Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 03/12 [x2]
Date: 2 Dec 1999 20:39:12 -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 03/12

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

St. Hill Special Briefing Course Tapes Part 1

Contents

   New #    Old #   Date     Title

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

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

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

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

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

SHSBC-3  renum 3  19 May 61  E-Meter

E-METER

A lecture given on 19 May 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

Thank you.

Well now, we've gotten ourselves a few cases moving along,
and every time I see you, why, you're less plowed in. This
is "Operation Reverse the Furrowing."

Okay, let's see, what is this? This is the 19th of May
1961. This is Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Now, once upon a time there was a knucklehead - once upon
a time. And he kept doing things to people - kept doing
things to people. And then a few trillion years later, he
said they'd all been done to him. I'll give you an example
of this - in a moment. But right now I want to talk to you
something about E-Meters and assessments. This is very,
very important. Then I'll tell you more about this knucklehead.

The E-Meter is a very peculiar instrument. It is absolutely
accurate. But when somebody is so knuckleheaded as not to
ask the right questions, of course, it apparently gives
wrong answers. An E-Meter is as accurate as the auditor
asks the right questions. It itself is totally accurate.
But you have to find out what it is talking about. And it
is not necessarily talking about what you are talking about
as the auditor. But it is talking about something, and the
probability is that it is very close to what you're talking
about, when it's talking sporadically, but not quite it.

And when you ask the right question, the E-Meter then
reads, hard and consistently. But the near-right question
reads inconsistently. So when you get inconsistent reads,
your question is not quite right. That is a general
rule - not quite right. But when you ask the right question,
the E-Meter will then tell you it's the right question by
reading consistently.

You can ask for a withhold - something on this order: You
can say, "Well, are you withholding anything about your
house?" And the E-Meter will go flick.

And now this fellow, who comes down the track all these
trillennia - having burned houses, massacred the inhabitants
of houses, having chewed up the landscape of houses in
general, in many wars, in many lives - knows very well that
it's a house. And he becomes completely fixated on the idea
that he must ask the question about the house, the house,
the house. And the E-Meter goes flick-flew, flick-flew, no
read, read, no read.

"All right, what about this house are you withholding?" And
the E-Meter goes flick, and then no flick, and then it
theta bops, and then it goes no answer at all, and then it
goes totally null. And this fellow who knows very
well that it is about a house - he says, "Is it a big house
or a little house?" And the E-Meter goes flick, and it goes
flew, and it goes null, and it goes this and that. Just
nothing seems to happen, that's all. Nothing seems to happen.

And then the D of P or somebody (whose specialty was
burning down barns!) gets the pc in and says, "Well, now
you seem to have a withhold here, and we don't seem to find
out what it is. Is it about barns?" And there's a flick and
a flew, and a null. And the D of P says, "You see now, you
knuckle-headed auditor? You - you - you - you missed it. It's
about barns." And there it goes. But the thing doesn't clear.

And the pc says, "No, I've never done anything to barns."

"Oh, it's - must be barns, must be barns. It's just - come
on, confess. What is it? Barns. Barns. It must be barns. Has
to be barns. Everybody knows what you do with barns: You burn
them down when they're full of stock! Always produces a
hell of an ARC break in the vicinity when you do that sort
of thing. Leave the house alone but burn the stock up.
Ugh-hu! That's best."

And nothing is going to happen either way because they
haven't learned this rule: The E-Meter reacts and clears on
the exact right question. That's what it reacts and clears
on. But it will give you an indicator. It is nice enough to
tell you "you're getting warm." But when you don't get a
consistent read on an E-Meter, you are just warm; you're
not red hot. When you're right on it, it will read
consistently and it will clear at once that the pc comes up
with what it is. That is, on a Security Check.

And if it is the chain on which the pc is totally plowed in
on from one end of the track to the other, it will just go
on reading and reading and reading until it's audited. The
rule is, you have to audit the things that don't clear on a
question. That is the rule - a general rule - where it
comes to auditing, or where it comes to clearing rudiments.

You say to the pc, "Something or other, something or
other," and you get a fall on the rudiments. And you say,
"Well, do you have a withhold? Is this what that's falling
on? You withholding anything?"

And the pc says, "No." The E-Meter goes clink-clank. It'll
go falling on just about what it's falling on - on just
exactly what it's falling on.

And you start probing for this thing and all of a sudden
you say, "Well, is it something about me?" Your fall
becomes steadier and more Consistent.

And then the pc says, "Well, yes, last night I told
somebody you were a bad auditor." The fall disappears.

But the knucklehead then audits it. Having cleared the
meter, he now goes into "What have you done? What have you
withheld?" You got the meter clear on rudiments; why are
you trying to do anything else?

The rule about rudiments is simply this: Rudiments are
there not to run the case, but they are there solely and
only to set up the pc SO that he can be audited and will
stay in-session - definition of which is "willing to talk
to the auditor and interested in own Case." And that is
what you're trying to get him to do, and if the rudiments
are too flagrantly out, it won't happen.

But setting the meter on a third-of-a-dial drop and going
over the rudiments - if you do not get a wild or
significant fall, you just leave them alone. You know, with
a third-of-a-dial drop you can't see some of the meter
reactions, so you just blind yourself to that much meter
reaction. That is, that meter reaction which you cannot see
at a third-of-a-dial drop will not get the pc out of
session. Have you got that? It will not take the pc out of
session.

So advancing the sensitivity knob to a point where you get
a sixteen-dial drop on a can squeeze, and then clearing the
rudiments of every flick on that enormously expanded scale:
You're just wasting auditing, because clearing them all up,
you're running the case with rudiments.

But if you clear rudiments on a third-of-a-dial drop-and
mind you, do that carefully. When you set the meter with a
third-of-a-dial drop, why, you don't see any fall, any
theta hop or anything. Mind you, there'll be falls and
theta hops - are there but they're obscured by the fact
that you're reading from the still needle. You follow me?

You told the guy to squeeze the cans. Cans squeezed - you got
a third-of-a-dial drop. You just leave the sensitivity knob
right there. Ask for the rudiments; it doesn't move. Now, a
little flick while you got it set at a third-of-a-dial
drop, you'd investigate. If it did move it, you would
investigate it. But usually a little flick like this just
blows up.

I mean, "Do you have a present time problem?"

"Yes, I have a present time problem. I'm worried about
going out and putting in a pound note into the parking
meter." (Or whatever the police are demanding these days.)

"Well, do you have to do that now?"

"Well, no. I don't have to do it for half an hour."

"Well, would it be all right if at a half an hour, I
remember it and send you down there?"

"Yes, that'll be fine." Drop disappears.

"Do you have a withhold?"

"Yeah-no, no, no, no-o-o-o, no, no." You get a fall, get a
flick, get a theta hop. Ah, you better find out what it is.
But that's on the sensitivity knob set at a third-of-a-dial
drop.

Now, if your sensitivity knob was set at 16 and you got the
equivalent of - you know, the can squeeze drives the needle
across and it bounces off the pin, you know? Well, that's
actually probably set for about five or ten dials of drop
on one can squeeze, see? Now you ask him "Do you have a
withhold?" - why, hell, you can even read his heart beating!
See?

It'll register this closely: "Are you withholding
anything?" And 42 trillion years ago he shot down a pilot
in flames and was very careful not to let his own body drop
or get burned up. So he was withholding his own body, you
see? So, "Are you withholding anything?" Yes, you'd get a
reaction on the needle.

But, look, that reaction is his case, and it is not
adequate to stop a pc from going into session. You got it?
The purpose of the rudiments - 100 percent, the purpose of
the rudiments are only these: to set up the case so that it
can be audited. The purpose of the rudiment is not this: to
run the case. That's not the purpose of the rudiment.

There are numberless things I could tell you about
rudiments. But ordinarily, in ordinary auditing, it totally
suffices to make sure you get all of the falling or
observable ARC breaks, problems, withholds off - and
objections to the room. You see, that's totally adequate.
They fall, get them off - with the sensitivity now set for
a third of a dial.

Oh well, how about the E-Meter that can't be retreated on
its sensitivity? I'm afraid you've got a rebuild coming.
There isn't anything you can do to the meter apparently (I
was experimenting with it last night) but put a new
sensitivity rheostat in it. That can be done rather
cheaply. HCO will do it for you.

But after a person gets about halfway Clear, a can squeeze
on old meters at zero - old British meters is what it
mainly is - when the sensitivity knob is set way down,
all - as low as it can be set, you get a dial drop. And you're
running somebody like that? Now what are you going to do?
Now what are you going to do? This rule no longer is
observable. Well, what you're going to do is get a new
rheostat put in the E-Meter that can be turned down to a
third-of-a-dial drop, okay? Simple, huh?

And meanwhile, before you do that, if it falls on a
rudiment, sigh and clean it up. Because you're not going to
be sure whether it needs cleaning up or not. So you have to
use judgment as to whether or not it needs much cleaning up.

In the first place, people who fall well on a can squeeze
- they aren't bothered as much as some other people by ARC
breaks, unless they're being audited by some auditor on
whom they have a lot of charge. Then they'll ARC break.

But the usual cotton-picking ARC breaks that don't amount
to anything - ah, they don't really, terribly disturb them.
The better off a case gets the less it's disturbed by the
environment. Definition of a Clear is he can handle the
environment and isn't disturbed by it. So of course, as you
start progressing toward Clear, the can squeeze gives you a
greater and greater fall for the test. And the nearer a
person gets to Clear, why, the more drop you will see on a
can squeeze with the sensitivity knob set as it used to be.

Originally, the fellow comes in and you turn the
sensitivity knob up to 16, you put the cans in his hands
and he gives a can squeeze, and it falls a thirty-second of
a dial. Well, this fellow is going to endure; he's
obviously built out of solid oak.

The same setting, if you care to observe a meter, running
SOP Goals - supposing you did a long and thorough
assessment. You wouldn't do a thorough assessment on this
guy. You wouldn't do an assessment at all. You would do a
Joburg Security Check and then you would give him a general
run on the Prehav Scale, and you'd clear up some levels on
the Prehav Scale - just general, you see? And then when you
got it so it was looking much better, and the tone arm was
reading much better, and you knew you weren't reading a
dead thetan, and you did get a little bit of a drop on the
can squeeze, and so forth; you could go ahead and assess him.

So you go ahead and you complete your assessment, and
you'll notice suddenly that it's sitting at a fairly low
sensitivity setting and the third-of-a-dial drop occurs
very easily. The case is much looser. The needle is much
looser. You follow this?

Female voice: Yes.

All right.

That's the way you handle rudiments and handle an E-Meter.
But Mr. E-Meter will tell you that you are close, if it's
answering, sporadically. But if you re answering dead on
you'll have this interesting experience: You are running a
Joburg Security Check, and you ask the level - you ask the
precise level "Have you ever raped anyone?" And the needle
falls in response to that question - that Joburg Security
question falls - something on the order of about quarter of
a dial, and the pc says, "No," and it falls a quarter of a
dial. And you say to him, "Well, have you ever really raped
anyone?" and it falls a quarter of a dial.

Now listen, you can go down the list of all the things he
might possibly have raped, or done sexually that might be
considered rape or anything of the sort, and if it's not
exactly on, the exact same fall will continue.

On a withhold you've got a reversal of the rule. The
E-Meter falls in response to the question. In this case, it
continues to fall if the question isn't asked.

So there are two phenomena in which you're involved here:
One is you have to ask the right question to get the
fall-the exact, right question to produce the consistent
fall - and the other one is to get rid of the fall, you
understand. And that requires communication from the pc.
And in failure to communicate, it won't go away.

Don't think your meter is busted because you were asking
this question and hours later he just never seemed to get
through a Joburg Security Check. He will always get the
same fall. Always, always, always, forever, practically
till the end of the world, would he get the same question,
"Have you ever raped anyone?" You can ask him, "Is it this
lifetime?" and you get the fall. "Did you rape somebody in
this lifetime?" You get the fall. "Did you rape somebody in
your family?" You get the fall. You understand? He has
raped somebody. That is it. You have asked the right question.

Now, having asked the right question, you see, is one part
of this comment. The only way you'll get rid of the fall is
for the thing to be answered.

So first, there's the right question that produces the
fall, and the second phase of it is the answer that
eradicates the fall. And it must be - surprise, surprise -
the exact answer.

The precision instrument called the E-Meter depends, then,
upon the exact question to get the response and the exact
answer to clear it. Now do you follow me?

Now, the individual who continues to fall on a certain
terminal is so involved in electrical masses - exchanges,
energies, and so forth - in the mind, that that terminal has
to be audited. Only then do you get rid of it. So it is
not, in that case, just the one right answered; it's enough
thousand right answers to clear it.

Therefore, when the preclear does not give you the exact
answer to the auditing command every time, you will
continue to get it to read and auditing will continue to
infinity.

You must get an answer for every auditing question, and it
must be the answer to the question you asked. Otherwise, it
continues to read on the meter. Well, you're not fighting
the meter. The meter only indicates what's still banging in
the fellow's mind.

In other words, a preclear could be audited for ten
thousand hours without ever answering the auditor's
question, and still be reading the same way on an E-Meter.
How do you like that? You got that?

So that a case that hangs fire, falls into just these
categories: A present time problem is there consistently
and forever. This is what you call a hidden standard sort
of a thing. The guy's got a long duration present time
problem, and he knows when he will get better: It's when
his hair stops standing up when he sees a horse. And he
waits for this endlessly to start happening. He tests out
his auditing results. He has an intensive, and he goes and
he finds a horse. And he very carefully puts his hand back
here, and he looks at the horse. And if his hair doesn't
stand up, he says, "I got some progress," and if his hair
does stand up, he says, "Well, that auditor's a bum."

You think I'm joking, but that is true of every case that
walks the street that is having a rough time - it's by a
hidden standard. So part of your Goals Assessment must
always get out these hidden standards into view.

Hidden standard is our technical term. The pc will call
them "problems of long duration" if they're fairly sane,
but they also respond to things of "difficulties in life."
A word I commend to you as very useful - "Are you having any
difficulties in life?" "Now, what difficulty would have to
change for you to know that the auditing was working?" Or
more broadly, "What difficulty would you no longer have if
Scientology worked on you?" "What difficulty would
have to happen in order for you to know that auditing was
working?" You got that? This is the hidden standard.

I'll show you what happens when you don't address the
hidden standard. The individual very nicely goes through a
whole auditing session, gets along just dandy through the
auditing session, gets along splendiferously, seems to be
making progress; and at the end of session said, "I didn't
make any part of my goals."

Well, maybe the goal that he gave you at the beginning of
session was just to sit there throughout the session. And
you look at this in utter amazement. He did sit there
throughout the session. He must have made his goal for the
session, but he tells you he didn't make any part of his
goals. Well, you're an utter knucklehead if you don't
consult your E-Meter and say, "Do you have any particular
gains that you will have to make or establish in order to
know that auditing is working? And if so, what would they
be?"

"Oh!" the fellow would say, "Oh, well, yeah, if you ask me
that. Yes, as a matter of fact. Yes, yes I do have. You
see, every time I look at a horse my hair stands up on end,
and I feel right now, actually, that if I did look at a
horse, my hair would still be standing up on end when I
looked at the horse."

He's got every single auditing command you have given him
circuited this way. He audits women so that he will correct
his relationship with horses. He puts a via on every
command answer.

One man we found had actually - for something on the order
of five or six hundred hours, at least, of auditing he
addressed every auditing command through this electronic
engram, in the firm and utter and complete belief that it
would change him from being a man to a woman. And what was
the answer to this question: "What would have to happen in
order for auditing to work?" This fellow's answer was "I
would have to become a woman."

Now, that's what you're going up against when you ask the
pc, "Are you making any progress?" And don't let me catch
any of you going out of here and auditing anybody after
this, up against a bunch of hidden standards that are
utterly unknown to you. Just don't let that happen because
that is silly! It means that the pc violates this E-Meter
thing. He is not giving an answer to the auditing command.
He is taking the auditing command, fitting it to something
else and then answering his impressions.

Of course, your needle doesn't clear. Not only does your
needle - doesn't clear, your tone arm doesn't move. The case
does not progress. The dead thetan reading at 2.0 never
reads any place else than 2.0. Your E-Meter characteristics
don't change. Your needle does not get looser. Your
sensitivity knob does not have to be set lower.

If your E-Meter isn't shifting during the course of
auditing, the first thing to suspect is that you yourself
have got the wrong curve on this. See? There's something
wrong; you've goofed somehow. You did a Prehav Assessment,
said "Well, the fellow is obviously resisting everything so
the obvious level is 'resist,' " and you just went on
by - knew it was barns - and you went right on by and ran
"resist" and the tone arm didn't change, and nothing
changed and - wrong level. Bum assessment. You get the idea?
Bum assessment will give you that. You aren't asking the
right questions. Or the individual has one of these hidden
standards of long duration, and so forth, and he addresses
everything around it.

A pc will not improve if he has a present time problem of
long or short duration which is absorbing all of his
attention. He will not improve in auditing. So you might as
well take care of it and get it out of the way right now.

He will not improve if he has withholds. Poetically, God
'elp him, he will not, not, not, not, not, not, exclamation
point, improve if he has overts on his auditor he is not
disclosing, if he has overts on Scientology he's not
disclosing, if he has overts on the principals of Scientology.

For some reason - not because we dreamed it up, because it
happens to be true. I scouted this out the first time,
many, many years ago, about 1954. Most of the returns were
in for the people who had attacked Dianetics. There were
about twenty-one of them in the United States who had - well,
a lot of them had actually taken money to do us in and were
still with us. With the exception of seventeen who were
either in jail or dead. And as they made up a primary death
list for that particular time, and a primary difficulty
list, I looked for some common denominator amongst them to
find out what this was all about. And it was only one
common denominator: Some of them had literally had, in the
period of four years, hundreds and hundreds of hours of
auditing. In the case of Joe Winter, over a thousand hours
I'm sure - maybe even two thousand hours of auditing. And
the common denominator of all those people is they'd never
made a single case gain in all their auditing.

That was the first time this one showed up. It's a grim and
ghastly thing. It's a built-in, automatic protective
mechanism in Dianetics and Scientology. The fellow who
accepts money or goes out of his way to injure auditors,
organizations, the subject, principals in it, has just
plain condemned himself to eternity. That's all. He's just
condemned himself to an eternity of there he is, going on
down. Honest, sometimes it makes me gasp because I've
gotten so much data on this by this time, at the actual
adventurousness of how some of these characters will swap a
couple of quick sixpences for the next two hundred
trillion. Doesn't look to me like a good bargain.

Now, oddly enough - strangely enough, a primary fault I have
is honesty. I will tell you what I know, or what I think I
know, when I know it. And if I find out it isn't true, I
will tell you it isn't true. And if it happens to be
discreditable along the line, I'm afraid I will tell you.

Along with that goes the necessity - I would say better "has
gone the necessity" - to keep enough hope going to get the
job rounded up. That has been part of the responsibility.
To have not done so would have been an overt act.

Now, I frankly tell you, I would not tell you that there
was a self-protective mechanism in Dianetics and
Scientology out of an anxiety to protect Scientologists,
organizations and the principles of Scientology and the
people at the top of it. I just wouldn't tell you that,
that's all. In the first place, I don't believe I'm so weak
that I would need such a mechanism to protect it or to
protect you, you see? And for this other thing to be built
up as an inside, built-up, completely arranged,
booby-trapped mechanism is always filling me with a little
surprise. I think if you listen to a lot of tapes, you'll
hear me being surprised about this in other lectures. It's
the darnedest thing I ever saw. It's just horrible. It's
utterly horrible.

Gracey Zilch goes out and does in an auditor - busts up his
marriage and spoils his repute - and for the next thousand
hours of auditing, Gracey Zilch is right where she is or
worse. And nobody seems to be able to do a single thing for
Gracey Zilch. Isn't that remarkable? It is just fantastic.

Now, religious organizations have tried desperately to
protect themselves with things like blasphemy, and protect
themselves with other you-must-nots and thou-shalt-nots.
You know, everybody talks about the Ten Commandments. Have
you ever counted them? In an actual, original Old Testament
there aren't ten commandments - columns of them: Thou shalt
not eat pork that has been uncleanly raised, or something
of the sort. Thou shalt sell it to a traveler instead.

What it amounts to is you can't look for help from a
quarter on which you have tremendous overts. Even though
the help were given you, no matter how gratuitously, it
wouldn't be accepted by you because it's always looked on
as a betrayal. Why is it looked on as a betrayal? Because
one has betrayed that help. So of course, when one is
audited under these conditions, he has this remarkable
frame of mind: that everything anybody is saying or doing
to him is calculated to betray and destroy him. So the more
he is treated the worse he gets. Now, that happens to be
our little, built-in self-protective mechanism.

Now, because we are the only science of mind that has ever
come up the line and sat back on its haunches and proved
itself across the board, we can also undo that. If we want
to take enough trouble we can also save Gracey Zilch.

One auditor sits on her head and the other straps the cans
to her feet and a third, as she's being held down, locates
what she has been doing on an E-Meter, you see - something
like a Joburg or something like this, you see - and actually
gets the thing taped out and then finally says, "Well,
Gracey, we've got the goods on you. And now why don't you
go off someplace and realize that if you don't do something
decent about this, you're sunk." And I don't care it might
take two hours, two years or two lifetimes; sooner or later
she's going to come in and tell all. Fascinating, huh?

We can undo it. So, in a little, tiny, microscopic way, not
accepting a half a million dollars from the Communist Party
of America to do in a Central Organization; that of course
killed a man. I bet you right now he's tagging around in a
schoolroom someplace or another, wondering what is wrong
with him and why he feels so spinny. Fellow by the name of
Don Purcell. He died. He did this, and for three years he
just went on a toboggan and died. One of the reasons was is
nobody was interested enough to even try to do anything for
him. And the other thing was he had made it impossible to
arrive at that data earlier by causing such a tremendous
disturbance that he slowed up research.

I felt like telling him one time - I just sort of felt it
in my bones - I felt like telling him once or twice, "Look,
maybe someday your wife is going to get sick or your kids
are going to get sick or something is going to go really
wrong in your existence and you're going to need us like
mad, you see? And here you are, doing nothing but getting
us so upset and disturbed that we actually can't do very
much in the way of research, and you're slowing us down.
Maybe someday we will know something that you really need
to know desperately."

And sure enough, it happened to work out. Of course, there
is this - there is this: I would say that it wasn't totally,
probably, the overt-withhold mechanism, I think Suzie's
postulates had something to do with it. Because if she ever
wanted to see a man dead, it was that man.

Anyway, let's get over to - let's get over to some more
about this E-Meter now. Do you see that if this on a much
more dramatic basis can exist, your failure to find out
your auditor has - pardon me, your pc has been nattering
about his auditor between sessions - your failure to find
this out while running rudiments - is to throw away a
session. Do you see that? Because just as it isn't very
terribly important, so it isn't very hard to pick up, but
it is important enough to knock a whole session out or
maybe a whole intensive out.

So when they've got withholds in life in general which
separates them from the human race and all livingness, or
in particular when they have withholds on the auditor,
auditors, Central Organizations, people in the Central
Organizations, you see, there goes the case, there goes
the intensive, there goes the session. You want to do
something for this guy; this guy will give you a failure.
Why? Not because of anything that you did to him
particularly, but because he just goes around nattering
about it.

When people are not Clear, if they know this perfectly,
they actually go around sort of holding themselves in a
frozen "don't think anything bad," "don't think any bad
thoughts," you know? And then when they get a little bit
better they relax, and they think real vicious thoughts.
And then they give them up as withholds; that's a sort of a
revenge in itself And then later on, if they happen to have
done something that they found out the auditor-you know,
and realized suddenly that the auditor wouldn't like it or
something like this, why, you ask him for it and they give
it to you..

So overts are more difficult to clean up - that is,
withholds; overts which are withheld - are more difficult
to clean up the worse off a case is. It's proportional. They
go down into not realizing what an overt is and they will
go out and do some of the wildest things. The psycho band
will go out and do some of the most incredible things and
not consider them overts at all. They won't fall on a meter.

So here's a modification on your third-of-a-dial drop. You
set it for a third-of-a-dial drop and run the rudiments but
your third-of-a-dial drop only goes for those rudiments and
the assessment, which don't consist of getting off
withholds. So when you get that withhold, reach over here,
crank up your sensitivity, ask for the withhold and strip
it good, you see?

But if it is too active on withholds and it's going bang,
bang, bang, bang and you don't clear it right away by
asking what it is: Joburg Security Check. You don't run
anything further than the rudiments and that. In other
words, run the rudiments and then enter into Joburg
Security Check.

By the way, a Joburg Security Check is done in Model
Session form. It's not done outside of Model Session form;
nothing is these days. There isn't anything done outside of
Model Session these days - nothing. So your rule about the
sensitivity knob is that the only exception to a
third-of-a-dial drop - and I tell you this very advisedly -
the only exception in running SOP Goals and its preparatory
steps to the third-of-a-dial-drop setting is when you are
after withholds. And of course, that includes at once the
Joburg Security Check and it includes the withholds in the
rudiments. You got it? Hm? That makes it very easy, doesn't
it? Magnify your read when you're after withholds. If
you're not after withholds and you're just generally
assessing: third-of-a-dial drop. If you're auditing and
running: third-of-a-dial drop. If your meter insists on
dropping more than a third-of-a-dial drop, get a new
sensitivity rheostat installed in it. I'm afraid there is
no other answer.

I am going to be in very, very hot communication with our
manufacturers, making sure that it can be cut down to where
it would almost read in reverse on a bad-off case. You
know, just read in reverse.

You know, by the way, it's because you can't get your
sensitivity up high enough that you get the reverse can
squeezes. That is the usual action. It reads backwards. Did
you ever see a guy rise when you squeeze the cans? Well,
you just haven't got enough sensitivity on it. You can get
the sensitivity up, up, and if the sensitivity can't be
gotten up high enough he will still reverse. Get the
sensitivity up high enough - I think now; I suppose -
you'll get rid of that one. All right.

Now, in assessing for goals, Assessment by Elimination, you
of course, then, set the meter for a third-of-a-dial drop.
Why is this? If it is set for more than a third-of-a-dial
drop you are auditing the case, not assessing him. You
are auditing a process known as erasing goals by repeater
technique. You see that? It'd be erasing goals by repeater
technique, and it's not a very good process. Isn't
necessarily harmful. As a matter of fact it'll benefit a
case, but it's very lengthy and it can go on for a very
long time.

Now, what you're trying to do in Assessment by Elimination
is get them so they don't read with the meter set for a
third-of-a-dial fall. Once more, if your meter can't be
retarded far enough on the sensitivity knob, why, you'll
just have to get your meter fixed so it will. Because an
Assessment by Elimination is not a process by which you
seek to reduce the goal to no electronic reaction in the
mind. It is only this: It seeks to null the goal so that it
only does not act on an E-Meter which is set for a
third-of-a-dial drop. You got it? And it permits you then
to get the goal which will fall and fall and continue to
fall and go on and fall, that has to be addressed by
auditing. The only thing you're trying to do is that.

Now, we have proved out this fact: That if you erase all of
a person's goals, the person still has a goal which
falls - still one goal that falls - if it's erased! You see,
that's a valuable datum. Let's not lose it. If you erased
by repeater technique every goal the person came up with
the person would still have one goal. That's interesting,
isn't it?

All right, you don't have to erase them all to have just
one goal. You have to null them on a meter set with a
third-of-a-dial drop and if you do you will still have the
goal - the one goal. You understand? See, it's different. It
isn't actually erasing them. It is actually erasing them as
far as the meter is concerned. You see, you just take the
edge off so they don't fall. Well, that's it. And it gives
you a fast assessment - rapid assessment. This is mainly in
the interest of speed. That's all it's in the interest of.

I imagine if this were 1325 when people had a great deal
more time, or something like this, or on some planets like
Jupiter, we'd probably be trying to find out how could
assessment take more time?

If the psycho-analists were doing this, of course, at sixty
pounds the hour, or something like that, they'd try to
figure out how to stretch the assessment.

Well, the way you stretch the assessment is very simple.
All you have to do is turn up your sensitivity knob to
about 16, and every time the person comes up with a goal or
every time you ask for any more goals, you of course get a
read, see? You go over the goal, and with the thing set up
very high, why, you say, "All right, you wanted a set of
paper dolls," and the thing falls quite well.

But if you turn the sensitivity knob down for a
third-of-a-dial drop, you're reading from a still needle.
And the impact in the mind on the subject of acquiring
paper dolls is inadequate to move that from a still needle.
So for your assessment purposes it is null. You got it?

So you can go over - in that wise, you can go over literally
dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of goals. Now, part
of the - I mean, in one session. You get lots of them. And
you get down to the end, and because your sensitivity set
is low, you say, "Do you have any more goals?" Well
obviously, for God's sakes, if the person has any more
goals, realize that it's a limited question. It's limited
in its application. It's not a true question. "Do you have
any more goals." Well now, look! This person has been
around for the trillennia. Every life they had several
hundred goals. Well, all right. What are you going to do?
Multiply five hundred times two hundred trillion and what
is that? That's your goals list. All you're after is a
no-fall at the end of the list with the sensitivity knob
set for a third-of-a-dial drop. That's the only thing
you're after.

You can go over the various kinds of goals. You say, "Got
any childhood goals? Are there any more childhood goals?
Are there any more withheld goals? Secret goals? Are there
any more antisocial goals? Have you thought of anything
that would have to happen for you to know that Scientology
worked? Are there any difficulties you haven't mentioned to
me?" And look, by the time you got all of those that I just
gave you, practically in order, listed, and you get down to
the end of the list and you ask all those categories again
and you get no fall to your naked eye - you see no twitch.

And don't tell me that if the needle rises you go on
because that's getting to be a very sore point. Keeps
coming in over the lines and so forth, "The needle was
rising so I had to continue to run the rudiments." And
somebody just today' spotted that. It's because it's in the
TRs. The E-Meter TR has in it "rise" as a reaction. "How
many reactions there are to a needle?" and rise is one of
them. And then you say, "If you run the rudiments and you
get a needle reaction, you must flatten the rudiments," and
the auditor applies these two things just bing, bing. When
we say a reaction for the rudiments or a reaction for an
assessment, we mean a rock slam, a theta bop or a fall. In
order of importance it is a rock slam, a fall or a theta
hop. A theta hop is the least important, a fall is the most
ordinary and if you're getting rock slams, watch out
because the whole bank is grouped.

Remember the old Dianetic grouper? Well, the old Dianetic
grouper, if we'd had people on E-Meters in those days,
would always have registered as rock slam. It's just a
grouper in time and a grouper in place and a grouper in
mass and a grouper in this and that, and so you get a rock
slam.

In passing, just while I'm thinking about it, I better tell
you something about running a rock slam.

If you're assessing and getting rock slams on the Prehav
Scale for a terminal - let's say the goal rock slammed-. You
know what a rock slam is, now: it's an irregular, wobbly,
large or small shiver and shake across the thing. A theta
hop is a very regular one, of any width. But a rock slam is
a shiver and shake and it dances around and it's very jerky
and it's quite unmistakable. Once you've seen a rock
slam - they are - they're quite weird when you see these
things turn on. You say, "What in the name of God is that?"

These little, tiny needle shivers that you see are probably
microscopic rock slams. I don't really think they are a
different read.

There's a point of adjudication here: Do you just run the
rock slams off? Do you assess it as long as you don't have
a rock slam? And run it as long as you don't have a rock
slam? Assess it for the rock slam? Run it until you don't
have the rock slam? You could do that, you know? This is
not a hard and fast point because the rock slam is going to
turn into a fall; it's going to turn into a theta hop; it's
probably going to go null. The liabilities of doing that is
you've got a rock slam left someplace else on your Prehav
Scale.

There's a matter of adjudication; we'll have more data on
this someday - in the very near future. But I would say,
knowing the nature of a rock slam, that if you just
followed rock slam and ran the rock slam off so that you
didn't get a rock slam in twenty minutes, or something like
that, the case might make better progress. But we'll find
out more about that. That's not a hard and fast rule at
this time.

It's just this: When you're running a rock slam, remember
you're running, probably, a very short duration. If you
could hold a rock slam with your tone arm so that the needle
continued to sit solidly at set, what would the tone arm be
doing? Yeah, it'd be quite a wild tone arm, wouldn't it?
Huh? Well, that would be the one thing you can't read on a
tone arm. You have to read it over on the needle because -
just because you can't do that with a tone arm.

You see, theoretically, when I say process by the tone arm,
I mean keeping the needle somewhere in the vicinity of set,
and that gives you your tone arm motion. Well, a rock slam,
you can't keep the needle in the vicinity of set, you see?
The tone arm would be slamming.

Well, certainly you're going to run a tone-arm slam. You
can't set a meter for a tone-arm slam. So that's what you'd
run flat. You got the idea? You could run the tone-arm slam
flat, and if you assessed again you'd find the rock slam
has now gone elsewhere. It's a matter of adjudication, it's
a matter to be proved out, it's a matter to be settled, but
that is a point. And I'd better tell you what points really
don't exist in clear-cut silhouette relief.

Now, what do we get into here when we ask the wrong
question on an E-Meter? We're asking the fellow for goals .
and it's the wrong goal. Well, therefore, it's the wrong
question and you get a sporadic read, and the goal seems to
peel off and disappear. A meter, actually, will react only
as long as things are bunched up. And as you're assessing
for goals, when you first grab ahold of the pc, the goals
are all in one terrific, mauled-up ball, you see? And so
any goal is doing a dance.

But, as you repeat these goals, with the thing set for a
third-of-a-dial fall, the goal peels off the main mess. It
comes free and becomes itself.

And as you go over a goals list over and over - and
later, same way with terminals; a terminals list over and
over - you're going to find this is a persistent and
continuing manifestation: That the wrong questions peel off
and the right question remains. So that is true of an E-Meter.

If you always knew the right question to ask, you would
always get the same fall. But, at the same time, the
assessment has therapeutic value. Something for you to
remember.

If you just assess somebody - maybe he's in lousy condition
and really isn t ready for assessment and so forth - if you
just assess him and you do a good job of assessment on him,
you're going to get an improved case and he's going to feel
better about things.

An assessment cannot, then, be classified as something
which must be done to set up an intensive. Similarly, a
Joburg Security Check, if run well by the auditor, with a
nice, gunned-up sensitivity knob, is terrifically
therapeutic - terrific - and once more could not be
considered something by which you set up a case to audit
it. These things all fall within the perimeter of auditing
because they are therapeutic, they are beneficial. They
advance cases.

Let me tell you that just this one thing of a Joburg
Security Check has advanced cases that have never before
moved. Why did they never before move? They were sitting
there holding on to their cotton-picking withholds! And
their withholds were so heavy that they couldn't
communicate to the auditor, so they were never in-session,
so auditing never worked.

So you can't call a Joburg Security Check, then, something
that occurs outside of intensives or outside of auditing
unless it is being used for purposes of security. And then,
of course, you don't do it in Model Session form. You're
just finding out whether this guy is safe to have around,
that's all. And if the questions all clear up, voila! He's
safe to have around, providing you know how to do a Joburg
Security Check. That's the other little proviso that you
must be awfully sure of.

Some of you, or maybe all of you, will someday have the
experience in Scientology of you got a new HGC Admin, or
you've got a clerk or something like that, and you've
taught them the this's and that-a's of things, and you're
too busy to give this new applicant a Security Check
yourself, or everybody else is too busy, and you can't turn
him over to a good auditor to do this Security Check. And
you say, "Well, you know the rudiments and you know how to
do this, so you just go ahead and give him a Security Check."

And you're going to find out where my viewpoint sometimes
is: in total bafflement of how anybody can invent as many
ways of doing something wrong. And my viewpoint is very
often on that total bafflement. I know why it happens, so
that it doesn't continue to baffle me very long and it
doesn't upset me, but it is still something to marvel about.

If you were to take somebody and give them an hour's
instruction on the E-Meter, show them about the needle and
then turn over some raw meat off the street and tell them
to give this person a Security Check so you'd know whether
the person could be hired or not, your usual response is
not "The person is all right." The usual response is "He
couldn't possibly be hired." If inept people were running
E-Meters at all sides to do Security Checks for the purpose
of employment, you could guarantee this: The whole world
would at once be out of work.

Various things happen but the category of them are utterly
in the thousands. And there's no sense in going over the
number of things they can do wrong, except those things
which are rather common errors or which can be used to
clarify the right way. Then you can go over things that are
wrong. But otherwise, if you list all the things that are
wrong or could be done wrong with an E-Meter, you'd
probably be up around ten, fifteen thousand items. It's
colossal.

For instance, simple error like this: The person they're
checking breathes. This is rather strange and peculiar
amongst the human race, particularly people in London; they
know better. But they breathe, so every time they take a
breath - the meter isn't set right probably - and every time
they take a breath or a deep breath (or even if the meter
is set right, every time they sigh), you're going to get a
fall. And if the person were doing it, they wouldn't even
realize they had to repeat the question again or anything
like that, and they would be saying at that time, "Have you
ever embezzled the funds of an employer?" you see, or some
such thing. And the person says - he's getting kind of bored
with this you know - and he says, "Aheww!" you know? It
falls. And they'd write down "Embezzled funds of employer"
and go on to the next question.

Now, an idiocy of this character - let me tell you some more
about this instrument - an idiocy of this character is
going on in the United States at this moment. If it weren't
so sad and tragic, one could laugh about it, and you will
laugh too. You probably won't laugh so well until you
yourself conduct this experiment. And this is what is known
as compartmenting questions and something you will have to
know in doing Goals Assessments: the compartmentation of
questions.

The fellow turns in a goal: "I would like to be a fireman
and crawl up ladders and rescue beautiful women." That's
the goal. So you come to it on the goals list - and by the
way, these goals are always put down in the fellow's own
words. He'll amend them, but when he wants to amend them,
you amend them and add that amendment as a new goal.

So you are reading along his goals list to him and you come
down to this one. You come down the list and you've covered
now maybe seventy-five goals and twenty of them are still
registering after a brief repetitive read. And you've gone
on and the remainder, the fifty-five, have sort of dropped
out and you're just feeling fine. You come to this one:
"You want to be a fireman, and crawl up ladders, and rescue
beautiful women." Only you read it this way: "You want to
be a fireman, crawl up ladders and rescue beautiful women,"
and you get a fall. And you say it again: "You want to be a
fireman, and crawl up ladders, and rescue beautiful women,"
fall!

You say, "Well, that one stays in. Give it a slant mark.
That one's in." You read it a few more times, you see? But
it looked like it was getting a stronger read. Let's say
it - after you read it two or three times, it was getting
pretty - it was getting tougher! More reaction, more fall,
more theta bop, more rock slam, more something. So you just
left it in, and you said that was it, and you went on to
the next goal. And the next time you come by this thing you
read it, and by George, it's still in!

And you go tell somebody. You say, "You know what his goal
is, is to be a fireman." Nuh-uh. The way you handle these
category goals is you pull them apart and you go over them
like this: You've read the whole goal, you see? You do read
that - the whole goal - a couple three times. Thing
continues to read; now let's find out what's wrong with
this thing.

You say, "You want to be a fireman. You want to be a
fireman. You want to be a fi-." That's the end of that.
That's the end of that read it just disappeared. You say,
"Good. To crawl up ladders. You want to crawl up ladders,
crawl up ladders, crawl up ladders." That's the end of that
one. That's the end of that one. "Rescue beautiful women,
rescue beautiful women, rescue beautiful women. Ah, that's
what we were falling on. You want to rescue beautiful
women. Ah, that's good. That's good." Now, because it fell
apart otherwise, let's be just a little cleverer and let's
say, "To rescue, to rescue, to rescue." That disappears.
And what was he falling on? "Beautiful women, beautiful
women, beautiful women, beautiful women." As what healthy
male wouldn't!

So this whole goal disintegrated except beautiful women.
Now, usually the pc will now volunteer, "Yes, I'd sure like
to know some beautiful women." You put that down as a new
goal. Got it? That's getting rid of them by
compartmentation. Got it?

Now, some real - I wouldn't even dignify them by calling them
knuckle-heads - wogs, drifting around in various places,
have been let loose with an E-Meter over in the United
States, and they've got it all figured out now that
everybody has been PDHed and that everybody has PDHed
everybody and they're spreading it all over the place and
telling everybody that everybody has been PDHed. And they
prove it this way: They put the person on a meter and they
say, "Have you ever been a victim of PDH?"

And the person says, "What's that?"

"Well, have you ever been a victim of pain-drug-hypnosis?"
And you had a nice fall. "Wwahoo-haho-o-ahoo-wahoo-wahoo!
Here we go!"

"Well, who did it? Who did it? Who did it? Was it Ron? Was
it Di Diego? Was it Dick Halpern? Peter Hemery do it?" All
of a sudden they say, "Frank Sullivan do it?" - get a big
fall! "Ah, we've got a PDH here by Frank Sullivan,
ho-ho-ho-ho." Well, believe me, we might have!

Teaching is not implanting, but teaching on the whole track
often came to implanting. You never had time to teach
somebody where all the leads were in a tube room of a
spaceship. And there were eight hundred thousand different
leads and connectors to all the electronic equipment. So
you said zip! with the needle, and you turned on the super
tape recorders, and it went off at a high whine. And you
played it over to them hard. And after you'd done it a few
times, what do you know, they'd be able to go up and hit
lead this and lead that, and they'd be so on and so on, and
fix up this and put it in that.

And actually there are people around who've gotten so used
to being trained that way that we have today a thing called
Dormaphone - which, by the way, doesn't work on anybody who
didn't ever teach anybody this way. Doesn't work. "Learn
the Spanish language overnight." Well now, if I know all
about this, why don't I sock some sodium pentathol in my
arm, or something of the sort, or take a couple of Nembutol
sleeping tablets, and put a pair of earphones on, and turn
on a record that repeats how to speak the Spanish language
when I do this.

It happens right now - because there's a ship down at Las
Palmas I'll have to repair using the Spanish language - that
I picked up some lingua-phone records, and I happened to be
listening to them wide awake. I'm brushing up my Spanish.
When I first listened to the records they were a terrible
blur; I couldn't tell one word from another. Now it's
getting so that I actually can differentiate the difference
between the alumno and the professor. Trouble with me and
Spanish is I have enough overts against the Spanish people
that I have a hard time hearing them. That's true. Any
young Roman officer back in the old days had a hard time
this way. Anyhow, I don't mean to restimulate anybody.

All right, well, why don't I use this type of education?
Well, I just never got used to it. Why don't we use this
type of education in Scientology? Well, nobody - it -
Scientology is an education of reason, not an education
of location. Auditing is a practice of understanding,
judgment and application. It is not a practice of locating
and repairing a bunch of leads. You understand? It isn't
teaching some soldier the gun parts. It leaves him with
the initiative to handle weapons. Big difference there,
you see?

So all somnolent education is limited to the pat solutions
or locations to the questions. Now, if they were all pat
solutions and everything was all pat in all directions, it
was mostly locational nomenclature and category and where
found, you can do it. Thetans have been doing it on the
whole track forever. I mean, as long as we've had time this
process has been going on.

But some people have become very specialized in doing only
this. And those people set up a machine that furnish an
implant for any given situation and will answer with name,
rank and serial number, exact date, time, location,
situation and text.

Five or six times over the last nine years, there have been
big fads going around with this and anybody who has used
this as a consistent and continual means of education -
nothing vicious about it; they've just used it as a means
and method of education, that's all - can set up a machine
that'll respond. It'll give an implant for any given
situation. But that is much rarer.

Let's go back to how you use an E-Meter on this other thing
and this will amuse you far more. If I've stepped on any
toes while I've been saying this, I am very sorry. But it
is simply usually used for educational purposes. You got a
new crew aboard the spaceship and not a single,
cotton-picking one of them knows anything about space
flight. What is the best way to handle this crew? You shove
them underneath the proper speakers, and you give them the
proper drug, and it all runs off at high roar, and all of a
sudden you have a totally educated spacecraft crew.

Right now you could probably get a visio of lying in a nice
bunk on a spaceship, and it's got a speaker over your head
and it's playing violin music that is very soft and
soothing and at the same time giving you the regulations
and identity and so forth which you exactly were supposed
to occupy, all of the duties, regulations pertaining to
these duties, your relationship to other crew members -
everything that has to do with your job. And finally, you
get lazy enough and you say, "Well, that's a good thing,"
and you get up out of there and say, "I'm the first mate!"

As a matter of fact, you have a society right here at the
present moment which is going into this particular line. So
don't feel abusive about it because every time you even
captained a spaceship, you've had something to do with this.

But I'm talking about somebody who has made a good
specialty out of it, who's figured them out, who has used
it consistently and continually or who has practically
never done anything else along whole and enormous stretches
of track. Those people will develop an identity which gives
implants. They'll implant themselves. They can come up with
an implant for any given situation. That is rarer  -that is
rarer - but it is not rarer than 5 percent of the human race.
Well, you wouldn't call that terribly rare, then; you'd
just say it's a bit scarce. And almost anybody could be
restimulated with auditing up to a point of where they'd
produce some kind of a reaction on this thing - almost
anybody.

But let's take the compartmented question and look this
thing over. "Have you ever been a victim of
pain-drug-hypnosis?" - fall. "Who did it to you?"

"Frank Sullivan" - fall. That's our proof That's all you'd
have to do, isn't it?

Now actually, it'd clear up and get kind of mucky, and it's
awfully hard to read. And if you really don't know an
E-Meter very well you don't notice the sporadic falls that
you get on this repeated question: "Have you ever been a
victim of pain-drug-hypnosis? Who gave it to you?"

"Frank Sullivan."

"Did Frank Sullivan give you this?" If you're not used to
an E-Meter, you don't notice that the thing reads kind of
weirdly.

If you've got hold of an individual (seeing the meter or
something of the sort) who's got a good machine on this
particular basis, it'll date it. It'll make it all
reasonable and logical and set the whole thing up.

Where do you get an engram bank from, huh? Actually, you
yourself are making the engram bank, but you wouldn't have
to erase it if it wasn't being made on a via. If it was
being made directly and created directly by you it'd just
blow, blow, blow, blow, blow; you'd never have to erase an
engram, would you? Factually, it's produced by a machine.
There are machines that produce pictures. The thetan has
got them. They're invisible. He's got them stuffed away
under his left armpit or something of the sort, and they
produce these pictures. And it's a machine. All right, all
you have to do is specialize that machine a little bit and
it'll produce a PDH, at will. I could take one - such a
person and actually get PDHs until it became foolish to the
person. See? And one of the cures of it is to date other
people and other PDHs until we find out that their mother
and father both PDHed them, and everybody else has PDHed
them, all the way up the line.

You could rework this machine until you made the machine
practically go goofy giving you new PDHs. You got it? In
other words, it dubs in a PDH. That's all. And that's
dub-in, just as such. Whereas the person is actually giving
you perfectly valid engrams, when it comes to this
particular type of engram it's a dub. You got the idea?

Do you know that a lot of young girls walking around right
now, you say, "Well, get a mental image picture of your
father," and they get a hairy ape or they get something
else, see? In other words, they got a machine that'll dub
in fathers. Well, so there are machines that'll dub in PDHs.

But that isn't really what I'm talking to you about because
that's more advanced curiosa. And that isn't really what
I'm talking about at this particular time - the advanced
curiosas. I'm talking about E-Meters and this single
question: "Have you ever been a victim of
pain-drug-hypnosis? Who did it?"

"Frank Sullivan."

Listen, if you're an auditor and you know your business,
you know there's such a thing as O/W. And you know this:
That an E-Meter reacts to the auditor's questions. And any
question that is near the truth of anything will cause a
reaction on the machine. And it is up to you to get a
consistent read. You have to ask the smarter question. You
have to ask the varied question to polish that read up. And
all of a sudden, it's reading like mad and you know exactly
what it's reading on and everything else that it might have
been reading on disappears.

All right. Victim? How many people do you think will get a
reaction on the word victim? How many people do you think
will get a reaction on the word pain? How many people will
get a reaction on the word drugs? How many people will get
a reaction on the word hypnosis or hypnotism or hypnotists?
And if they've had a few overts or if they've read some of
his literature, how many people do you think would get a
reaction on Frank Sullivan?

No, all a question proves, when it reacts on an E-Meter, is
that it or some part of it has charge on it, or the
question is near some question which will have charge on
it. Got the idea? Now, by varying your question you can
smooth out the reads and as you become used to the
instrument, you'll notice that it reacts sporadically and
occasionally on something. Well, you just shape your
questions around and change it around until you get it
consistent, consistent, consistent, always the same read,
always the same read.

You can only keep it reading the same, however, if you
practically muzzle the pc. The second he starts imparting
information the read blows up. Because if he answers the
right auditing question, the read blows up. But of course,
because he answered it and the read blew up entirely, you
also know what you were asking. Don't you see? You know
what was right.

So with the pc totally gagged, you could by questioning - pc
not permitted to talk, actually with a gag on - and you have
to gag pc if you want to carry this thing out to its
extremities. It's a good drill and - they get too interested.

My favorite mechanism for newspaper reporters these days,
by the way, is to find an automobile accident they've been
in - they evidently they've all been in automobile accidents
- where the accident occurred, who was hurt in the
accident, where they were hurt in the accident; and find
out the whole lot, such as the make of the car, and all
this sort of thing, without letting the reporter say a word
to me. And man does it make citizens out of them. The
somatics turn on and everything turns on and they say,
"Well, how did you know?"

But actually you can't get much further than them being
hurt, or someone in the car being hurt, than they all of a
sudden start going off like small firecrackers, you know?
And they say, "Well, yes! Well, how did you know that?"
Well, you haven't actually had a chance to prove that you
were a total wizard. They're now convinced of it, see? "How
did you prove that? Well, what do you know. Yes, as a
matter of fact, it was an old Rolls-Royce. And it
went off the edge of a cliff down in Devonshire. And
uh-uh-that's right. There were other people in the car all
right. Girls they were, and uh - so forth. And I - I didn't
ever realize this before, but I must have gotten jammed
under the dashboard, you know? I've got a terrible pain
here. Uh - yeah, and I must have been jammed under the
dashboard. I never realized that before," you know, and
they go limping out.

Of course, such a thing dies out in the course of about
three days, but they don't go back to the office and write
that story that the editor told them to write to clobber
Scientology, mostly because they can't now sit down
comfortably. It restimulates them.

This is a very effective way of handling reporters, by the
way. It's a - it's a real convincer. Similarly this other
drill is a marvelous convincer to somebody who believes he
has been PDHed.

"Have you ever been a victim of pain-drug-hypnosis?" Well
now, just as you would in goals compartmentation, you say
the word "victim" - "You ever been a victim? You ever
been ..."

"Well," he says, "Ah-ha-ha-yeah-ha-ha, I've been a victim."

Yeah, well, that's the end of that read. "How do you feel
about pain?"

"Oh, no, I don't want anything to do with pain." Read,
read, read, read, read. And they say, "I don't want
anything to do with pain. I'm having an awful lot of
trouble. And during my early youth I was in agony most of
the time. They had my teeth in braces," and so forth, and
that one drops out.

And then say, "Well, how do you feel about drugs?"

"Oh God! Eh-e-ptuh! Every time you see a medico they never
treat anything; they just shoot you full of drugs and you
stagger around. And if they'd only have gone away in the
first place, or you never called them, why, you probably
could have died peaceably or gotten well or something of
the sort. Yeah, I don't care much for drugs." That's gone.

"All right, hypnotism. You ever been hypnotized?" There
wasn't any change on it in the first place and it's dead.
Now say the question: "Have you ever been a victim of
pain-drug-hypnosis?" The needle is - needle is totally
motionless.

Now you say, "Frank Sullivan," and it falls. You say, "Have
you ever had any overts on Frank Sullivan? You ever thought
any unkind thoughts?"

And they say, "Well, who wouldn't! Yes, yes, yes, I have,
because as a matter of fact Frank Sullivan has been talking
about being PDHed from the 1st ACC. He was telling me all
about PDHs. And he goes around and talks to people about
PDHs. And upsets people. And they don't like to get their
own PDHs terribly restimulated, only he's so convincing
about it. But his message is 'You have been PDHed! You have
been. The reason you are being self-determined right this
minute is because you have been PDHed.'" So with this kind
of a thing, of course a guy gets unkind thoughts. He says,
"This guy is nuts!" you know, although he might continue to
be pleasant.

And the person says, "Yes, I've got lots of overts in that
line. I've thought a lot of unkind thoughts in that
particular line."

And you say, "Well, how do you feel about Frank Sullivan?"
You get no motion to amount to anything on the needle.
You've kind of blown it. Now you say, "Well, has Frank
Sullivan ever PDHed you?" Now you'll get another surge.
"Well, have you ever thought anything bad about Sullivan
going around telling everybody that you've been PDHed?"

"Well, yes I have."

"Well, has Frank Sullivan PDHed you?" and that's now null.

Now you say to the person - now you say to the person, "Have
you ever been a victim of pain-drug-hypnotism?" - null. "Have
you ever been given a pain-drug-hypnotic implant by Frank
Sullivan?" and it's null. What was it falling on? It was
falling on connected restimulators and as soon as you blew
off, and the pc actually answered directly what you were
talking about...

Now, supposing he had been PDHed, and he told you an awful
lot of stuff - "Well, yes..." and he answered all these
things: "Yes, I've been worried about those things," and
that sort of thing - and the fall cancelled off on all of
them. And you said, "Well, have you ever been PDHed by
Frank Sullivan?" and you got a hell of a fall. You know
you'd never be able to clear that fall - never be able to
clear that fall at all - if the person had no recollection
of ever having been PDHed by Frank Sullivan, if he had been.
It would continue to fall. That would be that.

Now, this becomes a case for auditing. How do you audit it?
You put Frank Sullivan on the general Prehav Scale and you
simply run him flat. You assess him for level, just as you
would an SOP Goals terminal. You find out where that
level - it falls. You put together an auditing command on
Frank Sullivan, and you just run that out. And then when
that tone arm stops moving, as it very well might after
about four or five waggles - . See, it might only be a few
dozen commands, see? You find your new level and you
flatten that. And you find your new level and flatten that.
And all of a sudden you can't get any reaction of any kind
either on being PDHed or anything else; it will have blown.
That is the magic of the Prehav Scale.

Marital Scientology - just going from the ridiculous to the
sublime.

As I said before, this thing about PDH would be amusing if
it weren't so kind of sad. It's kind of knuckleheaded, you
know? It's kind of terrible thinking of some people running
around madly trying to tell everybody and convince
everybody that they have been PDHed because they're simply
dramatizing their own overts, whether now in this life or
on the backtrack. And they are worried about them, don't
you see? And when they've got to sell a bill of goods of
this particular character and make it their life work, they
might as well be writing out a confession and putting it in
the hands of every Scientologist they talk to.

The guy says, "I've been PDHed! I've been PDHed! I've been
PDHed! And yap, yap, yap! And you've got to believe me,"
and all this sort of thing. If he's making this - he's not
telling an auditor this; he's not going and getting
auditing; he's just telling everybody this - he's all the
same as writing out confessions and signing them and
putting them in Scientologists' hands. "I have PDHed the
living Christ out of people for ages. You see? I'm pro."
That's what he's doing. That's what he's doing.

Well, that's all right. But people who have done PDHs,
ordinarily on the whole track in the best of - thought that
was the best possible thing to do at the particular place
and time. So as a result, if they've got a machine that
will produce PDHs, so what? It'll all come out in running
SOP Goals. Why worry about it?

Furthermore, if some guy did PDH somebody - . Let's say.
Let's say that Sullivan did go ahead and hold down somebody
and slap him and cuff him and put him under drugs and shock
him and put in hypnotic commands and run some patched
together tape to him that told him to go and take HCA
Courses. That wouldn't be a bad implant by the way. And if
he did this...

Ah, look, look, look. Nothing can happen to you in one
lifetime - not even a PDH of-not even an electric shock from
a psychiatrist and so forth - that you can't handle now. All
you got to do is find out - locate the fellow who did it and
run him on the Prehav Scale and flatten the various levels,
and that's the end of the PDH. Interesting, huh? Or just in
the course of running SOP Goals, clear the guy and it'll blow
off It's nothing to worry about.

And I'm sure that no smart Scientologist - now that we've got
clearing going and we've got cases running so well - would
waste his time PDHing anybody. Look at all that hard effort
that would just blow off in a short auditing session. We're
actually getting faster today than they can be laid in.
Used to be that we took them out much more slowly than - you
know, an engram in general was erased much more slowly than
it was laid in. Well, you look at the number of engrams,
just count the number of engrams, that must blow in the
process of clearing a person, and it is some binary-digit
factor. The factor - you could start at - up on this wall
here and write 1 and then Os, column after column after
column, the whole length of that wall, and so forth, clear
down to the bottom of it, and you would not have stated a
number large enough to give the person the number of
engrams that he'd have; that number would not be large
enough. And when you can take and blow this up in the
course of, ah, at the outside, a couple of hundred hours of
auditing; holy cats, how many engrams is that per minute of
auditing - of actual effective auditing? It's some fantastic
number. It must be billions and billions of engrams in
fact. So who would waste their time?

But once more, going from the ridiculous to the sublime,
what I'm about to give you is the birth of marital
Scientology. Not really its birth, but it's grown up and
got some pants and skirts on it.

We had marital Scientology the day we had the husband and
wife sit down across from each other with an auditor
auditing both of them and getting off their overts and
withholds against each other. That did an enormous amount
to patch up marriages and actually could be considered its
birth. Now you can put pants and skirts on marital
Scientology and some auditor setting himself up this way
could do absolute marvelous things. All you do is take the
husband by name and run him on the Prehav Scale; take the
wife by name and run her on the Prehav Scale; and that's
the end of the difficulties of that marriage.

Of course, if the fellow doesn't want to be married, that's
his idea and he doesn't have to be run this way. At the
same time, if he wanted to get unmarried, this would also
be the smoothest way to get him unmarried. Got the idea?
Either way. Either way.

But it would certainly patch up the marriage. You got the
idea? It'd take the difficulties off the lineup. Because in
the course of running it would run the O/Ws off And what do
you know, it's such a tiny, tiny, tiny, short track. What
is it, they've been married for ten years. Wow! Ten years
against two hundred trillion. Doesn't sound like much. So
it's no track. And what you're doing is, instead of getting
these little tiny, two and a half horsepower outboard
motors and attaching them to the Queen Mary - that used to
be auditing, see - and these little, tiny outboard motors
are running mad and heating their bearings and so forth, to
push the Queen Mary. Instead of doing that now, we have a
ten-thousand horse Mercedes Benz pushing a rowboat. One of
the precautions we have to take is it doesn't crush the
rowboat. The precaution we take is do a technically perfect
job of auditing and keep your rudiments cleaned up the way
I've been talking to you about.

All right. How long do you think it'd take to clear up that
much track on a couple? Damn short period of time. With a
little experience and knowing your business, you could
absolutely guarantee to set up somebody as far as this is
concerned. You could absolutely guarantee. You'd say,
"Lead-pipe cinch." What would you do? You'd take the husband's
name or the wife's name or something like that. Now you
could assess this out one way or the other, but now you'd be
getting into another project. No, all we're going to do is a
nonassess on the terminal, beyond just the identity of the
terminal. You got the idea? See, this is the light brushoff.

Husband's name is Joe Thompson. All right. We just take Joe
Thompson, and we assess Joe Thompson up on the Prehav Scale
and down on the Prehav Scale. And going up and down the
level "failed endure" knocked both times. We make up an
auditing command about the failed endurance of Joe Thompson
and our pc's relationship to him. It may flatten in ten
commands. It may flatten in ten or twenty commands. But as
soon as the motion goes out of the tone arm, reassess. And
then take the motion out of that tone arm. And then
reassess it on the Prehav Scale. We're not talking about
very much auditing, are we?

Of course, the case has got to be in the kind of a shape
where they will talk to the auditor and interested in their
own case before you do that. You can do that too. You can
run them general Prehav Scale and make them do a Joburg
Security Check, and they'll be talking to you.

You know, doing a Joburg Security Check is not an overt.
Some people will look on it as such. It's about the nicest
thing you can do to anybody. All you're giving him is his life.

Now, let's take a little, brief summary of this. Mr.
E-Meter is a precision instrument. Mr. Auditor is sometimes
imprecise. Mr. E-Meter registers on anything the pc hears.
The auditor sometimes doesn't adjudicate what the pc has
heard. The E-Meter clears on everything the pc answers
absolutely right. And it remains muddled on everything the
pc doesn't answer absolutely right. It's as clear as that;
the E-Meter is a precision instrument, but auditors and
preclears are prone to error.

Now you, in your study of cases and E-Meters and so forth,
have certain drills which you must undertake even though
they seem to be silly drills. They may seem to be silly,
but I want you here to make sure that you do these.

All right.

[End of lecture.]


