FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



EXPANDED DIANETICS (XDN) TAPE 2 of 4



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



The XDN Tapes:



XDN-1 30 Mar 72 Expanded Dianetics

XDN-2 7 Apr 72 Expanded Dianetics and Word Clearing

XDN-3 7 Apr 72 Auditor Administration

XDN-4 7 Apr 72 Illness Breakthrough





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



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





********** TAPE XDN 2 *************



[We don't know the source that was originally scanned,

but we checked these against an original set of reels from

the 1970s and found various omissions which are marked

with ">"]





EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE No.2



A lecture given to the Flag Dianetic Auditing Team on 7 April 1972.



C7204C07 SO XDN-2





EXPANDED DIANETICS AND WORD CLEARING





All right. This is the 7th of April '72 and have you got your

misunderstood words cleaned up from the last lecture? Are

you sure? All right, well that's fine. Then we can proceed

with this one.



And this is a specialist Dianetics lecture which is the

Graduate Dianetics Course, actually. The first thing I want

to talk to you about a little bit is word clearing. It's

obvious that a Dianetic specialist would really have to

know his business on the subject of word clearing. And

that's interesting because word clearing then also

contains, if you're going to correct it, you have to 



> correct an ARC break and so on, so it includes rudiment 

> actions and you have to 



know rudiment actions in order to pick the ruds out bit by bit 

and run those with R3R.



And so it's quite obvious that word clearing is a necessary action.



It's interesting that you and the team are doing very, very well,

and that your word clearing is very good. If they don't

have uniform success with word clearing, the auditor's TRs

leave something to be desired or his metering or something.

And they every once in a while, why, will have a

catastrophe on the subject of word clearing which occurs in

the middle of a rundown. And then they really have a

catastrophe.



And the main difficulty with that is they don't clear the

Word Clearing Correction List, and we already have taken

this up on the folder line. But if you don't word clear the Word

Clearing Correction List at the time when there are no

flubs in word clearing, then when you get a flub in word

clearing you have lost your correction tool.



But this, "Clear the list first", can go a little bit too

far. Let us get a situation where a pc is in a screaming

ARC break and somebody clears the L1C before he handles the

ARC break. Now that came up on the line the other day and I

thought, "Well, if that pc had really been ARC broken," -

it turned out that the pc had a withhold or something -

"but if that pc had really had an ARC break, that would have

been it." Because, of course, auditing over the top of an

ARC break just pushes a person down and they get sadder and

sadder and sadder and sadder. But in general - he got away

with it. But if a pc had a serious ARC break in the last

session, why, your best bet if you do not have a word

cleared L1C, your best bet 



> would be to put in the rudiment of the ARC break rather 

> rapidly and again you



would be adrift if you had never cleared the word ARC break. So 

to protect the pc it is quite obvious that at the beginning of 

his auditing, we had better clear this word "ARC break" and we 

had better clear this word "present time problem" and we had 

better clear this word "withhold". Otherwise we'll find ourselves

somewhere along the line adrift. And then we would have the

proposition of having to spend two hours clearing a list

while the pc was nattering about how bad the auditor was. I

don't think it would be very easy to do.



So the rudiments would probably be the first thing you

would clear. We can make a rule about that and so on. Not

that he has one, it's just "Let's do it just in case" so

that he suddenly recognizes when you say it what you are

asking for.



So word clearing here is of considerable interest and it

is, of course, just itself as a technology.

And that can be studied in it's own frame of reference.



But where it comes in, in this particular field of

specialist Dianetics, is you will find the bulk of the

people who have had any difficulty whatsoever have been

audited over misunderstood words. And there are two big

things that give people a very bad start on auditing. If

they don't know the meaning of "how do you do" and "is" and

"what" and "did" and a few words like

that. And then he's had it because Axiom 28 is violated.

You don't have communication so you won't get duplication

so therefore they can't do what you said and so on.



Now this is a considerable breakthrough in its own little right

because I never realized that auditors stopped clearing

words in the commands. And I understand now that it dropped

out to a marked degree where the auditor would read the

command and ask the pc if he understood that, or not even

ask the pc that - just read the command, take a word and

sail off into the wide blue horizon. He would think he had

a reading item when he didn't. He would have a reading

misunderstood word. And that in itself would make a great

deal of difficulty.



There's probably many a drug addict who does not know the

meaning of the word "amphetamine" which is the commoner

drug which, of course, they call speed. And somebody told

me the other day that it was Benzedrine, which is one of

the keep awake drugs of yesteryear, and that say that is an

amphetamine. I don't believe that. But in any event you

understand just with the words I was using these are just

the names of drugs. Well, you can imagine this 10 year old

kid - I think that's when they start on drugs now or is it

8? This 10 year old kid or 8 year old kid you ask him now,

"When were you on amphetamines?" or "Were you on Benadryl

or Benzedrine, now which were you on?" and you get a read

and you say "Ah ha!". But he's never heard of this stuff.

See, actually he was on LSD but he's never heard of it as

LSD anyhow. That's acid.



And actually not even the news papers reporters know the

name of the stuff because they keep calling it LSD and LSD

isn't, isn't its name. It's LSD 25 if you want to be very

purist about it.



So you can imagine taking this drug addict who's already

all fogged up on drugs - should carry a little foghorn on

his shoulder when he's walking down the street. And what do

you find? You wouldn't know anything about it because he

didn't know anything about it.



Now how you would get over that point is you would have to

clear up with him what drugs he was on. You couldn't take a

canned list of drugs and expect very much action because he

would require some sort of an education on the subject of

chemistry. So what did they call these things? You can

probably identify them from such things as acid. "I was on

acid, kid, you know. I was on acid, you know." They don't

even know what the hell, you talk about the stupidity of

things. It's absolutely marvelous, you know.



I was tracing this back intelligence wise and it is the

perfect intelligence drug - very very simple to make, a few

kitchen utensils. And probably originated in Germany. And

it is probably an intelligence drug of some type or other.

Terribly cheap and then drives a person stark staring mad.

And these dumb yips are actually taking this stuff.



Gruesome tales occur on that drug, very

gruesome. A girl got a scratch on the back of her hand,

wasn't bleeding very much, took it to a doctor. Ah, it was

all right, he let her go.



And it, hand got to swelling up but it was just a little

scratch. And all of a sudden her hand swelled up and she

got gangrene, which is just rotting flesh, and they had to

amputate her hand and arm. She was on LSD which basically

is a drug called ergo or ergot which is used to constrict

the blood vessels so that blood won't circulate. And if

anybody gets any kind of a whee out of LSD, that would be

quite remarkable because it is simply they don't get any

blood in their brain and that must be the whole kick. It's

pretty marvelous, see.



So now you're busy auditing somebody who doesn't really

know he has been on this, and you ask him if he's ever been

on that. You might get a read on it. But he's liable to run

something else or not know what you're talking about.



I probably should clarify something here a little bit. The

reason why the scratch infected is all the time when she

scratched her hand. And all the time she was on LSD which

contains ergot, which is the constriction lysergic acid. It

constricts all the blood vessels and the arteries and so

on. So there couldn't be any blood get to it and it

wouldn't circulate, no blood circulate and it wouldn't

heal. So the doctor took his finger off his number on that one.



So this would make quite an interesting engram of some kind

or another if you were to run it on somebody. She wouldn't

know the word ergot, she wouldn't know the word LSD 25, she

wouldn't know LSD, she wouldn't know lysergic acid. And

maybe they called it something locally. Maybe they didn't

even call it acid.



So it is the pc's nomenclature. Now the pc isn't really

likely to use words he doesn't know the meaning of when

he's giving you some kind of an item. He isn't likely to.

It would be possible but not necessarily true. So you don't

have to clear the item list.



I noticed there was somebody clearing an item list and

this, useless. Why clear the item list? Now it would work

the same way with a drug list so that you wouldn't really

want a canned list. Or you need to know what I mean by a

canned list - one that has been pre-prepared and issued. You

really wouldn't want that. But he might not know the

meaning of the word drug and I notice that people

occasionally will have been on some awful medicine of some

kind or another. You know, like there is a medicine puts

people to sleep called bromine. And this doctor was simply

giving her these tranquilizers and it was just bromine, and

they don't give it to you as a drug. And then people who

have epilepsy, which is a type of disease which gives them

seizures, are almost always found on some minor drug that

prevents them from getting these - they call them petit mal

seizures. That's epilepsy. I don't care how they call it.



Sometimes they really seize and sometimes it's just slight.



If an epileptic ever took you by the hand and

so forth, he's liable to break every bone in your hand, if

he suddenly had a seizure. But the doctors keep them on

something to prevent this. It's just a tranquilizer and

they keep them on that one year, year in and year out.



And then you come along as an auditor and you try to audit

the pc and you tell the pc that he'll have to go off that

drug. And then all of a sudden, why something will happen

from someplace or another that the pc will tell the doctor

that they have been taken off the drug by the auditor.



And the doctor will call up plaintively asking you to

please put her back on the drug because she needs this. And

you get into a collision between medical treatment and so on.



Now I've been using a lot of medical words here or chemical

words really. Just don't pay any attention to them because

they're mostly gobbledygook, and there's an awful lot of

gobbledygook words. Gobbledygook just means nonsense

chatter, you see. There's an awful lot of them.



I remember in ancient Greece trying to disentangle Latin

names for diseases into the Greek and Greek's names for the

same diseases. And then the Greeks telling you they had

certain diseases when they were speaking a dialect nobody

else spoke and it gets pretty gobbledygook.



So actually then, what do you clear? Do you see? You could

find yourself starting to give somebody a total college

education in chemistry or medicine.



Now Mary Sue's brother, who is a radiologist, an X-ray

doctor. He actually was in the Navy and he specialized in

this field and he came out and he's down in Texas or

someplace now. He was talking to Mary Sue not too long ago

when she was over in the States, and he said, "But you

can't get", - he's very disgusted with the patients. He's

done his internship and all that but he's very disgusted

with patients because they can't tell you what's wrong. And

you ask them and you ask them and you ask them and they

can't tell you what's wrong and they come in and they can't

tell you what's wrong. And they tell you some of the, they

just don't talk to you see and so on. And I've been on the

verge of sending him one of these little put-together dolls

which is plastic, you know. They're about 14" tall,

something like that, and they have all the organs inside of

them so that his patients could point to them and say,

"This is where I hurt," you know, and he would get

someplace with it.



But you cannot expect somebody to say to you, "Well, I have

been taking 2cc of morphine, I've been using a dirty

needle, and originally I was being given an injection in

the "gluteus maximus" - meaning his butt. "But now it is all

in the biceps." He comes in and he says, "I got

a concrete arm," see. It means he's injected himself so

much in the arm that the arm has gone solid to the touch or

something like that. You might expect him to say something

like that but the chances are he won't. And the chances are

he will just simply sit there and expect you to do

something magical without his volunteering a thing. But

what he will volunteer he has tremendous interest on. And

that is a technical datum.



Now what blows down is what is really real to him. And what

he volunteers will usually read and blow down. So that

although you have to word clear correction lists, clearing

the pc's own list is not necessary. But that isn't the real

problem. The real problem is getting him to make one. There

is a person on these lines who has had murder, rape, death,

who has been audited for years and has never mentioned

these; death of people around her, perversion in the

family, the wildest family background you ever heard of.

The pc's not been intensively on my lines. In other words,

I haven't been C/Sing this pc or I would have. But this

person was sort of going downhill and so I got interested

in this folder, and I took a look at it. And the

information isn't there. The information is on a rumor

line. l started getting it into the folder. But that

information came in on a rumor line.



This pc as far as I know, it could be wrong, maybe, that I

didn't check the folder. I haven't gone exhaustively

through the folder - but just looking at the pc's condition.

This hair-raising existence she led is not part of any

list, not part of any white form, not part of any record.

And 1/100th of it would be enough to send somebody around

the bend.



Now hold your hat - she was also a psychiatric nurse.

Suffering god, and you've been trying to audit that with

all kinds of upper level processes and everything else but

nobody ever got to the nitty-gritty, meaning the important

core of the case.



So therefore your success will enormously depend upon your

ability to sniff out the real hot dope. If the medical

doctor thinks he has trouble on this, think of trying to

pull a withhold on somebody who was cheating on her husband

for 39 years and keeping him from ever knowing anything

about it - with his best friend.



Now, I've mentioned the case before, is the dear little old

lady that would never give up any withholds and had never

done anything until we suddenly started going at it this

way; "Did you murder somebody?", "Did you poison people?",

"Have you robbed banks?" She's sitting there with a little

flower in her hat, dear little person with mittens on,

don't you see and . . . That's really taking the long way

around. And of course it came up, "Oh, I didn't do any of

those things. All I did was . . ." and there it was and

that was that.



Now you're not necessarily going to be running much in the

way of ruds. But I'm giving you the basis of why people

don't talk. So therefore chains of things they have

withheld, that is to say, times of withholding and so

forth, will get you quite a bit of information. But it will

also pull out from underneath the case the basic 

chains that are keeping them very pinned down.



So the case that doesn't talk to you is, normally speaking,

the normal case. I mean, the case that you bring on off the

street, why, he has all kinds of ideas, like certain people

shouldn't inquire into certain privacies. And nobody should

know anything about anybody. In fact, here is a book that

was just put out, and one of our people just sent it in to

me, and it's just been published by the University of

Michigan press. And the name of it is - it's a pocketbook,

probably all over the US newsstands right now - and it's the

Assault on Privacy, computers, data banks and dossiers.

Quote, "What misuse of computers is doing and can do to

individual freedoms - a warning of a new form of human

slavery", unquote. Now that's by Ralph Nader, by the way,

who has been attacking the FDA on our behalf.



So if a smart guy like that can propagandize against the

exchange of information, why then there must be something

wrong with giving up information. Now to run consequences

in Dianetics would find you doing what? Running the back

end of the engram, you would never

get the beginning of the engram. If you can't get to the

beginning of the engram, you won't get to the beginning of

the chain and the TA will go up like mad.

- -So let's have an item - "being scared after battles". Now that's

pretty obvious that every one of those you ran, see, that's

pretty obvious, isn't it, every one of those you ran, of

course, has got a battle as the beginning of it. There he

is, he's got, he says, "I have this somatic in my

shoulder," and so on. And you say, "What is the item?"

"Well, it's being scared after a battle." You're going to

grind a long, long time and you're not going to get that

somatic in his shoulder or anything else because it didn't

occur. There was such an item run a year or so ago and it

was "running away from a battle". That's marvelous when you

come right down to it, see. Now that is an invitation to

run the back end of the engram, and I must warn you about

this because it will give you sudden and then weird high TAs.



So you actually shouldn't run a withhold as a chain. Why?

It's after the incident. But you could run all the overts

you wanted to and all the motivators you wanted to because

you would get the withhold. But he isn't going to tell you

the overt because he's withholding it. Do you see what goes

on here?



So you can get an "out of communication-ness" with the pc.

And there'd be certain chains will remain seized up in the

bank which nobody has touched. So this person has gone on

for a long time and he has all these chains that have never

been touched and never been run, and by preference he runs

other chains. And that is just a case of the pc who won't talk.



You have such a pc, you're auditing him right now. He's on

the lines. He's run the same thing seven times he said, I

mean. Well, he's an engram specialist, do you follow? He

specializes in one chain. You got it.



Why? Because there's something very wrong with the way he's

been audited and the way he's been talking to auditors, and

there's something very wrong with his track, and there's

something very wrong in all directions. And whenever you

see this kind of thing you say, "There is something VERY

wrong." And the first thing you can select out is there may

be something wrong with his PT environment. And the next

thing you can select out is maybe there was something wrong

with his auditing. And the next thing you can select out is

maybe he has just been avoiding running. Because when a

fellow tells you he's run the same thing seven times and it

isn't gone yet, well, he's certainly avoiding something.



Now you could say right away, "Well, you could run

'avoiding', you know." Now I do want to call to your

attention - that's not the right answer. I do want to call to

your, I'll give it to you in a minute, but I do want to

call to your attention, just to close off this other

subject - watch these after the fact things. Because you'll

be sitting there, "Help, the TA has now gone to 6.5." And

then all of a sudden the wrong time to realize that is

you're running "finished". Seemed like a good item at the

time, "a time you were finished." That was pretty good.



It comes under the same rules as interiorization and you

should have a familiarity with interiorization processing.

And the thing which cracks the back of interiorization is

when the fellow goes out of something he must have gone

into it. So you have to run going into it. Now the

Interiorization Rundown has been under overhaul and I

should give you this one too because you're doing word

clearing.



Interiorization Rundown, you'll find yourself being called

upon to do an Int/Ext Correction List every time you see

interiorization read on a Word Clearing Correction form.

Now it's there for a purpose. But it worries people because

it reads. Now it can go out from day to day and some

people, particularly C/Ses, become frantic and they handle

it and handle it and handle it and handle it and they worry

and worry and worry.



Now there was something wrong with the original

Interiorization Rundown. Flow 1 was what you call

"permissive" or "general". It permitted the pc to go in any

direction. So Flow 1 was often some other kind of a flow.

So the flow situation is "put in". Flow 0 is "went in". So you

can run the flows wrong. And if you're correcting one of

these things the fastest thing to do is just to, if the

guy's in a heck of a lot of mass and all that sort of thing

and you're trying to straighten it out is this wrong flow

situation. Because there was a missing flow "put in" a time

you were "put in".



And that's what they're all afraid of - going to jail. Do you

see it? Now you can even figure out they were put in this

universe. So there's a missing flow. That is actually the

flow 1. So the original issues on the thing was perfectly

valid and it works but sometimes when it has to be

corrected and corrected and corrected and corrected nobody

really asks this burning question. This really can be a

missing chain called "put in" and it will probably be

corrected and the Int pack will he corrected and so forth

on this. We usually don't correct things unless we're

having a lot of trouble with them. They're having a little

trouble with this in the field but that isn't the trouble

with it. The trouble is they just don't run 1 to 9. A to D

and they say . . .



Now here's the main trouble with it is they've never got

the word defined. It's a brain cracking word.



So if the word has never been well cleared on a Word

Clearing Correction List it will continue to read. Now you

just had one come through where it did read and you were

going to do an Int/Ext. Well now the test is simply this:

The TA was not misbehaving. Only do an Int Ext correction list

when you've got a TA misbehavior - too high or really too

low. You see that? Now you call separate out a tremendous

amount if you just recognize and remember; don't go panic

on Interiorization read. Don't panic on it the hell with

it. TA wasn't high. Now Interiorization is only run to cure

a high TA. It is not run to exteriorize somebody. So

therefore if the TA wasn't high you have a no situation. So

Int read, two way comm, so forth, "How do you feel about

interiorization?" "Do you understand what the word means?".

You don't ask them one after the other "How do you feel

about interiorization?" Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap

yap yap F/N. So that s it. That takes a weight off of your

shoulders.



And the other one is if just "waffle, waffle...(etc.)"

"Give me a definition for it". And he'll say, "Well, I just

never knew that". And get him to define it and it'll stop

reading.



So that point is something you should know

something about. Thank you very much.



END OF TAPE

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

