SHSBC 57

SEC CHECK AND WITHHOLDS

A lecture given on 13 September 1961

Okay, well, how are you doing today, huh?
Audience:       Fine. All right.
All right. It's apparently the what? The 13th?
Audience:       13th.
September AD 11.
All right. Now, you're well immersed into the idea, and one or two of you
into the practicalities, of running an engram. I don't know how you got
away with it or how good it was or wasn't, but did it run all the way out?
Is it still reacting on the needle? This engram. Speak.
Female voice: Evelyn, she had one.
Another female voice: Well, I ran several.
How long did each one take?
Female voice: Well, they certainly took. Unfortunately, I had to watch the
time of the next preclear coming, so that got in the way a bit, but we
flattened off quite a bit. And one did go completely flat.
That was the first one?
Female voice: Well, I had two preclears running, you see. First one didn't,
because his session came to an end, so I popped him out of it. But the
second preclear ran one flat, and there's another one still sparking on.
How many...?
Another female voice: She's auditing two people.
Well, I'm talking about one pc. Now, did one engram get run on one pc?
Female voice: Yes.
And did one engram get partially run on one pc but not flattened?
Female voice: That's right. Oh, yeah.
When's it going to get flattened?
Female voice: Next session, I hope.
All right. Who's the pc that's got the unflattened engram? Oh, you!
Female voice: Yeah.
Ah, well. That accounts for you not speaking up, I suppose. All right,
well, so much for that.
The routine I've been talking to you about, a plan of clearing, is a very
important thing. I have been very leery, you see, of putting too many
sawed-off shotguns in your hands. But there is no way to walk around this.
And we have to just front up to it, and realize that you've got to use all
the weapons and tools that are at your command in order to do the job. You
can't fool with it. Apparently there is no shortcut to clearing, any more
than there is a royal road to geometry.
Well now, the only way that you can front up to the fact of Clears, is to
clear people, and apparently there is no short road by which this is done.
There is a fast road in terms of exactly what you do, and I gave it to you
in yesterday's lecture. But there is no circuitous, easy road. Do you get
the idea - the difference here?
There could possibly be some milder, more in keeping with repetitive,
command - less demand on the auditor is what I'm talking about. There could
be.
I've been looking for something like that all summer and have been testing
with it and trying to do something about it. And cases make progress, but I
will tell you that this is a final conclusion and I don't care to make any
further conclusions on the matter.
Unless you have found the pc's goal and terminal, you're auditing a
hodgepodge and they get better, they don't get better, and they go up, and
they go down, and they - you know, and so on, etc., blah.
If you find their goal, and find the pc's terminal, why, they're on the
road. And if you run the terminal on the Prehav Scale, you can only run it
just so far, and the person runs into a certain series of engrams and gets
well into a chain of engrams, and these engrams then are available to be
run. And they have to be run and that's that. Because a pc all by himself,
puttering around, is going to play - I don't know whether they do
schottisches on the outskirts of these engrams, or what, but they certainly
don't do anything in the engram. It requires an auditor's skill to push
them in.
There is no substitute for Security Check. A Security Check has to be well
done. But again, a Security Check done on any other version than just a
straight Security Check form runs into this other phenomena of just running
random engrams and stirring up the bank and that sort of thing. And
although you get off more withholds, and although there are very tricky
ways to run Security Checks, just on the straight things, the best Security
Check is the straight Security Check, for my money.
There are various things you have to do sometimes, because not all the
questions are present on the Security Check, and pcs can think of a great
many random things to do with a Security Check.
There is no question on it that says, for instance, "Well, have you ever
made a pc guilty for giving you a withhold?" We just ran into that one. And
that was hotter than a pistol, wasn't it? And the Security Check wasn't
working. Wasn't working on this person, and finally Mary Sue, with a large,
long, blue spark - I think her sparks are usually tinged with slight pink -
said, "Well, let's see if he's done anything unusual with the pc's
withholds." And he had done something unusual with the pc's withholds, and
was keeping the Security Check from working. In other words, you have to be
smart to run a Security Check, but the best and fastest Security Check is
just a straightforward check. All right.
In running engrams, you again have to have a good subjective reality on
what an engram is all about in order to run an engram well. But that
doesn't say that you cannot run an engram without any subjective reality
because that is going to have to be done, and remember that I have run
engrams with no subjective reality of any kind whatsoever. 1947. Never been
through birth, and I'd run people through birth, and so forth. So this can
be done, you see.
Now, as we look on the pros and cons, and the pluses and minuses on this
type of an approach, it is a very blunt approach, and it demanded certain
tools. And - the Instructors of the Washington course, by the way, are - I
just smell it - they're just being a little bit sparky. They don't believe
that the goals possibly could have occurred in the first 150, because none
of the thirty people on the course were able to find a goal on the 150
given by the pc, you see. They didn't believe their rudiments were out.
They just didn't believe their rudiments were out. They can't believe it.
They can't face up to it.
Yet, on that course, they were not cross-checking rudiments. In other
words, student A on the course was not taking student B's pc and checking
to find out if the rudiments were out, and then telling student B, you see.
That routine was missing. And the most Clears were made in the South
African course where that was done. Cross-checks of rudiments.
So rudiments are not always out for the auditor. See, it isn't that the
auditor is being careless. They're not always out for the pc's particular
auditor. The pc gets into a frame of mind where he believes that this
auditor is skilled or confident, and he swears by this auditor, and
therefore doesn't feel ill at ease at all, you see. And knows that if he
gave up a withhold, that the auditor isn't going to chew him up with the
withhold, you see, and he gets into this state of somnolence with regard to
rudiments. They're wildly out. He's got present time problems and
everything else, but he has confidence in his auditor and so he doesn't
register. You get the idea? He'd just as soon go into session for this
auditor, apparently, but in actuality the rudiments are out.
Another auditor checks the rudiments on that particular pc and they are
wildly out. They're not necessarily now wildly out for an auditor or
another auditor, they're just out. It's the fact that the pc's confidence
or attitude toward his auditor or lack of confidence in the auditor or
something else, has put him to a point where he just doesn't have present
time problems and withholds while being audited by Joe, don't you see? He
just doesn't have them. They are affecting the living daylights out of his
case. It's just a peculiarity.
Now, we haven't even really gotten to the bottom of the peculiarity, and
probably there are a great deal of odds and ends of mechanisms involved in
this that haven't been brought to view.
One of the mechanisms I did bring to view on it, however, is that an
auditor - pc, as a team, get withholds. You see, they get withholds on the
rest of the world. So that anything given off by the pc to the auditor is
looked upon as a further confidence. See, it's not being given up. It's
just being passed to one person carefully, so as not to be passed to
anybody else, don't you see?
So eventually they get a whole bunch of, "withholds off," but how far off
are they? They're off on the understanding that they won't go any further.
And just to satisfy and placate the American Psychotic Association, we put
that "keep the secrets of your pc," you see, in the Auditor's Code. Well,
it's a good idea, everybody's been doing it, and so forth. But that's the
only part of the Code of a Scientologist or the Auditor's Code which I just
wouldn't, myself, much believe in. Because right away it's defeating, isn't
it? It says, "Well, this withhold can go one person, and that's it."
Or on the other hand, you start making hay with somebody's withholds, and
another evil develops, so on, so ma - because a person is being punished
for his withholds by the society which is all triggered to punish people
for their withholds.
Now, a little bit more further than that, several times in research we have
found this to be the case, but I don't know if you're aware of the fact
that pcs quite often get off withholds which are total lies. And they go on
reacting because they are lies. And they get all messed up because they've
told a lie.
And there are some people around who get off withholds to get other people
in trouble. (Quote) Get off withholds (unquote). It's quite interesting. I
mean you - some auditor is guilelessly auditing this pc and this pc says,
"Well, yesterday Joe stopped me in the hall and kissed me and slapped me on
the gluteus maximus and told me something or other, something or other."
And the auditor says, "What do you know!" you know?
Well, he can't quite get it to clear, and he thinks there's more to it, and
it goes on and on, and then it finally just sags out of view somehow or
another, and he isn't reading his meter carefully, you know. And he goes
around with the complete idea that this has occurred.
Well, of course the pc has now put himself out of session by
miss-communicating to the auditor. And the auditor unfortunately will very
often go around and say, "Well, that Joe, he's really a character, you
know? He makes passes at women in halls." Nothing like this ever occurred.
I mean, there are withholds, (quote) (unquote) circulating around in
Scientology which have never occurred.
It is used by some pcs to spread entheta which isn't true. I'll tell you
where this is most prevalent. I'll tell you how to spot this. You get a pc
who never tells what they've done, but always says what somebody else has
done. "Did you ever rob a bank?" "No, but my father robbed a bank." You
know, that kind of thing, you know. And you watch this going on any length
of time with a pc, and if it's consistent, you can be fairly sure that some
of that pc's withholds that he gives you are just lies. And you want to
cross-check on withholds for lies. And you can just put it down as a little
rule. Because a case can hang up by having given you a false withhold.
That's something to know, you see? And you say, "Well, have you lied to me
about any of these withholds you've given me today?"
Well, we have a little, pint-size pc. He's about as big as a suitcase. And
so help me Pete, if he didn't give his auditor - I don't know how many
withholds he passed out the first day that he was being given a children's
Security Check, but it was something on the order of fifteen, twenty, maybe
something like that. Comes back in the next day, he's more honest than
most, and he says, "Well, I - huh-huh, huh-huh. Two of those withholds I
gave you yesterday are lies." He woke up to it.
So you want to cross-check on this sort of thing. Be particularly leery of
anybody who's always giving withholds about somebody else. See?
"No, I have never held up a bank, but my last auditor uh.. ." I'd be
particularly alert to this one. In the first place, that's not a withhold.
A withhold is what the pc himself did. That is a withhold. Plus, the pc
being an accessory to a fact. That is a withhold. Now, the pc being the
accessory to the fact does not include the pc passing on all the bad data
and all the rumors, and so forth, the pc has ever heard, because of course
the pc's not an accessory to the fact of any part of these things. No, the
pc didn't rob the bank, the pc stood out on the corner and made sure the
police weren't coming while the bank was being robbed, don't you see? All
right, that's an accessory-to-the-fact withhold, and which is part of the
withhold. It's quite a valid withhold.
But it is something the pc did, isn't it? See, the pc did stand on the
corner. The pc didn't rob the bank, but the pc stood on the corner. You'll
get this sort of thing. You'll get as a withhold occasionally, "Well, I sat
and listened to some violent criticism of. . ." And that the pc considers
an overt - and it was. Pc didn't speak up and shut it off or put anybody
straight or anything; they just sat and agreed with it all, you see, and
all of a sudden, why, this turns up as a withhold, but remember that was
something the pc did. The pc accepted tamely, or agreed with, you see, or
didn't do anything about, a situation. But again, it's something the pc
did, don't you see? It isn't the information that was given the pc. That
had nothing to do with it.
So you - and then you always want to check as I have said. Check the
Security Check for lies.
"Have you told me any lies during this session of Security Checking? Are
any of these things lies? Have you misrepresented the facts in any way
while I have been security checking you?" Well, of course, let the pc take
umbrage. But the harder the pc umbrages, why, the harder I push. Pc says,
"What, no such thing! I've never told a lie in my life."
I said, "Well, all right, which one of these withholds was a lie?"
"Well, but I've never said anything like that. I - oh, I never! Well, I've
never been so insulted in my life!"
"All right, well let's check them over. Now, let's take the first question.
Did you lie on that one?"
"Well, not much."
That's the usual routine, one, two, three, four. The more upset a person
gets about a Security Check, up to the point of refusing to take one, which
is the ultimate upset with a Security Check, the more withholds the person
has. It is a proportionate scale. It is directly proportional. The more
protest, the more withholds. Right up to refusal to have any check of any
kind whatsoever that's up .
Now, listen, that's not some punishment mechanism I'm thinking of. I have
never had it fail, now, in much more than - well, it's two years and more
experience now with Security Checks, I have never had it fail, that the
person who refused - I don't care if that person was straight off the
street - the person who has refused to have anything to do with a Security
Check was the most loaded of the lot.
You say, well, how do you find this out? Well, that's not necessarily a
secret. You take a non-Scientology staff, or a non-Scientology personnel,
don't you see - we've had a lot of experience with these, not just here -
and they're pretty wild. The person who has got a fairly clean slate or a
halfway clean slate will come in and sit down and have a Security Check.
But the person that you can't even see the black for the chalk, you know,
and they say, "No, well, that's against my rights. We have rights here. You
might not understand it, but we have rights. Rights!"
Now, at first I sort of bought this. But as time went on, and I got
cross-checks on these people, I found out the more rights the more crime.
Soon as somebody tells me something like that anymore, I just, "Well, what
do you know! So that's where the sugar has been going." In fact I'd be
perfectly liable to say that right out loud to them. "What else have you
done around here that I don't know about?" And oddly enough, they'll start
breaking down, drrrrrrr, boom!
"Ah, I didn't mean it," and so forth. "And the spoons just leaped off the
sideboard and into my pocket. And what do you mean by having spoons that do
this?"
That is something to know. That is something to know.
Now, the general mechanism of the Security Check - in that withholds can be
abused: A person has the horrible choice of remaining static as a case from
there on out or getting them off, and taking the chance that it ruins his
reputation, that he'll be hanged, and so forth. Well, in two years of
experience I have never seen anybody hanged for getting rid of a withhold.
I have noticed, occasionally, on staffs, and so forth, an HCO Sec or
somebody reading down a sheet of withholds and finding one that's so damn
contrary to organizational regulations or what we're supposed to be doing
or something of the sort, that the person just goes up like a small
skyrocket and lands on the person's head in a gigantic atomic explosion,
and the person is rather taken aback by all this.
"What do you mean, stealing mimeograph paper? Don't you know that stuff
costs money? No wonder I've never had any mimeograph paper around here,"
you know?
Well, that's actually bad. They're abusing a withhold. But why do anything
about it? Why do anything about it?
Another thing that happens with regard to withholds is very, very funny,
and it was happening to us down in South Africa. I'm looking at a student
right now who was very baffled on two or three occasions, but I think he
came in on at least one occasion that I know of, maybe two occasions, and
found his desk as Director of Materiel, Johannesburg, practically covered
with unidentifiable, nonsource items. All kinds of weird things.
Organization property, don't you see? And I think this one thing was
terribly mysterious, awfully mysterious, was that his office was locked and
nobody had a key to it except two or three top executives. And yet, he came
in in the morning, the office still locked and desk covered with all kinds
of litter, bric-a-brac, you know, missing tapes and missing books and
missing this and that.
And somebody, you see, trying to get out from underneath it - being found
on the Security Check, or something. I don't know what all that wound up
on, but sooner or later of course somebody would collide with it anyway.
But when it comes to health, or case advances or a decent society, and so
forth, actually a society which makes it impossible for a person to take
any road out, of course, is a doomed society. That society can kiss itself
goodbye. It will go along with Chaldea, Babylon and Egypt any day.
And, of course, this society, the present society, is absolutely
booby-trapped. Well, goodness gracious, the police are running around in
circles up here right now, I'm sure, trying to solve some vast crime or
another, and get back some property or something. And there's probably some
thief sitting someplace saying, "Good heavens, why on Earth and what
possessed me to steal a Queen Victoria hat? I'm sure I don't know, you see,
and all this other junk. And what am I going to do with it? And the fences
will have nothing to do with it, and I'd happily give the stuff back," but
he can't. The police couldn't accept it back, and - oh, they've got a big
ridge going of some kind or another.
I'd pull a different deal if I were figuring out which way to go on such a
thing. I wouldn't let people off scot-free on such things, but I would sure
send them someplace where they could get straightened out. In other words I
would make a road out. But in the existing society there is no road out.
Well, handling Security Checks in a society of this particular character,
then, runs into a little bit of heavy weather. And you very often run into
some heavy weather. Somebody's sitting there and, good God, they're the
fellow who did it, you know, and what are you going to do as the auditor,
you know? Well, one of the things that occurs to you at once is they're the
one who did it, and so forth. They, therefore, are guilty and they're a
criminal involved in the situation, and what is your responsibility as an
auditor?
Well, it's - your responsibility as an auditor is first and foremost as an
auditor, is get the person out of it. You're not the police force. Don't
you see? And then you actually are not honor bound from that point there on
to be under a stamp and seal of total secrecy with regard to the fact that
the First National Bank was robbed by Joe, you see.
But don't go calling up the police. They're on the wrong road. Cops never
get a society anyplace. Cops are a short-term proposition, strictly. The
more cops, the more crime. Not the more crime there is the more cops. See,
it's the reverse. Quite the reverse. If you had a totally lawful society,
all you'd have to do is look around and hire a thousand police, and you'd
have criminals. Well, these fellows have to have something to do, don't
they? There's a game called cops and robbers. And if there aren't any
criminals, we're going to make some. And they don't protect the society.
Various times on the track when I've done police work, always operated on
one basic mechanism: that the responsibility of a provost marshal or a
military governor or something like that was to public security, public
safety. First and foremost, public security. That was the target. Not
criminals, you don't have anything to do with criminals, you had to do with
public security.
Of course, that makes kind of a vigorous kind of law if you look it over.
And you find somebody standing on the crossroads with three people in the
held up coach with bullets in them, and he's got bloody jewels in his hands
right at that moment, well, you don't bother the courts, you think of
public security. And of course if you think of public security you also
think of public economy. That's a sort of a vigorous kind of justice. But
nevertheless is a much more positive kind of justice than hire a thousand
cops in a lawful society...
Oh, somebody has sent me a whole series of clippings on this, by the way.
This had escaped my memory. And there's some town in Texas that had a jail,
and they had two or three police officers. And they finally cut the police
force down and they noticed that the crime disappeared to some degree, so
they chopped the police force out entirely and haven't had a crime since. A
whole series of clippings on this. Quite amusing.
But you're not in the business of justice with a Security Check, is all I'm
trying to impress you with. You're not in the business of justice, you are
totally and completely in the business of straightening somebody out. Now,
if you later on are in the business of justice, you have to reconcile with
your fact you've used an auditing confidence or something that you forced
the fellow to give you. And if you use this later on, wearing some other
hat, well, you just have to reconcile it somehow or another, or figure out
whether you should or shouldn't. But it would be while wearing another hat
that something like this occurred, don't you see?
This society is rather goofy. Along one line, it believes second dynamic
withholds are far more valuable and more important, you see, than other
types of withholds. And the second dynamic is one of eight. And I don't
know that second dynamic withholds have any vast importance. Of course, sex
is a little bit closer to creativeness, and creativeness is a little bit
closer to reactivity than other things. But I'd say that a man who created
bad machinery on the third dynamic, don't you see, or sold bad machinery or
something like that on the third dynamic - he was - this shouldn't have any
- should have about the same weight as someebody who is doing some weird
second dynamic activity. What's all this emphasis?
Well, the society gets this from Papa Freud. And Freud brought this up and
said the single source of human aberration was the libido theory. You
didn't get that joke. Wasn't sex, it was Freud's theory. And they've been
playing it on their zithers and guitars ever since. That was just what the
Victorian age needed to top itself off with and finish itself off. And they
bought it, and that's it. But you find a great deal more freedom being
expressed along in these lines.
And if you think the case is going to get better suddenly by getting off
some bad second dynamic withhold, be prepared to often be disappointed.
Case gives up a second dynamic withhold and doesn't get any better.
According to Freudian theory, you see, once you found the childhood sexual
abnormality... Penis envy, I think, was one of the greatest crimes of the
whole setup, you know, that kind of thing. Terrific, awful. And you get
this off, you know, and you say, "Well, gee," you know, "that ought to
really make a difference with this case. This case really ought to run
now," you know? Case doesn't run any better. Wrong target.
You find one fine day that the case had an unkind thought about a pc in
session. And you get that one off, you know, and the case all of a sudden
starts to run. And if you don't recognize - recognize that the value of a
withhold is the value assigned to it by the pc; and the value of releasing
it - is the degree it assists auditing - the way it assists his life or
something. And if you recognize those principles, why, you won't get carted
astray with all this nonsense and so forth.
Now, I suspect that in some group or another they could start vying with
one another about the meatiness of the second dynamic withholds that they
could get off, and I - about the time I saw some of these things, I would
say, "Oh, hell, why don't you people stop lying and start auditing, you
know." Because, pooey! it's not that important.
The whole world, its perpetuity as far as bodies are concerned, is based on
certain now-I'm-supposed-to's, all of which are self-protective. And if
you're trying to hold a unit together like a family or something like this,
there should be now-I'm-supposed-to's, and they should hold together. And
if that is the game that's being played, it should be played by the rules.
But as far as the total aberration of man - you got off a second dynamic
withhold off of somebody, like he was the fellow who set up the perpetuity
of bodies for any given planet, and he's been sort of feeling guilty about
that ever since, of course he'd be the source of all second dynamic
withholds or upsets or aberrations from there on out, wouldn't he? And yet
that would be a social activity in the field of science. It's not a second
dynamic activity at all. It'd be a fifth and sixth dynamic activity.
Well, it can't be very aberrative. I was a party to something like that
once.
But the upshot of it is, the withholds that you get off are what they are,
not what the pc embroiders them into, and they are as good as they assist
auditing to take place. You're just trying to put the pc in-session, that's
all you're trying to do with withholds. And you could overvalue this.
As a matter of fact, they have, here and there, you get a tremendous
resurge when you're doing Security Checks. You find out some mechanism or
another, and you release this thing, and you get a big case resurge. And it
is a good thing to have happen to the case. There is no doubt about this.
But remember, he won't go Clear on withholds. And that's all we're
interested in.
You get off of - all of his withholds off the length and breadth of the
track, the whole distance, and you wouldn't have a Clear. Isn't that
interesting? You'd just have somebody that audited better. So look at your
relative values.
Now, a case will not progress unless a certain proportion of the withholds
are off the case. And you'll find any case that is holding on to withholds,
hard to audit and hard to clear. Getting off withholds does not make a
Clear, but having withholds can prevent clearing from occurring. Now, do
you follow that? You see, it's just like building barricades across
roadways, and the person's trying to travel on this road. Well, actually
removing the barricade doesn't get him much further on the road, it just
permits him to travel on it.
Therefore you have to know how to do these things, and you have to know how
to do them well. And it is a subject - I won't mince around with it - it is
a subject which requires cleverness. You have to be clever to be a good
Security Checker. You have to be clever. You can't sit there and run over
and over and over like a wound-up phonograph and say, "Well, have you ever
cooked a company's books? Thank you. Have you ever cooked a company's
books? Thank you. Have you ever cooked a company's books? Thank you."
That's not going to get anyplace. You read the question, "Have you ever
falsified a company's accounts?" And the person, well, looks a little
tense, and the meter might or might not have reacted, and you say, "Well,
what do you know. Well, have you ever juggled a company's books? You ever
juggled any accounts?" Bing! "All right, when was that?" you see.
A security question sheet can never be put together to answer up to all
human beings at all times and all places. Just skip it, you can't do it.
Couldn't be done. You've got to ask the question so that it applies to the
pc.
Now, supposing you did a Security Check in Oxfordian English with
polysyllabic address at all corners? And then you were checking a Bantu?
Right away, of course, your Security Check breaks down because all these
beautiful words go over his head and that's it. Of course you don't get any
reactions, he's innocent of everything including being a Bantu. Doesn't
think of himself as a Bantu; he's a Zulu. See, so, "Are you a Zulu?" He'd
fall on that, but not on "Are you a Bantu?" You got the idea?
Has to be adapted to the person. And when you give a Security Check, you
have to give a Security Check to the person you are giving the Security
Check to. And the list of questions are never to have any omissions. Always
ask them all the questions on this sheet and any others you think it would
be good to ask them.
Auditors are always adding. Well, let me open the gates right there; let me
open the gates wide. You can add all the questions you want to to a
Security Check as long as you ask all the questions that are on the sheet.
So your "prolixity for additity," can be given a free and complete rein. I
don't care how many security questions you interlard into a Security Check.
I just don't care.
And you're going down the line, and you say, "You know, I bet this fellow
has an awful lot of Security Check questions on the subject of horses. I
bet you he's been stealing horses, and beating horses. I just - cause -
because every time he blows his nose he goes 'Hyn-hyn-hyn-hyn-hyn!"' Good
lead. All right. Do a bunch of little questions about horses. Next time you
open up the session on a Form 3, why, just sail into your questions about
horses. And get them cleaned up and go on with Form 3, you get the idea.
You can throw questions into a Security Check anyplace.
Very ordinarily in handling cases, why, I will dream up a series of
Security Check questions that'd exactly fit that case and ask the auditor
to run them, and usually there's pay dirt on them that would have made the
fortyniners look pale. Well, I'll give you an example. Well, let's say
cigarettes are disappearing around upstairs - you know, packages of
cigarettes are disappearing - and I read an employment Security Check to a
staff member. Only I'm worried about cigarettes. I don't say "Have you
stolen anything?" I say, "Well, have you stolen any cigarettes around
here?" Get the idea? In other words, Security Check is being given against
a series of known circumstances. So those known circumstances which are
current, of course, are interlarded into a standard Security Check.
There's one exception to this, and that is Form - HCO WW Security Check
Form 7. Because that is so deadly, it mustn't be added to. The Security
Checker there is taking the fellow's life in his hands. He can deny him a
job or he can suspend him from staff just from failing one question,
whether the question is cleared or not. So you start adding a bunch of
questions to that thing and, of course, you close the gates in all
directions. Because there isn't a human being alive, nor a doll on some
other planet, or any human beings on some other planets, that could pass a
Security Check from beginning to end without - well, Security Form 3 -
without about a 30 percent casualty. There isn't anybody alive who hasn't
got about a 30 percent casualty on that thing - you know, flunk, that. And
if you're just giving the Security Check, you see, de-de-de da da, ba-da,
da da, and just flunking just because they had a needle reaction, an
instant read reaction, of course you'd flunk everybody. Everybody in the
universe would become unemployable at once.
So don't mess up a Form 7, but you might - somebody might pass a Form 7,
and then you still aren't sure. Well, if you're still not sure, why you,
after they've passed the Form 7, why, you get somebody else to do something
about it, or tip off their auditor or something of this sort. You're not
sure. But if they didn't really give an instant read on Form 7, Versions A
or B, you can't do anything about it. And those are read verbatim, and they
are read just that many checks. But of course, that is a Security Check for
the purpose of security. And we're talking about Security Checks for the
purpose of processing. And purpose of processing, that's another reason.
You're much more cognizant with Security Checks from the basis of
processing. And that's the viewpoint from which we're looking at it.
Now, if you were doing a Security Check from the standpoint of police work,
of course, you would know exactly what questions you were looking for,
because you were asking from a set of known conditions. And therefore the
Security Check should be dreamed up for whatever activity you're engaged in
that way. You're trying to find a thief or something of the sort. Well, ask
the questions necessary to find the thief.
There's another rationale about Security Checks that I should say something
about; and that is, that rights shouldn't be invaded. Now, of course you
get that from the people with all the withholds. But you should have this
datum, if somebody ever argues with you consistently and continually on a
broad public front, like a meeting or something like that about the
Security Checks and invasion of privacy, and so forth. The answer to that
is contained in, in an essay I wrote in a bulletin, HONEST PEOPLE HAVE
RIGHTS. That has been so neglected on this planet that only the crook now
has rights. Honest people have rights. There is no doubt about that. And
that is not part of any police curriculum, rule book or mores on this
planet today.
I was very amused. I followed for some weeks newspaper stories about
crimes, and I found in each case - I was out in Arizona - and I found in
each case the total interrogation was of the person who had been robbed.
Fellow had had his car stolen; they'd have him right down to the police
station, being - interrogating him under the lights. It started out a
fellow had parked his car momentarily alongside of a road, and a couple of
tough guys had come up and beaten him up. And I think, drove off with the
car or something like that. And the police came along very shortly
afterwards and they shadowed this fellow who'd had his car stolen. They
interrogated him, they took him down to the police station, and then
thereafter shadowed him, cross-questioned him, had his name in all the
papers, until reading the stories you would have been absolutely certain
that there was something very wrong with this man that he had committed the
crime of being beaten up by two toughs. You see how it gets bent around?
I wanted to see if things were going that way, so I followed the press
rather rigorously for a while on just that one theme. Honest people have
rights.
Now, give you a consequence of that. Any domestic difficulties there have
been at Saint Hill amongst domestic staff, which of course are
non-Scientology staff, have been occasioned by people who had fantastic
withholds. This was a long time ago. And it worked like this: They
immediately got rid of good staff members. You can always count on a staff
member who has a great many withholds and who is doing criminal things,
getting rid of good staff members. You can always count on it. When you see
good staff members disappearing, look for the guy with the withholds.
Because they will tell lies about them. They will try to get rid of them.
Because they can't bend them down to their level.
And a person, for instance, in some large British company right at the -
this instant, you see, who has a criminal background, who has lots of
withholds of one character or another, is a terrible liability to the rest
of the staff. He's a terrible liability to them.
The situation is not a faint one. They let these boys ram around inside of
a - the perfectly good employees, and that sort of thing, and the next
thing you know the place is a dog's breakfast. And it isn't that management
should be suspicious and mean, but management that is going to protect
their working people and their employed people, must use security measures.
They must. They must not employ criminals. They just mustn't do it. Because
they are victimizing the people they are supposed to be protecting.
Well, I'll give you an idea. I imagine there's a student or two that was
given a fancy story around here not too long ago about how horrible Saint
Hill was thought of from the region of East Grinstead. You know, the people
in East Grinstead are - boarding houses or people in East Grinstead thought
that Saint Hill was terrible and Hubbard was terrible and this was an awful
place and that sort of thing. Well, this type of story had been current
mostly around here, and some staff members had been upset by this. And if
you remember the "death lesson" gag - that piece of nonsense. Well, I
finally turned a private eye loose in East Grinstead for a period of about
ten days to interrogate one and all to find out if there was any slightest
libelous or slanderous things taking place, and whether or not any of the
parents of those children were still upset, and see if we could get down
and find out if there was - anything had developed along in this line.
Well, you know, a private eye who gets on a hot lead (actually they don't
have too many clients; their pockets are always wide open for the next five
pound note, you know) and you give a private eye carte blanche and tell him
to carry on, and he'll sure carry on as long as he can find out anything.
But after ten days this fellow had been totally overwhelmed. And that was
the maximum that he would put in on it, and he quit. He was overwhelmed.
Everybody in East Grinstead - he contacted everybody he could think of:
trades people and boarding houses and hotels and restaurants and everything
you could possibly think of. And all he got was, "Saint Hill? That's a
wonderful place. They do very good work. Doctor Hubbard? I know him. He's a
fine man. Oh, yes, oh, they're nice people. Yeah, that's fine, Saint Hill
is lovely." I can show you the report. It goes on page after page after
page. And this poor fellow, you see, looking for slander and libel, you
see, is getting overwhelmed by all of this good opinion, and it finally
just drove him out. Too much theta on the line.
So we find out that the rumors were coming from just one person who
happened to be on staff here. These rumors never came from East Grinstead,
they just came from an insecure person. That's what we have to assume from
this, don't we? We put it to the total test. That person isn't here now and
there are no rumors. Isn't that fascinating?
Yes, but what is the end product of this sort of thing? Well, good staff
members are made nervous, upset; they think they're working for a place
that is not worthwhile; they think they're liable to be under criticism
from this; they get nervous; they don't know quite what's going to be said
about them. And all of a sudden they lose a job, something like this. Or,
factually, they will be lied about to a point where they're falsely accused
and do lose their jobs. But inevitably you will find this kind of thing
taking place in the absence of Security Checking.
Honest people have rights. And if I were working - knowing what I know
about Security Checks, and so forth, if I were working for some large
office of some kind or another which had no security system of any kind
whatsoever, I'd sabotage the joint. I mean I'd sabotage it. I'd go to the
top and find out why. Why there was no security program. Just as bluntly as
that. And fellow would say, "Security program? What are you talking about?"
And I would say, "Well," I'd say, "got a contract with me to hire me, and
keep me on the job, and let me do my work, and I can't do work without a
security program. Can't be done."
"Well, how is this?"
"Oh, well, people come around all the time and say you've just swindled a
quarter of a million pounds, and people drifting around by the water
cooler, and giving you all the hot dope about all the wrong contracts that
didn't get signed, got thrown out the window. And nobody ever types my
letters, and so forth. And you've got some sour apples in here, man, you
expect me to associate with this scum? To hell with it." I'd tell him
bluntly, "Get them processed. Get a security system in here. You - maybe
you got something running. Maybe it might even work out that your ulcers
wouldn't be bothering you so much."
It isn't that - it isn't that it's a nice thing to have. You can't work
without it. That's as - it's just as blunt as that. I've proven it time and
time again. I've just proven it over and over and over. There'll be one,
two, three characters who are just so damned aberrated that they should be
inside looking out someplace, and they'll just be tearing the place to
pieces. And they can have twenty, thirty people just going in a circle,
just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data, alter-is, alter-is, bum data.
Oh, plooey! Everything is in a commotion all the time.
Well, all of a sudden you have to wear the wrong hats. All of a sudden
you're wearing a police hat or you're wearing the management's hat. And
under these circumstances you'll get so uneasy about management that you
feel you don't have any direction, so you feel you don't trust the
direction, and so you don't have any orders. And whether you're doing right
or wrong you don't know. What the hell, nobody can work under those
circumstances.
If I want to fight a war, I like to fight a war with machine guns and
mortars - honest tools. Not lies. Not lies. I just don't like to fight wars
with lies. Or fight wars with covert investigations or fight wars with
other back slaps or figure-figures, or intelligence services at work or
something like that. I like an honest war. Of course, honest war has gotten
discredited. I don't know why it's gotten discredited. I suppose the
munitions makers discredited it or something of the sort. But they got in
there, too. If two guys want to stand up and kill each other, well, what
the hell. Who are you to tell them they can't? Well, that's a point. But
just the point of them standing up and killing each other shouldn't
enturbulate the rest of the world.
There's all kinds of sides and general descriptions about this sort of
thing that rather escape the eye. On a broader look, there's nothing more
fun to hunt than submarines. They're the biggest fish there are, and they
can shoot back. But some guy down here is hunting - fishing for some
perfectly good marlin. I have a little bit better than a fourth dynamic
attitude toward these things, you see. And somebody's fishing for marlin,
and they take this perfectly good marlin and they yank him around in the
sea, and sink pieces of steel into his mouth and they drag him up and knock
him over the head so they can mount him on a wall to show how big and tough
they were. Well, he was being a good marlin. Well, what the hell? What more
can you ask of him? He's being a good marlin, so they punish him. That's
silly, you know? It's a deeper significance than you would first glimpse.
Well, what's all this? What's all this about? Well, that seems to be all
right, but it's apparently - it's only all right because the marlin can't
shoot back. I think it's much more fun to hunt submarines. You can get in
real trouble hunting them. You've put up as big a stake as they have, don't
you see?
Aircraft, too. I like ducks. I have absolutely just gotten more disgust
from duck hunters, you know. My father still tells a wild tale about me
being in a duck blind when I was about twelve, and they said "You have the
first shot," you know, and I was supposed to put up this big
double-barreled shotgun with smokeless powder and projectiles made by
Remington under vast scientific process. And a couple of teal were coming
in and one came in and suddenly saw me in the blind.
I was just standing there with a gun; I was supposed to be holding it. And
this teal was a very pretty teal, and he turned around and... He
misinterprets the whole thing. I merely said, "That's a pretty teal," you
see.
And he said, "Well," he said, "why don't you shoot?" (The way he tells the
story.) "Why didn't you shoot?"
And I said, "Well, he's too pretty."
That isn't what I said at all. I just said he was a pretty teal, you know,
meaning "What am I supposed to be doing shooting teal," you know? In the
first place, I don't like duck to eat, and that's it. They raise plenty in
Long Island that are dedicated to dying for humanity.
I admit, this is a little bit too broad a view, don't you see? But
airplanes, that's different. The guy's out there to kill you. Well, if you
can kill him first, well, fine, that's a game. That's a game of comparable
odds. And if you're going in for sports, you notice you always have to have
comparable odds and that's it. He loses a body, you lose a body, you know,
and the government loses some property.
I'm not holding any brief for war, but you notice that war has been just
stamped on as being a most terrible activity, you see, and it's been
not-ised and not as-ised to such a point now that the little baby in his
crib up in London is going to fight the next one. It's not going to be
troops any more.
All right. This all comes out from the basis of withholds and
individuation. And people get individuated, and they back up further and
further and further, and they become more and more individuated, and they
become more and more and more individuated. Well, how do they get this way?
They get so individuated they're eventually not even themselves. How do
they get this way? Just withholds and overts. Overts and they withhold, and
overts and they withhold, and overts and they withhold, and eventually you
got a guy who can't be a duck. See? He shoots ducks so he can't be a duck.
So therefore, that's the reason he should shoot ducks. Proves itself,
doesn't it? Self-proving proposition. If you have enough overts on
something, you can't be it, then you should shoot it. Silly, isn't it?
So you get this super-individuation. And the more individuation that
occurs, the less likely a person is ever to be able to walk out of
anywhere. It's just like he's backing up down a long corridor. And the
corridor has - is actually not so much a corridor but an endless succession
of isolation rooms. And it's further and further and further from
communication, and it's further and further and further from being
anyplace. And the way he gets there is a very simple route. He has overts
which he then withholds. That puts him in room one. Now, while in room one
he commits another overt which he then withholds, he goes to room two. You
get the idea? Now, while in room two he commits more overts, because now
it's the best reason in the world he should commit overts, you see -
because he's in room two. And he commits another overt, withholds that, and
moves to room three.
And he's just going on, not necessarily apart from the human race, but
apart from life. A person to be in some kind of shape must be able to be
almost anything. He must be able to be almost anything. And the degree that
you can t be things is the degree that you have overts on them that you are
withholding. And that is the whole equation. There isn't anything more
significant about it than that.
Now, you find out that if you've wrecked enough cars that you find it damn
near impossible to be a car. You can drive one and run it off the road and
run it into the bus, but you can't be a car. It's as simple as that.
Therefore cars seem to go to pieces around you. You get this mysterious
thing.
Motorcycles, which are much more touchy, are noted for this. In the
motorcycle world, rather, this fact is very well known, terribly well
known. You get certain guys and the sequence and how they got that way, is
overt against a motorcycle, then they can be the motorcycle less, and then
overts against the motorcycle, and they can less be the motorcycle, and
they're totally individuated from the motorcycle and they've withdrawn. It
gets to a point of where to touch a motorcycle is to have an overt against
the motorcycle, and then you - you do that by dumping it in the nearest
ditch or something of that sort.
All the automobile accidents that are the subject of the diffident interest
of road safety committees - all automobile accidents occur just through
this mechanism. Because you can stop a person from having automobile
accidents by making them run Reach and Withdraw from a car. It proves
itself backwards, you see. You just make him run Reach and Withdraw, Reach
and Withdraw and Reach and Withdraw and Reach and Withdraw from various
parts of a car, and the next thing you know he not only can drive the car
but he won't have accidents with the car and the car will run. It's quite
interesting.
Person want to cure this sort of thing up - he might feel like he looked
like a silly ass doing it, but he ought to just stand alongside of a
motorcycle and run Reach and Withdraw on the motorcycle, and then take and
drive the motorcycle and actually consciously run SCS on the motorcycle.
While riding the motorcycle, you run SCS on the motorcycle. It's a very
interesting activity. Do it very slowly, and so on, and the next thing you
know you get horrible feelings like you don't want to ride a motorcycle
anymore, and you get somatics and you get all kinds of things. Well, what
you've actually done is put a motorcycle back under control and the
mechanism by which it goes back under control is the overts start blowing.
You start blowing overts.
Well, there are many ways to blow overts, but the best way to blow overts
is the Security Check. Because the overt only remains bad if it is
withheld.
All right. It's an overt to go to war in this society, so-called, that we
have today. It's an overt to go to war. So therefore, one must withhold
going to war. All kinds of nasty words: "jingoist," "warmonger." Oh,
there's a whole dictionary of these things, you see, of anybody who thinks
of going to war.
Do you see what's happening? Commit an overt called war, and then they
withhold another one. You see, so therefore they commit another one, so
therefore they withhold that, and so forth. And they're more and more
individuated so therefore they can less and less control war, until you get
leaders that get up and bleat from over the radio and microphones to the
nation, "I hate war." And he's building up a war situation. Year by year,
he's just building up a worse and worse war situation. He's not doing
anything at all that'll avert war. He's just telling people how much he
hates it.
I remember the marines on Guadalcanal had that down, boy, they had that
down to a very fine point. They could give that speech from one end to the
other. "Eleanor hates war, James hates war," they had it all down, taped.
See some guy - all you had to do for a laugh is just start giving this
speech; it was the standard humor. The US was involved in one of the
nastiest wars it had ever fought under the leadership of somebody who hated
war.
Now, it's quite interesting, isn't it? International peace and the
destruction of this particular playing field is at stake against this exact
mechanism. You see, war is so terrible it cannot be fought. Yeah, what's
that make? What's the next immediate step? Fight it! Because it's on
automatic. Nobody can stop a war.
You know, you sit back, and after a while you don't know whether to laugh
or cry, you know? This Berlin thing, Berlin. All right, so the Russians
wanted to fight about Berlin. Of course they'd want the city, and so forth,
because somebody's free in it and they can't stand that. And so there's
this pawn sitting out there. Well, it was set up by somebody who hated war,
so he set Berlin up there so that it would create a war. That was the way
they divided Germany, you see. Start another war, inevitably.
And has anybody all through the years that Berlin has been sitting there as
a crisis - potential crisis, has he ever gotten a counter-pawn? All you'd
have to do is say, well, Budapest, actually, or Vienna, or something like
that. Start agitating for the Russians to give up Vienna, you see, or -
after the Hungarian thing, and so forth. Just start treaty talks at once
with them: How far they withdrew beyond the Hungarian border, not how much
Hungary they could have, you see, but just a reverse, you see.
"How much of Russia are you going to give up beyond Hungary? Now, that is
the point." Well, it's a counter-play, don't you see?
And the Russian says, "Berlin."
And you say, "Well, we're not too interested in Berlin. How about this
Hungarian border? This Hungarian border? You see, there's an old treaty,
the treaty of Budapest, that was made by the early Huns, which were your
people." You get the idea? And everybody's just all built up on this idea,
and the Russians start worrying, and they say, "Well, better talk about
Berlin, you know. Dangerous thing to talk about. What the hell will these
people think up next?" Just counter-plays.
Has anybody bothered to pick up a pawn? No. So we must decide then that
they are heading for war. They're not playing the game, so the game is
going to occur. And it won't be a game. Interesting viewpoint.
But that's individuation from a subject which then no longer becomes
controlled.
And that is true in all life. That is true in all life. When a person
totally individuates, he can no longer control anything. A good garbage-man
sure has to be able to be garbage, let me tell you, man. But the idea of
being able to be garbage immediately wipes out any possibility of his ever
becoming garbage. Isn't that interesting?
Now, way to make little kids have accidents is just keep telling them they
mustn't have accidents. Simple. Simple mechanism. Just say, don't touch
this, don't touch that, don't touch something else. What would happen to a
pc if you stood around saying, "All right now, we're going to run a little
process on you. Now, stand in the middle of the room. Good enough. Now,
don't touch that wall, and don't touch the ceiling, and don't touch the
floor. . ." What's going to happen? Well, yet parents run this on little
kids all the time and they fall down, bark their shins and that sort of
thing.
What's very interesting is our kids around here don't get much of this run
on them, and, well, they haven't to date had very many accidents. They
don't have the usual childhood accidents, and so forth. But I see people
worrying about them every once in a while. Little Arthur or something will
be walking along a high wall, you see, with disaster on both sides of him,
and I've seen somebody go "Ughhh," you know, like that. Why suggest it to
him? He doesn't think he's going to fall off. He won't. He doesn't either.
So there's the basis of individuation. The basis of individuation. If
you're going to make beer, you've got to be able to be beer, you know? All
right, you've got overts on beer and withholds on the subject of beer, why,
you of course aren't going to make any good beer. Now, another mechanism
takes place - to give you a broad view of this; although this sounds very
chatty, Security Checks are a very vital thing to understand in their full
panoply - and that is, that after you have gotten to the end of the
corridor, room one, room two, room three, room four, room five - what do
you know? You can't stay out of the place you left. It is impossible.
Having backed up to the end of the corridor, you now find yourself at the
entrance to the corridor but unable to leave.
In other words, you snap terminals and obsessively become the thing of
which you have overts against. And that is what is a valence closure. And
as a result, the individual gets stuck in various things, obsessed with
various things, you know?
Now, you take one of these dear old ladies that's protecting cats. Brother,
man, I've seen them around, and after they've talked to me about... Well,
you got to realize the reality of a cat. In the first place, to have much
to do with cats you've got to know cats. And cats are a package of a
certain I'm - series of I-am-supposed-to's. And these are neither bad nor
good, they're just the I'm-supposed-to's of a cat. And cats have a whale of
a time playing with
half-dead mice, and half-dead birds, and they kill certain things (they're
supposed to), and they have certain habits which are not necessarily very
endearing habits at all.
And on the other hand, they have certain admirable qualities, and so on.
And this is a cat. And it isn't a "Poor dear little pussy."
Well, how does a cat's I'm-supposed-to's suddenly become this poor abused
little thing which must be super-protected from life. How does it get that
way? Well, the person who did this must have been hanging cats, shooting
cats, beating cats, and then not telling anybody about cats. And then as a
child in some life, you see, he strangled cats as a pastime and then kept
saying that it was done by the boy next door, don't you see? Had to be
withholds on this thing every time. And we just keep going like this, and
after a while, why, "De poor dear little pussy," you know. And you look at
this lady who's telling you that, you notice the way she's wearing her
hair, and you look her over. She won't buy a fur coat made of anything but
cat fur. But it mustn't be of cat fur, you see, so therefore it's even
synthetic cat fur, but it's very con - involved.
But what she has done is back up the whole corridor, don't you see, and
then found herself in nothing but a cat. See, she - you can only get only
so far, and then it snaps back. That is the mechanism which actually takes
place, and that is a very general mechanism of life.
The police officer who is an honest cop and resists criminals and then gets
withholds - the withhold is an absolute necessity to individuation. And he
gets overts on criminals and then withholds and then goes a little bit
wrong and withholds that. And life after life, why, this thing goes, and
next thing you know you've got a criminal police officer. And in the next
life or two you'll find him being a thoroughgoing criminal. See? He -
overts on criminals and he becomes a criminal. That's the mechanism.
You look at some fellow who is a criminal, trace it back to a time he was a
police officer and you won't always be wrong. You won't always be right,
but you won't always be wrong either. But it's a cop who went crooked by
starting to withhold. He's been withholding. And of course that's one of
the best things police forces do.
I've been very hard on cops in this particular lecture and I could be
accused then of having something against cops. But I don't have what I -
people usually have against cops. I am just running a supposed-to-be, a bit
of an ought-to-be, on a cop. I think in a society that has any order to it,
this kind of a situation should exist: that the people who are being what
they are being should be what they are being, you know? That's an awfully
innocently crude look at things, you know? If the fellow's the mayor of the
town, he ought to be the mayor of the town and he ought to be a mayor of a
town, see. You shouldn't have police who are criminals, you see? All kinds
of weird mishmashes. I believe in the simplicity and purity of it all. All
I'm saying is I'm against pretence.
But anyway, where you have a pc who is loaded with withholds on a Security
Check, you have a pc who is very individuated. Got the idea? So therefore
you have somebody who can't be. And you're trying to find valences. And of
course you can't find valences easily on somebody who can't be. But you can
pick out and find the fixed valence the person is in. Because it's been
this mechanism which has led up to his becoming that valence.
So you could find a person's terminal without completing his Security
Check. But you will find that where a person's individuation - forced on
him or actual and so on to such a great degree that he's loaded with
withholds - you'll find he's very hard to get into session. He ARC breaks,
he gets very upset in sessions, and so forth. Well, he can't be a preclear.
Well, now there are two routes by which he could approach this point of
beingness. You find it in that he's critical of the auditor. This means he
has withholds. It also - that also means then that he is having beingness
trouble. And he can't be this thing called a preclear. And you have your
first rudiments process on that, which I choice - I believe you have by
now, which is the Shakespearian approach: "To be or not to be. That is the
question." What's he willing to be and what he'd rather not be.
Now, you'll find out that will walk forward but if you run much of that,
two things will occur. One of them beneficial and one of them harmful. The
first of them is that it'll soften him up on a Security Check. You'll find
out all of a sudden he'll be able to do a Security Check better if you run
that process, see. Because beingness and withholds, these things are
counter-opposed and one tends to solve the other, see. All right.
And the not-so-beneficial part of it is, is of course it walks him into his
valence chain without the valence chain being identified. You don't know
that this fellow is being a beer-maker. You don't know that he's - that is
his terminal. But because you've run an awful lot of this process, you have
walked him into the engrams on that chain. And that process walks people
into engrams. So don't make any mistake about it and be alert. That isn't
any reason why you shouldn't use it. But you can get to a point of running
where the person is not ready to run an engram. He's not ready to run the
engram. You haven't got his terminal; you haven't done any Prehav runs;
it's not sorted out at all. Yet there's your pc sitting in an engram.
Well, at the moment, call it one of the risks of the business. Because man,
you're going to turn on some fancy somatics if you don't watch it. Thing to
remember is, the somatic that the pc has, is where it is on the track, and
it is only at that place on the track, and won't release from any other
place. So you can walk him away from that place on the track, which keys it
out, or you can walk him into that place on the track and as-is it. And
these are the two things, the only two things, that processes do with
regard to somatics. They either walk him away from it by getting in closer
to PT and in other channels, or they walk him into it, where he as-ises it.
And of course of the two there's no choice. The second one is easily the
best solution.
Now, withholds will very often soften up and knock out present time
somatics by walking the person away from the area, and maybe that's a good
thing, see? The person could be tightly into an engram - in life, you see.
The engram is just keyed in a hundred percent and there he is in life, in
an engram. So that means he has very harsh somatics. He's got arthritis.
He's got what you commonly call psychosomatic illness of some kind or
another. Well, he's right in an engram.
All right, well you can walk him out of that engram, by moving him off so
that you can then, when you've found his terminal, move him back into the
engram. You got the idea? You might say the fellow's so close to it he
can't see it. Well, you couldn't see it either and the possibilities of
getting him there - of course, you find his goal and find his terminal and
then run him for a while on the Prehav Scale, you'll find him landed in
that section of the track, that's for sure.
But he might be so tightly in that section of the track that he couldn't
even put his attention on the auditing session. See, that would be an
interesting state, wouldn't it? I mean you'd find a pc then who's
unauditable. Well,
let me tell you the best approach to this, until others are found, the best
approach to this is simply a Security Check.
Now, you can even run a Security Check on the basis of the chronic somatic
that is making the person unauditable. Person's got so much eye trouble
that you can't possibly - well, you just, see, all he does is talk about
these eyes. And it's just a chronic present time problem. He talks about
eyes and he talks about eyes and - his eyes. And you run into it, and you
try to run a session and you run into eyes, and so on.
Well, that's boring. Because the truth of the matter is you've got to have
his goal, and you've got to have his terminal, and you've got to run him on
the Prehav Scale and then the engram will eventually turn up where his eyes
are loused up. See, it's one, two, three. That's the way the thing stacks.
And there he is sitting with bad eyes with a present time problem. And it's
a present time problem so his case is not going to make any progress, and
you can't find anything because he's got a present time problem. You see
the knotty mess that this makes, see. You can't get it because he's got it.
And a very excellent way of getting at this and making him auditable, is to
security check him. And you give him Security Checks and then he walks off
from all this because you've knocked out this obsessive individuation, see.
And he can walk off from the track then to where his eyes are being
butchered and he'll tell you. Don't be taken in by this. He'll say, "Oh, my
eyes are cured. They're well. I mean I've never been so well before in my
life. Everything is fine, and so forth." Well, take it with a grain of
salt. Pat yourself on the back for having temporarily relieved it.
Don't bother to tell him that he's not going to experience permanent this
and that. Maybe it never will get that good or that bad again. Nobody - who
knows? But for sure, when you get his goal, and you get his terminal, and
you run him on the Prehav Scale, and you're running him on the track, why,
one fine day you're going to do an assessment of the engrams he's run into,
and there he is with those red-hot pokers in both eyes. And the somatics
come off right there in that exact incident and that is the end of it. You
see?
So up to that time you've done an assist, an alleviation. Which means
you've walked him away from the valence in which he was obsessively stuck.
But don't kid yourself that you cured him, because you haven't. And that
would be the history of all chronic somatics we've run into in Dianetics
and Scientology. They key out, they key in, they key out, they key in. And
we sweat ourselves to death keying them out. And then after a while they
key in. And then sometimes we're lucky and we key them out and they stay
out. Marvelous. Now, somebody's going to get ahold of that person one fine
day, is going to find his goal and his terminal. And even before he has a
chance to do a Prehav run or anything else, bang! All the somatics around
again in a thud. Disheartening, huh?
Well, the thing to do if that kind of thing happens, Security Check. Knock
out the individuation and you'll knock out the chronic stuck in the engram.
Why? Because he's backed up to the end of the corridor until he is at the
front of the corridor, you see? Well, if you can at least get him to the
back of the corridor and up - halfway up the corridor again, toward it
again, see, you can do it with a Security Check. And he can be audited
halfway back up the corridor again. You got the idea?
Of course, he's always got the chronic somatic on the chain of the valence
which will be his terminal. That's why you must always have it correct.
That's why you must always have a correct goal and correct terminal.
Because
there's only one valence chain in which he's stuck. And that is the way the
cookie crumbles.
So the use of a Security Check is what it is, and don't be bemused into
thinking a Security Check is more so. By rendering tremendous numbers of
Security Checks, of course, you put the person into better communication;
of course, you put the person into feeling better about life; yes, he isn't
going to get that bad again; he's going to feel good about a lot of other
things, and that sort of thing, but basically you've made him auditable.
Because after you've gone all the way around, give him the Security Check,
straightened him all out; you find his goal; you find his terminal; run it
on the Prehav Scale; assess the engrams that he has run into where he was
in valence; you run one of those engrams; and bang, you run right back into
the chronic somatic he was running from. Only now it's on full and will run
out.
So you get the circuitous routes here by which you can take to alleviate
chronic somatics or banish chronic somatics. And you sometimes have to
alleviate chronic somatics in order to get the case into auditing condition
so that you can banish a chronic somatic. Now, does that make more sense?
We have all these years of experience behind us about all the various
routes, and I'm talking to you now about a route, and throwing it into your
lap and saying, "Well, you better be good at these things."
Now, I could have told you a great deal about how to do a Security Check.
But there have been lectures on that sort of thing, you've got textbooks on
it, you've got bulletins on it. What I'm trying to tell you today is simply
why you should do a Security Check, what a Security Check will produce,
what to expect of a Security Check, and, more or less, its general use in
auditing.
I don't think you could do the type of auditing you're doing smoothly now
without Security Checks. I think it'd be impossible. So the Security Check
is very, very valuable. But don't overrate it, and don't underrate it. And
don't, for heaven's sakes, go riding a hobbyhorse that if everybody in
God's green earth confessed, it would be a paradise. I think it'd be a
mess.
The end product of no withholds is good communication. The end product of
no withholds is not Clear. It's just good communication.
So you use Security Check to set somebody up for auditing. Person's
difficult to audit, think of Security Checks. That's one of your best ways
out. Trying to resolve all the present time problems and all the rudiments
of the pc and all of that sort of thing and going on over this is
absolutely necessary. You've got to do this. But there's one positive tool
that does do this. We have tested some other tools and they're nowhere near
as positive as Security Checks. So that is its value.
A Security Check well done keeps rudiments in. A Security Check badly done
and rudiments will be consistently out. The Security Check can be tailored
to represent the area of the person's present time problem so as to key it
out so that you can get him back down and actually get at the source of
what his difficulty is.
Those are its uses, and I hope you will find what I've told you of some
value.
Thank you.


