Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 12/12 repost [x2]
Date: 4 Dec 1999 00:35:19 -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 12/12 repost

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

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-12  renum 12  12 Jun 61 E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing

E-METER ACTIONS, ERRORS IN AUDITING

A lecture given on 12 June 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

Thank you.

Wuff! Well, thank you for giving me an opportunity to have
a little rest and relaxation. You know, what - what most
people consider work, I don't. And when I get cases running
off the rails, far off on administrative lines, trying to
prove conclusively that the organization cannot possibly
survive, it seems an awful long way to have to audit, and
that's just about what it amounts to. Somebody presents me
with the fait accompli of "Auditing is absolutely vital and
necessary twelve thousand miles away or eight thousand
miles away."

That's generally what administrative things break down to,
by the way. People do odd things to you. They present you
with emergencies; enormous emergencies. And they think I
don't know yet that they're just trying to reach me. That's
their idea of reaching me. If I appeared on the ground it
would be very, very simple to straighten out the thing.
It's almost the heroic effort necessary to keep things
running wrong. It's almost fantastic. It's almost
fantastic. I just think the people in these governments
just absolutely must be just sweating, just sweating blood,
day and night. I mean, how can they manage it, you know?

They just - I can see them up now, at 10 Downing Street,
and State Department, seventeen hundred-and-something
Pennsylvania Avenue. I can just see those poor fellows, you
know? Trying to hold things in disorder. Because you'd be
surprised the ease with which things will snap into order.
It isn't an automaticity, particularly, but order is always
easier to achieve than disorder. You have to work at disorder.

And yet the world at large is so in disagreement with this
principle that I wrote a story one time about a fellow who
went ashore trying to sin, under a hellfire and brimstone
Captain. And he went ashore in China trying to sin and the
Captain had given him a big lecture about the ease it was,
you know, to drift into the ways of wrong and all of that;
and how easy this was and how simple this was for a young
man to have all this happen, you know. And the fellow goes
ashore, and he just overtly, you see, tries desperately to
get into some trouble or have some excitement, you see, and
it's all a complete flop.

Well, what is this? This is Junio the 12th? Sesenta y uno.
All right. If any student has any question he cannot live
without being answered, speak up. You mean all of your
questions have been answered?

Female voice: No. They aren't coming up till I start auditing.

What was that again? Got one coming up?

Female voice: I said mine are going to come up when I start
auditing.

Oh, I see. All right. Yes, Mike?

Male voice: I don't know if it's off the point, but one of
the questions we were asked was "PHD." I have no idea what
that is.

Hm?

Male voice: "PHD"!

You don't know what "PHD" is? Well, now let's see, who was
here when Mary Sue gave the very adequate demonstration of
that. All right, Madge, would you be good enough to show
him how, conclusively, you can demonstrate that the cat has
PDHed him? Will you do that for him? That'll tell you all
about it. That's the easiest one. That's easier to
demonstrate than talk about. Nobody would believe it until
they see it. You see, everybody has been PDHed according to
the meter, if you don't know how to ask questions. It's a
wonderful example in how to get wrong information.

I want to repeat something, speaking about a meter, just
mentioning it in passing. Now, are you having better luck
using instant read than latent read?

Audience: Mm-hm. Yes.

Is there anybody still in a flat one about this? Whether
you use - ... Yes?

Male voice: I have a problem, Ron. Uh, when the pc answers,
say, "Is it all right to audit in this room?" you don't get
any motion on the meter, whether the pc says no or yes. And
then - say he says yes - and then you get a drop after he
says yes. This is the latent read that you're referring to?

That's a latent read.

Male voice: Latent read.

That is a latent read. A meter reading on the pc's reply or
response is a latent read.

Male voice: Do you exploit it?

Hm?

Male voice: Do you exploit this one? Try to find out what it is?

Brother, I'd drop that one so hard it goes plop. You know,
I'd just pay no attention to it.

Male voice: Okay. Now, that's what I want to know.

Just no attention to it. He didn't know from nothing. Your
meter knew. So he says it isn't all right. Now, I won't act
on it, but I'm still in two-way communication with the pc.
You see, it's a code break not to be. So I handle this
thing two ways. (1) I'm not going to handle it, and (2) I
make the pc feel all right about it.

I usually handle these things somewhat on this order: "Is
it all right to audit in this room?" Pc: long comm lag,
looks around. Nothing's happening, you know. Meter dead
calm at the instant I asked the question.

Pc says, "No, I'm not so sure."

And I say, "Well, we'll probably get more used to it as we
go on. Thank you."

Doesn't create an ARC break, the pc kind of perks up, and
says, "Well, all right, you're gonna be overbearing."

Now, this latent read is licking a lot of organizations
right now, and a lot of auditors in the field. It's licking
them. They don't dig this one and their Security Checks are
going up toward the hundred-hour mark. We had been very
successful in handling people in Johannesburg in the course
and we had a terrific course and it was fine. And when
Peter Williams went back down to Australia, he was utterly
stunned at the length of time it was going to take to do
anything in the way of an assessment or a Security Check or
anything else.

Now, this was the dog datum that had slid in unnoticed. It
had just crept in under the door. Everybody was reading
latent reads. See, that was the difference. Nobody was
getting the show on the road, and he hadn't actually
noticed this essential fact. I didn't notice it myself
until I'd been sitting around here for about a month
watching what you were doing. And it suddenly occurred to
me, "They're doing something wrong, but I can't put my
finger on it," and Mary Sue, in watching what you were
doing and in giving checks and that sort of thing and
trying to demonstrate it, suddenly came up with the datum.
She said, "Auditors are reading an E-Meter that falls after
the fact." She didn't say it that precisely, but that was
it. She had a lot of other things to say about it, but this
is the way this thing goes, you see?

If you don't get a response on the E-Meter within something
on the order of a tenth of a second of your question,
everything thereafter is a no-response. You got it? It's a
no-response now. We don't care if it whistles Dixie. It's a
no-response.

In the first place, you are not auditing the analytical
mind. And if all that was wrong with people was the
analytical mind then you'd have it made, you see, because a
guy could think his way straight so fast it'd make his head
swim. He is responding to the reactivity of the reactive
mind, and therefore all the auditor is interested in is the
reactive mind. And the only thing which responds instantly
on the meter is the reactive mind. That's all. Anything
else - his blood pressure's responding or his sudden memory
that he didn't put out the cat (oh, my God!) and there's
the cat home all day in the apartment. This kind of thing,
you see, gets in.

Now, we have another order of read of this character and
these two things are similar. We have to give this other
one a name, now. We got several orders of magnitude of read
that are really high school E-Meter reading. One of those
is the rise. You don't pay any attention to a rise.

Now, we have some new students here and I'm very happy with
you and you're all welcome and nobody is going to be cross
with you. We'll try to teach you everything we know how to
teach you until you report to us that somebody's needle
rose. Why don't you report that there is air on Earth? Or
some other astonishing fact? Why not send a telegram to the
prime minister concerning the fact that farms in Sussex are
covered with dirt? I mean, it's just the same thing. So it
rose!

Well, why do you ignore this phenomenon of a rising needle
and say nothing about it? You cannot establish what started
it rising because the preclear did not observe what it was,
started it rising, and you might have had five words in
your sentence, and any one of them may have started it
rising. Or the fact that a bee just buzzed past the window
could start it rising. It's anything the pc would be
unwilling to confront.

But to establish what it was would require perhaps fifteen
minutes to a half an hour search of going over every
possible element. All to what event? To find out that the
pc can't confront. Well man, everybody knows that! If he
could confront everything, he wouldn't in the least bit be
having any trouble in existence anywhere at all. So all the
rising needle has said is that the pc is not Clear. And you
know that and I know that, so why should we research it? See?

What triggers the rise of the needle? And there's some old
nursery rhymes and so forth that go along with this thing
that I don't remember very well, but they have a - ... Oh,
yeah, I think there's some character by the name of
Chaucer, wrote one about it. So what? I mean, you're not
announcing a knowable factor. See, you're announcing an
unknowable factor, so there's no point in it.

Now, what stops a needle from rising you can establish.
This fellow is able to confront cats, and something, Lord
knows what - an electronic circuit going off at the North
Pole causing a difference in the variation of the intensity
of Earth - could start a needle rising. So what? He can
confront cats, so we say to him, "cats" and the needle
stops rising. And we stop saying "cats," the needle keeps
on rising. So we know "cats" stops the needle.

Now similarly, in giving a Security Check, if you ask a
question and the fellow has a rising needle, you're not
reading the rising needle, you're reading a change of
characteristic.

And you ask him, "Have you ever illicitly diamond-bought?"
you say, and the needle stops. Ah, but that's a change of
characteristic. It didn't fall, it didn't theta bop, it
didn't rock slam. But if you've got an instant read on "Did
you ever illicit-diamonds-bought?" you press it.

You see, the instant read is, instantly it stops - if just
for a second, see? It's going up very nicely and all of a
sudden you say, "Did you ever illicitly diamond-bought?"
Man, that's a change of characteristic. Get your
jack-rabbit ears flapping. That means he has illicitly
diamonds-bought at some time or another. Probably in this
lifetime. Probably got them in his pocket right now.

But you'll find a pc who is having a very rough time, who
reads on a very, very high sensitivity knob here, will very
often just rise and rise, and rise and rise, and rise and
rise, and rise and rise, and up goes the needle. And you
just ask them Security Checks. And you know that they've
done practically every question in the Security Check, they
have a major crime on for which they're being looked for by
Interpol, see? And you sit there in fascinated amazement!

Irresponsibility on all dynamics is so low that they have
no reality on an overt or a withhold. So you of course get
no needle reaction of any kind whatsoever, because the
individual must to some degree connect with the reactive
mind to spark it off, you see? There must be a connection
between the individual and that area of the reactive mind.

That's why you can't take somebody who has a bad neck, and
all of a sudden say, "Well I'm going to cure your bad
neck," and you work on him for days, and then you happen
accidentally to ask the question of "How's your neck?"

And he says, "How would I know?"

And you say, "Well, isn't your bad neck getting any better?"

He says, "Well, it's never been bad." See, his head's
always over this way, you see. "Never been bad. There's
nothing wrong with my neck!" It's a fact! I mean, the guy
has no reality on it. It's out of his reach.

So you can only reach those things in the reactive mind
that the individual himself is capable at that time of
becoming responsible for or aware of. And the E-Meter tells
you what he is capable of becoming responsible for or aware
of It spots this responsibility factor for you, which gives
you a reality factor. Therefore, you can audit, find,
exploit things that appear on the E-Meter. But you cannot
audit, find or exploit things that won't appear on the
E-Meter because they're beyond the zone of responsibility
of the pc. Completely beyond it.

Do you - if you were to go down here to Dartmoor Scrubs and
fish out the warden or somebody else and put him on the
E-Meter, and you say, "Well have you ever beaten up any
prisoners? Have you ever been mean to any prisoners?" and
so forth.

And he'd say, "No, we just do the best in this best of all
possible worlds." And so help me, look at his knuckles, you
know, and they're bleeding!

Well, you say, "How about those knuckles bleeding? Well,
what about that? Have you done anything with any prisoner
lately?"

"Oh, well, no, no. Fellow got in my road coming up here to
see you, but of course, he was in my road and he shouldn't
have been there, you see. It was his fault, and I didn't do
anything to him at all."

This becomes utterly, pluperfectly fascinating. There's the
evidence. The evidence is right there, and the fellow has
no reality on it. So don't be dismayed, because it's this
responsibility factor. He's incapable of taking
responsibility for the action, even potentially. The
E-Meter only reads on what an individual is responsible of
taking the reaction for, and that's all. That - it'll only
read on that. If he's potentially responsible for taking
responsibility - if he's potentially responsible - then
and only then, you're going to get an action on the meter.

So it doesn't, you see, read a catalog of crime like an IBM
machine. You know, every crime he has on the whole track
between now and the beginning of track are not all
cataloged, and will not all fall out with certain degrees
of read. If you have an idea that an E-Meter is going to do
that kind of thing, then disabuse yourself of it. The
E-Meter will eventually do it, but just as the E-Meter
reads the reactive mind, and reads reactivity and nothing
but reactivity, so it also, ergo, perforce, must read what
the individual can be potentially responsible for.

Therefore, when you give repetitively a Security Check of
an individual, when you potentially have that individual
capable of being responsible for certain of the crimes on
the Security Check, he'll come up with withholds on them,
suddenly and mysteriously, that he never came up with before.

So this is an instant and immediate test of whether or not
you are advancing the responsibility factor of the pc by
auditing. If the pc has become more capable of taking
responsibility, then and only then are you making progress
in auditing, and then and only then will you get new withholds.

So don't be surprised when the meter starts reacting on a
Security Check that you just finished giving. Ten hours of
auditing before you finished a Security Check. Now you've
been auditing a person and now all of a sudden he's got a
whole new set of withholds. And you say, "Well, what a fool
I am that I didn't catch these in the first place." This
might be an amateur's response. "Why didn't I catch all
those withholds in the first place?"

Well, you know the guy has to be potentially responsible
for withholding on those exact things before they register.
See, he doesn't even consider them an overt. And as you
process a preclear who is going motivator, motivator,
motivator, "How mean they all were to me," "How mean they
all were to me," motivator, motivator, motivator - when
they're going along this line, don't be amazed that they
have never done anything to anybody, and that you can't
find it on the E-Meter that they ever have done anything to
anybody anyplace ever. Don't be surprised. See?

It's simply an index of the responsibility of the pc, and
it's terribly bad. You process him for a little while on
the Prehav Scale, one way or the other, and what happens
when you process him? He gains in responsibility and as
soon as his responsibility is up, any way, shape or form,
all of a sudden it isn't motivator, motivator, motivator.
The pc did something. Amazing! You don't hear about the
husband beating them day and night, just standing there
wearing his arm out. The pc at least comes up to the point
of where "Well, it must be very tiring. I must have worn
the man out," and so forth. They've come up that high. And
eventually-after you've been auditing them for hours and
hours, and running general Prehav levels or SOP Goals or
something - you give them another Security Check of one
kind or another, and you find the astonishing fact that
the way these fights start is she usually takes a hot
iron and takes his best shirt or any of his clothes, and
starts pressing them and then leaves the iron on, you see.
And that's usually the way these fights start.

Now, we get it going a little further, and we - there's
more hours of auditing, and we give a Security Check, and
we find this astonishing development: that the person
calculatedly plotted to make the husband mad! It wasn't
an accident. The person has become aware of the mechanical
processes and is taking responsibility for the mechanical
processes which make them turn an iron on and put it on a
new shirt, or something like that, and burn straight
through it. They're getting even with him, and now they
will begin to wonder what's wrong with them that they're
doing something like this.

And there you're really seeing a case start operating. And
when you don't see a case start operating at least that
much, watch out, because you're not making progress.

If somebody is going motivator, motivator, motivator,
motivator - fifty hours of processing later, motivator,
motivator, motivator, motivator; no good. You're not making
any advance. Now if a case, for instance, is given a
Security Check, and then given a general run, just Routine
2, and then given another Security Check and you don't now
find new withholds on the Security Check, watch it, because
something happened there. You goofed. There's something
wrong with that general run. The case didn't make advance.
That means you're running the pc with the rudiments out.
That's what it means.

There's something you can do about it. Yeah, well, run
through your Security Check on the basis of instant read
and when you get to the end of the run it's just, you know,
give it a lick and a promise. Look for instant reads;
that's about it. It's almost as fast as you can read a
Security Check, by the way. You aren't going to find very
much on it. When you get an instant read, clear it up and
go on to the next question.

Get right back to auditing. And now, what is the present
time problem? What is the ARC break? What external activity
is the pc engaging in that is countering the auditing?
Let's get real curious. You know these great big fruit
horns, that they sometimes display. You know, there's one
up in the Monkey Room, by the way. There's a monkey sitting
there with a Mexican hat on with one of these horns of plenty.

Well, it's just like turning one of those things upside
down, only the fruit squashes all over the floor. Crash!
Yeah, well, outside of the fact they've been getting drunk
every night before they came in to auditing sessions, and
outside of the fact they've been trying to ruin your
reputation while you're auditing them, and outside of the
fact that they had already had a bet with somebody that
they wouldn't get any gain in processing, the case is good.
The case is making progress, see, aside from that! And it's
gross! Don't look for little, tiny things. It will be a
gross error.

All auditing errors which can suspend a case today are
gross. And what do I mean by gross auditing error?
Complete, stupid, stumbling, unfamiliarity with the TRs and
Model Session and the E-Meter. It really has to be bad.

Next: complete and utter disregard of the rudiments. Just
whole-hog. Not paying any attention whatsoever to tone arm
reads when the person leaves the session and tone arm reads
when they come back into the session. Not - not even being
vaguely curious about it.

Assessing the Prehav Scale, for instance, by only assessing
the level for "Compete." Well, they read in a bulletin that
when you assess the level on the Primary Scale, why then
you go over into the Secondary Scale and that is one level.
So you just - what you do of course is just take every word
in the Secondary Scale. And not only that; if a person
would do that that stupidly, they would also do this: Well,
you just run one leg of the bracket. Like, "What has your
husband done to you? Thank you. What has your husband done
to you? Thank you. What has your husband done to you? Thank
you."

Now, when you get errors of auditing adding up like that
you get no gain. And I'm telling you, and you're going to
learn it, and you're going to get a subjective reality on
it, just like I had: the blunders which prevent cases from
advancing are so gross as to stagger you. They are so gross
that you won't believe them; therefore, you don't look for
them when you're training auditors or something. You just
don't look, in an HGC or something like that, for errors
this gross!

You're taking it for granted that the errors are minor.
That the pc had a little ARC break at the beginning of
session with the auditor and therefore didn't advance in
the session, and that's what this is all about.

No. You ask about this, and you try to clean up this little
ARC break, and everything is ooooh! somehow or another. Pc
doesn't still make any gains. And you go along, and you
just flounder and fumble, and you wonder where you're going
and what you're doing. No, the error there is the auditor
never shows up for sessions. You think I'm kidding, but
that's the order of magnitude of error!

It's big, you see. I mean, it'll be big! It'll be something
on the order of, well, every night after the auditing day,
the auditor has a date with the preclear's wife. See?

You take my tip. You look for gross errors. Just as we're
running at ten-thousand-horsepower today, plus, so it takes
a ten-thousand-horsepower error to combat it. And don't you
go looking - when you're training auditors or supervising
processing, or trying to look a - don't you go around
trying to find that little, tiny, little thing that
would've held it all up. Because you're asking the same
silly question as "How can you put a matchstick in front of
the Twentieth Century Limited and stop the train?" Well,
you can't. It has to be another Twentieth Century Limited.
And it will be, too.

But you'd be amazed. I've done some cross-checking of this
character that is - just would stoney you. Just gone over it
and over it and over it, trying to find out why we weren't
making a gain, why we weren't making gain. And I just got
one the other day. We had an auditor who just wasn't
getting good results, that's all. Wasn't getting good
results. And look: What he learned about running an E-Meter
was the totality of running an E-Meter a few days ago, and
he thanked me very carefully. Look, the guy's been
assessing on the Prehav Scale. He has been running Security
Checks. But he didn't know anything about setting up a
meter. What he had learned is the third-of-a-dial-drop
test. He learned several things about a meter. And he told
me what these things were that he'd learned about a meter.
He'd learned how to set up a meter. He'd learned to set it
up and he knew now that you read by the needle - ...

You talk about gross error? I mean, how could the guy have
gotten any gains at all running assessments when he
couldn't read a meter? You get the idea? So this is as
gross as the errors are, that's all. They're just
horrendous! I - I see that you really don't probably
believe me; you don't have much reality on what I'm saying
there, but you will have. You will have. It's grim! And
you, sweating your brains out.

You know, the worst thing that a person who is supervising
auditing can do is start inventing unusual and gargantuan
solutions because the auditor he's giving them to just
can't seem to make a gain on the case. So the auditor keeps
coming in and saying, "That didn't work." Well actually,
this is the old whizzeroo on the California response.
There's a thing called the California maturity test, and
the California this and California that. Well actually,
there's an - in Dianetics there was the California response.
Inevitably, if you said something about a new process, when
I was working out there, somebody would say, "Oh, yes,
that's very interesting, I was using that last year."

Sounds strange, you see. You said, "Well, there's this new
scale and there's the..." "Well, I was using it last year."
They always used it last year, you see? Now I listened to
this for over a year before I finally got a proper response
to it. And that was - became the California response. And
that is "What were you using a year ago?" Well, that's a
corker! They've even forgotten what you said practically,
see. They don't remember anything that you said and they
come out with some wild rendition and you've just told them
about the No-Effect Scale, you see? All right.

And they say, "Well, yes."

"Well, what were you using a year ago? Exactly what was it?"

And they say, "Well, just what you're talking about."

"No, no, no, no. What exactly were you using a year ago?"

And they say, "Well - well, we put these phonograph records
on a phonograph, and we clamp the earphones on the pc you
see? And we'd say 'Be calm. Be calm. Be calm.' That's what
we were doing a year ago, and it was just exactly what you
said."

You try to get any sequitur out of this, you see! That's
the way to handle those characters.

Anyway. Similarly, the most common failure that you have in
managing several cases at the same time is this one: Person
comes in and says, "You know that - that you told me to do
yesterday?"

And you say, "Yes. Uh - well - uh..." (That was your mistake,
right there, you see?)

They say, "Well - " triumphantly, see. "Well, it didn't work!"

And you say, "Well, I don't know. What is it doing?" And
they give you a big rundown. You think up a new and
extraordinary solution, you see, and you give them that.

And they go away, and they come back the next day, they
say, "It didn't work! Oh-ho! No! It didn't work!"

For God sakes, get bright enough sooner or later to say to
them, directly and positively, "What didn't work?" And you
inevitably get some outpouring of sewage that has nothing
to do with anything you have ever been talking about!
"Well, I keep standing the pc on his head in the corner,
and he - the blood keeps rushing to his head." "And it's
obvious that he isn't Clear, because he can experience a
physical effect." I mean, it'll be some gross nonsense of
this character. And you have been pounding your brains out,
trying to get this case moving, you see, thinking - putting
it on automatic - that your instructions and advices were
all going to be followed. And if you get that type of
repetitive action, that is one of your gross errors that
you must be alert to, that you must wake up to.

Listen, if you've figured out a case from A to Izzard,
knowing Scientology, and you ask somebody to run this on
the case, I'll sw- ... I'll promise you something is going
to happen. It isn't going to be "Well it didn't work!" See?

So obviously it's a gross error. You keep looking for
something that works on the pc when the first order or
instruction you gave, which is "Take the pc up to the
auditing room," hasn't been followed yet!

I'm not getting 1.5 on the subject of auditors. I'm talking
about auditing failures. And auditing failures always stem
from gross, very gross, errors. And they are so gross that
you will overlook them. And when you start giving
extraordinary solutions on top of these gross auditing
errors, of course, you're just getting no place at a hell
of a rate. The thing for you to do is pick up a bulletin
and say, "Now, let's see. It says something here about
Routine 1. Now, describe to me in a few words what Routine
1 is."

And the person says, "Well, that's tell a person to be
three feet back of his head, isn't it?" Yeah, well, he has
never read that bulletin. And you've been telling him to
put it into effect; and he's never read it.

I've got a wonderful example of that right now on the
administrative lines I was just making a crack about. I
have a report through the lines that a certain area was
utterly disregarding all bulletins, because they were so
busy in the middle of an emergency they couldn't put any of
them into an effect, you see, because of the emergency they
were having with finances and other things, you see. I got
that report through from an independent source, that they
just didn't know anything about any bulletins.

And sure enough, about three days later, I get a total 1.1
piece of nonsense about how everything is going broke and
it's all a big emergency. It's just a total glee of
insanity all the way through this report. How do you like
that? Just glee of insanity. Backing up the hearse, telling
you how bad it all is and so forth. Well look, if these
characters have never followed any instructions of any kind
whatsoever, I can guarantee you they'll be in trouble. See,
they'll just be in over their heads. Particularly if they
had carefully reversed every instruction they had heard a
rumor of. You see how that goes hand in glove?

So it happens on administrative lines, and it's something
for a man in business to know. If somebody's department is
going all wrong, and you just can't seem to put it right,
and you just can't seem to issue orders that put it right,
and you just can't seem to do anything to put it right;
it's about time you looked for the gross error. Because
it's not a little error of he has one too many motions in
feeding the stuff to the accounts machine, see. It's not
that at all.

It's the fact that every time he receives the mail he dumps
it in the waste basket. See, it's that kind of an error.
And this is - goes hand in glove with he feeds you bad news
and he says he can't do the job and there isn't any way
possible to get the show on the road, and usually goes
along with he needs more appropriation for his department
and more help. All these things sort of fit in, in a
package, see.

All right. You say, "Well, the poor guy. He's struggling
there and maybe he isn't very bright," and you are being
very, very kind, patient, and so forth, about this. And so
you try to give him help by giving him instructions. And he
keeps coming back and telling you the instructions didn't
work. And the department doesn't get any better.

Well, the whole thing about it is, you never gave
instructions that had anything to do with what was wrong in
the department. What you should do about the time something
really starts to run real wrong is to go look for the gross
error. And just keep looking for the gross error, because
you'll find so many minor errors that they will trap your
attention. And so you never see the gross error. Get the
idea?

You look at these little errors - ... Naturally, such a person
in auditing a case would have all of his rudiments out, or
something like this, naturally. But look - look for the gross
error. What is the error here, when you've got a case that
just doesn't advance, or things just aren't going. What is
the error? It - it's big. Be something like the order of he
just hasn't a clue. You might discover it by looking at him
to find out he holds the E-Meter upside down. I mean, it'll
be something weird, like this, you know?

And it almost exceeds your imagination. But it also comes
out of the impulse to make nothing out of something.
They've got to make nothing out of something, and this
comes back to a subject known as productivity, which
businessmen are very interested in, and which Russia's
going to pieces on, and which England can do much better
with, and the United States is going down for the third
time on.

The effort to produce is one-half of the dichotomy. And all
strikes and everything else are on a single button, and
the - that is the effort not to produce. And you've got
people all over the place who are totally dedicated to
non-production, totally dedicated to no results. I'm afraid
that's a fact. Totally dedicated to the no-survival of a
situation. Well, it comes about naturally. You come - it's
as half the dichotomy. You keep telling them "All right,
the organization has got to survive." The organization, the
state, the nation, the group, mankind, got to survive, got
to survive. And it just runs, it gets into a stuck flow,
and you develop a bunch of people that quite automatically
go on the basis of the organization must not survive and
are just thinking day and night how to put it out of
business, thinking day and night how to put the government
out of business.

There's one department in the United States that just must
sit up all night long just trying to figure out ways and
means how to stop the United States from surviving. If they
just sat back and relaxed or they all went home or all went
and played golf or drowned themselves in the Potomac, or
something like that, you'd be surprised. Probably United
States' international relations would right themselves
instantly. Because there's an enormous amount of guys doing
business all over the world who probably are far, far more
competent than anybody in the State Department.

Similarly, we look down here in the Treasury Department or
we look down here at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
we find him all the time trying to figure out something
new, extraordinary and strange and different. And the only
time when it really got to going good in the last few years
is when I think he got sick or something. And it was just
going dandy there for a while. And there were a whole bunch
of graphs published showing during the period of minimal
restriction that everybody's savings increased, the
purchasing power of the country almost doubled and so
forth, until they all got active on financial planning.
The plan balanced economy thing.

By the way, they get that from Marcab. Marcab always had
plan balanced economies. Everybody was broke and starving
all the time. And so, what happened? They put on a bunch of
restrictions, because all of a sudden everybody got into a
panic.

Now Jersey, right now, is a little tiny dot of rock over
here, and Jersey had a lot of hot money coming in. It was
tax money, and if you had the money in Jersey, you didn't
have to pay income tax on it. So here was this flood of hot
money coming into Jersey. Jersey's broke, it's poor, it
doesn't have very much to do with, has nothing much to
build with. All of a sudden people borrowed this hot money,
and started building hotels, and doing other things around,
and right away, everybody in Jersey, almost without
exception, got around and started to complain, and groups
started to form to stop this hot money, because it was
somehow or another bad - because the balloon might suddenly
be pricked and there might be a tremendous crash.

Now, did they sit around and think how to employ that
money? Did they sit around and think how to fix up a
community here, with all the available capital they needed,
so that everybody had a good show and they were all nicely
employed and it was all running off gorgeously? Did they
put in a moment of time doing this? They sure didn't! No,
they just said, "How can we stop this flow? We've got to
make this prosperity stop, man. Or we've had it. We've had
it." But what's had it? The ambition not to produce has had
it. And that ambition would cease to exist and therefore
would die and perish. You see how this could be?

So you get strikes. And never kid yourself much about
strikes. Strikes will eventually slaughter free enterprise.
Strike in the last half-century has drifted these nations
over into greater and greater socialisms. Oh, I'm sure
there was a - there was some recourse to low wages and
working twenty-four hours a day and all this sort of
thing - I'm sure. But I'm equally sure that nobody found the
remedy yet. That I'm equally sure of. I'm sure communism
isn't the remedy, socialism isn't the remedy, none of these
things are. That I'm sure of.

Because all it is, is this button of "no-produce." It is a
hot button. It's no production. You will find it there on
your Create Scale. If it isn't in your Secondary Scale,
which I haven't looked over, finalized yet, or checked
against everything, it certainly is a wide hole missing on
your Secondary Scale. So you ought to put this button,
"produce" in there, and you ought to put "nonproduce" right
in alongside of it. And that one I know isn't in the scale.
I've just been exploring this.

"Nonproduction. Our goal is nonproduction. If we can just
keep everybody fooled enough, we'll have it." Now, the goal
can also be "no results." "If anybody obtains any results
around here, it'll be over my dead body, personally. My
primary goal and ambition will have utterly ceased, and
that will be the end of it if anybody ever makes a gain."
You got the idea?

Well, that could be a psychotic state of mind. And when you
see errors of gross magnitude, continually occurring - ...
We all make mistakes. I can make mistakes, you can make
mistakes, everybody can make mistakes. The trick is to be
right a majority of the time. Most of the time, be right.
Don't ever try to be 100 percent perfect. Just try to be
right most of the time; and boy, you're batting so high
above the national average that you really succeed, see.

A lot of people go around with total perfection, you know?
They can't get anything done because, well, it wouldn't
exactly be right. I had a guy like this on board a yacht
one time. And he managed to try to burn the boat down a
couple of times and I finally decided I'd better send him
ashore. I wasn't around. He was just a boat guard, see. But
he would start monkeying around with washing a bulkhead,
and he would get into a frantic state about the bulkhead,
you know? And you'd go into the yacht and you would find
this bulkhead has been washed. And he'd say, "Well, no. No,
not yet. I'm not finished with it." And you'd happen to
come back a couple of days later and this bulkhead is still
in the process of being washed. And a week later the
bulkhead is still in the process of being washed.

And you say, "What in the name of common sense is going on
here? You're washing one bulkhead!"

He said, "Yeah, but it's not clean yet." You see, his idea
that if he did anything it had to be absolutely perfect.
And if it wasn't absolutely perfect, why, then he couldn't
just leave it.

You'll find artists down in Greenwich Village - they've
got canvases around that are two-inches thick with paint,
because they're trying to paint the perfect picture. And
they're trying so hard to paint the perfect picture that
they never paint a picture!

It's good discipline sometimes for yourself, that after
you've done a sketch of something or after you've planned
something out - ... It's actually good discipline - sounds
weird, sounds anti any training you have - of just say
abruptly, "That's - that's finished and that's complete,
and that's the way we're going to do it," and never work
out the final details. You know, and say, "Well, we'll do
it that way." Just to teach yourself that not everything
in the world perishes because you left out one little tiny
detail on something.

Now, people get too panic-stricken at making a mistake. And
they get so panic-stricken at making a mistake they become
unreasonably tense and unreasonably upset about learning
the right way to do something and they can't relax. You
understand? So if they figure anything is worrying them
this hard, then it's very easy for them to go over the
borderline and just start insisting nothing get done. And
there's a very thin line between total perfectionism and
accomplish-nothing. That's a very thin boundary. And it is
very, very easily crossed.

I'll tell you that sitting back with a cigar in your mouth,
one of you girls, with your feet on the - on the other
chair, reading an E-Meter occasionally but perfectly
willing to sit there and audit, actually could get results
on a pc. Actually! You could actually do it. That's an
interesting view of it, isn't it? In view of the fact we're
talking about perfection, perfection, you've got to do them
absolutely perfect - the TRs and all that sort of thing.

It's only after you can do them all perfect that you can
relax and put your feet on a chair and smoke a cigar and
get results on the pc. You got the idea? Because your
anxiety is no longer present. Your anxiety is no longer
present and is no longer communicating to the pc. Les
resultats! You are in the clear, so what you say counts.

As a matter of fact I can audit with tremendously precise
formality and I can do Tone 40s with great, precise
formality. But I can also, with my pen still in my hand,
midway toward writing a letter someplace or another, pick
an E-Meter up, stand it on its edge, at the desk, make
somebody sit down and pick up the cans and do a good job of
assessing them. And then turn the E-Meter off and thank
them very much and tell them I'm not assessing them, and
I'll go back to writing a letter.

But that's because they haven't got any feeling of anxiety
about it and I haven't got any feeling of anxiety about it
and I can do the job and they know it and there isn't any
monkey business about it. Get the idea? But this tremendous
strain of to get everything right, get everything
absolutely right, "If I can just get this absolutely - ...
If I can just get my little finger held just right as I'm
gripping the E-Meter, you see, and I look at the pc just,
just right, and I don't make any mistakes of any kind
whatsoever, why, maybe I'll get a result." No, you won't
get any result. Because the gross thing about auditing is
missing. You don't have any confidence. You don't exude any
confidence. And what's the primary thing in Dianetics? The
old thing. The one thing that you could always do. You can
give people hope and you, with all this tension, have given
them no hope at all.

Now, I'm not trying to make a big bunch of nonsense here
and build up this idea of gross auditing error and then
tell you a lot of minor auditing errors and tell you
they're gross. But look, being one of the fundamental
purposes in dissemination or one of the fundamental actions
which you can undertake to make anybody well, how about
omitting it from the sessions, huh?

Now, let's just omit it, totally. Pc comes in, sits down.
We don't pay any attention to what he's doing and so forth,
and we make sure that our feet are planted right on the
floor, and we're getting all set to do TR 0. We aren't even
aware of who the pc is or their trouble or anything else.
They sit down in the chair and you say, "Is it all right
..? Let's see, where's my paper? Yeah, well... Is it all
right with you if I begin - uhm - this - uhm - the session?
This session? The session! No, no, that's not right..."

See, the fundamental has been neglected. The fundamental is
simply that you are there to make somebody better. In view
of the fact that goal is all out, then the results you
receive from there on are quite minor. Because you're not
trying to do anything for them. See, what you're doing is
trying to be perfect.

So if I can teach you how to do all these things perfectly
and get you to a point of insouciant confidence, so that
you could put your feet on the chair and a cigar in your
mouth and balance the E-Meter and wiggle the tone arm with
your big toe and still get results and not have the pc feel
that this is the least bit strange. You get the difference
of frame of mind? The pc wouldn't feel this was strange if
you really knew your business. "Why," he'd say, "that's the
way he audits."

Of course, now he makes his fatal error. He goes out, he
asks you covertly, "What brand of cigars do you smoke?" The
same old gag, you see?

The fundamental error you can make, of course, is not
wanting to help the pc and not helping the pc. That would
be the fundamental error, isn't it? Well, you - you can get
over worrying at all about your technology, see, worrying
at all about Model Session. Just do it standing on your
head. You know, TRs - pang! TRs - you can do them. Man when
you can confront somebody leaning over a rail on a ferry
boat, and do a better job of confronting than anybody else
on that ferry boat, you could audit in that position.

See, in order to break the rules you have to be able to be
acquainted with all of them. And then you can go ahead and
break all the rules you want to. As long as you don't
commit any one of these fundamental errors like not being
present at the auditing session, you see. Or auditing with
a dead meter. Or auditing with one that's got one of these
grains of dust into its pot so that it does nothing but
rock slam, and you just go on auditing the rock slam out of
the pc - and of course, the pc hasn't been rock slamming on
anything - and then justify it all by saying "Well, Ron says
that rock slams persist often...

And did you know one of these meters will rock slam if it
gets a grain of dust in its pot? Mm-hm. You know, the way
to cure it is just to shake the tone arm around a little
bit. And if that doesn't cure it, drop a little bit of
lighter fluid in it, and shake it around a couple of times,
and it won't do it anymore.

All right. I've given you a very random discourse, but I
hope I've given you something to operate with.

Instant reads. If right now you can get accustomed to this
instant read, that's another brand of confidence. And
you'll get this brand of confidence. Sooner or later,
you'll get it straight. You right now are, I'm sure, in a
slightly leery frame of mind about "Well, let's see, did he
say one-tenth of a second? Let's see, was that one-tenth of
a second or one-twentieth of a second? Or was it really a
half a second? How long did it take the needle to react?
Well, we'll - we'll spread it out to three seconds, and we'll
call that "instant," and then we'll be safe." No, you won't.

And then you'll feel very funny about going across a
question, and you read this question and there's no
reaction on the meter, and you'll feel very funny about
leaving the question. You'll say, "Well, that's being very
unthorough." So you read the question again, you get a
latent response. Well, maybe your latent response is
something on this order: You read the question. This
restimulated something in the pc that really isn't on the
subject of the question but is a borderline, you got the
idea? All right, you restimulate the borderline when you
read the question. Now you read the question again just to
be sure, because you're unconfident, you see. And the
moment you do that - you wait for it for a moment - and all
of a sudden it reacts.

You have not got an answer to the question. What you've got
is some allied activity of some kind or another. You got it
way over in left field. And you'll get that when you get to
it. See, your Security Check is thorough enough, now.
You'll get it, someplace, on the Security Check, you'll get
it as an instant response. Got the idea?

But you could spend hours cleaning off all the fringes of
the chicken house without ever getting the chicken to eat.
You could! Just spend hours and hours and hours, cleaning
off these latent responses. They're all elsewheres.

All right. You just have to give yourself some experience
of watching that meter, and if it doesn't go pang, you just
skip it. That works with Goals Assessments too, you know.
You read off the goal, and then you say, "And one, and two,
and three, and four, and fall!" And you say, "Well, that
one is still hot."

I don't know whether that one is hot or China is hot or
anything else. It's the same question as "What did the
needle start to rise on?" Your latent response is "What did
the needle start to fall on?" You cannot answer the
question, so therefore you might as well neglect it. You're
not sure. You're liable to leave the pc in a total flub and
fog. "Why is that needle falling?" he will say. And you'll
still get latent responses. If you've got the question, he
always gets an instant response.

It works like this: You say, "Well, did you ever illicit
diamonds-buy?" and he illicit diamonds-bought. Believe me,
you haven't got "buy" out of your mouth "bu-," you got a
fall. "Okay, that's it." And until he gives you that one,
on a Joburg, it will just keep falling - instant response.
You ask the question, get an instant response. You ask the
question, you get an instant response. It won't erase.
It'll just stay there. It doesn't matter how many times he
thinks of it. He's actively withholding it from you. But
you'll get these latent responses on and on and on and on.

Now, I want to point this out as a gross error, not only in
auditing generally but in my communication of auditing. And
that gross error is simply this and only this: You were
auditing the analytical mind and I hadn't noticed it. You
weren't auditing the reactive mind; you were auditing the
analytical mind. Therefore your auditing target was off.
And that all by itself could explain no Clears, see.
Instantly.

I don't know how fast you can do an assessment now, how
fast you can do an assessment now using only instant
responses and erasing only instant responses. You do it the
same way, by elimination. I don't know how fast you can do
it. But it's probably something on the order of a hundredth
of the time you have been using to do it, okay?

That was the main thing I came down to tell you today.
Don't immediately think I'm trying to blame you or giving
you a bunch of stuff here and saying, "Well, he's proving
us all wrong." No, no. It hasn't done any harm to take off
all the fringes. It hasn't done any harm. It's advanced the
case, sort of the hard way. It hasn't done any harm to
assess a case the long way, you understand, and take all
the ramifications and all the latent responses off it. That
has not done anything at all that is bad. It has wasted
less auditing time than you think, because you were trying
to run the whole case on the instant response and the
latent response. And you were trying to run the reactive
mind and the analytical mind. And it's only that time which
you devoted to straightening out the analytical mind, which
was all right anyhow, that you wasted.

So it hasn't been any vast catastrophe. But on the
contrary, has been a considerable win, because I know now
what you're trying to do, see. And it was different than
what I was trying to do.

I'm trying to knock out of the reactive bank those
held-down fives which a person can't think about and which
add themselves into every equation. And if you just knock
out those held-down fives, the case will get all right
fast. See, and if you go on worrying with the pc about why
the fives are held down, but never under any circumstances
really go looking for a held-down five, of course you're
going to get minimal results and minimal recoveries, and
minimal profile gains and all the rest of it.

So it's all to the good. I mean, we've speeded up auditing
right now a thousand for one again. If we keep doing this,
we'll have to watch it because a person will write us a
letter, but two days before that, he got Clear.

They know when they were going to write us a letter because
they went Clear suddenly! Okay?

All right. I've held you rather overlong. There were some
things I wanted to cover with you. I hope you think they
were important enough to stay for.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


