SHSBC-4  renum 4  26 May 61 On Auditing

ON AUDITING

A lecture given on 26 May 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

All right, this is the 26th of May, 1961, Special Briefing
Course, Saint Hill.

Now, you may believe that good publicity in the newspapers
will take Scientology someplace. You may believe that good
public opinion on the part of the kings and presidents and
janitors of the world will get Scientology someplace. And
you may believe that it'd be wonderful if the head of the
BMA or the AMA or the QBCs or the Ku Klux Klan or some
other fascist organization, would announce that he was in
favor of Scientology. You may believe all these things have
value.

Well, I want to tell you today that they have no value of
any kind whatsoever. They are as sounding brass and the
tinkle of the temple bell. They are nothing. If you get the
idea that Scientology will rise or fall by public opinion,
circa 1961 or 1950, you are very much mistaken. They will
have absolutely no bearing on Scientology.

It isn't necessarily that Scientology belongs to the ages,
but this is vividly true, vividly: If you don't get
results, all the publicity, good opinion in the world will
do nothing. Your standard is quality, not opinion. From
quality, opinion stems. The advance of this world does not
depend on a bunch of wogs who happen to be heading the BMA,
the AMA, the Ku Klux Klan or the World's Betterment
Association for Emaciated Cats; it depends exclusively on
better people. And the more better people you turn out, the
better this world will be and that is the end of it. It
goes no further than this.

It is behind this that my press policy has long been: When
the newspaper reporter knocks on the door, let him climb
the stairs so that you can kick him down them. We care
nothing for adverse publicity or publicity that is for us.
I certainly would not go ask the opinion of a tinker on the
quality of the atomic bomb.

"Now," you say, "well, people will beat a trail to your
doorstep if everybody is talking about how wonderful you
are." This is only seeking public approval. When your case
level is well enough up, you couldn't care less about
public approval. Now, I don't say that I'm in the most
wonderful shape that anybody has ever been in, but I will
tell you this: I just couldn't care less whether there has
been bad publicity, good publicity, rumors, scrumors - who
cares? My job, consistently and continually, has been, over
a period of years, to get the ammunition to the front; that
is all.

Incidentally, I try to handle administrative affairs and
other things to make things run smoothly while things are
going on. But administrative affairs are always secondary
to quality - always secondary to quality.

If you make a better mousetrap - a fellow by the name of
Emerson who is very much overquoted - the whole world will
beat a trap to your door. But nevertheless, there is some
item of truth in that. If you want lots of preclears, if
you want lots of activity, if you want lots of students,
you have to furnish the goods. First, last and always,
furnish the goods. The world itself, in its status that it
is in today, depends utterly upon whether or not you can
produce better people. It doesn't depend on the freakish
political pronunciamento of the Duke of Algiers. It doesn't
depend on it for a moment. It doesn't depend on it whether
the "Race Hate Society" of north Manchester or the "Race
Hate Society" of south Cape Town have anything whatsoever
to say.

Look, I'll call something to your attention: The BMA, the
AMA, the Ku Klux Klan and all the rest of it have uniformly
and routinely been expressing opinions for a great many
centuries and the world is no better off. If you see this
in its proper perspective you will stop trying to fit
yourself into the framework of the environment of a society
which is already going down the chute. This is sort of
senseless. It's a rather senseless activity.

But what would happen if here and there in this society, an
able man suddenly arose? What would happen? Well, the
society would recover. As a matter of fact, Southern
Rhodesia probably has yet to recover from the shock of a
Clear appearing in its midst. Evidently this fellow had
been one of the worst off fellows: he kept walking into
walls and into women and down manholes. An auditor there
cleared him and the two hundred employees that worked where
this fellow worked couldn't get over it. His family
couldn't get over it. Nobody's gotten over it yet. You see,
they're all standing back in a fantastic marvel about all this.

But that isn't the direct result. What happens is that in
his immediate vicinity it starts to get calm and things
start to happen and he starts to get effective.

Well now, on this particular program of clearing, we have
not made very many Clears - yet. But this program is only a
few months old. It began, actually, at the end of January
1961 - this new research. For the better part of that period,
I've been trying to find out what people can do. I've been
trying to find out what auditors will do. You see, this is
a big difference between what should be done and what would
be done.

I'm afraid that I have been well disciplined in this
direction. I have very often produced techniques which were
rather resounding techniques, but nobody ever used them. So
what good was the technique? It's something like building
the better mousetrap and then somebody uses it to fill up
the ballast of a ship without ever setting it. See, it has
no bearing on the beautiful "what could be done." It's what
will be done that is important. And since the end of
January I've been trying to sort it out carefully on what
will be done.

Well, you have the bulletin, May the 25th 1961, which says
"Preparatory Steps for SOP Goals." And apparently, from the
experience I have now had over telexes and at the other end
of HGC lines, this bulletin will be done. People will do
these two things if they know how to do them and they can
learn how to do them rather easily. So let's look at this
whole subject of clearing as an effective activity, which,
if effectively put into practice, will bring about a
considerable resurgence of this particular civilization.
This is fairly obvious that this will happen and let's stop
worrying about and dividing our time around amongst a great
many superficial activities that have no bearing on much of
anything. Let's just go ahead and get the show on the road.

I'm always asking this question when somebody threatens to
sue me or something like this. We get threatened with suits
every once in a while: suits for breathing, suits for...
And it's very interesting because I've be - had to become
an expert on the legal background of about five continents
now. And this is quite interesting, because when they sue
you in Australia, it's quite different than being sued in
the United States. Being sued in the United States is a
contest of trying to wait it out, because of course it'll
almost never get to court.

As a matter of fact, as one of the most serious suits in
the United States was a fellow who had fraudulently
obtained a great deal of money from the organization and I
think it's been going on now for about two and a half or
three years or something like this. And everybody has been
fighting this thing and having an awful time with this
thing and it's operated along the administrative lines -
I'm talking now about the nonsense, you see? How you could
split up your attention and get nothing done. And it's gone
on continually. There've been attorneys and there've been
this and there've been papers and dispatches and cables
about this now for the better part of three years. And it
was finally heard the other day and the plaintiff's lawyer
failed to turn up in court and it was thrown out.

Now, we've heard of the plaintiff not turning up in court,
but the plaintiff's lawyer - and that dismissed the suit.
In other words, this thing that they've been worrying about
for three - or the better part of three years. And then
when it finally comes to court, why, the judge throws it
out because there's nobody standing in front of the bar.

I think if any one of you had the amount of money that had
been spent on cable traffic and attorneys' fees with regard
to this suit, why, you could probably buy yourself a very
nice little car. Anyway, look at the wasted time. Look at
the tremendous wasted time of this activity.

So, long since, I have had a method of adjudicating these
things, which I don't always apply but most of the time do
and that is I try to find out what game is being played and
if it's not our game then I don't play it. And this is the
most disconcerting type of activity that people ever had to
confront. I look something over: "And so-and-so and
so-and-so. Well, so? And so, and so. Well, all right. Well,
that's not our game. That particular one, that's not our
game, so therefore just end the game." But then they start
talking to me about the moral principles of actually
surrendering or apologizing or the moral principles of not
fighting the situation or the this or the that or something
of the sort or they talk to me about the right ways to play
the game. You get the idea? Ah, I just don't listen and
this becomes very maddening to people.

When I say like this - this fellow is busily suing us for 16
pounds 10 and obviously... Suzie has a bad time with this
because every once in a while she comes in, in a high
dudgeon and says, "Look at the unfairness of this situation,"
you see, "and it should be fought."

And I will say, "Well, how much is it?"

And she says, "16 pounds 10."

And I say, "Forget it."

"Oh, I know, but it's unfair," you see, "and it's not
just!" and so on.

And I'll say, "Well, uh - I - so it's not a just claim! So
what? Pay it! Forget it! Skip it! Don't answer the letter!
Who cares what you do with it; it's not our game. We're not
solicitors."

This is amazing! But do you know, it keeps more randomity
off the lines than you could possibly count. You have to
take some little countermeasure occasionally, but you just
take the measure to end that game. You don't play that
game. See, I know clearly what game I'm playing and what
game we ought to be playing. The game we ought to be
playing is getting ourselves technically perfect with the
mostest that can be learned. And as soon as we've got that
game straight and that one's all squared around - well,
that's our game. And frankly nothing can stand up against
that type of a game.

So all these other incidental, nonsense games that people
keep shoving in to you, trying to say, "This is the game
you should play in the society at this time" - and one of
those games is publicity. One of those games is newspaper.
One of those games is (quote) public opinion (unquote).
South Africa learned with horror that there were
twenty-eight people, after a newspaper blast, who believed
that our tests were no longer valid and I think the whole
organization worked day and night for two months on a
campaign to convince the public that our tests were valid.

Oh, no! That has nothing to do with the game we're playing;
has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The game we have to
play is quality, producing the results, clearing and
straightening up the human race. That's the game we re
playing. What does this have to do with public opinion and
whether twenty-eight people in Johanne- . You know, for the
length of staff hours that were spent on this, I could have
called each one of them up on the telephone - well, I
wouldn't say that I would do this - but say, "Well, this
is the president of Witwatersrand University and I've
just called up to tell you that the tests given at the
Johannesburg Test Centre are perfectly valid. Thank you
very much. Goodbye."

If you want to play these games you can play some weird
games. But I'm afraid the opinion of twenty-eight
people - very abe       people; probably down there in one
of those deep Rand mines eight thousand feet below the
surface - I'm afraid their opinion is not going to alter
the course or destiny of Scientology. And there's no sense
in spending any time in on it.

Well, what is there sense in spending time on? We know what
can be done. We have demonstrated it and demonstrated it. I
have been able to audit and produce results since about
1947, but I haven't had a vocabulary formed up that
evidently communicated because we're not talking English.
When we talk about the mind, believe me, we're not talking
English. Nor are we talking Latin or Spanish or Greek. Man
has not known anything about the mind; how could there
possibly be a language that described it?

And it's taken quite a long time trying to get some
communicative syllables together that would mean something
to thee and me and get them clarified so that we've got our
communication straight. Now, that's Scientologese. There's
something on the order of about 472 words in Scientologese.
There are 8,767,942 Latin terms that a medical student must
learn, so I think we're allowed 472. That's an
exaggeration; they actually wouldn't be able to remember
that well. But if you want to look at a medical or
psychiatric dictionary, we have actually less terms in
Scientology than appear in the single classification chart
used in Germany. We have less actual terms.

Nauticalese. Now, these days I'm amusing myself; I'm taking
a shadow on the water and putting a yacht under it. And -
it takes some doing because I can't afford one of these big,
beautiful, streamlined yachts, like you write somebody a
check for a hundred thousand pounds and say, "Deliver to
the front door with a pink bow round its funnel." And the
probability is even if I could, I wouldn't do it.

You talk about Scientologese and its communication
complications, imagine this one: Nauticalese, the language
of the sea, even confounds sailors and architects. For
instance, I've had several letters recently where we were
talking back and forth trying to find out what each other
meant. Now, here is a language that goes back at least ten
thousand years in its development. It's made out of
Egyptian and Phoenician and Greek and Latin and
"Scandihoovian," Anglo-Saxon. Frankly, practically every
nation has contributed something to this which now appears
in some outrageous mispronunciation in this language called
Nauticalese. And there must be several thousand words in
the technical vocabulary of going to sea.

I have just run into this head-on because I've decided to
use a Spanish yard. So I decided I would translate all my
English Nauticalese into Spanish. Coo! And I was impressed.
I was impressed with the tremendous vocabulary that I
actually had to confront translating over and becoming able
to use in a brand-new language and it's staggering. It's
several thousand words.

We have now, approximately, 472 words in Scientologese.
Each one of these words means a very definite and positive
thing. They are not susceptible to very much
misinterpretation. An engram is a moment of pain and
unconsciousness - oddly enough, give you an idea of the
precision of the definition - contained in a mental image
picture in the reactive bank of the pc.

Now, when you get a precision definition, you get a package
of understanding and these words are understanding
packages, but they are understandings which were never
understood before. Therefore, they couldn't be otherwise
than new words, but it'd be very worthwhile to know those
words because they're packages of understanding.

I know right now I am working on the fringes of and have
been for some little time, a dictionary of Scientology
which contains the precise up-to-date definition of each
word. We've been lacking that. But remember, we've also
been lacking the ability to communicate to people how to
clear people. And we've also been lacking a short and
practical method of communicating with the preclear's
reactive bank and communicating with the pc. Well, now
when we're able to communicate directly and immediately
to the pc, now is the time to publish a dictionary,
because it means that we must have ended a sort of a
cycle of communication. Do you follow that?

All right. We're in the business, then, of quality - the
production of results. And not showing what we can do...
You see, you don't make a Clear and then hang him up on the
wall or hang him up on a signboard. This has nothing to do
with it. You're not showing people what you can do; you're
dealing with living beings. And when you make a living
being that can really function effectively in the society,
you don't have to show people what you can do. No. Things
will get done. You get the enormous difference? You put him
out there in the society or he's functioning in the society
and he's happy as a clam about what you've done for him and
he's happy as a clam about what he's doing. And now you get
a new functional aspect: You're building a society; you're
not trying to show a society that you are doing something.

Now, I know the economics of the situation sometimes press
upon us to have to represent this or that or attract public
attention. All right, that's okay. But I'll give you this
lesson: I myself to keep things going, have undoubtedly,
from the viewpoint of many people, overstressed what we
could do. You understand? Well, do nothing more serious
than that, than hold it up as a good example. Hold it up as
an example: "Well, Ron said we could do this and that and
we weren't able to do this and that, so therefore this was
not a good thing to do. All right. Therefore, after this,
let's just do a good job of it," and then, you see, this
thing will work out in total reverse. You understand?

See, I don't mean to apologize for - 'cause all of my reality
on Scientology is based first and foremost on what I can do
and then secondarily on what I see other people near me do
with Scientology and after that it sort of fogs out. I'm
not positive about what can happen out there beyond line of
sight, for one of the reasons is I get fallacious reports
on it all the time. People are telling me the weirdest,
wildest things and I go check up on these things and write
people indignant letters and say, "Why did you do so-and-so?"

I think one of these rampages I went on one time resulted
in the death of a person. A pc had died as a result of very
poor auditing indeed - very, very bad auditing indeed - from
my point of view. And I jumped all over the auditor and -
this was many, many years ago - and the auditor up and died.
This was here in England. It was a considerable shock to me.
But looking over the thing, I found out the pc had been
inclined toward death for many years and as a result it was
rather inevitable that the pc should kick the bucket and
that it wasn't the auditor's fault. You get the idea? There
was actually a false representation about the bad quality
of that auditing, you understand? The auditing wasn't that
bad.

Now, of course, people expect me to stand back and go on a
big withhold. That's a good way to damage somebody. So they
expect me to get on a big withhold about everything that
goes on. Well, I'm not on this kind of a withhold. What we
are doing is what we are doing, not what I would like to
make it look like. All kinds of things have happened. This
has been a rather dramatic arena for the last eleven years.
It's rather fantastic some of the things that have happened
one way or the other, this way or that, good or bad. But
the good of the last eleven years doesn't just overbalance
the scales, it practically goes through the ground with a
thud. It's tremendous, tremendous. I - the letters which I
get rather routinely; the people that come up to me at
congresses; the people I stumble into one way or the other;
a letter I get out of the blue: "Of course you don't
remember me because it was way back in 1952, but you
audited me for two hours and it was a tremendous
experience. And evidently the experiment failed, because
you turned me over to another auditor after that. But it
was tremendous and it changed my whole life and I have
been well ever since. And now I want to thank you very
much for that experience."

This - nine years later.

And before organizations, a letter from a fellow: "Thank
you very much for saving my foot. They were going to cut it
off and you came in and audited me. And I didn't know who
you were or where you were until I saw an article about you
the other day in Time magazine."

The article says, "Hubbard is a bum. He's a rat," you know?
My fan mail doesn't answer up to the quality of the article.

But the lesson we can learn out of all this is if we want
to get anything done, we better do it. In other words, we
shouldn't put up, for instance, a science and then have
various armed services become very enamored with this idea
and then put us to work.

You think I want to work for some armed service? You know,
I resigned from the United States Navy in 1950 when they
tried to pull me in and put me to work on the subject of
research in the human mind. They might have been writing to
people, "Well, we're - we keep all kinds of records on
Dianetics. We keep records on Dianetics..." And they had
a standard letter which the United States Navy, Bureau of
Personnel, I think - I've seen so many copies of it.
Scientologists have sent me in so many copies of it, it
must be just a form letter. And it's to the effect that
they're keeping files and watching it carefully.

But in 1950 they tried to kidnap me. They told me that I
would be returned to active service to do this research if
I did not return to do so as - in a civilian capacity at
high pay - ARC break. Now they're very equivocal to the
public - they don't know. Now all of a sudden, eleven years
after the fact, they've suddenly awakened once more and
they have some of our people in the United States now doing
the security checking for them, which is apparently
official. I'm supposed to soft-pedal this. I'm not supposed
to say anything about the Bureau of Naval Intelligence. One
of the reasons why nobody can really list us as a Red in
the United States is a very interesting reason: is because
I was once an officer of the Bureau of Naval Intelligence
and of course, they have my full record. So every time
anybody tries to clobber one of our organizations with
being a Red organization or communist associated or
something like that, it runs through the files and runs
into this fact.

Now that first service with which I had contact has now
turned around and is apparently using Scientology. You say,
"Well, this is great." No, it isn't great. Ah! To clear up
the Chief of Naval Operations: Now, that would be great. If
one of you were to write me a letter and say that you had
made a Clear out of the Chief of Naval Operations, I would
say, "Now we're getting somewhere." But that the Chief of
Naval Operations has written a long letter saying how
wonderful he thinks Scientology might be for some of his
junior officers - I'm afraid I would not pay too much
attention to it.

Now, perhaps by understanding these attitudes of mine,
you'll be able to understand the course of publicity and
what we do and what we don't do a little more easily. The
final analysis of an auditor is not what a good press agent
he is, but how well he can audit. The final analysis of an
organization is not what a good press department it has,
but how well it can train and process people. That is the
final test. There is no further test.

Finance - the amount of money a person makes - is some index
of success. It always is in this society, but it operates as
an index of success: this person is that able. I don't care
how many rabble-rousers are going around saying people who
make money are no good, it is always an index of a certain
amount of service - the amount of money that a person makes.

But look, if it is not an index of service, then it must be
dishonest money. Right? So - your basic mission is the
delivery of quality in service and that is the only mission
we've got. Now, if we can do this and if we ourselves in
the process get the bonus of getting Clear, this gets to be
pretty darn terrific. You've got the fundamental building
blocks under a new civilization, you haven't got a bunch of
rickety props holding up a rickety civilization. And I
don't think too well of this idea of holding up a bunch of
clunks that...

How many wars have we had within our own memories? It's
quite numerous, isn't it? Well, war is a symptom of
insanity. How many broad cataclysms of one character or
another have - are we not being piloted through? You think
you can bolster this thing up? I'm afraid not. But, you can
lay the fundamentals and foundations of a new civilization.
Not a new order; a brand-new thing - a brand-new thing; not
by saying to people, "You must do so-and-so and you mustn't
do so-and-so or we're going to shoot you" - that is the old
pattern - but actually having in their midst people who do
know what they're doing and who are not guided by their
aberrations. Now, if that thing all by itself could happen,
you would get a new civilization. It isn't up to us to tell
people what kind of a civilization they should have. It is
more up to us to put it in their reach to have one. And
that's what man has never been able to do before.

The whole mission of the Special Briefing Course at Saint
Hill is making people able to get results and if we don't
do that, then we have failed utterly. That's the whole mission.

Now, part of getting people to get results, of course, is
part and parcel of this other idea of putting able people
into existence. So you notice that, unlike an ACC, here you
are being processed directly and immediately by staff
auditors. You're not puttering around over another case
while that other case putters around over you. You get the
idea? I mean, that's not what we're trying to do and we're
getting rather fast results this way. Now these results may
not look fast to you, but they're fast enough. Tolerance of
change has an awful lot to do with how fast the result occurs.

Now, you're changing people's tolerance to change all the
time, but you have to redu - increase their tolerance to
change before you can change them. So it goes up on a sort
of a - of a swaybacked curve. It starts in very slowly and
then it starts going faster. That's because tolerance to
change is coming up. Change is pain, to most people,
because the fundamental of change is simply a shift in
space of location. It's a shift of location in space. That
is what change is. You have space and then you have a shift
of location. This is very interesting.

And you have this other factor called "time" which is
actually, basically, just a postulate. But time is change
on a mechanical level. It isn't shift in space per unit of
time, because that would be shift in space per unit of
shift in space. That sounds kind of weird when you start
thinking it over.

Rate of change is something I had an awful hard time
getting through my head in engineering school. I mean, it
was one of these things. Rate of change - I never could
understand why this thing just wasn't quite right. Rate of
change. And then I eventually found out the reason it isn't
quite right is that rate of change is measured by rate of
change. And everybody was pretending to me that rate of
change was measured by a constant called time, which wasn't
any change, which was just some odd phenomena of some kind
or another. It was a phenomenon that sort of drifted around
in our midst and had nothing to do with it, you see?

Time has a temperature. Yeah, there's a startler: Time has
a temperature. Time has a certain temperature. If you don't
believe it, put some meat in the ice box. Doesn't decay as
fast, does it? Put it out in the sun in August. It decays
much more rapidly, doesn't it? "Ah yes," you say, "but this
is the decomposition of the bacteria which is operating
against the roodlepuffs." No it isn't.

Time is a temperature. I don't know what that temperature
is in Kelvin, but now that I know that time is a
temperature, I can find it. And the moment I find the exact
temperature, I could make any area, at any given instant,
timeless or speed its time up. I know that sounds very
strange. But this is a great discovery in physics. Only you
know about it, but it is a great discovery in physics. It's
rather a staggerer.

We have several of them. "C is not a constant" is one of
them. You know, the constant they use in atomic physics is
not a constant. The speed of light is not a constant. It
varies!

"Well, yes," you say, Well, within all practical purposes,
it doesn't vary. But..." Now, what's this "practical
purposes"? Whose "practical purposes"? Now, here's
something else: No, the speed of light depends upon the
velocity of emission.

So C is not a constant. That's one of these discoveries.
Another one is "Zero is a variable." And, of course, every
time you have a zero in an equation, you've got trouble and
mathematicians since time immemorial have known this. All
you have to do is divide by zero or multiply by zero or
something and something weird happens in the equation and
you mustn't do that! And yet, these fellows have never
deduced from this the horrible truth that zero is a
variable. There is no absolute called "zero."

I'll give you an idea: You say, "Well, there's nothing." A
nothing of what? And the second you've said "a nothing of
what" well, there could be a nothing of a ton of apples and
there could be a nothing of a pinch of sand. Well, which is
the greater figure, the nothing of the ton of apples or the
nothing of the grain of sand?

So in other words, zero is a fabulous variable and accounts
actually for what they call, inelegantly, "the bugger
factor" in physics. It's a technical term in physics. It's
also a technical term in the Navy, but we won't go into
that. I'm sorry to bring it up. But zero is a variable and
apparently if you divide by zero, you're in trouble - and
you add... You can apparently add zeros without too much
difficulty unless you're dealing with money. And you...

Now, wherever you have holes of this character in the basic
sciences of a civilization, of course you have trouble.
They can't quite handle this particular zone or area and it
keeps getting out from underneath them and trouble keeps
occurring.

Now, zero and the constant of time most got out of control
with the atomic bomb and produced, oddly enough, a
difficulty with a thing called temperature. Because the
atomic bomb is very hot and when exploded in amongst a city
or over the top of it, succeeds in roasting the population
rather thoroughly. And the only real sin there, is that
there's nobody around to eat them, I think or some.

Zero is a variable and they didn't know it. C is not a
constant and they didn't know that. And they got this
trouble called temperature - and hot temperatures and
bad temperatures and so on.

Well, there's some odd things about this. When the atomic
bomb was exploded in Hiroshima, nothing moved for twenty
minutes - not even the twenty minutes. Something weird
happened with time. And most of the survivors and some of
the data that comes out of there - if you read it
carefully, there's hardly any record that doesn't mention
time, some disturbance of time. Well, if time is a
temperature and you get a tremendous temperature
alteration, you're certainly probably going to do something
with time, right? That's going to mess up.

Now, that's as far as I am into it at the present moment,
only I know now for sure that time is a temperature and
that is a brand-new principle of physics. But what this
present society at this particular time doesn't know is
basically that it doesn't know. That we have also discovered.

For instance, we have diplomats running around, settling
problems on international affairs which could have enormous
consequence and they don't know that they don't know
anything about diplomacy. They couldn't possibly, because
their efforts result, don't they, in wars and upsets and
so on.

All right. So there is another factor that we are dealing
with, is that it is a very extremely dangerous thing to not
know that you don't know. Apparently that is probably the
greatest sin there is: to have an area of knowingness
which you don't know that you don't know.

Well, what is Scientology doing to the society at large?
Isn't it telling the society at large rather consistently
and continually that it doesn't know? It doesn't know that
it doesn't know and it's apparently painful for them to
confront the fact that they do.

But your best road - your best road - is to find out what
you don't know and remedy the situation. That is always a
road to wisdom. It's not a self-cancellation, you know, or
canceling out what you do know, but it's just finding out
what - honestly, what you don't know. And as soon as you
know what you don't know, you are far wiser than you were
a moment before.

So that all study should actually begin on the basis of
finding out what you don't know, not finding out something
new. Now, that's a rather odd thing, but it becomes very
clear in just a moment. Several of you have had assessments
on SOP Goals and have come up with your goal and have come
up with your terminal: Do you feel different about
existence? Do you feel different about existence? Yeah,
kind of weird, isn't it? Well now, that is the exact same
principle applied. Look it, a few years ago, a decade or so
ago, you didn't know that you didn't know this, did you?
And then for a while you found out that you didn't know
what you didn't know. But you knew you didn't know
something. Do you remember not knowing, but knowing that
you didn't know what your goal and terminals was? Well,
it's an odd feeling, isn't it?

But do you know that is way in advance of not knowing that
you don't know anything about it? See, it's an increase.
Even if it's uncomfortable, it's an increase of knowledge.

Now, all of a sudden as you're running in auditing, you're
finding out more and more about this terminal and more and
more about this goal, you see? Coo! What's this? And a
great deal more knowingness and wisdom is at your command
than was before, right? But it had to be entered in upon at
its rockest rock bottom with finding out that you didn't
know about it.

And oddly enough, the only thing that is wrong with your
case is that vast area of their own beingness that they
don't even know they don't know about and that's what makes
them abe      .

All right. Let's say some fellow up here is going into the
subject of - let's say, some fellow in Parliament. And he's
beating the drum. He is absolutely sick to the point of
nausea over the fact that these poor herring are being
slaughtered off of Iceland.

And he's just having one awful time, you see, about this.
And he's just causing all sorts of fuss and consequences of
one character or another. And he wants to sign treaties and
suppress the catching of herring or something, but he
doesn't even know that he's trying to suppress catching of
herring. He's just trying to pass what he calls "fish
conservation regulations," or something like this, all of
which will amount to catching more herring, much more
brutally.

He doesn't know that he spent his whole last life as a
fisherman catching herring off of Iceland. Nor would he
even know that this would open him up for the consequence,
you see, with this many overts on herring, of now
protecting herring madly. But what he also wouldn't know
that this reactive obsession with protecting herring will
only lead him to slaughter of herring. You see what he
doesn't know? So, of course, he's a very unhappy man,
because he doesn't know where he's going, why he's doing
it. He has no practical solution because if he did get one,
he himself would be the first to defeat it. Now, he's in a
puzzle. He's going around in circles.

What it would mean for the destiny of England if you in
this room were suddenly turned loose as a crew to find the
immediate four last lives on every member of the House of
Commons. It'd be fantastic! It'd be fantastic!

There are fellows there who just got through being
officials in India - Indians - who are now running English
bodies. That's for sure. There are people there who are
doing this, who are doing that, who are doing the other
thing. They have no understanding of why they are doing it.
But because they don't, they will immediately come off with
a defeat. Whatever they try to do, they will defeat
themselves. That's part of the aberration.

So we have a whole bureau of the government or a big
department of the government, set up to prevent war. Do you
know that it's going to prevent war madly, day and night,
but because it's doing it reactively, not analytically, it
is going to do nothing but bring on a war. What they
resist, they become, because it's all reactive. They have
no way of handling this whatsoever.

That's why I say, not that you can't do anything about the
society as it exists, but that the best remedy for the
existing society is to put able men amongst it. And the
first thing you do when you do that is put men amongst it
who will one, know and two, will know when they don't know.
And that way you've opened up the whole highway toward
enlightenment, education and a future for this race.

Now, the bulletin - to get down to much more practical
matters - the bulletin of May the 25th, 1961, gives how to
bring about a Release. It's the preparatory steps of SOP
Goals: how you bring about a Release.

Now, what's a Release? A person is a Release who knows he
won't get any worse. That is the oldest definition there is
to Release. A - when he finds out he's not going to get any
worse now, you can call him a Release and he knows he's not
going to hit the skids and go. So that's a very low
definition - very low order of definition. I mean, it's a
very-very low state of case actually, but it is far better
than a non-Release because this fellow knows at least that
he isn't there yet. See, he knows that.

Well, Miss Zilch up here selling          in London doesn't
know that, see and neither does some fellow wearing
enormous ceremonial robes up in London, either. He doesn't
know it, either. They know they're going to get worse -
amongst their knowledge - and that there's nothing can be
done about it.

So the first test of Release is just that: They know
they're not going to get any worse now.

What would a Release look like on an E-Meter? Well, you
would have your sensitivity fairly low on a Mark IV British
meter. You would have your sensitivity fairly low, down
here and you would get something on the order of a
whole-dial swing or a little bit better than that, when you
squeeze the cans. You ask him to squeeze the cans, with the
sensitivity all the way off, it's going to go plong! It
doesn't have to hit the pin and come back over and hit the
other pin. In other words, it doesn't have to be seven or
eight dials, but it's no - your meter manifestation is
something of that order.

And the tone arm here is not too far goofy. See, it's not
down here at 1.2 or it's not over here at 6.5. It doesn't
say that auditing won't put it there, but it does say that
it stays down here in the middle range someplace - 2.5, 3.0,
3.5, 4.0, something like this. It's going to be in that
zone. Ordinarily if you'd pick the fellow up anytime during
the day and put him on an E-Meter, if he weren't being
audited, why, he'd strike into the 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 range.
He'd be in here someplace. That would be kind of an E-Meter
manifestation of what a Release is.

Now, I had a question the other day which was quite
interesting. And that was "The people who have loose
needles at low sensitivity must be bad off because they
don't get much needle action when you ask them charged
questions." Well, look-a-here: The looser the needle gets,
the less charge is effective on the person, so of course
the questions get less drop. And you may get into a
situation where you have to jack up your sensitivity on a
loose-needle case to get off the little, tiny withholds,
because they don't really think they're withholds. But at
the same time, those withholds don't prevent them from
being audited. What do you know?

A PT problem will prevent this person from being audited.
But a little, tiny withhold: he'd still stay in-session on
it. You got it?

Now, the state of Release is no more, then, than the fact
the fellow knows he's not getting any worse, probably that
he knows he's getting better. This is quite important -
quite an important thing for a person to be able to get to
that state. That is the first, most important step on the
ladder to Clear. He knows he isn't going to get any worse.

Well, this would mean, at the same time, that he has a
reality on Scientology; he knows it works. So he knows
there is a remedy to make him better. This would also,
then, be part of the test of Release: Does he have a
reality on Scientology? He knows it'll clear things up?

That appears to be something that's a - merely
self-congratulatory to Scientology but it isn't. The fellow
knows that he can get someplace with it. That's important.
He knows he can go someplace. He knows there's a higher
zone or area that he can go into.

All right. The next thing: If you were to make a Release
test and get very rough about the test and actually upgrade
the state considerably so that you would be sure this
fellow isn't going to fall on his head; you would have your
Help, Control and Communication levels in such a state that
when you say "communication" to this fellow, he doesn't
flinch and fall off the pin and get very upset or the
needle doesn't instantly stick. You got the idea?

You don't get, then, a bad needle reaction on these buttons
of Help, Communication and Control. Those are pretty good
then. Now you know this fellow is going to be a credit to
you before you start patting him on the back. Actually it's
a slight deception because the fellow is a Release before
you establish this point, but now we've got the further
point: Is this fellow going to be able to hold his own? And
for our own satisfaction, then we require that he isn't
going to get oddball needle reactions just because you say
communicate to him or help to him or control to him and
then for sure you've got a Release. And that's all the
state of Release is.

Now, that is the state of Release, actual - the fellow knows
he isn't going to get any worse and he's got a reality on
Scientology and he knows it's working. See, if a fellow
knows Scientology is working, he has reached a state where
he can as-is by inspection certain things. So therefore, he
will tell you Scientology works.

When a fellow tells you Scientology doesn't work, he
doesn't have the ability to as-is by inspection. You got
that? It is nothing more complicated than that when these
people go around talking about "Scientology doesn't work,"
"Scientology does work." You know, one or the other.
Phooey! They're just saying, "I can as-is by inspection" or
"I am totally incapable of doing a cotton-picking thing
with my bank." That's all they're saying to you in actuality.

All right, so you have this - these two first conditions,
that is the actual state of Release, so that you would
actually have, then, another condition, a special type
of Release which we'd call a tested Release or a stable
Release, which would be the fellow had no adverse needle
reactions on the buttons of Help, Control and
Communication. Do you follow that? Well, at that stage you
can issue him a certificate and a lapel button. I mean,
he - he's all right.

Now this doesn't say that if he gets tangled up with a fire
engine and loses his grandmother on whom he dotes utterly,
that he isn't going to practically go into a flat spin,
because life still is very much capable of putting the
thumbscrews on our boy. You understand? But he'll be able
to come through it better than he ever would have been able
to before.

All right. Now let's take our next state up and the next
state up is actually MEST Clear. And a MEST Clear is simply
somebody who has a floating needle with the sensitivity
well off and who doesn't get reactions on normal, routine
questions; and who is reading, at the time he ends his
processing, at 3.0 for a male and 2.0 for a female. 2.0 for
a female, he [she] has a floating needle. 3.0 for a male,
has a floating needle and under ordinary questions about
life and so forth, you don't get any needle reaction.
That's a MEST Clear. And that's all there is to MEST Clear.
That's the total test reaction.

What's important to you about it is that a MEST Clear isn't
stable. So just as we have the stable or tested Release, so
do we have the stable or tested Clear. And it takes a lot
more SOP Goals to stabilize a Clear after he is Clear. See,
he reaches MEST Clear; now we've got to make a stable Clear.

Now that's quite important. And you just run more goals.
You just find more goals and more terminals and try to
audit them and they actually start blowing by inspection.
Because the keynote and the common denominator of any case
is "The better off it is, the more it can blow by
inspection, the more it can as-is by inspection."

And you get somebody who is in the zone of Clear and I
won't tell you that a firetruck running into him won't mess
him up, but I will tell you that the engram has no
persistence. His healing rate is fabulous. That's because
he can as-is the incident. He looks it over and it blows!

Now, trying to run an incident on somebody whose tone arm
is 1.2, whose sensitivity is 16 and whose needle is just
like glue no matter what you say to him - now we're going
to run an engram on him. Of course, we get him into the
beginning of the engram and that sticks him. He's better
off - because he was actually in the beginning of the
engram - he's better off in - now that he doesn't know now
what is in the rest of the engram. And if he were never
going to get any more auditing he'd never find out either.

All right. Compare this to trying to run an engram on
him - on a Release. Well, you'd probably be able to flatten
engram on a Release in maybe three, four hours - two, three
hours, something like this - even if you did it pretty
badly. You see, it's kind of sloppy auditing. But an engram
being flattened on a Clear, if you could find it, if it
would react - you know, the fellow has just fallen down and
had an accident or something like this and you get a
reaction on this thing - the process of looking for it and
trying to locate what happened is the end of the engram.

But on the other hand, he could put up the engram again and
could react again if you ask him to and he might do it to
be pleasant and then you would probably get a reaction on
it. But he'll do this to a relatively slight extent. In
other words, its thinkingness has an effect upon the bank.
That is the common denominator of all case states up to Clear.

How much effect does his thinkingness have - the - on bank?
Now, you first start a person in - you see, giving the person
SOP Goals is pretty therapeutic, actually - giving him a
Goals Assessment. It goes along slowly. You're using one of
the oldest processes known (repeater technique) coupled
with another old, old process of about 1957 which is Goals
Processing. And these two are actually processes. You're
not running them for processes. You're trying to find the
goal - that's the reason you're running them - but they are
processes and they do result in a therapeutic gain for the
case, which is pretty good. But you will notice at the
beginning of a Goals Assessment that the length of time it
takes to get a goal to null on some cases practically make
you hold your head. I mean, the goal stays in and stays in
and stays in and stays in and stays in, and then all of a
sudden gets a little less and then a little tiny bit less
and then a little tiny bit less and then a little tiny bit
less and then it disappears.

Whereas toward the end of your Goals Assessment - let us say
you ye gone on an heroic, long-stretch Goals Assessments
that's going to take about thirty-five to fifty hours - and
don't be surprised if one takes that long sometimes - you get
a goal, you repeat it twice and it disappears. You see,
that's how fast thinkingness is able to effect - make an
effect upon the reactive bank. That's all there is to that.
That is the common denominator of all cases.

A psycho: The bank has total effect upon him and he has no
effect of any kind on the bank. No effect on the bank; he
cannot control this in the faintest, so that he does
everything it says. A psycho is actually an engram bank in
full dramatization, whether he's a computing psycho or a
dramatizing psycho, see? The individual not only can't have
any effect on the bank - this would be utterly unthinkable -
the bank has a total effect upon him, you see?

Now he gets up to the point where he doesn't really have
any effect on the bank, but it isn't really a total effect
upon him. Then we get up to the grade: the person has a
little bit of an effect on the bank. And then we get up to
a higher grade of the person can affect the bank quite
easily. And then we get up to a higher grade of where -
"What bank?" That'd be your common denominator of cases.

Now, the thing you should do to encourage field auditors,
to encourage Scientologists who don't know too much about
this new routine - you who are here at Saint Hill; the
things that you should say to them is, "May 25th, 1961,
HCOB: Follow it very closely because there'll be two or
three Clearing Series books - more than that; there'll be
four or five Clearing Series books which amplify it."

In other words, by reading these books you could do this
other thing, the May 25th bulletin. And that is to produce
a Release, but this is a pretty high quality of Release
you're producing with this, you see? This is pretty high.

Actually it is something like building with an engineering
factor of safety of about a hundred. You know - you know,
most bridges are built to take five times as much weight as
they'll ever be called upon to take. Well, in this
particular case, if you're using this HCOB, May 25th,
you're building about a hundred times as much stress as is
required to qualify for Release, you see? But you tell them
to do that one - that's the one to do - and to leave Goals
Assessments alone and not to fool with Goals Assessments
until they have had special training in them.

And that way you could do the most good for auditors
around. You actually could. It - there's nobody trying now
to compartment up things so that there's the nobility and
the plebeians amongst auditors, you understand? I mean,
nobody's trying to do this. I'm just trying to get every
moment of auditing to count, that's all.

Now, supposing all the auditing done around the world -
supposing every hour of it counted. Wow! It would be a big
gain. Supposing there were none of this wasted at all.

All right. I just had a case today of a fellow who'd just
had seventy-five hours of auditing and he claims that he's
in ruins and in flinders and he's made no advance of any
kind whatsoever. Well, I've asked for a total review of the
case. But I inevitably will find that somebody has been
trying to assess a case who didn't know how and spent a
great deal of that seventy-five hours messing around with
an assessment. And then that the person didn't know how to
do a Security Check and then that the person didn't know
how to do an assessment or make up a five-way bracket for
running. And of course, seventy-five hours went up the spout.

Well, it's just silly to waste auditing like that! But you
can encourage people to learn to use an E-Meter and to give
a Security Check. You'll find them very interested in
learning how to give Security Checks.

How to use an E-Meter and how to give a Security Check:
that should be the most elementary action that a person
could undertake with it. Because you see, if a person can't
do a Security Check and get each level asked clear, he
can't ever clear rudiments so he shouldn't be auditing the
pc, should he? Ah!

So your first task would be to get somebody to be able to
do a Security Check. All right. If he learns how to do a
Security Check and can do a Security Check well and can get
every level clear and get the reaction off of the needle at
every level as he goes down and wind up at the end
absolutely confident that the pc, at that stage of case -
of course, at certain stages of case, naturally, a pc does
not know all of his withholds. Don't go on the basis that
at any given moment a pc knows everything he is withholding,
because, you see, he's withholding it from himself. The
only reason you don't remember your past track 100 percent
is that you're withholding it from you. Forget - withhold,
you understand?

Well now, the keynote of this case that made no progress
during the seventy-five hours is that the auditor gave him
at least two Security Checks and the case is complaining
that his memory hasn't improved. Add those up: Ahhhh, that
means that there was no Security Check given that was
effective in the least bit, because if any Security Check -
particularly this new Joburg HCO WW Form 3. You mean
that can be given to a person all the way down the line and
his memory doesn't improve? Oh, come off of it!

Nobody could convince me of that, you see, because I know
exactly what forgetfulness is. Memory trouble and
forgetfulness is withholdingness, that's all. You pull a
few withholds off somebody and his memory improves.

I imagine your memory when you were a little shaver and had
just busted the cookie jar - I'll bet you, you couldn't
remember the top of the house from the basement for a few
minutes. You know? For a day or two or three. You were
going around, "I hope nobody finds out who busted the
cookie jar," you know? And your attention is all involved
with this and you're withholding it from people. And then
you've undoubtedly had this odd phenomenon happen: You
forgot that you did it.

Well, withholding things from people results in withholding
things from self. And when you cure up withholding things
from people, you stop withholding a lot of things from self
So the inevitable result of a Security Check would be an
improvement of memory. Right? Somebody says, "I want my
memory improved" - security check the living daylights out
of him.

Now, a Security Check represents what the person knows he
is withholding at any given instant and a few little
borderline things that he'd forgotten he was withholding.
See, those will come up too.

Now he's got to have an increase of - well, you could say
sloppily, "He's got to have a case gain." No, we could be
much more technical. He has to have an increase of
responsibility on the dynamics before he'll get a different
Security Check pattern.

Now, if you increase his responsibility he is going to
remember a bunch more withholds. Ah, the second that you
increase his social responsibility, personal
responsibilities, familial responsibility, he all of a
sudden is going to remember a bunch more withholds. Lord
help the fellow who has his responsibility increased
without getting them pulled - without getting the withholds
pulled. God help somebody who is going over that hurdle!
Because you know what'll happen?

Lessening the overt comes in under that category. The
individual has made his withholds and overts all right by
lessening the withhold, lessening the overt and he's pushed
it out of sight. He says, "Well, the Central Organization
isn't any good anyway, so it was perfectly all right for me
to do mean things to it." And then one fine day - one fine
day - he suddenly discovers that the Central Organization
is doing the best it possibly can for him and does him an
enormous favor and the withhold unlessens. His withhold -
you know, the overt - the overt gets up in size. He realizes
it's an overt!

See, it was perfectly all right before. It was all
explained because "The Central Organization was no good."
But all of a sudden, he finds out the Central Organization
was some good and immediately, the overt that he had
not-ised springs up into full life and beingness and he
gets very unhappy. He becomes miserable. He comes slinking
in the front door, afraid to look at anybody and if he
dares confront the organization at all... You get the idea?
Now, that's the unlessening of the overt.

Some fellow said one time, "You know, when I was sixteen my
father knew nothing - absolutely nothing. He was the most
ignorant man I ever had met in my whole life. And by the
time I was twenty-one it was surprising how much that
fellow had learned." Now, supposing this were accompanied
at the same time by realizing that the guy was some good?
See?

Let's say he wasn't fairly standard circle; let's say he
was, finally, a fairly good guy and all of a sudden the
overt appears. Everything you've done to this guy suddenly
swells up. Now, when you've done a lot of overts to
somebody who then kicks the bucket and then you found out
they were perfectly innocent of all the things you accused
them of, you feel terrible! Why?

The overt unlessened, because the reverse process is the
one engaged in. To make oneself feel comfortable one
lessened the overt by saying the target for the overts was
no good. "Perfectly all right to do to this fellow. He was
only a bum. He was no good." Now, all of a sudden, we find
out he isn't a bum and this unsettles the basic human
mechanism of making our overts all right. You see? This is
a weird mechanism.

Well now, the same mechanism occurs under the heading of
responsibility. And responsibility goes this way: The
individual is totally irresponsible in the society. And
he's going around robbing lollipops from little babies and
he's doing all sorts of weird things in the society. And he
didn't consider this was wrong. But now his responsibility
increases and all of a sudden he says, "Hey, what do know!
I've stolen lollipops from little babies and that wasn't so
good." At that moment it becomes a withhold.

You will have criminals, ten-timers, you know, they've just
been in and out of the jail doors so fast that they might
have caught pneumonia in the breeze, you know? They'll sit
down, "Oh yes, I murdered this fellow and I robbed that one
and I did this and I did that," and there's not even a
tremble on that meter. "Yeah, raped, marred and burned.
Took an old lady's false teeth, kicked her in the head,
knocked her down the stairs. Yes, I routinely went around
and upset wheelchairs with cripples in them, you know.
Yeah, oh yeah, yeah. Oh, I've been a bad boy all right! I
sure have!" and you don't get a tremble on the meter. The
guy's social responsibility is so microscopically small
that he doesn't regard any of them as necessary to withhold.

And that is the definition of a criminal and why criminals
are rather dangerous fellows to have around. Because
nothing they do has any faintest bearing on anything.
They're irresponsible. In other words, they're at the
behest of the reactive bank and they have nothing to say
about it at all!

All right. You'll say someday when you're doing a Security
Check - you didn't get a reaction on the needle but you asked
the fellow, "Well, did you ever burgle anyone?" You know?

And the fellow says, "Oh yes, yes, at this place and that
place and the other place and so forth and then I was
there. I remember this. And they sent me to the pen in
Cincinnati for doing that. And then I came over and I was
in Wormwood Scrubs. And-uh-uh..

You'll say, "Boy! Hey, I'm really getting somewhere with
this case!" Aw, the hell you are. He isn't confessing, he's
bragging. He doesn't consider these withholds. He's trying
to convince you he's a dangerous man. And it is all too
easy to think you have really done a good Security Check on
this person, because he does have things that the needle
will fall on that are withholds. You do a Security Check by
the needle, not by the conversation.

It's not what you would consider a withhold, but what the
person being checked considers a withhold. Got the idea?
With a lot of criminals, it's out there on a second
substitute: his pal - the things he won't tell you about
his pals.

And you can go right back over a Security Check that a
person has passed with the greatest of ease. He's told you.
"Rape, murder, sudden death, revenge, arson. Oh yes, yes,
desertion, mutiny." He goes down the line, "Yes, oh yes,
yes, yes."

And you say, "Well, I'm really getting someplace." Needle
isn't doing anything, see. "I'm really getting someplace,"
and so forth. Well, don't make that mistake.

When you get to the end of it and you don't think you've
gotten any place and that needle hasn't wobbled and this
case is no better off than he was before; you're going to
have to do another Security Check on this fellow in some
other guise or wise. You're going to have to find out what
are withholds to this guy and you'll very commonly find
they're about his pal.

So ask - just Hobson-Jobson the whole Security Check into a
second dynamic proposition: "Do you know of anyone being
burgled?" "Do you know of anyone burgling anybody?" in
other words. Ohh, clang! "Oh, I can't tell ya that. Day'd
rub me out!"

It's by the meter. The meter reacts on what the person is
withholding. And the Security Check is not designed to do a
check on the life story of John Q. Criminal, see; it is
designed to get off what he considers withholds. So that
would be one of the little fine points about giving a
Security Check.

So this seventy-five-hour pc was undoubtedly sitting there
giving all sorts of long and sad stories about all the mad
and mean, horrible things he'd done. But on none of those
Security Checks did the auditor look at the meter to see if
he was getting a reaction on what the pc was talking about.
And he didn't probe around with those Security Check
questions until he did get a reaction and then get it off
Do you see how smart you have to be to give a Security
Check? In other words, you run a Security Check by the
meter, not by the life history of the person.

And you say, "Well, you've ever burgled anyone?" Ah, needle
doesn't do anything. And he says, "Well yes, there was
Doakes and buther-nth-er-nu ..."

And you say, "Well, thank you! Thank you. Good! Good! Thank
you! All right, good! All right. Now, do you know of
anybody who ever burgled anyone?"

"Ahhhh, huhuhuhuhuhuhuh. That's different. Ahh-huh-huh-mm-
bluthhmhm-huhu-huu-mm-huhuh-bu-hummm-huh-mmm..." You get
this kind of a twist around. You have to find out where
the guy lives on the Responsibility Scale in order to do
a good Security Check and you have to pull those things
which can be made to fall.

All right. Now you turn around and what do you do? You give
him an assessment on the Prehav Scale. And you just run up
that Prehav Scale assessment. And the very best way to do
it is to find the level that ticks and then find the
Secondary Scale and then go over the whole Secondary Scale
until you find the level that goes clang! And then you take
the level that goes clang and you run it on the person in a
five-way bracket on the subject of something or someone
or -... Make up your five-way bracket.

You can say "something" to the person, you get a fall. You
say "someone" to the person you get no fall. So your
five-way bracket is made up on "something." You get the
idea. You have to test your auditing command, which is
another subject entirely.

But in other words, you give him this run on the Prehav
Scale. You flatten out the motion on the tone arm. And when
the motion ceases to be wild on the tone arm and comes down
and gets rather narrow, you give him another assessment on
the Prehav Scale. And you run him with another five-way
bracket till the motion comes out of it.

Now, you haven't assessed this person. You don't have this
person's terminal, you know, or anything like that. And
when you flatten off this second run, you pick up your
Joburg Security Check sheet - a new one, a fresh form - and
you roll up your sleeves and you give him a new Security
Check and you are all of a sudden going to find that he has
withholds that he never suspected before. Now what is this
all about? It means that the individual's responsibility
rises with the general run on the Prehav Scale and it
brings him up to a bunch of zones and areas where the
overts have unlessened - the targets of the overts have
unlessened. And if you don't get those withholds off and
those overts off as they come up, of course the case will
make no further progress from there on. He'll be in agony.

I saw this happen to a fellow one time. He had tremendous
- he was an organizational staff member and he had
tremendous overts on the organization - none of them very
criminal. But the more he - they audited him, the worse
off he got. It was his opinion there was nobody in the
organization that was any good, the organization was no
good and that everything it was selling was blue sky.

When he found out this wasn't the case - ... He'd been
sitting back there in Lord knows what corner of his medulla
oblongata he was living in - if he was living in that, it was
probably the back of the tip of his right - his grandmother's
right ear. All of a sudden, all these overts unlessened.
See, they became overts. After that, they were perfectly
justified, but they suddenly weren't justified anymore
because the organization was some good.

Coo! How horrible! And the guy just went into misery. He
just went into agony. It was in Johannesburg but we weren't
using Johannesburg Security Checks along with auditing at
that particular time. And he moped and he moped and he
moped and the more - the more effective the auditing got,
the worse the fellow felt. Look that over.

Naturally, if he's been saying, "Scientology is no good" to
himself all the time and yet here is Scientology working on
him like mad, obviously Scientology is some good. Therefore
the overts were on Scientology. He was being processed into
his tomb practically. And the only way he finally saved his
bacon was fly out of the organization and take up a job
that didn't bring him into very much contact with
Scientology. He did do that, too.

You get the exact mechanism which was proceeding there. As
the individual went along, then, and improved in his case,
no mechanism existed to thoroughly pull off all of his
overts on life. So unless you pull off the person's overts
on life fairly routinely as you're auditing him, as
contained crudely, viciously and meanly in the Johannesburg
Security Check, the person can get miserable under auditing
gains. See, he's suddenly waking up and he realizes that
there are some people around who aren't total tramps -
amongst them, you, his auditor, or something like this. And
this makes all of the meanness of his actions against you
suddenly recoil on him.

Well, all right. If you believe in poetic justice don't
give him a Johannesburg Security Check; just keep auditing
him on as effective an auditing regimen as the Prehav Scale
general runs. You'll practically kill him! You see why?
He's gaining in responsibility, therefore his overts are
looking bigger and bigger and bigger to him and then don't
give him any opportunity to get them off at all. Just skip
that and go on and improve his case and improve his case
and improve his case and improve his case and don't give
him any chance whatsoever to get off that. And, of course,
he will get into a double twisteroo. His case doesn't dare
improve because it'd kill him and he sets his heels and
makes no auditing gains. You got the idea?

Now, there's the exact mechanism behind this May 25th HCOB
bulletin. Now, this is what field auditors ought to be
doing. They ought to learn their - how to do a Security
Check. And they ought to learn how to give general runs on
a Prehav Scale. And if they could do those two things, they
would be in the stars. They would be getting case gains all
over the place. Do you see that?

Every hour of auditing they put in would have some
effectiveness and usefulness before it. Furthermore, they
would make a Release. And that is how you make a Release.
You give the fellow a Security Check. This puts him in
communication with you to some extent - enough for the
purposes of auditing. And then you assess him on the Prehav
Scale - Primary, Secondary Scale. And then you run the level
in a five-way bracket and you flatten one level, you
flatten two levels - that's probably enough.

Now pick up the Security Check and give him a new Security
Check and you're going to find some new things have turned
up. You get those things off and he is now happy to
progress some more. Otherwise, he won't be happy to
progress any more because he's got these overts one way
or the other.

So you give him his new Security Check and then you assess
him and you run him on two more levels on the general
Prehav Scale and then you give him another Security Check.
And you're going to find out that every Security Check is a
bit different. And warning: If the Security Checks aren't a
bit different, he hasn't had any gain in responsibility and
is making no case progress.

So the Johannesburg Security Check serves another purpose:
it serves the purpose of telling you - total absence of
graphs and tests - it tells you whether or not the case is
making any gain. And if the case is making no gain, then
there's obviously, these two things exist: First and
foremost, he either is suffering with a tremendous ARC
break with you or he's being audited straight up against a
present time problem. One of those two things exist if he's
making no case gain. That's all that exists, by the way,
because you're going to get all the withholds with a
Johannesburg Security Check. So it reduces no case gain
down to fantastic ARC breaks or horrendous present problems.

Now, how do you handle somebody's present time problem?
Supposing you were a field auditor who didn't have any
education along this line at all and you were giving
somebody a present time problem sort-out. And this is the
second time the person has come in to you with a tremendous
present time problem with his mother-in-law and it just
seems that this one is getting in your road all the time.
Now, I'll let you in on something: it would be very easy
for you to do this, a little less easy for somebody else
to do this. You would assess the person on the Prehav
Scale - Primary Scale only. Don't spend any time at it.
Assess this person in the PT problem - in other words, the
personnel of the PT problem on the Prehav Scale - and run
maybe two, three brackets only. Because look, it's such a
microscopic piece of track that it won't run any time and
your twenty-minute rule disappears instantly - the second
that you handle the Prehav Scale, the twenty-minute rule
vanishes. You couldn't run twenty minutes on a level on
his former wife. You just couldn't do it! You see, you're
running it by name and you just couldn't run that - that -
that. You could run it on "a wife" or something like this,
because this has got some track to it. But you couldn't
run it that way. You got it?

All right. Now, you'd have to sort out, then, your
rudiments. And this can get sometimes very tricky - sorting
out your rudiments, Model Session, TRs and so forth. This
can get out - this can be very tricky. Various things can
happen. There are various boo-boos can be made one way or
the other. The pc self-audits himself between sessions, is
one of them. Pc has had a tremendous bust-up of some kind
or another between sessions and you don't detect it and you
audit him in spite of it. In other words, you've got
present time problems or something of the sort messed up
here. But you did - you mishandled the rudiments. That's all
this amounts to. Something went wrong with the rudiments.
And when I say, "Something went wrong with the rudiments,"
I simply mean, the person wasn't set up to go into session.

Now, there are ways of doing rudiments with a meter, but
there's also your power of observation. And the pc comes in
with one arm in a sling. Well now, you don't put him on the
E-Meter to find out if he's had an accident to his arm. You
get the idea?

The pc has been very, very able to talk to you in all other
sessions and this session isn't saying a word. Something
has changed here. Well, you'd better find out what it is,
even though you've started the session. You know? And the
pc formerly has been able to be - communicated with you, is
perfectly happy, is perfectly cheerful in being audited and
in - everything's going along fine, or is awfully mean in
being audited and is awfully vicious and all of a sudden
isn't mean or vicious. I'd sort of keep my eye open on it.
Maybe the pc is sunk into apathy or something. Could be,
you see. Or the pc's gotten better.

I would at least ask him, "Have you - have you experienced
any peculiar or particular change that you have noticed
between the last session and now?"

The pc would say, "Oh, yes. I've decided I'll live." Well,
this would account for his no longer being mean. But these
wild changes that occur without your auditing are something
that you should suspect. The commonest action is the pc
leaves the session with the tone arm at 3.0 and returns to
the next session with the tone arm at 5.0. Now, something
has gone on between sessions, that's for sure.

But this straight routine: using your TRs and a Model
Session, getting a Johannesburg Security Check, then
running a couple of runs - general - on the Prehav Scale
and Johannesburg Security Check is what you ought to tell
field auditors to do and tell people to do who don't know
how to do SOP Goals. You got the idea?

All right.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]