Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 08/12 repost [x2]
Date: 3 Dec 1999 23:47:09 -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 08/12 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-8  renum 8   6 Jun 61 Security Checks

SECURITY CHECKS

A lecture given on 6 June 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

Thank you.

Well, here we are at the 6th of June.

And our course seems to be going very well. If you don't
recognize me today - ... Actually, as I explained to Edgar,
it isn't, actually, that I like to wear my hair long; it's
just that there aren't any barbers. Go ahead, I dare you;
try to find one. Since we took Edgar out of the profession,
there's nobody anymore left in the world who can barber.
There's a small fee for this commercial.

All right. I suppose by this time you actually have in your
small, moist palm a copy of the HCOB that has to do with
these routines. Is it in your hands yet?

Audience: No.

Well, then it probably will be tomorrow morning. It's the
first bulletin concerning the routines, and so on. Now,
what's going to change that bulletin? Let's look at the
future just a little bit.

We are not now trying to find out what auditors need as
theoretical or ideal tools to clear people. We are not at
that stage. We passed that stage a long time ago, actually.
We are trying desperately to discover right now what
auditors will use, and what they can use. And SOP Goals and
its related processes have been in development for use for
some time. Please understand that as a difference of
action. There's two things: It's what will auditors use -
what will they use? And what can they use? And these two
things monitor what is put in their hands. You got the
idea?

Now at first, just the Prehav Scale was put in their hands,
and they had pretty good success with it here, there - just
general runs in the Prehav Scale. They weren't able to goof
it up too badly and they got some good success. And I had
some rather resounding profiles sent in here. And everybody
seemed to be very happy with the idea of assessing the pc
on the general scale and cooking up some kind of an
auditing command - even a bum one - and running a pc on it,
and rudiments in, out or upside down, you know? And they
got somewhere. They got somewhere with this. We got some
good results. So we have to assume that an auditor not only
will do it but can do it. See? 1) And - is it well accepted?
and 2) is it within his realm of ability?

You have to think of that when you're training students -
training people in Scientology. It's what they can and
will do. Now, if you have somebody who can only run
CCHs and you have him in a group of people who are doing
auditing on outside pcs, well, wouldn't you be rather
foolish to give him a set of tools that he would not or
could not apply. Because immediately your auditing results
would break down right at that point - sharply, clearly
and immediately. You get the idea?

Auditor can run CCHs, and yet you say run the
hooble-goobles second differential of the integral zim.
That's what it sounds like to him, see? I mean, you've said
something very comprehensible to you. You've said find his
Havingness and Confront Process. And yet it sounded like
the gobbledygook I just gave you, see? It doesn't make any
sense to him. So with great willingness, perhaps salted
down a little bit with making you wrong, he will go ahead
and louse up the lot. Why? Well, he's being told to run
something; he thinks he should understand this; and you
may come around for a long time and find out that he just
hasn't told you he didn't understand it.

Now, the test of anything is whether or not it produces
results. But remember this - that a result is determined by
several things: 1) the adequacy of the tool being employed.
That is the first thing a result is established by. That is
first and foremost. Nobody will argue about that at all. If
you haven't got the tools, you can't do the job. That's it.
And that's what Scientology is basically - the tools that
do the job.

Now, this is modified by what auditors will apply or what
people will use. You see? What will they use? And that
again is modified: What can they use? So we actually have
three sets of determinisms here on what is a good process.
It isn't whether or not the process used under ideal
conditions will produce every time a stratospheric flight.
You see, that is not the test all by itself. Without that,
nothing is going to work; that's for sure. But it's
monitored by these other two things. And when you're
training auditors, for God sakes, keep that in mind. Huh!
We've had the principle for a long time, but I never
articulated it. And one of the parts of it was: If somebody
comes in raw into an HGC, you find out from him what
processes he has been having success with. You could also
ask him this one, oddly enough: "What process has worked on
you?"

And he says, "Oh, 8-C. 8-C. I had a wonderful gain back
about '54. Nobody has run it on me since, but back about
'54 I had a wonderful gain on 8-C. And I've run it on a lot
of pcs and so forth."

And you say to this fellow, "All right. That's all you're
going to run on pcs." And you know, you'll get better
profile gains than if you told him something else. You got
it? Until you can get him trained up and get a reality on
something else, you had much better let him run something
on which he has an adequate reality.

And if he's going to get a result, it's because he himself
believes he can get a result. Now, you can enter far too
far into the esoterics of all this. Look at the factor
you're involved with. If an individual doesn't have a
subjective reality on something, you cannot expect the
individual to employ it with reality, can you? And there's
nobody more sensitive to an unreality in a preclear than an
auditor. But certainly there's nobody more unsensitive to
unreality in an auditor than a preclear. Yeah, that's true.

So all of these things are monitoring factors on what
auditors can and will use. And right now auditors broadly
have apparently had considerable success with the CCHs over
the years. They've been running them all wrong and
backwards, because they've been running them doctored up
and changed and alter-ised and "improved," see? When, as a
matter of fact, it was something on the order of trying to
improve the last space fleet that was developed in the last
galactic empire at its utter peak, you see? And from there
on all you were doing was pinning pink roses on the things.
And you finally pinned enough pink roses and blue bows on
these spaceships until eventually the fleet didn't fly
anymore. That's about what happened.

Now, the original CCHs was the only thing on which I did
any research, and it was done in the vicinity of 1957. I
didn't employ them thereafter. It's an interesting story in
connection with that: is I personally wanted to find out if
I could audit this way. And I trained myself within a
hair's breadth of auditing the CCHs. I could audit those
CCHs in my sleep. You know, put on the perfect Tone 40
performance. You know, I grooved myself in - like you're
learning Model Session now, you know. And I found out when
I used this I got tremendous and very worthwhile gains. But
it was used according to the old regimen. You see?

Now, all the research was done, all of the training of
people on how to do it was done, and then I skipped it. And
then we had an ACC or two, and we ran into modifications.
For some reason or other, they weren't quite as keen to do
the original version as they were a modified version -
students.

Now, I just give you that in passing because this mustn't
happen again to the CCHs. The CCHs work perfectly when done
a la 1957. That was their nadir, and that was it. And it
was CCH 1, 2, 3, 4. And they were done this way up in London.

There are some old tapes up there that'd utterly fascinate
you - I think they're in the other room here - all about
how you do the CCHs. And they're mostly tapes of "Don't
alter-is it. Thank you. Don't alter-is it. Thank you. Don't
alter-is it. Thank you." That's about what they amount to.
That's what Ken ran into head-on here the other day.
Because we had, actually, a good process system destroyed
by about 1958, and it was less and less in use.

Well, why was it less and less in use? I wasn't paying much
attention to it. And I was finding out that it wasn't
producing the results before. And now that we need it, I've
turned around and reviewed it, and I find out what is now
called the CCHs bears no resemblance - any more than Little
Eva did to Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin. They're just not the
same breed.

CCHs are very simple. They're very straightforward. You do
all the things it says. You put your intention into the pc.
You don't Q-and-A with the things he does. You hold,
actually, his body in an exact position. You run them close
up. You're not trying to do anything but increase his
reality and his control.

You see, CCH means Communication, Control and Havingness.
And if you get this duplication - this was the sneak factor
I suddenly discovered about the time of the first Saint Hill
ACC: this duplication. So the less duplicative you are, the
less havingness the pc has. Interesting, isn't it? Well,
anyhow, there's the CCHs.

Now, the Security Check proposition. Now, I'll tell you
what auditors wouldn't do the world around - what they
wouldn't do. They wouldn't be imaginative enough to get the
withholds off the case. I'll give you an example of a
Security Check that was written at a Central Organization.
And I actually ought to frame it as how not to win. It
says, "Do you have an ARC break with Norma? Do you have an
ARC break with Joe? Do you have an ARC break with Bill and
Pete? Thank you. You've passed the Security Check."

One just doesn't penetrate reality to that extent while one
is taking responsibility for it, see? One won't be
responsible for taking the reality of this, because it's
pretty grim asking for withholds, see. All right.

Auditors were perfectly willing to make people well. They
were perfectly willing to audit people. They were perfectly
willing to work with the most confoundedly gee-whiz cases
you ever heard of. But ask for that withhold? Well, they
weren't unwilling to ask for the withhold. They were just
unwilling to be sufficiently imaginative to do anything
concerning it.

Oh, a fellow murdered his first wife, you see? The auditor
would never bring himself up to feeling that critical of
the human race. You get the idea? Well, maybe the fellow
just beat his first wife. You ask him if he murdered his
first wife, and he'll tell you, "No, I just beat her." See,
you can always overask a question, and auditors would not
do that! Imagine it. They'd sit there with their rudiments
out, their rudiments out, their rudiments out, their
rudiments out. Well, it was killing people. I mean, not
actually, but it was just murder, you know? A guy was
feeling bad, and so forth; the auditor never asked for the
withhold!

So, we had to remedy this because this was a rather
whirled-around condition. And that whirled-around condition
resulted in what? When I got down to South Africa, I found
that somebody had dreamed up a Security Check on my orders
down there to parallel the laws of South Africa. And these
laws are very imaginative because they're dealing with
people who have extremely imaginative crimes. And actually
there were things in there that I myself wouldn't have
thought of doing. Exceeded my reality. But over a period of
years, South Africa had collected them in their law books.

Oddly enough, the South African Security Check - here's
a joke on Johannesburg - contained originally, no single
question concerning overts or withholds on the
organization, any staff members, any Scientologists, me or
anybody else. Isn't that fascinating? Had omitted that 100
percent from the zone of interrogation. And the people who
were putting it out had overts, really, only in that field.
Fascinating, isn't it?

All right. Now, I put together this thing, doctored it up
and called it the Joburg 1st, see? But for a very long
time - to show you how hard this one is to get into
operation - people will eventually wake up and use it.
"Oh, oh," they say.

You know, you've been standing there; you've been
screaming; you've been saying, "Use it. Use nothing else
but it. Now use that. That is a Security Check. That is
what you're supposed to run on staff members. That is what
you're supposed to use. When you security check somebody,
you use this form, Johannesburg Security Check, HCO WW Form
1! You understand?"

And they say, "Okay." "Do you have an ARC break with Norma?
Do you have an ARC break..."

Lots of people would like to rewrite this Security Check.
And apparently the law is this on rewriting Security
Checks - it works like this: If the person is permitted to
delete or skip one of the levels of the Security Check, or
if you give it to somebody to take certain levels out that
do not apply, the person takes out the very withholds he
has, even though he doesn't remember he has them. Isn't
that curious? So you must never permit a Security Check to
be rewritten; you must never permit one to be edited for
special use. You understand?

I learned these things by accident. "Oh, you want all the
Johannesburg Security Checks sent in to you, personally.
Well, here are all the Security Checks on the staff. We've
only given one Johannesburg Security Check." They've had it
for months. They've got another Security Check. Got the
idea? So you have an HCO Policy Letter along about this
time of life that says, "The Only Valid Security Check."
And when we say, "The Only Valid Security Check," we mean
the Johannesburg Security Check, or by whatever name it may
be called by HCO WW. And it will only be the complete form
of a form issued at HCO WW. Got it? That's how hard that
one is to hold in.

That's interesting. They will give a Security Check. They
will learn how to give Security Checks. They will ask the
most outrageous questions as long as they are written down
and are part of a Security Check. But then you've got this
other impulse all the time that is going around, a little
bit here and a little bit there: "Well, it's not necessary
to ask this question. It's about illicit diamond buying.
That only applies to South Africa, and we're up here in
northern Siberia."

I was speaking, by the way, as though I were in Chicago.
They're trying to pass laws out in Chicago these days that
everybody who is pronounced crazy by anybody that happens
to know his name are instantly shipped to Siberia - I mean
Alaska. Did you know that? Wonderful way of get - clearing
up the political scene. The only trouble is, the people who
are in power when they dream these things up never quite
remember that someday they're going to be out of power.
That's because they don't know they're going to live
another life, too. It's very, very amusing that all the
legislatures and so forth, on the laws they pass - because
they're old men and no longer effect them - walk into their
next lifetimes and are totally subject to all of their
conscription orders, to all their educational orders, to
all their child labor blah-blah. The whole lousy works, you
see? And you talk about being cause of your own effect, God
help a legislator.

Anyhow, in passing, this Security Check is not an
alter-isable proposition. So don't let people edit them and
don't edit them when you're giving them. You say, "Have you
ever done any illicit diamond buying?" -idb. Well, it's even
a phrase in South Africa. Do you know how many pcs we've
caught in England and America on this? Well, it's
fascinating, you know? Because it doesn't fall on illicit
diamond buying necessarily; it falls on anything to do with
diamonds. And people - the weirdest things they will do
with diamonds: they smuggle them, and they swallow them,
and they - ...

Now, that question alone is left in there as a bit of a
gag. It's to identify the check, and probably till the end
of time I hope to keep that question in - "Have you ever done
any illicit diamond buying?" - just to identify the source of
the check. But very shortly this is going to become HCO WW
Form 4 - Security Form 4. And it will be called by another
name - be called by another name - probably be called an HGC
Processing Questionnaire. See, something very mild and
innocuous, but it'll still be HCO W [WW] Form 4. There
actually will be a few more questions. There will be a
whole section in there which could be at once applied to
the student and could be applied to the HGC pc.

We found that an awful lot of HGC pcs hang up in processing
because they get mad at the Chief Registrar, or they're
discourteous to the Receptionist or something. And they're
just having an awful time this particular morning, and we
don't quite understand why they're having a hard time. It
isn't what we think they should do; it's evidently what
they think they should do, you see? They're having a
dreadful time. And they start asking for withholds and they
get a fall. And they can't imagine what dreadful thing this
is, and they find out the pc didn't say good morning to the
HASI Registrar. See, it's a withhold. They meant to say
good morning, but they decided not to say good morning,
then they decided it was discourteous that they had done
this. You got the idea?

And they get messed up with withholds on Central Org
personnel or Scientologists just in, really, the relatively
few days that they're around the place. Because they come
in, you see, on obsessive, unkind-thought automaticities.
See? They walk in and they got unkind thoughts going off
automatically, see? And it's going brrrrrrrrr a thousand
miles a minute. You know? Unkind thought here, unkind
thought there, and an unkind thought someplace else, and
an unkind thought someplace else, and an unkind thought
someplace else. And golly! These things get square across
their processing line.

So it is in an effort to keep auditors from breaking their
hearts and people from wasting their money; you have to
give a full check. There will be a new section in it then
that refers to students and preclears, the kinds of things
that they possibly might do. And there will probably be a
section in there for the benefit of the field auditor. Like
"Have you said anything unkind to anybody you know about
your auditor?" You got the idea?

Well, you know, you'd be surprised how many things are
going to fall. And this auditor is trying his best, and he
feels good about it all. And this pc is just withholding
like crazy, because he goes out in propitiation and gets
even with the auditor by telling everybody in the
neighborhood what a dirty rat he is, and that he keeps
seven women under the bed. (He only keeps two.)

Now, the only way you can make one of these things work is
to clean things up at the same time you're using it. You
see, it's a two-edged sword. If you're going to be
reprehensible about unkind thoughts about Scientologists
and organizations, and if this holds people up, then it
should be - we should be quite militant on setting it up
so that we don't merit these things, you see? And this
includes - oh, I don't know, I can think of several dirty
words offhand, speak - thinking of unkind thoughts.

There's been somebody crashing around the United States who
has evidently - since 1952, has been complaining to me
bitterly about all of the thetans that come in the night
and PDH him. And he has now gone on an all - out in the
United States, and he's writing mimeograph sheets to
everyone telling them that they've been PDHed, and that
everybody in God's green Earth has PDHed them, and Central
Organization members have PDHed them, and I've PDHed them.
What conceit!

And I've shown you the little trick and actually written an
article in Ability in America, which is probably out right
about now. It's "The Sad T-a-i-l of PDH." And it's how you
can demonstrate conclusively that the cat has PDHed you.

That's a piece of our technical training around here now.
So those of you who have just come in, get somebody to show
you - show you, with you on the meter - that the cat has
PDHed you. The meter will say so, if you don't know how to
run a meter. Or if you know how to run a meter very, very
well, you can make a meter say almost anything by getting
associative words in. And of course you'd really - if you
really knew a meter, they wouldn't fool anybody because
they'd see the sporadic and uneven falls, you see.

You'd - just association of words. Anybody will get a fall
on "pain," anybody is liable to get a fall on "drug,"
anybody is liable to get a fall on "hypnosis," and anybody
is liable to have done anything to a cat. So what you do is
spot the moment when he's done something to the cat, and
that was the date. The meter will answer up as "Has the cat
PDHed you?" You just pick the moment of the overt, that's
all. And he could pick the exact moment on the time track
of something like this as long as he had an overt right at
that instance, see? If it clicks. It's marvelous.

Difficulty is that a meter will not clear - will not clear -
on an untruth. If the pc is - if you're still - you've still
got an untruth and you're trying to foist off on the pc
some untruth, the meter won't clear on it. But as soon as
you put the pc through the jumps on this kind of thing,
why, the pc clears on it, you see?

All right. How does a person get in a kind of a state that
he'd run around saying all such incredible things, and so
on? Well, he gets in that kind of state because he's had
case advance without ever anybody pulling his withholds. So
countering the fact that it might be a little bit
embarrassing to have some of these things disclosed, is the
fact that if it isn't administered, you don't get any case
gain and actually will practically torture a pc by
processing him for a long period of time without getting
off his withholds. In other words, it's a very unkind thing
to do, to use tools that boost his case way up and leave
him with all of his withholds. Because his withholds now
turn in, with responsibility, to overts about which he's
going to feel very bad.

He managed to stay sufficiently irresponsible and
da-de-da-de-da-de-da that they never bothered him, bothered
him. And all of a sudden he gets a little more responsible,
and he says, "I don't think it was nice to strangle that
little girl. I don't think that was so nice. I wonder if it
hurt her."

You know, and about this time he gets a little more case
advance and he says, "Oh, God," you know? "But of course, I
don't dare tell anybody. They'd execute me."

So he gets another little bit of a case advance and he
says, "Blaw-rra-yea!"

He gets another little case advance, and actually he could
get to a state of where he'd go - be going around craving
peppermint candy. You have forced him into a life
continuum. You've snapped the valence in on him. You've
increased his responsibility without permitting him to be
responsible for what he's done. And when you increase a
person's potential responsibility without letting them be
responsible for what they have done, no more desperately
vicious mechanism could exist in processing. Have you got it?

So if you don't administer a good, tough Security Check,
and if you don't keep that Security Check good and keep it
whole, you're just setting it up for pcs not only to not be
cleared but actually to start feeling miserable. Oddly
enough, feeling miserable, they're better off than they
were being irresponsible. You got the idea? And they'll
tell you so, too. But you just peg them. You peg their
processing gain. It isn't that you do something overt that
forces their case down; you peg their processing gain. And
it'll peg right up to the point where they become
responsible for some overt act in the past. And there the
case will hang. And that's it. They've had it from there
on. And you won't get any further advance out of that case.

So one of your rules is, is when a person ceases to advance
rapidly, you just pick up Mr. Joburg and start in at the
beginning and run through to the end. And you all of a
sudden will find out why.

Yeah, but here's your theory: If you get all of his
withholds off early in processing, why, you won't run into
this, will you? Oh, but wait. He doesn't know anything
about these overts. He doesn't even consider the things
he's done overts.

Here's this girl. She has kept all of her brothers and
sisters in a state of total blackmail and terror - the
oldest girl of the family or something. She locked them up
in closets. She's responsible for one of them now being a
permanent cripple, and so forth. And you give her a
Security Check. And the first check, the only real withhold
that you get off of her is that at the age of about seven
she thought that her sister probably wasn't as pretty as
she should be. And that falls on the meter, but nothing
else falls.

Now, the person has to be processed, and you suddenly find
these other things. Those withholds come off You process
them again. Now you've got a whole new array. And by
consistently doing this one against the other - processing
against the Security Check - you have an indirect measure of
the progress of the case as well as opening up the road for
the case to drive on it. Because if the person doesn't have
any new withholds, you have laid a large ostrich egg in
your last few hours of processing. See? But if you find new
withholds on a case that weren't hitherto disclosed, you
know you're making progress.

So don't say to yourself "Ah, I must be terrible at
security checking, because after all, I ran him on the
general levels for about eight hours and so forth, but just
before that I must have missed all of these withholds. Look
at them. How could I have been that stupid in running an
E-Meter?"

No. They weren't there. Because a person has to have some
reality on a terminal or a condition before it falls on an
E-Meter. And that's why you assess terminals, is because
you don't want to run a terminal on which the pc has no
reality. And when this thing reacts, it says reality. You
could call it an ARC meter and you'd just be in dandy
shape. It says reality! Reality!

Now, you know what's wrong. You know what's wrong with
Mamie Zilch. You know it's her husband. You know. So you
take right off and you don't use an E-Meter and you run,
"Now, Mamie. Now, Mamie, you've heard of this process, O/W
What have you done to your husband? What have you withheld
from your husband? What have you done to your husband? What
have you withheld from your husband?" and so forth.

And Mamie says, "Let's see, I - I uhm - I uhm - I actually
find the question very difficult to answer. I really have
never done anything to the brute. He kept throwing me down
wells. And every time he'd back the car out of the garage,
he'd call me out just to make sure that I was standing right
behind it, so that he could run into me. And he used to
write letters - I never saw any of these letters - but he
used to write letters to all of my friends saying that I
had venereal disease. Let's see. What else did he do to me?"

You say, "No. No. The question is 'What have you done to
him?'"

"I've never done anything to him in my life."

You say, "Wait a minute. What goes on here?" Well, what
goes on here is very simple. The pc has not taken any
responsibility for any acts with regard to her husband.
Now, it doesn't matter whether the husband was a good man
or a bad man. You understand? The pc has taken no
responsibility for these acts, and so there's nothing the
pc has done to the husband is real.

So, what is the source and why do you come about with
overts and withholds anyhow? It's basically, they're based
on something getting unreal to the pc. So the more overts
and withholds a pc has, the less a pc registers on the
meter. And you'll finally find the pc floating here at 2.0
with a totally stuck needle, and they won't move off 2.0,
and you can't get the tone arm off 2.0. The sensitivity is
up here at 16, and you say to them, "Gee! You must be Clear."

You know, a lot of people checking out Clears very early
rather tended to invalidate the state of Clear because they
didn't know anything about a meter at all. There was very
little known about a meter. But it takes that free floating
needle. It takes that needle there that is going to - ...
When you first see one of these free floating needles,
they're unmistakable. Ah, it's awfully hard to fake one.
I don't think it could be faked. It's just a smooth flow
with no sticks and no reactions, you see. Well, that looks
an awful - that's with sensitivity way down here.

And that looks an awful lot different than a person at 2.0
and the needle totally stuck. And you kick him in the shins
and you don't even get a drop of the needle. Well, that's a
state of total irresponsibility. That's what that state is,
because you're registering a dead thetan in a body that
somehow goes on ticking. You're just getting the body
reaction.

Well, of course, this pc is going to go down here to
1.0 - through 7.0. There's 7.0 on this E-Meter, by the way,
but it can't turn to it. You once in a while will find a pc
there, and you'll go nuts trying to get him on the meter.
It'll be down here at 6.5, and then you'll get down here to
5.0, and you get down here to 4.0 - this is over a long,
long course of processing - and he'll wobble around here for
a while, and he'll finally get back here to 3.0, or if a
girl, get back here to 2.0, and there it is. It's the same
reading all over again. Ah, except the sensitivity is down
and the needle is just floating, and the needle is no
longer stuck. Okay?

But that's a high state of responsibility. Now, how can a
person take responsibility for his acts unless you give him
a chance to? And if he does take responsibility for his
acts and isn't able to communicate them to you, he goes out
of session. He blows. He doesn't finish his intensives. He
doesn't keep on with the auditor. He gets upset about
auditing. All these various evils we have seen in the past
are all explained by this mechanism of the person goes up
and hits the ceiling. And the ceiling is the number of
withholds for which he has become responsible and that he
can't tell anybody. So you got to take out the ceiling and
let him move up to the first floor. You got the idea?

So here's the picture, in other words, of this new
bulletin. It just plays this mechanism about which I've
been talking, one against the other. You give the person a
case gain with the fastest tools you know how, and his
responsibility is increased, so you get off his withholds.
And the best thing to use, according to what auditors will
use and auditors have used, is this thing called a Security
Check. It asks them all, man. And if there's anything
missing on it, they'll eventually appear on it. We don't
care how long it takes to give a Security Check, because
it's an unkindness not to give one. That's the story of
this bulletin. That's at the background of this bulletin.
Perhaps there are - a person can run SOP Goals on a person
right out of an institution. If he were a good auditor, he
could actually get the person's goals and so forth. Now, it
might take him two hundred hours. The pc would be advancing
the whole time.

It's merely what auditors will do. And at the present time
you don't want anything but Routines 1 and 2 being run
anywhere. You don't want to see these things run anywhere,
including Los Angeles. You ought to send a cable tonight
saying, "A bulletin is coming to you, date (so-and-so). Use
nothing but Routines 1 and 2. And if I catch you using any
other routines, I will have a few bleeding hearts. Because
I can now run out my overts; I'm dangerous." Got the idea?
Why? Because they've proved abundantly that they can run
levels [Routines] 1 and 2. And they've proved abundantly
they can't run level - Routine 3. They have proven this
abundantly.

Some of the people who turn up here, some of the goals that
have been found on them - man, all you do is ask them twice
and you can't find it in the back of the meter or the
bottom of the meter or anything else, and yet they've been
run on it. Now, do you know what can happen if you find the
wrong goal - wrong terminal on a pc? You can live-up the
whole Prehav Scale, that's what's going to happen. And this
is one of the tests: About the third time you have found a
level, about the third assessment you give him on the
terminal you have found, watch that list as you assess it.
And if there's something on the order of a dozen levels
live, eheaah, you've got the wrong terminal. The wrong
terminal makes every level of it live. Look at the state
you're putting the poor critter into.

The thing is so compiled that about four levels of it will
be live anyway. You'll have four levels of it. But if a
dozen up - a dozen or more - are hot and alive on this scale,
it's not there's something wrong with the rudiments, it's
just something is wrong with that terminal. So along about
your third reassessment you could do a check on SOP Goals.

But that's kind of vicious, because do you know that if you
only partially flatten levels on the general Prehav Scale
on the goals terminal, you know you can make the fellow
feel like he's nuts? He starts going kind of nuts. Well,
you're driving a ten-thousand-horsepower machine, see, and
it starts feeling kind of meummm. He's got level after
level unflat. You yourself can demonstrate that.

We had some auditor up here - he was being coached over the
telephone from Saint Hill - running somebody once. He had all
of his data. He had it all laid out in tape. He could run
it off like a parrot. There wasn't any reason under the sun
he shouldn't have done it. And you know what he did? He ran
four levels in an afternoon on one pc, because he'd
interpreted the instructions - which wording, by the way,
never occurred in any instructions and doesn't. He said he
interpreted the instructions because they were written
wrong. Well, they weren't written wrong. I went and checked
it out.

On all the bulletins, you never find "You barely take the
motion out of the tone arm and then you reassess." That was
what he thought the instruction said. It doesn't even use
those words. You could say, reverse-wise, "You run it until
the tone arm is barely moving," but not even these
instructions occurred in the literature and instructions he
was given, see? He couldn't even have made that mistake.
It's sort of a whew!

Now, the assessment was fairly accurate and had been done
for him. He didn't even have to do that. In other words,
faced with goals and terminals, a lot of these people sort
of go to pieces. Takes a lot of training.

Furthermore, the pc is so easily ARC broken - so very easily
upset. He advances so rapidly that his responsibility is
rising up to a point where he's got withholds by the bucket
coming up all the time. And if he isn't well handled with
perfect mechanical approach, perfect technical, perfect
TRs, perfect E-Meter operation - I mean perfect - well,
you're never going to clear anybody. That's it.

[End of lecture.]


