Well, I'm awfully glad to see you here. I really am. I didn't really want to come to this congress, worth a nickel. I thought, "Well, same old lectures. Tell us everything is going to be wonderful," you know, and then the world falls in on you. So, then I thought, "Well, I'd better go. I'd better go and find out what he's talking about," I said.

Thank you. I have always threatened to bring notes. And actually you realize these congresses would not be possible, and these lectures would not be possible, without notes, although you always keep them for me.

No, but all joking aside, I am very pleased to be back in the country if only momentarily. The insularity of America actually puts out of your sight the — the tremendous breadth of Scientology. It is tremendously broad today. And that is a very good thing. Dispersal of an item like Scientology makes it absolutely defensible.

I suppose you're curious about this new 3D package. I think it might be a very good thing to talk something about. Would you like to hear something about it?

All in one place, that's very — rather dangerous the way things are. But today you'd be happy to know that you have skilled auditors and organizations on every corner of this world. And wherever they are, they follow through, of course, along national lines, by orders, patriotic to their own governments. I keep having to issue these orders. Basically, it's a very great achievement. You have made that possible.

Audience: Yes.

Today — well, we have an auditor, for instance, be going back shortly to back up Tshombe. I, by the way, should tell you something about that. I know you're very worried about it. I've been reading the American papers concerning it and I thought I'd better tell you about it because, you know, he attacked the capital yesterday — day before yesterday, you know.

The difficulties of processing a person are extremely complicated by the fact that this person has been playing a game, and I should tell you a bit about that. I think that might be a very good idea.

He's got one of the strongest and most powerful lobbies going that is attacking flat out Congress, you know — Tshombe is. He's attacking it — just about to wipe out the whole US Senate and that would be funny only to a Scientologist.

Anyhow, I want to tell you something about 3D. 3D. You've had Clears. We can make Clears, but not everybody goes Clear. Why? Because it isn't possible to key some people out of the mess they're in. If you can key a person out, you can clear them. If you can leave the litter on the backtrack and park it on the backtrack, you can clear them. If you can.

Did you read the front page story in the Washington Post of Tshombe's attack on the US capital? He is operating the most powerful and deadly lobby that has ever operated. Pretty dangerous.

The person can park this material on the backtrack, key it out, and maybe it'll key in in a century, and maybe in a week, and maybe six months or maybe ten years. Who knows when it'll key back in again, but that is the limited status of Clear, and that is the status of Clear and that is what happens to Clears and that's all there is to it. You key this stuff out, you put it on the backtrack, they are in wonderful shape for some momentary period of time, not finite. They are never as bad off as they were before, but they will slump. Why? Because the stuff can key back in again.

Here's this little pool of mud in the steaming jungle that's about as big as that little shopping center that you have near home, the smaller one — got a hospital and a couple of stores and some buildings. And the whole fury and might of the — ha! — United Nations is being leveled with violence against this tiny, little hamlet and a few handful of ragtag, bobtail people. And the United States spent, under Eisenhower, billions, billions to buy friendship abroad and then sent US bombers to the UN to bomb Katanga.

It isn't as serious as it might sound; it doesn't mean that Clear isn't a state which is desirable — it is a state which is desirable. But let's compare that now that — now that we know that fact. I found it out. I didn't know that you all had these masses because some of you were sufficiently blind you couldn't see them. I'll call your attention to these black masses as of 8-80 — 19-God-knows-when. Remember way back then.

You won't hear about this in America, but American stock went out the bottom at that moment. Pretty darn weird. Here's this little pool of mud, see. But I think it's a state of comparable size so that it'd look like opposition to the UN. And I think it also looks big enough to be confronted by Kennedy.

And a lot of you came up and said, "Well, I never saw any of these — what you talk about, black masses; I never saw anything — black masses. There's nothing wrong with me. I look around and I just see nothing. There's nothing everyplace." So I couldn't prove conclusively that there was such a thing as a mass in the reactive mind. I couldn't prove this. It was very difficult because the perception of people was not up to the observation of this sort of thing. That was what was necessary.

So he sent bombers. And he's going to buy a hundred million dollars worth of UN — ha! UN — bonds to finance all of this sort of thing and it's all very interesting. But the size of the overt is tremendous. The size of the overt is absolutely fantastic.

Now, it has become evidential that nobody would be in the shape he is in unless these masses did not [did] exist in the reactive mind — period! It is the phenomenon which retains a person's status quo and keeps him parked at the bottom of the Tone Scale. That is what it is. It's unhandleable masses.

You see, the Katanganese has never been part of the Congo. It's a colonial acquisition for the Congo during all this period of anticolonialism. So of course, they've got to have a motivator. You get the joke?

Now, we have gone a step beyond pictures. Interesting? Now, we're into processing of masses of pictures. And everybody has these things.

Now, they've got to have a motivator and they actually have got Tshombe attacking the US Senate. Overt act — motivator sequence. Most gorgeous example of it I ever saw in my life. But it is totally, totally concerned, a hundred percent concerned, with somebody's wits here — hasn't anything to do in actuality.

Now, you can key those things out and lay them aside and park them over — 1954, I think, London, Admiration Processing, "There are some corners of the mind which are better off left unentered." A direct quote — something like that — 53, 54 — something like that. This is all material which we have had, but there was no guarantee that everybody had these; there was no guarantee that it wasn't just an occasional phenomenon.

There is no war. There couldn't be any war. How long do you think it would take you as a shotgun — with a shotgun to wipe out the local shopping center? And then somebody comes along and gives you six rocket bombers to help out. What you going to do with them? What you going to do with them?

Well, we kept running into people who could only see blackness, or we kept running into people who could only see invisibility and who couldn't see pictures and that sort of thing and engrams and so on. And apparently uniformly a requisite of a psychiatrist or psychologist is to be totally immersed in the Goals Problem Mass, so they never see any pictures. So they say, "Only idiots and morons have pictures." Direct quote. "Only idiots and morons have pictures."

Now, this is no savage criticism of US policy. There has to be a policy before you can criticize it. But to a Scientologist, these things loom up a little more interestingly one way or the other because if they will just — if these characters, pardon me, if these politicians — well, let's be polite ... Which is the more derogatory word? Anyway, if they would just quietly go someplace and sit down for a few years, we're all set.

Why? Well, a review of this breed — it is a type of thetan. I am sorry to have to tell you that, but it is a type of thetan and you have got to live it down. But these characters, of course, couldn't see any masses or couldn't see any pictures. Well, why couldn't they see masses and pictures? Why couldn't they see masses and pictures? Because they were unable to perceive to that degree. They had them, but they couldn't see them, so therefore you couldn't guarantee that they had them.

See, if they'd just go quietly and, oh, I don't know, assign posts to their friends as ambassador to Mauritania or something, you know, and just knock it off, all this fussing about, we've got it made.

Yes, but the mechanism which was residual is called the Goals Problem Mass. And that is the name which is assigned to these black masses which kick around in the bank. And that, when a person puts on weight, is what he has run into — the Goals Problem Mass. When a person has a solid, continuously unremovable somatic apparently, that is the Goals Problem Mass. When individuals are mired down in the midst of all of this, they have no perception beyond it. Their attention is totally introverted into this particular mass. Therefore, they behave behavior patterns dictated by these masses.

That's the only thing — the only reason I talk about it consistently is because it worries me just a little bit. Because if they lose their heads within the next decade, why, we will have been caused an enormous — a lot more trouble that will be very difficult. It'll be — it's hard enough going as it is without going in a world where all the comm lines are broken down and in flinders. Hard enough going without walking across radioactive rubble that were once cities. It's hard enough auditing somebody now without having to take the radiation burns off first.

Now, what are these masses? They exist in the mind and the sum and substance of the reactive mind is composed entirely of these masses — period! The reactive mind of course can be monitored by pictures around on the fringes of the masses. But, if you key out the masses, then they won't affect the individual, but if they do not — are not susceptible of being keyed out, or you can not key them out or they are stuck too thoroughly in, then of course the person will go on behaving — will go on having the psychosomatics, will go on having the bad eyesight, will go on having the deafness, will go on having the pain in his back, will go on having the flat feet, will go on being a thetan in trouble, because he's up against something he can't handle. These things have been unhandleable by past technology — period. There was no handling them. The only thing you could do was key them out.

So it's not a matter of "Hubbard is simply fixated on the third and fourth dynamic." Hubbard is a little bit concerned about the fourth dynamic just to this degree. We've absolutely got it taped if they will just be quiet just a little while longer. And that's what I hope for.

But we weren't even working consciously on the basis of heading in a direction just to key out these black masses. I was given this problem by you, by you, nobody else, of why didn't you go Clear? Why didn't certain processes clear you rapidly? Why? Why did we clear so selectively? Why only here and there could you make a Clear? Why couldn't clearing be done on a 100 per-cent basis?

And when I see these idiocies of "We've got to have a war," to the extent of bombing the local shopping center, and then we hear that this — a very serious crime has been committed whereas Tshombe has formed a lobby which is attacking flat out the United States capital — I would say somebody's in a frame of mind where he wants trouble.

And I will not ever settle for any figure less than that, because then I know you still have something you don't know about the mind! If you can't do it to each and every thetan as he steps up and salutes, then there's some-thing you don't know about thetans! Right?

And we have a disagreement there because I don't want any trouble just now. And he does want trouble just now and of course, it's in our interest not to have any trouble for a while.

Audience: Yes.

It is so distracting to fight a war! Haven't you found it so? Boring, in fact. One of my terminals has to go into operation every time we fight a war and I tell you, it's getting frayed at the edges.

And when you can't do it to any of them, you're a psychiatrist.

You know, I've practically had to do no auditing on it at all. It's almost gone through overuse. Every time a war goes on, you see, I get this terminal, and that terminal goes into play, and I go down and sign up, you see. And the war's over and I put the terminal back in mothballs again, see. It's getting worn out.

Now, you want to know why you have a stuck somatic? Well, why do you keep on going this way every time you try to read the signs in the distance? Why? Does it say "stop" or "60-mile-an-hour minimum?" Why, if you are a bit heavy, don't you lose your weight? Why doesn't this weight just suddenly disappear? Or is — is that — is that a problem of the GE — that belongs to the GE who is residual in the stomach and that's it? Is that just a problem of the GE? No! What are all these things about?

And it smells so of camphor, but we don't need a war to run that terminal out further. Now, I know a better method. You get an auditor who is very, very well trained and you sit down in a chair and he sits down in the other chair and you take hold of the cans, and he looks at the E-Meter, and he says, "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?"

Why is your behavior pattern consistent, consistent, consistent? You audit somebody and he goes out and falls on his head, and you audit him and he goes out and falls on his head, and you audit him and he goes out and falls on his head, and you audit him and he goes out and falls on his head. He falls on his head a little less each time, so you're making progress. Last time he only fractured his skull; time before he put out both eyes. What is this? What is it that stops the forward progress of the mind?

And I'll tell you what to say then. You say, "Yes."

Now, I tell you that there is something that stops the forward progress of the mind if only from this rationale: You as an auditor, or you as a preclear, are perfectly willing to try anything that would handle any of your difficulties. That I guarantee you. So there must be something preventing us from doing it.

That's a much better way of handling terminals and valences, you see, a much, much more fruitful way of handling them. They handle much more easily than trying to wear them out on the field of battle or in the United States Senate or being a garbage collector and getting elected president. Anyway, the gist of this work depends on this.

And a very exhaustive study of this thing has turned up some of the most remarkable data that has ever been turned up in Scientology, and that is the existence of and the exploration of the Goals Problem Mass. They are masses of mental energy, you might say, burned down to the last notch, and nobody can get rid of the cinders. How do you handle a mass of cinders like that? Nobody can eat them, and as far as a thetan is concerned — do you know that thetans do not have dumping grounds. Do you know that? There is no place to throw stuff away. You throw it away over there four feet away and then you walk over here and it's still there four feet away, it doesn't stay over there. You drop your current body and you pick up another mock-up and you say, "Well, thank God, I got rid of that sciatica. Wow! Boy! Huh! Sure feel ..."

We have come to a point in history where communication is adequate, where technology is adequate and where there's a moment of — a breathing spell and a little bit of leisure.

You have been unlucky the last few lives, every body you pick up has a slight migraine. What's got the migraine? You or the body? Well, we already know that a thetan packs his own somatics and you can very often back a thetan out of his head. One more very remarkable example was backing a thetan out of his head who had coughing spells. And this thetan coughed and coughed and coughed and coughed and coughed, and there was nothing you could do about stopping this cough, you know. Until one day, we backed him back of his head and he was back of his head coughing. The body stopped coughing but he didn't. That's the truth, and that isn't just a few of them that have been like that._

All right. Now with this, perhaps we've got it made. See, just nothing happens just now, you see. But it's a momentary, almost accidental breathing spell in which we exist at the present time. And that accounts for a great deal of our progress.

Now what is this? What is it that makes the person do this? The person doesn't want to do this, but what makes him do this?

I am not for peace because I dislike war. War has good points. There is no doubt about it. War has very good points about it. Some people like to hunt ducks. Other people like to hunt airplanes. But they — but there's times when you don't want to hunt airplanes and we happen to be in one of those in Scientology right now.

It isn't true that everybody is being willfully aberrated. Just lay that one aside. They are not. They attacked certain things at some time in their insidious past and got hung with the overt — motivator sequence and now they can't get rid of them. And in their own state unassisted, they have been totally unable to handle this ever since, so they have been in trouble. And you, as you sit there right this minute, know that I am talking the truth. You know that you have always had something that you really wished you could handle. Now, it's all right for an auditor saying, "Oh, well, he just wanted to be that way." Yeah, it's true, once. But it was so long ago that he stopped wanting to be that way. That's what we discount. He hasn't wanted to be that way for a long, long time. That's what's interesting.

If the international situation will just stay nicely balanced — give us — give us just two or three more years and we'll have it taped. Not that we will then be able to take over Earth, but then we will be in a position where we will be figuring out how not to.

Now, what is this thing? What does it consist of? Now we've had some remarkable gains in the past, and we've had some remarkable legs up on the subject of the mind. We've had some remarkable data and information, that's for sure, and this has got every one of them beat hands down. Man, that was nothing.

Right now Central Organizations are having a very difficult time of it. I don't mind telling you this because they are just on the upper edge of a wave. Some of them are in a kind of a "Let's wait it out a little bit longer," and "We hope," and so forth. But life is about to change on every Central Organization front. Some more than others. And that's because practically every Central Organization in the world has, has had or will have certain staff members at Saint Hill being trained within an inch of their lives. And these people are either home and just now getting going, or they are going to come home very shortly, or something of the sort. And everybody in Central Organizations is sort of on a, "Well, what are they going to do next?" You know?

The anatomy of this thing, mapping the anatomy of this thing as I've done in the last, well about — actually started this line of research in February of 1961 in Johannesburg, and carried on forward and was making Clears in South Africa, and moved on along the line. And Williams was down there teaching the course and I got him pretty well genned up, and he went back to Australia, and ran some courses back there and they made some Clears there. And we were going ahead very well, and we moved forward with more and more velocity and then suddenly, somebody comes up with the idea that we ought to be making lots and scads of Clears all over the world and we were making them quite selectively. In other words, we were making people Clear who could be keyed out, that is all.

But they do have a certain calm confidence. It's only when calm confidence is not differentiable from apathy that I begin to worry.

And then we move into a further lineup. We move into a further lineup. The state of Clear had a barrier that did not consist of getting, in old Routine 3, merely the right goal and the right terminal, because there was no way you could guarantee what goal you had gotten or what terminal, and you could lay your hands on an offbeat one.

But this is a pretty tough, a pretty tough run of it. We're right in the middle of a forward advance right at this moment. You have not seen very much of it yet. You have not contacted too much of it. You possibly — one or — some of you have been on the fringe of it. Some of you, of course, are right in the middle of it. But the largest number of Scientologists throughout the world are just in a — in a sort of a — maybe up to a rumor stage on this. They haven't quite met it head-on.

Well, I had a lot of students processed and they were making progress and I was trying to make Class IIs out of them, I wasn't using them experimental. But it turned out that it would have been a waste of time at any time simply to have gone ahead on a clearing basis. That's the way it turned out. Because those that we had started in that direction — and we had gotten close to the end line of clearing — the moment that we turned them head-on, not into key-out, but head-on into the package they went clank! And any gain we'd gotten on a loosed up needle and everything in beautiful shape was lost in the twinkling of an eye. All you had to do was find what is called the modifier and everything froze up like a car run without oil. That was it. So there was all of your beautiful clearing gone. You could cancel clearing.

And that is this: An auditor trained at Saint Hill today is trained into very definite skills which are auditing skills as you've always seen but with a precision that you haven't ever noticed before. And they look different and they act different. And when they come back ... They leave, you see, and they say to all their friends from the Central Organization, they say, "Well, goodbye, Bob. I'll be seeing you pretty soon, yeah. Goodbye, Joe. All right. Yeah, well, I'll give — I'll give Ron your best. Bye-bye. Bye-bye." You know? And they go back all friends, you know.

Well, I went ahead and did the anatomy of this thing, and I worked very hard on it and I finally got it taped. Called it the Goals Problem Mass and worked the thing out and so on. We had already had the techniques of assessment. These things had already been worked out, so I could go ahead and work out the rest of this thing. And it turns out that the Goals Problem Mass has an anatomy, and it is the anatomy of the reactive mind. Give me the anatomy and I can give you a win. Show me — show me where-the bullet should enter the tiger and you will have a dead tiger, and that is all we had to know. The thing had Achilles' heels and everything else; it could be taken apart. It is an anatomy.

And they go to Saint Hill and they sit down and — don't kid yourself. Saint Hill course is not an easy course. You think you've been through tough Academies, but this one's got them all beat. Mary Sue and the rest of the training staff there, and other people, see, they really put these boys over the jumps. And they live on English chow. And it's rather cold sometimes and sometimes the furnace goes out in the house. It's a great big house and big grounds, but they never get much time to look at the outside.

It's very interesting the thing — the mind would have an anatomy, a precise anatomy. And what does the Goals Problem Mass look like?

Usually, they're looking at an E-Meter, an Instructor breathing down their neck, "What did that say? Hm, I thought so. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Why don't you read E-Meter Essentials again?" Nasty, you know — mean. It's really vicious — really vicious.

There are several items of which it is composed. The most available of these is the pc's goal. That's easily available. The next most available thing is the opposition terminal to the goal. The next most available thing is the goal of the opposition terminal. The next most available thing is the modifier of the pc's goal, and that's a very good thing to have because it's all he ever dramatizes in session. If he is doing anything offbeat in session, he is only dramatizing his modifier.

I have seen students standing out in the hall crying big, large tears. "It is just — it's just — it's just Mike's terminal that is in operation. He — it's just Mike's terminal, that's all." "I assessed him once and got a terminal, 'sadist' on him as part of his package, see." "It's just Mike's terminal. He can't — he can't — won't — he won't pass me on anything. He's just doing it to be mean. He's got orders from Mary Sue not to." And they buck up and go study the bulletin again, and they go in. By this time, Mike has decided it's too, too many examinations of this particular bulletin, so he says, "How many commas in the first line of the bulletin?" So they flunk that one. And this time they go back and study it and find out what it said.

And actually, if you wanted to cure an ARC break, if it wasn't attributable strictly to withholds — the pc is sort of acting up and so forth — and you can't quite assess him very well — say his modifier to him three times and that finishes that, and he quiets right down and that's the end of that. The rudiments go in. The rudiments go in with a clank. The only thing that could be wrong with this is you have the wrong modifier.

And they come in with flying colors, and they're asked three consecutive questions about the bulletin which are all very, very straight. Everything is all set. They know exactly what to ask — and exactly what to answer. And then they ask the fourth, "What's the date of the bulletin?" you see, and they flunk that. That's it. And it is! It is. It's just Mike's terminal. That's all.

You can have the modifier misworded or you haven't completed the modifier right or something like that. If there is anything wrong with the modifier this won't happen. But if you do have the pc's right modifier, it just — clank! That's it. It's very fascinating.

I'm not exaggerating this, by the way. It'd be very hard to exaggerate. It is not that it's capriciously sadistic, but they're pressured through. And what is expected of them before anybody says they can audit is so fantastically arduous and so precise, that these people who have been through many courses under very good Instructors very often and through good Academies are horrified to see what is really demanded of them. And then they measure up to it and then they can do it, and they come home. That's the point. They come home then, see.

The guy is saying, "Yow, yow, yow, yow, yow! And you did this and motivator, motivator and oh, isn't it terrible, and I'm going to cut my throat and your throat," and so forth. And you say, "And raise hell with everybody and leave. And raise hell with everybody and leave. And raise hell with everybody and leave." And he says, "Okay, go on. Go on. Go on with the session."

They come walking in. They're pretty calm, pretty good shape. They're pretty competent about it. Look around, everybody runs up to them. "Hello, hello. How was Saint Hill? How's everything going? Everything's fine. Every-thing's fine."

The funny part of it is, your — it isn't making him guilty and makes him stop dramatizing. What you do is just desensitize it momentarily. But because it belongs to another entity than the pc, it of course will only desensitize. It won't run out till you run out the entity, but you can take out the kick out of it any time you want to.

"Anybody ever run a Joburg on you people? Well, let's look over and see how — how your auditing is."

Wouldn't it be interesting if you knew your boss's modifier? Wouldn't that be fascinating?

Two nights later: "Dear Ron, I have never believed that auditing could be so bad as it's being done at the present moment in such and such a place. I've got it in hand somehow or other, but do you know that these people don't even know . . ." And then I got a big long list, you see.

Your sales manager — he isn't making any sales, he isn't making any sales, he isn't making any sales, and you make his modifier. You know his modifier, you go into his office, you say, "And never get rid of anything and leave. And never get rid of anything and leave. And never get rid of anything and leave," and then he has a good day and makes nice profits. Fantastic, but it — that modifier of course is what they do when their goal doesn't work. If they have a failure of the goal, then the modifier goes into full action. Interesting, isn't it? So the modifier is how they get even with life if they don't win. And of course the funny part of a thetan is he always tries to win.

Don't send any staff members or friends to Saint Hill. They'll come back and ride hell out of you. They ruin you. Perfectionists.

You know a thetan never gives up? Never! Did you know that? That's — it's most horrifying! His last revenge is to forget.

Trouble is their case has had an enormous forward gain so they can

This is one of those little two-second techniques: "Who'd be upset if you forgot that?" It's very interesting. It's quite workable, you know, as a little hunt-and-punch mechanism, you know.

reach with this critical attitude much better. That's why I say you haven't seen too much of the forward advance. You haven't yet had a Saint Hill graduate sniff — just sniff. He's sitting down there doing a letter-perfect job. Everything is fine, you know. Your staff auditor is doing a letter-perfect job. Everything is fine and you're doing exactly right. Everything is going fine. "Oh, no. Turn on your E-Meter."

The fellow's — the fellow, oh, he's got a horrible headache this morning. He's got a horrible headache this morning. Well, the possibility is you could get rid of the headache just by saying, "Who'd be upset if you forgot about it?" Something on that line. "Who'd be upset if you forgot about that headache?" "Who'd be upset if you forgot about what's happened to you?" You very often watch a very 1.1 gleeful little smile come across the pc's face and he says, "My mother." That's his last possible avenue of getting even. If you can't remember your whole track you are simply getting even with somebody someplace. It's as simple as that.

See, you got a sudden upgrade of terrific authority on the subject of guys who are totally competent. And they come back and they come into an area which thought it was competent, and it's this — a bit of an invalidation. This is what's happening at the present moment.

All right. Now, let's go back and take a look at this Goals Problem Mass.

Central Organizations and some field auditors are coming to Saint Hill and being trained, put over the jumps, and then they are coming home and straightening out Central Organizations, and putting those over the jumps and so forth. And to this degree, you're getting a more — much more perfect job of auditing going on. And the upgrade of auditing skill is occurring at the present time. And it's not taking too long. It's not going to take the next ten years to get this thing done because we can tell you immediately what is good auditing and what is bad auditing. We can tell you at once what a good auditing action is and test out whether it was an effective auditing action almost at once.

The next item after the modifier is the terminal. That is the pc's terminal, and those are all the parts of any one 3D package.

Now we're into the area of this is how you do it. And that is making a big difference because if the pc gets up out of the pc's chair and hasn't had a gain — well, I'll give you an idea. Ron went off to the Saint Hill course, went back, took over Assoc Sec Johannesburg. When he first — he taught a special course down there mostly making classified — I'll talk about that later, too — but making Class II Auditors mainly.

The parts of a 3D package then consist 100 percent of the pc's goal, the oppterm (opposition terminal), the oppgoal, the modifier and the terminal.

And he said this was what happened in those six weeks. The auditor would be sitting there auditing, and the pc would be perfectly willing and settle for a small gain in twenty-five hours. That was the beginning of the course. At the end of twenty-five hours of auditing, the pc expected some-thing to have happened and would have settled for that.

All right now, a bad auditor, not knowing what he's doing, and not fully trained in assessment, and not fully trained in how to put this package together, and any of us before we knew about it, could have gotten the pc's goal as the opposition goal, and could have run the pc on his opposition terminal. And that is usually what happened when a case ran forever and ever and ever on old Routine 3 clearing. It is not safe to run Routine 3 — period! There are ways you could put it together so it would be safe, but by and large it is just not safe to run a pc without a whole package, proved and checked out.

And at the end of that particular course, raging ARC breaks and upsets with the Instructors were occurring because two hours of auditing had gone on without anything happening! It's different, huh? Different.

You run this opposition terminal, he feels like his hair is being parted by all the winds of Venus, you know. You'll see him going like this. When you find the opposition terminal, your pc gets very nattery and very unhappy — you haven't got his modifier yet — and you find this opposition terminal. You could ask him all the things which would oppose making pudding. See, "to make pudding," this is what you've got as his goal. All right, opposing all the things of making pudding. "Who or what would oppose your making pudding?" All right, and he gives you a long list and then you assess this list and you turn up with this item. Well, it's only conditional, the opposition terminal, only conditionally; it's until you finish the package you don't know. But that's good, all right, we will buy that, that's all right. Because we can always say, "Who or what would oppose which?" and get a crisscross and get the rest of the package. See, if you've got any part of a 3D package you can get the rest of the package.

And it isn't anything new they are doing. They are just doing what they are doing absolutely right. Then you're getting a tremendous upgrade of quality in Central Organizations. You take Johannesburg. It was almost flat on its back. It was having a dreadful time as an organization, and so forth, and the HCO Continental Secretary South Africa went back and she finished off her case there in a few hours of auditing, and as a Clear, she started to operate.

So, we go ahead, then, and we'd say, "If you failed on your goal, if you failed, what would you do to get even with people?" or any such phrase. "How would you get even with people?" You can even go at it on this basis, "All right, supposing you were making pudding and you spill the lot, what would you think and do? That's good, thank you." Such things as that, and he'd tell you what he would think, what he would do, and you eventually wind up with a long list of things. You assess these, you have to crisscross and take pieces of them out and fit them all together again and you eventually jigsaw together this — and it would be something like, "And I'd pick it up and pitch it out the window and blow the place forever," or something weird like this. That is actually the modifier. That's what he would do if that goal were not followed through. And you get a list of those things and you get this thing called modifier.

The organization started reintegrating and for the first time, why, they were over the top on some of their quotas. For the first time in a year, they were over the top on these things and they were making progress in all directions, and everything was settling down and looking good.

Now, of course, it's very easy to get the pc's terminal. It'd be all right to say, "Who or what would make pudding?" That's easy. You could get a long list, "Who or what would make pudding?" Oh, my God, he could give you hundreds and hundreds of people and things that would make pudding. "Well, batter stirrers and, well, pastry cooks, and . . ." He could go on and on, "housewives, women, men, men cooks, barbecuers." No, your problem is not that difficult now. You want to know "Who or what would make pudding and throw it out the window and blow the place forever? Who or what would do this?" He says, "A French chef. A Louisiana cook. Mama," and so forth, and he gives you a list that might only consist of fifteen items. You can go down the list — brrrrrt — there it is — bang! You've got his terminal. Simple. Your goal plus modifier, of course, gives you a limited terminal list that assesses at once, whereas, your goal all by itself gives you a very long list.

Now, that's just in a Central Organization. You don't see too much of a Central Organization's activities. They usually put the — they put on your idea of how they ought to be for you. And they try to conduct themselves in _a method and a way that inspires confidence in you, and so forth, and it — they should. But they have their difficulties. And their difficulty is, right now, is how to cope with a Saint Hill graduate when he gets home.

Now, you have to go ahead and crisscross this thing and prove it out and find out which is which is what — confronts who and you make up his 3D package and you've got the pc's terminal and the oppterminal and the goal and you've got all the rest of it and that is one package.

They'll turn out a little textbook on it. "This is how you should act. Do exactly as he or she says." End of book.

Now, additional items could be picked up. This terminal — this terminal here — could be the oppterm and the oppterm could be in the place of the terminal. See, you could have gotten them backwards. Because you might have found the opposition goal on the pc and mistaken it for the actual goal of the pc. So there of course, the opposition goal has a modifier, doesn't it? You've got another modifier you could find on the pc and put with the opposition goal. So there's an additional item. You don't need it. At the moment there's no, you know, possible use for it, but you might find yourself winding up with it.

This is quite well — this is well taken. Understand then, what I'm doing at the present moment is taking full responsibility for auditor training and upgrading it throughout the world with total intolerance for anything short of total perfection on the part of an auditor, period.

And then you might have this kind of a situation resulting from the thing: You've got the modifier and it modifies the opposition goal, doesn't modify the goal. Now, this is mostly judgment on the part of the auditor as what makes sense and what's the game. And you fit it together and it does make sense and it does make the game.

All right. When you've got your technology, you can do that, but you can't do it before. Let me go into it now and show you what an auditor has to know how to do. He has to know how to run a meter, a Model Session and do a perfect Sec Check or Problems Intensive at which time he becomes a Class I] Auditor. But that is — although absolutes are unobtainable — it's just as close to an absolute as we can press it — that he can do these things right and well.

But you also will find out that the opposition terminal not only has an opposition goal, the opposition goal is "to raise hell with cooks." See, that's the opposition's goal as viewed from the viewpoint of the pc's terminal.

If he can sec check well, if he can run a meter perfectly and carry on in that particular line, we know then that he can do this job. And we know also that if he cannot do those exact things perfectly, we can never trust him to assess, which is a Class III skill.

See, that's what the opposition goal looks like to the pc. Actually, the opposition goal is "to kill cooks" or "never to have anything to do with families," you see, something wild like this. It doesn't have anything really to do with this.

Now, it doesn't matter what kind of a package you are looking for or what you are looking for in the pc, you get your second skill. Your first skill is your Security Checking skill. Your second skill is your assessing skill. And that is just your second skill. And there is no halfway mark. Either an auditor can assess perfectly or he should be shot. I mean, there's no halfway measure. You can't assess "fairly well" and run what we're running today.

So you can get extra little pieces and it doesn't matter how many pieces you've got, you go ahead and collect pieces. When you finally wind up at the end you have a goal, an opposition terminal, opposition goal, a modifier and a terminal, and that's all you want, and out of that you make a 3D package, and you've got a package. And boy, does this make sense.

You can't assess "mostly right." "Well, we got it all straight except we had the wrong terminal. We ran it for forty-five hours and the pc spun in." You know, that's about the way it would be, see.

Now, you aren't able, actually, to do this type of assessment unless you've done about seventy-five hours, at least minimum, of expert preparation of the pc because these things read small — except on a Mark IV — British Mark IV meter. You'd have an awful time because the read is so tiny. It's almost reading it with a magnifying glass. As a matter of fact, I have read on a Mark IV with a magnifying glass. That's very delicate work, isn't it? But you finally find them all, and they all read right. Get them all checked out.

The demand of the technology is that the auditor be absolutely right, he be correct in what he does. Now he has to do some adjustment of what he does, but it breaks down to these two precise skills. One, the ability to pull withholds and to handle an E-Meter and run this type of processing check on the preclear. That is a skill and it is a precise skill, and that one cannot be done wrong. You leave a withhold unpulled on the pc and you have hell for breakfast thereafter.

Up to this time the pc says, "Uh — uh — uh — French cook. Boy, yeah, I've always been a French cook. Yes, I've always wanted to be a French cook, absolutely. Yes. Me, that's me, a French cook — French — French cook. Yeah. Yeah. Jawohl, je vois," something. "Me, a French cook. Yeah. Always. Always. Always. Yes," you know, it's just sell, sell, sell, sell, sell, "That's me," you know, sell, sell, sell. Hell no, the French cook is the opposition terminal in this particular case, he's not the French cook at all. But he's convinced he is. But he'll go through all kinds of ramifications. "Oh, yes, that's my goal, that's always been my goal!" It's the opposition goal. He doesn't know which is which. Why doesn't he know which is which?

All you've got to do is miss a withhold. So that Security Checking has to be perfect. Therefore, he has to be able to run a meter perfectly. Therefore, he has to also have .the proper meter. You can't have a meter which almost works because it'll miss withholds for you.

Well, this thing is a mess of garbage that nobody could have piloted-his way through. Nobody could have. It was absolutely impossible to find out which was which at anything. And it looked like a total confusion. And the triumph of the thing is — my part — is being able to make sense out of it and find its parts. The second you make sense out of it and find its parts, you can pilot your way through it.

All right. So that is a precision action, and an auditor can be taught that action, and they can do it. One of the things happens to them, however, is their own case gets in the road. How could this be that their own case gets in the road? Well, he who hath withhold will not pulleth withhold from he who hath withhold.

But the pc sits there while you're doing it and because it's his bank — "Yeah, well, I've always hated French cooks. Never wanted anything to do with French cooks, that's — yeah, that's me, a French cook. Yeah, I like French cooks. French cooks are fine. I don't think this is any part of me. I don't think I would be a French cook. That's me, French cook."

So the only bug on the forward track is getting all these people with withholds to perfectly pull withholds on all these people who have withholds. And I'll go into that — technically why that is necessary.

Because as you run the thing of course these valences are turning through the pc like a roulette wheel and you — it's like a player piano. The pc sits there and you put the roller on the thing and it plays "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles," and the pc, roller, you know, he says, "I'm forever blowing bubbles," see. You just play him like a player piano, he'll dramatize it 100 percent. It's an awesome thing to watch, let me tell you. You just quote some of these parts at him sometimes and the pc — you know, like "singer" and you just say, "Singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer," hum-hum-hum-hum, hum-hum, hum-hum-hum-hum-hum.

It isn't just that we want you to have clean hands. I know you would feel nice if you had clean hands and it makes you well, and it makes you feel better and it's that sort of thing, but that isn't why we want you to have clean hands. That isn't why at all. We just want you to have clean hands so that you can be set up for an assessment and find out where you're at and get going.-

Well, those are the parts, and they are very easy to find by expert assessment, only by expert assessment on a very reliable E-Meter.

And we can't find out where you are and get going unless a perfect job of Security Checking and Problems Intensive has been run on you first. And of course, you lose the pc if you miss the withholds.

There aren't many auditors in the world that can do this right at the present moment. They are very, very few. But there's — oh, there are about four or five in the United States now; there are six or seven coming over here — you get how small this is to date. But those people really know what they're doing. They really can do it. It's quite remarkable.

You want to see somebody blow? You want to see somebody leave the organization? You want to see somebody get out of the pc's chair and be your enemy thereafter? Just sit down there, and just sit down there and you're going along fine, and you say, "All right. Have you ever murdered anybody? All right. Well, it didn't move much that time," and so forth.

All right, now what's this thing really look like? I say a 3D package, and you thought at the same time I said the 3D package, didn't you? Ha-ha! You're always optimistic, that's what's — always filled with optimism.

About three minutes later — about three minutes later, the pc says, "You're talking so loudly, I can hardly hear you. I don't know what you are doing. Why can't I have a cigarette? You gave me that — you gave me that command twice. You know you did. I heard you. You're using the old style of Model Session, too. Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Rrowrrh."

You know that at any moment — well, even Mary Sue looked at me disappointedly one day, and she says, "Well, why can't it all be just one package and you run it out?" You know, as though I was a bit guilty for not having made it that way. Well. So if even she can say this .. .

And the auditor who doesn't know how to audit 1962 style, huh, he says, "Well, I'm very sorry. Do we have an ARC break? All right. What have I done? Oh, I have. I've screamed at you. All right. And what else have I done? And what haven't I done?"

No, it is the package you find. It is the package which is available, the package which can be proved out and the package which can be run. And just as we ran the first terminal out and the first goal, in Routine 3, we run the first part of the 3D package out. And then we upgrade the whole package and hit it again, and we go through all of it again. We go crisscross. We may keep one or two or three of its elements, but we keep upgrading the package and upgrading the package.

And the pc gets up out of the auditing chair and he tells the next-door neighbor, "Oh, my God, that auditor's terrible," and blows and has a lot of trouble, and comes down with sinusitis the final week — the following week, you see — stumbles around, goes on a binge, leaves his wife, walks around in circles and falls flat on his face and one day finds himself in the hands of another Scientologist and gets the withhold pulled.

What is this upgrade? Well, you found what the pc had a prayer of handling, that is what you found. That is what the pc has a prayer of handling providing you use the exact process — and that was a trick, too, devising the processes which would actually handle the package and don't think it wasn't — the exact process. And that chips off a piece of the package and you can move on.

And this Scientologist, by that time, has been over the jumps and we say, "All right. Have you ever murdered anybody? Oh, yeah? Well, who was that? All right. That's fine. Who else have you murdered? Thank you. Okay. Good. Who else? Have you ever murdered anybody else? All right. That's clear now. Okay."

And here is what a Goals Problem Mass looks like. Here is one — down here at the bottom is a — is a kind of a little package. You sometimes don't find this one at all. This one will blow sometime later in the run, but it exists and it has existed only in the last few thousand or million years. That is a rather recent thing. And all of the characteristics of the mainline terminals and all of the characteristics of the mainline opposition terminals finally deteriorate down to this little, tiny package.

Fellow says, "You know, auditors are awfully nice."

And it's understandable once you know what it is, why this package has everything, but it happens to be unrunnable. It isn't aberrative enough to bother with, but he's liable to be dramatizing it, so both sides all combine into nothing, and he's liable to be, well, he's liable to be a garbage collector who doesn't want anybody to cook while he cooks. You see, it would be all — everything all mixed up. You seldom find this one but it exists and it'll run out.

That's the mechanism of your ARC break — is only the missed withhold. That's all. That's the totality of it.

The one you usually find is somewhere in here. Here is your first pair, first available pair. Here will be a terminal and here will be an oppterm. And if you ever heard of a problem — did you ever hear me talk about problems: postulate — counter-postulate, mass — counter-mass? Well, that is all the Goals Problem Mass is, is a series of very complicated problems. Only the problem's in valences, not a problem in ideas; a problem in identities, not a problem in — "Well, I — I wasn't able to get my wife to cook dinner last night. That's a problem, see, how to get my wife to cook dinner, you see, that's a problem." No, it's a problem that "I am I, and my wife is my wife." You see? This is the crush problem. It's personality versus personality. It's that high velocity of problem, and these personalities are represented by masses which down through the trillennia have gradually accumulated to them totally their characteristics and they act just like people. In fact, they are people as you see them on the street. They are being one or more of these masses.

The reason fellows get upset, the reason people blow, the reason people have ARC breaks, the reason they have bad sessions, the reason for this — and this — isn't really that the auditor's intention was bad. It was only that the person had withholds and nobody got them. They asked for them and didn't bother to collect them. And this is about as silly as going down to the bank, making out a check, they put your money on the counter and then you walk off and don't pick it up. It's just as silly as that. There's the source of ARC breaks.

So here was your terminal — oppterm, and just above this is another pair, and above this is another pair, and above this is another pair, and above this is another pair. Actually, there are hundreds of these pairs, hundreds and hundreds of them. But in the matter of processing, four, five, six of these pairs is about all you ever catch sight of, because running a pair of them blows another half a hundred pair. So it's a sequence.

There's the source of the invalidation of the E-Meter. Of course, an inoperative meter should be invalidated. But the source of an ARC break or the source of invalidations of meters and things — Scientology doesn't work — is the fellow sits there and you say, "Have you ever murdered anyone?" And he knows darn well he has and then you don't ask him anything about it, he thinks it hasn't shown up on the meter, which it has, but the auditor just hasn't read it. So he invalidates the meter.

Now, this is plotted according to the time track. Here is now, and here is beginning of track. And these masses are black — and this one is against that one like that, and this mass is against this one like this, and this one is against this one like that, and this one is against this one like that, and that one is against that one like that, and this one is only against itself. And that's the anatomy of a Goals Problem Mass. And don't think you had — hasn't been one awful trick plotting that thing out. But that is what it looks like and that is a picture of your reactive bank.

And he said, "Well, it isn't operating." No, what isn't operating is the auditor usually, if the meter is all right. Simple. These are simple mechanisms.

Why does it hang up? Well, because each one of these terminals and oppterms, each one of these terminals and oppterms of course is a complete personality package held in place because it has an opposition! And it isn't in opposition against the world and the thetan isn't holding it in place; he has two of them which are holding each other in place of which he is one.

In other words, I'm talking to you about something that has turned out to be as elementary as: You take a pie plate off the cupboard and put it on the table, and then you take it off the table and put it back in the cupboard. And it'll arrive both ways each time so long as you pick it up.

Now, do you remember the old games condition? The person could be self-determined, other-determined or pan-determined. Remember that? Well, in each one of these packages he's gotten over to a total self-determinism and a total other-determinism and a zero pan-determinism. And it actually doesn't pervade very far in life. His life is only monitored by the exact identities of these things. It frightens you to the degree that this is so.

But if you neglect to pick up the pie plate, you will never get it on the table. And if you try to knock it over there with your hand, it'll bust to pieces in the middle of the floor. There is a way to pick up a pie plate and move it from the cupboard to the table. And it's that elementary; only missing one is that serious.

One of them's a hangman, one of them's a rebel. At a certain portion of the track, well, that's the game he played: hangman and rebel. Sometimes he was the hangman, sometimes he was the rebel. And then he got so that he was only the hangman, and then the cycle ended.

Class I skills — that's anything that we ever knew how to do up to last year. Do them all. I don't care. Go ahead. But if you don't know what you are doing and if you cannot classify or qualify as a Class II Auditor as perfect on an E-Meter — and I don't mean you read the E-Meter Essentials and know all the answers, and somebody comes in and sits down and you say, "Well, all right. And on page 62 it says so-and-so, that's the answer to that question. Yeah, I can answer all the questions in the book."

Now, back in the History of Man I talked about cycles. Did you ever hear about cycles? Great long periods of track. These are cycles. This is the game he played on that cycle, and then the game he played on the next cycle, and the game he played on the next cycle, and the game he played on the next cycle. And sometimes he gets all loused up and plays a game on an earlier cycle when he's on a later cycle, and does he get confused.

"All right. You're perfect on an E-Meter now." I don't mean that kind of training. I don't mean 100 percent perfect on the E-Meter from that quarter.

And then, sometimes he will play a game with this terminal versus this terminal. And man, does he feel overwhelmed! Because this is something like God or somebody, you see, somebody like a planet builder versus a janitor. And the auditor, when he gets this, can't conceive how these things could possibly be: mass versus mass, planet builder and a janitor. "Well, I guess a janitor could . . ." And he'll — the preclear can explain it all to you. He says, "Well, actually after they build the planets, why, somebody has to clean them up. And while they're building them they clutter up everything so you have to clean it all up afterwards."

"There are ten reactions on an E-Meter needle. What are they? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten. Very good. Show me an example of each one. Very good."

"Ah, well, I don't know, it doesn't sound right to me." Well, it isn't right, but it will run.

"Now we will find somebody and you will be able to run twelve Security Check questions on him. And then we're going to security check him after-wards and if we find one single quiver on the needle, you're going to go back to the foot of the class and do it all over again." That's the way you pass your examination. That's what we mean by 100 percent on the E-Meter. Perfect knowledge of E-Meter essentials, perfect knowledge of the meter, perfect demonstration of each one of the types of motions of an E-Meter and perfect Security Checking so that a withhold is never missed or quivered. Never a quiver of that needle missed.

You're just simply running a terminal which is within the last two or three cycles of time, sixty thousand or six hundred million or something like that, years long, and you're running one of these recent terminals through the whole Goals Problem Mass in such a way that the Goals Problem Mass in the bank if you saw it — of course just doing a small picture of it, is — sort of looks like this. See? But then it's all like this anyway! You know, it's .. .

And then we have what we consider passing. Perfect is passing because life and the mind demands of us that we be perfect in this particular line. We can't do a fair job of this action.

Now, it's a characteristic of a problem that if it's totally balanced and perfectly balanced, that it becomes timeless. There is no time connected with it, so it just floats forever. There's nothing can disturb its equilibrium, so every time is its time.

Life and the mind does not tolerate a fair job. All you have to do is miss a withhold, miss a rudiment, miss something of the sort, and your pc's all upset and coming to pieces. And if you do it very often, your pc blows and his whole life is in flinders.

Why does a man go on worrying? You've seen people around who were worrying about their family after having been gone from home for fifteen or twenty years working in the slaughterhouse. They're still worrying about their childhood and their family. Did you ever notice this? Well, what is hanging up there and why that is, is the problems have drifted forward because there was no time in them. Instantaneous no-time. And that's where an E-Meter comes in. E-Meter spots this only on instant reads and spots with-holds and reactive bank only on instant reads, because the reactive mind is unable to differentiate time. Only the analytical mind can differentiate time. So you get instant reads and you know you're reading the reactive mind on an instant read. But if you're reading a latent read, you're reading the analytical mind.

So we have to take the responsibility today of the fact that Scientology has entered a new level of effectiveness. And its new level of effectiveness contains in it this fact: that anything that is powerful enough to completely alter the human mind can backfire if done wrong!

Well, that's a very interesting package. It doesn't look very difficult there. Let me assure you, however, it has been giving you a lot of trouble.

So new technology has forced upon us this fact: that we can no longer tolerate a fair job. We have to have a perfect job, but it is an easy job to do. It is not hard to be perfect at it. It simply requires training and skill. It can be done. It's easy to do as a matter of fact. It is easier to do an E-Meter job perfectly on a pc — easier to do it perfectly than poorly. Because if you do it poorly, what happens? What happens? Oh, dear. God help the auditor.

Who are you? What are you playing against? And from a personal point of view, what do I represent in your bank? Isn't that interesting? The probability is I represent nothing. But here and there where people are late for coffee or things like that, I am — they're probably the rebel, you see, and they've got me mixed up with Big Brother. See, I am Big Brother in the bank, you see, or something like that, and they're the rebel, see. And that is the package, you see. Weird! Quite fascinating, quite fascinating to watch this in play. I'll tell you tomorrow a lot more about withholds, and how this whole — all of these tie in and why they tie in. But it's quite curious.

That's the only time the pc ever clams up on him. That's the only time the pc ever has the ARC break. That's the only time the pc ever finishes a session feeling horrible. That's all.

Do people know what they are fighting? No. Do they know who they are? No. It strikes a pc like a bolt of thunder when he first finds out.

If you don't believe this, take somebody that's just had some auditing and they feel terrible. He's done — been audited by somebody. Put him on a meter and say, "What question was missed on you? What withhold has not been pulled on you? Which one did that auditor miss?"

"What? Me?" I've seen a pc come out of a — of a checkout -he didn't believe it right up to the time it was checked out by an Instructor — he just couldn't believe it!

And you go clank. You say, "What was that?" Follow it down very care-fully. You'll find out there was a missed withhold. As soon as you get that missed withhold off, the person feels wonderful. Isn't this interesting?

And he says, "What do you know? Me, a (blank)! A (blank). Me! Me! Me! What do you know. It's right, though, but me? Hm. Hm."

The difference between good and bad auditing is perfect auditing for we can no longer be tolerant of these things. So a person who is doing this job should be perfect at it. That is all there is to that. He should be perfect at it. I don't care how many people this upsets because the only thing I have ever been with you is honest, as honest as I knew how to be. And if I didn't know something, I told you. And when I did know something, I told you. Well, I'm telling you now. That's the way it is.

And of course, because it's timeless, he tends to believe that he has always been a tailor, and that the only package in the bank of which he has ever been or is being will be a tailor, and so he settles for "tailor" at that moment. He thinks himself as a tailor, and of course, until it's run out he's nicely settled there. But of course, at the same time, he's been unable to be a tailor, or something has been wrong with tailoring always, you see, always having trouble. All of his motivators come from tailors. It's always a mess. But the fact of the case is, you upgrade it only after his attention is totally off of it.

It isn't me laying down the law. This is what we have run into.

Now, you can't run out the ideas out of these packages. The ideas won't run out! Why? Because it's a total package and you don't take the ideas off the package and run them out. That's why they won't blow. Fascinating? You've got to run out the whole package and then it disintegrates and goes away.

All right. Now let's go into Class III. If you do a Class III job — if you do an assessment job on somebody and you're not sufficiently skilled to know the difference between a cognition surge and a repeating item or something of this sort, if you don't know what you're looking at, if your assessment is not right on the button and doesn't keep on assessing that exact way — in other words, if just the pure mechanics of running the E-Meter are not perfect, you have let this pc in for more misery than he has ever been let in for in his life. It's that serious. It's that serious.

In other words, if the terminal is a French chef, you don't run all the ideas of a French chef to get rid of the French chef, you just run the French chef, and more or less how you've solved problems with relationship to French chefs. And you get all that off the top and you get the problem handled, because these are a series of problems.

Oh, this is a new look, isn't it? Remember at the beginning of one of the — I think about the third book of Book One — the third part of Book One, it says any auditing is better than no auditing. It's only been in the last year that we have violated that principle for the first time.

And as John — just left Saint Hill just a few days ago — John said, "You know, I don't think anybody has ever had ten ideas in this lifetime. There haven't been ten ideas out of this lifetime that a person has ever got. They're all from one of these packages way back when, trillions of years ago, and those are the ideas that a person uses, and those are the ideas he walks with." Which is quite interesting. That's just a quote from him. It gives you an idea of how — the permeation of one of these — one of these packages and how it drifts forward.

That is only true of skills as they existed, well, let's say, up until maybe autumn 59. That is completely true of those early skills. Any use of them was better than no use of them at all.

Well, we call it a package so as not to treat it with respect, because you've been treating it with respect far, far, far too long. You've been saying, "Well, there's me and them, and there isn't very much you can do about it." Furthermore, it apparently makes a nice game — hangman and rebel. You always go where there are rebels so that you can hang them. Or if a country has hangmen you always rebel so that you can be hanged. Nice game.

Now let's go forward into the raw meat that we have been running into and handling since that time, and particularly the raw meat of this year, and we find for the first time that perfect auditing is excellent. There's no further statement can be made. Perfect auditing is excellent. There is no comparable statement that fair auditing is fair. That's just totally missing, see. That isn't there, see. No such thing as fair auditing is fair.

But some of these games are very complicated. You would be amazed how complicated the game is. Fabulous! Somebody is being an airplane pilot or a rocket jockey, or something like that, versus — seldom machinery — but it'd be versus — an airplane pilot versus airport personnel. It'll be as sensible a game as that, see? You'd have a hard time predicting what kind of a game it would be. You must never tell the pc what it is, because you don't know. You always have to take the data from the pc; you never suggest any data to the pc. You only take what the pc — what you tell the pc to list, and then you list what he says and you never suggest anything else. That is a frailty in training young — new auditors on how to do this. They very often make this mistake. They sort of suggest this or that, and they must not do it. It is very unsuccessful, because it isn't their bank they're running.

All other types of auditing are horrible if you use these technologies of 1962. Used wrong, ploom! Fire a rocket off in the pc's ear, you'll probably do him better. Probably do him less harm.

Now, in view of the fact that everybody's bank is different than every-body else's bank, then people can audit each other on this stuff with practically no restimulation whatsoever. Except in one case. Supposing the pc's opposition terminal is a woman, and he's got a woman auditor? And every time she sits down there to audit him, he has a feeling like he ought to have ARC breaks or something because she throws his bank into restim. And what do you know, she can even audit him if she's good. She has to be a better auditor, that's all.

Now, it isn't that you damage the pc forever. It's just that he becomes terribly upset. He may blow, he goes wog-wog, he may get sick and woggly on you and so forth. He'll destimulate and come out of it. Yes, he'll come out of it. It won't kill him. But what a waste of time. You've upset him, you've lost a member of your group, things of this character. He goes out of circulation as far as you're concerned.

But this is the Goals Problem Mass. And the anatomy of it is no more complicated than what I have just given you. Each one of these things is a compact and condensed personality that is versus something else, and the something else is right there too, and the pc can partake of the qualities of either one.

In other words, you can't do a halfway job with 1961 auditing and that's all there is to that. Auditing as it exists right this moment cannot be done "pretty well." It can't be done "pretty well." There is no such thing as "pretty good" Security Checking. There is no such thing as "not too bad" assessing. You see, those other solutions just don't exist.

For instance, he is the airplane pilot who is against airport personnel. And every once in a while he finds himself with a tremendous urge to dispatch. And he goes up to the dispatcher's office and that sort of thing and he feels right at home. That's a real place to be — that's a real place to be. Until he burns a hole in his pants with a cigarette or some other untoward thing happens that alerts him to the fact that he should not be there! And then he gets kind of critical about them all of something they have done to him. And he'll gradually sit there and engineer the most fantastic conflicts. And what a thetan can do with these packages is quite remarkable. He will bring the opposition into full play every time. It is marvelous. What skill! What talent! What a mania for collecting motivators. People will always play their own package. They'll work it somehow.

There is wrong assessing which will upset cases and wrong Security Checking which will upset cases, and there is perfect Security Checking and perfect assessing which makes the case walk up on cloud nine, cloud ten, cloud eleven, cloud twelve in a very, very steep rocket jockey climb. Done perfectly, you have never seen quite the same results occurring from auditing, which I will go into in this congress.

Let's take the terminal combination of a waterbuck and a tiger. There hasn't been a tiger in the country for hundreds of years. The guy finds him-self a waterbuck, somehow he'll materialize a tiger. Somehow he'll manage it.

So don't fool anybody, much less yourself. If you don't know how to do these things perfectly, I'm not asking you not to audit. Nothing like that. I'm not asking you to take endless training courses and all that sort of thing because I assure you that once you have learned this perfection of handling of withholds — when you've got that skill perfect, when you really have that one — you're not going to have to learn it again. I guarantee that.

He's got a company which is running very, very calmly and quietly. Let's say — this is a very common package: worker and boss, see, worker — manager. This is a nice clean-cut time-honored reactive game. What's the guy doing being a worker? If he doesn't like to be a worker, why should he be a worker? Well, he is a worker because of the package; he couldn't be anything else, see, violate the package. So he is a worker, and let's say he's in a cooperative which has no manager. He will be the first person to propose an election and get one so he can cut him to ribbons. This is the most marvelous thing you ever watched. It fills you with awe.

And when you can really assess and you really know what you're doing, and when you find an item on somebody's case, bang, you've got it. And that compares to this and it checks out. And the list is null and that's it. And you've got it and bang!

But as you examine people and you realize that these 3D packages exist in people, and you realize for instance that you're trying to run a nice family, and you've got some element of the family is just wilder than a hatter, and you can't get this settled down. One of these days you will get a 3D package, you will know exactly why, and that nothing under God's green earth could have ever been done about it, except to get the 3D package. There is no stop-ping short of that to knock the whole thing out.

Well, you don't have to learn how to do that again. It doesn't matter if I come along and tell you to assess for something else. It is simply an assessment, see.

The person's opposition terminal is "family." It's as simple as that. That's easy. So anything he has to do with a family is going to go wrong and he's going to have a game and he's going to have a fight. And you could serve him soup in bed and you could do anything you wanted to do, he'd spill it! Damn it, he'd spill it all over himself and burn himself! He would, you know. He'd make it. They're good at this. They're good at this.

It doesn't matter if I say, "Well, we have also all of a sudden found the alpha factor on cases, and you have to assess for the childhood integral . . ." Well, it'd just be a job of assessing. Or I say, "Well, you have to run a Security Check on the pc's oppterm." Well, that's just Security Checking, see. These are unchanging skills. And the reason why most people had to be trained over and over and over is they have not had a specific skill which was an invariable skill which they learned perfectly.

So, you have difficulties — where a thetan has difficulties, he insists on this pattern of difficulty and what is remarkable is, he doesn't get into difficulties that aren't on this pattern of difficulties. These are the difficulties he gets into, nothing else.

They were always satisfied if they learned "pretty good," see. And "pretty good" is not good enough. We won't make that statement, you know, "pretty good" is not good enough. Sounds like something you'd see on a garage sign or something. That's an improper statement. "Pretty good" is horrible! It's, "My God, how can you live? How can you do this thing? You murder children, too, in your spare time?" You know, it's that order of magnitude.

I'll tell you, a fellow could stand in the middle of a forest with a roaring forest fire going on around him on all sides, and if it had nothing to do with his Goals Problem Mass, he would not even get singed! He wouldn't even lose his shoes! But he could be in the middle of the forest, and there is a boy with an air gun five miles away and his opposition terminal is a small boy, and there are just thousands of trees and it is only an air gun bullet. He'll get himself killed! He'll make it! It's almost as if he has to get out of his head and lead the bullet through the barrel, over, and get himself shot.

If I could give you anything at this congress or teach you anything at this congress of any value, it would be just this fact. It's for God's sakes, don't go on expecting that a fair job of auditing can ever be done. It cannot, not from here on, with what we're doing.

Well, I give you a preview of this. Human behavior becomes highly predictable and extremely intriguing when you start looking at 3D packages.

Now here's why. Technically, we'll go into it further, but here's why a fair job cannot be done: because you're heading this person on an outward bound passage. You're taking this person over jumps that he has never in his life ever dreamed that he would be able to confront. And unless you do a perfect job of taking him over it, he's going to quit. It's just too much to confront. It's just too rough.

What you need amongst you is not necessarily auditors at this instant who can audit 3D packages, but auditors who are very, very good at Class II activities, so that they can — you can be led up to a point where getting a 3D package is a very simple affair. And then, of course, you need auditors who are experts at Class III and we'll have those too. We have proven out that this can go.

And he breaks down along the line. And I can also tell you these things are very easy to learn. The learning is — will never be done, "Well, Henry, I think you'll be able to do better tomorrow with your E-Meter and I think you will be able tomorrow to recognize the difference between a constant rise and a rock slam. And I think, Henry, you will be able to do that tomorrow," and so on. "Try anyway, Henry."

So there's what we're doing, there's what we're going, and there's what happens. I consider it fantastic that the thing was resolvable. The complexities of it are absolutely fantastic. The steps you have to take in order to assess it, in order to prepare the assessment, I didn't at first believe auditors could learn. But I find they learn these much more easily than much simpler steps taken on other old techniques. Fascinating.

I'm afraid it has to be done on an entirely different plane — not necessarily a misemotional plane, but it'll have to be done whether said patiently, angrily or Tone 40 or serenely. It will still have to be said, "Henry, you ignorant blank, please notice that the needle goes this way and rises. Do you see the needle, Henry? Rising needle. Now rising needle. Do you see that, Henry? Rising needle. Now look at it, look at it again, now. Look, look, we're going to make it rise again. Rising needle. Don't you ever read anything with it!"

But there is a 3D package, and there is what a human being's behavior is all about for the first time on this planet, announced.

"Oh."

Thank you.

I don't care what point of the Tone Scale it's got to be done. It has to be done. And you don't dare stop training him until he sees the needle go and he says, "It's a rock slam."

Thank you.

Somebody comes along and tries to tell him it's a theta bop — he'd break out a shotgun. He knows the person's psychotic, see, at that level of knowingness. That level of certainty has got to be there. He's got to know the difference between an instant read and a latent read. The only thing that isn't in E-Meter Essentials is you never pay any attention to anything but a — but an instant read. A read must occur certainly within a half a second after you've said the word. Actually, shorter than that. But if it doesn't, it's not significant. It isn't reading what you ask him. He only responds instantly because you want the reactive mind's responses, not his long thinkingness.

See you tomorrow.

Here's what happens. You say to somebody, "Did you ever skin any cats?"

Most people in America — at a particular time — will sit there and faith-fully watch the E-Meter. "Did you ever skin any cats? What was that movement there? What was that last movement there? Oh? What was that? Yeah, what did you think of as the needle wiggled?"

"Oh, I thought of my — I thought of my — my uncle."

"Well, what about your uncle?"

"Oh, he owned a garage."

"Where was that?"

"Oh, that was in Peoria."

"Was that in this lifetime?"

And they call it auditing.

"Did you ever skin any cats? Thank you. Have you ever raped anybody? Thank you," is the rapidity of Security Check questions because the reaction of the E-Meter is going to take place instantly. Pow! If he did, it goes pow! And if it goes pow, he did! That's the other thing you've got to learn.

And he says, "Well, I don't know really, skin a cat? I — as a matter — I was a member of the Humanitarian Society one time and the Cat Farm Incorporated, and so forth and so on." And you — you don't ever say, "Well, all right. Well, he said that. Let's go on to the next question."

You say, "Good. Thank you very much. Now have you ever skinned any cats?"

"Yeah."

"Well, all right. Now, what cat did you skin?"

"Well, I really abhor skinning cats."

"Yeah, fine. Thank you. What cat did you skin? When?"

"Oh, well, really, I don't know why you're taking it out on me this way because I've always been a friend of dumb animals. As a matter of fact, some-body did a Dynamic Assessment on me one time and it was totally fifth, fifth, fifth all the time. So it couldn't be a — possibly be any withhold about cats," and so forth.

"Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. When did you skin the cat? Did you skin the cat? Was it a cat? All right. Was it a cat? All right, it was cat. Did you skin the cat? Yeah, all right, you 'skin' the cat. Very good. Good. Now, what cat and when and where was it 'skin'? Not by your uncle. By you. When was this?"

"Oh, well, you're pressing me like that. It's not fair. You're demanding things like ..."

"No, we don't care about that. What cat?"

"All right. You don't have to be so nasty about it. The boys and I used to skin cats all the time. So there! So there! So there. So there. So there. As a matter of fact, I feel much better now. You don't suppose my gesture like this all the time ..."

Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it?

But that is Security Checking, not "Have you ever been — have you ever be — had any unkind thoughts? Have you? Have you ever had any unkind thoughts? Have you ever had any unkind thoughts? Well, all right. We'll go on to the next question then."

Or "Have you ever done anything to Ron? Very good. Have you ever done anything to Ron? Oh, oh, there? What's that? What's that? Have you ever done anything to Ron, and so on? Oh, you thought an unkind thought about Ron. Oh, da-da-da, da-da-da, an unkind thought, a critical thought and so forth. All right. That's very good. And you thought about this other person that said . . . There. That other person said that they had once heard ... Well, that's fine. You have thought this unkind thought. Very good. What have you done to him?"

"Oh, well, you needn't ask me like that. That is pretty mean. That's pretty mean. I just thought this unkind thought and so forth. And anybody's entitled to their opinion. It's a democracy after all, so forth. It's not some kind of a fascism the way you people think it is, so forth."

You say, "All right. All right. But what did you do to him? All right. If you're thinking unkind thoughts about him, you must have done something to him. Now what did you done?"

It's the only reason the question exists in the Form 3 Joburg. "Have you ever thought any critical thought about?" must always be followed, "Good. You have? Fine! Well, what have you done?" Because he who thinketh critical thoughteth abouteth hath done, brother, hath done.

All of this is very important. You can't sit there — you know that a person could actually go on seven or eight hours getting off their critical thoughts. Do you know that?

Then go on and on and on and on and on. Critical thoughts, critical thoughts, critical thoughts, critical thoughts and I thought this, and I thought that, and I thought that. You don't have to listen to any of that. Why not end it up in thirty seconds, not five hours.

Say, "What did you do?"

You'll find out every time if they had critical thoughts, they've done something. It's interesting, isn't it?

They're going around with this terrific load of blame, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame. "This fellow's no good because I shot at him once." That's logic. That's logic, Earth, 1961. "He's no good and he's a rat because I once wrecked his car." Make sense? No, it doesn't make sense, but who does?

It's a horrible thing. You're going to find out that Tshombe has done more and more and more things to the United States. All the United States would have to do is throw down about — well, if they sent a battleship down there just now, then Tshombe obviously would have had to have been guilty of a greater crime. Don't you see?

And if they sent a whole air fleet down and it did something, then of course there would have to have been a much greater crime. And these greater crimes actually are quite imaginary — just as imaginary as the lobby up at the Capitol, but they have to have it. And the very fact that a news-paper prints on a national basis, "Tremendous lobby overthrowing the United States by force."

"Oh? It is? What have you done to the lobbyist?"

"Oh, that's not fair. That's not fair. We did this and did that and did that, but that has no bearing on it at all."

Well, actually, you wouldn't get, "You did this and you did-we did this and we did that and this has no bearing on it."

As soon as they say, "All right. We did this and we did that," you don't hear anything more about the lobby. The fact that there are complaints about the lobby is somebody is not taking responsibility for having sent bombers. That's all. There's more to this than meets the eye, but the mechanics of it are elementary.

And in those mechanics lie the unhappiness of man — in those very mechanics, as elementary as they are.

An auditor who sits there and can whipsaw an E-Meter over the jumps and pull all the withholds as they turn up, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, bangetybangety-bang — well, pc just feeling better and better and everything going along fine, and nothing's missed, and everything is wonderful.

But if the pc is being audited by an imperfect auditor, the pc goes over a very bad rolly coaster and he wonders why he's being so critical today and why he isn't, and all that sort of thing.

Well, now I may have cut my finger at this Clean Hands Congress, and so forth, but I'm not talking to you the way most reformers talk. I'm not a reformer, but most reformers talk this way:

Having raped innumerable virgins, they make it a crime and lecture against it with violence for years and years and years. And then burn people at the stake because they have raped virgins. Do you see the logic back of it? Of course, there is no logic back of it, but the fellow is dramatizing and making people guilty of his own overts.

I am in the very happy position of having a witness, having a witness that on a British Mark IV E-Meter at sensitivity 16, I didn't have any with-holds. That makes this the first time in history that anybody has ever stood on a platform or rostrum, an altar, a forum and has said to others, "Be better and have clean hands," who didn't have a pitch. Well we've got an historical first here at this congress. I would hate to have security checked Billy Sunday or numerous other gentlemen of reforming characteristics.

But if there's anything wrong with you or if there's anything that you feel upset about, it goes back down just to one thing. Oncet uponet a timet, you had a "withhold it." And you never spilled it. And it is still withheld. And you is still having a hard time with it.

And now you want an auditor to help you. And it is my responsibility that the auditor who helps you, as fast as this can be done, will be totally competent to do so and who will be able to say, "Oncet uponet a timet, you had a 'withhold it.' What is it?" And get it. And not leave you with your sciatica, your lumbosis and your civilosis. And that would be a change, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be a change?

Audience: Yes. Yes.

Well, it's elementary and you don't think it amounts to much because you've heard it all before. What I'm trying to tell you is you've never heard of it with velocity. Yes, you've heard it all before, but not with velocity, not with the statement that it can't be a halfway job. Please don't do one.

If you must do some auditing in a halfway job, run Rising Scale Processing, would you please? If you don't know how to use an E-Meter or don't know if your E-Meter is perfect, put it on the shelf and run CCHs. Will you please? And you will have much better gains than trying to use 1961 processes in doubt. These demand perfection.

And it's marvelous news that auditors not only have but are consistently meeting up to these standards and doing a wonderful job. And this is the first time that I've ever been able to do something myself and show somebody else how it was done, and then have them do a perfect job of it! And I am proud. And that's making me very happy.

Well, we got a lot more congress to go, so I'll show you the rest of it next time.