Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 07/12 [x2]
Date: 2 Dec 1999 19:20:11 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

SHSBC TAPES PART 1 07/12

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

St. Hill Special Briefing Course Tapes Part 1

Contents

   New #    Old #   Date     Title

01 SHSBC-1    1   7 May 61 E-Meter Talk and Demo
02 SHSBC-2    2  12 May 61 Assessment
03 SHSBC-3    3  19 May 61 E-Meter
04 SHSBC-4    4  26 May 61 On Auditing
05 SHSBC-5    5   1 Jun 61 Flattening a Process and the E-Meter
06 SHSBC-6    6   2 Jun 61 Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale
07 SHSBC-7    7   5 Jun 61 Routine 1, 2 and 3
08 SHSBC-8    8   6 Jun 61 Security Checks
09 SHSBC-9    9   7 Jun 61 Points in Assessing
10 SHSBC-10  10   8 Jun 61 Question and Answer Period: Ending an Intensive
11 SHSBC-11  11   9 Jun 61 Reading E-Meter Reactions
12 SHSBC-12  12  12 Jun 61 E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing

We were only able to check one of these (number 6) against the
old reels.  If anyone has pre-clearsound versions of these
tapes, please check the others and post differences.

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

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

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

SHSBC-7  renum 7   5 Jun 61 Routine 1, 2 and 3

ROUTINE 1, 2 AND 3

A lecture given on 5 June 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

Thank you.

If this were a formal lecture, I would be wearing a jacket
and a bow tie. But I find I'm not able to talk well with a
bow tie on. Keep restimulating all the people I've hanged
in France.

Well now, there are a few questions before the house, I am
very, very sure. So give me a question here, quick. Yes?

Male voice: You talked about what it means when a preclear
comes in, a different tone arm reading than he went out at.
Well, what happens if the pc comes in at about the same
tone arm reading but his sensitivity has changed sharply in
the meanwhile.

That's an interesting point to notice. If the pc comes in
with his tone arm out, you would, of course, at once be
suspicious. You always check a pc's tone arm when he leaves
session - it's on your reports - and you always glance at
the last reading so that your next reading, when he comes
back into session again, you can check against that. And
that is about the first thing you do between sessions: You
look at that difference of tone arm reading; and if you
find a vast difference of tone arm, you of course want to
know what happened between sessions - practically even
before you start one. You got the idea? It's of that order
of emergency.

Now, the things I have found on pcs happening between
sessions are quite interesting. What do we mean "between
sessions"? We don't mean overnight; we mean solely,
strictly, completely and utterly if they get out of the
auditor's sight at any time - during a break, I have known
pcs to instantly go to the phone, call South Africa, or
something, and tell the husband, "I have just decided you
are a louse and we are through," clang, you see? And having
expended forty-five quid or something like this to deliver
themselves of these sentiments, come back into session
again feeling very self-righteous, but won't run.

You got the idea? It didn't take them very long, but that
was it, man. They got a brand-new overt. And every time a
pc is having trouble with a case, this is a subject of
overts and withholds.

So, now the question comes up, "What if the sensitivity
knob goes out?"

Well, this would be very strange and peculiar indeed,
because it would mean the whole E-Meter had turned a dial
or two. You know, it might have gone all the way around the
dial. It would be an accident almost that it would come up
with the same reading, but you had better check both
sensitivity and tone arm. That should be added in, so thank
you for the datum.

You've got a considerable importance now - just speaking
and carrying with that - right along with that goes your
rudiments in. Definition of rudiments: what it takes to get
a session running and the pc in-session. Definition of
in-session: willing to talk to the auditor and interested
in own case. Are rudiments a process to get the case on the
road? No, they are not. You run rudiments with a
third-of-a-dial drop. Why? Because you've got a Joburg
Security Check these days, and you don't have to be too
sniffish for those withholds. And if it's a big withhold
you'll get it on a third-of-a-dial drop if it's going to
stop the session. The rule is that if the needle does not
drop a third of a dial on the squeeze test, and at that
setting no rudiment clanks, the pc, you will find rather
consistently, is perfectly capable of being audited. Got
it? So you don't use rudiments to waste auditing, because
the processes today in the rudiments are so much weaker
than any other process we've got that you are wasting time.
Got it?

However, as you're going through with a third-of-a-dial
drop setting, the needle does a twitch, kerbango. When you
say, "Do you have a present time problem?" and it goes
twitch-third-of-a-dial-drop - you've got to handle it. Now,
how do you handle it? You say, "Now, what was that?"

And "What was what?"

"Well, I had a little drop here when I asked you about a
present time problem."

"Oh well, I suppose that's my... I've got to phone...
uh... I've got to phone New Siberia" (the American Medical
Association address). "I've got to phone New Siberia at
three o'clock and report," or something of this sort.

And you say, "Well, is that a present time problem to
you now?"

"Mm ... no, no." And it doesn't twitch.

You don't run it. Also, that is the extent of two-way comm.
Two-way comm that goes four questions, turns into a
process. You understand? And there are processes much
neater for all two-way comm situations than you're going to
two-way comm.

The American auditor has this frailty more than the
auditors in other parts of the world. They'll run two-way
comm for two hours. Don't do it, because there's just too
many processes now and Prehav is too hot. And even the
rudiments processes are hotter, you see, than two-way comm.

But two-way comm does give it an opportunity to blow. And
that's all you do, is give the pc an opportunity to as-is
the situation. He doesn't as-is it, process it. Don't
two-way comm it out of him. See? Give him a chance to as-is
it by saying what it is, and the fall disappears, and
you're all set. You can ask him as many times as you want
to the same question or some variation of the question. You
know? "Are you withholding anything?" "Are you keeping
something from me?" "Are you embarrassed because you are
being audited today?" "Have you had some nasty,
cotton-picking little unkind thought about the Director of
Processing?" "Have you suddenly decided Ron ought to be
hanged?"

If anybody is going to do anything to me, they better not
try to shoot me. The only overts I've got that I'm tender
on are hanging. They'll have to hang me.

Anyhow, what's the extent, then, of handling these
rudiments to get a pc in-session? Third-of-a-dial drop, and
right down the list of Model Session, asking them twice,
six or eight times - I don't care how many times you ask
them - to find out what it is. That's one thing. Now,
two-way comm would be a method of getting the pc to as-is
this situation.

"Oh, your withhold is that last night you made love to an
ape. All right. Now, how is that now?"

"Well, I guess it's all right."

And man, if that needle doesn't move, take it, man. That's
all right. Just because you have peculiar ideas about
relationships with apes is no reason to follow this up at
all. It's all going to come out in the wash. Furthermore,
if the pc is still dramatizing something - now, wave your
ears on this one - if a pc IS still dramatizing something,
it is too deep-seated to be reached in rudiments or by
two-way comm. You got that?

So PT problems, ARC breaks, that sort of thing: ask about
them. If you see a twitch, find out what that twitch was.
That's the first thing, see? Well, that's not two-way comm;
that's just interrogation to find out what the devil the
auditor-pc relationship is here. All right, now you've
found out what the twitch is and it's still there. Ask him
exactly what it was. He tells you. Don't follow that up
with another question and another one and another one, you
understand; put your brakes on smoking right there. You
say, "Well, you had relationships last night with an ape.
All right, good. Now, how does that seem to you?" Clang!
Well, you're going to do something about this?

In the first place, it's some kind of a weird
overt-withhold sort of a situation. But it's certainly no
longer a withhold from the auditor, is it? He told you. He
might not have told you all. It's all right for him to tell
you all of this withhold. You got the idea? But it didn't
go away. Now is the time to run a process. Got it?

This came up on a present time problem. See where I'm
heading? You see, you asked him present time problem; you
got this kind of an oddball answer. What are you going to
do about this? You better find out, if it's a problem to
him, well what it is. Get rid of it. Get rid of it one way
or the other on the rudiments. That's the best rule. Don't
let it go off into the processes. But you're not going to
handle the situation as a neurosis or a psychosis or
something of the sort in the rudiments, you understand?
You're trying to get it out of the road for auditing.

So you say, "What part of that situation could you be
responsible for," or something like this, because it's a
present time problem. And he tells you, answers a few
questions. You say, "How's it seem to you now?" You don't
get a fall. On to the next one, man, quick. See?

If it doesn't as-is with two-way ... You can ask him all
the ways you want to. It's a misdemeanor on your part,
arrestable in the "Court of High Council," for you not to
ask him something in several ways to find exactly what it's
falling on, you understand? That's a misdemeanor not to do
that.

But now to go on nattering on two-way comm, trying to get
this thing as-ised as two-way comm, is a lousy waste of
time on your part, that's all. Because a process would do
it a lot better. So you found out what it was and it didn't
as-is. Now you run a rudiments process. All right, you've
got a rudiments process; it knocks it out; you carry on.

Now this interesting problem comes up. Supposing the person
has a big withhold from George. Big withhold, see? So you
run O/W on George. Well, in the first place, you've done
something a little adventurous. It's all right; go ahead
and do it. But you get tone arm motion on O/W on George.
Aw, that's too bad. You're running O/W on George. You
better run it; you better flatten it. But there are dozens
of better ways to handle George, don't you see? This is
kind of unfortunate.

The tone arm starts moving from 3.0 to 6.0 on O/W on
George. Well, now you've got a process that's biting,
you've got a pc that's running, and you've had it. What do
you do with it? The rule is the tone arm has got to be a
quarter of a division or less for twenty minutes of
auditing before you can leave a process. This applies,
unfortunately, to the rudiments.

That's why you're always hopeful for a null needle on the
rudiments. Because you don't want to audit the case with
the rudiments. But at the same time, if you ignore a drop
on the rudiments, with a third-of-a-dial drop sensitivity
set, you've had it. You won't do anything in that session.

Now, you could crank up the sensitivity to 16 and ask the
rudiments. Now what are you doing? You're running the case,
aren't you? "Are you withholding anything?" Ladies and
gentlemen, fellow students of Homo sap: Takes seven hours
on some people to do a Joburg, and you've asked it in one
lump question. Now, what are you going to do? Sensitivity
16 is your mistake. It wasn't a rudiment that fell on a
third-of-a-dial drop.

By definition now, what is meant by "a rudiment out"? One
of the rudiments are out and the case is being run with a
rudiment out. Now what is meant by this? It means there is
a reaction with the meter set at a third-of-a-dial drop - a
visible reaction on the needle when the meter is set at a
third-of-a-dial drop. If there is a visible reaction on the
meter with it set for a third-of-a-dial drop on the
can-squeeze test, that rudiment is out and you've got to do
something about it. You got it?

Now, what about these cases - what about these cases that
keep trying to go Clear on us? And I suddenly realized the
other night, although I've given you advice that you'd
better get your sensitivity knobs fixed, you know you're
never going to get them fixed? There is no sensitivity knob
that will turn off far enough. When a person starts going
into a floating tone arm state, when they're up about
Release, it'll just float further and further and more and
more, and you'd have to turn the sensitivity off further
and further. And at some point the meter is going to become
nonfunctional. So you would be going toward the same
situation as simply turning your sensitivity knob off.
Well, if a pc insists on dropping three dials on a
third-of-a-dial drop can squeeze with your sensitivity all
the way off against the off switch, see, I'm afraid there's
only one other sensitivity cutdown that you could do, and
that's just turn the meter off.

So what happens to this rule as the person goes Clear?
Well, the rule is not very important as the person gets
loosened up to that degree. How do you like that? It is not
very important. Because what is the behavior of a needle as
the individual gets more and more up toward Clear? The
needle swings less and less on heavier and heavier charges.
That's interesting.

I had a D of P ask me fairly recently, "Well, I don't think
this is correct about this third-of-a-dial squeeze and the
sensitivity and that sort of thing. Because people that are
coming in here with loose needles are obviously in very bad
condition, because they don't get much needle reaction when
you ask them about ARC breaks and things of that sort."
Naturally it's not a charged question to them.

But on somebody who's plowed in, down on the borderline of
the nether regions, you ask him if he's got an ARC break
and you get wham, wham, wham, wham, wham, wham! And you
say, "Well, what was that?"

And he says, "You lighted a cigarette while you were
lecturing."

Free floating needle, as the cases advance on up the line:
Well, this is about three-dials can squeeze, see? You've
got it - sensitivity as low as you can get it - three-dials
can squeeze. That's all you can do about it. And you say,
"You got an ARC break?" And you get a one dial-division drop.
See, there's a very loose needle and you get a one little
dial division - one of those little tiny things that's about
a quarter of an inch long, you see? And you ask him that
and you say, "What was that?"

And he says, "Well, actually I was withholding it from you
that I just wrecked your car last night." Only this same
person would be also in this category: You'd say, "What!"
you know, and explode all over the place. And you'd say,
"Well yes, I also took it into the garage and it's now been
repaired and is sitting in your garage." You get entirely
different action. Of course, he probably wouldn't have
wrecked the car.

But look, you get some kind of a reaction like this: "You
lighted a match while I was thinking," you see? Three-dial
drop.

Now, you see a twitch on that, see, you just see a twitch.
Of course, you can only really read him in twitches on such
a case. And you say, "What was that?"

Say, "Well, I wrecked your car last night. It's still lying
out on M1. Police are looking for you as a hit and run
driver. But I didn't do anything; it wasn't my fault.
Actually, you left the keys in the ignition." And you
generally will get a smug smile following it. You get an
entirely different set of reactions for the same existing
situation. Is that clear?

I'm covering over rudiments with you and what rudiments
amounts to and what meter reactions amount to and so forth.
We go over these things quite often, but they are the most
important thing, because if your pc is not in-session,
you're not getting any auditing done. But we have to define
what is meant by a rudiment being out. It means the
rudiment is out; you have to correct it.

Well, you can always find a rudiment out. How do you like
that? Just by turning your sensitivity knob up to 16 and
say, "Are you withholding anything?" Or "Do you have an ARC
break with anybody in the whole world anyplace?" "Is there
anybody anywhere in the world that you have an ARC break
with?" And of course, you're going to get needle reaction.
So your auditing is totally reduced down to doing nothing
but rudiments, nothing but rudiments, nothing but
rudiments, nothing but rudiments, nothing - and they're
not very good processes.

So of the two hours and a half that you have for an
auditing session, you spend two hours and fifteen minutes
running the beginning and end rudiments, and you spend
fifteen minutes on the process, see? And that isn't what's
getting the case there. The rule is the case cannot be
audited with the rudiments out. What is meant by rudiments
out? A visible reaction on the needle with a
third-of-a-dial squeeze setting on the sensitivity knob.

Does that mean that a person who has a very loose tone arm,
then, could have allowances made for him, so if he gets a
drop on a present time problem, and you know he's got a
very - he drops about a dial, and you can't set it down any
further than a dial - does that mean you ignore his twitches?
No, he's in for it. But this is okay, because he'll blow
them on two-way comm.

You'll say, "What is this ARC break?"

And he'll say, "Well, the cook sneered at me this morning.
He put a sneer on my shredded wheat biscuits, you know."

And you say, "How do you feel about that now?" There'll be
no further reaction.

You see, the looseness of a needle at minimum setting is a
direct index of state of case - the most direct state-of-case
index there is. This is your diagnostic switch, right here,
this sensitivity.

And if you, to get a third-of-a-dial drop, have the guy
sitting here at sensitivity 16, and even then don't make
it, you're dealing with a CCH case, brother, and don't
think you aren't. We've broken our hearts on enough of
them. CCHs they get. You understand?

Now, that doesn't mean that all cases that are run on CCHs
are instantly in this horrible condition. But it does mean
that the case has not been showing adequate gain in
processing. Processing over a long period of time: We have
a record of this processing; they haven't been showing
enough gain; there must be something haywire someplace. We
check them over: We can't find present time problems, ARC
breaks, withholds. They just don't seem to have anything
here anyplace. Well, you've got the CCHs, so you return the
case to it. Got it? Just like you can turn an SOP Goals
case back into a Routine 2.

Now, you're going to get that bulletin in very short order,
if you don't have it right this minute. I imagine we're
pretty stacked up in the bulletin department; we're getting
out the Secondary Scales.

But you got three routines these days. Routine 1 is CCHs
and Joburg Security Checks, and CCHs and Joburg Security
Checks, and CCHs and Joburg Security Checks on a one-for-one
ratio. (Experimental at this moment that it's one-for-one.)
Why?

The CCHs boost up the individual's responsibility for his
environment. And then he blows his head off because he's
now all of a sudden got withholds that he's - now feels
responsible for. So you have to pull the withholds off to
keep from killing the case. You got it? You raise a case
level, he runs into his withholds, begins to be more
responsible for the world around him, and all of a
sudden - crash, he's had it.

He actually feels like somebody is running over him like
God. Juggernaut is letting him have it, you know? Complete
with the stone wheels. He feels terrible. You've increased
his responsibility, he realizes he's guilty of many things
on all dynamics, and you give him no opportunity to get rid
of them.

And that is the only thing that has ever been stalling
cases in Dianetics and Scientology over the last eleven
years. That's the thing that stalls them. That's why they
hit a ceiling and halt.

They halt because it'd kill them if they got any better.
Because if they got any better, they'd be more responsible
for what they've been up to on the whole track. You got it?
All of a sudden they realize they have overts and withholds,
and it damn near kills them. And this would work out with
almost any case. So you run the CCHs to increase their
responsibility, and you pull off their withholds with a
Joburg. And that's the routine.

Now, I don't know quite what the optimum ratio between the
CCHs and a Joburg is. I don't know if it's one for one, one
for two, one for three - who knows. Hour for hour I'm talking
about. What do you do? Security check them for three hours
and CCH them for one? Or CCH them for three and security
check them for one? Well, we're just taking it out at even
level and say, well, we're going to start in at one for
one. So that's what it is right now: one for one. One hour
Joburg, one hour CCHs.

All right. That means that you don't suddenly stop a CCH
process that is terribly unflat and give the Joburg after
one hour, you understand? But if you've been five hours
flattening this, you can be totally prepared to spend five
hours on Security Checking. Got it? It's however long
they've been running the CCHs up to a temporary flat point.

One more mention of this. CCHs are run in strict accordance
with Clause 13 of the Auditor's Code: A process must be run
only so long as it produces change - this is not a direct
quote; this is an interpretation of it. It's a breach of
the Auditor's Code to run a process that is not producing
change. It is a breach of the Auditor's Code to stop a
process that is producing change. Got that? What's change
in the CCHs? Well, you run CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH 3, CCH 4. Let
us say that all during the running of 1, the test is twenty
minutes. The person, whatever they're doing, must be no
change of reaction in twenty minutes. Got it? Twenty
minutes, no change in the pc.

Now, what's that mean? Well, the pc is a meter. What would
the pc be reading on a meter if the pc were trying to
leave? Come on, what would it be?

Audience: Theta bop.

That's right. The pc is the meter. You don't have the pc on
a meter; you can look at the pc, see? Got the idea? All
right, now let's get another one. You're trying to run CCH
2, and there they go, and you're getting them all set and
so forth. And all during the time, they're just running
like a wound-up doll, see? There's no change of reaction,
there's no change, no comm lag, no nothing for twenty
minutes. Man, that's flat as far as you're concerned. It
isn't biting or it's flat or we don't care what; you go on
to the next one. You got the idea?

All right, supposing on one of these CCHs the pc is simply
1.5ing the entire time. Just madder than hell, you see?
"The idea of running such a process on me. You realize this
process is only reserved for psychotics?" Actually, it used
to be; it isn't now. "Process is only reserved for
psychotics, and you think I'm a psychotic, and who do you
think I am?" And they keep this up for twenty minutes -
process is flat. New look, huh? Supposing the pc lies down
in the middle of the floor and can't be made to rise for
twenty minutes - process flat. You got it?

So the process is run in strict accordance with Clause 13
of the Auditor's Code: Run a process only so long as it
produces change and no longer, and don't stop a process
that is producing change. You got that?

Well, that means - doesn't mean by the way that you have
to audit him all night. But that means in the next session
you're running the same process. See? That process has got
to come up to a flat point and the flat point is twenty
minutes without a change - whatever the pc is doing. Pc
insists every time he walks up to the wall that he turn
around and with one foot, kick it, and he's been doing it
for twenty minutes - he's had it.

You are no longer critical of what the pc is doing and no
longer trying to force the pc to do the process. You just
carry out your Upper Indoc-type CCHs and carry on as much
as you can, but you're not trying to force something on the
pc particularly, you understand? You're trying to do what
he can do. Obviously he's incapable of giving you his hand
during that period of time.

Now, you say, "Well, normally he would get over that sooner
or later." Yes, he'll get over it sooner or later; go on to
the next process. And when you finish up 4 you come back to
1, and you'll find out he's incapable for a while of giving
you his hand.

In the first place, you're auditing a valence out and the
pc up, and the only thing you get a reaction from is the
valence. So if the case is progressing, why, this valence
is acting up, because a valence fights for survival. You
got it? There's comm lags; there's various things
occurring, all the time, all the time, all the time. Well,
for heaven's sakes, it's not flat so you carry it on. You
got how to run them now?

That, by the way, is the original CCHs taught in London in
1957. We've gone right back to base on it. It is not for a
psycho. They were originated ordinarily just for cases that
weren't getting results on various processes. Case wouldn't
get results on higher processes so we just kicked an awful
lot of pcs over into this particular category, and London
has had a great deal of success with CCHs up through the years.

At the same time, I didn't have much of a chance to
straighten out the HGC as to how you ran CCHs, and they
weren't running them very good. And they were, you know - I
don't know - be perfectly happy to sit there and ask somebody
to give you their hand, and they give you their hand, and
do it just for twenty minutes. No. Six hours, twenty-five
hours - the individual is simply giving you his hand. They
just run it for twenty-five hours. It's a breach of the
Auditor's Code. If he gives you his hand for twenty minutes
on a stretch, that's it.

Furthermore, the CCHs are not run in Model Session. You
say, "Here we go." "That's it." And that's the beginning
and end of session. "I'm going to audit you now. This is
the first process. I'm going to say 'Give me your hand'" -
you can tell him anything you want to. You can even say,
"Well, it isn't going to hurt you." Anything you want. I
don't care what you say. But it's not run in Model Session.
You don't pick up the ARC breaks; you don't pick up any of
these things.

Why not? Because obviously if you're running that, the
person doesn't easily blow these things. So you can just
become completely involved with the case, see? Completely
involved. I'd say the criteria would be this: If you did a
long assessment, and finally the goal of the pc is to get
even with the janitor - who is a momentary, present time
terminal, and this is the only goal you can find on the
pc - I'd say you were probably assessing somebody you'd
have got along faster with, with the CCHs. See, the terminal
has backed all the way up to PT. Got the idea?

Now listen: It is not that you couldn't win with the other
routines on the same case, because we are no longer doing
routines because of case levels. That's a new surprise for you.

See, we've always had low cases get Routine 1, and the next
cases get Routine 2, and the next cases get Routine 3, or
something like this. Have you got the idea? It was always
graduated that way.

Well, it isn't now. It's what is the fastest case gain you
can obtain for the least amount of auditing. Got it? And it
is all in the interests of saving auditing time, because
all of these work, by the way - all three routines that we
have - work on the same level of case.

You could take Roddy Green and find his goal, and find his
terminal, and assess it on the Prehav Scale and run him.
You'd get there. But your auditing ratio may be something
on the order of about two to three per one. Takes you
seventy-five hours to get there whereas you could have
gotten there in the same period of time in twenty-five
hours. You got the idea? So it's just in the interests of
saving auditors' time that you do these things.

Furthermore the auditor doesn't get bogged down or upset
because his case isn't winning, because he's being yakked
at. You understand? Makes a smoother look all around.

So all three routines work on all cases, which is riches
indeed. And you could expect sooner or later, when we hit
the jackpot and pull that old one-arm bandit's hand and the
gold sovereigns started pouring out of it all around the
floor on technology, that this is what would have happened.
You would have had at least a couple of routines that would
have worked on all cases. Now we've got three routines
that'd work on all cases.

There isn't a person here, by the way, who wouldn't pick up
on some - the CCHs run in this fashion: CCH 1, 2, 3, 4, you
see? 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4; just run as long as they're
flat. It's very rapid running.

And we looked on the CCHs as being a very slow grind. Well,
I point out to you that in 1957 they were not a slow grind,
and they were being run in the exact style which I'm
telling you about now.

See, we got it lost, because I couldn't quite grasp what
was going wrong. We put it mainly down to the fact the
auditor's intention wasn't getting across to the pc. That's
not true. That has something to do with it, but that's not
the answer. The answer is a much more clean-cut answer than
that: The auditor was disobeying the Auditor's Code, Clause
13. Okay?

He was not running processes as long as they produced
change. Pc fighting, you know? And say, "Well, I'm not
going to run this damn process a minute longer. I'm not
going to run it..." And the pc would keep fighting him
for three hours, four hours, five hours, six hours, whole
intensive.

He'd say, "Well, I got to get someplace with this PC. I got
to get someplace because the pc's fighting," you see? No,
the pc's fighting is no change - no change by reason of the
process.

But you can say, "Well look, the process wasn't being
administered." Oh, you're looking physically at what
happens to about 75 percent of the cases you have trouble
with, is they never do the mental process that you give
them. Except now you've got it physically. He's not doing
CCH 2; only, you can see he isn't doing it. I've had a pc
come up to me and say, "Well, you thought that auditor was
pretty good that you had there, but hu-hu-hu-hu-uhuh-huh-
huh-huh I - I just had a twenty-five hour intensive from
him - tuhhum-hu-hu! Didn't do a single command he said.
Ha! Ha!"

And I thought, "Why, you dumb bastard," to myself, you
know. "You dumb sap! You mean to say that you wasted
twenty-five hours of auditing time and gave the fellow
something on the order of fifty quid, or something of the
sort, just so that you could have the wonderful opportunity
of never answering a single one of the auditing questions,
but fooling him for twenty-five hours." Oddly enough, to
the pc that would be eminently logical.

Well, you've got it out in plain, broad air that the pc is
not about to do your auditing commands, haven't you? Well,
so if - what if you had him on a mental process on the meter?
What if you had him on a mental process on the meter, and
he wasn't doing the auditing command but appeared to be?
You know, saying, "Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm."

You ask him, "What are you thinking about?"

"Oh, I'm thinking about the process. Mm-hm, mm-hm, mm-hm."
Got a machine. Got a machine set up like a clockwork toy
and every time you say the question, he goes, "Mm, hm-hm."
Hasn't anything to do with anything you've said, see.

You say, "Do fish swim?"

He says, ("The auditor is trying to probe my secrets.")
"Mm-hm." Got the idea?

Now, it's just an extremity of alter-is. Now, how much
alter-is is there on the case determines what process runs
him the fastest. So let's run CCHs and get any alter-is out
into the clear, or anything of that sort. But anybody could
gain on any of these routines.

Now, I'll go over these other routines with you very
rapidly. I'll just tell you what they are.

Routine 2 is a general run on the Prehav Scale, Joburg
Security Check, and the Havingness and Confront Processes
all run in Model Session. I think that's the extent of it,
isn't it? Is there anything else in there?

Mm! PT problems of long duration are assessed for terminal
on that routine. You find a present time problem of long
duration, you know? Keeps banging present time problem or
something of the sort, and you run that. You assess that on
the Prehav Scale. You find the terminal, and you find a
terminal about the problem that drops the most; and you
assess it on the Prehav Scale, and you run it flat, and you
assess it again, and you run it flat, and you assess it
again, and you run it flat, and you assess it again, and
run it flat. That's a PT problem of long duration. Fastest
way to run one for auditors at large. Actually you can get
someplace just running engrams on them, Presession 38, but
this other one is very, very easy to do and reaches all
cases without any difficulty. So why not do it. All right?

That's the extent of Routine 2. What's Routine 3? SOP Goals
Assessment - assessment for goal, assessment for terminal.
And this is run flat, level by level, on the Prehav Scale,
with what? Second step, Joburg Security Check. All three
routines have a Joburg Security Check in common.

What are you trying to do with this case? You're trying to
unbale this case and get this case up to a point where it
is willing to make an advance. What do you mean "unwilling"
to make an advance? All right, the case is unwilling to
make an advance so long as and continually when the case
finds he is turning on powerful and fantastic resistances
and somatics and things like this. He doesn't dare get any
better, because if he gets more responsible, he's had it.

Have you ever noticed that there are some very pretty girls
around in the world who have a high level of
irresponsibility? Have you noticed that? Well, actually, if
you ran them into the middle ground, their beauty would be
less. In other words, you'd audit them for a little while
and increase their responsibility, and they wouldn't look
so good. Have you got that? Isn't that odd? They'd be
better but they wouldn't look so good. You got the idea?

Well, that would only obtain so long as they were stacking
up withholds that you weren't getting rid of. So you could
take a person who was quite irresponsible but good-looking
- nothing they've ever done has any influence on the body.
Now, you audit them, it has some influence on the body.
They've got to - they've got to shoot the rapids, sort of,
up the Niagara River, you know? They've got to go up Niagara
Falls backwards, and it's a rather battering experience.
Well, it becomes a very unbattering experience the moment
that you keep cleaning up withholds, and you're going to
see this phenomenon continually.

You make a little case advance, and all of a sudden you're
on a long grind. What's happened? Well, the pc doesn't dare
get any better, that's all. See? Case advanced rapidly and
then something stopped it. You know? And then you grind,
grind, grind, grind, grind? You've all seen this. Well,
what was that point of the curve? I had to find out.

Well, it's the withholds. They suddenly get responsible for
their overts and then they haven't any chance to tell you
about them or unload them or unburden them in any way, and
they just start kicking their heads off, that's all.

You'll find somebody who's had a case improvement, who has
improved just a little bit too much for their tolerance,
suddenly standing back of a chimney sobbing bitterly. You
got the idea? "I'm no good!"

And we've had some casualties with that. That is to say,
somebody has blown or something like that, you know? He's
been improved a bit, but it was too much for him. You got
the idea? Because improvement means an increase of
responsibility for his past, present and future, which of
course includes all the dirty, mean, nasty, caviling,
little two-bit tricks he's played on everybody.

And how did he get those things - how did he get those
things excused? He lessened the overt. The old bulletin
on lessening the overt - which by the way, should be part
of your bulletins. And they lessen the overt, and now you
audit them, and they suddenly realize that that person they
were so nasty to wasn't probably quite that bad, see? And
this overt starts to swell up on them. Now, you're doing it
with processing and this is now a ten-thousand-horsepower
operation, see? And the pc puts his two horsepower up
against this thing, you see, and just tries like mad to
stop the juggernaut. Only this overt keeps unlessening. Joe
was not so bad; God, what's going to happen to them now,
you see? So their whole effort now is to keep the overt
from unlessening, and they no longer have their attention
on the process. Got it? That's the exact mechanism.

So the case improves, you get a fast improvement curve, get
the withholds. And you - all of a sudden you get another
fast improvement curve, get the withholds; get another fast
improvement curve, get the withholds. That's the system.
You've got three routines with which to do it.

And cases which are having difficulty answering auditing
commands or having difficulty in auditing, or who would
only run on SOP Goals in some kind of a present time
situation, probably will audit faster on the CCHs, as a
general rule, than they would audit otherwise. They'll make
more progress. You got the idea? You can get this person
back up over Niagara Falls without so many chain hoists.
It's easier.

Instead of standing in there boxing with the alter-is -
which they're not about to take responsibility for or run
out. See, don't go on the basis that everybody, just
because you alter the alter-is - you might not be able to
find it exactly. See, the alter-is might have something
to do with "have" and "would be." You know, any kind of a
Hobson-Jobson situation where they're fitting one
substitute with another substitute. And you might not hit
it exactly. And you'd have to keep hitting it exactly. And
it's very expert. Requires a lot of expertness to do that
thing. You get their mind going off like a firecracker
almost continuously and you can do it! It can be done, you
understand? But it's probably slower. Certainly, for the
average auditor, slower.

All right, so the combination there is that this is the
best thing to do for a case that might hang up otherwise.

Now, your next general run, your next general routine, is
actually basically there. All cases would benefit from it,
and it would be faster than Routine 3 in a lot of cases.
But I - I have found out that auditors who are specifically
being coached at long distance from us - which is very
difficult - actually are able to do what is now Routine 2.
They can do it. They can kind of dub around and make it
work, you understand? But boy, you get them on goals and
they're over the hills and far away like a bunch of
white-tailed antelope. And you just see these little spots
of white in the distance. Man, they don't grab that one.
I've got it on my comm lines and from HGCs and from every
place ad infinitum, and they're just - no latch.

They can do general runs on Prehav Scales. Read one
bulletin, do a general run on the Prehav Scale, that's it.
Do a Joburg Security Check, miss 50 percent of the
questions, but it's still functioning, see? You get the
idea? It's still functional in their hands. Do you see that?

But this doesn't say that you couldn't take the person
you're going to do CCH on and find his goal. And it doesn't
say that the person that you're going to do the general
runs and Joburgs on - it doesn't say you couldn't grind
in and find his goal. You can actually find the goal and
terminal and so forth on anybody that you try. It's just a
little arduous, that's all. A little more arduous. It takes
more time.

So in the interests of swift clearing is what these three
routines are all about, and that's the basis on which we're
operating today.

And of course, you're here to learn about this so I
probably won't see you doing as many Routine 2s. You'll
probably get more Routine 1s and Routine 3s than you get
2s. But in some HGC someplace, or out in the bush of - back
of North Wallaby, why, you'll see an awful lot of Routine
2 - and you meet somebody back of North Wallaby, and he'd
say, "Oh, we're having so much luck on SOP Goals. Esther
spun last night."

And you'd say, "What are you running?"

"Oh, we did a long assessment on her - twenty minutes - and
we finally decided her husband was what was her trouble, so
terminal was a husband. And it was by elimination. We
talked it over in the rest of the conference, and we
decided that was the only possible terminal. So we ran 'a
husband' on her, and so forth. And the next time we did an
assessment, for some reason or other the whole scale was
live, so we just started at the top and tried to run each
one flat on the husband. And you didn't give us all the
data, you know, for SOP Goals, and it doesn't work very
good either." But you give them this Routine 2, and they go
off like a bunch of canary birds, and they get wonderful
results. Okay?

Female voice: Yes sir.

Male voice: Question on Routine 2.

Yeah.

Male voice: The general assessment: Is that done purely on
a Primary Scale or do you carry - carry it over to the
Secondary as well?

No, you can carry that on right on through to the deepest
depths of the Secondary. All assessments can be done
Primary and Secondary, or just Primary. The worse off a
case is or the more Clear they are - the two extremes -
both have to have Secondary runs on assessments.

Second male voice: Do you ever switch from one routine to
the other?

Yes, you sure do. Case isn't running very well on his goals
terminal, or his assessment or something, shift into 2. Be
upsetting though to shift from 2 back to 1 because it's
invalidating. Make up your mind at the beginning. If in
doubt, always run CCHs. If you're in doubt whether he
should be running CCHs or 2, run CCHs. That answer your
question?

Second male voice: Yes, it does.

All right. The more you shift, changing your mind, why, the
less sure you look and the less control you've got on the pc.

Second male voice: Precise running of the CCHs: left,
right, or right and left, both hands - then do you - ?

Yeah, and on your head. And then there's CCH 1X - there's,
CCH 1X. That's a good one. That's a good one: Pc gives you
both of his socks! I don't mean to make nothing out of your
question but it brings up this humorous point, Ken. It
brings up this very humorous point, that the more CCHs I
put out for various variations, the less CCH was run on the
basics. And actually the variations practically killed the
CCHs, the variations did. No, it's just right hand, man.
It's always right hand. You're not trying to clean this
fellow's life with the CCH; you're trying to improve his
case so that he can get off his withholds. You got it? When
you've got all his withholds off and he's totally
responsible, and he's clean as a wolf's tooth, he's going
to be floating, almost floating here on the needle anyhow,
when you finish this up, you understand? And he's going to
be so free on the needle that you start doing an assessment
and he starts blowing clear on the assessment. You got the
idea? You wait till you see this. You'll realize why you're
running it. I apologize for making a mock of your question.
Yes?

Female voice: Would SCS still come in the CCHs? Through
the CCHs?

There are no SCSs in the CCHs. CCH 1, 2, 3, 4. There are
only four of them that are valid. Now, the SCS does have
a high CCH number, but you've got to read your - I see
right now, you've got to read your CCHs from beginning
to the end, because there are only four of them, and what
was known as the CCH Routine is exactly a precise routine
consisting of four processes.

And that's the only CCH Routine we mean. We mean no other
variations. Okay?

Female voice: Yes, thank you.

Right. All right. Okay, any more questions? All right.
Thank you very much, and that's it for tonight.

Good night now.

[End of lecture.]


