselves. Rome died at the hands of her

slaves. That's for sure. She was never conquered by the

barbarians. I know it looked very nice in the history

books, but the truth of the matter is, who wanted to fight

for Rome? You get through with a war, you come home, you

find out the slave civilization has already taken over the

farms. There's no need for your production; there's no need

for a freeman; there was no pay to be a freeman. That was

the reward and the pat on the back for having fought

through the wars, you see?



And it started going into a civil-war situation. And half

of the Roman Empire was always fighting half of the Roman

Empire. I don't remember the exact name of the battle; it

doesn't occur to me. I read it in Gibbon (and it's probably

wrong in Gibbon) and got cluttered up on it - it's either

Messana or something like that.



But the reason the first barbarians got to Rome was

because - she didn't have very large numbers in her armies,

but forty thousand of her first-line troops lay dead at

Messana in a civil war caused by unrest caused by slavery.

And they had no first-line troops. That was practically the

entire call-up of the empire. And historians today trace

back to that battle as the reason the barbarian was able to

conquer the thing.



Well, you trace back the battle, and you find the battle

came because of civil war. And we find out why the civil

war came and it came by slavery.



The American Civil War, that destroyed one of the better

agricultural areas of America, and so forth, was again a

battle about slavery, one way or the other. Every time you

have slavery, you have trouble, see? You don't even have to

be sentimental about it. You don't have to be sentimental.

You can be terribly statistical. You don't have to say it's

good or it's bad or anything else. You don't have to beat

the drum for it, or be a person who wants to reform things

or something like that. Just look at the statistics.

Slavery never pays off. That's it.



That's that. It's dangerous. If anything is dangerous, it's

slavery.



You don't suppose America would be having very much trouble

right now with its race riots and 250 thousand Negroes

about to converge on Washington, and so forth, if they

hadn't kicked off this slavery. And it's very funny, but

the most involved people in American slavery were the

Bostonians. Used to have what they called the "triangle

trade." They'd send ships loaded with rum down to Africa,

use the rum to buy blacks (as they referred to them), use

the whip and Christianity on them to bring them back over,

and they traded in the blacks down around the West Indies,

and so forth, for sugar cane, and they brought the sugar

cane up to Boston and they made rum, and they shipped the

rum to Africa, and they just had that worked out. And

practically the first families of Boston are founded

directly on slavery.



Kennedy missed that. He wasn't there at that - family wasn't

in America at that particular time.



His family got out from underneath another type of slavery:

the landowner, the absentee landlord, the high rates - this

type of economic slavery, and so forth. And these things go

back to roots. In other words, we have catastrophes in all

directions. We have the catastrophe of Boston, the

catastrophe of Kennedy.



We've got a situation here whereby you trace world trouble,

and you trace it straight back to slavery. I'm not trying

to beat the drum for anything. Why do you think Russia

can't get its feet under itself, and why is everybody

having such a hard time with the Russians, and why are the

Russians so silly as to evolve a slave economy such as

communism, and so forth? What's all this fuss?



Well, this fuss goes back to the idea in early Russian

history that a man belonged to the land, and when you sold

the land you sold the man with it.



Well, the European civilisation got out from underneath

that, two or three centuries before, and Russia has not yet

got out from underneath that. She still carrying the burden

of her past chains. And therefore she can't think straight.

She's like trying to get a pc to think in the middle of a

session, you know? Can't do it. That's a little more

touching picture than they actually are painting.



Actually, what I think is, is the White Russian prince and

that sort of fellow, you see, he went back to the

between-lives area and he came back and he picked up a body

and became a commissar. I don't think they've yet changed

their faces very much.



But the trouble with world affairs today is slavery. The

greatest empire earth ever had went down in the dust with

slavery. The British Empire right now is having a rough

time and is staggering around because of its effort to

colonize, and to do this and to do that and do something

about this, and to free man and not to free man, and

somehow or another to hold him in economic duress - don't you

see?—and not let him free but then to let him free, and -

You know?



You got all this trouble down here in Africa running around

in one way or the other. Well, that's the sort of trouble

you get when you suddenly start taking the lid off

something that has had the lid nailed down on for a very

long time, you see? And without anybody around who really

knows much about it, why, we get those boys going back into

slavery too. First action of a new African ruler is

ordinarily to throw the whole opposition in jail because

they are insufficiently enslaved by his regime, you see?

This viewpoint. This viewpoint.



Now, I'm not discoursing on this just because I have a bee

in my bonnet about it, because I frankly couldn't care

less, as far as this planet is concerned it'll never get

out of any mess unless we get it out of that mess, and I'm

using the situation just to show you the liabilities of

slavery. You always get a lash-back - always. Because a

thetan never gives up! That's it. He really never gives up.

He's lying there. He might look awful quiet, he might look

terribly dead, he might look like he doesn't interfere with

anything, you see? But in actual fact, he really never

gives up!



He's got some trick: You can put him in jail, immobilize

him, wrap all up in adhesive tape and electric cord, and so

forth, and he gets even with you: he sits there and thinks

how he's right.



He even goes down to that postulate see? He can hold that

postulate clear on down through the lowest level of

unconsciousness - that he was right. Well, I think that's

very interesting.



Because if he ever gets out of it, he'll go on being right,

see? If he ever get of it, he'll go on being right about

what he was being right about before he got put in that state.



In other words, the effort to dominate, the effort to

dominate and denied power of choice is the road that this 

universe walked toward the hell it became. Fear - the unlovely 

specter of fear—stands ahead of all of those.



Let's trace this out very carefully: To survive. All right,

very good. This guy wants to survive.



Whatever put him in the state of mind that he has to

survive? Because this is your biggest piece of nonsense. A

thetan can't possibly do anything but survive. In fact,

it's probably the trouble with him. That's certainly the

trouble governments and things have with him. That trouble

the Marcabians are having with him right now. How to kill a

thetan is the biggest problem in this universe. See, it's

just not solvable. They thought they had it all solved and

we came along.



See, they just never really are going to whip this problem.

How do you kill a thetan? Well, it's not an elegant problem

to whip.



Now, how can a being - who actually can't be struck at, who

cannot do anything but survive and cannot die, who can pass

through various lapses of memory and that sort of thing - 

how can this being get into a state of mind whereby he's

concerned about survival? Well, it takes quite a lot of

trickery to do that. Usually it's on the extension of self

into a possession, like making a minion. You mock a mock-up

up and then you endow it with some life, you see? And then

somebody comes along and starts to kick its head off, so

you protect it and you identify yourself with it. Or you

construct a civilization and identify with it, and you're

trying to get the civilization to survive, so that

eventually you get worried about your own survival.



You see the mistake which has to be made there? That

mistake actually has to be made directly before a thetan

gets worried about his own survival.



In other words, he has to extend some type of line onto

something that he feels can't survive, and then identify

himself with it to such an extent that he feels his own

survival can be affected.



And this is your first step into aberration.



All right. Your next step forward from this is an

elementary step: Because one is now worried about survival,

one resolves the problem of survival by domination. This is

not any kind of a solution at all. It's a lousy solution,

but it gets used and is probably - that which is not admired

tends to persist. That very definitely applies in this

particular line, because domination is probably the least

admired thing in this universe, and yet, oddly enough, is

continuously successful. But it's really not successful.



So, domination comes in here. And we have thetan A and

thetan B. and the way that thetan B is kept from destroying

thetan A's construction or civilization, don't you see, is

by thetan A dominating thetan B. you see? That is the

formula by which this is arrived at. So thetan A, to

protect something he wants to have survive, therefore seeks

to dominate thetan B. And then being in a frame of mind

where he feels he himself cannot survive, then he just

obsessively goes on and dominates thetans B. C, D, E, F and

G. see?



But he overlooks the fact that if he dominates thetans B.

D, E, F and G. sooner or later, thetans B. D, E, F and G in

their turn are going to dominate. Do you see? Because we've

set up a cause-effect line, and the best thing you know

about a cause-effect line - we may not know much about

overt-motivator sequences; but we know all about the

cause-effect line from which the overt motivator sequence

comes. And the best thing about those things is that

communication contains cause, distance, effect, with

intention and duplication. And because of the duplication

of the intention, then any communication line will reverse.



That's the easiest thing a communication line does is

reverse, because of course it has duplication on both ends.

It's very easy for cause to become effect and effect to

become cause, because there's a duplication in the

communication line. All you have to do is make a slight

mistake of which is cause and which is effect, and you have

the waiters, which at one time through the last century

served people, in black tuxedos - you know, the guests all

wore black tuxedos, and so forth - you have the waiters now

wearing black tuxedos, you see?



And you look at any custom as it comes along in this

universe, you are actually studying the

cause-distance-effect-duplication aspect of a communication

line. It's going to reverse. Well, there's lots of

ramifications whereby we protest and we do this and we do

that. But this fact of any custom you see on this planet at

this time - you could absolutely count on its having been the

reverse custom at an earlier date.



Now, this makes an awfully broad statement, but if you look

into it, you'll see that's the case.



You take the clothes today of women, and the clothes today

of men, see? Well, you don't have to look back very far to

where you see that one flipped, you see? And you look into

almost any custom you can follow it down and you will find

out it slipped. It went the other way to.



So the formula of communication, and communication itself,

then, is the most important factor in looking for aberration.

It's very elementary why; cause, distance, effect with

intention, duplication. The duplication fact then, makes

the C very easily look like the E, and the E look like the

C. So of course the line can reverse around the other way

to. And we get all sort superstitions about overt-motivator

sequences, and we get all kinds of things. Of course,

that's factual, but it's simply based upon the nature of a

communication line.



We beat somebody's head in and we beat somebody's head in

and we somebody's head in and we beat somebody's head in.

Of course, at cause have the intention to beat somebody's

head in, and at effect we have somebody's head being beaten

in. That's pretty elementary. And then one fine day we wake up

with a headache. Where did the headache come from? Well, one

slipped.



One slipped. One made a misidentification of the C and the

E on the line, see? It was quite accidental. You're reading a

book by Montaigne or something, and it said, "And thy

servant, he is a man too," see, something this, you know?

Guy just, you know, just blah ...



(I don't even know if Montaigne said that. But you have to

add the erudite points when you don't have your quotation

dictionary handy. Besides I usually find out I can make up

better quotations than they said anyhow; I figure out their

works were culled. I used to work on the basis that if you

write enough words, you'd say something clever, and that

saying things clever is usually solved in the field of

philosophy by writing enough words. See, just by the law of

averages you would eventually be clever. Anyway... Fifty

thousand monkeys writing for fifty thousand years

apparently by accident would write all the books of the

world, and I think they did!)



Anyway, you see what happens here now? Do you see? There's

a switcheroo on these lines, and you get what looks like an

overt-motivator sequence. So almost any pc you audit at the

level of Homosapiens, and so on, has got so switched so

that you can absolutely count on O/W working. But as I've

told you, it's not a high-level concept. See, it's limited.

It only goes up so high because it depends upon this error of

identification, you see?



But you can always get a case result by saying, "What have

you done "What have you done?" because you've freed up now

some vicious communication line. And it's certain that he

made a misidentification from that point up, see, and so

therefore we can free some somatics or something like that

can practically count on the fact that if some guy has got

a sore neck, if we just find out what sore necks he has

caused, we will eventually tear a off couple of facsimiles

of some kind or another, which will straighten it out he'll

cease to have a sore neck. Because he obviously had given

somebody else a sore neck, you see, if he has a sore neck. 

I mean, it's that elementary.



But what is this really based on? It's based on the

misidentification of a communication line because of the

duplication factor in communication. You can't communicate

without some duplication. That duplication, of course

sneaks up. You can't communicate at all without duplication.



Well, all right, if communication is so dangerous, why is

any thetan communicating at all? Well, he communicates

because he wants to be oriented. And we're back to why he

communicates. He wants to be oriented. Of course I

don't - then, of course, he takes his best tool, getting

oriented, and proceeds to aberrate it by using it to

dominate, to do people in, and to mess up things that he tries

to identify with, see? He messes up his own communication

line. In other words, he misuses his communication line.



Now, the communication line is there because he's lost and

feels the need of orientation. Hence his desire for

communication. There's an insecurity back on along the line

which causes him to use this communication line. As I say,

we haven't got the full answer as to why that is. I'm just

showing you what this comes from. And that gives us,

directly, the itsa line. So don't regard the itsa line as a

low-level concept, it's actually Scientology V. It's not

Scientology 1, but it's used in Scientology 1, and I'm sure

will be used well for a long period of time, will also be

used very blindly in many quarters.



But let's appreciate what we're using. We're rising the

obsession to identify, which lies back of the communication

line. But we're using a principle higher than

communication, coupled with communication, in order to

orient and rehabilitate a thetan. You've made a full

statement of processing at that moment, see, except for

this one little fact: Is there anything else earlier that

gave this guy an insecurity? The original one, in the

absence of communication, is somewhat hard to

understand - particularly at our states of case, see? A

little bit hard to understand. What the devil was it?



This guy, you see, isn't communicating, he doesn't feel

insecure, he is not protecting anything, he hasn't got any

reaching going on, he had no real reason to reach, and so

forth. How did anybody get to him?



You can figure out a lot of answers to the thing, and they

all wind up with a communication line mixed up in them. And

of course the moment a communication line is mixed up in

them you haven't got the answer.



How did he originally feel the need of orientation and

familiarization in order to be comfortable? See, how did he

do this? How was this done to anybody, and how did he do it

to anybody else? And if so, why? So, there is a riddle

still sitting there, see? There is a riddle. But

we have the walkway back to the answer to that riddle. And

what you're walking, on the line of OT, is you're walking

to the answer of that riddle. And the funny part of it is,

when you put your foot on that which lies on the other side

of all of the energy and all of the confusion and all of

the overts and all the misidentification and everything

else - which you're handling right now as cases, and

auditors, see - right on the other side of that, just as it

took one step to get on the road, it only takes one step at

the other end of that roadway to suddenly go OT. OT is a

gradient process for a long period of time with a sudden

fantastic upsurge.



You'll get shadows of that upsurge as you're processing

somebody. You haven't made it yet, but he all of a sudden

will do something peculiar. He'll do something very

OTish - and the next forty-eight hours shake in his boots

because, you know, ha-ha. Blu-uh! Guy starts to reach for

the telephone and it leaps to his ear, you know? Scares

hell out of him.



Next session you'll spend processing it having happened.

But that's processable too. These are just the lines up.



But the realization at the other end, the solution to that

riddle and any of its ramifications, determines more or

less the state attained. In other words, processing is the

cure of having to be familiarized with things and having to

itsa things, and so forth. The end product of processing is

no further need to have to do these things. And as soon as

one attains that no further need to have to do one of these

things, one would find he would suddenly snap back to all

of the power that he possibly could want. At which moment

he probably turns around, and he's so mad at everybody

because of that time he spent there being right that he

rights the various wrongs that he was going to right, and

he probably will take a dip at that point and then he'll

come back up again. And there will be various curves and

toboggans along on this road that will probably look very

dizzy, but that's okay. So that's the way it is.



Now, we're undoing—we're undoing, then - this obsession to

itsa by using it. And because the dependency on it is so

great, you'll never get a bank taken apart, as far as I'm

concerned, until it has been utilized to its full.



Now, self-determinism, pan-determinism, personal beingness,

personal power, restored to the individual, is done on the

road of minimal help, maximum recovery of

self-determinism—or maximal recovery of self-ability to

itsa. See? That's up. Now, as the case goes along, its

progress is measured directly and immediately by the degree

that this is returned into the pc's hands. Therefore you

could get a fantastic number of engrams run - now let me show

you how you can mess this up, see - you'd get a fantastic

number of engrams run and a fantastic number of GPMs run,

and the pc would be foggy and wouldn't be very much alert,

and so on.



Oh, you haven't really harmed him. You've slowed down the

recovery in just this one way, by every time the pc says "Uh 

.. let me see, uh ... there's a picture here, and I

think it's uh " "Oh, all right, I'll date it for you. Is it

greater than a hundred trillion years ago? Is it less than

a hundred trillion years ago? Was it a hundred trillion

years ago? It's less than. All right, is it greater than

eighty trillion years; Less than eighty trillion? It's less

than," so forth and so forth.  "The date, is ..." so-and-so 

and so-and-so and so-and-so.



And the pc says, "Oh, all right. Hm-hm. Okay." See? See the

nonsense involved in this thing.



And it just goes much more subtly, see, much more subtly:

"You know I think I must have been one of the Brobdingnagians."



Little tiny head shake as one looks at the meter and sees

that it did not read on Brobdingnagians, but did read on

Lilliputians, see?



And then, "Oh, well, I didn't mean anything. I was helping

you out."



You actually have the identical problem that a mother has,

auditor. Some mamas solve it and some don't. They help

little Roscoe to a point where at twenty-one, little Roscoe

can't shovel soup into his gullet, see? Of course there's

an equal extreme the other way. They don't help little

Roscoe to a point where little Roscoe, at the age of

twenty-one, shoots them! Puts cyanide in the soup!



See, all of this is a happy mean, you see? And it isn't

constant one the next. That's what the trouble is, because

one pc requires more help another pc, because they're at

different levels of independence. And you get a pc who has 

a very high level of independence and a very deep level of

aberration, and of course you've got trouble! I mean, the

guy can't walk - he keeps putting his feet in the stew and in

the mud and everything else. And you watch this guy

caroming off into doors, and it practically hurts, you know

"Oh, I'll do it, I'll do it!" and at that moment, why,

spills the tureen over his head, you see?



Well, that's all within the margin of an auditor. That's

where his ability to play comes in, is how much does it

take to improve this guy's independence and

self-determinism? How much does it take to improve his

ability to know? How much help does he need in order to

know? And you'll find out that's a varying quantity, see?



Here's this poor guy off the street, he doesn't know which

end the door is you know? And he's helped enormously

because you actually show him where the door is. It makes

him a bit better. You understand, from there on out he can

find the door, he can itsa the door from there on out. See?

So you haven't taken all of his itsas away from him.



All right, well, that's the extreme case. But let's handle

that extreme case wrong. Let's handle this just dead wrong: 

We tell him he never can know where the door is. See? And

let's build him a special set of rails so that when he goes

toward the door he runs into it. And every time he walks

around that particular end, why, he'll collide with the

door, see? Well, at this point, of course, you have

exceeded the degree of. In other words, you haven't helped

him at all. You have deteriorated his ability.



And what you want to do is take what ability you have, that

you find there, don't you see, and gradually uncreate any

dependence that is created. And the perfect formula is

reduce it. See? Give him all the help he needs to get along

and then gradually reduce it. That is always safe.



Give him whatever help he needs to get along and then

reduce it - which makes something like 3N into about four or

five different routines, which is quite remarkable. And

eventually, why, he isn't even given a line plot. But

that's getting pretty adventurous, don't you see, because

he can get himself in more trouble without a line plot.

It's almost a dirty trick to turn somebody loose into a

wildcat GPM before he's run a few that are line-plotted,

you know? You can make a pc fly, but then the pc says, "I

don't think ... I don't think ... uh, I don't think

this sequence follows on through this way. Uh ... I think

it uh ... cuts off someplace here. Something cuts off."



"Well, follow your line plot! Follow your line plot! The

line plot. Give me the next item, the next item. That's

what I want, next item."



"Yeah, but uh ... "



"Next item!"



Well, even if it was there, the pc sooner or later is going

to be right enough to convince you that it isn't - because

you never let him find out.



Now, combining all of this nice sense of judgment is the

extra bonus of your own flubs, because you cannot reduce

them to zero. Don't ever try. Don't ever go beating your

brains out.



Because you get caught in cross-plays of communication

where you didn't quite understand what the pc said when you

thought you did, don't you see? And so you said, then, at that

time - the pc is saying, "Let's see, what was that series we

found? It was uh ... Let's see, I think I found early ... 

earlier that such a series we found ..." and so on.



Well, you say, "Well, you've already found it, you see?

It's been found for several sessions, and it's 25.4

trillion years ago," see? And he's trying to find this

date, you see? He's trying to re-remember what the date is,

and you're just trying to get the series started, see? So

you say, "Well, that was - that - oh, you're talking about 

the 25.4-trillion-year-ago series." (sigh) He says, "Yeah.

Yeah, I guess so. Uh ... I don ... I - I do - uh ... get

.. uh the ... No, you see, uh - that isn't the point. 

Um ... (sigh)"



And you finally let him stagger through this, because

you've, see, flicked his attention and slipped him the

mickey with the wrong communication line because you didn't

understand.



That wasn't what he was saying at all. He's trying to find

that lock incident that defended on the series, and his

communication being a little bit blurry, why, he's not

really communicating what he thinks he is communicating to

you, so you make a mistake on it. And because the pc's

communication line is so often fogged up in session, for an

auditor, then, to do a perfect job of handling the

communication line is impossible, because it depends upon

the pc's articulation and communication being perfect.



Sometime a pc will say something to you like this: "Well, I

suppressed my gains for this session." And what do you do?

Well, is he giving you an itsa? Is he announcing a

catastrophe? Is he getting off a suppression? See? Does he

want you to do something? What's the intention of his

communication? Well, maybe he doesn't even know, either.

And almost anything you answer to this, you're going to be

wrong! See?



So don't go around in fear of being wrong, and don't teach

people to be afraid that they're going to mishandle one of

these lines, because you're teaching them to be afraid of

something that's going to be inevitable - inevitable.



The pc all of a sudden looks up and he gets a starey-eyed

look in his eyes and he says, "Say, I don't think that's

true." You're running a Helatrobus implant, you see, and

"Say, I don't - I don't think that's true."



And you say, "Well, what?"



He says, "That. You know? I just don't think it is."



Well, what do you do? Is he talking about the Helatrobus

implant? Probability not. He's skipped into something.

What's happened here? What did he collided with? We don't know.



All right, to ask him for more data than got is a fatal

auditing error, so we ask him for more data than he's got

and we are in trouble. We don't ask him for the data he

does have, we are in trouble. Don't you see?



Because these are the troubles of handling an indefinite

communication line, and troubles always originate. The

communication line at its source, is indefinite, so therefore

the handling of it becomes a situation. So that makes you

have to get very slippy. And you have to learn various

things about the intention line - which we're not

particularly discussing today.



"Do you want to tell me about it?" Ha-ha-ha-ha - cut your

throat. do you put the pc's attention on anything? How do

you put his attention on a chair? You say "chair," don't

you? How do you put his attention on a house? You say

"house," don't you? How do you put his attention on a date?

You say "date," don't you? How do you put the pc's

attention on the auditor? say "auditor," don't you? "Do you

want to tell me about it?" Clang! Out of session, ARC

break, house falling down, everything going to pieces,

gains all wrapped up, everything betrayed - Christ, what

happened? Ha-ha!



You in vain try to trace back anything you did. Naturally,

you blame yourself for it. Well, you, in actual fact,

didn't do anything except inadvertently direct the pc's

attention in a direction where it wasn't going to give him

a sudden attention shift, because of your misunderstanding

of the thing the pc was talking about in the first place.

Do you see the liabilities of this kind of thing?



So, know how to do it right, and do it right most of the

time! See? Thats the only thing you can expect and hope for.



All right. This pc itsa line is going to get better to the

degree that it's permitted to exist. This doesn't mean to

the degree that you let the pc talk necessarily. It means

the degree that you keep the pc's attention directed by

directions where he can find things to identify in his

bank. And when he's found things in his bank to identify,

let him identify them.



You say, "All right. Now, I want you to take a look at that

incident there that has the robots in it.



Good. All right. That's fine. All right."



And he says, "Say, uh - "



"Yes, I know. They're robots."



Well, I'd just say that was too corny for words, see?



All right, you keep up that sort of thing with a pc very

long, and tell him what he is looking at always—see, it

isn't a 100 percent prop there, either. You sometimes tell

a pc what he's looking at, see? You put attention on the

track to some incident that you know is there, and he can

know is there, well, you're certainly giving him something

to itsa, aren't you. So you've given him something to itsa,

and he'll start itsaing it, has a clam, see? But if you

prevent his itsaing it after you have given it to him to itsa, 

you will see a gradual deterioration over a period of

intensives - not one session, it's a long period - of his

ability to identify. You'll see this deteriorating.



You're creating a dependence on your metering. You can

create a dependence on your recognition, a dependence on

his confirmation as to whether or not he's right. He says,

"Well, I don't know if it was the cowboys in white hats or

the black hats, and cow ... You look on the meter," he

will say. "Look on the meter."



One of the ways an auditor gets this started is

invalidating a pc's data. He invalidates the pc's data a

little bit, and - you know, tends to somewhat, and sounds

doubtful, and the pc sounds this—and finally the pc will

say "Look on the meter." And the auditor cuts his throat

and looks on the meter. See? It's a case of he should say,

"Well, I believe you. l don't have to prove it," see?



"If you don't believe me, look at the meter."



Proper response is, "Well, I believe you. Go ahead, tell me

what it is." Don't look on the meter.



Eventually you'll get a habit started whereby every time

the pc wants to communicate anything to you, he convinces

you by showing you that it bangs on the needle. And his

itsa line will start deteriorating. See, this can be done

in various ways. That's confirming his itsa line, which

leaves him with no positiveness. It leaves him with no

sensitivity as to what's right and what's wrong.



Well, that's an ability that you are trying to improve. And

if you look on it as an ability that you're trying to

improve and as the chief ability which is there to be

improved in a case, you really won't make many mistakes on

it. Your mistakes will be cut to a minimum. But if you look

on a case as something from which significances have to be

removed in any way that they can be removed, regardless of 

the self-determinism of the pc and regardless of his ability 

and regardless of his knowingness and his recognition and so 

forth, oddly enough, you will still make it, but you've 

multiplied your time factor considerably. Time factor is 

going way up - ten to one, something like that - because 

you're  deteriorating his ability.



Now, just auditing the pc in general, you'll see you will

inevitably get an improvement of the ability by the removal

of charge. Now, if at the same time you're creating a

dependency, to the degree that you're increasing ... You

see? You can increase and decrease, and whereby he's

getting more track and more charge in his vicinity, his

actual potential of improvement is being cut back by his

dependency on the itsa of the auditor, see? It improves

anyhow. But the auditor is cutting it back, and he's just

costing himself more auditing time, more auditing time,

more auditing time, more auditing time. More difficulty,

more ARC breaks, more upsets.



There's many a way, many a way by which all this can be

handled in various ways. See, you have what you call an

ARC-breaky-type pc. Well now, this pc probably has a high

degree of independence and probably has a high degree of

itsa ability already, but possibly is a bit swamped with

charge, see?



All right. Now we take this pc and we deteriorate his

ability to itsa, you see, by creating a dependency on the

auditor. You know, by telling him everything, by telling

him everything.



You know, "That read. That didn't read," and so on. of

course, the funny part of it is - there's one other point of

this I should mention in passing - if you don't tell a pc

when an item is finally discharged, in the early stages of

running GPMs, he'll leave items charged, and the mechanics

of the bank will cause him to bounce and ARC break. See? So

that again is one of these factors whereby you're putting

in the itsa line - its a discharge.



Now, but sooner or later the pc is going to start telling

you when it is discharged. Well, that's damn well when you

better stop telling the pc that it's clean. Do you

understand? You just better stop telling him at that point.



Ah, but you've got an interesting problem here. Maybe

you've stopped telling him at the point where he still

can't tell. Now you're going to have hell raised, because

you're going to have him stuck in incidents. You're going

to have RIs live all over the place, you're going to have

his postulates live and so forth. I think I'd start working

on a campaign on him: "Well, run it until you're very sure

it's flat" is the kind of a campaign I'd start running, is

"Get that item until you're very sure it's flat."



"All right," he says, "that's flat."



"Okay, say it again. Good. Fine. You're right, that's flat," see?



And he all of a sudden, "See, I can tell you." You know?



"All right, good. Good," see? "Fine." And wean him. And

gradually don't check, see? Don't check. Say, "All right, I

can depend on you." Because he can tell you, eventually,

when it's flat.



He'll also get very bored with an item and leave it

half-unflat. You can sometimes make a citizen out of him by

letting him do so. Trouble is, he's liable to have bounced

and gone into something else.



Now, there's various problems involved here. I'm not trying

to tell you this is simple. Don't get so involved in the

problems, however, that you miss the basic mechanics of the

situation.



Basic mechanics of the situation: the pc is the one who is

living with this bank, and if he can't tell what's in it,

and so forth, he can't live with it. Obvious? I mean,

that's one of these ne plus ultra things. You're

unfortunately, or fortunately, not going to be at his side

for the next two hundred trillion billion squillion years.

See, you're not going to be there telling him whether it is

a GPM ... you see? Going to have to find this out for

himself. So sooner or later, you're going to have to kick

him off with regard to this bank.



The time to start is when you start auditing him. You start

auditing him, why, start weaning him. Don't increase his

dependency. Decrease it. Give him all the help he needs!

But isn't that a tricky statement? How much help does he

need? Well, you know if he doesn't have line plots and a

design on the track and the concepts of life, and that sort

of thing - if he doesn't have something like that - he'll never

put his foot on the road at all. And we know that if he

doesn't have a line plot for a standard GPM that he's got

to run, and so forth, we know he'll wrap himself around a

telegraph pole, man. He'll practically finish himself off

by giving you wrong items and upside-down items and missing

items, and so forth. And the next thing you know, why, the

penalty is much worse than the cure, here. See?



Well, where do we go? Well, how much help do we give him?

Well, we give him all the help he needs. How much help does

he need? Well, that is something you establish individually

in each pc.



You're going to get ahold of some pc sometime or

another - you know, he possibly hasn't been down here long,

or he got here by accident, or something of the sort. And

this pc cognites on the Axioms, knocks out the bank, does

Change of Space Processing between your auditing room and

the next building for a while, goes around and thanks you

very much; you're left with your jaw dropped because you

haven't had an opportunity to get your meter on and tested.



Well, don't feel so betrayed that you didn't get a chance

to audit. You audited. So, there are various degrees by

which you have to approach this problem, and that's the

difference of pcs.



Now, these very, very ARC-breaky pcs sometimes get a

reputation for being ARC breaky and they get very upset

this way and so on. It's actually where their concept of

their own independence is being invidiously cut up by

people putting itsas in for them. And the charge on the

bank is too great, so that they get into this stuff and

they'll dramatize at the drop of a hat.



And this is upsetting to them. It's more upsetting to them

to dramatize, but how did they dramatize? They dramatized

only because somebody put in the itsa line they were not

able to.



So, what do you do with such a pc? Well, a pc who's

routinely ARC breaky must obviously have something wrong

with the itsa line. Well, he wasn't the result of auditing.

It was probably something that occurred before auditing,

because we are not in the business of aberrating people.

Well, it must have occurred in some aberrative area.



Well, you can do such a thing as give them an

eighteen-button Prepcheck on the itsa line.



Simple. Now, an eighteen-button Prepcheck is not thrown out

by the itsa line because the eighteen buttons are the

select choice, very best, grade A, straight-from-the-ocean

itsas. You realize that a Prepcheck is almost the perfect

series of itsas. Most powerful buttons, so they're [the]

most powerful itsas in existence since the beginning of the

universe. "Since your beginning of travail, has anything

been suppressed?" Wonder how long that would run. But

that's an itsa, because he must have itsa'd by suppressing.

So you're getting off the crisscross, see? If he suppressed

it, then he can itsa it. If you get the suppression off,

then he can itsa.



These are almost perfect itsa lines. The Prepcheck actually

comes into its own. But very interesting about a Prepcheck:

You can prepcheck the itsa line, see, on that. That takes

the cake, man.



Now, you take one of these very ARC-breaky pcs that has a

very great reputation for being ARC breaky, and you put the

itsa line into some comprehensible thing. Very often, if

you just explain to them what the itsa line is and

prepcheck it, you'll be better off than trying to redefine

something, because you won't then be prepchecking the itsa

line. But this takes some doing.



An auditor has always got to be able to interpret the

auditing command and clarify the auditing command so that

the pc knows what it is. One of the best ways to clarify an

auditing command like "Recall an ARC break" is explain an

ARC break and give it to him, because you use any other

word, you'll run into some GPM - almost certain to run into

GPMs. "ARC break" is contained in no GPM and therefore is a

totally nonbackground word. See? Give him a new word, new

symbol.



All right, so you say "itsa line: Well, your - your

recognition of things. Your consideration of things. What

you think life is all about. Your opinions. Somebody says,

'What's a cat?' and you say, 'It's a four-legged animal.' I

mean, your right to do that." You know, go on, go on,

explain it any way you want. Prepcheck the itsa line. Or

get some other designation for it. But prepcheck it.



And you'll be very fascinated that the pc who is the

ARC-breaky pc is not really ARC breaking because of

auditing and bypassed charge. This pc's itsa line is cut

right here and now as his most colossal PTP by something

else, nothing to do with auditing.



I'll give you a marvelous example of how somebody's itsa

line is cut right here and now: He's on this planet, isn't

he? If he tries to get off, he hits the between-lives area.

His itsa line is cut because he can't itsa anything else in

the universe. He can look at the stars, but he can't tell

what condition they're in. See, he's the prisoner on the

island who looks toward the mainland longingly, so his itsa

line is cut.



See, there's all kinds of ways of cutting the itsa line,

don't you see? No reason to dream them all up for the pc.

Put in a Prepcheck on his itsa line. You'll be astonished.

He'll make some case progress - sudden case progress, and

cease to be ARC breaky.



Other ways of attacking this same problem sometimes give us

the very, very fascinating and interesting aspect of

somebody who has found that the ARC break is a solution to

some problem. So he solves the problem by ARC breaking.

There's various ramifications, but he normally runs into

this when you prepcheck the itsa line. 



You have a big piece of understanding here. It's a big, new, 

whole piece of understanding. It's a new piece of the jigsaw 

puzzle which has fitted into place and made citizens out of 

most of the center pieces and has shown us that there's just this

little few out here on the edge, of how come a guy had to

identify and familiarize himself in order to feel alive and

secure? How come a guy got into an obsessed necessity to

itsa? That little piece is about the only piece missing

right now, and it's up here in the corner. And its missing 

just to this degree: You show me a problem, very shortly later,

I'll show you the answer.



Thank you very much.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

view for bookmarking

text only  mail this message to a friend

Sponsored by Fatbrain.com {*}  post reply    << prev · next >>  

subscribeto alt.religion.scientology 

return to search results 



 

 





SHOPPING ·  Yellow Pages ·  5˘ Long Distance 

Free Stuff  ·  Trade with Datek  ·  GET IT NOW @ NECX 

FREE downloads! ·  Auctions & Classifieds  

  

 

Home  ·  Communities  ·  My Deja News  ·  Power Search  ·  Post  

 





About Deja News  ·  Ad Info  ·  Our Advertisers 







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 1995-99 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. 

Conditions of use  ·  Site privacy statement reviewed by TRUSTe  



