ENGRAM CHAIN RUNNING A lecture given on 11 June 1963

ENGRAM CHAIN RUNNING A lecture given on 11 June 1963

Сообщение auditor » 28 дек 2015, 12:55

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/


ENGRAM CHAIN RUNNING

A lecture given on
11 June 1963

Thank you.

Well, how are you?

Audience: Fine. Thank you.

Good. This is what?

Audience: June the 11th.

June 10th.

Audience: 11th.

11th? I lost a day. All right, 11 June A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course .

Now, this lecture today reminds me very interestingly of 42 Aberdeen Road, and Elizabeth,
New Jersey, and 1949, Bay Head, New Jersey. Quite reminiscent, because this lecture
concerns engrams.

And I finally found out why you can't run engrams. That's an awful slow take on my part.
There's been something wrong with the communication; the communication of the matter.
And I finally found out you've been trying to run engrams. And you never run engrams; you
run chains of engrams. So we'll call this technology which I'm giving you "engram running
by chains," well understanding that nobody ever successfully ran engrams any other way.

This is the way I ran engrams back in 1949. Let me tell you where it got crossed up. Oh, I
fancied this up; this is very simple these days because we've got tremendous technology. I
can give you a very close-to-rote series of actions that are very easy to do. Let me tell you
where this got fancied up. You got it crossed up with repetitive processing: "Flatten the
process." So naturally, you have to flatten the engram, don't you? Hmmm! No, you only have
to flatten the chain. You don't have to flatten the engram, you flatten the chain. But repetitive
processing is what raised its ugly head and got you all mixed up on running engrams. "Flatten
that process!" "The way out is the way through!" You know? That kind of thing.

So you apply that to a single engram; you're in a mess promptly, for several reasons. Because
it is only part of a chain of similar incidents which, in itself, is only part of a time track which
has all sorts of incidents on it. And you're essentially running a time track-not a stick, not a
chunk of something. These things are all related. So therefore, all engrams are handled as
parts of a chain of similar incidents. And you never handle an engram all by itself. Because
they don't exist all by themselves. I've already said it's part of a chain, and the chain is part
of a time track; how can you handle it all by itself? It's too closely related to these other two
things to be so handled.

Now, if it were just one item, like a hunk of mud or something, you could bring it in and mix
it in water and precipitate it, and so forth. And then you'd pick up another hunk of mud, and
handle it in some particular way, and then pick up another hunk of mud and handle it in some
particular way. Well, that would be relatively easy. But unfortunately, the hunk of mud is a
chain of engrams-is never a single engram. You've got to handle this thing as a chain and
part of a chain.



Now, if you are a skilled auditor, you can pick up bypassed charge. You know why the PC is
ARC breaking. You can find it out in a fast hurry. PC ARC breaks, bang! Either you know
what you're doing (know what just must have happened), or you can shake it out of the meter
in an awful hurry, and locate it and indicate it. And the ARC break will cease. And until you
have a reality on being able to do this as an auditor, you're going to have very upset sessions.
Because the PC will ARC break inexplicably. You won't ever be able to find out why he's
ARC breaking.

You'll have the trouble that we used to have in the old days, where we had to have a process
for an ARC break. Well, it might have gotten to it and it might not have gotten to it, and it
was random, but now we could immediately and directly locate the bypassed charge that is
causing the PC to ARC break. Now, that's very, very important to engram running because
the bypassed charge is always the earlier incident on the engram chain. And you bypass the
earlier incident on the engram chain, you get an ARC break. This is elementary, my dear
Watson.

Charge. There, by the way, will be quite a few bulletins out on this; two have already been
written-enormous things-and there'll be another bulletin on the material I'm giving you
today. And these will be dressed up and put out into a new book on the subject; this lecture is
the first release of this material. Therefore, I'm not releasing all of this material. I'm not
telling you that in order to run an engram-I can tell you this, but not elaborate on it; let me
say that-in order to run an engram you've got to know what the time track is and be able to
handle, the time track. You should know what you're trying to handle in terms of charge.
What is charge.

Now, the charge of course is that electronic ping-bang that hits the PC in the blonk and
causes him to go bunk, or blows and causes him to get better. See, you pays your money and
you takes your chance on charge. You either release the charge and the PC gets better, or you
encyst and stir up the charge and the PC blows his stack. There's two roads by which you can
travel on charge, and there's no middle ground. There isn't any middle ground. Just forget the
fact that you could go on and grind for eighteen years and get no change on the PC. The PC
will either get better or get worse. He won't remain the same.

Now, what do we mean by getting worse? Actually, he might think better, and feel worse.
You get the ideas His knowledge has increased, but the charge is still knocking his `ead off.
Cow, you can get into that situation in engram running. You can lay open a tremendous
amount of engramic information. He can get all kinds of information-you never blow any
charge off of it anyplace. Well, that's because you weren't looking for basic, you were
looking for information .

Many an auditor falls for this, because the PC wants to `snow how come he was on the planet
Yukzuk in a railway-conductor's uniform, you see? What was he doing there? And that's all
very interesting, and we can assuage his curiosity to some degree, but if we go in for just
assuaging the curiosity of the thing- dramatizing watching TV', or something like that, you
see?-we unfortunately get into the situation where we're not following down an engramic
chain.

So here, you see, is another great liability in running engrams. We get so absorbed in
dramatis personae, and that sort of thing, that we actually aren't running the chain of engrams
at all, we are simply trying to find out. See. Get that as a liability, because it is a liability. You
actually can find out all about what this PC was doing on the planet Ilkzuk-you could find
out all about it. The only trouble is, the basic on it was on the planet Panwan, which was a
trillion years earlier. You see?

So, engram handling is engram handling in that you want the chain of engrams which lead to
the basic of that chain; you want to go down that chain and get the basic of the chain. Why?
Well, every time you run an engram, you open up a little valve. We have a big joke around
Saint Hill about the "weather valves." Workmen and I are always talking about these weather



valves. And they get stuck open and they get stuck shut, and various other things happen. Vie
have our opinions as to who's doing it. We think it's Profumo now, and so forth.

Well, if you could imagine an equally hypothetical series of valves: one between each pair of
engrams, see? So let's take basic on the chain; that's engram 1. And then we get 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20 a little valve between each one of these pairs,
see? All right. You run number 20 on the chain and you unwittingly open the valve from
number 19. And the charge contained in number 19 restimulates and leaks, to some degree,
into 20. So you're trying to run the charge out of 19 by running 20. The charge is coming
from 19. After a very short period of time, it's all coming from 19 now.

Well, now this is very interesting because it poses this kind of a condition: Number 20, if you
continue to run it, gets sticky, solid, E-Meter action ceases, no tone arm action on running it.
There's nothing on it, you see, it's just gum. Or it's getting more and more solid, and it'll
eventually collapse on the PC. What's making it collapse? Well, it's the charge in 19. And
you could run 20 endlessly without ever taking any charge off 19. But this makes 19 potential
bypassed charge. So the PC will ARC break. Do you see that now? You opened the valve and
then didn't do anything about it. So, the thing to do is to find out-by the way, you don't
have to find 19, which is quite interesting; you can sometimes find 16. But let us just keep it
in an orderly progression here, and we find 19.

Now, oddly enough, until we found 20, we couldn't have found 19, because it's as though we
had a big barrier across the track. It's all the charge there in 20, don't you see, prevents us
from seeing 19.

And this is a very funny thing: we can say, "Give us the earliest engram on this chain" (this is
inevitable), and they give you number 20. See? And the E-Meter only registers on 20, and 20
will register that this is the earliest incident on this line. It'll do this consistently, you see,
because the track is barriered. The E-Meter, the reality, nothing else can get back of 20.

Although you've asked for the earliest, that's true of the earliest part of the incident, you see?
You always get more first part of the incident, you see; you can always find a few minutes
earlier on an incident. Well, similarly, right on down to basic, why, you can always find an
earlier engram.

See, even though your meter kept saying that it was the earliest engram, or even though the
PC and the meter said that it was the earliest part of the engram-that nothing like this ever
happened before-as soon as we sweep some of this debris away, well, we find out we're
looking at number 19. It's now the earliest, see? And it'll continue to be the earliest till we
clean it up a bit. And as soon as we've cleaned it up a bit, we've got number 18. And as soon
as we cleaned 18 up, we now find the absolutely regrettable first incident on this line. And
what do we find? We find 17. And that is absolutably the first incident on this line. And we
get 16. Do you see what I mean?

Now, if you recognize some of these, they're terribly interesting, but awfully simple, idiotic
points. You could take a piece of garden hose, or something of the sort, and put clamps on it,
see, and put a block of wood across it, and say this is an engram, number 20, you see? Now
run this engram and then loosen up this little clamp, and you will see that the water pressure
which you've gotten into the hose, you see-it is in each one of these balloons along in the
hose sections-will go into 20, from 19. See? It's just as fluidy and fundamental as that, you
know? It's like pouring beer steins back and forth into one or the other. . . But the charge
always flows late; charge always goes later, doesn't go earlier.

Now, it's quite interesting, many of these manifestations, but if two things come together,
two pictures come together, then there is bypassed charge. In other words, if two engrams
collapse or two pictures collapse-no matter what you're running in auditing . . . This is true
of all auditing, by the way. It isn't a specialized subject. You got this bypassed charge, it'll
cause two pictures to come together.



For instance, a PC is looking at a lamppost. And all of a sudden there's another lamppost
standing alongside it, and he knows they're not the same picture because they have different
periods of architecture, and so forth. And he says, "There's two lampposts here." The first
thing the auditor knows is that charge has been bypassed. See? That's what causes the
collapse. Got that?

Now, that's the first thing he knows. See? Whatever else he knows, he knows that. Now, if
charge has been bypassed, what's the PC going to do in the next few minutes? He's going to
ARC break. Yeah. Sun rises, sun sets; bypassed charge, PC ARC breaks. Okay? Very
inevitable.

So this tells you why some auditors are capable of running smooth sessions and some
auditors have ARC-breaky sessions. Well, it's just the degree that some auditors pick up
bypassed charge and some auditors don't pick up bypassed charge. See, that's the difference
between this ARC-break and no-ARC-break session .

All right. Now, out-of-valenceness-you know, "That's me over there"-is also a problem in
bypassed charge. You will get this in running an engram. And you shouldn't make a mistake,
because this out-of-valenceness is quite interesting. The engram he is in, if an earlier engram
is tapped (you see, he's in engram 20, and you've just clipped or tapped number 19 and it's
bled charge now into 20), it will simply cause a beef-up of the mass, you see, and it'll cause a
strengthening somatic, and that sort of thing, but it probably won't cause an out-of-
valenceness.

An out-of-valenceness is a missing earlier portion of the same engram you are working. See?
He starts getting two-pictureness. He's getting two pictures, that sort of thing, that's probably
out of 19. You understand? But it also may be in 20. But for sure, if he goes out of valence,
you haven't picked up the beginning of 20. There's another five days at the start of 20.

So we know it was the beginning, because the PC said so in 20. We know that was the start of
20, because we sent the PC to the beginning of it. And he cakes a look at himself, and he
says, "I'm way out of valence here." That is to say, `I'm over there." Well, he didn't go to the
beginning of it, that's all. There's more beginning on this engram than he has suspected. And
that's the charge that finally throws them out of valence. But that out-of-valenceness is also
assisted by bleeding charge up from 19.

You understand what I mean by out-of-valenceness? That's very simple; that's very
elementary-just as though you were four feet over, looking at your body sitting in the chair.
That is the position the PC is running from. You find some PCs are totally in this, all up and
down this lifetime; they never can have any picture in which they are (quote) "in their own
valence" (unquote). See, they're always out of valence all the way up and down the line. This
case, by the way, also falls too low on the Reality Scale to run engrams.

But this happens to any PC-they flip out of valence. Well, what happened? Well, there's
another earlier piece of this same engram is missing. And the PC gets a couple of pictures
collapsed on one another, or pictures collapsing, well, you've opened the valve on 19 without
finding 19.

Actually, all this sounds very complicated, but actually isn't complicated. You're dealing
with charge, and if you regard charge as water or cream, or something like that, it behaves in
exactly the same way: It flows, and it always flows later. Charge doesn't run back down the
track, it runs up the track. Water falls; charge rises. About the only difference.

All right, now, let's look at this. We've got a PC. He `its his `ead. It gives him a `eadache. So
we run the engram-now let's take an elementary thing, see? We're bugged, see, on the
subject that if you get your hands on something, you must flatten it! See? If you get your



hands on an engram you must rub it out! See? All mixed up with "flatten the process," don't
you see?

Well now, let's look what happens here. So he `it his `ead. So we find out we'd better run this
engram in which he `it his `ead. So we roll up our sleeves and we start in. Eighteen hours
later we're still getting him walking in to the cupboard and raising up too suddenly and
banging his head on the door. And for some reason or other the PC is getting very unhappy,
and the cupboard is getting more and more solid in the picture, and then it gets gummier and
gummier, and then it's collapsing, and so on. And the PC is pretty nattery, but you say, "No,
look, I've got to run this incident," and the PC finally goes into apathy, gets too far down
scale to have a headache, and you've "cured his headache."

Now, get that approach. Now compare it to this approach: PC has `it his `ead, and he `as a
`eadache. You say, "All right. Good. Good." We block this incident out. He walked in to the
pantry and hit his head on the cupboard. All right. Fine. We start him into the pantry, we
bring him through the moment he hit his head and, for some reason or another, he just skips
that whole section; his head comes nowhere near the cupboard. But we get him afterwards
holding his head.

Now, what's this all about? Well, this means you've hit a chain of engrams called "`it on the
`ead." And why is that area where he can't hit his head-why is that missing? Well, the prior
charge on being hit in the head is too great, that's all. That's simple. So you don't try to force
him through and you don't need any interesting tricks to push him through it.

You find that was 20, see? Just find 19 and block 19 out. And we find out that he was
working in the carpentry shop and raised up too suddenly one day and `it his `ead. There's no
somatic there either, see? I mean, it's just all sort of, you know, thud. We just get that, bang!
and we run him through it.

This is all done very formally; it isn't asking any questions like Straightwire, see? We zip
him through it, we move on the time track-dress-parade situation, see?

We get him there to 18. We find at 19 that there's an 18, and at 18 there's a 17-that's the
first time he ever hit his head, see, was 17-and then we find 16, and then we find 15. And
we're lucky, and we actually do find-all the way down the chain-we find it's in this
lifetime. That's why we were lucky, because we just started out to cure a headache.

And by golly! We find him falling out of his perambulator with a dull thud, see? And it runs
with full somatics, full perceptions. And we run it through and we run it through and we run
it through and we run it through and we run it through. And it's all getting thinner and
thinner, and it's less and less, and it's disappearing, disappearing. Nothing is toughening up.
And with a clank, that's the end of that chain of being hit on the head.

Well, what happens? The engram disappears, we bring him back up to present time, all these
other head-hits-you could touch on each one of those too if you wanted to. He'd get the
clonk from each one of them. You hit him on the head all the way to present time. Every one
of them would hit. See? And that's the end of this chain, and that's the end of his headache.
See that?

Now, if we tried to approach it "We are going to run the engram of him hitting his head," we
have made an error by saying the engram. We have to say the engrams of him hitting his
head. Now, a great deal can be said, snarlingly and meanly and viciously, and so forth, about
what terrible things auditors have done with running engrams. But the truth of the matter is I
take full responsibility on the matter. I've pretty well desensitized that goal in the Helatrobus
implants, "To be responsible."

But I actually hadn't made an adequate communication. You'll find all about basics, you'll
find all about this type of mechanics in other material on engrams, but you won't find this



differentiation: Repetitive processes? Ah, yes. Flatten them always. An engram? The only
way to flatten an engram is to flatten the chain of engrams. So the communication factor is
you don't run an engram, you run an engrams. See, you've got to run a chain every time.

Now, if you've done any sec checking and had any difficulty sec checking at all, it's because
you weren't running on the basis of the earlier overt. Now, overts will follow this, and it's
very good training finding overts; very good training. But the second that we lay a training
restriction on it of "run only overts in this lifetime," we of course have inhibited the
possibility of picking up the complete overt chain.

Well, "this lifetime," of course, is the biggest lie of all. A person's life is quite consecutive.
And the first time you may find, actually, a basic on the fact of him hitting a mule over the
head as his overt on the fifth dynamic, and you find the basic on this thing at 285 trillion.
Well, you will get, then, all aversion to mules tearing up. The overt chain, don't you see?

Now, that's not an engramic chain, that's just a chain of overt acts. But there are overt
engrams. So there's two types of chains: There's the motivator series and the overt series.
And oddly enough, it doesn't matter which you run, because the overt-motivator sequence is
itself an installed sequence.

Oh, yes, that's a big swindle. But everybody is obedient to this particular swindle, and they
behave that way below a certain particular level, so it's operable. So you can use it in
processing; you can relieve things. And actually, it is so operatable, that if you don't get the
overts off they don't progress. In other words, it's sort of the overts they have committed
obscure the overt-motivator sequence as an installed mechanism.

You won't run into this overt-motivator sequence or undo it for-oh, my God! That's way
back, and way deep, see? That's quite fundamental in livingness. There are other things like
obsessive creation, and that sort of thing, they're equally . . . Well, the overt-motivator
sequence isn't as deeply laid-in as obsessive create. and that sort of thing. You think you've
got it time after time, and there's still an earlier impulse to create, you see. And they're all
engramic, of one kind or another. They contain pain and unconsciousness and implantations
and so forth.

But an overt chain is handled exactly the same way as a motivator chain. We couldn't care
which we're running, except on a motivator chain you have to keep calling for an overt of
this type, you see? And on a motivator chain you have to keep calling for whatever follows
its line-identifies it.

Now, these two seldom entwine when you're running engrams, because they're so
fundamental they're hardly governed by any laws but those of livingness. They are very
fundamental. They're the cause-effect-communication formula, the ARC triangle, and matter,
energy, space, time and significance's, and perceptions (which, of course, are part of the
communication formula). And that's about all there is to engrams. Actually, they're the most
elementary, uncomplicated lineup that could be; they're the most fundamental. The most
fundamental laws of livingness are expressed on this channel, and they undo along these
lines. So you don't have to pay too much attention to finding the overt engram to match the
motivator engram, and all that sort of thing.

Oddly enough, however, you can switch over from a motivator line to an overt line. You can
switch from an overt line to a motivator line-doesn't matter which. But I personally would
never bother to run the two at once unless the PC came up with it. The PC suddenly looks at
you studiously and says, "You know, I've got a lot of overts against hitting people on the
heads." Well, all right. Fire away. But you're now going down an overt chain, don't you see?
You'll get the same type of hit-on-the-head. But unfortunately, you've also got to clean up
the motivator chain of the same thing.



Now, what point am I making here? That engram running handles the most elementary laws
of livingness and thinkingness, follows the most elementary rules itself, and is terribly,
fantastically uncomplicated. It is so uncomplicated that you're going to overshoot it every
time. You'll never add anything to engram running but complication. Isn't that an interesting
observation? It's awful simple.

,If I ever show you a demonstration of running engrams without giving you any reasons why,
and so forth, you'd wonder how the hell this was happening. Because apparently nothing was
happening in the session. You'd say, "What's going on?"

The way I used to run engrams-the way I still run them, and so forth-runs something like
this: Crude date. Very crude date. Order of magnitude, you know? Eighty-nine trillion,
something like that, you know? A little greater than eighty-nine trillion. That's the date, see?
Takes you how long to get that, see?

"Return to this incident at eighty-nine-plus trillion. All right. What are you looking at? Okay,
thank you. How long is this incident? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Weeks. Good. Two
weeks? Greater than two weeks, less than two weeks? Greater than four weeks, less than four
weeks? Greater than six weeks, less than six weeks? Five weeks? Five weeks. . .all right, it's
five weeks long. Very good. Now just move on through this to the end."

PC, ten minutes later, comes up and says, "All right, I did."

"What's it all about?"

"Well, I don't know. I get something or other, something or other, something or other."

"All right, fine. All right, now is there any slightly earlier beginning on this?"

"Yeah, there's a little bit earlier beginning on it."

"Is it a day before? Two days before? An hour before? Hours before? Four hours before?
Five hours before? All right. I want you to go about five hours earlier this time, all right?-
for the beginning of the incident. Move to the beginning of the incident. Okay. All right,
move on through the incident."

Five minutes later, PC says, "I'm there."

You say, "All right, what you got now?"

"Oh, it's a sort of a thrashing machine. And there's this long blue-and-white thing and it goes
on . . ." so on, and so forth. And "Somewhere . . . somewhere I must have run into machinery.
I must have had something to do with machinery. This kind of machinery. Makes me dizzy.
Just like this one. Just like all these do. Dizzy."

"All right, very good. We're now going to date an earlier incident in which you get dizzy
with machinery. All right. Is it greater than ninety trillion, less than ninety trillion?" Here we
go. "All right, I got ninety-three trillion-not quite ninety-three trillion. All right, move to the
beginning of the ninety-three-trillion incident. Okay. What have you got there?"

"Oh, I'm just looking at this thing and it's all black."

"All right. Okay. How long is this incident? Days? Weeks? Months? Incident is five minutes
long. Okay, fine. Fine. All right, move through to the end of this incident. (pause) Okay.
What's it all about?"

"I don't know. It's a machine. Roars! That's all. I'm scared by the roar of the thing, so I
dump it off a cliff."



"Oh, all right. Is there any earlier moment there on the beginning of this?"

Tick.

"How much earlier does this go?"

"Oh, it goes three days earlier."

"All right, that's fine. That's fine. All right. Now, that three-day point, now move to the
beginning we now have there. All right. Good! Now what are you looking at?"

"Oh, my God! There's acres of machines. They're all over the place here; they're all over the
thing here."

"All right. Thank you. Move through this incident, tell me when you've reached the end."

I sit there and try to make as little noise as possible and PC finally comes up in the middle of
it and says, "Ha-ha-ha!" "Took the thing and busted it grrkk! like a big watermelon."

I say, "Okay. Okay, continue." "All right, go back to the beginning of this incident now. Go
to the beginning of this incident."

He says, "You know . . . you know, I don't think this is basic on this chain."

"Oh, all right! Good. Good. Good, machines that make you dizzy," you see? "All right, that's
fine."

"A machine that makes you dizzy? No, I guess it's just machines. It's actually not machines
that make you dizzy; it's `machines that catch you.' "

"Oh, all right. All right. Let's get an earlier incident here. Now, is this earlier incident on
`machines that catch you' later than ninety-five trillion, earlier than ninety-five trillion?"

And you find out it's only a billion years later [earlier] than the one you got before. Same
procedure, same action, on and on and on. PC comes to the next session, you say, "All right,
now let's pick up this-we're going to pick up this ninety-five-trillion-year incident and run
it now again. Run it this time."

PC says, "I . . . why . . . I . . . I don . . . don . . . I . . . don . . . I don't know, I don't get
anything," and so forth, and so on and so on, "I don't get the picture that I had before." and so
on, so on, so on.

So you say, "All right, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Now, since the last time I audited you,
is there anything you weren't willing to duplicate? No? Thank you. Last time I audited you, is
there anything you weren't willing to duplicate? Thank you. Since the last time I audited you,
is there anything you weren't willing to duplicate? All right, that seems clean. All right,
return to the beginning of the ninety-five-trillion-year incident. How's the picture now?"

"Hell, that picture's perfect, thank you."

"All right. Very good. Move on through to the end of this incident, tell me when you get
there."

You say, where's all this hep-cat stuff, see? Where's all this (snap!) (snap!), you know, and
bong, and "What are you looking at?" and "Well, is there blue sky or a pink sky there? Well,
where . . . what are you doing now? What are you doing? What are you looking at there?
Where . . . where . . . have you seen anything? Oh, can't you see anything more than a house?



Well, what's in back of the house? Is there anything in the basement of the house? What's in
the center of the planet there?" Where's all this? It isn't there. There's nothing there, except
just these little, elementary actions. PC runs like a baby carriage.

Now, why won't PCs do this, when they don't do it? Well, it's the wrong place on the
program scale I gave you. [See the State of Case Scale] But you can even take a dub-in case
and run them early enough to get before the dub. But that's asking for it, so you've got your
ARC processes. And lower than that you've got your MEST-universe processes; you've got
these various things that can straighten up a PC and put him into a situation. Because let me
tell you this, engram running is important for this reason: You aren't going to make an OT
without it. See, it's that important. And we now have the underpinnings that we can move
any case into a situation where it can run engrams.

Now, all this fancy stuff developed trying to run dub-ins of dubs on engrams; cases that were
too heavily charged to run engrams. What's the common denominator of that program case
scale that runs from "no time track" down to "total unawareness"? What's the common
denominator of that thing? The common denominator of that thing is "no-duplicate." It's
right in the middle of the old communication formula.

Years ago I used to run into a case occasionally, you'd run him on process Z on Monday and
it wouldn't bite on Tuesday, but another process would bite on Tuesday, and on Wednesday
another process would bite, and on Thursday another process would bite. What was going on
with this character? Well, I finally understood what was going on with him: The duplication
was missing from the communication formula. He would not duplicate; it was dangerous to
duplicate. And that, actually, is the swan song of this universe: That which you're unwilling
to duplicate tends to go on automatic.

You could clean up somebody's auditing in a rather rudimentary fashion. Of course, this is
like all high-level processes-it's not applicable because it's insufficiently fundamental to
reach the reality of the PC in many cases. But sometime when you've given or had a rough
session, something like that, or your PC has given or had a rough session somewhere else, or
something like this, just take a crack at cleaning up the auditing on this basis: "Since " (you
know, the day before that session occurred), "what have you been unwilling to duplicate?
What have you been willing to duplicate? What have you been unwilling to duplicate? What
have you been willing to duplicate?" And just run the process flat. And you'll all of a sudden
find all the ARC breaks and everything else torn out.

We can show you a bad demonstration of auditing, a very bad demonstration of auditing on
the TV screen. You're unwilling to duplicate that, and you fumble the first five minutes of
your session. See? That's showing the bad example. Get the idea? "Unwilling to duplicate" is
the only thing it says, see?

All right. You get the idea that you can't duplicate MEST, you can't duplicate engrams, you
can't duplicate this action, you won't duplicate that continuous state of being a tree, let us
say, or something like that. This becomes very obsessive, begins to wear on you, and you just
start refusing the idea of duplicating a tree, and the next thing you know, there you are,
obsessively duplicating a tree. Because that resistance to duplication can be caved in.

Now, a person's ability to duplicate is what determines their ability to run engrams. Because
the engram itself is a duplication of the actual event. And where they didn't duplicate the
actual event-or they duplicated the actual event but then the picture they're running is an
altered copy of the picture of the actual event-that is dub-in. So they'll run through the
engram, and it's this way, and they run through it that way. All engrams develop materials.
All engrams develop surprising changes. And all engrams have a little bit of dub-in in one
place or another. You get in the middle of this thing, you wonder, "What's the surgeon got in
his hands? He can't possibly have a water gun. You know? Looks like a water gun, you
know? What on earth is it? Hm?" And it finally turns into a spoon or something else he's
taking your guts out with. Anyhow, the . . .



In other words, things look a little bit different. And the particularly dangerous things-
people don't want to duplicate dangerous things. Very easy on this planet to give somebody a
bad name. You know, the public in general. All they got to do is start riding a saw and say so-
and-so is no good, so-and-so is no good, so-and-so is no good, so-and-so is no good. Don't
you see? And nobody must duplicate this person, you see; nobody must duplicate him. They
all do it obsessively after a while. It's a sure mechanism of making bogeymen, and then
making everybody into bogeymen that didn't exist in the first place. You see, you can think
up a lot of things and there's a lot of philosophy connected with this duplication, but just add
it up to what engram running is all about.

A series of tests need to be developed for this sort of thing-of whether somebody can run
engrams or not. The easiest way to find out whether somebody can run engrams or not is to
try to run an engram on them. And if they can't run one, why, you'd better uncork the ARC
triangle, that's all.

But there's another way to do it. You say to some person, "One, two, three, nine, seven. What
did I say?" And he says "You said uh . . . popcorn? Uh . . . uh . . . uh . . ." Aw, skip it, man.
Of course, it's a possibility that you didn't speak loud enough for him to hear you, but if you
spoke loud enough and you said, "One, two, three, seven, nine," and he said, "Popcorn?
Popcorns What's popcorn got to do with it?" well, you'd better not try to run engrams on that
person .

Now, the person who is totally unaware has tried to whip the mechanism of obsessively
duplicating everything. That's his final answer, don't you see? The only trouble is, his
duplications then go on total automatic. And you'll find people around who `nave very, very
heavy engrams indeed; they are all very heavy, and they have no control over them of any
kind whatsoever, and so forth. And the engrams also are very inaccurate. All life is an
engram. Anything is an engram, so forth. But then the engram isn't the engram. They stub
their toe, and they go down the street, and they've got a picture of being run into by a truck-
in full 3-D, utterly overwhelming. Gruesome flow, you try to run an engram stubbing their
toe, it isn't there. They run this engram of being hit by a truck. Well, that's great, because if
you run the engram of being hit by a truck, you unfortunately aren't doing the case a bit of
good. You're just running off a copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy, you
see? I mean, you could get into that kind of nonsense.

Now, because there are such incredible things on the track anyway (such as the Helatrobus
implants, and all sorts of things), people get auuuh.' Tell some bud of the Freudian school
about these things, he'd become very puzzled about this whole thing. As a matter of fact, in
the second series there are some tumbler devices-tubes, in the second series-where the
thetan on the pole is locked up in a sort of a curled-up position in the middle of a tube, with a
lot of lights hitting him from one quarter or another. It's the perfect fetal position. And that's
basic on the prenatals which we used to find. And those prenatals all fly to pieces if you hit
this basic on the thing, you see?

But there's so much incredible material that it would be very, very dangerous to determine on
a PC whether or not he could run engrams be what was the fact of the case, see? This is very
dangerous. We've tried this and it doesn't work. So therefore, you need a better test. And that
test would be simple duplication.

You'd give him a series of questions of one kind or another. The old driving test is a doll,
because that gives you too little to understand and too much to understand, and so forth.
That's a lovely test. A person who got a very bad score on that probably couldn't run
engrams, you see? Because it's a duplication test. That's how you'd find-not by the material
the person runs, but by the person's ability to duplicate.

Now, another test of a person's ability to duplicate is: On Monday, did they get beautiful
rocket reads on a GPM, and on Tuesday, you couldn't get the needle to squeak? That's an



interesting condition. Well, they've hit something they're unwilling to duplicate, that's for
sure; and you could probably turn it back on, that's for sure; and you can probably handle it,
that's for sure; but you also are running somebody over their heads, that's for sure!

Well, what are we running over their heads? We're just running the ARC on this case. This
case is too queasy to approach a whole lump of experience. They want to sniff around the
edges of life, you know? You let them around the edges of life; don't let them around one
concrete experience of being hit on the head with a cleaver. See? Let them sniff around the
edges and find out if they're alive. You know? Let them run this thing way off, and their
track will straighten out and become factual.

That doesn't mean that you're only using the ARC processes to improve somebody's reality.
That isn't their only use. It just happens to be a very good shotgun process. It works at every
quarter on almost anything, don't you see? It cleans up all kinds of things: It'll clean up
auditing and it'll clean up track and it'll do this and it'll do that. And it can be phrased in
different ways in order to meet different levels of case, and you could do all kinds of things
with this process-this new ARC setup that you have.

You can also do some interesting things with this duplication process. But you do the best in
this physical environment. What part of this physical environment, what action or motion in
this physical environment can the guy safely duplicate? When he finds out he can safely
duplicate something, you've got the CCHs in a nutshell. That's the only thing you're trying to
show him. That's why the CCHs have such a heavy power when rightly used, and such a
weird effect when wrongly used. You make somebody feel like he's being punished for
duplication, you run the CCHs wrong-way-to.

All right. So much for all that. So much for all that. We're talking about running engrams.
Well, who can run engrams? Well, it's somebody who can get a picture of the actual event.

Now, how serious is this to you? Well, it's only serious to this degree: That if the case is not
being successful in running engrams, you probably shouldn't be running them. Now that, I
think, is the most elementary adjudication that you can possibly make. But let's add to this
adjudication, this one: Running them right-as long as you're running them right. If the case
just doesn't seem to grapple with this at all, and you just don't seem to do anything about it,
or something of that sort, well, you're probably running the case too steep. That's the most
elementary adjudication that can be made on the subject.

Now, engram running becomes very, very, very important to you, because the Helatrobus
implants are actually a long chain of engrams which themselves have, each one, basics. And
they tend to grab the whole track together at one point. You will only be able to run, on some
cases, as few as six GPMs before you have to start running engrams, because the Raft will
shut off. The things are getting too solid; thing is getting too solid. In other words, charge is
bleeding.

So let's get what determines when to go earlier. First, it's the auditor's observation that they
ought to go earlier-always first. But the second one- and this must never be violated-is
the PC's recognition that there is something earlier. That tells you the curtain has lifted, and
this you never ignore-and I do mean never.

PC can state this in a thousand different ways, and it all adds up to the same thing: There's
something earlier. PC says "You know, I think there's another pole-trap incident ahead of
this?" That's very blunt, isn't it? All right, let's just find the other pole-trap incident ahead of
this, see? Simple. PC says, "I don't think this could be the last one on the chain. It's too late."
Well, go earlier. PC says, "Where'd I get the idea that I couldn't hold on to things?" Go
earlier.

You're trying to get from 20 to 19. And what is the last signal? What is the last signal, the
signal that you just must not go beyond in running number 20 or number 19 or number 18 in



its turn? The signal that you must not ignore is the inference that there's something earlier.
Because if you ignore this and continue to scrub away on the one you are on, you are
ignoring the fact that something went down there and opened that little valve, and that charge
is coming up here from now on. And that charge is going to make the engram that you are
trying so arduously to rub out more and more solid, more and more arduous, less and less
runable.

You've got to get back here and find number 19. Now, the second you find number 19, the
charge that was leaking up goes ffttt! That's charge off, don't you see? But the later an
engram is on the track, the less charge you can bleed out of it itself.

Now, charge of course is a registry of the E-Meter. What is the registry on the E-Meter?
Well, it's the motion of your tone arm, the motion of your needle. You're getting tone arm
motion running these engrams? If you're not getting any tone arm motion running these
engrams, just hope you can get back early enough to get some tone arm motion. If you never
get any tone arm motion on it, all the way back, brother, you're taking no charge off the line
at all; you are just restimulating mass and charge. You're just restimulating, you're not
blowing anything. That condition, I don't think, however, will obtain very usually with you.
You will get little blows of one kind or another.

Those portions of the time track which have had the individual so much at effect that the
person could not at all be cause, and attended by pain and unconsciousness, are called
engrams. And the only way an engram is ever torn up is by relieving the thing which holds it
in place. And the thing that holds it in place is always number 1.

There's twenty engrams in a chain, if you can't find number 1-and you can find number 1 if
you go down the chain-but if you don't even try to find number 1, and then don't erase
number 1, then that chain will not blow up. But you'll see some of the funniest
concatenations of charge release you ever wanted to see when you finally put your paws on
number 1 and scrub it out real good. Number 1 erases. The rest do not.

Now, because of the complex nature of the time track, there will be some portion of number 1
addressed to something else or some other subject which may, in itself, not erase. Now
you've got a new chain of engrams running back from number 1. Well, go ahead, run it back.

Don't get the idea of an absolute basic. There's only one absolute basic on the time track, and
that is called basic-basic, and it's going to take you a long time to find that one. Basic-basic is
unburdened with steam shovels and gangs of coolies and working for Lord knows how long.
The ants that were emptying that granary-that's a very good example. Fortunately, if you go
ahead at it in a very businesslike fashion, you will eventually find basic-basic. The character
of basic basic is something I needn't go into at the present moment, but it contains these
impulses which eventually became aberration.

Now, I want to call to your attention, just rapidly here, some data. There are two things you
can do with dating: You can relieve charge or just identify something. Now, if you get a total
dating, it goes on down to the second. It's how many, you know, trillions, hundreds of
billions, hundreds of millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands, hundreds, days, minutes,
seconds ago. And if you get that accurately, and in no argument with your PC, you're going
to have a PC there who uhzuhh! He gets somatics and the thing rights itself on the time track,
and that's all very interesting. That's that type of dating; it's to relieve charge. You put
something accurately on the time track and you'll get charge off.

Well, that's fine, and as an activity, is quite an interesting activity in itself. But remember that
dating also contains identification. You want to know about the incident that was 89 trillion,
450 million years ago. So you say plus or minus. And you've got one that was almost-see,
89 trillion, 450 million-you've got one that was slightly more than 89 million and 450
billion, or something like that, see?



And you just identify it. And sometimes your identification is as clumsy as "that ninety-
trillion-year incident." Of course you're only hung when there's eight in a row. So then you
have to get into ninety trillion, and you have to date these into the hundred millions, or
something like that. Sometimes you have to date them into the hundred thousands, but that's
differentiation. Mostly, mostly. you will be satisfied with your trillions. See, you say, "Well,
that incident that was not quite eighty-nine trillion years ago." That's dating. That's
sufficient. That identified it, don't you see? Fine, nothing wrong with that.

Now, let me give you this operation of blocking it out. This is known as blocking out an
incident, and it has just exactly these steps. It's a very precise action: You identify it by date.
You get the approximate date of the thing. See. that's an identification by date. You move the
time track to that date (but, of course, your dating has already moved it there), you ask the PC
what's there. And the PC says, "Nothing. I can't see nothing." PC says, "Green cats." PC
says, "Solid-black automobiles are stacked around. Their license plates are number 869, 942,
747, 815. And there's a D.C. plate over on the other side, and so forth.

And that's there; that's what's there." And you say, in every case, regardless of what the PC
sand-and hear me now, hear me-in every case you say, "Good." Understand? You don't
say anything else.

It's very interesting. The PC can say, "But it's all black and I can't see a thing!" and so forth.
And you say, "Well, there's no reason to go on with that." He's there; he's there. So it's all
black? So he doesn't know what it's all about? Well, hell, he didn't know what it was all
about a few minutes ago either. Funny part of it is, by the time you run him through a couple
of times-I've even seen a PC blow a grief charge through something they didn't know what
it was all about, cry all the way through the whole thing, then come back to the beginning and
begin to find what it was all about. All sorts of weird things happening like this, don't you
see?

So it doesn't matter what they say. This has no tendency on that; that does not influence the
auditor's action at that point. Next thing you do: Find its duration. You know? "Is this
incident minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years?" Find its duration. Block its duration
out fairly accurately, you know? If the answer is days, well, just get the number of days, don't
you see? Don't go down to hours, minutes, seconds, and split instants, and galactic
microseconds, you know? I mean, this is . . . This wastes time.

Find its duration, move the PC through it. Through. Get the difference of to and through. To
get a PC at a point of the track you say "move to," and to get them to go through something,
you say "through." If you want them to go through something, say through. Don't say, "Go to
the end of the incident," because, of course, the PC just goes bang! and he's at the end of the
incident. "Yeah, all right. I'm here at the end of the incident. What do you want?" I can see
auditors now-I've already seen an auditor do this idiotic thing: Said, "Well, go to the
beginning of the incident."

"All right. Well, I'm here. What do you want?"

"All right. Now move to the end of the incident."

Bang! "I'm here. What do you want?"

That's pure idiocy, see? If you want the PC to pick up the incident, you had better move them
through it. And let me assure you, if it's forty days long I normally say, "Move rapidly
through the incident." I like to be able to end my sessions on schedule.

But you move them through to the end, then establish what was there. Just ask the PC, "Well,
what happened?" you know, when they come to the end of the thing. Anytime the PC says
anything while they're going through the thing, you say, "Good," and one more word:
"Continue." You want them to realize that auditing command is still in effect.



When they get to the end of the thing, you've moved it through it once, you say, What's it all
about?" And a funny thing, if the PC doesn't talk to you, it's all right. Okay. Move him to the
beginning of it, move him through to the end again. Simple as that. Never move him
backwards through one. When they get to the end of the thing, why, ask them again.

I've seen a PC go through one several times before they could tell me anything about it.
Thing wasn't beefing up at all. Just, you know, "What's this?" It's a solid mystery. Don't be
impatient, in other words. You don't vary this routine. PC says, "I don't think I left." I'm
afraid I'd be more prone to say, "You left all right. Run through it." See?

Now, if the PC keeps saying, "I'm stuck," and all that sort of thing, just forget the bouncers
and denyers, man. You're just running somebody over his head, and you get them out of it
any way you can and revere to ARC processes.

Any time the PC is that much at effect, where the auditor has got to kick him around inside
the incident and do all sorts of weird things, and that sort of thing, you're simply running
engrams on somebody who can't run engrams. There's no sense in my developing a
technology for somebody who can't run engrams, for you not to run engrams with. You get
the difference?

All right. Now, when he's told you all about it at the end, your next step is simply to find out
if anything is a little bit earlier. You know? "Is there a little...'7-because the end always
remains the end. You don't have to vary the end. If there's anything more, they'll eventually
tell you; but you don't care about it because the charge is always earlier, you see? But always
suspect the beginning.

PC says, "Well, I just got off the train, and there they were," you know? Aw, it's all right.
Buy it. Sounds all right, and so forth. But ask before you send them through again, "Now, is
there any earlier beginning on this incident?" and so forth. Yeah, he was shooting at them out
the window for a half an hour, you see, before he got off the train, you see. There's always
that little tag beginning. And sometimes you're lucky and there is none, but it just doesn't
matter; it's whether it registers or not. Send them back to that earlier bit and tell them to
move through it again.

Now, up to the moment you tell them to move through it again, you've simply blocked the
incident out. Now you know how long this incident is. The second time you tell them to
move through it is, however, quite perfectly safe and can be included in blocking out an
incident. But I just want you to know that it doesn't perfectly belong in blocking out an
incident. You've actually blocked the incident out now.

But to finish this incident off, just move them through it again. They'll pick up some more
stuff. That's the time they're going to tell you there's something earlier. And it doesn't much
matter how many times you run them through an incident. Less than twice is suspect. That's
maybe a little careless. But might very well-if the thing appeared to be awful gummy and so
forth, and messed up, once would be plenty. There's where judgment comes in. More than
twice? Well, you're getting into questionable ground-very questionable ground. Trying to
chug them into it and make them have more view of it, or more picture, or get more event out
of it, or do something else with it than they can do at that particular time? Nah! Verboten. It'll
turn up in an earlier incident or you got no business running engrams. That's all there is to
that.

Now, how long would you run one of these things? I think if the PC was terribly fascinated
with the thing: "You know? You know, that's where I got shot, and that's where I shot Bill.
Yes. That's right! And then this place id-hmmmmhmmm-hmmm-hmmm And I've often
wondered whether or not, you know, hmm-hmm, this funny hole in my ear . . ."



All right, that's dandy. That's dandy. I'm afraid I'd just go along with this, as long as I was
getting motion on my meter. Getting some motion on my meter, had the thing going tick and
tock and click and clock and bong, and he was still running through the thing and wasn't
wandering off into the fields, I'm afraid I'd run that. But I would never run it longer than
"You know, I think we've had a fight before." All right. Hit the silk.

Now, if you do not bail out of an incident and find the earlier incident when the PC sights the
earlier incident, you spoil the PC's ability to move back. You blunt it, and the PC will get tied
up in this area of the track you're trying to run. And the only reason a PC gets tied up in an
area of track is by insisting he stay there. You insist he stay there. He says, "Oh, God, I want
out of this." Well, anybody who wants out of this . . . You've just gone near it, and he sees
that there's a whole bunch of threshing machines, and they're cleaning up the wounded with
these threshing machines, see? And he says, "Well, I . . . I can't have anything to do with
that. That . . . that's . . . that's too much for me," and so forth. I'd say, "Okay." I'd let him
bounce to present time and I'd run ARC processes.

In other words, I don't say, "Oh, come now. I'm sure that you could confront that part of the
threshing machines," so forth.

But if a PC started telling me, "Eh, it's getting awful solid around here. Pressure is getting
heavier! A little harder to run-I don't care if I was getting tone arm action or not-I'm
afraid my action would always be "When did you spot something earlier?"

"Oh, well! Come to that, it was about an hour ago."

Yeah. He spotted an earlier incident. And I would realize that it was my fault as the auditor if
the PC got tied up on the track that he couldn't get out of, or was unable to run the chain, and
so forth, because I would have refused to let him move earlier. That's the one cardinal rule of
this.

Now, there are several things I've tried to teach you here today. And one of these: You're
running an engram chain; you're never trying to run a single engram. The only reason you
run basic is not to get rid of basic. Sometimes basic is "I walked up and blew all of the
powder out of the barrel. But nothing happened, see? Yes, I walked up-well, of course they
lost the battle. That's the reason for it. I blew all the powder out of the barrel." That's basic,
see? That's just bzz-bzz-bzz-bzz-bzzz-bzz-bzz-bz-bz, and it's gone. It's the basic there was.

You look for basic to be the more powerful incident; it's never. It's the shorter incident, it's
the simpler incident, but on that keystone-because the thetan never bothered to say that was
important, you see-these other things built up, built up, got tougher, tougher, bigger, bigger,
bigger. You get that basic, the rest of them will tear right up. Just like one of these patent
sacks, you know-a patent-flour sack? You get the right string? Well, here she goes.

All right. Now, you're running a chain. So don't think because you've read Book One or
snapped your fingers over engrams you know how to run engrams.

Learn this as a brand-new skill. And it's the skill which we'll call "engram chain running."
And that is done by finding an incident, we don't care how. One of your best takeoff points is
the Helatrobus implants. Run a few GPMs, then you're really making knots, you see? We
don't care how we took off on this, whether we had to prepare the case for this or not, we got
our paws on an engram. And then we block it out. And we get the earlier one and we block it
out, and we get the earlier one and we block it out, we get the earlier one, we block it out.
And eventually we've got nothing over here to block out. We then decide that we have our
paws on a basic for this chain.

Now, as we now have a basic for this chain, this basic will erase. Okay? So we proceed to
erase the basic and tear up the chain. Theoretically, if you kept wandering back, some of you
could make an error of winding up eventually with basic-basic. Seemed like you never got



your hands on a basic. Well, you eventually did get your hands on a basic, but this apparently
is the first engram on the track or something like this. I would erase it and suspect that I had
simply discovered a basic.

You see, when you discover basic-basic and erase it, all engrams and pictures disappear on
the PC, so that is the clue to that.

Now, the next point is: Never under any circumstances prevent a PC from finding the earlier
incident-never do it; that's courting disaster-even if you suspect the PC is telling you there
is something earlier in order not to confront what he is going through because if he's trying to
bail out of incidents because he's scared of them, I would watch this performance just once or
twice, and then I would decide that I was misguided to be running engrams on this case. And
I'd prepare the case a little bit more and get him back into running engrams later, you
understand?

Now, those are the cardinal points of running engrams, and if you follow those things you
actually will be able to develop one fantastic amount of case gain, because you'll be blowing
charge all the way.

It's the easiest running you ever did, and the only mistake you're going to make with it is to
depart from the little blocking-out routine which I have given you here; depart from the
earlier routine; you fail to realize you're running a chain, you're not running a single incident;
and preventing the PC from going earlier when the PC spots something earlier; or this
mistake: just complicating it up, man. You know? The PC says, "I've got a picture here of a
green house."

"Does it have gables?"

Blow your brains out, boy! You've done it! You've done it, you've finished it. You've
wrecked the work, that's it. You've had it. You just opened your mouth once too often. Do
you realize what happens? You've pointed the PC's attention to a large object, and the rule of
the largest object goes into effect instantly at that point. And the PC will interiorize into that
incident. Well, you didn't want him interiorized into it. What do you mean you didn't want
him interiorized into it? You didn't want that incident all swelled up, fully charged, 3-D. How
can you make an incident fully charged and 3-D? By making the PC look at it and look at it
and look at it, and examine it and examine it, and then prevent the PC from going earlier, and
look at it and look at it and look at it, and look at the largest objects in it, and feel things in it,
and so on. You're going to have a universe built around this PC to a point where you'll never
get him out of it. Got it? Well, that isn't what you're trying to do.

If you were trying to discover the secret formulas of the Kabob civilization, and you got the
PC into their formula security room, by all means follow this process! But make sure you
don't do it with an OT, because he hasn't got any pictures to swell up. You actually could
only do it safely with a Clear. And a Clear is so close to an OT if you've got him to a totality
of Clear, you see-that's dead-easy-that if you just made an OT out of him, he'd remember.
You understand? So it becomes a very difficult thing to stay simple enough about.

I wanted you to get this data because, actually, there's never been a recapitulation of running
engrams, mostly because I never really had my fingers on why people had a hard time
running engrams. And I find out there's a miscommunication concerning it, and I've given
you that miscommunication, which is just the fact that people said, "Well, if you have to
flatten the process, you have to flatten every engram you laid your hands on." And I think
that's where the whole thing broke down. Very easy to run them. I wish you lots of success
with it. Thank you.

Voice: Thank you.

Thank you.

Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 689
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 4